Thoughts on the case from criminal profiler Pat Brown

Current ... ?

He admitted to "fleffer" (over a year ago) but not to any of those names currently in use which have been suggested are him.

I see Christobel wrote on Pat's blog and Pat as answered with the last words' being.

So, Gerry is really right, "Find the body and prove we killed her. Good luck with that!

That's disgusting, isn't it?
Last phrase I'd I'd hear from someone who's child has vanished ...

(PAT BROWN)...'' If only all the focus of everyone - the public, the police, and professionals - simply looked back at May 3rd, 2007 and analyzed what went wrong that evening, how the McCanns likely dealt with it, and what they could have done to destroy the evidence of their involvement and, most importantly, focused on where her body might be - the one piece of evidence that could lead to an actual conviction - maybe then, this case would have a chance of being solved and justice done...............''
She's right of course but:
Because the police and the professionals ( I use the term lightly ) won't / can't focus on 3rd May 2007 and get to the bottom of what actually happened and stop treating the McCanns with kid gloves, it's been left to the public to wonder why . Small wonder that we flirt with conspiracies.

In that you are so right nannygroves ,puts in a nutshell ,just couldn't find the right words last post. I ,in saying this Imean that in a nice way by the way ,not trying to put anyone down joyce1938

Mimi wrote:HiDeHo has written an excellent piece over the way on the Pat`s blog thread but, as usual, she is being told she is wrong by a sock.  Just cannot help himself it seems.

------


An odd blue sock? End up in the laundry basket all the time. So annoying!

nannygroves wrote:(PAT BROWN)...'' If only all the focus of everyone - the public, the police, and professionals - simply looked back at May 3rd, 2007 and analyzed what went wrong that evening, how the McCanns likely dealt with it, and what they  could have done to destroy the evidence of their involvement and, most importantly, focused on where her body might be  - the one piece of evidence that could lead to an actual conviction - maybe then, this case would have a chance of being solved and justice done...............''
She's right of course but:
Because the police and the professionals ( I use the term lightly ) won't / can't focus on 3rd May 2007 and get to the bottom of what actually happened and stop treating the McCanns  with kid gloves,  it's been left to the public to wonder why .  Small  wonder that  we flirt with conspiracies.  

-------

What we DO know about the evening of Thursday 3rd May is:

1. The shutters weren't jemmied. Whereas McCann family and home were reported as saying that there had been a break-in at the apartment and jemmied shutters. Why would they report this if it had not happened? Was it supposed to happen, but didn't for some reason? How else can this anomaly be accounted for?

2. Jane Tanner didn't immediately report her (alleged!) sighting of Tanner-man to the police after the alarm was raised by Kate McCann at, according to Kate's book, 10pm. Jane also didn't report her sighting of Tanner-man to Kate at 10pm because she 'thought it might add to her distress.' Which would imply that not adding to Kate's distress was more important than searching for Madeleine. Why would that be when the early hours after a child's disappearance are so crucial? I can only think of one reason for this. I think the timelines torn out of Madeleine's book were made after several hours. Why? Why delay this critical information that might enable police to find 'the abductor'? Again, only one reason makes sense to me. (Also, I think there are several different timelines? Not sure.)

3. Matt Oldfield, in the company of OC resort manager, woke up fellow guest Jez Wilkins and told him that Madeleine had been abducted and Gerry had said he had seen him earlier outside apartment 5a pushing his baby in a pram and wanted to know if he (Jez) had seen anything? Jez gives no account of having seen anything suspicious to police at the time but the next day gives police an account of a suspicious-looking 'rasta-man' who he saw in the Tapas restaurant on Thursday evening (later identified as fellow guest Mike Sperrey). Jez's account later changes. But why would Jez delay reporting this sighing? Why not report it when he was woken up by Matt at 1.30pm? It was still only a few hours after Madeleine went missing and the first few hours are crucial. 'Rasta-man' could have been the abductor.

4. There are early eye-witness reports (waiters/staff) of hearing a commotion at Ocean Club about a missing child well before 10pm. One as early as 9.15pm I do believe and others certainly before 10pm. How could this be if Kate only discovered Madeleine missing at 10pm? Even allowing for faulty memories this is quite a big time difference.

5. There appear to be two time-frames that evening that are of great interest. The 9.15pm time is when Gerry McCann allegedly bumped into Jez outside apartment 5a. It is also the time that Jane Tanner allegedly walked past Jez and Gerry talking outside the apartment and allegedly saw Tanner-man whisking Madeleine away from OC.  This is just minutes after Gerry allegedly checked in on all three children and admired Madeleine sleeping beautifully. All coincidences? Gives 'the abductor' a pretty small opportunity to do his abducting in-between Gerry's check and Jane Tanner's sighting of Tanner-man.

6. The 10pm time appears to be of great interest too. Because this is the time that Kate allegedly found Madeleine missing and raised the first cry, so she says. It is also the time that it is reported that a family of nine from Ireland walked past a man carrying a child near the resort as the returned to their apartment after a night-cap. A member of the family later tells police that he is 60%-80% sure that the man he saw was Gerry McCann.

7. Neither Kate nor Gerry phoned police when they discovered Madeleine missing despite the fact that Kate is, extraordinarily imo, convinced Madeleine has been abducted within minutes of finding her missing.  According to Kate in her book Matt was dispatched up to OC reception to enquire whether police had been called. This is despite the fact that immediate neighbour Mrs Fenn offered to lend the couple her mobile to call police. Mrs Fenn was not asked by the McCanns if she had seen or heard anything suspicious even though she lived right above the apartment and could lean over her balcony to talk to them that evening. Why would Kate and Gerry not want to probe her about what she might have seen or heard that fateful night, given a paedophile abductor was on the loose, had taken Madeleine and could come back and take other children including the twins?

8. Kate and Gerry did not search through the night to try to find Madeleine. Kate, in her book, recalls how the night was so long and they 'resumed' their search when it was light. In an early media interview she tells the interviewer that they had been 'very busy' prior to Madeleine's abduction and in her book she recounts how Gerry was insistent that they both needed 'rest' despite the fact that their daughter had allegedly been abducted. Why? Why were they 'so tired' just after the alleged abduction that sleep was a priority on Thursday evening/early hours of Friday morning? When the first few hours after a kidnapping can be so crucial? Again, I can only really think of one reason for this.

9. Jez Wilkins and I do believe Kate and Gerry as well put their children into the kids' club the following day despite the fact that a (paedophile) abductor is on the loose and has stolen Madeleine from her bed the night before. This  shows a remarkable confidence given the catastrophic previous event of the night before.

Much else besides about that fateful Thursday evening. But just a few things that stand out to me!

Châtelaine wrote:That's disgusting, isn't it?
Last phrase I'd I'd hear from someone who's child has vanished ...

When you put it like that .......................... yes

Walt wrote:I see Christobel wrote on Pat's blog and Pat as answered with the last words' being.

So, Gerry is really right, "Find the body and prove we killed her. Good luck with that!

---

What a total creep he is...utterly ghastly, morally repugnant.......vomit bucket.

I think the "good luck with that" is Pat's words she forgot to put " after the word her.

To be honest I used to like Pat Brown's blogs, and again I was surprised when she decided to call it a day, so to speak. But now what I really can't understand is why she seems to dip her toe into the water again especially recently and it is all negative. Very strange, but again just my opinion.

From what Pat said (there`s a lot of it) it seems she has taken the case as far as she can but comes back to it when there is something new like the recent Polish man stuff or Goncalo`s case.

She`s quite clear that she still thinks the Mcs have involvement in the disappearance - it`s just that there is no evidence to prosecute. From what she`s said, she thinks they have been protected but she doesn`t know why. Also she queries the way SY have gone about the investigation, thinks its very odd so from that I assume she thinks there is some sort of cover-up going on. Some people don`t take kindly to her words because she abides firmly by the facts.

It`s interesting what she says about the Casey Anthony case and how the jury were easily geared towards doubt by the defence lawyer ....... and this would easily happen in any case involving the McCanns .... apart of course from a case brought against them for fraud. This she thinks is the only way a prosecution might be successful.

I know it`s not good to hear - but she`s probably right.

costello wrote:To be honest I used to like Pat Brown's blogs, and again I was surprised when she decided to call it a day, so to speak. But now what I really can't understand is why she seems to dip her toe into the water again especially recently and it is all negative. Very strange, but again just my opinion.

----

Wasn't she talking about writing a book with Amaral about the case? I thought I read that on one of her blogs?

I think she might realize there is far more to the case than meets the eye and the KISS theory does not necessarily fit in this particular case. It is possible she cannot or will not 'go there' because of her public position.

I am sure a lot of people's hands are tied in this way. There are simply so many indicators towards some kind of media involvement. Why would Clarence Mitchell have been dispatched so early on to the scene? Since when did that happen in other cases when a child goes missing in mysterious circumstances?

I have had difficulties in believing Pat Brown actually believed in the KISS theory at all to be honest, it doesn't add up for me.

She`s quite clear that she still thinks the Mcs have involvement in the disappearance - it`s just that there is no evidence to prosecute. From what she`s said, she thinks they have been protected but she doesn`t know why. Also she queries the way SY have gone about the investigation, thinks its very odd so from that I assume she thinks there is some sort of cover-up going on.

------

And of course Detective Amaral thought this too. And I do think it is quite relevant to this case that Detective Amaral in the earliest days sent an urgent fax to Jez Wilkins - the last person to see Gerry before Madeleine's disappearance and thus a key eyewitness - asking him a long list of questions one of which was if he could think of any reason why somebody would want to kidnap the daughter of Gerry McCann.

ETA: Cross posted! I agree. I wonder what her views are on the JonBenet Ramsay case?

I have had difficulties in believing Pat Brown actually believed in the KISS theory at all to be honest, it doesn't add up for me.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2969242/Detective-Jon-Benet-Ramsay-s-murder-completes-Reddit-AMA.html

But Pat Brown did have a meeting with Dr. Amaral and I am sure unless there was a language barrier he must have discussed the case, at least to some extent. I am also saddened the fact Petermac decided to take a break from the case (not stating anything is connected) but yet again in my opinion he is a great loss. Just my thoughts.

the big question is WHY Petermac isn't around any more.

Hellsbells wrote:the big question is WHY Petermac isn't around any more.

My take for what little it is worth is that he may think we are on a road to nowhere. I really would be interested in WHY you think he isn't around anymore Hellsbells. Any chance of your views.

I remember Jill saying he'd stepped away from BOTH forums. She hinted it was because of the constant bickering, but who knows?

I don't think he's given up on the case. He has obtained the book from the 2 Metodo 3 investgators,  La Cortina da Humo, banned in Portugal but which PM got from Amazon. According to Jill, he passed this to the Madeleine Foundation - isn't this TB's organisation? I am surprised really after CMoMM banned him, presumable for posting here (I don't care what they say about a "mix-up", PM had a temporary ban, IMO). It was soon after that he stepped back. Still, he has always expressed indignation about the stripping of TB's pension, and I guess they go back a long way, so the Madeleine Foundation were chosen to receive the book.

Jill also states that PM was involved in the making of Richard D Hall's latest film:

http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t12362p10-new-film-by-richard-d-hall-when-madeleine-died

I am learning so much more and I thank Richard, PeterMac, Tony, Lizzy and many others for putting together such a highly informative, compelling, intriguing and professional film.

One thing is certain, both forums are missing him.

costello wrote:My take for what little it is worth is that he may think we are on a road to nowhere. I really would be interested in WHY you think he isn't around anymore Hellsbells. Any chance of your views.

I really don't know, costello, but it's strange that someone who was so high profile for years appears to have vanished
I can only suggest one of 3 reasons
1 personal issues
2 he's been ordered to shut up
3 he feels his work is done
other ideas welcome.

He's annoyed with the forums but hasn't stepped back from the case?

Dee Coy wrote:I remember Jill saying he'd stepped away from BOTH forums. She hinted it was because of the constant bickering, but who knows?

I don't think he's given up on the case. He has obtained the book from the 2 Metodo 3 investgators,  La Cortina da Humo, banned in Portugal but which PM got from Amazon. According to Jill, he passed this to the Madeleine Foundation - isn't this TB's organisation? I am surprised really after CMoMM banned him, presumable for posting here (I don't care what they say about a "mix-up", PM had a temporary ban, IMO). It was soon after that he stepped back. Still, he has always expressed indignation about the stripping of TB's pension, and I guess they go back a long way, so the Madeleine Foundation were chosen to receive the book.

Jill also states that PM was involved in the making of Richard D Hall's latest film:

http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t12362p10-new-film-by-richard-d-hall-when-madeleine-died

I am learning so much more and I thank Richard, PeterMac, Tony, Lizzy and many others for putting together such a highly informative, compelling, intriguing and professional film.

One thing is certain, both forums are missing him.

Absolutely agree Dee Coy both forums are seriously missing him. Not to mention how
much he put in the Gofundme pot speaks volumes in my opinion.

Hellsbells wrote:

costello wrote:My take for what little it is worth is that he may think we are on a road to nowhere. I really would be interested in WHY you think he isn't around anymore Hellsbells. Any chance of your views.

I really don't know, costello, but it's strange that someone who was so high profile for years appears to have vanished
I can only suggest one of 3 reasons
1 personal issues
2 he's been ordered to shut up
3 he feels his work is done
other ideas welcome.

Just like Dee Coy has posted I do believe the inter-forum bickering got to him.I so wish he
was back on the forum for sure.

I understood he was working on other projects.............

Post  Get'emGonçalo on Tue Jan 26, 2016 3:05 pm



....am learning so much more and I thank Richard, PeterMac, Tony, Lizzy and many others for putting together such a highly informative, compelling, intriguing and professional film....

Richard Halls new film for one