Re: BRICK Reviews

by Cake Lover 05.09.24 11:29

I think P.B. lost her way a while ago, she is quite incoherent lately. It's sad, if that is the case.

by Keelafreeze 05.09.24 11:47

PB dipped her toes into the Luke Mitchell/Jodi Jones case and hasn’t covered it since due to making an abject fool of herself. Everybody has a right to an opinion and Pat can claim she’s obviously correct seeing as Luke is still in prison (although he’d be out by now if he’d admitted his guilt). Luke was 14 and was paper suited the night Jodi was found with over 300 injuries to her body and nearly decapitated with between 12-20 slash marks to her neck. Jodi had fought her attacker/s and whoever used the knife would’ve had marks on their hands/fingers from slipping with the blood. Luke had dirty hair, neck and fingernails meaning he’d never washed. There was no forensic evidence linking Luke to the crime scene or vice versa! FBI crime profilers were visited by the local police and concluded that Luke was definitely not the culprit, but seeing as this contradicted the police narrative it never made court. Dr David Wilson wrote an article in recent years claiming Luke shouldn’t have even been charged let alone convicted. There are far more obvious suspects, but I’ll leave this here for everyone who’ve become more aware of the use of statement analysis- Luke was with Jodi’s sister, her sister’s boyfriend (who’s sperm was found on her T-shirt and blood on her bra) and Jodi’s gran. Luke’s dog Mia started sniffing beside a wall and made herself big, when asked to go look for Jodi, so Luke went back, climbed the wall and made the gruesome discovery. A month later the sister and her boyfriend REMOVED the part about Mia alerting beside the wall and therefore implicating Luke as having lead the ‘search party’ to poor Jodi’s body.
Pat Brown- Luke is guilty thinking

by Amy Dean 05.09.24 11:47

I will be honest and say that I wonder if Pat has a drink problem. It's embarrassing at times to listen to her.

by Amy Dean 05.09.24 13:50

The Jodi Jones case as mentioned above - Pat's view on it.

by Jojo1 05.09.24 15:35

Cake Lover wrote:I think P.B. lost her way a while ago, she is quite incoherent lately. It's sad, if that is the case.

I tend to agree with you on that.
I struggled to listen to her audio of her new Madeleine book and her extremely critical review of Bernts book and theory.
I have alot of respect for Pat and for others who have studied the Madeleine case and in my opinion we should embrace their differing approaches.
I'm excited about Bernts next interview.

by Amy Dean 06.09.24 10:53

Pat is okay for me when her videos are pre-recorded. The live ones for patreons only are frequently a shambles with photos and links going missing.

by Justice for Maddie 06.09.24 11:18

Does anyone know the date of the new BS interview?

by **PeterMac** 06.09.24 18:53

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Bluebagthepirate 07.09.24 9:32

Just had an email from Amazon recommending "The Sudden Impulse".

How do they know?

by Cake Lover 07.09.24 10:15

They know everything, it seems to me. Our lives are not our own.

by Ladyinred 07.09.24 10:21

Have you ordered Madeleine related books previously, or read/posted reviews on the site?

by Bluebagthepirate 07.09.24 14:17

Ladyinred wrote:Have you ordered Madeleine related books previously, or read/posted reviews on the site?

Absolutely not.

They have obviously read my cookies on all websites I visit.

It stinks a bit.

by Nina 07.09.24 14:29

Amy Dean wrote:I will be honest and say that I wonder if Pat has a drink problem. It's embarrassing at times to listen to her.

She is very hyper for sure with a lot of facial grimacing and hand waving. I often get lost in what she is actually is talking about but put that down to me rather than her. There is certainly a lot of, lets call them the known researchers and commentators, damning by very faint praise. All in my humble opinion of course.

by Cake Lover 07.09.24 14:48

It's not only you Nina, I get confused by Pat's digressions. She seems in a hurry to get all of her points across.

by Nina 07.09.24 14:54

Cake Lover wrote:It's not only you Nina, I get confused by Pat's digressions. She seems in a hurry to get all of her points across.

This is what I mean by hyper she really leaves me scratching my head. However at the end of the day she didn't go with Bernt Stellander and I am sure that she and others will have prevented many from reading. Not stopped from buying but actually stop reading anything posted online they will just go along with what we have had for years now.

by Amy Dean 07.09.24 14:59

Pat's review of Bernt's book hasn't put me off reading it. His own interviews have done that. Perhaps it's just me but he seems to be talking in riddles.

by Nina 07.09.24 15:07

Amy Dean wrote:Pat's review of Bernt's book hasn't put me off reading it. His own interviews have done that. Perhaps it's just me but he seems to be talking in riddles.

You are blaming yourself like I have done haha. I am often left wondering what I have watched and listened to but my preferred method of learning and understanding requires watching and listening to a person who has the skills of presentation and sorry but Pat, for me, has lost it and Bernt is still learning. Listening to either of them just confused me. Too long and too much talking. Not enough visual aids and not able to ask for clarification.

by pablowski 07.09.24 15:22

Pat Brown has her own opinion and disagrees with some of the claims by Bernt. I don't think it is useful to berate someone who has done a lot of good analysis/work on this case just because she disagrees with Bernt.

And whether Smithman is GM or not - I think she is correct in stating that the McCann response to the Smithman sighting is one of the main big clues in the McCann case. I think her YouTube video on this is excellent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PD8OlQqRhT8&t=1550s

All hypotheses [including the abduction hypothesis itself] are there to be tested with counter hypotheses and by testing the hypotheses with specific scenarios that cast doubt on the hypothesis and by counter examples - whether that be by Pat Brown or AN Other. [As logic experts among you can see, I am no expert in the processes of logic.]

But this is a very complex case and many analysts share the common belief that abduction did not happen. Pat, Richard, Bernt share the same broad conclusions about what happened but differ in the exact details of what actually did happen and when.

So, hats off to all of those who have taken the time to do a deep dive in this case. Let's respect them all. Let's not 'spit on them' because they don't say what we think they should say.

Hopefully, one day the truth will come out.

by Honesty 08.09.24 15:09

Imo this video of PB's makes a compelling argument for Smithman being GM.

Imo Pat is one of the true "giants" regarding this case.

by Bluebagthepirate 08.09.24 15:26

Honesty wrote:Imo this video of PB's makes a compelling argument for Smithman being GM.

Which part is compelling?

by Honesty 08.09.24 15:33

The response of the McCanns, ie to ignore it.

by **Jill Havern** 08.09.24 17:51

From Bernt:

You could comment that the mccs silence and legal battle to avoid Smith showing his sketch of his own conviction, is that having a sketch of Gerry claimed to be smithman, takes the focus off the T9 Tannerman, the main character in the faked abduction.
The mccs ignoring smithman is NOT an argument that Gerry was there. That's very poor deduction as the mentioned Tannerman argument has more weight to it.

by Buzz Shine 08.09.24 18:19

Jill Havern wrote:From Bernt:

You could comment that the mccs silence and legal battle to avoid Smith showing his sketch of his own conviction, is that having a sketch of Gerry claimed to be smithman, takes the focus off the T9 Tannerman, the main character in the faked abduction.
The mccs ignoring smithman is NOT an argument that Gerry was there. That's very poor deduction as the mentioned Tannerman argument has more weight to it.

I can't buy that one. If you are staging an abduction, two possible abductors are simply two times better than one. That's a mathematical fact. Especially given the second possible abductor is provided by witnesses who can be considered as completely independent witnesses. If you're staging an abduction, taking the focus off Tannerman is the last thing on your mind. Poor deductions are all in the eye of the beholder if you ask me.

by Buzz Shine 08.09.24 19:03

Bluebagthepirate wrote:
Honesty wrote:Imo this video of PB's makes a compelling argument for Smithman being GM.
Which part is compelling?

The supressing the e-fits is compelling. The McCanns were more than prepared to release the Victoria Beckham lookalike e-fits. Taking the focus away from Tannerman had it's advantages to them when they felt it suited them. Smithman was witnessed at the right time and in the right location, if they knew he wasn't Gerry, releasing them asap was perfect publicity for them, IMO.

by **Jill Havern** 08.09.24 19:09

From Bernt:

Please respond to Buzz Shine who responded.
"Not when the second abductor is a perfect sketch of Gerry. Of course that doesn't count as a second potential abductor, as seen from the mccs. This is about the sketch, not number of potential abductors running around".

Latest topics