Pat Brown is a nationally known criminal profiler, television commentator, author, and founder and CEO of The Sexual Homicide Exchange (SHE)
and The Pat Brown Criminal Profiling Agency.
Pat has provided crime commentary, and profiling and forensic analysis in over one thousand television and radio appearances
in the United States and across the globe. She can be seen regularly on the Cable Television news programs MSNBC, CNN, and
FOX, and is a frequent guest of Nancy Grace, America’s Most Wanted, and The Montel Williams Show. For four seasons,
Pat Brown profiled crimes on the weekly Court TV crime show, I, Detective. Criminal Profiler Pat Brown is the host of the
2004 Discovery Channel documentary, The Mysterious Death of Cleopatra. In the spring of 2006, Pat went inside one of Florida’s
maximum-security prisons to interview a child murderer for the new Discovery Channel series, Evil Minds. She is the author
of Killing for Sport: Inside the Minds of Serial Killers (2003), and a contract writer for Crime Library. Pat contributed
special feature content included in the 2005 home DVD edition of Profiler: Season Two and the 15th Anniversary Edition, 2006
DVD release of Quentin Tarantino's crime classic, Reservoir Dogs.
Through The Sexual Homicide Exchange, Pat has developed CAPTURE
(Coalition for Apprehending Predators Through Utilizing Resources Effectively), a serial homicide investigation methodology
and training program for law enforcement. Since 1996, SHE has offered profiling and investigative services at no charge to
law enforcement The Pat Brown Criminal Profiling Agency provides crime scene analysis and behavioral profiling to prosecutors,
defense attorneys, media, and international clients.
Pat Brown holds a Masters Degree in Criminal Justice from Boston University.
Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: "The Moment Madeleine Was Taken",
04 October 2007
Thursday, October 4, 2007
One has to be careful
when analyzing from a distance if a particular person or persons is exhibiting guilt concerning the commission of a crime.
Until there is hard physical evidence linking a perpetrator or perpetrators to a crime, the case is tried in court and a conviction
is handed down by a jury or judge, all is still speculation.
I am asked over and over if I think the McCanns are guilty of the disappearance
of their daughter Madeleine. I always answer that I cannot say for sure because at this point I haven't a clue as to the veracity
of any of the information coming out of the European tabloid machines. I have to say I have been rather appalled by any media
spawning so many "facts" that turn out to be just hearsay. It is not like proposing a theory: speculation is not claiming
knowledge and is not lying, but stating something is a fact when it is not, is egregious and the media should not be doing
Let's look at the supposed facts: if the DNA from Madeleine in the hire car exists,
the McCanns are guilty as hell. If there is blood from Madeleine on the stairs, this only proves she was injured but not by
who. If there are sedatives in her hair, this is pretty damning. So much for the "facts." Let's turn toward the McCanns and
their behaviors. Behavioral evidence is not conclusive evidence. It is useful in determining investigative avenues to focus
on and interview methodology. It is circumstantial evidence and can lend weight to a case in court but rarely can stand alone
without physical evidence to support guilt. As a criminal profiler, behavioral evidence is extremely important in analyzing
any case and advising police investigators of its meaning within the context of the case.
The McCanns narcissistic behavior is concerning, but they could be narcissistic
people who have had they child abducted. One thing I have learned about the family of victims of horrible crimes; whatever
you were like before your loved one went missing is exactly what you are like afterward. You don’t change. So, if you
are a really aggressive person before the crime, you are likely going to be aggressive afterwards and fight to see the crime
solved. If you were extremely passive before the incident, you might simply allow the police to do the work and hardly lift
a finger. If you were a soft touch previously, you may sob your way through a television appearance. If you were a tough cookie,
you may come off as a cold, uncaring, and possibly guilty of wrongdoing.
The McCanns appear pretty narcissistic in their behaviors after Madeleine's disappearance.
They worry about their physiques, their clothing, hair, and jewelry, and they like a lot of attention. But, this is exactly
how they were before Maddy went missing, so I am not surprised they are acting this way. Their rather off-putting behavior
does not mean they are guilty of anything more than child neglect.
But, I have been going back over the actual interviews of Gerry and Kate McCann
and one statement sticks in my craw and bugs the devil out of me. It is the one thing that makes me lean toward their guilt
even without any physical evidence. This is what Gerry said:
"We felt our actions were responsible. We were essentially performing our own
baby listening service although we have talked of the guilt we felt at not being there at the moment Madeleine was taken."
Maybe Gerry just misspoke. Maybe it is similar to the ear pulling thing he did
when he denied that he and Kate gave Madeleine sedatives; maybe his ear just itched at that moment and he wasn't lying. Maybe
it is like when they left their twins to jet off to see the Pope claiming it was no big deal because their children were in
a safe location, the very same town the abductor of their other child might still be loose in; that statement doesn't necessarily
mean they know that no real kidnapper is out there. Or when Gerry said that he and his wife Kate were "100 per cent confident"
of each other's innocence," maybe this strange wording for parents who child is abducted while they spent the evening in each
other's company, maybe I am reading more into it than is necessary. So, maybe this particular statement of Gerry's is also
just an odd choice of words. It doesn't prove guilt. But, it does continue to force me to look at them as suspects in the
real meaning of the word.
It is not because he and Kate still think that leaving their children alone is
not wrong. We know they have never felt leaving tiny toddlers to fend for themselves constitutes neglect. They have said that
over and over. Clearly, they are never going to accept responsibility for their horrendous actions that night. But, firstly,
what Gerry admits in that statement is they were only "listening" at the door, not looking in to see if their children are
all right. If they are not actually observing their children, they would not know if they were sick, injured, or missing from
the room. Gerry has moved away from saying they actually checked on their children to some rather vague "listening" methodology,
perhaps, one so distant, that he meant they were close enough that they should be able to hear one of the kids if they left
the room screaming for them. Not only that, Gerry basically admits the window for "kidnapping" Madeleine is a whole lot larger
than thirty minutes. She could have been "taken" five minutes after they left the children in bed if they never "saw" them
again until Kate finally decides to not just listen at the door but actually look in on her children. But, more importantly,
if Madeleine actually died during the time of the "listening" checks or her body removed during the time of the "listening"
checks, it behooves the parents to carefully skirt around having to lie about "seeing" Madeleine earlier during the evening
via visual checks on the children.
But, even this bit of information is not the big problem. It is the very last
part of the sentence that rings warning bells to me:
"….although we have talked of the guilt we felt at not being there at the
moment Madeleine was taken."
First, let's look at what Gerry McCann did NOT say:
"We are horrified that we left our little girl alone and made it easy for a predator
to kidnap her."
Okay, that statement would be normal for a nonnarcissit and one who accepts responsibility
for their actions, so maybe we shouldn't think Gerry would say that. But, one might think he should have at least said this:
"..although we have talked of the guilt we felt at not realizing it was unsafe
to leave Madeleine alone and because we were naive, we feel guilt that Madeleine was taken while we innocently left her unattended."
This would be a pretty good statement, but, wait, I have to say, again, they
are too narcissistic to admit to this large a mistake, so I would guess this is why Gerry didn't say that either. BUT, let's
see examine what Gerry REALLY did say and why it is important and very concerning.
"…the guilt we felt at not being there AT THE MOMENT MADELEINE WAS TAKEN."
First of all, Gerry, IF one of you had been there with Madeleine, there would
be NO MOMENT WHEN MADELEINE WAS TAKEN. It simply could not have occurred. If one of you had been there, either the abductor
would have simply turned around and given up the idea or you would have fought with the abductor to save Madeleine. She could
NOT HAVE BEEN TAKEN if you were there.
Let's analyze further. There are two very important words here: MOMENT and TAKEN.
First of all, Madeleine couldn't have been taken in a MOMENT by an abductor.
It would have taken quite a few moments to grab the child out of the bed, struggle with her, climb out a window, and carry
Secondly, she wouldn't have just been TAKEN. She would have been ABDUCTED, STOLEN,
TAKEN is an interesting passive word. Theoretically, it could just be Gerry and
Kate trying to feel less guilty about a child predator abducting a screaming and terrified Madeleine. Maybe the word, TAKEN,
just feels less awful. But, then again, maybe TAKEN is what they really mean. Maddy may have been taken from life and Gerry
and Kate may feel guilt over the MOMENT that occurred. Alternatively, if they really did have help moving her body and Kate
really did scream "THEY have taken Madeleine," maybe they feel guilt over not being there at the MOMENT Madeleine was TAKEN
from the room and hidden elsewhere. Perhaps, this is exactly why no one was supposed to look in on the children and why the
doors were left unlocked. Maybe, the "feeling" Gerry has that a man was in the room is accurate because he set the whole thing
up. But I digress.
If the MOMENT refers to a time when Kate and Gerry were off partying and Madeleine
suffered a serious injury from falling down the steps or had overdosed on sedatives, they might feel guilty they were not
there at that MOMENT because as doctors, had they been there at that MOMENT, they might have been able to administer medical
care and save Maddy's life. Gerry then would be admitting that MOMENTS do count and leaving your child unattended for even
a MOMENT can effectively contribute to the child's death.
Worse yet, if the McCanns were there when Madeleine died and Gerry is referring
to feeling bad about not being there the MOMENT her body was moved, then one of them killed her in a fit of rage or overdosed
her with sedatives before going out for the evening. This parent clearly would not be viewing themselves at fault for the
incident and the other parent is one heck of a pushover and enabler. This can happen when one of the couple is desperate enough
to stay in the relationship, protect one's professional life, or keep a perfect social or personal image. Considering the
great deal of minimization the McCanns have done since their daughter went missing, it is really not that big a stretch to
imagine one of them acting in such a fashion.
Regardless of which scenario might be true, I think Gerry may have told the exact
truth with this statement: that he and Kate DO feel guilty for
"… not being there at the MOMENT Madeleine was TAKEN."
Does the fact, and this is an actually fact, that Gerry says he and his wife
feel guilt over not being there at the MOMENT Madeleine was TAKEN– does this statement of Gerry's mean they are guilty
of Madeleine's disappearance?
No, but it sure doesn't help me spend a lot of time looking harder at Robert
Murat and if there is much more damning information from the interviews with the McCanns, their friends, the employee of the
hotel, and the physical evidence then we know of, one can't blame the Portuguese police for not spending much time looking
at him either. They would only be looking for Madeleine's body or enough other physical evidence to charge the McCanns in
the death of their daughter and subsequent obstruction of justice in hiding their daughter's body and misleading the police
If the McCanns are innocent of having anything to do with Maddy's disappearance,
I feel sorry that they have had to suffer all the allegations on top of the anguish of losing a daughter. However, I feel
much sorrier for Madeleine, who would have had to suffer through a horrible sexual assault and a violent end to her life because
of willful neglect of her parents.
The McCanns are reaping what they sowed and there are responsible for the results
of their actions. They only anger they should express is towards themselves, not the police or public trying to find out what
happened to Maddy, and the only horror they should feel should be at their own actions and the horrible hurt it brought to
their innocent little girl.
But the McCanns apparently feel negative emotions toward themselves over only
"…not being there AT THE MOMENT MADELEINE WAS TAKEN."
Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
Note: It is also interesting that Gerry used the past tense of 'FELT', when talking about guilt, rather than
the present tense of 'FEEL'. This appears to suggest that guilt was FELT at that MOMENT Madeleine was TAKEN but
is FELT no longer.
We would, perhaps, have expected Gerry to say: "...the guilt we FEEL at not being there at the moment Madeleine
Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Another "Ludicrous" Theory in the Disappearance of Madeleine
McCann, 08 October 2007
Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Another "Ludicrous" Theory in the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann The Daily Profiler
Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
Monday, October 8, 2007
A short time ago, I made a suggestion that the British police might investigate the McCann's residence (and the residences
of friends and family of the McCanns) for the possibility that the body of Madeleine McCann might have been transported into
England. Some folk immediately labeled the theory ridiculous, or ludicrous, as the McCanns would say. How, they asked, could
the McCanns carry a putrefying and decaying body in a suitcase and get it on and off of an airplane? I understand that this
sounds mighty foolish to many who don't work in the field of criminal investigation and profiling and they think Pat Brown
is a nutcase par excellence!
Let me clear up a few misconceptions: first of all, it is a theory, not a fact. Secondly, a theory is useful to stimulate
investigative avenues not yet thought of that might lead to evidence that would otherwise have been overlooked. Third, offering
one theory does not mean it is the only theory or even the best theory. It is far more likely that Madeleine's body is somewhere
underground in Portugal or Spain or in the ocean. These are simpler places to bury a body. It may be that the body has just
not yet been discovered. This is very often the case; while rumors and theories abound about white slavery and porn rings
and sightings are made of the victim all over the world, the body of the poor thing has simply been lying in a ravine for
the past few months! Sometimes bodies fall into strange and difficult places or are well-buried for years. Then, one day a
jogger trips over the body or a farmer turns over some soil to plant his corn, and, voila! The victim has been found.
Maddy McCann will likely be found in a similar way (unless someone did one heck of a job of hiding her). Whether a child
predator took Maddy or the parents did her in, she will probably one day just be found. However, there is nothing wrong with
being proactive and trying to find her sooner than later. Therefore, the police should follow all leads and theories. IF they
find her sooner, than not all the evidence with the body or within the body will have been destroyed by time and nature.
So, search in Portugal and Spain and any other place one can think of. And, yes, search in England: Maddy just might
Would it really be possible for one of the McCanns to cart the body of their daughter back to England? Yes, absolutely.
Because of the climate in Portugal, it is possible that should they have buried Maddy in a shallow grave in a sandy substrate,
her body would have mummified. Mummification is a desiccation of the corpse where the fluids drain into the ground and the
rest of the body dries up. There is relatively little odor associated with a mummified body.
If this occurred, the body would be easier to transport; it would be lighter and drier and lacking the horrible smell
of a corpse. Such a body could easily be placed in a sealed bag and placed in a suitcase. Screening of stowed luggage is not
likely to uncover a body inside of a suitcase and when the traveler reaches the other end and goes through customs, they enter
the "Have nothing to declare line," and just walk through (unless they exhibit concerning behavior that raises a red flag
and launches a search of the luggage). As to the McCanns, I seriously doubt they were searched upon arrival, not with all
the press surrounding them and the mass of curious onlookers, reporters, and VIPS lurking about.
IF the McCanns were involved and IF Maddy's body was brought home, when this would have happened is another question.
Unfortunately, only those inside the organization would (we hope) know the truth about the McCann's movements. For example,
Gerry McCann returned to England on June 19, just four days after an exhaustive search for Madeleine was called off. This
search was in an arid, desolate area (the kind of climate which might encourage the mummification of a body) near a town called
Odiaxere. A letter from an unknown sender had stated she could be found there in a shallow grave. Four days later, Gerry is
on a plane home. I don't know if he took any luggage with him, anything more than a rucksack (which I don't know the size
of). He only stayed for the day, purportedly to attend some meetings. He claims he had his wallet stolen while getting money
from an ATM and later that evening, the wallet was mailed back to him. A rather peculiar story that I wonder might not be
a cover for the reason he was late to his meetings; he ostensibly spent the time calling credit card companies to cancel his
If I were the police investigator, I would follow up this lead. I would want to know what luggage Gerry took with him
to England. I would try to see if there was any proof to the wallet theft story. I would find out if he had any "alone" time
on the trip. I would find out if he made those phone calls to the credit card companies and if he really got money from an
ATM. I would find out exactly where he was that day through any evidence of his movements (phone call tracking, receipts,
witnesses, etc.). I would want to know if anyone met him, especially anyone who he could have transferred a package from one
suitcase to another.
I would check all the McCann trips and look for possibly ways for them to transport a body away from Portugal. And, again,
I would look for all possible places within Portugal or neighboring countries as possible places to hide or bury a body. I
would check the possibility of a burial at sea.
If I were the Portuguese police, I would be following all leads, even those that lead away from the McCanns. It never
hurts to be thorough. The point is to recover Madeleine, dead or alive, and bring justice to those that hurt her. In the end,
it doesn't matter which theory is correct (except as an educational tool for future investigations). It only matters that
the case is solved.
Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Open Letter to Kate McCann, 24 October 2007
Criminal Profiler, Pat Brown
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
As a criminal profiler, I have also sometimes been
criticized for theorizing about a case I have not personally been privy to the actual facts from inside the investigation.
As I do a lot of television commentary, this is quite often the case for me; I only can theorize based on the "facts" outlined
by the media. Therein lays the difference between public speculating and true criminal profiling as part of an investigative
team. The latter is going to be one hell of a lot more accurate!
Still, all is just theory until the crime is solved. Everyone doing the analyzing and paying attention to
this theory and that knows that any "determination" is only based upon the validity of input. The only harm theorizing can
do is if the police detectives theorize incorrectly about the evidence or bring in an expert who theorizes incorrectly and
bases the entirety of their investigation decisions on this particular theory. If, on the other hand, the theory is accurate,
then the investigative avenues will be pursued correctly, or, if the theory is interesting but not necessarily correct, the
police will pursue a number of investigative strategies to cover all bases.
Are the PJ doing this? I haven't a clue. I cannot assume they are any way inferior to other police departments
in the UK or in the US or elsewhere in the world. Each department consists of individuals and it is a roll of the dice as
to how good these particular individuals are at investigative work. I remember when Natalee Holloway went missing in Aruba,
folks from the fine state of Alabama accused the Aruban authorities or incompetence and shouted how if Natalee had gone missing
in the United States the case would have been solved quickly. Bunk! We have an ungodly high rate of unsolved murders and missing
people here in the US, a good number of them right in Alabama. Fact is, some cases are hard to solve and some cases have detectives
who are all that bright. Other cases have better evidence or top notch detectives. It isn't a perfect world.
So, what do we know so far in Maddie's case? Not much. We have zero clue about the evidence or the veracity
of the witnesses. All we really have so far are the unvarnished public statements by the McCanns and I don't mean the ones
reported by the media in print as those can be misstated by the journalists (and I know this because I often quite displeased
when I read in print some completely twisted version of what I told the reporter).
So, all we can truly be sure of is what the McCann's have stated on television or radio or in Gerry's blog.
Even their PR team's information is a bit questionable if we can't hear it being said.
Before I comment further, I want to reiterate that the McCanns, while suspects in the disappearance of Maddie,
are not legally charged with any crime. Therefore, they may be totally innocent of hurting Maddie in any way. But, I will
also say, we as adults and members of the human race are also responsible for the way we behave and the things we say, so
we must also take responsibility for the way other view us.
Therefore, based only on what the McCann's said or written. I have some advice for the McCanns. SHUT UP! I
have some advice for their PR team. Tell the McCanns to SHUT UP!
OPEN LETTER TO KATE MCCANN
It isn't your breast size or weight that is causing your problems. It is you and your narcissist evaluation
of the situation and your PR team's equally stupid assessment of the situation that is making you look so bad in the public
I am a criminal profiler with years of experience dealing with parents of murder victims and missing relatives.
Your behavior and the behavior of your husband fall far outside or the norm for grieving parents. Now, this may be because
you are just terribly narcisstic folks who had nothing to do with your child going missing (outside of neglecting your children
and putting your needs to party before their needs for comfort and safety, a narcissistic behavior if I have ever seen one).
You and Gerry may simply be so narcissistic you have no understanding of how other people view your behaviors and your PR
team may share your narcissism so that no one on your team has a clue to normal human behavior.
But, SHUT UP! Every time you open your mouths you do more damage to yourselves. You seem guiltier by the day.
Your attempt at "damage control" is so obvious and so very much a day late and a dollar short, everything you do or say seems
a cover up and a transparent attempt at proving your innocence.
Let me make clear what I think is weird about what you say and do:
You choose words about Madeleine's disappearance which make it appear you know there is no abductor and that
Madeleine is dead.
Both you and Gerry state your only guilt in the matter is not being their when Madeleine "was taken." This
statement makes no sense for abduction as Madeleine could not be taken if either of you were with Maddie when an abductor
would have shown up. It makes more sense in the context that Maddie died while you were not in the apartment.
Your statements and attitude about Madeleine being alive do not square with parents who really believe their
daughter is in the hands of a pedophile or pedophiles who are brutally raping and torturing her daily.
Your attempts at "finding" Madeleine do not represent the manner most parents would choose if they were actively
searching for a live child but appear more to be the actions of parents trying to prove after the fact of a child’s
death that they "cared" (not care) about her.
Your behaviors of "keeping a normal routine" and "keeping up one's appearance" is admirable, but extremely
bizarre. I don't know any other parents of missing children who can appear so together and cheery. When my daughter cooked
our kittens by accident in the dryer, I cancelled Christmas.
Gerry's blog creeps people out. It is too upbeat. Terrified and distraught parents of missing children are
rarely able to jog and play tennis and go to park with their other kids and have a fun time. Over a long period of time, maybe,
but this is usually years after the nightmare begins. Some parents never recover from the trauma and it is common for marriages
to fail and the brothers and sisters to feel their parents went absent after their sibling went missing.
Your ability to sleep at night after the first five days, Kate, is beyond belief. It is the behavior of one
who already knows the answer and even then, is quite a narcissistic trait. If you believed your daughter was being raped as
you lay in bed at night, sleep would be very hard to come by. I guess you finally realize this and your mother is saying that
NOW you can't sleep and Madeleine comes to visit you in the night. What changed, Kate?
Your PR team coming up with an answer to every accusation, answers that are ludicrous in themselves, makes
you seem awfully defensive, and, if there is no way you or Gerry had anything to do with Maddie's disappearance, you have
nothing to defend. Furthermore, if all you care about is finding Maddie, you shouldn't be wasting your time on such silliness.
After all, as Gerry said, Maddie is the only important thing, right?
So, SHUT UP, Kate. SHUT UP, GERRY. Fire your PR
team as they are totally worthless. If both of you really are innocent and you think Maddie is alive, return to Portugal.
Start searching for real (and it took six months to set up a hotline?). Cooperate with the police. Take the polygraphs as
you have zero to hide and, with competent polygraph examiners, the questions are so simple you can't screw them up. I will
even give you the four questions that should be asked:
"Did Madeleine die while you were present?"
"Did you return to the apartment and find Madeleine dying or
"Did you move Madeleine's body at any time?"
"Did your spouse move Madeleine's body at any time?"
These are simple questions. The answer to all of them should be "No." There is no ambiguity in these questions
(unlike a question such as "Do you feel responsible for the disappearance of Madeleine?" which you could if you acknowledge
leaving her without an adult caretaker is irresponsible; an affirmative answer to such a question would be useless to the
detectives as it could falsely indicate that you had something to do with Maddie going missing when you are only feeling guilty
over leaving her unattended. Also, an affirmative answer could mean you simply do not feel responsible for what happened to
Maddie no matter what happened to her as a total narcissist might).
The above four questions are simple and unambiguous
and even a narcissist can't misconstrue the meaning of the questions. The answers will be a simple "Yes" or "No." Have the
polygraph session videotaped so the police will be unable to do any underhanded scare tactics or interrogation that might
distort the results of the tests.
Quite frankly, Kate, you and Gerry had everything going for you as parents of a missing
child if you hadn't left your children unattended night after night to go out partying. THIS is what made people dislike you.
It was to your advantage that you are both relatively attractive people because IF you had big breasts and a porky physique
and were not well-heeled professionals, you would have become suspects right off the bat and you would have not had the incredible
monetary support you have been blessed with nor all those kindly letters. You would have been viewed as just a pair of slobs
who probably abused their children as well as neglected them and you wouldn't have gotten the phenomenal amount of publicity
worldwide concerning Maddie's disappearance. Other parents have gone public, run campaigns, and had web sites, but your fortune
with publicity and support has been unprecedented. And, you complain, Kate, that people are treating you badly because you
are fit! It was being fit and professional and well-off that got you so much attention. It was you and Gerry's fitness as
parents and your peculiar behaviors that got you the negative attention.
I have a final suggestion. Ask the PJ if I can come analyze the case. My organization will send me pro bono.
As a criminal profiler I can analyze the actual evidence to advise the investigators as to the best investigate strategy.
I have no problem determining this crime as an abduction and finding the creep that took Madeleine if the evidence points
that way. I don't have to like you and Gerry as people to view the evidence in an impassionate and professional manner. No
one should be convicted of a crime simply because of personality and because people don't like the individual's personality.
Solid physical and circumstantial evidence must exist to the point where there is no question as to who committed the crime.
I would work very diligently to assist the PJ with the evidence and the facts and do a thorough crime scene analysis that
would move the case forward.
Furthermore, if you and Gerry get charged in Madeleine's disappearance and must truly
defend yourselves, my services are available to you and your lawyers. I will be more than happy to analyze the evidence and,
if you are innocent, do all I can to serve in your defense.
Good luck, Kate. May the truth be brought to light soon
and you and Gerry get the justice you deserve in the case of your missing daughter.
All the best,
Profiler Pat Brown
Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Why Does Kate McCann not make a Plea to Maddie's Captor?, 25
Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Why Does Kate McCann not make a Plea to Maddie's Captor? The Daily Profiler
Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
Thursday, October 25, 2007
In the recent interview with the parents of Madeleine
McCann, Kate McCann states she believes Madeleine is alive, essentially unharmed, and being cared for in someone's home. If
Kate really believes this, then there is a glaring omission in her use of the media.
It is extremely abnormal for a mother who thinks her child has simply been taken by some lonely person and
being cared for in a nice, little house to not reach out to that person with a message, over and over again. After all, this
would be one way to get your child back. Here is how that kind of message usually goes:
"If you have Madeleine, please return her to her family. I know you may love having Madeleine with you but
her Mommy, her Daddy, and her sister and brother are in great pain being separated from her. Please, please, let us have her
back. Please take her to a public location where there are lots of people around like a McDonalds or a library or a hospital
and drop her off. You can do this anonymously so you do not have to worry about being noticed. We are not interested in having
any action taking against you; we just want our little girl at home with us. Thank you for taking good care of her and please
send Madeleine back to us."
But, instead, no plea to her captor? Very, very bizarre.
Which remind me: I have never heard of an expert telling parents to be unemotional in a plea to a kidnapper
so as not to amuse them. Personally, I have to say most pleas are a waste of time and will have no effect on a psychopathic
kidnapper. But, if one wanted to make a plea because one really believed the abducted child was not already dead or being
tortured in a dungeon, that the child was with some nutty woman who just had to have the pretty little thing, then an emotional
plea would be just the thing to try to jog the woman's conscience to return the child.
Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Who Should be the Suspects in the McCann Case?, 26 October
Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Who Should be the Suspects in the McCann Case? The Daily Profiler
Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
Friday, October 26, 2007
MY PRESENT TAKE ON THE MCCANN CASE
One of the problems with trying to understand what has happened in a crime is being on the outside of the
police investigation and not knowing the whole truth of what is going on. My speculation, as is true with all of us outside
the investigation, professionals included, is based on limited information. Having said that, sometimes the police have the
same problem. They may have limited information due to lack of evidence, lying witnesses, incorrect scientific conclusions,
altered crime scenes (staged or accidentally altered), etc. So they actually are in the same boat, only a better constructed
and less leaky one.
So, in a sense, it is a struggle to solve a crime, from the inside or outside. We theorize, search for evidence,
theorize some more, search for evidence, and so on, until, hopefully, we have evidence conclusive enough to affect an arrest
and conviction. Sometimes the evidence never reaches that state and, even if the police are pretty darn sure who is guilty,
they still cannot arrest them or they know they cannot get a conviction.
As to the professionalism of the PJ's investigation, I cannot comment on that. They may have failed in some
respects and done well in some respects. I don't have enough information. Generally speaking, most police departments will
claim they do an excellent job following procedure, but in reality, sometimes it is less than perfect because police officers
are human and vary in skill and competence. I have worked with some police departments that have done awesome work and others
that make me cringe. Sometimes it is a lack of finances; sometimes it is departmental inefficiency; sometimes you just have
a sad bunch of not too bright blokes. Every profession suffers these problems. Every profession tries to do their best with
what they have and most police departments want to be a credit to their profession and work to be so.
To the McCann case; I don't have a clue as to the physical evidence or timeline because of police silence
and all the rumors. Therefore it is really hard to actually analyze how the crime went down. But, I will go ahead with what
I generally think on the matter.
POSSIBILITIES IN THE DISAPPEARANCE OF MADLEINE MCCANN
• Maddie is unlikely to have wandered off and drowned.
• Maddie was unlikely to have been kidnapped
by a pedophile ring.
• Maddie is unlikely to have wandered off and been abducted though that COULD have happened
(if there is no physical evidence of harm or death coming to Maddie in the apartment). If this is true, she is very likely
• Maddie could have been abducted by a child predator that lived nearby. If this is true, she is likely dead.
Maddie could have been medicated and died accidentally while her parents were at the restaurant. If this were true, the body
of Maddie would have had to be moved from the flat and hidden or hidden within the flat prior to Kate's cry that Maddie was
missing. If this is true, Maddie is dead.
• Maddie could have died accidentally prior to the McCann's going to dinner,
giving them more time to move or hide Maddie's body. The time at the restaurant and the checks on the kids would establish
an alibi and move the time of "disappearance" further from any possible witness sightings of earlier suspicious activities
of the McCanns. If this is true, Maddie is dead.
• Kate killed Maddie, purposefully, or in a rage, and Gerry came
back from tennis and found Maddie dead. He helped cover up the crime. If this is so, Kate would likely suffer from Munchausen's
syndrome by Proxy (if she killed Maddie on purpose – MSP is the label for a female psychopath who harms or kills her
children; husbands of MSP women tend to be detached and very oblivious or accepting of their wive's behaviors) or another
serious psychiatric disorder (if she killed Maddie accidentally). They could have removed or hidden Maddie's body before going
to dinner or the body could have been dealt with by Gerry during his checks on the children. If this is true, Maddie is dead.
Gerry came back and killed Maddie in a rage. If this is so, Gerry would be likely rate high on a psychopathy checklist and
be very controlling). Maddie's body would have been dealt with before or during the evening. If this is true, Maddie is dead.
Kate killed Maddie, purposefully, or in a rage, and moved or hid her body without Gerry's knowledge. She would have had to
manipulate Gerry into not noticing his daughter in bed ("Maddie's already asleep, let's go") before going to the restaurant.
She would then possibly have hoped Gerry would do the checks and find Maddie missing, distancing herself from the crime. Maybe,
if Gerry actually didn't do visual checks, Kate finally got fed up and went and did the check herself. If this is so, Kate
would likely suffer from Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy or another serious psychiatric disorder. If this is true, Maddie is
These are all the possibilities I can think of based on very limited information,
I believe only two basic scenarios are worth spending much time on;
Maddie was taken by a child predator.
Maddie died in the apartment and the parents are covering up a crime.
both cases, Maddie is likely dead.
Robert Murat is a good suspect. He should be kept on the suspect list (even if not officially) until there
is evidence that contradicts his involvement in the disappearance of Maddie or until another person is arrested.
Police should continue investigating for the possibility of another child predator who could have been responsible
for the disappearance of Maddie.
The McCanns are good suspects. They were the last people to have been known to see Maddie alive and their
behaviors are very concerning. They should stay on the suspect list (even if not officially) until there is evidence that
contradicts their involvement in the disappearance of Maddie or until another person is arrested.
Because of the following behaviors, I tend to lean toward the McCanns been involved with the disappearance,
and therefore, death of their daughter, Maddie.
They left three very young children unattended while they pursued pleasure for themselves. This is a sign
of narcissism and a lack of attachment to one's children.
Both Kate and Gerry speak about Madeleine in a very impersonal and flat manner. Gerry writes nothing personal
about Maddie on his blog. Maddie seems more like an abstraction than a real child. This is a sign of lack of normal attachment.
Kate states that the last words of Maddie before she went missing were "Today has been the best day of my
life." Maddie's last words are unusual for a three-year-old girl. Kids that young don’t usually have a concept of their
"life." "I am having the best time," and "I am having fun" are more normal statements for that age. Next, Kate says Maddie
was "very pleased with her life," also an odd comment for an adult to say of her child. Both statements lead me to believe
Kate knows Maddie is dead because of her emphasis on the inclusion of the word "life," as though there were a set of parentheses
around the first day of her life and the last. Kate may want to convince herself that she gave Maddie a good life, right up
until her last day, the best day of her life. Also, it is quite common for people involved in the death of a relative to exaggerate
the perfection of their relationship or the last moments to insinuate that nothing negative was going on between the parties
and, therefore, nothing untoward could have occurred.
The McCanns have never personally offered the reward on television or posted the reward at the web site. Almost
all parents of missing children do this.
If Kate really believes Maddie is alive and being cared for in someone's home, she would make continual direct
pleas to the captor for Maddie's return ("Please just drop her off any public location…"). Almost all parents of missing
children who believe they are alive will do this.
Neither Kate or Gerry have taken or indicate they will take a polygraph. Parents of missing children do this
to clear themselves so the police will not waste time focusing on them.
Kate and Gerry appearances show little fluctuation in emotion (except when they feel they are being accused
of drugging Maddie). Neither breaks down and cries or blurts out anything with emotion ("Maddie! We love you, honey! Don't
give up! We will find you!" Or "Please give us our Maddie back! Oh my God, please!") Usually in a set of parents, we will
see emotions bounce around, one of them falling apart, one becoming angry; with the McCanns their answers are carefully constructed
and evenly relayed. Their appearances feel more like performances than parents desperately trying to reach out to their child,
the kidnapper or the public. Yes, they are British, but even a stiff-upper lip tends not to look like this under these circumstances.
There are muted flashes of anger, frustration, and annoyance directed from one of the McCanns to the other
during their interviews which is very unusual for parents of a missing child. There is a strong feeling of control rather
than support between the couple.
Gerry McCann commented in one interview: "In about the middle of June things, about five or six weeks, things
were going really very, very quiet and I was actually quite glad of that and I thought we would start to get back to a more
normal existence and a quieter form of campaigning, using the Internet and raising and broadening the political issues which
have been highlighted to us and I saw that as a long term focus."
For a parent to have any interest in political issues so soon after his child has gone missing when the one
and only concern should be finding their loved one, is extremely bizarre. That Gerry should see his long term focus at this
point in time as a political one is also very concerning. This statement would be less concerning if a few years had passed
and the McCanns, accepting they were likely never to find their daughter, wanted to do something to help others not suffer
as they had and to do something in their daughter's name. But, to think this way so early on indicates Gerry believes or knows
his daughter is dead and indicates more self-interest than interest in his daughter's welfare.
Gerry's blog focuses very little on Madeleine and more on his and Kate's activities. The cheery quality of
the blog and self-centeredness of the content is a sign of disconnect between Gerry and Madeleine and a sign of having moved
on as if Gerry knows Maddie is already dead.
Kate states she had trouble sleeping during the first five days after Maddie went missing but has been sleeping
fine since. Very few parents of abducted children can sleep very well knowing their child might be in pain, crying, and scared.
Kate's ability to sleep infers she is not worrying about Maddie because Maddie is dead already (or has an inability to feel
empathy for others).
The quick return to normal activities is unusual for parents of abducted children; most obsess continually
and can't think of anything else and have trouble going through the simplest routines of life.
Kate and Gerry left their twins in Portugal while they went to see the Pope. Most parents of abducted children
would be paranoid to be away from their other children for fear something would happen to them. Furthermore, to leave your
children in the exact location where your other child was taken, whether one had a relative with them or not, is odd for parents
who believe the abductor of their missing child is in the very same vicinity.
The McCanns left Portugal as soon as they became Aguidos. If the only reason they were made suspects was a
legal one so the police could ask them important questions to help them clear themselves, they should have stayed to continue
to help the police put the matter straight and get the focus off of them.
Much of the PR campaign at this point appears to be responding to public opinion and trying to answer their
suspicions about the innocence of the McCanns, not finding Madeleine. Even in the latest move, the television appearance of
the McCanns did not make a plea to the abductor or send a message to Maddie. It appeared to be a show to prove Kate has emotions.
Following the show, an artist's rendition of a supposed suspect was released many months after he was said to have been seen
by one of their friends. The release of the picture will be counterproductive to actually finding Maddie, as not only is it
based on a very questionable witness sighting, but may have nothing to do with Maddie. Such a picture will only elicit droves
of worthless tips and waste police time. This is an unwise choice of strategy unless the purpose is to distract the police
from focusing on the McCanns.
It is possible that the McCanns suffer from certain psychiatric designations that causes them behave in a
manner which makes then look guilty of involvement in the disappearance of Maddie when in actuality, they had no part in it.
For this reason, I can only say, they are good suspects; I cannot label them guilty.
So, to recap, Madeleine McCann is 99% likely to be dead. My top suspects at this point, based on behavior
and what information can be validated, are the McCanns. If I were a criminal profiler working with the police on the case,
I would be focusing heavily on them as my investigative focus. However, I would not rule out the possibility of a child predator
and, therefore, I would spend a portion of time pursuing leads and information that might prove this possibility to be true,
and I would make sure I did not force fit any evidence to match my theories nor ignore any evidence that might point me away
from those theories. As new evidence surfaced, I would take this into account, reanalyze the information, and adjust my conclusions
I hope we will see progress soon in the investigation of Madeleine McCann's disappearance, so the whole matter
can be put the rest and justice will be seen for this little girl and those who love her.
Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: What do Frozen Turkeys have to Do with with Missing Persons?, 05
Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: What do Frozen Turkeys have to Do with with Missing Persons? The Daily Profiler
Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
Monday, November 05, 2007
I was reading through some posts concerning the Madeleine
McCann case and there was much speculation on where little Maddie's body could have been hidden, kept from decomposing, transported,
and disposed of, should the parents be involved in her disappearance. Meanwhile, Stacy Peterson, the fourth wife of a police
officer, has gone missing in Illinois and her friends and neighbors are combing the area for her body and police are dredging
local ponds. If her husband killed her, where would he be likely to put her body?
It is an unpleasant, if not horrifying
thought, to imagine someone handling a corpse, especially one that might be a child, one's own child. What kind of mind can
deal with disposing of a body, especially the body of a person who is an intimate part of your life? What happens in the brain
that would allow someone to do some of the things we have seen before like dismembering a body or carrying it about it in
stages of decomposition? The concept is so foreign to many people that they dismiss certain scenarios as impossible because
they cannot conceive of doing such things themselves. They are unfamiliar with how another who is perhaps narcissistic or
psychopathic and also possibly desperate can actually do pretty gruesome stuff with a person they once supposedly loved or
cared for. Yet, the reality is that some people can indeed do such things.
For this very reason, an investigator cannot
rule out bizarre possibilities when trying to locate a missing person. Many factors might play into what was done with a body.
First of all, how the person was killed may affect choices. Is there a need to mask the cause of death or to destroy particular
evidence of the implement of death? Is there a need to cover up prior physical or sexual abuse issues or drug issues? Any
evidence the killer feels might identify him as the offender might cause the killer to destroy the body or parts of the body
or work harder to make sure the body is never found.
If the killer is not afraid of being linked to the crime by relationship,
location, or evidence, the body may easy to find, lying on the side of the road in plain view or left at the scene of the
crime, perhaps in the victim's apartment.
So, when a missing person is suspected of being dead, the detective must
thoroughly investigate the victim's life and those people involved in it. The answer to where the body lies may be within
the details of the victim's life and relationships.
Stacy Peterson's body is likely going to be as hard to find as
Lisa Stebic's. Stebic's husband says he sympathizes with Stacy's husband because he knows how it feels to have a wife go missing
and everyone suspects the husband had something to do with it. My guess is he can relate how nerve-racking it is to hope the
searches never come near where one put the body.
So someone wrote that they wondered whether Madeleine's body could
be stored in a freezer. Many bodies have been kept that way but it usually requires a stand-alone freezer (one of those big
storage types) and not a side-by-side in the kitchen (unless one is dismembering the body as well). If there was not one in
any of the resort apartments (and it does seem unlikely that type of freezer would be present), her body would have had to
be stored in a private home. The next question might be how long it would take a body to unfreeze. I looked up turkeys and
some of the big one's take four days! I find that rather interesting in the sense of possible DNA in the McCann's hire vehicle
meaning a frozen body transported to another location shouldn't unfreeze in that short a time to leave DNA and hair. I don't
find myself particular convinced of the freezer theory because of lack of freezer space available in the resort rental units
and the theoretical DNA in the hire car.
