Sunday, October 16, 2016

Did Tommy Chong Sexual Assault Criminal Profiler Pat Brown?

True or false? Should you believe this and should the media run with it?

When I was 19 years old, I wished to become an actress in Hollywood. One day, on the set of Cheech and Chong, I was asked to stand in for an actress who was getting her hair done. I was told to lie on the bed with Tommy Chong, with the sheets and duvet covering us both, my side of the covers pulled over my face so that during filming it would not be noticed that I was body doubling for the actress.
While under the covers with Chong, I felt his hand cup my breast and then travel down my body to between my legs. He grabbed my hand and placed it on his penis and rubbed it up and down. I was mortified and didn't know what to do  because the camera was rolling and there were people all around. I was only 19 and naive and not very versed in how to deal with sexual assault, a sexual assault that occurred with a group of men surrounding the bed, a group of men who were friends with Mr. Chong, a famous actor and comedian, and me, a nobody that they could care less about.
I remained paralyzed under the sheet while Chong laughed with his crew and continued to move his hands and mine wherever he wanted. When they finished filming and the actress I was standing in for came into the room, I was summarily dismissed and I got out of the bed and pulled by dress down in front of everyone; I was crying but no one even looked at me and I ran from the room.
I was so traumatized by the experience that I left Hollywood and my dreams and over the years I had to seek counseling as I didn't trust men after that. I only told my sister and father what happened because they asked why I left Hollywood so abruptly and gave up on my long desired acting career.
I didn't come forward years ago because I was just an extra in the film industry and I knew no one would believe me over Tommy Chong who was loved and admired by many. But, now that I, too, have been on television for years and I am more mature and able to handle the fallout, I want to come forward and let people, especially other women who may have been abused by Mr. Chong, to know what happened to me and encourage others to come forward if they have had a similar experience. I want to let the public know that no one should get away with sexual assault just because they are famous and the victim is not. I hope coming forward will help others deal with sexual abuse and bring their abusers to justice.

Now, to the evidence:

On the side of Pat Brown:

She can prove she was in Hollywood at the time she claims the incident occurred.
She can prove by way of old dated letters (with the envelope) that she was on the set of Cheech and Chong's movie.
Her sister will verify that she was told by Pat Brown that the incident occurred and that she was told of the incident shortly after it occurred.

On the side of Tommy Chong:

No one remembers Pat Brown on the set while the movie was being filmed.
No one remembers an incident in which Tommy Chong was in the bed with Pat Brown.
No one remembers an incident in which an upset young extra jumped from the bed with her dress up over her waist and ran crying from the room.
The father of Pat Brown is dead; therefore, he cannot testify to what she said years ago.
Even if Pat Brown claimed years ago Tommy Chong sexually assaulted her, there is no way of knowing if this was truthful or just a fantastical claim of Pat Brown's to gain attention or to explain to her family her failure in Hollywood as an actress.

No one knows if Pat Brown and her sister are telling this story in order to achieve notoriety or money.

If other women come forward with similar claims, do you believe this adds to the evidence on Pat Brown's side of the equation?

Do you think this is a story the media should spread and a case Gloria Allred should take up since no police report was ever filed? 

If this story goes public, who do you think the victim is? Pat Brown or Tommy Chong?

DISCLAIMER: I have just received a phone call offering me legal representation against Tommy Chong. THE POST IS FICTION! It is meant to make people THINK TWICE about media stories in which a famous person is accused of sexual assault without proof. I was NOT assaulted by Tommy Chong or any other famous person.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
October 16, 2016

Tuesday, August 9, 2016

US Publishers Still Afraid to Publish a Truthful Book about Madeleine McCann

I wanted to update everyone on the situation concerning publishing books about Madeleine McCann. After the recent court victory of Goncalo Amaral against the McCanns and the return of his book about the case of missing Madeleine McCann to the Portuguese market, many of us thought there was a sliver of hope that freedom of speech on the case might be making progress. Although I certainly had my doubts that any book unsupported by the McCanns would find a publisher, my agent thought otherwise and she decided to take my book proposal out of mothballs and see if she could drum up interest. She put together the following pre-proposal query (based on my book proposal concept) and went out to the publishers. Here is what she sent and below the query is the result which I think all of you will find interesting. Names have been removed as I am not here to out the publishing industry; I just want to share with everyone the state of affairs with regards to publishing the story of Madeleine McCann in the English speaking world.

A Pre-Proposal Query


                                      A Criminal Profiler Takes On the World’s 
                         Most Baffling Disappearance

                                                            Pat Brown

A Criminal Profiler Takes on the World’s Most Baffling Disappearance
Pat Brown


            The disappearance of little Madeleine McCann has become the most fascinating missing childcase since the abduction of the Lindbergh baby. In fact, over 2 million visitors have followed its progress in 2016 alone via the “The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann website.
This nine-year cold case continues to be an obsession with people around the world – profilers, bloggers, journalists, FaceBookers, Tweeters, and citizens of many countries,especially England, Portugal, and the United States. 
Gerry and Kate McCann were not your average parents of a missing child. They were both medical doctors, as were most of their seven friends (often called the Tapas Seven) who vacationed with them in Praia da Luz, Portugal from where Madeleine disappeared just short of her fourth birthday. Six of these well-educated doctors, including the McCanns, left their children unattended in their vacation apartments for five evenings straight, out of eyeshot andearshot, while they wined and dined in a nearby Tapas restaurant
On the fateful night of May 3, 2007, 3-year-old Madeleine McCann disappeared from her bed, and by morning the McCanns were claiming she had been abducted. They and their family and friends called in the international media, but despite the parents’ neglect of their children,which may have contributed to the disappearance of their daughter, the British government offered its support, including diplomatic assistance and the intervention of the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown. 
When no proof of an abduction surfaced, cadaver dogs hit on the area behind the sofa in the McCanns’ vacation apartment, and the Portuguese police found the statements of the parents and their friends to be conflicting and deceptive. Both of Madeleine’s parents were made arguidos (suspects), but mother Kate McCann refused to answer any of the 48 questions put to her. Shortly after, the McCanns left the country and the case was shelved by the Portuguese police for reasons unknown.
At this point, the McCanns mounted a high-profile publicity offensive in the media,including appearances on Piers Morgan and OprahThey created a private Find Madeleinefund, which brought in four million dollars in donations to be used in any way they wished. Some of it paid for their mortgage, travel, and high profile attorneys. In 2008, Kate McCann wrote a book called Madeleine, which (along with a serialization in a top British newspaper) earned the McCanns another million plus.
With their publicity campaign in full swing, the McCanns sued or threatened to sue a number of people who had dared to speak up about the case and suggest that the McCanns may have been involved. Blog sites were shut down, promises to cease and desist were obtained, and free speech was muzzled. The McCanns sued the detective on the case, Gonçalo Amaral, for one and a half million dollars and got an injunction in 2009 against his book, Truth of the LieIt had become a bestselling Portuguese analysis of the police case (which had sold 180,000 copies in Portugal alone) and of his documentary DVD on the caseIn 2016, however, Gonçalo Amaralwon his appeal, and his book and DVD were returned to the market.
In 2011, American criminal profiler Pat Brown self-published her analysis of the case in a 32-page mini-book on Amazon. Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann vanishedafter five weeks of high sales and nearly 50 five-star reviews. Amazon informed Ms. Brown that Carter-Ruck, the McCann’s libel solicitors, had warned them of impending legal action if the book was not removed from the market. They caved and Brown’s book was taken out of all Amazon online stores worldwide.
As of this date, the 2013 Scotland Yard review ordered by the British government to solve the Portuguese case of missing Madeleine McCann (a very unusual action to be taken by the UK in a case that was not even their own) has cost British taxpayers more than twelve million dollars. Scotland Yard now states that they only have one line of inquiry left to wrap up (and it is not about the McCanns). Then, they will shelve the case with their final conclusions. The Portuguese will also likely re-shelve the case when Scotland Yard pulls out.
Pat Brown has profiled this case extensively over the last seven years and investigated it in person in Praia da Luz, PortugalIn addition to her mini-book, Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann, she has written dozens of blog posts on the case at The Daily ProfilerBrown will bring out new information in the Madeleine McCann case; the evidence, the analysis, the profile, the players, the politics, and the corruption, and penetrate the international mystery that still surrounds the most confounding missing child case in history.
Pat Brown is an American criminal profiler, author of seven books and a crime commentator (seen more than 3000 times with regular appearances on Nancy Grace, Jane Velez-Mitchell, Dr. Drew, Anderson, Inside Edition, The Today Show, The Early Show, Wolf Blitzer, Larry King, Dr. Phil, Montel Williams, Bill O’Reilly, etc.).

               Table of Contents

Chapter One: The Case of Madeleine McCann: Not Just Another Missing Child
Chapter Two: The Perplexing ParentsBizarre Behaviors and Strange Bedfellows
Chapter Three: Marketing Maddie: The Tot Heard Round the World
Chapter Four: The Worst PIs Money Can Buy: Crooks and Conmen
Chapter Five: Those Dastardly Dogs: Damning Evidence or Canines Gone Wrong?
Chapter Six: The Tide Turns: The Crucification of the McCanns on the Internet
Chapter SevenThe Hired Guns of the McCanns: Silencing the Experts 
Chapter Seven: The Strange Charade of Scotland Yard: Millions of Pounds SpentZero ResultsAchieved
Chapter Eight: Criminal Profiler Pat Brown’s Analysis of Madeleine McCann’s Disappearance 

Below is an example of the responses from the publishers. 

We are intrigued, but I don't think this one is quite right for our list. As the case is not concluded, and as the McCann's are more litigious than most, I don't think we have the infrastructure to handle a book like this one. Frankly, without the full-time in-house legal team for the vetting this would need, it's a costly proposal. 

Alas, afraid I'm taking the coward's position on this one, but I wish you and Ms. Brown great success in finding the perfect publishing home for it, and I thank you for thinking of us.


It is a sad situation that the McCanns have so cowed publishers that they are afraid to take a chance on a story that is as a big as this one. There still may be someone out there in the publishing world my agent hasn't contacted who might be willing to give such a book a shot, but I strongly doubt we will see anyone be brave enough until the case is long closed or the McCanns are out of the picture.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
August 9, 2016

Cover for 'Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann'
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.

Monday, June 13, 2016

Why I am a Nationalist

I have always refused to discuss politics but this one issue has been nagging at me because it seems to be so misunderstood and I want to provide my own take of the situation. Many people seem to think because I travel a lot, have a great love for certain other countries (especially India) and because I would consider spending the winter in a number of places in the world (India, Mexico, Nicaragua, etc.) and because I would even consider living in another country, perhaps, for the rest of my life, that I must be totally into multiculturalism and a blurring of borders.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I am a strong nationalist, I want strong borders, and I want a strong American culture. Shocked? How could this be? Pat Brown? Didn't you marry a Jamaican, don't you have a closet full of Indian clothing and are a huge fan of Bollywood, aren't you learning Hindi and Spanish, haven't you been to Mexico five times and are planning a sixth trip in October? Didn't I see you in hijab in Egypt? WTF?

I will tell you why I want the United States to be the United States: because I want India to be India and I want Jamaica to be Jamaica and I want Mexico to be Mexico and Egypt to be Egypt. I visit these countries BECAUSE they are countries that are different from my own, because they are unique - with their own languages and culture - because they are NOT The United States of America. I want them to protect their way of life; I don't want to see Mexico overrun with Americans buying up land and refusing to learn Spanish (which is already happening and is pretty repulsive). I believe anyone moving to another country and culture has a duty to become part of it and, if one is not willing to do that, please stay where you are.

My father moved to the United States from Germany. He learned to speak English and did so fluently for the rest of his life. He married an American and raised three children to be Americans. He always considered himself an American with a German background. And here is what is important. He didn't considered himself a German-American, putting the German first. He considered himself an American with a German history. Hence, he acted as an American with a few private German observances: we had German pancakes on occasion, he made snitzel now and then, we had German Christmas cookies and marzipan at holiday time. Sometimes he spoke German with his mother and when all the relatives who were Americans with a German heritage got together, there were sometimes rememberances of the past, of the home they were born in and lived for a period of their lives.

My ex-husband moved to the US when he was fifteen. He and all of his brothers and sisters became US citizens. All of them act like Americans albeit with a bit of an accent (the oldest two), a whole lot of Jamaican food made in their homes, and reggae music that they play in their cars. All of them have melted into American society; they don't run around wearing dreads and driving cars with Jamaican flags stuck on them. They raised their children to be Americans, not separatists with a hatred for the country they were born in. They love the United States and so do their children.

If I move to India or Mexico and become a citizen, guess what I will do? I will speak Hindi (if I am in the northern part of India) or whatever language is the language of the area of India I live or I will speak Spanish if I live in Mexico. I will wear the clothes that people around me wear and I will enjoy the music they play and I will eat the food they eat. I will care about the country that I am living in. I will become an Indian with a United States heritage or a Mexican with a United States heritage. In my home, I may enjoy some American pastimes, music, and food, and I may have some friends from the US I enjoy spending time with because of our shared past, but I won't hang with them exclusively and refuse to bother with my new fellow countrymen; I won't parade down the street with an American flag and hate on the country I have moved to.

If I move to Mexico, I wouldn't want to see a bunch of drug-using homeless Americans coming across the border in droves, taking jobs from Mexicans,  and bringing American style crime and behaviors to the country, overwhelming their culture and resources. And, guess what? I don't want illegal Mexicans coming across the border in droves and extending their country into ours. I don't mind legal immigrants who share with us the culture of their land of birth (restaurants, music, books, celebrations, etc) but I don't want to find myself in a town where I, an American born citizen, am unwelcome and poorly treated because my new neighbors don't like the people or culture they have invaded.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to have your own identity as an individual or as a country. Change will always happen but it should be the kind of change that happens slowly over time and becomes the new normal. But, if one allows uncontrolled immigration or allows massive numbers of illegal immigrants to flood the country, you will have a huge collection of people who are not the least bit interested in become a true citizen of that country and they will not adapt to the culture and leave the majority of theirs behind. It is the duty of a country to protect its way of life and safety of its citizens and this is what a smart government does when it works to protect its borders and set reasonable immigration policies.

A number of European countries are in trouble because they allowed uncontrolled immigration of young Muslim men into their country who have failed to assimilate and appreciate the country they are presently living in. They have brought cultural values in conflict with their new homeland and gathered together in intense subcultures where they are cultivating hatred against the citizens around them.

In the US, we have not seen this problem with Hindu immigrants from India because they have adapted to their new country and their values are similar enough not to set them in conflict with their nonHindu neighbors. In the past, a slow trickle of fairly educated Muslims from relatively open Muslim societies into our country has also allowed for a reasonable assimilation, but the recent increase in Muslims from countries who have radical Muslim governments and cultures, young men not escaping from a world they disagree with, but young men seeking financial refuge and also bringing an extremely conservative Islamic culture with them, one which does not allow them to coexist well with a modern America, this influx is creating a dangerous powder keg which will one day explode as it has in Europe. We have enough trouble with disaffected all-American youth choosing to commit mass murders for the attention they get in the media and the thrill of making a name for themselves, so we sure don't need to add yet more young people who are disaffected due to homelands in chaos, a difficult transition to a new country, and a mindset and culture that do not meld well with the society we have in the United States; this leads to a whole other level of violence via mass murder and terrorism.

Our earlier limited immigration of Mexicans and Central Americans also allowed for these new arrivals to learn English and become part of North America. However, the excess flood over our borders of people fleeing economic hardship and political and drug violence is generating large communities of Spanish only residents and an increase in violent gangs and cartel activities. We need to stop this massive influx and work to regulate who comes in and how many come in at rates which allow new immigrants to be a boon to our country and not a detriment.

We ARE a country of immigrants and growth and I welcome people from all places and all religions as long as they are coming here to become Americans, proud Americans, loving Americans - future citizens who will stand up for our way of life because this is the country they want to be a part of, not a country they want to change or destroy.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
June 13, 2016

Sunday, June 12, 2016

MO, not Motive is the Key to Labeling the Murder of Multiple Victims and the Key to Stopping These Crimes

The term "motive" has caused a lot of problems in crime solving, court cases, and in the public arena of understanding crime.

First, let me define "motive" properly. Motive is the reason someone THINKS he he has committed a crime or someone else THINKS he has has committed a crime. In reality, there is often little evidence that the claimed "motive" is the true reason for the crime and, in reality, it really doesn't matter a damn to the dead people or their families.

The problem with the definition of "motive" is that humans often do not understand themselves, others, or the complexity of why we do things and that we might claim one motive when another is totally the reason for our action or, as is often true, there are multiple motives for any action and focusing on just one is not giving the full story.

Take a action which is a non-crime: why does Pat Brown go on television? Is her motive the one she gives - a desire to educate the public about crime and criminals - or is it the motive some others claim is the truth - that Pat Brown is a narcissist who likes the limelight? Or that she wants to advertise her books? That she wants to make money? That she likes to ride in limos to the studio? Or that she likes the free hairstyle and makeup? Is she seeking truth or fame? Or, is it possible that she has multiple motives, some possibly stronger than others, that make up her choice to appear on television?

And killers? How do we KNOW their motive? Are they angry at the person they kill? Or was it just fun? Or did they want notoriety? Or was it a robbery gone bad? Or a supposed hate crime? If a killer says he shot a bunch of people down because they were African-American is this necessarily the truth? Or did he know he would get more publicity for saying so? Or the support of racists while in prison? Or did it just sound good after his plan to shoot up the white church next door fell through because the church went on a picnic and the black church next door was just a back up plan?

If a Muslim mass murderer yells "Allahu Akbar" does this mean the motive for his killing is truly to kill nonMuslims? Or is he just pissed off at his workmates? Or mad that his wife left him? Or does he simply want to justify in his own mind his desire to kill a lot of people and attain media fame?

Truth is, searching for an absolute motive is a waste of time. What IS important is determining how the crime was committed, who supported the killer (if anyone) and what we need to do to stop it from happening again. So far, there are a number of issues we need to address:

In a particular crime, we need to determine MO (modus operandi), how he did it.

1) Did he commit the crime all on his own? Then it is mass murder and we need to address the cause of mass murder in general and find any encouragers of the crime (the media) and stop them.

2) Did he commit the crime with the help of an organized terrorist cell? Then it is terrorism and we need to address the cause of terrorism in general and find any accomplices to the crime (other terrorists) and stop them.

Then we need to examine more deeply:

1) The increase of psychopathy
2) The increase of mass murder
3) The increase of terrorist attacks

There are real factors behind the increase of these three things: an environment that encourages the development of psychopathy, an environment that encourages the choice of mass murder as a tool of revenge and self-fulfillment, and an environment that encourages the choice of terrorist attacks to make a political statement.

These three factors should cause us to focus on how we raise our children, why we allow the media to make mass murderers famous, and how to stop the spread of radical Islam, especially within our own country (and that could be the US, the U.K., Malaysia, Nigeria, etc.)

While we are wasting time caring about some psychopath's excuse for why he committed his heinous crime, we could be using our time to stop these crimes from happening.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
June 12 2016

Tuesday, May 3, 2016

If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent

This is going to be a very upsetting post for many of you and I am sure I am going to receive a whole bunch of unpleasant responses, but someone has to address this issue in a rational manner. It will be my last blog on the matter until we get the final determination from Scotland Yard.

A number of people are accusing me of "giving up on Madeleine and justice" because I stepped back from commenting after my post that I believed the Scotland Yard investigation was a whitewash. People were furious that I had the audacity to claim that a major police agency would not be on the up-and-up. The response was so nasty, that I decided to simply let things play out without comment. After all, it is not like my commentary at this point is going to get justice; I wrote a book and a whole bunch of blogs detailing the evidence, even a blog on where I think it is possible Madeleine's body is buried and I have not changed the course of events in the slightest. I don't see Scotland Yard or a mob of citizens digging up the barren area of Monte do Jose Mestre to see if her body really is buried there. I am enough of a realist to know that I am just one person, albeit a fairly visible one with profiling experience, but that doesn't mean my opinion can necessarily change the course of events; I am not even the ex-detective on the case who is David against a Goliath battling it out in a big court spectacle. So, since I have written my books and blogs, Scotland Yard is doing what they are doing and I am pretty sure I am not influencing them in the least.

So, what exactly is Scotland Yard doing? From the responses I have a received and from what I have read on boards and Facebook, a portion of you think the Scotland Yard review is a sham but a good portion of you think the last line of inquiry is the McCanns and they will soon arrest them. You believe the McCanns are in a cold sweat and all those police detectives who have worked this review/investigation would never be involved in a cover-up, that they would take all the evidence into account, that there never was a remit to only look at this case as an abduction and to exclude the McCanns as suspects. Some of you strongly believe that these police officers are dedicated to justice and they only think of the poor dead child - and not of their careers and politics of the department -- that their strong sense of fighting for the truth will dictate their behavior. I have to believe not a lot of you have spent much time with cops. I have. 

My daughter is a detective. My brother-in-law who I lived with for four years was a cop. My son-in-law used to be a deputy in the sheriff's department. And I have worked with cops for two decades. Cops are caring human beings and cops are cynics. Pretty much the same as me: do I care about the cases I have worked that involved children (and others)? Absolutely. Do I want justice for them? Sure. Can I accept that the case is screwed and walk away? Sadly, yes. If you work in this field long enough, you have to be pretty tough or you are not going to last. You develop a realist attitude, somewhat cynical, likely you have a black sense of humor, and you do what you can and that is that.

Cops deal with so much they know how to turn off the waterworks; if they didn't, they would go nuts. The stuff a homicide detective sees sucks. He fights to make sure cases go to court and when there isn't enough evidence or one of his fellow detectives screws up or the ass of a prosecutor refuses to go to court because he is protecting his win record, what does he do? He accepts the bad outcome and does what he can for the next case. Would you call him covering up for the police department so he can save his career? Okay, but if he starts some big fiasco about a case, he won't be helping any other murdered kids gets justice. You win some, you lose some. 

The detectives I have worked with on cold cases usually agree with my detemination and admit, while I am in house, that I am right. We go out and have beer. Then, I leave and the police tell the family and media I could not help them and they reshelve the screwed up case. That person and that family will never see justice. If you think those detectives who followed the wrong leads and lost time and evidence are going to admit I was right, tell the public that the department botched the case, you are out of your mind! All their careers would be over and they have families to feed. I have been stabbed in the back many a time over these cold cases and that is why I don't work them any more. I am instead working on training detectives so they do better work on fresh cases. I don't hold a grudge, I am not furious that they didn't get justice for a murdered child or adult; I know they are human, did their best, and they are constrained by training and reality and politics. And if you think I am going to go to the press every time and shout to the world that the department screwed up, I would never be able to work with a police agency again and then I will have wasted everything I have done to improve the closing of cases in police investigations.

Have you never heard of "The Thin Blue Line"? The police will hang together to support each other, have each other's backs because they are stuck within a system and the citizens really don't know what their world is like. If any British police supported Amaral, it is because they identify with him being screwed over. However, as you notice, if they did indeed support him, no one is giving their names or showing their faces.

So, basically, the detectives are going to do their job and investigate what they are told to investigate: they were either told to do a full and compete investigation in which everyone is a person-of-interest and no one has been excluded OR they are following a remit to investigate an abduction and only an abduction and the McCanns are not suspects, period.

So, IF the McCanns are guilty and had enough political influence to have control over the investigative remit, then the cops are going to do the job of the remit and search for an abductor. They will reach a conclusion that she was abducted and likely this is who did it although there is not enough to take said perpetrator or perpetrators to court.

If the McCanns are guilty and did not have enough political influence to assure them a review by Scotland Yard wouldn't end up biting them in the ass, they hardly would have stumped for a review of a case already shelved by the Portuguese. Of course, the question would be why any guilty party would WANT a review of a crime they committed; my answer would be, in this case, to refute Gonçalo Amaral's determinations. I think all that publicity of Scotland Yard looking for an abductor was something they hoped would influence the court case, and, even if it didn't, the final blessing from Scotland Yard would effectively override the conclusions of Amaral in much of the public's eye and that would be a satisfying conclusion for the McCanns. 

So, since they ASKED for this review; they put their trust in the outcome. If there wasn't some political collusion going on when the McCanns asked for this Scotland Yard review, if nothing has changed politically to overturn a remit, if they went in without such a remit and Scotland Yard is completely following the evidence, I will say right here, I have been wrong about the McCanns and the evidence of the dogs must be undependable and all their weird behaviors are just odd behaviors of two very ununusual people, not two guilty people. The McCanns must then be innocent.

As I have said before, my profile has been based on the known evidence and leads me to the determination that the McCanns should be top suspects and further investigation should confirm that they are guilty or find evidence that they are not. So, I for one, can accept that the McCanns could be innocent IF evidence comes to light to prove so (there are rare times when all the evidence points to a specific party but it turns out it its not them which is why you want to have as extremely convincing evidence before you go to court for prosecution). Therefore, if the McCanns did not politically manipulate the outcome of this investigation, if it is a tried and true investigation, if Scotland Yard determines it is an abduction, we have to conclude the McCanns are innocent. 

So, you can't have it both ways. Unless the political tide has massively turned and the McCanns are now being hung out to dry (which I find extremely unlikely), Scotland Yard can only be one of two things: a farce and the McCanns are guilty and are never go to be convicted of a crime or legitimate and the McCanns have been innocent all along.


Since some people can't seem to understand what my post is about, I will simplify it.

1. If you believe the McCanns had no political power to enforce a remit, then they are most likely innocent.
2. If you believe the McCanns had the political power to enforce a remit, then they are most likely guilty.
3. If you believe the McCanns had the political power to enforce a remit yet Scotland Yard after wasting three years looking for an abductor is now doing an about face and moving in on the McCanns, then there has either been a huge political upheaval in the UK or you are in the land of wishful thinking.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
May 3, 2016

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.

Posted by Pat Brown to  The Daily Profiler at May 3, 2016 at 9:12 AM

Monday, May 2, 2016

Why Parents who Kill the Their Children may not be Prosecuted and Why the McCanns Won't Be

There are two kinds of parents of responsible for their missing and murdered children when it comes to prosecution: careless and careful, unsympathetic and sympathetic.

Careless and unsympathetic parents get charged with the crime because a) the evidence is clear, and b) a jury will hate them. For example, a meth-using five time felon beats the living crap out of his little baby girl while the mother is at work. The girlfriend comes home and finds her mashed up child barely breathing and rushes her to the hospital where she dies. The father claims at the hospital, that the one-year-old got out the door of the apartment and fell down the steps. However, all the damage is consistent with being beaten and x-rays show previous damage to the child's body. Police arrest the creep and he is found guilty in a court of law.

Parents of a missing a murdered child who are more careful to cover-up after the crime and a bit more sympathetic don't get charged with a crime because a) the evidence is not totally clear, and b) a jury won't necessarily hate them. In other words, unless there is overwhelming evidence of guilt - overwhelming - no prosecutor will take the case to court and have a jury not be totally convinced of the guilt of the parent or parents; after all, imagining condemning the innocent mother and father of a missing a murdered child to prison, further torturing the victims of a crime, and taking them away from their remaining children so that they effectively not only lose one child to the crime but all of them. And think about the remaining children; they not only would lose a sibling, but then their parents as well.

 Sabrina Eisenburg, Lisa Irwin, Gabriel Johnson are still missing and many do not think they were abducted by strangers. These children have never been seen again and their bodies have never been found. The Eisenburgs claim their daughter was taken from her crib although there is no proof of an abduction. The Eisenburgs were never charged. Baby Lisa went missing from her crib. Her parents were never charged in spite of the fact cadaver dogs hit in their house. Gabriel Johnson's mother actually told the father of her little boy that she killed the baby and threw him in a dumpster. Later, she told the police that she actually gave the baby away to a couple in the park. In spite of the confession to the father of the child and the fact there is no evidence of an abduction, Elizabeth Johnson (a pretty woman who came across as a stressed and emotionally disturbed mother) has not been charged with the murder of her child; she got five years for custodial interference and unlawful imprisonment and she was released from prison in 2014.

And this is why the McCanns won't be charged with any crime, even neglect. Rarely is a parent of a missing child charged with neglect because, even if it is true, the police and many in the public feel they have already received enough punishment for their carelessness; their child has been kidnapped or murdered. As for the McCanns being prosecuted for the death of their child, barring an incredible miracle in the evidence department, the McCanns fall into the second category, a) the evidence is not totally clear, and b) a jury won't necessarily hate them.

First, let's look at the evidence for prosecution: the dog evidence is not admissible in court without something else to support it. So, there is no proof Madeleine died in the apartment. And, since there has been no body found, there is no proof the child is dead at all. There is no witness sighting of either of the McCanns removing the child from the apartment or disposing of her body. The Smith sighting is of a man who COULD be Gerry McCann, not proof that it was Gerry McCann. Neither of the parents have confessed and none of the others in the Tapas group have implicated them in harming their daughter or disposing of her body. So just as their is no solid proof of an abduction, there is no solid proof of the McCanns involvement in their daughter going missing. This does not mean there aren't many pieces of evidence that make them good suspects; my profile of the case includes many facts which support their involvement in what happened to Maddie. But, a profile (which is an analysis of facts) is not equivalent to the level of proof needed to prosecute someone for a crime.

Secondly, putting one's feelings about the McCanns aside, let's look at the couple in the eyes of the jury. The McCanns are not the scum of society; they are not welfare abusing, unemployed druggies who live in the slums, and have seven other children they neglect and abuse. What the jury will see are a respectable couple who are both doctors, who give their time to worthwhile projects, and one of them is even an ambassador for missing children. They have worked night and day to find their missing daughter (a defense attorney will make this seem true), went through the the process of setting up a fund to finance private investigators, and begged the government to sent in Scotland Yard to investigate the case. They have taken excellent care of the other two children (barring the one horrible night where their one poor parenting choice led to their daughter going missing). They have the support of their family, friends, and many in the governement, so they are upstanding citizens, people the jury can relate to.

So, without that absolute proof that the McCanns did something to Maddie, the jury is not going to take the risk of wrongly imprisoning an innocent mother and father, further punishing a suffering set of parents and leaving Maddie's brother and sister effectively orphaned. Even I, after having studied all the facts of the case and having traveled to Praia da Luz to analyze the area of the crime scene, and even after having written a profile which identifies Gerry and Kate McCann as the top suspects in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, would have to find the McCanns "not guilty" in a court of law.

There is a big difference in believing someone has committed a crime and proving it. Scotland Yard can't prove Maddie was really abducted and we can't prove that she wasn't. Scotland Yard can give their profile of the crime, you can give yours, I can give mine....but, in the end, no one will be able to prove anything because there simply isn't enough evidence to do so, and, this case, like many other cases of missing and murdered children will remain unprosecuted.

The truth may come to light sometime in the far future and I hope it does. But barring a miraculous appearance of new evidence that will allow someone to be taken to prosecution, we will have to settle for documenting the case for posterity and hope that all of our efforts - Goncalo Amaral's, mine, and everyone who put so much time into studying and publicizing the case - will have done some good.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
May 2, 2016

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.