The End is Near in the Madeleine McCann Case – 19.03.2015
As most of you are quite
aware, I have refrained from commenting on the Madeleine McCann case
for months now as doing so has been both pointless and unpleasant. It
seems that many feel a great deal of anguish as the Scotland Yard
so-called investigation blunders on...with no inspiring results...and
Andy Redwood retires (which is hardly something a man would do on the
eve of a great investigative coup); frustrated, they are striking out
rather viciously at anyone who dares suggest that all is not going to
end well. In other words, the writing is in the wall - as it has been
since Scotland Yard announced that the McCanns were not suspects,
that they were only looking at an abduction, and that Jane Tanner
actually saw a man with a child (even if there is no evidence he
exists and he was walking in the wrong direction). This Met review
and investigation clearly was never intended to include the Tapas 9
as a focus and there are many who do not want to believe that their
hopes are going to be dashed after all the effort they have put forth
to shed light on the evidence and the McCanns likely involvement in
the disappearance of their daughter, Maddie.
But, four people seem to
agree that this case is going to be put to bed as a stranger
abduction that simply can't be solved or can't be prosecuted. These
four people are Gonçalo Amaral, Tony Bennett, Joana Morais, and
myself. Now, while we may not agree on exactly what happened to
Madeleine McCann, while we may not entirely agree on how it all went
down - who did what and what the timeline was - we all seem to agree
that the outcome is going to be politically based and not one
supported by evidence and proper investigation. In other words, four
people from vastly different backgrounds and skill sets, four people
who have a great deal of knowledge of the Madeleine McCann case, all
agree that a whitewash is in the making. Yet, there are many who are
outraged at each one of us for daring to suggest that Scotland Yard
has just wasted ten million pounds on a faux investigation, mad at
all of us in spite of the fact absolutely nothing useful has come of
four year of effort, that there has been zero progress, and they are
calling us names even though it is a straight up fact that there has
never been any focus on the Tapas 9 by Scotland Yard and it is also a
fact that you can't make a case against someone by claiming in court
that they are guilty simply because all other leads failed to put
forth fruit.
We are about to hear the
outcome of the McCann suit against Gonçalo Amaral but this matters
little as far as the criminal case is concerned. I hope Gonçalo
prevails enough to lessen the damage he has suffered, but it won't
matter as far as putting the McCanns behind bars; the civil case
truly has nothing to do with the criminal case. The criminal case is
dead in the water and as recent news reports have pointed out, there
are those who think the money being spent on the McCann case is a
waste of resources. I totally agree because there is never going to
be a true resolution unless Maddie's body is unearthed with
sufficient physical evidence to link someone to the crime. Since
Scotland Yard is looking in all the wrong places, this evidence is
never going to see the light of day. So, folks, all of you who think
a good outcome is just around the bend, brace yourselves. I know all
of you only want truth and justice but, as I have learned working
almost two decades in this field, the one thing trumps truth and
justice every time is politics.
The Brenda Leyland Inquest and the Suicide Ruling - 20.03.2015
The ruling came down
today that Brenda Leyland committed suicide, that no one else was
else was involved in causing her death. Already there are those who
say they will never accept the ruling, that they have no doubts
Brenda was murdered. Others accept the suicide ruling but believe
that there are those who are responsible for pushing Brenda to the
edge, in a sense, pushing her off the cliff. I certainly see their
point of view; Brenda might be alive today if Martin Brunt hadn't
doorstepped her, if the newspapers hadn't run a vicious campaign of
name-calling, labeling Brenda a troll in large black letters across
the top of tabloids, perhaps, if she hadn't been targeted by certain
pro-McCann groups that turned over a certain list to the
McCanns/Summers&Swan/SKY/the police/whomever that started the
ball rolling.
But, as far as the manner
of death is concerned, there is a large gap between criminal behavior
and bad behavior. Just as Brenda Leyland's tweets did not meet the
standard of criminal behavior, those who outed Brenda did not commit
any criminal acts as far as I can see, just rather mean ones. Now,
defamation is another matter and this is a civil one which Brenda
Leyland's family can decide to pursue or not.
But I want to discuss the
matter of suicide, why people choose this option and how often
families and others often refuse to accept this manner of death as
what really happened, why they so often believe someone has gotten
away with a homicide staged as a suicide.
First, to why people
commit suicide; because it brings an end to the struggle, whatever
struggle it is. Often, the full depth of that struggle is not
apparent which is why the act of suicide comes as such a shock to
those around the deceased. They might have understood that the victim
had problems or was depressed, but they don't believe that it was so
bad that the person would have taken his or her own life.
Interestingly, sometimes they are actually right, but the person who
has committed suicide lacked the ability to put things into
perspective; that whatever misery they feel today may blow over in a
couple of weeks, or they are overfocusing on the negative, or
everyone in life experiences bad blows. Some people can handled
massive trauma and others are felled by the slightest misfortune;
people are very different but families and friends often can't fathom
someone taking their life over something they think could have been
weathered.
Brenda Leyland could have
refused to talk to Martin Brunt. She could have shut down her Twitter
account, stayed away from the Internet, and taken a vacation to the
Canary Islands until all the nastiness in the news had blow over. She
could have then returned to friends and family and taken up the
rescue of abandoned animals. She could have, but she didn't. She
simply couldn't stand the pain she found herself in after being
thrashed in the media and she decided to remove herself from ever
having to deal with it or think of it again. This is the way suicide
happens.
But, some just won't
believe it, in spite of no evidence to the contrary. Brenda had
contemplated suicide; she said so to Martin Brunt. She researched
ways to kill herself. She bought implements with which to take her
own life. She went to a private place where she would not be
disturbed. She carried out her wish to end her time on earth. There
is zero evidence of anyone else in the room who assisted her in any
way nor is there any evidence of trauma which might indicate someone
forcefully took Brenda's life.
I can't tell you how many
obvious cases of suicide are brought to me by family who claim their
loved one was murdered. It doesn't matter to them that the death
occurred behind a locked door, that there was no sign of violence,
that there was a three page suicide note left beside the body written
in the victim's handwriting, that the deceased had spoken of suicide
prior to taking their life or had actually attempted suicide prior to
this successful suicide. They cannot accept that the victim needed to
go to this extreme, that if they had been that desperate, the family
would have known it and they would have helped them.
And, I think, in the end,
this is why the family refuses to accept a suicide ruling; they feel
guilty. They feel like they should have, could have done something.
They should have known their loved one was in such a bad way, they
should have, oh, why didn't they know? Were they too involved in
their own lives, did they brush off their loved one when they had
asked for help? Did they roll their eyes or scoff at them when they
spoke of their problem being so bad? Did they tell them to get over
it, move on with their lives, grow a backbone? Did they tell them
their significant other wasn't worth moaning about? Did they push
them too hard in school? Did they, did they, did they? The
recriminations go on because the truth of the matter is, you often
have no idea if a person is ready to jump, really jump, this time.
Who knows if during
another week or month of her life Brenda Leyland would have chosen to
tell everyone to sod off and then taken a cruise around the world?
Who knows if Brenda didn't have a myriad of other problems and this
was just the straw that broke the camel's back? Who knows if the same
treatment had been meted out to another "troll" that this
person might have not have stood up and fought back? Who knows? None
of us.
My prayers go out to the
family of Brenda Leyland in the wake of this tragedy. Whether they
want to pursue a civil course of action is entirely up to them. But,
as far as a criminal matter, this case is simply not one.
The Madeleine McCann Case and Occam's Razor - 22.04.2015
This post isn't really a
commentary on the Madeleine McCann case but this case does so well
represent Occam's Razor in crime analysis that I feel a need to use
it as an example. In my blog yesterday, "It Just Doesn't Work
that Way in Real Life," I discussed how shows like Death in
Paradise have very complicated scenarios of how a murder was
committed, the perpetrator being practically a genius of planning and
misdirection. I pointed out how rarely is this the case in real life;
almost always, homicides are usually acts of desperation born of loss
of power and control. Crimes of passion (quite mislabeled as passion
being the motive), also known as "out-of-character" crimes
(which is also a mislabel as the crime is quite within the character
of the person committing it) are relatively impulsive, so planning is
quite minimal. Serial killers are mostly of the anger-retaliatory
type and rarely plan the crime much in advance; usually they are
opportunistic and strike when they have a victim that wanders into
their territory alone or, while doing their usually trolling of an
area, finally get lucky when a target appears with no witnesses in
the area. The reason they get away with their crimes is simply the
fact that most of the time there are no witnesses and they are
strangers to the victim and there is no obvious link for the police
to follow. As long as they don't leave DNA that can be matched to a
DNA bank, they have a good shot of getting away with their homicides.
Much rarer is someone who
plans a homicide: a black widow poisoning her husbands, a man getting
rid of his wife so he can have his freedom, a boyfriend eliminating a
pregnant girlfriend. Usually the crime is not all that clever, it is
just often hard to prove in a court of law that the killer is guilty.
Much of the time, the body is well-hidden so that the "no-body,
no proof of a crime" rule applies. At other times, the crime is
staged as a stranger homicide and it works but not because it is so
intricately planned. It simply works because evidence is limited to
prove otherwise.
Killers are generally of
normal intelligence who commit their crimes without great forethought
and they also tend to cover their tracks in a hurried manner.
Murderers don't think to the depth of perpetrators on television or
in the movies; they just rush to take care of the problem and, in
doing so, act in a manner that many others in their shoes have acted
before. In real life, crimes are often committed and covered up in
similar ways, the way humans act when under pressure and with the
limited knowledge most have at the time of the crime and while under
stress.
I am repeatedly
encouraged in the McCann case to do further research on a number of
issues that some believe proves Madeleine McCann died earlier in the
week and that on May 3rd, the McCanns and their friends had a
preplanned course of action to stage an abduction. They believe there
is lots of evidence proving that Madeleine was dead for days by then:
incorrect creche records, a manipulated photo, no sightings of
Madeleine, odd behaviors, and no neglect of the children. I am not
going to argue all of this: I am going to point out Occam's Razor and
why have always thought that May 3rd was the key to what happened to
Madeleine and when.
If something had happened
to Madeleine days before, we simply would have seen her "abduction"
staged earlier in the week. In real life, planning to stage an
abduction for days and having to manipulate evidence of Madeleine
being alive for days when she was not, is simply too bloody difficult
to manage. Then, on May 3rd, after all that planning, the whole
evening was an ungodly mess full of inconsistencies and errors, which
would be odd for a so carefully premeditated scenario.
If the McCanns are
guilty, what May 3rd represents is a disaster, as Gerry pointed out,
and a quick attempt to over up that disaster. The simplest answer,
Occam's Razor, is that May 3rd was a confusion because very little
was planned and when it was (interviews with the police), it was
still a confused mess because there was little time to think anything
through and everyone's brains were a muddle.
The key to this crime is
very simple: the Smith sighting. The Smith sighting has always been
my Number One reason for doubting the McCanns' innocence in the
disappearance of Madeleine. The most consistent behavior of parents
of missing children is to want EVERY lead followed, even ridiculous
ones. On the evening of May 3rd, the Smith family saw a child who
could have been Madeleine being carried off towards the sea, yet the
McCanns expressed little interest in this sighting and even tried to
suppress it. If the McCanns were innocent and Gerry was not Smithman,
and even if they thought Jane was telling the truth, that Tannerman
existed and might have been the kidnapper, it is hard to believe
they would not have been gung-ho to follow-up that Smith sighting in
every way possible, the way they did with Tannerman.
Applying Occam's Razor,
why would they ignore and suppress the Smith sighting? What is the
simplest of explanations? Because it was Gerry and he was in the act
of covering up a crime that had just occurred. The reason Gonçalo
Amaral believed this to be so is because he is a real-world detective
and knows that Occam's Razor applies in crime investigation and the
fanciful stuff you see on television is concocted by writers who need
to come up with a show that is exciting to the viewers.
Detectives and profilers
often are driven nuts by family members and citizens who, when a case
goes unsolved, start going bonkers with unlikely theories, full of
very intricate plots. They figure, if no one has been arrested and
convicted, it must be because the crime is so complicated and clever.
In real life, it is often
so much simpler; the crime is straightforward but it is hard to prove
in court.
I just wrote a set of
responses to comments on my last post and I thought I should copy and
paste them in a new post because I think they are important enough to
restate in a place where more might see them. The comments I received
where on my belief that the Scotland Yard review of the Madeleine
McCann case is a whitewash and the recent ad hominem attacks on me
that been quite vicious, mostly attacking my professionalism or the
fact I am getting my information secondhand from the Internet (which
is pretty much true for everyone commenting on this case except that
I have been to Praia da Luz and investigated on the ground and I have
met withGonçalo Amaral). Here are my responses below:
I did not have faith in
the Scotland Yard review from Day One. Why? Because they were not
invited in by the Portuguese police nor were they looking for an
abductor where the local police search for an abductor had failed.
These are the only two reasons a foreign police entity normally
involves themselves in a case. So what was Scotland Yard doing there?
Only two possibilities: they are truly searching for an abductor in
which case the antis including myself are completely off the mark or
they are there to "find" an abductor which would put this
is under a political corruption label. Since I do believe evidence
points to the McCanns involvement and no abduction, this forces me
into the second camp. I still have no clue as to why Scotland Yard
would be brought in to cleanse the McCann name, but I can see no
other reason for this bizarre investigation.
The second reason I have
no faith in the Scotland Yard investigation is how inappropriately it
has been handled. I have seen reviews before and they don't require
this much time and money. Even if the detectives of Scotland Yard,
including Andy Redwood, were sent in with the remit that the McCanns
were off limits and the Yard was to focus on the abduction theory, it
is hard to believe they would spend so many years and millions on the
review without at some point, realizing that no evidence of an
abduction occurred and the Tapas 9 behaviors and statements along
with the cadaver and blood dog hits just might be where they should
be looking. Since so much time has passed and so many abductors
looked at, so much ground has been dug up that clearly was linked to
the abduction theory, one can only surmise, at least I can, that the
remit stands regardless of what anyone thinks. Who knows? Maybe Andy
Redwood was only trying to do the job he was required to do and,
maybe, he knows that it is hogwash and has tried to leave a few hints
to the truth along the way. Maybe this was what getting rid of
Tannerman and focusing on Smithman was about. However, since
Tannerman must have been fabricated, this certainly can't be any kind
of clever ruse to use against the McCanns because in court, the
defense would shred the police for misconduct. The prosecution in
this case had been dead in the water prior to the arrival of Scotland
Yard and they have only made matters worse, if something can be
deader than dead. ONLY if they find REAL evidence of someone having
abducted Maddie (like her body being found buried under someone's
cement porch or enclosed in the brick wall of their home) or Maddie's
body being found in such a place and with such evidence to link to
the McCanns, is a prosecution in Portugal going to happen.
As to the other cases of
similarity, there are many cases of parents with children who have
gone missing but no bodies. And, almost all of those have gone
unsolved. JonBenet was unique because the body was still there but
what happened in that case was a horrible early investigation which
compromised the evidence and the integrity of the department, leaving
the case as a bunch of rubble. So, the McCann case is really not alone in going unsolved. What
really made it become so big was McCanns own use of publicity and the
fund which is unprecedented in missing children's cases. Outside of
the McCanns wanting money and fame, their attempts to "locate
their child" or "clear their name" have failed
dismally.
As to the public view of
this case and the guilt of the McCanns, they matter little in the
eyes of people who control things unless they are a real threat.
Outrage is only so good if it has some kind of true power. The
outrage against the McCanns is pretty much just on the Internet and
in comments. This is not real power. When people take to the street
in droves, then you have something, but even with the horrible waste
of taxpayer money by Scotland Yard on a case that isn't even British
or likely prosecutable, where is the real protest? There isn't one
and that is why when Scotland Yard closes this case down with some
dead creepy guy or a "we tried our best" the whole case
will go quietly away except on the Internet where people who have
websites and FB pages and tweet will believe still that the whole
world is watching and not just some very tiny segment of it. That
Sonia can make a difference with her documentary is questionable,
although I appreciate her doing it. Unless she is really on a major
MSM channel (which I find unlikely), I think her documentary will be
much like Hall's; very useful to posterity but not so much still
enough to turn public protest around and expose enough of the
corruption to turn this case around.
As far as the ad hominem
attacks on me for not buying into certain theories, my frustration is
mostly at seeing things devolve from a clear focus on this case of
the McCanns' involvement in the death of their daughter and a
subsequent hurried coverup and support of Gonçalo Amaral and his
fight for justice, to a dozen very convoluted theories that I believe
only serve to damage the antis message that the McCanns are not
innocent and the fund has been stealing money for years from
unsuspecting people. In becoming so obsessed with creating
alternative scenarios to the one Amaral had forwarded, the label of
nutters and conspiracy theorists is going to cause the message to be
killed. While I take issue with many of these theories, I have never
made a personal attack on other antis because I don't want others to
think ill of them and, quite frankly, I don't think ill of them for
thinking differently than me, so I see no reason to not still be
friendly and polite. I don't want to cause the antis to disband into
camps that attack each other (which is what I am seeing happening)
and give fodder for the pros to abuse us. I feel bad for all because
I know they mean well, but, sadly, along with what I believe will be
closing of this case by Scotland Yard without any prosecution of the
McCanns, the message going into the future which should be one of
simple concern of mishandling of missing children's cases, abuse of
the media, misappropriation of public monies, and political
protection will be lost in all the ad hominem attacks and
complicated, bizarre theories. The gleeful personal attacks on me add
to this destruction because I am one of the few professional voices
on this case and if the antis call me incompetent, then that is one
less professional voice. Recently, some have even trashed Gonçalo
Amaral which pretty much is just knocking the legs from under us all.
I wish people would understand that you don't have to agree with
everything someone says in order to appreciate their efforts and be
civil.
I want to write a final
statement on the subject of ad hominem attacks in the Madeleine
McCann case and hope it has some effect on what I see happening
across the net. Although I did write a "final post" on the
case way back and stopped providing a running commentary, I have come
back a number of times to make specific comments on very troubling
issues. This is one of the concerning issues and applies not only to
the Madeleine McCann case but the problem of ad hominem attacks in
general. Whatever issue the ad hominem attacks occur within they
cause nothing but destruction which often is the entire point of
those dishing them out. Ad hominem attacks destroy civil conversation
and often shut down any unwanted viewpoint. There is a great
difference between debating a topic and attacking the debater. One
furthers analysis and the other shuts it down. And that is what is
happening in the McCann case.
I am not the only one
being verbally attacked; there are others who have suffered really
vicious slurs, some have dealt with far worse than I. Sadly, some of
those who have been attacked are attacking others themselves; hence,
the antis are factionalizing while the pros are pretty much just one
group. We have lost the point of what we set out to do which was
bring attention to the miscarriage of justice, open the public's eyes
to the police files that contain evidence that should allow the
public to question the McCann's innocence, to bring attention to the
fraudulent fund, and to support Gonçalo Amaral in his fight to
present the case to the public.
I think everyone was one
pretty much the same page until Scotland Yard stepped in. In doing
so, the Yard gave legitimacy to the McCanns and the pros' standpoint.
Scotland Yard's search for an abductor pretty much labeled the antis
as nutters. Now, at that point, we all had two choices: convince
ourselves that Scotland Yard really was on our side and it is just a
matter of time before they bring down the McCanns and we all are
vindicated or accept that no such thing is going to happen and we are
all pretty much just going to have to live with never seeing justice
and being labeled conspiracy theorists and idiots.
I chose the latter
because that is reality to me. It is sad and frustrating and
certainly not ego-enhancing but it is the way things work. My hope is
simply that enough people will eventually recognize that Scotland
Yard had a remit that was political in nature and, in the future, we
need to work to separate justice from political manipulation. I want
to highlight that the McCann case was a gross perversion of how
missing children's cases should be handled and publicized, how
private funds in such cases should be questioned and vetted before
money simply handed over to be abused. I want the case to be
understood because I believe that early proper analysis can prevent
homicides and missing persons' cases from going unsolved and
unprosecuted.
Others choose to believe
the former, that Scotland Yard will come through. And, some, I
believe, have gone further and further into complicated scenarios
because they doubt that this is really going to happen and the more
complicated the crime and the deeper the corruption, the easier it is
to eventually live with the closing of this case as an abduction. I
believe that when this happens, we will see years and years of
continued obsession with these complex theories because many will
need to keep doing so in order to counter the claim that the antis
were dead wrong in their assessment of the McCanns. And I am not
saying people don't have a right to delve into what ever they want, a
speculate in any way they wish, I am not calling these people names
and libeling them with all sorts of false claims; I am just pointing
out that as a profiler I have seen excessive spinning of theories
whenever a case doesn't see justice and, such theories rarely benefit
the understanding of the case and the lack of justice served.
Nothing sucks like having
the world label you as a moron or lunatic for spending years fighting
for something that wasn't even true. I know because I have had that
label put on me and there is no way to fight back because the truth
is buried and likely will remain so. Watch the Jack Nickolson movie,
The Pledge for a great example of this. I saw that movie years ago
and I remember telling people that when I fight for justice in
certain cases, if I don't win, this is exactly what will happen to
me. And it has. And it isn't pleasant.
I don't believe that all
that has been done in the McCann case has been for nothing even if
the legal state of the case goes south. I believe it is always
important that people speak out and question. And, when Scotland Yard
shuts this case down, I do appreciate that the work of many people
(even my detractors) will remain in public view.
The only thing I wish
people would understand is that if we tear each other to shreds, the
legacy left won't be a very good one and this can destroy all the
good work done until now. Everyone who is now attacking me for my
stance on Scotland Yard and my theory of the crime occurring on May
3rd is essentially is telling the public who reads of the case in the
future that they can discount everything I said. Because there are
attacks on Amaral, we can also discount everything he said. Because
there are attacks on Joana Morais, we can discount everything she
said. Because there are attacks on Tony Bennett, we can discount
everything he said, because there are attacks on Sonia Poulton, we
can discount everything she said, because there are attacks on
Hideho, we can discount everything she said, and on and on.
Who will then be left to
consider credible? I guess no one but the pros.
First they came for the
Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a
Socialist.
Then they came for the
Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade
Unionist.
Then they came for the
Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and
there was no one left to speak for me.
How the Ruling and the Scotland Yard Review have Nothing to Do with Madeleine – 29.04.2015
A lot of people believe
that when a homicide occurs, that law enforcement and the judiciary
system have a remit to pursue justice for of the victim, to do
everything possible to avenge the loss of life on behalf of a person
who cannot do so for himself as he is no longer on earth. I am not
sure what fanciful words are used in the UK and Portugal, but when a
crime occurs in the US, any effort made by police or prosecutor is
done so in "the interest of the state." What exactly does
that mean? Most believe that since the state represents the citizens,
it must mean "in the interest of the citizens" - in the
case of a homicide - for the victim, who was a citizen, for the
family who are the living victims, and the community who has a
dangerous perpetrator still in their midst who may well strike again.
In reality, what this
remit means is, a crime is pursued in accordance with how important
it is to those in power. This does not mean that there are not
detectives and prosecutors out there who are working passionately to
get justice for the family and get killers off the streets; there
certainly are. But, in the end, what it may come down to is how
important it is to those who run the state, not the people of the
state. The more important the citizen, the more effort put into the
case. The more media received, the more attention the case receives.
If the truth about the crime, the criminal, or the handling of the
case is damaging to the state, there may be some sort of cover-up,
small or large. If it benefits the state to put someone away and
close the case regardless of his guilt, so be it. If it serves the
state to fudge evidence or lie, it may well be done. Why? Because
there a people called politicians out there and they have the power
to have things their way.
I have long tried to help
people pursuing justice for Madeleine to understand that this whole
case is far bigger than one little girl. It stopped being about
Madeleine on May 3 because, after that, it became about the parents,
the friends, the UK, Portugal, police, politicians, media, egos,
careers and international political issues. Ever since there was UK
interference on a high level, it was clear this case had gone south
and that there were interests to the state that had nothing to do
with supporting the Portuguese police investigation. When the McCanns
returned home to England and the Portuguese shelved the case, this
was the second nail in the coffin of justice; it was clear the
Portuguese state had some interest to protect far beyond justice for
a small child. When Scotland Yard was given the green light to do the
review, there were only two possible reasons; the McCanns were
innocent or the McCanns and Company (whoever they are) were confident
that Scotland Yard had a remit to only address an abduction theory
and that it was ironclad. This Scotland Yard remit was evidence that
there were some interests to the state that were quite major because
it was an unprecedented move to have a UK police force intervene in a
case in another country that they had not been invited to participate
in and to start the case by limiting, from the start, the scope of
the review.
Next, we see a police
force spend an insane amount of money and time and manpower on one
case, a case that is unlikely to see any results if the parents were
not involved, because it is a fact that, if it were not the parents'
crime, then Madeleine was dead by May 4 at the hands of a pedophile
and her body tossed or buried years ago; hence, Scotland Yard was not
rushing in to save a life. And Scotland Yard certainly showed no
urgency because they took years mulling over the files and doing
god-knows-what instead of getting straight to work analyzing the
crime scene and suspects and getting the job done. I have never seen
a more bizarre state of affairs than watching this crack team of more
than three dozen detectives use more money than than the entire
annual budget for criminal investigation for some small countries in
the world and come up with absolutely nothing credible in a "simple
case of child abduction." Friends, this is politics, not proper
police work.
And now we have the
ruling. Some are already trying to see a silver lining in this
catastrophic legal loss of Gonçalo Amaral; the judge disallowed
certain points, the McCanns only got a partial payment, Gonçalo
still has an appeal. Make no mistake, if the coffin hadn't been
nailed shut with the Scotland Yard investigation, this is solid
evidence that there is collusion between the Portuguese and British
governments, that there was pressure on the judge to rule in favor of
the McCanns and against freedom of speech in Portugal. And, in doing
so, this readies the ground for the lowering of the coffin into the
ground, for Scotland Yard to follow suit and declare the McCanns
innocent of any wrongdoing (other than mistakenly thinking their
children were safe alone in the vacation flat), to close the case
with "we tried our best to cooperate with the Portuguese but we
sadly can no longer spend millions on a case we cannot bring to
prosecution; but we can assure the public that we know who the
abductor is and he is no longer a threat to anyone as he is a)
deceased or b) already in prison."
This devastating ruling
pretty much puts angel wings on the backs of Kate and Gerry McCann
and adorns Gonçalo Amaral with horns and a pitchfork, and gives the
media yet more fodder for pro-McCannism. Since Scotland Yard has
declared the McCanns are not being investigated, stated that
Madeleine was abducted, and has spent years chasing one lowlife after
the other and one pedophile/burglar theory after another, there is no
way that Scotland Yard is suddenly going to do an about face and
arrest Madeleine's parents, and if anyone thinks this is still going
to happen, I have both swamp property and a London Bridge to sell
you. It hasn't been about Madeleine. It has been and is about the
state. This is the way the world works. When there are no
compromising issues like incompetence, misconduct or corruption,
killers are caught, cases are properly closed, and the community is
safer. When it goes awry for whatever reasons, the state and whoever
controls it will make sure they don't go under because of one
unfortunate situation.
A lot of people have not
wanted to believe my take on this case. Personally, I would rather
not believe my take on this case! It was my hope early on, even
though I saw the signs of political interference, that there might
still be some chance of the Portuguese police reopening and solving
this case properly; that they would fight back against the UK
pressure. When I wrote my profile on the case and, even when I went
to Portugal, I still had some very faint glimmer of this case somehow
turning around. But, when Scotland Yard started in with all the
suspects and digging, I knew, for sure, it was a done deal. What has
been my interest in all of this? To promote good deductive criminal
profiling and proper handling of missing persons and homicide cases.
I would have been ecstatic to see Scotland Yard assist in the arrest
the McCanns; my profile would have been validated, I would be
vindicated, and, we could have a wonderful example of a police agency
willing to return to the evidence and, in spite of the unpleasant
prospect of have to charge parents of a missing child with a crime,
follow the evidence to the proper conclusion. Happy day!
But, this was and is not
to be. From years in the trenches, I can tell you that more often
than the public has any clue, justice is not served and families and
professionals and future victims are often collateral damage in the
quest for political expedience. In fact, I have seen cold cases more
often "closed" for damage control with lies and fall guys
than with truth and justice which is why I refuse to work them any
more. When cases go on too long, there is often a good reason; they
are broke and can't be fixed. And because things are the way they
are, because the world has many good people but is not always good, I
choose to do what I can that is positive and might bring the best
results for the future. I prefer to focus now on training detectives
in deductive criminal profiling so that they can do better analysis
of their cases and prevent errors that cause them to go cold. If one
can help detectives do a better job, than there it less likely that
egos and politics will need to take over a case and cause its demise.
The Madeleine McCann case is truly one of the most fascinating and
bizarre cases I have ever run into and it will be a case that will be
discussed for many a year. Perhaps, when a few decades pass, we may
learn the truth; perhaps, we never will. My hope is that we will
learn the right things from this case that help illuminate some grave
problems within the system, but my fear is that the politicians and
the media have so obscured the truth that the general public will
never get a proper understanding. Again, sadly, this is the way the
world often works; history is written by the conqueror, and folks, we
are not the winners here.
Peace.
Proving Nobody Else Could Have Done It – 23.05.2015
This bad guy didn't do
it....which proves what? Numerous people believe that Scotland Yard
has been chasing down every burglar and child molester in Portugal
because they are eliminating all the possible suspects in the
disappearance of Madeleine McCann, that by doing so, they can then
move in on the parents, Kate and Gerry McCann, arrest them, and have
them successfully prosecuted because it can be shown that the
investigation has proven that no one else could have committed the
crime.
I think many are not
understanding what proving "nobody else could have done it"
actually means. It does NOT mean nobody else in the entire world
because all others have been eliminated as suspects, but that "nobody
else could have done it" because only one person had the access
and the ability to commit the crime. For example, a bedridden,
paraplegic woman is found dead in her home; her husband becomes a
suspect, but could someone else have murdered her? The police are not
going to cull the entire community and get alibis for everyone. What
they will do is a crime scene analysis to determine if anyone but her
husband could have accessed the property and home.
One of the first
questions would be, how did the killer get into the house? By door or
by window? Let's say they find out the door was locked and only could
be accessed by key. Clearly, the woman herself couldn't have opened
the door because she could not get from her bedroom to the front door
to do so. Therefore, the police need to determine if anyone else
might have a key or been able to get a copy of the key to get in.
Then the detectives would have to analyze alternate accesses to the
house. Is there evidence someone broke in through a window or is it
possible a handyman came the day before and unlocked one of the
windows for future access? Also, is there any evidence anyone else
even got onto the property? If there is video footage that shows no
one else in or around the house, this is certainly a good way to
eliminate another suspect. If it is proven by way of evidence that no
one BUT the husband could have accessed the home or had been in the
home, then this is what is meant by proving "nobody else could
have done it."
However, suppose that the
woman was not bedridden and she could have simply opened the door to
a stranger. Suppose that there was no video footage. Suppose there
had been numerous strangers in the neighborhood; salesman, handymen,
burglars, etc., quite a number of potential suspects other than the
husband. If ANY one of these identified people could be suspects than
what one is saying is that any number of OTHER people could also be
suspects; even if you alibi out each and every one of the known
suspects in the neighborhood, there is still the possibility that
there is some other person that the investigation is unaware of who
is actually the one who committed the crime. Hence, you can never
prove "nobody else could have done it" by just eliminating
suspicious people. You can only use evidence to prove nobody BUT one
particular person could have done it because it was simply impossible
for anyone to have physically committed the crime.
If police are
investigating dozens of people in the community it is because they
are hoping to find one or more that have a connection to the crime;
they are hoping for a confession or lies during an interview or
someone getting nervous and ratting someone else out. A lot of times
when you see a wide sweep, the police are fishing and hoping they get
lucky. What they are NOT doing is trying to eliminate them in order
to have a last man standing, a ridiculous notion that would be
shredded by a defense attorney. What puts any one person away is
evidence that he and only he could have committed the crime, not that
a bunch of other people could not be proven to be connected to it.
And what complicates this even more is that even good suspects are
unlikely to be able to prove their whereabouts and so there would be
dozens one could not eliminate from the mix, so you can see how
pitifully it would go in court if the police claimed they eliminated
all other persons from the suspect list except the defendant.
As a matter of fact, if a
police department is searching for suspects based on gut and
unscientific hypotheses instead of relying on crime scene evidence,
they are failing to investigate properly or completely lacking useful
evidence. Suspects should be developed based on crime scene analysis
and not simply hauling in bad guys from the community and asking
where they were on the night thereof unless you have zero to go on.
Proper investigation is logical, not haphazard, and if you see a law
enforcement agency bringing in and interrogating suspects "just
because" then you have investigators who simply have no leads
and are just tossing lines in the water hoping to catch a fish by
accident or they are a poorly trained group of detectives who are
going by gut and throwing darts or there is some kind of remit that
is political and not investigative in nature (trying to appear
proactive to keep the media and community from harassing them,
railroading someone to put the case to bed, misdirecting the case in
order to avoid the arrest and prosecution of a particular
perpetrator, etc). History has numerous cases that are examples of
both all of these issues; the Madeleine McCann case is just one
example of an investigation that is ignoring the evidence (which does
exist) in favor of some purpose other than properly solving the case.
Although I have quit
running commentary on this case because I have always considered the
Scotland Yard investigation to be a sham and any true closure of the
Madeleine McCann case to be a ship long sailed, I would like to give
my thoughts on what the "scaling down" of the
investigation actually means : The British investigation into the
disappearance of Madeleine McCann has been scaled down, from 29
officers to four as her parents say they have not given up hope of
seeing their daughter again. Scotland Yard insisted the probe
continued but with a "smaller team", adding "Officers
investigating her disappearance have completed the huge task of
bringing together and investigating the massive amount of information
held by colleagues in Portugal, the United Kingdom investigation and
the private investigators working on behalf of the McCann family."
Some believe that this is good news, that Nicola Wall and Company
have stopped running down all the leads in existence and now are
focusing on the McCanns as the last suspects standing. As I have
stated before, it is not a proper investigative method to eliminate
everyone but the main suspects as it serves no purpose in forwarding
the investigation and actually gives ammunition for the defense of
the main suspects if the case ever got to court. The only reason to
investigate half of the known world is because you haven't got a real
clue as to who the culprits are or you are doing everything to keep
busy and avoid focusing on them.
So, what I believe has
been going on for the last number of years is fulfilling the remit,
to investigate all leads with the specific requirement that the
McCanns be considered cleared and off limits to further
investigation. Why Scotland Yard has been unable to "solve"
the crime so far either means the investigators accepted the
abduction theory and simply have not been able to come up with a
credible suspect or the known darn well no abduction occurred but
haven't come up with a suspect they feel is convincing enough to
foist on the public. Perhaps, they were told to simply make the
investigation appear thorough and allow it to dwindle away with an
eventual "We believe we know what happened and who did it but we
haven't been able to get enough concrete evidence to take the person
to court. Since he is (fill in the blank with "dead" or
"already incarcerated for life") ________, we are
administrately closing the investigation." I believe the heads
of the investigation took on the task of the latter while detectives
under them may well have been dutifully invested in the former.
Now, at this point in
time, the public who is unhappy with the increasing cost of the
investigation, can give a collective sigh that the investigation is
being scaled down, be happy that Scotland Yard put out its full
efforts to find the poor child, but satisfied that the public's money
will not be required in such large quantities anymore, that just
enough will be spent to keep an eye on possible new leads or
confessions or sightings. The public has a short attention span and
now that the big investigation is pretty much over and done with, we
can all move on. Game over. The final statement can come later when
pretty much the whole mess has faded away. My opinion remains the
same. This is a whitewash; always as been. The Scotland Yard
investigation in no way represents the way a police department
handles a true above-board investigation but has had all the
hallmarks of a staged play. I have seen such charades before - not to
this level - and the results are always the same; the truth stays
hidden and life goes on.
Why the McCanns Love Conspiracy Theorists – 06.11.2015
What is Even the Point of
Photoshopping in Sunglasses?
Yesterday, I wrote about
how unsolved cases can sometimes garner such great interest that the
public may overanalyze every piece of information and come up with a
more and more complicated theory about what happened and why the
crime has not been solved. Someone who read the post then wrote me
and said if the very in-depth theories about the disappearance of
Madeleine McCann had no validity - that "The Last Photo" is
photoshopped and wasn't take on the day claimed, that Maddie died way
before May 3, that the entire evening of May 3 including the
negligant behavior was just staged to make a kidnapping scenario
possible, that Maddie never was in the creche during the week leading
up until she vanished, that there is something far more sinister
involved in the disappeance of Madeleine than an accidental death and
panicked cover-up - then the McCanns would have offered more proof of
Maddie being alive until May 3 in order to quell these damning
theories. But, in reality, these theories do nothing but benefit the
McCanns' assertions that Internet crazies and trolls are making
ridiculous claims; it is the far more likely scenario, the simple one
of negligence and a desperate cover-up that the McCanns would like to
go away. This is why they want Amaral's book off the market, why they
want my book off the market - the truth is what they fear being
proven, not a myriad of farout theories promoted by people with no
power to influence law enforcement. The more fantastical the
theories, the easier it is to discredit those who create them.
In fact, the McCanns love
convoluted scenarios so much, they hired a bunch of crooked private
investigators to create all kinds of bizarre kidnapping scenarios
because they know the public loves to latch on to fascinating puzzles
and that keeps the money coming in. Can you imagine how few donations
they would have received if their PIs only looked for a local
pedophile who would have killed Maddie within hours of abducting her?
Not many would have supported that kind of search....it is just sad
and boring and even if it brings closure to the parents and saves
other children's lives, there is just nothing very inspiring about
searching for a dead child. The McCanns also have to be happy about
the complicated scenarios that Scotland Yard has managed to develop
because, again, it takes the focus off of a simple crime that points
to them being involved. If only all the focus of everyone - the
public, the police, and professionals - simply looked back at May
3rd, 2007 and analyzed what went wrong that evening, how the McCanns
likely dealt with it, and what they could have done to destroy the
evidence of their involvement and, most importantly, focused on where
her body might be - the one piece of evidence that could lead to an
actual conviction - maybe then, this case would have a chance of
being solved and justice done. I don't believe there is a snowball's
chance in hell of this happening at this point, but it is a shame
that more effort isn't put into just that.
