My Pig Got More Publicity Than Your Murdered Child: The Demise of Localized Media and Its Effect on Criminal Cases

What About that Dead Child in YOUR town?

Have you been in a 7-Eleven recently and noticed who is at the counter buying a newspaper? It's a geezer....a geezer who actually still reads the Metro section and maybe writes in a Letter to the Editor once in a while barking about some issue they believe is detrimental to their community.   The rest of folks, those not getting senior discounts at the movies, get their news from cable television and online....and I am pretty sure they don't get much local news. Sure, some still tune in at 10 or 11 o'clock and get the quick jolt of "if it bleeds, it leads" adrenaline and shake their heads over how badly some are behaving in their area, but, in reality, there is an extreme lack of local in-depth reporting....because national and global horror stories have eclipsed local news.

If I went around the neighborhood and asked folks about local homicides, I would draw a blank look from most of them. "Who? I don't remember that girl." "Oh, yeah, I remember hearing about that murder. Whatever happened? Did anyone get arrested?" But, if I asked them about JonBenet Ramsey or Caylee Anthony or Natalee Holloway or any victim of murder showcased on Nancy Grace in the past few weeks, I might get a blow-by-blow account of the entire police case. In fact, it is not just the citizens who lack interest in local news, the local news media isn't all that interested either. You can call until you are blue in the face trying to get the local newspaper or television station to cover anything in depth. In all my years of dealing with the media (and that includes 3000 appearances on television and radio and many print interviews), the most success I had getting the media to do an in-depth story on a crime was when the local authorities tried to evict my 20-year-old potbelly pig, Gwendolyn, from my home. I got an big interview with The Washington Post complete with photo and all three local television stations came out to do a story on Gwendolyn. I even had the County Executive's office ask me if the then County Exec, Jack Johnson, could come out and do a photo op with my pig (I declined the offer; I told them only one swine was allowed on my property at a time; Johnson is now serving time in prison).

My Pig Got More Publicity Than Your Murdered Child

But, when I went to the media over any local crime, I had no luck. Sure, they called me up when they wanted me to do commentary on an area homicide (gotta get those gory cases into the news at least for the short emotional impact) but, any real reporting on cases never happened. And because the local cases get so little attention, police departments know they have no citizenry oversight, no media is going to be breathing down their neck; the family is pretty much left to fight on their own and that is almost always a losing battle.

We no longer have many local organizations to fight for victims' rights; we have national organizations that manage money more than make a difference. We have a mass of information with websites full of photos of missing and dead children from all over the country but, locally, those children are ignored.

Talking about a case ad nauseum does little for justice because those talking about the case (online or on television) have no effect on local authorities because they don't give a damn what people think outside of their jurisdiction (unless it becomes a racial issue). And as long as people spend more time focused on matters that are hundreds or thousands of miles away from where they live, they give  local authorities carte blanche to handle local matters any way they please.

Lack of oversight by citizenry is one reason we see so many unsolved cases. Hence the reason that I feel I must work with the detectives inside the department improving how cases are handled because, these days, no one from the outside is paying any mind.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

August 21, 2014 

The Protocol Police Should Always Follow in Homicide/Missing Person's Cases

Every police department handling a homicide or missing person case and making a public statement or holding a press conference should adhere to what I call RULE NUMBER ONE:


This statement and ONLY this statement should be made:

"At this time, everyone who does not have an ironclad alibi is a person-of-interest. Even though some persons may fall extremely far down on our list of possible suspects, unless we can absolutely prove they could physically have no involvement with the crime (we are not including here the possibility of masterminding a crime or murder-for-hire), they will remain on our persons-of-interest list. Only when we can absolutely prove a person has no involvement will we remove them from the list.

To the public we ask that you consider thoroughly any person you might feel has involvement in the crime and contact us, even if you are not sure that your suspicion or information is valid. We will do due diligence to follow up on the information and work to determine if there is evidence enough to pursue the lead more thoroughly.

Even those persons who do not have an ironclad alibi and are low on our list of suspects, we will interview and investigate so that we can be sure to have as much information as possible to determine if they should be investigated more aggressively or not. If we do not properly investigate all connected, those persons may, at a later date, find themselves unable to prove their innocence as time is a destroyer of evidence and witnesses. To protect the case and all persons-of-interest, our police department will cover all the necessary bases and continue to thoroughly investigate all leads until the perpetrator is identified, arrested and prosecuted."

In other words, the police department should NEVER ignore persons just because they feel they are unlikely to be involved in the crime, they should NEVER trust their gut just to find out later they were wrong, and they should NEVER mislead the public with some charade to put a particular person or persons-of -interest at ease. This statement should be made EVERY time they go public with a case; what they tell persons behind the scenes is another matter. Lying to the public is a lousy idea regardless of the intent because it causes distrust and a "Cry, Wolf" problem no police department should engender.

If EVERY time the police went public they made this statement, then parents of missing children, husbands of missing or murdered wives, and neighbors, friends, and business parters would always expect to be routinely interviewed and investigated and, if the police indeed routinely did this, they would find out that doing so could save a lot of cases from going south.

Finally, police departments should stop making silly statements like, "We will catch you!" because oftentimes this doesn't happen and makes the department look bad. Just say, "We will do our absolute best to catch the perpetrator," because at least that statement, if one lives up to it, can be the absolute truth regardless of the outcome.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

August 20, 2014

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

My Final Post on the Madeleine McCann Case

Dear Blog Readers,

Today I make my final post on the Madeleine McCann case. I feel at this point, I have done what I can and no more effort will make any difference in the outcome of this case. In fact, from what I have seen recently, there is a sad desperation on the part of those who wish to see a positive resolution, turning on anyone who dares to suggest that justice simply will not be forthcoming in this particular case, that sometimes the bad guy wins, and the good guys have to accept that, in this lifetime, the truth may not come out.

I have been recently attacked for suggesting:

1) That the Gaspar statements are not reliable. I cannot get excited about these because we only hear from one woman who wasn't exactly sure what she saw and from her husband who does not agree with her assessment. Sadly, some of those who cry out that we ought to rely on facts in the McCann case are willing to allow one questionable statement about David Payne to become a focal point of what happened to Madeleine, that it is okay to slander David Payne while at the same time standing up for Gonçalo Amaral. I fail to understand this double standard; if there is not proof to denigrate David Payne, then we ought to leave further speculation to the investigation, should one even exist.

2) That Maddie did not meet her demise earlier than May 3rd. I have no problem with theories that suggest Maddie died earlier in the week, but I do not see any evidence to support this. If I can be polite about such speculation, I expect that I should receive the same kindness in return. I, myself as a  profiler, find the crime scene to suggest that Maddie died on the night that the McCanns claim she was abducted. This is my professional opinion which I explain in my book and in my blogs.

3) The Scotland Yard review is a sham. Through all my years as a profiler, I have years of experience of how real investigations are handled. Nothing that I have seen from Scotland Yard suggests that they are looking at any possibility but the abduction theory. I do not believe they are going to arrest or try the McCanns. If others would like to believe that Scotland Yard has spent three years and millions of  pounds  to cover ground that was not necessary to cover in order to take  down the McCanns, bully for them, but it is not anything I have seen in twenty years and I am not going to pretend I am seeing some clever ruse being employed when I do not.

Hence, I wish all those hoping for a positive end that their wishes come true, but as a professional I am not going to go along with a program just to make people comfortable. I have always spoken the truth and I am not going to change that now just to make sell people a pipe dream.

I will sit back now and wait for the outcome of the case. I wish Gonçalo the best and I hope that, in time, the truth about this case will come out so that future missing persons' cases will not suffer because the McCanns and the British government have misled the public in the most outrageous manner I have ever come across in my career.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

August 14, 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.

My Review of Richard D. Hall's "Buried by Mainstream Media: The True Story of Madeleine McCann"

There is a lot of excitement over Hall's new documentary about Madeleine McCann and deservedly so as this is the first film made about the case which actually explores the incredibly peculiar issues surrounding the case that make it such a mystery, issues which haven't anything to do with the actual facts of Maddie's disappearance. Finally, someone has cobbled together a very dramatic (and I mean this in an intellectual sense, not a human interest sense) reconstruction of the events that make this case astounding - the lies, the inconsistencies, the political connections and the overwhelming political support of the McCanns - point after point is driven home with good visuals and explanations that should leave any viewer with a clear understanding that the McCanns and their friends are hardly innocent bystanders and that they had unprecedented help from high places that is absolutely astounding. I thank Mr. Hall for getting this documentary out to the public and commend him for his fine work. Certainly, this documentary, Buried by Mainstream Media: The True Story of Madeleine McCann contains a lot more truth and depth than we can expect from Anthony Summer's book, Looking for Madeleine, coming out in the UK in September.

Having viewed this excellent documentary, where do I stand on its content and the effect it will have on the case?

Sadly, I think this work will be watched in its entirety mostly by those who already question the McCanns. Summer's "approved" book will get the big publicity and mass media will ignore the hell out of Hall's documentary. Yes, folks will do their best to pump it on Facebook and Twitter but compared to large publicity machines of MSM, it will be a drop in the bucket. Having said that, I am still glad this documentary is out in the public domain, but I believe, like my book and others' sites and videos attempting to bring the facts to light, it will be for posterity, not for present day influence.

As to content of the documentary, I really liked the way Mr. Hall brought up inconsistency after inconsistency, lie after lie, bizarre political action after bizarre political action. I think this methodology was strong in truly pointing out why Gonçalo Amaral doubted the McCanns and why there is something not right in the UK and Portugal that allowed the McCanns to abscond and get away with their criminal behavior. I especially loved the third segment which focused on the private detective agencies...a true eye opener.

I would have rather Mr. Hall left out some of the second part content about Payne and the Gaspars because this was not so much about the McCanns' inconsistencies but a confused muddle of Payne's statements and the Gaspar statement which. while interesting. is not proven factual. I would have liked to seen more about the McCanns ignoring the Smith sighting and something about the Scotland Yard involvement. However, the segment on the dogs was particularly strong and anyone watching that should certainly wonder about the McCanns involvement in their daughter's disappearance.

Having watched the documentary, I dd come away with some thoughts unchanged and some modified. Here is where I stand:

1) I still strongly assert the McCanns should be the top suspects in the disappearance of their daughter.
2) I absolutely believe Maddie disappeared on May 3rd and not anytime earlier; the crime scene and what appears to be a cover-up hardly represents any kind of intelligent staging one might expect if there were more time to consider a better plan. I find the last photo to be completely irrelevant and since the crime scene indicates an accident that occurred in the flat, I see no grand conspiracy of pedophilia or involvement by any other adult in Maddie's demise.
3) I believe David Payne may have lied about seeing Maddie (something the McCanns might simply have felt necessary to prove an alibi, that Maddie were alive when they left for the restaurant and "the abduction" occurred whilst they were with others) or why he was at the flat but I do not find any reason to suspect his involvement in the crime.
4) I do not find the Gaspar statement credible at all.
5) I find it most likely Gerry moved the body and moved the body alone and he is the only person who truly knows where Maddie is buried.
6) I believe the Smiths to have seen Gerry, mostly because the McCanns refused for so long to acknowledge that Smithman could be the abductor.
7) I find it likely that Gerry does have some strong political connections that set off the initial support of him and Kate, but I believe the support later on is a matter of politics that has nothing to do with the McCanns. Sometimes, both in the media and in politics, tidal waves of specific actions have more to do with money, ratings, careers, and other issues than being actually connected to the original issue. The same may be true for Scotland Yard.
8) I still believe Scotland Yard will close the case down in the fall with an unprosecutable suspect or allude to one and allow the case to dwindle away. I do not believe the McCanns will ever be arrested or prosecuted. The Summer's book and the final Scotland Yard conclusion will wrap things up along with the civil trial and the case will slowly fade from public view.

Again, if I am wrong about the outcome, I will be happy. If I am right, I am still happy that so many people made an effort to find the truth and keep the facts out there; who knows what effect these efforts will have on future investigations and, maybe one day, years from now, the truth will finally come out.


Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

August 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.

Why I knew Anthony Summers' Book on the Madeleine McCann Case would be Pro-McCann

I tossed out a short bit recently on Facebook and Twitter about how I was pretty sure Anthony Summers' upcoming book Looking for Madeleine due out in September would be a very pro-McCann book and I heard back from some that they held out hope that the book would bring out the facts and not be another whitewash of the evidence. I didn't explain in depth exactly why I thought this book was going to be one more nail in the coffin in the fight for truth and justice - for Madeleine McCann, Gonçalo Amaral, and everyone who has stuck their neck out - why I thought that this was yet another sign of the end days for this sad case which I predict will have Scotland Yard not far behind with their own final whitewash.

Here is why I profiled Mr. Summers and his book (co-authored with his wife, Robbyn Swan) as a pro-McCann piece of propaganda and not at all a well-researched and even-handed book on the case.

1) Mr. Summers emailed me for permission to use some quotes from my blogs in his book. The quotes were the kind that could easily be used out of context to show me as a conspiracy nut.

2) If Mr. Summers was truly doing in-depth research on the case and "in-depth interviews" as is claimed in this Amazon blurb, why did he never do an in-depth interview with me? I am not trying to say I am vastly important and how dare he ignore me, but I would think any author worth their salt would interview a well-known profiler who has written numerous blogs on the case, who has written a book that was Carter-rucked by the McCanns, and who has actually gone to Portugal to "look for Madeleine." But, no, he only emailed me just before the final copy went to print to ask me about a few quotes.

3) He interviewed some McCanns (not sure which ones).

4) He didn't interview Gonçalo Amaral.

5) He got a big publisher and his book is being published in the UK. If that isn't enough of a red flag, you are bloody well blind! Read: No fear of being Carter-Rucked!

6) What interesting timing......

Anyway, I asked Mr. Summers a few questions and he refused to give me a straight answer. I had the sickening feeling my suspicions were going to be well-founded.

And today I read the description of the book at Amazon.co. uk. There was the proof I profiled him and his book correctly.

Speculation that the McCanns played a role in their daughter's fate, the authors demonstrate, is unfounded.

Sadly, I think this book is going to get a lot of positive media attention. The man and his wife can write and their skill is going to convince people who read the book that the McCanns are innocent and an abduction actually  happened. He is touting the party line and the McCanns will surely back the book as, finally, they have "award-winning authors Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan" producing "the first independent, objective account of the case."

My foot.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

July 26, 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.

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.