Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day? What is Someone Capable Of?

There is an ongoing debate among people following the Haleigh Cummings murder as to what Ronald Cummings is capable of. Some think he is manipulated by Misty Croslin, his ex-wife, ex-girlfriend, maybe still girlfriend, drug dealing associate --- and that while he talked a tough game about killing those who "stole his daughter", he is really just a blowheart, a wannabe bully. Others think he is quite capable of violence.

In the comment section of my last blog post, Linda Parris pointed out some of the threats Ron has made toward other people. She offered these examples:


"Hank Croslin Jr., Misty Cummings brother, told deputies that one of his neighbors saw Ron Cummings put something (it was a decapitated rat) in his mailbox around midnight." "Cummings allegedly told him that he would “get back” at him. He said that Ron owned guns and he feared the dead rat was a sign that Cummings was going to kill him. Croslin told the deputies that he wanted charges filed."

And it has been reported by Tim Miller that Ron said he would "blow the teeth out of the back of Misty's head" if she betrayed him.

Now, let's think about that last ideation; Ronald is visualizing picking up a shotgun, aiming it at Misty, and blowing her head off. So? Haven't we all at one time or another visualized doing something to someone but know we would never do it?

Actually, this is not really true. We have a hard time visualizing anything which is not within our psyche to carry out under some circumstance or other.

For example, would you be willing to shoot somebody? If I think about that question myself (and I do own two weapons, a 9mm and a 38 that I keep for protection), I can say, yes, I can actually see myself pulling the trigger. I have run that fantasy through my head. Do I visualize shooting my ex because he ticked me off? No, that has never crossed my mind and it creeps me out to even force myself to bring up such a thought; I simply can't even put myself in this scenario with a gun, not even as a threat of some sort, not even brought along with me to some location he might be at.

Can I visualize going after someone who is harassing and stalking me and threatening them with a pointed gun and telling them to stop? No. I can't bring the picture up.

BUT, I can bring up two scenarios in which I can actually see myself, like a video on my television set, pulling out my gun and blasting away until my target is dead, dead, dead. One scenario involves waking up in the night and seeing a rapist breaking through my bedroom door. I see myself grabbing the gun and firing every round into him until he is no longer a threat. The other scenario involves a rapist attacking my child. Same action taken; I shoot until he is dead, dead, dead.

In an exercise I use in training, I ask people to imagine what they would do if they came home and find their significant other having sex with someone else in their bed. After an initial stubbornness to tell anyone what they think, they finally give up their imagined action. Some say they would just turn and walk away. Some say they would scream insanely at the two of them. Some say they would throw things. Some say they would punch out their mate but leave the lover alone. Some say they would shoot them. And my guess is they might well carry out what they visualize unless fear of going to jail or some strong self-control mechanism kicks in and says, "Don't do it."

So, if Ronald did say he would blow away Misty if she screwed him over and intimated he would cut the head off of Tommy if he ratted him out, I would believe him.

If you have a spouse, boyfriend or a girlfriend, a coworker or family member that expresses some violent ideation, take them seriously. They may never carry it out if they don't get overwhelmed with failure or have a serious affront to their ego, but , if they do, you may find them standing in front of you with a weapon and totally willing to pull their index finger back..

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Ronald Cummings, the Mastermind

Finally, Ronald's involvement in Haleigh Cummings death becomes clear and we have Misty, Tommy, and the cinder blocks in the river to thank for it.

Here is why:

Misty and Tommy both know that Haleigh was tied to a cinder block and tossed in the river. The fact the cinder blocks undoubtedly came from Cummings yard means the crime went down in his house and nowhere else. The claim that Misty's cousin, Joe Overstreet, kidnapped Haleigh from the house because he wasn't able to steal Ronald's gun is a lie because no one is going to drive away with a child, kill her, and then return to the house the child was kidnapped from to borrow a cinder block to sink her in the river with.

So, the death of Haleigh occurred in Ronald Cumming's house.

The idea that another cinder block was used to prop the door open to facilitate carrying out a dead child is also preposterous. Many a parent has carried a sleeping child in or out of their house without needing to use a doorstop to keep the entryway open. And considering there were two (yes, two - Misty and Tommy), I am sure one (Misty) could hold the door open for her brother.

So, when was the cinder block placed on the ramp to hold the door open? As Nancy Grace would say, BOMBSHELL TONIGHT! Ronald Cummings most likely placed it there AFTER he arrived home. Why was it placed there? To stage a stranger abduction.

So what exactly happened that evening? Here is my theory.

Something happened to Haleigh just before or in the early evening after Ronald went to work. The most likely possibility is Haleigh ingested Ronald's drugs and sometime just before 8:30 PM, Haleigh died. I believe she convulsed and vomited on her blanket before she died.

At 8:30 PM, it is reported Ronnie and Misty had an argument. He stepped outside of his work building to handle the call. Then Misty turned her phone off resulting in Ronald calling her phone repeatedly from then on. Then, supposedly he called Tommy in desperation to go check on her and Tommy drives over, knocks on the door, but Misty doesn't answer.

What is wrong with this picture? Ronald has a bitter argument with the woman watching his children, he can't get through to her, he gets so worried that he calls her brother to go check on her and the kids, the brother finds the house dark, and Ronnie STAYS AT WORK until 3 AM and then stops at a convenience store on the way home to buy beer, snacks, and cigarettes.

Rubbish! Here is a far most logical scenario. The heated discussion between Ronald and Misty at 8:30 was Misty telling him Haleigh is dead. He is cussing and freaking out, trying to figure out what to do. He doesn't want to call the police because HIS drugs probably killed Haleigh. He comes up with a plan.

"We have to get rid of Haleigh's body. We need to be sure it can't be found and analyzed for drugs. We will dump her in the river with a heavy brick and then the alligators will take care of her. You get that blanket in the wash because we don't want to explain the vomit and we can't have that vomit analyzed for drugs. Turn off your phone. I can't have you talking to anybody until I get there. I will call your brother and he is going to help you get rid of the body. "

So, he calls Tommy who goes over and takes Haleigh's body and dumps it in the river.

Ronald finishes his shift so he keeps his alibi solid, stops at the convenience store so he can be seen on camera with the time recorded. He arrives at the house twenty-five minutes later. One glaring error made was Misty saying she got up at 3 AM and finding Haleigh gone and the door propped open, she is neither scared enough nor concerned enough about getting a search started to call 911 or even Ronald. But, of course, Ronald doesn't want her to talk to 911 until he is in the room and makes sure she has the story straight.

Ronald comes in the house, gets a cinder block, props the door open. He tells Misty to make the phone call to 911 and while she does, he can scan the room to make sure nothing is out of place that could get them in trouble.

Misty gives 911 the scenario Ronald coached her on and Ronald spends his time acting upset and stressing he was at work and just arrived home and that his bitch of a girlfriend "got his daughter stole".

Neither Misty or Ronald ever search for Haleigh, or tell the operator or the police that they think a child sex predator got her or that some creep they know might have kidnapped Haleigh. I guess they didn't think that far ahead.

Ronald Cummings is a controlling, lying psychopath who knows exactly what happened to his daughter. I hope the police figure this out.

Note: This scenario is a hypothesis based only on information publicly obtained with no access to police files. The words in quotes are a theoretical conversation. My opinion does not imply Ronald Cummings is criminal guilty of crimes associated with the Haleigh Cummings case as only a court can convict him of this. This scenario also does not attempt to address every possible suspect and every piece of evidence as this is not a full analysis of the case.

Criminal Profling Topic of the Day: NOT Joe Overstreet

We have all been glued to the television set watching the the continuous loop of Misty Croslin standing on the dock with law enforcement, divers in the water, the location now a crime scene. By evening, the case had gone from missing persons to homicide and police stated there were persons of interest. Mistys' cousin, Joe Overstreet, was reinterviewed and speculation is flying that he is the killer of Haleigh.


I don't know jack about Joe and how much squirrelly behavior he has exhibited in the past but since he is part of the Croslin clan, I am going to accept that he isn't going to medical school and spending his free time working at the soup kitchen. But, I also cannot buy that Misty and Tommy were either so endeared to him or so scared of him, that they let him kill Haleigh and then helped him cover up the crime.

Let's look at the facts:

There is zero proof at this point that Joe Overstreet murdered Haleigh.
There is zero proof at this time that Joe Overstreet dumped Haleigh's body.
The only people claiming Joe Overstreet killed Haleigh are pathological liars who flunked their polygraphs.
There is not now nor will there ever be any physical evidence linking Joe Overstreet to the crime.
Unless Joe Overstreet confesses to involvement in the crime, there will be no probable cause to arrest him nor will there be sufficient evidence to convict him.

Now, why would Misty and Tommy finger Joe Overstreet? One or both of them are trying to cut a deal. If they are willing to admit knowing what happened and can tell the police who it is, then they might get some reduction in their sentences. Of course, doing that connects them to a crime which is exactly what the police want. Even if they make up a ridiculous scenario (like kidnapping and killing a child because a gun was not available to steal) and pin the crime on an innocent person, law enforcement wins: they finally have admissions Misty and Tommy were involved in the crime and that crime is homicide. From there, maybe they are hoping the actual truth will eventually come out.

But how can we believe anyone at this point? Unless someone can be tricked into confessing (and that can be done if you know what you are doing) the stories are going to keep changing as these Misty, Tommy, and Ron jockey to save their own hides. Keep your fingers crossed their is a crack interrogator down there in Florida and justice might one day actually be served.

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Why Ronald Cummings knows what happened to Haleigh

It seems a lot of people think Ronald Cummings is simply a grieving Dad who has been the victim of evil Misty Cummings and her family. They admit he is a criminal and a drug dealer, but "other than that," he is a good guy. I disagree and disagree vehemently. I believe Ronald Cummings is involved with the death of his daughter even while rumors are flying that Misty's cousin, Joe Overstreet kidnapped and killed Haleigh because he couldn't find Ronald's gun that he came to steal (what doofus came up with that idiotic scenario) or that Joe and Tommy, Misty's brother were raping Ronald's daughter while Junior slept and Misty was drugged up. killing her in the process (slightly better, but would YOU want to rape the kid of a guy like Ronald? And would YOU implicate your partner in murder if you didn't want him to take you down with him?).

Okay, recap. Tommy and Misty cook up a scenario with Joe as the fall guy. Why? Seems to me they want to get their sentences reduced. Tommy, the weakest link, the one who probably did help move the body, says he did see Haleigh get put in the water but he didn't do the crime, Joe did. Half truth. Misty can then say she knows what happened but she was terrified of Joe because Joe killed Haleigh and threatened her. Half truth.

This means Misty and Tommy know what happened and Tommy dumped Haleigh's body (or helped do so). But, if Tommy didn't commit a crime, why did he help Misty? Oh, yes, she is his sister and he is a drug dealer too. But, then, Misty must be more involved in the crime than he is. She knows what happened and was there when it happened.

Okay, let's assume Misty killed Haleigh, by accidental drug ingestion or smothering or whatever. She panics, calls Tommy, and he takes the body to the water. He concocts a story with Misty, props the back door open and then Ronald comes home and finds Haleigh has "been stolen." He calls 911, hysterical, and Misty starts with her lies. Ronald is such a dummy he never, ever catches on. Neither does his mother. They both back and support Misty no matter how many times she changes her story or fails a polygraph. They are true innocents.

Please! We are talking about Ronald Cummings who clearly does exactly what he wants to do and is proud of it. Even the night Haleigh went missing, he calls home over and over and then asks Tommy to go over to the house. But the minute he arrives home and finds his daughter gone, he does little to ever find out what happened to her. I think OJ did more to find out who killed Nicole than Ronnie did to find out where his daughter went off too. Unless you believe he married Misty to get as "close to the enemy" as possible.

Here is the more probable scenario.

Something happened to Haleigh before Ronald went to work. She may have gotten into the drugs, maybe Oxycontin, that Ron brought home. Maybe Misty wasn't watching Haleigh like a good seventeen-year-old druggie should. Haleigh starts falling asleep, maybe looking a little comatose, but they don't want to take her to the hospital and explain why she has illegal drugs in her system. They think she will "get over it", sleep it off. Ronald goes to work. He calls home to find out what is happening but Misty doesn't want to pick up the phone. Haleigh is gasping for air. She tries to resuscitate her, pushing up and down and up and down on her chest. But Haleigh dies. What is she going to tell Ron? So she just doesn't answer the phone while she tries to figure out what she is going to do. Ronald calls Tommy and Tommy goes to the house and finds a sobbing Misty and a dead child. He calls Ronald back and tells him Haleigh is dead. Ronnie curses and punches a wall and then gets it together enough to tell Tommy he needs to get Haleigh out of there. They work out a scenario that will keep them out of prison for homicide and drugs and then Ronald comes home and tells Misty exactly what to say on the phone.

"You were sleeping."
"You woke up and found the back door open and our daughter gone."
That's all you know, got it? Stick to the story.

Ronald calls 911 immediately, plays the victim and distraught father, Misty tells the exact story she is told to give.

Ronald never looks for Haleigh after he gets home. He doesn't go nuts on Misty who "got his child stole" right out from under her.

Ronald, while willing to go after "whoever took his daughter" and kill them and go to the electric chair, never slaps Misty around to get an answer. He doesn't go knock on doors of people he suspects could have taken and killed his daughter. Instead, he marries the woman who "is responsible" for losing his daughter and does business with all the other possible suspects. He acts like he already knows his daughter is dead from the time he makes the phone call, when getting a hideous tattoo in memory of his daughter, to getting married as though it doesn't matter if Haleigh missing the occasion she supposedly was looking forward to.

The reality is, Ronald probably married Misty because he thought it would legally keep her from testifying against her and he "unmarried" her when his lawyer likely told him that this was not true. When he gets arrested and taken to jail, he doesn't help the police try to con Misty into telling the truth and he warns her that the police are trying to get him to do this. Even in jail, he is sending a message that he is not giving anything up and she better not either.

Though all of this, Teresa Neves, Ron's mom, never has an unkind word to say about Misty who got her granddaughter killed. She is the mother-in-law any murdering woman would like to have.

Ronald Cummings is a criminal with a criminal mind. He is controlling and exhibits purely psychopathic behavior. He may not have loved Haleigh in any deep way that a father should (he is off dealing drugs instead of searching for his missing child and you can see he seems hardly to remember he has a son when he chats on the telephone from jail), but he would likely be really ticked if someone else messed with his kid.

If his drugs were what killed his daughter and Misty was equally responsible, this perfectly explains why the two are so chummy. And Tommy is the third musketeer. Joe Overstreet? The perfect schmuck. Maybe he was promised a gun in exchange for helping move a body. Maybe he was invited over just to be in the house so they could say he took Haleigh. Maybe he wasn't even around.

I hope the truth comes out and come out soon. And when it does, I hope the truth about Ronald comes out as well.

*** For a rousing discussion of my crime scenario and other experts' opinions on the Cummings case, listen to the April 14th recording of the Levi Page Show.

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: River Cruz - A Woman Spurned?

It seems that River Cruz AKA Crystal Holloway AKA George Anthony's mistress went to the hospital for attempting suicide. She didn't succeed, which always means to me that you are seeking attention more than death (if you really want to die it is easy to make sure it happens). She claims she did it because she was upset over people saying nasty things about her on the Internet, that they didn't believe she had an affair with George or she was just out for money.

What I see in River is someone who displays a narcissistic personality disorder and finds ways to have people focus on her. Being "normal" and having a "regular" life just doesn't do it for her, so she finds one way or the other to be in the limelight or in the middle of some excitement. She hung around the Anthony's as part of the search group, then hooked up with a married man (probably more exciting to be with THE George Anthony than an unknown fellow), claims she has many health problems including a brain tumor (maybe she does, maybe she doesn't), lives with some guy who pays her bills, and gave (or sold) her story to the National Enquirer. She has a bit of a minor criminal record; her sister has a more major one. Apparently, her sis, Cecilia AKA Skye was involved in a larceny using River's driver's license, at least her fingerprint was on a license that was shown at the pawnshop where the thievery occurred and Skye was the one who went to jail. Skye also claimed River was a liar in a court matter, but still the sisters hang out together.

River may be telling the truth about Georgie Boy, that they had a thing going on. But, what does this tell you about her character? She is involved with a married man who is pretty much despised by a good many people for his behavior and possible cover-up of his granddaughter's murder. And, IF River did not come forth to tell her story about George saying that his granddaughter's demise was "an accident that snowballed out of control" for money, then why didn't she go to the police the minute she heard her lover knew Casey had done in the child? Why didn't she want the police to know this information earlier so they could move the case forward?

Dr. Lilllian Glass believes River Cruz is being truthful about the whole incident. I believe she is a manipulative, attention-seeker who may well have made up the part about George saying it was an accident; after all, a lot of people believe this and River may believe this as well. George may have made some statement like "I don't know.. I don't know if Casey is involved...maybe it was an accident that spun out of control...." I doubt he out and out told her he knew what happened. I don't have much love for George or any of the Anthonys but River Cruz seems more to me like a woman spurned (as she trashed George on her now defunct Twitter account) than someone who wanted to see justice done.

And all the stuff about River Cruz being the prototype for Zenaida Gonzalez? Rubbish. When Casey said Zenaida was beautiful and Cindy Anthony said the Zenaida was a 10, all you have to do is look at River Cruz to know she doesn't rate that high on the beauty meter (my 26-year-old son gave her a 3 and he didn't know who she was).

River Cruz picked her poison and she has to live with the results. She has children to care for and, if the suicide attempt wasn't another selfish cry for attention, then killing herself because her feelings were hurt and leaving her children motherless is even more selfish. Outside of maybe proving George is a cheat, her testimony won't be worth a damn in court.

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: It's a Plane, It's a Bird, It's Natalee!

What's a police force to do? Once upon a time, tips went straight to their investigators and they sorted through them, acting on the ones they thought had merit. Granted, sometimes they ignored a good tip and wasted time on a bad one, but the world today is a whole new animal. If the police response isn't good enough, the tipster goes public.

Take the Natalie Holloway case. Some vacationers on a cruise went snorkeling and took some pictures underwater of the fishies. Months later, while looking at one of the photos, they suddenly thought that they saw a skeleton under the water and, of course, Aruba plus possible skeleton means Natalee Holloway! They became excited and contacted the FBI. But they didn't stop there. The story (somehow) got out to the media and the couple did the rounds of news shows including Nancy Grace. Divers on Aruba haven't yet found anything.

The problem for the police is having a tip they don't particularly find credible going public and then there is a clamoring for them to follow it up, no matter how silly. Many tips have come in from people stating they have seen Natalee here and there and everywhere (in probably more locations than that traveling gnome) and you just can't follow them all up if there is no good reason to do so. Police pockets are not that deep that money can be tossed just to make everyone happy.

I was asked what I would do if I were the police in this case. Well, I have looked at the photo and I am not convinced it shows anything more than rocks and coral that look sort of like a skeleton. I might do the simplest, cheapest thing like put out a request for anyone who remembers the couple or the snorkeling boat to contact police. Then if I got an exact site, I might let volunteer divers from the area dive there and give a report. But that is probably all I would do because I do not think more is worth doing.

And what of the swamp that Joran van der Sloot says he dumped Natalee in? Should the police dredge the whole swamp based on a pathological liar's ridiculous story? I don't think so. But, that story is also all over television and the Internet, so there are those already angry the police aren't searching the heck out of the muck.

And so it goes on. Sometimes someone really does have information that is being ignored by the police and I can understand that they would want to push for it to be taken seriously, by whatever method possible. But, we should give the police a bit of a break. We need to realize that they have to decide which are the best tips to follow up and which ones to ignore. Just because they are not digging a hole to China doesn't mean they aren't trying to find Natalee.

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Crimes against Teachers

I looked forward to sending my first child to school. I imagined a cute classroom with Mary Poppins for a teacher and students in crisp uniforms eagerly learning their lessons. What I saw when I visited my local public school was more similar to a juvenile detention institution than an educational venue of any sort. I chose to home school and I continued until my children went to college. The teachers I saw were wardens in an out-of-control child-controlled nightmare and I had an opportunity to stay home and keep my children out of the muck.

Everyday I hear horror stories coming out of our schools. For example, one teacher was reprimanded for informing a student that her clothing was totally inappropriate and that she looked like a prostitute. I have seen the way some teenage girls dress to go to school and some of the girls do indeed look like they've been working on the street. Whether this teacher was exaggerating the girl's style of dress or not, I don't know, but it was her classroom and she had the right to expect students to look and behave appropriately. Maybe the teacher should have used more "sensitive" language and softly spoken to the child, perhaps, "suggesting" she choose a more "appropriate" selection of clothing. And maybe the parents should support the teacher and not overreact and get the teacher in trouble.

PLEASE! THIS is what is wrong with our schools. Teachers are not treated as respected elders with the power to put students in their place should they need to be put there. Disrespect of a teacher should get a student in very hot water, not the teacher. This even applies to upper level education as well. I just got a call from the college I teach at because the students were offended I was failing them for not doing the work and plagiarizing. I am considered harsh for leveling with them and giving them the grades they deserve. I was even told I "upset" a student for discussing Mark Furhman's use of the N word in connection with the OJ trial, so I should be more racially sensitive (not that the student should actually do any of the work and stop trumping up ridiculous charges against a teacher to get back at her).

If we don't get our act together, ALL children will be left behind; we will have raised a generation of ignorant, undereducated ingrates and we will pay dearly for it in the future.

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Does He REALLY Love Me?

Wow! Doesn't she feel lucky! She has met the man of her dreams - handsome, successful, rich, a rising star - a Tiger Woods, a John Edwards, Eliot Spitzer, Mark Sandford- and he loves her! He wants to marry her! Off she goes, happily believing that he cares deeply for her and will share a life with her that is meaningful, honest, forever.

And then she founds out. Her beloved husband has been catting around, coming home night after night, trip after trip, to her bed, making love to her, but after making love to someone else. He looked her in the eye time and time again and said, "I love you" and "I was so lonely without you in my hotel room" and "Of course, there is no one but you". But, the text message on his phone say differently, the condoms in his luggage, the photo in the National Enquirer.

Now she questions their entire relationship. What was she really to him? A conquest? A ticket to something? A son and daughter maker? She may never figure it out but there is one thing that is likely if she is married to someone with a Narcissistic Personality Disorder - she is a tool.

Politicians, famous athletes, movie stars - it often takes a serious case of narcissism to get to the top, to beat everyone out, to focus so heavily on one's rise. It takes a lot of confidence to believe in oneself to a level that allows one to trump the competition and to hang in doggedly to get the prize, to put everything else and everyone else on the shelf while one pushes on. Now, not everyone in these fields has such a personality disorder and some are lovely people with a strong drive to accomplish something or they have a passion for an art or a sport that just propels them forward. They still care about others and when they find someone special, they don't allow their career or fame to harm their mate in any way.

But, those with a Narcissistic Personality Disorder don't have quite that level of empathy for their spouse. They may LIKE their spouse a lot; she is attractive, hot in bed, helpful on the political trail, supportive of his career, great with the kids, etc. But, this kind of "affection" is similar to how one feels about one's car; you can REALLY like your car, polish it, tune it up regularly, enjoy the wind in your hair when you have the top down; but it's a car, you know; it can be traded in when you get bored with it or you can get an extra one if you like to change up. It is a tool, something very useful and amusing, but it is something you purchase and control the use of. For a narcissist, spouses can fall into the same category.

But, she won't be able to tell in the beginning. The narcissist can be very enthusiastic about the new addition to his life. Wow! She is pretty! She is nice to have on my arm! She's pregnant! She is going to have my son! Interestingly, some narcissists, after they are caught cheating, don't understand what all the hullabaloo is about because they still "love" their wives! After all, he didn't take her to the junkyard....he just rented a different vehicle while he was out of town. His feelings for her may not have changed at all because they were never the kind of feelings she thought he had for her in the first place.

It is a tough position to be in when you meet someone; how do you know what kind of person they are? All one can do is look to see if he or she is truly caring and empathetic. Stay in the relationship before marriage long enough to see if you are treated well and are truly special. If you are getting less than inspiring treatment or are just treated like everyone else, maybe you will find yourself part of a harem one day; you may be the Number One Wife, but he will be every woman's boyfriend.

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: The Only Real Criminal in Sherlock Holmes is Guy Ritchie

What is it about certain movie directors/producers that they bother to make a movie based on a particular story that ends up on screen having little resemblance to the original? Why did The Saint, one of my favorite book series of all time written by Leslie Charteris end up on the big screen with a main character acting more like James Bond (the bastardized movie character) than Simon Templer, the Robin Hood of Modern Crime?

And why, now, do we have Sherlock Holmes, a film that seemed more like it had borrowed the screenplay of Angels and Demons than a story from the tomes of Arthur Conan Doyle?

It isn't that one can't do a screen version that is loyal to the book. The British television series had Jeremy Brett playing a damned fine Sherlock and the direction was extraordinarily similar to the original; the books indeed came to life. The Saint television series with Roger Moore at least had humor in them, if they were made way too fluffy, whitewashing the criminal aspect of the Saint character and tossing all of his friends and girlfriend out of the episodes. But, my Lord, this Sherlock Holmes, even with the skill of Robert Downey, Jr. and Jude Law, didn't even much more than make Holmes smart and quirky and off Guy Ritchie went, making Angels and Demons with two different main characters (and how sad is that considering Angels and Demons sucked horribly). Here is how the film went (and if you can't tell whether I am writing about Sherlock or A & D, my point will have been made):

There is something nasty in the occult woodshed!

Run! Run! Run! Smash!

The horrible bad man is going to take over the world!

Run! Run! Run! Bop!

People are going to die in specific places and you will be too late for each one but you will get a clue leading you to the final showdown!

Run! Run! Run! Bang! Bang!

Along the way, you will show how brilliant you are, so brilliant that you only need seconds to deduce everything you come in contact with!

Run! Run! Jump! Dive!

Oh my God! Only five minutes to save the world!

Make funny joke! Calmly dismantle bomb/device with no known previous skills in such work while fending off bad guys!

Bam! Slug! Crash!

Whew! The world is saved! Hurrah!

Snore! Why is action actually getting boring in movies? Because it serves no purpose and simply added for 'excitement'. Sigh.

Please, Guy Ritchie and all other directors, do us all a favor: stick with the real story or make a new one, AND, most importantly of all, spend some time writing the screenplay: all the action in the world can't save a movie from being boring if there is nothing to keep one's mind involved (and was seeing a shirtless Sherlock supposed to titillate me here?).

Remember the formula: Great story, well-developed characters, clever dialogue. Action? Sure, if it fits. Hey, Guy! Remember Snatch! LOVE IT! We know you can make a good movie, so get back to doing it. Please!

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: "Ho! Ho! Ho! Is it Santa or Tiger?

CJ, a very funny and fun columnist writing for the Minneapolis Star Tribune called me the other day and quizzed me on my thoughts about Tiger Woods and his off-course etiquette (pictured left). What I told her can be read here. But, I still have a thought about men, marriage, and monogamy; do these go together any more? Do women even have a hope and a prayer their man will believe that marriage and monogamy are entwined? Do they just roll their eyes when their husband-to-be promises to be faithful to her in front of the minister, family, community, and God? I have to admit I tend to snicker these days in a very cynical manner when I hear the vows of marriage uttered (or muttered) at the weddings I attend. I wondered how long it will be before the happy couple gets lawyers and the family gets torn asunder.

No man has to get married. If he wants to be a confirmed bachelor, bully for him. Let him state his desired lifestyle and leave marriage to those who really believe in the institution. Tiger didn't have to marry anyone. Well, I guess he might have had to if he wanted to improve his image and make billions and billions. Most of us probably think that much money was hardly necessary as the man was already raking in the cash and the babes. I can only guess he is so greedy that he made a calculated business move and sold Elin a phony bill of goods. He committed fraud and he should be held accountable.

Sadly, Elin and two innocent children have to pay for Tiger's repulsive and disrepectful behavior. Money doesn't buy everything. It won't buy his daughter and son pride in their father. It won't buy back Elin's humiliation and devastation. Tiger can't even buy self-respect because any man who has to purchase pussy to feel powerful is nothing but an alley cat no decent woman wants to bring home.

Good luck, Elin. I hope the next man in your life is a monogomous goose and not a two-timing Tiger.

Criminal Profiing Topic of the Day: Mass Murderer or Terrorist?

I recently was a guest of FOX and Friends and The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer and when I made the statement that Fort Hood shooter Major Nidal Malik Hasan was not a terrorist, but a psychopathic mass murderer in midlife crisis, I got some angry email.

Ms. Brown...I just saw your appearance on Fox an Friends....and was blown away at your disregard that Islam played no part in this massacre.Have you done even a 5 minute search on this person? Wake up lady. Do a little research before you make a fool of yourself on national TV again.

Dorothy Rabinowitz woud agree with this emailer that I am either a fool or I am in fear of being politically incorrect.

To those not terrorized by fear of offending Muslim sensitivities, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's motive was instantly clear: It was an act of terrorism by a man with a record of expressing virulent, anti-American, pro-jihadist sentiments. All were conspicuous signs of danger his Army superiors chose to ignore.

But I will stand my ground and I hope, for the sake of true understanding people will understand my thinking. Anyone who has seen me speak on television or has read my blogs will know I have never worried about being politically correct. I aim to speak the truth as I see it.

First of all, we must define "terrorist." Under the United States Law Code: the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents; the term “terrorist group” means any group, or which has significant subgroups which practice, international terrorism.

By this definition, Hasan does not even begin to qualify as a terrorist.

1) He was not a member of a terrorist group. Yes, he may have listened to what a terrorist group had to say, he may have been in the vicinity of another who might have been a member of a terrorist group, and he may have emailed a terrorist group. He might have even chatted with terrorists on the Internet in a chat room. But, none of these behaviors make him a member of a terrorist group any more than a psychopath a church member because he has gone to a Sunday service a few times and chatted with a pastor online.

2) He was not carrying out any mission organized by a terrorist group. He was a lone gunman.

3) He was not politically motivated. "What?" you say? The guy was spouting Islamic jihadist garbage before and during the shooting. This is very true but that what he says is not necessarily his motive. Like all midlife crisis psychopathic mass murderers, he must justify his rage at society for his failure; Hasan has decided to portray himself as a good Muslim conducting jihad and thereby casting himself as a hero and not a loser scumbag who kills his coworkers because he is ticked he is failing in his professional and personal life. He is no different than Jason Rodriguez, the man who attempted the mass murder of his coworkers in Orlando, Florida the following day; he was disgruntled and angry and wanted to show everyone he wasn't a weakling they could kick around any more.

I know what a terrorist attack looks like. My son was in Jaipur the very day the LeT (Pakistan's terrorist organization, Lashkar-e-Taiba) hit the tourist area with bombs attached to bicycles. Eighty people were killed. Thankfully, my son didn't listen to his mother who told him to go to that very area that day to sightsee before he started work the next day. Instead, he was watching videos in his room while the bombs blew up the city center.

I have traveled to India and been at the very spots that terrorists have hit. I was in Connought Place in Delhi, in front of the Taj Hotel in Mumbai, and in the shoppiing area in Hyderabad, all locations that were targeted by terrorist groups who successfully carried out their missions.. Each one was a concerted effort by a Islamic extremist terrorist organizations, either LeT out of Pakistan's Kashmir region or HuJI (Harkat ul-Jihad-al-Islami) out of Bangladesh.

Hasan belonged to no group. He may have self-radicalized himself in violent Islamic ideology but he still was not part of an organized terrorist cell. He was an angry man, who happened to be Muslim, who took out his bitterness on his fellow soldiers.

Now, was there a problem with failure on the army's part to identify Hasan as a threat? You bet there was. He was clearly decompensating, falling apart, being more and more angry and bizarre. His increasingly concerning rantings supporting suicide bombers and growing pro-Islamic jihadist sympathies should have been a huge warning sign that he might go off and do what he did. It was at this stage that fear of being politcally incorrect cost lives. The Army should have booted Hasan because he was a danger to his fellow soldiers whether or not he was a Muslim.

Clearly American needs to be vigilant in fighting terrorism and preventing and dismantling terrorist cells in this country. We need to do something about people entering our country who despise it and its people. We need to stop those of any religion who encourage and condone violence against our citizens. And if Major Hasan had been the member of a terrorist cell and been their "soldier" and not ours, I would not hesitate to state we had a Muslim perpetrating a terrorist attack against America.

But unless more information comes in linking this sorry excuse for a human being to a terrorist group, we still have a lone psychopath pretending he was a terrorist so he could get his day in the sun.

Criminal Profiling Topics of the Day: Smelly Houses, Bye Bye Baby, and Slasher Filmmaker Offensive

Smelly Houses

So the police stop by Anthony Sowell's house to check on the convicted rapist turn loose and, dang, it smells bad! But it is claimed they can't get a search warrant to go inside. Did anyone think to walk by with a cadaver dog and let the dog find probably cause for a warrant?

Bye Bye Baby

Parents go to sleep at 3 AM and when the wake up at 11 AM, baby is bye bye. No sign of a break-in, no crazy fat lady hanging around at the park making goo goo eyes at the baby and claiming she is pregnant when she isn't, and the police are searching the woods for the baby instead of knocking on doors. Most babies who go missing while the parents are supposedly asleep are never found alive and most babies stolen from hospitals by women are found fairly quickly, usually in good health. It is easy (and sad) to see which way the police are leaning already.

Slasher Filmmaker Offensive

Well, yes they are, but that isn't the point. Two years ago, I wrote a commentary on the inappropriateness of gore and slasher filmmakers and their supporters claiming they are pro victim when these movies depict victims being raped, tortured and murdered...seems a rather logical observation and it caused quite a nasty campaign against me from that camp. Lovers of this genre don't like it when someone stands up against them and the proliferation of their misogynist and repulsive drek, so if you see my name being bandied about on the Internet with libelous assaults attached, they are still mad about my post! Here it is, one more time (since they aren't going to link it to their sites)!

http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.com/2007/12/gore-and-slasher-films-are-no-laughing.html

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Church Ordains Child Sex Predator as Minister

Standards are plummeting everywhere in this country, but ordaining a sexual psychopath as a minister is a new low. The City of Refuge Worship center has made a child sex predator a minister. Mark Hourigan (scumbag pictured left) sodomized an eleven-year-old boy and got a lousy three years in prison for his crime. Randy Meadows, the idiot pastor who ordained this pervert, says Hourigan has paid his debt to society. Oh, really? He is a registered sex offender for life and what is Hourigan doing to right the wrong he did to this eleven-year-old child? Is this young boy supposed to sit in church and listen to the man who sodomized him praise the Lord and encourage the members of the congregation to be Christians? Oh, no, I forgot. The boy won't come to the church because if he can't handle watching his abuser preach on Sunday, he can just stay home.

Now here is a piece of revolting advice from a victim of sexual abuse:

"The key thing is for other members of this church congregation is to be on the lookout and to be careful of their children," said Cal Pfieffer, one of the protesters and a member of the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests (SNAP).

Say what? Here is MY advice:

Take your children and get the hell out of this church. Are you going to stay there and support the ordination of a sex offender? Are you going to stay there and let a sexual psychopath tell you how to do God's work? Shame on you if you don't tell the church leaders that you in no way will tolerate such an abomination and go find a church that has a sense of decency and values. I am sure Germantown, Kentucky and environs sport a number of other more moral congregations to worship with.

Hourigan should have gotten life in prison for sexual assaulting a child. Since he didn't get that, he at least shouldn't be given positions of moral authority....ever. Biblical principles state that those in overseeing positions should be beyond reproach and I fail to see how a sexual psychopath qualifies. Furthermore, although Hourigan claims to have found God, he is a psychopath who can't be believed. The City of Refuge has no clue if Hourigan is "reformed"or not.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Obama's Speech is Great and That's the Real Issue

The left and the right are both unable to see the attractive elephant in the room. The right went nuts on the fact Obama was going to speak to the children of America because they thought he was going to slip in socialist ideology and start the little ones on the way to joining an Obama youth core.

The left went bananas in return crying foul that the right is looking for every opportunity to destroy Barack Obama and his presidency. Today, with Obama giving a really lovely inspirational talk about responsibility and goal setting that would make any right wing American thrilled if a right wing politician had said it, those to the left can claim victory that those citizens to the right made fools of themselves and proved they are all a bunch of racist, angry, nutcases out to get Obama.

Both sides are not seeing the picture clearly.

The real problem for all citizens of the United States is that Obama gave a good speech, a nonpartisan speech, and a truly morally sound speech to the young people of America. In other words, he was likable and came across as someone you can respect.

So what? This speech is a moment in time, written by advisers, and promoted on national television; it was intended to make Obama look good in a time when tea parties and town hall meetings have made him look bad.

We can't say that Obama concern for children is the reason he gave the speech but, 0n the other hand, it can't be proven that this wasn't the motivation behind the speech. It might be about helping kids or it might be about restoring one's beleaguered public image. It might be that both motivations are at play. Nothing really wrong in that; most of us work in jobs that help people but we like to collect a paycheck as well.

The true elephant in the room is that Obama has a history of lying and changing course without clarifying why he was on that previous course or why he changed (and throwing folks under that bus while doing it). There is a lot not to not trust about Obama and that is why the right thought he was trying to do something squirrelly with his speech. But, they forgot that he just might be giving a great speech to repair his image and Obama is good at speaking at looking pretty. People like good speakers and people that look pretty. They tend to forget anything questionable they have done (or forget to question what they are about to do) because of a smiling face. Humans are easily suckered.

Police have this problem with suspects. If he seems nice, they will often not check an alibi or do a thorough background. Women take back abusive husbands when they get an apology and flowers. Humans, through simple biological need and training, classify people quickly and move on. Nice people we trust; nasty people we don't. Obama is trying to be nice so we trust him.

I say to the right and the left; look past the moment and examine the behavior. Talk IS cheap but behavior is something that is rock solid. Pay attention to the hands, not the mouth of a politician. Just like a magician, you get swayed by the patter and the showmanship instead of paying attention to what is really happening.

Obama is a showman. He is a good speaker. That's nice. Rewind history and examine his past and pay a lot of attention to what he is actually doing. Then make your conclusions about the man and his mission. Anyone can have a good day or a bad day; one good moment (Obama dancing tenderly with his wife, Michelle) or one bad moment (Obama tossing out inappropriate, but kind of funny, Special Olympics joke on The Tonight Show) do not tell us what our suspect is about or what our leader is working toward. It is the accumulation of behaviors that let us know what he is truly thinking and doing. Do your own thorough analysis and then you will have a clearer understanding of where American is headed and what we want to do about it.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Developing Profiling Theories

What if I were to have an opportunity to analyze the case of the missing woman, Christy Cornwell of Blairsville, Georgia? What would I look at as a profiler?

1. I would start with the phone call from the boyfriend. I would read his interview about what she said on that phone and how she said it. I would want to know if her voice always sounded like it was close to the phone or if it were distant (like she dropped the phone). I would want to know what else he heard. Other people talking? Sound of the vehicle? I would want to know why he didn't call 911 before he called Christy's mother.

2. I would want the boyfriend's alibi. Yes, the phone call supposedly came out of Atlanta. I would still want to prove he was there and HE made the phone call or received the phone call from Christy.

3. I would go to the site where she was allegedly abducted. Do I see signs of a struggle? (or do the photos show evidence of this?). Are there absolute signs of this like more than one set of footprints, car tire marks, etc? Or could Kristy have staged the crime and tossed some of her items there to make it look like an abduction.

4. I would want to check the site where the phone was found to see how long it would take to get there and why the phone would end up there. Are there signs of it being tossed? What kind of phone is it? Why did it go dead when the boyfriend said he was talking to Christy? If he heard her scream, "Don't take me", it should still have been in her hand. Why did it end up in the vehicle? Why wasn't it dropped where she was abducted? Why wouldn't the abductors have ripped it from her hand? Do we see other calls on the phone after the boyfriend's call? Is it a flip phone or a slide phone? What can we learn from it?

3. I would want to check the history of Christy, including her own victimology and personality profile, and that of her exes and her boyfriends. I would want to know all her friends and acquaintances and all the people she works with and has worked with (including those criminals she dealt with). I want to know Christy's habits especially her habit of walking at night and the routes she would have been seen on. If this wasn't her regular route, why not?

4. I would want to find any video of the roads she might have gone down after the fact. I would want to know any bus stations and motels near the area. I would want to verify any possible way Christy could have slipped away if it was a staged crime. I also want to know all possible routes for abductors and places they could hole up.

5. I would want to canvass the neighborhood for information and be sure to put out clear information to bring in tips on vehicles, possible suspects, and any strange behaviors observed.

6. The timeline of the crime is VERY important. When was Christy last seen and by whom? We must be sure no assumptions are being made. For example, let's say no one actually had seen her since 4 PM. Christy's boyfriend picks her up, they get in a fight, he kills her. He goes and hides her body, dumps a ripped shirt and one shoe on the road and then goes to his buddy. He gives his buddy the phone and tells him to wait for his call. He drives to Atlanta and then calls his buddy. They talk a few minutes and then he tells him to get in the car and drive two miles down from the dumped clothes and toss the phone. His buddy drives down the road and tells Christy's boyfriend, "Dumping the phone now!" Boyfriend then immediately calls Christy's mom to tell her that Christy has just been "taken." He has the perfect alibi.

Now, I am not saying the above scenario happened, but you can see how each piece of information must be checked and analyzed and connected with each other piece of information. This is how one does a crime reconstruction which leads to a profile. Then, we can eliminate any theory that cannot be true and find which theory is supported by the evidence. For example"

Christy's boyfriend has an alibi for the entire day in Atlanta. He was in an all-day meeting with ten people. BOYFRIEND IS NOT INVOLVED.

Christy's body is found and she has been strangled. CHRISTY DID NOT STAGE THE INCIDENT.

A video is found at a store with Christy being held hostage by some men with guns demanding money from convenience stores. SERIAL KILLERS ARE NOT INVOLVED.

A profile always depends on evidence. If new evidence comes in, the profile can change. Right now, I have so little information on this crime, I haven't a clue to what happened. If I were working with the police, I am sure this would be different. We will have to wait and see what evidence is given to the public next.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Racial Profiling in Reverse

Racial profiling, targeting someone purely because of race, is wrong. Profiling based on behavior is not wrong. If I, a white woman, walk down an alley and at the end, blocking my way out are ten black men, I may either panic or smile with relief. I will panic if I see ten black men dressed in thug clothes, cussing and talking about bitches. If I see ten black men dressed in suits with copies of The Watchtower in their hands, I am going to happily walk right up to them. The same would hold true for ten white men at the end of the block.

Henry Gates and President Obama are guilty of racial profiling. From what I can see of the officer who arrested Gates, Officer Crowley, is not. Officer Crowley acted professionally as a peace officer and did his job. Gates and Obama simply assumed that the only reason for the arrest was that Crowley just assumed this man, because he is black, was doing something illegal.

First of all, Crowley didn't do anything at all that resembled racial profiling. He already knew that Gates was the homeowner when he arrested him. He wasn't jumping to any conclusion that a black man was up to no good. Gates, a black man, WAS up to no good. He was disorderly and out of control.

If an officer arrests a black man for selling drugs, is that racial profiling? If an officer arrests a black man for stabbing his wife, is that racial profiling? If this is the case, I guess no one of color should be arrested for committing crimes. I am sure the black community will love to have these criminals remaining at large for them to contend with.

I, myself, have been accused of racism and racial profiling in spite of the fact my ex-husband of twenty-five years is black, I have one black son and two biracial children. Oddly, in all the years I have known my ex and my kids, none of them have experienced "driving while black" or any other version of racial profiling. Could this be because their behavior didn't raise suspicions in the minds of the cops? Could it be they know how to speak in a respectful manner to the police and understand, the few times they have encountered a situation with the police, that the police were just doing their job? For that matter, my sons have told me that the few times they were stopped for speeding and such, the officers let them off and they didn't even get a ticket.

I have done ride-alongs with my police officer daughter and I can tell you people who act badly often accuse the police of racial profiling or harassment or brutality and it doesn't matter who is what race. Going on the attack is their way of shifting the blame for their actions.

Gates is doing that exact thing. He acted like an idiot. He was rude and obnoxious and, in my opinion, racist. Obama is backing his friend's poor behavior and accusing the officer of something he has no idea has any merit. Both want Crowley to apologize for his actions and he refuses to do it. Good for him. Crowley, who once gave mouth-to-mouth resuscitation to Celtics star Reggie Lewis, a black man, says he didn't racial profile and he is not a racist. I believe him.

Does racial profiling exist? I am sure on occasion it does. But, I believe a good portion these days is in the mind of the offender. If it does, why did my family never encounter racial profiling.

Maybe we just knew how to behave.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Health Care Extortion

When did we stop being the "land of the free and the brave"? When did we lose our right to choose our own destinies without government interference? When did we decide to be socialist republic? What happened to something called The Constitution?

I had an interesting conversation with a good friend of my last night who was expressing her fear that discrimination was about to be levied against people who are zaftig, well, fat, in many people's view. With the new health care system coming our way, she worried that people with a weight issue would become a hated group, sanctions levied against them for causing health care costs to rise for the American people. She wondered if thin people with clogged arteries from our Standard American Diet would receive the same treatment or be able to hide behind their shield of thinness?

I thought she had a point and I told her why. Truly, is it my business to lambaste her for her extra pounds? Is it my place to yell at smokers? To be angry at women who desire induced labor and planned c-sections? Other than being concerned for their well-being as any friend might be, am I now to join brigades assaulting them for their lifestyles? I guess I will if the money to care for them comes out of my pocket. Actually, I should already feel that way because I think a good portion of our poor diet practices, drug and medicine addicted people, and over-medicalized birthing practices have skyrocketed medical care to the point where one's salary is greatly reduced to pay for them and those who have no medical care can't afford the going rates.

I think we need to completely get rid of ALL mandated health insurance, whether it is sucked away by our employers or by the United States government. We need health care choices that are truly individually selected. Why nobody in this country except a few of us sees that mandated health insurance is nothing more than extortion boggles my mind!

Let me explain, especially for those of you who are so enmeshed in our medical care system you think this extortion is normal.

There are societies in the world like Okinawa or up in Hunza country where elders romp about like agile mountain goats. Ninety-year-olds have perfectly normal blood pressure and they don't get strokes, cancers, or heart attacks. They live healthy until the machinery shuts down from exhaustion. This is how the human body was designed. Yes, there are disasters and there are unlucky blokes who get nailed out of the blue with some awful, unexplainable disease.My son had a horrific bike accident at age six. I wouldn't object to disaster insurance (by choice) with high deductibles. I might like this myself, just in case some drunk driver broadsides me.

But, most of disease is preventable. Proper diet (low in fats and mostly vegetarian), exercise, and avoidance of alcohol and drugs lends to pretty fine health. People with healthy lifestyles rarely need to see doctors all the time.

When I was married, I tried to disentangle our family from the health insurance that my husband's employer billed us for every month. Oh, you say, but it isn't that expensive, only a few hundred because the employer covers the other half. Are you dense? The way the employer "covers" the other half is to reduce your salary by that exact amount. What a deal!

So, I asked not to have the money taken out and they told me if we opted out of the system, we would not only not get back "their contribution", we would not get back ours either! We would get about ten or twenty dollars returned. So, of course, opting out was pointless. We had to accept the extortion.

Why did I want out? Simply because I never made use of the system. No one in our family went to doctors. You heard me right. Why? Because I didn't believe in those silly "well baby" checks and yearly checkups. Hey, if you are healthy, why do you need someone to tell you that you are healthy? For that matter, having worked ten years in hospital watching people get checkups, I learned that the tests and their results couldn't be trusted and people were getting procedures done that were unnecessary. They also got put directly on medicines that made their health worse. Rarely did any doctor approach health issues as a problem with lifestyles. Diet was almost never addressed outside of "suggesting" less sugar and fats. Those who got high blood pressure medicine stayed on drugs, those with diabetes stayed fat, and those with nothing wrong with them eventually found something to be worried about.

I haven't been to a doctor in fifteen years. People are horrified when they find that out. "Oh my god, suppose there is something wrong with you?" Folks, I haven't been to a doctor in fifteen years and I am still here. So nothing was wrong with me. My kids grew up without doctors and they are all adults. Most health problems can be solved without drugs and surgeries.

So, why do I have to pay for health insurance I don't want or need? Oh, yes, because everyone else wants it because they eat badly, drink, drug, and are scared of cancers sneaking up on them. I don't have a problem with their attitudes, I just don't want to pay for them. If one wants to eat badly and ingest drugs, illegal or medical, be my guest! I will still be your friend and I won't even go on a soapbox when we get together and nag you and tell you how to live. To each his own. You play, you pay. Not my issue. Shouldn't you be allowed to enjoy life through food if it makes life good for you? Maybe you prefer forty years of yummy pies and cakes rather than a longer life! Some people climb mountains and fall off of them. Should we deny them that right because they could die from their lifestyle choice? Oddly, we praise these people. Why? They don't cost us anything.

But, my friend is right. She is going to become a burden. Well, I personally think the most people now are a burden as they shoot those medical costs up. Why can't I go to a doctor of my choice and pay a reasonable price to get something like Zythromax if I happen to get bronchitis? Why should it cost me a fortune? I solved the problem by picking up a supply in Mexico and India, just in case I needed it. I had a breathing problem twenty years ago when I was on my husband's insurance where every winter I got this walking pneumonia-like thing and the x-rays never showed anything. The doctors refused to give me Zythromax and told me I had emotional problems. Oddly, my foreign Zythromax cleared up my "emotional condition" within days. This nontreatment, was given to me in the emergency room because I couldn't get an appointment with a doctor for two weeks and it cost an outrageous thousand dollars. For a stethoscope listen and an x-ray? It should have been something I could to see a doctor in a walk-in treatment center and pay fifty for the visit and fifty for the x-ray.

So, now our government is going to force me to get insurance. If I don't get it, I will be fined for not contributing my money to the system. Isn't this method called extortion? Taxes are bad enough but Obama wants us to think we are not going to be taxed for our health care system. We are going to "contribute" - by force. Taxes by another name are taxes. Pretty soon we will have our incomes docked 50-60%, just like all socialist countries. I wish more Americans spent time living in those countries to understand living in them sucks, unless you are living in them on American money.

Think about it, American citizens. Do you want to be free or do you want your government dictating everything you do in life? The intrusion on private lives and private business by the government is already massive. When they take your money away, you lose a thing called choice. I cannot choose a lay midwife or a naturopath; I cannot choose massage therapy or chiropractor. I cannot choose to spend my money on organic produce. The money I have left after the government extorts its health care money from me won't cover such things. Obama has already stolen huge amount of our future incomes with his bank bailouts and when we add the cost of health coverage and all the other social welfare programs that are going to increase, we will find the middle class no longer exists. Welcome to socialism, mates.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Dead SC Murderer is NOT a Serial Killer

I have been watching network after network stating that the man shot dead in North Carolina is the South Carolina serial killer. This is incorrect. Yes, the dead man is the guy who offed five people during the last week, but he is a spree killer, not a serial killer.

Is this important point? You bet. Serial killers don't want to get caught; they like sneaking around and getting their jollies in whatever method amuses them, then, feeling better about themselves for having taken someone's life, get a hamburger and get a good night's sleep. Serial killers are not fed up with life and want to get caught or die. They want to win, beat the people they hate, the society they live in.

Spree killers, on the other hand, are mass murderers in slow motion. They plan on suicide, usually suicide by cop. They have had enough of life and they want out but they want to go out in a blaze of glory and take their enemies with them. On occasion, a spree killer kills off his wife or mother and realizing that his freedom is coming to an end, prefers to raise his body count and go out with a bang.

This was the South Carolina killer. He had way too many kills in too short a time to be a calculating serial killer. He was a burning star and he knew law enforcement would catch up with his in due time. And as soon as the police showed up, he shot at them rather than go with them peacefully. The police shot back and he got his suicide by cop as he always intended to get.

It will be interesting to see what caused this man to go on a spree. Does he have dead bodies back at his house or did he just realize he was a colossal failure at middle age and decide to quit life. Most mass murderers and spree killers are either in their twenties or their forties: the young ones see no great future in their lives and the older one know that the have already hit their zenith.

Spree killer, not serial killer. It makes a difference in an investigation and protecting oneself. While mass murderers, spree killers, and serial killers are all psychopath, the serial killer is the one living down the street for the next twenty years slowing picking off the citizens. At least we know this bastard is done.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Naked Dead Guy Hanging

I had to laugh, sadly, when I heard that actor David Carridine, who had been find hanging in his hotel closet, was also naked. The suicide possibility flew immediately out the window. Naked dead guy hanging means auto erotic asphyxiation almost 100 percent of the time. Even if one doesn't find pornography nearby or other weird red flags like bondage apparatus (hands tied, gags, freaky sex toys, genitals "adorned" with item intending to increase stimulation, etc), the fact the guy is naked points to a private sex act gone bad. People rarely commit suicide naked (although it has happened) and almost never when hanging themselves.

For those of you who can't fathom how one hangs themselves during a sex act, here is the basic scoop. The man (almost always male) ties a rope or a belt to the rod in a closet, loops it around his neck, and bends his knees. When he does this, blood flow is shut off and oxygen doesn't reach the brain. This causes a euphoric feeling and enhances orgasm. The trick is having the orgasm during the time when this feeling has reached its peak and then standing up straight again before one passes out. The pressure then comes off the constricted blood vessels and oxygen flows back to the brain. If one screws up and passes out, he will be found hanging with his knees bent, naked in that closet.

The practitioners of autoerotic sex always think they will be able to orgasm and stand up in time. The think they will know if they are "taking too long" and need to give up the attempt. Unfortunately, in the midst of all the fun, they lose track of time and push the envelope. Often when one finds someone dead of autoerotic sex it is after they have practiced this art for a while and, like all things in time, their fantasies get a bit dull and their ability to be sexually excited slows down. Sometimes alcohol can also be a factor in delayed orgasm. Bottom line: get off or end up dead.

Some will wonder why David Carridine didn't just go buy some sex in Thailand considering the country has the world's most deviant sex trade. After all, according to Carridine's fourth wife, Marina, he did practice perverted sex along with the another kind of deviant sex act that was "dangerous."

My answer? Who knows? Sex acts are very personal to the practitioner. Each human being enjoys sex in his or her own way, sometimes in a number of ways. Deviant sexual behavior is often addictive and the need for bizarreness escalates. Sometimes sex with another human being actually frustrates the practitioner because the partner "doesn't do it right." Reality can screw up a good fantasy.

I don't know why David Carridine felt a need that evening to truss himself up and take the risk of death just for a moment of sexual satisfaction, but he did. We have all lost a great actor and his family has lost someone they love. Worse, the last memories of the man are an embarrassment to all.

If anything good can come out of this sad ending of Carridine's life, may it be that men out there. especially young men, come to understand just how dangerous auto erotic sex is and refrain from involving themselves in such acts. The supposed added kick is simply not worth it.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Pat Brown on E!'s Fatal Beauty

If you missed the show on Sunday, catch Pat Brown on E! Channel's
Fatal Beauty: 15 Most Notorious Women

Wed 6/3
9:00-11:00pm

Thu 6/4
1:00-3:00pm

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown