Criminal Profiing Topic of the Day: Mass Murderer or Terrorist?

I recently was a guest of FOX and Friends and The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer and when I made the statement that Fort Hood shooter Major Nidal Malik Hasan was not a terrorist, but a psychopathic mass murderer in midlife crisis, I got some angry email.

Ms. Brown...I just saw your appearance on Fox an Friends....and was blown away at your disregard that Islam played no part in this massacre.Have you done even a 5 minute search on this person? Wake up lady. Do a little research before you make a fool of yourself on national TV again.

Dorothy Rabinowitz woud agree with this emailer that I am either a fool or I am in fear of being politically incorrect.

To those not terrorized by fear of offending Muslim sensitivities, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's motive was instantly clear: It was an act of terrorism by a man with a record of expressing virulent, anti-American, pro-jihadist sentiments. All were conspicuous signs of danger his Army superiors chose to ignore.

But I will stand my ground and I hope, for the sake of true understanding people will understand my thinking. Anyone who has seen me speak on television or has read my blogs will know I have never worried about being politically correct. I aim to speak the truth as I see it.

First of all, we must define "terrorist." Under the United States Law Code: the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents; the term “terrorist group” means any group, or which has significant subgroups which practice, international terrorism.

By this definition, Hasan does not even begin to qualify as a terrorist.

1) He was not a member of a terrorist group. Yes, he may have listened to what a terrorist group had to say, he may have been in the vicinity of another who might have been a member of a terrorist group, and he may have emailed a terrorist group. He might have even chatted with terrorists on the Internet in a chat room. But, none of these behaviors make him a member of a terrorist group any more than a psychopath a church member because he has gone to a Sunday service a few times and chatted with a pastor online.

2) He was not carrying out any mission organized by a terrorist group. He was a lone gunman.

3) He was not politically motivated. "What?" you say? The guy was spouting Islamic jihadist garbage before and during the shooting. This is very true but that what he says is not necessarily his motive. Like all midlife crisis psychopathic mass murderers, he must justify his rage at society for his failure; Hasan has decided to portray himself as a good Muslim conducting jihad and thereby casting himself as a hero and not a loser scumbag who kills his coworkers because he is ticked he is failing in his professional and personal life. He is no different than Jason Rodriguez, the man who attempted the mass murder of his coworkers in Orlando, Florida the following day; he was disgruntled and angry and wanted to show everyone he wasn't a weakling they could kick around any more.

I know what a terrorist attack looks like. My son was in Jaipur the very day the LeT (Pakistan's terrorist organization, Lashkar-e-Taiba) hit the tourist area with bombs attached to bicycles. Eighty people were killed. Thankfully, my son didn't listen to his mother who told him to go to that very area that day to sightsee before he started work the next day. Instead, he was watching videos in his room while the bombs blew up the city center.

I have traveled to India and been at the very spots that terrorists have hit. I was in Connought Place in Delhi, in front of the Taj Hotel in Mumbai, and in the shoppiing area in Hyderabad, all locations that were targeted by terrorist groups who successfully carried out their missions.. Each one was a concerted effort by a Islamic extremist terrorist organizations, either LeT out of Pakistan's Kashmir region or HuJI (Harkat ul-Jihad-al-Islami) out of Bangladesh.

Hasan belonged to no group. He may have self-radicalized himself in violent Islamic ideology but he still was not part of an organized terrorist cell. He was an angry man, who happened to be Muslim, who took out his bitterness on his fellow soldiers.

Now, was there a problem with failure on the army's part to identify Hasan as a threat? You bet there was. He was clearly decompensating, falling apart, being more and more angry and bizarre. His increasingly concerning rantings supporting suicide bombers and growing pro-Islamic jihadist sympathies should have been a huge warning sign that he might go off and do what he did. It was at this stage that fear of being politcally incorrect cost lives. The Army should have booted Hasan because he was a danger to his fellow soldiers whether or not he was a Muslim.

