"The Madeleine McCann Case and Occam's Razor"

by NickE 22.04.15 19:58

The Madeleine McCann Case and Occam's Razor

This post isn't really a commentary on the Madeleine McCann case but this case does so well represent Occam's Razor in crime analysis that I feel a need to use it as an example. In my blog yesterday, "It Just Doesn't Work that Way in Real Life," I discussed how shows like Death in Paradise have very complicated scenarios of how a murder was committed, the perpetrator being practically a genius of planning and misdirection. I pointed out how rarely is this the case in real life; almost always, homicides are usually acts of desperation born of loss of power and control. Crimes of passion (quite mislabeled as passion being the motive), also known as "out-of-character" crimes (which is also a mislabel as the crime is quite within the character of the person committing it) are relatively impulsive, so planning is quite minimal. Serial killers are mostly of the anger-retaliatory type and rarely plan the crime much in advance; usually they are opportunistic and strike when they have a victim that wanders into their territory alone or, while doing their usually trolling of an area, finally get lucky when a target appears with no witnesses in the area. The reason they get away with their crimes is simply the fact that most of the time there are no witnesses and they are strangers to the victim and there is no obvious link for the police to follow. As long as they don't leave DNA that can be matched to a DNA bank, they have a good shot of getting away with their homicides.

Much rarer is someone who plans a homicide: a black widow poisoning her husbands, a man getting rid of his wife so he can have his freedom, a boyfriend eliminating a pregnant girlfriend. Usually the crime is not all that clever, it is just often hard to prove in a court of law that the killer is guilty. Much of the time, the body is well-hidden so that the "no-body, no proof of a crime" rule applies. At other times, the crime is staged as a stranger homicide and it works but not because it is so intricately planned. It simply works because evidence is limited to prove otherwise.

Killers are generally of normal intelligence who commit their crimes without great forethought and they also tend to cover their tracks in a hurried manner. Murderers don't think to the depth of perpetrators on television or in the movies; they just rush to take care of the problem and, in doing so, act in a manner that many others in their shoes have acted before. In real life, crimes are often committed and covered up in similar ways, the way humans act when under pressure and with the limited knowledge most have at the time of the crime and while under stress.

I am repeatedly encouraged in the McCann case to do further research on a number of issues that some believe proves Madeleine McCann died earlier in the week and that on May 3rd, the McCanns and their friends had a preplanned course of action to stage an abduction.
They believe there is lots of evidence proving that Madeleine was dead for days by then: incorrect creche records, a manipulated photo, no sightings of Madeleine, odd behaviors, and no neglect of the children. I am not going to argue all of this: I am going to point out Occam's Razor and why have always thought that May 3rd was the key to what happened to Madeleine and when.

If something had happened to Madeleine days before, we simply would have seen her "abduction" staged earlier in the week.
In real life, planning to stage an abduction for days and having to manipulate evidence of Madeleine being alive for days when she was not is simply too bloody difficult to manage.
Then, on May 3rd, after all that planning, the whole evening was an ungodly mess full of inconsistencies and errors, which would be odd for a so carefully premeditated scenario.

If the McCanns are guilty, what May 3rd represents is a disaster, as Gerry pointed out, and a quick attempt to over up that disaster. The simplest answer, Occam's Razor, is that May 3rd was a confusion because very little was planned and when it was (interviews with the police), it was still a confused mess because there was little time to think anything through and everyone's brains were a muddle.

The key to this crime is very simple: the Smith sighting. The Smith sighting has always been my Number One reason for doubting the McCanns' innocence in the disappearance of Madeleine. The most consistent behavior of parents of missing children is to want EVERY lead followed, even ridiculous ones. On the evening of May 3rd, the Smith family saw a child who could have been Madeleine being carried off towards the sea, yet the McCanns expressed little interest in this sighting and even tried to suppress it. If the McCanns were innocent and Gerry was not Smithman, and even if they thought Jane was telling the truth, that Tannerman existed and might have been the kidnapper, it is hard to believe they would not have been gung-ho to follow-up that Smith sighting in every way possible, the way they did with Tannerman

Applying Occam's Razor, why would they ignore and suppress the Smith sighting? What is the simplest of explanations? Because it was Gerry and he was in the act of covering up a crime that had just occurred. The reason Gonçalo Amaral believed this to be so is because he is a real-world detective and knows that Occam's Razor applies in crime investigation and the fanciful stuff you see on television is concocted by writers who need to come up with a show that is exciting to the viewers.

Detectives and profilers often are driven nuts by family members and citizens who, when a case goes unsolved, start going bonkers with unlikely theories, full of very intricate plots. They figure, if no one has been arrested and convicted, it must be because the crime is so complicated and clever.

In real life, it is often so much simpler; the crime is straightforward but it is hard to prove in court.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-madeleine-mccann-case-and-occams.html

by aiyoyo 22.04.15 20:46

So....Pat is not buying the earlier death theory?

And, she believes Smithman is Gerry.......WHAT?

Come on DCI Wall......don't sleep on the job....do something !

by **Tony Bennett** 22.04.15 22:48

aiyoyo wrote:So...Pat believes Smithman is Gerry...WHAT?

Exactly my feelings.

Now, being under heavy legal restrictions, I am very limited in what I can say but I cannot let Pat Brown's latest post pass without comment.

To believe, first of all, that Madeleine died in the evening of Thursday 3 May requires agreement to just these three propositions:

1. The alerts of Martin Grime's two cadaver dogs prove there was once a corpse in Apartment G5A

2. That corpse was Madeleine McCann, and

3. The evidence of the nanny and the McCanns about them and their three children all having high tea together at 5.30pm to 6.00pm that evening is absolute proof that Madeleine was still alive at about 6pm on 3 May. ( In this respect, Pat might with profit re-read HiDeHo's 'take' on this event, on her blog, link here: http://forum2.aimoo.com/MadeleineMcCann/HiDeHo-Posts/Catriona-and-Creche-Inconsistencies-1-802393.html - 'Catriona Baker inconsistencies' )

And that's, in Pat's view - no need to consider anything else!

Now I come to what she says about 'Occam's Razor' - the principle that the simplest solution is usually the correct one.

But is it in this case?

Can 'Occam's Razor' really apply bearing in mind, e.g.:

* the appointment of the government's top Media Adviser to run public relations for the McCanns?
* the involvement of MI5, Special Branch and various government-sponsored agencies like Control Risks Group?
* the appointment by Brian Kennedy of no fewer than three ex-MoD/MI5 spies in 2008, allegedly to try and find Madeleine: Kevin Halligen, Henri Exton and Tim Craig-Harvey and
* regular discussions at Prime Ministerial level in both the U.K. and Portugal about the case?

Finally, what to make of Pat saying that 'Smithman' is Gerry McCann?

How likely is this scenario?

Sometime after 6pm on Thursday 3 May, Madeleine dies (somehow)...

...presumably without the twins knowing about it...

...the body is kept in their apartment whilst they all assemble for dinner at the Tapas bar around 8.45pm...

...the McCanns chat and eat and drink away with others of their group, with various members getting up and down to check their infants are OK...

...they all decide to take part in an abduction hoax that evening and declare Madeleine missing at 10.00pm...

...and Gerry is sent off at about 9.45pm to carry Madeleine's body, in which rigor mortis is probably beginning to set in, through the streets of Praia da Luz and hide it somewhere temporarily...

...he does so, luckily being seen only by the Smiths...

...he then successfully finds a hiding place for Madeleine's body where no-one is able to find it...

...and then returns to the Ocean Club by or before 10.30pm as if nothing had happened.

