LAWDY, LAWDY, SHE'S AT IT AGAIN COMPLETE WITH DUMBASS CLONE!

Sally Sinammon ‏@Fat_Salz 4h
@ProfilerPatB Pat hun, why don't you and Wendy team up, write a shit-hot book on the #mccann case?

PAT BROWN ‏@ProfilerPatB 3h
@Fat_Salz I would love to have her join Sr. Amaral and me in doing just that, but, so far, American publishers are afraid of lawsuit.

PAT BROWN ‏@ProfilerPatB 4h
@TangoinSA Yes, she got blindsided by Wendy because FOX did not pre-interview her. I was pre-interviewed & therefore dumped. #McCann

Liar, liar, pants on fire! She was dumped LIVE on Fox, along with millions of others, I was watching and saw it happen.

PAT BROWN ‏@ProfilerPatB 14h
Holy Crap! Thank you, Wendy!!!! Thank you, Wendy! I LOVE you!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

For those who don’t know, Wendy Murphy made quite a name for herself during the Duke rape case, trumpeting far and wide that of course the Duke three were guilty as hell of raping Crystal Magnum. According to KC Johnson, professor of history at Brooklyn College and the CUNY Graduate Center (teaching 20th century US political, constitutional, and diplomatic history), his Lexis/Nexis search of her case-related appearances turned up at least 18 occasions in nine months where Murphy made demonstrably untrue statements as well as engaging in “a pattern of wholly unfounded speculation and … routinely denigrated due process.” Even Foxnews.com got in on the act, harshly criticizing Murphy for defaming, and continuing to defame, the Duke lacrosse players even weeks after the charges were dropped, in defense of what the author called the “paradigm of victimhood” by which Murphy earns her living.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Alisyn Camerota - It's such a tough one... As you know this has gripped our country and Europe to try to find this little girl. When things like Elizabeth Smart put out a book and she's found, she comes home you still have hope that maybe Madeleine McCann is alive and can come home against all odds. Great to see you Wendy. Thanks so much for your theory.

Jim Gamble ‏@JimGamble_INEQE 18h
@FoxNews Wendy just did the most unprofessional interview I've ever seen.Well done 2 presenter 4 keeping some balance [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Lizzy Hideho Taylor
A BIG THANK YOU TO WENDY MURPHY FOR HAVING THE COURAGE TO SPEAK OUT ON A FOX INTERVIEW ABOUT THE NEW 'SUSPECT' IN THE SCOTLAND YARD INVESTIGATION OF THE DISAPPEARANCE OF MADELEINE McCANN

Probably without realising she has validated the feelings of MANY people.

I'm sure everyone would be interested in her book. Please visit her website for details on how to buy or read on KINDLE.

Jerry Lawton ‏@JerryLawton 52s
Scotland Yard refuse to comment on ex-US prosecutor's allegation its new suspect claim in Madeleine #McCann case is `more PR than anything'

Jerry Lawton ‏@JerryLawton 3h
But Scotland Yard has stressed its new hunt for Madeleine #McCann is `entirely separate' to parents' £1m libel action

Jerry Lawton ‏@JerryLawton 3h
#McCann spokesman Clarence Mitchell says couple `will not dignify' ex-US prosecutor's comments with a response

Liz Newman
Ah it appears she doesn't want to give evidence on the stand like everyone else, she wants to write a letter! So she doesn't want to be cross examined, she brought this case if she wants to testify she should have to do it the same as everyone else, of course we all know why she doesn't want to do that.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown BTW, Wendy is one of my fellow commentators that I have great respect for. I never rolled my eyes when she was on ....which I have made the mistake of doing when on Jane's show because I forgot the camera was on all of us

Gail Smith Its funny how its all happening now just as Snr Amarals witnesses are taking the stand..I am ashamed to be British if this is the best SY can come up with..needing to look closer to home
Yesterday at 10:28 · Like · 3

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown Yes, isn't the timing curious, Gail!

