Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: It's a Crime how hard it is for Women to lose Weight

It's not fat genes that are putting us in fat jeans: it just sucks being a woman. Women have no problem maintaining their weight when they live in areas where food is somewhat scarce and they have to work in the fields or at aerobic jobs from sun-up to sundown. This is probably why in so many economically struggling societies, it is a tradition to allow the men to eat first. Maybe the males are just being bullies and the females are not considered worthy of an equal place at the table, but maybe these men who work equally as hard as the women (or have the even more physically demanding jobs) simply need the extra calories to survive.

Women don't have to worry about gaining fat under these circumstances but, if that isn't the lifestyle most of us lead, the bad news is, we don't need all that many calories to maintain a healthy weight and low body fat. While not having to slave away twelve hours a day under tough conditions is a blessing, we now have to pay the price with the extra fat layers on our bodies that we really don't need. In today's world, unless you exercise a lot, the Standard American Diet includes far more calories than most of us need.

So when we go to lose weight, we cannot understand why those pounds hang around. We think we are being pretty careful with what we eat, following a diet of only 1200 or 1500 calories a day, but the weight stays on. When we fail, we begin to believe that we are genetically doomed; we have fat genes that won't let us lose weight.

Sorry, ladies. If this were true, you would see some fat women in the photos of the Auschwitz survivors. But, the reality is, they didn't eat many calories and they got very skinny.

I am going to prove how little we women need to eat. I embarked on my new diet on October 4, 2010. On November 16, I am sailing to the Caribbean on the Queen Mary II. I have nothing to wear. Well, that is not true. I have things to wear but I can't get into any of them, including my bathing suit. So, from last week, I had six weeks to lose 17-22 pounds, not an easy task in so short a time. But, I set out and I am eight pounds down so far. Now it will get harder because the first ten are always easier to lose than the last ten when you are trying to get rid of the last twenty pounds. I started at 152 and I want to be between 130-135 (depending on any muscle gained if I actually lift weights) when I board the ship.

I will take you along on my diet and you will be able to see for yourself just how little one must eat to lose weight when you are a female. Next time your boyfriend or husband mocks you for struggling to get the pounds off while he is losing like crazy, still eating potatoes and drinking beer, shove my diet diary in his face and ask him how long he would stay on a diet like this! Also, seeing how my diet plan works will help you decide if you need to modify your own for success.

By the way, NO DRUGS are involved in my weight loss program. A lot of times you will read how a celebrity has lost weight really quickly and she will claim she did it while eating a healthy, slightly reduced calorie diet. Bullocks. A good number of them are taking diet drugs like phenteramine to get that weight off. The stuff works fast because you race around like a energizer bunny (it is speed, folks) and you don't eat. It is also very unhealthy. The celebs don't want to admit using drugs, so they lie and we wonder why we don't have the kind of quick success they have on the "same diet." I am telling your the truth here; no drugs are along for the ride on my diet.


My diet so far: read it and weep.

MONDAY Oct 4 - 152 pounds

Bought foods and didn’t eat until I went shopping at Whole Foods late in the afternoon. I bought a salad and made a banana-blueberry ice cream (4 bananas) in the evening. Two frozen bananas in the “ice cream” and some fresh blueberries. So low calorie but what a great fulfilling dessert!

No exercise. Back injury.

TUESDAY Oct 5 – 150 pounds

Papaya/banana/kale green smoothie. Not that good. Spiced it up. Three glasses. One papaya, one banana.

Banana/strawberry ice cream – 2 frozen bananas and fresh strawberries. Always yummy! Great with blueberries, too.

2 bowls of stews made with tomatoes, celery, cucumber, squash spinach, and a T of honey. I made the curry/cilantro version. On the second bowl, I added a sliced up banana and it thickened the stew and turned it into a version of Puerto Rican Mafongo! Great find!

No exercise. Back injury.

WEDNESDAY Oct 6 – 148 pounds

One glass leftover papaya/banana/kale green smoothie.

3 dishes of “oatmeal”. Two with one mashed banana and chopped strawberries and one with one mashed banana and a sliced thinly apple. All sprinkled with cinnamon. The one with strawberries made a nice breakfast that did remind me of oatmeal with the crappy mucky part. Apple version tastes like apple cobbler or apple pie!

Five large stuffed “burritos” made with nori. Stuffed with carrots, zucchini, tomatoes, spinach, red pepper, add cilantro. Added Matouk’s hot sauce and pickled ginger. Turned out like big sushi rolls. Loved it! Very filling and made a nice, big meal that had pretty much no calories!

No exercise. Back injury.

THURSDAY Oct 7 – 147 pounds

Two glasses of canteloupe/parlsey green smoothie. Delicious and refreshing!

One salad of spinach, lettuce, tomatoes, cucumbers, handful of washed dulse and mango/tomato/lemon nonfat dressing. A little bland but filling. Need to find a way to make it a little more thrilling. But, almost zero calories! Added a t of honey and a t or more of Dijon mustard. Makes it a bit more interesting. I used it as a dip but still not exciting enough for that. Could be used as a dressing but I still think it needs more something. I like the mango and tomato base, though. I now have added garlic and cider vinegar and it is a bit better and then, curry, better still. I will try it on a cabbage dish.

I/2 cup lime pudding. I was aiming for key lime flavor. Didn’t quite work out! 1 cup has 1 banana, ½ pear, and ¾ of a lime, including skin. The skin didn’t work out here. I used it in a different recipe and it added zing. Here it adds too much zing and the pieces and little pieces were still intact. So, I ended up with what had the consistency and taste of applesause with lime and little annoying bits.

Had my “oatmeal” with one banana/strawberries but this time I sprinkled it with carob powder. I have never been that found of carob powder and it didn’t this dish didn’t taste anywhere as good as the one sprinkled with cinnamon.

5 more of my stuffed “burritos” with pickled ginger.

No exercise. Back injury.

FRIDAY Oct 8 – 146.5 pounds

Bowl of “oatmeal” with 2 bananas, 1 apple and cinnamon.

I glass of cantaloupe/parsley green smoothie left over from yesterday.

No exercise. Back injury.

SAT OCT 9 – 146.5 pounds

Bowl of gazpacho soup and glass of white wine at restaurant

Piece of chocolate at hair salon

Salad at restaurant with dried cranberries; nonfat dressing

I bite of pizza crust

No exercise. Back injury.

SUN OCT 10 – 146.5 pounds

1 Thai papaya salad with peanuts and one glass white wine

6 pizza bites with mustard

No exercise. Back injury.

MON OCT 11- 146 pounds

2 salads with mango/tomato/balsamic vinegar dressing – Frederic Patanaude. This is a great dressing!

3 glasses of smoothie – watermelon, cucumber, tomato, banana, and dill. Very tasty and refreshing!

No exercise. Back injury.

TUES OCT 12 - 147 pounds

Grr. So it is a starvation day since I went up. Had carrots and salsa and the previous days watermelon drink with kale added. Liked it much better the way I made it yesterday.

No exercise. Back injury.

WED OCT 13 – 146 pounds

I salad with half a cup of mango/tomato/balsamic dressing

Pile of cabbage with the other half of the dressing.

One cup of Pakistani rice

Jogged on twenty minute lap around the lake and then one more lap walking with six sprints

THURS OCT 14 - 145 pounds

Banana “oatmeal” with pear and cinnamon. One banana and one pear.

3 Watermelon green smoothies – ½ baby watermelon, 1 banana, 2 tomatoes, 1 cucumber and dill

1 cup Pakistani rice

No exercise. Too tired and it rained all day.

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Idiot Pedestrian Rights Laws are Downright Dangerous

When I was eight years old, my mother would let me walk to town alone. I had to cross a very busy street with traffic that moved a pretty good clip. My mother, being the sort that believed in training her children, had spent many a good teaching moment on the side of the street, showing me when it was safe to cross and when it wasn't. And, she firmly told me, if you have to wait twenty minutes to cross, if you have to whip your head back and forth and back and forth until you get whiplash, you will do that until you see no car in either direction. I followed her instructions because she taught me my body was no match for a steel machine. If I didn't want to die, I would practice safe pedestrian crossing.

My son recently spent a year in India and it took a bit of time before he learned how to cross the road there. In India, you have to wait until there is time for you to cross into the space between "lanes" *(these don't really exist) and you have to do this incrementally until your reach the other side. It is quite a terrifying experience, but if you move and stop properly as you make your way across the street, you will survive. You learn to do this correctly because if you don't, you will be run over by a motorized rickshaw, car, motorbike, bus, truck, camel, or elephant. Check out this video to learn how to make it to the "other side" in India.

In NYC, jaywalking is routine, but jaywalkers know that they better move their asses post haste and they best make sure they don't get in the way of a taxi. They pay attention and walk quickly.

Pedestrians who understand that a modern road is for cars and that cars are bigger than them, survive. Traffic also moves along well because there isn't a pedestrian crossing every few yards and two-footed idiots strolling casually across the street.

But, now, I live in the State of Stupidity also known as Maryland where laws are being passed to "help" people cross the street. It seems to be some modern guilt trip that walking makes one better citizens and those bad people in cars better defer to them or else. Streets are for pedestrians, too, and they are going to have the government's assistance to help them across the street like little old ladies or blind people. Only this time, this kind of help is going to get them killed.

My neighborhood has turned into Frogger Alley. Crosswalks have been tossed into the middle of blocks (so the pedestrians don't have to take those extra steps to a corner) and cars are required by law to yield to anyone in the crosswalk. Sounds like a kindly thing until one realizes how incredibly dangerous this is. Because pedestrians believe they now have the right of way, they just walk straight out into the road, fully expecting traffic to stop. And traffic does stop, IF they see them.

I have almost run over a few people already since this moronic law was passed.

Scenario One: A truck is in the left hand lane with his turn signal on and blocking my view of the crosswalk in front of him. But, he is not turning left there; he is stopped for a pedestrian. Driving in the next lane, I am suddenly confronted with a pedestrian who steps out from behind the truck into the middle of my lane. I almost run him over. He screams at me, "Watch where you are driving!" Well, I was watching where I was driving. I was on a thirty-five mph road with nothing in front of me.

Scenario Two: One doesn't even know the crosswalk is there! One is tooling along at dusk and, suddenly, some college student bolts into the road in front of the car. Screech! That was a close one.

Scenario Three: A pedestrian dressed in black comes out of the bushes and walks straight for the other side of the road. If one runs him over, one gets nailed with manslaughter.

Scenario Four: With a clear road ahead, one is distracted for a moment, lost in thought or turning the radio dial. Bam! Pedestrian under car because the pedestrian no longer bothers to even look and see if the car is slowing and stopping because it is supposed to.

Hey, look, I am all for courtesy. But, today, a driver got angry at me because I didn't want to step into the crosswalk and walk across the street with traffic coming at me from both sides. I don't trust those drivers to see me and I don't expect them to. Finally, all the traffic did stop but everyone was mad at me because I held them up instead of just racing across the road.

Isn't it easier and safer to just wait until it is safe to cross the street and then do so? That's what my mother taught me.

For more on the subject, read this article on mid-block pedestrian crossings.

Build an underpass, build an overpass, build walking paths, or, if it is necessary, add a light or a stop sign with a proper crosswalk at the corner. But, for God's sake and the sake of all pedestrians and drivers, get rid of those stupid mid-block death traps.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Enough of van der Sloot! What about Baby Gabriel?

"I am SICK of hearing about Joran van der Sloot! Why aren't we talking about Kyron Horman, the missing Oregon seven-year-old?" (Actually, his case IS back in the news now that the stepmother has become a Person of Interest). I hear this kind of sentiment quite often. When we were talking about Casey Anthony day in and day out, people asked why we weren't talking about Baby Gabriel anymore. Or when the Haleigh Cummings case was a constant topic after a majority of the players were busted for selling drugs, I heard, "Why aren't we talking about Kayleah Wilson?" I will explain exactly why.

Bombshell tonight! Breaking News!

Joran van der Sloot's mother calls him a sicko! Monday, the judge is going to interrogate van der Sloot. Van der Sloot changes his story again! (okay, I made that last headline up, but give it another 24 hours and it will probably be true).


Haleigh Cumming's case. Umm.....nothing really new. The scumbags are sitting around in jail. Two weeks ago Misty Croslin got a new trial date and last week Donna Brock plead guilty. Yawn.

Kayleah Wilson case. Police are still investigating. Okay.

Baby Gabriel Johnson case. Three weeks ago doctors said Elizabeth Johnson, baby Gabriel's poor excuse for a mother, is not competent to stand trial. Boy, did she pull one over on them. Gabriel, still missing.

And there you go. It is about "news." The simple fact is, people want to hear what is new and newsworthy. If there is nothing new about a case, it is difficult to put it in in a show because there is simply is nothing new to say. Now, admittedly, sometimes "breaking news" and "bombshell tonight" is a bit of an overstatement, the news is so thin you kind of smirk when the "explosive" information is given. But, hey, there still has to be something, something to work with, something to discuss, at least a slightly different angle. So, when they can't even come up with the tiniest thing about a case that is new, the show is going to move on to a case that is more active. When something breaks, believe me, that "cold" case will be back. There are many missing persons and unsolved murders around the country but there is simply nothing new to report on those cases, only an update that, yes, they are still missing or dead and no new evidence has come to light. Such noninformation isn't exciting news and so it is rarely reported as news.

I wish we could push cold cases one after the other, seeking more information and never letting the victims be forgotten. But if national television shows did that all the time, they would completely lose their audiences, the shows would fold, and no cases at all would be brought to light. At least we DO learn a bit about quite a few cases out there and some, long forgotten cases are occasionally showcased, if even for a minute or two. Television can only do so much; we in our own communities must push for justice for our local murdered citizens. Call your papers, call your local news, call your councilmen. Don't let your murdered neighbors be forgotten or allow the community to forget that a dangerous killer is still roaming your town.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: About The Profiler: My Life Hunting Serial KIllers and Psychopaths

Since my new book, The Profiler: My Life Hunting Serial Killers and Psychopaths (co-written with Bob Andelman) has hit the stands, I have been fielding many questions about my entrance into profiling, my profiling work and the cases in the book. But, today, I am going to respond to some interesting comments made on Amazon.

As I expected would occur when The Profiler came out, I would have some great reviews and some not so great reviews. I am lucky to have people who are wonderful supporters of me and my work, but there are others who simply despise me, for whatever reasons. Since I am very outspoken about my beliefs about profiling, criminals, and crime, I can expect to get a number of detractors. Some people I just rub the wrong way and that is life. Some people rub me the wrong way too but they have folks who think they are great! It takes all kinds of us to make the world go round.

As I read through my Amazon reviews, I saw some legitimate criticisms and some bizarre criticisms and some folks that didn't understand something about me and the book. So, I am going to try to clear at least a few of these things up.


1) Although Pat's Brown's renter was weird, there was obviously not enough to warrant an investigation by the police

Actually, the police reopened the case six years later and brought the renter in, interrogated him, polygraphed him, DNA'd him, and investigated him. He is still the Number One suspect and he lives one mile down the road from me.

2) Pat makes wild guesses, follows her "gut."

I find this criticism amusing because one of the big points I make in the book is that too much profiling HAS been guesswork and gut feelings. I promote the scientific method and for each determination I make, I support my conclusions with physical and behavioral evidence.

3) Pat may have a degree in Criminal Justice, but she is not a psychologist or scientific researcher in human factors. I have to believe in her mind her TV appearances and radio show appearances have qualified her as a premier profiler.

In the book, I address the educational requirements criminal profilers should have. Many people think a criminal profiler should be a psychiatrist or psychologist and others think criminal profilers should be forensic scientists. But, in reality, much of what one learns in graduate level college programs in these fields does not apply to profiling. And, if one studies just one of these fields, then one lacks the needed understanding from the other fields. Criminal profiling draws from psychology, forensics, and investigations and then adds in crime scene reconstruction and profiling methodology. In order to meet these needs, I have developed the first criminal profiling certificate program in the country and I am developing The Pat Brown School of Criminal Profiling.

It IS true that being on television does not make one a profiler; it makes one a commentator. I don't profile on television; I discuss crime and the criminal mind and what might have happened based on what the media is telling us.

4) "Offender profiling is a method of identifying the perpetrator of a crime based on an analysis of the nature of the offense and the manner in which it was committed. Various aspects of the criminal's personality makeup are determined from his or her choices before, during, and after the crime.[1] This information is combined with other relevant details and physical evidence, and then compared with the characteristics of known personality types and mental abnormalities to develop a practical working description of the offender." Pat doesn't profile; she just does detective work.

I understand where this person is coming from. It may well seem that I am just doing what detectives do; that I don't "profile" because I don't do what is known as "offender profiling." And I don't do offender profiling because I do not believe in it. This kind of profiling is very generalized and when profilers look at a series of linked crimes, they often apply a whole slew of characteristics from one subgroup of offenders to that particular offender. I have never found these "profiles" to be of much value; they are based on statistics and somewhat questionable research conclusions and they use for catching criminals has not been proven. I DO describe something about the kind of person who committed a crime, what his motive is, and what behaviors he exhibited in the crime and what I expect him to exhibit outside of the crime scene. but based on the evidence at that specific crime scene or scenes and while there are some general groups offenders fall into, I believe in being more specific about the perpetrator in each crime. I base my description of him on evidence and I do not use confusing academic labels and general characteristics (based on everyone in the supposed group he falls in to).

My style of profiling is deductive profiling requires a thorough crime reconstruction and analysis of all the evidence before one can start addressing the offender's characteristics. And although the offender may fall in some broad category, I will not make any inferences about him based on that offender group alone.

5) Pat Brown is a homemaker who read some books.

Wow! Am I still 34 years old? Cool! Actually, 20 years ago I read the 400 books that helped me understand the field. This was just the beginning of my education, training, and practice of profiling. This comment that makes me the saddest of all that I have read that is negative. It is so hard for women, even in this country and day and age, to move up in certain professions and it is all the more difficult if they are over forty. I am hoping to inspire women and open doors for them. Sometimes women are their own worst enemy when they attack the relatively few women who made some progress in very male professions. We should stick together and cheer each other on, shouldn't we?

6) If Pat Brown can profile, then all these cases should have been prosecuted.

Oh, don't I wish! But when a profiler is brought in years later, most of the time the evidence is gone. This is why the profiler needs to be part of the original investigative team. If the profiler is there when the crime is fresh, an excellent analysis can send the detectives in the correct direction where they can find the evidence and preserve it.

6) Pat Brown is paranoid, narcissistic, psychopathic, and creepy.

Oh, dear, maybe that is why I understand psychopaths so well; it takes one to know one?

The Profiler: My Life Hunting Serial Killers and Psychopaths wasn't written to impress folks or to defend my work. It is meant to bring the truth to people about killers that are living among us, how the system is struggling, how justice is getting waylaid, how profiling really should be done, and how profiling can make a difference in solving cases if only the police would use it when the case is still very young. I hope one day, someone will pick the book up off a dusty used bookstore shelf, read it, and think, "Wow! Can you believe that they once waited for years to bring a profiler in?" I hope one day the country will have a profiler in every major police department and profilers available to help all the smaller police agencies.

If I wake up one day to that world, I will know my efforts have been worth it.


Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: TIME'S UP for Domestic Abuse

We hear the term, "Domestic Abuse," thrown around quite a bit and it is worth taking a look at what it really means in our own lives. Is it physical, mental, or both? When does one spouse's treatment of the other cross the line from just imperfect humans struggling in a relationship to one partner mistreating the other? After all, we know that marriage can be "work" and issues have to be dealt with and ironed out. We are going to disagree, even argue and be mad at each other, and, sometimes, we are not going to actually be able to kiss and make-up before bedtime. When should one start to worry that there is something really wrong with our marriage partnership?

I would say it is when the "partnership" becomes a boss and employee relationship and the boss is someone we would like to fire. While everyone wants power and control in life, a spouse must be willing to share that power and control with their partner, work together to achieve a balance where both parties are satisfied with the equation. Doing so is not a problem for those who love their spouse and want to see their spouse happy and want to achieve a positive and pleasing family life. Working together is an expectation for a committed couple and being good role models for the children is a natural desire for caring parents.

When one spouse becomes the master, putting his or her needs and desires above the spouse's, doesn't care how his/her mate feels, ignores the impact of this imbalance on the children, this is abuse - whether it is in the form of emotional manipulation of physical domination.

Ideally, one should wait a reasonable period of time before having children to see if one's mate is one's best friend, that you work out fair solutions to problems, that your beloved really loves you, and you are happy together. You need a couple of years, if not more, to find out whether you have just signed up for a partnership or a prison term. If your marriage sucks, having children in it will make it suck more and, worse, it will trap you for years and years as now you have a family you don't want to destroy.

But, let's suppose you have already blown it and you are stuck in a nightmare; you are being mentally or physically tortured with regularity and you fear your mate instead of feeling safe in their company. It's time to make the decision to leave. Susan Milano-Murphy, one of my fellow bloggers at Women in Crime Ink knows well when someone should make a break for it and titles her new book on escaping abuse, TIME'S UP: A Guide on How to Leave an Abusive and Stalking Relationship.

If you are not frightened of your mate, you can simply state you want a separation, make plans to live in different residences, and, if you feel there is any hope through counseling, give your spouse a chance to make a change if he/she really wants to do so. If you think past behavior is pretty much a predictor of future behavior, then you are probably right (because it usually is), and you need to make the best choices you can for the well-being of the children.

But, if you are in a physically dangerous situation, if your spouse has been violent or threatening or coldly psychopathologicaly scary, you will want to get Susan's book, TIME'S UP! This book doesn't merely discuss when you should leave or why you should leave, it tells you HOW you should leave. The book has step-by-step instructions how to covertly make a plan, set-up a safe escape, deal with financial issues, and the paperwork. Susan even takes you line-by-line through the process, the forms, the legal issues...she takes you by the hand, and, believe me, when you are being terrorized and you are an basket case, you don't need vague ideas, you need specific instructions. TIME'S UP can save your life and your sanity. If you need to get out, get this book before you make a mistake that could be fatal. It is money well spent.

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Ronald Cummings is "Only Disappointed" the Bitch got his Child Stole

Gotta love defense lawyers! Ronald Cumming's defense lawyer, Terry Shoemaker, has just come out with two mind-boggling statements. One is that the police told Ronald, "If you divorce Misty, we'll find something out. She'll crack" and "If Misty got in trouble, in jail, we could probably get her to crack." I guess Ronald's mother was right that he "only dealt drugs to get close to Misty after the divorce, in order to learn what happened to Haleigh."

Let's see now; Ronald married Misty to get "his enemy near" him because that would get him information. Then he divorces because the police told him to, because that would get him information. Then he deals drugs with her and helps them set up a sting to get her arrested because that will get him information. I don't think I have ever seen such a complex ongoing plan. Ronald is also an amazing actor to be able to play the loving husband, then divorce her because he failed in his mission, then take up with her again to get her busted selling drugs, and pretend to be the felon while waiting for her to crack. This is the real world folks, not a fictional crime drama.

And now, we have a new incredible comment of Ronald's via his lawyer. Apparently, Ron is not mad at Misty, "only disappointed" that she couldn't confide in him for an entire year, forcing him and his family to suffer needlessly. He hopes the reason she withheld the truth was that she was "threatened" or "forced" to keep quiet.

I am finding his kindly attitude hard toward Misty hard to swallow (as I always have find it abnormal). Disappointed? You can be disappointed someone didn't give you a job, disappointed your child didn't get good grades in school, disappointed that your mate doesn't want to go away for the weekend. You are usually mad as hell when you find out your spouse cheated on you, a drunk driver killed your son, or your druggie girlfriend "got your daughter stole."

Not Ronnie. Even though he swore he'd kill the person who took his kid, he isn't even mad when he finds out his girlfriend/wife/girlfriend was involved in his child's disappearance and lied to him over and over and over again.

Maybe it is true that he has been doing an undercover job for the police trying to get Misty to slip up. Or, maybe, he knows she finally has slipped up and he is sending her a message through his lawyer. He needs her continued cooperation to save his own butt so he can't be too nasty. He is letting her know that he is "disappointed" (you gave up the information you shouldn't have) and he hopes that she was forced or threatened (you better just have slipped up under pressure and you better not be about to roll over on me).

Seems more like the defense lawyer is working overtime to paint Ronald as a victim and sympathetic figure. He is giving too much information which leads me to believe he is working on a defense in a murder case, not a drug dealing case.

Maybe I am wrong and we will find out the Ronald Cummings really did spend the year helping the police nail Misty. If this turns out to be the case, Ron can play himself in the movie because he is one hell of an actor and I will pay the $12 to be there on opening night.

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.