Why the Botched Burglary Is Such a Good Theory in the Madeleine McCann Case

Why the Botched Burglary Is Such a Good Theory in the Madeleine McCann Case

As the Madeleine McCann case winds down, there is fairly good speculation that Scotland Yard's final determination will be that Madeleine McCann died as a result of a botched burglary. And there has been much disbelief that this kind of crime could have anything to do with the disappearance of Madeleine McCann; after all, what do burglars want with a three -year-old child? Why would they kidnap her instead of just running off since no three-year-old is going to be very good at identifying the burglars? How can this be a burglary if nothing of value (minus the child) was taken? Why was there no evidence of a break-in? Why did the cadaver dogs hit inside the flat if burglars removed Maddie from the apartment while in the act of burglarizing the vacation rental?

Oh, Heaven's to Betsy! Stop being so logical! Devising a theory for closing a case has little to do with  needing to prove it is true with evidence. Like a defense attorney attempting to convince a jury that the evidence the prosecution has presented may not truly explain what happened, closing a case without evidence only requires a good story and a bunch of possible - if rare - scenarios that cause the  people to think "Yeah, I guess that could be true." For once you fool people into reasonable doubt, you open the door to just about any cockamamie scenario you can dream up.

So, here is how I would close the Madeleine McCann case with a bunch of inept burglars and why I would choose this scenario.

First, I want to show that I looked into everything (well, everything to do with abduction). I would question any shady character lurking in the vicinity and look into every rumor that had to do with bad people in the area. Along the way, I would hope to find a character or characters that I could connect well enough to the date, time, and place that they, theoretically, could have committed the crime. After running through many a possibility, the best I could come up with was the botched burglary because these were the only bad guys I could place in the area at the time required. All right. Now, I need to build the scenario around these guys.

Here is what happened:

Three burglars, familiar with the area and the resort, were breaking into flats in the area and stealing a variety of items. These burglars weren't particularly skilled nor did they target especially high priced items; they just grabbed stuff that lay within the flat, hoping to make enough on their booty to split three ways and enjoy their gains. On the evening of May 3, 2007, the three burglars planned to gain access to a number of properties and worked together through cell phones, planning their positions and times to enter the residences. As they had noted a number of visitors to the resort tended to leave their patio doors open, they found it easy to access some flats quickly without having to resort to actually breaking in and drawing attention. They also donned latex medical gloves to avoid leaving fingerprints in the flats. They used this method to slip into the McCann flat but, this time, they were startled quickly by a child who wandered into the living room. She was frightened by their presence and started crying loudly. The burglars were concerned that the loud wailing would draw instant attention and they grabbed the child and covered her mouth in order to stop the noise. As has happened in other situations (sometimes by a kidnapper or a babysitter), the adult does not realize that with a child, a large hand covering the child's mouth also results in covering the child's nose and the child can quickly become asphyxiated.

After this occurred with Madeleine McCann, the lookout phoned one of the burglars to warn him that someone was approaching the flat and in desperation they pulled the sofa away from the wall and hid the child's body behind it and then hid themselves. An adult entered the flat, listened for any noise from the children's room, and then left again. At this point, the panicked burglars became afraid that in the handling of the child's body, they may have left DNA on it and so they decided to remove the child's body from the flat. With one standing lookout, the other burglar carried the child off towards the beach to where one of the burglars lived. They hatched a plan to dispose of the child's body, most likely in the ocean since her body wasn't found in any of the digs conducted in Praia da Luz.

Due to the failure of the Portuguese police to follow this line of inquiry early on, there is not enough physical evidence to take these suspects to court. However, one hopes that this information will give the McCanns closure, that they know that what happened to their daughter and that she did not suffer any kind of physical or sexual abuse. As to the community, they can rest assured that there is not a child predator in their midst who is targeting young children of Madeleine's age. Although a crime did occur, the death of Madeleine McCann was accidental and not premeditated.

