Believe it or Not: The curious saga of Ripley Davenport and now, his wife Laura.
My name is Kent Madin. I am semi-retired from a 40+ year career in adventure travel and outdoor education. In 1975 I was a co-founder of Boojum Institute http://www.boojum.org and in 1984 was co-founder of Boojum Expeditions http://www.boojum.com. In the last 18 years of my career I have focused on Mongolia. I have been awarded several medals by the Mongolian Government recognizing my contributions to sustainable tourism and currently am serving my third term as Honorary Consul of Mongolia for the Northern Rockies. Ripley’s wife, Laura, started a WordPress Blog with the intention of denouncing my research into the Davenport’s fabricated claims. Following the specific advice of WordPress I created this blog to directly respond to Laura Davenport.
Here is Ripley Davenport, in his own words:
“Ripley Davenport is a renowned desert /steppe explorer, expedition leader and best known for his challenging expeditions to the isolated vast steppes and deserts of the world. . As a record-breaking explorer, Ripley has been a pioneering figure in pushing the envelope of desert adventure for many years.” Ripley Davenport’s Biographical Statement for the Gobi2011 Expedition.
I first heard of Ripley Davenport in regard to his 2010 expedition to haul all his supplies on a trailer across Mongolia, a form of travel dubbed “manhauling”. I took an interest in his project and his subsequent organization of a commercial trek across the Gobi in 2011 and discovered that Mr. Davenport had spread a variety of professional claims across the internet in the course of developing his career as a professional explorer. Mr. Davenport’s activities and claims raised questions of plausibility and, after being stonewalled and refused answers by Mr. Davenport himself, I began examining his claims and compiling information. Along with several other “cyber-detectives” (I have dubbed us the “No.1 Geezers Internet Detective Agency”) we have compiled quite a library of documentation including screen prints of websites now erased which all illustrate the evolution of Ripley Davenport’s professional claims. Eventually, what was just curiosity about how someone walks the length of the Sperrgebiet without being noticed by the guards, turned into a potentially intriguing narrative. The purpose of this research then focused on how the internet enables the creation of an imaginary persona and can be used to turn that persona into the basis of a business.
Ripley Davenport and his wife Laura, while claiming to have proof, have refused to provide proof of the claims associated with Davenport’s career, even simple things like where advanced degrees were issued or even the most basic details of the expeditions to Namibia and Karakum Desert in 1998. Davenport’s expeditions were ostensibly conducted to further knowledge of the landscape, human endurance, culture, etc. but what meager records there were have been expunged and questions are met by the Davenports with hostility and indignation. Instead, they have attempted to characterize my inquiries as cyber stalking and invasion of privacy to deflect attention from their inability or unwillingness to substantiate their professional claims. It’s the equivalent of a person stopped for a traffic violation who cries “police brutality!” when asked to produce a license.
I am also interested in how the internet amplifies the adage “what I tell you three times is true” where it can become nearly impossible to separate fiction from fact if the fiction is repeated often enough and embeds in blogs, interviews, articles etc.
Given current news of Lance Armstrong and Manti Te’o, the article I had in mind would also look at how expedition and outdoor adventure sponsors, donors and clients can be drawn into believing in the fiction, and, once there, resist challenges to that fiction even when presented with contrary evidence. It is troubling when friends, sponsors and media becoming complicit “enablers” of deceit because they willingly don blinders of their own self interest. Ultimately the question is: “How can the “adventure” community self-police against abuse of trust in a world where a few hours work can produce an attractive website built on fabrications and half truths? Is the subset of adventure called “solo exploration” particularly susceptible to fraud? Are practitioners of this subset loath to self police lest the spotlight swing round on their own claims?
I’ve encountered some curious but consistent behavior in the outdoor industry, outdoor internet news sources and professional explorer ranks while researching Ripley. With a few exceptions sponsors simply don’t want to hear that one of their “ambassadors” may have feet of clay. The same with internet journalists. This tendency is especially strong among other self-described professional explorers. Just raising the issue that someone they have sponsored, written about or been mutually “back-patting” with on the internet might be fudging their claims has brought out accusations that I am mean-spirited, mentally ill and a “douche bag”. Yet none of those who have disparaged my inquiries so vividly have, apparently, asked of Ripley the very basic questions about his claims.
One sponsor did ask questions and it provoked an outburst from Ripley which concluded with Ripley declaring that HE was breaking off the partnership and wouldn’t work with a company that didn’t take him at his word. For some sponsors and gear makers like Railriders, Termo, Powertraveler, Lowa the authenticity is not a high priority. What they want is exposure, the more dramatic the better. Faced with the possibility that they have been conned, it’s apparently more cost-effective to shoot the messenger rather than admit they have been conned. Scroll down to the section on Sponsors and you will see that not only does no one say they have seen the proof of Ripley’s claims with their own eyes, but some are beginning to say that they don’t care what he did in the past, just what he plans to do in the future.
The Davenports have gone so far as to issue a sort of “fatwa” (which can be seen here) that accuses me of criminal action and asks that I be ignored and any communications be forwarded to the Davenports as part of their chronically imminent plans for legal action. The distribution of this letter has proved sadly effective with some of the sponsors. My initial inquiries were always professional in their tone and sought only to understand the process by which sponsors vetted and selected those they sponsor. It is a truly bizarre document, apparently written with help from the same Lithuanian attorney who wrote the order to Cease and Desist. I have repeatedly asked that the Davenports publicly apologize and retract their accusations of cyberstalking. I have also repeatedly and consistently offered to apologize and remove any statement in my communications that the Davenports can show to be false. The Davenports fall back on the rather nonsensical argument that burden of proving them dishonest is on me, when in fact, the burden of proving their professional claims is clearly on them. My position has always been that in the absence of documentation from the Davenports, a reasonable person could conclude that the various claims are fabricated or intentionally exaggerated.
Apropos of the question of cyber stalking is the recent decision by the Federal 9th Circuit upholding the First Amendment rights of bloggers and independent journalists. I am neither anonymous or threatening, beyond the obvious threat of the consequences of being unable to prove your claims.
Have my comments at times been tinged with sarcasm and dark humor? Absolutely. The irresponsible and often inane behavior of Ripley and Laura and some of their most ardent supporters cries out at times for same. What I have done is to nudge the house of cards that the Davenports created . Their response is indignation and declaring themselves persecuted. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Why does it matter? First, if Davenport lied about his credentials, particularly when soliciting employment (as a guide or speaker) or in the case of material gain (sponsorship and equipment), then it is, quite simply, fraud. More importantly, if he lied about his credentials he potentially puts himself and others in harms way. I am not concerned that anyone who knows me would believe the whole “cyberstalking” ruse, but it needs to be exposed for what it is, a desperate and frankly, libelous, effort to avoid responsibility. And it matters because the same modern devices that accelerate our communications can easily be used to conceal and obfuscate the truth.
Where is Ripley Davenport?
As of mid-February 2013, Ripley Davenport has largely disappeared from view. His website is gone, twitter account, gone Facebook page gone and he has ‘scrubbed” the internet as best he can of all references to his explorer career. His wife Laura has chosen to fill the void and create a blog to expose my “cyberstalking”. Laura’s Blog is recreated here in black and I’ll comment on some of Laura Davenport’s most egregious misrepresentations in GREEN below. The original Blog is here: kmadinboojum.wordpress.com/ (Note: Laura has now deleted her blog as of Feb 5, 2013)
My name is Laura. I am mother of two, wife and a business consultant. My story goes back to 2009 when a man named Kent Madin contacted us by e-mail.
Kent Madin is a person whose Internet activities have given me a reason to ‘come out’ on the public domain and let readers make their own judgement based on facts.
In addition, this site will also give readers my personal account, moulded by 4 years of Kent Madin’s activities.
2009 was the beginning of a distressing time for my family as this individual would commence a witch hunt that would target, not only my husband, but our family and lives. (This is both a false and ugly statement. I have never “targeted” the family, I have simply asked for Ripley to provide documentary proof of his professional claims.) I have never met Kent Madin, done any sort of business or spoken to him. My only contact has been through sporadic emails and tweets.
Kent Madin is the co-owner together with his wife Linda Svendsen of Boojum Expeditions. He is a 40-year old hand of the outdoor and adventure travel industry. He has lived in Bozeman, Montana since 1990. Interestingly, Kent learned the value of citizen diplomacy early.
His commonly used email address is: firstname.lastname@example.org. Other business emails associated to his name are: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
We have tried many approaches and listened to many people, many in respectable and professional positions, but this did not stop Kent Madin from his obsessive Internet behaviour and demands. Some demands were private relating to finances and this man violated our privacy.
Silence, on our part, has not worked. Contact with him has not worked. Kent Madin was interviewed, *twice, by Bozeman Police, after we reported him, but the laws in Montana are primitive and cyber harassment, cyber bullying or cyber stalking laws are thin. No criminal charges could be filed and Kent Madin proudly boasted this fact. And wild Indians still ambush wagon trains in primitive Montana. The first interview lasted all of 40 minutes with a somewhat bemused Lt. Crawford and resulted in the police dismissing Laura’s complaint as without merit. Second meeting was requestedby myselfin order to ask how much in public funds were wasted by the “investigation” and to inquire what rights I had in terms of access to the documents submitted by Laura in her complaint. The police did not provide copies of the documents as a matter of policy, not, as Laura seems to suggest, as rebuke to me personally.
However, in the light of this Bozeman Police advised us, to file civil charges here in Europe where rules regarding cyber crimes are a criminal activity. Each year the laws get more stringent and more and more are facing custodial sentences. In fact, the Bozeman Police did not characterize Montana law as “primitive” and simply pointed out what should have been obvious, that Laura’s most appropriate avenue for redress was through the laws in her own country.
Kent Madin questioned repeated letters from our lawyer and her professional qualifications were bluntly doubted. Kent Madin’s letters were rude and arrogant but even though he rather abruptly apologised after confirming her credentials, he continued to place demands on her, after repeated emails warning him to stop his correspondence and he was recommended to seek legal advice, which he ignored. Laura and her attorney seem to expect that when an email shows up from Lithuania, out of the blue, claiming to be a lawyer, that the recipient should immediately take whatever they say as gospel truth and follow their every instruction. Lawyer Burbuliene’s missives read like bad parodies of legalese and when I requested some kind of proof that she was a lawyer, she responded with the same sort of indignation that I thought belonged only to the Davenports. Ms. Burbuliene advised me to get a lawyer so that the lawyers could chat. I understand the propriety, if you are a lawyer, of advising someone you are corresponding with in a dispute, that they should get a lawyer of their own. I declined and Ms. Burbuliene then declared that she couldn’t talk to me if I didn’t have a lawyer which was a convenient way of avoiding answering questions. My own opinion is that Ms. Burbuliene borders on incompetence, the evidence of that would be the “fatwa” letter with its reliance on the phrase “Without Prejudice” to insulate the Davenports from being guilty of libel. The term “Without Prejudice” has a very narrow and specific application when applied to documents that are part of a negotiation, but both the Davenports and Ms. Burbuliene has specifically declined to negotiate or discuss anything. And the “fatwa” letter was not sent to me, but sent to a variety of people known and unknown to me for the purpose of prejudicing the recipients into believing I was a criminal.
Kent Madin launched a website in my husbands name, which was libel and defamatory and was taken down by the hosting company after a letter from our lawyer. He moved the web address to another hosting company called “Nearly Free Speech”, which he continues to operate. The suggestion is that the hosting company agreed with Laura’s characterization of the website as “libel and defamatory”. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is the policy of that company to simply yield to any and all legal threats because it is cost effective. The site is now available at ripleydavenport.net
His invasion into our privacy and broadcasting personal private information on social networks such as twitter are becoming more and more verbally violent. More on verbal abuse here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verbal_abuse. The suggestion of “verbal” violence is tasteless and absurd. I have never threatened anyone in the Davenport family and have repeatedly stated my willingness to change my views and apologize on receipt of simple answers to simple questions. The Davenport’s have consistently refused to substantiate the simplest of things, like what degrees Ripley holds, whether he was a Combat Paramedic, etc.
When the privacy issue is breeched and he starts to openly broadcast more personal information then the scales are tipped. I have pointed out many times that Ripley is an intentionally created public figure using his “renown” to attract business and material benefits. My inquiries have all been centered on those professionally related activities. In the course of researching I have come across a lot of private details, some of which are disturbing, but have set them aside as generally irrelevant to the issue at hand, which is the veracity of Ripley’s professional claims.
He claims I’m screaming as a victim and his actions are justified. I intend to make every effort to expose Kent Madin for what, I feel, he is. It’s an intriguing if somewhat disturbing twist on this research that the Davenports have chosen to wrap themselves in a mantle of victimhood instead of just entering into a dialogue and clearing the air.
I am protecting a father, husband, friend and my family and our right to privacy. And I will never meet his demands.
(*twice: During one of the interviews, Kent Madin asked the Bozeman Police officer to provide information that I had supplied in my report/complaint. Bozeman Police refused to provide Kent Madin with any information). Updated 7th January 2013. Again, the refusal to give me access to the specifics of Laura’s complaints was a matter of long standing and consistent policy. Nothing to do with me personally.
My husband is in full time work now, which has nothing to do with adventure or exploration. There are no plans to return.
I’m sure Kent Madin recognises that expeditions do not pay bills and never have done, at least in our case. There is no multi-million pound sponsorship packages or millions of followers. No household name, no board of directors, no drugs, no TV, no suing, no trophy, no medals, no cheques, no influential or powerful connections, no worldwide media outside of adventure and no bullying from us. One might say that Kent Madin has been and is the bully.
In Kent Madin’s own words my husband wanted “free swag” from his sponsors. The term ‘free swag’ is Kent Madin’s choice and I resent that comment. My husband classes it as a collaboration of interests where both parties benefit.
Sponsors have received a ROI on the various products, for which we are truly appreciative, and he always kept in contact. His sponsors have never paid the bills or supported the family. Actually, Ripley skipped 0ut on his obligations to his primary sponsor for the Mongolia 2010 solo walk, Soren Braes at Pilotur. Don’t take my word for it, contact Mr. Braes: http://www.pilotur.dk/english/Who-are-we.html
Deserts and its people are my husband’s passion but Kent Madin decided to “research” my husband’s career, interfere with it and make one family with two small children a distressing time with his allegations and assumptions.
I’m almost positive that Kent Madin will add to his search and find out where my husband is and what my husband is doing right now.
I have made it quite clear about my intentions with this blog and unless Kent Madin stops, I will continue to operate this blog and openly write my thoughts and story. There is four years of story still to include. The Davenports have every right to say what they like. With their blog they are creating an indelible record of their obstinate and irrational refusal to simply clarify the many questions raised by the claims Ripley Davenport has made in creating his reputation as a “renowned” desert explorer. Why stop at 4 years? Why not go all the way back to 1993-1997? Those were the years that Ripley was planning and preparing for his “first triumph” (as described in the Speakers Bureau biography) to Namibia. I applaud the notion that, with a young family, Ripley has found steady work. I could not care less where he is working. I want just answers to the simple questions and a retraction of the claim of cyberstalking.
Is setting up website in my husbands name defamatory/defamation? Only if the statements are false. That is the general rule of thumb and the recent Federal court decision protecting independent journalists and bloggers reaffirms that rule. To date the Davenports have not pointed out a single false statement. The ripleydavenport.net site has only reported factual information, often directly quoting Mr. Davenport and is there to attract information from anyone who may have facts about Mr. Davenport that will help fill in the picture.
What have we done to deserve this? Again, this idea of victimhood appears. But in venturing an answer to the question Laura raises, I would say “You and your husband lied and in lying (and doing a pretty bad job of it) now find yourselves unable to maintain the artifice.”
Who deserves this? Certainly, public figures who are open and forthright in their professional claims and responsive to legitimate questions about those claims do not deserve this although questioning of public figures is a time honored tradition.
Defamation is defined as: the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, religion, or nation a negative or inferior image. This can be also any disparaging statement made by one person about another, which is communicated or published, whether true or false, depending on legal state.
This is really silly. If you read down this wiki posting, you will see that truth is the defense against claims of defamation. My position has always been that, without explanation and documentation from Davenport, the preponderance of the evidence and the questions raised by that evidence would lead a reasonable person to conclude that Davenport had made up much of his resume.
Fact: It’s now affecting our personal life, our work and earnings because of his website and assumptions/accusations.
We have desperately tried to prevent this but Kent Madin has refused and/or ignored us unless we meet his demands and questions, (some of which are personal or private). He refuses to take down his website and we believe he will never take down his website regardless of our plea. I have responded in a timely fashion to ever communication from the Davenports and their lawyer. The suggestion that I have ignored them is laughable. In fact, the Davenports, their lawyer and several of their “supporters” have all refused to have a simple dialogue and instead have “blocked” email from me.
I am extremely concerned about my work (employers have already questioned me on hearing from Kent Madin and/or seeing his website in my husbands name), clients, income, family, friends, children’s’ school and parents. The list is endless…
The bottom line: Kent Madin has nothing to lose and we are slowly losing everything: work, friends and respect. This is all down to one man and his assumptions and obsessive behaviour. It simply isn’t fair. Actually, it’s “all down” to having built a house of cards that can’t be sustained.
Kent Madin has written, ‘Here’s my unbidden advice. Publicly retract the bullshit about cyberstalking by emailing ALL your supporters and sponsors and posting the retraction on your website…Get on with your life while your kids are young and forgiving’.
This is an out of context quote. You can read the entire exchange here. The “without prejudice” letter is here.
The damage has been done.
It has reached a point that no matter the answers we give, he continues to attack us with more questions and we believe he will never stop. This is, once again, straight from the Red Queen’s mouth. The core of this whole dispute is the Davenport’s refusal to answer the simplest questions which could corroborate the claims they have made. Laura keeps repeating, in the best spirit of “what I tell you three times is true” that they have answered all the questions I have posed and still I persist. This is nonsense and flat out false. I have asked repeatedly about the advanced degrees, the military record, the dates and other proof of the 1998 expeditions and never received an answer. These are claims made specifically in the biography which Ripley used to sell himself to paying clients. They are unambiguous statements that should be simple to verify. There are only two possible explanations for the Davenports consistently ignoring those questions and crying “cyberstalking!”. One, they are standing on principle and refusing to deal with me because they don’t like me, in spite of the fact that this behavior creates the appearance that they are hiding something or two, they have no answer because the claims are bogus. The Davenports never confirm the claims are true, they just say that a close circle of friends and sponsors support them.
4 years later and he will not stop or keep his word and professionals have agreed. What in the name of Sam Hill does “professionals have agreed” mean?
Comment: I owe you thanks, in a perverse way, for creating your blog. I’d never fooled around with them, in spite of the ubiquitous nature of blogging. But it has prodded me to learn a new internet related skill and I have created my own blog which is essentially an annotated version of yours. Keep the content coming. Thanks.
Time: Friday January 11, 2013 at 6:24 pm
IP Address: 22.214.171.124
It seems I am his new target. What does this say? It says that since you have chosen to present your case in your blog but don’t allow any feedback or response there, I have created a blog that presents both sides of the story. This is exactly the course of action that WordPress recommends when there are disputes. http://en.support.wordpress.com/disputes/ .
You are no more my new target than I am your new target.
Authorities have now been informed. Informed of what? That you have a blog which libels me and I have chosen to respond?
I am always amazed and tickled pink when I am hounded with questions that doubt the Intellect of some. Yesterday, I received 4 small notes from Kent Madin, via my contact form. One was clearly written in the early hours of the morning (Montana time).
I’d like to point out a couple of questions that we have had to put up with over the years. Yes, we could ignore them but I thought it would be nice to air them and show the kind of questions Kent Madin and a young Danish journalist is asking…
How do you cross the Trans-Mongolian Railway?
Crossing the Trans Mongolian Railway lines isn’t exactly a problem. Between Zamyn-Uud/Erenhot and Ulaanbaatar there are many points where pedestrians/nomads/man-haulers and cattle can cross, unopposed and without problem.
The fence isn’t exactly a maximum security, electrified, barbed wire fence with patrolling vehicles and snarling hounds.
The fences are simple to deal with and many sections have been damaged and/or cut. Along some points there is actually no fence in place but a high bank/ravine and there are even under passes.
The fences can be climbed easily enough and those that have actually man-hauled, will know the routine of unloading, carrying and negotiating obstacles and reloading when faced with something like a gorge, steep hill, fence or river. That’s why these kind of trailers are built like they are. They are lightweight and easily broken down. Laura again fails to answer the question. This is a generic description of how the fencing and railroad can be crossed, information that could be gathered from the internet. It is not a description of how Ripley did it. And the persistent question I have asked since the very day he crossed the railroad is “Why didn’t you comment on crossing the railroad in your daily reports?” For that matter, what happened to your website which contained all your daily comments and route tracking information? Why has it disappeared? The railroad is a huge landmark, but on the day Ripley’s tracker showed him crossing the railroad, he made no mention of the event.
They can fail. They are not 100% perfect. They can be subject to many issues. Normally, a tracker records from point to point or when activated, as a crow flies, and not the zig-zag or diversions that were taken in-between each point. Trackers can be set to transmit from minutes to days apart and do not reflect the actual route. What may look like a distance from point to point of 4km could have actually and easily been a 20km journey. Again, a generic discussion of how trackers work, rather than explaining the clear inconsistencies. The tracker is the ONLY evidence that Ripley actually traveled across Mongolia under his own effort and now we learn from the Davenports that the information is suspect and inaccurate. Where, for instance, are the pictures taken every day of the 50+ day journey that would show the changing terrain or recognizable landmarks?
Beards and Dirt (excuse me, what?)
I will not even go into the questions the young Danish journalist raised about beard growth, or the lack off facial hair, which my husband has been quizzed on. Since when is a beard, ‘a badge of confirmation’, that you actually did an expedition? How pathetic and trivial and dam right silly!
Shaving is one comfort my husband has always enjoyed while on expedition.
What’s next, are there questions about clothing and the lack of dirt? Nothing a bar of soap, change of clothing, good rainy night, river, well or beating can’t handle! This all goes to credibility and Ripley’s is already proven to be suspect. He has admitted to making untrue claims on his LinkedIn page. Once someone has been shown to fudge the facts, it is normal to look more closely at other claims. Hence, the Danish journalists’ interest, I believe, in the fact that Ripley’s beard seems to be the same length at all points on the 2010 journey. Is Laura suggesting that Ripley carefully trims his entire beard while manhauling?
Man up yourself
Before you accuse, question and doubt an expedition from an armchair by raising pathetic questions – It is wise to not be ‘intellectually lazy’ and maybe – man up and man-haul for yourself? Again, we veer from the absurd to the delusional. Laura Davenport has never claimed to have any direct, personal experience herself with adventures, expeditions, rugged travel, challenging environments and physical challenges. Everything she talks about in that realm is second hand information gleaned (as she sits in an armchair in Denmark or Ireland) from her husband whose veracity is the question at the core of this dispute. I’ve been making my living in outdoor pursuits for 40 years but apparently can’t have a valid opinion or perspective on the subject unless I have engaged in a self-absorbed and artificial pursuit like “manhauling”.
The Data Protection Act of 1998 ensures that questions and enquiries about any individual’s, past and present military career are highly protected for many reasons such as security and confidentiality. Unless the person gives consent, military records cannot be obtained. I’m not asking for military records, just asking Davenport to explain the conflicting descriptions of his military service found across blogs, his website(s) etc. If the description of his service on his most recent website is accurate, then I’d like an explanation of how he described himself previously as a “Combat Paramedic, Special Forces, Bosnia and Gulf War veteran”.
If the person is dead then only the Next Of Kin (NoK) can give permission. If there are no NoK or relatives are alive then an elongated term has to have elapsed after the death of the individual.
The only credible evidence of any one’s military career, in this case, would be from the Ministry of Defence, UK. Yes, but the place to start is a clear statement from Ripley himself.
Kent Madin’s sources are not credible and any comments received via a Royal Navy ship’s facebook page, cannot be classed as fact, especially if the comments are from individuals that he never served with, remember or continued onward, with my husband, throughout his entire Naval career. Shipmates only confirmed that Ripley’s name was Colin Dormer while he served on the HMS Active. It is still not clear whether the Davenports are claiming that to be untrue.
Regarding Colin Dormer’s name change to Ripley Davenport. No one is suggesting this is illegal or prejudicial. From the perspective of an article on a given personality, it is of obvious interest to ask “why?”. The significance of Colin/Ripley’s shipmates identifying him is that it confirms a claim made by a former girlfriend of Ripley’s who, completely out of the blue, contacted members of our research group with some significant and inflammatory claims. One was that Colin/Ripley had changed his name. The confirmation by the shipmates is most significant for the fact that it lends credibility to the rest of the girlfriend’s story.
There is also evidence, from Ripley’s own posts on the internet, that he spent time in jail. Anyone can get off on a bad path and I make no judgement about those events. However, if true, they call the chronology of events into question. If he was in jail for some period of time between his Royal Navy service and short stint in the RAF Regiment, then he couldn’t very well have been in Special Forces for seven years. If he has never been in jail, then a simple declarative statement swearing that he has never been in jail will cause this reference to be deleted immediately.
Normally Royal Navy personal are rotated every 18 months, sometimes earlier or later depending on rank and requirements, from one draft to another. If Laura is suggesting that Ripley was in the military from 90 through 98 and rotated through various 18 month assignments (starting with the Royal Navy and ending with RAF Regiment) then she should say so explicitly. One has to wonder why Ripley is so secretive about his military service.
Maybe Kent Madin has obtained records, illegally, about my husbands military career, which would be a serious criminal offence? The fact is my husband has never given consent to any one since leaving the armed services, with an exemplary work and character record, in 1998.
Regardless of trade, years served, and/or conduct he did serve his country and all those that do and did serve, deserve respect. And the vast majority of those who serve and correctly, deserve our respect, are not secretive and defensive about their service nor do they give conflicting accounts of same.
