Pat Brown: Why the McCanns Love Conspiracy Theorists

Why the McCanns Love Conspiracy Theorists

What is Even the Point of Photoshopping in Sunglasses?

Yesterday, I wrote about how unsolved cases can sometimes garner such great interest that the public may overanalyze every piece of information and come up with a more and more complicated theory about what happened and why the crime has not been solved. Someone who read the post then wrote me and said if the very in-depth theories about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann had no validity - that "The Last Photo" is photoshopped and wasn't take on the day claimed, that Maddie died way before May 3, that the entire evening of May 3 including the negligant behavior was just staged to make a kidnapping scenario possible, that Maddie never was in the creche during the week leading up until she vanished, that there is something far more sinister involved in the disappeance of Madeleine than an accidental death and panicked cover-up - then the McCanns would have offered more proof of Maddie being alive until May 3 in order to quell these damning theories.

But, in reality, these theories do nothing but benefit the McCanns' assertions that Internet crazies and trolls are making ridiculous claims; it is the far more likely scenario, the simple one of negligence and a desperate cover-up that the McCanns would like to go away. This is why they want Amaral's book off the market, why they want my book off the market - the truth is what they fear being proven, not a myriad of farout theories promoted by people with no power to influence law enforcement. The more fantastical the theories, the easier it is to discredit those who create them.

In fact, the McCanns love convoluted scenarios so much, they hired a bunch of crooked private investigators to create all kinds of bizarre kidnapping scenarios because they know the public loves to latch on to fascinating puzzles and that keeps the money coming in. Can you imagine how few donations they would have received if their PIs only looked for a local pedophile who would have killed Maddie within hours of abducting her? Not many would have supported that kind of search....it is just sad and boring and even if it brings closure to the parents and saves other children's lives, there is just nothing very inspiring about searching for a dead child.

The McCanns also have to be happy about the complicated scenarios that Scotland Yard has managed to develop because, again, it takes the focus off of a simple crime that points to them being involved.

If only all the focus of everyone - the public, the police, and professionals - simply looked back at May 3rd, 2007 and analyzed what went wrong that evening, how the McCanns likely dealt with it, and what they  could have done to destroy the evidence of their involvement and, most importantly, focused on where her body might be  - the one piece of evidence that could lead to an actual conviction - maybe then, this case would have a chance of being solved and justice done.

I don't believe there is a snowball's chance in hell of this happening at this point, but it is a shame that  more effort isn't put into just that.


Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

November 6, 2015

http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/why-mccanns-love-conspiracy-theorists_6.html

Hi Pat, if you are reading this.

I'm sorry Pat, but I think you are making a big, big mistake here.

Your penultimate paragraph says this:

"If only all the focus of everyone - the public, the police, and professionals - simply looked back at May 3rd, 2007 and analysed what went wrong that evening, how the McCanns likely dealt with it, and what they could have done to destroy the evidence of their involvement and, most importantly, focused on where her body might be  - the one piece of evidence that could lead to an actual conviction - maybe then, this case would have a chance of being solved and justice done".

Your analysis is virtually identical to that set out by Goncalo Amaral over seven years ago. "Madeleine had high tea with the nanny Cat Baker at 5.30pm to 6pm. Cat Baker is an honest and credible witness. The family went back to their apartment around 6pm. Some time after that, Madeleine suffered a fatality in the apartment. The McCanns quickly got rid of the body from the apartment and no-one knows where it is or what happened to it. The McCanns pretended that Madeleine had been abducted and raised the alarm about 10pm that evening, or a few minutes before". And that's it.

But if you still buy that, how, please, can you account for:

(1) the wholesale contradictions between the accounts of Gerry and Kate McCann, Cat Baker and Charlotte Pennington about the alleged 'high tea' at 5.30pm, so painstakingly analysed by Lizzy 'HiDeHo' and others?

(2) the immediate and long-term involvement of a raft of top government media advisers, Foreign Office officials and ambassadors, leading members of public relations firms, assorted branches of the British security services, dozens of lawyers, a $12-million, four-and-a-half-year long enquiry which has got precisley nowhere, and so on? 

(3) the clear lines of evidence suggesting that the so-called 'Last Photo' was not taken on the Thursday afternoon, 3rd May? 

(4) the apparent lack of clear and credible evidence of Madeleine being seen by anyone after the Sunday of that week, as set out in a very clear article published here last month, also by Lizzy 'HideHo'? - and

(5) the evident advance planning of the manifestly fabricated statement of Nuno Lourenco about the alleged near-kidnapping of his daughter at Sagres, and along with that...             

(6) the near-identical descriptions of 'Tannerman' by Jane Tanner and of Wojchiech Krokowski by Nuno Lourenco - and, for that matter, of 'Smithman' by the Smiths.


Unless you have got simple, pat answers to all of these conundrums, you might be more helpful if you supported and backed those who engage with these issues and try to find honest answers to them.

As a criminal profiler and someone experienced in the workings of the criminal mind, surely you must acknowledge that every attempt there has ever been to cover up any crime, big or small, is a 'conspiracy' of some kind? Some criminal conspiracies are much more complicated than others - and I think I've helped to uncover two pretty big ones in my time: 1. the passing-off of the killing of Stuart Lubbock as a 'drowning', and 2. the alleged 'tragic accident' of Lee Balkwell being killed whilst allegedly working in pitch black on a concrete mixer at 1.03am in the morning. 

I agree that some of the ideas about the crime of responsibilty for Madeleine's disappearance are frankly crackpot, such as the obsession some have with angles in Gerry's sunglasses.

But you may be over-reaching yourself if you think all of us with enquiring minds should simply swallow wholesale the claim that Madeleine suffered a fatality between 6pm and 10pm on 3rd May, pack up enquiring and, as you put it, 'focus on where her body might be'.

- Disappointed, Harlow

32 comments:

Pat Brown said...
I want to say, that I actually very much appreciate the great interest I have seen in this case and the efforts to understand it. Not all theories outside of mine are "incorrect" and my theory is not necessarily totally "correct" and, in general, there is nothing wrong with bringing up ideas and trying to see if there is something there. Unfortunately, though, along with some clearly good analyses of various anomolies in this case, as time has gone on, the overanalysis of certain issues has led to a much fantastical hypotheses. I believe in sticking to what can be proven as much as is possible and leaving alone anything that is too questionable; for example, the Payne statement is just not valid enough which is why it has been ignored by law enforcement and stuff like Maddie look-a-likes being carted about Praia da Luz to make it seem like she is alive and Brenda being murdered simply does not have any evidence to support the idea. It is the overfocus on theories with little evidence which has skewed this case toward conspiracyland and caused more damage than good.


November 6, 2015 at 3:06 PM

Anonymous said...
Hi Pat, hope you are well, I agree that most cases are straight forward, but, the McCann case is not in that category.
How many cases have you been called upon, where such agencies have intervened, such as Top Government officials, Two Prime Ministers, Royalty, Secret Intelligent Services, MI5, MI6 & MOD, along with, Two countries top diplomats without mentioning Two excellent top police forces PJ & Scotland Yard, Interpol, and Twelve Million pounds expenditure signed off via United Kingdom PM, also, a world wide search.
Sorry Pat, I would hardly think (no matter how clever they are, a group of middle class doctors allegedly involved in an accidental death of a child; would call upon so much attention and urgency. Madeleine McCann case is so special it effectively shut down free press around the World. No Pat, this case is special and needs special attention by anyone who will put in the time & effort for justice for little Maddie McCann.
November 6, 2015 at 3:06 PM

Anonymous said...
Pat do you really think there would be a cover up or are you in lalaland? I think perhaps you are.

By the way the year is 2015 not 2016! See I spotted that!
November 6, 2015 at 3:12 PM

Pat Brown said...
Anon 3:06

The problem, Anon, is there is STILL no evidence that supports anything but an accidental death on May 3rd....and, as I pointed out in my previous post, this is just not the way crime is committed. Yes, the McCanns have gotten unprecendented support but this does not mean that there is evidence supporting a conspiracy IN Maddie's disappearance, just that the McCanns got help after the fact for some reason or other. We must stick with the evidence and all this stuff about Maddie dying days earlier and a huge pile of people staging her an abduction on May 3rd just doesn't hold water...no evidence to that fact, none, and people are trying desperately to create such evidence and this is where it all goes off the rails and starts benefitting the McCanns tremendously.

The case is over. Scotland Yard is winding down and will put it to bed. I doubt Goncalo will win in court except maybe to have the losses reduced in some manner. This case will remain a mystery for years to come, not, in my opinion as to how Maddie died, but why the McCanns got so much help in the long run.
November 6, 2015 at 3:14 PM

Sonmi Papasong said...
I entirely agree that there is so much ill-informed (albeit well-meaning) nonsense perpetually circulating as 'fact' it's no wonder those that question the official narrative relating to Madeleine can sometimes be considered 'conspiriloons'. The cause is that many people seem unable to discriminate between 'opinion' and a rational hypotheses based upon the most robust evidence. I consider the Last Photo to not have been taken on the day/time claimed (based upon the evidence of the weather and the sun position). However this does not automatically mean that Madeleine died before the night of the third... It could just as simply be that a cheery family photo was needed for the media to hype as a 'Last Photo' with nothing more sinister (n.b. Whenever someone dies the Media like to have a Last Photo for added emotional impact). The timing of the Last Photo can be assessed and debated, intelligently and rationally drawing upon the available evidence. Researchers may not agree on the interpretation of such evidence... and even if they did agree that the photo could not have been taken on the 3rd it is then simply guesswork as to the "why?" it was produced by the McCanns as a 'Last Photo'.

However, what is absolutely unarguable is that the Last Photo shows absolutely no evidence of any Photoshopping. The maxim "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" is a good one... and there is, in this photo, an absence of image manipulation. The biggest claim of 'evidence' are the vertical lines (as highlighted in the article'a header) in Gerry's sunglasses. The attached video shows very simply that vertical lines are exactly what you'd see. Anyone that claims the sunglasses are Photoshopped is, either unwittingly or intentionally, helping those implicated in the death and cover-up of Madeleine. In this regards Pat is spot on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAXqYthVcrM

November 6, 2015 at 3:23 PM

Anonymous said...
Hi Pat, Don't you agree abduction was/is the simplest answer? I cannot get my head around the fantastical theories abounding on "social media" which is anything but social!

We were told from the very start via our news channels that people had witnessed a man and a woman watching 5a. If that is the case, and I believe it was, then the abductors would have got a clear pattern of the McCanns activities and easily have accessed the apartment in a swift and clean operation. Can you not see this?

What we find is various little cliques of people who come up with way out theories of parental involvement and cover up on some massive scale including governments, police forces x 3 and staff of the OC plus residents & the priest in Luz. Could this be feasible? Of course not. The McCanns are 2 very ordinary doctors from here in Leicestershire and as I know people who either know them or have seen them out and about, then what I garner is that they are a thoroughly nice but ordinary couple, not mastermind criminals.

I honestly think it is time people such as yourself refrain from starting more controversy. I'm positive the truth will be learned one day. I was inspired when the Sunday People journalists approached Wojciech Krokowski as my suspicions lie firmly in that man having involvement.

What do you say?
November 6, 2015 at 3:25 PM

Anonymous said...
Pat I also wish to correct you on another claim you make above regarding Operation Grange winding down.

This is far from true. They had a huge amount of officers on the investigation in the beginning & up until recently because of the volume of work they had to do. Remember they didn't only have the mish mash of paperwork from the PJ investigation but also all of the information garnered by the PIs such as Metodo 3, Halligens men and Edgar etc. Now although Halligen was later proved to be a fraud his men did some good work on the case as did Metodo3 and Edgar etc. All this had to be collated by Operation Grange. It has taken this long to sort it out and I daresay to bin was they deem unnecessary. Remember OG have also interviewed a number of witnesses/suspects already.

We were given notice only a few days ago that although the size of the operation is now cut to 4 that the 60 leads they have left to follow is manageable with the number of officers left. We were also told by the police that they will NEVER give up on Madeleine and her file will remain open for as long as it takes so I feel you are misinforming your readers somewhat by saying it is winding up.
November 6, 2015 at 3:37 PM

Pat Brown said...
Anon 3:12

Coverups are done for lots of reasons: protecting national interests, politics, personal friendships, etc. Many times I have worked a case which ended in a railroading or coverup and people would comment that the reason was because there was some huge connection between the killer and the sheriff or whatever. A good portion of the time the coverup was due to funding, embarrassing investigative errors, political career enhancing (like solve a case on your watch) and all sorts of more mundane reasons. Sometimes these things tumble into something that looks huge but is just a bunch of smaller people looking out for themselves.

As to you comment on spotting my mistype of 2016 instead of 2015 (thank you; I have fixed it). People have jumped on all kinds of "evidence" about me and theorized what it meant -- like a typo means I am drunk or incompetant; when Scotland Yard fails to close the McCann case it is because of a conspiracy; when I fail to close a case it is because I am a "fake" profiler. The problem with so many theories is that they are not based on evidence and unless there is solid evidence to support a theory, then it should not make it into "proof" land.

If it weren't for the evidence which I believe supports their involvement in the disappearance of Maddie, I would feel sorry fo so many things I think are taken out of context and slanderous.
November 6, 2015 at 3:44 PM

Pat Brown said...
Anon 3:37 As I have stated for a long time, the Scotland Yard investigation is not run as a proper investigation should be run. The huge amount of information they supposedly had to go through is garbage; when I have worked on a case, I do not go through hundreds of boxes of worthless information - tips from psychics, etc. What I do is focus on the evidence and go from there and this is the part that Scotland Yard didn't bother to do; hence, they spent four years in nonsensical busy work. They only need four people to start with in order to review the real evidence of the case. So, yes, the case is winding down due to the outcry over wasted money and because they have nothing left to "investigate" and now will just putter around until the end.

November 6, 2015 at 3:47 PM

Pat Brown said...
Sonmi,

This whole thing about "The Last Photo" sunglasses is a great example of how silly this has become. Let's say there was a photo of Gerry sitting with one child by a pool but he isn't wearing sunglasses. So what? Why would that photo not have been good enough? Why would someone waste time adding sunglasses to his face just so that then someone could claim they were photoshopped? It is nonsense. For that matter, it doesn't even make a difference if there were no photos; some people just don't want to spend their time clicking pictures. And, again, the evidence points to May 3rd, not earlier, so all of this fakery is simply not necessary. Also, even IF Madeleine died before the 3rd, I can tell you as a profiler who has analyzed many cases, the theory of how her earlier death was covered up and May 3rd staged is just not something that happens; they would have dealt with it in a simpler, quicker way, just as we see on May 3.
November 6, 2015 at 3:51 PM

Anonymous said...
Pat I am disappointed by your response to me to be perfectly honest. I find the whole concept of a massive cover up by 2 governments, 3 x police forces, OC staff and management, the Priest in Luz and the good people of Luz to be ludicrous and I don't believe it happened.

The simple facts are this, apartment 5a was watched for days and as stated by myself above it enabled a swift and clean operation in which Madeleine was lifted from her bed by a woman I believe and handed across the wall to a man and she was gone but this was witnessed by Jane Tanner. I don't believe she or any of the Tapas Group lied.

We know from Nuno Lourenco's statement that only days before his daughter was the target of a man who was firstly taking photographs of his daughter (who looked much like Madeleine) and others, furtively on the beach at Sagres. he later tried twice to snatch the child in a beachside café. Luckily for the little girl that failed and yet within days Madeleine was gone. Now to me that sounds very much like a child was ordered and when Nuno Lourenco's child escaped then another little girl was sought. You may think this unlikely but if so why? You know full well the ridiculous theories abounding on public forums such as facebook. Cruel and needless and being pushed out there by mindless people with over active imaginations. Perhaps they have suffered abuse themselves in their childhood, that is sad, but really the abuse the McCanns have had to endure has to stop. The poor couple get blamed for every darned thing that comes up in the daily rags as if they have organised it instead of realising that the rags know how much money they make everytime Madeleine's name is on their front pages.

It is persecution and nothing else describes what the McCanns are being put through. There is nothing at all to say they were in anyway involved with Madeleine's disappearance except they were foolish to have left the children asleep in the apartment. They were not abusive parents Pat and the McCann children were a very happy trio and would be today if it wasn't for the predatory nature of some felons.
November 6, 2015 at 4:07 PM

Anonymous said...
Here you are Pat. And please don't accuse Operation Grange of not conducting themselves professionally and investigating in a proper fashion. I know you are rather enamoured with Goncalo Amaral and Peter MacLeod but really you are skewed if you believe either of them over our top police force in UK:

http://www.policeprofessional.com/news.aspx?id=24696
November 6, 2015 at 4:16 PM

Anonymous said...
There is no evidence that supports an "accidental death" either. What are you talking about? Are you sure you're not confusing this case with another?
November 6, 2015 at 4:32 PM

Anonymous said...
Maybe Pat is confusing this case with another? There is no proof Madeleine died at all, in which case the decent thing to do is to continue the search for her and find out just what happened to her...surely? Or do we allow these felons to carry on stealing our children? What do you say Pat?
November 6, 2015 at 4:41 PM

Anonymous said...
Can you explain what you mean by this outrageous claim:

"The McCanns also have to be happy about the complicated scenarios that Scotland Yard has managed to develop because, again, it takes the focus off of a simple crime that points to them being involved."

I'm not following you

What the hell would be "simple" about getting rid of your beloved daughter's body assuming she had had an accidental death rather than taking appropriate action, as I believe they would have done being doctors, and informing the authorities? Your deduction makes no sense at all.

And to say the parents must be happy with what Scotland Yard have developed? For God's sake Pat please come into the real world.
November 6, 2015 at 4:48 PM

Anonymous said...
Here is something FYI Pat as maybe you aren't up to speed on what is happening in UK with our police and our press?


