The McCanns and the Magician Trick of Misdirection

We have a new documentary, The McCanns and the Conman (read: another criminal gets paid by the media to lie to the public) airing June 4 on Channel 5 in the UK.  It appears to be about Kevin Halligen's "abuse" of the McCanns and their fund, how he lived the highlife on money designated to find their daughter. The twist in this show is this; although the conman was ripping off the McCanns, he inadvertently did some good work, identifying the man the Smith's saw as the abductor (yeah, like the PJ hadn't already done that) and getting the Smiths to give a description that ended up as the now publicized e-fits, and somehow getting the Smiths supposedly to retract the statement that the guy was Gerry McCann (oh, wait, no, that won't be explained that way). Scotland Yard is said be basing their investigative strategy on Halligen's leads on this man (who, of course, is not Gerry).

I am sure we are going to hear in this program about how the emotionally fragile McCanns were taken advantage of by this snake oil salesman....blah, blah, blah....something that seems to happen a lot to the McCanns  (considering they also hired the Metodo 3). But, one question I am sure they are not really going to address in this documentary is why the McCanns chose this crook; why they needed a man who claimed to be a superspy and not someone with proven skills in investigating missing children's cases, perhaps a profiler or PI or an agency with solid recommendations from missing children's organizations who would charge only 1/10 of the price Halligen got, something they should clearly have kept in mind since they were supposedly using the donations of well-meaning people; they had a responsibility to use the money wisely and honorably. Also, regardless of their own theories of what happened to Madeleine, parents of missing children usually put their trust in seasoned professionals, experts who really know how the abduction of children works, who took look for, and where. But, no, the McCanns chose whack jobs, flamboyant showman who seemed to have no prior experience for the job at all. How badly did the McCanns really want to find their missing daughter?

So, yeah, why Halligen? And Metodo 3? Why them? Why not a sound, reputable fellow that would properly conduct his investigation?

I would say it is because the McCanns did not want any investigator who would focus on Praia da Luz and the evidence. Like Scotland Yard, I believe the Number One requirement for the person they hired would be 1) accepting the "fact" Maddie had been abducted, and 2) accepting the "fact" that Maddie was not abducted by a local Praia da Luz sex predator.

I believe the most important part of what appears to be a faux investigation by the McCanns is that the private detectives make the hunt a worldwide one, not one local to Praia da Luz, that all searches for Maddie be directed far away from the town and environs. Through this worldwide search into international sex rings and children stolen for adoption, the concept of what might have happened to Madeleine would become something all people fear might happen to their own children and that what happened to the McCanns had nothing to really do with the neglect of their children, their possible use of medication, the apparent death of a child in their apartment, and anything else that occurred in Praia da Luz on May 3rd, 2007. In other words, LQOK AWAY! LQOK AWAY!

Misdirection is a common magician's trick. Fool people into not paying attention to what is really happening. In this case, make people look everywhere in the world for Maddie, everywhere but where she really is and where things really occurred, look for a live child in every country money can be sent in to the fund from instead of looking for a child buried quickly on Portuguese ground. I think this is the misdirection the McCanns have been involved with for seven years.

Hence, you can't hire an investigator who is going to focus on the evidence because doing so will only accomplish one of two things: that he will be focusing in on Praia da Luz and the Tapas 9 or he will at least be focusing in on Praia da Luz and a local sex predator Neither of those scenarios keep the money coming in for the "search" fund and both of them narrow the focus down to the night of May 3 and what happened right there in town.

For the McCann's objective, an ethically challenged PI was needed...to LQOK the other way. Finding such jokers is not difficult. There is a lot of money, endless money, to be made in looking the wrong direction because this is one way to assure an investigation can go on for years and years. For that matter, looking in all the wrong places keeps the fund going for years and years as well.

The McCanns' refusal to acknowledge the Smith sighting as valid and their attempt to hide this information from the public can only mean one thing: they didn't want the man carrying a little girl toward the beach to be identified. Either it was Gerry or these parents had no interest in finding the "abductor" of their child. I would like to hear the McCanns explain that, wouldn't you?

I think the title of this new documentary should have simply been called "The Con Artists."



Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

May 27 2014


 

Published: July 27, 2011

By Pat Brown
Rating: 
(5.00 based on 5 reviews)

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.

How Much Power do YOU Have? How Much Power do the McCanns Have? Take the Test!

After my last few posts questioning the validity of the Scotland Yard "review" into the McCann case, a number of people have responded with two issues: one, that the McCanns don't have that much power, and, two, we the people, have a great deal of power which means it would be ridiculous, with all the outrage about Madeleine not receiving justice, that Scotland Yard would try to dupe the citizens of the UK and the people of the world with a whitewash of the case. I say the McCanns have tremendous power and we have little to none.

Let's start with the McCanns: I cannot think of ONE case of a missing child in the world where so many huge names and politicians have stepped up to the plate to protect them from a police investigation. Yes, I have seen small examples of probably guilty parents of missing children getting some media attention (Baby Lisa's parents got a nice kiss-their-butt program by Dr. Phil, but, then again, Dr. Phil is an ethically challenged TV host who is all about ratings) but that is about it. However, when the McCanns made phone calls, people came running from high places to give them assistance. And they have continued to make phone calls and get assistance in the most incredibly huge ways.

Now, here is a test for us to take to prove both the power of the McCanns and our own power. As you are sitting here, tweeting with #McCann and commenting on McCann Facebook groups. close your computer and pick up your phone. Who are you calling about this case? Hmm.....uh.....yeah....no one. While the McCanns have dozens of numbers to call, numbers to people with power, you've got no one. Even I don't have too many useful numbers to call (a few TV producers who are not going to put me on to talk about the case just because I called; it doesn't work that way in TV unless I really had some scoop) and I can call my agent (I already did that because  Gonçalo and I want write an english language book together on the McCann case: we couldn't get an American publisher to touch it as of yet due to lawsuit issues). Okay, so I have little influence; you probably have none. Every parent of a missing child I can think of to date - pretty much none. The McCanns - unprecedented and off-the-charts ability to get support for their cause. 

So, if you think the public - and our online blogging, tweeting, and Facebooking - is going to sway Scotland Yard into doing the right thing, you are sadly mistaken. Why even the media almost always blocks comments about the case and unlike early media, I am no longer allowed to speak on the case on television. Someone is controlling the message....and it isn't us. If the McCanns ever going to go down, it will be because the political winds have changed and someone more powerful than them and their allies has changed the rules of the game.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

May 25, 2014

 

Published: July 27, 2011

By Pat Brown
Rating: 
(5.00 based on 5 reviews)

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.

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Occam's Razor and The Madeleine McCann Case

The concept of Occam's Razor, that the simplest explanation is likely to be true, is useful when analyzing the case of missing Madeleine McCann. With Scotland Yard having flushed millions of pounds of British taxpayer's money down the toilet in an effort to promote the most ludicrous of theories (in complete opposition to Occam's Razor), I want to step back to the night of May 3, 2007 and examine the simplest of answers.


Why did the McCanns leave Madeleine and her siblings alone in the vacation apartment evening after evening? 

Because they were not worried that anyone would get into the apartment or that the children would get out.

Why were they not worried that anyone would get into the apartment or that the children would get out?

Because the apartment was thoroughly locked down so that it would be extremely difficult for anyone to get in or for the children to get out.

As then it would be routine for the McCanns to lock down the apartment when they went to the Tapas bar in the evening, would it be likely that they would change their routine on the evening of May 3, 2007 and leave the doors unlocked so that someone could get in or that one of their children could get out?

No.

Therefore, it is most likely that the apartment was locked down on May 3, 2007.

Yes.

Oh. 


Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

September 6, 2012

Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann available at Smashwords and Barnes and Noble.

By Pat Brown
Rating:
(5.00 based on 5 reviews)

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.

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: To Dig or Not to Dig

South African businessman Stephen Birch says he has proof of some sort of cavity beneath a second pebble driveway (put in after Madeleine McCann's disappearance) and he believes that Maddie may be buried in that particular spot, a possible grave he located with a geo-radar machine he ran over Robert Murat's property (where his mother is living) a number of times quite illegally. He admits he had no permission to be on the grounds and, under the cover of night, slipped onto the property and ran his tests. He recognizes he may be sued for this and has his lawyers in place to deal with the possibility.

I am not going to speak of legalities and ethics in this particular post. Personally, I do not approve of trespassing on private property, possibly terrifying anyone at home (although some will claim I am the pot calling the kettle black because I touched the shutters on Apartment 5A when it was vacant which were accessible from the public walkway in the resort at which I was staying). Anyway, the issue at hand I am wishing to discuss is not whether Mr. Birch should be dealt with legally, but whether there is any merit to his claim and if anyone should dig at the spot on the driveway and who that should be.

 First, to the issue of Mr. Birch's theory that Madeleine was dead on May 3rd and buried on Murat's property the same night. I will not get into his entire theory as to who was involved and why. Suffice it to say, his theory is possible, if not all that probable, at least from this profiler's experience. IF his theory were to be true, it would be a major anomaly. If Maddie is buried on Murat's property, I would have to believe that Robert Murat was himself involved in the crime, that he was a child sex predator who saw a lucky opportunity, grabbed the child, and ran back to his house with her. Then, finished with his enjoyment of the child, he would have done what most child sex predators do; kill the child straight away. Then, he would have buried her on his own property believing that he would not become a suspect and, thereby, her body would not be found with his DNA on it somewhere on the side of the road.

Do I believe that this is what happened? Do I believe Murat is involved? No, but only because the evidence, in my opinion, doesn't point in his direction (see all my blogs on the case and my Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann). I don't believe Maddie was abducted, I do believe the McCanns are involved, and my Number One choice of where Maddie would be found buried is Monte do Jose Mestre, a desolate area west of Praia da Luz where Gerry McCann's cell phone pinged.

If Murat were not involved in the disappearance of Maddie McCann and the Gerry and Kate McCanns did have something to do with their daughter's demise, I would find it highly improbable that Maddie would be buried by one of her parents (with or without the help of any of their friends) nearby on someone's private property. I find it would be extraordinary, that  under great duress right after finding her dead that evening,  Gerry would have the audacity and balls to go onto someone's property, dig a hole, and bury Maddie there in an attempt to to frame someone in the community. I could believe someone burying their child on some stranger's farm in the country in some remote and area easily accessible to the road, but just down the street on a property behind an inhabited house in the middle of town, this is too unbelievable to me. If the McCanns were involved and Gerry was seen trotting toward the beach with Maddie by the Smith family, that behavior is more in line with known behaviors of parents involved in the death of their child; he would have been in a panic and quickly trying to get her body away from the vacation residence and to a remote place where any predator could have dumped her. What might have happened after that would all depend on luck and circumstances and having more time to think things through. But to place her just down the street on someone's property, I doubt it. Could be true, but it would be extremely odd.

Now, on to the issue of should the property be dug up at that spot just to make sure? I don't object to it. Who the suspect would be if it turned out Maddie was buried on the property is secondary to locating the chid and seeing justice done for her. Also, if the theory she is buried there does not pan out, perhaps Mr. Birch and others will take that machine and a search party over to Monte do Jose Mestre and see if they can find Maddie over there.

But who decides if the driveway at Murat's should be excavated? If the police do not have probably cause and they don't believe Birch's video of his radar scanning means much, they are not going to be knocking on Murat's mom's door. Is there really any evidence pointing to the Murat property or Murat? Is that video really indicative of a grave? If it is, could it be the grave of a dog? Could that cavity be the result of some other disturbance to that ground could cause a scan that looks to Birch like a grave?

Next, should Robert Murat just say, "What the hell! Let me just shut this guy up!" and allow the driveway to be dug up?  I would say if he wasn't worried about a body being there, he could do that. But, on the other hand, even if he had nothing to do with Maddie's disappearance, he might now be paranoid someone has put her body there and he will indeed be framed, or that someone has planted some kind of evidence to make it look like a body might have been there. If I were in his shoes, I don't know what I would do.

Should the McCanns push the police or Murat to take action? Well, if I were them and I were innocent, I would damn sure want that ground dug up because it would drive me crazy not to know if Maddie was really there or not.

What do I think will likely happen? Nothing. I think the police don't have probable cause, Murat won't want to take the chance, and the McCanns, in my opinion, already know whether she is under that driveway or not. So, nothing will happen unless the Murat family no longer owns the property and the new owners have no problem with the matter being settled with a little digging on the drive. I don't think we are going to see that coming down the pike any time soon.

What I wouldn't be surprised to see is Stephen Birch ending up on the end of a Carter-Ruck lawsuit via the McCanns for claiming Maddie is dead.  We all know how the McCanns deal with differing opinions, don't we?


Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

July 14, 2012

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Kate McCann appointed Ambassador for Missing People Organization - Unfuckingbelievable!

Seriously?

I know, I know. I should be more professional than to use such bad language, but having Kate McCann be the poster woman for people who have lost children, just blows my mind. Yes, Kate surely is pretty good at making children go missing, but it is this fact alone that should disqualify her for any ambassador position connected to missing anybodies. In fact, it should make her poison to any organization seeking money and support for finding missing persons. Not only has Kate managed to lose her child due to her own poor skills at mothering, but she has squandered millions of donor dollars on crooked and incompetent private investigators who haven't unearthed a damned clue, much less the body of her own very likely very dead daughter.

What in god's name was this Missing People organization thinking? Even if they find Kate McCann a sympathetic figure, even if they believe her daughter was really abducted, even if they believe she has truly spent five years searching for her missing child, the people who run this organization have to know that a good many people think Kate McCann is guilty of child neglect, guilty of manslaughter, guilty of covering up a crime, guilty of obstructing a police investigation, and guilty of defrauding the public of money. Who chooses such a person to represent their organization? Wasn't there one person in the leadership who said, "You know, bringing Kate McCann on board might not be such a bright idea."

Of course, Kate McCann, had she any sense of decency and concern for the purpose of such an organization should have said, "I do appreciate your kind offer and your generous support of my innocence and forgiveness of my parenting "mistake" but I wouldn't want to do harm to your organization, do more damage than good, considering how many people think I am guilty of a number of crimes. They will undoubtedly attack your organization if my name were to be linked with it."

Oh, I get why Kate didn't turn down the offer; it fits with her personality.  I am not a bit surprised. If she had turned it down, I might have actually stopped to rethink my analysis of her. Guess I don't have to do that. I also can't help but wonder if, perhaps, she wasn't offered the position...that maybe she offered herself as a representative, that she paid her way in. Maybe a large donation is what buys you an ambassadorship. I, for one, would like to see the financial records.

So, go figure. Another bizarre occurrence in the McCann saga which involves people who shouldn't be involved with them. I never was much for conspiracy theories, but with all the high level people sticking up for the McCanns and ignoring their very concerning behaviors and misdeeds, I just have to wonder why the McCanns seem to walk on British waters, don't you?


Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

July 10, 2012

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Sherlock Holmes on Scotland Yard's Madeleine McCann Review

W: So, Holmes, what do you think Scotland Yard is doing in the Madeleine McCann case?

H: Well, Watson, there are only two options: they are searching for truth and justice or they are using four million taxpayer dollars to cover up a crime.

W: What would show they are searching for truth and justice, Holmes?

H: They would be seeking justice for those who perpetrated crimes against a little three-year-old girl.

W: So, let me see if I have this right; they would be following evidence and statistics which would mean they would look at the parents first since there is evidence that they were the last ones to see her, they admitted to her neglect, and because cadaver and blood dogs hit in their apartment and car, and they would also investigate the parents because statistics show caretakers are the ones most likely involved when a child of Madeleine's age disappears or dies in their care. Then, if the parents can be cleared, they should look for a local child sex predator who murdered her since statistics overwhelmingly support a child this age would be kidnapped, raped, and murdered within an hour by a man living in the vicinity.

H: Correct, Watson. But, Scotland Yard hasn't spent any time analyzing the possibility of the parents' involvement in their daughter's disappearance nor have they spent any time focusing on the vicinity of the McCann's apartment or a local child sex predator.

W: I am confused, Holmes. Are you saying that they have spent four million dollars sifting through tips that would take them out of Portugal in search of a live Maddie living with a family somewhere?

H: This is what appears to be the fact, Watson.

W: Well, then, Holmes, I would have to deduce that Scotland Yard is rife with dunces or corruption.

H: Bravo, Watson! I think you have hit the nail on the head! All the evidence points to Madeleine McCann being dead but her parents and Scotland Yard have collectively purportedly spent some eight million dollars not seeking justice for little Maddie and not seeking to punish the perpetrator or perpetrators, but instead appear to be focusing on a statistical anomaly in spite of evidence to the contrary; they want the public to believe she is alive and being cared for by strangers for the last five years. Yet none of the investigators, not the McCann hired PIs nor Scotland Yard, has presented ONE shred of evidence to validate this cock-and-bull theory.

W: Then, why, Holmes, are so many attacking the Portuguese police, retired Detective Goncalo Amaral, Criminal Profiler Pat Brown, and the others who have worked to analyze the case and provide theories and evidence of Madeleine having died in Praia da Luz on May 3, 2007? These folks haven't been milking the public and citizens of millions of dollars and then refusing to show them any of what they have discovered during their investigations.

H: Ah, Watson, I guess because there are a lot of people out there who just can't accept that Madeleine McCann is dead, has been dead, and will be dead, and there is not going to be a happy ending to the story.

W: Whoa, Holmes, aren't you afraid to say unequivocally that Madeleine McCann is dead? Aren't you worried the McCanns and Carter Ruck will be suing your deductive ass?

H: Well, let them have at it, Watson! Since I am a fictional character, they can sue me for my fictional money, and I will happily send them a fictional check for the fictional Madeleine Search Fund with my fictional signature on it. Good luck cashing that at the bank.


Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

July 6, 2012

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: How Jane Tanner got Lost in a Crowd on an Empty Street

One can accept that on a night out with friends, drinking wine and chatting - maybe some folks are not perfectly correct with the exact time someone came and went. However, some things should be pretty clear and easy to remember about the night of and the day after a horrific event. Of all the Tapas 9 claims as to how things went down on the evening of May 3, 2007, Jane Tanner´s 9:15 (approximate) sighting of a man hurrying along Dr Augusthino da Silva with a child draped in his outstretch arms is the most unbelievable and unsupportable.

Let's ignore for now the issues of the lighting and whether Jane would be able see the details of the man and child's clothing so well. In order to prove whether she could or she could we would have to test her ability with a number of crime reenactments with the present lighting and, if one was able to see what she saw under those conditions, then one would have to use quite a bit of scientific and technical skill to build a set with the calculated lighting of that night and time and see if one could still see those details. I cannot obviously due that at this time, so I cannot make any absolute determinations on her ability to see what she said she saw.

However, I can comment on what Gerry and Jeremy (Jeremy Wilkins, also called Jez) said they didn't see - namely Jane.

Retired British police officer, PM, and I reenacted the scenario and I learned something very interesting. If Gerry's claim that he crossed the street, the Rua Dr Gentil Martins to speak to Jeremy is true (in his later statement, not his first which only said on his way back to the Tapas, he "crossed ways" which should mean "ran into," not ran across the street to talk to), then it is indeed possible for the two men to have neither seen Jane nor any man carrying a child across the street at the corner whilst they were conversing.

PM took thirteen steps to cross from one side to the other and I saw him out of the corner of my eye from the spot Gerry says he was standing with Jeremy. If, as Peter reminded me as we discussed the way men chat and the way women chat, that men tend to talk less face to face than women do, but more at angles, looking about themselves and not at each other, it would be totally possible for the men to have their backs to the street behind and never see a man quickly walk by, even if it took him thirteen strides. Interestingly, if they are looking down at a baby in a pram or off to the left side of the street, they might actually have not seen Jane go by either.

But, Jane denies that is how it went down and Jeremy agrees with her. Both state Gerry and Jeremy were on the same side of the street Jane walked up and Jane claims she was right on top of them when she walked by. Now, I would say, if this was true, it doesn't matter where these men were looking while talking; at least one would see Jane, and, more likely, both of them would see her. And, if they were positioned in such a way that both of their backs were to Jane as she came up behind them, they would have seen the man with the child crossing directly in front of them. If they had their backs to the man behind them, they couldn't have missed Jane walking straight at them. No matter exactly how they were standing, it is hardly believable that neither man would notice the only other person on the street trotting right up to them, past them, and on to the end of the street. Anyone on the street at that time of night at a time when Praia da Luz is very empty would very likely catch one's attention, so Jane didn't get lost in the crowd.

Let’s double check their position with Jane’s Rogatory Statement which she had months to get the “facts” straight.

No, I, phew, again, I would probably guess Gerry’s back was more towards me, because I would have thought if I’d have seen him I would have definitely probably stopped and said ‘Oh you’re in trouble, you’ve been long, we think you’ve been watching the footy’, you know, but. Because I think that’s almost when I went to acknowledge them, that’s almost what went through my head, you know, is to sort of give a bit of abuse about the fact he’d been so long, but. So I would imagine his, maybe his back was to me, but. And, again, in that way, that would make more sense, because I don’t know Jez, so it’s not like I would have gone ‘Oh hi Jez’, you know, that way, so. Yeah, I, I honestly, I can’t remember now which way they were. But I do, I stand by the fact I’m sure they were nearer than right over here.

Let’s see: she is “probably guessing” that Gerry’s back was towards her or she would have made a comment. Hmm...if his back was towards Jane, he would have seen a man right in front of him running off with his own child. Jane THINKS that’s ALMOST when she went to acknowledge them, that’s ALMOST what went through her head….so she would IMAGINE, maybe his back was towards her…yeah, that “WOULD MAKE MORE SENSE,” …yeah, “HONESTLY,” she can’t remember now, BUT, she does, “STAND BY THE FACT, I’m sure they were nearer than right over here.”

All of this lack of clarity in Jane's statement shows major signs of deception, of someone attempting to create a story. If it were simply true, she would not need to imagine any of it or develop the scenario as she is talking. Add to this, an odd comment in her original May 4, 2007 interview:

She (Jane Tanner) passed them KNOWING that Gerald McCann had already been in his apartment to check on his children

.

This is a clearly impossible for her to state, yet Jane Tanner KNOWS that this is so. Since Jane claims to have left the Tapas quite soon after Gerry, there is no way she could know he had been in to see his children already or whether he had run into Jeremy Wilkins and simply got caught up in conversation and hadn’t yet gone in. We are talking about a matter of a couple of minutes; therefore, it would be highly unlikely Jane could know if Gerry had popped into the apartment already or not. For Jane to KNOW this, Gerry would have to have told her prior to her interview.

But, you might point out, as Jane did:

... if I was trying to make this up, don’t you think I would have made damn sure they saw me?

Yes, I guess you would... if you could have, Jane. The problem is Jeremy Wilkins didn’t see you and, if Gerry was standing with his back to you, then Jeremy was most likely facing you and would have seen you clearly coming up the way. Or, if you want to go back to men both standing sort of at angles and not looking directly at each other, both men would have seen you AND the man carrying the child as you walked past them into their view and the man crossed the road directly in front of them. Tricky bit of a problem, eh?

Jeremy Wilkins says he and Gerry were standing right by the gate on the apartment side of the road.

I met him near the stairs of a ground floor. There was a gate leading up to some stairs.

Jane says she walked right up to them and passed them. Jeremy Wilkins says he never saw her or the man. Gerry says he never saw her or the man which he must say or he has to call Wilkins a liar. I think he solves this problem by moving their location to the opposite side of the road where it is possible for them to both have not seen Jane or any man with a child. Then he doesn’t have to go up against Wilkins, but merely state he remembers where they were standing a bit differently.

It is Kate who sums the whole situation up quite interestingly in her book, Madeleine.

Either way, exactly where they were standing is not crucial. What may be important is that all three of them were there.

Indeed! What is important is all three of them were there. What does it really matter if all three of them are there? What does it matter if Jane Tanner saw the man five minutes later when she returned and neither man was on the street? It matters because Jeremy Wilkins gives Gerry an alibi. No, not Jane. Jane Tanner is not that useful in giving Gerry an alibi because she is one of the Tapas 9. Jeremy Wilkins is the LAST UNBIASED WITNESS who saw Gerry before Madeleine was found missing and before the Smiths’ 9:50-9:55 sighting of a man carrying a little child toward the beach.

No one outside the Tapas 9 can verify that Gerry returned to the table after his 9:15 check on his children or that he remained at the table until Kate gave the alarm. Jeremy Wilkins, being with Gerry at the time Jane sees “the abductor carrying off a child,” gives Gerry an airtight alibi for the only time that he can get one for that evening during that time frame.

Considering Kate and Gerry downplayed any importance to the Smith sighting until far later when they agreed it could be the abductor but ONLY if it was the same man Jane saw and Kate insists that it is mighty important the three of them were there when Jane saw a child being carried off, I repeat, the only reason this should be a big deal is that Jeremy is Gerry’s alibi.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: What about the Window?

After I posted my first blog of this series, we had quite a rousing discussion over the issues of lighting in Praia da Luz in 2007 and if an abductor would feel unnerved going in and out of a window at that location (I am speaking of using this window for purposes of child abduction, not a lesser crime).

#1 Because the lighting was not horrifically deficient and the window was not positioned in a location where it would be extremely unlikely for someone to observe an abductor moving in and out of a window (and, for that matter, quite high odds that someone could observe the crime even though Praia da Luz was not flooded with visitors at the time the McCanns were there), I do not believe an abductor would have targeted the apartment by way of the front window.

But suppose this abductor did decide he really wanted the child inside and he couldn't access the doors. Perhaps he was willing to take a chance going in the window at a time he observed the parents had left the children without any adult supervision.

Could he pull up the shutters, open the window, and climb into the apartment without causing any damage, being heard, or leaving evidence? The McCanns say they believe the window was locked (but not absolutely positive) and the shutters were down. If you are inside the house and you want to open the shutters, you must pull on a cord which raises them (pictured above). If you want to break in, you must push them up; they make a horrible noise and they don't stay up...they go up 4/5 of the way and then fall back down. In the video you can see retired British police officer, PM, giving it a go (this video is distorted due to an unfortunate sideways filming and when compressed for uploading, stretched the horizontal dimension; PM is tall and very fit as you will see in future photos ...sorry, PM!)

So, the window is not a likely choice for an abductor to access the apartment. With this knowledge and the fact (which Kate McCann does not dispute in the book) that there is no physical evidence of anyone crawling in or out of the window (and the fact that doing so is extremely awkward with a child), such a scenario is unlikely to have occurred. The only other possibility is someone accessed the house through a door, opened the shutters and windows from the inside and passed the child through to an accomplice. This is all very dramatic but walking out the door is easier.

My next post will focus on who could have come in and out the doors.

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: A Picture Worth a Thousand Words

“Martha? I’m stepping out on the balcony for a smoke. Hey, Martha, come here! What the hell is that man doing at that window? You see right there? He’s busting in the window? Martha, go call the police! Hey, he’s crawling in flat….must be planning to steal…oh, my god, Martha! Tell the police he’s carrying out a child! I’m running downstairs! Maybe I can stop him!”

(The above is an imagined scenario for those who are pretended to not understand this...clearly I am just trying to make a point).

Yes, you are looking at Apartment 5A, the very apartment the McCanns were renting on May 3^rd, 2007. The time is 10 pm on February 12, 2012. The photo was taken from the third floor of the building across the street. There was some shrubbery along the left wall of the parking lot that has been removed but the view of the McCanns door and window would not have been obscured (I must add since I have been rightly corrected and I have doublechecked the photos at that time, there are trees also lining the back side on the street, it is difficult to say today if one is high up looking down from one balcony or the other, who can see the window). My purpose of this photo was to show that the window and door of 5A was not a location that was as hidden from view as one might think.

Predators who crawl in and out windows tend to choose windows that look out on dark empty spaces or are nowhere near other buildings. For example, a predator might break in on the back side of an apartment building that has no lights and nothing but a deserted lot behind. A predator might crawl in the back window of an isolated house. But the 5A window was on a corner with traffic going by, on a parking lot which people are driving in and out of, under other apartment windows, across from other apartments and next to other apartments. Partially obscured from some angles, the predator knows the window is not obscured at other angles. He may not know exactly who can see him and who can't. For example, there is a break in the trees where the drive comes into the parking lot and through which the window can be seen. Just knowning that there is an apartment building looming over one's crime area for people to look down on you (either breaking in or out or leaving the area with a child) would be unnerving. Any predator would be smarter going in the back door which is far easier to slip in and out of and not be seen.

The lights on the buildings and in the streets turn the building into a veritable fishbowl (some claim massive lighting improvement since that day but I have heard that it has not changed much). What idiot would think breaking in the window at Apartment 5A or carrying a child out of that window or even the door next to it would be a terribly bright idea? One thing kidnappers know is there are enough human fish in the sea that one doesn’t have to abduct someone under such risky conditions.

There are those who note the style of lamps in town have changed (from globe-shaped to the more boxy style now seen) and there are a couple of added lights to the McCann building. True, but this does not mean that the location was dark and dismal and a predator would be able to skulk around unseen. From my third floor apartment, I can clearly see the windows in the building on the other side of the road from the McCanns and it has no added lights at all. It is not clear that the change of street lamp has significantly increased lighting (some say it has and some say it hasn't - I haven't found statistics on this) but, suffice it to say, if it was good enough light for Jane Tanner to see a man carrying a little child off at a distance and be able to describe his clothes and hers, then it is possible for many others to see this man as well. He would know this and choosing so public a location to abduct a child would be unusual. Finally, it was a full moon night, so the lighting may have been even better than normal (though not necessarily that early, but a predator may not be thinking of that because the night before moonrise was earlier and we don´t even know if he might have not gotten an opportunity - if he did - until two hours later.

The next picture shows the front side of the apartment building with close-up of the window of Apartment 5A. I am standing in the doorway. Can you see how bright it is at night? (Again that light may be deceptive as it was added , but you can see how exposed the window is on a path people are coming out of their apartments on and at the end of that wall is the entrance from the parking lot, not to mention a full moon shining down on white buildings and light-colored walks). What would Mr. Predator do if he crawled out of the window with a child to find a car pulling in to park right there in the lot? He would be trapped. He still has to walk down that little path, turn right out the opening into the parking lot, come back down along the wall, then cross the parking lot, go out of the parking lot, turn right and walk down to the corner and cross the street - where Jane Tanner supposedly saw him.

It is also worth noting that there is a lack of proper photos and videos from that night or even the next, so we don't know the exact conditions. Furthermore, we cannot trust what photos and videos show us because they can be brightened or darkened according to what the presented of these evidences want the audience to think. Supporters of the abduction theory may want Jane Tanner´s sighting area to be brightened and the window darkened. Nonsupporters of the abduction theory may want Jane Tanner's sighting area to be pitch black and the window sitting in a spotlight. So, we likely will have difficulty in knowning the reality. However, and again, the predator does what is wisest and I still have to say that the front of 5A is not the choice a predator should make when the back door, the supposedly open sliding back door, exists and cuts down on ones visibility leaving the residence and escaping from the area.

This picture shows the corner where Jane Tanner sees a man cross the street coming from the apartment, child in his outstretched hands. If you were an abductor, would you be comfortable choosing to walk out in the open, across the well-light street with three people on it? Would you at least think walking the other direction hugging the wall might be a bit smarter, maybe cut down your chances of being seen? (The abuctor MAY have seen just seen the backs of Gerry and Jez as he peeped around the corner and stepped out just as Jane came out of the Tapas door and up the street getting caught in her sight line.) But walking the other direction is much safer and smarter unless one has no choice).

Robert Murat, the only other Arguido (suspect) in the case, lived on a couple blocks down the way in the direction Jane Tanner claimed the man carrying a child was walking. But, Robert Murat was a known individual in town and many people in Praia da Luz own places here or rent for a long period of time and return year after year. Would someone who knows people might recognize him walk down well-lit streets - his face totally exposed – straight to his own house? He would have to have an IQ far below 70 to think this would be clever.

If anyone took a child from the apartment, it would be smarter to walk the opposite way of the man Jane Tanner claims to have seen. Here you can see the wall I just mentioned that he could walk very close to and be out of sight of anyone looking down from the tall apartment building across the street. Even more intelligent would be for an abductor to leave the back of the apartment by the sliding glass doors and hurry down the enclosed path which leads up to the parking area at the front of the apartment and go out at the end of the street and onward to the darker end of the road. It is exactly this path that leads to the Smith sighting.