Clearly American needs to be vigilant in fighting terrorism and preventing and dismantling terrorist cells in this country. We need to do something about people entering our country who despise it and its people. We need to stop those of any religion who encourage and condone violence against our citizens. And if Major Hasan had been the member of a terrorist cell and been their "soldier" and not ours, I would not hesitate to state we had a Muslim perpetrating a terrorist attack against America.

But unless more information comes in linking this sorry excuse for a human being to a terrorist group, we still have a lone psychopath pretending he was a terrorist so he could get his day in the sun.

Criminal Profiling Topics of the Day: Smelly Houses, Bye Bye Baby, and Slasher Filmmaker Offensive

Smelly Houses


So the police stop by Anthony Sowell's house to check on the convicted rapist turn loose and, dang, it smells bad! But it is claimed they can't get a search warrant to go inside. Did anyone think to walk by with a cadaver dog and let the dog find probably cause for a warrant?



Bye Bye Baby


Parents go to sleep at 3 AM and when the wake up at 11 AM, baby is bye bye. No sign of a break-in, no crazy fat lady hanging around at the park making goo goo eyes at the baby and claiming she is pregnant when she isn't, and the police are searching the woods for the baby instead of knocking on doors. Most babies who go missing while the parents are supposedly asleep are never found alive and most babies stolen from hospitals by women are found fairly quickly, usually in good health. It is easy (and sad) to see which way the police are leaning already.


Slasher Filmmaker Offensive


Well, yes they are, but that isn't the point. Two years ago, I wrote a commentary on the inappropriateness of gore and slasher filmmakers and their supporters claiming they are pro victim when these movies depict victims being raped, tortured and murdered...seems a rather logical observation and it caused quite a nasty campaign against me from that camp. Lovers of this genre don't like it when someone stands up against them and the proliferation of their misogynist and repulsive drek, so if you see my name being bandied about on the Internet with libelous assaults attached, they are still mad about my post! Here it is, one more time (since they aren't going to link it to their sites)!

http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.com/2007/12/gore-and-slasher-films-are-no-laughing.html




Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Church Ordains Child Sex Predator as Minister

Standards are plummeting everywhere in this country, but ordaining a sexual psychopath as a minister is a new low. The City of Refuge Worship center has made a child sex predator a minister. Mark Hourigan (scumbag pictured left) sodomized an eleven-year-old boy and got a lousy three years in prison for his crime. Randy Meadows, the idiot pastor who ordained this pervert, says Hourigan has paid his debt to society. Oh, really? He is a registered sex offender for life and what is Hourigan doing to right the wrong he did to this eleven-year-old child? Is this young boy supposed to sit in church and listen to the man who sodomized him praise the Lord and encourage the members of the congregation to be Christians? Oh, no, I forgot. The boy won't come to the church because if he can't handle watching his abuser preach on Sunday, he can just stay home.

Now here is a piece of revolting advice from a victim of sexual abuse:

"The key thing is for other members of this church congregation is to be on the lookout and to be careful of their children," said Cal Pfieffer, one of the protesters and a member of the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests (SNAP).

Say what? Here is MY advice:

Take your children and get the hell out of this church. Are you going to stay there and support the ordination of a sex offender? Are you going to stay there and let a sexual psychopath tell you how to do God's work? Shame on you if you don't tell the church leaders that you in no way will tolerate such an abomination and go find a church that has a sense of decency and values. I am sure Germantown, Kentucky and environs sport a number of other more moral congregations to worship with.

Hourigan should have gotten life in prison for sexual assaulting a child. Since he didn't get that, he at least shouldn't be given positions of moral authority....ever. Biblical principles state that those in overseeing positions should be beyond reproach and I fail to see how a sexual psychopath qualifies. Furthermore, although Hourigan claims to have found God, he is a psychopath who can't be believed. The City of Refuge has no clue if Hourigan is "reformed"or not.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Obama's Speech is Great and That's the Real Issue

The left and the right are both unable to see the attractive elephant in the room. The right went nuts on the fact Obama was going to speak to the children of America because they thought he was going to slip in socialist ideology and start the little ones on the way to joining an Obama youth core.

The left went bananas in return crying foul that the right is looking for every opportunity to destroy Barack Obama and his presidency. Today, with Obama giving a really lovely inspirational talk about responsibility and goal setting that would make any right wing American thrilled if a right wing politician had said it, those to the left can claim victory that those citizens to the right made fools of themselves and proved they are all a bunch of racist, angry, nutcases out to get Obama.

Both sides are not seeing the picture clearly.

The real problem for all citizens of the United States is that Obama gave a good speech, a nonpartisan speech, and a truly morally sound speech to the young people of America. In other words, he was likable and came across as someone you can respect.

So what? This speech is a moment in time, written by advisers, and promoted on national television; it was intended to make Obama look good in a time when tea parties and town hall meetings have made him look bad.

We can't say that Obama concern for children is the reason he gave the speech but, 0n the other hand, it can't be proven that this wasn't the motivation behind the speech. It might be about helping kids or it might be about restoring one's beleaguered public image. It might be that both motivations are at play. Nothing really wrong in that; most of us work in jobs that help people but we like to collect a paycheck as well.

The true elephant in the room is that Obama has a history of lying and changing course without clarifying why he was on that previous course or why he changed (and throwing folks under that bus while doing it). There is a lot not to not trust about Obama and that is why the right thought he was trying to do something squirrelly with his speech. But, they forgot that he just might be giving a great speech to repair his image and Obama is good at speaking at looking pretty. People like good speakers and people that look pretty. They tend to forget anything questionable they have done (or forget to question what they are about to do) because of a smiling face. Humans are easily suckered.

Police have this problem with suspects. If he seems nice, they will often not check an alibi or do a thorough background. Women take back abusive husbands when they get an apology and flowers. Humans, through simple biological need and training, classify people quickly and move on. Nice people we trust; nasty people we don't. Obama is trying to be nice so we trust him.

I say to the right and the left; look past the moment and examine the behavior. Talk IS cheap but behavior is something that is rock solid. Pay attention to the hands, not the mouth of a politician. Just like a magician, you get swayed by the patter and the showmanship instead of paying attention to what is really happening.

Obama is a showman. He is a good speaker. That's nice. Rewind history and examine his past and pay a lot of attention to what he is actually doing. Then make your conclusions about the man and his mission. Anyone can have a good day or a bad day; one good moment (Obama dancing tenderly with his wife, Michelle) or one bad moment (Obama tossing out inappropriate, but kind of funny, Special Olympics joke on The Tonight Show) do not tell us what our suspect is about or what our leader is working toward. It is the accumulation of behaviors that let us know what he is truly thinking and doing. Do your own thorough analysis and then you will have a clearer understanding of where American is headed and what we want to do about it.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Developing Profiling Theories

What if I were to have an opportunity to analyze the case of the missing woman, Christy Cornwell of Blairsville, Georgia? What would I look at as a profiler?

1. I would start with the phone call from the boyfriend. I would read his interview about what she said on that phone and how she said it. I would want to know if her voice always sounded like it was close to the phone or if it were distant (like she dropped the phone). I would want to know what else he heard. Other people talking? Sound of the vehicle? I would want to know why he didn't call 911 before he called Christy's mother.

2. I would want the boyfriend's alibi. Yes, the phone call supposedly came out of Atlanta. I would still want to prove he was there and HE made the phone call or received the phone call from Christy.

3. I would go to the site where she was allegedly abducted. Do I see signs of a struggle? (or do the photos show evidence of this?). Are there absolute signs of this like more than one set of footprints, car tire marks, etc? Or could Kristy have staged the crime and tossed some of her items there to make it look like an abduction.

4. I would want to check the site where the phone was found to see how long it would take to get there and why the phone would end up there. Are there signs of it being tossed? What kind of phone is it? Why did it go dead when the boyfriend said he was talking to Christy? If he heard her scream, "Don't take me", it should still have been in her hand. Why did it end up in the vehicle? Why wasn't it dropped where she was abducted? Why wouldn't the abductors have ripped it from her hand? Do we see other calls on the phone after the boyfriend's call? Is it a flip phone or a slide phone? What can we learn from it?

3. I would want to check the history of Christy, including her own victimology and personality profile, and that of her exes and her boyfriends. I would want to know all her friends and acquaintances and all the people she works with and has worked with (including those criminals she dealt with). I want to know Christy's habits especially her habit of walking at night and the routes she would have been seen on. If this wasn't her regular route, why not?

4. I would want to find any video of the roads she might have gone down after the fact. I would want to know any bus stations and motels near the area. I would want to verify any possible way Christy could have slipped away if it was a staged crime. I also want to know all possible routes for abductors and places they could hole up.

5. I would want to canvass the neighborhood for information and be sure to put out clear information to bring in tips on vehicles, possible suspects, and any strange behaviors observed.

6. The timeline of the crime is VERY important. When was Christy last seen and by whom? We must be sure no assumptions are being made. For example, let's say no one actually had seen her since 4 PM. Christy's boyfriend picks her up, they get in a fight, he kills her. He goes and hides her body, dumps a ripped shirt and one shoe on the road and then goes to his buddy. He gives his buddy the phone and tells him to wait for his call. He drives to Atlanta and then calls his buddy. They talk a few minutes and then he tells him to get in the car and drive two miles down from the dumped clothes and toss the phone. His buddy drives down the road and tells Christy's boyfriend, "Dumping the phone now!" Boyfriend then immediately calls Christy's mom to tell her that Christy has just been "taken." He has the perfect alibi.

Now, I am not saying the above scenario happened, but you can see how each piece of information must be checked and analyzed and connected with each other piece of information. This is how one does a crime reconstruction which leads to a profile. Then, we can eliminate any theory that cannot be true and find which theory is supported by the evidence. For example"

Christy's boyfriend has an alibi for the entire day in Atlanta. He was in an all-day meeting with ten people. BOYFRIEND IS NOT INVOLVED.

Christy's body is found and she has been strangled. CHRISTY DID NOT STAGE THE INCIDENT.

A video is found at a store with Christy being held hostage by some men with guns demanding money from convenience stores. SERIAL KILLERS ARE NOT INVOLVED.

A profile always depends on evidence. If new evidence comes in, the profile can change. Right now, I have so little information on this crime, I haven't a clue to what happened. If I were working with the police, I am sure this would be different. We will have to wait and see what evidence is given to the public next.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Racial Profiling in Reverse

Racial profiling, targeting someone purely because of race, is wrong. Profiling based on behavior is not wrong. If I, a white woman, walk down an alley and at the end, blocking my way out are ten black men, I may either panic or smile with relief. I will panic if I see ten black men dressed in thug clothes, cussing and talking about bitches. If I see ten black men dressed in suits with copies of The Watchtower in their hands, I am going to happily walk right up to them. The same would hold true for ten white men at the end of the block.

Henry Gates and President Obama are guilty of racial profiling. From what I can see of the officer who arrested Gates, Officer Crowley, is not. Officer Crowley acted professionally as a peace officer and did his job. Gates and Obama simply assumed that the only reason for the arrest was that Crowley just assumed this man, because he is black, was doing something illegal.

First of all, Crowley didn't do anything at all that resembled racial profiling. He already knew that Gates was the homeowner when he arrested him. He wasn't jumping to any conclusion that a black man was up to no good. Gates, a black man, WAS up to no good. He was disorderly and out of control.

If an officer arrests a black man for selling drugs, is that racial profiling? If an officer arrests a black man for stabbing his wife, is that racial profiling? If this is the case, I guess no one of color should be arrested for committing crimes. I am sure the black community will love to have these criminals remaining at large for them to contend with.

I, myself, have been accused of racism and racial profiling in spite of the fact my ex-husband of twenty-five years is black, I have one black son and two biracial children. Oddly, in all the years I have known my ex and my kids, none of them have experienced "driving while black" or any other version of racial profiling. Could this be because their behavior didn't raise suspicions in the minds of the cops? Could it be they know how to speak in a respectful manner to the police and understand, the few times they have encountered a situation with the police, that the police were just doing their job? For that matter, my sons have told me that the few times they were stopped for speeding and such, the officers let them off and they didn't even get a ticket.

I have done ride-alongs with my police officer daughter and I can tell you people who act badly often accuse the police of racial profiling or harassment or brutality and it doesn't matter who is what race. Going on the attack is their way of shifting the blame for their actions.

Gates is doing that exact thing. He acted like an idiot. He was rude and obnoxious and, in my opinion, racist. Obama is backing his friend's poor behavior and accusing the officer of something he has no idea has any merit. Both want Crowley to apologize for his actions and he refuses to do it. Good for him. Crowley, who once gave mouth-to-mouth resuscitation to Celtics star Reggie Lewis, a black man, says he didn't racial profile and he is not a racist. I believe him.

Does racial profiling exist? I am sure on occasion it does. But, I believe a good portion these days is in the mind of the offender. If it does, why did my family never encounter racial profiling.

Maybe we just knew how to behave.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Health Care Extortion

When did we stop being the "land of the free and the brave"? When did we lose our right to choose our own destinies without government interference? When did we decide to be socialist republic? What happened to something called The Constitution?

I had an interesting conversation with a good friend of my last night who was expressing her fear that discrimination was about to be levied against people who are zaftig, well, fat, in many people's view. With the new health care system coming our way, she worried that people with a weight issue would become a hated group, sanctions levied against them for causing health care costs to rise for the American people. She wondered if thin people with clogged arteries from our Standard American Diet would receive the same treatment or be able to hide behind their shield of thinness?

I thought she had a point and I told her why. Truly, is it my business to lambaste her for her extra pounds? Is it my place to yell at smokers? To be angry at women who desire induced labor and planned c-sections? Other than being concerned for their well-being as any friend might be, am I now to join brigades assaulting them for their lifestyles? I guess I will if the money to care for them comes out of my pocket. Actually, I should already feel that way because I think a good portion of our poor diet practices, drug and medicine addicted people, and over-medicalized birthing practices have skyrocketed medical care to the point where one's salary is greatly reduced to pay for them and those who have no medical care can't afford the going rates.

I think we need to completely get rid of ALL mandated health insurance, whether it is sucked away by our employers or by the United States government. We need health care choices that are truly individually selected. Why nobody in this country except a few of us sees that mandated health insurance is nothing more than extortion boggles my mind!

Let me explain, especially for those of you who are so enmeshed in our medical care system you think this extortion is normal.

There are societies in the world like Okinawa or up in Hunza country where elders romp about like agile mountain goats. Ninety-year-olds have perfectly normal blood pressure and they don't get strokes, cancers, or heart attacks. They live healthy until the machinery shuts down from exhaustion. This is how the human body was designed. Yes, there are disasters and there are unlucky blokes who get nailed out of the blue with some awful, unexplainable disease.My son had a horrific bike accident at age six. I wouldn't object to disaster insurance (by choice) with high deductibles. I might like this myself, just in case some drunk driver broadsides me.

But, most of disease is preventable. Proper diet (low in fats and mostly vegetarian), exercise, and avoidance of alcohol and drugs lends to pretty fine health. People with healthy lifestyles rarely need to see doctors all the time.

When I was married, I tried to disentangle our family from the health insurance that my husband's employer billed us for every month. Oh, you say, but it isn't that expensive, only a few hundred because the employer covers the other half. Are you dense? The way the employer "covers" the other half is to reduce your salary by that exact amount. What a deal!

So, I asked not to have the money taken out and they told me if we opted out of the system, we would not only not get back "their contribution", we would not get back ours either! We would get about ten or twenty dollars returned. So, of course, opting out was pointless. We had to accept the extortion.

Why did I want out? Simply because I never made use of the system. No one in our family went to doctors. You heard me right. Why? Because I didn't believe in those silly "well baby" checks and yearly checkups. Hey, if you are healthy, why do you need someone to tell you that you are healthy? For that matter, having worked ten years in hospital watching people get checkups, I learned that the tests and their results couldn't be trusted and people were getting procedures done that were unnecessary. They also got put directly on medicines that made their health worse. Rarely did any doctor approach health issues as a problem with lifestyles. Diet was almost never addressed outside of "suggesting" less sugar and fats. Those who got high blood pressure medicine stayed on drugs, those with diabetes stayed fat, and those with nothing wrong with them eventually found something to be worried about.

I haven't been to a doctor in fifteen years. People are horrified when they find that out. "Oh my god, suppose there is something wrong with you?" Folks, I haven't been to a doctor in fifteen years and I am still here. So nothing was wrong with me. My kids grew up without doctors and they are all adults. Most health problems can be solved without drugs and surgeries.

So, why do I have to pay for health insurance I don't want or need? Oh, yes, because everyone else wants it because they eat badly, drink, drug, and are scared of cancers sneaking up on them. I don't have a problem with their attitudes, I just don't want to pay for them. If one wants to eat badly and ingest drugs, illegal or medical, be my guest! I will still be your friend and I won't even go on a soapbox when we get together and nag you and tell you how to live. To each his own. You play, you pay. Not my issue. Shouldn't you be allowed to enjoy life through food if it makes life good for you? Maybe you prefer forty years of yummy pies and cakes rather than a longer life! Some people climb mountains and fall off of them. Should we deny them that right because they could die from their lifestyle choice? Oddly, we praise these people. Why? They don't cost us anything.

But, my friend is right. She is going to become a burden. Well, I personally think the most people now are a burden as they shoot those medical costs up. Why can't I go to a doctor of my choice and pay a reasonable price to get something like Zythromax if I happen to get bronchitis? Why should it cost me a fortune? I solved the problem by picking up a supply in Mexico and India, just in case I needed it. I had a breathing problem twenty years ago when I was on my husband's insurance where every winter I got this walking pneumonia-like thing and the x-rays never showed anything. The doctors refused to give me Zythromax and told me I had emotional problems. Oddly, my foreign Zythromax cleared up my "emotional condition" within days. This nontreatment, was given to me in the emergency room because I couldn't get an appointment with a doctor for two weeks and it cost an outrageous thousand dollars. For a stethoscope listen and an x-ray? It should have been something I could to see a doctor in a walk-in treatment center and pay fifty for the visit and fifty for the x-ray.

So, now our government is going to force me to get insurance. If I don't get it, I will be fined for not contributing my money to the system. Isn't this method called extortion? Taxes are bad enough but Obama wants us to think we are not going to be taxed for our health care system. We are going to "contribute" - by force. Taxes by another name are taxes. Pretty soon we will have our incomes docked 50-60%, just like all socialist countries. I wish more Americans spent time living in those countries to understand living in them sucks, unless you are living in them on American money.

Think about it, American citizens. Do you want to be free or do you want your government dictating everything you do in life? The intrusion on private lives and private business by the government is already massive. When they take your money away, you lose a thing called choice. I cannot choose a lay midwife or a naturopath; I cannot choose massage therapy or chiropractor. I cannot choose to spend my money on organic produce. The money I have left after the government extorts its health care money from me won't cover such things. Obama has already stolen huge amount of our future incomes with his bank bailouts and when we add the cost of health coverage and all the other social welfare programs that are going to increase, we will find the middle class no longer exists. Welcome to socialism, mates.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown