Monday, November 23, 2015

Davey Blackburn and the Complicated Arena of Human Behavior

This morning three men were arrested in the rape and murder of Amanda Blackburn, the wife of Pastor Davey Blackburn. Many (and this would probably be a very high portion of people who have been speculating on the Internet) are quite surprised that Amanda Blackburn's husband actually did not have a hand in her murder because they found his behavior and statments following (and prior to) her death to be extraordinarily bizarre for a normal human being and indicative of guilt, that he either personally killed his wife or he hired someone to do it. Others, especially Christians and those from the pastor's church are feeling vindicated and are saying that those who thought the pastor guilty of the horrendous crime of murdering his wife had rushed to judgment and didn't understand a man of faith's reaction to a terrible event.

I think this case is quite fascinating and I plan to use it in future teaching of law enforcement about statement analysis and how it should be used as a tool within investigation, how to understand the results within the context of the totality of evidence. Also, how to determine if what the person-of-interest does or says is truly an indicator of guilt or is out of character or is representative of other issues - like a personality disorder or culture or subculture. Human beings are complicated and analyzing what they say and do is complicated as well.

There are some rules which should be followed when approaching the matter:

Physical or extremely convincing circumstantial evidence should ALWAYS back up behavior and verbal evidence before convicting a person of a crime. Two cases come to mind in which men were convicted based on almost entirely behavioral and verbal evidence, cases in which the majority of the public are pretty sure the right person was convicted but, in reality, we could be looking at seemingly guilty behaviors but not necessarily guilty men. One case is Drew Peterson who recently lost an appeal in his conviction of the murder of his estranged wife, Kathleen Savio, who was found dead in her bathtub. There was no physical evidence connecting Peterson to her death, not even proof that he was in the vicinity of her home on the night she died. Yet, he was convicted on heresay testimony, his very psychopathic behavior, the fact his present wife went missing and circumstantial evidence, and the fact is is the most likely person to want Savio dead. In reality, someone else could have killed Savio and Peterson been perfectly fine with that (oh, lucky me!); someone could have saved him the trouble. I personally think he is guilty of the crime as his behaviors and statements seem to support, but I am not sure if I were on the jury I would have handed down a guilty verdict just because he is a psychopath and he SHOULD be the guy who did it.

The other case is that of Michael Skakel who recently did get an appeal in his conviction of the murder of Martha Moxley. I am glad he got his appeal because this was a travesty of a case in which a man got convicted on absolutely no physical evidence and very weak circumstantial evidence. In fact, Michael Skakel got convicted solely on a couple of statements he made as a teen decades ago and because the jury didn't like him. A good analysis of the crime actually points AWAY from Michael Skakel and there were far better suspects than him (which the police were much more interested in at the time), but Skakel got convicted because the jury found him creepy.

Which brings me back to Davey Blackburn. "Creepy" was the Number One adjective given by almost all following this case. People were creeped out by his sex sermans, creeped out by his demeanor, creeped out by his seemingly upbeat acceptance of his wife's brutal demise, creeped out by his talk of "good things" coming from her murder...I could go on and on. Regardless of what some Christians and those in his church feel about Pastor Blackburn, that he somehow represents a man of strong faith, I will say as a criminal profiler who has spent many years in Christian churches and known a number of pastors, Davey Blackburn's behaviors and statements have all the hallmarks of a narcissitic personality disorder. Lay people speculating on the case were not off in left field to feel something was odd about his demeanor, that his reactions to the murder were not normal for the average person. But, his behaviors actually were not totally inconsistant with a narcissistic personality disordered individual who may have a problematic marriage who has difficultly connecting with others or feeling empathy for them, and who has chosen a vocation in which a narcissistic personality disorder can be an asset. His response to his wife's murder may well have been a mix of a crisis of faith (his version of faith in which he has set himself up to be a favored son of God), a relief as an answer to dealing with a difficult marriage, and a business opportunity which he can capitalize on.

Which brings me to this point: what you are before a crime occurs is who you are after a crime occurs. We are actually NEVER "out of character" and this is what the detectives need to determine when they analyze a crime. Is the man who kills his wife when he finds out she is having an affair committing a "crime of passion" or has he always had a borderline personality disorder and her betrayal was too much for his ego to stand? He didn't go from being an emotionally healthy indivdidual to a killer overnight; a person without a personality disorder will be upset about infidelity but not kill over it. And what happens when a psychopath's wife is murdered by someone else? Since a psychopath has no empathy, he might be mad someone took his toy away, but he might be ecstatic that he got a bunch of money from the life insurance policy he forced his wife to get and he may be out dating other women the following weekend. He might seem totally guilty of killing his wife (and he might actually have thought about it, maybe even planned it for the following month!) but have nothing to do with her death. Yet, red flags will go up for the investigators because of his behaviors and statements. This is the kind of stuff they have to deal with. Sometimes, though, a psychopath or narcissist will have odd behaviors and statements but in the interview actually so no signs of deception, so in spite of his oddness, the detectives will be following other leads.

This may well have been true in the case of Pastor Blackburn. He may have raised the detectives' hinky meter but came across truthful in his actual interviews and the evidence pointed away from him. Or they may have been keeping an eye on him while pursuing other leads.

On the other hand, I worked a case where the detectives did a great interview of a man who "found the bodies" but because they jumped to a conclusion that the crime was a gang killing, they ignored the very odd statements the man made during the interview. Now, mind you, he was a psychopath and a drug dealer and because of this, they just tossed off whatever he said as, well, you know, guys like this say weird things, but, in reality, he was confessing to the crime in his twisted statements, deception was rampant, and the physical evidence at the crime scene indicated he was lying and supported his role in the murders. Statement analysis was very useful in pointing to his guilt, but the detectives failed to do any analysis of his words and simply interviewed him as a witness and filed the report.

Good investigation keeps analysis in proper perspective and continues to view the totality of the evidence in making investigative choices.

For a last example of how one must take all the evidence into account and rule things out or in, the door to the house was unlocked. Was Pastor Blackburn responsible for leaving the door unlocked? If not, then this is not suspicious. But, if he did, the detectives have to determine if this was regular behavior (maybe both he and Amanda were not big on locking doors) or if this was a one-time behavior and if it was, why? Was he distracted and accidentally left it unlocked? Is he feeling horribly guilty over that Or, if he is a narcissist, not feeling any guilt at all? Or, did he leave it open on purpose so someone could enter and kill his wife? The police have to consider this. They have to make sure he did not know any of the men involved. He could have met them through the gym or throuugh evangelizing. Who knows? The detectives have to rule out all possibilities. And, if they have ruled out these possibilities, then we have a man whose statement analysis threw up a dozen red flags and suggested possible guilt but, in fact, what we really were dealing with was a man with a likely narcissitic personality disorder whose mission of church building and love of the spotlight made him appear guilty of a crime he did not commit.

To sum up, statement analysis and behavioral analysis is an excellent tool for investigation but it must be used in conjuction with solid crime scene analysis and physical and cicumstantial evidence. All of these tools together make for a successful investigation, a proper arrest, and a solid prosecution. True justice lies in getting all the pieces of the puzzle to fit in place without forcing them, to solve the crime accurately, not just close it for the sake of putting it to rest.

Friday, November 6, 2015

Why the McCanns Love Conspiracy Theorists

What is Even the Point of Photoshopping in Sunglasses?
Yesterday, I wrote about how unsolved cases can sometimes garner such great interest that the public may overanalyze every piece of information and come up with a more and more complicated theory about what happened and why the crime has not been solved. Someone who read the post then wrote me and said if the very in-depth theories about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann had no validity - that "The Last Photo" is photoshopped and wasn't take on the day claimed, that Maddie died way before May 3, that the entire evening of May 3 including the negligant behavior was just staged to make a kidnapping scenario possible, that Maddie never was in the creche during the week leading up until she vanished, that there is something far more sinister involved in the disappeance of Madeleine than an accidental death and panicked cover-up - then the McCanns would have offered more proof of Maddie being alive until May 3 in order to quell these damning theories.

But, in reality, these theories do nothing but benefit the McCanns' assertions that Internet crazies and trolls are making ridiculous claims; it is the far more likely scenario, the simple one of negligence and a desperate cover-up that the McCanns would like to go away. This is why they want Amaral's book off the market, why they want my book off the market - the truth is what they fear being proven, not a myriad of farout theories promoted by people with no power to influence law enforcement. The more fantastical the theories, the easier it is to discredit those who create them.

In fact, the McCanns love convoluted scenarios so much, they hired a bunch of crooked private investigators to create all kinds of bizarre kidnapping scenarios because they know the public loves to latch on to fascinating puzzles and that keeps the money coming in. Can you imagine how few donations they would have received if their PIs only looked for a local pedophile who would have killed Maddie within hours of abducting her? Not many would have supported that kind of is just sad and boring and even if it brings closure to the parents and saves other children's lives, there is just nothing very inspiring about searching for a dead child.

The McCanns also have to be happy about the complicated scenarios that Scotland Yard has managed to develop because, again, it takes the focus off of a simple crime that points to them being involved.

