The Agony of the McCanns is Over: Scotland Yard Solves the Case of Missing Maddie

The Murderer of Madeleine McCann

By Pat Brown

It has been a long six years for Kate and Gerry McCann. After the Portuguese police bungled the investigation of the kidnapping of their daughter, Madeleine, who was abducted from their vacation flat in Praia da Luz on May 3, 2007, the McCanns have endured being made suspects in their own daughter's disappearance and then suffered years of fruitless searching by their own private investigators, never coming any closer to finding out what had happened to their daughter.

In 2011, The Met (New Scotland Yard) launched Operation Grange, spending two years and nearly ten million pounds following every lead and tip generated by the PJ and the McCann's PIs post-the-evening of May 3rd, making absolutely no progress at all.

But, in a stunning turnabout just as the McCann's libel trial against Goncalo Amaral comes to a close, Andy Redwood of Scotland Yard has uncovered who kidnapped Madeleine McCann and what they have done with her, according to an unidentified source of Bollux Media.

When Operation Grange reached no conclusion after an incredible number of man hours and money had been frittered away, Redwood decided to use a surprising investigative technique; he would go back to the actual events of the evening of the crime. Although he was unable to get the cooperation of the parents of the missing child or cooperation of any of the friends who dined together with the parents on the night Madeleine went missing, he was able to get the cooperation of the television media and a bunch of actors (including a very capable porn star) and scripted a very believable version of what occurred that evening. Redwood thrilled the public with his incredible breakthrough moment in the case wherein he disclosed that the Tanner sighting was really that of a vacationer who was wandering about in circles with his child trying to locate his apartment which he had misplaced. He then went on to reveal that the Smith sighting of Gerry McCann was now the correct sighting and he was looking forward to the public telling him who they thought it was now that they could show the world the sketches the McCanns had hidden for years.

Lots of callers identified Gerry McCann, but a couple of folks said it was a burglar they knew from the neighborhood and the pieces fell into place. Redwood discovered that a flurry of phone calls had been made by a three man burglary ring that this man was a part of, a number before 10 pm and another number of phone calls a couple of hours later.

Today, Scotland Yard detectives have interviewed the men of the burglary ring and through a clever investigative interrogation method in which the men were asked what they thought a bunch of burglars might have done if they were involved in the crime, they related the following story:

Just after Gerry and Kate's friend looked in on the McCann children, one of the burglars entered the apartment through the unlocked sliding door. Although he knew the layout of the apartment and that any valuables would likely be either in the living room or in the large bedroom, for some reason he felt drawn to go into the smaller of the bedrooms first. When he entered the room, a small girl awoke and began screaming. Without thinking of the possible results, the startled burglar put his hand over her mouth. Being a small child, his hand accidentally covered her nose as well and after a short time, the girl stop breathing. Thinking he had quieted the girl, the burglar released his hand and then made the horrific discovery that he had smothered the child. Panicked, he called his fellow burglars on their cells to ask what he should do and they decided the best plan would be to remove the child from the flat so as to leave no evidence of what had happened. One of the burglars posted himself at the back of the flat, the other in the front, and the burglar inside raised the window. When all was clear, he passed the deceased child through the window to the burglar waiting outside. Having worn gloves to the burglary, no prints were left in the apartment.

The burglar receiving the body of Madeleine then carried the child back to his Praia da Luz flat passing by the Smith family on the way. One of the burglars went to retrieve his boat and the other patrolled the area between the flat and the beach. During this time, the trio kept in touch by cell phone. When the streets became quiet enough to quickly move Madeleine's body from the apartment to the boat, this action was completed and Madeleine's body was disposed at sea.

Scotland Yard is hoping the Portuguese prosecutor will arrest the three suspects and take the case forward to court; however, they feel this is unlikely because the Portuguese prosecutor claims there is insufficient evidence due to the PJ mishandling the case for six years. There is no physical evidence remaining after all this time, and there is a refusal on the part of the suspects to make a full confession.

Kate and Gerry McCann have issued a statement thanking Andy Redwood and Scotland Yard for absolving them of any wrongdoing in the death of their daughter and uncovering a story of her death which is not too awful. They also want the public to know that The Fund will remain active until Madeleine's body is found and brought home for a proper interment.


This newslike article is brought to you by Bollux Media and

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

January 14, 2014


Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann available at Smashwords and Barnes and Noble.


 

By Pat Brown
Rating:
(5.00 based on 5 reviews)

Published: July 27, 2011

What 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.

Tweet

"Madeleine." The Gift that Keeps on Giving...at least to a Profiler

by Pat Brown

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.

Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann available at Smashwords and Barnes and Noble.

By Pat Brown
Rating:
(5.00 based on 5 reviews)

Published: July 27, 2011

What 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.

Tweet

Crimewatch and Scotland Yard Team Up to pull One Big One over on the Public

By Pat Brown

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 motives. 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.

Okay.

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.

Tweet

Are Cadaver Dogs saying You're Lying?

by Pat Brown

Funny thing about those cadaver dogs; they haven't got a bone to pick with the person being investigated, no interest in closing a case or in railroading anyone. They just do what they have been trained to do. They may not be perfect in that they miss hitting on a spot, but they don't hit on spots for no reason. They are trained to locate where dead bodies of humans have been, not live human beings, not dirty diapers, not on a package of meat, nor a hundred other unseen types of biological items. There is only one thing that trips them up; the body of a decomposing pig (because of the similarity it has to a human body). Unless you can prove you had a dead hog lying about in you living room or in your car, the hit a cadaver dog makes is going to be on human remains. Actually, I am the one of very few people who could actually have a cadaver dog hit in my house for that very reason since my beloved potbelly pig, Gwendolyn (see the video) did indeed expire on my living room floor; however, most people can't make that claim.

Gerry and Kate McCann, parents of the missing child, Madeleine McCann, dismiss the fact that Eddie, the cadaver dog, hit in their vacation apartment and in their rental car in 2007 (but not in any of their friends' vacation apartments nor early suspect Robert Murat's house or property) as meaningless because cadaver dogs are "rubbish." In that same year, a cadaver dog also alerted to the smell of death in Adrian Prout's UK home after his wife, Kate, vanished. Although he claimed he was innocent and her body had not been found, Prout was convicted. After having a fan club that protested steadily that Prout was railroaded, Prout confessed and indicated the area where the body was buried; then more cadaver dogs helped police in the search and Kate's body was found on his farm.

Next we have cadaver dogs hitting in the case of missing baby, Lisa Irwin, who supposedly was abducted in the middle of the night while her intoxicated mother slept. They hit on one spot in the Kansas City home of the parents, Deborah Bradley and Jeremy Irwin, right on the floor next to the bed in the master bedroom. Deborah, the mother, claims she changed diapers there, but if the dogs were hitting on dirty diapers in the home, I would gather they would hit in more places than that one spot.

Now, cadaver dogs have hit again in a missing child case. Two-year-old Bianca Jones went missing in Detroit on December 2. Her father, D'Andre Lane, who was babysitting her at time, claimed on the day he was to return the child to her mother's home, he was carjacked at 10 in the morning by two men with guns. Now, his story stinks worse than a decomposing body. First of all, the "carjackers" choose him (a streetwise felon) driving a 1994 Mercury Marquis (not exactly a hot car from the most carjacked automobiles list). Daddy, seeing two thugs are about to drive off with his little girl puts up no resistance. Instead he calls 911 and the police go searching for the car.

Oddly, it is found just six blocks away (and one block from Binika Jones' house, the mother of Bianca), with no child in it. So, let me get this straight. These two carjackers went to the trouble of ousting D'Andre Lane from a car with a toddler in the car seat, don't take the car somewhere and strip it, don't sell it, don't use it for committing robberies (a common use of a carjacked vehicle) and don't take it for a joyride. They drive just six blocks and dump it. Maybe they didn't realize there was a child in it and, therefore abandoned the car? Maybe, but then why would they take the child? The story blows. And so did Dre's attempt to pass the polygraph. Not only that, but two witnesses saw the action: one saw D'Andre driving alone down the street and the other, standing by a window overlooking the alley, saw Lane pull the vehicle into it and walk away. No baby seen with him or in the car.

D'Andre Lane is swearing up and down he didn't have anything to do with his daughter going missing, but everything about his story has been pretty much been annihilated by the circumstances and witnesses. The cadaver dogs hitting in his apartment and in his car pretty much puts a bow on his story as being a crock.

D'Andre Lane is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, but he isn't a suspect for nothing. In the words of Gerry McCann, "Ask the dogs."

(left: cadaver dog hits behind sofa in the McCann's Praia da Luz, Portugal vacation rental apartment. From police files.)

_______________________________________________

My ebook, Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann, removed from Amazon following threat of legal action by Carter-Ruck on behalf of Gerry and Kate McCann, can still be found online at Barnes and Noble and Smashwords. Keep posted for news of my upcoming legal action with attorney Anne Bremner against the McCanns for tortuous interference with business and libel.

Tweet

Freedom of Speech, the McCanns, and Searching for Maddie

by Pat Brown

I have been getting a lot of questions about my search fund to be established with monies from the sale of my book, Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Some of the stuff certain folks are saying is seriously ridiculous, so I thought it best I make a clear statement with simple points they can understand.

1. I am not giving or receiving any monies from the McCanns' search fund.

2. At present, 50% of monies received from the sale of the Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann will go to the Pat Brown Maddie Search Fund. The other 50% earned from the book is income, not donations. I am selling a product and do not have to donate all earnings (or any) to charitable causes (however, I do pro bono work on other cases as there are OTHER missing and murdered children and adults than Madeleine in this world, so part of my earnings through any means funds this). I have chosen to donate 50% of the book's earnings to my Maddie search fund since she is the focus of this book.

3. The Pat Brown Maddie Search Fund monies will be not be spent on a personal salary (any time spent will be pro bono). Monies will be used for expenses related to doing a search: travel, equipment, hiring of local PIs, or bringing in experts.

4. If I can cover any search expenses by another other method (media, work in the same location, etc.), then I will do so. I always endeavor to always keep costs low when I do pro bono work so that the funds will stretch further: inexpensive hotels, staying with local people, cheap meals, etc.). If I choose to spend above the cheapest rate I can achieve, I pay out-of-pocket.

5. The Pat Brown Maddie Search Fund will be transparent with all monies earned on the book tracked, all monies put into the account tracked, and all monies spent tracked. A full account will be made to the public of everything associated with my fund and my searches.

6. The Pat Brown Maddie Search Fund has no connection with the McCanns' search fund and the McCanns have not given my fund any endorsement. However, it would seem to me if I search in previously untargeted places and either locate Madeleine or eliminate those possibilities, then the search is nothing but beneficial to the McCanns and is following in the spirit of "Leaving No Stone Unturned."

7. There are four theories as to what happened to Madeleine which influence how one searches for the child; whether one thinks she is dead or alive.

One:, the child died accidentally in the apartment in Praia da Luz and there was a cover-up; then we are looking for a dead child in Portugal, Spain, or England.

Two: a local pedophile abducted Madeleine; then we are looking for a dead child in Praia da Luz, Portugal or nearby.

Three: A woman wanted a little girl and got a man to kidnap Madeleine. Then we are looking for a live child somewhere in the world.

Four: A pedophile sex ring kidnapped Madeleine and she is being raped and abused on a continuing basis. Then we are looking for a live child somewhere in the world.

Now, as one only has limited funds (even the McCanns, although they have been quite hefty), it behooves one to put the strongest efforts into the most likely scenario. If the McCanns were not involved in any way (other than neglect) in the disappearance of their daughter, they ought to be using kindhearted people's donations in the most proper way; looking for a pedophile who abducted, raped and murdered their little girl, get him arrested and convicted so that Madeleine gets justice, and prevent another little girl from the same horrible fate. They should be putting a good portion of their search and investigative efforts into locating a local child sex predator.

Why? Because the methodology and descriptions of how Madeleine was supposedly kidnapped and by whom match a person from the area without even a vehicle to take her away in. There is zero evidence of any fancy plot nor even a person smart enough to park a vehicle in the car park right outside the window of Madeleine's bedroom in with which to make a quick getaway. Instead, we have the purported actions and descriptions of some creepy, not-so-bright fellow walking down the street with a child in his arms in full view of everyone. The chances of Madeleine being taken by a desperate wanna-be-Mom or a sex ring are minimal.

Should the McCanns still consider these rare possibilities and still look for a living Madeleine? Well, I can't blame the McCanns (if innocent) for wanting to believe their daughter is alive, so I can understand and accept that they want to put some efforts into that miracle possibility. However, they should be honest enough and good enough stewards of donated monies I(if innocent) to admit the likelihood of Madeleine being dead is very, very high and the likelihood of her being buried somewhere in Praia da Luz or environs is also very, very high. Their efforts should be concentrated there, with some monies set aside for the miracle.

So, I will be focusing on the two top theories; that Madeleine died in an accident and her body was hidden somewhere, or a local pedophile took her and her body is buried locally. IF it turns out that I get ANY information that proves Madeleine was abducted or if any evidence turns up that points to her murder by a stranger, this information will go straight to the police and the McCanns. If Maddie was abducted and murdered by a child predator, I want justice for Maddie and I want that creep put away and I want other children to be safe from him.

My theory as I laid out in my Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann is just that; a theory. If evidence surfaces that changes my view of what happened to Madeleine, I have no problem disclosing this and adjusting my theory. Theories change based on available evidence; hence, they are called theories, not facts. Theories often change over time, even those postulated by law enforcement and the McCanns. Even Kate admits in her book, Madeleine, her theories of what happened that night have undergone change as she has spent more time analyzing the evidence or after receiving new information.

Why the McCanns had Carter-Ruck threaten Amazon with legal action to get a theory removed from public view is curious as it is only a theory, an opinion, one person's take on probabilities based on what is known at this point in time. Perhaps we will find out why they went to these lengths when the McCanns get on the witness stand in a court of law (when my lawsuit for libel and tortious interference with business makes it to court; I have retained prominent attorney Anne Bremner of Stanford Frey Cooper). Perhaps, then, they will explain why one person's opinion is so concerning they need to go to extremes to get have it silenced.

Madeleine McCann is the most recognized missing child in the world, with the most media attention of any missing child in the world. Unless I am mistaken, more money has been donated to finding Madeleine McCann than any child in the world. My Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann should hardly affect such a large and successful (moneywise) campaign; so one wonders if the real issue the McCanns have with my profile is that my theory might actually be correct.

I believe in Freedom of Speech. I don't object to the theories of others on cases even if they differ from mine. I don't even object to someone analyzing my theory and writing their opinion of it. I would never try to shut down their viewpoint (even when things are taken out of context and misrepresented in some way); I merely suggest that interested people go to the source and compare the two viewpoints and think for themselves about what theories and concepts are more supportable by evidence and logic.

The McCanns could simply have ignored this profiler's opinion on Madeleine's disappearance or made a statement that they do not think my analysis is very good. If the book was truly libelous as they claimed through their solicitors, Carter-Ruck, they should have informed me of this or sued me directly. Instead, they went behind the scenes and had the book pulled from the market. Inquiring minds wonder why.

I will be in Portugal in February to support Detective Amaral's fight against the McCanns in court, to begin search analysis, and to hear just what Gerry and Kate McCann have to say.

May the truth come out one day and justice for Madeleine McCann prevail.

The Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann is available online through Barnes & Noble and Smashwords.

Tweet

Madeleine: Wherein lies the Truth

by Pat Brown

It is said there is often a lot of nonfiction in fiction and a lot of fiction in in nonfiction. Kate McCann's new autobiography, Madeleine, is a prime example of this axiom. I say 'autobiography' because Kate's book is not so much about what happened to her missing daughter, Madeleine Beth, but about Kate McCann nee Healy - her life, her loves and her losses, her trials and her tribulations. In reality, very little of the book is about the missing little girl who vanished in Praia da Luz, the lovely vacation destination in the Algarve of south Portugal; it is a carefully crafted revisionist history of one of the most puzzling missing children's cases in recent years and a strident defense of the characters and behaviors of Kate and Gerry McCann.

Children go missing every day around the world but few children get the level of publicity that has surrounded the case of Madeleine McCann, who was almost four-years-old the evening she vanished from the McCann's Ocean Club apartment, allegedly snatched from her bed as she slept in a bedroom with her twin two-year-old twin siblings, Sean and Amelie. What set this case apart from so many is the fact that her parents were not at 'home' with their children when this alleged abduction occurred; they were off in the resort complex dining and drinking with their seven friends for the evening. For that matter, all of the infant and toddler children of the Tapas restaurant party were left alone to fend for themselves while their parents enjoyed their last night in town.

Madeleine and her brother, Sean, had spent a good hour of the previous evening crying for their parents and a couple of the other children were fussy or ill, one to the point of vomiting while her parents were off having dinner. Three of the families locked up their apartments while they were gone, but the McCanns, Kate and her husband, Gerry, say they left all the doors open so that someone, apparently anyone, could have easy access to the children. The parents of these children were hardly uneducated boobs. They were medical doctors and surgeons and folks of relatively high status back home in their British communities. The case made the tabloids, but, in fact, it was the McCanns themselves that courted the media relentlessly, making Madeleine the most recognized missing child in the world and, themselves a target of a good deal of criticism and skepticism. They claimed their campaign was to find Madeleine but a fair number of people think it was a smokescreen to cover their own criminal acts.

When Madeleine turned up missing at the end of the evening's revelries, the world was not only shocked that the little girl disappeared but that her parents were neglectful in their duties to provide a safe situation for her. Not only that, but rumors began to fly that the McCann children may have been sedated by their own parents so as to not be problematic again when left unattended and with that additional bit of disturbing information, the McCanns became victims and villains at the same time. Over the course of the next few months, the police came to believe that the only victim in this drama was Madeleine who they surmised died accidentally while left alone and that the McCanns hid little Madeleine's body somewhere in Praia da Luz, staged an abduction, and with the help of their friends covered-up the crime. Four years later, the case remains unsolved and the McCanns remain under suspicion.

Which is why Kate McCann wrote her book, Madeleine. Not, in my opinion, to re-energize the search for her daughter as she claims, but to convince people of her innocence and raise revenue. Considering the fact the book sold 50,000 copies of the very first day and was serialized for half a million dollars and the Amazon reviews are mostly glowing and supportive, I would say Kate has achieved her goals in quite a smashing way.

But, there are still hidden nuggets of gold to be mined from within Kate's version of what happened in Praia da Luz on May 3, 2007. The one dangerous thing about telling yet another rendition of events is that there is often truth among the lies or lies among the truth; this is why police investigators always want persons-of-interest to keep talking and defense attorneys keep telling their clients to shut the hell up.

The added information in Kate's book has enabled me to complete a Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann (US) (and UK). I had been reluctant to offer one for a long time because, in spite of the many police reports and statements and television appearances of Kate and Gerry McCann, I wanted to hear the story from one of their mouths, to know their answers to some very pertinent questions. Kate finally did me the favor when she wrote, Madeleine, and although most of the book is a defense of her behaviors and actions, it is through this defense that Kate has given me a much stronger insight into what likely happened the night Madeleine went missing and why certain things happened or did not happen. Even with time to meticulously choose what one wants to say, it is amazing that what actually ends up coming out is something that perhaps would be better left unsaid. However, personal agendas, narcissism, and a lack of objectivity can cloud the judgment and the end results might not be exactly what the person intended. And I thank Kate for that.

Let me tell you two of the biggest revelations in the book: Kate admits no one came through the window of the children's bedroom. Yes, after years of insisting that someone broke into the apartment by tampering with the shutters and forcing the window open, Kate now backs down from that claim, agreeing with the Policia Judiciara that an abductor did not climbed into or out of the room. This is sort of a Bombshell Tonight. What this means is that Kate does not claim the police botched the evidence and while she still claims there was an abductor that opened the window for reasons that make no sense, her admission changes how I view what actually happened that night.

Another fascinating bit in the book is Kate's incredibly generous forgiveness of Jane Tanner for not telling her immediately that she saw a man carrying Madeleine off from the apartment; she is instead thankful that "someone had seen something." In other words, Kate is happy an abduction was seen going down, not that she was notified of it in time to do anything about it. This startling revelation tells me a lot about the mindset of the McCanns and adds greatly to the profile in determining what happened to Madeleine.

I hope Kate McCann does achieve her goal of re-energizing the investigation of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann and that the truth of the matter will indeed finally come to light.

Tweet

Women in Crime Ink Celebrates First Year Online

Women in Crime Ink is celebrating its first anni-versary today, and we want to mark this special occasion by thanking all of our contributors—and especially our readers!

It’s been quite a year since we launched on March 10, 2008. Most of the crime news took a backseat to a fiery election campaign, but there was no shortage of crime stories. The Caylee Anthony saga took us by storm and may prove to be one of the most followed crimes of the decade. And the most-publicized crime of the '90s was given a final chapter with last year's conviction of O. J. Simpson. The newly discovered DNA evidence in the JonBenét Ramsey case kept us chirping through several posts, while Women in Crime Ink gave cases like those involving Becca McEvoy, Davina Buff Jones, and Belinda Temple the attention they deserve.

Of course, we haven't forgotten the disappearances of student Natalee Holloway or toddler Madeleine McCann. By offering new theories, we have attempted to keep these and other missing persons cases alive in the public consciousness.

Our regular contributors have also brought you some of our personal stories that led to our respective "lives of crime."

As serious and thought-provoking as we try to keep our posts, occasionally, we like to have fun with our readers. Were you one of those who fell for the April Fool's blog that Jimmy Hoffa's bones had been found in New York? You weren't alone—that prank post spread like wildfire in cyberspace, burning nearly all who read it. (Don't be caught off guard this coming April Fool's Day. . . .)

Also last spring, Women in Crime Ink had the honor of a brief "appearance" on Broadway, at least within the pages of the Playbill for the production of "The Judas Tree," the visually stunning true-crime musical based on the crimes of serial killer Dorothea Puente. (photo credit: Alex Moore)

Early this year, we stepped onto another stage, joining the Facebook frenzy. If you haven’t already, stop on over at our Facebook page and become one of our fans! There you will also find a bookstore where you can browse titles by our contributors.

Our fans and readers have also been contributors to Women in Crime Ink. WCI guest contributors have ranged from homicide detectives to a polygamy survivor. Who can forget our "Independence Day Series," which featured the harrowing first-person account of a man who was nearly executed for a crime he did not commit? And then there have been those special occasions when people we've written about—or their friends and family members—have surprised us with a response. Indeed, sometimes reader comments have taken over our posts. For example, the brief (130 word) announcement that Manson member Susan Atkins is dying of brain cancer has generated 25,000 words. Keep 'em coming. We love hearing from our readers.

So let us know your thoughts about our first year! Use the comments section to tell us what you like about the site . . . what you haven't cared for . . . stories you’d like to see more of . . . and any ideas you have as to how we can improve.

Thanks, everyone, for reading and for contributing to Women in Crime Ink. And a special thank you to Cole Stevenson for designing the site and to Rex White for creating our Justitia logo and original art. These talented men helped the women of WCI get up and running . . . and our contributors and readers have kept us going strong. Thanks!

Tweet

Getting Away with Murder - Part 1

by Stacy Dittrich

Is it really that easy? Any prudent person would formulate the opinion that committing an act of murder—and getting away with it—is a fairly simple task. A little skill, minimal thought, and a final resting place is all you need these days. Or, so it seems. Now that the elections are over, we are once again barraged with the latest crime stories in the news—those that are new, and those we have been subjected to over the last five years. Every day a new piece of evidence emerges that may, or may not, solve one of the grisly murders that we have been talking about daily in coffee shops and beauty salons everywhere.

Today and Monday, I will cover those cases that refuse to go away, those that have earned their rightful places in the Crime Hall of Fame. Solved, unsolved, body, or no body, guilty, or not guilty, these cases continuously permeate an air of mystery or suspicion at the slightest mention of their names. At the mere hint of the stories taking a back seat, crime bloggers and media worldwide drive these cases to the forefront once again.

I’ll begin with the most recent:

1. Caylee Anthony—Missing since June, 2008, No Body Found.

Perhaps one of the most high-profile cases in recent history, the case of missing 2-year-old Caylee Anthony continues to draw our attention. The circus-like atmosphere that has attached itself to the missing Orlando toddler’s mother, Casey Anthony (pictured right with Caylee), has undoubtedly clouded the true focus of the case—finding Caylee and bringing her killer to justice.

Her daughter last seen sometime in mid-June, Casey Anthony waited almost a month before reporting Caylee missing. In fact, she didn’t report it all; it was her mother Cindy Anthony that called 911 to report her granddaughter missing after they found Casey’s car, a white Pontiac that, in Cindy’s own words “smell[ed] like a dead body was in the damn car!” Cindy Anthony, a former nurse, and her husband, George, a former police officer, quickly dismissed the obvious when they realized the horror of what most likely had transpired: their own daughter murdered their granddaughter. Both familiar to the stomach-churning odor of a decomposing body, they later brushed off the smell as "rotting pizza."

Regardless, Casey Anthony wouldn’t talk. She insisted her daughter had been taken by a nanny whose existence the police quickly disproved. After finding chloroform in Casey’s trunk—coupled with computer searches on obtaining the deadly chemical—police were convinced that little Caylee was deceased. Add to that the physical evidence of decomposition in the trunk and one would think it is a clear-cut case of murder. Unfortunately, there is no body, and the prosecutors are dotting their i’s and crossing their t’s to make sure they can put forth the best case possible against Casey Anthony.

Her attorney, Jose Baez, continues to maintain “we’ll all be sorry” when the real truth comes out. Of course, neither he nor his client has bothered to expose that truth during the investigation. It seems that they would rather wait until Casey is facing the death penalty to say, “I told ya so!” Public displays of affection shown between Baez and Casey has reared its ugly head as well.

Then comes along the colorful, gun-totin’, cowboy-hat-wearing, bounty hunter, Leonard Padilla. Padilla, at first, believed in Casey’s innocence, enough to post her bond before realizing what a fool he looked like. Apparently, he didn’t mind because he subsequently launched a search frenzy, which included divers from the controversial Blackwater USA and thousands of people walking through the dense woods in search of little Caylee. Undaunted by the fact he and his people could potentially taint or alter much-needed evidence, Padilla (proudly posing left) has become a thorn in the side of law enforcement. He even pushed out the well-respected Tim Miller of Texas EquuSearch by telling Tim, “Imagine the money we could make if we’re photographed holding little Caylee’s skull?” Ugh.

Yes, he’s searching, but he's doing more harm than good, and it is past time for him to go home and bury his cowboy hat in the desert sand while squatting over a cactus.

Merge all of this with the numerous protesters in front of the Anthony home—with George and Cindy parading around town with their “Find Caylee” t-shirts—and the stone-cold monster, Casey Anthony, sitting in jail painting her nails, along with the book and movie deals, and it would appear this melee isn’t going away any time soon.

In the meantime, the remains of a beautiful, innocent, 2-year-old little girl are out there somewhere, and her mother stays silent as she sits in jail.

2. Stacy Peterson—Missing, October 28, 2007, No Body Found.

Women in Crime Ink’s Susan Murphy-Milano refuses to mention his name, and as much as I hate to give Drew Peterson any attention at all, his missing wife certainly deserves it. Former Bolingbrook, Illinois police sergeant Drew Peterson is not only a suspect in the disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy (pictured right with Drew), but he is also suspected in the recently determined homicide of his third wife, Kathleen Savio. He has yet to be charged with either.

Stacy Peterson was last seen October, 28, 2007, and was reported missing by her sister when she failed to show up to a scheduled meeting. Drew reportedly told the family that Stacy had left him for another man and he found her car at the airport—claims Stacy’s family deems utterly preposterous. She left behind two small children that she completely adored.

Nonetheless, new evidence surfaced that Drew’s third wife, Kathleen, had not died accidentally and the focus intensified on the arrogant, publicity-seeking, former police officer. Not that he was worried. Hiring a publicist and accompanied by his shady lawyer, Joel Brodsky—a man with his own history of domestic problems—Drew hit the media circuit, hamming it up and posing for the cameras, insisting that his wife was still alive.

With a significant lack of evidence in Stacy’s disappearance, authorities focused on the homicide of Kathleen Savio. At this time, the grand jury is still hearing testimony and deciding if there is enough evidence to indict Drew for murder. However, while they wait for the grand jury, the authorities are holding a gun charge over his head that most likely won’t amount to much. A new book out on Drew claims he failed a polygraph test that related to his missing wife. Like everything else, Drew dismisses the test as inaccurate.

Drew continues to push the envelope and mock law enforcement. Just recently, he met with a divorce attorney to file against his wife for “abandonment,” in an attempt to sell off their assets and move from the neighborhood.

3. Madeleine McCann—Missing, May 3, 2007, No Body Found

Three-year-old Madeleine McCann (pictured below) disappeared from her family’s apartment at the resort of Praia da Luz, in the Algarve region of Portugal. The British family was vacationing there when Kate and Gerry McCann went to dinner with another couple, leaving Madeleine and her 2-year-old twin siblings alone in the apartment. The restaurant was only 130 yards away from the apartment.

At approximately 10 p.m., Kate McCann allegedly checked on the children and found Madeleine gone, and a window to the apartment open. What followed was an international frenzy of theories, finger-pointing, and searches in hopes of finding the little girl alive.

Kate and Gerry McCann immediately fell under an umbrella of suspicion. Both doctors, the theory they had given Madeleine too much medicine to make her sleep causing an accidental death began to circulate. The McCanns, who vowed to not leave the country until their daughter was found, fled months later after an intense focus on them by investigators.

The Portuguese police compiled an impressive list of suspects and theories relating to Madeleine’s disappearance, all of which were disproved and unfounded. In July 2008, the McCanns were officially cleared as suspects in their daughter’s disappearance, raising eyebrows of other law enforcement investigators worldwide.

If there were ever a case where I believed there was a minuscule (and I mean microscopic!) chance that the missing were actually alive—this would be the one. An international investigation such as this can bring forth many possibilities. It’s doubtful, but it wouldn’t be surprising.

Why haven’t these bodies been found? And, why haven’t some of the suspects been charged? It’s a touchy subject. A lack of evidence in some of the cases prohibits the prosecutors from launching a tirade of charges against the most likely suspect. Or, as in the case of Natalee Holloway, the evidence is there but politics play a far bigger role than an American teenager’s death. That said, it appears that most of the suspects in these high-profile cases will undoubtedly get away with murder.

On Monday, November 24th, in Part 2 of this story, I will touch on the cases of Natalee Holloway, Rilya Wilson, O.J. Simpson, and JonBenét Ramsey. Please leave your thoughts and comments on each of these stories. I’m curious to see who believes in innocence, guilt, and whether any of these bodies will be found.

Tweet