HERE WE GO AGAIN, DAFT BIDDY!!

Official Find Madeleine Campaign
Welcome to those who came from unofficial pages. We asked Facebook to combine unofficial pages with our official page. Facebook made this suggestion to us because Madeleine is a child and to protect her from online abuse. We ask that pages are not created about Madeleine or her image used without the explicit permission of her parents. Email us at [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], if you have any questions. Thank you for continuing to support us in the search for Madeleine. ~FM Webmaster

Official Find Madeleine Campaign
We are posting this again because our post from yesterday is further down in the comments. Welcome to those who came from unofficial pages. Because Madeleine is a child, Facebook made the suggestion to us to combine unofficial pages with our official page. This is to protect Madeleine from online abuse and her image being used without her parents permission. We have NOT harvested Email addresses nor gone on to individual pages and added people. There is no way for us to actually do that. Facebook did the merge of pages at our request. If you do not want to be a part of this page, please unlike the page (see image). We don't need to hear how you don't want to be a part of a lovely group of people who do care about getting Madeleine home. A huge thank you to those that continue to support us in our search for Madeleine. ~FM Webmaster

It really was a brilliant move.

The antis must be mortified that their hate and trolling is now evident on a page in support of a missing child. That their friends and family can now see for themselves what they spend 24/7 doing -pure trolling.

It's like FB went into the damp, dirty, smelly basement and turned the light on, so the world could see the half a dozen disease carrying rats that were happy to be in the dark and anon.

No wonder they're all panicking.

ProfilerPatB PAT BROWN
I will be on #NancyGrace at 8 pm est talking about missing #BabySky #HLN

............. strange that the only people who have been told about it are on backwater, UK-centred, internet sites.

what "action" is she talking about? Spending four and a half years reminding the world that their daughter went missing whilst they ate at a nearby restaurant? Tirelessly raising money for Madeleine's search fund as well as other missing people?

I wondered just how much of this fund money Brown had her eye on? However, she says she is targeting the McCanns personally. Since we know they have a large mortgage and that only Gerry works, they are unlikely to have much in the way of savings. They both came from working class families - ie. no family wealth. She must therefore be targeting their family home. The only home the McCann twins have ever known. The home with Madeleine's bedroom, just as it was when she last slept in it.

It will certainly get her the attention she so desperately seeks.

I don't have the words for the bottomless disgust and contempt I have for that woman. One good thing - I don't see her being allowed into Portugal or the UK to 'Search'.

I am sure all the good, decent people in America will demand Brown be removed from their airwaves once word gets around about what a scumbag stunt she is trying.

She'll be lucky to get a job telling fortunes on the sidewalk in a couple of years.

You know, we have thousands of missing children here in America and I have yet to see Brown champion their cause. I also know why she doesn't. They are not high profile therefore no money can be made from their plight.

So when I read she is not Hounding the McCanns for the money; I call her a liar.

Not only is she a liar but she is a greedy limelight seeking bastard too!

Just read that tweet of Brown's saying IF she had been about publicity and making money she would have joined the WM3 and McCann bandwagons...

Then I read it again and again wondering if I was missing something, or if there was some typo or if I had entered the Twilight Zone.

If her rushing an ebook to print, making a "nominal" charge to ensure that it would show up on Kate's book page, making hundreds of tweets - sometimes dozens a day, creating a Facebook page devoted to her opinion about the McCann case, begging people to create reviews, begging people to spread the word about her book and opinion, begging people to seek out media outlets which might run a story about her and.her opinion or better still INTERVIEW her directly...

Sheesh, if that isn't about publicity and jumping on a bandwagon, I really don't know what is.

Utterly deluded, or in total denial. Then again, it is MY express opinion that she exhibits many of the behaviours which she "profiles" others to have.

Brown's theory portrays Gerry McCann as a monster who, on finding his three year old daughter UNEXPECTEDLY dead, reacts not with shock, disbelief or grief. Rather, she proposes, he sits down and callously hatches a plan on how to deal with this somewhat inconvenient "Madeleine situation".

She suggests that it took him only minutes to decide to dump his beloved daughter's body along the beach.

As "proof" that Gerry McCann did this, she offers the Smith sighting of a man carrying a child HALF A MILE AWAY at ten pm. Although spotted in a built-up area of PdL, this man was heading in the general direction of the beach.

Brown IGNORES the small matter that at ten pm (the same time as the Smith siting half a mile away) over a dozen witnesses claim that Gerry McCann was with his wife and friends at the hotel complex and that he was distraught, raising the alarm and actively searching for his daughter around the general vicinity of the apartment.

Brown further misinforms her readers that the McCanns didn't call police until forty minutes after Madeleine was discovered missing. Despite claiming that she has read the police files, she appears to have missed the fact that by ten-forty pm, the police had been called not once, but TWICE - both at Gerry McCanns's instigation and the second being a chase-up at ten-thirty.

The question which defeats me is why Pat Brown continues to promote a book which contains such blatant misinformation when it has the effect of unjustly damning the McCanns in the eyes of the reader.

Does she think that is fair? Is Pat Brown's idea of justice to sell lies about the McCanns KNOWING that those lies will mislead her readers?

She cannot say she is unaware of the false claims her book makes. There is an online rebuttal highlighting many of them. Other critics have independently reached similar conclusions and commented publicly about them. Her critics are not just pro-McCann. One of her harshest critics is HardlineMarxist who said her piece then took a vow of silence. Perhaps HLM was warned off by fellow antis who see Pat Brown as a welcome new thorn in the side of the McCann couple?

Personally, I hope Brown does see the McCanns in court. However, I doubt that even a US court would see justice in knowingly publishing blatant lies about two people in order to make a few bucks.

Whether the McCanns fit the US legal definition of 'celebrity' I have no clue.

But by US libel law 'celebrities' can be libelled, if the libeller shows reckless disregard for the truth.

There's the statement that qualified physicians overdosed their daughter with the 'sedative' calpol (manifestly proven untrue).

There's the statement of who, named, found Madeleine's body and moved it, when neither prosecutor nor the PJ (in their final report) could find any evidence of a crime.

Be the McCanns US 'celebrities' or not, Brown has libelled them, both sides of the Atlantic, pure and simple.

The other (non) 'argument' raised on Amazon is that the book is on sale from Barnes and Nobel (true) and the McCanns have not taken action against them.

Both sides of the Atlantic it is the prerogative of the person who considers he/she has been libelled to take action or not as said person feels right.

The McCanns evidently don't feel it worth pursuing with Barnes and Noble. That is their prerogative.

The McCanns are not celebrities. There may be an argument in favour of them being limited public figures. They did not choose their situation - i.e. they did not leave their children along KNOWING that a child abductor was active in the area. They took reasonable precautions to monitor their chilrens' safety (baby listening services are NOT illegal and they offer a lower level of monitoring that the McCanns were exercising).

Brown herself is on record as admitting that there is insufficient evidence to prove the McCanns are guilty of any crime and that she would personally NOT find them guilty in a court of law (Jim Bohannon Show). So why does she pursue this vendetta against a couple who instigated no harm against her personaly? Their actions against her were carried out in defence of the search for their daughter which desperately depends on the public believing she may be alive and findable.

Would Pat Brown think it OK if someone were to make up a parcel of lies about her elderly mother and plaster them all over the Internet? WOuld she roll her eyes and laugh it off? Madeleine McCann is a child - a vulnerable child. Some of the stuff which is being published on these anti-McCann sites about Madeleine is horrific. Vile individuals (including Pat Brown's followers) think it's hilarious and SHE is fighting for their right to continue with it. She condemns the McCanns for trying to put a stop to it. Presumably she would feel no sense of protectiveness if it were one of her family members being used as an object of vile entertainment?

Cable News Snake Oil: How Media ‘Experts’ Mislead the Public

Please pay special attention to page three. Here is how Brown's attempt to extort $$$$$$$$$ from the parents of a missing child is seen.

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

This would all be inconsequential were it not for the fact that Brown wields undue influence for her legions of unsophisticated fans. The McCanns not wanting a book that basically accuses them of murdering and/or covering up the murder of their child is evidence that they are guilty and already her fans are repeating that mantra on every forum and news site they can find. That Brown’s book is filled with “facts” and theories (and wild imaginings) that are easily disproved makes no difference to her fans. Soon she will no doubt be on Nancy Grace´s show or some other cable news show spreading her fanciful conspiracy theories and ensuring that the investigation into the whereabouts of a child remains the smoke and mirrors carnival fun house where she can most easily dupe her marks.

To call this snake oil is unfair, because when snake oil salesmen sold you a cure all tonic that was actually watered down whiskey the only harm done was to your wallet and your pride. Pat Brown is hurting the cause of justice and destroying the truth. I’d rather she sold snake oil.

Pat Brown is but one of dozens of self-appointed crime specialists who appear on cable news programs as “experts” in fields where they have no real knowledge. These snake oil peddlers may seem harmless at first glance but often they are responsible for providing misinformation to the public that has real-life consequences on criminal cases and public safety. Brown is perhaps best known as the “expert” who claimed Major Nidal Hasan wasn’t a terrorist and the Ft. Hood massacre wasn’t a terror attack.

An actual profiler and instructor for the FBI Academy’s profiling unit named Gregg McCrary singled out Brown for criticism, and in doing so provoked a response from the celebrity detective that illustrates just how unqualified she is to present herself as an expert:

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.

In other words, Brown read “hundreds” of books and then deemed herself an expert.

At the end of the day, Pat Brown is little more than a blogger who gets the occasional opportunity to voice her opinions on TV and blog radio. She is self-taught and self-accredited in the world of criminal profiling and her book about the McCann case is self-published.

Her fan base comprises of a bunch of people who spend their lives trolling the Internet. Together, they notch up hundreds of thousands of tweets hurling abuse at the efforts of two respectable doctors to find their missing child. From what I can see, these are the only types who appreciate Pat Brown and I seriously doubt many of them will be booking a cruise anytime soon.

People who book cruises tend to be of an older age group and it is a fact that more women cruise than men (cruise companies employ "gentleman companions" to ensure that the surplus of women get a few dances). We have been on a number of cruises and have observed a plethora of wealth aboard. These are people who will support charitable causes. People who appreciate a bit of culture and the good things in life. When you appreciate that life has been good to you, you tend to want to spread the love a bit - NOT callously attack people to whom life has dealt the most vicious of blows.

I would be interested in hearing a talk given by a profiler who has worked on at least ONE case which was solved as a result of their involvement and expertise.

Brown appears to specialise in voicing opinions about cases which remain unsolved.

ProfilerPatB PAT BROWN
@ @cidermaker TV channels have a variety of reasons why they will do something and why they won't; threat of lawsuit, not a popular take, etc
21 hours ago

As though threat of a lawsuit were the only reason that the mainstream media isn't taking up her fairy-story. No. Mainstream media like to cover factual stories. Not the easily disproved, malicious fantasies of a self-accredited professional. THAT, imo is the real reason the media have not shown any interest in her ebook.

The silly moo does not know how major TV stations work. She should reflect on this......

How often does one hear of major TV stations being sued?

When she comes up with the correct reason she will know why they are not interested.

Actually, had this been a few years ago, she would have NOT been classed as a celebrity and, in fact, would have had her nose pressed up against the window looking in. Since reality shows some things have changed.

Even so, she is still a Z LISTER. We all know how she is regarded - well by the odd one or two that think they may have heard of her. Have a nice day, Ms. Brown.

I wonder if it is dawning on her that she has trashed her career, such as it was, for the adulation of a handful of pitchforkers?

Brown says that being bad-mouthed on the Internet is a mitigating circumstance, that talking trash about a person makes you less a victim if they physically assault you later. (She is referring to the teenager who was beaten almost to a pulp by her 'friends' after she made some disparaging remarks about one of them on the Internet.) It’s a vile and childish thesis that would be totally reprehensible enough if one of the perpetrators voiced it. For Brown, who assumes the mantle of champion for crime victims and a voice for the voiceless, it becomes contemptible. For someone who claims to be an expert in profiling the criminal mind it should be a warning flag that their views are not based in reality.

As you seem to accept such a beating as normal, do you spend your time looking over your shoulder, because with what you have written you have opened yourself to an attack by someone you have bad-mouthed over the years, the number of whom seems to be growing almost daily.

If Brown thinks it is okay for a young girl to be beaten because the girl had some sort of cyber disagreement with one of her attackers prior to the attack. Why then is Brown surprised at the verbal attack she is receiving over her ebook? Surely, if she attacks the McCanns cyber wise; and going on Brown's way of thinking, Brown deserves the cyber verbal abuse and legal retribution?

Dear Pat,

We have received a notice of defamation from Carter-Ruck Solicitors that says the content of Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann (UPDATED) B0055WYVCQ, contains defamatory statements regarding their clients, Gerry and Kat McCann.

Because we have no method of determining whether the content supplied to us is defamatory, we have removed the title from sale and will not reinstate it unless we receive confirmation from both parties that this matter has been resolved.

Carter-Ruck can be reached at:
6 St Andrew Street
London EC4A 3AE
T 020 7353 5005

Best regards,

Robert F.

I would like to emphasise that I strongly believe in freedom of speech, but where you have people who are repeatedly carrying out inaccuracies and have been shown to do so, then they should be held to account. That is the issue. I don’t have a problem with somebody purporting a theory, writing fiction, suggestions, but clearly we’ve got to a stage where substandard reporting and sources, unnamed, made-up, non-verifiable, are a daily occurrence.

Teenage girls deserve to be beaten up, and their ordeal filmed, if they have spoken out of turn on the internet.

Rape victims are 'asking for it' if they wear short skirts.

Deceased rape victims haven't been raped at all.

Gunmen linked to Al Queda aren't terrorists because they haven't slaughtered people the way Brown thinks they should.

People who refuse to sell Brown alcohol at breakfast time deserve to be abused on the internet.

if anyone dares object to Brown making up vile stories about them, involving treating their missing child like bushmeat, they should just roll their eyes and laugh it off.

"I would be happy to defend the McCanns ... because there is reasonable doubt. I would say I would never convict the McCanns because I don’t have enough proof to say they are guilty of anything."

Pat Brown speaking on the Jim Bohannon Show

I just can't get over @ProfilerPatB saying she would defend the #McCanns, is that before or after she tries to sue the arse off of them

Please also note that although hideho transcribed this interview, she conveniently OMITTED this portion along with the bit where Pat Brown spoke about other missing children who turned up alive after a lengthy period of time.

This woman's behaviour is certainly disgusting and any professional person in the same field would do well to give her a wide berth. Whoever called her a media whore wasn't far off the mark as she has certainly whored her leaflet about the place. Is it any wonder no-one want's to touch it when it is obvious to anyone with half an ounce of common sense knows it contains so much mis-information. Hopefully she will be hoist by her own petard, and boy does she deserve to be!

I know of one woman (you can guess who this refers to) who almost drove a young girl to take her own life. The young lady wrote about it on her blog and named the alleged professional who is guilty of this shocking moral crime. She made the girl's life hell by stalking her. She also accused her of all sorts, and attempted to turn the young woman's friends against her. The girl finished up checking herself in to a psych ward for treatment.

Reading the young lady's story was heartbreaking and as a result the perpetrator is now a pariah in her chosen profession but, unfortunately it hasn't stopped her. She moves onto new victims with a blasé attitude that is morally criminal and shameful.

Having read the Amazon forum on Madeleine. I see no smear campaign in progress against Brown. However I have observed an enlightening effort in effect.

As for all publicity is good publicity; that isn't true at all. Especially when her recent amateur attempts has drawn the attention of the real deal practitioners in the field of profiling.

I have recently learned the professionals refuse to appear on networks if Brown is also on the same program giving her views.

Her latest endeavour against the parents of a missing UK child; has brought nothing but scorn and is seen as a money making scheme to prop up her failing business.

I suspect it's because Brown is using Bremner. She very well may have paid a retainer, but this case will never see the light of day. It's another con by Brown to get business. She knows her reputation is in the toilet in the US so she's branching out. She's doing a piss-poor job at it too.

How many professionals do you know that sit on social networks all day long hawking their wares. It's because she has no other way to sell her crap. She works pro-bono because no one will pay her for her "profiling". Bremner could give Brown everything she wanted by addressing this frivolous lawsuit, but she chooses to remain silent. I would too if I was being associated with the likes of Brown. This could be a career killer for Bremner. If she's half as smart as she pretends to be, she will run as fast away from this train wreck as possible.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
If you LIKED this page and you support my fight for Free Speech against the McCanns, go back and UNLIKE it! They are a hate group that was set up under the pretense of being a neutral discussion page.

Madeleine #McCann Fund: "To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine’s family." Including funding lawyers to sue people.
August 4, 2011 3:56 pm via webReplyRetweetFavorite
@ProfilerPatB
PAT BROWN