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

susible wrote:

Poe wrote:Totally agree Andrew, Candyfloss & Mo.

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

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

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

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


In my opinion only.

100% agree...we only have to remember Dr David Kelly to know that people can be "offed" if necessary and with all of Kate's pushing buttons, being wiped out in a motorway crash etc, it would have been a piece of cake to facilitate her wishes..

Don't get me wrong, I have kept an open mind throughout the years, and have thought about the possibility of wider implications, but so many things just keep leading me back to the simplest theory, which is not abduction itself, as there simply is not any evidence of such.  Plenty of evidence of involvement from the parents though IMO and the fact that there has not been one ridiculous sighting since the Review morphed into an Investigation, and whilst there has been a fair bit of wild goose chasing in terms of the parade of potential suspects, in my opinion that has simply been a mechanism to weed out all of the dross..and to give the MSM the opportunity to sell a few rags with some outlandish speculation..re burglary gone wrong, ex employees with grudge etc etc...every single on of them eliminated, and the introduction by Grange, that Madeleine may not have left the apartment alive, the elimination of Tannerman and the refocus on Smithman.

All heading in the right direction IMO

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

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

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

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

PJ weren't far off watertight at the time.

Yes, some interference to save face. Agreed.

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

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

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

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

Again IMO.

Pat Brown wrote:One of the reasons I stopped commenting on Madeleine #McCann case (along with the fact I believe that the Scotland Yard investigation is a fraud and the case is dead in the water) is because the discussion has devolved into a vicious battleground between different theories. Instead of people simply disagreeing with each other, the ad hominem attacks have become quite unpleasant. There are people I like who I believe are misinterpreting evidence but that doesn't mean I have to call them names. Likewise, just because some don't believe my analysis doesn't mean they have to attack my professionalism. I base my analysis on years of experience, and while I am not saying I am always correct, I always support my determinations with evidence, not innuendo. For example, there are many who base a particular theory of what happened to Madeleine on the Gaspar statement and while the Gaspar statement is interesting, the fact that it is one woman's questionable interpretation of one event does not qualify this as evidence that David Payne and Gerry McCann are involved in pedophilia and the sexual abuse of Madeleine. As a detective, I might well investigate this line of thought further but the statement is far too unconvincing to base any conclusion on it without further supporting evidence. Yet, when I refuse to do so (which is proper and professional), I am subjected to very vicious attacks. All of this saddens me and keeps me from commenting further on this case because once upon a time, the "antis" were about focusing on the police files and the work of Goncalo Amaral and now much of the discussion has veered away from the files and solid evidence and there is even a lot of ad hominem attacks on Goncalo as well. I attribute much of this to frustration and fear that the Scotland Yard investigation will indeed come to nothing and the case will be put to rest, leaving any discussion of this case to the bowels of the Interne

candyfloss wrote:I see Pat Brown is getting the treatment now over yonder....  

Mimi wrote:

candyfloss wrote:I see Pat Brown is getting the treatment now over yonder....  

I`m astonished at how bitchy and catty a couple of them are being - WHY ?

It`s so unnecessary - whatever has Pat ever done to them?  - I`ll never understand.

candyfloss wrote:

Mimi wrote:

candyfloss wrote:I see Pat Brown is getting the treatment now over yonder....  

I`m astonished at how bitchy and catty a couple of them are being - WHY ?

It`s so unnecessary - whatever has Pat ever done to them?  - I`ll never understand.

It is shocking really, this lady went to PDL and met PeterMac  and I wonder what he makes of this, and she also met TB at the airport? (The photo I put up on another thread) in her quest to get some answers.  Can't understand why are they trashing her - I am sure she knows what she is talking about..........far more than some of them.

Daisy wrote:

candyfloss wrote:

Mimi wrote:

candyfloss wrote:I see Pat Brown is getting the treatment now over yonder....  

I`m astonished at how bitchy and catty a couple of them are being - WHY ?

It`s so unnecessary - whatever has Pat ever done to them?  - I`ll never understand.

It is shocking really, this lady went to PDL and met PeterMac  and I wonder what he makes of this, and she also met TB at the airport? (The photo I put up on another thread) in her quest to get some answers.  Can't understand why are they trashing her - I am sure she knows what she is talking about..........far more than some of them.

I wholehartedly agree candyfloss, it's just not right that Pat is trashed like this. Maybe PeterMac will say something about this, after all he must have spent more time with Pat than HWMBO did?

candyfloss wrote:

Daisy wrote:

candyfloss wrote:

Mimi wrote:

candyfloss wrote:I see Pat Brown is getting the treatment now over yonder....  

I`m astonished at how bitchy and catty a couple of them are being - WHY ?

It`s so unnecessary - whatever has Pat ever done to them?  - I`ll never understand.

It is shocking really, this lady went to PDL and met PeterMac  and I wonder what he makes of this, and she also met TB at the airport? (The photo I put up on another thread) in her quest to get some answers.  Can't understand why are they trashing her - I am sure she knows what she is talking about..........far more than some of them.

I wholehartedly agree candyfloss, it's just not right that Pat is trashed like this. Maybe PeterMac will say something about this, after all he must have spent more time with Pat than HWMBO did?

Blacksmith's new blog talks about this, and is not favourable to TB either.

The Acid Tears of Time..

Pat Brown wrote:
I just wrote a set of responses to comments on my last post and I thought I should copy and paste them in a new post because I think they are important enough to restate in a place where more might see them. The comments I received where on my belief that the Scotland Yard review of the Madeleine McCann case is a whitewash and the recent ad hominem attacks on me that been quite vicious, mostly attacking my professionalism or the fact I am getting my information secondhand from the Internet (which is pretty much true for everyone commenting on this case except that I have been to Praia da Luz and investigated on the ground and I have met withGonçalo Amaral). Here are my responses below:

I did not have faith in the Scotland Yard review from Day One. Why? Because they were not invited in by the Portuguese police nor were they looking for an abductor where the local police search for an abductor had failed. These are the only two reasons a foreign police entity normally involves themselves in a case. So what was Scotland Yard doing there? Only two possibilities: they are truly searching for an abductor in which case the antis including myself are completely off the mark or they are there to "find" an abductor which would put this is under a political corruption label. Since I do believe evidence points to the McCanns involvement and no abduction, this forces me into the second camp. I still have no clue as to why Scotland Yard would be brought in to cleanse the McCann name, but I can see no other reason for this bizarre investigation.

The second reason I have no faith in the Scotland Yard investigation is how inappropriately it has been handled. I have seen reviews before and they don't require this much time and money. Even if the detectives of Scotland Yard, including Andy Redwood, were sent in with the remit that the McCanns were off limits and the Yard was to focus on the abduction theory, it is hard to believe they would spend so many years and millions on the review without at some point, realizing that no evidence of an abduction occurred and the Tapas 9 behaviors and statements along with the cadaver and blood dog hits just might be where they should be looking. Since so much time has passed and so many abductors looked at, so much ground has been dug up that clearly was linked to the abduction theory, one can only surmise, at least I can, that the remit stands regardless of what anyone thinks. Who knows? Maybe Andy Redwood was only trying to do the job he was required to do and, maybe, he knows that it is hogwash and has tried to leave a few hints to the truth along the way. Maybe this was what getting rid of Tannerman and focusing on Smithman was about. However, since Tannerman must have been fabricated, this certainly can't be any kind of clever ruse to use against the McCanns because in court, the defense would shred the police for misconduct. The prosecution in this case had been dead in the water prior to the arrival of Scotland Yard and they have only made matters worse, if something can be deader than dead. ONLY if they find REAL evidence of someone having abducted Maddie (like her body being found buried under someone's cement porch or enclosed in the brick wall of their home) or Maddie's body being found in such a place and with such evidence to link to the McCanns, is a prosecution in Portugal going to happen.
As to the other cases of similarity, there are many cases of parents with children who have gone missing but no bodies. And, all most all of those have gone unsolved. JonBenet was unique because the body was still there but what happened in that cases was a horrible early investigation which compromised the evidence and the integrity of the department, leaving the case as a bunch of rubble
As to the other cases of similarity, I can tell you along with those you have named, there are many more, cases of parents with children who have gone missing but no bodies. And, all most all of those have gone unsolved. JonBenet was unique because the body was still there but what happened in that cases was a horrible early investigation which compromised the evidence and the integrity of the department, leaving the case as a bunch of rubble.
So, the McCann case is really not alone in going unsolved. What really made it become so big was McCanns own use of publicity and the fund which is unprecedented in missing children's cases. Outside of the McCanns wanting money and fame, their attempts to "locate their child" or "clear their name" have failed dismally.

