When are You not Entitled to A Love Life?

The answer to this is quite simple: when your love life endangers children's lives. Protecting children is a much higher priority than getting laid, getting your ego stroked, or having romantic companionship. This applies to your own children, your grandchildren, and any children in your care, even those for an afternoon. If there are ANY children in your life that can be affected by some personality disordered person you like to hang around with for any reason, you have no right to cozy up to him or her.

Michelle Rowling, the beautiful woman on the left, just got stabbed to death by that nasty piece of crap on the right. If you read some of the stories the media has put out, you will immediately be outraged at the domestic abuse that ended in this mother-of-two's death. But, if you read more in-depth reports, you will find that Michelle Rowling had her throat slit by this man in a prior incident and testified on his behalf. Then she got beaten up by him and again testified in his behalf. Finally, after hearing her was planning to kill her AND her family when he gets out of jail, she FBs this:

Five days later, Michelle is found dead in her apartment; her supposedly ex-boyfriend has been charged with the crime. Fortunately, the children were not home at the time and so at least they weren't murdered as well. Interestingly, I have read nothing of a break-in or any phone call to the police (Michelle actually FB'd that calling the police would be worthless because she would be dead before they got there), so one wonders if she opened the door yet again to this man.

I know some people will simply say that women in abusive relationships don't get enough help and that they often don't press charges or testify against their abusers out of fear or emotional ties. But, here is the thing which I keep harping on. While it is true that we all are fallible human beings and we sometimes make dumb choices and dumb mistakes, I urge women, and men, but especially women who are on the receiving end of the most violent abuse (as well as their children), to put their children or future children first. No one becomes a parent by accident. You have to participate in sex, in unprotected or careless sex, you have to chose not to have an abortion or choose not to give your child up for adoption. If you are going to bang away with some questionable character, make damned sure you don't bring his kid into the world and put that child in danger. If you already have a child with a decent man, don't bang away with some new questionable character and put THAT child's life in danger. To put it simply, don't bang some questionable character and put your own life in danger leaving your children without a mother.

I am about to become a grandmother and I will be living right next door to my new granddaughter. Guess who is not coming through my door? Some questionable character that I want to snuggle up with so I can get my rocks off. For that matter, I have been divorced for ten years and I am sticking to a promise I made to myself to not inflict some less-than-quality character into my children and grandchildren's lives. I chose to have children and from that moment on, I have had to put them first. I am not saying that I should never have a romantic relationship but that I must consider how that relationship affects my children. If I bring a creep into my life, I would surely hope my children would have the sense to take my grandchildren out of mine.

We won't die if we don't have sex or love every moment of our lives. Sometimes we have to wait for the right person or the right time because, if we really love and care for our children, we won't choose an adult over them and we won't have our own wants be more important than the safety and happiness of our own children or any other children we have in our lives.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

December 31, 2013

How BundleMan Became Real

We know by now not to expect truthful reporting by such rags as The Mirror or straight talk from Chief Inspector Andy Redwood of Scotland Yard, but the "shocking revelation" presented on CrimeWatch by Redwood was the elimination of the "top suspect" - the man Jane Tanner claimed she saw crossing the street in front of her as she came up alongside the McCann's vacation flat - by "proving" that this man was but an innocent vacationer carrying his sleeping daughter back from the creche after enjoying his evening out. Redwood went on in the show to tout the 10 pm sighting by the Smith family as the more credible sighting of an abductor carrying Madeleine off towards to beach, a suspect Scotland Yard has not identified as anyone in particular, especially not Gerry McCann, the one man Mr. Smith told police the individual just might be.

Most of us wondered, quite immediately, how this vacationer could actually have been a real person, one that Jane Tanner truly did see. It doesn't take rocket scientists to note that the man was walking the wrong direction, the he should have been walking toward the McCann flat if he were coming from the creche, not walking from the McCann apartment in the direction the creche. (The yellow dot is the entrance to where the McCanns were dining at the Tapas Restaurant, the red dot is their vacation flat, and the blue dot is the creche. The supposed father carrying his daughter to the creche was crossing the road away from the red dot).

Now, the story gets weirder. It is being reported (if one can call what The Mirror prints as reporting), that the man came forward in 2007 to the  Leicestershire police and filled out a detailed questionnaire detailing his movements and that he was carrying his child back from the creche at the time of the Tanner sighting. Then, there is some inference that this information was forwarded to the Portuguese police who ignored it even though, according to the report, they were obsessed with the Tanner sighting to the exclusion of the Smith sighting.

Of course, this simply foolishness. If such a report existed, either it made no sense to the PJ that this man could be Tanner's bundleman because he was walking in the wrong direction or they were not interested in Tanner sighting because her story was not very credible (read more on this here) or because they believed the Smith sighting was the true one of Madeleine or all three of these reasons had an effect on whatever decision they made (should this man even exist). However, what is being reported is a pure rewrite of history, that the PJ truly believed the Tanner sighting was that of a man abducting Madeleine and their failure to interview this supposed person-of-interest threw the investigation off track.

This bit about the innocent father carrying his child into the pathway of Jane Tanner gets even more ridiculous. It is also claimed that Scotland Yard just interviewed him in recent months and he produced not only the clothing he was wearing that night but also the pink pajamas of his daughter! Mind you, six years has passed but not only does he remember what both of them were wearing but he still has the clothing in his possession! What a miracle!

One could think, perhaps, that this poor man, seeing all the to-do about Bundleman, how the McCanns were desperately searching for this man who they thought took their child at 9:15 pm, might have kept the clothing around just in case, one day, he needed to produce them as his alibi, clothes not only necessary to prove that he was Bundleman, but that his own daughter was in those pink pajamas and not Maddie. How kind it was for him to keep the clothing as proof and wait patiently for the police to one day call and how incredibly horrific a human being he was to not have ever contacted the McCanns or their private detectives to let them know that they should not be focusing on Bundleman as the man who took Maddie.

So, I can only surmise from these ludicrous claims of Redwood and The Mirror that either the man was early ruled out as having nothing to do with the McCann case because he was walking the wrong direction and, therefore, was not the man Tanner claims to have seen, or he doesn't exist at all and is merely a ruse to exonerate Jane Tanner from her claim to have seen the possible kidnapper (which would mean Scotland Yard is attempting to make Tanner an honest woman and bring a level of believability back to the Tapas 9) or it is a ruse to bring the time frame to 10 pm and the sighting of the Smiths which might have been a sighting of Gerry (which would mean Scotland Yard is playing a very clever card game). I wish it was the latter but I am a bit too cynical to harbor such an incredible hope.

What I do know is Sr. Amaral never believed Tanner's story and he always believed that the Smith sighting was likely the real one; how Andy Redwood, Scotland Yard, and the UK media can spin this to the complete opposite is incredible and yet another rewrite of history and we can only hope one day we will have a clear understanding as to the entire motive that lurks behind all of these misrepresentations and manipulations.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

December 30, 2013



Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann available at Smashwords and Barnes and Noble.


 

By Pat Brown
Rating:
(5.00 based on 5 reviews)

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.

Drug Courier or Businesswoman: Why was Claudia Membreno Gomez Murdered?

The story is basically this: Claudia and her husband, parents to four children, ran a private package service between Alexandria, Virginia and their country of birth, Honduras. One of the parents would be with the children while the other drove or flew between the countries every month to bring American goods to families back home in Honduras and return with Honduran goods - specialty food items and lovingly made presents to those family members who had left and were working in the US. Claudia had been on her run to Honduras when she was shot to death in her home in front of the four children.

Read here for the complete article. 

Now, as usual, the media leaves out so much information that readers are likely to make their own assumptions as to what occurred. The first thought that popped up in my mind was how could enough money be made transporting gifts to even cover the airfare? So, the thought of drugs popped into my head quite quickly. Claudia had been receiving threatening phone calls from some gang attempting to extort money from her. She had not reported the calls to the police.

An explanation about the nonreporting of these threats to the authorities was that the police in Honduras are not responsive to such issues, so she didn't inform them. I could understand there might be truth in this considering the high level of crime in Honduras; I have been there and can say it is not the safest country in the world at the moment.

But, still, I was questioning the lucrativeness of this package business; it didn't make sense to me that the Gomezes would find profitable the taking of overstuffed suitcases back and forth to Honduras if there wasn't something more. Could they be drug runners? But, then, something further on in the story caught my eye; Claudia is a devout Jehovah's Witness and being involved in crime is extremely unlikely for someone who is a baptized Witness. So I did some more exploring on the Internet for an answer to this package business.

Turns out, Claudia is what is called a viajera (and her husband is a viajero), the Spanish word for traveler. However, Claudia's role is more than traveling back and forth between countries doing a private UPS job. Being a successful viajera involved also being a private Western Union. Due to concerns about sending money home to Honduras via Western Union for a number of reasons (theft in Honduras, lack of documentation to pick up money, etc), many prefer to use a trusted private service, someone who carries the money down on their person. This is not illegal, so Claudia was committing no crime in doing so.  But, it was likely, she was transporting large sums of money on her to distribute upon arrival, possibly as high as $20,000, a percentage of which she gets for her service. Now it makes sense that the Gomezes were running a private package service; it is a good moneymaker.

But a damned dangerous one. Many viajeras and viajeras have armed guards with them because of the danger of robbery. Claudia, it seems, was known to some gang who wished to get a cut of her earnings; hence, the threats of extortion a la the old protection racket run by the mob.

I wish the news reporters had done some research before they printed their story. I wonder how many people will think the Gomezes were criminals as opposed to, perhaps, being foolish in their choice to operate a business which is awfully dangerous for parents of four children. Now, there are four children without one.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

December 9, 2013