Friday, September 19, 2014

"Looking for Madeleine" by Summers and Swan: A Book Review by Pat Brown - Part Three

Today I have finished  reading Looking for Madeleine by Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan and I sadly find I was right about my prediction that this book would be well-written enough to satisfy the masses that the McCanns are innocent of any involvement in their child's disappearance. As I read the narrative, I could feel myself starting to question their guilt and feeling my own guilt rising for ever thinking these two wonderful parents did anything questionable. Bravo, Summers and Swan, mission accomplished.

But, I know what they doing because I have experienced similar responses when I read well-constructed critical reviews of two of my own books, Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann and The Murder of Cleopatra, reviews written cleverly enough that I started doubting my own theories and wondering how I came up with them at all. I had to go back and reread my books to see what I really had said and then I could see exactly how these critics had deceived me with their reviews, using magician's tricks to obscure the truth. And, when you have an audience who is never going to read the source material (either because it is too much work or the reviewer doesn't bother to footnote where he gets his material or have a bibliography at the back of his book), the critic can blatantly lie as well and the reader will simply accept what he says. For example, a number of my detractors of The Murder of Cleopatra blithely stated I had done little research on her life and death, completely ignoring the extensive bibliography I included in the book (along with many footnotes). I have a wall of books on Cleopatra and Roman and Greek history, architecture, geography, seafaring, poisons, etc (which I read from beginning to end with notes in all the margins) and I have massive numbers of web searches on my computers where I looked for each and every reference I could find on issues related to analyzing the Pharaonic queen's history. Never mind the two trips I made to Egypt. But, "I did little research;" I just made up a theory out of thin air. Likewise, with Madeleine McCann. I read so many attacks taken totally out of context that I had to go and read exactly what I did say and why I said it and when I said it and what I said before and after I said it.Cherry-picking  bits of info and then cleverly creating a narrative around them is the way readers can be deceived into believing what they are reading is factual and honest.

And this is what Summers and Swan do and do well. They cherry-pick facts which will support their narrative that the McCanns are innocent of any wrongdoing. Then, they weave an emotional story around them and find all the supports they can to bolster the "validity" of what they are saying. Any facts that are damning or that would raise questions are simple left out of the book. Glaringly so, to people who have followed this case and read the police files, but to those that know little except what they have seen in the media, they won't have a clue they aren't getting the whole story.

The other technique used by the detractors of the my two books and used heavily by Summers and Swan is the ad hominem attack. Those who attacked my Madeleine book spend a good deal of time trashing my professionalism. Attackers of Cleopatra book claim I can't properly analyze her life because I am not a historian. Summers and Swan infers that all those who question the McCanns are but haters or publicity seekers or incompetent morons.

Finally, Summers and Swan set themselves up, without any previous training, as better detectives and profilers than anyone else who has looked at the case. I have no problem with people who have not been trained analyzing something and then presenting good evidence to support their theory; in fact, I have been sometimes surprised by the good deductive reasoning of some lay people which is why I don't knock people who don't have a degree in a field for making a hypothesis. Sometimes experts are wrong and nonexperts are right. I don't object to Summers and Swan giving their opinion at some point (although for investigative journalists I should think this should be kept to a dull roar) but I do take issue with their incredibly arrogant stance that their deductions are clearly the right ones and those who question the McCanns in any way are one hundred percent wrong.

I won't bother to go into detail on all the inaccuracies in the book, the deceptions, the glaring omissions...I will leave that to other reviewers.  My final thought on this book is simply that it has achieved its purpose; to create a final narrative in favor of the McCanns and abduction. I don't think it matters how well it sells or if it has a bunch of one-star reviews on Amazon because this book isn't about sales but propaganda. I do believe this book was commissioned and the publisher had no issue with putting the book out there because it wasn't going to be Carter-Rucked and might sell well enough for a profit (as long as they didn't have to spend money on publicity which clearly they did not). I find it extremely odd that the publishers did not send out copies prior to publication for reviews - an extremely common practice and one you would think would be done with authors with a name - and I have to wonder if part of the deal was actually an agreement to not encourage major reviews that might put a negative spin on the book. "Haters" on Amazon are not taken so seriously as are book reviewers with major newspapers and magazines. It will be interesting to see if anyone does dare to write a less than favorable review of this book, but there was a deafening silence in reviewland when this book hit the stands and one has to wonder why.

As I stated a few posts back, I will not be doing any more running commentary on the McCann case. I feel this book is the final spin to the public of the McCann's innocence, the trial will finish up (and I doubt in a very positive way, but I hope I am wrong), and Scotland Yard will wind down with either a dead suspect or a statement that they have a good idea of who kidnapped and killed Maddie but they can't get enough cooperation with Portugal or enough evidence to pursue the evildoers to prosecution.   Whether the truth will ever out remains to be seen.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

September 19, 2014

Cover for 'Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann'

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

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, September 18, 2014

"Looking for Madeleine" by Summers and Swan: A Book Review by Profiler Pat Brown - Part Two

One of the rules of statement analysis is to pay very close attention to what is the first thing to come out of a person's mouth because that is the the most important piece of information the person wants to convey. For example, in the 911 call place by Darcie Routier on June 6, 1991, she told the operator this: "Somebody came here....they broke in...they just stabbed me....and my children."

Darlie did not immediately scream for help to save her children (two boys who were stabbed to death). What she most wanted the police to know was that someone else committed the crime. The next most important thing was to convey the attack came from outside the home. Then she wanted to make sure it was known that she was a victim. Oh, yeah, and, by the way, the children were stabbed as well. Darlie is on death row as of today.

Now, what struck me the minute I opened up Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan's book was the Author's Note. Pay attention to the very first thing these authors want you to believe, the very first thing. Then, note the second most important point, and the third. I will reproduce the Authors' Note in full.

The authors wish to make clear at the outset that, after more than two years studying this controversial case, they have seen not a shred of evidence to indicate that Gerry and Kate McCann, any member of their holiday group, or Robert Murat, were at any stage - in May 2007 or subsequently - guilty of malfeasance of any kind in connection with Madeleine McCann's disappearance or the repercussions that followed.

Allegations or innuendos about their role made or published by others, when referenced in the text of the book, are published only in the interests of reporting the history of the case- and to demonstrate the very point that such allegations are based on no factual evidence or are simply egregious.

This book has been researched and written independently of Gerry and Kate McCann.

So, the most important thing is NOT that the authors are going to be objective and allow the reader to hear all the theories, all the expert opinions, and allow them to deduce where they believe the truth lies. No, the most important issue is to shout out that the McCanns are innocent, so innocent, in fact, that there is not even the smallest scintilla of evidence that should raise an eyebrow. The second most important point they want people to get is that anyone who dares to question the McCanns is egregious in doing so because - although police detectives and profilers and numerous other professionals doubt the McCanns' innocence - these two journalist know better than any of them that there is not a shred of evidence that should have led any of these professionals to such a conclusion. Hence, they are all hacks and haters.

And, the third most important reason for this book is that the authors want the readers to believe that the McCanns in no way influenced their decision to write this book, did not influence what they researched and who they interviewed, nor did they influence what was written or have any say in the final manuscript. This is what they want readers to believe although this final sentence of the Authors' Note does not actually say that; the sentence simply says they did some work on their own as doing something independently does not mean that there is not a directive, there is not oversight, and there is not a final approval.

For supposedly objective journalists, this opening speech is markedly bizarre for two peoople who just want to tell a story, to report what happened, to lay out the facts.

These two people are on a mission to exonerate the McCanns and crush any opposition. I wonder if they were cheaper than Carter-Ruck.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

September 19, 2014

"Looking For Madeleine" by Summers and Swan: A Book Review by Profiler Pat Brown - Part One

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.

"Looking for Madeleine" by Summers and Swan: A Book Review by Profiler Pat Brown - Part One

I have finally received my copy of Looking for Madeleine by Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan and I promised that, in spite of my moratorium on commenting on the Madeleine McCann case, I would review this book because my name shows up in it and I predicted months ago that this book was going to be pro-McCann and written cleverly enough to convince anyone unfamiliar with the police files to believe what is contained within this supposedly first "independent and objective" account of the case.

Today I will address the author's claim to be objective and to have done extremely thorough research. I will start with the bit in the book about me because....well, naturally, that was the bit I just had to read. You will find the part about me on pages 196-197.

First of all, it is hard to exactly know where they got their information from because these supposedly professional journalists failed to include any footnotes in their book nor did they have a bibliography at the end. I surely included footnotes when I wrote The Murder of else would people verify what I researched and be able to learn more about what others had written on her history? When I read people complaining online, I saw Summers and Swann's reply that these folks need only to read the source notes. Well, I have the book in front of me and they meant this literally. There is a chapter called "Source Notes" within which is explained the they had read from the police files and Gonçalo Amaral's book and they also noted a number of media sources. THIS is NOT a bibliography. Although Summers claimed in his email to me that he had read my blogs and book, he doesn't mention these in his "source notes".....oh, yeah, well, he probably actually didn't read them at all. He mentions my blog, The Daily Profiler, in one of the chapters on haters, but he doesn't directly quote me (because I refused him permission) so he instead paraphrases what I said and does not footnote where he got this information from. I actually had to Google some of the key words to find out exactly which of the 72 blogs I have written on the McCann case they came from and, interestingly, what I came up with was the Stop the Myths site.

As a matter of fact, from what I could Google, most of Summers and Swan's questions to me came directly from the Stop the Myths, a, vicious pro-McCann site, which is why I got warning bells that I was about to be put in a conspiracy theorist or hater section of the book. It would seem to me that when the authors did research, they only did their research on the pro-McCann sites. I got no feeling through our email conversation that the authors had studied my profile of the case and they never asked for an interview early on (they only called me for quote permission right before publication) so that they might really pick my brain for my professional analysis of the case. After refusing to allow Summers and Swan to quote my blog, I suggested that they ask me questions about my take on the case and my profile and they could quote from my answers. They did ask me a few vague questions and these were my answers:

1) When a child goes missing from home, the police are faced with four possibilities: the child ran away, the child wandered away and met with an accident, the child was abducted, or someone in the home removed a live or dead child and is not telling the truth to the police. As Madeleine was not yet four years old at the time of her disappearance, it is obvious she was not a runaway. Although it is possible she could have wandered out of the vacation flat, her body was never found nearby nor was there any evidence she opened either door and walked into the street to then be abducted. The third possibility is that of a predator breaking in and abducting the child which there has never been any evidence to support. The fourth possible cause of Madeleine's disappearance is that something happened to her inside the vacation flat and the parents removed her body and are covering up a crime. 

In spite of the lack of evidence supporting an abduction, the Portuguese police immediately focused on the child being taken by a local predator; this is not uncommon as well-healed distraught parents rarely become suspects in the early days as detectives tend to feel sympathetic toward parents who appear to be a noncriminal type. Because Robert Murat lived only a block away from the flat and exhibited some concerning behaviors, he became an Arguido, a suspect, which is not unreasonable at that point in the investigation. However, it would have been best if the parents had also been considered suspects from the early days of the investigation and then both avenues could have been investigated until evidence narrowed the focus down to one theory. Later on, statements and behaviors from the McCanns and their friends raised the detectives' suspicions that they might have had something to do with what happened to Madeleine, and when no evidence of abduction was able to be found and cadaver and blood dogs hit in the vacation flat and in the McCanns' hire car, the police had no choice but to declare the McCanns Arguidos. To this day, Gonçalo Amaral believes the evidence points to the McCanns' involvement with the death and disappearance of their daughter, as do I. The three-year-long Scotland Yard review has not provided one shred of evidence that any abductor removed Madeleine from the flat and it is concerning that they have never gone back to the beginning of the case and reinterviewed that parents and their friends nor done a crime reconstruction of the night in question.

2) After seven years of analyzing this case and traveling to Portugal and Praia da Luz to study the crime location, it is my conclusion that there is no evidence of stranger abduction and the physical and behavioral evidence continues to support my theory that the McCanns were involved with the death and disappearance of their daughter. It is clear after visiting the location of the vacation flat, the the statement of Jane Tanner that she saw both Gerry McCann chatting with a friend on the street at the very time a man carrying a small child away from the flat is unlikely to be truthful. On a street as narrow as that one is between the McCanns' flat and the Tapas dining area, there is no possible way Gerry and his friend did not see either Jane or the possible kidnapper. Scotland Yard's claim on CrimeWatch that Jane really did see a man carrying a child, that this man was a vacationer carrying his child back to his apartment after an evening of childcare provided by the hotel, is not credible  - as the man would have been walking in the wrong direction. Furthermore, this man never came forward for seven years and Scotland Yard has not given out the name of this supposed tourist.

After examining the crime scene and statements and behaviors of the parents and their friends and taking into account the evidence of the cadaver and blood dogs, the evidence points to Madeleine being overmedicated by her parents and having an accident while they were not in the apartment. The sighting by the Smith family of a man carrying a child toward the beach from the direction of the vacation flat has a high likelihood of being Gerry McCann. It is my theory that he temporarily housed Madeleine's body near the beach and in the early morning hours, moved her body to a gravel and rock filled crevice on the Rocha Negra, the large rock that soars above Praia da Luz. Such a burial spot is easily accessible from the beach and a excellent location to hide a body without the necessity of a shovel. Later, when Kate McCann told a Portuguese detective of a dream she had in which she saw Madeleine dead on a slab of rock and the cadaver dogs were going to be brought in, I theorize that Gerry McCann then moved Madeleine's body to a more remote location, possibly a desolate area just west of Praia da Luz near where Gerry's phone pinged over a couple of days, a hilly, shrub area known as Monte do Jose Mestre. Unless Scotland Yard or the Portuguese police search this area in the manner in which they searched three locations (based on the residences and work locations of local criminal suspects) fruitlessly near Praia da Luz, then it is clear Madeleine's body will never be discovered except by accident.

It is the totality of the evidence that leads me to believe the McCanns should be reinstated as suspects. With no evidence of abduction, there is no reason to spend millions of pounds chasing bogeymen all over the world and digging up acres of ground in Portugal when there is not a shred of evidence to warrant such actions.

Summers responded with this:

  I've now read and digested. There will be a problem with length, but I promise you what will emerge will be faithful to what you've written

Lying. Dog. As I suspected, nothing of what I wrote in answer to his questions was included in his book. Instead, he pulls stuff out of context that he found on the Stop the Myths site and then
 ignores my statements that I permitted him to quote. Finally, he libels me by stating "The adventure (my trip to Praia da Luz) produced only substantial self-publicity." (Summers,A, Swann, R., Looking for Madeleine, page 197 - this is a footnote). I learned a good deal in Praia da Luz which could forward the case if investigators took my findings into account.

It seems obvious to me Summers and Swan's only goal in including me in their book was to prove my profiling of the case had no merit and that I was one of the haters. Although they mention my blog on the case, I am quite certain it is to present me something less than a professional profiler and more of a blogger. After tearing apart Nancy Grace, it is then mentioned I was a regular on her show. No where is my book, Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann mentioned or the fact that the McCanns Carter-Rucked it. And since there are no footnotes, no one can double-check the veracity of the authors version of my commentary nor see in what context such commentary was made.

One of the advantages of being included in the book is that I know more than the innocent reader that not all is as it seems. Any reader unfamiliar with the police files or Gonçalo's book, The Truth of the Lie, or my book, or Tony Bennett's What Really Happened to Madeleine McCann: 60 reasons which suggest that she was not abducted (or informative blogs like that of Joana Morais or Hideho) will likely believe that these two investigative journalists are presenting factual information and not a very slanted, subjective, and possibly commissioned version of the Madeleine McCann case.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

September 18, 2104

Cover for 'Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann'

Published: July 27, 2011
By Pat Brown
Rating: 1 star1 star1 star1 star1 star
(5.00 based on 5 reviews)

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, September 11, 2014

The Madeleine McCann Book the Publishers Wouldn't Touch

Although I will not be commenting further on the McCann case, I will, in response to the Summers/Swan travesty of a book"Looking for Madeleine," make two posts: I will review their book when I have it in my hands and I will share with the public the book the publishers turned down, the book to be written by Gonçalo Amaral and myself, the book my literary agent pitched (a year and a half ago) to all the major US publishers and none were willing to market due to the threat of Carter-Ruck.


                Missing children – babies taken from their cribs in the middle of the night and toddlers stolen from their bedrooms and yards – these innocent little victims have become fodder for media crime shows and tabloids, plucking at the kind hearts of caring people and striking fear into parents worried about their own children’s safety. The cases tend to make a big splash but eventually the case vanishes from the news, the still-missing children evidence of the failure of law enforcement to solve the crimes. While people often continue to wonder if one or both of the parents are actually behind the disappearances of their children -Haleigh Cummings, Ayla Reynolds, Sky Metalwalla, Jhessye Shockley, Kyron Horman, and Lisa Irwin – eventually the story becomes yesterday’s news. The parents melt back into oblivion - a few making an occasional television appearance, maintaining a Facebook page, handing out a few fliers now and then. Occasionally, we see a parent, especially an innocent one, start a charitable organization in the name of their child and do some good for other missing children, but mostly, we see the parents slip back into anonymity and the child is pretty much forgotten.
 But, one case rages on, the most famous missing child case in history since the abduction of the Lindbergh baby, the case of missing Madeleine McCann.
                This missing child case  radically diverges from the rest and the now five-year cold case continues to be an obsession with people around the world – profilers, bloggers, journalists, Facebookers, Tweeters, and citizens of many countries but especially England, Portugal, and the United States. Gerry and Kate McCann,  Madeline’s mom and dad, unlike any other parents to date, encouraged a massive amount of media attention, hired a top ex-British government spin doctor and spokesman, Clarence Mitchell to manage and speak for them, raked in millions of dollars that they have never accounted for in their not-a-charity organization to “search” for Madeleine established just ten days after the child went missing, and hired private investigators who have no experience in missing persons’ cases and so little ethics they have been arrested for various crimes including money laundering.
                Gerry and Kate McCann were not the average parents of a missing child. They were both doctors, as were most of the 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 and earshot, while they wined and dined in the nearby Tapas restaurant. On the fateful night of May 3, 2007, Madeleine McCann disappeared from her bed and by morning the McCanns were crying she had been abducted as their family and friends called in the international media. In spite of never having a shred of evidence that an abduction had occurred, and far more suggestion via cadaver dogs that Madeleine died in the apartment that night while her parents neglected her care, the British government offered their support including diplomatic assistance and the intervention of the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown.
When no proof of abduction surfaced and the Portuguese police found the statements of the parents and their friends to be conflicting and deceptive, both parents were made Arguidos (suspects). Kate McCann refused to answer any of the forty-eight questions put to her and the McCanns left the country; the case was shelved for reasons unknown.
                Once out of the clutches of the Portuguese police, did the McCanns lie low? No, they continued to maintain a high profile presence in the media including appearances on Piers Morgan and Oprah, and raked in some four million dollars in donations to be used in any way they wished, some of it to pay for their mortgage, travel, and high profile attorneys. Kate wrote a book called Madeleine which earned her a million or more and they sued or threatened to sue a number of people who dared to speak up about the case and suggest the McCanns may have been involved. Blog sites have been forced to shut down, promises to cease and desist obtained, and free speech muzzled. They sued the detective on the case, Gonçalo Amaral, for one and a half million dollars and got an injunction in 2009 of his book, the bestselling Portuguese analysis of the police case, Truth of the Lie. Although the injunction was overturned in October of 2010, they have yet to return the confiscated books. In 2011, American criminal profiler Pat Brown self-published a 32 page booklet on Amazon, Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann,  which  vanished after 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. Tony Bennett, retired British solicitor, is battling the McCanns and Carter-Ruck in England over his booklet, What really happened to Madeleine McCann? 60 reasons which suggest that she was not abducted, and faces jail.
                The McCanns and Carter-Ruck not only sued private individuals but the British press over any negative stories concerning them. In an unprecedented change of course, the British press paid huge out-of-court settlements to the McCanns and the Tapas Seven and, afterwards, printed only positive articles featuring “the abduction,” “the kidnapper,” and “the suffering McCanns.” In spite of Gerry McCann’s under oath statements during the ongoing Leveson Inquiry (investigating abuses of the press including the recent Murdoch phone-hacking scandal) that he “is a strong believer in the freedom of speech” and he doesn’t “have a problem with somebody purporting a theory,”  he and his wife, Kate, sue anyone who dares point out the facts of the cases and what the evidence actually does “purport.”
                What is behind this veil of protection and the British government’s exceptional backing of the McCanns? Why have their friends, the so-named Tapas 7 taken a “pact of silence” on the case? Why does friend Jane Tanner insist she saw the abductor of Madeleine McCann carrying her off when the scenario is rife with contradiction and impossibility? Why do the McCanns refuse to accept the only credible sighting of a person carrying off a child (nine members of an Irish family) if it is not the same man Tanner saw when Gerry has an alibi? Could it be that at the later time Gerry does not have an alibi and Mr. Smith, elder of the Irish family, says he believes the man he saw was Gerry himself? Why if Madeleine was truly carried off on foot by a local sex predator, do Kate and Gerry have no interest in a search of Praia da Luz to find a criminal who likely killed Madeleine and will kill another child in the future if not identified and arrested? Why do they encourage the many donators of money to look for Madeleine all over the world but show no interest when a sighting of Madeleine hits the papers?
                Where is Madeleine? Is she off in a loving family like Gerry and Kate oft promote or is she buried in the desolate acres of Monte do Jose Mestre,  just west of Praia da Luz where Gerry’s cell phone pinged for three days straight and which criminal profiler Pat Brown believes is more likely? Or is Detective Amaral correct in believing she may have been spirited out of Portugal with help from others and be in an urn in the McCann’s home?  Was Madeleine the victim of a sex predator or sex ring or did she die accidentally while the McCanns were out for their adult fun? Or, as some suggest, is there an even more sinister explanation for the disappearance of Madeleine and the protection of the McCanns by those in high political places; child pornography, child sexual abuse, or political bribes and backroom deals? Or is there a Masonic conspiracy at play as certain bloggers insist is behind the bizarre behavior of the McCanns and their British political allies.
                As of this date, the Scotland Yard review continues. The Portuguese also have a review ongoing and the McCanns are still raking in the cash, absentmindedly forgetting to inform their donors that two major police forces are indeed looking at the case once again, paid for by the pounds and euros of the taxpayers of England and Portugal. Profiler Pat Brown is back from Praia da Luz is updating her Profile. Bennett is hoping he won’t be behind bars soon.  Kate is working on her second book. The McCann’s Portuguese attorney, Isabelle Duarte, only has a few days left to return Amaral’s books after a court finally had had enough of their stalling. Amaral is preparing for battle as the damage trial approaches.
                The Madeleine Mystery will be the first English language book on the Madeleine McCann case to be published by a major publisher. It is a collaboration between retired Detective Gonçalo Amaral, who has collected and extensively analyzed all the Portuguese police findings and has a far more comprehensive study of the case since his Portuguese bestseller, Truth of the Lie, and American criminal profiler, Pat Brown (as seen on Nancy Grace, Jane Velez-Mitchell, Dr. Drew, Anderson, Inside Edition, The Today Show, etc.) who has profiled the case extensively over the last five years (Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann and many blog posts at The Daily Profiler). Together, Brown and Amaral will bring the truth out 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.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

September 11, 2014

 Cover for 'Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann'

Published: July 27, 2011
By Pat Brown
Rating: 1 star1 star1 star1 star1 star
(5.00 based on 5 reviews)

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, August 21, 2014

My Pig Got More Publicity Than Your Murdered Child: The Demise of Localized Media and Its Effect on Criminal Cases

What About that Dead Child in YOUR town?
Have you been in a 7-Eleven recently and noticed who is at the counter buying a newspaper? It's a geezer....a geezer who actually still reads the Metro section and maybe writes in a Letter to the Editor once in a while barking about some issue they believe is detrimental to their community.   The rest of folks, those not getting senior discounts at the movies, get their news from cable television and online....and I am pretty sure they don't get much local news. Sure, some still tune in at 10 or 11 o'clock and get the quick jolt of "if it bleeds, it leads" adrenaline and shake their heads over how badly some are behaving in their area, but, in reality, there is an extreme lack of local in-depth reporting....because national and global horror stories have eclipsed local news.

If I went around the neighborhood and asked folks about local homicides, I would draw a blank look from most of them. "Who? I don't remember that girl." "Oh, yeah, I remember hearing about that murder. Whatever happened? Did anyone get arrested?" But, if I asked them about JonBenet Ramsey or Caylee Anthony or Natalee Holloway or any victim of murder showcased on Nancy Grace in the past few weeks, I might get a blow-by-blow account of the entire police case. In fact, it is not just the citizens who lack interest in local news, the local news media isn't all that interested either. You can call until you are blue in the face trying to get the local newspaper or television station to cover anything in depth. In all my years of dealing with the media (and that includes 3000 appearances on television and radio and many print interviews), the most success I had getting the media to do an in-depth story on a crime was when the local authorities tried to evict my 20-year-old potbelly pig, Gwendolyn, from my home. I got an big interview with The Washington Post complete with photo and all three local television stations came out to do a story on Gwendolyn. I even had the County Executive's office ask me if the then County Exec, Jack Johnson, could come out and do a photo op with my pig (I declined the offer; I told them only one swine was allowed on my property at a time; Johnson is now serving time in prison).

My Pig Got More Publicity Than Your Murdered Child

But, when I went to the media over any local crime, I had no luck. Sure, they called me up when they wanted me to do commentary on an area homicide (gotta get those gory cases into the news at least for the short emotional impact) but, any real reporting on cases never happened. And because the local cases get so little attention, police departments know they have no citizenry oversight, no media is going to be breathing down their neck; the family is pretty much left to fight on their own and that is almost always a losing battle.

We no longer have many local organizations to fight for victims' rights; we have national organizations that manage money more than make a difference. We have a mass of information with websites full of photos of missing and dead children from all over the country but, locally, those children are ignored.

Talking about a case ad nauseum does little for justice because those talking about the case (online or on television) have no effect on local authorities because they don't give a damn what people think outside of their jurisdiction (unless it becomes a racial issue). And as long as people spend more time focused on matters that are hundreds or thousands of miles away from where they live, they give  local authorities carte blanche to handle local matters any way they please.

Lack of oversight by citizenry is one reason we see so many unsolved cases. Hence the reason that I feel I must work with the detectives inside the department improving how cases are handled because, these days, no one from the outside is paying any mind.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

August 21, 2014 

Wednesday, August 20, 2014

The Protocol Police Should Always Follow in Homicide/Missing Person's Cases

Every police department handling a homicide or missing person case and making a public statement or holding a press conference should adhere to what I call RULE NUMBER ONE:

This statement and ONLY this statement should be made:

"At this time, everyone who does not have an ironclad alibi is a person-of-interest. Even though some persons may fall extremely far down on our list of possible suspects, unless we can absolutely prove they could physically have no involvement with the crime (we are not including here the possibility of masterminding a crime or murder-for-hire), they will remain on our persons-of-interest list. Only when we can absolutely prove a person has no involvement will we remove them from the list.

To the public we ask that you consider thoroughly any person you might feel has involvement in the crime and contact us, even if you are not sure that your suspicion or information is valid. We will do due diligence to follow up on the information and work to determine if there is evidence enough to pursue the lead more thoroughly.

Even those persons who do not have an ironclad alibi and are low on our list of suspects, we will interview and investigate so that we can be sure to have as much information as possible to determine if they should be investigated more aggressively or not. If we do not properly investigate all connected, those persons may, at a later date, find themselves unable to prove their innocence as time is a destroyer of evidence and witnesses. To protect the case and all persons-of-interest, our police department will cover all the necessary bases and continue to thoroughly investigate all leads until the perpetrator is identified, arrested and prosecuted."

In other words, the police department should NEVER ignore persons just because they feel they are unlikely to be involved in the crime, they should NEVER trust their gut just to find out later they were wrong, and they should NEVER mislead the public with some charade to put a particular person or persons-of -interest at ease. This statement should be made EVERY time they go public with a case; what they tell persons behind the scenes is another matter. Lying to the public is a lousy idea regardless of the intent because it causes distrust and a "Cry, Wolf" problem no police department should engender.

If EVERY time the police went public they made this statement, then parents of missing children, husbands of missing or murdered wives, and neighbors, friends, and business parters would always expect to be routinely interviewed and investigated and, if the police indeed routinely did this, they would find out that doing so could save a lot of cases from going south.

Finally, police departments should stop making silly statements like, "We will catch you!" because oftentimes this doesn't happen and makes the department look bad. Just say, "We will do our absolute best to catch the perpetrator," because at least that statement, if one lives up to it, can be the absolute truth regardless of the outcome.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

August 20, 2014

Tuesday, August 19, 2014

When a Crooked Case Goes Down a Crooked Path....It's Pretty Much Over

I just wrote my last post on the Madeleine McCann case and I have received a barrage of emails and comments pleading with me to keep up my commentary after seven years of the case going south (and with Scotland Yard's intervention, can I say going south with a vengeance?) and some folks are angry with me, calling me a quitter, that I am silencing my voice on the matter instead of fighting on and on and on and on...

I ask you all.....where are your voices on all the other cases of missing and murdered children and adults...all the other cases that have been abandoned by the justice system (Baby Lisa, JonBenet Ramsey, Haleigh Cummings, etc.) or closed by railroading someone that no one cares about, leaving the real killer on the street? I will tell you.....some of the time you finally realized that you have to know when to fold 'em, when like so many other cases, the case you are following is never going to come to a proper conclusion; justice will never be served. And, the rest of the time, you simply are ignorant of the crooked means used to close a believe, if you actually read the one paragraph in the paper written about a particular case, that the conviction of some easy patsy is justified or that the administrative closing of a case with a dead or unprosecutable suspect is proper...that evidence supports the police case. While the population ignores the travesty, I stand by, painfully watching the smoke and mirrors, knowing damned well the real culprit is walking free.

So what is to be done? What am I doing about these outrageous injustices? At a certain point, raising one's voice does little to change the situation. I know, I have been speaking out for two decades against this kind of thing...but mainstream media does not support such talk....and so it is pretty easy to get away with closing a case wrongly without worrying about any backlash. I have fought this and failed...badly.

When a crooked case goes down a crooked path, there is little that can be done to set that particular case straight again. There is only one way to make a real difference in a world where politics, media, and egos can flush a case straight down the toilet....only one really good way to prevent it from turning to shit; making sure it never goes down the crooked path.

Preventing a case from going down a crooked path requires putting all one's efforts into the First 48.  A cold case is usually cold for a reason; someone blew it from the beginning and unless there is an easy DNA match lying about, no cold case team or criminal profiler is going to come in and turn the case around. I have long stopped doing cold case work because it is a massive waste of time. My focus now is training detectives to profile and analyze their cases properly right from the start...on their own or with the help of profilers. If the case is handled correctly right at the beginning of the investigation, politics won't end up being such a factor in closing the case as it can be closed in a reasonable time period with the right suspect and enough evidence to get a conviction. Not every case - because sometimes the evidence just isn't there - but certainly more cases could have a better trajectory if these cases were handled a bit better

I am now fully focusing on profiling training for detectives. This year, a well-seasoned police chief and I will be putting together the training program we feel will make the biggest difference in solving homicide cases. This blog will be dedicated toward the education of detectives, profilers, and future detectives and profilers. The content will be about solving cases, the tools needed for analysis, the specific methods that make or break a case.

We each must choose the path we feel to be the one which will allow us to have the most impact. As of now, I choose to focus on police keep the path from becoming crooked.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

August 19, 2014

Thursday, August 14, 2014

My Final Post on the Madeleine McCann Case

Dear Blog Readers,

Today I make my final post on the Madeleine McCann case. I feel at this point, I have done what I can and no more effort will make any difference in the outcome of this case. In fact, from what I have seen recently, there is a sad desperation on the part of those who wish to see a positive resolution, turning on anyone who dares to suggest that justice simply will not be forthcoming in this particular case, that sometimes the bad guy wins, and the good guys have to accept that, in this lifetime, the truth may not come out.

I have been recently attacked for suggesting:

1) That the Gaspar statements are not reliable. I cannot get excited about these because we only hear from one woman who wasn't exactly sure what she saw and from her husband who does not agree with her assessment. Sadly, some of those who cry out that we ought to rely on facts in the McCann case are willing to allow one questionable statement about David Payne to become a focal point of what happened to Madeleine, that it is okay to slander David Payne while at the same time standing up for Gonçalo Amaral. I fail to understand this double standard; if there is not proof to denigrate David Payne, then we ought to leave further speculation to the investigation, should one even exist.

2) That Maddie did not meet her demise earlier than May 3rd. I have no problem with theories that suggest Maddie died earlier in the week, but I do not see any evidence to support this. If I can be polite about such speculation, I expect that I should receive the same kindness in return. I, myself as a  profiler, find the crime scene to suggest that Maddie died on the night that the McCanns claim she was abducted. This is my professional opinion which I explain in my book and in my blogs.

3) The Scotland Yard review is a sham. Through all my years as a profiler, I have years of experience of how real investigations are handled. Nothing that I have seen from Scotland Yard suggests that they are looking at any possibility but the abduction theory. I do not believe they are going to arrest or try the McCanns. If others would like to believe that Scotland Yard has spent three years and millions of  pounds  to cover ground that was not necessary to cover in order to take  down the McCanns, bully for them, but it is not anything I have seen in twenty years and I am not going to pretend I am seeing some clever ruse being employed when I do not.

Hence, I wish all those hoping for a positive end that their wishes come true, but as a professional I am not going to go along with a program just to make people comfortable. I have always spoken the truth and I am not going to change that now just to make sell people a pipe dream.

I will sit back now and wait for the outcome of the case. I wish Gonçalo the best and I hope that, in time, the truth about this case will come out so that future missing persons' cases will not suffer because the McCanns and the British government have misled the public in the most outrageous manner I have ever come across in my career.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

August 14, 2014

Cover for 'Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann'

Published: July 27, 2011
By Pat Brown
Rating: 1 star1 star1 star1 star1 star
(5.00 based on 5 reviews)

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.