Australian TV show Sunday Night with Pat Brown

Part 3:

http://laidbareblog.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/sunday-nights-madeleine-mccann_24.html?m=1

JillyCL‏ @JillyCL ·

@colinsutton Surely you can't be happy that you're being quoted all over UK McMedia today with this nonsense? #ClarenceMitchell #PRopaganda









He tells us the Sky documentary he is in is on 2nd May.








Colin Sutton‏ @colinsutton · 8h  
 

No, I am very unhappy. Especially as I a) do not believe that and b) never said it. I simply said I think that needed looking at.

Pat Brown
6 hrs
Action has been taken. As of noon yesterday @RahniSadler and @SevenWestMedia received a six page defamation letter from my attorney. #mccann

Pat has a new blog.....


PAT BROWN‏ @ProfilerPatB · 6m6 minutes ag





"Why I did the Sunday Night show with Rahni Sadler" #TheDaily Profiler #mccann http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.com/2017/04/why-i-did-sunday-night-show-with-rahni.html …

PAT BROWN‏ @ProfilerPatB · 10m10 minutes ago


Why has not ONE media outlet commented on the fact #SundayNight lied about "new evidence" & the "breakthrough" it touted? #mccann

Google translation.



This is how the ex-inspetor of the judicial police (PJ) GonçaloAmaral sorts the channel 7 Australia's documentary about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, who revealed a clue about an employee of the Ocean Club in Lagos, where the child disappeared almost 10 years

The production of the program ' Sunday Night used images of the former PJ Coordinator for a walk on the beach. Amaral assured the CM that "it's a lie" that has given any interview for this program.

"I don't know how they did it, I went on many beaches, but never with that reporter [Rahni Sadler]. It's a lie, that just demonstrates the lack of credibility of the track ", said the former investigator of the PJ, accusing the parents of the child have English" a powerful media machine and well oiled, which over the years has contributed to the defense of your main concern: to your image ".

Amaral says have been "shocked" with Maddie's father's response to the question about if they killed her daughter, broadcast in the documentary. "It is strange that a father has to say what I said. A simple "no" is more spontaneous and honest that a "no, no" emphatic (father's words) ", stresses.


http://www.cmjornal.pt/portugal/detalhe/amaral-diz-que-pista-de-maddie-e-aldrabice

I did wonder about that - so it was all a complete fake, not just a misleading use of old footage.

How do they do that though, put her in with him on the beach?

All sorts of tricks are possible nowadays!

Remember this advert and others?

I hadn't had time to watch the video of the programme, and now it is gone
Does anyone have a link to it please ?

It's now unavailable - now that is interesting!

I'll see if I can find it anywhere else.

Thanks Freedom, so the "Gone" vid has gone !!

Freedom wrote:It's now unavailable - now that is interesting!

I'll see if I can find it anywhere else.

Blimey 'gone' already, wonder if it is anything to do with Pat's defamation letter.

That's what I was thinking - not to mention Mr Amaral's claim that he has never spoken to the programme.

I've left a message for Pat Brown on Facebook to see what she says about it.

P.S. We'll have to make do with the trailer.

Mo wrote:Here is a link to watch the programme


https://au.news.yahoo.com/sunday-night/video/watch/35131192/madeleine-mccann-gone-part-1/

Regarding the other topic about the video being removed from YouTube, this is what you get when you click on the above link now.

"Sorry, video is only available within Australia due to licensing restrictions".

mumof6 wrote:

candyfloss wrote:

Talk to friends and family, well maybe but that won't get the word out to the masses will it? Whatever subject you are discussing....,

Pat Brown is getting her side out now though, there are some media outlets that do listen, such as  9 news.com which has printed her version  and it is being circulated around the world....

I think you underestimate the power of the talking to friends and family.

Dictators can only control public opinion if they can control the gossip in each street. That is why the East German secret police had someone in each block of flats who would report back on "dangerous" talk, and why the school children were asked which radio station their parents listened to. They wanted to control the flow of information into the country, and the flow of information between people, only by doing that was the dictatorship "safe".

Talking to friends and family is very powerful, as they also talk, and the people they talk to talk.

I don't know whether you ever read the 101 dalmatians, with its idea that dogs barking can reach the whole country, each dog repeating the message to the next dog?

With people, that can really happen.

Sadly, the system is also really good at spreading rubbish, but hopefully, most people can sift out the wheat from the chaff.

I hear what you are saying but have you ever tried talking about this case to friends? It is very hard not to appear like a conspiraloon because most people are just not interested. When I do get an opportunity to mention Madeleine, eyes glaze over, exits are sought and subjects changed as soon as possible. I gave up trying to convince anyone several years ago because i realised that I was the only person I know who gives an actual stuff. I also realised that my passion for justice is not commonly held by others.
I would hate to find out that my reputation went along the lines of, "Chirpy is ok but whatever you do, don't mention Madeleine McCann."

I agree, Chirpy.

I've found that it's one of those subjects where I need to have heard some previous input from people before I bring it up for discussion.

Here is a still photo of the supposed meeting.

https://servimg.com/view/14388310/3481

I've found this short interview with the Brain of Australia before the programme was broadcast.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/video/watch/35130099/rahni-sadler-talks-about-her-story-on-the-madeleine-mccann-case/#page1

Last few posts about current media stories transferred out and separate topics with a video of the actual programme (now whooshed) and GA's denial that he ever participated with it merged with this one.

candyfloss wrote:Who would think that this lovely, child friendly resort would have rapists, burglars, child snatchers, paedophiles all running amok. 

That reminds me of something else MR said, I can't remember his exact words but it was along the lines of, in any area if you look closely enough you will be able to find sex offenders. To me this was challenging the notion that Luz is a den of iniquity, as some like to suggest.

The very fact that Luz is a place where people know one another means that it is fairly unlikely that too much bad happens.

In that sort of area, if you steal from your neighbours, and are caught, people will still not trust you years later. If you touch a child in the wrong way, which may, or may not, have been innocent, everyone who has children will be warned to keep them away from you.

It can be very difficult to break the rules of that sort of society, the cost is too high, so even people who would commit crime in a big city will (roughly) behave themselves in a smaller place.


Of course if they know that they can get away with it, that is different, but abducting Madeleine would have been a high risk crime, especially walking down the street with her. How would you explain yourself to your neighbours next day? "err... she was my long lost niece who was staying the night. No, no car, they walked in at 9pm and left at 4am. "?

I currently live in a similar sort of place, in the sense of people know each other, if not everyone, then you know someone who knows X. If we get visitors, people know, and ask who they are. If we have a party, people ask the occasion.

No way I would be able to walk down the street carrying a three year old without attracting attention.

With thanks to a poster on CMoMM, here is another link to the programme. Watch it before it's whooshed again!

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5jyc3c_madeleine-mccann-gone_news

Here are the approximate times when Goncalo Amaral appears in the programme, or old footage is used to make it seem that he does.

16.30, 23.15 and 36.38.

The first one includes the scene where Rahni Sadler supposedly walked along a street with him. How were they able to converse with each other without an interpreter? Note that we don't actually hear him say anything.

The other old clips of him are clearly in my opinion doctored (pun fully intended) to make it look as if RS is the one asking him the questions.

Freedom wrote:Here are the times when Goncalo Amaral appears in the programme, or old footage is used to make it seem that he does.

16.30, 23.15 and 36.38.

The first one includes the scene where Rahni Sadler supposedly walked along a street with him. How were they able to converse with each other without an interpreter? Note that we don't actually hear him say anything.

The other old clips of him are clearly in my opinion doctored (pun fully intended) to make it look as if RS is the one asking him the questions.

A common trick in local news coverage where only one camera is available is to film the interviewee, then later film the interviewer asking the questions, giving the odd nod etc., then splice the two together to make it look like you were cutting between two cameras. The giveaway is that anybody familiar with the location will generally notice that the backgrounds are impossible to match, often the segments being shot in completely different rooms or places.