Wednesday, October 31, 2007

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Good for Heather Mills!

I just saw Heather Mill's television interview on GMTV and I have to applaud her newest campaign. Heather is fed up with lies produced by the tabloids and is working to get laws in place to stop them from publishing outright lies and from displaying harassing behaviors equivalent to stalking. Rarely do I spend much time reading stuff from European tabloids but having a interest in the Madeleine McCann case led me to witness their brand of "reporting." I found myself rather stunned at the amount of stories that came out that included information completely contrary to stories from other tabloids or even from their own reporters just a day prior. If one story is the truth, a story with the opposite set of "facts" must then be a pack of lies. Apparently, the lies have gotten so out of control, the tabloids don't even fear lawsuit so they just print any inflammatory thing they want. This is egregious and I hope Heather succeeds in her campaign to stop this abuse.

I only disagree with Heather concerning the court of public opinion. When a person is indeed in the media, they can expect to have certain aspects of their behaviors scrutinized. She expresses sympathy for the McCanns for getting negative feedback from the public but this antipathy is not based on lies from the press but on the McCanns themselves because of admitted and observed behaviors. There is no question that when one puts themselves out in the public eye, one must be very cautious not to stoke fires of contention. Interestingly, some celebrities get no negative press at all because they lead polite and proper lives. The more one is flamboyant, outspoken, tantalizing, controversial...the more one has to accept there will be negative responses as well as positive responses.

As a criminal profiler who does a lot of media, I know the problem. I am outspoken and I am a bit of a renegade in the industry. I am working to change concepts I believe are outdated and damaging to moving serial homicide investigation and criminal profiling to a higher level and with better outcomes. I fly in the face of traditional FBI thinking and certain academics. In return I get called, "self-proclaimed profiler" (a label I guess you get if you didn't come up through the FBI), media whore (yes, I do a lot of television; it helps promote my concepts and programs), a fraud (FBI thing again, I think or some think I lie and say I AM with the FBI or have BEEN with the FBI), lacking in education (I have a Masters in Criminal Justice from Boston University but I did get into the field through self-training and reading hundreds of books on the market in forensics, investigations, profiling, psychology, etc), racist (this was because I wrote an article on Hurricane Carter, an African-American boxer, that some didn't like - they ignored the fact that I opened the article by stating I was married to a Jamaican and had two mixed race children and one African-American son), anti-police (even though my daughter is a cop and my son is in security and joining a police force soon), anti gun (even though I own two) and on and on. Some of this stuff is based on outright lies and some from careless reading and poor analysis, and other bits of scorn and hatred come from the fact some people just don't like me or what I have to say.

All of this comes with the territory of being in the public eye. I try to keep what I can under control and other stuff I just have to accept as part of the life I have accepted. Anytime I want out of it, I can give up my media work and live quietly. It is pretty easy to do. No fuel, no story.

But I admire Heather for going after those who print straight up lies. This should stop. The only time I get really bent out of shape is when I see something about me which is some supposed "fact" and it is simply not true. If somebody calls me a racist just because I think Rubin Hurricane Carter should still be in jail for murder, oh well, it is just their opinion. However, if someone says I used the "n" word while talking about an African-American, this will send me over the edge because it is not something I would ever do and if it is out in the public as a "fact," then I am forced to defend myself which is always a nightmare to have to do.

However, Heather, some of the stuff you probably did bring upon yourself by doing nude photos (no matter how long ago) or by marrying a big celebrity (a REALLY big one) and by speaking out (whether what you say was wonderful or not and I am a fellow vegetarian so I am on your side in that fight). You can't be in the world of the stars without being viewed as one and you can't be outspoken and not expect to be noticed (which is exactly why we speak out if we are going to be honest about it).

I wish you luck with the fight, though. I would be happy to see tabloids and reporters being held to some accountability. If it isn't true, you shouldn't be printing it. Period.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

Criminal Profiling Updates of of the Day: Maddie, David, and Richard Lee McNair

MADELEINE McCANN: The Portuguese and doing a crime scene reenactment. What does this mean?

The police are indeed doing what seems to be a proper crime scene reenactment. The reenactment will help them evaluate the scenarios and the components of the scenarios that would be likely should Madeleine have been abducted, wandered off, or killed within the apartment and her body moved. Each aspect of these scenarios will be studied for proof that certain incidents could have occurred or not have occurred.

I would say this crime scene reconstruction tells us nothing about what the police are thinking; just that they are working on the case. I have seen even slam-dunk case with solid DNA do crime scene reenactments in order to support the physical with an explanation of how the physical evidence came to be there and what the motive was and how the actor or actors in the crime acted it out. All of this is necessary for a good prosecution.

If during the crime scene reconstruction, it becomes evident that some aspect of a crime could not have happened the way theorized or purported, then this could sway the police toward one particular view of the crime. But, we won't know what they are learning from this crime scene reenactment until we have their report on it.

DAVID COPPERFIELD: A federal grand jury is investigating a rape allegation made by a Washington State woman.

I have to think there is more evidence than just a "He said, She said," kind of date rape case. If the woman claimed she was raped in the Bahamas by Copperfield, but waited until she arrived back in the United States to report said crime, then I find it difficult to believe the FBI would raid Copperfield's warehouse and a grand jury would be put together if all the that existed was a woman who claimed that sex between the two of them wasn't consensual. It will be interesting to see what the grand jury comes up with.

RICHARD LEE McNAIR: One of America's Most Wanted fugitives is caught after a year on the run by two sharp constables doing good police work. Note the middle name, "Lee." Why do so many criminals have the middle name, Lee? Odd, isn't it? Below are two links: the first is from YouTube showing McNair talking a patrol officer out of thinking he is the escapee being sought! The second is my appearance on Paula Todd's, "The Verdict": in the first half you will meet the constables who caught McNair and, in the second half, I discuss fugitives and catching them.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Friday, October 26, 2007

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Who Should be the Suspects in the McCann Case?