Sorry Pat, to quote Wendy Murphy, 'I'm not buying it'. Make yourself a good pot of best Yorkshire Tea - and then settle down and watch Richard Hall's 'The Phantoms'

by **Richard D. Hall** 23.04.15 0:33

Pat, you are making a huge whopper of an assumption. And it is a whopper.

The Smiths account is genuine.

You have not seen them in any TV interview or met them in person. All you have done is read statements, and some media articles.

Would you not like to see them interviewed or interview them yourself to make a better judgement? Why are you so sure their account is true?

I have requested interviews with Martin Smith and I have asked him many important questions in my emails. It seems he is now hiding from me?

Until the Smiths are challenged on camera by an independent journalist and answer questions so we can all judge their credibility, they have to be taken with a pinch of salt.

by Verdi 23.04.15 1:12

Richard D. Hall wrote:Pat, you are making a huge whopper of an assumption. And it is a whopper.

The Smiths account is genuine.

You have not seen them in any TV interview or met them in person. All you have done is read statements, and some media articles.

Would you not like to see them interviewed or interview them yourself to make a better judgement? Why are you so sure their account is true?

I have requested interviews with Martin Smith and I have asked him many important questions in my emails. It seems he is now hiding from me?

Until the Smiths are challenged on camera by an independent journalist and answer questions so we can all judge their credibility, they have to be taken with a pinch of salt.

It seems to me Ms Brown is viewing this case from afar, so far that she is unaware of the fundamental weaknesses that encompass the whole farcical affair. It is anything but black and white, too much unexplained detail to be in a position to speak as a criminal profiler on a case governed across the Atlantic.

I wonder why she ever took any interest in the case, I trust she wasn't commissioned by Oprah Winfrey, that would be a massive oooops! Nice little earner though.

by Mark Willis 23.04.15 8:45

Sorry Pat but I applied Occam's Razor to yourself and found you making 2+2 = 5.
This case is complicated, despite the events seemingly playing out badly.
I think it was a case of a plan A that fouled up and plan B was hastily cobbled together.
As for you being a profiler, yes, so is/was Paul Brittan* and we all know what happened there..

*Brittan wrongly "profiled" Colin Stagg as Rachel Nickell's murderer.
All I see when I read a "profiler" is someone stating the bleedin' obvious, a misnomer of a title and profession.
Basically you are not superhuman just because of a "title" saying you are.

by Google.Gaspar.Statements 23.04.15 9:30

Why would the police reopen a case that was already shelved just to spend over £10million to cover it up?

by **Tony Bennett** 23.04.15 9:42

Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:Why would the police reopen a case that was already shelved just to spend over £10million to cover it up?

Because they were told to by Britain's most powerful woman, Rebekah Brooks...who told David Cameron, who told Theresa May, who told Sir Paul Stephenson.

And who did they put in charge?

Det Chief Supt Hamish Campbell, a bloke who spent another £10 million fitting up the wrong bloke in the Jill Dando case

by Google.Gaspar.Statements 23.04.15 9:57

So why would Rebekah Brookes want the case reopened so that £10million could be spent on covering it up?

by **Tony Bennett** 23.04.15 10:07

Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:So why would Rebekah Brooks want the case reopened so that £10million could be spent on covering it up?

1. Sales for News International and stories for SKY
2. She knows something about the case that would severely embarrass the government

by HelenMeg 23.04.15 10:53

Having this case reviewed and brought into the limelight again is like opening a gold mine to the 'news' agencies and corporations. It sells.

by Carrry On Doctor 23.04.15 11:25

Tony Bennett wrote:
Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:So why would Rebekah Brooks want the case reopened so that £10million could be spent on covering it up?
1. Sales for News International and stories for SKY
2. She knows something about the case that would severely embarrass the government

Which Government ? Labour were in power at the time. Surely a political opportunity prior to the election ?

Maybe breaking a story like this for political means is too risky in case it backfires...Tory witch-hunt on grieving parents etc...the public have been fed this line for years.

IMO

ETA Public influenced by the press and not the Torys.

by Verdi 23.04.15 11:31

Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:Why would the police reopen a case that was already shelved just to spend over £10million to cover it up?

Because there is a whole lot more at stake here than one missing child. Madeleine McCann, now but a distant memory, was a mere pawn in the game plan. She was and still is a good marketing ploy.

Children are treated like soiled nappies.

by Guest 23.04.15 11:32

Tony Bennett wrote:
Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:So why would Rebekah Brooks want the case reopened so that £10million could be spent on covering it up?
1. Sales for News International and stories for SKY
2. She knows something about the case that would severely embarrass the government

I think the first reason is weak. It's a story that could run on its own fed by pink persons.
The second - I don't think David Cameron would agree to open it if it would severely embarrass the government.

I think they wanted a showcase clearing of the McCanns.

It's turned out to be a bit more difficult than they thought - there are a lot of the public who know every nook and cranny of the PJ files.

by **Tony Bennett** 23.04.15 11:35

Carrry On Doctor wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:So why would Rebekah Brooks want the case reopened so that £10million could be spent on covering it up?
1. Sales for News International and stories for SKY
2. She knows something about the case that would severely embarrass the government

Which Government ? Labour were in power at the time. Surely a political opportunity prior to the election ?

Maybe breaking a story like this for political means is too risky in case it backfires...Tory witch-hunt on grieving parents etc...the public have been fed this line for years.

IMO

ETA Public influenced by the press and not the Torys.

2007 - initial cover-up by Labour - appointing Clarence Mitchell. Labour sustained in power because Murdoch continually backed them

2009 Cameron meets Murdoch on his Mediterranean yacht. Murdoch promises to back Tories if Cameron will give him control of BSkyB. Deal done. Cameron dutifully employs Murdoch man Andy Coulson as his Director of Communications and they both employ Clarence Mitchell as his Deputy, ahead of the 2010 General Election. Murdoch's papers back the Tories.

2011 - Rebekah Brooks, Murdoch's CEO, orders Operation Grange to be set up.

It couldn't be clearer. Rupert Murdoch has been controlling most of the events touching on Madeleine McCann - with the help of his friends in the British security services, MI5, Special Branch etc. - Halligen, Exton, Craig-Harvey...

'They are all in this together'

by Verdi 23.04.15 11:59

BlueBag wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:So why would Rebekah Brooks want the case reopened so that £10million could be spent on covering it up?
1. Sales for News International and stories for SKY
2. She knows something about the case that would severely embarrass the government

I think the first reason is weak. It's a story that could run on its own fed by pink persons.
The second - I don't think David Cameron would agree to open it if it would severely embarrass the government.

I think they wanted a showcase clearing of the McCanns.

It's turned out to be a bit more difficult than they thought - there are a lot of the public who know every nook and cranny of the PJ files.

I think you over estimate the power of the people. Since when has any government given a damn about public opinion or needs?

by Guest 23.04.15 12:02

Verdi wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:So why would Rebekah Brooks want the case reopened so that £10million could be spent on covering it up?
1. Sales for News International and stories for SKY
2. She knows something about the case that would severely embarrass the government

I think the first reason is weak. It's a story that could run on its own fed by pink persons.
The second - I don't think David Cameron would agree to open it if it would severely embarrass the government.

I think they wanted a showcase clearing of the McCanns.

It's turned out to be a bit more difficult than they thought - there are a lot of the public who know every nook and cranny of the PJ files.
I think you over estimate the power of the people. Since when has any government given a damn about public opinion or needs?

The internet is very powerful.

by Verdi 23.04.15 12:02

Mark Willis wrote:Sorry Pat but I applied Occam's Razor to yourself and found you making 2+2 = 5.
This case is complicated, despite the events seemingly playing out badly.
I think it was a case of a plan A that fouled up and plan B was hastily cobbled together.
As for you being a profiler, yes, so is/was Paul Brittan* and we all know what happened there..

*Brittan wrongly "profiled" Colin Stagg as Rachel Nickell's murderer.
All I see when I read a "profiler" is someone stating the bleedin' obvious, a misnomer of a title and profession.
Basically you are not superhuman just because of a "title" saying you are.

Besides, Pat is not assiigned to this case in the capacity of a profiler is she? All she can do from across the Atlantic is express an opinion based on the case files the media and the web, same as the rest of us. What do profilers look for when working on a case, they look for patterns of behaviour, trends, appearance, it's all guess work really.

Because the high seas most wanted cut-throat wears an eye patch, a skull and cross-bone badge on his jaunty tricorn titfer, balances a moth-eaten dead parrot on his shoulder and dangles a lethal cutlass from his braces he must be a personification of Captain Pugwash. Never would it dawn that the suspect is indeed Sir Walter Riley having a bad hair day.

by Verdi 23.04.15 12:06

BlueBag today @ 1:02 pm

"The internet is very powerful"

Very powerful and frequently very destructive!

by Verdi 23.04.15 12:10

@ Tony Bennett

Talking of bad hair days, don't think much of your latest make-over! The shabby chic raincoat was bad enough but this?

by woodpecker 23.04.15 12:16

Verdi wrote:@ Tony Bennett

Talking of bad hair days, don't think much of your latest make-over! The shabby chic raincoat was bad enough but this?

I love Tony's new look. Perhaps he would tell me which hairdresser did those flowing honey blonde tresses?

by Verdi 23.04.15 12:31

woodpecker wrote:
Verdi wrote:@ Tony Bennett

Talking of bad hair days, don't think much of your latest make-over! The shabby chic raincoat was bad enough but this?

I love Tony's new look. Perhaps he would tell me which hairdresser did those flowing honey blonde tresses?

Credit to you, at least you're not going for the whole ensemble. Just hope she never enters a crime scene without wearing a hoodie, those pesky hairs get everywhere.

by Liz Eagles 23.04.15 12:35

Tony Bennett wrote:
Carrry On Doctor wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:So why would Rebekah Brooks want the case reopened so that £10million could be spent on covering it up?
1. Sales for News International and stories for SKY
2. She knows something about the case that would severely embarrass the government

Which Government ? Labour were in power at the time. Surely a political opportunity prior to the election ?

Maybe breaking a story like this for political means is too risky in case it backfires...Tory witch-hunt on grieving parents etc...the public have been fed this line for years.

IMO

ETA Public influenced by the press and not the Torys.
2007 - initial cover-up by Labour - appointing Clarence Mitchell. Labour sustained in power because Murdoch continually backed them

2009 Cameron meets Murdoch on his Mediterranean yacht. Murdoch promises to back Tories if Cameron will give him control of BSkyB. Deal done. Cameron dutifully employs Murdoch man Andy Coulson as his Director of Communications and they both employ Clarence Mitchell as his Deputy, ahead of the 2010 General Election. Murdoch's papers back the Tories.

2011 - Rebekah Brooks, Murdoch's CEO, orders Operation Grange to be set up.

It couldn't be clearer. Rupert Murdoch has been controlling most of the events touching on Madeleine McCann - with the help of his friends in the British security services, MI5, Special Branch etc. - Halligen, Exton, Craig-Harvey...

'They are all in this together'

I think Tony is right.

by HelenMeg 23.04.15 12:42

If that is the case, and it certainly seems feasible - what are the possible reasons for this?

by Liz Eagles 23.04.15 12:49

HelenMeg wrote:If that is the case, and it certainly seems feasible - what are the possible reasons for this?

It's been discussed over and over again HelenMeg (btw I like your tweets to Jimmy no flags) and this is the crux of the matter. It's what and who was being protected and why there was such immediate assistance. The immediate influx of assistance from political big wigs is beyond comprehension. I can think of no other case where a missing child case has been given such immediate attention from those in power.