So, if the McCann's were involved and there was really DNA in the hire car,
I would lean more toward the possibility her body was in a shallow grave in a drive sandy area and moved when it was feared
the searches would locate the body. The decomposition would likely, in that climate, to cause mummification, a drying of the
body, making it less difficult to move, but not making it impossible for evidence of that move to be left behind by stressed
out and panicked participants.
If it turns out the McCanns had zero to do with the crime, the body is either on private
property of a pedophile (which would tend to eliminate Murat) or, the body is in the ocean and will never be found.
will be interesting to see if Maddie is ever found what methodology the guilty party or parties used to prevent discovery
of a body and any evidence.
BTW, for those of you who think Lisa Stebic, Stacy Peterson, Natalee Holloway, and Madeleine
McCann are really alive, I applaud your sense of hope. I am a lot more cynical, and though there is occasionally a miracle
or surprise ending, chances of anyone of these four missing persons showing up alive is near zero. The two married women had
children they loved and husbands they were afraid of. This equation usually means the disappearance of the wife is the result
of a husband offing her. And Natalee and Madeleine were both blonde, but sex rings can find lots of blondes without resorting
to high profile kidnappings that might expose them. Natalee and Madeleine have almost zero chance of being found alive.
just hope, then, that we can at least find out what happened to them and see that justice is served.
Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: McCann Detective 100 Percent Full of It, 20 November
Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: McCann Detective 100 Percent Full of It The Daily Profiler
Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
either are the most naïve people on the face of the earth or they
are playing a very expensive and wasteful publicity game with the donations from kind folks who only want to help a little
child be found.
Those Spanish investigators, The Metodo 3 agency,
are crooks, plain and simple. They are milking this case for the money it is bringing in. They have a six month contract and
stated that they would surely find her within five months (not one month - as that would end the cash flow all too quickly).
Francisco Marco, who heads the team of Spanish private detectives: "We're 100 per cent sure she is alive. We are very close
to finding the kidnapper."
What a lying scumbag! First of all, the only way, Mr. Marco, you can be 100 per cent sure Madeleine is alive
is if you have her locked up in the basement of your house and you fed her this morning. This would mean you are a kidnapper
and a pedophile. Is this what you are claiming, Mr. Marco?
If not, you are a despicable, money grubbing creep of another sort. If the McCanns came to a decent private investigator for an investigation, he would tell them right up
front the chance of finding their daughter alive are near zero. He would tell them that should a local pedophile have snatched
Maddie, she would have been killed within hours. If a pedophile ring had snatched Maddie, she would have been dead as soon
as you started your campaign with her eye anomaly being broadcast to the world. He would tell them that if he started searching
for a hidden Madeleine and broadcast his every move as to where he thought she was, then Maddie would surely be dead by the
time he reached the location to retrieve her. He would tell the McCanns
that the most he could do is review the police investigation to make sure they hadn't
missed anything and follow up on truly rational leads that had been ignored and overlooked. He would tell them he might be
able to find out what happened to Madeleine and help bring the guilty party to justice, but the chances of bringing Madeleine
home alive were extremely unlikely.
So, why have the McCanns hired this fraud? Are
they being conned by Mr. Marco or are they using Mr. Marco to con us? Is it all for show and distraction or are the McCanns really innocent of hurting their child and are so desperate they
will fall for the worst excuse for a private detective agency I have run across in a long time?
Gerry and Kate, fire them if you want to be responsible adults. Stop using the public's money for your charades,
either to impress us with your sincerity as to not knowing what happened to Maddie, or to fool yourselves into believing she
is alive if you are being sincere. At least pay for this idiot with your own money, if you want to play this silly game.
Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: The Last Photo of Madeleine McCann: Fact or Fake?, 22
Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: The Last Photo of Madeleine McCann: Fact or Fake? The Daily Profiler
Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Some people think that the final photo of Madeleine
McCann at the pool with Gerry and her sister, Amelie, is a forgery.
The claim is that the photo really was only of Gerry and Amelie and that Madeleine was added in through photo enhancement,
a ploy to cover up the fact she was already dead by early afternoon on day she was said to have gone missing.
I have to admire the effort to consider this possibility and the effort put out to analyze all the details
of the photo and question some of the elements. It is always good to be curious enough to delve into an aspect of a case and
see if there could be any clues there.
In this case, I would have to say the explanations of the photo being a fake are not strong enough for me
to believe that Maddie's death/disappearance occurred earlier than 6 PM in the evening.
My thoughts on the photo:
1) While it is true the picture is not perfectly composed with a centering of the threesome (and if Madeleine
is not in the picture, then Gerry and Amelie are in the middle), this is not all that uncommon. With the advent of electronic
photography, photos are snapped much more carelessly than when one had to pay for developing the prints. Cameras now are used
more often as spontaneous recorders of events rather than composed photos for display.
2) That Madeleine's outline is not overlapped by any person or object is likely just coincidence. If one snaps
enough photos, some of them will have isolated objects.
3) The fact the brother is not in the photo simply means he was running about. Again, this is not a posed
4) The fact Madeleine is laughing at something out of sight and her father and sister are not laughing is
not particularly meaningful. Children tend to laugh spontaneously at whatever they think is funny. Sometime this is just something
that strikes them amusing such as their big toe or an expression on someone's face.
5) The fact that Madeleine is not in a swimsuit proves little. The outfits on the girls look like play outfits
and the trio just happened by the pool area and sat down to relax and dangle their feet in the water.
6)The most telling clue in this photo that tends to go against the possibility of any forgery is in the clothing
of Madeleine and Amelie. Take Maddie out of the picture and what you have is a little girl dressed in a horribly clashing
outfit; an orange play suit and a fancy pink hat. Mothers do
not tend to put such an outfit on their children and let them out of the house that way (especially a mother who is as fashion
conscious as Kate). Maddie's white hat would look better with her clothing.
The sportier white hat on Madeleine's head does not clash with her girlier
pink dress-like outfit, but that pink hat on Amelie's head would go with it better. Put the two girls together on an outing
and my guess is they started off with the better matching hat, and through play, the girls ended up with the other's hat on
It really makes little sense that this photo would be manufactured. If Madeleine had been missing for the
majority of the day, there would be far too long a period of time to account for and greater likelihood that Maddie's invisibility
would have been noticed. Furthermore, if she was killed in the morning, it would have been far easier for the McCanns to simply claim that while they were out at the playground or popping in and out of stores
while they were shopping, they turned around and Maddie was gone. It is a much simpler story.
But, if Maddie died in
the apartment while Gerry was at tennis, or after he came back, or during the tapas bar rendezvous, then the children were
already in for the night and the chances of an abduction from the apartment story being created makes far more sense.
Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
How to Become a Suspect 101, 19 October 2009
How to Become a Suspect 101 WomenInCrimeInkBy Pat Brown
MONDAY, OCTOBER 19, 2009
When a cable-news show host asks whether a particular character should be a suspect
in a crime we're discussing, I talk about behavior, traits, or circumstances that might draw the attention of police.
Sometimes I get mail from people who believe someone I or the police have named as a possible suspect is being unfairly targeted.
Others want to know why I don't jump to name someone they're sure committed the crime. And sometimes I'm
just playing devil's advocate when I see red flags being ignored or getting too much attention.
Red flags -- certain behaviors or traits of a person or the circumstances surrounding them,
are just that: indicators that the person should be looked at more carefully as a potential suspect in a crime, but not considered
guilty unless other evidence supports the accusation and the accusation is proven in court.
Four cases come to mind as examples in this class of How to Become a Suspect 101:
The Quantico Marine case of 1983, the bizarre Madeline McCann case, the Haleigh Cummings saga, and the recent Balloon Boy
This is the No. 1 issue that will get you in trouble and
connect you to a crime, whether the bad luck just happened to you or you created it by actually being the perpetrator. Richard and Miyumi Heene called 911 in a panic because their six-year-old son, Falcon, was supposedly
aloft in a balloon Richard made, drifting across the skies in a silvery flying saucer-shaped airship. Later, the child was
found to be hiding in the house and ignoring the shouts of searchers. The police say they are filing charges because the spectacle
was a publicity stunt and the child was never in the balloon.