This is a scenario the McCanns can accept (they are not guilty, the Portuguese police are proven to be inept and Gonçalo Amaral completely wrong as are the trolls who support him, Scotland Yard money was well spent and the investigation solid, AND, since this scenario cannot be absolutely proven, there is still the hope Madeleine was taken by a woman who wanted a child and she is alive and well somewhere and they can still continue the fund and the search for her in toned down and less public manner).

So don't think a botched burglary could be accepted by a gullible public? I wouldn't bet on it. Even I find myself thinking that this  scenario could be true (at least it seems plausible if I do not go back and review the actual evidence of the case). And that is how it works; make up a good story but ignore the evidence.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
April 29, 2016

http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/why-botched-burglary-is-such-good.html

I was hoping that wouldn`t get noticed.

Sounds more Jessica Fletcher than Columbo or Frank Cannon

It falls flat on several points.
The cadaverine detected by the cadaver dog  requires a minimum time of 90 mins for it to be detectable by said dog.
The burglars aren't going to hang around for 90 mins.

The cadaverine on kate's pants. Were the burglars cross dressers who decided kate's pants were the ideal item to wear. Possibly  whoever checked on the children mistook the said burglar wearing said kate's pants and in a case of alcoholic mis-identification thought it was kate they had seen.

The child's red t shirt. I doubt even the burglars could fit in that so was it being worn by Maddie?
If so why would the burglars remove said t shirt given they were concerned enough about DNA to wear gloves and remove her corpse yet leave her cadaverine tainted t shirt behind along with incriminating DNA evidence.

The dogs reaction to the wardrobe in the parents bedroom.
Why place the body there before moving it behind the sofa or vice versa?

The hire car. Why would cadaverine and body fluids be found in the hire car?
Did they hire said car some point before the mccanns or did they hire it during the week for the burglaries and eventually the removal and disposal of Maddie's corpse?

We then have the problem of the mccanns various incriminating statements where they told the world Maddie was dead.
Why would they implicate themselves in a murder if they were in no way involved?

Pat seems to think the dogs evidence wouldn`t even be considered; as seen in her reply to a comment - "Louise, what cadaver odor? What dogs? Are you using evidence to come up with a theory? Look, Scotland Yard has never spent time with the evidence, so it is likely their final explanation will have nothing to do with actual evidence either."

And how would all this fit between the numerous 'checks' the tapas lot insisted they carried out?  

I don't think anything this detailed needs to be offered to the public as an explanation, all is needed is a suggestion and circulating of rumours that burglars were around that night, at the same time as SY shelve the investigation and the two are associated. Whether SY are actually going to shelve it soon remains to be seen.

Sounds like someone with a real passion for justice, doesn't it?   Someone who will fight to their last breath to get at the truth.

The older you get, the more disillusioned you become with self-proclaimed trailblazers.

Well that's five minutes of my life I won't get back!

@Hobs wrote:

The burglars aren't going to hang around for 90 mins.

Parking the car and then down the Tapas munching sardines and quaffing vino with the gang?  Was it quiz night?

The cadaverine on kate's pants

She was photographed wearing those pants long after Madeleine disappeared - even descending the aircraft back in Blighty if I remember correctly.  YUK!  Unless she had a few pair.

The child's red t shirt

In the wash midday Thursday 3rd May.

The dogs reaction to the wardrobe in the parents bedroom.

Looking for a bone - like ol' muvver Hubbard in the cupboard.

The hire car. Why would cadaverine and body fluids be found in the hire car?

A trip to Baptista en-route.  Sea Bass, mouldy shrimp, soiled nappies, sweaty sandals and a load of garbage.

See?  There's always an innocent explanation for anything and everything the police might find.

ETA:  Your droll sense of humour for some reason always reminds me of Sarah Millican - a compliment by the way.  The matter of fact mannerism is priceless.

Actually, there is quite a good chance Madeleine could have identified one of the burglars had he been the same man who had driven the family from the airport to their holiday accommodation. Three and four year olds notice so much going on around them. 

What is far less likely is that any burglars would have reacted to seeing, or hearing, Madeleine, by trying to shut her up. They would simply have thought, this apartment isn't empty after all and made a swift exit. They didn't take anything and could simply have said if questioned that they weren't in the apartment at that time, the little girl must have been dreaming, or it was mistaken identity or that they were in the wrong apartment by mistake.

If the burglars were operating and phoning each other in the vicinity of the Ocean Club, that night, it's likely that at least one of the calls was along the lines of, ''what's happening there, there's a lot of noise?'', or ''we'd better call it a day there's people everywhere looking for a lost child''.

What burglars?

Good grief, if anyone believes this yarn then I'm simply lost for words.

And I've just seen this..

Joana Morais
1.Everyone shall possess the right to freely express and publicise his thoughts in words, images or by any other means, as well as the right to inform others, inform himself and be informed without hindrance or discrimination 2.Exercise of the said rights shall not be hindered or limited by any type or form of censorship Constitution of the Portuguese Republic, Article 37.º


29 April 2016

Portuguese Police did not receive any requests from the English

“The best way to avoid becoming a scapegoat is to find one.”
― Warren Eyster, The Goblins of Eros


The Portuguese Judiciary Police did not receive from the English authorities, investigating the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, any request concerning the three men linked to thefts in 2007 in the Ocean Club, in Praia da Luz, to be questioned again. Madeleine McCann disappeared on May 3, 2007 from the apartment G5A of the the Ocean Club resort. She was three years old. According to Friday's edition of Telegraph, the British authorities would want to question three men, who had been in the past detained and interrogated (and released).

One of them worked at the Ocean Club, transporting tourists, and would be linked to thefts in the resort. According to the newspaper, phone calls between the three placed them in the area of the child's disappearance on the night of May 3. A PJ source guaranteed, however, to Público, that there is no request for these men to be questioned again.

in Público newspaper (extract), April, 29, 2016

Note - Contrary to what is alleged in the British media and then echoed in the Portuguese, the three men at stake where never detained in connection to this case.

Richard IV wrote:

Pat seems to think the dogs evidence wouldn`t even be considered; as seen in her reply to a comment -

"Louise, what cadaver odor? What dogs? Are you using evidence to come up with a theory? Look, Scotland Yard has never spent time with the evidence, so it is likely their final explanation will have nothing to do with actual evidence either."

The dogs have always been the 11 most damaging bits of evidence against the McCanns.  If you believe the dogs then the abduction theory is gone - it simply cannot exist.  The converse is also true:  If you believe in abduction, then the dogs cannot exist.   But they do - so the only option is to ignore them completely.  Don't even mention them - not even to dismiss them.  

This has been SY's tactic since day 1.  The dogs - the central evidence in the case were not mentioned at all during the Crimewatch program, nor in any SY briefing, press release or leak since.  They have not come up in a single radio or TV interview about the case in the UK since the reopening.  Nothing about dogs in any newspaper or online article.   GONE - as if they they had never existed.

It was left Summers and Swan to explain them away in their discredited book "Whitewash - the McCann Version"  - and even they had nothing to offer except "there was no additional evidence to back up the dogs".  Not that the dogs were wrong.

As such, Pat Brown is correct - if SY are to whitewash this to an archived close, then the dogs will be ignored for they cannot exist in an abduction scenario.

Which is why forums such as this, and now Amaral's book, are so important in keeping their memory and their evidence very much in the public mind.

The parents need to be supened to court and made to answer 48 or so simple questions if no answers lock them up and throw away the keys end of them and their crap.

For the many who just watch TV news or read a paper, they will only remember a few words about the McCann case such as abducted, bungled, disgraced cop etc.

A long-winded explanation would be lost on them.

Hobs wrote:It falls flat on several points.
The cadaverine detected by the cadaver dog  requires a minimum time of 90 mins for it to be detectable by said dog.
The burglars aren't going to hang around for 90 mins.

It falls flat because burglars take valuables not a child. A child is a burden to them.
There has never been another case in portugal (or in the world) of stupid burglars stealing a child.

Burglars stole Maddie / Burglars killed Maddie is good tale, more pulp fiction to deflect from the truth.  

The tale of burglars stealing/killing Maddie was put out by 'family friend' of Mcs, NOT by the MET.  If Met's line of inquiry isn't on the Mcs, just by their spin to the press it is enough to cause suspicious on them.  

The question has to be asked: Why they interfere with investigations putting out baseless stories, to serve what purpose?
What was motive/purpose behind the spread of misinformation and who stands to gain from spreading misinformation.  

Why did Kate and Gerry believe it was in public interest to know Burglars stole/killed Madeleine ....what was the point of telling the public that when they are convinced  (vs hopeful, convinced is word used in the papers) she is still alive in Portugal.

TM and their enablers have abused their power for 9 years, and drastically overplayed their hands. 

The McCanns are neither believed nor trusted, and no amount of corrupt Establishment efforts is going to change that!

To add a few points to my post above - 

And say if the MET kept them updated hence their burglars story, then secrecy/confidentiality code must be imposed on them, obliging them to remain silent while investigation is ongoing.  

I don't believe MET kept them informed because Police are forbidden to talk about operations to anyone without exception.  If MET kept them informed that they knew police are onto burglars and whatever not, there isn't a need to spin to the press.
  
It would make sense for them to leave MET to finish their work if they are confident police are looking elsewhere, and not on them.

Their spin in the press would suggest they are kept in the dark, are fearful, and therefore taking a defensive stance for just in case.  
They are doing they same old same old as they did to the PJ ie using baseless info to detract from MET's investigation, to influence public perception, to mislead the public the investigators are looking for burglar-abductor.

I agree with Aiyoyo . The Mc's are not given a running commentary, there are no 3 burglars being investigated apart from the spin coming from 'sources'. 
   These sources will try and keep burglars, or lone attackers associated with the story as the investigation comes to a close and that's all they can do. SY can be as vague as they like and just say all the leads were exhausted. The public just glance at headlines and remember the vague gist of things they don't need an explanation like Pat Browns and the story she writes is never going to be given as a official explanation of anything.
   It will be interesting to see what happens if The truth of the lie is popular here because that in itself will generate more headlines and soundbites,  the counter spin will have to be huge!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't OG say that All leads have been 'exhausted' only in the remit of 'abduction'!

Which would still leave a greatly magnified "?" hanging over the whole case?

MayMuse wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't OG say that All leads have been 'exhausted' only in the remit of 'abduction'!

Which would still leave a greatly magnified "?" hanging over the whole case?

I really like the sound of that, MayMuse

Sorry, I just can't agree with Pat here...

Having seen the comments on recent articles, the feeling over this burglar nonsense is 'please don't insult our intelligence' - and this from people have obviously not read-up well on the case.

Just won't wash, IMO xxx 

I think what Pat`s getting at is that SY can say what ever they like and nobody can do a thing about it.  She merely thought the burglar one was as good as any.

As someone said, let`s hope GA gets his book published in English and gets sold in all English speaking countries.

Richard IV wrote:I think what Pat`s getting at is that SY can say what ever they like and nobody can do a thing about it.  She merely thought the burglar one was as good as any.

As someone said, let`s hope GA gets his book published in English and gets sold in all English speaking countries.

Yes I agree, but I think Pat is wrong that the public will buy into it! Op Grange is a lame duck (imo).

pennylane wrote:

Richard IV wrote:I think what Pat`s getting at is that SY can say what ever they like and nobody can do a thing about it.  She merely thought the burglar one was as good as any.

As someone said, let`s hope GA gets his book published in English and gets sold in all English speaking countries.

Yes I agree, but I think Pat is wrong that the public will buy into it! Op Grange is a lame duck (imo).

Maybe that`s the case with American public - they even believe what Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump say 

ETA Oh dear, forgot, some UK people even believe what DC says