Why I am a Nationalist

I have always refused to discuss politics but this one issue has been nagging at me because it seems to be so misunderstood and I want to provide my own take of the situation. Many people seem to think because I travel a lot, have a great love for certain other countries (especially India) and because I would consider spending the winter in a number of places in the world (India, Mexico, Nicaragua, etc.) and because I would even consider living in another country, perhaps, for the rest of my life, that I must be totally into multiculturalism and a blurring of borders.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I am a strong nationalist, I want strong borders, and I want a strong American culture. Shocked? How could this be? Pat Brown? Didn't you marry a Jamaican, don't you have a closet full of Indian clothing and are a huge fan of Bollywood, aren't you learning Hindi and Spanish, haven't you been to Mexico five times and are planning a sixth trip in October? Didn't I see you in hijab in Egypt? WTF?

I will tell you why I want the United States to be the United States: because I want India to be India and I want Jamaica to be Jamaica and I want Mexico to be Mexico and Egypt to be Egypt. I visit these countries BECAUSE they are countries that are different from my own, because they are unique - with their own languages and culture - because they are NOT The United States of America. I want them to protect their way of life; I don't want to see Mexico overrun with Americans buying up land and refusing to learn Spanish (which is already happening and is pretty repulsive). I believe anyone moving to another country and culture has a duty to become part of it and, if one is not willing to do that, please stay where you are.

My father moved to the United States from Germany. He learned to speak English and did so fluently for the rest of his life. He married an American and raised three children to be Americans. He always considered himself an American with a German background. And here is what is important. He didn't considered himself a German-American, putting the German first. He considered himself an American with a German history. Hence, he acted as an American with a few private German observances: we had German pancakes on occasion, he made snitzel now and then, we had German Christmas cookies and marzipan at holiday time. Sometimes he spoke German with his mother and when all the relatives who were Americans with a German heritage got together, there were sometimes rememberances of the past, of the home they were born in and lived for a period of their lives.

My ex-husband moved to the US when he was fifteen. He and all of his brothers and sisters became US citizens. All of them act like Americans albeit with a bit of an accent (the oldest two), a whole lot of Jamaican food made in their homes, and reggae music that they play in their cars. All of them have melted into American society; they don't run around wearing dreads and driving cars with Jamaican flags stuck on them. They raised their children to be Americans, not separatists with a hatred for the country they were born in. They love the United States and so do their children.

If I move to India or Mexico and become a citizen, guess what I will do? I will speak Hindi (if I am in the northern part of India) or whatever language is the language of the area of India I live or I will speak Spanish if I live in Mexico. I will wear the clothes that people around me wear and I will enjoy the music they play and I will eat the food they eat. I will care about the country that I am living in. I will become an Indian with a United States heritage or a Mexican with a United States heritage. In my home, I may enjoy some American pastimes, music, and food, and I may have some friends from the US I enjoy spending time with because of our shared past, but I won't hang with them exclusively and refuse to bother with my new fellow countrymen; I won't parade down the street with an American flag and hate on the country I have moved to.

If I move to Mexico, I wouldn't want to see a bunch of drug-using homeless Americans coming across the border in droves, taking jobs from Mexicans,  and bringing American style crime and behaviors to the country, overwhelming their culture and resources. And, guess what? I don't want illegal Mexicans coming across the border in droves and extending their country into ours. I don't mind legal immigrants who share with us the culture of their land of birth (restaurants, music, books, celebrations, etc) but I don't want to find myself in a town where I, an American born citizen, am unwelcome and poorly treated because my new neighbors don't like the people or culture they have invaded.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to have your own identity as an individual or as a country. Change will always happen but it should be the kind of change that happens slowly over time and becomes the new normal. But, if one allows uncontrolled immigration or allows massive numbers of illegal immigrants to flood the country, you will have a huge collection of people who are not the least bit interested in become a true citizen of that country and they will not adapt to the culture and leave the majority of theirs behind. It is the duty of a country to protect its way of life and safety of its citizens and this is what a smart government does when it works to protect its borders and set reasonable immigration policies.

A number of European countries are in trouble because they allowed uncontrolled immigration of young Muslim men into their country who have failed to assimilate and appreciate the country they are presently living in. They have brought cultural values in conflict with their new homeland and gathered together in intense subcultures where they are cultivating hatred against the citizens around them.

In the US, we have not seen this problem with Hindu immigrants from India because they have adapted to their new country and their values are similar enough not to set them in conflict with their nonHindu neighbors. In the past, a slow trickle of fairly educated Muslims from relatively open Muslim societies into our country has also allowed for a reasonable assimilation, but the recent increase in Muslims from countries who have radical Muslim governments and cultures, young men not escaping from a world they disagree with, but young men seeking financial refuge and also bringing an extremely conservative Islamic culture with them, one which does not allow them to coexist well with a modern America, this influx is creating a dangerous powder keg which will one day explode as it has in Europe. We have enough trouble with disaffected all-American youth choosing to commit mass murders for the attention they get in the media and the thrill of making a name for themselves, so we sure don't need to add yet more young people who are disaffected due to homelands in chaos, a difficult transition to a new country, and a mindset and culture that do not meld well with the society we have in the United States; this leads to a whole other level of violence via mass murder and terrorism.

Our earlier limited immigration of Mexicans and Central Americans also allowed for these new arrivals to learn English and become part of North America. However, the excess flood over our borders of people fleeing economic hardship and political and drug violence is generating large communities of Spanish only residents and an increase in violent gangs and cartel activities. We need to stop this massive influx and work to regulate who comes in and how many come in at rates which allow new immigrants to be a boon to our country and not a detriment.

We ARE a country of immigrants and growth and I welcome people from all places and all religions as long as they are coming here to become Americans, proud Americans, loving Americans - future citizens who will stand up for our way of life because this is the country they want to be a part of, not a country they want to change or destroy.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
June 13, 2016

MO, not Motive is the Key to Labeling the Murder of Multiple Victims and the Key to Stopping These Crimes

The term "motive" has caused a lot of problems in crime solving, court cases, and in the public arena of understanding crime.

First, let me define "motive" properly. Motive is the reason someone THINKS he he has committed a crime or someone else THINKS he has has committed a crime. In reality, there is often little evidence that the claimed "motive" is the true reason for the crime and, in reality, it really doesn't matter a damn to the dead people or their families.

The problem with the definition of "motive" is that humans often do not understand themselves, others, or the complexity of why we do things and that we might claim one motive when another is totally the reason for our action or, as is often true, there are multiple motives for any action and focusing on just one is not giving the full story.

