Tuesday, April 25, 2017

Why I did the Sunday Night show with Rahni Sadler



I have been watching all the comments as to why I chose to participate in the Sunday Night show and, I can tell you, an awful lot of people say stuff that is far from the truth; simply put, they don't know me and they don't know the media and they don't know law enforcement. And when you are unfamiliar with the subject matter, you tend to guess as to motives and, quite often, those guesses are wrong. Even worse, sometimes emotions and agendas cloud one's critical thinking and this leads to false conclusions.

Let me back up a decade and a half. I never expected to be on television, certainly not as a crime commentator. But, after I started working in criminal profiling, I got a call from one of the big cable networks. They were in a panic because the guest they had invited on couldn't make it at the last moment. They found me through my website and asked me if I would do the show and could I catch a cab to the studio and they would reimburse me. I went. I did the interview. They told me "You rocked!" (Mostly because I hadn't screwed up and embarrassed the hell out of them). From then on, I started getting calls for more interviews.

I had a decision to make. I was not planning on a career in television. What I wanted to do was change methods of crime analysis so we would not have so many cold cases languishing in every state in the country. But, being on television is a sure way to become well known enough that I might have more power to make change. So, it made sense that I accept the opportunity. There was one problem, though. I knew that often the show has an agenda and they want you to go along with it. I wasn't willing to do that because I have always believe in sticking with what I believe to be the truth and speak from my heart and mind; I didn't want to be a paid (or unpaid) stooge. So, I made a promise to myself and to the viewers that I would always say exactly what I believed. And I have stuck with that through more than 3000 media appearances over the last decade and a half.

I expected I would not last long on television. Go figure, I had far more than that "fifteen minutes of fame" some folks accusing me of still trying to get! I thought I would be bounced for my blunt and honest commentary. But, I managed to stay in the media in spite of, or perhaps, because of it. Only one stance I took has done me major damage in the last few years; I chose not to do any news shows that used the name and face of a mass murderer once he was caught. I did not want to give the killer fame. Also, I believe that we in the media are one of the reasons for the increase in mass murder, that by making the killer an antihero, we encourage the next psychopath to commit his crime. And I told every media outlet who called to ask me to come on their show, that I would not come on if his face was show or his name was given and I would not "tell his story." What I WOULD do is come on and talk about mass murder in general and the role of mass media in encouraging the commission of this kind of crime.

Pretty much down the line, every media outlet thanked me for my honesty - some even said they agreed with me - but they wouldn't have me on. The one time I was allowed on by CNN was by mistake - the producer who called me screwed up and I made big news by standing by my opinion on air and stating that CNN had broken they agreement with me not to talk about the killer. All in all, my media appearances dropped dramatically because I turned down all of these appearances.



Now, to what people think. I am going to use the terms "pro-McCann and "anti-McCann" for ease of discussion.

Prior to my reduction in media work:

Pro: Pat Brown is a money-grabbing media whore who only does television for the money.
Anti: Pat Brown is an honest commentator who can't be bought.

After the reduction in television news work:

Pro: Pat Brown was thrown off the networks for being a fraud.
Anti: Pat Brown has stuck to her ethics and given up a great deal of work for them.

Now, on to the McCann case itself. Prior to my statement that the Scotland Yard investigation was a farce.

Pro: Pat Brown is not a real profiler; she can't profile for crap. She is a McCann hater and published her book because she wants to make money off the pain of the parents and an innocent missing child.

Anti: Pat Brown is the one professsional outside of Goncalo Amaral who has not backed down from speaking the truth, continued to blog and even wrote a book risking the wrath of the McCanns and Carter-Ruck. Even after her book got pulled, she carried on speaking out.

After I said Scotland Yard was a farce.

Pro: Pat Brown thinks she knows more than the police. She is a fraud.
Anti: Pat Brown thinks she knows more than the police. She is a fraud.


Then, I expressed my belief that the last photo was legitimate and not that important to the case and that I still believed the evidence pointed to Madeleine having an accident and dying on May 3, 2007.

Pro: Pat Brown is still trumpeting crap. She is a lousy profiler.
Anti: Pat Brown hasn't watched Richard Hall's videos and is close minded. She is a lousy profiler.

