Pat Brown: "My Final Post on the Madeleine McCann Case " -14/08/2014

jinvta wrote:"A cold case is usually cold for a reason; someone blew it from the beginning and unless there is an easy DNA match lying about, no cold case team or criminal profiler is going to come in and turn the case around."

Isn't this statement generally true? She does use the qualifier "usually," so not necessarily in all cases. Someone blowing it from the beginning was the political interventtion that prevented the PJ from going about their investigative procedures in their normal manner. Had the PJ not caved into political pressure, they probably would have jailed the McCann's for neglect, and been able to exert alot more pressure on them to cooperate with the investigation.

So, yes, the British government did blow it by getting involved, and the PJ blew it by caving in and bowing down to political pressure. There is no way to go back to step one. Cold cases do get solved, but not very often, and usually by some stroke of luck rather than a 30 person investigative team working full time on the process (e.g. the 3 women found in Ohio after been missing for 10 years).

That's not how I read it. I have copied more of the sentence this time:-

Preventing a case from going down a crooked path requires putting all one's efforts into the First 48. A cold case is usually cold for a reason; someone blew it from the beginning and unless there is an easy DNA match lying about, no cold case team or criminal profiler is going to come in and turn the case around. I have long stopped doing cold case work because it is a massive waste of time. My focus now is training detectives to profile and analyze their cases properly right from the start.

She is criticising the police, no question. And it is true that the first 48 hours are crucial in any major investigation to ensure that vital evidence is preserved. Mr Amaral himself admits mistakes were made. To be honest mistakes are made in a good many Police investigations which can prolong an investigation; but that is not the same as 'blowing it'. Such investigations that have got off to a bad start are solvable and very many do get solved. But the term 'blowing it' conveys the message that it has no prospect of a successful conclusion.

Honest mistakes can be made by humans and Police are humans. However, I would feel rather offended if I were the Portuguese by her analysis that they blew it. She does not explain herself about how she feels the investigation was so badly blown in the first 48 but the GNR were first on the scene followed by the PJ, followed by the press and Consular officials.

She makes her money from everybody else being wrong and she being right, imo. And as for her training detectives - it might work differently in the United States but in the UK it would be called 'Going on a course' and would be one of many courses that Police are sent on.

Well, I'm Portuguese and I couldn't be further from being offended. Firstly because after what I read in the UK press about my country and its police forces there's not much that can offend me any more. And secondly because in a way I agree with her. The biggest mistake in this case was to allow interferences in this investigation which don't happen in 'normal' investigations. Of course these things happened at a higher level than the officers on the field but if it hadn't happened maybe the outcome would have been different. Let's never ever forget the 'solution' promised and the role played by Paulo Rebelo, The Shelver.

Claudia79 wrote:Well, I'm Portuguese and I couldn't be further from being offended. Firstly because after what I read in the UK press about my country and its police forces there's not much that can offend me any more. And secondly because in a way I agree with her. The biggest mistake in this case was to allow interferences in this investigation which don't happen in 'normal' investigations. Of course these things happened at a higher level than the officers on the field but if it hadn't happened maybe the outcome would have been different. Let's never ever forget the 'solution' promised and the role played by Paulo Rebelo, The Shelver.

Sorry Claudia, whilst I accept your point, you are not addressing this first 48 hours that Pat Brown refers to, this first 48 hours when the case was 'blown'. Its a shame that you feel there is not much that can offend you any more but Pat Brown is criticising your Police force, not from the point of view of what happened or did not happen at a higher level but she is pin-pointing the first 48 hours.

LJC wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:Well, I'm Portuguese and I couldn't be further from being offended. Firstly because after what I read in the UK press about my country and its police forces there's not much that can offend me any more. And secondly because in a way I agree with her. The biggest mistake in this case was to allow interferences in this investigation which don't happen in 'normal' investigations. Of course these things happened at a higher level than the officers on the field but if it hadn't happened maybe the outcome would have been different. Let's never ever forget the 'solution' promised and the role played by Paulo Rebelo, The Shelver.

Sorry Claudia, whilst I accept your point, you are not addressing this first 48 hours that Pat Brown refers to, this first 48 hours when the case was 'blown'.  Its a shame that you feel there is not much that can offend you any more but Pat Brown is criticising your Police force, not from the point of view of what happened or did not happen at a higher level but she is pin-pointing the first 48 hours.

Sorry, LJC, it's you who seems to be missing my point. There were external influences in this case before the PJ got to the crime scene so I wouldn't say the first 48 hours. I would say the first 6. And I have no problem with people criticising the PJ unlike those who feel nothing can be said about their police force. Police forces are made up of humans and humans make mistakes. As long as the criticism doesn't include slurs, made up stuff and insults, I'm ok with it. I don't have to agree with the criticism to acknowledge the right people have to criticise. BTW, Pat and GA have met and she has always been on his side. Just a reminder.

