“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

Maria Awes: Is She REALLY an Investigative Journalist? Not if You watched her Serial Killer: Devil Unchained

The media continues its downhill slide into garbage tabloid offerings. Already we have a majority of television news channels spouting fake news, claiming things that have no basis in fact but are purely a product of agenda. Now, true crime shows are descending into the pit, not much concerned with the “true” part of crimes, but simply about the moneymaking, exploitive, prurient aspects to the shows they present. Netflix is the worst offender with its travesty “Making a Murderer” in which a defense attorney is given the freedom to slant the show, to pervert the evidence so as to incite the audience into believing an innocent man (read: psychopathic cat-burning, rapist, serial killer) has been railroaded and should be released from prison.

Now, we see Oxygen (Oprah’s network that set out to do positive shows) doing nothing but true crime junk. I just participated in their show on The Case of Martha Moxley that turned out to be trash. Although a portion of the evidence I presented was aired, the host/ex-prosecutor Laura Coates and ex-police detective Mark Fuhrman poo-pooed what I said, yet never presented any evidence against my conclusions. They also never allowed the fact that Michael Skakel had an airtight alibi to be examined. Their agenda was anti-Michael Skakel and I was only brought on to offer another suspect which they would then shoot down. I will never again do a taped show without a strong belief that I am not being used to develop “drama” as opposed to being there to provide an expert analysis. Now, Discovery  is a network I have done decent stuff with including I, Detective for four years  which featured mostly police work and evidence analysis - and The Mysterious Death of Cleopatra in which I presented evidence supporting an alternative manner of death (homicide) for the queen as opposed to a suicide by cobra. Fast forward a number of years and Discovery has pretty much nothing but killer shows (literally just about the killers and how cool they are).  So I am not surprised they aired Maria Awes’ Committee Film’s Serial Killer: Devil Unchained, a four part series giving infamy to scumbag serial killer Todd Kohlhepp and ignoring much of the truth about the reality of the police work and his claim to be the Superbike mass murderer.

Maria Awes, executive producer and supposed investigative reporter for Committee Films and this Discovery series, has managed to put together an exciting look into the mind of a serial killer and all the horrible things he has done. Lot of reading of Kohlhepp’s letters, face time with him in prison, and reenactments of his rapes and murders will surely give something for Kohlhepp to jerk off to every night of his incarcerated life and titillate the viewers as well . I found it disgusting and revolting to give this kind of attention to a psychopathic killer. Simply reprehensible.

But, let’s move on to the either lack of ethics or lack of investigative journalism of Maria Awes or both. She claims to be an investigative reporter and the series certainly shows her going about researching and trying to get answers. But going through the motions or faking the motions for a television show is not the same thing as true investigative journalism. TRUE investigative journalism like TRUE crime involves the TRUTH, something which does not appear to be important to Maria Awes.

When the promo came out for the show, I was shocked to hear in the video that she and Gary Garrett, the “biographer” of Todd Kohlhepp (read: some dude who once worked with him who claims to be a writer of some sort and became Kohlhepp’s prison pet and, therefore, useful to Awes) both question whether Kohlhepp had committed the Superbike mass murder because of two major issues; one, he claimed all four victims were shot in the forehead when, in fact, none were, and two, that he had the order of the shooting wrong. What I DIDN’T hear was my name being mentioned, that I was the profiler who worked on the case with the Spartanburg County Sheriff’s Office and that I was the profiler who analyzed Superbike via all the evidence I viewed at the SCSO during the week I spent with them, nor that I was the profiler who went public WITH that evidence and was very vocal that Todd Kohlhepp made a false confession and the two biggest proofs of this were the claim the victims were shot in the forehead and that he had the order of the shooting wrong. When I watched the show, sure enough, my name was mentioned nowhere in it and nowhere does the show credit me with the original analysis bringing up these important points.

Both, Awes and Garrett have responded to my accusations of unethical journalism, that they presented this analysis as their own without crediting my work. Both have stated they came up independently with these conclusions but, neither claim they never knew about me or read my work. In other words, they read my blogs online that included all of my analyses. Even Todd Kohlhepp has read my blogs!

Pat - it is important you know that all of the reporting for the series was based on an independent review of the full case file and consultation with others close to the case.  It was not based on any work you had previously done on the case. Maria Awes via Twitter

Ms. Brown, I’m disappointed to read such harsh word directed toward me, particularly without provocation. My opinions are based solely on my extensive investigation. My questioning of Todd’s guilt in the SBM shooting came solely from my first face-to-face interview with him at Broad River Correctional Institution following the receipt of his lengthy account of the crime. After this meeting I returned to the ballistic evidence I had obtained through a FOIA request. The evidence in my hands at that time was incomplete, but using photographs of the building and video footage from Geraldo at Large, I matched the locations of each shell casing, except for two. These two casings raised many questions. I'm sure you can guess which two. Determining their position in the building became a priority. Eventually, I gained access to the files and received my answer, using the same ballistic evidence you have studied. I have used no one’s opinions in my verdict, which I won’t voice here. Furthermore, I question your sincerity of wanting the truth behind the crime, when you have attacked John Douglass, claiming his profile was off base, and now you are coming after me because you think my conclusions are similar to yours. It baffles me that your first response to hearing someone with a comparable opinion is to verbally assault them, particularly since all you’ve heard of my beliefs is a seconds-long snippet. I’m studying the same case files as you—accept that my conclusions might parallel (or diverge) from yours. But you don’t know what my conclusions are, so I would appreciate some courtesy in how you speak about me publicly. I welcome a discussion about the case, but a personal attack is uncalled for. Garry Garrett via Facebook Messenger

Garrett seems like an opportunist, so I really don’t care that much about his lack of ethics (although when his book comes out, I will not be happy if he continues to present my analysis as his own without properly footnoting and crediting me).  But, Awes has no excuse. As a long time reporter and producer (for Minnesota local news stations and for Discovery Channel and for her own company), she knows both of me and of my work. I did a lot of crime news for Minnesota during my four years living there (and after I moved back to MD).  She clearly knows how to do preliminary research on any subject matter before pitching a show to a network like Discovery. So, do tell, how is it she can entirely leave me out of the documentary (and for that matter, not include Don Corbett, retired police detective who worked a long time on the Superbike case and wrote a blog for me about the case at The Daily Profiler) or at least credit  me in the documentary for the analyses she is going to use that are clearly mine. I really don’t care if you come to a similar conclusion after looking at the evidence; if you read my analyses first and THEN saw the rest of the stuff, you can’t claim it was 100% your determination. My work must be mentioned or it is simply theft, plagiarism, and unethical as hell.

Here are the TEN blogs Maria Awes and Gary Garrett had to have read (even Todd Kohlhepp admitted to reading them when talking to detectives). Please give them a read, media folk, and others, and tell me that I was unknown to them and my work had no influence on them. The first one was written in 2012 after America’s Most Wanted did a spot on Superbike and Sheriff Wright lied to the public. After the blog went online, Wright trashed me on television news, claiming I read everything about the case on the Internet. I followed up with three blogs about the case evidence and Don Corbett wrote one about the SCSO and Sheriff Chuck Wright.. I went to the press about this and nothing was written. After Todd’s false Superbike confession, I wrote five more blogs, three right afterwards in 2016 and two more in 2017 and the local newspaper did comment that I did not think he was guilty of that crime. Unfortunately, NO media would present the issue that none of the victims were shot in the forehead. Oh, hey, notice that blog actually titled None of the Superbike Victims were Shot in the Forehead? Don’t you think Ms. Awes saw that? Two or three years ago? Before she actually got hold of any actual documentation from the police or FOIA?

Oh, lastly, I almost forgot, even though evidence was presented that Todd Kohlhepp didn’t actually know how Superbike went down, retired FBI profiler John Douglass tells Awes on the show that he probably just didn’t remember. Awes agrees...yeah, Kohlhepp is still likely guilty of Superbike. And, let’s leave out the FACT the police actually TOLD Melissa Brackman (wife of victim Scott Ponder) that Kohlhepp knew something only the killer and the police knew, that “all the victims were shot in the forehead.” An investigative reporter with ethics and a desire for the truth? I don’t think so, Ms. Awes.