Mike Hinton It's like the UK is the only country that doesn't 'get it'.
16 hours ago · 4

Brandy Feinstein Mike Hinton, a lot of us do, but are afraid to speak because of Carter-Ruck, Solicitors. Same goes with the mainstream media.
16 hours ago · 5

Caron McMurray Vinson Do we know what the questions were, that the mother refused to answer?
16 hours ago · 1

Phil Brownlow Yes a lot of us do get it. sadly though a lot also still believe what the MSM tells them to believe. This is brilliant though and i love the shocked look of the news actor trying to get it back on script
16 hours ago · 4

Donna Whittaker ://www.dailymail.co.uk/...

The 48 questions Kate McCann wouldn't answer - and the one she did
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
During eleven hours of interrogation, Kate McCann refused to answer 48 specific ...See More
16 hours ago via mobile · 4

Donna Whittaker Apologies the link is the Daily Fail but these arw the q she refused to answer and the one she did. Well said Wendy
16 hours ago via mobile · 2

Terri Denice Leyman Yay! A voice of reason.
16 hours ago via mobile · 3

Patrick Suglia Wait a sec -- they let Wendy say it on air but not YOU??
16 hours ago · 4

Annie Haley Yes! I have always been a big fan of Wendy's! Two great minds think alike! Love it and thanks for sharing! (How the trolls hate it!)
16 hours ago via mobile · 3

Jim O'Donnell Who is the stupid bitch interviewing her? Jesus, she represents how Goddamn pathetic the coverage and the journalists have been on this beat! What shocks me more is how Murphy's views are somehow 'Radical'. When did reality become so extreme. For Christs sakes the media piss me off!
16 hours ago · Edited · 5

Tammy Littlebear Wendy ROCKS, HA HA HA HA
16 hours ago via mobile · 3

Kerryn Davies The UK needs people like you and Wendy, Pat!
15 hours ago · 2

Freeman D Freeman Wendy nailed this.....I have a gut instinct that Moma is holding something back........
15 hours ago · 4

Tracey D Ellis Exactly Wendy. Why do the networks ask for an expert if they don't listen to them?!
14 hours ago via mobile · 2

Liz McCloskey Boy, they weren't expecting that one and couldn't wait to get her, Wendy, and her "theory" off the air. You and Wendy need to hook up.
13 hours ago · 2

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown Liz, it is clear they didn't do a pre-interview or she wouldn't have been on. The shows that called did do that and then they said, "Bye! Thanks! We will call you if we decide to go ahead with the segment." Yeah, right.
13 hours ago · 3

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown BTW, Wendy is one of my fellow commentators that I have great respect for. I never rolled my eyes when she was on ....which I have made the mistake of doing when on Jane's show because I forgot the camera was on all of us!)
13 hours ago · 6

Liz McCloskey lol, I bet that went over well.
13 hours ago

Liz McCloskey I love your eye rolls. I've seen them.
13 hours ago · Edited · 1

Liz McCloskey Pat, I don't get it. Why does the American media care about this case? Why are we supposed to hold back? We're never going to hear from Wendy again. Why?
13 hours ago · 1

Tammy Littlebear Liz, Why does the American media care about this case????? REALLY?? Did you really just type those words. Good Lord in Heaven
13 hours ago via mobile

Marisa Avalos Viets Wait she left the babies ALONE in the same apartment sh we thought her daughter had just been abducted from? Why is she not in jail?
12 hours ago via mobile · 1

Kerryn Davies Marisa, the McCann's and their Tapas friends would have us believe that they left their babies all alone, but many don't believe it. They had to say that for an abduction to have taken place, and maybe the real scenario is worse?
11 hours ago · 1

Liz McCloskey Maybe I didn't say that right Tammy. Why does the American media care what Britain thinks? The reaction to Wendy's comments almost gave the reporter a heart attack. It certainly threw her completely off guard. What is the big deal about having a di...See More
10 hours ago · 2

Pamela Gurney [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Gonzo Shoves His Oar Into PJ/Yard Investigation - Page 2
jatyk2.forumotion.co.uk
I've read enough about the Murphy woman to know she's just another talking head bimbo. I am sure you will all be thrilled skinny to know what Goncalol had to

