Philip Klein talks about his book “Lost at Sea: The Hunt for Patrick McDermott”

To most of us, our idea of a private investigator is based on watching such television shows as “The Rockford Files” and “Magnum P.I.” Smooth guys who were able to blend in even though they were the best looking guys in the room. And, in Magnum’s case, they were wearing a loud Hawaiian shirt! Philip Kline has managed to “blend in” for almost three decades. And that’s saying a lot about a man who stands 6’5” tall!

Internationally renowned for his investigative skills, as well as providing protection for some of the country’s biggest celebrities and politicians, Kline and his team undertook a project brought to them by “Dateline: NBC.” The network was curious about the mysterious disappearance of Patrick Kim McDermott, whose claim to fame was being the boyfriend of singer Olivia Newton John. Declared dead by the Coast Guard, as well as investigators hired by Newton John, something in the case file raised a red flag in Mr. Klein.

Klein has authored and just released the book “LOST AT SEA: The Hunt for Patrick McDermott.” In it he recounts the many hours, days and even years it took him to find a man who didn’t want to be found. Mr. Klein recently took the time to speak with MediaMikes about the case.

Mike Smith: How did this case compare to others you’ve had in the past?
Philip Klein: Well you know I do a lot of investigative work and body guard work for some of the most influential people in the United States. I’ve got to tell you, when NBC approached me about this I was kind of skeptical at first. But it turned out to be a real “who done it.” Actually more of a “why did they do it.” It wasn’t really “who” did it because we know…it was the man who was missing. But it was “why” he did it. Most investigators will tell you that the motive is the most important thing of the case. And when we found the motive of this case everything pretty much fell into place pretty quickly.

MS: Since the book has been published have you been contacted by McDermott or any representative? (NOTE: In the book Mr. Klein tracks McDermott to Mexico, where he later negotiates with a representative of Mr. McDermotts )
PK: No we haven’t. And the reason why is that we made a promise that if he provided a DNA sample…what we refer to as “proof of life,” we wouldn’t bother him anymore. His position, through his legal counsel, is that he just wants to be left alone. He has not committed any crimes, there are no warrants for his arrest and there are no, what we call in the business BOLOs, be on the lookout for in his name. So what we did was take a step back and decided that we needed to end the case. We asked his rep to send us a proof of life and we got just that.

MS: I remember in the book that you had agreed to not bother him once the proof of life was provided. I was just curious if maybe you had gotten a phone call or email saying “you were right…that’s exactly what happened!”
PK: (laughs) No, it doesn’t work like that. As much as I’d like it to work like that. I think what happens in the real world is that he is expecting an onslaught of press because the book has been released. And because he’s expecting an onslaught of press he’s probably gone back under. He’s very good. He’s learned the system down in Mexico. He knows how to disappear. He knows how to blend in. That’s what he’s probably done at this point. If I was consulting with him I would tell him that’s what he needs to do at this point.

MS: There almost seemed, not on your part but on your team, to talk directly with Olivia Newton John. Was that an outlet you really wanted to investigate but just didn’t feel it was right?
PK: Well, not necessarily. Well, you may be right in some ways. In every case there is a victim and in this case we considered Olivia Newton John one of the victims. Do we believe that Olivia Newton John knew anything about his disappearance? No. We believe that Patrick McDermott…we know that Patrick McDermott…went to her two weeks before he disappeared. He gave her some flowers and a funny card and said goodbye. They were going to break up. Olivia’s idea of the break up was…she felt that it was going to be a temporary break up. He’d done this before. In the police reports she called it a small “time out.” We believe that McDermott made the decision that that was it. He was going down to Mexico so he said his goodbyes. It’s very unusual that when someone takes off like that they say goodbye to the things they love or that they know that are common to them. And I think in Patrick’s case that he did have fond feelings for Olivia. You don’t date somebody for that long and not have some kind of feelings for them. But in the end I don’t think he wanted to hurt her. He just wanted to go on with his life. Of course Hollywood is a very, very tough place to survive. And I believe he decided he just couldn’t do it anymore. Especially in the fast lane with an “A” list star. He was always the nice looking man on Olivia Newton John’s arm. And so I think he said goodbye to her in the way he knew how to say goodbye. He bought a gun. He emptied his bank accounts down to zero. He got as much money as he could off his credit cards and he took off.

MS: Has the popularity, and the easy access of, the Internet made your job easier or harder? There is so much information out there that often you don’t know what’s true and what’s not.
PK: We have a big sign in our office for all of our investigators to read. It says “Don’t Believe What You Read on the Internet!” The Internet is a great tool, especially for investigators like us. That is one of the things we were able to do, use the Internet. We created what they call a “spider” web site…a trap site…where we could watch the IP addresses come in. One of the things you learn very quickly is that when people are running or trying to hide they’re always looking over their shoulder. So we used that concept and created the website “Find Patrick” We set that up as a “spider” site and we were able to trap IP addresses. We released the web site only to relatives and close friends of McDermott, including the Olivia Newton John camp. Then we sat back and watched. We blocked it from Google. We blocked it from Yahoo. And we just watched it for two weeks. And, sure enough, we started getting hits from Mexico. There’s nobody in Mexico that knew we were doing anything. So we figured at that point that he was down in Mexico. And we also knew the bigger piece of the puzzle…somebody was communicating with him down in Mexico.

MS: Do you know the status of McDermott’s life insurance policy?
PK: The insurance policy was not honored because of our report. We do know that Ms. Nipar (NOTE: Yvette Nipar was Patrick McDermott’s former wife. Despite her claims otherwise she has tried to undermine Mr. Klein’s investigation almost from the beginning. She has even gone so far to write Jeff Bezos, the founder of, a letter asking him not to sell Mr. Klein’s book) was paying the insurance policy and keeping it active. It was a $100,000 life insurance policy. Of course the insurance company has a policy of not releasing any pertinent information except to family members. However when we did send them a formal 1702 notice, a notice saying we wanted to know who was paying the insurance policy and if the policy was active, they did copy Yvette Nipar. I think that was their way of saying, “no, we’re not going to tell you who’s paying on the policy but we’re going to copy our letter to whoever is paying on the policy.” That’s where we got that connection.

MS: I know from your emails with Ms. Nipar regarding your request to test your DNA sample with a sample of her son she refused and told you that the Coast Guard had samples of Mr. McDermott’s DNA. Did they?
PK: We did. And the U.S. Coast Guard advised us that they did not have any DNA. They didn’t understand where she was getting that information from. There was a hat found on the boat. There was also some other items found…fishing tackle, a wallet which was empty…what was missing were his two passports. So we asked them directly “what about this green hat that was supposedly left behind, was there any DNA on it or did you find any DNA in his apartment when you did the search?” There answer was “no, we did not keep any DNA. There was no reason for us to keep any DNA.” That’s always been a confusing thing for us…that the Coast Guard did not keep any DNA. The Los Angeles Police Department had immediately dropped the case. They felt, number one, that there was no foul play. Number two, it wasn’t there jurisdiction. And number three, they felt that he was probably running due to his issues with Ms. Nipar and the amount of money he owed the state of California for child support.

MS: I just pulled up the book’s web site and I see the letter she wrote Jeff Bezos asking him to pull the book.
PK: We were surprised. If you go through that letter you will see that Ms. Nipar results to name calling…she resorts to intimidation. And if you read the book you will notice that this is the same behavior she showed when we were trying to investigate. You’ll also see that she tried to use the Los Angeles Police Department to shut the investigation down. This is atypical of someone that really wants to know what happened to their loved one. It’s totally the opposite of what we’re used to as investigators. Usually when we come in and investigate the family bends over backwards. They give interviews…they say, “look, this is what we know…this is what we have.” They want to share. She has done completely the opposite. In fact, she has attempted to block the investigation at every turn. And once again, when we start talking about the case in the form of a book she begins to start trying to block it again. So all of the investigators in this office raise our eyebrows, as do some of my friends over at the Los Angeles Police Department. They raise their eyebrows and say she’s acting quite abnormal.

MS: One thing that really struck me in the book was when you relate that your father told you the three important things in life: Truth, Honesty and Faith. You then add that there is a difference between truth and honesty. What is that difference?
PK: Well, if I’m putting my investigator hat on, truth and honesty are two different things. You can say the sky is blue, and that’s the truth. But, honestly, if you’re looking at the sky and the sky has clouds in it, you don’t want to just say the sky is blue. Honesty means the sky is blue with some clouds. And I think that sometimes people, when they are scared or trying to give only the half-truth, they’ll stand up and just say the sky is blue. When they perfectly know that it’s blue and white. It’s blue with white clouds. They hold things back. And I saw a lot of that on this case. I’d get the typical Hollywood “yeah, I knew Pat…this is the way he was.” But they’d hold stuff back. And I think people in Hollywood are so shell shocked by the media…so shell shocked by the press and how hungry the press is to get a story…that they sometimes hold things back. Or, if they have something to hide, they hold things back. I think that’s what I was talking about when I mentioned that with my father. There is a huge difference between truth and honesty. The honesty is that the sky is blue with beautiful white clouds. It’s not just blue.

MS: Now that he’s 19 years old, if Chance (Mr. McDermott’s son)were to come to you and say, “Phil, can you show me what you’ve got,” would you share it with him?
PK: You know, that’s a great question! Not only with this case, which is a missing persons case. I do about 100 missing person cases a year. And I can tell you this. For each of the families I always keep what we call “the Box.” It’s the case box. Sometimes there are five or six boxes and sometimes only one box. And I keep them for the family members. Especially the young people so they can go through them when they turn 18 years old. And if Chance McDermott wants to come to our office and if he wants to sit down and dig through all of the evidence…read everything that we did, all the way back to day one when we started with NBC to when we closed with NBC to the writings of the attorneys down in Mexico City…he is perfectly welcome with open arms. And you’d be surprised. Young people come to us often and say, “you know, our parents didn’t really tell us everything Mr. Klein…would you please sit down with me and tell me what this is and show me the documents?” And we show them. We have seen it as a very emotional event…as a very spiritual event. And a very relieving event for these folks. With this case…and I’m NOT calling Ms. Nipar a liar…I’m simply saying that Ms. Nipar is holding stuff back from her son. There’s a reason and a motive for that. Maybe someday she can look him in the eye and tell him that motive.


