Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: What I Hope to Accomplish in Portugal, 05 February 2012

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: What I Hope to Accomplish in Portugal The Daily Profiler Posted by Pat Brown at 8:09 AM Sunday, February 5, 2012 (Washington DC) Many of you are wondering what I expect to accomplish in Portugal for the two week period I will be in the country. Some have scoffed on Twitter that I am on a fool's errand or some egotistical fantasy trip, that I think I am going to pop over to Praia da Luz and solve the McCann case in a snap. Hardly. I am not that unrealistic nor am I so blind to reality and my abilities that I think I am going to do any such thing. What I am trying to do is learn a bit more. Since my book, Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann did earn some dividends (although not much since it was pulled from Amazon under threat of Carter-Ruck and the McCanns) and I stated I would put fifty percent of the earnings toward searching for Madeleine, I am doing that with the money. I am approaching this case as I do others I have profiled. I plan to survey the area and then reanalyze the crime based on what I learn. Then, I plan to search in locations I believe Maddie may be. I can accomplish the first part of the plan within ten days. The second part is unlikely to be fully accomplished and may require me to return to Portugal if I think another search has merit. I also may run into the "unknown factor" while I am in Praia da Luz. I may come across new information that will add to what is publicly known of the case or something that could change my profile. Although my top theory is that the evidence points to the McCanns involvement, the next most likely theory is that a local pedophile grabbed Madeleine and walked off with her to his lair. I do not at all believe Madeleine's disappearance had anything to do with a sex ring or someone who wanted a child. I do not believe Madeleine was taken away alive in a car. I believe Madeleine is not alive, whether the McCanns are involved or not. Could I change this view? Sure. If I get to Praia da Luz, start analyzing the layout of the area and, suddenly, say, "Well, hell, if I had known that...." I don't expect this will happen but you never know. Being at the crime location is extraordinarily valuable when analyzing any case and this can change everything. If I do a one-eighty, I will not shirk my duty to disclose this and I will revise my profile as necessary. What I won't be doing in Praia da Luz is going around questioning people. I am not a private detective and I don't have the right to do so in Portugal anyway. I won't refuse to talk to people but I am not knocking on doors and demanding people answer my questions. I will be analyzing and reconstructing the crime by way of the locations I can publicly access or have permission. I will do some experiments as to how long it takes to walk from A to B, check to see how easily something could be accomplished or how easily one can be seen carrying a child in certain places, and where a person could stash a body or not. I will be searching for Madeleine in locations I believe have some merit. I am not going to discuss on this blog exactly where and how. I will tell you that when I get back. Do I expect to find Maddie or the big clue that will lead me to her? The odds are not great that I will leave Portugal having accomplished that. I hope to increase my knowledge of what exactly happened to Madeleine. And, if I am really, really lucky, maybe I will unearth something of great value. I am looking forward to my two weeks in Portugal. I am very curious to see what I will learn. I will try to blog daily on what I am doing and finding out (that I can release) and I hope all goes well. If, when my two weeks is up, I feel the trip was productive and I could use more time in Portugal, I will make a second trip to Praia da Luz in the coming months and continue my work. Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

U.S. Criminal Profiler Pat Brown in Windsor to discuss the complete mystery of Madeleine McCann with Tony Bennett, Madeleine Foundation Secretary, 07 February 2012

U.S. Criminal Profiler Pat Brown in Windsor to discuss the complete mystery of Madeleine McCann with Tony Bennett, Madeleine Foundation Secretary Jill Havern Forum By Tony Bennett 07 February 2012 at 3:07 pm I was able to meet Pat Brown off her plane at 9.30am and we had till 1.00 to have a good exchange of information and ideas on various aspects of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. I was able to provide her with a detailed briefing on Phase 1 of the McCanns' private investigation, which included: * the emergence of Brian Kennedy as both benefactor and director of the McCann Team's private investigations * the emergence of Brian Kennedy's in-house lawyer as the McCanns' co-ordinating lawyer and Director of the 'Find Madeleine Fund' * Brian Kennedy's purchase of a house in Knutsford as the long-term base for this investigation into Madeleine's disappearance * Kennedy's choice of controversial Spanish detective agency Metodo 3 as their preferred organisation to search for Madeleine * Brian Kennedy's meetings with Robert Murat and his lawyer on 13 November 2007 and his meeting earlier that day with Portuguese Police at Portimao Police Station and with boss of Metodo 3, Francisco Marco, and his No. 1 investigator, convicted criminal Antonio Gimenez Raso * A biography of Antonio Gimenez Raso charting his decline and fall from...Head of the Anti-Drugs and Anti-Trafficking Unit of Catalonia Regional Police...to resigning from them at the end of 2004...to being appointed as a Metodo 3 private investigator in 2005...to being appointed as the leading Metodo 3 private detective investigating Madeleine's disappearance in 2007...to meetings with Brian Kennedy in Morocco...to meeting with strange Madeira lawyer Marcos Aragoa Correia at the Arade Dam on 10 December 2007...to his arrest on charges of corruption in public office and theft, together with a gang of drug-dealers, of £25 million of cocaine from a boat in Barcelona harbour in 2004...to his current 18-year jail sentence. And I pointed out that after they lost the services of Antonio Gimenez Raso, they turned to the services of...Kevin Halligen! Pat briefed me on her plans for Portugal. She was in good spirits.

Search for Madeleine continues, 09 February 2012

Search for Madeleine continues Algarve Resident latest update: 09-Feb-2012 19:31:08 British newspapers have reported that the cost of Scotland Yard's investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann is set to reach £2 million, with the bill being picked up by the UK's Home Office. The force's homicide squad is examining the case after Prime Minister David Cameron called them in last May at the request of Madeleine's parents, Gerry and Kate. A spokesman for Kate and Gerry McCann said: "They have always been very appreciative of the time and resources that the British police and Home Office have committed to the search for Madeleine and they are grateful that the review is ongoing." Meanwhile, American crime profiler Pat Brown arrived in the Algarve on February 6 to "search for locations" where missing Madeleine might be. Writing on her blog, she said: "I plan to survey the area and then reanalyse the crime based on what I learn. Then, I plan to search in locations I believe Maddie may be. "I can accomplish the first part of the plan within 10 days. The second part is unlikely to be fully accomplished and may require my return to Portugal if I think another search has merit." Although Pat Brown does not believe the odds are great in finding Madeleine on her trip, she hopes to increase her knowledge of what exactly did happen on the evening of Madeleine's disappearance, in order to unearth information that could move the case forward. She states online that she will be updating her findings as and when she can. For more information about Pat Brown and what she believes has happened to Madeleine, please see: http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.com

Pat Brown: Twitter photo, 10 February 2012

Pat Brown: Twitter photo Twitter @ProfilerPatB PAT BROWN Gonçalo Amaral and I in Lisbon. 11 hours ago via web [11:30 PM, Feb 10th]

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: A Picture Worth a Thousand Words, 13 February 2012

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: A Picture Worth a Thousand Words The Daily Profiler Posted by Pat Brown at 6:11 AM Monday, February 13, 2012 "Martha? I'm stepping out on the balcony for a smoke. Hey, Martha, come here! What the hell is that man doing at that window? You see right there? He's busting in the window? Martha, go call the police! Hey, he's crawling in flat...must be planning to steal…oh, my god, Martha! Tell the police he's carrying out a child! I'm running downstairs! Maybe I can stop him!" Yes, you are looking at Apartment 5A, the very apartment the McCanns were renting on May 3rd, 2007. The time is 10 pm on February 12, 2012. The photo was taken from the third floor of the building across the street. There was some shrubbery along the left wall of the parking lot that has been removed but the view of the McCanns door and window would not have been obscured. The lights on the buildings and in the streets turn the building into a veritable fishbowl (some claim massive lighting improvement since that day but I have heard that it has not changed much). What idiot would think breaking in the window at Apartment 5A or carrying a child out of that window or even the door next to it would be a terribly bright idea? One thing kidnappers know is there are enough human fish in the sea that one doesn't have to abduct someone under such risky conditions. The next picture shows the front side of the apartment building with close-up of the window of Apartment 5A. I am standing in the doorway. Can you see how bright it is at night? This picture shows the corner where Jane Tanner sees a man cross the street coming from the apartment, child in his outstretched hands. If you were an abductor, would you be comfortable choosing to walk out in the open, across the well-light street with three people on it? Would you at least think walking the other direction hugging the wall might be a bit smarter, maybe cut down your chances of being seen? Robert Murat, the only other Arguido (suspect) in the case, lived on a couple blocks down the way in the direction Jane Tanner claimed the man carrying a child was walking. But, Robert Murat was a known individual in town and many people in Praia da Luz own places here or rent for a long period of time and return year after year. Would someone who knows people might recognize him walk down well-lit streets - his face totally exposed – straight to his own house? He would have to have an IQ far below 70 to think this would be clever. If anyone took a child from the apartment, it would be smarter to walk the opposite way of the man Jane Tanner claims to have seen. Here you can see the wall I just mentioned that he could walk very close to and be out of sight of anyone looking down from the tall apartment building across the street. Even more intelligent would be for an abductor to leave the back of the apartment by the sliding glass doors and hurry down the enclosed path which leads up to the parking area at the front of the apartment and go out at the end of the street and onward to the darker end of the road. It is exactly this path that leads to the Smith sighting. Praia da Luz is a very cozy, brightly lit, off-the-main road very small and charming resort town. No sex ring is going to choose this location to target children. A child sex predator might lurk about here but he would be wiser abducting a child from the outskirts of the town or in pretty much any other nearby village. There are some darker side streets further to the edge of the town that a predator or someone carrying a child would be a bit less visible. Apartment 5A would rank pretty much at the bottom of any abductor's list of places to grab a kid. The only reason someone would remove a child from 5A would be of necessity. Then he would never take the route Jane Tanner claimed she saw the man carrying a child. More on the most likely route one would take to carry Madeleine from Apartment 5A in my next blog. Criminal Profiler Pat Brown ----------------------------- Revised entry: Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: A Picture Worth a Thousand Words Posted by Pat Brown 15 February 2012 "Martha? I'm stepping out on the balcony for a smoke. Hey, Martha, come here! What the hell is that man doing at that window? You see right there? He's busting in the window? Martha, go call the police! Hey, he's crawling in flat….must be planning to steal…oh, my god, Martha! Tell the police he's carrying out a child! I'm running downstairs! Maybe I can stop him!" (The above is an imagined scenario for those who are pretended to not understand this...clearly I am just trying to make a point). Yes, you are looking at Apartment 5A, the very apartment the McCanns were renting on May 3rd, 2007. The time is 10 pm on February 12, 2012. The photo was taken from the third floor of the building across the street. There was some shrubbery along the left wall of the parking lot that has been removed but the view of the McCanns door and window would not have been obscured (I must add since I have been rightly corrected and I have doublechecked the photos at that time, there are trees also lining the back side on the street, it is difficult to say today if one is high up looking down from one balcony or the other, who can see the window). My purpose of this photo was to show that the window and door of 5A was not a location that was as hidden from view as one might think. Predators who crawl in and out windows tend to choose windows that look out on dark empty spaces or are nowhere near other buildings. For example, a predator might break in on the back side of an apartment building that has no lights and nothing but a deserted lot behind. A predator might crawl in the back window of an isolated house. But the 5A window was on a corner with traffic going by, on a parking lot which people are driving in and out of, under other apartment windows, across from other apartments and next to other apartments. Partially obscured from some angles, the predator knows the window is not obscured at other angles. He may not know exactly who can see him and who can't. For example, there is a break in the trees where the drive comes into the parking lot and through which the window can be seen. Just knowning that there is an apartment building looming over one's crime area for people to look down on you (either breaking in or out or leaving the area with a child) would be unnerving. Any predator would be smarter going in the back door which is far easier to slip in and out of and not be seen. The lights on the buildings and in the streets turn the building into a veritable fishbowl (some claim massive lighting improvement since that day but I have heard that it has not changed much). What idiot would think breaking in the window at Apartment 5A or carrying a child out of that window or even the door next to it would be a terribly bright idea? One thing kidnappers know is there are enough human fish in the sea that one doesn’t have to abduct someone under such risky conditions. There are those who note the style of lamps in town have changed (from globe-shaped to the more boxy style now seen) and there are a couple of added lights to the McCann building. True, but this does not mean that the location was dark and dismal and a predator would be able to skulk around unseen. From my third floor apartment, I can clearly see the windows in the building on the other side of the road from the McCanns and it has no added lights at all. It is not clear that the change of street lamp has significantly increased lighting (some say it has and some say it hasn't - I haven't found statistics on this) but, suffice it to say, if it was good enough light for Jane Tanner to see a man carrying a little child off at a distance and be able to describe his clothes and hers, then it is possible for many others to see this man as well. He would know this and choosing so public a location to abduct a child would be unusual. Finally, it was a full moon night, so the lighting may have been even better than normal (though not necessarily that early, but a predator may not be thinking of that because the night before moonrise was earlier and we don't even know if he might have not gotten an opportunity - if he did - until two hours later. The next picture shows the front side of the apartment building with close-up of the window of Apartment 5A. I am standing in the doorway. Can you see how bright it is at night? (Again that light may be deceptive as it was added , but you can see how exposed the window is on a path people are coming out of their apartments on and at the end of that wall is the entrance from the parking lot, not to mention a full moon shining down on white buildings and light-colored walks). What would Mr. Predator do if he crawled out of the window with a child to find a car pulling in to park right there in the lot? He would be trapped. He still has to walk down that little path, turn right out the opening into the parking lot, come back down along the wall, then cross the parking lot, go out of the parking lot, turn right and walk down to the corner and cross the street - where Jane Tanner supposedly saw him. It is also worth noting that there is a lack of proper photos and videos from that night or even the next, so we don't know the exact conditions. Furthermore, we cannot trust what photos and videos show us because they can be brightened or darkened according to what the presented of these evidences want the audience to think. Supporters of the abduction theory may want Jane Tanner's sighting area to be brightened and the window darkened. Nonsupporters of the abduction theory may want Jane Tanner's sighting area to be pitch black and the window sitting in a spotlight. So, we likely will have difficulty in knowning the reality. However, and again, the predator does what is wisest and I still have to say that the front of 5A is not the choice a predator should make when the back door, the supposedly open sliding back door, exists and cuts down on ones visibility leaving the residence and escaping from the area. This picture shows the corner where Jane Tanner sees a man cross the street coming from the apartment, child in his outstretched hands. If you were an abductor, would you be comfortable choosing to walk out in the open, across the well-light street with three people on it? Would you at least think walking the other direction hugging the wall might be a bit smarter, maybe cut down your chances of being seen? (The abuctor MAY have seen just seen the backs of Gerry and Jez as he peeped around the corner and stepped out just as Jane came out of the Tapas door and up the street getting caught in her sight line.) But walking the other direction is much safer and smarter unless one has no choice). Robert Murat, the only other Arguido (suspect) in the case, lived on a couple blocks down the way in the direction Jane Tanner claimed the man carrying a child was walking. But, Robert Murat was a known individual in town and many people in Praia da Luz own places here or rent for a long period of time and return year after year. Would someone who knows people might recognize him walk down well-lit streets - his face totally exposed – straight to his own house? He would have to have an IQ far below 70 to think this would be clever. If anyone took a child from the apartment, it would be smarter to walk the opposite way of the man Jane Tanner claims to have seen. Here you can see the wall I just mentioned that he could walk very close to and be out of sight of anyone looking down from the tall apartment building across the street. Even more intelligent would be for an abductor to leave the back of the apartment by the sliding glass doors and hurry down the enclosed path which leads up to the parking area at the front of the apartment and go out at the end of the street and onward to the darker end of the road. It is exactly this path that leads to the Smith sighting. Praia da Luz is a very cozy, brightly lit, off-the-main road very small and charming resort town. No sex ring is going to choose this location to target children. A child sex predator might lurk about here but he would be wiser abducting a child from the outskirts of the town or in pretty much any other nearby village. There are some darker side streets further to the edge of the town that a predator or someone carrying a child would be a bit less visible . Apartment 5A would rank pretty much at the bottom of any abductor's list of places to grab a kid. The only reason someone would remove a child from 5A would be of necessity. Then he would never take the route Jane Tanner claimed she saw the man carrying a child. More on the most likely route one would take to carry Madeleine from Apartment 5A in my next blog. Criminal Profiler Pat Brown ------------------------- Photographs View of apartments, in May 2007, showing no security light Recent view of apartments showing addition of security light and removal of trees/shrubs Trees outside the apartments, seen in May 2007

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: What about the Window?, 16 February 2012

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: What about the Window? The Daily Profiler Posted by Pat Brown at 8:53 PM Thursday, February 16, 2012 After I posted my first blog of this series, we had quite a rousing discussion over the issues of lighting in Praia da Luz in 2007 and if an abductor would feel unnerved going in and out of a window at that location (I am speaking of using this window for purposes of child abduction, not a lesser crime). #1 Because the lighting was not horrifically deficient and the window was not positioned in a location where it would be extremely unlikely for someone to observe an abductor moving in and out of a window (and, for that matter, quite high odds that someone could observe the crime even though Praia da Luz was not flooded with visitors at the time the McCanns were there), I do not believe an abductor would have targeted the apartment by way of the front window. But suppose this abductor did decide he really wanted the child inside and he couldn't access the doors. Perhaps he was willing to take a chance going in the window at a time he observed the parents had left the children without any adult supervision. Could he pull up the shutters, open the window, and climb into the apartment without causing any damage, being heard, or leaving evidence? The McCanns say they believe the window was locked (but not absolutely positive) and the shutters were down. If you are inside the house and you want to open the shutters, you must pull on a cord which raises them (pictured above). If you want to break in, you must push them up; they make a horrible noise and they don't stay up...they go up 4/5 of the way and then fall back down. In the video you can see retired British police officer, PM, giving it a go (this video is distorted due to an unfortunate sideways filming and when compressed for uploading, stretched the horizontal dimension; PM is tall and very fit as you will see in future photos ...sorry, PM!) So, the window is not a likely choice for an abductor to access the apartment. With this knowledge and the fact (which Kate McCann does not dispute in the book) that there is no physical evidence of anyone crawling in or out of the window (and the fact that doing so is extremely awkward with a child), such a scenario is unlikely to have occurred. The only other possibility is someone accessed the house through a door, opened the shutters and windows from the inside and passed the child through to an accomplice. This is all very dramatic but walking out the door is easier. My next post will focus on who could have come in and out the doors. Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: How Jane Tanner got Lost in a Crowd on an Empty Street, 20 February 2012

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: How Jane Tanner got Lost in a Crowd on an Empty Street The Daily Profiler Posted by Pat Brown at 3:09 PM Monday, February 20, 2012 One can accept that on a night out with friends, drinking wine and chatting - maybe some folks are not perfectly correct with the exact time someone came and went. However, some things should be pretty clear and easy to remember about the night of and the day after a horrific event. Of all the Tapas 9 claims as to how things went down on the evening of May 3, 2007, Jane Tanner's 9:15 (approximate) sighting of a man hurrying along Dr Augusthino da Silva with a child draped in his outstretch arms is the most unbelievable and unsupportable. Let's ignore for now the issues of the lighting and whether Jane would be able see the details of the man and child's clothing so well. In order to prove whether she could or she could we would have to test her ability with a number of crime reenactments with the present lighting and, if one was able to see what she saw under those conditions, then one would have to use quite a bit of scientific and technical skill to build a set with the calculated lighting of that night and time and see if one could still see those details. I cannot obviously due that at this time, so I cannot make any absolute determinations on her ability to see what she said she saw. However, I can comment on what Gerry and Jeremy (Jeremy Wilkins, also called Jez) said they didn't see - namely Jane. Retired British police officer, PM, and I reenacted the scenario and I learned something very interesting. If Gerry's claim that he crossed the street, the Rua Dr Gentil Martins (in his later statement, not his first which only said on his way back to the Tapas, he "crossed ways" which should mean "ran into," not ran across the street to talk to) to speak to Jeremy is true, then it is indeed possible for the two men to have neither seen Jane nor any man carrying a child across the street at the corner whilst they were conversing. PM took thirteen steps to cross from one side to the other and I saw him out of the corner of my eye from the spot Gerry says he was standing with Jeremy. If, as Peter reminded me as we discussed the way men chat and the way women chat, that men tend to talk less face to face as women, but more at angles, looking about themselves and not at each other, it would be totally possible for the men to have their backs to the street behind and never see a men quickly walk by, even if it took him thirteen strides. Interestingly, if they are looking down at a baby in a pram or off to the left side of the street, they might actually have not seen Jane go by either. But, Jane denies that is how it went down and Jeremy agrees with her. Both state Jerry and Jeremy were on the same side of the street Jane walked up and Jane claims she was right on top of them when she walked by. Now, I would say, if this was true, it doesn't matter where these men were looking while talking; at least one would see Jane, and, more likely, both of them. And, if they were positioned in such a way that both of their backs were to Jane as she came up behind them, they would have seen the man crossing directly in front of them. If they had their backs to the man behind them, they couldn't have missed Jane walking straight at them. No matter exactly how they were standing, it is hardly believable that neither man would notice the only other person on the street trotting right up to them, past them, and on to the end of the street. Anyone on the street at that time of night at a time when Praia da Luz is very empty would very likely catch one's attention, so Jane didn't get lost in the crowd. Let's double check their position with Jane's Rogatory Statement which she had months to get the "facts" straight. No, I, phew, again, I would probably guess Gerry's back was more towards me, because I would have thought if I'd have seen him I would have definitely probably stopped and said 'Oh you're in trouble, you've been long, we think you've been watching the footy', you know, but. Because I think that's almost when I went to acknowledge them, that's almost what went through my head, you know, is to sort of give a bit of abuse about the fact he'd been so long, but. So I would imagine his, maybe his back was to me, but. And, again, in that way, that would make more sense, because I don't know Jez, so it's not like I would have gone 'Oh hi Jez', you know, that way, so. Yeah, I, I honestly, I can't remember now which way they were. But I do, I stand by the fact I'm sure they were nearer than right over here. Let's see: she is "probably guessing" that Gerry's back was towards her or she would have made a comment. Hmm...if his back was towards Jane, he would have seen a man right in front of him running off with his own child. Jane THINKS that's ALMOST when she went to acknowledge them, that's ALMOST what went through her head...so she would IMAGINE, maybe his back was towards her...yeah, that "WOULD MAKE MORE SENSE," ...yeah, "HONESTLY," she can't remember now, BUT, she does, "STAND BY THE FACT, I'm sure they were nearer than right over here." All of this lack of clarity in Jane's statement shows major signs of deception, of someone attempting to create a story. If it were simply true, she would not need to imagine any of it or develop the scenario as she is talking. Add to this, an odd comment in her original May 4, 2007 interview: She (Jane Tanner) passed them KNOWING that Gerald McCann had already been in his apartment to check on his children. This is a clearly impossible for her to state, yet Jane Tanner KNOWS that this is so. Since Jane claims to have left the Tapas quite soon after Gerry, there is no way she could know he had been in to see his children already or whether he had run into Jeremy Wilkins and simply got caught up in conversation and hadn't yet gone in. We are talking about a matter of a couple of minutes; therefore, it would be highly unlikely Jane could know if Gerry had popped into the apartment already or not. For Jane to KNOW this, Gerry would have to have told her prior to her interview. But, you might point out, as Jane did: ... if I was trying to make this up, don't you think I would have made damn sure they saw me? Yes, I guess you would... if you could have, Jane. The problem is Jeremy Wilkins didn't see you and, if Gerry was standing with his back to you, then Jeremy was most likely facing you and would have seen you clearly coming up the way. Or, if you want to go back to men both standing sort of at angles and not looking directly at each other, both men would have seen you AND the man carrying the child as you walked past them into their view and the man crossed the road directly in front of them. Tricky bit of a problem, eh? Jeremy Wilkins says he and Gerry were standing right by the gate on the apartment side of the road. I met him near the stairs of a ground floor. There was a gate leading up to some stairs. Jane says she walked right up to them and passed them. Jeremy Wilkins says he never saw her or the man. Gerry says he never saw her or the man which he must say or he has to call Wilkins a liar. I think he solves this problem by moving their location to the opposite side of the road where it is possible for them to both have not seen Jane or any man with a child. Then he doesn't have to go up against Wilkins, but merely state he remembers where they were standing a bit differently. It is Kate who sums the whole situation up quite interestingly in her book, Madeleine. Either way, exactly where they were standing is not crucial. What may be important is that all three of them were there. Indeed! What is important is all three of them were there. What does it really matter if all three of them are there? What does it matter if Jane Tanner saw the man five minutes later when she returned and neither man was on the street? It matters because Jeremy Wilkins gives Gerry an alibi. No, not Jane. Jane Tanner is not that useful in giving Gerry an alibi because she is one of the Tapas 9. Jeremy Wilkins is the LAST UNBIASED WITNESS who saw Gerry before Madeleine was found missing and before the Smiths' 9:50-9:55 sighting of a man carrying a little child toward the beach. No one outside the Tapas 9 can verify that Gerry returned to the table after his 9:15 check on his children or that he remained at the table until Kate gave the alarm. Jeremy Wilkins, being with Gerry at the time Jane sees "the abductor carrying off a child," gives Gerry an airtight alibi for the only time that he can get one for that evening during that time frame. Considering Kate and Gerry downplayed any importance to the Smith sighting until far later when they agreed it could be the abductor but ONLY if it was the same man Jane saw and Kate insists that it is mighty important the three of them were there when Jane saw a child being carried off, I repeat, the only reason this should be a big deal is that Jeremy is Gerry's alibi. Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

American Criminal Profiler probes McCann mystery, 23 February 2012

American Criminal Profiler probes McCann mystery Algarve123 She arrived in Lisbon from Washington, D.C wheeling a travel-worn suitcase and carrying a metal detector. Inside her suitcase, she'd packed a soil probe and a spade. Pat Brown - Criminal Profiler, TV commentator and author - was on a mission. As social networking sites buzzed with the news – split between those that wished her well, and those that vociferously didn't – Brown was undeterred. "This has nothing to do with self-publicity. I am simply trying to get to the truth". We caught up with her when Brown arrived in the Algarve after meetings in the capital with Gonçalo Amaral and others who have put their reputations on the line in an attempt to solve the millennium's greatest mystery. Natasha Donn Edition 717 (23 Feb 2012) One of the first questions we asked was why an American criminal profiler and TV personality felt the need cross the Atlantic to Portugal to investigate a missing person's case that was almost five years old? "Two reasons," she told us. "One is that I have always been passionately involved in a search for the truth. It's not something that makes me popular, but it's something I care about above my own reputation as this case threatens to prejudice the way missing person's cases are handled. "We have a situation here where there are two parents who have refused to cooperate fully with a police investigation – who have refused to answer questions, who have changed their stories and fled from jurisdiction – but who have then taken their story - in the way they want us to believe it - to the media, asking people to donate money to fund a search for a child who, statistically-speaking, is almost certainly dead! "I can understand bereaved parents doing some crazy things, but never have I seen parents like this before! Their actions have opened the door to speculation. "My other reason is to show support for Gonçalo Amaral and freedom of speech". Amaral faces trial for defamation of the McCanns over the publication of his book, "The Truth of the Lie" in which he maintains that three-year-old Madeleine McCann died in apartment 5a on the night of May 3rd 2007. His trial was originally set for February 9th -10th, but postponed. Brown decided to take advantage of her booked flight to see if she could learn anything new by visiting the crime scene. And did she? "Yes, absolutely. I discovered more about the situation on the street; I learnt about the locks on the doors and how they work; how the shutter and window would be impossible to open from the outside; about the kind of terrain here – but my line of thought has remained the same: there are two simple answers to this crime. "The simplest answer is that Madeleine was abducted by a local predator (in which case she would almost certainly have been killed within two to three hours) – and the second simplest answer is that she died in a tragic accident and her body was disposed of. "To eliminate the second simplest answer, we have to establish without doubt that there was an abduction – and that hasn't happened". Does she believe, like Gonçalo Amaral, that what's needed is a reconstruction of the night Madeleine went missing? "Hell yes! And that's what they have consistently refused to go along with – all of them: the McCanns and the rest of the Tapas group! The McCanns particularly have been their own worst enemies. They could provide answers in a number of ways: by taking part in a reconstruction, by submitting to polygraph testing. You see, they have to be eliminated in order for the first simplest answer to be the highest probability! "Another aspect that truly bothers me is the promotion of mythology. Sex rings have become the new bogeyman. Every parent has been made to fear that their child could be grabbed by a sex ring – but sex rings do not operate in hotel complexes! "If a sex ring wants a child, it grabs one off the streets in some poor neighbourhood. It doesn't snatch a middle-class child from its bed while on holiday, particularly when - if the stories we're led to believe are true - all the parents were jumping up and down from their dinner table every 15 minutes to check on their children! Any abductor would be lying in wait thinking "when the heck am I going to get a chance to break into an apartment!" Brown's experience of profiling began when she was already in her 40s and had been working as a sign language interpreter on hospital trauma wards for over a decade. During those years she "saw everything": gunshot wounds, stab and rape casualties, victims and villains. The experience taught her a lot about life, crime and circumstance – and then she found herself having rented a room for four weeks to a man she believed should have been "a person-of-interest" in a brutal sexual homicide. This unsettling experience was the start of her interest in profiling and how homicide cases are handled. It took six years for the police to bring the man in for questioning and declare him a suspect in the murder – and it led to Brown specialising in a profession that invariably finds itself called in way too late. "One of my ambitions is to make profilers a prerequisite on all police forces," she told us. "We need to be called in right at the beginning. Crime scenes need better handling". "If parents were separated when police first arrived on the scene, along with everyone else involved, it would be much easier to verify everyone's stories - and a true timeline could be established. "In this case, the McCanns and their friends were given days to confer with each other. The result is that in order to look better maybe, or to explain things that are embarrassing, they may have screwed up the timeline to the extent that they look guilty. Or, if the McCanns were involved in the death of their daughter, they had a chance to get their stories straight". So what's the bottom line? Will this case ever be solved? "If it could be proved that Gerry McCann was at the dinner table in the Tapas restaurant between 9.15 and 9.55" (when a man looking apparently very much like Gerry McCann was seen by an Irish family carrying a child in pink pyjamas over his shoulder as he walked in the direction of the beach) "then that would be proof that there was an abduction". "If the cadaver dogs were right" (brought in three months after Madeleine went missing, and which reacted positively to the possibility that a dead body had lain in the apartment) "then there was no abduction". And for those two details to be established, we're back to the reasoning of former police officer in charge of the case, Gonçalo Amaral: there has to be a reconstruction of that fateful night of 3rd May 2007 – using all parties involved. "But so far as we know, that doesn't look like happening any day soon!" Brown shakes her head. "I honestly don't know what the Metropolitan Police are doing with their current review of the case - which is costing millions of pounds. As far as I can see, they haven't started where they should have started – with crime scene reconstruction. "That's where there's the best crack at getting to the truth!"

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Did a Kidnapper Muck with Anything?, 25 February 2012

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Did a Kidnapper Muck with Anything? The Daily Profiler Posted by Pat Brown at 12:21 PM Saturday, February 25, 2012 Evidence does not have to be in the form of forensic evidence - DNA, fingerprints, hair, physical damage, etc. - for a case to be built and for guilt to be proven in a court of law. Although it is very popular today for juries to rely more and more on forensics to come up with a guilty verdict, direct testimony and circumstantial evidence without any forensics at all can still be enough to prove someone's guilt. If thirty people give direct testimony that Joe Smith came into the room with a rifle and gunned down a bunch of people, this would be pretty good evidence even if Joe ran off with the gun and ditched it down a mineshaft. Likewise, Jane Tanner's eyewitness testimony could be credible if there was not the question of her actually being on the street when and where she said she was (since two other eyewitness accounts state she was not there at all). Add to this, issues over whether the lighting was good enough and the witness close enough for her to have really have seen a man carrying a child, a child in specific clothing, and likely, this testimony would be torn to shreds in court. So let's move to the circumstantial evidence in this case. The McCanns made an effort to build the case for an abductor from circumstantial evidence that did not include forensics of any sort. The theory is that an abductor was hiding in the room while Gerry was checking on the children. This theory is based on the timing of the raised shutters and open window and the ever-changing position of the bedroom door. And, of course, Jane Tanner's sighting. But let's stay with the physical evidence for now. If all these things can validate a stranger in the room at the very time Gerry is in the apartment, then Jane Tanner's story gets a boost because as soon as Gerry walked out the sliding doors, the abductor would grab Maddie from the bed and run out of the front door, crossing the street just in time for Jane to see him. There is nothing wrong with developing a theory based on such things, if, in the end, these things are supportable in some way and make logical sense when the day is done. It still doesn't mean it is true, but at least it could be a good theory. And, if the direct evidence and circumstantial evidence really holds water, that theory may be good enough to accept as a factual rendition of what indeed did happen and eventually will stand up in a court of law as part of a criminal case. Okay, so can we find evidence to support Jane's 9:15 sighting and the hypothesis that a kidnapper was in the McCann apartment and in the children's room at the same time Gerry was? IMPORTANT: FIRST STATEMENTS ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT STATEMENTS. THERE IS MORE TRUTH IN THEM AND MORE ATTEMPTS TO QUICKLY STAGE (USING SIMPLE LIES) THAN IN LATER INTERVIEWS May 4, 2007 Gerald McCann Witness Statement Thus, at 9.05 pm, the deponent entered the club, using his key, the door being locked, and went to the children's bedroom and noted that the twins and Madeleine were in perfect condition. He then went to the toilet, where he remained for a few instants, left the apartment, and then crossed ways with someone with whom he had played tennis, who had a baby buggy, also a British citizen, with whom he had a brief conversation. He then returned to the restaurant. At around 9.30 pm, his friend MATT (a member of the group) went to his apartment where his own children were, and on his way he went into the deponent's apartment, going in through a sliding glass door at the side of the building, which was always unlocked (so why is Gerry going through the front door?). He went into the room, saw the twins and didn’t even notice if Madeleine was there, as everything was quiet, the shutters closed and the bedroom door half-open as usual. Then MATT went back to the restaurant. At 10pm, his wife Kate went to check on the children. She went into the apartment through the door using her key (Why is Kate not going through the sliding door?) and saw right away that the children’s bedroom door was completely open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains drawn open. The side door that opens into the living room, which as said earlier, was never locked, was closed. It is stressed that when one of the members of the group, JANE, went to her apartment to see her children, at around 9.10/9.15 pm, from behind and at a distance of about 50 metres, on the road next to the club, she saw a person carrying a child in pyjamas. JANE will be better able to clarify this situation. Okay, let's stop here. What we have learned is that Gerry says BOTH he and Kate used a key to enter the apartment through the locked front door. This would be consistent with a locked apartment which would not allow a stranger easy access and increase safety of the children staying alone in an exposed corner apartment. Then Gerry immediately states that the sliding door was always left open which invalidates the behavior of going to the front door and using a key. Why? To me, in conjunction with other information, this appears to be an addition to his story which allows Matthew Oldfield to do a check at around 9:30 (even though members of the Tapas group did not do visual checks on each others' children previously). But, what does Gerry say about the bedroom door? Nothing. He does not point out anything alarming about this door in his interview. And he even states that when Matthew went into the room that the shutters were closed and the door half-open as usual. Gerry did not see the shutters raised nor the window open nor the door anything but half-open. In fact, everything was normal when he went into the apartment using his key. He saw his children (allegedly) and left because nothing was out of place (allegedly). He chats with Jes, doesn't see Jane, but wants Jane to tell her story of a man with a child she saw from behind and from a hell of a long way off. Let's go to Matthew Oldfield's May 4th Witness Statement. Gerry allegedly went into his apartment and that he checked to make sure that Madeleine and the twins were sleeping in their bedroom, where it was quite dark. The bedroom door was half-open. That five minutes later, Gerry came back to the group in the restaurant. In answer to a question from the inspector, the interviewee does not know if Gerry met anyone while he was checking the children. He did not mention it. At around 9.25pm, the interviewee went into his apartment and Madeleine's apartment to check on the children. He states that the door of the fourth apartment (room?), that was occupied by Madeleine and the twins, was half-open and that there was enough light in the bedroom for him to see the twins in their cots. That he couldn't see the bed occupied by Madeleine, but as it was all quiet, he deduced that she was sleeping. That the light in question was from an artificial source but not inside the bedroom, rather from outside through the bedroom window. That it seemed to him that the shutters of the bedroom window were open without knowing if the window was also open. Clearly, if the McCanns were fabricating a story, the one thing they can't have happen is for the abductor to have taken Maddie before Gerry checks since Gerry is supposed to have seen the child at around 9:10 pm. So, the room should have to be dark at that time. Interestingly though, at this point, Gerry is not saying the door was anything but in the usual position which is corroborated by Matthew. The usual position seems to be half-open, at least at this point in the renditions. Note that Matthew says he can see the children quite well (although Gerry could also in the dark as he looked at Madeleine and thought what a lucky man he was although, perhaps, we don't know, if another light from inside the apartment had been turned on and filtered through the door). Remember this until the end of the post. (It is odd though that he can also see an empty bed against the wall and, since he has never been in the apartment before to know where Maddie sleeps, the empty bed does not worry him enough to step in the room and see if Maddie is in the other one). Now, to Kate McCann's May 4th Statement At around 10pm, the witness came to check on the children. She went into the apartment by the side door, which was closed, but unlocked as already said, and immediately noticed that the door to her children's bedroom was completely open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains open, while she was certain of having closed them all as she always did. Later, the witness would learn that a member of the group, Russell's partner Jane, at around 9.15pm, when she went to her own apartment to check on her children, saw from behind and at a distance of about 50 metres, on the road along the club, a long-haired person, she thinks wearing jeans, with a child in his arms, walking very quickly. But she is better able to tell about that herself. Kate mentions nothing in her statement about Matthew observing more light or a half-open door. Her statement appears to be the only one with a changed door position which would indicate that there was no proof "the abductor" was in the bedroom with Gerry. Furthermore, since Matthew said the door was half-open, then "the abductor" must have flung it the rest of the way open AFTER Matthew left the apartment (if he was ever even there). You might stop and note that Kate, who gave her interview later in the day, is now entering the sliding door like Matthew, in spite of the fact Gerry says she used her key on the front door like him. One could think Gerry simply forgot how the both of them came into the apartment but it is highly unlikely he would not remember something so important the morning after. It is far more likely, as the hours went on, the story was altered to support the abductor theory. It is not uncommon to see fabrications develop as people attempt to convince someone of a particular story. I am not saying the McCanns and their friends did this, but the radical changes and inconsistencies in their stories are a red flag. Interestingly, Jane Tanner rendition of her sighting of the man with the child is vastly different from the McCanns on May 4th. It is my belief both of them thought she was going to state that she saw a man going down the road behind her after she turned the corner, not before it, whenever it was she went for her check, if she even did. If you have read any of Jane's interviews, they are far, far longer than anyone else's; Jane has motormouth and simply can not keep it simple. I believe she may have overdone her scenario and, in doing so, added in Jerry and Jes and ended up with a problem of not being seen by Gerry and Jes. Later, as often happens when someone is trying to convince the police and public something happened, the McCanns may have worked to make her story fit because it gives Gerry an alibi at the time "the abductor" is seen. Of course, then if the Jane saw the abductor while Gerry was talking to Jes, then the abductor had to be in the room with Gerry; hence; the shifting door story evolves. Some very fascinating things comes from the McCann own documentary, Madeleine was Here (Part One: 00:10-1:30) I did my check about ten o'clock. I went in through the sliding patio doors and I just stood actually... and thought, oh, all quiet....and to be honest, I might have been tempted to turn around... I just noticed the door, the bedroom door where the three children were sleeping, was open much further than we left it. I went to close it to about here and then as it got to here, it suddenly (Kate slams the door shut) slammed and then as I opened it..... it was then that I thought I would look at the children...at Sean and Amelie in the cots (which she could not have seen in her demonstration because the she has the door nearly closed with just room for her face to peep in at Madeleine)....all of which negates her May 4th statement that she immediately noticed that the door to her children's bedroom was completely open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains open. And I was looking at Madeleine's bed which was here....and it was dark and I was looking...is that Madeleine or is that the bedding....I couldn't quite make it out. So it seems to be much, much darker than when Matthew was there or Matthew has far better eyes than Kate or he made up that it was lighter if he was ever even in the room (and it may be impossible at this late stage to reenact the exact lighting circumstances of the night, but it seems the shutters being raised doesn't change the lighting in the room substantially from Kate's view; however, if one argues this point, then it being lighter for Matthew is meaningless as well). Her story is radically different from her original statement and it would seem in an effort to dramatize the event, the facts don't quite jibe. So, what do the facts prove? That no abductor could have been in the room until after Matthew was there and Kate's statement about what happened when she came to the apartment has questionable elements. So does Gerry's and so does Matthews and so does Jane's. It is no wonder why the PJ questioned their involvement and that there was ever an abduction. Even if you chalk up all these inconsistencies to bad memories and distraught witnesses, what they have stated hardly offers any support for Jane Tanner's 9:15 sighting or an abductor hiding in the children's bedroom during Gerry's check. The statements and McCann reenactments, in fact, caused the police and others to question their involvement and rightly so. Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: The Smith Sighting vs Jane Tanner's, 27 February 2012

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: The Smith Sighting vs Jane Tanner's The Daily Profiler Posted by Pat Brown at 10:34 AM Monday, February 27, 2012 The Smith family sighting or the Jane Tanner sighting; which is more likely to be someone carrying off Maddie than the other? Or, could they be, as the McCanns now encourage us to believe, the same man? Let's start with a question we commonly hear about possible suspect sightings: when someone is spotted near a crime scene who has nothing to do with the crime but never comes forward and says, "That was me," doesn't that prove that the person spotted is indeed the suspect? Not necessarily. First of all, the sighting may not even be a fact. Jane Tanner's sighting lacks credibility, so is no surprise that some innocent man carrying a child in his outstretched arms hasn't come forward (although Stephen Carpenter, another British vacationer, admitted to crossing the road fifteen minutes later with his wife and children). On the other hand, the Smith family sighting at approximately 9:50-9:55 is very credible since nine witnesses saw the man and they have no connection to the McCanns. So, that no one came forth to admit being that man may be because he is really the one carrying off Maddie. Secondly, some people just don't want to admit it was them and then have the unpleasant repercussions of having to deal with the police and the media. Look what happened to Murat. Next, we have the issue of how the child was carried. Dead or alive, the Smith sighting suspect carried the child up against his body in a more normal carry position. The child's arms were hanging down which would be absolutely the case with a dead child (although it is also possible with a live one). Mr. Smith later saw a video of Gerry carrying one of his remaining children and thought the man his family had seen could well be him. The Jane Tanner sighting has the abductor holding a limp child in his outstretched arms. This is an odd way to carry a child any distance as it is awkward and tiring. Also, if the man abducted the child, he would be far smarter to carry the child up against his shoulder where he could duck his head down alongside the child's head and keep his own face somewhat hidden. Carrying the child at waist level leaves one's face exposed and draws attention to the person due to the odd positioning of the child. And how does it make sense that the abductor would carry the abducted child that way? If he scooped Maddie up from her bed, her head would naturally end up over his right arm and Jane Tanner wouldn't have seen two little feet. And how does the man get out the door and close it behind him with both hands cradling the child? (Not to mention, closing the door when you are in a hurry - since "the abductor" already have left evidence of a break-in with the open window - it is hardly is worth the effort.) Mr. Smith believes Gerry McCann may be the man he saw on the Rua da Escola. Some say this is an impossibility because Gerry was dining in the Tapas Restaurant at the time of the sighting. Well, he is if you believe some of the statements of the Tapas 9 but there is no independent corroboration by any of the waiters that he was there exactly when Kate sounded the alarm after 10 pm nor can any independent witness put Gerry in the Tapas restaurant for the period of time prior to Kate raising the alarm. So there is nothing to say that this wasn't Gerry that the Smith's saw who then dumped the child he was carrying and returned to take his seat in the Tapas just before Kate showed up. But, could he have made it to the location of the Smith sighting and back in time? Before I went to Praia da Luz I was told by some the idea was laughable, that the Smith sighting was quite a distance from the Tapas - half a mile is what the McCanns claim in their documentary, Madeleine was Here. Voice over: It is possible that JT is not the only person who saw Madeleine being carried away by the abductor. 40 minutes after J(T)’s sighting and half (1/2) mile away from the Mc’s apartment a family also saw a man carrying a young girl away from the town. When I looked at a map before I went to Portugal on Google and put in the locations, I did come up with 800 meters (half-mile) but that was by car and followed a rather circuitous route. the walking route didn't seem that far and, indeed, Google said it would take six minutes. This is the advantage of going to the location of the crime scene. I walked the route myself from the McCann's apartment and the Smith sighting and it took me exactly five minutes at a moderately fast pace. It took me another minute and a half to reach the beach. So, the time Gerry would need from the time the Smiths would have seen him  and get back to the Tapas bar and include a body drop off is about eight minutes. He could be in his seat before Kate raised the alarm. And that is eight minutes if he didn't run back, in which case, he could be arrive sooner. And, yes, it does take a bit of time to hide the body, but, in a pinch and a panic, I saw three good places to ditch a corpse in a hurry; a storage shed right by the road only part way to the beach (cutting an extra minute or so off the trip), a large clump of reeds where the road accesses the beach and one could quickly stuff the little body into, and, also at that location, a number of overturned small boats one could temporarily store a body underneath. At this point in time, if one would just trying to lose a dead child, any place might do, including a dumpster of which there were a number of in the area. If the body is later found in any of the those places, it could be suspected that a sex predator dumped his victim there, and, if the body wasn't immediately discovered and one had time to find a better spot to prevent the child being found and an autopsy done, any of these places could be revisited and the body moved in the dark early morning hours. If there was no one out searching, these locations are dead quiet and no one is around; I can testify to since I spent from 3 am to 5 am wandering about Praia da Luz and never ran into anyone. Which sighting is more likely to be Madeleine McCann? The Smith sighting, clearly, but the McCanns will have none of it unless it is the same man that Jane Tanner saw. I repeat what I stated in my last blog; there is no reason for the McCanns to disqualify the Smith sighting as a stand-alone sighting of the person who took Madeleine unless Gerry does not really have an alibi for 9:50-9:55 pm. Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: On Moving and Hiding Bodies, 05 March 2012

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: On Moving and Hiding Bodies The Daily Profiler The Rocha Negra Posted by Pat Brown at 3:11 PM Monday, March 5, 2012 "Friends help friends move; Great friends help friends move bodies." Getting stuck with a corpse is not one of those events we anticipate ever having to deal with, unless we are an experienced serial killer. For the uninitiated, panic is the primary emotion at the moment one finds themselves with a dead body and desperation and fear are panic's close companions. Fear of ending up in prison for the rest of one's life, desperation to prevent such a repercussion, and, panic, as one tries to get rid of the damning evidence in a short period of time. The problem with unpremeditated crimes  is that one usually has little time to think, to cover up what has occurred, and get rid of evidence sufficiently. Most nonserial killers also have the added problem of the victim being connected to them in some way; a wife, a husband, a girlfriend or boyfriend, a child. The police will be showing up on one's doorstep and one has to actually report the person missing at some point and one needs an alibi. Serial killers target strangers (or mild acquaintances) and no one has a clue they are connected in any way to a crime in their community. They have ample time to dump or hide bodies and toss clothing or weapons. By the time a serial killer becomes a suspect, often he doesn't need to worry about an alibi because years have gone by. Not the same situation for a domestic homicide. The body of the victim usually is lying in the middle of one's living room floor or dead in the bedroom. The person is going to be missed shortly - at school, at work, by friends and family. And we often quickly suspect a relative if that relative was the last to see  the victim alive, especially if he doesn't report the individual missing for days. So what the panicked perpetrator needs to do is get rid of the body immediately, try to stage some sort of abduction, and then report the person missing as soon as possible. This way, he looks as innocent and as concerned as he can and, if lucky, he can try to establish some alibi though this is often difficult (and nearly impossible without involving family or friends). Because of the fear of what the autopsy will discover and the possibility of DNA and trace evidence linking back to the perpetrator of a domestic homicide, it is common for the offender to attempt to hide the body extremely well or destroy it entirely. Serial killers and sex predators often just dump the body like garbage a mile or so from their home, not worrying all that much that any evidence will be connected back to them unless they have their DNA in the CODIS system and a match will identify them. So when a body isn't found after someone goes missing out of a house, police tend to take a strong look at whomever was at the same location as the victim at the time the person disappeared. This does not mean there aren't some serial killers who work harder at hiding bodies; they may bury them on their property, feed them to pigs, or toss them down mine shafts. But, it is far more common, especially with child sex predators, to dump the body quickly, usually within an hour of two of the abduction, rape, and murder of the little victim. Very few children taken for sexual purposes under the age of five aren't found dead and found dead fairly quickly; those that remain missing often are cases in which abduction is not proven and the parents are person-of-interest. On the Beach in Praia da Luz Early in the AM So, on May 3, 2007, if Madeleine McCann did die in Apartment 5A in Praia da Luz and her father or mother or both found themselves in that unexpected nightmare of dealing with a body, what would they do? Kate and Gerry would likely fear arrest and imprisonment for one or both of them for murder - even if for second degree homicide as in an overdose or an overdose leading to an accident, or for manslaughter due to neglect and an accident  - if there was something the autopsy would uncover. They would have to get rid of the body, any evidence of Maddie's demise, stage an abduction, and he and Kate would need need alibis that would cover the time that Maddie would have been "abducted." If Maddie died in the vacation apartment, it would seem the McCanns were successful at all of the above, barring the alerting of the cadaver and blood dogs to locations and items in the apartment and hire car. And the most important aspect of the cover-up issues is the losing of the body permanently; no body, rarely an arrest. The history of missing children with parents who are suspects has proven this over and over. In just the last few years we have in the United States a number of cases that come to mind: Haleigh Cummings, Ayla Reynolds, Sky Metalwalla, Jhessye Shockley, Kyron Horman, and Lisa Irwin. No bodies, no arrests although at least one parent is a top person-of-interest in all of these cases. So, let's say Gerry really was seen by the Smith family at 9:50 pm, dumped Maddie's body, and then hurried back to the Tapas restaurant. Why would he bother to move her body? Why not let the police find it and think an abductor took Maddie, killed her, and got rid of her? Likely because of what autopsy might determine (drugs in body, head trauma, positional asphyxiation) and what the autopsy might not determine (violent sexual assault and strangulation by a predator) and trace evidence that might link back to the McCanns and no one else. So, if the McCanns covered up the death of Madeleine, they would have to be sure her body was not found, if at all possible. Maddie's body would have to be moved to a fairly secretive location. Some might say then that it must have been one brilliant location her body was hidden in that the police never thought of looking because it was never found. Others might say because her body wasn't found in the area, the McCanns must have nothing to do with the crime because they only had a few hours in the early morning hours to move Maddie's body to a better spot and how would they have accomplished this so well in so short a time? Well, mostly by luck. Luck plays an interesting role in a lot of crimes. One would think bodies of children that families try to dispose of in a hurry should be very easy to find but they are not, often because they are quite tiny and easy to stuff into a variety of places or they get lost in a large expanse of land. That the cadaver dogs didn't hit months later out in the open of Praia da Luz does not mean an abductor trundled Maddie out of town; it doesn't mean that her body wasn't hidden somewhere in the area for a period of time. Although false positives are extremely rare for cadaver dogs, false negatives are more common and it is hard to prove the dogs missed a spot when, well, they missed it. With changing weather conditions and numerous other factors, where a body may have been hidden temporarily may be overlooked by dogs, the smell having wafted off, well contained, or somehow not being noticeable enough. False positives and negatives work like perfume; suppose a husband is having an affair with his secretary. She spritzes herself with perfume and the two go to a bar, take a walk in the park, and then come back to the bedroom he shares with his wife and has sex with her there. That afternoon after work, the wife hears a rumor that her husband was seen at the bar and the park with this woman. She goes to both locations, and she doesn't smell the woman's perfume; the bar is too contaminated with massive numbers of odors and the park is too large to figure out where the couple may have been and even the bench the couple sat on and hugged and kissed has been rained on and wind has blown through the spot. But, when the woman gets home, the fragrance of the woman's perfume hits her at the front door, is stronger in the bedroom, and when she picks up her husband's shirt off out of the laundry basket, she is nearly knocked out by the odor. There is no way she could be mistaken about the perfume in her house but just because she missed it at the bar and in the park doesn't mean the couple wasn't there as well. This is an oversimplification of cadaver dogs and their abilities, but I just want you to get an understanding of why outdoor searches are so difficult, even for the best of dogs. Of course, if they alert on a spot in the middle of the landscape, this certainly is significant, but, not hitting anywhere does not hold the same importance as making a alert. So, was Maddie hidden somewhere around Praia da Luz in a public area? Very possibly, in spite of the fact the dogs did not discover that place. She also could have been hidden in a private location but that would be far less likely considering the very few hours the McCanns, if they were involved, had to hide her body. They would have to find a place quickly, nearby, within walking distance, someplace they had a clue existed. The most likely possibilities would be where the McCanns had spent time, walked around or jogged past; it is night and one cannot spend hours scouring unknown rugged areas. That might come later, but it would be unlikely to occur on May 4th before the sun rose. Beach Access near Smith Sighting On the Right Side of Beach Access Sometime after the locals and police had pretty much called it a night for searching, there would be an opportunity for Gerry or Gerry with Kate or Gerry with David Payne to find a good location to put Maddie's body. If I were in Gerry shoes (if he was involved in Maddie's demise and/or disappearance) and had a wife or friend to help me or if I had to do it alone, here are the places I would have considered and rejected. One is anything to the west of the area of the overturned boats (where the road accesses the beach and has good temporary hiding places; see my previous blog post). Not a great spot to walk or hide a body I walked further down that direction and it is very difficult to traverse it at night. Lots of craggy, uneven rocks, and no place I could find that would be a good place to stash a body. If one went back up on the road and walked down past the houses, there is a bit of an area that one could bury a body, but that burial site would be hard to disguise. Trash Bins to East of Beach Access There are some trash bins which could be a possibility but that would negate the later cadaver dog evidence in the hire car unless some object transferred cadaver odor to that location like a bag or clothing. However, the trash bins were searched and nothing found unless something was missed. From the overturned boat area, there is a bit of a beach to the east, full of rocks, which then ends at a stone structure that juts into the water before the church. There were a few places to stuff a body, but I doubt a body could have stayed hidden. There is the drain, but, again, not a good hiding place except for an hour or two. From Center of Praia da Luz to East Beach From the location of the church over to the rocks of the Rocha Negra, there is just beach and no real hiding places. Some have mentioned the Roman Ruins which can be accessed from the boardwalk. It is a very small enclosed location and while I did find one spot one could hide a small body, for the long run, one would think a maintenance person who worked there would find the corpse. Paraiso Restaurant on Left So, that leaves the Rocha Negra itself, the obsession of Kate McCann as she mentions it again and again in her book and even called the police to say she had a dream Maddie was on a slab up on the rocks. This is an area both the McCanns were familiar with. One can sit on the deck having lunch at the Paraiso Restaurant and the Rocha Negra is right in front of you. The McCanns also jogged near and on the Rocha Negra as well. The spectacular Rocha Negra Foot of Rocha Negra on Beach There are three possible areas one could try to hide a body on the Rocha Negra. Retired British police officer, PM, and I toured the various areas to see if there was a place we felt was more likely than others that one could move a body to in the wee hours of the morning. We located three possibilities: at the foot of the rocks on the beach or in the water, in the gullies on the slopes, and on the land on the top of the cliffs. At the foot, it first appears this is not a bad choice (above right) and, if it were low tide one could hide a body under rocks and gravel right there at the base where the cliffs meet the sand. However, in higher tide, this is not possible and one has to worry about the smell hitting sunbathers, joggers, and hikers on the beach. It is possible, but not probable. Dumping the body in the water only to have it come back in the tide or trying to pin it under a rock is not very wise if one doesn't want the body to resurface unexpectedly. Rocks to Beach at Rocha Negra Grassy hills leading to the top of the cliffs Rex the Dog's Grave Next, PM drove me up to the area where one can follow trails up the grassy hills to the very top of the cliffs. We found a dog, Rex, buried here, so it is possible to dig a grave, although the ground is very hard at that location and one would need a shovel to be successful. Also, while it is possible to walk or run to this location (and Gerry was in good shape), it is quite far to go carrying a child, then have to dig a grave, and run back. Furthermore, a fresh grave in the hills would be quite obvious. I didn't think it would be a good choice. Gullies to Beach on Rocha Negra Then, PM and I explored the gullies that come down the side of the Rocha Negra. This area really sparked my interest. The gullies that were accessible from the beach were only a five minute walk from downtown Praia da Luz. Rocha Negra Gully One can climb up and up (I doubt many do this for hiking as they are not very inviting) and these gullies have a massive amount of rocks and gravel in them and around them which are easy to move and cover a body with. Finding a crevice, secreting a small body, and covering it with a pile of rocks would not take that long. On a night with a full moon, one would not even need a flashlight to accomplish this. The spot would be up and out of the way of beachcombers and a good location unless one thought cadaver dogs were going to be set loose on it. At the time Maddie went missing, no one was looking for a body and as long as an abduction was promulgated and a live child searched for, the PJ weren't bringing in cadaver dogs, which they didn't, until the McCanns became Arguidos (suspects). Right next to the beach a few metres from the gully area is a road and public parking spaces (if one wanted to remove the body later and transport it elsewhere. The cadaver dogs did search the Rocha Negra, ascending as far as they could from the beach. I don't know if a moved body, perhaps a well-wrapped one, might not have left a scent for the dogs to find or whether there was never a body there. But, this very accessible location on the side of the Rocha Negra would be my top choice for where I would hide a body if I only had a short period of time and couldn't go very far. At this point, there is not enough evidence to prove in court that the McCanns are involved with the disappearance of the daughter, Madeleine, or that they moved her body or exactly where they could have moved her body if they were. But, when one puts oneself in the mind of a person desperate to hide a body, it is interesting what one sees as possibilities. Criminal Profiler Pat Brown