Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Who Should be the Suspects in the McCann Case?

MY PRESENT TAKE ON THE MCCANN CASE

One of the problems with trying to understand what has happened in a crime is being on the outside of the police investigation and not knowing the whole truth of what is going on. My speculation, as is true with all of us outside the investigation, professionals included, is based on limited information. Having said that, sometimes the police have the same problem. They may have limited information due to lack of evidence, lying witnesses, incorrect scientific conclusions, altered crime scenes (staged or accidentally altered), etc. So they actually are in the same boat, only a better constructed and less leaky one.

So, in a sense, it is a struggle to solve a crime, from the inside or outside. We theorize, search for evidence, theorize some more, search for evidence, and so on, until, hopefully, we have evidence conclusive enough to affect an arrest and conviction. Sometimes the evidence never reaches that state and, even if the police are pretty darn sure who is guilty, they still cannot arrest them or they know they cannot get a conviction.

As to the professionalism of the PJ's investigation, I cannot comment on that. They may have failed in some respects and done well in some respects. I don't have enough information. Generally speaking, most police departments will claim they do an excellent job following procedure, but in reality, sometimes it is less than perfect because police officers are human and vary in skill and competence. I have worked with some police departments that have done awesome work and others that make me cringe. Sometimes it is a lack of finances; sometimes it is departmental inefficiency; sometimes you just have a sad bunch of not to bright blokes. Every profession suffers these problems. Every profession tries to do their best with what they have and most police departments want to be a credit to their profession and work to be so.

To the McCann case; I don't have a clue as to the physical evidence or timeline because of police silence and all the rumors. Therefore it is really hard to actually analyze how the crime went down. But, I will go ahead with what I generally think on the matter.

POSSIBILITIES IN THE DISAPPEARANCE OF MADLEINE MCCANN

• Maddie is unlikely to have wandered off and drowned.
• Maddie was unlikely to have been kidnapped by a pedophile ring.
• Maddie is unlikely to have wandered off and been abducted though that COULD have happened (if there is no physical evidence of harm or death coming to Maddie in the apartment). If this is true, she is very likely dead.
• Maddie could have been abducted by a child predator that lived nearby. If this is true, she is likely dead.
• Maddie could have been medicated and died accidentally while her parents were at the restaurant. If this were true, the body of Maddie would have had to be moved from the flat and hidden or hidden within the flat prior to Kate’s cry that Maddie was missing. If this is true, Maddie is dead.
• Maddie could have died accidentally prior to the McCann’s going to dinner, giving them more time to move or hide Maddie’s body. The time at the restaurant and the checks on the kids would establish an alibi and move the time of “disappearance” further from any possible witness sightings of earlier suspicious activities of the McCanns. If this is true, Maddie is dead.
• Kate killed Maddie, purposefully, or in a rage, and Gerry came back from tennis and found Maddie dead. He helped cover up the crime. If this is so, Kate would likely suffer from Munchausen’s syndrome by Proxy (if she killed Maddie on purpose – MSP is the label for a female psychopath who harms or kills her children; husbands of MSP women tend to be detached and very oblivious or accepting of their wive’s behaviors) or another serious psychiatric disorder (if she killed Maddie accidentally). They could have removed or hidden Maddie’s body before going to dinner or the body could have been dealt with by Gerry during his checks on the children. If this is true, Maddie is dead.
• Gerry came back and killed Maddie in a rage. If this is so, Gerry would be likely rate high on a psychopathy checklist and be very controlling). Maddie’s body would have been dealt with before or during the evening. If this is true, Maddie is dead.
• Kate killed Maddie, purposefully, or in a rage, and moved or hid her body without Gerry’s knowledge. She would have had to manipulate Gerry into not noticing his daughter in bed (“Maddie’s already asleep, let’s go) before going to the restaurant. She would then possibly have hoped Gerry would do the checks and find Maddie missing, distancing herself from the crime. Maybe, if Gerry actually didn’t do visual checks, Kate finally got fed up and went and did the check herself. If this is so, Kate would likely suffer from Munchausen’s Syndrome by Proxy or another serious psychiatric disorder. If this is true, Maddie is dead.

These are all the possibilities I can think of based on very limited information,

I believe only two basic scenarios are worth spending much time on;

Maddie was taken by a child predator.
Maddie died in the apartment and the parents are covering up a crime.
In both cases, Maddie is likely dead.

THE SUSPECTS

Robert Murat is a good suspect. He should be kept on the suspect list (even if not officially) until there is evidence that contradicts his involvement in the disappearance of Maddie or until another person is arrested.
Police should continue investigating for the possibility of another child predator who could have been responsible for the disappearance of Maddie.
The McCanns are good suspects. They were the last people to have been known to see Maddie alive and their behaviors are very concerning. They should stay on the suspect list (even if not officially) until there is evidence that contradicts their involvement in the disappearance of Maddie or until another person is arrested.

Because of the following behaviors, I tend to lean toward the McCannd been involved with the disappearance, and therefore, death of their daughter, Maddie.

THE MCCANNS

They left three very young children unattended while they pursued pleasure for themselves. This is a sign of narcissism and a lack of attachment to one’s children.

Both Kate and Gerry speak about Madeleine in a very impersonal and flat manner. Gerry writes nothing personal about Maddie on his blog. Maddie seems more like an abstraction than a real child. This is a sign of lack of normal attachment.

Kate states that the last words of Maddie before she went missing were “Today has been the best day of my life.” Maddie’s last words are unusual for a three-year-old girl. Kids that young don’t usually have a concept of their “life.” “I am having the best time,” and “I am having fun” are more normal statements for that age. Next, Kate says Maddie was “very pleased with her life,” also an odd comment for an adult to say of her child. Both statements lead me to believe Kate knows Maddie is dead because of her emphasis on the inclusion of the word “life,” as though there were a set of parentheses around the first day of her life and the last. Kate may want to convince herself that she gave Maddie a good life, right up until her last day, the best day of her life. Also, it is quite common for people involved in the death of a relative to exaggerate the perfection of their relationship or the last moments to insinuate that nothing negative was going on between the parties and, therefore, nothing untoward could have occurred.

The McCanns have never personally offered the reward on television or posted the reward at the web site. Almost all parents of missing children do this.

If Kate really believes Maddie is alive and being cared for in someone’s home, she would make continual direct pleas to the captor for Maddie's return (“Please just drop her off any public location…”). Almost all parents of missing children who believe they are alive will do this.

Neither Kate of Gerry have taken or indicate they will take a polygraph. Parents of missing children do this to clear themselves so the police will not waste time focusing on them.

Kate and Gerry appearances show little fluctuation in emotion (except when they feel they are being accused of drugging Maddie). Neither breaks down and cries or blurts out anything with emotion (“Maddie! We love you, honey! Don’t give up! We will find you!” Or “Please give us our Maddie back! Oh my God, please!”) Usually in a set of parents, we will see emotions bounce around, one of them falling apart, one becoming angry; with the McCanns their answers are carefully constructed and evenly relayed. Their appearances feel more like performances than parents desperately trying to reach out to their child, the kidnapper or the public. Yes, they are British, but even a stiff-upper lip tends not to look like this under these circumstances.

There are muted flashes of anger, frustration, and annoyance directed from one of the McCanns to the other during their interviews which is very unusual for parents of a missing child. There is a strong feeling of control rather than support between the couple.

Gerry McCann commented in one interview: “In about the middle of June things, about five or six weeks, things were going really very, very quiet and I was actually quite glad of that and I thought we would start to get back to a more normal existence and a quieter form of campaigning, using the Internet and raising and broadening the political issues which have been highlighted to us and I saw that as a long term focus.”

For a parent to have any interest in political issues so soon after his child has gone missing when the one and only concern should be finding their loved one, is extremely bizarre. That Gerry should see his long term focus at this point in time as a political one is also very concerning. This statement would be less concerning if a few years had passed and the McCanns, accepting they were likely never to find their daughter, wanted to do something to help others not suffer as they had and to do something in their daughter’s name. But, to think this way so early on indicates Gerry believes or knows his daughter is dead and indicates more self-interest than interest in his daughter’s welfare.

Gerry’s blog focuses very little on Madeleine and more on his and Kate’s activities. The cheery quality of the blog and self-centeredness of the content is a sign of disconnect between Gerry and Madeleine and a sign of having moved on as if Gerry knows Maddie is already dead.

Kate states she had trouble sleeping during the first five days after Maddie went missing but has been sleeping fine since. Very few parents of abducted children can sleep very well knowing their child might be in pain, crying, and scared. Kate’s ability to sleep infers she is not worrying about Maddie because Maddie is dead already (or has an inability to feel empathy for others).

The quick return to normal activities is unusual for parents of abducted children; most obsess continually and can’t think of anything else and have trouble going through the simplest routines of life.

Kate and Gerry left their twins in Portugal while they went to see the Pope. Most parents of abducted children would be paranoid to be away from their other children for fear something would happen to them. Furthermore, to leave your children in the exact location where your other child was taken, whether one had a relative with them or not, is odd for parents who believe the abductor of their missing child is in the very same vicinity.

The McCanns left Portugal as soon as they became Aguidos. If the only reason they were made suspects was a legal one so the police could ask them important questions to help them clear themselves, they should have stayed to continue to help the police put the matter straight and get the focus off of them.

Much of the PR campaign at this point appears to be responding to public opinion and trying to answer their suspicions about the innocence of the McCanns, not finding Madeleine. Even in the latest move, the television appearance of the McCanns did not make a plea to the abductor or send a message to Maddie. It appeared to be a show to prove Kate has emotions. Following the show, an artist’s rendition of a supposed suspect was released many months after he was said to have been seen by one of their friends. The release of the picture will be counterproductive to actually finding Maddie, as not only is it based on a very questionable witness sighting, but may have nothing to do with Maddie. Such a picture will only elicit droves of worthless tips and waste police time. This is an unwise choice of strategy unless the purpose is to distract the police from focusing on the McCanns.

It is possible that the McCanns suffer from certain psychiatric designations that causes them behave in a manner which makes then look guilty of involvement in the disappearance of Maddie when in actuality, they had no part in it. For this reason, I can only say, they are good suspects; I cannot label them guilty.


SUMMARY

So, to recap, Madeleine McCann is 99% likely to be dead. My top suspects at this point, based on behavior and what information can be validated, are the McCanns. If I were a criminal profiler working with the police on the case, I would be focusing heavily on them as my investigative focus. However, I would not rule out the possibility of a child predator and, therefore, I would spend a portion of time pursuing leads and information that might prove this possibility to be true, and I would make sure I did not force fit any evidence to match my theories nor ignore any evidence that might point me away from those theories. As new evidence surfaced, I would take this into account, reanalyze the information, and adjust my conclusions accordingly.

I hope we will see progress soon in the investigation of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance, so the whole matter can be put the rest and justice will be seen for this little girl and those who love her.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Why Does Kate McCann not make a Plea to Maddie's Captor?

In the recent interview with the parents of Madeleine McCann, Kate McCann states she believes Madeleine is alive, essentially unharmed, and being cared for in someone's home. If Kate really believes this, then there is a glaring omission in her use of the media.

It is extremely abnormal for a mother who thinks her child has simply been taken by some lonely person and being cared for in a nice, little house to not reach out to that person with a message, over and over again. After all, this would be one way to get your child back. Here is how that kind of message usually goes:

“If you have Madeleine, please return her to her family. I know you may love having Madeleine with you but her Mommy, her Daddy, and her sister and brother are in great pain being separated from her. Please, please, let us have her back. Please take her to a public location where there are lots of people around like a McDonalds or a library or a hospital and drop her off. You can do this anonymously so you do not have to worry about being noticed. We are not interested in having any action taking against you; we just want our little girl at home with us. Thank you for taking good care of her and please send Madeleine back to us.”

But, instead, no plea to her captor? Very, very bizarre.

Which remind me: I have never heard of an expert telling parents to be unemotional in a plea to a kidnapper so as not to amuse them. Personally, I have to say most pleas are a waste of time and will have no effect on a psychopathic kidnapper. But, if one wanted to make a plea because one really believed the abducted child was not already dead or being tortured in a dungeon, that the child was with some nutty woman who just had to have the pretty little thing, then an emotional plea would be just the thing to try to jog the woman’s conscience to return the child.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Open Letter to Kate McCann

As a criminal profiler, I have also sometimes been criticized for theorizing about a case I have not personally been privy to the actual facts from inside the investigation. As I do a lot of television commentary, this is quite often the case for me; I only can theorize based on the “facts” outlined by the media. Therein lays the difference between public speculating and true criminal profiling as part of an investigative team. The latter is going to be one hell of a lot more accurate!

Still, all is just theory until the crime is solved. Everyone doing the analyzing and paying attention to this theory and that knows that any “determination” is only based upon the validity of input. The only harm theorizing can do is if the police detectives theorize incorrectly about the evidence or bring in an expert who theorizes incorrectly and bases the entirety of their investigation decisions on this particular theory. If, on the other hand, the theory is accurate, then the investigative avenues will be pursued correctly, or, if the theory is interesting but not necessarily correct, the police will pursue a number of investigative strategies to cover all bases.

Are the PJ doing this? I haven’t a clue. I cannot assume they are any way inferior to other police departments in the UK or in the US or elsewhere in the world. Each department consists of individuals and it is a roll of the dice as to how good these particular individuals are at investigative work. I remember when Natalee Holloway went missing in Aruba, folks from the fine state of Alabama accused the Aruban authorities or incompetence and shouted how if Natalee had gone missing in the United States the case would have been solved quickly. Bunk! We have an ungodly high rate of unsolved murders and missing people here in the US, a good number of them right in Alabama. Fact is, some cases are hard to solve and some cases have detectives who are all that bright. Other cases have better evidence or top notch detectives. It isn’t a perfect world.

So, what do we know so far in Maddie’s case? Not much. We have zero clue about the evidence or the veracity of the witnesses. All we really have so far are the unvarnished public statements by the McCanns and I don’t mean the ones reported by the media in print as those can be misstated by the journalists (and I know this because I often quite displeased when I read in print some completely twisted version of what I told the reporter).

So, all we can truly be sure of is what the McCann’s have stated on television or radio or in Gerry’s blog. Even their PR team’s information is a bit questionable if we can’t hear it being said.


Before I comment further, I want to reiterate that the McCanns, while suspects in the disappearance of Maddie, are not legally charged with any crime. Therefore, they may be totally innocent of hurting Maddie in any way. But, I will also say, we as adults and members of the human race are also responsible for the way we behave and the things we say, so we must also take responsibility for the way other view us.

Therefore, based only on what the McCann’s said or written. I have some advice for the McCanns. SHUT UP! I have some advice for their PR team. Tell the McCanns to SHUT UP!



OPEN LETTER TO KATE MCCANN

Yes, Kate,

It isn’t your breast size or weight that is causing your problems. It is you and your narcissist evaluation of the situation and your PR team’s equally stupid assessment of the situation that is making you look so bad in the public eye.

I am a criminal profiler with years of experience dealing with parents of murder victims and missing relatives. Your behavior and the behavior of your husband fall far outside or the norm for grieving parents. Now, this may be because you are just terribly narcisstic folks who had nothing to do with your child going missing (outside of neglecting your children and putting your needs to party before their needs for comfort and safety, a narcissistic behavior if I have ever seen one). You and Gerry may simply be so narcissistic you have no understanding of how other people view your behaviors and your PR team may share your narcissism so that no one on your team has a clue to normal human behavior.

But, SHUT UP! Every time you open your mouths you do more damage to yourselves. You seem guiltier by the day. Your attempt at “damage control” is so obvious and so very much a day late and a dollar short, everything you do or say seems a cover up and a transparent attempt at proving your innocence.

Let me make clear what I think is weird about what you say and do:

You choose words about Madeleine’s disappearance which make it appear you know there is no abductor and that Madeleine is dead.

Both you and Gerry state your only guilt in the matter is not being their when Madeleine “was taken.” This statement makes no sense for abduction as Madeleine could not be taken if either of you were with Maddie when an abductor would have shown up. It makes more sense in the context that Maddie died while you were not in the apartment.

Your statements and attitude about Madeleine being alive do not square with parents who really believe their daughter is in the hands of a pedophile or pedophiles who are brutally raping and torturing her daily.

Your attempts at “finding” Madeleine do not represent the manner most parents would choose if they were actively searching for a live child but appear more to be the actions of parents trying to prove after the fact of a child’s death that they “cared” (not care) about her.

Your behaviors of “keeping a normal routine” and “keeping up one’s appearance” is admirable, but extremely bizarre. I don’t know any other parents of missing children who can appear so together and cheery. When my daughter cooked our kittens by accident in the dryer, I cancelled Christmas.

Gerry’s blog creeps people out. It is too upbeat. Terrified and distraught parents of missing children are rarely able to jog and play tennis and go to park with their other kids and have a fun time. Over a long period of time, maybe, but this is usually years after the nightmare begins. Some parents never recover from the trauma and it is common for marriages to fail and the brothers and sisters to feel their parents went absent after their sibling went missing.

Your ability to sleep at night after the first five days, Kate, is beyond belief. It is the behavior of one who already knows the answer and even then, is quite a narcissistic trait. If you believed your daughter was being raped as you lay in bed at night, sleep would be very hard to come by. I guess you finally realize this and your mother is saying that NOW you can’t sleep and Madeleine comes to visit you in the night. What changed, Kate?

Your PR team coming up with an answer to every accusation, answers that are ludicrous in themselves, makes you seem awfully defensive, and, if there is no way you or Gerry had anything to do with Maddie’s disappearance, you have nothing to defend. Furthermore, if all you care about is finding Maddie, you shouldn’t be wasting your time on such silliness. After all, as Gerry said, Maddie is the only important thing, right?

So, SHUT UP, Kate. SHUT UP, GERRY. Fire your PR team as they are totally worthless. If both of you really are innocent and your think Maddie is alive, return to Portugal. Start searching for real (and it took six months to set up a hotline?). Cooperate with the police. Take the polygraphs as you have zero to hide and, with competent polygraph examiners, the questions are so simple you can’t screw them up. I will even give you the four questions that should be asked:


“Did Madeleine die while you were present?”
“Did you return to the apartment and find Madeleine dying or dead?”
“Did you move Madeleine’s body at any time?”
“Did your spouse move Madeleine’s body at any time?"

These are simple questions. The answer to all of them should be “No.” There is no ambiguity in these questions (unlike a question such as “Do you feel responsible for the disappearance of Madeleine?” which you could if you acknowledge leaving her without an adult caretaker is irresponsible; an affirmative answer to such a question would be useless to the detectives as it could falsely indicate that you had something to do with Maddie going missing when you are only feeling guilty over leaving her unattended. Also, an affirmative answer could mean you simply do not feel responsible for what happened to Maddie no matter what happened to her as a total narcissist might).

The above four questions are simple and unambiguous and even a narcissist can’t misconstrue the meaning of the questions. The answers will be a simple “Yes” or “No.” Have the polygraph session videotaped so the police will be unable to do any underhanded scare tactics or interrogation that might distort the results of the tests.

Quite frankly, Kate, you and Gerry had everything going for you as parents of a missing child if you hadn’t left your children unattended night after night to go out partying. THIS is what made people dislike you. It was to your advantage that you are both relatively attractive people because IF you had big breasts and a porky physique and were not well-heeled professionals, you would have become suspects right off the bat and you would have not had the incredible monetary support you have been blessed with nor all those kindly letters. You would have been viewed as just a pair of slobs who probably abused their children as well as neglected them and you wouldn’t have gotten the phenomenal amount of publicity worldwide concerning Maddie’s disappearance. Other parents have gone public, run campaigns, and had web sites, but your fortune with publicity and support has been unprecedented. And, you complain, Kate, that people are treating you badly because you are fit! It was being fit and professional and well-off that got you so much attention. It was you and Gerry’s fitness as parents and your peculiar behaviors that got you the negative attention.

I have a final suggestion. Ask the PJ if I can come analyze the case. My organization will send me pro bono. As a criminal profiler I can analyze the actual evidence to advise the investigators as to the best investigate strategy. I have no problem determining this crime as an abduction and finding the creep that took Madeleine if the evidence points that way. I don’t have to like you and Gerry as people to view the evidence in an impassionate and professional manner. No one should be convicted of a crime simply because of personality and because people don’t like the individual’s personality. Solid physical and circumstantial evidence must exist to the point where there is no question as to who committed the crime. I would work very diligently to assist the PJ with the evidence and the facts and do a thorough crime scene analysis that would move the case forward.

Furthermore, if you and Gerry get charged in Madeleine’s disappearance and must truly defend yourselves, my services are available to you and your lawyers. I will be more than happy to analyze the evidence and, if you are innocent, do all I can to serve in your defense.

Good luck, Kate. May the truth be brought to light soon and you and Gerry get the justice you deserve in the case of your missing daughter.

All the best,

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Have our Ethics gone to the Dogs?

I really didn't want to comment on the Ellen Degeneres "Doggygate" drama, but I just can't keep my mouth shut any longer (which I suppose is actually not such a surprise to most of you).Before I rant, I want to make clear that I am an animal lover: I own two Bengal cats and a potbelly pig (and if you want to see Gwendolyn, my sixteen-year-old hog, you can go to MySpace and check out the video!). I have owned many pets in my youth and during my children's upbringing including a dozen cats, ferrets, rabbits, hamsters, gerbils, rats, birds, frogs, toads, salamanders, and many a lizard (my favorite being iguanas). So, I love animals and I can say, I have never abandoned a pet (which is why I still have a 250 pound pig on my property).

So, I feel for Ellen, sort of. It seems she had concern for the animal she took in and tried to care for it (well, at least for a few days before she gave up). Then, she found another home she thought was good for the dog. None of this makes her a rotten person.

But, I have to say, I think Ellen is a bit ethically challenged. Breaking her contract with the pet rescue agency, Mutts and Moms, and then trying to blackmail them by going on air with her grievance to millions of people and putting the agency in a horrible position, is simply wrong. It would have been bad enough to do such a thing if the agency was a fault, but to destroy the group when they were within their legal rights, is unpardonable.

Ellen cannot be so naive she didn't know what she was doing and neither can her hairdresser pretend he had no knowledge of the contractual issues unless Ellen lied to him. Most people who have pets and adopt them through rescue organizations know how very serious these rescue folks are about placing the animals in their care. Certainly, Ellen would be familiar with their attitudes and methods. She clearly knew that Mutts and Moms would feel exceptionally responsible for what happened to a pet they placed in a home. This is why they have the return clause. If they didn't have a problem with someone handing off a pet they no longer wanted to some other person, they wouldn't bother with home placement to begin with. They would simply stand on the sidewalk with a box labeled "Free Puppies."

Ellen knew that when she decided she didn't want Iggy in her home, she was to call the agency and they would find another home for the dog. She knew they were not going to euthanize the puppy. But, instead on honoring the agreement and the mission of the rescue organizations workers, she gave the dog away to a home she personally felt was okay for the dog. If the dog got overly excited in that new home and bit the children, the dog would have been removed by authorities and put down. If the family decided the dog wasn't working out, just like Ellen, they could also just give the dog away, or worse, drop it at the pound. This is what Mutts and Moms was trying to prevent by the return clause. They were trying to protect the puppy and make sure it ended up in a safe and permanent home. This is their job.

Ellen needs to go back on air and admit she was hands down wrong. She needs to admit Mutts and Moms were simply doing their job. She needs to tell everyone to back off and she should help Mutts and Moms get back on their feet financially with a large donation to make up for all the damage she has done to them.

There is nothing wrong with using the media if you are bringing attention to illegal behavior or serious moral or ethical wrongs. But, to use one's clout to take down an innocent David when you are a Goliath, when you are feeling bad about the mistake YOU made, is pretty inhumane and awfully darn selfish.

Come one, Ellen, step up to the plate. We all have made mistakes in the heat of emotion, but this doesn't mean we should run away after we realize we screwed up. Set an example and do the right thing. Exonerate Mutts and Moms.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: What do Duck Killer Scott Clark and Mass Murderer Tyler Peterson have in Common?

Scott Clark, an auditor for the Inspector General's office in Denver ripped a duck's head off while he was a guest at the Embassy Suites in Minneapolis. Yes, you read that right. Clark was staying at the hotel while in Minnesota on business and thought it perfectly within his rights to grab a duck out of the atrium duck pond and tear its head off. He then proceeded to cart the duck's body off to his room. However, when the police arrived, they found the body of the duck in the elevator, the head in the pond, and blood and feathers from the poor bird strewn around the lobby. Clark was arrested.

His response? "Why? Because I killed it out of season? Big deal, it's just a (insert word) duck."

Reminds me of John Wayne Gacy who stated he should only have been charged with running an illegal cemetery when all those boys' bodies were found in his crawl space.

Which brings me to a problem many people have when they know someone who behaves like this. They minimize the behavior. Even though what Clark did is creepy and a hallmark of psychopathy, he will probably still have friends to hang out with, a girlfriend, and a mom who will invite him to dinner the very next Sunday; they will find excuses for his frightening behavior. They will say he was drunk (yes, he was but even if I were drunk, I wouldn't be beheading pets), or he just thought it was funny (funny?), or he was having a bad hair day (but not as bad a day as that duck had).

Then, if Scott Clark shoots his ex-girlfriend down after she breaks up with him, will everyone say they didn't see it coming. Is this possibly true of Tyler Peterson in Crandon, Wisconsin? To methodically stalk and kill six friends, Peterson must be pretty pathological in his thinking; he could not have been an emotionally healthy person and then turned around and done this. He did not "just" snap. My guess is we will eventually hear quite a bit about previously concerning behaviors that most who knew him simply shrugged off.

If you know a Scott Clarks or Tyler Peterson, keep your eyes open and don't minimize sick actions or things they do that make your uncomfortable. Ripping heads off of hotel ducks is not acceptable behavior and anyone who does this is someone you should want to be very wary of. Remember, the next head ripped off may be your own.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Another “Ludicrous" Theory in the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann

A short time ago, I made a suggestion that the British police might investigate the McCann’s residence (and the residences of friends and family of the McCanns) for the possibility that the body of Madeleine McCann might have been transported into England. Some folk immediately labeled the theory ridiculous, or ludicrous, as the McCanns would say. How, they asked, could the McCanns carry a putrefying and decaying body in a suitcase and get it on and off of an airplane? I understand that this sounds mighty foolish to many who don’t work in the field of criminal investigation and profiling and they think Pat Brown is a nutcase par excellence!

Let me clear up a few misconceptions: first of all, it is a theory, not a fact. Secondly, a theory is useful to stimulate investigative avenues not yet thought of that might lead to evidence that would otherwise have been overlooked. Third, offering one theory does not mean it is the only theory or even the best theory. It is far more likely that Madeleine’s body is somewhere underground in Portugal or Spain or in the ocean. These are simpler places to bury a body. It may be that the body has just not yet been discovered. This is very often the case; while rumors and theories abound about white slavery and porn rings and sightings are made of the victim all over the world, the body of the poor thing has simply been lying in a ravine for the past few months! Sometimes bodies fall into strange and difficult places or are well-buried for years. Then, one day a jogger trips over the body or a farmer turns over some soil to plant his corn, and, voila! The victim has been found.

Maddy McCann will likely be found in a similar way (unless someone did one heck of a job of hiding her). Whether a child predator took Maddy or the parents did her in, she will probably one day just be found. However, there is nothing wrong with being proactive and trying to find her sooner than later. Therefore, the police should follow all leads and theories. IF they find her sooner, than not all the evidence with the body or within the body will have been destroyed by time and nature.

So, search in Portugal and Spain and any other place one can think of. And, yes, search in England: Maddy just might be there.

Would it really be possible for one of the McCanns to cart the body of their daughter back to England? Yes, absolutely. Because of the climate in Portugal, it is possible that should they have buried Maddy in a shallow grave in a sandy substrate, her body would have mummified. Mummification is a desiccation of the corpse where the fluids drain into the ground and the rest of the body dries up. There is relatively little odor associated with a mummified body.

If this occurred, the body would be easier to transport; it would be lighter and drier and lacking the horrible smell of a corpse. Such a body could easily be placed in a sealed bag and placed in a suitcase. Screening of stowed luggage is not likely to uncover a body inside of a suitcase and when the traveler reaches the other end and goes through customs, they enter the “Have nothing to declare line,” and just walk through (unless they exhibit concerning behavior that raises a red flag and launches a search of the luggage). As to the McCanns, I seriously doubt they were searched upon arrival, not with all the press surrounding them and the mass of curious onlookers, reporters, and VIPS lurking about.
‘
IF the McCanns were involved and IF Maddy’s body was brought home, when this would have happened is another question. Unfortunately, only those inside the organization would (we hope) know the truth about the McCann’s movements. For example, Gerry McCann returned to England on June 19, just four days after an exhaustive search for Madeleine was called off. This search was in an arid, desolate area (the kind of climate which might encourage the mummification of a body) near a town called Odiaxere. A letter from an unknown sender had stated she could be found there in a shallow grave. Four days later, Gerry is on a plane home. I don’t know if he took any luggage with him, anything more than a rucksack (which I don’t know the size of). He only stayed for the day, purportedly to attend some meetings. He claims he had his wallet stolen while getting money from an ATM and later that evening, the wallet was mailed back to him. A rather peculiar story that I wonder might not be a cover for the reason he was late to his meetings; he ostensibly spent the time calling credit card companies to cancel his credit cards.

If I were the police investigator, I would follow up this lead. I would want to know what luggage Gerry took with him to England. I would try to see if there was any proof to the wallet theft story. I would find out if he had any “alone” time on the trip. I would find out if he made those phone calls to the credit card companies and if he really got money from an ATM. I would find out exactly where he was that day through any evidence of his movements (phone call tracking, receipts, witnesses, etc.). I would want to know if anyone met him, especially anyone who he could have transferred a package from one suitcase to another.

I would check all the McCann trips and look for possibly ways for them to transport a body away from Portugal. And, again, I would look for all possible places within Portugal or neighboring countries as possible places to hide or bury a body. I would check the possibility of a burial at sea.

If I were the Portuguese police, I would be following all leads, even those that lead away from the McCanns. It never hurts to be thorough. The point is to recover Madeleine, dead or alive, and bring justice to those that hurt her. In the end, it doesn’t matter which theory is correct (except as an educational tool for future investigations). It only matters that the case is solved.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: "The Moment Madeleine was Taken."

One has to be careful when analyzing from a distance if a particular person or persons is exhibiting guilt concerning the commission of a crime. Until there is hard physical evidence linking a perpetrator or perpetrators to a crime, the case is tried in court and a conviction is handed down by a jury or judge, all is still speculation.

I am asked over and over if I think the McCanns are guilty of the disappearance of their daughter Madeleine. I always answer that I cannot say for sure because at this point I haven’t a clue as to the veracity of any of the information coming out of the European tabloid machines. I have to say I have been rather appalled by any media spawning so many “facts” that turn out to be just hearsay. It is not like proposing a theory: speculation is not claiming knowledge and is not lying, but stating something is a fact when it is not, is egregious and the media should not be doing this.

Let’s look at the supposed facts: if the DNA from Madeleine in the hire car exists, the McCanns are guilty as hell. If there is blood from Madeleine on the stairs, this only proves she was injured but not by who. If there are sedatives in her hair, this is pretty damning. So much for the “facts.” Let’s turn toward the McCanns and their behaviors. Behavioral evidence is not conclusive evidence. It is useful in determining investigative avenues to focus on and interview methodology. It is circumstantial evidence and can lend weight to a case in court but rarely can stand alone without physical evidence to support guilt. As a criminal profiler, behavioral evidence is extremely important in analyzing any case and advising police investigators of its meaning within the context of the case.

The McCanns narcissistic behavior is concerning, but they could be narcissistic people who have had they child abducted. One thing I have learned about the family of victims of horrible crimes; whatever you were like before your loved one went missing is exactly what you are like afterward. You don’t change. So, if you are a really aggressive person before the crime, you are likely going to be aggressive afterwards and fight to see the crime solved. If you were extremely passive before the incident, you might simply allow the police to do the work and hardly lift a finger. If you were a soft touch previously, you may sob your way through a television appearance. If you were a tough cookie, you may come off as a cold, uncaring, and possibly guilty of wrongdoing.

The McCanns appear pretty narcissistic in their behaviors after Madeleine’s disappearance. They worry about their physiques, their clothing, hair, and jewelry, and they like a lot of attention. But, this is exactly how they were before Maddy went missing, so I am not surprised they are acting this way. Their rather off-putting behavior does not mean they are guilty of anything more than child neglect.

But, I have been going back over the actual interviews of Gerry and Kate McCann and one statement sticks in my craw and bugs the devil out of me. It is the one thing that makes me lean toward their guilt even without any physical evidence. This is what Gerry said:

“We felt our actions were responsible. We were essentially performing our own baby listening service although we have talked of the guilt we felt at not being there at the moment Madeleine was taken.”

Maybe Gerry just misspoke. Maybe it is similar to the ear pulling thing he did when he denied that he and Kate gave Madeleine sedatives; maybe his ear just itched at that moment and he wasn’t lying. Maybe it is like when they left their twins to jet off to see the Pope claiming it was no big deal because their children were in a safe location, the very same town the abductor of their other child might still be loose in; that statement doesn’t necessarily mean they know that no real kidnapper is out there. Or when Gerry said that he and his wife Kate were "100 per cent confident" of each other's innocence,” maybe this strange wording for parents who child is abducted while they spent the evening in each other’s company, maybe I am reading more into it than is necessary. So, maybe this particular statement of Gerry’s is also just an odd choice of words. It doesn’t prove guilt. But, it does continue to force me to look at them as suspects in the real meaning of the word.

Why?

It is not because he and Kate still think that leaving their children alone is not wrong. We know they have never felt leaving tiny toddlers to fend for themselves constitutes neglect. They have said that over and over. Clearly, they are never going to accept responsibility for their horrendous actions that night. But, firstly, what Gerry admits in that statement is they were only “listening” at the door, not looking in to see if their children are all right. If they are not actually observing their children, they would not know if they were sick, injured, or missing from the room. Gerry has moved away from saying they actually checked on their children to some rather vague “listening” methodology, perhaps, one so distant, that he meant they were close enough that they should be able to hear one of the kids if they left the room screaming for them. Not only that, Gerry basically admits the window for “kidnapping” Madeleine is a whole lot larger than thirty minutes. She could have been “taken” five minutes after they left the children in bed if they never “saw” them again until Kate finally decides to not just listen at the door but actually look in on her children. But, more importantly, if Madeleine actually died during the time of the “listening” checks or her body removed during the time of the “listening” checks, it behooves the parents to carefully skirt around having to lie about “seeing” Madeleine earlier during the evening via visual checks on the children.
But, even this bit of information is not the big problem. It is the very last part of the sentence that rings warning bells to me:


“….although we have talked of the guilt we felt at not being there at the moment Madeleine was taken.”

First, let’s look at what Gerry McCann did NOT say:

“We are horrified that we left our little girl alone and made it easy for a predator to kidnap her.”

Okay, that statement would be normal for a nonnarcissit and one who accepts responsibility for their actions, so maybe we shouldn’t think Gerry would say that. But, one might think he should have at least said this:
”..although we have talked of the guilt we felt at not realizing it was unsafe to leave Madeleine alone and because we were naive, we feel guilt that Madeleine was taken while we innocently left her unattended.”

This would be a pretty good statement, but, wait, I have to say, again, they are too narcissistic to admit to this large a mistake, so I would guess this is why Gerry didn’t say that either. BUT, let’s see examine what Gerry REALLY did say and why it is important and very concerning.

“…the guilt we felt at not being there AT THE MOMENT MADELEINE WAS TAKEN.”

First of all, Gerry, IF one of you had been there with Madeleine, there would be NO MOMENT WHEN MADELEINE WAS TAKEN. It simply could not have occurred. If one of you had been there, either the abductor would have simply turned around and given up the idea or you would have fought with the abductor to save Madeleine. She could NOT HAVE BEEN TAKEN if you were there.

Let’s analyze further. There are two very important words here: MOMENT and TAKEN.

First of all, Madeleine couldn’t have been taken in a MOMENT by an abductor. It would have taken quite a few moments to grab the child out of the bed, struggle with her, climb out a window, and carry her off.

Secondly, she wouldn’t have just been TAKEN. She would have been ABDUCTED, STOLEN, or KIDNAPPED.
TAKEN is an interesting passive word. Theoretically, it could just be Gerry and Kate trying to feel less guilty about a child predator abducting a screaming and terrified Madeleine. Maybe the word, TAKEN, just feels less awful. But, then again, maybe TAKEN is what they really mean. Maddy may have been taken from life and Gerry and Kate may feel guilt over the MOMENT that occurred. Alternatively, if they really did have help moving her body and Kate really did scream “THEY have taken Madeleine,” maybe they feel guilt over not being there at the MOMENT Madeleine was TAKEN from the room and hidden elsewhere. Perhaps, this is exactly why no one was supposed to look in on the children and why the doors were left unlocked. Maybe, the “feeling” Gerry has that a man was in the room is accurate because he set the whole thing up. But I digress.

If the MOMENT refers to a time when Kate and Gerry were off partying and Madeleine suffered a serious injury from falling down the steps or had overdosed on sedatives, they might feel guilty they were not there at that MOMENT because as doctors, had they been there at that MOMENT, they might have been able to administer medical care and save Maddy’s life. Gerry then would be admitting that MOMENTS do count and leaving your child unattended for even a MOMENT can effectively contribute to the child’s death.
Worse yet, if the McCanns were there when Madeleine died and Gerry is referring to feeling bad about not being there the MOMENT her body was moved, then one of them killed her in a fit of rage or overdosed her with sedatives before going out for the evening. This parent clearly would not be viewing themselves at fault for the incident and the other parent is one heck of a pushover and enabler. This can happen when one of the couple is desperate enough to stay in the relationship, protect one’s professional life, or keep a perfect social or personal image. Considering the great deal of minimization the McCanns have done since their daughter went missing, it is really not that big a stretch to imagine one of them acting in such a fashion.

Regardless of which scenario might be true, I think Gerry may have told the exact truth with this statement: that he and Kate DO feel guilty for

“… not being there at the MOMENT Madeleine was TAKEN.”
.

Does the fact, and this is an actually fact, that Gerry says he and his wife feel guilt over not being there at the MOMENT Madeleine was TAKEN– does this statement of Gerry’s mean they are guilty of Madeleine’s disappearance?

No, but it sure doesn’t help me spend a lot of time looking harder at Robert Murat and if there is much more damning information from the interviews with the McCanns, their friends, the employee of the hotel, and the physical evidence then we know of, one can’t blame the Portuguese police for not spending much time looking at him either. They would only be looking for Madeleine’s body or enough other physical evidence to charge the McCanns in the death of their daughter and subsequent obstruction of justice in hiding their daughter’s body and misleading the police investigation.

If the McCanns are innocent of having anything to do with Maddy’s disappearance, I feel sorry that they have had to suffer all the allegations on top of the anguish of losing a daughter. However, I feel much sorrier for Madeleine, who would have had to suffer through a horrible sexual assault and a violent end to her life because of willful neglect of her parents.

The McCanns are reaping what they sowed and there are responsible for the results of their actions. They only anger they should express is towards themselves, not the police or public trying to find out what happened to Maddy, and they only horror they should feel should be at their own actions and the horrible hurt it brought to their innocent little girl.

But the McCanns apparently feel negative emotions toward themselves over only one issue:

“…not being there AT THE MOMENT MADELEINE WAS TAKEN.”

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Photo courtesy of Google images

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Out of Sight, Out of Mind

Many Americans are closely following the story about missing Madeleine McCann, a child who is not even from the United States or went missing in the United States. Meanwhile, little Devon Epps, age seven, hardly makes the news. Such is the problem with being dead rather than being a missing person. An incredible amount of money is spent on publicity if a child's fate is unknown, but if the poor little creature is brutally murdered and the body is found, the story is often yesterday's news even if no justice has been served and the killer is still out there. Sadly, this means a lot of money and effort is often wasted on pointless searching for children who are likely just as dead as those whose bodies aren't still undiscovered.

Devon Epps' story is quite tragic. In May, this little boy's bedroom ended up on fire and he barely escaped alive. He had to use a cloth to open the burning knob on the bedroom door to escape and then he ran to wake up Mom who seemed not to want to deal with him at that moment.

Then, in August, his mother, 26-year-old Amanda Reagan Smith, claims she got carjacked, and while she survives (with hardly a scratch) the big, brutal criminal who wielded a knife and made her drive to a lonely spot in a wooded area, little Devon is smothered to death by the carjacker. Ms. Smith claims the man made her get out of the car, and when she did, he locked the doors and proceeded to snuff out her son.

I hope Devon Smith gets justice since he did not get to live a full life, but I wonder if his own community will spend more time paying attention to where Madeleine McCann is rather than ensuring that their own community is safe and that someone pays for the murder of this young, innocent child. I wish we would get our priorities straight and put our concerns and energy toward what would really make a difference in making our world safer.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Is Maddie in England?

IF the evidence we have heard recently exists concerning Maddie's DNA and hire in the boot of the hire car and the McCanns were involved with the disappearance and death of their daughter, Madeleine, here is what I think could have happened. I have been considering WHY anyone would move a body from one location to another after twenty five days. If Maddie's DNA from decomposition of her body is really in the hire car, what purpose would there be in moving her body at that time?

I can think of only one: they would have to be afraid the Portuguese police were getting closer and closer to discovering what happened to Maddie and they took action. One possibility would be to move her to a location where she could never be found: at the bottom of the ocean. The other would be to move the body back to a location they controlled (the later villa they had rented), they would not have to worry about the police stumbling across their daughter’s remains. With all their traveling about, leaving and entering the apartment with a suitcase is not going to raise any eyebrows. Apparently, the police never brought the sniffer dogs to the new villa and, therefore, Maddie’s body could have remained in a suitcase in a storage area until the McCanns decided to move on. If the decomposition stage was late enough, the issue of odor would be less of a problem).

Kate McCann has stated she would never leave Portugal without her daughter and maybe she was telling the truth. Madeleine is but a small and very portable child. She weighs little and, if she had been decomposing for so long, she would weigh even less. The McCanns returned to England with four large black suitcases. Was Maddie in one of them?

It may unbelievable behavior for a parent, but, many a body has been shipped in suitcases over the course of history and parents have done strange things in desperation or in grief, so this would not be an impossibility. If the McCanns chose to do this and succeeded in not getting caught, they would have outsmarted the Portuguese police, avoided a jail sentence and no one would ever find out what really happened to their daughter. Because the McCanns were familiar with air travel, airports, and entry and departure points, they could determine whether their luggage was likely to be searched upon arrival (and the answer from my experience with travel to England is the chances of them having any problem with scrutiny and searches is low).

If the evidence holds, the British police might search for Maddie right there in Leicestershire, England; who knows what they might find.

Of course, this all depends on whether any of the leaked information about the DNA and hair in the boot of the hire car has any validity at all. If it doesn't, then regardless of the negligence of Maddie's parents in leaving her unattended out of eye and earshot (and I do not think this acceptable parenting even if there are no kidnappers likely to take her), then we are back to a pedophile snatching her. One way or the other, there is little likelihood Madeleine is alive.

At the heart of all crime scene analysis is evidence, both forensic and behavioral. Theories that then prompt investigative avenues are based on what evidence one has in the case. If the evidence changes, then the theory will change with it. This is why no one is guilty until proven so in a court of law. Even the most suspicious of suspects is not guilty until the jury says so.

Are the McCanns guilty or not? I have no idea since I am not inside the homicide investigation. But if there is really any evidence pointing toward the McCanns, then the police should do what they suggest and "Leave No Stone Unturned."

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Just Say Yes to Net Neutrality

Justice Department Says No To Net Neutrality

The Justice Department announced today that Internet service providers should be permitted to charge customers extra fees to access certain web sites or to load some web sites faster than others.

“The agency told the Federal Communications Commission, which is reviewing high-speed Internet practices, that it is opposed to "Net neutrality," the principle that all Internet sites should be equally accessible to any Web user."

That’s right; the cable and telephone companies want to charge us more money to load some web sites that were previously available to anyone with access to the World Wide Web.

Wait, it gets better.

"The Justice Department said imposing a Net neutrality regulation could hamper development of the Internet and prevent service providers from upgrading or expanding their networks. It could also shift the "entire burden of implementing costly network expansions and improvements onto consumers," the agency said in its filing."

Um… Isn’t charging extra fees to access web pages and content (which the ISP does not even own) the same thing as shifting the "entire burden of implementing costly network expansions and improvements onto consumers”? Keep in mind the added cost would be billed to customers who already pay more for high-speed Internet access than for dial-up, which is reasonable-up until now, anyway.

After the ridiculously inadequate explanation of the economic disadvantages of Net Neutrality for consumers, the Justice Department gives an example of the validity of allowing providers to charge us extra for mouse clicks.

"The agency said providing different levels of service is common, efficient and could satisfy consumers. As an example, it cited that the U.S. Postal Service charges customers different guarantees and speeds for package delivery, ranging from bulk mail to overnight delivery."

WTF? Loading web pages that are currently freely accessible and independently hosted and maintained by individuals and entities is similar to the labor and resources needed to transport packages by ground and air….how? "Could satisfy consumers?" You've got to be kidding me

I usually conclude that powerful government agencies make stupid statements like these because they arrogantly believe the general public are idiots. But lately I am considering the possibility that they aren’t arrogant at all, or thinking much of anything other than their greedy little thoughts because they're the ones who are morons.

My Cable TV and Internet service is provided by Comcast Cable Nazis. Two things already piss me off big time about their service. First, in order to receive network channels such as TBS, TNT, etc, it is necessary to buy the “Standard Cable Package” that includes “Basic and Expanded Cable.” Tough luck if you only wish to subscribe to a couple of HBO channels and nothing else because you must purchase the Standard Package before adding “Premium Cable” services. Not only do you have to buy “packages” or channels you don’t want in order to get others you do want, you have to pay money to view 3-5 minutes of local commercial advertising for every 10-15 minutes of programming on an out of state network channel. If I can pay for HBO with no commercial interruptions, why do I have to pay to watch something on an expanded cable station and still have to endure incessant commercial advertising too? Not to mention paying for 2 golf channels, 5 home shopping channels, and 30-minute infomercials on most of the other “Standard Cable” channels that I don’t want.

The second problem I have with the Cable Nazis is when calling their customer service line (3-4 times a month) due to Internet service interruptions; I spend 15 or more minutes on hold listening to nothing but sales pitches for additional services. Ok, I confess. I rather enjoy pointing out to the unfortunate tech help person that finally takes my call that the last thing a frustrated customer who is waiting for technical help wants to hear is repeated requests to spend more money on something that is not even working at the moment.

Start calling your legislators folks, or this one may sneak right past us. The Cable Nazis will not get so much as a penny from me for something I already do, no way.

Donna Weaver

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Just say good bye, Senator Craig

All right, I give in. I have to finally put my two cents in about Senator Larry Craig.

Senator Craig, you are a manipulative, lying creep.

You plead guilty to trying to solicit sex in a public bathroom. No innocent man in his right mind would have done that, especially a public figure, if some aggressive cop had decided to use you to make his day. Furthermore, no man accidentally touches other men's feet under the stall or puts his hands or eyes into another man's personal space while taking care of business unless he is willing to risk getting beat up for trying to get a little something from someone he thinks wants the same thing.

I differ with folks who say even if you were trying to have sex with strange men in public bathrooms, it is no big thing. The word "public" is an important point here. When people are in public spaces they do not expect that they or their underage children will be exposed to sexual acts. What you do in the privacy of your own home or someone else's home is another matter. I don't care. Well, actually I do, if you are married.

Which brings me to the topic of adultery. Again, some people say adultery is a personal matter. No, it isn't. Adultery destroys family, community, and society. Maybe it isn't illegal any more, but I don't have to respect you for doing it and I should think someone who represents family values ought to have some of them himself.

Very few people have brought this issue up: you are a security risk. If you are trying this hard to hide your homosexual behavior, then someone can blackmail you, whether it be a lobbyist or an agent of a foreign power. You are a liability.

Finally, we can't trust a damn thing you say. You gave the speech I expected when you said you were resigning for the good of the country and so you wouldn't be a distraction in the course of the government doing business. You, of course, admitted no guilt; you only claimed to be a great guy who was railroaded, but in spite of that, would leave office so as not to cause more contention.

Apparently, you lied again, because now you are taking that back. You seem to have problems making "false statements" and then wishing you hadn't made them.

Go away, Senator Craig, please! You are a disgrace to your family, your state, and your country.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Profiling for Dummies Case # 1

I thought I would start a series of homicide cases that will make newbie profilers and wannabes feel good about their profiling skills! Here is Case Number One! Ready?

Who Killed Kelly Gorham?

Nursing student Kelly Gorham went missing in Maine. She was engaged for two years to Jason Twardus. They broke up in June. Kelly went missing in early August and her body was found in a shallow grave during a search on the property of Brian Twardus, Jason's daddy.

Now put on your thinking caps! The police have not yet named a suspect in this crime, so you can be the first to figure out who could have committed this murder.

If you get this one right, you can go for the extra credit question!

Who COULD have killed Kelly Gorham? (warning: attorney profiling required for the answer to this one).

Hint: There is only one answer to the first question. There are a dozen answers to the second question depending on the lawyer's ability to tell tales and the estimated gullibility of the jury.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: The Next Crime Scene is only a Phone Call Away

There is a scary new trend in the world of crime: bomb threat by cell phone. All week long, Walmart stores and other business across the United States have had some creep calling them via cell phone and demanding the manager wire money to an overseas account or a bomb will blow up in the store. The caller tries to terrify the customers and management of the store by making it seem like he is watching the store and is just outside in the parking lot with his finger on the detonator. He even got some people to remove their clothes because they thought he could see if they were obeying him.

Sure enough, some of the managers were frightened enough to wire money and so this scumbag is collecting off of his ruse. To think, this guy is just sitting in his living room (or bedroom if he is a young crook) in some country (and the last guess was Portugal), running down a list of store names on the Internet and making phone calls like he was a salesman cold calling his prospects. He doesn't have to actually walk into a store or physically threaten people or risk getting in a confrontation with the police. He just sits in the comfort of his home with a phone to his ear. and gets a darn good profit from his crime

Sadly, unless people stop falling for this ploy or some law is passed that makes sending money to the blackmailer a crime in itself (aiding and abetting a criminal), the number of these crimes may skyrocket. If it works well enough, think of all the criminals around the world who can copy this crime with just a cell phone and a computer and a way to retrieve the money (and not get caught). Already the Nigerian scams have netted god knows how much money with the fake checks they are printing and sending to their victims, and now we have a more frightening form of crime being perpetrated from overseas.

It is hard enough for law enforcement to deal with home grown crime. Just imagine what will happen if they have to work across international boundaries and get cooperation from foreign legal systems. With globalization and world wide communications, crime means offenders don't have to find victims just in their neighborhoods; they can find them thousands of miles away.

As Maxwell Smart would have said, "Too bad he didn't use his cell phone and the Internet for niceness instead of evil." The new technologies we now can't live without will be bringing us a whole bunch of crimes we wish we would never have to deal with.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Superbad is Superscary

I went to see the movie Superbad last night to see what all the fuss was about. The critics are raving, the public is raving; this movie is being called the most hilarious, accurate, teen raunch movie of the decade, destined to become one of the great all time classics. I have to admit, the audience loved it. I, on the other hand, found it only occasionally amusing, usually when the movie dealt with the boys inept handling of communication with females. The rest of the movie was filled with totally stupid humor one would think would only be funny for fifteen-year old males who find people throwing up a scream, and bad words hysterical. I could live with this and walk away thinking, "Let the kids have their fun," except for the fact that a lot of people in that audience were older than fifteen and they loved the movie. Worse, there were kids in the movie theater that were under fifteen and they loved the movie.

The movie was totally degrading to women and the importance of love in a physical relationship. The main character constantly talked about sexual acts and body parts in such a repulsive manner that I can't believe females in America accept this as a perfectly okay thing. Women essentially become sluts and bitches in this movie, nothing more than unimportant humans on the planet living only to serve the sexual needs and egos of these selfish, immoral creeps called teenagers.

The only boy in the film who starts off as seeming to actually like a girl as a real person and not just a sex object, still gets himself drunk to sleep with her when he is told he won't be a date rapist if he is just as inebriated as she is. He is even willing to provide the booze to get her there. Then, when the drunk girl actually drags him to the bedroom and rips off his clothes, all the while acting like the biggest ho in the world and talking as dirty as some 50-year-old sex pervert, he feels uncomfortable and stops her. Later, she thanks him for not taking advantage of her while she was drunk, indicating that she is really an innocent virgin. Please, give me a break. If this is the way decent schoolgirls act, we are in big trouble.

Actually, yes, we are in big trouble. The movie being acclaimed as so wonderful by so many is disturbing. We cheer for the foulmouthed, crude, repulsive, lawbreaking, annoying, disrespectful, misogynist slob and are happy when he finally gets his way with some brainless babe who rewards him with sex because she recognizes that underneath all of that repulsiveness is a really a great guy.

With this kind of attitude toward women (and we see it in other movies and music), I am surprised females want to date any more. Even if guys sometimes think about girls in a less than romantic way, wisdom says keep it to yourself. But, constantly informing women that they are viewed as meat seems horribly unappealing. Sadly, I think more and more females today have accepted this role as their lot in life, as just the way it is, and just the way guys think. They no longer believe that sex should be part of a love filled, passionate relationship. It's just about sexual release and thrills, mostly his. If you want to be accepted and you want a guy in your life, just don't say no to humiliation.

Respect for women is dead, and by the lack of bad reviews coming in about this movie, it isn't likely to return soon.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: 40 Children, 40 Days, No Adults

And 40 sets of parents who ought to be charged with child neglect and abuse.

Reality TV is bad enough for society as we watch adults who choose to humiliate themselves and each other for money or fame, and we as a country who get a kick out of watching adults make asses and fools out of themselves ought to be ashamed. But, at least we are talking consenting adults who lower themselves to be a part of such appalling circuses.

What about those children on talk shows? You know the ones I mean. "My Teenager Acts Like a Whore" and "My Grade School Kids are Brats." Shouldn't putting your children on display as failures and emotional disasters and victims of pedophiles be tantamount to abuse? I sure as hell think so. I would like to see it be illegal for kids to be paraded by their sick parents on such shows and I think we should all be writing letters to complain to the networks that promote this atrocity.

But just when I thought it couldn't get worse, now we have children turning into "Lord of the Flies" so we can get our fill of this sick thrill in the comfort of our living rooms.

Children are supposed to be nurtured, respected, and cared for by responsible adults twenty-four hours a day. Although "Kids' Nation" claims it is like summer camp, I don't know of any kid's camp where the ratio of adults guiding children is 0 to 40. Even if the children are in a "safe" setting with adults lurking on the outside of the performance ring, the purpose of parenting is not to watch your kids go at it with each other, fend for themselves, make their own rules, and only step in when your child has suffered enough emotional damage to be removed from the game.

I guess this is a "fun" experiment, to see if the children will become as deranged as those in William Golding's horrifying story. Woo-hoo! Wouldn't that make those TV ratings soar!

I feel ill.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: A Sow's Ear in Disguise

Bobby Cutts, the police officer who allegedly murdered his pregnant girlfriend, has now been charged with murder of the mom and baby. There is still much speculation as to what the motive was. Some think it was his rising debts and the fact this woman and child when born would add to them. Others think his motive was to eliminate a woman he was no longer interested in so he could spend more time with new females in his life. It seems that people feel more comfortable if there is a "reason" the character committed homicide. Unfortunately, this reason is what a defense attorney pushes to make the killer look more human, more understandable and forgivable. Even if the guy is a coldblooded serial killer, his bad childhood is the reason he ended up murdering people. If these desperate problems had not come into the killer's life, he wouldn't be a killer. In other words, he is not such a bad guy except for problems that pushed him over the edge.

While it may be true that an individual may not have sunk to the level of murder had not some issue upset him, we have to ask ourselves if it is ever an okay response to kill because one is having a bad hair day. Most of us go through life all the time getting pissed off and frustrated about what people and life has done to us. For all that I have been through, killing people to improve my circumstances, get rid of problems, or vent rage, has never occurred to me. Why is that? Could it be I think it is morally unacceptable?

Bobby Cutts apparently did not have this issue with right and wrong. And what kind of person doesn't have an issue with right and wrong? A psychopath. And what is the only thing that stops a psychopath who has no morals from committing crime? Getting lucky enough not to need to commit crime or being worried enough not to get caught.

Take this example: suppose a man decides his wife is becoming a problem to him. He plans to take her on a hike near some cliffs and push her over. But, before they leave for the weekend, the wife has a blood clot go to her brain and she dies. Woo hoo! The husband is happy he doesn't have to bother to kill her. Does this make him a nice man? Hardly. He simply got lucky. Or suppose a child molester wants to rape little girls but now everyone is watching him like a hawk. He doesn't do anything except fantasize. He also is hardly a nice man.

So, when someone does murder or rape or commit other heinous crimes, we ought to recognize that he is a dangerous animal. There is no excuse in the world that should make us view him in another way.

He is just a sow's ear we think might be a silk purse until we take the wrapping paper off.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

(photos courtesy of Yahoo News)

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Commit Crime and Collect Cash

What sentence do you think this guy got?

"My wife was falsely accusing me of having an affair with one of her friends. She pushed me and I pushed her away from me and I went to the kitchen to get a bottle of medicine because I had a headache. I was putting water in the glass when I heard her yell, "I am going to kill you, you bastard!" It just scared me because once before she had threatened me with a gun. It was just a spontaneous act. I grabbed a knife that was drying on a towel on the counter. I turned around just as she lunged. The knife just went into her chest and she collapsed and died. I loved her before I knew her and I will continue to love her for all my days."

After 11 months in jail during which time he completed his GED and went to Bible study and life skill classes, the judge said at his sentencing hearing, "I have come to find out that you are apparently a very decent person." He accepted the plea bargain that suspended a ten-year prison sentence and placed him on probation for five years. "I am giving you the benefit of the doubt."

Outraged? I bet. Eleven months for killing his wife?

Now, replace the he with she in this story and see how you feel. This two page story in The Washington Post was one of those human interest stories, this time about how a woman who had a hard upbringing accidentally killed her husband last night and is now back in the world and "Reclaiming a Life (hers apparently since hubby ain't coming back)." We are supposed to feel sorry for her struggles. She is having difficulties with work and finances (although that $400,000 she is about to pick up from the insurance company for stabbing her husband should help a wee bit - apparently an "involuntary manslaughter" conviction allows the killer to collect money on the victim).

I don't buy the woman's story. She uses the word "just" a few too many times for comfort as "just" is one of those words that sets up a red flag for a profiler; usually a lie follows.

But, ten months? The benefit of the doubt? If this had been a man, would the attitude be quite so lenient? I have much sympathy for battered women and realize that self-defense may be an issue, but this lady's story doesn't hold water. If she had been a guy, she would be doing all ten of those years. Instead, the woman gets nearly half a million dollars for committing a crime. Being female in this instance, paid off.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Update on Alien Apples and Offending Oranges

Rodolfo Godinez has just been arrested in connection with the Newark homicides. He is a legal U.S. resident and there goes the immigration argument in this criminal issue. Again, the problem isn't about the legality of the residency status but the fact that we let violent criminals back on the streets even when we know for sure they are dangerous to the community. Godinez got bail for stabbing two men in a robbery. Then he vanished.

Bail should be for nonviolent offenders. Yes, they have committed a crime and they should be prosecuted for it. But, you are more of an annoyance than a physical danger to the community. However, if you are the kind of guy who has no problem choking, stabbing, or shooting people, I really don't want you walking around on the streets while we decide what to do with you. Let's make sure the public is as safe as possible and then make sure we apply proper justice.

Having said all of this, it is important to look at the some of the kind of folks that sneak into the country. They are clearly not doing all that well in their own. Sometimes it is because economic opportunity is near nonexistent; sometimes it is because they are not the kind of people folks want to hire. In other words, they may be losers and they may be dangerous losers. The governments of their countries will be more than happy to get rid of them.

Many illegal immigrants are nice people trying to survive. But, some are scum who we should be keeping out of the country if we can. We have the right to refuse such folks entry and to track them down if they make their way in. However, moving from a general argument to this one incident is not useful as we can now see that one of the alleged killers is an actual legal resident. Let's focus on the most important aspect of this heinous crime: let's stop bail for violent offenders.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profing Topic of the Day: Mixing Alien Apples with Offender Oranges

Imagine this scenario: A man purchases an illegal fireman from a criminal on the street. He is a felon who has been released from jail after serving only half his sentence for armed robbery. He has broken parole five times but instead of being sent back to prison, he has just been given warnings. He walks down the street from his halfway house to the convenience store on the corner. He enters the store and purchases a Red Bull drink. He pays for it and drinks it while waiting for the store to clear of customers. Then, when only the clerk and the felon are left in the store, the criminal pulls out the illegally purchased handgun and holds up the store. When the community hears the story, they become incensed. Clearly, Red Bull ought to be pulled from the market because the excess caffeine in the drink made the man hyper and caused him to commit crime.

Ridiculous you say? Well, this is the same foolish thinking going on with the case of illegal immigrant, Jose Lachira Carranza, the alleged killer of three Newark teens. While illegal immigration is a major problem in our country and ought to be addressed for a number of perfectly legitimate reasons, the fact that this alleged killer of teens happens to be in the United States without a green card really is not an important factor in this case. The real issue ought to be the fact that Carranza got bail after being arrested twice for child rape and then let back onto the streets.

Illegal immigrants don't kill people, criminals do. Stop bail for violent offenders.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Shirking Responsibility for Criminal Behavior

In Virginia, another drunk teenage driver has killed herself and her three friends who were riding in the car with her. One of the fathers of the passengers made this statement: "A drunk driver killed my kid." I beg to differ, sir: a drunk driver and her drunk enabling passengers colluded to kill themselves. You can't blame the driver without blaming the passengers. There was an open gallon of vodka in the car, half of it gone, when the car crashed. This isn't like a drunk pilot killing his unsuspecting passengers. Every one of those kids knew the driver was drinking and likely passed the bottle to her while she was behind the wheel. In doing so, everyone shares the blame for the car crashing and the resulting deaths.

A while back, a Minnesota girl survived such a crash that killed her friends. Because she was the driver, she ended up getting charged. She admitted she was wrong but she stated that all of her friends knew darned well what they were getting into when they got into the vehicle with her and passed the bottle around. She got a lot of angry feedback from that statement; folks thought she was blaming the victims of her mistake. But, I agree with the girl. She was wrong but her friends were just as wrong.

In another horrifying Virginia story, a man left a cache of weapons around his mentally deranged son, took him to practice shooting at the gun range and gave him drugs. The son ended up taking his daddy's guns and murdering two police officers. The father ended up getting a few years for aiding and abetting, a sentence I thought was far too low, although I was happy to see him get nailed for something (unlike most of the parents of school shooters who get off scott free after their children take their father's or grandfather's guns and mow down their classmates).

Nancy Grace got sued by the family of Melinda Duckett for grilling her over the disappearance of her son. After Melinda made herself look really guilty with her poor answers, she went home and blew herself away with Granddaddy's shotgun. Her grandfather, however, instead of blaming himself for leaving his weapon around for his mentally unstable granddaughter to do herself in with, attacks Nancy for making his squirrelly grand kid feel bad about herself.

And let's not forget Madeleine. Her parents left her and their two little babies alone in a strange hotel room while they went off drinking. Now, they have collected two million dollars from caring people to find her. While I understand they are hurting, many parents have had their kids kidnapped through no fault of their own. Madeleine's parents should have been charged with child neglect.

What do all these cases have in common? Folks taking no responsibility for their behavior and blaming someone else for the results of it.

I would like to see people speak out and say, well, you brought it on yourselves and you need to either live with that fact or go to jail for your involvement with the crime. Let's stop making excuses for these individuals and expect and demand that they accept responsibility for their actions.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Defective Adults need to Grow Up

There is a new game coming in September to Toronto: Street Wars. This is a video game gone real time involving idiots posing as adults stalking each other on the streets until they can commit an assassination by water gun. Now, I will have to admit I can see the fun in it. Essentially, what these folks are doing is called "tailing" in the, private investigation industry. They are tracking down information on where the mark lives, works and hangs out, and then the mark is tailed until he can be "killed." The big difference is private detectives have a license for this because without one, it is rather concerning when one person stalks another.

The claim by the creator of this stupidity is that it is all in fun and no one is getting hurt. I beg to differ. While each contestant pays forty dollars to get in the game and knows he is the assassin or the target, the game is not being played on private grounds where no one else is being affected. This is not paintball at the paintball range or laser tag inside a laser tag facility. This game is being played out among other human beings who have no clue to what is going on.

If I see one of these fools skulking around acting suspicious, I am going to call the police. And, if one of these morons pulls out a water gun in a crowded location and aims it at me or someone near me, God help him, if it looks to real; he may get shot. These players by acting like criminals are going to cause fear in other people's lives and that will make their behavior no longer just pretend. They are crossing the line into true criminal behavior. In return, they may get treated like criminals.

I agree with the game creator that this game could be amusing, but so what? Lots of illegal things are fun and I don't do them. There are some things that are not illegal but morally or ethically questionable and I don't do these things either. As an adult member of society, I am supposed to be mature enough to figure this out. Apparently the game creator and his players aren't. Grow up, for God's sake....please.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiing Topic of the Day: Gerald Grinstein, The Great Satan of Delta Airlines

Delta: The Devil in Disguise


I will start with a disclaimer: until flying for the first time with Delta, I have been a fan of the airline industry. I travel a lot and I am not a whiner when it comes to weather and airport security. No one can help bad weather and airline security really isn’t such a big deal. In order not to get all bent out of shape, I do my part to be a good customer. I arrive early for my flights, usually more than thirty minutes before the recommended time. This allows for a sizable cushion for long lines and far off gates. I usually amble through the airport, smile my way through security, and then toddle over to the bar near my gate and have a bloody Mary. I buy newspapers to read and always have along a good book. It does not bother me that I have to spend a little extra time waiting; it saves me from having to panic as I watch the minutes run out if the airport is crowded or I have to have my carry-on luggage sifted through.

I bring my own food on the plane. Often I bring such good stuff I make the other passengers jealous. I brought two large pizzas on the last flight (my kids love New York pizza) and I enjoyed a couple slices while en route. When I flew home from Beijing, my daughter and I brought food from our favorite Chinese restaurant on board. We feasted on incredibly wonderful dishes while we watched those around us eating microwaved crap. Why more people just don’t bring their own food, I will never understand. Compared to the cost of travel in general, forking out a few more dollars for a good lunch one can enjoy while flying, hardly seems a big deal. This way, if there is an unpreventable delay and food is in short supply aboard the plane, one always has a stock of food to fall back on. I never go hungry on a flight.

I also bring lots of stuff to keep me busy and something warm to keep from freezing. I am pretty much the perfect passenger.

So, why am I about to skewer Delta? Because they damned well deserve it. There is no excuse for treating customers so abominably for a mistake of Delta’s (or possible planned fraudulent action -yes, fraud – the explanation coming up). And, as usual in the land of corporate giants, there is next to nothing the consumer can do about a company like Delta except refuse to use them again, which I can guarantee you, will be true in my case. Here is the short explanation ::laughing hysterically:: list of my Delta abuse as I experienced it:

Wed August 1: Arrive at JFK from Atlanta to find no luggage. Lost my evening in NYC trying to get answers. I was told the luggage would be sent over to the hotel after the next flight arrived from Atlanta at midnight. I was given a phone number to call to check on this and I also had them write down that, if, for some reason the luggage failed to arrive that night, to then send the luggage to my home in Maryland as I was flying out in the morning.

Thurs August 2 – Called that phone number all night but no one answered. Luggage did not arrive at hotel. Went on air without my suit. Flew home to Maryland in the afternoon. Called that number repeatedly and finally talked to someone. Asked them to be sure to contact Mumbai, India because I was guessing my luggage was never taken off the plane to JFK and it was going on to Mumbai. I was told there was no way I could know that and probably the luggage was in Birmingham, Alabama where my flight originated. I was also told the luggage may have been taken off because the plane was overweight. I was told that instead of losing money by taking customers off the plane, they fly the customers to their destination and then say their luggage was “accidentally” misplaced. I call this fraud as when I pay for a ticket, I am buying a space for myself and my luggage with expectations we are both arriving at the same time. This apparently is a dirty secret of the airline industry.

Fri August 3: I call all day and finally someone answers the phone at 5 PM and tells me the luggage will arrive at my Maryland home in the morning. I was offered no explanation or apology.

Sat August 4: The luggage does not arrive in the morning. I call the number and get a woman who tells me that all she knows is my luggage was coming in on a flight from Mumbai, India. I guess I wasn’t so wrong after all. She can’t tell me when I will see that luggage and is extremely rude to me. I reiterate that I am in Maryland and want to see the bag is routed properly. She continues to be nasty and tells me she will call me back within a few minutes when she finds out more information and, if I want, I can call her until 5 PM when her shift ends. I wait two hours and call back. The woman has already left for the day. I get another nasty human. I ask to speak to the supervisor. I am told to leave a number and he will call me back when he gets out of his meeting in five minutes. I wait one hour. I call back. I get a new abuser and I am told there is no supervisor there. This nasty creep says he has no idea where my luggage is and I should call the 800 number and not JFK. I was never told this previously. I ask for the number and he hangs up. I find it on the back of the luggage info which I never noticed because the original clerk wrote down the JFK phone number on the front and told me to deal with them. I also found a website to track luggage.

I call the 800 number. I am told the luggage is on route to NYC. I ask the woman why since I have repeatedly told Delta that I left NYC on Thursday morning. She doesn’t know why. I ask to speak to the supervisor. She is an equal rude idiot. She calls JFK and tells me she can’t get in touch with anyone, too bad. I call JFK myself yet again and get yet another person. She tells me not to worry; the bag is in the car and on its way to the Hilton in NYC. I asked her why it is going to the Hilton since I am not there. She checks the computer and lo, and behold, there is my Maryland address along with the NYC address with the note that I have not been in NYC for two days. She tells me she will have the bag brought back and sent down to DC. It will be there within about six hours, by 10 PM. 10 PM comes and goes and I check the computer listing and it now says my bag will be delivered between 10PM Saturday night and 10 AM Sunday morning; at least the address now says Maryland.

Yep, 10 AM comes and just at that time I get my first call from Delta who kindly wants to let me know they have the bag in Washington DC and it will be to my house by 4 PM. I am not holding my breath.

No one I talked to at Delta baggage sympathized with my plight. No one at Delta baggage apologized for Delta’s behavior. Everyone lied to me. Everyone told me that they were not lying and that no one at Delta lied to me. Everyone told me they were being nice to me and trying to help. Get back, Satan! I can recognize evil when I see and hear it.

So, what is wrong with these people? Does Delta make them into the devil incarnate or do they just hire the minions to do their dirty work? I don’t have a problem with mistakes (considering the mass of luggage they deal with and the craziness of dealing with all those flights and such). But, I do object to being treated like crap, being lied to, and manipulated. I object to Delta taking no responsibility for their behavior. I object to not receiving a full refund and compensation for my lost time, replacement purchases, and emotional suffering from their nasty treatment. If I were in a restaurant, I would refuse to pay the bill if I didn’t receive the dinner I expected and was treated rudely. I think Delta (and any airline) should have to fully compensate their customers if they do not provide the service paid for (whether due to mishandling or outright fraud).

So, Gerald Grinstein, CEO of this miserable excuse for an airline also known as Delta, what explanation do you have for accepting or encouraging such horrible employee behavior? If the minions you control are the little satans, does that make you the Great Satan?

As a criminal profiler, I would have to say yes.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

P.S. I finally got my luggage. It looked like it had been mauled. My tennis shoes and several Hindi music CDs were gone. Guess I was absolutely right that the bag went to Mumbai. Really, folks, I don't object to my bag going to India, but if it is going, I want to go with it.

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: If it walks like a Duck...

I have to hand it to the new Dear Abby with her answer to this question (7/30/2007):

DEAR ABBY: My soon-to-be-ex-husband's secretary keeps giving my 16-year-old daughter extravagant gifts for Christmas. One year it was a complete Tiffany jewelry set (earrings, necklace and ring). This past year, "Donna" gave my daughter a $200 gift certificate to an expensive clothing store and another $200 one at a trendy cosmetics store. Should I be suspicious? -- EAST COAST MAMA

DEAR EAST COAST MAMA: No, by now you should be convinced.

Good zing, Abby, and how right you are. It is funny (and sad) how often I have heard these kinds of questions concerning what species of animal a loudly quacking duck might be. Some women are upset that their boyfriends are turning out to be liars which surprises them since they gave them such a nice place to live when they came out of prison. Other women wonder why the married men who left their wives to marry them are now cheating on them. Then, there are the women who are treated like dirt while they are dating and yet are surprised after marriage that they are still treated like crap. While we human beings may minimize some less-than-perfect behaviors in order to have companionship or a mate, there should be some very clear signs that the duck is no songbird.

Save yourself a lot of problems, ladies. If he has acted like a creep, guess what? He’s a creep!

PS. To you men out there, reread the above statement, and substitute female ducks for male ducks.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown