Why the Portuguese Reopening of the McCann Case is but a Political Farce - Pat Brown

New post by Pat Brown at The Daily Profiler (Saturday, October 26, 2013)

interested wrote:New post by Pat Brown at The Daily Profiler (Saturday, October 26, 2013)

Have you got he Link Interested  

Panda wrote:

interested wrote:New post by Pat Brown at The Daily Profiler (Saturday, October 26, 2013)

Have you got he Link Interested  

Sorry about that, everyone will know I'm not good at links. But here goes, "patbrownprofiling.blogspot.com/2013/10"

patbrownprofiling.blogspot.com/2013/10

Sorry, thought that would work! Back to the drawing board.

Thanks Iris, although I wished I hadn't read it!

SteveT wrote:Sorry, thought that would work! Back to the drawing board.

it does work ...




Saturday, October 26, 2013




Why the Portuguese Reopening of the McCann Case is but a Political Farce






It has been an incredibly busy last couple weeks in the alternate universe of Madeleine McCann and I say alternate universe because the shenanigans that have ensued in recent days - the Met's "startling revelations" on CrimeWatch, the discovery of a blonde girl "abducted" by a near enough Gypsy family, and, now, the reopening of the McCann investigation in Portugal based on "new evidence" found a of couple years back, you know, far before New Scotland Yard came up with its new discoveries - all of this hokum which makes little sense unless you understand the politics behind it which most of us do not.

Let's see what these new developments mean:

1) Jane Tanner really did see a man carrying a child away from the McCann's vacation flat - although an innocent tourist with his own child - which proves that the McCanns aren't lying about their prime suspect's existence.



2) The discovery of a little blond girl living with a Roma family proves that little blonde girls are targeted for Gypsy abductions - only now it turns out that that little blonde girl IS Roma; hence, gypsy do not need to steal little blonde girls, they can make them themselves.

3) Portugal has reopened the case based on "new" evidence they unearthed a while back. In other words, the UK isn't going to make us look like total putzes; we actually were already ahead of them when they did CrimeWatch.

4) Goncalo Amaral is going to be the scapegoat. This is actually a fairly old ploy used by police departments aiming to redeem their public reputation; blaming the previous administration. In other words, when a case goes cold and there is a public uproar, nothing usually happens until the old guard leaves. Then, whoever takes over can simply point fingers back at who used to be in charge and say, "It didn't happen on my watch." And, "Now that you have better people in the job, we will show you how great we are." There will be a flurry of activity and then, after a reasonable stretch of time has passed, the case will have a "conclusion," one that points toward an abduction, proves Amaral was wrong, and, sadly, Madeleine will never be recovered because the suspect that was found by the new administrator is dead and we only have a vague statement of what happened to Maddie (something like an accident during the abduction that will give the parents some peace of mind). Mind you, nothing will be proven. The Portuguese police will not make that information public rather like that mystery man of Tanner's that the Met says exists but won't tell us who he is and why he was quiet for six years.

Now, here is the most important point: NO ONE has any new evidence and I will tell you why.

I have worked on enough cold cases to know why they remain cold. Here is what happens: the police department follow a particular theory believing it to be correct. If it isn't, they reach a dead end with no evidence to back that theory and prove their suspect or motive to be the right one. Then, when the cold case analyst comes in (or Scotland Yard or the new Portuguese investigators) whatever evidence existed years ago is surely long gone. Blood, clothing, memories...gone. The only way one can say they have new evidence is if the body of that long missing child is found or photos showing her demise are found (like sexual sadistic serial killers sometimes have locked up in there homes). But, has Maddie's body been found or has their been a raid on someone's home netting souvenirs from the captivity of the little girl? No.

New evidence is not a bunch of tips from citizens or psychics. Sorting through tips is usually a huge waste of manpower because in a case like this where an abduction would likely only involved one lone creep, no one has a clue who he is or what he has done including his mother or his wife. Therefore, all of those tips are pure garbage, taking hours and hours for investigators to sift through, and hope that some needle in that haystack happens to be someone who really saw something or knows something. Very few colds cases are ever solved by tips brought in by appeals to the public; mostly this is done to make it look like the police are doing something and that they care. It also makes the family and the public feel good, but it rarely has results.

So, where is this new evidence coming from? If the McCanns aren't involved in the disappearance of their daughter, there are only three possibilities for abduction: sex predator, child sex ring, and abduction for adoption. Now, I think our little blonde Maria found with the Roma family pretty much gets rid of that theory. If you want a little blond child, you can adopt one from a desperate woman who has too many children to care for. I have been trying to tell people for years, blonde children and blonde teens do not need to be abducted for adoption or to prostitute out; they can be gotten without kidnapping.