05/15/12

 Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: The Second Tragedy of the Superbike Motorsports Quadruple Murders

05/17/12

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: I Read it on the Internet: Superbike Murders - Part One

05/18/12

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: I Read it on the Internet: Superbike Murders - Part Two

05/19/12

 Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: I Read it on the Internet: 

Superbike Murders - Part Three

06/03/12

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Sheriff Chuck Wright

11/21/16

Is Todd Kohlhepp REALLY the Superbike Killer?

11/25/16

None of the Superbike Victims were Shot in the Forehead

11/28/16

Why the Superbike Composite is Not Todd Kohlhepp 

06/14/17

The False Confession of Todd Kohlhepp

06/19/17

More on the False Confession Of Todd Kohlhepp

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

July 31, 2017

Maddie McCann Australian Podcast IMPORTANT Followup: TWO KEY POINTS

Mark Saunokonoko’s excellent ten part podcast series on the Madeleine McCann case has come to an end. I very much appreciate being included in the work as it is a rare bit of true reporting on the case amongst the myriad of McCann supported, McCann generated propaganda that has been ongoing for a decade, misleading the public as to the facts of the case.

However, I do want to add TWO POINTS which were not included in the podcast which I believe are of utmost importance to the case, probably my two MOST IMPORTANT conclusions which go to the heart of what happened to Maddie: WHO was Smithman and WHERE is Maddie’s body?

I said in the podcast that I believed Smithman was the key to the case. But, what was left out was the very reason WHY I believe Smithman is the key to the case. It is NOT because I believe the man was the likely abductor of Maddie (as was libelously reported by The Sun) nor because I believe that the man was likely Gerry McCann carrying off the body of his deceased child (although the evidence tends to support this). The major reason I believe Smithman is the key to the case is because the McCanns showed very little interest in this sighting, downplayed the sighting, or tried to link the sighting with Tannerman, an attempt to make two men into one man.

The FACT - and it is a fact - that the McCanns did not want to focus on Smithman as an abductor is a massive red flag. ANY parent of a missing child would move heaven and earth to have such a sighting followed up on by both the police and the public. This was not some vague sighting of a girl matching Maddie’s description in some far off country; this is the sighting of a man carrying a little girl from the direction of the McCann vacation flat at exactly the time the child went missing. Yet, the McCanns shrug their shoulders and show no interest. In fact, when they are confronted, they will only acknowledge the sighting as possibly Maddie IF and only IF that man is also Tannerman thereby giving Gerry an alibi at the time the “original” sighting, Tanner’s sighting, of the man occurred.

The only logical conclusion that one can make that the McCanns did not care to focus on the Smith sighting as the true sighting and separate from Tannerman sighting of someone carrying off their child is because THAT MAN WAS GERRY.

The second important point left out of the podcast was WHERE is Maddie’s body? The podcast covered Location 1 and Location 2 (an initial temporary hiding place, perhaps, under an overturned boat, and a second temporary hiding place in a crevice on the Rocha Negra accessible from the beach).

Read my blog on these hiding locations here: On Moving and Hiding Bodies

The third and MOST important location would be Location 3.

From my previous blog on Find the Body and Prove We Killed Her, this is the most important point; the location where I believe is the best possiblity to find the body of Madeliene McCann.

Before coming to Portugal, I entertained a number of possibilities: the Huelva baths in Spain where the McCanns went just as the cadaver dogs were arriving, removal back to the UK, and incineration. Each had its interesting possibilities but each also seemed a bit too difficult to accomplish (although by no means am I saying such actions would have been impossible) and it is a pretty good rule of thumb that people do what is easier to manage and simpler to pull off. Because of this, I came to two more probable conclusions, both involving Gerry driving the body to a location he felt was secluded and unlikely to be discovered. I was particularly interested in the activities of the McCann in the days before the Huelva trip when Gerry's phone pinged repeatedly in an area to the west of Praia da Luz along the road to Budens, (estre EN125). I also found it interesting that the day he was to leave for Huelva, he was not feeling well, having a bit of an upset stomach. This led me to theorize he could have used that day to move the body or to recover from moving it the day before. I decided when I got to Praia da Luz, I would take a trip down that road to the west and see whether there were any suitable places to lose a body forever.

Gerry seems to be quite practical and rather cold and calculating and he simply may have decided, Kate’s feelings be damned, that making sure the body was never found was of paramount importance and they would have to live with it.

 Monte do Jose Mestre. This huge, desolate area covers many square metres and is filled with a considerable network of dirt roads. Looking down on the area from atop the highest hill is a row of windmills. Small trees and bushes are scattered throughout and the dirt is not impossible to dig in. Gerry had just returned from England and I wouldn’t be surprised, if he is involved in disposing of Maddie’s body, that he brought a small shovel back with him, one that could be tossed into the bushes when he finished digging the grave or thrown away in a dumpster on the way back to Praia da Luz. If the body is buried out there, it would be unlikely to ever be found unless a large contingent of searchers and dogs descended upon the area and then it would still be pretty lucky if they located a grave. I hope, however, this is done sometime in the future. 
I would like to know if Maddie is there or not.


Views of Monte do Jose Mestre below.

Along with retesting the DNA, searching this location is the other most useful exercise in trying to find out what happed to Maddie. True, it would require a lot of searching at that location, perhaps with dogs and metal detectors, but I can think of no better place at this point to search for the body of Madeleine McCann.

So, to recap, the McCanns burying of the Smith sighting is the strongest proof we have that Smithman is the key to the case and likely Gerry McCann carrying off the body of his dead daughter and the possible burying of the child at Monte do Jose Mestre the other most important key to solving the case outside of DNA or a confession.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

May 9, 2019

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

SSo, to recap, the McCanns burying of the Smith sighting is the strongest proof we have the Smithman is the key to the case and likely Gerry McCann carrying off the body of his dead daughter and the possible buying of the child at Monte do Jose Mestre the other most important key to solving the case outside of DNA or a confession.

Madeline McCann: An ID Murder Mystery is Still not Objective Treatment of the Case

The new Discovery documentary may be a whole lot better than that complete propaganda piece put out by Netflix recently, but it is still meant to sway the viewers in favor of the McCann’s innocence and it is very manipulative in doing so.

Here is how this works:

During the first half they present Goncalo Amaral’s case. They have him speak.  They actually admit there is no evidence of abduction. They even show the dogs doing their great work. They quite effectively help the audience to see that it is possible to suspect the parents for good reasons.

I admit, it is quite shocking and amazing as we,who believe this evidence does indeed support the parents’ involvement in Maddie going missing, have not seen this level of what appears to be honesty; this appears to be a program willing to present the facts. We see it as a Great Leap Forward with the media. I am not complaining about this aspect because, hey, it IS something that is quite satisfying.

But, I knew there had to be a second half of the show that would effectively trash this evidence, Amaral’s theory, and the Portuguese police. And, I was not wrong. The second half did just that. It pretty much stated that Amaral’s theory was debunked by the DNA evidence, the physical evidence he was so hoping would prove him right. And, then, in comes Scotland Yard to do the case properly, find long ignored witnesses and suspects and, now, we start seeing that the parents, in spite of certain anomalies, could not possibly have hurt their daughter and covered up the crime. Why, it’s nonsense! Even Smithman couldn’t possibly be Gerry because, we all know “for a fact” that he was in the Tapas with everyone at the time the Smiths saw the man with the child.And the carefully selected host of the show, the journalists, the always pro- McCann Summers and Swan are used like product placement....right time, right part of the documentary....in order to promote the agenda which is still “the McCanns are innocent.”

Notice what the documentary did NOT do.

They present the facts that there was no evidence of abduction, but later claimed she was abducted yet ignored the earlier demonstration that there was no such proof. Oddly, when they did the burglar bit, they had the fellows in the re-enactment running around in the flat which is hard to buy as they would have left evidence of breaking in and mucking about.

They claimed the DNA proved Madeleine did not die in the flat nor was her corpse carried in the vehicle but they did not explain why the dogs went nuts both in the flat and at the car.

They didn’t explain that Scotland Yard’s claim of Tannerman being a guest carrying his child made little sense. Why they didn’t even show Jane on the street with Gerry and Jez! They showed a completely inaccurate depiction of Jane walking right by Tannerman where there were some stairs. What?

The documentary never allowed Goncalo to rebut any of their claims.

They had me on for a news clip but they made sure I also wasn’t on the show to likewise rebut the nonsensical claims they made.

In other words, they controlled the narrative. Essentially, the prosecution presentated their case and then the defense. But, they never gave the prosecution a chance to respond to the defense which means the defense is the last bit the audience gets.

One might think there was still enough in the documentary to sway people who have never seen the evidence before and now might think the McCanns are less than innocent. Surely, some will be won over. But, media goes with numbers and the numbers are in their corner if they keep controlling the agenda and presenting a very biased show.

I will say the most surprising thing on the show for me was, at the end of the show, Colin Sutton saying that the Scotland Yard investigation lacked legitimacy because they didn’t start at the table and abduction was ruled out before they even analyzed all the evidence. I would like to believe there was someone at Discovery who did that on purpose to throw a wrench in the McCanns-must-be-innocent theory and while it is possible, I tend to think it may have been an oversight in the editing process.

So, I am glad some of you see progress in this documentary and are happy that some of the truth came out even if most of the audience won’t go away realizing that this really was the truth. But, while I am happier with this show than many, I am still not surprised and still very frustrated that the media is not interested in truly being objective. If Discovery ID really wanted to examine the case, they would have let Goncalo, Colin, me and any other experts discuss all the issues of the case and leave it for the viewers to truly decide what theory the evidence really supports.
 

But then, they would probably be Carter-Rucked.


Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
April 27, 2019

Review of the Netflix Madeleine McCann Documentary

It is not like I didn’t know the Netflix eight-part series about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann wasn’t likely to be highly slanted in favor of the McCanns and the abduction theory, I just didn’t think they would be quite so blatant about it.

One early clue that something was amiss was that I never got a ring from the producers of this program. I am not trying to tout myself as the profiler no one can do without, but considering I have spent years analyzing this case and have been the only profiler to write a book on the case (and had it pulled off the market by the McCanns and Carter-Ruck), I found it a bit odd that the team would not even phone me to try to pull me in, even if to libel me and screw me over like the Australian documentary on Madeleine McCann. I wondered...who were they going to bring on to analyze the evidence? As it turns out, only people who believe the dogs are wrong, the dna is meaningless, the parents’ behavior is perfectly normal, and inconsistencies are minor issues.

DescriptiGonçaloAmaral appeared to explain the evidence properly (but with not a lot of time for depth; possibly edited out), but the Amaral - his character and his explanation of the evidence against the McCanns - was savagely torn apart (not with great substance, but most viewers will not have a clue).

So, the reason I didn’t get a call was for the same reason no other expert questioning the McCanns’ innocence got a call; we weren’t needed. There was going to be no objectivity in the show, so our input would only have been problematic.

In other words, this was a propaganda piece that I find hard to believe the McCanns did not have a hand in. They may have claimed they were not interested in participating but I think that was most likely to make viewers think that the documentary was going to be unbiased. Their claim that they didn’t want to get involved while there was an ongoing police investigation as it might interfere somehow is laughable considering how many other shows they have done, how often they have gone against police advice, and the fact they hired private investigators to run around the continent in violation of a number of laws concerning interference with an ongoing investigation.

If you don’t want to poke your eyes out for more than six hours of sitting through this propaganda piece, here are some tidbits I pulled from it. I just sat through all of this so I am not going to work hard remembering names and writing in full sentences; I am just highlighting stuff I noted.

————

The Fund is not mentioned until the last episode and then only in passing. Wouldn’t you think this would be a big topic?

Neglect was totally downplayed and leaving the children alone not a thing to be concerned about.

Robert Hall says, “How is it possible for someone to know ...(insert: a long list of issues that make it unlikely Maddie could have been abducted)....I guess the only conclusion you can draw is that somebody was watching that apartment...somebody planned it.”

No, Mr. Hall, with all the reasons it seems impossible for someone to abduct Maddie, you could conclude there was no abduction and Netflix is manipulating you.

The first three episodes don’t discuss any evidence; it is just dramatic storytelling to get you to like the suspects; the McCanns, Murat, and Malinka. You hear a lot about mistreatment of all of them so you can get to really dislike and distrust the PJ (Portuguese Police).

Jim Gamble shows up and portrays himself as a saint. He talks about visiting Thailand and learning about the child sex trade. This is the whole theory Netflix is pushing without a shred of evidence.

We get to meet Justine and she is just so in love with the McCanns and can explain every one of their odd behaviors away.

Each episode works hard to have an answer in favor of the McCanns for any concern a viewer might have. They are explaining away any dissent.

We learn about Wonderland, a big pedophile ring in Europe. Psst...they might have kidnapped Madeleine.

A very dramatic bit about a sad Spanish couple who thought they saw Maddie in Marrakesh but were ignored.

Justine raves about Jim Gamble and CEOP.

Gamble and Amaral both talk about how cold and controlling Gerry was but, no worries, Jim is only lettting the audience know he understands if they find him off-putting; later, he finds it is just Gerry’s way of handling such a serious situation and he is really a great guy!

The Pact of Silence article is discussed by Felicia Cabrera and what she wrote about the McCanns at the time, but, again, no worries, all of this will be explained away a later.

We hear more about pedophilia again through a group called Casa Pía. See? Pedophiles are everywhere and, of course, they would want to kidnap Maddie and not some easier blond girl like that lookalike in Morocco or that blonde gypsy girl they found wasn’t Maddie either.

Jim Campbell claims he helped Gerry draft the letter in which he reaches out to the kidnapper saying if you made a mistake...claims he thought Gerry might indeed be guilty and that line might help him confess. Really? This wasn’t actually Gerry’s thinking? And, you thought he might be guilty? Oh, that’s right, only a temporary thought...turns out you think Gerry is a great guy, too!

Journalist Sandra Felgueiras speaks out that she found the McCann behavior strange. She later confesses to have believed the dog evidence. Then she states that she was lied to by police and she has changed her mind about the case and is embarrassed she ever questioned the McCanns’ innocence. This was the only surprise in the series for me. What happened to Sandra?

Now, we get to the Bollywood portion of the series. If you have never seen a Bollywood movie it goes like this. Happy beginning getting to know the protagonists (like a couple who falls in love). Then, something terrible happens and gets worse and worse and then....interval! Time to go out and get popcorn and a soda. Then you return to the theater and during the last half of the show all is resolved and happy ending (not all Bollywood follows this form but this is a traditional form). So Part Three and Four bring in the dog evidence, and the damning behavior of the McCanns and Felicia DOES point out how the McCanns left Maddie alone with her siblings when something happened. Cue tragic music.

No worries, again! Episode Five called “The Fightback” will begin the exoneration of the McCanns.

Lest’s make everyone feel guilty. “While you are looking at the parents, you’re not looking for the kid.” Yeah, our bad.

Brian Kennedy. “After 12 seconds I knew Gerry was a victim.” I am a profiler and after a decade I am still having trouble seeing Gerry as a victim.

Enter Clarence Mitchell to explain the McCann’s lack of emotions.

Now, they attack the disbelievers on the Internet and the crackpot conspiracy theories (they do this quickly as not to get anyone to interested in what those folks might say).

Trolls. Yes, one has to say the word trolls.

Defense attorney says the Tapas 7 keeping a big secret is preposterous.

Now, to the most important moment. They attack the dogs and say this was the only evidence the police claim to have. They say the final British DNA reports do not match anything to Madeline and that there was no blood evidence of all. There. Dog problem solved. The police have nothing.

Wait, a few more experts trash the dogs.

They mention the Smith sighting only to say it couldn’t have been Gerry because he was at the Tapas restaurant and the Smiths now say it wasn’t Gerry. The Smith sighting is only mentioned in passing once more and never is it really discussed. Odd considering that should be the Number One sighting; heck even The Sun was willing to publish that an American criminal profiler said that the Smith sighting was the key to solving the case, that Smithman was the abductor and he snatched Maddie (if you don’t know, I was libeled: I never said Smithman was an abductor). But, I guess the McCanns don’t really want to focus on Smithman (not that they ever did). I guess Netflix is coincidentally following their lead.

Let’s see. Anthony Summers says Maddie and her brother and sister might have been drugged by the abductor. Did I forget to tell you Summers and Swann are pretty much the main voices through the entire eight shows? What. A. Surprise.

Paul Rebelo says that Goncalo had zero support after he was taken off the case, not even from his Facebook fans! What a liar!

Some more people say, though they were once concerned about the McCanns, they are now convinced they are wonderful people.

Episode Seven has Kennedy saying he went to Morocco to search for Maddie and then hired Método 3. Julian is made out to be the greatest PI ever and he totally believes the McCanns are innocent. Método 3 finds a forensic artist to draw Tannerman and the artist tells us how convinced Jane was she saw the abductor.

Metodo admits they break the law and they are shady as hell. Then we get a bunch of stuff about how Amaral is beating up the mother in the Cipriano case and getting a false confession. The dude connects the two cases by saying when the police can’t find who did it, they blame the parents.

On to fake charity collectors who try to kidnap a 3-year-old girl right before Maddie vanished. You just know they are pedophiles.

Our Metodo PI says because there was such a small window of opportunity and they didn’t leave a trace, it means it was a well-organized group! Haven’t we already heard that argument? Oh, yeah, it must be so if two people say it.

Oh, yeah, now this guy gets his biggest moment in the case because he proves that a pedophile organization is at work in Portugal, so these could be the abductors of Maddie.

Episode Seven  goes for some more logic from the Metodo detective. Because pedophile gangs usually go for poor kids in third world countries, they must have taken Maddie because her value was really high. Umm...like a poor, blonde three-year-old from somewhere else would be cheaper than a British 3-year-old? How would the procurer even know where you stole the child from?

Oops! Metodo 3 starts acting in concerning ways and they are dumped.

The case is now shelved and it is claimed the McCanns are cleared. They attack Goncalo and his book.

And they learn the new team from Oakley is crooked, too. So, they are stuck without any investigators. We hear more about creepy people who could have abducted Maddie.

Thank god, it is Episode 8. “Someone knows.” Yawn. Scotland Yard steps in..yay...maybe they will find the pedophile ring. And, after all, Maddie may well be alive because, you know, teenage girls who are kidnapped are found alive (shhh...don’t talk about the statistics for toddlers abducted by pedophiles).

Final result: they trashed Goncalo Amaral. They trashed the evidence. They trashed people who question the McCanns’ innocence. Mission accomplished.

Okay, that is it. Now, you can skip watching it unless you are a masochist or just have to know what Netflix and the McCanns have put together to snow the public.


Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

March 15, 2019




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

Safe Spaces: The New Apartheid

After conducting my "White Women Yoga" Meetup experiment, the most troubling response I have gotten from people is not that they were upset over the concept of an all-White group that excludes POC (People of Color) - because I, too, do not believe all-White groups that refuse members based on the color of the skin is anything but racism and discrimination - but that so many believe all-POC groups are not only acceptable but necessary in today's world. Furthermore, if you are a person, especially a person who does not believe this, you are a racist and white oppressor (White supremacist) and if you a Black, an Uncle Tom or a sell-out.


Here is  got from a White person which exemplifies this thinking:

And here was a more rational discussion from a Black person and my response:

So, this is where we are in society today and why I formed the White Women Yoga group on Meetup to bring our societal dilemma into the open and hope that we can work to find a solution to the dangerous road our country is headed down. Yes, the United States has had a history of discrimination and racism that has affected POC over many generations but creating a separatist society in the reverse direction is not the solution. Already it is acceptable for POC to have separate Meetup groups, POC safe places on campus, Black dorm floors at colleges....where does it end? When will we see the signs go on the doors of yoga studios saying “Blacks Only” and signs on the doors of Black-owned restaurants saying “People of Color” only and then signs on the doors on nightclubs saying “ADOS (American Descendants of Slaves) Only” because Jamaicans and Africans aren’t welcome? Will POC demand separate school classroooms so their children don’t have to be uncomfortable around children of their oppressors? Does this sound right to everyone? Is solving the problem of what discrimination of POC still exists in our country yet more discrimination? More separatism?  If it wasn’t okay to discriminate and separate from one race in the history of our country, how is it the right thing to do now? Where do the proponents of racial separation think this is going to lead?

We need to move forward and not backward in this country. We need to come together as American citizens - regardless of our race or ethnicity or country of birth - and we need to do POSITIVE things  to help everyone achieve; improve education, improve our communities, improve the state of families for children, improve economic opportunties - but we do not need to separate, hate, and reduce our nation to tribalism and apartheid. 

Pat Brown

February 18, 2019