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-detectives-examine-former-6699750?ICID=FB_mirror_main

November 6, 2015 at 5:05 PM

Anonymous said...
To anon above, you are wrong with your assumption about the webmaster. I happen to know who it is and the initials are quite wrong. There you go...false information yet again! Try harder next time!
November 6, 2015 at 5:24 PM

Pat Brown said...
Anon 3:25

I based my analysis on evidence, physical and behavioral, and as a profiler I can't ignore the evidence. The simplest answer that it would be an abduction is not necessarily the right answer; I can't base a profile on the simplest or even what seems to be an obvious answer. There is NO evidence of an abduction outside of the fact Madeleine missing and much physical evidence and behavioral evidence that supports and accident in the flat and an attempt to cover up that fact.

It matters not to me whether the McCanns are nice people or not-so-nice people. Psychopaths and narcissists have had their children abducted and murdered and seemingly nice people can be behind horrific crimes. This is why one must focus on evidence, not subjective feelings about the persons of interest.
November 6, 2015 at 5:42 PM

Pat Brown said...
Anon 4:07

A great example of calling something evidence that is not. There is no "fact" that the apartment was watched for days or that Maddie was lifted by a woman out of bed and handed to a man outside...so this shows why people claiming stuff that isn't true to be true or making up scenarios based on zero evidence is a problem.

November 6, 2015 at 5:46 PM

Pat Brown said...
I don't really wish to get into an argument over this and that but to answer quickly to some of the stuff above:

I am not "enthralled" by anyone: I am enthralled by the scientific method of profiling based on evidence.
I do have an issue with the abnormal handling of the case by Scotland Yard and I have worked with police departments that have mishandled cases before. Detectives and police departments are like any other professionals and organizations: sometimes excellent, sometimes terrible, sometimes mediocre, sometimes honest, sometimes not so honest...they are just human beings and organizations run by human beings. Scotland Yard has done excellent work in the past as have most police departments, but, on this case, something is amiss and being improperly handled. This is NOT the way you investigate a missing child case...and that is simply a fact.
Based on evidence, it is very likely Madeline was medicated and came to harm while she was under the influence of something she should not have been given during a time when her parents neglected to provide proper care. Calling the authorities and having this being public could ruin their careers and land them in jail. This is the reason for panicking and covering up what happened. There have been numerous cases similar to this where a parent killing a child is then staged as a stranger crime.


November 6, 2015 at 5:52 PM

Anonymous said...
What evidence are you speaking of though Pat, there is none?

I still cannot believe that the McCanns would cover up the death of their adorable and beloved little girl rather than taking the appropriate steps had she accidentally died in 5a. So many very weird theories are being taken as fact. It is really a very poor reflection on society today when their minds go immediately to conspiracies and cover ups and boy I have read them all in connection to the McCann case.

The trouble is for a lot of people they believe Goncalo Amaral in his book. A man we should trust less would be very hard to come by I imagine. His track record is abysmal and he should NEVER have been let loose on the Madeleine case in light of what he was being convicted of the very next day.

You have to take on board that the McCanns were of impeccable character up to the point of Madeleine disappearing. Why would they suddenly change as people? I honestly don't think they did.

You look about the forums and although some groups number highly there are few who actually make comments and of those who do we get "Gerry is a slimy faced got I'd like to punch his lights out"...."God look at Kate in that awful dress and those sandals. What does she think she looks like" This sums up the kind of characters we see against this poor unfortunate family. There is one woman who accuses them of being paedophiles and training their daughter to Suck ****...I jest you not! Disgusting and disturbed individuals and these are the same people who back Goncalo Amaral, although when it came to a show of hands in their pockets for ready cash for him they were nowhere to be seen and your best friend Peter MacLeod ended up putting many donations in...he says some were from his lottery winnings. he strikes it lucky so often!

All in all it is frightening and concerning to see the kind of remarks left on "social media" forums and to be truthful you are not helping matters one little bit Pat.
November 6, 2015 at 5:55 PM

Pat Brown said...
Anon 5:05

Again, there is no evidence at all this man had a thing to do with Maddie's disappearance nor is there evidence of an abduction by anyone and all the evidence supports the child dying in the apartment and being removed.

Jane Tanner's claim does not hold water; she is not telling the truth about being on the street at the time she says; the man she described could match many men in the area and her description was neither clear or consistant.

So, here we go again, lets pull bits of info from everywhere, make up a story linking bits of info together, and call that a theory. Yes, it IS a theory but not a scientific one and investigation should be as scientific enquiry not a haphazard fishing expedition.
November 6, 2015 at 5:59 PM

Pat Brown said...
Anon 5:55

Another example of nonfactual commentary.

Neither you nor I have a clue to what kind of people the McCanns are except the one thing that IS a fact is these two people left small children unattended in a foreign country with no ability to contact their parents should they have any problems. The McCanns are guilty of being negligent parents. Another fact is the McCanns did not have a consistant story as to their actions that night. I DO agree with you that some people have been downright nasty about the McCanns' demeaner or attractiveness and said despicable things about them. In fact, I have people, including you, doing that right now to Amarla, Peter McLeod and me.

But, the whole point is, regardless of whether you like the McCanns or not, like Amaral or me or not, think it is an abduction or not, evidence is evidence and a scientific analysis of the case should be based on that.
November 6, 2015 at 6:05 PM

Pat Brown said...
Ad hominem and slanderous attacks will be deleted.
November 6, 2015 at 6:07 PM

Anonymous said...
Pat there is as much evidence that this man was involved as there is that the McCanns were and I don't believe Jane Tanner lied about being on the street or what she saw before her eyes but she was very traumatised when she realised it was probably Madeleine she had seen being taken away. My heart goes out to her. To think she could have prevented the continuation of this very straight forward abduction.

I think Operation Grange need to interrogate the man in the article above because he has never been questioned thoroughly enough for my liking and you have to admit he is the spitting image of Jane Tanners efit of the man seen walking away with a child?
November 6, 2015 at 6:08 PM

Pat Brown said...
This is to Get 'em Goncalo,

Please read my previous post about compiling lots of pieces of information and then theorizing that these are real facts that have to do with the case and that they can be strung together into a theory when, in reality, they are NOT anything proven to be related to the case. There are many coincidences and unrelated things which we must not construe to have importance. What we must do in analyzing a case is to look at the real evidence, physical and behavioral, and base our conclusion on these pieces of information. For example, one of the most interesting FACTS is that the McCanns showed NO interest in Smithman and when Kate wrote her book made a statement that IF Smithman was indeed the abductor he had to be the same man Jane saw. Now, I can tell you from working many cases, the lack of interest in Smithman as a possibe suspect and then need to make him Jane's Tannerman is red flag and shows there is some reason the McCanns want to ignore Smithman. This is a behavioral FACT. Another fact is there is no physical evidence of a stranger in the flat. This is a PHYSICAL fact. That Tannerman exists is NOT a fact because Jane's story is questionable and Scotland Yard's claim that they identified him is even more questionable. That anyone was "watching" the apartment is NOT a fact. That Murat's house is close by to the flat is a FACT. That he took Maddie or that Maddie is buried on his property is NOT a FACT. And so on. Stick with the facts. This is what I did to build my profile and I am not going to change my profile because of rumors, innuendos, and guesses.
November 6, 2015 at 6:20 PM

Pat Brown said...
Anon 6:08

Jane's story is not truthful; I wrote a long post about this after I went to Praia da Luz and stood on the street where she made the claim she saw Gerry, Jez, and the suspicious man. What she said happened could not have happened.

If Scotland Yard were truly investigating this crime, they would not be interviewing every vistor to Praia da Luz and Portugal but focus on the evidence from the crime scene.
November 6, 2015 at 6:23 PM

Pat Brown said...
BTW, in response to why I have issues with the McCanns and I think this is important because there is a difference between slandering people and being nasty and pointing out a concern when it comes to crime, public resources, and asking for donations.

1) When the McCanns asked for donations, they had a public duty to be honest, honorable, and transparent. Instead, their have a questionable fund and hired criminals to work for them. They have bilked the public out of a huge amount of money and continue to do so.

2) The McCanns neglected their young children which lead to the very likely death of their daughter.

3) They did not cooperate with the police.

4) Evidence points to their involvement in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

I don't care a wit about what the McCanns look like or what they do in their spare time. I DO care that Kate McCann represents a missing children's organization when she clearly is a person-of-interest in a crime (at least for the Portuguese police). I DO care that a ridiculous amount of money is being improperly used on this case when it could be used legitimately for missing children and murderered children's cases in the UK.
November 6, 2015 at 6:34 PM

Pat Brown said...
I have had to change to moderating comments due to ad hominem attacks. If you would like to respond to my comment or post and be civil and make a valid comment, I will post it and respond.

I will not post your comment if you:

Some of the comments are evidence that people refuse to actually acknowledge what is evidence and what is not evidence, or don't understand what is evidence and what is not evidence.

1) The Gaspar Statement is interesting, not evidence, because the source and material is questionable. If one were investigating, one could keep this information in mind and even consider doing some investigating in that direction, but it is NOT a fact and it is NOT something one can include in an analysis of the case.

2) A bunch of different people saw other people "watching" the apartment; a commenter just got incensed that I don't believe these witnesses and she thought I was calling them liars. Any good investigator knows that witness testimony is susceptible to subjective interpretation and sometimes outright lying. Some people just want to be important and they claim they saw something they did not or they exaggerate. Others really think they saw something and, maybe they did, but it might mean nothing and they might be giving it some kind of meaning that it doesn't have. For example, a woman in a suburban neighborhood was about to call the police because she saw a stranger - a young man she didn't recognize - sitting in a car she thought didn't match him - for a period of time in the evening. She thought he was casing the area. That young man was my son...he was picking me up from a friend's house; he was driving my car. Or a man might be smoking a cigarette outside the McCanns killing time because he was waiting on a phone call for work and he didn't want to leave the area...or whatever. Just because someone is lurking doesn't mean they were watching the apartment...it is NOT a fact. Just something to look into.


3) A commenter said she didn't give a crap I had been on the same street as Jane Tanner. Well, I am sorry, but that is the best thing one can do when analyzing a crime is to actually be where it happened and know exactly the geography, lighting, circumstances, etc., of the area. Jane Tanner could not have walked by the two men without them seeing her and without seeing Tannerman; could not happen. But, yet, how many people analyzing this crime on the net have been to Praia da Luz?

Facts. Evidence. Stick to these. Please.
November 6, 2015 at 6:52 PM

Pat Brown said...
One commenter whose comment I will not publish went on about how I said I was stopping running commentary on this case and then I have written this post (and a couple others), so I am a liar. This is the kind of silliness that goes on and makes people appear like trolls because they kind of act like trolls! Clearly, anyone who has followed me for a while knows that I have said very little over the last year since I posted that since I consider the case dead in the water and a whitewash, I was no longer going to spend a lot of time discussing the matter.

However, once in a while when I see something big happen - like Amaral losing the his case, Scotland Yard cutting down their OG team, and now I see the theories about this case getting ever more and more outlandish, I write a piece because I want to make a statement concerning what I see in relation to missing children and police investigation. I wrote these last two posts - not because I believe the case will ever go to court - but because I would like the legacy of those who fought for the truth not to get bogged down in excessively bizarre theories that just end up making people who believe there is evidence that the McCanns had something to do with their daughter's disappearance appear as nuts and total conspiracy theorists. Many people have worked hard to keep this story out there and to pressure the government to do a proper investigation and I appreciate that....I just don't want to see this whole case go down in history as crazies against the McCanns.
November 6, 2015 at 7:11 PM

Pat Brown said...
Someone wrote that there are NO facts and NO evidence implicating the McCanns and that is why they are not in jail. This is patently untrue. Of course, this case has FACTS and it has EVIDENCE but the problem is that there has to be a high level of facts and evidence to go to court which is why this case has not been prosecuted nor will be barring a body being found with sufficient evidence to prove anything. There are many cases where the investigators are pretty darn well sure who did it but the prosecutor isn't sure he has an airtight case to win in court.
November 6, 2015 at 7:50 PM

Not Textusa said...
Excellent post

If I have learned one thing from this case it is that there are many idiots out there.
I agree that most crimes are quite simple. I suspect that if this one is ever solved it will prove to be just the same.

The chief conspiraloons operate via a series of tenets which they hang on fast to, brooking no challenge, hence you end up with people like Textusa and her ''They were all in on it'' idiocy, or Tony Bennett and his ''This man saw that man, then he got on a plane and meanwhile all these people are the same person because they have the same number of legs'' looning.

And in case anyone feels left out, there is as much looning on the other side, what with Heriberto and the man with the 15ft arms....

It drives me up the wall.
November 6, 2015 at 8:36 PM

Pat Brown: wrote:

32 comments:

Pat Brown said...
This is to Get 'em Goncalo,

Please read my previous post about compiling lots of pieces of information and then theorizing that these are real facts that have to do with the case and that they can be strung together into a theory when, in reality, they are NOT anything proven to be related to the case. There are many coincidences and unrelated things which we must not construe to have importance. What we must do in analyzing a case is to look at the real evidence, physical and behavioral, and base our conclusion on these pieces of information. For example, one of the most interesting FACTS is that the McCanns showed NO interest in Smithman and when Kate wrote her book made a statement that IF Smithman was indeed the abductor he had to be the same man Jane saw. Now, I can tell you from working many cases, the lack of interest in Smithman as a possibe suspect and then need to make him Jane's Tannerman is red flag and shows there is some reason the McCanns want to ignore Smithman. This is a behavioral FACT. Another fact is there is no physical evidence of a stranger in the flat. This is a PHYSICAL fact. That Tannerman exists is NOT a fact because Jane's story is questionable and Scotland Yard's claim that they identified him is even more questionable. That anyone was "watching" the apartment is NOT a fact. That Murat's house is close by to the flat is a FACT. That he took Maddie or that Maddie is buried on his property is NOT a FACT. And so on. Stick with the facts. This is what I did to build my profile and I am not going to change my profile because of rumors, innuendos, and guesses.
  November 6, 2015 at 6:20 PM 

I don't know why Pat posted this comment on her blog directed to me - I haven't said a word about her post anywhere!

Get'emGonçalo wrote:

Pat Brown: wrote:

32 comments:

Pat Brown said...
This is to Get 'em Goncalo,

Please read my previous post about compiling lots of pieces of information and then theorizing that these are real facts that have to do with the case and that they can be strung together into a theory when, in reality, they are NOT anything proven to be related to the case. There are many coincidences and unrelated things which we must not construe to have importance. What we must do in analyzing a case is to look at the real evidence, physical and behavioral, and base our conclusion on these pieces of information. For example, one of the most interesting FACTS is that the McCanns showed NO interest in Smithman and when Kate wrote her book made a statement that IF Smithman was indeed the abductor he had to be the same man Jane saw. Now, I can tell you from working many cases, the lack of interest in Smithman as a possibe suspect and then need to make him Jane's Tannerman is red flag and shows there is some reason the McCanns want to ignore Smithman. This is a behavioral FACT. Another fact is there is no physical evidence of a stranger in the flat. This is a PHYSICAL fact. That Tannerman exists is NOT a fact because Jane's story is questionable and Scotland Yard's claim that they identified him is even more questionable. That anyone was "watching" the apartment is NOT a fact. That Murat's house is close by to the flat is a FACT. That he took Maddie or that Maddie is buried on his property is NOT a FACT. And so on. Stick with the facts. This is what I did to build my profile and I am not going to change my profile because of rumors, innuendos, and guesses.
  November 6, 2015 at 6:20 PM 

I don't know why Pat posted this comment on her blog directed to me - I haven't said a word about her post anywhere!

@ Get'emGoncalo

It is possible that Pat Brown has mixed up my response up the thread with your OP and has confused the two of us.

Over the past two years I have been blamed for just about anything in this case so Pat, if you're reading this, it was not Get'emGoncalo/Jill Havern who responded to your post, it was me.

@ Pat Brown

Jill Havern is innocent!  I am guilty!

All she did was to cut-and-paste your article and place it here for information.

Now, still addressing my comments to you, Pat, you listed a stream of 'Facts' above, most of which I agree are indeed facts.

But you also wrote this:

QUOTE    "For example, one of the most interesting FACTS is that the McCanns showed NO interest in Smithman and when Kate wrote her book made a statement that IF Smithman was indeed the abductor he had to be the same man Jane saw".    UNQUOTE

REPLY:    I cannot possibly agree with you that this is a fact.

These for example are a series of known and admitted facts about the McCanns and 'Smithman':

1. Brian Kennedy, on behalf of the McCanns, contacted the Smiths in December 2007.

2. Newspaper articles on 3 January 2008 reported that Martin Smith was 'ready to meet Metodo 3' representatives.

3. At some time probably in the spring of 2008 Henri Exton and maybe someone else from either Medoto 3 or Oakley International visited the Smiths and drew up two e-fits of faces who look quite different from each ofther.

4. In the Channel 4/Mentorn Media 'Mockumentary' of May 2009, the McCanns TWICE referred to the 'Smithman sighting' in the film, stromgly suggesting that 'Tannerman' and 'Smithman' were one and the same.

5. Immediately following the programme, the McCanns uploaded a 30-second audio recording onto their 'Find Madeleine' website of a man with an Irish accent clearly intended to be Martin Smith describing his alleged 'Smithman' sighting. It has been there ever since and is there today, over six-and-a-half years later. That audio recording of the 'Smithman sighting' has been there on their website for a conrinuous period of 2,375 days

6. Not only that, but in that audio recording, the voice gives the age of the suspected abductor as '34-35', a change from TWO previous statements by Martin Smith in which he had claimed that the man he said he saw was up to 40 years old. It is likely, though not proved, that Martin Smith must have consented to this SECOND change in his evidence.   