The incident occurred at the Heene residence. There was no one around but the family,
and the balloon belonged to them. Either the kid was being a naughty boy and the parents got in trouble because of him, or
the parents are lying.
Cpl. Lindsey Scott was in investigations at Quantico Marine Base (book about his ordeal available
at Amazon) at the time a young
woman was raped and her throat cut. His bad luck: the victim described her attacker to a sketch artist and when the drawing
was complete, Lindsey Scott's workmates said, "Wow! That looks just like Scotty!" Scott also drove a gold Buick;
although it didn't have the white top the girl saw on her attacker's car, it was still the color and make she described.
When Haleigh Cummings (on left below with the various suspects) and Madelaine McCann went missing, they disappeared
from locations where their parents were supposed to be. Misty Croslin, Ronald Cummings's underage girlfriend who watched
his kids while he worked, claims she was asleep when someone came into the house and snatched the child from the bedroom she
shared with the children. Maddy McCann supposedly was taken while her parents left the child alone with her younger siblings
and went off drinking at the resort restaurant.
In all these cases, particular individuals are now linked with each crime. These persons-of-interest could
have been involved.
Okay, so they could have done it, but did they? Do they have alibis which will clear
them? Lindsey Scott admits he wasn't at home when the victim linked to him was attacked. Scott was out and about, going
back to his recently vacated apartment to clean an oven (no one saw him) and looking for a foot bath to buy for his pregnant
wife (no one really remembers seeing him in the store).
Misty Croslin claims she was sleeping, which isn't
much of an alibi; Ronald Cummings claims he was at work, but there is no proof the crime couldn't have been committed
before he went to work.
The McCanns (pictured left with Madelaine in the red circle) were the last
people to be with their daughter before they supposedly left her unattended and available to be taken from their room at the
resort. The Heenes were home with their children when the boy supposedly climbed into the balloon, or the boy pretended he
went up in a balloon and hid in the house. No one has a particularly good alibi.
The Heenes are publicity seekers who have already done one reality-TV show: an episode of "Wife
Swap." Richard Heene, who met his wife in acting school, was pitching producers for a new show for his family just before
the balloon incident, suggesting he might have been trying to get attention. But Heene has behaved so bizarrely in raising
his children -- chasing tornadoes with them and letting them be extremely adventurous and curious -- that on this particular
day maybe the kids just outdid themselves.
Misty likes to use drugs and party. She hooks up with an older man,
Ronald Cummings, and plays Mommy to his two little children. Cummings has a questionable history of drug involvement and a
controlling nature. So it's easy to think Misty may have been out partying, the child ingested drugs, or Misty might be
covering for Ronald if he beat the child to death before he went to work.
The McCanns left their three children
alone in a hotel room so the couple could have fun. Automatically this awakens suspicious of what else they would do, such
as give the kids prescription medicine (both parents are physicians) to make them sleep while the parents were away.
Lindsey Scott is the only one who doesn't have any questionable past behaviors.
The Heenes were more than eager to do television appearances. Richard Heene said, "Wow!" and
then hung his head when his son Falcon blurted out on "The Today Show" that he hid because "They were doing
a show." No longer so hungry for the public eye, Heene became angry at the cable networks for asking questions and insisted
all future questions be in writing.
The McCanns never showed remorse for leaving their children unattended. They
dressed nicely every day and continued normal routines such as jogging. Kate McCann said she never had problems sleeping after
Maddy "was taken."
Misty Croslin couldn't keep her story straight about the night Haleigh went missing.
Ronald Cummings boldly told reporters he has never been involved in drugs despite his long list of drug arrests. Ron and Misty
married soon after Haleigh went missing, as if this were a time to celebrate. No one can tell me they had to get married at
that time: they were already living together, so the sanctity of marriage doesn't seem to be an issue.
Scott's behavior remained credible after the crime.
Heenes will most likely be charged with more than one crime, possibly including contributing to the delinquency of a minor
and making a false police report. I will be curious what actual proof police have that the balloon episode was a hoax. Richard
Heene's behavior sure looks squirrelly, and the kid rather outed him (As Art Linkletter said, "Kids say the darndest
things."), but Falcon may not have meant what he said exactly as it sounded. That's why police must have more evidence:
conflicting stories, something on the computer, maybe even notes detailing a "story" of a little boy going off in
a flying saucer balloon.
McCanns nor the Croslin/Cummings duo have been charged with any crimes, yet no evidence in either case points to abduction
by a stranger. Because the parents have no alibis and their behavior is questionable, both in the past and after the crime,
they remain suspects to some degree. So until evidence shows up to convict them or someone else, we will have to continue
to wonder about their guilt.
Poor Lindsey Scott. He got convicted of the crime and spent four years in Fort Leavenworth
until he got an appeal and was freed for lack of evidence. Truly, he got a bad deal. He became a suspect because the victim's
info matched him and his car and because he couldn't account for his time. Nothing was questionable about his behavior
and no physical evidence linked him to the crime. Since his release, another suspect has come into view: he is a drop dead
look-alike to Scott, he was driving a gold Buick with a white top during the time of the crime, and he had a cousin who maintained
the usually locked area on the base where the victim was taken.
I don't have a problem with the Heenes, the
McCanns, or Misty Croslin and Ronald Cummings being suspects; they should be. However, the investigation of Lindsey Scott
should have been downplayed until there was more evidence that made him look a whole lot worse. Of course, none should be
convicted without substantial evidence proving that they, and only they, could have committed the crime.
the possible involvement of these people shouldn't even be discussed, because we are in effect convicting them without
a trial in the court of public opinion. This is ridiculous; we can't convict someone with an opinion or a speculation.
Of course, we must be careful not to slander or libel someone by making claims about the person (creating "facts"
that do not exist based on guesswork) or stating they are guilty instead of hypothesizing that they might be guilty. People
are responsible for their behavior, and it's not illegal for someone to discuss it in public, (even if it is somewhat
gossipy). We all make choices in our lives, and our choices follow us. If they lead the public and the police into suspecting
we are involved in a crime, we are responsible.
Good behavior won't always protect us (look at Lindsey Scott's
unfortunate incarceration), but it should give us better odds of avoiding becoming a criminal suspect -- and the talk of cable
Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day:
Why was my Madeleine McCann Book Banned?, 30 July 2011
|Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Why was my Madeleine McCann Book Banned? The Daily Profiler
By Pat Brown
Five weeks after my book, Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann went up on Amazon, it vanished. I didn't receive word from Amazon that they were going to take it off the market nor did I receive word
that they had taken it off the market. I learned of its disappearance from someone who went to buy it. I sent Amazon an email
and receivde a vague response from someone without a last name (isn't that always the way they do it these days?) who
told me the book had been removed from sale for "legal conflicts." I asked for clarification of said legal conflicts
and I received this email:
We have received a notice of defamation from Carter-Ruck Solicitors
that says the content of Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann (UPDATED) B0055WYVCQ, contains defamatory statements regarding their clients, Gerry and Kat McCann.
Because we have no method
of determining whether the content supplied to us is defamatory, we have removed the title from sale and will not reinstate
it unless we receive confirmation from both parties that this matter has been resolved.
Carter-Ruck can be reached
6 St Andrew Street
London EC4A 3AE
T 020 7353 5005
Oh, I see, Robert with-no-last-name. Amazon was threatened by the McCanns' legal team and Amazon preferred
to drop my book rather than face a lawsuit for selling possibly libelous material. Now, I know a lot of people have become
very angry about this, that anyone can just send a threat to Amazon about another person's book and without a shred of
proof, the bookseller pulls if off the market. It does seem rather unfair; the McCanns do not have any paperwork proving my
work is libelous nor are there any court actions against me and, simply at their word, my book is axed.
is the rub, actually. Amazon is a business and they do not by law have to sell anything they don't want to sell for whatever
reason (garbage, pornography, libelous material, etc.). Of course, their customers can show their wrath over their choice
to not include a book in their store by taking their business elsewhere (which some have done due to the removal of my book)
or by giving them a lot of heat in the media.
