Re: Pat Brown update for those who don't use Twitter

by Xavier 05.11.11 11:03

Stella wrote:I take it you are very familiar with the American legal system then?

Probably as well as any here. And the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. I have no doubt you may disagree, Stella.

A question for you. On what legal grounds could Ms Brown bring a case for libel against the McCanns?

by Guest 05.11.11 11:31

Xavier wrote:
Stella wrote:I take it you are very familiar with the American legal system then?

Probably as well as any here. And the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. I have no doubt you may disagree, Stella.

A question for you. On what legal grounds could Ms Brown bring a case for libel against the McCanns?

I think that depends on what Carter Ruck communicated with Amazon. Only Pat would know what was claimed. But if she is pursuing Libel 'and' that other posh term that escapes me right now, I would think that she is in possession of the original communique from CR to Amazon and somewhere within it they have attacked her profession. Which led to loss of earnings and of course her credibility. So I think this must be quite serious, considering her close association with the FBI.

by aiyoyo 05.11.11 12:13

Xavier wrote:Probably not a popular view, but an honest one. I have no time for the McCanns antics, but even less time for Ms Brown. She is the latest to jump on the bandwagon seeking fame / and or fortune from a missing child. She has about as much to do with criminal profiling as "celebrity masterchef" has with running a professional kitchen.

As for suing the McCanns for libel over Amazon ditching her book? On what grounds? As far as I can see, the McCanns have not acknowledged her presence apart from Carter Ruck raising concerns with the distributors of her book. They may be justified, they may not. But that does not constitute libel.

Ms Brown seems to be suffering from lack of attention. And those expecting some great result from this are likely to be sadly disappointed.

I beg to differ. What the mccanns did cannot be justified no matter what.
Going behind Pat's back to get her book banned by threatening Amazon is underhanded. Until a Court decides on the libel issue, it isnt down to mccanns to say one way or another about their subjective view of Pat's book. In other words, its not down to mccanns to decide that - they may think that , but that's a different issue altogether. If they have an issue with Pat they should take it up with her and not Amazon.

Just for argument sake, if people have an issue with kate's book and use the same tactics as the mccanns to have it banned, do you consider that correct or ethical?

Google 'tortious interference of business' or try wikipedia, and you will find Pat has a case against the mccanns and a strong one. She was obviously very well advised legally I believe.

by Mumbles 05.11.11 14:32

This is from Pat's blog...

In the end, the issue remains between the McCanns and Pat Brown and a
court of law should either party wish to go there as to whether the
Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann is libelous or their claims that my book is libelous are libelous!

http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.com/

by Maive 05.11.11 15:10

Xavier wrote:

Probably as well as any here. And the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. I have no doubt you may disagree, Stella.

A question for you. On what legal grounds could Ms Brown bring a case for libel against the McCanns?

She wrote on her Facebook that she has a written proof.

QUOTE

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown Marion, I have it in writing.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Criminal-Profiler-Pat-Brown/387068190642

by pennylane 05.11.11 15:26

Although the McCanns have done everything in their power to destroy Goncalo Amaral, he has remained steadfast, and landed firmly on his feet. He is a very smart man, and I don't think they have a chance in hell of stopping him now.

Pat Brown is also determined and very street wise too, and I believe she will win hands down against the doctors McCann. They are unused to being openly challenged - especially by a professional (a criminal profiler in this case) with legal knowledge and media inroads. Their days of manipulation and bullying all and sundry are over!

Interesting times ahead methinks.

by HotlipsHealy 05.11.11 15:34

The McCann supporters are in full swing trying to trash Pat's reputation

http://jatyk2.forumotion.co.uk/t690-special-request-does-anyone-know-who-brown-thinks-she-is-going-to-get-money-out-of#18815

http://jatyk2.forumotion.co.uk/t685-profiler-brown-claims-she-is-taking-legal-action-against-mccanns

by Guest 05.11.11 16:10

Probably this is a silly question but I wonder if the pros will ever come up with logical believable answers to all the queries and inconsistencies of this case, rather than what seems to be their only ploy of trying to destroy the reputation of anyone who raises these issues.

by HotlipsHealy 05.11.11 16:32

I see Brenda Ryan is also trashing Pat.
I have no idea what's going on between Brenda and Bonnybraes. Weren't they both anti's who hated each other and now they're both pro's who are bessie mates?
With all this fighting and trashing each other, what are they actually doing for Madeleine except trying to stop people finding the truth?

by Xavier 05.11.11 17:47

For those who suggest I may have been a bit harsh on Brown, perhaps you could consider how you should view the professional standing of a "criminal profiler" who makes a statement along the lines of:

"As a criminal profiler, I have also sometimes been criticized for theorizing about a case I have not personally been privy to the actual facts from inside the investigation. As I do a lot of television commentary, this is quite often the case for me; I only can theorize based on the “facts” outlined by the media. Therein lays the difference between public speculating and true criminal profiling as part of an investigative team. The latter is going to be one hell of a lot more accurate!"

Does that sound more like a sober professional giving their considered judgement, based on knowledge of the facts? or a sensationalist entertainer?

In my view, perhaps wiser not to hold you breath over the libel case. Or indeed "Tortious interference with business".

by ufercoffy 05.11.11 17:55

Xavier wrote:For those who suggest I may have been a bit harsh on Brown, perhaps you could consider how you should view the professional standing of a "criminal profiler" who makes a statement along the lines of:

"As a criminal profiler, I have also sometimes been criticized for theorizing about a case I have not personally been privy to the actual facts from inside the investigation. As I do a lot of television commentary, this is quite often the case for me; I only can theorize based on the “facts” outlined by the media. Therein lays the difference between public speculating and true criminal profiling as part of an investigative team. The latter is going to be one hell of a lot more accurate!"

Does that sound more like a sober professional giving their considered judgement, based on knowledge of the facts? or a sensationalist entertainer?

In my view, perhaps wiser not to hold you breath over the libel case. Or indeed "Tortious interference with business".

http://hypocriteandliar.wordpress.com/2010/01/21/networld-criminal-profilers/

by Xavier 05.11.11 18:07

Hello Ufercoffey. Not quite sure what point you making in posting that link.

by Buildersbum 05.11.11 18:15

pennylane wrote:Although the McCanns have done everything in their power to destroy Goncalo Amaral, he has remained steadfast, and landed firmly on his feet. He is a very smart man, and I don't think they have a chance in hell of stopping him now.

Pat Brown is also determined and very street wise too, and I believe she will win hands down against the doctors McCann. They are unused to being openly challenged - especially by a professional (a criminal profiler in this case) with legal knowledge and media inroads. Their days of manipulation and bullying all and sundry are over!

Interesting times ahead methinks.

pennylane

Pat Brown update for those who don't use Twitter - Page 4 351181

Pat Brown update for those who don't use Twitter - Page 4 759815

Spot on, I agree 100% with you!!!

by anil39200 05.11.11 18:57

HotlipsHealy wrote:The McCann supporters are in full swing trying to trash Pat's reputation

http://jatyk2.forumotion.co.uk/t690-special-request-does-anyone-know-who-brown-thinks-she-is-going-to-get-money-out-of#18815

http://jatyk2.forumotion.co.uk/t685-profiler-brown-claims-she-is-taking-legal-action-against-mccanns

U
Having followed these two links I must say that there are some extremely nasty people among the McC's so called supporters. People with that kind of venom surely cannot have the interests of a. Small child at heart. It was quite disgusting really. What is it with them?

by madge 05.11.11 19:21

anil39200 wrote:
HotlipsHealy wrote:The McCann supporters are in full swing trying to trash Pat's reputation

http://jatyk2.forumotion.co.uk/t690-special-request-does-anyone-know-who-brown-thinks-she-is-going-to-get-money-out-of#18815

http://jatyk2.forumotion.co.uk/t685-profiler-brown-claims-she-is-taking-legal-action-against-mccanns

U
Having followed these two links I must say that there are some extremely nasty people among the McC's so called supporters. People with that kind of venom surely cannot have the interests of a. Small child at heart. It was quite disgusting really. What is it with them?

Whoa! I also followed the links and I have to say they are some very scary people. And these are members of Team McCann? Pat Brown update for those who don't use Twitter - Page 4 195540

Pat Brown update for those who don't use Twitter - Page 4 195540

by Guest 05.11.11 20:18

I certainly don't get the impression that the venom-spitting element of the McCann supporters has the slightest interest in Madeleine. Madge, I wouldn't think they are part of Team McCann though it's interesting that TM hasn't as far as I know ever distanced themselves from this sort of behaviour. I wouldn't want people like this flying the flag on my behalf!

by Gillyspot 05.11.11 20:58

@Greenink211 is on his/her/it's best form tonight. CAPITAL LETTERS at the ready.

@GILLYSPOT Utter garbage. What blog? More IDIOTIC LIES FROM YOU. LOL Grow up and get a life instead of SPENDING YOUR TIME LYING HERE #McCann

Such a mature "senior academic" ?

by aiyoyo 06.11.11 7:21

Xavier wrote:For those who suggest I may have been a bit harsh on Brown, perhaps you could consider how you should view the professional standing of a "criminal profiler" who makes a statement along the lines of:

"As a criminal profiler, I have also sometimes been criticized for theorizing about a case I have not personally been privy to the actual facts from inside the investigation. As I do a lot of television commentary, this is quite often the case for me; I only can theorize based on the “facts” outlined by the media. Therein lays the difference between public speculating and true criminal profiling as part of an investigative team. The latter is going to be one hell of a lot more accurate!"

Does that sound more like a sober professional giving their considered judgement, based on knowledge of the facts? or a sensationalist entertainer?

In my view, perhaps wiser not to hold you breath over the libel case. Or indeed "Tortious interference with business".

Put aside what one thinks of the mccanns or Pat Brown, I think Xavier you're deliberately been selective about Pat's writing of the case.
For example, she also said she based her opinion from kate's book, from the horse's own mouth.

She wrote:

The added information in Kate's book has enabled me to complete a Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann ( US and UK). I had been reluctant to offer one for a long time because, in spite of the many police reports and statements and television appearances of Kate and Gerry McCann, I wanted to hear the story from one of their mouths, to know their answers to some very pertinent questions. Kate finally did me the favor when she wrote, Madeleine, and although most of the book is a defense of her behaviors and actions, it is through this defense that Kate has given me a much stronger insight into what likely happened the night Madeleine went missing and why certain things happened or did not happen. Even with time to meticulously choose what one wants to say, it is amazing that what actually ends up coming out is something that perhaps would be better left unsaid. However, personal agendas, narcissism, and a lack of objectivity can cloud the judgment and the end results might not be exactly what the person intended. And I thank Kate for that.

Let me tell you two of the biggest revelations in the book: Kate admits no one came through the window of the children's bedroom. Yes, after years of insisting that someone broke into the apartment by tampering with the shutters and forcing the window open, Kate now backs down from that claim, agreeing with the Policia Judiciaria that an abductor did not climbed into or out of the room. This is sort of a Bombshell Tonight. [b)What this means is that Kate does not claim the police botched the evidence and while she still claims there was an abductor that opened the window for reasons that make no sense,[/b] her admission changes how I view what actually happened that night.

Another fascinating bit in the book is Kate's incredibly generous forgiveness of Jane Tanner for not telling her immediately that she saw a man carrying Madeleine off from the apartment; she is instead thankful that "someone had seen something". In other words, Kate is happy an abduction was seen going down, not that she was notified of it in time to do anything about it. This startling revelation tells me a lot about the mindset of the McCanns and adds greatly to the profile in determining what happened to Madeleine.]

I see nothing wrong in a crime profiler analysing or offering her opinion based on info provided from the horse's mouth. That's the very reason defense lawyer tell their client to shut up (she said) but no, kate wrote her own suicide note in the form of a book. Of course one can argue that's is only someone's opinion albeit a professional one, but in fairness one also has to give credit that people specialized in that field, especially an established and well known specialist, would know what they are talking about.

by Buildersbum 06.11.11 8:51

Put it this way, if I was been advised by Pat Brown or Gerry and Kate McCann I know who I would believe and trust............It wouldn't be G&K McCann thats for certain. Pat Brown update for those who don't use Twitter - Page 4 172348

Pat Brown update for those who don't use Twitter - Page 4 172348

by Shibboleth 06.11.11 9:07

Pat Brown also has written a disclaimer in her book. She states very plainly that the conclusions are based only on materials available in the public domain. She never met Gerry or Kate McCann. She states that this may influence her conclusions, that a profile written with access to the subjects will be much more accurate. So I do not think anyone can have any complaint, there is a warning in the book that the profile may be incomplete, you have to read it while remembering this.

There was a book written some years ago, the Da Vinci Code, many people were scandalized and claimed it was blasphemy. They believed it was all true, a historical record. Even though the author said, right in the front cover of the book, it is a work of fiction. If people can not, or will not read all of the instructions then they have only them-selves to blame.

by Smokeandmirrors 06.11.11 9:09

Shibboleth wrote:Pat Brown also has written a disclaimer in her book. She states very plainly that the conclusions are based only on materials available in the public domain. She never met Gerry or Kate McCann. She states that this may influence her conclusions, that a profile written with access to the subjects will be much more accurate. So I do not think anyone can have any complaint, there is a warning in the book that the profile may be incomplete, you have to read it while remembering this.

There was a book written some years ago, the Da Vinci Code, many people were scandalized and claimed it was blasphemy. They believed it was all true, a historical record. Even though the author said, right in the front cover of the book, it is a work of fiction. If people can not, or will not read all of the instructions then they have only them-selves to blame.

Spot on!!!!!

by **PeterMac** 06.11.11 9:52

Q What is it we ask a jury to do?
A Theorise on the 'facts' supplied to them.
They were not there. They did not see what happened. They can only come to a conclusion on the basis of what they are told.

by Nina 06.11.11 10:01

PeterMac wrote:Q What is it we ask a jury to do?
A Theorise on the 'facts' supplied to them.
They were not there. They did not see what happened. They can only come to a conclusion on the basis of what they are told.

Spot on PeterMac.

by **tigger** 06.11.11 10:16

http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.com/2011/09/crisis-what-crisis.html

Very long and good post from Blacksmith, the libel trial for the holocaust denying author went pear shaped because of the enormous amount of 'inconsistencies' .
Very good read and I particularly like the CMPR (Crisis Management Public Relations) role in these situations.

by aiyoyo 06.11.11 11:52

PeterMac wrote:Q What is it we ask a jury to do?
A Theorise on the 'facts' supplied to them.
They were not there. They did not see what happened. They can only come to a conclusion on the basis of what they are told.

Well, in that case if jury being laypersons must theorise and judge merely based on facts supplied, then a specialist given same facts would be more adept at it

It's not uncommon for trial to invite in specialists in different aspects of criminology to present their professional opinions which will contribute towards info Jury can use to help them come to their decision.