Claudia79 wrote:

LJC wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:Well, I'm Portuguese and I couldn't be further from being offended. Firstly because after what I read in the UK press about my country and its police forces there's not much that can offend me any more. And secondly because in a way I agree with her. The biggest mistake in this case was to allow interferences in this investigation which don't happen in 'normal' investigations. Of course these things happened at a higher level than the officers on the field but if it hadn't happened maybe the outcome would have been different. Let's never ever forget the 'solution' promised and the role played by Paulo Rebelo, The Shelver.

Sorry Claudia, whilst I accept your point, you are not addressing this first 48 hours that Pat Brown refers to, this first 48 hours when the case was 'blown'.  Its a shame that you feel there is not much that can offend you any more but Pat Brown is criticising your Police force, not from the point of view of what happened or did not happen at a higher level but she is pin-pointing the first 48 hours.

Sorry, LJC, it's you who seems to be missing my point. There were external influences in this case before the PJ got to the crime scene so I wouldn't say the first 48 hours. I would say the first 6. And I have no problem with people criticising the PJ unlike those who feel nothing can be said about their police force. Police forces are made up of humans and humans make mistakes. As long as the criticism doesn't include slurs, made up stuff and insults, I'm ok with it. I don't have to agree with the criticism to acknowledge the right people have to criticise. BTW, Pat and GA have met and she has always been on his side. Just a reminder.

Good morning Claudia, good post  

Regarding your comments about external influences being involved in the case before the PJ got to the crime scene, they were involved by the time the GNR reached the crime scene at 23:00hrs. The GNR were contacted by a member of staff from the Ocean Club at 22:40, when they discovered that neither of the McCanns or any of their mates, had contacted or ensured that the GNR had been contacted, regarding Madeleine's disappearance.

The McCanns had more important issues to concern themselves with than Madeleine's disappearance. They had to do everything in their power to find people who would help save their skins, starting with the British Government.

If you open the link below you will see that  Gerry contacted a member of the British Government,  Alistair Clark at 22:00hrs. Clark swiftly contacted Blair and Blair contacted others who were relevant in saving the skins of the McCanns.

http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2007/12/gerry-mccann-did-call-british-media.html

The link below shows similar information to the link above.

http://newsoutlines.blogspot.co.uk/p/british-foreign-office-timeline.html

In my opinion, if the British Government hadn't got involved so swiftly, the GNR would have arrested the McCanns, when the McCanns told them that they had left Madeleine and their other two toddlers without supervision, when they went out to dinner. Lied over the 'jemmied' shutter and the locked, then unlocked apartment

The GNR suspected the McCanns story of Madeleine's disappearance was fake, once the McCanns said what they said to them. Once the PJ began to investigate the case, they would have reached the right conclusion and the McCanns would have been in    If those in authority, who had a vested interest in keeping the McCanns out of    hadn't  intervened with the case.

I've said this before and I'll say this again, none of the people who had a vested interest in keeping the McCanns out of here    had a vested interest in the whereabouts of Madeleine, it's as if they all knew Madeleine wasn't findable.

Good post kathybelle ... as usual   

I have no doubt that if the police hasn't been hampered by the UK, the McCanns would have been arrested that night.

The McCanns were on their phones to rels, high-placed contacts and Sky TV as their primary task. They never got down their list as far as ringing the police but later had the cheek to complain about their lack of help. John Corner was phoned in the middle of the night , gone 0300 I believe, and informed of the disappearance. Searching was probably not even on a list....except for the locals and police.

I believe DP rang the child protection line...a strange thing to do at that time of night.

But back to Pat Brown....I think she helped by giving her views and visiting GA. I don't think she could have achieved much more but she didn't need to bow out as she did.

Hi LJC, from your post:

And as for her training detectives - it might work differently in the United States but in the UK it would be called 'Going on a course' and would be one of many courses that Police are sent on.

I think this is nit picking. She mentions developing a training programme. I'm in the UK and we have training programmes where I work. I haven't 'been on a course' for ages. I think they just like to big it up      

I have read the two links Kathybelle and read nothing new actually. We all know that Gerry McCann made phone calls left, right and centre. However, I have read nothing to say the people he phoned directly hampered the GNR investigation. The GNR were the first physical presence at the scene but, from the reports I have read which again are not definite proof of anything, but from these reports it seemed that although the GNR were being fed the abduction scenario big style they themselves were thinking Madeleine had run away from the apartment to try to search for her parents. What Pat Brown is alluding to is it was a crime scene, no matter if it was a genuine abduction or it was the parents involved, it was a crime scene and should have been treated as a crime scene accordingly. This is the area she is alluding to as being vital in the first 48. I suspect, but again its not definite, but I suspect because Mark Warner were adamant it was not an abduction by a stranger because there was no sign of a break in, this may have played on the minds of the GNR to convince them that she had run off of her own accord.

What is clear is that the high ranking officials who were alerted so early on soon got cold feet over it. What is clear is that forensics were called in and discovered nothing to back up the McCann's claims of a break in.

What is unclear is at what point the crime scene was sealed off. We know the whole world and his dog had traipsed through the apartment and contaminated it and this will have forever resulted in an inaccurate forensic analysis. This fact alone, in my opinion, played the biggest part in distorting what had happened and this was allowed to happen by the delay in alerting the GNR/PJ in the first place which I believe was a deliberate act on the part of the McCanns. As doctors who believed their daughter had been taken by a criminal act of abduction, they knew the importance of preserving the so called crime scene as well as anyone; even an idiot knows not to touch things if a crime is suspected.

So, whilst I accept that Gerry McCann made numerous phone calls to kick-start his action plan, I doubt in the first 6 or 48 those particular players could have had any influence over what the GNR did or did not do.

I made the point earlier that Police are humans too. As someone with strong Police links within my family I am loathe to criticise any Police Force in Europe - quite the opposite. I feel that the Police both here in the UK and in Portugal have very difficult jobs to do and I have respect for them.

For this reason I find Pat Brown's pontificating and finger pointing distasteful.

"For this reason I find Pat Brown's pontificating and finger pointing distasteful".
You repeat that post after post, it's tiring. Everybody understood that you hate Pat and try to demolish her reputation.I suggest you go to the Blacksmith thread and celebrate instead your hero who, of course, is never pontificating, finger pointing, flouncing, dramatically announcing he deserts etcetera....

At least Pat Brown went to Portugal, met with Snr Amaral and did some investigating of her own while she was there. I can agree that if she is of the opinion that people in high places are involved in the investigation and are working to make sure the truth won't come out, then there is little point in her carrying on involving herself in the case as it would be futile.

frencheuropean wrote:"For this reason I find Pat Brown's pontificating and finger pointing distasteful".
You repeat that post after post, it's tiring. Everybody understood that you hate Pat and try to demolish her reputation.I suggest you go to the Blacksmith thread and celebrate instead your hero who, of course, is never pontificating, finger pointing, flouncing, dramatically announcing he deserts etcetera....

I have only read about four or five of Blacksmith's posts. I have read several of Pat Brown's posts but not all of them, far from it. And the only reason I have read more of her posts is because she seems to write far more than Blacksmith.

I read what I can when I can to form an opinion; I read from a variety of sources.

I am here to find out what has happened to Madeleine, that's all and nothing more. I am not alone in my criticism of Pat Brown for some of her posts - other of her posts have been very good reading by the way and I will give praise when praise is due. I have enjoyed a good many of her posts and have agreed with them.

However, her latter writings have been flawed in many areas, just in my honest opinion and her tone has changed. She does pontificate and come across as 'always right' just lately. And not everything that Blacksmith writes I agree with either, but his most recent writings I do agree with. Am I not entitled to agree with him or disagree with Pat Brown, or visa versa?

For instance, she states that in her view cold case reviews are a waste of time. Tell that to the many officers up and down the United Kingdom who are working in this very specialist role and who are having many successes and not necessarily down to a recent discovery of DNA either. Trouble is, only the high profile cold cases make the news, but a good many historical cases are being solved every day throughout England, Wales and Scotland which do not make the news at all. I know of one such case that involves fresh evidence from a new witness who refused to come forward to help the Police until her father had died - so she has just been heard after 30 years almost - and this an enquiry that the Police have battled away with for 30 years. It shows the importance of never giving up and gives out a crucial message to those criminals who have never been caught - it is saying to them don't think we have forgotten about you and don't think you have got away with it!

Pat Brown also, for instance, talks of training up detectives to prevent mistakes in the first 48 hours. Good for her, but in many cases, including Madeleine's case, the first 48 hours includes the first boots on the ground, those of the initial uniformed officers (in Madeleine's case the GNR) who are not detectives.

So, although I have agreed with much of what she has written in the past, I do have reason to question her recent work and have given the examples above of why I think she herself is the one who is not always right and I have tried to give my opinion in a polite way, by the way.

And polite is what I will remain. I enjoy debating with people and enjoy reading an opposite point of view. But to find I receive an insult for it, is not fair imo. However, I do find when a statement is made that hits a raw nerve with someone, the person fires back with an insult!