Thoughts on the case from criminal profiler Pat Brown

Therefore it is equally speculative to assume his thinking of 9 years ago is the same as it is today. We are all just guessing here as I said before. Many times in police investigations, an initial train of thought is later altered as new evidence comes to light.
I just wish it was possible to hold a proper debate about what we all think happened, ruling things out or in as we go without it all going off track.
I fully accept that some believe in an accident on the 3rd and hold no truck with earlier death, pre-planning etc but others, including me, think otherwise. An open discussion could persuade me that I am wrong, rather than being made to feel like a conspiracy nutter. Not saying anyone here says that.
How many swallowed the whole 911 debacle that now, at least, more people are waking up to. KISS is not always applicable.
None of us can do this alone. Let's help each other.

chirpyinsect wrote: Therefore it is equally speculative to assume his thinking of 9 years ago is the same as it is today.[/b] We are all just guessing here as I said before. Many times in police investigations, an initial train of thought is later altered as new evidence comes to light.
I just wish it was possible to hold a proper debate about what we all think happened, ruling things out or in as we go without it all going off track.
I fully accept that some believe in an accident on the 3rd and hold no truck with earlier death, pre-planning etc but others, including me, think otherwise. An open discussion could persuade me that I am wrong, rather than being made to feel like a conspiracy nutter. Not saying anyone here says that.
How many swallowed the whole 911 debacle that now, at least, more people are waking up to. KISS is not always applicable.
None of us can do this alone. Let's help each other.

Hi chirpy,

The only issue I would take with your post is that there is vast proof of Dr Amaral's theory surrounding Maddie's demise on 3rd May 2007, but not a smidgen to indicate he has changed his views, so that suggestion would be purely speculative, no?  

Also I don't believe 911 was a 'debacle,' so perhaps we are both a bit ying and yang re our take on things.  

Maybe we will meet in the middle one day aye?

chirpyinsect wrote:

dogs don't lie wrote:The only reason I don't see that last pic being taken on the 12/18th of May is that I just can't see the mcs sitting round the pool with the worlds eyes on them, only to release it at a later date, IMO.

Think of it this way though DDL. Who would question the family sitting by the pool a few days after M goes missing, taking lovely little photos of their remaining children? No one would think they would be inserting their missing child into the picture, then manipulating the date and time. To make it seem authentic, they likely took lots of shots but only released the best "fit"

Would that not be too suspicious though? Risk someone coming forward?

Perhaps, as discussed above, the LP was taken early in the morning when there was no one around to observe them. And perhaps, to be on the safe side, the little family grouping wasn't actually created around the children's pool. Perhaps a photo was taken of the children's pool, with no one sitting around it. Or perhaps only Amelie and possibly Sean. And perhaps Gerry was photographed sitting, for instance, on the edge of the adult pool and he was inserted into the children's photo. Which might explain the perception that he's "floating" on the edge of the children's pool. And the need to change what his sunglasses are reflecting. Just a thought.

Like I've said before the idea of the LP being a composite is unlikely for me. It is very difficult to pull off convincingly with foresight and careful planning and virtually impossible in hindsight. Especially by amateurs in 2007.

Unless they had access to the secret skunk works of the image manipulation lab of MI5/6, then the photo is real with the only outstanding issue for me being the sunglasses reflection which chirpyinsect has kindly said they will try and replicate.

Here are two examples from 2011 in outdoor/sunny conditions from pro/semi-pro photographers that created a composite with careful planning, foresight and better equipment:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-JeyHktvKp3s/Tukb-Q_nUFI/AAAAAAAAEPA/fE-d4QsL1g4/s1600/Family+composite+w.jpg

http://www.christopherwardphotography.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/backyard-composite.jpg

LP:

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/gestalt-3AsTheKTPHorg.jpg

Open all three in there own tabs and compare. I think its clear it isn't a composite but that isn't to say there isn't any photoshopping at all (like possibly the sunglasses)

dogs don't lie wrote:

chirpyinsect wrote:

dogs don't lie wrote:The only reason I don't see that last pic being taken on the 12/18th of May is that I just can't see the mcs sitting round the pool with the worlds eyes on them, only to release it at a later date, IMO.

Think of it this way though DDL. Who would question the family sitting by the pool a few days after M goes missing, taking lovely little photos of their remaining children? No one would think they would be inserting their missing child into the picture, then manipulating the date and time. To make it seem authentic, they likely took lots of shots but only released the best "fit"

Would that not be too suspicious though? Risk someone coming forward?

But coming forward to say what? We saw the family taking photos by the pool. Who would think that was strange or noteworthy?
Clearly there weren't others in the pool or sunbathing around it so if they were seen going in as per the photos Seahorse posted who would question the change in colour of A's top? Remember M wasn't there on the 12th or 18th just A or possibly both twins, but it is more likely it was only A as Gerry said Sean didn't like the sun so much.owtte.

pennylane wrote:
Hi chirpy,

The only issue I would take with your post is that there is vast proof of Dr Amaral's theory surrounding Maddie's demise on 3rd May 2007, but not a smidgen to indicate he has changed his views, so that suggestion would be purely speculative, no?  

Also I don't believe 911 was a 'debacle,' so perhaps we are both a bit ying and yang re our take on things.  

Maybe we will meet in the middle one day aye?

You don't have to believe 911 stories that is your right and there is a thread somewhere to discuss it so wont hijack the thread with discussions on it except to say my husband was the biggest believer that 911 happened as we were told until I persuaded him to watch a documentary on it. He had always resisted for all the usual reasons. To say his eyes are now open is an understatement.
Hopefully we do agree on the main criteria. The rest is only important to ourselves. It won't bring Madeleine back.

chirpyinsect wrote:
I fully accept that some believe in an accident on the 3rd and hold no truck with earlier death, pre-planning etc but others, including me, think otherwise.

I don't think there are any in here who hold no truck with those that think of something happening earlier in the week,I'm lazy I'll admit and don't have the time and rely on those of you who do the excellent research to enable me to think of what happened.

IMO and theory and speculation only - for what it's worth and the most "innocent" explanation I can think of - accidental lonely death evening Wednesday May 2. Parents arriving back late, after a "boozy" night, go straight to bed without checking on the kids and only find the poor girl, behind the sofa, the next morning. Most innocent reason for avoiding autopsy - it would have been clear she'd been dead for hours [and maybe sedated] ...

IMO again, Thursday is the real day all routines changed. The dad could have walked away in tennis gear with the "famous" and "untraceable" blue bag, get a cab to somewhere [nobody would remember, most holidaymakers are sports] and bury her there. Possibly, probably, not the final resting place. They must have some dignity & remorse and reburied her in a place more dignified, like a little chapel in the middle of nowhere.

May 4 another day out of routine, the "abduction" was launched and there had to be proof. For one the non-existing and incredible sighting of one person I shall call sixpence, as well as 9 witnesses seeing someone closely resembling you know who, carrying a blond girl at 10 pm.

As I said, this is the most innocent explanation ...

Mods, remove if you feel it's too direct.

Thanks Candyfloss :-)

Thank you, Chatelaine. That has KISS and plausibility all over it. And doesn't preclude the doctoring of the LP date from before 3 May or after 3 May (with just Madeleine shopped in, in the latter case). Time to clean, too, and for the fear and grief to still be raw, as it was on Kate's face on 4th, imo.

Just another theory, of course.

Châtelaine wrote:IMO and theory and speculation only - for what it's worth and the most "innocent" explanation I can think of - accidental lonely death evening Wednesday May 2. Parents arriving back late, after a "boozy" night, go straight to bed without checking on the kids and only find the poor girl, behind the sofa, the next morning. Most innocent reason for avoiding autopsy - it would have been clear she'd been dead for hours [and maybe sedated] ...

Over sedated because of Tuesday crying night?

And time for cadaverine to develop fully so the dogs could alert over 3 months later. Always thought the timings dangerously short if it all happened on 3rd - my major reservation, in fact.

chirpyinsect wrote:
You don't have to believe 911 stories that is your right and there is a thread somewhere to discuss it so wont hijack the thread with discussions on it except to say my husband was the biggest believer that 911 happened as we were told until I persuaded him to watch a documentary on it.

Just out of interest, which one?

AndyB wrote:

chirpyinsect wrote:
You don't have to believe 911 stories that is your right and there is a thread somewhere to discuss it so wont hijack the thread with discussions on it except to say my husband was the biggest believer that 911 happened as we were told until I persuaded him to watch a documentary on it.

Just out of interest, which one?

I have literally watched hundreds of hours of video so not entirely certain of the one hubby watched but thus one is a good starting point.

https://youtu.be/hWiusdy1miI

I have posted the link on the 9/11 topic.

https://maddiemccannmystery.forumotion.co.uk/t126-the-9-11-attacks

Well here's a conspiracy for you: I have come to believe that Madeleine McCann never existed. It's all just one giant  hoax to keep our minds occupied and our thought processes in stagnation. It's an unsolvable problem if the scenario never existed in the first place. That's why we are  absolutely no nearer the truth than eight years ago...............nearly nine years!! All those photographs that somehow never seem quite real , parents who laugh and smile when any normal human beings would be in total meltdown. Old photos that all appear doctored or of various Madeleine look alikes.  Something  is amiss. Love my avatar by the way.

I do believe she existed and do believe she went to PDL.

Also believe something fatal happened to her and believe that her parents have done everything to cover it all up ever since.

It's certainly a step too far for me to think that Madeleine never existed but this case has such strange elements to it that I suppose that absolutely nothing can be totally discounted!

maesi wrote:Well here's a conspiracy for you: I have come to believe that Madeleine McCann never existed. It's all just one giant  hoax to keep our minds occupied and our thought processes in stagnation. It's an unsolvable problem if the scenario never existed in the first place. That's why we are  absolutely no nearer the truth than eight years ago...............nearly nine years!! All those photographs that somehow never seem quite real , parents who laugh and smile when any normal human beings would be in total meltdown. Old photos that all appear doctored or of various Madeleine look alikes.  Something  is amiss. Love my avatar by the way.

Maesi you echo my thoughts in the dark scary recesses of my brain but, although I have contemplated the idea it would take further discussion which may upset some people. I realise it is a bridge too far for most but I started by believing she was abducted ( not for long) then moved on to her disappearing on the 3rd, to a pre-planned hoax that went wrong, to her never being in PT to could she be an invention. If it is possible, I would like to explore it further.

Freedom wrote:I have posted the link on the 9/11 topic.

https://maddiemccannmystery.forumotion.co.uk/t126-the-9-11-attacks

Thanks Freedom.

Have you noticed that in all of the photos of Madeleine which have her in the presence of other people there is a detachment ? . She somehow stands alone, emotionally apart ,  which could be because 'her' image has been superimposed. The photographs where she is shown with Amelie are for the most part strange with Amelie giving the impression she is asking herself , 'Who is this person next to me?' Many of the photographs of Madeleine appear to be of different children and the ages , sizes and hairstyles are all over the place. When the McCanns put Madeleine's  picture out into the public when she was supposedly abducted even they weren't sure which picture truly represented her but then I suppose it's difficult to get it right if the child never existed in the first place. There's absolutely no way that normal parents could laugh and look so happy almost immediately after the so called abduction...................unless of course, not only was there no abduction, there was no child in the first place. And then David Payne's description of her. Does that sound like a normal real child to you? I'm convinced we are searching for non existent  clues for something that never really happened to a child that never really existed.
It's hard to put into words but I always trust my instincts and can anyone on here honestly say that when they look at those photographs they don't understand why but they just FEEL that there's something wrong with them ? Could THIS be the secret that has to be kept? It's a giant hoax ?

maesi wrote:Well here's a conspiracy for you: I have come to believe that Madeleine McCann never existed.

To follow that on,was there a passport? if so she must have went through control if not then surely it would have been found out from the get go.
ETA just checked there was indeed a passport.

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

A hoax or scam cannot be ruled out, though if so, it certainly didn't work out as expected.

Could she have been removed by arrangement and out of the country long before the "abduction" was announced?

If so, what would the motive have been?

Heisenburg wrote:

maesi wrote:Well here's a conspiracy for you: I have come to believe that Madeleine McCann never existed.

To follow that on,was there a passport? if so she must have went through control if not then surely it would have been found out from the get go.
ETA just checked there was indeed a passport.

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

Yes a passport of a baby. 3 almost 4 years later the child would bear no resemblance to the photo. Now maybe the hoax had to happen before they would require a more up to date photo ie of a 5 year old as child passports had a validity of 5 years. Just a thought.