Grâce à la liberté dans les communications, des groupes d’hommes de même nature pourront se réunir et fonder des communautés. Les nations seront dépassées.
Friedrich Nietzsche (Fragments posthumes XIII-883)

13 - Pat Brown - Chroniques

Crimewatch and Scotland Yard Team Up to pull One Big One over on the Public – 14.10.2013
I just finished watching BBC's Crimewatch on the new findings in the Madeleine McCann case. With the cooperation of New Scotland Yard (Metropolitan Police), a new "reconstruction" was shown (that was little more than a condensed version of the previous pro McCann documentary "Madeleine was Here" and new theories were laid out (because Detective Andy Redwood seems to not have found enough evidence of abduction to really point to any particular motive). There is new "evidence" (and I put quotes around that because Scotland Yard wishes us to take them at their word) to eliminate one suspect, and there is "new" evidence (and I put quotes around "new" because there isn't anything new) putting another suspect in the top slot. My immediate reaction to the show was this post to Twitter:
Distortion, Revisionist history. Ridiculous "reconstruction." Conveniently missing details.
Let me try to break down what was off with this show without having to completely explain the entire case. I do suggest for those that become confused to read Goncalo Amaral's book, The Truth of the Lie or see the documentary on it, or read my book, The Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann available at B&N and Smashwords (not at Amazon where the McCanns had it banned), and read my blogs that I wrote following my trip to Praia da Luz on The Daily Profiler.

I will start with the conveniently missing details: any and all evidence or information in the police files that points to the McCanns' involvement, the death of the child in the flat, the cadaver dogs hits in the flat and the rental car, the inconsistencies in the statements of many of the Tapas 9, within their own statements and in relation to each others' statements, and the fact that the Mr. Smith of the Smith family said that the man they saw carrying the little girl toward the beach looked like Gerry. Also left out; that there was no evidence of an abductor or anyone breaking into the flat through the window, that Gerry thought an abductor was behind the door, and that Matthew Oldfield never really saw Madeleine when he did his supposed check. Oh, and while they show that Jane walked past the McCanns apartment and saw a man with a child, nothing was mentioned about her passing Gerry and Jeremy talking on the street (the narrow street that would caused her to have to cha-cha around the men but they never saw her). The new reconstruction is a bare bones version, which does not explain how an abductor might have gotten in and taken Madeleine, nor which way he might have gone with her, nor any other particulars. All we learn is that Gerry went to make his check at 9:15, saw Madeleine and that the door was not in the position he thought he left it and he set it back, that at 9:30 Matthew Oldfield made the next check, and then Kate made her check, saw the door was a bit off, the window open and Madeleine gone. That is it. So, we don't learn how an abductor got in, how he got Madeleine out, and when he did this. Without presenting a shred of evidence, Scotland Yard gives us two conclusions that push the abduction toward 10 pm. Now, for some who think the McCanns found Madeleine dead behind the sofa where the cadaver dog hit and then Gerry carried her off to the beach passing the Smith family who told the police of their sighting, they might think this might be a clever plan of Scotland Yard to finally close in on the McCanns, but I don't think this is what they are attempting to do.

Let's look at the big news on the show tonight; Jane Tanner's sighting is NOT the "kidnapper" of Madeleine McCann. He is some tourist who happened to be carrying his own child home from the creche where she was being babysat (mind you he was walking in the wrong direction, toward the creche, but....never mind). Also, he was wearing the exact clothes described by Jane Tanner because the man remembers precisely what he was wearing six years ago. Interestingly, with all the hoopla about this man at the beginning of the Portuguese investigation, he never came forward, but now Mr-whoever-he-is (and Scotland Yard is not going to tell us), suddenly pops up and admits it was him. What does this very questionable "discovery" do? It validates Jane seeing someone and invalidates the crime occurring at around 9:15. On the face of it, this should be a bad thing for the McCanns because this man was really Gerry's alibi. But, the way this is being spun, it will not matter. Why? Because Jane was not believed to be telling the truth by the Portuguese police (the PJ) and they believed the Smith sighting was Gerry (although Redwood claims the PJ overfocused on Jane's sighting as the suspect and ignored the Smith sighting - serious revisionist history). So, if Jane is a liar, then she is lying for a reason and the PJ believed it was to prove an abduction had occurred and Gerry put her up to the lie.

Now, if Jane is telling the truth, then the McCanns didn't push her to cover for them. This puts them one step closer to innocence. But, of course, now that the only real "proof" of abduction while Gerry is alibied - Jane seeing someone carrying the child away while Gerry is on the street chatting with Jeremy- is gone, there is a problem. The way to solve it is to make sure there is another abductor and that is going to be the Smith sighting. Hence, the fact Matthew Oldfield didn't see Madeleine in her bed at 9:30 is left out of the reconstruction, so it appears that the abductor struck later than that, closer to 10 PM. So, now we have the right time for the abduction to coincide with the Smith sighting. The simple fact there could have been an abductor that late, now allows for that sighting not to be Gerry. Redwood also clearly states the man had graying hair which, as far as I know, Gerry did not have at the time. Does anyone remember the Smiths stating they saw any graying hair on the man with child heading to the beach? I don't.

Many think the e-fits looks just like Gerry; I don't think so. I think they had to make e-fits look similar enough because Mr. Smith said the guy looked like Gerry. But, the e-fits are just enough off for another man to be "found" that looks enough like Gerry to say it is understandable why Mr. Smith was confused. Of course, that Mr. Smith said the man looked like Gerry wasn't mentioned in the show so most people won't know, but later on, this can be addressed when it is necessary. I think that man will surface just like the Jane Tanner suspect surfaced. At some point, we will hear that an innocent fellow who looks like Gerry came forward and said it was him with his daughter. Then, Gerry is completely exonerated and Scotland Yard will just have to find another suspect who was never seen. OR we will hear that Scotland Yard has identified some person from a sex ring who sort of looks like Gerry but they cannot divulge more. OR we will hear that it was likely some dead predator who looked enough like Gerry to be mistaken for him. No proof will every be provided that any of these people really exist but it doesn't matter to the general public. If Scotland Yard says it is so and the media backs it, it must be so. It may sound convoluted but, the combination of vagueness and connecting dots that don't exist can be a successful method to use to convince people of something that they are not going to thoroughly research themselves. A magician calls this "misdirection." Then, mission accomplished. The McCanns are "proven" innocent, the PJ incompetent, Amaral a libeler, and Scotland Yard a fine police agency that did a great investigation to find Madeleine and at least answer the question of what happened to her.

I feel there is no evidence of abduction and the McCanns' behaviors indicate their involvement in Madeleine's disappearance. I find Gerry to have a controlling, narcissistic personality and Kate, although I think her to be quite beautiful, willing to go along with his program in order to save what is left of her life. I find their fund to be extremely unethical and, therefore, both of the McCanns are responsible for any wrongdoing with that moneymaking scheme. I am horrified by the incredible amount of money spent searching for a live child when the investigators (Scotland Yard and the private detectives) ignore the evidence in front of them that indicates a long dead child and no stranger involvement. Other missing children's cases go unfunded and ignored while millions are spent in this bizarre case of likely parental neglect and a likely massive cover-up.

It has been an incredibly busy last couple weeks in the alternate universe of Madeleine McCann and I say alternate universe because the shenanigans that have ensued in recent days - the Met's "startling revelations" on CrimeWatch, the discovery of a blonde girl "abducted" by a near enough Gypsy family, and, now, the reopening of the McCann investigation in Portugal based on "new evidence" found a of couple years back, you know, far before New Scotland Yard came up with its new discoveries - all of this hokum which makes little sense unless you understand the politics behind it which most of us do not.

Let's see what these new developments mean:
1) Jane Tanner really did see a man carrying a child away from the McCann's vacation flat - although an innocent tourist with his own child - which proves that the McCanns aren't lying about their prime suspect's existence.
2) The discovery of a little blond girl living with a Roma family proves that little blonde girls are targeted for Gypsy abductions - only now it turns out that that little blonde girl IS Roma; hence, gypsy do not need to steal little blonde girls, they can make them themselves.
3) Portugal has reopened the case based on "new" evidence they unearthed a while back. In other words, the UK isn't going to make us look like total putzes; we actually were already ahead of them when they did CrimeWatch.
4) Goncalo Amaral is going to be the scapegoat. This is actually a fairly old ploy used by police departments aiming to redeem their public reputation; blaming the previous administration. In other words, when a case goes cold and there is a public uproar, nothing usually happens until the old guard leaves. Then, whoever takes over can simply point fingers back at who used to be in charge and say, "It didn't happen on my watch." And, "Now that you have better people in the job, we will show you how great we are." There will be a flurry of activity and then, after a reasonable stretch of time has passed, the case will have a "conclusion," one that points toward an abduction, proves Amaral was wrong, and, sadly, Madeleine will never be recovered because the suspect from some pedophile ring uncovered by the new administrator is dead and we will only have a vague statement of what happened to Maddie (something like an accident during the abduction or travel or she became ill later and died,something that will give the parents some peace of mind). But, mind you, nothing will be proven. The Portuguese police will not make that information public rather like that mystery man of Tanner's that the Met says exists but won't tell us who he is and why he was quiet for six years. "We have intelligence...." is what we will be told and expected to accept.

