JAYELLES 1, B$OWN 0 - B$OWN FLOUNCES!!!!

Yes, folks, Bushmeat Patty has flounced off, taking her posts with her:

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Profiler-Pat-Brown-uses-Anne-Bremner-to-sue-Kate-and-Gerry-McCann/243809885675504

She was so traumatised by posters saying, Actually, you are talking rubbish, that she flounced off with this tweetstatement:




Oh, boo hoo

Back to FB:




Pat Brown Dear Administrator, I removed this post because you are not following your statement of not allowing vicious attacks against those posting, I being one of them.


'Twould bring a tear to a glass eye, wouldn't it? How long does B$own think she will last in court, if she puts on a display like this over adverse comments on the internet?

If she cannot discuss it for legal reasons, she cannot promote it, either. She really should write to B & N, and to Smashwords, and ask them to withdraw her leaflet pending the end of the court case.

She wouldn't even last 5 seconds. She would get loads of media attention though. Although I don't think the embarrassment and humiliation would help her TV *cough* wannabe career.

TV networks over here (as they would also pick up on this) can be so darn cruel.

Oh my, now B$own is trying to law down the law and censor the site:

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Profiler-Pat-Brown-uses-Anne-Bremner-to-sue-Kate-and-Gerry-McCann/243809885675504



Profiler Pat Brown uses Anne Bremner to sue Kate and Gerry McCann Under fair usage terms I believe I am entitled to use this extract. It is from the published work by Pat Brown entitled Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine Mccann available here http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/76820
25 minutes ago · 1

Pamela Gurney It is displayed in other places on fb so why should it not be displayed here?
24 minutes ago

Pamela Gurney It disgusts me reading this!!
23 minutes ago

Profiler Pat Brown uses Anne Bremner to sue Kate and Gerry McCann To explain my fair use post above. Pat had posted here that she required the short extract from her book to be removed. I have replied that I believe under fair usage tems I believe it is perfectly valid for me to post the short extract.
20 minutes ago · 2

For some reason, B$own doesn't want her Bushmeat Theory discussed. Whyever not? They are her words - don't tell me she is ashamed of them?

Here's the link again:

http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/s320x320/392634_251513304905162_243809885675504_688816_292043653_n.jpg

I haven't posted it, because the type comes up eye-strainingly small on this site.

Didn't she want her fanclub knowing about it?

Oh, I get it now. She only wants to sell her Leaflet, she doesn't want to talk about it. So she saw this Face Book Page as a means to an end. A bit like she saw Amazon. She's just a Hustler.

I smell a Copyright threat coming on. I think we should all post a different extract from her Leaflet, and then everyone can read it, just like she wants them to.
And then she can sue us all. Individually, that is.

and

http://thehoundingofthemccans.blogspot.com/2011/11/game-set-and-match-to-poster-jayelles.html

B$own going to be demanding mccannfiles and others remove the Bushmeat Theory, is she? Didn't her cult followers know it's all over the internet, and it's a bit too late for her to be issuing demands?

If she's like this now, what is she going to be like when the Bushmeat Theory is read out in court, in front of the media?

stupid woman isn't she?

She's bitten off more than she can chew

edit to add:

can anyone who has links to the screenshots of the bushmeat, the present that just keeps giving etc, put them all on one page so I can tweet/retweet/put them on FB etc pretty please?

Why is B$own suddenly so shy about her Bushmeat Theory? She seems to be very fond of that one...

What was it she said on Websleuths?

AT BROWN So sometimes people bury people they’ve killed or had accidental deaths or whatever the reason is. The ones they don’t want to be investigated. They bury the child or the other person on their own property because, yeah, without a search warrant nobody’s walking on your property to find that person. Then you can say, “Look everywhere. Look everywhere in the world.” Because you don’t have to worry about her ever being found, least not the body being found.