Now, on to Sunday Night and why I did the show.

I did the show because it was an opportunity to speak out on the Madeleine McCann case, something that had been off limits for over seven years in the MSM.

I did the show because Australia had been the first country to allow me to present evidence that there was likely no abduction and that evidence pointed toward the McCanns as being involved.

I did the show because I wanted the truth out there in the MSM and this was a rare opportunity.

I did the show because it was billed to me by Rahni Sadler as a public affairs show. I would not have done it if I knew the kind of show it really was. Now, some cannot believe that I didn't do my homework before doing the interview and that I did not have a contract that required them to allow me final say on the content. These folks do not understand the media industry. When there is breaking news, calls come in from print, radio, and television one after the other. Half the time, I don't even remember who I talked to until I see a story come out. I DO now refuse almost all print and taped radio and television because I don't like the editing and misquoting. I DO still do documentary shows FOR money, if I am being brought on as a valued expert  as in the documentary, "The Unsolved Death of Cleopatra" or "Mystery Files: Jack the Ripper." All of my experiences up to now have beeen positive; I am THEIR expert and they make me look good and they WANT my analysis to support the show.

When news media calls, we in the business rarely spend much time studying the show. We are going to do a straightforward question and answer session (preferably live like my recent Australian Sunrise show) but, sometimes we do taped if the subject matter is important to us and we want the facts known. When Rahni Sadler contacted me and stated she wanted my analysis for a public affairs show, I accepted and went down the street to a hotel where there was a film crew waiting. Rahni was in Australia and we communicated through Skype. No paperwork was signed as is usual with any news show (a documentary will have you sign an appearance agreement: a contract is about money and has nothing to do with having any say over the final production unless you are some huge star or Casey Anthony); no appearance agreement should have been necessary with this just being a straight public affairs news show with my words unedited and in full. The interview lasted approximately an hour and Rahni and I did a continuous discussion, again like a news show. Documentaries usually have you repeat the question in your answer so they can insert it where it is needed (without the question before) and they often ask the question a number of times to make sure they have a good statement. Rahni did not do this. She went right through the questions and I answered them. It is clear to me now that she was only looking for a few statements she could misconstrue to accomplish her mission of discrediting me and my analysis of the McCann case.

In all of my history of television and work with programs, I have NEVER encountered this kind of unethical behavior. No producer has ever duped me into doing a show that is going to humiliate me and no show has ever so twisted my statements and defamed me. After fifteen years in television, I had no expectation - even in the McCann case - to be so screwed over. So, that is why in the barrage of media requests and my packing to leave for Cuba, I didn't spend a lot of time sussing out the show. Even more than that, my desire to be able to speak out on the case had me jump at the opportunity to do a lengthy interview on the evidence. I have always said, the surest way to get taken advanatage of is to be impatient or needy or both. In this instant, I qualified as a person who had those two traits at that moment - I was in a hurry because I was going on vacation and I needed to get this accomplished quickly and I wanted to get the truth about the case out to the public. Nailed.

I did not do the show for money (I doubt any of the participants were paid and, if they were, believe me, these kind of shows are cheap).

I did not do the show for fame. I have enough television in my history to not need this show; it was not going to be any huge publicity for me. It was just another show.

I did not do the show to help my "flagging" television career. I have chosen not to do most television because TV has gone to Skype - unpaid and unprofessional. I choose to decline. Besides, I have done enough television news to become well-known enough that I have a high profile position in criminal profiling and that is what I wanted in order to work on change in profiling methodology and crime analysis. I am happy to have time for other things; developing my profiling program, doing REAL documentaries, fielding future television show requests, and writing books.  I enjoy spending time with my granddaughter. I have time now for travel, friends and family and I am quite happy not spending my life in the studio.

So, why did I do the show?

Pros and antis - I did it because I wanted to showcase the evidence. As I believe this case is about to be closed without any real prosecution by Operation Grange, this may have been the last chance to really speak out on the case.

Sorry to say, that did not happen and it should have. I rolled the dice and got snake eyes and that is a shame for real news and real commentary.

Finally, pros and antis, I am not suing Rahni Sadler and Seven Media West because my ego is hurt or because I need the money. I am suing because I want to stop the media from such outrageous unethical and egregious behavior. It was horrific and it needs to be stopped. And I will do what I can to make that point. Furthermore, I want to encourage the public to speak out about this abuse by the media of their goodwill as viewers and to speak out against false news, and the media needs to start policing themselves and getting rid of garbage shows and terrible journalists like Rahni Sadler and dreadful producers like Hamish Thomson. Not only did they abuse their participants by editing them  and misrepresenting them but they lied in the promo by making it seem as though Goncalo Amaral had participated in the show.  The show was full of misinformation and straight out lies, and there was no new, breaking evidence, no breakthrough in the case ever materialized in the actual show. Zero respect for their participants, zero respect for the viewers, zero respect for providing quality, honest news and commentary.

Statement to the press:

Pat Brown’s legal counsel, Attorney Brian Close, has identified multiple claims against Rahni Sadler and Seven West Media – including intentional misrepresentation, false light, and defamation - based on the portrayals that took place in the Sunday Night promotional video and in the piece itself. He states: “The misleading edits portray Pat Brown in a false light by contorting her statements and changing their substance, and the broadcasts and publications have done and continue to do damage to Ms. Brown’s professional reputation wherever they are viewed around the world."

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
April 25, 2017

If you want to read my REAL analyses of the case, read all The Daily Profiler posts and read my book, Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

Cover for 'Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann'


By Pat Brown 



Rating: 1 star1 star1 star1 star1 star
Published: July 27, 2011

What really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann in Praia da Luz, Portugal in 2007? Was she abducted as the Gerry and Kate have claimed or did something happen to Madeleine on May 3 in the vacation apartment and the incident covered up? Criminal Profiler Pat Brown analyzes the evidence and takes the readers through the steps of profiling, developing a theory that is intriguing and controversial.



15 comments:

Pat Brown said...

Please, don't comfort me or tell me I don't need to defend my reasons for doing the show. I am not defending myself. I have no issue with that I did the show except that I do wish I had checked out the content prior. What I AM doing is explaining because so many people seem not to get the importance of experts being willing to speak out in the media; it is ALWAYS a risk and sometimes one wins and sometimes one loses. And it isn't always about money and fame. If you want experts to speak out, it would behoove people not to constantly attack them for for just about everything under the sun. Sure, everyone has motives, some have multiple motives, I have had multiple motives. Some say I just went to Portugal to get a vacation and not to research the McCann case. Ridiculous! I absolutely wanted to analyze the McCann case and I wanted to meet people in Portugal I had be communicating with. Did I mind that I got to go to Portugal, too? Heck no! Would you mind?

Annie said...

I sure wouldn't mind ! It's a beautiful country filled with wonderful people, places and food !

Pat Brown said...

I have already seen attacks on THIS article elsewhere! See? You are damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Now, some of you wonder why I even bother sometimes to explain things? I guess it is in my nature as an analyst. I LIKE explanations! I like to hear them and I like to give them. It helps all of understand better.

For example, I have often had people ask me - quite often - why didn't you talk about this when you were on that program? Well, let's see. I have 90 seconds to speak on some live programs, so I get to toss out a thought or two. If it is taped, well, you just saw what happened. I don't control that.

Hey, whe I DO have control, like on my own blogs, then people ask me why I explain so much? ::laughs::See? Can't win!

No worries! Such folks don't keep me up at night. Just because I like to explain things, doesn't mean I am wringing my hands over the comments of others.

Pat Brown said...

Right, Annie? It was a great place. I was treated so well by everyone. I hope to return someday.

And don't think when I was doing a lot of cold case work, I wasn't hoping the case would be in Hawaii! But, guess where so many of the cases were? Yep, Ohio! I used to groan because I really DID want Hawaii! But, now, if I end up in Ohio, I could always swing by and visit you so I would have extra motivation to take the case.

Levi Page said...

Sad that they had an agenda and then produced a deceptive edit of your interview to fit their agenda. Whatever happened to looking at the evidence and have that set the agenda? Or have you give your analysis and have someone with a different view give theirs and let the viewers make up their own minds as to what made the most sense?

Pat Brown said...

Well, Levi, that would have been nice. If I had been part of that, I would have had no complaint. But, clearly, they wanted to support the McCanns and destroy opposition. Why? That is a good question. One wonder what or who was behind the thing.

Anonymous said...

Pat. I have re-read the Smith witness statements and Jane Tanner's description of the 'abductor'. They don't really sound like they are describing the same person at all - which is fundamental to Richard Hall's view. The light/fawn trousers seem to be the main similarity but 'cargo pants' of this colour were much in vogue at that time - particularly in a holiday resort. So, unless I make a leap I can not recognise Smith man as Tanner man. The McCann have adapted Smith man by changing the way in which the child was carried in order to match the Tanner description.

Anonymous said...

HI PAT, nice to know your in a important area to make real change, and strongly over due, your thoughts are in balance, and yes there is speculation over many diferent cases? Your now in the driving seat, and getting the recognition i hoped for, bless you, you have earned it. Life is ironic, one moment seen as a troll, and now this beautiful oppurtunity is now the game changer, well done pat brown, proving my case to how genuine you are, and won respect.

Anonymous said...

HI PAT, nice to know your in a important area to make real change, and strongly over due, your thoughts are in balance, and yes there is speculation over many diferent cases? Your now in the driving seat, and getting the recognition i hoped for, bless you, you have earned it. Life is ironic, one moment seen as a troll, and now this beautiful oppurtunity is now the game changer, well done pat brown, proving my case to how genuine you are, and won respect.

Anonymous said...

HI PAT, i agree that the body was removed the same evening the smiths gave their story, and in addition gerry has stated the body couldnt of been removed after the smiths sighting? Which makes the smiths story credible at the time kate raised the alarm, and the time of their story. It starts to get strange why the mccanns didnt use this sighting as evidence? one theory it dosent give gerry a alabi, if you look at janes story? The problem with this if the smiths sighting is of no importance in the time line ive found, kate cannot be telling the truth, to dismiss the time scale between her story and the smiths story? Its too odd else why the mccanns didnt use this sighting as evidence? It contradicts kates time line else, which has always been suspect in its contradictions, to the smiths. Raised other concerns to how much power the mccanns have over evidence is also very odd, if they know nothing? All knowing your own story dosent add up it was a stranger, sets a diferent picture about flaky alabies?

Anonymous said...

Did Gonçalo Amaral not participate?

The British media are making out that he did. They are also saying he claims MI5 helped hide the body and that it was cremated with another British woman.

Until I see video evidence of him saying such, and in it's full context, I will reserve judgement on it.

But what is truth regarding this?

Pat Brown said...

Anon 12:55

Goncalo did not participate in the documentary, Sunday Night. They used old clips and edited Rahni Sadler in to make it seem it was new stuff. He also did not say M15 helped hide the body. He also didn't say how the body was dealt with only that it MAY have been dealt with in that way.

Sunday night, Rahni Sadler, and her producer, Hamish Thomson cobbled together a disingenuous production based on edited bit and lies.

Anonymous said...

Ah, yes, and here is what Amaral actually said regarding the body, the church, and incineration: https://joana-morais.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/investigate-incinerated-body-thesis.html

This was taken from the CMTV show of April 24, 2016: https://joana-morais.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/cm-special-maddie-mystery.html
English video:
https://youtu.be/-FKsKD78Qsc

My god the British Lügenpresse have no shame, lying about what he said, and when he said it, making out that it is brand new and first featured on this Australian show the other day.

AnneGuedes said...

Hi Pat !
As you surely noticed, the Sadler Show has been removed from the Internet. I stupidly didn't copy such a caricature of media manipulations. Have you kept one?

Pat Brown said...

Hi Anne,

Yes, I have a copy and it is still available through their own channel. It is geoblocked outside of Australia, so one has to use a VPN to access it (I use ExpressVPN - about $12/month and you just log on and select whatever country you want the server to see you coming out of and voila, you have access).