Crimewatch and Scotland Yard Team Up to Pull One Big One over on the Public

The article mentioned above can be found at "The Daily Profiler" Hosted by The Pat Brown Criminal Profiling Agency.

http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.co.uk/
 
 
 
 
I just finished watching BBC's Crimewatch on the new findings in the Madeleine McCann case. With the cooperation of New Scotland Yard (Metropolitan Police), a new "reconstruction" was shown (that was little more than a condensed version of the previous pro McCann documentary "Madeleine was Here" and new theories were laid out (because Detective Andy Redwood seems to not have found enough evidence of abduction to really point to any particular motive). There is new "evidence" (and I put quotes around that because Scotland Yard wishes us to take them at their word) to eliminate one suspect, and there is "new" evidence (and I put quotes around "new" because there isn't anything new) putting another suspect in the top slot.
 
My immediate reaction to the show was this post to Twitter:
 
Distortion, Revisionist history. Ridiculous "reconstruction." Conveniently missing details.
 
Let me try to break down what was off with this show without having to completely explain the entire case. I do suggest for those that become confused to read Goncalo Amaral's book, The Truth of the Lie or see the documentary on it, or read my book, The Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann available at B&N and Smashwords (not at Amazon where the McCanns had it banned), and read my blogs that I wrote following my trip to Praia da Luz on The Daily Profiler.
 
Okay.
 
I will start with the conveniently missing details: any and all evidence or information in the police files that points to the McCanns' involvement, the death of the child in the flat, the cadaver dogs hits in the flat and the rental car, the  inconsistencies in the statements of many of the Tapas 9, within their own statements and in relation to each others' statements, and the fact that the Mr. Smith of the Smith family said that the man they saw carrying the little girl toward the beach looked like Gerry. Also left out; that there was no evidence of an abductor or anyone breaking into the flat through the window, that Gerry thought an abductor was behind the door, and that Matthew Oldfield never really saw Madeleine when he did his supposed check. Oh, and while they show that Jane walked past the McCanns apartment and saw a man with a child, nothing was mentioned about her passing Gerry and Jeremy talking on the street (the narrow street that would caused her to have to cha-cha around the men but they never saw her).
 
The new reconstruction is a bare bones version, which does not explain how an abductor might have gotten in and taken Madeleine, nor which way he might have gone with her, nor any other particulars. All we learn is that Gerry went to make his check at 9:15, saw Madeleine and that the door was not in the position he thought he left it and he set it back, that at 9:30 Matthew Oldfield made the next check, and then Kate made her check, saw the door was a bit off, the window open and Madeleine gone. That is it.
 
So, we don't learn how an abductor got in, how he got Madeleine out, and when he did this.
 
Without presenting a shred of evidence, Scotland Yard gives us two conclusions that push the abduction toward 10 pm. Now, for some who think the McCanns found Madeleine dead behind the sofa where the cadaver dog hit and then Gerry carried her off to the beach passing the Smith family who told the police of their sighting, they might think this might be a clever plan of Scotland Yard to finally close in on the McCanns, but I don't think this is what they are attempting to do.
 
Let's look at the big news on the show tonight; Jane Tanner's sighting is NOT the "kidnapper" of Madeleine McCann. He is some tourist who happened to be carrying his own child home from the creche where she was being babysat (mind you he was walking in the wrong direction, toward the creche, but....never mind). Also, he was wearing the exact clothes described by Jane Tanner because the man remembers precisely what he was wearing six years ago. Interestingly, with all the hoopla about this man at the beginning of the Portuguese investigation, he never came forward, but now Mr-whoever-he-is (and Scotland Yard is not going to tell us), suddenly pops up and admits it was him.
 
What does this very questionable "discovery" do? It validates Jane seeing someone and invalidates the crime occurring at around 9:15. On the face of it, this should be a bad thing for the McCanns because this man was really Gerry's alibi. But, the way this is being spun, it will not matter. Why? Because Jane was not believed to be telling the truth by the Portuguese police (the PJ) and they believed the Smith sighting was Gerry (although Redwood claims the PJ overfocused on Jane's sighting as the suspect and ignored the Smith sighting - serious revisionist history). So, if Jane is a liar, then she is lying for a reason and the PJ believed it was to prove an abduction had occurred and Gerry put her up to the lie.
 
Now, if Jane is telling the truth, then the McCanns didn't push her to cover for them. This puts them one step closer to innocence.
 
But, of course, now that the only real "proof" of abduction while Gerry is alibied - Jane seeing someone carrying the child away while Gerry is on the street chatting with Jeremy- is gone, there is a problem. The way to solve it is to make sure there is another abductor and that is going to be the Smith sighting. Hence, the fact Matthew Oldfield didn't see Madeleine in her bed at 9:30 is left out of the reconstruction, so it appears that the abductor struck later than that, closer to 10 PM. So, now we have the right time for the abduction to coincide with the Smith sighting. The simple fact there could have been an abductor that late, now allows for that sighting not to be Gerry. Redwood also clearly states the man had graying hair which, as far as I know, Gerry did not have at the time. Does anyone remember the Smiths stating they saw any graying hair on the man with child heading to the beach? I don't.
 
