 |
| Pat Brown Blog |
The Madeleine McCann Letter – 13.06.2007
Someone has sent a letter
to the Dutch press claiming that he knows where little Madeleine
McCann is buried. Apparently this fellow had sent a similar letter
last year when the police were searching for the missing Belgian
sisters, Stacy and Nathalie, which arrived just on the day they were
found. Is this a hoax or could this be the abductor of all three
girls? Now, there was an arrest made in the case of the murdered
Belgian girls, but this letter writer is said to have known where
they were buried by the train tracks and so the police are taking the
Madeleine letter fairly seriously. Let’s profile this letter and
see what the possibilities are. First of all, the Belgian girls were
killed within hours of their abduction and if Madeleine’s body
really is where this writer says it is – seven miles from the
resort from which she was taken – I think we can eliminate the
pedophile ring scenario (a scenario I never really bought). The
Belgian girls were raped and killed quickly; there was no
transporting of them anywhere and certainly no time to do any selling
of them or videotaping of them being tortured and murdered. If
Madeleine is found right in the vicinity of the resort, we can
eliminate any fancy sex ring kidnapping little kids for profit.
Therefore, in both cases,
we would have a pedophile or a pedophile duo grabbing and amusing
themselves, not involving themselves in organized crime. The letter
writer could, in theory, be a traveling man and have gone to Belgium,
found a couple of victims, left the country and sent the letter when
he was back at home in Holland. He could have been on the road again,
come across another child left unattended (the Belgian girls were
left to play in the street at midnight while their parents were
drinking it up inside a bar), grabbed her, raped her and killed her,
and then gone back home to Holland where he once again writes a
letter at leisure to the newspaper he must read all the time. He
would be a publicity lover and get a kick out of having the girls
found and reading about the discovery over his morning coffee. Of
course, there was a man convicted of the sisters’ murder but it is
possible he isn’t guilty, just a dupe, and the real killer finds
this annoying and wants to set the record straight.
This is one possible
scenario. However, there is a problem with it. It is said that the
letter writer was right on the money as to where the sisters’
bodies would be found. I beg to differ. The letter writer marked a
location that turned out to be one mile away from where the girls
were found. This wouldn’t be such a big deal if he was one mile off
from where he claimed Madeleine would be found – six miles or seven
miles on a lonely road – well, maybe he just didn’t remember
exactly how far he drove, but being one mile off of the sisters’
dump site is a different story entirely. The sisters’ bodies were
found within 300 meters of the bar, not over a mile from the bar. I
would think a killer well know the difference between “at the end
of the block” and “more than a mile down the road.”
Furthermore, a killer who leaves the kids at the end of the block
probably doesn’t have a car and the one who would leave them more
than a mile away would have to have a car to carry them that far.
At this point, unless
Madeleine is found exactly where the letter writer claims, the
letters were probably the work of an armchair detective who just
guessed where he thought they might be. If you add to this toss of
the dice to all the possible locations any other tipster gave and all
the psychics gave, someone is likely to get lucky and get close to
the right spot. The police, of course, would be remiss not to check
this out just to be sure they aren’t ignoring a serial killer’s
clues. But, chances are, there are two different pedophiles at work
in these crimes. Unattended children are easy targets for pedophiles
and just because the MO is similar, it doesn’t mean there is just
one guy committing the crimes. Yes, there is a serial killer of
children out there, but whether there is one serial killer or two
serial killers involved in these crimes remains to be seen.
Quelqu'un a envoyé une lettre à la presse néerlandaise affirmant qu'il savait où la petite Madeleine McCann est enterrée. Apparemment, ce type avait envoyé une lettre similaire l'année dernière lorsque la police recherchait les sœurs belges disparues, Stacy et Nathalie, qui sont arrivées juste le jour où elles ont été retrouvées. Est-ce un canular ou est-ce que cela pourrait être le ravisseur des trois filles? Maintenant, il y a eu une arrestation dans le cas des filles belges assassinées, mais l'auteur de la lettre aurait su où elles avaient été enterrées près des voies ferrées et la police prend donc la lettre de Madeleine assez au sérieux. Examinons cette lettre et voyons quelles sont les possibilités. Tout d'abord, les filles belges ont été tuées dans les heures qui ont suivi leur enlèvement et si le corps de Madeleine est vraiment là où cet écrivain dit qu'il se trouve - à sept miles de la station d'où elle a été emmenée - je pense que nous pouvons éliminer le scénario de l'anneau pédophile (un scénario Je n'ai jamais vraiment acheté). Les filles belges ont été violées et tuées rapidement; il n'y avait aucun moyen de les transporter nulle part et certainement pas le temps de les vendre ou de les enregistrer sur vidéo en train d'être torturés et assassinés. Si Madeleine se trouve juste à côté de la station, nous pouvons éliminer tout anneau sexuel fantaisiste qui kidnappe de petits enfants à des fins lucratives.
Par conséquent, dans les deux cas, nous aurions un pédophile ou un duo de pédophiles se saisissant et s'amusant, sans s'impliquer dans le crime organisé. L'auteur de la lettre pourrait, en théorie, être un voyageur et être allé en Belgique, trouvé quelques victimes, quitté le pays et envoyé la lettre lorsqu'il était de retour chez lui en Hollande. Il aurait pu être de nouveau sur la route, croiser un autre enfant laissé sans surveillance (les filles belges ont été laissées jouer dans la rue à minuit pendant que leurs parents le buvaient dans un bar), l'a attrapée, violée et tuée, et puis rentra chez lui en Hollande où il écrivit à nouveau une lettre à loisir au journal qu'il devait lire tout le temps. Il adorerait la publicité et se réjouirait de voir les filles trouvées et de lire sur la découverte autour de son café du matin. Bien sûr, il y a eu un homme reconnu coupable du meurtre des sœurs, mais il est possible qu'il ne soit pas coupable, juste une dupe, et le vrai tueur trouve cela ennuyeux et veut rétablir les faits.
C'est un scénario possible. Cependant, il y a un problème avec cela. On dit que l'auteur de la lettre avait raison sur l'argent quant à l'endroit où les corps des sœurs seraient trouvés. Je ne suis pas d'accord. L'auteur de la lettre a marqué un endroit qui s'est avéré être à un mile de l'endroit où les filles ont été retrouvées. Ce ne serait pas si grave s'il était à un mille de là où il prétendait que Madeleine se trouverait - six ou sept milles sur une route isolée - eh bien, peut-être qu'il ne se souvenait tout simplement pas exactement de la distance qu'il a parcourue, mais être à un mile de la décharge des sœurs est une tout autre histoire. Les corps des sœurs ont été retrouvés à moins de 300 mètres du bar, à moins d’un kilomètre du bar. Je pense qu'un tueur connaît bien la différence entre «au bout du pâté de maisons» et «à plus d'un kilomètre sur la route». De plus, un tueur qui laisse les enfants au bout du pâté de maisons n’a probablement pas de voiture et celui qui les laisserait à plus d’un kilomètre devrait avoir une voiture pour les transporter aussi loin.
À ce stade, à moins que Madeleine ne soit trouvée exactement là où l'auteur de la lettre le prétend, les lettres étaient probablement le travail d'un détective de fauteuil qui a juste deviné où il pensait qu'elles pourraient être. Si vous ajoutez à ce lancer de dés à tous les emplacements possibles que tout autre pronostiqueur a donnés et à tous les médiums donnés, quelqu'un aura probablement de la chance et se rapproche du bon endroit. La police, bien sûr, serait négligente de ne pas vérifier cela juste pour s’assurer qu’elle n’ignore pas les indices d’un tueur en série. Mais il y a des chances qu'il y ait deux pédophiles différents à l'œuvre dans ces crimes. Les enfants sans surveillance sont des cibles faciles pour les pédophiles et ce n'est pas parce que le MO est similaire qu'il n'y a qu'un seul homme qui commet les crimes. Oui, il y a un tueur en série d'enfants là-bas, mais il reste à voir s'il y a un tueur en série ou deux tueurs en série impliqués dans ces crimes.
Par conséquent, dans les deux cas, nous aurions un pédophile ou un duo de pédophiles se saisissant et s'amusant, sans s'impliquer dans le crime organisé. L'auteur de la lettre pourrait, en théorie, être un voyageur et être allé en Belgique, trouvé quelques victimes, quitté le pays et envoyé la lettre lorsqu'il était de retour chez lui en Hollande. Il aurait pu être de nouveau sur la route, croiser un autre enfant laissé sans surveillance (les filles belges ont été laissées jouer dans la rue à minuit pendant que leurs parents le buvaient dans un bar), l'a attrapée, violée et tuée, et puis rentra chez lui en Hollande où il écrivit à nouveau une lettre à loisir au journal qu'il devait lire tout le temps. Il adorerait la publicité et se réjouirait de voir les filles trouvées et de lire sur la découverte autour de son café du matin. Bien sûr, il y a eu un homme reconnu coupable du meurtre des sœurs, mais il est possible qu'il ne soit pas coupable, juste une dupe, et le vrai tueur trouve cela ennuyeux et veut rétablir les faits.
C'est un scénario possible. Cependant, il y a un problème avec cela. On dit que l'auteur de la lettre avait raison sur l'argent quant à l'endroit où les corps des sœurs seraient trouvés. Je ne suis pas d'accord. L'auteur de la lettre a marqué un endroit qui s'est avéré être à un mile de l'endroit où les filles ont été retrouvées. Ce ne serait pas si grave s'il était à un mille de là où il prétendait que Madeleine se trouverait - six ou sept milles sur une route isolée - eh bien, peut-être qu'il ne se souvenait tout simplement pas exactement de la distance qu'il a parcourue, mais être à un mile de la décharge des sœurs est une tout autre histoire. Les corps des sœurs ont été retrouvés à moins de 300 mètres du bar, à moins d’un kilomètre du bar. Je pense qu'un tueur connaît bien la différence entre «au bout du pâté de maisons» et «à plus d'un kilomètre sur la route». De plus, un tueur qui laisse les enfants au bout du pâté de maisons n’a probablement pas de voiture et celui qui les laisserait à plus d’un kilomètre devrait avoir une voiture pour les transporter aussi loin.
À ce stade, à moins que Madeleine ne soit trouvée exactement là où l'auteur de la lettre le prétend, les lettres étaient probablement le travail d'un détective de fauteuil qui a juste deviné où il pensait qu'elles pourraient être. Si vous ajoutez à ce lancer de dés à tous les emplacements possibles que tout autre pronostiqueur a donnés et à tous les médiums donnés, quelqu'un aura probablement de la chance et se rapproche du bon endroit. La police, bien sûr, serait négligente de ne pas vérifier cela juste pour s’assurer qu’elle n’ignore pas les indices d’un tueur en série. Mais il y a des chances qu'il y ait deux pédophiles différents à l'œuvre dans ces crimes. Les enfants sans surveillance sont des cibles faciles pour les pédophiles et ce n'est pas parce que le MO est similaire qu'il n'y a qu'un seul homme qui commet les crimes. Oui, il y a un tueur en série d'enfants là-bas, mais il reste à voir s'il y a un tueur en série ou deux tueurs en série impliqués dans ces crimes.
Shirking Responsibility for Criminal Behavior – 15.08.2007
In Virginia, another
drunk teenage driver has killed herself and her three friends who
were riding in the car with her. One of the fathers of the passengers
made this statement: "A drunk driver killed my kid." I beg
to differ, sir: a drunk driver and her drunk enabling passengers
colluded to kill themselves. You can't blame the driver without
blaming the passengers. There was an open gallon of vodka in the car,
half of it gone, when the car crashed. This isn't like a drunk pilot
killing his unsuspecting passengers. Every one of those kids knew the
driver was drinking and likely passed the bottle to her while she was
behind the wheel. In doing so, everyone shares the blame for the car
crashing and the resulting deaths. A while back, a Minnesota girl
survived such a crash that killed her friends. Because she was the
driver, she ended up getting charged. She admitted she was wrong but
she stated that all of her friends knew darned well what they were
getting into when they got into the vehicle with her and passed the
bottle around. She got a lot of angry feedback from that statement;
folks thought she was blaming the victims of her mistake. But, I
agree with the girl. She was wrong but her friends were just as
wrong.
In another horrifying
Virginia story, a man left a cache of weapons around his mentally
deranged son, took him to practice shooting at the gun range and gave
him drugs. The son ended up taking his daddy's guns and murdering two
police officers. The father ended up getting a few years for aiding
and abetting, a sentence I thought was far too low, although I was
happy to see him get nailed for something (unlike most of the parents
of school shooters who get off scott free after their children take
their father's or grandfather's guns and mow down their classmates).
Nancy Grace got sued by the family of Melinda Duckett for grilling
her over the disappearance of her son. After Melinda made herself
look really guilty with her poor answers, she went home and blew
herself away with Granddaddy's shotgun. Her grandfather, however,
instead of blaming himself for leaving his weapon around for his
mentally unstable granddaughter to do herself in with, attacks Nancy
for making his squirrelly grand kid feel bad about herself.
And let's not forget
Madeleine. Her parents left her and their two little babies alone in
a strange hotel room while they went off drinking. Now, they have
collected two million dollars from caring people to find her. While I
understand they are hurting, many parents have had their kids
kidnapped through no fault of their own. Madeleine's parents should
have been charged with child neglect. What do all these cases have in
common? Folks taking no responsibility for their behavior and blaming
someone else for the results of it. I would like to see people speak
out and say, well, you brought it on yourselves and you need to
either live with that fact or go to jail for your involvement with
the crime. Let's stop making excuses for these individuals and expect
and demand that they accept responsibility for their actions.
Is Maddie in England? - 13.09.2007
IF the evidence we have
heard recently exists concerning Maddie's DNA and hire in the boot of
the hire car and the McCanns were involved with the disappearance and
death of their daughter, Madeleine, here is what I think could have
happened. I have been considering WHY anyone would move a body from
one location to another after twenty five days. If Maddie's DNA from
decomposition of her body is really in the hire car, what purpose
would there be in moving her body at that time? I can think of only
one: they would have to be afraid the Portuguese police were getting
closer and closer to discovering what happened to Maddie and they
took action. One possibility would be to move her to a location where
she could never be found: at the bottom of the ocean. The other would
be to move the body back to a location they controlled (the later
villa they had rented), they would not have to worry about the police
stumbling across their daughter’s remains. With all their traveling
about, leaving and entering the apartment with a suitcase is not
going to raise any eyebrows. Apparently, the police never brought the
sniffer dogs to the new villa and, therefore, Maddie’s body could
have remained in a suitcase in a storage area until the McCanns
decided to move on. If the decomposition stage was late enough, the
issue of odor would be less of a problem).
Kate McCann has stated
she would never leave Portugal without her daughter and maybe she was
telling the truth. Madeleine is but a small and very portable child.
She weighs little and, if she had been decomposing for so long, she
would weigh even less. The McCanns returned to England with four
large black suitcases. Was Maddie in one of them? It may unbelievable
behavior for a parent, but, many a body has been shipped in suitcases
over the course of history and parents have done strange things in
desperation or in grief, so this would not be an impossibility. If
the McCanns chose to do this and succeeded in not getting caught,
they would have outsmarted the Portuguese police, avoided a jail
sentence and no one would ever find out what really happened to their
daughter. Because the McCanns were familiar with air travel,
airports, and entry and departure points, they could determine
whether their luggage was likely to be searched upon arrival (and the
answer from my experience with travel to England is the chances of
them having any problem with scrutiny and searches is low). If the
evidence holds, the British police might search for Maddie right
there in Leicestershire, England; who knows what they might find.
Of course, this all
depends on whether any of the leaked information about the DNA and
hair in the boot of the hire car has any validity at all. If it
doesn't, then regardless of the negligence of Maddie's parents in
leaving her unattended out of eye and earshot (and I do not think
this acceptable parenting even if there are no kidnappers likely to
take her), then we are back to a pedophile snatching her. One way or
the other, there is little likelihood Madeleine is alive. At the
heart of all crime scene analysis is evidence, both forensic and
behavioral. Theories that then prompt investigative avenues are based
on what evidence one has in the case. If the evidence changes, then
the theory will change with it. This is why no one is guilty until
proven so in a court of law. Even the most suspicious of suspects is
not guilty until the jury says so. Are the McCanns guilty or not? I
have no idea since I am not inside the homicide investigation. But if
there is really any evidence pointing toward the McCanns, then the
police should do what they suggest and "Leave No Stone
Unturned."
"The Moment Madeleine was Taken." - 04.10.2007
One has to be careful
when analyzing from a distance if a particular person or persons is
exhibiting guilt concerning the commission of a crime. Until there is
hard physical evidence linking a perpetrator or perpetrators to a
crime, the case is tried in court and a conviction is handed down by
a jury or judge, all is still speculation. I am asked over and over
if I think the McCanns are guilty of the disappearance of their
daughter Madeleine. I always answer that I cannot say for sure
because at this point I haven’t a clue as to the veracity of any of
the information coming out of the European tabloid machines. I have
to say I have been rather appalled by any media spawning so many
“facts” that turn out to be just hearsay. It is not like
proposing a theory: speculation is not claiming knowledge and is not
lying, but stating something is a fact when it is not, is egregious
and the media should not be doing this.
Let’s look at the
supposed facts: if the DNA from Madeleine in the hire car exists, the
McCanns are guilty as hell. If there is blood from Madeleine on the
stairs, this only proves she was injured but not by who. If there are
sedatives in her hair, this is pretty damning. So much for the
“facts.” Let’s turn toward the McCanns and their behaviors.
Behavioral evidence is not conclusive evidence. It is useful in
determining investigative avenues to focus on and interview
methodology. It is circumstantial evidence and can lend weight to a
case in court but rarely can stand alone without physical evidence to
support guilt. As a criminal profiler, behavioral evidence is
extremely important in analyzing any case and advising police
investigators of its meaning within the context of the case.
The McCanns narcissistic
behavior is concerning, but they could be narcissistic people who
have had they child abducted. One thing I have learned about the
family of victims of horrible crimes; whatever you were like before
your loved one went missing is exactly what you are like afterward.
You don’t change. So, if you are a really aggressive person before
the crime, you are likely going to be aggressive afterwards and fight
to see the crime solved. If you were extremely passive before the
incident, you might simply allow the police to do the work and hardly
lift a finger. If you were a soft touch previously, you may sob your
way through a television appearance. If you were a tough cookie, you
may come off as a cold, uncaring, and possibly guilty of wrongdoing.
The McCanns appear pretty
narcissistic in their behaviors after Madeleine’s disappearance.
They worry about their physiques, their clothing, hair, and jewelry,
and they like a lot of attention. But, this is exactly how they were
before Maddy went missing, so I am not surprised they are acting this
way. Their rather off-putting behavior does not mean they are guilty
of anything more than child neglect. But, I have been going back over
the actual interviews of Gerry and Kate McCann and one statement
sticks in my craw and bugs the devil out of me. It is the one thing
that makes me lean toward their guilt even without any physical
evidence. This is what Gerry said:
“We felt our actions
were responsible. We were essentially performing our own baby
listening service although we have talked of the guilt we felt at not
being there at the moment Madeleine was taken.”
Maybe Gerry just
misspoke. Maybe it is similar to the ear pulling thing he did when he
denied that he and Kate gave Madeleine sedatives; maybe his ear just
itched at that moment and he wasn’t lying. Maybe it is like when
they left their twins to jet off to see the Pope claiming it was no
big deal because their children were in a safe location, the very
same town the abductor of their other child might still be loose in;
that statement doesn’t necessarily mean they know that no real
kidnapper is out there. Or when Gerry said that he and his wife Kate
were "100 per cent confident" of each other's innocence,”
maybe this strange wording for parents who child is abducted while
they spent the evening in each other’s company, maybe I am reading
more into it than is necessary. So, maybe this particular statement
of Gerry’s is also just an odd choice of words. It doesn’t prove
guilt. But, it does continue to force me to look at them as suspects
in the real meaning of the word. Why?
It is not because he and
Kate still think that leaving their children alone is not wrong. We
know they have never felt leaving tiny toddlers to fend for
themselves constitutes neglect. They have said that over and over.
Clearly, they are never going to accept responsibility for their
horrendous actions that night. But, firstly, what Gerry admits in
that statement is they were only “listening” at the door, not
looking in to see if their children are all right. If they are not
actually observing their children, they would not know if they were
sick, injured, or missing from the room. Gerry has moved away from
saying they actually checked on their children to some rather vague
“listening” methodology, perhaps, one so distant, that he meant
they were close enough that they should be able to hear one of the
kids if they left the room screaming for them. Not only that, Gerry
basically admits the window for “kidnapping” Madeleine is a whole
lot larger than thirty minutes. She could have been “taken” five
minutes after they left the children in bed if they never “saw”
them again until Kate finally decides to not just listen at the door
but actually look in on her children. But, more importantly, if
Madeleine actually died during the time of the “listening” checks
or her body removed during the time of the “listening” checks, it
behooves the parents to carefully skirt around having to lie about
“seeing” Madeleine earlier during the evening via visual checks
on the children.
But, even this bit of
information is not the big problem. It is the very last part of the
sentence that rings warning bells to me:
“….although we have
talked of the guilt we felt at not being there at the moment
Madeleine was taken.”
First, let’s look at
what Gerry McCann did NOT say:
“We are horrified that
we left our little girl alone and made it easy for a predator to
kidnap her.”
Okay, that statement
would be normal for a nonnarcissit and one who accepts responsibility
for their actions, so maybe we shouldn’t think Gerry would say
that. But, one might think he should have at least said this:
”..although we have
talked of the guilt we felt at not realizing it was unsafe to leave
Madeleine alone and because we were naive, we feel guilt that
Madeleine was taken while we innocently left her unattended.”
This would be a pretty
good statement, but, wait, I have to say, again, they are too
narcissistic to admit to this large a mistake, so I would guess this
is why Gerry didn’t say that either. BUT, let’s see examine what
Gerry REALLY did say and why it is important and very concerning.
“…the guilt we felt
at not being there AT THE MOMENT MADELEINE WAS TAKEN.”
First of all, Gerry, IF
one of you had been there with Madeleine, there would be NO MOMENT
WHEN MADELEINE WAS TAKEN. It simply could not have occurred. If one
of you had been there, either the abductor would have simply turned
around and given up the idea or you would have fought with the
abductor to save Madeleine. She could NOT HAVE BEEN TAKEN if you were
there.
Let’s analyze further.
There are two very important words here: MOMENT and TAKEN.
First of all, Madeleine
couldn’t have been taken in a MOMENT by an abductor. It would have
taken quite a few moments to grab the child out of the bed, struggle
with her, climb out a window, and carry her off.
Secondly, she wouldn’t
have just been TAKEN. She would have been ABDUCTED, STOLEN, or
KIDNAPPED.
TAKEN is an interesting
passive word. Theoretically, it could just be Gerry and Kate trying
to feel less guilty about a child predator abducting a screaming and
terrified Madeleine. Maybe the word, TAKEN, just feels less awful.
But, then again, maybe TAKEN is what they really mean. Maddy may have
been taken from life and Gerry and Kate may feel guilt over the
MOMENT that occurred. Alternatively, if they really did have help
moving her body and Kate really did scream “THEY have taken
Madeleine,” maybe they feel guilt over not being there at the
MOMENT Madeleine was TAKEN from the room and hidden elsewhere.
Perhaps, this is exactly why no one was supposed to look in on the
children and why the doors were left unlocked. Maybe, the “feeling”
Gerry has that a man was in the room is accurate because he set the
whole thing up. But I digress.
If the MOMENT refers to a
time when Kate and Gerry were off partying and Madeleine suffered a
serious injury from falling down the steps or had overdosed on
sedatives, they might feel guilty they were not there at that MOMENT
because as doctors, had they been there at that MOMENT, they might
have been able to administer medical care and save Maddy’s life.
Gerry then would be admitting that MOMENTS do count and leaving your
child unattended for even a MOMENT can effectively contribute to the
child’s death.
Worse yet, if the McCanns
were there when Madeleine died and Gerry is referring to feeling bad
about not being there the MOMENT her body was moved, then one of them
killed her in a fit of rage or overdosed her with sedatives before
going out for the evening. This parent clearly would not be viewing
themselves at fault for the incident and the other parent is one heck
of a pushover and enabler. This can happen when one of the couple is
desperate enough to stay in the relationship, protect one’s
professional life, or keep a perfect social or personal image.
Considering the great deal of minimization the McCanns have done
since their daughter went missing, it is really not that big a
stretch to imagine one of them acting in such a fashion.
Regardless of which
scenario might be true, I think Gerry may have told the exact truth
with this statement: that he and Kate DO feel guilty for
“… not being there at
the MOMENT Madeleine was TAKEN.”
Does the fact, and this
is an actually fact, that Gerry says he and his wife feel guilt over
not being there at the MOMENT Madeleine was TAKEN– does this
statement of Gerry’s mean they are guilty of Madeleine’s
disappearance?
No, but it sure doesn’t
help me spend a lot of time looking harder at Robert Murat and if
there is much more damning information from the interviews with the
McCanns, their friends, the employee of the hotel, and the physical
evidence then we know of, one can’t blame the Portuguese police for
not spending much time looking at him either. They would only be
looking for Madeleine’s body or enough other physical evidence to
charge the McCanns in the death of their daughter and subsequent
obstruction of justice in hiding their daughter’s body and
misleading the police investigation.
If the McCanns are
innocent of having anything to do with Maddy’s disappearance, I
feel sorry that they have had to suffer all the allegations on top of
the anguish of losing a daughter. However, I feel much sorrier for
Madeleine, who would have had to suffer through a horrible sexual
assault and a violent end to her life because of willful neglect of
her parents. The McCanns are reaping what they sowed and there are
responsible for the results of their actions. They only anger they
should express is towards themselves, not the police or public trying
to find out what happened to Maddy, and they only horror they should
feel should be at their own actions and the horrible hurt it brought
to their innocent little girl. But the McCanns apparently feel
negative emotions toward themselves over only one issue:
“…not being there AT
THE MOMENT MADELEINE WAS TAKEN.”
Note de Nigel Moore :
It is also interesting that Gerry used the past tense of 'FELT', when talking about guilt, rather than the present tense of 'FEEL'. This appears to suggest that guilt was FELT at that MOMENT Madeleine was TAKEN but is FELT no longer.
We would, perhaps, have expected Gerry to say: "...the guilt we FEEL at not being there at the moment Madeleine was taken."
A short time ago, I made
a suggestion that the British police might investigate the McCann’s
residence (and the residences of friends and family of the McCanns)
for the possibility that the body of Madeleine McCann might have been
transported into England. Some folk immediately labeled the theory
ridiculous, or ludicrous, as the McCanns would say. How, they asked,
could the McCanns carry a putrefying and decaying body in a suitcase
and get it on and off of an airplane? I understand that this sounds
mighty foolish to many who don’t work in the field of criminal
investigation and profiling and they think Pat Brown is a nutcase par
excellence!
Let me clear up a few
misconceptions: first of all, it is a theory, not a fact. Secondly, a
theory is useful to stimulate investigative avenues not yet thought
of that might lead to evidence that would otherwise have been
overlooked. Third, offering one theory does not mean it is the only
theory or even the best theory. It is far more likely that
Madeleine’s body is somewhere underground in Portugal or Spain or
in the ocean. These are simpler places to bury a body. It may be that
the body has just not yet been discovered. This is very often the
case; while rumors and theories abound about white slavery and porn
rings and sightings are made of the victim all over the world, the
body of the poor thing has simply been lying in a ravine for the past
few months! Sometimes bodies fall into strange and difficult places
or are well-buried for years. Then, one day a jogger trips over the
body or a farmer turns over some soil to plant his corn, and, voila!
The victim has been found.
Maddy McCann will likely
be found in a similar way (unless someone did one heck of a job of
hiding her). Whether a child predator took Maddy or the parents did
her in, she will probably one day just be found. However, there is
nothing wrong with being proactive and trying to find her sooner than
later. Therefore, the police should follow all leads and theories. IF
they find her sooner, than not all the evidence with the body or
within the body will have been destroyed by time and nature. So,
search in Portugal and Spain and any other place one can think of.
And, yes, search in England: Maddy just might be there. Would it
really be possible for one of the McCanns to cart the body of their
daughter back to England? Yes, absolutely. Because of the climate in
Portugal, it is possible that should they have buried Maddy in a
shallow grave in a sandy substrate, her body would have mummified.
Mummification is a desiccation of the corpse where the fluids drain
into the ground and the rest of the body dries up. There is
relatively little odor associated with a mummified body.
If this occurred, the
body would be easier to transport; it would be lighter and drier and
lacking the horrible smell of a corpse. Such a body could easily be
placed in a sealed bag and placed in a suitcase. Screening of stowed
luggage is not likely to uncover a body inside of a suitcase and when
the traveler reaches the other end and goes through customs, they
enter the “Have nothing to declare line,” and just walk through
(unless they exhibit concerning behavior that raises a red flag and
launches a search of the luggage). As to the McCanns, I seriously
doubt they were searched upon arrival, not with all the press
surrounding them and the mass of curious onlookers, reporters, and
VIPS lurking about.
IF the McCanns were
involved and IF Maddy’s body was brought home, when this would have
happened is another question. Unfortunately, only those inside the
organization would (we hope) know the truth about the McCann’s
movements. For example, Gerry McCann returned to England on June 19,
just four days after an exhaustive search for Madeleine was called
off. This search was in an arid, desolate area (the kind of climate
which might encourage the mummification of a body) near a town called
Odiaxere. A letter from an unknown sender had stated she could be
found there in a shallow grave. Four days later, Gerry is on a plane
home. I don’t know if he took any luggage with him, anything more
than a rucksack (which I don’t know the size of). He only stayed
for the day, purportedly to attend some meetings. He claims he had
his wallet stolen while getting money from an ATM and later that
evening, the wallet was mailed back to him. A rather peculiar story
that I wonder might not be a cover for the reason he was late to his
meetings; he ostensibly spent the time calling credit card companies
to cancel his credit cards.
