A Final Word on the True Damage of Ad Hominem Attacks in the Madeleine McCann Case

I want to write a final statement on the subject of ad hominem attacks in the Madeleine McCann case and hope it has some effect on what I see happening across the net. Although I did write a "final post" on the case way back and stopped providing a running commentary, I have come back a number of times to make specific comments on very troubling issues. This is one of the concerning issues and applies not only to the Madeleine McCann case but the problem of ad hominem attacks in general. Whatever issue the ad hominem attacks occur within they cause nothing but destruction which often is the entire point of those dishing them out. Ad hominem attacks destroy civil conversation and often shut down any unwanted viewpoint. There is a great difference between debating a topic and attacking the debater. One furthers analysis and the other shuts it down. And that is what is happening in the McCann case.

 I am not the only one being verbally attacked; there are others who have suffered really vicious slurs, some have dealt with far worse than I. Sadly, some of those who have been attacked are attacking others themselves; hence, the antis are factionalizing while the pros are pretty much just one group. We have lost the point of what we set out to do which was bring attention to the miscarriage of justice, open the public's eyes to the police files that contain evidence that should allow the public to question the McCann's innocence, to bring attention to the fraudulent fund, and to support Gonçalo Amaral in his fight to present the case to the public.

I think everyone was one pretty much the same page until Scotland Yard stepped in. In doing so, the Yard gave legitimacy to the McCanns and the pros' standpoint. Scotland Yard's search for an abductor pretty much labeled the antis as nutters. Now, at that point, we all had two choices: convince ourselves that Scotland Yard really was on our side and it is just a matter of time before they bring down the McCanns and we all are vindicated or accept that no such thing is going to happen and we are all pretty much just going to have to live with never seeing justice and being labeled conspiracy theorists and idiots.

I chose the latter because that is reality to me. It is sad and frustrating and certainly not ego-enhancing but it is the way things work. My hope is simply that enough people will eventually recognize that Scotland Yard had a remit that was political in nature and, in the future, we need to work to separate justice from political manipulation. I want to highlight that the McCann case was a gross perversion of how missing children's cases should be handled and publicized, how private funds  in such cases should be questioned and vetted before money simply handed over to be abused. I want the case to be understood because I believe that early proper analysis can prevent homicides and missing persons' cases from going unsolved and unprosecuted.

Others choose to believe the former, that Scotland Yard will come through. And, some, I believe, have gone further and further into complicated scenarios because they doubt that this is really going to happen and the more complicated the crime and the deeper the corruption, the easier it is to eventually live with the closing of this case as an abduction. I believe that when this happens, we will see years and years of continued obsession with these complex theories because many will need to keep doing so in order to counter the claim that the antis were dead wrong in their assessment of the McCanns. And I am not saying people don't have a right to delve into what ever they want, a speculate in any way they wish, I am not calling these people names and libeling them with all sorts of false claims; I am just pointing out that as a profiler I have seen excessive spinning of theories whenever a case doesn't see justice and, such theories rarely benefit the understanding of the case and the lack of justice served.

Nothing sucks like having the world label you as a moron or lunatic for spending years fighting for something that wasn't even true. I know because I have had that label put on me and there is no way to fight back because the truth is buried and likely will remain so. Watch the Jack Nickolson movie, The Pledge for a great example of this. I saw that movie years ago and I remember telling people that when I fight for justice in certain cases, if I don't win, this is exactly what will happen to me. And it has. And it isn't pleasant.

I don't believe that all that has been done in the McCann case has been for nothing even if the legal state of the case goes south. I believe it is always important that people speak out and question. And, when Scotland Yard shuts this case down, I do appreciate that the work of many people (even my detractors) will remain in public view.

The only thing I wish people would understand is that if we tear each other to shreds, the legacy left won't be a very good one and this can destroy all the good work done until now. Everyone who is now attacking me for my stance on Scotland Yard and my theory of the crime occurring on May 3rd is essentially is telling the public who reads of the case in the future that they can discount everything I said. Because there are attacks on Amaral, we can also discount everything he said. Because there are attacks on Joana Morais, we can discount everything she said. Because there are attacks on Tony Bennett, we can discount everything he said, because there are attacks on Sonia Poulton, we can discount everything she said, because there are attacks on Hideho, we can discount everything she said, and on and on.

Who will then be left to consider credible? I guess no one but the pros.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— 
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— 
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.


Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

April 25, 2015

By Pat Brown

Rating: 

Published: July 27, 2011

What really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann in Praia da Luz, Portugal in 2007? Was she abducted as the Gerry and Kate have claimed or did something happen to Madeleine on May 3 in the vacation apartment and the incident covered up? Criminal Profiler Pat Brown analyzes the evidence and takes the readers through the steps of profiling, developing a theory that is intriguing and controversial.

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Just Say Yes to Net Neutrality

Justice Department Says No To Net Neutrality

The Justice Department announced today that Internet service providers should be permitted to charge customers extra fees to access certain web sites or to load some web sites faster than others.

“The agency told the Federal Communications Commission, which is reviewing high-speed Internet practices, that it is opposed to "Net neutrality," the principle that all Internet sites should be equally accessible to any Web user."

That’s right; the cable and telephone companies want to charge us more money to load some web sites that were previously available to anyone with access to the World Wide Web.

Wait, it gets better.

"The Justice Department said imposing a Net neutrality regulation could hamper development of the Internet and prevent service providers from upgrading or expanding their networks. It could also shift the "entire burden of implementing costly network expansions and improvements onto consumers," the agency said in its filing."

Um… Isn’t charging extra fees to access web pages and content (which the ISP does not even own) the same thing as shifting the "entire burden of implementing costly network expansions and improvements onto consumers”? Keep in mind the added cost would be billed to customers who already pay more for high-speed Internet access than for dial-up, which is reasonable-up until now, anyway.

After the ridiculously inadequate explanation of the economic disadvantages of Net Neutrality for consumers, the Justice Department gives an example of the validity of allowing providers to charge us extra for mouse clicks.

"The agency said providing different levels of service is common, efficient and could satisfy consumers. As an example, it cited that the U.S. Postal Service charges customers different guarantees and speeds for package delivery, ranging from bulk mail to overnight delivery."

WTF? Loading web pages that are currently freely accessible and independently hosted and maintained by individuals and entities is similar to the labor and resources needed to transport packages by ground and air….how? "Could satisfy consumers?" You've got to be kidding me

I usually conclude that powerful government agencies make stupid statements like these because they arrogantly believe the general public are idiots. But lately I am considering the possibility that they aren’t arrogant at all, or thinking much of anything other than their greedy little thoughts because they're the ones who are morons.

My Cable TV and Internet service is provided by Comcast Cable Nazis. Two things already piss me off big time about their service. First, in order to receive network channels such as TBS, TNT, etc, it is necessary to buy the “Standard Cable Package” that includes “Basic and Expanded Cable.” Tough luck if you only wish to subscribe to a couple of HBO channels and nothing else because you must purchase the Standard Package before adding “Premium Cable” services. Not only do you have to buy “packages” or channels you don’t want in order to get others you do want, you have to pay money to view 3-5 minutes of local commercial advertising for every 10-15 minutes of programming on an out of state network channel. If I can pay for HBO with no commercial interruptions, why do I have to pay to watch something on an expanded cable station and still have to endure incessant commercial advertising too? Not to mention paying for 2 golf channels, 5 home shopping channels, and 30-minute infomercials on most of the other “Standard Cable” channels that I don’t want.

The second problem I have with the Cable Nazis is when calling their customer service line (3-4 times a month) due to Internet service interruptions; I spend 15 or more minutes on hold listening to nothing but sales pitches for additional services. Ok, I confess. I rather enjoy pointing out to the unfortunate tech help person that finally takes my call that the last thing a frustrated customer who is waiting for technical help wants to hear is repeated requests to spend more money on something that is not even working at the moment.

Start calling your legislators folks, or this one may sneak right past us. The Cable Nazis will not get so much as a penny from me for something I already do, no way.

Donna Weaver