Pat Brown 22 May,2014- Ten reasons why I can't take Scotland Yard seriously in the Madeleine Mccann Case

http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.fr/


Thursday, May 22, 2014




Ten Reasons why I can't take Scotland Yard Seriously in the Madeleine McCann Case

Shh! Don't Tip Off the Suspects!

I have received a bit of heat in recent weeks for my opinion that Scotland Yard is not really doing a credible review of the Madeleine McCann case, that they appear to be involved in a whitewash of the McCanns' possible involvement in the disappearance of their daughter, Maddie.

First of all, I want to state that I am behind all hardworking detectives out there in the world. It has been my mission to improve criminal profiling and crime scene analysis methodology FOR law enforcement, so that detectives may have more success in solving difficult cases. I also am behind all law enforcement agencies as they work to solve the next homicide case that lands on their desks even if the department screwed up the last case through lack of training or incompetence on the part of whatever detective got assigned to the case and even if the department mishandled the last case due to political pressure (even if it was one I worked on with them). I wish them the best on the next case and hope they do a better job with all their future investigations. I recognize that law enforcement suffers the same problems as any other profession; they are not perfect nor successful nor honorable one hundred percent of the time. Knowing that does not mean I don't support them when they do a good job or want to improve their ability to solve cases and bring justice to criminals and the community. I don't hold grudges against any police agency; I just want to see a brighter future for all homicide investigations.

As to Scotland Yard, they have done great work in the past and also not so great work, just like every other agency. I am sure they will do some great work in the future as well as not so great work in the future. For the moment, they may be solving cases right and left, but something is seriously wrong with the Madeleine McCann case and here are ten reasons why I think this is not business as usual and there is a political coverup going on of some sort.

1) The amount of funds being allotted to Scotland Yard to investigate one missing person's case - a case which is not even within their own jurisdiction, a case in which the parents' own neglect of their children and refusal to cooperate with the authorities is shameful - is unprecedented and outrageous.

2) Scotland Yard began their "review" by publicly stating that the parents were not suspects instead of simply saying no one can be excluded from suspicion who does not have a solid alibi as is the usual statement made by police right out of the gate.

3) Scotland Yard constantly says they are updating the parents of the missing child, something that is only done if the parents are absolutely not suspects.

4) Scotland Yard did not do a reconstruction of the crime; they only did a reenactment of the McCann version of the crime for television.

5) Scotland Yard validated Jane Tanner's version of what she saw on a narrow street where she was not seen by two people as she supposedly passed by them.

6) Scotland Yard verified that Tannerman existed with a claim that was not credible.

7) Scotland Yard relatively large "Operation Grange" team has spent three years reviewing files that should have taken no more than a few weeks or months.

8) After reviewing all the evidence and leads in the files, Scotland Yard is investigating suspects that have no connection to the case.

9) Scotland Yard wants to search for Maddies's body (and, yes, they would be searching for a body as all other evidence would be long gone after seven years) in the most unlikely place to find her, right near the apartment in a very open-to-the-view-of-the-public location with hard-as-rock ground where no shallow grave could have been missed by the PJ or anyone walking by.

10) In spite of the fact the PJ has asked for there to be no press about the case, Scotland Yard has its own people still giving interviews.



Along with these ten reasons, if we need one more to seal the issue, it has to be AC Rowley's recent statement to papers:


"If you get any information ahead of our actions do not publish anything that may give suspects advance notice.”

Since Scotland Yard and DCI Andy Redwood have been shouting from the rooftops since they started working on the Madeleine McCann case, I hardly think any suspect couldn't have covered his tracks over these many months if he hadn't done so in the four years prior to the beginning of the Met review. The naming of the first supposed dig location and Rowley opening his own big mouth hardly encourages me to believe that Scotland Yard is doing everything they can to keep their interest in suspects in the case under wraps, unless you believe they have spend millions of dollars and massive man hours in misdirection and their real suspects are the McCanns. I don't believe this because nothing more than a short case review and a reinterview of the Tapas 9 and reexamination of the physical and behavioral evidence would have been necessary to turn the investigation back toward the McCanns.

No, all the actions of Scotland Yard can only mean one of two things: the present detectives (especially Andy Redwood) are dumb as a box of rocks (which I find hard to believe with the amount of obvious evidence in this case) or they are just going through the motions of rounding up suspects and eventually assigning probable guilt toward one party so that the sad case of little Madeleine McCann can finally be put to rest and the McCanns can be removed from under the cloud of suspicion that has been hovering over them for seven years.




Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

May 22, 2014

This is an excellent article , SY are obviously protecting the McCanns, but why did THEY ask for an investigation ???? I doubt the Portugese would have kept the case alive if the revew turned up no new evidence.

I think what Pat Brown has written needs to be read and re-read, for I am not sure she is correct one or two of the points she lists above.

Also, whatever funds goes into the financial budget of SY, why should that matter in so far as what the detectives are investigating? Those detectives pick up their wages each month until retirement no matter which case they are investigating; the detectives put in expense claims via valid receipts for every case they work on also and there is no shortage of cases for them to work on. Government funding is not going into their pockets so I don't really understand the link to what the Finance Department at SY are receiving. How the budget and finances is managed is a separate matter I think.

And I am not sure what she is really saying about Tannerman. SY discredited Jane Tanner by discounting her sighting of a man, but no matter who saw her on the street and who didn't, whether it can be proven beyond doubt that she was there or she was not there is another matter, so again I cannot see the relevance of what Pat Brown is saying here. SY have discounted her as a witness of an abductor and say all she saw was a holidaymaker carrying his own child.

LJC wrote:I think what Pat Brown has written needs to be read and re-read, for I am not sure she is correct one or two of the points she lists above.

Also, whatever funds goes into the financial budget of SY, why should that matter in so far as what the detectives are investigating?  Those detectives pick up their wages each month until retirement no matter which case they are investigating; the detectives put in expense claims via valid receipts for every case they work on also and there is no shortage of cases for them to work on.  Government funding is not going into their pockets so I don't really understand the link to what the Finance Department at SY are receiving.  How the budget and finances is managed is a separate matter I think.

And I am not sure what she is really saying about Tannerman.  SY discredited Jane Tanner by discounting her sighting of a man, but no matter who saw her on the street and who didn't, whether it can be proven beyond doubt that she was there or she was not there is another matter, so again I cannot see the relevance of what Pat Brown is saying here.  SY have discounted her as a witness of an abductor and say all she saw was a holidaymaker carrying his own child.

Pat Brown says :
"5) Scotland Yard validated Jane Tanner's version of what she saw on a narrow street where she was not seen by two people as she supposedly passed by them.

6) Scotland Yard verified that Tannerman existed with a claim that was not credible"

= for me

Pat Brown thinks ( like a lot of us) that Jane Tanner was lying when she said she saw a man with a child (Tannerman). Proof she was lying: 2 people didn't see her where she said she was.
So, for Pat Brown, the fact that SY say they have found this man ( and moreover because the "proofs" of that are not convincing at all) is, may be a way of "saving" J.Tanner. So, for Pat Brown, imo, SY validates a lie by another lie.
Sounds for me rational.

frencheuropean wrote:

LJC wrote:I think what Pat Brown has written needs to be read and re-read, for I am not sure she is correct one or two of the points she lists above.

Also, whatever funds goes into the financial budget of SY, why should that matter in so far as what the detectives are investigating?  Those detectives pick up their wages each month until retirement no matter which case they are investigating; the detectives put in expense claims via valid receipts for every case they work on also and there is no shortage of cases for them to work on.  Government funding is not going into their pockets so I don't really understand the link to what the Finance Department at SY are receiving.  How the budget and finances is managed is a separate matter I think.

And I am not sure what she is really saying about Tannerman.  SY discredited Jane Tanner by discounting her sighting of a man, but no matter who saw her on the street and who didn't, whether it can be proven beyond doubt that she was there or she was not there is another matter, so again I cannot see the relevance of what Pat Brown is saying here.  SY have discounted her as a witness of an abductor and say all she saw was a holidaymaker carrying his own child.

Pat Brown says :
"5) Scotland Yard validated Jane Tanner's version of what she saw on a narrow street where she was not seen by two people as she supposedly passed by them.

6) Scotland Yard verified that Tannerman existed with a claim that was not credible"

                       = for me

Pat Brown thinks ( like a lot of us) that Jane Tanner was lying when she said she saw a man with a child (Tannerman). Proof she was lying: 2 people didn't see her where she said she was.
So, for Pat Brown, the fact that SY say they have found this man ( and moreover because the "proofs" of that are not convincing at all) is, may be a way of "saving" J.Tanner. So, for Pat Brown, imo, SY validates a lie by another lie.
Sounds for me rational.

One of the two people claiming not to have seen Tanner was Gerry McCann and I am not sure he can be believed for a kick off, so that just leaves Jez Wilkins to my mind, but his word against hers does not amount of proof either way.

All I am saying is that SY are being realistic in that they cannot prove once and for all where Jane Tanner was at that given time, but they have discounted her sighting, which is significant I feel.

Amount of time for the PJ to discount the Tanner sighting - 3 days.

Amount of time for SY to discount the Tanner sighting - 3 years!

At least they agree on one thing - the Tanner sighting is not credible, and therefore does not amount to evidence of anything.

almostgothic wrote:I beg to differ...

http://unterdenteppichgekehrt.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/i-beg-to-differ.html?spref=tw

Thank you to "almostgothic" for posting this link - much as I admire Pat Brown's opinion (usually), the link to "I beg to differ" is important to read.

almostgothic wrote:I beg to differ...

http://unterdenteppichgekehrt.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/i-beg-to-differ.html?spref=tw

Thank you for putting up this link almostgothic. It is very interesting reading indeed.

Jeanne answers to Pat with calm and without unjustified hatred. We might not share all her deductions but she is respectable.Read the comments after her article and you will see that Blacksmith persits and signs.

Is it possible to copy paste the full page on here, especially the comments afterwards.

I beg to differ...
http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.de/2014/05/ten-reasons-why-i-cant-take-scotland.html



""For the moment, they may be solving cases right and left, but something is seriously wrong with the Madeleine McCann case and here are ten reasons why I think this is not business as usual and there is a political coverup going on of some sort.

1) The amount of funds being allotted to Scotland Yard to investigate one missing person's case - a case which is not even within their own jurisdiction, a case in which the parents' own neglect of their children and refusal to cooperate with the authorities is shameful - is unprecedented and outrageous.


2) Scotland Yard began their "review" by publicly stating that the parents were not suspects instead of simply saying no one can be excluded from suspicion who does not have a solid alibi as is the usual statement made by police right out of the gate.

3) Scotland Yard constantly says they are updating the parents of the missing child, something that is only done if the parents are absolutely not suspects.

4) Scotland Yard did not do a reconstruction of the crime; they only did a reenactment of the McCann version of the crime for television.

5) Scotland Yard validated Jane Tanner's version of what she saw on a narrow street where she was not seen by two people as she supposedly passed by them.

6) Scotland Yard verified that Tannerman existed with a claim that was not credible.

7) Scotland Yard relatively large "Operation Grange" team has spent three years reviewing files that should have taken no more than a few weeks or months.

8) After reviewing all the evidence and leads in the files, Scotland Yard is investigating suspects that have no connection to the case.

9) Scotland Yard wants to search for Maddies's body (and, yes, they would be searching for a body as all other evidence would be long gone after seven years) in the most unlikely place to find her, right near the apartment in a very open-to-the-view-of-the-public location with hard-as-rock ground where no shallow grave could have been missed by the PJ or anyone walking by.

10) In spite of the fact the PJ has asked for there to be no press about the case, Scotland Yard has its own people still giving interviews.""


@1
A flaw in reason and logic: This reason given is in no way supporting the claim. It is on the contrary supporting the opposite. If there was to be a cover-up why start a review, turn it into a full-fledged investigation, get the country that was treated so badly into their boat and press on for 5 years? I am sure Hewlett would have been able to be made into the perfect scapegoat - and I do believe that this was contemplated by some forces at the time - if that would be the current purpose.

@2
The examples for the exact same conduct in other cases are too numerous to be listed. There is no reason why Scotland Yard should adjust to the purported need of interested parties on the internet against common practice. Especially in the stages of a review.

@3
Of course a police force HAS to inform the parents of a missing child until these parents are charged and a suspicion is drafted. As to the extent of the information given we only have Clarence Mitchell's word to judge by.

@4
It was the request of the Policia Judiciaria for a reconstruction. It was requested to verify or discard the witness statements regarding the timeline of events, mainly to prove that Jane Tanner would have been unable to be where she claimed to have been and to see what she had claimed to have seen. No other statements could have been verified by a reconstruction since no third party witnesses were present. Not the time of the alarm, not the alleged checks. Since Scotland Yard had already smashed the Gordian Knot that Jane Tanner's statement presented to the case there is no need for a reconstruction, something police forces (UK, Germany) very rarely use anyway.

@5
This is debatable but in my opinion a genius move. We know she lied, she knows she lied, the police know she lied, but the petty reward for outing her lie through a reconstruction was discarded for the much more satisfying destruction of Gerry McCann's alibi at the "moment of her abduction". And the way for the Smith sighting was opened. And an offer was made to Jane...

@6
The claim that Tanner saw the abductor was refuted which is so much more important than to prove Jane was lying (which would have proved rather difficult anyway). The ultimate truth is more important than petty revenge on Jane.

@7
The bulk of the review was most certainly done on those parts of the files that have not been published: the reports about (mainly british) paedophiles or alleged paedophiles or rumours of paedophiles in the area. Taken together with the innumerous sightings that have been discarded never to be read by those following the case with a now preset mind this amounts to a huge workload that would have to be done BEFORE any conclusions could have been reached. A quick skim through the 10000 pages of the files can form an opinion but leads to a position that can be attacked in so many ways. (q.e.d.)

@8
All the leads Scotland Yard are following and of course have to follow are part of the case. As mentioned above there are the sightings and reports about paedophiles in the area and of course those alleged incidents that only recently and miraculously turned up have to be verified and investigated even though some might turn out to be mere creations of distraction not unlike some of the sightings we had to put up with the previous years. But by investigating them, evidence might even come from these. In the prospect of the world's biggest court case ever, they better make sure that every other possibility is properly investigated and excluded or I would be very unhappy.

@9
IMO there has yet an exact location to be named where they might be looking for evidence. The location in the center of Praia da Luz would be ideal to distract the world's media from the real procedings. Should they be close to finding her body they would never let the media partake in any unearthings. This open space in PdL is just sweetly perfect for the staging of excavations, with ample parking at hand...

@10
The PJ and Scotland Yard have asked the media to behave and lately Clarence has received the firm instruction to finally stfu.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am sure that at some stage in the past seven years there were efforts being made to cover-up the case and the hype around Hewlett was the closest we got to the presentation of a patsy. He was perfect, DNA evidence could have been provided and the public would have bought it.

But luckily there was never a general consent for a cover-up between all involved parties.

In the past year we had the alibi of Gerry destroyed, Smithman brought to the public's attention, the cover-up of the photofits exposed, Madeleine's death accepted and even the dog's mentioned in connection with a fresh search for her body. I have no idea WHAT would convince the sceptics, but it can hardly have been better than that.
Eingestellt von Johanna um 11:59
Diesen Post per E-Mail versendenBlogThis!In Twitter freigebenIn Facebook freigebenAuf Pinterest teilen
Kommentare:

Blacksmith23. Mai 2014 13:50

You and I do not see things the same way, although I have taken every opportunity to give you credit for perhaps the most important single achievement of any blogger in this case: your dialogue with David James Smith, which finally got the MSM demonstrating how they work out of their own mouths. Once again I thank you for that.

Your calm dissection of Brown's reasoning is probably more valuable than my more choleric attack. The question is - which is the greater betrayal of the reading public? The deceptions of DJS or the childish piling of supposition on supposition of M/S Brown? Both betrayers claim a spurious authority: Smith uses the cloak of MSM authority, the bona fides and reliability that mere appearance in the supposedly vetted and fact-checked MSM provides, according to the Kier Simmons school of MSM defence; Brown hides behind the spurious authority of "profiling". Both, obviously, wish to gain something from the reader - Smith a financial living, Brown - what?

One thing is clear. The amount of actual information about the McCanns and their activities in Smith's main article is vast, based on interviews and hard work and, when read very carefully, extremely valuable to people like you and I. In Brown's work, as far as I know, actual original information, rather than assertion, is zero.

So, although I don't know is the greater betrayer, Smith, for all his odious faults has done more for us.

What a dreadful choice!

Blacksmith
Antworten
Antworten
Johanna23. Mai 2014 14:24

Thank you Blacksmith for your input.

Do we really have to evaluate the various pieces in the puzzle that the case consists of? As much as the lies and deceptions of the main protagonists have lead us towards the truth, as much do the voluntary or involuntary deceptions of the MSM and the opinion articles in blogs and posts on forums give us the opportunity to dissect and evaluate every little piece of this charade in order to ultimately come as close to the truth as possible. And everybody plays a part in this.

Without DJS I would not be convinced that it was indeed the neglect and the fear of the consequences that motivated Jane Tanner in the first place. And we would not have actual evidence of the direct approach the parents took to manipulate the public with the help of the media in the light of the upcoming rogatory interviews. It has also shown us that Jane was a witness that had to be supported and to be jollied along. The weakest link.

I met Pat once and appreciate her as the person she is. A very couragous lady who fights for her beliefs. In this case she has done a lot to keep it in the mind of the american people. She is also a kind of katalyst that let's you reappraise your own opinions. With her evaluation of the case she is imo very close to the truth but seems to get sidetracked by the handling of the case by Scotland Yard. And I have to agree with her in that it is not completely standard procedure of how cases are normally handled or should normally be handled. But this is not a normal case. And to get a chance to be able to charge somebody in the near future, let alone prosecute somebody, unique measures are being taken. All imo of course.
Antworten
Anonym23. Mai 2014 14:32

Both of you are losing your heads here I'm afraid (I'm sure temporarily) but there's no problem at all with Pat giving her opinion. Pat's very consistent opinion is there to see in her articles going back to 2007 (if you really haven't read her writing before, Mr B, I'd suggest you do).

Pat's a good writer, she's intelligent, she communicates pleasantly with anyone who wishes to communicate with her: all of these qualities do not apply to the idiots operating on forums and facebook.

Why are you attacking her, and by doing so encouraging them?
Antworten
Anonym23. Mai 2014 14:35

Both of you are losing your heads here I'm afraid (I'm sure temporarily) but there's no problem at all with Pat giving her opinion. Pat's very consistent opinion is there to see in her articles going back to 2007 (if you really haven't read her writing before, Mr B, I'd suggest you do).

Pat's a good writer, she's intelligent, she communicates pleasantly with anyone who wishes to communicate with her: all of these qualities do not apply to the idiots operating on forums and facebook.

Why are you attacking her, and by doing so encouraging them?
Antworten
Johanna23. Mai 2014 14:36

I am not attacking her and this is not the place to discuss a different blog. Please bear this in mind. Thank you
Antworten
Anonym23. Mai 2014 15:42

If it wasn't for the diverse opinions surrounding the case, the general level of debate would be at zero. Across the board I take on information and opinions, whether I agree or disagree, it's the right to express them, even from the supporters of the McCanns. I want FACTS, information and another way of seeing things. So I thank everyone I've communicated with in the last seven years.

I support Pat's right to give an opinion not only on her freedom to give it, but she has given support to the cause since day one and remains among the few who have made the effort to meet Sr Amaral (and for all we know has confidential information) and trod the paths of PDL.

As for DJS - since his major first 'Beyond the Smear's - it's that article that became a measure of all that was to follow - and let's be honest, we have not been (sarcastically) disappointed.

We now enter another phase, the DIGGING up of PDL. Which should be very interesting. (again I say sarcastically)

But let's flag up where the real, day to day issues remain:

How could the MET airbrush out Tannerman and then whooooshed in with crèche-dad, and make it plainly simple that he if they are to dig up PDL it has to be after the Smith family sighting.

Lastly, ticking away, now the MET is looking for a body, and remind me, bodies\remains are of DEAD people, where does this put the ongoing\stalling of the Lisbon Hearing. Probably approaching the courts recess, no doubt.
Meadow
aka Missypuddleduck
Antworten

Thank you   

@9
IMO there has yet an exact location to be named where they might be looking for evidence. The location in the center of Praia da Luz would be ideal to distract the world's media from the real procedings. Should they be close to finding her body they would never let the media partake in any unearthings. This open space in PdL is just sweetly perfect for the staging of excavations, with ample parking at hand...

I have been wondering about this too. Perhaps the areas that we are told they are looking for a body, are not the actual locations of interest, but more of a distraction to the real areas that they are interested in. I remember some very suspicious phone pings for Russell and Matt in Budens I think, that the PJ considered to be significant. I hope that the poster is right in this regard.

BTW, who is DJS?

frencheuropean wrote:http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.fr/


Thursday, May 22, 2014




Ten Reasons why I can't take Scotland Yard Seriously in the Madeleine McCann Case

Shh! Don't Tip Off the Suspects!

I have received a bit of heat in recent weeks for my opinion that Scotland Yard is not really doing a credible review of the Madeleine McCann case, that they appear to be involved in a whitewash of the McCanns' possible involvement in the disappearance of their daughter, Maddie.

First of all, I want to state that I am behind all hardworking detectives out there in the world. It has been my mission to improve criminal profiling and crime scene analysis methodology FOR law enforcement, so that detectives may have more success in solving difficult cases. I also am behind all law enforcement agencies as they work to solve the next homicide case that lands on their desks even if the department screwed up the last case through lack of training or incompetence on the part of whatever detective got assigned to the case and even if the department mishandled the last case due to political pressure (even if it was one I worked on with them). I wish them the best on the next case and hope they do a better job with all their future investigations. I recognize that law enforcement suffers the same problems as any other profession; they are not perfect nor successful nor honorable one hundred percent of the time. Knowing that does not mean I don't support them when they do a good job or want to improve their ability to solve cases and bring justice to criminals and the community. I don't hold grudges against any police agency; I just want to see a brighter future for all homicide investigations.

As to Scotland Yard, they have done great work in the past and also not so great work, just like every other agency. I am sure they will do some great work in the future as well as not so great work in the future. For the moment, they may be solving cases right and left, but something is seriously wrong with the Madeleine McCann case and here are ten reasons why I think this is not business as usual and there is a political coverup going on of some sort.

1) The amount of funds being allotted to Scotland Yard to investigate one missing person's case - a case which is not even  within their own jurisdiction, a case in which the parents' own neglect of their children and refusal to cooperate with the authorities is shameful - is unprecedented and outrageous.

2) Scotland Yard began their "review" by publicly stating that the parents were not suspects instead of simply saying no one  can be excluded from suspicion who does not have a solid alibi as is the usual statement made by police right out of the gate.

3) Scotland Yard constantly says they are updating the parents of the missing child, something that is only done if the parents are absolutely not suspects.

4) Scotland Yard did not do a reconstruction of the crime; they only did a reenactment of the McCann version of the crime for television.

5) Scotland Yard validated Jane Tanner's version of what she saw on a narrow street where she was not seen by two people as she supposedly passed by them.

6) Scotland Yard verified that Tannerman existed with a claim that was not credible.

7) Scotland Yard relatively large "Operation Grange" team has spent three years reviewing files that should have taken no more than a few weeks or months.

8) After reviewing all the evidence and leads in the files, Scotland Yard is investigating suspects that have no connection to the case.

9) Scotland Yard wants to search for Maddies's body (and, yes, they would be searching for a body as all other evidence would be long gone after seven years) in the most unlikely place to find her, right near the apartment in a very open-to-the-view-of-the-public location with hard-as-rock ground where no shallow grave could have been missed by the PJ or anyone walking by.

10) In spite of the fact the PJ has asked for there to be no press about the case, Scotland Yard has its own people still giving interviews.



Along with these ten reasons, if we need one more to seal the issue, it has to be AC Rowley's recent statement to papers:


"If you get any information ahead of our actions do not publish anything that may give suspects advance notice.”

Since Scotland Yard and DCI Andy Redwood have been shouting from the rooftops since they started working on the Madeleine McCann case, I hardly think any suspect couldn't have covered his tracks over these many months if he hadn't done so in the four years prior to the beginning of the Met review. The naming of the first supposed dig location and Rowley opening his own big mouth hardly encourages me to believe that Scotland Yard is doing everything they can to keep their interest in suspects in the case under wraps, unless you believe they have spend millions of dollars and massive man hours in misdirection and their real suspects are the McCanns. I don't believe this because nothing more than a short case review and a reinterview of the Tapas 9 and reexamination of the physical and behavioral evidence would have been necessary to turn the investigation back toward the McCanns.

No, all the actions of Scotland Yard can only mean one of two things: the present detectives (especially Andy Redwood) are dumb as a box of rocks (which I find hard to believe with the amount of obvious evidence in this case) or they are just going through the motions of rounding up suspects and eventually assigning probable guilt toward one party so that the sad case of little Madeleine McCann can finally be put to rest and the McCanns can be removed from under the cloud of suspicion that has been hovering over them for seven years.




Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

May 22, 2014

Hi frencheuropean.

Thank you for posting Pat Brown's excellent article.  

I would just like to add something to the last part of her post. If as I suspect, Redwood's agenda is to exonerate the McCanns, he is wasting his time, the McCanns can never be exonerated, because whatever happened to Madeleine, is their fault.

In time people will forget about this case, but the McCanns will have to live with the fact that they caused Madeleine to disappear and they are responsible for any suffering she endured.

Gerry McCann can laugh and smirk as much as he likes, in front of the camera, but I bet he isn't laughing and smirking behind closed doors. Even if he is, he won't be laughing and smirking, when Sean and Amelie reach the age where they are fully aware that their parents behaviour, resulted in the disappearance of their big sister.

Even if he is, he won't be laughing and smirking, when Sean and Amelie reach the age where they are fully aware that their parents behaviour, resulted in the disappearance of their big sister.
----------------------------------------------

"Dad, it's a good job you and mummy didn't leave Amelie and me alone in the unlocked apartment with Maddie, when you went to the tapas restaurant. Otherwise we too might have been 'abducted' or 'worse'. You didn't put US at risk, for a second, did you dad?"

"Er, umm, er, it was our holiday as well Sean, y'know"

jeanmonroe wrote:Even if he is, he won't be laughing and smirking, when Sean and Amelie reach the age where they are fully aware that their parents behaviour, resulted in the disappearance of their big sister.
----------------------------------------------

"Dad, it's a good job you and mummy didn't leave Amelie and me alone in the unlocked apartment with Maddie, when you went to the tapas restaurant. Otherwise we too might have been 'abducted' or 'worse'. You didn't put us at risk, for a second, did you dad?"

"Er, umm, er, it was our holiday as well Sean, y'know"

Good morning Jeanmonroe

At the moment, Sean and Amelie don't know what lies ahead of them, in the near future. In my opinion, all the work the McCanns have done, in brain washing their children, into thinking that a bad man took Madeleine, will be undone in a jiffy, when the twins learn the facts of the case.

The McCanns cruel behaviour, has not only resulted in the disappearance of Madeleine, the twins suffering has yet to come, because of the McCanns cruel behaviour. I'm still baffled, how some people, can still make excuses for the McCanns, excuses such as, Kate and Gerry only made a mistake, when they left their children alone. They agree with the McCanns, when the McCanns say, 'it wasn't our fault that Madeleine disappeared', or as you say 'it was our holiday too'.

The McCanns supporters, love the fact that Andy Redwood and his team, are looking for anyone but the McCanns, to take the blame for Madeleine's disappearance. The McCanns supporters, hate the 'nasty PJ' for not allowing Andy Redwood, to conduct searches in the homes of the 3 burglars, who may have entered the McCanns apartment.

The fact that there was no proof, burglars entered the McCanns apartment, with or without Madeleine, means nothing to the McCanns supporters. They believe it was possible for burglars to abduct Madeleine, because she woke up and cried when she saw them, without leaving one clue that they were ever there. The burglars were so clever, that they removed all evidence that they were ever there. The burglars even removed evidence that Madeleine had even slept in her bed, before they carefully made up her bed to look like it hadn't been slept in.

The burglars were so clever, that not only did they remove all evidence that they were ever in the McCanns apartment, they left Kate McCann's finger print, on the shutter she once said Madeleine's abductor entered and exited the apartment. They also left clothing belonging to Kate McCann and Madeleine, which contained cadaver odour. It was as if they wanted Kate McCann to be blamed for whatever happened to Madeleine.

The McCanns supporters, want Robert Murat's garden to be dug up, because that nice Stephen Birch, says Madeleine's body is buried in Robert Murat's garden. The fact that Stephen Birch, has yet to provide proof that he was ever in the garden, which is patrolled day and night by two guard dogs means nothing to the McCanns supporters.

Their supporters, who haven't yet grasped that Robert Murat's mother owns the house, haven't read the PJ files, which state that thorough searches were made of Mrs Murat's home and garden. They've only read newspaper reports, written by journalists, who are following orders from editors, who either have a vested interest in supporting the McCanns or they are following orders from, their bosses, who have a vested interest in the McCanns.

The McCanns supporters crass comments, show they have no interest in Madeleine's whereabouts, or any suffering she may have endured. Once Sean and Amelie read all the facts of the case, they will also learn that their parents supporters, had as much interest in Madeleine, as their parents had.

I only hope Sean and Amelie, receive help as soon as they learn the facts of the case, they're going to need it.

TWO questions the McCann 'supporters' have NEVER appeared to have asked themselves or have NEVER answered are:

Q1) "Is it actually 'POSSIBLE' the McCanns WERE somehow 'involved' in the 'disappearance' of their daughter, Madeleine"?

and if answered with a resounding 'NO' can the 'supporters' then tell us, and ask themselves,

Q2) "WHY is it actually 'IMPOSSIBLE' that the McCanns were NOT somehow 'involved' in the 'disappearance' of their daughter, Madeleine?
------------------------------------------
Assistant Chief Constable of Leicester Police said ''while one or both of them may be innocent there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance''.

jeanmonroe wrote:TWO questions the McCann 'supporters' have NEVER appeared to have asked themselves or have NEVER answered are:

Q1) "Is it actually 'POSSIBLE' the McCanns WERE somehow 'involved' in the 'disappearance' of their daughter, Madeleine"?

and if answered with a resounding 'NO' can the 'supporters' then tell us, and ask themselves,

Q2) "WHY is it actually 'IMPOSSIBLE' that the McCanns were NOT 'involved' in the 'disappearance' of their daughter, Madeleine?

Well said Jeanmonroe.

Along with many, many, other Madeleine supporters, I have asked McCann supporters the same question, for the past 7yrs. I have never had a reply to my question and to my knowledge other Madeleine supporters have never had a reply.

If the McCann supporters thought about the question and answered the question, as we would expect the question to be answered, which is truthfully, in my opinion, their days as McCann supporters, would be numbered.

I'm know I'm repeating myself, when I say that I don't understand anyone who can support the McCanns, even if they believe the McCanns story. I've seen the same McCann supporters, make vile posts about Karen Matthews.

While Karen Matthews, deserved everything that was coming to her and much, much, more. Can anyone honestly say that Matthews was worse than the McCanns? In my opinion, the McCanns are worse than Matthews. While Matthews using the same tactics as the McCanns, tried and failed make money out of Shannon's disappearance, Shannon was found alive and although traumatised, physically well. The McCanns, who were the root cause of Madeleine's disappearance succeeded.

They used Madeleine as a cash cow, when they helped to set up a fund in Madeleine's name. They told would be donors, that all of the money would be used to find Madeleine, then used the money for anything but look for Madeleine. Anyone who doesn't believe me, who hasn't seen the videos below, should watch the videos. They will have their eyes opened when they do watch them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ML-gTcKDKrM

Towards the end of the video below, one can hear Clarence Mitchell, state who is able to use the money in the fund.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFZy2f2yQJA

The terms of the fund, can be seen in the link below.

http://www.findmadeleine.com/about_us/madeleines-fund.html