My husband does not, or ever will give consent to Kent Madin or any one associated with his enquiries. I support his decision and all NoK have been informed.
I am investigating if Kent Madin has had contact with the MoD or breeched any security issues. This is a classic Davenport statement. They are always investigating or reporting something or threatening legal action but nothing ever comes of it, never any follow up.
Even though Kent Madin ‘claims’ he didn’t ask for financial information from Kim Bech Nielsen, he assumed it was his duty and right to send our financial issues to sponsors and many other third parties. (We have the letters to prove this fact). Laura objected to my characterization of the Davenports to a third party as having “left a trail of debts”. That characterization derived from contacts with several different people who made specific claims to that effect. Laura’s response was to insist that she had no debts and insist that if I knew of debts I should advise her. In the course of my conversation with the Davenports’ Danish landlord, he offered, unbidden, the information that the Davenports had skipped out on their rent of $2000 USD. I sent the information about Kim Nielsen to Laura precisely because Laura had specifically demanded that I send her any information about outstanding debts so that she could deal with them. emails show this clearly.
Why did Kim Bech Nielsen openly, and without consideration, give out private financial information to someone he didn’t know and surely a privacy issue was breeched? We reported the matter to the Danish Police, who are investigating the issue. Seems like a question you should direct to Kim Nielsen. And please report on your blog just what the Danish police have to say about the matter.
Kim Bech Nielsen claims he did not know how to contact us but a simple Internet search could reveal our whereabouts and he also had our email addresses. At no time did we hear from him. The Davenports told Kim Bech Nielsen that they were moving to Canada and gave a nonsensical Canadian postal address as a forwarding address (as shown in emails). Kim’s letters to the Davenports were returned because the address was bogus. As of this writing in January 2013, Kim has still not been paid the back rent owed.
My note: Ripley has known the employees at Wedellsborg Forestry for many years, as well as a self employed person, and Ripley’s credibility was based on a long and trusted work relationship and a good reputation within the Wedellsborg company and community. You don’t have credibility because you say you have it, you have credibility because multiple people can verify that the things you say are true or you have tangible evidence that backs up your claims. So why don’t the Davenports have some people who can attest to their good character contact me?.
There was never any conversation or questions between either party about past hobbies or interests or family business. This has no bearing on the questions arising if a person is worthy of renting a home for his family. Our landlord – tenant relation was always purely business orientated relating to property. Unless Laura can swear that she was present at ever single encounter between Ripley and Kim, this statement is just conjecture. At the time Ripley and Laura were renting from Kim, Ripley was also actively documenting his professional persona as an explorer through internet interviews, registering on expedition support sites and pursuing speaking engagements locally in Denmark to promote his plan for Mongolia. He was apparently spending a lot of time actively talking about himself and his “renown”. He has had no problem since he started planning his first Mongolia trip in talking up himself and his plans. It is not unreasonable that, while applying for a rental house, he talked about his past experiences in Namibia and Karakum.
Surely our past financial information is private and not for the eyes or opinion or assumptions of Kent Madin?
Below you will find letters of support from some of Ripley’s sponsors.If these sponsors are comfortable supporting someone who has not provided them proof of his claims and experience, that is their business. I contacted them while trying to gather information about the mechanism by which sponsors vet applications for sponsorship. My initial inquiries were very generic without negative reference to Ripley Davenport. The inquiries were often initially ignored or dismissed (Carol Schuler at Coolibar was a particularly striking example). This is not normal behavior when a business is contacted by someone gathering information for an article and suggests that many of the sponsors may have already been prejudiced by Ripley’s “fatwa”, the Without Prejudice letter. Businesses (and particularly publicists) are, by definition, professionally attuned to responding to media inquiries. I was curious just how seriously they want authentic people or if they don’t really care.
Quite simple, Ripley delivers his ROI, which is why we have and continue to support him.
Ripley was highly recommended to me by a fellow explorer. Ripley’s training and expeditions fit well with our company’s requirements for product testing and evaluation. We specifically wanted to test our garments in hot and challenging environments. Ripley was/is conducting expeditions that would subject our garments to these conditions. His comments provide us with confirmation and or a direction to continue our product development. The expedition goals, though inspiring are not as interesting to us as the comments on the performance of our garments. Our main focus is on product testing and the performance of our products and not on brand awareness or marketing.
Ripley’s background is interesting and adds depth to him as a character but was not the driving influential factor to our decision to work with Ripley. Ripley presents himself professionally and is a pleasure to be around.
Beyond First Aid
My decision to sponsor Ripley was based on my past experiences of working with him. We have similar goals and ambitions, and seek similar ways of achieving these. We are both ex-forces and family men. As an adventurer and Medic, I know what is involved in organising expeditions, and know that every little thing that can be donated helps towards an ultimate goal. In my case the goal is raising funds and awareness for The Children’s Trust, and children with head injuries, being a head injury survivor myself.
The nature of expeditions means that sometimes things do not go as planned, timetables tend to go out of the window and things usually pop up when least expected that can alter the course of what may have started out to be a simple plan. I know this, Ripley knows this, and anyone who has ever tried to ski across the Bering strait (me), walk across the Gobi dessert (Ripley), or travel to the North Pole on foot (numerous people), will know this also.
Ripley is a trustworthy, extremely dedicated and hard working individual, who throws his heart and soul into his expeditions and his training. I have worked alongside him as an expedition medic (advisory only) on a couple of occasions and have spent hours, if not days, emailing, skyping and texting Ripley in reply to his questions, to ensure everything is just right, or as right as it can be before he heads off to the airport. I have supplied medical equipment and first aid kits to Ripley. I have done this for no financial gain, but purely to assist a fellow adventurer, and would not hesitate to do so again. Nor would I hesitate to join Ripley on one of his expeditions should he ever need a medic or just a companion. This is Steve Blethyn is, himself, another Walter Mitty type.
We happily supported Ripley in his current endeavour as it was a great way for us to talk about sun protection and to help him in his expedition. We sent him some products that we hoped would be of help to him and in return he was going to write about his experience in our blog and put our logo on his website. It was a very simple arrangement. Coolibar is happy to support athletes and adventure seekers to get most of their experience and to stay protected from the sun in the process. A company that showed no interest in confirming Ripley’s past even when provided with compelling evidence that they were being conned. And Davenport has never posted anything to the Coolibar blog which was part of the agreement. He has also taken down his website as of today, Jan 12, 2012.
We were contacted by Emmanuel Berthier about the Gobi Expedition and we thought it was a nice idea to have some of our products tested in extreme conditions and get test results, pictures and exposure in return for delivery of products. We had already taken a decision before we had even heard of Ripley. Emmanuel was a person who forwarded our message to Ripley later on. This is a remarkable inclusion. It has nothing to do with supporting Ripley, which is obvious upon reading.
Todd Carmichael – Co founder, La Colombe Torrefaction
I donated to Ripley’s cause, distance on foot, and was glad to.
(Todd’s financial support and sponsorship was purely a donation and in no way asked for. It was a kind gesture and one that helped the Mongolia 2010 Expedition continue in a time of financial difficulty).
Todd also adds: I follow treks, all sorts and offered, mid trek, a financial incentive based on my own excitement of what he was doing to reach what I believe to be two huge distances. I am a trekker, hold a world first and a world record and I am a benefactor, to many people, including Rip.
I also have a very large staff, and I assure you, our research is exhaustive. We have researched, in detail, Rip, and many others, and are satisfied that he, and the others, are authentic. Certainly, everyone over glamorizes, just as most all do as this is the nature of the marketing beast, but at the core Rip is real enough to sponsor.
In conclusion. I have trekked in Namibia, to name just one, and any conversation you have with Rip about it, even if just a casual one, will satisfy you that he two, has trekked Namibia, contingent that you are not guilt bias – basics you can not know unless you too were there. These last two paragraphs are priceless. First.. a conversation with Ripley is exactly what I have tried to have and when asked for specifics he cries “stalker” and shuts down communication. Second, Todd’s staff did “exhaustive” research yet he couldn’t provide a single detail about Ripley’s 1998 trips. “Real Enough to Sponsor” may be the title of the article. Third, the last paragraph essentially says “If you turn off any element of critical thinking, you’ll believe Ripley”
And this endorsement from Todd is from someone who has not once, but twice pursued and failed at his own “manhaul” across Death Valley in blatant disregard for the regulations that govern travel in that wilderness area. It would seem that for intrepid, solo adventurers, the rules and the facts don’t need to apply.
There was never any personal financial gain or profit. All financial contributions were accountable and purely used to assist the expedition. This is an exercise in parsing and splitting hairs. The Davenport got “salaries” whose level they alone determined but not profit.
The Gobi 2011 Expedition was not a profit making expedition. Each team member paid for an expedition, which was provided, to each team member by a salaried team and support crew. The team also received items from sponsors, for their own personal use.
Satellite airtime was a key factor and many of the expedition team did not pay for their airtime, which was left outstanding. The Davenports left their very short term partner, Explore Foundation, on the hook for thousands of dollars.
Kent Madin has no proof that we made a profit and this is his assumption. I am more familiar than most about the cost of travel in Mongolia.
No one has the right to our private business information, especially what profit or loss. I might be wrong here but isn’t this for the eyes of Inland Revenue and our Accountant only? Different rules would apply if my husband had a charitable organisation or a joint stock company.
Kent Madin’s accusations on expedition profit are wrong and without grounds.
We openly state that we have never made any profit from any expedition.
No sponsor has indicated that their decision to sponsor Ripley was based on past exploits, military service or education. Decisions were based on current and future projects and Ripley’s engagement and passion in to the expedition or project in question. I would love to see all these sponsors posting a (verifiable) letter saying they don’t care whether Ripley actually did the trips in 1998, they just care about what he has done since 2010.
Sponsorship came in the form of product in return for pictures, feedback, testing, blogs and to better enhance the sponsoring company’s profile.
The following companies, Powertraveller, RailRiders, Nite Watches, Termo, and Pilotur – to name but a few – have all used Ripley’s expedition’s in their own way.
On Tuesday, January 8, 2013 at 12:06 PM GMT,which would make it 05:06 AM Montana time. I received the following request from Kent Madin: ” ...still waiting to hear if I can have permission to have professional psychological evaluation done on you…”.
This was the second email with the same request, sent via this website’s contact form.
I want to add: What have I done to him to be psychologically evaluated other then tell the world my side of the story as a wife and a mother? Am I his new target? I will let the readers decide if a psychological profile of Laura is in order. My point in asking for your permission, Laura,was to illustrate the absurdity and audacity of you waving around a psychological profile of me by some faceless psychologist. First, no self respecting professional in the field of psychology would create a profile built solely on cherry picked information from an obviously biased source.
Note: A very close friend knew a professional and he offered to give a profile on Kent Madin after he contacted my previous work place and past landlord, which raised a lot of concern when my previous manager asked for an explanation.
One of our lawyers will into your case and decide what to do.
You will receive an answer.
My note: the case is still under investigation. No decision has been made yet. Here we have a classic from the Davenport playbook. Just as the Davenports have preemptively painted a picture of a cyberstalker victimizing them in order to get normally sane people to shut down communications with me, they love to make these breathless statements which have no merit or consequence to them at all but give the impression that things are working out in their favor. Now we have a statement from nameless Danish Police.
RE: Cease and desist from Cyber-stalking/harassing/etc.
Dear Mr Kent H Madin,
This CEASE AND DESIST ORDER is to inform you that your persistent actions including but not limited to: launching a website under my clients name, constantly contacting my clients sponsors, management, speaking agency and other third parties, which includes Skype interviews, repeated unwanted telephone calls to my clients sponsors, contacting editors of various third party blogs, contacting a previous landlord and gaining personal financial information and sharing that delicate information with many third parties have become unbearable. You are now ORDERED TO STOP such activities immediately as they are being done in violation of the law.
My client has the right to remain free from these activities as they constitute harassment/stalking/bullying etc., and on behalf of my client I will pursue any legal remedies available to me against you if these activities continue. These remedies include but are not limited to: contacting law enforcement to obtain criminal sanctions against you, and suing you civilly for damages my client has incurred as a result of your actions.
Again, you must IMMEDIATELY STOP the harassment/stalking/bullying etc. and send me written confirmation that you will stop such activities. You risk incurring some very severe legal consequences if you fail to comply with this demand. Silence on your part will constitute your failure to comply.
My client and some of his associates have asked you to stop, a plea that you have bluntly ignored, so this letter acts as your final warning to discontinue this unwanted conduct before I pursue legal actions against you. At this time, I am not contacting the authorities or filing civil suit against you, as I hope we can resolve this matter without authoritative involvement. I am not under any circumstances, however, waiving any legal rights I have presently, or future legal remedies against you by sending you this letter. This order acts as ONE FINAL CHANCE for you to cease your harmful activities before I exercise my clients’ rights.
Continued on next page…
To ensure compliance with this letter, and to halt any legal action I may take against you, I require you to fill in and sign the attached form and mail it back to me within 10 days of your receipt of this letter. I request an emailed scanned and signed copy within 3 days. Failure to do so will act as evidence of your infringement upon my clients’ legal rights, and I will immediately seek legal avenues to remedy the situation.
Sincerely, Renata Burbuliene. This is silly. Ms. Burbuliene has not authority to order me to do anything and she knows it, or should.
Kent Madin comments further: ‘I can only expect it will help shine further light on the unusual career of Ripley Davenport’.
I would like to add: ‘And the unusual activities of Kent Madin, which has veered far from the original topic and crossed a privacy issues. Elements of his ‘research’ could be misinterpreted as any of the following if not all:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberstalking (Note: Montana has not yet updated their laws and the reason why our complaint wasn’t dealt with accordingly). The reason your complaint was not “dealt with accordingly” is that it was frivolous, had no merit (and wasted Gallatin County taxpayers money).
Europe’s laws are far stringent and I have been consulted to pursue a civil case.
My note: Although I am not accusing Kent Madin of the above, I am merely pointing out that the reader can decide if his actions are subject to the above. In fact, the “fatwa” (as I like to call it) issued by Ripley Davenport, does specifically accuse me of crime.
One must consider the respect and balance for private life and Kent Madin has crossed that boundary’.
Kent Madin adds: ‘In essence, Mrs. Davenport will chronicle how requests for clarification of Ripley’s career claims were ignored by the Davenports and subsequent research and analysis of the claims were, in her opinion, attacks on their family’s privacy’.
I would like to add: ‘Options were given to Kent Madin but he did not acknowledge my request’. This blog proves the cyber attack on our private lives. Now we go beyond silly and dive deep into the delusional. Laura issued her “option” (an offer to take down this blog if I stop all my activity) via her Twitter account and then, literally within minutes, deleted that account. She has blocked my email as well. So I literally had no way to respond to the “option”, had I wished.
Kent Madin: ‘The reader of Mrs. Davenport’s blog will doubtless ask themselves, “Why don’t the Davenport’s simply provide proof of the claims?’
My answer: ‘Davenport’s? What has my name have to do with this and why was my privacy violated? And why is Kent Madin interested in past landlords (relaying personal financial information to third parties without our consent and other personal private family information, which is no business of any one), a military career, previous employers and friends? Laura quotes me, then completely ignores the question and raises her own question portraying herself as a victim. In answer to her question about my interest in landlords, etc: Because they flesh out the narrative of the story. When the Davenports are asked to answer simple, black and white, yes/no questions they refuse because… they don’t like me. If they wanted to shut me up, they should just publish the proof.
Surely the reader can ask why Kent Madin pursued this for 4 years?’
The Kent Madin ends: ‘In the meantime, an article on this subject in Politiken Newspaper (one of Denmark’s largest) continues to be scrupulously researched, documented and prepared for release in this new year’.
I’ll end with: ‘No doubt, there will be two articles in print’. Promises, promises. Ripley has consistently claimed that any moment a book detailing all his explorations or a video or other details were just about to appear. It’s bollocks. How’s that book of Ripley’s coming, the one that was published last year?
Right or wrong…
Would a professional journalist follow Kent Madin’s path?
Would any newspaper or magazine launch a website in the subjects name, if he/her can’t source the answers?
Who deserves to be a target and have their personal privacy violated by a man you have never met or done business with?
Does a family have to suffer and a named soiled because of one man’s obsession?
Ripley Davenport has promoted himself and his claims to further his professional career. He is a self proclaimed “renowned” explorer. He created several websites and FB pages open to the public which solicited and encouraged people to follow him as a public figure and to comment and interact with him. So, yes, a professional journalist would consider it entirely appropriate to research an intentionally created public figure through whatever means fit within journalistic ethics. This is like someone accused of shoplifting who declares that the request to empty their bag or lift their shirt is an invasion of privacy. People write articles all the time about personalities who refuse to cooperate with the author. OBVIOUSLY, a responsible journalist looks for multiple sources that can confirm the story in the absence of the subject participating. That means talking to people who know the subject, researching through various records, etc. And the fact is that the information on ripleydavenport.net is ALL factual, and most are direct quotes from things written and distributed by Mr. Davenport. The website merely enunciates the questions that are raised from any reasonably careful reading of Mr. Davenport’s claims. The Davenports themselves are entirely responsible for creating this hoax about cyberstalking and are themselves in potential legal peril for libel for distributing an hysterical and inaccurate letter about my research activities to friends, sponsors, etc. By doing so, they have actually amplified the potential interest in this story for publication, throwing in this bizarre ploy to fend off having to answer the questions.
I suggested to Kent Madin that if he removed his website, under my husbands name and stopped his ‘research’ and Internet activities relating to my husband and family, I would not publicly name him. I would also erase this website and I would be open for dialogue.
Kent Madin did not acknowledge my request. How could I acknowledge anything, you closed your twitter account within minutes of making that request.
I reserve the right not to reply to emails that are offensive, contain unacceptable language, spam or are suspected to be fake identities. Actually the suggestion I made was that you have a Comments page, not a Contact page. Let people comment on the content.
In order to protect the identities of those that have pledged their support, I will not publish their names or contact details unless they consent. I respect the right to privacy. Actually, I think what you really like is using privacy to obfuscate the issues. If these people really support you and have a clear opinion of me, why are they not willing to be identified?
Everything posted on this website can be verified.
Sent: Friday, April 6, 2012 8:25
Kent Madin contacted me. I told him I was a friend. He said sh%&y things about you, I ignored him. He’s a douche bag.
Sorry this is happening.Note this person made no apparent effort to consider the question I presented, just closed his eyes and ears.
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 7:42 PM
Well, you canadd harassment of sponsors to his list – he is now calling me 3 times a day. I told “……” to delete this. I am going to write to him one more time and tell him to stop and then I will ignore him. What a colossal waste of time for us all.
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 6:27 AM
Hope everything is going well for you. Please see below. This Kent Madin keeps contacting me. Yesterday I received another 2 calls and text messages. He wrote that he will keep calling me.To be honest I really don’t like his tone. Can you confirm me anything about this guy? Why didn’t these people even respond? Because the Davenports had circulated a letter detailing how they were being stalked and everyone should ignore any contact from me and forward the communications. They were all duped.
Sent: Tuesday, October 2, 2012 12:18 PM
If anyone contacts me about this, they always get a short answer from myself saying that they basically need to get a life. Something that Davenports are trying to do, being helped by a small minded individual such Madin, who I threatened with legal action if he contacted me again…He hasn’t.
Until then, I, unlike certain other individual, will leave you in peace to get on with your lives.
Look after yourself and those kids.
Sent: Monday, January 7, 2013 at 10:59 AM
Regarding Madin. After his ill-advised attempt to contact me and bad-mouth, I immediately followed through with my threat to block his email address. If he wrote back to attack me, which I’m confident he did, he never got a response. That’s because I wouldn’t waste a stroke of my keyboard on the insane §@#&!?%¤.
The world is full of deluded, time wasting §@#&!?%¤ like that.
End of story.
Letters from/to Kent Madin to numerous third parties, sponsors, our lawyer to be updated shortly.
This will display the kind of language his uses and his demands.
Kent Madin’s known trawling grounds where he uses other articles, blogs and stories to target my husband: Let’s keep in mind that the only reason I would be visiting these sites is because Ripley Davenport has already been there with posts or interviews that broadcast his claims.
Study of Kip Litton Running Performances”blog deleted Kent Madin’s irrelevant comments were deleted by the owner of the website This site details a figure similar to Ripley who created a faux persona and pretended he was entering and winning marathons.
Beforeitsnews – Kent Madin’s abusive comments were deleted A search of this site produces no reference to Ripley Davenport. Hence, the entire posting about Ripley was removed along with all comments.
Explorers Connect – his comments and the account were deleted
Explorers Web – his comments and account deleted
Adventureblogspot – comments deleted And all content about Ripley deleted including several fawning articles. All the articles were removed AT THE REQUEST of Laura and Ripley.
Facebook – Kent Madin was an active participant in “Anti Gobi” page, which was taken down by Facebook Dublin office in 2011 due to breech of their Terms & Conditions and defamatory context
HMS Active facebook group This was a very interesting group which, besides confirming the name change from Dormer to Davenport provided an explanation of where the name “Ripley” came from (Colin Dormer loved the movie Alien) and fellow shipmates who clearly identified Dormer/Davenport from a photo characterized him as a “beer mouse” and “a compulsive bullshitter of the first order” and “told his in-laws he was a helo tail gunner”. These are just comments and opinions from the people with whom he served on HMS Active and I make no representation as to their accuracy. One mentioned that he had been best man at Dormer’s wedding or vice-versa.
Under Mongcon pseudonym – boards.cruisecritic.com
The fact is that many of these are sites are sites where Ripley originally gave interviews or provided content describing his exploits. THAT is the reason my comments were found on these sites. The webmasters were contacted in late 2012 by Ripley and Laura and asked to remove comments but the webmasters just removed ALL content regarding Davenport. In other words, it’s not that they were judging the merits of the argument, they just washed their hands. There is a considerable archive of screen prints of the original posts on these sites including comments.
With the help of an independent Psychologist I had Kent Madin professionally profiled. Here is a brief synopsis of that report.
Kent is a physically big guy. He is good looking. He is very strong, physically, and operates mostly in the outdoors.
However, he is not as smart as he thinks he is.
He is intellectually lazy, although he has considerable mental ability.
His Boojum Expeditions, where he’s in charge out there on the plains or in the office, gives him residual swagger.
He is naturally inclined to bullying, because he actually has low self-esteem. A father problem?
His varied public tilts at others, always finding fault with and mocking them, is evidence of this story.
Kent Madin has a lot of time on his hands and he is fixated on my husband.
He likes to find weakened or vulnerable people, and then act out his father’s disrespectful treatment of him. Are you saying that you are weakened and vulnerable?
His father was the actual bully, I’d guess, as that is the usual pattern. Loved kids are never bullies.
Kent Madin likes to single out others and ridicule them in public. That’s absolutely classic bully stuff.
The independent Psychologist adds: Notice how he chooses to hurt, by ridicule, those who can’t retaliate (by dent of distance)? I think that KM has plenty of spare time on his hands, and likes to amuse himself by hurting others.
He is so confident he can get away with it, because he has always got away with it, all his life.
His physical bulk, when he was a teenager, and as an adult, has ensured that no one stood up to him.
He will always have avoided a physical fight by only picking on those too small or weak to challenge his taunts.
The independent Psychologist ends: Summing up, he is a bully, with low self-esteem, and is intellectually lazy. He takes the easy options at easy targets. Please tell your Psychologist that I am available for an interview anytime so that he/she can confirm their analysis.
It is understood and widely known that Kent Madin adopts a fictitious name. Below is a record of his used/known Pseudonyms.
Confirmed. (probably derived from Mongolian Consulate as one of his roles is the Mongolian Consulate for the Northern Rockies)
Confirmed. twitter account used to contact third parties by using the @ or #
Confirmed. (a feminine name used for website embedded contact forms. IP address tracked to within 25 miles of Bozeman, Montana). On 6th of January 2013 Kent Madin said via twitter) that “Mary” cuts his hair and she said it was a bizarre story. Who actually sent the message – Kent Madin or ‘Mary’ – is unknown. This is truly absurd. I am happy to have my barber contact and confirm.
Confirmed. (free email @lavabit.com based alias used to seek information)
Plausible. (prior fictitious facebook account)
Plausible. (prior fictitious blog account name used for negative comments)
Confirmed. Use on a Multiple Sclerosis website claiming that my husband did not suffer from Multiple Sclerosis and, using his own limited Medical experience and diagnosis, suggested ‘Münchausen Syndrome’. The comment was deleted by the website owners as offensive.
Our lawyer has received another lengthy letter from Kent Madin with more demands in addition to the usual spiel.
Here is one such demand:
‘The simplest way for me to respond is to write a blog of my own (which is the remedy recommended by WordPress), an annotated version of Ms. Davenport’s blog which provides “the rest of the story”. The address is kentmadinanswerslauradavenport.wordpress.com. I am happy to provide the password on request. I intend to use it to explain any inquiries I receive about Ms. Davenport’s blog. In the meantime, I would like a complete list of those people to whom Ms. Davenport has sent a link to her blog.
If I don’t receive a list of those to whom the kentmadinboojum blog was distributed, my option will be to distribute my annotated blog to all those people and sponsors who I feel are likely recipients of the Laura’s blog’.
Who are the readers of this blog? I know that Kent Madin is the main reader and then persons in Denmark, Spain (really!), India and even Hong Kong.
I am pleased that search engines are picking up his name and my blog address is climbing. My intentions exactly. It’s just like his website in my husbands name.
So, now there will be a second website. That means that I am a target now. I was right.
Kent Madin, yet again, assumes that my blog address has been distributed to my husbands sponsors. I didn’t think of that but maybe it’s a good idea? He’ll use this second website to give his side of the story and send me the password. How kind.
Why on earth would I want the password? No thank you.
My question: Why would I give information to a man, that we have never met, or done business with, that has caused so much damage to my family. Why? He still insists, demands and asks but when will he learn that he does not deserve such questions and I will NEVER provide him with any information and that goes for his fans as well, whatever their pseudonym.
Kent Madin is a stranger to us and in my eyes – an evil man.
I WANT TO DRAW THE READER TO THE FOLLOWING OPENING IN HIS LETTER.
‘The current blog does appear in search engines. While I am confident that anyone who knows me will find the accusations in the blog both bizarre and unbelievable, it has the potential for damage to me and my reputation and certainly could cost me effort or money to answer the claims made in the blog’.
I WANT TO REPEAT A PART FROM ABOVE:
…it has the potential for damage to me and my reputation and certainly could cost me effort or money to answer the claims made in the blog.
NOW KENT MADIN KNOWS WHAT IT’S LIKE. HE HAS COST US DEARLY IN MANY WAYS.
I DON’T CARE ABOUT HIS REPUTATION AND FEELINGS. He can now do what we have done for the last few years and Kent Madin can spend his hours defending himself. A sweet taste of his own medicine.
As a wife I would like to ask if Kent Madin’s wife, Linda – knows what her husband is engrossed in and his obsessive behaviour of our family? Is there a business, family to run etc?
He ends his letter with:
…they have attempted to characterize my inquiries as cyberstalking and invasion of privacy to deflect attention from their inability or unwillingness to substantiate their professional claims. It’s the equivalent of a person stopped for a traffic violation who cries “police brutality!” when asked to produce a license’.
If the reader digests this website, they can decide.
Police is a governmental organisation. Who is Kent Madin? Would the Police launch a website in my husbands name and distribute private information to third parties, online on his website and harass sponsors and friends and many others? I think that most readers would understand that the “police” analogy is not an effort to represent myself as a governmental organization. It’s intent is to illustrate the inappropriately extreme response to being asked reasonable questions.
NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS, HE WILL NEVER GET ANSWERS TO ANY QUESTIONS, NO MATTER HOW TRIVIAL AND UNRELATED THEY ARE. So questions that go to the heart of your husband’s character, and veracity are “trivial and unrelated”?
I have asked him to stop and leave us in peace but he has refused unless…You know it…Gets answers. I vowed endlessly that I would remove this blog if he just got on with his own life.
Kent Madin’s obsessive behaviour of our family should stop now. If he doesn’t stop, I will ensure that this blog address will be sent out via my mailing list. That would be your choice although I feel certain it will not benefit you in the end.
I’ll say it again…My husband is in NO WAY a part of this blog or adds his input. He has vowed to never entertain Kent Madin and his (I’ll use his words) bizarre and unbelievable, activity and that goes for his ‘supporters’. Why has your husband abdicated his responsibility to speak for himself?
IMPERSONATING A PARENT/TEACHER?
My husband planned an expedition in 2011, which incorporated a schools education program organised by our education program consultant. Schools from all over the world could sign up and follow the expedition with a variety of lesson modules.
Many schools registered and the expedition was followed in classrooms worldwide such as: Africa, Ireland, Mexico, UK, France, Mongolia, USA and Singapore. Even teachers and parents became active and engaged. Hundreds of young students all excited about the prospect of being part of a desert expedition and learning about another country by other means.
However, our consultant suspected the email details from one school that registered checking its credentials and it was found that Kent Madin had enrolled under the Pseudonym/Alias:
‘MC Jenni’ from the Missoula International School MC Jenni is a very real person. see below
The school confirmed that no such person existed. The email used to register was: rett139yahoo.com, which is Kent Madin’s email address.
I believe its reasonable to suggest that Kent Madin used, without consent, a schools name pretending to have an association with the school or impersonating a teacher or parent to gain access to the Expedition’s education program. This makes it sound like the education program was some kind of state secret! It was an amateurish assembly of cut and pasted stuff from the internet.
Is this a school security violation?
What does it say about Kent Madin and his obsession?
Well. what it says it that a: there was no mechanism for requesting copies of the “materials” without being a school (and my experience to that date with the Explore Foundation led me to believe they would not look favorably on a request for the materials from myself. Although, in fairness, Tim Lavery did say much later that he would have just sent me the information had I asked). b: That I contacted our previous office manager, MC Jenni whose two daughters were enrolled in Missoula International School (and where I had assisted in presentations about Mongolia in years prior) and asked if she thought anyone would mind if I requested copies of the materials in the School’s name. It’s a very small, community private school where everyone knows everyone and MC agreed that it would be fine. My interest (as email from the time will confirm) was to see just what kind of materials were being distributed. If the materials seemed of sufficient quality I planned to then formally contact the school director through MC to see if they wanted to become one of the schools following the expedition. The fact is the materials were very poor quality, cut and pasted (often without attribution) from other websites and with numerous errors or erroneous assertions. I would challenge Laura to produce the names and contact for the educational “consultants” who prepared those materials. (She can provide the name of the psychologist and criminologist she refers to as well) I would also point out that the Gobi participants have asserted that there was very little, if any, interactivity with schools on the actual expedition. The fact is, Ripley Davenport appears to be the one doing the impersonating; impersonating an explorer, a grade school teacher (in Denmark), a humanitarian, a combat paramedic, a holder of university degrees, a police man, a “much sought after” guide, a filmmaker, British officer, etc. In fact, Colin Dormer has been impersonating the imaginary Ripley Davenport since the mid ’90’s. Speaking of impersonating, (and genuine schools and education) it will be interesting to learn the circumstances surrounding Ripley’s short tenure at The Cosmo, a grade school in Denmark.
Kent Madin gave himself a right to publish that my husband was in jail. This is defamatory statement and serious allegations? If it is not true that Mr. Davenport spent time in jail, then just say so.
Does he assume this because of some sort of blog on the Internet? What documentation does he have? Kent Madin demands all sort of documentation from us, but what about his defamatory statements without any grounds and evidence? I will forward the screen print of the interview in question to your attorney or I can publish it here. It was from a website called Escape the City and Mr. Davenport’s “profile” which he voluntarily and purposefully entered, includes a reference to jail time. “initiated many encounters with the law, the inside of courtrooms and the smaller restricted cages that follow.” The link is here: http://web.archive.org/web/20110302153710/http://www.escapethecity.org/heroes/Ripley_Davenport
Did he receive permission to use our lawyers name on his defamatory blog? Did he ever ask her if she wants to be mentioned on his blog? How could I do that, even if I were inclined, since you claim that she has blocked my emails!
I hope the reader can see clear what Kent Madin is doing – damaging NOT just our family’s name but other people around us just because we refuse to answer his questions. I would like to point out that he did have an opportunity to receive answers, but he crossed the line by interfering with our privacy.
In my blog I have mentioned that Kent Madin will never get any answers from us. We have many reasons and a right to act this way. Who can deny this right? USA is a country of freedom, so does Europe.
In July 2011, I received e-mail from Kent Madin saying that, “the situation will get worse” due to my deletion of his negative comments on Expedition’s Facebook page followed by young students and schools around the world. It was not a platform for this type of comment.
What can I say, he kept his promise and started his obsessive activities on the Internet, via e-mails and other means.
Kent Madin interfered with our family and our work and he continues to do so. He openly publishes our private information, which has nothing to do with adventure and exploration. He does not hesitate to contact employers, sponsors, friend. People always assume the worst when they are refused correct information. That’s what Kent Madin does. It’s a human nature. What a remarkable statement. So why not just provide the correct information, answer the simple questions so that I won’t assume the worst and neither with anyone else?
I openly state that Kent Madin was given options to get his questions answered. Kent Madin’s statement that we refused to answer them is FALSE. We decided to stop answering his questions when it became irrelevant to expeditions and adventures (education, military, family matters…). Education and military experience were used by Ripley to substantiate his claim to having the requisite abilities to lead a group of novices across the desert. Of course those things are relevant to expeditions and adventures.
I would not hesitate to provide Kent Madin with the copy of my husband’s education diploma if he, or any one, was a potential employer or had a business relationship. Until then, Kent Madin would not get any information in regards to that subject. Education and Military and many other personal facts governing a living person is protected under Data Protection Act 1998. Name someone credible who has seen Ripley’s undergraduate degree diploma and his two advanced degree diplomas.
To be honest, one thing that I thought could be changed in my husbands adventure career description is the word “renowned”. My husband has amended it, but Kent Madin is still going on about it. There are many poorly used words but even though deleted and amended after review, it’s not good enough for Kent Madin. It is widely known that marketing is a powerful tool and who is to say that certain sugary drinks are the ‘real thing’ and companies slogans are fact? “Amended it” So that’s how it works? You make up a big fib and then you “amend it” and everything is fine? Where is Ripley? Is he under the couch? Why isn’t he coming out to explain that he used the word “renowned” repeatedly even though it wasn’t true? Instead, his wife makes excuses.
How do we know that Boojum Expeditions uses horses in an ethical manner? It has become evident that Kent Madin has been denied acknowledgement to join a respectful equine organisation. You have GOT to be kidding? This is really absurd to try and change the subject to something like ethical use of horses. And then to suggest that I wanted to join the Long Riders Guild but was turned down???? Please.. you are talking through your hat, Laura.
I believe that Bozeman Police had a reason to interview Kent Madin. They had a few consultations with the County Prosecutors before they had an interview with him. Why would they waste tax payers money otherwise? Kent Madin is concerned about taxes or is this just another way to make my family look bad? He was also “concerned” how much tax payers money would be “wasted” if my husband and his expedition partner would need to be rescued in Death Valley during the attempt in August 2012. They would waste tax payer money because it’s their job.. once even a frivolous charge is leveled, they are required to follow up. Speaking of Death Valley.. what actually happened out there? We know for a fact that Ripley originally planned to go cross country (which is illegal) and only changed his route when he was informed by the Park Service that he would not be allowed to go cross country. He promoted the Death Valley walk (and received sponsorship) based on a gross misrepresentation of what he planned to do. Only after the Park officials contacted him, did he work with them to get approval for his route, which was basically walking on dirt and paved roads. And then he quit after less than 24 hours and 6 miles. (confirmed by Death Valley Jim, who did the logistics) A real explorer would share both his failures and his successes. Plus Ripley hid the name of his co-explorer.. What’s that all about?
Kent Madin states he’s an expert in adventure and expedition industry, so he should know better that there are things like private insurance and professional private guides and friends, who can be hired in any emergency. There’s no strain on any one except those that have offered to assist. Is this a reference to Death Valley Jim, the guy who does jeep tours of the region and was hired to drop Ripley and Dan off and pick them up when they quit?
During Expedition planning, calculated risks and safety issues are taken into serious consideration.
Kent Madin claimed he contacted the National Park Service and commented on Death Valley blogs criticising the expedition before it had even started. The route was never made public because of discussions between my husband and the NPS. Kent Madin assumed the expedition route would be illegal. He based his assumptions on previous attempts made by other adventurers. Kent Madin criticised every aspect of the Death Valley expedition from the comfort of his own armchair slamming it as pointless. One of the world’s toughest foot races spans Death Valley, which runs along the road with speeding traffic but my husbands expedition wasn’t worth the effort and in no way – beneficial. Death Valley was a personal expedition for my husband and his expedition partner. Here’s what ACTUALLY happened. I contacted the NPS because I had seen Todd Carmichael’s video of pulling a trailer through the desert and wondered what kind of permit is required for that kind of off road travel. I was surprised when the Chief Ranger got back to me on April 24, 2012 and emphatically declared that travel with a wheeled cart off road was strictly illegal. He and other staff also confirmed that as of that date there was no record of communications with either Todd Carmichael or Ripley Davenport that would indicate an effort to coordinate and plan with the Park staff. On May 31, 2012 Ripley’s original description of his Death Valley trip remained as it was when he first announced the trip as going “across sand dunes, jagged mountains, salt pans, washes and canyons.” That’s different from saying that you are going to pull a trailer along a maintained public road. In other words, all the facts at the time pointed to the conclusion that Ripley had never contacted the Park and was oblivious to the fact that his cross country effort would be illegal. He did, however, have the model of the two previous failed efforts by Todd Carmichael. Those efforts were clearly illegal, as shown by Carmichael’s own descriptions, GPS coordinates and video on the internet.
Kent Madin even assumes that my husband does not have MS and criticised that what my husband wanted to do in Death Valley was irresponsible due to MS. Kent Madin posted a comment on a MS website under a Pseudonym. Prior to the expedition, after many month of preparation, my husband was given medical consultation with a professional risk assessment. My husband has MS but it does not mean that he’s disabled. I suggested the obvious that a: a person with MS who undertakes a trailer drag through Death Valley in summer is vastly increasing the chance of exacerbating his symptoms and b: MS is a disease that, failing a CAT scan, is largely diagnosed by self-described symptoms, rather than obvious physical manifestations.
WHAT RIGHT DOES HE HAVE TO CRITICISE SOMEONE WHO IS AT LEAST MAKING AN EFFORT? You are suggesting that your husband should get a pass on making up his resume and libeling me because he’s “making an effort”?
I would also openly announce that no sponsor was interested in what my husband done 15 even 20 years ago in regards to his past. Their interest was purely for the current and future plans and the energy and passion that my husband displayed. My husband does not create sponsor’s policies for sponsoring expeditions. Companies are the final decision makers. Are you saying that when Ripley approached sponsors in 2009 that he didn’t include his Namib and Karakum expeditions in his resume? How do YOU know what went through the minds of the sponsors? Perhaps you can provide letters from sponsors to back up that assertion.
Kent Madin demands copy of my husband’s passport, which would be a proof of my husband’s claims. Well, in that case, Kent Madin needs to contact the UK Embassy in Copenhagen and ask for it. It is standard procedure (and well known) for the passport agency to return the expired passport to the owner along with the new one. And no, it would not be proof of Ripley’s claims, but it could AT LEAST establish if he actually went to the countries he claims to have visited. Whether he did the expeditions? That would require photos, testimonials, names, dates, etc.
We don’t have a copy of the passport or visas applied inside. His passport was changed in 2005 due to it expiring. How a bout a picture or two from the 1998 trips then, or just the arrival/departure dates in Namibia? How about explaining how you go from Oranjemund to the Angolan border without crossing the Sperrgebiet? You know, I am beginning to wonder if you (Laura) are just taking all the 1998 claims on faith yourself and haven’t seen any proof either. Ripley claimed to have scanned his journal from Namibia… where is it? why was it never posted?
Kent Madin believes that I have no experience in outdoors and travelling.
Well, listen good. I’ve been in the travelling and tourism business for many years and still have an active part in travel and tourism today as a business consultant. I have travelled to almost all the Post Soviet Countries including Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan due to work related responsibilities. I speak many languages fluently (even the young Danish journalist can confirm that). I have assisted with the logistics during my husband’s expeditions, managed homebase, evacuations, visas, technical issues, food and played and active role in designing the trailer, food preparations and kept close contact with ground support and contact persons in the countries where expeditions took place. I’m confident that these responsibilities have provided me with the sufficient knowledge and ‘know how’ in logistics and planning for expeditions. I think your description of your experience speaks for itself.
Will Kent Madin demand the proof of my background, education and travelling experience? I would not be surprised if he’ll start “investigating” it. Since I am his new target, he has to be sure that my CV is not false (in his eyes, the Davenport family is totally false because we have decided not to answer his questions). He may create another “research” group to check me. He did look at my LinkedIn profile many times. I decided to delete it. I felt it was very creepy that the alleged stalker keeps checking my CV. You were living the “Sex and the City life” in Copenhagen and met Ripley, fell in love and became his partner in professional exploration. You stated all this in the interview you gave to Mikael Strandberg. And we must assume that you took him at his word about his previous explorations. No need to look any further than that.( update as of Dec 2013: Laura is clearly fully complicit in creating the fantasy of Ripley’s early expeditions. In the July 2010 interview she posted on Mikael Strandberg’s site, she describes meeting Ripley for the first time when Ripley is giving a paid lecture on his Namibia trip in a hotel. It is simple math to calculate from her son’s age at the time that this event took place in late 2005, early 2006. So Laura is the ONLY person who mentions Ripley’s Namibia trip prior to the creation of the Mongolia2010.com website in 2009. In other words, she pretended that the slide show took place because it bolstered the narrative. Ripley and Laura actually met through an online dating site. )
My husband deleted LinkedIn for the same reason. Who says that you can’t delete or amend your Twitter, Facebook or your own page? Kent Madin amended and deleted his own page. Kent Madin makes a big deal of it off my husband doing it. Typical him.
Cyber crimes and cyber security has exploded in the UK and across Europe and schools are educating pupils in safety on-line due to the increasing epidemic of cyber bullying and harassment. This morning again the news has been dominated with cyber bullying and harassment. Can you say “non-sequitur” in all four languages?
More and more are being prosecuted for cyber related crimes and people are being advised to exercise caution in every way. What we have done is ‘our right’ and we are protecting our right to privacy (that Kent Madin doesn’t seem to understand) and we will not tolerate his intrusion no matter how he verbally manipulates his reasons.
Laura: As we say in Montana, “put up or shut up”. Since you claim that everything is true but you just don’t want to be forced to tell me the proof, then have a few of your many supporters (who have, of course, seen all the proof) contact me and confirm that they have seen the military history, educational records, journal from Namibia. If those supporters are sympathetic to you and equally as determined to shut me up, then it can’t be too much to ask.