“The is NO Forensic Evidence that She is Dead”

I am sure there isn’t. I am sure there is no body and no DNA and nothing else of any physical sort. I am sure there are no photos of her dead body or articles of her clothing in Christian Brückner secret hiding place. Because when the police say there is not forensic evidence that she is dead but they have other evidence, not evidence that is good enough to go to court with, but which only “indicates” she is dead, this means they haven’t got shit.

And if they haven’t got a case, they have no business making known their theories to the parents and public with a vague “We are the investigators and therefore we are to be believed if we say this is what we think.” 

As a profiler, I have cited all the evidence I have to support my conclusions. So far, all the German police have come up with is a creepy guy named Christian Brückner that was in Praia da Luz at the time and chatted on the phone that evening. 

One of two things is going on: either the German police haven’t got anything on this guy outside of gossip and are just making up stuff to say they solved the case or they haven’t got anything on this guy and they are trying to pressure him into a confession with a plea deal.

Either way, this is shaping up to be the patsy many of us have suspected would finally be found to close the case.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
June 15, 2020

The New Madeleine McCann Suspect

So, what about Christian Brückner? Is there any validity in him being linked to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann? Or is it just another fake suspect or a media splash? Well, let’s look at the various possibilities.

One, another media story because they need another media story about Madeleine McCann. Or the McCanns are pushing for more publicity. Or Operation Grange needs justification for more money. We have seen all of this before, so it would not surprise me to see it done yet again.

Two, the guy is really a pedophile or robber who snatched Maddie of his own volition. I sincerely doubt this. Why? Because robbers do not snatch children. Also, there was no evidence of an abduction that would be necessary if he were a child sex predator. And, if he were just some random creep and it was a true abduction, the McCanns sure have acted strangely all these years.

Three, Christian Brückner WAS involved in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann but his only role was in carting the child off. 

Let’s look at his ex-girlfriend’s statement.

On May 2, 2007, he is supposed to have said to her, “I have a job to do in Praia da Luz tomorrow. It’s a horrible job but it’s something I have to do and it will change my life. You won’t be seeing me for a while.” 

Okay, first of all, we don’t know that he really said this. Ex-girlfriends may make stuff up or disremember something or exaggerate something. What he said or didn’t actually say may have nothing to do with this case at all.

But, let’s suppose it did. What would it mean? Well, it certainly doesn’t sound like something a child predator says to his girlfriend. He wouldn’t tell her of a child he is planning to abduct. He also doesn’t think that abducting that child (which would end with her death a few hours later at most) will change his life because he would expect to do it and be done with it. Then,  he would go back to his normal life.

Secondly, he wouldn’t call abduction a “job.” And it wouldn’t be a “horrible job.” It would be fun.

So, if he really WAS going to do a “horrible job,” what would this mean. “Job” means someone has hired you and “horrible” means it isn’t pleasant. And if it would change his life, it would mean he was going to make a lot of money for doing it. That he wouldn’t be seen for a while would mean he was going to lie low.

So, if he did take Maddie, the only explanation would be at the request of the McCanns. This would be a job, an unpleasant one of removing a body of a small child, and one that would pay well. If the man were hired to do such a thing, it would explain why there was no sign of an abduction because the door would have been left unlocked for him. It would explain why nothing was disturbed. It could explain why drugging two children might be necessary and why the parents would have to be out that evening and why Gerry would be lurking around at a certain time. It could explain Smithman with a little girl in his arms and it could explain why the McCanns did not want Smithman to be identified. It could explain why the dogs had no trouble identifying cadaver odor behind the sofa.

I know many of you might say this means that Maddie was dead for many days. I still would think that is an unlikely scenario. It is far more likely that something would have only happened the day before and there was less than 24 hours to figure out what to do. The evening was still a mess and reeks of panic. Why the dogs would hit on the McCann car might be explained by a later moving of the body to a final burial place. That the dogs hit behind the sofa could be that this was the spot they chose to hide the body that evening for the remover to find. Possible? Well, possible. However, fake children at the crèche and phony last photos and fake children being carried about is not likely. It is also possible that an accident occurred where Maddie fell behind the sofa on the previous evening and her body was placed in the closet. 

So, where does that leave us? With two possible theories. Maddie died on May 3, 2007 and panic ensued and Gerry was Smithman. Or, Maddie died the day before, panic ensued, and Gerry hired Smithman.

IF the latter is true, there has to be some connection between Christian Brückner and Gerry McCann and that should be traceable. I find it odd that if there was a connection that this was not discovered earlier and only now Brückner Is being looked at. Very strange. 

But, whether he is linked or not to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, I still find that the evidence leads back to the McCanns. If this is not proven and Christian Brückner goes down as a pedophile working alone, I will still think something crooked is happening with Scotland Yard. And if, finally, the McCanns become suspects, one wonders what would have taken Scotland Yard so incredibly long to come to this point in the investigation.

It will be interesting to see what comes of this. It may be nothing but hot air, but if there is really any evidence of Brückner’s involvement, then, maybe, we will finally learn the truth.

Update: There seems to be a bit of misunderstanding as to why I am creating this theory about this new suspect. I am not saying it is accurate. We have VERY little information as to make any link with this man to the crime. What I am attempting to do is put together the only scenario that WOULD make sense should there be proof the man has anything to do with the disappearance of Maddie. That he “abducted” Maddie is not supported in ANY way by the evidence. The ONLY way he could be linked to the crime would be if he were taking away a dead child on request.

1) Because there is no evidence of a break-in or an abduction
2) Because there is evidence of death in the flat
3) An abductor wouldn’t have killed Maddie and then left her long enough for cadaver traces to develop for the dogs to find
4) The McCanns have guilty behaviors that make no sense for an abduction

Which means he would have had to know the child was dead, he would only have taken a dead child for pay, the doors would have to have been left unlocked, and he would have had to had the assurance that the coast was clear. Also, the McCanns would have to be very lucky to know such a useful, disreputable person in their hour of need. Also, Gerry has the personality of a person who likes to control things and bringing in a questionable fellow that could rat him out would be not in keeping with his style of thinking.

That this happened, there is no proof. There is only evidence that there was a dead person in the flat and that there is no evidence of an abduction, the McCanns acted oddly, and the McCanns didn’t want Smithman to be identified. This could mean that Smithman was Gerry or that Smithman was this character. But, we do not have any evidence as of now that Smithman WAS this man.

Is this scenario at all likely? No, it would be very improbable. But, I want to clear up any scenario that this man would be a serial predator who abducted Maddie or a burglar whose crime went wrong. 

PS. I stand by my original profile as the evidence supporting an accident on the evening of May 3, 2007 with a subsequent cover-up with Smithman being the key to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. It still is the most likely scenario based on the evidence that we have to date. 

Pat Brown

Investigative Criminal Profiler

June 10, 2020

The Cry and the McCann Story

I have read the book and I have seen the BBC series and I am surprised at how few people recognize that this IS a fiction story pretty much based on the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Although I am sure the McCanns would deny it and the author has seemingly denied it (by saying the story was inspired by a number of different missing children’s cases), this story is extraordinarily close to the reality of the McCanns and what happened to Maddie (not directly, but in connection with the issues of the Madeleine McCann case). If it walks like a McCann duck....

First of all, I thought both the book and the show were quite good. I complement the author and the producer and the actors. As an author myself who has written fiction, I can tell you that many authors use real life stories to build a fictional story on. Quite frankly, a great true story is an easy way to have your fictional story write itself without having to come up with the idea and all the elements. Having said that, I thought the author mixed her own unique ideas in with the reality and made a fine fictional drama. Also, it is not unusual for people whom we know and behaviors which we have seen to end up in a fiction story. After all, it IS fiction so we can do what we like. At least in theory.

The Cry by Helen Fitzgerald is said to be fiction but it has so much of the McCann story woven in that I am sure a certain legal group could find the story to be defamatory of the McCanns and that it purports a theory of what happened to Maddie and only covers it with a thin veil of “it’s made up and has nothing to do with her.” I find it quite fascinating that a publisher was willing to take the risk of publishing this book. Morever, that the BBC was willing to make The Cry into a series with little changed from what the author wrote is stunning considering they are totally unwilling to make a documentary about the Madeleine McCann case that dares to present the possibility of their involvement. Perhaps they know the McCanns are running out of money to sue people or there is something else afoot (not the arrest of the McCanns, by any stretch).

SPOILERS AHEAD! If you want to enjoy reading the book or watching the series, stop here and come back when you are done.

Let’s see how similar this fiction is to the story of Madeleine McCann.

The couple, Alistair and Joanna, are not married (but they are partners) and they have one child together, a 9-month-old baby boy, Noah. The McCanns had two other children together to consider when things went wrong, and the daughter of Alistair becomes one of the reasons he and Joanna cannot tell the truth about what happened to their son; Alistair wants to be able to still have a relationship with his daughter. They are from the UK (living in Scotland) and are off to Australia, not for a vacation, but because Alistair wants to get his teenage daughter back from the clutches of his ex-wife and bring her back to Scotland.

On the plane, little baby Noah cries and cries and cries. Joanna pretty much falls apart (she was a happy single woman who then met Alistair, got into a relationship with a partner who puts his needs first, and isn’t dealing well with the stress of motherhood and caring for a baby). She gives the baby some Calpol (BWAHAHA! Yep, nothing like what might have happened to Maddie!) or at least she thinks she did (and is concerned it wasn’t the Calpol but an adult antibiotic) As they get off the plane and into the car, Alistair carries the baby and puts him in the car seat and off they drive. Somewhere along the way in the middle of the outback (I guess), Alistair needs to make a phone call and stops the car and gets out. Joanna checks on the baby and, lo and behold, the child is dead. They panic, freak out, runabout, cry, and then Alistair makes a plan that he forces Joanna into by saying 1) it was an accident and not anyone’s fault, 2) if we tell the truth YOU and, maybe me, will go to prison, and 3) I will not have a chance of custody with my daughter. 

So, the plan is made and they drove to a store (after visiting where they are staying) and Alistair goes in and then Joanna runs in, leaving the baby alone in the car which is when the child goes “missing.”

All the details of the rest of the story are not necessary but here are some other similarities. Joanna wants to keep the bib the child was wearing because it smells like him. Very similar to a toy Kate kept because it was something keeping her close to Maddie. Gerry (or Kate) washes the toy which is odd because it eliminates evidence (if they are innocent) and odd because it eliminates the smell of the child as well. Alistair burns the bib because he knows it has evidence of some drug on it. Alistair is seen with a bag that presumably holds his baby’s body and he goes off to bury the baby without Joanna knowing where. I believe evidence supports that Gerry did a similar thing, moving the body of Maddie in a sports bag and burying her in an isolated area without Kate by his side.

So, they lie to the police, everyone searches for the baby except them, and eventually the police give up and they return home. They become suspects at some point but nothing is proven. The media is all over them and they become notorious. Social media goes nuts with people taking sides as to their guilt or not.

The basic story of this couple is extremely similar to the McCanns. Sure, the number of children is changed, where the baby died is different, but we still have an accidental death  brought on by a drug  (my theory and the theory of Goncalo Amaral along with a fall behind the couch), a cover-up by the parents, fame and media attention, social media scrutiny and a return home where they remain free on any charges of killing their child. Left out are any helpful friends, a fund and search by private detectives, and the dogs.

Now the couple is a most fascinating portrait of Kate and Gerry, I mean, Joanna and Alistair. Clearly, the author, if she is basing Alistair’s character on Gerry in any way DOES NOT like Gerry. He is presented as a weasel, a control freak, a liar, a manipulator (he really was the one who gave the overdose of Calpol to the baby and let Joanna think it was her fault), and he courts the media and is excited about getting a book deal and doing big TV shows. Sound familiar? Joanna sure seems a lot like Kate although she get a bit of a softer treatment in that the author presents Joanna as not a bad person but one in over her head with a master manipulator like Alistair. It almost seems as if the author might have a soft corner for Kate and think she really was not responsible for what happened to Maddie; that it really WAS Gerry’s fault and she is purporting her own theory of what happend to Madeleine McCann through her book, The Cry. Accidental death, parental coverup, Kate controlled by Gerry, and Gerry presents as a psychopath.

I would really love to know if the author read Amaral’s book or my book and understood our theories and what the evidence supports. But, we may never know because, well, if I were her, I wouldn’t want to throw my own self under the McCann bus, right?

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
October 25, 2018





By Pat Brown 

Rating 

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

Media, Money, and the McCanns and Why Other Children Matter

The three M's... it seems they have been married for an entire decade and show no signs of breaking up any time soon. Just today, the Sun ran yet another appalling article on how time and money are running out for the McCanns (oh, really? Will this ever be so?) but there is HOPE that the Scotland Yard (faux) investigation will get another bit of money so that they can continue to carrying on the search for Maddie or her abductors or whatever the hell the investigators do besides laugh in their beer at this whole ridiculous charade.

And THIS is why I wrote Ten Missing and Murdered Children's Cases that have Nothing to do with Madeleine McCann. Because this whole investigation of children's cases is appalling lopsided and not because there is necessarily good reason for one case to get more financial and investigative support than another but because narcissistic and possibly guilty people like the McCanns have hijacked all the resources via very cooperative media and political conspirators.

HERE is what should be done:

There should be oversight on ALL missing and murdered children's cases (as well as adult cases) by a public commission of experts who log and monitor how these cases are being handled by the police, the press, and politicians.

They need to pressure all of these agencies for proper handling of cases and push for needed training, resources, and outreach.

Most cases are indeed solved in the first 48 because that is when a correct analysis of the case leads to the correct investigative avenue which leads to the correct suspect and allows for the evidence to still exist and be linked to the suspect and the crime scene. MOST efforts and resources need to be available and used on fresh cases to prevent them from becoming cold. Most money spent on cold cases is usually wasted and unproductive.

Because what happens when they become cold? They almost always become unsolvable because suspects, witnesses, and evidence go missing very quickly and barring a lucky DNA hit that will allow for the case to be prosecuted in a court of law, investigating cold cases is generally a HUGE waste of time, money, and manpower. Cold cases may tug at the heartstrings, but, sadly, they usually stay that way and, for this reason, resources must be very carefully allocated for cases like these and only allocated if there is truly a good reason to do so.

The Madeleine McCann case is the poster child for massive waste and corruption. The huge loss of resources that could be used on fresh missing and murdered children's cases is criminal, absolutely criminal. The McCanns and Scotland Yard and the politicians and the fools who send or support these crooks ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Because OTHER CHILDREN MATTER!

But, who is even talking about them? Certainly not the media. Certainly not the McCanns...even though Kate is some weird figuredhead for a missing children's organization who should be distancing themselves as far from the McCanns as they can....except I am guessing they think they can get them more media attention. Yes, OTHER CHILDREN MATTER but apparently not so much in this world dominated by the McCanns.

Get my book FREE for the next five days and write a review on Amazon in support of OTHER CHILDREN. Let the world and the McCanns and the media and the politicians know that OTHER CHILDREN MATTER.

#FREE until Monday #Amazon #Kindle "Ten Missing & Murdered Chilldren's Cases that Have Nothing to Do with Madeleine #McCann "

Note to Readers: This book is a satirical but truthful look at how the Madeleine McCann case has eclipsed all other missing and murdered children's cases much to their detriment. This is not an in-depth look at these ten cases but a comparison of what has happened to cases like these in the time of Madeleine McCann. Do they get any media? Do they get support? Do they get properly investigated? Or does the Madeleine McCann case always beat them out, stealing away most of the publicity and funding? We, the public, need to stand up for other missing and murdered children because the McCanns and the media and the politicians surely will not make any real effort to right the imbalance.

In the UK on Amazon Kindle: Ten Missing and Murdered Children's Cases that have Nothing to Do with Madeleine McCann

In the US on Amazon Kindle: Ten Missing and Murdered Children's Cases that have Nothing to Do with Madeleine McCann

In Canada on Amazon Kindle: Ten Missing and Murdered Children's Cases that have Nothing to Do with Madeleine McCann

In the Australia on Amazon Kindle: Ten Missing and Murdered Children's Cases that have Nothing to Do with Madeleine McCann

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
August 9, 2017

Profiler Pat Brown's New Book! Ten Cases That Have Nothing To Do With Madeleine McCann

UPDATE: Although I wrote post as a satirical response to recent media stories on the McCanns, I actually HAVE written a book now because I realized that the issue SHOULD be addressed. You can get Ten Missing and Murdered Children's Cases that have Nothing to Do with Madeleine McCann FREE on Amazon (UK, US, Canada, and Australia) for the next five days (Aug 9-13) and then it wil be just 99 cents (about a pound).

Note to Readers: This book is a satirical but truthful look at how the Madeleine McCann case has eclipsed all other missing and murdered children's cases much to their detriment. This is not an in-depth look at these ten cases but a comparison of what has happened to cases like these in the time of Madeleine McCann. Do they get any media? Do they get support? Do they get properly investigated? Or does the Madeleine McCann case always beat them out, stealing away most of the publicity and funding? We, the public, need to stand up for other missing and murdered children because the McCanns and the media and the politicians surely will not make any real effort to right the imbalance.
-----------------------
Coming up just three months after the tenth anniversary to the day Madeleine McCann went missing, Profiler Pat Brown's new book, Ten Cases That Have Nothing To Do With Madeleine McCann is hitting the stands. Check out what fascinating cases that have nothing to do with Madeleine McCann will be included in this amazing new book!

Introduction: Profiler Pat Brown discusses Cases that have Nothing to Do with Madeleine McCann

Chapter One: Another Case in 2007 that has Nothing to Do with Madeleine McCann

Chapter Two: Another Case in Portugal that has Nothing to Do with Madeleine McCann

Chapter Three: Another Case in Europe that has Nothing to Do with Madeleine McCann

Chapter Four: Another Case involving British Parents that has Nothing to Do with Madeleine McCann

Chapter Five: Another Case in the Media that has Nothing to Do with Madeleine McCann

Chapter Six: Another Case with Suffering Parents that has Nothing to Do with Madeleine McCann

Chapter Seven: Another Case of a Missing Child that has Nothing to Do with Madeleine McCann

Chapter Eight: Another Case involving Famous Experts that has Nothing to Do with Madeleine McCann

Chapter Nine: Another Case with Missing Child Sightings that has Nothing to Do with Madeleine McCann

Chapter Ten: Another Case which Little Money was Spent On that has Nothing to Do with Madeleine McCann

Afterword: The Future of Cases that have Nothing to Do with Madeleine McCann

Check out Profiler Pat Brown's new Book, Ten Cases that have Nothing to Do with Madeleine McCann when it hits the books stores next week! You will find the book in the section: True Crimes that Have Nothing to Do with Madeleine McCann.

Note to the Media: When you promote Pat Brown's new book, Ten Cases that Have Nothing to Do with Madeleine McCann, don't forget to mention Madeleine McCann.

PS. Although I wrote this blog as a satire, I then decided it WAS worth a book on the subject! You can buy TEN MISSING AND MURDERED CHILDREN'S CASE THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH MADELEINE MCCANN at Amazon or at Amazon.uk or Amazon.ca or whatever Amazon is in your country!

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

July 31, 2017 

What Ever Happened to Profiler Pat Brown's Lawsuit against Rahni Sadler and Seven West Media?

A number of people have been asking whatever happened to my lawsuit against Rahni Sadler and Seven West Media after they mispresented and libeled me in their Sunday Night "documentary" about the Madeleine McCann case? Some have even asked if I just claimed to be suing them for publicity.

No, I was not seeking publicity. I had every plan of suing them and was working with my attorney, Brian Close, to go after them. He wrote a very excellent summary of charges against Seven West Media and they responded with a bunch of bogus malarkey. This was the necessary first step for an out-of-court settlement which could be admission of guilt with or without any monetary settlement or a monetary settlement with no admission of guilt; it is also part of the entire process to indicate to the court that you tried to settle the issue privately. This attempt of setttlement failed which meant we then had to go to the Australian court system. To begin the next leg of this libel suit, I needed to get an Australian solicitor to pursue the case. I contacted a half dozen attorneys and I learned that pursuing a case in Australia for libel against me was doomed to failure. Apparently, I could only win the case IF my damages occurred to a reasonably high level IN Australia. Since most of the damages were and would be (reputation and financial) in the US and the UK, I had a very weak case. In other words, as long as the producers of television shows to be aired in Australia cleverly pick foreigners to libel the crap out of, they will never be taken to court.

Since a lawsuit in Australia was now out, I pursued another methodology. I contacted two journalist organizations that were supposed to monitor ethics in journalism and investigate and punish those who do not follow the rules (the third organization I didn't bother with because that one was run by Seven West Media itself who had broken off with the others when things didn't go their way in the past!). However, both of those organizations refused to investigate Seven West Media in spite of the fact there was evidence that their standards had been transgressed. I can only guess they are really in league with the media organizations and are not going to bother with a nonAustralian's claims against them.

So, the end result; Australian journalists clearly can commit ethics violations against foreigners with impunity. If YOU are someone who is asked by the Australian media for an interview, think twice about cooperating. I still have one Australian media outlet and journalist who have been honorable with me (Mark Saunokonoko and Nine News) who I will still work with, but I will not be likely to cooperate with any others as it is not worth the risk to one's reputation.

Of course, it isn't only Australia that has a problem with journalistic ethics; the US and UK also have proven to be less than honorable which is why I usually restrict my interviews to live interviews so I cannot be edited, misrepresented, and libeled. All of this lack of integrity in the media is very disheartening because it prevents news from being truthful and factual and keeps people interested in getting the truth out to the public from sticking their necks out if doing so is going to result in getting them chopped off.

UPDATE! Just hours after I wrote this block, a friend I informed me that Rahni Sadler has been let go by Sunday Night! Supposedly, this all happened very quietly without any fanfare; she hasn't appeared since my segment came out...whoosh, gone. Now, I cannot say whether this had anything to do with my very willingness to speak out about her lack off ethics and complete abuse of my interview on the McCann case, but when Mark Saunokonoko wrote his article detailing my plans to sue Rahni Sadler and Sunday Night and then a number of UK papers picked up the story, it might well have been enough that the Sunday Night staff decided Rahni Sadler was getting far too much bad press and they were better off without her. It may just be coincidence but I sure hope that I helped send her on her way. She needs to be out of journalism and at work in some field where truth and honor don't matter.

NOTE: It is not entirely true I wasn't seeking publicity! But, I was not seeking publicity for me, I was seeking publicity to expose Rahni Sadler and Sunday Night. I am sure she thought she could do whatever she wanted without any risk because I would have no way of doing her any damage in return. Almost never can anyone really make enough waves to cause unethical journalists to suffer any consequences for their actions.

This was one of the reasons I had a lawyer draw up the basic legal statement about suing them because I knew I needed that to get the news to write about what Rahni Sadler and Seven West Media had done. Without a legal angle, they would have ignored me. I fully intended to go forth with the lawsuit, but it was even more important that the media cover me doing so in order to publicly put all the media on notice that ethics DO matter and false news and libeling people just to get a story is NOT acceptable.

I can't say my exposure of Rahni Sadler is reason for her removal from Sunday Night but if I am behind her dismissal, I couldn't be happier!


Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
June 27, 2017

FOX News Joins the Lying Media Brigade on the McCann Case

Yesterday, I received a phone call from a FOX NEWS journalist, Christina Corbin, who know absolutely nothing about the McCann case. After I discussed the main issues with her, she thanked me and asked me to send her a succinct statement that they could use in their article.

I thought they would follow through with facts because just a month ago they allowed me to speak out. 

"Madeleine McCann was Never Abducted, Expert Following the Case Says."

This is what I sent her:

As a profiler, the most important investigative technique is to focus on the actual evidence and not create theories that have no origination in the facts. Scotland Yard has spent six years carrying out a remit that required them to view this case as a stranger abduction which clearly has tied their hands and forced them to ignore any evidence that supports Kate and Gerry McCann as having any involvement in the disappearance of their daughter. Rather than explore the findings of the blood and cadaver dogs who hit on the McCanns' vacation apartment and car, rather than examining the conflicting and changing statements of the McCanns and their friends, rather than questioning why the McCanns showed little interest in the sighting of the Smith family who saw a man carrying off a small blond girl toward the beach on the evening of Madeleine going missing...they are pursuing wild theories of child sex trafficking gangs, burglaries gone wrong, and, now on the 10th anniversary, a woman in the area wearing a purple coat. While none of the evidence at this point proves the McCanns' guilt in the disappearance of their daughter, the evidence does prove that they should be the top suspects and, if they are not, the Scotland Yard investigation is a sham.

Apparently, that didn't appeal to the editors of this FOX article and the journalist who called me. They went searching for another profiler who would give them what they wanted; they found retired FBI profiler, Mary Ann O'Toole who clearly had little familiarity with the facts of the case. This is what she said:

To Mary Ellen O'Toole, a former FBI agent, the case is "solvable" a decade later. 

O'Toole, who is not involved in the investigation, said authorities must carry out two actions: re-examine old forensic evidence using new technology and re-interview key invidivuals at the resort on the night Madeleine disappeared.

"I would have a group of forensic scientists look at the evidence to see if we could re-evalute it using current technology," said O'Toole, who is currently the director of forensic sciences at George Mason University.

