"Find the Body and Prove They Killed Her."

No Body Here, Scotland Yard

I have read some pretty good arguments from people who think Scotland Yard is gearing up for a big surprise ending in which they (and the PJ) bring down the McCanns. Extradition to Portugal is supported by the British government and the McCanns are found guilty in a court of Portuguese law. The case against Dr. Amaral is dropped, Pat Brown's book, Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann is returned to the market by Amazon, Gonçalo and I team up for our English language book on the case (we have already had this in the works with our agents but because of the lawsuit issue right now, no US publishers will touch it), and all who believed the McCanns were guilty of the death and disappearance of their daughter will be vindicated of being vicious trolls.

If you all don't think I would like to be wrong about my thoughts that Scotland Yard is going to whitewash this case, you are seriously wrong. I want to be wrong; I will be ecstatic to be wrong. I would rather be surprised by a police department doing some really new crazy style of investigation than be wrong about my profiling, believe you me, and, I want to see justice more than I want to be right about anything.

I have already written a bunch about why I think this Scotland Yard investigation stinks, but let me go further into why, even if it were well-meaning, it makes not a damn bit of sense.

A good many investigations are dropped, not because the police don't know who did it but because the chances of a successful prosecution are slim to none. And that is what we have here. Let's look at the issues:

1) It doesn't matter that the police ran down every possible child abductor in the area and came up empty-handed. Just because they can't figure out who "abducted" Maddie, doesn't have a thing to do with proving the McCanns were involved in her death and disappearance.

2) Not being able to prove there was an abduction is not the same as proving there wasn't one. Just because there was no evidence left at the scene that proves a stranger was in the flat, doesn't mean one wasn't one there. Even if Kate's story about the an open window and whooshing curtains is suspicious and can be used as supporting evidence that the McCanns were involved in covering up a crime if other solid evidence existed, alone it cannot be used to prove they staged a crime scene.

3) The cadaver dog evidence is not admissible in court. It is great for probable cause for further investigation and it is great as evidence of where to search for a body (since a car was used, the body would be outside of, not in PDL) but it is not proof in a court of law that Maddie died in the apartment and was disposed of by the McCanns.

4) That stories changed and were conflicting and the behavior of the Tapas 9 bizarre and concerning is but more information for future investigation, but alone is not proof of homicide (intentional or not) nor of body removal.

5) There is some DNA but it has been so questioned by "experts" that a defense attorney will shred this in court.

6) No confession. Unless one or both of the McCanns confess. 

7) No credible confession from any of the Tapas 7, especially Jane Tanner, since now Scotland Yard has publicly verified her sighting, so she couldn't have been lying for the McCanns (not only that, but if Scotland Yard can't produce Tannerman, the defense would wreak havoc with that lie of law enforcement). Unless they know exactly where the body can be dug up (and there is no way I believe if Gerry McCann carried Maddie's body off, anyone knows where she is, except possibly Kate), there is no way to prove what they say is true. More than one of  the Tapas 7 would have to testify in court in order for a defense lawyer not to be able to knock the claims down. And how are they going to get the Tapas 7 to Portugal except to charge them with a crime as well and have an arrest warrant issued for England to comply with is problematic (why the Tapas 7 would even talk at this point is also quite questionable).

8) Proof that Maddie was overmedicated cannot be proven without a body; that she fell and died of a concussion cannot be proven without a body; that the McCanns moved her and buried her cannot be proven without a body. This is a huge hill for any prosecution to climb.

9) No body, no case. Really, no body, no case.

10) With all the screw-ups, interventions, media, etc., the defense lawyer would have a field day tearing apart the case.

So, prosecution is extremely unlikely to occur unless Maddie's body is found and found with evidence that links back to the McCanns or the body is found in a place that links to the McCanns (like where I want them to search at Monte do Jose Mestre, the desolate area just west of Praia da Luz where Gerry's phone pinged after he rented the hire car). Unless Scotland Yard is really looking in the right places (and not in the middle of Praia da Luz), then this case is unlikely to have a body to go to court with.

Let's go back to the beginning. The McCanns petitioned Scotland Yard to work on the case, something they would be extraordinarily unlikely to do if they really thought Scotland Yard was going to focus on the evidence. Only if they got wind through Clarence that Scotland Yard was planning a clever partnership with Portugal to bring the McCanns down and went ahead and pretended they wanted the an investigation because this would make them look innocent ...whew...yeah, it have to be something like this for the investigation to be other than a planned whitewash (unless they were truly innocent as the pro-McCanners would point out and will point out if Scotland Yard ends this case without naming the McCanns at least suspects).

