HERE WE GO AGAIN, DAFT BIDDY!!

Nancy Grace meets Dr. Phil, not Sociology, December 27, 2010
By Kathy Wright (Richmond Heights, MO USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
This review is from: Killing for Sport: Inside the Minds of Serial Killers (Paperback)
My husband gave me this for Christmas and I have already finished it. This does not mean it was fascinating, just simple and short. I will at least give it a star for being readable, but I did not find much one could learn from reading it unless one was unaware that fictional movies are not the same as reality. Although the author is described as having a Masters in Criminal Justice from Boston University, this book had none of the earmarks of scholarly work. There were no references, footnotes, bibliography, or anything else suggestive of research. There was a four page dictionary of terms in the back that included such terms as "gone to seed" and "bop and drop," none of which suggested much sociological or psychological background. Most of the material appeared to be a speculative stringing together of information that could be derived from magazine and newspaper stories.
The material is presented in question and answer format. Nothing much is accomplished. If I may paraphrase: Do serial killers eat apples? Answer: Some serial killers start eating apples as children. Others do not learn to eat apples until they become adults. Some slice apples while others eat them whole. Many never like apples. Some prefer applesauce. Many times we do not know whether serial killers eat apples or not.
Some parts of the book are mildly amusing if you like Nancy Grace, and the author information cites numerous appearances on that show as well as Montel Williams. The author writes in a very sarcastic tone...a good comedian could probably work this book into a routine, albeit in poor taste. The author also works in a few tips on protecting yourself and identifying potential killers in your neighborhood, but these directives could probably be figured out by anyone of moderate intelligence. As a "pro bono profiler," I am sure the author has not cheated anyone.

Silly thing is, few people were even aware of all these scathing reviews before Brown had her latest hissy fit. I have not come across a single, favorable review that doesn't sound as if it was written to a set script by one of her deluded, ill-educated groupies from her numerous FB sites - or by her new chums on Bennett's forum.

They are well outnumbered by the reviews that rip her book to shreds fit only to line the budgie cage.

Another one from 2010:

Isn't it shocking that she got even ONE 5- or 4-star review? She became obsessed with the 1990 case, somehow passed herself off by handing out business cards with "profiler" on them, after reading books and studying online, and amazingly, appeared on Montel Williams. She finally got a master's degree in 2007, while working on the book apparently! This makes me question any layperson review I've ever read on Amazon.

None of these would have seen the light of day if she hadn't thrown her toys out of the pram yet again.

Initial post: Dec 8, 2011 4:43:15 AM PST
der Rolzhäuser says:
In the recent days, a deluge of one-star negative reviews have been posted about Pat Brown's book, The Profiler. While there have in the past been some who have not liked her book (and they have a right to their opinions) and there was a previous smear campaign by supporters of The West Memphis Three who Pat profiled as guilty, there is a now a very concerted effort to bully her over her stand in the Madeleine McCann case.

In July of 2012, Pat published an ebook on Amazon titled Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. With approximate sales of 850 books in 5 weeks and 49 reviews averaging 4.5 stars, the book suddenly vanished. Amazon had pulled the book after receiving a letter of defamation from Carter-Ruck the solicitors for Gerry and Kate McCann, threatening to sue them should they not remove from sale her book which the McCanns claim is libelous. Pat has retained prominent attorney Anne Bremner and will be taking legal action against the McCanns for Tortious Interference wth Business and Libel. Considering Gerry McCann stated under oath at the Leveson Inquiry that he was a strong supporter of Free Speech and had no problem with people purporting a theory, there is little reason for him to object to the Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann (now available on the Internet from other booksellers).

This spate of negative reviews make numerous false claims, e.g. that Pat Brown has no education (she holds a Masters in Criminal Justice from Boston University) and that she has never profiled for a police department (not true and it is clear in the book which cases Pat worked at the request of law enforcement). This is a blatant attempt to squash Free Speech concerning the case of Madeleine McCann. More information on this can be found on Facebook by typing in these words: Free Speech, Missing Madeleine McCann, Criminal Profiler Pat Brown, Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann

Please support Freedom of Speech and Truth and Justice for missing Madeleine McCann.

Pat Brown claims her offices are located at 1380 Monroe St. NW, Washington, DC.

The two telephone numbers she gives are 301 and 570 area codes - both Maryland.
You can't carry a landline telephone number over an area code.

So there's no number for her DC offices. Makes it all seem a little amateur - like she's running it from home, or a cell phone

X. Issues Regarding Talking Heads in the Media

The public’s interest in serial murder cases makes serial murder an attractive storyline for the media. To further the public’s interest in these cases, the media uses people who are willing to speak as experts on the topic of serial murder and more specifically, individuals willing to comment on the current, featured case. These commentators are commonly referred to as talking heads, and it appears that there is no shortage of people willing to do this.

Individuals utilized by the media to comment on serial murder cases include both experts and pseudoexperts. Experts are identified as academicians, researchers, retired law enforcement officials, mental health professionals, and retired law enforcement profilers who have developed specific knowledge and experience in serial murder investigations. Pseudoexperts are self-proclaimed profilers and others who profess to have an expertise in serial murder, when, in fact, their experience is limited or non-existent. The media will recruit talking heads, whether true experts or pseudoexperts, to offer their opinions on current cases, when they have no official role in the investigation and no access to any of the intimate facts of the case.

When individuals appear in the media and discuss ongoing cases, they have an enormous potential to negatively influence investigations and may even cause irreversible damage. They often speculate on the motive for the murders and the possible characteristics of the offender. Such statements can misinform the public and may heighten fears in a community. They may contribute to mistrust and a lack of confidence in law enforcement and, more importantly, may taint potential jury pools. These statements may also impact the behavior of the serial murderer, because it is unlikely that an offender discriminates between a talking head and a law enforcement official actively involved in the case. When offenders are challenged by statements or derogatory comments made in the media, they may destroy evidence, or more tragically, react violently.

Make no mistake, this is about Pat, the woman who issued a book about serial killers and whose "work" is all over the serial killer Wikipedia page as a "self-taught" profiler who finally got around to a criminal justice degree well AFTER her "career" had begun.

Gregg McCrary, a former profiler and instructor at the FBI Academy's profiling unit, says he was careful never to offer a profile of the shooter. But he did tell the Washington Post on October 23: "When you break down the demographics of the Washington region, there is a statistical probability that the sniper is a white man."

In retrospect, McCrary, an ABC commentator during the shootings, says he "probably overstepped the line just by talking about statistical probabilities" because they "really don't mean anything. What counts is what's going on in this case."

If McCrary seems a bit self-critical, he saves most of his contempt for fellow sniper commentators. He contends many pundits designated as "experts" by the press lacked proper qualifications to discuss the case. He faults Brown, who has no formal police training, for criticizing police and for calling the shooter a "loser"--a remark that McCrary says could have provoked further violence.

"To put people on who say those things is reckless of the media," McCrary says. "I hope something like this is a learning experience, that they'll go back and look at the people they've put on, and say, 'Are these really the best people to put on?' Go back to the people who've really done this, worked cases, been qualified to profile, maybe been qualified in court as an expert in this area. Just declaring yourself to be a profiler doesn't really make you a profiler."

Brown disputes as "foolishness" the accusation that she might have provoked the snipers. The CEO of a nonprofit company that investigates murders free of charge for families of victims and police, Brown says she acquired her skills by reading "hundreds" of psychology and forensics books, attending training seminars and working "dozens and dozens" of homicide cases.

"There are many methodologies to learning profiling and to get the skills," Brown says. "There is simply no way you can say, 'This is what makes a good profiler.' It's really an investigative skill and a logic skill." She recommends that reporters focus on "expert explanation" rather than "expert opinion" by asking profilers to explain the reasons for their theories.

"Unfortunately, we have any number of talking heads in the media, retired police professionals. They're ranting and raving on all of the various stations," Moose said. "It's all fun to be on television. If they're putting people in this community at risk so that they can have the pleasure of being on TV, it is so sad. We've got retired police chiefs out there, looking for other jobs, taking advantage of this situation to get their face on television."

"There needs to be more transparency in the process to give it more credibility," McBride says. "For example, who is Pat Brown? What makes her qualified to share her opinion, and why are her opinions so important that they merit the type of coverage that they got? We should all be looking at explaining to the public who we talk to and why we talk to them. Sometimes their only qualification seems to be that they're available."

The following article appeared in a blog by <cough> "criminal profiler", Pat Brown. The woman knows so little about the facts of this case, that she took the artistic license route and chose to create her own version of events.

Don't Free the West Memphis Three

Monday, March 8, 2010

by Pat Brown

On October 23, 2009, nine-year-old Elizabeth Olten told her Mommy goodbye and skipped over to her little friend's house. She didn't come home. This young child, sugar and spice and everything nice, encountered the exact opposite late that afternoon. She went trustingly into the woods with her friend's older sister, fifteen-year-old Alyssa Bustamente (below), to explore, to play, to enjoy the special feeling of being given attention by an older girl. Only this teenager morphed into the nightmare her mother always told her wasn't real.

In the next moments, the last moments of Elizabeth's short life, she saw a monster come for her, cruel and nasty words spewing from her mouth. The monster hit her, shoved her to the ground, and there as the evil loomed over her, Elizabeth (below) terrified, her eyes blurring with tears, wanted her Mommy. Mommy! Mommy! She felt hands clawing her throat, clamping down around her neck, and she couldn't breathe, couldn't breathe ... no ... no .... Mommy ... stop, Alyssa, stop ... no ... the fear screamed through her little body. The hands left her throat and as she gasped for air, she felt a pain shoot through her left wrist, and then her right. Through the tears coursing down her cheeks, she saw blood coming out of her arms, her blood, and the monster was laughing.

The monster with the knife came at her face, and she felt the burning, searing ripping of her throat ... and the knife came down again and the choking this time was from the blood filling up her airway .. and she knew ... she knew she wouldn't see her Mommy again ... she knew ... she knew the worst thing in the world had happened to her. She felt the dark rush over her, and she screamed silently in her head one last time.

Alyssa Bustamente confessed to killing the little girl. She wanted to know "what it would be like to kill someone." This is the same girl who thought it was funny to watch her little brothers shock themselves on an electric fence. She hated the world; she wrote that her hobbies were "cutting" and "killing people."

Now, let's back up to to an early May, 1993, evening in West Memphis, Arkansas, when three eight-year-old boys rode their bicycles into a wooded area known as Robin Hood Hills. They zigzagged through the terrain, daring each other to do a better trick, to jump a ditch, to beat each other to the far tree. They would have played on happily until one of them remembered it was time to go home -- if they hadn't encountered three other boys, teenagers, in their play space. At first, they thought it was cool; big guys, like older brothers, all dressed in rebel black, grins on their faces, yeah, swaggering, a bottle of whiskey in one of their hands, yeah, we are hanging with the men now, we are member of their club. The older boys joked with them, told them they had something neat to share with them. The little kids got off their bikes, let them fall to the ground, and eagerly went over to the trio. They were shown something, all right.

Each boy was grabbed, thrown to the ground. At first, confused, they thought maybe this was a game, like a wrestling game, until fists hit them in the face, repeatedly, and their clothes were pulled off. Shoelaces were stripped out of their shoes and used to hog-tie them. Pants dropped to the ground from the older boys' waists, and then the unimaginable happened, things that they had heard of, whispered and giggled about on the playground, repulsive things that were now happening to them. Pain, humiliation, terror rained down on the little boys, the brutality increasing by the minute until the knife came out and screams came from one of the boys as he was stabbed and mutilated, sexually mutilated. The other two lay in their agonizing contorted positions, frozen in horror as their watch their friend dying -- and then their heads were bashed in. They were still alive when they were dragged into the stream. Water filled their lungs and, if they were conscious at all at that moment, they would have felt themselves choking as they sunk into the their muddy, watery grave.

Chris Byers, Steve Branch, and Michael Moore would never ride their bicycles again.

Jessie Misskelley, 17, confessed to the crime in detail. Three times. He had a temper and got in fights. He had a record for shoplifting and vandalism. He was a bit slow and a follower.

Jason Baldwin, 16, had a record for vandalism and shoplifting. He was Damien's best friend.

Damien Echols, 18, had a history of psychological problems for which he had been institutionalized. He is reported to have stomped a dog to death, attacked patients in the mental hospital sucking blood out of their wounds, starting fires at school, threatened to kill his teachers and parents, claimed he was a supernatural being, said he liked to drink blood because it gave him special power, and read Anton LeVay's Satanic Bible. Damien exhibits psychopathic behaviors. He bragged about committing the crime

Circumstantial evidence supported the involvement of the teens in the crime.

The three had no alibis.

Then who did it?

The defense needed a new suspect and a new motive. They brought in criminal profiler Brent Turvey. He provide one. His analysis concluded that the boys were killed at dawn, not dusk (giving the three teens alibis), that they were abducted, killed elsewhere, and the bodies driven back to that location (eliminating teens without trucks), and that there were bite marks that did not match the West Memphis Three (nor anyone else for that matter, because those blurry autopsy photos were not teeth impressions). The focus of the attack was to punish little victim Chris Byers (locking in his father, Mark Byers, as the killer). Recognizing the attack on the three boys required more than one person, Turvey allows the killer to have a more passive helper, his wife Melissa. She would be responsible for the "bite marks" on Steve Branch's face, the result of a female style of Battered Child Syndrome.

Okay. So let me get this straight. It is not believable that a violent psychopath like Damien Echols got together with his deviant buddies and decided to follow some young kids into the woods and get a sick thrill out of raping and torturing them, but THIS scenario makes sense?

The Byers leave their other son at home (and tell him to tell the cops he was with them when they went looking for his brother). They go out to find Chris and when they see him with his friends, they are already mad that he disobeyed them and didn't come home on time. They decide to lure all the boys away to some hideout and strip them naked and tie them up with their shoelaces. Then they leave them there while they go help search the park with the other parents. Sometime in between helping search the woods, Mark Byers and his wife sneak back the hideout, beat the crap out of the kids, and stab them as well. While Mark Byers is busy hacking off his son’s genitals, Mom is too busy biting up the Branch kid to be all that concerned. After Chris is dead, they jump in the truck with his body and his bleeding, dying little friends. They rush to the park to dump the bodies, hoping no one happens upon them while they are doing it, go home to their other son, meet with the concerned parents, talk with the police, go out on the search all night, and keep up this pretense for the duration of the trial.

This scenario lasted for years, with the Free the West Memphis Three side standing firm that Byers was the killer and had his teeth pulled in 1997 so he couldn't be matched to any tooth impression evidence. I am not sure when this theory went downhill, but maybe they were counting on those "teeth" to match something.

Now, they needed a new suspect. In 2007, one hair was found entwined in one of the knots and it was stated that it was "consistent with" the hair of Terry Hobbs, victim Stevie Branch's stepfather. Since it could have ended up there through secondary transfer, it's not any evidence that can convict. But this hair and the new theory that Hobbs killed the boys is what the defense hopes will get an appeal.

I hope they don't get it. The deaths of these three boys were not the result of domestic child abuse gone out of control. I have never seen a case where a parent becomes angry, decides to assault and kill the child AND take out a couple of friends as well (not to mention the sexual assault).

Here is what I believe happened:

The crimes were committed by more than one person.
The offenders lived nearby the crime scene.
The boys were targeted because they were easy to access and control.
The boys were probably followed and conned.
The boys were overpowered by larger assailants and the crime was committed at the scene, most likely in the water during the waning daylight hours.
The crime was planned, but the offenders did not attempt to get rid of the evidence. The water was a lucky break.
The crime was violent and was a show of power. Any sexual aspects would be encompassed within that issue.

Now, who would be likely to live near the scene, not have a vehicle, have a posse big enough to handle three boys and be recognizable to the boys so they could lure them without them running away? Since the boys were dead by dusk (rigor mortis evidence and livor evidence), who was unaccounted for at that time? The crime was planned (even if just minutes before, when the boys were spotted going into the woods) but no materials were brought; a sign of a fairly inexperienced killer/killers or a sign of youth. The sexual aspects of the crime encompass power and control as do the actual murders. Who does this sound like to you? How about that cold-blooded psychopath who wanted to kill people and drink blood and be God, who knew the boys, lived near the boys and had his homeys with him?

Damien Echols is an evil, soulless creature. His two buddies aren't worth much either. They aren't being discriminated against because they wore black or were a bit weird. They are in prison because, like Elizabeth Bustamente, sometimes teens kill.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] ... -response/

Dear Pat Brown, (w/ her response)
AUGUST 18, 2010

I wrote Pat Brown. I wasn’t planning on telling you all what I said because it was a personal e-mail. But she responded, and I do want to tell you what she said, which means you need to know what I said.

ETA: I forgot to include what I was responding to as if you all would just know. This is the statement made by Pat Brown as she posed as an “expert” in this AOL News article (her comments were removed from the article, however with all things on the internet nothing is gone for good and her comments still are out there

”Most women who suffer depression after their children are born are suffering from post-how-did-I-get-stuck-with-this-kid, this body, this life? They may be depressed, but it is their situation and their psychopathic personality that brings them to kill their children, and not some chemical malfunction.”

Here is her contact information.
The Pat Brown Criminal Profiling Agency
1380 Monroe Street NW
Washington DC 20010
301.633.1151 (phone)
570.796.0160 (fax)
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] (email)
Maybe if she hears the voices of those who have experienced depression (PPD and others) she will be able to educate her self with the words of experience. And maybe she’ll realize how irresponsible her comments are.

Dear Pat Brown,

Are you a doctor? Are you a psychologist? Or are you only a criminal profiler who has absolutely no business making comments as vile as the ones you made to AOL News about PPD? As someone who is coming out on the other side of PPD I can assure you that I never once thought “how-did-I-get-stuck-with-this-kid, this body, this life”. I loved my child more than I have words to explain to you. But the darkness, the fog, the anxiety…you couldn’t possibly understand the torture. Of loving someone so much and being so afraid of your thoughts. It’s a scary, horrible place. Made lonely by ignorant comment such as yours. People hide the pain, the hurt, and the darkness from the people who care about them because of comments and views that spew from ignorant people such as yourself. How dare you presume to know what the reason for PPD is? How dare you begin to trivialize it with just not wanting “this kid, this body, this life”? It’s so disgusting that I’m having trouble even articulating how much your comments angered me. You are doing a major disgrace to thousands of women suffering, many of those in silence. You are putting the tape over their mouth and pushing them to keep quiet instead of getting help. In one comment you are setting back progress that many sufferers have worked hard to make. The work and the pain that has been done to slash the stigma that women like you put in place. It’s so disappointing that a woman would do that to something so many other women suffer from.

It’s disrespectful, and truthfully I really hope that you see how harmful your comments were. To those that are suffering in silence from a real illness. From a sickness they didn’t ask for. From thoughts that are stealing precious moments with their children. PPD robs a mother of her confidence, it robs her of experiencing joys of motherhood, it robs her of joys that she should be able to share with her children. It’s not as simple as an attitude towards your life, it’s something deeper. It’s more. And you are pathetic for turning it into something so trivial and small. I think you owe women a public apology. I think you owe the families of those suffering an apology for making what they have all gone through so trivial.

I don’t know if you can really make this right. Your comments are out there, no matter that AOL News removed the comments. You have already done damage and I hope you take action to even start to correct the problem. And in the future I hope you think twice about making such ignorant comments about a subject you are truthfully not that educated about. You are not an expert on PPD and I can only help that those suffering in silence, the ones that did read your words, realize that and disregard what you’ve said.

Alena

----
The reply from Pat Brown:

I never said depression doesn’t exist and that women don’t need help for it. The depression after birth, however, like all depression, is based in reality and personality, not chemical issues. We as a society needs to stop blaming chemicals in our brains and start looking for answers in reasonable life expectations, support from family and community, and lifestyle. Psychotherapy is a good idea to deal with true life issues and our handling of them.

---

ETA: I have written her back:

Pat,
How have you come to the conclusion that PPD (as well as other depressions) isn’t chemical? Obviously you don’t have a doctorate on the subject, so we’re both at least on the same page that you are not an expert on psychological disorders. But, since you’ve put your thoughts out there as facts I’d really like to know how you came to this conclusion. Considering things like hormones, are in fact a chemical. I am obviously not a doctor either, but since I’ve actually experienced PPD. I’ve seen a medical doctor as well as a therapist, both of whom I’m positive would disagree with your stance. As well as the women that are discussing your comments all over the internet today. I’m sure if you Google yourself and your comments you’ll see a wide array of women that don’t agree with you and your irresponsible comments.

So Ms. Pat Brown, how have you come to the decision that PPD isn’t chemical?

Customer Discussions
This product's forum Discussion
Replies 0 Latest Post 21 hours ag

Smear Campaign of Criminal Profiler Pat Brown and her book, "The Profiler."

Ms Brown also boasted that she would be attending Goncalo Amaral's libel trial in Portugal in February, and that she was also about to launch her own private investigation into Madeleine's disappearance.

Also, I again politely pointed out that, as she had since changed her mind about going to Portugal, after all the initial fuss, she risked a ribbing from the opposition.

The McCanns and supporters are attempting to have Tony Bennett of The Madeleine Foundation imprisoned for libel. Make no mistake; this is an attempt to frighten all people who speak out about the McCann case who do not agree with the abduction theory the parents promote and to silence them.

annembremner Anne Bremner
I have been in trial for five weeks and just finished today. Thank you so much for your insightful comments on... fb.me/VYTfWR8w

I always laugh at brown and her 'profiler' image! I mean, what are good lawyers besides being flamboyant wannabee actors? They are profilers, they have to be, just as a good policeman has to be, they have to be able to judge whether the subject is telling the truth, half-truth or lying. You watch their 'body language' in a way, but it is done quite unconsciously, without spurious assertions that so-and-so scratched his ear 10 times in 5 minutes so he has to be lying, or a mass murderer! You don't decide that, because a mother does not show incredible sadness 24/7 she is guilty of killing her child. All in all, you just do the job, accept the verdict of the court and go home, secure that you have done your very best. Maybe there will be an appeal, maybe not; maybe the verdict will be upheld if there is, maybe not. But it is YOU than must be totally secure that you have done all in your power to secure a fair and just verdict. There are no absolute certainties in this world, nor in real life. And the half-baked opinions of some jumped-up self-taught 'profiler' aiming to achieve fame and fortune is totally unacceptable; if she had been right just once people might take her more seriously, but as she doesn't hide the fact she is out to make loads of $$$$$$ from the McCanns and other unfortunates by any means possible, she is considered by many to be utter scum, fit only to be consigned to the dirtiest dustbin of history.

Recently, she has been focusing her hate attacks on the fund. She seems oblivious to the fact that the greater part of the fund was raised by the McCanns via sponsorship, lawsuit settlements and now Kate's book sales. She accuses the McCanns of misleading the public into thinking there is a greater chance Madeleine is alive than statistics "prove" (her choice of word). Does she take people for idiots? Everyone knows that Madeleine may not be alive, what we note to is the hope that the search will either find her or bring closure to her family.

I do not know what this woman's problem is but the McCann case seems to have gotten under her skin. She does not expend anything like the same time or vitriol on any other case. It is almost as though she is hoping that Madeleine will be found dead in order to punish her parents-whom she clearly detests.

Kate McCann is respectable, educated, attractive and dignified - qualities which I believe Brown is jealous of. I think it sticks in her throat that Kate wrote a best seller and that people like Piers Morgan and Oprah Winfrey treat her with respect and seek her input and opinion. Brown on the other hand has failed to get the attention of anyone other than a few bloggers, some mentally challenged Internet trolls and a couple of blog radio hosts. Her frustrated hatred of Kate McCann has been very obvious on occasion.

At first she attacked them on her blog, then she saw $$$$$s and wrote her ebook. Her theory got shredded by pros and antis alike and she simply could not defend it. Realising this, she declined to answer questions about it. Then she started tossing alternative theories out there but her lack of basic knowledge trips her up every time. Now she is reduced to loser attacks on the fund and neglect thing. I believe this is probably her level.

ProfilerPatB PAT BROWN
@
@SueEvison @LouiseMensch Why does this Ms. Mensch think I am wishing Maddie #McCann dead? Surely, being a politician she can read properly?

----------

Hello? Bushmeat Theory? Gerry mummifying his daughter's body in sand? Ringing any bells?

ProfilerPatB PAT BROWN
Why do the same people who deny the #McCann s committed egregious child neglect call me an alcoholic for having an occasional glass of wine?
38 minutes ago

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

Poster's comment: I have observed that she invariably either attacks the Fund or bleats about "neglect" when she's on a losing streak. I expect she'll be spitting feathers at the possibility that there will be no libel trial to piggy-back off of in Feb. It really is quite pathetic. Nothing better to concern herself with I expect.

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

Is this woman capable of getting anything right? This makes me so angry. Her complete inability to get her facts right has resulted in a host of scathing tweets against the McCanns. She opens her big gob and spews misinformation which results in someone else getting "beaten up" on the Internet. Time and again she gets things wrong. Time and again she claims false information about the McCann case, poisoning peoples' minds against them and she NEVER corrects herself. NEVER apologises. She is a very scummy human being IMO.

Today she has been going on about Madeleine's search fund (the official one - not the one she set up to fund her vacation to Portugal)- see the screenshots above:

It is garbage. The McCanns are not asking for money. The fund is not low. It would appear that the "basis" for this latest attack is a tabloid newspaper story which tells of how low the fund dropped BEFORE Kate's book. I have checked and the last time the McCanns mentioned that the fund was dwindling was November 2010 - just before it was announced that Kate was writing a book to try and boost the fund.

It seems to me that Pat Brown reads a tabloid story, sees the words "Fund" and "low" and puts them together to make an attack on the McCanns.

It is an appalling way to go about your business.

Apart from anything, I don't think I have ever seen the McCanns "ask for money". The Fund was set up to deal with an overwhelming influx of donations. They needed to deal with them and quickly. They did the sensible thing and hired a lawyer to set up the Fund so that they could use the money to help find Madeleine. It was all done absolutely correctly and honestly. They sell items on the official site - but that's not asking for money. It's fundraising. Same as their sponsored runs and events. Kate wrote a book. They took legal action against scummy tabloids who printed appalling lies about them - and every penny went into the Fund.

The only thing the McCanns have ever asked for is for people to keep their minds and eyes open and to keep looking for Madeleine.

Unlike Pat Brown, the McCanns are decent, honest people

I think there was some initial misinterpretation around Twitter that the final balance of the recently revealed accounts is current. It was in the eyes of the Haters low according to that balance. Some of them failed to take into account that the figures are seriously out of date, referring to last March. I suspect Brown has simply latched onto that error.

I suspect also she is referring to SY as the free investigators and I thank her for admitting their superiority over all other forces (including apparently the FBI). It makes me proud to be British.

Brown and the forkers are wrong; they are always wrong, about everything it is possible to be wrong about.

The Mirror piece is fairly simple for anyone normal to understand:

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

Funds dwindling in hunt for missing Madeleine McCann
By Mirror.co.uk 10/01/2012

The fund supporting the search for missing Madeleine McCann dwindled to £125,000 last year, official accounts show.

The amount raised for Madeleine's Fund, set up by parents Kate and Gerry McCann, dropped from £233,099 in 2009-10 to £177,534 in 2010-11.

At the end of March last year the balance stood at £125,175, down from £470,034 a year earlier, according to newly-published accounts filed with Companies House.

The McCanns, both 43, from Rothley, Leicestershire, had feared that the dwindling fund would leave them unable to continue paying private detectives to search for Madeleine.

To avoid this Mrs McCann published a book about their daughter's disappearance in May last year, with all proceeds from sales and a serialisation deal with The Sun and the Sunday Times going to support the search.

The fund's directors wrote in a preface to the 2010-11 accounts: "Over the past financial year, as with the previous one, the costs of the search continued to be higher than the fund's annual income.

"Income, particularly donations, has been lower than in previous years, as might be expected.

"It became apparent to the directors that without a significant financial boost, the fund would be empty by the end of spring 2011.

"In view of this, Kate McCann made the decision to write a book about Madeleine's disappearance and her parents' search to find her."

Madeleine's Fund was launched a fortnight after the little girl vanished from her family's holiday apartment in Praia da Luz, southern Portugal, on May 3 2007.

Donations flooded in from supporters around the world who wanted to do something to help her parents, and the income for 2007-08 totalled £1,846,178.

More than £487,000 was spent on the campaign to locate Madeleine and merchandise costs in 2010-11, the accounts show.

Last year the fund paid for the private investigators, a 24/7 telephone hotline for the public to pass on information, an ongoing awareness-raising campaign and three fundraising events.

Clearly a job for VERY BIG LETTERS:

At the end of March last year

Think that's clear enough?

Hasn't she noticed that the Star article ends with the idea: And so Kate wrote her book in order to ensure the search continued.

And hasn't she noticed that unlike the pamphlet she produced, the book Kate wrote was very near the very top of all books sold last year in the UK (and sold elsewhere too) and brought in for the search monies which have substantially topped up the fund?

Or is she just having another little tantrum?

What is she trying to prove by tweeting all the news articles which are retelling us that the Fund was low before Kate wrote her book?

None of it corroborates her claim that they are CURRENTLY asking for money on account of the fund being low. A completely false claim. Next year's accounts will tell us how much the book made. IMO, the fund will currently be sitting in 7 figures following Kate's book royalties.

She does this instead of just reading the articles and admitting she posted a blooper. Absolutely appalling behaviour. I think we need a bigger wiki site to cover all the misinformation this woman has spread. Either that or an ebook "companion" to her ghastly ebook of misinformation. Which would be free of course since facts are more important than $$$s to some of us.

Amongst her silly tweets containing links to stories which still don't say what she claimed earlier is this little gem:-

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

Now, at first I thought this was in reference to her earlier tweet about the McCann fund, but on reflection, I think this might just be the start of a withdrawal from her PT trip. You know? Laying the foundations ala "I never asked for donations so if I withdraw, I'm not going to be cheating anyone..."

Let's see shall we? At the end of the day, she timed her little trip to coincide with Gonc's libel trial. She planned to be at the trial and was hoping to get publicity for her "search". i.e. "piggy-backing" on the media coverage. If the trial isn't taking place when she's there, who's going to be interested in a brassy dame from the States who wrote an ebook full of garbage and who can't even pronounce Madeleine's name properly?

Pat Brown really can't take any form of criticism. Here's a wee gem for youse all for today:-

Brown took to Facebook to say this:-

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
Someone just tweeted she respects #CaseyAnthony more than me. #Iwontsleeptonight She has 15,643 tweets and 2 followers. #Iwonderwhy

MIAOW!

So I looked to find this tweet and this is it:-

EstherJustice Dr. E. J. Ford
@ @ProfilerPatB just lost respect for you with that comment. #unprofessional At least #caseyanthony isn't selling her dignity/self-respect

Not quite quite what Brown claimed but I was interested in the b*tchy comment about EstherJustice's lack of followers.

She follows 446 people but has only 2 followers. If Brown had used a little common sense and logic, she would be able to work out that this doesn't add up. EstherJustice may have some controversial views, but she isn't a senseless troll - i.e. *some* of those people she follows would follow her back for sure. The reason why she has only 2 followers is simply - she doesn't want followers. A little while back, I followed someone on Twitter and the next day I received a perfectly charming direct message from him saying "no offence" and that it wasn't personal but for good reasons, he didn't want any followers and so he was blocking everyone who followed him. This morning I looked at his account and sure enough - he has tons of tweets, but 0 followers.

Brown's snipe at EstherJustice also demonstrates a degree of hypocrasy because EstherJustice averages 35 tweets per day whilst one of Brown's buddies "GasparStatement" manages to average 54 tweet per day. Most of EstherJustice's are retweets of stuff like news items and poignant quotes. GS's are mainly anti-McCann BS.

So much for her belief in Freedom of Speech. Over the past few months we've seen her throw tanties when people criticise her, she runs to FB to slag off other who criticise her (even politely) and she sends emails on FB groups demanding that anyone who criticises her be banned.

Too funny.