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

06/03/12

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Sheriff Chuck Wright

11/21/16

Is Todd Kohlhepp REALLY the Superbike Killer?

11/25/16

None of the Superbike Victims were Shot in the Forehead

11/28/16

Why the Superbike Composite is Not Todd Kohlhepp 

06/14/17

The False Confession of Todd Kohlhepp

06/19/17

More on the False Confession Of Todd Kohlhepp

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

July 31, 2017

Maddie McCann Australian Podcast IMPORTANT Followup: TWO KEY POINTS

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

By Pat Brown 

Rating: 

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.

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

Review of the Netflix Madeleine McCann Documentary

It is not like I didn’t know the Netflix eight-part series about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann wasn’t likely to be highly slanted in favor of the McCanns and the abduction theory, I just didn’t think they would be quite so blatant about it.

One early clue that something was amiss was that I never got a ring from the producers of this program. I am not trying to tout myself as the profiler no one can do without, but considering I have spent years analyzing this case and have been the only profiler to write a book on the case (and had it pulled off the market by the McCanns and Carter-Ruck), I found it a bit odd that the team would not even phone me to try to pull me in, even if to libel me and screw me over like the Australian documentary on Madeleine McCann. I wondered...who were they going to bring on to analyze the evidence? As it turns out, only people who believe the dogs are wrong, the dna is meaningless, the parents’ behavior is perfectly normal, and inconsistencies are minor issues.

DescriptiGonçaloAmaral appeared to explain the evidence properly (but with not a lot of time for depth; possibly edited out), but the Amaral - his character and his explanation of the evidence against the McCanns - was savagely torn apart (not with great substance, but most viewers will not have a clue).

So, the reason I didn’t get a call was for the same reason no other expert questioning the McCanns’ innocence got a call; we weren’t needed. There was going to be no objectivity in the show, so our input would only have been problematic.

In other words, this was a propaganda piece that I find hard to believe the McCanns did not have a hand in. They may have claimed they were not interested in participating but I think that was most likely to make viewers think that the documentary was going to be unbiased. Their claim that they didn’t want to get involved while there was an ongoing police investigation as it might interfere somehow is laughable considering how many other shows they have done, how often they have gone against police advice, and the fact they hired private investigators to run around the continent in violation of a number of laws concerning interference with an ongoing investigation.

If you don’t want to poke your eyes out for more than six hours of sitting through this propaganda piece, here are some tidbits I pulled from it. I just sat through all of this so I am not going to work hard remembering names and writing in full sentences; I am just highlighting stuff I noted.

————

The Fund is not mentioned until the last episode and then only in passing. Wouldn’t you think this would be a big topic?

Neglect was totally downplayed and leaving the children alone not a thing to be concerned about.

Robert Hall says, “How is it possible for someone to know ...(insert: a long list of issues that make it unlikely Maddie could have been abducted)....I guess the only conclusion you can draw is that somebody was watching that apartment...somebody planned it.”

No, Mr. Hall, with all the reasons it seems impossible for someone to abduct Maddie, you could conclude there was no abduction and Netflix is manipulating you.

The first three episodes don’t discuss any evidence; it is just dramatic storytelling to get you to like the suspects; the McCanns, Murat, and Malinka. You hear a lot about mistreatment of all of them so you can get to really dislike and distrust the PJ (Portuguese Police).

Jim Gamble shows up and portrays himself as a saint. He talks about visiting Thailand and learning about the child sex trade. This is the whole theory Netflix is pushing without a shred of evidence.

We get to meet Justine and she is just so in love with the McCanns and can explain every one of their odd behaviors away.

Each episode works hard to have an answer in favor of the McCanns for any concern a viewer might have. They are explaining away any dissent.

We learn about Wonderland, a big pedophile ring in Europe. Psst...they might have kidnapped Madeleine.

A very dramatic bit about a sad Spanish couple who thought they saw Maddie in Marrakesh but were ignored.

Justine raves about Jim Gamble and CEOP.

Gamble and Amaral both talk about how cold and controlling Gerry was but, no worries, Jim is only lettting the audience know he understands if they find him off-putting; later, he finds it is just Gerry’s way of handling such a serious situation and he is really a great guy!

The Pact of Silence article is discussed by Felicia Cabrera and what she wrote about the McCanns at the time, but, again, no worries, all of this will be explained away a later.

We hear more about pedophilia again through a group called Casa Pía. See? Pedophiles are everywhere and, of course, they would want to kidnap Maddie and not some easier blond girl like that lookalike in Morocco or that blonde gypsy girl they found wasn’t Maddie either.

Jim Campbell claims he helped Gerry draft the letter in which he reaches out to the kidnapper saying if you made a mistake...claims he thought Gerry might indeed be guilty and that line might help him confess. Really? This wasn’t actually Gerry’s thinking? And, you thought he might be guilty? Oh, that’s right, only a temporary thought...turns out you think Gerry is a great guy, too!

Journalist Sandra Felgueiras speaks out that she found the McCann behavior strange. She later confesses to have believed the dog evidence. Then she states that she was lied to by police and she has changed her mind about the case and is embarrassed she ever questioned the McCanns’ innocence. This was the only surprise in the series for me. What happened to Sandra?

Now, we get to the Bollywood portion of the series. If you have never seen a Bollywood movie it goes like this. Happy beginning getting to know the protagonists (like a couple who falls in love). Then, something terrible happens and gets worse and worse and then....interval! Time to go out and get popcorn and a soda. Then you return to the theater and during the last half of the show all is resolved and happy ending (not all Bollywood follows this form but this is a traditional form). So Part Three and Four bring in the dog evidence, and the damning behavior of the McCanns and Felicia DOES point out how the McCanns left Maddie alone with her siblings when something happened. Cue tragic music.

No worries, again! Episode Five called “The Fightback” will begin the exoneration of the McCanns.

Lest’s make everyone feel guilty. “While you are looking at the parents, you’re not looking for the kid.” Yeah, our bad.

Brian Kennedy. “After 12 seconds I knew Gerry was a victim.” I am a profiler and after a decade I am still having trouble seeing Gerry as a victim.

Enter Clarence Mitchell to explain the McCann’s lack of emotions.

Now, they attack the disbelievers on the Internet and the crackpot conspiracy theories (they do this quickly as not to get anyone to interested in what those folks might say).

Trolls. Yes, one has to say the word trolls.

Defense attorney says the Tapas 7 keeping a big secret is preposterous.

Now, to the most important moment. They attack the dogs and say this was the only evidence the police claim to have. They say the final British DNA reports do not match anything to Madeline and that there was no blood evidence of all. There. Dog problem solved. The police have nothing.

Wait, a few more experts trash the dogs.

They mention the Smith sighting only to say it couldn’t have been Gerry because he was at the Tapas restaurant and the Smiths now say it wasn’t Gerry. The Smith sighting is only mentioned in passing once more and never is it really discussed. Odd considering that should be the Number One sighting; heck even The Sun was willing to publish that an American criminal profiler said that the Smith sighting was the key to solving the case, that Smithman was the abductor and he snatched Maddie (if you don’t know, I was libeled: I never said Smithman was an abductor). But, I guess the McCanns don’t really want to focus on Smithman (not that they ever did). I guess Netflix is coincidentally following their lead.

Let’s see. Anthony Summers says Maddie and her brother and sister might have been drugged by the abductor. Did I forget to tell you Summers and Swann are pretty much the main voices through the entire eight shows? What. A. Surprise.

Paul Rebelo says that Goncalo had zero support after he was taken off the case, not even from his Facebook fans! What a liar!

Some more people say, though they were once concerned about the McCanns, they are now convinced they are wonderful people.

Episode Seven has Kennedy saying he went to Morocco to search for Maddie and then hired Método 3. Julian is made out to be the greatest PI ever and he totally believes the McCanns are innocent. Método 3 finds a forensic artist to draw Tannerman and the artist tells us how convinced Jane was she saw the abductor.

Metodo admits they break the law and they are shady as hell. Then we get a bunch of stuff about how Amaral is beating up the mother in the Cipriano case and getting a false confession. The dude connects the two cases by saying when the police can’t find who did it, they blame the parents.

On to fake charity collectors who try to kidnap a 3-year-old girl right before Maddie vanished. You just know they are pedophiles.

Our Metodo PI says because there was such a small window of opportunity and they didn’t leave a trace, it means it was a well-organized group! Haven’t we already heard that argument? Oh, yeah, it must be so if two people say it.

Oh, yeah, now this guy gets his biggest moment in the case because he proves that a pedophile organization is at work in Portugal, so these could be the abductors of Maddie.

Episode Seven  goes for some more logic from the Metodo detective. Because pedophile gangs usually go for poor kids in third world countries, they must have taken Maddie because her value was really high. Umm...like a poor, blonde three-year-old from somewhere else would be cheaper than a British 3-year-old? How would the procurer even know where you stole the child from?

Oops! Metodo 3 starts acting in concerning ways and they are dumped.

The case is now shelved and it is claimed the McCanns are cleared. They attack Goncalo and his book.

And they learn the new team from Oakley is crooked, too. So, they are stuck without any investigators. We hear more about creepy people who could have abducted Maddie.

Thank god, it is Episode 8. “Someone knows.” Yawn. Scotland Yard steps in..yay...maybe they will find the pedophile ring. And, after all, Maddie may well be alive because, you know, teenage girls who are kidnapped are found alive (shhh...don’t talk about the statistics for toddlers abducted by pedophiles).

Final result: they trashed Goncalo Amaral. They trashed the evidence. They trashed people who question the McCanns’ innocence. Mission accomplished.

Okay, that is it. Now, you can skip watching it unless you are a masochist or just have to know what Netflix and the McCanns have put together to snow the public.


Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

March 15, 2019




By Pat Brown 

Rating: 

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

Safe Spaces: The New Apartheid

After conducting my "White Women Yoga" Meetup experiment, the most troubling response I have gotten from people is not that they were upset over the concept of an all-White group that excludes POC (People of Color) - because I, too, do not believe all-White groups that refuse members based on the color of the skin is anything but racism and discrimination - but that so many believe all-POC groups are not only acceptable but necessary in today's world. Furthermore, if you are a person, especially a person who does not believe this, you are a racist and white oppressor (White supremacist) and if you a Black, an Uncle Tom or a sell-out.


Here is  got from a White person which exemplifies this thinking:

And here was a more rational discussion from a Black person and my response:

So, this is where we are in society today and why I formed the White Women Yoga group on Meetup to bring our societal dilemma into the open and hope that we can work to find a solution to the dangerous road our country is headed down. Yes, the United States has had a history of discrimination and racism that has affected POC over many generations but creating a separatist society in the reverse direction is not the solution. Already it is acceptable for POC to have separate Meetup groups, POC safe places on campus, Black dorm floors at colleges....where does it end? When will we see the signs go on the doors of yoga studios saying “Blacks Only” and signs on the doors of Black-owned restaurants saying “People of Color” only and then signs on the doors on nightclubs saying “ADOS (American Descendants of Slaves) Only” because Jamaicans and Africans aren’t welcome? Will POC demand separate school classroooms so their children don’t have to be uncomfortable around children of their oppressors? Does this sound right to everyone? Is solving the problem of what discrimination of POC still exists in our country yet more discrimination? More separatism?  If it wasn’t okay to discriminate and separate from one race in the history of our country, how is it the right thing to do now? Where do the proponents of racial separation think this is going to lead?

We need to move forward and not backward in this country. We need to come together as American citizens - regardless of our race or ethnicity or country of birth - and we need to do POSITIVE things  to help everyone achieve; improve education, improve our communities, improve the state of families for children, improve economic opportunties - but we do not need to separate, hate, and reduce our nation to tribalism and apartheid. 

Pat Brown

February 18, 2019

White Women Yoga: Meetup, Racism and the Growing Separatism in the United States of America

You can join, but not your spouse. Sorry.

I have received some urgent emails and messages from people letting me know that someone using my name and photo has started a racist group on Meetup: White Women Yoga, a group that declines all requests from POC (People of Color) to join the group.

No one is using my name and photo to run this group. I, myself, have started this group along with White Women Walkers and Caucasian Camera Buffs. Horrified? So are many others who are outraged - Black and White and Asian and Hispanic – the hate mail pours in and the angry mob is telling Meetup to take down these racist groups and even contacting the NAACP and CNN and MSNBC and television stations local to DC to inform them of these hate groups, especially White Women Yoga which seems to be getting people the most upset (after all, yoga was started in India by Brown people).

So, why, WHY, did I do this? As the hate mail poured in about the White Women Yoga group, I was finishing up a month in India, touring schools with my Indian friends who run a charity which I support and sponsor poor children’s education. I am a mother of two biracial children and one black son. What gives?

India 2019

What gives is Meetup is an organization that promotes separatism and racism and has been doing so for over a decade. There are more than 800 one-race-only groups that Meetup supports and promotes. In fact, Meetup kept sending me emails about joining these groups and when I tried, my membership was declined solely based on my photo. I tweeted to Meetup about this problem as I live in Prince George’s County, Maryland where my race (White) is a minority (13%). Most community groups (not Meetup) near to me that I join are mostly Black which is fine with me because of the demographics. I even am part of a line dance group in which I am the only White because the group uses soul and R&B music and happens to be in a predominately Black area. Because this group is county run, it is not allowed to discriminate against Whites and so I can be a part of it. This is the music I love to dance to and I am happy to be cheerfully accepted as a member of this line dance group.

But, Meetup, not so much. Based on my photo, I am not allowed in. One group that declined me specifically said the group was only for people of African/African American descent. I asked what was the percentage of African descent I would need to be to join. I got no answer. What would happen to my 3/4 White, 1/4 Black granddaughter? Would she not be allowed to join a group with women who look like her mother, relatives and friends? Would my biracial son not be allowed to join because someone thought from his photo he was Hispanic? Maybe my biracial daughter might pass muster and my black son but why would they want to join a group which would not allow their PONEC (People of Not Enough Color) spouses, family and friends to join? For that matter, why would any nonracist Black person want to be part of a group that denies membership based on color? Interestingly, many of the Black persons who requested membership in White Women Yoga (obviously to see what would happen and to send me a blistering message that I was a racist) were themselves members of several Black-Only Meetup groups. I, myself, find any one-race-only group appalling and would never join a group that would refuse membership to someone who didn’t match the chosen color.

So, after being declined membership in these groups, I tweeted Meetup.

I am a White woman who lives in the DC area (Prince George’s County, Maryland) and I have found I am locked of many dozens of groups in my area because the organizers label the groups as Black, African-American, Mahogany, People of Color, etc. This seems to be a way of keeping White people from joining. These are women’s groups, travel groups, photography groups, etc, which should have no need to attach race to joining requirements. I’d like to know why Meetup is allowing this blatant racism which is against policy. {or so I thought}

Meetup replied:

Meetup fosters communities of people centered on shared interests or common identities. Meetup is a diverse community and group identities can be centered around gender, race, religion, political affiliations, or language, among many other things.

We believe there is a Meetup group for everyone, Pat. We’d love to help you find one that works for you. Let us know if we can help?

I responded:

So, you will help me find a group that accepts white people?

No response from Meetup.

I further tweeted:

So, what you are saying, since I cannot join groups that require me to be a POC (Person of Color), I can start White Photographers, White Women Travel, and White DC Socializers?

No response.

I wanted to be sure I was understanding that Meetup was actually permitting one-race-only groups who could discriminate and refuse members of another race (like the White golf clubs of the old days who refused Black members and this was eventually outlawed). So I wrote Meetup for clarification. I received this response from the Meetup Integrity Team (yes, their INTEGRITY team).

“We allow groups to come together based on a common identity. If a member wants to create a group to connect with their ethnicity, be it Black, Asian, or what have you, they are more than welcome to do so.

There is nothing wrong with people wanting to meet with other people and create a private space with others who share the same culture or identity.

This includes you. If you feel the need to have a private space to connect with other white folks, you are allowed to do so.

Now bear in mind, and this applies to all groups regardless of their identities, within your description we recommend refraining from mentioning who you do not allow (bolding Meetup’s). Rather, we recommend focusing on who you do allow (bolding Meetup’s).

Regarding members who complain against you, I highly recommend refraining from engaging them, and instead remove them from your group.

Best,

Dwayne

Senior Integrity Specialist

Meetup HQ

Wow! I was shocked! In this day and age, one-race-only groups should be a thing of the past. There is quite a difference between a group that happens to be one race because of the neighborhood it exists in (like a Black church which might be 100% Black because that is who lives nearby but if a White person moved into the neighborhood, they might attend as well) or a country line dance group that was 100% White because of the neighborhood being predominately White and White people being the biggest fans of country music (but if there was a Black person in the area who loved country line dance, they might join as well). And there is nothing wrong with having a group of friends of one color you go golfing with or picnicking with or party with at your home. But to specifically permit and promote one-race-only groups like Meetup does should be abhorrent and illegal, but it has been going on for over a decade and no one is saying anything. So, I started three White-Only groups with the blessing of Meetup and all hell has broken loose, especially with the White Women Yoga group I based on a Black-Only Yoga Group with more than 300 members called Yoga is 4 Black Girls. I cut and pasted their description changed Black to White for my group.

Their description:

This Meetup group is to allow space for Black women to gather in the name of yoga, surrounded by the supportive community of Black people, Black yoga instructors, and all around safe Black spaces.

My description:

This Meetup group is to allow space for White women to gather in the name of yoga, surrounded by the supportive community of White people, White yoga instructors, and all around safe White spaces.

Here are just a sample of the many, many angry messages I have received:

You’re a dumb racist. I hope you feel unsafe outside of your ignorant Klan meetup.

You racist POS.

This is a group for only one race? You’ve GOT to be joking!

You cannot establish a group based n race, color or ethnicity and restrict “everyone”… that’s called Racism and it should not be allowed on this platform.

Your racist group is disgusting.

Just read about your group online. Shame on you for being so racist and hateful. It’s people like you who are destroying our country.

What is wrong with you? This is the most racist hateful thing and it goes against the principles of yoga. It is black history month for god’s sake! Educate yourself!

An all-White meeting condemning others is “not safe” has gotta be one of the most racist things I’ve ever seen.

This is absolutely disgusting. White women don’t need a “safe” space.

I’m half white. Can I join?

Considering that yoga as a traditional and spiritual practice comes from the common Indian community, it feels concerning, in the least, to take this practice and then refuse to allow the exact people it  culturally comes from any access to the community. It’s racist. Please delete the group.

Where have these people been for the past decade of Meetup allowing one-race only groups? Is it because people don’t care, accept, or are afraid to speak out against Black-only groups? Is it the problem that only Whites can be racists and reverse discrimination isn’t a real thing? Or doesn’t matter? I spent years being concerned that my non-White children would have to suffer discrimination and racism and I did my best to raise them to appreciate all cultures (as each has so much to offer) and all colors (as I have always felt the melanin- based race stuff is garbage). With a Jamaican father, a White mother, German -born Jewish grandfather, a Cuban-born grandmother and friends from many countries and cultures like Mexico (their father’s usual soccer team) and The Gambia (long-term friend…I developed an interest in Africa when I visited there at the age of 19) and friends of various religions as well, my children grew up liking people for who they were and accepting them as their friends regardless of race, culture, religion, or sexual orientation.

Washington DC 1981

As my children grew to adulthood I was relieved to see racism dying down or at least POC (People of Color) making great strides in business and politics, even to the point where a biracial man attained the presidency of the United States.

Then, everything changed and went downhill. Without getting into the politics of it all, we are seeing George Orwell’s “Animal Farm coming true. Where there used to be oppressors of one race, now we are seeing a rise in oppressors of another race and we see support from all races that this is acceptable. “All animals are equal but some are more equal than others” was what the pigs claimed after they ousted the humans and then became just like them. We can love our country, protect our borders, work for intelligent immigration, love our citizens of all races, religions, cultures and birthplaces as long as they too love America and work for the betterment of our country. We may not all agree as to how it should be accomplished, we may discuss and even argue, but we should not hate one another and exclude one another from our lives and communities.

Mexico 2019

It’s 2019 and I fear for the future of my PONEC (Person of Not Enough Color) grandchild. I fear for all my future grandchildren if my non-White children “err” and marry White persons instead of POC (People of Color). I worry about my children and my grandchildren and my friends, Black and White and Asian and Hispanic, having to choose which group to belong to and who they dare not associate with. I worry about people hating each other for being Republican or Democrat or Independent or Trump Supporters or Trump Haters. I fear hate, tribalism, and separatism are taking over the United States. There is even a new acronym – ADOS – that is becoming popular. ADOS stands for Americans Descendants of Slaves. Now two of my three children are not accepted by that group because their father is from Jamaica (and it must be American slaves); my adopted black son is the only one in the family entitled to claim to be an ADOS. I am sure ADOS groups will soon show up on Meetup and then black people from the Caribbean or Africa or the Dominican Republic or Cuba or their children will have their membership declined. Maybe then there will be outrage over blacks getting discriminated against by other blacks.

Meetup is both the disease and the symptom of what is happening to our country.

Ramping up racism, refusing to associate with people of a different color, and claiming to need “safe spaces” because even being near a person of another race is emotionally destructive….this should not be happening in America

Organizations like Meetup who institutionalize racism and separatism in our country, this kind of organization should be shut-down if they do not remove their one-race-only discriminative groups. The same should apply to the separatism that is growing on college campuses. We are one people, Americans, and we need to remember that when we start thinking of ourselves as separate groups, we stop caring for others:

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak for me

 Martin Niemöller

NEW POST in response to comments on this blog: SAFE SPACES: THE NEW APARTHEID 

https://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.com/2019/02/safe-spaces-new-apartheid.html

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

February 16, 2019