Australian TV show Sunday Night with Pat Brown

They're known in the business as noddies. Seriously.

Noddy and his friend Big Ears could have put on a more convincing show than this!

PAT BROWN‏ @ProfilerPatB · 1m1 minute ago  


 
Here is a readable veiw of my commentary on Mark Rowley's interview. Thank you, @singAnnie ! #mccann

http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.com/2017/04/why-mark-rowley-interview-confirms-my.html

PAT BROWN‏ @ProfilerPatB · 6m6 minutes ago

"What Ever Happened to Profiler Pat Brown's Lawsuit against Rahni Sadler and Seven West Media?" #mccann http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.com/2017/06/what-happened-to-profiler-pat-browns.html …

Oh dear, that wonder super sleuth report Rahni Sadler has lost her job, as someone said on twitter, ....



P_R‏ @Papa___Rico ·


So farewell then, Rahni Sadler, who has left Sunday Night without a fanfare. The #McCann curse strikes yet again





http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/media-diary/sunday-night-draws-to-quiet-close-for-sadler/news-story/

[snipped from article above]

But that is not the case across the way at Seven’s flagship current affairs program, Sunday Night — where two key female members of its on-air reporting team have departed without any fanfare. Seven insiders have confirmed the resignations of longstanding Sunday Night reporters Rahni Sadler and PJ Madam. Sadler had a low-key farewell around two months ago, and Madam at the end of last year.

Sadler has since been overseas taking a well-earned break, while Madam is pursuing other media projects. Meanwhile, Sunday Night has also added another male ­reporter, ex-Channel 10 news ­anchor Matt Doran.

I have no idea where this should go, and therefore don't know whether it has already been posted. If it has, apologies!


http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/what-happened-to-profiler-pat-browns.html

A number of people have been asking whatever happened to my lawsuit against Rahni Sadler and Seven West Media after they mispresented and libeled me in their Sunday Night "documentary" about the Madeleine McCann case? Some have even asked if I just claimed to be suing them for publicity.

No, I was not seeking publicity. I had every plan of suing them and was working with my attorney, Brian Close, to go after them. He wrote a very excellent summary of charges against Seven West Media and they responded with a bunch of bogus malarkey. This was the necessary first step for an out-of-court settlement which could be admission of guilt with or without any monetary settlement or a monetary settlement with no admission of guilt; it is also part of the entire process to indicate to the court that you tried to settle the issue privately. This attempt of setttlement failed which meant we then had to go to the Australian court system. To begin the next leg of this libel suit, I needed to get an Australian solicitor to pursue the case. I contacted a half dozen attorneys and I learned that pursuing a case in Australia for libel against me was doomed to failure. Apparently, I could only win the case IF my damages occurred to a reasonably high level IN Australia. Since most of the damages were and would be (reputation and financial) in the US and the UK, I had a very weak case. In other words, as long as the producers of television shows to be aired in Australia cleverly pick foreigners to libel the crap out of, they will never be taken to court.

Since a lawsuit in Australia was now out, I pursued another methodology. I contacted two journalist organizations that were supposed to monitor ethics in journalism and investigate and punish those who do not follow the rules (the third organization I didn't bother with because that one was run by Seven West Media itself who had broken off with the others when things didn't go their way in the past!). However, both of those organizations refused to investigate Seven West Media in spite of the fact there was evidence that their standards had been transgressed. I can only guess they are really in league with the media organizations and are not going to bother with a nonAustralian's claims against them.

So, the end result; Australian journalists clearly can commit ethics violations against foreigners with impunity. If YOU are someone who is asked by the Australian media for an interview, think twice about cooperating. I still have one Australian media outlet and journalist who have been honorable with me (Mark Saunokonoko and Nine News) who I will still work with, but I will not be likely to cooperate with any others as it is not worth the risk to one's reputation.

Of course, it isn't only Australia that has a problem with journalistic ethics; the US and UK also have proven to be less than honorable which is why I usually restrict my interviews to live interviews so I cannot be edited, misrepresented, and libeled. All of this lack of integrity in the media is very disheartening because it prevents news from being truthful and factual and keeps people interested in getting the truth out to the public from sticking their necks out if doing so is going to result in getting them chopped off.

UPDATE! Just hours after I wrote this block, a friend I informed me that Rahni Sadler has been let go by Sunday Night! Supposedly, this all happened very quietly without any fanfare; she hasn't appeared since my segment came out...whoosh, gone. Now, I cannot say whether this had anything to do with my very willingness to speak out about her lack off ethics and complete abuse of my interview on the McCann case, but when Mark Saunokonoko wrote his article detailing my plans to sue Rahni Sadler and Sunday Night and then a number of UK papers picked up the story, it might well have been enough that the Sunday Night staff decided Rahni Sadler was getting far too much bad press and they were better off without her. It may just be coincidence but I sure hope that I helped send her on her way. She needs to be out of journalism and at work in some field where truth and honor don't matter.

NOTE: It is not entirely true I wasn't seeking publicity! But, I was not seeking publicity for me, I was seeking publicity to expose Rahni Sadler and Sunday Night. I am sure she thought she could do whatever she wanted without any risk because I would have no way of doing her any damage in return. Almost never can anyone really make enough waves to cause unethical journalists to suffer any consequences for their actions.

This was one of the reasons I had a lawyer draw up the basic legal statement about suing them because I knew I needed that to get the news to write about what Rahni Sadler and Seven West Media had done. Without a legal angle, they would have ignored me. I fully intended to go forth with the lawsuit, but it was even more important that the media cover me doing so in order to publicly put all the media on notice that ethics DO matter and false news and libeling people just to get a story is NOT acceptable.

I can't say my exposure of Rahni Sadler is reason for her removal from Sunday Night but if I am behind her dismissal, I couldn't be happier!


Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
June 27, 2017

You have to admire Pat, she is both thorough and tenacious! Ethical standards in public life need a bit of a shake up and Pat"s the woman for the job. Well done Pat!

Will stick this here.

Mark is the Australian journalist.




fredthefish @fredthefish10
·
29 Jun

@saunokonoko Alright Mark. Any of your excellent articles in the pipeline #exposing the #McCann #farce ? Some dross in the #sun recently..


Mark Saunokonoko @saunokonoko
·
11h

Fred, there is something in the works. More details soon.

Here is a discussion of the documentary by Laid Bare:

http://laidbareblog.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/sunday-nights-madeleine-mccann.html

That one took me ages to do as well

Andrew wrote:That one took me ages to do as well

LOl Andrew - it's good to know you are keeping your chin up - I'm sorry I get a bit motherly sometimes. 

Andrew wrote:That one took me ages to do as well

Oh Lordy Andrew! Now you will have given TB apoplexy wondering how you could actually have written that blog last night disguised as Mo, whilst chatting to Ben on the phone before driving to wherever to use an internet cafe so you could disguise your ip address in order to spam Jill's FB pretending to be drunk.

... Don't tell me that Jill is now accusing me of spamming her Facebook?

Andrew wrote:... Don't tell me that Jill is now accusing me of spamming her Facebook?

Well she accused Ben of it. Ergo......That`s a joke Tony.

Ah right. Yes, I see what you mean.

It looks as if this dreadful programme is going to be repeated on Sunday night.

https://www.facebook.com/7sundaynight/?hc_ref=ARSHf6RgJMGU1hz6UzGPYQGHVA1ZL8qrW0GaoWm3qSXT5pJSamSNHFltGjTZ8MXWxyI&fref=nf

I haven't been able to establish if this is a new programme or just the last pile of manure regurgitated. 

The programme isn't accessible outside Australia. I wonder at what age children start school in Australia........

"This program explores new theories on the disappearance of British schoolgirl Madeleine McCann".


Pat Brown didn't mince her words on Facebook.

Pat Brown
11 hrs · 

Seriously, Channel 7 from Australia just called and asked if I would come on and comment on the new Madeleine McCann suspect. I told them to f*** off. [ltr]#mccann[/ltr]

Crackfox wrote:I remember an interview - not sure which one - in which KM said she read two stories, Mog and If You're Happy and You Know it. I think she also mentions the stories in her book. I think she is supposed to have left them with books and games whilst in the shower, although I'm not sure games and books would hold the attention of the two year old twins for long, so I hope she was quick.

In this interview, GM (unconvincingly, imo) explains how he felt that last time he allegedly saw his daughter alive at 9.05pm on that fateful Thursday evening.

It was one of those parental moments where I thought, 'God, we're so lucky. Look at her.' Three children, we're having a lovely holiday. The kids were really enjoying it, and I just lingered for a few seconds and thought how beautiful she was," Mr McCann said. "And that was the last time I saw her."


Sorry, but I don't buy it. Is this really the same man who was slumped boorishly on the airport bus swearing in front of his family and the Payne family and stating he wasn't there to enjoy himself?

This is really rather a good article, from the Sydney Morning Herald in April 2017 (link below).  Notice the headline - no punches pulled there. I think Sunday Night is the name of the programme in which Gerry denies harming Madeleine but given that I think *something* had happened by Monday, it does raise a certain possibility.

Dr Amaral is quoted, robustly defending his position: "There is no hint, no proof that the child was kidnapped. On the contrary, there are hints that the parents were negligent and there are hints there was hiding of the body," said ex-lead investigator Detective Goncalo Amaral through a translator. "This was our point of view in 2007, that she was dead." Det. Amaral was so sure of the McCanns' guilt that he went as far as publishing a book, after he was taken off the case, that suggested the British Secret Service, MI5, helped conceal Madeleine's body.


The latter part of the sentence above, in bold, is intriguing. Could this partly account for the fact that no body has ever been found?

Gerry's denial is interesting due to the number of times he says no and also because of the qualifiers.

When asked by Sunday Night reporter Rahni Sadler "Did you kill your daughter?", Mr McCann replied: "No. No. Never.

"And you know, there's nothing with any logic that could, you know... You would have to start with why? How? When? Who? And there's just simply, you know, no answer to any of these things – there's nothing to suggest anything. So no – that's an emphatic 'no'."

He initially responds with two 'no' s and then a 'never'. One 'no' would have sufficed and 'never' is an odd choice of word. It appears to bring a timeline into the question when the question didn't refer to a time. It was simply asking whether he had done something. 'I never did it' tends to be something that children say when they are guilty of having done something.

It's interesting that Gerry then goes on to ask the all-important questions in the case: why, how, when, who? And goes on to say there is no answer to any of those things and there's 'nothing to suggest anything'. The latter is simply not true, otherwise Dr Amaral would not have made the statements that he made. You have to reverse what Gerry says, in actual fact, and revisit what Dr Amaral has said: There is no hint, no proof that the child was kidnapped. On the contrary, there are hints that the parents were negligent and there are hints there was hiding of the body,

Since I would believe Dr Amaral any day over Gerry McCann, I'll go along with Dr Amaral's version of events.

I think a genuine answer from Gerry would have been. 'No I did not'. He is forced to flat-out deny what Dr Amaral has said and then came back to the word 'no' again. This time, he qualifies the 'no' by stating 'that's an emphatic no.'

Once again, we only have Gerry's word for this. Are we likely to believe what he says more because he has repeated the word 'no' and then stated that 'it's an emphatic no'?

We then have not only the wimpish (imo) SY detective Redwood but also the pink one bolstering the abduction theory by claiming there had been a spate of paedophile incidents in the Algarve.

There had been 12 crimes between 2004 and 2010, when an intruder broke into the properties of UK families, within a 60km radius of where Madeleine disappeared. On six of those occasions, the intruder either got into bed with or sexually assaulted a young female child.

"What we can see here is clearly a man who has got a very, very unhealthy interest in young, white, female children, who he is attacking whilst in their beds while on their holidays," Det-Insp. Redwood said.

Were these alleged crimes ever reported in the press? Was anyone ever caught? Incredibly, not only did the intruder target young, white and female children but he also targeted British children. He must have been doing his homework to know which properties were inhabited by UK families and not Portuguese families or families of other nationalities.

Mitchell is quoted as saying: 'There had been a number of crimes in the Algarve, whereby there had been attempted break-ins where children had been asleep in some cases and they fled from the child's bedroom," said the McCann's friend Clarence Mitchell.' Is there are shred of evidence for the above allegations? Were there any reports of the crimes? What did the Portuguese police do as clearly the families would have wanted to report the crimes.

We then have the claim that, in the months before Madeleine disappeared, there was a four-fold increase in the number of robberies in the area. And just weeks before Madeleine arrived, there were two unsolved burglaries in the villa block where the McCanns stayed.

To bolster the idea that the Algarve is some kind of lawless state with paedophiles roaming unchecked, we then have 'forensic expert' Prof David Barclay, who appears to be supporting the idea that there had been some kind of cover-up by Portuguese police over the woeful state of affairs. Is Prof Barclay really suggesting that there was a 'conspiracy' by the Portuguese police and also the Portuguese Tourist Board to cover up the crimes and the 'fact' that random paedophile/s were going around taking children out of holiday apartments? This does indeed appear to be the allegation, which is quite a serious one and tends to beg the question that if the police had done their job then would the 'abductor' have been caught and therefore Madeleine 'saved'? That is quite some suggestion.

"Well, I think the Portuguese police and the Portuguese Tourist Board would have been quite keen not to feature the number of burglaries that were going on in Praia da Luz and other towns on the Algarve," said forensic expert, Professor David Barclay. And the fact that random paedophiles going around taking children out of holiday apartments, would have probably been quite a disincentive to families turning up for their holidays. So they wouldn't want to feature that.

Really? Can Portuguese police confirm reports of these crimes? Can the tour operators confirm this? What action was taken to try to find the perpetrator/s? What is there to link these alleged crimes with that of the disappearance of Madeleine?  Is it really a FACT that children were taken out of holiday apartments by random paedophiles?

If it is true, as Detecrtive Redwood stated, that the intruder/s got into bed with the children in some cases then there would be DNA evidence left behind. plus quite possibly other evidence. Dr Redwood is quoted as stating that: "On six of those occasions (when an intruder broke into the property of a UK family)  the intruder either got into bed with or sexually assaulted a young female child.

A strange sentence, even allowing for sloppy journalism. So the intruder either got into bed or sexually assaulted a young female child. Details like this matter, because they are important in building up a profile of the alleged criminals. So there were intruders who got into bed with the child, but didn't sexually assault them? And then there were sexual assaults that did not involve the intruder getting into bed with the child? Does that mean the assaults happened when the children were not in bed? Or the intruder took the children out of their beds and even apartments before assaulting them - as Prof Barclay seems to be suggesting? Or what? A more logical sentence would be: 'the intruder got into bed and sexually assaulted a young female child.'

Perhaps the reason for the strange accounts of the random roaming paedophile/s with a proclivity to young, white British female children staying in the Algarve is that they were never there in the first place?  And that they may have been conveniently introduced into the narrative (by the British consul who speaks to Kate?) in order to provide a handy explanation as to how Madeleine may have been stolen from her bed? And to cast a slur over the Portuguese police and indeed the Tourist Board who have been so inept as to not warn British holiday-makers about the dangers of holidaying in the Algarve.

And just think, if the Portuguese police had done their job and dealt with these crimes, then little Madeleine might have been saved from her fate. This would appear to be the inference.