Why would Scotland Yard, barring a whitewash for reasons none of us can seem to figure out, want to waste their time with a likely unwinnable case that won't even be prosecuted on home turf? Why would they spend millions and millions of pounds on this one case which has two neglectful parents and happened in another country? If Scotland Yard never got involved, the case would simply dwindle away as do all unsolved missing person cases and, in this case, it is even easier for the police to just let it fade because Portugal can be blamed and the UK police don't have to worry about the case affecting them. For that matter, they could have just spent a small amount of money sending a little team over to come up with limited results as happens all the time in cold cases.

Furthermore, it would be hugely embarrassing for Britain to admit the Portuguese were right and they were wrong, that their politicians and media broke their necks to support such a criminal couple and that due to this, they almost let them walk and they allowed them to bilk the public out of millions of pounds with their fraudulent fund. Would the powers that be in the UK really want to get their necks chopped off? I doubt it.

All of this is why I find it hard to believe Scotland Yard is planning a big coup. I think they are just following a prescribed plan which makes it looks like they tried real hard: they read all the files, did months of analysis, went to the public for tips, fought with the PJ for cooperation, found a number of reasonable suspects, recognized the child could have died at the time or sometime after the crime was committed, that she could have been buried by the perp, that they tried to find her, and now that they have done everything an investigating agency can do, especially one having to work in another's jurisdiction, and they can give the McCanns at least the most probable answer. The McCanns will thank Scotland Yard profusely for trying to find Madeleine, for finding out what likely happened to Madeleine, and for putting all those ludicrous rumors about their involvement to rest (regardless of the truth of that).

Time will prove whether Scotland Yard is on the up and up or not. Again, I really hope I am going to have the biggest surprise of my profiling life, but I am preparing for what I expect will be a major disappointment.

PS. Someone just tweeted that maybe the McCanns could be prosecuted in the UK under British law. I think that is a fine idea but they still have the problem of trying to prosecute them for a crime they can't prove as of yet. When I wrote my book, I carefully avoided libel issues (admittedly, I still got Carter-Rucked) by stating that there was as of yet no proof a homicide had occurred and no proof that the McCanns were to blame and no proof that Maddie's body was removed and hidden by the McCanns. All I said was the evidence pointed toward the McCanns making them the reasonable suspects. If I were a prosecutor, I wouldn't take the case to court unless I had a confession or a body or both.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

May 23, 2014

 
Published: July 27, 2011

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

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.

Ten Reasons why I can't take Scotland Yard Seriously in the Madeleine McCann Case

Shh! Don't Tip Off the Suspects!

I have received a bit of heat in recent weeks for my opinion that Scotland Yard is not really doing a credible review of the Madeleine McCann case, that they appear to be involved in a whitewash of the McCanns' possible involvement in the disappearance of their daughter, Maddie.

First of all, I want to state that I am behind all hardworking detectives out there in the world. It has been my mission to improve criminal profiling and crime scene analysis methodology FOR law enforcement, so that detectives may have more success in solving difficult cases. I also am behind all law enforcement agencies as they work to solve the next homicide case that lands on their desks even if the department screwed up the last case through lack of training or incompetence on the part of whatever detective got assigned to the case and even if the department mishandled the last case due to political pressure (even if it was one I worked on with them). I wish them the best on the next case and hope they do a better job with all their future investigations. I recognize that law enforcement suffers the same problems as any other profession; they are not perfect nor successful nor honorable one hundred percent of the time. Knowing that does not mean I don't support them when they do a good job or want to improve their ability to solve cases and bring justice to criminals and the community. I don't hold grudges against any police agency; I just want to see a brighter future for all homicide investigations.

As to Scotland Yard, they have done great work in the past and also not so great work, just like every other agency. I am sure they will do some great work in the future as well as not so great work in the future. For the moment, they may be solving cases right and left, but something is seriously wrong with the Madeleine McCann case and here are ten reasons why I think this is not business as usual and there is a political coverup going on of some sort.

1) The amount of funds being allotted to Scotland Yard to investigate one missing person's case - a case which is not even  within their own jurisdiction, a case in which the parents' own neglect of their children and refusal to cooperate with the authorities is shameful - is unprecedented and outrageous.

2) Scotland Yard began their "review" by publicly stating that the parents were not suspects instead of simply saying no one  can be excluded from suspicion who does not have a solid alibi as is the usual statement made by police right out of the gate.

3) Scotland Yard constantly says they are updating the parents of the missing child, something that is only done if the parents are absolutely not suspects.

4) Scotland Yard did not do a reconstruction of the crime; they only did a reenactment of the McCann version of the crime for television.

5) Scotland Yard validated Jane Tanner's version of what she saw on a narrow street where she was not seen by two people as she supposedly passed by them.

6) Scotland Yard verified that Tannerman existed with a claim that was not credible.

7) Scotland Yard relatively large "Operation Grange" team has spent three years reviewing files that should have taken no more than a few weeks or months.

8) After reviewing all the evidence and leads in the files, Scotland Yard is investigating suspects that have no connection to the case.

9) Scotland Yard wants to search for Maddies's body (and, yes, they would be searching for a body as all other evidence would be long gone after seven years) in the most unlikely place to find her, right near the apartment in a very open-to-the-view-of-the-public location with hard-as-rock ground where no shallow grave could have been missed by the PJ or anyone walking by.

10) In spite of the fact the PJ has asked for there to be no press about the case, Scotland Yard has its own people still giving interviews.

Along with these ten reasons, if we need one more to seal the issue, it has to be AC Rowley's recent statement to papers:

"If you get any information ahead of our actions do not publish anything that may give suspects advance notice.” 

Since Scotland Yard and DCI Andy Redwood have been shouting from the rooftops since they started working on the Madeleine McCann case, I hardly think any suspect couldn't have covered his tracks over these many months if he hadn't done so in the four years prior to the beginning of the Met review. The naming of the first supposed dig location and Rowley opening his own big mouth hardly encourages me to believe that Scotland Yard is doing everything they can to keep their interest in suspects in the case under wraps, unless you believe they have spend millions of dollars and massive man hours in misdirection and their real suspects are the McCanns. I don't believe this because nothing more than a short case review and a reinterview of the Tapas 9 and reexamination of the physical and behavioral evidence would have been necessary to turn the investigation back toward the McCanns.

No, all the actions of Scotland Yard can only mean one of two things: the present detectives (especially Andy Redwood) are dumb as a box of rocks (which I find hard to believe with the amount of obvious evidence in this case) or they are just going through the motions of rounding up suspects and eventually assigning probable guilt toward one party so that the sad case of little Madeleine McCann can finally be put to rest and the McCanns can be removed from under the cloud of suspicion that has been hovering over them for seven years.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

May 22, 2014

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



 

Published: July 27, 2011

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

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.

How I Became the Great Niece of Emmy Göring, First Lady of the Third Reich

My father, who died one year ago, had no middle name....at least that is what he adamantly claimed throughout most of his lifetime. My sisters and I used to joke that maybe his middle name was Adolf. We reasoned since he was born a German Jew and was one of the lucky ones of our clan not to end up losing their life in a concentration camp, perhaps that fine Deutsch name was one worth dropping considering how Hitler rather ruined it.

But, then, in his late seventies, my father started drawing up a genealogical chart and, suddenly, he had a middle name; in fact, he had two of them: Philipp August. Now my sisters and I were even more puzzled. Philipp was the name of his mother's father and August was the name of his father's father. They are lovely names and my father never had anything negative to say about either man. Why, then, would he refuse to admit to having any middle name for more than half a century?

Then, just last week, my second cousin wrote to my sisters and me (upon hearing of both my father's and my mother's deaths) and along with her condolences, asked if we wish to exchange information about our ancestry, perhaps more about my grandfather Leo and our famous great-great uncle, the famous Leopold Sonnemann, publisher of the Frankfurter Zeitung and a champion for Jewish rights and social and monetary reform.

So, this email inspired me to toss a few search terms into Google and there it was:

Emmy Göring , wife of Hermann Göring - who not only was a top dog Nazi but the major thief of European art (watch the movie, Monument Men)  - was said to be the great niece of the famous publisher, Leopold Sonnemann,...which would make her my great aunt. Oh. My. God. Yikes!

NOW it made sense why my father didn't want his middle name known. He didn't want his family name linked to Emmy Göring; after all, he had a top secret clearance and worked for the Department of Defense. He must have worried that someone might trace our family history back to the Nazi party and all the infamy of the convicted war criminal Herman Göring and of Adolf Hitler, who was best man at Hermann and Emmy's wedding.

He wasn't the only one in the family with this suspicion; I found out from my cousin that others had commented on "that horrible woman" being on our family tree.

But, then again, maybe not.

The journalists of yesteryear seem to be just as ethically challenged (anything that makes a good story) and as careless as our news reporters of today. Here is what appears to have happened: one journalist from the New York Post wrote a story which claimed Emmy Göring nee Sonnemann was Jewish and the grand-niece of Leopold Sonnemann and that her father was August Sonnemann, my father's grandfather. Then another paper, denying this story to be true, claimed that the first journalist erred in connecting her to my family because Emmy Sonnemann's father was a different August Sonnemann. But, it turns out, as far as I and my cousin have researched, that Emmy Göring's father was not an August at all nor was her father Jewish nor can I find her anywhere on the family tree! So, unless Hermann Göring really doctored up some good paperwork and our family managed to eliminate all traces of a black sheep, these 1935 journalists published stories without doing proper research or presenting any proof. The stories were good enough, though, to stir up a lot of gossip around the time of Emmy Sonnemann 's wedding to Hermann and served as a rather unnerving rumor that eventually affected my father and other relatives even though they should have had first hand (or at least second hand) information that would contradict these erroneous reports. But this goes to prove the power the press has upon people; there is a strange tendency for people to believe what they read even if it flies in the face of known facts or just seems to come out of nowhere. If a story is in a major newspaper, the journalist must be telling the truth or the editor wouldn't allow it to be published. Even I was taken aback by the story of my possible connection to Emmy Göring and I will probably research still more to be sure I am not missing something...even though there seems to be no basis for the claim at all.

So I say to everyone, don't just believe what you read in the paper; be sure there is evidence to back up any and all claims. Or like my father, you just might spend a lifetime hiding a "fact' that never really was one.

Why I am So Pessimistic about the Madeleine McCann Case being Solved

It has always been my secret hope that the Judiciary Police (PJ) had reopened the Madeleine McCann case with new leads that would bolster the original investigation and Dr.  Gonçalo Amaral's focus of investigation, that somehow Portugal would eventually fight back against the British faux review and bring a proper end to a seven year miscarriage of justice.

However, I am feeling ill this morning after reading Joana Morais' translation of a recent news report from Portugal, sick to my stomach, while many who read it are rejoicing that this rare news out of Portugal is a good thing. Here is the translation of the article (with thanks to Joana for her tireless efforts to keep the English world informed of Portuguese media reports):

PJ about to discard English Police strongest lead

9 MAY 2014 | POSTED BY JOANA MORAIS LEAVE A COMMENT

PJ about to discard English Police strongest lead that a predator of English girls has abducted Madeleine.
Scotland Yard has asked for aerial photos of places in Praia da Luz and wishes to question eight “persons of interest”

by Marisa Rodrigues

The Judiciary Police (PJ) is about to discard the lead that has resulted in the reopening of the process in Portugal and that is Scotland Yard's main line of investigation. So far, there isn't any evidence to support the hypothesis that Madeleine was abducted by a sexual predator who attacked English children in the Algarve.

This is the firmly held position of the team of inspectors from the North Directorate of the PJ who has reviewed the investigation process that was archived in 2008. 

After naming as probable suspect the late Euclides Monteiro, a former Ocean Club employee, the Portuguese investigators now believe that the intruder, in the cases that were reported to the authorities, could be British and that he does not reside in Portugal, since there were no new reports and those that were disclosed [seeMetropolitan Police site] only targeted children of that nationality. “A sex abuser is someone who acts compulsively. If he only acted in the summer and has never attacked again it's because he does not live here”, explained a source close to the process.

Yesterday, the day was marked by an aerial photo-reconnaissance in Praia da Luz of the areas where searches and excavations are planned, using a helicopter of the Portuguese Air Force paid by the British authorities and by a meeting between the police forces of the two countries at the PJ headquarters in Faro.

One of the places where Scotland Yard wants to use the sniffer dogs and the georadar is on the 25 de Abrilstreet, in the vicinity of the Ocean Club and by the church. The area, which the helicopter overflew three times, was undergoing construction works when Madeleine disappeared seven years ago. If anything suspicious is detected, it will be excavated. 

Besides the searches, which were already allowed by the Public Prosecutor of Portimão, the letters rogatory also request for eight people to be questioned. Some used to work at the Ocean Club resort whilst others are not linked in any way. With all these initiatives, it seems likely that Scotland Yard has more than one line of investigation, of which the latest and most visible action yet indicates the hypothesis that the child was murdered and buried in Praia da Luz. When questioned, in Faro, DCI Andy Redwood refused to speak with the journalists.

Tension between the PJ and the English 

The relationship between the police forces of the two countries is rather tense. The Judiciary Police has requested to the English police to stop disclosing information about the ongoing work in Portugal, otherwise they will not proceed with the steps that were requested. Scotland Yard wrote to the newspapers in the United Kingdom asking for “understanding”.

in Jornal de Notícias, paper edition (page 13), May 9, 2014

Okay, what excites others that is not exciting me is the news that the PJ is discarding Scotland Yard's main line of questioning, a lead about a sex abuser of English girls in the Argave, a lead that was the cause of the Madeleine McCann case to be reopened. In fact, this revelation has crushed my hopes for any positive outcome and this is why:

The fact that the PJ reopened the case based on some flimsy alleged weirdo in the area and not any real evidence is a sign that either the investigation by the PJ is politically influenced or they are incompetent (their incorrect profiling that  a sex predator acts out of compulsion is frightening  - sex predators are psychopaths and can control their behavior -and their conclusion that since he is compulsive and only strikes in the summer, he must be a Brit and not live in the Algarve troubles me: it could be that he is a teacher and only strikes during his months off or he only strikes when his wife is away or maybe he works in another country for a portion of the year - there could be numerous possibilities). This statement is a horrible blow to Dr. Amaral because this public admission that a sex predator is the reason the case was reopened only infers that the PJ do not believe  Gonçalo Amaral was following the correct line of questioning.

The fact that they are now discarding this because they found no link to Madeleine is no big surprise considering all the original evidence does not point to an abduction and the PJ should know this. This does not, however, mean the PJ are going back to the McCann as the focus because if they were basing their investigation on the evidence, they wouldn't have gone down this sex predator/abduction road in the first place.

Soctland Yard and the McCanns have just recently been running a media campaign of attacking the PJ which likely means they are going to claim that the PJ simply are giving up because they failed yet again to find the abductor of Madeleine McCann and now are preventing the British team from pursuing more leads (like searching people's homes without probable cause).

This "dig" in Praia da Luz where the McCanns, the PJ, and Scotland Yard know the body is not, is only going to be used to prove all was done that could be done by Scotland Yard and as fodder for a claim that Maddie was killed during or after an abduction and her body was dumped in the ocean or that she was removed from Praia da Luz and buried who knows where. With one scenario, the McCanns can have closure and the other, we can keep looking for her ad nauseum and the fraudulent fund can continue to operate. No physical evidence will be found to link back to the McCanns, so they will be "in the clear."

When enough fires are fanned touting that Portugal has not cooperated with Scotland Yard and has prevented them from pursuing solid leads (those interviews and searches they were denied), and, furthermore, that the media has compromised the "investigation," fingers can be pointed at all the uncaring others and the McCanns can play the victims again, only this time, the case can be administratively closed with some statement from Scotland Yard of what likely happened to Maddie; in fact, the case will be closed administratively by both police agencies - the PJ and Scotland Yard -but this time with the abduction theory as the last lead followed, not the McCanns. In other words, the McCanns will have been effectively cleared by both countries as having anything to do with the disappearance of their daughter; Britain and the McCanns will be the victors and Portugal and Dr. Amaral, the collateral damage in whatever game of politics this whole farce is.

The last tiny ray of wishful thinking for me is that Portugal is playing a totally deceptive game, that they lied when they said the series of alleged sexual assaults in the Algarve was the reason they reopened the case, that they only used that as an excuse to restart the investigation, that they planned to just play along with Scotland Yard until enough useless leads had been eliminated and then they planned to circle back to the evidence and the McCanns. I can wish that this methodology could be some big secret weapon, but my experience in working with police departments and their handling of cases and politics does not support this likelihood any more than the belief of some that Scotland Yard is playing a fantasticly expensive game that will end with the arrest of the McCanns or that the two departments are working together to accomplish a big coup in bringing the McCanns to justice.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

May 9, 2014
Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann available at Smashwords and Barnes and Noble.


 


Published: July 27, 2011

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

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.

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