So, that gets rid of the stupid abduction for adoption theory. Let's go to the sex ring theory. Did you just read what I said about not needing to kidnap little blonde girls for adoption? Same goes for sex rings. There are enough drug using, poor, and criminal parents who will let you use their blonde child for prostitution or porn, so, again, abduction is not necessary.

That leaves only one plausible reason for anyone to abduct Maddie, the only reason I have been stating for years could be the only alternative to the McCanns' involvement; a child sex predator. And that is the EXACT theory the early Portuguese police focused on and why Murat became an arguido; they thought he was a creepy dude who lived near the McCann flat and could have been watching the area, slipped in and kidnapped the child, rape and murdered her, and then buried her on his own property or elsewhere. The police followed that very good theory and came up with zilch. Why? Because, probably, as Goncalo Amaral would say, this was a red herring and steered the investigation in the wrong direction. By the time they swung around to another possible theory, that of the McCann's involvement, much evidence went missing. Not all, though - they still had the dog evidence of cadaver and blood in the apartment and the rental car and they had all the conflicting stories and bizarre behaviors of the McCanns and their friends. Then, the McCanns fled and the case was shelved.

Now, open that case again and go back and try to find any evidence that some child sex predator abducted Madeleine McCann six years ago and you will come up empty barring stumbling across her body or those photos. Certainly, you are not going to find "new evidence" in the files, maybe a possible lead or two, but certainly not evidence. And, two years after Portugal now says they found some "new evidence" they are opening the case? Does this make sense? Why not two years ago? I can tell you why; they were hoping that New Scotland Yard would waste a bunch of time and money and then go away. But, instead, they came up with this big CrimeWatch media extravaganza and their "new evidence" eliminating one suspect and e-fits they claim aren't Gerry for the public to opine about. Portugal was looking badly, so time to one up them by reopening the case and claiming it is because of evidence already found prior to Scotland Yard's involvement.

This is politics. This is saving face. This is an attempt by Portugal to come out of this whole mess with some dignity. Maybe I will be wrong; maybe there will be some amazing turnabout and the McCanns and their friends will be brought back to Portugal for a reconstruction and they will become arguidos again. I would like to be wrong. I would like to see this happen. But, in my experience, once politics rears its ugly head, justice and truth become victims along with the missing child, the dogged detectives, and the public.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

October 26, 2013

Oh dear, I think Pat may be able to read minds. Mine in particular.

Claudia79 wrote:Oh dear, I think Pat may be able to read minds. Mine in particular.

Mine too. I posted yesterday, "It's all politics".

interested wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:Oh dear, I think Pat may be able to read minds. Mine in particular.

Mine too.  I posted yesterday, "It's all politics".

 

http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.com/2013/10

I find nothing to argue with here -

She claims the PJ is coming back in so they can be involved and not have SY finding evidence they did not; they will then be the "new guard" who found evidence rather than the "disgraced" or discredited former cop.

There is no new evidence, this is face saving by the new PJ -

from SY she apparently also doubts that they found this guy 6 years later and feels the efit was made up by them to look sort of like Gerry except with grey hair (which was never said by Smiths) so it couldn't be him, but does fit with the post 930 abduction make possible by the fact that Oldfield never actually SAW madeleine at his "check" which we knew anyhow.

Not so sure I agree with her cynicism that SY just made this guy up, in her previous blog post. that seems like more than politics

no new info, just politics.

Who saw the abductor who looked like Gerry but isn't, that described him with gray hair?

If McCanns are made assistants they would want this evidence  - provided they are innocent, this is HUGE, if it's real - who else saw this guy? WHo provided the descriptions?

And how, 6 years later, are these excruciatingly detailed efits possible especially given the super dark night?

She is right that Sy if they are saying PJ over focused on the Tanner sighting and ignored Smith are completely re writing history as the reverse is the case.

Claudia79 wrote:Oh dear, I think Pat may be able to read minds. Mine in particular.

And mine.

Portugal had to respond to the SY fairy tale and underlying critisism.I do not believe there is common ground between the two.But will the PJ have the bottle to return to the original theory and advance on it ?

Lioned wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:Oh dear, I think Pat may be able to read minds. Mine in particular.

And mine.

Portugal had to respond to the SY fairy tale and underlying critisism.I do not believe there is common ground between the two.But will the PJ have the bottle to return to the original theory and advance on it ?

Can they afford too ..after all the money already spent on the case and nothing to show for it.

I don't see how failing to return anything on the abduction theory makes them look better and PJ worse - they in fact would be arriving at the same place, ie that we do not know what happened.

Unless they claim they DO know but alas this pedo is now dead, and in that case how could they KNOW? Would SY accept not to see the evidence for that? Would the PJ, if SY claimed to have it? that supposes a lot of fraudulent collusion. For what. Why would you put your own independence and honor and integrity on the line just to "agree" that is was surely a pedo abduction, if you have no proof.

Someone would talk.

