Let's not forget Pat Brown

by lj 26.07.11 3:07

So no trial (yet) but "they" have convinced Amazon there is a legal problem with Pat Brown's analysis of Kate's book, and it is no longer available.

Even worse if you search for Pat Brown you end up getting Kate's book. Now I do think it is important that a lot of people read as much as possible. For your sanity you might want to limit your reading to some chapter. It is important because I think that every normal person after reading will conclude that Katey is completely mesjokke.

and sadly not harmless.

I hope Pat will make her analysis available through her website.

by jd 26.07.11 3:14

I don't understand why there has to be a legal problem with having an opinion on something based on the facts....At the end of the day this is Pats opinion and right to free speech, and there are many books written on different subjects in the same vain. Just what is it that makes this couple so special to anyone else on the planet?

Think of all the legal costs they've spent which could have gone towards actually finding Maddie....this is not the behaviour of parents missing their child

by Willo 26.07.11 7:25

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/levipage/2011/07/26/stop-casey-anthony-blood-money

The last 10 minutes or so of this Levi Page blogcast has Pat Brown confirming she has been C & R'd.

by aiyoyo 26.07.11 9:15

She's a crime profiler for god's sake, well entitled to her opinion and analysis.

The more mccanns sue people like Pat the more attention it will bring to Pat's profiling.

Nothing like a banned book to whet people's appetite.

The problem is because she is Carter Rucked she might not be allowed to post it up anywhere.

Hope Wikileaks post it up.

Let's see how Pat is going to tackle this because she said so before she isnt afraid of the mccanns.
Just Amaral she might be edging mccanns to come out and fight in open court.

Two defamation litigations filed by them now - one against Amaral and one against Pat. The one against Amaral they look set to lose (from indication of lift injunction). The one against Pat - taken out in USA? hmmm....the mccanns better watch out.

by lj 26.07.11 13:41

Carter Ruck has no power in the US. Pat should post it on her website, and not even the omnipotent megalomanic McCanns with their henchmen can do anything about that.

edited to add an o

by Big Vern 26.07.11 13:51

lj wrote:Carter Ruck has no power in the US. Pat should post it on her website, and not even the omniptent megalomanic McCanns with their henchmen can do anything about that.

Spot on

by aiyoyo 26.07.11 16:09

lj wrote:Carter Ruck has no power in the US. Pat should post it on her website, and not even the omnipotent megalomanic McCanns with their henchmen can do anything about that.

edited to add an o

Exactly so why is CR wasting time even issuing such a threatening letter? To who btw?

Both Pat and Amazon are American based, so why did mccann even bother? Pat Brown should ignore CR the idiot completely and tackle Amazon over it. They shouldn't pull Pat's book just on mccanns say so without a court order or Pat should go on TV and put it to the debate and forced amazon under the spotlight.

Wish pat would post her reaction to CR (if she bothers to tell them to FO).

by Gillyspot 26.07.11 16:18

Remember you can still read Pat on here.

http://womenincrimeink.blogspot.com/search/label/Madeleine%20McCann

She also says on twitter
"If you got an email from Amazon stating my #McCann book was removed due to copyright infringement, pls forward a copy. she2000@comcast.net "

by dragonfly 26.07.11 16:59

jd wrote:I don't understand why there has to be a legal problem with having an opinion on something based on the facts....At the end of the day this is Pats opinion and right to free speech, and there are many books written on different subjects in the same vain. Just what is it that makes this couple so special to anyone else on the planet?

Think of all the legal costs they've spent which could have gone towards actually finding Maddie....this is not the behaviour of parents missing their child

This Jayelles person has posted extracts of Pat Browns book on following link and has done her own critic on Pats Book

Here Jayelles is seen 'correcting' Pats book
some examples below (which jayelles has replied in red ,

That the McCanns changed their stories regarding the apartment doors being locked and unlocked
False - see section on locks below

That the sniffer dogs indicated that "Madeleine McCann’s body" had lain in the McCann's apartment and been transported in their rental car
It is false to claim that the dogs alerted to "Madeleine McCann's body". These sniffer dogs cannot differentiate between individuals. In the Shannon Matthews case, sniffer dogs "indicated" at second hand furniture whose previous owner had died. The fact that Shannon was subsequently found alive substantiates the reason why dog alerts on their own are not considered "evidence". See this article on the dogs for a more detailed description of how they work.

That the McCanns “insist” that the Smith sighting of a man carrying a child at the Rua da Escola Primaria “had nothing to do with her disappearance” something which she states “further supports a cover-up rather than a real abduction”.
Totally false. The opposite is true. Click to read more.

That the McCanns have not “properly accounted” for the Madeleine Fund.
False. In fact, it is a fundamental requirement under UK law that they provide such accounts annually.

Brown says "Madeleine is still missing, and Kate McCann has just published a book called Madeleine. She now is requesting a fuller investigation by Scotland Yard but it is not clear if she and Gerry are willing to be reinterviewed by the Yard or by anyone else at this point."
Misleading. The McCanns want the case in Portugal to be re-opened. Portuguese law demands new evidence to re-open the case. To gain new evidence McCann have campaigned relentlessly for the British Government to help them to review the case and all the information gathered by their own detectives. To date, over 64,000 people have signed the McCanns' petition for this endeavour. Scotland Yard have just started with their investigation and if new evidence develops McCanns will ask the magistrates in Portugal to re-open the case.
There is absolutely no indication that the McCanns would refuse to be reinterviewed by detectives investigating their daughter's abduction.

http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/41720163/Analysis%20and%20Rebuttal%20of%20Pat%20Brown%27s%20ebook%20%22Profile%20of%20the%20Disappearance%20of%20Madeleine%20McCann%20%28UPDATE#TimeofDeathImportant

by lj 26.07.11 17:42

aiyoyo wrote:
lj wrote:Carter Ruck has no power in the US. Pat should post it on her website, and not even the omnipotent megalomanic McCanns with their henchmen can do anything about that.

edited to add an o

Exactly so why is CR wasting time even issuing such a threatening letter? To who btw?

Both Pat and Amazon are American based, so why did mccann even bother? Pat Brown should ignore CR the idiot completely and tackle Amazon over it. They shouldn't pull Pat's book just on mccanns say so without a court order or Pat should go on TV and put it to the debate and forced amazon under the spotlight.

Wish pat would post her reaction to CR (if she bothers to tell them to FO).

Writing a letter cost almost nothing, and sometimes you're lucky as now and you can bill your client a hundred fold of the cost.

So even on a no win no fee schedule it's worth trying.

They tried the same with Joana and Pamalan. Amazon does not want the hassle of defending human rights so they cave in.

by Miraflores 26.07.11 17:46

That the McCanns have not “properly accounted” for the Madeleine Fund.
False. In fact, it is a fundamental requirement under UK law that they provide such accounts annually.

This is so typical of a McCann style fudge in that it obeys the letter and not the spirit. The first year's accounts showed that only 13% of the fund was spent looking for Madeleine. Needless to say, people were not too happy with that. Since then only the minimum of information to comply with the law has been filed. They are perfectly entitled to do this, but anyone wanting to find out how their money actually helped look for Madeleine will search in vain. Just suppose - a flight of fantasy here - that Madeleine was found and
reunited with her parents. Would she be convinced that ££££ thousands
spent suing everyone left, right and centre was searching for her? Would
she be asking - why didn't you come to find me?

This is similar to Kate blathering on Australian television the other day that the Tapas bar was only 49.2 metres away. I am sure this is true - as the crow flies. I am not aware of Kate or Gerry having grown wings so that distance is totally irrelevant but it sounds convincing to those who don't know.

by dragonfly 26.07.11 18:29

Miraflores wrote:

That the McCanns have not “properly accounted” for the Madeleine Fund.
False. In fact, it is a fundamental requirement under UK law that they provide such accounts annually.

This is so typical of a McCann style fudge in that it obeys the letter and not the spirit. The first year's accounts showed that only 13% of the fund was spent looking for Madeleine. Needless to say, people were not too happy with that. Since then only the minimum of information to comply with the law has been filed. They are perfectly entitled to do this, but anyone wanting to find out how their money actually helped look for Madeleine will search in vain. Just suppose - a flight of fantasy here - that Madeleine was found and
reunited with her parents. Would she be convinced that ££££ thousands
spent suing everyone left, right and centre was searching for her? Would
she be asking - why didn't you come to find me?

This is similar to Kate blathering on Australian television the other day that the Tapas bar was only 49.2 metres away. I am sure this is true - as the crow flies. I am not aware of Kate or Gerry having grown wings so that distance is totally irrelevant but it sounds convincing to those who don't know.

I agree, No amount of money you could chuck at the fund will find her IMO, even if it was £50 million the money route is not working , all it takes and Im talking in general is someone to speak up, that has nothing to do with money (unless a person spoke up to claim the reward - in this case 4 years down the line there is no one speaking out to claim a reward) The whole phone line is not needed if someone knew something they could contact the police for free, thats your phone line, looking at other missing children , like natacha she escaped nothing to do with money jaycee again nothing to do with money, What I dont understand is this whole FINAL piece of the puzzle there is no puzzle the trail finishes and ends at the apartment nothing beyond that is set in stone, for eg a get away car , or evidence of say 'abductors' with child stayed at hotel/motel but have since moved on, What is the rest of this puzzle ?/ that they keep claiming they just need the 'FINAL PIECE' What do the police do when they feel they need further information and not getting anywhere? They take cases to crimewatch, which is known to help close cases with further results and evidence comes forward , The Mccann's dont even have to pay for a reconstruction and it is free to them, For someone who keeps saying leave no stone unturned, this is one stone they they do not want unturned, Why not? you would do everything even if it came to nothing at least you knew you tried,
This abductor who went to the lengths of watching and doing a 'dummy trail' the night before ' on a family who were 'checking' yet has no get away van/car or if he has decides to go for a long stroll round pdl and park van /car miles from he sounds like the thickest and luckiest 'abductor'

by Gillyspot 26.07.11 19:58

Miraflores wrote:

That the McCanns have not “properly accounted” for the Madeleine Fund.
False. In fact, it is a fundamental requirement under UK law that they provide such accounts annually.

This is so typical of a McCann style fudge in that it obeys the letter and not the spirit. .

As said earlier the "Fund" is legally correct in making available the minimum level of information allowed by law but on the Find Madeleine website it states " An experienced Fund Administrator has been appointed to ensure the highest standards of transparency and accountability"

This they have seriously failed to do. In fact I have been thinking about calling Trading Standards as surely this is a mis-representation of the facts regarding their fund. This being in particular important in relation to receiving public donations.

by lj 26.07.11 20:11

Miraflores wrote:

That the McCanns have not “properly accounted” for the Madeleine Fund.
False. In fact, it is a fundamental requirement under UK law that they provide such accounts annually.

This is so typical of a McCann style fudge in that it obeys the letter and not the spirit. The first year's accounts showed that only 13% of the fund was spent looking for Madeleine. Needless to say, people were not too happy with that. Since then only the minimum of information to comply with the law has been filed. They are perfectly entitled to do this, but anyone wanting to find out how their money actually helped look for Madeleine will search in vain. Just suppose - a flight of fantasy here - that Madeleine was found and
reunited with her parents. Would she be convinced that ££££ thousands
spent suing everyone left, right and centre was searching for her? Would
she be asking - why didn't you come to find me?

This is similar to Kate blathering on Australian television the other day that the Tapas bar was only 49.2 metres away. I am sure this is true - as the crow flies. I am not aware of Kate or Gerry having grown wings so that distance is totally irrelevant but it sounds convincing to those who don't know.

It is just a matter of common decency, something these 2 have no idea of.

You can very clearly see that in Kate's book in many spots. One so telling is the one where she tells (and I am paraphrasing here) iif people would think it not "done" when she buys her strawberries in the expensive supermarket. Of course she wants everybody to say "Kate, go for it, you deserve it". I think it would be just common decency that as long as they accept money from people who cannot afford these expensive strawberries, she should not buy them either. It is a matter of very basic civilization, but don't expect that from this couple.

by Gillyspot 26.07.11 20:38

Or at least buy them and not rub our noses in it. They live in a £600k house. He probably still earns well over £80k - they don 't need to spend the fund on flaming strawberries. Do you think the fund actively pays Kate for her "work" - I am sure it will be doing so.

by lj 26.07.11 23:15

I doubt she gets an official salary, because then she has to pay taxes.

But in the world of reimbursing expenses a lot is possible. Not only expenxex directly related to Kate and her "work" for the fund, which likely includes perks as travel (yes that means reimbursing a per mile cost), but also clothing, computer, car, hairdresser, babysit for the kids because Katey has to be places.
Don't forget the use of part of the house , electricity, furniture etc.

That way the person who can't afford strawberries at all, is paying for Kate's expensive ones.

They are so low.

by jd 26.07.11 23:29

lj wrote:I doubt she gets an official salary, because then she has to pay taxes.

But in the world of reimbursing expenses a lot is possible. Not only expenxex directly related to Kate and her "work" for the fund, which likely includes perks as travel (yes that means reimbursing a per mile cost), but also clothing, computer, car, hairdresser, babysit for the kids because Katey has to be places.
Don't forget the use of part of the house , electricity, furniture etc.

That way the person who can't afford strawberries at all, is paying for Kate's expensive ones.

They are so low.

Great point LJ. Didn't think about all the expenses they can claim 'in the name of the search' on top of the fund. They have been living a life of riley for the last 4 years

by tellusanother1 27.07.11 3:27

Tweeted by Pat Brown 1 hour ago.

"I am setting up the Madeleine Search Fund. We will be looking in Praia da Luz, Huelva, and Rothley. #McCann"

Go Pat! Waiting for more details.

Let's not forget Pat Brown 636506

by dragonfly 27.07.11 8:15

tellusanother1 wrote:Tweeted by Pat Brown 1 hour ago.

"I am setting up the Madeleine Search Fund. We will be looking in Praia da Luz, Huelva, and Rothley. #McCann"

Go Pat! Waiting for more details.

http://www.amazon.de/BANNED-Disappearance-Madeleine-royalties-ebook/dp/B005EOAWJ6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1311750420&sr=8-1 money from kindle goes to fund says on this page

by Willo 27.07.11 8:25

For the current quarter, Amazon forecast revenue of $10.3 billion to $11.1 billion, the top of which is well above the $10.40 billion analysts have been expecting.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10741122

$11.1 billion!!!!

Kate and Gerry want some.

by pauline 27.07.11 9:14

lj wrote:I doubt she gets an official salary, because then she has to pay taxes.

But in the world of reimbursing expenses a lot is possible. Not only expenxex directly related to Kate and her "work" for the fund, which likely includes perks as travel (yes that means reimbursing a per mile cost), but also clothing, computer, car, hairdresser, babysit for the kids because Katey has to be places.
Don't forget the use of part of the house , electricity, furniture etc.

That way the person who can't afford strawberries at all, is paying for Kate's expensive ones.

They are so low.

The official position re the limited company (Fund) is that directors do not receive any 'remuneration.' But as you say IJ expenses are obviously paid - and because the accounts filed for the last two years give the minimum information required by law, we have no idea what the money is spent on.

But I presume the strawberries are paid from Gerry's salary?

Since the directors don't get paid - its unclear how John McCann lived from May 2007 when he gave up his job, to a few months ago when he resigned. Brian Kennedy did not come on the scene until 2007 and may have paid his salary but this is not mentioned in the book. Kate does mention that he paid for Clarence Mitchell. Why does she not mention MR Kennedy's generosity in paying for John Mccann if it was the case.

by Gillyspot 27.07.11 9:32

Pat Brown or someone else has released an audio tape on youtube.com of her being interviewed by Levi Page

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkB3r8HjjLA&feature=share

by Guest 27.07.11 10:25

honeybunch wrote:Pat Brown or someone else has released an audio tape on youtube.com of her being interviewed by Levi Page

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkB3r8HjjLA&feature=share

HiDeHo, a moderator on this forum, made that for Pat...it's excellent isn't it?!! thumbsup

by Gillyspot 27.07.11 10:27

Brilliant Video (and audio LOL) . It is all over twitter this morning. bravo

HiDeHo

by lj 27.07.11 13:53

pauline wrote:
lj wrote:I doubt she gets an official salary, because then she has to pay taxes.

But in the world of reimbursing expenses a lot is possible. Not only expenxex directly related to Kate and her "work" for the fund, which likely includes perks as travel (yes that means reimbursing a per mile cost), but also clothing, computer, car, hairdresser, babysit for the kids because Katey has to be places.
Don't forget the use of part of the house , electricity, furniture etc.

That way the person who can't afford strawberries at all, is paying for Kate's expensive ones.

They are so low.

The official position re the limited company (Fund) is that directors do not receive any 'remuneration.' But as you say IJ expenses are obviously paid - and because the accounts filed for the last two years give the minimum information required by law, we have no idea what the money is spent on.

But I presume the strawberries are paid from Gerry's salary?

Since the directors don't get paid - its unclear how John McCann lived from May 2007 when he gave up his job, to a few months ago when he resigned. Brian Kennedy did not come on the scene until 2007 and may have paid his salary but this is not mentioned in the book. Kate does mention that he paid for Clarence Mitchell. Why does she not mention MR Kennedy's generosity in paying for John Mccann if it was the case.

Pauline, as long as they don't put their own money in the search for Madeleine, and have their expenses paid by the fund that is fill up by many people who are financially less off that the McCanns, yes than maybe it looks like Gerry is paying for the strawberries by it is morally as bad as if they had those poor people paying.