If I were the police
investigator, I would follow up this lead. I would want to know what
luggage Gerry took with him to England. I would try to see if there
was any proof to the wallet theft story. I would find out if he had
any “alone” time on the trip. I would find out if he made those
phone calls to the credit card companies and if he really got money
from an ATM. I would find out exactly where he was that day through
any evidence of his movements (phone call tracking, receipts,
witnesses, etc.). I would want to know if anyone met him, especially
anyone who he could have transferred a package from one suitcase to
another. I would check all the McCann trips and look for possibly
ways for them to transport a body away from Portugal. And, again, I
would look for all possible places within Portugal or neighboring
countries as possible places to hide or bury a body. I would check
the possibility of a burial at sea. If I were the Portuguese police,
I would be following all leads, even those that lead away from the
McCanns. It never hurts to be thorough. The point is to recover
Madeleine, dead or alive, and bring justice to those that hurt her.
In the end, it doesn’t matter which theory is correct (except as an
educational tool for future investigations). It only matters that the
case is solved.
As a criminal profiler, I have also sometimes been criticized for theorizing about a case I have not personally been privy to the actual facts from inside the investigation. As I do a lot of television commentary, this is quite often the case for me; I only can theorize based on the "facts" outlined by the media. Therein lays the difference between public speculating and true criminal profiling as part of an investigative team. The latter is going to be one hell of a lot more accurate! Still, all is just theory until the crime is solved. Everyone doing the analysing and paying attention to this theory and that knows that any "determination" is only based upon the validity of input. The only harm theorizing can do is if the police detectives theorize incorrectly about the evidence or bring in an expert who theorizes incorrectly and bases the entirety of their investigation decisions on this particular theory. If, on the other hand, the theory is accurate, then the investigative avenues will be pursued correctly, or, if the theory is interesting but not necessarily correct, the police will pursue a number of investigative strategies to cover all bases.
Are the PJ doing this? I haven't a clue. I cannot assume they are any way inferior to other police departments in the UK or in the US or elsewhere in the world. Each department consists of individuals and it is a roll of the dice as to how good these particular individuals are at investigative work. I remember when Natalee Holloway went missing in Aruba, folks from the fine state of Alabama accused the Aruban authorities of incompetence and shouted how if Natalee had gone missing in the United States the case would have been solved quickly. Bunk! We have an ungodly high rate of unsolved murders and missing people here in the US, a good number of them right in Alabama. Fact is, some cases are hard to solve and some cases have detectives who are all that bright. Other cases have better evidence or top notch detectives. It isn't a perfect world. So, what do we know so far in Maddie's case? Not much. We have zero clue about the evidence or the veracity of the witnesses. All we really have so far are the unvarnished public statements by the McCanns and I don't mean the ones reported by the media in print as those can be misstated by the journalists (and I know this because I often quite displeased when I read in print some completely twisted version of what I told the reporter).
So, all we can truly be sure of is what the McCann's have stated on television or radio or in Gerry's blog. Even their PR team's information is a bit questionable if we can't hear it being said. Before I comment further, I want to reiterate that the McCanns, while suspects in the disappearance of Maddie, are not legally charged with any crime. Therefore, they may be totally innocent of hurting Maddie in any way. But, I will also say, we as adults and members of the human race are also responsible for the way we behave and the things we say, so we must also take responsibility for the way other view us. Therefore, based only on what the McCann's said or written. I have some advice for the McCanns. Shut up ! I have some advice for their PR team. Tell the McCanns to shut up !
It isn't your breast size or weight that is causing your problems. It is you and your narcissist evaluation of the situation and your PR team's equally stupid assessment of the situation that is making you look so bad in the public eye.
I am a criminal profiler with years of experience dealing with parents of murder victims and missing relatives. Your behaviour and the behaviour of your husband fall far outside or the norm for grieving parents. Now, this may be because you are just terribly narcissistic folks who had nothing to do with your child going missing (outside of neglecting your children and putting your needs to party before their needs for comfort and safety, a narcissistic behaviour if I have ever seen one). You and Gerry may simply be so narcissistic you have no understanding of how other people view your behaviours and your PR team may share your narcissism so that no one on your team has a clue to normal human behaviour.
But, shut up! Every time you open your mouths you do more damage to yourselves. You seem guiltier by the day. Your attempt at "damage control" is so obvious and so very much a day late and a dollar short, everything you do or say seems a cover up and a transparent attempt at proving your innocence. Let me make clear what I think is weird about what you say and do : You choose words about Madeleine's disappearance which make it appear you know there is no abductor and that Madeleine is dead. Both you and Gerry state your only guilt in the matter is not being there when Madeleine "was taken." This statement makes no sense for abduction as Madeleine could not be taken if either of you were with Maddie when an abductor would have shown up. It makes more sense in the context that Maddie died while you were not in the apartment.
Your statements and attitude about Madeleine being alive do not square with parents who really believe their daughter is in the hands of a pedophile or pedophiles who are brutally raping and torturing her daily. Your attempts at "finding" Madeleine do not represent the manner most parents would choose if they were actively searching for a live child but appear more to be the actions of parents trying to prove after the fact of a child’s death that they "cared" (not care) about her. Your behaviours of "keeping a normal routine" and "keeping up one's appearance" is admirable, but extremely bizarre. I don't know any other parents of missing children who can appear so together and cheery. When my daughter cooked our kittens by accident in the dryer, I cancelled Christmas. Gerry's blog creeps people out. It is too upbeat. Terrified and distraught parents of missing children are rarely able to jog and play tennis and go to park with their other kids and have a fun time. Over a long period of time, maybe, but this is usually years after the nightmare begins. Some parents never recover from the trauma and it is common for marriages to fail and the brothers and sisters to feel their parents went absent after their sibling went missing.
Your ability to sleep at night after the first five days, Kate, is beyond belief. It is the behaviour of one who already knows the answer and even then, is quite a narcissistic trait. If you believed your daughter was being raped as you lay in bed at night, sleep would be very hard to come by. I guess you finally realize this and your mother is saying that NOW you can't sleep and Madeleine comes to visit you in the night. What changed, Kate? Your PR team coming up with an answer to every accusation, answers that are ludicrous in themselves, makes you seem awfully defensive, and, if there is no way you or Gerry had anything to do with Maddie's disappearance, you have nothing to defend. Furthermore, if all you care about is finding Maddie, you shouldn't be wasting your time on such silliness. After all, as Gerry said, Maddie is the only important thing, right?
So, shut up, Kate. shut up, Gerry. Fire your PR team as they are totally worthless. If both of you really are innocent and you think Maddie is alive, return to Portugal. Start searching for real (and it took six months to set up a hotline?). Cooperate with the police. Take the polygraphs as you have zero to hide and, with competent polygraph examiners, the questions are so simple you can't screw them up. I will even give you the four questions that should be asked:
Did Madeleine die while you were present?
Did you return to the apartment and find Madeleine dying or dead?
Did you move Madeleine's body at any time?
Did your spouse move Madeleine's body at any time?
These are simple questions. The answer to all of them should be "No." There is no ambiguity in these questions (unlike a question such as "Do you feel responsible for the disappearance of Madeleine?" which you could if you acknowledge leaving her without an adult caretaker is irresponsible; an affirmative answer to such a question would be useless to the detectives as it could falsely indicate that you had something to do with Maddie going missing when you are only feeling guilty over leaving her unattended. Also, an affirmative answer could mean you simply do not feel responsible for what happened to Maddie no matter what happened to her as a total narcissist might). The above four questions are simple and unambiguous and even a narcissist can't misconstrue the meaning of the questions. The answers will be a simple "Yes" or "No." Have the polygraph session videotaped so the police will be unable to do any underhanded scare tactics or interrogation that might distort the results of the tests.
Quite frankly, Kate, you and Gerry had everything going for you as parents of a missing child if you hadn't left your children unattended night after night to go out partying. This is what made people dislike you. It was to your advantage that you are both relatively attractive people because if you had big breasts and a porky physique and were not well-heeled professionals, you would have become suspects right off the bat and you would have not had the incredible monetary support you have been blessed with nor all those kindly letters. You would have been viewed as just a pair of slobs who probably abused their children as well as neglected them and you wouldn't have gotten the phenomenal amount of publicity worldwide concerning Maddie's disappearance. Other parents have gone public, run campaigns, and had web sites, but your fortune with publicity and support has been unprecedented. And, you complain, Kate, that people are treating you badly because you are fit! It was being fit and professional and well-off that got you so much attention. It was you and Gerry's fitness as parents and your peculiar behaviours that got you the negative attention.
I have a final suggestion. Ask the PJ if I can come analyse the case. My organization will send me pro bono. As a criminal profiler I can analyse the actual evidence to advise the investigators as to the best investigate strategy. I have no problem determining this crime as an abduction and finding the creep that took Madeleine if the evidence points that way. I don't have to like you and Gerry as people to view the evidence in an impassioned and professional manner. No one should be convicted of a crime simply because of personality and because people don't like the individual's personality. Solid physical and circumstantial evidence must exist to the point where there is no question as to who committed the crime. I would work very diligently to assist the PJ with the evidence and the facts and do a thorough crime scene analysis that would move the case forward. Furthermore, if you and Gerry get charged in Madeleine's disappearance and must truly defend yourselves, my services are available to you and your lawyers. I will be more than happy to analyse the evidence and, if you are innocent, do all I can to serve in your defence.
Good luck, Kate. May the truth be brought to light soon and you and Gerry get the justice you deserve in the case of your missing daughter.
All the best,
Offre non retenue. Envisagée ?
Quite frankly, Kate, you and Gerry had everything going for you as parents of a missing child if you hadn't left your children unattended night after night to go out partying. This is what made people dislike you. It was to your advantage that you are both relatively attractive people because if you had big breasts and a porky physique and were not well-heeled professionals, you would have become suspects right off the bat and you would have not had the incredible monetary support you have been blessed with nor all those kindly letters. You would have been viewed as just a pair of slobs who probably abused their children as well as neglected them and you wouldn't have gotten the phenomenal amount of publicity worldwide concerning Maddie's disappearance. Other parents have gone public, run campaigns, and had web sites, but your fortune with publicity and support has been unprecedented. And, you complain, Kate, that people are treating you badly because you are fit! It was being fit and professional and well-off that got you so much attention. It was you and Gerry's fitness as parents and your peculiar behaviours that got you the negative attention.
I have a final suggestion. Ask the PJ if I can come analyse the case. My organization will send me pro bono. As a criminal profiler I can analyse the actual evidence to advise the investigators as to the best investigate strategy. I have no problem determining this crime as an abduction and finding the creep that took Madeleine if the evidence points that way. I don't have to like you and Gerry as people to view the evidence in an impassioned and professional manner. No one should be convicted of a crime simply because of personality and because people don't like the individual's personality. Solid physical and circumstantial evidence must exist to the point where there is no question as to who committed the crime. I would work very diligently to assist the PJ with the evidence and the facts and do a thorough crime scene analysis that would move the case forward. Furthermore, if you and Gerry get charged in Madeleine's disappearance and must truly defend yourselves, my services are available to you and your lawyers. I will be more than happy to analyse the evidence and, if you are innocent, do all I can to serve in your defence.
Good luck, Kate. May the truth be brought to light soon and you and Gerry get the justice you deserve in the case of your missing daughter.
All the best,
Offre non retenue. Envisagée ?
In the recent interview
with the parents of Madeleine McCann, Kate McCann states she believes
Madeleine is alive, essentially unharmed, and being cared for in
someone's home. If Kate really believes this, then there is a glaring
omission in her use of the media. It is extremely abnormal for a
mother who thinks her child has simply been taken by some lonely
person and being cared for in a nice, little house to not reach out
to that person with a message, over and over again. After all, this
would be one way to get your child back. Here is how that kind of
message usually goes:
If you have Madeleine, please return her to her family. I know you may love having Madeleine with you but her Mommy, her Daddy, and her sister and brother are in great pain being separated from her. Please, please, let us have her back. Please take her to a public location where there are lots of people around like a McDonalds or a library or a hospital and drop her off. You can do this anonymously so you do not have to worry about being noticed. We are not interested in having any action taking against you; we just want our little girl at home with us. Thank you for taking good care of her and please send Madeleine back to us.
But, instead, no plea to
her captor? Very, very bizarre.
Which remind me: I have
never heard of an expert telling parents to be unemotional in a plea
to a kidnapper so as not to amuse them. Personally, I have to say
most pleas are a waste of time and will have no effect on a
psychopathic kidnapper. But, if one wanted to make a plea because one
really believed the abducted child was not already dead or being
tortured in a dungeon, that the child was with some nutty woman who
just had to have the pretty little thing, then an emotional plea
would be just the thing to try to jog the woman's conscience to
return the child.
Cela semble raisonnable en effet. Un psychopathe ou un ravisseur pro n'est pas susceptible d'empathie.
Who Should be the Suspects in the McCann Case? - 26.10.2007
MY PRESENT TAKE ON THE
MCCANN CASE
One of the problems with
trying to understand what has happened in a crime is being on the
outside of the police investigation and not knowing the whole truth
of what is going on. My speculation, as is true with all of us
outside the investigation, professionals included, is based on
limited information. Having said that, sometimes the police have the
same problem. They may have limited information due to lack of
evidence, lying witnesses, incorrect scientific conclusions, altered
crime scenes (staged or accidentally altered), etc. So they actually
are in the same boat, only a better constructed and less leaky one.
So, in a sense, it is a struggle to solve a crime, from the inside or
outside. We theorize, search for evidence, theorize some more, search
for evidence, and so on, until, hopefully, we have evidence
conclusive enough to affect an arrest and conviction. Sometimes the
evidence never reaches that state and, even if the police are pretty
darn sure who is guilty, they still cannot arrest them or they know
they cannot get a conviction.
As to the professionalism
of the PJ's investigation, I cannot comment on that. They may have
failed in some respects and done well in some respects. I don't have
enough information. Generally speaking, most police departments will
claim they do an excellent job following procedure, but in reality,
sometimes it is less than perfect because police officers are human
and vary in skill and competence. I have worked with some police
departments that have done awesome work and others that make me
cringe. Sometimes it is a lack of finances; sometimes it is
departmental inefficiency; sometimes you just have a sad bunch of not
to bright blokes. Every profession suffers these problems. Every
profession tries to do their best with what they have and most police
departments want to be a credit to their profession and work to be
so. To the McCann case; I don't have a clue as to the physical
evidence or timeline because of police silence and all the rumors.
Therefore it is really hard to actually analyze how the crime went
down. But, I will go ahead with what I generally think on the matter.
POSSIBILITIES IN THE
DISAPPEARANCE OF MADLEINE MCCANN
• Maddie is unlikely to
have wandered off and drowned.
• Maddie was unlikely
to have been kidnapped by a pedophile ring.
• Maddie is unlikely to
have wandered off and been abducted though that COULD have happened
(if there is no physical evidence of harm or death coming to Maddie
in the apartment). If this is true, she is very likely dead.
• Maddie could have
been abducted by a child predator that lived nearby. If this is true,
she is likely dead.
• Maddie could have
been medicated and died accidentally while her parents were at the
restaurant. If this were true, the body of Maddie would have had to
be moved from the flat and hidden or hidden within the flat prior to
Kate’s cry that Maddie was missing. If this is true, Maddie is
dead.
• Maddie could have
died accidentally prior to the McCann’s going to dinner, giving
them more time to move or hide Maddie’s body. The time at the
restaurant and the checks on the kids would establish an alibi and
move the time of “disappearance” further from any possible
witness sightings of earlier suspicious activities of the McCanns. If
this is true, Maddie is dead.
• Kate killed Maddie,
purposefully, or in a rage, and Gerry came back from tennis and found
Maddie dead. He helped cover up the crime. If this is so, Kate would
likely suffer from Munchausen’s syndrome by Proxy (if she killed
Maddie on purpose – MSP is the label for a female psychopath who
harms or kills her children; husbands of MSP women tend to be
detached and very oblivious or accepting of their wive’s behaviors)
or another serious psychiatric disorder (if she killed Maddie
accidentally). They could have removed or hidden Maddie’s body
before going to dinner or the body could have been dealt with by
Gerry during his checks on the children. If this is true, Maddie is
dead.
• Gerry came back and
killed Maddie in a rage. If this is so, Gerry would be likely rate
high on a psychopathy checklist and be very controlling). Maddie’s
body would have been dealt with before or during the evening. If this
is true, Maddie is dead.
• Kate killed Maddie,
purposefully, or in a rage, and moved or hid her body without Gerry’s
knowledge. She would have had to manipulate Gerry into not noticing
his daughter in bed (“Maddie’s already asleep, let’s go) before
going to the restaurant. She would then possibly have hoped Gerry
would do the checks and find Maddie missing, distancing herself from
the crime. Maybe, if Gerry actually didn’t do visual checks, Kate
finally got fed up and went and did the check herself. If this is so,
Kate would likely suffer from Munchausen’s Syndrome by Proxy or
another serious psychiatric disorder. If this is true, Maddie is
dead.
These are all the
possibilities I can think of based on very limited information, I
believe only two basic scenarios are worth spending much time on;
Maddie was taken by a
child predator.
Maddie died in the
apartment and the parents are covering up a crime.
In both cases, Maddie is
likely dead.
THE SUSPECTS
Robert Murat is a good
suspect. He should be kept on the suspect list (even if not
officially) until there is evidence that contradicts his involvement
in the disappearance of Maddie or until another person is arrested.
Police should continue
investigating for the possibility of another child predator who could
have been responsible for the disappearance of Maddie.
The McCanns are good
suspects. They were the last people to have been known to see Maddie
alive and their behaviors are very concerning. They should stay on
the suspect list (even if not officially) until there is evidence
that contradicts their involvement in the disappearance of Maddie or
until another person is arrested.
Because of the following
behaviors, I tend to lean toward the McCannd been involved with the
disappearance, and therefore, death of their daughter, Maddie.
THE MCCANNS
They left three very
young children unattended while they pursued pleasure for themselves.
This is a sign of narcissism and a lack of attachment to one’s
children.
Both Kate and Gerry speak
about Madeleine in a very impersonal and flat manner. Gerry writes
nothing personal about Maddie on his blog. Maddie seems more like an
abstraction than a real child. This is a sign of lack of normal
attachment.
Kate states that the last
words of Maddie before she went missing were “Today has been the
best day of my life.” Maddie’s last words are unusual for a
three-year-old girl. Kids that young don’t usually have a concept
of their “life.” “I am having the best time,” and “I am
having fun” are more normal statements for that age. Next, Kate
says Maddie was “very pleased with her life,” also an odd comment
for an adult to say of her child. Both statements lead me to believe
Kate knows Maddie is dead because of her emphasis on the inclusion of
the word “life,” as though there were a set of parentheses around
the first day of her life and the last. Kate may want to convince
herself that she gave Maddie a good life, right up until her last
day, the best day of her life. Also, it is quite common for people
involved in the death of a relative to exaggerate the perfection of
their relationship or the last moments to insinuate that nothing
negative was going on between the parties and, therefore, nothing
untoward could have occurred.
The McCanns have never
personally offered the reward on television or posted the reward at
the web site. Almost all parents of missing children do this. If Kate
really believes Maddie is alive and being cared for in someone’s
home, she would make continual direct pleas to the captor for
Maddie's return (“Please just drop her off any public location…”).
Almost all parents of missing children who believe they are alive
will do this. Neither Kate of Gerry have taken or indicate they will
take a polygraph. Parents of missing children do this to clear
themselves so the police will not waste time focusing on them. Kate
and Gerry appearances show little fluctuation in emotion (except when
they feel they are being accused of drugging Maddie). Neither breaks
down and cries or blurts out anything with emotion (“Maddie! We
love you, honey! Don’t give up! We will find you!” Or “Please
give us our Maddie back! Oh my God, please!”) Usually in a set of
parents, we will see emotions bounce around, one of them falling
apart, one becoming angry; with the McCanns their answers are
carefully constructed and evenly relayed. Their appearances feel more
like performances than parents desperately trying to reach out to
their child, the kidnapper or the public. Yes, they are British, but
even a stiff-upper lip tends not to look like this under these
circumstances.
There are muted flashes
of anger, frustration, and annoyance directed from one of the McCanns
to the other during their interviews which is very unusual for
parents of a missing child. There is a strong feeling of control
rather than support between the couple. Gerry McCann commented in one
interview: “In about the middle of June things, about five or six
weeks, things were going really very, very quiet and I was actually
quite glad of that and I thought we would start to get back to a more
normal existence and a quieter form of campaigning, using the
Internet and raising and broadening the political issues which have
been highlighted to us and I saw that as a long term focus.” For a
parent to have any interest in political issues so soon after his
child has gone missing when the one and only concern should be
finding their loved one, is extremely bizarre. That Gerry should see
his long term focus at this point in time as a political one is also
very concerning. This statement would be less concerning if a few
years had passed and the McCanns, accepting they were likely never to
find their daughter, wanted to do something to help others not suffer
as they had and to do something in their daughter’s name. But, to
think this way so early on indicates Gerry believes or knows his
daughter is dead and indicates more self-interest than interest in
his daughter’s welfare.
Gerry’s blog focuses
very little on Madeleine and more on his and Kate’s activities. The
cheery quality of the blog and self-centeredness of the content is a
sign of disconnect between Gerry and Madeleine and a sign of having
moved on as if Gerry knows Maddie is already dead. Kate states she
had trouble sleeping during the first five days after Maddie went
missing but has been sleeping fine since. Very few parents of
abducted children can sleep very well knowing their child might be in
pain, crying, and scared. Kate’s ability to sleep infers she is not
worrying about Maddie because Maddie is dead already (or has an
inability to feel empathy for others). The quick return to normal
activities is unusual for parents of abducted children; most obsess
continually and can’t think of anything else and have trouble going
through the simplest routines of life.
Kate and Gerry left their
twins in Portugal while they went to see the Pope. Most parents of
abducted children would be paranoid to be away from their other
children for fear something would happen to them. Furthermore, to
leave your children in the exact location where your other child was
taken, whether one had a relative with them or not, is odd for
parents who believe the abductor of their missing child is in the
very same vicinity. The McCanns left Portugal as soon as they became
Aguidos. If the only reason they were made suspects was a legal one
so the police could ask them important questions to help them clear
themselves, they should have stayed to continue to help the police
put the matter straight and get the focus off of them.
Much of the PR campaign
at this point appears to be responding to public opinion and trying
to answer their suspicions about the innocence of the McCanns, not
finding Madeleine. Even in the latest move, the television appearance
of the McCanns did not make a plea to the abductor or send a message
to Maddie. It appeared to be a show to prove Kate has emotions.
Following the show, an artist’s rendition of a supposed suspect was
released many months after he was said to have been seen by one of
their friends. The release of the picture will be counterproductive
to actually finding Maddie, as not only is it based on a very
questionable witness sighting, but may have nothing to do with
Maddie. Such a picture will only elicit droves of worthless tips and
waste police time. This is an unwise choice of strategy unless the
purpose is to distract the police from focusing on the McCanns. It is
possible that the McCanns suffer from certain psychiatric
designations that causes them behave in a manner which makes then
look guilty of involvement in the disappearance of Maddie when in
actuality, they had no part in it. For this reason, I can only say,
they are good suspects; I cannot label them guilty.
SUMMARY
So, to recap, Madeleine
McCann is 99% likely to be dead. My top suspects at this point, based
on behavior and what information can be validated, are the McCanns.
If I were a criminal profiler working with the police on the case, I
would be focusing heavily on them as my investigative focus. However,
I would not rule out the possibility of a child predator and,
therefore, I would spend a portion of time pursuing leads and
information that might prove this possibility to be true, and I would
make sure I did not force fit any evidence to match my theories nor
ignore any evidence that might point me away from those theories. As
new evidence surfaced, I would take this into account, reanalyze the
information, and adjust my conclusions accordingly.
I hope we will see
progress soon in the investigation of Madeleine McCann’s
disappearance, so the whole matter can be put the rest and justice
will be seen for this little girl and those who love her.
Maddie (...) – 30.10.2007
MADELEINE McCANN: The
Portuguese and doing a crime scene reenactment. What does this mean?
The police are indeed doing what seems to be a proper crime scene
reenactment. The reenactment will help them evaluate the scenarios
and the components of the scenarios that would be likely should
Madeleine have been abducted, wandered off, or killed within the
apartment and her body moved. Each aspect of these scenarios will be
studied for proof that certain incidents could have occurred or not
have occurred. I would say this crime scene reconstruction tells us
nothing about what the police are thinking; just that they are
working on the case. I have seen even slam-dunk case with solid DNA
do crime scene reenactments in order to support the physical with an
explanation of how the physical evidence came to be there and what
the motive was and how the actor or actors in the crime acted it out.
All of this is necessary for a good prosecution. If during the crime
scene reconstruction, it becomes evident that some aspect of a crime
could not have happened the way theorized or purported, then this
could sway the police toward one particular view of the crime. But,
we won't know what they are learning from this crime scene
reenactment until we have their report on it.
What do Frozen Turkeys have to Do with Missing Persons? - 05.11.2007
What do Frozen Turkeys have to Do with Missing Persons? - 05.11.2007
I was reading through
some posts concerning the Madeleine McCann case and there was much
speculation on where little Maddie's body could have been hidden,
kept from decomposing, transported, and disposed of, should the
parents be involved in her disappearance. Meanwhile, Stacy Peterson,
the fourth wife of a police officer, has gone missing in Illinois and
her friends and neighbors are combing the area for her body and
police are dredging local ponds. If her husband killed her, where
would he be likely to put her body? It is an unpleasant, if not
horrifying thought, to imagine someone handling a corpse, especially
one that might be a child, one's own child. What kind of mind can
deal with disposing of a body, especially the body of a person who is
an intimate part of your life? What happens in the brain that would
allow someone to do some of the things we have seen before like
dismembering a body or carrying it about it in stages of
decomposition? The concept is so foreign to many people that they
dismiss certain scenarios as impossible because they cannot conceive
of doing such things themselves. They are unfamiliar with how another
who is perhaps narcissistic or psychopathic and also possibly
desperate can actually do pretty gruesome stuff with a person they
once supposedly loved or cared for. Yet, the reality is that some
people can indeed do such things.
For this very reason, an
investigator cannot rule out bizarre possibilities when trying to
locate a missing person. Many factors might play into what was done
with a body. First of all, how the person was killed may affect
choices. Is there a need to mask the cause of death or to destroy
particular evidence of the implement of death? Is there a need to
cover up prior physical or sexual abuse issues or drug issues? Any
evidence the killer feels might identify him as the offender might
cause the killer to destroy the body or parts of the body or work
harder to make sure the body is never found. If the killer is not
afraid of being linked to the crime by relationship, location, or
evidence, the body may easy to find, lying on the side of the road in
plain view or left at the scene of the crime, perhaps in the victim's
apartment. So, when a missing person is suspected of being dead, the
detective must thoroughly investigate the victim's life and those
people involved in it. The answer to where the body lies may be
within the details of the victim's life and relationships. Stacy
Peterson's body is likely going to be as hard to find as Lisa
Stebic's. Stebic's husband says he sympathizes with Stacy's husband
because he knows how it feels to have a wife go missing and everyone
suspects the husband had something to do with it. My guess is he can
relate how nerve-racking it is to hope the searches never come near
where one put the body.
So someone wrote that
they wondered whether Madeleine's body could be stored in a freezer.
Many bodies have been kept that way but it usually requires a
stand-alone freezer (one of those big storage types) and not a
side-by-side in the kitchen (unless one is dismembering the body as
well). If there was not one in any of the resort apartments (and it
does seem unlikely that type of freezer would be present), her body
would have had to be stored in a private home. The next question
might be how long it would take a body to unfreeze. I looked up
turkeys and some of the big one's take four days! I find that rather
interesting in the sense of possible DNA in the McCann's hire vehicle
meaning a frozen body transported to another location shouldn't
unfreeze in that short a time to leave DNA and hair. I don't find
myself particular convinced of the freezer theory because of lack of
freezer space available in the resort rental units and the
theoretical DNA in the hire car. So, if the McCann's were involved
and there was really DNA in the hire car, I would lean more toward
the possibility her body was in a shallow grave in a drive sandy area
and moved when it was feared the searches would locate the body. The
decomposition would likely, in that climate, to cause mummification,
a drying of the body, making it less difficult to move, but not
making it impossible for evidence of that move to be left behind by
stressed out and panicked participants.
If it turns out the
McCanns had zero to do with the crime, the body is either on private
property of a pedophile (which would tend to eliminate Murat) or, the
body is in the ocean and will never be found. It will be interesting
to see if Maddie is ever found what methodology the guilty party or
parties used to prevent discovery of a body and any evidence. BTW,
for those of you who think Lisa Stebic, Stacy Peterson, Natalee
Holloway, and Madeleine McCann are really alive, I applaud your sense
of hope. I am a lot more cynical, and though there is occasionally a
miracle or surprise ending, chances of anyone of these four missing
persons showing up alive is near zero. The two married women had
children they loved and husbands they were afraid of. This equation
usually means the disappearance of the wife is the result of a
husband offing her. And Natalee and Madeleine were both blonde, but
sex rings can find lots of blondes without resorting to high profile
kidnappings that might expose them. Natalee and Madeleine have almost
zero chance of being found alive. Let's just hope, then, that we can
at least find out what happened to them and see that justice is
served.
Criminal Profiling 101 - 20.11.2007
Donna Weaver
I began writing this post
about my observations of Gerry and Kate McCann for the purpose of our
discussion here on the disappearance of little Madeleine. The Spanish
television interview of Gerry and Kate McCann was actually the first
time I studied anything about the case. Yes, I know, I may be one of
five people on the planet that doesn’t know anything about it, but
circumstances have kept me from following this or any other case
lately. Anyway, I started to go back in time to observe other things
about the McCann’s statements and behavior as well as any available
facts and crime scene evidence to see if my observations were
supported. I did not find much reliable information, let alone fact,
that could be used to support anything. After reading several press
and media reports and associated discussion, what I did find is that
we have the very best discussion going on anywhere here at The Daily
Profiler.
Emotions always run high
when people discuss the disappearance of a small child, and
generally, their comments reflect these emotions and are not based on
logical thought or scientific fact. However, I am very impressed with
several of the comments made here on our blog. Perhaps because the
events and behavior exhibited by many of those involved is unusual
(OK-bizarre), and not easily attributed to factors we are familiar
with, it has caused many to think a little deeper. Many of our
readers have shown some good critical thinking skills in their
comments and the questions they raise. So when I saw the extent of
unconfirmed information attributed to “unnamed sources close to the
investigation” that is being reported as fact by many members of
the press it gave me the idea to change the focus of my post from the
McCanns to how critical thinking is applied in criminal profiling and
investigation. It is also very useful for reading your daily
newspaper in general. I kept the first paragraph from the post I
started writing about the McCanns to explain some of what criminal
profiling is about. Here goes….
It is important to keep
the following in mind, but maybe not for the reason you think. I’ll
explain in a moment. I want to make it clear that this is not a
professional analysis of the McCann case, nor a critical review of
any law enforcement officer, agency, technique, or procedure; and I
certainly am not attempting to make a clinical diagnosis of any kind.
The only person qualified to diagnose diseases and disorders of the
body and mind is a clinician or doctor; and plenty of them have no
business doing it either. Oops. Bet I just lost a few of you there.
Well not so fast Grasshopper. Stay with me please.You may disagree
with my low regard of doctors and so dismiss what I said out of hand.
Or maybe you took offense at my statement and think I’m full of
crap, this is boring, etc; which it may very well be for those not
interested in learning about criminal profiling and investigations.
Others may have thought “I didn’t know there are bad doctors”
and now you believe it as fact, simply because you read it here.
Guess what? WE ARE ALL
WRONG!!! My comment about doctors and the example reactions above is
called Bias.We all carry around our own preconceived ideas and
opinions on issues of small and large importance whether we
consciously realize it or not. It is difficult to avoid since we are
continuously bombarded with information designed to influence our
opinion. This information comes from newspapers, radio, television,
and personal contact with others. Here are some ways critical
thinking is used to evaluate a particular claim or statement:What is
the statement or claim, and who is making it? Before you accept
information as fact, determine if the person has something to gain by
making the statement. You must also ask yourself if your own
assumptions or preconceptions have created bias or influence how you
view someone else’s statements or ideas.
Great credibility is
associated with public figures and persons in positions of authority,
and while we can learn from them on subjects within their field of
expertise, their statements or claims should not prevent you from
asking good questions of your own. Are there other plausible
explanations for the statement or claim (or event)? It is possible to
have two or more explanations that explain an event or claim. The Law
of Parsimony says we should accept the simpler explanation that
requires the least number of assumptions. When events or behaviors
appear to be correlated, it does not prove that one event or behavior
caused the other. Further investigation is required to discover if
they are related because of a third event or behavior. An open mind
free of preconceptions allows for objective evaluation of facts and
evidence. Therefore, bias must be identified and removed from
critical thought and scientific analysis to produce reliable results
and appropriate conclusions. Sorry, I am going to get a little
technical here because it is necessary to understand a little about
scientific inquiry in order to apply it.
Scientific principles are
the foundation of all scientific inquiry. Modern forensic and other
biological sciences are supported by three thoroughly tested and
validated principles based on the knowledge that all living and
non-living matter is governed by the same laws of physics and
chemistry. These principles are natural casualty (all events can be
traced to natural causes within our ability to understand),
uniformity in space and time (natural laws do not change with time or
distance), and common perception (people view natural events in a
similar manner.) Common perception applies only to scientific study
because it is limited to objective observations that produce reliable
information. Common perception does not apply to subjective value
systems that vary among individuals such as religious, moral, or
cultural beliefs and personal views, or opinion. The ability to keep
an open mind is elemental to the advancement of science. Scientific
conclusions are always tentative and subject to modification required
by new observations or experiments.
Yes, Deductive Criminal
Profiling and Behavior Analysis is a scientific endeavor because it
uses the scientific method to draw conclusions based on known facts
borne of objective observations, considered thought, accurate
communication, skill, and experience. A criminal profile is derived
from crime scene analysis, including physical evidence and
Victimology, critical thinking, analytical logic, evidence dynamics,
and other scientific principles used in forensics. The scientific
method is applied to these elements producing logical deductions that
lead to well-reasoned conclusions regarding offender characteristics
and behavioral evidence. Therefore, arguments that support each
offender characteristic are based on the premise that if the
underlying facts and evidence are proven to be true, then so must be
the logical conclusions arrived at by studying them. Imagine the
affect bias, no matter how small, can have on making observations
when evaluating evidence and other investigative tasks.
Why is all this
important? For starters, when a criminal profiler is part of a
criminal investigation, they, like everyone else who discovered,
processed, or evaluated evidence in the case can be called to testify
in court. Identifying the suspect of a crime is not enough; the
methods and evidence used to identify and build a case against a
suspected offender must be sufficient to convict him in court.
Removing the influences of bias from our work does not mean we have
completely eliminated a particular opinion or preconception from our
minds and so we must constantly remain vigilant for bias. Those in
law enforcement and related fields as well as professions such as
physicians, etc. who work closely with the general public on an
individual basis are taught to maintain an emotional distance from
the people they interact with in order to be objective which will
allow them to be thorough and accurate in the performance of their
duty. Since these types of professionals often meet individuals
experiencing trauma, or some other extremely personal or stressful
event, great importance is placed on leaving their emotions at the
door. Sorry, but lack of emotion does not equal objectivity- nor does
it increase productivity in many cases. Additionally, it is generally
believed that separating ones emotions from personal contact with
individuals helps maintain mental health by preventing emotional
overload and burn out for these types of professionals. In the last
24 years, I have met many investigators who were the “no emotion”
type. I can’t think of one who was not an asshole with the
personality of a wet dishrag, often with poor interview skills.
Remember- canvassing, re-canvassing, interviewing, and
re-interviewing are very critical in successful investigations. You
get the picture.
Conversely, an effective
criminal profiler must possess a range of valuable professional
characteristics including an enduring passion for examining facts,
seeking answers, and resolving cases combined with the unwavering
self-discipline to put aside personal opinions, pride, and career
ambition. Notice the word “passion” which infers emotion. Pride
and ambition are common sources of bias; yet these qualities are
allowed, even admired and encouraged by many law enforcement
agencies. Moreover, these influences have proven to be at the least,
minor impediments, and at most, disastrous to an investigation or
even to public safety. Since we must identify bias to avoid its
influence, it should be considered that emotions such as passion and
empathy could be useful qualities for those in public service as it
can be a powerful motivation to promote dedicated effort. It is
entirely possible to perform objective analysis and evaluation of
victims, witnesses, and evidence if one remains vigilant of all forms
of bias by using critical thinking techniques to purposely avoid bias
such as personal opinion and ambition from influencing deductions and
conclusions.
McCann Detective 100 Percent Full of It – 20.11.2007
The McCanns either are
the most naïve people on the face of the earth or they are playing a
very expensive and wasteful publicity game with the donations from
kind folks who only want to help a little child be found. Those
Spanish investigators, The Metodo 3 agency, are crooks, plain and
simple. They are milking this case for the money it is bringing in.
They have a six month contract and stated that they would surely find
her within five months (not one month - as that would end the cash
flow all too quickly). Francisco Marco, who heads the team of Spanish
private detectives: “We’re 100 per cent sure she is alive. We are
very close to finding the kidnapper.” What a lying scumbag! First
of all, the only way, Mr. Marco, you can be 100 per cent sure
Madeleine is alive is if you have her locked up in the basement of
your house and you fed her this morning. This would mean you are a
kidnapper and a pedophile. Is this what you are claiming, Mr. Marco?
If not, you are a
despicable, money grubbing creep of another sort. If the McCanns came
to a decent private investigator for an investigation, he would tell
them right up front the chance of finding their daughter alive are
near zero. He would tell them that should a local pedophile have
snatched Maddie, she would have been killed within hours. If a
pedophile ring had snatched Maddie, she would have been dead as soon
as you started you campaign with her eye anomaly being broadcast to
the world. He would tell them that if he started searching for a
hidden Madeleine and broadcast his every move as to where he thought
she was, then Maddie would surely be dead by the time he reached the
location to retrieve her. He would tell the McCanns that the most he
could do is review the police investigation to make sure they hadn’t
missed anything and follow up on truly rational leads that had been
ignored and overlooked. He would tell them he might be able to find
out what happened to Madeleine and help bring the guilty party to
justice, but the chances of bringing Madeleine home alive were
extremely unlikely.
So, why have the McCanns
hired this fraud? Are they being conned by Mr. Marco or are they
using Mr. Marco to con us? Is it all for show and distraction or are
the McCanns really innocent of hurting their child and are so
desperate they will fall for the worst excuse for a private detective
agency I have run across in a long time? Gerry and Kate, fire them if
you want to be responsible adults. Stop using the public’s money
for your charades, either to impress us with your sincerity as to not
knowing what happened to Maddie, or to fool yourselves into believing
she is alive if you are being sincere. At least pay for this idiot
with your own money, if you want to play this silly game.
Some people think that
the final photo of Madeleine McCann at the pool with Gerry and her
sister, Amelie, is a forgery. The claim is that the photo really was
only of Gerry and Amelie and that Madeleine was added in through
photo enhancement, a ploy to cover up the fact she was already dead
by early afternoon on day she was said to have gone missing. I have
to admire the effort to consider this possibility and the effort put
out to analyze all the details of the photo and question some of the
elements. It is always good to be curious enough to delve into an
aspect of a case and see if there could be any clues there. In this
case, I would have to say the explanations of the photo being a fake
are not strong enough for me to believe that Maddie’s
death/disappearance occurred earlier than 6 PM in the evening.
My thoughts on the photo:
1) While it is true the
picture is not perfectly composed with a centering of the threesome
(and if Madeleine is not in the picture, then Gerry and Amelie are in
the middle), this is not all that uncommon. With the advent of
electronic photography, photos are snapped much more carelessly than
when one had to pay for developing the prints. Cameras now are used
more often as spontaneous recorders of events rather than composed
photos for display.
2) That Madeleine’s
outline is not overlapped by any person or object is likely just
coincidence. If one snaps enough photos, some of them will have
isolated objects.
3) The fact the brother
is not in the photo simply means he was running about. Again, this is
not a posed family portrait.
4) The fact Madeleine is
laughing at something out of sight and her father and sister are not
laughing is not particularly meaningful. Children tend to laugh
spontaneously at whatever they think is funny. Sometime this is just
something that strikes them amusing such as their big toe or an
expression on someone’s face.
5) The fact that
Madeleine is not in a swimsuit proves little. The outfits on the
girls look like play outfits and the trio just happened by the pool
area and sat down to relax and dangle their feet in the water.
6)The most telling clue
in this photo that tends to go against the possibility of any forgery
is in the clothing of Madeleine and Amelie. Take Maddie out of the
picture and what you have is a little girl dressed in a horribly
clashing outfit; an orange play suit and a fancy pink hat. Mothers do
not tend to put such an outfit on their children and let them out of
the house that way (especially a mother who is as fashion conscious
as Kate). Maddie’s white hat would look better with her clothing.
The sportier white hat on
Madeleine’s head does not clash with her girlier pink dress-like
outfit, but that pink hat on Amelie’s head would go with it better.
Put the two girls together on an outing and my guess is they started
off with the better matching hat, and through play, the girls ended
up with the other’s hat on their heads. It really makes little
sense that this photo would be manufactured. If Madeleine had been
missing for the majority of the day, there would be far too long a
period of time to account for and greater likelihood that Maddie’s
invisibility would have been noticed. Furthermore, if she was killed
in the morning, it would have been far easier for the McCanns to
simply claim that while they were out at the playground or popping in
and out of stores while they were shopping, they turned around and
Maddie was gone. It is a much simpler story. But, if Maddie died in
the apartment while Gerry was at tennis, or after he came back, or
during the tapas bar rendezvous, then the children were already in
for the night and the chances of an abduction from the apartment
story being created makes far more sense.
How to Become a Suspect 101 - 19.10.2009
When a cable-news show
host asks whether a particular character should be a suspect in a
crime we’re discussing, I talk about behavior, traits, or
circumstances that might draw the attention of police. Sometimes I
get mail from people who believe someone I or the police have named
as a possible suspect is being unfairly targeted. Others want to know
why I don’t jump to name someone they’re sure committed the
crime. And sometimes I’m just playing devil’s advocate when I see
red flags being ignored or getting too much attention.Red flags —
certain behaviors or traits of a person or the circumstances
surrounding them, are just that: indicators that the person should be
looked at more carefully as a potential suspect in a crime, but not
considered guilty unless other evidence supports the accusation and
the accusation is proven in court. Four cases come to mind as
examples in this class of How to Become a Suspect 101: The Quantico
Marine case of 1983, the bizarre Madeleine McCann case, the Haleigh
Cummings saga, and the recent Balloon Boy case.
Bad Luck:
This is the No. 1 issue
that will get you in trouble and connect you to a crime, whether the
bad luck just happened to you or you created it by actually being the
perpetrator. Richard and Miyumi Heene called 911 in a panic because
their six-year-old son, Falcon, was supposedly aloft in a balloon
Richard made, drifting across the skies in a silvery flying
saucer-shaped airship. Later, the child was found to be hiding in the
house and ignoring the shouts of searchers. The police say they are
filing charges because the spectacle was a publicity stunt and the
child was never in the balloon.
The incident occurred at
the Heene residence. There was no one around but the family, and the
balloon belonged to them. Either the kid was being a naughty boy and
the parents got in trouble because of him, or the parents are lying.
Cpl. Lindsey Scott was in
investigations at Quantico Marine Base (book about his ordeal
available at Amazon) at the time a young woman was raped and her
throat cut. His bad luck: the victim described her attacker to a
sketch artist and when the drawing was complete, Lindsey Scott’s
workmates said, “Wow! That looks just like Scotty!” Scott also
drove a gold Buick; although it didn’t have the white top the girl
saw on her attacker’s car, it was still the color and make she
described.
When Haleigh Cummings (on
left below with the various suspects) and Madeleine McCann went
missing, they disappeared from locations where their parents were
supposed to be. Misty Croslin, Ronald Cummings’s underage
girlfriend who watched his kids while he worked, claims she was
asleep when someone came into the house and snatched the child from
the bedroom she shared with the children.
Maddy McCann supposedly was
taken while her parents left the child alone with her younger
siblings and went off drinking at the resort restaurant.
In all these cases,
particular individuals are now linked with each crime. These
persons-of-interest could have been involved. Alibis:
Haleigh Cummings with
various suspects
Okay, so they could have
done it, but did they? Do they have alibis which will clear them?
Lindsey Scott admits he wasn’t at home when the victim linked to
him was attacked. Scott was out and about, going back to his recently
vacated apartment to clean an oven (no one saw him) and looking for a
foot bath to buy for his pregnant wife (no one really remembers
seeing him in the store).
Misty Croslin claims she
was sleeping, which isn’t much of an alibi; Ronald Cummings claims
he was at work, but there is no proof the crime couldn’t have been
committed before he went to work.
The McCann family with
Madeleine circled
The McCanns (pictured
left with Madeleine in the red circle) were the last people to be
with their daughter before they supposedly left her unattended and
available to be taken from their room at the resort. The Heenes were
home with their children when the boy supposedly climbed into the
balloon, or the boy pretended he went up in a balloon and hid in the
house. No one has a particularly good alibi.
Past behaviors:
The Heenes are publicity
seekers who have already done one reality-TV show: an episode of
“Wife Swap.” Richard Heene, who met his wife in acting school,
was pitching producers for a new show for his family just before the
balloon incident, suggesting he might have been trying to get
attention. But Heene has behaved so bizarrely in raising his children
— chasing tornadoes with them and letting them be extremely
adventurous and curious — that on this particular day maybe the
kids just outdid themselves.
Misty likes to use drugs
and party. She hooks up with an older man, Ronald Cummings, and plays
Mommy to his two little children. Cummings has a questionable history
of drug involvement and a controlling nature. So it’s easy to think
Misty may have been out partying, the child ingested drugs, or Misty
might be covering for Ronald if he beat the child to death before he
went to work.
The McCanns left their
three children alone in a hotel room so the couple could have fun.
Automatically this awakens suspicious of what else they would do,
such as give the kids prescription medicine (both parents are
physicians) to make them sleep while the parents were away.
Lindsey Scott is the only
one who doesn’t have any questionable past behaviors.
Post-Crime Behaviors:
The Heenes were more than
eager to do television appearances. Richard Heene said, “Wow!”
and then hung his head when his son Falcon blurted out on “The
Today Show” that he hid because “They were doing a show.” No
longer so hungry for the public eye, Heene became angry at the cable
networks for asking questions and insisted all future questions be in
writing.
The McCanns never showed
remorse for leaving their children unattended. They dressed nicely
every day and continued normal routines such as jogging. Kate McCann
said she never had problems sleeping after Maddy “was taken.”
Misty Croslin couldn’t
keep her story straight about the night Haleigh went missing.
Ronald
Cummings boldly told reporters he has never been involved in drugs
despite his long list of drug arrests. Ron and Misty married soon
after Haleigh went missing, as if this were a time to celebrate. No
one can tell me they had to get married at that time: they were
already living together, so the sanctity of marriage doesn’t seem
to be an issue.
Lindsey Scott’s
behavior remained credible after the crime.
The Suspects:
The Heenes will most
likely be charged with more than one crime, possibly including
contributing to the delinquency of a minor and making a false police
report. I will be curious what actual proof police have that the
balloon episode was a hoax. Richard Heene’s behavior sure looks
squirrelly, and the kid rather outed him (As Art Linkletter said,
“Kids say the darndest things.”), but Falcon may not have meant
what he said exactly as it sounded. That’s why police must have
more evidence: conflicting stories, something on the computer, maybe
even notes detailing a “story” of a little boy going off in a
flying saucer balloon.
Neither the McCanns nor
the Croslin/Cummings duo have been charged with any crimes, yet no
evidence in either case points to abduction by a stranger. Because
the parents have no alibis and their behavior is questionable, both
in the past and after the crime, they remain suspects to some degree.
So until evidence shows up to convict them or someone else, we will
have to continue to wonder about their guilt.
Poor Lindsey Scott. He
got convicted of the crime and spent four years in Fort Leavenworth
until he got an appeal and was freed for lack of evidence. Truly, he
got a bad deal. He became a suspect because the victim’s info
matched him and his car and because he couldn’t account for his
time. Nothing was questionable about his behavior and no physical
evidence linked him to the crime. Since his release, another suspect
has come into view: he is a drop dead look-alike to Scott, he was
driving a gold Buick with a white top during the time of the crime,
and he had a cousin who maintained the usually locked area on the
base where the victim was taken.
I don’t have a problem
with the Heenes, the McCanns, or Misty Croslin and Ronald Cummings
being suspects; they should be. However, the investigation of Lindsey
Scott should have been downplayed until there was more evidence that
made him look a whole lot worse. Of course, none should be convicted
without substantial evidence proving that they, and only they, could
have committed the crime.
Some say the possible involvement of these people shouldn’t even be discussed, because we are in effect convicting them without a trial in the court of public opinion. This is ridiculous; we can’t convict someone with an opinion or a speculation. Of course, we must be careful not to slander or libel someone by making claims about the person (creating “facts” that do not exist based on guesswork) or stating they are guilty instead of hypothesizing that they might be guilty. People are responsible for their behavior, and it’s not illegal for someone to discuss it in public, (even if it is somewhat gossipy). We all make choices in our lives, and our choices follow us. If they lead the public and the police into suspecting we are involved in a crime, we are responsible. Good behavior won’t always protect us (look at Lindsey Scott’s unfortunate incarceration), but it should give us better odds of avoiding becoming a criminal suspect — and the talk of cable television.