The rest of the extent of the McCanns' use of Smithman is set out on this thread here:     

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t11521-smithman-8-the-nine-phases-of-smithman-how-the-smiths-became-part-of-the-mccann-team-in-january-2008

I would respectfully invite you to read and consider what I've said there.

Pat, if I may say so, there is more than a hint of impatience, even possibly anger, in your recent articles which, in short, ask us all over here to accept as a fact that Madeleine died after 6pm on Thursday 3 May.

Please accept that there is EVIDENCE, 'Facts' if you will, that suggest otherwise. As a researcher and investigator yourself, please accept that some of us will continue to explore that evidence. And, if only just for a moment, please consider that you
may actually be mistaken about this.  

- Very disappointed, Harlow   

KISS or keep it simple stupid is good advice in some scenarios but I definitely don't think Madeleine's demise is simple. There are too many people involved.

Tony, Cat Baker may be an honest person but how was she to know if it was another little girl she had seen all week? It is a possibility. This is the problem, the facts have been kept from us.

5A was cleaned and not even a toothbrush of Madeleine's found. No over-powering smell of bleach as the twins were there sleeping so this must have been done days before. Gerry had to return to Rothley  to pick up some item belonging to Madeleine. Would you say that was a normal thing to have to do?

George Bush jnr said "You are with us or with the terrorists".   Some choice ! What about letting us think for ourselves. To disagree with govt policy is to be a conspiracy theorist. They love people who are dumbed down and believe everything they are told by MSM, newspapers and TV. Thank goodness for the Internet where we can read and listen to different viewpoints and make our own mind up.

The McCann case is not a run of the mill case. Would you manage to get the Ambassador turn up if one of your children went missing? NO, you might get a Consul or a policeman . The medical and financial records have not been handed over to PJ as far as I am aware and the Gaspar statement was delayed many months. A delaying tactic in my view.  As for Kate M. getting an ambassador position at Missing People , I think it stinks like week-old fish.

The dog indicated a dead body in 5A. No other previous occupants appear to be under investigation.
I find it very suspicious that the FSS changed it's findings and then was closed down.

The McCanns have not helped the police, told lies about the shutters and started a fund to pay lawyers and crooked PIs .Old people, young people gave money expecting it to be used to help find Madeleine. Instead it has mainly been used for legal costs. It was used to pay a Mortgage repayment.  Instead of searching, the pair were on their mobiles telling the abduction theory to MSM. IMO the Fund should not have been on the Leicestershire Police website. They are supposed to be impartial. If the McCanns knew Madeleine had died , then the Fund was a scam...obtaining money by deception.

The testimonies from the Tapas group were so muddled. From doctors, I find this plain obfuscation to confuse what happened on any particular day.

This case may be simple in the final answer but I think it's covering up a very sensitive issue which the government want the lid on.

Great work done by R D Hall and HiDeHo... and of course, all on CMOMM.  

whatsupdoc wrote:Tony, Cat Baker may be an honest person but how was she to know if it was another little girl she had seen all week? It is a possibility. This is the problem, the facts have been kept from us.

She is not an honest person.

She was seriously dishonest in the McCann case.

She said that she had been with Madeleine on a sailing trip on the morning of Thursday 3 May, but this was a blatant lie. Two fully independent witnesses flatly contradicted her claim.

As for her statements about the alleged 'high tea', please look at Lizzy Hi-de-Ho's comprehensive analysis of this alleged event and it will be clear that Baker comprehensively lied about that as well.

The criticisms of Baker have nothing to do with kikoratton's as yet unevidenced theory of a 'substitute Madeleine'.

Of very considerable interest is the fact that by 2006 or even before Jon Corner's daughter Chloe was a Facebook Friend of Cat Baker, and of course Jon Corner admitted in 2007 that he had been 'a regular visitor' to Praia da Luz.

There is a distinct possibility that Cat Baker and the McCanns knew each other before the events of 2007 in Praia da Luz.

Here they are all enjoying time together in Rothley in November 2007, around the time of the 'Great Meeting' in Rothley Court Manor, the local meeting place for the Knights Templar, when the McCanns, the Tapas 7, a bevy of lawyers and public relations all got together to...well, er...meet up and chat about 'old times':

Luckily there are many critical thinkers in and among the "conspiracy theorists".

The critical thinkers put the sunglasses cobblers to bed ages ago.

I don't think "the McCanns" love critical thinkers.

Usual internet practice is to "rat f**k" (Richard Nixon 1973) your opponents by infiltrating and making them look stupid by association.

Every "conspiracy forum" I ever went on had people doing this. I believe they are paid to do it. I think it is a form of "Reputation Management" that corporations can buy these days.

I often wonder about the remit of a Media Monitoring Unit when it comes to people criticising Government.

Tony Bennett wrote:

whatsupdoc wrote:Tony, Cat Baker may be an honest person but how was she to know if it was another little girl she had seen all week? It is a possibility. This is the problem, the facts have been kept from us.

She is not an honest person.

She was seriously dishonest in the McCann case.

She said that she had been with Madeleine on a sailing trip on the morning of Thursday 3 May, but this was a blatant lie. Two fully independent witnesses flatly contradicted her claim.

As for her statements about the alleged 'high tea', please look at Lizzy Hi-de-Ho's comprehensive analysis of this alleged event and it will be clear that Baker comprehensively lied about that as well.

The criticisms of Baker have nothing to do with kikoratton's as yet unevidenced theory of a 'substitute Madeleine'.

Of very considerable interest is the fact that by 2006 or even before Jon Corner's daughter Chloe was a Facebook Friend of Cat Baker, and of course Jon Corner admitted in 2007 that he had been 'a regular visitor' to Praia da Luz.

There is a distinct possibility that Cat Baker and the McCanns knew each other before the events of 2007 in Praia da Luz.

Here they are all enjoying time together in Rothley in November 2007, around the time of the 'Great Meeting' in Rothley Court Manor, the local meeting place for the Knights Templar, when the McCanns, the Tapas 7, a bevy of lawyers and public relations all got together to...well, er...meet up and chat about 'old times':

Thanks for that, Tony. As you will have read and noticed , I have struggled to keep up for quite some time as there is so much to read and long posts just get left for later. I save a lot so I can read it when I do have more time so I hope you understand. I thought that having all the testimonies on a spread sheet would show up inconsistencies so I am hoping to go through HDH's latest work soon. I am grateful to both HDH and you for all the work you have done in this case and other cases.

I did think it strange that Cat Baker spent some days with the McCanns after May.

The testimonies given by many have been shown by HDH to be confused and inaccurate.

I was hoping for some proof from Kiko but I haven't heard from him so the substitute idea it just another possibility.

'Conspiracy Theories' (I hate the term because they) usually have some grounding, or otherwise even if they emerged in the first place, they certainly wouldn't grow exponentially and persist. And, to be fair, I have noticed that ideas emanating from the twilight zone are quickly quashed on here.

Prior to the PJ files being released, the 3 May accident theory could be more readily accepted; post the file release, anyone with the time to read the copious information contained within them, and all the other related material, must have at the very least niggling doubts about the timing of whatever incident occured. I haven't kept count the number of times I've had to re-read sections which just make no sense (refer also to HiDEHo whose incredibly detailed analysis has PROVED this). And, that's the point for me - there is no reason what-so-ever for there to be so many irregularities in stories; time lines; actions; recorded thoughts; written records; etc; etc. IF the 'event' occured after 5.30pm on 3 May, WHY aren't the day times from and including Sunday 28 April up to 5.30pm on 3 May a simple regurgitation of actual, concurring events from all parties involved. I accept that if whatever occured on the evening of 3 May was as a result of repeated behaviour from previous nights that the night time storyline might have had to have been concocted, but surely that would not have created all the anomalies in the day time accounts.

Pat Brown says 'keep it simple', which is fine if it is simple. If the day time accounts agreed I'd be in the 3 May camp, but they don't, so I'm not, and I think once you've reached this point of view there is no going back. But also don't forget that PB accepts that there was no abduction; that something happened to MBM in 5A; and that the parents were involved in the cover up.

whatsupdoc wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

whatsupdoc wrote:Tony, Cat Baker may be an honest person but how was she to know if it was another little girl she had seen all week? It is a possibility. This is the problem, the facts have been kept from us.

She is not an honest person.

She was seriously dishonest in the McCann case.

She said that she had been with Madeleine on a sailing trip on the morning of Thursday 3 May, but this was a blatant lie. Two fully independent witnesses flatly contradicted her claim.

As for her statements about the alleged 'high tea', please look at Lizzy Hi-de-Ho's comprehensive analysis of this alleged event and it will be clear that Baker comprehensively lied about that as well.

The criticisms of Baker have nothing to do with kikoratton's as yet unevidenced theory of a 'substitute Madeleine'.

Of very considerable interest is the fact that by 2006 or even before Jon Corner's daughter Chloe was a Facebook Friend of Cat Baker, and of course Jon Corner admitted in 2007 that he had been 'a regular visitor' to Praia da Luz.

