No Proof of Photoshopping
I recently wrote a five-part blog concerning Making a Murderer, a multi-episode documentary
on the Steven Avery case which recently aired on Netflix and has
convinced a good number of people that Steven Avery is not guilty of
the murder of Teresa Halbach, that he was railroaded by the police
and prosecution for political reasons. The filmmakers presented many
pieces of information and demonstrated to the audience what they
believed happened in this case; however, they actually did not use
evidence to support their theory, it only seemed that way. They
presented a profile (crime analysis) based on a theory - their theory
- not a profile (crime analysis) based on the actual evidence. I also
just finished watching Richard Hall's third installment in his
documentary about the Madeleine McCann case called When Madeleine
Died?. The filmmaker presented many pieces of information and
demonstrated to the audience what he believed happened in this case,
but, again, what I saw was a profile based on theory, not on the
evidence. Both films were well
made, in different ways. Making a Murderer is very dramatic and
emotional, brilliantly shot and edited. When Madeleine Died? is very
calmly and methodically presented, far more professional, in my
opinion, than the highly Hollywoodized Making a Murderer. I like how
Hall made the documentary, but I am not happy with the content. I
disliked everything about the Netflix documentary on Steven Avery
because I found it blatantly full of falsehoods and very
manipulative.
Both Making a Murderer
and When Madeleine Died? are intended to convince the audience that
the theory being presented is the only one that makes sense, that it
is logical, and that there is evidence to support the theory. In
reality, the profiles of these cases require a solid belief in the
theory the agenda is promoting; "evidence" is either
misconstrued, ignored, or created. The material presented is intended
to seem sensible but to actually agree with the conclusions of the
filmmakers one must suspend a good deal of logic altogether. Let's start with the
Steven Avery case. The theory is "Avery is innocent." Now
we must find evidence to prove this. We run into problems right away.
Avery was the last to have contact with the victim, Teresa Halbach,
he was the one who asked the victim to come to his property and
photograph a vehicle, she was never heard from again after this
contact with Avery, her car was found on his property, her remains
were found on his property, her phone was found on his property, his
blood and DNA was found in her car, and her car key with Avery's DNA
was found in his bedroom; and nephew confessed to committing the
crime with him. If one uses evidence to create a theory, the evidence
heavily points to Avery. The evidence shows Avery called Halbach,
Halbach most likely never left the property, someone moved and hid
her car on the property, someone hid her car key in Steven Avery's
room, and someone burned up her body and phone right near Avery's
house. According to the witness, Avery raped and murdered Halbach.
Therefore, it is logical to conclude that the likelihood of Steven
Avery committing the crime is quite high.
But, suppose you have a
theory that Steven Avery is innocent. So you set out to prove he did not
do it. This is usually the realm of defense attorneys, to go from
theory to profile, but now filmmakers are using this same technique,
starting with a theory instead of starting with the evidence (as
should always be done by police, profilers, prosecutors....pretty much
anyone except a defense attorney who HAS to prove his client not
guilty). One must figure out how to take damning evidence and turn it
around to point away from whoever it points to. Evidence has to
either be explained away or twisted in such a way that the jury - or
the viewer - will go away believing this new theory. The evidence in the Avery
case is so overwhelming the only way to explain it away is to claim
it was all planted; ALL of it! The remains, the car, the phone, the
key, the blood, the DNA...all planted by the police or someone
helping the police. Someone (probably not the police) had it out for
Avery and when this person somehow found out Teresa Halbach was
called by Steven Avery to come photograph a vehicle (or saw her doing
so), the person took this opportunity to grab Halbach, kill her, burn
up her body either right under Avery's nose or he took her someplace
and then brought her remains back onto the property and tossed them
there along with her phone. Then this person hid the victim's car on
the property and got the police to put Avery's blood in it, wipe
Halbach's DNA off the key and spread Avery's DNA on it and then hide
the car key in his room. And then the real killer got the police to
pressure a slow-witted relative into confessing to a crime he didn't
do and implicate Avery as well. What? Does any of this seem even
remotely possible? And who is this person? Several suspects are
alluded to in this documentary but none are actually implicated
because NONE of the evidence actually points toward anyone else but
Avery (and Dassey, by confession). Making a Murderer simply presents
a theory based on the agenda, not on evidence; the theory generated the
profile; the profile wasn't based on the facts of the case. Likewise,
I see this happening with Hall's When Madeleine Died?.
The evidence points to
the evening of May 3, 2007. Some people stated they saw
Madeleine up until that Thursday evening, she was placed in the
creche daily for babysitting while the parents enjoyed their freedom
on holiday, there are photos of Madeleine in Praia da Luz by herself
and with family. The cadaver and blood evidence point to an
accidental death resulting in the child's body lying behind the
living room sofa for some time, and there is a chaotic
discovery of a missing child or a dead child that ensues late in the
evening. In the hours, days, and months following Madeleine going
missing, we often see confusion and conflicting statements and many
odd behaviors on the part of the McCanns and their friends. It
appears that all was well until the evening of May 3, 2007 and then
all hell broke loose. However, due to what
appears to be a strong belief that there has been unprecedented
support of the McCanns by certain political entities (and there is
evidence that there is some quite unusual level of political support
for the McCanns) and a huge amount of media, money and resources used
in this case of a missing child that far surpasses any in probably
the entire history of mankind, a theory has been developed that if
Madeleine did indeed die in Praia da Luz and not at the hands of an
abductor, then the massive support system for the McCanns indicates
that she did not die an accidental death on May 3 but that she died
at some other time and under far more horrific circumstances (which
have only been alluded to...some kind of sexual abuse - pedophilia -
involving big government people). It is believed that if Madeleine
died by accident or even during a rage by one of her parents, there
would not be so much high-level support; therefore, there must be
something more nefarious concerning what happened to Madeleine
McCann.
This theory has led to
the conclusion that Madeleine McCann died sometime on Sunday (due to
something really horrific) and then an abduction staged some four
days later on May 3. Let's look at the evidence that would support
this theory: Madeleine McCann's body showed signs of sexual abuse.
No, her body has never been found, there were no previous reports
that Maddie had been sexually assaulted. There is only one statement
from a woman who thought, on a previous occasion when she and some
friends were dining, that Madeleine's father and a male friend shared
a gesture that the woman interpreted as having to do with Madeleine
and having a sexual meaning. There is no corroboration of this moment
by anyone else nor any proof that what the woman believed happened
actually did occur. The Tapas children showed
signs of sexual abuse. No, there is no evidence of this. There were
pornographic photos or videos of the Tapas children. No, there is no
evidence of this. There is proof of sexual assault of children by the
McCanns, the other Tapas members, or any of the people connected
to the McCanns and this case. No, there is no evidence of this. So,
there is actually not a shred of evidence that there is any sex abuse
ring (by McCann and Company) any more than there is any evidence of a
sex slavery ring abducting children out of Praia da Luz and environs.
The theory of some kind
of sexual assault of Madeleine resulting in death also requires that
the evidence of Madeleine falling and dying behind the sofa be
ignored. Either the dogs are right and Maddie ends up behind the
sofa or the dogs are wrong and Maddie was never behind the sofa. It
makes no sense that if Madeleine were to die by some manner other
than accidental anyone then hid her body behind the sofa. If you
believe the dogs, you must believe in an accident. This leads back
to Hall's theory that Madeleine McCann died on Sunday and a team of
experts (I guess in cover-up and body disposal) rushed into town to
help the McCanns deal with this and stage an abduction. Now, one would assume if
there is some huge government involvement in the crime (high-level
perverts) and a high-level government cover-up of the crime, they
would hardly decide to wait until Thursday to stage an abduction and
then stage it so badly that it doesn't even look like an abduction
and prep everyone so badly that the Tapas group couldn't even keep
their stories straight. Along with that, they would have had to have
the McCanns parade around Praia da Luz for four days minus one
child, nannies would have to be coerced into lying, creche paperwork
would have to be forged, and they would have to hope no one outside
the circle the damage control team controlled would notice Madeleine
was missing. Photos would have to be created (Hall does say that
experts have concluded that the Last Photo was not photoshopped but
oddly alludes to the possibility that the tennis photo WAS
photoshopped....couldn't he get the experts to analyze that photo as
well?) or would have to be said to be taken later in the week than
was true.
One of the rules of
getting away with murder is the less people know about the crime, the
better. The fewer Tapas friends who might have helped the McCanns,
the better because loose lips do sink ships. The theory of an earlier
death date and a bigger organization behind the cover-up requires so
many people to know the truth and lie to the police and media that it
would be impossible for the truth not to have come out. Logic has
flown out the window with this big governmental involvement and a
Sunday homicide of Madeleine McCann. To profile this case as a sex
crime involving high-level government people requires ignoring the
dog evidence, ignoring the behaviors of the Tapas members on May 3rd,
ignoring all reports and evidence of Maddie being alive until May 3rd
and believing that a skilled "clean-up" crew chose the most
amateur plan of action possible, pretending a dead child is alive or
parading around a fake Madeleine, and dismally staging an abduction
scene they had days to plan and make believable (couldn't this top-level team even open a window, add a few tool marks, make footprint
or two, and muff up the room a bit? How about planting some fake hair
or phony fingerprints?). The evidence does not
support Hall's theory of When Madeleine died?; his agenda has created
a theory and the theory then created a profile and the evidence
manipulated or ignored in order to create a belief that this theory
has merit. Both Making a Murderer and When Madeleine Died? do bring
up interesting ideas and some bits of evidence that are worth looking
at further concerning proper police procedure, proper
interviewing, proper prosecution, and proper handling of the media.
However, the totality of the evidence in both cases does not support
the theories the filmmakers have presented and, unfortunately, so many do not realize that this is so. Evidence should make the
theory; the theory should not make "the evidence." Analyses
and profiles of crimes should be scientifically developed by a
professional based on evidence, not created by filmmakers' agendas.
Unfortunately, with the
advent of the Internet, cheaper documentary production methods, and
so many media outlets and so much airtime to fill, the proliferation
of agenda-based crime shows and documentaries is getting out of hand.
Investigation Discovery (ID) just aired an incredibly ridiculous
documentary claiming that a serial killer and not OJ Simpson may have
killed Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. I can assure you that NONE of
the evidence, in that case, points to a serial killer but that did not
stop ID from putting out a total piece of garbage and now the serial
killer theory is making the rounds on the Internet. The next time you
see a documentary purporting to prove a particular theory, make sure
the filmmaker actually provides evidence supporting his theory,
doesn't just throw around "what-ifs," and make sure there
is logic holding the theory together. Pay attention to whether the
filmmaker ignores evidence, manipulates evidence, or creates
evidence, and above all, ask yourself, "Does this REALLY make
sense?
Dead Cat in the Shower and The Danger of Generating Theories Based on Limited and Imagined Evidence – 05.04.2016
I have written more than
once of the danger of developing theories based on possible scenarios
rather than on actual evidence, that when someone puts together bits
of evidence in order to support a theory of choice rather than basing
their theory on real forensic and behavioral evidence, a case can
become convoluted and misrepresented. The number of theories in
unsolved cases like Madeleine McCann and JonBenet Ramsey and many
other less publicized cases escalates over time and more and more
insignificant pieces of information become fodder for yet more
theories. These bits of info are often given more meaning and weight
than when the case was fresh simply because people are looking for a
smoking gun that will break the case wide open and finally bring
answers and closure. Likewise, for some solved cases like that of
Steven Avery; speculation on who ELSE could have done it has spawned
a dozen or more theories, most based on zero evidence or one bit of
information from which a complete murder scenario and motive have
been developed.
As an example of how
speculation can spawn so many theories (although
just ONE thing happened), I want my readers to come up with their
theory on the dead cat in Pat Brown's shower. I will spare animal
lovers a photo of the dead cat in the shower, but, suffice it to say,
there was indeed, last night, a dead cat in criminal profiler Pat
Brown's shower (this is a fact, not a fictional scenario). So suppose
someone reported that they saw in Pat Brown's shower at 10 pm, a
dead orange cat laying on a trash bag. There was blood about the
cat's ears and mouth and the body was still soft. They also saw, on
the dining table nearby, this odd piece of evidence: a check from
Amazon with what appears to be blood on it. The same person claims
that they returned the next day at 3 pm in the afternoon and the dead
cat and the bloody check were both no longer in the home of Pat
Brown. Okay, readers, what is your theory as to the dead cat in Pat
Brown's shower? When I get ten responses, I will then discuss the
evidence, the theories, and what actually happened.
Why There was a Dead Cat in Profiler Pat Brown's Shower – 06.04.2016
Okay, you all have come
up with some interesting scenarios, some closer to the truth than the
others. Some of you used the evidence to develop some reasonable good
answer and others simply fantasized a scenario that had no real
connection to the evidence! First, what evidence was there?
1) A witness stated they
saw a still warmish dead bloody cat in Pat Brown's shower at 10 pm
that day, the witness saw a check from Amazon with what appeared to
be blood on it, and both were gone the following day at 3 pm.
Although I did tell you there was actually a dead cat in my shower
and I showed you a photo of the check with red stuff on it, there is
no proof that the witness was accurate about the condition of the cat
or that the cat and the check were gone the next day. If you accepted
the witness' statement, you accepted certain things that may or may
not be true (was the cat really still warm? Did the witness actually
touch the cat to find out? What was the extent of the injury to the
cat? Did the witness turn the cat over to examine it? Was the red
stuff on the check really blood?) Any theory developed based on the
witness statement is questionable because we cannot be sure the
witness was accurate. For that matter, the witness could be trying to
make Pat Brown look bad.
2) Okay, let us say that
the witness was reliable and everything the witness stated was true.
Next question, whose cat was that orange cat? Guessing that it is Pat
Brown's cat or not is just guessing and this guessing can radically
change the theory and motive. Answer; not Pat Brown's cat.
3) Because there was
blood on the check, it is guessed that Pat Brown got the check from
her mailbox and that is why there is blood on it. Well, that is
possible, but the check could have been lying around and just gotten
touched. But, okay, it is true that the check had been picked up just
before the cat incident. Some of you decided, therefore, that the cat
must have been killed in my driveway because I went to the mailbox at
my home and that is when it happened. There was an assumption I have
a mailbox at my home. There we go with assuming again! Answer: I do
NOT have a mailbox at my home. The mail for the residence address is
actually delivered to a house about five houses away because my
house, at this point in time, does not actually have a different
address (long story concerning a large family plot of land that used
to be a farm). Where I get my mail is at a UPS box in town (which I
also have for business purposes and so that when I travel my mail is
in a safe place). I picked up the Amazon check and because I was
curious what the dollar total was, I opened it in my car, dropped it
on the passenger seat and then drove toward my house.
4) Did I run over the
cat? Some thought I did which is why the cat ended up at my home.
Some thought I was trying to save it...although I think I would have
done better taking the cat straight to an emergency vet place. There
is actually no proof that I was the one that hit the cat....was there
blood on my tires? We don't know because my car was not checked for
that evidence....that kind of evidence has not been reported. So,
making a scenario that I killed that cat is based only on what you
THINK my motive for carrying the cat back to my house might
be....guilt....to save it...whatever. I did not kill the cat.
5) So, I saw a still cat
in the road and I pulled over and backed up to check it out. It was
dark out, so I put on my flashers and jumped out and picked up the
cat which was still warm and soft so I knew it had just been hit. I
brought it in my car so I could examine it under the inside light. I
grabbed a bunch of papers and cover my seat and then laid the cat on
them (unfortunately, I forgot my check was lying there). Once inside
the car, I noticed that the cat was beyond help.
Now, HERE is where a
motive for bringing the cat home is a bit convoluted and I want you
to note that when you subscribe a motive to what people do and say,
"Oh, it is clear this is why!" Or "Well, he wouldn't
have done THAT!", be careful because you may have no real clue
why the person did what they did and the motive you conjure up is
more in your head than in the perpetrator's head. So, why did Pat
Brown bring the dead cat home and lay it in her shower? Is she a
ghoul? Was she planning on doing an autopsy on the cat? Did she want
to take creepy dead cat photos? Did she want to clean it up and give
it a proper burial because she is a lover of cats? Unless you have a
lot of information on me and my history, you may be completely wrong.
The reason I brought the cat home: no, I did not feel a need for a
good cat burial. I normally would have just laid the cat on the side
of the road in the bushes. No, I did not want to do weird crime scene
stuff with the kitty. What I wondered when I saw the cat in the road
and when I examined him in my car was if that cat might actually be
my missing cat Rouxy. Rouxy was an orange cat who went missing after
I moved in 18 months earlier. This cat was the right color and a male
and had Rouxy's tail and color of eyes. I wanted to take the cat home
where I could then access my photos and do a comparison because I
couldn't remember the exact details of what Rouxy looked like. So I
brought the cat in and placed him where it was best to keep a bloody
dead cat...on a plastic bag in the shower. I went and found my photos
and did the comparison. Turned out, I forgot that Rouxy had white
paws and this cat didn't...not my lost cat. In the morning, I took
the cat out to the woods and buried it and took the check to deposit
in the bank.
So, now look back at your
own theory of the crime and ask yourself how much was based on
evidence and how much was merely conjecture? This is what happens
when you analyze a case on the Internet or by watching TV, when you
analyze at a distance and do not have proper access to all the
evidence or the ability to question people about things. The more you
base your theory on random information and unproven sources, the more
likely you are to have a theory that is not at all accurate. Just
because something COULD have happened or someone MAY have done this
or someone MAY have had this motive, doesn't make it so. I COULD have
run over the cat but there was no proof of it. I COULD have felt
guilty over the cat's death but where was the evidence that this is a
fact? The cat COULD have been killed on my property but where was the
evidence of this? Quite frankly, with the evidence I gave you, the
only theory that should have been created from the limited evidence
is this: Based on the fact, Pat Brown herself (and not the witness)
told you that there was a dead cat in the shower, Pat Brown or
someone else who had access to her house placed a dying or dead cat
in her shower. THAT is actually all you know from the evidence. If
your theory included more than this, you didn't base it on the actual
facts.
How to Close a Case Without Really Proving Anything ? - 27.04.2016
What do the public, the
police, and, sometimes, even the family of a murdered or missing
person want? More than justice, they want what we term "closure."
I would define "closure" as putting something troubling to
rest, to have an answer that is satisfying enough to enable one to
stop dwelling on the matter, regardless if it is the truth or not.
Sometimes closure, for the family is necessary simply to be able to
go on living. Sometimes closure is necessary for the public, so
they can focus on more timely and, perhaps, more important matters.
Sometimes closure, for the police, means ending a screwed-up
investigation that is going nowhere, freeing up funds and manpower
for other cases, or saving one's political butt from the accusations
of the citizens, media and family of failing to bring the killer to
justice or a missing person back home.
In reality, closure
rarely happens in full for the family, no matter what....the damage
has been done and they have to live with the consequences for the rest of
their lives. The real perpetrator behind bars or dead gives them
justice but the pain still remains, so closure is not fully possible.
And if they can't see the perpetrator behind bars, sometimes the pain
is so intense, that they will settle for what seems a possible explanation
- a dead or already incarcerated suspect - just so they can feel
there is some measure of justice. As for the police and citizens,
they can move on much more quickly and most of the time they do. So,
what can we expect with the Madeleine McCann case? We can expect
closure, just not the closure most of us want. We can be happy
Gonçalo Amaral has been vindicated in a court of law and that a
tremendous amount of information about the case is available online
and in printed books and DVDs, so that the facts of the case are not
swept entirely under the rug, but we are not going to see an arrest
and conviction of the people we think are likely responsible for what
happened to Maddie.
What we can't expect, and
what has been evident since the day Scotland Yard set foot on
Portuguese soil with a remit to investigate an abduction as opposed
to all the evidence in the case, is that one day there would be
closure of a legitimate type. Scotland Yard is finishing up its one
line of investigation "worth pursuing" - and it is most
likely the three burglars, not the McCanns. By the end of the year,
we should have Scotland Yard explaining how they have thoroughly
analyzed the case, followed every lead and the most likely
explanation for the disappearance of Maddie McCann was a botched
burglary leading to her demise and removal from the apartment, and,
unfortunately, there is not enough evidence to take anyone to court;
this is known as solving the case "administratively." Of
course, because they cannot 100% prove that this is what happened to
Maddie, the door is open for the McCanns to say it is still possible
for Madeleine to be alive and out there somewhere, and, therefore, the
fund can continue.
And the winners are:
Scotland Yard, who made the best effort possible to solve the crime,
and the McCanns who remain free of being charged with said crime. The
added bonus for the McCanns is that if Scotland Yard does indeed shut
down the case with the botched burglary explanation, this also
"proves" Gonçalo Amaral, the Portuguese police, the
Portuguese courts, and anyone who has questioned the abduction theory
to be incompetent and dead wrong. The losers are: everyone else -
British citizens, Portuguese citizens, truth seekers, and missing
children and their families in every country across the world. Maybe
someday the truth will out and all of us who have spent so much time
seeking it will finally have OUR closure. But don't be surprised if
the rest of the public is perfectly happy to accept the closure given
to them by Scotland Yard because it is human nature to want to
believe that parents wouldn't harm their children, that one's police
agencies are above board and are spending our tax dollars in an
honorable way, and the world isn't as bad as all that. Sometimes
illusions are far easier to live with than reality, aren't they?
Qu'attendent le public, la police et, parfois même, la famille d'une personne assassinée ou disparue ? Plus que la justice, ils veulent ce que nous appelons "tourner la page". Je définirais ce terme comme le fait de mettre un terme à une affaire troublante, d'obtenir une réponse suffisamment satisfaisante pour pouvoir cesser de s'attarder sur la question, qu'elle soit vraie ou non. Pour la famille, il est parfois nécessaire de tourner la page, simplement pour pouvoir continuer à vivre. La clôture est parfois nécessaire pour le public, afin qu'il puisse se concentrer sur des questions plus opportunes et, peut-être, plus importantes. Parfois, pour la police, la clôture signifie mettre fin à une enquête foireuse qui ne mène nulle part, libérer des fonds et des effectifs pour d'autres affaires, ou sauver ses fesses politiques des accusations des citoyens, des médias et de la famille de n'avoir pas réussi à traduire le tueur en justice ou à ramener une personne disparue dans son pays d'origine.
En réalité, il est rare que la famille puisse tourner la page, quoi qu'il arrive....le mal a été fait et la famille doit vivre avec les conséquences jusqu'à la fin de ses jours. Le fait que le véritable coupable soit derrière les barreaux ou mort leur rend justice, mais la douleur demeure, et il n'est donc pas possible de tourner la page. Et s'ils ne peuvent pas voir le coupable derrière les barreaux, la douleur est parfois si intense qu'ils se contenteront de ce qui semble être une explication possible - un suspect mort ou déjà incarcéré - juste pour avoir le sentiment qu'il y a une certaine mesure de justice. Quant à la police et aux citoyens, ils peuvent passer à autre chose beaucoup plus rapidement, et c'est ce qu'ils font la plupart du temps. Que peut-on attendre de l'affaire Madeleine McCann ? Nous pouvons nous attendre à ce qu'elle soit close, mais pas à ce que la plupart d'entre nous souhaitent. Nous pouvons nous réjouir que Gonçalo Amaral ait été innocenté par un tribunal et qu'une quantité considérable d'informations sur l'affaire soit disponible en ligne, dans des livres imprimés et des DVD, de sorte que les faits ne soient pas entièrement occultés, mais nous n'assisterons pas à l'arrestation et à la condamnation des personnes qui, selon nous, sont probablement responsables de ce qui est arrivé à Maddie.
Ce à quoi nous ne pouvons pas nous attendre, et qui a été évident depuis le jour où Scotland Yard a mis le pied sur le sol portugais avec pour mission d'enquêter sur un enlèvement par opposition à toutes les preuves de l'affaire, c'est qu'un jour il y aurait une fermeture de type légitime. Scotland Yard termine sa seule ligne d'enquête "digne d'être poursuivie" - et il s'agit très probablement des trois cambrioleurs, et non des McCanns. D'ici la fin de l'année, Scotland Yard devrait expliquer comment ils ont analysé l'affaire en profondeur, suivi toutes les pistes, et que l'explication la plus probable de la disparition de Maddie McCann est un cambriolage raté qui a entraîné sa mort et sa disparition de l'appartement, et que, malheureusement, il n'y a pas assez de preuves pour poursuivre qui que ce soit en justice ; c'est ce qu'on appelle résoudre l'affaire "administrativement". Bien sûr, comme ils ne peuvent pas prouver à 100 % que c'est ce qui est arrivé à Maddie, la porte est ouverte aux McCann pour dire qu'il est toujours possible que Madeleine soit vivante et qu'elle se trouve quelque part et, par conséquent, le fonds peut continuer.
Et les gagnants sont : Scotland Yard, qui a fait tout son possible pour résoudre le crime, et les McCanns, qui n'ont pas été accusés de ce crime. Le bonus supplémentaire pour les McCann est que si Scotland Yard ferme effectivement l'affaire avec l'explication du cambriolage raté, cela "prouve" également que Gonçalo Amaral, la police portugaise, les tribunaux portugais et tous ceux qui ont remis en question la théorie de l'enlèvement sont incompétents et se trompent lourdement. Les perdants sont : tous les autres - les citoyens britanniques, les citoyens portugais, les chercheurs de vérité, les enfants disparus et leurs familles dans tous les pays du monde. Peut-être qu'un jour la vérité éclatera et que tous ceux d'entre nous qui ont passé tant de temps à la chercher pourront enfin fermer les yeux. Mais ne soyez pas surpris si le reste du public est parfaitement heureux d'accepter la conclusion que lui a donnée Scotland Yard, car il est dans la nature humaine de vouloir croire que les parents ne feraient pas de mal à leurs enfants, que les services de police sont honnêtes et dépensent l'argent de nos impôts de manière honorable, et que le monde n'est pas si mauvais que cela. Parfois, les illusions sont bien plus faciles à vivre que la réalité, n'est-ce pas ?
Why the Botched Burglary Is Such a Good Theory in the MMC Case ? - 29.04.2016
As the Madeleine McCann
case winds down, there is fairly good speculation that Scotland
Yard's final determination will be that Madeleine McCann died as a
result of a botched burglary. And there has been much disbelief that
this kind of crime could have anything to do with the disappearance
of Madeleine McCann; after all, what do burglars want with a three-year-old child? Why would they kidnap her instead of just running
off since no three-year-old is going to be very good at identifying
the burglars? How can this be a burglary if nothing of value (minus
the child) was taken? Why was there no evidence of a break-in? Why
did the cadaver dogs hit inside the flat if burglars removed Maddie
from the apartment while in the act of burglarizing the vacation
rental? Oh, Heaven's to Betsy! Stop being so logical! Devising a
theory for closing a case has little to do with needing to prove it
is true with evidence. Like a defense attorney attempting to convince
a jury that the evidence the prosecution has presented may not truly
explain what happened, closing a case without evidence only requires
a good story and a bunch of possible - if rare - scenarios that cause
the people to think "Yeah, I guess that could be true."
For once you fool people into reasonable doubt, you open the door to
just about any cockamamie scenario you can dream up. So, here is how
I would close the Madeleine McCann case with a bunch of inept
burglars and why I would choose this scenario.
First, I want to show
that I looked into everything (well, everything to do with
abduction). I would question any shady character lurking in the
vicinity and look into every rumor that had to do with bad people in
the area. Along the way, I would hope to find a character or
characters that I could connect well enough to the date, time, and
place that they, theoretically, could have committed the crime. After
running through many a possibility, the best I could come up with was
the botched burglary because these were the only bad guys I could
place in the area at the time required. All right. Now, I need to
build the scenario around these guys.
Here is what happened:
Three burglars, familiar
with the area and the resort, were breaking into flats in the area
and stealing a variety of items. These burglars weren't particularly
skilled nor did they target especially high-priced items; they just
grabbed stuff that lay within the flat, hoping to make enough on
their booty to split three ways and enjoy their gains. On the evening
of May 3, 2007, the three burglars planned to gain access to several properties and worked together through cell phones, planning their
positions and times to enter the residences. As they had noted many visitors to the resort tended to leave their patio doors
open, they found it easy to access some flats quickly without having
to resort to actually breaking in and drawing attention. They also
donned latex medical gloves to avoid leaving fingerprints in the
flats. They used this method to slip into the McCann flat but, this
time, they were startled quickly by a child who wandered into the
living room. She was frightened by their presence and started crying
loudly. The burglars were concerned that the loud wailing would draw
instant attention and they grabbed the child and covered her mouth to stop the noise. As has happened in other situations
(sometimes by a kidnapper or a babysitter), the adult does not
realize that with a child, a large hand covering the child's mouth
also results in covering the child's nose, and the child can quickly
become asphyxiated.
After this occurred with
Madeleine McCann, the lookout phoned one of the burglars to warn him
that someone was approaching the flat, and in desperation, they pulled
the sofa away from the wall and hid the child's body behind it and
then hid themselves. An adult entered the flat, listened for any
noise from the children's room, and then left again. At this point,
the panicked burglars became afraid that in the handling of the
child's body, they may have left DNA on it and so they decided to
remove the child's body from the flat. With one standing lookout, the
other burglar carried the child off towards the beach to where one of
the burglars lived. They hatched a plan to dispose of the child's
body, most likely in the ocean since her body wasn't found in any of
the digs conducted in Praia da Luz. Due to the failure of the
Portuguese police to follow this line of inquiry early on, there is
not enough physical evidence to take these suspects to court.
However, one hopes that this information will give the McCanns
closure, that they know what happened to their daughter, and that
she did not suffer any kind of physical or sexual abuse. As to the
community, they can rest assured that there is not a child predator
in their midst who is targeting young children of Madeleine's age.
Although a crime did occur, the death of Madeleine McCann was
accidental and not premeditated.
This is a scenario the
McCanns can accept (they are not guilty, the Portuguese police are
proven to be inept and Gonçalo Amaral is completely wrong as are the
trolls who support him, Scotland Yard money was well spent and the
investigation solid, AND, since this scenario cannot be absolutely
proven, there is still the hope Madeleine was taken by a woman who
wanted a child and she is alive and well somewhere and they can still
continue the fund and the search for her in toned down and less
public manner). So don't think a botched burglary could be accepted
by a gullible public? I wouldn't bet on it. Even I find myself
thinking that this scenario could be true (at least it seems
plausible if I do not go back and review the actual evidence of the
case). And that is how it works; make up a good story but ignore the
evidence.
There are two kinds of
parents responsible for their missing and murdered children when
it comes to prosecution: careless and careful, unsympathetic and
sympathetic. Careless and unsympathetic parents get charged with the
crime because a) the evidence is clear, and b) a jury will hate them.
For example, a meth-using five-time felon beats the living crap out
of his little baby girl while the mother is at work. The girlfriend
comes home and finds her mashed-up child barely breathing and rushes
her to the hospital where she dies. The father claims at the
hospital, that the one-year-old got out the door of the apartment and
fell down the steps. However, all the damage is consistent with being
beaten and x-rays show previous damage to the child's body. Police
arrest the creep and he is found guilty in a court of law. Parents of a missing a
murdered child who are more careful to cover up after the crime and a
bit more sympathetic don't get charged with a crime because a) the
evidence is not totally clear, and b) a jury won't necessarily hate
them. In other words, unless there is overwhelming evidence of guilt
- overwhelming - no prosecutor will take the case to court and have a
jury not be totally convinced of the guilt of the parent or parents;
after all, imagining condemning the innocent mother and father of a
missing a murdered child to prison, further torturing the victims of
a crime, and taking them away from their remaining children so that
they effectively not only lose one child to the crime but all of
them. And think about the remaining children; they not only lost a sibling, but then their parents as well.
Sabrina Eisenburg, Lisa
Irwin, Gabriel Johnson are still missing and many do not think they
were abducted by strangers. These children have never been seen again
and their bodies have never been found. The Eisenburgs claim their
daughter was taken from her crib although there is no proof of an
abduction. The Eisenburgs were never charged. Baby Lisa went missing
from her crib. Her parents were never charged despite the fact
cadaver dogs hit in their house. Gabriel Johnson's mother actually
told the father of her little boy that she killed the baby and threw
him in a dumpster. Later, she told the police that she actually gave
the baby away to a couple in the park. Despite the confession to
the father of the child and the fact there is no evidence of an
abduction, Elizabeth Johnson (a pretty woman who came across as a
stressed and emotionally disturbed mother) has not been charged with
the murder of her child; she got five years for custodial
interference and unlawful imprisonment and she was released from
prison in 2014. And this is why the McCanns won't be charged with any
crime, even neglect. Rarely is a parent of a missing child charged
with neglect because, even if it is true, the police and many in the
public feel they have already received enough punishment for their
carelessness; their child has been kidnapped or murdered. As for the
McCanns being prosecuted for the death of their child, barring an
incredible miracle in the evidence department, the McCanns fall into
the second category, a) the evidence is not totally clear, and b) a
jury won't necessarily hate them.
First, let's look at the
evidence for prosecution: the dog evidence is not admissible in court
without something else to support it. So, there is no proof Madeleine
died in the apartment. And, since there has been no body found, there
is no proof the child is dead at all. There is no witness sighting of
either of the McCanns removing the child from the apartment or
disposing of her body. The Smith sighting is of a man who COULD be
Gerry McCann, not proof that it was Gerry McCann. Neither of the
parents have confessed and none of the others in the Tapas group have
implicated them in harming their daughter or disposing of her body.
So just as there is no solid proof of an abduction, there is no solid
proof of the McCanns involvement in their daughter going missing.
This does not mean there aren't many pieces of evidence that make
them good suspects; my profile of the case includes many facts that
support their involvement in what happened to Maddie. But, a profile
(which is an analysis of facts) is not equivalent to the level of
proof needed to prosecute someone for a crime.
Secondly, putting one's
feelings about the McCanns aside, let's look at the couple in the
eyes of the jury. The McCanns are not the scum of society; they are
not welfare-abusing, unemployed druggies who live in the slums and
have seven other children they neglect and abuse. What the jury will
see is a respectable couple who are both doctors, who give their
time to worthwhile projects, and one of them is even an ambassador
for missing children. They have worked night and day to find their
missing daughter (a defense attorney will make this seem true), went
through the process of setting up a fund to finance private
investigators, and begged the government to send in Scotland Yard to
investigate the case. They have taken excellent care of the other two
children (barring the one horrible night where their one poor
parenting choice led to their daughter going missing). They have the
support of their family, friends, and many in the governement, so
they are upstanding citizens, people the jury can relate to. So,
without that absolute proof that the McCanns did something to Maddie,
the jury is not going to take the risk of wrongly imprisoning an
innocent mother and father, further punishing a suffering set of
parents and leaving Maddie's brother and sister effectively orphaned.
Even I, after having studied all the facts of the case and having
traveled to Praia da Luz to analyze the area of the crime scene, and
even after having written a profile which identifies Gerry and Kate
McCann as the top suspects in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann,
would have to find the McCanns "not guilty" in a court of
law.
There is a big difference
in believing someone has committed a crime and proving it. Scotland
Yard can't prove Maddie was really abducted and we can't prove that
she wasn't. Scotland Yard can give their profile of the crime, you
can give yours, I can give mine....but, in the end, no one will be
able to prove anything because there simply isn't enough evidence to
do so, and, this case, like many other cases of missing and murdered
children will remain unprosecuted. The truth may come to light
sometime in the far future and I hope it does. But barring a
miraculous appearance of new evidence that will allow someone to be
taken to prosecution, we will have to settle for documenting the case
for posterity and hope that all of our efforts - Goncalo Amaral's,
mine, and everyone who put so much time into studying and publicizing
the case - will have done some good.
If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent – 03.05.2016
This is going to be a very upsetting post for many of you and I am sure I am going to receive a whole bunch of unpleasant responses, but someone has to address this issue rationally. It will be my last blog on the matter until we get the final determination from Scotland Yard. Some people are accusing me of "giving up on Madeleine and justice" because I stepped back from commenting after my post that I believed the Scotland Yard investigation was a whitewash. People were furious that I dared to claim that a major police agency would not be on the up-and-up. The response was so nasty, that I decided to simply let things play out without comment. After all, it is not like my commentary at this point is going to get justice; I wrote a book and a whole bunch of blogs detailing the evidence, even a blog on where I think Madeleine's body may be buried and I have not changed the course of events in the slightest. I don't see Scotland Yard or a mob of citizens digging up the barren area of Monte do Jose Mestre to see if her body really is buried there. I am enough of a realist to know that I am just one person, albeit a fairly visible one with profiling experience, but that doesn't mean my opinion can necessarily change the course of events; I am not even the ex-detective on the case who is David against a Goliath battling it out in a big court spectacle. So, since I have written my books and blogs, Scotland Yard is doing what they are doing and I am pretty sure I am not influencing them in the least.
So, what exactly is
Scotland Yard doing? From the responses I have a received and from
what I have read on boards and Facebook, a portion of you think the
Scotland Yard review is a sham but a good portion of you think the
last line of inquiry is the McCanns and they will soon arrest them.
