Posts Tagged ‘break-in’

Networld criminal profilers

January 21, 2010

As a criminal profiler, I have also sometimes been criticized for theorizing about a case I have not personally been privy to the actual facts from inside the investigation. As I do a lot of television commentary, this is quite often the case for me; I only can theorize based on the “facts” outlined by the media“.

Isn’t this what most of us do? Either sit in front of the television set and/or computer screen and form a theory based on what we see and hear of the case? We are presented with the “facts” and form a judgement based upon them what the likeliest scenario is or was.

For example, the “fact” that there was a break-in? The “fact” as presented by a spin doctor or in this case a spin cardiologist turns out not to be a fact at all once the spin is unspun and is pure fiction which is the direct opposite position.

That is, a purported truth is a lie. And the teller of this story is a liar. More precisely, a McCannliar. The role of a spin doctor, in this case a spin cardiologist, is to put across a message which favours the teller and when Clarence Mitchell sells out and joins the McCann Camp the teller paints the best picture he can for his client for us all to view. I have seen what I would call art and I have seen what some claim to be art and I see as pure garbage.

What we are talking about here is opinions. Clarence Mitchell is an opinion former. When MPs leave government or even those within it are associated with outside interests which earn them extra money. They are paid for what they know and who they know. Clarence Mitchell left a secure government post to work for the McCanns. That was a risky move if done so voluntarily. Did he jump or was he pushed? The reason I ask is the “fact” that he tipped off the McCanns to police monitoring of their phones. It is “fact” rather than fact purely because I was informed by a reliable source that this is what occured. Remember the mentioned liquid lunches the cops took? Let’s say for example, a crime reporter for a TV station is told to get the inside story. He has expenses. He bumps into a cop or cops, offers to buy their lunch. It’s a freebie. Drink? “Can’t say anything because of the secrecy laws”. Another drink? And after a while the drink loosens the tongue. How do you know this? We have been listening to their mobile phone calls and monitoring texts.

The UK government intelligence departments know this. They brief the Foreign Office, and Clarence Mitchell is briefed on his role to support the McCanns in Public Relations, but he oversteps this assistance and tells them they are being monitored. It is picked up by the police that the McCanns have been tipped off by Clarence Mitchell. The Portuguese government complains to the UK government and Clarence Mitchell must resign or face disciplinary action. He goes away to consider his position, phones the McCanns and they offer him a job.

Why would two totally innocent people enlist the support of some or all of their friends in a cover up if nothing had happened to Madeleine? There would be no point. So, we are dealing with criminals here. What are their individaul and collective crimes? What are their criminal profiles?


The truth of the matter is that the McCanns did lie

July 28, 2008

The McCanns, through their family and friends, informed the media that Apartment 5A had been broken into and that during the course of this break in the shutters were jemmied up and damaged in the process.

Because so many told this same story, it cannot be said that they all made this up, the story had to come from one source, which is what the family and friends said themselves, and that source was the McCanns.

Imagine for a moment that you come back to your apartment, after going out at 8.30pm, at, and your 3 year old daughter has gone missing. One of your first reactions would be to sound the alarm. Which is what Kate McCann did.

It is clear that there is no sign of a break in. However, the shutter has been raised from the inside and the window has been opened from the inside, and Kate McCann’s fingerprints are all over where they have been opened.

Given that there was no sign of a break in, the McCanns sought to create the impression that there had been a break in. This is like the magician or illusionist on stage trying to create an impression to fool the audience into believing they had seen something happen when in fact it was a trick.

Madeleine was the subject of a vanishing act. The McCanns claimed that an abductor broke into Apartment 5A and Madeleine vanished.

A “family friend Jill Renwick told GMTV the McCanns were certain that Madeleine has been abducted”.

“They were just watching the hotel room and going back every half-hour and the shutters had been broken open and they had gone into the room and taken Madeleine“.

However, in the same media report, quoting the Ocean Club manager:

“Mr Hill said that despite the report by a family friend that the shutters to the couple’s apartment were broken, there was no sign that anyone had forced their way in while the McCanns ate at the tapas restaurant 200 yards away”.

The lie here is not that Madeleine is missing. The deception is the McCanns claiming that there had been a break in at Apartment 5A, when there clearly had not been a break in. If the McCanns claimed that whoever broke into the apartment was responsible for Madeleine’s disappearance, and the apartment was not broken into but was just a story made up by the McCanns, then it follows that the McCanns are responsible for Madeleine’s disappearance. If this is not the case, then the McCanns are free to offer an explanation. They are no longer arguidos, they are no longer subjected to the Portuguese secrecy laws, they can no longer hide behind the “We cannot go into details”.

The police, PJ, and even Clarence Mitchell, has stated that there was no evidence of a break in.

But, the fact remains that the McCanns told a lie about there being a break in.

What is the truth behind why the McCanns told this lie?

McCanns: Watch this space

May 30, 2008

One of the tactics used by Coloumbo is to trawl through inconsistencies in suspects or witnesses statements. It’s a tactic I use. It was also a tactic that the PJ would have used had the Tapas Bar 9 returned to Portugal for the reconstruction.

Sources claimed the reconstruction was aimed at highlighting statement “inconsistencies” (‘Suspect’ fears of Tapas 7, The Sun, 30 May 2008).

I am not surprised that all of a sudden, during an interview with a journalist, Clarence Mitchell comes out with spin to justify what he knows to be inconsistencies in the Tapas Bar 9’s accounts.

It was made out to be the biggest ‘conspiracy’ since the Diana ‘conspiracy,'” says Mitchell. “Some of the group (of friends in the tapas restaurant) had their watches on that night, and others didn’t… asking nine people to give exact explanations of what happened at what moment during the evening was never going to produce matching stories; what would have been more suspicious was nine exactly co-ordinated accounts.

However, I will give a Mickey McCannMouse watch to anybody who can tell me what Clarence Mitchell’s explanation has to do with the Glaring inconsistency between the McCanns stating that there was a break-in, and the Mark Warner manager, police and PJ stating (and even Clarence Mitchell belatedly admitting) that there was no evidence of a break-in?