Hunt for Gerry’s missing tennis bag which ‘could have been used to carry Madeleine away’

By VANESSA ALLEN – Last updated at 19:03pm on 25th December 2007

Police want to trace a tennis bag allegedly taken from Kate and Gerry McCann’s apartment on the night Madeleine went missing, it was claimed yesterday.

Detectives think the blue holdall could have been used to carry Madeleine away, or even to transport her body.

It belonged to Mr McCann but has not been seen since the night of May 3, according to the Sky News documentary.

Tony Rogers, who reviews unsolved cases for British police and worked on the Soham investigation, said: “If it’s a bag of a size that could be used to take a child away from the flat, that would be of great interest to the investigating officer.”

But Mr McCann told friends yesterday that he did not take any tennis equipment to Praia da Luz, and did not own a blue tennis bag.

McCann family spokesman Clarence Mitchell flatly denied that Mr McCann had lost a bag during the family’s holiday.

He said: “As far as Kate and Gerry are concerned, there is no missing tennis bag. They came back from holiday with everything except of course, tragically, Madeleine.”

Scroll down for more…

MadeleineMadeleine disappeared in Praia da Luz on May 3

Sky News stood by its story, which it said came from sources who had travelled to the resort after Madeleine’s disappearance Police want to trace a blue tennis bag allegedly taken from Kate and Gerry McCann’s apartment on the night Madeleine went missing.

At the time of the disappearance maritime police told fishermen and boat owners to watch out for anything unusual they spotted in the sea around the coast, including any black bin liners which could have been thrown into the water containing potentially vital evidence.

Portuguese police worked for several months on the theory that Madeleine died in her parents’ holiday apartment and that her body was somehow transported to a hiding place after her death, but have been unable to find sufficient evidence to prove such a claim.

Forensic samples which they hoped would prove her body was transported in her parents’ Renault Scenic, hired 25 days after she went missing, proved inconclusive.

Her parents have always denied any involvement in her disappearance and Mr Mitchell called the theory “ridiculous”.

28 Responses to “Hunt for Gerry’s missing tennis bag which ‘could have been used to carry Madeleine away’”

  1. 1
    maria - Portugal Says:

    ridiculous, ludicrous, Mitchelicrous ……ETCrous blablabla

  2. 2
    louise Says:

    Thank god someone is not frightened to speak out, well done to youre site.
    I have thought from day 1 these people have done a terrible thing to that beautiful little girl.
    I FEAR IF SITES LIKE THIS DO NOT KEEP THIS CASE IN THE PUBLIC EYE they are going to get away with it
    I have just spent sometime reading a lot of the book that has come out in portugal and i give all credit to the man who wrote it.
    He was on the case and he knows what went on.
    I am actualy upset with our english police after reading what i have just read.
    They have to keep investigating the Mcanns.

  3. 3
    barbara rudd Says:

    There are a lot of people who say that the Parents killed the little girl. I would like to ask (1) for what reason (2) when did they do it(3) Where did they dispose of her body and how. Perhaps some of you who blame them for it have the answers ? Please let us all know so we can form our own views on your theories.

  4. 4
    admin Says:

    Reply to Barbara Rudd from admin:

    1) There are many reasons why people kill. Some are accidental. Some are deliberate. Who knows why?
    2) There was time for Madeleine to have been killed on the nights of either May 1 or May 2. It is extremely unlikely that Madeleine died on the night of May 3 as per the Tapas 9’s alibis. It is more likely that Madeleine was already dead by this time and most of May 3 was taken up in a cleanup operation.
    3) The disposal of the body was most likely a multi-stage operation. It probably passed through a few places before being taken to the final resting place.
    4) There were opportunities to bring the body back to the UK so this cannot be ruled out.

  5. 5
    justin straccia Says:


    After much reading of the mccann files and reports (, I have come to the conclusion that there is no evidence to suggest kate, gerry or the tapas 7 had anything to do with Maddie`s disappearance. However, if you (as I did) delve deeper into the interviews, statements, reports etc rather than read the Mccann/Mitchell friendly newspapers, you will soon discover an alarming array of discrepencies.
    Every single one of the tapas nine has changed their story a number of times to the most simple of questions. I urge you to analyze this website. There is a cover up here of monumental proportions.

  6. 6
    jean baker Says:

    justin straccia,

    It seems you have failed to read the considerable amount of evidence facts in extracts of Goncalo Amaral’s book on various sites, his concise comments in several interviews and also PJ’s Report.

    ‘No evidence’ is the case with the McCann’s plea of abduction. The only forensics found on the bedroom
    were Kate’s (police reports and files).

    Conversely, there is overwhelming, substantiated evidence of Madeleine’s death in the apartment, along with forensics found in the vehicle boot. Cadaver odour was found in 4 locations in the apartment, two articles of Kate’s clothing, an article of Madeleine’s and also cuddle cat. Cadaver odour (and blood) was pinpointed by top dogs Eddie & Keela in two locations in the flat, the vehicle car key and the boot of the vehicle.

    In normal circumstances, especially a case involving the level of expertize (Mark Harrison) deployed on Madeleine’s behalf alongside two police forces, the prime suspects would have been detained, charged and made answerable in Court last September.

    The case, itself, is very straightforward. The ‘reason’ for Madeleine’s diappearance was found last July and proved by long delayed forensic results in September.

    All the rest is a hugely expensive charade – a ‘circus, a PR fiasco’ ……… designed to manipulate opinion and pervert the course of justice.

  7. 7
    jean baker Says:


    Many children suffer accidental death, but rarely, if ever, are the parents charged with negligence or worse.
    This includes tragic cases of children being run over in the driveways of their homes, drowning in pools etc.
    Our neighbour accidentally shot his only child, but his first thought and action was to call the emergency services.

    There is overwhelming evidence that Madeleine died in her parents apartment and that the vehicle they hired was, in someway involved in subsequent actions. In Madeleine’s case, her medically trained parents did not phone emergency services. It can, therefore, be concluded that steps were taken to prevent post mortem examination.

    Our neighbour was charged with no offence in the accidental killing of his beloved son. Instead, he received a huge amount of support from the authorities and the public; he has never fully recovered.

    Conversely, photos of the happy McCanns ‘grinning like Chesire cats’ were published shortly after their child went ‘missing’. They are shown proudly displaying one of their marketing products.

    Normal people, especially parents, find the McCanns behaviour grossly distasteful and utterly despicable.
    People have the right to form and voice their own opinions in this case. I actually find them an insult to the parents of Sarah Payne, Holly, Jessica & James Bulger; genuine vicitms of death due to abduction.

  8. 8
    jean baker Says:

    ‘Missing tennis bag’ is not a subject on which I have posted comments. This can only be the result of site interception and identity theft, the basis (confirkmed by police) of Mitchell’s threat of “dealing with forums” – overriding free speech and public opinion.

    The Home Office refused PJ’s request to re-question the McCanns as prime suspect and/or attend Leicester Police interviews with the remainder of the Tapas group. PJ intended bringing specialists to study body language of ‘witnesses’. Police reports have since revealed that interviews were ‘corrupted’ by witnesses given sight of earlier statements made to PJ. Jane Tanner’s ‘interview’ suffered 7 inexplicable interruptions in the 2 -3 hour process, during which she conferred with her lawyer.

    In lieu of Government forbidden attendance, PJ were sent DVDs of syndicated, orchestrated invalid ‘interviews’. Prior to this, Gordon Brown & Jacqui Smith reportedly visited Leicester Police.

  9. 9
    Hazel Says:

    Dear Tony,

    Do you think Madeleine Mc Cann could be still alive? I too suspect that her parents are involved in her disappearance. I believe that the whole week was a set up, including leaving the children alone every night. Is it possible that Madeleine could be a human clone? This would explain why there are so many Doctors and medical people involved. Is it possible that the parents staged the room and left the DNA there themselves. You would have to check with experts to see if Madeleine’s DNA could have been mixed with fluid from a dead person. Also if there were other embryos left over from Madeleine’s conception that could have been used for this purpose. Kates eggs could have been used without her ever giving birth to Madeleine. I believe the Freemasons and the church are also involved. There is a lot of politics behind this and there has to be a very good reason! If Madeleine comes back they will have made a lot of people look stupid including the portuguese police. They may want to make it look like it is a miracle if she comes back. This would be another reason why her parents have not shown the normal emotions that we would expect to see of normal parents. Gerry has been very arrogant from the start and is smiling in a lot of photos, it is like he is putting on a show for certain people to see. This could be the reason why he didn’t care about making her eye defect public and why he has taunted us all with find the body if they killed her, because they have known who has her all along. They could have been making visits to her while they have been visiting all these countries, the pope and other leaders. Maybe this is why they won’t show Madeleine’s medical records. It would have been very easy for them to forge documents when she was born, due to the amount of people they know in medicine and the government and especially if the government sanctioned this experiment. Please don’t print my email address or give it to anyone. I admire you for doing something productive in bringing her parents to justice. Keep up the good work.


