Kate’s Diary – FAO of Pat Brown

I am totally amazed at the sheer lack of knowledge that some people have on this case.  Well that is not quite true, after 4 years you do tend to get immune to stupidity.

But there is always one that makes you think, are you being serious?

For instance this tweet make by Profiler Pat Brown.

Right, just for you Pat Brown so you can start to understand what happened, I will break down the chain of events for you.

  • Kate’s diary was in English and it was seized during the searches of the villa.
  • Kate’s diary was probably translated to Portuguese because some of the Police could NOT speak English (ie Goncalo Amaral is one of those), hence the reason for translation to Portuguese.
  • The Originals were returned to Kate McCann and it was a copy that was leaked to CdeM.  It is unknown whether it was the English copy or the Portuguese copy that was leaked to CdeM, who were the first to publish extracts.

What Leveson needs to know, and by all accounts demands to know after hearing Mr and Mrs McCann’s testimony yesterday is, who exactly passed the Diary to the News of the World?

I suspect he also wants to know whether the contents passed to the News of the World were in Portuguese or English?

It doesn’t matter what language the diary was in, the crux of the matter is that a Judge ordered copies of the diary to be destroyed by the Portuguese Police and they were not.

It is fact that instead of the copies being destroyed they found their way to a tabloid newspaper in Portugal and then onto the now defunct News of the World.

Kate McCann never gave her diaries to any other person to leak, so the leak had to come from the Portuguese Police or someone that could have worked for them and who possessed a copy of the diary.

And the $64 million question is, why weren’t those copies destroyed as per judge’s instruction and who held onto those copies, to later leak them to the Portuguese Press, which results in a breach of a judges court order?

Is that simple enough for you Pat Brown?

The translation errors were because they were probably in English translated to Portuguese and back into English.

Just one more thing Pat Brown about this tweet you made:

About what Gerry said at the hearing yesterday about theories, he said:

I would like to emphasise that I strongly believe in freedom of speech, but where you have people who are repeatedly carrying out inaccuracies and have been shown to do so, then they should be held to account. That is the issue. I don’t have a problem with somebody purporting a theory, writing fiction, suggestions, but clearly we’ve got to a stage where substandard reporting and sources, unnamed, made-up, non-verifiable, are a daily occurrence.

If you can’t understand what he is saying, then you really do have a problem because I and many other people can understand it.

What Gerry McCann is saying, he has no problems, with people writing about the case, even to the point of creating a theory, PROVIDED, that theory is based on FACTS and NOT supposition, assumptions and innuendos which are NOT based on FACTS.  And the problem lies with unnamed, made-up and non-verifiable facts that are printed on a daily basis which then grown arms and legs and get classed as facts by people.


9 comments on “Kate’s Diary – FAO of Pat Brown

  1. I doubt the FACTS will hold any water with Brown.
    She is now too far entrenched with the fruitloops.

    • I live in hope Samantha that she might see the error of her ways…. but I definitely won’t be holding my breath.  LOL

  2. No harm in hoping  Bren 🙂

  3. What saddens me Samantha is the files are out there for all to see.  It is evident that the files that Kate and Gerry have contain more information, and there is not one piece of evidence that points the finger of blame at the parents.

    There is a missing child at the heart of this, and this must be awful for the McCanns having to try to dispel rumours and myths especially when you have certain people who are unwilling to listen and still continue on their path of vitriolic abuse of the McCanns.

  4. Well said Bren.  Brown actually goes one step further in all of this.  She acknowledges some of the facts but then disregards them in order to concoct her ludicrous and far-fetched theory.  She even tells us the basics of criminal profiling and then disregards them when it comes to the McCann case.  An example – that we cannot judge someone based upon their behaviour after a crime until it can be compared with their behaviour before the crime because what might seem like bizarre behaviour to some, could be perfectly normal behaviour for the person being profiled.  She then went on to say that she’d never met the McCanns, didn’t know what their behaviour was like before Madeleine disappeared but proceeded to crucify for them for things like wearing earrings, going jogging…

    She can spew the theory, but she seems completely incapable of applying what she knows.

  5. Oh dear. Has she considered the possibility that – as the first leaks of the diary appeared in the Portuguese press in July – that it might actually have been a journalist (or perhaps a group of them) who had obtained a translation (or had arranged to have a translation made) months earlier from some direct / indirect source who then passed on / sold extracts to the UK press for publication in September?


  6. I know Carana, she doesn’t think before opening mouth or in this case before typing her nonsensical stuff.

    If the Police had the diaries, Kate never released them, so where did they come from?  She just doesn’t think. 

  7. Bren, only two possibilities come to mind at the moment:


    – Someone at NoW got a photocopy of the original manuscript pages and couldn’t work out certain words and just guessed. 

    – Or, NoW got a copy of the Portuguese translation, which was then retranslated back into English.

    If Kate’s example is literal, i.e. I “was upset” ended up as I was “fed up”, it does indeed sound as if NoW was given a Portuguese translation.

    For two reasons:

    – the script of “upset” and “fed up” would, in my opinion, look quite different;
    – words often have a variety of potential meanings and can be translated in different ways. The same applies when retranslating. And there is absolutely nothing to say that the original translation into Portuguese was accurate in the first place.

  8. If she is still seeking an interview in the UK press, perhaps Guy Adams might oblige?

    His piece on Nancy Grace:


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: