Pat Brown compares Lisa case to other cases.

[MissJames]

Someone posted it above and I just read it. It is a huge jump she is making, and her claims are incorrect, yet people appear to be basing their opinions on what she says. has she actually actively worked on this case - interviewed the mother looked at her medical notes etc. It is also a huge jump to get a masters in criminal justice and then claim to be able to disgnose mental health and causes of death (unnatural death via SIDs) without ever speaking to a person who reading their notes. Even actual medical rpofessionals require these to make diagnoses.

I believe she was falling back on info released in actual cases .She didn't have to work on them to read and study the info gathered by others who were working on the cases in their area of expertise.I believe she often interviews other professionals to gather this info.

When she is asked to express her opinions from what she has learned studying other cases ,that is what she does . She's a profiler .She bases her opinions on what she has learned studying other cases. JMHO

My son's service dog can track .It may not pass peer review,but for our family ,his ability to use his sense of smell to find my autistic son can mean the difference between life and death. I trust the trained dogs .

 

[MissJames]

Ah Ok, I had read somewhere that she did go looking for a body in a public area, that would have been illegal beyond belief. can you imagine the coversation with the PJ - so you just happened to travel thouands of miles, just happened to decide to spend your holiday digging up areas of public property, and just happened to find a body - there was not any information you should have shared was there??

Edit: I just read an old tweet of hers that says
"PAT BROWN ‏@ProfilerPatB

Why I believe Madeleine McCann is buried, in Monte do Jose Mestre & if I get the funds, I will search it. #McCann"

She is not allowed to just go an search public property (unless it involves just looking and no digging), and once she sets foor it Portugal or the UK she is not allowed to woithold evidence or to interfere with an investigation by making her own searches. All she is legally allowed to do is pass on the information she has to the police.

Please link to where you found that tweet info. TIA

 

[MissJames]

Oh big time on the Madeline McCann case. She even went to Praia de Luz in Portugal to check for herself and has written a book.

That said, I don't think these 2 cases are at all similar.

I know she did research on her own,but did she actually work the case with LE?

 

[KsStormy]

http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.com/2012/03/criminal-profiling-topic-of-day-find.html

this post says she was in Portugal with a retired British police officer and did some digging.
Didn't find anything, apparently.

Should this continue in the Madeleine forum since it's nothing to do with Lisa any more?

I wish people would stick to THIS case on this forum. :banghead:

 

[MissJames]

I still think she went too far, and the language she uses is not professional (if it really is her, and surely if she is a profesional she would not speak like that). In the Uk at least after the meadows scandal the theory that cot death was really unnatural causes has been thrown out of the window. The fact that cot death went from 300 a year to 300 a yera after the advice on sleeping position changed also helped to discount the theory.
Even making a speculative disgnosis is hugely unprofessional.

Here is a link to a report on SIDS or Serial Murder? Munchausen by Proxy
http://jimfisher.edinboro.edu/forensics/fire/proxy.html

No one is saying all SIDS deaths are actually murders or unnatural causes ,only that there have been cases that were labeled SIDS but were actually murders to gain attention and sympathy much like faking a miscarriage.
No,you can't fake a miscarriage with medical experts ,but anyone can lie to their family ,friends or co-workers about having a miscarriage.
The point is that they are all similar to parents who have Munchausen by Proxy.They will poison their children and cause them to suffer multiple medical procedures because they enjoy the attention and sympathy they receive as the suffering parent.

 

[MissJames]

I wish people would stick to THIS case on this forum. :banghead:

The subject of the thread is : Pat Brown compares Lisa case to other cases.
Kinda hafta discuss the other cases part to argue the point ,right :waitasec:

 

[Cappuccino]

Oh sorry. I misunderstood. I'm "friends" with her on facebook and if I have time today after the Drew Peterson trial, I'll ask.

Did you ever get the time to ask her whether or not she has ever been employed as a professional consultant to LE on any of the cases she pontificates about?

She's a talking head, IMO. I'm as qualified as she is to give a criminal profile. :banghead:

 

[hambirg]

Y'all are cracking me up!

Pat Brown is a profiler/pundit. What she writes on her blog is her opinion. Take it or leave it. She's not any different than any other "professional" that gives their opinion on tv. I don't agree with every "expert" no matter how qualified they may be.

What I find amusing and ironic is that we are now discussing her credentials because she gave an opinion in a case where we have a "private investigator" who was brought in to "investigate" this case and to help find Lisa, who is not a private investigator and has done nothing to "investigate." :floorlaugh:

 

[Sabot]

Link please, I have not heard of this.

FWIW I have never known a case attract so many nutters as the MM case both "pro" and "anti"

It's on one of her Blogs, along with the fact that she took a metal detector with her in the hope of finding the metal rings on a Blue Bag in which Madeleine was supposedly buried. The actual existence of such a bag has never been proved.

 

[brit1981]

The tweet was on her twitter account, have a look through it.

But if she is not an expert just some random with a criminal justice degree who has read a few book then she is not qualified any more than anyone else to give her opinions. In fact it is dangerous because she is claiming to be an expert so some people will assume that if someone uses the term profiler they actually work as a profiler with LE, and may not realise that anyone including the pizza guy can refer to themselves as a profiler so may take her opinion as that of an actual expert. if you compare her to someone like Dr Boon of the UK, he has a PhD, post doc experience, university position, has conducted research, had several scientific journal articles published in high impact factor journals, and has actually worked with the police on investigations, you can see why she does not appear to be an expert. Can you imagine her doing a joint interview with him, I'd pay good money to see that.

But i really would love to know if she has ever actually been employed as a profiler by any LE agencies. I really cannot see why she thinks she knows better than scotland yard, and the Norwegian authorities (she claims the scotland year review of the mccann case is flawed, not that I believe she is privy to the review, and has declared that ABB is not a terrorist).

 

[brit1981]

Y'all are cracking me up!

Pat Brown is a profiler/pundit. What she writes on her blog is her opinion. Take it or leave it. She's not any different than any other "professional" that gives their opinion on tv. I don't agree with every "expert" no matter how qualified they may be.

What I find amusing and ironic is that we are now discussing her credentials because she gave an opinion in a case where we have a "private investigator" who was brought in to "investigate" this case and to help find Lisa, who is not a private investigator and has done nothing to "investigate." :floorlaugh:

I think that is part of the same problem, people with no real expertise watching too many CSIs and wanting to be part of the action so they set themselves up as some sort of expert without actually doing the real leg work needed to get to that sort of position. Imagine if people could do that in other fields such as law, or medicine. there would be an outcry. But for some reason these people are allowed to interfere with criminal investigations. In the UK it is even more dangerous because if these people speak out before the trial, or even during it, claiming to know this that and the other, the defence can argue that it was prejudicial for a fair trial and have the entire trial thrown out! I suspect this is going to be attempted with the Tia Sharpe case to be honest.

 

[MissJames]

I think that is part of the same problem, people with no real expertise watching too many CSIs and wanting to be part of the action so they set themselves up as some sort of expert without actually doing the real leg work needed to get to that sort of position. Imagine if people could do that in other fields such as law, or medicine. there would be an outcry. But for some reason these people are allowed to interfere with criminal investigations. In the UK it is even more dangerous because if these people speak out before the trial, or even during it, claiming to know this that and the other, the defence can argue that it was prejudicial for a fair trial and have the entire trial thrown out! I suspect this is going to be attempted with the Tia Sharpe case to be honest.

BBM

To be on TV here you just have to be entertaining or controversial.

To be an expert in a court trial in the United States,you have to have real credentials.

Experts in trial in the US must lay out, under oath ,the credentials that make them an expert in a certain area before they can testify .The Judge decides if their credentials meet the standard ,especially if there is an objection .

In the US anyone that's not under a direct gag order (usually applies to those directly involved in the case) can express their opinion on a case. It's a free country and the right to free speech pretty much trumps all. It's how we roll.Over here we consider the Government's ability to squash free speech more dangerous than someone expressing their opinion about a trial case.
And BTW there are TONS of books written about health and medicine that are JUST OPINIONS.
Just My Opinion.

 

[brit1981]

In the Uk we have strong reporting restrictions in order that the trial can go ahead. If the media is satuated with people claiming they not who did it the defence would argue that the material was prejudicial to a fair trial. We have a lot of rights, including those under EHR act so it is just a question of balancing which right wins in each case so in trials the defendents right to a fair trial would win over the right to free speech. It is the same with all our rights, we have a right not to be erronously defamed or harrsesed, and these generaly win over the right to use free speech to harress someone or incorrectly defame them.

 

[Donjeta]

On the bright side, I think that most talking heads and self-appointed experts expressing their opinions on the cases on blogs on the internet probably get way more attention on WS than among the general population. So if you've heard about their opinions the chances are that you've followed the case too closely and you would be thrown out of the jury anyway.

 

[brit1981]

On the bright side, I think that most talking heads and self-appointed experts expressing their opinions on the cases on blogs on the internet probably get way more attention on WS than among the general population. So if you've heard about their opinions the chances are that you've followed the case too closely and you would be thrown out of the jury anyway.

I suspect you are right. I do wonder hwo they deal with this now, in the Uk there is no jury selection, although people with possible bias are removed, but it is difficult to ensure they have not been following it on the web. We have had people charged for following cases ont eh internet whilst they were jury members.
Off topic, but I suspect the barrister representing the accused in the Tia Sharpe case is going to use the media and internet to argue prejudice to the trial, and make this case focus on media responsibility.

 

[MissJames]

In the Uk we have strong reporting restrictions in order that the trial can go ahead. If the media is satuated with people claiming they not who did it the defence would argue that the material was prejudicial to a fair trial. We have a lot of rights, including those under EHR act so it is just a question of balancing which right wins in each case so in trials the defendents right to a fair trial would win over the right to free speech. It is the same with all our rights, we have a right not to be erronously defamed or harrsesed, and these generaly win over the right to use free speech to harress someone or incorrectly defame them.

I guess here it's considered a slippery slope when the government can start deciding which opinions are "dangerous" or "harrassment" . It goes to the heart of our Freedoms and is taken very seriously.
I would like to add that watching live trials is proof enough to me that defendants have far more rights than victims or the State.

Back to the Lisa Irwin case :
The parents haven't even been arrested and have not been forced to speak to LE investigators about their own child's disappearance.That's their RIGHT. It's their own behavior that has created the media interest in the case. If Pat Brown's opinion was so damaging ,why aren't they in jail?
It's because of the Right's and Freedom's our country was founded on . It protects everyone ,even the guilty ,sometime.

 

[brit1981]

Well freedom of speech is not the only right in the UK. For instance people have a right to freedom of discrimination so therefore people do not have the right to racially abuse people. Thier freedom of speech is deemed less important. people have the right to a fair trial, that trumps the right of freedom of speech. We cannot use freedom of speech to remove all other rights, otherwise we end end up having no fair trials, the right to discriminate, the right to bully and harress, there is little triumph in holding one right up so high it eradicates all other rights. the government in the UK does not decide what constitutes free speech or harrssement either. It is the judicial system which is seperate from the government (our constitution is unwritten, but seperation of judiciary from government is a fundemental part of it). So a judge has to weigh up which is more important in each situation. Free speech does not automatically get top billing as it is just one of many rights people in the UK have, we do not consider it any more important than all our other rights. can I just ask as I do not know much about rights in America, but is freedom of speech the main right, do other rights come below it?

 

[MissJames]

Well freedom of speech is not the only right in the UK. For instance people have a right to freedom of discrimination so therefore people do not have the right to racially abuse people. Thier freedom of speech is deemed less important. people have the right to a fair trial, that trumps the right of freedom of speech. We cannot use freedom of speech to remove all other rights, otherwise we end end up having no fair trials, the right to discriminate, the right to bully and harress, there is little triumph in holding one right up so high it eradicates all other rights. the government in the UK does not decide what constitutes free speech or harrssement either. It is the judicial system which is seperate from the government (our constitution is unwritten, but seperation of judiciary from government is a fundemental part of it). So a judge has to weigh up which is more important in each situation. Free speech does not automatically get top billing as it is just one of many rights people in the UK have, we do not consider it any more important than all our other rights. can I just ask as I do not know much about rights in America, but is freedom of speech the main right, do other rights come below it?

Here you go . It's a quick read because it's so basic

http://www.ushistory.org/documents/amendments.htm

One doesn't supercede the other. A right to a speedy and fair trial is included. That's why potential jurors are brought in and questioned . I think Harassment must have another application in the UK. Someone stating their opinion in the media isn't considered harassment here . If it's slander their's a recourse for that ,also,but the person would have to prove it's slander .

 

[redheadedgal]

can discussions of all things UK, freedom of speech and the like be done in other more appropriate forums, please? this one is for lisa irwin. thnx.

 

[brit1981]

Here you go . It's a quick read because it's so basic

http://www.ushistory.org/documents/amendments.htm

One doesn't supercede the other. A right to a speedy and fair trial is included. That's why potential jurors are brought in and questioned . I think Harassment must have another application in the UK. Someone stating their opinion in the media isn't considered harassment here . If it's slander their's a recourse for that ,also,but the person would have to prove it's slander .

But what happens if those rights collide.here if people prejudiced a trial it woudl have the trial thrown out so we do not allow people to mess up trials like that. If someone wanted to state their opinion they would have to wait until after a trial. Also here it would actually have to be an opinion, you cannot falsly accuse someone of murder and tag on a "in my opinion" and expect to not get into trouble for it, that would be comical. I suppose when one has so many rights, like the right to privacy, not to be harressed ( spreading lies about someone would be a form of harrssemnt), the right to be free from discrimination, it is difficult - someone cannot exercise their right to be free from discrimination at the same time as someone else exercising their supposed right to call them every racist or sexist name under the sun.

Anyway this is very off topic. back to Pat brown as this thread is about her, has she actually worked on any cases with LE. Someone claimed she had worked on the mccann case, but as far as I am aware she has not once been employed on the case. What cases has she actually worked on with LE?