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

by Guest 04.11.11 20:30

About Pat's lawyer on this link in tweet..

RangeeniRangeeni

@TeddyShepherd in the USA. This is her lawyer http://annebremner.com/index.html #Freedomofspeech

8 hours ago

by aiyoyo 04.11.11 20:33

@nina,
You said: " take care Get em what you tell us....."

hmmm..

not the same as your explanation "I was merely saying to Get em to take care, nothing sinister .....[/quote]

Don't you see the difference? Is it just me?

by **Nina** 04.11.11 20:39

aiyoyo wrote:
@nina,
You said: " take care Get em what you tell us....."

hmmm..

not the same as your explanation "I was merely saying to Get em to take care, nothing sinister .....

Don't you see the difference? Is it just me?[/quote]

I was saying to Get em to take care what she told us, meaning for her security and that of the forum. Nothing more or less than that, nothing sinister from me but much from others, so just to take care, same as I said to TB on another thread. I think that things are hotting up.

Sorry Aiyoyo I spend hours not speaking to a soul so maybe my grasp at language is in decline.

by aiyoyo 05.11.11 2:16

Nina wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
@nina,
You said: " take care Get em what you tell us....."

hmmm..

not the same as your explanation "I was merely saying to Get em to take care, nothing sinister .....

Don't you see the difference? Is it just me?

I was saying to Get em to take care what she told us, meaning for her security and that of the forum. Nothing more or less than that, nothing sinister from me but much from others, so just to take care, same as I said to TB on another thread. I think that things are hotting up.

Sorry Aiyoyo I spend hours not speaking to a soul so maybe my grasp at language is in decline.[/quote]

No need to apologise Nina. I understand we all have to be mindful what we say as the big bad guys are watching our every word. But personally I see nothing wrong in Get em telling us in particular about their visits here.

by aiyoyo 05.11.11 2:49

Get 'em Gonçalo wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:Ordered by their employer, the mccanns, to monitor reactions to the news I suppose.

You're not wrong there because Carter Ruck had actually googled "Pat Brown to sue Gerry and Kate McCann" to see how many sites were talking about it....this one was one of them, obviously.

People living like that, having to constantly check out what others have to say about them, is pathetically sad.
And so, when they know, how does that help them get on with their life. Do they sleep better knowing ?

by mexx 05.11.11 5:45

Good for Pat Brown! I just wonder whether they can simply ignore the summons as they will be sued in a different country.

by Guest 05.11.11 8:39

Does this mean Pat is suing them on US soil then? Pat Brown update for those who don't use Twitter - Page 3 50899

Let's hope it gets as much coverage as the MJ trial. Pat Brown update for those who don't use Twitter - Page 3 3934901622

by happychick 05.11.11 8:50

Oh please don't plant the idea in the McC's heads that they are as famous as MJ shame on you

isn't it bad enough that Rome prepared itself for their visit without Neverneverland having an open day for them wtf

by Guest 05.11.11 8:56

I'm just relishing at the possibility of seeing them backed into a corner on live TV. Pat Brown update for those who don't use Twitter - Page 3 110921

by Guest 05.11.11 9:16

There are some similarities between the McCanns and Michael Jackson. Both have legions of devoted supporters (some of whom are completely detached from reality) who won't hear a word against them, no matter how bizarre their behaviour. In my opinion they both certainly have or had an unhealthy interest in children.

I can make some allowances for Michael in view of his dreadful upbringing and obvious mental health issues but I'm struggling to find anything to say in favour of the McCanns.

by Guest 05.11.11 9:31

Marian wrote:There are some similarities between the McCanns and Michael Jackson. Both have legions of devoted supporters (some of whom are completely detached from reality) who won't hear a word against them, no matter how bizarre their behaviour. In my opinion they both certainly have or had an unhealthy interest in children.

I can make some allowances for Michael in view of his dreadful upbringing and obvious mental health issues but I'm struggling to find anything to say in favour of the McCanns.

Well said Marian. You could also say that whether or not you liked him or his particular style of music he had some serious talent and earned the fame and fortune he received.

by **PeterMac** 05.11.11 9:48

Walk backwards across stage, grab crutch, squeal, spin round, walk backwards across stage, grab crutch, squeal ...
Repeat until the karaoke machine runs out.
No, I was not one of his most loyal fans.

by Xavier 05.11.11 9:51

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.

by Guest 05.11.11 10:09

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

by jd 05.11.11 10:39

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.

?????????????????????? wtf

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 3 351181

Pat Brown update for those who don't use Twitter - Page 3 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 3 195540