Friday, March 15, 2019

Review of the Netflix Madeleine McCann Documentary



It is not like I didn’t know the Netflix eight-part series about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann wasn’t likely to be highly slanted in favor of the McCanns and the abduction theory, I just didn’t think they would be quite so blatant about it.

One early clue that something was amiss was that I never got a ring from the producers of this program. I am not trying to tout myself as the profiler no one can do without, but considering I have spent years analyzing this case and have been the only profiler to write a book on the case (and had it pulled off the market by the McCanns and Carter-Ruck), I found it a bit odd that the team would not even phone me to try to pull me in, even if to libel me and screw me over like the Australian documentary on Madeleine McCann. I wondered...who were they going to bring on to analyze the evidence? As it turns out, only people who believe the dogs are wrong, the dna is meaningless, the parents’ behavior is perfectly normal, and inconsistencies are minor issues.

DescriptiGonçaloAmaral appeared to explain the evidence properly (but with not a lot of time for depth; possibly edited out), but the Amaral - his character and his explanation of the evidence against the McCanns - was savagely torn apart (not with great substance, but most viewers will not have a clue).


So, the reason I didn’t get a call was for the same reason no other expert questioning the McCanns’ innocence got a call; we weren’t needed. There was going to be no objectivity in the show, so our input would only have been problematic.

In other words, this was a propaganda piece that I find hard to believe the McCanns did not have a hand in. They may have claimed they were not interested in participating but I think that was most likely to make viewers think that the documentary was going to be unbiased. Their claim that they didn’t want to get involved while there was an ongoing police investigation as it might interfere somehow is laughable considering how many other shows they have done, how often they have gone against police advice, and the fact they hired private investigators to run around the continent in violation of a number of laws concerning interference with an ongoing investigation.

If you don’t want to poke your eyes out for more than six hours of sitting through this propaganda piece, here are some tidbits I pulled from it. I just sat through all of this so I am not going to work hard remembering names and writing in full sentences; I am just highlighting stuff I noted.

————

The Fund is not mentioned until the last episode and then only in passing. Wouldn’t you think this would be a big topic?

Neglect was totally downplayed and leaving the children alone not a thing to be concerned about.

Robert Hall says, “How is it possible for someone to know ...(insert: a long list of issues that make it unlikely Maddie could have been abducted)....I guess the only conclusion you can draw is that somebody was watching that apartment...somebody planned it.”

No, Mr. Hall, with all the reasons it seems impossible for someone to abduct Maddie, you could conclude there was no abduction and Netflix is manipulating you.

The first three episodes don’t discuss any evidence; it is just dramatic storytelling to get you to like the suspects; the McCanns, Murat, and Malinka. You hear a lot about mistreatment of all of them so you can get to really dislike and distrust the PJ (Portuguese Police).

Jim Gamble shows up and portrays himself as a saint. He talks about visiting Thailand and learning about the child sex trade. This is the whole theory Netflix is pushing without a shred of evidence.

We get to meet Justine and she is just so in love with the McCanns and can explain every one of their odd behaviors away.

Each episode works hard to have an answer in favor of the McCanns for any concern a viewer might have. They are explaining away any dissent.

We learn about Wonderland, a big pedophile ring in Europe. Psst...they might have kidnapped Madeleine.

A very dramatic bit about a sad Spanish couple who thought they saw Maddie in Marrakesh but were ignored.

Justine raves about Jim Gamble and CEOP.

Gamble and Amaral both talk about how cold and controlling Gerry was but, no worries, Jim is only lettting the audience know he understands if they find him off-putting; later, he finds it is just Gerry’s way of handling such a serious situation and he is really a great guy!

The Pact of Silence article is discussed by Felicia Cabrera and what she wrote about the McCanns at the time, but, again, no worries, all of this will be explained away a later.

