Saturday, July 30, 2011

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Why was my Madeleine McCann Book Banned?

Five weeks after my book, Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann went up on Amazon, it vanished. I didn't receive word from Amazon that they were going to take it off the market nor did I receive word that they had taken it off the market. I learned of its disappearance from someone who went to buy it. I sent Amazon an email and receivde a vague response from someone without a last name (isn't that always the way they do it these days?) who told me the book had been removed from sale for "legal conflicts." I asked for clarification of said legal conflicts and I received this email:

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.

Oh, I see, Robert with-no-last-name. Amazon was threatened by the McCanns' legal team and Amazon preferred to drop my book rather than face a lawsuit for selling possibly libelous material. Now, I know a lot of people have become very angry about this, that anyone can just send a threat to Amazon about another person's book and without a shred of proof, the bookseller pulls if off the market. It does seem rather unfair; the McCanns do not have any paperwork proving my work is libelous nor are there any court actions against me and, simply at their word, my book is axed.

But, there is the rub, actually. Amazon is a business and they do not by law have to sell anything they don't want to sell for whatever reason (garbage, pornography, libelous material, etc.). Of course, their customers can show their wrath over their choice to not include a book in their store by taking their business elsewhere (which some have done due to the removal of my book) or by giving them a lot of heat in the media.

To be fair to Amazon, I will say, there is a new problem with self-published books. There is no protective layer between the author and the bookseller as there has traditionally been with an actual mainstream publisher. When I sold The Profiler: My Life Hunting Serial Killers and Psychopaths to Hyperion Voice, their lawyers went over every detail with a fine tooth comb and I had to send in all of my files to back each and every case in the book, in spite of the fact I used pseudonyms for everyone. By the time Amazon stocked the book in their online store, they knew the publisher had done its job and if anyone would then be sued it would be Hyperion and me. But, with my self-published book, they have no idea if what the McCanns say is true or not and, if it turns out the McCanns are correct, they might end up in a court themselves. As business people going up against one of the biggest libel attorney practices in the world, Carter-Ruck, they simply thought cutting me loose and getting a bit of bad press and angry emails was the lesser of two evils.

My book is now at Barnes and Noble and Smashwords (50% of royalties earned to go to the Madeleine Search Fund for Praia da Luz, Huelva, and Rothley) among a few other online venues. It will be interesting to see if these outfits also cave to any threat by the McCanns and their solicitors. 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!

My opinion? My book includes the facts of the case from the police files and the words from Kate's book, Madeleine, and the words of the McCanns from their radio and television interviews. From these facts, I lead readers through the various possibilities of what these facts might tell us and what hypotheses we might develop. In the end, I offer the most plausible theory I have derived from the known public facts. Clearly, it is not a theory the McCanns like and a theory they do not want people to read. I find it rather fascinating that they went to Amazon and had the book removed; this behavior in itself is very suspicious to many people. They believe the McCanns do not want my theory to be considered, that there is something in it that makes them very nervous, and there is more to their getting my book banned at Amazon than not liking stuff someone said about them because it wasn't complimentary. If I am just a nutter and my theory is rubbish, they should have rolled their eyes and laughed it off.

Now, I am sure we will see comments here that will say, "Aw, come on, Pat, the reason the McCanns don't want your crap book out there is because it is libelous, you accused them of murder or of covering up a crime, and you based your 'theory' on tabloid information." I will counter by saying no where in the book do I accuse the McCanns of a crime - other than leaving their three tiny children unattended and defenseless - and my theory is not based on the tabloids. Since my theory is an opinion to which I am entitled and because my opinion is based on facts (I am not making some outlandish off-the-wall accusations I took from psychics or Internet gossip) and because the McCanns are very public figures, I see nothing in this book that is libelous and, therefore, I have no problem sharing my profiling theory with the world.

If the McCanns are innocent of covering up a crime (following an accidental death), they should view my theory as a reasonable opinion as to what could have happened, but, simply know that, regardless of the strange happenings that would have led to such a hypothesis, this is simply not what occurred. The fact that there is no proof of an abduction - and this is a fact - does not mean an abduction could not have taken place. But, because there is no proof of an abduction , the McCanns should well understand why they might be considered persons-of-interest in the disappearance of the daughter, Madeleine. They should also recognize that their commission of child neglect also might make them persons-of-interest. In other words, rather than sue and threaten everyone with a theory that they, the McCanns, might be involved in the disappearance of their child, a more normal response would be to simply understand why someone might think that way and deal with it

Even better, the McCanns could return to Portugal and clear up the matter. Kate could answer the questions she refused to answer as an Arguido, they could do the reconstruction, and they could take polygraphs. If they pass the polygraphs, the answers make sense, and the reconstruction clears up what actually happened on May 3, they could stop all the speculation about themselves. But, as long as they refuse to cooperate with the Policia Judiciaria in Portugal, they have no one but themselves to blame for alternative theories to the abduction theory they would like us all to accept.

More to come on this matter! Tune in Sunday, July 31, at 8 pm est on Websleuths Radio, Wednesday, August 3 at 12 midnight est on The Jim Bohanon Show, and August 4 at 9 pm est on The Levi Page Show.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown


Dooley said...

I found the book interesting.
Your theory fits the known facts and makes complete sense to me.
I really didn't see anything libelous or defamatory.
I also think the real reason they bullied Amazon is because it shows them in a bad light.

Anonymous said...

A very measured response Pat. I’m glad that you have taken an interest in this story - it’s brave of you considering you are up against a ‘machine’ - I’m sure there are many journalists, writers & profilers out there who privately question the McCanns version of events but they do not voice their doubts publicly for fear of repercussions.
I had expected that as soon as the McCanns collected the proceeds from their book, that they would once again be on the march with their army of lawyers silencing all in their path - and that seems to be the case.


Anonymous said...

I wonder whether Scotland Yard is aware of your book?

If I'm not wrong, you said you are willing to work pro bono for the police so Scotland Yard might welcome that kind of help.

It would be a twist of irony for the mccanns if Met accept your offer!

Anonymous said...

I bought an amazon kindle just to read this Madeleine profile ! Boooo amazon

Anonymous said...

I have now closed my account with Amazon, and will not purchase anything from their site again, as a result of their appalling decision to cave in so easily to a solicitors letter with no legal backing. Many thanks and respect to Pat Brown for persisting with this case.

Anonymous said...

Bravo, dear Pat!
You have so many people by your shoulder. You must feel it.
Mccann's Caravel-of-Glory has more and more leaks. To stop the sinking is not possible.
But they still manage to control the press. What a Power have this people to control the Freedom of Speech!
Just have a look at the Sky News blogs about Madeleine! They have the highest rating ever. But every day someone is deleting all sensible posts, disappearing whole pages. People talk, discuss. But under control of Mccann's "team". It's disgusting. Who a hell they are?! Who can stop their circus?
Please, don't stop, Pat! You are our Hero! Your Victory = Madeleine's Victory. Her story should be told.

guerra said...

Pat, it doesn't surprise me that your book was banned. You are a well known media figure and you wrote the book in English, so it was inevitable.

The objective of the McCanns has always been to protect their image, it was never about finding their daughter. I first started delving into this case in the beginning of September of 2007. On September 7, 2007 the McCanns were made official suspects. I turned my television on that day and they were discussing the topic on the Larry King show. It was a show with tones of racism and at the same time it was rather humurous. I believe some of Larry King's guests were, the lawyer Mark Geragos; Americas most wanted host John Walsh; Jon Corner the McCann twins' godfather, Philomena McCann Madeleine's aunt, and two English reporters that were on location in Portugal. The entire show was dedicated to ridiculing the Portuguese police and trashing Portugal. What made me laugh is when an English reporter became a bit upset when someone shouted out that the specialized cadaver dogs must not be very good, you could hear the reporter reply "No, No these are good dogs they're English." Even though she belittled the Portuguese police, see still had to defend the dogs because they were English. After watching this show I went online and sure enough every English newspaper was trashing the Portuguese police. I tried to post a comment that simply stated that any police force had the right to investigate all the possibilities, without any success. Censorship had begun. Being a Portuguese Canadian with some degree of fluency in Portuguese I was able to get both sides of the story. It soon became apparent to me that the British media were playing the part of a PR firm for the McCann couple. The Portuguese lead investigator was soon described as being lazy, incompetent and a drunk, forensic evidence was described to be contaminated with cigarette ash from Portuguese detectives etc. etc.

What is so interesting about this case is the amount of resources that have been dedicated to protecting this couple. It makes you wonder if this is really just about a missing child.

MaryAnne Kennard said...

I am so happy I was able to get this book on my Kindle before it was pulled by Amazon. It was a great read & I agree with you. I had no idea of the "real" details of this story. They have alot to feel guilty for & if I were them I would keep my mouth shut & keep a low profile.

Anonymous said...

Thank you Pat for your book, for giving us hope that this circus will end one day. If United States in behind you soon the rest of the world will listen too...
You have the power to be heard and your opinion is respected.
The McCanns may have a lot of money but at the end of the day Truth always wins because it doesn't have to try so hard.
I pitty the McCann's twins to have such parents and I pray to God they get sent to jail, or at least known all over the world as a couple of liars, hypocrits and child neglecters.
Please keep us posted on everything you do and let us know if we can be of any help!

Anonymous said...

Well done Pat. You must fight in many ways the strategy of this couple, who try to control the opinion of the world in a case they conveniently bring to the media to con the police and ask donations. Now become clear where is used the money from the Fund... Not to search Madeleine. Was used to silence who use the brain and question their version. Who knows PDL, the Algarve and Portugal, knows there is no chance of an abduction happening under the circumstances stated by the McCann's and changed many times, in a desperate exercise to try to adapt their version to the facts discovered by the police in the crime scene. Unless, they or their friends were the abductors of their death child.
Many books were wrote in Portugal, about the case. Some by journalists, some by criminal investigators. In one way or another, all arrive to the same conclusion: the abduction was impossible. And all suspected the parents and their strange behavior, including the Fund, which objectives nobody understand clearly. Again, in a strange reaction, only G Amaral book and your book were banned. Why the McCann's feel hunted by the opinion of police investigators? When are they going to understand that unless they reopen the case and do a reconstruction under PJ supervision, the public will not believe their stories?
Their book is not selling well in Portugal. The money from the Fund will not last forever. How they are going to silence the opinion of people when they will be not able to pay Carter- Ruck? Their game is lost because for the next 20 years , PJ can open the case at any moment. Soon or later, they will face justice and people like you can help Madeleine to achieve that justice, by letting many countries to know what the McCann's have done to your book. We, in Portugal, will be very pleased to know your opinion and have you in some interviews in our Tvs and radios. Will be a huge slap on Carter-ruck face. McCann's were afraid about what is being said in Portugal because they know, few hours later an echo of that words will reach the rest of Europe, including UK.
You Pat, should consider some interviews in Portugal to discuss why your book is banned and why the McCann's have a so huge difficult to deal with democracy. Very strange for who claims innocence.

Anonymous said...

Hi Pat,

May I propose a suggestion? Turn your book into a basic PDF file then offer it for sale as an instant download.

All you have to do is block your private download link from searches; I'll even send you the code to do this that you just put in the code part of your website.

Change your private download link every other day to prevent people from passing the link to their friends.

Now to my post...

The more the McCanns try to silence the public the more they are showing why they are trying to silence: because they cannot possibly have anyone unfolding their lies. But, I am sure you know that anyway.

Good luck!

Anonymous said...

Pat, downloaded your book direct to my PC so avoiding buying a Kindle -rather pleased about that now.
Isnt it amazing the McCanns wrote the book to boost their private fund to SEARCH for Madeleine and yet immediately they are using the funds to pay off Carter Muck. It has been said Carter Muck are working on a no win no fee basis but there is no way they write letters for nothing. Solicitors charge a hefty fee for writing a letter and no way will the letter to Amazon come under the no win no fee deal so McCanns will have had to pay for these services, hardly what the book is purported to have been written for. I certainly think the McCanns know more about the disappearance than they are saying and that explains why the book was not about Madeleine only about her 'strange' mother and her needs.
I so enjoyed reading your profile and pleased to see you have found another outlet where folk can buy it. many good wishes to you

Anonymous said...

Amazon's response proves, Pat, that taking your "opinions" from the Blog into print will hold you to a higher standard and public scrutiny. One cannot simply throw out their "opinions" about another just because they "feel" that person committed a crime based on a "professional" profile. If you are so confident that what you claim is accurate, then send your legal team after Amazon and after tha McCanns. I would personally like to see you get sued over this matter - maybe it'll knock you down a few levels with a dose of reality. Again, as with many of the other cases where your normal "theory" was proven wrong, your view of "normal" is a bit skewed.

Dooley said...

"One cannot simply throw out their "opinions" about another just because they "feel" that person committed a crime based on a "professional" profile. "

Are you really saying one is not allowed to voice an opinion ?

Freedom of speech ring any bells ?

Pat, sorry if I'm speaking out of turn.

Pat Brown said...

No, Dooley, speak out! Yes, this is about freedom of speech and allowing people to discuss issues without being silenced.

Having a theory should be no threat to anyone. It isn't always pleasant to hear (if it is about oneself, but if one is involved in some big media event or politics or crime, then you are in the public eye and people voice opinions (they do that if you aren't in the public eye but they don't put it on the Internet or in print because no one knows who you are talking about outside your small circle.

Say, for example, you think the pastor of your church is not handling church funds properly. You speak to a number of people about your concerns. Should you be sue for slander? Supposed you write a small piece in the newspaper how you feel the local schools aren't doing a go job; is this libelous?

The fact is, people have a right to freedom of speech. It is true they don't have a right to state things are "facts" that are not facts; THAT is what libel is.

Take Anonymous above; he/she makes two statements - one is fine, one is potentially libelous.

"I would personally like to see you get sued over this matter - maybe it'll knock you down a few levels with a dose of reality. Again, as with many of the other cases where your normal "theory" was proven wrong.:

Okay, the first part is fine. This person wants me to be sued because he/she doesn't much like me and thinks I deserve a good beat down. I get it; no objection to that opinion. The second sentence how is a bit concerning as the commenter states/implies that "many of other cases my...theory...was proven wrong." Umm..which "many other cases" is this person talking about? If the author cannot PROVE that this statement is true, then it is libelous. And, I can guess where this comment came from. Here is some of the stuff floating around the Internet which is not true but detractors have been quoting without concern for its veracity.

1. Pat Brown was wrong about the Washington DC Sniper case when she said the snipers were White.

This is far from the truth. In fact, I was, that I know of, the only one who spoke out specifically against guessing any race of the snipers and I did saw on a show in which an FBI profiler said the snipers were White. I protested that there is no way we can no that as there have been no witnesses and there is no particular evidence pointing to culture or race and, I emphasized, there are many black serial killers in history.

So, where did this story come from? Some journalist who was trashing profilers and said they were wrong about the DC Snipers; then he included my name in a group of profilers who had been speaking on television.

2. Pat Brown stalked a man who rented a room in her house, claiming he was a serial killer, and the police told her to go away and were not interested in him.

This little bit of libel was promoted years ago by a fellow profiler and has been repeated by many haters since. The truth is, I turned in evidence possible linking this man to a homicide and it was ignored by the detective on the case who didn't even bother to interview him although he was near the crime scene at the time. Six years later, a new detective realized the earlier detective's error and brought the man in for questioning, DNA, and a polygraph (which he did not pass). Although there is not enough evidence to prosecute (due to the time lag), this man remains the one and only suspect in the case.

Pat Brown said...

(cont. from above)

See how all that works? I can't have a theory but haters can libel the heck out of me for having one!!

Am I always right? Obviously, I am human and not all theories turn out to be correct which is why they are called theories. Detectives have the same problem and so do scientists. This doesn't mean we shouldn't have theories or investigate them. What we should do is clarify what our theories are based on and allow people to analyze the ideas and decide if they think the theory has enough validity to take it seriously.

If the McCanns think my theory is terribly silly and completely unsupported by the evidence, all they have to do is say so. Jayelle, whoever she/he is, has written a rebuttal to my theory and although I have my own opinion as to how good it is or how properly it analyzes me theory (some things are not in context, in my opinion), I give her/him credit for writing the rebuttal. People should read both - my book and the rebuttal - and decide for themselves which holds more water.

With all the supporters the McCanns have and people like Jayelle willing to go to bat against those who believe the evidence in Praia da Luz does not point to an abductor, they can just let the facts and opinions stand for themselves; they don't need to silence people, at least not unless what they say is to close to a truth they don't want people to consider.

Whenever anyone goes berserk trying to kill the messenger, one has to wonder what it is about the message they are so scare of.

Anonymous said...

Hi Pat,

I posted a point earlier but it seems to have vanished. I am going to assume it was a technical matter as I was in fact, in favour of your side of the Amazon- Carter Ruck report.

Anyway, that being said, anyone who has looked into the police reports from Portugal and studied the words and videos of the McCanns will see many, many discrepencies in their side of the story.

Do the normal public really think there are thousands - if not millions - of people out there who just drum up silly little conspiracy theories against the McCanns? No, they come to their theories via the basic undertanding of scientific evidence of DNA left at the scene of the apartment where the little girl went missing. May I add? no such scientific evidence points to any breaking/entering into the apartment by an abductor. Not saying an abduction couldn't have taken place but a large number of high-level police and their co-ordinators could not find one single shred of evidence that an abduction happened.

A lot of people might not have the know-how or qualifications to come to a theory but one thing the majority of the public can do is join dots together and the dots laid out by the McCanns and their team do not make up for a pretty picture.

Carter Ruck have not been employed by the McCanns for protection - they have been contracted to fend off anyone having the ability not only to join dots but to colour in as well.

Anonymous said...

Freedom of Speech is not what we are discussing here. To take the example of publishing an opinion piece in a newspaper - the person writing a letter is not receiving financial compensation for that letter. Therefore, it is truly their opinion and is their right under Freedom of Speech. However, when one tries to push their "opinion" (by hiding behind a "theory") about another person and attempts to receive financial compensation for that "theory" then we have now turned from Freedom to Speech to a matter-of-fact assumption. Totally different, Pat. Like I said, if you kept your "theory" on this Blog, then Freedom of Speech remains. But to try and make money off your "theory" - all I can say is Wow!

And, as far as Freedom of Speech is concerned: While we do have that Freedom we are also Responsible and Accountable to what we say. Just because we have a Freedom doesn't mean we can excercise it when we want or against whomever we want: That other person also has Rights and Freedoms which makes Freedoms a double-edge sword....

Anonymous said...


I hope you do go to Portugal and team up with Mr Amaral. This is what the McCanns are afraid of. They don't really have any problems with the small guys who blog away to kill their daytimes but you and Mr Amaral are high-level and getting way too close for comfort for the McCanns.

I said a couple of days after the girl went missing that it would probably take a few years for this to come to an end and I still believe that. However, I do believe that end is nearing.

I believe Mr Amaral is still holding onto some vital pieces in this puzzle and given the right time, the right place and under the right circumstances; I believe he will unleash this little nugget.

Good luck to you, Pat.

Carps said...

Just read the book having downloaded it from Smashwords - a really insightful read.

On the one hand, if the McCanns are innocent of any wrongdoing, then the book *would* be incredibly hurtful (imagine losing your child and then being subject to this kind of talk).

On the other hand, however, the facts of this case - and the McCanns refusal to co-operate fully with any continuing police investigation - allied to their reasdiness to take legal action against anyone who questions their version of events is, one might say, suspect in itself.

Himself said...

Dear Ms Brown,

Please I pray, think not for a minute that my intention is to cast aspersions on your dear self or your chosen profession. For in truth I am delighted that someone of your stature has taken an interest in this case.

That said, it hardly takes a criminal profiler to come to the conclusion that there is much in this case that has, shall we say, if you will pardon the pun, a certain whiff about it.

And not least, the body language of the Doctors McCann.


Anonymous said...

Pat, the Blogradio show was excellent. As you rightly point out there many, many red flags in this story but it’s taboo in the UK for the media to discuss the case openly, much of it has been withheld from the general public (unless they’re interested enough to search the internet). The level of censorship is extraordinary as the case concerns a missing 3-year-old little girl but, as you know, the UK is steeped in corruption right now and there may yet turn out to be a connection between the two.

The mention on the show of the Lie Detector Test was interesting because in September 2007 the McCanns did offer to take the test to clear their names - it was widely publicized at the time. However, after a couple of months, they retracted that offer, the excuse being that the test would not be admissible in Portugal. Given they were lawyered-up from May 2007, they would have been well aware of that when they originally made the offer. Don Cargill concluded that it was just a PR stunt - their PR campaign is central to this case.

Now Kate McCann refuses to take a lie detector test to clear her name
…Don Cargill, chairman of the British and European Polygraph Association, said the McCanns told him they would only take the test if it was 100 per cent accurate and admissible in a Portuguese court.
He told the Sunday Express: "Kate said she'd take it to prove her innocence but in reality, she wasn't willing…

NancyB said...

I am so pleased to read your current blog post. I made a comment about Amazon's pulling of your book on your previous post. I intend to purchase today! Your response to the McCann's actions and their high powered big guns, Carter-Ruck are pitch perfect. I'm so proud of you for continuing to put the truth out there. Boy, your book really spooked the McCann's which is very very odd, in and of itself, IMO.

Anonymous said...

Pat, Scotland Yard has said they are going to review this case again and look at all the evidence. They said to contact them with any information. Have you heard about this? Can you please send them your information? Do you need their contact information? I can't believe the cadaver dogs hit on the car, the back of the couch, and Kate's pants and they still let them off! I can send you the link. Justice for Madeline! Thanks.

Anonymous said...

I read the book, but I was surprised that you only gave a passing mention to David Payne's reported visit to the McCanns' apartment on 3 May 2007. In my opinion the accounts of the visit by Kate and David are so different, and certain aspects of each account so revealing, that they warrant much further examination, and I think this may be one of the keys to solving the mystery of what happened.

Gina Bullard said...

LOL "Robert with no last name". Again brilliant brilliant brilliant!

João said...

Hi Pat!

As a portuguese I followed the case from very very close as you can imagine. I (as the rest of the portuguese population!) did not only follow what the portuguese authorities were saying, but as well what the english polititians and media were saying simply because our own media were flooding us with it, therefore there was no way to miss it, both from the portuguese police and the english investigators. You want facts? Let's go to the facts that not many people remember:

* The McCann admited in a first police inquiry that they used sedatives to put their kids to sleep.

* Some of their english neighbours admited that the mothe had a weird behaviour and very few patience with their children.

* They left their kids supposedly alone, supposedly a sleep in an apartment with the locked door but opened window about 60m away from the restaurant they were having dinner.

* The dinner, according to the waiters took about 3 hours.

* Again, according to the same waiters, they drunk 6 botles of wine (!!!!!!) in that single dinner.

* At last but not least, by knowing other english people that were there before and after, from that restaurant it is completely impossible to look to the apartment were the kids supposedly were.

Thank you so much for your book, it finally brings some justice to the case!

By the way, you are not alone in this "cruzade" against the McCann!! A few time later the portuguese investigator was fired because of the pressure of the british media and politicians. Some time after, he wrote a book that was published a bit all over europe. The McCann tried to do the same to him as they did to you but they didn't make it!Fortunately!! Here is his blog:

Go for it! Don't let yourself go down!! We are with you!!

Teresa said...

Where are you Pat?
Since your site is called The Daily Profiler you need to post more than once or twice a month please. We miss you.

Sprocket said...

Hello Pat,

I'm sorry to hear that Amazon has pulled your book.

Are you familiar with the deception expert (aka "truth wizard") Eyes For Lies?

Eyes for Lies is NOT a "psychic". She was one of 50 individuals out of 15,000 (tested by Dr. Maureen O'Sullivan & Dr. Paul Ekman of the University of San Francisco) who have an uncanny, natural ability to detect deception, lies.

You are a well respected profiler with name recognition. I thought it might be interesting to you to see how someone with a different skill set and analysis has interpreted this case.

Eyes For Lies take on the McCann case:

Anonymous said...

It's awesome - A taste of your own medicine! Amazon is excercising their "Opinion" by not allowing the book to be sold. Turn-about is fair play....

Dooley said...

"It's awesome - A taste of your own medicine! Amazon is excercising their "Opinion" by not allowing the book to be sold. Turn-about is fair play...."

It's not amazons opinion, it is the opinion of the mccanns, they just bullied amazon.

Anonymous said...

Ah, Dooley, but it is ultimately the opinion of Amazon based on information they received and the research they did. No different than what Pat herself claims that she does. It's a 2-way street my friend - always remember that.

Dooley said...

"Ah, Dooley, but it is ultimately the opinion of Amazon based on information they received and the research they did. No different than what Pat herself claims that she does. It's a 2-way street my friend - always remember that"

Wrong again, amazon did not form an opinion as they received no information. They whimpered in the corner after threats from the mccanns.
Maybe you should stop hiding behind "Anonymous", or are you that unsure of your opinion ?

Eye-of -the-storm said...

