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

Determining Motive in the Las Vegas Mass Murder

Note: This post will not include names or photos or links in order to not give more fame to the killer.

Definition: The TRUE "Motive" in the case of mass murder is always the same; revenge, power and control, and recognition. Media attention is one of the top reasons for mass murder as the perpetrators love the massive infamy that they are given for their crimes. However, there is a SECONDARY "Motive" which I am looking at here and that is what excuse/justification has this particular mass murderer used for his particular crime. There IS an importance to knowing this as is true with other heinous crimes - gang killings and terrorism - because there can be a promoted ideology that inspires the psychopath to act out and choose specific crimes. This is why we worry about radicalization connected to religious or political organizations and to gangs. Psychopaths will still be psychopaths and may be violent without outside encouragement, but radical ideology - as is true with our excessive sensationalistic media - can be a strong factor in a psychopath choosing a particular road to go down. Just like advertising has an effect on prospective buyers (that is why companies spend so much money and time promoting a product), ideology can also permeate the thinking of an individual when it is very excessive and persuasive.

---------------------

Many people are wondering why there is no motive yet discovered for the recent horrific mass murder and this is inspiring many theories, some fairly logical, some pretty off-the-wall. Mostly, they fall into these groups:

1) Crazy gun-toting white alt-right male proving that white males are the Number One terrorists in the world

2) Typical suicidal mass murderer with some recent disaster in his life who is getting back at society which he feels is responsible for his failure

3) Leftist/Antifa radical setting off the revolution 

4) False flag patsy designed to tear apart the country

5) Isis terrorist who was radicalized through his companion and the Philippines

6) Normal guy who went nuts due to a brain tumor or recent use of Valium

Okay, lots of possibilities. Let me knock out the ones that make no sense.

6) This guy has all the hallmarks of lifelong psychopathy and he wasn't just a normal guy until a few days before he slaughtered five dozen people. He planned this mass murder for a long time. No brain tumor or drugs made him lose his mind.

5) Isis radicalization. First of all, his companion is a Catholic, not a Muslim. Secondly, there is nothing that rings of any Isis connection in his past behaviors or communications. Yes, he dropped into the Philippines, but his girlfriend was from there, so big deal. I have photos of me wearing hijab in Egypt but that doesn't make me connected to a terrorist organization. I would be very surprised if radical Islamic links are found.

4). Just no. I am not even going to argue this because there is no evidence of some Deep State stuff going on here.

.

Which leaves us with 1), 2), and 3). 

Either he is just a typical mass murderer whose life was going down the toilet so he decided to get his  big revenge and have his day in the sun and all the infamy from the media that goes with it....

....or he had a political motive...

...or both.

So, we need to look at his life and what has been happening.

A) We know he is a psychopath and has always been one. Psychopaths can make up reasons for doing things for their own amusement, so he could simply commit the mass murder for the fun and thrill or he could do develop a political motive for the crime (a la McVeigh) to justify his actions. McVeigh really WASN'T very political, but he found a cool story in a book about attacking the government and he decided this would be exciting to act out. Psychopaths don't actually give THAT much of a shit about politics but they may use it for their own peculiar ideation to gain power and control.

B) So far, there is little in this psychopath's life that show any big change as far as monetary loss or girlfriend loss. The ONLY change we see, so far, is a stockpiling of weapons that began one year ago. 

What set him off one year ago?

C) Venue. He chose to target a largely white, conservative, Republican group of people. This was not a spur of the moment choice. He could have chosen many other venues to annihilate a large number of people. Interestingly, the media is not discussing his choice of victims. But, he chose those victims for one of two reasons, 1) convenience and familiarity - this is common for mass murderers, or 2) political reasons. Actually, it is possibly he could have chosen the venue for both those reasons. At this point in time we do not know the answer.

D) His politics. We have not heard that he has any political interest. In some sense, this could be true. He is a psychopath who only gives a crap about himself, so it is not unbelievable that he could care less about politics. It is true that his family members, from what I can determine from interviews and their Facebook pages, are pretty bland about politics. There are NO strong political comments from anyone which is pretty amazing in these times. If you look at my Facebook friends, you will see many people outspoken about politics of all sorts. The only little bit of politics I see in the relatives is a slight lean to the left with a pussy hat on the girlfriend of the nephew. Now, what is a bit more interesting is that the killer's girlfriend was married for over two decades to a fellow who was quite  to the left. This, of course, doesn't mean she is, but it is interesting. We will have to wait to see if the shooter has any political leanings at all. One other thing which possibly supports a political ideation is the age of this mass murderer. Most killers of this kind are either really young (school shooters) or middle age (lost job/wife shooters), but almost none are in their sixties. Sometimes, older people get crotchety about politics (go sit in a senior center and you will see what I mean) and even psychopaths can get adamant in their later years about what is wrong with our country. If there is any political motive behind this crime, I would find it hard to believe that the shooter didn't at least grumble to people at some point in time.

E) But, there are three things put together which might mean something. He started collecting a huge  amount of weapons at election time last year, he shot conservative white people, and it is the 100-year anniversary of the October Revolution of the Bolsheviks, know as Red October. Coincidence? Perhaps.

So, where are we with motive? I am not sure I can answer that. This is what the investigation will at some point determine, I certainly hope. It would be very unlikely there are zero clues although we are seeming to be told that today. Most of the time it doesn't really matter what the so-called motive of a murdering psychopath is because it is usually only really important to him, but with the festering civil war in this country and increasing hatred and intolerance, I would like to know if this massacre is another blow to a civil society. If it is, it is a call to all citizens and to the media that we need to start behaving like intelligent adults, able to respect differences of opinions, and to not see everything in black and white when it comes to race and politics. We need to grow up and start acting like civilized human beings and not savage idiots. While attacking each other with words is probably sufficient for many people, adding violence can become the method of communication for those with sicker mentalities. If we don't want to be like some countries in this world with terrorist acts being a hazard of daily life, we need to get our act together.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
October 5, 2017

Why I am a Nationalist

I have always refused to discuss politics but this one issue has been nagging at me because it seems to be so misunderstood and I want to provide my own take of the situation. Many people seem to think because I travel a lot, have a great love for certain other countries (especially India) and because I would consider spending the winter in a number of places in the world (India, Mexico, Nicaragua, etc.) and because I would even consider living in another country, perhaps, for the rest of my life, that I must be totally into multiculturalism and a blurring of borders.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I am a strong nationalist, I want strong borders, and I want a strong American culture. Shocked? How could this be? Pat Brown? Didn't you marry a Jamaican, don't you have a closet full of Indian clothing and are a huge fan of Bollywood, aren't you learning Hindi and Spanish, haven't you been to Mexico five times and are planning a sixth trip in October? Didn't I see you in hijab in Egypt? WTF?

I will tell you why I want the United States to be the United States: because I want India to be India and I want Jamaica to be Jamaica and I want Mexico to be Mexico and Egypt to be Egypt. I visit these countries BECAUSE they are countries that are different from my own, because they are unique - with their own languages and culture - because they are NOT The United States of America. I want them to protect their way of life; I don't want to see Mexico overrun with Americans buying up land and refusing to learn Spanish (which is already happening and is pretty repulsive). I believe anyone moving to another country and culture has a duty to become part of it and, if one is not willing to do that, please stay where you are.

My father moved to the United States from Germany. He learned to speak English and did so fluently for the rest of his life. He married an American and raised three children to be Americans. He always considered himself an American with a German background. And here is what is important. He didn't considered himself a German-American, putting the German first. He considered himself an American with a German history. Hence, he acted as an American with a few private German observances: we had German pancakes on occasion, he made snitzel now and then, we had German Christmas cookies and marzipan at holiday time. Sometimes he spoke German with his mother and when all the relatives who were Americans with a German heritage got together, there were sometimes rememberances of the past, of the home they were born in and lived for a period of their lives.

My ex-husband moved to the US when he was fifteen. He and all of his brothers and sisters became US citizens. All of them act like Americans albeit with a bit of an accent (the oldest two), a whole lot of Jamaican food made in their homes, and reggae music that they play in their cars. All of them have melted into American society; they don't run around wearing dreads and driving cars with Jamaican flags stuck on them. They raised their children to be Americans, not separatists with a hatred for the country they were born in. They love the United States and so do their children.

If I move to India or Mexico and become a citizen, guess what I will do? I will speak Hindi (if I am in the northern part of India) or whatever language is the language of the area of India I live or I will speak Spanish if I live in Mexico. I will wear the clothes that people around me wear and I will enjoy the music they play and I will eat the food they eat. I will care about the country that I am living in. I will become an Indian with a United States heritage or a Mexican with a United States heritage. In my home, I may enjoy some American pastimes, music, and food, and I may have some friends from the US I enjoy spending time with because of our shared past, but I won't hang with them exclusively and refuse to bother with my new fellow countrymen; I won't parade down the street with an American flag and hate on the country I have moved to.

If I move to Mexico, I wouldn't want to see a bunch of drug-using homeless Americans coming across the border in droves, taking jobs from Mexicans,  and bringing American style crime and behaviors to the country, overwhelming their culture and resources. And, guess what? I don't want illegal Mexicans coming across the border in droves and extending their country into ours. I don't mind legal immigrants who share with us the culture of their land of birth (restaurants, music, books, celebrations, etc) but I don't want to find myself in a town where I, an American born citizen, am unwelcome and poorly treated because my new neighbors don't like the people or culture they have invaded.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to have your own identity as an individual or as a country. Change will always happen but it should be the kind of change that happens slowly over time and becomes the new normal. But, if one allows uncontrolled immigration or allows massive numbers of illegal immigrants to flood the country, you will have a huge collection of people who are not the least bit interested in become a true citizen of that country and they will not adapt to the culture and leave the majority of theirs behind. It is the duty of a country to protect its way of life and safety of its citizens and this is what a smart government does when it works to protect its borders and set reasonable immigration policies.

A number of European countries are in trouble because they allowed uncontrolled immigration of young Muslim men into their country who have failed to assimilate and appreciate the country they are presently living in. They have brought cultural values in conflict with their new homeland and gathered together in intense subcultures where they are cultivating hatred against the citizens around them.

In the US, we have not seen this problem with Hindu immigrants from India because they have adapted to their new country and their values are similar enough not to set them in conflict with their nonHindu neighbors. In the past, a slow trickle of fairly educated Muslims from relatively open Muslim societies into our country has also allowed for a reasonable assimilation, but the recent increase in Muslims from countries who have radical Muslim governments and cultures, young men not escaping from a world they disagree with, but young men seeking financial refuge and also bringing an extremely conservative Islamic culture with them, one which does not allow them to coexist well with a modern America, this influx is creating a dangerous powder keg which will one day explode as it has in Europe. We have enough trouble with disaffected all-American youth choosing to commit mass murders for the attention they get in the media and the thrill of making a name for themselves, so we sure don't need to add yet more young people who are disaffected due to homelands in chaos, a difficult transition to a new country, and a mindset and culture that do not meld well with the society we have in the United States; this leads to a whole other level of violence via mass murder and terrorism.

Our earlier limited immigration of Mexicans and Central Americans also allowed for these new arrivals to learn English and become part of North America. However, the excess flood over our borders of people fleeing economic hardship and political and drug violence is generating large communities of Spanish only residents and an increase in violent gangs and cartel activities. We need to stop this massive influx and work to regulate who comes in and how many come in at rates which allow new immigrants to be a boon to our country and not a detriment.

We ARE a country of immigrants and growth and I welcome people from all places and all religions as long as they are coming here to become Americans, proud Americans, loving Americans - future citizens who will stand up for our way of life because this is the country they want to be a part of, not a country they want to change or destroy.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
June 13, 2016

MO, not Motive is the Key to Labeling the Murder of Multiple Victims and the Key to Stopping These Crimes

The term "motive" has caused a lot of problems in crime solving, court cases, and in the public arena of understanding crime.

First, let me define "motive" properly. Motive is the reason someone THINKS he he has committed a crime or someone else THINKS he has has committed a crime. In reality, there is often little evidence that the claimed "motive" is the true reason for the crime and, in reality, it really doesn't matter a damn to the dead people or their families.

The problem with the definition of "motive" is that humans often do not understand themselves, others, or the complexity of why we do things and that we might claim one motive when another is totally the reason for our action or, as is often true, there are multiple motives for any action and focusing on just one is not giving the full story.

Take a action which is a non-crime: why does Pat Brown go on television? Is her motive the one she gives - a desire to educate the public about crime and criminals - or is it the motive some others claim is the truth - that Pat Brown is a narcissist who likes the limelight? Or that she wants to advertise her books? That she wants to make money? That she likes to ride in limos to the studio? Or that she likes the free hairstyle and makeup? Is she seeking truth or fame? Or, is it possible that she has multiple motives, some possibly stronger than others, that make up her choice to appear on television?

And killers? How do we KNOW their motive? Are they angry at the person they kill? Or was it just fun? Or did they want notoriety? Or was it a robbery gone bad? Or a supposed hate crime? If a killer says he shot a bunch of people down because they were African-American is this necessarily the truth? Or did he know he would get more publicity for saying so? Or the support of racists while in prison? Or did it just sound good after his plan to shoot up the white church next door fell through because the church went on a picnic and the black church next door was just a back up plan?

If a Muslim mass murderer yells "Allahu Akbar" does this mean the motive for his killing is truly to kill nonMuslims? Or is he just pissed off at his workmates? Or mad that his wife left him? Or does he simply want to justify in his own mind his desire to kill a lot of people and attain media fame?

Truth is, searching for an absolute motive is a waste of time. What IS important is determining how the crime was committed, who supported the killer (if anyone) and what we need to do to stop it from happening again. So far, there are a number of issues we need to address:

In a particular crime, we need to determine MO (modus operandi), how he did it.

1) Did he commit the crime all on his own? Then it is mass murder and we need to address the cause of mass murder in general and find any encouragers of the crime (the media) and stop them.

2) Did he commit the crime with the help of an organized terrorist cell? Then it is terrorism and we need to address the cause of terrorism in general and find any accomplices to the crime (other terrorists) and stop them.

Then we need to examine more deeply:

1) The increase of psychopathy
2) The increase of mass murder
3) The increase of terrorist attacks

There are real factors behind the increase of these three things: an environment that encourages the development of psychopathy, an environment that encourages the choice of mass murder as a tool of revenge and self-fulfillment, and an environment that encourages the choice of terrorist attacks to make a political statement.

These three factors should cause us to focus on how we raise our children, why we allow the media to make mass murderers famous, and how to stop the spread of radical Islam, especially within our own country (and that could be the US, the U.K., Malaysia, Nigeria, etc.)

While we are wasting time caring about some psychopath's excuse for why he committed his heinous crime, we could be using our time to stop these crimes from happening.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
June 12 2016

My Appearance on CNN: What it Means and What it Doesn't

My appearance on CNN's New Day on early Sunday morning, November 29, has gotten a lot of publicity, especially from those on the political right, crowing that I stuck it to CNN and their "leftist agenda." (I believe if the same thing happened on FOX - which it well could - then the political left would be cheering what happened). I even made "video of the day" on BillOReilly.com with the title, "Crime Expert Hammers CNN....on CNN." Newsbusters ran a very thorough piece titled, "Crime Expert Rips CNN on Air for Dishonering Agreement not to Discuss Colorado Shooter." Another blog' title was "Furious guest tears into CNN, scolding them on how they tricked her to get on air - before they cut her off."

While I appreciate the blog writers that have complimented me for my principled stand on no notoriety for mass murderers and my willingness to hold my ground on CNN when the interview ended up going south and I am happy that what I said about the media and mass murder has gotten a wider audience, I am saddened by the level of vitriol that has been spewed out in the wake of my interview and how few people actually understand what happened on my CNN segment and what the outcome of this debacle may well be.

First of all, I was NOT tricked, NOR was there any "bait and switch" going on. CNN did not have me come on with the intent of doing anything underhanded. I did not accuse them of lying and getting me on under false pretenses. They simply wanted me to come on and discuss the mass murderer, his motives and the ongoing investigation into his case. They thought if they didn't show a photo of the killer or mention his name during my segment, they had done their part in what I asked. They were careless, not malicious. I am not going to sue them for slander, as some have suggested, for making a mistake; we need to focus on what is really important which is improving media's methods of reporting on mass murder.

What happened on CNN is pretty much standard in the industry; we have quite a bit of hurried and shoddy reporting on air and in print media partly because of the desire to entertain rather than inform the public. I have long refused to do print interviews, even for major newspapers, because the reporters are poorly educated and trained, have a deadline to make which gives them far too little time to do any proper research, and they often misquote me and quote me out of context, again, not because they are malicious or wishing to misrepresent me, but because they are in a hurry and are careless. Likewise, the well-meaning commentary on my CNN appearance is also out-of-context, not entirely accurate, and not quite what I wish was learned from my interview.

Much of reporting these days is a game of telephone; one media outlet publishes or airs something and other media organizations then repeat what they said without regard to the truthfullness of the original claim. TV reporters run about trying to be the first to catch a good sound bite or any sound bite as time to air the story nears. Calls are put out to experts and they are rushed down to the studio or quickly put on Skype; many times, preinterviews are not done and the network simply relies on the expert to say something interesting enough on air; they are not really being concerned that the content is all that fabulous -they need to fill time in this 24/7 news world. If they can fill time with more "vibrant" commentators and guests, all the better; unfortunately, quality of material is not as important as keeping the audience entertained.

Saturday night, a CNN booker contacted me - someone I have worked with before and who is very nice; she asked me to come on the show in the morning. I told her my stance on mass murderer commentary - explained clearly that I would not go on any show that used the name of the killer during my segment or showed his photo; I also would not discuss his story. I told her I will not talk about individual mass murderers as this gives them the infamy they seek; I told her I would only talk about mass murder, in general, and the role of media in the increase of mass murder in particular. She  told be that would be fine and booked my car. I was quite surprised because when I have given that statement to the networks over the last three years, the answer has always been, "Thanks, Pat! We will call you another time!" Because I was a bit suspicious about being booked under my requirements, I sent a second email asking if she was sure that the name of the killer would not be on my segment nor any photo of him. She wrote back that this would not happen. I spent the night waiting to hear that I had been cancelled because I thought someone would finally realize that I was actually going to talk about the media's role in the increase in mass murder.

The phone never rang. The car showed up. I was driven to the studio and seated and miked. At this point I was really happy that I finally had a network that was willing to broach the subject of media responsibility; I thought that my three years of taking a stand and losing a good portion of my on air work would pay off, that some good was finally going to come of it. I wasn't the only one out in the world taking this stand but I hoped that doing so as a professional in the crime field and as a media commentator would have some impact in the fight to stop givng notoriety to mass murderers and inspiring future mass murderers.

My interview came right after a segment that showed the killer's photo, used his name, and told his story. That made me a bit uncomfortable but I figured I hadn't actually said I should be in a segment totally removed from the story; my fault. Then, when the host came to me, she did not start by asking me about media reporting of mass murder but went straight to an interview of a neighbor and then came to me to ask specifically about the killer's behaviors. True, during that taped interview and her questions to me the killer's name was not used, but that clearly skirted the entire issue of not giving the killer publicity; excluding his name but talking about someone already named is a rather childish version of na-na-na-na we didn't use his name; technically, CNN was abiding by my request, but clearly this was only in a technical sense. I pointed out to the host that I had agreed to come on only if no name, no photo, and no conversation about an individual killer transpired. I refused to engage in further discussion of the killer, and managed to make my points about the media and its handling of mass murder, that the media is unquestionably responsible for contributing to the increase in mass murder.

I was thanked for my time and I thanked the host in return for having me on. CNN followed up by trying to do damage control and claimed they had not reneged on their agreement with me and they read from my email to CNN about not using the name of the killer or showing his photo. CNN claimed they had honored our agreement. Of course, this was not true. The killer's name was on screen under my face for nearly a full minute and our agreement to not discuss the individual killer was violated.

However, I was NOT "furious" as the one blogger claimed. Frustrated and saddened, yes, but not enraged at CNN for "tricking" me. Because this is not what happened. What happened was the carelessness I have just written of, carelessness that is rampant in ALL the world of media, left-wing AND right-wing media, big and small. The booker didn't totally take in what I was saying and didn't really hear what I wasn't willing to talk about and she didn't pass on clearly what we had agreed upon because it didn't register with her WHAT we had agreed upon. The host was blindsided, by her own team, because she most likely was only told not to use the killer's name during the interview. She likely was stunned when I objected to the conversation and horrified when I started taking about media responsibility (that is a big no-no). She got flustered and didn't know how to handle it; she should have simply had a mature conversation with me on the topic and left it at that, but she likely knew it was a topic that was not supposed to be discussed and so she try to shut me down. At that point, CNN thought I made them look bad and tried to save their image. Unfortunately, in the hurry, again, they made a statment that was a falsehood, probably not even realizing that the name of the killer had been on the screen for a good portion of my interview.

CNN messed up. This is true. But, they didn't intend to abuse me or lie. They just were hurried and careless, like all the media is a good portion of the time. I think the same thing could have happened over at FOX or MSNBC; in fact, it HAS happened in one form or another. Mistakes were made; we went on. I don't know if I have burnt my bridge with CNN, but I hope not; I hope they realize that I was not at fault and take what happened in stride, as I have. While I have a lot of issues with the way media is handled these days, it doesn't mean I don't like many of the people I work with in the media. I, quite frankly, have been amazed that I have had such a long career on air considering I never held back from telling things as I have seen them.

In the wake of this CNN debacle, most of the publicity about the interview and most of the comments about it have to do with CNN as a news channel and not about the stand I have taken about not giving notariety to mass murders or about the need for media to change how it handles the reporting of mass murder. This is unfortunate. A fine opportunity for discussion about the topic was not only wasted on air but out in society.

My phone is not ringing of the hook from major media outlets scrambling for further discussion on media responsibilty. No one, from the right or left, seems to want to talk further on the matter. I hope something changes and I suddenly get a number of media requests to address the topic, but I am not holding my breath.

I believe one of the biggest problems we have in American today is the inability to have a civil and intelligent conversation without getting so easily bent of shape over differing views. We cannot solve our problems if we don't focus on the facts and instead scream and hurl insults at each other. We need to increase decorum and make it our duty to calmly seek answers. If we don't learn to do this, we are no better than a bunch of children squabbling on the playground and this is no way for grown people, American citizens to behave.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

November 30, 2015

Dear Media: When Will You Stop Encouraging Mass Murder?

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Dear Media,

Three years ago I took a stance against giving mass murderers fame by refusing to appear on any television or radio show that used the name or showed the face of any individual mass murderer. I have refused to talk about any individual mass murderer, to profile him, to give him any kind of notoriety because this is exactly why mass murderers commit their crimes. For three years, I have told each and every television and radio producer that I will not come on their show and talk about the mass murderer; I would only come on and talk about how we in the media must become responsible citizens and stop playing a major role in the increase in mass murder by giving these psychopaths the infamy they seek.

Today, a sheriff and a marine and a guest on one television news show came out and said what I have been saying for far too long; that the name of the mass murderer should not be spoken and that we should be done with giving glory to these cockroaches. Today was the first glimmer of hope I have had that maybe, just maybe, the public and the media are starting to understand that the media is encouraging mass murder, inspiring the next mass murderer to commit a heinous crime, and the media pushing sensationalistic news about the killer is why innocent people are getting murdered.

When the media gives 24/7 attention to the mass murderer, they have blood on their hands, the blood of all those dead victims the mass murderer exterminated just to get on national television. When the media shows the face of the killer, gives his name over and over, discusses his supposed motive, and dwells on every detail of his life, we in the media are aiding and abetting mass murderers in their quest for fame.

Please, members of the media, let's end the fascination with mass murderers. Let's lower the numbers of mass murders and the number of victims by ending the attention we give these evil beings who are mowing down innocents just because we in the media want to get high ratings for drawing in the viewers with our unending discussion of these psychopathic killers.

Please, I beg you all in the media, please stop encouraging mass murder, please.

BTW, not ONE American national television show has ever allowed me on to discuss the media's role in the increase in mass murder; not ONE of all the shows that have called me over the last three years to ask me to come on and and profile the mass murderer has been brave enough to let me speak out. To all my friends in the media, to all the producers and hosts I have worked with, please be the one to change this!

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

October 2, 2015

Understand Psychopaths or be Victimized by Them

From mass murderers to women helping felons to escape prison to people lying about their race, psychopaths all have something in common; the same motive for what they do. Since so few people understand psychopathy, few understand the true motivation behind their actions.

In just the span of a couple of weeks, three stories are being heavily debated in the news and on the Internet: why Joyce Mitchell helped two murderers escape prison, why Rachel Dolezal claimed she is black when she is actually white, and why a mass murderer would kill  a bunch of innocent folks attending church.

The three main answers people seem to want to settle on is 1) Mitchell fell in love with one of the prisoners and her emotions led her astray, 2) Rachel Dolezal so identified with her black adopted siblings, she felt as black as them, and 3) racism caused a young man to become a killer.

None of the above is actually true; the real answer is all three thought what they did was fun.

"What? Fun?" You exclaim in disbelief and hundreds of psychiatrists will roll their eyes and charge me with practicing mental health without a license or a clue. They will claim I am tossing out some one-size-fits-all motive and ignoring all the complicated psychological issues that cause behavior.

Let me explain. Yes, all three of these human beings have complicated issues that CAUSED them to become psychopaths. From that point on, they are motivated by the thrill their behavior gives them. The love the attention they get through their manipulations, lies, and actions. They love the power and control they get from getting over on others. To put it simply, what they do is fun for them.

Mitchell wanted to play Bonnie to her Clydes. She had fun befriending dangerous men, having sex with them, fooling her husband, and then planning a masterful escape. Soon you will see her having fun manipulating people in prison or on the Internet through inmate dating sites or a Free Joyce Mitchell group of people who think she was the victim of manipulation by men.  Rachel Dolezal had fun convincing people of something that was not true, she had fun playing the victim, and now she is having fun on television. If people stopped giving credibility to Dolezal's claims, she would disappear.

All mass murderers find it fun to kill people, that is their real motive. They are not actually getting back at bullies, starting a race war, or killing for Allah; they are killing for fun and the thrill they get when they pull the trigger, and, more importantly, the thrill of becoming famous. It all is so much fun, so much more fun than being a normal person, telling the truth, and slogging away at a normal job and being just a regular Joe. If we recognized this, especially the media, then we would be adamant that the media stop giving glory and fame to mass murderers because that is exactly what they want. Stop their fun and you take away motive for their crime. We might still have some mass murderers who want the thrill of the moment when they drop a person, but, the bigger motivation of fame would be gone; we would see the numbers of mass murders decline substantially.

People find it difficult to accept that a person who commits horrific crimes is just a psychopath just having fun; it seems so incredibly shallow, so pointless, that an individual would kill or ruin peoples' lives on a whim. But, yes, that is exactly the point; psychopaths ARE shallow people; they don't really care much about anything or anyone. They may quote religion, but, in reality don't care all that much about it; they may state they are fighting some race war or fighting back against some group, but, in reality it isn't about any issue, it is only about them getting attention and the cheap thrill of power. They want to have fun and you are how they are going to get it. You are just fodder, meaningless fodder. Rachel Dolezal has had fun for years with her crimes of lies and deception and people continue to fall for her manipulations and so she is still having fun. Be on the watch for her reality show or her bestselling book! While we waste our time thinking there is something to figure out about Dolezal and race, she is just having fun hoodwinking us.

The other difficulty people have with accepting people are psychopaths is also accepting that there is nothing that one can do about it. You can't change a psychopath; they remain one for life. There is no therapy and, for psychiatrists, that is an income killer and an affront to the entire concept of helping people regain mental health. Kind of a buzz killer.

Anyone who has truly been the victim of a psychopath over a long period of time will be nodding their head at my words; they will totally get it, totally. But, for the rest of the population, psychopathy makes no sense, it cannot be, there must be a better explanation, be more complicated and more "fixable." It simply is too frustrating to think these zombielike people are among us and can strike out and hurt us at will and simply because they find it fun.

But, that's the way it is. All we can do is recognize it and do whatever we can to stop psychopaths from inflicting so much damage on us. But, our refusal to recognize psychopathy, especially the refusal of psychiatrists to recognize psychopathy, puts us all in harm's way and we need to open our eyes to the truth of this horrific personality disorder and deal with it. 

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Mass Murderer or Terrorist - An Important Distinction

This post comes with no pictures and no links. I simply want to get across the point that a mass murderer is different than a terrorist and we shouldn't confuse the labels.

Mass murderer - a disgruntled, angry psychopath or borderline personality disordered individual who hates everyone in the world and picks a group to target that a)  justifies his crime, b) is a fishbowl he feels comfortable committing the crime in,  and c) gets a lot of media publicity for himself.

Terrorist -  a disgruntled, angry psychopath or borderline personality disordered individual who is a) in the employ of a terrorist organization who selects the target for political reasons and the impact of the terrorist attack on the political issue, b) is sent on an assignment to kill, and c) gets a lot of media publicity for the cause.

Mislabeling mass murderers as terrorists encourages misdirected animosity between groups of people when the anger should be only targeted toward the individual and the development of psychopathy in society.

Examples of mass murder:

Oklahoma City - mass murderers 
Columbine - mass murderers
Virginia Tech - mass murderer
Fort Hood - mass murderer
Norway - mass murderer
Aurora, Colorado - mass murderer
Wisconsin Sikh temple - mass murderer


Examples of terrorism:

Ku Klux Klan - terrorism by Christian fanatics
9/11 - terrorism by Muslim fanatics
1985 bombing of Air India plane (Canada) -   terrorism by Sikh fanatics
2007 Ajmer Dargah blast  - terrorism believed to be enacted by Hindu fanatics


Let's put the proper label on the proper psychopath: it will help us not foment hatred for no reason and also help us understand what exact issues we should be focusing on to prevent future attacks. If we are dealing with mass murder, we need to focus on the development of psychopaths in middle class America and if we are dealing with terrorism we need to focus on where and why terrorists organizations are developing, how they are being funded, and how they are recruiting. For both types of killings, we need to know how to identify the individuals and their intent to kill before the crime is enacted and to develop the best methods to prevent and stop such killings.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

August 5, 2012

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Mass Murderer or Terrorist?

There is a new link to a blog making its way around the Internet which claims Pat Brown excuses criminality and is a big leftist.

This claim always make me laugh. I have no issues with people being liberal or conservative, or even far to the right or left. I may have a rousing discussion with them but I can still like a person with diametrically opposing views. I, myself, am a conservative, a constitutionalist, pro-Second Amendment, pro-carry, and pro-death penalty. The concept that I am a big liberal/anti-gun/soft on crime started in two places. Both came from the far right over the issues of gun control and terrorism. Some pro-gun folk on a particular site got all bent out of shape over a television commentary I did on men who kill their girlfriends. I pointed out that if you are a woman and you note these three things in your fellow, you might want to run the other way: a very controlling personality, an obsession with violence, and a massive gun collection. These pro-gun folks only paid attention to the last part and saw red; Pat Brown is saying all men with a gun collection are violent psychopaths who kill their wives and girlfriends.

Of course, this is not true. I know many men with gun collections, but they don't have continual violent ideation nor are they control freaks who push their women around. What is funnier is that I own two weapons and my children own weapons, more than one weapon each. I am pro-carry. But, for years, it has been claimed I am a big liberal who wants to take everyone's guns away!

The other far right group that decided I was a big leftist went nuts after I labeled the Ft. Hood Shooter, Nidal Malik Hasan, a mass murderer rather than a terrorist. One site claims that I refused to even clarify my position, that I have some nerve to not call him a terrorist, even though I detailed three times over in the video they posted of me on FOX news my exact definitions of a mass murderer and a terrorist and why I think Hasan is the former and not the latter. I will explain it here again so somewhere on the Internet it is clear what I really believe and why.

A terrorist is someone who works with a terrorist organization over a period of time, is bred to be a terrorist and instructed on what to do by the organization. Then, the terrorist carries out the terrorist attack on behalf of the terrorist organization and its ideology. Finally, the attack itself, although the terrorist might have psychopathological issues of his own, is committed in order to forward a political ideology and coerce a government or country into making concessions that benefit the group's agenda.

A mass murderer is psychopath who has issues in his own life and wants to do something that will show the world it should have paid more attention to him, that he is someone important, and now they will never forget him. They want to go out with a bang and make all the newspapers. They may create a political ideology to justify their big day but they have not been trained nor are they working in concert with a terrorist organization.

9/11 was a terrorist attack; this is clear. So are other terrorist attacks; for example, places that blow up in India and Egypt are terrorist attacks; Mumbai, Jaipur, Hyderabad, Delhi in India, and Sharm-el-Sheik and Luxor in Egypt. Most of the Indian attacks are over who should own Kashmir - Pakistan or India (or neither) - and are committed by members of Lashkar-i-Taiba (LET). Some of the attacks are over Bangladesh. Egypt has a variety of factions trying to force the government to act toward Israel or the US in the way that terrorist group wishes. They are all politically motivated and usually involve lengthy planning and groups of operatives. The 1983 bombing of the Marine Barracks in Beirut, Lebanon was a terrorist attack aimed at getting the United States to go home. It worked. The 2004 Madrid train bombings were carried out to influence the upcoming election and to get Spain to pull out of Iraq. It worked. Most of these terrorist attacks cited are radical Islamist groups, but not all terrorist attacks are committed by al-Qaeda or their cells or Islamic radicals. There are and have been terror groups in India (some are radical Hindus or Radical Christians), Sri Lanka, Africa, South America, Asia and elsewhere in the world where other political aims or religious aims are or were at play.

In the United States we have also been subject to terrorist attacks. Jose Padilla was convicted in 2005 of being an enemy combatant of Pakistan for trying to bring a "dirty bomb" into the country. The Virginia "Jihad" Network consisting of eleven men with ties to al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and Lashkar-i-Taiba was brought down in 2003. And in 2010, Faisal Shahzad was charged with attempting to blow up a bomb in Times Square in New York City. He had ties to the Pakistan Taliban from whom it is believed he received training.

These are just some of the attacks targeting the United States that are true terrorist attacks. I call these perpetrators "terrorists" because they are truly working with a terrorist group.

Now, we have a new issue on the horizon, what we call "homegrown" terrorists. These are usually psychopaths who join up with a terrorist network because they want to feel important; similar to someone joining a cult. I don't call Hasan a homegrown terrorist because he did not actually join a group and work with them.

Mass murderers just want their day in the sun and to take revenge on society, the society that didn't give them respect. The Columbine Mass Murders were committed by two psychopathic teenage boys who wanted to mow down the more popular kids, especially the girls who they didn't think would date them, and the wanted get their name in the papers. Cho of Virgina Tech fame had similar "Wannabe a Rockstar/Killer" ideation.

But, Oklahoma City Bomber, Timothy McVeigh, and Norwegian mass murderer, Anders Behring Breivik, were older and had achieved "midlife crisis" (the two major mass murder groups are teens who feel adult life offers nothing to live for and those who have become frustrated that they have not reached the level of success they wanted as adults and give up); these two men felt society had ignored them long enough. They developed a political ideology of White Superiority that propelled them to their big day in the sun and made them heroes for a cause (if only in their own minds). While they may have reached out on occasion to certain groups, gone to their websites, and read their books, they were not working with any terrorist cell. This was their big day and that big day was really about nothing but themselves. They were losers who wanted to become antiheroes and they succeeded.

Nidal Hasan didn't even work as hard as McVeigh or Breivik on any intricately developed ideology. He had moments of getting all radical Islamic when he was feeling down, but, in the end, he wanted to kill his workmates and get back at the Army he had served for half his life, the organization he felt didn't appreciate him enough. Yes, he reached out right before the mass murder to radical Islamists to give himself a better justification for his killing his fellow servicemen and he yelled "Allah Akhbar" before he pulled the trigger, but this does not him a terrorist make. He had the traits and behaviors of a mass murderer and if al-Qaeda is cheering and claiming he committed a terrorist act in the name of Allah, so be it; sometimes mass murdering psychopaths help out the terrorists.

Why do I insist on the importance between this distinction of mass murderer and terrorist? Certainly not, as this website claims, because I want to "excuse criminality" or that I want play down any radical Muslim connection to terrorist attacks. I have often labeled certain attacks terrorist attacks and if they are conducted by groups who adhere to a radical Islamic philosophy, I state this as well, and, I am hardly excusing criminality because I recommend the death penalty for either a mass murderer or a terrorist. My purpose in laying out the differences between the mass murderer and the terrorist is so that we know what to watch for and what traits and behaviors to recognize, so we can intervene before the terrorist or mass murderer strikes. This is the kind of work I do in anti-terrorism training funded by Homeland Security and TSA and in my psychopathology training for law enforcement.

Psychopathy, mass murder, and terrorism are increasing in our world. If we cannot find a way to talk about these subjects rationally, we will not be able to address and prevent these mass homicides from occurring.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiing Topic of the Day: Mass Murderer or Terrorist?

I recently was a guest of FOX and Friends and The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer and when I made the statement that Fort Hood shooter Major Nidal Malik Hasan was not a terrorist, but a psychopathic mass murderer in midlife crisis, I got some angry email.

Ms. Brown...I just saw your appearance on Fox an Friends....and was blown away at your disregard that Islam played no part in this massacre.Have you done even a 5 minute search on this person? Wake up lady. Do a little research before you make a fool of yourself on national TV again.

Dorothy Rabinowitz woud agree with this emailer that I am either a fool or I am in fear of being politically incorrect.

To those not terrorized by fear of offending Muslim sensitivities, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's motive was instantly clear: It was an act of terrorism by a man with a record of expressing virulent, anti-American, pro-jihadist sentiments. All were conspicuous signs of danger his Army superiors chose to ignore.

But I will stand my ground and I hope, for the sake of true understanding people will understand my thinking. Anyone who has seen me speak on television or has read my blogs will know I have never worried about being politically correct. I aim to speak the truth as I see it.

First of all, we must define "terrorist." Under the United States Law Code: the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents; the term “terrorist group” means any group, or which has significant subgroups which practice, international terrorism.

By this definition, Hasan does not even begin to qualify as a terrorist.

1) He was not a member of a terrorist group. Yes, he may have listened to what a terrorist group had to say, he may have been in the vicinity of another who might have been a member of a terrorist group, and he may have emailed a terrorist group. He might have even chatted with terrorists on the Internet in a chat room. But, none of these behaviors make him a member of a terrorist group any more than a psychopath a church member because he has gone to a Sunday service a few times and chatted with a pastor online.

2) He was not carrying out any mission organized by a terrorist group. He was a lone gunman.

3) He was not politically motivated. "What?" you say? The guy was spouting Islamic jihadist garbage before and during the shooting. This is very true but that what he says is not necessarily his motive. Like all midlife crisis psychopathic mass murderers, he must justify his rage at society for his failure; Hasan has decided to portray himself as a good Muslim conducting jihad and thereby casting himself as a hero and not a loser scumbag who kills his coworkers because he is ticked he is failing in his professional and personal life. He is no different than Jason Rodriguez, the man who attempted the mass murder of his coworkers in Orlando, Florida the following day; he was disgruntled and angry and wanted to show everyone he wasn't a weakling they could kick around any more.

I know what a terrorist attack looks like. My son was in Jaipur the very day the LeT (Pakistan's terrorist organization, Lashkar-e-Taiba) hit the tourist area with bombs attached to bicycles. Eighty people were killed. Thankfully, my son didn't listen to his mother who told him to go to that very area that day to sightsee before he started work the next day. Instead, he was watching videos in his room while the bombs blew up the city center.

I have traveled to India and been at the very spots that terrorists have hit. I was in Connought Place in Delhi, in front of the Taj Hotel in Mumbai, and in the shoppiing area in Hyderabad, all locations that were targeted by terrorist groups who successfully carried out their missions.. Each one was a concerted effort by a Islamic extremist terrorist organizations, either LeT out of Pakistan's Kashmir region or HuJI (Harkat ul-Jihad-al-Islami) out of Bangladesh.

Hasan belonged to no group. He may have self-radicalized himself in violent Islamic ideology but he still was not part of an organized terrorist cell. He was an angry man, who happened to be Muslim, who took out his bitterness on his fellow soldiers.

Now, was there a problem with failure on the army's part to identify Hasan as a threat? You bet there was. He was clearly decompensating, falling apart, being more and more angry and bizarre. His increasingly concerning rantings supporting suicide bombers and growing pro-Islamic jihadist sympathies should have been a huge warning sign that he might go off and do what he did. It was at this stage that fear of being politcally incorrect cost lives. The Army should have booted Hasan because he was a danger to his fellow soldiers whether or not he was a Muslim.

Clearly American needs to be vigilant in fighting terrorism and preventing and dismantling terrorist cells in this country. We need to do something about people entering our country who despise it and its people. We need to stop those of any religion who encourage and condone violence against our citizens. And if Major Hasan had been the member of a terrorist cell and been their "soldier" and not ours, I would not hesitate to state we had a Muslim perpetrating a terrorist attack against America.

But unless more information comes in linking this sorry excuse for a human being to a terrorist group, we still have a lone psychopath pretending he was a terrorist so he could get his day in the sun.