Related Content

57 Replies to “Philip Klein talks about his book “Lost at Sea: The Hunt for Patrick McDermott””

  1. There is a hole here that you can drive a truck through. Someone sends this private dick a DNA sample, who promptly declares it’s proof that McDermott is alive. How do we know the DNA isn’t from Pablo the cabana boy at Mr. Klein’s favorite hangout in Cabo San Lucas?

    The details on how this sample of was matched to previous confirmed examples of McDermott aren’t mentioned. Instead, there’s a lot of self adulation by the author on what a great detective he is. If so, why haven’t we heard of him before? In my opinion, he had a peripheral attachment to this case through a paid vacation by NBC, and then exploited everyone to further his own reputation.

    I totally agree with Mr. Klein, however: Don’t believe what you read on the internet, and this is interview and book are great examples.

    What tripe. Save your money and watch some old reruns of Gilligan’s Island. You’ll have a better time that trying to wade through this nonsensical garbage.

  2. Thanks Mike for your nice comments. I am sorry the other two comments are not nice but they hold the same theme. For those of you outside Hollywood – this is called covering. Don’t talk about the evidence in the book – attack the person. Although I must say the attacks by Ms. Nipar and her gang have done well for book sales. I hope all of you will give us a chance and read the book and enjoy the behind the curtan of Hollywood and famous people and what they do – and (hint) how the act and react.

  3. Yeah, about those big sales, I noticed that you’re only 200,000 places away from being in the Top One Million Best Sellers. This is the last time I trust Mike’s opinion on anything.

    This is the first time a wannabe author actually respond to one of my critiques. I have nothing to do with anyone mentioned in your book, and I’ve never even been to Hollywood. I think you’re just attacking me to avoid answering the question that I asked.

    So please explain how you confirmed that the original DNA sample came from McDermott and not poor old Pablo, the cabana boy. You spent 300 pages bragging about your paid vacation in Cabo, and less than five pages in explaining the real evidence that led you to the conclusion that McDermott is alive.

    That’s just one of many glaring error in this piece of rubbish. For instance, CACMA is the Carolina Association of Chinese Martial Arts, not a “school of Chinese martial arts.” You can’t even get the story straight, because two pages later, you mention it as Camca. So which is it, Cacma or Camca? Either way, there is no school of martial arts with those names.

    This book is an embarrassment, but you’re apparently too stupid to realize that most people see it for what it really is: a naked attempt at exploitation. I noticed that Olivia Newton John, though mentioned on every other page in your book, actually didn’t contribute anything. You don’t do refunds, do you?

  4. Jerry –

    Thank you for your comments. Let me answer :

    1) I cannot disparge you regarding my writing. I did the best I could. It was not good enough for you – I get that. And thank you for being honest. It will make me better someday if I get the guts to write another one on another case.

    2) The DNA was given to us by Mr. McDermott’s legal counsel. There is no doubt in my mind it was given to us by McDermott. The sample matched another sample we were given.

    3) You need to do further research on the word on the fax. You were online on the spelling issue.

    4) I guess you might have a point regarding the way I wrote it. However, and not to defend myself, I wrote it through my eyes and what I saw and heard. You might have a point – I never looked at it through your eyes.

    5) You bet I will be glad to refund your money – send me your proof of purchase to and I will send you the money. (We have a bet now in our office if in fact you will show)

    6) I have to take offense with your comments regarding this case being a vacation on NBC. This case was anything but that. Really – anything but that. Our team worked hard and for you to suggest that it was a vacation puts your comments into question – as your personal comments and name calling. But if that is what you have – you have.

    In the end – I did over 200 Interviews, reviewed thousands of documents, consulted with some of the best investigators in the county – and the USCG, LAPD and our team came up with the same conclusions based upon the evidence. I will take time tonight and read your “other” Reviews you have posted. My best wishes to you.

    Philip R. Klein

  5. No ma’am – they did not. As we showed in the book – and through not only our witness statements and the USCG witness statements – he was alive. The USCG ruled that the subject was alive – no proof of death.

  6. Mr. Klein,

    1) According to the US Coast Guard Press Release, both of their investigations suggested that McDermott was lost at sea, not that he is alive. They did not conclude that he is alive as you claim.

    2) In your book, the person who supposedly sent you this swab with McDermott’s DNA is only identified as “Miguel,” and by your own account, the only contact you had with this person was as a heavily accented “voice on the phone.” Have you changed your story and now claim this person was officially a lawyer representing McDermott?

    3) Even your own handwriting expert refused to corroborate the handwriting provided by “Miguel,” but the DNA that’s not matched to any existing samples of McDermotts DNA is valid “proof of life?”

