Re: Pat Brown's blog

by Guest 15.07.12 22:57

I'd think that the response of K&G to Birch's claim is going to be motivated by not wishing to say or do anything likely to annoy Murat and his family so close to the libel trial. I've no idea how likely the possibility could be, of course, but I'm sure K&G could do without Murat or anyone close to him either giving evidence against them in court, or giving ammunition to Amaral and his lawyers.

If they are going ahead with the libel claim, winning that is all that matters to them at the moment (in my opinion)

by Cristobell 15.07.12 23:00

From a body language perspective, Kate visibly flinched when asked about Stephen Birch. I would have expected a 'we need to know' tearful response. It could have been devised to take the sting out of Kate's new appointment. That is, to elicit sympathy, and drown out dissenting voices. It is also a news story with potential longevity. It can be dug out (forgive the pun) at any time as a future headline, eg. McCanns Proved Innocent AGAIN. Perhaps during a libel trial?

by Willo 15.07.12 23:14

In my opinion, however scant the evidence, if the parents felt there was the tiniest chance of closure they would be besieging the PJ, SY, Murat and whoever else would listen to them, to excavate under the path to find the truth. I myself feel 99.9% that no body will be found and I am at a loss to make any sense of the end motives of any of the players involved but this claim must be investigated.

As I think of the many times over the last five years or so I have thought this case cannot get any more bizarre, I actually chuckle to myself. Out of the blue a member of the public thousands of miles away pin points the exact burial place of Madeleine and after chasing all those vague sightings in all parts of the world the McCann's seem to show little or no interest in having a look see. How bizarre!

by ShuBob 15.07.12 23:22

For the McCanns, it's all about strategy. It would appear Birch jumped the gun after a potential agreement with Wyk to release the story in September. It's still possible that they'll come alive in September around the time of the libel trial and start making noises about Murat's garden being dug up. I wouldn't put it past them.

by uppatoffee 15.07.12 23:28

ShuBob wrote:For the McCanns, it's all about strategy. It would appear Birch jumped the gun after a potential agreement with Wyk to release the story in September. It's still possible that they'll come alive in September around the time of the libel trial and start making noises about Murat's garden being dug up. I wouldn't put it past them.

Well if they do that I hope it backfires on them. That really will make it incredibly obvious what this is all about. Judging by Birch's post this afternoon, he seems to be trying to sabotage this cosy agreement, which suggests to me that he is of the opinion they are responsible. I think he has hinted at this all along, but has just been less subtle about it with each post.

by FH 31.07.12 0:00

Once again it seems actions (or the lack of) speak so much louder than words.

If it was my child that was missing and someone said they had found evidence of soil disturbance and possible remains close to where she went missing, I'd be on the first plane to Portugal and I'd start digging with my bare hands. If it was her I'd be devastated, but relieved to finally know what happened to her. If it wasn't her I'd be devastated, but relieved that she might still be out there somewhere alive. Either way I really wouldn't give a toss what the public and media thought my motives were.

by Olive_Boyle 31.07.12 0:09

Agree FH, exactly what I would do. And I'm sure so would any normal parent who had a missing child. I wouldn't give a toss about any consequences or upsetting anybody. If they can take seriously some nutter with a magic box, why wouldn't they take this, with so much more relevance seriously.

Off topic but its mentioned in this thread, so I'll ask my question here.

Is Murat taking someone to court in September for libel? And if he is, who? Thank you.

by monkey mind 31.07.12 10:35

I don't think Murat is taking anyone to court at the moment though his lawyer has intimatedthey may do with Mr Birch. I think that probably refers to the McCann Amaral hearing set for the autumn and the poster Tcat was insinuating that the McCanns would not wish to antagonise Murat prior to that hearing and risk bringing him out of the woodwork on behalf of the opposition....

by **Nina** 31.07.12 12:06

monkey mind wrote:I don't think Murat is taking anyone to court at the moment though his lawyer has intimatedthey may do with Mr Birch. I think that probably refers to the McCann Amaral hearing set for the autumn and the poster Tcat was insinuating that the McCanns would not wish to antagonise Murat prior to that hearing and risk bringing him out of the woodwork on behalf of the opposition....

Wasn't he taking Jane Tanner to court?

by rainbow-fairy 02.08.12 18:51

russiandoll wrote: I second all you say Tigger

I third it russiandoll Pat Brown's blog - Page 2 1710420815

by rainbow-fairy 02.08.12 18:52

Willo wrote:In my opinion, however scant the evidence, if the parents felt there was the tiniest chance of closure they would be besieging the PJ, SY, Murat and whoever else would listen to them, to excavate under the path to find the truth. I myself feel 99.9% that no body will be found and I am at a loss to make any sense of the end motives of any of the players involved but this claim must be investigated.

As I think of the many times over the last five years or so I have thought this case cannot get any more bizarre, I actually chuckle to myself. Out of the blue a member of the public thousands of miles away pin points the exact burial place of Madeleine and after chasing all those vague sightings in all parts of the world the McCann's seem to show little or no interest in having a look see. How bizarre!

Willo, spot on Pat Brown's blog - Page 2 160807

by rainbow-fairy 02.08.12 18:56

pennylane wrote:I think Pat Brown deserves a great deal of respect. This lady flew all the way from California to Portugal, and spent a great deal of time assessing the local vicinity of where Madeleine went missing, and checking out the surrounding terrain and the area Mr Smith believed he saw Gerry McCann carrying Madeleine, and much, much more. She is not just an armchair critic, she has proven she cares.

I hope she is able to go back to Portugal again in the near future and report back to us on her findings!

You rock Pat!

I think a fair point and I imagine Pat is completely frustrated at what appears to be a total disregard of the McCanns in the whole thing. At THE VERY LEAST, IF we believe there was neglect then they are culpable. If OTOH there was no neglect then things are worse still...

by aiyoyo 03.08.12 11:11

Let me put it this way - the mccanns knew exactly where they laid Madeleine to rest, so their refusal to heed Stephen Birch's claim is no surprise.

If she was indeed under Murat's driveway, all the more reason they are not interested in getting the backyard dig for obvious reason.
If she wasn't there which they already knew then it's only going to be a complete waste of time and resources.
I's very obvious why the mccanns dont give two monkeys about Birch's claim.

What is perplexing is why didn't Murat implore the PJ to come and dig up his backyard just to put the story to bed. There is no harm in that surely, just a bit of inconvenience that's all of having to put up with the digging activities. Plus he would be doing a decent citizen's duty of helping find Madeleine. Didn't he say in his post financial compensation from the Press that he hopes Madeleine is found.

Now I wonder what's stopping Murat or his mum for that matter from asking the PJ to come and dig up that contentious patch in question.

by **Nina** 03.08.12 11:32

aiyoyo wrote:Let me put it this way - the mccanns knew exactly where they laid Madeleine to rest, so their refusal to heed Stephen Birch's claim is no surprise.

If she was indeed under Murat's driveway, all the more reason they are not interested in getting the backyard dig for obvious reason.
If she wasn't there which they already knew then it's only going to be a complete waste of time and resources.
I's very obvious why the mccanns dont give two monkeys about Birch's claim.

What is perplexing is why didn't Murat implore the PJ to come and dig up his backyard just to put the story to bed. There is no harm in that surely, just a bit of inconvenience that's all of having to put up with the digging activities. Plus he would be doing a decent citizen's duty of helping find Madeleine. Didn't he say in his post financial compensation from the Press that he hopes Madeleine is found.

Now I wonder what's stopping Murat or his mum for that matter from asking the PJ to come and dig up that contentious patch in question.

Not excusing the lack of asking just a thought that maybe the first time they entered the Murat's villa and gardens they caused a lot of mess, damage and expense to rectify. I remember them draining the pool, now maybe not a big deal, but to replace the water, if in fact water was available would have been very costly. The shrubs and trees were also cut back. Yes maybe could have done with a prune, but they were not pruned they were hacked back. Now that is there home, possibly not the most landscaped of gardens, but their home nevertherless and there was a lot of upheaval.
I would love for the McCanns Rothley place to have received the same attention, Kate would have thrown a right wobbler.
Honestly I am not making any excuses. A child is worth far more than a garden or a swimming pool, I am merely pointing out what it would mean from a householder's point of view.
Of course the chance that there is something there hence the reticence.

by aiyoyo 04.08.12 6:53

If she is there as alleged then the PJ would be there in a flash to dig up doesn't matter the mess or inconvenience to the householder in question. I am inclined to think the PJ know more than revealed.

This case is not going to be solved by going round digging up Murat's backyard just on Birch say on, and in the process make a complete fool of yourself. Of course if Birch can put more meat on his bone (other than his equipment detected something there) then it might be a completely different story.

The best bet to progress is to haul the Mccanns and T7 back to get them to answer questions and to do a reconstruction.

by ProfessorPPlum 04.08.12 12:12

Let's imagine for a moment that the McCanns are telling the truth and there was and abductor around 9.15pm on 3rd May 2007. Even if that were the case they would be aware - as we all are - that it is statistically vastly more likely that Madeleine was killed soon after and disposed of.

Therefore you'd think that someone independent claiming to have spent a considerable amount of money on research that confirms this statistical probability would have to be taken seriously - but the McCanns ignore it. Why? Because it doesn't fit with their version of reality. By definition, a victim has no control of what happens to them. Why also are McCanns are so certain about what did and didn't happen to Madeleine before, during and after she was 'taken' from their care?

From the start, the McCanns have devoted all their energies to imposing their version of reality on this situation. What victim does this? They seem to have little or no idea what their obsession reveals about them to a watching world. To me it's the hallmark of the liar.

by russiandoll 06.09.12 22:59

dated today on her blog :

The concept of Occam's Razor, that the simplest explanation is likely to be true, is useful when analyzing the case of missing Madeleine McCann. With Scotland Yard having flushed millions of pounds of British taxpayer's money down the toilet in an effort to promote the most ludicrous of theories (in complete opposition to Occam's Razor), I want to step back to the night of May 3, 2007 and examine the simplest of answers.

Why did the McCanns leave Madeleine and her siblings alone in the vacation apartment evening after evening?

Because they were not worried that anyone would get into the apartment or that the children would get out.

Why were they not worried that anyone would get into the apartment or that the children would get out?

Because the apartment was thoroughly locked down so that it would be extremely difficult for anyone to get in or for the children to get out.

As then it would be routine for the McCanns to lock down the apartment when they went to the Tapas bar in the evening, would it be likely that they would change their routine on the evening of May 3, 2007 and leave the doors unlocked so that someone could get in or that one of their children could get out?

No.

Therefore, it is most likely that the apartment was locked down on May 3, 2007.

Yes.

Oh.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

September 6, 2012

by Guest 06.09.12 23:02

That's my girl ...

ETA the mantra: no neglect = no abduction

by Ross 07.09.12 0:57

Pat's original comments, and the discussion in this thread thereafter is all based on one assumption - that there is a body. However, as long ago as September 2007, McCann said "Find the body and prove we killed her." This is an extremely confident statement, and it is possible that his confidence stems from knowing that there is no body. We know the Foreign Office was on the scene immediately in the shape of the Ambassador and consular staff, and a government spin doctor flown out from London. With this level of interest it is naive not to assume that other, covert, FO employees were also despatched to the scene, and one thing spooks can do is make a corpse disappear when required.

With no body it is very difficult to make a case stick, so disposing of it permanently would be a logical step.

by aiyoyo 07.09.12 1:46

You don't need a body to prove homicide, just evidence.
There is overwhelming evidence Maddie died in the apt.
Take away the unusual elements in the case - pressure from extra helping hands and spin - ordinarily case like this will make it to court and someone tried for the homicide even sans body.

by Ross 07.09.12 2:26

aiyoyo wrote:You don't need a body to prove homicide, just evidence.
There is overwhelming evidence Maddie died in the apt.
Take away the unusual elements in the case - pressure from extra helping hands and spin - ordinarily case like this will make it to court and someone tried for the homicide even sans body.

Is it not the case in Portugal that you do need a body to prosecute for murder? I seem to remember reading that, but stand to be corrected. I don't agree that "There is overwhelming evidence Maddie died in the apt." Cadaverine is non-specific, a body, not any particular one. The blood specks do not have sufficient DNA markers to get past a defence lawyer. That's the sum of the forensic evidence, it's inconclusive not overwhelming.

In fact one of the real (many) curiosities is the apparent paucity of any forensic evidence that Madeleine was ever in the flat in the first place. No hair on the pillow, no toothbrush (!), no dirty clothes, no general clutter you would expect in a holiday apartment. If she was there, one obvious conclusion is that she was long gone before 3rd May.

by russiandoll 07.09.12 9:51

Hello Ross,
While cadaverine is non-specific, if there had been no known deaths in apartment 5a before May 3rd 2007, then given there is a child missing, it would seem reasonable to suspect that the death was of this child. Also blood marked independently by a different dog in the same location would lend weight to this suspicion imo.

by ShuBob 07.09.12 10:00

Ross wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:You don't need a body to prove homicide, just evidence.
There is overwhelming evidence Maddie died in the apt.
Take away the unusual elements in the case - pressure from extra helping hands and spin - ordinarily case like this will make it to court and someone tried for the homicide even sans body.

Is it not the case in Portugal that you do need a body to prosecute for murder? I seem to remember reading that, but stand to be corrected. I don't agree that "There is overwhelming evidence Maddie died in the apt." Cadaverine is non-specific, a body, not any particular one. The blood specks do not have sufficient DNA markers to get past a defence lawyer. That's the sum of the forensic evidence, it's inconclusive not overwhelming.

In fact one of the real (many) curiosities is the apparent paucity of any forensic evidence that Madeleine was ever in the flat in the first place. No hair on the pillow, no toothbrush (!), no dirty clothes, no general clutter you would expect in a holiday apartment. If she was there, one obvious conclusion is that she was long gone before 3rd May.

No (cf. Joanna Cipriano case).

by russiandoll 07.09.12 15:48

It is not easy to reconcile the actions described by DW, the delay in leaving Faro for PdL because the group were concerned about obtaining child car seats, with the complete lack of care claimed in the resort itself.
I do not believe that any child would be allowed access to the patio area of apartment 5a, the drop from that wall to what was ground level below is not a risk any sane parent would take.
Given the light and noise from the tapas area, a child of Maddie's age would more than likely, if exiting via the patio doors, try to climb on a patio chair to establish where the light and noise was coming from. No way was access to the exterior space allowed imo, no way was there ever any checking, the apartment was locked because the children were being supervised elsewhere.

by **tigger** 07.09.12 16:02

Quite so RD! There were valuables inside after all and thankfully, these weren't missing as Gerry was able to report. First thing you think of - no child hang on a minute - where's my wallet, camera, mobile phone?

Gerry also said something like 'it could have been worse, we could have lost all three' not exact quote! I'll try to find it again.

We have the mindset her of a person who in a sort of Oscar Wilde manner, regards losing one child as unfortunate but three as carelessness.

One simply doesn't speak the same language or indeed come from the same planet.

by sonic72 12.09.12 20:41

It's a bit hypocritical of some members to pick at Pat Brown's use of words. The same people have not exactly been reserved with their own feelings towards this case.

Everyone has their own opinion on it, and Pat Brown has many years experience in a wide range of criminal investigations, she has been to Portugal to investigate herself, she has absorbed herself in all the available data, and I'm in agreement with her findings and opinions, I trust her judgement based on her higher level of experience with criminal cases.

by sonic72 12.09.12 20:49

Meagain wrote:I think that if I was in their shoes, I might be inclined to ask for the garden to be dug up uppatoffee. I am not however, so can't be sure.

I just wonder if however they play it they will receive criticism from some quarters. You and I might think that they should ask for it to be dug because it would show that they truly were not leaving any stone unturned and if nothing was found we might be genuinely relieved for them and for Madeleine. The next two people, however, might jump on this and condemn them as knowing she wasn't there because they have hid her body elsewhere.

What chance do they have?

You seem like you are defending them? What chance do they have? Surely a chance to find their child and get the allegations off their back would be priority number one, so digging up Murat's place would be beneficial to them.

Who cares if people jump on them and say they have hidden it somewhere else? It's not like people don't suspect them anyway! I have a feeling you've just joined to (subtly) stick up for the McCann's?

Walter Scott · by david_uk 13.09.12 11:47

Has anyone ever purported that Maddie may have fatally fallen from the balcony into the flower bed below?.

by pennylane 13.09.12 12:03

david_uk wrote:Has anyone ever purported that Maddie may have fatally fallen from the balcony into the flower bed below?.

Yes this theory was discussed in-depth in the early days, and it is certainly food for thought!

It's possible that the Mc's sedated Maddie on 2nd, following the lengthy crying episode on 1st, but she still awoke in a groggy state and wandered out through the patio doors and climbed onto the wall to look at the tapas bar where she could hear them all making a commotion, and tragically she fell off the wall down into the flower bed and was badly injured, or broke her neck. I have always felt death occurred late 2nd or during 3rd May, and I think your above suggestion as to a possible cause, is plausible.

Walter Scott · by david_uk 13.09.12 13:01

pennylane wrote:
david_uk wrote:Has anyone ever purported that Maddie may have fatally fallen from the balcony into the flower bed below?.

Yes this theory was discussed in-depth in the early days, and it is certainly food for thought!

It's possible that the Mc's sedated Maddie on 2nd, following the lengthy crying episode on 1st, but she still awoke in a groggy state and wandered out through the patio doors and climbed onto the wall to look at the tapas bar where she could hear them all making a commotion, and tragically she fell off the wall down into the flower bed and was badly injured, or broke her neck. I have always felt death occurred late 2nd or during 3rd May, and I think your above suggestion as to a possible cause, is plausible.

Did the dogs alert to that flowerbed beneath the apartment?

I think it more plausible that it was evening of May 2nd also.

Latest topics