TRICIA GRIFFITH Okay. I, I don’t know. That just sounds really creepy and I… You’ve been to London through Heathrow and everything. If they did take the airport or an airline it would be hard because they have all of those, you know, animal dogs or food dogs there sniffing to see if there’s food and…

PAT BROWN Do you know how much meat gets through? Thats one of the things I pointed out.

TRICIA GRIFFITH I know its a big problem, a big problem

PAT BROWN There was a big problem with huge quantities of meat going through the airport. They were smuggling meat straight through Heathrow.

rhodes wrote:stupid woman isn't she?

She's bitten off more than she can chew

edit to add:

can anyone who has links to the screenshots of the bushmeat, the present that just keeps giving etc, put them all on one page so I can tweet/retweet/put them on FB etc pretty please?

Tony has done just that, Rhodes:

http://thehoundingofthemccans.blogspot.com/2011/11/game-set-and-match-to-poster-jayelles.html

Enjoy!

ta

I bet she is going to back out and claim Unfair Bias by us Paid Trolls on The Internet by spreading all of those horrible, untrue rumours about her and her useless Profiling.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that she was struggling for money, probably because her Profiling Business wasn't doing too well. So she could well have seen Madeleine as a nice little earner from the thicko Brits. Unfortunately there aren't as many of them as first she thought, so now she could be getting desperate. She wouldn't like being on Food Stamps in case it gets out.

But they are all her own words, Sabot, or material from her peers and US blogs.
I don't think she wanted her fans to know about the Bushmeat Theory.


Good Grief! How typical for me to miss all the drama!

You sure did, I was shouting at the screen, telling it to show you online

You may have missed another piece of spiteful, childish behaviour from B$own yesterday, Jayelles.

You know the Twilight movies? Vampire movies for a young market? B$own boasted that she went to see the latest one:

We are going to mock & snicker & roll our eyes, etc.)

What on earth can you say about a woman in her fifties who goes to the cinema to deliberately disrupt a movie, and spoil it for young people who are enjoying it?

As for yesterday's VERY BIG TANTY -

Does anyone know, is this B$own's doing?

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Free-Speech-and-the-Case-of-Missing-Madeleine-McCann/289817064392209

Because if so, she is ALREADY ignoring what she said when she flounced yesterday:



She should also ask B & N and Smashwords to remove her leaflet from sale.

She seems to have as much idea about the law as she does about 'profiling' = ZILCH.

B$own is going to be shown up as the rank, no-nothing amateur she is if she is foolish enough to take this to court.

She goes to a great deal of trouble to insist her pamphlet is just a theory and then goes on to make libelous statements.
After a quick look at UK libel laws last night, I can say without a shadow of doubt, SHE'S GERFLUCKED

crazytony wrote:She goes to a great deal of trouble to insist her pamphlet is just a theory and then goes on to make libelous statements.
After a quick look at UK libel laws last night, I can say without a shadow of doubt, SHE'S GERFLUCKED

Are all Profilers' Profiles just Theories? If so, what is the purpose of said Profiles, especially if several Profilers submit different Profiles on the same Case?
This could cause a lot of bother. If you ask me.

She is indeed, Tony - she is a very foolish woman. Any reasonable person would have acted like a grown-up and dealt with the issue, instead of throwing a succession of hissy fits.

She has got herself into more hot water with this:



She has admitted that there is a legal issue with the leaflet - but she is still promoting it.

She's brought all this on herself; for all anyone knows, she only needed to remove one phrase - she could start with the statement that there was lichen on the window ledge - that always makes me chuckle

Bennett has removed libellous material before now - not with any good grace, I admit - but when even Bennett has acted more sensibly, it really says it all.

A rational grown-up would have found out what the problem was and dealt with it; instead, B$own has chosen to take the road to absolute ruin.

Still, what else can you expect from a woman her age who goes to teenage movies purely to disrupt them

Sabot wrote:

crazytony wrote:She goes to a great deal of trouble to insist her pamphlet is just a theory and then goes on to make libelous statements.
After a quick look at UK libel laws last night, I can say without a shadow of doubt, SHE'S GERFLUCKED

Are all Profilers' Profiles just Theories? If so, what is the purpose of said Profiles, especially if several Profilers submit different Profiles on the same Case?
This could cause a lot of bother. If you ask me.

I can only go back to Dayle Hinman again, Sabot - she is very rational and logical.

She doesn't look at a crime scene and say, He done it, I know this because he is scratching his ear.

If a crime scene involves, say, a car being abandoned in the middle of nowhere, she will suggest that whoever put it there is probably local, to know about the back roads.

There is a world of difference between that sort of logic, and B$own's glorified fortune-telling, IMO.

Every time I look at B$own's leaflet, I am aghast all over again at the sheer number of inaccuracies in it. Just pick any paragraph at random, and it will be strewn with them.

Look at this -

The dogs hit on some of Kate's clothes

No, 'the dogs' didn't. Eddie played with some items; these items were never sent for forensic testing by the PJ. And the grown-ups know why; by this time, everything was so jumbled up and contaminated, from floors, from police handling, from dogs walking on them, etc., the whole 'dog' business was worthless.

Notice B$own doesn't bother mentioning that senior members of the PJ weren't happy with the Wonderdogs?

Mind you, as she hasn't bothered to read the final police files, she won't have bothered to read the PJ review, either.

The grown-ups have:

From the screening of the videos, referred previously, done when the dogs were working, some doubts arise. We don't want and we can't take the place of the trainer, we only wish to alert, with this paragraph, to some facts, that according to us, need further clarification.

If the dog is trained to react when he detects what he is looking for, why, in most of the cases, we see the dog passing more than once by that place in an uninterested way, until he finally signals the place where he had already passed several times'

On one of the films, it's possible to see that 'Eddie' sniffs Madeleine's cuddle cat, more than once, bites it, throws it into the air and only after the toy is hidden does he 'mark' it (page 2099). Whys didn't he signal it when he sniffs it on the first time'

That is a senior member of the PJ - and so is this:

This summarized description raises a question that we would like to see answered: could the dog be 'marking' not the odours emanated from a cadaver, directly or indirectly (by contagious), but from blood in putrefaction'


I am sure everyone has seen the way the McCann-haters attempt to portray any attack on Team Gonc as being xenophobic, and an attack on Portugal.

As usual with them, that is a complete reversal of the truth. It is Team Gonc themselves who soil the image of Portugal; sadly, any police force in the world has a few bad apples. The lack of support for Gonc in Portugal is clear, from Morais only managing to get five people outside the Lisbon court to cheer him on, and the failure of his latest book.

Unless, of course, the McCann-haters think Portugal deserves no better than the likes of Gonc? If so, they must hold Portugal in contempt.

http://thehoundingofthemccans.blogspot.com/2011/11/please-tell-me-she-read-files-please.html


Stunning, Tony!



Top of the list is Stevo, of 'Madeleine has no neck' infamy. Says it all, really.

Sabot wrote:

crazytony wrote:She goes to a great deal of trouble to insist her pamphlet is just a theory and then goes on to make libelous statements.
After a quick look at UK libel laws last night, I can say without a shadow of doubt, SHE'S GERFLUCKED

Are all Profilers' Profiles just Theories? If so, what is the purpose of said Profiles, especially if several Profilers submit different Profiles on the same Case?
This could cause a lot of bother. If you ask me.

Law Enforcement usually only use one profiler who has been tried and tested.
Retired FBI profilers and those holding forensic psychology degrees are the preferred choice.

I've seen retired FBI profilers, etc., on the crime channels here, Tony, and they make sense, they are on top of their subject, and think clearly and logically.

B$own's utterances bear no resemblance to the work the genuine articles produce. But, like any good carny act, she knows her audience, and how gullible they are.