By Pat Brown
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 that was found by the new administrator
is dead and we only have a vague statement of what happened to Maddie
(something like an accident during the abduction that will give the
parents some peace of mind). 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.
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 IN THE UK MEDIA! I am stunned. I can only hope this means I might be wrong about the politics and there really IS something being done by law enforcement to finally prosecute the McCanns.
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
Comment (0) Print
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.
Click to enlarge
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
Published: July 27, 2011
W
hat really happened to Madeleine Beth
McCann in Praia da Luz, Portugal in 2007? Was she abducted as the Gerry
and Kate have claimed or did something happen to Madeleine on May 3 in
the vacation apartment and the incident covered up? Criminal Profiler
Pat Brown analyzes the evidence and takes the readers through the steps
of profiling, developing a theory that is intriguing and controversial.