  10. 10
    stephen Says:

    Having followed this story since it broke last year i have been open minded as to the happenings of Madelines disappearance. There is just something not right with it, staged? maybe, i trust them cadaver dogs more than any policeman they detected “death” in 2 places within the apartment and in the boot of the hire car, coincidence it is not. Is it possible that Maddy died/went missing before the 3rd of May? I know photos were shown date stamped 3rd May ect but a time/date stamp is easy to reverse on any camera. Plausible? well why not. Picture this 2 UK doctors go on holidays with 3 infant childeren meet with friends and boogey every night of the week with their pals and leave 3 infants alone and unattended

  11. 11
    stephen Says:

    oops, pressed submit………………….. Wouldnt happen, these people are the very people who would report such behaviour to Social Services. No way would 2 professional people leave infants to fend for themselves whether they were asleep or not when they left, that part of this tale is what will unlock the rest. could Maddy have died the day they arrived? 2 professional people panic and the 9 come to the plan to save their careers and livelihoods rather than face humiliation for a tragic accident. I have yet to hear an interviewer ask the question, Why did you leave 3 childeren alone or consectutive evenings? Joe and Jane from Bolton or Belfast would never do it, is this a common practice amongst the middle classes whilst abroad,……..i dont think so. Theres been to much spin and too many untruths released to muddy the waters, the dogs have been the scource of the only fact in this whole fiasco,

  12. 12
    tina Says:

    Knowing what we all know now, l beleive that Madeleine was killed that night, and that the reason the parents coild not inform the police of her accidental death, is bcause had Madeleine been sexually abused, this would have had to come to light during the autopsy.From day one when they kept ramming down the medias throat that the shutter was BROKEN OPEN,and clearly there was no sign of that neither was the window marked it was obvious they were lying.
    Now having seen the layout of the room,how could anyone break open a shutter,and window, climb in the room,having to stand on the bed under said window,back out again, carrying a 3 year old child, and leave no trace what so ever.It is impossible,as impossible as Jane Tanner walking past two men,on a narrow footpath,and not being seen.What is very worrying is the fact dispite Gerry McCann telling Panorama in november he and Jeremy Wilkins were on the other side of the road talking,not a mention in the press, or any form of the english media,WHY NOT.they were both absent form the tapas bar at the same time, and one has been proven to be a liar. Madeleine never stood a chance. it is obvious that the Mc Canns, would not have dreamt that the files in full would be given to the media, and therefore felt safe to lie true thier teeth When it came to light, like all the other evidense,they just ignored it and again they get away Scot free..

  13. 13
    Karen Says:

    I hope they both rot in hell!!

  14. 14
    Raymond Says:

    It’s all very sad a little chid is missing and we are all making judgements as to what happened , the police know the truth its how they are going to prove it without a body it will be difficult but not impossible.

    i do not believe the police have given up they are still on the case for sure maybe not in the news papers but they are on it ,
    there is something odd about the Mc canns behaviour its all me don’t look at us the big smoke screen they pulled everybody into it very quickly i am sure even they was surprised at the incompetence of the people they was dealing with.
    It all went their way for sure they shut the press up and anybody else who they thought was going to upstage them.

    I am sure they will try to close this site down with threats of suing and goodness knows what else
    But I do believe there’s is a thawing of the public they are getting fed up with them,

    They made enemies of the news papers the very people I would want on my side if you are looking for investigators who better then the investigative mind of a journalist.. maybe the realized this ..Pop.. They had to go… If the child is no longer with us I believe it was some accident nothing else and nothing more did I not read there are some new buildings going on around the place where the child went missing….

  15. 15
    Ruth Says:

    Cat Eye Syndrome.
    1. The Cat Eye a condition that can vary in degree from just a slight eye defect to Heart defect, Anus or kidney problems and much more and is linked to chromosome 22 defect.
    In the bible’s text of Abraham’s sacrafice of his first born son, who knows? Perhaps he never had any other choice only that ultimate sacrafice just maybe David was that lame lamb.
    2.Looking after a child who may have life limiting health issues can be a heavy burden on a young family especially if those parents are of this modern scientific age.
    Maybe that child would be better off with other wanna be parents who can give her/him all the attention she needs in a far off land, it has been said a child adopted by age four can in time forget her/his natural parents and settle into his/her first school making new friends quickly.
    3. I could invisage such modern day couples being secrectly pleased with this alternative.
    Maybe a dilema only the Sacred Heart ,ever present, could solve.
    A small holdall bag of favorite possesstions all that is needed for a small passenger on a journey to her/his knew life.
    Yet these small migrants dilemas should not be taken for granted, the penetence for those who forsake them set high in gold sovereigns and that childs name forever revered, such as Davids, for the guilt of such a choice of those who take on such a burden can only be subdued by working to help others, maybe for the welfare of similar cases.

  16. 16
    Lin Says:

    For those asking ‘why’ parents would do this, it’s not rocket science. It probably was an accident, maybe they over medicated her, thinking they could go out while she slept, and now that it’s over, there’s nothing they can do except to participate in the whole cover up. So, IMHO, they didn’t ‘murder’ her, but they killed her unintentionally and now they’re beyond being able to confess.

  17. 17
    IRONSIDE Says:

    Having read the police files…I am still disturbed about David Payne and the Gaspar witness statement…her fear (Mrs Gaspar) of not wanting Payne anywhere near her children at bathtime. The moment she heard maddie was missing she asked her husband was Payne on the holiday with them…The british police should have given this statement to PJ immediately..a child was missing..instead they held onto it for months….there may have been nothing to it,,,but that was for PJ to decide ….Now Payne looks very suspicious…he went out with mccann at 4am after police had finished their search….Why???

  18. 18
    jane thomas Says:

    The research I did on the Madeleine case back in winter 2007, web fiiles uncovered the vile case of the Casa Pia Orphan scandel in Portugal where small mute children were used and sexually abused by the elite of Portuguese society.
    One of those who was found guilty was the former embassador to Africa, one George Ritto, who was actually caught with a couple of small children held in his apartment.
    Mr George Ritto in a certain light, could (in my humble oppinion) resemble David Payne,log onto the net and see for yourself, no finger pointing but it shows how easy it is to mistake people.
    More interesting to me is the research into the IPCE web site and the name John McCann, the article there in on false accusations and defence for such claims brought by small children, the defence articles seem a large popular topic in this conference in the report of suspected preditors. Interestingly the case of Jonbennet is also aired on this same site and giving graphic detail of her genatalia at the time of her death. I have linked the two cases very stronly as a blue print of clearing up the aftermath of a childs death.

  19. 19
    jane thomas Says:

    Hello again!
    Is a possibility that the alleged abduction of Madeleine and the deaths of at least three maybe five children are connected in some way with dirty politics and the Presidential elections
    Madeine McCann, Rachel Charles,Jonbennet Ramsey, The two Belgium girls abducted and strangled, A map along with a chilling letter marked with and X to locate the bodies of the two Begium girls sent to the DutchTelegraff news paper, as was the almost indentical letter sent to the same paper about Madeleine McCann, the maps said to have been downloaded from the same web site.
    The possible link with politics being–The year Jonbennet a child beauty queen was brutally tortured and strangled to death, ( father said to have made his fortune in IT his firm called ACCESS), this year saw the year that Sen Gary Hart suddenly resigned over a sex scandel involving a young woman.
    The year Madeleine disappeared Gov Mark Warner, who made his fortune in Telecomunications and who may be linked with Mark Warner Holiday village resigned, said to be a front runner and possibly a excellent candidate, he worked for George Bush and Enron, he sighted family before the Presidency Whow!
    Gerry McCann is heavily involved with the Blair Government, the McCann twins Godfather Jon Corner a IT media guru worked for the Blair Government.
    In the Jonbennet Ramsey case, an alleged collegue of Jon Corner the IT guru for Blairs Media set up is one Michael Tracy a IT Prof guru who teaches in Colarado University and championed the parents of Jonbennet Patsy Ramsey, like Kate McCann the prime suspect in the possible crimes commited against their own flesh and blood, lots of evedence planted to point the finger at the Mothers, lots of other links between these two cases, including the diversion of suspected local pedophiles.
    Rachael Charles was a little girl abducted and stangled not so far from Praia da Luz, one Michael Cook was sent to prison for her murder, also a Michael Cook said he was a friend of Pedophile suspected of killing Jonbennet ramsey , he was one Michael Helgoth who was mysteriously killed himself, to many links and many many more with the IT WORLD and the outing of vile pedophiles.

  20. 20
    jane thomas Says:

    There is a definate link to Jonbenets case and the two IT, TV media gurus, one made a documentry on jonbennet case in 2004 and resides in COLARADO, USA.
    Madeleine is alive, but has been legally adopted, all the players were in place, the motive is there.
    Jonbenets family murder trial may have been the blueprint for a massive cover-up, there are to many coincidences and between the two to be ignored and the final verdict insufficenr evedence and the
    backing of an iternational data that both parties are now backing

    Site Admin: Sorry but this did not happen. Madeleine died in May 2007. She isn’t coming back. Get used to it.

  21. 21
    PND Says:

    A man was seen at 9:50pm heading to the beach with a child against his chest at 9:50pm by the Smith Family

    One of the Tapas 9 men (with light hair) was seen down by the Chapel at 23:20 pm on that night

    Matt Oldfield and David Payne were seen down by the beach by one of the child investigative women at 23:30pm that night

    DOGS DON”T LIE! Eddie and Keela only marked the McCanns property , no-one else’s , Madeleine is dead, and probably died behind the sofa , or fell from the veranda of 5A into the bushes below (where Eddie the cadaver marked both Veranda and Bushes)

    The McCanns may not have murdered Madeleine but they covered up and disposed of her body to save their own asses.

    In my opinion they should rot in hell, they have defrauded the entire world and should be shot. Madeleine is dead, and as Site Admin said “Get used to it”

  22. 22
    Paolo Says:

    Where do the diaries in which Kate McCann stated the fact he coldn’t cope with her own daughter’s behaviour have gone ? This and other evidence suggest me the following:

    Kate McCann is a manipulative, nervewrecked-born mother which used to prescriptionless administer sedatives to her own daughter on no ground other than the fact she couldn’t cope with a kid’s normal behaviour. One fateful day Mrs. McCann accidentally administered Madeleine an excess of sedatives which resulted in the fatal intoxication of her little daughter.

    The little body was brought by means of some natant far from the shore and then thrown into the ocean.

  23. 23
    Ruth Says:

    Are any of you aware that the route the look-a like Jerry McCan supposed to have taken when seen by the Smith family would have been heading towards the private beach of the old fort in praia da luz.
    Robert Murats uncle Ralph and Sally Eveliegh are photographed in their bar at their B&B Villa with the blonde, buxom, middle aged female singer of the jaz band who entertains in the old fort.
    Like the Mcs the Evelieghs have lots of contacts in the IT/TV World.
    I am drawn to the researched facts, the Mcs found Madeleine difficult to deal with and they have close contacts in Canada one who may be connected to the RDF tagging project and a international lottery advisor who is married to a woman named Tanner.This maybe worth a check out.
    Madeleine is not dead, I am pretty sure Madeleine has been adopted through an International child adoption agency and the people involved in this appalling act of deception were gathered around to set such a scene of utter confusion.
    1.A false trail of Madeline’s death 2. A false trail of abduction, so as to cover up the shame of not being able to control thier willful child and to make pots of money from a fund set up in her name.
    And why not dedicate this act of sacrafice to a worthy cause, maybe like the amber alert the EU project and promote the RFI tagging system at the same time, like the wearing of arm bands for missing kids.
    JM choice f books contained The Interpretation of Murder, where in one man says the other, what about the evedence. the other man replys there will be no evedence other than what we chose to leave, or words to that effect.
    Here is a list of all those who have got money from this case. McCanns,Murat,Amaral.Private Detective Agencies linked to lawyers of J.P.Morgan, the company Tony Blair works for,The Tapas lot,the list goes on.
    I believe the Madeleine we saw in Belgium and in Canada was Madeleine McCann and when signalled she will reapear unawear she has been used in an Internatnional Conspiracy.

  24. 24
    Curious Says:

    I think based on the various different reports, specifically the article written by Mrs Wilkins, whose husband was hounded by the press, that the ‘mystery man’ with a child in a blanket could easily have been another parent.

    She describes, in her article, how her husband carried their own daughter home from the resort baby sitters, wrapped in a blanket.
    The man seen the night Maddie vanished could have been some other dad who for what ever reason, didn’t come forwards; maybe he didn’t even realise he’d been seen or could be a suspect.

    Having said that…if parents carrying sleeping children home late at night was a common site at the resort, there is an argument for a predator nabbing Maddie, knowing most people who saw him, before the alarm was raised, would assume he was just a dad taking his kid home.

    Especially if the whole paedophile/child traffic thing rings true-if they make a habit of nabbing kids, they’d know that a man carrying a child wouldn’t necessarily be cause for alarm, not right away, and they’d know Maddie had been left alone once before, for 90 minutes. Maybe he woke her or scared her to see how quickly someone responded.
    When he realised he potentially had two hours, he took his time, grabbed Maddie, and calmly carried her away knowing that if anyone saw or even confronted him he could say he’d picked her up from the baby sitters.

    More likely though, he really was just some poor dad taking his baby home.

    I do believe Maddie died by accident, either in the apartment or on the stairs outside like dogsdontlie claims.
    Maddie may have been an undersized toddler but she was still a toddler and I’ve known toddlers as small and smaller than her to scale greater heights than a child safety gate.
    Not to mention, a child safety gate doesn’t, you know, guarantee child safety.
    Maddie could have tried to climb it, fell, smashed her head. it may even have been open if she was with her parents when it happened. Maybe they where carrying the pram down the stairs and wedged the gate open and she just fell. Her parent/s(depending when exactly it happened) carry her to the apartment where, tragically, she dies.
    Hell, listen; they are doctors. There kid falls and hits her head, maybe cuts it open, maybe even on the way to drop her at the baby sitter to the evening. She might have even seemed to be okay with no obvious signs of a serious injury. They, as DOCTORS and not knowing/trusting local medics, which ever, take her home to clean her up. Maybe they even did and thought she was okay (it can take time for a head injury to become apparent, sometimes days)
    it would explain stuff like the blood in the apartment, if she was near a window while they patched her up and bled on the floor.
    So as doctors they’re satisfied she’s okay, they leave her to sleep, they come back, she’s dead.
    They panic; they’re DOCTORS and made a school boy medical error-they didn’t get her checked out well enough, left her alone after a head injury etc. They realise they might lose the twins, be struck off, go to prison.
    It really isn’t their fault, she fell, seemed fine, they just misjudged, probably didn’t want to risk a nice holiday turning into a drama, or maybe they’d thought ‘we’re going home soon, we’ll get her checked at home cos she seems fine now but lets not risk a foreign hospital and stress and money only for her to be totally okay’
    So they panicked.
    They hid her body in some way, maybe thinking she’d be found and they could blame her death on someone else.
    Then the incompetence comes in, the bins not being checked, sewers etc, places she could have been hidden being left to be drained or emptied.
    I feel like they’d have taken more care disposing of her body, they’d put her somewhere they felt she’d be safe etc…maybe they did bury her somewhere, wrapped up and safe.
    Either way, they hide her. They plan their story ‘she’s been taken’, knowing they’d both have ample time to set up little bits, the opened window, the time gaps etc.
    Everyone foamed at the mouth over ‘mystery men’ in photos who may have been oogling the kiddies.
    Has anyone here been on a holiday with young children where anyone not related or linked to the group who seemed even TEENY BIT odd, came under suspicion for the remainder? There are always either pervs oogling kids on beaches or some poor single shmuck who looks a bit weird and has bad timing.

    I think this was a horrible, horrific accident. They should have had Maddie checked and didn’t.
    She may even have fell before the night she was heard crying, have been walking around with a head injury for days. Since she seemed fine, her parents stopped worrying.
    She was probably crying the night before she ‘vanished’ because her head hurt but have you ever tried asking a toddler to articulate pain? Well, scrapped knees and stuff, yeah, but a headache? The symptoms of a brain bleed or skull fracture?
    How did she graze her knee? Could have been falling down the stairs.
    I mean pure theory here but that hat on the day she vanished, in the ‘last photo’ could have been covering a cut.
    She may have hit her nose and the nose bleed story was true, just with a different cause.

    The more I think and rationalise the more I become convinced that this was an accident. I think she fell down those stairs and hit her head and grazed her knee.
    She seems fine after so her parents relax.
    She wakes up crying, in pain, but either cant articulate or, as 3 year olds do, forgets about the pain quick smart.
    She either bled in the apartment the day she was hurt, or the night she died, she has a nosebleed or seizure under the window, by the couch. Her parents come home and find her and realise what’s happened, that she’s died.
    Maybe she died earlier in the day, either way, Gerry and Kate know they’re fucked, professionally and personally. As intelligent doctors they’re able to detach emotionally and think rationally and logically, though not wisely.
    They hide her, cleaning up the blood and hiding it somewhere cold and dank where the cloth couldn’t dry.
    25 days later they use that rental car, with the cloth in the back, to travel around, probably disposing of the cloth while out and about, probably letting it be their memorial for Maddie.
    Since it’s still wet, the cloth leaves dead blood in the car.
    If I had the only proof my daughter died and I knew it in my car, I’d stuff it under the boot mat too, just in case someone took cursory glance in the back. You’d have to out of sheer paranoia.
    That’s why the dogs smelled cadavers.

    The ONLY thing is where and how they hid her body, thats the one thing I cant come up with, but given how early she could have died, they could have driven her any where then gone out for the infamous meal.
    She could be a mummified skeleton halfway up some mountain by now, or buried under a cairn or any thing.

  25. 25
    Angelique Says:


    The thing is any parent, let alone a Doctor, no I mean two Doctor’s know that a bang on the head needs investigation. And the one thing you should not do is let the child sleep without checking for internal injury. I am an ordinary parent and even I know this. Why would two professional Doctors go to these lengths – surely they would immediately take her for investigation? They wouldn’t have to admit anything other than she fell at some point. It happens with children. Would they go to these elaborate lengths to cover up what is in actuality a everyday occurrence. No, they wouldn’t that is why something other than a simple accident occurred. That’s why the thing is so elaborate. And the rest of your comment is what we are all wondering – it’s such a complicated chain of events that the ‘abduction theory’ can’t be true.

  26. 26
    widowan Says:

    Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: The Last Photo of Madeleine McCann: Fact or Fake? Pat Brown Criminal Profiler – Blog re Madeleine McCann

    Some people think that the final photo of Madeleine McCann at the pool with Gerry and her sister, Amelie, is a forgery. The claim is that the photo really was only of Gerry and Amelie and that Madeleine was added in through photo enhancement, a ploy to cover up the fact she was already dead by early afternoon on day she was said to have gone missing.

    I have to admire the effort to consider this possibility and the effort put out to analyze all the details of the photo and question some of the elements. It is always good to be curious enough to delve into an aspect of a case and see if there could be any clues there.

    In this case, I would have to say the explanations of the photo being a fake are not strong enough for me to believe that Maddie’s death/disappearance occurred earlier than 6 PM in the evening.

    My thoughts on the photo:

    1) While it is true the picture is not perfectly composed with a centering of the threesome (and if Madeleine is not in the picture, then Gerry and Amelie are in the middle), this is not all that uncommon. With the advent of electronic photography, photos are snapped much more carelessly than when one had to pay for developing the prints. Cameras now are used more often as spontaneous recorders of events rather than composed photos for display.

    2) That Madeleine’s outline is not overlapped by any person or object is likely just coincidence. If one snaps enough photos, some of them will have isolated objects.

    3) The fact the brother is not in the photo simply means he was running about. Again, this is not a posed family portrait.

    4) The fact Madeleine is laughing at something out of sight and her father and sister are not laughing is not particularly meaningful. Children tend to laugh spontaneously at whatever they think is funny. Sometime this is just something that strikes them amusing such as their big toe or an expression on someone’s face.

    5) The fact that Madeleine is not in a swimsuit proves little. The outfits on the girls look like play outfits and the trio just happened by the pool area and sat down to relax and dangle their feet in the water.

    6)The mo st telling clue in this photo that tends to go against the possibility of any forgery is in the clothing of Madeleine and Amelie. Take Maddie out of the picture and what you have is a little girl dressed in a horribly clashing outfit; an orange play suit and a fancy pink hat. Mothers do not tend to put such an outfit on their children and let them out of the house that way (especially a mother who is as fashion conscious as Kate). Maddie’s white hat would look better with her clothing.