We hear more about pedophilia again through a group called Casa Pía. See? Pedophiles are everywhere and, of course, they would want to kidnap Maddie and not some easier blond girl like that lookalike in Morocco or that blonde gypsy girl they found wasn’t Maddie either.

Jim Campbell claims he helped Gerry draft the letter in which he reaches out to the kidnapper saying if you made a mistake...claims he thought Gerry might indeed be guilty and that line might help him confess. Really? This wasn’t actually Gerry’s thinking? And, you thought he might be guilty? Oh, that’s right, only a temporary thought...turns out you think Gerry is a great guy, too!

Journalist Sandra Felgueiras speaks out that she found the McCann behavior strange. She later confesses to have believed the dog evidence. Then she states that she was lied to by police and she has changed her mind about the case and is embarrassed she ever questioned the McCanns’ innocence. This was the only surprise in the series for me. What happened to Sandra?

Now, we get to the Bollywood portion of the series. If you have never seen a Bollywood movie it goes like this. Happy beginning getting to know the protagonists (like a couple who falls in love). Then, something terrible happens and gets worse and worse and then....interval! Time to go out and get popcorn and a soda. Then you return to the theater and during the last half of the show all is resolved and happy ending (not all Bollywood follows this form but this is a traditional form). So Part Three and Four bring in the dog evidence, and the damning behavior of the McCanns and Felicia DOES point out how the McCanns left Maddie alone with her siblings when something happened. Cue tragic music.

No worries, again! Episode Five called “The Fightback” will begin the exoneration of the McCanns.

Lest’s make everyone feel guilty. “While you are looking at the parents, you’re not looking for the kid.” Yeah, our bad.

Brian Kennedy. “After 12 seconds I knew Gerry was a victim.” I am a profiler and after a decade I am still having trouble seeing Gerry as a victim.

Enter Clarence Mitchell to explain the McCann’s lack of emotions.

Now, they attack the disbelievers on the Internet and the crackpot conspiracy theories (they do this quickly as not to get anyone to interested in what those folks might say).

Trolls. Yes, one has to say the word trolls.

Defense attorney says the Tapas 7 keeping a big secret is preposterous.

Now, to the most important moment. They attack the dogs and say this was the only evidence the police claim to have. They say the final British DNA reports do not match anything to Madeline and that there was no blood evidence of all. There. Dog problem solved. The police have nothing.

Wait, a few more experts trash the dogs.

They mention the Smith sighting only to say it couldn’t have been Gerry because he was at the Tapas restaurant and the Smiths now say it wasn’t Gerry. The Smith sighting is only mentioned in passing once more and never is it really discussed. Odd considering that should be the Number One sighting; heck even The Sun was willing to publish that an American criminal profiler said that the Smith sighting was the key to solving the case, that Smithman was the abductor and he snatched Maddie (if you don’t know, I was libeled: I never said Smithman was an abductor). But, I guess the McCanns don’t really want to focus on Smithman (not that they ever did). I guess Netflix is coincidentally following their lead.

Let’s see. Anthony Summers says Maddie and her brother and sister might have been drugged by the abductor. Did I forget to tell you Summers and Swann are pretty much the main voices through the entire eight shows? What. A. Surprise.

Paul Rebelo says that Goncalo had zero support after he was taken off the case, not even from his Facebook fans! What a liar!

Some more people say, though they were once concerned about the McCanns, they are now convinced they are wonderful people.

Episode Seven has Kennedy saying he went to Morocco to search for Maddie and then hired Método 3. Julian is made out to be the greatest PI ever and he totally believes the McCanns are innocent. Método 3 finds a forensic artist to draw Tannerman and the artist tells us how convinced Jane was she saw the abductor.

Metodo admits they break the law and they are shady as hell. Then we get a bunch of stuff about how Amaral is beating up the mother in the Cipriano case and getting a false confession. The dude connects the two cases by saying when the police can’t find who did it, they blame the parents.

On to fake charity collectors who try to kidnap a 3-year-old girl right before Maddie vanished. You just know they are pedophiles.

Our Metodo PI says because there was such a small window of opportunity and they didn’t leave a trace, it means it was a well-organized group! Haven’t we already heard that argument? Oh, yeah, it must be so if two people say it.

Oh, yeah, now this guy gets his biggest moment in the case because he proves that a pedophile organization is at work in Portugal, so these could be the abductors of Maddie.

Episode Seven  goes for some more logic from the Metodo detective. Because pedophile gangs usually go for poor kids in third world countries, they must have taken Maddie because her value was really high. Umm...like a poor, blonde three-year-old from somewhere else would be cheaper than a British 3-year-old? How would the procurer even know where you stole the child from?

Oops! Metodo 3 starts acting in concerning ways and they are dumped.

The case is now shelved and it is claimed the McCanns are cleared. They attack Goncalo and his book.

And they learn the new team from Oakley is crooked, too. So, they are stuck without any investigators. We hear more about creepy people who could have abducted Maddie.

Thank god, it is Episode 8. “Someone knows.” Yawn. Scotland Yard steps in..yay...maybe they will find the pedophile ring. And, after all, Maddie may well be alive because, you know, teenage girls who are kidnapped are found alive (shhh...don’t talk about the statistics for toddlers abducted by pedophiles).

Final result: they trashed Goncalo Amaral. They trashed the evidence. They trashed people who question the McCanns’ innocence. Mission accomplished.

Okay, that is it. Now, you can skip watching it unless you are a masochist or just have to know what Netflix and the McCanns have put together to snow the public.


Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

March 15, 2019

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



42 comments:

Christine Smith said...

Excellent review Pat which I have shared. I watched 3 and 4, saw the way it was going and the narrates and contributors and went to bed. I'm trying to push the Australian podcast which is in a different league to this nonsense!

Peanutnut said...

Thankyou for that, I got to episode 3 and realised they were just hashing together MSM theories of bduction and got bored, now I know not to waste any more of my time with the rest of the series, keep up the good work !

Maggiemai said...

Thank you so much Pat for the synopsis. It saves me having a coronary or throwing a brick at my tv. This farce only goes to show how much cover up is going on in this case. I have been following the case for years now and the only stories allowed are ones which protect the parents. This I beleive is another attempt to get more money into the fund imo. Perhaps the coffers are reducing and the sympathy vote is needed. I am surprised at Sandra Felgaires though. Keep up your good work, there is a higher authority than that which is on this earth and we must all answer to that eventually

Rose said...

Thanks for this excellent review, Pat. The McCanns and Co claimed to have nothing to do with this documentary. Ha!
Gerry and Kate wrote the script. Sheer propaganda for this deviant couple, funded by deviant organizations and people.
Netflix is richer for all the new subscriptions. The McCanns and ‘actors’ are richer from the proceedings of the documentary.
The producers probably have an invested interest on the McCanns. Perhaps, one narcissist understands another narcissist, and they stick together.
BUT, Madeline WILL get justice.

Anonymous said...

Haven't got Netflix and don't think I really want to see a copy and paste job. Could you, as a guess\rule of thumb say what percentage, apart from S&S contribution, was old footage and\or well known script from new interviews.

I would be surprised Justine McGuiness and Brian (Everest) Kennedy got themselves involved again. I didn't see anyone on line mention the Gaspar statements.

A strange combo of Gamble and S&S - second bite of the cherry-cake to get at the HATER TROLLS. Wonder what happened to Brunt!

Many thanks.

Anonymous said...

Yes, a MCCANN/netflix production alll the way, beginning with the great promo lead-up from the ‘outraged’ couple themselves, issuing the usual threats for good measure. They knew in advance exactly what the content would be as Team McCann practically ran the show and were out in force. One funny thing in programme was Brian Kennedy stating categorically that within seconds of meeting the McCanns he knew they were telling the truth, but then promptly got duped, not once but twice, by liars and fraudsters, Metodo3 and Oakley International. So much for his instinct.