I've always admired your capacity for balanced penetrating insight and that you dare speak the truth. While noy flawless I've admired Nancy Grace for speaking up for unpopular child cases and caling a spade a spade. Seeing the unfair -unbelievable - responses you both have incurred is possibly one I used to admire John Douglas, has been to me strangely silent on these obvious and contentious cases who would have struck me as very capable of contributing constuctively, plus semi retired having less at stake. Thanks for staying in the fight to keep peoples eyes open in regard to psychopaths and the annomalies that sheild them, furthering the limited justice that can be realised.

Anonymous said...

Because we have no method of determining whether the content supplied to us is defamatory"..

Hmmm..well I imagine they would have to rely on the same means of subjective interpretation used by the attorneys who declared it was defamatory huh?

By defamatory, I imagine they mean "thought provoking, and insightful about the true nature of events which transpired, that casts an overwhelming shadow of doubt upon our clients."

I think you should look into the Aliayah Lundsford affair in Weston W.V...if you havent already. I personally disagree with the stranger abduction theories being presented, along with the "local pedophile." theory.

I imagine that as per usual my comments will be automatically deleted from your blog Miss Brown, which is fine...I don't care whether or not I can reread my comments later..the important thing is YOU read them.

You should know I have quite the knack of getting people to talk intimately where you and others of your like would be either flat out lied to, or ignored.

I have no illusions about what side of the fence I'm on, but unlike the other disorganized degenerates who go around killing the innocent...I do not stray outside of the victimilogical scope of fellow monsters.

Your book the Profiler was decent, but seemed more like an autobiographical work moreso than one which gives insight into the methodology of Deductive Behavioral Evidence Analysis. Good though...none the less.

My own methods are similar..but more agressive..since I realize that sometimes to get to the Root of Truth you must pull out all of the deceptive molars one by one.

More and moreso lately you have become more of a PR representative for your firm than a Profiler...and I eagerly anticipate the fall of your ego, and rebirth of the talent that made you who/what you are.

With fame comes ego, and with the loss of such...comes INdividuation.

good day miss brown.

Anonymous said...


WheresMyKoppy said...

Not to long after this case came to light I had a letter, well part of a letter anyway, published in PEOPLE magazine about it. Since they only published part of my letter (but the gist of my opinion was obvious), I sent the entire letter to several friends and posted it in a couple of Yahoo groups I own for my friends to read.

One of the groups is a fan group for a well known British singer and one of my members took me to task for discussing the issue in the group.

My response to her was two fold; one I wasn't 'discussing the issue', I was giving my friends a chance to read my entire letter as opposed to the excerpt PEOPLE published.

And two, the singer posted an opinion on the Madeleine McCann case on his own 'official' website. (He said at the time he thought the McCanns believed their child was safe at a 'secure' resort. He gave no opinion as to what he thought might really have happened to the child.) Therefore, being a celebrity and giving an opinion on such high profile case made it fodder for discussion amongst his fans. We haven't discussed it since because, as I've said, all I really wanted was for my friends to be able to read my entire letter.

I have not read your book, but now I am really interested in it. I don't know what happened to this lovely child, but I do know I think the McCanns were incredibly stupid and thoughtless to leave their children alone in a hotel room while they ate a leisurely, long dinner. How did they know the child(ren) would not get up and wander about? Because they were sedated?

And I also think the Portugese police did the best they could do, especially given the obstruction, nasty remarks, non cooperation and diplomatic pressure they had to deal with.

lynn said...

The mother who left her 2 children in her car whilst she went drinking and dancing has,quite rightly had the children removed by Social Services,after all one or both could have been abducted!!!! She has a suspended 4 month jail sentance,remind me please,what "punishment" did the Macaans get for their parental neglect??

Anonymous said...

Day two of the case.
may 4th /5th

british newspaper the Metro reported an interview with Kate's mother in which the gradmother said and was quoted...

"madeliene has a sleep disorder and has to be sedated "

Anonymous said...

I am very frustrated at not being able to get this book in the is after all censorship, and makes me want to read it even more

Pat Brown said...

To the person who asked me what I thought of criticism of my book from a certain person and included a link. I won't put up a comment that links to a vicious hater group that misrepresents my work. What is written is cleverly taken out of context and written in such a way that its seems credible. However, it is NOT an accurate criticism of my profiling; I suggest you read my book for yourself and contemplate my explanations. It is very popular these days to write criticisms that twist what is originally said or include ad hominem attacks. Go to the source and decide for yourself what you think.