Why I did the Sunday Night show with Rahni Sadler

I have been watching all the comments as to why I chose to participate in the Sunday Night show and, I can tell you, an awful lot of people say stuff that is far from the truth; simply put, they don't know me and they don't know the media and they don't know law enforcement. And when you are unfamiliar with the subject matter, you tend to guess as to motives and, quite often, those guesses are wrong. Even worse, sometimes emotions and agendas cloud one's critical thinking and this leads to false conclusions.

Let me back up a decade and a half. I never expected to be on television, certainly not as a crime commentator. But, after I started working in criminal profiling, I got a call from one of the big cable networks. They were in a panic because the guest they had invited on couldn't make it at the last moment. They found me through my website and asked me if I would do the show and could I catch a cab to the studio and they would reimburse me. I went. I did the interview. They told me "You rocked!" (Mostly because I hadn't screwed up and embarrassed the hell out of them). From then on, I started getting calls for more interviews.

I had a decision to make. I was not planning on a career in television. What I wanted to do was change methods of crime analysis so we would not have so many cold cases languishing in every state in the country. But, being on television is a sure way to become well known enough that I might have more power to make change. So, it made sense that I accept the opportunity. There was one problem, though. I knew that often the show has an agenda and they want you to go along with it. I wasn't willing to do that because I have always believe in sticking with what I believe to be the truth and speak from my heart and mind; I didn't want to be a paid (or unpaid) stooge. So, I made a promise to myself and to the viewers that I would always say exactly what I believed. And I have stuck with that through more than 3000 media appearances over the last decade and a half.

I expected I would not last long on television. Go figure, I had far more than that "fifteen minutes of fame" some folks accusing me of still trying to get! I thought I would be bounced for my blunt and honest commentary. But, I managed to stay in the media in spite of, or perhaps, because of it. Only one stance I took has done me major damage in the last few years; I chose not to do any news shows that used the name and face of a mass murderer once he was caught. I did not want to give the killer fame. Also, I believe that we in the media are one of the reasons for the increase in mass murder, that by making the killer an antihero, we encourage the next psychopath to commit his crime. And I told every media outlet who called to ask me to come on their show, that I would not come on if his face was show or his name was given and I would not "tell his story." What I WOULD do is come on and talk about mass murder in general and the role of mass media in encouraging the commission of this kind of crime.

Pretty much down the line, every media outlet thanked me for my honesty - some even said they agreed with me - but they wouldn't have me on. The one time I was allowed on by CNN was by mistake - the producer who called me screwed up and I made big news by standing by my opinion on air and stating that CNN had broken they agreement with me not to talk about the killer. All in all, my media appearances dropped dramatically because I turned down all of these appearances.

Now, to what people think. I am going to use the terms "pro-McCann and "anti-McCann" for ease of discussion.

Prior to my reduction in media work:

Pro: Pat Brown is a money-grabbing media whore who only does television for the money.
Anti: Pat Brown is an honest commentator who can't be bought.

After the reduction in television news work:

Pro: Pat Brown was thrown off the networks for being a fraud.
Anti: Pat Brown has stuck to her ethics and given up a great deal of work for them.

Now, on to the McCann case itself. Prior to my statement that the Scotland Yard investigation was a farce.

Pro: Pat Brown is not a real profiler; she can't profile for crap. She is a McCann hater and published her book because she wants to make money off the pain of the parents and an innocent missing child.

Anti: Pat Brown is the one professsional outside of Goncalo Amaral who has not backed down from speaking the truth, continued to blog and even wrote a book risking the wrath of the McCanns and Carter-Ruck. Even after her book got pulled, she carried on speaking out.

After I said Scotland Yard was a farce.

Pro: Pat Brown thinks she knows more than the police. She is a fraud.
Anti: Pat Brown thinks she knows more than the police. She is a fraud.


Then, I expressed my belief that the last photo was legitimate and not that important to the case and that I still believed the evidence pointed to Madeleine having an accident and dying on May 3, 2007.

Pro: Pat Brown is still trumpeting crap. She is a lousy profiler.
Anti: Pat Brown hasn't watched Richard Hall's videos and is close minded. She is a lousy profiler.

Now, on to Sunday Night and why I did the show.

I did the show because it was an opportunity to speak out on the Madeleine McCann case, something that had been off limits for over seven years in the MSM.

I did the show because Australia had been the first country to allow me to present evidence that there was likely no abduction and that evidence pointed toward the McCanns as being involved.

I did the show because I wanted the truth out there in the MSM and this was a rare opportunity.

I did the show because it was billed to me by Rahni Sadler as a public affairs show. I would not have done it if I knew the kind of show it really was. Now, some cannot believe that I didn't do my homework before doing the interview and that I did not have a contract that required them to allow me final say on the content. These folks do not understand the media industry. When there is breaking news, calls come in from print, radio, and television one after the other. Half the time, I don't even remember who I talked to until I see a story come out. I DO now refuse almost all print and taped radio and television because I don't like the editing and misquoting. I DO still do documentary shows FOR money, if I am being brought on as a valued expert  as in the documentary, "The Unsolved Death of Cleopatra" or "Mystery Files: Jack the Ripper." All of my experiences up to now have beeen positive; I am THEIR expert and they make me look good and they WANT my analysis to support the show.

When news media calls, we in the business rarely spend much time studying the show. We are going to do a straightforward question and answer session (preferably live like my recent Australian Sunrise show) but, sometimes we do taped if the subject matter is important to us and we want the facts known. When Rahni Sadler contacted me and stated she wanted my analysis for a public affairs show, I accepted and went down the street to a hotel where there was a film crew waiting. Rahni was in Australia and we communicated through Skype. No paperwork was signed as is usual with any news show (a documentary will have you sign an appearance agreement: a contract is about money and has nothing to do with having any say over the final production unless you are some huge star or Casey Anthony); no appearance agreement should have been necessary with this just being a straight public affairs news show with my words unedited and in full. The interview lasted approximately an hour and Rahni and I did a continuous discussion, again like a news show. Documentaries usually have you repeat the question in your answer so they can insert it where it is needed (without the question before) and they often ask the question a number of times to make sure they have a good statement. Rahni did not do this. She went right through the questions and I answered them. It is clear to me now that she was only looking for a few statements she could misconstrue to accomplish her mission of discrediting me and my analysis of the McCann case.

In all of my history of television and work with programs, I have NEVER encountered this kind of unethical behavior. No producer has ever duped me into doing a show that is going to humiliate me and no show has ever so twisted my statements and defamed me. After fifteen years in television, I had no expectation - even in the McCann case - to be so screwed over. So, that is why in the barrage of media requests and my packing to leave for Cuba, I didn't spend a lot of time sussing out the show. Even more than that, my desire to be able to speak out on the case had me jump at the opportunity to do a lengthy interview on the evidence. I have always said, the surest way to get taken advanatage of is to be impatient or needy or both. In this instant, I qualified as a person who had those two traits at that moment - I was in a hurry because I was going on vacation and I needed to get this accomplished quickly and I wanted to get the truth about the case out to the public. Nailed.

I did not do the show for money (I doubt any of the participants were paid and, if they were, believe me, these kind of shows are cheap).

I did not do the show for fame. I have enough television in my history to not need this show; it was not going to be any huge publicity for me. It was just another show.

I did not do the show to help my "flagging" television career. I have chosen not to do most television because TV has gone to Skype - unpaid and unprofessional. I choose to decline. Besides, I have done enough television news to become well-known enough that I have a high profile position in criminal profiling and that is what I wanted in order to work on change in profiling methodology and crime analysis. I am happy to have time for other things; developing my profiling program, doing REAL documentaries, fielding future television show requests, and writing books.  I enjoy spending time with my granddaughter. I have time now for travel, friends and family and I am quite happy not spending my life in the studio.

So, why did I do the show?

Pros and antis - I did it because I wanted to showcase the evidence. As I believe this case is about to be closed without any real prosecution by Operation Grange, this may have been the last chance to really speak out on the case.

Sorry to say, that did not happen and it should have. I rolled the dice and got snake eyes and that is a shame for real news and real commentary.

Finally, pros and antis, I am not suing Rahni Sadler and Seven Media West because my ego is hurt or because I need the money. I am suing because I want to stop the media from such outrageous unethical and egregious behavior. It was horrific and it needs to be stopped. And I will do what I can to make that point. Furthermore, I want to encourage the public to speak out about this abuse by the media of their goodwill as viewers and to speak out against false news, and the media needs to start policing themselves and getting rid of garbage shows and terrible journalists like Rahni Sadler and dreadful producers like Hamish Thomson. Not only did they abuse their participants by editing them  and misrepresenting them but they lied in the promo by making it seem as though Goncalo Amaral had participated in the show.  The show was full of misinformation and straight out lies, and there was no new, breaking evidence, no breakthrough in the case ever materialized in the actual show. Zero respect for their participants, zero respect for the viewers, zero respect for providing quality, honest news and commentary.

Statement to the press:

Pat Brown’s legal counsel, Attorney Brian Close, has identified multiple claims against Rahni Sadler and Seven West Media – including intentional misrepresentation, false light, and defamation - based on the portrayals that took place in the Sunday Night promotional video and in the piece itself. He states: “The misleading edits portray Pat Brown in a false light by contorting her statements and changing their substance, and the broadcasts and publications have done and continue to do damage to Ms. Brown’s professional reputation wherever they are viewed around the world."

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
April 25, 2017

If you want to read my REAL analyses of the case, read all The Daily Profiler posts and read my book, Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann.




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 Smith Sighting - and not the Last Photo - is the Key to the Madeleine McCann Case

 

An awful lot of people believe the "Last Photo" is the key to what happened to Maddie. I disagree. Furthermore, I don't believe it is even very important in the analysis of this case. Worse, it is a huge distraction which has lead to a very complicated theory of Maddie dying on Sunday which lacks the support of solid, credible evidence. Furthermore, it completely negates the most important piece of evidence in the case - the Smith sighting. Let me explain how, as a profiler, the "Last Photo" as any kind of evidence pales in comparison to the Smith sighting and excessive focus on it should be laid to rest.

First of all, the "Last Photo" is not photoshopped. It is a real photo. Now, as to when it was taken, I can accept that it might not have been taken when the McCanns claimed (although I believe it may well have been taken when they said it was). I will go even further - to make my point - and be willing to accept that one possibility is that it might have been taken on Sunday. So, let's say it was indeed taken on that day. What does that tell us? Here is where the speculation goes off track. As a profiler, all I can tell you is if it is true the photo was taken days before the McCanns claim, there might be a half dozen reasons for them choosing that photo and saying it was taken later in the week, none of which are very alarming to the point of throwing up a huge red flag.

Here is an example of how speculating on certain evidence leads to false conclusions.

My granddaughter was born three years ago. She was born at my daughter's home in a planned home birth quite close to her due date, just a day or so early. At the time of her birth, I lived just thirty minutes from my daughter's home. On the occasion of my granddaughter's first birthday, my daughter cobbled together one of those first-year-of-life albums with photos from birth through turning one. As one peruses the photos, one cannot help notice that there is but one photo of me, the only grandmother, in the whole book and I am conspicuously absent from the birth photos. My ex-husband is shown holding the newborn baby in a couple of photos, the baby's uncles are there with big smiles on their faces, my best friend (who was an "aunty" to my daughter during her childhood) is there helping at the birth, but I am not. Why am I, the grandmother of the baby, the mother of the woman giving birth, not there?

Okay, start speculating.







Did any of you come up with these possibilities?

My daughter and I have a bad relationship and I wasn't invited to the birth.
I was busy doing television and my career and publicity was more important than being at the birth.
I was off traveling - having planned a vacation around the time of my daughter's due date.
I was opposed to home birth an refused to show up and support my daughter's choice.


Yeah, none of these are true. Oh, and, wait, look here! What is this?

Yes, that is a photo of me at the birth! What the heck? Where did that come from and why, if it isn't a photoshopped picture or a photo of me with another baby, or a photo of me with the baby on a day sometime after the birth, why wasn't that photo in my daughter's picture book? Why would it be left out?

First of all, let's talk about if the photo is actually me at the birth. Yes, it is a real photo. I was there. Not only was I there, but I chose to be there under stressful circumstances. Oh, no, not that I had any problems with my daughter; our relationship was fine. And I am a supporter of home birth; my son, David, was born at home. In fact, I went with my daughter to her final midwifery appointment and as soon as she called and told me she was in labor, I raced over to her house. I would never have planned a vacation during the last month of her pregnancy and I would have turned down all television and work-related jobs to be present at the birth. In fact, the stressful circumstance which made my presence difficult was that my mother was dying in another state and I had to choose whether to be at her deathbed or at my granddaughter's birth.

I had been at my father's side when he died just a year earlier and I had been making trips back and forth to New York to help my sister care for my mother in her last year of life as she declined with Alzheimers. After she fell and was hospitalized for the last time, my other sister went up to New York to help as my daughter's due date was nearing. I then had to choose to be with my mother or to be with my daughter, not knowing exactly when my daughter would give birth or my mother would leave this world. I did what I thought my mother would sanction; I stayed for the birth. My mother died the same day, just hours after the baby was born, so I was unable to fly there after the birth to be there in time to say goodbye.

So, yes, I was at the birth, totally involved, and none of the negative speculation would have been accurate. So, what about the photo? Quite simple really. My daughter didn't have that photo. I never had sent it over to her. The photos she DID have of me weren't very flattering and she knows I hate bad photos of myself, so she kindly did not include them in the book. Yes, other grandmothers wouldn't have cared if they looked like a wildebeest holding the baby but my daughter knew it would make me shudder. I asked a woman who put a photo of me kissing an iguana in a marketplace during a trip to Nicaragua to pull the photo from Facebook; the iguana's sideview of it's neck and dewlap hanging down looked a whole lot better than mine. I love the photo (privately) but not for public viewing!  Okay, call me what you will -  proud, vain, whatever - I just hate embarrassingly bad photos of myself at my age.

