None of the Superbike Victims were Shot in the Forehead

NOTE: A number of people have not believed that I have any real knowledge of whether or not the Superbike victims were actually shot in the forehead. To them: I have read the autopsy and police reports as I reviewed this case in person at the Spartanburg County Sheriff's Office. The information below on the location of the headshot wounds comes directly from the reports.

___________________________

One of the things police departments do in the course of releasing information to the public is to give the public enough information to encourage tips that might be useful in identifying who the perpetrator of a crime might be, but leave out details that serve no point in aiding identification, details that might help prove they have the right individual if someone they are interviewing gives details of the crime that they have kept secret.

The Spartanburg County Sheriff's Office gave out quite a lot of details about the Superbike murders - what door they believed the killer came in (the back one), that he fired a lot of shots at the victims, and that he circled back around and shot each one of the victims in the head.

The Spartanburg County Sheriff's Office (SPSO) is adamant that the shooter came in the back bay door of the business shot Chris Sherbert first as he was cleaning up a motorcycle, then went through the swinging door into the shop and encountered Beverly Guy leaving the bathroom or the office and shot her, and then shot Brian Lucas and Scott Ponder as they tried to escape out the front door. Eighteen rounds were fired requiring a changing of clips. The SPCO has never explained just when the shooter did this in the midst of shooting the three in the front room and there is no explanation, if he had to change magazines at that point, why the two men didn't escape further while he was doing so. They never explained why, if the shooter mixed his ammunition which included eleven with nickel casings and seven with brass casings (which is what they told me they thought happened - something not very common along with the need for an extended magazine, something also quite rare) and if he shot the victims from the back of the store to the front, how odd it would be that at least three of the victims ended up with a bullet in the head that had a brass casing. I believe the killer had a full 10-round magazine with nickel (nickel-plated over brass) cartridges (plus one nickel cartridge in the chamber - 10+1) and a second magazine with brass cartridges.

I believe the SPSO attempted to develop a scenario that matches their theory that the unknown guy in the composite first went after the employee cleaning up the bike he was supposed to buy and then went after everyone else. Not that this makes great sense because if you come in the back way and start the shooting there, you are unaware of who is out front and by the time you get there, other customers may have come in. Besides, your anger should be with Scott Ponder and he should be the most important target and normally a killer would choose him to start with. Perhaps the thinking is that the perpetrator didn't want his vehicle seen so he parked in the back and came in that way and then went back that way to his vehicle. Nothing wrong with this theory and, in fact, it still could be true if the guy walked past Christ Sherbert to the front, did his shootings, and then returned to get Sherbert. But, the detectives, refused to even allow for this possibility and I think this stubbornness lies in their desire to make Sherbert the first victim of the guy in the composite and, in doing so, they  choose to ignore the ballistics evidence. But it is terribly important as it shows exactly what the shooter did and why - as you will see.

I propose this scenario of how the shootings went down (there is an issue with a couple of the casings whether they were brass or nickel due to the manner of notation in the files):

The behaviors of the victims clearly indicate Beverly Guy was shot
first. If the killer had been intent on shooting Ponder or Lucas first and pulled out a gun in the front room, he would likely have shot the men where they stood considering how close the shooter was to these two men. However, the killer shot them only after they were in motion, running toward the front door
in order to escape. Something clearly set them off and this would be the
shooting of Guy. I believe he pointed the gun at Guy's face and she turned her head causing him to then shoot her in the right side of the head. She fell and he shot her with.  (Shot One - Nickel Casing). Then he fired directly at Guy's before she fell (Shot 2)( Nickel Casing 19) was fired directly at Guy’s chest, the shooter being face to face with her, the men made a break
for it (Shots Three and Four, Nickel Casing 20 and Projectiles at 9 and 10).
The next shot hit Brian Lucas in the backside causing him to
collapse in the door, with Scott Ponder leaping over him; then numerous shots to Ponder’s
back took him down to the ground (used up all the nickel shot in the magazine). It was here he changed magazines to the brass.

At this point the shooter knew there was one more person he needed to deal with and he turned and went back through the swinging doors into the work area. There was music on in both the front and back so it is questionable as to whether Sherbert actually knew the others had been
shot down. It is possible he did hear the shots but by the time he realized what was going on, the shooter had already entered the back of the shop. The shooter fired as soon as he came through the swinging door approximately from the area of three bikes to the left of the door. (Brass Casings 21 and 22. The trajectory is in perfect line with the back storage room where the bullets went through the boxes. The
shooter’s position would be in the general area where the crescent wrench with the black handle was found should Sherbert have thrown it at the shooter in a desperate attempt to stop him. This evidence is proof that Sherbert did see him coming and that the shooter was coming at him from the swinging doors. He was the final victim, not the first victim. Sherbert likely was ducking behind the
motorcycle he was working on as soon as he saw the killer coming toward him
with a gun.  He then moved in on Sherbert who had no way to stand up from behind the motorcycle and run out the bay door without getting shot. The shooter came up over him and shot him in the back and chest (brass casings) and then capped him with a shot to the top of his head (Brass Casing)

The shooter then returned to the front of the business to
make sure Brian and Scott were dead. It is during this time (or while the shooter was in the back) I believe Ponder, still alive but knowing he was not going to make it, dialed 33 on his phone and pressed send, attempting to reach his wife with a final goodbye and, perhaps, an attempt to identify the shooter to her. Ponder appears to have pushed himself up on his knees with his left arm and dialed his phone with his free right hand and pressed the send button at 2:52. This was likely very
within a minute or seconds before the shooter capped him in the head.  I do not agree with the theory  that Ponder dialed the phone number while running in a panic over his friend and through the glass front door. I have attempted to recreate this scenario and found it impossible to hit the three buttons on the phone while in this kind of motion. The shots in the head of all four victims apparently ended their lives within seconds as there is no evidence of movement after the last four shots were fired.

At 3:12 PM, the emergency phone call to 911 comes in from
Noel Lee.

Now to the head shots: First of all, not everyone was lying on their backs making a shot to the forehead an easy thing. The shooter had no plan to shoot them all in the foreheads. He simply came up to each victim and delivered a final shot to the head to insure that they did not survive the attack.

Here are the locations of each of the four final headshot wounds (entry only):

Scott Ponder

Right temporal region 4.75 inches from the top of the head, 3.0 inches to the right of midline, and 4.25 inches circumferentially from the midline anteriorly

Brian Lucas

Gunshot wound 1 – Above left ear 3.5 inches from the top of the head, 2.75 from left of midline. No powder stippline or tattoing is identified.

Beverly Guy

Gunshot Wound 1 - Entrance wound in the right temporal region at the hairline 3.5 inches from the top of the head and 3.5 inches to the right of midline. No surrounding soot or powder
deposition is identified. A barrel imprint is not present.

Chris Sherbert

Gunshot wound 1 – Left paritel skull 0.5 inches from the top of the head and 1.75 inches to the left of midline. The wound measures 0.32 inches in diameter with a small superficial abrasion associated with the wound in the hair.

Four shots to the foreheads of all four victims?

Absolutely not - and why the Spartanburg County Sheriff's Office wants you to believe this lie is something every citizen and family member of the victims should question and demand an answer.

For more on the case
Is Todd Kohlhepp REALLY the Superbike Killer?

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

November 25, 2016

Is Todd Kohlhepp REALLY the Superbike Killer?

Let me start out with this simple statement: I can accept that Todd Kohlhepp is the Superbike killer, a freaky anomaly whom I never suspected committed the crime, I am okay with that...if it is really him. If it is really him, four families can have closure after thirteen years and finally see some justice in the murders of their loved ones. If my profile of the case, my analysis of the evidence, did not point to Kohlhepp, I apologize to the Spartanburg Country Sheriff's Office (SCSO) for having been less than useful in my service to them. I can admit to not always being right, not 100%; I never expect detectives to always be right or 100% perfect either. We are just humans trying to do our best. This is one reason I am very particular about criminal profiling being considered a tool in aiding focus and decisions in investigation, not some kind of psychic vision of exactly what happened. I make sure when I turn in my profiles to police departments that I explain each and every one of my conclusions and what evidence supports those conclusions. I hope that my analysis and clear explanations allow the detectives to use their own skills in deciding if my conclusions make sense and if they should follow through on my thoughts and suggestions.

The Superbike case was a mess from Day One. It has been made public that the investigation appears to have gone the wrong direction when DNA results were screwed up and Melissa Brackman (then married to Scott Ponder) became the main suspect. Even now with the claim by the SCSO that Kohlhepp is the Superbike killer, they have admitted they never even interviewed him in spite of his name supposedly being on a Superbike customer list and having such a horrific criminal record.

I was brought in in 2009 to review the case. I spent a week inside the SCSO reviewing all the files and developing my analysis. I did note that the strongest lead was not followed up on properly and there were a number of errors made in double checking information and unlikely theories were pursued that may have badly effected the investigation. I have seen this quite often with cold cases, so I don't get that upset with detectives; they are doing their best with the training they have and I do believe they wish to solve their cases.

However, in the Superbike case, there was an overfocus on the unknown customer in the shop and Sheriff Wright kept saying over and over that this was the guy who committed the crime. Yet, there was not one shred of evidence to support this person's involvement while much evidence pointed to another individual. When I questioned Wright as to why he thought it was this guy, he told me that the individual never came forward to the SCSO and let them know it was him. I laughed and said, "I don't think I, myself, would come forward! I would think I would be accused of the crime!" Wright told me the citizens of Spartanburg were of a stellar type and would definitely come forward. I asked him if he thought someone with a concerning criminal record would be willing to put his neck in the noose and he said he believed that even someone with a criminal record would come forward. I was not sure what world Sheriff Wright lived in but I found it rather rose-colored-glasses-ish to think this way.

But, I didn't belabor the point. I gave my final analysis to the SCSO and left town. I never contacted media and I never told the family what my profile included. I kept quiet until Sheriff Wright made this statement three years later:

In March of 2012, Sheriff Chuck Wright said on the killings were, "probably one of the most gruesome, horrific crimes committed in our county."

With a new sketch released, Wright said they wanted national media attention because someone out there had to know the person. He said that because the customer was never identified and never came forward as a witness, deputies believed he knew what happened.

"This fellow will tell us exactly what happened in the shop that day," said Wright.

In other words, he said he was the killer. And this was a blatant lie since there was no evidence at that point in time to support such a claim. I, therefore, made a public statement that there was no proof that the man in the composite was the killer. Sheriff Wright then spoke out on television and claimed I had no inside knowledge of the case and only knew what I had "read on the Internet." I followed that up with some posts concerning the case which indicated I did indeed know more than what I read on the Internet. It was my hope at this time to encourage the families and citizens not to accept lies from their public servants and get Sheriff Wright removed from office. I had hoped a new sheriff might move the case forward based on evidence and there might finally be some progress.

However, nothing came of my stand and I said no more until recently in 2016 when Todd Kohlhepp suddenly came out of the blue and "confessed" to the Superbike crime.

I was stunned, to say the least. And confused. A serial killer that is also a mass murderer? That would be one for the history books. It isn't the way serial killers behave. An angry customer? There were no known angry customers except for a slightly peeved final customer that tragic day but that man wasn't Kohlhepp. There had been no angry phone calls or angry visitors to the establishment in the days or weeks or even months leading up to the mass murder. Todd Kohlhepp made no sense except that Sheriff Wright was up for re-election in the next few days and the Superbike case had been an albatross around his neck; could Todd Kohlhepp simply be a convenient patsy? 

And what would be his motive to kill four people in cold blood? Eventually, the story came out - or should I say two stories came out (both obviously from Kolhepp or the police but not from true witnesses). One, that he bought a bike from the store and the people there laughed at him when he fell over while learning to ride and, two, that he bought the bike, it was stolen, and they laughed at him when he came back to buy another. Both stories are pretty unimpressive as a motive for murder but add to that six months passing between the time he bought the bike to when he supposedly gunned everyone down and it is even more shaky. I guess one could conjecture that he came back six months later to buy another bike and he was the man in the composite and he was laughed at once more but it still seems quite unlikely that one joke would inspired Kohlhepp to come back an hour later and mow everyone down who worked in the shop. Yes, he is a psychopath and a killer but it is still a pretty lousy motive.

But, where is the evidence that it is him? So far, there is no physical evidence but it has been claimed by the SPSO that Todd Kohlhepp knew things only the killer could know. I found that odd since pretty much everything about the crime had been on the Internet - on Geraldo, on Ameria's Most Wanted, on Crime Watch Daily and on my blogs and other's blogs. But, then 48 Hours had Melissa Brackman (Ponder) receiving a call from Detective LaChica of the SCSO in which it is said he stated that Todd Kohlhepp knew something only the killer would know, that ALL THE VICTIMS WERE SHOT ONCE IN THE FOREHEAD.

FOREHEAD? I was stunned again. True, THAT piece of information had never been made public. 

Lead investigator, detective William Gary with the Spartanburg County Sheriff’s
Office, said the caliber of gun used was a 9 millimeter and that a number of shots
were fired with few misses.

“The person that did this was very accurate in their shooting. They had at least two
moving targets, possibly three,” Gary said.

One theory is a “disgruntled customer” murdered the four people out of revenge. The
show said there was speculation the shooter was a professional hit man. After the
victims were shot, investigators say that the murderer circled around and shot each
of the victims in the head, execution-style.

Okay, so the SCSO did say they were all shot in the head execution style but never mentioned there were shot in the forehead. So, if it was true that all the victims were shot in the forehead and Kohlhepp knew this, then, indeed, he knew something that had not been made public.

The only problem with this is "it is NOT true." NONE of the victims were shot in the forehead. So why is Kohlhepp saying this (unless he just guessed and guessed wrong and, therefore, is NOT the killer) or the SCSO is making this up to get the public to believe that Todd Kohlhepp really is the killer?

If this case is plead out, if Todd Kohlhepp admits guilt and the case never goes to court (saving Kohlhepp, perhaps, from the death penalty, and saving the families from the trauma of reliving the crimes), then no evidence will ever have to be publicly presented to prove Kohlhepp is the Superbike killer.

Something is very wrong in Spartanburg and the citizens need to find out exactly what it is.

For more on the case: None of the Superbike Victims were Shot in the Forehead

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

November 21, 2016

Did Tommy Chong Sexually Assault Criminal Profiler Pat Brown?

True or false? Should you believe this and should the media run with it?

When I was 19 years old, I wished to become an actress in Hollywood. One day, on the set of Cheech and Chong, I was asked to stand in for an actress who was getting her hair done. I was told to lie on the bed with Tommy Chong, with the sheets and duvet covering us both, my side of the covers pulled over my face so that during filming it would not be noticed that I was body doubling for the actress.

While under the covers with Chong, I felt his hand cup my breast and then travel down my body to between my legs. He grabbed my hand and placed it on his penis and rubbed it up and down. I was mortified and didn't know what to do  because the camera was rolling and there were people all around. I was only 19 and naive and not very versed in how to deal with sexual assault, a sexual assault that occurred with a group of men surrounding the bed, a group of men who were friends with Mr. Chong, a famous actor and comedian, and me, a nobody that they could care less about.

I remained paralyzed under the sheet while Chong laughed with his crew and continued to move his hands and mine wherever he wanted. When they finished filming and the actress I was standing in for came into the room, I was summarily dismissed and I got out of the bed and pulled my dress down in front of everyone; I was crying but no one even looked at me and I ran from the room.

I was so traumatized by the experience that I left Hollywood and my dreams and over the years I had to seek counseling as I didn't trust men after that. I only told my sister and father what happened because they asked why I left Hollywood so abruptly and gave up on my long desired acting career.

I didn't come forward years ago because I was just an extra in the film industry and I knew no one would believe me over Tommy Chong who was loved and admired by many. But, now that I, too, have been on television for years and I am more mature and able to handle the fallout, I want to come forward and let people, especially other women who may have been abused by Mr. Chong, to know what happened to me and encourage others to come forward if they have had a similar experience. I want to let the public know that no one should get away with sexual assault just because they are famous and the victim is not. I hope coming forward will help others deal with sexual abuse and bring their abusers to justice.

Now, to the evidence:

On the side of Pat Brown:

She can prove she was in Hollywood at the time she claims the incident occurred.

She can prove by way of old dated letters (with the envelope) that she was on the set of Cheech and Chong's movie.

Her sister will verify that she was told by Pat Brown that the incident occurred and that she was told of the incident shortly after it occurred.

On the side of Tommy Chong:

No one remembers Pat Brown on the set while the movie was being filmed.

No one remembers an incident in which Tommy Chong was in the bed with Pat Brown.

No one remembers an incident in which an upset young extra jumped from the bed with her dress up over her waist and ran crying from the room.

The father of Pat Brown is dead; therefore, he cannot testify to what she said years ago.

Even if Pat Brown claimed years ago Tommy Chong sexually assaulted her, there is no way of knowing if this was truthful or just a fantastical claim of Pat Brown's to gain attention or to explain to her family her failure in Hollywood as an actress.

No one knows if Pat Brown and her sister are telling this story in order to achieve notoriety or money.

If other women come forward with similar claims, do you believe this adds to the evidence on Pat Brown's side of the equation?

Do you think this is a story the media should spread and a case Gloria Allred should take up since no police report was ever filed? 

If this story goes public, who do you think the victim is? Pat Brown or Tommy Chong?

DISCLAIMER: I have just received a phone call offering me legal representation against Tommy Chong. THE POST IS FICTION! It is meant to make people THINK TWICE about media stories in which a famous person is accused of sexual assault without proof. I was NOT assaulted by Tommy Chong or any other famous person.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

October 16, 2016

US Publishers Still Afraid to Publish a Truthful Book about Madeleine McCann

​

I wanted to update everyone on the situation concerning publishing books about Madeleine McCann. After the recent court victory of Goncalo Amaral against the McCanns and the return of his book about the case of missing Madeleine McCann to the Portuguese market, many of us thought there was a sliver of hope that freedom of speech on the case might be making progress. Although I certainly had my doubts that any book unsupported by the McCanns would find a publisher, my agent thought otherwise and she decided to take my book proposal out of mothballs and see if she could drum up interest. She put together the following pre-proposal query (based on my book proposal concept) and went out to the publishers. Here is what she sent and below the query is the result which I think all of you will find interesting. Names have been removed as I am not here to out the publishing industry; I just want to share with everyone the state of affairs with regards to publishing the story of Madeleine McCann in the English speaking world.

A Pre-Proposal Query

​​​​WHERE IS MADELEINE MCCANN?

                                      A Criminal Profiler Takes On the World’s 

​​                         Most Baffling Disappearance

                                                                   by

                                                            Pat Brown

  

WHERE IS MADELEINE MCCANN?

A Criminal Profiler Takes on the World’s Most Baffling Disappearance

By

Pat Brown

Overview

            The disappearance of little Madeleine McCann has become the most fascinating missing childcase since the abduction of the Lindbergh baby. In fact, over 2 million visitors have followed its progress in 2016 alone via the “The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann” website.

​This nine-year cold case continues to be an obsession with people around the world – profilers, bloggers, journalists, FaceBookers, Tweeters, and citizens of many countries,especially England, Portugal, and the United States. 

​Gerry and Kate McCann were not your average parents of a missing child. They were both medical doctors, as were most of their seven friends (often called the Tapas Seven) who vacationed with them in Praia da Luz, Portugal from where Madeleine disappeared just short of her fourth birthday. Six of these well-educated doctors, including the McCanns, left their children unattended in their vacation apartments for five evenings straight, out of eyeshot andearshot, while they wined and dined in a nearby Tapas restaurant. 

​On the fateful night of May 3, 2007, 3-year-old Madeleine McCann disappeared from her bed, and by morning the McCanns were claiming she had been abducted. They and their family and friends called in the international media, but despite the parents’ neglect of their children,which may have contributed to the disappearance of their daughter, the British government offered its support, including diplomatic assistance and the intervention of the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown. 

​When no proof of an abduction surfaced, cadaver dogs hit on the area behind the sofa in the McCanns’ vacation apartment, and the Portuguese police found the statements of the parents and their friends to be conflicting and deceptive. Both of Madeleine’s parents were made arguidos (suspects), but mother Kate McCann refused to answer any of the 48 questions put to her. Shortly after, the McCanns left the country and the case was shelved by the Portuguese police for reasons unknown.

​At this point, the McCanns mounted a high-profile publicity offensive in the media,including appearances on Piers Morgan and Oprah. They created a private “Find Madeleine”fund, which brought in four million dollars in donations to be used in any way they wished. Some of it paid for their mortgage, travel, and high profile attorneys. In 2008, Kate McCann wrote a book called Madeleine, which (along with a serialization in a top British newspaper) earned the McCanns another million plus.

With their publicity campaign in full swing, the McCanns sued or threatened to sue a number of people who had dared to speak up about the case and suggest that the McCanns may have been involved. Blog sites were shut down, promises to cease and desist were obtained, and free speech was muzzled. The McCanns sued the detective on the case, Gonçalo Amaral, for one and a half million dollars and got an injunction in 2009 against his book, Truth of the Lie. It had become a bestselling Portuguese analysis of the police case (which had sold 180,000 copies in Portugal alone) and of his documentary DVD on the case. In 2016, however, Gonçalo Amaralwon his appeal, and his book and DVD were returned to the market.

In 2011, American criminal profiler Pat Brown self-published her analysis of the case in a 32-page mini-book on Amazon. Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann vanishedafter five weeks of high sales and nearly 50 five-star reviews. Amazon informed Ms. Brown that Carter-Ruck, the McCann’s libel solicitors, had warned them of impending legal action if the book was not removed from the market. They caved and Brown’s book was taken out of all Amazon online stores worldwide.

​As of this date, the 2013 Scotland Yard review ordered by the British government to solve the Portuguese case of missing Madeleine McCann (a very unusual action to be taken by the UK in a case that was not even their own) has cost British taxpayers more than twelve million dollars. Scotland Yard now states that they only have one line of inquiry left to wrap up (and it is not about the McCanns). Then, they will shelve the case with their final conclusions. The Portuguese will also likely re-shelve the case when Scotland Yard pulls out.

​Pat Brown has profiled this case extensively over the last seven years and investigated it in person in Praia da Luz, Portugal. In addition to her mini-book, Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann, she has written dozens of blog posts on the case at The Daily Profiler. Brown will bring out new information in the Madeleine McCann case; the evidence, the analysis, the profile, the players, the politics, and the corruption, and penetrate the international mystery that still surrounds the most confounding missing child case in history.

​Pat Brown is an American criminal profiler, author of seven books and a crime commentator (seen more than 3000 times with regular appearances on Nancy Grace, Jane Velez-Mitchell, Dr. Drew, Anderson, Inside Edition, The Today Show, The Early Show, Wolf Blitzer, Larry King, Dr. Phil, Montel Williams, Bill O’Reilly, etc.).

​​​WHERE IS MADELEINE MCCANN?

​​​               Table of Contents

Chapter One: The Case of Madeleine McCann: Not Just Another Missing Child

Chapter Two: The Perplexing Parents: Bizarre Behaviors and Strange Bedfellows

Chapter Three: Marketing Maddie: The Tot Heard Round the World

Chapter Four: The Worst PIs Money Can Buy: Crooks and Conmen

Chapter Five: Those Dastardly Dogs: Damning Evidence or Canines Gone Wrong?

Chapter Six: The Tide Turns: The Crucification of the McCanns on the Internet

Chapter Seven: The Hired Guns of the McCanns: Silencing the Experts 

Chapter Seven: The Strange Charade of Scotland Yard: Millions of Pounds Spent, Zero ResultsAchieved

Chapter Eight: Criminal Profiler Pat Brown’s Analysis of Madeleine McCann’s Disappearance 

​

Below is an example of the responses from the publishers. 

We are intrigued, but I don't think this one is quite right for our list. As the case is not concluded, and as the McCann's are more litigious than most, I don't think we have the infrastructure to handle a book like this one. Frankly, without the full-time in-house legal team for the vetting this would need, it's a costly proposal. 

Alas, afraid I'm taking the coward's position on this one, but I wish you and Ms. Brown great success in finding the perfect publishing home for it, and I thank you for thinking of us.

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

It is a sad situation that the McCanns have so cowed publishers that they are afraid to take a chance on a story that is as a big as this one. There still may be someone out there in the publishing world my agent hasn't contacted who might be willing to give such a book a shot, but I strongly doubt we will see anyone be brave enough until the case is long closed or the McCanns are out of the picture.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
August 9, 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.

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