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

by **PeterMac** 15.11.11 16:46

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: The Truth about Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Claim #1 Pat Brown is just a housewife who got her college degree from a paper mill. She is no more than a wannabe armchair detective who has never been in law enforcement and just read some books and hung out a shingle. She might still be right.
Claim #2 Pat Brown has never worked with law enforcement or solved a case. She might still be right.
Claim #3 Other profilers - in the FBI and independent - don't respect Pat Brown. She might still be right.
Claim #4 Pat Brown stalks people. She might still be right.
Claim #4 Pat Brown abuses victims. She might still be right.
Claim #5 Pat Brown excuses criminality and is a big leftist. She might still be right.
Claim #6 Pat Brown is always wrong. She might still be right this time.
And, finally, Claim #7 Pat Brown accuses innocent people of crimes for fame and money. She might still be right.

Another classic attempt to steer the issue away from the facts by using ad hominem abuse, one of the well known fallacious arguments, usually adopted by a person who realises that they are losing.
The issue is not any of the above. It is whether Pat has got closer to the truth by her analysis.

by jd 15.11.11 20:18

candyfloss wrote:Good (long) article from Pat, where she answers the following claims on the link below.......................

Monday, November 14, 2011

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: The Truth about Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Claim #1 Pat Brown is just a housewife who got her college degree from a paper mill. She is no more than a wannabe armchair detective who has never been in law enforcement and just read some books and hung out a shingle.

Claim #2 Pat Brown has never worked with law enforcement or solved a case.

Claim #3 Other profilers - in the FBI and independent - don't respect Pat Brown.

Claim #4 Pat Brown stalks people.

Claim #4 Pat Brown abuses victims.

Claim #5 Pat Brown excuses criminality and is a big leftist.

Claim #6 Pat Brown is always wrong.

And, finally, Claim #7 Pat Brown accuses innocent people of crimes for fame and money.

http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.com/2011/11/criminal-profiling-topic-of-day-truth.html

Isn't this a classic example of the Suns Internet TROLLS Campaign...Where are the Sun now?

by rainbow-fairy 15.11.11 22:33

Pat raises some sensible points in her article. You know, not many people manage to 'get on' in their chosen profession without rattling a few cages through professional jealousy etc. I think things are probably worse for her in a lot of ways, after all parts of America are still very chauvinistic and she is to all intents and purposes playing in a 'mans world' with Alpha-male types. She was [i]always[i/] going to pick up detractors on the way.
Really though, at the end of the day I think its irrelevant really what qualifications she does or doesn't have, she has an enquiring, analytical and incisive brain and a natural aptitude for the work she does. If she was so bad she wouldn't carry on getting clients...
I still say the McCann's are likely to score a horrific own-goal with this action, most citizens of the US of A will hear of it, that's a lotta, lotta peeps!
I believe that the real issue here is that a fairly high-profile professional is posting negatively about St Gerry and St Kate (and posting on here as well, whatever next!?!)
Let's face it, who have the 'pro-'abduction'' lot got supporting them on-line? Hmmm, let's see - oh yes, David Icke..... Wink

by aiyoyo 16.11.11 4:52

uppatoffee wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:The thing is (if I am not wrong) they are not oblige to attend Court in person themselves, they can send their lawyers to do their dirty job for them.

I am sure that applies also in USA. If that being the case, what's betting they will go into hiding when their USA trial comes up, to stop the media camping outside Rothley. Pat's case will generate hugh public interest hence publicity in the USA and the media coverage I would imagine would be substantial enough to reach UK.

Aiyoyo I think you are probably right about them not attending and trying to suppress the release of information. After all so little was published in the papers about the Amaral cases. However I am sure that Twitter and other social media sites will do their best to get the message across to as wide an audience as possible. Fingers crossed!

Unfortunately internet, although in a sense is a more powerful media machinery then papers, but does not have same readership as the mainstream however because reading of any topic on internet is subject to people's interest in it hence wishing to search for any particular news or info. Unlike the physical tangible papers where pages are flipped through regardless and headlines are often eye-catchers.
It will be better if the mainstream covers the mccanns litigation cases regardless who instigated it since all the nitty gritty details will come out in prints.

It's important to expose their lies, and stop people from erroneously giving to their 'fund' of dubious set up and equally dubious purpose, even if the exposure of Maddie's lying parents does not ultimately result in justice for her. In other words, even if they are not charged ultimately it is important to expose their scam and stop them benefiting from their own crime.

by aiyoyo 16.11.11 5:28

PeterMac wrote:
Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: The Truth about Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Claim #1 Pat Brown is just a housewife who got her college degree from a paper mill. She is no more than a wannabe armchair detective who has never been in law enforcement and just read some books and hung out a shingle. She might still be right.
Claim #2 Pat Brown has never worked with law enforcement or solved a case. She might still be right.
Claim #3 Other profilers - in the FBI and independent - don't respect Pat Brown. She might still be right.
Claim #4 Pat Brown stalks people. She might still be right.
Claim #4 Pat Brown abuses victims. She might still be right.
Claim #5 Pat Brown excuses criminality and is a big leftist. She might still be right.
Claim #6 Pat Brown is always wrong. She might still be right this time.
And, finally, Claim #7 Pat Brown accuses innocent people of crimes for fame and money. She might still be right.

Another classic attempt to steer the issue away from the facts by using ad hominem abuse, one of the well known fallacious arguments, usually adopted by a person who realises that they are losing.
The issue is not any of the above. It is whether Pat has got closer to the truth by her analysis.

The crux of the matter is, any one with an iota of common sense only have to ask themselves why are mccanns and supporters discrediting every single person who questions their theory, crucially including that of the investigators?
I mean how the hell do any reasonable people expect investigators to be efficient if they didn't start with eliminating the closest and nearest to the missing child? And, in that respect the mccanns failed miserably to get them eliminated simply by their refusal to cooperate with the police. That conclusion is explicitly stated in virtually each and every summation report - that the investigation cannot proceed further without the key players, meaning her parents and their holiday mates, doing a reconstruction and cooperating with the police. Unless they are eliminated, the police wont work on their case, because there was absolutely not an iota of evidence supporting abduction.

If the mccanns are so concerned about dissenters views, and bothered by ordinary people and professional's belief that their lies turned them into evil beings by their continual unlawful deceit and fleecing people of money, why don't they start by taking on the investigators? Simple as that. - they should sue the entire PJ judiciary system then people might change their skepticism. What's stopping them from getting justice for Maddie if they believed the Police let Maddie down?

by aiyoyo 16.11.11 6:00

pennylane wrote:Pat Brown and Goncalo Amaral coming together would be the ultimate fright for the gruesome twosome. It may be hard to prove exactly what happened to Madeleine, but maybe not so hard to prove what DIDN'T happen to her.... i.e. that she was not abducted from apartment 5A. Even more worrying for TM is that Pat's first language is English, and she has media connections and has worked with law enforcement regarding similar crimes. It won't be so easy for Carter Ruck to intimidate her with their usual sabre rattling crap.

Scotland Yard will have to tread carefully with their (cough) review... especially if Pat's visit to Portugal produces something massively detrimental to the McCanns ever changing version of events.

Tick tock.............

I dont see evidence of them coming together to fight the twosome
They are two individuals, whose profession happens to be law enforcer or law enforcing related, who given the facts of the evidence, didn't believe her parents version, and being righteous citizens, want the true circumstances surrounding Maddie's disappeareance not to be suppressed to the general public by her parents. More than Justice for Maddie, it's about Freedom to have an opinions and the freedom to express them.

by Gillyspot 16.11.11 6:33

"Claim #1 Pat Brown is just a housewife who got her college degree from a paper mill. She is no more than a wannabe armchair detective who has never been in law enforcement and just read some books and hung out a shingle - In 1981, she graduated with a liberal arts degree from the University of the State of New York. In 2007, she received her master’s degree in criminal justice from Boston University.

Claim #2 Pat Brown has never worked with law enforcement or solved a case Today, she is one of the few women criminal profilers, assisting police departments and victims' families by analyzing physical and behavioral evidence to make determinations about crime behavior, suspects and motive

From Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Brown_(criminal_profiler)

by happychick 16.11.11 6:54

aiyoyo wrote:The crux of the matter is, any one with an iota of common sense only have to ask themselves why are mccanns and supporters discrediting every single person who questions their theory, crucially including that of the investigators?

And therein lies the crux of the matter as you say: every single person who questions the McCann's theory has to be discredited no matter what. Not one person is allowed to be right whether it is a Portuguese detective or a British criminal profiler or an American criminal profiler or two independent working dogs who have never been wrong before. Not one of them can be right.

Not only are they to be discredited they are to be ridiculed and have their professional reputations damaged because they don't believe Madeleine was abducted and that something else happened to her.

And all this from the likes of Bonnybraes, muratfan etc. Who are these anonymous cowardly people anyway that think they are better than professionals? Bonnybraes used to be a vicious McCann hater. No one on this site behaves the way they do. Anyone who tries to be a hater are banned! And the ones who have been banned are the haters who come here pretending to be sceptics! I think Bonnybraes and her team of haters must actually be one person (Bonnybraes herself) because I find it hard to accept there are so many hatefilled people all attacking anyone who doesn't believe the McCanns. Not one of the pro's have done anything pro-active to find Madeleine. Not one of them have set up a search fund and have gone looking for 'findable Madeleine'. Not one of them have gone to Downing Street to ask that the case be reopened. So why are they so against anyone who does try to find the truth?

Please get the McCanns into court Pat. Please do not accept an out of court settlement. It is time they answered questions about what really happened to their first born. Go Pat! clapping

by happychick 16.11.11 6:58

aiyoyo wrote:If the mccanns are so concerned about dissenters views, and bothered by ordinary people and professional's belief that their lies turned them into evil beings by their continual unlawful deceit and fleecing people of money, why don't they start by taking on the investigators? Simple as that. - they should sue the entire PJ judiciary system then people might change their skepticism. What's stopping them from getting justice for Maddie if they believed the Police let Maddie down?

by rainbow-fairy 16.11.11 7:26

aiyoyo wrote:
PeterMac wrote:
Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: The Truth about Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Claim #1 Pat Brown is just a housewife who got her college degree from a paper mill. She is no more than a wannabe armchair detective who has never been in law enforcement and just read some books and hung out a shingle. She might still be right.
Claim #2 Pat Brown has never worked with law enforcement or solved a case. She might still be right.
Claim #3 Other profilers - in the FBI and independent - don't respect Pat Brown. She might still be right.
Claim #4 Pat Brown stalks people. She might still be right.
Claim #4 Pat Brown abuses victims. She might still be right.
Claim #5 Pat Brown excuses criminality and is a big leftist. She might still be right.
Claim #6 Pat Brown is always wrong. She might still be right this time.
And, finally, Claim #7 Pat Brown accuses innocent people of crimes for fame and money. She might still be right.

Another classic attempt to steer the issue away from the facts by using ad hominem abuse, one of the well known fallacious arguments, usually adopted by a person who realises that they are losing.
The issue is not any of the above. It is whether Pat has got closer to the truth by her analysis.

The crux of the matter is, any one with an iota of common sense only have to ask themselves why are mccanns and supporters discrediting every single person who questions their theory, crucially including that of the investigators?
I mean how the hell do any reasonable people expect investigators to be efficient if they didn't start with eliminating the closest and nearest to the missing child? And, in that respect the mccanns failed miserably to get them eliminated simply by their refusal to cooperate with the police. That conclusion is explicitly stated in virtually each and every summation report - that the investigation cannot proceed further without the key players, meaning her parents and their holiday mates, doing a reconstruction and cooperating with the police. Unless they are eliminated, the police wont work on their case, because there was absolutely not an iota of evidence supporting abduction.

If the mccanns are so concerned about dissenters views, and bothered by ordinary people and professional's belief that their lies turned them into evil beings by their continual unlawful deceit and fleecing people of money, why don't they start by taking on the investigators? Simple as that. - they should sue the entire PJ judiciary system then people might change their skepticism. What's stopping them from getting justice for Maddie if they believed the Police let Maddie down?

Gold star for aiyoyo! You are so right, this is the crux of the matter. IMO the simple fact that the McCanns's did NOT allow themselves to be eliminated has to be the most important thing, indeed the only thing the general public need to be told. Everything else is an aside - once you know that the McCanns claim, repeated ad nauseum in the red-tops and broadsheets that 'there is absolutely no evidence to implicate the McCanns in any crime' is actually a gross distortion of the facts, you see things differently. It wouldn't be quite as bad if the other statement was also printed 'they singularly failed to prove their innocence by not co-operating, or participating in a reconstruction'. It's shocking how many of the general public think, wrongly, that there was 'absolutely no evidence'. When once they find out there was, and do some digging on-line, the truth and the facts become self-evident! Unfortunately, it seems the papers' hands are tied, because I'm sure none of them have printed the vital paragraph. And we supposedly live in a democracy with free speech - yeah, right, okaaayyy...

by aiyoyo 16.11.11 11:31

Gillyspot wrote:Cheshire Cat. I have read that this trial is to be behind closed doors although I may be wrong. Certainly the McCanns have requested this

I believe that is hearsay. I cant see how as 'defendants' they can request anything especially of a Court in a foreign country.

Not sure how behind closed door works - do both parties' counsels have to agree or down to Judge to make that decision.
Anyway it isn't a criminal trial so what they are afraid of? Why do they want everything to do with them shrouded in secrecy? Are they ashamed that the wider public would know about their trial?