Starbucks: Guilty of Racial Profiling or Unfairly Targeted?

First of all, I boycott Starbucks all the time, not because of their treatment of customers but because I won't drink their overpriced burnt coffee and nothing else there is worth forking out the cash at the ridiculous prices they charge.

But, if you are actually a regular patron of Starbucks, should you get all boycotty over the Philly incident?

::sigh::I am so tired of the over-the-top reactions to local issues which blow-up into national race crises demanding us all to enter the race war so provoked by the media and certain political groups. And, before I go on to profile the Starbucks incident, let me state for the record that, yes, of course, any minority group suffers some level of discrimination and ostrasization because they simply are less integrated culturally into the larger group of people. As a minority in the area I live in, I can attest to some of those same problems myself (although, to a more recent degree and not over such an large expanse of time) and, sometimes one does indeed feel less welcome or left out or misunderstood. It is the way society works and one must deal with it and both groups, the majority and the minority, should do their best to make life good.  I love where I live, even though I am a minority (white in a heavily black county) and I take my status in stride and do my best to be a good citizen and not overreact to certain situations or attitudes.

One day I was walking around in a posh area of town, putting fliers in mailboxes in an attempt to find my lost cat. A black woman in a BMW pulled up next to me and asked what I was doing in the area! Why? Because I was a sloppily dressed white woman wandering about in a wealthy black part of town. I told her why and she took a flier and wished me good luck in finding my cat. I could have been all "you are a racist" about the incident but I figured she was concerned that I didn't look like a local resident and was only protecting her neighborhood from harm. Suppose she was right and I was casing the area for future burglaries and I jumped her and started punching her and she pulled a gun out and shot me,  hmmm, would we see a national news story here about racial profiling?

Anyway, to Starbucks. There are three possible versions of what happened here and we have to wait and see what the truth is. We need to find out who the three men involved actually were; the two black men sitting at the tables and the white man who claims to be the friend they were waiting for.

Version One: The most innocent/concerning version would be that two black actual real estate brokers were waiting for a third real estate broker in order to discuss business. They hadn't ordered because they were waiting for their party to arrive before their got their refreshments. While waiting, one needed to use the bathroom and when he attempted to do so, was stopped by the Starbucks' employee and told he could not due to the fact he was not a paying customer at that point. Returning to his seat, he continued to sit without purchasing any drink or snack and he and his friend were asked to leave if they were not going to buy anything. Maybe they said they were waiting for a friend or maybe they didn't, but Starbucks obviously felt they were just loitering which is against policy and asked them to leave. They refused. The police were called. The police asked them to leave. They refused. The police arrested them for trespassing. A white man then stepped in and said he was there and was going to buy them coffee but it was too late.

Was Starbucks wrong? I tend not to think so. First of all, we have no idea what that particular Starbucks has to deal with on a daily basis, how often they have drug users and dealers and homeless guys loitering in their restaurant, bothering people, shooting up drugs in the bathroom, selling drugs in the bathroom and even having sex in the bathroom. If you have to keep your establishment clean and safe, you HAVE to have rules and you HAVE to profile. The rules are simple at Starbucks and meant to prevent problems: one, you must be a paying customer if you want to use the toilets and you must be a paying customer if you want to hand around for any length of time.

These two men knew these rules and they did not abide by either of them. If the "friend they were meeting" was late, they could have gone ahead and ordered some coffee and drank it while they waited and then they also would have had the right to use the bathroom. After all, if they were really real estate brokers, they could have afforded the drinks. Also, they could have simply left the establishment and waited outside for their friend if they were unwilling to make a purchase while they were waiting.

You might say, yeah, but white guys don't get so scrutinized. We don't know that is true. A lot would depend on their behavior as well as how they were dressed. Sorry, but those two guys did not look like real estate brokers to me. Their hair and dress makes me question that. Maybe they are real estate brokers but they kind of looked a bit like bums so that could certainly have influenced the viewpoint of the Starbucks employees. Also, did they speak like professional men or like troublemakers?

If these really were two real estate brokers meeting another real estate broker, then it is my suggestion they follow the rules of the establishment and dress and act better. Believe me, when I have entered an establishment looking less-than-spiffy, I have gotten profiled as well. Once when I was in Costa Rica, I went to a local Taco Bell at midnight after an all-day long grueling drive involving floods, landslides, and mountain fog. Being a vegetarian, that Taco Bell (in a businessman's district, not a tourist area) had only a Cheesy Potato Taco (not even a bean burrito) as a vegetarian choice. I gave the guy a couple dollars and bought two of the little tacos and he told me to wait a minute. Then he came back and pushed a bag toward me and whispered "Here is a little extra food for you." Hah! He thought I was a homeless druggie because why else would a disheveled white woman show up in that area at midnight buying so little food? He may have misprofiled me but I could hardly blame him for his analysis. Likewise, Starbucks MAY have misprofiled these guys but I don't think, if that was the case, they are entirely to blame.

Version Two: The two guys aren't real estate brokers at all. They really were loitering and when they were getting arrested, some white guy decided to fight the fight against racism  and claimed he was coming to meet them and was going to buy them coffee.

Version Three: It is a setup. These guys ARE real estate brokers but planned with a white colleague to set Starbucks up. They dressed down, loitered, tried to use the bathroom, refused to leave, and when the police arrived, signaled the friend to show up. The plan? To prove racism and maybe make a big lawsuit payday.

Which version will turn out to be true? I don't know. We have to wait until all the evidence is in.

All I can say now is that I do not see this as a big racial discrimination moment for Starbucks and I find it rather frustrating that they are apologizing for standing up for their store policy when it was clear there was a store policy and these two men violated it. The police also have nothing to apologize for as they were doing their job and were quite polite about it.

As I keep saying, I am all for pointing out true racial discrimination and true police misconduct but if the country keeps using poor examples as race problems, they are only fanning the flames and causing a race war and this is NOT how to make things better.


Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
April 15, 2018 

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

Ten Pieces of Evidence You Should NOT Become a Profiler

At least not yet. Not now. Maybe when you grow up. Actually, maybe never.

I get emails all the time from people - teens and college students, from those in their thirties and forties and from some quite mature in age - who want to become profilers and so they write me for advice. I answer some of them when they impress me enough to make me want to spend my time responding, but a good many emails just cause me to roll my eyes and hit the delete button. If your email, Ms. or Mr. Profiler Wannabee is in the trash bin, here are ten reasons why you might think about another career.


1) Dear Mr. Brown.....

If you can't even bother to find out the sex of the person you are emailing, your laziness or lack of interest in doing the smallest bit of investigation shows me you aren't going to spend enough time doing analysis on a case to do it properly.

2) Hi. I am starting my own agency and would like some advice.

Learn to write an email and don't go into business because you really aren't very good at it.

3) Dear Ms. Brown, can you recommend some books I should read to learn more about profiling?

Yeah, how about mine?

4) I keep picking abusive men to be in a relationship with, so I have a lot of experience with bad men and I think being a criminal profiler would be a great fit for me.

Hmm....no....because you suck at profiling.

5) I think Casey Anthony is innocent and if I were a profiler, I could have helped the police find the real killer of Caylee.

Hmm....no...because you suck at profiling.

6) I am a woman who just retired from my job at age 65 and I am thinking about going back to college (I am a HS grad) to become a profiler. Do you think I have a chance of working in the field?

::sigh::I wish..but, let's be realistic. There are hardly any jobs in profiling in today's world and by the time you get a master's degree, you will be in your seventies....so really? Do you really think you can get hired at that age when you are competing against young men and women, especially young men who have worked in law enforcement and the military? I won't tell you you shouldn't try but I could make really good money placing a bet against your chances of success.

7) Dear Ms. Brown, I find serial killers really pretty cool and I have been told I might be psychopathic myself so I could probably get inside their heads. Would I make a good profiler?

Dear Mr. Psycho, I am not saying you won't find a criminal profiler with a personality disorder, but I would hardly call that a qualification. However, I will keep you in mind if women start dropping dead in your area.

8). Hi. I think profling is kool I wnat to be one what should I do next

Learn how to read and write.

9) Dear Ms. Brown, I want to be a profiler but I can't stand to look at crime scene photos. Can I be one anyway?

No.

10) Ms. Brown, I want a super exciting career like those profilers in Criminal Minds. I want to chase serial killers and stop them from committing their next murder. What do you think I should do?

Find another career. Profiling is nothing like Criminal Minds and if you don't find studying photos and police reports and interviews something fascinating to do eight hours straight every day with just a break for lunch, you need become a street cop or  join the Marines.


If you sent one of the above emails to me, now you know why you have never heard back!


Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

November 25, 2014

When a Crooked Case Goes Down a Crooked Path....It's Pretty Much Over

I just wrote my last post on the Madeleine McCann case and I have received a barrage of emails and comments pleading with me to keep up my commentary after seven years of the case going south (and with Scotland Yard's intervention, can I say going south with a vengeance?) and some folks are angry with me, calling me a quitter, that I am silencing my voice on the matter instead of fighting on and on and on and on...

I ask you all.....where are your voices on all the other cases of missing and murdered children and adults...all the other cases that have been abandoned by the justice system (Baby Lisa, JonBenet Ramsey, Haleigh Cummings, etc.) or closed by railroading someone that no one cares about, leaving the real killer on the street? I will tell you.....some of the time you finally realized that you have to know when to fold 'em, when like so many other cases, the case you are following is never going to come to a proper conclusion; justice will never be served. And, the rest of the time, you simply are ignorant of the crooked means used to close a case...you believe, if you actually read the one paragraph in the paper written about a particular case, that the conviction of some easy patsy is justified or that the administrative closing of a case with a dead or unprosecutable suspect is proper...that evidence supports the police case. While the population ignores the travesty, I stand by, painfully watching the smoke and mirrors, knowing damned well the real culprit is walking free.

So what is to be done? What am I doing about these outrageous injustices? At a certain point, raising one's voice does little to change the situation. I know, I have been speaking out for two decades against this kind of thing...but mainstream media does not support such talk....and so it is pretty easy to get away with closing a case wrongly without worrying about any backlash. I have fought this and failed...badly.

When a crooked case goes down a crooked path, there is little that can be done to set that particular case straight again. There is only one way to make a real difference in a world where politics, media, and egos can flush a case straight down the toilet....only one really good way to prevent it from turning to shit; making sure it never goes down the crooked path.

Preventing a case from going down a crooked path requires putting all one's efforts into the First 48.  A cold case is usually cold for a reason; someone blew it from the beginning and unless there is an easy DNA match lying about, no cold case team or criminal profiler is going to come in and turn the case around. I have long stopped doing cold case work because it is a massive waste of time. My focus now is training detectives to profile and analyze their cases properly right from the start...on their own or with the help of profilers. If the case is handled correctly right at the beginning of the investigation, politics won't end up being such a factor in closing the case as it can be closed in a reasonable time period with the right suspect and enough evidence to get a conviction. Not every case - because sometimes the evidence just isn't there - but certainly more cases could have a better trajectory if these cases were handled a bit better

I am now fully focusing on profiling training for detectives. This year, a well-seasoned police chief and I will be putting together the training program we feel will make the biggest difference in solving homicide cases. This blog will be dedicated toward the education of detectives, profilers, and future detectives and profilers. The content will be about solving cases, the tools needed for analysis, the specific methods that make or break a case.

We each must choose the path we feel to be the one which will allow us to have the most impact. As of now, I choose to focus on police training....to keep the path from becoming crooked.


Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

August 19, 2014