Tuesday, July 26, 2011

Basic Rules

Copyright © Pat Brown 2011
Page 2
Table of Contents
Part One: Introduction: Basic Rules for Profiling Crimes and People
Part Two: The Disappearance
Part Three: What Day and from Where did Madeleine go Missing?
Part Four: When was the Last Time Madeleine was seen Alive?
Part Five: The Checks, the Doors, and the Windows
Part Six: The Development of a Theory
Part Seven: The Sightings of Jane Tanner and the Smith Family - Which is
Part Eight: Where is Madeleine's Body?
Part Nine: The Post-Crime Behaviors of the McCanns and Friends
Part Ten: My Final Profile Determinations and Recommendations to Law
Enforcement and Others References
It is important for me to emphasize the following profile is a theory based on presently
available public information. It is also important to note that determinations made in this profile
do not assign guilt or innocence to any party nor are these determinations to be misinterpreted as
'facts' as opposed to opinions. Any profile is meant to be a tool to further investigative avenues
and not as a document of probable cause.
Also, I would like to advise readers of this profile that this document is a preliminary
profile, not a final profile as would be produced if I were working with a police department.
Furthermore, I have written it in a style that is quite different; I am taking the reader through my
thinking process in a much less formal manner, showing how I come to certain conclusions or
how I arrive at places where I feel there are still questions to be answered or evidence to be
It is my hope that this preliminary profile will inspire any investigative agency working
on the disappearance of Madeleine Beth McCann to consider the issues I have brought up within.
I also hope that the McCanns, Kate and Gerry, consider addressing areas of concern that could
make a difference in finding Madeleine or in excluding themselves as suspects. I hope that if
friends and family of the McCanns have information that would be useful in solving this case
that they work with the police agencies to see that Madeleine is found and/or justice is served.
Finally, I hope this preliminary profile might bring forth any witnesses or other people who have
pertinent information; perhaps something they previously did not realize was important, so that
the case can finally receive closure.
Note: As there is a massive amount of information on this case, both in book form and on
the Internet, I am not going to footnote every bit of this information. I will state that I am using
information from the police files, televised interviews, Kate McCann's book, Madeleine, and
Page 3
Gonçalo Amaral's book, The Truth of the Lie (translated), and the documentary (translated)
based on it. At the end of the profile, I have listed books and Internet sites under References
where those interested in verifying the information in this profile or learning more about the case
can do more research and reading for themselves. I also assume that most of you reading this
profile are very familiar with the Madeleine McCann case and have a good stock of knowledge
about it already. For this reason, I am going to cut to the chase and write this profile and not
present an entire book about the McCanns, the disappearance, and the aftermath; all of this is
well-documented in the places I have listed under References.
Page 4
Part One: Introduction: Basic Rules for Profiling Crimes and People
Before we delve into what happened In Praia da Luz to Madeleine Beth McCann on or
about May 3, 2007, I want to review some basics rules for profiling crimes and the people
connected to them, whether as perpetrators, witnesses, friends or family, even media and police.
Everyone has their own agenda - which is based, a good portion of the time, on selfish needs far
more than altruistic motives. People want to protect themselves, their loved ones, their
livelihoods, their reputations, and their own self-image. This is true for all human beings and
certain behaviors are just a matter of self-preservation or ignorance and any behaviors resulting
from these traits must be distinguished from the more manipulative and narcissistic traits that
make up certain personality disorders - borderline personality disorder, narcissistic personality
disorder, and psychopathy. However, even personality disorders have a bit of a continuum from
mild to extreme, so it can be difficult to come to a proper interpretation of human behavior
without an in-depth analysis of such behaviors and personality traits over time.
As a deductive criminal profiler looking at the McCann case from outside the
investigation and without full access to all records and without an extremely long period of time
to review and review again every shred of information and evidence, conduct interviews, and
further investigate all the facts pertaining to the crime and those connected to it, I can only offer
a preliminary profile based on public records and public statements. But, it is my hope that I can
inspire deeper analysis and encourage a further look at certain theories and questions that I will
be raising in this analysis.
So where does one start with a profile and what do we need to keep in mind? First, that
people behave in a manner which makes sense to them, even if it doesn't make sense to us. We
need to learn as much as possible about their personalities, their behavior pre-and post-crime,
and the facts as to what actually occurred. All available evidence including physical, forensic,
statements and public communications can be analyzed. And, from all of this, I develop a theory,
not proof of exactly what happened. It is absolutely important to remember that a theory can be
scientifically developed but, unless a theory is brought into the courtroom and voted on by a jury,
the proposed possible suspects in a crime are not legally guilty of any crime, they are just
persons of interest. Other theories may propose different suspects or persons of interest and these
people also are not guilty of a crime unless they are convicted in a court of law. This preliminary
profile is just that, an introductary theory, of what happened to Madeleine McCann, not a
conviction of any particular person or persons.
The next important point to remember is that people tend to do what is easiest and most
expedient. If a crime can be committed simply or covered up simply, the perpetrator is unlikely
to conjure up some Hollywood scenario of a mastermind criminal. They will do what is
necessary, lie where it is necessary, and change a story to what they now think is necessary if
new evidence doesn't back the previous story or if they feel their last story is not being believed.
And this applies not only to perpetrators of crimes but even to victims and to witnesses as well.
A third principle is that certain things must have happened and certain things couldn't
have happened. If it did happen, we can't ignore this evidence, and, if it didn't happen, we can't
Page 5
ignore that either. If we have conflicting evidence, then we cannot know what happened until we
can eliminate one piece of evidence as wrong or prove the other piece of evidence as right.
Sometimes we have to accept we may not know what happened and never will with respect to
one part of a crime or its entirety. On the other hand, not understanding one piece of a crime does
not invalidate everything else, although a defense attorney will try to convince a jury of this in
court! It doesn't matter, he will insist, that the defendant was seen running from the victim's
home at the time of the crime with a bloody knife in his hand, shouting, "Ha! Ha! The bitch is
dead!" If there is some DNA present on the victim's body that is not from the defendant then that
fellow must be innocent. But, this is not necessarily true; maybe the victim just had sex with a
guy she picked up and that guy is not about to come forward and admit he was with the victim
right before she ended up dead. It is a frustrating fact that in many crimes, there is some
unexplained piece of evidence, but if twenty other pieces of evidence all point to one person and
one scenario, this should be enough for us to feel comfortable drawing the conclusion that this
person is the one who did the deed.
Finally, the closer anything is to the time of the crime, the better the evidence tends to be.
This includes the first statements of any persons of interest or witnesses, the 911 calls, the phone
calls to family and friends, and any evidence that is fresh at the crime scene. The time of the
crime is when the least planning has taken place, emotions are raw, and people make mistakes.
Later, with time to think, evidence can vanish and stories can be "improved," or people can get
together and make sure their stories contain the same 'facts.' It is important to note though,
sometimes, when at a second or third interview more specific questions are asked, the
interviewee may stumble trying to answer; a good interviewer or interrogator may elicit solid
information if he knows how to get it.
With these basic concepts in mind, let's proceed to the disappearance of Madeleine
Page 6
Part Two: The Disappearance
Gerry (Gerald) McCann and Kate McCann (also known as Kate Healy) and their
children, Madeleine, age three, and the twins, Sean and Amelie, age two, went to Praia da Luz in
Portugal on vacation with seven friends (often called the Tapas 7 and together with the
McCanns, the Tapas 9, but I will refrain from using that terminology in this profile). The friends
consist of David and Fiona Payne and their daughters Lilly, age two, and Scarlett, age one, and
Fiona's mother, Dianne Webster; Matthew Oldfield and Rachael Mampilly and their daughter
Grace, age nineteen months; and Russell O'Brien and Jane Tanner and their daughters, Ella, age
three, and Evie, age one.
They stayed at the Ocean Club, a resort owned by the Mark Warner resort chain. Each
family got an apartment in the complex. During the days, the children were cared for in the
crèche (nursery) and in the evenings, the children were left unattended in the apartments while
the parents had dinner and drinks at the Tapas restaurant. The apartments' sliding glass doors
faced the Tapas restaurant with a swimming pool between the restaurant and the complex. The
front doors of the apartment were on the opposite side opening out onto a car park and the road
with a high wall in front of them. The bedroom of Madeleine and her siblings had a window that
was next to the front door facing the road. The apartment is about seventy meters from the Tapas
restaurant as the crow flies but one can only see the balcony of the apartment from that distance
and not the sliding patio doors. Also, depending on where one is sitting and the fact that there
was a rather opaque enclosure around the Tapas area meant one could not actually see anything
going on at the apartments.
When the McCanns and their friends spent time at the Tapas, they said they made checks
on their children regularly (15-30 minutes apart) having one parent of the couple (except David
and Fiona Payne who relied strictly on a child monitor they brought to the restaurant with them)
walk over to the apartment. This meant walking out of the restaurant and going around the pool
and through the security gate to the Rua Dr Francisco Gentil Martins which totaled around sixty
meters and then walking another sixty meters up the hill. At this point, one would have arrived at
the gate of the corner apartment in which the McCanns were staying. If one went in that gate and
up the steps, the back patio sliding doors of the apartment could be accessed. At least until the
last night when Madeleine disappeared, all the parents would walk to this point and then
continue around the corner to the front side of the apartments on the Rua Dr Agostinho and go in
the locked front doors.
On May 3rd, 2007, the McCanns and their friends continued with their evening routine
going to the Tapas restaurant and leaving their children unattended in their apartments. It is
stated the parties arrived between 8:30 and 9 PM and during this time checks were made on the
children. As for the McCanns, it is claimed Gerry checked about 9:10 pm, Matt checked for Kate
at 8:35 pm, and at 10 pm when Kate went to do her check, Madeleine was missing from the
apartment. At 10:40, the police were called, and an investigation ensued that focused on
Madeleine being abducted and then on the alternative theory that the McCanns and their friends
covered up a tragic accident resulting from neglect. There are two possible sightings of
Madeleine being carried off; one at 9:15 pm outside the apartment that is viewed by Jane Tanner
and another at around 10 pm further from the apartment noted by the Smith family who were
visiting Portugal from Ireland.
The PJ (Policia Judiciaria) interviewed the McCanns and their friends in May. In
September, the McCanns became arguidos - suspects - after sniffer dogs indicated Madeleine's
Page 7
body had lain in the McCann's apartment and been transported in their rental car. There was also
a lack of physical evidence of an intruder and concerning answers and behaviors on the part of
the McCanns and their friends. Gerry did one interview as an arguido, but Kate refused to answer
questions. Then, they left the country of Portugal. At the request of the PJ, the McCann's friends
were interviewed in Britain by British law enforcement but the McCanns did not submit to any
more interviews with the police of either country. Four years have passed at the writing of this
profile, Madeleine is still missing, and Kate McCann has just published a book called Madeleine.
She now is requesting a fuller investigation by Scotland Yard but it is not clear if she and Gerry
are willing to be reinterviewed by the Yard or by anyone else at this point.
Page 8
Part Three: What Day and from Where did Madeleine go Missing?
The first place to start in profiling a crime is to determine when and where the crime took
place. From all accounts and from all analyses I have seen to date, there seems to be fairly good
consensus that Madeleine went missing on the evening of May 3, 2007 and from the McCanns
resort apartment at the Ocean Club in Praia da Luz. I know there are those who speculate that
Madeleine went missing the day before, on May 2, 2007, and from who knows where, that
photographs prior to May 3rd have been Photoshopped, and that the records at the crèche are not
accurate or are forged. I could discuss every reason for why each of these contentions I feel are
incorrect, but I will point out one of the rules above. If Madeleine went missing on May 2nd, the
McCanns and their friends would have to orchestrate a very long and complicated period of time
where they would have to fake Madeleine being alive and well, creating evidence to prove her
existence, and act in a normal manner over twenty-four hours. This is a lot of work and so
unnecessary; therefore, it is not likely to have happened. Should Madeleine have come to some
accidental or premeditated end the day before presumed, the McCanns could have come up with
a simpler plan to explain her disappearance. For example, Kate could say she took the children
for a stroll and in a moment when the twins distracted her, someone grabbed Madeleine. This
scenario has been offered many a time when a parent wants to cover a crime in which they killed
their own child. It is hard to prove not to be true unless evidence of a violent crime exists where
it can be discovered; hence, an abduction off the street is the simplest choice for staging a crime.
The McCanns did not offer this scenario. The other most compelling evidence to me that
Madeleine went missing on May 3rd during the time the McCanns and friends were dining at the
Tapas restaurant is the reaction of Kate McCann at discovering Madeleine missing at 10 pm. I
have read through all the statements of the friends, the employees of the resort, Kate's book,
Madeleine, and observed early videos of her behavior. As a profiler, I find Kate's behavior
around 10 pm on the evening of May 3rd to be absolutely genuine; she did not find her child in
the room and she was panicked and horrified and beside herself with fear. She was not putting on
an act. Likewise, I do not believe Gerry McCann was putting on an act at the time Madeleine
went missing. I believe he was indeed distraught and devastated. The police describe two rather
bizarre moments; one in which Gerry prostrates himself before them in the manner of a "wailing
Arab" and a later incident in the apartment bedroom of the McCanns in which both parents are
kneeling on the floor, arms and heads down on the bed, praying and crying. Although the reasons
for Kate and Gerry acting in such a fashion can be debated (and I will discuss my views on this
later in the profile), these are behaviors of two people I believe to be in absolute anguish. Due to
the very real emotions exhibited around and after 10 pm, I do not believe the McCanns could
have had something happen to Madeleine before they left for the restaurant, done something with
her body, and then gone out for the evening, pretending all was well, and at 10 pm have Kate
feign shock at finding Madeleine gone. To recap, I believe the evidence, especially the
behavioral evidence, points to Madeline going missing on the evening of May 3rd and during the
time the McCanns and their friends were dining at the Tapas restaurant. Determinations thus far:
1) Madeleine went missing on May 3rd, 2007.
2) Madeleine went missing between 8:30 and 10 pm that evening.
3) The emotions of Kate and Gerry McCann were real.
Page 9
Part Four: When was the Last Time Madeleine was seen Alive?
Now, the first grey area arrives. What time were the children put to bed, who saw them
last, were they sleeping, and when did the McCanns actually leave the residence? Until the
McCanns were officially seen at the Tapas by their friends somewhere around 8:30 pm, we only
have the McCanns' word they were in the apartment and that they (or one of them) saw the
children in their beds just minutes before that time. In Gerry's first statement on May 4th, it is
written, "He stated that Madeleine and the twins were put to bed in their respective beds, and he
stresses put to bed, at 7:30 pm. The deponent and his wife remained in the apartment to relax and
drink a glass of wine until 8:30 pm. After checking the children, the deponent and his wife and
the adults went to the Tapas restaurant…"
Kate says almost the identical thing on May 4th, with the exception of adding some extra
activities of her own before drinking that glass of wine with her husband. Kate relates that,
"Madeleine and the twins went into the bedroom and were put in their beds around 7:30. The
witness and her husband stayed in the apartment relaxing, until 8:30 pm. She took a bath, did her
make-up and drank a glass of New Zealand wine with her husband. Just after 8:30 pm, the
witness and her husband, after checking on their children, joined the other adults of the group at
the Tapas restaurant."
Gerry's first interview was at 11:15 am while Kate's was at 2:20 pm. Kate mentions in her
diary that Gerry was allowed to sit in on her interview in a chair behind her, actually squeezing
her shoulder at times, supposedly as a comforting gesture. This is a mistake on the part of the
police as it allows a possible suspect to know what the other has revealed and allows for them to
influence the interview. Also, there was a period of down time between Gerry's and Kate's
interview during which time - unless they were kept apart - Gerry could inform Kate of what
questions were asked and how he answered them. This is poor police procedure which can
damage the investigation. Likewise, it is important to separate everyone as soon as possible
before they have a chance to get their stories in order; this clearly was not done as the entire
Tapas group and Gerry and Kate had the whole evening and early morning together to discuss
any matters. This is particularly bad if the perpetrators are in the group and still not good if they
are not, for that allows an innocent person to possibly appear guilty of conspiring with others to
put out a particular story when that actually did not happen.
In his second interview on May 10th, Gerry's story about the time they spent just before
heading out for the evening changes a bit. Gerry now says that at 7:30 pm the twins and
Madeleine were in their beds but, "he does not know if they were asleep but from the silence he
presumed that they were. As it was still early he took a bath, he thinks that Kate has already done
so, they talked a little and drank wine or beer." He also states, that before they left for the Tapas
and "because the children's bedroom door was ajar as always, he opened it a little more, listening
from the outside and, as there was complete silence, he did not even enter, returning the door to
its previous position, with a space of about 10 cm."
In her second interview before she became an arguido, Kate says that she had showered
by 6:40 pm while Gerry was out and before David Payne came by. It seems a bit odd that the
first time she remembers a bath after she and Gerry put the children down but now she is having
a shower and it is Gerry saying he took a bath in his second interview! She then says they did
have wine or she had the New Zealand white wine and Gerry either had that or a beer. She says
Gerry maybe had a shower. As to putting the children to bed, Kate says she and the children all
sat on Madeleine's bed and read a story, at least she" thinks that Gerry was in the room," and
Page 10
then the twins kissed Madeleine and they put them in their beds, and then they went and kissed
Madeleine who was already lying down, under the covers because it 'was a bit cold." Kate states
Madeleine was lying on her left side with the soft toy and a pink blanket which she thinks was
over her. She says "she doesn't know if the children were in the same position when they left the
apartment." Kate also says this was around 7:15 and she is sure they checked to see that they
were sleeping. However, although Kate says they checked on the children before they left for the
Tapas restaurant, she states, "She doesn't know who; however, Gerry says it was him. She only
knows the children were quiet. She doesn't know if they were in their same positions. She says
she is sure that they were asleep, because Gerry told her so and all was quiet."
In both of Gerry's statements in May and Kate's one statement in May, they say they
stayed in the apartment for wine and beer for an hour after putting the kids down and heading out
to the Tapas. Only in Gerry's later arguido statement in September does he state they sat on one
of the couches, although he doesn't remember which one. In Kate's book, she has settled on
herself taking a bath before Gerry arrives at the apartment and Gerry taking a shower after they
put the children to bed. She does not say the children were asleep when she and Gerry left the
room, but that they knew they would fall asleep shortly. She says she didn't see the children
again before going to the restaurant; only Gerry did. They had drinks in the sitting room.
Is all of this just unimportant information? Do we really expect people to remember little
details just before a tragedy? Well, sometimes because it is the last time one has seen the
children all together, one knows exactly what one's last movements and sights were. On the other
hand, maybe emotion clouded those details. Regardless of whether the McCanns are clear on this
matter or a bit confused, we can conclude a few things:
1) Kate and Gerry cannot account for the time before their arrival at the Tapas. They may
have spent an hour having drinks in the living room or they could have had drinks outside on the
veranda, or they could have left early and wandered about the complex. We simply do not know
because there are no witnesses. Therefore, if an accident occurred when the children were left
unattended, this could have happened as early as 7:30 or, if one wants to say they put the
children to bed even earlier and left the apartment, then 7 pm could be the last time one of the
McCanns knew exactly where Madeleine was and what she was doing.
2) Kate says she did not see the children before they left the apartment. She claims Gerry
did but his own words show that this is not true. He said he only listened outside their door. So,
in reality, from 7:30 PM, at least, the McCanns had not seen their children. It is not impossible
that they took drinks out onto the veranda and, during that time, Madeleine came into the living
room, climbed on the couch and fell. Assuming the children were asleep, since all was quiet
inside, they might have left for the Tapas unaware that Madeleine was behind the couch, dead or
All of this nitpicking over exactly what the McCanns did from 7:00 or 7:30 to 8:30 pm
might be meaningless unless indeed Madeleine had an accident that they were unaware of; then,
it is entirely possible that the time of death (should Madeleine have died in the apartment) could
be 7:30 PM or even earlier allowing the necessary time for decomposition to occur to the point it
could be noted by the cadaver dog.
What we know:
1) The last time Kate or Gerry saw Madeleine and knew her to be alive or in the
apartment was sometime between 7 and 7:30 pm.
2) If the McCanns weren't in the apartment or they were out on the veranda after 7 or
7:30 PM, Madeleine could have died or been abducted two to three hours before Kate sounded
Page 11
the alarm.
The only other possible time then when Madeleine could have been seen alive and in her bed
was during Gerry's 9:10 pm check (or slightly earlier according to Gerry). He does state he saw
Madeleine in her bed. He says in his first interview that "at 9:05 pm, the deponent entered the
club (apartment), using his key, the door being locked, and went to the children's bedroom, that
the twins and Madeleine were in perfect condition. He then went to the toilet, where he remained
a few instants, left the apartment" al " In Gerry's second interview, his story about how he
enters the apartment changes from the locked front door to accessing the apartment thought the
sliding patio doors. He now states "he noticed that the children's bedroom door was not ajar as he
had left it but half-way open, which he thought was strange, having then thought that possibly
Madeleine had gotten up to go to sleep in his bedroom so as to avoid the noise produced by her
siblings. Therefore, he entered the children's bedroom and established visual contact with each of
them, checking and he is certain that the three were deeply asleep. He left the children's
bedroom, returning to place the door how he had already previously described, then went to the
bathroom. Everything else was normal, the shutters, curtains and windows closed."
During his arguido interview, Gerry adds a little more information about how he saw
Madeleine. "On this occasion, the three children were lying in their beds asleep, he is sure of
this. Moreover, he says that with respect to Madeleine, she was in the same position in which he
had left her at the beginning of the night. Madeleine was lying down on her left side, completely
Kate adds in her book that Gerry stopped to note how beautiful Madeleine was as she
slept in her bed. And that while he had repositioned the door back to the normal position, Matt
and Kate again find it set in a far more open position. It is important to note that this last sighting
of Madeleine by Gerry also coincides with the door being in a more open position than normal.
The indication being made by the McCanns by their stories of the door being found in a wider
position in all of their checks is that Madeleine was seen alive at around 9:05 and was missing by
the time Matt checked because he also saw the door in the wider position. Gerry seeing
Madeleine after finding the more widely opened door, returning it to its proper place, and having
it wider again by the time Matt does the check, indicates Madeleine was removed from the
apartment in a living form between 9:10 and 9:35 at just the time Jane Tanner sights the man
carrying a child off down the street from the McCanns' apartment building.
The fact Gerry finds the door placement wider and Matt also find the door placement
indicates, if their statements are the truth, that someone was in the bedroom (or at least the
apartment) when Gerry arrived, hid while Gerry was present, and then when Gerry left, opened
the door further again and removed Madeleine from her bed.
Now, I can make a few more determination to add to these first three:
1) Madeleine went missing on May 3rd, 2007.
2) Madeleine went missing between 8:30 and 10 pm that evening.
4) The last person to claim to see Madeleine alive between 8:30 and 10 pm that evening
is Gerry McCann.
5) If the claims made by the McCanns and Matt are truthful about the door standing in a
wider position, this would narrow the time of an intruder in the apartment to the time between
9:05 and 9:35 that evening.
6) If the claims made by the McCanns and Matt about the doors are not truthful but
Gerry's statement about seeing Madeleine is truthful then an abductor could have removed
Page 12
Madeleine anytime between 9:05 and 10 pm.
7) If Gerry is not being truthful about seeing Madeleine in her bed, then Madeleine may
well have left her bedroom early in the evening and had an accident that caused her to remain
behind the sofa, in which case, it is possible that she opened the door to a wider position and
Gerry never touched it.
8) Depending on the truthfulness of the McCanns and Matt's statements, Madeleine was
either abducted alive or wandered off between 9:05 and 9:35 pm, was abducted between 9:05
and 10 pm, or died earlier in the night behind the sofa and her body removed by 10 pm.
9) Both Gerry and Matt indicate the window and shutters were closed when they checked
on the children, which means no abductor came through the window unless he did so in the 9:35
to 10 pm timeframe. Otherwise, he would have to come through unlocked patio doors.
Page 13
i.e. lying on top of the covers, with the soft toy and blanket, both pink, next to her
Part Five: The Checks, the Doors, and the Windows
Madeleine and the twins were alive and supposedly sleeping when the McCanns last saw
them (or at least when Gerry last saw them). And we know that by 10 PM (the alleged time that
Kate found Madeleine gone) or shortly after, Madeleine is no longer in the apartment or hidden
by the sofa in the apartment. Someone had to remove her or she had to remove herself or
someone had to hide her. What possibly could have happened? Madeleine could have woken up
and left through a door or climbed or fallen through the window, or someone snuck or broke in
and carried her off through a door or window, or one of the McCanns took Madeleine out a door
or window and hid her somewhere in Praia da Luz.
The McCanns claim they did not open any window in the apartment, particular not the
bedroom window of the room in which the children were asleep. From what I have read, the
window was not simple for a barely four-year-old child to open. So, if the McCanns are not lying
(to cover up carelessness), then Madeleine could not have climbed up on the bed and crawled out
the window, dropped to the ground, and wandered off to be kidnapped. Even if it were
possible… and I think most of us would agree… it would be a fair stretch to imagine this little
tyke being willing to climb out a window into the street and, just at that moment, a kidnapper
wandered by. Furthermore, according to the physical examination by the PJ, there is no sign of
anyone crawling through the window which indeed a small child climbing out would have to
have left. So this theory, I think, we can put to rest quickly. Also, the McCanns adamantly state
Madeleine did not climb out the window.
Could Madeleine have walked out the front door or the sliding door? Kate herself claims
her child was not capable of opening and shutting the sliding door (and contending with the child
safety gate outside) which leaves the front door which was supposedly locked (although there
was a least one comment from Jane Tanner who worried that her child could possibly get out the
doors of the apartment and her daughter was younger than Madeleine). Again, however, the
McCanns are adamant about this not happening, and, since Madeleine's body wasn't found
nearby and in a condition that proved she died of natural or accidental causes, we would have to
believe an abductor got hold of Madeleine before the McCanns or any of the friends saw her or
heard her during their checks. I concur with the McCanns that Madeleine did not wander away,
never to be found.
Let's see what the McCanns say about the door issue.
In Gerry's first statement, he does not say how he and Kate left the apartment to go to the
Tapas restaurant. He claims that when he came back to do his check at 9:05 pm, he used his key
to open the locked front door. If the sliding doors were open, he apparently chose to go the long
way around and enter the apartment through the front door. Yet, he then claims his friend,
Matthew Oldfield went through the sliding glass doors which he says were always unlocked to
check on his kids at 9:30 pm. He then says Kate went at 10 pm to do her check and also entered
through the front door with her key. She noted the sliding door was closed. He does not
described how Kate left the apartment after finding Madeleine gone.
Kate does not say how she and Gerry left the apartment in her first statement. She also
does not state how Gerry came and went from the apartment during his checks. She does say that
Matthew came into the house though the sliding glass doors that were always unlocked to check
on the kids at 9:30. At 10 pm, she also went through these doors that were closed but unlocked
but she does not say which door she went out of when she went to raise the alarm that Madeleine
Page 14
was missing.
Police reports record that Matthew later states that he went into the house through the
sliding doors.
In Gerry's second interview on May 10th, he states that on the first night at the resort, no
one went out in the evening. On the second evening, on Sunday, he took the family out to the
Tapas, children included, and he locked both the front door and back door while they were gone.
After the children had dinner, they returned, entered using the key, and they put the children to
bed. Afterwards, Gerry says he and Kate left the apartment at 8:30 pm to go to the Tapas adult
group event by the main door which he was sure he locked and that the back door was also
closed and locked!
While they were at the Tapas on Sunday evening, he and Kate took turns with their
checks (no one else checked their kids) and "he is sure they always entered through the front
door, not knowing if they locked it upon leaving."
Monday and Tuesday followed the same routine (indicating the doors to the apartment
were locked, both the main door and the sliding doors). However, on Wednesday evening, Gerry
claims that "he thinks David Payne went to his apartment to check that his children were well...",
that he and Kate "had already left the back door closed, but not locked, to allow entrance by their
group colleagues to check on the children." Gerry "clarifies that the main door was always closed
but not necessarily locked with the key." David Payne never makes any such statement, that he
checked on the McCann children, and, in fact, he and his wife were the one couple who had a
monitor (that they trusted) and he and his wife, Fiona, had a habit of never leaving the Tapas
restaurant to check on any of the children because they were keeping track of their own through
that monitor.
The report further reads: "Despite what he (Gerry) said in his previous statements, he
states now and with certainty, that he left with Kate through the back door which he
consequently closed but did not lock, given that this is only possible from the inside. Concerning
the front door, although he is certain that it was closed it is unlikely that it was locked, because
they left through the back door." (I am not sure why one can't lock the front door just because
one leaves through another. This is a strange statement made here by Gerry I am sure raised the
eyebrows of the detectives).
Now, Gerry says he didn't come through the front door but through the sliding glass
doors. He leaves the same way and closes the doors. He says the Matthew went through those
doors as well on his 9:30 check "given that he did not have a key and it was usual for them to
enter in that way." Kate then comes and goes the same way at 10 pm. He declares here that it is
impossible for Madeleine to have left the house on her own. In the police reports, I have not seen
any crime reconstruction in which a near four-year-old of Madeleine's height was permitted to
try and open the front or back doors to see if it was actually possible, since, according to Gerry at
this point, neither door was necessarily locked. Even though later evidence does not point to
Madeleine leaving the apartment on her own, if there was any possibility of their child being able
to open a door and leave, one would think Gerry and Kate would make sure the house was
locked down. This appears to be true for the rest of the vacationing friends. Their apartments had
all the doors and windows locked. Furthermore, because the apartment was on a busy corner
with a dark car park behind the children's bedrooms, there was a concern for keeping strangers
from accessing the apartment, both for the safety of the children and to prevent robbery, yet, the
McCanns now claim to have left doors open without much worry about any of these issues; a
child getting out, a predator getting in, or robbers gaining access to their belongings.
Page 15
On Sept 6th, Kate says in her interview that she and Gerry left through the sliding doors
and that the front door was not locked. She thinks that it could be opened from the inside but not
from the outside. This statement makes little sense because even if a door can be opened from
the inside, if it cannot be opened from the outside, it is effectively locked. Both she and Gerry
left the apartment through the sliding glass doors during their checks. She does not mention this
time if Matthew entered the apartment during his check of the children.
Kate mentions that she and Gerry never checked on anyone else's children because "it
was usual just to check on their own children," yet already it has been stated that the sliding door
was left open for others to check on their kids (like David and Matthew supposedly had done). It
is important to note here that all the other Tapas members state they never left their doors
unlocked, including the sliding doors, and always entered the front doors of the apartments with
a key. Are you catching the drift of how these statements about the locked door issues are
changing bit by bit? First Gerry says both he and Kate used a key on the locked front door, but,
oddly Matt comes through the open sliding doors. He doesn't remember how they left the
apartment. Kate also doesn't remember, but she remembers that she and Matthew came through
the sliding doors later. Gerry says on Monday and Tuesday nights all the doors in the apartment
were locked, but by Wednesday and Thursday the sliding doors are left unlocked for easy access
by other members to check on their kids, something none of them do! Why the shift from totally
locked down to every door open and accessible? Was there starting to be a problem with the
theory someone broke into the house through the window? This was the original claim from the
McCanns - a stranger broke into the apartment through the window - which was later changed to
he slipped into the house through an open door and then inexplicably decided to climb out the
window instead of walking out of a door. At one point they claim that they were comfortable
leaving the sliding glass doors open because they could be seen from the Tapas restaurant which
they cannot, but, even if they could, why are they comfortable leaving the front door open right
on the road, a door right next to the children's bedroom? Not only are you leaving children
unattended for large chunks of time but you also leave the apartment unlocked in a strange
neighborhood for someone to come in and attack your kids? A bit odd, isn't it? Then, again,
maybe if you are willing to leave your children without proper supervision, it may not be so odd
to not worry about other safety issues either. Sometimes, when profiling, it is hard to determine
what are lies and what is simply behavior we find unacceptable but they do not.
However, the stories changed from locked to unlocked and, regardless of the McCann's
issues about child safety, the change is a red flag that something may not be as it seems. Let's
stop here and look at the viewpoint of a pedophile who is thinking about grabbing Madeleine
from the McCanns' apartment. This may shed more light on the issue of locked and unlocked
doors and breaking in or leaving through windows.
First of all, he needs to know there is a child inside he wants to take. So, he must have
spent some time observing the McCanns and their comings and goings. Surely, a predator is not
going to eenie-meenie-miney-mo and simply pick any old window to crawl through! What is the
point if there is no child there or there is a child but with a parent there as well or what if there is
just an adult there? That would be a good way to get nothing you came for and go away in
So, here we have a child predator watching the McCanns' apartment. What he sees is that
for two nights, the doors are locked all the way around. The only way into the house is through
the window if he is not good at picking door locks. So, maybe he didn't realize that on
Wednesday and Thursday evening, he could have just walked in a door. What he needs to do is
Page 16
hide on the street and wait for a window - no pun intended - of opportunity. Now, with all the
comings and goings of the McCanns and their friends - not to mention the other folks in the
resort or on the street - there is no particular moment where this criminal could feel he has a
particularly long time to work with. He would have to hide and then look both ways (actually
three ways because the apartment is on a corner and then break open the shutter and climb into
the window, find the child in the house, grab her, and then climb back out or run out a door. It's
not 3 am when everyone is asleep, so there is going to be foot or car traffic all the while.
Could this have happened? In all fairness to the McCanns, the answer is yes. While it
seems impossible to many people, as a profiler I can tell you that a predator spends a lot of time
hunting and going home without his prey, simply because he never got that moment in time to
commit his crime. He may hunt for days, weeks, months before he gets lucky, but, obsessed over
the thrill he will get when he achieves his goal, he will keep on trolling for his victims. Some
creep could have been looking for a child at the resort for a while, saw Madeleine, and then got a
lucky moment in time to go after her. So if Kate found an open window in the apartment, it is
possible, if fairly improbable, that someone could have come in and kidnapped Madeleine.
Let's stop and check out our evidence:
1) The stories of the McCanns about the doors goes from locked to unlocked over time.
2) It is very improbable Madeleine left on her own (although a crime reconstruction
ought to be done to prove this). It is interesting that the McCanns were so quickly adamant this
did not happen, but this is most likely because of the open window Kate claims to have found.
3) A predator could have broken in through the window and taken Madeleine, doing so
that day because he did not realize the doors were unlocked.
4) If the McCanns were not coming in and out of the front door, it is less likely a predator
would break in through the window because he would not know if they were in the house since
they would be slipping in through the sliding back door (the same could happen if a predator
came in through the unlocked front door; Gerry might have alluded to this possibility when he
said he felt someone might have been in the children's room when he went to make his check
because, at that time the window was closed so the man would have had to come through the
front or sliding door and gotten caught inside by Gerry's unexpected arrival).
This leads to a couple of conclusions:
1) If the doors were all locked and had no signs of breaking and entering, the abductor
would have had to come through the window.
2) If all the doors were unlocked, the abductor didn't need to break in through the window
unless he didn't know they were (and didn't test them). Since it is a lot easier to slip in a door,
unless the predator was a total moron, likely he would test the entryway and see if he could slip
in rather than breaking and entering through a window.
3) So while a locked door supports the need to break in through a window, the unlocked
doors make it much less likely that an abductor would choose that method of entry.
Oh, what a tangled web has been woven by the McCanns, whether by poor memory,
reality, or changing stories. Kate and Gerry say they did not open the window and Madeline
could not have which means only one of two things:
1) A predator did come into the apartment and kidnap Madeleine.
2) The McCanns are not being truthful.
Let's go with a presumption that the McCanns are being truthful and that neither of them
opened the window that Kate says she found in that condition when she did her 10 PM check.
The open window would mean one of three things: the abductor broke in through the window
Page 17
and left though the window, the abductor broke in through the window and left through the door,
or the abductor came in through a door, and left through a window. Since the doors were actually
open, if the abductor came in and out of the window, he was a blazing idiot. Although it is
possible, it is highly improbable that the criminal wouldn't take the easiest method, as I noted
earlier. Easier mean fewer things go wrong and less evidence is left behind. The doors were
supposedly open so the predator should have come in through them. And, if he came in through
them, why would he bother crawling out the window instead of walking out the door?
Hmm…you are seeing why this isn't making sense, aren't you? Considering the door is right next
to the children's room, it isn't like crawling out a window is helping you escape detection (like
crawling out of an apartment window instead of running down a hall past a set of apartments
with a child in hand).
This is where some major red flags go up in the story being given by the McCanns. There
is no reason for the predator to climb out the window. So, let's go back and just accept the guy is
a moron and he never checked the doors to see if they were locked. He thought he had to go in
through the window and so he did. The problem here is the PJ says the window and shutters were
not tampered with; there is no sign of a breakin. Furthermore, there is lichen on the windowsill
which shows no disturbance so the kidnapper would have had to somehow hoisted himself
through the window without leaving a mark of any sort. There are no fingerprints either but this
could be explained by the perpetrator using gloves or simply not leaving a print, which does
happen. All in all, there is no sign of breaking and entering through the window. The only print
on the window is from Kate who claims she leaned on the sill and looked out into the street after
she discovered Madeleine missing and the window open.
So, in reality, if there had been locked doors and an open window or open doors and a
closed window, either of these scenarios would have been less fishy than the open doors and an
open window. Add to this unlikely scenario, physical evidence that does not support a breaking
and entering methodology, the best conclusion one can reach is that a stranger did not come
through or open the window. This leads one to believe the McCanns are lying about not opening
the window themselves. And there is only one reason to lie about that; to stage an abduction that
did not happen.
Determinations at this point:
1) Madeleine went missing on May 3, 2007.
2) Madeleine went missing between 8:30 and 10 pm that evening.
3) The emotions of Kate and Gerry McCann were real.
4) The last person to claim to see Madeleine alive between 8:30 and 10 pm that evening
is Gerry McCann
5) Depending on the truthfulness of the McCanns and Matt's statements, Madeleine was
either abducted alive or wandered off between 9:05 and 9:35 pm, abducted between 9:05 and 10
pm, or died earlier in the night behind the sofa and her body removed by 10 pm.
6) Both Gerry and Matt indicate the window and shutters were closed when they checked
on the children, which means no abductor came through the window unless he did so in the 9:35
to 10 pm timeframe. Otherwise, he would have to come through unlocked patio doors.
7) The abductor is none too bright if he came through the window or he had access to
open doors. Or there was no abduction.
8) The history of the McCanns and their friends indicate that all doors and windows were
locked every night while the children were left on their own including the night of May 3rd.
9) None of couples actually had any routine of checking on anyone else's children. Kate
Page 18
and Gerry state they only ever looked after their own children. Dave and Fiona had a monitor
and never got up. Jane Tanner says bluntly that she and her husband, Russell, never checked on
their friends' children. Matt and Rachel never did either until the night in question when Matt
suddenly, not only does a listening check on his way to the Tapas but also does an inside visual
check (barring Madeleine) for Kate.
10) Matt's story about checking on the children and checking on the children by way of
open sliding patios is suspect.
11) If all the doors were locked and the window was not used as an access point, there
was no abduction.
Page 19
Part Six: The Development of a Theory
Before we run off saying the McCanns are guilty of anything, we must play Devil's
Advocate and see if we can knock this theory down by finding some wrong assumptions or
incorrect "facts" that led us to such a conclusion. Let's say, we have an idiot for an abductor and
he did go in or out the window. The PJ says the physical evidence does not support this but what
if the PJ is simply wrong? Are they just claiming there isn't any physical evidence when there is?
Are they just incompetent and didn't find it when it existed? Well, let's see what the PJ claims is
proof that there was no predator who broke in or climbed through the window.
1) No fingerprints of anyone but Kate McCann
2) No sign of tool marks on the lacquered aluminum windows or damage to the window
3) No disturbance to the lichen on the windowsill
4) No footprints on the bed one would need to step on to get in or out of the window
5) The shutters only opened from the inside according to the resort, but, even if it were
possible from the outside as the McCanns claim, the shutters make horrible squeaky noises that
would draw attention to someone breaking in.
So, according to the PJ, there is no evidence of forced entry at the window. Are they
lying? Let's check out what Kate McCann has to say in her book four years later. Here, in trying
to prove her innocence and get people focused on Madeleine being abducted, is her chance to
bring home the points that the PJ is framing them by claiming there were no signs of forced entry
into the apartment. This is what Kate says about the matter:
"For a long while we would assume that the abductor had entered and exited through the
window of the children's bedroom, but it is equally possible that he used the patio doors or even
had a key to the front door. Perhaps he's either come in or gone out via the window, not both;
perhaps he hadn't been through it at all, but had opened it to prepare an emergency escape route
if needed, or merely to throw investigators off the scent."
Nowhere in the book does Kate talk about the evidence or lack of evidence connected
with the window. Nowhere in the book does she say the PJ fabricated the evidence results or
failed to do their job properly. On the contrary, she validates that there was no physical evidence
of a breakin at the window with this phrase; "Perhaps he hadn't been through it at all…." Indeed!
This statement couldn't possibly be made if there was evidence of someone crawling into or out
of the apartment by way of the window. So, Kate admits, none exists. If none exists, then there
was no predator breaking in that way or leaving that way and the only explanation Kate can give
for the window being open is that the kidnapper opened it as a ruse or a possible escape plan;
both are relatively ridiculous. As a ruse, it is useless, and there is no reason to prepare for an
escape plan. All he was going to do was grab the child and run. I guess the scenario Kate is
trying to conjure up is one in which the predator gives the children drugs, then opens the window
while waiting for them to take effect, and then, if he can't get out the door with a medicated
Madeleine because someone is coming into the apartment, he will crawl through the window.
This story being created by Kate appears to be an attempt to validate Gerry's bizarre
claim that he felt someone was in the apartment when he did his check; that the abductor must
have snuck out the window with Madeleine because Gerry blocking exit by the patio by standing
in the street chatting with Jeremy. That is when Jane saw the abductor crossing the street behind
him with Madeleine in his arms. So, the abductor couldn't come out the patio doors because he
Page 20
would have run into Gerry and Jeremy, so he slipped out the window. What doesn't make sense
is that since the window is next to the front door, it would have been easier for him to go through
the door. Secondly, if an abductor left by either the window or the front door, how does it make
sense that he then walks right into the street where Gerry and Jeremy are talking? Wouldn't he
have gone the other direction on the street so he couldn't be seen by them? But, of course, there
is no evidence of an abductor crawling through the window, so we would have to say he only
planned that and then someone did go out the front door and walk straight past Gerry and
The Devil's Advocate attempt has failed to produce a believable rebuttal to the theory that
Kate and Gerry are not being truthful about a stranger opening the window of the children's
bedroom. Instead, Kate has acknowledged the PJ is correct about the window not showing
evidence of a breakin or as a passageway in or out of the apartment. Therefore, no abductor
likely opened the window. We are back at the place where we must accept that one of the
McCanns did so and lied about doing it.
But, there is more damning evidence about the window. When Kate goes to the Tapas to
raise the alarm, she does not mention an open window! She, in fact, according to all the friend's
statements, does not say Madeleine had been abducted, something she would surely have said if
she clearly noted that someone had broken into the children's bedroom and taken her child! She
only says, "Madeleine is gone!" or, according to all the statements by the friends present at the
Tapas, Kate said "Madeleine has disappeared." In response, Gerry supposedly says, "She can't be
Think about how one would react if one found the house locked up and a child missing or
the child missing and a window open in the child's bedroom. For the former, there is no
explanation for the missing child and, therefore, all one can say is "The child is gone!" or "The
child is missing!" If the child were missing and a window was open in the child's bedroom, then
one is much more likely to say, "Someone broke into the bedroom and took the child!" or "The
child has been kidnapped!" What other explanation (other than the child crawling out the
window which in this case the McCanns never for one moment believed) than someone broke in
and abducted the child?
All that appears to be the case when Kate ran to the Tapas to raise the alarm is that she
went into the apartment and discovered Madeleine missing from her bed. If Gerry did comment
that this was impossible, most likely this would be because the apartment was locked down and
the story of the open sliding door was fabricated along with the open window.
I now have two possible theories:
1) Madeleine died in the apartment early in the evening and her body was removed by
Gerry McCann between 9:30 and 10 PM on the evening of May 3, 2007. The window was
opened by one of the McCanns to stage an abduction.
2) The McCanns and friends were so distraught, they are imagining things, forgetting
things, and confusing things leading to suspicions that there was no abductor yet, in fact, an
abductor did access the apartment through an open door and left through the doors unseen.
Let's stop and look at the stories of the room checks. There are many versions of these
stories from 'only the parents of the child checks their own children' to 'sometimes someone else
checks on another family's children' (even though the McCanns adamantly stated they did not do
this themselves). The times they do the check vary from every 15 minutes to every half hour.
Also, how the children are checked goes from listening outside the window to listening from
inside the apartment to actually laying eyes on the children.
Page 21
Starting with the actual times of the checks, think about what normal people would do
(well, normal for people who would leave tots unattended in a strange hotel in a strange
country); how they would likely check on children while relaxing and drinking. Some of the
times given by the friends are to the exact minute; is it believable that people on their second or
third or fourth glass of wine are that focused on the exact minute they are on? Highly unlikely.
More probably, one parent suddenly says, "I better go check on the kids" or "Hey, you need to go
check on the kids." It is more reasonable, considering the varying stories of the time checks, to
believe that the parents made them when they felt too much time had passed since the last check
or someone felt like taking a walk (or smoking a cigarette if any of these folks smoked).
It must be remembered that no one in the group was particularly worried about something
happening to the children. There was a general assumption that the children were sleeping and
the checks were to verify that the unusual hadn't happened. So it was not a vigilance, but a
relaxed "just to be sure" kind of check. This makes it more likely that the checks were far more
inconsistent and haphazard than the families admit. Also, the hearing checks were more likely
than the visual since the main worry appears to be a child waking up and crying rather than a
physical incident of any sort. Even Matthew Oldfield claims to do a hearing check on the
McCanns somewhere around 9 pm and then, when he supposedly actually enters the apartment at
9:30 to do a check, he doesn't go into the children's bedroom but listens from the living room.
Although Gerry claims to have seen Madeleine on his 9:10 pm check, we only have his word for
this and it would not be unreasonable to postulate that he simply listened at the door or window
himself before chatting with Jeremy or when he went into the apartment and used the bathroom,
he just passed through the living room next to the children's bedroom, and since he heard no
noise from within, simply left thinking everything was okay. Or he found Madeleine deceased
behind the sofa and had a situation to deal with.
The evidence and changing statements lead me to believe:
1) The checks were sporadic.
2) Many of the checks were listening checks.
3) No one checked on anyone else's children.
4) We have no proof Gerry saw Madeleine alive or in the apartment at 9:10 pm or that
Matthew actually entered the apartment to do a check for Kate.
So, when was Madeleine removed from the apartment alive, alive and sedated, or dead?
Interestingly, Kate's claims of the window being open narrows the possible time of abduction
down to after Gerry's check on Madeleine to her check on Madeleine (that was allegedly at 10
pm). With Matthew supposedly checking at 9:30 as well, we have an abductor who had ten
minutes here and ten minutes there, and with the number of people supposedly running back and
forth to the apartment every fifteen minutes and running back to the Tapas at irregular times; the
abductor would have had to get really lucky, gotten that window of opportunity in the midst of a
beehive of parents coming and going. With Kate's and the friends' claims of so many people
rushing about, an abduction is extremely unlikely. If the checks were very limited, an abductor
theory would actually be more believable; the tots would have even worse parents, but the
chances of a child being abducted would have been far more likely.
But, if an abduction did occur, the only time, according to the McCanns' claims, would be
at between 9:10 and 9:20 when Jane Tanner claims to have seen the man walking off with
Madeleine. Yet, the other sighting further toward the beach by the Smith family actually would
make more sense timewise, somewhere around 10 pm. Yet, the McCanns are adamant this could
not be the man unless, as Kate states in her book, it is also the same man Jane saw forty or fifty
Page 22
minutes earlier. Now, it is pretty obvious that a kidnapper is unlikely to take that long to walk
such a short distance - only about ten minutes away - or to walk around in circles with a stolen
child wasting time nor is he likely to duck in somewhere and then pop out again with the
kidnapped little girl. Why can't the McCanns just accept the 10 pm time is correct, that this was
the kidnapper that the Smiths saw? True, the Smiths later thought it was Gerry they saw carrying
a little girl, but why do the McCanns not think it could be another man who just looks like Gerry
or that it was the right guy but the Smiths just are describing him wrongly? Why can't they
accept the 10 pm sighting unless it is connected to the earlier sighting by Jane? The only logical
reason is that the earlier time provides an alibi for Gerry should he have been carrying
Madeleine's body off to the beach to hide it.
All of which leads me back to the time line and what seems to be unsubstantiated times
that the checks were made, checks with times that are too specific to be believed, but, most
importantly, what really happened at 9:30 pm. This was Kate's time to go check on the children,
but, suddenly, Matthew goes in her place, something that was not done in the past. Matthew's
story is suspect because he goes through the back sliding door something that is unusual for the
group and was unusual for the McCanns as before they had kept the place locked and went
themselves through the front door (although there is that odd bit about leaving the sliding door
unlocked the night before and some confusing stories about how the children were checked on
the previous night).
So why does Matt go and make a check? Supposedly, to just give Kate a break this time
However, there may be a more believable reason. According to both Jane Tanner and Kate
McCann, Gerry was taking an unusually long time to return from his 9:10 check. In spite of
some statements by the McCanns and friends that the walk to the apartments, the check, and the
return took but a couple of minutes, the wait staff at the Tapas restaurant states that sometimes
the missing person was gone for fifteen or so minutes. Even though, in theory, the checks could
be much shorter, it seems odd that Kate and Jane would think Gerry taking all of five minutes to
return (according to Gerry, Kate, and Jane) would have made Kate wonder what was causing a
delay to the point where she comments that he might have gotten sidetracked watching the
"footy," the football game, on the television in the apartment. One would think much more than
five minutes must have passed for such a comment to be made. If Kate was worried or annoyed
or curious, then Gerry's check to the apartment beginning at around 9:05-9:10 may well have
extended to the bottom of the hour. Hence, when it would have been Kate's turn to check on the
kids and since Matt was leaving to do his check, it would very likely he might offer to stop by
and see what was taking Gerry so long, not to actually check on the McCann children. Stopping
by to find Gerry also explains why he wouldn't have just done a listen-by-the-window check on
the way to his apartment as he claims to have done earlier in the day. If he then knocked at the
door and found a highly upset Gerry telling him something was terribly wrong, he indeed would
have probably entered the apartment, possibly by the sliding doors if Gerry opened them for him.
Interestingly, Russell O'Brian, the husband of Jane Tanner, went with Matt at the same
time to do a check on his own kids. Did Russell also find out then that something happened to
Madeleine? When Matt came back to the Tapas, he said that Russell had to stay back because his
daughter was ill. He supposedly ended up doing some laundry because his daughter had vomited.
It is said that when Jane went back the second time, she relieved Russell and he came back to the
Tapas. Later, when Madeleine was found missing, he and Gerry ripped off a cover from
Madeleine's book and Russell helped write a timeline to give to the police when they showed up.
It is not impossible that Russell helped out in some other way while Gerry was carrying off
Page 23
Madeleine, like cleaning up the area behind the couch and, perhaps, doing some laundering. Of
course, this is only one imagined scenario if it was indeed true Madeleine died behind the sofa
and there was a cover-up of the incident.
The wait staff does confirm that Kate raised the alarm at 10 pm or shortly after by
coming back to the restaurant. They state that everyone got up and left. They do not state if
Gerry was among them and there are no statements from wait staff that can verify if Gerry came
back after his 9:10 pm check, or if he did, he actually came back after 10 pm. Even Diane
Webster, the one person who remained in the restaurant after Kate raised the alarm, does not
mention where Gerry was until months later in her rogatory interview when she says that Gerry
was in the restaurant at that time, that Kate spoke to him, that Gerry responded, and that he was
even at the apartment when she finally gave up on anyone returning and walked over there. In
her first interview with the PJ, she said nothing about seeing Gerry in the restaurant after his
check or that he was in the apartment when she went there). Her rogatory interview, in fact, lined
up exactly with the other friends' rogatory interviews, so it is likely this later story was created
after some time had passed to match the 'facts' decided upon by the group or she heard so much
by the time she was interviewed in Britain that she was convinced this was what happened (Jane
Tanner claimed she was the biggest drinker in the group).
The problems with the checks and times are as follows:
1) Everyone supposedly checked on their own children.
2) It was Kate's turn after Gerry. If Gerry had returned in five minutes, Kate should have
made the check herself.
3) Matthew's check was missing from one of the timelines scribbled down on the rippedoff
covers of Madeleine's book.
4) We only have the friends' word for it that Gerry returned quickly after his check and
was present at the table when Kate raised the alarm.
But, could this scenario have occurred? It could if Madeleine died in the apartment. For
that matter, it must have occurred if Madeleine died in the apartment. And we have proof she
did, as long as you do not have problems with the cadaver dog hitting a scent of a corpse behind
the sofa in the McCanns' living room or the other dog finding blood behind the sofa in the living
room of the McCanns'. The McCanns claims the dogs are junk science and the evidence
provided by the cadaver and blood dog that Madeleine died in the apartment is rubbish. I
disagree and I do so because I believe the dogs were well-trained and the location of the corpse
and the blood makes sense considering the behaviors of all involved.
This is what I theorize could have happened if the dogs are skilled, if the window was
opened by the McCanns, and the timelines and movements of the McCanns and their friends are
not exactly as stated.
Madeleine and the twins are given Calpol tablets to sedate them as the night before she
and her brother were crying for her parents for possibly close to an hour (a story that was given
by Kate herself). Gerry later states in his arguido interview, Kate in her book, and their friends in
the rogatory interviews that they all believe Madeleine and the twins were drugged by the
abductor prior to removing Madeleine from the apartment. Also, three months after the incident,
Kate and Gerry wanted the twins' hair to be tested for drugs. The theory of an abductor wasting
time trying to drug the children (when and how?) is ludicrous but the fact it is so important to
bring out this possibility indicates to me that the children may well have been overmedicated,
especially because the twins did not wake up that night during all the commotion and Kate
checked their breathing a number of times to see that they were, well, breathing (although she
Page 24
doesn't try to wake them or seek medical help).
The McCanns put the children in bed and go about their evening's activities either out on
the veranda or in the restaurant. Shortly, after the children are put in bed, Madeleine gets up, her
beloved Cuddle Cat clutched to her chest, and finds her parents gone. She climbs up on the sofa
to look out the window and she slips and falls onto the hard tiled floor. Whether she suffers from
some kind of accident like a broken neck or a brain concussion or from positional asphyxiation,
she ends up lying behind the sofa where she dies.
Gerry returns to do his check and finds Madeleine dead. When Matt shows up, they
discuss what should be done. Clearly, if this is what happened and Madeleine died due to too
much Calpol or just an unfortunate accident that wasn't discovered earlier due to neglect, Gerry
McCann would know he and Kate were in serious trouble. As all the friends appeared to be
taking similar risks, it is very possible Gerry felt he could confide in them and they would
support whatever course of action he decided to take.
At this point, Gerry would know that Kate and the rest of the friends would find out
Madeleine was dead. He had to make a quick decision and, as a surgeon, he was certainly the
sort of person who could make difficult decisions in a very short period of time. The choice was
either having the police arrest them for child neglect and manslaughter (or possibly homicide) or
staging an abduction and having Madeleine go missing. If he decided on the latter, he needed to
buy enough time to move Madeleine's body elsewhere and get back to the apartment complex.
He would have to tell Matt to inform the group that all was fine and he would use that time to
take Madeleine's body away from the apartment, secrete it, and hurry back. Then, he would tell
Kate and the others, set the details, and call the police.
Gerry would go off with Madeleine's body toward the beach, an area that was secluded
and with which he was familiar (a typical choice for people dumping bodies is to go to an area
they know so they won't be interrupted) and Matt would go back to the Tapas. Kate then did her
check at 10 PM and at some time shortly after 10, Gerry would back on the scene. The police
were called at 10:40 pm.
Possible non-abduction theory:
1) Madeleine died earlier in the evening and Gerry discovered her body on his check.
2) Gerry told Matt what happened and Gerry went to the beach with Madeleine's body
while Matt went back to the Tapas.
3) Kate did her check, found Madeleine missing, raised the alarm, and Gerry returned
around that time to tell Kate and the other the truth and decide on a plan of action and who will
say what.
4) The window is opened to stage an abduction (and because they are novices, people
usually don't stage a scene properly).
5) The police are called at 10:40 pm
Possible abduction theory:
1) It happened like the McCanns and their friends say it did in spite of their inconsistent
2) Gerry came back quickly from his check. They had left the sliding door open. Matt did
his check, however poorly. The abductor somehow got in and out and was seen either by Jane
Tanner or the Smith family or by both. The abductor opened the window for reasons unknown or
the McCanns opened it for reasons unknown and don't want to admit it.
Page 25
Part Seven: The Sightings of Jane Tanner and the Smith Family - Which is
One of the most bizarre aspects of this case and the most controversial is the sighting of
Jane Tanner of a man carrying away a little girl in pink pajamas just at the time she is walking by
Gerry and Jeremy on the street, on her way to do her 9:15 check. The McCanns insist that this
was the abductor of Madeleine and the Smith sighting on the Rua da Escola Primaria had nothing
to do with her disappearance. It is this particular fact that further supports a cover-up rather than
a real abduction.
In Jane Tanner's first interview, she says Gerry left for his check at 9:10 and she left five
minutes later at 9:15. She claims she passed Gerry talking to another visitor to the Ocean Club
resort with whom Gerry had played tennis, Jeremy Wilkens (also called Jez or Jes). She further
states she knew Gerry had already been in the apartment to check his own children. This is an
astounding statement. Considering only five minutes had passed since Gerry had left the
restaurant and she found him engaged in a conversation with a tennis mate, how would she have
a clue that he had already been into the apartment and wasn't delayed in getting there by running
into Jeremy Wilkens? She claims they were outside the gate to the back entrance of Gerry's
apartment so there is no way Jane could have known if Gerry was coming or going. The only
logical conclusion as to why she stated this was to corroborate Gerry's statement that he met
Jeremy after he did the quick check of the children and the abductor was hiding in the apartment
while he was inside. This fits nicely into the next statement Jane makes that she saw a man
carrying a child that she later believed was Madeleine, walking down the street, the Rua Dr
Agosthino, and crossing the street upon which Gerry and Jeremy were standing having their chat.
Neither of them saw the man but the timing of the man coming down that street would mean the
abductor slipped out of the apartment with Madeleine, by the front door where Jane claims to
have seen him or by the window just further down, as soon as Gerry left. It is odd, though, that
he would go in the direction that would require him to cross a street with people on it rather than
go the other direction away from witnesses. Also, why wouldn't the abductor have peeped out of
the door and around the corner to see if the coast was clear before walking off with an abducted
child? The story makes little sense but Jane Tanner swears up and down it is true (even if the
men didn't see the child being carried away nor did they see Jane Tanner walk by). The McCanns
believe the story as well.
In her second interview, she becomes even more adamant about her sighting of the man
carrying off the child. She states, that "the man she saw carrying the child was, in her belief,
associated with the disappearance of Maddie." When told by the police that the search dogs, the
ones who pick up the scent of only living humans, did not pick up a scent of Madeleine at the
intersection where she claims she saw the man carrying the child, "she affirmed, immediately,
that she was not lying, maintaining the honesty of her version." Then, "she swore 'by everything
most sacred' that what she said was true, namely that she saw an individual carrying a child in his
Is Jane Tanner's story of her sighting credible? Well, it is hard to buy considering that just
forty-five minutes later she found Kate screaming that Madeleine was missing and never told her
that she saw a man going down the street with what could have been her child. She also
supposedly never tells Gerry either, opting only to vaguely mention it to Fiona and, then,
supposedly, the police. Even in the days to come, she doesn't talk to the McCanns about seeing a
Page 26
man going off with a child she is now certain was their child. Her excuse? According to the PJ,
when asked "why she had not commented to Kate what she had seen that night, she relates she
always avoided making this comment to the McCanns so as not to torture them more in their
Let's put ourselves in the shoes of parents whose child has just gone missing. If this were
my child and one of my friends had seen a man carrying what could be my child down the street
and she knew what he looked like and what direction he had gone and didn't tell me, I would
want to kill her. How could she not tell me so we could have sent the police immediately that
direction, and, even before that, started searching in that direction? How could she think I
wouldn't want the most important piece of information about what happened to my child and
instead leave me searching in all the wrong directions, going crazy trying to get one small clue as
to where my child might be? How could she risk my child's life by wasting valuable time, time
that might have been spent finding my child before something terrible happened to her, like rape
and murder?
Is Kate furious with Jane Tanner? Oh, no. In her book, Madeleine, she only has this to
say. "I have never felt any anger or disappointment whatsoever towards Jane. On the contrary, I
was grateful someone had seen something. I am sure this experience has been a terrible burden
for her to carry around with her every day since and I do feel for her."
Fascinating. This thankfulness Kate shows Jane is more in line with someone who is
grateful her friend is willing to say she saw an abductor and carry the burden of that lie around
with her every day of her life.
Kate also goes against Jane's own statements about not telling the McCanns about the
man carrying off their child. Kate says, "As soon as she (Jane) heard about Madeleine's
disappearance, everything fell into place and she felt sick. She immediately reported the sighting
to the police. Gerry was informed but, given the condition I was in, he did not share this
development with me until morning."
Even more fascinating. Maybe Gerry told Kate, "Oh, by the way, dear, when you told
Jane that Madeleine was gone, she failed to tell you at that time she had just seen a man running
off with Madeleine just forty-five minutes ago. I thought you might like to know this now that it
is too late to save Madeleine."
That Jane never told the McCanns about their child being carried off is surely something
the PJ found difficult to comprehend themselves. They have never believed Jane Tanner's story
and by the time she was doing the rogatory interview in London months later, she begged and
begged to be believed.
Yet, while totally accepting Jane's questionable sighting, the McCanns have completely
tossed off the Smith family sighting of a man carrying a child around 10 PM walking in a
different direction (but still easily coming from the McCann apartment) and heading toward the
beach?. Why? Why do they not believe this could be the abductor? Is it because at a later time,
Mr. Smith saw Gerry in a video and thought he walked and carried his child in a similar way to
the man he saw carrying a little girl on the night of May 3rd?, Or is it that the McCanns need to
have the abduction occur only at 9:15 pm when Gerry's whereabouts are accounted for by a
witness, his tennis partner, Jeremy Wilkens? In fact, the only way the McCanns are grudgingly
willing to accept the 10 pm sighting as the abductor carrying Madeleine is if it is the same man
who was seen earlier at 9:15! If he is a very, very slow walker or he stopped off in an alley for a
rest, thereby showing up at the time the Smiths were leaving the bar to be seen by them, well,
then maybe it is the same man. I don't buy it though and I am sure the McCanns don't either.
Page 27
They simply do not want the 10 pm sighting to be that of the abductor.
In this profiler's opinion, families of missing children will dog just about any sighting,
even one that is not very sensible. The McCanns are willing to believe Madeleine was in
Morocco with a peasant family but not just down the street from their apartment at 10 pm on the
evening she disappeared. The McCanns should have been pushing the police to check out the
Smith sighting because after all, if they are wrong about the bedroom door being open more
widely at two different times and wrong about the feeling Gerry had that the abductor was
lurking in the apartment when he was making his check, it is far more reasonable for Madeleine
to have been abducted between Matt and Kate's check and be exactly in the right place to be seen
by the Smiths around 10 pm. The only logical reason they would balk at the Smith sighting is if,
indeed, the Smiths saw Gerry carrying Madeleine off in the direction of the beach.
As to the search dogs, which follow live people's scent, they never followed a trail in the
direction that Jane Tanner claims the kidnapper walked and they also didn't hit on the area the
Smiths said they saw someone. They only tracked Madeleine's scent (if that was her scent on the
towel Kate gave the police) around the block to a parking lot about 400 feet away in front of a
store Gerry had gone to earlier in the day to buy wine and there the scent stopped or doubled
back to the apartment. This scent would have been from a living Madeleine, not a dead one, as
this is what search dogs track. Either the trail was from earlier when Madeleine simply was out
and about with mom or dad or the abductor took Madeleine to the store parking lot and a car
took her away or the dogs just got confused and lost the scent. Interestingly, Kate shows no
interest in this scent trail at all and makes no scenario up of a child abductor carrying Madeleine
to that spot and handing her off to someone in a car. As a matter of fact, Kate glosses over any
search dogs used and, in her book, doesn't even mention where they tracked a scent to. Perhaps
they never did find any scent or, perhaps, they did go to the store parking lot; maybe Kate
ignores this because it doesn't support Jane Tanner's story of the man walking off with Madeleine
at 9:15ish. If Kate doesn't think that the dogs tracked Madeleine's scent as she was being carried
off by an abductor, then maybe she knows something, like the scent was from an earlier time,
perhaps that afternoon or from the day before, and that the last time Madeleine left the
apartment, she was carried out dead. Since search dogs don't pick up on scents from a person
who has been dead for some two hours, this is strong proof that Madeleine died in the apartment
that night.
If this scenario occurred, the timeline would look more like this:
7:00 to 7:30 pm - Madeleine falls and dies behind the sofa
9:10pm - Gerry goes to the apartment, chats outside with Jeremy, and then goes in and
finds Madeleine.
9:35 - Kate wonders what is taking Gerry so long and Matt (and possibly Russell) says he
will find out what's up and drops by the apartment to find Gerry with a dead Madeleine.
9:45-10:00 pm - Gerry takes Madeleine's body off to the beach to hide it. Matt goes back
to the Tapas to tell Kate that everything is fine right then; what he would have said about Gerry
is a mystery. Russell remains to clean up and push the sofa back.
10:00 pm - Gerry carries Madeleine toward the beach area and is seen by the Smiths;
Kate does her check and finds Madeleine gone. She goes to the Tapas to raise the alarm. Gerry
may have arrived back by that time or, perhaps, just as they were going to the apartment or
starting the search. Gerry tells Kate and friends what really happened. Kate goes out to the
veranda, banging her arms in hysteria and shouting, "They've taken her! They've taken her!"
Whether Kate actually said this or not, I am not sure as the reports are a bit hazy. Some people
Page 28
believe this indicates Kate and Gerry were in on some pedophile ring that they knew took her
off, but I find no validity in this. If Kate really said, "They have taken her!" she could be
referring to Gerry and a helper, or she could be using a generic "they" for "he" or she could be
speaking of the Calpol Fastmelt tablets given to children (if Madeleine took too many or was
given too many or just a couple caused her to have an accident), then the "they" in Kate's
reference could be the tablets that caused Madeleine to "be taken.")
10:15-10:40 pm - A decision is made on what to tell the police. A window is opened to
support the abduction story, Jane will say she saw someone around 9:15 pm carrying a child,
Matt will say he did the 9:30 check, and all will say Gerry came right back from his check at
9:10 pm. These are fairly simply statements that don't require much lying at all.
Page 29
Part Eight: Where is Madeleine's Body?
Kate writes in her book that Gerry and David went out in the dark in the early morning
hours "searching for Madeleine" and she and Gerry went out "searching" as the sun rose. It
seems both times the beach was included as a search destination leading me to believe Gerry
may have first placed Madeleine somewhere along the beach when he needed to hide her in
quick measure and then went back later to move her higher up onto the cliffs where the searches
would not find her.
Speaking of the cliffs, it is in this remote place that I think Madeleine's body might have
remained until it was possibly moved on August 3rd to somewhere in the vicinity of Huelva,
Spain. Now, what evidence is there that points to the cliffs above the town as a hiding place for
Madeleine's body and why, if her body was there, would it have been moved on August 3rd, an
entire two months later? It is Kate, herself, that led me to these theories; statements in her book
are intriguing and caught my attention. I kept wondering where, if the McCanns were involved in
the disappearance of Madeleine, could they have taken her body without a car and in a town with
few good places to hide a body, a town they were not very familiar with? In most crimes when
someone is dumping a body, they pick an area they know well, an area in which they believe
they won't be seen getting rid of a body, an area they don't believe will be searched for a long,
long time, if ever.
So, I wondered, is there any place around Praia da Luz that the McCanns knew well and
felt was secluded enough to hide Madeleine's body and that the police would not discover
quickly? And, if they found such a place, would there ever have been a reason to unearth the
body and move it? I found interesting answers in Kate's book, Madeleine. She writes the
1) "A lady from an apartment across Rua Dr Gentil Martins, overlooking our little side
gate, came over to speak to us. She said that the previous night she had seen a car going up the
Rocha Negra, the block volcanic cliff that dominates the village. There was a track leading to the
Rocha Negra but nobody remembered ever having noticed any vehicle that far up in the daytime,
let alone at night. This immediately conjured visions of Madeleine being disposed of somewhere
on the overhanging cliff. I went to tell one of the police officers who was able to speak a little
English. He was quite dismissive. It would have been one of the GNR men checking the area, he
said." (p. 94)
2) "I also felt a compulsion to run up to the top of the Rocha Negra." (p. 105).
3) "Was crying out that I could see Madeleine lying, cold and mottled on a big grey stone
slab." (p. 105
) 4) "I remember speeding along the beach, concentrating totally on Madeleine. I had a
picture of her in my hand which I would squeeze when I felt tired to spur me on, especially going
up the sharply rising Rua da Praia" (p. 132)
5) "That first weekend I'd felt a burning desire to run up the Rocha Negra, and Gerry and
I would in fact do so many times over the next few months." (p. 133)
6) (On or just after July 18) "Danie Krugel, on whom we had, irrationally, hung so much
hope, had produced a report for the PJ based on his findings. His machine had recorded a 'static
signal' from an area around the beach, close to or on the Rocha Negra cliff. Although this
included villas, apartments and other buildings, the implications of the 'static signal' was that
Madeleine was most likely to be dead and buried there." (p. 200)
Page 30
7) (On or around July 20th) "…the UK team had been instructed by the PJ to proceed on
the basis that Madeleine had been killed and her body dumped. They would be using GPR
(ground-penetrating radar) (p. 200)…..The search…..would encompass the land identified by
Danie Krugel…."(p. 201)
8) (On or about July 23th) "I began to worry that perhaps they had some more solid leads
that supported Danie's theory. I hoped to God I was wrong. The next day Bill Henderson rang to
say that the PJ had deferred the search….until the following week." (p. 204)
The following week, on August 3rd, the McCanns made the trip to Huelva, Spain. Then
came the ground search of the area and the Rocha Negra cliffs, and then the sniffer dogs were
brought in which detected the scent of a corpse in the McCann's apartment and the rental car they
had just driven to Huelva. The McCanns became arguidos and then left Portugal. Madeleine's
body may be in Huelva, Spain or it is possible her body was moved again, brought home to
England. I doubt the body is still in Praia da Luz unless the abduction theory is actually true.
Page 31
Part Nine: The Post-Crime Behaviors of the McCanns and Friends
The post-crime behaviors of persons-of-interest cannot be ignored in spite of Kate's anger
at having her every move analyzed and dissected. Post-crime behaviors very often are part of the
evidence police detectives and profilers review to determine if someone is likely or not so likely
to have committed a crime. Certainly, Casey Anthony, on trial in Florida for the murder of her
daughter, Caylee, has a mountain of post-crime behavior that supports the prosecution's claim
that she appears to be a psychopath who murdered her own child. Only a killer would not look
for her missing child, go partying and shopping, and continue to behave in such an uncaring and
unconcerned manner even after her little girl's body was found.
The McCanns claim they don't want to have their behavior analyzed yet they do massive
numbers of television and radio interviews, Gerry started a daily blog, and Kate kept a diary that
she clearly knew could become evidence, and she wrote a book. In fact, they have the highest
media presence I have ever seen in a missing person's case and have received more publicity than
any other missing child case I can think of. Furthermore, they do things which draw criticism
such as accepting money, a lot of money, through an organization set up as a business and not a
charity and they have not properly accounted for how the donations have been spent. Also, they
have been involved in efforts to discredit the PJ and they have sued Detective Amaral and gotten
an injunction to block his book from being read. While they claim the book is libelous, I have
read the book and view it as one detective's opinion of the evidence and, certainly, while I am
sure the McCanns are not happy with his conclusions, I see it as his opinion and that he has the
right to it.
Is the McCanns reaction to Amaral normal? Well, certainly no parent likes to be
considered a suspect in the death of their child, but, as is well known, relatives are always looked
at first in these cases, as a majority of the time, a child is killed by family and not strangers. In
the case of Madeleine McCann, the police actually gave them a break in the beginning, focusing
on Madeleine's disappearance as an abduction, only later coming to believe that the McCanns
may have been involved in the death of their child and covered up the crime. What do experts
suggest to parents if they are considered suspects or persons-of-interest? Almost all, well, most
everyone with the exception of defense lawyers, will encourage innocent parents to cooperate
with the police in order to eliminate themselves as suspects as quickly as possible and shift the
focus of the investigation in the direction of a stranger. They will suggest they answer each and
every question and take a polygraph to verify that what they are saying is true. What happened in
the McCann case? Well, certainly, no one has taken a polygraph (not the McCanns or any of
their friends) and when they were declared arguidos - suspects - only Gerry answered questions;
Kate refused to answer any. Then they left the country of Portugal and have not cooperated with
the police in doing a crime reenactment nor does it seem their friends are willing to do so either.
There were many other behaviors that sent up red flags and caused people to question the
McCanns' involvement. For example, right after Madeleine was found missing, phone calls were
made back to quite a few family and friends in England by Gerry who told them all that
Madeleine was abducted and the window had been jimmied open. Now, while it is normal to
perhaps make one call to inform family, usually the family then makes the other calls because
the parent is too distraught and too involved in searching for their child to want to have to tell the
story over and over again.
Also, the McCanns and their friends called in the media quite quickly, not the Portuguese
media, but the British media. Now, this might make sense in the days to come, but to call in
Page 32
media outside of Portugal right away is a bit odd. At that point in time, if one believed Madeleine
to be abducted by some local, the first fear is that she will be raped and murdered within a short
period of time and one needs to find the man to stop him. At that time of night, you want the
police scouring the neighborhood and putting police roadblocks on the avenues that lead out of
town. Only when this has failed should one think it is necessary to then start a wider search and
that maybe the British media may come in handy.
Another issue that Kate pooh-poohed in her book was the public reaction over the
McCanns trip to see the Pope, leaving their twins behind in a city in which their sister just got
kidnapped. While I can appreciate their desire to see the right-hand man to God (I am not a
Catholic so I have a bit of trouble understanding the need to see the Pope as opposed to making a
direct prayer to God and I say this having been at the Vatican and seeing the Pope speak). It is
unusual for a parent of a missing child to be willing to be separated from their other children so
soon after one of their children is abducted; usually they don't want them to go out of their sight.
There were also issues about them going jogging so early after Madeleine went missing (now
Kate says they did this to stay healthy and to be able to keep searching), not being emotional
during their appeal to the kidnapper (they say the police told them not to make the abductor
angry), and dressing up as Kate did with earrings and such, something many thought the mother
of an abducted child wouldn't even be able to think about.
These truly were some unusual behaviors for parents of a recently abducted child but if
the McCanns have narcissistic personality disorders of any sort (one or both or a higher level of
narcissism than the average person) they may be more focused on themselves to begin with and
care more about how they look than the average parent of a missing child. Past behavior is the
predictor of future behavior so the McCanns simply may be these kinds of individuals to begin
with and their behavior may have more to do with who they are rather than that they didn't care
or that they already knew Madeleine was dead and not abducted. Then again, maybe both issues
are at play. Gerry's blog with day-to-day upbeat details that seemed peculiar for a parent of a
missing or murdered child rubbed many the wrong way as did his early interest in politics. He
seemed too ready to move on, like Madeleine was a moot issue except for her usefulness as a
tool to obtain donations.
There are many things Kate and Gerry said and did in the numerous interviews for
television and radio that hit many people, and me, the wrong way. I have selected just a few of
their statements and behaviors that bugged me and led me to believe the police should continue
looking at the McCanns as arguidos - suspects.
1) Gerry's statement: "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."
There are a bunch of things wrong here: first, that Gerry actually stilled believed, even
after losing his daughter, that leaving a young child and her toddler siblings alone in an
apartment out of earshot and eyeshot was responsible behavior. This is a sign of someone who
refuses to take responsibility for his actions. The second part of the statement is odd in that if
Gerry or Kate were there when an abductor actually picked up Madeleine and made for the door ,
Madeleine couldn't have been taken (at least not without a fight). On the other hand, if what
Gerry is referring to is when Madeleine had an accident or an overdose, then maybe if they had
been there when Madeleine was taken from life, they could have used their medical skills to do
CPR and bring her back and get her to a hospital. Finally, the word "taken" is often used to
describe the moment a person dies; it is an awfully gentle way to say kidnapped, abducted, or
Page 33
stolen. Parents usually do not think kindly in terms of someone who has snatched their child, yet,
Gerry and Kate repeat this use of the word quite often in their interviews.
2) Gerry's statement that he and his wife, Kate, were "100% confident" of each other's
Innocence of what? Being the abductor of their own child? Does this make sense? No.
But they may see each other innocent of causing the death of Madeleine if they both believe it
was an accident, drugs or no drugs. The only other explanation for that statement would be if
Gerry did find Madeleine's body and go hide her. It would then be required of Kate to believe her
husband's story that he found Madeleine deceased and in no way contributed to her death while
making his check on her.
3) When Gerry denies that either he or Kate gave Madeleine a sedative, he pulls at his ear
which is often a sign that someone is lying. Considering that the two of them are later insistent
that the kids were likely drugged, the possibility of the one doing the drugging being Kate or
Gerry increase.
4) Kate stating that she had no problem sleeping after the first five days. Finally, in a later
interview, her mother said she had difficulty sleeping. In her book, she is very clear that she had
problems sleeping. Why did the story change? Likely because someone mentioned that saying
one slept through the night while one's daughter might be in some sex predator's cellar being
raped and tortured doesn't come across as very empathetic or it seems like the one sleeping
already knows the child is not suffering any longer.. As a matter of fact, I addressed this matter
and others in a letter to Kate in my blog, The Daily Profiler, pointing out the many behaviors that
she and Gerry had been exhibiting which were not making them look too good. I am happy to
report that Kate has explained each and every one of those behaviors in her book, Madeleine, and
also has included a lot about the emotions she has felt and the miseries she has had to deal with
that align totally with average parents of missing children.
5) Kate's discussion in her book of her daughter's possibly torn and abused genitals
turned a lot of people's stomachs and is not something a mother of an abducted child usually
wants to put out in public.
6) Kate and Gerry's incredibly high profile is extremely unusual for parents who are still
searching for a missing child and is more normal when they are working on changing things for
all missing and murdered children. We see this kind of outreach by people like Mark Klass with
Klass Kids or John Walsh with America's Most Wanted or Beth Holloway with her International
Safe Travels Foundation. All of them have solicited money and worked to help others, not just
worked for their own personal cause. The McCanns' organization which lists as its purpose
finding Madeleine McCann and then helping others (after Madeleine is recovered) practically
assures the public that they will be helping no other children for the next few decades.
These are just some of the examples of post-crime behaviors that have supported the
theory that the McCanns were somehow involved in the death of Madeleine and that no
abduction ever occurred.
Page 34
Part Ten: My Final Profile Determinations and Recommendations to Law
Enforcement, the McCanns, and their friends and family
My Final Profile Determinations leading to the Theory I believe is most supported by the
1) Madeleine went missing on May 3, 2007.
2) Madeleine went missing between 8:30 and 10 pm that evening.
3) The emotions of Kate and Gerry McCann were real. They were real but they were the
emotions of a scared person, Kate, at 10 pm, and two devastated parents later that night who
knew their child was dead and not coming home. "We have failed her," Kate stated over and
over. We also saw emotions of defeat and odd kneeling and prostrating behavior which are more
signs of guilt and a seeking of forgiveness than any kind of hopeful outreach.
4) The last person to claim to see Madeleine alive between 8:30 and 10 pm that evening
is Gerry McCann and it is likely that Gerry was the one that found and moved Madeleine's body
to the beach.
5) It is highly likely the group of friends (or most of them) knew that Madeleine had died
in the apartment and helped Gerry and Kate cover the crime by creating a timeline giving Gerry
an alibi while finding and moving the body, creating an abductor whose presence coincided with
Gerry's alibi of being on the street with Jeremy Wilkens, and, perhaps helping with the clean-up.
6) Madeleine's body may have been moved to the cliffs and then to Huelva, Spain, and,
possibly, back to England.
7) The post-crime behaviors of the McCanns appear to support the theory that they know
Madeleine is dead, that they had a role in her death, and that they covered-up the crime.
8) The physical evidence does not support an intruder theory, especially the lack of
evidence that an intruder opened or came in or out the children's bedroom window.
9) The sniffer dogs detected decomposition and blood in the apartment of the McCanns
and detected decomposition in the rental car hired by the McCanns weeks after Madeleine's
disappearance. DNA was also found in the rental car that was identified (at least to the
satisfaction of some) as Madeleine McCann's. The cadaver dog also hit on Madeleine's Cuddle
Cat which was found after her disappearance on her bed yet the dogs did not hit on the bed itself.
This makes sense if Madeleine died while clutching her toy behind the sofa where the dogs hit
and the toy was then put back on her bed when her body was removed.
10) The dogs hit on some of Kate's clothes which could only have occurred if she had
contact with Madeleine's body after she was deceased. This could have occurred if Kate came
back at 10 pm, found Madeleine dead behind the sofa, held her in her arms, and then, when
Gerry came back, Madeleine was removed from the premises (or hidden for a later removal).
Otherwise, if Gerry hid the body of Madeleine on the beach at 10 pm, then when he and Kate
walked to the beach at sunrise, Kate may have held Madeleine in her arms and said her goodbyes
at that time. I find this second scenario more in line with the evidence.
My recommendations to Law Enforcement and the McCanns and their Friends and
The Madeleine McCann case needs to be reopened and the evidence reanalyzed. The
McCanns and their friends need to be reinterviewed. They need to be polygraphed. The crime
scene needs to be reenacted. A profiler should be brought in to review all the evidence in detail
and a formal criminal profile submitted that will help direct the focus of the investigation and
point out useful investigative leads. Law enforcement should examine both the abduction theory
Page 35
and the accident/cover-up theory and work to eliminate one as not being supported by evidence.
Meanwhile, both avenues of investigation should be followed in order to further the case.
As to the McCanns and their friends, I highly encourage you to allow the detectives
presently in charge of the investigation to do more thorough interviews and a reenactment. You
may be telling the truth but in such a poor way that you have come off as deceptive instead of
honest. If you really want the police to focus on a stranger as the perpetrator of this crime, you
need to get yourselves eliminated as suspects.
Kate and Gerry McCann, along with being cooperative with the police, I recommend you
open your organization up to financial scrutiny and widen its work to focus mostly on some kind
of service to help abducted or missing children. Use just a small portion of the proceeds to
continue your search for Madeleine. Such a high profile really is not that helpful to finding
Madeleine anyway. She has had her photo everywhere and is more known in the world than any
other missing child. Also, if you two had nothing to do with Madeleine going missing, then I
have to tell you that, barring a miracle, Madeleine is likely no longer alive. The likelihood of her
having been abducted into a sex ring is near zero. The sighting of either Tanner or the Smiths if
either is true would lead me to believe a local pedophile took her and she was dead within hours.
If you are going to hire a private detective agency, be sure you have a profiler analyze the
crime first and provide specific areas for the PIs to investigate; otherwise, they will waste money
running down every possible lead, no matter how ridiculous it is. What a PI really needs to do
(and the PJ) is to go back and investigate everyone who was within ten or so blocks of the
apartment. It is doubtful an abductor would bother to walk away from the scene if he could have
parked his car in the car park right next to the building, run in, grabbed Madeleine and driven off
quickly. This is a lot less risky than being seen walking block after block with a
comatose/sleeping child in your arms. You would use a car in the abduction unless you simply
have no car available to use. So, the investigation of a stranger ought to be right there in Praia da
Luz if you want to find out what happened to Madeleine.
And to the McCann friends, something is not entirely right with your stories, especially
yours, Jane Tanner. Please consider being completely honest with the police even if it means
losing a friend or being ashamed or embarrassed over choices you have made in the past.
Madeleine deserves to be found, justice needs to be served, and people all over the world who
have contributed money to the fund have the right to answers.
Finally, to the McCanns, law enforcement, those who believe the McCanns are innocent
of any wrongdoing and those who believe they are guilty of some malfeasance, remember that
this profile is just one theory and does not prove guilt or innocence of anyone. If anything I have
written helps someone come forth with clearer information or evidence that aids in finding
Madeleine, her body, or the truth, I am happy to have provided one more avenue that might help
further the case.
Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
Page 36
Johnson, Brian (2010). Faked Abduction. Brian Johnson. United States.
McCann, Kate (2011). Madeleine. Bantom Press. London, England.

Page 1