Now, here is the most important point: NO ONE has any new evidence and I will tell you why.
I have worked on enough cold cases to know why they remain cold. Here is what happens: the police department follow a particular theory believing it to be correct. If it isn't, they reach a dead end with no evidence to back that theory and prove their suspect or motive to be the right one. Then, when the cold case analyst comes in (or Scotland Yard or the new Portuguese investigators) whatever evidence existed years ago is surely long gone. Blood, clothing, memories...gone. The only way one can say they have new evidence is if the body of that long missing child is found or photos showing her demise are found (like sexual sadistic serial killers sometimes have locked up in there homes). But, has Maddie's body been found or has their been a raid on someone's home netting souvenirs from the captivity of the little girl? No. New evidence is not a bunch of tips from citizens or psychics. Sorting through tips is usually a huge waste of manpower because in a case like this where an abduction would likely only involved one lone creep, no one has a clue who he is or what he has done including his mother or his wife. Therefore, all of those tips are pure garbage, taking hours and hours for investigators to sift through, and hope that some needle in that haystack happens to be someone who really saw something or knows something. Very few colds cases are ever solved by tips brought in by appeals to the public; mostly this is done to make it look like the police are doing something and that they care. It also makes the family and the public feel good, but it rarely has results.

So, where is this new evidence coming from? If the McCanns aren't involved in the disappearance of their daughter, there are only three possibilities for abduction: sex predator, child sex ring, and abduction for adoption. Now, I think our little blonde Maria found with the Roma family pretty much gets rid of that theory. If you want a little blond child, you can adopt one from a desperate woman who has too many children to care for. I have been trying to tell people for years, blonde children and blonde teens do not need to be abducted for adoption or to prostitute out; they can be gotten without kidnapping. So, that gets rid of the stupid abduction for adoption theory. Let's go to the sex ring theory. Did you just read what I said about not needing to kidnap little blonde girls for adoption? Same goes for sex rings. There are enough drug using, poor, and criminal parents who will let you use their blonde child for prostitution or porn, so, again, abduction is not necessary. That leaves only one plausible reason for anyone to abduct Maddie, the only reason I have been stating for years could be the only alternative to the McCanns' involvement; a child sex predator. And that is the EXACT theory the early Portuguese police focused on and why Murat became an arguido; they thought he was a creepy dude who lived near the McCann flat and could have been watching the area, slipped in and kidnapped the child, rape and murdered her, and then buried her on his own property or elsewhere. The police followed that very good theory and came up with zilch. Why? Because, probably, as Goncalo Amaral would say, this was a red herring and steered the investigation in the wrong direction. By the time they swung around to another possible theory, that of the McCann's involvement, much evidence went missing. Not all, though - they still had the dog evidence of cadaver and blood in the apartment and the rental car and they had all the conflicting stories and bizarre behaviors of the McCanns and their friends. Then, the McCanns fled and the case was shelved.

Now, open that case again and go back and try to find any evidence that some child sex predator abducted Madeleine McCann six years ago and you will come up empty barring stumbling across her body or those photos. Certainly, you are not going to find "new evidence" in the files, maybe a possible lead or two, but certainly not evidence. And, two years after Portugal now says they found some "new evidence" they are opening the case? Does this make sense? Why not two years ago? I can tell you why; they were hoping that New Scotland Yard would waste a bunch of time and money and then go away. But, instead, they came up with this big CrimeWatch media extravaganza and their "new evidence" eliminating one suspect and e-fits they claim aren't Gerry for the public to opine about. Portugal was looking badly, so time to one up them by reopening the case and claiming it is because of evidence already found prior to Scotland Yard's involvement.

This is politics. This is saving face. This is an attempt by Portugal to come out of this whole mess with some dignity. Maybe I will be wrong; maybe there will be some amazing turnabout and the McCanns and their friends will be brought back to Portugal for a reconstruction and they will become arguidos again. I would like to be wrong. I would like to see this happen. But, in my experience, once politics rears its ugly head, justice and truth become victims along with the missing child, the dogged detectives, and the public.
BREAKING NEWS! THIS JUST CAME OUT! It gives me hope that maybe politics ISN'T ruling the day; that for once justice may actually be coming. I hope so!
Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years
The new prime suspect was first singled out by detectives in 2008. Their findings were suppressed. Insight reports - The Sunday Times Insight team Published: 27 October 2013
Madeleine disappeared from the Praia da Luz resort in May 2007Madeleine disappeared from the Praia da Luz resort in May 2007 (Adrian Sheratt)
THE critical new evidence at the centre of Scotland Yard’s search for Madeleine McCann was kept secret for five years after it was presented to her parents by ex-MI5 investigators.
The evidence was in fact taken from an intelligence report produced for Gerry and Kate McCann by a firm of former spies in 2008.
It contained crucial E-Fits of a man seen carrying a child on the night of Madeleine’s disappearance, which have only this month become public after he was identified as the prime suspect by Scotland Yard.
A team of hand-picked former MI5 agents had been hired by the McCanns to chase a much-needed breakthrough in the search for their missing daughter Madeleine.
10 months after the three-year-old had disappeared from the Portuguese resort of Praia da Luz, and the McCanns were beginning to despair over the handling of the local police investigation. They were relying on the new team to bring fresh hope.
But within months the relationship had soured. A report produced by the investigators was deemed “hypercritical” of the McCanns and their friends, and the authors were threatened with legal action if it was made public. Its contents remained secret until Scotland Yard detectives conducting a fresh review of the case contacted the authors and asked for a copy.
They found that it contained new evidence about a key suspect seen carrying a child away from the McCanns’ holiday apartment on the night Madeleine disappeared.
This sighting is now considered the main lead in the investigation and E-Fits of the suspect, taken from the report, were the centrepiece of a Crimewatch appeal that attracted more than 2,400 calls from the public this month.
One of the investigators whose work was sidelined said last week he was “utterly stunned” when he watched the programme and saw the evidence his team had passed to the McCanns five years ago presented as a breakthrough.
The team of investigators from the security firm Oakley International were hired by the McCanns’ Find Madeleine fund, which bankrolled private investigations into the girl’s disappearance. They were led by Henri Exton, MI5’s former undercover operations chief.
Their report, seen by The Sunday Times, focused on a sighting by an Irish family of a man carrying a child at about 10pm on May 3, 2007, when Madeleine went missing.
An earlier sighting by one of the McCanns’ friends was dismissed as less credible after “serious inconsistencies” were found in her evidence. The report also raised questions about “anomalies” in the statements given by the McCanns and their friends.
Exton confirmed last week that the fund had silenced his investigators for years after they handed over their controversial findings. He said: “A letter came from their lawyers binding us to the confidentiality of the report.”
He claimed the legal threat had prevented him from handing over the report to Scotland Yard’s fresh investigation, until detectives had obtained written permission from the fund.
A source close to the fund said the report was considered “hypercritical of the people involved” and “would have been completely distracting” if it became public.
Kate and Gerry McCann: now officially not suspects, say the Portuguese authoritiesKate and Gerry McCann: now officially not suspects, say the Portuguese authorities (Adrian Sheratt) Oakley’s six-month investigation included placing undercover agents inside the Ocean Club where the family stayed, lie detector tests, covert surveillance and a forensic re-examination of all existing evidence.
It was immediately clear that two sightings of vital importance had been reported to the police. Two men were seen carrying children near the apartments between 9pm, when Madeleine was last seen by Gerry, and 10pm, when Kate discovered her missing.
The first man was seen at 9.15pm by Jane Tanner, a friend of the McCanns, who had been dining with them at the tapas bar in the resort. She saw a man carrying a girl just yards from the apartment as she went to check on her children.
The second sighting was by Martin Smith and his family from Ireland, who saw a man carrying a child near the apartment just before 10pm.
The earlier Tanner sighting had always been treated as the most significant, but the Oakley team controversially poured cold water on her account.
Instead, they focused on the Smith sighting, travelling to Ireland to interview the family and produce E-Fits of the man they saw. Their report said the Smiths were “helpful and sincere” and concluded: “The Smith sighting is credible evidence of a sighting of Maddie and more credible than Jane Tanner’s sighting”. The evidence had been “neglected for too long” and an “overemphasis placed on Tanner”.
The new focus shifted the believed timeline of the abduction back by 45 minutes.
The pictures of a man who may have taken Madeleine were drawn up in 2008The pictures of a man who may have taken Madeleine were drawn up in 2008 (Adrian Sheratt) The report, delivered to the McCanns in November 2008, recommended that the revised timeline should be the basis for future investigations and that the Smith E-Fits should be released without delay.
The potential abductor seen by the Smiths is now the prime suspect in Scotland Yard’s investigation, after detectives established that the man seen earlier by Tanner was almost certainly a father carrying his child home from a nearby night creche. The Smith E-Fits were the centrepiece of the Crimewatch appeal.
One of the Oakley investigators said last week: “I was absolutely stunned when I watched the programme . . . It most certainly wasn’t a new timeline and it certainly isn’t a new revelation. It is absolute nonsense to suggest either of those things . . . And those E-Fits you saw on Crimewatch are ours,” he said.
The detailed images of the face of the man seen by the Smith family were never released by the McCanns. But an artist’s impression of the man seen earlier by Tanner was widely promoted, even though the face had to be left blank because she had only seen him fleetingly and from a distance.
Various others images of lone men spotted hanging around the resort at other times were also released.
Nor were the Smith E-Fits included in Kate McCann’s 2011 book, Madeleine, which contained a whole section on eight “key sightings” and identified those of the Smiths and Tanner as most “crucial”. Descriptions of all seven other sightings were accompanied by an E-Fit or artist’s impression. The Smiths’ were the only exception. So why was such a “crucial” piece of evidence kept under lock and key?
The relationship between the fund and Oakley was already souring by the time the report was submitted — and its findings could only have made matters worse.
As well as questioning parts of the McCanns’ evidence, it contained sensitive information about Madeleine’s sleeping patterns and raised the highly sensitive possibility that she could have died in an accident after leaving the apartment herself from one of two unsecured doors.
There was also an uncomfortable complication with Smith’s account. He had originally told the police that he had “recognised something” about the way Gerry McCann carried one of his children which reminded him of the man he had seen in Praia da Luz.
Smith has since stressed that he does not believe the man he saw was Gerry, and Scotland Yard do not consider this a possibility. Last week the McCanns were told officially by the Portuguese authorities that they are not suspects.
The McCanns were also understandably wary of Oakley after allegations that the chairman, Kevin Halligen, failed to pass on money paid by the fund to Exton’s team. Halligen denies this. He was later convicted of fraud in an unrelated case in the US.
The McCann fund source said the Oakley report was passed on to new private investigators after the contract ended, but that the firm’s work was considered “contaminated” by the financial dispute.
He said the fund wanted to continue to pursue information about the man seen by Tanner, and it would have been too expensive to investigate both sightings in full — so the Smith E-Fits were not publicised. It was also considered necessary to threaten legal action against the authors.
“[The report] was hypercritical of the people involved . . . It just wouldn’t be conducive to the investigation to have that report publicly declared because . . . the newspapers would have been all over it. And it would have been completely distracting,” said the source.
A statement released by the Find Madeleine fund said that “all information privately gathered during the search for Madeleine has been fully acted upon where necessary” and had been passed to Scotland Yard.
It continued: “Throughout the investigation, the Find Madeleine fund’s sole priority has been, and remains, to find Madeleine and bring her home as swiftly as possible.”
Insight: Heidi Blake and Jonathan Calvert