There is a distinct possibility that Cat Baker and the McCanns knew each other before the events of 2007 in Praia da Luz.

Here they are all enjoying time together in Rothley in November 2007, around the time of the 'Great Meeting' in Rothley Court Manor, the local meeting place for the Knights Templar, when the McCanns, the Tapas 7, a bevy of lawyers and public relations all got together to...well, er...meet up and chat about 'old times':

Thanks for that, Tony. As you will have read and noticed , I have struggled to keep up for quite some time as there is so much to read and long posts just get left for later. I save a lot so I can read it when I do have more time so I hope you understand. I thought that having all the testimonies on a spread sheet would show up inconsistencies so I am hoping to go through HDH's latest work soon. I am grateful to both HDH and you for all the work you have done in this case and other cases.

I did think it strange that Cat Baker spent some days with the McCanns after May.

The testimonies given by many have been shown by HDH to be confused and inaccurate.

I was hoping for some proof from Kiko but I haven't heard from him so the substitute idea it just another possibility.

He has done his final report on this,the report is a 14 pages document and I have this document.
Unfortunately, I will not share it online because it contains information about other people but I'm sure he sent the report to PJ and OG

I have added my comment to Pat's blog, though it may be too long for it to be accepted :)

Thankfully, Pat and I respect each others thoughts, regardless that we have different opinions, but I believe there is a reason for that....

Pat is a professional.  She deals only in FACTS.  The facts of the case that could be used in court if there were ever to be a conviction.  She is repected for her opinion on high profile cases here in Canada as well as the major networks in the US and for Pat to deviate from the facts would not help the credibility she has maintained here in North America.

I have studied and researched the case and have come up with some major discrepancies that start on Tuesday, but that is not considered a 'fact' that something happened to Madeleine earlier in the week, only that it indicative of the possibility.

When crime cases are discussed on TV they need to focus on the main KNOWN facts and that is why Pat is a 'sought after'  profiler.  TV networks  would have no interest in my 'research' that shows a POSSIBILITY of somethng happening earlier and thats why Pat is the professional well respected profiler that she is.

HOWEVER, that does not mean I am incorrect in my interpretations of my findings.  Pat's facts could of course be correct, but also my hypothesis is not taken out of thin air where I sought a theory to help justify it.

I have no theory.  

I look at the 'facts' I discovered over the course of the week.  I listed timeline statements and ONLY when they are compared can one see some major contradictions and curiosities that started to happen on TUESDAY and I had to ask myself WHY?

This is not about 'memory'.  The fact that Jane Tanner gave Wednesday as the mini tennis day has not been an issue to me.  It could be she was trying to confuse days, or it could be her memory.  I have attributed it to the latter unless/until I see reason to see evidence of her  'changing the days for some contrived reason.

I believe something happened to Maddie before Tuesday for two VERY IMPORTANT reasons.

1)  MAJOR discrepancies started to occur on Tuesday and continued until Thursday evening at 9pm.  How many? Probably about 50, though I haven't counted them.  All of them indicate to me that they were attempting to cover up something that had happened.

2)  In an attempt to find the last CREDIBLE sighting of Maddie, which would give me relative PROOF  as to what day Maddie  was still participating  in the holiday I assembled ALL the statements of witnesses that had seen Maddie throughout the week and after eliminating any that were obviously mistaken, non specific or non credible, I was shocked to realise that Sunday lunchtime when the cleaners daughter saw them outside their apartment is the ONLY credible 'proof' that Maddie was seen during that week.

I have only taken the 'facts' from the files, compiled them and asked myself WHY?  I can only come up with one reason...

Something could have happened to Maddie between Sunday lunchtime and Tuesday morning..

That's not a contrived theory.  I have no idea and do not intend to ask the question WHAT happened.  Only that I can see no reason why such major inconsistencies and discrepancies could have happened during that week  There was obviously SOMETHING that happened that some people were trying hard to hide.

Here is an example of some of the discrepancies that I have put together, and I would urge anyone to show me an alternative explanation, knowing that some of them are of interest to the investigation (ie the text messages that started arriving Wednesday morning at 8am, why would that interest the police if they don't suspect something was happening during the week?)

TUESDAY MORNING:
There are MANY contradictions surrounding Madeleine's group (Lobsters) mini tennis.

a) Who took the 'tennis balls' pic? Kate said she took it, Rachael claims Jane took it.

b) Gerry was 'supposedly' watching Madeleine with them when he was 'actually' playing tennis in the court next to them as his  lesson did not finish until 15 minutes after Lobster's mini tennis.

c) Rachael claims the last time she saw Maddie was at mini tennis (Tuesday?) but she describes seeing Maddie play tennis on THURSDAY morning (the other group (Sharks) day for mini tennis.

The police specifically questioned Rachael on which court Maddie had played on (right or left) and Rachael chose the WRONG court (according to tennis records for both groups tennis)  Why was this of interest to the police?

d)  If one believes that its possible the 'neglect' issue was put in place to allow time for an abduction, and that Gerry made an effort to let people know about this, then his telling Jez on the way to pick Maddie up on Tuesday morning, could have been the beginning of the effort to lay the groundwork for the 'abductor' to have the opportunity to take Maddie.

TUESDAY EVENING:

e)  Quiz night at the tapas.  The quiz mistress claims that she did not see Kate (and possibly David Payne) at the table during the time she was there (approx 9pm - 10pm)

f)  Mrs Fenn heard the crying from 10.30pm - 11.45.  Kate had a 'flurry' of phone calls (5) from 10.16 - 10.27pm just BEFORE the crying incident.

WEDNESDAY :

g)  Kate made unusually early 7am calls to her friend

h)  At 8am, Gerry started to receive the first of the text messages that were deleted and DENIED by both Kate and Gerry. WHY?

i)  The cleaner claims that when she was cleaning the apartment, there was a cot in the parents bedroom.  Both Kate and Gerry DENIED the cot was there.  WHY?

j)  Although, we are led to believe each couple arrived at the tapas together, Jez tells us that Gerry and Russell arrived together and was told that Kate was putting the children to bed.  Not odd in itself, but does that mean that Jane was with Kate?  Did Kate EVER arrive to the tapas?  Was she there the night before when the quiz mistress didn't see her there?  Could Jane have been with her in the apartment if something HAD happened to Madeleine?

Apparently it was 'Rachael's 'turn' to be sick that night

k)  Why did some of them stay late at the tapas an hour after the waiters wanted to leave?  What was so important that they needed to discuss?

l)  Kate claims that Gerry went back to the apartment before 12 and she joined him in the bed but moved to the children's room to sleep.  The forensic photos of the  bed show no signs that two people had slept in it.

THURSDAY MORNING:

m)  Kate and Gerry claim that Madeleine came to them to ask why they weren't there when SEAN and herself were crying.  Why did they tell the PJ in their statements of May 4th that Madeleine had said the TWINS were crying?  A week later Gerry changed it to Madeleine and Sean (as Kate claimed in her September statement) WHY?


n)  If, as Jane and Fiona claim, Kate had told them about the crying incident on Thursday evening, why do they claim the CHANGED details of it being Madeleine and Sean?  Surely Kate would have said the same as both herself and Gerry had told the PJ the following morning?  Why didn't Jane and Fiona say they were told it was the TWINS that were crying?

o)  As with a few times during Thursday, Kate and Gerry claim they used different doors to what the other had described.


p)  Kate claims she went to pick up Madeleine with Fiona AFTER she had gone back to the apartment to prepare lunch.

Fiona claims they went to pick up Madeleine directly from the rec area.

Gerry claims HE went to pick up Madeleine and specifically recalls using the short cut.

Curiously, although Kate signed Madeleine out at 12.25pm  Catriona the nanny has no recollection who picked her up or who dropped her off after lunch.

q) Rachael claims Thursday morning at mini tennis was the last time she saw Madeleine.  It was not Madeleine's group that played on Thursday and as Jane and Rachael played tennis at the same time the last picture was supposedly taken, why was it only Jane who says she saw Madeleine even though she said Madeleine was shouting through the fence?

r)  At high tea, Catriona claims Gerry was playing tennis but Kate and Gerry claim he was there.  Why would Catriona not remember the LAST TIME she saw Madeleine was Kate carrying Madeleine alongside the twins and Gerry?

s)  Why would Kate claim to have gone back into the apartment through the front doors when Gerry claimed he went in himself and opened the patio doors for Kate and the children to enter?  Kate was carrying Madeleine AND was looking after the twins and Gerry walked to the front alone leaving Kate to struggle alone going up the high steps with all three children?

t)  The timeframe between 6.39pm on the CCTV cameras at the Paraiso and the following hour or so are RIDDLED with inconsistencies, to the point that the police eventually had Fiona admit that she couldn't say what David Payne was doing that hour.

u)  Rachael cannot remember if she gave Jane Tanner's oldest daughter a bath that evening.  WHY was she giving a bath to Jane Tanner's daughter on ANY day?

v)  After most of the T9 were assembled at the tapas, they were still waiting for the Paynes.. Matthew claims to have gone to the partment to 'chivvy' them

He says he met them on the way down...at the CORNER outside the McCann's apartment..

Fiona claims to have met him further down the street at the McCanns GATE with the steps leading up to the patio doors.

David claims to have met him inside the complex near the POOL

Dainne claims that she CATEGORICALLY did not see him as they were walking to the tapas UNTIL her rogatory statement when she claims that she  was 'reminded' about seeing him by Fiona and David....

Says it all really...

So... In summary, Pat relies on established FACTS, I look at the 'facts' from their statements and look at the possibility they were trying to hide something earlier in the week.

None of the above discrepancies (and MANY more) can be claimed to be proof that something happened earlier... But logic tells me that to have that many discrepancies, there was a reason...

Whatever that reason is, can possibly be interpreted in different ways...

This does not negate Pat  from being correct with her theory based on known facts, but I feel it could explain the possibility that something happened to Madeleine before Tuesday.

We must all form our opinions based on our own knowledge and in my opinion, there is never a reason to criticise someone else's opinion, only to suggest your own and let other's decide whether it is credible enough to be a consideration in forming THEIR opinion/theory.

@HiDeHo wrote:   I was shocked to realise that Sunday lunchtime when the cleaners daughter saw them outside their apartment is the ONLY credible 'proof' that Maddie was seen during that week.

Can I ask why you consider the witness testimony of the cleaners daughter to be the ONLY credible 'proof' that Madeleine was seen during that week?  Seems to me that this particular witness statement is also riddle with inconsistencies...

1.  Her statement was taken on 8th May 2007, wherein she claims to be sure she saw Madeleine McCann leaving apartment 5a because of the many photographs of the child circulated beforehand.  What photographs? 

2.  She claims to have seen Kate with Madeleine and the twins leave the apartment clutching pieces of bread and maybe plastic plates (sounds a bit Dickensian - but that aside) and take a stairway leading to the floor above.  At this stage her statement would imply that she was observing from within the apartment block as there doesn't appear to be an external stairway linking one floor to another. 

3.  She goes on to say she only observed the father (Gerry McCann I assume) from a distance.  Just how much distance is there between apartment 5a and the stairway leading to the floor above?  She observed Kate and the children from a distance of about one metre yet she only observed Gerry from a distance?  Then she says that only moments later Gerry left the apartment and also headed for the apartment upstairs?  If she was only a metre away from KM and the children, how come she first said she only saw the father at a distance?

3.  She later says that she thinks her mother only cleaned the apartments in that block (5) on Monday and Wednesday - but here she speaks of Sunday?

4.  Finally and most importantly - She states that this took place on Sunday 29th April. At about 13.15 she went to help her mother, who was cleaning apartment I of the same block (5) situated on the first floor...



If cleaning apartment I, how could she have seen the McCann family leave apartment 5a either from the inside or out, towards a stairway to an upper floor?

...snipped...

I was hoping for some proof from Kiko but I haven't heard from him so the substitute idea it just another possibility.

He has done his final report on this,the report is a 14 pages document and I have this document.
Unfortunately, I will not share it online because it contains information about other people but I'm sure he sent the report to PJ and OG

Thanks for replying, NickE.   I would think that 14 pages will include quite a few names and who knows who.

It sounds very promising.

Has Kiko given you permission to divulge anything from the report ?

From his analysis of telephone records, Kiko believes something happened to MBM at the beginning of the week.  With HideHo's compelling research, recently posted, and others such as PeterMac, tigger and TB, who have undertaken years of investigation, it seems to me that currently this is the most coherent explanation.  Do others agree?

I think something happened early in the week but the demise wasn't instant.

Hence sleeping in separate beds for "the first time" perhaps to keep an eye on a sick Madeleine.

BlueBag wrote:I think something happened early in the week but the demise wasn't instant.

Hence sleeping in separate beds for "the first time" perhaps to keep an eye on a sick Madeleine.

Yes, or perhaps something else was going on... disposal?  

Why would Kate mention this?

Anyway, wearing my moderator's hat, this is drifting off-topic.

@ Verdi

I understand it as the cleaner's daughter, Fatima (also a cleaner), was standing at the entrance to the small open foyer in the back of the apartment block (adjacent to the car park).

The foyer houses the open stairs and the lift to the first floor. I think apartments 5B, 5C and 5D open off this (may be wrong about 5D without checking). Looking at the block, apartment 5A is down a short outside pathway which runs from the foyer to the left. So, Fatima could have a view of the path but she wouldn't have a view of the actual door (possible anomaly in her statement below).

At about 13.15 she went to help her mother, who was cleaning apartment I of the same block (5) situated on the first floor. She clearly remembers seeing the girl accompanied by her siblings and mother leave their apartment (5 A) and walk to the stairs leading to the floor above. She was very close to them at a distance of about 1 metre, observing their movements for a few moments because she was charmed by them. Madeleine led the way with a plate (perhaps plastic) in her hand bearing a piece of bread. As regards the clothes she was wearing she only remembers a skirt but cannot recall its description. She noted, because she thought them nice, the type of shoes she was wearing, tennis shoes, light in colour she thinks, which had little lights along the soles, which lit up each time she stepped on the ground. Her siblings followed behind her, wearing the same king of shoes and each holding a piece of bread in their hands, their mother followed behind them without holding their hands. She seems to remember that the mother was also carrying a plate. Moments afterwards, perhaps the time it took to close the apartment door, the father came out and also headed to the apartment upstairs. When asked, she does not remember whether the father pulled the door closed or locked it with a key.

After she chatted to her mother about there being many children in the apartments, she had the idea that the family in 5H were friends of Madeleine's family who were staying in 5 A.

HiDeHo wrote:Pat is a professional.  She deals only in FACTS.  The facts of the case that could be used in court if there were ever to be a conviction.  She is repected for her opinion on high profile cases here in Canada as well as the major networks in the US and for Pat to deviate from the facts would not help the credibility she has maintained here in North America.

The problem here though is that Pat has stated things about the Madeleine McCann case as 'facts' which are demonstrably NOT facts, and has ignored many things that ARE facts.

In her article of 6 November, she wrote:  "For example, one of the most interesting FACTS is that the McCanns showed NO interest in Smithman and when Kate wrote her book made a statement that IF Smithman was indeed the abductor he had to be the same man Jane saw". 

I have comprehensively demonstrated in a post up this thread, and in many articles on this forum, that - contrary to Pat Brown's assertion - the McCanns took a very strong interest in the Smithman sighting right from Brian Kennedy contacting them in December 2007 through to getting Henri Exton to draw up the e-fits, mentioning 'Smithman' twice in the 'Mockumentary', putting him on the website over six yeras ago in May 2008 and so on.

@ Pat Brown  

If you're reading here, the above are several facts that should not be ignored.

But Pat has also ignored many other facts. AFAIK, she agrees with Goncalo Amaral that Madeleine was at the 'high tea' on Thursday afternoon with Catriona Baker and Gerry and Kate McCann. She does not appear to have built in to her hypothesis the multiple contradictions about this alleged event (and every one of those contradictions is a 'fact') which seriously question whether it ever happened.

Pat nailed her colours to the mast early on by agreeing with Dr Goncalo Amaral that Madeleine perished after 6pm on Thursday 3 May.

IMO having committed herself to that view, she is unable to change it despite a growing mountain of evidence, 'facts' if you will, that suggest otherwise.

And looking at HideHo's recent contributions on this thread and elsewhere on the forum, we will all have to evaluate whether Hideho's research takes us nearer to the truth (as I do) - or not (as Pat does).    

I could be wide of the mark here, but regarding an incident occurring on the evening of the 3rd, was GA not expressing the views of the investigation at the time ?

I had understood that that he actually thinks differently, although I don't believe he has been specific.

Carrry On Doctor wrote:I could be wide of the mark here, but regarding an incident occurring on the evening of the 3rd, was GA not expressing the views of the investigation at the time ?

I had understood that that he actually thinks differently, although I don't believe he has been specific.

@ Carry On Doctor


He was also most definitely expressing his own view.

From AnnaEsse's translation of the final passages of Dr Goncalo Amaral's 'The Truth of the Lie' - relevant statements in bold red:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

QUOTE

A GLANCE AT THE PAST AND CASTING AN EYE TO THE FUTURE.

May 8th 2008, Ababuja restaurant.

For several months now, I have not had the pleasure of spending any time in the company of my friend and colleague, Tavares de Almeida. We decide to grab a bite to eat at Ababuja, one of a number of restaurants on the banks of the Alvor, opposite the fish market. We used to go there from time to time - a year ago - for lunch or dinner with English colleagues who were involved in the investigation. The restaurant is full, the clientele mostly British. Amazingly, we pass unnoticed and manage to enjoy some privacy. At last, a long way from the investigation, we find ourselves alone and appreciating the sunshine on this fine afternoon, its rays reflecting on the calm waters of the river that separates Lagos from Portimão, where the investigation was played out. Although Tavares is pleased to say that the whole affair is behind us, our conversation inevitably goes back to Madeleine's disappearance: we recall the extraordinary work that was accomplished, the research, searches of properties, interrogations, the expert opinions, analyses carried out with the sole aim of understanding what happened....and the bitterness of having failed to find the little girl.

- Do you remember the conclusions we reached after the McCanns' interrogations?

- Oh, let it go, it's over.

- You believe it's possible to forget? We shouldn't disregard the past but build on it to move forward.

- Eh, my friend, our Benefica has certainly got a past too, and look what it's become nowadays.

- In fact, experience has taught them nothing.

- They've moved quickly on to other things..

- Exactly, let's not forget what has happened to that little girl.

- It's impossible. What I want to erase from my memory is the cruelty committed by certain people.

- To go back to our conclusions, I am convinced that those who would like to refute them would have a hard time doing so.

- That's certain, since they rest on the facts, the clues and the concrete evidence.

A DISAPPEARANCE, A WINDOW AND A BODY

It is now important to present a summary of this case, based on our deductions: reject what is false, throw out what we can't show with sufficient certainty and validate that which can be proven.

1. The theory of abduction was defended from the start by Maddie's parents.

2. In their group, only the McCanns state that they saw the bedroom window open. The others cannot confirm it since they arrived at the apartment after the alert was raised.

3. The only person to have seen that window open with the shutters raised is Amy, one of the play workers from the children's centre of the Ocean Club. She made that observation at around 10.20/10.30pm, which means well after the alert - which doesn't exclude that the window could have been closed at the time of the criminal act.

4. The witness statements raise a great number of inaccuracies, inconsistencies and contradictions. Jane Tanner's witness statement in favour of the theory of abduction is probably false: little by little it has lost all credibility because of successive modifications introduced by Jane, modifications that have ended up invalidating it.

5. The body, the existence of which has been confirmed by the EVRD and CSI dogs but also by the results of the preliminary laboratory analyses, cannot be found.

The conclusions my team and I have arrived at are the following:

1. The minor, Madeleine McCann died inside apartment 5A of the Ocean Club in Vila da Luz, on the night of May 3rd 2007;

2. There was simulation of abduction;

3. Kate Healy and Gerald McCann were probably involved in the concealment of their daughter's body.

4. The death may have occurred as a result of a tragic accident;

5. The evidence proves the parents' negligence concerning the care and safety of the children.

The sun is going down over this beautiful countryside. Children are playing under the watchful gaze of their parents. I think about the enthusiasm that was characteristic of him when I met Tavares in November 1981, at the judiciary police school, and which still fires him.

Thank you Tony, but I rather got the impression that GA did indeed concur with death on the 3rd  when he was in the PJ......"my team and I"......but he now thinks differently.

In the discussion on CMoMM I recall (input from Hideho ??) the quotes attributed to GA seemed to be very carefully worded (perhaps for legal reasons) that in his book he was re-iterating the thoughts of the investigation when he was part of it, but now he almost seemed to be distancing himself from that stance. It struck me as a fundamental change in his thinking.

I will try and recall the posts I refer to.

Carrry On Doctor wrote:I could be wide of the mark here, but regarding an incident occurring on the evening of the 3rd, was GA not expressing the views of the investigation at the time ?

I had understood that that he actually thinks differently, although I don't believe he has been specific.

I agree.  Sr Amaral and his team were working from the inside out as one would expect for any police investigation, what did they have to guide them but witness statements from the key players and outsiders who couldn't contribute any really useful intelligence.  His documented account of events was a record of how the investigation progressed in the early days, in accordance with the official version, including his opinion at the time that MBM possibly died as a result of a tragic accident.  Within hours/days he was aware of the discrepancies in the groups version of events but it would be most unprofessional and detrimental to the investigation for the PJ to reveal their innermost intelligence.

Had they been allowed to continue without UK interference, I'm in no doubt the investigation would have taken a completely different direction.  In fact it was in the process of so doing - and then he was removed from the case!  That aside, it's not customary practice whilst a criminal investigation is active, for the chief to divulge detail of how the case is progressing - it's not the done thing.  His documented opinion ends where his involvement ended.

I came across this old video the other day - it's worth noting Mitchell's comments @ 0:25

Clarence Mitchell speaks ..

..secondly the lawyers will be looking at it from the legal prospective.  If there is any incompetence or anything worse than that eh eh eh .. then under Portuguese law they could bring charges against individuals or the police as a whole - but  that .. that.. that's not the priority, the priority is finding Madeleine..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-EUJ2BzNJA

ETA:  Team McCann tried to crucify Sr Amaral for an evasive summary of the investigation - can you imagine the results if anything more sinister was proclaimed?  Perish the thought..  A very sad day when a police investigation is threatened by the prime suspects.

Pat Brown wrote" If only the focus of everyone, the Public,Police and the Professionals- simply looked back at May 3rd 2007 and analysed what went wrong that evening".
With respect I disagree with Pat Brown regarding may 3rd,I believe evidence indicates that's all went to PLAN that evening.I agree with Pat Brown that the public can over analyse and complicate theories.However If something happened to Madeleiene earlier in the week and this was covered up how is this complicated? This would be a straight forward reaction by some to cover tracks- a simple solution.
I have read most of HiDeHos research and I totally agree with her what it indicates.I believe that the way she has stumbled across the fact, that there is no credible witness testimony of Madeleiene after Sunday is of Paramount importance.If this is a fact then everyone has been brainwashed with the 3rd of May.Some people are unable to shift from that date ,it's ingrained .
I like most people like to stick to the facts.I believe that it is a ridiculous theory that Gerry McCann was walking around PDL with madeliene at 10pm.The McCanns are highly intelligent,good organisers,planners and resourceful.They have demonstrated these qualities with the success of their campaign,fund and litigation over the years.So for me it is a fact that they would not respond in a reckless manner to an emergency or urgent situation eg PDL walkabout at 10pm.They would have weighed up their options and planned the best outcome.

HiDeHo wrote:

But he is not contrasting his opinion with that of the investigation.

He is saying they are one and the same.

All that he's doing is saying: 'Look, this is not just my opinion, it's the opinion of the investigation team as a whole.

In fact he reinforces that in the final line you quote.

He doesn't say: 'They reached that conclusion with the date that they have'.

He very deliberately twice uses the word: 'we':

'We reached that conclusion with the data that we have'.

Thank you Hideho, and thank you again Tony for your response.

Maybe its me, but I interpret that interview differently. GA seems to be expressing his views when he was part of the investigation and he now seems to stressing the distinction between the view held by the investigation team (then) then and his own opinion now.

Perhaps for a number of reasons GA cant elaborate further, but if true, I would consider this to be significant.

To-reiterate, I could be wide of the mark.

Carrry On Doctor wrote:Thank you Hideho, and thank you again Tony for your response.

Maybe its me, but I interpret that interview differently. GA seems to be expressing his views when he was part of the investigation and he now seems to stressing the distinction between the view held by the investigation team (then) then and his own opinion now.

Perhaps for a number of reasons GA can't elaborate further, but if true, I would consider this to be significant.

To-reiterate, I could be wide of the mark.

Goncalo Amaral has never made any statement suggesting that he in any way resiles from anything said in his book.

Thus he confirms, by not saying anything, that he sticks by ''Madeleine died by an accident on the evening of 3 May", a conclusion now being widely challenged e.g. by HideHo, Hobs and Richard Hall, to name three

Thanks again Tony.

It appears to me that GA gave a measured response in the interview and is now agreeing with the terrific work of HideHo, Hobs, RH et al.

Just my opinion.

It is my opinion that Goncalo Amaral cannot and will not at this present time deviate away from which he says in interviews and his book for obvious reasons......He has many aces up his sleeve as I have said before....a quote from him.

I wouldn't think he will discuss publicly what he NOW thinks of the investigation whilst he was in charge NOW BEING THE OPERATIVE WORD or more to the point what he has gleamed himself, from past colleagues, reading here and all highly relevant reasearched work and films. Back in the day he had neither the time nor perhaps the frame of mind to think straight or deeply given where he found himself in life and society (a huge emotional, personal trauma he had to face).

All these years on I am sure he has the support and input of his own 'team' of 'friends' who have worked on what he, Snr Amaral knows about the case which havn't reached anyones ears and his own theories or facts of the case, in present time.

He is the man who can close this case.........on WHAT HE KNEW THEN coupled with ......WHAT HE KNOWS NOW, like people here NOW KNOW there was such a good job of confusing EVERYONE back then. He was not aware of that ploy either back then, confused was where he was when thrown off the case.   The stumbling block is getting them to Court. 

I don't remain in the day of what Mr Amaral said or had to say.....all is legalities......he has to keep all close to his chest, which is why, we hear , quite rightly not very much, in fact nothing in recent times from him.

I am at a loss as why profiling Pat, cannot see beyond what WAS purported, I did think she was quite close to Mr Amaral, maybe she is protecting him! cannot understand her writing at moment the way I used to.