Take a action which is a non-crime: why does Pat Brown go on television? Is her motive the one she gives - a desire to educate the public about crime and criminals - or is it the motive some others claim is the truth - that Pat Brown is a narcissist who likes the limelight? Or that she wants to advertise her books? That she wants to make money? That she likes to ride in limos to the studio? Or that she likes the free hairstyle and makeup? Is she seeking truth or fame? Or, is it possible that she has multiple motives, some possibly stronger than others, that make up her choice to appear on television?

And killers? How do we KNOW their motive? Are they angry at the person they kill? Or was it just fun? Or did they want notoriety? Or was it a robbery gone bad? Or a supposed hate crime? If a killer says he shot a bunch of people down because they were African-American is this necessarily the truth? Or did he know he would get more publicity for saying so? Or the support of racists while in prison? Or did it just sound good after his plan to shoot up the white church next door fell through because the church went on a picnic and the black church next door was just a back up plan?

If a Muslim mass murderer yells "Allahu Akbar" does this mean the motive for his killing is truly to kill nonMuslims? Or is he just pissed off at his workmates? Or mad that his wife left him? Or does he simply want to justify in his own mind his desire to kill a lot of people and attain media fame?

Truth is, searching for an absolute motive is a waste of time. What IS important is determining how the crime was committed, who supported the killer (if anyone) and what we need to do to stop it from happening again. So far, there are a number of issues we need to address:

In a particular crime, we need to determine MO (modus operandi), how he did it.

1) Did he commit the crime all on his own? Then it is mass murder and we need to address the cause of mass murder in general and find any encouragers of the crime (the media) and stop them.

2) Did he commit the crime with the help of an organized terrorist cell? Then it is terrorism and we need to address the cause of terrorism in general and find any accomplices to the crime (other terrorists) and stop them.

Then we need to examine more deeply:

1) The increase of psychopathy
2) The increase of mass murder
3) The increase of terrorist attacks

There are real factors behind the increase of these three things: an environment that encourages the development of psychopathy, an environment that encourages the choice of mass murder as a tool of revenge and self-fulfillment, and an environment that encourages the choice of terrorist attacks to make a political statement.

These three factors should cause us to focus on how we raise our children, why we allow the media to make mass murderers famous, and how to stop the spread of radical Islam, especially within our own country (and that could be the US, the U.K., Malaysia, Nigeria, etc.)

While we are wasting time caring about some psychopath's excuse for why he committed his heinous crime, we could be using our time to stop these crimes from happening.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
June 12 2016

If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent

This is going to be a very upsetting post for many of you and I am sure I am going to receive a whole bunch of unpleasant responses, but someone has to address this issue in a rational manner. It will be my last blog on the matter until we get the final determination from Scotland Yard.

A number of people are accusing me of "giving up on Madeleine and justice" because I stepped back from commenting after my post that I believed the Scotland Yard investigation was a whitewash. People were furious that I had the audacity to claim that a major police agency would not be on the up-and-up. The response was so nasty, that I decided to simply let things play out without comment. After all, it is not like my commentary at this point is going to get justice; I wrote a book and a whole bunch of blogs detailing the evidence, even a blog on where I think it is possible Madeleine's body is buried and I have not changed the course of events in the slightest. I don't see Scotland Yard or a mob of citizens digging up the barren area of Monte do Jose Mestre to see if her body really is buried there. I am enough of a realist to know that I am just one person, albeit a fairly visible one with profiling experience, but that doesn't mean my opinion can necessarily change the course of events; I am not even the ex-detective on the case who is David against a Goliath battling it out in a big court spectacle. So, since I have written my books and blogs, Scotland Yard is doing what they are doing and I am pretty sure I am not influencing them in the least.

So, what exactly is Scotland Yard doing? From the responses I have a received and from what I have read on boards and Facebook, a portion of you think the Scotland Yard review is a sham but a good portion of you think the last line of inquiry is the McCanns and they will soon arrest them. You believe the McCanns are in a cold sweat and all those police detectives who have worked this review/investigation would never be involved in a cover-up, that they would take all the evidence into account, that there never was a remit to only look at this case as an abduction and to exclude the McCanns as suspects. Some of you strongly believe that these police officers are dedicated to justice and they only think of the poor dead child - and not of their careers and politics of the department -- that their strong sense of fighting for the truth will dictate their behavior. I have to believe not a lot of you have spent much time with cops. I have. 

My daughter is a detective. My brother-in-law who I lived with for four years was a cop. My son-in-law used to be a deputy in the sheriff's department. And I have worked with cops for two decades. Cops are caring human beings and cops are cynics. Pretty much the same as me: do I care about the cases I have worked that involved children (and others)? Absolutely. Do I want justice for them? Sure. Can I accept that the case is screwed and walk away? Sadly, yes. If you work in this field long enough, you have to be pretty tough or you are not going to last. You develop a realist attitude, somewhat cynical, likely you have a black sense of humor, and you do what you can and that is that.

Cops deal with so much they know how to turn off the waterworks; if they didn't, they would go nuts. The stuff a homicide detective sees sucks. He fights to make sure cases go to court and when there isn't enough evidence or one of his fellow detectives screws up or the ass of a prosecutor refuses to go to court because he is protecting his win record, what does he do? He accepts the bad outcome and does what he can for the next case. Would you call him covering up for the police department so he can save his career? Okay, but if he starts some big fiasco about a case, he won't be helping any other murdered kids gets justice. You win some, you lose some. 

The detectives I have worked with on cold cases usually agree with my detemination and admit, while I am in house, that I am right. We go out and have beer. Then, I leave and the police tell the family and media I could not help them and they reshelve the screwed up case. That person and that family will never see justice. If you think those detectives who followed the wrong leads and lost time and evidence are going to admit I was right, tell the public that the department botched the case, you are out of your mind! All their careers would be over and they have families to feed. I have been stabbed in the back many a time over these cold cases and that is why I don't work them any more. I am instead working on training detectives so they do better work on fresh cases. I don't hold a grudge, I am not furious that they didn't get justice for a murdered child or adult; I know they are human, did their best, and they are constrained by training and reality and politics. And if you think I am going to go to the press every time and shout to the world that the department screwed up, I would never be able to work with a police agency again and then I will have wasted everything I have done to improve the closing of cases in police investigations.

Have you never heard of "The Thin Blue Line"? The police will hang together to support each other, have each other's backs because they are stuck within a system and the citizens really don't know what their world is like. If any British police supported Amaral, it is because they identify with him being screwed over. However, as you notice, if they did indeed support him, no one is giving their names or showing their faces.

So, basically, the detectives are going to do their job and investigate what they are told to investigate: they were either told to do a full and compete investigation in which everyone is a person-of-interest and no one has been excluded OR they are following a remit to investigate an abduction and only an abduction and the McCanns are not suspects, period.