Praia da Luz is a very cozy, brightly lit, off-the-main road very small and charming resort town. No sex ring is going to choose this location to target children. A child sex predator might lurk about here but he would be wiser abducting a child from the outskirts of the town or in pretty much any other nearby village. There are some darker side streets further to the edge of the town that a predator or someone carrying a child would be a bit less visible . Apartment 5A would rank pretty much at the bottom of any abductor’s list of places to grab a kid. The only reason someone would remove a child from 5A would be of necessity. Then he would never take the route Jane Tanner claimed she saw the man carrying a child.

More on the most likely route one would take to carry Madeleine from Apartment 5A in my next blog.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: What I Hope to Accomplish in Portugal

Sunday, February 5, 2012 (Washington DC)

Many of you are wondering what I expect to accomplish in Portugal for the two week period I will be in the country. Some have scoffed on Twitter that I am on a fool's errand or some egotistical fantasy trip, that I think I am going to pop over to Praia da Luz and solve the McCann case in a snap. Hardly. I am not that unrealistic nor am I so blind to reality and my abilities that I think I am going to do any such thing. What I am trying to do is learn a bit more. Since my book, Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann did earn some dividends (although not much since it was pulled from Amazon under threat of Carter-Ruck and the McCanns) and I stated I would put fifty percent of the earnings toward searching for Madeleine, I am doing that with the money.

I am approaching this case as I do others I have profiled. I plan to survey the area and then reanalyze the crime based on what I learn. Then, I plan to search in locations I believe Maddie may be.

I can accomplish the first part of the plan within ten days. The second part is unlikely to be fully accomplished and may require me to return to Portugal if I think another search has merit. I also may run into the "unknown factor" while I am in Praia da Luz. I may come across new information that will add to what is publicly known of the case or something that could change my profile. Although my top theory is that the evidence points to the McCanns involvement, the next most likely theory is that a local pedophile grabbed Madeleine and walked off with her to his lair. I do not at all believe Madeleine's disappearance had anything to do with a sex ring or someone who wanted a child. I do not believe Madeleine was taken away alive in a car. I believe Madeleine is not alive, whether the McCanns are involved or not.

Could I change this view? Sure. If I get to Praia da Luz, start analyzing the layout of the area and, suddenly, say, "Well, hell, if I had known that...." I don't expect this will happen but you never know. Being at the crime location is extraordinarily valuable when analyzing any case and this can change everything. If I do a one-eighty, I will not shirk my duty to disclose this and I will revise my profile as necessary.

What I won't be doing in Praia da Luz is going around questioning people. I am not a private detective and I don't have the right to do so in Portugal anyway. I won't refuse to talk to people but I am not knocking on doors and demanding people answer my questions. I will be analyzing and reconstructing the crime by way of the locations I can publicly access or have permission. I will do some experiments as to how long it takes to walk from A to B, check to see how easily something could be accomplished or how easily one can be seen carrying a child in certain places, and where a person could stash a body or not.

I will be searching for Madeleine in locations I believe have some merit. I am not going to discuss on this blog exactly where and how. I will tell you that when I get back.

Do I expect to find Maddie or the big clue that will lead me to her? The odds are not great that I will leave Portugal having accomplished that. I hope to increase my knowledge of what exactly happened to Madeleine. And, if I am really, really lucky, maybe I will unearth something of great value.

I am looking forward to my two weeks in Portugal. I am very curious to see what I will learn. I will try to blog daily on what I am doing and finding out (that I can release) and I hope all goes well. If, when my two weeks is up, I feel the trip was productive and I could use more time in Portugal, I will make a second trip to Praia da Luz in the coming months and continue my work.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Is Scotland Yard really about to Interview the Tapas 7?

Very fishy, if you ask me.

I find this whole story bogus as hell.

1. What timing! Less than 48 hours after the news goes out that I have issued a cease-and-desist letter to Gerry and Kate and 24 hours before I leave for Portugal, suddenly big breaking news in the Madeleine McCann case! The headline reads: Tapas 7 Will Help Madeleine McCann Detectives! I know many think that since the news organizations haven't exactly rushed to print a story about what I am doing, there is no need for diversion. This may be true, but the timing is so coincidental, I think Clarence Mitchell may be attempting to make sure the story doesn't gain any momentum, to quickly turn heads away and say, see, something is happening over at Scotland Yard; they are really making progress and the Tapas 7 are cooperating.

2. Of course, let's say that isn't true. That Clarence Mitchell doesn't really want anyone even pointing at the Tapas 7 because, after all, what do they even know what would be helpful if the McCanns are innocent? If Scotland Yard wants to interview them, hmm, that can't be good for the McCanns, can it?

3. So okay, let's suppose this has zip to do with me and Scotland Yard is planning to interview the Tapas 7. So they warn them? What? They want to give them time to get their stories down pat and perfect? What police department warns co-conspirators (if they are) that they are gearing up to interrogate them?

4. Why aren't the McCanns being interviewed?

5. Why would you spend millions of pounds and nine months going over the minutia of every tip before doing a crime scene analysis and a reconstruction and bringing in the main players for interviews? Why wouldn't you have required in the beginning that the McCanns and the Tapas 7 to do be interviewed, polygraphed, and to participate in a reconstruction if the McCanns want the review?

6. Which brings me to this: Either this is all smoke-and-mirrors and a distraction or Scotland Yard took nine months and a shitload of taxpayer money to grow a brain and conduct a homicide investigation as even the smallest police department would, in a proper investigative manner starting at Square One.


7. But, then, let's go back and really reread the article. You will find the only time Scotland Yard says anything is with this statement

“We are not going into that level of details,” he said. “We are not at the stage of speaking to individuals yet. We are laying the groundwork.”

Which means they have made no plans to interview anyone at this point in time and have told no one they would.

Reread what was really said:

The friends of Kate and Gerry McCann, who accompanied them on their holiday to Portugal almost five years ago, are expecting interview requests as soon as officers feel they could assist the investigation.

After nine months of information gathering, officers are checking statements from key witnesses.

In other words, the article simply says the officers are checking statements (well, duh, they have read them in the police reports so this is merely stating the obvious) and the friends expect they might be interviewed if the officers feel they could be helpful. This is a story from their point of view, not Scotland Yard's.

8. The news story is a non-news story. It is pure spin and, in my opinion, nothing but a distraction so the cease-and-desist order to the McCanns and my trip to Portugal will be continue to be ignored by the media.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Press Release: Cease-and-Desist Letter issued to Gerry and Kate McCann, parents of Missing Madeleine McCann

PRESS RELEASE

Gerry and Kate McCann, parents of the missing Madeleine McCann, find themselves for the first time at the other end of a potential legal action. Top defense attorney, Anne Bremner, counsel to the Friends of Amanda Knox and the families of Rebecca Zahau and Susan Cox Powell, has issued a cease-and-desist letter (content posted below) on behalf of American criminal profiler Pat Brown whose book, Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann was removed from sale by Amazon following a claim by the McCanns that the book was defamatory. In recent years, the McCanns have instructed their solicitors, Carter-Ruck, to send numerous cease-and-desist letters to people who have publicly questioned their possible involvement in their daughter’s disappearance nearly five years ago while on family holiday in Portugal.

Next week on February 8th, retired solicitor Tony Bennett faces English prison as the McCanns’ fight to shut down his efforts to bring focus to aspects of the missing child case that point to the parents’ possible involvement. Also, the McCanns have sued the detective on their daughter’s case, Dr. Goncalo Amaral, for libel and have had his book, Truth of the Lie, pulled off the worldwide market. The trial is scheduled in Portugal for April. Now, Pat Brown has fought back for the cause of freedom of speech and justice, alleging that the McCanns have interfered with her right to conduct business and have damaged her professional reputation with their successful removal of her book from sale. On Monday, Pat will leave for Portugal to continue her quest for truth and justice in the case of Madeleine McCann. The Find Madeleine Campaign operated by Gerry and Kate McCann has spent some 2.5 million pounds on the supposed search for their daughter, Madeline, who vanished in Praia da Luz, Portugal while on vacation with the family nearly five years ago and come up empty handed. Since last May, a 37-man team headed up by Scotland Yard has spent 1.5 million pounds on salaries plus many more pounds following up supposed leads with no sign of success. Altogether, four million pounds has been forked out to locate a missing child with zero results. What, then, does American criminal profiler Pat Brown hope to accomplish with her two week trip to Portugal, beginning next week on February 6, with her small band of assistants and a few hundred euros of her own money?

She could find the truth. She could find Madeleine. She could find nothing but at least she won’t be costing the taxpayers millions or draining the pocketbooks of kindhearted donators chasing useless leads.

Pat Brown will be following up on the theory she purported in her Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann, her eBook which was pulled by Amazon at the request of the British solicitors Carter-Ruck on behalf of Gerry and Kate McCann. Amazon was told the book was defamatory in spite of the fact Ms. Brown clearly stated facts in the case, developed a theory based on those facts, and repeated numerous times that she makes no claim that the McCanns are guilty of any involvement in their daughter’s disappearance (other than leaving three children unattended night after night in the resort apartment). Since Gerry McCann clearly stated during the Leveson Inquiry, “I strongly believe in freedom of speech” and “I don't have a problem with somebody purporting a theory,” it is difficult to understand why the McCanns wanted the book to be repressed except that it was selling well and that the theory she presented was being considered credible by a number of readers.

During her trip to Portugal, Pat Brown will study the town of Praia da Luz and environs, reconstruct the crime, and examine possible locations as to where Madeleine might have been taken, dead or alive. If she discovers evidence to support a theory other than the one that was the focus of her book, she will pursue that information. She is looking forward to meeting with Dr. Goncalo Amaral, the ex-detective on the McCann case. Meanwhile, it is her hope and that of her lawyer, Anne Bremner, that the McCanns rethink their actions regarding the Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann and instruct their solicitors to have Amazon return the book to the market (now available at Smashwords and Barnes & Noble online).

For interviews and media appearances, please contact:

Pat Brown
The Pat Brown Criminal Profiling Agency

she2000@comcast.net

301-633-1151

www.patbrownprofiling.com
www.sheprofilers.com

and

Anne M. Bremner
Stafford Frey Cooper, PC
3100 Two Union Square
601 Union Street
Seattle, WA 98101-1374

abremner@staffordfrey.com

206.623.9900

www.annebremner.com

--------------------------------------------

Anne M. Bremner
Stafford Frey Cooper, PC
3100 Two Union Square
601 Union Street

Seattle, WA 98101-1374

February 1, 2012

Adam Tudor

Carter-Ruck

6 St Andrew Street

London EC4A 3AE

England

Dear Mr. Tudor,

In July 2011, American criminal profiler, author, and television commentator, Pat Brown, released on June 15, 2011 a self-published book of thirty-pages on Amazon.com, Amazon.co.uk, and Amazon.de, for the price of US2.99. It was titled Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann, sold 850 copies over the next five weeks and garnered 49 nearly all five star reviews on Amazon.uk alone. Then, the book vanished from sale on all three sites. Upon questioning, Pat Brown was informed by Amazon that they had received a communications from Carter-Ruck on behalf of their clients Gerald and Kate McCann that the book was defamatory.

Mon 7/25/2011 7:27 PM

Dear Pat,

We have received a notice of defamation from Carter-Ruck Solicitors that says the content of Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann (UPDATED) B0055WYVCQ, contains defamatory statements regarding their clients, Gerry and Kat (sic) McCann.

Because we have no method of determining whether the content supplied to us is defamatory, we have removed the title from sale and will not reinstate it unless we receive confirmation from both parties that this matter has been resolved.

Carter-Ruck can be reached at:

6 St Andrew Street

London EC4A 3AE

T 020 7353 5005

Best regards,

Robert F.

http://www.amazon.com

This was quite a surprise to Pat Brown as she had never received any communications from the McCanns nor their solicitors concerning any defamatory material in this book nor had she ever received any communication concerning any defamatory material in her blogs on the case she has posted online at The Daily Profiler over the last four years. As Ms. Brown is an analyst of evidence, she is careful to not state anything as a fact that is not a fact and to clearly state what is a hypothesis or a theory as opposed to proof. She has publicly and repeated explained to anyone reading her analyses of crime that criminal profiling is a methodology which explores the possible and theoretical scenarios that might be considered as logical based on evidence connected with the crime - forensic, linguistic, or behavioral. Any findings resulting from investigative tools which are not acceptable in certain courts of law (such as cadaver dogs or polygraphs) are noted as suitable for speculation, but not as solid proof of anyone’s guilt or involvement in criminal activities. Criminal profiling itself is an investigative tool and not a finding of guilt as Pat Brown clearly notes in her book.

Due to the speculative, if analytical, nature of Deductive Criminal Profiling, the methodology used by Pat Brown, she was careful to repeat numerous times throughout her publication that she was not accusing the McCanns of being involved in any crime or in the disappearance of their daughter, Madeleine. She was clearly only “purporting a theory” and exercising “free speech,” both manners of communication Gerry McCann stated he strongly supported under oath at the Leveson Inquiry on November 23, 2011 in London:

I would like to emphasise that I strongly believe in freedom of speech, but where you have people who are repeatedly carrying out inaccuracies and have been shown to do so, then they should be held to account. That is the issue. I don't have a problem with somebody purporting a theory, writing fiction, suggestions, but clearly we've got to a stage where substandard reporting and sources, unnamed, made-up, non-verifiable, are a daily occurrence.” Gerry McCann

As Pat Brown also believes in free speech and the right to purport a theory, it would seem she and Gerry McCann are in agreement that any work that purports a theory as opposed to false statements of fact is acceptable under freedom of speech. Pat Brown’s Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann opens up discussion of what happened to the McCann’s daughter, further stimulating interest in the case, and keeping Madeleine in the minds of the public. As the McCanns claim this is what they want, Pat Brown’s book is in accordance with this desire. In fact, it is the McCanns themselves who have clearly encouraged massive interest and speculation on this case. Pat Brown is in no way, therefore, infringing on any wish to keep talk about the case to a minimum.

By speaking and writing out quite often and in such a high profile manner, the McCanns have succeeded in making Madeleine McCann the most well-known missing child in modern history (since the Lindbergh baby in 1932). They have stimulated debate worldwide as to what happened to Madeleine. They have publicly purported their own theories; that someone took Madeleine because they wanted to raise a child, that she is being held captive in a sex ring, and that a pedophile had taken her. They have publicly disclosed many details of the case and repeatedly told their version of what occurred before, during, and after the disappearance of the daughter. They have discussed their emotions, behaviors, and opinions. Pat Brown is carrying on that discussion.

Utmost of importance in the entire matter, is the handling and funding of child abduction cases, the prevailing attitudes toward these crimes, and the future of catching child predators. Because the victims are so young and innocent, missing children are among the most publicized cases in the world. In the last three decades with the increase of the Internet and the 24-hour news cycle, awareness of child sex predators and stranger child abduction has radically increased fears of parents that their child will be taken and murdered. In reality, stranger abduction continues to be exceedingly rare for children of Madeleine’s age. Regardless, the paranoia that is engendered when a small child goes missing is a great stress to the community, the police, and resources. Therefore, it is extremely important that each and every case be properly analyzed and understood so that wrong ideas aren’t promulgated and funding and efforts are wasted investigating such crimes improperly. Each child that goes missing is a terrible tragedy for the parents, siblings, relative, friends, and community. Pat has great empathy for any family of a missing child and, most of all, compassion for the innocent young person who has suffered abuse, terror, sexual assault, and, possibly, an early death at the hands of others.

We are requesting that you respect Pat Brown’s right to free speech and to purport a theory as Gerry McCann has stated is not a problem for him. We request that the claim of libel be retracted for the Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann and the book permitted to be returned for sale at Amazon.

Regards,

Anne M. Bremner

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Why Madeleine McCann is Likely Dead

No one likes to think of an abducted child as being dead, least of all the parents. Even detectives on a case hold out hope that a kidnapped juvenile will be found alive and returned home to his or her family. Police officers deal enough every day with sad endings and they cross their fingers and hope that this time, they will save a child's life, not find her skeleton in the weeds along the side of a road. They would like to triumphantly reunite the child with her parents, not knock on the door and deliver the dreaded message to the poor mother and father.

But, then there is reality. Most stranger abductions don't end well unless you stop them in progress. Unfortunately, the statistics out there on child abduction are vague and distorted. In spite of stranger child abduction being a major fear of parents the world over, it is hard to the actual facts on the issue. Here are the only bits I could find on the statistics:

115 children were the victims of “stereotypical” kidnapping. (These crimes involve someone the child does not know or someone of slight acquaintance, who holds the child overnight, transports the child 50 miles or more, kills the child, demands ransom, or intends to keep the child permanently.)

• 40% of children in stereotypical kidnappings are killed.
• 4% of children are never found.
• 79% kidnappings are carried out by strangers and 21% by acquaintances.

In 46 percent of non-family abductions, the child was sexually assaulted.Of abducted children who are ultimately murdered, 74 percent are dead within three hours of the abduction

Okay, so what do we actually have here? Of the 115 stereotypical kidnapped children, a good portion of these are pre-teens or teens that sex predators took and killed or enslaved as their little wives. A bunch are babies that some women wanted to pretend were their own. Some of these children were found quickly, within hours, and were saved from a worse fate. Some were kidnapped by a close acquaintance who was angry with the family for some reason.

Very few are toddlers or little girls from ages three to five. There seem to be no exact statistics on the age of the children abducted, by whom, and what happened to them. So, in lieu of finding these, I put out a challenge to the folks that believe statistics support Madeleine McCann being alive. I asked people to give me the names of little girls who had been abducted by total strangers who were found alive after months or years. So, far I have had only one name given to me; Tara Burke, a toddler who was found alive ten months after she was abducted by a sexual predator duo. This crime was 29 years ago in 1982.

I can, however, name little girl after little girl who was abducted by a stranger and was found dead in the following days, weeks, months, or years. But, so far, I have only been given the name of one child victim over a period of three decades who was found alive. I am sure there are a few more but the point I am making is there are incredibly few of these cases with a "happy ending" in comparison to little abducted girls who have been murdered by their kidnappers. Yes, a few preteen and teen girls have been found alive after being abducted: Jaycee Dugard, Elizabeth Smart, Natascha Kampusch - these girls were kept as sex slaves and were at an age the rapist viewed them as "young women" who should enjoy being taught sex techniques and could learn how to please the captor. Little three-year-old girls like Madeleine McCann are not going to do well in the "girlfriend" department and will lie there and cry and scream. Little girls are raped and murdered almost 100% of the time. Sad but true.

Therefore, if Madeleine McCann was indeed kidnapped by a stranger, there is very little possibility she was alive even three hours later. Does that mean a truly good tip should be ignored that points in the direction that she is alive and held captive somewhere? Of course not. She could be the one in whatever high number that wasn't murdered. But, detectives have to be realistic when it comes to using resources. They can't waste millions of dollars and massive hours of manpower running down ridiculous sightings and unlikely scenarios.

Likewise, Gerry and Kate McCann should tell donators that, although they hope Madeleine will be the miracle child recovered alive this decade, they recognize the chances of that happening are very, very slim. Then, if people want to contribute to finding a perpetrator who might have taken Maddie and killed her (to get justice and save other little girls), they can do that. If they want to give money in spite of the horribly poor odds of finding Madeleine alive, this is their choice. But the McCanns should tell the truth and donators should know it.

The McCanns, if they didn't have anything to do with the disappearance of Madeleine McCann and want to find her and who took her, they ought to be using donations to look for a dead child in Praia da Luz buried in someone's backyard.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

_______________________________________________

My ebook, Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann, removed from Amazon following threat of legal action by Carter-Ruck on behalf of Gerry and Kate McCann, can still be found online at Barnes and Noble and Smashwords. Keep posted for news of my upcoming legal action with attorney Anne Bremner against the McCanns for tortuous interference with business and libel.