One of the problems with trying to understand what has happened in a crime is being on the outside of the police investigation and not knowing the whole truth of what is going on. My speculation, as is true with all of us outside the investigation, professionals included, is based on limited information. Having said that, sometimes the police have the same problem. They may have limited information due to lack of evidence, lying witnesses, incorrect scientific conclusions, altered crime scenes (staged or accidentally altered), etc. So they actually are in the same boat, only a better constructed and less leaky one.

So, in a sense, it is a struggle to solve a crime, from the inside or outside. We theorize, search for evidence, theorize some more, search for evidence, and so on, until, hopefully, we have evidence conclusive enough to affect an arrest and conviction. Sometimes the evidence never reaches that state and, even if the police are pretty darn sure who is guilty, they still cannot arrest them or they know they cannot get a conviction.

As to the professionalism of the PJ's investigation, I cannot comment on that. They may have failed in some respects and done well in some respects. I don't have enough information. Generally speaking, most police departments will claim they do an excellent job following procedure, but in reality, sometimes it is less than perfect because police officers are human and vary in skill and competence. I have worked with some police departments that have done awesome work and others that make me cringe. Sometimes it is a lack of finances; sometimes it is departmental inefficiency; sometimes you just have a sad bunch of not to bright blokes. Every profession suffers these problems. Every profession tries to do their best with what they have and most police departments want to be a credit to their profession and work to be so.

To the McCann case; I don't have a clue as to the physical evidence or timeline because of police silence and all the rumors. Therefore it is really hard to actually analyze how the crime went down. But, I will go ahead with what I generally think on the matter.

    • Maddie is unlikely to have wandered off and drowned.
    • Maddie was unlikely to have been kidnapped by a pedophile ring.
    • Maddie is unlikely to have wandered off and been abducted though that COULD have happened (if there is no physical evidence of harm or death coming to Maddie in the apartment). If this is true, she is very likely dead.
    • Maddie could have been abducted by a child predator that lived nearby. If this is true, she is likely dead.
    • Maddie could have been medicated and died accidentally while her parents were at the restaurant. If this were true, the body of Maddie would have had to be moved from the flat and hidden or hidden within the flat prior to Kate’s cry that Maddie was missing. If this is true, Maddie is dead.
    • Maddie could have died accidentally prior to the McCann’s going to dinner, giving them more time to move or hide Maddie’s body. The time at the restaurant and the checks on the kids would establish an alibi and move the time of “disappearance” further from any possible witness sightings of earlier suspicious activities of the McCanns. If this is true, Maddie is dead.
    • Kate killed Maddie, purposefully, or in a rage, and Gerry came back from tennis and found Maddie dead. He helped cover up the crime. If this is so, Kate would likely suffer from Munchausen’s syndrome by Proxy (if she killed Maddie on purpose – MSP is the label for a female psychopath who harms or kills her children; husbands of MSP women tend to be detached and very oblivious or accepting of their wive’s behaviors) or another serious psychiatric disorder (if she killed Maddie accidentally). They could have removed or hidden Maddie’s body before going to dinner or the body could have been dealt with by Gerry during his checks on the children. If this is true, Maddie is dead.
    • Gerry came back and killed Maddie in a rage. If this is so, Gerry would be likely rate high on a psychopathy checklist and be very controlling). Maddie’s body would have been dealt with before or during the evening. If this is true, Maddie is dead.
    • Kate killed Maddie, purposefully, or in a rage, and moved or hid her body without Gerry’s knowledge. She would have had to manipulate Gerry into not noticing his daughter in bed (“Maddie’s already asleep, let’s go) before going to the restaurant. She would then possibly have hoped Gerry would do the checks and find Maddie missing, distancing herself from the crime. Maybe, if Gerry actually didn’t do visual checks, Kate finally got fed up and went and did the check herself. If this is so, Kate would likely suffer from Munchausen’s Syndrome by Proxy or another serious psychiatric disorder. If this is true, Maddie is dead.

These are all the possibilities I can think of based on very limited information,

I believe only two basic scenarios are worth spending much time on;

Maddie was taken by a child predator.
Maddie died in the apartment and the parents are covering up a crime.
In both cases, Maddie is likely dead.


Robert Murat is a good suspect. He should be kept on the suspect list (even if not officially) until there is evidence that contradicts his involvement in the disappearance of Maddie or until another person is arrested.
Police should continue investigating for the possibility of another child predator who could have been responsible for the disappearance of Maddie.
The McCanns are good suspects. They were the last people to have been known to see Maddie alive and their behaviors are very concerning. They should stay on the suspect list (even if not officially) until there is evidence that contradicts their involvement in the disappearance of Maddie or until another person is arrested.

Because of the following behaviors, I tend to lean toward the McCannd been involved with the disappearance, and therefore, death of their daughter, Maddie.


They left three very young children unattended while they pursued pleasure for themselves. This is a sign of narcissism and a lack of attachment to one’s children.

Both Kate and Gerry speak about Madeleine in a very impersonal and flat manner. Gerry writes nothing personal about Maddie on his blog. Maddie seems more like an abstraction than a real child. This is a sign of lack of normal attachment.

Kate states that the last words of Maddie before she went missing were “Today has been the best day of my life.” Maddie’s last words are unusual for a three-year-old girl. Kids that young don’t usually have a concept of their “life.” “I am having the best time,” and “I am having fun” are more normal statements for that age. Next, Kate says Maddie was “very pleased with her life,” also an odd comment for an adult to say of her child. Both statements lead me to believe Kate knows Maddie is dead because of her emphasis on the inclusion of the word “life,” as though there were a set of parentheses around the first day of her life and the last. Kate may want to convince herself that she gave Maddie a good life, right up until her last day, the best day of her life. Also, it is quite common for people involved in the death of a relative to exaggerate the perfection of their relationship or the last moments to insinuate that nothing negative was going on between the parties and, therefore, nothing untoward could have occurred.

The McCanns have never personally offered the reward on television or posted the reward at the web site. Almost all parents of missing children do this.

If Kate really believes Maddie is alive and being cared for in someone’s home, she would make continual direct pleas to the captor for Maddie's return (“Please just drop her off any public location…”). Almost all parents of missing children who believe they are alive will do this.

Neither Kate of Gerry have taken or indicate they will take a polygraph. Parents of missing children do this to clear themselves so the police will not waste time focusing on them.

Kate and Gerry appearances show little fluctuation in emotion (except when they feel they are being accused of drugging Maddie). Neither breaks down and cries or blurts out anything with emotion (“Maddie! We love you, honey! Don’t give up! We will find you!” Or “Please give us our Maddie back! Oh my God, please!”) Usually in a set of parents, we will see emotions bounce around, one of them falling apart, one becoming angry; with the McCanns their answers are carefully constructed and evenly relayed. Their appearances feel more like performances than parents desperately trying to reach out to their child, the kidnapper or the public. Yes, they are British, but even a stiff-upper lip tends not to look like this under these circumstances.

There are muted flashes of anger, frustration, and annoyance directed from one of the McCanns to the other during their interviews which is very unusual for parents of a missing child. There is a strong feeling of control rather than support between the couple.

Gerry McCann commented in one interview: “In about the middle of June things, about five or six weeks, things were going really very, very quiet and I was actually quite glad of that and I thought we would start to get back to a more normal existence and a quieter form of campaigning, using the Internet and raising and broadening the political issues which have been highlighted to us and I saw that as a long term focus.”

For a parent to have any interest in political issues so soon after his child has gone missing when the one and only concern should be finding their loved one, is extremely bizarre. That Gerry should see his long term focus at this point in time as a political one is also very concerning. This statement would be less concerning if a few years had passed and the McCanns, accepting they were likely never to find their daughter, wanted to do something to help others not suffer as they had and to do something in their daughter’s name. But, to think this way so early on indicates Gerry believes or knows his daughter is dead and indicates more self-interest than interest in his daughter’s welfare.

Gerry’s blog focuses very little on Madeleine and more on his and Kate’s activities. The cheery quality of the blog and self-centeredness of the content is a sign of disconnect between Gerry and Madeleine and a sign of having moved on as if Gerry knows Maddie is already dead.

Kate states she had trouble sleeping during the first five days after Maddie went missing but has been sleeping fine since. Very few parents of abducted children can sleep very well knowing their child might be in pain, crying, and scared. Kate’s ability to sleep infers she is not worrying about Maddie because Maddie is dead already (or has an inability to feel empathy for others).

The quick return to normal activities is unusual for parents of abducted children; most obsess continually and can’t think of anything else and have trouble going through the simplest routines of life.

Kate and Gerry left their twins in Portugal while they went to see the Pope. Most parents of abducted children would be paranoid to be away from their other children for fear something would happen to them. Furthermore, to leave your children in the exact location where your other child was taken, whether one had a relative with them or not, is odd for parents who believe the abductor of their missing child is in the very same vicinity.

The McCanns left Portugal as soon as they became Aguidos. If the only reason they were made suspects was a legal one so the police could ask them important questions to help them clear themselves, they should have stayed to continue to help the police put the matter straight and get the focus off of them.

Much of the PR campaign at this point appears to be responding to public opinion and trying to answer their suspicions about the innocence of the McCanns, not finding Madeleine. Even in the latest move, the television appearance of the McCanns did not make a plea to the abductor or send a message to Maddie. It appeared to be a show to prove Kate has emotions. Following the show, an artist’s rendition of a supposed suspect was released many months after he was said to have been seen by one of their friends. The release of the picture will be counterproductive to actually finding Maddie, as not only is it based on a very questionable witness sighting, but may have nothing to do with Maddie. Such a picture will only elicit droves of worthless tips and waste police time. This is an unwise choice of strategy unless the purpose is to distract the police from focusing on the McCanns.

It is possible that the McCanns suffer from certain psychiatric designations that causes them behave in a manner which makes then look guilty of involvement in the disappearance of Maddie when in actuality, they had no part in it. For this reason, I can only say, they are good suspects; I cannot label them guilty.


So, to recap, Madeleine McCann is 99% likely to be dead. My top suspects at this point, based on behavior and what information can be validated, are the McCanns. If I were a criminal profiler working with the police on the case, I would be focusing heavily on them as my investigative focus. However, I would not rule out the possibility of a child predator and, therefore, I would spend a portion of time pursuing leads and information that might prove this possibility to be true, and I would make sure I did not force fit any evidence to match my theories nor ignore any evidence that might point me away from those theories. As new evidence surfaced, I would take this into account, reanalyze the information, and adjust my conclusions accordingly.

I hope we will see progress soon in the investigation of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance, so the whole matter can be put the rest and justice will be seen for this little girl and those who love her.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

    Thursday, October 25, 2007

    Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Why Does Kate McCann not make a Plea to Maddie's Captor?

    In the recent interview with the parents of Madeleine McCann, Kate McCann states she believes Madeleine is alive, essentially unharmed, and being cared for in someone's home. If Kate really believes this, then there is a glaring omission in her use of the media.

    It is extremely abnormal for a mother who thinks her child has simply been taken by some lonely person and being cared for in a nice, little house to not reach out to that person with a message, over and over again. After all, this would be one way to get your child back. Here is how that kind of message usually goes:

    “If you have Madeleine, please return her to her family. I know you may love having Madeleine with you but her Mommy, her Daddy, and her sister and brother are in great pain being separated from her. Please, please, let us have her back. Please take her to a public location where there are lots of people around like a McDonalds or a library or a hospital and drop her off. You can do this anonymously so you do not have to worry about being noticed. We are not interested in having any action taking against you; we just want our little girl at home with us. Thank you for taking good care of her and please send Madeleine back to us.”

    But, instead, no plea to her captor? Very, very bizarre.

    Which remind me: I have never heard of an expert telling parents to be unemotional in a plea to a kidnapper so as not to amuse them. Personally, I have to say most pleas are a waste of time and will have no effect on a psychopathic kidnapper. But, if one wanted to make a plea because one really believed the abducted child was not already dead or being tortured in a dungeon, that the child was with some nutty woman who just had to have the pretty little thing, then an emotional plea would be just the thing to try to jog the woman’s conscience to return the child.

    Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

    Wednesday, October 24, 2007

    Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Open Letter to Kate McCann

    As a criminal profiler, I have also sometimes been criticized for theorizing about a case I have not personally been privy to the actual facts from inside the investigation. As I do a lot of television commentary, this is quite often the case for me; I only can theorize based on the “facts” outlined by the media. Therein lays the difference between public speculating and true criminal profiling as part of an investigative team. The latter is going to be one hell of a lot more accurate!

    Still, all is just theory until the crime is solved. Everyone doing the analyzing and paying attention to this theory and that knows that any “determination” is only based upon the validity of input. The only harm theorizing can do is if the police detectives theorize incorrectly about the evidence or bring in an expert who theorizes incorrectly and bases the entirety of their investigation decisions on this particular theory. If, on the other hand, the theory is accurate, then the investigative avenues will be pursued correctly, or, if the theory is interesting but not necessarily correct, the police will pursue a number of investigative strategies to cover all bases.

    Are the PJ doing this? I haven’t a clue. I cannot assume they are any way inferior to other police departments in the UK or in the US or elsewhere in the world. Each department consists of individuals and it is a roll of the dice as to how good these particular individuals are at investigative work. I remember when Natalee Holloway went missing in Aruba, folks from the fine state of Alabama accused the Aruban authorities or incompetence and shouted how if Natalee had gone missing in the United States the case would have been solved quickly. Bunk! We have an ungodly high rate of unsolved murders and missing people here in the US, a good number of them right in Alabama. Fact is, some cases are hard to solve and some cases have detectives who are all that bright. Other cases have better evidence or top notch detectives. It isn’t a perfect world.

    So, what do we know so far in Maddie’s case? Not much. We have zero clue about the evidence or the veracity of the witnesses. All we really have so far are the unvarnished public statements by the McCanns and I don’t mean the ones reported by the media in print as those can be misstated by the journalists (and I know this because I often quite displeased when I read in print some completely twisted version of what I told the reporter).

    So, all we can truly be sure of is what the McCann’s have stated on television or radio or in Gerry’s blog. Even their PR team’s information is a bit questionable if we can’t hear it being said.

    Before I comment further, I want to reiterate that the McCanns, while suspects in the disappearance of Maddie, are not legally charged with any crime. Therefore, they may be totally innocent of hurting Maddie in any way. But, I will also say, we as adults and members of the human race are also responsible for the way we behave and the things we say, so we must also take responsibility for the way other view us.

    Therefore, based only on what the McCann’s said or written. I have some advice for the McCanns. SHUT UP! I have some advice for their PR team. Tell the McCanns to SHUT UP!


    Yes, Kate,

    It isn’t your breast size or weight that is causing your problems. It is you and your narcissist evaluation of the situation and your PR team’s equally stupid assessment of the situation that is making you look so bad in the public eye.

    I am a criminal profiler with years of experience dealing with parents of murder victims and missing relatives. Your behavior and the behavior of your husband fall far outside or the norm for grieving parents. Now, this may be because you are just terribly narcisstic folks who had nothing to do with your child going missing (outside of neglecting your children and putting your needs to party before their needs for comfort and safety, a narcissistic behavior if I have ever seen one). You and Gerry may simply be so narcissistic you have no understanding of how other people view your behaviors and your PR team may share your narcissism so that no one on your team has a clue to normal human behavior.

    But, SHUT UP! Every time you open your mouths you do more damage to yourselves. You seem guiltier by the day. Your attempt at “damage control” is so obvious and so very much a day late and a dollar short, everything you do or say seems a cover up and a transparent attempt at proving your innocence.

    Let me make clear what I think is weird about what you say and do:

    You choose words about Madeleine’s disappearance which make it appear you know there is no abductor and that Madeleine is dead.

    Both you and Gerry state your only guilt in the matter is not being their when Madeleine “was taken.” This statement makes no sense for abduction as Madeleine could not be taken if either of you were with Maddie when an abductor would have shown up. It makes more sense in the context that Maddie died while you were not in the apartment.

    Your statements and attitude about Madeleine being alive do not square with parents who really believe their daughter is in the hands of a pedophile or pedophiles who are brutally raping and torturing her daily.

    Your attempts at “finding” Madeleine do not represent the manner most parents would choose if they were actively searching for a live child but appear more to be the actions of parents trying to prove after the fact of a child’s death that they “cared” (not care) about her.

    Your behaviors of “keeping a normal routine” and “keeping up one’s appearance” is admirable, but extremely bizarre. I don’t know any other parents of missing children who can appear so together and cheery. When my daughter cooked our kittens by accident in the dryer, I cancelled Christmas.

    Gerry’s blog creeps people out. It is too upbeat. Terrified and distraught parents of missing children are rarely able to jog and play tennis and go to park with their other kids and have a fun time. Over a long period of time, maybe, but this is usually years after the nightmare begins. Some parents never recover from the trauma and it is common for marriages to fail and the brothers and sisters to feel their parents went absent after their sibling went missing.

    Your ability to sleep at night after the first five days, Kate, is beyond belief. It is the behavior of one who already knows the answer and even then, is quite a narcissistic trait. If you believed your daughter was being raped as you lay in bed at night, sleep would be very hard to come by. I guess you finally realize this and your mother is saying that NOW you can’t sleep and Madeleine comes to visit you in the night. What changed, Kate?

    Your PR team coming up with an answer to every accusation, answers that are ludicrous in themselves, makes you seem awfully defensive, and, if there is no way you or Gerry had anything to do with Maddie’s disappearance, you have nothing to defend. Furthermore, if all you care about is finding Maddie, you shouldn’t be wasting your time on such silliness. After all, as Gerry said, Maddie is the only important thing, right?

    So, SHUT UP, Kate. SHUT UP, GERRY. Fire your PR team as they are totally worthless. If both of you really are innocent and your think Maddie is alive, return to Portugal. Start searching for real (and it took six months to set up a hotline?). Cooperate with the police. Take the polygraphs as you have zero to hide and, with competent polygraph examiners, the questions are so simple you can’t screw them up. I will even give you the four questions that should be asked:

    “Did Madeleine die while you were present?”
    “Did you return to the apartment and find Madeleine dying or dead?”
    “Did you move Madeleine’s body at any time?”
    “Did your spouse move Madeleine’s body at any time?"

    These are simple questions. The answer to all of them should be “No.” There is no ambiguity in these questions (unlike a question such as “Do you feel responsible for the disappearance of Madeleine?” which you could if you acknowledge leaving her without an adult caretaker is irresponsible; an affirmative answer to such a question would be useless to the detectives as it could falsely indicate that you had something to do with Maddie going missing when you are only feeling guilty over leaving her unattended. Also, an affirmative answer could mean you simply do not feel responsible for what happened to Maddie no matter what happened to her as a total narcissist might).

    The above four questions are simple and unambiguous and even a narcissist can’t misconstrue the meaning of the questions. The answers will be a simple “Yes” or “No.” Have the polygraph session videotaped so the police will be unable to do any underhanded scare tactics or interrogation that might distort the results of the tests.

    Quite frankly, Kate, you and Gerry had everything going for you as parents of a missing child if you hadn’t left your children unattended night after night to go out partying. THIS is what made people dislike you. It was to your advantage that you are both relatively attractive people because IF you had big breasts and a porky physique and were not well-heeled professionals, you would have become suspects right off the bat and you would have not had the incredible monetary support you have been blessed with nor all those kindly letters. You would have been viewed as just a pair of slobs who probably abused their children as well as neglected them and you wouldn’t have gotten the phenomenal amount of publicity worldwide concerning Maddie’s disappearance. Other parents have gone public, run campaigns, and had web sites, but your fortune with publicity and support has been unprecedented. And, you complain, Kate, that people are treating you badly because you are fit! It was being fit and professional and well-off that got you so much attention. It was you and Gerry’s fitness as parents and your peculiar behaviors that got you the negative attention.

    I have a final suggestion. Ask the PJ if I can come analyze the case. My organization will send me pro bono. As a criminal profiler I can analyze the actual evidence to advise the investigators as to the best investigate strategy. I have no problem determining this crime as an abduction and finding the creep that took Madeleine if the evidence points that way. I don’t have to like you and Gerry as people to view the evidence in an impassionate and professional manner. No one should be convicted of a crime simply because of personality and because people don’t like the individual’s personality. Solid physical and circumstantial evidence must exist to the point where there is no question as to who committed the crime. I would work very diligently to assist the PJ with the evidence and the facts and do a thorough crime scene analysis that would move the case forward.

    Furthermore, if you and Gerry get charged in Madeleine’s disappearance and must truly defend yourselves, my services are available to you and your lawyers. I will be more than happy to analyze the evidence and, if you are innocent, do all I can to serve in your defense.

    Good luck, Kate. May the truth be brought to light soon and you and Gerry get the justice you deserve in the case of your missing daughter.

    All the best,

    Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

    Sunday, October 21, 2007

    Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Have our Ethics gone to the Dogs?

    I really didn't want to comment on the Ellen Degeneres "Doggygate" drama, but I just can't keep my mouth shut any longer (which I suppose is actually not such a surprise to most of you).Before I rant, I want to make clear that I am an animal lover: I own two Bengal cats and a potbelly pig (and if you want to see Gwendolyn, my sixteen-year-old hog, you can go to MySpace and check out the video!). I have owned many pets in my youth and during my children's upbringing including a dozen cats, ferrets, rabbits, hamsters, gerbils, rats, birds, frogs, toads, salamanders, and many a lizard (my favorite being iguanas). So, I love animals and I can say, I have never abandoned a pet (which is why I still have a 250 pound pig on my property).

    So, I feel for Ellen, sort of. It seems she had concern for the animal she took in and tried to care for it (well, at least for a few days before she gave up). Then, she found another home she thought was good for the dog. None of this makes her a rotten person.

    But, I have to say, I think Ellen is a bit ethically challenged. Breaking her contract with the pet rescue agency, Mutts and Moms, and then trying to blackmail them by going on air with her grievance to millions of people and putting the agency in a horrible position, is simply wrong. It would have been bad enough to do such a thing if the agency was a fault, but to destroy the group when they were within their legal rights, is unpardonable.

    Ellen cannot be so naive she didn't know what she was doing and neither can her hairdresser pretend he had no knowledge of the contractual issues unless Ellen lied to him. Most people who have pets and adopt them through rescue organizations know how very serious these rescue folks are about placing the animals in their care. Certainly, Ellen would be familiar with their attitudes and methods. She clearly knew that Mutts and Moms would feel exceptionally responsible for what happened to a pet they placed in a home. This is why they have the return clause. If they didn't have a problem with someone handing off a pet they no longer wanted to some other person, they wouldn't bother with home placement to begin with. They would simply stand on the sidewalk with a box labeled "Free Puppies."

    Ellen knew that when she decided she didn't want Iggy in her home, she was to call the agency and they would find another home for the dog. She knew they were not going to euthanize the puppy. But, instead on honoring the agreement and the mission of the rescue organizations workers, she gave the dog away to a home she personally felt was okay for the dog. If the dog got overly excited in that new home and bit the children, the dog would have been removed by authorities and put down. If the family decided the dog wasn't working out, just like Ellen, they could also just give the dog away, or worse, drop it at the pound. This is what Mutts and Moms was trying to prevent by the return clause. They were trying to protect the puppy and make sure it ended up in a safe and permanent home. This is their job.

    Ellen needs to go back on air and admit she was hands down wrong. She needs to admit Mutts and Moms were simply doing their job. She needs to tell everyone to back off and she should help Mutts and Moms get back on their feet financially with a large donation to make up for all the damage she has done to them.

    There is nothing wrong with using the media if you are bringing attention to illegal behavior or serious moral or ethical wrongs. But, to use one's clout to take down an innocent David when you are a Goliath, when you are feeling bad about the mistake YOU made, is pretty inhumane and awfully darn selfish.

    Come one, Ellen, step up to the plate. We all have made mistakes in the heat of emotion, but this doesn't mean we should run away after we realize we screwed up. Set an example and do the right thing. Exonerate Mutts and Moms.

    Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

    Thursday, October 11, 2007

    Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: What do Duck Killer Scott Clark and Mass Murderer Tyler Peterson have in Common?

    Scott Clark, an auditor for the Inspector General's office in Denver ripped a duck's head off while he was a guest at the Embassy Suites in Minneapolis. Yes, you read that right. Clark was staying at the hotel while in Minnesota on business and thought it perfectly within his rights to grab a duck out of the atrium duck pond and tear its head off. He then proceeded to cart the duck's body off to his room. However, when the police arrived, they found the body of the duck in the elevator, the head in the pond, and blood and feathers from the poor bird strewn around the lobby. Clark was arrested.

    His response? "Why? Because I killed it out of season? Big deal, it's just a (insert word) duck."

    Reminds me of John Wayne Gacy who stated he should only have been charged with running an illegal cemetery when all those boys' bodies were found in his crawl space.

    Which brings me to a problem many people have when they know someone who behaves like this. They minimize the behavior. Even though what Clark did is creepy and a hallmark of psychopathy, he will probably still have friends to hang out with, a girlfriend, and a mom who will invite him to dinner the very next Sunday; they will find excuses for his frightening behavior. They will say he was drunk (yes, he was but even if I were drunk, I wouldn't be beheading pets), or he just thought it was funny (funny?), or he was having a bad hair day (but not as bad a day as that duck had).

    Then, if Scott Clark shoots his ex-girlfriend down after she breaks up with him, will everyone say they didn't see it coming. Is this possibly true of Tyler Peterson in Crandon, Wisconsin? To methodically stalk and kill six friends, Peterson must be pretty pathological in his thinking; he could not have been an emotionally healthy person and then turned around and done this. He did not "just" snap. My guess is we will eventually hear quite a bit about previously concerning behaviors that most who knew him simply shrugged off.

    If you know a Scott Clarks or Tyler Peterson, keep your eyes open and don't minimize sick actions or things they do that make your uncomfortable. Ripping heads off of hotel ducks is not acceptable behavior and anyone who does this is someone you should want to be very wary of. Remember, the next head ripped off may be your own.

    Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

    Monday, October 8, 2007

    Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Another “Ludicrous" Theory in the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann

    A short time ago, I made a suggestion that the British police might investigate the McCann’s residence (and the residences of friends and family of the McCanns) for the possibility that the body of Madeleine McCann might have been transported into England. Some folk immediately labeled the theory ridiculous, or ludicrous, as the McCanns would say. How, they asked, could the McCanns carry a putrefying and decaying body in a suitcase and get it on and off of an airplane? I understand that this sounds mighty foolish to many who don’t work in the field of criminal investigation and profiling and they think Pat Brown is a nutcase par excellence!

    Let me clear up a few misconceptions: first of all, it is a theory, not a fact. Secondly, a theory is useful to stimulate investigative avenues not yet thought of that might lead to evidence that would otherwise have been overlooked. Third, offering one theory does not mean it is the only theory or even the best theory. It is far more likely that Madeleine’s body is somewhere underground in Portugal or Spain or in the ocean. These are simpler places to bury a body. It may be that the body has just not yet been discovered. This is very often the case; while rumors and theories abound about white slavery and porn rings and sightings are made of the victim all over the world, the body of the poor thing has simply been lying in a ravine for the past few months! Sometimes bodies fall into strange and difficult places or are well-buried for years. Then, one day a jogger trips over the body or a farmer turns over some soil to plant his corn, and, voila! The victim has been found.

    Maddy McCann will likely be found in a similar way (unless someone did one heck of a job of hiding her). Whether a child predator took Maddy or the parents did her in, she will probably one day just be found. However, there is nothing wrong with being proactive and trying to find her sooner than later. Therefore, the police should follow all leads and theories. IF they find her sooner, than not all the evidence with the body or within the body will have been destroyed by time and nature.

    So, search in Portugal and Spain and any other place one can think of. And, yes, search in England: Maddy just might be there.

    Would it really be possible for one of the McCanns to cart the body of their daughter back to England? Yes, absolutely. Because of the climate in Portugal, it is possible that should they have buried Maddy in a shallow grave in a sandy substrate, her body would have mummified. Mummification is a desiccation of the corpse where the fluids drain into the ground and the rest of the body dries up. There is relatively little odor associated with a mummified body.

    If this occurred, the body would be easier to transport; it would be lighter and drier and lacking the horrible smell of a corpse. Such a body could easily be placed in a sealed bag and placed in a suitcase. Screening of stowed luggage is not likely to uncover a body inside of a suitcase and when the traveler reaches the other end and goes through customs, they enter the “Have nothing to declare line,” and just walk through (unless they exhibit concerning behavior that raises a red flag and launches a search of the luggage). As to the McCanns, I seriously doubt they were searched upon arrival, not with all the press surrounding them and the mass of curious onlookers, reporters, and VIPS lurking about.

    IF the McCanns were involved and IF Maddy’s body was brought home, when this would have happened is another question. Unfortunately, only those inside the organization would (we hope) know the truth about the McCann’s movements. For example, Gerry McCann returned to England on June 19, just four days after an exhaustive search for Madeleine was called off. This search was in an arid, desolate area (the kind of climate which might encourage the mummification of a body) near a town called Odiaxere. A letter from an unknown sender had stated she could be found there in a shallow grave. Four days later, Gerry is on a plane home. I don’t know if he took any luggage with him, anything more than a rucksack (which I don’t know the size of). He only stayed for the day, purportedly to attend some meetings. He claims he had his wallet stolen while getting money from an ATM and later that evening, the wallet was mailed back to him. A rather peculiar story that I wonder might not be a cover for the reason he was late to his meetings; he ostensibly spent the time calling credit card companies to cancel his credit cards.

    If I were the police investigator, I would follow up this lead. I would want to know what luggage Gerry took with him to England. I would try to see if there was any proof to the wallet theft story. I would find out if he had any “alone” time on the trip. I would find out if he made those phone calls to the credit card companies and if he really got money from an ATM. I would find out exactly where he was that day through any evidence of his movements (phone call tracking, receipts, witnesses, etc.). I would want to know if anyone met him, especially anyone who he could have transferred a package from one suitcase to another.

    I would check all the McCann trips and look for possibly ways for them to transport a body away from Portugal. And, again, I would look for all possible places within Portugal or neighboring countries as possible places to hide or bury a body. I would check the possibility of a burial at sea.

    If I were the Portuguese police, I would be following all leads, even those that lead away from the McCanns. It never hurts to be thorough. The point is to recover Madeleine, dead or alive, and bring justice to those that hurt her. In the end, it doesn’t matter which theory is correct (except as an educational tool for future investigations). It only matters that the case is solved.

    Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

    Thursday, October 4, 2007

    Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: "The Moment Madeleine was Taken."

    One has to be careful when analyzing from a distance if a particular person or persons is exhibiting guilt concerning the commission of a crime. Until there is hard physical evidence linking a perpetrator or perpetrators to a crime, the case is tried in court and a conviction is handed down by a jury or judge, all is still speculation.

    I am asked over and over if I think the McCanns are guilty of the disappearance of their daughter Madeleine. I always answer that I cannot say for sure because at this point I haven’t a clue as to the veracity of any of the information coming out of the European tabloid machines. I have to say I have been rather appalled by any media spawning so many “facts” that turn out to be just hearsay. It is not like proposing a theory: speculation is not claiming knowledge and is not lying, but stating something is a fact when it is not, is egregious and the media should not be doing this.

    Let’s look at the supposed facts: if the DNA from Madeleine in the hire car exists, the McCanns are guilty as hell. If there is blood from Madeleine on the stairs, this only proves she was injured but not by who. If there are sedatives in her hair, this is pretty damning. So much for the “facts.” Let’s turn toward the McCanns and their behaviors. Behavioral evidence is not conclusive evidence. It is useful in determining investigative avenues to focus on and interview methodology. It is circumstantial evidence and can lend weight to a case in court but rarely can stand alone without physical evidence to support guilt. As a criminal profiler, behavioral evidence is extremely important in analyzing any case and advising police investigators of its meaning within the context of the case.

    The McCanns narcissistic behavior is concerning, but they could be narcissistic people who have had they child abducted. One thing I have learned about the family of victims of horrible crimes; whatever you were like before your loved one went missing is exactly what you are like afterward. You don’t change. So, if you are a really aggressive person before the crime, you are likely going to be aggressive afterwards and fight to see the crime solved. If you were extremely passive before the incident, you might simply allow the police to do the work and hardly lift a finger. If you were a soft touch previously, you may sob your way through a television appearance. If you were a tough cookie, you may come off as a cold, uncaring, and possibly guilty of wrongdoing.

    The McCanns appear pretty narcissistic in their behaviors after Madeleine’s disappearance. They worry about their physiques, their clothing, hair, and jewelry, and they like a lot of attention. But, this is exactly how they were before Maddy went missing, so I am not surprised they are acting this way. Their rather off-putting behavior does not mean they are guilty of anything more than child neglect.

    But, I have been going back over the actual interviews of Gerry and Kate McCann and one statement sticks in my craw and bugs the devil out of me. It is the one thing that makes me lean toward their guilt even without any physical evidence. This is what Gerry said:

    “We felt our actions were responsible. We were essentially performing our own baby listening service although we have talked of the guilt we felt at not being there at the moment Madeleine was taken.”

    Maybe Gerry just misspoke. Maybe it is similar to the ear pulling thing he did when he denied that he and Kate gave Madeleine sedatives; maybe his ear just itched at that moment and he wasn’t lying. Maybe it is like when they left their twins to jet off to see the Pope claiming it was no big deal because their children were in a safe location, the very same town the abductor of their other child might still be loose in; that statement doesn’t necessarily mean they know that no real kidnapper is out there. Or when Gerry said that he and his wife Kate were "100 per cent confident" of each other's innocence,” maybe this strange wording for parents who child is abducted while they spent the evening in each other’s company, maybe I am reading more into it than is necessary. So, maybe this particular statement of Gerry’s is also just an odd choice of words. It doesn’t prove guilt. But, it does continue to force me to look at them as suspects in the real meaning of the word.


    It is not because he and Kate still think that leaving their children alone is not wrong. We know they have never felt leaving tiny toddlers to fend for themselves constitutes neglect. They have said that over and over. Clearly, they are never going to accept responsibility for their horrendous actions that night. But, firstly, what Gerry admits in that statement is they were only “listening” at the door, not looking in to see if their children are all right. If they are not actually observing their children, they would not know if they were sick, injured, or missing from the room. Gerry has moved away from saying they actually checked on their children to some rather vague “listening” methodology, perhaps, one so distant, that he meant they were close enough that they should be able to hear one of the kids if they left the room screaming for them. Not only that, Gerry basically admits the window for “kidnapping” Madeleine is a whole lot larger than thirty minutes. She could have been “taken” five minutes after they left the children in bed if they never “saw” them again until Kate finally decides to not just listen at the door but actually look in on her children. But, more importantly, if Madeleine actually died during the time of the “listening” checks or her body removed during the time of the “listening” checks, it behooves the parents to carefully skirt around having to lie about “seeing” Madeleine earlier during the evening via visual checks on the children.
    But, even this bit of information is not the big problem. It is the very last part of the sentence that rings warning bells to me:

    “….although we have talked of the guilt we felt at not being there at the moment Madeleine was taken.”

    First, let’s look at what Gerry McCann did NOT say:

    “We are horrified that we left our little girl alone and made it easy for a predator to kidnap her.”

    Okay, that statement would be normal for a nonnarcissit and one who accepts responsibility for their actions, so maybe we shouldn’t think Gerry would say that. But, one might think he should have at least said this:
    ”..although we have talked of the guilt we felt at not realizing it was unsafe to leave Madeleine alone and because we were naive, we feel guilt that Madeleine was taken while we innocently left her unattended.”

    This would be a pretty good statement, but, wait, I have to say, again, they are too narcissistic to admit to this large a mistake, so I would guess this is why Gerry didn’t say that either. BUT, let’s see examine what Gerry REALLY did say and why it is important and very concerning.

    “…the guilt we felt at not being there AT THE MOMENT MADELEINE WAS TAKEN.”

    First of all, Gerry, IF one of you had been there with Madeleine, there would be NO MOMENT WHEN MADELEINE WAS TAKEN. It simply could not have occurred. If one of you had been there, either the abductor would have simply turned around and given up the idea or you would have fought with the abductor to save Madeleine. She could NOT HAVE BEEN TAKEN if you were there.

    Let’s analyze further. There are two very important words here: MOMENT and TAKEN.

    First of all, Madeleine couldn’t have been taken in a MOMENT by an abductor. It would have taken quite a few moments to grab the child out of the bed, struggle with her, climb out a window, and carry her off.

    Secondly, she wouldn’t have just been TAKEN. She would have been ABDUCTED, STOLEN, or KIDNAPPED.
    TAKEN is an interesting passive word. Theoretically, it could just be Gerry and Kate trying to feel less guilty about a child predator abducting a screaming and terrified Madeleine. Maybe the word, TAKEN, just feels less awful. But, then again, maybe TAKEN is what they really mean. Maddy may have been taken from life and Gerry and Kate may feel guilt over the MOMENT that occurred. Alternatively, if they really did have help moving her body and Kate really did scream “THEY have taken Madeleine,” maybe they feel guilt over not being there at the MOMENT Madeleine was TAKEN from the room and hidden elsewhere. Perhaps, this is exactly why no one was supposed to look in on the children and why the doors were left unlocked. Maybe, the “feeling” Gerry has that a man was in the room is accurate because he set the whole thing up. But I digress.

    If the MOMENT refers to a time when Kate and Gerry were off partying and Madeleine suffered a serious injury from falling down the steps or had overdosed on sedatives, they might feel guilty they were not there at that MOMENT because as doctors, had they been there at that MOMENT, they might have been able to administer medical care and save Maddy’s life. Gerry then would be admitting that MOMENTS do count and leaving your child unattended for even a MOMENT can effectively contribute to the child’s death.
    Worse yet, if the McCanns were there when Madeleine died and Gerry is referring to feeling bad about not being there the MOMENT her body was moved, then one of them killed her in a fit of rage or overdosed her with sedatives before going out for the evening. This parent clearly would not be viewing themselves at fault for the incident and the other parent is one heck of a pushover and enabler. This can happen when one of the couple is desperate enough to stay in the relationship, protect one’s professional life, or keep a perfect social or personal image. Considering the great deal of minimization the McCanns have done since their daughter went missing, it is really not that big a stretch to imagine one of them acting in such a fashion.

    Regardless of which scenario might be true, I think Gerry may have told the exact truth with this statement: that he and Kate DO feel guilty for

    “… not being there at the MOMENT Madeleine was TAKEN.”

    Does the fact, and this is an actually fact, that Gerry says he and his wife feel guilt over not being there at the MOMENT Madeleine was TAKEN– does this statement of Gerry’s mean they are guilty of Madeleine’s disappearance?

    No, but it sure doesn’t help me spend a lot of time looking harder at Robert Murat and if there is much more damning information from the interviews with the McCanns, their friends, the employee of the hotel, and the physical evidence then we know of, one can’t blame the Portuguese police for not spending much time looking at him either. They would only be looking for Madeleine’s body or enough other physical evidence to charge the McCanns in the death of their daughter and subsequent obstruction of justice in hiding their daughter’s body and misleading the police investigation.

    If the McCanns are innocent of having anything to do with Maddy’s disappearance, I feel sorry that they have had to suffer all the allegations on top of the anguish of losing a daughter. However, I feel much sorrier for Madeleine, who would have had to suffer through a horrible sexual assault and a violent end to her life because of willful neglect of her parents.

    The McCanns are reaping what they sowed and there are responsible for the results of their actions. They only anger they should express is towards themselves, not the police or public trying to find out what happened to Maddy, and they only horror they should feel should be at their own actions and the horrible hurt it brought to their innocent little girl.

    But the McCanns apparently feel negative emotions toward themselves over only one issue:

    “…not being there AT THE MOMENT MADELEINE WAS TAKEN.”

    Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

    Photo courtesy of Google images