O'Toole said she would also re-interview all who were questioned at the resort, as well as interview individuals who might have been overlooked at the time.

"I would want to be looking at everyone: employees of the resort, delivery people, guests, customers, vendors there providing music and other services," O'Toole told Fox News.

"It’s often not the straggly-haired, off-putting individual, but someone who looks regular, quite normal," she said. "You would not rule out anybody."

The passage of time, O'Toole said, can sometimes be key in cracking open an unsolved missing persons case.

"Ten years can do a lot to people and they may now feel they can come forward with information they weren’t comfortable coming forward with at the time," she said.

O'Toole noted that stranger abductions are rare, but cited such cases in the U.S. -- including those in which the kidnap victims were later found alive -- like Elizabeth Smart, who was 14 when she was abducted from the bedroom of her parents Salt Lake City, Utah, home in 2002 and found alive nine months later.

"We’ve certainly seen cases here in the United States where children have been taken and returned, so we know there’s a possibility," she said. "That is one of the possible outcomes and we can hope for that."

Another theory that police say has not been ruled out is a "burglary gone wrong," but O'Toole and others say -- though not impossible -- it's highly unlikely.

"It’s much more likely that Madeleine was the target," said O'Toole. "People don’t morph from a jewel thief into a child abductor."

"If a stranger went into that room, that is really high-risk behavior for an offender," she said.

Unless Ms. O'Toole comes forward and states that she was misreprented by FOX News than I guess she joins the many who don't bother with the facts.

Thanks, Christina Corbin, for allowing the public to learn, once again, that fake news is what the media is promoting these days and it is time they demand that they turn off worthless media outlets (which might be most of them) and tell them that they are not media outlets they trust. If the media cannot do true research and spend time working on factual news articles, they should close their doors and stop peddling this crap.  If you have no understanding of a complicated case, you should not be reporting on it without diligent investigative effort and your bosses should not be telling you to just come up with anything within a few hours if they have any desire to be considered a reputable news source. And they should not telling you to follow some agenda rather than the truth.

As I have been trying to tell people for a long time, the news media is now about ratings and money and doesn't even attempt to provide facts to the citizens of their country. 

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
May 3, 2017

A Decade of Deception: The Tenth Anniversary of the Madeleine McCann Case

Ten years of lies.

Lies of the parents.
Lies of their friends.
Lies of the politicians.
Lies of the police.
Lies of the media.
.

Behind the lies are the agendas.
Recognize those and you will find the truth.

How do you recognize agendas?

Ignore words and pay attention to behavior.

The behavior of the parents always showed they cared more for their own welfare than Madeleine's.
The behavior of their friends always showed that they cared more for distancing themselves from the case rather than involving themselves in it.
The behavior of the politicians always showed they were more interested in protecting their country more than providing assistance and cooperation.
The behavior of the police always showed they were more interested in serving the people in power rather than the ideals of justice and public safety.
The behavior of the media always showed they were more interested in ratings and earnings rather than presenting the facts and illuminating the truth.

Actions speaks louder than words but many ignore what they see - covering their eyes because to see would require them to confront the truth which would lead to a loss of faith in the things we wish to believe.

But you SHOULD lose faith. It is only by losing faith that we as a society can start to make change. We can't fix the Madeleine McCann case - it is never going to see the inside of a court of law (and the actions of the PJ and Portugal also prove this; they have done nothing of worth in this case since 2007; since then they have allowed a foreign power to run the show and make a mockery of their investigation) - but the Madeleine McCann case should be a wake-up call that we need to work to change.

We need fix what is wrong with how cases are handled by law enforcement and how we fund them.
We need to get vote better people into office and hold them accountable.
We need to strike back against false news and misrepresentation of the facts in the media.

This is what the tenth annivesary of the Madeleine McCann case is all about. Maddie has been dead for a decade, but we are not.

Will we allow the deception to continue for another decade?

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
May 3, 2017

Why the Mark Rowley Interview Confirms my Belief that the Scotland Yard McCann Investigation is a Farce

I am stunned that Mark Rowley would give an interview which essentially details the fraud that this investigation is, but I thank him for it. For years I have been stating that the Scotland Yard review and investigation was a farce and a whitewash and I have had many angry emails and comments online that I am completely wrong, that Scotland Yard would never behave in such a manner - that surely, they are either truly searching for an abductor (for those who believe that Maddie was abducted, or that they are surely cleverly coming around to arresting the McCanns by way of eliminating all possible other suspects and secretly moving in for the kill. I have adamantly said for a long time that both sides are suffering from wishful thinking, that NOTHING Scotland Yard has done for six years resembles a proper and honest investigation.

Now, that Mark Rowley has gone on record with the following statements, I find my conclusions to be well founded. I will comment on what Rowley says below.

Courtesy of RosieandSam:

Transcript of interview between AC Mark Rowley (MR) and broadcast media for use from 21:00hrs on Tuesday, 25 April.

 Q: Six years’ on of Scotland Yard’s involvement, a team of largely 30 people, £11/12 million you’ve spent, what have you achieved?

 MR: We’ve achieved an awful lot. I think you know that we have a track record for using cold cases on serious old cases, and we solve many cases that way. This is no different in one respect but is particularly complicated. I think people get seduced perhaps by what they see in TV dramas where the most complex cases are solved in 30 minutes or 60 minutes with adverts as well. What we started with here was something extraordinary. We started with 40,000 documents. We’ve got the original Portuguese investigation and six or eight sets of private detectives who’ve done work and we did appeals to the public, four Crimewatch appeals, hoovering as much information as possible. Sifting that, structuring it and working through it is an immense effort. It’s much more ‘hard slog’ in reality than it is inspiration. That takes time and it takes systems. That’s what we’ve been working on. And what you’ve seen in the bits which have been reported publically is those appeals, when we’ve announced suspects, when we’ve made particular announcements, slowly crunching through it and focusing our attention and making progress. And of course at one stage we had 600 people who at one stage have been of interest to the enquiry, that doesn’t mean that they are suspects, people who were suspicious at the time or have a track record which makes us concerned about them, sifting, which focused the enquiry increasingly and when you’re doing this then across a continent and with multiple languages and having to build working relationships with the Portuguese, you put that together and that takes real time. 

PB: Apparently, you have achieved nothing of any merit. You haven't even proven an abduction or come up with a viable suspect. What you have accomplished is ignoring the evidence and spending a lot of the taxpayer's money.

Q: So when you talk of success and progress, it’s really a case of eliminating things? You’re not getting any nearer to finding out what happened?

MR: So our mission here is to do everything reasonable to provide an answer to Kate and Gerry McCann. I’d love to guarantee them that we would get an answer, sadly investigations can never be 100 per cent successful. But, it’s our job, and I’ve discussed it with them, we’ll do everything we can do, reasonably, to find an answer to what’s happened to Madeleine. And I know, Pedro, the senior Portuguese colleague I’ve worked with and his team, have a shared determination, to find an answer. That’s what we’re going to do.

 PB: Your mission is to provide an answer to Kate and Gerry McCann? That is exactly OPPOSITE of any proper mandate for conducting any criminal investigation. You are to only have allegiance to truth and justice. Besides, unless the parents of a missing child have been eliminated by way of solid evidence, they remain suspects and you cannot be working on their behalf.

 Q: You’ve described it as a ‘unique’ case. Why is it unique?

 MR: I think it’s unique in two or three respects. First of all the way its captured attention in different countries is quite unusual. You’ll get a very high-profile case in a particular country, the way it has captured interest across countries, I think is significant. The length of it. And it’s unusual to have a case like this where you’re doing a missing persons investigation, where ten years on, we still don’t have definitive evidence about exactly what’s happened. And that’s why we’re open minded, even if we have to be pessimistic about the prospects, we are open minded because we don’t have definitive evidence about what happened to Madeleine. 

 PB: Wait, you are have no definitive evidence (but you have some which does not point to abduction) but you are open-minded to what? Only an abduction? And you think it is significant to the case itself that it has captured the interest of the world and it is unusual to have a case be worked on for so long....how is any of this relevant to the actual crime itself? The reason people are fascinated is because of the UK interference and whitewashing of the McCanns and the amount of money spent accomplishing nothing.

Q: You say you haven’t got definitive evidence, do you have any clues at all which might explain what happened to her?

MR: So, you’ll understand from your experience, the way murder investigations work, detectives will start off with various hypotheses, about what’s happened in a murder, what has happened in a missing person’s investigation, whether someone has been abducted. All those different possibilities will be worked through. This case is no different from that but the evidence is limited at the moment to be cast iron as to which one of those hypotheses we should follow. So we have to keep an open mind. As I said we have some critical lines of enquiry, those linked to particular lines of enquiry, but I’m not going to discuss them today because they are very much live investigations.

PB: What a pile of malarkey! What ARE you saying? You don't know which hypothesis to follow? That is because you aren't following the evidence, you are just theorizing abduction possibilities and abductors out of the air.

Q: Do you have some evidence, in your six years of investigation, have you unearthed some evidence to explain what happened?

MR: We’ve got some thoughts on what we think the most likely explanations might be and we’re pursuing those. And those link into the key lines of enquiry we’re doing now. As I said, those are very much live investigations and I know that’s frustrating when you’re doing a programme looking back but it’s hard to talk about that now, it’s going to frustrate the investigation.

PB: What?

Q: I know it’s not your money, it has come from the Home Office, but how do you justify spending so much on one missing person?

MR: Big cases can take a lot of resource and a lot of time and we have that with more conventional cases which Scotland Yard gets involved with that run over many years. I think it’s worth noting that this cold case approach we do, every year we’re solving cases that have gone cold years ago. I think in the last year it’s 35 rape cases, and two murder cases. Some of those reaching back to the 1980s. The cold case approach does have some expense, it is time-consuming, looking back at old records, but it does help solve old cases and you give families and victims an understanding of what went on. It’s worthwhile. This case is unusual, it’s not in Scotland Yard’s remit to investigate crimes across the world normally. In this case, in 2011, the Portuguese and British prime ministers were discussing the case and agreed that Scotland Yard would help and recognizing that it’s not what we’re normally funded for, we were given extra money to put a team together to work with the Portuguese and that’s what we’ve been doing ever since. We’ve tried to be careful about public money and we started with that massive sifting and we’ve narrowed the enquiry, the funding has reduced accordingly. And we will stick with it as long as the funding is available, as long as there are sensible lines of enquiry to pursue.

PB: You try to be careful with public money, so you ignored the actual evidence, sifted through piles of useless crap from the PIs, pursued suspects and dug up land based on nary a "nugget" of evidence and that is how you take spend the taxpayer's money? Remind me not to send you out to the store with my credit card to buy a jug of milk.

Q: You’ve talked about 600 people. You at one point had four suspects. Can you tell me the story about how they came into the frame?

MR: So, one of the lines of enquiry, one of the hypotheses was could this be a burglary gone wrong? Someone is doing a burglary, panicked maybe by a waking child, which leads to Madeleine going missing.

PB: Why, let's make up a story based on zero evidence and find some local riff-raff and make it them!

Q: Most burglars would just run out.

MR: Possibly.

PB: No, probably.

Q: Difficult for the public to understand that potential theory, given that every child wakes up.

MR: In my experience, if you try to apply the rational logic of a normal person sat in their front room to what criminals do under pressure, you tend to make mistakes, so it was a sensible hypothesis, it’s still not entirely ruled out, but there was also lots of material about people acting suspiciously, a potential history of some recent thefts from holiday apartments. Working through that it was a sensible thing to pursue, and we had some descriptions to work with, and that led to us identifying amongst the 600, a group of people who were worth pursuing, have they been involved in this activity, have they had a role in Madeleine going missing? Because what the hypothesis was, then we’ve got some searches, we’ve worked with the Portuguese, they were spoken to, and we pretty much closed off that group of people. That’s one example of the journey I spoke about, you start with this massive pool of evidence, you understand it, structure it, prioritise it, you work through and you try and sift the potential suspects, and then you end up where we are today with some key lines of enquiry.

PB: Yes, criminals do make mistakes under pressure, but they usually leave evidence in the wake of it and don't kidnap a little child who can't identify them anyway. They don't sedate children during robberies and they don't accidentally kill a child, run away, and come back later to retrieve a child. What murder mysteries does your team read?

Q: As I understand it, the key to your suspicion about those four suspects was very much to do with their use of mobile phones and one of the criticisms of the original Portuguese police investigation was that they didn’t interrogate the mobile phone data as thoroughly as they could have done. How important was it for you as that part of your investigation for you to pick up and thoroughly investigate the mobile phone data?

MR: So that phone data is always something we will look at and we wouldn’t have had it available if the Portuguese had not got hold of it at the time so we need to be careful about criticism. But we had the data available and we worked with the Portuguese and that was part of the background to do with phone data and various sightings. There was enough there to say, not to prove the case, but there was something worth looking at in more detail and that’s what we did.

PB. People using mobile phones! What a bizarre behavior!

Q: How old were the suspects because I think you interviewed them originally through the Portuguese beginning of July 2014?

MR: By the end of the year we were happy to have brought them out and we were moving on to other parts of the investigation.

PB: Did you read all the commentary mocking your burglar theory?

Q: Do you have any other suspects at the moment?

MR: So, we have got some critical lines of enquiry that are definitely worth pursuing and I’m not going to go into further detail on those. Another I would say though is, these lines of enquiry we have to date, they are the product of information available at the time and information that has come from public appeals that we have done. Four Crimewatch appeals, and other media channels have been incredibly helpful, including yourselves, and thousands of pieces of information have come forward, some useful some not, but amongst that have been some nuggets that have thrown some extra light on the original material that came from the time and that is one of the things that has helped us to make progress and have some critical lines of enquiry we are pursuing today.

PB: I think you mean "No."

Q: The question of other suspects, is there anyone like those four who have been dismissed, is there anyone who has the “aguido” status?

MR: I’m not going to give that level of detail away, we have got some critical lines of enquiry and we are working with the Portuguese on that, we are both interested in. Disclosing any more information on that will not help the investigation.

PB. Yes, the McCanns, but we are not investigating them.

Q: You said the burglary gone wrong theory is not completely dismissed. What are the other theories? You have spoken in the past, Andy Redwood spoke in the past about focusing on the idea of a stranger abduction, is that still the focus, or a focus?

MR: Whilst we’ve got some lead ideas there is still a lot of unknown on this case. We’ve got a young girl gone missing 10 years ago. Until we get to the point where we have solved it, we’re unlikely to have definitive evidence as to exactly what happened at the time. All the hypotheses that you or I could come up with, they all have to remain open and the key lines of enquiry open today focus on one or two of those areas but we have to keep them all open until we get to that critical piece of evidence that narrows it down and helps us to be more confident as to exactly what has happened on the day Maddie went missing.

PB. Don't call her, Maddie; the McCanns don't like that. And are you saying absolutely nothing again?

Q: Over the years you have appealed for a number of what could be called suspicious-

looking men, watching the apartment, watching the apartment block. Knocking on the doors touting for a bogus charity. You have issued E-fits, have you been able to identify and eliminate any of those?

MR: Some of them have been identified and eliminated but not all of them.

PB: And none of them have been proven to have the slightest connection to the disappearance of Maddie.

Q: The theory of a sex predator responsible for Maddie’s disappearance is something the Portuguese police have focussed on. How big a part of your investigation has that been, because there were a series of sex attack on sleeping, mainly British children in nearby resorts. So how important has that

been to your investigation?

MR: That has been one key line of enquiry. The reality is in any urban area, you cast your net wide and you find a whole range of offences and sex offenders who live nearby and those coincidences need to be sifted out; what is a coincidence and what could be linked to the investigation we are currently dealing with and just like we do in London we have been doing in Portugal so offences which could be linked have to be looked at and either ruled in or ruled out and that’s the work we have been doing.

PB: Well, a small piece of truth. Yes, sex offenses occur in many areas and are not necessarily linked to the case at hand. In fact, there isn't a shred of evidence these other incidents have a thing to do with the McCann case.

Q: Andy Redwood, the first senior investigating officer, said in one interview his policy was to go right back to the beginning, accept nothing, but one thing you appear to have accepted is that this was an abduction. It’s in your first remit statement, it refers to ‘the abduction’, which rather suggests right from the start you had a closed mind to the possibility of parents’ involvement, an accident or Madeleine simply walking out of the apartment.

MR: Two points to that, firstly the involvement of the parents, that was dealt with at the time by the original investigation by the Portuguese. We had a look at all the material and we are happy that was all dealt with and there is no reason whatsoever to reopen that or start rumours that was a line of investigation. The McCanns are parents of a missing girl, we are trying to get to the bottom of. In terms of Andy using the word abduction, she was not old enough to set off and start her own life. However she left that apartment, she has been abducted. It is not a 20-year-old who has gone missing and who has made a decision to start a new life, this is a young girl who is missing and at the heart of this has been an abduction.

PB: The questioner says that there is a "remit that refers to abduction and you just ignored that point. You also ignored that there was a policy (Redwood? Really? Maybe he DID try and was ousted?) that one should go back to the beginning, accept nothing - something I have been saying for years is the hallmark of a REAL police investigation, but you don't obviously agree. You are okay with accepting the previous investigator's conclusions...wait..didn't they make the McCanns the top suspects and weren't they still not cleared as suspects when the case was shelved? So, you are outright lying here. And then you go on about how Maddie didn't go off on her own to start a new life??? Good lord, this is how you reason?

Q: One of the biggest criticisms of the Portuguese investigation, which they acknowledge as well, is that they did not interrogate the parents from the start, if only to eliminate them. When you started your investigation, you appear to have done the same. Did you formally interview the McCann’s under caution, ever consider them as suspects?

MR: So when we started, we started five or so years into this and there is already a lot of ground been covered, we don’t cover the same ground, what we do is pull all the material we had at the start, all the Portuguese material, private detective material, with all the work that had been done, what that evidence supports, what rules these lines of enquiry out, what keeps them open and you progress forward. It would be no different if there were a cold case in London, a missing person from 1990, we would go back to square one look at all the material and if the material was convincing it ruled out that line of enquiry we would look somewhere else. So you reflect on the original material, you challenge it, don’t take it at face value. You don’t restart an investigation pretending it doesn’t exist and do all the same enquiries again that is not constructive.

PB: Oh, so you don't really go back to the beginning; you just decide what else you want to explore. I agree that if there has been adequate investigation prior in a direction to rule out something, yes, you don't repeat the exercise, but you DO go back where there are gaps and people who have not been eliminated. The McCanns were NOT eliminated and there were so many anomalies with them and their friends, that not going back and investigating them and reinterviewing them is either incompetence or misconduct on the part of the detectives.

Q: The first detective in charge of the case said he was going right back to the start of the case and accepting nothing. It seems very much he was suggesting that it was going to be a brand new investigation.

MR: It’s a brand new investigation, you are going in with an open mind. You are not ignoring the evidence in front of you. That would be a bizarre conclusion. You would look at that material, what does it prove, what it doesn’t. What hypothesis does it open what does it close down and you work your way through the case.

PB: How can you have an open mind and ignore the McCanns as suspects?

Q: Just to be clear you did not interview the McCanns as potential suspects?

MR: No

PB: Well, there is finally the proof of what I have been saying for a long time. The police are not secretly investigating the McCanns, interviewing them behind the scenes. This simple "No" is absolutely the truth.

Q: Let’s move to today, recently you were given more funding £84,000 to £85,000, how is that going to be used?

MR: As you understand we started with a full-sized murder team of 30 officers, that was a standard operating approach at the time. So we start with that team and work through the massive amount of investigation. The Home Office has been funding that and of course it is public money so they review that from time to time and as the enquiry has gone on we suggested we could run it with a smaller group of people and that is what happened. That recent level of funding reflects that it’s keeping the team going for the next six months and we will want to keep this running as long as there are sensible lines of enquiry and keep asking the Home Office to fund it as long as there are those open lines of enquiry.

PB: In other words, you are getting nowhere and you are trying to shut down this travesty.

Q: I know you don’t want to go into detail but are there more forensic tests, is that what is going on?

MR: I’m not going to talk about detail of the type of work going on but there are critical lines of enquiry of great interest to ourselves and our Portuguese counterparts and there are some significant investigative avenues we are pursuing that we see as very worthwhile.

PB: What he is saying is we are not interested in forensic tests because that would be connected to the McCanns as suspects.

Q: Are you still waiting for answers to new ‘rogatory’ letters. I understand how the system works if you want something in Portugal, you have to send ‘rogatory’ letter and get that approved over there. Are there letters in the post?

MR: That process you describe reflects the first four or five years of our work there, sifting through mass amounts of material, putting together with new evidence that comes from appeals, generates new enquiries and the legal requirements the Portuguese have is quite labour intensive in terms of dotting I’s and crossing T’s and working through that detail. Where we are now is much narrower much more focussed.

PB: Yeah, we are running out of phony suspects. There are not enough creepy people in Portugal left.

Q: Is there anyone you are still looking for?

MR: Where we are now is much narrower and much more focussed.

PB. Not really.

Q: There was a report recently that there was an international manhunt in regards to a person you were interested in talking to, maybe not even a suspect, maybe a witness?

MR: There are odd headlines and odd stories in newspapers on a regular basis and most of those are nonsense.

PB: Yes, most of them generated by Clarence.

Q: You say in your statement, you are getting information on a daily basis, new information, what sort of information?

MR: First of all it is indicative of the level of interest in this case, not just in this country but across the world. The team are getting emails, phone calls, new information all the time and it ranges from the eccentric, through to information that on the surface looks potentially interesting and needs to be bottomed out and are constantly sifting through them.

PB: Yes, it is embarrassing to have the whole world watching a completely bungled farce.

Q: Are you any closer to solving this then you were six years ago?

MR: I know we have a significant line of enquiry that is worth pursuing, and because of that, it could provide an answer. Until we have gone through it, I won’t know if we will get there or not.

PB: So, no, we are not a bit closer.

Q: What area is that enquiry?

MR: Ourselves and the Portuguese are doing a critical piece of work and we don’t want to spoil it by putting titbits out on it publically.

PB. The "tidbits" are indicative as to how small the clues are...so small, they hardly qualify as anything of worth.

Q: How confident are you this will solve it for you?

MR: It is worth pursuing.

PB: It's shite.

Q: What does your instinct say about what happened to Maddie?

MR: If I start going in to my instinct having read the material of interest we are dealing with at the moment it would give away what we are looking in to so I’m not going to answer that. But what I would say from my experience of dealing with cold cases and these types of investigations is that this time, even sadly after 10 years of Maddie being missing there are nuggets of information and lines of enquiry that are worth pursuing and it is possible they may lead to an answer. As long as we have the resources to do it, and as long as we have those sensible lines of enquiry because if we can provide an answer to a family in this horrible situation that is what we must do.

PB: I have nothing to say about those "nuggets" - more teeny pieces of info - but, yeah, we aren't solving this case and we know why but we are going to give the McCanns the public answer soon and close this down. We need a bit more time to come up with the most believable answer to end this. We have to rethink the burglar thing.

Q: Do the significant lines of enquiry suggest to you Maddie is alive or dead?

MR: As I said earlier on we have no definitive evidence as to whether Maddie is alive or dead. We have to keep an open mind that is why we describe it as a missing person enquiry. Of course we understand why after so many years people would be pessimistic but we are keeping an open mind and treating it as a missing person enquiry.

PB: Except for those pesky dogs and a man carrying a pretty limp child to the beach and the fact the child has never reappeared and that IF the parents aren't covering up what happened to Maddie (her death in the apartment), it would be 99% likely that it was a child sex predator and she would be dead within hours. But, hey, let's not let evidence and logic stand in the way of spending millions of pounds of taxpayer dollars.

Q: You’ve said you are realistic about what you are dealing with, what do you mean by that?

MR: We are realistic about the prospects and the assumptions people will make 10 years on when a little girl has gone missing but there is no definitive evidence and as long as that is the case we have to have an open mind and treat it as a missing person enquiry.

PB: I don't want to talk about it.

Q: If she is alive, she is nearly 14, do you have any idea what she might be doing, where she might be, the circumstances she might be living?

MR: That is such a hypothetical question I cannot begin to answer.

PB: You can't even imagine Maddie is a fourteen-year-old.

Q: There is a chance she may still be alive.

MR: We have to keep an open mind, it is a missing person enquiry we don’t have that definitive evidence either way.

PB: No, but I am not going to admit that.

Q: How confident are you that you will solve the case?

MR: I wish I could say we will solve this. We solve more than 90 per cent of serious cases at Scotland Yard. I wish I could say I could definitely solve it but a small number of cases don’t get solved. What I have always said on this case and I’ve said to Kate and Gerry. We will do everything we can that is possible to try to find and answer. I hope to find an answer but can’t quite guarantee and as a professional police officer and dealing with the families in awful situations it always hurts you can’t guarantee success, but we will do everything we can to try to get there.

PB: We are buds with Kate and Gerry and we are readying them for their media appearances when we close the case without a definitive answer. We also want to not say Maddie is dead because that would mean the McCanns should close the fund down.

  

PB: ENOUGH!  If you would like to read the rest of the interview, click here.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
April 25, 2017