Hey, Gerry, Have You Still Got That Shovel for Us to Borrow?

Bollux Media has just learned that DCI Andy Redwood is heading to Praia da Luz to dig up the town and countryside in an effort to find Madeleine who he recently admitted might be dead.

BM: Mr. Redwood, are you now convinced Maddie is no longer alive? That she isn't living happily with a family somewhere, gypsy or otherwise?

AR: ::snorts::Well, come on, we might be daft here at Scotland Yard but we never really believed the child was living the good life somewhere out there.

BM: And you no longer think she could be held in a sex ring?

AR: Well, I guess that could be a theory but we have to wrap this case up....it's been three years already and we have come up with squat...we gotta solve it somehow.

BM: That makes sense. So are you now following the evidence trail? The fact that the cadaver dogs hit in the apartment and in the McCanns hire car and that Madeleine must have died on May 3rd and been taken off and buried?

AR: Hell, no! Good Lord, what an insane idea! For three years we have ignored all the physical and behavioral evidence; we aren't going to start focusing on that now.

BM: Then why are you going to dig up Praia da Luz?

AR: Well, if we want to close this case in the near future, that child needs to be dead and buried. We would have to use the theory of a local pedophile and such a person wouldn't keep a child alive more than a few hours, so that would make Madeleine dead and buried nearby the fellow's house. So, we will focus on the area.

BM. Criminal Profiler Pat Brown has a theory that the cadaver dog evidence is valid and that would mean Maddie's body was moved from Praia da Luz to some other location by Gerry McCann. She believes Maddie might well be buried in an desolate area called Monte do Jose Mestre, the area just west of Praia da Luz where Gerry's phone pinged a number of times. In fact, she went to Portugal herself to analyze the case in person and she located this area right off the main road which is isolated enough to be able to bury a body without anyone noticing. She wrote a detailed description of her findings here.

AR: I don't care what that woman thinks: she's a nutter. We have no intention of reviewing the evidence like she did. We will not be visiting that location. We will just wander around Praia da Luz beaches and road shoulders with our radar machines.

BM: So, you aren't actually going to dig?

AR: Well, Gerry gave us his shovel, but I have heard the residents of Praia da Luz and those pesky local government officials aren't keen on us making a lot of holes in the area, so we may not have a chance to put it to use. We will just go through the motions of looking and then declare Maddie was probably dumped in the ocean.

BM: Okay, well, thanks, Mr. Redwood, for the update. I know you have said that Scotland Yard isn't going to give a running commentary on an open investigation or review or whatever it is, but we appreciate you giving us this interview and I am sure all the other British media outlets appreciate your openness in this matter as well.

AR: Most welcome.


This responsible and accurate bullshit was brought to you by Bollux Media and

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

May 5, 2014

Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann available at Smashwords and Barnes and Noble.


 

By Pat Brown
Rating: 
(5.00 based on 5 reviews)

Published: July 27, 2011

What really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann in Praia da Luz, Portugal in 2007? Was she abducted as the Gerry and Kate have claimed or did something happen to Madeleine on May 3 in the vacation apartment and the incident covered up? Criminal Profiler Pat Brown analyzes the evidence and takes the readers through the steps of profiling, developing a theory that is intriguing and controversial.

Seven Years and Millions Spent and Still No Evidence of Abduction

May 3, 2014 marks the seventh anniversary of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann and the seventh year that no evidence of abduction has been found. Seven years of the McCann's private detectives' spending millions of donated pounds have netted zero evidence of abduction and three years of Scotland Yard's team of detectives spending millions of taxpayer's pounds have netted zero evidence of abduction. Any successful business CEO would say that millions of pounds were wasted on a fool's errand.

And this is precisely the cold truth that the McCanns do not want the public to recognize. In fact, the McCanns, their team of private detectives, and Scotland Yard have done their best to steer the public away from the fact that all evidence pointing to what happened to Madeline McCann is contained in the Portuguese police files and it all hones in on the physical evidence in the McCann apartment and their rental car, the findings of the cadaver and blood dogs, the McCanns themselves, and the seven friends that they dined with at the Tapas Restaurant.

In fact, all the detectives - the McCann's hired PIs and Scotland Yard's finest - have purposely ignored the most basic rule of investigations and criminal profiling; to work from evidence to theory and not make up a theory and hope it turns into evidence at some point in time. In Maddie's case, it seems Scotland Yard is concocting theories based on nothing more than the abduction fantasy they wish to purport and then they are attempting to link these various scenarios back to the Madeleine, May 3rd, 2007, and Praia da Luz.

For example, the latest concocted scenario that DCI Andy Redwood and Scotland Yard have pushed into the media in time for the seventh anniversary of Madeleine's disappearance is not based on any evidence from the Madeleine McCann case. Instead, they found some stories about a creepy guy who supposedly slipped into British vacationers' flats in the Algarve over a number of years and proceeded to gaze at or do something of some sort to young white girls. Of course, we have no actual evidence of what exactly happened and to whom because most of these alleged assaults were not reported to police and those that were, well, we don't know exactly what was reported. We do know that no one was arrested, charged, and convicted.

Next, Redwood goes public with the story and now, supposedly, a young woman has came forward to say she was sexually assaulted by a man of the same description in Praia da Luz just before Madeleine went missing. Naturally, we have no proof this woman actually exists any more than we have proof that some vacationer exists who was carrying his child from the creche and crossed the path of Jane Tanner. These folks never came forward until Redwood reached out to the public with the exact details of what he wished someone to call in with and whether anyone with credibility actually called in or whether it was just an attention seeker or whether no one ever did call with relevant information and Redwood is just claiming so, we will probably never know. What I do know, however, is that Redwood appears to be building a theoretically believable scenario bit by bit. First we have a pedophile in the Algarve targeting young British girls in their vacation flats, then we have one attacked in Praia da Luz, and next thing we will have is a couple tips that a couple people saw a smelly man wearing said rare shirt watching the McCann's flat the day Maddie went missing.

Then, it can be assumed since the guy was a pedophile loser, he abducted and killed Madeleine and disposed of her body in such a manner that it will not be recoverable. The man will either never be found or he will be conveniently dead. The McCanns will have their answer and the public will be satisfied with the cleverly devised, believable scenario. But, in actuality, there will be no evidence of any such man having abducted and killed Madeleine McCann. The only true evidence of what happened to Madeleine will still be in the Portuguese police files.

 Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

May 3, 2014


Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann available at Smashwords and Barnes and Noble.


 

By Pat Brown
Rating: 
(5.00 based on 5 reviews)

Published: July 27, 2011

What really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann in Praia da Luz, Portugal in 2007? Was she abducted as the Gerry and Kate have claimed or did something happen to Madeleine on May 3 in the vacation apartment and the incident covered up? Criminal Profiler Pat Brown analyzes the evidence and takes the readers through the steps of profiling, developing a theory that is intriguing and controversial

Rubin "Hurricane" Carter; A Killer, not a Hero, will Finally Serve the Rest of his Time

A few days ago, I woke up to the news that Rubin "Hurricane" Carter was dead. I shed no tears as he never shed any tears for any of his victims. But, I suffered sadness.....at the mass reporting by the media that Carter had been wrongly convicted and was a hero for his attempts to fight injustice and speak for people of color who have been railroaded and wrongfully incarcerated. Absolute rubbish! Carter was convicted with ample evidence and after media pressure escalated - instigated by a group of Canadians of the Communist persuasion wishing to prove racism was rampant in the American justice system (and whose book the movie, The Hurricane" is 100% based on) - his sentence was overturned due to a technicality; he was never proven innocent of the crimes he was convicted of.

Below is the article I wrote 13 years ago after viewing Denzel Washington portrayal of this murderous psychopath. After hearing Rubin Carter speak publicly since his release and after reviewing the physical and behavioral evidence of the homicides once again (which I did not address in full in the original article below), I remain as convinced as ever that Rubin "Hurricane" Carter should have served out his life in prison.


THE HURRICANE - ODE TO A PSYCHOPATH

I had heard the name Rubin "Hurricane" Carter sometime back in the 1970s, but couldn't quite remember why. So, when the movie, "The Hurricane" came out, I rushed out to see it. It was definitely a movie that I HAD to see because it contained to a number of elements I was very well acquainted with and very concerned about: injustice, racism, and boxing. I have raised two mixed race children and one adopted black son over the last twenty years and my husband has struggled with racism in his work and in the community, dealing with this American dilemma ever since his arrival here from Jamaica in his teens. Boxing? Oh, yeah…I know boxing. I watched the rise and fall of my brother-in-law and three-time world champion, Simon Brown. I spent quite a few evenings ringside in Atlantic City and more than a few evenings cussing out Don King and a host of other ethically challenged promoters. Yes, I was more than excited this movie came out. I was looking forward to hearing the story and struggle for justice by this boxer whose name I had heard, but never knew the real story of.

My excitement lasted only a fraction of the way into this movie. For you who have not yet seen the movie, let me set up the basic events. A trio of extraordinarily caring and docile Canadians offer a home to an impoverished black American teenager and proceed to homeschool him. This happens during the 1970's and the Canadians come off like innocent do-gooders beyond belief. You can't really blame the movie (well, yes you can) because it is based, without the slightest departure, on the book written by the Canadians themselves. I guess the producers were not too concerned about a one-sided viewpoint. Anyway, the Canadians are busy homeschooling Lesra and allowing the youth to pick out his choice of reading materials when he "happens across" the book written by Rubin Carter called "The Sixteenth Round". From here Lesra fascinates the whole group with his out loud readings of Carter's story of injustice and imprisonment and we are taken along with him through this historical journey. The story begins in the movie showing Carter when he was just a tyke - he looks about eight or nine - when a serious altercation occurs that gets him sent to reform school for the rest of his youth. He and his friends are playing by a waterfall when a middle-aged white child molester attempts to lure one of the little boys with his gold watch. When he attempts to grab the little boy, Carter, trying to save his friend, throws a bottle and hits the man on the head. The man then turns to Carter and grabs him and tries to toss him off a cliff. Carter pulls out his Scout knife, stabs the man and the man drops him. Then Carter is pulled into the police station and an evil, racist, really nasty policeman, scares and abuses the little boy and then the little boy is sent away for his act of self-defense. I think I actually started laughing out loud much to the horror of my neighboring moviegoers. I watched the rest of the movie about the "railroading of Rubin Carter" snickering into my popcorn and rolling my eyes. I left the theatre shaking my head while everyone else shouted and clapped at Carter's victory and release from prison.

What was wrong with this picture? How could the SUPPORTERS of Rubin Carter convince me he was guilty while trying to convince me he wasn't? When I talked to others and read the web sites, I found only one person who felt as I did. I began to wonder if I had misinterpreted something from the film. So I went out and bought the books, Lazarus and the Hurricane written by Sam Chaiton and Terry Swinton (of the Canadian group), and Rubin Carter's own book "The Sixteenth Round." The Canadians' book offered nothing new, as it was almost word for word the movie. However, it at least gave me a nice working script of the picture. I also watched the movie again to see why I thought it was a lie. The events in the movie seemed phony and lacking in details, so I moved on to Carter's own words to fill in the missing information. And there, it was…the truth, nestled within a huge pack of lies. Carter was clearly a psychopath and a pathological liar. In his own words, he tells us this. Truth and lies intermingle in a most fascinating journey through his psychopathic mind. What a gem of a book!

Let's go back and do a quick overview of the life of Carter you are supposed to believe is the truth. Carter is wronged as a youth, joins the army, becomes a fighter, comes home, gets wronged again and is reimprisoned. In spite of that, when he comes out, he becomes a fighter, gets wronged again in the ring by racism, and then at the height of his career when he is in contention for the world title, he is railroaded for a crime he didn't commit and goes to prison for life. While in prison, he practically becomes Ghandi and then the Canadians arrive to prove Carter innocent and he is released and goes on to help other wrongly imprisoned men. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHA! Sorry………….

Let's start back at the incident with the white pedophile that caused my improper outburst of chuckles in the theatre. Even without reading Carter's version of that story, it rang ridiculous to me. Let's see…a wealthy, white man goes up to a GROUP of black kids in the middle of THEIR territory and offers his GOLD watch? Yeah, right. Rubin does an act of self-defense and gets incarcerated for the rest of his life based on this one incident? Give me a break. So, let's go find the truth (among the lies) in Carter's book.

First of all, Carter is not nine-years-old. He is at least eleven, possibly twelve. Now, that is a big leap in size and ability and mental attitude for a young thug from the hood. By the way, in the book, Carter sorta admits he is a thug. He admits to being in a gang. Of course, any crime he commits is just because he is trying to impress gang members. After one act of stealing clothes, his OWN father turns him in to the police in hopes to scare him straight. Carter claims this was his FIRST crime, but I hardly imagine that Dad would turn him in on a first time offense. More likely, Dad was desperate at that point. So I am guessing Carter was already an incorrigible. After this scare, Carter admits "over the next three years, I became involved with the police on two or three occasions (translation: a whole lot). This sets up the scene with the "pedophile".

He claims the man held out his wristwatch as bait. Then the man throws his wedding ring! Carter, knowing what the man wanted, says, "Le-l-let's go, fellows," and he pushes the boys ahead of him. The bad white man jumps in front of him and grabs one of the boys and starts to molest him and spews out racist words to boot (kind of a weird mix for a child molester, cooing and cussing). Here, Carter starts with his justification methods. He has an interesting, psychopathic method of doing that throughout the book. There is a lot of overstatement and peculiar wording.

"I could feel fear and anger erupt within my body, the anger dominating the fear as the man's malicious words echoed through my mind. He had used the word black as if it was something nasty." (like, duh, you never heard that before?)

"I reached down and picked up a large soda bottle that was lying at my feet". (Notice throughout the story the accidental convenience of items….).

"I yelled a warning to the man to let my friend go." (Carter ALWAYS takes the high road and warns people, giving them second chance.)

The bottle flies through the air and hits the man in the head. The man topples to the ground, blood gushing from the wound.

""Run! Run!" I shouted in alarm….they ran like reindeers."

Pay attention to this next line. (Always the caring person, thinking about others first (remember, he is so caring, that he is a neighborhood menace).

"In my concern for them, however, I had SOMEHOW (remember the use of the word SOMEHOW..this is very common among psychopaths and indicates a lie) neglected to protect number one and found myself dangling in the air. He had grabbed me by the neck and thighs, and was holding me over his head"(remember again, we have a bleeding man picking up a twelve-year-old and holding him over his head? Jeez, this was a strong man…Oh, yeah, and he is carries him twenty or thirty feet to a cliff.

"I begged and pleaded, I kicked and hollered, fighting desperately to break way. But the man was too strong for me…I cried and begged some more, but nothing seemed to affect him. I looked down panic stricken, as we neared the edge of the cliff." (More justification for what Carter is about to do).

"My eyes fell on the bloody gash in the man's head, and for SOME reason (remember the SOME word..this means major lie coming) it reminded me of the scout knife in my pocket." (hehehe…yeah, a bloody wound REMINDS him of a scout knife..rather creepy, don't you think?). "Since I had my hands free (how convenient), I reached in my pocket and got my knife. (notice how things just slow down and from a screaming, panic-stricken kid, he is able to notice the gash, get reminded of the knife, find the knife…like a dream).

""You bet-bet-better, pu-put me down man!" I warned him when we were about two or three steps away from the cliff's edge." (He is about to be thrown to his death, but Carter STILL manages to be a saint and warn the man).

""Shut up, you no-talking sonofabitch, " he snarled at me, now standing on the very edge of the cliff….this man frightened me, scared me, like that cop had on my first arrest, (justication) and I wasn't about to let him hurt me if I could help it. I took my knife and tried to break it off in his head." (THAT last part was the only true statement up 'til now). He tried to break the knife off in his head. Note something very humorous here. The man is holding Carter AT the EDGE of the cliff. Don't you think stabbing the man in the head there is going to get them BOTH thrown off the cliff? But, pay attention to the next words of Carter's.

""Owwww, you stabbed me!" he shrieked, throwing me to the ground and kicking me in the stomach." Did the man turn around? Hehehe..wouldn't it have been easier to toss Carter off the cliff?

Now, it gets even sillier. With a gash from a bottle to the head and a knife plunged into his skull, the man now gets on top of Carter and starts to sexually molest, saying "Mmmm, this feels good." This apparently is the next justification for Carter driving a knife into his side and then into his ribs. He sags on top of Carter and Carter pushes him off and then gets on top of HIM! The man struggles. Carter then says" "My mind was shouting, "I told you not to scare me, mister! I told you not to scare me!" And each time this thought flashed through me, I plunged the knife into his heaving chest again." (Carter has a justification for EACH time he stabs the man.)

NOW, Carter, the twelve-year-old thug saint, has tears streaming down his face as he gets off the man. "Oh, my God, I remember saying…..my hands were covered with blood…."What have I done?" Then Carter starts to leave, runs back to get his knife, and goes home where he comes down with some unnamed disease, runs a high temperature, and goes into some kind of coma. When he recovers, the police take him down to headquarters for questioning.

Now, at THIS point, we actually have the truth (to a good extent). Very odd. The police investigator tells Carter that the other boys have signed statements incriminating him in the attack. One of the boys had been caught wearing the man's gold watch (when did he have time to pick it up if they were all running away terrified when Rubin told them to?). Carter says, after reading the statements in which there "wasn't the slightest discrepancy" that "solutions began to materialize in my mind." Solutions? Not the truth, you notice..solutions…in other words, lies. But, apparently, he can't come up with a "solution" to combat the truth told by the other boys.

"What could I say? This was it. I was caught dead to rights, so to speak, by these three statements." The police investigator says ".. I think it would be wise for you to give us a statement, Rubin. If for nothing else, at least to protect yourself. Because if you don't, nobody else will."

"I thought about that for a long moment or two, then shook my head. I didn't want to make any statements." (Clearly, he was guilty of robbing and assaulting the man…he doesn't even TRY the sexual predator story).

"Well, is there anything else you would like to tell me before I leave?" he (the policeman) inquired.

"Silence"

"All right, Carter. I won't press you anymore," he said, unlocking the door." Can I get you a soda or something?"

Is THIS the violent police interrogation we see in the film? Is this the innocent kid being abused by the authorities? In Carter's own words, he had no defense, even when the police tried to encourage him to come up with one. My guess is, after a few years in prison, Carter came up with one heck of a silly fabrication to justify his attack on the man. Yet even HE can't even make it work very well and gives up when he gets to the part he is arrested.

Let's go back to the movie and the book it is based on. The Canadians apparently bought this foolishness or at least pretended to. Why? Because they needed a cause celeb…a wronged man to set free to prove the government is bad. They can't admit to him possibly being a less than saintly fellow.

Now, Carter goes to the juvenile detention facility where he immediately believes he is the center of attention (psychopathic delusions of grandiosity).

"It wasn't long before it became apparent that I had gained the admiration of the majority. Whatever the reason, when anyone had a problem of some sort, he would usually come to me for a solution. And I, not knowing what else to do, would try to help him as best I could." (Yup, he is a wonderful guy, don't you see?)

Carter has a long history of violence in the institution, although he was always the wronged party.

Now, let's look at Carter's real viewpoint of life and his responsibility for his actions. Psychopaths tend to always be right, never take responsibility for their bad behavior, and always blame it on someone else. It is always OTHER people's fault. Pay attention to the meaning in these statements.

"Most of the Jamesburg kids had only committed the same violations of the rules as had endeared Huckleberry Finn to millions of people (robbery, rape, and murder?), but in us society found these deeds intolerable. Not many of us had committed what could be called serious crimes. (heh!)

"I believe that everything I had done in my life had been the natural and logical thing for me to do, under the circumstances. If by chance, I performed a gracious deed, I laid claim to no credit. If I committed a crime in the eyes of society, I TOOK NO BLAME. I felt NO MORE RESPONSIBLE FOR MY ACTIONS than for the winds."

Carter then escapes from the detention center before his time is up. He goes to his relatives for help and he states, "People were actually afraid of me-even my own family." This is a good indication that Carter did not get railroaded into the juvenile facility as the movie would have us believe. He had a decade of violence already to his name by the time he escaped and people feared him.

Now, Carter joins the army and becomes a prizefighter. And he "finds" a peculiar form of Islam. "…that man himself was God. And this was an explanation I could readily accept. For if, indeed, I was a god, then everything had been all right all along." (Everything he did was justified). Now, Carter says, "..two years had slipped past when it came time for me to go home…I was honored when I was asked to compete in the Olympic Trials that were soon to take place, but was told I would have to re-enlist in order to do so….I loved prize fighting, but I wasn't about to prolong my Army career in order to compete in nothing. Shucks!' I wanted to go home…."

Let's take a look at this pack of lies. Is Carter telling us that he, seeker of glory and the center of attention, turned down an opportunity to be an Olympic Champion to instead go home to a family that feared him, a factory job, and a return to prison if he were caught as a fugitive? Oh, right. No, the truth is Carter was tossed out of the army. He didn't complete his time. Many men who have trouble with authority and cause problems are given a general or honorable discharge early just to get them out of there.

So, Carter comes home and gets arrested. He spends more time in jail and during this time, Carter goes on to more grandiosity. "I wanted to be the Administrator of Justice, the Revealer of Truth, the Inflictor of all Retribution. I gloried in those thoughts." Then he gets out. Now, in the movie, Carter comes home and is working hard and being a general good guy (although at least there is a slight show of his temper in a nightclub). He is being a good citizen when he gets picked up and put back in jail. However, look at his lifestyle when he gets out after ten "long" months. Carter becomes "from that night on, …inseparable companions" with a jailmate/thug. "We started hanging out in Hogan's -the players' lounge, so to speak-where all the half-assed pimps and hustlers, pool sharks, and would-be gangsters thrive in every black community." Yep, Carter is choosing an honest and decent lifestyle here. And, of course, he is totally rehabilitated. WRONG!

"Then out of the clear blue sky, without rhyme or reason (lie), I snatched a woman's pocketbook - right then in broad daylight! I don't know why I did it! (Again, it just HAPPENED - no responsibility). With my pockets loaded down, jam packed full of my own money, it was the most dastardly thing I'd ever done (minimizing), I simply snatched that poor lady's purse and ran like hell - laughing, no less. --- and she was a black woman. Little A (his thug friend) ran with me. But since I REALLY DIDN"T KNOW WHY I HAD DONE WHAT I WAS DOING,…he ran with me.. and that was his mistake. Because further on down the street, still giddy with my FOLLY, I hit a man……(then), I went hog-wild and did it again."

"No, they didn't surprise me when they finally arrived (the police); on the contrary I was glad." (Yep, he wanted to be a good man again.). Then he got three to nine years in prison. Something tells me we aren't hearing half of what he did in these crimes nor are we hearing about all the OTHER crimes he committed before this. This was just the mildest one he could think of to justify his trip to prison and not sound like too evil a guy.

In prison again, Carter talks about all the violence he commits there and how the electric chair is "stealing his friends away" for crimes they did not commit. One of his friends got the chair for this "unfortunate" incident. He and a friend held up a grocery store in the neighborhood with a gun. They locked the owner in a closet. "In trying to free himself, the proprietor suffered a heart attack and in falling, he struck his head against the door and died from the concussion." Carter minimizes the crime and blames the victim. Therefore, his friend didn't really do anything bad and didn't deserve the chair.

Now, Carter gets out of the pen and at twenty-five admits he is a little over the hill for prizefighting. This would be very true. However, he still gets an opportunity to fight and does manage to make some money doing it. He is not the greatest fighter in the world and suffers too many losses to make any kind of great champion. Things start to fall apart for Carter. He ends up owing $90,000 in back taxes and claims that his manager had been "beating me for my money all along." Here I will say Carter is probably being truthful. Boxing managers are notorious for not paying their boxers' taxes and lying about it. Boxers tend not to be the best at financial matters, so they end up broke. So, we have Carter on the downhill slide. He starts getting in trouble with the police and is a suspect in some burglaries. He claims, of course, he is being unjustly accused, but, gee, I dunno, with his past, it seems not so unlikely that he is back to committing crimes. Carter also is accused of a few assaults and being involved with other shady dealings. The FBI is following him around, which he attributes to the times and political climate. He could be right, but, then again, he is surely acting squirrelly. He admits to some crimes, pretends he was framed for others; all this is happening as his boxing career is on a downward swing. And, now we come to the infamous night when the crime Carter is "railroaded" for, goes down and the ever-innocent Carter was "just in the wrong place at the wrong time." Keep in mind as you read the happenings of that night, Carter is already committing crimes and is a pathological liar. Ask yourself, is he REALLY telling the truth?

The evening of June 16, 1966, Carter is seen at home in the bosom of his family; his wife and daughter, watching TV. But, poor Carter, he gets a call from his new personal advisor and needs to meet him to discuss a possible fight. Carter says he had been "out of action so long" (meaning he ain't go no money!), so is "jubilant" at the thought of a match. He leaves the house at midnight to go to the Nite Spot, one of his regular haunts. On the way, Carter just "happens" to pick up, John "Bucks" Royster, a friendly drunk, and John Artis, a young man he had "just met twice". Artis had "turned down several athletic scholarships to college and instead wanted to join the army (cough). Mind, in the movie, Artis had never met Carter before that night. Carter, here admits to getting with him a couple of times. Therefore, we can assume he KNEW Artis fairly well. So, they sport around town and end up at the Nite Spot at 2 AM. Now, this next statement of Carter's is EXTREMELY important.

". We wound up at the Nite Spot to meet up with Wild Bill Hardney, who was already there. He had brought two other people with him. Big John and Norris were their names. WHILE I WAS STANDING THERE TALKING TO THEM, a woman that I knew named Cathy McGuire came over with her mother and asked if I would drive them home." (In the next paragraph, Carter goes on to complain he felt like a taxi service BUT even though he was famous, he would NEVER forget his people…a great guy again). He drives them home and this becomes part of his alibi for that night. Supposedly, the police later force the women to testify it was not THAT night but the next night that he drove them home. The movie makes this clear as well as the book. But BOTH the book and the movie ignore one fascinating detail. At the time the women ask Carter to drive them home, he is standing there with THREE witnesses, Hardney, Big John, and Norris. How come NONE of them ever confirm his alibi and tell the courts he drove the women home?

Now, let's go to the next BIG lie! Carter states he drove the women home at about 2:15 and arrived back somewhere around 2:25. This is supposed to cover the time of the robbery and murders at the Lafayette Grill around 2:30 AM. Now, AT 2:30 AM, Carter is not any longer at the Nite Spot. Why? He says, "That's when my money got funny. With my pocketbook on "E", I asked Wild Bill to come home with me while I picked up some more bread. It wasn't that I thought my wife would actually try to stop me from going back out, but knowing that woman, she might have just worked it out. So I figured it would be best to bring along some support."

"On the way out of the club to my car, I saw John Artis again (just happened to see him). He was standing by the door with Bucks, and I invited them along for the ride. What the hell, I thought. If my wife tried to put the slammers on me for the night, I could always tell her that I had to take them home."

All right. These two paragraphs are stunningly chocked full of bullcrap. First of all, note the time. It is 2:30 in the morning. The bars are about to close. This guy is bar animal. He knows EXACTLY when they close. But instead of just hanging in for another thirty minutes, letting someone buy him a drink (I am sure SOMEONE would spring for the hotshot), he determines he NEEDS to go home and get more money to spend even though the bars will be closed when he gets back in the area. Secondly, do we REALLY believe Carter - the Carter, a womanizing, cheating, robbing, psychopathic, barhopping man of violence, is not going to be able to handle his wife? He needs two other men to "help" him? Give me a break! ::roll eyes::What Carter needs is an excuse to have no known whereabouts for a good thirty minutes (add that to the phony alibi of driving the women home and you have about an hour). Why doesn't Carter's wife testify he came home to get money at the time the crime at the Lafayette Grill went down? Why does Carter not show the police the money he GOT from the house as proof he went home?

At any rate, Carter isn't arrested that night but quite a few months pass while the case is built against him and Artis. One of the theories as to the purpose of the crime was racial hatred. I seriously doubt this myself. Carter doesn't care enough about other people to care about racial issues; he just uses them when convenient. More likely, Carter was broke off his ass. The crime was a robbery gone bad. As he states near the end of his book, "We gather from the testimony of the sole surviving victim that the bartender saw the armed men as they entered and threw a bottle at them, precipitating the shooting before a word was said." THIS is probably the truth. It is my guess that Artis and Royster may have actually been the ones in that went into the bar. Carter probably planned the crime, got the guns, provided the car, and the brilliant plan. He probably told them it would be a cinch. You two just go in, ask for the money, and get back to the car. He probably did NOT go in himself, as of the three, he was the only one white people would recognize. When the two entered the bar, the bartender seeing the guns, threw the bottle, and the inexperienced robbers lost control and started shooting. Afterwards, the three go on an interesting tour of the town, most likely to lose the weapons. Royster is ditched, and Carter and Artis are stopped. Carter is probably actually treated TOO well by the cops as well-known sports people usually are. Later, in court, it is noted that Artis never turns against Carter and this is supposed to be some kind of proof of their innocence. But, Artis clearly couldn't do that, considering he was most likely one of the actual gunmen.

So, Carter gets convicted and continues his violence in prison. He writes this fascinating book, which is chosen by the Canadians as a good protest and publicity campaign against the U.S. government. Lots of celebrities jump on board because no one REALLY cares to search for the truth. Carter served a purpose for their platforms and they in turn were useful for Carter. For psychopaths, "people are either useful or in the way". For Carter, the Canadians were most useful until he got out. Eventually, they got in his way, and he moved on. Now, with the advent of this movie, all come together for another joyful purpose! MAKING MONEY! Except for Artis, who after a stint as a youth counselor in Virginia, got sent back to prison for some…er…drug thing.

All I can say is, thank God this movie didn't get any awards. Denzel wasn't bad, but the movie was childish, and, of course, a total fabrication of Carter's mind and a travesty against history and the victims of his crime. There ARE innocent people in jail who were railroaded for crimes they didn't commit, but, for God's sake, why does Hollywood find it necessary to ignore them and instead glorify vicious criminals? For a truly sad account of a black man who was railroaded by politics and police corruption, read The Doctor, the Murder, the Mystery: The true Story of the Dr. John Banion Murder Case by Barbara D'Amato.

Hurricane's "story" can't hold a candle to this man and the injustice committed against him. Too bad Hollywood didn't try a little harder to find REAL history and a REAL hero.

Copyright © 2001 Pat Brown


Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
April 26, 2014

The Crime of Noah

Yes, I am talking about the movie directed by Darren Aronofsky....I am still trying to recover from my wounds the morning after (what an April Fool's joke that was!). Aronofsky should be charged with a crime against the masses....oh, I know it was just a movie, just entertainment...wait, that's just it, it was not entertaining in the least, it was just plain torture. Arrest the man (Aronfsky, not Noah).

Spoilers ahead! Please read anyway so you don't think you actually need to see this piece of crap.

Let's see, where can I start to dissect this piece of dung. Okay, let's start with the point that he is telling a Bible story. Yeah, so, under pressure Paramount decided to label the film "inspired" by the Bible story rather than being one, which ends up being accurate because Aronofsky not only took the artistic license to fill in the blanks (otherwise the movie would have been less than an hour - oh, that would have been a blessing) but he just plain out changed the story for reasons that really made no sense except he liked adding a really sick twist to the whole thing.

But, before I get into that, I just want to say this: what is wrong with telling a rich, faithful story? If you are going to tell a Biblical story, follow the Biblical story! And do so with great passion. You don't have to be a Christian or a Jew to appreciate a great story from that particular religious persuasion and even if you are a believer, you don't have to believe every detail (okay, you do if you are a die hard but that is a whole other issue) to appreciate the story and the sentiment. I just finished watching the Ramayana, the Indian epic that was over 80 episodes on YouTube (the Indian epic, The Mahabharata, is even longer) and I don't have to believe every supernatural event to enjoy immensely   the grand story and all the wisdom contained within. I am not a Christian, per se (okay, I am Hindu) and I have always found the story of Noah to be a bit peculiar and hard to understand, but I certainly can appreciate the faith of the man, to be in awe of his dedication to his God, that in the face of what had to be intense disbelief in his project and his sanity from both his family and any other human in the vicinity, he soldiered on for years, building his colossal boat.

Which brings me to my second point: what a massive amount of material for Aronofsky to work with but he didn't touch on any of that! Noah's family simply complied without question and he was so far from civilization that no one else questioned him. We really saw none of the despair Noah must have suffered through all those years leading up to the flood and really none of the despair while aboard the ark, nor none of the despair after he left the ark to start mankind over again (there were a few vague references to said despair but Aronofsky didn't waste time dealing with it). He was busy turning Noah into a psychopathic homicidal maniac who no longer follows God's (oh, excuse me, the "Creator's" will - we mustn't use the word "God" in this film because they didn't call him that back then....).

So, what drove Noah to want to kill off his granddaughters? Let me take you back through Aronfsky's convoluted illogical mess of a rewrite of the Biblical tale.

In the Bible, Noah enters into the ark with his wife and his three sons and their wives. In other words, four couples to keep renewing the earth and at least not require total incest to get things going again. But, Aronofsky decides to only let one older teenage son (the others appear to be young teenage and child) have a lady friend (Aronfsky's adopted daughter, so, maybe no biological incest, but incest just the same in my opinion - and any parent of an adopted child will tell you the thought of that child mating with one's biological child is gross). Actually, she is just his sister/girlfriend because they aren't actually married. And, Dad, sort of doesn't really think about them as having offspring because the girl is supposed to be barren. But, due to fairy magic, just when they are running toward the ark as the rain starts falling, the girl gets major horny and practically rapes bro in the woods.

The other teenage brother tries to bring a girl back to the ark - Ham, the bad boy - but Dad interferes during a human stampede and leaves the girl to get trampled on. Ham is mighty pissed because he figures he isn't going to get laid for eternity. Younger bro hasn't figured out yet he is going to be eunuch. I am not sure why adopted daughter can't screw them all, but I digress.

Anyhoo, somewhere about the time the doors close, Noah has some kind of mental meltdown and determines that humankind sucks so much, he will not allow his family to repopulate the earth. He is pretty sure all is good in that vain (I guess he can give up sex with wifey) but then he finds out his daughter is miraculously pregnant. Of course, he doesn't seem to think this is a sign from God, um...The Creator....so, he tells his family that if the young woman has a boy, she can keep it, but if it is a girl, he will kill it. Everyone is shocked and for nine months they all worry about the  sex of the baby. Now, let's not deal with logic here. If the girl got pregnant once, she can do it again, so instead of killing off all the babies, why not just knock off that girl? (And your still fertile wife while you are at it). But, no, we await the big day. The girl has two babies...two girl babies...so here comes Grandpa with a knife! And she stands there, waiting for him to stab the babies....where the hell is her brother/husband? Where are the other two boys? Where is her Mom? Oh, yeah, doing nothing. But, not to worry! At the last minute, Dad - again going his own way and not what he thinks is the Creator's (hah, got that right this time)...can't kill the girls because love overwhelmed his heart (eyeroll time).

And so the ark comes to dry land and the family disembarks. Now, instead of Noah's sons having sex with their wives, they stand around plotting how to screw sis-in-law or how many years they have to wait to do their nieces. Oh, wait, Ham saw his father naked and went wandering off to die in the wilderness alone, so only the youngest will get to bang the two babies (hopefully, when they at least can stand and speak).

There you have it. I didn't even get into the gigantic rock-angels who help build the ark and fight off the bad men and then returned to heaven having redeemed themselves. The worst of this whole movie is there wasn't a bit of spiritual wisdom shared. The television series, The Ramayana and The Mahabharata, both had very little action (and really cheesy war scenes with very early attempts at special effects) but, both series were fabulous because of the great scripts, incredible acting, the moral dilemmas, and the profound wisdom shared in each and every episode. Noah had nothing....absolutely nothing redeeming in the script (what script?), the characters, or the supposed spiritual message. The film was simply devoid of anything worthwhile...it wasn't a Bible story, it wasn't a sci-fi story, it wasn't a parable, it wasn't a story about ethics or morals, it just wasn't anything but a big, huge, soulless turd from Hollywood and I hope Aronofsky offers all moviegoers an apology for making that disaster...we deserve it.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

April 2, 2014

Andy Redwood, Scotland Yard, and Santa Claus

::sigh:: A lot of really nice people desperately want to believe that DCI Andy Redwood and Scotland Yard are about to shock the world with a brilliant check and mate that is going to see Kate and Gerry McCann led off in handcuffs, arrested for the death and disappearance of their daughter Madeleine McCann. In fact, they are so desperate for there to be a proper resolution to this case, they actually find sense in the twisted logic of some fellow who spends a good portion of his pro-Scotland Yard blog post slandering me and mocking my grammar abilities (he doesn't recognize a typo when he sees one...but, whatever). Normally, I don't respond to haters (especially if they have something useful to say outside of denigrating me)  but I want to respond to the Kool-Aid he is selling to hopeful folk who normally don't believe in fairy tales.

Yes, of course he (Redwood) is eliminating all other possibilities - that is his job and any scenario he overlooks and fails to eliminate could be used by the McCanns in any future trial to demonstrate police incompetence and could be part of their (undoubtedly extensive) defence.

BWAHAHAHA! 

Dude, it's NOT a British case! It doesn't matter what the heck Scotland Yard detectives do or don't do because it is not going to be an issue in a Portuguese court of law. Secondly, following solid evidentiary leads may well support a prosecutorial case as far as not leaving the door open for the defence to shed doubt on the police work, but ignoring all the evidence and spending a silly amount of time and money on totally unrelated leads is a sign of incompetence; the defence could completely destroy the detectives in court by pointing out that they clearly had so little viable evidence against the defendants that they found it necessary to follow-up on every ridiculous tip and possible alternative scenario.

The solution is determined from the evidence, not Pat Brown's rather less than exhaustive list of options.

I had commented that you can't eliminate every possible scenario because there can always be another ridiculous scenario someone can dream up that could be the cause for the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. So, this fellow is claiming here that it isn't about how many scenarios one can come up with but determining which scenario is correct from the evidence. Evidence? Ummm...yeah, that is the evidence from the apartment and the Tapas 9, so why would one need to eliminate a dozen scenarios to which the evidence does not point? Again, eliminating a whole bunch of scenarios is pointless because this means the detectives are not working FROM the crime scene evidence. In fact, all they are appearing to do is to be searching for that one scenario they can link BACK to the crime (confession, body on property, Maddie's clothing.etc,....but you can bet it will in the end just be confession or circumstantial evidence). This proves, yet again, Scotland Yard is indicating that they have already determined that evidence from the scene and the Tapas 9 has no validity.

Who says that they haven't reviewed the physical behavioural evidence from the crime scene?

Really? Didn't Redwood state that the McCanns are not suspects and that this was an abduction?

Yes, he did, so this could mean only one of two things: one, he is ignoring the evidence, or, two, he is lying about ignoring the evidence. It appears my detractor believes Redwood is telling a piles of lies in order to lull the McCanns into a sense of complacency and then, somehow, come up with enough evidence (from where?) to the arrest the duo....yeah, some awesomely clever police strategy that has no precedent in all of police investigative history.

Alright, let us take a look at how he is trying to trap the McCanns. 

He did a fake reconstruction on Crimewatch during which time he bolstered the McCanns' veracity by "proving" Tannerman to be real and not a kidnapper cooked up by Tapas 9 conspirators.

Ah, yes, you say, but, this now means Tannerman can't be Gerry's alibi! Redwood eliminated Gerry's alibi and then he focused right in on the guy seen by the Smith family, the one they say they think is Gerry. Doesn't that mean that Scotland Yard is cannily pointing to Gerry as the one seen carrying off a Maddie-like child at a time when he has no real alibi? 

Not at all. Think back to the statement by Redwood that the McCanns are not suspects and that this is an abduction. He is TELLING the world that the man the Smiths saw that looked like Gerry cannot possibly be Gerry, so don't call in any tips that would implicate Gerry McCann. If you saw that same man come out of the McCann flat and walk directly toward the point where the Smiths witnessed a man carrying a little girl, it doesn't matter because you will not be believed; you are a fabricator or a McCann hater; it is not Gerry, so don't say it is. Hence, right up front, Redwood has prevented any and all information that might have corroborated the Smith sighting as Gerry from being brought to their attention. Right there is massive proof the McCanns are not being considered in the mix. In fact, it is clear as a bell that Redwood is fishing for a look-alike that will clear Gerry, another version of Tannerman, a man carrying his kid home from some location near the McCanns' flat. It doesn't matter whether anyone really does call in with such a person; Scotland Yard can just say they have received information clearing Gerry just as they did with this supposed Tannerman bloke, the guy carrying his child in the wrong direction (toward rather than away from the creche).

All I see happening with these Scotland Yard shenanigans is an attempt to clear the McCanns bit by bit and, in the process, completely discredit the PJ by constantly pointing out that they did not conduct a thorough investigation, which is why Scotland Yard's investigators have to go back over ever bit of information and every lead (with the exception of the actual evidence); the PJ did NOT find Tannerman, they did not find the Gerry look-alike, they did NOT investigate Tractorman, Binman, the British pedophile, or those charity men.....the PJ simply failed to clear the McCanns properly and they failed to follow-up on the abduction theory with due diligence.

THIS is the reality of what is being played out. It is clear as a bell to me yet I feel a need to ring that bell one more time so folks can see that Santa Claus does not exist and neither does an honest Scotland Yard review. Our only hope lies in the PJ, that they decide to truly conduct their own investigation following the evidence and not the directives of politicians, that they decide truth and justice should prevail and not a myriad of agendas that have nothing to do with what really happened to Madeleine McCann i Praia da Luz on May 3, 2007.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

March 31, 2014

Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann available at Smashwords and Barnes and Noble.


 

By Pat Brown
Rating:
(5.00 based on 5 reviews)

Published: July 27, 2011

What really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann in Praia da Luz, Portugal in 2007? Was she abducted as the Gerry and Kate have claimed or did something happen to Madeleine on May 3 in the vacation apartment and the incident covered up? Criminal Profiler Pat Brown analyzes the evidence and takes the readers through the steps of profiling, developing a theory that is intriguing and controversial.

No, Andy Redwood and Scotland Yard are not Trying to Solve the Madeleine McCann Case

Today I want to address some of the questions I have received about what is going on with Scotland Yard's handling of the Madeleine McCann review and DCI Andy Redwood's public appearances sharing the Met's progress on the case, his disemination of information, and his outreach to the public for help.

Q) Is Redwood being a very clever fellow, eliminating all other possibilities one by one (thereby leaving what is left to be the real scenario) and then swooping in on the McCanns? Is he also trying to unnerve them in the process, part of his plan to get them to break down and confess?

A) I wish, but no. I find such investigative strategy hard to swallow or believe, especially since it is so public, so drawn out, and so expensive. First of all, presenting a myriad of possibilities that you actually cannot eliminate means you have not proved that one of them couldn't have happened. It could have been gypsies, it could have been a lone sex predator, it could have been a burglary gone bad with the accidental killing of a child, it could have been a sex ring posing as charity workers, it could have been some insane rich couple hiring a kidnapper to bring them a child of their choice, it could have been an Arab Sheik wishing to add a blonde child to his growing little girl harem, it could have been a psychotic man who thought Maddie was he beloved dead child come to life...and on and on. The only way you can really eliminate certain scenarios is to have absolute ones that can be disproved with evidence and even then, it doesn't prove that the most likely one left is in fact the correct one, it just that maybe you should spend more time focusing on that likelihood.

     Secondly, all this does is actually give the McCann's support for their theory that someone abducted Madeleine. Think about it: every time Redwood opens his mouth, he is proclaiming that abduction is the theory he is basing all his investigative  efforts on; he is reaffirming that the McCann's are not involved in the crime and there is no need to go back and reinvestigate any of the Tapas 9.

    And, finally, it makes no sense to spend millions to investigate pointless avenues when you simply can go straight to the evidence and put your efforts into reanalyzing  what is right in front of your face.

Q) Could the Algarve serial predator have taken Maddie?

A) Sure. I have always believed that if the McCanns were not involved in the disappearance of their daughter, then it was most likely, 99% most likely, that a lone local child sex predator grabbed her, sexually assaulted her, and murdered her within hours. Murat was not a bad suspect due to his somewhat odd behavior, his familiarity with the area, and the location of his mother's home just down the street. He was a great red herring and the police were not unreasonable in making him a suspect in the early days. And, no, Madeleine is not buried on his property.

Q) Since Andy Redwood just recently admitted that Madeleine might have died in the apartment, isn't  he giving credence to cadaver and blood dogs?

A) Not at all. He simply is "admitting" that Madeleine might not be alive, that she may have been killed during the commission of a crime - during sexual assault, abduction, or just to prevent her from screaming because she saw someone in the process of burglarizing the apartment. She would have been only dead for seconds or minutes in those scenarios and have left nothing for the dogs to hit on. Admitting this can eliminate the need to search for Maddie endlessly throughout the world and respond to the many future sightings that will surely pop up from time to time; one can lay blame on a tolerably believable dead or incarcerated suspect and put the case to rest because Maddie can no longer be rescued.

Q) What is the motive of Scotland Yard and Andy Redwood then? If Redwood does not have some brilliant plan to finally bring down the McCanns nor is he really going to catch a predator who abducted Maddie, what is this whole charade about?

A) Well, we are back to some bizarre political issues which I am unable to address. What is clear to me is the evidence still points to the McCanns, the "review" is a sham because even if Scotland Yard leaned away from the McCanns as being involved in the disappearance of their daughter, their incredible refusal to even review the physical and behavioral evidence from the crime scene and days following is astounding and unprofessional and is a standard procedure if to do no more than to clear the parents and search for overlooked clues. Likewise, their astonishing expenditures chasing foolish leads also makes little sense. Redwood's Crimewatch fabrication and his recent outreach to the public for more information on a suspect that already has been investigated by the PJ lead me to believe he is simply playing a part in the drama to which he has been assigned and, being a bit of a ham, he is actually enjoying the role.

It is my belief that Scotland Yard was set out on a mission, not one to find out what happened to Madeleine McCann but to rewrite the history of the case in such a way that the majority of the public simply forgets the past. We can see quite clearly that this plan is working for the media has overwhelmingly presented all the new theories and "developments' with enthusiasm. I have been around long enough to see this kind of game played out before, albeit in a bit milder form, and it works. Eventually, the truth gets buried and those that fight to keep it alive are labeled conspiracy theorists and nuts.

My only hope is that at least Gonçalo Amaral will win his day in court, that Portugal will somehow stand by the law and keep this avalanche of revisionist history from crushing truth and justice. I feel less then confident that the outcome will be what I wish and this whole episode will simply be sealed and delivered into history as the victors desire, but I still keep my fingers crossed for the smallest chance of a miracle.


Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

March 25, 2014



Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann available at Smashwords and Barnes and Noble.


 

By Pat Brown
Rating:
(5.00 based on 5 reviews)

Published: July 27, 2011

What really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann in Praia da Luz, Portugal in 2007? Was she abducted as the Gerry and Kate have claimed or did something happen to Madeleine on May 3 in the vacation apartment and the incident covered up? Criminal Profiler Pat Brown analyzes the evidence and takes the readers through the steps of profiling, developing a theory that is intriguing and controversial.

Bollux Media Interviews the Algarve Bogeyman

BREAKING NEWS!  Bollux media has located the Algarve Bogeyman and, over a cup of expresso and  a few smokes, the Algarve Bogeyman has come clean about his criminal activities

Suspect Shirt

Bollux: So, I notice you are wearing a shirt that is very similar to the one that Scotland Yard has released to the media! Don't you think that is a bit dangerous?

Algarve Bogeyman Shirt

AB: No, I am not worried. They can't arrest anyone over here in Portugal and after a few months have passed, they will be back looking for gypsies or burglars.

Bollux: You kind of look like a gypsy.

AB: Right, yeah, true. Well, they will be looking for a sex ring, then.

Bollux: A couple of times you weren't wearing any shirt at all! Were you worried at that time your shirt would be recognized.

AB: No, I was just washing it. Some of the little girls told me I was smelly.

Bollux: Ah, I understand. So, according to reports, you broke in to twelve vacation homes while the the parents were sleeping in the next room.

AB: No, I actually never broke in. Those British parents always leave their front doors unlocked, so I just walked in.

Bollux: And you sexually assaulted five of these children.

AB: Not really, I just sort of looked at them. Wouldn't you think there would have been a big deal made if I was raping little tourist girls in the Argarve?

Bollux: You spoke to some of the parents. Why?

AB: I wanted to practice my English.

Bollux: Is that why you only broke into....excuse me...accessed the flats of British families and not those of Swedes, Germans, or the Dutch?

AB: Sure, that makes sense.

Bollux: So, according to trusted media reports, you sexually assaulted those five girls between 2004 and 2006, maybe took Madeleine in 2007, and then went on breaking into apartments until 2010 but didn't molest any more little girls and then stopped.

AB: Okay.

Bollux: So, did you take Madeleine?

AB: Sort of. When I came through the open front door, I saw Maddie behind the sofa and I pulled her out. She was dead I don't like 'em dead. I got worried that because I had touched her that I could have left DNA and then be accused of killing her, so I picked her up and ran off with her. I dumped her in the back of the trash truck I work on.

Bollux: But, unlike the other crimes where you hit between 2 and 5 in the morning, this was in the evening. Why would you have a trash truck with you?

AB: Oh, right. Yeah, so I took Maddie down toward the beach and dumped her in the sea.

Bollux: The Smith family saw you? They sure got their description wrong.

AB: Well, you know how bad witnesses can be.

Bollux: True. So, what are your plans now that Scotland Yard is looking for you?

AB: I'm going to have another cup of coffee and a cigarette.


This nearly accurate and mostly truthful report was brought to you by Bollux Media and


Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

March 19, 2014




Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann available at Smashwords and Barnes and Noble.


 

By Pat Brown
Rating:
(5.00 based on 5 reviews)

Published: July 27, 2011

What really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann in Praia da Luz, Portugal in 2007? Was she abducted as the Gerry and Kate have claimed or did something happen to Madeleine on May 3 in the vacation apartment and the incident covered up? Criminal Profiler Pat Brown analyzes the evidence and takes the readers through the steps of profiling, developing a theory that is intriguing and controversial.

When Even the McCanns Can't Take You Seriously

Please Report This Psycho Mom to Child Protection

A new "story" has appeared in those rags that call themselves "newspapers," that of a woman who almost had her little daughter kidnapped by gypsies in the Algarve. These poor excuses for journalism went ahead a printed a story so ridiculous, they should be ashamed of spreading tales of a lunatic, more correctly, a woman who exhibits "Munchausen Syndrome" - a psychiatric disorder in which a psychopathic female makes up stories of people doing things to her - stalking her, attacking her, raping her, etc. (sometimes it can be phony diseases assailing her but usually it is humans) - and, worse, this is a woman who exhibits "Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy" - the same disorder but the woman will claim these things are happening to her child (sometimes she privately abuses her child to give her symptoms) - this woman needs to be reported to social services, not given space in a "news" article.

Let me break down her story told most recently here in The Epoch Times:

Madeleine “Maddie” McCann has been missing since 2007 but now a mother is saying that a week after the child disappeared, kidnappers may have tried to take her child after restaurant staff spiked her drink in Algarve, Portugal.

A week after Maddie disappeared?  The gypsies already have gotten a child, police are swarming the area, but they then decide this is a good time to grab another child?

Oh, for God's sake, The Epoch Times can't even plagiarize from The Mirror properly.....it was six weeks before Maddie was kidnapped in a town thirty miles away in Albufiera. So, this was a failed kidnapping which the gypsies learned from and the employed better methodology by the time they struck in Praia da Luz.

The 30-year-old mother, who was not identified, told Scotland Yard investigators that “gypsy” restaurant staff members spiked her drink and then attempted to carry away her 1-year-old daughter to a car, reported The Mirror.

These gypsies decide to commit a kidnapping in full view of tourists and employees and the parent and grandparent of the child which is clearly so much easier than simply grabbing the child on a quiet street, tossing her in a car directly and driving off.

She said she told the Find Madeleine campaign of the incident but they were too busy.

Even the McCanns thought the story so stupid they couldn't even pretend to believe it. Actually, I am sure she never actually called the Find Madeleine campaign, but she had to say she gave some halfhearted attempt at some point in time to report a gang that steals children; otherwise, it would seem she didn't care about any children but her own and that would be narcissistic.

 Police in the U.K. are now reportedly set to interview the woman in the hopes that it will reveal more about the McCann case.

Probably just the highly qualified "journalist" saying this, but considering the other great "leads" being followed by Scotland Yard, maybe it is actually true.


“It was terrifying, like something out of a film,” she told the Daily Record. “From the first day of the holiday, a young dark-haired man kept popping up wherever we went. We would arrive at a restaurant and he’d show up minutes later as though he had been tipped off.
She added: “It was low season so everywhere was quiet. There were about three or four restaurants open but the same staff would show up where we were. They all knew the dark-haired man. It felt like the Eastern European mafia was watching us.”

I am sure it was out of a film, the one she was creating in her head. The woman should avoid becoming a screenwriter. Let's see.....every place she goes she sees the same guy....I guess he has no clue how to tail someone and not be seen doing it....send him back to spy school....and then the same staff would show up in all the restaurants she ate in.....this is a heck of a coordinated effort between all those establishments....they had to switch out the regular  waiters for their spies every time this woman and her kid get hungry. The woman says it felt like the whole of the Eastern European mafia (are they gypsies?) were watching her......ah, such grandiosity! Doesn't she wish.......


“On the third night the man walked up to us, and chatted to us – but all about my daughter. He was obsessed, playing with her, stroking her hair. It was very over-familiar. He kept touching her and commenting on her blonde hair.”
She said the man was about 25, adding that her mother said that it’s not usual for a young man to be so interested in children.
“There was a middle-aged couple who had served us before at another place. They were all over my daughter,” she told the Mirror. “They told me they missed their children in Uzbekistan and begged me to let them hold her.”

People being friendly are terribly suspicious. Let me remember that the next time I say, "Oh, your baby is so cute!" I will be led away in handcuffs.

She was served a drink, which she claims was spiked with a drug.
“Within half an hour I felt really dizzy,” she said. “I knew I’d been drugged. It was only us in the restaurant and I felt vulnerable. I stood up and told mum we had to leave. As I did, the woman lifted my daughter out of her high chair and walked to the door.”
She managed to grab her daughter and run off.

I guess they didn't have enough Rohypnol to spike Grandma's drink, too, and did so bad a job of spiking Mom's that she still had the strength to pull the child out of the strong gypsy kidnapper's hands just prior to being run out to that idling waiting car. What a woman! She single-handedly saved her daughter from a horrible fate.

Then she didn't bother to report it to Portuguese police. Well, you know, she probably didn't think of the story until after she got home....I mean until now.......now, that really stupid journalists are willing to print ludicrous stories from psychos.



Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

February 12, 2014



Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann available at Smashwords and Barnes and Noble.


 

By Pat Brown
Rating:
(5.00 based on 5 reviews)

Published: July 27, 2011

What really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann in Praia da Luz, Portugal in 2007? Was she abducted as the Gerry and Kate have claimed or did something happen to Madeleine on May 3 in the vacation apartment and the incident covered up? Criminal Profiler Pat Brown analyzes the evidence and takes the readers through the steps of profiling, developing a theory that is intriguing and controversial.