Crimewatch and Scotland Yard Team Up to pull One Big One over on the Public

I just finished watching BBC's Crimewatch on the new findings in the Madeleine McCann case. With the cooperation of New Scotland Yard (Metropolitan Police), a new "reconstruction" was shown (that was little more than a condensed version of the previous pro McCann documentary "Madeleine was Here" and new theories were laid out (because Detective Andy Redwood seems to not have found enough evidence of abduction to really point to any particular motive). There is new "evidence" (and I put quotes around that because Scotland Yard wishes us to take them at their word) to eliminate one suspect, and there is "new" evidence (and I put quotes around "new" because there isn't anything new) putting another suspect in the top slot.

My immediate reaction to the show was this post to Twitter:

Distortion, Revisionist history. Ridiculous "reconstruction." Conveniently missing details. 

Let me try to break down what was off with this show without having to completely explain the entire case. I do suggest for those that become confused to read Goncalo Amaral's book, The Truth of the Lie or see the documentary on it, or read my book, The Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann available at B&N and Smashwords (not at Amazon where the McCanns had it banned), and read my blogs that I wrote following my trip to Praia da Luz on The Daily Profiler.

Okay.

I will start with the conveniently missing details: any and all evidence or information in the police files that points to the McCanns' involvement, the death of the child in the flat, the cadaver dogs hits in the flat and the rental car, the  inconsistencies in the statements of many of the Tapas 9, within their own statements and in relation to each others' statements, and the fact that the Mr. Smith of the Smith family said that the man they saw carrying the little girl toward the beach looked like Gerry. Also left out; that there was no evidence of an abductor or anyone breaking into the flat through the window, that Gerry thought an abductor was behind the door, and that Matthew Oldfield never really saw Madeleine when he did his supposed check. Oh, and while they show that Jane walked past the McCanns apartment and saw a man with a child, nothing was mentioned about her passing Gerry and Jeremy talking on the street (the narrow street that would caused her to have to cha-cha around the men but they never saw her).

The new reconstruction is a bare bones version, which does not explain how an abductor might have gotten in and taken Madeleine, nor which way he might have gone with her, nor any other particulars. All we learn is that Gerry went to make his check at 9:15, saw Madeleine and that the door was not in the position he thought he left it and he set it back, that at 9:30 Matthew Oldfield made the next check, and then Kate made her check, saw the door was a bit off, the window open and Madeleine gone. That is it.

So, we don't learn how an abductor got in, how he got Madeleine out, and when he did this.

Without presenting a shred of evidence, Scotland Yard gives us two conclusions that push the abduction toward 10 pm. Now, for some who think the McCanns found Madeleine dead behind the sofa where the cadaver dog hit and then Gerry carried her off to the beach passing the Smith family who told the police of their sighting, they might think this might be a clever plan of Scotland Yard to finally close in on the McCanns, but I don't think this is what they are attempting to do.

Let's look at the big news on the show tonight; Jane Tanner's sighting is NOT the "kidnapper" of Madeleine McCann. He is some tourist who happened to be carrying his own child home from the creche where she was being babysat (mind you he was walking in the wrong direction, toward the creche, but....never mind). Also, he was wearing the exact clothes described by Jane Tanner because the man remembers precisely what he was wearing six years ago. Interestingly, with all the hoopla about this man at the beginning of the Portuguese investigation, he never came forward, but now Mr-whoever-he-is (and Scotland Yard is not going to tell us), suddenly pops up and admits it was him.

What does this very questionable "discovery" do? It validates Jane seeing someone and invalidates the crime occurring at around 9:15. On the face of it, this should be a bad thing for the McCanns because this man was really Gerry's alibi. But, the way this is being spun, it will not matter. Why? Because Jane was not believed to be telling the truth by the Portuguese police (the PJ) and they believed the Smith sighting was Gerry (although Redwood claims the PJ overfocused on Jane's sighting as the suspect and ignored the Smith sighting - serious revisionist history). So, if Jane is a liar, then she is lying for a reason and the PJ believed it was to prove an abduction had occurred and Gerry put her up to the lie.

Now, if Jane is telling the truth, then the McCanns didn't push her to cover for them. This puts them one step closer to innocence.

But, of course, now that the only real "proof" of abduction while Gerry is alibied - Jane seeing someone carrying the child away while Gerry is on the street chatting with Jeremy- is gone, there is a problem. The way to solve it is to make sure there is another abductor and that is going to be the Smith sighting. Hence, the fact Matthew Oldfield didn't see Madeleine in her bed at 9:30 is left out of the reconstruction, so it appears that the abductor struck later than that, closer to 10 PM. So, now we have the right time for the abduction to coincide with the Smith sighting. The simple fact there could have been an abductor that late, now allows for that sighting not to be Gerry. Redwood also clearly states the man had graying hair which, as far as I know, Gerry did not have at the time. Does anyone remember the Smiths stating they saw any graying hair on the man with child heading to the beach? I don't.


Many think the e-fits looks just like Gerry; I don't think so. I think they had to make e-fits look similar enough because Mr. Smith said the guy looked like Gerry. But, the e-fits are just enough off for another man to be "found" that looks enough like Gerry to say it is understandable why Mr. Smith was confused. Of course, that Mr. Smith said the man looked like Gerry wasn't mentioned in the show so most people won't know, but later on, this can be addressed when it is necessary.

I think that man will surface just like the Jane Tanner suspect surfaced. At some point, we will hear that an innocent fellow who looks like Gerry came forward and said it was him with his daughter. Then, Gerry is completely exonerated and Scotland Yard will just have to find another suspect who was never seen. OR we will hear that Scotland Yard has identified some person from a sex ring who sort of looks like Gerry but they cannot divulge more. OR we will hear that  it was likely some dead predator who looked enough like Gerry to be mistaken for him. No proof will every be provided that any of these people really exist but it doesn't matter to the general public. If Scotland Yard says it is so and the media backs it, it must be so. It may sound convoluted but, the combination of vagueness and connecting dots that don't exist can be a successful method to use to convince people of something that they are not going to thoroughly research themselves. A magician calls this "misdirection."

Then, mission accomplished. The McCanns are "proven" innocent, the PJ incompetent, Amaral a libeler, and Scotland Yard a fine police agency that did a great investigation to find Madeleine and at least answer the question of what happened to her.



Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

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

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

Published: July 27, 2011

What really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann in Praia da Luz, Portugal in 2007? Was she abducted as the Gerry and Kate have claimed or did something happen to Madeleine on May 3 in the vacation apartment and the incident covered up? Criminal Profiler Pat Brown analyzes the evidence and takes the readers through the steps of profiling, developing a theory that is intriguing and controversial.

Media, Please Stop Giving Mass Murderers the Attention They Want

Media outlets,

This is the only statement you needed to make today about the mass murderer in DC.

"The mass murderer is dead. Out of respect for the victims and their families and to not give media attention to the perpetrator, we will not be discussing the killer."

Here is the only photo of the killer you needed to run with the story.

Mass murders will continue as long as the media encourages perpetrators by giving them the infamy they crave. Please, all media outlets, for the sake those innocent people you will put in danger in the future by aiding and abetting the desires of mass murderers, change how you handle the coverage of these crimes.

Thank you.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Fair and Objective Profiling Required, No Emotions Allowed

Crime Scene of Cat Hit-and-Run

I have been accused by some who don't like my profiling conclusions that I am misinterpreting evidence and accusing people of things simply because I don't like them. I have long stated that I do not approach my work in a subjective manner, that I focus on the physical and behavioral evidence and whether I like the suspect or not has no impact on my final viewpoint. I use the scientific method and not some gut feeling or psychic vibes. I may make comment on certain suspect behaviors that I feel are immoral or unethical, narcissistic or psychopathic, but I am not commenting on them as some personal vendetta.

For example, I may comment on George Zimmerman being a cop-wannabe who appears to have a personality disorder of some sort. Trayvon Martin appears to be no angel either. What is important about their personalities and behaviors is how they play out in the crime that occurred, not that I need to like or dislike anyone or want them to be my friends or designate them my enemies. Likewise, with the McCann case. I feel there is no evidence of abduction and the McCanns' behaviors indicate their involvement in Madeleine's disappearance. I find Gerry to have a controlling, narcissistic personality and Kate, although I think her to be quite beautiful, willing to go along with his program in order to save what is left of her life. I find their fund to be extremely unethical and, therefore, both of the McCanns are responsible for any wrongdoing with that moneymaking scheme. I am horrified by the incredible amount of money spent searching for a live child when the investigators (Scotland Yard and the private detectives) ignore the evidence in front of them that indicates a long dead child and no stranger involvement. Other missing children's cases go unfunded and ignored while millions are spent in this bizarre case of likely parental neglect and a likely massive cover-up.

Today, I found my missing cat, Juliette, dead in the driveway. She had been missing since yesterday and I believed she might have gone off into the bushes to die as she was 17-years-old and flies were following her about. However, she was not in the bushes. She had been run over by my renter. It was clearly a case of hit-and-run but, in spite of the fact I actually can't stand my renter (who I think exhibits a personality disorder of his own and is rather creepy and has behaved badly in the past toward my cats), I am not going to blame him for Juliette's death. Why? Because the evidence exonerates him.

Juliette had been acting in a strange manner for the last month. She had taken to sitting in the middle of the driveway and not moving or moving so slowly I questioned how long it would be before my son or I or either of our two renters would run her over. I tried hard to scare her out of the driveway by spraying her with a water bottle and running her off of the gravel. I also saw my renter actually shoo her away from his car, quite surprising to me since he wasn't aware I was watching, and he used to kick at the cats before I read him the riot act. Then, in recent days, Juliette had taken to actually sitting under the cars, under the front tires.

My renter leaves for work at four in the morning and it has been raining heavily over the last few days. The tire tracks show that Juliette was lying behind his left front tire, the left tire angled in. He would not have seen her upon entering his vehicle. With the rain pouring down, he no doubt jumped in the car, started the engine and backed up quickly, then took off down the driveway. Juliette would have been run over when the tire back over her abdomen and rear legs, and I believe she would have died quite quickly. Because of the heavy rains and my renter returning after dark, he wouldn't have seen her when he came back down the drive. That time I don't believe his tires ran over her, but her body remained hidden under the vehicle until today when he left for work. Then I found her lying there.

Believe me, if I felt he was truly wrong and guilty of purposely or even extremely carelessly causing my cat's death, he would have found her body on his pillow tonight a la the Godfather. But, the evidence proves his innocence, so I have to accept a senile cat met her fate and no one is particularly to blame.

My son and I buried Juliette today and no charges will be filed against my renter for feline homicide.

What Exactly is George Zimmerman Guilty of?

The trial of George Zimmerman is about half-way though and the six woman jury is gong to have to decide what George is guilty of and if what he is guilty of deserves any time in prison. It is an odd case in that there is no disputing the man on trial killed someone, but there are two questions which make the final verdict a tough one; did George shoot Trayvon Martin in self-defense and how responsible was George for instigating the incident in question?

Both of these questions revolve around the definition of self-defense and one's right to resort to lethal force. Basically it comes down to this: you have the right to defend yourself from injury if you are being attacked (the key words here are "being attacked" and not that your opponent is fighting back after you attacked him nor are the two of you brawling with equal participation) and you have the right to  resort to lethal force if you are in immediate danger of extreme injury or death (and you can't shoot someone because you start losing a fight; you must have conceded and your opponent must be continuing to beat you up). I think anyone listens to this 911 call would easily conclude that George Zimmerman was screaming in terror and felt he was about to be killed.

Let me pause for a minute and discuss whether that is Trayvon or George screaming "Help me!" in the 911 call. Even if we ignore George's statement about how Trayvon punched him in the nose, knocked him down to the pavement, mounted him and started doing an MMA "ground and pound," the scenario one hears in the background of the 911 call has someone repeatedly screaming for help which would be the guy who is losing the fight. George Zimmerman clearly was not winning the battle since Trayvon had no injuries other than the bullet wound. A person who is punching the daylights out of someone or smashing their head into the pavement is not going to be screaming "Help me!" at the same time. Only someone needing a referee to stop the fight is going to be screaming for someone to save him and that someone would be George Zimmerman.

So, George passes the first test of rightful self-defense; he really was on the receiving end of a brutal assault and he thought he was going to die. It is interesting to note that one hears a bunch of screams in the tape so it is clear that George didn't get punched once and then blow away his opponent. This meant Trayvon had ample time to stop beating up George. George's screams also show that Trayvon knew George was terrified and he was not fighting back and, therefore, continuing to attack George is nothing but straight-up assault.

However, one thing that has always troubled me; George Zimmerman's cop-wanna-be attitude and some of his behaviors while in jail and in court. George has issues and one of them is taking on the role of a cop, an armed cop, while patrolling the neighborhood. Clearly, the dude can't fight for shit and following tougher, younger, possibly violent men when you are a wuss and come off like a wuss can only invite trouble. The Guardian Angels patrol neighborhoods, too, but these are usually tough young men and women who don't carry firearms. When they approach someone they think might be dangerous, they do it with the full realization they are putting their life on the line and may have to protect themselves with their fists. If a fight ensues, likely both will walk away, albeit with some damage. And, if you aren't going to carry a gun, you better go out on a group patrol or be a pretty big, tough dude.

George Zimmerman, on the other hand, brought a gun because he felt unsafe, probably because he knew he would lose if he ended up in a fight with anyone. Since George obviously hasn't spent much time in a gym, he quickly did end up on not being able to defend himself with his fists after Trayvon hit him, leaving his only resort to pull his weapon and shoot. Of course, Trayvon clearly went on far too long fighting a man who was no match for him and you do take your chances that the man down is going to pull out the only weapon that will work for him...in this case... a gun.  George says that he only pulled the gun when he realized Trevon was going for it, which actually gives George even more right to pull the weapon and fire. Considering how long the screaming went on, I would have to give George credit for holding off for as long as he did (assuming the reason wasn't that he simply couldn't get to the gun).

So, I conclude that George Zimmerman legally shot Trayvon Martin at the moment he pulled the trigger, but, I still feel like he deserves some penalty for instigating the confrontation, only because anyone carrying a weapon (except the police) should avoid trouble. George, carrying a gun on patrol bothers me because Trayvon might not have retaliated for having his presence be questioned if it had been a police officer. Doing so while armed and without a badge raises the level of risk for both parties. However, manslaughter does not really work in this case and the sentence would likely be way too high.

It is a difficult case for six untrained jurors to decide (and most of you folks know I dislike the jury system). I don't know if I could fault them for going any direction with their verdict because there the beginning of the exact confrontation is unknown although evidence seems to indicate Trayvon circled around and then sucker punched Zimmerman which would mean at that point Trayvon was the aggressor and the attacker. I wish them the best in trying to come up with a satisfactory conclusion and I hope the public will not burst out in anger regardless of which way these jurors go. Sometimes the law cannot so clearly address a complicated scenario in which both parties deserves some of the blame for the outcome, although Trayvon Martin actually is responsible for the criminal action.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

July 1, 2013

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Teach Your Sons Not To Rape

There have been many very angry women expressing this sentiment following the Steubenville, Ohio conviction of the two high school football players who sexually assaulted a very drunk and near comatose young lady and then proceeded to threaten and humiliate her via social media. There is ample evidence in this case against these young men and that these two creeps were found guilty makes me very happy, Often, in these date or acquaintance type rape crimes, it is a he said-she said situation and it is very difficult to prove a rape or sexual assault actually occurred, that the alleged victim didn't  participate consensually in the act. A Montana college student and  football player was recently found not guilty because there simply wasn't ample proof the girl didn't want sex with him. I thought that verdict was correct.

But in the wake of these cases, I see a lot of furious women mad as hell about anyone recommending that they should educate their daughters on how to keep themselves from getting attacked. These angry women say, "Why do we have to keep teaching our daughters this stuff? Why can't YOU teach your sons not to rape?"

Umm, ladies, you can't teach your sons not to rape. You can't have a birds and a bees discussion and say, "By the way, don't rape girls; it's not nice."

If your son doesn't know that "no means no," and that having sex with unconscious girls is sick and criminal, you have a little psychopath on your hands and he doesn't give a crap about what you say. You lost him years ago when he was a little boy.

What we all SHOULD be are good parents, ones who teach both sons and daughters to be decent people, - kind and respectful, empathetic and law-abiding. When these children get to be teens and adults, they don't commit crimes. I did not have a talk with my sons about not raping girls; they would have been appalled that I would even have considered it necessary to tell them that. I didn't have a talk with my daughter about not tricking a guy into getting her pregnant and to not stalk and kill her boyfriend like Jodi Arias; she would have said, "Just what kind of girl do you think I am, Mom?"

I started giving lessons in morality and ethics when my children were very young, teaching them not to hit, not to be poor sports, to be polite, to not be bullies, to not take what isn't theirs, to not be greedy, to be willing to share, and so on. I started when they were at the breast ("don't bite Mommy") and then kept them from thinking it was okay to pull the cat's tail when they learned to crawl and grab. I kept up the lessons in how to be a decent human being all through their childhood and into their teens. But,  I never had to tell them not to shoplift, steal cars, burglarize the neighbors' homes, set fires, or sell drugs. And I didn't have to tell my boys not to rape. Why? Because I hadn't raised psychopaths or criminals. If you really think you need to have a "rape" conversation with your son, you dropped the ball long, long ago.

And since there are enough young men out in the world who are past the point of moral return and the justice system cannot catch them all and keep them locked up, I will continue to encourage parents to teach their daughters how to keep from getting raped and sexually assaulted. Just because young men should never do bad things, doesn't mean some aren't going to. Being angry about it isn't going to keep your daughter from becoming a victim. So, in spite of a number of angry bloggers who attacked my book, How to Save Your Daughter's Life, for educating parents on how to keep their daughters safe, I am going to keep on educating young women and their parents because I know sex predators are out there - in the high schools, in the colleges, in the neighborhood, and in the home. As a female, I, too, am frustrated at having so many sexual crimes perpetrated against women and I am all for coming down harder on these sex offenders with a much tougher criminal justice system, but, right now, the reality is such that we women have to do what we can to not end up a victims of horrible crimes that will ruin our lives.

Just because some parents need to do a better job raising their sons doesn't mean we should stop doing the job of raising our daughters.They need our help keeping them safe.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
March 21, 2013
               

How to Save your Daughter's Life by Pat Brown at Amazon or Barnes and Noble and bookstores near you.

Included in this book, a ton of information about

The Early Years
Partying, Drinking, Drugging, Casual Sex (Hooking Up), and Gangs
Date Rape
The Dangers of Social Networking and the Internet
Risky Relationships
Stalkers
Child Predators, Serial Rapists, and Serial Killers
The Sex Trade and Sex Trafficking

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: The Murder of Cleopatra

FROM THE MURDER OF CLEOPATRA by PAT BROWN

       Publication date: February 19, 2013 Prometheus Books

PROLOGUE:  THE MYTH OF CLEOPATRA’S DEATH

When the sun rose over the city of Alexandria on the morning of August 12, 30 BCE, it did not shine down on the great Alexandria of Egypt, but the new Alexandria of the Roman Empire. The air was heavy with resignation and solemn respect for the passing of the queen, and the transfer of Alexandria into the hands of the Roman general Octavian. Cleopatra had provided a dignified conclusion to the great dynasty with her brave, if surprising, exit from the world.

            The story was simple, yet awe-inspiring. Octavian had been in the palace, and Cleopatra in her tomb with her two favorite handmaidens. Somehow, a cobra had been smuggled into the mausoleum hidden in a basket of figs. A soldier delivered a letter to Octavian in which Cleopatra explained that she was about to take her life with a request that her body be buried next to her beloved husband and Roman general, Mark Antony, who had already committed suicide a few days earlier, dying in the arms of his wife.  Octavian immediately dispatched his men to the mausoleum to intervene and stop the queen from this rash course of action. However, by the time the soldiers arrived, Cleopatra was dead. Word was sent back to Octavian, “We were too late.”

Unwilling to believe Cleopatra was truly dead, Octavian hurried to the mausoleum. He was stunned and angered by the sight of the motionless queen. This determined woman who had refused to yield at any time in her life, this enchantress who lured married Roman men into unfaithfulness and turned them against their countries, this queen who had refused to recognize his superiority in life, preferred death over submission to his sovereignty. He would now be unable to bring her back to Rome in shackles and parade her though the streets in his grand triumph—his final coup de grace. Queen Cleopatra, the greatest prize in the entire world, had slipped out of his grasp.

            Hoping she was perhaps in a coma, the sleep that mimics death, Octavian desperately sent for the physician and for specialists in snake venom who might still find a way to save her. But the snake venom experts had no remedies and the doctor pronounced her dead. All of this was witnessed by the soldiers, and after they left, Octavian met with his advisors.

            The story of Cleopatra’s death did not take long to spread beyond the compound and soon the city was in mourning. Later that week, a wealthy friend of Cleopatra's came to Octavian and gave him a large sum of money to maintain statues of the queen. Wishing to prove he was a moral leader who respected the sentiments of his new subjects, Octavian agreed.

            This is the account of Cleopatra’s death, a tale that has been dutifully retold for two thousand years. But the real story of how Octavian got away with the most perfect crime in history, the murder of Cleopatra, has never been uncovered until now.

 

In 2004, I hosted the Discovery Channel documentary, The Mysterious Death of Cleopatra, and debunked the “death by snake theory.”  I also stated that I believed Cleopatra was murdered but I wasn't able to go into my reasoning in the show that was just an hour long. I decided only a book would allow me to present my research and an in-depth analysis, to present a solid profile of history and to reconstruct the events of Cleopatra's life and death. During the work on the documentary and throughout the next eight years, I spent time in Egypt, Rome, and England working with Egyptologists, poison experts, archeologists, and historians of the ancient world and I began to piece together another, more credible story behind the death of Cleopatra.

            I believed Cleopatra was tortured.

            I believed Cleopatra was strangled.

            I believed Anthony was murdered.

            I believed Cleopatra did not hide in her tomb with her treasure.

            I believed Cleopatra did not bargain with Octavian.

            I believed Cleopatra planned a brilliant military maneuver at Alexandria, her Actium Two, which this time would not have been an escape strategy from a failed naval battle, but a faux naval battle to permit a successful escape from a dire military position that offered little hope of survival.

            I believed Cleopatra never loved Antony.

            I believed Cleopatra never loved Julius Caesar.

            I believed Cleopatra did not have Caesar’s son.

            I believed Cleopatra may have been one of the most brilliant, cold-blooded, iron-willed rulers in history and the truth about what really happened was hidden behind a veil of propaganda and lies set in motion by her murderer, Octavian, and the agenda of the Roman Empire.

            And now The Murder of Cleopatra brings this new view of history to you with my full analysis of the world's greatest cold case.           

           

The Murder of Cleopatra is in stores on February 19^th and available for order now at Amazon (Amazon. Canada) and Barnes & Noble. Kindle  format is also available in the US and UK and Canada.

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Choosing the Right Food Lifestyle

I made a Lunch of Flax Seed Cracker, Blueberry Pie, Fruit, Dips, and Veggies

Most of you know I have struggled with weight issues for years. Up and down, up and down....I eat because I am bored, stressed, being social, angry, frustrated.....I eat because food is there and because I can.

I have been mostly vegan and vegetarian through the years but that hasn't meant I always had a healthy diet or a controlled one. I can do pretty good damage on Cheese Nips and Doritos and trips to Taco Bell and pretty much any restaurant. Truly, I have terrible habits, binge eating along with excessive daily coffee and Diet Pepsi consumption.

So I made that backpacking trip to Guatemala to try to break those habits and change my state of mind.  I hoped a month of hiking up mountains and through jungles and limiting my access to my usual foods would do me good. When it turned out I ended up only hiking one week out of four, I spent a good amount of time the other three weeks enjoying all kinds of food down there. I did lose four pounds but, I did not achieve a change of daily practice. Oh, I take that back...that month did help break my coffee and Diet Pepsi habits because both of those drinks are dreadful in Guatemala.

So when I got back, new plan. I decided to seriously try raw foods again (I have dabbled in it, but nothing serious). Is it working? Yes, it is! Here are the stats:

December 11, 2012 166 lbs Before backpacking trip to Guatemala

January  8, 2013 162 lbs - Start raw foods lifestyle

January 22, 2013 155 lbs - Two weeks of raw foods

I am very happy! And along with the weight loss, I have strangely suffered NO cravings at all and I am never starving. In fact, I have been following the concept of stopping eating by 2 pm (sometimes I stopped at 3 pm and I did have a salad after 8 pm one night while out for dinner after I did my DC lecture). I have NOT exercised, on purpose, in order to see the true effect of the diet on weight loss. I have stayed heavy on the veggies and fruit and lighter on the nuts and seeds, but I did include them and a small amount of dehydrated foods in my diet. Below is a list of my favorite recipes that I made and ate during the two weeks, so you can see I didn't only have carrots.

Best Recipes

RAWvolution Famous Onion Bread – RAWvolution – Matt Amsden – p.100

Shitake Sandwich with Onion Bread – RAWvolution – p.139

Greek Pizza/Hawaiian Pizza with Pizza Sauces and Onion Bread – RAWvolution – p. 135, 136

Lava Soup – RAW – Juliano - p. 32

Pasta Marinara with RAW Marinara Sauce – RAW – p. 153

Easiest Banana-Berry Shake – Instant Raw Sensations – Frederic Patenaude – p. 17

My Cute Little Bell Pepper Salad - Instant Raw Sensations – p. 53

Applesauce - Living on Raw Food – Alicia Cohen – p. 294

Flax Seed Crackers - Living on Raw Food – p. 344

Blueberry Pie – Living on Raw Food –  p. 484

Mock Peanut Butter and Jelly - Living on Raw Food – p. 439

Tomato, Onion, and Avocado Sandwich – Living on Raw Food –  p. 439

Buckwheat Cereal - Living on Raw Food –  p. 439

Fudge Balls – Living on Raw Food – p. 491

Curry Savory Vegetable Stew with Plantain and Pineapple – Roger Haeske – p. 5, 6

Apple/Carrot Juice  – 100 Days to 100% Raw – Tonya Zavasta – p. 17

Green Pudding – 100 Days to 100% Raw – p. 97

I am planning to continue with this raw foods plan because I really feel great! I don't obsess on food all the time, craving sweets and salts like a maniac, and I don't gorge for emotional reasons. Of course, it has only been two weeks, so we shall see how it goes. Some will ask, even if I stay on this plan, will I stay 100% raw or will I add in cooked food? I don't know yet; it depends how the cooked food affects me. I am thinking I may eventually go to what is called "high raw," simply because it is nice to allow some cooked food in  one's diet so one can enjoy an occasional dinner over at someone's home or a special treat when one is dining out. However, I haven't had any desire for cooked food as of yet and don't much want to change what I am doing at this point. Since raw food is working so well for me, I am going to not rock the boat just yet; I will take one day at a time.

PS. Remember that each human being is different, so it is important to find what kind of diet/lifestyle works for your body and your circumstances.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

January 22, 2013

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Wishful Thinking, Poor Memory, or Bad Profiling?

  

Still Smiling (Before Hiking)

The hardest person in the world to profile may be oneself. It is a bit hard to be subjective when it comes to one's own behaviors, choices, and goals which is why, no doubt, we often argue so vehemently with the advice of friends. And so it was with my trip to Guatemala. Hey, I am not saying I didn't have a good time, go to fascinating and beautiful places, trek in the mountains and jungles, and meet wonderful people....and learn great lessons of life....I am saying I didn't accomplish my mission of losing a good bit of weight. I left the country weighing 166 pounds (yes, dear friends, I did gain a lot of weight this year while finishing my last two books) and I came back at 162 pounds....big whoop. Now, some of you will say that was a reasonable weight loss for four weeks and I would agree, if I were sitting on my fat arse on  cruise ship eating unlimited food. But, I was supposed to be hiking for three of those four weeks, every day, and eating healthful and small portions.

I Should Have Googled "Mountains" and "Guatemala"

Now, here is where my poor memory or bad personal profiling comes in. I totally forgot I hated hiking up. Yes, I am good at walking all day on flat ground, but, hills, I hate. What the hell was I thinking? Guatemala is a totally mountainous country! I apparently forgot that since the last time I had been there, thirty-three years ago on my honeymoon (and I probably only walked from the hotel room to the nearest bar/restaurant/cab during that trip). I also forgot that I likely quit hiking years ago when I realized the Blue Ridge Mountains were, uh, mountains, and I hated the whole first half of any hike to some great lookout point and didn't sign up to repeat the experience. Pretty much, I think I used the backpack for traveling overseas and sold it when I got married. I took a suitcase on my honeymoon.

Easy Start but Them Thar Mountains...

Nebaj

So, forgetting that and ignoring the fact I was thirty pounds heavier than I should be and seriously out of shape (yes, I ignored advice from annoying folks who thought I should hike locally for a half a year and then go to Guatemala), off I went to join a volcano hike. And the day the hiking group left our starting point, the city of Quetzeltenanago, they added food to my already heavy backpack and made me carry four liters of water; hence, the black cloud of doom began descending even before I started ascending. That day, we hiked up hills to the bus station and I was already hating life. Then we rode for six hours on chicken buses holding on to the seat in front of us less we fly into the aisle while rounding the corners at a suicidal speed (which I preferred to hiking). After a wonderful evening in a little town called Nebaj, a too fattening dinner of spaghetti and apple pie with ice cream (that hostel owner sure could bake) and a great night's sleep on  rock hard bed (yeah, I was very tired), we walked out of town (that was  pleasant hour long stroll) and then we went up....and up.....and up.

Arriving at the Little Schoolhouse

Inside the Schoolhouse

I went up more slowly than anyone else (who were all under age thirty). Seven hours of up and I was straggling way at the back, bloody miserable every torturous step of the way. One of the leaders of the group kept me company (what a sweet boy!) until we reached our final destination, a tiny village where we were to sleep on the floor of a one-room schoolhouse. The next morning, in the pouring rain, the group was to rise at 3 am and climb the volcano, hiking up eighty seven steep switchbacks (I was originally misinformed that they weren't so bad but that night I was told they were a total bitch) until they reached the top four to six hours later.

All Alone....Thank God, It's Finally Morning

Taking the Tuk Tuk Back Down the Mountain

I decided to go the other direction. As the other hikers packed up their gear in the dark in circles of light from their headlamps, I wished them well and snuggled back into my warm bedding. After four more hours in a rather scary, very dark, desolate spot thinking about the embarrassing headline, "American Criminal Profiler Gang Raped and Murderered on Guatemalan Mountain," (and to be fair, I refused the kind hike leader's offer to escort me all the way back to the city) I got up, packed my things, and walked down to the road to "town" (kind of just a bend in the road with one shop) to catch a tuk-tuk (autorickshaw), then three chicken buses back to Quetzeltenango (an all day rather hair-raising affair) to retrieve the rest of my stuff that was in storage.

A Long Hard Three Days in the Jungle but Doable

I did manage to do about seven day's total hiking (a couple of more days at Lake Atitlan, one in Semuc Champey, and three days in the jungle from Zotz to Tikal), but with three other weeks of sightseeing, eating and drinking in restaurants and bars, my plan rather went to hell. I still had a good time, lost four pounds, and have great photos and memories, but hiking up mountains is never ever happening again in my lifetime. Never ever.

So, weighing in at 162 pounds on return, I have decided to go back on the raw food plan. After just four days, I have lost four pounds. Geez, to think, all I had to do was stay home and eat my veggies



.
Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

January 12, 2013


Pat Brown's Books

Only the Truth

How to Save Your Daughter's Life

Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann

The Profiler

Killing for Sport