 
Many think the e-fits looks just like Gerry; I don't think so. I think they had to make e-fits look similar enough because Mr. Smith said the guy looked like Gerry. But, the e-fits are just enough off for another man to be "found" that looks enough like Gerry to say it is understandable why Mr. Smith was confused. Of course, that Mr. Smith said the man looked like Gerry wasn't mentioned in the show so most people won't know, but later on, this can be addressed when it is necessary.
 
 
 
 
 
I think that man will surface just like the Jane Tanner suspect surfaced. At some point, we will hear that an innocent fellow who looks like Gerry came forward and said it was him with his daughter. Then, Gerry is completely exonerated and Scotland Yard will just have to find another suspect who was never seen. OR we will hear that Scotland Yard has identified some person from a sex ring who sort of looks like Gerry but they cannot divulge more. OR we will hear that  it was likely some dead predator who looked enough like Gerry to be mistaken for him. No proof will every be provided that any of these people really exist but it doesn't matter to the general public. If Scotland Yard says it is so and the media backs it, it must be so. It may sound convoluted but, the combination of vagueness and connecting dots that don't exist can be a successful method to use to convince people of something that they are not going to thoroughly research themselves. A magician calls this "misdirection."
 
Then, mission accomplished. The McCanns are "proven" innocent, the PJ incompetent, Amaral a libeler, and Scotland Yard a fine police agency that did a great investigation to find Madeleine and at least answer the question of what happened to her.
 
 
 
 
 
Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
 
 

Posted by Pat Brown   at 10:53 PM

Thanks to "wjk" for posting the article (I'm not as tech savy as so many others) the comments are well worth reading as well.

Your welcome, interested.
Crimewatch video is on there too!

Pat Brown "tweeted" this morning..."Don't let crime scene photo evidence get in the way of a good story".

interested wrote:Pat Brown "tweeted" this morning..."Don't let crime scene photo evidence get in the way of a good story".

Yes, or cadaver scent!

Whoever SY suspect, they need proof to back it up. If this new guy exists and comes forward SY will have alot of work on their hands if they still suspect him after questioning him.

LJC wrote:Whoever SY suspect, they need proof to back it up.  If this new guy exists and comes forward SY will have alot of work on their hands if they still suspect him after questioning him.

They'll have a problem if they clear this person, as they will have nothing to sustain an abduction theory.

Excellent analysis by Pat Brown. SY should have to state who this person is who came forward and admitted that it was him who was carrying his child.

Plus there is one big problem with this new timeline. Gerry cannot backtrack on his word that the door was not as they had left it. So, now we have the "abductor" in the apartment before 9:15 pm and hanging out in there for nearly 3/4 of an hour before being spotted by the Smith family. How will Gerry explain this away. "Oh, I was mistaken, it was only Kate who found the door not as we had left it at 10 pm."?

wjk wrote:

interested wrote:Pat Brown "tweeted" this morning..."Don't let crime scene photo evidence get in the way of a good story".

Yes, or cadaver scent!

I think it's good they were not mentioned. They could have been mentioned and discredited in some way. Leaving them aside for now leaves their evidence waiting nicely in the wings. Also, just throwing it into the story could leave the way open for unfair trial claims, in the event of a trial. Paynes sighting was ignored. Therefore there was no suggestion to joe public that somebody outside the family unit saw Madeleine at 6 on Thursday.

I'm more inclined to think that what they did not talk about is whats important, aside from Smith. Smiths man was mentioned because they really want to find him. To put out that e fit and make an appeal, they had to loose bundle man so they need a revelation moment. The rest of the programme was just filler, insignificant filler intentionally. Lets face it, if they told it like it is we are basically watching The Truth of The Lie in movie format and we all know what happens then.

If and I know it's if SY are honestly trying to solve this without a whitewash then for me a big part of last night makes sense. They have got to avoid being accused of anything that could throw a case out of court in the long term.

Slow and steady wins the race.

mossman wrote:

I think it's good they were not mentioned.  They could have been mentioned and discredited in some way.  Leaving them aside for now leaves their evidence waiting nicely in the wings.  Also, just throwing it into the story could leave the way open for unfair trial claims, in the event of a trial.  Paynes sighting was ignored.  Therefore there was no suggestion to joe public that somebody outside the family unit saw Madeleine at 6 on Thursday.  

I'm more inclined to think that what they did not talk about is whats important, aside from Smith.  Smiths man was mentioned because they really want to find him.  To put out that e fit and make an appeal, they had to loose bundle man so they need a revelation moment. The rest of the programme was just filler, insignificant filler intentionally.  Lets face it, if they told it like it is we are basically watching The Truth of The Lie in movie format and we all know what happens then.

If and I know it's if SY are honestly trying to solve this without a whitewash then for me a big part of last night makes sense.  They have got to avoid being accused of anything that could throw a case out of court in the long term.

Slow and steady wins the race.

Hope you are right Mossman. However, Pat Brown's analysis of where the investigations seems to be headed is a bit worrisome.

vikkipollard5 wrote:

Hope you are right Mossman.  However,  Pat Brown's analysis of where the investigations seems to be headed is a bit worrisome.[/quote]

Pat Brown is a very astute lady, and most probably right. We are not there yet though so I would like to wait and see. Who would have put money on bundle man being whooshed from the story, but he was, right before our very eyes. Turned into a small insignificant one liner in Scotland Yards report. Anything could happen, but the more we question what we are told, the more difficult it will be for them to sell us a cock and bull story. We can at least make it as hard as possible for them to cover up what happened to the little one.