Saturday, July 14, 2012

Pat Brown On Stephen Birch - To Dig Or Not To Dig.

http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.co/
.The Daily Profiler
Hosted by The Pat Brown Criminal Profiling Agency
SATURDAY, JULY 14, 2012
Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: To Dig or Not to Dig

South African businessman Stephen Birch says he has proof of some sort of cavity beneath a second pebble driveway (put in after Madeleine McCann's disappearance) and he believes that Maddie may be buried in that particular spot, a possible grave he located with a geo-radar machine he ran over Robert Murat's property (where his mother is living) a number of times quite illegally. He admits he had no permission to be on the grounds and, under the cover of night, slipped onto the property and ran his tests. He recognizes he may be sued for this and has his lawyers in place to deal with the possibility.

I am not going to speak of legalities and ethics in this particular post. Personally, I do not approve of trespassing on private property, possibly terrifying anyone at home (although some will claim I am the pot calling the kettle black because I touched the shutters on Apartment 5A when it was vacant which were accessible from the public walkway in the resort at which I was staying). Anyway, the issue at hand I am wishing to discuss is not whether Mr. Birch should be dealt with legally, but whether there is any merit to his claim and if anyone should dig at the spot on the driveway and who that should be.

 First, to the issue of Mr. Birch's theory that Madeleine was dead on May 3rd and buried on Murat's property the same night. I will not get into his entire theory as to who was involved and why. Suffice it to say, his theory is possible, if not all that probable, at least from this profiler's experience. IF his theory were to be true, it would be a major anomaly. If Maddie is buried on Murat's property, I would have to believe that Robert Murat was himself involved in the crime, that he was a child sex predator who saw a lucky opportunity, grabbed the child, and ran back to his house with her. Then, finished with his enjoyment of the child, he would have done what most child sex predators do; kill the child straight away. Then, he would have buried her on his own property believing that he would not become a suspect and, thereby, her body would not be found with his DNA on it somewhere on the side of the road.

Do I believe that this is what happened? Do I believe Murat is involved? No, but only because the evidence, in my opinion, doesn't point in his direction (see all my blogs on the case and my Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann). I don't believe Maddie was abducted, I do believe the McCanns are involved, and my Number One choice of where Maddie would be found buried is Monte do Jose Mestre, a desolate area west of Praia da Luz where Gerry McCann's cell phone pinged.

If Murat were not involved in the disappearance of Maddie McCann and the Gerry and Kate McCanns did have something to do with their daughter's demise, I would find it highly improbable that Maddie would be buried by one of her parents (with or without the help of any of their friends) nearby on someone's private property. I find it would be extraordinary, that  under great duress right after finding her dead that evening,  Gerry would have the audacity and balls to go onto someone's property, dig a hole, and bury Maddie there in an attempt to to frame someone in the community. I could believe someone burying their child on some stranger's farm in the country in some remote and area easily accessible to the road, but just down the street on a property behind an inhabited house in the middle of town, this is too unbelievable to me. If the McCanns were involved and Gerry was seen trotting toward the beach with Maddie by the Smith family, that behavior is more in line with known behaviors of parents involved in the death of their child; he would have been in a panic and quickly trying to get her body away from the vacation residence and to a remote place where any predator could have dumped her. What might have happened after that would all depend on luck and circumstances and having more time to think things through. But to place her just down the street on someone's property, I doubt it. Could be true, but it would be extremely odd.

Now, on to the issue of should the property be dug up at that spot just to make sure? I don't object to it. Who the suspect would be if it turned out Maddie was buried on the property is secondary to locating the chid and seeing justice done for her. Also, if the theory she is buried there does not pan out, perhaps Mr. Birch and others will take that machine and a search party over to Monte do Jose Mestre and see if they can find Maddie over there.

But who decides if the driveway at Murat's should be excavated? If the police do not have probably cause and they don't believe Birch's video of his radar scanning means much, they are not going to be knocking on Murat's mom's door. Is there really any evidence pointing to the Murat property or Murat? Is that video really indicative of a grave? If it is, could it be the grave of a dog? Could that cavity be the result of some other disturbance to that ground could cause a scan that looks to Birch like a grave?

Next, should Robert Murat just say, "What the hell! Let me just shut this guy up!" and allow the driveway to be dug up?  I would say if he wasn't worried about a body being there, he could do that. But, on the other hand, even if he had nothing to do with Maddie's disappearance, he might now be paranoid someone has put her body there and he will indeed be framed, or that someone has planted some kind of evidence to make it look like a body might have been there. If I were in his shoes, I don't know what I would do.


Should the McCanns push the police or Murat to take action? Well, if I were them and I were innocent, I would damn sure want that ground dug up because it would drive me crazy not to know if Maddie was really there or not.

What do I think will likely happen? Nothing. I think the police don't have probable cause, Murat won't want to take the chance, and the McCanns, in my opinion, already know whether she is under that driveway or not. So, nothing will happen unless the Murat family no longer owns the property and the new owners have no problem with the matter being settled with a little digging on the drive. I don't think we are going to see that coming down the pike any time soon.

What I wouldn't be surprised to see is Stephen Birch ending up on the end of a Carter-Ruck lawsuit via the McCanns for claiming Maddie is dead.  We all know how the McCanns deal with differing opinions, don't we?


Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

July 14, 2012

Wednesday, July 11, 2012

McCann : PACT - Lady Myer Exposed As A Fraudster BUT Hey Thats OK - Kate McCanns Now On Board Missing Persons.


Events: Launch of New MissingKids Website at No. 10 Downing Street

On May 23rd, the Home Secretary Theresa May hosted a reception at No. 10 Downing Street to mark International Missing Children's Day.  The reception honored families of the missing and the work that PACT, Missing People, and CEOP have done to improve the protection of children.
The reception also marked the launch of two very important new initiatives: (1) a redesigned MissingKids website that distributes images of, and information on, missing children to police and public across the world, and (1) a pan-European free phone number (116 000) for people to call if they have information about a missing child or are missing themselves. 
Click here for the press release.
Below are few photos from the reception.  Great thanks to PACT supporter Michael Zuckerman for the photography.






(L-R) Nicki Durbin, mother of missing Luke Durbin; Kate McCann, mother of missing Madeleine McCann; and Clarence Mitchell.



Lady Meyer outside No 10 with one of our Black Cabs advertising the new MissingKids website.




(L) Nicki Durbin and (R) Kate McCann.



(L) Lady Meyer and (R) Peter Davies, CEO of CEOP.


(L-R) Tim Loughton, MP, Lady Meyer, and Sue Lawley, OBE.



(L) Robert Easter and (R) Sarah Cecilie Finkelstein Waters.


(L-R) Sirdar Aly Aziz, Terry Tyrrell, Sir Martin Sorrell, Sir Christopher Meyer.


(L) Tim Loughton, MP and (R) Sue Lawley, OBE.


(L-R) Margot Phair; Mark Bergman, PACT Trustee; Michael Phair; Sir Christopher Meyer; Ria Broad.         
             

Sir Christopher and Lady Meyer.


(L) Lady Meyer and (R) Matthew Dearden.



(L-R) Matthew Dearden, Michael Phair, Sir Christopher Meyer, and Clarence Mitchell.


(L-R) Keith Chanter, CEO of EMCOR Group UK; Cecilia Braggiotti; Lady Meyer; Jane Hack, EMCOR Group UK.




(L-R) Robert Easter, Lady Meyer, Teresa Selwyn.



(L) Laurence Timmons and (R) Shirley Chau.


(L) Sue Lawley, OBE, and (R) Sir Christopher Meyer.



(L) Michael Zuckerman and (R) Louise Goodall.




(L) Kee Meng Tan and (R) Frederique Tan.


(L-R) Peter Davies, CEOP CEO; The Rt. Hon. Theresa May, Home Secretary; and Lady Meyer.


(L-R) Lady Meyer; The Rt. Hon. Theresa May, Home Secretary; and Mr. and Mrs. Kee Meng Tan.


(L-R) Ria Broad, Margot Phair, and Florence Quirici.



(L-R) Nick Candy, Holly Valance, Ross Miller, and Teresa Selwyn.



(L) Adrian Oldfiend, PACT Trustee, and (R) Ann Bevan, PACT Staff.


(L) The Rt. Hon. Theresa May, Home Secretary, and (R) Lady Meyer.


Lady Meyer announing the launch of the new MissingKids website at No. 10 Downing Street.

 
Peter Davis, CEO of CEOP, announcing the launch of the new Missing Kids website.


(L) Sonya Zuckerman and (R) Michele Beaconsfield.


(L) Mowbray Jackson and (R) Ben Glazier.


(L) Thomas Fink and (R) Drummond Money-Coutts, Magician Extraordinaire.
 





http://www.pact-online.org/10_downing

Tuesday, July 10, 2012

#McCann: #MissingPeople #PACT - Birds Of A Feather Flock Together.

A charity, a lady, a scandal

I bring to your attention the charity PACT:  Parents & Abducted Children Together.  The website of the charity informs us that PACTworks with the government, the police and other NGOs to improve the way in which missing childrenís [sic] cases are handled, so that they can be rapidly located and retrieved unharmed.” Abducted children: a fine charitable cause.  Tesco is associated with the charity. Among others, the trustees of the charity include the author Barbara Taylor Bradford, a former head of Special Branch in Northern Ireland and Sir Christopher Meyer, former British Ambassador to the United States. This is not all because the patrons include both Cherie Blair, wife of a former British Prime Minister and Laura Bush, wife of the former American president.   A very credible selection of people.

Those that donate money to charity, however wealthy they are, have limited funds to donate. A donation to one charity means a smaller or no donation to another. If asked by a friend or acquaintance for a donation to PACT, a charity founded in 1999 by Lady Meyer, the wife of Sir Christopher Meyer, one might have done so in the belief that their donation was doing good.  But was this really the case?

As the accounts of the charity show, in 2010 income was £97,805 and expenditure, £80,491. In 2009, the income was £28,445 and expenses £87,640 leading to a loss, even after taking into account unrealised investment gains, of over £50,000. When we look at expenses we can see that over £49,586  of expenses in 2010 related to the salaries of Catherine Meyer (Lady Meyer) and her administrative assistant.  The Daily Telegraph understands that nearly 70 percent of that money was related to the salary of Lady Meyer. In 2009, expenses directly related to the salaries of Lady Meyer and her assistant was £63,877. It is quite easy to see why the charity lost over £50,000 that year. Donations to the charity seem to have done more to pay the Chanel-clad Lady Meyer her salary and expenses than they have done to assist abducted children.

People set up or involve themselves in charities for all sorts of reasons and not all of the reasons are necessarily altruistic. Improving social standing, developing contacts or trying to secure a knighthood might be included as to a reason for involvement. Donors to charities understand that this is case but do not begrudge such side benefits if the charity is hugely benefitting from their efforts. Donors to charities also understand that a charity might need to employ professional staff who need to be paid. What they do not expect is that the big-wigs at the top of the charity, the so-called great and good, are paid.

It makes a mockery of giving to charity if the charitable donations are going to a person who can use the funds to purchase more Chanel suits, designer clothes that the donors cannot afford for themselves. When a beggar on a street informs us he is “homeless and hungry” and requests a donation, he might not be telling the full truth about his condition, but at least he is being honest as to who is to be the recipient of the donation .

http://madeleinemccannagenda.blogspot.com.es/2012/01/mccanns-friend-lady-catherine-myer.html

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Kate McCann appointed Ambassador for Missing People Organization - Unfuckingbelievable!



Seriously?
I know, I know. I should be more professional than to use such bad language, but having Kate McCann be the poster woman for people who have lost children, just blows my mind. Yes, Kate surely is pretty good at making children go missing, but it is this fact alone that should disqualify her for any ambassador position connected to missing anybodies. In fact, it should make her poison to any organization seeking money and support for finding missing persons. Not only has Kate managed to lose her child due to her own poor skills at mothering, but she has squandered millions of donor dollars on crooked and incompetent private investigators who haven't unearthed a damned clue, much less the body of her own very likely very dead daughter.

What in god's name was this Missing People organization thinking? Even if they find Kate McCann a sympathetic figure, even if they believe her daughter was really abducted, even if they believe she has truly spent five years searching for her missing child, the people who run this organization have to know that a good many people think Kate McCann is guilty of child neglect, guilty of manslaughter, guilty of covering up a crime, guilty of obstructing a police investigation, and guilty of defrauding the public of money. Who chooses such a person to represent their organization? Wasn't there one person in the leadership who said, "You know, bringing Kate McCann on board might not be such a bright idea."

Of course, Kate McCann, had she any sense of decency and concern for the purpose of such an organization should have said, "I do appreciate your kind offer and your generous support of my innocence and forgiveness of my parenting "mistake, but I wouldn't want to do harm to your organization, do more damage than good, considering how many people think I am guilty of a number of crimes. They will undoubtedly attack your organization if my name were to be linked with it."

Oh, I get why Kate didn't turn down the offer; it fits with her personality.  I am not a bit surprised. If she had turned it down, I might have actually stopped to rethink my analysis of her. Guess I don't have to do that.

So, go figure. Another bizarre occurrence in the McCann saga which involves people who shouldn't be involved with them. I never was much for conspiracy theories, but with all the high level people sticking up for the McCanns and ignoring their very concerning behaviors and misdeeds, I just have to wonder why the McCanns seem to walk on British waters, don't you?


Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.com.es/2012/07/criminal-profilng-topic-of-day-kate.html