Pat Brown's blog updated to include the new information about the Exton interview after seeing his efits on Crime Watch

http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.com/

It's still under the October 26 blog but it's been updated to include the entire interview from Sunday Times plus from a few other sources.

She mentions that Kate's book in 2011 talks about the importance of this sighting but does not include the relevant efits in the 8 photos - she keeps the photo of the guy whose face was never seen - !

From the updated blog:

The detailed images of the face of the man seen by the Smith family were never released by the McCanns. But an artist’s impression of the man seen earlier by Tanner was widely promoted, even though the face had to be left blank because she had only seen him fleetingly and from a distance.

Various others images of lone men spotted hanging around the resort at other times were also released.

Nor were the Smith E-Fits included in Kate McCann’s 2011 book, Madeleine, which contained a whole section on eight “key sightings” and identified those of the Smiths and Tanner as most “crucial”. Descriptions of all seven other sightings were accompanied by an E-Fit or artist’s impression. The Smiths’ were the only exception. So why was such a “crucial” piece of evidence kept under lock and key?

The relationship between the fund and Oakley was already souring by the time the report was submitted — and its findings could only have made matters worse.

As well as questioning parts of the McCanns’ evidence, it contained sensitive information about Madeleine’s sleeping patterns and raised the highly sensitive possibility that she could have died in an accident after leaving the apartment herself from one of two unsecured doors.

What sensitive information about Madeleine's sleeping patterns? that she regularly woke and wandered around to get in her parents' bed? That's not new - sticker chart etc - and it's not new that she was heard awake and crying for a long time, and they never came and checked.

maybe it is related to why the McCanns said the kids all slept in the one bedroom; whereas the maids said they saw a cot in the parents' room, and the shutters open in the kids' room? Any family with young kids plays musical beds to some degree but to move a cot is different to having the kid get up and join you.

Both Kate and Gerry thought Maddie might have gone to sleep in their bed, when they first saw (in his case the open door) and in Kate's case the empty bed.

it also says in here that both doors were unsecured! The front door that led to the car park. Unbelievable anyone could be so stupid.

Thanks for sharing that. I would not have noticed the addition at the bottom of the blog. I found this paragraph the most interesting:

"Kate and Gerry McCann: now officially not suspects, say the Portuguese authorities Kate and Gerry McCann: now officially not suspects, say the Portuguese authorities (Adrian Sheratt) Oakley’s six-month investigation included placing undercover agents inside the Ocean Club where the family stayed, lie detector tests, covert surveillance and a forensic re-examination of all existing evidence."

I wonder if we will ever find out the results of those lie detector tests?

jinvta wrote:Thanks for sharing that. I would not have noticed the addition at the bottom of the blog. I found this paragraph the most interesting:

"Kate and Gerry McCann: now officially not suspects, say the Portuguese authorities Kate and Gerry McCann: now officially not suspects, say the Portuguese authorities (Adrian Sheratt) Oakley’s six-month investigation included placing undercover agents inside the Ocean Club where the family stayed, lie detector tests, covert surveillance and a forensic re-examination of all existing evidence."

I wonder if we will ever find out the results of those lie detector tests?

I doubt they were ldt's on the McCanns or their friends. Those results I would like to see, wouldn't we all.

Sometimes people take them knowing the results aren't admissible in court (in the US) if they can do so with a private firm, to see if they will be able to pass the test. If they don't they have the excuse that they were under duress or the tests aren't reliable (sound familiar?) but if they DO pass them that info is passed around. They can also take them, privately, fail and then state that they passed - if the results are private. I so cannot see kate or Gerry submitting themselves to that.

Who could Oakley have had submit to a LDT? They aren't cops and can't command that of anyone. An employee of Ocean Club would be a fool to submit to a LDT by McCanns' private firm.

I just realized that the entire blog addition she put in there is from the Times report INCLUDING the bit about the efits not finding their way into Kate's book. which I only noticed myself as I was re reading that section of the book this past weekend and went back in and looked at her version of the truth about why they ended the relationship with Oakley. Then I went and looked at the photos of the people she wanted us all to keep an eye out for and realized that neither efit from Smith sighting were included although kate stated weirdly, that she thought he and Budnleman were one and the same.

her reason for why the guy would be still wandering around carrying a child through the street for 40 minutes was that kidnapping doesn't make sense so why would his later behavior do so. ? ?? Kidnapping is a crime and a sick evil one but it doesn't mean you are a deranged disorganized person, certainly a disorganized kidnapper would not have been able to evade any sighting or bizarre behavior later. WHoever took madeleine was "smart," and organized enough to keep from getting caught despite MI5, PJ, Control Risk and Metodo and a £2,600,000 reward.

What doesn't make sense is why you would not include at least one efit from Smiths if you had it - a full, frontal look at the man's face! - if you thought that was in all probability the abductor!

If they can move the abduction to prior to 915 it makes Gerry out to be less than honest about the night in question.

I watched him state on crime watch that he went in and looked at Madeleine at 915 after seeing the door open to assure himself she was still in bed and she was.

But I recall seeing on "reconstruction" of that night, that had him, Jane etc out there in PDL in the actual spot, disagreeing about where Gerry was standing when Jane saw him, that Gerry consoled Matt when Matt stated that he just had a listen and did not go in something like "neither did I put my head in the door" - yet in her book Kate claims he did go in.

I wonder if that video is still around that has him saying that - maybe I misheard him but I could swear he said neither did I, or words to that effect. If it wasn't Panorama it was some other thing they did, channel four, or an earlier Crime Watch.

okay just found the video, it's where he says that was the only night he put his head in and on the other nights he did not, he only did because he found the door open,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atfDV7imHHY

about 13 minutes in you have Matt Oldfield saying he did not go in and see her because he felt he'd done enough and no noise meant it was all good - nothing about the state of light in the room, shutters, a breeze etc.

So giving benefit of the doubt then I guess it was 910 to 10 for the abduction - but I don't see how Gerry looked in and saw how beautiful she was when Kate looked she couldn't see a thing at first and had to turn the light on,.

I guess it wasn't as dark at 9 as it was an hour later?

Still odd you'd find the door more open than you left it and with both front and back unlocked, would not be suspicious about that. It would make the hair stand up on the back of my head, although I suppose you could put it down to a breeze from when you opened the door - the door opened into the room, away from the hallway.  that is how the abductor could have been standing behind it when Gerry went in.

Providing there's no other reason the door would have been open the abductor could have been in the room at that time behind the door or in the master bedroom, or madeleine could have gotten up and gone back into her bed after 830. that would be my assumption - she'd gotten up to pee and went back to bed -  but if she was lying just as they'd left her, that's not a reasonable assumption to make.

If suspicions were aroused by the open door means the abductor was in at 910, then if the abductor came in the window prior to that time and meant to leave the same way he'd hardly risk closing it between times.

I wonder if the shutters up were a signal to someone outside? If the way is clear I'll raise the shutters then you know I have her  - put his head out to see if the coast was clear? And then left out the door?

Freaky.

widowan wrote:

jinvta wrote:Thanks for sharing that. I would not have noticed the addition at the bottom of the blog. I found this paragraph the most interesting:

"Kate and Gerry McCann: now officially not suspects, say the Portuguese authorities Kate and Gerry McCann: now officially not suspects, say the Portuguese authorities (Adrian Sheratt) Oakley’s six-month investigation included placing undercover agents inside the Ocean Club where the family stayed, lie detector tests, covert surveillance and a forensic re-examination of all existing evidence."

I wonder if we will ever find out the results of those lie detector tests?

I doubt they were ldt's on the McCanns or their friends. Those results I would like to see, wouldn't we all.

Sometimes people take them knowing the results aren't admissible in court (in the US) if they can do so with a private firm, to see if they will be able to pass the test. If they don't they have the excuse that they were under duress or the tests aren't reliable (sound familiar?) but if they DO pass them that info is passed around. They can also take them, privately, fail and then state that they passed - if the results are private. I so cannot see kate or Gerry submitting themselves to that.

Who could Oakley have had submit to a LDT? They aren't cops and can't command that of anyone. An employee of Ocean Club would be a fool to submit to a LDT by McCanns' private firm.

Any LDT by a private investigation firm would be voluntary. I can actually see the McCanns possibly submitting to these with the arrogant expectation that they would be able to fool the test and then splash the results are over the headlines. If they did not pass, that would certainly be a reason to try to suppress the information from getting out to the public.

She DID agree to do test....

"Oakley’s six-month investigation included placing undercover agents inside the Ocean Club where the family stayed, lie detector tests, covert surveillance and a forensic re-examination of all existing evidence."

Claudia79 once informed on this forum that covert surveillance was illegal in Portugal

kitti wrote:She DID agree to do test....

If Kate agreed to let £500,000 out of the Fund (and she claims the Fund paid for Oakley) I would think she and Gerry would want to meet this guy, Halligen and also hearing that top MI5 spies would be working on it, at their rates, I'd want to meet the person. They don't let go of money easily and had been sort of burned on Metodo. I wonder if they did get to meet Exton or his team and possibly were asked to do a private LDT.

Somehow I think that would get their dander up because how very dare you suspect us, we're paying you.

I remember a few years ago a man said that he was willing to give Kate McCann a lie detector test. She had agreed.


He then went on to say...never in all my career have I been asked to do a test on someone who was going to dictate to ME what questions I would be allowed to ask them.




He wouldn't do it.

Well, in order to put pressure on the subject the answers have to matter to someone, and to be controlled by the tester. You can't tell someone to ask you about whether you love your kids or what your address is and then say there, I passed it. It's got to be the tough questions that make you sweat.

Most innocent parties would demand to take the test, be ruled out and let the investigation go on.

I wonder what a psychologist would make of Kate - she's obviously very intelligent, and yet look at her choices, they are those of an unintelligent person, the decision to leave the children and the decision to lie to police, the grandiose idea that they know best how to run an investigation better than the PJ, with the dire consequences that had - they just could not let go of control - the grandiose idea that the entire world should shut down for the search, and that unlike other children their child is entitled to have millions for her search and the involvement of the Prime Minister; they are entitled to the small money of children and old pensioners to pay for Carter Ruck - the "Rome is preparing for our arrival" kind of stuff.

The hiding of the efits and suppressing of evidence lest it distract or tarnish their reputation -

she comes from plain people, pulled herself up by the boot straps to become a doctor, had "made it" I think, in the eyes of herself and her family and society, and then all this happened to them. All of it someone else's fault in her way of thinking.

It's a bit like their interviews ......the Mccanns tell the people what THEY want them to ask .



Remember an interview in 2007 when someone from Germany left the script and Kate mccanns gave that person a Deathly look,



It wasn't the one where the women asked about what Kate thinks about people criticising them.....it was another one....Kate McCann didn't know that the camera in a corner was pointed at her...but the look!

kitti wrote:It's a bit like their interviews ......the Mccanns tell the people what THEY want them to ask .



Remember an interview in 2007 when someone from Germany left the script and Kate mccanns gave that person a  Deathly look,



It wasn't the one where the women asked about what Kate thinks about people criticising them.....it was another one....Kate  McCann  didn't know that the camera in a corner was pointed at her...but the look!

Yes the idea that you can control or should be able to control what people think about you and what they can ask or know about you, must be an infuriating condition to have, so frustrating.

People do not owe McCanns respect nor ignorance of what really was going on nor do the reporters owe them easy soft ball questions lobbed over the plate for them to smack down - in their idea the optimal interview would be showing around efits of a guy with no face and asking people to look for him. The idea that the great reporter would say "don't worry about leaving the kids, we've all done it, of course YOU did nothing wrong, people use listening services all the time" is kind of interesting.

They regret they were not there at the moment Madeleine was taken. That is a poser. They should be doing community service hours talking about child neglect, not trying to big themselves up as responsible parents.

duncanmac wrote:

"Oakley’s six-month investigation included placing undercover agents inside the Ocean Club where the family stayed, lie detector tests, covert surveillance and a forensic re-examination of all existing evidence."

Claudia79 once informed on this forum that covert surveillance was illegal in Portugal

It is illegal. But if you don't get caught, then you don't get caught....

but in a way all have been caught. there might be nothing that can be done about it now, but does anyone think the McCs have integrity, are trustworthy and honest. they did it all themselves, keep that rope going.