Thoughts on the case from criminal profiler Pat Brown

[quote="Bampots"]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[/quote

Cheers for that Bampots, so hopefully he 'may' return soon to both forums. I for one hope so.

This thread from CMoMM is something of a mystery and sent a number of the regular posters there into complete meltdown. I do remember several postings on it from petermac (or so it would seem ) which were quite dismissive. Which surprised me at the time. I'm not saying it was a great idea, but he always seemed quite a measured poster who would welcome looking at things from a different angle.

What is irksome is that I was merely throwing ideas around. That it was odd that no-one rushed towards the pool to check Madeleine hadn't fallen in. Which, in a way, actually confirms that TM knew that Madeleine hadn't just wandered off, otherwise they would have rushed to check the pool.

A seed was then sown in my head (quite probably wrongly) that it is possible that TM 'pretended' that Madeleine had drowned (if you subscribe to a theory that a pre-planned faked abduction went wrong) to the 'wider circle' (ie: not the 'sheeple') when in fact something else happened. Which might possibly explain why TM were able to garner high level support at the outset on the basis of: "there by the grace of God".

As the months rolled by and some of the 'non-sheeple' started getting suspicious, the dogs were sent in which confirmed (assuming this was not a plant!) that someone had died in apartment 5A. Presumably Madeleine McCann. (And I have to say that the body language and look of TM in the photo taken the day after the alleged abduction speaks volumes.)

Why did the mention of 'drowning' send so many regular posters over there into complete melt-down? Detective Amaral stated that he believed that Madeleine died in an accident which was covered up. Which begs the question: what kind of accident?

Therefore, the type of accident she had (if indeed that was the cause of death which of course is open to debate) is very much a topic worth discussing. As I have often said, young children tend not to drop down dead. In terms of accidents the most likely hazards for an under five year old would be roads, stairs, pools, poisoning, falls...so any of those are possible if Amaral's theory is correct.

The thread then ventured into territory connected with the Soham case. A case I hadn't really looked into very closely. Worth looking at the dog alerts in the Soham case, imo.

http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t11273p20-could-madeleine-have-drowned?highlight=drowned

This topic is only available to members.

PeterMac is meant to be working in the background whatever that means.

poster wrote:This thread from CMoMM is something of a mystery and sent a number of the regular posters there into complete meltdown. I do remember several postings on it from petermac (or so it would seem ) which were quite dismissive. Which surprised me at the time. I'm not saying it was a great idea, but he always seemed quite a measured poster who would welcome looking at things from a different angle.

What is irksome is that I was merely throwing ideas around. That it was odd that no-one rushed towards the pool to check Madeleine hadn't fallen in. Which, in a way, actually confirms that TM knew that Madeleine hadn't just wandered off, otherwise they would have rushed to check the pool.

A seed was then sown in my head (quite probably wrongly) that it is possible that TM 'pretended' that Madeleine had drowned (if you subscribe to a theory that a pre-planned faked abduction went wrong) to the 'wider circle' (ie: not the 'sheeple') when in fact something else happened. Which might possibly explain why TM were able to garner high level support at the outset on the basis of: "there by the grace of God".

As the months rolled by and some of the 'non-sheeple' started getting suspicious, the dogs were sent in which confirmed (assuming this was not a plant!) that someone had died in apartment 5A. Presumably Madeleine McCann. (And I have to say that the body language and look of TM in the photo taken the day after the alleged abduction speaks volumes.)

Why did the mention of 'drowning' send so many regular posters over there into complete melt-down? Detective Amaral stated that he believed that Madeleine died in an accident which was covered up. Which begs the question: what kind of accident?

Therefore, the type of accident she had (if indeed that was the cause of death which of course is open to debate) is very much a topic worth discussing. As I have often said, young children tend not to drop down dead. In terms of accidents the most likely hazards for an under five year old would be roads, stairs, pools, poisoning, falls...so any of those are possible if Amaral's theory is correct.

The thread then ventured into territory connected with the Soham case. A case I hadn't really looked into very closely. Worth looking at the dog alerts in the Soham case, imo.

http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t11273p20-could-madeleine-have-drowned?highlight=drowned

This topic is only available to members.

