'Profiler' Brown Wanted By The FBI! And Not In A Good Way....

Jayelles wrote:She says she'd rather it wasn't a specilist "Madeleine" blog - presumably because she doesn't want an interviewer who is too familiar with the facts.

Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann
If you participate or know of any UK blogs that might like to interview me, please contact them. A good way to get a bit more buzz would be through the well-read blogs (not blogs focused on Madeleine).

She really is a piece of work!

I know a couple of blogs she can be interviewed on

She's kidding herself if she thinks she will get anywhere in the UK with that dross.
It is worse than libellous - it is littered with innacuracies. The nearest she is going to get to the UK market is posting on Haverns.

Brilliant, Jayelles

How long do you think it will take her to hook up with that odious Bret person - they seem made for each other...

Brilliant

Hands up anyone who has seen Pat Brown on television since the Casey Anthony trial verdict.
Not even on the Nancy Grace show.

She's still twittering away - best place for her, really. She seems to have 'reality' issues - she seems unable to deal with it.

I watched 2 Piers Morgan Tonight programs on the Casey Anthony case result and there was no sign of her on either of them. I think maybe Piers has heard of her? LL

Jayelles,

crazytony wrote:Hands up anyone who has seen Pat Brown on television since the Casey Anthony trial verdict.
Not even on the Nancy Grace show.

Nah. She's cooked her chips. And I'm surprised Nancy Grace still has a Show. Has she?

Brown must hate Dayle Hinman

Am I missing something here? Is anyone actually paying any attention to these people?
Do we really need to be bored half to death?

When are they ever going to come up with something new and definitive? They just all sound so stupid now. Same old bloody same old. We have answered every question that they think they might have. And there is not one scrap of evidence against The McCanns. Not one.

These people are just sick. They hate everybody. They hated other people before The McCanns, and they will hate other people after The McCanns have long faded.

I don't know why they do this, but their lives must be really horrible.

In case anyone can get CNN, Nancy Grace is on the Piers Morgan show next week, I think Monday evening, UK time 9pm, talking about the Case Anthony trial. LL

mrs trellis wrote:

crazytony wrote:Hands up anyone who has seen Pat Brown on television since the Casey Anthony trial verdict.
Not even on the Nancy Grace show.

She was boasting on one of her FB pages (why is it that all these egotists have several?) that she had been on some show or other, slagging the jury, she said she found it hard to get a word in edgeways but all her fans were teling her how brill she was

The woman is a self seeking ignoramus. After four and a bit years of this malarky, I am a better Profiler than she will ever be. At least I can spot a sick arsehole when I see one.

Casey Anthony is Innocent, as found by a Jury of her Peers. Get over it. Unless they all want a Verdict by Opinion Poll. Let the bell toll for thee.

Don't confuse them with all that 'law' and 'proof' stuff, Sabot, you know they think justice abides at the end of a pitchfork or a noose in the hands of a lynch mob.

bb1 wrote:Don't confuse them with all that 'law' and 'proof' stuff, Sabot, you know they think justice abides at the end of a pitchfork or a noose in the hands of a lynch mob.

But what do they want for themselves, Bonny?

I watched that Trial from start to finish, and I have never seen such a disgrace in all of my life. It was a farce. No right minded person would ever have found Casey Anthony to be guilty. Of what, for f*ck sake. They never actually got around to saying. Or proving.

Yes, okay. She is probably not a very nice person, but I have to wonder how America has so abused what was originally good English Law. I nearly died a couple of times in imagining how an English Judge would have dealt with the histrionics.

Sorry, sorry. This is probably the wrong thread.

We've never been very good at all that 'on topic' stuff, Sabot..

I didn't follow every twist and turn of it, but when I did, I kept thinking, Where's the evidence? Where's the proof?

I can't say I think very much of Ms Anthony, but it was the prosecution's job to prove their case, and they didn't.

They seem to have done an awful lot of grandstanding and putting on a show; which is simply not good enough.

It is actually to the credit of the jurors and justice system that they weren't swayed by the hype and stuck to the law.

You know, Bonny, there was an awful lot of forensic stuff, but none of it amounted to anything. They were all contradicting each other, and even themselves. And not one of them proved anything, mainly because most of it is still in infant stages. As if even that was important. But none of it would have proved just how the poor child died.
Her body was so degraded that no one could tell.

I am tired of saying that LE should have listened to Roy Kronk. The fact is that they didn't.

Quite, Sabot - if they had done, then there may well have been a waterproof charge; it is irrational to blame the jury when mistakes like that have been made.

http://thehoundingofthemccans.blogspot.com/?zx=613f655ea25e7a0e

If I Was A Profiler, Tralalalalalala!

Well said, Tony!

Ah yes - found the actual verdict!

Casey Anthony has been found not guilty of first-degree murder in the 2008 death of her 2-year-old daughter Caylee. She was also found not guilty of aggravated child abuse and aggravated manslaughter.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/05/jury-reaches-verdict-in-casey-anthony-trial/

The female lawyer who helped defend her, Ms Simmons, was on Piers Morgan yesterday and I understood her to say that the prosecution fielded two witnesses who stated that Casey was a very good mother; and the staff at the prison said she was polite and not like they expected her to be. I suppose they get used to prisoners on trial often being abusive, throwing tantrums etc. I am trying to find the section re the above - if I do I will post the link. LL

That would be interesting, LL, thanks.
I read through one or two US press stories when I was trying to find the exact charges; I gather the prosecutor would enter the courthouse to rapturous applause...which is appalling, and precisely what was wrong with the whole case.
It was a murder trial, not a TV talent show.

They didn't prove child abuse because they couldn't prove that it wasn't an accident. No one ever saw Casey Anthony abuse the child, and they couldn't prove who dumped the body even. There was no other DNA at the scene and no fingerprints.
One might well assume that Casey Anthony dumped her, but an assumption isn't good enough, and certainly doesn't prove how the child died. This is where Reasonable Doubt came in.

I could makes lots of assumptions, and in fact I did, but there was no proof. The Jury did the only thing that they could.

I made a few assumptions too, Sabot, but as you say, that is not good enough.
To me, the prosecution should have spent more time on boring things, like actual evidence and proof, and less time playing to the gallery.
Oh, and it would have been an awfully good idea if someone had listened to Kronk, even if it did mean getting their feet wet.