Anonymous said...

A Team McCann production all the way.

Jude Ku said...

All I will say is this.

The only two things unaccounted for are Gerry McCann's tennis bag and Madeleine McCann.

Not once has the body language of those two parents ever matched the words coming out of their mouths.

Nashelle said...

Cheers Pat. I had a feeling it would be pointless. So it's back to square one again... surely the police could have solved this cases ten times over by now if they investigated those involved.

Nashelle said...

Cheers Pat. Might have know it would be pointless. Surely this case could have been solved ten times over by now if the police interogated those involved.

Angie0711 said...

Brilliant read. Wish I’d of found this before wasting 8 hours of my life listening to absolute dribble.
Thanks pat for staying realistic ��

bella said...

fantastic post pat ,,im only so far up to 5 and already im fuming ,,the only reason your left out is like all the other bits they left out any thing or anyone that makes any credible sense ,,,also like when they were on the bus and david videoing and when it got to the bit where he said oh gerry cheer up ,, they cut the film now i wonder why mmmm well we all know what gerry said ,,,,they left loads of things like that out ,, because they dam well knew it would show the mccanns true colors,i rest my case

Pat Brown said...

Great point on Brian Kennedy’s “Blink” assessment!

Pat Brown said...

Indeed.

Anonymous said...

I've tried 3 times to watch this , fell asleep 3 times ! how can anyone with at least one intellectual brain cell , believe they didnt have anything to do with her 'disappearance' ? especially as no evidence of an abduction & how the instant she was found 'abducted' thats what the 2 have stuck to + many other so called officials ... most would first think ''my child has wandered off'' I need to look and find her ! not do what the 2 did ... nothing adds up in their fairy tale ... thankQ Pat ... really great to know someone with real knowledge , about these type cases/people/suspects, isn't afraid to speak out , what the 'TROLLS' are thinking

Anonymous said...

Thanks for that Pat, you’ve saved a lot of us from looking at this propaganda dribble , I’ve never read Kate’s book and won’t watch this either after reading your excellent review .

Anonymous said...

Thanks Pat I watched 2 episodes and knew it was going to be another Team McCann propaganda peice. One thing it did show the key key players in this hoax. Surprised at Sandra and quite distressed that the making of this probably means the truth will never see the light of day

Ex Pat USA said...

I'm afraid I've already wasted about 8 hours of my life watching this BS propaganda in favour of the McCanns. I just knew it would be this way, especially having seen the almost equally biased Netflix documentary on Amanda Knox. However, I could hardly legitimately criticize it if I hadn't seen it for myself. I must say, your synopsis is admirable, and includes some things I hadn't thought of. Thank you. I notice they employed that very old device of starting with a person who appears as skeptical as the viewer (Jim Gamble, who says he didn't much like Gerry when he first met him YAWN). Then, showing him the light, and convincing him that he was wrong, and that Gerry is innocent, and thereby encouraging us (the thickies) to the same conclusion ! I only wish you HAD been invited onto the program Ms Brown (Although they would have probably edited it to make you seem like a "McCanns are innocent" sympathiser !

Anonymous said...


I’d hazard a guess that most of these people i.e. Hubbard, Summers & Swann, Gamble etc would never have contributed to the documentary without a big thumbs up from the McCanns. The McCanns disingenuously claim Netflix may hinder the current Scotland Yard inquiry but given how they behaved during the original investigation when their daughter first went missing, their disapproval comes across as phoney and ridiculous: allowing numerous people to stomp all over the crime scene; deliberately creating a media circus; claiming the shutters were jemmied and broken when they weren’t; GM fiddling with the shutters before police forensics examined them; deleting texts: hiring private investigators against Portuguese law; releasing an out of date photo of their daughter (as a 2-year-old); releasing details of her eye defect against police advice; Kate McCanns refusal to answer questions; their friends, the Tapas 7, refusal to attend a reconstruction which of course spared the McCanns from having to do so; and, apart from a quick run around the Ocean Club, zero searching by any of them. In addition, the Tapas 7 have virtually vanished off the face of the Earth, rarely seen or heard of in past 12 years, taking no part in the McCanns campaign or the so-called search for the little girl, even though they spent the last week of her life with her and her family.

Unknown said...

Christine,have you got a link or directions on how to access the podcast your refering to please,I'm keen to listen to it.thanks

Anonymous said...

I was so disappointed in the crappy Netflix series. I honestly expected more. Brian Kennedy's quick appraisals of people were an absolute joke and as for his son, words fail me. I have to say I was shocked by Sandra's turnaround.

Lorraine Cleaver said...

According to Irish journalist O'doherty Martin Smith never did withdraw his statement and maintains he is 60% - 80% convinced the man he saw carrying a child was Gerry McCann. He even contacted the BBC to complain that it's Panorama documentary claimed he had changed his statement. The BBC admitted the 'error'.

Sam said...

Episode 6 from 14 mionutes in.

Jane Tanner said " I think my starter was due to be served so I went to do my check on the children" She then claimes she saw a man walking holding a child fitting Maddies description.
So as she enetered the apartment to do her check Maddise bed would have been empty if it was her with the man, so why didn't she raise the alarm then ? If Maddie was in her bed when Jane checked then the man caryying the child is irrelevant in this case.
Why wasn't that picked up ?
Or is it spot the deliberate mistake series ?

Anonymous said...

There’s something very odd about the whole thing and the pendulum of doubt swings wildly.

On a larger scale, what is very, very concerning is the thought of peadophile rings. One of the most primitive human compulsions is to protect children so why is this kind of thing the top of any country’s agenda to stamp out! Of course it’s not s nice subject but it cannot be ignored any longer ....

Missy said...

Very accurate review Pat. Here in the UK, so many viewers of the fictional Netflix documentary are now championing the McCanns as if they are saints. It makes me want to scream in frustration! When is this poor child ever going to get the justice she deserves. The parents are guilty as sin. The whole matter stinks of corruption and our government should be disgraced. Had they both been from a working class background they would be rotting in prison.

tetsujindave said...

Ah, that would be the same Anthony Summers who wrote "The File on the Tsar" in the mid 70s and revised it in the mid -80s ? The one that claimed that whilst the Tsar and Tsarevich may have been executed, there was no massacre at the Ipatiev house ? That the daughters and Tsarina were smuggled away and used as pawns in a deal between Lenin and the Kaiser?

The Martin Summers who claimed that Anna Anderson WAS Anastasia ?

That J Edgar Hoover was a transvestite gambling addict in the pocket of the Cosa Nostra ( mmmm...) And that RFK murdered Marilyn Monroe with an enema of hard drugs...

That Anthony Summers, yeah ?

lisa t said...

Thanks for this thoughtful review, Pat. I'm first time visitor to your site so will be reading some more of your work. I got to the end of the third episode and was not surprised by the trained dog finding the corpse odor. I was then anxious to watch the next episode but had to get some sleep. I will likely skip watching the rest of the series now that I've read your review.

One of the strangest things of this whole story is the fact that the parents left their small children alone while they went to dinner. I mean, really? I'm a pretty liberal parent but we either took our babies with us to dinner or we (once or twice) hired a reputable babysitter from the hotel concierge. Both times, older grandmother aged ladies. The fact that the McCaans and their friends left babies alone even if they were sleeping is disturbing on a few different levels. So, I thought they were beginning to get somewhere with the journalist's opinion on that and then the trained dogs.

I guess not. So, the parents are completely innocent...?

lisa t said...

Thanks for this thoughtful review, Pat. I'm first time visitor to your site so will be reading some more of your work. I got to the end of the third episode and was not surprised by the trained dog finding the corpse odor. I was then anxious to watch the next episode but had to get some sleep. I will likely skip watching the rest of the series now that I've read your review.

One of the strangest things of this whole story is the fact that the parents left their small children alone while they went to dinner. I mean, really? I'm a pretty liberal parent but we either took our babies with us to dinner or we (once or twice) hired a reputable babysitter from the hotel concierge. Both times, older grandmother aged ladies. The fact that the McCaans and their friends left babies alone even if they were sleeping is disturbing on a few different levels. So, I thought they were beginning to get somewhere with the journalist's opinion on that and then the trained dogs.

I guess not. So, the parents are completely innocent...?

Ana Lucia said...

Pat, what is your opinion in relation to David Payne? What do you think about Katherina Z. Gaspar and her husband Arul S. Gaspar testimony concerning their vacations in Majorca in 2005? Also the information provided by Yvonne Martin related to David Payne? This woman tried to help the McCann during the first days after Maddie’s disappearance and she was ignored.
Shouldn’t David Payne and his relation with McCann be more deeply investigated?

Anonymous said...

I was not interested in this case before. Of course, I heard that a child disappeared in Portugal and parents are looking for little girl - that's all. I watched Netflix and that's when I started to suspect that something is wrong with the parents. This was mainly due to the contradiction in the testimony regarding the window - whether it was open. From the statement of a Portuguese journalist that you can not see a building with children from the Tapas restaurant. And also because of the experiment with dogs. I also noticed that the document was going towards the cosmic and unlikely theories. And also that the journalist who changed the 180 degree viewpoint (that you mentioned) is unbelievable. This prompted me to search for information and so I found your blog. I think that ultimately Netflix's film, despite its shortcomings, may help to solve the mystery. And the increase of interest will force the authorities to act to solve the case.

Anonymous said...

Is there any chance of getting the Renault Scenic DNA re-tested with new techniques? We need a new break in this case -- this charade needs to be brought to an end.

Unknown said...

Why haven't I seen any news in any UK papers about American Dr Mark Perlin from Cybergenetics offer to retest the DNA taken from the McCann's vechicle and apartment for free. Why hasn't Scotland yard taken up this offer to finally put an end to whether the DNA taken was Madeleine McCann or not?? It disturbs me that an offer is made to clear up some evidence and the offer isn't taken up or even discussed in the UK media. It is certainly in the Australian and New Zealand media.

Anonymous said...

Hi pat, ive never been able to understand kates very odd book? Its not the normal book a mother would write? Pornagraphic, and disturbing for her son to read? Comes across very unsavory and deeply sick, to her obssesion, about peodaphiles? Its often true , this is a projection tactic, accusing some one else of something she herself is? A narccasistic trait in abusers. A master in misinformation, and misdirection. Kate would never unselfishly invite anyone asking awkward questions she hasnt rehersed for , imagine the silence without pr? Their so confident , they need other liars to change their stories? Enough said, a very good post pat, your spot on.

Paulo Reis said...

My eBooks “A Guerra dos McCann” and "The McCann's War" are at risk of being “Carter-Rucked” soon...

I got several messages, this morning, coming from a couple of journalists, my long-time friends, and from some of my sources in the Portuguese legal and judicial area. They told me that a request for an injunction to suspend the sales of my eBook “A Guerra dos McCann” is being analyzed by a well-known and prestigious Portuguese lawyer's office.
The injunction intention is to ask for a immediate suspension of the sales of the eBook "A Guerra dos McCann", by Bubok, while the court analyzes its content, to decided if it's defamatory or not – mainly due to the preface of GonçaloAmaral, as those same sources told me.
According to them, it seems that the McCann couple is thinking about the possibility of requesting a court decision, forbidding definitively the sale of ”A Guerra dos McCann”.
The expression “being Carter-Rucked" was created by the well-knownUS criminal "profiler" Pat Brow, whose book "Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann", was removed from the site of Amazon, five weeks after being published (continue here: https://gazetadigitalmadeleinecase.blogspot.com/2019/04/my-books-guerra-dos-mccann-and-mccanns.html

Paulo Reis
pjcv.reis@gmail.com

Anonymous said...

One thought came to me after episode 2 of the "Maddie" podcast last night.

David Payne was the last non-McCann to see Maddie and one witness is on record as him saying questionable sexual refrences.

Is he still close to the McCann's and did he ever have access to the hire car?

evej said...

I find the cadaver dog evidence troubling. It takes a minimum 1hour.25 mins for cadaverine to be detected. This means that Madeleine would have to have been dead before the parents left for the tapas. Gerry never came back till 7pm. Then the dog also alerted to the flower bed outside the apartment but that would mean her body was left there also for another hour and a half. No one was gone long enough to hide a body

Anonymous said...

I feel a bit better after reading this. I started watching, after a couple episodes I started getting suspicious and have now turned it off in disgust. One thing that has always stood out for me is his face when he's talking about it. Having suffered at the hands of a psychopath who nearly killed me several times that - what I call double exposure face (where they try to look upset or like they care but the little smile is there at the corners of the mouth) had me convinced of his guilt many years ago. There's the woman who went to check on the kids and saw a man carrying a child before she supposedly checked and found them to be ok, um? If you checked the kids and they were ok it can't have been him can it! What really had me yelling at the TV was when the Portuguese journalist said something along the lines of "the Portuguese didn't understand why the children were left alone but apparently that's ok in the UK" it absolutely categorically is not ok and is not something most parents in the UK do! Why have they not at the very least been convicted of child endangerment or neglect or both? Then there's the comment that 99% of people support us and the trolls who say nasty things, I don't think they are looking at the same social media as the rest of us. Blatent propaganda.

Anonymous said...

Sam @ 4.37am

Twice now I have read a comment, yours being one, referring to Jane Tanner's check and her seeing a man with a child walking away. That is correct, of course, but what I don't quite understand is the reference to her then entering her apartment and not noticing Madeleine was not there.

Are you mixing her up with Kate McCann?

Just curious.

Anonymous said...


A question for Pat.

How do you feel about Sandra Felgueiras and her proclamation that having listened to Goncalo Amaral in the beginning that she later discovered that he had lied to her all along and that she rang him up and demanded an answer or apology. It had coloured her attitude towards the McCanns in the very beginning, as we witnessed by her questioning of the couple.


His book was very scant with the truth also.


Anonymous said...

Patrick Kennedy did come across as an immature little prick. He fancied himself a spy. Described sergey as an ‘unsavoury character’ based on what?? Probably just that he’s Russian, while he sits on camera looking like a teenage thug. He felt no remorse for bullying suspects (including setting a car on fire!) because it was in the line of getting answers for the McCanns. Basically with that attitude you can do anything you like if it’s in the name of your own belief. Oh and that moment where he alluded to having a bad feeling about the American PI company. Bollocks.

Rose said...

I agree that Kate appears obsessed with pedophilia and their wrong doings in her book. I don’t understand why she and Gerry accepted a dinner invitation to Clement Freud’s house soon after Madeline went missing ( with suspicions of pedophile involvement)

Anonymous said...


@Rose @ 7.57am


I don't think they were obsessed so much as rightly very worried that their little girl might have become prey to such foul beings. I would say that is natural enough and would enter anybody's mind in their situation. Terrifying thought!


Nobody knew of the predilections of Clement Freud at that point in time so that is not something that needs to be discussed. It was quite a while later we discovered about this and to this day it remains unproven that he was a paedophile. if you know more than I do, please furnish me with the links to read up about him having been found guilty. It seems to me that people can accuse anybody these days and suspicion soon becomes fact on the internet.