Pat Brown, Criminal Profiler; Review of the Netflix Madeleine McCann documentary

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

https://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.com/2019/03/review-of-netflix-madeleine-mccann.html

I would like it if Netflix had inserted the video of Mr.  on the balcony laughing days after Maddie had disappeared.

Not watched it, but back when the McCanns said they would not get involved the hypocrisy of those words struck me . Sure enough it would appear to have been double talk.

They never listened to their advisors to not take part in the countless, literally countless appearances in the media in the past. What with it being an open case and all.  I agree it seems like an incredibly cunning move. Machiavellian. I can see him laughing up his sleeve, in my mind of course.

JimbobJones wrote:They never listened to their advisors to not take part in the countless, literally countless appearances in the media in the past. What with it being an open case and all.  I agree it seems like an incredibly cunning move. Machiavellian. I can see him laughing up his sleeve, in my mind of course.

If they had taken part it would have been seen as the McCanns getting their side of the story across again. This way a number of independent people have stated the investigation, DNA, dogs etc. are not valid. It strengthens their story and they are able to smuggly claim, see we told you so it was that bad guy Amaral persecuting us

If "their story" is true, then the parents should be prosecuted for neglecting and abandoning their three young children, along with any supplementary crimes.  Criminal behaviour which they have publicly admitted.

Ladyinred wrote:If "their story" is true, then the parents should be prosecuted for neglecting and abandoning their three young children, along with any supplementary crimes.  Criminal behaviour which they have publicly admitted.

Maybe that's how Operation Grange and the PJ will shut it all down - to say it's too late now and they've suffered enough yadda yadda.

Maybe OG and the PJ needed this film...and someone to blame (Amaral).

HKP wrote:

JimbobJones wrote:They never listened to their advisors to not take part in the countless, literally countless appearances in the media in the past. What with it being an open case and all.  I agree it seems like an incredibly cunning move. Machiavellian. I can see him laughing up his sleeve, in my mind of course.

If they had taken part it would have been seen as the McCanns getting their side of the story across again. This way a number of independent people have stated the investigation, DNA, dogs etc. are not valid. It strengthens their story and they are able to smuggly claim, see we told you so it was that bad guy Amaral persecuting us

Yep, absolutely. Sneaky underhand devious manipulative psychopathic cunning.

Jill Havern wrote:

Ladyinred wrote:If "their story" is true, then the parents should be prosecuted for neglecting and abandoning their three young children, along with any supplementary crimes.  Criminal behaviour which they have publicly admitted.

Maybe that's how Operation Grange and the PJ will shut it all down - to say it's too late now and they've suffered enough yadda yadda.

Maybe OG and the PJ needed this film...and someone to blame (Amaral).

But £11+ million to conclude this way?

It stinks.

Perhaps someone has got to Miss Sandra Felgueiras?

Miss Felgueiras asked very astute questions on videos to the parents on several occasions of Madeleine McCann and received sarcastic pertinent answers from Gerry,"Ask the Dogs Sandra"!
Which makes you question the person replying in such away about their missing daughter,with such a "flippant" Remark?

On another occasion, Miss Felgueiras got a reply from Kate,when checking on Madeleine,"Madeleine was their in the Bed"!
Gerry then jumps in to divert the scenario,but it has been caught on film,so it cannot be denied the words were not spoken!

It is remarkable how so many MSM Boffins seem to perform to a"standardised No evidence" to back up the claims of a person(s) close to the family being involved,when the "Crime Statistics" show otherwise!

Eg, for Madeleine's disappearance-Abducted by  Burglar,Paedophile,targeted by Sex Ring,enquire about Tapas 7/9, Parents Kate,Gerry, elephants in the Room,No, No!

Are you trying to tell me that there really was no opportunity for Kate to appear in a bathing costume?

Jill Havern wrote:

Ladyinred wrote:If "their story" is true, then the parents should be prosecuted for neglecting and abandoning their three young children, along with any supplementary crimes.  Criminal behaviour which they have publicly admitted.

Maybe that's how Operation Grange and the PJ will shut it all down - to say it's too late now and they've suffered enough yadda yadda.

Maybe OG and the PJ needed this film...and someone to blame (Amaral).

The only thing that would make sense for this documentary’s existence is indeed the need to close OG. I can see the British government having enough pull to to have influence on the content. 
I have a hard time seeing how K and G could get a company like Netflix to do an 8 part documentary....
I am so disappointed by the total lack of balance and criticism in this series. I stopped watching. 
A big setback for the truth. I just looked it up, Netflix has nearly 118 million subscribers..

willowthewisp wrote:Perhaps someone has got to Miss Sandra Felgueiras?

The Australian documentary, aired at the beginning of 2017, showed the presenter casually walking along the streets of Luz chatting with Dr Amaral.

It never happened!

But you hear Sandra speaking in English about the dogs and how Amaral lied to her about the results and that she now felt embarrassed to be part of not believing the McCanns...

How could that not have happened?

I haven't seen or heard the video so I can't hazard a guess . I can only think of editing and/or dubbing.

It's very hard to believe she's changed her stance. If she has, I'm taking-up trivial pursuits or disappearing into the lawless hills of the Algarve to live as a hermit.

Even Pat mentions it in her blog that I posted at the top ^^^

I won't be watching it that's for sure. I knew it would be more gobshite from TM. I sincerely hope this vicious pair don't target Goncalo Amaral again, they've already virtually destroyed his life. The whole case makes me very angry. How dare they say they've done nothing wrong and that from her. They should hang their heads in shame for the neglect alone and to have the gall to say it's common practice uh that's a no and to have her as some sort of ambassador (what really can't think of anyone less appropriate). Is this the future I wonder, it's OK to leave your kids and go out on the lash and when one of them dies you can take over the investigation and Sue anyone who says you're guilty. Shape of things to come folks.

plebgate wrote:I would like it if Netflix had inserted the video of Mr.  on the balcony laughing days after Maddie had disappeared.

hi you do realise that pat was seen as being a supporter in this netflix doc...is she back tracking now?

willowthewisp wrote:Perhaps someone has got to Miss Sandra Felgueiras?

Miss Felgueiras asked very astute questions on videos to the parents on several occasions of Madeleine McCann and received sarcastic pertinent answers from Gerry,"Ask the Dogs Sandra"!
Which makes you question the person replying in such away about their missing daughter,with such a "flippant" Remark?

On another occasion, Miss Felgueiras got a reply from Kate,when checking on Madeleine,"Madeleine was their in the Bed"!
Gerry then jumps in to divert the scenario,but it has been caught on film,so it cannot be denied the words were not spoken!

It is remarkable how so many MSM Boffins seem to perform to a"standardised No evidence" to back up the claims of a person(s) close to the family being involved,when the "Crime Statistics" show otherwise!

Eg, for Madeleine's disappearance-Abducted by  Burglar,Paedophile,targeted by Sex Ring,enquire about Tapas 7/9, Parents Kate,Gerry, elephants in the Room,No, No!

I can say with 100% confidence that Sandra Felgueiras lied about her call to Gonçalo Amaral when she read the results from the Birmingham laboratories and that Gonçalo Amaral was being 100% truthful when he said he never gave the interviewer any information about the investigation.

Sandra Felgueiras said she felt frustrated and that Gonçalo Amaral had lied to her. This is a blatant lie.

The reason I say this is because, despite what she claims, she continued to give interviews to the McCanns in which she clearly demonstrated that she believed in Gonçalo Amaral. The "Ask the Dogs" interview (November 2009, 1 year after she read the results) that you mentioned is a great example of that.

QUOTE:

Sandra Felgueiras: "And you think that Gonçalo Amaral doesn't have the right to share his opinion, his convictions and the evidence that he gathered into a book? He doesn't have a freedom of expression to say that and to publish it?"

"How can you explain the coincidence of the scent of cadaver found by British and not Portuguese dogs?"


It blows my mind that Sandra Felgueiras took 11 years to say that Gonçalo Amaral had lied to her, but even more ludicrous is that she wants us to think that after feeling betrayed by her "sources" inside the PJ, she would give God knows how many interviews to the McCanns where she keeps questioning their innocence, while raving about Amaral and the police work.

It makes no sense whatsoever.

@ pauloalexandre. That's a very good point. If Sandra ,as she claims, realised she had been "lied to" or mislead when the DNA results came back why did she not immediately become an anti Amaral. She stayed schtum during the libel trials and the aftermath commentary. Her volte face seems quite recent. One wonders what brought it about. Perhaps money, or perhaps she caught wind of recent plans to pin it on a patsy and decided to publicly change sides ahead of this. Whatever, I was most disappointed in her Netflix comments in which she claimed she was glad when Dr. Amaral was taken off the investigation and that she knew after the DNA results that his investigation "was not honest". Yet, as you say, she kept this opinion to herself for over a decade and never gave any indications of her new opinion.

Phoebe wrote:@ pauloalexandre. That's a very good point. If Sandra ,as she claims, realised she had been "lied to" or mislead when the DNA results came back why did she not immediately become an anti Amaral. She stayed schtum during the libel trials and the aftermath commentary. Her volte face seems quite recent. One wonders what brought it about. Perhaps money, or perhaps she caught wind of recent plans to pin it on a patsy and decided to publicly change sides ahead of this. Whatever, I was most disappointed in her Netflix comments in which she claimed she was glad when Dr. Amaral was taken off the investigation and that she knew after the DNA results that his investigation "was not honest". Yet, as you say, she kept this opinion to herself for over a decade and never gave any indications of her new opinion.

When I heard about that recent comment in a newspaper headline, I was intrigued. Why is Sandra Felgueiras against Gonçalo Amaral all of the sudden? So, when I look at a Portuguese TV programme called "5 Para a Meia-Noite" and I see an interview of Sandra, I get even more confused and baffled. Why did she say all of this when it was clear that she did NOT feel betrayed by her sources and why did she say all of this now?

And this is why someone has to wonder about the timing.

Guess what? The new Netflix documentary has just been released! What does she say in Episode 5 of "The Disappearance of Madeleine McCann"?

(At 42:51 in the runtime) "When I saw the whole the report - I think it was in October - I felt they... just... lied to me. Erhm... the truth was not that".

(At 46:36) "I called Amaral. I ask him, 'What's this? The blood found inside the apartment and inside the car, the McCanns' car, can belong to anyone, because the sample is very little (...) How can you talk about such a serious thing, a crime, neglecting all of these issues that are absolutely important to understand the case?'"

REALLY? That's interesting... because if I'm not mistaken, no one involved in the case was allowed to reveal details about the investigation before the files were officially presented to the public in July 2008. That's why it was called the "judicial secrecy"!

Is she unknowingly saying that Gonçalo Amaral broke that rule?

I ask you: who do you think is lying here? Sandra Felgueiras or Gonçalo Amaral?


I don't have a single doubt that she's lying through her teeth. I can only suspect that Netflix offered her a specific amount of money to say things that she would never say. The Netflix documentary is a misguided piece of propraganda that does nothing more than to mislead the audience and trick people into believing there was an abduction. Saying it's a PR stunt would be an understatement, to say the least. The way the production behind this documentary tried to portray the PJ as this dark, sinister organization with ulterior motives is just pathetic, in my opinion.

pauloalexandre wrote:REALLY? That's interesting... because if I'm not mistaken, no one involved in the case was allowed to reveal details about the investigation before the files were officially presented to the public in July 2008. That's why it was called the "judicial secrecy"!

The information was widely reported by the UK and Portuguese media in the summer of 2007, after the dogs inspection.

Verdi wrote:

pauloalexandre wrote:REALLY? That's interesting... because if I'm not mistaken, no one involved in the case was allowed to reveal details about the investigation before the files were officially presented to the public in July 2008. That's why it was called the "judicial secrecy"!

The information was widely reported by the UK and Portuguese media in the summer of 2007, after the dogs inspection.

The information was leaked in the media, yes, but the police still wasn't able to talk about the investigation.

I haven't seen the Netflix production, in relation to the words quoted above ^^^, did Sandra Felgueiras specify, or at least indicate, which October she was referring to - October 2007 or October 2008 or October 2009 + ?

That aside, fortunately Ms Felgueiras is just a Spanish journalist, not an element of the official investigation.  It's regretful to think she's turned out to be a quisling, if indeed she has, as so much emphasis has been placed on those unforgettable interviews,  however it's not really very important.  

Whatever situation Ms Felgueiras now finds herself in, doesn't detract from the content of the interviews, indelibly embedded for posterity.