Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: School Mass Murders not for Americans Only

It turns out the Finnish boy who shot up his school killing nine of his classmates had been on line exchanging emails with another kid who had planned to do a Columbine on his own school (and thankfully has been arrested). The Internet is providing loners with something they never have had in the past: a demented peer group that they can be part of without actually having to hang around with them. These disturbed kids can now surf the Internet to find like minds instead of only being able to choose mates from just those available teens in their community. In this larger ocean of humanity they are sure to eventually find some other sick puppies out there who glorify violence and mass murder in the same way they do.

This new accessibility to ideas, encouragement, and validation is a serious problem for society. Psychopaths who are able to plug into such a system find fertile ground for sowing ideas that will eventually cause them to act out perverse behaviors. Rape sites, murder sites, bomb-making sites: sites like these allow teens with personality disorders to develop their fantasies. If these sites didn’t exist, the psychopath might never reach that level of obsession and simply be an annoying human being with slightly peculiar ideas, an oddball, but not necessarily a danger to others.

A diet of violence and a hungry psychopath is a deadly combination. Unfortunately, the Internet contains a veritable smorgasbord of evil ideation and the price to consume it is negligible.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: "My Bad!"

I was just reading this horrifying story about how there is a rise in homeless men being attacked a beaten by teenagers who get a kick out of violent aggression. In one case, four underage boys beat a fellow to death and then went about bragging of the crime. Now, CNN interviewed one of the convicted teens, Nathan Moore, claims it was a “mistake” and there was no premeditated plan to hurt the homeless man. Drinking and mob mentality caused this aberration of behavior.

Let’s think about this mistake: can it be a mistake?

Someone makes a mistake when they forget to set the alarm and are late for work.

Someone makes a mistake when they put a cup of salt in the cookie recipe instead of a cup of sugar.

Someone makes a mistake when they forgot to lock the baby gate and the child takes a tumble.

You don’t beat someone to death by mistake.
You don’t rape someone by mistake..
You don’t steal a car by mistake.

When you come right down to it, it is pretty near impossible to commit a felony crime by mistake. You have to really work at it.

But, even our court system buys into this mistake foolishness and gives a criminal a slap on the wrist because, after all, he just made a mistake and we should give him a second chance. When did our society start believing that crossing the line into criminal behavior is just accidental? I can’t even begin to imagine my children (now grown) burglarizing a neighbor’s house, or raping a female friend from the neighborhood, or setting someone’s home on fire. Yet, I know quite a few parents who do not think this is all that unusual behavior for teenagers; some actually accept criminal behavior as a rite of passage for kids. This kind of thinking is pretty darn scary.

If criminal behavior is but a mistake, we might as well decriminalize it. Wait, maybe we already have. Probation is what we give to first time criminals because they just made a mistake and it takes quite a few mistakes sometimes before the criminal justice system finally believes the criminal is actually making a choice.

It is about time we realize that he made the choice the first time out and make him pay for it.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: How to become a Nonsuspect with a Simple Explanation

A Michigan prosecutor says the two vehicles seen in the vicinity of Jodi Parrack, the little eleven-year-old Michigan girl who went missing while riding her bike and then was found dead by her mother in a cemetery, have been eliminated as suspicious because the drivers had “innocent reasons” for being in the area.

Innocent reasons? Does she mean when she questioned the men (and I am assuming they are men because if they were women this likely would be a pretty good reason to eliminate the vehicles are involved in the crime) they didn’t say, “Oh, I was cruising the neighborhood looking for young girls to rape.”

Innocent reasons? Could this be the men said they worked in the area, were putting flowers on their mommy’s grave, or going shopping? What does the prosecutor think the killer would tell her? The truth?

Serial killers are well known for killing near their homes, or on route from their jobs, or on their way to pick up some groceries for their wives. Many times this is exactly their excuse or their “alibi.”

Unless the drivers of those vehicles have airtight alibis for the time in question or are incapable of committing such a crime (like being in a wheelchair and using hand controls to operate the gas and brake), then those vehicles should still be considered possibly linked to the crime.

It is amazing how often police investigators and prosecutors have eliminated a suspect from the investigation because he “seemed nice,” his girlfriend or mother said he was at home at the time in question, or he has no previous record. Once this happens, the rest of the investigation is a waste of time because all other persons of interest will simply be the wrong guy.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: All the Wrong Emotions

People often get upset when fingers are pointed at them in criminal cases, The suspect will say, "Why me?" because he has no insight into that the behavior he exhibits are not the norm for the situation. Their supporters, often kind people who thinking judging others is wrong; that everyone is not the same and their behaviors, just because they do not represent how the majority would act under the same circumstances, doesn't mean anything. I beg to differ. Human beings tend to have similar behaviors, albeit different levels of them depending on sex, age, culture, and circumstances. When one accounts for these, there should be an expected response. For example, it is not normal for pretty much anyone to say, "Oh, well," as he watches his house burn to the ground. This reaction is grounds to check whether he set the fire to collect the insurance. The only reason one might determine this behavior isn't a red flag is that we know the guy is a rich hippie freak (inherited money) and he changed residences regularly and didn't keep much in the way of sentimental possessions. If this were so, friends would immediately tell the cops about the guy's nature and then the fire would not seem suspicious.

Drew Peterson's wife goes missing. He claims she left him for another guy. He also claims their marriage is good. Now, let's assume he really believes this to be true.

His reaction should be:

1) I am pissed as hell; she has broken my heart
2) I am pissed as hell; she has deserted her children.

Peterson seems to not even care his wife is missing.

Now, it has been quite a while since his wife has not contacted anyone. Her cell phone hasn't been used since she "left."

His reaction should be:

1) Now, I am worried as hell. Maybe something DID happen to her after she called me and my children may never get their mother back.

Peterson only cares that the media is "harassing" his children and frightening them. Apparently, the fact the children don't know where there mother has gone isn't a concern to him

Wrong reactions. No good explanation why Peterson should act this way. Verdict: he makes a good suspect in the disappearance of his wife.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Malcolm Gladwell Disses Criminal Profilers

There is an article in the New Yorker this week by Malcolm Gladwell and he pretty much compares criminal profilers to charlatans and con artists. I can’t really get mad at the guy because I understand where he is coming from and why he is so annoyed at the what criminal profilers have claimed they are capable of predicting through crime scene analysis. I, myself, have been baffled at how some conclusions have been reached by a review of the evidence of the crime scene. How does someone surmise the killer has a stutter or drives a sports car by the way a girl is raped and strangled? I figured I was missing some amazing piece of analytical skill or someone was pulling a fast one.

I eventually learned that the profilers who came up with amazing stuff that doesn’t rely on science or logic:

1) got inside information that made them look damned brilliant when the suspect was caught and indeed he matched that piece of the profile
2) guessed and were simply lucky
3) guessed and no suspect was found to prove him wrong,
4) guessed and people forgot the part of the profile he got wrong or ignored it because the rest (read: the easier part) of the profile was right.

This is exactly the kind of criminal profiling concept I have been fighting against for the last decade. Criminal profiling is crime scene analysis with a heavy emphasis on behaviors of the victim and suspect. All conclusions should be based on science and logic and should be clearly explained. No guesses should be made just off the top of the head or from simply gut feelings. The criminal profiling process is but a method of analyzing a crime scene to come up with a reasonable a scenario as possible leading to the best next investigative choices to make. This is all that criminal profiling is; a method of analysis conducted by a criminal profiler to aid the police or by the detective himself to further his investigation.

Criminal profiling should not be a parlor trick nor should it be considered some magic or psychic answer to a perplexing crime. Neither should criminal profiling be tossed as a complete sham as Malcolm Gladwell has basically advocated; this would be a sad loss to law enforcement as criminal profiling skills are terribly needed by investigators on fresh crime cases and by detectives in the cold case squads. Too many crimes go unsolved and killers uncaught because of bad crime scene analysis that throws the investigation completely off track.

Criminal profiling is a very useful tool and I hope that a right perception of the field will encourage its proper use in the field of police investigation

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: American Gangsters: Frank Lucas and Denzel Washington

I just finished seeing "American Gangster" and I want to be the first to say, Denzel Washington owes America an apology. While I have respected some of Denzel's work in the past, I have come to the conclusion he is seriously lacking in the morals department. He played the part of Rubin Carter, the boxer turned murderer in “The Hurricane” and now he brings the character of Frank Lucas, drug kingpin and murderer, to the screen in “American Gangster.” I wouldn’t think negatively of Washington if he portrayed these men truthfully, but he seems perfectly willing to ignore history and veracity along with equally unethical Hollywood producers and writers. He even has the incredible lameness to claim he shouldn’t judge these men. Of Lucas, he says, “Basically, Frank’s a human being who’s done some awful things and paid the price for it.” As to Carter, Denzel introduced him as “a man of love” at the Golden Globe Awards.

WTF? Let’s take a quick look at these two men Denzel seems to think are nice enough guys. Rubin Carter is a nasty brutal psychopath who made a career out of robbing, assaulting, and murdering people. Just because he did a little boxing along with his many crimes means jackshit. He finally got out of prison on a technicality and Hollywood saw big money by making him a hero who was wrongly convicted. Carter also made a good sum of money of off of the lies he and the movie makers perpetuated and then he went of the speakers’ circuit, visiting colleges and getting honored for his “suffering due to injustice.” Frank Lucas, a psychopath of the nth degree, was a career criminal as a juvenile, destroyed countless lives and the fabric of the community in Harlem as a drug kingpin, and also murdered people (he admitted to one murder, put a hit out on his own brother, and as with all criminals and icebergs, what we see is only a tenth of what is really hidden from us). Now, Lucas is making millions off of his crimes again.

No, Denzel, neither man has just “done some awful things and paid the price for them.” Both men should have been executed or spent a lifetime in a hellhole. Instead, they got off lightly and are living the good life. Not only that, they are being lauded and treated as celebrities. Crime really does pay in this country because people like Denzel Washington, producer Ridley Scott and other producers, directors, and actors, don’t care about the truth as long as they make money. They abet these cold-blooded pieces of garbage in duping the American public about the damage they have caused to the health and welfare of the African-American community and to the lives of untold numbers of children and adults.

Furthermore, Denzel, neither of these men was a “good family men” as portrayed in these movies. They cared little about their children as no loving father puts his sons and daughters in danger, raises them in a criminal atmosphere, teaches them to thumb their noses at moral and ethical living, and leaves them stranded when they go to jail. The families of these “good family men” were pieces of crap as well. The wife of Frank Lucas was portrayed in the movie as an innocent, sweet girl, but in real life she was a self-serving criminal, spending quite a few years in jail for the crimes she committed. The mother of Lucas, that sweet little old lady in the movie in the form of Ruby Dee, knew damn well where her son’s money came from and what he was getting his brothers into (some more innocent fellas) and she didn’t care because she got to live in a big house. I am sure God didn’t think all that church attending and Thanksgiving prayers made up for the devastation Lucas caused in the world.

The real stories of Rubin Carter and Frank Lucas could have been fine depictions of how evil men destroy the world and how we must fight against them if we want our country to be a decent place to live. Children should see such movies and despise the psychopathic criminals in them and grow up to want to keep such people from wreaking havoc in our communities.

Instead, stars like Denzel Washington make role models out of repulsive human beings men and minimize their evil deeds; which makes Denzel pretty repulsive and evil himself. Maybe Denzel didn’t have to be much of an actor to represent these gangsters on screen; maybe he isn’t that much different from either one of them.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: What do Frozen Turkeys have to Do with Missing Persons?

I was reading through some posts concerning the Madeleine McCann case and there was much speculation on where little Maddie’s body could have been hidden, kept from decomposing, transported, and disposed of, should the parents be involved in her disappearance. Meanwhile, Stacy Peterson, the fourth wife of a police officer, has gone missing in Illinois and her friends and neighbors are combing the area for her body and police are dredging local ponds. If her husband killed her, where would he be likely to put her body?

It is an unpleasant, if not horrifying thought, to imagine someone handling a corpse, especially one that might be a child, one’s own child. What kind of mind can deal with disposing of a body, especially the body of a person who is an intimate part of your life? What happens in the brain that would allow someone to do some of the things we have seen before like dismembering a body or carrying it about it in stages of decomposition? The concept is so foreign to many people that they dismiss certain scenarios as impossible because they cannot conceive of doing such things themselves. They are unfamiliar with how another who is perhaps narcissistic or psychopathic and also possibly desperate can actually do pretty gruesome stuff with a person they once supposedly loved or cared for. Yet, the reality is that some people can indeed do such things.

For this very reason, an investigator cannot rule out bizarre possibilities when trying to locate a missing person. Many factors might play into what was done with a body. First of all, how the person was killed may affect choices. Is there a need to mask the cause of death or to destroy particular evidence of the implement of death? Is there a need to cover up prior physical or sexual abuse issues or drug issues? Any evidence the killer feels might identify him as the offender might cause the killer to destroy the body or parts of the body or work harder to make sure the body is never found.

If the killer is not afraid of being linked to the crime by relationship, location, or evidence, the body may easy to find, lying on the side of the road in plain view or left at the scene of the crime, perhaps in the victim’s apartment.

So, when a missing person is suspected of being dead, the detective must thoroughly investigate the victim’s life and those people involved in it. The answer to where the body lies may be within the details of the victim’s life and relationships.

Stacy Peterson’s body is likely going to be as hard to find as Lisa Stebic’s. Stebic’s husband says he sympathizes with Stacy’s husband because he knows how it feels to have a wife go missing and everyone suspects the husband had something to do with it. My guess is he can relate how nerve-racking it is to hope the searches never come near where one put the body.

So someone wrote that they wondered whether Madeleine’s body could be stored in a freezer. Many bodies have been kept that way but it usually requires a stand-alone freezer (one of those big storage types) and not a side-by-side in the kitchen (unless one is dismembering the body as well). If there was not one in any of the resort apartments (and it does seem unlikely that type of freezer would be present), her body would have had to be stored in a private home. The next question might be how long it would take a body to unfreeze. I looked up turkeys and some of the big one’s take four days! I find that rather interesting in the sense of possible DNA in the McCann’s hire vehicle meaning a frozen body transported to another location shouldn’t unfreeze in that short a time to leave DNA and hair. I don’t find myself particular convinced of the freezer theory because of lack of freezer space available in the resort rental units and the theoretical DNA in the hire car.

So, if the McCann’s were involved and there was really DNA in the hire car, I would lean more toward the possibility her body was in a shallow grave in a drive sandy area and moved when it was feared the searches would locate the body. The decomposition would likely, in that climate, to cause mummification, a drying of the body, making it less difficult to move, but not making it impossible for evidence of that move to be left behind by stressed out and panicked participants.

If it turns out the McCanns had zero to do with the crime, the body is either on private property of a pedophile (which would tend to eliminate Murat) or, the body is in the ocean and will never be found.

It will be interesting to see if Maddie is ever found what methodology the guilty party or parties used to prevent discovery of a body and any evidence.

BTW, for those of you who think Lisa Stebic, Stacy Peterson, Natalee Holloway, and Madeleine McCann are really alive, I applaud your sense of hope. I am a lot more cynical, and though there is occasionally a miracle or surprise ending, chances of anyone of these four missing persons showing up alive is near zero. The two married women had children they loved and husbands they were afraid of. This equation usually means the disappearance of the wife is the result of a husband offing her. And Natalee and Madeleine were both blonde, but sex rings can find lots of blondes without resorting to high profile kidnappings that might expose them. Natalee and Madeleine have almost zero chance of being found alive.

Let’s just hope, then, that we can at least find out what happened to them and see that justice is served.


Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: "Call the Cops! There is a Woman in Psychological Trouble in Aisle Three!"

I was introduced to a new concept while doing Nancy Grace last night (hmm....that doesn't sound quite right, now does it?). One of the other guests aired the view that a woman who was caught shoplifting (at 38 years old and her tenth arrest) doesn't need jail time but counseling. Clearly, this expert declared she has psychological problems and we shouldn't be taking up space in the prisons with this woman when there are pedophiles who need to be kept inside. Interesting argument....

I am trying to wrap my head around this thinking. We have laws on the record and police to catch persons who break these laws, but this is really only a psychological screening process set up to identify citizens in need of mental health counseling? Considering the woman's lawyer actually said she had already been in counseling and was already on probation for another crime, at what point do we decide that the woman is actually a criminal as opposed simply an emotionally disturbed individual?

At what point do we decide breaking the law is actually deserving of punishment and removal from society as opposed to a free offer of psychological services? Couldn't a pedophile be just as emotionally disturbed as a shoplifter? What about a murderer? Isn't he so emotionally distraught that he can't help himself from striking out?

I have no problem with criminals receiving mental health care. I just think they ought to do their time as well. After all, what is the point of even having laws if breaking them is only considered a cry for help? If this is what the law is all about, I think we should take all laws off the books and set up a system of emotional guards instead of security guards. The next time this woman tries to walk out of a store with hundreds of dollars of stolen goods, one of these guards can get out his megaphone and shout, "Lady in need of counseling! Lady in need of counseling!" Maybe she will get the message and stop by customer service and pick up her free counseling coupon to be redeemed at any counseling counter at her local Walmart store.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Good for Heather Mills!

I just saw Heather Mill's television interview on GMTV and I have to applaud her newest campaign. Heather is fed up with lies produced by the tabloids and is working to get laws in place to stop them from publishing outright lies and from displaying harassing behaviors equivalent to stalking. Rarely do I spend much time reading stuff from European tabloids but having a interest in the Madeleine McCann case led me to witness their brand of "reporting." I found myself rather stunned at the amount of stories that came out that included information completely contrary to stories from other tabloids or even from their own reporters just a day prior. If one story is the truth, a story with the opposite set of "facts" must then be a pack of lies. Apparently, the lies have gotten so out of control, the tabloids don't even fear lawsuit so they just print any inflammatory thing they want. This is egregious and I hope Heather succeeds in her campaign to stop this abuse.

I only disagree with Heather concerning the court of public opinion. When a person is indeed in the media, they can expect to have certain aspects of their behaviors scrutinized. She expresses sympathy for the McCanns for getting negative feedback from the public but this antipathy is not based on lies from the press but on the McCanns themselves because of admitted and observed behaviors. There is no question that when one puts themselves out in the public eye, one must be very cautious not to stoke fires of contention. Interestingly, some celebrities get no negative press at all because they lead polite and proper lives. The more one is flamboyant, outspoken, tantalizing, controversial...the more one has to accept there will be negative responses as well as positive responses.

As a criminal profiler who does a lot of media, I know the problem. I am outspoken and I am a bit of a renegade in the industry. I am working to change concepts I believe are outdated and damaging to moving serial homicide investigation and criminal profiling to a higher level and with better outcomes. I fly in the face of traditional FBI thinking and certain academics. In return I get called, "self-proclaimed profiler" (a label I guess you get if you didn't come up through the FBI), media whore (yes, I do a lot of television; it helps promote my concepts and programs), a fraud (FBI thing again, I think or some think I lie and say I AM with the FBI or have BEEN with the FBI), lacking in education (I have a Masters in Criminal Justice from Boston University but I did get into the field through self-training and reading hundreds of books on the market in forensics, investigations, profiling, psychology, etc), racist (this was because I wrote an article on Hurricane Carter, an African-American boxer, that some didn't like - they ignored the fact that I opened the article by stating I was married to a Jamaican and had two mixed race children and one African-American son), anti-police (even though my daughter is a cop and my son is in security and joining a police force soon), anti gun (even though I own two) and on and on. Some of this stuff is based on outright lies and some from careless reading and poor analysis, and other bits of scorn and hatred come from the fact some people just don't like me or what I have to say.

All of this comes with the territory of being in the public eye. I try to keep what I can under control and other stuff I just have to accept as part of the life I have accepted. Anytime I want out of it, I can give up my media work and live quietly. It is pretty easy to do. No fuel, no story.

But I admire Heather for going after those who print straight up lies. This should stop. The only time I get really bent out of shape is when I see something about me which is some supposed "fact" and it is simply not true. If somebody calls me a racist just because I think Rubin Hurricane Carter should still be in jail for murder, oh well, it is just their opinion. However, if someone says I used the "n" word while talking about an African-American, this will send me over the edge because it is not something I would ever do and if it is out in the public as a "fact," then I am forced to defend myself which is always a nightmare to have to do.

However, Heather, some of the stuff you probably did bring upon yourself by doing nude photos (no matter how long ago) or by marrying a big celebrity (a REALLY big one) and by speaking out (whether what you say was wonderful or not and I am a fellow vegetarian so I am on your side in that fight). You can't be in the world of the stars without being viewed as one and you can't be outspoken and not expect to be noticed (which is exactly why we speak out if we are going to be honest about it).

I wish you luck with the fight, though. I would be happy to see tabloids and reporters being held to some accountability. If it isn't true, you shouldn't be printing it. Period.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiling Updates of of the Day: Maddie, David, and Richard Lee McNair

MADELEINE McCANN: The Portuguese and doing a crime scene reenactment. What does this mean?

The police are indeed doing what seems to be a proper crime scene reenactment. The reenactment will help them evaluate the scenarios and the components of the scenarios that would be likely should Madeleine have been abducted, wandered off, or killed within the apartment and her body moved. Each aspect of these scenarios will be studied for proof that certain incidents could have occurred or not have occurred.

I would say this crime scene reconstruction tells us nothing about what the police are thinking; just that they are working on the case. I have seen even slam-dunk case with solid DNA do crime scene reenactments in order to support the physical with an explanation of how the physical evidence came to be there and what the motive was and how the actor or actors in the crime acted it out. All of this is necessary for a good prosecution.

If during the crime scene reconstruction, it becomes evident that some aspect of a crime could not have happened the way theorized or purported, then this could sway the police toward one particular view of the crime. But, we won't know what they are learning from this crime scene reenactment until we have their report on it.

DAVID COPPERFIELD: A federal grand jury is investigating a rape allegation made by a Washington State woman.

I have to think there is more evidence than just a "He said, She said," kind of date rape case. If the woman claimed she was raped in the Bahamas by Copperfield, but waited until she arrived back in the United States to report said crime, then I find it difficult to believe the FBI would raid Copperfield's warehouse and a grand jury would be put together if all the that existed was a woman who claimed that sex between the two of them wasn't consensual. It will be interesting to see what the grand jury comes up with.

RICHARD LEE McNAIR: One of America's Most Wanted fugitives is caught after a year on the run by two sharp constables doing good police work. Note the middle name, "Lee." Why do so many criminals have the middle name, Lee? Odd, isn't it? Below are two links: the first is from YouTube showing McNair talking a patrol officer out of thinking he is the escapee being sought! The second is my appearance on Paula Todd's, "The Verdict": in the first half you will meet the constables who caught McNair and, in the second half, I discuss fugitives and catching them.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fIOM24grQo

http://www.ctv.ca/generic/generated/sbplayer/Docs.html

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

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