Australian Ch7 documentary claims new lead in search for missing Madeleine McCann.

[barrier]

I must say I am sorely disappointed but alas the predictions were true.  Part 5 was such a let down. No breakthrough, no new evidence which will take the enquiry forward and nil ponts to reporter Rahni Sadler for originality. If this is the accepted standard of reporting in Australia then we in the UK are so lucky.  Somehow I doubt it. 

Conclusion:  We are no further forward than we were 10 years ago.

Really John? did you seriously expect any difference?

[ferryman]

I must say I am sorely disappointed but alas the predictions were true.  Part 5 was such a let down. No breakthrough, no new evidence which will take the enquiry forward and nil ponts to reporter Rahni Sadler for originality. If this is the accepted standard of reporting in Australia then we in the UK are so lucky.  Somehow I doubt it. 

Conclusion:  We are no further forward than we were 10 years ago.

There is one encouraging side to it, which is that this, second, enquiry has been pretty much watertight in terms of what has been forthcoming from the enquiry itself, just as the first enquiry ought to have been, and from about October 2007 until the first enquiry was shelved, was.

[stephen25000]

There is one encouraging side to it, which is that this, second, enquiry has been pretty much watertight in terms of what has been forthcoming from the enquiry itself, just as the first enquiry ought to have been, and from about October 2007 until the first enquiry was shelved, was.

i.e. Nothing found of any substance.

[John]

Really John? did you seriously expect any difference?

In reality...no.  But I was hopeful if only for Madeleine's sake.

[Mr Gray]

so pat browns going to sue....not often I agree with rdh

@Richard D. Hall wrote:
If Pat Brown signed a contract I would recommend reading the small print.  I would be surprised if it does not say words to the effect that they CAN mis-represent what she is saying.  Their contracts normally state that they take ownership of the content and they can edit it in any way they like.


Richard on this occasion is absolutely right

[stephen25000]

Well it seems Ms. Brown is proceeding with a lawsuit against Ms. Sadler and her employer.

This should prove interesting.

[Alfie]

Well it seems Ms. Brown is proceeding with a lawsuit against Ms. Sadler and her employer.

This should prove interesting.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Pat Brown claim to be suing someone before and it was all hot air and bluster?  What's she suing for anyway?  Unflattering lighting?

[stephen25000]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Pat Brown claim to be suing someone before and it was all hot air and bluster?  What's she suing for anyway?  Unflattering lighting?

Time will tell Alfie.

Just seen this.

http://www.9news.com.au/world/2017/04/24/12/15/maddie-mccann-criminal-profiler-claims-hatchet-job-and-threatens-lawsuit-against-seven-west

[Eleanor]

Okay.  Let me get this right.  Pat Brown has been condemning the McCanns for years, and now she is suing  a television company for Defamation because they cut short her Libel.
It sounds to me as though they did her a favour.

[stephen25000]

Okay.  Let me get this right.  Pat Brown has been condemning the McCanns for years, and now she is suing  a television company for Defamation because they cut short her Libel.
It sounds to me as though they did her a favour.

Let's see what happens.

[Eleanor]

Let's see what happens.

We shall certainly have to do that, Stephen.  But she's a very silly woman.

The programme was bound to slide one way or another, and the Tenth Anniversary is not the time to expect to see The McCanns declared guilty on prime time TV, even in Australia.  Especially in the absence  of any logical evidence.

[stephen25000]

We shall certainly have to do that, Stephen.  But she's a very silly woman.

The programme was bound to slide one way or another, and the Tenth Anniversary is not the time to expect to see The McCanns declared guilty on prime time TV, even in Australia.  Especially in the absence  of any logical evidence.

To say the least Eleanor, she was extremely naive, going on that program.

As it happens, though I didn't see it until earlier today, the program was shown as being a scam on Saturday in the Sun.

[Eleanor]

To say the least Eleanor, she was extremely naive, going on that program.

As it happens, though I didn't see it until earlier today, the program was shown as being a scam on Saturday in the Sun.

She was talking about being set up a couple of days ago, Stephen, so she must have had some inkling.

I don't want to be too unkind to her, but this seems like a last ditch effort to get her face back on Television at a time when she is fading into oblivion.

Pontificating on The McCann Case was never a good idea at a time when Criminal Profilers had ceased to be taken seriously, especially of the self taught school.

[Robittybob1]

I don't like Pat Brown.

[G-Unit]

The programme seems to have upset everyone except Dave Barclay. It gave the impression that it was interviewing the McCanns but used old footage. Pat Brown and Colin Sutton were misrepresented and Amaral denied speaking to them. What a waste of time.