Transcripts of Scotland Yard's Interviews of The Three Burglars by Pat Brown

The three transcripts from Bollux Media and Pat Brown can be found at patbrownprofiling.blogspot.com

She's getting quite snarky isn't she?

The whole series of blogs on Mccanns the last four or so have been quite sarcastic including this one and the Pat Brown expert interview on middle eastern affairs - get someone to say a bunch of obvious stuff that requires no particular expertise - just like asking these reporters who cover court cases what they think ("we all thought it was a pedo or predator that took Madeleine, and now we think it's burglary gone wrong!" okay Meredith) or the former queen's policeman, turned detective, speaking about how the little Scottish boy could be gone - as result of a professional kidnapping.

For God's sake, the obvious is staring him in the face and he goes off on some flight of fancy! Of course that's probably why they wanted him on tv, to titillate with this nonsense rather than just tell the sad reality of it:

if the most common person to kill a child is his mother and if
the child can't get out of the place on his own and if
he "disappeared" from his own home while under his mother's care and if
the child hasn't been seen by others, for longer than mum says and if
there is no EVIDENCE of an abduction then

you might assume the mother had something to do with it - thankfully the real detectives weren't fooled. This guy puts 2 and 2 together and gets professional abduction ring!

It is getting farcical

This latest development cannot be good for the McCanns.

Their OFM page was full of "oh look, kids do get abducted from their beds and the Jocks are going to show the Sardines how it's done properly" and all sorts of other bullshit. Oddly enough, none of that seems to be there now.   

Perhaps the fact that it's a middle class business woman, from a very respectable family, who pretends her kid is abducted, and gets the whole of Edinburgh and their dug out "searching". The only things she didn't do are open up a shop or start a limited company; mind you, she maybe didn't have time.

And now it turns out that she's up in court charged with murder - not even culpable homicide, but murder - and defeating the ends of justice.

No wonder the McCanns didn't want anyone making comparisons, and whooshed all the site content pronto.

She wasn't very clever, to be found out so fast. So many obvious things including where the body was found. With all the places to put a body why do these child killers put it so close to their home? It is eery how these behaviors are so similar across cases.

I imagine the Team McCann folks will say that justice does work, thanks heavens and look how - the guilty are caught and punished - with the conclusion being that they, McCanns are innocent, because they haven't been caught and punished.

I would imagine the team mccann sycophants will be keeping their distance.

I wonder if Mathew Wright still thinks its frighteningly similar to the mccann case.

It looks like another example of the unimaginable atrocities that human beings are capable of.

At the end of the day the mainstay of the mccann defence is just,well they couldnt have done it because erm um well they just couldnt have done it.

Circular because they couldn't do it because they are nice people - nice being defined as not the sort who could have done it.

Really nice means middle class white doctors who "dine" on tapas at the back of their garden, not some single mum who leaves the kids to pop round the pub

Their pals vouch for them though, being at the table from 830 to 10 absent 15 mins for Gerry to go see to Maddie at 9:05-9:20 ish
and I think that really IS why SY believes they couldn't have done it. Provided Madeleine was alive at 830 when the parents left. There just isn't time. Too many witnesses say so.

They either have to break that 830 sighting of a live child (how? You can't prove she was alive or dead; like Schrodinger's cat - she is in that apt both alive and dead - if you credit the dogs - until someone opens the box to verify it, and that is not going to be done as the only ones who COULD do that are the suspects)

or break the timeline and prove that all 9 of these folks are lying about when the checks were done and how long Gerry was gone, and when the alert went up. At least some of them are "in on it" if that is the case - and that's a lot of nice people who couldn't have been in on it.

As long as they stand firm as a group on that timeline and there is no confession or other witness they are safe.

And as long as they share a lawyer it's likely the advice is to stick to the story - otherwise, now, they are all involved with crimes that you would think do NOT have an expiration date - on neglect charges the time has passed, I believe - but not for being involved with the death of a child or covering it up - interfering with the police investigation

But the last time that Madeleine was seen alive by anyone other than the McCanns was allegedly 6:30 pm when David Payne popped in to see if Kate needed help bringing the kids down to tennis, despite Kate and Gerry having already decided earlier that the kids were too tired to go to tennis.

Further, I don't even think that Payne is 100% sure that he even saw Madeleine on this trip to visit Kate. The third child (if he did in fact see three) could have been Tanner's child who was not sick. This opens up the time to dispose of the body to 6:30 pm to 8:30 pm, quite a big chunk of time. And the last time that Madeleine was seen alive by an independent witness was 5:30 pm, which opens up the timeline another whole hour.

True, had forgotten about Payne. Amaral clearly has not. I saw on a link in the comments in Pat Brown's blog, forget which one - maybe the testimony of the 3 burglars? a link

www.zizipresscuts.wordpress.com

which has an English translation of a program he was on. He mentioned the Gaspar statements, the bathing of the children and the differing accounts of how long Payne stayed at the McCann flat - 30 seconds according to Kate, 30 minutes according to Gerry? - and according to Fiona, she went with him. He brings up Yvonne Martin as well - that she had recognized Payne from some case in social services, either he was a suspect or a witness and how Kate didn't want to talk with her

He is stymied as to how these things were not even part of the reconstruction on Crime Watch or how the police don't want to focus on them - the dogs, the Smith sighting

His opinion is that government interference is there for some reason but does not believe that it is because the UK government wants to protect the reputation of British doctors...

I had never seen that before! Some very interesting tidbits in there:

"There are only four moments that coincide; (and these are) the only ones corroborated by witnesses.

(The first)

At 21:00 hours, two men get up from the table – one is Russell O’Brien; the other Gerry McCann." (So, it was Russell, as Kate claimed in her witness statement, and not Matt).


FMF): (continuing) Also, the staff of the restaurant-bar should have been included (in any reconstruction) – to find out (for example) whether those glasses contained wine or water – as the BBC “Crimewatch” tried to suggest; to determine the sequence of them getting up from and returning to the table, to confirm the distances they covered, to…

(GA): (cuts in) and to confirm who sat down (at the table) moments before the mother of the child gives…

(P): (cuts in) Gives the alert!

(GA): Gives the alert! Because there are two employees – a man and a woman – who maintain that the person who sat at the table, just before the mother of the child gets up, was Mr. Gerald McCann – the father! There are witnesses for this!

(Very interesting indeed! So, it was Gerry who did not return until 21:50, not Russell, who it appears had left at 21:00 and returned at 21:30, with Jane never leaving the table).

VO): Where was Gerry McCann at 22:00 hours when his wife Kate cries out that her daughter (Madeleine) is missing? Two employees of the restaurant guarantee (stated) that around that time he was not at the dinner table. Could he have been the man, Martin Smith, an Irish tourist, saw carrying a blonde girl in his arms?

So I guess there goes the idea that the table was empty by 940.

It's ironic to call the pJ bungling with their depth of investigation of detail whereas you have SY chasing a string of suspects from tractor guy to the 3 burglars and whoever else.

widowan wrote:So I guess there goes the idea that the table was empty by 940.

It's ironic to call the pJ bungling with their depth of investigation of detail whereas you have SY chasing a string of suspects from tractor guy to the 3 burglars and whoever else.

It is not only ironic, but unfair and completely wrong to call the PJ bungling. It is clear that the PJ were never allowed to conduct the investigation as they normally would have given that they were told to treat the disappearance as an abuduction from day one. There was too much political influence to conduct an early reconstruction and to get the surveillance that they wanted. So sad that the British interfered with the PJ seeking the course of justice.

D'accord, jintva..

jinvta wrote:

widowan wrote:So I guess there goes the idea that the table was empty by 940.

It's ironic to call the pJ bungling with their depth of investigation of detail whereas you have SY chasing a string of suspects from tractor guy to the 3 burglars and whoever else.

It is not only ironic, but unfair and completely wrong to call the PJ bungling. It is clear that the PJ were never allowed to conduct the investigation as they normally would have given that they were told to treat the disappearance as an abuduction from day one. There was too much political influence to conduct an early reconstruction and to get the surveillance that they wanted. So sad that the British interfered with the PJ seeking the course of justice.

(GA): (cuts in) and to confirm who sat down (at the table) moments before the mother of the child gives…

(P): (cuts in) Gives the alert!

(GA): Gives the alert! Because there are two employees – a man and a woman – who maintain that the person who sat at the table, just before the mother of the child gets up, was Mr. Gerald McCann – the father! There are witnesses for this!

This is interesting - because if Kate gave the alert at 10 PM as she insists and Gerry had just sat down, that's very odd. In fact it's odd if she gave the alert at 935 (the waiter says the table was empty by 940?) because why would you get up to check five minutes after your husband returned? You'd surely push the next check out half an hour.

For Gerry to leave at 905 and return just before 10 is something I'd want clarity on if the SY timeline for the abduction was 9-10, he is the person not only most likely to have harmed MM as her parent but also the one who saw her last and who was gone during the relevant time period.

If she gave it at 935 then somewhat less so - because Gerry could have finished his chat with Jez and come back