Thoughts on the case from crime expert Pat Brown

Hellsbells wrote:may 12th 2007: The McCanns arrived back at their resort apartment at 4pm yesterday after spending the day with their twins Sean and Amelie, two, in a brave bid to carry on as normally as possible. Amelie was carrying a red balloon. Kate hugged Sean, who was carrying a green balloon. Gerry smiled and paused for photographs and kissed Amelie gently as they walked into the apartment.



http://www.mccannfiles.com/id86.html

where were they at lunchtime? who knows?

Managing Director of MW - David Hopkins - shown in the background here looking quite upbeat, imo,  given the disaster that has allegedly occurred at OC.

ETA: Amelie looks older in the alleged 'last photo'. She has less puppy-fat than in the photo taken on 12th May. Looks like a different child, imo.
ETA: Amelie's left arm is missing. Given the angle she is sitting at, it should be there. I think that this photo was cobbled together in a rush and I suspect that the only person in it was GM. He looks desperate, imo. I wonder who took the photo? KM or someone else? I think both Madeleine and Amelie (if, indeed, it is them in the photo) were photo-shopped in. And of course if the photo was taken on 12th May then it is unlikely that GM would have extracted Amelie from the villa to take the photo as it would be too suspicious.)

good find about the villa, poster. Phone pings suggest they were in the PDL area all day.
is it the same olive coloured shorts/trunks in this photo?? same shoes anyway. released may 26th, 2 days after LP.

Hellsbells wrote:good find about the villa, poster. Phone pings suggest they were in the PDL area all day.
is it the same olive coloured shorts/trunks in this photo?? same shoes anyway. released may 26th, 2 days after LP.

What day was this supposed to be I wonder? And what time? The presence of a number of other people including children is of interest. Why chose to include them? Have all the other people been identified?

The only person engaging with the photographer is Raj Balu which is odd, imo. He doesn't look that pleased either. I think the couple have been identified as the Boyds? But what about the woman holding a toddler? I wonder who she is?

IMO the child that is supposed to be Madeleine in that photo has either been photo-shopped in or it is another child. You cannot see her face which might mean it is another child.

http://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/t17692p1-police-payments-sun-reporter-arrested

well as the LP is supposed to be the "last" photo, this is supposed to be tea time the day before, may 2nd. The only appearances those shorts/trunks appear to have made were in this photo, the LP, and on may 12th.

Interesting interview with MD of Mark Warner five years after the alleged 'abduction':

For a brand that built its reputation, in part, on the quality of its childcare programmes, such a high profile incident as the Madeleine McCann disappearance was particularly unfortunate.

Hopkins, who was personally involved in dealing with the aftermath of the toddler’s disappearance, working closely with the family and investigators, believes a weaker firm may not have survived.

“We did everything we could at the time – to support the family.

“We survived it when a lot of other companies would not. It was a sign of the strength of the brand and the good crisis management procedures we have.”


http://www.travelweekly.co.uk/articles/40429/big-interview-mark-warner-puts-renewed-focus-on-quality-at-heart-of-strategy

Hellsbells wrote:well as the LP is supposed to be the "last" photo, this is supposed to be tea time the day before, may 2nd. The only appearances those shorts/trunks appear to have made were in this photo, the LP, and on may 12th.

That would be consistent with TM wanting and needing to gather (retrospective) 'evidence' that Madeleine was at OC alive and well that week particularly on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday.

That suggest to me that *something* had happened by Monday which would have made if difficult/impossible/incriminating to get photographic evidence of Madeleine having been at OC after Monday 30th April.

So we have:

Tuesday 1st May - the 'tennis balls' photo. Allegedly taken by Kate in the morning at the end of the Mini Club mini-tennis session. (Be interesting to see exactly when the session ended from the creche activity records?)

Wednesday 2nd May - the playground photo. Allegedly taken around tea-time?

Thursday 3rd May - The 'last photo'. Allegedly taken after lunch in the apartment and before the children went back to their kids' clubs.

Of note in terms of photographic evidence, or not (ahem!): it is on Thursday morning after Kate's tennis session (which would have ended at 10.15am) that Kate - who 'hung around the grassy play area, watching Gerry on the court and chatting to Russell', records in her book a peculiar, imo, conversation with a fellow guest. I think this man has been identified as Nigel F from Southampton. Matt too mentions this incident in one of his rogatories.

We know from all the accounts that the incident involves someone or several people using a video-recorder to film Nigel's three year old daughter playing mini-tennis (presumably with her Mini Club group) on Thursday morning.