The topic must have been openly available at one time as I remember reading it, and the pounding you received from the usual suspects. Although I don't agree that she woke and wandered and somehow ended up in the pool, it is always good to explore other theories. After all we would all still be thinking she was abducted if someone hadn't questioned it. Now a lot of people are leaning towards an earlier death where before we were accepting if the 3 May scenario. Your theory has just as much right to an airing and analysis as any other.
I rarely bother with over the road these days but do venture in once in a while. I see you still attract insults from the likes if Bluebag and TB. You carry on rattling cages poster. Does them good.

I still don't get your point poster,did PM have a hissy fit and leave ,do you think he found the forum increasingly purile,or was he genuinely taking time out for film? I do find the whole thing odd. I suspect he still watches said forums as he has never closed his accounts,and I suppose as Cristobell would say....it's none of our business.

Poster, you raise 2 very relevant points:

- The first place any parent would check if a child was found missing would be the pool, simple as, because it is the worst case scenario. The fact that they didn't meant they either knew she hadn't wandered or the whole scenario was a 'play' to introduce abduction (not a very good play as they didn't act as normal people would, I.e., check the pool for starters).

- What if, indeed, the 'inner circle' were told of Maddie's demise, but not the real cause. E.g., drowning, a bump to the head (as mentioned by RO) - a terrible but unfortunate accident that was nobody's fault. They were told this to gain their support and help.

Just theories based on musings, like your own.

Bampots, the official reason given was that PeterMac was taking time out to work behind the scenes - whatever that may entail.

He has as we know been involved in the translation of the book about the Metodo 3.

Whether there was anything else which prompted his decision I don't know. It may just be a coincidence that there were more insults than usual being hurled around on the forum at the time.

Thanks freedom that is exactly what i said further back. I was asking poster what she\he was suggesting and offering a few options.

re petermac, I may be in a minority of 1 but I wasn't impressed with his overall approach (eg his insistence that the weather in the LP was more likely to be early in the holiday than on 3rd may, in my opinion it doesn't look like any day that week) and didn't agree with most of his conclusions. Sorry but I don't think he's a great loss to any of the forums.

I do agree with you about the photo - I think that it was taken on a blazing hot summer's day, not at the end of April or beginning of May.

It will be interesting to see Richard D Hall's latest film, seemingly a collaboration with PeterMac, TB and HiDeHo. (At least those with suspicions that TB's views had heavily influenced Mr Hall are vindicated.)

Will the latest film be an attempt to display the facts, or will it be an attempt to make the facts fit a theory? I know PM believes in the theory that Maddie died earlier in the week. That's fine, but I hope the dogmatism that plagues some who remain desperate to make their own theory become the facts to the exclusion of all others hasn't prevailed. Think Nuala and the WBM. TB and the Smiths. The Pros and the dogs' findings.

Nobody knows what happened apart from the perpetrators. If this has happened within Hall's film it becomes merely another theory, not the trailblazer of facts it purports to be. I hope PM and Lizzie remain open minded.

The film is now available on YouTube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZV9Ten-HkY

Bampots wrote:I still don't get your point poster,did PM have a hissy fit and leave ,do you think he found the forum increasingly purile,or was he genuinely taking time out for film? I do find the whole thing odd. I suspect he still watches said forums as he has never closed his accounts,and I suppose as Cristobell would say....it's none of our business.

----

My hunch is that he got fed up with the attacks on other posters and all the bannings but I could be wrong. Did he really get banned for a week?

If it is true that there are lots of socks over there then it is not surprising that things derail quite quickly.

Dee Coy wrote:Poster, you raise 2 very relevant points:

- The first place any parent would check if a child was found missing would be the pool, simple as, because it is the worst case scenario. The fact that they didn't meant they either knew she hadn't wandered or the whole scenario was a 'play' to introduce abduction (not a very good play as they didn't act as normal people would, I.e., check the pool for starters).

- What if, indeed, the 'inner circle' were told of Maddie's demise, but not the real cause. E.g., drowning, a bump to the head (as mentioned by RO) - a terrible but unfortunate accident that was nobody's fault. They were told this to gain their support and help.

Just theories based on musings, like your own.

--------

Thank you! Precisely - the worst case scenarios where death could happen very quickly indeed would be if she had been run over or if she had fallen into the pool.

But of course Kate bypasses this by claiming that it would have been impossible for Madeleine to have left of her own accord. Even though others including the police and staff at MW thought it was perfectly possible and indeed a far more likely scenario that she left the apartment of her own accord.

Detective Amaral speaks of Madeleine and her siblings having been exposed to a great many hazards which could suggest hazards in as well as outside the apartment.

Because I spent a lot of my youth in hot countries I was often around pools and I witnessed, on many occasions, situations where a child was close to drowning. One of my own children aged two and a half walked into a pool down the steps as I was blowing up her arm bands. I hadn't realized that she didn't understand that it was the armbands that kept her afloat. Her head disappeared under the water and I jumped into the water fully clothed. There were adults standing in and around the pool and not one other person noticed! She was under for a fraction of a second but it was still a real shock for her and me. With subsequent children I made sure that until they could swim they wore swimsuits with flotation devices as an integral part of the costume.

I personally have rescued several people from the sea who were getting into difficulties as I am a very strong swimmer.

I also have a friend who lives in a hot country - Portugal in actual fact - who lost a sibling to drowning at the age of 2 or maybe 3. Utterly tragic. Everyone panicked and no-one knew how to do mouth-to-mouth resuscitation properly which quite likely would have saved her life as she was only under the water for a short time. By the time she arrived at hospital she had died.

Obviously, this type of tragic accident is far more likely to happen in hot countries where there are a lot of pools or when people are on holiday in hot countries where there are pools.  The sea, rivers and lakes are notoriously hazardous of course with currents, tides and murky water.

I think they were able to garner high level support for the reason in red above. I suspect that they pretended to an 'inner circle' that Madeleine had had an accident when she actually died in another way. I would imagine that the dogs were sent in to confirm where she died and how the body had been stored and moved.

ETA: Several of the Tapas rogatories mention such things as an 'accidental' bump on the head, or use the word 'clobbered'. Plus also state that, as they were a group of doctors they would know how to resuscitate a child. And of course it is undeniable that another way that a child can die (although not necessarily quickly) would be if he or she is hit, punched or similar. Unfortunately parents and carers can and do lose their tempers - quite often when a baby or child is crying - and last out. It always has to be considered a possibility when a child 'disappears' or when a child is harmed.

In any event, Kate's claim that that what they did - leave three children under four in an apartment without babysitters - is nonsensical and demonstrates a woeful lack of regard for her children's welfare.

Hellsbells wrote:re petermac, I may be in a minority of 1 but I wasn't impressed with his overall approach (eg his insistence that the weather in the LP was more likely to be early in the holiday than on 3rd may, in my opinion it doesn't look like any day that week) and didn't agree with most of his conclusions. Sorry but I don't think he's a great loss to any of the forums.

---

What I took exception to was his insistence that two 'experts' had examined the last photo and pronounced it genuine. Therefore all the 'amateurs' didn't have a clue what they were talking about.

But even if the only deception is when it was taken, that is still a major deception as it means - if taken prior to Thursday - that there is no firm evidence that Madeleine was alive and well on Thursday. The creche sign-in sheets are not hard evidence as they could have been forged. The nannies could either have lied (if lent on by TM) or could have been mistaken about which child was Madeleine McCann.

Experts are paid quite often to toe a certain line. They can be biased. They can lie. And they still get paid. In fact they might only get paid if they say certain things.

yes poster, even if the LP is genuine it doesnt mean it must have been taken around april 29th/30th as PM insisted. In theory it could have been taken any time between the first warm sunny day of the year and the day it was released, may 24th. Sorry all, not trying to get a LP debate going but using this as an example of how easy it is to leap to conclusions by assuming too much and not examining all possibilities.

I remember this being discussed before. Experts on any given subject don't always agree with each other.

I'm not suggesting that there was any undue pressure put on the two experts involved here but they are after all just stating their own opinion.

My previous comment went into oblivion.
I rest my case.
Apart from that I do support PMs analysis of the LP.

yes indeed Freedom, "experts" are sometimes wrong or disagree with one another's opinions

as this thread is about conspiracy theories, here's one I've never seen before but is worth thinking about:

1  PM is correct, the LP is genuine BUT it was taken some time between may 3rd and may 24th
2  the girl in the LP is not Maddie but another girl - the one in the Donegal photos

thoughts?

Freedom wrote:The film is now available on YouTube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZV9Ten-HkY

I have watched parts 1 & 2 so far. Nothing new or groundbreaking for anyone who has followed the story closely but good to hear it from the centre outwards. One thing I want to check is that I was sure MO reported the shutters all closed on his check at 9.30pm yet RDH says that MO was almost sure when he passed on his 9pm check that the shutters were raised .(at 10.05 on film 1.)
Also I question all the confusion round who owned the Olympus camera handed to Hampshire police on 8 May. I thought it had been established that this belonged to Hampshire resident Nigel Foster. The memory cards are annotated with his initials and he was back home by that date. It makes sense that his camera would first be handed to Hampshire police. There is even evidence in the files that an officer was asked to go to their home to retrieve video footage. Why try to confuse this with the greyscale photos in the files?
I will watch the other parts tomorrow.

Hellsbells wrote:yes indeed Freedom, "experts" are sometimes wrong or disagree with one another's opinions

as this thread is about conspiracy theories, here's one I've never seen before but is worth thinking about:

1  PM is correct, the LP is genuine BUT it was taken some time between may 3rd and may 24th
2  the girl in the LP is not Maddie but another girl - the one in the Donegal photos

thoughts?

If the world and his wife were looking for Madeleine, how would they be able to smuggle a still living child into the pool area to take a photo? Unless you mean the rest of the photo is genuine except it's not Madeleine's body. But that would mean photoshopping.
I like your second theory better. Or at least I think of the two it is the more feasible.

chirpyinsect wrote:

Freedom wrote:The film is now available on YouTube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZV9Ten-HkY

I have watched parts 1 & 2 so far. Nothing new or groundbreaking for anyone who has followed the story closely but good to hear it from the centre outwards. One thing I want to check is that I was sure MO reported the shutters all closed on his check at 9.30pm yet RDH says that MO was almost sure when he passed on his 9pm check that the shutters were raised .(at 10.05 on film 1.)
Also I question all the confusion round who owned the Olympus camera handed to Hampshire police on 8 May. I thought it had been established that this belonged to Hampshire resident Nigel Foster. The memory cards are annotated with his initials and he was back home by that date. It makes sense that his camera would first be handed to Hampshire police. There is even evidence in the files that an officer was asked to go to their home to retrieve video footage. Why try to confuse this with the greyscale photos in the files?
I will watch the other parts tomorrow.

As far as I know chirpy, no one ever reported the shutters up.

chirpyinsect wrote:If the world and his wife were looking for Madeleine, how would they be able to smuggle a still living child into the pool area to take a photo? Unless you mean the rest of the photo is genuine except it's not Madeleine's body. But that would mean photoshopping.
I like your second theory better. Or at least I think of the two it is the more feasible.

In answer to your first question chirpyinsect, who knows? It may not have been very busy in mid May and the other girl may have been accompanied in by someone else anyway, all looking very normal.
It strikes me that the girl at Donegal and the girl in the LP appear to be the same, but she looks younger than the earlier photos of Maddie (xmas 2006 and earlier). That's what made me think it may not be Maddie but someone else.

[quote="candyfloss"]

chirpyinsect wrote:

Freedom wrote:The film is now available on YouTube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZV9Ten-HkY

I have watched parts 1 & 2 so far. Nothing new or groundbreaking for anyone who has followed the story closely but good to hear it from the centre outwards. One thing I want to check is that I was sure MO reported the shutters all closed on his check at 9.30pm yet RDH says that MO was almost sure when he passed on his 9pm check that the shutters were raised .(at 10.05 on film 1.)
Also I question all the confusion round who owned the Olympus camera handed to Hampshire police on 8 May. I thought it had been established that this belonged to Hampshire resident Nigel Foster. The memory cards are annotated with his initials and he was back home by that date. It makes sense that his camera would first be handed to Hampshire police. There is even evidence in the files that an officer was asked to go to their home to retrieve video footage. Why try to confuse this with the greyscale photos in the files?
I will watch the

As far as I know chirpy, no one ever reported the shutters up.

That's what I thought. Anyone care to have a quick listen to see if I picked it up correctly? 10 mins in.

Hellsbells wrote:

chirpyinsect wrote:If the world and his wife were looking for Madeleine, how would they be able to smuggle a still living child into the pool area to take a photo? Unless you mean the rest of the photo is genuine except it's not Madeleine's body. But that would mean photoshopping.
I like your second theory better. Or at least I think of the two it is the more feasible.

In answer to your first question chirpyinsect, who knows? It may not have been very busy in mid May and the other girl may have been accompanied in by someone else anyway, all looking very normal.
It strikes me that the girl at Donegal and the girl in the LP appear to be the same, but she looks younger than the earlier photos of Maddie (xmas 2006 and earlier). That's what made me think it may not be Maddie but someone else.

I can see how a picture could be taken with another child then M's head shopped on but your 1st scenario said if the LP were genuine so I presumed you meant no photoshopping at all.