Tuesday, May 3, 2016

If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent

This is going to be a very upsetting post for many of you and I am sure I am going to receive a whole bunch of unpleasant responses, but someone has to address this issue in a rational manner. It will be my last blog on the matter until we get the final determination from Scotland Yard.

A number of people are accusing me of "giving up on Madeleine and justice" because I stepped back from commenting after my post that I believed the Scotland Yard investigation was a whitewash. People were furious that I had the audacity to claim that a major police agency would not be on the up-and-up. The response was so nasty, that I decided to simply let things play out without comment. After all, it is not like my commentary at this point is going to get justice; I wrote a book and a whole bunch of blogs detailing the evidence, even a blog on where I think it is possible Madeleine's body is buried and I have not changed the course of events in the slightest. I don't see Scotland Yard or a mob of citizens digging up the barren area of Monte do Jose Mestre to see if her body really is buried there. I am enough of a realist to know that I am just one person, albeit a fairly visible one with profiling experience, but that doesn't mean my opinion can necessarily change the course of events; I am not even the ex-detective on the case who is David against a Goliath battling it out in a big court spectacle. So, since I have written my books and blogs, Scotland Yard is doing what they are doing and I am pretty sure I am not influencing them in the least.

So, what exactly is Scotland Yard doing? From the responses I have a received and from what I have read on boards and Facebook, a portion of you think the Scotland Yard review is a sham but a good portion of you think the last line of inquiry is the McCanns and they will soon arrest them. You believe the McCanns are in a cold sweat and all those police detectives who have worked this review/investigation would never be involved in a cover-up, that they would take all the evidence into account, that there never was a remit to only look at this case as an abduction and to exclude the McCanns as suspects. Some of you strongly believe that these police officers are dedicated to justice and they only think of the poor dead child - and not of their careers and politics of the department -- that their strong sense of fighting for the truth will dictate their behavior. I have to believe not a lot of you have spent much time with cops. I have. 

My daughter is a detective. My brother-in-law who I lived with for four years was a cop. My son-in-law used to be a deputy in the sheriff's department. And I have worked with cops for two decades. Cops are caring human beings and cops are cynics. Pretty much the same as me: do I care about the cases I have worked that involved children (and others)? Absolutely. Do I want justice for them? Sure. Can I accept that the case is screwed and walk away? Sadly, yes. If you work in this field long enough, you have to be pretty tough or you are not going to last. You develop a realist attitude, somewhat cynical, likely you have a black sense of humor, and you do what you can and that is that.

Cops deal with so much they know how to turn off the waterworks; if they didn't, they would go nuts. The stuff a homicide detective sees sucks. He fights to make sure cases go to court and when there isn't enough evidence or one of his fellow detectives screws up or the ass of a prosecutor refuses to go to court because he is protecting his win record, what does he do? He accepts the bad outcome and does what he can for the next case. Would you call him covering up for the police department so he can save his career? Okay, but if he starts some big fiasco about a case, he won't be helping any other murdered kids gets justice. You win some, you lose some. 

The detectives I have worked with on cold cases usually agree with my detemination and admit, while I am in house, that I am right. We go out and have beer. Then, I leave and the police tell the family and media I could not help them and they reshelve the screwed up case. That person and that family will never see justice. If you think those detectives who followed the wrong leads and lost time and evidence are going to admit I was right, tell the public that the department botched the case, you are out of your mind! All their careers would be over and they have families to feed. I have been stabbed in the back many a time over these cold cases and that is why I don't work them any more. I am instead working on training detectives so they do better work on fresh cases. I don't hold a grudge, I am not furious that they didn't get justice for a murdered child or adult; I know they are human, did their best, and they are constrained by training and reality and politics. And if you think I am going to go to the press every time and shout to the world that the department screwed up, I would never be able to work with a police agency again and then I will have wasted everything I have done to improve the closing of cases in police investigations.

Have you never heard of "The Thin Blue Line"? The police will hang together to support each other, have each other's backs because they are stuck within a system and the citizens really don't know what their world is like. If any British police supported Amaral, it is because they identify with him being screwed over. However, as you notice, if they did indeed support him, no one is giving their names or showing their faces.

So, basically, the detectives are going to do their job and investigate what they are told to investigate: they were either told to do a full and compete investigation in which everyone is a person-of-interest and no one has been excluded OR they are following a remit to investigate an abduction and only an abduction and the McCanns are not suspects, period.

So, IF the McCanns are guilty and had enough political influence to have control over the investigative remit, then the cops are going to do the job of the remit and search for an abductor. They will reach a conclusion that she was abducted and likely this is who did it although there is not enough to take said perpetrator or perpetrators to court.

If the McCanns are guilty and did not have enough political influence to assure them a review by Scotland Yard wouldn't end up biting them in the ass, they hardly would have stumped for a review of a case already shelved by the Portuguese. Of course, the question would be why any guilty party would WANT a review of a crime they committed; my answer would be, in this case, to refute Gonçalo Amaral's determinations. I think all that publicity of Scotland Yard looking for an abductor was something they hoped would influence the court case, and, even if it didn't, the final blessing from Scotland Yard would effectively override the conclusions of Amaral in much of the public's eye and that would be a satisfying conclusion for the McCanns. 

So, since they ASKED for this review; they put their trust in the outcome. If there wasn't some political collusion going on when the McCanns asked for this Scotland Yard review, if nothing has changed politically to overturn a remit, if they went in without such a remit and Scotland Yard is completely following the evidence, I will say right here, I have been wrong about the McCanns and the evidence of the dogs must be undependable and all their weird behaviors are just odd behaviors of two very ununusual people, not two guilty people. The McCanns must then be innocent.

As I have said before, my profile has been based on the known evidence and leads me to the determination that the McCanns should be top suspects and further investigation should confirm that they are guilty or find evidence that they are not. So, I for one, can accept that the McCanns could be innocent IF evidence comes to light to prove so (there are rare times when all the evidence points to a specific party but it turns out it its not them which is why you want to have as extremely convincing evidence before you go to court for prosecution). Therefore, if the McCanns did not politically manipulate the outcome of this investigation, if it is a tried and true investigation, if Scotland Yard determines it is an abduction, we have to conclude the McCanns are innocent. 

So, you can't have it both ways. Unless the political tide has massively turned and the McCanns are now being hung out to dry (which I find extremely unlikely), Scotland Yard can only be one of two things: a farce and the McCanns are guilty and are never go to be convicted of a crime or legitimate and the McCanns have been innocent all along.


Since some people can't seem to understand what my post is about, I will simplify it.

1. If you believe the McCanns had no political power to enforce a remit, then they are most likely innocent.
2. If you believe the McCanns had the political power to enforce a remit, then they are most likely guilty.
3. If you believe the McCanns had the political power to enforce a remit yet Scotland Yard after wasting three years looking for an abductor is now doing an about face and moving in on the McCanns, then there has either been a huge political upheaval in the UK or you are in the land of wishful thinking.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
May 3, 2016

Cover for 'Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann'

By Pat Brown

Rating: 1 star1 star1 star1 star1 star
Published: July 27, 2011

What really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann in Praia da Luz, Portugal in 2007? Was she abducted as the Gerry and Kate have claimed or did something happen to Madeleine on May 3 in the vacation apartment and the incident covered up? Criminal Profiler Pat Brown analyzes the evidence and takes the readers through the steps of profiling, developing a theory that is intriguing and controversial.

Posted by Pat Brown to  The Daily Profiler at May 3, 2016 at 9:12 AM


Anonymous said...

Thanks Pat, I have followed this from the start. I have read your book after the visit you made to PDL. Yes you have walked the walk.

PC plod UK style has long known the way to cases of this nature is to REVIEW and collate the evidence.

IMHO this has never been an investigation. Whether to include or exclude anyone at all. It's purely and simply been a paperwork exercise, feeding a data base and cross correlation, 'cos pc Plod knows from experience, the information is there..... or could be.

There is far too much information that the public would never have known. One for example could be mapping out time & place of people in the area of 5A \ Tapas complex in and around a 3-4 hour time frame, and that would include the 3 burglars, they are witnesses, that is of course assuming they exist.

I expect nothing.

As for the 'thin blue line' sticking together, offering GA support, one really has to ask did the 'thin blue line' help the Portuguese investigation. It was never particularly proactive, was it. As one example the tardy submission to the investigation of the Gaspars statements and of course the cringe worthy reading of the communications between the LP and witnsses over the re-enactment.

Thanks Pat you have put a good perspective time and time again. You can't please everyone, all the time.

Anonymous said...

I think Scotland Yard will have looked at this case with an open mind. They might believe the parents are the main suspects but just not have the evidence to proceed. If that's the case then Scotland Yard might not say so openly because of the McCann's situation in the Uk, it would be very costly to have them protected by the police and there are also the McCanns two other children to consider.

Pat Brown said...

Anon 11:12,

Thank you for your kind words. I try to be as open and honest as possible but that doesn't exactly make everyone happy.

As to it being an investigation, I guess that comes under the same definition as me doing a profile. I review all the evidence, analyze the case, sometimes I go out and do interviews or investigate locations and ask questions with the blessing of the police department. It would certainly appear something similar is going on in Portugal. One of the most curious things about the Scotland Yard involvement is why Portugal allowed them in and why they don't kick them out. Now, IF Scotland Yard is above board and actually looking at the McCanns (which is hard to believe), then one could say Portugal is actually working with them and hoping to break open the case, bring the McCanns back and convict them. If Scotland Yard is looking for an abductor, they are effectively just making fools of the PJ, so why are they allowed to do so? I can only think it is some political thing.

Pat Brown said...

Anon 11:16,

If Scotland Yard is looking at this with an open mind from the start, then there was no remit. Why do you think guilty people would ask for an openminded investigation of a crime they committed?

Anonymous said...

On the other hand (see the above) 11.16 am. Scotland Yard might think there is enough reasonable doubt about the McCanns involvement, not to name them publicly as suspects in the case, due to the public interest in the case has in the Uk.

Anonymous said...

Pat, I think the McCanns may have asked for a review because it would appear very odd for them not to have done so. It's often commented here that other missing children do not get the same attention as Madeleine McCann. How were the McCanns to know they were going to end up with a £12 million investigation?

In addition, if they are responsible for their daughter's disappearance, they know that this evidence is not there for a conviction.

Julan said...

Well written ... You have always spoke with honesty and truth. I think there will always be people for and against this case.I think the only loser in this whole thing is that little girl. Sadly.

Pat Brown said...

Anon 11:31,

I have considered that possibility that they were so arrogant that they thought, since they can't prove anything, we can ask for this review and let them run around in circles. However, it is so very risky, I find it hard to swallow. Most parents who are guilty in missing or murdered children's cases will respond because they have to and hire private investigators they control, but to really stump for a completely fresh look at a crime they are guilty of committing, wow, that would take huge balls and is really stupid. For that matter, you can get more money for your private "search" fund if NO one is looking for Maddie. So, why ask for a review? Either because they are really innocent OR they knew that they would never be suspects and with Scotland Yard's blessing, this would overcome whatever outcome the Amaral trial would have and also refute his book, especially if it went back into print.

Pat Brown said...

I added this bit to the blog post above, but for those who come here from elsewhere I want to make this clear:

If the McCanns are guilty and did not have enough political influence to assure them a review by Scotland Yard wouldn't end up biting them in the ass, they hardly would have stumped for a review of a case already shelved by the Portuguese. Of course, the question would be why any guilty party would WANT a review of a crime they committed; my answer would be, in this case, to refute Gonçalo Amaral's determinations. I think all that publicity of Scotland Yard looking for an abductor was something they hoped would influence the court case, and, even if it didn't, the final blessing from Scotland Yard would effectively override the conclusions of Amaral in much of the public's eye and that would be a satisfying conclusion for the McCanns.

Anonymous said...

Let us remember one thing, this was not either a review or investigation initiated by a police force reviewing cold \unsolved cases.

Several times after appeals to the Home office, it was refused. This was on the submission of the £100k scoping exercise from Jim Gamble. A change of government and again refusal. Then there was the front page of the Sun, with a letter to Cameron.

So, with interference of Cameron, Home Secretary Mrs May and arm twisting of the Sun, a review was ordered, now as everyone knows is coming to an end with an expenditure of £12m.

This was never a Police force reviewing, this was outside interference ordering a review. Which is rather strange when this seems to go full circle of the alleged political interference back in 2007\8.

IMHO a thick BLACK line will soon be drawn, particularly now as we enter the tenth year.

Pat Brown said...

Anon 11:12

You have made so many good points on what actually a "review" is and how much support Gonçalo even gets from his own ex-police agency. Everything is much more complicated than many people understand and it really isn't very much about getting justice for Maddie at all. It is about proving one is right, making money, keeping one's job, protecting one's reputation, getting those nasty McCanns, and....hopefully, some of the right reasons: getting a killer off the street, keeping people from being defrauded, bettering police investigations, see that justice and truth are actually done. Maddie? Nothing can bring her back and I don't even really know if I believe justice for Maddie would be putting her sibling's parents in prison for all their childhood. I don't think Maddie would even want that; she probably hates her parents far less than a good number of people posting on boards. She probably would forgive them.

Pat Brown said...

Since some people can't seem to understand what my post is about, I will simplify it.

1. If you believe the McCanns had no political power to enforce a remit, then they are most likely innocent.
2. If you believe the McCanns had the political power to enforce a remit, then they are most likely guilty.
3. If you believe the McCanns had the political power to enforce a remit yet Scotland Yard after wasting three years looking for an abductor is now doing an about face and moving in on the McCanns, then there has either been a huge political upheaval in the UK or you are in the land of wishful thinking.

Anonymous said...

I don't believe the McCanns have that sort of power but the figures protecting them clearly do. I don't know the motive behind the protection but they're is one. That's the intriguing thing for me.

Pat Brown said...

Anon 12:57,

I have trouble with that part myself. I can't figure out why they would have such protection and I would love to find out! I also would not have so much problem believing in their innocence (even if they were neglectful and not particularly people that I want to be friends with) if it were not for their own behaviors. To this day, in my opinion, the most damning piece of evidence is the McCanns lack of interest in the Smith sighting. It hardly matter if the sighting was Gerry or not, the fact that the McCanns were never really interested in pursuing that sighting in order to find their child is glaring. Every missing or murdered child case I have worked on would have parents screaming at me to check into that sighting even if it the man looked EXACTLY like one of them. Yet, the McCanns were not very interested in that sighting, only Jane's.

But, I will say again, a profile of the evidence is only an analysis which theorizes what most likely happened and who is most likely to have committed the crime. Added proof is needed to take a case to court for prosecution because, every so often, there are people who are off the charts bizarre yet are not guilty and the evidence that points to them actually links to another, It happens...rarely...but it happens which is why a case has to have evidencing overwhelming convicting them otherwise an innocent person might go to prison (and has). So, do I think the McCanns are guilty of the crime? My analysis leads me to think so, but I still do not think there is anywhere near enough for a courtroom. Do I think three burglars are guilty of the crime? My analysis leads me to think not, but, hey, you never know and that is what I think we are going to hear from Scotland Yard.

AndyB said...

"I can't figure out why they would have such protection and I would love to find out!"

It has long been my belief, based on nothing more than speculation that borders on whimsy, that the McCanns are not being protected. Something or someone entirely different is the object of the protection and the McCanns are merely collateral beneficiaries

Pat Brown said...

Andy B,

That may well be true. I have written before about how separate agendas can turn into a tornado of what appears to be a huge conspiracy but is really just a building of one individual or agency taking advantage of whatever (political points, money, publicity, etc) and then it gets to big too be able to back out or confess to one's own abuses. I have seen this in many cases: the detectives don't want to admit they poorly analyzed the case, then the department doesn't want to admit their detectives failed, then the media doesn't want to dis the police because they will lose their conduit to easy police stories, then the mayor doesn't want to pressure the police because he is running again for office and so on.

Anonymous said...

Pat you start of this blog by saying that you will deal with the reasons why you think that the SY investigation based on your experience will be a cover up and that you will do it in a rational way. You outline in the blog you and your families experience as profilers and police officers and gave many reasons for why cases where known prepretators are not brought to court including there not being enough evidence, somebody screws up, the prosecution don't want to risk win record, wrong leads and lost evidence. In no place do you state where your experience is in cases where there has been innocent people are brought to court or named as probable culprits. Yet you make this massive jump from incompetent or unlucky investigators to your experience telling you that there is a possibly that they will reach a conclusion that she was abducted and this is who done it but there is not enough evidence to convict them. I have know doubt of your ability based on your experience as a profiler to analysis the evidence and I trust that you are absolutely right when you pin point the McCann as the main suspect. Your work on the case was the reason I got interested in it to begin with and I have no doubt that the reason they got your book removed from Amazon is because you scared the bejesus out of them.

I have no doubt there is political pressure in this case and before the SY review began there was attempts to influence public opinion about what the truth was. Even the us ambassador could see this when he wrote his wiki leaks cable. But doing that in a under handed way though using newspapers and PR firms is one thing but to actually carry out an investigation which deliberately plants evidence moves it to s whole new level. I would like to know What experience do you have which qualifies you to say that this is a cover up. Nobody knows what is going on inside the investigation. I fear that a lot of your opinion in regards to a cover up comes from the British press and some on line bloggers who make things up as they go along.

If you were telling me something like I worked with the police who covered up Hillsborough and I saw first hand how they deliberately falsified police reports to say fans where drunk and they diliberately drew up statements which they read out in court saying fans broke through the exit gate and you compared that with similar actions taken by SY which made you conclude that a similar cover up was in place then I would accept it but your not. And I think you are a bit like the kettle calling the pot black you too can get angry and defensive if people don't accept your analysis of what is going on with SY.

Pat Brown said...

Anon 2:47,

I don't get angry when people don't agree with my conclusions. I get frustrated when my commentary is completely misconstrued and ad hominem attacks are directed at me. For example, this post has set off a whole bunch of people saying I think the McCanns are innocent and I have said no such thing.

And, you are right, no one knows what is going on inside an investigation. However, I have been involved enough behind the scenes to recognize behaviors of police departments. For example, a good portion of the time when police say they are working on a cold case, they are simply saying that to get the family and media to go away. The case files are really in a storage room and they haven't been looked at I'm ages. Working on it simply means if someone confesses or some amazing evidence falls into our hands, we will go back to the storage room and pull the files out.

I have also seen, over and over, that a case can be shut down with a suspect that is unlikable and whether the case goes to court or not, the family and public are so relieved to have an "answer", they most often will simply accept it and nothing more will be heard of about the case. If I go to the family or media with evidence that the person did NOT commit the crime, they do not want to talk to me because I am just opening up old wounds and they want the whole horrible episode to end.

So, no, I do not know what is going on inside the Scotland Yard investigation but I can, from my experience with investigations, gather that if the McCanns were the focus of Operation Grange, we would have seen a whole different kind of handling of the case and press. Can I be wrong? Sure. And could the political winds have suddenly changed and something else is going to come of this whole thing? Sure. I am not infallible in my opinion. What I have repeatedly attempted to do over the years is explain the evidence - of the case and of the investigative agencies - and give my professional opinion on what I see.

Unfortunately, instead of being able to engage in a pleasant discussion on the matter, there are quite a few people who have to kill the messenger because of the message. Right now I see people saying I have now reappeared to make money - this case has hardly ever been a moneymaker for me - and all my casework over many years has been pro bono and all expenses have been paid out of my pocket. Anyone who knows me knows I am not that interested in money; I won't turn it down but it has never been my motivation. Regardless, even if I were to make money - just like Gonçalo - so what? What is more important is that we can bring information to light. Even though I don't agree in full with Richard Hall's last three videos, I am not saying he is trying to bamboozle people and make money off of them - I think he has worked hard and made really compelling videos; I just think he is not correct about his theories about an earlier death, faked photos, and some massive conspiracy on how Maddie got killed. I have never gone his own page and attacked him. Why should I do that? I never go to anyone's pages and say nasty things about them nor do I have to make vicious remarks about them here.

Sadly, I think there are just many people who are far too wrapped up in this whole Madeleine McCann case to see clearly. Their emotions are taking over and they cannot imagine this case shutting down with a shabby explanation of abduction and little to back it up. I may come across as "uncaring" to some, but I am just a realist. I don't like the thought of this case being put to bed without the truth but I have been through this before and I have had to learn not to take it personally, to recognize that not everything in life is about me and not everything is going to go my way. I can only do what I can do and my time is best spent doing the most useful thing I can do at the moment.

Pat Brown said...

And many thanks to Tony Bennett for clarifying what I am saying over at his forum. It is much appreciated.

Pat Brown said...

Anon 2:47,

Yes, I have dealt with cases were the wrong persons would convicted. One on very questionable DNA, one with a claim that there was DNA but never shown to be so (and he was never taken to court, just blamed), another on a false confession and zero evidence, and another on the word of his ex-girlfriend who claimed he had a gun like the gun.....). I know these are railroads because I know the evidence but I cannot get the media to touch the information because everyone has gone home happy (well, not the families of the convicted, but all the convicted were lowlifes with little resources to fight). And these are just the cases I have worked. I question a number of other cases which I have done commentary on and the evidence is questionable but the public has accepted the police/prosecution story (BTK, Michael Skakel, etc).

Pat Brown said...

Anon 2:47,

Here is an example of a now 15 year old cold case which is the result of poor investigation and a Sheriff who is lying to the public. I worked on this case, spent about $3000 of my own money on it (and did all my work pro bono). The media has repeatedly only told the Sheriff's side of things (that include America's Most Wanted and a popular new Crime TV show that just did a whole hour on the case but never contacted me). You can see by my blogs that I have not remained silent on this case (and I only spoke out after the Sheriff blatantly lied to the public about the case and then about me). And what happened after I spoke out? Absolutely nothing. The media is not going to jeopardize their relationship with law enforcement in their area, so this case will remain unsolved. Read my blogs and see how things really happen.


Pat Brown said...

PS, Anon 2:47,

The book I wrote was vetted by the attorneys at Hyperion (Harper Collins and they saw all the files which showed the internal police files and my analyses). Obviously, I cannot put out this information on the Internet because it is internal to the police case. Whether you believe I am a legitimate profiler or not, I cannot address. However, I approach this case as logically as I can and write what I see, not what people want me to write. I am not beholden to anyone or any point of view.

As to my saying I wasn't going to write further commentary on the case and now I have "flipflopped" because after I decided to write a few blogs on breaking news; this is the kind of attack from haters, Anyone else realized that I have said very little about the case over the last couple of years, only breaking that silence (not because it was some HUGE promise) but because I saw it was worthwhile to do so. After this blog, I am not going to post tons more....I will wait until the determination. (But, let's say, before the determination there is some other earth shattering news on the case; I guess I might just right something again...oh, the travesty!).

Finally, I do understand the optimism people feel because Gonçalo has won the case. But, I think it is misplaced. Free speech has nothing to do with what Scotland Yard's next move will be. The McCanns may be crushed and you and I may be elated, but, in the larger picture, it really isn't that big a deal in the terms of the actual handling of the case. Some bitter ex-cop's view of the case matters not to Scotland Yard or the powers that be; he is an annoyance, not a huge threat. I certainly think the McCanns wanted to clear their name after they fled Portugal and, if they could get a Scotland Yard review with a remit not to focus on them, they kill two birds with one stone: Amaral's allegations and the any public view of them possibly being guilty. If everyone thought that Scotland Yard was really focused on the McCanns as doing in their child, I don't think Kate would have been chosen an ambassador for missing children.

But, when the investigation/review/whateveritis comes to a conclusion, we can talk again. Cheers.!

Anonymous said...

The McCann's asked for the review, knowing full well that they were protected from prosecution. I notice they NEVER asked the Portuguese police to reopen the case after it was closed, which they could have done...

Anonymous said...

HI PAT, There is some issues regarding content in kates own book, under the law regarding freedom of expression? If current censorship dosent apply to books, that depict the language used, how can kate and jerry then define offensive opinion on the internet? Has martin blunt missed a contradiction by the maccans themselves in contradictive language in kates book, and the language pointed out in the video in front of jerrys own children while on holiday? Double standards set by pr, yet no privacy set to others that express their opinion? How can the police decide what is offensive if trolls use the same language to express their opions? So it ends up others are nutters for using the same language and freedom of opinion? Dont do as i do, but do as i say, is certainly enough to dislike the maccans for being hypercritical, and the press hiring a cheap troll by the name of katie hopkins? Who dosent agree trolls are offensve, being one herself in her bitchy tweets? No carter ruck over that freedom of speech?

Anonymous said...

Politics & money is all its about now
- Maddy will never have her perpetrators brought to trial
Ty Pat

Anonymous said...

This is a whitewash investigation! There is no proof of Maddie being abducted Pat, and evidence to show that she died 8n Apartment 5A, even if it can't be coioborated in court! GUILTY!

Himself said...

It's not without a touch of irony that I disagree most heartily with your appraisal of your own judicial/policing system, seeing it as an abomination in the greater realm of justice.

However, reading you over the years, and whereas I might not agree with all you have written, I totally endorse your evaluation of the Met and Operation Grange.

Again, not without a touch of irony, given the content of your post today, I had, in September last year, this to say:

Nice Company Home Secretary

There are those among us that might argue why the guilty would press for a review of this case?

Equally, a similar question may have been asked of Stalin: Why bother with all these (show) trials when you already know the outcome?

when you already know the outcome Or in the case of the McCanns, what that outcome will be.

And that outcome, as well we know, goes by the name of Operation Grange.

And if you think otherwise, that somehow Grange is a bona fide investigation, then quite frankly, you are insane. (Does the photo below not say anything to you?)

I need say no more, do I?

Other than perhaps, the best is yet to come.

And by best, I don't mean the best possible outcome, I mean something so outlandish that it will, across this land far and wide, provoke such a response that the already immortal words of John McEnroe will become etched in stone and forever be synonymous with whatever it is that the present government will attempt to foist upon us.


Nor is this particular post a one off, from day one in all my posts, I have questioned the validity of that other abomination, Operation Grange. (search bar Operation Grange)

Political influence in this case must be of a degree we can't begin to imagine. But that political interference comes with no small price tag for the Met. Already a laughing stock around the world and labelled corrupt, we only await conformation of same when this sham is put to bed with words akin to: sorry, too hard can't solve it. Or as you allude to yourself: a big boy did it and ran away.

But of Op Grange and those that still have faith in it, I weep tears of despair. And I feel such despair for no little reason. We, the justice seekers should be speaking as one. And in doing so sending a clear message to the establishment that we are watching and anything short of an attempt at justice, just won't be tolerated.

But we don't speak as one, hence we are ineffectual.

A reader described yesterday's 'Pic4Today' as brilliant. I replied it was only a reasonable observation. Yes?


There is a caption below, so click the pic again once opened.

Justice one day? Perhaps.

Anonymous said...

I am portuguese and followed the case since the very beginning.
No doubt the McCanns are guilty for leaving three little children alone in the apartment. For this they sould the convicted. If they were portuguese they would be at least 2 years in prison...
On the other hand what I have concluded that this is all politics. I don't know why but the portuguese Govenment always bend over the english!....

Pat Brown said...


"It's not without a touch of irony that I disagree most heartily with your appraisal of your own judicial/policing system, seeing it as an abomination in the greater realm of justice."

::laughs:: I am not sure I have ever offered an appraisal of my own judicial/policing system, so I am not sure I know what you disagree with! I quite frankly am not sure what I, myself, actually think of it. I guess I would say I have a lot of respect for our hardworking police officers and detectives although I wish the detectives would actually have to go to detective school and receive training, that they would become detectives based on their abilities of logic and analysis, and not popularity. I think detectives do tend to do not so badly for the majority of crime which does actually not require deep analysis but they do less well in more complicated scenarios. I think the FBI is very good for working organized and white collar crime, but their profiling methodology is fairly worthless and their VICAP system is a joke. CODIS, the DNA bank, rocks. The judicial system is another matter; money wins cases. Rich people get off; poor people get public defenders. The jury system sucks because while they are right on most cases because they are slam-dunks, like detectives with complicated cases, they have no training to be able to analyze the evidence and tell which attorney and expert is a lying dog. They also often allow their emotions to rule: we need a professional jury system. This is a simplistic view, complicated by the simple truth that everyone involved in the police/judicial system is just like the rest of us: goodhearted, crooked, hardworking, lazy, overwhelmed, afraid, devious, and on and on. The problem, like all professions, is how to make it the best system possible in spite of us inmates running the asylum.

As to the rest of your comment on the McCann case, touché.

Pat Brown said...

Anon 11:29,

Politics rules an awful lot of life and an awful lot of what goes on behind the scenes. It is clear to me that there has to be some political reason why the Portuguese would allow Scotland Yard to run amok in their country and basically make the Portuguese police look impotent. I wish I knew what it was. But, as you have no clue yourself as to what is going on in your country with this case, likewise, there are things that go on in the US politically that I will never understand. We are not "insiders" and, therefore, we are not privy to what is going on. Even if we get the "truth" sometime in the future, we will always likely be only getting a version of it.

Himself said...

When defendants in 90%+ cases, 95%+ drug cases, are blackmailed into a plea bargain, juries for the most part are academic.

Although I do agree with you, juries are generally not fit for purpose. For most of them, the cops would never tell a lie, ergo to be charged at all is enough for a considerable proportion of jurors to lean towards guilty, regardless of the facts.

A bit like Op Grange only t'other way round.


Pat Brown said...


Ah ha, then we actually DO agree on these issues on both sides of the pond. :-)

Anonymous said...

Exactly. SY have no jurisdiction. They cannot arrest or prosecute suspects. All they can accomplish an exoneration of the McCanns, who btw were only too happy for the Portuguese to shelve the case and willfully ignored the opportunity to request a reopening.

Anonymous said...

HI PAT,The timing was also a topic to speculate on, since the press was going through libel actions over phone hacking, and other various shady going ons. Other stories seemed to vannish about government cover ups, and involement of security forces, monitoring terrorist cells, while another scandal of childrens homes, and peadophile mps were involed in cover ups. May i also point out another scandal about hollywood celebrity peadophiles that also use a casting couch, for various child actors ect. Only to be groomed by various sickos that weild alot of power and media influence. Very dificult for victims to expose them, since finance can dictate to who gets justice, and who dosent, and like you said we dont know since we have to rely upon whistle blowers to unscrew a lid on a can of worms?

Anonymous said...

HI PAT, I did wonder why a diferent dectecive took over the case? Where the issue about barry george came to light? This did prompt the idea a possible innocent man or men could well be stitched up over madelines alleged abduction or a removal of a body? This was enough for concern the maccans did not think about the risk to the case, and information being found or sauced by research? Which questions the review carried out, and a possible white wash over evidence? A misleading approach to dective work, since portugese police had already conducted searches prior to the reviews? Both concluding the same results? Amaral did point out there was other people of interest in his book besides the maccans? In banning the book caused amaral to think what he did? Not entierly his fault considering he was working on evidence that had no other explanation at the time? And the rest of what we do know is out there in various forms.

Anonymous said...

HI PAT, Various other problems occured through pr, the story kept changing, which people on the internet were pointing out, predominently in the the uk media, which lead to various youtube videos reminding people over the diferent comments made via pr? And importantly how the time lines were alterd to fit a abduction story? It became apparent information was being manipulated via pr, in the uk, not in portugal who have clearly stood ground on original reports, being pressured by law suits to change what has been stated to contradict findings? Llke you pointed out pat, depending whos got the media platform to sway influence over public opnion at the time, And the press having a libel obligation to follow the abduction theory in changed stories that leave the public baffled and confused.

Anonymous said...

I have no faith in the police nowadays apart from the normal run of the mill cases. When they have been told to reach a certain conclusion by governments then they have to do what they are told.

AnneGuedes said...

Hi Pat ! Have you an idea of the number of times the word "abduction" was pronounced and written in official documents (like those of the Leveson Commission), claims, and SY statements, to say nothing of the press and TV ? The motive of the MC for the review was clearly expressed by DCI Redwood : there was a big chance that MMC was still alive. How could the remit be something else than the review of an abduction ?

Anonymous said...

HI PAT, Some reasonable questions will always make people think this is a odd case to crack? There could be something the police over looked, in the chaos, only a suspect would know? Like the missing eye defect in madelines other photos? And missing blood samples around a bathroom, in a clean up of a nose bleed, before kate gave this as a explanation? Or a blood trail to a moving child with a nose bleed? So its very unlikely the police would fabricate evidence to frame the maccans for a crime? Where the dog didnt find evidence in kates explananation, in that apartment, that dog didnt lie in any contradiction made by human error? Martin grime couldnt of misdirected the dogs at all in what he didnt know at the time, thats impossible? Because the human eye cannot see blood thats cleaned up, to suggest any dog is unreliable is ludicrous? And why would anyone tamper with madelines photos to create a none exisistent birth defect is even more odd? I dont have answers to the strangest case ive ever seen?

Anonymous said...

Hi Pat,

In the UK there is a profound problem in terms of the respect given to authority (police/government/the establishment). Scandals related to football disasters, celebrity paedophiles, wrongly convicted Irish nationals accused of being terrorists, etc are regularly coming out in the press years later. Power manipulates justice in the UK to a degree that might not be easy to comprehend from outside the bubble. I understand your logic that they wouldn't ask to re-open the case because it could bite them in the behind but that's based on the police being objective, which they probably are for most of cases. But not if there are political consequences (what ever they may be ... it sure beats the hell out of me), then the rules change very quickly (irrespective of things like a change of government).

Anyway thanks for all your interesting and thoughtful posts on this subject!

Pat Brown said...

IAnon 10:02,

I think you might have missed my point about not risking reopening a case....not at all based on the police being objective. My point is that, regardless of the individual officer's inner feelings about the case (subjective) or their analysis of the case (objective), they are subject to departmental decisions which often rely on what is most expedient at the moment which means politics rules. For example, suddenly, after 25 years, ten officers from South Yorshire have been dispatched to Greece to find out what happened to Ben Needham. Now, do you think this sudden expenditure of money and manpower has a damn thing to do with wanting to help the parents or find justice? Or is this a distraction from the McCann case and an effort to show that the office is concerned about other citizens as well? This is such a blatant political move that it will be interesting if anyone calls them out on it or will we just hear, finally, they are searching for Ben, oh, how lovely! So, it really isn't about the individuals officers who are involved in investigations but the handling of those investigations and why they are handled the way they are. And in that, politics is not THAT much different in the UK than the US.

Martin Roberts said...

Pat Brown @12:20

Hello Pat

You've noticed. And on last night's TV news we in the UK were treated to a former Met Man burbling on about the longevity of some 'cold cases', 'age progressed' images and the desire for witnesses to come forward - after 25 years?!

As you rightly suggest, this latest stunt is the most blatant chicanery imaginable.

Pat Brown said...


Ah, well, it is sometimes a rather amazing thing the way politics, the media and the narrative works. For example, due to certain political groups back our Black Lives Matter groups in this country and the media desire to carry the narrative forwards (for both ratings and political reasons), it is rare that the truth about specific incidents is allowed to be discussed. Those that spoke out about in support of the police acting legitimately in the course of shootings were quickly not asked back on television. I did so on one particular case on air - pointed out that there was no was no evidence of wrongdoing by the the officers and I pointed out in another case that it was clear due to the video showing the events leading up to the shooting that racism had little to do with what happened...and that was the end of me discussing the matter for the networks. It never matter for almost a decade and a half what I said about serial killers and bad boyfriend killers, but when it came down to terrorism, police shootings, and mass media being a cause of the increase in mass murder, speaking the truth is a good way to end a television career because in each of these three topics there is a narrative that the media must follow: that all Muslims committed a mass murder must be terrorists (and never just psychopaths committing workplace violence), the infamy given to mass murderers by the media is NOT causing the increase in mass murder, and police shootings are the fault of racist cops, not the behavior of criminal or badly behaving citizens. Speaking the truth about these topics or even inviting a calm discussion of the matter as a more complicsated issue than just that narrative causes one's phone to stop ringing. After all, there are so many others who will just say what is desired and this is found out easily by a thing called a pre-interview. Once it is established what the commentator thinks, well, then they get to do the rounds. None of the perky producers calling have some ominous mission to complete, they just sort of know what is "wanted to be discussed" during the show and so the discussion quickly becomes the one sided narrative.

So finding a Met man to happily discuss the wonders of cold cases and how even decades later there can be miracles and closures for families, yeah, a dime a dozen. I would get the phone call and quickly talk about a ridiculous spenditure of money on cold cases where little is achieved barring running DNA through a felon data bank which is how most cold case murders are solved and how missing persons case are usually solved by the victim themselves or some fluke, how money should be channeled to the fresh cases and detective training...yeah, they would decide I wasn't chipper enough about the success of cold cases to have me on if that is the narrative there were seeking.

Anonymous said...

I don’t understand your post. But what do I know about the case...

Investigation was composed of English and Portuguese investigators, at a certain point they came to believe that little girl die in the apartment.On the evening of the 3rd of May. The time is not known because the reconstitution was not carried out. Last time toddler was seen was when she left the nursery. At 5.30 pm.

At 5.30 pm main witnesses (close friends) were at the beach, there is the video registry, they were filmed by the camera that was there, they leave the beach at 6.30 pm. They did not see little girl when she left nursery.

The files mention one testimony, about a athletic individual carrying a child, that looked like Gerry McCann late at night when those Irish left the restaurant. Seems that girls was missing already around that hour.

Mark Harrison an expert in complex crime from the English police has analysed the process and went to the conclusion that the most likely possibility was the child die in the apartment. That is what marks the turn in the investigations.

But the couple also called a South African to find the body with his own special machine. Seems that the investigation changed for the parents as well at least at a certain point...

Special police dogs arrived from UK. Cadaver and human blood odour were found. Were not?

The reports from the English labs… even inconclusive as they call it later, found 15 alleles in a profile of 19 from the little girl - blood residues in the car boot!

According Inspector interview there was a recent report and other two reports later. "The first one mentions 15 alleles and here is the main question, it places the focus, they place the focus on that part of the exam from the vehicle, in the second report they focused on the apartment, if on one side 15 alleles were not enough, in the other there were only 5 alleles that matched Madeleine McCann’s genetic profile, what could be read there was that there were almost no problems. Because it’s easily justifiable. It may not be justifiable with the cadaver odour on the spot where the blood sample was collected, but therefore, inside the house it is easy to justify, it’s more difficult with a car that was rented more than twenty days later. So this is where the major confusion lies”.

Considering the traces that were found in the car boot it could only have been preserved and conserved in the cold because otherwise it would have been in an advanced state of decomposition.

So following your conclusion - The McCanns must then be innocent - we come to believe that a burglar, a very professional burglar, not a silly one, had the cold blood to clean the apartment, rearrange the furniture, put the cots in the same room, wash the curtains and had extra time to find a deep freezer nearby to keep the body until the couple rent a car, and one evening, somewhere out there, without no one notice, implant evidence and frame the parents. That was the only way to get out of the bloody mess right? SY must me relived. I crack the case!

I thing I’m going to be a Weekly Profiler when I grow up! I can’t do this daily. No gray cells enough to succeed… :)

Pat Brown said...

Anon 8:52,

::sigh:: It is very clear you did not understand my post. A number of people seem to have a problem with reading compression and a thing called a "corollary."

So, I NEVER concluded that the McCanns must be innocent, never. And I have repeated this over and over and over for people who did not thoroughly read my post. I gave a corollary (IF this, than THAT) for people who believe that Scotland Yard is conducting a legitimate investigation. IF you believe they are, than you must believe THAT (whatever conclusion they come up with), so IF you believe that Scotland Yard is conducting a proper investigation and they conclude it is a burglary, THEN you must conclude THAT the McCanns are innocent.

Please also read my post on the burglar theory; another post people failed to comprehend; it is an explanation of how a false conclusion can be accepted by the general public, not Pat Brown.

Also, please do not rehash the entire case on my blogs; I have already written a book about the case and dozens of blogs detailing the evidence and my conclusions.

Martin Roberts said...

Pat Brown @08:14

I get it. Without question, similar rules apply here.



Anonymous said...

HI PAT, I get that, and understand, and wait to see the final result, to see their outcome, match what you have told us about the case in the direction it was going, and how it was going wrong in various areas to follow the evidence, in a better direction of training not to miss out the most obvious clues you gave to what happend? I also understand your not to blame at all, for the mess that resides over the outcome either, when putting alot of effort to finding madeline, shame you was attacked for trying to put the peices together, in the right order there found. As always i remain sceptical over a case thats gone cold twice in a row, in a abduction theory?

Pat Brown said...

Anon 2:12,

::laughs:: I have had zero influence on the outcome of this case, the same amount of influence anyone has had on this case. Even Gonçalo has little influence on the outcome of the case and no second book is going to change the direction of anything, The only thing I have ever hoped to do was provide an analysis of the case based on the evidence to add to the public understanding of the case. Although Scotland Yard or the PJ may be aware of my book and even read it, just as they are aware and may have read other works (Truth of the Lie, Hall's films, boards and FB pages), they are not spending a gazilllion hours caring about what we think outside the investigation. The only folks that matter are the ones in power. My only hope for a change in direction in this case is if there is a massive overturning of political power and the previous powers that be become a target or the area where I think there is a possibility of Madeleine's body being buried - Monte do Jose Mestre - gets bought up by a developer and during excavation and construction Maddie's body is uncovered. Barring something like that, our writings and discussions are mostly an academic exercise although the interest and discussion of this case could always lay some groundwork for a future interest in uncovering the truth.

Anonymous said...

Is there not evidence that Gerry McCann was known to social services in this country and had a deleted case file linked back to him.could this have anything to do with the level of protection he has been afforded?

Anonymous said...

I can't help but think when this is all put to bed...the McCanns will walk and then the real fun will start. These people if guilty have been living a lie for 10 years. When they perceive the heat is off them I genuinely think that will be the time someone slips up. I don't feel KM is as in control as GM and as a catholic she may not be able to continue without something breaking. Give it another 5 years.