So, now, see how speculation as to why there was no  photo of me at my granddaughter's birth can go so far off course? Now, think about the "Last Photo" of the McCanns. Why would they lie, if they even did, about the time it was taken? I can think of a whole bunch of reasons which are far less bizarre than Maddie being dead by Sunday which then requires a massive plan to hide the fact and cooperation of a great number of people being  needed to carry on the charade for the next four days.

Let's see.

1. There WERE other photos of Maddie that week but they were blurred or not very good, so the McCanns chose the pool photo but said it was on Thursday because that made the photo more compelling (the LAST photo! The McCanns like spin and know its value).

2. They were other photos of Maddie but THEY look bad in them (and Kate and Gerry like to look good).

3. There were no other photos past Sunday because once they did their day with the children, they dumped them in care during the day and left them at night because they were busy enjoying their adult vacation and they didn't want to admit not spending time with them.

In other words, it is dangerous to speculate, creating dots that do not necessarily exist and then connecting those dots to create a theory. To me, the "Last Photo" is just a photo and I can find no reason to exaggerate its meaning.

Now, the Smith sighting is a completely different animal. THIS is the KEY to the case and yet it is even poo-poo'ed as having merit, mostly because it invalidates the earlier death theory of Madeleine. Simply, if the Smiths saw Gerry carrying Madeleine toward the beach on the evening of May 3, then Madeleine died an accidental death while being neglected and there is no big child sex ring that Gerry and his friends and the British governement are involved in.

But, we can't invalidate or diminish the Smith sighting for one HUGE reason and this is the KEY to the case. The McCanns refused to acknowledge the Smith sighting themselves. Unlike every parent I have ever dealt with whose child went missing or was found murdered, the McCanns were not interested in the biggest lead in their child going missing. Why is this? There can only be ONE reason; Gerry does NOT have a solid alibi for the time of the Smith sighting and Gerry most likely IS the person carrying a little girl toward the beach at the time the Smiths saw the man in the street. For if Gerry DID have a solid alibi at that time, the McCanns would have jumped at a sighting that was validated by an entire bunch of strangers, not just a close friend who could easily not be believed (and wasn't). The McCanns ignoring of the Smith sighting is the bombshell in the Madeleine McCann case, not some photo that has a half dozen reasons for possibily not being the last one taken of Maddie.

Even if I could explain away every other behavior of the McCanns and every other piece of evidence in this case, the one thing I cannot possibly come up with is an alternative explanation for is the McCanns ignoring of the Smith sighting. If they are innocent of any connection to Maddie going missing, they would have jumped on the Smith sighting as a huge lead as to who might have taken their daughter. And if they are guilty of involvement in the disappearance of Maddie, their ignoring of the Smith sighting is the strongest piece of evidence we have of Maddie's death and subsequent cover-up being an inside job and not a stranger abduction.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
April 10, 2017





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.

Proof that The Washington Post, The New York Times, NPR, and CNN Spread Fake News

A story just came out about a Sikh man being shot by a white man who shouted "Go back to your own country." Being a person with many Indian friends, such stories - like the one about the Indian engineer shot to death recently in what truly appears to be a hate crime by some nutter - concern me because I do not like to see innocent people attacked for their looks or nationality or religion and I don't like to see hate ramp up in this country by way of ignorant and angry people (whatever their political ideology).

So, of course, read this story about this Sikh man being shot. I read it in the Washington Post and something about it bothered me.

'Go back to your own country': Sikh man shot in his driveway in suspected hate crime.

Then, I read it in the New York Times and something bothered me.

Officials in U.S. and India condemn shooting of Sikh man in Washington state

And then on read it on the NPR website and something bothered me.

Sikh man shot outside his Seattle home: Told 'Go back to your own country.'

And then I read it in the Washington Times and I saw what bothered me.

Indian Sikh reports being shot in arm: Police seek suspect.

The Washington Times was the ONLY media outlet of these four which reported accurately and truthfully. Not only was the headline correct, but the content of the article was correct as well.

Considering what facts existed at the time these articles were written, we can only know this:

A Sikh man in the state of Washington reported that at around 8 pm a white male with his face half- covered got into a physical altercation with him, shouted "Go back to your own country!", pulled a weapon and shot the Sikh man in the arm.

Note the most important word in the above statement, "Reported." Yes, "Reported." In other words, none of the media outlets say there were any witnesses to the claimed event. All they had was the word of the Sikh gentleman.

Now, the Sikh man may be telling the entire truth. The event may have occurred exactly as he claims. However, it is also possible the man could have shot himself in the arm while, say, cleaning a weapon, and then claimed he was shot by a white racist. He could have made up the scuffle because gunshot residue would be on him if he shot himself and, therefore, he coudn't simply have someone shoot him from afar.

As a profiler, the story raises an eyebrow for me. Normally, a racist who wants to shoot someone down - as that man did with the Indian man who was killed recently in a Kansas bar -  will shoot the victim in the chest or head. Not the arm. Unless he was a bad shot or a scuffle really did occur. But, why would an armed man who covers his face to protect his identity get into a scuffle with his victim rather than just shoot him as he drives by? And where did this masked man come from? Did he just walk up or did he drive up? Where did he go after the shooting? And why would you argue with a man wearing a mask instead of quickly retreating to your house and safety? This is a strange story....possibly true...but strange.

So, how should this incident be reported? Exactly as the Washington Times did. They used the word "told" throughout the entire story because that was factual. The Sikh man TOLD the police his story and the police are following up by searching for a suspect (and probably looking into the story itself).

The other outlets - those fine outlets who claim they report only the truth....did not. These other three stated AS FACT that a white man shot a Sikh and shouted "Go back to your own country." These three media outlets are liars.

Now, if more facts come out and the Sikh man turns out to be telling the absolute truth, THEN and ONLY THEN should any headline read "Sikh man shot by white racist" and the content then can include all of the statements these media rags have already put wrongfully in their stories today.

And that is why, my dear media friends, you are being called "Fake News."


Criminal Profiler Pat Brorwn

March 5, 2017

Dear Dr. Synnott and the UK Media: I am not a Troll, I am Pat Brown

I just love how there is so much talk in the UK media about anonymous people on Twitter trashing the McCanns; how they don't have the cajones to come into the public because of the consequences. Really?

Hello, Dr. Synnott! Hello, UK Media!

Know my name? Pat Brown? The Pat Brown who writes on Twitter under....what....Pat Brown? The Pat Brown who has the blog called The Daily Profiler where she has written many articles about the McCann case under the name....ummm....Pat Brown? . Who was interviewed by a Portuguese paper as.....yes, Pat Brown. That's right, that same Pat Brown who wrote a book called  Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann under the name....yeah....Pat Brown. Who had her book pulled from Amazon because the McCanns threatened to sue them and the McCanns named the author in the lawsuit as......guess.....Pat Brown.

Pat Brown is not hard to find. Google "Criminal Profiler Pat Brown". You come up with The Pat Brown Profiling website where you can find my email and phone number. Guess how many UK journalists or others writing on the McCanns contacted me, a real person, not a anonymous troll, to discuss the McCann case and the issues surrounding it during the last ten years?





Yeah, exactly.

Oh, wait, I forgot about Anthony Summers, Looking for Madeleine author, but he was just pretending to interview me as he had already included me in the troll section of his book.

In other words, there ARE people who doubt the McCann's abduction claim who have come forth publicly with their own names on Twitter and elsewhere...intelligent citizens of the UK, Portugal, and the US....even professionals and experts .....but the UK media is not interested interviewing them as it might let the public know that not only "a sardine munching deplorable Portuguese retired police detective" and some "loony Twitter trolls" question the McCann's innocence. There are also people who do crime analysis for a living who find that the McCanns should be considered suspects and believe Scotland Yard is conducting a sham investigation on behalf of someone, but not the citizens of the UK or Madeleine.

While there are certainly some trolls out there on Twitter who act rather badly concerning the McCanns, there are also many rational people who simply have a hard time swallowing the McCanns' protests and the biased "news" stories put out by the UK press.

I am Pat Brown. I am one of them. I'm waiting for your call.


Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

March 4, 2017





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.

Between a Rock and a Hard Place: How Pragmatism is Losing Out in the World Today

Once upon a time - and I am not exactly sure when that was - pragmatism, realism, and logic were ideals promoted in our educational institutions. The idea was that we should train young people to be rational human beings -not people devoid of ideals or emotions, but citizens who could temper those ideals and emotions with enough reason to be able to lead our country, communities, and institutions in a manner that would allow for our society to be the best that it could be. The concept of pragmatism also allows for productive discussion and prevents excesses in one direction or the other...in other words, pragmatism along with good ideals and morals should lead to a moderate and fair nation - not a perfect one and, certainly, not perfect for all of us, all the time - but a decent enough one that allows citizens freedoms along with responsibilities that end up balancing out the varying viewpoints and lifestyles.

Somewhere along the way in the past number of years, the middle road seems to have been lost. We are polarizing in this country to the point of a civil war in the hearts and minds of our citizens. We are ready to go to battle at the drop of a hat, the minute we perceive someone to be our enemy - anyone who does not align with our particular beliefs as if our own beliefs are undeniably the only "right" beliefs in any and all circumstances.

Liberal vs Conservative

Nonreligious vs Religious

Pro-Muslim vs Anti-Muslim

Pro-gun vs Anti-gun

Right to Life vs Freedom of Choice

Public School vs School Choice

Pro -vaccines vs Antivaxers

Black Lives Matter vs All Lives Matter

Pro-police vs Anti-police

Pro-All Immigration vs Controlled Immigration

Hillary vs Trump

God help you if you are on "one side" and run into the other.

God help you if you don't agree 100% with "the side" you lean toward.

God help you if you are only half a deplorable or half a snowflake.

If you are on one side, half the population will hate you.

If you are willing to be open and work toward a middle ground, everyone in the population will hate you.

How have we gotten here? Could it be because we have lost the ability to be rational? To understand that things can't be "our way or the highway"? That we must be able to compromise in order to survive? That going too far in one direction or the other invariably means an unbalancing of a stable system? That we can't ban everything nor allow everything? That we can't close our doors and lock everyone out, but neither can we open our doors and let everyone in? That we cannot simply trample on others nor let others trample on us?

We cannot successfully live together in a country that is running rampant with adults who act like selfish, undisciplined children, unwilling to listen, unwilling to get along, unwilling to take turns.

If we cannot be reasonable, mature adults, we will find our country has become the island in "The Lord of the Flies" with roving bands of agitators and anarchists. We will wake up one day, too late, and discover that The United States of America is not that any longer.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
February 17, 2017

Keith Papini and Passing the Polygraph

Halloween 2016 - Check out those Bandanas!

Note: When analyzing evidence, a criminal profiler or detectives makes note of what the totality of the evidence could mean and this helps determine investigative leads. A theory is NOT equal to proof and this is why analysis is to lead to more evidence which leads to more analysis and, hopefully, ends up with enough evidence to lock in what happened, establish probable cause, and allow for the arrest and conviction of the perpetrator. On the outside of an investigation, we know far less than the police; any analysis is based on public information. This does not mean an outside analysis cannot be right or that the police analysis is necessarily right, but we just need to understand that unless we have access to all the police reports and evidence, we can only base our understanding on what is publicly available at any point in time.

After I finished pointing out some strange behaviors of Keith Papini on The Today Show, the hosts pointed out to the audience that Mr. Papini had passed a polygraph and was not considered a suspect by the police department. I have received emails and comments as to why I would have any suspicions concerning Keith Papini in the strange alleged abduction of his wife, Sherri Papini, since he passed the polygraph and the police said early on he was not a suspect. So, let me explain my reasons for continued concern over Mr. Papini's involvement in this crime or possible knowledge of it and how the polygraph and suspect status play into this.

Keith Papini may or may not have passed a polygraph. The police may be telling us the truth or they may not be telling us the truth. They could have cleared him or they could be trying to give him enough rope to hang himself.

I will put forth each kind of possible crime this case could be and explain the polygraph and suspect status for each.

1) Sherri Papini was kidnapped for some bizarre reason - gang initiation, kidnapping for ransom gone bad, kidnapping for kicks, kidnapping for sex trade.

In this case, Keith Papini could indeed pass the polygraph because he would have had nothing to do with the crime. The police finding no connection to him with Sherri's disappearance and him having an alibi, clear him of the crime.

I would have no problem with this except for the description of the crime and Keith Papini's behaviors.

2) Sherri Papini was kidnapped by a Mexican drug cartel.

In this case, the police would be heavily investigating whether the Papinis were involved in the drug trade, if they had way too much money for their lifestyle. Keith Papini could have passed a polygraph in that he may not, at that time, exactly known what happened to his wife. The police could clear him of involvement because he would also have been a victim of the crime.

Of all the kidnapping scenarios, this one would make the most sense if the message was from the cartel to Keith, if the "anonymous donor" was Keith himself trying to make a payoff for money owed or whatever. The police would be analyzing whether the lifestyle the Papinis lived was far above the salary of a Best Buy employee and a stay-at-home mom and whatever help they got from relatives. Keith's bizarre behavior could be that he sort of had a clue what happened to his wife but doesn't want to admit why; his interest in going public is to get rid of the hoax accusations but not push for arrest of the suspects because that would lead back to the motive for the crime which would include his own involvement in the drug trade.

3) This was a hoax set up by the Papinis.

In this case, they would be seeking money, notoriety, or both. The police would be investigating their financial status and desire for media attention. They would be trying to figure out if they did this alone or had a third party involved. They would be analyzing the type of injuries to Sherri Papini to determine if these were of the sort to convince a kidnapping occurred, but not so serious as to cause permanent injury. Keith Papini would either have managed to pass the polygraph test (which can be done) and convinced the police he was not involved in any way or he could have failed the test and the police are not telling the public the truth and are watching him closely.

Keith Papini's behaviors when he found his wife missing - hurrying to insist she was kidnapped to the police - and his very aggressive campaign in the media to prove that his wife was really injured and kidnapped while showing no interest in finding and punishing her captors does support the possibility of this scenario.

4) This was a hoax set up by Sherri Papini.

Of all the choices, actually this is the most credible (although this doesn't mean this is what happened). If Sherri Papini had threatened her husband with running off or had prior odd behaviors that could lead him to think she could be setting up a hoax (or even him), he might well have had his own peculiar behaviors when he found her gone, immediately searching for her location, telling the police she was kidnapped. He might pass a polygraph because the questions might be those involving his own connection to the crime which he would not have. The police might eliminate him as a suspect because he truly did not do anything to Sherri or plan anything with her.

Certain pieces of evidence support this motive for this crime as a hoax. There is evidence from Sherri Papini's past writings that indicate she may be an attention seeker. Women who have Munchausen's Syndrome (a version of psychopathy) may suffer from anorexia and/or bulimia to stay very thin, they may be enamored by photos of themselves, they may fake illnesses to get attention or claim they were rape or stalked when they were not. They may even stage their own abductions to get attention from their loved ones or the media. Sometimes we see odd things done by the "victim" prior to the crime that might have helped in development of the crime description; we have a post which certainly appears to have been written by Sherri Papini years ago in which she claims to have been assaulted by Latina women and having broken one of their noses in the fight. On Halloween night, just two days before the alleged abduction, she and her husband and kids are dressed as cowboys and cowgirls complete with bandanas for their faces (see photo above). Two days later, Sherrie is abducted by two Latina women wearing bandanas and her nose is supposedly broken. Coincidence or fabrication?

The actual crime itself supports a fake abduction staged by the "victim" herself. She is abducted by women which eliminates the problem of sexual assault. All the injuries are minor and cosmetic in that there appears to be no real permanent damage. The claim of branding we do not know what it really was - a brand like a tattoo or something like a hot coat hanger - we do not know where on her body it was (clearly not her face) and how small it was or how repairable it is. It seems these injuries to her body could well have been self-inflicted.

Another very odd thing about this crime is the when she was found she had a chain around her waist and one hand bound. The other hand was free, supposedly only bound by something easy to cut off in the vehicle. What this says to me is that this means that Sherri Papini had one hand free to lock the other hand to the chain.

The best evidence that may support this possible motive for Sherri Papini's disappearance is in her husband's denial of a hoax. Everything he has stated in television interviews is a continual praise of his wife and how perfect and wonderful she is. Why does he feel such a strong need to convince the world of this? Or is he trying to convince himself as well? Is his lack of interest in the alleged abudctors so minimal because he knows there are none? Is his focus on bringing his wife home, being reunited, having a happy family again, not having to raise the children alone all about his fear that his wife will be discovered to be behind this and end up in jail? Is he afraid of discovering this himself because that would be a big hurdle to deal with in their relationship? Does he just want to consider this something they will never forget but will make their marriage stronger? Is this why he can show mixed emotions when discussing his wife's and his ordeal? Because it WAS an ordeal and IS something that they have to get through? Is this why he called what happened a tragedy rather than a crime?

This bizarre case has certainly captured the attention of the public because it IS very unusual and because Keith Papini decided he needed to defend his wife in a very national forum. What we will learn in days to come will certainly be fascinating, to say the least.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

December 5, 2016

The Bizarre Case of Sherri Papini

Jogger, wife, and mother of two, 34-year-old Sherri Papini disappeared while out for her afternoon run on November 2, 2016, reappearing on Thanksgiving Day on the side of a road 150 miles from her home, in the wee hours of the morning.

A chain around her waist and one hand, waving a paper bag and screaming out for help, Sherri Papini finally was brought home. According to her husband, she suffered beatings, burning, and branding while she was in captivity of two Hispanic woman and was abducted at gunpoint by these two women in the middle of the day.

It seems that Mrs. Papini remembers nothing of the her days in captivity and can only give a vague description of the two women because either she had her head covered or they had their faces covered "most of the time."

There are many people out there who think this whole abduction claim is a hoax. Her husband furiously attacked these people in his statement:

Rumors, assumptions, lies, and hate have been both exhausting and disgusting. Those people should be ashamed of their malicious, sub human behavior. We are not going to allow those people to take away our spirit, love, or rejoice in our girl found alive and home where she belongs. I understand people want the story, pictures, proof that this was not some sort of hoax, plan to gain money, or some fabricated race war. I do not see a purpose in addressing each preposterous lie. Instead, may I give you a glimpse of the mixture of horror and elation that was my experience of reuniting with the love of my life and mother of our children.

I certainly can understand his feelings; no one likes hurtful and hateful stuff said on the Internet about a loved one. But, what is interesting is what he didn't say in his first statement to the press. While he says he will not address preposterous lies, he never says people are wrong about Sherri not being abducted. Furthermore, in the remainder of his statement, he calls what happened "a tragedy" - not a crime - and he expresses no anger toward any kidnappers of his wife who are supposed to have tortured and starved her (and, perhaps, raped her, humiliated her, and terrified her). He shows no anger at the criminals who took the mother of his children away and almost took her life. He is working very hard to convince the public of the kind of person she is and how many injuries she has but he leaves out any discussion of finding the kidnappers and getting justice for what they put his wife and family through.

As to Sherri Papini's statements to the police, we know of little. The police have said she is having a problem remembering anything except now a partial description - voice, eyebrows and hair of the two women. I find it odd she has no description of the missing time. Although, yes, sometimes PTSD will cause victims of horrendous crimes to block things out, it is also often part of fake kidnappings to have the reporter (said victim) to be missing details because she actually has none to share of any real abduction and captivity. This is not necessarily the case here, but it is something that has to be considered when analyzing this case.

The vague description of the two women is also odd and is attributed to them being sometimes masked and sometimes the victim being masked. If this is a true statement from the police, it makes little sense because that means some of the time their faces were able to be seen by the purported victim. Did the women both have bandanas on when they pointed the gun at Sherri and pull her into the vehicle? When they had her in captivity for three weeks, were they inconsistant about whether they could chance her seeing them or not? This is something that will be explored more carefully by the police.

Now, to the type of crime this could be. Some are saying it is connected with sex trafficking, that it has all the hallmarks of this (especially promoted by the Papini private investigator). I see no sign of this at all. There is a myth going around these days that healthy and happy family women are being grabbed off the street and forced into the prositution, never to be seen again. This is not true in this country. Sex trafficking, as people think of it, is prevalent in poor countries, where young women are indeed kidnapped and forced into brothels. There is a limited version of this crime in this country within certain communities of (usually) illegal aliens, especially those being brought in by certain criminal rings.

However, neither sex traffickers or pimps kidnap thirty-four-year-old middle class women jogging down the road. They don't even kidnap sixteen or eighteen-year-old middle class girls jogging down the road. They don't even kidnap poor girls jogging down the road. Girls and women who are out jogging and go missing are almost always taken by serial predators. Sex traffickers and pimps can just get all the young, blonde girls (and all other sorts) just by honing in on runaways, drug users, and girls already in the prostitution business. Getting ahold of these girls is easy and doesn't cause a major police investigation to ensue and the photo of the missing girl or woman to be splattered all over the news and Internet.

Furthermore, you don't beat the face of the girl you want to make money off of and cut off her pretty hair. Yes, a pimp may do that if his girl gets out of control and he loses his temper, but messing up the merchandise cuts into profits.


And, thirty-four is "old" in terms of prositution. Sherri Papini is a good looking thirty-four-year old but a woman approaching middle age; she hardly is the top choice for men seeking sex for money.

So, no, I doubt if Sherri Papini was kidnapped into the sex trade. All I can think of for such a strange crime is a gang initiation, a kidnap for ransom gone bad, a hate crime, or some personal retaliation. None of these seems to make a lot of sense, but this is what the police should be looking at if they believe her story of being kidnapped.

And if Sherri Papini wasn't kidnapped? What could have happened? Good question. Much depends on what the evidence is. Right now we have the husband claiming she had severe bruising, a broken nose, severe burns, a branding, and that she was severely emaciated from starvation. Yet, she did not even remain in the hospital overnight. I find this very odd if she was as severely battered as has been claimed. One would think she would have at least been observed overnight or even for forty-eight hours. The husband also claimed his wife had screamed until her throat bled, something that does not actually occur, medically speaking. However, maybe the information is wrong that we are getting. The level of her injuries is something the police have to consider in deciding if these were self-inflicted or caused by others. It would not be the first time a woman who has Munchausen's Syndrome (a version of personality disorder in which a person - usually a female)  - claims to be ill or harmed or raped or stalked in order to gain attention and sometimes this even means the person will cause injuries to herself  to support her claim. The partner of such a individual is often, for want of a better word, a dolt, someone who will buy into what this person says because it is in his best interest and makes life easier for him. We often find such is true of spouses of women who kill their babies one after the other; the partner just kind of shrugs and says she is a good mother, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.

Another interesting part of this alleged crime is two females being the perpetrators. Two is a number that says I had to comply because it was a two on one fight and they could keep me from escaping. Secondly, by having women be the perpetrators, the victim can return home without having been raped or having to be not found raped which would be odd if she were taken by males.

So, where does this leave the crime? The police have to wonder about the peculiarity of the crime, the odd post Sherri Papini made years ago about physically fighting with Latinas, connections she and her husband have to a group focused on protecting onself from kidnapping,  about the husband spending more time glorifying his wife to the public than focused on finding the people that did this horrible thing to his beautiful wife:

“And again, just another sign of how my wife is, she’s so wonderful. She’s saying, ‘Well, maybe people aren’t stopping because I have a chain that looks like I broke out of prison’ so she tried to tuck in her chain under her clothes.”

The police have to wonder why he went public with all these details of his wife's kidnapping and injuries when such disclosure would impede the investigation and why he would say to his son, "I found Mommy," when he did no such thing at all.

Something is very odd about this crime and these people. But, because I am not on the inside of the police investigation it may be that they have much more information about Sherri's statements, behaviors, and injuries and likewise of other evidence. This may eventually become known and prove whether Sherri Papini was the victim of a frightening and vicious crime, perhaps, a kind of crime that will become more popular in this country in the future, or the public is a victim of a hoax, another fake kidnapping designed to get attention or make money or make a political point.


Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

December 2, 2016

Why the Superbike Composite is Not Todd Kohlhepp

Much has been made recently that Todd Kohlhepp is the guy in the Superbike composite, the guy who was pretending to be a customer - in the words of Sheriff Chuck Wright - who was checking out a motorcycle just a little over an hour before the murders went down. Let's ignore for now that Sheriff Wright claimed that not only was the man in the composite a person-of-interest in the Superbike murders (and I think he should be as he cannot be totally eliminated as a suspect) but that Wright actually claimed he WAS the Superbike killer:

When asked if the sketch of a white man with dark brown, feathered hair is a person of interest or suspect in a 2003 quadruple homicide in Chesnee, Spartanburg County Sheriff Chuck Wright held up the sketch and replied, "I'm going to be bold enough to say this is my man right here."

http://www.goupstate.com/news/20120301/new-sketch-of-suspect-released-in-multiple-superbike-murders-case

Okay, there is zero evidence to support that the man in the composite had anything to do with the crime. Yes, he was in the store that day, but other than that, there is nothing to say that this was the guy. If it was him, he allowed a bunch of people to see his face and, then, instead of just getting rid of these witnesses along with his targets, he left and came back later, leaving people who might well be able to identify him. Sheriff Wright gave a false statement to the public that he knew this was the man who committed the crime.

But, let's put that aside for now. Let's actually go along with Sheriff Wright for the moment and assume that this is the Superbike perpetrator. What do we know of him? Well, we have a description of a white male, age 25-40, 6 to 6'4" (depending on exactly which statement one goes with as the witness kind of waffled), who had dark brown to black hair and a mustache. His weight was somewhere between 175-200 pounds.

Okay, he COULD be Todd Kohlhepp. But, he could be a bunch of other guys in the area as well. What is true about witnesses is that they can be pretty darn good with a description or so far off you wonder about their powers of observation. Now, if five different people gave a description of a really tall man with a limp in his right leg, a jagged scar running down the left side of his face and a tattoo on his arm that said, "Death to All Hos", I am going to say you might do pretty well with that composite! But a tall white guy of normal weight with wavy brown hair between the ages of 25 and 40, you just pretty much could have a casting call in Spartanburg and fill up a football stadium.

Then, nine years after the crime, the witness says he can be more accurate than he was the day after and a new composite is drawn up! Really? Any expert will tell you that memory does not improve over time; the first rendition is far more likely to be correct than the second.

But, let's put all that aside as well, and ask, could the man in the composite be Kohlehpp? By looks, sure, could be him. But what about the other evidence? Evidence which more strongly identifies who this man could be.

Here is what the witness said:

He stated it appeared to him that  Scott (Ponder) did not know this person. He also heard the subject state he had never ridden a bike before. 

Whoa! What? Wasn't Todd Kohlhepp supposed to have been a customer of Superbike? Wasn't he supposed to have bought a bike there and didn't the guys at Superbike take him out to teach him how to ride and make fun of him when he fell? Wasn't he supposed to have returned to buy another bike from Superbike and they made fun of him again, laughing at him about getting his previous bike stolen? Then, how is it this man in the composite was apparently unknown to Scott Ponder and a new bike rider as well?

The most reasonable answer is that the man in the composite is not Todd Kohlhepp. This does not mean that Todd Kohlhepp could NOT have committed the crime; it just means that the composite is not likely to be proof of him having any connection to it.

Again, we have a lot of claims that Todd Kohlhepp is the Superbike killer but, as of yet, we haven't a shred of proof, just a lot of innuendos and lies. I have no problem with Todd Kohlhepp being a suspect but until there is solid proof that he committed this mass murder, I will question why the Spartanburg County Sheriff's Office is giving out false statements about this man and the Superbike crime and ask the citizens to demand actual evidence of his guilt. Some say to wait and find out when this case goes to court but my fear is a plea deal will be made and this case will never go to trial. If that happens, we may never see any evidence that Todd Kohlhepp is guilty of this particular crime. And if it isn't him, then the real killer will still be out there.

For more on the case:

 None of the Superbike Victims were Shot in the Forehead

Is Todd Kohlhepp REALLY the Superbike Killer?


Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

November 28, 2016

None of the Superbike Victims were Shot in the Forehead

NOTE: A number of people have not believed that I have any real knowledge of whether or not the Superbike victims were actually shot in the forehead. To them: I have read the autopsy and police reports as I reviewed this case in person at the Spartanburg County Sheriff's Office. The information below on the location of the headshot wounds comes directly from the reports.

___________________________

One of the things police departments do in the course of releasing information to the public is to give the public enough information to encourage tips that might be useful in identifying who the perpetrator of a crime might be, but leave out details that serve no point in aiding identification, details that might help prove they have the right individual if someone they are interviewing gives details of the crime that they have kept secret.

The Spartanburg County Sheriff's Office gave out quite a lot of details about the Superbike murders - what door they believed the killer came in (the back one), that he fired a lot of shots at the victims, and that he circled back around and shot each one of the victims in the head.

The Spartanburg County Sheriff's Office (SPSO) is adamant that the shooter came in the back bay door of the business shot Chris Sherbert first as he was cleaning up a motorcycle, then went through the swinging door into the shop and encountered Beverly Guy leaving the bathroom or the office and shot her, and then shot Brian Lucas and Scott Ponder as they tried to escape out the front door. Eighteen rounds were fired requiring a changing of clips. The SPCO has never explained just when the shooter did this in the midst of shooting the three in the front room and there is no explanation, if he had to change magazines at that point, why the two men didn't escape further while he was doing so. They never explained why, if the shooter mixed his ammunition which included eleven with nickel casings and seven with brass casings (which is what they told me they thought happened - something not very common along with the need for an extended magazine, something also quite rare) and if he shot the victims from the back of the store to the front, how odd it would be that at least three of the victims ended up with a bullet in the head that had a brass casing. I believe the killer had a full 10-round magazine with nickel (nickel-plated over brass) cartridges (plus one nickel cartridge in the chamber - 10+1) and a second magazine with brass cartridges.

I believe the SPSO attempted to develop a scenario that matches their theory that the unknown guy in the composite first went after the employee cleaning up the bike he was supposed to buy and then went after everyone else. Not that this makes great sense because if you come in the back way and start the shooting there, you are unaware of who is out front and by the time you get there, other customers may have come in. Besides, your anger should be with Scott Ponder and he should be the most important target and normally a killer would choose him to start with. Perhaps the thinking is that the perpetrator didn't want his vehicle seen so he parked in the back and came in that way and then went back that way to his vehicle. Nothing wrong with this theory and, in fact, it still could be true if the guy walked past Christ Sherbert to the front, did his shootings, and then returned to get Sherbert. But, the detectives, refused to even allow for this possibility and I think this stubbornness lies in their desire to make Sherbert the first victim of the guy in the composite and, in doing so, they  choose to ignore the ballistics evidence. But it is terribly important as it shows exactly what the shooter did and why - as you will see.

I propose this scenario of how the shootings went down (there is an issue with a couple of the casings whether they were brass or nickel due to the manner of notation in the files):

The behaviors of the victims clearly indicate Beverly Guy was shot
first. If the killer had been intent on shooting Ponder or Lucas first and pulled out a gun in the front room, he would likely have shot the men where they stood considering how close the shooter was to these two men. However, the killer shot them only after they were in motion, running toward the front door
in order to escape. Something clearly set them off and this would be the
shooting of Guy. I believe he pointed the gun at Guy's face and she turned her head causing him to then shoot her in the right side of the head. She fell and he shot her with.  (Shot One - Nickel Casing). Then he fired directly at Guy's before she fell (Shot 2)( Nickel Casing 19) was fired directly at Guy’s chest, the shooter being face to face with her, the men made a break
for it (Shots Three and Four, Nickel Casing 20 and Projectiles at 9 and 10).
The next shot hit Brian Lucas in the backside causing him to
collapse in the door, with Scott Ponder leaping over him; then numerous shots to Ponder’s
back took him down to the ground (used up all the nickel shot in the magazine). It was here he changed magazines to the brass.

At this point the shooter knew there was one more person he needed to deal with and he turned and went back through the swinging doors into the work area. There was music on in both the front and back so it is questionable as to whether Sherbert actually knew the others had been
shot down. It is possible he did hear the shots but by the time he realized what was going on, the shooter had already entered the back of the shop. The shooter fired as soon as he came through the swinging door approximately from the area of three bikes to the left of the door. (Brass Casings 21 and 22. The trajectory is in perfect line with the back storage room where the bullets went through the boxes. The
shooter’s position would be in the general area where the crescent wrench with the black handle was found should Sherbert have thrown it at the shooter in a desperate attempt to stop him. This evidence is proof that Sherbert did see him coming and that the shooter was coming at him from the swinging doors. He was the final victim, not the first victim. Sherbert likely was ducking behind the
motorcycle he was working on as soon as he saw the killer coming toward him
with a gun.  He then moved in on Sherbert who had no way to stand up from behind the motorcycle and run out the bay door without getting shot. The shooter came up over him and shot him in the back and chest (brass casings) and then capped him with a shot to the top of his head (Brass Casing)

The shooter then returned to the front of the business to
make sure Brian and Scott were dead. It is during this time (or while the shooter was in the back) I believe Ponder, still alive but knowing he was not going to make it, dialed 33 on his phone and pressed send, attempting to reach his wife with a final goodbye and, perhaps, an attempt to identify the shooter to her. Ponder appears to have pushed himself up on his knees with his left arm and dialed his phone with his free right hand and pressed the send button at 2:52. This was likely very
within a minute or seconds before the shooter capped him in the head.  I do not agree with the theory  that Ponder dialed the phone number while running in a panic over his friend and through the glass front door. I have attempted to recreate this scenario and found it impossible to hit the three buttons on the phone while in this kind of motion. The shots in the head of all four victims apparently ended their lives within seconds as there is no evidence of movement after the last four shots were fired.

At 3:12 PM, the emergency phone call to 911 comes in from
Noel Lee.

Now to the head shots: First of all, not everyone was lying on their backs making a shot to the forehead an easy thing. The shooter had no plan to shoot them all in the foreheads. He simply came up to each victim and delivered a final shot to the head to insure that they did not survive the attack.

Here are the locations of each of the four final headshot wounds (entry only):

Scott Ponder

Right temporal region 4.75 inches from the top of the head, 3.0 inches to the right of midline, and 4.25 inches circumferentially from the midline anteriorly

Brian Lucas

Gunshot wound 1 – Above left ear 3.5 inches from the top of the head, 2.75 from left of midline. No powder stippline or tattoing is identified.

Beverly Guy

Gunshot Wound 1 - Entrance wound in the right temporal region at the hairline 3.5 inches from the top of the head and 3.5 inches to the right of midline. No surrounding soot or powder
deposition is identified. A barrel imprint is not present.

Chris Sherbert

Gunshot wound 1 – Left paritel skull 0.5 inches from the top of the head and 1.75 inches to the left of midline. The wound measures 0.32 inches in diameter with a small superficial abrasion associated with the wound in the hair.

Four shots to the foreheads of all four victims?

Absolutely not - and why the Spartanburg County Sheriff's Office wants you to believe this lie is something every citizen and family member of the victims should question and demand an answer.

For more on the case
Is Todd Kohlhepp REALLY the Superbike Killer?

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

November 25, 2016

Is Todd Kohlhepp REALLY the Superbike Killer?

Let me start out with this simple statement: I can accept that Todd Kohlhepp is the Superbike killer, a freaky anomaly whom I never suspected committed the crime, I am okay with that...if it is really him. If it is really him, four families can have closure after thirteen years and finally see some justice in the murders of their loved ones. If my profile of the case, my analysis of the evidence, did not point to Kohlhepp, I apologize to the Spartanburg Country Sheriff's Office (SCSO) for having been less than useful in my service to them. I can admit to not always being right, not 100%; I never expect detectives to always be right or 100% perfect either. We are just humans trying to do our best. This is one reason I am very particular about criminal profiling being considered a tool in aiding focus and decisions in investigation, not some kind of psychic vision of exactly what happened. I make sure when I turn in my profiles to police departments that I explain each and every one of my conclusions and what evidence supports those conclusions. I hope that my analysis and clear explanations allow the detectives to use their own skills in deciding if my conclusions make sense and if they should follow through on my thoughts and suggestions.

The Superbike case was a mess from Day One. It has been made public that the investigation appears to have gone the wrong direction when DNA results were screwed up and Melissa Brackman (then married to Scott Ponder) became the main suspect. Even now with the claim by the SCSO that Kohlhepp is the Superbike killer, they have admitted they never even interviewed him in spite of his name supposedly being on a Superbike customer list and having such a horrific criminal record.

I was brought in in 2009 to review the case. I spent a week inside the SCSO reviewing all the files and developing my analysis. I did note that the strongest lead was not followed up on properly and there were a number of errors made in double checking information and unlikely theories were pursued that may have badly effected the investigation. I have seen this quite often with cold cases, so I don't get that upset with detectives; they are doing their best with the training they have and I do believe they wish to solve their cases.

However, in the Superbike case, there was an overfocus on the unknown customer in the shop and Sheriff Wright kept saying over and over that this was the guy who committed the crime. Yet, there was not one shred of evidence to support this person's involvement while much evidence pointed to another individual. When I questioned Wright as to why he thought it was this guy, he told me that the individual never came forward to the SCSO and let them know it was him. I laughed and said, "I don't think I, myself, would come forward! I would think I would be accused of the crime!" Wright told me the citizens of Spartanburg were of a stellar type and would definitely come forward. I asked him if he thought someone with a concerning criminal record would be willing to put his neck in the noose and he said he believed that even someone with a criminal record would come forward. I was not sure what world Sheriff Wright lived in but I found it rather rose-colored-glasses-ish to think this way.

But, I didn't belabor the point. I gave my final analysis to the SCSO and left town. I never contacted media and I never told the family what my profile included. I kept quiet until Sheriff Wright made this statement three years later:

In March of 2012, Sheriff Chuck Wright said on the killings were, "probably one of the most gruesome, horrific crimes committed in our county."

With a new sketch released, Wright said they wanted national media attention because someone out there had to know the person. He said that because the customer was never identified and never came forward as a witness, deputies believed he knew what happened.

"This fellow will tell us exactly what happened in the shop that day," said Wright.

In other words, he said he was the killer. And this was a blatant lie since there was no evidence at that point in time to support such a claim. I, therefore, made a public statement that there was no proof that the man in the composite was the killer. Sheriff Wright then spoke out on television and claimed I had no inside knowledge of the case and only knew what I had "read on the Internet." I followed that up with some posts concerning the case which indicated I did indeed know more than what I read on the Internet. It was my hope at this time to encourage the families and citizens not to accept lies from their public servants and get Sheriff Wright removed from office. I had hoped a new sheriff might move the case forward based on evidence and there might finally be some progress.

However, nothing came of my stand and I said no more until recently in 2016 when Todd Kohlhepp suddenly came out of the blue and "confessed" to the Superbike crime.

I was stunned, to say the least. And confused. A serial killer that is also a mass murderer? That would be one for the history books. It isn't the way serial killers behave. An angry customer? There were no known angry customers except for a slightly peeved final customer that tragic day but that man wasn't Kohlhepp. There had been no angry phone calls or angry visitors to the establishment in the days or weeks or even months leading up to the mass murder. Todd Kohlhepp made no sense except that Sheriff Wright was up for re-election in the next few days and the Superbike case had been an albatross around his neck; could Todd Kohlhepp simply be a convenient patsy? 

And what would be his motive to kill four people in cold blood? Eventually, the story came out - or should I say two stories came out (both obviously from Kolhepp or the police but not from true witnesses). One, that he bought a bike from the store and the people there laughed at him when he fell over while learning to ride and, two, that he bought the bike, it was stolen, and they laughed at him when he came back to buy another. Both stories are pretty unimpressive as a motive for murder but add to that six months passing between the time he bought the bike to when he supposedly gunned everyone down and it is even more shaky. I guess one could conjecture that he came back six months later to buy another bike and he was the man in the composite and he was laughed at once more but it still seems quite unlikely that one joke would inspired Kohlhepp to come back an hour later and mow everyone down who worked in the shop. Yes, he is a psychopath and a killer but it is still a pretty lousy motive.

But, where is the evidence that it is him? So far, there is no physical evidence but it has been claimed by the SPSO that Todd Kohlhepp knew things only the killer could know. I found that odd since pretty much everything about the crime had been on the Internet - on Geraldo, on Ameria's Most Wanted, on Crime Watch Daily and on my blogs and other's blogs. But, then 48 Hours had Melissa Brackman (Ponder) receiving a call from Detective LaChica of the SCSO in which it is said he stated that Todd Kohlhepp knew something only the killer would know, that ALL THE VICTIMS WERE SHOT ONCE IN THE FOREHEAD.

FOREHEAD? I was stunned again. True, THAT piece of information had never been made public. 

Lead investigator, detective William Gary with the Spartanburg County Sheriff’s
Office, said the caliber of gun used was a 9 millimeter and that a number of shots
were fired with few misses.

“The person that did this was very accurate in their shooting. They had at least two
moving targets, possibly three,” Gary said.

One theory is a “disgruntled customer” murdered the four people out of revenge. The
show said there was speculation the shooter was a professional hit man. After the
victims were shot, investigators say that the murderer circled around and shot each
of the victims in the head, execution-style.

Okay, so the SCSO did say they were all shot in the head execution style but never mentioned there were shot in the forehead. So, if it was true that all the victims were shot in the forehead and Kohlhepp knew this, then, indeed, he knew something that had not been made public.

The only problem with this is "it is NOT true." NONE of the victims were shot in the forehead. So why is Kohlhepp saying this (unless he just guessed and guessed wrong and, therefore, is NOT the killer) or the SCSO is making this up to get the public to believe that Todd Kohlhepp really is the killer?

If this case is plead out, if Todd Kohlhepp admits guilt and the case never goes to court (saving Kohlhepp, perhaps, from the death penalty, and saving the families from the trauma of reliving the crimes), then no evidence will ever have to be publicly presented to prove Kohlhepp is the Superbike killer.

Something is very wrong in Spartanburg and the citizens need to find out exactly what it is.

For more on the case: None of the Superbike Victims were Shot in the Forehead

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

November 21, 2016