What is unclear is who exactly was holding the video-recorder and filming Nigel's daughter.

Kate in her book claims it was Nigel who 'looked a little embarrassed and laughingly remarked to us that filming in this way made him feel like a dirty old man."

Russell talks at length about this incident - which police appear to find interesting - in at least one of his (later) rogatories and his version of events falls broadly in line with Kate's in that he claims that it was Nigel filming his own daughter.

However, if you look at Russell's first police statement, which has been translated, you will see a different scenario emerging. Even allowing for 'lost in translation' Russell has been unable to wriggle out of the police line of questioning. Scroll down the link below and you will see the Russell's statement made to Portuguese police on 11th May 2007. Note the final few paragraphs.


The deponent remembers only one episode, that for him did not have any importance, but that, given the circumstances, make him relate it. States that between the activities of tennis and others on the beach, he took notice of an individual who he only knows as NIGEL - a British individual, married, and with a daughter of 3 years whose name is Ixxx. He had trivial conversations with him. On the day of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, in the late morning, part of the group, with their children, were next to the tennis courts when NIGEL approached him. They were filming his daughter, with a video camera, and that, questioned, the deponent states that he does not remember seeing anyone with such an apparatus. Considering the current particulars of paedophilia, they conversed and the deponent considered this perfectly normal. Nigel had commented that he felt uncomfortable in having his daughter filmed. The deponent finished by concurring with him and together they spoke about the ridiculous situation and 'the state to which the world has come'. The deponent states that he has no reason to suspect NIGEL, in any circumstances whatsoever, and that he appeared to him a normal citizen, with a normal family. He never again thought about this conversation and only reports it of all the situations of the week, he has no incident to register or relate.



Could it just be that TM had a need to get some grainy footage of a three-year-old girl playing mini-tennis that week? In an attempt, perhaps, to show that Madeleine was indeed at her mini tennis lesson on Tuesday morning? The one that was so lovingly captured by Kate - allegedly - who ran back to get her camera and record it? But, unfortunately for TM, a fellow holiday-maker noticed their behaviour which made him feel uncomfortable enough for him to approach the group and speak to them?

I'd love to see Nigel's police statement!

Also of note, imo, is that Kate claims that she and Madeleine went swimming on arrival day at OC which would have been Saturday 28th April. There is no photographic record of this but when describing the encounter with Nigel, Kate includes this: "I mentioned not being allowed to take photographs of your own kids in swimming pools any longer."

This has always struck me as a very odd thing to have written. Why would Kate have written that?


http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic57.html?sid=e7f95e47908df3dd2164e7e7f7753b44

well that may be true of public swimming baths in the UK (and possibly in Portgual too though I have no idea) but I doubt it applies to taking a snap of your family in the pool on holiday, or that anybody would think it does either. Sounds more like a way of emphasising that she was there when she wasn't.

Hellsbells wrote:

Dee Coy wrote:But what we do know is that he was definitely wearing the full outfit - including sunglasses - on 12 May, 9 days after the disappearance and 9 days after the photo is claimed to be taken.

well done TTIO for unearthing those photos again, I tried internet and forum searches for hours but couldn't find them even though I knew they existed! as far as I can see may 12th is the only day when those shorts/trunks made an appearance, there's no sign of them in any other pics. Clothes were different outside the church that day. As for the sunglasses...





the max temp on may 12th was 20C, not excessively warm, but the wind was no more than moderate, less than april 29th, and the car park pics show it was obviously a lovely day just like the LP. Sadly we can't see the watch in the LP or we might know the time!!! I think it's 10 to 3 in the car park but not sure???

The girl in the top and bottom photos looks far younger than the girl that is supposed to be Amelie in 'the last photo'. The 'last photo' girl looks to be of an age where she would be out of nappies - and it doesn't look as though she is wearing nappies - whereas the girl in the top and bottom photos is definitely wearing nappies which would be consistent with how old she looks.

ETA: The girl which is supposedly Amelie in the 'last photo' looks more like a three year old than a two year old. Even the way she is sitting at the pool edge is more assured than you would expect from a two year old who you would probably even need to be holding to make sure she didn't plop into the freezing water. At the time this photo is supposed to have been taken Amelie was two years and just over three months (the twins were born on 1st Feb 2005). That child looks considerably older. imo.

Could it just be that TM had a need to get some grainy footage of a three-year-old girl playing mini-tennis that week? In an attempt, perhaps, to show that Madeleine was indeed at her mini tennis lesson on Tuesday morning? The one that was so lovingly captured by Kate - allegedly - who ran back to get her camera and record it? But, unfortunately for TM, a fellow holiday-maker noticed their behaviour which made him feel uncomfortable ......

That is what I have always thought about the reason they were filming poster. It chimes with the comment made by Bridget O'Donnell when she said there were several little girls, all in pink running around or words to that effect.

chirpyinsect wrote:
Could it just be that TM had a need to get some grainy footage of a three-year-old girl playing mini-tennis that week? In an attempt, perhaps, to show that Madeleine was indeed at her mini tennis lesson on Tuesday morning? The one that was so lovingly captured by Kate - allegedly - who ran back to get her camera and record it? But, unfortunately for TM, a fellow holiday-maker noticed their behaviour which made him feel uncomfortable ......

That is what I have always thought about the reason they were filming poster. It chimes with the comment made by Bridget O'Donnell when she said there were several little girls, all in pink running around or words to that effect.

Yes - but they got caught red-handed, imo!

The playground photo (where Madeleine's face can't be seen) was possibly taken on the arrival day 28th April as the clothes worn by the other two children are very similar to what they had on in the airport bus footage.

Rich Hall suggests all (5) photos were taken on 'arrival' day. Although he suggests the 'tennis balls' pic is a fake. (Been watching a few snippets this aft quickly).

The playground pic to me is cobbled together and is as fake as they come.

Just my opinion.

eta - and i agree that the tennis ball pic is fake and i think the last photo is a fake. Also think the remaining 2 are dubious in whether it actually is 'Madeleine'

That word 'confusion' again.

Not Textusa is getting very agitated indeed over on Cristobell's blog about there being hard evidence - including photographs and creche sheets - of Madeleine having been around right up to tea-time on Thursday 3rd. So both photographs and creche sheets must be a biggie!

Hellsbells wrote:well that may be true of public swimming baths in the UK (and possibly in Portgual too though I have no idea) but I doubt it applies to taking a snap of your family in the pool on holiday, or that anybody would think it does either. Sounds more like a way of emphasising that she was there when she wasn't.

Perhaps Kate's account of having gone swimming with Madeleine on Saturday is pure fiction (although I wonder why she would make this up?) and the comment above is partly designed to explain why there is no photographic record of this event.

Still an odd thing to believe, imo.

if you want to stretch that to a conspiracy theory that will make PB's head explode, there's not much evidence that Maddie ever existed at all. Yes really. The photo evidence is full of contradictions, particularly on the holiday, but the lack of genuine sounding anecdotes from friends and family is even more mysterious.
there must have been a little girl or baby around from time to time, the one in the photos that have been released, but I'm not sure that MM actually "existed" in the normal sense of the word.
I have a wide circle of friends and have browsed many a family album, but the pics of Maddie must rank as the weirdest collection of photos I've ever seen.
sock it to me Pat!!

Hellsbells wrote:if you want to stretch that to a conspiracy theory that will make PB's head explode, there's not much evidence that Maddie ever existed at all. Yes really. The photo evidence is full of contradictions, particularly on the holiday, but the lack of genuine sounding anecdotes from friends and family is even more mysterious.
there must have been a little girl or baby around from time to time, the one in the photos that have been released, but I'm not sure that MM actually "existed" in the normal sense of the word.
I have a wide circle of friends and have browsed many a family album, but the pics of Maddie must rank as the weirdest collection of photos I've ever seen.
sock it to me Pat!!

I've quite often thought that. But then what about the Gasper statement? The family went on holiday with the McCanns? So they would have spent days with them and got to know the children, including Madeleine, reasonably well. And we know that the Gaspers saw them at children's birthday parties, presumably including Madeleine's. What about the Madeleine's nursery school staff? They would have known her reasonably well. The friends from nursery school that Madeleine was to share her fourth birthday with?

But I totally agree that the photos are weird and the very few 'happy family' shots look to me like composites put together to paint a rosy picture of family life chez McCann which didn't exist, imo.

Snipped from Cristobell's blog. Not Textusa getting hot and bothered:

I really don't give the tiniest fart what you believe or otherwise. The fact remains that

* there are several independent witnesses who knew or would recognised Madeleine who saw her that day

* the creche records are consistent with their accounts

* there is at least one photographic record from that day and another one of which we are aware. There may be others which were handed to the UK police and which do not form part of the case file. You are not entitled to see them; it's called 'evidence', you wouldn't understand.

* You can disbelieve the photos if you wish. That still leaves multiple witness accounts of what happened that day. So, would you care to explain your view on those?

IMO all of the above are sensitive. Well done everyone who has scrutinized this case.

What great about Not Textusa is s/he is a good barometer of when things get 'hot'! I wonder who s/he is - must be quite close to the centre of things, imo

poster wrote:we know that the Gaspers saw them at children's birthday parties, presumably including Madeleine's. What about the Madeleine's nursery school staff? They would have known her reasonably well. The friends from nursery school that Madeleine was to share her fourth birthday with?

yes there are sporadic occasions when I assume some sort of "Maddie" was present but I can't get my mind around the lack of detailed stories and references to her that would make her come to life, ie seem real (as opposed to people saying trite empty things like "she was a lovely little girl" etc etc). Therefore I smell a rat but I don't know what species of rat. Normally the media would be all over friends and family for this sort of stuff but we haven't heard a single anecdote that has the vividness and warmth that you would expect to hear, it's more than unusual - it's unique.

IMO based on indicators above:

The nannies were 'got at' then 'whooshed'.

The creche records are unreliable and/or nannies were confused over which children were which.

The photographic evidence from the day is unreliable - two sources mentioned above.

The 'multitude witness accounts' are either confused/biased and/or lying.

IF all of the evidence cited by Not Textusa was above scrutiny then there would simply be no need to have to defend it. It would stand up for itself and there would be no need to argue or debate about it. It would defend itself.

IMO obviously. I really do think the wheels are falling off the wagon. It's interesting to read Pat Brown's views though. I wonder what she really thinks?

poster wrote:

Hellsbells wrote:if you want to stretch that to a conspiracy theory that will make PB's head explode, there's not much evidence that Maddie ever existed at all. Yes really. The photo evidence is full of contradictions, particularly on the holiday, but the lack of genuine sounding anecdotes from friends and family is even more mysterious.
there must have been a little girl or baby around from time to time, the one in the photos that have been released, but I'm not sure that MM actually "existed" in the normal sense of the word.
I have a wide circle of friends and have browsed many a family album, but the pics of Maddie must rank as the weirdest collection of photos I've ever seen.
sock it to me Pat!!

I've quite often thought that. But then what about the Gasper statement? The family went on holiday with the McCanns? So they would have spent days with them and got to know the children, including Madeleine, reasonably well. And we know that the Gaspers saw them at children's birthday parties, presumably including Madeleine's. What about the Madeleine's nursery school staff? They would have known her reasonably well. The friends from nursery school that Madeleine was to share her fourth birthday with?

But I totally agree that the photos are weird and the very few 'happy family' shots look to me like composites put together to paint a rosy picture of family life chez McCann which didn't exist, imo.

I have found myself wondering about her existence too but look at it from the point if view that there was a real child but not the one we have come to know as Madeleine Beth McCann. Too many manipulated photos where she looks entirely different say that to me. I am thinking particularly of the girl on the bike who looks nothing like the LP girl who is nothing like tennis balls who is so different to Everton girl etc etc. Throw Donegal rocks child in with Donegal eggs girl and I would bet if the world had never heard of MBM then saw 1 photo of her they would never choose any of the others as being her also. They sort of accept it is the same child because they are told it is.
In my tinfoil hat world, she died before PDL. The holiday was then a set up to disguise her death, as there was something untoward about it. If you think about it, if nothing happened before PDL and it was an accident that week, there would be no need to release confusing photos where ( to me at least) it is not the same child in them all. If they knew she was dead and the body would never be found, why would there be a need to confuse the issue? By distributing confusing and conflicting images they have only invited speculation which you would want to avoid in their shoes.
I could produce a series of photos of my child in various stages of development. Yes there are differences but you can clearly see it is the same person ageing naturally. If I said she was 6mths then 1 year etc there would be no confusion. M seems to be older in photos that were supposed to be taken earlier. To me that is very odd.
So back to the dogs. Here's one for PB to chew on. One of the Tapas women used to work for a company who produced synthetic cadaverine. Just sayin.... ( retires to bombproof bunker)

Hellsbells wrote:

poster wrote:we know that the Gaspers saw them at children's birthday parties, presumably including Madeleine's. What about the Madeleine's nursery school staff? They would have known her reasonably well. The friends from nursery school that Madeleine was to share her fourth birthday with?

yes there are sporadic occasions when I assume some sort of "Maddie" was present but I can't get my mind around the lack of detailed stories and references to her that would make her come to life, ie seem real (as opposed to people saying trite empty things like "she was a lovely little girl" etc etc). Therefore I smell a rat but I don't know what species of rat. Normally the media would be all over friends and family for this sort of stuff but we haven't heard a single anecdote that has the vividness and warmth that you would expect to hear, it's more than unusual - it's unique.

--

I think Detective Amaral's question to Kate about whether she had ever thought of handing over Madeleine to the care of relatives might be relevant. I think she was probably 'farmed out' quite a bit.

And Carter Ruck did a good job of shutting everyone up.

oh yes, poster, the answer to all this lies firmly in the UK and not PDL at all. That's where everyone's been going wrong for the last 9 years.
but the UK is a big place and finding what you're looking for isn't easy when you've been misled into looking in the wrong country.
in my opinion, of course.
sorry Pat, I really do like conspiracy theories, and sometimes they lead to the truth, don't they?

In my tinfoil hat world, she died before PDL. The holiday was then a set up to disguise her death, as there was something untoward about it. If you think about it, if nothing happened before PDL and it was an accident that week, there would be no need to release confusing photos where ( to me at least) it is not the same child in them all. If they knew she was dead and the body would never be found, why would there be a need to confuse the issue? By distributing confusing and conflicting images they have only invited speculation which you would want to avoid in their shoes.

-------

I know what you mean but there are at least some pointers that Madeleine McCann went on that holiday.

1. The airport bus video recording where Madeleine appears to be sitting on a seat with the twins and Kate on one side and Lily Payne and Gerry on the other. This would be consistent with how a family would travel together and would also be consistent with what a nearly four year old would want to do on holiday - sit by a friend (although Lily is younger but appears grown-up for her age). Given that they were travelling with the Paynes this would be logical. Also, given that this footage is in the public domain, it will be accessible to everyone - including the McCann twins and Lily Payne. Not to mention anyone else on that bus or on the flight who might remember the families. Even at just over two, the McCann twins might remember whether Madeleine had been on the airport bus and flight with them or not. Ditto Lily Payne. Why would TM have released this footage into the public domain for ever if it was not Madeleine McCann? Too risky, surely, given all the above?

2. Sean and Amelie allegedly shared a room in apartment 5A with Madeleine and Kate  writes: "Madeleine was very taken with the novelty of sharing a room with Sean and Amelie." Once again, even at two you might expect the twins to remember whether Madeleine's bed was in their room or not. (The curiosity, of course, is that if something bad did happen to Madeleine early on that week, how on earth could the McCanns have concealed it from the twins if all three children were sharing a room?  Must have been very difficult.)

3. It is on record, in Kate's book and in the Tapas rogatories, that the whole group had dinner together in the Millennium on Saturday evening. Given that Kate writes in her book: "Madeleine was so excited about going on a plane, and about going on holiday with her buddies," then surely that first evening at the Millennium Ella, who was almost exactly the same age as Madeleine, would remember whether or not Madeleine was there. Lily Payne too. I would imagine the girls would want to sit next to each other, especially Ella and Madeleine. There is usually quite a palaver seating a large group of families with yougn children together. Tables are pushed together. High chairs have to be pulled up  and children quite often squabble about where they sit so you wouldn't necessarily forget this in a hurry. Plus it would be an evening people would remember as it was the first night of the holiday and the only night that the group ate 'en-famille' plus the only night they ate at the Millennium. So, again, an evening that the group would remember as it was a 'one off' that week. Ella O'Brien would surely remember this - a chance to sit next to Madeleine at the grown-ups dinner table that evening?

4. It is on record, from both Kate's book and the Tapas rogatories that all the families had breakfast at Millennium on Sunday morning. Again, this would stick in everyone's minds as it was the first full day of the holiday. The first breakfast. And the only time that the McCann family had breakfast at the Millennium. So this would stand out both for the McCann children and also for the other adults and children (especially the older ones)  It was a first (and last).

4. It is on record, in both Kate's book and the Tapas rogatories, that the whole group had lunch together at the Payne's apartment on Sunday 29th April. Again, this would be a memorable occasion. The first full day of the holiday. The first lunch of the holiday. The only time that the McCanns joined their friends for lunch. Ella Payne would have remembered this as it was a first (and last).

5. One of the very few reliable (imo) eye-witness accounts of a sighting of Madeleine is a cleaner who recalls seeing the family leaving apartment 5A on Sunday lunchtime with the children.

Her account of what she saw would be quite consistent with the McCann's having lunch at the Payne's apartment, right down to them carrying plates with food on them (presumably the Payne's apartment would not have had enough plates for the whole group).

She had the opportunity to observe the photos of Madeleine that were being circulated everywhere and has no hesitation in confirming that she saw the child before her disappearance in the company of her siblings and mother and father, although in the latter case she only observed him from a distance.

She states that this took place on Sunday 29th April, just before she finished her morning work shift (13.30) as she had the afternoon off that day. At about 13.15 she went to help her mother, who was cleaning apartment I of the same block (5) situated on the first floor. She clearly remembers seeing the girl accompanied by her siblings and mother leave their apartment (5 A) and walk to the stairs leading to the floor above. She was very close to them at a distance of about 1 metre, observing their movements for a few moments because she was charmed by them. Madeleine led the way with a plate (perhaps plastic) in her hand bearing a piece of bread. As regards the clothes she was wearing she only remembers a skirt but cannot recall its description. She noted, because she thought them nice, the type of shoes she was wearing, tennis shoes, light in colour she thinks, which had little lights along the soles, which lit up each time she stepped on the ground. Her siblings followed behind her, wearing the same king of shoes and each holding a piece of bread in their hands, their mother followed behind them without holding their hands. She seems to remember that the mother was also carrying a plate. Moments afterwards, perhaps the time it took to close the apartment door, the father came out and also headed to the apartment upstairs. When asked, she does not remember whether the father pulled the door closed or locked it with a key.


Kate also, in her book, writes that at the welcome meeting on Saturday afternoon: "We booked the children into the kids' clubs, starting the next day."

So, if it is true that something happened to Madeleine very early on that week - I suspect by Sunday night/Monday - then the Mc's are left with the problem of having booked Madeleine into the kids' club - which she attended on Sunday (the day when they had lunch at the Payne's apartment) but then having to find a way to pretend that she was there for the rest of the week, when she wasn't.

Also, on page 101 of her book, Kate writes about the day that Sean first asks her where Madeleine was. This was apparently on Sunday 6th May.

Kate's reaction to this question appears genuine (for once!) and she writes: "Oh, God, oh, God....." I just don't think she would include this cameo in her book if Madeleine had never been on the holiday at all.

Theorizing, as always. I must get a life, lol!

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FATIMA_ESPADA.htm

Hellsbells wrote:oh yes, poster, the answer to all this lies firmly in the UK and not PDL at all. That's where everyone's been going wrong for the last 9 years.
but the UK is a big place and finding what you're looking for isn't easy when you've been misled into looking in the wrong country.
in my opinion, of course.
sorry Pat, I really do like conspiracy theories, and sometimes they lead to the truth, don't they?

I agree that whether of not Madeleine ever went on that holiday (but I am inclined to believe she did - and imo the Tapas bunch look guilty as hell in that photo taken on Friday 4th May) the roots of all this like in the UK. Most definitely there is some back-history that would lead to an understanding of what might have happened and why.

PAT BROWN ‏@ProfilerPatB · 41 mins41 minutes ago

How agenda can create a theory instead of the evidence. #MakingaMurderer #HowMadeleineDied? #StevenAvery #McCann http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.com/2016/02/from-theory-to-profile-how-agenda.html …

Monday, February 22, 2016

From Theory to Profile: How Agenda Creates Nonevidence-Based Conclusions

No Proof of Photoshopping

I recently wrote a five part blog concerning Making a Murderer, a multi-episode documentary on the Steven Avery case which recently aired on Netflix and has convinced a good number of people that Steven Avery is not guilty of the murder of Teresa Halbach, that he was railroaded by the police and prosecution for political reasons. The filmmakers presented many pieces of information and demonstrated to the audience what they believe happened in this case; however, they actually did not use evidence to support their theory, it only seemed that way. They  presented a profile (crime analysis) based on a theory - their theory - not a profile (crime analysis) based on the actual evidence.


I also just finished watching Richard Hall's third installment in his documentary about the Madeleine McCann case called When Madeleine Died?. The filmmaker presented many pieces of information and demonstrated to the audience what he believe happened in this case, but, again, what I saw was a profile based on theory,  not on the evidence.

Both films were well made, in different ways. Making a Murderer is very dramatic and emotional, brilliantly shot and edited. When Madeleine Died? is very calmly and methodically presented, far more professional, in my opinion, than the highly Hollywoodized Making a Murderer. I like how Hall made the documentary,  but I am not happy with the content. I disliked everything about the Netflix documentary on Steven Avery because I found it blatantly full of falsehoods and very manipulative.

Both Making a Murderer and When Madeleine Died? are intended to convince the audience that the theory being presented is the only one that makes sense, that it is logical, and that there is evidence to support the theory. In reality, the profiles of these cases require a solid belief in the theory the agenda is promoting;  "evidence" is either misconstrued, ignored, or created. The material presented is intended to seem sensible but to actually agree with the conclusions of the filmmakers one must suspend a good deal of logic altogether.

Let's start with the Steven Avery case. The theory is "Avery is innocent." Now we must find evidence to prove this. We run into problems right away. Avery was the last to have contact with the victim, Teresa Halbach, he was the one who asked the victim to come to his property and photograph a vehicle, she was never heard from again after this contact with Avery, her car was found on his property, her remains were found on his property, her phone was found on his property, his blood and DNA was found in her car, and her car key was found in his bedroom; and his cousin confessed to committing the crime with him. If one uses evidence to create a theory, the evidence heavily points to Avery. The evidence shows Avery called Halbach, Halbach most likely never left the property, someone moved and hid her car on the property, someone hid her car key in Steven Avery's room, and someone burned up her body and phone right near Avery's house.  According to the witness, Avery raped and murdered Halbach. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that the likelihood of Steven Avery committing the crime is quite high.

But, suppose you have a theory that Steven Avery is innocent. So you set out prove he did not do it. This is usually the realm of defense attorneys, to go from theory to profile, but now filmmakers are using this same technique, starting with a theory instead of starting with the evidence (as should always be done by police, profiler, prosecutor....pretty much anyone except a defense attorney who HAS to prove his client not guilty). One must figure out how to take damning evidence and turn it around to point away from whoever it points to. Evidence has to either be explained away or twisted in such a way that the jury - or the viewer - will go away believing this new theory.

The evidence in the Avery case is so overwhelming the only way to explain it away is to claim it was all planted; ALL of it! The remains, the car, the phone, the key, the blood, the DNA...all planted by the police or someone helping the police. Someone (probably not the police) had it out for Avery and when this person somehow found out Teresa Halbach was called by Steven Avery to come photograph a vehicle (or saw her doing so), the person took this opportunity to grab Halbach, kill her, burn up her body either right under Avery's nose or he took her someplace and then brought her remains back onto the property and tossed them there along with her phone. Then this person hid the victim's car on the property and got the police to put Avery's blood in the car and the car key in his room. And then the real killer got the police to pressure a slow-witted relative into confessing to a crime he didn't do and implicate Avery as well.

What? Does any of these seem even remotely possible? And who is this person? A number of suspects are alluded to in this documentary but none are actually implicated  because NONE of the evidence actually points toward anyone else but Avery (and Dassey, by confession).

Making a Murderer simple presents a theory based on agenda not on evidence; the theory generated the profile; the profile wasn't based on the facts of the case.

Likewise, I see this happening with Hall's When Madeleine Died?.

The evidence points to the evening of May 3, 2007. A number of people stated they saw Madeleine up until that Thursday evening, she was placed in the creche daily for babysitting while the parents enjoyed their freedom on holiday, there are photos of Madeleine in Praia da Luz by herself and with family. The cadaver and blood evidence points to an accidental death resulting in the child's body lying behind the living room sofa for a period of time, and there is a chaotic discovery of a missing child or a dead child ensues late in the evening. In the hours, days, and months following Madeleine going missing, we often see confusion and conflicting statements and many odd behaviors on the part of the McCanns and their friends. It appears that all was well until the evening of May 3, 2007 and then all hell broke loose.

However, due to what appears to be a strong belief that there has been unprecedented support of the McCanns by certain political entities (and there is evidence that there is some quite unusual level of political support for the McCanns) and a huge amount of media, money and resources used in this case of a missing that far surpasses any in probably the history of mankind, a theory has been developed that if Madeleine did indeed die in Praia da Luz and not at the hands of an abductor, then the massive support system for the McCanns indicates that she did not die an accidental death on May 3 but that she died at some other time and under far more horrific circumstances (which have only been alluded to...some kind of sexual abuse - pedophilia - involving big government people). It is believed that if Madeleine died by accident or even during a rage by one of her parents, there would not be so much high level support; therefore, there must be something more nefarious concerning what happened to Madeleine McCann.

This theory has led to the conclusion that Madeleine McCann died sometime on Sunday (due to something really horrific) and then an abduction staged some four days later on May 3.

Let's look at the evidence that would support this theory:

Madeleine McCann's body showed signs of sexual abuse. No, her body has never been found, there were no previous reports that Maddie had been sexually assaulted. There is only one statement from a woman who thought, on a previous occasion when set of friends were dining, that Madeleine's father and a male friend made some gesture that the woman interpreted as having to do with Madeleine and having a sexual meaning. There is no corroboration of this moment by anyone else nor any proof that what the woman believed happened actually did occur.

The Tapas children showed signs of sexual abuse. No, there is no evidence of this.

There were pornographic photos or videos of the Tapas children. No, there is no evidence of this.

There is proof of sexual assault of children by the McCanns, the other Tapas members, or by any of the people connected to the McCanns and this case. No, there is no evidence of this.

So, there is actually not a shred of evidence that there is any sex abuse ring (by McCann and Company) any more than there is any evidence of a sex slavery ring abducting children out of Praia da Luz and environs.

The theory of some kind of sexual assault of Madeleine resulting in death also requires that the evidence of Madeleine falling behind and dying behind the sofa be ignored. Either the dogs are right and Maddie ended up behind the sofa or the dogs are wrong and Maddie was never behind the sofa. It makes no sense that if Madeleine were to die by some manner other than accidental that anyone then hid her body behind the sofa. If you believe the dogs, you must believe in an accident.

Which leads back to Hall's theory that Madeleine McCann died on Sunday and a team of experts (I guess in cover-up and body disposal) rushed into town to help the McCanns deal with this and stage an abduction,
Now, one would assume if there is some huge government involvement in the crime (high level perverts) and a high level government cover-up of the crime, they would hardly decide to wait until Thursday to stage an abduction and then stage it so badly that it doesn't even look like an abduction and prep everyone so badly that Tapas group couldn't even keep their stories straight. Along with that, they would have had to have the  McCanns  parade around Praia da Luz for four days minus one child, nannies would have to be coerced into lying, creche paperwork would have to be forged, and they would have to hope no one outside the circle that the damage control team could control might notice Madeleine was missing. Photos would have to be created (Hall does say that experts have concluded that the Last Photo was not photoshopped but oddly alludes to the possibility that the tennis photo WAS photoshopped....couldn't he get the experts to analyze that photo as well?) or would have to be said  to be taken later in the week than was true.

One of the rules of getting away with murder is the less people know about the crime, the better. The fewer Tapas friends who might have helped the McCanns, the better because loose lips do sink ships. The theory of an earlier death date and a bigger organization behind the cover-up requires so many people to know the truth and lie to the police and media that it would be impossible for the truth not to have come out.

Logic has flown out the window with this big governmental involvement and a Sunday homicide of Madeleine McCann. To profile this case as a sex crime involving high level government people requires ignoring the dog evidence, ignoring the behaviors of the Tapas members on May 3rd, ignoring all reports and evidence of Maddie being alive until May 3rd and believing that a skilled "clean-up" crew chose the most amateur plan of action possible, pretending a dead child is alive or parading around a fake Madeleine, and dismally staging  an abduction scene they had days to plan and make believable (couldn't this top level team even open a window, add a few tool marks, make footprint or two, and muff up the room a bit? How about planting some fake hair or phony fingerprints?).

The evidence does not support Hall's theory of When Madeleine died?; his agenda has created a theory and the theory then created a profile and the evidence manipulated or ignored in order to create a belief that this theory has merit.

Both Making a Murderer and When Madeleine Died? do bring up interesting ideas and some bits of evidence that are worth looking at further in relation to proper police procedure, proper interviewing, proper prosecution, and proper handling of the media. However, the totality of the evidence in both cases does not support the theories the filmmakers have presented and it is unfortunate that so many do not realize that this is so. Evidence should make the theory; the theory should not make "the evidence." Analyses and profiles of crimes should be scientifically developed by a professional based on evidence, not created by filmmakers' agendas.

Unfortunately, with the advent of the Internet, cheaper documentary production methods, and so many media outlets and so much airtime to fill, the proliferation of agenda based crime shows and documentaries is getting out-of-hand. Investigation Discovery (ID) just aired an incredibly ridiculous documentary claiming the  that a serial killer and not OJ Simpson may have killed Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. I can assure you that NONE of the evidence in that case points to a serial killer but that did not stop ID from putting out a total piece of garbage and now the serial killer theory is making the rounds on the Internet.

The next time you see a documentary purporting to prove a particular theory, make sure the filmmaker actually provides evidence supporting his theory, doesn't just throw around "what-ifs," and make sure there is logic holding the theory together. Pay attention to whether the filmmaker ignores evidence, manipulates evidence, or creates evidence, and above all, ask yourself, "Does this REALLY make sense?


Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

February 22, 2016