Thank goodness for Dr Amaral. He appears to have seen through the BS (as indeed did most of the Portuguese police it would seem). But this article demonstrates really well how much propaganda he and his team were up against.

https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/madeleine-mccanns-parents-deny-killing-or-being-negligent-of-their-daughter-on-sunday-night-20170423-gvqv5x.html

ETA: Maybe not the right thread for this as it's not about the airport sequence at all![/b]

I've put your post here poster as it relates to the Australian TV show - Rahni Sadler makes U K journalists seem unbiased and accurate when it comes to talking about the McCanns!

Freedom wrote:I've put your post here poster as it relates to the Australian TV show - Rahni Sadler makes U K journalists seem unbiased and accurate when it comes to talking about the McCanns!

Thanks! I see she has come in for a lot of flak but I actually thought that her interview was quite good. She was the only journalist who was ever that direct and she put the question to him in such a way that he felt obliged to answer in a way that was, presumably unintentionally, quite incriminating.

Was it actually Rhani who asked the question though? I may be having a heat-related senior moment but the interview where the McCanns were asked that came from 2011 and I thought that someone else was interviewing them.

I'll see if I can find out.

P.S. Yes it was.

https://mmknowthetruth.blogspot.com/2017/06/did-you-kill-your-daughter.html

Ah, thank you. Do we know who this interviewer is? The clip is priceless, imo. I am unable to slow it down but by stopping it frequently you can watch their body language moment by moment.

When the interviewer asks: "Did you kill your daughter?" the first thing I noticed was that Kate looks down and to the left. This tends to indicate some kind of internal dialogue (as you would expect in the circumstances, imo). As Gerry starts to say 'no' (with a certain lack of conviction, imo, note how his voice seems to lack authority and almost 'disappears' into him) Kate at first closes her eyes ('I don't want to hear this' seems to be the message) but then her head swings around very quickly - a really abrupt movement - her eyes dart towards him. (You see this quite often in interviews with Kate. I think it is when she is concerned that she or Gerry will not be believed.)  I think in this instance it  indicates that this is a loaded question and Kate appears to be challenging him here as to what his response will be. Kate then stares right  at him at which point Gerry then closes his eyes ('I don't really want to be here/talk about this/admit this'). As he utters his denial/s  (is it the emphatic no?) we see that grimace of hers. The lip pulled up in an expression of contempt. We saw this before in media interviews when Kate appeared to try to minimize the importance of the crying incident.  Is she trying to be deceptive with her reaction? I think there is considerable evidence that the pair both try to deceive with their body language and facial expressions.

Nevertheless, as Gerry says 'no' his left hand moves up to touch his nose. Some actions are involuntary and this is one of them I do believe. Touching the nose is, of course, associated with deception and I do believe that Gerry does this quite a lot in interviews.

What a fascinating microcosm of facial expressions, all in the matter of a few seconds! I can quite understand why the pair were not amused when this interview was brought up again only last year. It's fascinating and I find the interviewer's gaze quite compelling - were the gruesome twosome blindsided by her direct approach without all the sycophancy that they were used to?

OMG - just look through those few seconds again. Press the pause button repeatedly. It tells you everything you need to know.

Notice how the couple at the very beginning of the clip are both making direct eye-contact with the interviewer. I wouldn't say they look particularly relaxed - I would say apprehensive and a bit despondent (are they realizing by the time of this interview that they cannot fool all the people all the time....?) Then notice that even before the interviewer has finished that all-important question, GM stops his eye-contact with her and looks up and to the right. At that point the interviewer has only uttered two words: "Did you....".

Even before the word 'kill' has been uttered (and let's face it that's a pretty emotive word especially when followed by 'your daughter') GM is already avoiding eye-contact and notice that his eyes go ever-upward. Looking up and to the right can be indicative of deception. Notice how his wife continues to look at the interviewer after GM has looked away. I think at the 0.01 point there is anger or maybe disbelief in her look - perhaps she literally cannot believe that someone has asked that all-important question. However after that moment of disbelief/anger Kate immediately looks down and to the left. Not saying this proves anything at all, but it's quite noticeable.

IMO!