If only all the focus of everyone - the public, the police, and professionals - simply looked back at May 3rd, 2007 and analyzed what went wrong that evening, how the McCanns likely dealt with it, and what they  could have done to destroy the evidence of their involvement and, most importantly, focused on where her body might be  - the one piece of evidence that could lead to an actual conviction - maybe then, this case would have a chance of being solved and justice done.

I don't believe there is a snowball's chance in hell of this happening at this point, but it is a shame that  more effort isn't put into just that.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

November 6, 2015

Cover for 'Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann'

By Pat Brown

Rating: 1 star1 star1 star1 star1 star
Published: July 27, 2011

What really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann in Praia da Luz, Portugal in 2007? Was she abducted as the Gerry and Kate have claimed or did something happen to Madeleine on May 3 in the vacation apartment and the incident covered up? Criminal Profiler Pat Brown analyzes the evidence and takes the readers through the steps of profiling, developing a theory that is intriguing and controversial.

Thursday, November 5, 2015

Sandy Hook, Madeleine McCann, "Quantico" and the Difference between Fiction and Reality

Everyone is a Suspect in this Show
I have been watching "Quantico", the new series starring Indian actress Priyanka Chopra...well, up until last week when I couldn't take it any more. It is just plain dreadful in every way and the convoluted plot about a terrorist hidden within an FBI class of new agents make me want to poke my eyes out. Now, I understand, that for a fictional story to be interesting, there have to be some surprises and plot twists and turns but when it gets to the point of incredibly far-fetched, where each and every person (recruits and teachers) has a huge secret, when everything that happens is not what it seems, when the conspiracty gets so big and complicated it goes off the rails, that is when I, quite frankly, find the whole thing so silly I just have to give up paying attention.

And this happens in real life as well. Someone just emailed me and asked me to take a look at the many videos and blogs about what "really happened" at Sandy Hook, a horrible mass murder in the United States in which a young psychopath murdered his mother and then went into an elementary school and mowed down twenty little children and six teachers before taking his own life. But, there is a growing number of people who are investing a lot of time trying to prove that what happened at Sandy Hook was a government operation to influence gun control, an staged event so horrifying to the American public that it would cause the citizens to finally accept a law that will remove guns from the hands of lawabiding citizens once and for all.

If you start watching the videos on Youtube and reading all the analysis by those who think Sandy Hook was not a real mass murder, some of the stuff is pretty fascinating and convincing..if you take each  piece of "evidence" alone and don't look at the whole picture. You start to think, "Wow, maybe they are right! Maybe there is way more to this story than a disaffected youth committing a random, horrific act. Maybe there IS a big secret behind all of this, an unusual but possible scenario that could be the 'truth' behind what happened."

Defense attorneys use this exact same method of cherry-picking pieces of "evidence" and stringing them together to create a story of "what may have happened";  you start thinking, "Hmm....maybe there IS something that the prosecution is hiding from us...maybe the defendent is being railroaded....maybe this is why there are some pieces  of "evidence" which don't make sense, which the prosecution is misleading us about...maybe the defendent is innocent." This is exactly what the attorneys for Casey Anthony and O.J. Simpson did and it worked. Even though the evidence was overwhelming and painted a pretty complete picture of what actually happened and the motive was quite clear when all the evidence was pulled together, the attorneys found this piece of "evidence" and that piece of "evidence" which they concocted a story about, sowed seeds of doubt in an untrained jury's mind, and that was all that was needed to make them believe something else might have happened indeed, a shadow of doubt then clouded their judgment.

Same with Sandy Hook. With hours and hours of searching and analyzing, people have come up with "really interesting stuff" that they have compiled into a huge plot fulled of twists and turns and amazing scenarios. The narrative is that the US government actually staged a fake mass murder, that no children actually died, that those who supposedly died are actually alive and well, that every one of the parents and children and witnesses seen on television are hired actors and actresses. There are videos showing the parents smiling and laughing right after the deaths of their children, the children who died are seen again in more recent photos and videos, the crime scene does not look proper, there are many inconsistenies in police and media statements, and on and on.

It IS all quite fascinating and captivating, but there are very tell-tale signs which help us understand that the theory of a staged government op is something conjured up in overactive imaginations - much like the ones conjured up by defense attorneys to confuse the jurors - and not a proper analysis of the case. We see the same thing happening in the Madeleine McCann case ( although, in that case, I do find there is no evidence of abduction and the parents are involved in Maddie's disappearance); a group of well-meaning people have overanalyzed the case to the point of an ever more deep and wide conspiracy of actors and actions...that does not actually represent what likely happened.

In real life, crimes are rarely that clever or complicated because they a) don't have to be, and b) the criminals aren't all that smart, and c) they don't usually have that much time to waste, and d) complicated stuff actually leads more often to getting caught because there are more parts of the crime to screw up and more people involved which  means more people who have to stay quiet.

Quantico is fiction because if that many young recruits have a secret, this means the FBI has no vetting process. This means a whole bunch of people have to be incredibly clever to cover up their secrets and get into the FBI and then continue covering up their secrets and participate in some very complex crimes. The complexity of the crimes requires a major mastermind, totally competent players, all the evidence being difficult to analyze, and all the dominos to fall exactly at the right time with none going askew. That this can hold water for an entire season requires us to ignore major plot holes and suspend our disbelief week after week after week. Even fiction has a hard time making such massive conspiratorial plots work; in real life such plots are pretty much nonexistant simply because they don't work or make sense.

The theory that Sandy Hook is a government operation requires that an entire fake school be constructed, that actors and actresses of all ages be hired to play the parts of future dead people and never be seen alive again, never talk...what? The fake crime scene must be kept hidden from all local law enforcement and the press, forever. None of this is plausible and what is more telling, none of this makes sense. The US has enough real mass murders with guns to do the job of showing citizens the dangers of gun availability that such a staged government op is totally unnecessary. Furthermore, if the US government thought it was this important to make a point about gun ownership, they could simply hire people (yes, that is another theory) to go in and kill a bunch of kids and teachers for the good of the country.

Three of the biggest flags that a theory about a crime is extremely unlikely is that the theory requires a mountain of questionable evidence, too many players involved who need to keep quiet, and a motive that is a huge deep, dark secret.

In the Madeleine McCann case, the evidence points to an overdose of the young child that led to her death in the apartment on the evening of May 3, 2007, panic by the parents, and the removal and disposal of her body, likely by the father of the victim. The parents statements are conflicting, the dogs hit on cadaver and blood in the apartment and rental car, and there is zero evidence of a stranger entering the apartment. There is a possibility that one or two of the friends know what happened and have remained quiet. That's it.

But, over time, the case has theories that grow more and more convoluted. More and more people are involved in some dastardly crime, the child was dead days before it was reported requiring forged daycare documents, photos being photoshopped, a whole gaggle of people carrying around a fake Madeleine and staging a complicated crime, yet staging the crime so badly that they become suspects! I long ago stopped looking at the massive pile of "evidence" that supposedly supports such a complicated and convoluted crime theory of what happened to Madeleine McCann.

In reality, either criminals plan a crime that is as easy as possible to get away with or people become criminals because they commit a crime due to carelessness and then desperately try to cover it up. Sometimes luck, the weather, other people screw up enough of the crime scene to make "evidence" that isn't really part of the original crime or confuses the crime scene. This is the stuff that causes police detectives to follow wrong leads and ignore the right suspects, this is what allows defense attorneys to create an alternative scenario to win over the jury and free their client, and this is what inspires people to create conspiracy theories and complicated plots about crimes that then grow bigger and bigger and bigger to the point of ludicrosy.

The FBI instructor in "Quantico" stated, "Evidence can lie." No, evidence doesn't lie, but evidence and stuff that looks to some like evidence can be misunderstood and this is what turns a simple real life crime into a tale of fiction that any network executive would love to put on screen.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

November 5, 2016

Wednesday, October 28, 2015

What Scaling Down the Scotland Yard Madeleine McCann Investigation Means


Although I have quit running commentary on this case because I have always considered the Scotland Yard investigation to be a sham and any true closure of the Madeleine McCann case to be a ship long sailed, I would like to give my thoughts on what the  "scaling down" of the investigation actually means:

The British investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann has been scaled down, from 29 officers to four as her parents say they have not given up hope of seeing their daughter again.

Scotland Yard insisted the probe continued but with a "smaller team", adding "Officers investigating her disappearance have completed the huge task of bringing together and investigating the massive amount of information held by colleagues in Portugal, the United Kingdom investigation and the private investigators working on behalf of the McCann family."

Some believe that this is good news, that Nicola Wall and Company have stopped running down all the leads in existence and now are focusing on the McCanns as the last suspects standing. As I have stated before, it is not a proper investigative method to eliminate everyone but the main suspects as it serves no purpose in forwarding the investigation and actually gives ammunition for the defense of the main suspects if the case ever got to court. The only reason to investigate half of the known world is because you haven't got a real clue as to who the culprits are or you are doing everything to keep busy and avoid focusing on them.

So, what I believe has been going on for the last number of years is fulfilling the remit, to investigate all leads with the specific requirement that the McCanns be considered cleared and off limits to further investigation. Why Scotland Yard has been unable to "solve" the crime so far either means the investigators accepted the abduction theory and simply have not been able to come up with a credible suspect or the known darn well no abduction occurred but haven't come up with a suspect they feel is convincing enough to foist on the public. Perhaps, they were told to simply make the investigation appear thorough and allow it to dwindle away with an eventual "We believe we know what happened and who did it but we haven't been able to get enough concrete evidence to take the person to court. Since he is (fill in the blank with "dead" or "already incarcerated for life") ________, we are administrately closing the investigation." I believe the heads of the investigation took on the task of the latter while detectives under them may well have been dutifully invested in the former.

Now, at this point in time, the public who is unhappy with the increasing cost of the investigation, can give a collective sigh that the investigation is being scaled down, be happy that Scotland Yard put out its full efforts to find the poor child, but satisfied that the public's money will not be required in such large quantities anymore, that just enough will be spent to keep an eye on possible new leads or confessions or sightings. The public has a short attention span and now that the big investigation is pretty much over and done with, we can all move on. Game over. The final statement can come later when pretty much the whole mess has faded away.

My opinion remains the same. This is a whitewash; always as been. The Scotland Yard investigation in no way represents the way a police department handles a true above-board investigation but has had all the hallmarks of a staged play. I have seen such charades before - not to this level - and the results are always the same; the truth stays hidden and life goes on.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

October 28,2015

Cover for 'Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann'

By Pat Brown
Rating: 1 star1 star1 star1 star1 star
Published: July 27, 2011

What really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann in Praia da Luz, Portugal in 2007? Was she abducted as the Gerry and Kate have claimed or did something happen to Madeleine on May 3 in the vacation apartment and the incident covered up? Criminal Profiler Pat Brown analyzes the evidence and takes the readers through the steps of profiling, developing a theory that is intriguing and controversial.

Friday, October 2, 2015

Dear Media: When Will You Stop Encouraging Mass Murder?

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Dear Media,

Three years ago I took a stance against giving mass murderers fame by refusing to appear on any television or radio show that used the name or showed the face of any individual mass murderer. I have refused to talk about any individual mass murderer, to profile him, to give him any kind of notoriety because this is exactly why mass murderers commit their crimes. For three years, I have told each and every television and radio producer that I will not come on their show and talk about the mass murderer; I would only come on and talk about how we in the media must become responsible citizens and stop playing a major role in the increase in mass murder by giving these psychopaths the infamy they seek.

Today, a sheriff and a marine and a guest on one television news show came out and said what I have been saying for far too long; that the name of the mass murderer should not be spoken and that we should be done with giving glory to these cockroaches. Today was the first glimmer of hope I have had that maybe, just maybe, the public and the media are starting to understand that the media is encouraging mass murder, inspiring the next mass murderer to commit a heinous crime, and the media pushing sensationalistic news about the killer is why innocent people are getting murdered.

When the media gives 24/7 attention to the mass murderer, they have blood on their hands, the blood of all those dead victims the mass murderer exterminated just to get on national television. When the media shows the face of the killer, gives his name over and over, discusses his supposed motive, and dwells on every detail of his life, we in the media are aiding and abetting mass murderers in their quest for fame.

Please, members of the media, let's end the fascination with mass murderers. Let's lower the numbers of mass murders and the number of victims by ending the attention we give these evil beings who are mowing down innocents just because we in the media want to get high ratings for drawing in the viewers with our unending discussion of these psychopathic killers.

Please, I beg you all in the media, please stop encouraging mass murder, please.

BTW, not ONE American national television show has ever allowed me on to discuss the media's role in the increase in mass murder; not ONE of all the shows that have called me over the last three years to ask me to come on and and profile the mass murderer has been brave enough to let me speak out. To all my friends in the media, to all the producers and hosts I have worked with, please be the one to change this!

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

October 2, 2015

Wednesday, September 23, 2015

What Part Of "She's a Psychopath" Aren't You Getting?

I have been watching Mexican telenovelas (soap operas that last one season) so I can improve my Spanish. The newest one I have been viewing on a daily basis is "Rubi." The lead character, Rubi, is a beautiful young woman from the barrio (a poor area) who wants to escape poverty and be someone important in the world. She is sexy and very attractive and she uses her looks and wiles to find a man to save her from her life of economic struggles. She lives with her mother and her sister in a poor but friendly neighborhood, sharing a bedroom with the sister who works to put her through college. She is clearly a social climber and men fall easily for her. One could forgive her desire for wealth if only she weren't a complete psychopath....which a good number of people in the show seem not to realize. If this were real life, this would be no is amazing how many people...especially not realize when a psycho is in their midst, in spite of the many times the individual exhibits each and every psychopathic trait. Let's take a look at Rubi and see how many time we can put a checkmark next to the traits of a psychopath as listed by psychologist Robert Hare.

•  glib and superficial charm
Rubi is always smiling and flattering, clearly not being at all genuine.
•  grandiose (exaggeratedly high) estimation of self
Rubi not only believes she deserves more than the life of a low income Mexican, she wants to be filthy rich.

•  need for stimulation
Boy, does Rubi get bored! The day after her mother's funeral, she throws a party for 200 people in spite of the fact her husband says that the timing is totally inappropriate.
•  pathological lying
Rubi lies to pretty much everyone a good portion of the time in order to get what she wants.
•  cunning and manipulativeness
Rubi is always scheming. She pretended to be the best friend of a rich girl and then set up situations where she could come onto and steal her friend's fiancé. 
•  lack of remorse or guilt
Rubi slipped an expensive necklace into her sister's fiancé's shopping bag and got him arrested and imprisoned for five years. Even though she confessed to her mother (in a moment of spite) and her mother collapsed and died as a result, and even though her sister was pregnant, she refused to admit to her evildoing and get the man out of prison. In fact, she paid a lawyer to screw up the case, so he would be convicted. Ruby never showed a moment's remorse. 
•  shallow affect (superficial emotional responsiveness)
When Rubi ruined two families (by stealing her best friend's fiancé) and cost her sister her job, she was only annoyed that her sister refused to continue paying her bills.
•  callousness and lack of empathy
Rubi calls her "best friend" who has a problem with her leg "the cripple" and "the limp."
•  parasitic lifestyle
Rubi's sister paid her school bills, her friend gave her clothes and jewelry (and her friend's father paid her school bills as well, but she never told her sister because she wanted to use the money for more clothes and jewelry), she married a rich man for money, and when he started losing his money, searched for the next wealthy man to take advantage of.
•  poor behavioral controls
Rubi does what she wants.
•  sexual promiscuity
Actually, Rubi was a bit controlled here because she used sex as a weapon and if she wasn't going to get rich through sex, she wouldn't waste her ammunition.
•  early behavior problems
Apparently, Rubi's mother suffered many years of hoping she would change.
•  lack of realistic long-term goals
Rubi supposedly fell in love (I say supposedly because I think the writer of this telenovela doesn't understand psychopathy) with a surgeon because she thought he was wealthy (he was living with a rich friend, the one she eventually married) but dumped him when she found out he came from a middle class family. Ruby couldn't seem to wait for him to move up in his profession which likely would have given them a fine lifestyle in the future; she wanted to be rich right away and so she only was willing to marry him when her husband's fortune being to wane and he had become a millionaire.

•  impulsivity
As soon as Rubi married, she demanded the largest of mansions, went on big shopping sprees, and wanted to travel and stay in the best hotels.
•  irresponsibility
Rubi rarely cared about the effects of her behaviors as long as she got what she wanted at that moment.
•  failure to accept responsibility for own actions
Rubi blamed everyone else for anything that went wrong and for all the bad things she did. She always blamed the victim.
•  many short-term marital relationships
Rubi had a short term love affair which ended when she found out the man wasn't rich and as soon as her husband got sick and lost income, she was scouting out a new provider.
•  juvenile delinquency
Rubi apparently did not commit crimes in her youth (at least that she was caught doing), but she committed crimes as an adult which she got away with.
So this is Rubi, an unquestionable psychopath. Her mother seemed to get the picture but held out hope for a miracle. Her sister decided to end their relationship after Rubi set her fiancé up and got him imprisoned. Her husband seemed to have no clue in spite of all the bad things she would do and the lies she clearly told. Her surgeon boyfriend seemed to understand she was pretty evil but kept letting her get under his skin and revving up his emotions for her. A good number of others around her didn't trust her but they often still allowed her in their houses or social circle. Her fashion designer friend seemed to recognize her psychopathy when he said, "She is as beautiful as she is evil," but he hung around with her because she amused him. I am not sure how this all ends up as I am only on episode 68 of 115! But, I am hoping Rubi gets her just desserts in the end.
Although much is exaggerated in this telenovela, Rubi's behavior are red flags for psychopathy and in real life, people often see red flags from the psychopaths they are dealing with but fail to accept the label or the fact that they are dangerous or people they should completely cut off. That lack of willingness to see reality often sets innocent people up as victims of these psychopaths....they lose their money, their freedom, their children, and, sometimes, their lives.
If you have someone like Rubi in your life, take, run, run, and don't let them ruin your life.

Pat Brown
Criminal Profiler
September 23, 2015

Wednesday, July 29, 2015

Another Young Police Officer's Life is Destroyed

Here we go again. A young white police officer, Ray Tensing, is charged with murder, for just attempting to do his job. What did he do wrong? Well, discharging his weapon when the citizen he stopped was attempting to flee; he panicked when he thought he was being dragged with the car.

The citizen, Samuel DuBose, a black male, had been arrested and charged seventy-five times in the last twenty years. He is a lawbreaker, a drug user, a drug dealer, an irresponsible man who fathered 13 or more children with various women, none of which he married. But, hey, none of this matters as far as the traffic stop goes...well, yes, it actually does because the cop who stopped him, while not knowing his record, knows suspicious behavior when he sees it. It is not a matter of race but of recognizing behaviors.

First, he sees a vehicle without a front license plate. He stops the vehicle because it might be a) stolen or b) the driver is squirrelly or c) both. He stops the vehicle and asks Dubose about the front license plate. Dubose claims it is in his glove compartment but fails to produce it. Asked for his driver's license, he fails to produce it. When asked if it is his car, DuBose lies and says it is his which the officer knows is not true because he already ran it and it is owned by a female. Asked about a bottle Tensing sees on the floor, he hands the officer a bottle of liquor with questionable content. Okay. So, Officer Tensing asks about the license again, asks Dubose if he has a valid license. Dubose says, yes, but doesn't give him one and suggests the officer go run him in the system. Now, the officer is no dummy. He smells a rat. The rat was wanting the officer to go back to his car because he was planning to flee. He knew the officer was going to find that he was not allowed to drive (and he may have had warrants out on him as well) and he was going to be arrested again. The officer figured out this was what was in the cards so he wanted to get the man out of the car and away from the key and ignition. If he allowed the man to drive off, he knew he would then have to chase him which is always a dangerous situation for civilians. An innocent person could get run over by the speeding vehicles. All the talk about this man doing nothing violent is meaningless. The officer had no idea if the man was violent or not; he just knew that the man was lying to him and there may well be a serious reason for it. If he had gone back to his vehicle and the man sped off (perhaps with a stolen vehicle and under the influence of alchohol or drugs) and ran over two children crossing the street, the officer would be getting all the blame, now wouldn't he?

So, the officer tried to get the man out of the car. He resisted and attempted to drive off with the officer entangled in the car. The officer, having pulled his gun out because he could not be sure the man was not armed and dangerous, pulled the trigger, either accidentally, or in a panic, or to stop the vehicle. Things happen quickly in these situations and there is little time to think, just react. Clearly, the officer did not intend to kill Dubose and one can see he is pretty much shocked over the incident. He thought he was going to be run over and he pulled the trigger. The claim by the prosecutor that the car was just slowly rolling away is something one says AFTER the fact; you trying being the cop when you feel the car go into drive and see how long you want to take to think about how fast the vehicle is moving and if you are going to be seriously injured or not. The fact is, Dubose stepped on the accelerator while the police officer was partially inside the car and THAT is a threat to the life of the officer. The officer was being assaulted and he reacted in self-defense.

The video shows what happened but it is just amazing how many people are claiming Tensing purposely killed Dubose. This young officer has a stellar record and was polite when he approached the car. No officer wants to shoot anyone on duty; not only do officers  (excluding a rare psycho) not want to take anyone's life but the whole incident can jeopardize one's own life and family. The claim that Tensing committed a premeditated homicide is garbage and, for that matter, so are the charges against him and the zeal to convict him by a very politically motivated prosecutor. I feel damned sorry for Tensing because he may pay with his life for an accidental shooting provoked by the deceased.

Samuel DuBose wasn't killed because he was black man. Ray Tensing didn't pull the trigger because he was an privileged white officer. DuBose made a bad move and Tensing reacted.

I am at the point where I don't even think I can recommend anyone join the police force. It is one thing to put your life on the line against criminals FOR the community, but to put your life on the line for ungrateful citizens is another.

When we end up with the criminals running totally amok in our communities, we only have ourselves to blame for situation.

FYI: Due to the high numbers of ad hominem attacks calling me a racist and other slurs, I would like to clarify something whether it will cause people to behave more politely or rationally or not.

Yes, I am white but I am the mother of two bi-racial children and one black son (all adults now). I live in a majority black town and a majority black county.

I am pro good law enforcement., but I am anti bad law enforcement. I have spoken up many times publicly when I have seen police corruption even though I have and do work with and train law enforcement.

I am anti law breaking. Lawbreakers should be treated fairly within the bounds of the law but they are responsible for any illegal actions that bring harm to the community and to law enforcement. Law breakers are a scourge on the community and without proper policing they will do more damage. If we keep up this war on cops claiming racism in cases where none exists or painting law enforcement with a wide brush of hatred, fewer good people will join the police force and fewer police will be willing to interact with lawbreakers because it will be too risky for their careers and lives.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Why I Haven't Gotten a Ticket in Four Decades

There has been much discussion over Sandra Blands reaction to being stopped for a traffic infraction and what she could have or should have done. I would like to share my tips for success with traffic stops of my own.

First of all, I haven't been stopped in the last decade because I finally learned a simply rule: stop breaking the law. Yeah, what a concept, eh? Like stop speeding and stop doing California stops and actually use those signals when you change lanes and turn corners. But, I haven't always been so stellar on the road; I liked to drive fast and having been a driving instructor, a delivery driver (which requires fast driving and skidding u-turns to make money), and a PI following people,, I kind of drove like an Indy 500 driver. Mind you, I have been accident free all my adult life because I also did follow the rule of very defensive driving, always expecting the other driver is not going to yield, is drunk, half asleep, yelling at the kids in the back seat, texting, or just zoning out. So, I drove a little fast but quite safely.

Now, to my traffic stops. I will list three I remember:

I was stopped for running four stop signs in a row. 

Me: Did I run a stop sign?
Cop: You ran four, lady!
Me: Ooooh....well, when you have a good thing going....
Cop: ::shaking head:: What's got you in so big a rush?
Me: I was late to the movie at the plaza...I HATE missing the beginning!
Cop: ::hands me warning:: Well, next time, leave earlier!"
Me: I will do that, Sir, thank you.

Speeding on Assateague Island (where you aren't supposed to go over ten or fifteen miles per hour because of the wild horses).

Cop: Do you realize you were going 20 miles over the speed limit?
Me: Oh, well, I can't deny that is probably true. I had a chocolate attack and, well, it was just calling me from the 7-Eleven!
Cop:: ::laughing:: Well, slow down, will you?
Me: Yes, Sir, I will try to control myself.

Going 90 miles an hour on a Wisconsin highway.

Enraged Cop: Why didn't you stop? I have been chasing you for miles!
Me: Stop? Sorry!I didn't see you!
Still Enraged Cop: Didn't you see those people pulling over in front of you?
Me: Oh! I thought they were just getting out of my way!
Cop Now Shaking Head: License, please.
Me: Hmmm....I think it is in the trunk....that's where my purse is. Can I go get it?
Cop, Still Shaking Head: Go get it and come back to my squad car.
Cop goes back to his vehicle and gets in.
I go to my trunk and toss stuff around until I find my purse and the license. I look back at him and triumphantly hold up the license.
Cop waves me back to the passenger side of the vehicle and I get in the squad car.
Me: I found it! Sorry it took so long. I am driving out to Minnesota from Washington DC and I have been on the road for too many hours.
Cop: Do you know you were going 90?
Me: know, I wasn't really paying attention. I think I was zoning out. The roads here are so straight and wide, I think I just was flying along, not paying any mind. ::sigh::
Cop: Well, okay, I am just giving you a warning, but, slow down, will you?
Me: Yes, sir! Thank you, sir!

If you notice in all cases, I fully cooperated with the police officer, I never denied what I did, I never told him he was wrong for stopping me, I kept my hands in sight and I was calm and cooperative. And, in spite of clearly breaking the law, the police officers just gave me warnings. This is what Sandra Bland would have gotten once he determined she was okay to be behind the wheel.

When stopped, cooperate. Even if the cop is an ass, cooperate. Be friendly and nonthreatening. Have your license and registration in sight in your hands and you hands on the wheel BEFORE he arrives at your door. If it is night, turn on the inside light. That way, when he approaches the vehicle, he isn't so worried about being shot. An uncooperative person with moving hands means that they may suddenly pull a weapon out and shoot the officer in the face. Sandra Bland's lack of cooperation and moving hand with a cigarette in it, meant that the officer couldn't be sure what she might do next. This is why everything escalated even to the point of threatening her with the taser; if she kept moving, she might suddenly come up with a gun and the officer would be in trouble. Police officers are always wary that a simple traffic stop might actually be an encounter with a carjacker or a drug runner or someone very dangerous with a warrant out on them.

So, next time you are stopped, stay calm, follow the simple rules above, and you won't end up in a jail cell.

And, of course, there is this classic, hilarious bit from Chris Rock on How Not to Get Your Ass Kicked by the Police!

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

July 29, 2015