Tuesday, March 30, 2021

Does the Evidence Prove Derek Chauvin Killed George Floyd?

 







The first day of the Derek Chauvin trial is over and already I see a major flaw in the prosecution's argument that Chauvin caused the death of George Floyd. Check out the video and see what I view as the issue with the evidence. Please LIKE and SUBSCRIBE to my new YouTube channel, PROFILING WITH PAT BROWN!

I will be following the case in the weeks to come.


The Derek Chauvin Trial (Part One)


Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

March 30, 2021

Friday, July 24, 2020

HOMESCHOOLING HELP in the TIME of CORONAVIRUS!!!

I know a lot of parents are freaking out about having to school their children at home and think they aren’t capable of doing so because they are not teachers and they don’t know what curriculum or materials to buy.

I homeschooled my three children all the way through and I am now homeschooling my granddaughter since public schools in Maryland are going to be an online wreck. I thought I would give you some assurance and information on materials and I will add photos so you can see exactly what the materials look like. I will be speaking here mostly of grade school. Older children can still use the math program I recommend (and I recommend it for all levels of math through Trig and Calculus) and then for older children you can use a bought curriculum or just do lots of reading. No matter what make you do, just make sure they read quality stuff.... no junk books. Now to the grade school kids.

Firstly, anyone can teach young children. You do not need to be a teacher to teach them things you learned when you were eight years old! If you can read, you can teach. You are not managing a class, just your own kids (not that this is always easy!). And you do not need to teach all day, just a couple of hours is enough because you are tutoring.



READING and WRITING

THIS is the most important thing you can teach a child. They can learn anything else later. There really is no absolute time they need to learn math, history, geography, etc. But READING they really must learn to do and learn to do extremely well. Once they can read well, they pretty much can learn everything else in the world.

PHONICS!!! I cannot recommend this enough. Schools don’t teach phonics well enough these days and it shows. ALWAYS start your child with phonics and, if your child is already reading in some form, teach them phonics anyway. Once they learn how to decipher letters and sound groups (phonemes), they will become really great readers and have a lot of confidence.

Alpha-Phonics is a must. It isn’t all pretty with cutesy photos. It has pages of practicing sounds and words and IT WORKS! Do a page a day. Along with that book, they have a little set of reading books which are nice.

In the photo, you will see a set of cards to the left of the book. This is a set of 70 cards which have all the phonemes.  Above you will see an explanation about the 70 basic phoneme approach. To the right is just a fun Montessori toy which you spin the blocks to make different words out of the basic 5 short letters. To the right of that is The Writing Road to Reading which also uses the phonics approach but adds in writing. It is the one book which also has proper print letters (some workbooks have the weirdest print letters and I refuse to teach those methods of printing). With these phonics materials, your child will become an excellent reader and writer.


You will notice I have two boxes of BASIC SIGHT WORDS. One I got off Amazon from Carson Dellosa and the other are Fry’s First Hundred Words which I got off of Ebay. Although I feel phonics is the most important part of learning to read, it doesn’t hurt to have kids memorize words they will see the most in all their reading, especially those silly English words which do not follow phonics rules.



READING WORDS and READING BOOKS

For early reading practice, I like McGuffey’s readers. They combine phonics with some sight words and have short little silly stories which are kind of nonsensical and have children and life from another century (I explained to my granddaughter these children have no phones, TV’s or cars to ride in!). But, they really do help in reading and she likes them! Dick and Jane have always been great first books and the First little Readers have cute easy stories.

You will also see a couple of books: Charlotte’s Web and Little House in the Big Woods. I read a chapter or more every day with my granddaughter. Why? Because these are quality books, with good morals, good stories, and bigger words, so she can improve her vocabulary. Also, she just learns a lot from them! We learned to make butter from cream (there is a little jar for eight bucks on Amazon that you shake for four minutes and you have delicious butter!) and a corn cob doll from Little House in the Woods. But, most importantly, and I cannot stress this enough, children do not become good readers with an excellent vocabulary and they do not learn wonderful things about the world from stupid, junk books. Too many parents and teachers believe that in order to entice a child to read, one should let them read all manner of badly written crap. I totally disagree. I think that is the road to failure. Instead, as they get older, have them read Heidi, Black Beauty, The Little Princess and the Secret Garden….the classics are classics for a reason. Then, when they get much older they will enjoy David Copperfield, To Kill a Mockingbird, Things Fall Apart, and Moby Dick. Fine writing makes for fine readers, fine writers and fine minds.

To that end, I have added a photo of the book, The Core by Leigh A. Norton’s about teaching your child a classical education.



MATH

SAXON! SAXON! Did I say SAXON? THIS is the best book ever created to learn math. It is incremental and that means, instead of doing a chapter on addition and then going on to subtraction and letting the student forget what they learned about addition, this book does constant review and keeps adding the next bit of material into the lessons. A very integrated, clear program. You child WILL learn math! And it is very easy for the parent to just do one lesson after another and not need to be a mathematician. No fancy pictures; just solid math.

Next to Saxon, I gave GO Math which is a Houghton Mifflin Harcourt School New Math practice book. I think it sucks (worst explanations ever and some stuff is idiotic) but I added this to my granddaughter’s curriculum to be sure she at least understand the new math methodology in case she returns to a regular school program. I don’t want her to have no clue what is happening. Above that book is a silly book, Do Not Open This Math Book, about new math which is written like a crazed teen with drawings and such but it does explain how it works. For parents who know nothing about new math, it can be a good tool for you to help you figure stuff out. People swear by it and I haven’t used it that much yet but I can see it has some purpose for new math understanding.

In the upper left of the photo you will see some Geometric Solids. These are just so cool! Love them and so does my granddaughter. Buy on Amazon. You will also see flash cards. These are the basic ones and then there are more at the higher numbers. I believe in flash cards so that your child can simply get these into their heads and know them answer in a second. Under those you will see Cuisinaire Rods. I love these as they are great for making equations and show how things work. They go up to ten and are good visuals.



THE OTHER STUFF!

Use anything! I bought a cute puzzle of the planets and we found a cute planet song on YouTube. We have a world puzzle and maps and books on geography, history, science, art. We have Highlights magazines (you can get a subscription or just buy a bunch off of eBay for way cheaper…doesn’t matter that they are twenty years old). Buy science experiments books or kits, take field trips to historical sites. Watch well-made movies on specific topics; volcanoes, the Revolutionary War, etc. Get books out of the libraries (when they open) or buy them at Amazon or eBay (I buy most for cheap there). AVI is one of my favorite authors who has great historical stories for children. For history, if you have teens, have them read the actual books of important people of history. Watch Hamilton (fabulous!) or 1776 (also fabulous and I think I like it even better than Hamilton!). There are so many ways to have your child learn about the world of today and yesterday. But, if you worry they are missing something, you can always follow any textbook for their age. All they need to do is learn about stuff; the order really doesn’t matter. Just be sure they LEARN things that they should like Africa is not a country! Just get them to be interested in everything! I took my granddaughter to an Indian restaurant for lunch the other week and she learned about food and art and culture. We also support four girls in India, helping them through Upliftachild.com to go to school. So, we have a connection that helps her be interested in learning about that country. Really, anything, do anything! And enjoy! And stop worrying.

So, to recap. READING is a must. MATH is the second necessity. Everything else you can just wing. Want them to learn a foreign language? Use any program! Want them to learn to play piano? They have cool piano lessons on the Internet. Have fun!

Oh, and kill the video games and television. I have always found those ruin kids for being interested in anything else.

PS. If I forgot to address anything here, I will try to add it in later.

If you have any questions, feel free to email me. I will try to get back to you.

Pat

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
July 24, 2020





Monday, June 15, 2020

“The is NO Forensic Evidence that She is Dead”



I am sure there isn’t. I am sure there is no body and no DNA and nothing else of any physical sort. I am sure there are no photos of her dead body or articles of her clothing in Christian Brückner secret hiding place. Because when the police say there is not forensic evidence that she is dead but they have other evidence, not evidence that is good enough to go to court with, but which only “indicates” she is dead, this means they haven’t got shit.

And if they haven’t got a case, they have no business making known their theories to the parents and public with a vague “We are the investigators and therefore we are to be believed if we say this is what we think.” 

As a profiler, I have cited all the evidence I have to support my conclusions. So far, all the German police have come up with is a creepy guy named Christian Brückner that was in Praia da Luz at the time and chatted on the phone that evening. 

One of two things is going on: either the German police haven’t got anything on this guy outside of gossip and are just making up stuff to say they solved the case or they haven’t got anything on this guy and they are trying to pressure him into a confession with a plea deal.

Either way, this is shaping up to be the patsy many of us have suspected would finally be found to close the case.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
June 15, 2020

Wednesday, June 10, 2020

The New Madeleine McCann Suspect




So, what about Christian Brückner? Is there any validity in him being linked to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann? Or is it just another fake suspect or a media splash? Well, let’s look at the various possibilities.

One, another media story because they need another media story about Madeleine McCann. Or the McCanns are pushing for more publicity. Or Operation Grange needs justification for more money. We have seen all of this before, so it would not surprise me to see it done yet again.

Two, the guy is really a pedophile or robber who snatched Maddie of his own volition. I sincerely doubt this. Why? Because robbers do not snatch children. Also, there was no evidence of an abduction that would be necessary if he were a child sex predator. And, if he were just some random creep and it was a true abduction, the McCanns sure have acted strangely all these years.

Three, Christian Brückner WAS involved in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann but his only role was in carting the child off. 


Let’s look at his ex-girlfriend’s statement.


Okay, first of all, we don’t know that he really said this. Ex-girlfriends may make stuff up or disremember something or exaggerate something. What he said or didn’t actually say may have nothing to do with this case at all.

But, let’s suppose it did. What would it mean? Well, it certainly doesn’t sound like something a child predator says to his girlfriend. He wouldn’t tell her of a child he is planning to abduct. He also doesn’t think that abducting that child (which would end with her death a few hours later at most) will change his life because he would expect to do it and be done with it. Then,  he would go back to his normal life.

Secondly, he wouldn’t call abduction a “job.” And it wouldn’t be a “horrible job.” It would be fun.

So, if he really WAS going to do a “horrible job,” what would this mean. “Job” means someone has hired you and “horrible” means it isn’t pleasant. And if it would change his life, it would mean he was going to make a lot of money for doing it. That he wouldn’t be seen for a while would mean he was going to lie low.

So, if he did take Maddie, the only explanation would be at the request of the McCanns. This would be a job, an unpleasant one of removing a body of a small child, and one that would pay well. If the man were hired to do such a thing, it would explain why there was no sign of an abduction because the door would have been left unlocked for him. It would explain why nothing was disturbed. It could explain why drugging two children might be necessary and why the parents would have to be out that evening and why Gerry would be lurking around at a certain time. It could explain Smithman with a little girl in his arms and it could explain why the McCanns did not want Smithman to be identified. It could explain why the dogs had no trouble identifying cadaver odor behind the sofa.

I know many of you might say this means that Maddie was dead for many days. I still would think that is an unlikely scenario. It is far more likely that something would have only happened the day before and there was less than 24 hours to figure out what to do. The evening was still a mess and reeks of panic. Why the dogs would hit on the McCann car might be explained by a later moving of the body to a final burial place. That the dogs hit behind the sofa could be that this was the spot they chose to hide the body that evening for the remover to find. Possible? Well, possible. However, fake children at the crèche and phony last photos and fake children being carried about is not likely. It is also possible that an accident occurred where Maddie fell behind the sofa on the previous evening and her body was placed in the closet. 

So, where does that leave us? With two possible theories. Maddie died on May 3, 2007 and panic ensued and Gerry was Smithman. Or, Maddie died the day before, panic ensued, and Gerry hired Smithman.

IF the latter is true, there has to be some connection between Christian Brückner and Gerry McCann and that should be traceable. I find it odd that if there was a connection that this was not discovered earlier and only now Brückner Is being looked at. Very strange. 

But, whether he is linked or not to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, I still find that the evidence leads back to the McCanns. If this is not proven and Christian Brückner goes down as a pedophile working alone, I will still think something crooked is happening with Scotland Yard. And if, finally, the McCanns become suspects, one wonders what would have taken Scotland Yard so incredibly long to come to this point in the investigation.

It will be interesting to see what comes of this. It may be nothing but hot air, but if there is really any evidence of Brückner’s involvement, then, maybe, we will finally learn the truth.

Update: There seems to be a bit of misunderstanding as to why I am creating this theory about this new suspect. I am not saying it is accurate. We have VERY little information as to make any link with this man to the crime. What I am attempting to do is put together the only scenario that WOULD make sense should there be proof the man has anything to do with the disappearance of Maddie. That he “abducted” Maddie is not supported in ANY way by the evidence. The ONLY way he could be linked to the crime would be if he were taking away a dead child on request.

1) Because there is no evidence of a break-in or an abduction
2) Because there is evidence of death in the flat
3) An abductor wouldn’t have killed Maddie and then left her long enough for cadaver traces to develop for the dogs to find
4) The McCanns have guilty behaviors that make no sense for an abduction

Which means he would have had to know the child was dead, he would only have taken a dead child for pay, the doors would have to have been left unlocked, and he would have had to had the assurance that the coast was clear. Also, the McCanns would have to be very lucky to know such a useful, disreputable person in their hour of need. Also, Gerry has the personality of a person who likes to control things and bringing in a questionable fellow that could rat him out would be not in keeping with his style of thinking.

That this happened, there is no proof. There is only evidence that there was a dead person in the flat and that there is no evidence of an abduction, the McCanns acted oddly, and the McCanns didn’t want Smithman to be identified. This could mean that Smithman was Gerry or that Smithman was this character. But, we do not have any evidence as of now that Smithman WAS this man.

Is this scenario at all likely? No, it would be very improbable. But, I want to clear up any scenario that this man would be a serial predator who abducted Maddie or a burglar whose crime went wrong. 

PS. I stand by my original profile as the evidence supporting an accident on the evening of May 3, 2007 with a subsequent cover-up with Smithman being the key to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. It still is the most likely scenario based on the evidence that we have to date. 



Pat Brown
Investigative Criminal Profiler

June 10, 2020

Wednesday, July 31, 2019

Maria Awes: Is She REALLY an Investigative Journalist? Not if You watched her Serial Killer: Devil Unchained


The media continues its downhill slide into garbage tabloid offerings. Already we have a majority of television news channels spouting fake news, claiming things that have no basis in fact but are purely a product of agenda. Now, true crime shows are descending into the pit, not much concerned with the “true” part of crimes, but simply about the moneymaking, exploitive, prurient aspects to the shows they present. Netflix is the worst offender with its travesty “Making a Murderer” in which a defense attorney is given the freedom to slant the show, to pervert the evidence so as to incite the audience into believing an innocent man (read: psychopathic cat-burning, rapist, serial killer) has been railroaded and should be released from prison.

Now, we see Oxygen (Oprah’s network that set out to do positive shows) doing nothing but true crime junk. I just participated in their show on The Case of Martha Moxley that turned out to be trash. Although a portion of the evidence I presented was aired, the host/ex-prosecutor Laura Coates and ex-police detective Mark Fuhrman poo-pooed what I said, yet never presented any evidence against my conclusions. They also never allowed the fact that Michael Skakel had an airtight alibi to be examined. Their agenda was anti-Michael Skakel and I was only brought on to offer another suspect which they would then shoot down. I will never again do a taped show without a strong belief that I am not being used to develop “drama” as opposed to being there to provide an expert analysis. Now, Discovery  is a network I have done decent stuff with including I, Detective for four years  which featured mostly police work and evidence analysis - and The Mysterious Death of Cleopatra in which I presented evidence supporting an alternative manner of death (homicide) for the queen as opposed to a suicide by cobra. Fast forward a number of years and Discovery has pretty much nothing but killer shows (literally just about the killers and how cool they are).  So I am not surprised they aired Maria Awes’ Committee Film’s Serial Killer: Devil Unchained, a four part series giving infamy to scumbag serial killer Todd Kohlhepp and ignoring much of the truth about the reality of the police work and his claim to be the Superbike mass murderer.

Maria Awes, executive producer and supposed investigative reporter for Committee Films and this Discovery series, has managed to put together an exciting look into the mind of a serial killer and all the horrible things he has done. Lot of reading of Kohlhepp’s letters, face time with him in prison, and reenactments of his rapes and murders will surely give something for Kohlhepp to jerk off to every night of his incarcerated life and titillate the viewers as well . I found it disgusting and revolting to give this kind of attention to a psychopathic killer. Simply reprehensible.

But, let’s move on to the either lack of ethics or lack of investigative journalism of Maria Awes or both. She claims to be an investigative reporter and the series certainly shows her going about researching and trying to get answers. But going through the motions or faking the motions for a television show is not the same thing as true investigative journalism. TRUE investigative journalism like TRUE crime involves the TRUTH, something which does not appear to be important to Maria Awes.

When the promo came out for the show, I was shocked to hear in the video that she and Gary Garrett, the “biographer” of Todd Kohlhepp (read: some dude who once worked with him who claims to be a writer of some sort and became Kohlhepp’s prison pet and, therefore, useful to Awes) both question whether Kohlhepp had committed the Superbike mass murder because of two major issues; one, he claimed all four victims were shot in the forehead when, in fact, none were, and two, that he had the order of the shooting wrong. What I DIDN’T hear was my name being mentioned, that I was the profiler who worked on the case with the Spartanburg County Sheriff’s Office and that I was the profiler who analyzed Superbike via all the evidence I viewed at the SCSO during the week I spent with them, nor that I was the profiler who went public WITH that evidence and was very vocal that Todd Kohlhepp made a false confession and the two biggest proofs of this were the claim the victims were shot in the forehead and that he had the order of the shooting wrong. When I watched the show, sure enough, my name was mentioned nowhere in it and nowhere does the show credit me with the original analysis bringing up these important points.

Both, Awes and Garrett have responded to my accusations of unethical journalism, that they presented this analysis as their own without crediting my work. Both have stated they came up independently with these conclusions but, neither claim they never knew about me or read my work. In other words, they read my blogs online that included all of my analyses. Even Todd Kohlhepp has read my blogs!

Pat - it is important you know that all of the reporting for the series was based on an independent review of the full case file and consultation with others close to the case.  It was not based on any work you had previously done on the case. Maria Awes via Twitter

Ms. Brown, I’m disappointed to read such harsh word directed toward me, particularly without provocation. My opinions are based solely on my extensive investigation. My questioning of Todd’s guilt in the SBM shooting came solely from my first face-to-face interview with him at Broad River Correctional Institution following the receipt of his lengthy account of the crime. After this meeting I returned to the ballistic evidence I had obtained through a FOIA request. The evidence in my hands at that time was incomplete, but using photographs of the building and video footage from Geraldo at Large, I matched the locations of each shell casing, except for two. These two casings raised many questions. I'm sure you can guess which two. Determining their position in the building became a priority. Eventually, I gained access to the files and received my answer, using the same ballistic evidence you have studied. I have used no one’s opinions in my verdict, which I won’t voice here. Furthermore, I question your sincerity of wanting the truth behind the crime, when you have attacked John Douglass, claiming his profile was off base, and now you are coming after me because you think my conclusions are similar to yours. It baffles me that your first response to hearing someone with a comparable opinion is to verbally assault them, particularly since all you’ve heard of my beliefs is a seconds-long snippet. I’m studying the same case files as you—accept that my conclusions might parallel (or diverge) from yours. But you don’t know what my conclusions are, so I would appreciate some courtesy in how you speak about me publicly. I welcome a discussion about the case, but a personal attack is uncalled for. Garry Garrett via Facebook Messenger

Garrett seems like an opportunist, so I really don’t care that much about his lack of ethics (although when his book comes out, I will not be happy if he continues to present my analysis as his own without properly footnoting and crediting me).  But, Awes has no excuse. As a long time reporter and producer (for Minnesota local news stations and for Discovery Channel and for her own company), she knows both of me and of my work. I did a lot of crime news for Minnesota during my four years living there (and after I moved back to MD).  She clearly knows how to do preliminary research on any subject matter before pitching a show to a network like Discovery. So, do tell, how is it she can entirely leave me out of the documentary (and for that matter, not include Don Corbett, retired police detective who worked a long time on the Superbike case and wrote a blog for me about the case at The Daily Profiler) or at least credit  me in the documentary for the analyses she is going to use that are clearly mine. I really don’t care if you come to a similar conclusion after looking at the evidence; if you read my analyses first and THEN saw the rest of the stuff, you can’t claim it was 100% your determination. My work must be mentioned or it is simply theft, plagiarism, and unethical as hell.

Here are the TEN blogs Maria Awes and Gary Garrett had to have read (even Todd Kohlhepp admitted to reading them when talking to detectives). Please give them a read, media folk, and others, and tell me that I was unknown to them and my work had no influence on them. The first one was written in 2012 after America’s Most Wanted did a spot on Superbike and Sheriff Wright lied to the public. After the blog went online, Wright trashed me on television news, claiming I read everything about the case on the Internet. I followed up with three blogs about the case evidence and Don Corbett wrote one about the SCSO and Sheriff Chuck Wright.. I went to the press about this and nothing was written. After Todd’s false Superbike confession, I wrote five more blogs, three right afterwards in 2016 and two more in 2017 and the local newspaper did comment that I did not think he was guilty of that crime. Unfortunately, NO media would present the issue that none of the victims were shot in the forehead. Oh, hey, notice that blog actually titled None of the Superbike Victims were Shot in the Forehead? Don’t you think Ms. Awes saw that? Two or three years ago? Before she actually got hold of any actual documentation from the police or FOIA?

Oh, lastly, I almost forgot, even though evidence was presented that Todd Kohlhepp didn’t actually know how Superbike went down, retired FBI profiler John Douglass tells Awes on the show that he probably just didn’t remember. Awes agrees...yeah, Kohlhepp is still likely guilty of Superbike. And, let’s leave out the FACT the police actually TOLD Melissa Brackman (wife of victim Scott Ponder) that Kohlhepp knew something only the killer and the police knew, that “all the victims were shot in the forehead.” An investigative reporter with ethics and a desire for the truth? I don’t think so, Ms. Awes.

05/15/12

 Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: The Second Tragedy of the Superbike Motorsports Quadruple Murders


05/17/12

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: I Read it on the Internet: Superbike Murders - Part One


05/18/12

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: I Read it on the Internet: Superbike Murders - Part Two


05/19/12

 Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: I Read it on the Internet: 

Superbike Murders - Part Three





Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
July 31, 2017

Thursday, May 9, 2019

Maddie McCann Australian Podcast IMPORTANT Followup: TWO KEY POINTS

Cover for 'Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann'

Mark Saunokonoko’s excellent ten part podcast series on the Madeleine McCann case has come to an end. I very much appreciate being included in the work as it is a rare bit of true reporting on the case amongst the myriad of McCann supported, McCann generated propaganda that has been ongoing for a decade, misleading the public as to the facts of the case.

However, I do want to add TWO POINTS which were not included in the podcast which I believe are of utmost importance to the case, probably my two MOST IMPORTANT conclusions which go to the heart of what happened to Maddie: WHO was Smithman and WHERE is Maddie’s body?

I said in the podcast that I believed Smithman was the key to the case. But, what was left out was the very reason WHY I believe Smithman is the key to the case. It is NOT because I believe the man was the likely abductor of Maddie (as was libelously reported by The Sun) nor because I believe that the man was likely Gerry McCann carrying off the body of his deceased child (although the evidence tends to support this). The major reason I believe Smithman is the key to the case is because the McCanns showed very little interest in this sighting, downplayed the sighting, or tried to link the sighting with Tannerman, an attempt to make two men into one man.

The FACT - and it is a fact - that the McCanns did not want to focus on Smithman as an abductor is a massive red flag. ANY parent of a missing child would move heaven and earth to have such a sighting followed up on by both the police and the public. This was not some vague sighting of a girl matching Maddie’s description in some far off country; this is the sighting of a man carrying a little girl from the direction of the McCann vacation flat at exactly the time the child went missing. Yet, the McCanns shrug their shoulders and show no interest. In fact, when they are confronted, they will only acknowledge the sighting as possibly Maddie IF and only IF that man is also Tannerman thereby giving Gerry an alibi at the time the “original” sighting, Tanner’s sighting, of the man occurred.

The only logical conclusion that one can make that the McCanns did not care to focus on the Smith sighting as the true sighting and separate from Tannerman sighting of someone carrying off their child is because THAT MAN WAS GERRY.

The second important point left out of the podcast was WHERE is Maddie’s body? The podcast covered Location 1 and Location 2 (an initial temporary hiding place, perhaps, under an overturned boat, and a second temporary hiding place in a crevice on the Rocha Negra accessible from the beach).

Read my blog on these hiding locations here: On Moving and Hiding Bodies

The third and MOST important location would be Location 3.

From my previous blog on Find the Body and Prove We Killed Her, this is the most important point; the location where I believe is the best possiblity to find the body of Madeliene McCann.

Before coming to Portugal, I entertained a number of possibilities: the Huelva baths in Spain where the McCanns went just as the cadaver dogs were arriving, removal back to the UK, and incineration. Each had its interesting possibilities but each also seemed a bit too difficult to accomplish (although by no means am I saying such actions would have been impossible) and it is a pretty good rule of thumb that people do what is easier to manage and simpler to pull off. Because of this, I came to two more probable conclusions, both involving Gerry driving the body to a location he felt was secluded and unlikely to be discovered. I was particularly interested in the activities of the McCann in the days before the Huelva trip when Gerry's phone pinged repeatedly in an area to the west of Praia da Luz along the road to Budens, (estre EN125). I also found it interesting that the day he was to leave for Huelva, he was not feeling well, having a bit of an upset stomach. This led me to theorize he could have used that day to move the body or to recover from moving it the day before. I decided when I got to Praia da Luz, I would take a trip down that road to the west and see whether there were any suitable places to lose a body forever.

Gerry seems to be quite practical and rather cold and calculating and he simply may have decided, Kate’s feelings be damned, that making sure the body was never found was of paramount importance and they would have to live with it.

 Monte do Jose Mestre. This huge, desolate area covers many square metres and is filled with a considerable network of dirt roads. Looking down on the area from atop the highest hill is a row of windmills. Small trees and bushes are scattered throughout and the dirt is not impossible to dig in. Gerry had just returned from England and I wouldn’t be surprised, if he is involved in disposing of Maddie’s body, that he brought a small shovel back with him, one that could be tossed into the bushes when he finished digging the grave or thrown away in a dumpster on the way back to Praia da Luz. If the body is buried out there, it would be unlikely to ever be found unless a large contingent of searchers and dogs descended upon the area and then it would still be pretty lucky if they located a grave. I hope, however, this is done sometime in the future. 
I would like to know if Maddie is there or not.


Views of Monte do Jose Mestre below.





Along with retesting the DNA, searching this location is the other most useful exercise in trying to find out what happed to Maddie. True, it would require a lot of searching at that location, perhaps with dogs and metal detectors, but I can think of no better place at this point to search for the body of Madeleine McCann.

So, to recap, the McCanns burying of the Smith sighting is the strongest proof we have that Smithman is the key to the case and likely Gerry McCann carrying off the body of his dead daughter and the possible burying of the child at Monte do Jose Mestre the other most important key to solving the case outside of DNA or a confession.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

May 9, 2019



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




SSo, to recap, the McCanns burying of the Smith sighting is the strongest proof we have the Smithman is the key to the case and likely Gerry McCann carrying off the body of his dead daughter and the possible buying of the child at Monte do Jose Mestre the other most important key to solving the case outside of DNA or a confession.

Saturday, April 27, 2019

Madeline McCann: An ID Murder Mystery is Still not Objective Treatment of the Case


The new Discovery documentary may be a whole lot better than that complete propaganda piece put out by Netflix recently, but it is still meant to sway the viewers in favor of the McCann’s innocence and it is very manipulative in doing so.

Here is how this works:

During the first half they present Goncalo Amaral’s case. They have him speak.  They actually admit there is no evidence of abduction. They even show the dogs doing their great work. They quite effectively help the audience to see that it is possible to suspect the parents for good reasons.

I admit, it is quite shocking and amazing as we,who believe this evidence does indeed support the parents’ involvement in Maddie going missing, have not seen this level of what appears to be honesty; this appears to be a program willing to present the facts. We see it as a Great Leap Forward with the media. I am not complaining about this aspect because, hey, it IS something that is quite satisfying.

But, I knew there had to be a second half of the show that would effectively trash this evidence, Amaral’s theory, and the Portuguese police. And, I was not wrong. The second half did just that. It pretty much stated that Amaral’s theory was debunked by the DNA evidence, the physical evidence he was so hoping would prove him right. And, then, in comes Scotland Yard to do the case properly, find long ignored witnesses and suspects and, now, we start seeing that the parents, in spite of certain anomalies, could not possibly have hurt their daughter and covered up the crime. Why, it’s nonsense! Even Smithman couldn’t possibly be Gerry because, we all know “for a fact” that he was in the Tapas with everyone at the time the Smiths saw the man with the child.And the carefully selected host of the show, the journalists, the always pro- McCann Summers and Swan are used like product placement....right time, right part of the documentary....in order to promote the agenda which is still “the McCanns are innocent.”

Notice what the documentary did NOT do.

They present the facts that there was no evidence of abduction, but later claimed she was abducted yet ignored the earlier demonstration that there was no such proof. Oddly, when they did the burglar bit, they had the fellows in the re-enactment running around in the flat which is hard to buy as they would have left evidence of breaking in and mucking about.

They claimed the DNA proved Madeleine did not die in the flat nor was her corpse carried in the vehicle but they did not explain why the dogs went nuts both in the flat and at the car.

They didn’t explain that Scotland Yard’s claim of Tannerman being a guest carrying his child made little sense. Why they didn’t even show Jane on the street with Gerry and Jez! They showed a completely inaccurate depiction of Jane walking right by Tannerman where there were some stairs. What?

The documentary never allowed Goncalo to rebut any of their claims.

They had me on for a news clip but they made sure I also wasn’t on the show to likewise rebut the nonsensical claims they made.

In other words, they controlled the narrative. Essentially, the prosecution presentated their case and then the defense. But, they never gave the prosecution a chance to respond to the defense which means the defense is the last bit the audience gets.

One might think there was still enough in the documentary to sway people who have never seen the evidence before and now might think the McCanns are less than innocent. Surely, some will be won over. But, media goes with numbers and the numbers are in their corner if they keep controlling the agenda and presenting a very biased show.

I will say the most surprising thing on the show for me was, at the end of the show, Colin Sutton saying that the Scotland Yard investigation lacked legitimacy because they didn’t start at the table and abduction was ruled out before they even analyzed all the evidence. I would like to believe there was someone at Discovery who did that on purpose to throw a wrench in the McCanns-must-be-innocent theory and while it is possible, I tend to think it may have been an oversight in the editing process.

So, I am glad some of you see progress in this documentary and are happy that some of the truth came out even if most of the audience won’t go away realizing that this really was the truth. But, while I am happier with this show than many, I am still not surprised and still very frustrated that the media is not interested in truly being objective. If Discovery ID really wanted to examine the case, they would have let Goncalo, Colin, me and any other experts discuss all the issues of the case and leave it for the viewers to truly decide what theory the evidence really supports.
 

But then, they would probably be Carter-Rucked.


Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
April 27, 2019