As to the public view of this case and the guilt of the McCanns, they only matter so much in the eyes of people who control things. Outrage is only so good if it has some kind of true power. The outrage against the McCanns is pretty much just on the Internet and in comments. This is not real power., When people take to the street in droves, then you have something, but even with the horrible waste of taxpayer money by Scotland Yard on a case that isn't even British or likely prosecutable, where is the real protest? There isn't one and that is why when Scotland Yard closes this case down with some dead creepy guy or a "we tried our best" the whole case will go quietly away except on the Internet where people who have websites and FB pages and tweet will believe still that the whole world is watching and not just some very tiny segment of it. That Sonia can make a difference with her documentary is questionable, although I appreciate her doing it. Unless she is really on a major MSM channel (which I find unlikely), I think her documentary will be much like Halls; very useful to posterity but not so much still enough to turn public protest around and expose enough of the corruption to turn this case around.

As far as the ad hominem attacks on me for not buying into certain theories my frustration is mostly at seeing things devolve from a clear focus on this case of the McCanns' involvement in the death of their daughter and a subsequent hurried coverup and support of Gonçalo Amaral and his fight for justice, to a dozen very convoluted theories that I believe only serve to damage the antis message that the McCanns are not innocent and the fund has been stealing money for years from unsuspecting people. In becoming so obsessed with creating alternative scenarios to the one Amaral had forwarded, the label of nutters and conspiracy theorists is going to cause the message to be killed. While I take issue with many of these theories, I have never made a personal attack on other antis because I don't want others to think ill of them and, quite frankly, I don't think ill of them for thinking differently than me, so I see no reason to not still be friendly and polite. I don't want to cause the antis to disband into camps that attack each other (which is what I am seeing happening) and give fodder for the pros to abuse us.

I feel bad for all because I know they mean well, but, sadly, along with what I believe will be closing of this case by Scotland Yard without any prosecution of the McCanns, the message going into the future which should be one of simple concern of mishandling of missing children's cases, abuse of the media, misappropriation of public monies, and political protection will be lost in all the ad hominem attacks and complicated, bizarre theories. The gleeful personal attacks on me add to this destruction because I am one of the few professional voices on this case and if the antis call me incompetent, then that is one less professional voice. Recently, some have even trashed Gonçalo Amaral which pretty much is just knocking the legs from under us all. I wish people would understand that you don't have to agree with everything someone says in order to appreciate their efforts and be civil.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

April 24, 2015

Pat Brown wrote:I did not have faith in the Scotland Yard review from Day One. Why? Because they were not invited in by the Portuguese police

Pat Brown wrote:nor were they looking for an abductor where the local police search for an abductor had failed

TheTruthWillOut wrote:

Pat Brown wrote:I did not have faith in the Scotland Yard review from Day One. Why? Because they were not invited in by the Portuguese police

Is that fact? If it is, doesn't it indicate aiding and abetting by the PT authorities. I doubt this, personally.


It comes down to whether you're a glass half full or half empty person, I guess!

caricature wrote:Another post by P Brown.
http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/the-scotland-yard-review-and-ad-hominem.html

Pat Brown wrote:
   I just wrote a set of responses to comments on my last post and I thought I should copy and paste them in a new post because I think they are important enough to restate in a place where more might see them. The comments I received where on my belief that the Scotland Yard review of the Madeleine McCann case is a whitewash and the recent ad hominem attacks on me that been quite vicious, mostly attacking my professionalism or the fact I am getting my information secondhand from the Internet (which is pretty much true for everyone commenting on this case except that I have been to Praia da Luz and investigated on the ground and I have met withGonçalo  Amaral). Here are my responses below:

   I did not have faith in the Scotland Yard review from Day One. Why? Because they were not invited in by the Portuguese police nor were they looking for an abductor where the local police search for an abductor had failed. These are the only two reasons a foreign police entity normally involves themselves in a case. So what was Scotland Yard doing there? Only two possibilities: they are truly searching for an abductor in which case the antis including myself are completely off the mark or they are there to "find" an abductor which would put this is under a political corruption label. Since I do believe evidence points to the McCanns involvement and no abduction, this forces me into the second camp. I still have no clue as to why Scotland Yard would be brought in to cleanse the McCann name, but I can see no other reason for this bizarre investigation.

   The second reason I have no faith in the Scotland Yard investigation is how inappropriately it has been handled. I have seen reviews before and they don't require this much time and money. Even if the detectives of Scotland Yard, including Andy Redwood, were sent in with the remit that the McCanns were off limits and the Yard was to focus on the abduction theory, it is hard to believe they would spend so many years and millions on the review without at some point, realizing that no evidence of an abduction occurred and the Tapas 9 behaviors and statements along with the cadaver and blood dog hits just might be where they should be looking. Since so much time has passed and so many abductors looked at, so much ground has been dug up that clearly was linked to the abduction theory, one can only surmise, at least I can, that the remit stands regardless of what anyone thinks. Who knows? Maybe Andy Redwood was only trying to do the job he was required to do and, maybe, he knows that it is hogwash and has tried to leave a few hints to the truth along the way. Maybe this was what getting rid of Tannerman and focusing on Smithman was about. However, since Tannerman must have been fabricated, this certainly can't be any kind of clever ruse to use against the McCanns because in court, the defense would shred the police for misconduct. The prosecution in this case had been dead in the water prior to the arrival of Scotland Yard and they have only made matters worse, if something can be deader than dead. ONLY if they find REAL evidence of someone having abducted Maddie (like her body being found buried under someone's cement porch or enclosed in the brick wall of their home) or Maddie's body being found in such a place and with such evidence to link to the McCanns, is a prosecution in Portugal going to happen.
   As to the other cases of similarity, there are many cases of parents with children who have gone missing but no bodies. And, all most all of those have gone unsolved. JonBenet was unique because the body was still there but what happened in that cases was a horrible early investigation which compromised the evidence and the integrity of the department, leaving the case as a bunch of rubble
As to the other cases of similarity, I can tell you along with those you have named, there are many more, cases of parents with children who have gone missing but no bodies. And, all most all of those have gone unsolved. JonBenet was unique because the body was still there but what happened in that cases was a horrible early investigation which compromised the evidence and the integrity of the department, leaving the case as a bunch of rubble.
   So, the McCann case is really not alone in going unsolved. What really made it become so big was McCanns own use of publicity and the fund which is unprecedented in missing children's cases. Outside of the McCanns wanting money and fame, their attempts to "locate their child" or "clear their name" have failed dismally.

   As to the public view of this case and the guilt of the McCanns, they only matter so much in the eyes of people who control things. Outrage is only so good if it has some kind of true power. The outrage against the McCanns is pretty much just on the Internet and in comments. This is not real power., When people take to the street in droves, then you have something, but even with the horrible waste of taxpayer money by Scotland Yard on a case that isn't even British or likely prosecutable, where is the real protest? There isn't one and that is why when Scotland Yard closes this case down with some dead creepy guy or a "we tried our best" the whole case will go quietly away except on the Internet where people who have websites and FB pages and tweet will believe still that the whole world is watching and not just some very tiny segment of it. That Sonia can make a difference with her documentary is questionable, although I appreciate her doing it. Unless she is really on a major MSM channel (which I find unlikely), I think her documentary will be much like Halls; very useful to posterity but not so much still enough to turn public protest around and expose enough of the corruption to turn this case around.

   As far as the ad hominem attacks on me for not buying into certain theories my frustration is mostly at seeing things devolve from a clear focus on this case of the McCanns' involvement in the death of their daughter and a subsequent hurried coverup and support of Gonçalo Amaral and his fight for justice, to a dozen very convoluted theories that I believe only serve to damage the antis message that the McCanns are not innocent and the fund has been stealing money for years from unsuspecting people. In becoming so obsessed with creating alternative scenarios to the one Amaral had forwarded, the label of nutters and conspiracy theorists is going to cause the message to be killed. While I take issue with many of these theories, I have never made a personal attack on other antis because I don't want others to think ill of them and, quite frankly, I don't think ill of them for thinking differently than me, so I see no reason to not still be friendly and polite. I don't want to cause the antis to disband into camps that attack each other (which is what I am seeing happening) and give fodder for the pros to abuse us.

   I feel bad for all because I know they mean well, but, sadly, along with what I believe will be closing of this case by Scotland Yard without any prosecution of the McCanns, the message going into the future which should be one of simple concern of mishandling of missing children's cases, abuse of the media, misappropriation of public monies, and political protection will be lost in all the ad hominem attacks and complicated, bizarre theories. The gleeful personal attacks on me add to this destruction because I am one of the few professional voices on this case and if the antis call me incompetent, then that is one less professional voice. Recently, some have even trashed Gonçalo Amaral which pretty much is just knocking the legs from under us all. I wish people would understand that you don't have to agree with everything someone says in order to appreciate their efforts and be civil.

   Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

   April 24, 2015

Chop Suey on Toast wrote:Message to PB - GA's theory doesn't stand up to scrutiny, so it's hardly the domain of nutters and conspiracy theorists to point this out and seek an alternative explanation

Saturday, April 25, 2015

A Final Word on the True Damage of Ad Hominem Attacks in the Madeleine McCann Case