    4) If you gave “Miguel” some “tricks to hide his IP address,” how could you have tracked his hits on your web site afterwards?

    5) A swab sent through the mail by an unidentified person in Mexico with no certificate of authenticity or other corroboration is not clearcut or legal evidence that the DNA is actually McDermotts. This wouldn’t fly in a court of law, but I bet you already know that. Instead, we only have your word that this DNA belongs to McDermott and not Pablo, the “possibly Korean” cabana boy. I have a hard time believing this since the rest of your investigation is just as shoddy.

    6) Even your own DNA expert couldn’t specifically identify the DNA swab beyond an “Asian Male, possibly Korean.” Doesn’t this mean it’s also possibly Japanese, Chinese, Filipino, or Malaysian?

    7) There is no Chinese martial art named “cacma”, “camca,” or anything even remotely similar.

    8) If you took offense to my statement about your paid vacation, I calls ’em like I sees ’em. There are plenty of other no-name amateurs out there that would jump at the chance to “investigate” Patrick McDermott’s disappearance if NBC picked up the tab.

    9) What happened to that Part 2 of the NBC show that you talked about in your book? It doesn’t ring true that they would want you on the Today show, but not finish the story on their Dateline program if you actually found McDermott as you claim. I bet there’s more to that story.

    10) “Whitehouse” is actually spelled “White House.”

    11) It also doesn’t ring true that if he is alive and guilty of insurance fraud as you’ve repeatedly claimed in your book, he’s not under investigation or wanted for any crimes. Did the insurance company pay the claim? If so, how does their investigation fit with your lunatic conspiracy theory?

    12) Since Olivia Newton John refused to have anything to do with your book and “investigation,” how do you know that Patrick considered her “Mommy.” By your own statements in the book, you have no idea what went on between the two of them.

    As I said before, there’s a ton of glaring errors and inconsistencies in your book. I can see why you’re located in Netherland, Texas. I’ll be glad to point out a few more if you can answer these questions. This book is closer to Plan 9 from Outer Space than a real missing persons investigation.

  7. 1) USCG was questioned on that statement – it countered the final report. We have the final report and quoted it. As well, the LAPD final. We have that down on the money. The USCG was incosistant. If a death occured at sea – there are many steps that are put into place. None of which was done.

    2) I think the book lays that out pretty clearly.

    3) Again – you need to read the report given to us on the DNA. I think it was pretty clear.

    4)IP address skipping is rather easy to track. We were very successful at it and continue to be.

    5) You, being a great investigator, and the over 200 hours on tape, and documents that you seemingly like to dismiss (or have a pre-judged interest) – understand that evidence is what it is.

    6) You got that huh?

    7) Again – you are not very good at your research. Look again.

    8) (9) We turned down part two. That simple. We have a very busy practice down here. From Florida to Texas

    10) We passed the spelling error to our editor at Lamar University. Thank you for that.

    11) I think our thought and theory is pretty easy to read – and if you read you saw the motive. The insurance company did not pay the claim because they too saw the evidence. As well, the funny thing is that Nipar never attempted to claim the money. We wonder why? Maybe you do too? No crime – until the claim is made. There was an enquiry – but not claim.

    12) You have taken what we said out of complete context and I do not accept your primise. We know through history. And ONJ was a victim – and she had nothing to give us to the investigation. Other than what happened two weeks before.

    Thanks for your questions – it only helps us (me) and our staff is enjoying it. Even your “better than thou” mentality in your writings. We like arrogant.

    And we are waiting on your email address to get your money back to you……when can we expect that Mr. Gervin?

    Philip R. Klein


  8. Where is the official copy of the Coast Guard report that shows that Mr. McDermott is still alive? I don’t want to see a quotation from your book which I am starting to think is suspect. I want to see the official revised report from the Coast Guard showing he was not lost at sea.

  9. Mr. Klein,

    1) The US Coast Guard Press Release clearly states that their conclusion came after two investigations ended. Or, did you make up another final, final investigation where the USCG changed the results? If so, I’d like to read that report.

    2) I think the book and you are clearly confused.

    3) Oh, I see. I need to read that report too. And where will you post this report on the DNA?

    4) There is no such thing as “IP address skipping” in the context you used it. Google it and see for yourself, or do I need to read the actual report?

    5) Evidence is empirical, unless you made it up.

    6) Yeah, I got it, but you obviously didn’t since this entire case is based on a questionable sample of unconfirmed DNA from an unidentified source. What does “chain of custody” mean?

    7) I’ve looked several times…in fact, I’ve studied Wushu for over 30 years. CACMA is an acronym for the Carolina Association of Chinese Martial Artists, but there is no chinese martial art named “cacma”, “camca,” or anything like that. The words cacma or camca aren’t even in the Chinese lexicon, either Mandarin or Cantonese. Ni huì shuo Yingyu ma?

    8) You missed point 8.

    9) I see. You turned down the national TV exposure in prime time from the company you exploited for vacation money, so that you could self-publish a book that’s currently ranked in the top 1.3 million best sellers at 1,209,915. I guess that was in one of those other reports, too.

    10) You and your editor share the same attention to detail.

    11) I think it’s quite confused – after claiming the motive of McDermott’s disappearance is insurance fraud, you now mention that no claim was actually ever made. Or, do I need to read that report, too?

    12) “Primise” is actually spelled “premise.” Olivia Newton John refused to have anything to do with your investigation. I saw it on the MSNBC Dateline segment, unless I need to read that report, too. Where will you post it?

    About my refund…a great investigator like yourself should be able to find my name and then match that to my address from my order. In fact, I had to order it twice…the hardback version from New Holland publishing was never available. Is that why you had to self-publish this garbage? Or, is that the version with the reports that I need to read?

  10. Wow, my perspective from someone on the outside looking in on this entertaining dialogue, it appears the author is now debating the truth about Mcdermott’s disappearance with someone from the United States Coast Guard with the facts. Semper Paratus.

  11. Thank you “Jerry” for your comments. There is a point in fact when a debate becomes unreasonable.

    As for IP Skipping – your suggestion is simply silly. It has been around for many years. The idea came from Hackers that didn’t want to be found. So they would skip from server to server and use hidden IP Addresses. We use it all the time. From a server in France, to a server in the middle east to a server right there in Florida. It’s not hard – read up on it. As for yours – I don’t care. You asked for your money back – I offered – and there we have it. You are a bunch of talk. But I get that.

    I think that the book lays out a great foundation for what we did and the experance. I am sorry you do not like it. And I am sorry that you feel the way towards me that you do. I wish you well.

    @ Cynthia – I am glad to post it. And thank you for being so nice and professional. I will do so on the Patrick McDermott site on Wed. or Thurs. as soon as I get time.

    Cynthia – I am interested in your thoughts on the comments by dock manager Frank. Did you see him as credible in his comments?

    Philip R. Klein

  12. I would think that you would have included the updated Coast Guard report in your book as it lends credence to your theory that Mr. McDermott is in fact still alive. I look forward to reading the report on the website. What is the site address? Will the New Holland version of the book have the reports you mentioned above? I really think they are necessary to prove your theory. Especially the DNA report. That should have been included in the book as well. I don’t think much of the Los Angeles Police Department.

    Did Mr. Liversage actually die? Looking back at it, I don’t understand why a man that was concerned enough to call the authorities about the situation would not also tell them about Ms. Nipar’s actions. I must admit that I find it difficult to believe that you were the only one he told given all the legal trouble he was going through.

  13. Good Questons :

    1) We will post it again (it was up for a long time) at
    2) The DNA report was also posted – we will get that one up again also.
    3) LAPD Missing Persons is one of the best. We have worked about nine cases with them – they have it together. They dropped the case within two days becasue they saw what we saw.
    4) Yes – Mr. Liversage did die. Before he died he put his observations of Ms. Nipar on tape for NBC. We have the outtakes – they hold the full tape. He was a great man. He did tell LAPD we learned later. Again – thus why they dropped out fast.

    Philip R. Klein

  14. I look forward to reading them but why did you not include them in your book? Will the New Holland edition include these documents?

  15. That doesn’t make sense. If Mr. Liversage told the LAPD about Ms. Nipar, why did you write that he was telling you something that he had never told before because he was dying. It would seem to me that you would suspect he was lying to you.

  16. It does make sense. He had never told the media – he had told investigators. Two forces drove this case – the media and the investigators. As I have said before – if it were not for ONJ’s connection to him the case would never have seen the light of the day.

  17. I still do not find him credible for those reasons. Will the New Holland edition of the book have the missing reports in it? I noted on Amazon that the publishing date has been delayed several times.

  18. We had contractual issues with NH – thus we formed the Publishing Company. We reserved the rights to the UK and AUS as well as the Asia markets. It will be the second edition – and we are going to put the Exhibits in there.

  19. I think that would be much better. This book seems very premature with many unanswered questions. I look forward to reading the missing reports. When will you have them posted?

  20. If a second edition is in the planning, Mr. Klein should hire Jerry and Cynthia as proofreaders.

  21. Oh dear. I don’t think I’m qualified. Have you posted the missing reports yet Mr. Klein?

  22. Why does somebody write a true life crime book and then have to post documents to a website to prove that the book is true after all? There is something wrong with this picture.

  23. Great question – I think it is good for the public to see the documents! It shows the inside to an investigation – and is interesting as it may be.

  24. Don’t have any desire to read this book, only stopped in when I saw 25 comments. FYI, the top photo reminds me of Curley from The Three Stooges.

  25. That is an excellent point. Mr. Klein, where can we find the updated Coast Guard report and the DNA report?

  26. first may i state/ i haven’t read lost at sea and no plans of reading it. as a former friend of patrick, patrick did not own a computer or possess an email address/ with that, i find it hard to believe patrick is searching for data on himself in mexico on a computer.

  27. @lax – well you weren’t a very good friend. There were two computers on inventory taken by investigators and examined and as well his email “accounts” were also reviewed. As well, he paid his bills “onliine.” Again – you must not have been very close to him. You might want to learn more about your “friend.” Email me and I will send you a free copy of the book and you can get better educated about him.

    @DR – we are scanning now – I apologize for being a little late on the post on the master site – we had some business to tend to on the personal side. We should have it scanned an up this afternoon.

  28. Mr. Klein!

    Thanks so much for posting those documents! I have a lot of respect for you because you must have the patience of a saint in answering a lot of these questions!

    Can you help me understand this because I’m more confused after reading the documents than I was before.

    1) The Coast Gaurd report is dated 2006, but the press release that someone posted above is dated 2009. So is there a third investigation that your talking about, or does this report from 2006 override the press release from 2009? I still don’t see anything on this report that says that he wasn’t lost at see like the press release said.

    2) On the DNA report, it doesn’t say anything about whether this sample they tasted was really Patrick McDermott’s. So, is there another DNA report that really identifies this DNA as belonging to Patrick McDermott?

    3) Did the insurance company write those notes on the insurance letter because I don’t understand why they would tell you they couldn’t release any information and then hand write on the letter other information.

    I really really appreciate this. I’m just trying to understand all of this and I can be slow sometimes.

  29. Mr. Klein, the Coast Guard report that you posted clearly states “CGIS has been unable to uncover any evidence that XXXXXXXXXX (name blanked out) staged XXXX (blanked out) death.” This report is from 2006

    You clearly stated in the post above:

    “The USCG ruled that the subject was alive – no proof of death.”

    Additionally you stated:

    “USCG was questioned on that statement – it countered the final report. We have the final report and quoted it.”

    Yet you post the report from 2006 that the Coast Guard clearly indicates that the sightings of XXXXXXXXXX (blanked out) which we must presume is Mr. McDermott are all negative. You specifically lead us to believe that there was a report subsequent to the one that Mr. Gervin posted that said Mr. McDermott is alive. Yet, you fail to produce that report.

    As to your DNA report, I have reviewed many DNA reports in my career and I must state that there are MANY pages that are missing. How do you vouch for the chain of custody? Who did the tests? What methods did they use and what databases did they have for comparison? These are but a few of many unanswered questions.

    Mike, I am sorry to say but I think this wannabe author is trying to pull the wool over all of our eyes for the sake of book sales. Unfortunately for him, his wool has been eaten by moths.

  30. I haven’t read the book, but after reading this exchange, Mike, I think this guy is closer to Don Knotts and Tim Conway in the The Private Eyes than Jim Rockford or Thomas Magnum.

  31. @zepper – There is no reason to be confused. It is a very simple answer – the USCG’s statement was under pressure regarding our investigation and witness statements from those on the boat, and espcially the one on the insurance joke that McDermott told to the passingers – Casey Clark who was on the boat documented it for us. In 2006 the USCG could not prove death- if there is no death – there is? They closed the case without proof of death. I know it is confusing – but that is how they write it. Also a little side note – the USCG said their investigation was still ongoing? In 2009? Why then in 2006 did they close the file? We have over 500 pages of USCG docs we will be putting up over the next few months. I hope you will find them interesting. As I find time – I will be posting more that are really eye opening and did not make air – as well we are going to post the Liversage video of my interview with him that discusses the Nipar situation and the on and off tears. As soon as we can get a good platform that will take a 30 minute video.

    @DR423 – Your post is agenda driven – therefore no crediblity – however as I find it interesting that you have seen so many DNA tests? What proof is there that you have seen so many? We take your word for it? That would be interesting. Maybe you can post your background to lead credibilty to your statements? As far that the DNA report – I too – in 26 years of being an investigator have seen many reports from DNA to homicide. Some are really good – some are not. This lab is a good one. DR – I have found that the moth flys two ways – and your wool seems to have fallen off. I am just saying – why don’t you tell us your real agenda? Then we can debate the facts of the book in truth and open.

    Thank you all for your comments. And thank you for writing in and allowing me to answer – all the way from Australlia!

  32. Dear Mr. Klein.

    I’m still confused about how you know for sure the sample of DNA that they tasted was really Mr. McDermotts or how they could be trying to collect on an insurance policy when you said they didn’t make a claim.

    The Coast gaurd report I understand. It says they think Mr. Mcdermott was lost at sea and the press release they posted says the same thing. What I don’t understand is how you think this means that Mr. MacDermott is still alive. You said they said the investigation was still going on in 2009, but the press release says it wasn’t and that they were sticking with their report from 2006.

  33. Mr. Klein,
    Your reply to DR432, “in 26 years of being an investigator”, but according to the Texas Department of Public Safety Private Security records, you were licensed on 12.29.98, which was only 13 years ago. Why as of now you have 26 years of being an investigator? Are we not fudging the truth a little?

  34. I am not trying to sell books Mr. Klein.

    While we are on the subject of background, I see that yours contains NO law enforcement experience nor does it appear that you even obtained a post graduate degree of any sorts. One would think that a background or formal education in criminal justice would be required to become an investigator but apparently not. Whats even more illuminating is that it appears that prior to this private investigator gig, at least within the last decade or so, you spent your time as a manager of a fast food restaurant.

    My agenda is quite simple. I refuse to let you sell me your snake oil.

  35. I have to agree Mr. Klein. Those are not the documents you said you were going to post.

  36. To The Readers :

    What you are witnessing is a classic misinformation campaign by those that have an agenda. It works this way :

    1) Make “made up” suggestions on the author and question his background by using only portions of records.

    2) Demand to see work product – then say the work product is not good enough – or they want to see better. Or say that the reports don’t say what you want them to say the way you want them to say it.

    3) Spread the comments through multi emails addresses with the same common goal.

    First, I will say that my background stands for itself. My history dates back to the City of Houston, VP / Lead investigator of Equifax – Prudential Life / Death Claims, JKS Investigations, my government service, and internships at Harris County ME. I have 26 years in the investigation business. Here is the disinformation – I wast a fast food manager. The truth – I invested in a group of restaurants. Anyone with a computer can log on to DPS and see the licenses and groups I worked with date back to 1980. And no, my three year government stint is not on DPS. And thank you for making me go back and look – it was not 26 years total as an investigator – it is 27 years. I apologize greatly for misleading you. For those of you not in the legal community – there are two books of law : Code of Criminal Procedure and the Code of Civil Procedure. Criminal Investigators are POLICE OFFICERS, Civil Investigators are CIVIL INVESTIGATORS (called PI’s). Some people that are officers have a thing for PI’s – some PI’s have a thing for officers. Keep that in mind when people compare. The funny thing is that we all go to the same schools and same CE classes taught by the same instructors. So you the reader keep in mind that some cops have huge egos – and should not be cops – and some PI’s have problems with COPS and should not be PI’s. Good cops and good PI’s work together for the common goal and do not get jealous. Some PI’s come from the criminal side. Some PI’s come from the civil side. I have been trained as a civil investigator – I have never wanted to be a cop – because 1) I do not like criminal work, 2) it does not pay enough. It was not until after the events of 2001 that we moved everyone in our group to Level IV Commissioned PSB Officers and began out PPO operations. We are proud to be commissioned – but we have no interest in being police officers. We like to leave the good work they do to the system they work in.

    2) We have over 200 hours of interviews on tape – and we have many many man hours by six investigators including myself in our offices (estmated now over 2,000 man hours). Our work product stands up. No doubt. It is silly to suggest that it does not – unless you have an agenda. I think anyone reading the posts gets that.

    3) You guys are going to have to do a better job with your comments. You are novice. The same feed – they feeding on each other – and then agreeing? Get better at it.

    Here is how it is going to work from now on. If any reader has a ligitimate question or reads the book and would like to ask for a document – I will be glad to answer. As for you folks that want to run the misinformation campaign – do what you have to do. In the end – your pattern is clear as day – and your reasons are even more clear. I am sorry you did not like the book – for those that really read it – and obviously two of you have not. And if you want your money back – please let me know and I will be more than glad to refund it.

    Philip R. Klein (I even have guts to sign my name – my real name)

  37. Mr. Klein you probably should stay out of the publishing business if you can’t handle criticism and from these posts it appears to me that your book is chock full of holes and you just can’t handle that. This is a common problem with people that self publish their works. Not everyone is an author. I would suggest you find a reputable publishing house, sit down with them, and listen to what they have to say.

  38. What is a Level 4 PSB officer and what are PPO operations and what does that have to do with this book?

  39. PSB Level IV – is for professional bodyguards (in Texas a Personal Protection Officer – PPO). We have dentention power in Texas and are commissioned to carry certain weapons. We are trained in defensive operations – and some offensive operations under the penal code. We are trained in Austin Texas – and Colorado on bodyguard operations and tactical operations, evacuation, airline evacuation, counter measures, interrogation and sys ops for large scale operations. Most of us on our team are paramedics, EMT’s and tach medics for evacuation As well, advance motorcade driving and defensive operations driving. We just added on in 2006 advanced assault weapon training. Myself and others in our team are now graduates of the Federal School for advance operations, medic training and investigative interview (s).

    I do not agree with your premise – holes. That is your opinion. Second, I have made more money off of this book self publishing than I would have in two years with a big name – now yes – I would have had a big company behind me – but publishing compaines are dying. And I do not agree that I cannot take objective views. That is silly again. I enjoy this – it makes me better and stronger. It is all how you look at things.

    My best….and thanks Ernie for your comments.

    Philip R. Klein

  40. Why do I think this guy has a camp somewhere with a concrete bunker full of automatic weapons and canned food?

  41. Why do you think that? I do not have the degree to answer it – however – you are wrong. You see – I have a job. I do my job. Then I turn it off and come on home and enjoy my family. I know it is hard for you to understand that. DR – you have a very sad mind. You would not even know what I do if you met me anywhere. No bunkers, no crazy stuff – just a middle class guy that works hard and is trying my best. How about you DR?

    Philip R. Klein

  42. Hi, Philip! Someone posted a link to this discussion on my blog today – I’m sure you’ve seen the blog, since you’ve been actively trying to sue Sam and I for almost three years now.

    How’s that grand perjury investigation going? I heard your attorney may be facing a grand perjury charge of his own, based on his performance in a Jefferson County courtroom this week. Of course, all of this is just hearsay and rumor at this point, at least until the grand jury meets.

    I had to laugh at some of your responses – quite typical, don’t you think? If only these people knew you like those of us in Southeast Texas know you!

    I see you’ve apparently invented some new details about your past experience. If there is interest, I’ll post the case numbers to the PRK Enterprises bankruptcies on those Dairy Queens, the defamation suits filed against you, and other litigation to which you’ve been a party. Oh, and there is the Texas Supreme Court decision concerning In Re John Does 1 and 2, where the justices determined that your evidence was “sketchy.” These background items put your responses in proper perspective.

    Anyway, I digress. You wrote:

    > What you are witnessing is a classic misinformation
    > campaign by those that have an agenda.

    What I’m witnessing is a classic attempt at changing the subject.

    When questioned about several of your book’s central theses concerning the Coast Guard and DNA reports, you either referenced non-existent investigations or documents not available.

    When questioned about the documents, you eventually posted some materials that don’t corroborate your claims.

    When questioned about that, you now claim you are the victim of a conspiracy and a misinformation campaign.

    Back to the original subjects, these are the questions you seem to be avoiding:

    1) How did confirm that the original DNA sample sent from Mexico really belonged to Patrick McDermott? As far as I can tell, you took the word of an unidentified person who called you on the phone. This does not constitute a valid chain of evidence and would never stand up in any court of law.

    2) The Coast Guard documents produced all agree that McDermott probably disappeared at sea. You even stated that the Coast Guard investigation was ongoing when all of the documents clearly say the investigation was over. If McDermott did indeed fall, slip, or jumped, there would be no body to confirm his death, hence the Coast Guard’s statement that McDermott was probably lost at sea.

    3) While you’ve alleged that the motive behind the disappearance is a small 100K insurance policy, you also stated that no claim was ever made on the policy.

    Since these are essential to the central theses of your book, you should have some sort of documentation that backs up your claims. On the other hand, you’ve never been big on actually investigating false rumors before publishing. Remember Klein v. Gillem?

    Radar Online posted the original documents from the Coast Guard investigation. You can read them here:

    As noted, they determined that “the evidence suggests that [McDermott] was lost at sea.”

    Philip, I noticed that you didn’t publish that purported fax from “Cacma D.” Radar Online also published that:

    Philip has a rather interesting approach to the English language with frequent misspellings and mangled sentence structures, as you can tell by his postings above. Ironically, the syntax of this fax is quite similar to Philip’s odd syntax, too. Draw your own conclusions.

    How’s your little dog doing?

  43. Nice try Mr. Klein. I thought your “readers” might find this link interesting.


  44. To All :

    Good afternoon – I am sad to announce that I have been advised by legal counsel that I must stop participating in this blog. We are in litigation with the pen name Gus Pillsbury and it would not be approprate for me to participate under the rules laid out by our new legal counsel. Thanks for the questions – I will not be monitoring this site nor will I be participating any longer. Thank you again.

    Philip R. Klein

  45. Aw, Philip, come back and play. I hope it wasn’t something I said!

    But, this is quite typical, too. One of your standard operating procedures when faced with questions you can’t answer is to take your toys and go home, then blame it on your attorney because you’re in a “lawsuit and can’t comment.” We can talk about it and so can you.

    By the way, Philip, we’ll meet your new attorney at the hearing this Friday, Apr 20th. That’s the motion on sanctions we’re seeking against you and your former attorney for making up stuff. Will he be there, too, or do you think he may be in jail on that grand perjury charge?

  46. If “no proof of death” supports the conclusion that a person is still alive—as this author contends—then about 3000 people who were vaporized in the 9-11 attacks as well as the 1000 or so passengers on the Titanic whose bodies were never recovered are also sipping margaritas in Cabo San Lucas and laughing at the press (except for those who have now died of old age). Maybe Mr. Klein can get them to send him DNA swabs, too. Because, you know, that’s what most people do who go to extravagant lengths to fake their own deaths—they then anonymously contact obscure private investigators in Nederland, Texas, in order to prove that they are still alive.

  47. Thank you to everyone that took the time to read my review of Mr. Klein’s book and/or my interview with him. As a reader (and reviewer) I can only base my thoughts and opinions on what is on the printed page. In my opinion Mr. Klein told a compelling story. I do agree that there are some mispellings and gramatical errors in the book. As a writer I tend to pick up on them when I read. Ironically I sometimes miss them in my work. I blame “Spell Check” for this. Thank you to everyone that commented. You expressed your various opinions and did it in a civilized way. I hope you continue to visit the site and, more importantly, share your comments with us and our readers. Thank you again!

Speak Your Mind

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *