Brian Ladd - What a flake and a fake!

[Sarah]

I was looking at Brian Ladd's page and apparently he was off to Portugal to go and "crack the Madeleine McCann case". People gave him money for his trip and then apparently he got an e-mail from the police or authorities or someone official. In this e-mail (shown on his page) it says that if he goes to Portugal he will be arrested, so now he's not going.

My question is: how many policemen sending official e-mails have a yahoo! address????

[Admin]

My question is: how many policemen sending official e-mails have a yahoo! address????

This was done by an ex-policeman in an unofficial way.

[Bubblesxx]

Although didn't this ex-policemen say that he knew all about Brian and had checked him out? Where would he get this information from?

The letter states that he will be arrested if he flies through the UK or indeed if he lands in Portugal - may I just ask, if the Police are wasting time worrying about arresting someone who wants to help the case...... why the hell aren't they concentrating on the missing child which this is actually all about?

[Admin]

Brian Ladd is a fake psychic who's conning the gullible but the police in the UK or Portugal will not be interested in that (although the police in the USA should be IMO).

Brian has stated that he intended to go to Portugal, interfere in an ongoing investigation (which is illegal), and even break into Robert Murat's villa (again completely illegal) so I would suggest this is why the UK and Portuguese police are interested in stopping him.

[Bubblesxx]

But do you not think that he saying this to people so that someone else will do it before him. If the Police in Portugal were to know of Brains plans, wouldnt they want to check any suspects house that Brian talks about (on the off chance that SOMETHING could be found) so when he was to arrive and try to do the same then it would be completely pointless...?

Its just thinks like - there was a photo of Robert Murat standing on a pavement (after being named an arguido) laughing and joking with all of the Policemen - not a care in the world it seems. If he was under formal investigation by all of those people I can assure you that he wouldnt be doing that.

I think Brian has got himself in so so deep now and there is no way that he is going to be able to get out of it unless he does actually go to Portugal and do what he has says. People will definitely stop listening to him otherwise though wont they.

All of his dreams etc have been posted to Scotland Yard and Interpol by followers of his, so surely they are already aware of him?

[Matt]

But do you not think that he saying this to people so that someone else will do it before him.

yes I do think he's inciting criminal behaviour. However I was told it was just my imagination. I suppose whoever told me that must be feeling a bit silly now.

http://www.skeptics.org.uk/forum/showpost.php?p=22298&postcount=258

Oh, it was you. Now I'm confused.

Do you or do you not think that Brian has encouraged other's to break into Murat's house?

Of course if all this was simply to cause the police to search Murat's house then he's kind of missed the boat. Murat's house has been foresnsicly searched by police and sniffer dogs a number of times.

[MischiefMonkey]

But do you not think that he saying this to people so that someone else will do it before him. If the Police in Portugal were to know of Brains plans, wouldnt they want to check any suspects house that Brian talks about (on the off chance that SOMETHING could be found) so when he was to arrive and try to do the same then it would be completely pointless...?

Its just thinks like - there was a photo of Robert Murat standing on a pavement (after being named an arguido) laughing and joking with all of the Policemen - not a care in the world it seems. If he was under formal investigation by all of those people I can assure you that he wouldnt be doing that.

I think Brian has got himself in so so deep now and there is no way that he is going to be able to get out of it unless he does actually go to Portugal and do what he has says. People will definitely stop listening to him otherwise though wont they.

All of his dreams etc have been posted to Scotland Yard and Interpol by followers of his, so surely they are already aware of him?

Do you have any concrete evidence as to when exactly that photo was taken? Can you prove it wasn't taken before he was named an arguido - for example while he was helping with the search and acting as a translator?

[Bubblesxx]

Do you have any concrete evidence as to when exactly that photo was taken? Can you prove it wasn't taken before he was named an arguido - for example while he was helping with the search and acting as a translator?

Even if it was taken before he wa smade a suspect - he is still seen smiling and right in amongst the action and looking very comfortable indeed, showing that he has a relationship with the portuguese police - and that it is an informal one. He has been made a suspect for a reason.

[Bubblesxx]

yes I do think he's inciting criminal behaviour. However I was told it was just my imagination. I suppose whoever told me that must be feeling a bit silly now.

http://www.skeptics.org.uk/forum/showpost.php?p=22298&postcount=258

Oh, it was you. Now I'm confused.

Do you or do you not think that Brian has encouraged other's to break into Murat's house?

Of course if all this was simply to cause the police to search Murat's house then he's kind of missed the boat. Murat's house has been foresnsicly searched by police and sniffer dogs a number of times.

And the 2nd time it was searched was then it was alleged that Madeline DNA was in the house - proving that she had been there at some point. If they find that on the 2nd search - what could they find on the 3rd/4th?

[MischiefMonkey]

Even if it was taken before he wa smade a suspect - he is still seen smiling and right in amongst the action and looking very comfortable indeed, showing that he has a relationship with the portuguese police - and that it is an informal one. He has been made a suspect for a reason.

But that isn't what you said. You said the photo was taken when he was a aguido. Bubblesxx, you keep stating things that are either untrue or you can't back up. Or that mean nothing. Perhaps you could do a little research before posting? Somethingto back up your 'facts'?

[Matt]

And the 2nd time it was searched was then it was alleged that Madeline DNA was in the house - proving that she had been there at some point. If they find that on the 2nd search - what could they find on the 3rd/4th?

What if I allege that Maddy's DNA was found in your house what does that prove?

Allegations prove nothing. All we know for certain is that police ahve searched Murat's house, Madeline is still missing, Murat has not been charged.

[Bubblesxx]

YET. But if you were to say that there were traces of her at my house implying that I had something to do with the disappearance, and made it public so that everyone everywhere could it read about it, haven't you got to have some grounds for saying that? Otherwise, I could sue for deformation of character/slander etc couldn't I? I'm not being funny - I am genuinely asking you.

Surely the Police/media newpapers are aware of this? And the paper 24 horas, are already facing some sort of court thing regarding the report that they ran to say that Gerry McCann wasn't Madelines biological father.

[MischiefMonkey]

YET. But if you were to say that there were traces of her at my house implying that I had something to do with the disappearance, and made it public so that everyone everywhere could it read about it, haven't you got to have some grounds for saying that? Otherwise, I could sue for deformation of character/slander etc couldn't I? I'm not being funny - I am genuinely asking you.

Surely the Police/media newpapers are aware of this? And the paper 24 horas, are already facing some sort of court thing regarding the report that they ran to say that Gerry McCann wasn't Madelines biological father.

In theory, yes you could sue for libel. I can't comment on the Portuguese legal system, but in the UK it is incredibly expensive to sue for libel. It also takes months, if not years especially if it goes to appeal. And there is no guarantee that you would be awarded costs even if you won.

Cheaper, but also slow, would be to complain to the Press Complaints Council, who can order the paper to print a retraction. However, retractions are usually in the form of an inch of column tucked away on page 15, months after the massive front page story.

So while the press have watch what the say about the likes of Tom Cruise, in effect they can publish whatever they like about you or I. Or Robert Murat.

[Bubblesxx]

So while the press have watch what the say about the likes of Tom Cruise, in effect they can publish whatever they like about you or I. Or Robert Murat.

Really? That's disguting? I always thought that if you wanted to accuse someone of something, you actually had to have some sort of evidence otherwise YOU could be in trouble yourself. Surely that malkes some sense otherwise people could point the finger at eachother all day long without come sort of reasoning behind it?
RM has been made a suspect then just because some one SAID? Not because there seems to be something that may link him to the crime in the long run?

[MischiefMonkey]

Really? That's disguting? I always thought that if you wanted to accuse someone of something, you actually had to have some sort of evidence otherwise YOU could be in trouble yourself. Surely that malkes some sense otherwise people could point the finger at eachother all day long without come sort of reasoning behind it?
RM has been made a suspect then just because some one SAID? Not because there seems to be something that may link him to the crime in the long run?

And again you move the goal posts.

My post about LIBEL (or slander/defamation) was in response to yours and Matt's posts about making allegations. NOT about the Police arresting someone and, as is possible in Portugal (unlike the UK) nameing them as a suspect.

As to what evidence the police need to arrest someone, then yes, one eyewitness statement may be enough. To actually charge someone, and remember Robert Murat hasn't been charged with anything, you would need much more coroborating evidence.

Normal people do not go around pointing the finger at each other all day long. Occationally, false allegations are made to the police or published in the press. Most false allegation to the police would be weeded out before getting to the point of anyone being charged. If the police believe the person who made the allegation did so knowing it to be false, then they can be prosecuted for IIRC Perverting the Course of Justice.

[Matt]

There's also the problems of press weasel words like allegedly. Whilst the article may say something like, "leaked infomration was circulating yesterday suggesting that DNA evidence taken from Robert Murats house has been matched with Madeline"

Now this has a number of interpretations: It's just a rumour with no truth behind it, a test was done but the results aren't known, a test was done and was consistent with Maddies DNA but not conclusive, e.g could equally have been a relative's DNA, A test was done and was conclusive.

Now it's difficult to sue the newspaper for libel. All they have to prove is that such a rumour was indeed circulating as that's all they've actually said. If their source were apparently reliable thye've every reason to run the story.

However by the time is been read and misremebered a few times there's millions of people believeing that there's no doubt that conclusive infalliable tests prove that Maddie was at Murats house.

[Bubblesxx]

Seriously that is disgusting. I didn't realise that. So the press/media can do whatever they like and say whetever they like as long as they use the words like allegedly to cover their backs.

If the Madeline case is solved and it turns out that Robert Murat had absolutley NOTHING to do with her disappearance then I assure you he could definately speak to a few papers about sueing for libel/deformation of character/slander, and I bet a few lawyers would want to take on that case as he has a good chance of getting something out of it.

[MischiefMonkey]

Seriously that is disgusting. I didn't realise that. So the press/media can do whatever they like and say whetever they like as long as they use the words like allegedly to cover their backs.

If the Madeline case is solved and it turns out that Robert Murat had absolutley NOTHING to do with her disappearance then I assure you he could definately speak to a few papers about sueing for libel/deformation of character/slander, and I bet a few lawyers would want to take on that case as he has a good chance of getting something out of it.

If he has a spare £250,000.

Can you find a story in that definitively says that Madeleine McCann's DNA was found in his house? I would bet you can't. However I would also be willing to bet you could find a fair few examples of the like Matt outlined above. In which case any legal team is going to want a big chunk of their £250,000+ up front. Of course, if he sued and lost he would likely have to pay some or all of the defendant's costs.

[Matt]

Seriously that is disgusting. I didn't realise that. So the press/media can do whatever they like and say whetever they like as long as they use the words like allegedly to cover their backs.

It's not quite as simple as that but pretty much. You can be sued for implying things that are untrue even if you don't say them explicitly. So in some circumstances unqualified reporting of scurrilous gossip can land you in trouble.

The trick when reading the news is to pay close attention to what is explicitly stated as true and what sources are given.

This becomes very tricky when it comes to politicians. e.g. Sources close to the minister often mean his press office. Which can mean it's what the minister want you to think but can't actually say - possibly because it's not true.

As Bernard Wolley from Yes Minister said about leaks

"That's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I give confidential security briefings. You leak. He has been charged under section 2a of the Official Secrets Act."

For all we knew the "leak" about finding DNA in murat's appartment may have just been a ploy to flush a confession. It's certainly not reliable information.


If the Madeline case is solved and it turns out that Robert Murat had absolutley NOTHING to do with her disappearance then I assure you he could definately speak to a few papers about sueing for libel/deformation of character/slander, and I bet a few lawyers would want to take on that case as he has a good chance of getting something out of it.

There's probably a few publications that overstepped the mark but as it stands at the moment he's barred from making public statements about the case. That puts the kibosh on him suing.

Even afterwards the journalists may claim qualified priviledge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander_and_libel#Privilege_and_malice) that they're simply reporting the rumours going round as they are in the public interest. Murat would have to prove malice to get a libel conviction.

[Bubblesxx]

Murat would have to prove malice to get a libel conviction.

It may be in the public interest but not in the interest of RM himself eh?! Who is going to take blame for the fact that his name has been dragged through the mud? I mean if the case is solved and he is completely innocent, its a bit late really isn't it? People will always have their reservations about him from now on. So who is going to take the blame when say, he can't get a job? I know I wouldnt want to employ him - and the businesses that he is supposed to own wont get much custom i assume?

[Matt]

It may be in the public interest but not in the interest of RM himself eh?! Who is going to take blame for the fact that his name has been dragged through the mud? I mean if the case is solved and he is completely innocent, its a bit late really isn't it? People will always have their reservations about him from now on. So who is going to take the blame when say, he can't get a job? I know I wouldnt want to employ him - and the businesses that he is supposed to own wont get much custom i assume?

It's a sad fact of life, shit sticks. What's the first thing you think of when you hear the name Craig Charles. For me it's Dave Lister in Red Dwarf but second is the fact that he was conviceted of rape. Only afterwards do I remember that he was cleared of all charges. part of me wonders what really happened. Shit sticks. Accusations are front page, retractions not so much.

[MischiefMonkey]

Or Colin Stagg. His life has been ruined.

[Bubblesxx]

It's a sad fact of life, shit sticks. What's the first thing you think of when you hear the name Craig Charles. For me it's Dave Lister in Red Dwarf but second is the fact that he was conviceted of rape. Only afterwards do I remember that he was cleared of all charges. part of me wonders what really happened.

Yea that is pretty sad actually. Shame aswell. I understand that you say part of you wonders what happened... coz I assume that he must have been caught in some sort of compromising position for such allegations to be made. Now I realise that that is not always the case, and anybody could have 'pointed the finger' for no reason! Did he sue or get any sort of compensation when cleared of charges?

[Matt]

Yea that is pretty sad actually. Shame aswell. I understand that you say part of you wonders what happened... coz I assume that he must have been caught in some sort of compromising position for such allegations to be made. Now I realise that that is not always the case, and anybody could have 'pointed the finger' for no reason! Did he sue or get any sort of compensation when cleared of charges?

Who would he sue if the girl who accused him or rape has no appreciable assets and the papers who reported the unbiased facts of the case did so without malice? Even if that were not the case dragging the events of that night through the tabloids once more might do more harm than good.

[Matt]

Or Colin Stagg. His life has been ruined.

Good point, well made. Innocent until until let off on a technicality.

[Sarah]

It's been interesting reading all your replies - they went off at a tangent, but good replies, thank you!

:smiley::smiley::smiley:

[Bubblesxx]

It's been interesting reading all your replies - they went off at a tangent, but good replies, thank you!

:smiley::smiley::smiley:

I enjoyed that and actually learnt a few things. That's what these forums are for aren't they? A lot tend to go off at a tangent as people get more and more attached and passionate about writing!

[SKIRRID5]

Matt, Colin Stagg was not let off on a technicality. In my opinion the police, having no evidence against anyone, tried to set him up with the disgusting "honey trap". If they'd had good forensic evidence they'd have presented it instead of the "confession". They thought " The judge will throw the case out, and people will think we didn't fail, but were stopped by a technicality" And it worked!
The staggering thing is why the DPP allowed the case to get to court. Anyway, the cops now have the right man, don't they?
And to think everybody was criticising the Portuguese police!

[SKIRRID5]

Matt, on second thoughts you may have been being sarcastic. If so excuse my slowness.

[Investigative Reporter]

Has any one ever come across this man. He seems to be involved in a number of scams, ranging from trying to steal Luton Football club to stealing Oil Rigs in the Middle East. DN news in Norway reports that he is working in concert with a Michael Howarth an Australian he seems to use a company called ACI http://www.secinfo.com/d12TC3.v531.3j.htm Does any one know of these people or has anyone had any dealings with them. John Gurney is profiled on a blog as having a criminal record does any one have any further information on why he was jailed in the USA for fraud, and jailed in the UK for Fraud.

[DrS]

Sorry, but what has this to do with Brian Ladd?

[pancaman]

I am confused. We seen to have two Brian Ladds's . One in the USA and the other in Essex. Which one is trying to sort out Madelaine ?

[pancaman]

I am confused. We seen to have two Brian Ladds's . One in the USA and the other in Essex (UK). Which one is trying to sort out Madelaine

[InGabriel'sCorner]

Yikes... he's at it again!

Brian T. Ladd (supposedly of West Virginia, USA) has managed to weasel his way into a new criminal investigation, this time concerning a 10 month old baby boy named Gabriel Johnson of Arizona, who went missing in TX just after Christmas.

(http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/generic/news/gjohnson)

Ladd (aka "Dreamdude") has once again interjected himself into the middle of a case in which he has no business whatsoever. He has ingratiated himself with various suspects, buddied up to the sick mama who is sitting in jail accused of causing her child to go missing and who is refusing to help reveal his whereabouts. He has made atrocious allegations far and wide about the baby's biological father, even claiming to be pursuing paternity testing for this child by himself, and causing enormous heartache for Gabriel's grieving father and his family in the process.

Another American forum carried this revealing expose' on the Dreamdude and his modus operandi: http://bit.ly/9M3lx3 Ladd is shameless and will seemingly stop at nothing to use the misfortune of missing childrens' families for his own profit.

If anyone out there has the information that will put him out of business and shut him down for good, it seems clear that doing so would surely be a humanitarian act, on behalf of Gabriel's family and all those who find themselves in similar tragedies made worse by charlatans like Brian Ladd!!!

[Drop Bear]

Brian who?

I do not believe there is any such thing as a psychic,

I have never seen any evidence whatsoever proving the existence of abilities such as precognition, telepathy, talking to dead,dowsing, or any of the other wonderful para normal abilities claimed by diverse crackpots and charlatans.

You have psychic powers? Wonderful! Come to laboratory and show me under controlled conditions,or fuck off before I say something unkind.


Until that happy day,I will not argue the point with anyone,and continue to treat such people and their claims with the contemptuous incredulity they deserve. For me, they are in the same category as those confidence tricksters [clergy] who have convinced the gullible they are needed to intervene with the divine.


I DO have an opinion on the case in question.However, being based only on media reports, I can't claim my opinion is an informed one,so I'll keep it to myself.

[PaulW99]

If you read enough about these missing person cases you can almost always guess how it is going to play out. If a woman is missing then it's almost always the husband who did it, for example. There's an opening for any so-called psychic who wants to have amazingly accurate predictions some of the time. Often the psychics come up with ridiculously unlikely stories, which makes you realize that some really do believe in their own imaginary powers.

Maybe I'll set up a fake psychic website to do just that, play the numbers game. And of course delete any predictions I get wrong.

[Truth_seeker]

This was done by an ex-policeman in an unofficial way.
More research probably should have been done on what actually happened here.

[Matt]

More research probably should have been done on what actually happened here.

Go ahead. Starts here

http://www.ukskeptics.com/forum/showthread.php/1300-Brian-Ladd-raising-money-to-go-to-Portugal?p=17964&viewfull=1#post17964

[tolman]

And in the latest news, all the world's crime-fighting psychics have still collectively failed to find a missing child, despite their repeated bouts of self-confidence whenever they saw the chance of some free publicity, whether to promote a fraudulent business, or to stoke their delusions of skill and importance