Why There was a Dead Cat in Profiler Pat Brown's Shower

Okay, you all have come up with some interesting scenarios, some closer to the truth than the others. Some of you used the evidence to develop some reasonable good answer and others simply fantasized a scenario that had no real connection to the evidence!

First, what evidence was there?

1) A witness stated they saw a still warmish dead bloody cat in Pat Brown's shower at 10 pm that day, the witness saw a check from Amazon with what appeared to be blood on it, and both were gone the following day at 3 pm.

Although I did tell you there was actually a dead cat in my shower and I showed you a photo of the check with red stuff on it, there is no proof that the witness was accurate about the condition of the cat or that the cat and the check were gone the next day. If you accepted the witness' statement, you accepted certain things that may or may not be true (was the cat really still warm? Did the witness actually touch the cat to find out? What was the extent of the injury to the cat? Did the witness turn the cat over to examine it? Was the red stuff on the check really blood?) Any theory developed based on the witness statement is questionable because we cannot be sure the witness was accurate. For that matter, the witness could be trying to make Pat Brown look bad.

2) Okay, let us say that the witness was reliable and everything the witness stated was true. Next question, whose cat was that orange cat? Guessing that it is Pat Brown's cat or not is just guessing and this guessing can radically change the theory and motive.

Answer; not Pat Brown's cat.

3) Because there was blood on the check, it is guessed that Pat Brown got the check from her mailbox and that is why there is blood on it. Well, that is possible, but the check could have been lying around and just gotten touched. But, okay, it is true that the check had been picked up just before the cat incident. Some of you decided, therefore, that the cat must have been killed in my driveway because I went to the mailbox at my home and that is when it happened. There was an assumption I have a mailbox at my home. There we go with assuming again! Answer: I do NOT have a mailbox at my home. The mail for the residence address is actually delivered to a house about five houses away because my house, at this point in time, does not actually have a different address (long story concerning a large family plot of land that used to be a farm). Where I get my mail is at a UPS box in town (which I also have for business purposes and so that when I travel my mail is in a safe place). I picked up the Amazon check and because I was curious what the dollar total was, I opened it in my car, dropped it on the passenger seat and then drove toward my house.

4) Did I run over the cat? Some thought I did which is why the cat ended up at my home. Some thought I was trying to save it...although I think I would have done better taking the cat straight to an emergency vet place. There is actually no proof that I was the one that hit the cat....was there blood on my tires? We don't know because my car was not checked for that evidence....that kind of evidence has not been reported. So, making a scenario that I killed that cat is based only on what you THINK my motive for carrying the cat back to my house might be....guilt....to save it...whatever. I did not kill the cat.

5) So, I saw a still cat in the road and I pulled over and backed up to check it out. It was dark out, so I put on my flashers and jumped out and picked up the cat which was still warm and soft so I knew it had just been hit. I brought it in my car so I could examine it under the inside light. I grabbed a bunch of papers and cover my seat and then laid the cat on them (unfortunately, I forgot my check was lying there). Once inside the car, I noticed that the cat was beyond help.

Now, HERE is where a motive for bringing the cat home is a bit convoluted and I want you to note that when you subscribe a motive to what people do and say, "Oh, it is clear this is why!" Or "Well, he wouldn't have done THAT!", be careful because you may have no real clue why the person did what they did and the motive you conjure up is more in your head than in the perpetrator's head. 

So, why did Pat Brown bring the dead cat home and lay it in her shower? Is she a ghoul? Was she planning on doing an autopsy on the cat? Did she want to take creepy dead cat photos? Did she want to clean it up and give it a proper burial because she is a lover of cats? Unless you have a lot of information on me and my history, you may be completely wrong.

The reason I brought the cat home: no, I did not feel a need for a good cat burial. I normally would have just laid the cat on the side of the road in the bushes. No, I did not want to do weird crime scene stuff with the kitty. What I wondered when I saw the cat in the road and when I examined him in my car was if that cat might actually be my missing cat Rouxy. Rouxy was an orange cat who went missing after I moved in 18 months earlier. This cat was the right color and a male and had Rouxy's tail and color of eyes. I wanted to take the cat home where I could then access my photos and do a comparison because I couldn't remember the exact details of what Rouxy looked like. So I brought the cat in and placed him where it was best to keep a bloody dead cat...on a plastic bag in the shower. I went and found my photos and did the comparison. Turned out, I forgot that Rouxy had white paws and this cat didn't...not my lost cat. In the morning, I took the cat out to the woods and buried it and took the check to deposit in the bank.

So, now look back at your own theory of the crime and ask yourself how much was based on evidence and how much was merely conjecture? This is what happens when you analyze a case on the Internet or by watching TV, when you analyze at a distance and do not have proper access to all the evidence or the ability to question people about things. The more you base your theory on random information and unproven sources, the more likely you are to have a theory that is not at all accurate. 

Just because something COULD have happened or someone MAY have done this or someone MAY have had this motive, doesn't make it so. I COULD have run over the cat but there was no proof of it. I COULD have felt guilty over the cat's death but where was the evidence that this is a fact? The cat COULD have been killed on my property but where was the evidence of this? Quite frankly, with the evidence I gave you, the only theory that should have been created from the limited evidence is this:

Based on the fact, Pat Brown herself (and not the witness) told you that there was a dead cat in the shower, Pat Brown or someone else who had access to her house placed a dying or dead cat in her shower.

THAT is actually all you know from the evidence. If your theory included more than this, you didn't base it on the actual facts.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

May 6, 2016

Dead Cat in the Shower and The Danger of Generating Theories Based on Limited and Imagined Evidence

I have written more than once of the danger of developing theories based on possible scenarios rather than on actual evidence, that when someone puts together bits of evidence in order to support a theory of choice rather than basing their theory on real forensic and behavioral evidence, a case can become convoluted and misrepresented. The number of theories in unsolved cases like Madeleine McCann and JonBenet Ramsey and many other less publicized cases escalates over time and more and more insignificant pieces of information become fodder for yet more theories. These bits of info are often given more meaning and weight than when the case was fresh simply because people are looking for a smoking gun that will break the case wide open and finally bring answers and closure. Likewise, for some solved cases like that of Steven Avery; speculation on who ELSE could have done it has spawned a dozen or more theories, most based on zero evidence or one bit of information from which a complete murder scenario and motive have been developed.

As an example of how speculation can spawn so many theories (in spite of the fact that just ONE thing happened), I want my readers to come up with their theory on the dead cat in Pat Brown's shower.

I will spare animal lovers a photo of the dead cat in the shower, but, suffice it to say, there was indeed, last night, a dead cat in criminal profiler Pat Brown's shower (this is a fact, not a fictional scenario). So suppose someone reported that they saw in Pat Brown's shower at 10 pm, an dead orange cat laying on a trash bag. There was blood about the cat's ears and mouth and the body was still soft. They also saw, on the dining table nearby, this odd piece of evidence: a check from Amazon with what appears to be blood on it.

The same person claims that they returned the next day at 3 pm in the afternoon and the dead cat and the bloody check were both no longer in the home of Pat Brown.

Okay, readers, what is your theory as to the dead cat in Pat Brown's shower? When I get ten responses, I will then discuss the evidence, the theories, and what actually happened.

So bring it on!

If you are new here, read the responses below - all the theories - and then go here for the answer: http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.com/2016/04/why-there-was-dead-cat-in-profiler-pat.html

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

April 5, 2016

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.

From Theory to Profile: How Agenda Creates Nonevidence-Based Conclusions

No Proof of Photoshopping

I recently wrote a five part blog concerning Making a Murderer, a multi-episode documentary on the Steven Avery case which recently aired on Netflix and has convinced a good number of people that Steven Avery is not guilty of the murder of Teresa Halbach, that he was railroaded by the police and prosecution for political reasons. The filmmakers presented many pieces of information and demonstrated to the audience what they believe happened in this case; however, they actually did not use evidence to support their theory, it only seemed that way. They  presented a profile (crime analysis) based on a theory - their theory - not a profile (crime analysis) based on the actual evidence.


I also just finished watching Richard Hall's third installment in his documentary about the Madeleine McCann case called When Madeleine Died?. The filmmaker presented many pieces of information and demonstrated to the audience what he believe happened in this case, but, again, what I saw was a profile based on theory,  not on the evidence.

Both films were well made, in different ways. Making a Murderer is very dramatic and emotional, brilliantly shot and edited. When Madeleine Died? is very calmly and methodically presented, far more professional, in my opinion, than the highly Hollywoodized Making a Murderer. I like how Hall made the documentary,  but I am not happy with the content. I disliked everything about the Netflix documentary on Steven Avery because I found it blatantly full of falsehoods and very manipulative.

Both Making a Murderer and When Madeleine Died? are intended to convince the audience that the theory being presented is the only one that makes sense, that it is logical, and that there is evidence to support the theory. In reality, the profiles of these cases require a solid belief in the theory the agenda is promoting;  "evidence" is either misconstrued, ignored, or created. The material presented is intended to seem sensible but to actually agree with the conclusions of the filmmakers one must suspend a good deal of logic altogether.

Let's start with the Steven Avery case. The theory is "Avery is innocent." Now we must find evidence to prove this. We run into problems right away. Avery was the last to have contact with the victim, Teresa Halbach, he was the one who asked the victim to come to his property and photograph a vehicle, she was never heard from again after this contact with Avery, her car was found on his property, her remains were found on his property, her phone was found on his property, his blood and DNA was found in her car, and her car key with Avery's DNA was found in his bedroom; and nephew confessed to committing the crime with him. If one uses evidence to create a theory, the evidence heavily points to Avery. The evidence shows Avery called Halbach, Halbach most likely never left the property, someone moved and hid her car on the property, someone hid her car key in Steven Avery's room, and someone burned up her body and phone right near Avery's house.  According to the witness, Avery raped and murdered Halbach. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that the likelihood of Steven Avery committing the crime is quite high.

But, suppose you have a theory that Steven Avery is innocent. So you set out prove he did not do it. This is usually the realm of defense attorneys, to go from theory to profile, but now filmmakers are using this same technique, starting with a theory instead of starting with the evidence (as should always be done by police, profiler, prosecutor....pretty much anyone except a defense attorney who HAS to prove his client not guilty). One must figure out how to take damning evidence and turn it around to point away from whoever it points to. Evidence has to either be explained away or twisted in such a way that the jury - or the viewer - will go away believing this new theory.

The evidence in the Avery case is so overwhelming the only way to explain it away is to claim it was all planted; ALL of it! The remains, the car, the phone, the key, the blood, the DNA...all planted by the police or someone helping the police. Someone (probably not the police) had it out for Avery and when this person somehow found out Teresa Halbach was called by Steven Avery to come photograph a vehicle (or saw her doing so), the person took this opportunity to grab Halbach, kill her, burn up her body either right under Avery's nose or he took her someplace and then brought her remains back onto the property and tossed them there along with her phone. Then this person hid the victim's car on the property and got the police to put Avery's blood in it, wipe Halbach's DNA off the key and spread Avery's DNA on it and then hide the car key in his room. And then the real killer got the police to pressure a slow-witted relative into confessing to a crime he didn't do and implicate Avery as well.

What? Does any of this seem even remotely possible? And who is this person? A number of suspects are alluded to in this documentary but none are actually implicated  because NONE of the evidence actually points toward anyone else but Avery (and Dassey, by confession).

Making a Murderer simply presents a theory based on agenda, not on evidence; the theory generated the profile; the profile wasn't based on the facts of the case.

Likewise, I see this happening with Hall's When Madeleine Died?.

The evidence points to the evening of May 3, 2007. A number of people stated they saw Madeleine up until that Thursday evening, she was placed in the creche daily for babysitting while the parents enjoyed their freedom on holiday, there are photos of Madeleine in Praia da Luz by herself and with family. The cadaver and blood evidence points to an accidental death resulting in the child's body lying behind the living room sofa for a period of time, and there is a chaotic discovery of a missing child or a dead child that ensues late in the evening. In the hours, days, and months following Madeleine going missing, we often see confusion and conflicting statements and many odd behaviors on the part of the McCanns and their friends. It appears that all was well until the evening of May 3, 2007 and then all hell broke loose.

However, due to what appears to be a strong belief that there has been unprecedented support of the McCanns by certain political entities (and there is evidence that there is some quite unusual level of political support for the McCanns) and a huge amount of media, money and resources used in this case of a missing child that far surpasses any in probably the entire history of mankind, a theory has been developed that if Madeleine did indeed die in Praia da Luz and not at the hands of an abductor, then the massive support system for the McCanns indicates that she did not die an accidental death on May 3 but that she died at some other time and under far more horrific circumstances (which have only been alluded to...some kind of sexual abuse - pedophilia - involving big government people). It is believed that if Madeleine died by accident or even during a rage by one of her parents, there would not be so much high level support; therefore, there must be something more nefarious concerning what happened to Madeleine McCann.

This theory has led to the conclusion that Madeleine McCann died sometime on Sunday (due to something really horrific) and then an abduction staged some four days later on May 3.

Let's look at the evidence that would support this theory:

Madeleine McCann's body showed signs of sexual abuse. No, her body has never been found, there were no previous reports that Maddie had been sexually assaulted. There is only one statement from a woman who thought, on a previous occasion when she and some friends were dining, that Madeleine's father and a male friend shared a gesture that the woman interpreted as having to do with Madeleine and having a sexual meaning. There is no corroboration of this moment by anyone else nor any proof that what the woman believed happened actually did occur.

The Tapas children showed signs of sexual abuse. No, there is no evidence of this.

There were pornographic photos or videos of the Tapas children. No, there is no evidence of this.

There is proof of sexual assault of children by the McCanns, the other Tapas members, or by any of the people connected to the McCanns and this case. No, there is no evidence of this.

So, there is actually not a shred of evidence that there is any sex abuse ring (by McCann and Company) any more than there is any evidence of a sex slavery ring abducting children out of Praia da Luz and environs.

The theory of some kind of sexual assault of Madeleine resulting in death also requires that the evidence of Madeleine falling and dying behind the sofa be ignored. Either the dogs are right and Maddie ended up behind the sofa or the dogs are wrong and Maddie was never behind the sofa. It makes no sense that if Madeleine were to die by some manner other than accidental that anyone then hid her body behind the sofa. If you believe the dogs, you must believe in an accident.

Which leads back to Hall's theory that Madeleine McCann died on Sunday and a team of experts (I guess in cover-up and body disposal) rushed into town to help the McCanns deal with this and stage an abduction.

Now, one would assume if there is some huge government involvement in the crime (high level perverts) and a high level government cover-up of the crime, they would hardly decide to wait until Thursday to stage an abduction and then stage it so badly that it doesn't even look like an abduction and prep everyone so badly that the Tapas group couldn't even keep their stories straight. Along with that, they would have had to have the  McCanns  parade around Praia da Luz for four days minus one child, nannies would have to be coerced into lying, creche paperwork would have to be forged, and they would have to hope no one outside the circle the damage control team controlled would notice Madeleine was missing. Photos would have to be created (Hall does say that experts have concluded that the Last Photo was not photoshopped but oddly alludes to the possibility that the tennis photo WAS photoshopped....couldn't he get the experts to analyze that photo as well?) or would have to be said  to be taken later in the week than was true.

One of the rules of getting away with murder is the less people know about the crime, the better. The fewer Tapas friends who might have helped the McCanns, the better because loose lips do sink ships. The theory of an earlier death date and a bigger organization behind the cover-up requires so many people to know the truth and lie to the police and media that it would be impossible for the truth not to have come out.

Logic has flown out the window with this big governmental involvement and a Sunday homicide of Madeleine McCann. To profile this case as a sex crime involving high level government people requires ignoring the dog evidence, ignoring the behaviors of the Tapas members on May 3rd, ignoring all reports and evidence of Maddie being alive until May 3rd and believing that a skilled "clean-up" crew chose the most amateur plan of action possible, pretending a dead child is alive or parading around a fake Madeleine, and dismally staging  an abduction scene they had days to plan and make believable (couldn't this top level team even open a window, add a few tool marks, make footprint or two, and muff up the room a bit? How about planting some fake hair or phony fingerprints?).

The evidence does not support Hall's theory of When Madeleine died?; his agenda has created a theory and the theory then created a profile and the evidence manipulated or ignored in order to create a belief that this theory has merit.

Both Making a Murderer and When Madeleine Died? do bring up interesting ideas and some bits of evidence that are worth looking at further in relation to proper police procedure, proper interviewing, proper prosecution, and proper handling of the media. However, the totality of the evidence in both cases does not support the theories the filmmakers have presented and it is unfortunate that so many do not realize that this is so. Evidence should make the theory; the theory should not make "the evidence." Analyses and profiles of crimes should be scientifically developed by a professional based on evidence, not created by filmmakers' agendas.

Unfortunately, with the advent of the Internet, cheaper documentary production methods, and so many media outlets and so much airtime to fill, the proliferation of agenda based crime shows and documentaries is getting out-of-hand. Investigation Discovery (ID) just aired an incredibly ridiculous documentary claiming that a serial killer and not OJ Simpson may have killed Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. I can assure you that NONE of the evidence in that case points to a serial killer but that did not stop ID from putting out a total piece of garbage and now the serial killer theory is making the rounds on the Internet.

The next time you see a documentary purporting to prove a particular theory, make sure the filmmaker actually provides evidence supporting his theory, doesn't just throw around "what-ifs," and make sure there is logic holding the theory together. Pay attention to whether the filmmaker ignores evidence, manipulates evidence, or creates evidence, and above all, ask yourself, "Does this REALLY make sense?


Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

February 22, 2016

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.

Making a Killing off a Murderer: An Analysis of the Crime and Documentary - Part Three

While not all criminals are psychopaths and not all psychopaths are criminals, certainly a good portion of criminals have personality disorders and a good portion of psychopaths commit crimes of one sort or another. But, first I want to talk about what crime is.

A crime is something that society has deemed illegal, as something you should not do because it is harmful to others or the community. Drug use is often included as a crime because it is believed to not only harm the individual, but to bring blight and crime to the neighborhood, but let's put drug use aside and talk about other crimes; drug dealing, burglary, robbery, fraud, arson, rape, and murder. These are crimes that when an individual commits such acts he has done so in a premeditated fashion, knew he was going to break the law, knew he was going to cause harm to another person, and, yet, went ahead and committed the act anyway. There are only two reasons for stepping over that line: desperation (benefit triumphs harm) and selfish desire for power and control (what I want is more important than your rights; my ego needs to fed). Desperation might be something like stealing food to feed your child or committing a theft to pay for medicine for your very ill wife. You know it is wrong but you believe committing the crime is the only way to save a life and the harm it does is minimal in comparison. A person who commits this kind of crime may not be a bad guy or have a personality disorder; he just can't think of any other way to deal with a bad situation. Sometimes a drug dealer could fit in this category if he cannot find a way to earn legitimate money and he lives in a houseful of starving siblings. If he shows up on the corner with a lot of bling and is driving a BMW, probably he is not dealing out of desperation.

And most crime is not committed out of desperation. It is committed out of selfishness. I am more important than you and I will get mine. Even shoplifting is an act of selfishness; thrill seeking or a ha-ha to big business or desiring instant gratification rather than working to earn money to then purchase what you want. When shoplifting isn't about stealing food for your family, it is about selfishness. The reason criminals are so often repeat offenders is because they LIKE committing crime. Since the majority aren't committing crimes out of desperation, they are doing it because it make them feel good, it makes them happy. And since they don't care too much that they are harming others, there is no reason for them to stop unless they feel the punishment isn't worth it. If they don't get caught or don't mind the time in jail, they will repeat offend until the punishment is severe enough to keep them off the streets forever or until they get tired of incarceration or until they become physically unable to commit crime.

So by the time you get to repeat offenders - especially violent repeat offenders - you are usually looking at psychopathy or another serious personality disorder. Serial rapists and serial killers are always psychopaths...you just can't commit that kind of heinous premeditated crime without being a psychopath.

Steven Avery, as I pointed out in the previous post, has all the traits of a psychopath. He has all the traits of a serial killer. His claims about desiring a quiet life with a good woman is a lie; he would find that boring; he needs to have a much higher level of power and control and excitement. The police were well aware of his criminal capabilities which is why he was on their radar. When the sexual assault was committed on the beach and the woman gave a description that matched Avery, it is no surprise they thought it was him.

The mistake the police made was immediately thinking it must be that guy: there is often not a shortage of violent sexual offenders in the radius of any town or city. Attacking a female jogger is a very common crime for a rapist or serial killer. In fact, the majority of serial sexual crimes involving strangers are just this sort; few actually involve kidnapping and imprisonment and torture. Hollywood tends to make people think all serial killers are deranged geniuses who plot intricate crimes but this is simply not true. Most serial killers just see an opportunity (read: woman walking or jogging alone) and jump out and brutalize her. Consequently, there isn't much that looks different from one of these crimes to the next. There is no "signature," some calling card that would point to a specific guy. Pretty much any violent sexual offender could have done the crime, so you need physical, circumstantial, or witness evidence to link him to the crime. Unfortunately, the police just went with a witness ID from the victim and used this to put Avery away. It was unfortunate for Avery that he looked enough like the guy who really did the crime to be misidentified. Since there was DNA left in the crime, if it happened today, Avery would not have been charged, but at that time, DNA was not so advanced. However, even today, the right guy might not have been charged either because the police might have no clue who he is; they might just have to put his DNA into the CODIS system and hope he was previously a felon and get a lucky hit.

Now, to the Halbach crime. I am not going to detail all of what makes Avery guilty. If you want to examine each issue in depth, here is a fabulous analysis of each and every segment of "Making a Murderer" by a non-profiler - broadcaster Dan O' Donnell.

http://www.newstalk1130.com/onair/common-sense-central-37717/rebutting-a-murderer-14280387/

What I want to do here is just point out the basic profiling and crime analysis issues relating to the Halbach crime.

1) Where victim's body is found

The body was found on Avery's property. This is why the police went to Avery and talked to him. He wasn't targeted. You have the corpse of a murdered individual on your property; you are going to become a person of interest.

2) Where the victims' vehicle is found.

That was on Avery's property as well. Again, police are not targeting Avery. They are doing their job which is to investigate where the vehicle was found and who could have put the vehicle at that location. Since it was hidden on Avery's property, he is going to become a person of interest.

3) The last place the victim was seen

That was on Avery's property. Anyone who lives on the Avery property is going to become a person of interest; this includes Steven Avery

4) The last person to have contact with the victim

That would be Steven Avery. The police are obviously going to investigate the last person who was in contact with the victim or was with the victim.

5) Where physical evidence of the crime exists

That would be in the Avery fire pit, in the Avery burn barrel, in Steven Avery's house, and in the victim's car on Avery's property. All the physical evidence implicates Steven Avery (his DNA in the car), the victim's body parts, DNA, and personal items in the firepit and barrel, and the key and his DNA in his house.

6) Witnesses

The only people that claim to have seen Teresa Halbach right before or after her disappearance are Bobby and Brendan Dassey. Bobby Dassey states he say Halbach photographing a car and then heading toward Steven Avery's house. Brendan Dassey states he saw Halbach tied up in Steven Avery's house, saw Steven Avery kill her and saw Steven Avery burn her. There are no witnesses saying they saw Teresa Halbach anywhere else or with anyone else.

So, it comes down to this. Overwhelming evidence that Steven Avery is guilty of the murder of Teresa Halbach. Unless he was framed.

Framing Steven Avery would require:

Someone knowing or getting lucky that Halbach was coming out to Avery property that day.
Someone getting lucky that there are two witnesses to say she was with or near Steven Avery that day
Someone getting lucky that a witness can describe the crime in detail so that most of it matches the evidence
Someone has to kill Halbach for some reason and burn her body on the property right under the nose of Steven Avery (or bring her burned body parts (this did not happen) to the property and mix them in with the stuff Steven Avery had already burned.
Someone had to hide the victim's car on the Avery property
Someone had to hide the victim's car key in Steven Avery's house
Someone had to plant Steven Avery's DNA in the victim's car and on the key

So either law enforcement found out Halbach was going out to Steven Avery's house and just as she was leaving, they kidnapped her, killed her, burned her up, and spread all the evidence and DNA around Avery's property and house OR someone else saw the opportunity to kill Halbach, killed her, burned her up somewhere and spread her cremains and personal items around the Avery property and then law enforcement saw a great opportunity and jumped on board by planting Avery's DNA and the key.

Or maybe Steven Avery is just guilty as hell and all the evidence proves it.


Part Two 

Part One


Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

January 21, 2016

Sandy Hook, Madeleine McCann, "Quantico" and the Difference between Fiction and Reality

Everyone is a Suspect in this Show

I have been watching "Quantico", the new series starring Indian actress Priyanka Chopra...well, up until last week when I couldn't take it any more. It is just plain dreadful in every way and the convoluted plot about a terrorist hidden within an FBI class of new agents make me want to poke my eyes out. Now, I understand, that for a fictional story to be interesting, there have to be some surprises and plot twists and turns but when it gets to the point of incredibly far-fetched, where each and every person (recruits and teachers) has a huge secret, when everything that happens is not what it seems, when the conspiracty gets so big and complicated it goes off the rails, that is when I, quite frankly, find the whole thing so silly I just have to give up paying attention.

And this happens in real life as well. Someone just emailed me and asked me to take a look at the many videos and blogs about what "really happened" at Sandy Hook, a horrible mass murder in the United States in which a young psychopath murdered his mother and then went into an elementary school and mowed down twenty little children and six teachers before taking his own life. But, there is a growing number of people who are investing a lot of time trying to prove that what happened at Sandy Hook was a government operation to influence gun control, an staged event so horrifying to the American public that it would cause the citizens to finally accept a law that will remove guns from the hands of lawabiding citizens once and for all.

If you start watching the videos on Youtube and reading all the analysis by those who think Sandy Hook was not a real mass murder, some of the stuff is pretty fascinating and convincing..if you take each  piece of "evidence" alone and don't look at the whole picture. You start to think, "Wow, maybe they are right! Maybe there is way more to this story than a disaffected youth committing a random, horrific act. Maybe there IS a big secret behind all of this, an unusual but possible scenario that could be the 'truth' behind what happened."

Defense attorneys use this exact same method of cherry-picking pieces of "evidence" and stringing them together to create a story of "what may have happened";  you start thinking, "Hmm....maybe there IS something that the prosecution is hiding from us...maybe the defendent is being railroaded....maybe this is why there are some pieces  of "evidence" which don't make sense, which the prosecution is misleading us about...maybe the defendent is innocent." This is exactly what the attorneys for Casey Anthony and O.J. Simpson did and it worked. Even though the evidence was overwhelming and painted a pretty complete picture of what actually happened and the motive was quite clear when all the evidence was pulled together, the attorneys found this piece of "evidence" and that piece of "evidence" which they concocted a story about, sowed seeds of doubt in an untrained jury's mind, and that was all that was needed to make them believe something else might have happened indeed, a shadow of doubt then clouded their judgment.

Same with Sandy Hook. With hours and hours of searching and analyzing, people have come up with "really interesting stuff" that they have compiled into a huge plot fulled of twists and turns and amazing scenarios. The narrative is that the US government actually staged a fake mass murder, that no children actually died, that those who supposedly died are actually alive and well, that every one of the parents and children and witnesses seen on television are hired actors and actresses. There are videos showing the parents smiling and laughing right after the deaths of their children, the children who died are seen again in more recent photos and videos, the crime scene does not look proper, there are many inconsistenies in police and media statements, and on and on.

It IS all quite fascinating and captivating, but there are very tell-tale signs which help us understand that the theory of a staged government op is something conjured up in overactive imaginations - much like the ones conjured up by defense attorneys to confuse the jurors - and not a proper analysis of the case. We see the same thing happening in the Madeleine McCann case ( although, in that case, I do find there is no evidence of abduction and the parents are involved in Maddie's disappearance); a group of well-meaning people have overanalyzed the case to the point of an ever more deep and wide conspiracy of actors and actions...that does not actually represent what likely happened.

In real life, crimes are rarely that clever or complicated because they a) don't have to be, and b) the criminals aren't all that smart, and c) they don't usually have that much time to waste, and d) complicated stuff actually leads more often to getting caught because there are more parts of the crime to screw up and more people involved which  means more people who have to stay quiet.

Quantico is fiction because if that many young recruits have a secret, this means the FBI has no vetting process. This means a whole bunch of people have to be incredibly clever to cover up their secrets and get into the FBI and then continue covering up their secrets and participate in some very complex crimes. The complexity of the crimes requires a major mastermind, totally competent players, all the evidence being difficult to analyze, and all the dominos to fall exactly at the right time with none going askew. That this can hold water for an entire season requires us to ignore major plot holes and suspend our disbelief week after week after week. Even fiction has a hard time making such massive conspiratorial plots work; in real life such plots are pretty much nonexistant simply because they don't work or make sense.

The theory that Sandy Hook is a government operation requires that an entire fake school be constructed, that actors and actresses of all ages be hired to play the parts of future dead people and never be seen alive again, never talk...what? The fake crime scene must be kept hidden from all local law enforcement and the press, forever. None of this is plausible and what is more telling, none of this makes sense. The US has enough real mass murders with guns to do the job of showing citizens the dangers of gun availability that such a staged government op is totally unnecessary. Furthermore, if the US government thought it was this important to make a point about gun ownership, they could simply hire people (yes, that is another theory) to go in and kill a bunch of kids and teachers for the good of the country.

Three of the biggest flags that a theory about a crime is extremely unlikely is that the theory requires a mountain of questionable evidence, too many players involved who need to keep quiet, and a motive that is a huge deep, dark secret.

In the Madeleine McCann case, the evidence points to an overdose of the young child that led to her death in the apartment on the evening of May 3, 2007, panic by the parents, and the removal and disposal of her body, likely by the father of the victim. The parents statements are conflicting, the dogs hit on cadaver and blood in the apartment and rental car, and there is zero evidence of a stranger entering the apartment. There is a possibility that one or two of the friends know what happened and have remained quiet. That's it.

But, over time, the case has theories that grow more and more convoluted. More and more people are involved in some dastardly crime, the child was dead days before it was reported requiring forged daycare documents, photos being photoshopped, a whole gaggle of people carrying around a fake Madeleine and staging a complicated crime, yet staging the crime so badly that they become suspects! I long ago stopped looking at the massive pile of "evidence" that supposedly supports such a complicated and convoluted crime theory of what happened to Madeleine McCann.

In reality, either criminals plan a crime that is as easy as possible to get away with or people become criminals because they commit a crime due to carelessness and then desperately try to cover it up. Sometimes luck, the weather, other people screw up enough of the crime scene to make "evidence" that isn't really part of the original crime or confuses the crime scene. This is the stuff that causes police detectives to follow wrong leads and ignore the right suspects, this is what allows defense attorneys to create an alternative scenario to win over the jury and free their client, and this is what inspires people to create conspiracy theories and complicated plots about crimes that then grow bigger and bigger and bigger to the point of ludicrosy.

The FBI instructor in "Quantico" stated, "Evidence can lie." No, evidence doesn't lie, but evidence and stuff that looks to some like evidence can be misunderstood and this is what turns a simple real life crime into a tale of fiction that any network executive would love to put on screen.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

November 5, 2016

Why the "Perfect Crime" is Becoming Easier, not Harder

The Alligators Ate Her, so Ha Ha!

One would think with the advances in science these days - better DNA analysis, greater analysis of all physical evidence, the ability to track phones and discover Internet search history - all of these things would mean a case is easier to prosecute and to see a murderer put away for good.

And, yet, in my opinion, science is actually turning out to be a bit of a disaster for seeing justice done; while more cases are solved and closed (via DNA matches), less of these are actually being successfully prosecuted. Did I just contradict myself? No, let me explain further.

Solving a case simply means you are sure enough who did it that you don't need to investigate further.                   If you have enough evidence, you can go to prosecution. But, sometimes, the case is simply closed administratively because the suspect is dead. Other times, cases are called solved without actually proving who did it, they are solved because the investigators believe or claim to believe they know who did it (by way of circumstantial evidence or limited physical evidence) and the case is closed administratively. Sometimes, someone is simply railroaded because it is easy to get a jury to believe he did it or someone simply gets the label of perp in an administratively closed case because it is believable and comforting to the family and citizens and increases the closure rate for the police department. Doing so also gets the family, press, and community of their backs. Often crimes linked without true proof are glommed on to serial killers who are already serving time and it isn't a stretch to think they committed yet another crime even if it is never actually proven.

So, while added scientific evidence can close cases, some properly and some questionably, does science really help in the courtroom? I don't believe so...I think science and TV CSI shows along with lay juries and squirrelly defense attorneys and their bought experts combine to make it nigh impossible to convict these days especially since a good portion of crimes still just don't have strong physical evidence; circumstantial evidence must take the criminal down. Once upon a time, it was almost always circumstantial evidence that brought a guilty verdict but now juries overwhelmingly mistrust even solid circumstantial evidence;, they want solid proof that the party is guilty, incontrovertible proof that doesn't allow for a smidgeon of a doubt, no matter how minuscule and ridiculous  that doubt might be. Juries don't have faith in their own ability to determine guilt by the totality of thee evidence; they want science to do the determination for them and, oftentimes, that level of physical proof does not exist. The prosecutor doesn't want to wreck his win rate (a politically bad move) by taking anything but slam dunks to court so we THINK the system works because the citizens are unaware of how many cases are shoved under the carpet and forgotten over time. Most of the time when tough cases (well, tough in terms of getting lay juries to convict) go to court, it is because the press has put so much pressure on the police

A good example of prosecuis when Robert Durst was found not guilty of the murder of his neighbor, Morris Black. Mind you, he confessed to pulling the trigger, confessed to killing Black. He admitted to shooting Black with his own gun in his own apartment. He confessed to chopping up Black's body and getting rid of the parts and cleaning up the apartment. While many parts were found (and some showed signs of severe bruising indicating the victim was beaten), the head with the location of the bullet hole was hidden well enough to never locate. Durst never told police where the head was. Durst had a motive (stealing Black's identity along with other possible motives) and following the crime, he went on the run. If that isn't a solid circumstantial case, I don't know what is. The jury let him off though because they accepted Durst's explanation (created, I am sure, of his lawyer) that he shot Black in self-defense when Black (after somehow getting into his apartment and locating his gun) came at him with the weapon. Durst claims he grabbed the weapon, and in the struggle, shot Black. And because the jury did not have physical 100% absolute proof this did not happen, Durst walked.

Casey Anthony also walked because the jury was willing to accept a ridiculous alternative theory conjured up by her attorney. OJ Simpson walked, I guess, because there wasn't a videotape of the crime. Now, mind you, there are some people who get convicted by juries based on nearly zero evidence but these are scapegoats selected because it is pretty obvious the jury won't like these defendants and the prosecutor is quite sure they would be happy to convict him. But, if there is a chance the jury will feel the slightest bit sorry for the defendant, a circumstantial case is likely to go down in only because too much science has made juries not trust circumstantial evidence (and the lawyers  and experts who present it).

There never has really been such a thing as a perfect crime, just a good-enough crime that won't be closed in court. Serial killers get away with most of their crimes simply because they are strangers and the police have no idea who to connect to the evidence. Bodies that disappear rarely have justice meted out to the one that turned them into just a body because the jury almost always has to have proof that the person is dead. Elizabeth Johnson, in spite of the fact she told her estranged husband she killed their baby and he hasn't been seen in six years, only got a short sentence for false imprisonment (interfering with custody) and she is already out of prison. But, since she also claimed she gave the baby away to a stranger in the park, the jury thought the less horrible of her claims might be true and didn't convict her of homicide.

Killers now know that if you can hide enough of the evidence well enough (especially a body), you won't need to have committed a perfect crime because a good-enough crime will have the jury rule, "Not guilty."


Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

March 24, 2015

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: AIDS prevents Solving of Murders

There is one odd side effect of AIDS awareness that few people are aware exists. Some rapists and serial killers are terrified of becoming HIV positive and so they use condoms in the commission of their crimes. They may not actually be using condoms to thwart identification by law enforcement or to prevent the linkage of crimes, but simply because they don’t want to get a disease. How about that for getting the message across about safe sex?Yes, while serial killers don’t mind taking the lives of others, most have a real aversion to losing their own. Consequently, they don’t take on victims that will fight back, they avoid death penalty states, and some wear condoms to protect themselves from contracting HIV. Of course, some attack children and those they consider possible innocents, but, if they can’t get those victims, a condom will do.

The number of serial homicide cases without semen evidence is on the rise. While the missing semen may be due to the inability of the killer to function sexually or that he has reach such a level of experience that he is careful not to leave DNA, we shouldn’t jump to that conclusion. It may just be that he is a health nut.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown