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

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.

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

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.

by russiandoll 06.11.11 17:27

following is a link to a page where there is some analysis and criticism of Pat Brown's recent profile of the McCann case. The author is someone who has written huge amounts in response to those who do not accept the parents' version of events. While not much of the book is reproduced, sections of it are mentioned in some detail .

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=russell%20offered%20to%20check%20on%20maddie%20mccann&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CC0QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmadeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com%2Fw%2Fpage%2F41720163%2FAnalysis%2520and%2520Rebuttal%2520of%2520Pat%2520Brown%2527s%2520ebook%2520%2522Profile%2520of%2520the%2520Disappearance%2520of%2520Madeleine%2520McCann%2520(UPDATE&ei=6L22Tv_dM4_KswaYg53TAw&usg=AFQjCNF7Ew3MdUJnpFJ3N5aAK_RUhy_VNg&cad=rja

by russiandoll 06.11.11 18:30

before they start their hateful talk about her again, one of them has posted her latest statement.

STATEMENT FROM 'PROFILER' PAT BROWN

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

bb1 Today at 6:11 pm
http://womenincrimeink.blogspot.com/2011/11/freedom-of-speech-mccanns-and-searching.html

SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2011

Freedom of Speech, the McCanns, and Searching for Maddie

by Pat Brown

I
have been getting a lot of questions about my search fund to be
established with monies from the sale of my book, Profile of the
Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Some of the stuff certain folks are
saying is seriously ridiculous, so I thought it best I make a clear
statement with simple points they can understand.

1. I am not giving or receiving any monies from the McCanns' search fund.

2.
At present, 50% of monies received from the sale of the Profile of the
Disappearance of Madeleine McCann will go to the Pat Brown Maddie Search
Fund. The other 50% earned from the book is income, not donations. I am
selling a product and do not have to donate all earnings (or any) to
charitable causes. I have chosen to donate 50% of the book's earnings to
my search fund.

3. The Pat Brown Maddie Search Fund monies will
be not be spent on a personal salary (any time spent will be pro bono).
Monies will be used for expenses related to doing a search: travel,
equipment, hiring of local PIs, or bringing in experts.

4. If I
can cover any search expenses by another other method (media, work in
the same location, etc.), then I will do so. I always endeavor to always
keep costs low when I do pro bono work so that the funds will stretch
further: inexpensive hotels, staying with local people, cheap meals,
etc.). If I choose to spend above the cheapest rate I can achieve, I pay
out-of-pocket.

5. The Pat Brown Maddie Search Fund will be
transparent with all monies earned on the book tracked, all monies put
into the account tracked, and all monies spent tracked. A full account
will be made to the public of everything associated with my fund and my
searches.

6. The Pat Brown Maddie Search Fund has no connection
with the McCanns' search fund and the McCanns have not given my fund any
endorsement. However, it would seem to me if I search in previously
untargeted places and either locate Madeleine or eliminate those
possibilities, then the search is nothing but beneficial to the McCanns
and is following in the spirit of "Leaving No Stone Unturned."

7.
There are four theories as to what happened to Madeleine which
influence how one searches for the child; whether one thinks she is dead
or alive.

One:, the child died accidentally in the apartment in
Praia da Luz and there was a cover-up; then we are looking for a dead
child in Praia da Luz, Portugal, Huelva, Spain, or England.

Two: a local pedophile abducted Madeleine; then we are looking for a dead child in Praia da Luz, Portugal or nearby.
Three:
A woman wanted a little girl and got a man to kidnap Madeleine. Then we
are looking for a live child somewhere in the world.

Four: A
pedophile sex ring kidnapped Madeleine and she is being raped and abused
on a continuing basis. Then we are looking for a live child somewhere
in the world.

Now, as one only has limited funds (even the
McCanns, although they have been quite hefty), it behooves one to put
the strongest efforts into the most likely scenario. If the McCanns were
not involved in any way (other than neglect) in the disappearance of
their daughter, they ought to be using kindhearted people's donations in
the most proper way; looking for a pedophile who abducted, raped and
murdered their little girl, get him arrested and convicted so that
Madeleine gets justice, and prevent another little girl from the same
horrible fate. They should be putting a good portion of their search and
investigative efforts into locating a local child sex predator.

Why?
Because the methodology and descriptions of how Madeleine was
supposedly kidnapped and by whom match a person from the area without
even a vehicle to take her away in. There is zero evidence of any fancy
plot nor even a person smart enough to park a vehicle in the car park
right outside the window of Madeleine's bedroom in with which to make a
quick getaway. Instead, we have the purported actions and descriptions
of some creepy, not-so-bright fellow walking down the street with a
child in his arms in full view of everyone. The chances of Madeleine
being taken by a desperate wanna-be-Mom or a sex ring are minimal.

Should
the McCanns still consider these rare possibilities and still look for a
living Madeleine? Well, I can't blame the McCanns (if innocent) for
wanting to believe their daughter is alive, so I can understand and
accept that they want to put some efforts into that miracle possibility.
However, they should be honest enough and good enough stewards of
donated monies I(if innocent) to admit the likelihood of Madeleine being
dead is very, very high and the likelihood of her being buried
somewhere in Praia da Luz or environs is also very, very high. Their
efforts should be concentrated there, with some monies set aside for the
miracle.

So, I will be focusing on the two top theories; that
Madeleine died in an accident and her body was hidden somewhere, or a
local pedophile took her and her body is buried locally. IF it turns out
that I get ANY information that proves Madeleine was abducted or if any
evidence turns up that points to her murder by a stranger, this
information will go straight to the police and the McCanns. If Maddie
was abducted and murdered by a child predator, I want justice for Maddie
and I want that creep put away and I want other children to be safe
from him.

My theory as I laid out in my Profile of the
Disappearance of Madeleine McCann is just that; a theory. If evidence is
unsurfaced that changes my view of what happened to Madeleine, I have
no problem disclosing this and adjusting my theory. Theories change
based on available evidence; hence, they are called theories, not facts.
Theories often change over time, even those postulated by law
enforcement and the McCanns. Even Kate admits in her book, Madeleine,
her theories of what happened that night have undergone change as she
has spent more time analyzing the evidence or after receiving new
information.

Why the McCanns had Carter-Ruck threaten Amazon with
legal action to get a theory removed from public view is curious as it
is only a theory, an opinion, one person's take on probabilities based
on what is known at this point in time. Perhaps we will find out why
they went to these lengths when the McCanns get on the witness stand in a
court of law (when my lawsuit for libel and tortious interference with
business makes it to court; I have retained prominent attorney Anne
Bremner of Stanford Frey Cooper). Perhaps, then, they will explain why
one person's opinion is so concerning they need to go to extremes to get
have it silenced.
Madeleine McCann is the most recognized missing
child in the world, with the most media attention of any missing child
in the world. Unless I am mistaken, more money has been donated to
finding Madeleine McCann than any child in the world. My Profile of the
Disappearance of Madeleine McCann should hardly affect such a large and
successful (moneywise) campaign; so the one wonders if the real issue
McCanns have with my profile is that my theory is that it might actually
be correct.

I believe in Freedom of Speech. I don't object to
the theories of others on cases even if they different than mine. I
don't even object to someone analyzing my theory and writing their
opinion of it. I would never try to shut down their viewpoint (even when
things are taken out of context and misrepresented in some way); I
merely suggest that interested people go to the source and compare the
two viewpoints and think for themselves about what theories and concepts
are more supportable by evidence and logic.

The McCanns could
simply have ignored this profiler's opinion on Madeleine's disappearance
or made a simple statement that they do not think my analysis is very
good. If the book was truly libelous as they claimed through their
solicitors, Carter-Ruck, they should have informed me of this or sued me
directly. Instead, they went behind the scenes and had the book pulled
from the market. Inquiring minds wonder why.

I will be in
Portugal in February to support Detective Amaral's fight against the
McCanns in court, to begin search analysis, and to hear just what the
Gerry and Kate McCann have to say.

May the truth come out one day and justice for Madeleine McCann prevail.

The Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann is available online through Barnes & Noble and Smashwords.

by TheTruthWillOut 06.11.11 20:23

Thanks for posting that Russiandoll.

The part where she ask's: Why didn't they sue directly is easy to answer.....They don't want to attend court.

by Hoof_hearted 06.11.11 20:30

TheTruthWillOut wrote:The part where she ask's: Why didn't they sue directly is easy to answer.....They don't want to attend court.

They certainly don't which is why I hope Pat doesn't take an out of court settlement but rather gets the McCanns into court pray2

where they don't want to be. someone has to put a stop to these people. All they seem to want to do is destroy Goncarlo and Tony and anyone else who doesn't believe them. Go Pat! clapping

by aiyoyo 07.11.11 0:48

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.

by Gillyspot 07.11.11 6:38

aiyoyo I sadly think it wouldn't matter if the McCanns set off a nuclear bomb in USA (slight exageration). If UK press don't want to cover it they will not as long as it suits them and their sales. Someday it will not and then we will see the truth come tumbling out and papers and TV stations rushing to be the "first" with the scoop.

by **tigger** 07.11.11 7:37

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.

Big mistake! Silencing Pat Brown I mean. I don't think the press will even be allowed near Rothley but that power doesn't extend to the U.S.
Satellite TV (although what exactly are Murdoch's powers there?) will broadcast it, especially if by that time baby Lisa is shown to be a copy crime.
Politicians in the US should embrace this trial because it will give them an opportunity to show that at least the US still has freedom of speech.
Perhaps Alex Jones can pick it up on that issue: Freedom of Speech - anyone for Hyde Park Corner? Because the sad fact is that I may stand there on a soap box and state facts about anyone I like, except the McCanns. Do CR have an observer stationed at HPC?'

by uppatoffee 07.11.11 7:52

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!

by pennylane 07.11.11 9:05

Most unsettling indeed for the gruesome twosome who have spent a vast fortune suppressing the truth re their ever changing version of events!

Team McCann........ Be afraid, be very afraid. Pat Brown update for those who don't use Twitter - Page 4 1214444319

Pat Brown update for those who don't use Twitter - Page 4 1214444319

by **tigger** 07.11.11 9:43

This is a long time ago, but the grounds on which the court found him guilty are very interesting for us. I've highlighted them.
(from Blacksmiths 'Crisis, what crisis')

It was a tricky case. Irving had a reputation as a successful historian with a mastery of sources, many of which he had unearthed himself. History is a matter of interpretation and the idea that historians could end up in court over their interpretations was troubling. Nevertheless the defence, led by the brilliant Richard Rampton QC, maintained that Irving’s interpretation – where have we heard that word before? – was biased in Hitler’s favour more than the facts could justify and that his work was littered with errors.

Gradually his somewhat flashy defence of interpretation gained in strength and credibility. But in the later stages of the trial Rampton began to clamp a stranglehold on Irving as he developed the other prong of his defence. The historian seemed to shrink visibly over subsequent days as Rampton, with remorseless logic and copious examples, pushed home his case. Irving’s method, he said, was to admit that he had made mistakes, as anyone can, and that factual errors or “inconsistencies” – where have we heard that word before? – were just that.

Each individual inconsistency was trivial on its own, Rampton told the court, and each error was impossible to categorise as a deliberate attempt to mislead. But, he said, you had to look at the examples as a whole. If you did so each of the trivialities, inconclusive in isolation, gradually built up and formed a most significant pattern, a pattern that was irreconcilable with probability. The historian, he said, had failed to correct numerous mistakes in reference to documents strengthening his own theories of a maligned Hitler let down by the wicked actions of his subordinates, as the evidence had shown. Very well.But where were the mistakes on the other side, the errors which weakened his theories? There weren’t any! The only conclusion that could be drawn was that Irving wasn’t error prone at all: his mistakes were part of a deliberate pattern of misrepresentation. He had betrayed his profession and deceived the public.

And we have proof of outright lies, not accidental errors, at least there's a precedent.

by Guest 07.11.11 10:13

Could it be that they deliberately targeted Pat, to create another press fenzy, to add to their little collection of high profile 'examples' of not getting a fair trial one day?

by Cheshire Cat 07.11.11 10:33

Gillyspot wrote:aiyoyo I sadly think it wouldn't matter if the McCanns set off a nuclear bomb in USA (slight exageration). If UK press don't want to cover it they will not as long as it suits them and their sales. Someday it will not and then we will see the truth come tumbling out and papers and TV stations rushing to be the "first" with the scoop.

But we did have live feeds on SKY from the first Lisbon trial and there were lots of "unhelpful" stories in the UK press, such as the Daily Mail with the photograph of an angry Gerry and scared Kate holding up those pictues of missing Madeleine, under the heading about British Police suspecting the McCanns.

by dannybohy 07.11.11 13:12

The unliklihood of eight people immediately agreeing to cover up a child's accidental death and dumping of her body for reasons which have no basis in fact.

Just scanning the pat Brown rebuttal!, this stands out! this is the one part I just cant get to grips with!. I am very much with GA and his theory, but its the fact none of them have come forward to rebut the Mccanns versions of events!. why not?

by pennylane 07.11.11 13:16

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

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

by scotclogs 14.11.11 10:46

jd wrote:Well done Pat this is great news. We are all right behind you and supporting you.

"It is a Freedom of Speech issue: we cannot live in a world where no questions cannot be asked or varying opinions voiced."...Exactly and what our governments love to bleat to foreign countries about before bombing them

In your book I lost count the number of times you said it was only a theory, and a theory based on the McCanns version of events...hardly slander or anything near to this, its called freedom of speech where questions can be asked

"Legal suit is against the McCanns for libel and tortious interference with business.".....Superb and so damn right

Well said Jd clapping1

& Pat brown you rock Mrs

can't wait for the show to begin pop2

Go get em girl thumbsup

Oh Kate / Gerry I think it's fan

time for you both laugh

by Gillyspot 14.11.11 11:36

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

by Xavier 14.11.11 11:45

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

What trial, Gillyspot?

And do you have a source for the McCanns request for it to be held in camera - surely that would be unusual for this type of case, in the UK or the US.

by Guest 15.11.11 10:52

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

by Invinoveritas 15.11.11 12:06

Thanks for the link Candyfloss, have just finished readiing it, oh and Pat, if you are reading this, Welldone! I´m keeping my fingers crossed for your court appearance.

by aiyoyo 15.11.11 12:45

Wow.....the nutters over the other site will be in a hizzy fit because they dont like to hear the truth.

You go Pat, well done for standing up to bullies........we support freedom of speech and justice for Maddie.