How NOT to Commit Career Suicide

As you all know, I have been keeping quiet about this case and simply waiting for the end. However, there is a lot of excited buzz in the Madeleine McCann world that Nicola Wall, the new DCI on the case who is taking over Andy Redwood's position on the case, is going to bust this thing wide open and it is making me shake my head.

No. Way.

Why? Because if she did, she would make the Met look like fools for wasting over three years and 10 million pounds of taxpayer money. Furthermore, a defense attorney would shred her for going after the parents of the victim when it is clear the previous head of the McCann case (British side, that is) never once investigated the parents or their friends, clearly focusing nonstop on a stranger abduction.

Unless Ms. Wall wants to find herself back on street patrol, she is going to continue down the same road as her predecessor, until she can find a suitable suspect to finally put this case to rest.

Andy Redwood was not eliminating every other possible suspect and scenario so he could circle back around to the McCanns; no police investigation does that because it is ridiculous...you can prove something DID happen but you can't prove something DIDN'T happen which means there could always be one more suspect and scenario that could theoretically be the answer. If there is evidence, the McCanns can be arrested, charged, and taken to court but you can't take them to court just because you couldn't find another person who could have done it. Redwood wasn't moving his investigation toward the McCanns and Ms. Wall isn't going to either. They are either looking for the "REAL" culprits in the disappearance of Madeleine or they are looking for the BEST culprits to blame for her disappearance.

As I have previously stated over and over, I see no evidence that the McCanns are going to ever be looked at again by law enforcement and whatever happened to Maddie will continue to be unproven for years to come barring some incredible miracle like her body being found or someone finally confessing to the events of May 3, 2007.

God Bless, Gonçalo Amaral; may he survive the nightmare whether he wins or loses the civil case, and continue to hold his head high as he deserves to be respected as one who never backed down or sold out.

I can't say the same for Scotland Yard.


Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
December 8, 2014



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.

Let's Talk about Curtains

Anyone who works in a lab that tests hotel bedspreads from a crime scene can tell you that they may find dozens and dozens of DNA samples on just one item, perhaps even semen from more than two dozen men. Why is this? Because hotels don't wash bedspreads very often.

Now, let's talk about curtains. How often do you think curtains in rental flats are washed? Yeah, about as often as those hotel bedspreads; actually, probably far less often because curtains are not usually a place where spilled drinks and food, vomit, pee, or semen tend to land. Unless those curtains get really disgusting (full of cigarette smoke, for example), they probably hang around without getting a wash for quite a long while.

And while they are hanging around, they are touched quite often.....open, close, open, close, open, close. So, if you want to find a location in a rental unit that might still have a lot of DNA from a number of people, you just might choose the curtains.

After, you test them, you would then have to run down everyone who ever stayed in the unit (and their friends who visited) and all the employees who might have entered the room in order to exclude anyone who have had reason to be there. You could then try to match the DNA to known criminals if you have their DNA or their DNA is in a data bank.

Of course, in the end, if you still have some DNA that can't be matched to anyone, you can always suspect that mysterious DNA be the calling card of some unknown person who committed some terrible crime that happened in that location.

Just saying.


Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

When a Crooked Case Goes Down a Crooked Path....It's Pretty Much Over

I just wrote my last post on the Madeleine McCann case and I have received a barrage of emails and comments pleading with me to keep up my commentary after seven years of the case going south (and with Scotland Yard's intervention, can I say going south with a vengeance?) and some folks are angry with me, calling me a quitter, that I am silencing my voice on the matter instead of fighting on and on and on and on...

I ask you all.....where are your voices on all the other cases of missing and murdered children and adults...all the other cases that have been abandoned by the justice system (Baby Lisa, JonBenet Ramsey, Haleigh Cummings, etc.) or closed by railroading someone that no one cares about, leaving the real killer on the street? I will tell you.....some of the time you finally realized that you have to know when to fold 'em, when like so many other cases, the case you are following is never going to come to a proper conclusion; justice will never be served. And, the rest of the time, you simply are ignorant of the crooked means used to close a case...you believe, if you actually read the one paragraph in the paper written about a particular case, that the conviction of some easy patsy is justified or that the administrative closing of a case with a dead or unprosecutable suspect is proper...that evidence supports the police case. While the population ignores the travesty, I stand by, painfully watching the smoke and mirrors, knowing damned well the real culprit is walking free.

So what is to be done? What am I doing about these outrageous injustices? At a certain point, raising one's voice does little to change the situation. I know, I have been speaking out for two decades against this kind of thing...but mainstream media does not support such talk....and so it is pretty easy to get away with closing a case wrongly without worrying about any backlash. I have fought this and failed...badly.

When a crooked case goes down a crooked path, there is little that can be done to set that particular case straight again. There is only one way to make a real difference in a world where politics, media, and egos can flush a case straight down the toilet....only one really good way to prevent it from turning to shit; making sure it never goes down the crooked path.

Preventing a case from going down a crooked path requires putting all one's efforts into the First 48.  A cold case is usually cold for a reason; someone blew it from the beginning and unless there is an easy DNA match lying about, no cold case team or criminal profiler is going to come in and turn the case around. I have long stopped doing cold case work because it is a massive waste of time. My focus now is training detectives to profile and analyze their cases properly right from the start...on their own or with the help of profilers. If the case is handled correctly right at the beginning of the investigation, politics won't end up being such a factor in closing the case as it can be closed in a reasonable time period with the right suspect and enough evidence to get a conviction. Not every case - because sometimes the evidence just isn't there - but certainly more cases could have a better trajectory if these cases were handled a bit better

I am now fully focusing on profiling training for detectives. This year, a well-seasoned police chief and I will be putting together the training program we feel will make the biggest difference in solving homicide cases. This blog will be dedicated toward the education of detectives, profilers, and future detectives and profilers. The content will be about solving cases, the tools needed for analysis, the specific methods that make or break a case.

We each must choose the path we feel to be the one which will allow us to have the most impact. As of now, I choose to focus on police training....to keep the path from becoming crooked.


Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

August 19, 2014

All Portuguese Citizens to Turn in Cell Phones and Be Interviewed by Scotland Yard

"Not here!"

Breaking News from Bollux Media!


Scotland Yard, leaving no stone unturned and no Portuguese citizen unsuspected, has requested that they be allowed to interview all Portuguese citizens and examine their phones.


Bollux Media: Mr. Redwood, wow, this is really incredible! Why is this happening?

Andy Redwood: As many have suspected by our previous actions, Scotland Yard wants to insure that we do not neglect one single lead in the Madeleine McCann case and since anyone could have taken Maddie for any reason, we must identify where each and every citizen of Portugal was on the night of May 3rd, 2007.

Bollux Media: I see. But, then, what about those folk who might have been visiting the country? Does Scotland Yard have a list of each and every person who might have driven across the border and on to Praia da Luz that evening?

Andy Redwood: Don't change the subject; that is a matter for another day.

Bollux Media: Sooo, after you identify all the people that don't have an alibi, ummm, what happens then?

Andy Redwood: Can I get another beer?

Bollux Media: So, let me get this straight. Rather than focus on the things that you know, you are focusing on all the things you don't know?

Andy Redwood: Well, we have to eliminate all the things we don't know so that we can then prove in court what we do know.

Bollux Media: Isn't that kind of a roundabout way of doing things, Mr. Redwood?

Andy Redwood: Not if one wants to spend a lot of time in luxury hotels in Portugal.

Bollux Media: So, what you are saying is that you don't want the defense to claim that you pounced right on the McCanns and ignored other leads?

Andy Redwood: Exactly! Since we don't have enough evidence to prove in court that the McCanns did it, we want to be sure to prove that no one else actually did it.

Bollux Media: Riiiiight. Okay, well, you detective folk sure have a complicated way of doing things that I am sure makes sense to people who understand how law enforcement works.

Andy Redwood: I am glad you finally got the picture.

Bollux Media: Thanks for the interview, Mr. Redwood.

Andy Redwood: You are most welcome. I love the media. Without you, all our efforts would just be wasted.


This report is brought to you by Bollux Media and

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

July 5, 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.

McCann Media - Journalism Gone Wild or Scotland Yard Orchestration?

Gerry and Jez Didn't See Them Either

When I have written posts about my concerns about what Scotland Yard is doing in the Madeleine McCann case, I have gotten quite a few comments that I am falling for media falsehoods and that I don't really know what Scotland Yard is up to, what their agenda is, and who and what they are really investigating. I would like to address this issue as it is the key to why I do not believe the Scotland Yard investigation is on the up-and-up and why I do not see any evidence of the McCanns being included as an investigative avenue.

Sure, there are lots of erroneous and tabloid-trash reports in the media all of which can be taken with a grain of salt. However, there are three glaring media stories which have everything to do with Scotland Yard wanting them to be public: one, Crimewatch. two, the recent searches, and three, the suspects.


Let's start with Crimewatch. This was not a journalist's take on what happened. This was a piece of media designed and delivered by Scotland Yard to a good portion of Europe.It was a propaganda piece with the intent of planting the abduction theory solidly in the minds of the public. Research done, the second part of the plan is action; developing, in stages,what happened to Madeleine, so that by the time a theory is concluded upon by Scotland Yard and disseminated to the public (thereby administratively closing the case; there is never going to be a criminal case), the public will already have the scenario in their brains as they have been fed, scene by scene, what happened on May 3, 2007.

First, we have the Scotland Yard approved crime reconstruction. The public got to see, in living color, what happened that night at the Tapas, at the McCann vacation flat, and on the streets of Praia da Luz. This scenario is not one made by an independent media outlet or by the McCanns or by some individual like  Gonçalo Amaral or Pat Brown, but by Scotland Yard....Scotland Yard with its professional crime analysts and two years worth of researching all the facts of the case. This is a powerful piece of propaganda. It sets the stage for Scotland Yard's future theory.

And then we have that illuminating moment! Andy Redwood has eliminated Tannerman! In one stroke, he has proven both Jane Tanner and the McCanns to be truth tellers, and this is very important, for the public must not think there was collusion on the part of the Tapas 9. Also, we can't have two choices of suspects with the abductor going two separate directions. We must have one to carry the scenario forward. So we must have Smithman and this is the crux of how Scotland Yard and Andy Redwood will twist public thinking. Clearly, the Smith sighting is hugely damaging to the McCanns which is why they did everything in their power to hide and downplay it. It is an issue that must be resolved. The only way this can be done is to find a suspect that matches well enough in looks to replace Gerry (and it doesn't have to be all that close - the Smiths aren't going to be brought back into the public eye) - and become Smithman. This suspect has to have some reason to be seen in that area by the Smiths and so he must fit the crime scenario movements. I strongly believe Scotland Yard already had the burglary theory and multiple suspects in mind before they did Crimewatch. Although Andy Redwood then orchestrated another video bit with "Smellyman" as a suspect slipping into vacation flats across the Algarve, I think this was done to allow for the abduction theory to appear well investigated (along with the many other suspects mentioned in the media). The public needs to believe that this is a long and exhaustive investigation so that when a conclusion is reached, it doesn't appear to be something just tossed out to get it over with.

Finally, with the shout-out to the public for tips - how the public loves to be included and respected when it comes to solving crime - Scotland Yard can always also claim they got new information via Crimewatch that supports their theory, the source of which cannot be released.

So, the first piece of Scotland Yard media has been accomplished. Now, the second piece. The massive search of Praia da Luz. The media did not make this up or misconstrue it. The search was painstaking and thorough, orchestrated entirely by Scotland Yard....and totally ridiculous if one is following the evidence. But, if one is developing a scenario, it makes sense. As soon as the first search began, I stated I believed the location was selected because it was someplace a suspect frequented or near where he lived or worked. Sure enough, this was what was behind the locations. Since none of any of the present suspects have any true links to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, why would any police agency spend a fortune searching land before anything solid had been established as to the suspects committing the crime? Because it establishes that Maddie is dead (because they proved that by searching with cadaver dogs) and that someone who is Smithman (but not Gerry) carried her body across that land and did something with her remains. That someone is someone who lives in or near Praia da Luz, that someone is a local criminal. They also may have done this so that they could say Maddie's body was not buried (at least not permanently), that it was put aboard a boat and taken out to sea. So, we have a local conspiracy, but not one of the Tapas 9.

Enter the next major media exposure....the suspects, the whole motley bunch of them. Suspects nobody really likes, suspects people can believe could have done something criminal and stupid. They are questioned and the cadaver dogs are even brought (unsuccessfully) to Malinka's old vehicle. Once this final phase of the media propaganda is rolled out, it doesn't really matter if anything is proven or even clearly pronounced by Scotland Yard and Andy Redwood. The show has already come to an end. The four suspects don't have to really admit anything...it can always be alluded to that one of them gave relevant information that has led to understanding what happened to Maddie that night and where her body was put (my guess will be at sea...can't be found). Or, nothing much more may be said about his group, Tractorman, Smellyman....whoever.....because when Scotland Yard says they have done all they can, that they have run down all investigative leads, and they have a pretty good idea what has happened which they have told the parents, they do not even need to elaborate (they might well give a full final scenario, but they may forgo that). They don't need to "prove" anything or even give absolutes because of this:

I have already myself envisioned how this group of men did something to Maddie that night. I can see them planning their robberies, one or two of them entering the flat and Maddie screaming. I can see one of them putting his hand over her mouth and realizing that he held it there to long. I can see the man carrying Maddie away, past the Smith family to one of the other burglar's houses, lying her on the sofa. I can see the men discussing what to do, phoning each other, setting up a couple of look-outs and spiriting Maddie's body away, to bury or to dump at sea. Alternatively, I can see smelly man doing something to Maddie. I can see both these scenarios in my head in spite of the facts of the case, in spite of the fact I have read the police files and been to Praia da Luz to investigate, in spite of the fact I wrote a book detailing a scenario involving the McCanns, and despite the fact I believe Maddie was buried west of Praia da Luz by Gerry.

And if I can imagine an stranger scenario like this so easily, how much easier will it be for people not so familiar with the case to conjure up that picture in their minds? Add to this the future media commentary, and you have a home run. Like watching a crime series, week by week the scenario has been built up in living color and at the end of the season, the story will have an ending, and ending that is fitting to all the chapters of the story that have led to the conclusion. I don't know if we are seeing the very end of the "investigation" or we will see a bit more leads followed before it all dwindles down to silence, but I believe it will end with the libel trial.

Scotland Yard has been playing the media, not the other way around. That many of the detectives are only dutifully carrying out their assignments and may even believe they are doing a proper investigation does not mean those running the show aren't in the know; Andy Redwood knows full well what he is doing and what he is doing is what he has been told to do. Come the fall, I think we are going to see the end of the show, there will be a solid round of applause from the McCanns and the media, Summers new book will come out and Kate and Gerry will finally move on with life, probably in a way which will make us here physically ill.

The media has always been at the beck and call of the powerful. At times, it gets away from them, but, most of the time, it serves their purposes quite well.

Pat Brown

July 3, 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.

Will DNA "Solve" the Madeleine McCann Case?

DNA technology is a wonderful thing. Sometimes it is the defining piece of evidence that puts the killer away. Sometimes it is the only way a homicide case that has been cold for years can finally identify who committed the crime. But, sometimes DNA is used to close cases the police want put to rest and the use of it is not exactly kosher.

We have just heard that Scotland Yard requested Portugal gather DNA from four suspects last year. The question in folks mind is, what will they link this DNA to? Was there some DNA in this case we are unaware of or are they going to retest some evidence and find this DNA? Or is something very concerning going on with Scotland Yard's request? Let me give you two examples to ponder.

There is a very high profile case in the US that included ten murders, four of them of a family that began the supposed series. The case, the BTK (bind, torture, kill) homicides, though heavily investigated by local police and the FBI came up with blank for thirty years. Then, through a weird twist, a man by the name of Dennis Rader, a local married man who did code enforcement, made a dumb mistake and got the police interested in him. Very long story short, he was arrested and charged with all the murders in this series, and he confessed in court to each and every one of them with a description of how he did them; there was no actual trial. One of the most unusual wrap-ups I have ever seen. He got life in prison and some deal for his wife. There was a huge press conference with local law enforcement and the FBI and lot of congratulations passed around. Everyone went home happy; the police agencies, the media because they got a great story, the public because the police finally caught the guy, and the families who now had answers.

Except there is a big problem with this ending to the BTK crimes; the police never had to show the evidence they claimed they found at this man's house and they never showed the DNA reports that supposedly linked this man to the deaths of the family of four and one other woman who was killed a number of years later. Because this man confessed in court and was truly very creepy, no one seems to be questioning his links to all the crimes.

Let me say this; the guy is a serial killer, no doubt. I believe he killed one of the female victims (I believe a later copycat killing) and I believe he murdered a woman not specifically included in the series who was murdered after 1990, when the death penalty was reinstated in Kansas. I believe the prosecutors made a deal; confess to the other crimes and we won't charge you with the one which will get you executed. In other words, Rader could become an infamous serial killer and duck the death penalty at the same time; I would take the deal if I were him.

But, I think the court confession was a charade. Dennis Rader didn't say anything in the courtroom that we already didn't know or the police already didn't know. But it is the DNA claim that was really fraudulent. First of all, I know firsthand from the detectives on the family homicides that the DNA was too degraded to be of use. Which is why my suspect in those crimes (who was a suspect in an unrelated murder and was one of the main suspects in the BTK killings at the time) could never be charged. Rader's DNA was also supposedly linked to a crime in which the woman's husband had been a suspect right up until Rader was arrested. Now, how could that be if there was DNA available in that crime all along? But, I guess the media doesn't want to ask those questions because the storybook ending was very satisfying.

There is another case in which a convicted (for life) rapist just got charged and convicted of a twenty-year-old crime. He was convicted solely on DNA; no witnesses, no other physical evidence, no confession. In fact, the man took an Alford plea in court (which means he admits the state may be able to convict him but he doesn't plead guilty to the crime) and he stood up in court and told the judge, "did not kill that girl." Now, I know a psychopathic rapist is hard to believe; after all, he didn't even allow his defense to fight the case. He took the Alford plea on Day Two, stunning his lawyers who have told me he did so because he couldn't get the drugs he wanted in the jail he was transferred to and he didn't want to lose his prison cell back at the penitentiary if he was gone too long. He already had life and this conviction wasn't going to affect him in any way. They told me the DNA report was questionable.

I bet it was. The detective on that case AND the state's attorney had both told me years back that "there were no sperm fractions found" which meant there was no DNA with which to match to anyone; hence, no arrest could be made and certainly no conviction. Yet, oddly enough, years later, the case was suddenly closed with magic DNA and a suspect nobody cared about.

People hear DNA and they automatically think that this means solid proof. They don't understand that DNA testing has its failures, it incorrect analyses, and, sometimes, the claim DNA linked a suspect to a crime can be completely fabricated. It is hard for people to believe this goes on, but it does and the issue has been rarely addressed (although one book, Tainting Evidence, broke the silence on this).

So, if DNA suddenly pops up to link to any of these recently questioned suspects, I think the majority of people will accept a Scotland Yard claim to its existence and validity. One way they can do this is to claim that a partial profile matches one of the suspects, enough for Scotland Yard to be convinced the suspect was involved in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, but, unfortunately, not to the extremely high legal standard required to prosecute. If they claim there is a partial match and then add in some behavioral stuff, like phone calls made that night, the case can be "solved" and shelved  of the and most public will accept the conclusion without giving too much thought to the possibility that no DNA actually really linked any of these men to the death and disappearance of Madeleine.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

July 2, 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.

Unless Maddie is Found

I was not going to post another blog about the Scotland Yard review/investigation, but when I see so many people still believing that this new round of interviews is going to solve the case, that somehow these people are going to spill the beans on the McCanns, that something must have been found in the searches, that sniffer dogs standing by is a sure sign that now the British are giving credence to the previous dog findings, I can't help myself; I have to address the issue.

Here it is in a legal nutshell: only if Maddie's body is found will anyone be prosecuted.

It doesn't matter that someone thinks they saw Gerry carrying a child that night.
It doesn't matter if Malinka says Murat is really in league with the McCanns.
It doesn't matter if the sniffer dogs hit on some rental car of these new suspects or their own car or on Murat's driveway.

Why?

Because if you add any new information (not proof) to the abundance of information already in the investigative files, it is next to nothing and will not provide anything of credibility with which to charge anyone; no prosecutor in his right mind would take such a mess to court.

Prosecutor: The new sniffer dog hit on Murat's driveway.
Defense Attorney: So what? The old sniffer dog hit on the McCanns' hire car.

No perpetrator of this crime is going to admit to anything seven years later when he himself knows there is not a shred of physical evidence existing to link to anyone. Anything these new "suspects" might say during the present interviews is going to be so limited, the case is hardly going to be blown wide open. No one is going to admit they kidnapped Maddie, helped bury Maddie, or turn over photos of Maddie in captivity.

Only, and I repeat, only if Maddie's body is actually located is there the possibility of this case moving forward. And, considering there is no good reason to implicate oneself after getting away with a crime for so long, none of these "suspects" is going to suddenly confess to where he buried Maddie - as a lone perpetrator, a member of some criminal group, nor as an accessory after the fact to the McCanns.

What is happening in Praia da Luz is orchestrated to coincide with the Amaral trial and to bring the case to a suitable administrative conclusion by the end of summer.

I have just been contacted by Anthony Summers whose new book, Looking for Madeleine, will be hitting the stands in the UK in September. He seems to have not an ounce of fear of being Carter-Rucked and his very-late-in-the-game shout-out to me to ask permission to use a few quotes from my blogs leads me to believe he is not going to spend a great deal of time in the book  addressing Gonçalo's and my professional analyses of the case and the McCanns' possible guilt; it will be a book on the McCann search and the Scotland Yard review and a small bit about those people who question the McCanns' innocence.

For all of you who think there is going to be some huge public outcry when Scotland Yard administratively closes the case with a "reasonable theory" of what happened to Maddie, think again. Whether the McCanns win or lose in court, Gonçalo Amaral will still be portrayed as a "disgraced Portuguese cop" who traumatized the innocent parents of a missing child and the Scotland Yard review will be touted as a success in that England cares enough about any missing child to go the distance and find answers for the family. The media will also gush about how Scotland Yard did a spectacular job trying to catch the perpetrator or perpetrators and how they "solved" the case (if only in word). Finally, the Summers' book will come out and won't be pulled off the market by the McCanns, hence becoming the first "unbiased" and independent book on the case, the first book on Maddie to be published by a major publishing house, a book the public will accept as an intelligent and proper synopsis of what has happened over the last seven years.

Check.
Check.
Checkmate.

Sorry, mates. Sometimes it is what it is.


Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
July 1, 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.

Thank You, Scotland Yard

As the week of digging up Portugal for no discernibly good reason comes came to a close, Kate and Gerry McCann told the press how pleased they were that Scotland Yard had put forth such effort but not found a dead Maddie. As they fly to Portugal on Sunday to testify against Gonçalo Amaral, their argument that he has caused them great emotional pain and damaged the search for Madeleine has not, in the end, been weakened by Scotland Yard's recent activities. In fact, Scotland Yard's Praia da Luz digging and subsequent statements have actually strengthened their case.

The massive money and time spent over the last three years and in the recent spectacle at the Snail go to show how difficult the struggle is to find Madeleine or at least what happened to Madeleine. Even Scotland Yard with their millions of pounds of taxpayer money haven't yet been able to solve the mystery, a mystery that wouldn't exist if the PJ hadn't failed so dismally in their investigation when the case was fresh and if Gonçalo Amaral hadn't wasted early opportunities to follow good leads to locate Maddie instead of being hellbent on convicting the McCanns. If even Scotland Yard can't seem to clean up the mess and bring this case to closure with so much money and manpower, the damage to the case by the Portuguese police's incompetence  and Amaral's refusal to consider any other theory than the McCann's involvement is quite obviously tremendous. And, if Scotland Yard with all their seemingly unlimited budget and detectives has not yet found Maddie, who can blame the McCanns for failing to find her, in spite of all the cash they have collected through their fund?

On top of all this, Scotland Yard has just issued this incredible statement:  "This recent work is part of ensuring that all lines of inquiry are progressed in a systematic manner and covers just the one hypothesis that she was killed and buried locally."

Two things jump out at me: the first thing is that the statement does not include the words "in the vacation flat" which means, at this point, Scotland Yard is not necessarily giving any credibility to the cadaver and blood evidence in the apartment. And this means their analysis does not support Amaral's conclusion, and in fact, indicates that he came to such a conclusion without reliable evidence; hence, he harmed the McCanns by claiming Maddie was dead, that she died in the apartment, and that her body was removed by the McCanns. The second thing that jumped out at me is that this is "just one hypothesis, " which opens the door for Maddie being alive which validates the McCanns' search, which in turn supports the McCanns' assertion that Gonçalo Amaral's claims in his book are libelous and damaging.

Thank you, Scotland Yard, for conducting this charade of an investigation which has worked out perfectly for the McCanns and been timed just right so that they can now enter the courtroom with their heads held high with just the added ammo they need to possibly win this outrageous and ridiculous lawsuit.

God help, Gonçalo.


Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

June 13, 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.

Find a Burglar and Prove He Did It

A little while back, when I stated I believed this whole Scotland Yard investigation had zero focus on the McCanns, I said what Scotland Yard was likely doing was searching for Madeleine's body on land near where their key suspects either lived or worked. We have heard via the press (and although this information can be questionable, the Portuguese press seems to agree for once with the British press) that the scrubland area searched all last week was an area near to where at least one of the drug dealing suspects lived. Today, we get word that Scotland Yard has moved to a new location in the vicinity of a water and sewage plant four miles away in Lagos where dead heroin addict Euclides Monteiro worked.

There is actually nothing wrong with this strategy. It is a fact, for the most part, that killers dump or bury bodies quite near where they live or work, often within a mile of these locations. Why? Because when you get rid of a body, you want to make dead sure no one is watching you. Nothing worse than randomly choosing a little side road, pulling over, getting the body out of your trunk and as you go to dump it in the trees, you find a group of eight teens smoking weed staring at you; the spot you casually picked turns out to be a well-used teen hangout.

No, it behooves a killer to be sure that the spot he picks to rid himself of a body is isolated and witness-free. So, the killer goes to where he is very comfortable, a place he has been to or driven by dozens of times. And, naturally, the places you are most familiar with are locations connected to your own stomping grounds; home, work, relatives, friends, and pleasure spots. When you find someone going REALLY far afield to get rid of a body, it is almost always true that this is because he knows the victim and will become a suspect almost immediately. He wants that body far away and never  accidentally found.

So when Scotland Yard started doing their scrubland search, in an area that made no sense if they were looking at the McCanns, I had to conclude they picked it because it had some connection to another suspect. And there is a big problem with their methodology - outside of the fact they are totally ignoring the evidence that points to the McCanns - and that is they appear to be digging up areas based on suspects that do not yet have any evidence connecting them to the crime.

Now, I am sure I am going to see some commenter below say, "YOU don't know what Scotland Yard knows; maybe they DO have evidence linking drug dealers/burglars/pedophiles to Maddie's disappearance." Let me respond to that. Yes, it IS possible Scotland Yard knows something I don't about these men, but it can have nothing to do with hard evidence. Anyone who has read the files knows what the physical evidence indicates: Maddie died in the apartment and there was no proof of an abductor. Even if one somehow thinks an abductor came into the apartment and left no evidence (which actually is possible, but not probable), this would still mean that Scotland Yard has no physical evidence to link to these alleged suspects. Secondly, since they have not even questioned these suspects, they have no physical evidence from their houses or cars to link them back to the crime. This only leaves two kinds of "evidence"; that they used their cell phones somewhere in or near Praia da Luz (believe me, Scotland Yard cannot pinpoint the location of any call down to the block of the McCann flat or any burial spot) on the evening of Madeleine's disappearance or one of these guys said something like, "Yeah, I grabbed that little girl" whilst he was drunk off his arse. And though these bits of information might be interesting enough to warrant further investigation into these men, this kind of information in no way constitutes enough evidence to dig up Portugal. So, then why is Scotland Yard doing so?

There are only two possibilities in my mind: Andy Redwood is a pretty daft fellow (he was told to rule out the McCanns before starting and ignore any evidence related to them and he did just that) and has put the cart before the horse; he has jumped to the conclusion that these burglars/drug dealers were involved in the disappearance of Maddie without any real proof, and following the "nearby burial rule," has gotten all excited about solving the crime and raced on to find Maddie's body. It won't be the first time in law enforcement history this has happened; there is some odd thrill about looking for lost treasure - it just might be over there! And one just can't resist dogging it down (pun intended).

The other possibility is that this is the end show for wrapping up the case in the McCanns' favor. Find a good-enough suspect, one that can't disprove his involvement (because he is dead, in jail, or just such a loser no one will believe him anyway), do everything you can to retrieve Maddie's body from near to where he lives or works, and then close the case with a believable scenario (to those who have never read the PJ police files) and go home having tried your darnedest.

Either way, I don't see anything good coming of this ridiculous excess searching in all the wrong places; if you don't follow real evidence, all the digging in the world will not find you what you are looking for.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

June 8, 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.