"Madeleine" - The Gift that Keeps on least to a Profiler – 30.10.2013
I must have tossed a tear gas grenade under a bridge because all the trolls came running out on Twitter. Of all the twisted lies they started throwing out about me- like I got kicked off of Nancy Grace while on air (please post the video someone because I think I would have remembered that; I was just on last week) - the one got the most play was that I a horrid ghoul because I stated on Twitter that I was making a pile of money off of the disappearance of this poor little girl, that Madeleine was a gift that keeps on giving to this profiler. Of course, they completely ignored (likely on purpose) the quotes around the word "Madeleine" which indicated I was speaking of the book by that title which Kate McCann wrote two years ago and they perverted the meaning of the following phrase, that the gift that keeps on giving was the money I was making off of poor Madeleine, not the clues that the book had to offer a profiler.

No matter, the whole thing is troll silliness, but the reason I originally posted that tweet shortly after I read the book, Madeleine, was because I was absolutely stunned at the information to be gleaned from this story of a parent of a missing child. What Kate made public in the book was what propelled me to write my own book, Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann - which was subsequently removed from sale at Amazon after they were threatened by the McCanns' attorneys with a libel lawsuit. The book also prompted me to make a trip to Portugal to do my own study of the area and reconstruction of the crime and to search the area for a possibly body dumping ground which I eventually came to believe might be the area called Monte do Jose Mestre just west of Praia da Luz. The trip was mostly financed by what I had made from my book before it was removed from sale.

The most striking bit I got from Kate's book was her pooh-poohing of the Smith sighting at 10 pm, only giving it the slightest credence IF and only IF it could be linked to the earlier Tanner claimed sighting at 9:15 pm. And, now, just days ago, a bombshell dropped into the media. After Scotland Yard dismissed the Tanner sighting as another tourist and his child and put up two e-fits of the man the Smiths saw on the Crimewatch show, the first bit of negative publicity about the McCanns showed up in the British media in years. It was stated that those e-fits were made by the McCanns' own PIs five years ago and that the PIs said they were threatened with a lawsuit if they turned them over to law enforcement. But, what struck me the most was this: the McCanns not only did not put this suspect's pictures up on their website, Kate did not include them in her book in which she put a number of other e-fits of possible suspects (the Tanner sighting and some fellows lurking about town in the days previous to the "abduction"). If my child had been abducted and was possibly being raped on a daily basis, just the thought of my child being terrified and tortured would have forced me to clear myself with the police, take a polygraph, do a reconstruction, AND, absolutely, AND release those e-fits to the public even if that suspect looked a lot like Maddie's dad. Hey, somebody who looks like Maddie's father might be raping my daughter right now!

But, no, the McCanns did not clear themselves - they ran the country which resulted in the police no longer looking for someone who was raping the crap out of their daughter, they refused polygraphs, they refused a reconstruction, and they HID the e-fits from the public eye. It is exactly this kind of behavior that is a gift that keeps on giving to a profiler - evidence, true behavioral evidence - that makes this profiler find that the parents should be the top suspects in the disappearance of their daughter, Madeleine and not some long dead ex-hotel employee that happened to make a cell phone in Praia da Luz on the day Maddie went missing.

"It's a Disaster!" - Gerry McCann – 01.11.2013
One of the big questions people have who are trying to understand how Kate and Gerry McCann could possibly be involved in covering up their daughter's death is why they would do that to begin with, In other words, would a normal set of parents go through such an elaborate staging of a crime in order to cover up an accident? The answer to that question tends to send people into one of three camps:

1) The parents are innocent because they would simply have called for help if they found their child deceased and then dealt with the consequences.

2) Maddie must have died in some more tragic way (like during a sexual assault by one of the Tapas 9 or as a result of some very violent rage by one of her parents) or it must have been some premeditated getting rid of the child for them not to have called the police and lived with a possible neglect charge.

3) They covered up because they thought they had too much to lose.

I stand firmly in the third camp when I profile what may have happened to Madeleine. I have never believed that the disappearance of Madeleine was premeditated by the McCanns. Why? Because that evening was too much of a mess; they could have found a better way to stage an abduction. I do not believe Maddie died a day earlier and they ended up with this discombobulated scenario of Maddie going missing between checks. I do not believe the McCanns went to dinner with the knowledge that their child was dead and then planned to "discover" her missing later that evening. Again, with more time to think, I believe the staging would have been better.

Instead, I see this basic scenario going down.

Maddie is found dead, of an accident, but an accident induced by medication and neglect. Panic ensues and and Gerry calls home that evening telling them, "It's a disaster." "Disaster" is a key to what happened and why they would have responded as they did, if they are guilty of what happened to Madeleine.

If there had been a simple accident under proper parent care-taking, it would have been, well, "an accident," not a disaster. An accident is something you couldn't have helped. It may be devastating, tragic, horrifying, crushing.....but an accident is an accident, not a disaster. A disaster is some monumental out-of-control event that one has to clean up after and manage the damage it has done. Someone drowning in the ocean is an accident; a tsunami drowning everyone in town is a disaster. One requires mourning and the other requires immediate action to deal with the mess. If Maddie had simply fallen while the McCann's were in the other room, some weird event where she just fell and broke her neck - even if they were having some wine in the other room and didn't know she was dead for an hour - they would have simply called for the police. I think we immediately know that IF the accident is just one of those horrible things that can happen in life - something that could happen to any parent because of daily life - a toddler drowns in a bucket of water a parent forgot to empty, a child accidentally hangs himself with a curtain cord, a child chokes on some little toy his brother dropped - we are not going to blamed for the tragedy; people will feel sorry for us because it could indeed happen to any of us in the blink of an eye.

But, if you neglect your child in an obvious way - leaving three toddlers unattended in a holiday flat five nights in a row so you can go drinking AND you give those children medication to subdue them so you can go out and entertain yourself without having worry that your children might wake up and be scared, that they might be crying back at the flat, that they might get up and come look for you, that they might get up and have an accident - now you know the public is unlikely to have so much sympathy for you and they may indeed think you should be charged with neglect and contributing to your child's death. And, if you have other children, those children should be removed from your care. And, if you are doctors, your reputation as as professionals in an industry which is supposed to save lives will be seriously compromised. Worst of all, you might end up in prison in a foreign country and god knows what that means.

THIS is a disaster. A disaster which could throw a couple of parents into a panic upon finding their neglected, drugged, dead daughter behind the sofa. Panic would ensue, then desperation to have the disaster ameliorated to whatever extent it could be. First the evidence of neglect and death have to disappear so the body needs to be removed from the flat, now the blame must be averted to someone else so an open window will make it look like someone came in and took her, and, if someone could see some man taking the child away at the time both parents have an alibi, that would be swell, Jane?

Some might say a panic-driven scenario like this may well not have worked; Gerry could have been seen carrying his daughter off, the window story may not be supported by evidence, people might not believe Jane Tanner, and what if the body were eventually found? Well, so far, three of these four problems may have already cropped up for the McCanns, so that goes to show the scenario may well have not worked if 1) they had not been British doctors which caused the initial investigators to believe the abduction story, 2) if there hadn't been so much publicity pushed by the McCanns that made them tragic figures in the media and the eyes of many in the public in spite of clear proof they neglected their children, and 3) luck....sometimes enough luck can get you by. If we look back at the choices that might have been made for disaster control for such a scenario of Maddie dying in the apartment, they were actually very simple choices; hurrying to the beach with the body not even covered and not on a path that was totally nonpublic, lying about the window, and lying about a strange man walking away with a child while Gerry was on the street and Kate was in the restaurant. Nothing fancy, just quick simple cover-ups. Finally, it is important to realize that a lot of criminals simply get away with their crimes; hence, the many unsolved cases out in the world today. While there may be no such thing as a perfect crime, there are "good enough" crimes that mean no one will ever be charged.

I have already discussed the biggest behavioral red flag in the missing Madeleine McCann case, that of the McCanns playing down the Smith sighting of a man carrying a little girl toward the beach at 10 pm. I have also discussed the odd statement of Gerry's to relatives after Maddie went missing, "It's a disaster!" But, since watching Crimewatch with Kate relating the events of that evening, I am nagged by the another big red behavioral flag in this case, the description of the open window and whooshing curtains in the children's bedroom and her statement, "I knew straight away she'd been taken." Let's put aside the evidence which does not support the window actually being open and imagine that Kate really found it that way. Imagine you are Kate and you have walked into the bedroom, seen the twins asleep but your daughter missing. You get confused and you check the house for her. Then you go back in the bedroom and the curtains whoosh and you see the window is wide open. You know your child has been unattended for at least 30 minutes (if we are believing the Oldfield check in which he actually doesn't say he saw Maddie but Kate thinks he has) and that the bedroom Maddie is in is on the ground floor right alongside the street and a parking area. The curtains whoosh and you realize that the window has been opened, not by you, not by your children (I stayed in a similar apartment in the complex and it takes a bit of work to open the window so I am sure Kate knew that Maddie did not do it), but by SOMEONE. SOMEONE opened the window and likely that SOMEONE has your missing child!! What would you do next?

The first thing Kate does is look around the house AGAIN. Okay, maybe in her confusion and last hope she might do that. Maybe the guy is inside with the child, maybe your child got scared and hid and the guy ran away, maybe you are imagining the window was opened by someone else and your child is in really secreted somewhere in the house. I get that this is a possible reaction. So you look everywhere, everywhere, except behind the sofa. It is the next action that strikes me as bizarre. Kate runs off to the Tapas restaurants to tell everyone that Maddie is gone and someone had taken her. Again, I ask what would you do next if you thought someone had grabbed your child from her bed possibly a minute ago? I think if it were me, I would run out my front door screaming her name, running into the parking area to see if someone is putting her into a vehicle, running into the street to see if someone is carrying her off somewhere, screaming her name, hoping she will scream back, hoping someone might take notice of me screaming her name and wonder about some man hurrying by carrying a little girl. I would be screaming, "Help! Help! Someone has taken my child! Maddie! Maddie!" I would be hysterical, standing even in a deserted street screaming and crying, hoping someone will rush out, someone will look out their windows, that some police officer might pop up! Then, I might run to the Tapas restaurant, screaming all the way, "Maddie! Maddie! I would scream to raise the dead on the way to get more help,

But, that is not what happened. Kate did her check in the house and then went straight down to the restaurant. She does not even describe in her book looking for Maddie as she does so. It is not until after Kate raises the alarm and supposedly seven of the Tapas 9 return from the restaurant that Kate finally runs out into the car park screaming, "Maddie! Maddie!" Some will say I am nitpicking here, that Kate might well have run straight to her friends because she was seeking help. That she was in shock which is why it took so long for her to look for Maddie outside the apartment and why she doesn't even mention scanning the area for her child on her way to the restaurant. Maybe, but I don't think that is what the story is telling us. I think we are finding out about what happened between 9:15 and 10 pm. More and more I believe Gerry found out that Maddie was not in bed during his check and when he didn't get back to the table quickly, when Kate made that remark about Gerry getting distracted watching the footy on the television, she went with Oldfield to find out what was taking him so long. When she got there, Gerry may have already been in a panic trying to find Maddie. Kate and Oldfield join in, and they finally find her behind the sofa. There is a short period of shock, horror, and panic, Kate cuddling her daughter, and then the decision is made to take Maddie from the flat, that Gerry will do this and Kate will raise the alarm.

There are those who every time I write a blog making one particular point go crazy and then spread tales that I am basing my theory of the McCanns' possible guilt on one behavior alone. This is not so. In my blogs, at this point in time, I am merely bringing up points of interest, behaviors and other information that lends to the whole picture. I have already written a book on the case and written numerous blogs making dozens and dozens of points which lend to my final analysis. After I wrote my book, I went to Praia da Luz and saw the area and flat firsthand. When I came back I wrote blogs about what I found out and what of my analysis needs to be updated with the new information. There is always updating to do as time goes by and more information comes in. I have adjusted some of my thoughts but I have found nothing to dissuade me from the likelihood of the McCanns' complicity in the demise, yes, demise of their child. Right now we have the media going on and on ad nauseum about some Cape-Verdian guy who happened to work for the same company that runs the vacation rentals were the McCanns stayed and whose phone pinged somewhere in the vicinity (how close a vicinity we do not yet know) supposedly on the evening she went missing. Of course, he actually didn't work at the complex, had never been seen near the apartment, and lived only fifteen minutes away, but somehow he is now a major suspect. With those not-very-damning bits of info , there is not much of anything to build a picture of a man who should be a top suspect in abducting Maddie. But, there are many, many reasons to look at the McCanns' involvement in their daughter's disappearance; there are many peculiar behaviors on the part of the McCanns to build that picture of possible guilt along with the physical evidence in their rental flat and their rental vehicle that points in the same direction.

With the media telling many a tall tale about this suspect and that, with the media not questioning the McCanns' bizarre behaviors - like not making public the e-fits of the Smith sighting five years ago when their PIs handed them the pictures (and even threatening them with a lawsuit if they released them to the police or public) - or bringing up the physical evidence that points to Maddie dying in the apartment and her body being moved in the rental car, I feel we must all, for a time, keep alive the other side of the picture - that there are many people - police officers, detectives, criminologists, profilers, lawyers, and citizens - all who think the evidence strongly points to the McCanns as being involved in Maddie's death and disappearance and these folks would like to see the Metropolitan Police and the PJ make the McCanns one of their avenues of investigation even if they believe abduction is still a possibility. I see nothing unreasonable in this, do you?

Why do so many People seem to Hate Kate and Gerry McCann? - 03.11.2013
Someone just asked me this question in the comments section of the post I did yesterday and I realized the length of my answer would require a full post, so here it is. "Why," he asked, "do so many people have such vitriol toward the McCanns? Couldn't it be the reason for their behaviors is that they are protecting each other and their family out of love?" (I condense and paraphrase here to make his point). This commenter ask an excellent question and there are many in the world, including the media, who think that those people who openly despise the McCanns are trolls and haters and cruel people who are treating parents of a missing child in the most despicable manner possible. I am included in that group; a lot of pretty nasty attacks are leveled at me because I am termed a McCann hater. I am considered even a worse human being than the others because I am a professional with a fairly public profile which they feel makes me like the leader of a witch hunt or lynch mob (or more of a threat) out to destroy two lovely innocent people and the hunt for a missing child. So is there enough justification for such utter dislike of this couple, innocent or guilty,whether they be parents of an abducted child or frightened parents responsible for an accident and a cover-up? As a profiler who has dealt with many parents of crime victims and studied many cases of missing children, I can say hands down, yes, in defense of those who cannot seem to stomach the McCanns.

Here is a list of the reasons:
1) They left their three toddler children alone for five evenings so they could go out and party. The reason this so irks people is how unnecessary and selfish this behavior was. We are not talking about a poor mother desperate to go to work to earn money to feed her kids, a woman with no nearby relatives and no money for a babysitter, a woman who leaves her seven-year-old in charge of her five- and three-year-old siblings in an apartment building where that seven-year-old can call her if there is a problem or run next door to the neighbors she knows. We are talking about a set of educated parents with enough money to go to another country for a not-so-cheap holiday at in a beach town; they could have paid for a babysitter. They could have taking turns watching the children on alternate nights, one of the group could have watched all the children one night a week, or they could have taken the children to the hotel creche for caring. They could have simply stayed home with the kids. But, they wanted their "alone" time at the expense of their children's well-being so they left three toddlers in a strange flat, toddlers who could not run next door and find someone if they were scared, toddlers who could not make a phone call in an emergency, toddlers who could not save themselves from fire, or injury, or an intruder. Along with leaving them alone, the McCanns also claim they left the door unlocked, leaving them vulnerable to any stranger who just could walk in off the street and hurt them. Who DOES this, some ask? Very narcissistic people, I can answer, and this very self-centered behavior on the part of the McCanns really puts people off.

2) They left the children alone AFTER they cried the night before. As if leaving them alone wasn't bad enough, they then left their frightened and unhappy children alone even after they had been told by Maddie that all had not gone well the night before, that they were crying out for their parents for a very long time and they never came to them. People see this as awful cold and callous behavior on the part of the parents, extremely selfish, unconscionable behavior that any parent would choose to continue leaving the children alone upon hearing of their distress.

3) Dressing fashionably with well-groomed hair, make-up, and jewelry, going running and writing a blog after your child goes missing; oh, and leaving your twins behind so you can go run off and see the Pope. The McCanns have a lot of defenders who will say the running and writing were stress relief and going to see the Pope a religious need any parent of a missing child might seek. I can tell you from seeing the behaviors of many missing parents,these are abnormal behaviors, especially so early after a child goes missing. The inside of the brain of someone who has a child kidnapped is a horrifying hurricane of hell. There is a continuous roaring of fear, anger, horror, confusion, panic, hate, grief, pain, hysteria, all of these feeling and thoughts swirling about in almost a physical way that pretty much shuts down coherent behavior. I never forgot one well-depicted scene in a movie made about Adam Walsh, the son of America's Most Wanted's host, John Walsh who, after being told the police found his little son's head thrown next to the highway, John was portrayed as going crazy in grief by running headlong into the space between the mattresses on his bed over and over and over. It is a scene that sticks in one's mind and I still get teary thinking about it while writing of it here.

There are things parents just simply are unable to do for a long time because they cannot compose themselves enough to go through the motions while their child is missing, to do any normal thing while their child may be calling out for Mommy and Daddy in terror day in and day out, maybe being raped and tortured in some predator's dungeon somewhere, maybe lying mangled in a shallow grave. You don't think those images run constantly through the head of a parent who child is missing? You bet, and that is why parents of missing and murdered children often need medication to get up in the morning and more medication to try to sleep at night, this is why they can't go to work anymore, this is why they neglect their other children, this is why they fight with their mates and end up divorced, this is why they look like shit most of the time, and this is why they can't watch a movie, take a swim, even bathe, because their child can't do that, can she? That is why the McCanns looking so put together every day, going running, writing blogs, taking trips....just doesn't register right with folks; they don't seem normal for parents of missing children. Maybe parents of a child dead by accident whose narcissism allows them to focus entirely on themselves since they can't help their daughter any more, maybe that, but not the parents of a child abducted by a sex predator which is who would likely have taken a three-year-old little girl out of her bed.

3) Kate said she could sleep through the night within days of Maddie's disappearance. Within days.This particular statement threw me for a loop. It only took a few days to be able to get a good night's sleep? Really? Even when you know your child might still be in a predator's hands being raped and tortured, chained in some basement, while you are lying in a comfy bed? How do you do that? People don't sleep well for days after their dog gets run over by a car, but you are soundly sleeping while your daughter is being molested by a pervert; I can't wrap my head around that.

4) THE FUND. I would venture to say the fund is what really gets people's goat. It is one thing to accidentally off your child and then, in a panic, hide the body somewhere and tell the police someone kidnapped her, but to then set up a way to get a ton of money from people - not a charity to help all missing children - but a private fund with money you can use for any of your personal needs including suing people you wish to shut up, a fund which has shown no kind of investigative progress at all - a fund, for that matter, that you never tell people how that money is being used, what is being discovered - a fund that just seems to be raking in millions for your own personal use, that just doesn't sit well with people.

5) Carter-Ruck. The McCanns not only disparage those who feel they might be involved in the death of their child and subsequent cover-up, but then sue them to make them shut up. I have seen grieving parents deal with people not believing them but I have never seen this. It hurts when people question your innocence but it doesn't hold a candle to what happened to your child and isn't worth wasting energy over. Many people think the McCanns have spent more time getting back at their detractors than searching for their Maddie; that just doesn't seem normal to them and it's not.

6) Speaking of their detractors, the McCanns do not seem to have a clue as to why people have issues with them. They don't seem to get that they don't like them because they neglected their children, because they never confessed they were wrong for leaving their children (outside of saying they regret feeling that the place was safe and making that decision due to their naivete), that people don't like them for all the reasons stated here. Instead, they call those people psychologically disturbed human beings, which I guess includes me. I am not saying that some haters, on both sides of the McCann issue aren't psychopathic nutjobs - some indeed are - but I am talking about those who truly are bothered by the McCanns' behaviors and honestly believe they have involvement. Most parents of missing children get why people might suspect them, especially if their behavior is a bit odd. All the McCanns needed to do to handle this problem is admit they were selfish in leaving their children alone and that they understand they come off as guilty of a crime to some folks and, perhaps, unlikeable as well. They get it and they don't hold it against people, and while they wish people didn't promote theories of their guilt, they can understand why they do. And they are going to look for Maddie and not waste time being upset over these folks' opinions because their daughter is far more important than their hurt feelings.

7) The McCanns never took a polygraph, Kate refused to answer the 48 questions and they ran the country. Again, this seems to show that the McCanns place their personal well-being above finding their missing child. It is almost true across the board that parents of missing parents will subject themselves to just about anything to convince the police they are innocent of any wrongdoing so that the police will hurry up and focus on finding whoever it is that abducted their child. They suffer immensely during this process but they answer questions over and over again, day after day, weeping and begging during the process for the police to find their child. They take polygraphs even if they fear that they will have a guilty or inconclusive result if something goes wrong with the process because doing the poly will bring them one step closer to getting the police off their backs and in the right direction. Parents of missing children are terrified of pissing off the police because if they do, they might stop looking for their child. Such parents usually are afraid to call the police too often, grovel in any way possible, put up with police silence because they are afraid to anger them in any way. The McCann's actually had the whole investigation shelved for years because they didn't like the way they were being treated

8) Their arrogance. There are so many times the McCanns just come off terribly badly on television, appearing to be snide, flippant, rude, self-absorbed...I have never understood why the person managing their publicity hasn't gotten this through their heads.

9) Kate's book. I have read a lot of books by parents' of murder victims and Kate's book just doesn't come off right to me and many others. It seems more like a memoir about Kate and her troubles than about finding a missing child. There are a number of statements in the book that made people cringe.

I could go on and on, but I think that is enough to make the point as to why many people can't stomach the McCanns. I don't agree with a lot of the nastiness out there making fun of them, I don't think that this is necessary to push the issue of what really happened to Madeleine McCann. I don't think we need to comment on people's looks or make mockery of everything, but I do think people have a right to speak up as to why they think the McCanns are involved in the disappearance of their daughter and why they think the police should keep them on as suspects. Oh, let me not forget to address this part of the original question; couldn't these be people who just love each other very much who are scared of the penalties of being truthful, who are covering up to save each other and their kids? Sure, they could be and if they had simply just run off and hid Maddie's body in a bush and come back and pretended that she had been abducted, never pointing fingers at anyone in particular (like Murat) or setting up a fund to bilk people out of their money, if they hadn't sued the crap out of everyone, sure, I could buy that. I don't think I had too much of a problem with baby Lisa Bradley's parents until they showed up on Dr. Phil and then I rather lost my sympathy for them; it is one thing to lie to save your ass, it is another to go on a huge national broadcast and proclaim your innocence and rile people up to send money and spend hours searching for the missing child you disposed of. (I add here that this is only a theory that the Bradleys also are responsible for the accidental death of their daughter - well, at least Deborah Bradley - and the disposal of her body). It is one thing to do something in a panic to save one's butt; it is another to make money off of it and waste massive money and manpower pushing a lie to such an extreme.

The narcissism displayed by the McCanns makes me think that it is not love that is fueling them to continue with what appears to be a massive farce. I think their behaviors make it clear that Kate and Gerry each have their own personal agendas supported by their own very selfish personalities - Gerry wants to be a big man, Kate wants to be a respected woman - and the twins, well, yeah, this will all help them, too. The incoming money and fame is a plus as well. I am sure in the comments area people will add a dozen other reasons why the McCanns have made themselves the target of dislike. I do ask that people keep the comments factual and not full of nasty jibes and snarkiness. I once wrote an open letter to Kate McCann explaining why she had become such a target of hatred and how she could change that but, in the long run, I don't think she took much of it to heart, which is sad if she and Gerry are really innocent in the disappearance of their daughter. They could have left a lot more stones unturned if they had toned down the "distractions" with a few simple, self-effacing statements. Like not releasing those e-fits five years ago because doing so might also be a "distraction," they might have had a lot more help finding Maddie, the thing they claim is most important to them, if they hadn't pushed so many people away. As I once said to them, I would have worked on their case for free and gone public with a change of my view toward them if they could help me see they were innocent, and I am sure a number of other profilers, PIs and retired police would have done the same, but they took no one's help that they could not control one hundred percent with a paycheck and Carter-Ruck. One more reason people probably don't like or trust the McCanns.

Finally, I have a personal reason. What bothers me the most about the McCanns is the damage they will do to missing children investigations in the long term. With funds so tight in any law enforcement agency, we need those funds to meet the needs of ALL missing children, not just one, and we need those funds to be spent properly. We need the police to be able to understand how children go missing, who to believe, and how to find those children with the least money and manpower to be used per case. Any fraud or untruth b perpetrated by the McCanns will, not may, do long term damage to the search for missing children and this, for me, is the Number One reason I have negative feelings toward Kate and Gerry McCann.


It's a Bird, It's a Plane......It's SuperSuspect! - 04.11.2013
The unfolding of the details put out by the media this week on the newest top suspect in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann has elicited groans from a good many following this case, myself included. Bit by bit we are privvy to questionable information as to why the new suspect is being purportedly investigated by the Judicia Police (PJ) who have also purportedly reopened the case based on the abduction theory because they had new evidence making it worthy of the effort. Based on not-at-all-purportedly bad media reporting from the UK, Portugal, and the US, the new top suspect in the case is the reason for the case being reopened, for the abduction theory to be focused upon again, and for there to be hope of finally solving the case and putting it to rest. Having worked many a cold case, I would like to share how I view the new top suspect, a black immigrant to Portugal from Cape Verde, Euclides Monteiro, supposed heroin junkie, thief, and burglar who worked for the Ocean Club and died four years ago in a tractor accident.

I want to examine three issues in reference to this suspect:
1) Is there strong enough evidence with this man to reopen the case and reconstitute the abduction theory?
2) Is there strong enough evidence to make this man a top suspect?
3) Is there strong enough evidence to make this man a great scapegoat?
I would say issues 1 and 2, absolutely not. Issue 3, no question. Let me go share why.

1) Is there strong enough evidence with this man to reopen the case and reconstitute the abduction theory?
First off, there should be enough evidence to build an abduction theory, a theory that has stronger evidence or at least as strong evidence as we have pointing to the McCanns, at least something credible enough for an alternate possibility to be considered. We have a great deal to support the McCanns' involvement, yet we still have zero proof of an abduction, not a shred of physical or behavioral evidence pointing to this scenario. We have no witness seeing a stranger coming out the front door of the flat with Maddie in hand, we have no witness sighting a man running from the parking lot with a screaming child, we have no witness sighting of someone handing a child out the flat window to another man who shoveled her into a waiting vehicle. We have no fingerprints or DNA of a stranger in the flat, we have no evidence a stranger broke in through a window or door, no evidence a stranger touched a thing in that vacation apartment. We have no body, no photo of Maddie in a sex ring, nothing. We have had no evidence of a stranger abduction at the time of the crime and no evidence today that such an abduction ever occurred. So what would cause the PJ to reopen the case based on a druggie who happen to be driving in the area of Praia da Luz purportedly on the evening of the crime? It makes no sense, because I can guarantee you, every town has some druggie or two or three or a dozen in the area when any major crime goes down and none of them necessarily have a thing to do with it. That Monteiro was in the area is just one of the facts, but certainly not proof that he is an abductor of a missing child or that any abduction took place. So, according to what we know so far, if the PJ have officially reopened the case, it would appear this man could not be the reason, the reopening of the case would have to be for political reasons unless the PJ have a much better abduction suspect or they are going to be refocusing on the McCanns.

2) Is there strong enough evidence to make this man a top suspect?
Absolutely not. Quite frankly, he is quite a pitiful suspect. First of all, let's look at the ludicrous revenge theory. He has been reported as being fired from the Ocean Club "the previous year." Is this fellow who since had gotten another job really holding such a massive grudge that he smolders for twelve months before taking any action? Hardly. And instead of going postal like a typical angry ex-employee he decides to abduct a little child? Unlikely. So, let's look at his drug problem. He is reported to be a heroin addict who robs flats to get money for drugs. This is possible. But he wasn't working for the Ocean Club at the time Maddie was "taken" and we don't even know if he was robbing anything at the time Maddie went missing. Even if he was robbing flats, why would he have picked the McCanns at that moment and why did he waste time in an obvious children's bedroom? Why didn't he toss the McCann's bedroom or the living room for things to steal and sell? And, how is stealing a child going to get him quick drug money? It's a lot of hard work, kidnapping and trying to get ransom. It is a very rare crime especially for heroin users needing a quick fix. Could Monteiro have grabbed Maddie because he was interrupted by a screaming child? Sure but isn't it far easier just to run? How good is a three-year-old at identifying anyone anyway outside of saying the man was black? And whiile blacks seem to bit in the minority in the area, I am sure Monteiro wasn't the only black guy around. If the child did wake up screaming, why do we not have a guy shoveling a screaming child into his car (no one saw a black man walking around with a kid and he lived fifteen minutes away by vehicle). If he subdued the child by suffocating her, I guess he could have decided to remove her body so as not to leave behind his DNA, but that is pretty far-fetched and I am thinking back a long ways to try to remember a druggie who stole nothing from his target location except a child, dead or alive.

Now, some burglars are really sex predators because they like breaking into people's houses more to invade their territory than to steal things of worth. There are numerous cases of burglars also have a sex offense history as well, but Monterio is not one of those kinds. He is a situational burglar in that he would steal not for the thrill of the offense but to support a drug habit, so his burglaries (if they actually exist at all) would be of this type. We have no proof Monteiro was abducting any child in revenge or even breaking into apartments at the Ocean Club to steal stuff and we especially have no evidence anyone even broke into the McCanns' holiday flat and we certainly have zero evidence Monteiro did any such thing. So why was he in Praia da Luz that evening? Who says he was? All we know from the media is that phone records were checked and cell phone triangulation put him in the area. The AREA - not outside the McCanns' apartment. Cell phone triangulation for a small town like Praia da Luz is not going to be that accurate. All cell phones mayhave pinged that come within three miles of the place. Monteiro may simply have been driving home to Lagos on the highway when he cell phone registered in the area. For that matter, when Maddie went missing, all vacationers, residents, and people driving by would have their cell phones triangulating in the area. Are they all suspects? Or just one black, immigrant, with a drug problem and a minor criminal background? And when did Monteiro's cell phone make itself known? Have you noticed we don't actually have a time yet? Was it at 9:15? Was it at 10 pm? Or was it at 6 pm or was it near midnight? The media has kindly left that information out, either because they have no clue or because it doesn't support making Monteiro look like Maddie's abductor. There is no evidence at all linking Montiero to any abduction of Maddie. Not a shred. All we know is that Monteiro was one of the many people in the area at the time and he had a drug problem and he might be a bit of a thief. If I were investigating this case, I am not saying I wouldn't be following up on Monteiro, but he would just be one of the many leads I would be looking at to do due diligence, not because I expected it would lead to anything. I would follow-up "just in case" there was something in it and because I hadn't enough proof to take anyone to trial at this point.

3) Is there strong enough evidence to make this man a great scapegoat?
You betcha! Now, here is where we hit the jackpot! What's not to like? First and best of all, he is an immigrant. If he is the bad guy, the Portuguese people and the folks of Praia da Luz can say, "See? It was not one of us!" Secondly, he is black, a great fall guy like the Roma - he is a minority in that area and, therefore, again, easier to feel comfortable with blaming because, for most people there, "He is not one of us." And, for the world over, nothing like a poor black man to be the bad guy as history has proven. But, there are those who could feel sorry for the poor black guy if he were getting blamed for the crime of abducting a little white girl without sufficient evidence. Isn't it lucky then that this man can also be a useless druggie, a user of the evil drug heroin, a thief, and a burglar, yeah, and he even may have been creepy with children, so now we can not feel so awful for him? He is a lowlife, so, oh well, he probably did it, don't ya think? Best of all, the guy is dead. He can't fight back, he can't complain, and, the sad truth is, we have a hard time emotionally connecting to dead people which is why sometimes people feel sorrier for the defendant than the person he murdered; they can still connect with the killer because he is alive. Euclides Monteiro is indeed a super fall guy, someone who can makes this whole annoying case go away. If enough "evidence" can be found to make people think he really might have taken Maddie, panicked, smothered her accidentally (remember I wrote previously that if Maddie could have been smothered while attempting to quiet her in the abduction that would make the McCanns sleep better at night because it would have been quick and so Maddie would not have had to been raped for years and years) and disposed of her somewhere at sea (so we can't find her body), the case can be closed administratively. The McCanns will finally have closure in a way that wasn't to horrible for Maddie, they will be "proven" innocent, the new PJ will have done the job right and made Scotland Yard look like asses for touting on Crimewatch the white guy the Smiths saw proving they are all wet. Monteiro is the perfect patsy.
Is this what is going to happen? God, I hope not. I still hold out the small hope that this is all media crapola and the PJ is really not reconstituting the abduction theory, that this is all a smoke screen and an elimination of all other possible suspects to leave just the McCanns again in the cross hairs. History doesn't support my hope very well, but sometimes the only way to get through the day is to believe that sometimes people surprise you and truth and justice will triumph..
The so-called newspapers have been going wild about the new "suspect" in the missing Madeleine McCann case. The poor man - a dead man - has now had his name and face broadcast worldwide, branded as the top suspect in what would clearly be the murder of Maddie McCann. His family is furious, as they should be, that their relative is having his reputation destroyed in the media without -and here is the point - without a shred of evidence linking him to any such crime. The important word in my last sentence is the word "link." THAT and only THAT makes a person a suspect. Links can be physical, geographical, verbal, or behavioral but they should be meaningful in the sense that the link is logical in the sense of the crime. Also, depending of the strength of each link, one link might suffice (like the victim's body buried in someone's basement) or the links added together create a picture of someone likely to have been involved in the crime. Euclides Monteiro, the dead black suspect in question - does not have anything near what I would call a reasonably strong link to the crime. It is clear the media is trying to paint a picture of someone with numerous concerning traits (drug user, burglar, angry -ex-employee) plus one near-link (phone ping in vicinity of Praia da Luz on that day/evening/night) to vault him to a suspect position.

I will be the first to say if I were investigating this crime, I would definitely look at Monteiro because he was someone in the area and he had a criminal record. These would be the only reasons since there was no evidence of a break-in, there was no evidence of a burglary, and there was no attempt at a ransom. I would keep Monteiro's name around but I certainly wouldn't call him a suspect nor would I make a big deal of it. (...)
Let's look at two possible suspects: Monteiro and the McCanns and see who fits the crime better.
Link One: Had access to the victim. - McCanns
Link Two: No evidence of a burglary - McCanns
Link Thee: Blood and cadaver evidence of death in the holiday flat - McCanns
Link Four: Caucasian male seen carrying off child toward beach - McCanns
Link Five: Motive for removing a dead child from the flat - McCanns
Suspect Rating: Mccanns 5 Monteiro 0
I think the numbers speak for themselves as to who is the better suspect, don't you?

Fantastical Theories and the Disappearance of MMC – 07.11.2013
One of the interesting occurrences after a mystery goes so long unsolved is the cropping up of many fantastical theories about what might have happened, in this case, what might have happened to Madeleine McCann. Complicated theories usually result from two issues: one, the disbelief that the mystery could still be unsolved if it weren't some diabolical plan and two, some pieces of evidence are missing, unexplained, or confusing which leads people to create scenarios based on supposition. I want to say that fantastical theories have cropped up on both sides of the McCann divide and have led to a lot of out-there discussion and sometimes unnecessary suspects. The theories have been promoted by the public, the media, professionals of varying sorts, and the police. Mind you, I am not saying you should not consider these theories, even if slightly farfetched because doing so could inspire other avenues of investigation which have not been considered, but if one is going to conclude that something is likely to have happened, that conclusion should be based on good evidence, not on things that "could be" or "seems like it could be." In the end, one should play Devil's Advocate and knock down all theories that have a lack of evidence to support them and one should focus on the theory that does have strong enough evidence to consider it a strong likelihood of being the scenario which actually happened.. Let me present firstly what I think should be the reasonable scenario for the McCanns' involvement and the most reasonable without the McCanns' involvement.

With) The children were left alone so that the McCanns could enjoy their evening out. Because of the problem of the children crying for them the previous night and Maddie being so agitated over this, the children were given medication to quiet them. The McCanns put the children to bed, thought they were out for the evening (as in asleep) and went to have a drink on the veranda and then they went out for the next couple of hours. They did not check on the children again until Gerry came back to the flat at 9:15. Either before or after they left the apartment, Maddie came out, climbed on the sofa, and fell behind it. Because there is a question of timing as to how long a body must remain in a place for cadaver smell to develop that is good enough for the dogs, I cannot say when this accident would have exactly occurred. (the timing seems to be narrowing with further scientific experiments in the matter from one and a half hours to far less than that. At around 9:15, Gerry finds Maddie missing from bed, searches for her, and finds her behind the sofa. Then Kate returns and all hell breaks loose. Gerry takes Maddie away, Kate raises the alarm, some amount of staging is done, but very little as everyone is in a panic.

Without) Some local creep has noted that the McCanns have three little kids and that they are leaving them in the flat alone every night. He notes the McCanns going out again that night and waits until he thinks he has an opportunity to slip in through an open door or pull up an unlocked window. He sees Maddie, puts a hand over her mouth and rushes from the flat. He realizes she isn't reacting at all to being abducted (because she has been medicated) and he carries the quiet child off easily. He would have taken Maddie to his home, raped and murdered her and buried her body on the property or out in the brush somewhere. I want to point out, there is no evidence at all to support this scenario, but if Maddie were actually abducted this would have likely been what happened.

Now, time has gone on and so the scenarios get crazier Because the pedophile abduction scenario does indeed seem a bit too lucky, now we have kidnapping masterminds enter the picture; sex rings or baby selling rings, professionals who plotted this whole crime out with incredible brilliance; hence, the reason no evidence was left and they got away with Maddie into the night without being discovered and why they and what happened to Maddie has remained undiscovered for six years. Likewise for the scenarios in which the McCanns are involved. People can't understand how the cover-up of an accident was accomplished in so short a time and why the Tapas 9 have never broken and why the body has never been found. In other words, it is hard to believe they got away with a cover-up if it was so haphazard to have had to be done in a moment's notice. Therefore, there are theories that Maddie was never in Portugal, that she was given away days earlier, or that she died the previous night or at least that afternoon and that the children were never neglected and the whole dinner was staged and that Gerry was running about with his younger child to make it look like an abductor had taken his child.

I admit two things; it IS amazing that the McCanns could have gotten away with such a mess of a cover-up and it would be an incredibly lucky abductor who managed to get so lucky to have an easy way in, a sedated child, not to have left a bit of evidence, and never been caught. Yes, both are rather incredible but one of them happened because Maddie is missing. Which brings me to which scenario is supported by evidence. The abduction scenario has zero evidence of having occurred and the neglect/accident/cover-up has much evidence in its corner. And it is here I would like to shoot down those fantastical scenarios put out about how the McCanns gave away or killed Maddie (even if accidentally) long before the Tapas dinner that evening. There are four good reasons why the simplest scenario is the likely one. Other than Occam's Razor being taken into account, these four bits of evidence support the theory I gave above: the body (assuming you believe the cadaver evidence which I do) behind the sofa, the window showing no signs of tampering, a man being seen carrying off Maddie towards the beach, and the mass confusion that evening. Let's look at them.

1) The body behind the sofa. If the dog evidence is accurate, Maddie fell behind the sofa. No one hides a body behind a sofa, so why is it there? The odd location indicates to me that Maddie fell there, she died there, and she lay there until her body was discovered. This adds up to an accident while no one was around or at least while no one was paying attention.
PS. If you didn't think the dog evidence behind the sofa was strong enough, one could gather that Maddie died in her bed of an overdose or some other accident. What is most interesting is that Gerry does give a statement that he used his key to come in the front door to check. Now, I thoroughly believe this indicates the flat was locked up while they were out which makes sense if you are leaving your place unattended. This locking of the door requires then the next statement, that the window had to have been opened by an abductor).
2) The window not being tampered with. If you have enough time to plan a complicated scenario, you have enough time to put a few tool marks on the window. It takes but a minute or two to stage the window being used to break into the flat. The McCanns appear to have been in a frenzy when they told relatives the flat had been broken into, that the window had been "jimmied;" this is what people say when they are panicked and trying to cover themselves in a hurry.
3) If Gerry was seen carrying a child off towards the beach, I guarantee you that this was not on purpose. Staging an abduction by pretending to BE the abductor is foolhardy. First of all, the face of the man was not covered. He could have been identified. Then, once he got down toward the beach, he has to come back with the be seen again bringing her back? No, if that man was Gerry the Smiths saw, then what we have is a desperate man carrying off his deceased child to dump her body some place. Now, he could have put the body closer to the flat, but it makes sense that he wants the body hidden at least long enough for a predator to have had time to rape and kill his daughter and dump her body. It wouldn't do to have the body found five minutes into searching for her, just behind the flat in the bushes, would it? And, if the death of Madeleine happened a day or so ago, there is far more time to carefully plan the removal of her body in such a way as to not have been seen doing it.
4) The mass confusion that evening. Some folks think that the McCanns staged the neglect so there would be an opportunity for an abductor to take Madeleine. I do not buy this line of thinking at all. This is not the way humans make up lies. They don't make up a lie that makes them look bad unless it is one of lesser bad behavior that people already know about. This is then is an attempt to appear contrite and honest. Like the guy who gets caught drunk driving and admits to having a couple. He KNOWS the officer can tell he has been drinking so he admits to doing so but the lesser of the evils..just a couple rather than the twelve drinks he actually had.

A husband gets caught in an affair might confess to oral sex but not intercourse because he thinks his wife might buy that and it is the lesser of the two that she might be able to forgive him for. BUT, a guy doesn't get caught kissing a woman and then tell his wife, "Hey, that's not ALL we've done!" Likewise with the McCanns. If something happened to Maddie and they had to get rid of her body, they don't then set up a scenario making themselves neglectful parents because no one has accused them of committing any kind of criminal behavior at that point. And there are so much simpler ways to stage the crime and still look like a decent parent which keeps you from getting investigated. How about getting rid of her body, doing some damage to the window, and pulling it open (with gloves on) or. hey, just having it be open for a nice breeze, and then just say "We decided to stay in that evening and we were on the veranda having drinks while the kids slept. We told Maddie we would be right on the other side of the sliding door and we left the sliding door open an inch so we could hear if anything had gone wrong inside. We must have just sat out there for an hour or so and when we came back in and opened the door to the children's bedroom, we found Maddie gone! We never considered that someone would open the window and slip in while we were just outside (or just slip through the window if left open for that healthful breeze)."

A simple alternative to this is to have Madeleine disappear while all are sleeping. That someone came in through the window and took her in the night. It happened to Elizabeth Smart, so it could happen to Maddie. I think that is a plausible story and considering the parents are well-off doctors, I don't know whether I would have questioned the story as long as nothing else stood out. But, admitting to leaving the children unattended for five nights in a row? That is a bloody stupid story to make up if it isn't true. The problem the McCanns were dealing with was they couldn't make themselves look like better parents because they weren't. But they could try to play down neglect which is a whole lot better than admitting to medicating your kid and having her die behind the sofa while you were off drinking. The simplest thing is indeed likely to be what happened. Selfish parents neglected their children thinking nothing would really happen. They medicated their kids because they saw no harm in giving them a little something to quiet them. The unthinkable then happened and in a panic they staged a simple crime: they removed the evidence of their child's death from the apartment and they claimed the window had been jimmied so an abduction scenario could be believed. Then they added a man seen by a friend carrying off the child and they hoped they would get away with it. And things were going quite well until they became arguidos. After that occurred, they made another desperate decision; to bolt Portugal and hope they would never be extradited back should the case remain open. All in all, I believe Amaral was on the right track even if there was a question over certain physical evidence. The lie about the window told by the McCanns and the refusal to acknowledge the Smith sighting along with the likely locked flat and the inconsistent and concerning statements and behaviors, all of these things made the McCanns arguidos and is why they should still be arguidos six years later.

Sometimes people DO get away with crime. The proof of this is the many unsolved, cold cases in every country in the world. Criminals are not often brilliant, so it is not a complicated scenario that kept them from getting arrested and convicted. It is simply the nature of crime that it is usually occurs without witnesses and often the physical evidence isn't strong enough to convince a jury. I know of a lot of criminals who are living contented lives today having gotten away with horrible crimes. If the McCanns are guilty and never convicted in a court of law it isn't necessarily because they are innocent nor is it because they planned a brilliant oover-up, it is because they got lucky, they got rich (off the fund which enable them to Carter-Ruck any troublemakers and hire PIs to do whatever they really did), and they got help from people in high places.

How BundleMan Became Real – 30.12.2013
We know by now not to expect truthful reporting by such rags as The Mirror or straight talk from Chief Inspector Andy Redwood of Scotland Yard, but the "shocking revelation" presented on CrimeWatch by Redwood was the elimination of the "top suspect" - the man Jane Tanner claimed she saw crossing the street in front of her as she came up alongside the McCann's vacation flat - by "proving" that this man was but an innocent vacationer carrying his sleeping daughter back from the creche after enjoying his evening out. Redwood went on in the show to tout the 10 pm sighting by the Smith family as the more credible sighting of an abductor carrying Madeleine off towards to beach, a suspect Scotland Yard has not identified as anyone in particular, especially not Gerry McCann, the one man Mr. Smith told police the individual just might be. Most of us wondered, quite immediately, how this vacationer could actually have been a real person, one that Jane Tanner truly did see. It doesn't take rocket scientists to note that the man was walking the wrong direction, the he should have been walking toward the McCann flat if he were coming from the creche, not walking from the McCann apartment in the direction the creche. (The yellow dot is the entrance to where the McCanns were dining at the Tapas Restaurant, the red dot is their vacation flat, and the blue dot is the creche. The supposed father carrying his daughter to the creche was crossing the road away from the red dot).

Now, the story gets weirder. It is being reported (if one can call what The Mirror prints as reporting), that the man came forward in 2007 to the Leicestershire police and filled out a detailed questionnaire detailing his movements and that he was carrying his child back from the creche at the time of the Tanner sighting. Then, there is some inference that this information was forwarded to the Portuguese police who ignored it even though, according to the report, they were obsessed with the Tanner sighting to the exclusion of the Smith sighting. Of course, this simply foolishness. If such a report existed, either it made no sense to the PJ that this man could be Tanner's bundleman because he was walking in the wrong direction or they were not interested in Tanner sighting because her story was not very credible (read more on this here) or because they believed the Smith sighting was the true one of Madeleine or all three of these reasons had an effect on whatever decision they made (should this man even exist). However, what is being reported is a pure rewrite of history, that the PJ truly believed the Tanner sighting was that of a man abducting Madeleine and their failure to interview this supposed person-of-interest threw the investigation off track.

This bit about the innocent father carrying his child into the pathway of Jane Tanner gets even more ridiculous. It is also claimed that Scotland Yard just interviewed him in recent months and he produced not only the clothing he was wearing that night but also the pink pajamas of his daughter! Mind you, six years has passed but not only does he remember what both of them were wearing but he still has the clothing in his possession! What a miracle! One could think, perhaps, that this poor man, seeing all the to-do about Bundleman, how the McCanns were desperately searching for this man who they thought took their child at 9:15 pm, might have kept the clothing around just in case, one day, he needed to produce them as his alibi, clothes not only necessary to prove that he was Bundleman, but that his own daughter was in those pink pajamas and not Maddie. How kind it was for him to keep the clothing as proof and wait patiently for the police to one day call and how incredibly horrific a human being he was to not have ever contacted the McCanns or their private detectives to let them know that they should not be focusing on Bundleman as the man who took Maddie.

So, I can only surmise from these ludicrous claims of Redwood and The Mirror that either the man was early ruled out as having nothing to do with the McCann case because he was walking the wrong direction and, therefore, was not the man Tanner claims to have seen, or he doesn't exist at all and is merely a ruse to exonerate Jane Tanner from her claim to have seen the possible kidnapper (which would mean Scotland Yard is attempting to make Tanner an honest woman and bring a level of believability back to the Tapas 9) or it is a ruse to bring the time frame to 10 pm and the sighting of the Smiths which might have been a sighting of Gerry (which would mean Scotland Yard is playing a very clever card game). I wish it was the latter but I am a bit too cynical to harbor such an incredible hope. What I do know is Sr. Amaral never believed Tanner's story and he always believed that the Smith sighting was likely the real one; how Andy Redwood, Scotland Yard, and the UK media can spin this to the complete opposite is incredible and yet another rewrite of history and we can only hope one day we will have a clear understanding as to the entire motive that lurks behind all of these misrepresentations and manipulations.

Marco Zoppo, 1433-1498, Italian, Man carrying bundle, 15th century.