The Madeleine McCann Case and Occam's Razor - Pat Brown

Wednesday, April 22, 2015

The Madeleine McCann Case and Occam's Razor

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 their 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 to bloody difficult to manage. Then, on May 3rd, after all that planning, the whole evening was an ungodly mess full of inconsistencies and errors, if indeed this was so carefully premeditated.

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. EVEN if they thought Jane was telling the truth, that Tannerman existed and might have been the kidnapper, IF they McCanns were innocent and Gerry was not Smithman, 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.


Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/the-madeleine-mccann-case-and-occams.html

It didn't take Pat Brown long to come out of her hiberation, I thought she'd finished with all things "McCann" related.

Perhaps she's feeling left out and wanted a bit of the action just incase the Amaral vs. McCanns decision went the way she wanted it to so she could boast to everyone how "right she was".

Or maybe her webpage isn't getting as many "hits" in the days when everyone hung on to her every word, now that she's realised nobody is interested in her anymore she's had to come up with something to improve the "hits" on her webpage.

Not really followed,or read much of Brown's blogs,but this one sums up for me at least why it wasn't planned.

IMO it wasn't planned. But whatever it was happened the night before. Reason they had to concoct an abduction on a day, the next one, where all routines where different ... And ... they never thought police would investigate the days before. That explains most of the contradictionary T7/T9 statements May 4/ May 10.

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.
Unquote

Pat Brown is dismissing second-hand evidence/ theories which she has not yet read or researched.

So she's working with all the bits she likes for her theory and no other information.
Yes, most crimes are simple but this one isn't.

I gave up on Pat Brown after she'd been to PdL and noted several places to hide a body. As if the PJ had not done that already or had not even thought of it.
As if the dog teams had not been on site within hours.
But then she evidently hasn't read the files or taken much notice of other theories.
Glad I didn't buy her book at the time.

I am surprised Pat Brown has decided to write what she has, as she seemed to be sure the case was going nowhere and a whitewash or closure of the case was inevitable. Could it be Sonia Poulton and the mention of America (if correct) that has caught her interest, probably not, but it has got me wondering. Just my thoughts.

Start..

This post isn't really a commentary on the Mccann case...

But it is.

Pat wants to get back involved me thinks.

Coincidence that America has been mentioned over the last couple of days re Sonia's doc. Then Pat pipes up.

Like TB, she tried to convince all and everyone it was a whitewash so personally switched off and took no notice of her.

I do however agree with the no planning bit though. But as you all know that's just my opinion.

While it may be true that Occam's Razor is the best way to begin an analysis of any situation, it is utterly absurd to suggest that the explanation of an event must be simple, and that more complicated scenarios aren't possible

I didn`t think Pat could let go of the Maddie mystery completely; she spent her own money, time and effort on the case. It would be impossible to forget - she must keep constant tabs on the case IMO. I trust her experience and instincts above most. However I`m not so sure it can be that simple as I`m convinced MI5 are desperately trying to do a cover-up and for them to be involved means royalty and/or high profile politician who is probably a friend of an ex-prime minister and who has been involved in dirty dealings and has subsequently been made a Lord. I will not mention any names.

Mimi wrote:I didn`t think Pat could let go of the Maddie mystery completely; she spent her own money, time and effort on the case.  It would be impossible to forget - she must keep constant tabs on the case IMO.  I trust her experience and instincts above most.  However I`m not so sure it can be that simple as I`m convinced MI5 are desperately trying to do a cover-up and for them to be involved means royalty and/or high profile politician who is probably a friend of an ex-prime minister and who has been involved in dirty dealings and has subsequently been made a Lord. I will not mention any names.

Why on earth re-open a case only to cover it up?  Why take 4 long years and still nothing either way.  If a cover up was intended we would never have heard of the case, or it would have been done and dusted a long, long time ago.  It was shelved in 2008, why bring it back into full public attention again?   I go with Pat Brown in that in most cases the simple theory is usually the correct one.

candyfloss wrote:I go with Pat Brown in that in most cases the simple theory is usually the correct one.

Yes, most probably are relatively simple, but if - as PB has apparently done in this case - you assume that all situations are easily explained, you are going to be defeated by the difficult ones. On that basis, I doubt that Pat would have worked out who did it in Murder on the Orient Express

Out of curiosity... How does Pat make a living. 

I know she writes a few books and appears on a few sofa's etc.

Is she taken seriously overseas. Is she like America's number one criminal profiler..

I genuinely don't know. Never heard of her prior to following the Mccann farce.

Don't mean to be disrespectful if it appears that way. Just intrigued I guess..

Chop Suey on Toast wrote:

candyfloss wrote:I go with Pat Brown in that in most cases the simple theory is usually the correct one.

Yes, most probably are relatively simple, but if - as PB has apparently done in this case - you assume that all situations are easily explained, you are going to be defeated by the difficult ones. On that basis, I doubt that Pat would have worked out who did it in Murder on the Orient Express

So just how many people are involved in this cover up.  The list has been put forward on the forums for the last few years is absolutely mega.  From nannies, to Government people, from guests  to people who lived around PDL, from people who were witnesses to even the police.  Just how many people are conspiring to cover this up, whatever it is?

I am with you on this one Candyfloss - if there is such a huge cover up why don't they shut the Mccann's up! Why are they still fighting Snr Amaral in court, doing fun runs, asking for money from the general public? I think poor Maddies body has been disposed of so well that she will never be found. I just hope forensics have found Maddies DNA on the curtains!

In theory it's an absolute doddle and a piece of cake to solve.

Or so it should be..  

The best lawyers from all angles paid for by millions of pounds donated has caused big problems.

No money. No protection.

None of that then certain people would be banged up moons ago.

Still will be though.

Imo etc etc.

There doesn't have to be a cover-up, just an absolute need for the police to establish a watertight case before anyone can be charged (whoever that may be). Eight years of discussion on internet forums still hasn't produced a case that would last five minutes in court. We can't even agree among ourselves!

candyfloss wrote:

Mimi wrote:I didn`t think Pat could let go of the Maddie mystery completely; she spent her own money, time and effort on the case.  It would be impossible to forget - she must keep constant tabs on the case IMO.  I trust her experience and instincts above most.  However I`m not so sure it can be that simple as I`m convinced MI5 are desperately trying to do a cover-up and for them to be involved means royalty and/or high profile politician who is probably a friend of an ex-prime minister and who has been involved in dirty dealings and has subsequently been made a Lord. I will not mention any names.

Why on earth re-open a case only to cover it up?  Why take 4 long years and still nothing either way.  If a cover up was intended we would never have heard of the case, or it would have been done and dusted a long, long time ago.  It was shelved in 2008, why bring it back into full public attention again?   I go with Pat Brown in that in most cases the simple theory is usually the correct one.

I`ve said it before, it could be that the McCanns want their dead daughter back - they are in a tussle with the security services about it  - that`s why they`ve created such a fuss.  The security services wanted it covered up - the McCanns do not.  It`s just a possible scenario.  They both have each other by the short and curlies - both got dirt on each other. It could be GM made contact with TPTB and said help us or else, so TPTB called his bluff and snatched her body away.

I enjoy and respect your posts immensely mimi. However I can't see tptb hiding M's sadly deceased body somewhere and using it as a bargaining chip against a couple of nobody McDocs.

Again just my opinion.

Andrew wrote:I enjoy and respect your posts immensely mimi. However I can't see tptb hiding M's sadly deceased body somewhere and using it as a bargaining chip against a couple of nobody McDocs.

Again just my opinion.

But in this scenario, they wouldn`t just be `nobody docs` - they`d have to have some leverage to get help from TPTB. I just don`t know what that leverage is, but can take a few guesses. And no point saying TPTB would have bumped him off, because that was pretty impossible after all the hoo-ha GM made.
Anyway just my wonderings.

Ok, cards on the table time

Having considered thousands of scenarios over the last eight years, I would say that the theories concerning a catastrophic sequence of events on the evening of May 3rd (including GA's) are all among the LEAST likely

Anyway, Occam's Razor in this case would be an abduction. Maybe Pat missed that

I see where you coming from and you could well be on the right track. Although...

As said before I think it's a lot simpler than that. Yes some influential, high powered individuals were most probably around the vicinity at the time.

Big guns panicked. Realised it was a crock. Embarrassed etc.. But by that time the Mc's were laweyed up, practically millionaires overnight and the protection in that sense began.

OG spent last few years building an absolute watertight case due to the magnitude of it all. One go at it.

PJ weren't far off watertight at the time.

Yes, some interference to save face. Agreed.

Really don't think there is some 'stand off' though.

Be a national scandal if a group of lapse daisy nobody NHS docs neglected the kids in favour of getting pissed and one died. Accident or worse.

So again, yes a bit of intervention to put a lid on things.

Lid can't stay on forever though and about to come off in spectacular fashion.

Again IMO.

If this is a huge cover up by tptb why did Teresa May and David Cameron allow the case to be reopened? We mustn't forget about the Portuguese are they working on a cover up or are they blind to tptb's involvement?

If it was a cover up then nobody would know about it. 

No OG. No PJ. The Mc's be silent.

Be dead and buried a long long time ago.

It's not. And I like that.

They can't cover it up.

As true as my clock struck eleven.

A Pat Brown thread over there merged into why.. Yawn.. Smith is telling porkies by that TB character. 

Can't be arsed to read his guff. Will do though in morning. 

He must be on a good wage for this dissing the Smiths larkey 

Again. The

Totally agree Andrew, Candyfloss & Mo.

This could have been covered up years ago with silence. With no sightings, no cosy chats with Lorraine & no Leveson or Hacked Off, most people would have forgotten about the Madeleine by now.

Every time the McCanns speak, one or the other leaks information either by their words or actions. If they can't be convincing when it's their own necks on the line why would the security services trust them to keep something massive secret?

In her book, Kate had already mentioned suicidal thoughts and, as Benjamin Franklin said, "Three can keep a secret if two of them are dead."

The most successful cover-up would have been the tragic double suicide of the guilt-stricken parents unable to live without Madeleine.

In my opinion only.