Help Needed from Morroco / MAROC, SVP, Please. Lookalikes.

Comparing with:

According to the search on http://madeleineinmorocco.blogspot.com/, Bushra's date of birth is very difficult to find, but I find: 2004. 2004 is written as a date on her certificate (which is NOT to be confused with her other family members' certificates, all included on the SAME Family Book of certificates. See below for details in photos + article snap ( from Daily Life . com ) and link to check it out.
How did I get to this result? I also looked for all other readable dates on this document and this one is clear: 1425. And before crying Wolf we should always search on the CULTURE that immerses the subject(s). 1425 is of course very likely to be the ISLAMIC date! And logically, OF BIRTH. And look what happens when we convert 1425 into the Western calendar: it's 2004.

So, Bouchra Ben Aisa / Bushra Benissa was BORN IN 2004, that's on the year after the famous missing child "Madeleine McCann" is supposed to have been born. I should search more but someone recently reminded me what the PRESS said at the time (and according to the blog linked above, probably not in a reliable manner): Bouchra would have been older than Maddy, which I seem to prove WRONG. However if Bouchra IS/WAS the model girl used by NSPCC this year 2011, in October or so, likely it would have been an older photo of her. But, I speculate, perhaps it's NOT Bouchra at all. However, given ALL the bizarre alerts of "sightings" (or Sigh... Tings!) that we, as the following public, have come through so far ("L0OK for Maddy" etc...) should I not find it strange, once again, that out of ALL the little girls in the world od about the age of 'Maddy', this little Bouchra was selected by a Spanish tourist.... who immediately photographed her... No. Enough! And now this more than CURIOUS NSPCC advert... NO. ENOUGH.
Too many "COINCIDENCES" in the CENTRAL CIRCUS of Children and photographs
may lead to DISCREDIT these organisations that help the McCanns and other families, (or themselves? Somehow I DISTRUST many charities and I wouldn't mind that their ACCOUNTS would be thoroughly checked. And of course, that the same would apply to the "LEAVING NO STONE UNTURNED" FUND.) -DISCREDIT or even SUSPECT.

-and back to this topic, why was the press wrong? Or when is it accurate, does it ever happen that it can be accurate? Did ANY reporter cared to look at this certificate? Clearly not... I would have looked, to see if this appears to be a genuine document... and to see how old the child was... so where did they get their info from? The McCanns or Clarence Mitchell? If so, there's a mayhem! To be continued in case I could find out more... Links and info welcome!
_____________


Here are the details of my search from last night, before I realised I had an element of proof about my initial guess that Bouchra's date of birth (dob) could be 2004, followed by a few thoughts:


What the blogpost says: "But when you zoom this second image you can below "Ben Aisa Bouchra" (you can't see this name in this image but you can see it in first image) is date 23.11.1943 (or 1948)

And on the right page (where reads Ben Aisa and some other name) is date 3.5.1965 (or 1968)" - so that will be another entry, I'm searching but for now just guessing that the parent's entries will be on that page -hence "some other name" that I can see too as not being Bouchra.
Mmmh... Are there Readers who either live in Morocco / are from Morocco/ are familiar with the country and the way Birth Certificates are made, and could try to read what it says on this present one? Could it be a Family Book of birth certificates, hence the date of birth 1965 or 1968 who could be the one of Bouchra's Mum or Dad?

It seems that a date like 2004 is on Bouchra's details, her actual year of birth? Also, if this goes from the Muslim calendar, no date would match the European / occidental / Western calendar.

On the photo-crop just above, it seems it reads 33. 88 1343... which is no date for occidental calendar.

Here's some info:

" http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-the-western-islamic-and-jewish-calendars.htm

The Gregorian calendar is generally used synonymously with the Christian and Western calendar. The Gregorian version, however, was actually named after Pope Gregory XIII. It has a year comprised of 12 months and 365 days, 366 in a leap year, which occurs by adding a day in February every four years. While the Gregorian calendar is based on the Julian calendar — the calendar was introduced around 45 BCE by Julius Caesar after consulting an astronomer — the Gregorian calendar is also based on the year of Christ’s birth.
The Gregorian calendar sought to improve on its predecessors. The purpose was to have a more regular format than the lunar calendars and Julian calendar. The Gregorian calendar took the place of the Julian calendar around the end of the 16th Century.
The Islamic calendar is based on the emigration of the Prophet Muhammad and his fellow Muslims, the Companions or Sahabah, from Mecca to Medina. The emigration is said to have been commanded by God after many years of Muslim persecution. The emigration took place in 622 AD or CE according to the Western Calendar or 4382 AM (Anno Mundi, or in the year of the world) according to the Jewish calendar. Hirah is Arabic for emigration and so, the Islamic calendar is also called the Hijri calendar. Years prior to the emigration are labeled as BH, Before Hijra, while years after the emigration are labeled as AH, Anno Hijra or In the year of Hijra. The calendar is based on the lunar year, has about 354 days and 12 months, each with either 29 or 30 days. The names of the months are Muharram, Safar, Rabiul-Awwal, Rabi-uthani, Jumada al-awwal, Jumada al-thani, Rajab, Sha’ban, Ramadan, Shawwal, Dhil-Q’ada, and Dhil-Hijja.
The Jewish calendar is a lunisolar calendar and is based on creation which is said to have occurred — around 3760 BCE according to the Western Calendar. The Jewish calendar, or the Hebrew calendar, has anywhere from 353 to 385 days, and 12 months, 13 in a leap year. Months have 29 or 30 days: Nissan, Iyar, Sivan, Tammuz, Av, Elul, Tishri, Cheshvan, Kislev, Tevet, Shevat, and Adar. In a leap year Adar I is inserted after Shevat, and the existing month of Adar is called Adar II — the thirteenth month. While the Western and Islamic calendars have a new year beginning with the first month, the new year according to the Jewish calendar begins in the seventh, not first, month of the year.
Another way these types of calendars differ is when the new day begins. In the Julian, Gregorian, Western and Christian calendars, the day begins at midnight. The Islamic and Jewish calendars, however, begin at sundown.
There are many other types of calendars; the Western calendar is perhaps the most popular, however. Another popular type of calendar — the Chinese calendar — is still used today for Chinese holidays and for astrological purposes. It is a lunisolar calendar with 12 months in a regular year and 13 months every second or third year. Days in the Chinese calendar begin at 11 PM, not midnight. While there is some dispute over when the Chinese calendar began, most believe it began somewhere around 2600 to 2500 BCE according to the Western Calendar.
Calendar conversion tools can be found online."

So I search. According to http://www.oriold.uzh.ch/static/hegira.html, 1343 Muslim year is 1924 Western year. No luck. So if it was as the Blooger found, 1965 on the certificate: it matches to a staggering year 2527!! -then it's pointless to try and convert 1968, lol.

Here's an attempt of cropping, zooming and playing on contast, exposure and effects:

If the date shown is 1943 in Muslim calendar, it's equivalent to 2506 on the Western one. VOID.

Now in the Western calendar it is 2011, in the Muslim one it is 1432.

Could this read 1925? or 1985? Respectively it gives in the Western conversion: 2489! and 2547!! SCOOP!!! Bushrah isn't born yet and she is very Sci-Fi, belonging to the future!

Right so either this is SOMEONE ELSE's Certificate, held in the Western calendar way, or it 's
not a date of birth, but a reference. Unless, hang on, it says a symbol followed by 985, something like this. Let's try it: Conversion says: 1577, Middle Ages! Nope, it won't be anything of the sort, either.

Enhanced cropped photo.

Let's go back to where I spotted something like 2004...:

Enhanced photo. Do you see the date or reference: "1388"? This is the islamic date for 1968 in western calendar. It matches the date that is on the next page, coincidently or not. Hence is this the Father/Mother's 'dob'? We are in sheer need of Moroccan helpers!

Anyway... Until we can get Moroccan People who know about how this birth certificates can be read, I'm thinking back to what stroke me earlier today: this sheer ressemblance between this girl above and the new Child Actress who stars in the NSPCC ad.

Same noise, same eyes and same everything...

Not saying it's got to be the little Bouchra Ben Aisa, however I'm not the only one who tilted at the very strange choice of image, something that inevitably will remind the public of Maddy, Bouchra and... in some extent, children who are used or mistaken one way or another. Sightings and Lookalikes Comedy show at the Central... All in all, NSPCC is about ABUSED and NEGLECTED Children, so was this choice completely innocent? Child actor who is Bouchra/ or at least is this ad-girl's lookalike and Bouchra having been mistaken for Madeleine, or used as a commercial prop somehow... back in 2007, precisely, it triggers a few thoughts, doesn't it?

By the way, the 3rd May 2007 in the Western calendar was the 14th of the 4th month of 1428 in the Islamic calendar. Thank you for reading and visiting The Lost Marketing Ploy blog.

Made and Sent By Our Friend Larry

-Many Thanks!-

An Interesting Theory

"It was to be the last night of the vacation and both parents were anxious to get to the supper

they had planed with all their party buds and the boys were tired from playing all day and they

had no problem getting them ready and put to bed.

Maddy was a problem because she knew it was the last night and did not want to waste any part of

it sleeping and really wanted to join her parents at dinner with her parent's friends and objected

to being left out of all the fun. She loved grownups and wanted to go too.

As the time for the parents to leave she got very unruly and demanded she should go with

them and it grew to be a war of wits between a 3 and a half year old Maddy and two parents who

wanted to celebrate one more time away from the children with friends.

One or the other parent, Both Doctors, suggested they give Maddy a sleeping pill or a setetave and

the case was made. Maddy would not be going to the dinner party.

While Kate was having a quick shower and did her face, Gerry got out his Medical bag and selected

a suitable drug for little Maddy and gave it to her. She had had this done to her before so she made no fuss

and accepted the needle as before.

The needle did not take the desired effect right away and Maddy started up again about wanting to join the party

and Gerey put his Medical bag away and left Maddy to continue to stew and protest and went and took

a shower as Kate finished putting on here face and....

When Kate was ready she came out and found Maddy searching her clothes for a dress to go to the party

and had to tell Maddy one last time she was not going with them and she had to go to sleep now as they were

already late and she got out her own Medical kit and proceeded to give Maddy a sedative and got her ready for

bed and put her there.

Maddy, at that point gave up the protest because the first sedative was starting to kick in and when Gerry came

out of the bathroom he dressed to party and Maddy was quiet now and they did their final checks and kisses and left

for the Party.

To be continued.. in part two. cause there is more to the story, much more." - Credits to our Friend Larry. -

See the page "How does this make you feel? - A Theory By Larry" here on this blog in a near future for the part two. http://thelostmarketingploy.blogspot.com/p/how-does-this-page-make-you-feel.html

Court in February 2012 - the COMEDY SHOW continues!

Info from Little Morsals blog: http://littlemorsals.blogspot.com/2011/10/joana-morais-mccann-libel-trial.html

"Tuesday, 11 October 2011

Joana Morais: McCann libel trial hearings to start in February 2012

Original Source: Joana Morais
Article reproduced here with the kind permission of Joana.

The civil complaint filed by the McCanns against Gonçalo Amaral, over his book "Maddie - A Verdade da Mentira" (The Truth of the Lie) will start to be tried in February 2012.

The first two hearings have been scheduled for the 9th and 10th of February, 2012, at 9.30 a.m., at the Civil Court of Lisbon.

The defence fund that supports Mr Amaral by helping to finance the legal expenses related to this trial, is still in operation. Donations are very welcome. Please refer to Projecto Justiça Gonçalo Amaral for contributions. Thank you.

Kate's Corpses Argument DEBUNKED.

Remember what Kate Healy apparently said to the Press to refute the cadaver odour which was detected by police sniffer dogs on HER OWN CLOTHES in the summer 2007?

According to The Sun, Kate Healy stated that due to her work, she had been in contact with several dead bodies as a locum doctor, hence the smell of death all around these places - and her OWN clothes. [see link, from The Sun:

"The dogs also sniffed items of clothing — and the film shows Eddie again picking up a scent on some of Kate's.
The family GP [= Kate] has insisted she came into contact with at least SIX dead bodies before going on holiday with her husband and three children."


Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/maddie/1651651/Kate-and-Gerry-McCann-wrongly-named-as-suspects-over-Maddie-disappearance-by-Portuguese-police-after-sniffer-dog-evidence.html#ixzz1j066kD8A


However, now I am wondering how could she come up with such pretense while being highly trained in biology and medecine, had she said this herself? Surely she should have checked a thing or two before she made her assertion. How RIDICULOUS this sounds, for anyone who searches a little bit in Forensics Science, and finds that she would have had to stay in contact with these CORPSES for 90 MINUTES for the odour to impregnate her clothes so strongly that it could be detected by a trained EVRD (CADAVER) dog!!!!!

( Beside, it seems that in her book there is no mention of this,  no more than of the odour on her clothes -fact that is yet a crucial element in the case. It gets me to wonder, why mention this to The Sun, but not in the book "madeleine"[sic], and why not even a paragraph on this cadaver odour? Kate gave me the impression that she was pretty much relieved after Gerry, her husband, pondered like a hard, final, conclusive decision that all the dogs' findings were 'worth nothing' as it's "no exact science". She as well as him NEVER questioned these facts in the way that it could be linked to their daughter's fate, why was this? Anger and immediate 'pondering' rushed to replace, as it seems to me, any question in their mind. It CAN'T be cadaver odour, the dogs LIE, they're garbage and beside, LOL, they had never been in Portugal before! I truly laughed at reading this part.
Here is Yan's demonstration:

"Some thoughts also on the tests done which indicate that it takes 90mins for contamination to occur.
The tests are based on exposure times alone, ie the length of time a piece of material was exposed to a body / cadaver.
The cloth exposed for a 90 min period resulted in the most detection.
The suggestion is when a body is decomposing it take 90 minutes before contaminating anything.

In fact this test totally contradicts the knowledge that contamination is instant. What it does in effect is suggest that something has to have been in contact with a body / cadaver for 90 mins before becoming contaminated enough for the dogs to accurately detect anything.
ie - If you look at the suggestion that KM as part of her work came into contact with dead bodies, this would mean she would have had to have spent 90 mins in very close proximity to one before becoming contaminated. "

Contact Us

Feel free to comment and bring your own photos / links - contact: tlpb@rocketmail.com

or just post onto here! Mail us via the above with your e-address, we will do the rest. Dziękuję!
Muchos Gracias, Grazie, "Arrigato" and, Kudos!

On behalf of The Lost Marketing Ploy Team, CHEERS,
MegaFundLine.

Thank You Kathie - "On Lifeless Child On Beach Rocks"...

Our dear Friend Kathie has been visiting Portugal (including Praia Da Luz, The Beach Of Light) this year at the end of May 2011 / or, in early June - Kathie please feel free to respond and comment -and join as a blog Writer- your descriptions were so interesting, I think Others would benefit from reading them, so feel free to repost them (I have kept your mail and can edit it to publish it while removing your private data, so if you can't post it yourself I would kindly do it for you - contact me whenever you like! x)

Now, Reader. Do you remember the extract where Kate "McCann" describes natural rocks on the beach -rocks of an oblong, flattish shape, with crevices... Kate, the author, describes how she "saw" Madeleine, her Daughter, looking quite 'lifeless' on one of these rocks, with words of this effect. I will bring you the exact excerpt soon - or feel free to post in the comments below. A vision?

This extract of Kate's book has striken me. Forgive me if I offend anyone, but had lost a Child, I would never write such a paragraph in any book that I make where I would evoke my Dear Child - but this is only my opinion, I really think I would prefer to remember My Child as in happier memories or, even, in speculative wishes? Say I would have lost a Child of mine and I suspect, strongly, that she has been physically abused, then... killed... or even abducted... missing for sure, and, would I ever find the courage to produce a book about the situation, never, in any circumstance, would I nurture even one thought to let my mind publicly float and ramble about possibilities of sexual abuse (like Kate wrote on her page 129, vividly and to the point and, how I personally view it, disgustingly.), nor on the possibility of finding her DEAD on a beach rock... And, sorry to say but these two instances make my mind travel to killers/ criminals/ psychopaths who proudly fabricate or render a scenario, scenario that is either imagined or recalled from facts, / or from both fiction and facts, in which they 'buzz' (rejoice) from either bringing a terror feeling to their readers/ audience, or giving their sampled "tuppence worth" of "an account of the truth".

Here are two photos from Kathie that illustrate this point of mine very well, many Thanks again:

Phone Hacking... If I may highlight a point.... Isn't MADELEINE the VICTIM?

Source: Mail Online http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2037410/Leveson-phone-hacking-inquiry-McCanns-JK-Rowling-evidence.html

"

McCanns and JK Rowling among host of names to give evidence at phone hacking inquiry

By Steve Doughty

Last updated at 12:08 AM on 15th September 2011

• Comments (3)
• Add to My Stories
• Share

The judge leading the inquiry into phone-hacking and the press yesterday named 46 individuals who will be invited to take centre stage.

They include crime victims such as the parents of missing Madeleine McCann and murdered teenager Milly Dowler.

The list also includes Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling, former motor racing boss Max Mosley, former Lib Dem MP Mark Oaten, jockey Kieran Fallon, and Paul and Sheryl Gascoigne.

Looking for answers: Kate and Gerry McCann will be part of the group of alleged phone hacking victims represented by a barrister in the first stage of the inquiry

Lord Justice Leveson awarded them ‘core representative’ status, which means they can have a lawyer to speak for them at the tribunal hearings.
However, the judge said yesterday that he will press them to share just one lawyer between them and that he will name a single barrister to speak for them if they cannot agree.

More...

• James Murdoch to face fresh grilling by MPs following new evidence from News International executives
• George Osborne 'owed' Andy Coulson after NotW editor 'downplayed' sex and drugs scandal coverage, claims lawyer acting for escort girl
• Criminals must fear the police again, vows new Met chief as he scoops £276,000 post

Lord Justice Leveson also indicated that he would be reluctant to allow lawyers for the 46 – who say they are victims of hacking or press malpractice – to cross-examine other witnesses.
The judge said News International should be a ‘core participant’ at the inquiry because one of its titles had been at the centre of the phone hacking scandal and it had a ‘significant interest’ in the outcome.
Associated Newspapers, publishers of the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday, have also been given the right to play a full part, alongside Northern and Shell, publishers of the Daily Express and the Daily Star, and Guardian News and Media.

J K Rowling, the author of the Harry Potter books, and actor Hugh Grant are also in the group of alleged hacking victims

Left out: Former News of the World editor Rebekah Brooks, pictured in July with Rupert Murdoch, will not be giving evidence at the inquiry

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2037410/Leveson-phone-hacking-inquiry-McCanns-JK-Rowling-evidence.html#ixzz1YdIXVucd "


DAILY MAIL (ONLINE), my thoughts for your attention:

"They include crime victims such as the parents of missing Madeleine McCann "  Well is the British press now allowed to judge on an ongoing investigation??! The answer is NO. The truth is that once again, any article from the Daily Mail relating to the MCCANN CASE is deliberately BIASED and PREJUDICED.

I for one would be VERY curious as to what the hacking reveals and wonder why this wasn't officially done by the POLICE in the first place. People who lie and cash on their daughter's "disappearance", "missing" state need to be monitored, this has already been done for people involved in other cases so why weren't these investigated on with the same means as other SUSPECTS?

Yes I know, they are EX- MAIN SUSPECTS now BUT, sorry, HEY! This is an ONGOING investigation, when the public asks questions to the police with a Freedom Of Information act this is the answer we get, so what gives any "right" to the Daily Mail / MAIL ONLINE to state that the McCanns are the "VICTIMS" of a crime?

Was HUNTLEY the VICTIM of his crimes you think? What did you print when his investigation was ongoing, you "professional" journalists? And if he was hacked, taped by the police, would anyone had gone crazy about it?

So DAILY MAIL, will you EVER stop trying to INFLUENCE, CONDITION your readers? Why do you do this, because people like me did protest in 2007 claiming you did NOT have any right to print that "Maddy was abducted", so is it in frustration, or greed, or WHAT, that you're still trying what you ever can to push THEIR side of the "story"?! I wish someone would sue you and take your LICENCE OFF for this sentence. And that you explain to me WHY you state that THEY are VICTIMS of a crime, when you don't even know whether they were not actively involved in it! It's MADELEINE who is THE VICTIM, not them who left her ALONE at THREE YEARS OLD, HOME ALONE "because ot was safe". What is this? The Maddy Circus at Comedy Central??!!! It was SO SAFE that she hasn't been seen since the 3rd May 2007 - or perhaps even before - depending even if her identity is correct...... According to THEIR story - which you don't doubt for a second I could believe- it was 'perfectly safe to leave three children under four years old alone in a holiday flat abroad' 'while we dined and drank not far away'... Give your heads a hard SHAKE, the lot of you. The money is flowing, but not the truth, get as much compensation as you can for tomorrow you will still get up wondering if the Maddy Circus at Comedy Central is the right thing to carry on milking on.

Why should I believe YOU and the MCCANNS? Why don't you produce a new article to recapitulate what has been highly inconsistent in the "story"? This would bring you more income, and wouldn't be seen as a comedy number, comedy which people get tired of, BORED with. Mind you, with such dull slush, is it really surprising?
-And Oh, do you know why I don't believe the McCanns? Because they LIED in the first place.

How did they lie?

1. They called their family and friends to claim that the shutters and the window had been DAMAGED. It WASN'T.
2. They said that once the shutters are down and LOCKED as they had set them, anyone could lift them up from the outside (Gerry even boasting he tried them himself on that 3rd May night, despite his 'state of nerves / grief '...). This is a SHEER LIE. No one can normally lift this sort of shutters up from the outside as the locking security system perfectly works.
3. Gerry claimed he came in using his key which means using the MAIN door but a while after, he said he entered via the PATIO, through the French windows. What is the truth, Gerry?
4. Kate Healy -his wife- claimed she discovered that her daughter was missing at around 10 pm, whereas on 2 occasions - occasions that are separated in time by FOUR YEARS!- she slipped up to reveal that the time of the EVENT was in fact 9 pm! (see previous blog posts, one being about the Late Late Show, RTE, Ireland).

But don't ask me WHY they lied... Or why YOU don't want to write articles in a neutral and interesting manner... Doesn't the TRUTH interest you?

Hello! - and Pat Brown's E-Book got BANNED...

Hi to All. First of all, thank you SO much for keeping on reading our blog, and a special thank you to All who have come comment in a decent manner.
Everyone is welcome to give their views, and you know... polite comments are always more appreciated, whatever the content. Sometimes a "swear-word" can come as surprising or even... stimulating, depending on the writer's spirit - sometimes it may give the reader a good laugh. However, I did have to suppress quite a few comments in the past - we all guess why. Smart is the key. I'm not always "smart", or "smooth" myself, I do admit, because I don't "TRY TO BE SMART". I'm a humble person, and I thank ALL of you who do come to post in a decent way here, by "decent" I mean not attempting to form personal attacks onto any other poster.

Secondly, I need to say something. For a good while, say one month and even longer, Ka Ossis and I, the two official writers of this blog, haven't been able, in the standard Blogger way, to come comment or reply to other people. We do not know why. We have been conversing, outside the Internet, about it, together. Ka Ossis and I, megafundline, have NOT been able to type one comment in WEEKS, normally, on OUR OWN BLOG, about anything, on ANY TOPIC. A ... glitch? Well, coming from Google, it would have to be a BIG "glitch" then! Well, if mighty Google reads this, welcome to your own poverty. Money isn't all, so you should KNOW anyway. Sort your intellectual poverty out, it might HELP you.

So, SORRY BUT BECAUSE OF GOOGLE, KA OSSIS AND I, MEGAFUNDLINE are NOT able to post Comments any longer, unless we use alternative ways of posting... like for my case, having to type " Megafund... Line" or so.
Of course this is all wrong BUT there is a plan B. ;) I will post the NEW blog link shortly. In the meantime, you re welcome to carry on reading and commenting. WE still can moderate the blog, this doesn't change anything.

Anyway, here is my NEXT BlogPost:

"Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Why was my Madeleine McCann Book Banned?, 30 July 2011

[image]


Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Why was my Madeleine McCann Book Banned? The Daily Profiler




[image] reference: http://www.mccannfiles.com/id232.html



"By Pat Brown


"Saturday, July 30, 2011



"Five weeks after my book, Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann went up on Amazon, it vanished. I didn't receive word from Amazon that they were going to take it off the market nor did I receive word that they had taken it off the market. I learned of its disappearance from someone who went to buy it. I sent Amazon an email and receivde a vague response from someone without a last name (isn't that always the way they do it these days?) who told me the book had been removed from sale for "legal conflicts." I asked for clarification of said legal conflicts and I received this email:



"Dear Pat,


We have received a notice of defamation from Carter-Ruck Solicitors that says the content of Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann (UPDATED) B0055WYVCQ, contains defamatory statements regarding their clients, Gerry and Kat McCann.

 Because we have no method of determining whether the content supplied to us is defamatory, we have removed the title from sale and will not reinstate it unless we receive confirmation from both parties that this matter has been resolved.


Carter-Ruck can be reached at:



6 St Andrew Street


London EC4A 3AE

T 020 7353 5005


Best regards,


Robert F.



http://www.amazon.com/ "


Oh, I see, Robert with-no-last-name. Amazon was threatened by the McCanns' legal team and Amazon preferred to drop my book rather than face a lawsuit for selling possibly libelous material. Now, I know a lot of people have become very angry about this, that anyone can just send a threat to Amazon about another person's book and without a shred of proof, the bookseller pulls if off the market. It does seem rather unfair; the McCanns do not have any paperwork proving my work is libelous nor are there any court actions against me and, simply at their word, my book is axed.






But, there is the rub, actually. Amazon is a business and they do not by law have to sell anything they don't want to sell for whatever reason (garbage, pornography, libelous material, etc.). Of course, their customers can show their wrath over their choice to not include a book in their store by taking their business elsewhere (which some have done due to the removal of my book) or by giving them a lot of heat in the media.








To be fair to Amazon, I will say, there is a new problem with self-published books. There is no protective layer between the author and the bookseller as there has traditionally been with an actual mainstream publisher. When I sold The Profiler: My Life Hunting Serial Killers and Psychopaths to Hyperion Voice, their lawyers went over every detail with a fine tooth comb and I had to send in all of my files to back each and every case in the book, in spite of the fact I used pseudonyms for everyone. By the time Amazon stocked the book in their online store, they knew the publisher had done its job and if anyone would then be sued it would be Hyperion and me. But, with my self-published book, they have no idea if what the McCanns say is true or not and, if it turns out the McCanns are correct, they might end up in a court themselves. As business people going up against one of the biggest libel attorney practices in the world, Carter-Ruck, they simply thought cutting me loose and getting a bit of bad press and angry emails was the lesser of two evils.






"My book is now at Barnes and Noble and Smashwords (50% of royalties earned to go to the Madeleine Search Fund for Praia da Luz, Huelva, and Rothley) among a few other online venues. It will be interesting to see if these outfits also cave to any threat by the McCanns and their solicitors. In the end, the issue remains between the McCanns and Pat Brown and a court of law should either party wish to go there as to whether the Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann is libelous or their claims that my book is libelous are libelous!






"My opinion? My book includes the facts of the case from the police files and the words from Kate's book, Madeleine, and the words of the McCanns from their radio and television interviews. From these facts, I lead readers through the various possibilities of what these facts might tell us and what hypotheses we might develop. In the end, I offer the most plausible theory I have derived from the known public facts. Clearly, it is not a theory the McCanns like and a theory they do not want people to read. I find it rather fascinating that they went to Amazon and had the book removed; this behavior in itself is very suspicious to many people. They believe the McCanns do not want my theory to be considered, that there is something in it that makes them very nervous, and there is more to their getting my book banned at Amazon than not liking stuff someone said about them because it wasn't complimentary. If I am just a nutter and my theory is rubbish, they should have rolled their eyes and laughed it off.






Now, I am sure we will see comments here that will say, "Aw, come on, Pat, the reason the McCanns don't want your crap book out there is because it is libelous, you accused them of murder or of covering up a crime, and you based your 'theory' on tabloid information." I will counter by saying no where in the book do I accuse the McCanns of a crime - other than leaving their three tiny children unattended and defenseless - and my theory is not based on the tabloids. Since my theory is an opinion to which I am entitled and because my opinion is based on facts (I am not making some outlandish off-the-wall accusations I took from psychics or Internet gossip) and because the McCanns are very public figures, I see nothing in this book that is libelous and, therefore, I have no problem sharing my profiling theory with the world.






If the McCanns are innocent of covering up a crime (following an accidental death), they should view my theory as a reasonable opinion as to what could have happened, but, simply know that, regardless of the strange happenings that would have led to such a hypothesis, this is simply not what occurred. The fact that there is no proof of an abduction - and this is a fact - does not mean an abduction could not have taken place. But, because there is no proof of an abduction , the McCanns should well understand why they might be considered persons-of-interest in the disappearance of the daughter, Madeleine. They should also recognize that their commission of child neglect also might make them persons-of-interest. In other words, rather than sue and threaten everyone with a theory that they, the McCanns, might be involved in the disappearance of their child, a more normal response would be to simply understand why someone might think that way and deal with it.






Even better, the McCanns could return to Portugal and clear up the matter. Kate could answer the questions she refused to answer as an Arguido, they could do the reconstruction, and they could take polygraphs. If they pass the polygraphs, the answers make sense, and the reconstruction clears up what actually happened on May 3, they could stop all the speculation about themselves. But, as long as they refuse to cooperate with the Policia Judiciaria in Portugal, they have no one but themselves to blame for alternative theories to the abduction theory they would like us all to accept.






More to come on this matter! Tune in Sunday, July 31, at 8 pm est on Websleuths Radio, Wednesday, August 3 at 12 midnight est on The Jim Bohanon Show, and August 4 at 9 pm est on The Levi Page Show.






Criminal Profiler Pat Brown "


~~~
-Feel free to comment-

McCann's Where Pennyless In 2007!

Look at Gerry's shoes... see the hole in them... doesn't this prove the McCanns were that broke in 2007 that Gerry couldn't even buy a new pair of shoes for their holiday to Praia in May 2007!

If you think the McCanns were financially secure in May 2007, then why did they use the fund donations from the public to pay for their £350,000 mortgage for their home in Rothley, not once, but twice!

Didn't Kate's uncle Brian Kennedy state publicly that the fund would also pay for their legal fees!

I find it suspicious that Teresa May stated that Police officers will have to accept pay cuts or jobs will be lost, said the Home Secretary as she warned of two-year pay freeze saving £350 million in March 2011, then along come the McCanns with their demand for a publicly paid for review of their (FAKE), case in an open letter to PM Cameron, and he throws £3.5 MILLIONS into the McCanns' REVIEW on the following month... now doesn't it all sound like a public money laundering scam to you, cause it certainly does to me, after reports that the public donations to the McCanns fund had dried up in February 2011, it looks like the Mccanns will stoop to anything to get their hands on public money, and even fake a child's abduction for it!

McCanns Happy To Promote Profanities and Paedophile Fantasies In Kate's Book!

Letter to the Social Services Sent LAST WEEK

Sent exactly ONE week ago:  Concern. Call for urgent action.

Sent to:  childrensduty@leics.gov.uk

Dear Madam, /or, Dear Sir,


HEAD OF THE SOCIAL SERVICES LEICESTERSHIRE

Re. Children Sean McCann & Amelie McCann, twins, both aged 6 1/2, Rothley, Leicestershire


15th June 2011, England



Regarding the MADELEINE MCCANN CASE, after reading the McCanns childrens' mother's book titled "madeleine" (yes, without any capital M...), I have grown very concerned about the safety of their children Sean and Amelie.



Mrs Healy (Kate "McCann") is often describing scenes of her imagination in a very vivid way. These scenes are of a paedophile nature. We find for example how the

paedophile was defiling Maddy's little body.

Or how she could "see" "him" abusing Maddy and "her litlle genitals torn apart".

The register of LANGUAGE she uses: is it OK for children to read? Some examples: " sod "[chapter 1] " fucking tosser "[chapter 16] "shit" "complete bullshit" !!!!!

... What is CONCERNING is that on the Express Online she (Mrs Healy) has recently said that she had INITIALLY WRITTEN THE BOOK FOR HER CHILDREN! (and note she

said "the twins" only)





Did you know by the way that they (the McCanns) lied to their family on the 3rd and 4th May 2007, claiming that there was a forced entry ("tampered window" and

"smashed shutter"). They also lied stating that the shutter could be easily lift up from the outside even if locked inside. The police and the resort staff both

checked these 2 allegations and none of them was true: a PURE lie about "the abduction". Since they can lie to family and police, what else can they lie about? Anything. Why do you blindly trust them?



At Chapter 18 something has caught my attention in an ALARMING way.

Kate Healy depicts - once again, and in great graphic details- how paedophiles take pleasure with little girls and it's like a "dream awake" about her own daughter

and one of these "paedophiles monsters". Kate seems completely obsessed with the thought, in a fixed obsession, but on the very next paragraph she mentions

how difficult their sleeping arrangements are, often waking up "sandwiched between the twins"... If a psychologist analyses this book, no doubt that ¬the present

association of THOUGHTS,,, is for the least ALARMING for the Twins.

Excerpt:

"When she was first stolen, paedophiles were all we could think about, and it made us sick, ate away at us.

The idea of a monster like this touching my daughter, stroking her, defiling her perfect little body, just killed me, over and over again. It didn’t make any difference that this might not be the explanation for Madeleine’s abduction (and, please God, it isn’t); the fact that it was a possibility was enough to prevent me from shutting it out of my mind. Tortured as I was by these nauseating images, it’s probably not surprising that even the thought of sex repulsed me.

I would lie in bed, hating the person who had done this to us; the person who had taken away our little girl and terrified her; the person who had caused these additional problems for me and the man I loved. I hated him. I wanted to kill him. I wanted to inflict the maximum pain possible on him for heaping all this misery on my family. I was angry and bitter and I wanted it all to go away. I wanted my old life back.

I worried about Gerry and me. I worried that if I couldn’t get our sex life back on track our whole relationship would break down. I know there is more to a relationship than sex, but it is still an important element. It was vital that we stayed together and stayed strong for our family. Gerry was incredibly understanding and supportive. He never made me feel guilty, he never pushed me and he never got sulky. In fact, sometimes he would apologize to me. Invariably, he would put a big, reassuring arm around me and tell me that he loved me and not to worry.

I was determined not to be beaten by this, not simply to capitulate and accept it as just one of the unfortunate side-effects of this tragedy. Gerry and I talked about it a little, but mostly I analysed the problem privately in my head. I also discussed it with Alan Pike, who assured me that, like my ability to relax or enjoy a meal, it would gradually return and that I shouldn’t fret about it too much. But I did. I even considered seeking specialist help. Deep down, though, I knew there were only two solutions: bringing Madeleine back or conquering my mental block. Since the first was not within my control, it was up to me to try to train my mind and my thought processes. So that is what I applied myself to doing.

In the small hours, any sleep we got was still often interrupted by the children. I welcomed their soothing presence. It didn’t always make for the most comfortable night, however. Sometimes, by the time dawn came, it took me a moment to figure out who was where.



Seany arrived in the early hours of the morning and positioned himself towards the middle of our bed, with me and Gerry then squeezed together on one side. Amelie appeared several hours later by which time Sean had gone back to his own bed, although he did return later. I knew we should have got a Superking!



Another morning I awoke to find myself sandwiched between Sean and Amelie with Gerry lying across the bottom of the bed. Cosy."

______



Soon after the event a witness, the neighbour above the 5a apartment, Mrs Fenn, now deceased, has stated to the police that on the Tuesday 1st May 2007 NIGHT, until 23:30!, a little girl was crying for ONE HOUR AND TWENTY MINUTES NON-STOP, HOME ALONE, calling or screaming :"Daddy! Daddy!". She thought that it MUST be Madeleine. Shall I remind you that the McCanns have admitted CHILD NEGLECT ! There is no place for cowardice in your services though, look at your logo! A female WOLF! Why do you condone THAT ??!! But PLEASE read on:





So once again these Children, the three of them, were LEFT ON THEIR OWN. Shall I remind you that the place was SO "SAFE" to leave kids on their own that eventually...

one of them went MISSING. Beside, have you ever ASKED Kate, or Gerry, WHY Madeleine was crying then? Why did Kate and Gerald NEVER counterstated Mrs Fenn's report? Why would they say to YOU? What do they reply if you ask them if they often left the kids alone before? And why do that in Praia?



"When she was first stolen, paedophiles were all we could think about "... Here is a file I prepared to your attention:

A file for the SOCIAL SERVICES to lean on- KATE'S BOOK PAGE 129

In the light of recent extracts of the book "madeleine" by Kate McCann - please note the absence of a capital M to Madeleine's name on the title- , in addition to

previously read reports, I come to a few very alarming, compelling thoughts:



Kate's SANITY is clearly to be questioned, regarding:

- her detailed description of her paedophile visions - her own children are now learning to read and can probably read quite well by now, how will they like reading

such descriptions?

- She had always said that she was hiding her emotion in public, TO PREVENT THE "ABDUCTOR" FROM REACTING ON MADELEINE, yet is trying to give a vivid,

bursting impression of all emotional and PSYCHOLOGICAL aspect in her now published book, including the way she imagined "him" touching her child 's little

body!!! Will now the "abductor" react differently or will "he" apply to poor Maddy what is described in the book - word by word?



-Other instances follow:

The obvious CONDITIONING OF THEIR TWIN CHILDREN'S MINDS

-Examples:

the SWORD extract in press articles (the father describes how his son would kill the abductor...);



Cards and Gifts "from Madeleine", that the parents faked for the twins, see related previous blogpost;



The Monster game ('find the raptor' game... in the house... which isn't precisely a healthy mental exercise for 2 little children to have in such situation. Yet to the

parents' pride, this story was sold to the press to form 'appealing' articles...)

More detailed examples are the bottom of this blogpost.



.... Conditioning and brainwashing Children's Minds towards anger and violence is simply called : MENTAL ABUSE. For two doctors isn't such a behaviour baffling?

Don't they KNOW that by implanting these ideas into their children's heads, a certain feeling of anger and disgust, and VIOLENCE, is going to result from this

talking-out-loud in front of their children?!

Also, the father swearing in front of his children and his friends' Children. We can all slip-up and happen to do so but we'd immediately feel

ashamed and utter something like 'Oooops, sorry!" - but not Dr McCann, he is allowed -he visibly thinks, all mightily- to give bad example to children. See

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUcVncYr6xc



And...

THE GASPARS' Statement -brief sum-up:

These two doctors, friends of the McCanns at the time, had spotted Gerry in the middle of a conversation with their other friend Dr David Payne, while being on

another holiday. Illustrated with sexual gestures, the dialogue was of a paedophile nature as it involved pointing at Madeleine. Mrs Gaspar worried immediately at

the news that something had happened to Madeleine in early May 2007 and decided to report the incident to the police. Her husband confirmed hearing the same

conversation and seeing the gesture.

The Paynes and the McCanns NEVER took action to clear their names in regards to these heavy accusations, which coming from them is pretty strange - normally they sue anything and anyone that can be sued.

Another point of greatly alarming concern is THE MAKE-UP that Madeleine was wearing on many photos and video public material. Make-up that was self-evidently

applied by an adult - in any case, it's dangerous to let a child apply make-up on her own, this was not child- make up, brushes are needed, take a look , please, at the numerous photos... I can send you some saved ones from the press if you still can't see what I mean...

(And did THAT really help to "find Madeleine"?)



All this added to the lies that 'Kate McCann' (HEALY) dares publishing in her book as asserting that the 5a apartment shutter could be pushed from the outside once

locked on the inside, for example, makes me want to alert to the BRITISH and PORTUGUESE SOCIAL SERVICES.... and urge them to lean on this book, comparing it to

the existing files. Again since they lie to police they would undoubtedly lie to YOU as well, even in a much easier way.



In more details:



"Sean and Amelie:

GERRY: Sean, in particular, talks about having an aeroplane and flying all over the world looking for ‘that man who’s taken Madeleine’ and when he gets him he’s

going to rescue her and take his sword out.

KATE: At the moment they don’t show any signs of anger. A month or so ago, I went for a run and I suddenly started thinking about Sean and Amelie getting much

older, they will understand more. "

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1270172/Gerry-McCann-breaks-tells-hunt-Madeleine-shaking-Catholic-faith.html#ixzz1M8yW85H5

and:

From The Daily Star

"KATE and Gerry McCann have revealed how their twins have vowed to rescue missing ­sister Madeleine from her abduction hell.

Speaking ahead of the third anniversary of her disappearance, the couple said Sean and Amelie, five, talk about “getting swords to get the man who has got her”.

The McCanns also released a video on their hunt for Madeleine, which includes a new “grown-up” picture of the youngster.

The snap – taken weeks before Madeleine vanished – shows her wearing blue eyeshadow accompanied with a pink bow in her hair and a gold bead necklace.

[...]

And they revealed how Sean and Amelie are determined to help the hunt for Madeleine, who will turn seven next week.

Kate, 42, said: “Sean said to me once, just as I was putting him to bed – it was out of the blue. He said, ‘Never give up, mummy’. [A child of the FIVE, saying THAT?!]

“I just said, ‘Don’t worry, Seany, I won’t do that. None of us will’.”

And Gerry, 41, added: “They talk about rescuing her and getting swords to get the man who’s got her.

“Sean talks all the time about finding Maddie and what he will do to the person who stole her.”



Is little Sean's parent's "speculative" conditioning really working though?

A new boy in school recently said to Sean that Maddy was dead as she had been shot. Little Sean then asked his mum: "But how would they know?"

Gerry interfered in the interview: "He was very matter of fact. He said no one knows where Madeleine is. The logic is undeniable."

and Kate added: "Children do say things. But I think Sean and Amelie have handled it brilliantly."

The Sun Paper Edition 7 -5-11

page 4, interview by Antonella Lazzeri & Oliver Harvey.

More concerns:

"Sometimes people do things for reasons that even they cannot understand."

"An act of madness, an accident or sudden impulse can lead to consequences that people may never have imagined or intended."

"Faced with such a situation we believe any human soul will ultimately suffer torment and feelings of guilt and fear."

-Gerry in his blog-



Kate in her book:

talking about how much she hated "HIM" and wanted to inflict maximal suffering onto HIM.

She wanted her old life back...

But how did she KNOW it was a "HE"? Did she really mean someone else??? Would she have done something very bad to have got back at that person?

Someone who knows the father well told me that she was jealous of the love between the dad and the daughter.

Apparently she wanted many 'hotel-breaks' even when the children were so young and it unsettles them. There would have been a room where the curtains are never, ever open ' to preserve the furniture'...

And:

She admits the existence that such IMAGES DO CONFIRM in a way that there was a REAL possibility... of what? FACTS? WHAT FACTS? THOSE SHE WAS JUST

IMAGINING? YET, her two "remaining kids" WILL read these "IMAGES"! She obviously hasn't pictured that, though? Or does she fabricate scenarios that become real?!



When she was first "taken ", Kate and Gerry, she writes, could ONLY think about paedophiles!

I wonder why... I would have personally thought ANYTHING but that, first that she had

somehow managed to escape by herself... Why didn't the MOTHER search? Even if abducted ("taken"...) couldn't any kidnapper be surprised or feel endangered then drop the child, alive, anywhere like on the BEACH? Alright, so then Kate would have thought this too, wouldn't she? Then why did she stay INDOORS, NOT SEARCHING FOR HER CHILD???!!!

and.... last but NOT least: Kate Healy - "McCann" describes in mult details how she could vividly imagine, bit by bit, this monster being TOUCHING her daughter,

caressing her... and even with many, precise descriptions of how her little daughter's body would get manipulated and precisely sexually abused by "him"... That is

explicit isn't it? a little bit too much detailed for MY liking, anyway.

She adds that it killed her and killed her... what "kills" me is her mental balance level...

Is this person mentally fit to be a mother? Shouldn't the social services organise a few checks and put her though psychological tests, just to make sure? I don't feel

comfortable, at all, knowing that Sean and Amelie are with her. I have my alarm bells ringing very loud.



Can you please conduct a Review too? As you know Kate has ASKED to see a GP (despite both being doctors...) on their return to Rothley in September 2007, with the

ONLY PURPOSE to "PRE-EMPT" the SOCIAL SERVICES' REACTION! Chapter 18: "One of the first things we did was to ring our GP. We wanted to make contact with the

social services to pre-empt any interest they might be obliged to take in us. In the light of the headlines and our arguido status, we realized there would be

pressure on the authorities to assess the welfare of the twins. It all seemed so crazy and unfair, but we had to confront it head on. "



Please read the book and tell me if you share my concerns for the McCann Twins. Thank you for taking this request seriously and URGENTLY.

Initials.