You believe the McCanns are in a cold sweat and all those police
detectives who have worked this review/investigation would never be
involved in a cover-up, that they would take all the evidence into
account, that there never was a remit to only look at this case as an
abduction and to exclude the McCanns as suspects. Some of you
strongly believe that these police officers are dedicated to justice
and they only think of the poor dead child - and not of their careers
and politics of the department -- that their strong sense of fighting
for the truth will dictate their behavior. I have to believe not a
lot of you have spent much time with cops. I have.
My daughter is a
detective. My brother-in-law who I lived with for four years was a
cop. My son-in-law used to be a deputy in the sheriff's department.
And I have worked with cops for two decades. Cops are caring human
beings and cops are cynics. Pretty much the same as me: do I care
about the cases I have worked on that involved children (and others)?
Absolutely. Do I want justice for them? Sure. Can I accept that the
case is screwed and walk away? Sadly, yes. If you work in this field
long enough, you have to be pretty tough or you are not going to
last. You develop a realist attitude, somewhat cynical, likely you
have a black sense of humor, and you do what you can and that is
that. Cops deal with so much they know how to turn off the
waterworks; if they didn't, they would go nuts. The stuff a homicide
detective sees sucks. He fights to make sure cases go to court and
when there isn't enough evidence or one of his fellow detectives
screws up or the ass of a prosecutor refuses to go to court because
he is protecting his win record, what does he do? He accepts the bad
outcome and does what he can for the next case. Would you call him to cover up for the police department so he can save his career?
Okay, but if he starts some big fiasco about a case, he won't be
helping any other murdered kids get justice. You win some, you lose
some.
The detectives I have
worked with on cold cases usually agree with my determination and
admit, while I am in the house, that I am right. We go out and have beer.
Then, I leave and the police tell the family and media I could not
help them and they reshelve the screwed-up case. That person and that
family will never see justice. If you think those detectives who
followed the wrong leads and lost time and evidence are going to
admit I was right, tell the public that the department botched the
case, you are out of your mind! All their careers would be over and
they have families to feed. I have been stabbed in the back many a
time over these cold cases and that is why I don't work them anymore. I am instead working on training detectives so they do better
work on fresh cases. I don't hold a grudge, I am not furious that
they didn't get justice for a murdered child or adult; I know they
are human, did their best, and are constrained by training and
reality and politics. And if you think I am going to go to the press
every time and shout to the world that the department screwed up, I
would never be able to work with a police agency again and then I
will have wasted everything I have done to improve the closing of
cases in police investigations. Have you never heard of "The
Thin Blue Line"? The police will hang together to support each
other, and have each other's backs because they are stuck within a system
and the citizens really don't know what their world is like. If any
British police supported Amaral, it is because they identify with him
being screwed over. However, as you notice, if they did indeed
support him, no one is giving their names or showing their faces. So,
basically, the detectives are going to do their job and investigate
what they are told to investigate: they were either told to do a full
and complete investigation in which everyone is a person of interest and no one has been excluded OR they are following a remit to
investigate an abduction and only an abduction and the McCanns are
not suspects, period.
So, IF the McCanns are
guilty and had enough political influence to have control over the
investigative remit, then the cops are going to do the job of the
remit and search for an abductor. They will reach a conclusion that
she was abducted and likely this is who did it although there is not
enough to take said perpetrator or perpetrators to court. If the
McCanns are guilty and did not have enough political influence to
assure them a review by Scotland Yard wouldn't end up biting them in
the ass, they hardly would have stumped for a review of a case
already shelved by the Portuguese. Of course, the question would be
why any guilty party would WANT a review of a crime they committed;
my answer would be, in this case, to refute Gonçalo Amaral's
determinations. I think all that publicity of Scotland Yard looking
for an abductor was something they hoped would influence the court
case, and, even if it didn't, the final blessing from Scotland Yard
would effectively override the conclusions of Amaral in much of the
public's eye and that would be a satisfying conclusion for the
McCanns.
So, since they asked for
this review; they put their trust in the outcome. If there wasn't
some political collusion going on when the McCanns asked for this
Scotland Yard review if nothing has changed politically to overturn
a remit, if they went in without such a remit and Scotland Yard is
completely following the evidence, I will say right here, I have been
wrong about the McCanns and the evidence of the dogs must be
undependable and all their weird behaviors are just odd behaviors of
two very unusual people, not two guilty people. The McCanns must
then be innocent. As I have said before, my profile has been based on
the known evidence and leads me to the determination that the McCanns
should be top suspects, and further investigation should confirm that
they are guilty or find evidence that they are not. So, I for one,
can accept that the McCanns could be innocent IF evidence comes to
light to prove so (there are rare times when all the evidence points
to a specific party but it turns out it its not them which is why you
want to have as extremely convincing evidence before you go to court
for prosecution). Therefore, if the McCanns did not politically
manipulate the outcome of this investigation, if it is a tried and
true investigation, and if Scotland Yard determines it is an abduction,
we have to conclude the McCanns are innocent.
So, you can't have it
both ways. Unless the political tide has massively turned and the
McCanns are now being hung out to dry (which I find extremely
unlikely), Scotland Yard can only be one of two things: a farce and
the McCanns are guilty and are never go to be convicted of a crime or
legitimate and the McCanns have been innocent all along.
Update:
Since some people can't
seem to understand what my post is about, I will simplify it.
1. If you believe the
McCanns had no political power to enforce a remit, then they are most
likely innocent.
2. If you believe the
McCanns had the political power to enforce a remit, then they are
most likely guilty.
3. If you believe the
McCanns had the political power to enforce a remit yet Scotland Yard
after wasting three years looking for an abductor is now doing an
about face and moving in on the McCanns, then there has either been a
huge political upheaval in the UK or you are in the land of wishful
thinking.
I wanted to update
everyone on the situation concerning publishing books about Madeleine
McCann. After the recent court victory of Goncalo Amaral against the
McCanns and the return of his book about the case of missing
Madeleine McCann to the Portuguese market, many of us thought there
was a sliver of hope that freedom of speech on the case might be
making progress. Although I certainly had my doubts that any book
unsupported by the McCanns would find a publisher, my agent thought
otherwise and she decided to take my book proposal out of mothballs
and see if she could drum up interest. She put together the following
pre-proposal query (based on my book proposal concept) and went out
to the publishers. Here is what she sent and below the query is the
result which I think all of you will find interesting. Names have
been removed as I am not here to out the publishing industry; I just
want to share with everyone the state of affairs concerning
publishing the story of Madeleine McCann in the English-speaking
world.
A Pre-Proposal Query
WHERE IS
MADELEINE MCCANN?
A Criminal Profiler Takes
On the World’s Most Baffling Disappearance
Overview
The disappearance of
little Madeleine McCann has become the most fascinating missing child case since the abduction of the Lindbergh baby. In fact, over 2
million visitors have followed its progress in 2016 alone via the
“The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann” website.
This nine-year cold
case continues to be an obsession with people around the world –
profilers, bloggers, journalists, FaceBookers, Tweeters, and citizens
of many countries, especially England, Portugal, and the United
States.
Gerry and Kate McCann
were not your average parents of a missing child. They were both
medical doctors, as were most of their seven friends (often called
the Tapas Seven) who vacationed with them in Praia da Luz, Portugal
from where Madeleine disappeared just short of her fourth birthday.
Six of these well-educated doctors, including the McCanns, left their
children unattended in their vacation apartments for five evenings
straight, out of eyeshot and earshot, while they wined and dined in a
nearby Tapas restaurant.
On the fateful night
of May 3, 2007, 3-year-old Madeleine McCann disappeared from her bed,
and by morning the McCanns were claiming she had been abducted. They
and their family and friends called in the international media, but
despite the parents’ neglect of their children, which may have
contributed to the disappearance of their daughter, the British
government offered its support, including diplomatic assistance and
the intervention of the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown.
When no proof of an
abduction surfaced, cadaver dogs hit the area behind the sofa in
the McCanns’ vacation apartment, and the Portuguese police found
the statements of the parents and their friends to be conflicting and
deceptive. Both of Madeleine’s parents were made arguidos
(suspects), but mother Kate McCann refused to answer any of the 48
questions put to her. Shortly after, the McCanns left the country and
the case was shelved by the Portuguese police for reasons unknown.
At this point, the
McCanns mounted a high-profile publicity offensive in the
media, including appearances on Piers Morgan and Oprah. They created a
private “Find Madeleine”fund, which brought in four million
dollars in donations to be used in any way they wished. Some of it
paid for their mortgage, travel, and high-profile attorneys. In 2008,
Kate McCann wrote a book called Madeleine, which (along with a
serialization in a top British newspaper) earned the McCanns another
million plus.
With their publicity
campaign in full swing, the McCanns sued or threatened to sue several people who had dared to speak up about the case and suggested
that the McCanns may have been involved. Blog sites were shut down,
promises to cease and desist were obtained, and free speech was
muzzled. The McCanns sued the detective on the case, Gonçalo Amaral,
for one and a half million dollars and got an injunction in 2009
against his book, Truth of the Lie. It had become a bestselling
Portuguese analysis of the police case (which had sold 180,000 copies
in Portugal alone) and of his documentary DVD on the case. In 2016,
however, Gonçalo Amaralwon his appeal, and his book and DVD were
returned to the market.
In 2011, American
criminal profiler Pat Brown self-published her analysis of the case
in a 32-page mini-book on Amazon. Profile of the Disappearance of
Madeleine McCann vanished after five weeks of high sales and nearly 50
five-star reviews. Amazon informed Ms. Brown that Carter-Ruck, the
McCann’s libel solicitors, had warned them of impending legal
action if the book was not removed from the market. They caved and
Brown’s book was taken out of all Amazon online stores worldwide.
As of this date, the
2013 Scotland Yard review ordered by the British government to solve
the Portuguese case of missing Madeleine McCann (a very unusual
action to be taken by the UK in a case that was not even their own)
has cost British taxpayers more than twelve million dollars. Scotland
Yard now states that they only have one line of inquiry left to wrap
up (and it is not about the McCanns). Then, they will shelve the case
with their final conclusions. The Portuguese will also likely
re-shelve the case when Scotland Yard pulls out.
Pat Brown has profiled
this case extensively over the last seven years and investigated it
in person in Praia da Luz, Portugal. In addition to her mini-book,
Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann, she has written
dozens of blog posts on the case at The Daily Profiler. Brown will
bring out new information in the Madeleine McCann case; the evidence,
the analysis, the profile, the players, the politics, and the
corruption, and penetrate the international mystery that still
surrounds the most confounding missing child case in history.
Pat Brown is an
American criminal profiler, author of seven books and a crime
commentator (seen more than 3000 times with regular appearances on
Nancy Grace, Jane Velez-Mitchell, Dr. Drew, Anderson, Inside Edition,
The Today Show, The Early Show, Wolf Blitzer, Larry King, Dr. Phil,
Montel Williams, Bill O’Reilly, etc.).
WHERE IS
MADELEINE MCCANN?
Table of Contents
Chapter One: The Case of
Madeleine McCann: Not Just Another Missing Child
Chapter Two: The
Perplexing Parents: Bizarre Behaviors and Strange Bedfellows
Chapter Three: Marketing
Maddie: The Tot Heard Round the World
Chapter Four: The Worst
PIs Money Can Buy: Crooks and Conmen
Chapter Five: Those
Dastardly Dogs: Damning Evidence or Canines Gone Wrong?
Chapter Six: The Tide
Turns: The Crucification of the McCanns on the Internet
Chapter Seven: The Hired
Guns of the McCanns: Silencing the Experts
Chapter Seven: The
Strange Charade of Scotland Yard: Millions of Pounds Spent, Zero
ResultsAchieved
Chapter Eight: Criminal
Profiler Pat Brown’s Analysis of Madeleine McCann’s Disappearance
Below is an example of
the responses from the publishers.
We are intrigued, but I
don't think this one is quite right for our list. As the case is not
concluded, and as the McCann's are more litigious than most, I don't
think we have the infrastructure to handle a book like this one.
Frankly, without the full-time in-house legal team for the vetting
this would need, it's a costly proposal.
Alas, afraid I'm taking
the coward's position on this one, but I wish you and Ms. Brown great
success in finding the perfect publishing home for it, and I thank
you for thinking of us.
------------------
It is a sad situation
that the McCanns have so cowed publishers that they are afraid to
take a chance on a story that is as a big as this one. There still
may be someone out there in the publishing world my agent hasn't
contacted who might be willing to give such a book a shot, but I
strongly doubt we will see anyone be brave enough until the case is
long closed or the McCanns are out of the picture.