So, IF the McCanns are guilty and had enough political influence to have control over the investigative remit, then the cops are going to do the job of the remit and search for an abductor. They will reach a conclusion that she was abducted and likely this is who did it although there is not enough to take said perpetrator or perpetrators to court.

If the McCanns are guilty and did not have enough political influence to assure them a review by Scotland Yard wouldn't end up biting them in the ass, they hardly would have stumped for a review of a case already shelved by the Portuguese. Of course, the question would be why any guilty party would WANT a review of a crime they committed; my answer would be, in this case, to refute Gonçalo Amaral's determinations. I think all that publicity of Scotland Yard looking for an abductor was something they hoped would influence the court case, and, even if it didn't, the final blessing from Scotland Yard would effectively override the conclusions of Amaral in much of the public's eye and that would be a satisfying conclusion for the McCanns. 

So, since they ASKED for this review; they put their trust in the outcome. If there wasn't some political collusion going on when the McCanns asked for this Scotland Yard review, if nothing has changed politically to overturn a remit, if they went in without such a remit and Scotland Yard is completely following the evidence, I will say right here, I have been wrong about the McCanns and the evidence of the dogs must be undependable and all their weird behaviors are just odd behaviors of two very ununusual people, not two guilty people. The McCanns must then be innocent.

As I have said before, my profile has been based on the known evidence and leads me to the determination that the McCanns should be top suspects and further investigation should confirm that they are guilty or find evidence that they are not. So, I for one, can accept that the McCanns could be innocent IF evidence comes to light to prove so (there are rare times when all the evidence points to a specific party but it turns out it its not them which is why you want to have as extremely convincing evidence before you go to court for prosecution). Therefore, if the McCanns did not politically manipulate the outcome of this investigation, if it is a tried and true investigation, if Scotland Yard determines it is an abduction, we have to conclude the McCanns are innocent. 

So, you can't have it both ways. Unless the political tide has massively turned and the McCanns are now being hung out to dry (which I find extremely unlikely), Scotland Yard can only be one of two things: a farce and the McCanns are guilty and are never go to be convicted of a crime or legitimate and the McCanns have been innocent all along.

Update:

Since some people can't seem to understand what my post is about, I will simplify it.

1. If you believe the McCanns had no political power to enforce a remit, then they are most likely innocent.
2. If you believe the McCanns had the political power to enforce a remit, then they are most likely guilty.
3. If you believe the McCanns had the political power to enforce a remit yet Scotland Yard after wasting three years looking for an abductor is now doing an about face and moving in on the McCanns, then there has either been a huge political upheaval in the UK or you are in the land of wishful thinking.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
May 3, 2016




By Pat Brown

Rating: 

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.


Posted by Pat Brown to  The Daily Profiler at May 3, 2016 at 9:12 AM

Why Parents who Kill the Their Children may not be Prosecuted and Why the McCanns Won't Be

There are two kinds of parents of responsible for their missing and murdered children when it comes to prosecution: careless and careful, unsympathetic and sympathetic.

Careless and unsympathetic parents get charged with the crime because a) the evidence is clear, and b) a jury will hate them. For example, a meth-using five time felon beats the living crap out of his little baby girl while the mother is at work. The girlfriend comes home and finds her mashed up child barely breathing and rushes her to the hospital where she dies. The father claims at the hospital, that the one-year-old got out the door of the apartment and fell down the steps. However, all the damage is consistent with being beaten and x-rays show previous damage to the child's body. Police arrest the creep and he is found guilty in a court of law.

Parents of a missing a murdered child who are more careful to cover-up after the crime and a bit more sympathetic don't get charged with a crime because a) the evidence is not totally clear, and b) a jury won't necessarily hate them. In other words, unless there is overwhelming evidence of guilt - overwhelming - no prosecutor will take the case to court and have a jury not be totally convinced of the guilt of the parent or parents; after all, imagining condemning the innocent mother and father of a missing a murdered child to prison, further torturing the victims of a crime, and taking them away from their remaining children so that they effectively not only lose one child to the crime but all of them. And think about the remaining children; they not only would lose a sibling, but then their parents as well.

,
 Sabrina Eisenburg, Lisa Irwin, Gabriel Johnson are still missing and many do not think they were abducted by strangers. These children have never been seen again and their bodies have never been found. The Eisenburgs claim their daughter was taken from her crib although there is no proof of an abduction. The Eisenburgs were never charged. Baby Lisa went missing from her crib. Her parents were never charged in spite of the fact cadaver dogs hit in their house. Gabriel Johnson's mother actually told the father of her little boy that she killed the baby and threw him in a dumpster. Later, she told the police that she actually gave the baby away to a couple in the park. In spite of the confession to the father of the child and the fact there is no evidence of an abduction, Elizabeth Johnson (a pretty woman who came across as a stressed and emotionally disturbed mother) has not been charged with the murder of her child; she got five years for custodial interference and unlawful imprisonment and she was released from prison in 2014.

And this is why the McCanns won't be charged with any crime, even neglect. Rarely is a parent of a missing child charged with neglect because, even if it is true, the police and many in the public feel they have already received enough punishment for their carelessness; their child has been kidnapped or murdered. As for the McCanns being prosecuted for the death of their child, barring an incredible miracle in the evidence department, the McCanns fall into the second category, a) the evidence is not totally clear, and b) a jury won't necessarily hate them.

First, let's look at the evidence for prosecution: the dog evidence is not admissible in court without something else to support it. So, there is no proof Madeleine died in the apartment. And, since there has been no body found, there is no proof the child is dead at all. There is no witness sighting of either of the McCanns removing the child from the apartment or disposing of her body. The Smith sighting is of a man who COULD be Gerry McCann, not proof that it was Gerry McCann. Neither of the parents have confessed and none of the others in the Tapas group have implicated them in harming their daughter or disposing of her body. So just as their is no solid proof of an abduction, there is no solid proof of the McCanns involvement in their daughter going missing. This does not mean there aren't many pieces of evidence that make them good suspects; my profile of the case includes many facts which support their involvement in what happened to Maddie. But, a profile (which is an analysis of facts) is not equivalent to the level of proof needed to prosecute someone for a crime.

Secondly, putting one's feelings about the McCanns aside, let's look at the couple in the eyes of the jury. The McCanns are not the scum of society; they are not welfare abusing, unemployed druggies who live in the slums, and have seven other children they neglect and abuse. What the jury will see are a respectable couple who are both doctors, who give their time to worthwhile projects, and one of them is even an ambassador for missing children. They have worked night and day to find their missing daughter (a defense attorney will make this seem true), went through the the process of setting up a fund to finance private investigators, and begged the government to sent in Scotland Yard to investigate the case. They have taken excellent care of the other two children (barring the one horrible night where their one poor parenting choice led to their daughter going missing). They have the support of their family, friends, and many in the governement, so they are upstanding citizens, people the jury can relate to.

So, without that absolute proof that the McCanns did something to Maddie, the jury is not going to take the risk of wrongly imprisoning an innocent mother and father, further punishing a suffering set of parents and leaving Maddie's brother and sister effectively orphaned. Even I, after having studied all the facts of the case and having traveled to Praia da Luz to analyze the area of the crime scene, and even after having written a profile which identifies Gerry and Kate McCann as the top suspects in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, would have to find the McCanns "not guilty" in a court of law.

There is a big difference in believing someone has committed a crime and proving it. Scotland Yard can't prove Maddie was really abducted and we can't prove that she wasn't. Scotland Yard can give their profile of the crime, you can give yours, I can give mine....but, in the end, no one will be able to prove anything because there simply isn't enough evidence to do so, and, this case, like many other cases of missing and murdered children will remain unprosecuted.

The truth may come to light sometime in the far future and I hope it does. But barring a miraculous appearance of new evidence that will allow someone to be taken to prosecution, we will have to settle for documenting the case for posterity and hope that all of our efforts - Goncalo Amaral's, mine, and everyone who put so much time into studying and publicizing the case - will have done some good.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
May 2, 2016




By Pat Brown

Rating: 

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.

Why the Botched Burglary Is Such a Good Theory in the Madeleine McCann Case

As the Madeleine McCann case winds down, there is fairly good speculation that Scotland Yard's final determination will be that Madeleine McCann died as a result of a botched burglary. And there has been much disbelief that this kind of crime could have anything to do with the disappearance of Madeleine McCann; after all, what do burglars want with a three -year-old child? Why would they kidnap her instead of just running off since no three-year-old is going to be very good at identifying the burglars? How can this be a burglary if nothing of value (minus the child) was taken? Why was there no evidence of a break-in? Why did the cadaver dogs hit inside the flat if burglars removed Maddie from the apartment while in the act of burglarizing the vacation rental?

Oh, Heaven's to Betsy! Stop being so logical! Devising a theory for closing a case has little to do with  needing to prove it is true with evidence. Like a defense attorney attempting to convince a jury that the evidence the prosecution has presented may not truly explain what happened, closing a case without evidence only requires a good story and a bunch of possible - if rare - scenarios that cause the  people to think "Yeah, I guess that could be true." For once you fool people into reasonable doubt, you open the door to just about any cockamamie scenario you can dream up.

So, here is how I would close the Madeleine McCann case with a bunch of inept burglars and why I would choose this scenario.

First, I want to show that I looked into everything (well, everything to do with abduction). I would question any shady character lurking in the vicinity and look into every rumor that had to do with bad people in the area. Along the way, I would hope to find a character or characters that I could connect well enough to the date, time, and place that they, theoretically, could have committed the crime. After running through many a possibility, the best I could come up with was the botched burglary because these were the only bad guys I could place in the area at the time required. All right. Now, I need to build the scenario around these guys.

Here is what happened:

Three burglars, familiar with the area and the resort, were breaking into flats in the area and stealing a variety of items. These burglars weren't particularly skilled nor did they target especially high priced items; they just grabbed stuff that lay within the flat, hoping to make enough on their booty to split three ways and enjoy their gains. On the evening of May 3, 2007, the three burglars planned to gain access to a number of properties and worked together through cell phones, planning their positions and times to enter the residences. As they had noted a number of visitors to the resort tended to leave their patio doors open, they found it easy to access some flats quickly without having to resort to actually breaking in and drawing attention. They also donned latex medical gloves to avoid leaving fingerprints in the flats. They used this method to slip into the McCann flat but, this time, they were startled quickly by a child who wandered into the living room. She was frightened by their presence and started crying loudly. The burglars were concerned that the loud wailing would draw instant attention and they grabbed the child and covered her mouth in order to stop the noise. As has happened in other situations (sometimes by a kidnapper or a babysitter), the adult does not realize that with a child, a large hand covering the child's mouth also results in covering the child's nose and the child can quickly become asphyxiated.

After this occurred with Madeleine McCann, the lookout phoned one of the burglars to warn him that someone was approaching the flat and in desperation they pulled the sofa away from the wall and hid the child's body behind it and then hid themselves. An adult entered the flat, listened for any noise from the children's room, and then left again. At this point, the panicked burglars became afraid that in the handling of the child's body, they may have left DNA on it and so they decided to remove the child's body from the flat. With one standing lookout, the other burglar carried the child off towards the beach to where one of the burglars lived. They hatched a plan to dispose of the child's body, most likely in the ocean since her body wasn't found in any of the digs conducted in Praia da Luz.

Due to the failure of the Portuguese police to follow this line of inquiry early on, there is not enough physical evidence to take these suspects to court. However, one hopes that this information will give the McCanns closure, that they know that what happened to their daughter and that she did not suffer any kind of physical or sexual abuse. As to the community, they can rest assured that there is not a child predator in their midst who is targeting young children of Madeleine's age. Although a crime did occur, the death of Madeleine McCann was accidental and not premeditated.

This is a scenario the McCanns can accept (they are not guilty, the Portuguese police are proven to be inept and Gonçalo Amaral completely wrong as are the trolls who support him, Scotland Yard money was well spent and the investigation solid, AND, since this scenario cannot be absolutely proven, there is still the hope Madeleine was taken by a woman who wanted a child and she is alive and well somewhere and they can still continue the fund and the search for her in toned down and less public manner).

So don't think a botched burglary could be accepted by a gullible public? I wouldn't bet on it. Even I find myself thinking that this  scenario could be true (at least it seems plausible if I do not go back and review the actual evidence of the case). And that is how it works; make up a good story but ignore the evidence.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
April 29, 2016





By Pat Brown

Rating: 

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.

How to Close a Case Without Really Proving Anything

What do the public, the police, and, sometimes, even the family of a murdered or missing person want? More than justice, they want what we term "closure." I would define "closure" as putting something troubling to rest, to have an answer that is satisfying enough to enable one to stop dwelling on the matter, regardless if it is the truth or not.

Sometimes closure, for the family is necessary simply to be able to go on living. Sometimes closure is  is necessary for the public, so they can focus on more timely and, perhaps, more important matters. Sometimes closure, for the police, means ending a screwed up investigation that is going nowhere, freeing up funds and manpower for other cases, or saving one's political butt from the accusations of the citizens, media and family of failing to bring the killer to justice or a missing person back home.

In reality, closure rarely happens in full for the family, no matter what....the damage has been done and they have to live with the consequences the rest of their lives. The real perpetrator behind bars or dead gives them justice but the pain still remains, so closure is not fully possible. And if they can't see the perpetrator behind bars, sometimes the pain is so intense, they will settle for what seems a possible explanation - a dead or already incarcerated suspect - just so they can feel there is some measure of justice. As for the police and citizens, they can move on much more quickly and most of the time they do.

So, what can we expect with the Madeleine McCann case? We can expect closure, just not the closure most of us want. We can be happy Gonçalo Amaral has been vindicated in a court of law and that a tremendous amount of information about the case is available online and in printed books and DVDs, so that the facts of the case are not swept entirely under the rug, but we are not going to see an arrest and conviction of the people we think are likely responsible for what happened to Maddie.

What we can't expect, and what has been evident since the day Scotland Yard set foot on Portuguese soil with a remit to investigate an abduction as opposed to all the evidence in the case, is that one day there would be closure of a legitimate type.  Scotland Yard is finishing up its one line of investigation "worth pursuing" - and it is most likely the three burglars, not the McCanns. By the end of the year, we should have Scotland Yard explaining how they have thoroughly analyzed the case, followed every lead, and the most likely explanation for the disappearance of Maddie McCann was a botched burglary leading to her demise and removal from the apartment, and, unfortunately, there is not enough evidence to take anyone to court; this is known as solving the case "administratively." Of course, because they cannot 100% prove that this is what happened to Maddie, the door is open for the McCanns to say it is still possible for Madeleine to be alive and out there somewhere and, therefore, the fund can continue. 

And the winners are: Scotland Yard, who made the best effort possible to solve the crime, and the McCanns who remain free of being charged with said crime. The added bonus for the McCanns is that if Scotland Yard does indeed shut down the case with the botched burglary explanation, this also "proves" Gonçalo Amaral, the Portuguese police, the Portuguese courts, and anyone who has questioned the abduction theory to be incompetant and dead wrong.

The losers are: everyone else - British citizens, Portuguese citizens, truth seekers, and missing children and their families in every country across the world.

Maybe someday the truth will out and all of us who have spent so much time seeking it will finally have OUR closure. But don't be surprised if the rest of the public is perfectly happy to accept the closure given to them by Scotland Yard because it is human nature to want to believe that parents wouldn't harm their children, that one's police agencies are above board and are spending our tax dollars in an honorable way, and the world isn't as bad as all that. Sometimes illusions are far easier to live with than  reality, aren't they?

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

April 27, 2016





By Pat Brown

Rating: 

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.

Why There was a Dead Cat in Profiler Pat Brown's Shower

Okay, you all have come up with some interesting scenarios, some closer to the truth than the others. Some of you used the evidence to develop some reasonable good answer and others simply fantasized a scenario that had no real connection to the evidence!

First, what evidence was there?

1) A witness stated they saw a still warmish dead bloody cat in Pat Brown's shower at 10 pm that day, the witness saw a check from Amazon with what appeared to be blood on it, and both were gone the following day at 3 pm.

Although I did tell you there was actually a dead cat in my shower and I showed you a photo of the check with red stuff on it, there is no proof that the witness was accurate about the condition of the cat or that the cat and the check were gone the next day. If you accepted the witness' statement, you accepted certain things that may or may not be true (was the cat really still warm? Did the witness actually touch the cat to find out? What was the extent of the injury to the cat? Did the witness turn the cat over to examine it? Was the red stuff on the check really blood?) Any theory developed based on the witness statement is questionable because we cannot be sure the witness was accurate. For that matter, the witness could be trying to make Pat Brown look bad.

2) Okay, let us say that the witness was reliable and everything the witness stated was true. Next question, whose cat was that orange cat? Guessing that it is Pat Brown's cat or not is just guessing and this guessing can radically change the theory and motive.

Answer; not Pat Brown's cat.

3) Because there was blood on the check, it is guessed that Pat Brown got the check from her mailbox and that is why there is blood on it. Well, that is possible, but the check could have been lying around and just gotten touched. But, okay, it is true that the check had been picked up just before the cat incident. Some of you decided, therefore, that the cat must have been killed in my driveway because I went to the mailbox at my home and that is when it happened. There was an assumption I have a mailbox at my home. There we go with assuming again! Answer: I do NOT have a mailbox at my home. The mail for the residence address is actually delivered to a house about five houses away because my house, at this point in time, does not actually have a different address (long story concerning a large family plot of land that used to be a farm). Where I get my mail is at a UPS box in town (which I also have for business purposes and so that when I travel my mail is in a safe place). I picked up the Amazon check and because I was curious what the dollar total was, I opened it in my car, dropped it on the passenger seat and then drove toward my house.

4) Did I run over the cat? Some thought I did which is why the cat ended up at my home. Some thought I was trying to save it...although I think I would have done better taking the cat straight to an emergency vet place. There is actually no proof that I was the one that hit the cat....was there blood on my tires? We don't know because my car was not checked for that evidence....that kind of evidence has not been reported. So, making a scenario that I killed that cat is based only on what you THINK my motive for carrying the cat back to my house might be....guilt....to save it...whatever. I did not kill the cat.

5) So, I saw a still cat in the road and I pulled over and backed up to check it out. It was dark out, so I put on my flashers and jumped out and picked up the cat which was still warm and soft so I knew it had just been hit. I brought it in my car so I could examine it under the inside light. I grabbed a bunch of papers and cover my seat and then laid the cat on them (unfortunately, I forgot my check was lying there). Once inside the car, I noticed that the cat was beyond help.

Now, HERE is where a motive for bringing the cat home is a bit convoluted and I want you to note that when you subscribe a motive to what people do and say, "Oh, it is clear this is why!" Or "Well, he wouldn't have done THAT!", be careful because you may have no real clue why the person did what they did and the motive you conjure up is more in your head than in the perpetrator's head. 

So, why did Pat Brown bring the dead cat home and lay it in her shower? Is she a ghoul? Was she planning on doing an autopsy on the cat? Did she want to take creepy dead cat photos? Did she want to clean it up and give it a proper burial because she is a lover of cats? Unless you have a lot of information on me and my history, you may be completely wrong.

The reason I brought the cat home: no, I did not feel a need for a good cat burial. I normally would have just laid the cat on the side of the road in the bushes. No, I did not want to do weird crime scene stuff with the kitty. What I wondered when I saw the cat in the road and when I examined him in my car was if that cat might actually be my missing cat Rouxy. Rouxy was an orange cat who went missing after I moved in 18 months earlier. This cat was the right color and a male and had Rouxy's tail and color of eyes. I wanted to take the cat home where I could then access my photos and do a comparison because I couldn't remember the exact details of what Rouxy looked like. So I brought the cat in and placed him where it was best to keep a bloody dead cat...on a plastic bag in the shower. I went and found my photos and did the comparison. Turned out, I forgot that Rouxy had white paws and this cat didn't...not my lost cat. In the morning, I took the cat out to the woods and buried it and took the check to deposit in the bank.

So, now look back at your own theory of the crime and ask yourself how much was based on evidence and how much was merely conjecture? This is what happens when you analyze a case on the Internet or by watching TV, when you analyze at a distance and do not have proper access to all the evidence or the ability to question people about things. The more you base your theory on random information and unproven sources, the more likely you are to have a theory that is not at all accurate. 

Just because something COULD have happened or someone MAY have done this or someone MAY have had this motive, doesn't make it so. I COULD have run over the cat but there was no proof of it. I COULD have felt guilty over the cat's death but where was the evidence that this is a fact? The cat COULD have been killed on my property but where was the evidence of this? Quite frankly, with the evidence I gave you, the only theory that should have been created from the limited evidence is this:

Based on the fact, Pat Brown herself (and not the witness) told you that there was a dead cat in the shower, Pat Brown or someone else who had access to her house placed a dying or dead cat in her shower.

THAT is actually all you know from the evidence. If your theory included more than this, you didn't base it on the actual facts.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

May 6, 2016

Dead Cat in the Shower and The Danger of Generating Theories Based on Limited and Imagined Evidence

I have written more than once of the danger of developing theories based on possible scenarios rather than on actual evidence, that when someone puts together bits of evidence in order to support a theory of choice rather than basing their theory on real forensic and behavioral evidence, a case can become convoluted and misrepresented. The number of theories in unsolved cases like Madeleine McCann and JonBenet Ramsey and many other less publicized cases escalates over time and more and more insignificant pieces of information become fodder for yet more theories. These bits of info are often given more meaning and weight than when the case was fresh simply because people are looking for a smoking gun that will break the case wide open and finally bring answers and closure. Likewise, for some solved cases like that of Steven Avery; speculation on who ELSE could have done it has spawned a dozen or more theories, most based on zero evidence or one bit of information from which a complete murder scenario and motive have been developed.

As an example of how speculation can spawn so many theories (in spite of the fact that just ONE thing happened), I want my readers to come up with their theory on the dead cat in Pat Brown's shower.

I will spare animal lovers a photo of the dead cat in the shower, but, suffice it to say, there was indeed, last night, a dead cat in criminal profiler Pat Brown's shower (this is a fact, not a fictional scenario). So suppose someone reported that they saw in Pat Brown's shower at 10 pm, an dead orange cat laying on a trash bag. There was blood about the cat's ears and mouth and the body was still soft. They also saw, on the dining table nearby, this odd piece of evidence: a check from Amazon with what appears to be blood on it.

The same person claims that they returned the next day at 3 pm in the afternoon and the dead cat and the bloody check were both no longer in the home of Pat Brown.

Okay, readers, what is your theory as to the dead cat in Pat Brown's shower? When I get ten responses, I will then discuss the evidence, the theories, and what actually happened.

So bring it on!

If you are new here, read the responses below - all the theories - and then go here for the answer: http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.com/2016/04/why-there-was-dead-cat-in-profiler-pat.html

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

April 5, 2016

By Pat Brown

Rating: 

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.

Disaffected Teens: Mass Murderers, Terrorists, and Gangbangers Coming Soon to a Target Site Near You

From Theory to Profile: How Agenda Creates Nonevidence-Based Conclusions

No Proof of Photoshopping

I recently wrote a five part blog concerning Making a Murderer, a multi-episode documentary on the Steven Avery case which recently aired on Netflix and has convinced a good number of people that Steven Avery is not guilty of the murder of Teresa Halbach, that he was railroaded by the police and prosecution for political reasons. The filmmakers presented many pieces of information and demonstrated to the audience what they believe happened in this case; however, they actually did not use evidence to support their theory, it only seemed that way. They  presented a profile (crime analysis) based on a theory - their theory - not a profile (crime analysis) based on the actual evidence.


I also just finished watching Richard Hall's third installment in his documentary about the Madeleine McCann case called When Madeleine Died?. The filmmaker presented many pieces of information and demonstrated to the audience what he believe happened in this case, but, again, what I saw was a profile based on theory,  not on the evidence.

Both films were well made, in different ways. Making a Murderer is very dramatic and emotional, brilliantly shot and edited. When Madeleine Died? is very calmly and methodically presented, far more professional, in my opinion, than the highly Hollywoodized Making a Murderer. I like how Hall made the documentary,  but I am not happy with the content. I disliked everything about the Netflix documentary on Steven Avery because I found it blatantly full of falsehoods and very manipulative.

Both Making a Murderer and When Madeleine Died? are intended to convince the audience that the theory being presented is the only one that makes sense, that it is logical, and that there is evidence to support the theory. In reality, the profiles of these cases require a solid belief in the theory the agenda is promoting;  "evidence" is either misconstrued, ignored, or created. The material presented is intended to seem sensible but to actually agree with the conclusions of the filmmakers one must suspend a good deal of logic altogether.

Let's start with the Steven Avery case. The theory is "Avery is innocent." Now we must find evidence to prove this. We run into problems right away. Avery was the last to have contact with the victim, Teresa Halbach, he was the one who asked the victim to come to his property and photograph a vehicle, she was never heard from again after this contact with Avery, her car was found on his property, her remains were found on his property, her phone was found on his property, his blood and DNA was found in her car, and her car key with Avery's DNA was found in his bedroom; and nephew confessed to committing the crime with him. If one uses evidence to create a theory, the evidence heavily points to Avery. The evidence shows Avery called Halbach, Halbach most likely never left the property, someone moved and hid her car on the property, someone hid her car key in Steven Avery's room, and someone burned up her body and phone right near Avery's house.  According to the witness, Avery raped and murdered Halbach. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that the likelihood of Steven Avery committing the crime is quite high.

But, suppose you have a theory that Steven Avery is innocent. So you set out prove he did not do it. This is usually the realm of defense attorneys, to go from theory to profile, but now filmmakers are using this same technique, starting with a theory instead of starting with the evidence (as should always be done by police, profiler, prosecutor....pretty much anyone except a defense attorney who HAS to prove his client not guilty). One must figure out how to take damning evidence and turn it around to point away from whoever it points to. Evidence has to either be explained away or twisted in such a way that the jury - or the viewer - will go away believing this new theory.

The evidence in the Avery case is so overwhelming the only way to explain it away is to claim it was all planted; ALL of it! The remains, the car, the phone, the key, the blood, the DNA...all planted by the police or someone helping the police. Someone (probably not the police) had it out for Avery and when this person somehow found out Teresa Halbach was called by Steven Avery to come photograph a vehicle (or saw her doing so), the person took this opportunity to grab Halbach, kill her, burn up her body either right under Avery's nose or he took her someplace and then brought her remains back onto the property and tossed them there along with her phone. Then this person hid the victim's car on the property and got the police to put Avery's blood in it, wipe Halbach's DNA off the key and spread Avery's DNA on it and then hide the car key in his room. And then the real killer got the police to pressure a slow-witted relative into confessing to a crime he didn't do and implicate Avery as well.

What? Does any of this seem even remotely possible? And who is this person? A number of suspects are alluded to in this documentary but none are actually implicated  because NONE of the evidence actually points toward anyone else but Avery (and Dassey, by confession).

Making a Murderer simply presents a theory based on agenda, not on evidence; the theory generated the profile; the profile wasn't based on the facts of the case.

Likewise, I see this happening with Hall's When Madeleine Died?.

The evidence points to the evening of May 3, 2007. A number of people stated they saw Madeleine up until that Thursday evening, she was placed in the creche daily for babysitting while the parents enjoyed their freedom on holiday, there are photos of Madeleine in Praia da Luz by herself and with family. The cadaver and blood evidence points to an accidental death resulting in the child's body lying behind the living room sofa for a period of time, and there is a chaotic discovery of a missing child or a dead child that ensues late in the evening. In the hours, days, and months following Madeleine going missing, we often see confusion and conflicting statements and many odd behaviors on the part of the McCanns and their friends. It appears that all was well until the evening of May 3, 2007 and then all hell broke loose.

However, due to what appears to be a strong belief that there has been unprecedented support of the McCanns by certain political entities (and there is evidence that there is some quite unusual level of political support for the McCanns) and a huge amount of media, money and resources used in this case of a missing child that far surpasses any in probably the entire history of mankind, a theory has been developed that if Madeleine did indeed die in Praia da Luz and not at the hands of an abductor, then the massive support system for the McCanns indicates that she did not die an accidental death on May 3 but that she died at some other time and under far more horrific circumstances (which have only been alluded to...some kind of sexual abuse - pedophilia - involving big government people). It is believed that if Madeleine died by accident or even during a rage by one of her parents, there would not be so much high level support; therefore, there must be something more nefarious concerning what happened to Madeleine McCann.

This theory has led to the conclusion that Madeleine McCann died sometime on Sunday (due to something really horrific) and then an abduction staged some four days later on May 3.

Let's look at the evidence that would support this theory:

Madeleine McCann's body showed signs of sexual abuse. No, her body has never been found, there were no previous reports that Maddie had been sexually assaulted. There is only one statement from a woman who thought, on a previous occasion when she and some friends were dining, that Madeleine's father and a male friend shared a gesture that the woman interpreted as having to do with Madeleine and having a sexual meaning. There is no corroboration of this moment by anyone else nor any proof that what the woman believed happened actually did occur.

The Tapas children showed signs of sexual abuse. No, there is no evidence of this.

There were pornographic photos or videos of the Tapas children. No, there is no evidence of this.

There is proof of sexual assault of children by the McCanns, the other Tapas members, or by any of the people connected to the McCanns and this case. No, there is no evidence of this.

So, there is actually not a shred of evidence that there is any sex abuse ring (by McCann and Company) any more than there is any evidence of a sex slavery ring abducting children out of Praia da Luz and environs.

The theory of some kind of sexual assault of Madeleine resulting in death also requires that the evidence of Madeleine falling and dying behind the sofa be ignored. Either the dogs are right and Maddie ended up behind the sofa or the dogs are wrong and Maddie was never behind the sofa. It makes no sense that if Madeleine were to die by some manner other than accidental that anyone then hid her body behind the sofa. If you believe the dogs, you must believe in an accident.

Which leads back to Hall's theory that Madeleine McCann died on Sunday and a team of experts (I guess in cover-up and body disposal) rushed into town to help the McCanns deal with this and stage an abduction.

Now, one would assume if there is some huge government involvement in the crime (high level perverts) and a high level government cover-up of the crime, they would hardly decide to wait until Thursday to stage an abduction and then stage it so badly that it doesn't even look like an abduction and prep everyone so badly that the Tapas group couldn't even keep their stories straight. Along with that, they would have had to have the  McCanns  parade around Praia da Luz for four days minus one child, nannies would have to be coerced into lying, creche paperwork would have to be forged, and they would have to hope no one outside the circle the damage control team controlled would notice Madeleine was missing. Photos would have to be created (Hall does say that experts have concluded that the Last Photo was not photoshopped but oddly alludes to the possibility that the tennis photo WAS photoshopped....couldn't he get the experts to analyze that photo as well?) or would have to be said  to be taken later in the week than was true.

One of the rules of getting away with murder is the less people know about the crime, the better. The fewer Tapas friends who might have helped the McCanns, the better because loose lips do sink ships. The theory of an earlier death date and a bigger organization behind the cover-up requires so many people to know the truth and lie to the police and media that it would be impossible for the truth not to have come out.

Logic has flown out the window with this big governmental involvement and a Sunday homicide of Madeleine McCann. To profile this case as a sex crime involving high level government people requires ignoring the dog evidence, ignoring the behaviors of the Tapas members on May 3rd, ignoring all reports and evidence of Maddie being alive until May 3rd and believing that a skilled "clean-up" crew chose the most amateur plan of action possible, pretending a dead child is alive or parading around a fake Madeleine, and dismally staging  an abduction scene they had days to plan and make believable (couldn't this top level team even open a window, add a few tool marks, make footprint or two, and muff up the room a bit? How about planting some fake hair or phony fingerprints?).

The evidence does not support Hall's theory of When Madeleine died?; his agenda has created a theory and the theory then created a profile and the evidence manipulated or ignored in order to create a belief that this theory has merit.

Both Making a Murderer and When Madeleine Died? do bring up interesting ideas and some bits of evidence that are worth looking at further in relation to proper police procedure, proper interviewing, proper prosecution, and proper handling of the media. However, the totality of the evidence in both cases does not support the theories the filmmakers have presented and it is unfortunate that so many do not realize that this is so. Evidence should make the theory; the theory should not make "the evidence." Analyses and profiles of crimes should be scientifically developed by a professional based on evidence, not created by filmmakers' agendas.

Unfortunately, with the advent of the Internet, cheaper documentary production methods, and so many media outlets and so much airtime to fill, the proliferation of agenda based crime shows and documentaries is getting out-of-hand. Investigation Discovery (ID) just aired an incredibly ridiculous documentary claiming that a serial killer and not OJ Simpson may have killed Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. I can assure you that NONE of the evidence in that case points to a serial killer but that did not stop ID from putting out a total piece of garbage and now the serial killer theory is making the rounds on the Internet.

The next time you see a documentary purporting to prove a particular theory, make sure the filmmaker actually provides evidence supporting his theory, doesn't just throw around "what-ifs," and make sure there is logic holding the theory together. Pay attention to whether the filmmaker ignores evidence, manipulates evidence, or creates evidence, and above all, ask yourself, "Does this REALLY make sense?


Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

February 22, 2016

By Pat Brown

Rating: 

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.

Making a Killing off a Murderer: An Analysis of the Crime and Documentary - Part Five

Disclaimer: My commentary on defense attorneys and prosecutors is to make a point about our system, not to condemn all attorneys. Defense attorneys, prosecutors, police, documentary makers....all professionals....represent a spectrum from what is the best about their fields and what is the worst..and most fall in the middle.

On this final part of my post on Making a Murderer, I want to talk about attorneys. We have an adversarial system in the United States which essentially means two lawyers are pitted against each other in court and neither one's objective is discovery or presenting the truth. Nor are they necessarily seeking justice. Their goal is to win and, unfortunately, our system allows them to do just about anything to win including lying, deceiving, manipulating, ignoring, terrifying, and paying others to do the same (these others are called "experts"). On the receiving end of this dog-and-pony show are twelve untrained jurors who are supposed to figure out which highly experienced lawyer and which highly experienced expert is telling the truth. They are supposed to do a solid crime scene analysis, something many police detectives have trouble doing and they are supposed to profile the defendent and witnesses in spite of having zero education in psychology or criminal profiling and they are supposed to understand and analyze forensic evidence in spite of the fact they have never studied anything remotely connected to DNA, blood spatter patterns, forensic pathology, etc.

And you are worried about the police planting evidence? The real planting of evidence happens in the courtroom where the attorneys plant all sorts of crazy ideas, stories, incorrect "facts" and distorted information in the heads of the befuddled jury and then collect a huge sum of money regardless of the outcome of the trial. In fact, if the defense attorney loses his case, he can make more money on appeal. What a great profession!

Now, let me tell you how each side works. Generally speaking, a prosecutor wants a pretty solid case before he goes to court. He doesn't want his win record ruined. Many times cops are frustrated because they have the right guy but the prosecutor won't prosecute because he wants and open-and-shut case. So the guy goes free; it is very difficult for police officers to not become discouraged and cynical. But, if there is a good amount of evidence the prosecutor works hard to put together the timeline and facts and motive, gets good local experts to testify, and hopes the jury understands the evidence and finds the defendant guilty.

Once in a while when a case is a pain in the state's backside, a lowlife character will be prosecuted with limited evidence. The jury doesn't have much interest in or sympathy for the guy and usually he is stuck with a public defender. It is amazing how often the prosecutor can win a case like that. This is the rare time the prosecutor might actually wonder how guilty the defendent is but go ahead and prosecute because the political power that be want him to and he wants to keep his job.

On the other hand, a defense attorney almost always has a guilty client and knows it. The evidence is usually pretty solid so he pushes the guy for a plea bargain. If his client wants to go to trial, he goes to court and usually loses but then he goes home and watches football; the guy was likely guilty anyway, so he isn't losing sleep over the conviction. He still gets a paycheck.

Sometimes, a defense attorney really does believe his client is innocent. If it bothers him enough, he might really put a great effort forth to try to save him from prison. If he fails, he might actually find himself drinking a few doubles in the bar.

But, let's say the attorney has a guilty-as-hell murdering client but he is making a good payday off of the trial. Well, then, he will do everything he can to investigate (and charge for every dime of his time spent), delay and delay (and charge) and hire experts and do lots of depositions (and charge) and present a very detailed case in court (and charge). His client can tell him he is guilty and he will go right ahead and try to get him off. I have never understood how anyone can morally do this. Some people believe that a guilty person is entitled to the best defense but in this system it can mean anything the defense attorney can cook up to bamboozle the jury into acquitting (Casey Anthony, O.J. Simpson).

Here are all the things the defense is willing to do when they realize they can't win a big case based on the evidence (since it proves their client is guilty).

1) Go on TV and try to pollute the jury pool (jurors lie when they say they know nothing about big cases or they have not been influenced).

2) Hire experts to say whatever they want. Have you ever wondered how it is possible to have the prosecution expert and the defense expert (both Drs) say the exact opposite? In a big trial, usually the jury will believe the defense expert over the prosecution expert because the prosecution uses a local fellow and the defense expert is a famous guy you see on TV that they paid $50,000 to show up. Who would you believe? Dr. Poindexter Rafferty or Dr. Michael Baden?

3) Make up a good story. I have been hired by defense attorneys to profile their cases and when I said their client was guilty as hell, they wanted to pick my brain for alternate scenarios. I always refuse and walk out. But, in court, some crazy alternative suspects and scenarios are created so that the jury starts thinking, well, maybe that could have happened. Then, they push aside all the evidence because they think there is some minute possibility which could explain away everything and the defendant just might not be guilty and they don't want to err and have the guy's blood on their hands.

4) Blame the police. It is an old trick. When the evidence is likely to convict your client and you can't come up with a good story that will sway the jury into letting him off, blame the police. Start picking apart the investigation, point out any investigative error made or any character defect in the officers involved in the case, make the jury think that the police force is corrupt, that they planted evidence, coerced confessions, somehow are railroading the defendent. Sometimes it works and it only needs to work on one juror and the hung jury will assure the attorneys another round of large checks.

Oh, and don't forget, a jury is not selected by drawing twelve numbers; the defense does their best to make sure no one with too much analytical ability is on the jury (I will never be allowed on a jury). The defense does not always succeed, but they do their damnedest to stack the deck.

5) The final trick is called time. If enough time passes between arrest and the trial, or between the first trial and the appeal, or between the conviction and some claim the client is innocent by a documentary company, witnesses have died, the victim is all but forgotten by the community, emotions have dissipated, and the convicted has been "rehabilitated" - he hasn't committed a crime in years (because he has been incarcerated) and he has become a) Christian b) a college graduate c) a jailhouse lawyer d) married and a daddy. Now, he seems like a decent enough guy, maybe one who was innocent and suffered years in prison for a crime he didn't commit. Now, there are "questions" as to his guilt and then a killer gets his own fan club, freeinsertname.com website, and, if lucky, Hollywood interest.

Making a Murderer is a defense driven, biased film which pretends to care about showing the ills of the system. I would like to put the producers on a polygraph and ask them these questions:

1) Do you think Avery is guilty?
2) Did you misrepresent Avery's character in the film?
3) Did you misrepresent the evidence in the film?
4) Did you purposefully present a view of the case purely from the standpoint of the defense?
5) Did you make this documentary to educate or to make a lot of money?

When they finish answering these questions, I think they might need a good lawyer for the civil case against them for slander and defamation. Maybe they will hire the attorneys who represented Steven Avery but, then again, these guys lost the case...maybe they should look for other representation.


Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

January 26, 2016