8 Comments

Pat Brown and some serious questions

I suspect there will be those that will be very willing to hand over their last dime in order to support Pat Brown in what she calls her search for the truth into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

Personally all those that back her, once they find they are on a mission to nowhere and start whining, I won’t have an ounce of sympathy for.  Because they have never shown an ounce of sympathy to the victims that Pat Browns targets, namely the parents of a missing child.

Pat Brown – The Profiler – oh yes the person who speaks out for missing kids and then writes abhorrent tweets about them for all of twitter to see.  Oh what a lovely tweet this was about missing Baby Lisa.  Not.

But there are serious questions need to be asked, and I like BB1 from JATYK want to know firstly, “What have the McCanns actually said that she deems as libellous?”

Because for the life of me I can’t find one quote, one piece of video clip where the McCanns mention her name yet alone libel her.

BB1 has posted this in one of her posts on JATYK on the subject:

Seriously, does Brown think she is going to have any reputation left after the UK tabloids have finished with her? The very fact that she wants money out of A Fund set up to help find a missing UK child/the missing child’s NHS doctor parents will be sufficient for them to attack her.

All her woeful ‘profiling’ will be splattered all over the papers; there will be quotes from Sources in the FBI saying what a fake and fraud she is.

And she is threatening to go to Portugal and cause hassle at the very time the UK police, in the form of Scotland Yard, are reviewing the case?

I personally hope the papers pick up on this; they will turn their guns on Brown mercilessly.

I can’t echo BB1’s sentiments enough here.  I too hope the British papers tear her a new one, as they say.  The woman is a disgrace.  She never researched her pamphlet, it is full of holes and now she proclaims that she is taking this law-suit out against the McCanns and nobody can find where the McCanns have libelled her.

What does she want from this law-suit, obviously her costs paid and compensation, otherwise why bother taking one out?  So she either wants the McCann’s to pay for her flawed research or she wants to take the money from a Fund set up to find a missing child.

Like BB1, I too am angered, she wrote a few things about the McCanns, and hey presto she thinks she knows it all.  She thinks she is better than Scotland Yard and she thinks her Freedom of Speech is being denied because she was accusing the parents in her over-grown leaflet of harming their daughter.

There is no evidence to support that… Nobody is denying Pat Brown her Freedom of Speech what they are denying her is what she thinks is her given right to libel and defame whoever she chooses.

She is just an American version of Bennett.  And that particular American is just more media savvy than Bennett.

I just wonder how all of her supporters would feel if this was their child missing, if this was their grandchild missing or a child missing of someone they know, would they be okay that someone writes over-grown leaflets based on supposition, innuendo and gut-feelings?

Would they think it is that persons right to accuse you of harming your child, or accuse someone you know of harming their child, when you know full well they didn’t?

Would they think it was Freedom of Speech or would they think it was libellous, defamatory and hindered the search for that missing child?

Yes just think if this was your child and Pat Brown was doing this to your child and you.  Tell me then how you would feel?

Madeleine McCann is a British citizen, she is a missing child and I hope very much that our newspapers defend Madeleine McCann’s right to life and put a stop once and for all, to all these people who want to make money on the back of a missing child.

And before the accusations come flying my way, I am grovelling to BB1, No I am not, I just happen to agree with her on this issue.  And I can fully understand her anger at what Pat Brown is doing.

Lets hope BB1 we start to see Headlines like this in our papers:

nov 5th 2011

And

nov 5th A2011

Already people are searching the Sun Pat, let’s hope that the Sun takes up the challenge to stop you.

The-Sun-Search-Results-Pat-Brown-suing-the-McCanns

Advertisements

8 comments on “Pat Brown and some serious questions

  1. I did try to check if the McCanns had actually said anything about her whatsoever.

    I still haven’t found anything.

    However, re the “libel” bit, I did come across this (from Pat’s own 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/

    Am I misunderstanding something, or is the fact that Pat, herself, posted the Carter Ruck / Amazon private correspondence being construed as libel against her?

  2. There’s something I just don’t understand.

    I’ve listened to / watched a few of her radio / TV appearances and I found her to be reasonably objective during these interviews. However, her Twitter/FB comments seem totally geared to a guilter / hater audience. 

    Why is that? Her perception of her potential audience? The shows onto which she gets invited? 

    Why does she seem to come across as (in my view) reasonably objective when interviewed and then make typically guilter / hater comments on Twitter/FB?

  3. Actually Carana, I think in the websleuths interview she came over as a bit of an idiot and her lack of research was really highlighted.

    PAT BROWN  Yeah there was probably found something that was, err, DNA that would match Madeleine in the trunk and then the McCanns said something to the effect that, “Oh, we just err, we had the diapers of the children in the trunk, used diapers of the children in the trunk and…”TRICIA GRIFFITH  But didn’t the DNA come back that it wasn’t, they couldn’t match it?PAT BROWN  I believe it came out… Now, I’ll have to think about this because this is where some of the confusion comes in. This one I kept away from because it was such a confusion and I don’t know who to believe on this one, you know, at the moment. I’ll have to do a little bit of stronger study and see the paperwork myself.TRICIA GRIFFITH  Now… I think its on line if I’m not mistaken. I believe the report is online. If… but I could be wrong.PAT BROWN  I’d say there’s a number of reports and the question is, you know, who did the testing and how reliable is it and that kind of stuff. People also don’t understand that, you know,  sometimes, you know, sometimes DNA testing is a little questionable. (LAUGHTER)

    http://regretsandramblings.com/2011/08/04/pat-brown-on-websleuths-radio-transcript/Think it is obvious that Tricia is referring to the Forensic reports from the PJ Files and not newspaper clippings..  Pat Brown proved to me that she had definitely not read the forensic reports form the PJ Files.

  4. And this bit.

    TRICIA GRIFFITH  Well, yeah, true. Now let me get back to the dogs. You said something and I want to make sure that I’m clear on this. You said that they hit on decomp and blood. They didn’t find anything. What do you mean they hit on decomp and blood? Do you mean just that they..?

    PAT BROWN  They found… The dog, the dog was able to recognise a location where there is a body that has decomposed…

    TRICIA GRIFFITH  Hmm, hmm

    PAT BROWN  … to some extent. And the other dog is able to hit on an area that has had blood at that location.

    Even Grime himself never committed to the fact that they dog had definitely scented a decomposed body.   He said it was suggestive but it could have been a number of things why the dog reacted and that as no human remains were found the dogs alerts were basically just alerts and nothing more.  As these alerts could only be backed up with forensic corroborations.  Which we know was not the case.

  5. Ah. That wasn’t the interview I was thinking of (and it wasn’t related to the McCann case)

  6. Just came across this:

    ProfilerPatB 
    PAT BROWN Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann is only a theory #FreedomofSpeech smashwords.com/books/view/768… #ProfilerPatBrown #McCann #lawsuit
    1 hour ago Favorite Retweet Reply

    ProfilerPatB PAT BROWN Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann is only a theory #Freedomofpeech smashwords.com/books/view/768… #
    ProfilerPatBrown #McCann #lawsuit1 hour ago 

    If I’m understanding this correctly, her booklet on smashwords can’t really be qualified as an outstanding success at 562,067 down the line of best sellers, can it?

    Pub. Date: July 2011Publisher: Pat Brown, via SmashwordsSold By: SMASHWORDS – EBKSFormat: NOOK Book (eBook)Sales Rank: 562,067

    • No it can’t be that much of a success ranked 562,067, maybe that is why she needs to sue the McCann’s to top up her search fund.  I just wonder what the other 50% is going to if she is only 50% of monies collected to aid the fund.

  7. Soz, Disquus will only allow me to edit the first 2-3 lines. 

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: