Freedom of Speech, the McCanns, and Searching for Maddie

by Pat Brown

I have been getting a lot of questions about my search fund to be established with monies from the sale of my book, Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Some of the stuff certain folks are saying is seriously ridiculous, so I thought it best I make a clear statement with simple points they can understand.

1. I am not giving or receiving any monies from the McCanns' search fund.

2. At present, 50% of monies received from the sale of the Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann will go to the Pat Brown Maddie Search Fund. The other 50% earned from the book is income, not donations. I am selling a product and do not have to donate all earnings (or any) to charitable causes (however, I do pro bono work on other cases as there are OTHER missing and murdered children and adults than Madeleine in this world, so part of my earnings through any means funds this). I have chosen to donate 50% of the book's earnings to my Maddie search fund since she is the focus of this book.

3. The Pat Brown Maddie Search Fund monies will be not be spent on a personal salary (any time spent will be pro bono). Monies will be used for expenses related to doing a search: travel, equipment, hiring of local PIs, or bringing in experts.

4. If I can cover any search expenses by another other method (media, work in the same location, etc.), then I will do so. I always endeavor to always keep costs low when I do pro bono work so that the funds will stretch further: inexpensive hotels, staying with local people, cheap meals, etc.). If I choose to spend above the cheapest rate I can achieve, I pay out-of-pocket.

5. The Pat Brown Maddie Search Fund will be transparent with all monies earned on the book tracked, all monies put into the account tracked, and all monies spent tracked. A full account will be made to the public of everything associated with my fund and my searches.

6. The Pat Brown Maddie Search Fund has no connection with the McCanns' search fund and the McCanns have not given my fund any endorsement. However, it would seem to me if I search in previously untargeted places and either locate Madeleine or eliminate those possibilities, then the search is nothing but beneficial to the McCanns and is following in the spirit of "Leaving No Stone Unturned."

7. There are four theories as to what happened to Madeleine which influence how one searches for the child; whether one thinks she is dead or alive.

One:, the child died accidentally in the apartment in Praia da Luz and there was a cover-up; then we are looking for a dead child in Portugal, Spain, or England.

Two: a local pedophile abducted Madeleine; then we are looking for a dead child in Praia da Luz, Portugal or nearby.

Three: A woman wanted a little girl and got a man to kidnap Madeleine. Then we are looking for a live child somewhere in the world.

Four: A pedophile sex ring kidnapped Madeleine and she is being raped and abused on a continuing basis. Then we are looking for a live child somewhere in the world.

Now, as one only has limited funds (even the McCanns, although they have been quite hefty), it behooves one to put the strongest efforts into the most likely scenario. If the McCanns were not involved in any way (other than neglect) in the disappearance of their daughter, they ought to be using kindhearted people's donations in the most proper way; looking for a pedophile who abducted, raped and murdered their little girl, get him arrested and convicted so that Madeleine gets justice, and prevent another little girl from the same horrible fate. They should be putting a good portion of their search and investigative efforts into locating a local child sex predator.

Why? Because the methodology and descriptions of how Madeleine was supposedly kidnapped and by whom match a person from the area without even a vehicle to take her away in. There is zero evidence of any fancy plot nor even a person smart enough to park a vehicle in the car park right outside the window of Madeleine's bedroom in with which to make a quick getaway. Instead, we have the purported actions and descriptions of some creepy, not-so-bright fellow walking down the street with a child in his arms in full view of everyone. The chances of Madeleine being taken by a desperate wanna-be-Mom or a sex ring are minimal.

Should the McCanns still consider these rare possibilities and still look for a living Madeleine? Well, I can't blame the McCanns (if innocent) for wanting to believe their daughter is alive, so I can understand and accept that they want to put some efforts into that miracle possibility. However, they should be honest enough and good enough stewards of donated monies I(if innocent) to admit the likelihood of Madeleine being dead is very, very high and the likelihood of her being buried somewhere in Praia da Luz or environs is also very, very high. Their efforts should be concentrated there, with some monies set aside for the miracle.

So, I will be focusing on the two top theories; that Madeleine died in an accident and her body was hidden somewhere, or a local pedophile took her and her body is buried locally. IF it turns out that I get ANY information that proves Madeleine was abducted or if any evidence turns up that points to her murder by a stranger, this information will go straight to the police and the McCanns. If Maddie was abducted and murdered by a child predator, I want justice for Maddie and I want that creep put away and I want other children to be safe from him.

My theory as I laid out in my Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann is just that; a theory. If evidence surfaces that changes my view of what happened to Madeleine, I have no problem disclosing this and adjusting my theory. Theories change based on available evidence; hence, they are called theories, not facts. Theories often change over time, even those postulated by law enforcement and the McCanns. Even Kate admits in her book, Madeleine, her theories of what happened that night have undergone change as she has spent more time analyzing the evidence or after receiving new information.

Why the McCanns had Carter-Ruck threaten Amazon with legal action to get a theory removed from public view is curious as it is only a theory, an opinion, one person's take on probabilities based on what is known at this point in time. Perhaps we will find out why they went to these lengths when the McCanns get on the witness stand in a court of law (when my lawsuit for libel and tortious interference with business makes it to court; I have retained prominent attorney Anne Bremner of Stanford Frey Cooper). Perhaps, then, they will explain why one person's opinion is so concerning they need to go to extremes to get have it silenced.

Madeleine McCann is the most recognized missing child in the world, with the most media attention of any missing child in the world. Unless I am mistaken, more money has been donated to finding Madeleine McCann than any child in the world. My Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann should hardly affect such a large and successful (moneywise) campaign; so one wonders if the real issue the McCanns have with my profile is that my theory might actually be correct.

I believe in Freedom of Speech. I don't object to the theories of others on cases even if they differ from mine. I don't even object to someone analyzing my theory and writing their opinion of it. I would never try to shut down their viewpoint (even when things are taken out of context and misrepresented in some way); I merely suggest that interested people go to the source and compare the two viewpoints and think for themselves about what theories and concepts are more supportable by evidence and logic.

The McCanns could simply have ignored this profiler's opinion on Madeleine's disappearance or made a statement that they do not think my analysis is very good. If the book was truly libelous as they claimed through their solicitors, Carter-Ruck, they should have informed me of this or sued me directly. Instead, they went behind the scenes and had the book pulled from the market. Inquiring minds wonder why.

I will be in Portugal in February to support Detective Amaral's fight against the McCanns in court, to begin search analysis, and to hear just what Gerry and Kate McCann have to say.

May the truth come out one day and justice for Madeleine McCann prevail.

The Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann is available online through Barnes & Noble and Smashwords.

Tweet

Casey's Freedom May Be The Worst Punishment

by Dr. Lillian Glass

I, along with the rest of the world, am livid that Casey was found not guilty and will be released into the free world. After hearing that juror number three stated that the jurors were sick to their stomach and cried, I felt sick to my stomach hearing what she said. When she said that not guilty does not mean innocent, I realized that the wrong jury was chosen for justice to be served. Not guilty should mean innocent, and if she and the rest of the jury believed Casey was not innocent they needed to come back with a guilty verdict.

Eleven hours is not enough time to weigh all the information in a six-week trial. Juror number three and an alternate said that the Prosecution didn’t prove their case. They did not tell how her toddler Caylee died. I think the juror didn’t look at all the data. I think the prosecution did tell how she died, in my view. If they would have spent more than 11 hours they would have known this.

Based on what the alternate said and now juror number three, they liked defense attorney Jose Baez better. And please stop accusing me of loving Jose Baez and being partial to him. I only report what I see. He has presented himself well since day one, and even prosecutor Jeff Ashton said that on his media tour. Whether you like it or not, Baez came across very likable to the jury as opposed to Ashton. The bottom line is they listened to him and what he had to say and they bought it. In fact, the alternate said that the jury didn’t like it when George Anthony argued with Baez.

People do not realize the power of body language and communication. Well, here it is in action. They liked Jose Baez more and that is why they went with what he said. That is why Casey Anthony is going free on Sunday, July 17. Look at Scott Peterson. He was convicted on circumstantial evidence. Why couldn’t this happen to Casey? The reason boils down to body language and communication skills of the attorneys.

I, along with everyone else, am also livid that Casey will become a millionaire after she is released. But even if she sells photos of herself and Caylee, and even if she appears on shows, there are a lot of people who will rebel and boycott. Apparently Paradigm Entertainment in Beverly Hills signed her and had to drop her immediately because of the public complaints.

Sadly, there will be people who will offer her book and movie deals. She may be offered money for interviews through a third party so it looks like they had nothing to do with paying her for the interview. She may even make money selling Caylee dolls for which her lying mother Cindy got the trademark. Foreign entities may pay her handsomely for her interviews and photo shoots. 

Since Casey loves attention, loves to showcase her body and has no sexual inhibitions, she may very well take a porn company up on their offer. This would no doubt be in the millions of dollars. However, Steve Hirsch at Vivid Entertainment felt the pressure of even possible death threats and loss of his fan and customer base after he offered Casey a million dollars for an XXX Rated movie and quickly reneged on it. I am sure that the public’s pressure will continue with anyone who offers her money.

If mainstream TV shows put her on and interview her, the public will transfer their hatred toward Casey onto them.They will boycott any program or station that has her on television. Even if film projects arise people will boycott them. The public will not stand for her capital gain. There will be protests and threats and they will escalate. Casey will not live in peace for one moment. She may have been better off in prison where there would be more protection for her than there would be on the outside. On death row, there would be even more protection.

Now there are more people to hate her, and anything she does will be met with hatred and protest, and even possible violence. No one will ever hire her. No one will ever buy a book by her because they will boycott a book that is no doubt filled with lies. Even if she goes to the grocery store or shopping for clothes she will be met with protesters and taunts. Anyone with whom she associates or whom she dates will be taunted and regarded as a villain. If her parents are now receiving death threats for their lies and possible perceived involvement, can you imagine what will happen to Casey?

As Baez, Mason and Ms. Simms move on with their own lives and on to other cases, Casey will quickly discover that they are not her friends after all. They will want to distance themselves from her as they too experience harassment.

She can’t travel because she will be followed and harassed. Restaurants will kick her out like they did OJ Simpson. Neighbors will rebel. The clubs she once loved and frequented won’t allow her in them. She will discover that she will be prisoner in her own home. She will never have a moment of peace. People will protest outside her home forever. They may damage her vehicles. No security can stop this. By the time the protesters get through with Casey, she may wish she was sitting in a jail cell.

Tweet

Revisiting the First Amendment

by Katherine Scardino

A few weeks ago, one of our very fine contributors, Stacy Dittrich, wrote a blog for Women in Crime Ink about the scumbag (her word, but joined by me!), Phillip Greaves, who wrote the how-to book on being a good pedophile. It is hard to believe that one of our human race could and would write a book about doing harm to our children. I cannot even imagine a more low-class, vile subject for a book available to the world via the Internet and Amazon.com.

However, this vile subject is one that we have to talk about because it reaches far beyond Greaves and the subject of how to be a pedophile. In 1775 and 1776, our forefathers crafted a very powerful document, known as the Constitution of the United States of America, which is the supreme law of the land that we live by today. The First Amendment to the Constitution deals with freedom of speech, and you must note that it is the First Amendment. I believe it could have been decided by these fervent and patriotic men that freedom of speech was the most important right that they wanted their descendants to honor. Why? It is possibly due to the fact that the first Americans fled England because they were not allowed to express their desires or opinions about their personal or political lives. They did not want their new world to evolve into the same type of environment that they had just escaped.

So, today, we are in a quandary. There is a man from Colorado named Philip Greaves, and if you looked up the word pedophile in Merriam-Webster’s dictionary, you would probably see this idiot’s photograph. I hate to even write his name in this article, because I would not want to add to his obvious need for publicity. But he wrote a book detailing how to conduct yourself as a pedophile. Truly disgusting!

There are people, as Ms. Dittrich stated, who are “defending this type of behavior, all for the sake of the good old United States Constitution.” I am a person who is defending everyone’s right to freedom of speech, as long as that free speech does not break any existing laws on obscenity and pornography. Yes, I will defend the right of every U.S. citizen to be free to speak their minds on any subject they wish, as long as it is legal. I know of no one who would welcome a world where we, as citizens, could be criticized, or worse, thrown in jail for speaking one’s mind.

Remember back in the early '70s during the Vietnam debacle when 19-year-old college student Paul Cohen was convicted of disturbing the peace when, inside a Los Angeles courthouse, he wore a T-shirt saying “F*** the Draft.” The U.S. Supreme Court overturned his conviction, and opined that it was not illegal for him to wear that T-shirt since it was his constitutional right to speak his views.

Now, I will openly admit that announcing one’s opinion on a current event via a T-shirt is very different from Greaves’ how-to book. I heard legal affairs writer Jeffrey Toobin state his opinion on CNN last Sunday evening on AC360. Mr. Toobin said he believed it was not against the law for this scumbag to write a book on this subject since it depicted no photographs, only words. Herein lies the issue. What exactly is pornography? U.S. Supreme Court justices have struggled to establish an appropriate balance between the protection of free speech and the laws that are enacted to curtail the spread of pornography.

In the 1982 case of New York v. Ferber, which was also cited by Ms. Dittrich in her article, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a state statute that prohibited anyone from knowingly producing, promoting, directing, exhibiting, or selling any material showing a sexual performance by a child under the age of 16. It defined sexual performance as any performance that included “actual or simulated sexual intercourse, deviate sexual intercourse, sexual bestiality, masturbation, sado-masochistic abuse, or lewd exhibition of the genitals.” This means that, like obscenity, child pornography enjoys no First Amendment protection and the government can restrict its availability to everyone. In the case of electronic or computer transmission, it is a federal offense to knowingly receive child pornography.

So, what is obscene material? In 1973, the Supreme Court decided in the case of Miller v. California that obscene materials are defined as those that the average person, applying contemporary community standards, find, taken as a whole, appeal to the prurient interest; that depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law; and that, taken as a whole, lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. The Miller decision provided states greater freedom in prosecuting alleged purveyors of obscene material because, for the first time since prior cases, a majority of the court agreed on a definition of obscenity.

The community standards portion of the decision is of particular relevance with the rise of the Internet, as materials believed by some to be explicit can be accessed from anywhere in the nation, including places where there is a greater concern about obscenity than is found in other areas of the nation. Perhaps the community where this man initially wrote this book (Colorado) is more lenient than the community where he mailed a copy to the FBI agent (Florida) and where he is currently in jail unable to make his $15,000 bond.

I have to ask, however, is it illegal to write a book describing how to be a good prostitute? Prostitution is illegal, just like child pornography and child sexual abuse. Why is it okay for genitalia to be exposed in photographs found in Hustler or Playboy magazines? Just because the subject matter is not one which some of us, although obviously not all of us, find appropriate does not mean it is illegal. The people who enjoy reading and viewing this material have the right to do so. We have the right not to read or view the material or to contribute any money to the sales of these publications.

So, the issue for the legal pundits and authorities will boil down to whether the words written by this imbecile from Colorado constitutes child pornography and is obscene material. I will not read this book, so I cannot state a firm opinion one way or the other. However, I do believe that it is important material for a solid discussion of our First Amendment to the good old United States Constitution, and I always welcome that.

Tweet