    The sportier white hat on Madeleine’s head does not clash with her girlier pink dress-like outfit, but that pink hat on Amelie’s head would go with it better. Put the two girls together on an outing and my guess is they started off with the better matching hat, and through play, the girls ended up with the other’s hat on their heads.

    It really makes little sense that this photo would be manufactured. If Madeleine had been missing for the majority of the day, there would be far too long a period of time to account for and greater likelihood that Maddie’s invisibility would have been noticed. Furthermore, if she was killed in the morning, it would have been far easier for the McCanns to simply claim that while they were out at the playground or popping in and out of stores while they were shopping, they turned around and Maddie was gone. It is a much simpler story.

    But, if Maddie died in the apartment while Gerry was at tennis, or after he came back, or during the tapas bar rendezvous, then the children were already in for the night and the chances of an abduction from the apartment story being created makes far more sense.

    Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

    Posted by Pat Brown at 12:40 AM

    Labels: Gerry McCann, Kate McCann, Maddie, Maddy, Madeleine McCann, Pat’s posts Links to this post 14 Comments

    Tuesday, November 20, 2007
    Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Criminal Profiling 101

    I began writing this post about my observations of Gerry and Kate McCann for the purpose of our discussion here on the disappearance of little Madeleine. The Spanish television interview of Gerry and Kate McCann was actually the first time I studied anything about the case. Yes, I know, I may be one of five people on the planet that doesn’t know anything about it, but circumstances have kept me from following this or any other case lately. Anyway, I started to go back in time to observe other things about the McCann’s statements and behavior as well as any available facts and crime scene evidence to see if my observations were supported. I did not find much reliable information, let alone fact, that could be used to support anything. After reading several press and media reports and associated discussion, what I did find is that we have the very best discussion going on anywhere here at The Daily Profiler.

    Emotions always run high when people discuss the disappearance of a small child, and generally, their comments reflect these emotions and are not based on logical thought or scientific fact. However, I am very impressed with several of the comments made here on our blog. Perhaps because the events and behavior exhibited by many of those involved is unusual (OK-bizarre), and not easily attributed to factors we are familiar with, it has caused many to think a little deeper. Many of our readers have shown some good critical thinking skills in their comments and the questions they raise. So when I saw the extent of unconfirmed information attributed to “unnamed sources close to the investigation” that is being reported as fact by many members of the press it gave me the idea to change the focus of my post from the McCanns to how critical thinking is applied in criminal profiling and investigation. It is also very useful for reading your daily newspaper in general. I kept the first paragraph from the post I started writing about the McCanns to explain some of what criminal profiling is about. Here goes….

    It is important to keep the following in mind, but maybe not for the reason you think. I’ll explain in a moment. I want to make it clear that this is not a professional analysis of the McCann case, nor a critical review of any law enforcement officer, agency, technique, or procedure; and I certainly am not attempting to make a clinical diagnosis of any kind. The only person qualified to diagnose diseases and disorders of the body and mind is a clinician or doctor; and plenty of them have no business doing it either. Oops. Bet I just lost a few of you there. Well not so fast Grasshopper. Stay with me please.

    You may disagree with my low regard of doctors and so dismiss what I said out of hand. Or maybe you took offense at my statement and think I’m full of crap, this is boring, etc; which it may very well be for those not interested in learning about criminal profiling and investigations. Others may have thought “I didn’t know there are bad doctors” and now you believe it as fact, simply because you read it here.

    Guess what? WE ARE ALL WRONG!!! My comment about doctors and the example reactions above is called Bias.

    We all carry around our own preconceived ideas and opinions on issues of small and large importance whether we consciously realize it or not. It is difficult to avoid since we are continuously bombarded with information designed to influence our opinion. This information comes from newspapers, radio, television, and personal contact with others. Here are some ways critical thinking is used to evaluate a particular claim or statement:

    What is the statement or claim, and who is making it?

    Before you accept information as fact, determine if the person has something to gain by making the statement. You must also ask yourself if your own assumptions or preconceptions have created bias or influence how you view someone else’s statements or ideas.

    Great credibility is associated with public figures and persons in positions of authority, and while we can learn from them on subjects within their field of expertise, their statements or claims should not prevent you from asking good questions of your own.

    Are there other plausible explanations for the statement or claim (or event)?
    It is possible to have two or more explanations that explain an event or claim. The Law of Parsimony says we should accept the simpler explanation that requires the least number of assumptions.

    When events or behaviors appear to be correlated, it does not prove that one event or behavior caused the other. Further investigation is required to discover if they are related because of a third event or behavior.

    An open mind free of preconceptions allows for objective evaluation of facts and evidence. Therefore, bias must be identified and removed from critical thought and scientific analysis to produce reliable results and appropriate conclusions.

    Sorry, I am going to get a little technical here because it is necessary to understand a little about scientific inquiry in order to apply it.

    Scientific principles are the foundation of all scientific inquiry. Modern forensic and other biological sciences are supported by three thoroughly tested and validated principles based on the knowledge that all living and non-living matter is governed by the same laws of physics and chemistry. These principles are natural casualty (all events can be traced to natural causes within our ability to understand), uniformity in space and time (natural laws do not change with time or distance), and common perception (people view natural events in a similar manner.) Common perception applies only to scientific study because it is limited to objective observations that produce reliable information. Common perception does not apply to subjective value systems that vary among individuals such as religious, moral, or cultural beliefs and personal views, or opinion. The ability to keep an open mind is elemental to the advancement of science. Scientific conclusions are always tentative and subject to modification required by new observations or experiments.

    Yes, Deductive Criminal Profiling and Behavior Analysis is a scientific endeavor because it uses the scientific method to draw conclusions based on known facts borne of objective observations, considered thought, accurate communication, skill, and experience. A criminal profile is derived from crime scene analysis, including physical evidence and Victimology, critical thinking, analytical logic, evidence dynamics, and other scientific principles used in forensics. The scientific method is applied to these elements producing logical deductions that lead to well-reasoned conclusions regarding offender characteristics and behavioral evidence. Therefore, arguments that support each offender characteristic are based on the premise that if the underlying facts and evidence are proven to be true, then so must be the logical conclusions arrived at by studying them. Imagine the affect bias, no matter how small, can have on making observations when evaluating evidence and other investigative tasks.

    Why is all this important? For starters, when a criminal profiler is part of a criminal investigation, they, like everyone else who discovered, processed, or evaluated evidence in the case can be called to testify in court. Identifying the suspect of a crime is not enough; the methods and evidence used to identify and build a case against a suspected offender must be sufficient to convict him in court.

    Removing the influences of bias from our work does not mean we have completely eliminated a particular opinion or preconception from our minds and so we must constantly remain vigilant for bias.

    Those in law enforcement and related fields as well as professions such as physicians, etc. who work closely with the general public on an individual basis are taught to maintain an emotional distance from the people they interact with in order to be objective which will allow them to be thorough and accurate in the performance of their duty. Since these types of professionals often meet individuals experiencing trauma, or some other extremely personal or stressful event, great importance is placed on leaving their emotions at the door.

    Sorry, but lack of emotion does not equal objectivity- nor does it increase productivity in many cases. Additionally, it is generally believed that separating ones emotions from personal contact with individuals helps maintain mental health by preventing emotional overload and burn out for these types of professionals. In the last 24 years, I have met many investigators who were the “no emotion” type. I can’t think of one who was not an asshole with the personality of a wet dishrag, often with poor interview skills. Remember- canvassing, re-canvassing, interviewing, and re-interviewing are very critical in successful investigations. You get the picture.

    Conversely, an effective criminal profiler must possess a range of valuable professional characteristics including an enduring passion for examining facts, seeking answers, and resolving cases combined with the unwavering self-discipline to put aside personal opinions, pride, and career ambition. Notice the word “passion” which infers emotion. Pride and ambition are common sources of bias; yet these qualities are allowed, even admired and encouraged by many law enforcement agencies. Moreover, these influences have proven to be at the least, minor impediments, and at most, disastrous to an investigation or even to public safety. Since we must identify bias to avoid its influence, it should be considered that emotions such as passion and empathy could be useful qualities for those in public service as it can be a powerful motivation to promote dedicated effort. It is entirely possible to perform objective analysis and evaluation of victims, witnesses, and evidence if one remains vigilant of all forms of bias by using critical thinking techniques to purposely avoid bias such as personal opinion and ambition from influencing deductions and conclusions.

    Donna Weaver

    Posted by Donna Weaver at 11:34 PM

    Labels: criminal profiling, Donna’s posts, Gerry McCann, Kate McCann, Madeleine McCann Links to this post 0 Comments

    Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: McCann Detective 100 Percent Full of It

    The McCanns either are the most naïve people on the face of the earth or they are playing a very expensive and wasteful publicity game with the donations from kind folks who only want to help a little child be found.

    Those Spanish investigators, The Metodo 3 agency, are crooks, plain and simple. They are milking this case for the money it is bringing in. They have a six month contract and stated that they would surely find her within five months (not one month – as that would end the cash flow all too quickly). Francisco Marco, who heads the team of Spanish private detectives: “We’re 100 per cent sure she is alive. We are very close to finding the kidnapper.”

    What a lying scumbag! First of all, the only way, Mr. Marco, you can be 100 per cent sure Madeleine is alive is if you have her locked up in the basement of your house and you fed her this morning. This would mean you are a kidnapper and a pedophile. Is this what you are claiming, Mr. Marco?

    If not, you are a despicable, money grubbing creep of another sort. If the McCanns came to a decent private investigator for an investigation, he would tell them right up front the chance of finding their daughter alive are near zero. He would tell them that should a local pedophile have snatched Maddie, she would have been killed within hours. If a pedophile ring had snatched Maddie, she would have been dead as soon as you started you campaign with her eye anomaly being broadcast to the world. He would tell them that if he started searching for a hidden Madeleine and broadcast his every move as to where he thought she was, then Maddie would surely be dead by the time he reached the location to retrieve her. He would tell the McCanns that the most he could do is review the police investigation to make sure they hadn’t missed anything and follow up on truly rational leads that had been ignored and overlooked. He would tell them he might be able to find out what happened to Madeleine and help bring the guilty party to justice, but the chances of bringing Madeleine home alive were extremely unlikely.

    So, why have the McCanns hired this fraud? Are they being conned by Mr. Marco or are they using Mr. Marco to con us? Is it all for show and distraction or are the McCanns really innocent of hurting their child and are so desperate they will fall for the worst excuse for a private detective agency I have run across in a long time?

    Gerry and Kate, fire them if you want to be responsible adults. Stop using the public’s money for your charades, either to impress us with your sincerity as to not knowing what happened to Maddie, or to fool yourselves into believing she is alive if you are being sincere. At least pay for this idiot with your own money, if you want to play this silly game.

    Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

    Posted by Pat Brown at 12:48 AM

    Labels: Gerry McCann, Kate McCann, Maddie, Maddy, Madeleine McCann, Pat’s posts Links to this post 24 Comments

    Friday, October 26, 2007
    Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Who Should be the Suspects in the McCann Case?


    One of the problems with trying to understand what has happened in a crime is being on the outside of the police investigation and not knowing the whole truth of what is going on. My speculation, as is true with all of us outside the investigation, professionals included, is based on limited information. Having said that, sometimes the police have the same problem. They may have limited information due to lack of evidence, lying witnesses, incorrect scientific conclusions, altered crime scenes (staged or accidentally altered), etc. So they actually are in the same boat, only a better constructed and less leaky one.

    So, in a sense, it is a struggle to solve a crime, from the inside or outside. We theorize, search for evidence, theorize some more, search for evidence, and so on, until, hopefully, we have evidence conclusive enough to affect an arrest and conviction. Sometimes the evidence never reaches that state and, even if the police are pretty darn sure who is guilty, they still cannot arrest them or they know they cannot get a conviction.

    As to the professionalism of the PJ’s investigation, I cannot comment on that. They may have failed in some respects and done well in some respects. I don’t have enough information. Generally speaking, most police departments will claim they do an excellent job following procedure, but in reality, sometimes it is less than perfect because police officers are human and vary in skill and competence. I have worked with some police departments that have done awesome work and others that make me cringe. Sometimes it is a lack of finances; sometimes it is departmental inefficiency; sometimes you just have a sad bunch of not to bright blokes. Every profession suffers these problems. Every profession tries to do their best with what they have and most police departments want to be a credit to their profession and work to be so.

    To the McCann case; I don’t have a clue as to the physical evidence or timeline because of police silence and all the rumors. Therefore it is really hard to actually analyze how the crime went down. But, I will go ahead with what I generally think on the matter.

    • Maddie is unlikely to have wandered off and drowned.
    • Maddie was unlikely to have been kidnapped by a pedophile ring.
    • Maddie is unlikely to have wandered off and been abducted though that COULD have happened (if there is no physical evidence of harm or death coming to Maddie in the apartment). If this is true, she is very likely dead.
    • Maddie could have been abducted by a child predator that lived nearby. If this is true, she is likely dead.
    • Maddie could have been medicated and died accidentally while her parents were at the restaurant. If this were true, the body of Maddie would have had to be moved from the flat and hidden or hidden within the flat prior to Kate’s cry that Maddie was missing. If this is true, Maddie is dead.
    • Maddie could have died accidentally prior to the McCann’s going to dinner, giving them more time to move or hide Maddie’s body. The time at the restaurant and the checks on the kids would establish an alibi and move the time of “disappearance” further from any possible witness sightings of earlier suspicious activities of the McCanns. If this is true, Maddie is dead.
    • Kate killed Maddie, purposefully, or in a rage, and Gerry came back from tennis and found Maddie dead. He helped cover up the crime. If this is so, Kate would likely suffer from Munchausen’s syndrome by Proxy (if she killed Maddie on purpose – MSP is the label for a female psychopath who harms or kills her children; husbands of MSP women tend to be detached and very oblivious or accepting of their wive’s behaviors) or another serious psychiatric disorder (if she killed Maddie accidentally). They could have removed or hidden Maddie’s body before going to dinner or the body could have been dealt with by Gerry during his checks on the children. If this is true, Maddie is dead.
    • Gerry came back and killed Maddie in a rage. If this is so, Gerry would be likely rate high on a psychopathy checklist and be very controlling). Maddie’s body would have been dealt with before or during the evening. If this is true, Maddie is dead.
    • Kate killed Maddie, purposefully, or in a rage, and moved or hid her body without Gerry’s knowledge. She would have had to manipulate Gerry into not noticing his daughter in bed (“Maddie’s already asleep, let’s go) before going to the restaurant. She would then possibly have hoped Gerry would do the checks and find Maddie missing, distancing herself from the crime. Maybe, if Gerry actually didn’t do visual checks, Kate finally got fed up and went and did the check herself. If this is so, Kate would likely suffer from Munchausen’s Syndrome by Proxy or another serious psychiatric disorder. If this is true, Maddie is dead.

    These are all the possibilities I can think of based on very limited information,

    I believe only two basic scenarios are worth spending much time on;

    Maddie was taken by a child predator.
    Maddie died in the apartment and the parents are covering up a crime.
    In both cases, Maddie is likely dead.


    Robert Murat is a good suspect. He should be kept on the suspect list (even if not officially) until there is evidence that contradicts his involvement in the disappearance of Maddie or until another person is arrested.
    Police should continue investigating for the possibility of another child predator who could have been responsible for the disappearance of Maddie.
    The McCanns are good suspects. They were the last people to have been known to see Maddie alive and their behaviors are very concerning. They should stay on the suspect list (even if not officially) until there is evidence that contradicts their involvement in the disappearance of Maddie or until another person is arrested.

    Because of the following behaviors, I tend to lean toward the McCannd been involved with the disappearance, and therefore, death of their daughter, Maddie.


    They left three very young children unattended while they pursued pleasure for themselves. This is a sign of narcissism and a lack of attachment to one’s children.

    Both Kate and Gerry speak about Madeleine in a very impersonal and flat manner. Gerry writes nothing personal about Maddie on his blog. Maddie seems more like an abstraction than a real child. This is a sign of lack of normal attachment.

    Kate states that the last words of Maddie before she went missing were “Today has been the best day of my life.” Maddie’s last words are unusual for a three-year-old girl. Kids that young don’t usually have a concept of their “life.” “I am having the best time,” and “I am having fun” are more normal statements for that age. Next, Kate says Maddie was “very pleased with her life,” also an odd comment for an adult to say of her child. Both statements lead me to believe Kate knows Maddie is dead because of her emphasis on the inclusion of the word “life,” as though there were a set of parentheses around the first day of her life and the last. Kate may want to convince herself that she gave Maddie a good life, right up until her last day, the best day of her life. Also, it is quite common for people involved in the death of a relative to exaggerate the perfection of their relationship or the last moments to insinuate that nothing negative was going on between the parties and, therefore, nothing untoward could have occurred.

    The McCanns have never personally offered the reward on television or posted the reward at the web site. Almost all parents of missing children do this.

    If Kate really believes Maddie is alive and being cared for in someone’s home, she would make continual direct pleas to the captor for Maddie’s return (“Please just drop her off any public location…”). Almost all parents of missing children who believe they are alive will do this.

    Neither Kate of Gerry have taken or indicate they will take a polygraph. Parents of missing children do this to clear themselves so the police will not waste time focusing on them.

    Kate and Gerry appearances show little fluctuation in emotion (except when they feel they are being accused of drugging Maddie). Neither breaks down and cries or blurts out anything with emotion (“Maddie! We love you, honey! Don’t give up! We will find you!” Or “Please give us our Maddie back! Oh my God, please!”) Usually in a set of parents, we will see emotions bounce around, one of them falling apart, one becoming angry; with the McCanns their answers are carefully constructed and evenly relayed. Their appearances feel more like performances than parents desperately trying to reach out to their child, the kidnapper or the public. Yes, they are British, but even a stiff-upper lip tends not to look like this under these circumstances.

    There are muted flashes of anger, frustration, and annoyance directed from one of the McCanns to the other during their interviews which is very unusual for parents of a missing child. There is a strong feeling of control rather than support between the couple.

    Gerry McCann commented in one interview: “In about the middle of June things, about five or six weeks, things were going really very, very quiet and I was actually quite glad of that and I thought we would start to get back to a more normal existence and a quieter form of campaigning, using the Internet and raising and broadening the political issues which have been highlighted to us and I saw that as a long term focus.”

    For a parent to have any interest in political issues so soon after his child has gone missing when the one and only concern should be finding their loved one, is extremely bizarre. That Gerry should see his long term focus at this point in time as a political one is also very concerning. This statement would be less concerning if a few years had passed and the McCanns, accepting they were likely never to find their daughter, wanted to do something to help others not suffer as they had and to do something in their daughter’s name. But, to think this way so early on indicates Gerry believes or knows his daughter is dead and indicates more self-interest than interest in his daughter’s welfare.

    Gerry’s blog focuses very little on Madeleine and more on his and Kate’s activities. The cheery quality of the blog and self-centeredness of the content is a sign of disconnect between Gerry and Madeleine and a sign of having moved on as if Gerry knows Maddie is already dead.

    Kate states she had trouble sleeping during the first five days after Maddie went missing but has been sleeping fine since. Very few parents of abducted children can sleep very well knowing their child might be in pain, crying, and scared. Kate’s ability to sleep infers she is not worrying about Maddie because Maddie is dead already (or has an inability to feel empathy for others).

    The quick return to normal activities is unusual for parents of abducted children; most obsess continually and can’t think of anything else and have trouble going through the simplest routines of life.

    Kate and Gerry left their twins in Portugal while they went to see the Pope. Most parents of abducted children would be paranoid to be away from their other children for fear something would happen to them. Furthermore, to leave your children in the exact location where your other child was taken, whether one had a relative with them or not, is odd for parents who believe the abductor of their missing child is in the very same vicinity.

    The McCanns left Portugal as soon as they became Aguidos. If the only reason they were made suspects was a legal one so the police could ask them important questions to help them clear themselves, they should have stayed to continue to help the police put the matter straight and get the focus off of them.

    Much of the PR campaign at this point appears to be responding to public opinion and trying to answer their suspicions about the innocence of the McCanns, not finding Madeleine. Even in the latest move, the television appearance of the McCanns did not make a plea to the abductor or send a message to Maddie. It appeared to be a show to prove Kate has emotions. Following the show, an artist’s rendition of a supposed suspect was released many months after he was said to have been seen by one of their friends. The release of the picture will be counterproductive to actually finding Maddie, as not only is it based on a very questionable witness sighting, but may have nothing to do with Maddie. Such a picture will only elicit droves of worthless tips and waste police time. This is an unwise choice of strategy unless the purpose is to distract the police from focusing on the McCanns.

    It is possible that the McCanns suffer from certain psychiatric designations that causes them behave in a manner which makes then look guilty of involvement in the disappearance of Maddie when in actuality, they had no part in it. For this reason, I can only say, they are good suspects; I cannot label them guilty.


    So, to recap, Madeleine McCann is 99% likely to be dead. My top suspects at this point, based on behavior and what information can be validated, are the McCanns. If I were a criminal profiler working with the police on the case, I would be focusing heavily on them as my investigative focus. However, I would not rule out the possibility of a child predator and, therefore, I would spend a portion of time pursuing leads and information that might prove this possibility to be true, and I would make sure I did not force fit any evidence to match my theories nor ignore any evidence that might point me away from those theories. As new evidence surfaced, I would take this into account, reanalyze the information, and adjust my conclusions accordingly.

    I hope we will see progress soon in the investigation of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance, so the whole matter can be put the rest and justice will be seen for this little girl and those who love her.

    Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

    Posted by Pat Brown at 4:00 PM

    Labels: Gerry McCann, Kate McCann, Maddie, Maddy, Madeleine McCann, Pat’s posts Links to this post 33 Comments

    Thursday, October 25, 2007
    Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Why Does Kate McCann not make a Plea to Maddie’s Captor?

    In the recent interview with the parents of Madeleine McCann, Kate McCann states she believes Madeleine is alive, essentially unharmed, and being cared for in someone’s home. If Kate really believes this, then there is a glaring omission in her use of the media.

    It is extremely abnormal for a mother who thinks her child has simply been taken by some lonely person and being cared for in a nice, little house to not reach out to that person with a message, over and over again. After all, this would be one way to get your child back. Here is how that kind of message usually goes:

    “If you have Madeleine, please return her to her family. I know you may love having Madeleine with you but her Mommy, her Daddy, and her sister and brother are in great pain being separated from her. Please, please, let us have her back. Please take her to a public location where there are lots of people around like a McDonalds or a library or a hospital and drop her off. You can do this anonymously so you do not have to worry about being noticed. We are not interested in having any action taking against you; we just want our little girl at home with us. Thank you for taking good care of her and please send Madeleine back to us.”

    But, instead, no plea to her captor? Very, very bizarre.

    Which remind me: I have never heard of an expert telling parents to be unemotional in a plea to a kidnapper so as not to amuse them. Personally, I have to say most pleas are a waste of time and will have no effect on a psychopathic kidnapper. But, if one wanted to make a plea because one really believed the abducted child was not already dead or being tortured in a dungeon, that the child was with some nutty woman who just had to have the pretty little thing, then an emotional plea would be just the thing to try to jog the woman’s conscience to return the child.

    Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

    Posted by Pat Brown at 3:57 AM

    Labels: Gerry McCann, Kate McCann, m, Maddie, Maddy, Madeleine McCann, Pat’s posts Links to this post 15 Comments

    Wednesday, October 24, 2007
    Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Open Letter to Kate McCann

    As a criminal profiler, I have also sometimes been criticized for theorizing about a case I have not personally been privy to the actual facts from inside the investigation. As I do a lot of television commentary, this is quite often the case for me; I only can theorize based on the “facts” outlined by the media. Therein lays the difference between public speculating and true criminal profiling as part of an investigative team. The latter is going to be one hell of a lot more accurate!

    Still, all is just theory until the crime is solved. Everyone doing the analyzing and paying attention to this theory and that knows that any “determination” is only based upon the validity of input. The only harm theorizing can do is if the police detectives theorize incorrectly about the evidence or bring in an expert who theorizes incorrectly and bases the entirety of their investigation decisions on this particular theory. If, on the other hand, the theory is accurate, then the investigative avenues will be pursued correctly, or, if the theory is interesting but not necessarily correct, the police will pursue a number of investigative strategies to cover all bases.

    Are the PJ doing this? I haven’t a clue. I cannot assume they are any way inferior to other police departments in the UK or in the US or elsewhere in the world. Each department consists of individuals and it is a roll of the dice as to how good these particular individuals are at investigative work. I remember when Natalee Holloway went missing in Aruba, folks from the fine state of Alabama accused the Aruban authorities or incompetence and shouted how if Natalee had gone missing in the United States the case would have been solved quickly. Bunk! We have an ungodly high rate of unsolved murders and missing people here in the US, a good number of them right in Alabama. Fact is, some cases are hard to solve and some cases have detectives who are all that bright. Other cases have better evidence or top notch detectives. It isn’t a perfect world.

    So, what do we know so far in Maddie’s case? Not much. We have zero clue about the evidence or the veracity of the witnesses. All we really have so far are the unvarnished public statements by the McCanns and I don’t mean the ones reported by the media in print as those can be misstated by the journalists (and I know this because I often quite displeased when I read in print some completely twisted version of what I told the reporter).

    So, all we can truly be sure of is what the McCann’s have stated on television or radio or in Gerry’s blog. Even their PR team’s information is a bit questionable if we can’t hear it being said.

    Before I comment further, I want to reiterate that the McCanns, while suspects in the disappearance of Maddie, are not legally charged with any crime. Therefore, they may be totally innocent of hurting Maddie in any way. But, I will also say, we as adults and members of the human race are also responsible for the way we behave and the things we say, so we must also take responsibility for the way other view us.

    Therefore, based only on what the McCann’s said or written. I have some advice for the McCanns. SHUT UP! I have some advice for their PR team. Tell the McCanns to SHUT UP!


    Yes, Kate,

    It isn’t your breast size or weight that is causing your problems. It is you and your narcissist evaluation of the situation and your PR team’s equally stupid assessment of the situation that is making you look so bad in the public eye.

    I am a criminal profiler with years of experience dealing with parents of murder victims and missing relatives. Your behavior and the behavior of your husband fall far outside or the norm for grieving parents. Now, this may be because you are just terribly narcisstic folks who had nothing to do with your child going missing (outside of neglecting your children and putting your needs to party before their needs for comfort and safety, a narcissistic behavior if I have ever seen one). You and Gerry may simply be so narcissistic you have no understanding of how other people view your behaviors and your PR team may share your narcissism so that no one on your team has a clue to normal human behavior.

    But, SHUT UP! Every time you open your mouths you do more damage to yourselves. You seem guiltier by the day. Your attempt at “damage control” is so obvious and so very much a day late and a dollar short, everything you do or say seems a cover up and a transparent attempt at proving your innocence.

    Let me make clear what I think is weird about what you say and do:

    You choose words about Madeleine’s disappearance which make it appear you know there is no abductor and that Madeleine is dead.

    Both you and Gerry state your only guilt in the matter is not being their when Madeleine “was taken.” This statement makes no sense for abduction as Madeleine could not be taken if either of you were with Maddie when an abductor would have shown up. It makes more sense in the context that Maddie died while you were not in the apartment.

    Your statements and attitude about Madeleine being alive do not square with parents who really believe their daughter is in the hands of a pedophile or pedophiles who are brutally raping and torturing her daily.

    Your attempts at “finding” Madeleine do not represent the manner most parents would choose if they were actively searching for a live child but appear more to be the actions of parents trying to prove after the fact of a child’s death that they “cared” (not care) about her.

    Your behaviors of “keeping a normal routine” and “keeping up one’s appearance” is admirable, but extremely bizarre. I don’t know any other parents of missing children who can appear so together and cheery. When my daughter cooked our kittens by accident in the dryer, I cancelled Christmas.

    Gerry’s blog creeps people out. It is too upbeat. Terrified and distraught parents of missing children are rarely able to jog and play tennis and go to park with their other kids and have a fun time. Over a long period of time, maybe, but this is usually years after the nightmare begins. Some parents never recover from the trauma and it is common for marriages to fail and the brothers and sisters to feel their parents went absent after their sibling went missing.

    Your ability to sleep at night after the first five days, Kate, is beyond belief. It is the behavior of one who already knows the answer and even then, is quite a narcissistic trait. If you believed your daughter was being raped as you lay in bed at night, sleep would be very hard to come by. I guess you finally realize this and your mother is saying that NOW you can’t sleep and Madeleine comes to visit you in the night. What changed, Kate?

    Your PR team coming up with an answer to every accusation, answers that are ludicrous in themselves, makes you seem awfully defensive, and, if there is no way you or Gerry had anything to do with Maddie’s disappearance, you have nothing to defend. Furthermore, if all you care about is finding Maddie, you shouldn’t be wasting your time on such silliness. After all, as Gerry said, Maddie is the only important thing, right?

    So, SHUT UP, Kate. SHUT UP, GERRY. Fire your PR team as they are totally worthless. If both of you really are innocent and your think Maddie is alive, return to Portugal. Start searching for real (and it took six months to set up a hotline?). Cooperate with the police. Take the polygraphs as you have zero to hide and, with competent polygraph examiners, the questions are so simple you can’t screw them up. I will even give you the four questions that should be asked:

    “Did Madeleine die while you were present?”
    “Did you return to the apartment and find Madeleine dying or dead?”
    “Did you move Madeleine’s body at any time?”
    “Did your spouse move Madeleine’s body at any time?”

    These are simple questions. The answer to all of them should be “No.” There is no ambiguity in these questions (unlike a question such as “Do you feel responsible for the disappearance of Madeleine?” which you could if you acknowledge leaving her without an adult caretaker is irresponsible; an affirmative answer to such a question would be useless to the detectives as it could falsely indicate that you had something to do with Maddie going missing when you are only feeling guilty over leaving her unattended. Also, an affirmative answer could mean you simply do not feel responsible for what happened to Maddie no matter what happened to her as a total narcissist might).

    The above four questions are simple and unambiguous and even a narcissist can’t misconstrue the meaning of the questions. The answers will be a simple “Yes” or “No.” Have the polygraph session videotaped so the police will be unable to do any underhanded scare tactics or interrogation that might distort the results of the tests.

    Quite frankly, Kate, you and Gerry had everything going for you as parents of a missing child if you hadn’t left your children unattended night after night to go out partying. THIS is what made people dislike you. It was to your advantage that you are both relatively attractive people because IF you had big breasts and a porky physique and were not well-heeled professionals, you would have become suspects right off the bat and you would have not had the incredible monetary support you have been blessed with nor all those kindly letters. You would have been viewed as just a pair of slobs who probably abused their children as well as neglected them and you wouldn’t have gotten the phenomenal amount of publicity worldwide concerning Maddie’s disappearance. Other parents have gone public, run campaigns, and had web sites, but your fortune with publicity and support has been unprecedented. And, you complain, Kate, that people are treating you badly because you are fit! It was being fit and professional and well-off that got you so much attention. It was you and Gerry’s fitness as parents and your peculiar behaviors that got you the negative attention.

    I have a final suggestion. Ask the PJ if I can come analyze the case. My organization will send me pro bono. As a criminal profiler I can analyze the actual evidence to advise the investigators as to the best investigate strategy. I have no problem determining this crime as an abduction and finding the creep that took Madeleine if the evidence points that way. I don’t have to like you and Gerry as people to view the evidence in an impassionate and professional manner. No one should be convicted of a crime simply because of personality and because people don’t like the individual’s personality. Solid physical and circumstantial evidence must exist to the point where there is no question as to who committed the crime. I would work very diligently to assist the PJ with the evidence and the facts and do a thorough crime scene analysis that would move the case forward.

    Furthermore, if you and Gerry get charged in Madeleine’s disappearance and must truly defend yourselves, my services are available to you and your lawyers. I will be more than happy to analyze the evidence and, if you are innocent, do all I can to serve in your defense.

    Good luck, Kate. May the truth be brought to light soon and you and Gerry get the justice you deserve in the case of your missing daughter.

    All the best,

    Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

    Posted by Pat Brown at 11:29 AM

    Labels: Gerry McCann, Kate McCann, Maddie, Maddie McCann, Madeleine McCann, Pat’s posts Links to this post 17 Comments

    Monday, October 8, 2007
    Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Another “Ludicrous” Theory in the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann

    A short time ago, I made a suggestion that the British police might investigate the McCann’s residence (and the residences of friends and family of the McCanns) for the possibility that the body of Madeleine McCann might have been transported into England. Some folk immediately labeled the theory ridiculous, or ludicrous, as the McCanns would say. How, they asked, could the McCanns carry a putrefying and decaying body in a suitcase and get it on and off of an airplane? I understand that this sounds mighty foolish to many who don’t work in the field of criminal investigation and profiling and they think Pat Brown is a nutcase par excellence!

    Let me clear up a few misconceptions: first of all, it is a theory, not a fact. Secondly, a theory is useful to stimulate investigative avenues not yet thought of that might lead to evidence that would otherwise have been overlooked. Third, offering one theory does not mean it is the only theory or even the best theory. It is far more likely that Madeleine’s body is somewhere underground in Portugal or Spain or in the ocean. These are simpler places to bury a body. It may be that the body has just not yet been discovered. This is very often the case; while rumors and theories abound about white slavery and porn rings and sightings are made of the victim all over the world, the body of the poor thing has simply been lying in a ravine for the past few months! Sometimes bodies fall into strange and difficult places or are well-buried for years. Then, one day a jogger trips over the body or a farmer turns over some soil to plant his corn, and, voila! The victim has been found.

    Maddy McCann will likely be found in a similar way (unless someone did one heck of a job of hiding her). Whether a child predator took Maddy or the parents did her in, she will probably one day just be found. However, there is nothing wrong with being proactive and trying to find her sooner than later. Therefore, the police should follow all leads and theories. IF they find her sooner, than not all the evidence with the body or within the body will have been destroyed by time and nature.

    So, search in Portugal and Spain and any other place one can think of. And, yes, search in England: Maddy just might be there.

    Would it really be possible for one of the McCanns to cart the body of their daughter back to England? Yes, absolutely. Because of the climate in Portugal, it is possible that should they have buried Maddy in a shallow grave in a sandy substrate, her body would have mummified. Mummification is a desiccation of the corpse where the fluids drain into the ground and the rest of the body dries up. There is relatively little odor associated with a mummified body.

    If this occurred, the body would be easier to transport; it would be lighter and drier and lacking the horrible smell of a corpse. Such a body could easily be placed in a sealed bag and placed in a suitcase. Screening of stowed luggage is not likely to uncover a body inside of a suitcase and when the traveler reaches the other end and goes through customs, they enter the “Have nothing to declare line,” and just walk through (unless they exhibit concerning behavior that raises a red flag and launches a search of the luggage). As to the McCanns, I seriously doubt they were searched upon arrival, not with all the press surrounding them and the mass of curious onlookers, reporters, and VIPS lurking about.

    IF the McCanns were involved and IF Maddy’s body was brought home, when this would have happened is another question. Unfortunately, only those inside the organization would (we hope) know the truth about the McCann’s movements. For example, Gerry McCann returned to England on June 19, just four days after an exhaustive search for Madeleine was called off. This search was in an arid, desolate area (the kind of climate which might encourage the mummification of a body) near a town called Odiaxere. A letter from an unknown sender had stated she could be found there in a shallow grave. Four days later, Gerry is on a plane home. I don’t know if he took any luggage with him, anything more than a rucksack (which I don’t know the size of). He only stayed for the day, purportedly to attend some meetings. He claims he had his wallet stolen while getting money from an ATM and later that evening, the wallet was mailed back to him. A rather peculiar story that I wonder might not be a cover for the reason he was late to his meetings; he ostensibly spent the time calling credit card companies to cancel his credit cards.

    If I were the police investigator, I would follow up this lead. I would want to know what luggage Gerry took with him to England. I would try to see if there was any proof to the wallet theft story. I would find out if he had any “alone” time on the trip. I would find out if he made those phone calls to the credit card companies and if he really got money from an ATM. I would find out exactly where he was that day through any evidence of his movements (phone call tracking, receipts, witnesses, etc.). I would want to know if anyone met him, especially anyone who he could have transferred a package from one suitcase to another.

    I would check all the McCann trips and look for possibly ways for them to transport a body away from Portugal. And, again, I would look for all possible places within Portugal or neighboring countries as possible places to hide or bury a body. I would check the possibility of a burial at sea.

    If I were the Portuguese police, I would be following all leads, even those that lead away from the McCanns. It never hurts to be thorough. The point is to recover Madeleine, dead or alive, and bring justice to those that hurt her. In the end, it doesn’t matter which theory is correct (except as an educational tool for future investigations). It only matters that the case is solved.

    Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

    Posted by Pat Brown at 3:51 PM

    Labels: Gerry McCann, Kate McCann, Maddie, Maddy, Madeleine McCann, Pat’s posts Links to this post 15 Comments

    Thursday, October 4, 2007
    Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: “The Moment Madeleine was Taken.”

    One has to be careful when analyzing from a distance if a particular person or persons is exhibiting guilt concerning the commission of a crime. Until there is hard physical evidence linking a perpetrator or perpetrators to a crime, the case is tried in court and a conviction is handed down by a jury or judge, all is still speculation.

    I am asked over and over if I think the McCanns are guilty of the disappearance of their daughter Madeleine. I always answer that I cannot say for sure because at this point I haven’t a clue as to the veracity of any of the information coming out of the European tabloid machines. I have to say I have been rather appalled by any media spawning so many “facts” that turn out to be just hearsay. It is not like proposing a theory: speculation is not claiming knowledge and is not lying, but stating something is a fact when it is not, is egregious and the media should not be doing this.

    Let’s look at the supposed facts: if the DNA from Madeleine in the hire car exists, the McCanns are guilty as hell. If there is blood from Madeleine on the stairs, this only proves she was injured but not by who. If there are sedatives in her hair, this is pretty damning. So much for the “facts.” Let’s turn toward the McCanns and their behaviors. Behavioral evidence is not conclusive evidence. It is useful in determining investigative avenues to focus on and interview methodology. It is circumstantial evidence and can lend weight to a case in court but rarely can stand alone without physical evidence to support guilt. As a criminal profiler, behavioral evidence is extremely important in analyzing any case and advising police investigators of its meaning within the context of the case.

    The McCanns narcissistic behavior is concerning, but they could be narcissistic people who have had they child abducted. One thing I have learned about the family of victims of horrible crimes; whatever you were like before your loved one went missing is exactly what you are like afterward. You don’t change. So, if you are a really aggressive person before the crime, you are likely going to be aggressive afterwards and fight to see the crime solved. If you were extremely passive before the incident, you might simply allow the police to do the work and hardly lift a finger. If you were a soft touch previously, you may sob your way through a television appearance. If you were a tough cookie, you may come off as a cold, uncaring, and possibly guilty of wrongdoing.

    The McCanns appear pretty narcissistic in their behaviors after Madeleine’s disappearance. They worry about their physiques, their clothing, hair, and jewelry, and they like a lot of attention. But, this is exactly how they were before Maddy went missing, so I am not surprised they are acting this way. Their rather off-putting behavior does not mean they are guilty of anything more than child neglect.

    But, I have been going back over the actual interviews of Gerry and Kate McCann and one statement sticks in my craw and bugs the devil out of me. It is the one thing that makes me lean toward their guilt even without any physical evidence. This is what Gerry said:

    “We felt our actions were responsible. We were essentially performing our own baby listening service although we have talked of the guilt we felt at not being there at the moment Madeleine was taken.”

    Maybe Gerry just misspoke. Maybe it is similar to the ear pulling thing he did when he denied that he and Kate gave Madeleine sedatives; maybe his ear just itched at that moment and he wasn’t lying. Maybe it is like when they left their twins to jet off to see the Pope claiming it was no big deal because their children were in a safe location, the very same town the abductor of their other child might still be loose in; that statement doesn’t necessarily mean they know that no real kidnapper is out there. Or when Gerry said that he and his wife Kate were “100 per cent confident” of each other’s innocence,” maybe this strange wording for parents who child is abducted while they spent the evening in each other’s company, maybe I am reading more into it than is necessary. So, maybe this particular statement of Gerry’s is also just an odd choice of words. It doesn’t prove guilt. But, it does continue to force me to look at them as suspects in the real meaning of the word.


    It is not because he and Kate still think that leaving their children alone is not wrong. We know they have never felt leaving tiny toddlers to fend for themselves constitutes neglect. They have said that over and over. Clearly, they are never going to accept responsibility for their horrendous actions that night. But, firstly, what Gerry admits in that statement is they were only “listening” at the door, not looking in to see if their children are all right. If they are not actually observing their children, they would not know if they were sick, injured, or missing from the room. Gerry has moved away from saying they actually checked on their children to some rather vague “listening” methodology, perhaps, one so distant, that he meant they were close enough that they should be able to hear one of the kids if they left the room screaming for them. Not only that, Gerry basically admits the window for “kidnapping” Madeleine is a whole lot larger than thirty minutes. She could have been “taken” five minutes after they left the children in bed if they never “saw” them again until Kate finally decides to not just listen at the door but actually look in on her children. But, more importantly, if Madeleine actually died during the time of the “listening” checks or her body removed during the time of the “listening” checks, it behooves the parents to carefully skirt around having to lie about “seeing” Madeleine earlier during the evening via visual checks on the children.
    But, even this bit of information is not the big problem. It is the very last part of the sentence that rings warning bells to me:

    “….although we have talked of the guilt we felt at not being there at the moment Madeleine was taken.”

    First, let’s look at what Gerry McCann did NOT say:

    “We are horrified that we left our little girl alone and made it easy for a predator to kidnap her.”

    Okay, that statement would be normal for a nonnarcissit and one who accepts responsibility for their actions, so maybe we shouldn’t think Gerry would say that. But, one might think he should have at least said this:
    ”..although we have talked of the guilt we felt at not realizing it was unsafe to leave Madeleine alone and because we were naive, we feel guilt that Madeleine was taken while we innocently left her unattended.”

    This would be a pretty good statement, but, wait, I have to say, again, they are too narcissistic to admit to this large a mistake, so I would guess this is why Gerry didn’t say that either. BUT, let’s see examine what Gerry REALLY did say and why it is important and very concerning.

    “…the guilt we felt at not being there AT THE MOMENT MADELEINE WAS TAKEN.”

    First of all, Gerry, IF one of you had been there with Madeleine, there would be NO MOMENT WHEN MADELEINE WAS TAKEN. It simply could not have occurred. If one of you had been there, either the abductor would have simply turned around and given up the idea or you would have fought with the abductor to save Madeleine. She could NOT HAVE BEEN TAKEN if you were there.

    Let’s analyze further. There are two very important words here: MOMENT and TAKEN.

    First of all, Madeleine couldn’t have been taken in a MOMENT by an abductor. It would have taken quite a few moments to grab the child out of the bed, struggle with her, climb out a window, and carry her off.

    Secondly, she wouldn’t have just been TAKEN. She would have been ABDUCTED, STOLEN, or KIDNAPPED.
    TAKEN is an interesting passive word. Theoretically, it could just be Gerry and Kate trying to feel less guilty about a child predator abducting a screaming and terrified Madeleine. Maybe the word, TAKEN, just feels less awful. But, then again, maybe TAKEN is what they really mean. Maddy may have been taken from life and Gerry and Kate may feel guilt over the MOMENT that occurred. Alternatively, if they really did have help moving her body and Kate really did scream “THEY have taken Madeleine,” maybe they feel guilt over not being there at the MOMENT Madeleine was TAKEN from the room and hidden elsewhere. Perhaps, this is exactly why no one was supposed to look in on the children and why the doors were left unlocked. Maybe, the “feeling” Gerry has that a man was in the room is accurate because he set the whole thing up. But I digress.

    If the MOMENT refers to a time when Kate and Gerry were off partying and Madeleine suffered a serious injury from falling down the steps or had overdosed on sedatives, they might feel guilty they were not there at that MOMENT because as doctors, had they been there at that MOMENT, they might have been able to administer medical care and save Maddy’s life. Gerry then would be admitting that MOMENTS do count and leaving your child unattended for even a MOMENT can effectively contribute to the child’s death.
    Worse yet, if the McCanns were there when Madeleine died and Gerry is referring to feeling bad about not being there the MOMENT her body was moved, then one of them killed her in a fit of rage or overdosed her with sedatives before going out for the evening. This parent clearly would not be viewing themselves at fault for the incident and the other parent is one heck of a pushover and enabler. This can happen when one of the couple is desperate enough to stay in the relationship, protect one’s professional life, or keep a perfect social or personal image. Considering the great deal of minimization the McCanns have done since their daughter went missing, it is really not that big a stretch to imagine one of them acting in such a fashion.

    Regardless of which scenario might be true, I think Gerry may have told the exact truth with this statement: that he and Kate DO feel guilty for

    “… not being there at the MOMENT Madeleine was TAKEN.”

    Does the fact, and this is an actually fact, that Gerry says he and his wife feel guilt over not being there at the MOMENT Madeleine was TAKEN– does this statement of Gerry’s mean they are guilty of Madeleine’s disappearance?

    No, but it sure doesn’t help me spend a lot of time looking harder at Robert Murat and if there is much more damning information from the interviews with the McCanns, their friends, the employee of the hotel, and the physical evidence then we know of, one can’t blame the Portuguese police for not spending much time looking at him either. They would only be looking for Madeleine’s body or enough other physical evidence to charge the McCanns in the death of their daughter and subsequent obstruction of justice in hiding their daughter’s body and misleading the police investigation.

    If the McCanns are innocent of having anything to do with Maddy’s disappearance, I feel sorry that they have had to suffer all the allegations on top of the anguish of losing a daughter. However, I feel much sorrier for Madeleine, who would have had to suffer through a horrible sexual assault and a violent end to her life because of willful neglect of her parents.

    The McCanns are reaping what they sowed and there are responsible for the results of their actions. They only anger they should express is towards themselves, not the police or public trying to find out what happened to Maddy, and they only horror they should feel should be at their own actions and the horrible hurt it brought to their innocent little girl.

    But the McCanns apparently feel negative emotions toward themselves over only one issue:

    “…not being there AT THE MOMENT MADELEINE WAS TAKEN.”

    Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

    Photo courtesy of Google images

    Posted by Pat Brown at 11:37 AM

    Labels: Gerry McCann, Kate McCann, Maddie, Maddy, Madeleine McCann, Pat’s posts Links to this post 10 Comments

    Thursday, September 13, 2007
    Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Is Maddie in England?

    IF the evidence we have heard recently exists concerning Maddie’s DNA and hire in the boot of the hire car and the McCanns were involved with the disappearance and death of their daughter, Madeleine, here is what I think could have happened. I have been considering WHY anyone would move a body from one location to another after twenty five days. If Maddie’s DNA from decomposition of her body is really in the hire car, what purpose would there be in moving her body at that time?

    I can think of only one: they would have to be afraid the Portuguese

  27. 27
    Angelique Says:

    26 Widowan

    Powerfully revealing post – pink hat – it’s a reasonable explanation. Enormous amount of explanation of other theories in depth too.

    Not sure about your final point – TAKEN to me means someone has ‘taken her away’ so is this because I am English and use this word normally in regard to removal of ‘someone’. Agree about MOMENT though as you say – this is a finite amount of time and not what it would really have taken if she was abducted.

    Still unsure what to think – Doctor’s can be cold-hearted and detached people because in a similar way to Criminal Profilers, they need to look at ‘symptoms only’.

    Why would they be afraid of the Portuguese – if you mean the PJ surely they are/were only trying to help.

  28. 28
    Suspicious Read Says:

    When they say “not there when Madeleine was taken”, possibly they–apparently a religious couple–mean when God took Madeleine (it’s always Someone Else who is to blame); perhaps thinking that ultimately it was God who claimed Madeleine is as close as they can allow themselves to get to mentioning her death; it could be a sort of personal code for “when she died”; it could the advantage of letting the parents speak the truth (IF it be the truth), surely a relief, without others knowing it, and if it were the truth, every time they utter it it is a sort of philosophical outlook and prayer:  In their belief system, it could be that, whatever occurred, ultimately it is must be God’s decision:  God took her.  Such an innocent is surely in Heaven, “with Jesus”.  In God’s hands.   (Or as Kate has at least once said, in more or less these words:   in a nice place, being cared for.–Heaven?)

Leave a Reply

You can add images to your comment by clicking here.


Log in | Designed by Gabfire themes