PAT BROWN ‏@ProfilerPatB 3h
Millions of pounds and two years of analysis and NSY is essentially rebroadcasting the "Madeleine was Here" propaganda documentary. #McCann

PAT BROWN @ProfilerPatB

For those who think I am accusing NSY of police misconduct, they are absolutely correct. Nothing they have done or said is proper. #McCann

PAT BROWN ‏@ProfilerPatB 3h
NSY has received 2 tips naming the same man as the Smith sighting suspect! Are the ignoring the 1000 calls saying it is Gerry? #McCann

Monday, October 14, 2013
Crimewatch and Scotland Yard Team Up to pull One Big One over on the Public

I just finished watching BBC's Crimewatch on the new findings in the Madeleine McCann case. With the cooperation of New Scotland Yard (Metropolitan Police), a new "reconstruction" was shown (that was little more than a condensed version of the previous pro McCann documentary "Madeleine was Here" and new theories were laid out (because Detective Andy Redwood seems to not have found enough evidence of abduction to really point to any particular motive). There is new "evidence" (and I put quotes around that because Scotland Yard wishes us to take them at their word) to eliminate one suspect, and there is "new" evidence (and I put quotes around "new" because there isn't anything new) putting another suspect in the top slot.

Pat Brown, let me put this as kindly as I can.

You are a moronic, money-grabbing munchkin.

And now let me prove that the description I have used for you is perfectly true.

You begin your utterly unprofessional rant about the Crimewatch programme with the above paragraph which shows us that you either did not actually watch the programme in question or that you did so not wearing blinkers but whilst wearing full black eye patches (one for each eye) and whilst wearing a pair of noise-cancelling ear plugs.

The reconstruction shown was not a condensed version of anything. It was new.

There was new evidence shown, including the e-fits of the Smith sighting and those of other potential suspects.

My immediate reaction to the show was this post to Twitter:

Distortion, Revisionist history. Ridiculous "reconstruction." Conveniently missing details.

Your immediate reaction is always negativity laced with lack of understanding. This tweet is no exception.

Let me try to break down what was off with this show without having to completely explain the entire case. I do suggest for those that become confused to read Goncalo Amaral's book, The Truth of the Lie or see the documentary on it, or read my book, The Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann available at B&N and Smashwords (not at Amazon where the McCanns had it banned), and read my blogs that I wrote following my trip to Praia da Luz on The Daily Profiler.

Okay.

Let me try to explain why your commentary on this programme is just as unprofessional and wrong as the rest of your output without having to explain the complex role of a proper profiler.

I do suggest for those that become confused that they should read a well-regarded text on the subject of profiling, Criminal Profiling: An Introduction to Behavioural Evidence Analysis by Brent Turvey. In it you will find a word of warning about potentially dangerous so-called profilers.

“Unfortunately, the plain truth is that many of those engaged in criminal profiling (or who refer to themselves as profilers) have little or no applied case experience, inadequate levels of training and exist almost parasitically on the ignorance of the professional communities that profilers are intended to serve.”

We can also see that almost your first interaction, Pat Brown, with your reader is an advertisement for your own attempt at writing about the McCann Case. [When time allows I shall provide a thorough analysis of this text and having read it from cover to cover (it is mercifully short) I can assure you the analysis will not be very supportive either of the methodologies used or the highly speculative conclusions reached.

I will start with the conveniently missing details: any and all evidence or information in the police files that points to the McCanns' involvement, the death of the child in the flat, the cadaver dogs hits in the flat and the rental car, the inconsistencies in the statements of many of the Tapas 9, within their own statements and in relation to each others' statements, and the fact that the Mr. Smith of the Smith family said that the man they saw carrying the little girl toward the beach looked like Gerry. Also left out; that there was no evidence of an abductor or anyone breaking into the flat through the window, that Gerry thought an abductor was behind the door, and that Matthew Oldfield never really saw Madeleine when he did his supposed check. Oh, and while they show that Jane walked past the McCanns apartment and saw a man with a child, nothing was mentioned about her passing Gerry and Jeremy talking on the street (the narrow street that would caused her to have to cha-cha around the men but they never saw her).

You might not be aware, Ms Brown, but Crimewatch is not, and never has been a crime discussion programme in the tradition which you are probably used to in the USA where talking heads who actually have no direct knowledge of a case other than news reports are invited to speculate as wildly as they like as to who is guilty etc.

It is not, and never has been a forum in which the whole history of a case is laid out in detail. It would appear from the paragraph above that you are not familiar with the programme or its focus, though you still believe that you are qualified to comment on it as if it should be something it isn’t. It is quite sad that you show your own significant lack of understanding of the programme’s remit in the very review you are writing about it.

Let me enlighten you. Crimewatch has a single focus. That is to enlist the help of the public in solving crimes. It does this by focusing very narrowly on the precise ways in which the public can offer that help. It is not a programme that airs daily or even weekly. It is not a gossip programme or a commentary programme. Only specific aspects of any case are highlighted in which immediate input from the public can be expected and in planning their collaboration with the Crimewatch team police officers exclude things which are not going to yield information from the public.

The public has no way of determining the involvement or otherwise of the McCanns in the disappearance. Therefore that is excluded.

There is no way in which the public can help with the dogs. So that is excluded.

It most certainly is not the job of the public to deal with discrepancies in witness statements. That is the professional work of the police who handle it in the main by re-interviewing witnesses, again something the public are not able to help with. So that is excluded.

It is not relevant that the public should be informed who one other witness has already come forward and suggested a suspect may be. Actually I would have thought that just about anyone with the most basic understanding of procedure would know that is a no no. Again excluded for that reason.

There is absolutely no way the public can help with any of the details of what happened inside the apartment on the night of the disappearance, with the state of doors or windows for example. So that is excluded.

And of course there is nothing the public can add to the situation regarding Jane and who she did or did not pass whilst observing the person at the top of the road. So that is excluded.

Only aspects of the case in which those watching the programme can genuinely and constructively assist with are dealt with.

It is clear from your comments that you do not understand this so I hope it is beginning to be clearer now.

The new reconstruction is a bare bones version, which does not explain how an abductor might have gotten in and taken Madeleine, nor which way he might have gone with her, nor any other particulars. All we learn is that Gerry went to make his check at 9:15, saw Madeleine and that the door was not in the position he thought he left it and he set it back, that at 9:30 Matthew Oldfield made the next check, and then Kate made her check, saw the door was a bit off, the window open and Madeleine gone. That is it.

So, we don't learn how an abductor got in, how he got Madeleine out, and when he did this.

In light of what I have explained about the nature and focus of the Crimewatch programme I wonder just what in this paragraph you believe the public could assist the police with?

Could they identify how the person entered the apartment? Well they could speculate I suppose.

What we did learn though was the timings. We were informed about the movement of people in and around the apartments which could be helpful in triggering the memory of a witness who may have seen these comings and goings. That could be the spark that brings in useful information.

Without presenting a shred of evidence, Scotland Yard gives us two conclusions that push the abduction toward 10 pm. Now, for some who think the McCanns found Madeleine dead behind the sofa where the cadaver dog hit and then Gerry carried her off to the beach passing the Smith family who told the police of their sighting, they might think this might be a clever plan of Scotland Yard to finally close in on the McCanns, but I don't think this is what they are attempting to do.

Unfortunately you are once again showing that you don’t really have a clue about the way the programme works.

In this country it is not the norm (nor should it be) for the police to post detailed evidence on television. Such evidence is gathered for the purposes of being used in the prosecution of a case in court.

However you are wrong in stating that they gave no evidence for their decision to move the timeline forward.

The premise of an abduction at approximately 9.15 had been based entirely on the Tanner sighting of a man in the vicinity of the apartment at around that time. You may have missed the rather crucial matter within the programme that that sighting has now been resolved and the person involved has been excluded by dint of proper policing and interviewing from the inquiry.

Now that there is no evidence of an abduction at the earlier time, then surely you can see that the most likely time for an abduction is when the other child was seen being carried away from the apartment?

Your final remark in the above paragraph, even in light of the fact that you are clearly commenting on a programme whose remit you do not understand, is as yet the most unprofessional remark you have made. But to address the issue you raise, firstly there was no forensic evidence that Madeleine died in the apartment and secondly your ignoring the fact that most of the Smiths never raised the possibility of it being Gerry McCann seems to be typical of your techniques of only choosing what suits your pre-ordained position.

Let's look at the big news on the show tonight; Jane Tanner's sighting is NOT the "kidnapper" of Madeleine McCann. He is some tourist who happened to be carrying his own child home from the creche where she was being babysat (mind you he was walking in the wrong direction, toward the creche, but....never mind). Also, he was wearing the exact clothes described by Jane Tanner because the man remembers precisely what he was wearing six years ago. Interestingly, with all the hoopla about this man at the beginning of the Portuguese investigation, he never came forward, but now Mr-whoever-he-is (and Scotland Yard is not going to tell us), suddenly pops up and admits it was him.

Actually there was not a great hoopla (Perhaps you really mean hoohah?) about this man at the beginning of the investigation. It was only at the end of May that he was mentioned to the Public (not much less than a month after the disappearance and long after he had returned to the UK or wherever he lives). And then the description given was of a man carrying a child or package in the area of PDL. Why the PJ were not more specific thus allowing the man to be more certain of his involvement only they know.

You end this paragraph with two rather unprofessional and very dismissive comments. Of course Scotland Yard are not going to tell you who he is? What goddammed (to use an Americanism you may understand) right do you or any of the public have to know his name? We live in a society where people are encouraged to stand up and be witnesses knowing that their accounts will be heard not on the Internet or on television but in court where such evidence belongs.

Your second dismissive point that he “suddenly pops up” again highlights a flawed understanding on your part. As a supposed profiler, I would have thought you might be aware just how often witnesses do not come forward, for reasons of fear, not wanting to give up time etc. Often the police have to go out of their way, door-knocking, locating individuals by various means, tracking witnesses down in fact. In this case that was rather easy because there was a simple way to do it. The PJ had full access to the OC records as we know. They could, immediately they learned of a man carrying a child around PDL at night, have accessed the records of the Creche and interviewed (before they left the town) the half dozen or so potential people to eliminate the man Tanner saw. But for whatever reason, perhaps they never made the mental connection between the crèche and late night movement of children, they never did those interviews. But we are told on the Crimewatch programme, Operation Grange officers did make the connection and the reason the man now “suddenly pops up” is because those officers did the work that the original PJ team should have done and went and interviewed the people involved. It was, again as we are told in the programme, only during discussions with one of these families that the person realised that the sighting could have referred to him. The timing is fully explained when you actually think about it.

What does this very questionable "discovery" do? It validates Jane seeing someone and invalidates the crime occurring at around 9:15. On the face of it, this should be a bad thing for the McCanns because this man was really Gerry's alibi. But, the way this is being spun, it will not matter. Why? Because Jane was not believed to be telling the truth by the Portuguese police (the PJ) and they believed the Smith sighting was Gerry (although Redwood claims the PJ overfocused on Jane's sighting as the suspect and ignored the Smith sighting - serious revisionist history). So, if Jane is a liar, then she is lying for a reason and the PJ believed it was to prove an abduction had occurred and Gerry put her up to the lie.

Your attempt to suggest that this discovery by the Operation Grange is somehow questionable is simply malicious. It is perfectly valid unless you are attempting to infer some kind of criminal activity on the part of the 30+ officers involved? Such inferential libel would not be very clever.

As for the rest of this paragraph, it is ironic that you accuse Redwood of revisionism when in fact it is you who are seriously guilty of it. There is no evidence in the Police files that the police were focused on the Smith sighting as Gerry McCann. It may have been the pet idea of Amaral but that was in his speculative book not the genuine police files. I suggest you go through the full official files instead of relying on a book which has no official standing because your last sentence bears no relation to the evidence in those files either. There is no statement in the files which backs up that outlandish idea of yours.

Now, if Jane is telling the truth, then the McCanns didn't push her to cover for them. This puts them one step closer to innocence.

By virtue of that sentence we can all see that you are unable to accept the general tenet of law in most civilised countries that a person is deemed innocent until actually proven guilty. Your clear inference is that the McCanns are guilty and needing to establish that they are innocent. It is actually the other way round but you have shown with many cases that you have commented on that you have no interest in this legal tenet and you merrily infer guilt where none exists.

But, of course, now that the only real "proof" of abduction while Gerry is alibied - Jane seeing someone carrying the child away while Gerry is on the street chatting with Jeremy- is gone, there is a problem. The way to solve it is to make sure there is another abductor and that is going to be the Smith sighting. Hence, the fact Matthew Oldfield didn't see Madeleine in her bed at 9:30 is left out of the reconstruction, so it appears that the abductor struck later than that, closer to 10 PM. So, now we have the right time for the abduction to coincide with the Smith sighting. The simple fact there could have been an abductor that late, now allows for that sighting not to be Gerry. Redwood also clearly states the man had graying hair which, as far as I know, Gerry did not have at the time. Does anyone remember the Smiths stating they saw any graying hair on the man with child heading to the beach? I don't.

There are a number of issues raised in this paragraph. Number one is that you appear to think that Gerry is not alibied at the later time. But he is. There are the witness statements of the Tapas group for a start (all credible intelligent people) and there is a tapas worker who when interviewed gave Gerry an alibi for the moments around 22H00.

You then go on to say that it is necessary to make sure there is “another abductor”. That is pure nonsense. The second potential abductor has existed ever since the Smith family gave evidence. Only one member of that group ever stated that they even considered it might be Gerry McCann. None of the others did and your deliberate ignoring of those other witnesses is about as unprofessional a reaction as could be expected.

Finally, you make a very unprofessional and rather foolish presumption when you say that you don’t recall mention of greying hair. That may be the case regarding the statements you have seen but you are merely presuming that they are the only statements available to the Operation Grange team. Do you not think it likely that in light of the importance that they place on this sighting that the Smith family may well have been among the more than 400 people so far interviewed by that team? Making presumptions may be what you think is the role of an amateur profiler without access to the full case files but thankfully such profilers are of no actual importance in cases, at least here in the UK.

Many think the e-fits looks just like Gerry; I don't think so. I think they had to make e-fits look similar enough because Mr. Smith said the guy looked like Gerry. But, the e-fits are just enough off for another man to be "found" that looks enough like Gerry to say it is understandable why Mr. Smith was confused. Of course, that Mr. Smith said the man looked like Gerry wasn't mentioned in the show so most people won't know, but later on, this can be addressed when it is necessary.

You really are getting more and more ridiculous as this piece of yours continues. Maybe in the narrow world that you inhabit “many think that the e-fit looks like Gerry”, but not in the real world. Thankfully I have found one thing I agree with you on, it does not in fact look like him.

But then the ridiculous overcomes you and you claim that these e-fits done by two different people have been deliberately manipulated to look just like Gerry McCann. Where in those textbooks on profiling you claim to have read did it mention such garbage? Do you really think this is credible? Do you really think that both these witnesses just allowed this to happen?

I think that man will surface just like the Jane Tanner suspect surfaced. At some point, we will hear that an innocent fellow who looks like Gerry came forward and said it was him with his daughter. Then, Gerry is completely exonerated and Scotland Yard will just have to find another suspect who was never seen. OR we will hear that Scotland Yard has identified some person from a s.e.x ring who sort of looks like Gerry but they cannot divulge more. OR we will hear that it was likely some dead predator who looked enough like Gerry to be mistaken for him. No proof will every be provided that any of these people really exist but it doesn't matter to the general public. If Scotland Yard says it is so and the media backs it, it must be so. It may sound convoluted but, the combination of vagueness and connecting dots that don't exist can be a successful method to use to convince people of something that they are not going to thoroughly research themselves. A magician calls this "misdirection."

Since when did pure guesswork without a shred of evidence to support it form part of the work of a profiler, even an amateur one such as yourself? Your guess as to somebody surfacing might come true, so might mine that police work will identify who that man was. But neither is as a result of profiling, its just guesswork.

Your attempt to suggest that Scotland Yard is in the long term process of deceiving the public over this issue though is beyond just guesswork, it is in the realms of the nutters and fruitcakes who believe that the world is controlled by lizards. Unless you provide something to back up these bizarre guesses and inferences then you really cannot be taken seriously by sane people.

Then, mission accomplished. The McCanns are "proven" innocent, the PJ incompetent, Amaral a libeler, and Scotland Yard a fine police agency that did a great investigation to find Madeleine and at least answer the question of what happened to her.

Again you are pretending that there is a need to prove innocence. As a so-called profiler you should be aware, as I pointed out above, that there is no such need. It is presumed.

As for the incompetence of the PJ, I am afraid there is absolutely no need for anyone at Scotland Yard to prove that. Amaral has pointed us to many of the deficiencies in his own team. He has highlighted the failings of the photographer, the poor quality of the fingerprinting team, the inability of his team to seize CCTV recordings which may have been vital etc. And we have seen outlined in this Crimewatch programme the disgraceful incompetence on the part of the PJ in that they never managed to interview the night crèche parents. To top all that of course, we have Amaral’s own admitted incompetence when he describes how his own failure to keep his mouth shut got him thrown off the case.

Most importantly, though, you get something completely and utterly wrong in this paragraph. You very oddly seem to think that the aim of the Operation Grange team is somehow to find out what happened to Madeleine McCann by getting her parents declared innocent. Therein lies the biggest flaw in your whole case, the most certain and revealing indication that there is not the tiniest iota of professionalism in this piece you have written.

Leaving aside the point I have already made about the McCanns actually not needing to be proven innocent is the ghastly conclusion that you have made that this would be the mission accomplished.

You have forgotten something.

You have entirely forgotten the whole purpose of the Madeleine McCann Case.

This is not about some hate campaign to have her parents declared guilty or even about having them declared innocent.

It is about discovering the whereabouts of this missing little girl.

Nowhere in your commentary do you express any emotion, any concern for this little girl, not even any realisation that the girl is actually the focus of the investigation.

Your whole trashy piece is about the notion you have picked up from Amaral that this is about her parents.

You have totally misunderstood the purpose of the Crimewatch Programme and worse you have totally misunderstood the aim of the whole investigation.

By ignoring little Madeleine in the way you have done, by sidelining the child, you have shown your utter lack of professionalism and indeed your total lack of empathy.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Posted by Pat Brown at 10:53 PM

Not Criminal Profiler Pat Brown at all but The Criminally Incompetent Profiler, Pat Brown.

PAT BROWN ‏@ProfilerPatB 3h
If it turns out SY is really setting a trap for the #McCann s, then I will be ecstatic & hi-5 them. If not, then it's police misconduct.

Sykes wrote:

PAT BROWN ‏@ProfilerPatB 3h
If it turns out SY is really setting a trap for the #McCann s, then I will be ecstatic & hi-5 them. If not, then it's police misconduct.

She knows about as much as pretendy officer pete re the law.  Moistened bint.       

Broho wrote:The whole anti side has a bunch of fakes on it.  Sad sacks.

Broho wrote:Yep  All have a B rating.     

PAT BROWN ‏@ProfilerPatB 3h  Greek police chief says finding a kid with unknown parentage is "unprecedented." So gypsies snatching children is extremely rare. #McCann

PAT BROWN ‏@ProfilerPatB 3h
The child found in Greece has not been proven "missing" as of yet. She may have been abandoned & taken in to a family and cared for

PAT BROWN ‏@ProfilerPatB 3h
If this Roma family took in an abandoned child I'm not saying they shouldn't have contacted LE; I'm saying no proof of kidnapping. #McCann