I'm not ashamed to say I agree with Pat Brown too.  I have thought, and said many times, political corruption is at the root of this and as I have posted elsewhere on here, I will not be in the least bit surprised to find that the judge in the libel trial has also been given orders from high up, in fact to be completely honest I would be very surprised if she hadn't.

Edited to add.....I sincerely hope I am proved wrong.

Lioned wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:Oh dear, I think Pat may be able to read minds. Mine in particular.

And mine.

Portugal had to respond to the SY fairy tale and underlying critisism.I do not believe there is common ground between the two.But will the PJ have the bottle to return to the original theory and advance on it ?

Doubt it.

Claudia79 wrote:

Lioned wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:Oh dear, I think Pat may be able to read minds. Mine in particular.

And mine.

Portugal had to respond to the SY fairy tale and underlying critisism.I do not believe there is common ground between the two.But will the PJ have the bottle to return to the original theory and advance on it ?

Doubt it.

Oh dear Claudia, if you are negative about this then I truly am :(

Fudge wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:

Lioned wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:Oh dear, I think Pat may be able to read minds. Mine in particular.

And mine.

Portugal had to respond to the SY fairy tale and underlying critisism.I do not believe there is common ground between the two.But will the PJ have the bottle to return to the original theory and advance on it ?

Doubt it.

Oh dear Claudia, if you are negative about this then I truly am :(

That's not my intention. I'm just telling it as I see it.

Claudia79 wrote:

Fudge wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:

Lioned wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:Oh dear, I think Pat may be able to read minds. Mine in particular.

And mine.

Portugal had to respond to the SY fairy tale and underlying critisism.I do not believe there is common ground between the two.But will the PJ have the bottle to return to the original theory and advance on it ?

Doubt it.

Oh dear Claudia, if you are negative about this then I truly am :(

That's not my intention. I'm just telling it as I see it.

I fully understand.

Fudge wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:

Fudge wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:

Lioned wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:Oh dear, I think Pat may be able to read minds. Mine in particular.

And mine.

Portugal had to respond to the SY fairy tale and underlying critisism.I do not believe there is common ground between the two.But will the PJ have the bottle to return to the original theory and advance on it ?

Doubt it.

Oh dear Claudia, if you are negative about this then I truly am :(

That's not my intention. I'm just telling it as I see it.

I fully understand.

 

If we believe Mrs Fenn, and I see no reason not to start doubting her now, she had told the investigation that a couple she knew renting a flat near by had gone to see the screaming Madeleine either the 1st or 2nd May, through the unlocked door, to comfort her.

Apparently this couple's never been found, surely THEY would have some interesting information to impart about the state of the children and doors and windows, yet we are focused on some other guy who could have been a tourist ... I would think finding out everyone who was in, under the table or not, a flat near there needs to be checked out and if they confirm that yes the kids were alone and unchecked nightly screaming then if that makes McCanns look bad, it's a shame but not worth brushing THAT under the rug, and potentially losing any recollection those folks might have of who else was around noticing the kids in the unlocked flat freaking out.

I hope Pat Brown stays on this, there are many angles to be chased up and this one sounds more promising as they know it was acquaintances of Mrs Fenn who were renting in ear shot. How hard can that be for MI5 and SY and the PJ working together to find out who that was.

But I don't understand why they are showing Crimewatch type programmes in different countries. They do not know who will phone in with what information. This is a huge risk in a whitewash situation. That's the only thing that makes me think it isn't a whitewash.

MaryB wrote:But I don't understand why they are showing Crimewatch type programmes in different countries.  They do not know who will phone in with what information.   This is a huge risk in a whitewash situation.  That's the only thing that makes me think it isn't a whitewash.

I think the article in Sunday Times is interesting. This Smith sighting stuff from SY is not a white wash.

It's the information that Oakley had given to McCanns in the report from his subcontractor, the former MI 5 guys, Exton was the former head of MI5 I believe. Those efits were from his investigation, their report was turned in five years ago and suppressed by McCanns' lawyers because the report was also critical of McCanns and highlighted many anomalies in their statements.

This "would have been a distraction" according to someone from TM, they preferred to brush that one under the rug, and focus instead on Bundleman. THAT was the white wash, and now it's all in the hands of Scotland yard and if they are sharing info with the PJ, then in the hands of the PJ as well.

This evidence could have been out there and being acted upon FIVE YEARS AGO. Now everyone who reads a paper or surfs the Internet will know they prevented not only the PJ investigation BUT THEIR OWN. If you seek a white wash look no further.

And they dare to use tax payer money to review the investigation. Well, they certainly got what they paid for this time, I'm kind of surprised that Exton would speak up - isn't he scared to get sued? I guess he watched Crimewatch and recognized his own efits. Perhaps he will be willing to say more about what serious anomalies he spotted in their witness statements.

Wonder what's going on in Rothley tonight and amongst the T 7... is it finally time to spill the beans, anyone else?