To be fair to Amazon, I will say, there is a new problem with self-published
books. There is no protective layer between the author and the bookseller as there has traditionally been with an actual mainstream
publisher. When I sold The Profiler: My Life Hunting Serial Killers and Psychopaths to Hyperion Voice, their lawyers went over every detail with a fine tooth comb and I had to send in all of my files to back
each and every case in the book, in spite of the fact I used pseudonyms for everyone. By the time Amazon stocked the book
in their online store, they knew the publisher had done its job and if anyone would then be sued it would be Hyperion and
me. But, with my self-published book, they have no idea if what the McCanns say is true or not and, if it turns out the McCanns
are correct, they might end up in a court themselves. As business people going up against one of the biggest libel attorney
practices in the world, Carter-Ruck, they simply thought cutting me loose and getting a bit of bad press and angry emails
was the lesser of two evils.
My book is now at Barnes and Noble and Smashwords (50% of royalties earned to go to the Madeleine Search Fund for Praia da Luz, Huelva, and Rothley) among a few other online
venues. It will be interesting to see if these outfits also cave to any threat by the McCanns and their solicitors. In the
end, the issue remains between the McCanns and Pat Brown and a court of law should either party wish to go there as to whether
the Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann is libelous or their claims that my book is libelous are libelous!
My opinion? My book includes the facts of the case from the police
files and the words from Kate's book, Madeleine, and the words of the McCanns from their radio and television interviews.
From these facts, I lead readers through the various possibilities of what these facts might tell us and what hypotheses we
might develop. In the end, I offer the most plausible theory I have derived from the known public facts. Clearly, it is not
a theory the McCanns like and a theory they do not want people to read. I find it rather fascinating that they went to Amazon
and had the book removed; this behavior in itself is very suspicious to many people. They believe the McCanns do not want
my theory to be considered, that there is something in it that makes them very nervous, and there is more to their getting
my book banned at Amazon than not liking stuff someone said about them because it wasn't complimentary. If I am just a
nutter and my theory is rubbish, they should have rolled their eyes and laughed it off.
Now, I am sure we will
see comments here that will say, "Aw, come on, Pat, the reason the McCanns don't want your crap book out there is
because it is libelous, you accused them of murder or of covering up a crime, and you based your 'theory' on tabloid
information." I will counter by saying no where in the book do I accuse the McCanns of a crime - other than leaving their
three tiny children unattended and defenseless - and my theory is not based on the tabloids. Since my theory is an opinion
to which I am entitled and because my opinion is based on facts (I am not making some outlandish off-the-wall accusations
I took from psychics or Internet gossip) and because the McCanns are very public figures, I see nothing in this book that
is libelous and, therefore, I have no problem sharing my profiling theory with the world.
If the McCanns are innocent
of covering up a crime (following an accidental death), they should view my theory as a reasonable opinion as to what could
have happened, but, simply know that, regardless of the strange happenings that would have led to such a hypothesis, this
is simply not what occurred. The fact that there is no proof of an abduction - and this is a fact - does not mean an abduction
could not have taken place. But, because there is no proof of an abduction , the McCanns
should well understand why they might be considered persons-of-interest in the disappearance of the daughter, Madeleine. They
should also recognize that their commission of child neglect also might make them persons-of-interest. In other words, rather
than sue and threaten everyone with a theory that they, the McCanns, might be involved in the disappearance of their child,
a more normal response would be to simply understand why someone might think that way and deal with it.
the McCanns could return to Portugal and clear up the matter. Kate could answer the questions she refused to answer as an
Arguido, they could do the reconstruction, and they could take polygraphs. If they pass the polygraphs, the answers make sense,
and the reconstruction clears up what actually happened on May 3, they could stop all the speculation about themselves. But,
as long as they refuse to cooperate with the Policia Judiciaria in Portugal, they have no one but themselves to blame for
alternative theories to the abduction theory they would like us all to accept.
More to come on this matter! Tune
in Sunday, July 31, at 8 pm est on Websleuths Radio, Wednesday, August 3 at 12 midnight est on The Jim Bohanon Show, and August 4 at 9 pm est on The Levi Page Show.
Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
Freedom of Speech, the McCanns, and
Searching for Maddie, 06 November 2011
By Pat Brown
I have been getting a lot of questions about my search fund to be established with monies from the
sale of my book, Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Some of the stuff certain folks are saying is seriously ridiculous, so I thought it best I make a clear statement with simple
points they can understand.
1. I am not giving or receiving any monies from the McCanns' search fund.
2. At present, 50% of monies received from the sale of the Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann will go to the Pat Brown Maddie Search Fund. The other 50% earned from the book is income, not donations. I am selling a
product and do not have to donate all earnings (or any) to charitable causes (however, I do pro bono work on other cases as
there are OTHER missing and murdered children and adults than Madeleine in this world, so part of my earnings through any
means funds this). I have chosen to donate 50% of the book's earnings to my Maddie search fund since she is the focus
of this book.
3. The Pat Brown Maddie Search Fund monies will be not be spent on a personal salary (any time spent
will be pro bono). Monies will be used for expenses related to doing a search: travel, equipment, hiring of local PIs, or
bringing in experts.
4. If I can cover any search expenses by another other method (media, work in the same location,
etc.), then I will do so. I always endeavor to always keep costs low when I do pro bono work so that the funds will stretch
further: inexpensive hotels, staying with local people, cheap meals, etc.). If I choose to spend above the cheapest rate I
can achieve, I pay out-of-pocket.
5. The Pat Brown Maddie Search Fund will be transparent with all monies earned
on the book tracked, all monies put into the account tracked, and all monies spent tracked. A full account will be made to
the public of everything associated with my fund and my searches.
6. The Pat Brown Maddie Search Fund has no connection
with the McCanns' search fund and the McCanns have not given my fund any endorsement. However, it would seem to me if
I search in previously untargeted places and either locate Madeleine or eliminate those possibilities, then the search is
nothing but beneficial to the McCanns and is following in the spirit of "Leaving No Stone Unturned."
There are four theories as to what happened to Madeleine which influence how one searches for the child; whether one thinks
she is dead or alive.
One:, the child died accidentally in the apartment in Praia da Luz and there was a cover-up;
then we are looking for a dead child in Portugal, Spain, or England.
Two: a local pedophile abducted Madeleine;
then we are looking for a dead child in Praia da Luz, Portugal or nearby.
Three: A woman wanted a little girl and
got a man to kidnap Madeleine. Then we are looking for a live child somewhere in the world.
Four: A pedophile sex
ring kidnapped Madeleine and she is being raped and abused on a continuing basis. Then we are looking for a live child somewhere
in the world.
Now, as one only has limited funds (even the McCanns, although they have been quite hefty), it behooves
one to put the strongest efforts into the most likely scenario. If the McCanns were not involved in any way (other than neglect)
in the disappearance of their daughter, they ought to be using kindhearted people's donations in the most proper way;
looking for a pedophile who abducted, raped and murdered their little girl, get him arrested and convicted so that Madeleine
gets justice, and prevent another little girl from the same horrible fate. They should be putting a good portion of their
search and investigative efforts into locating a local child sex predator.
Why? Because the methodology and descriptions
of how Madeleine was supposedly kidnapped and by whom match a person from the area without even a vehicle to take her away
in. There is zero evidence of any fancy plot nor even a person smart enough to park a vehicle in the car park right outside
the window of Madeleine's bedroom in with which to make a quick getaway. Instead, we have the purported actions and descriptions
of some creepy, not-so-bright fellow walking down the street with a child in his arms in full view of everyone. The chances
of Madeleine being taken by a desperate wanna-be-Mom or a sex ring are minimal.
Should the McCanns still consider
these rare possibilities and still look for a living Madeleine? Well, I can't blame the McCanns (if innocent) for wanting
to believe their daughter is alive, so I can understand and accept that they want to put some efforts into that miracle possibility.
However, they should be honest enough and good enough stewards of donated monies I(if innocent) to admit the likelihood of
Madeleine being dead is very, very high and the likelihood of her being buried somewhere in Praia da Luz or environs is also
very, very high. Their efforts should be concentrated there, with some monies set aside for the miracle.
will be focusing on the two top theories; that Madeleine died in an accident and her body was hidden somewhere, or a local
pedophile took her and her body is buried locally. IF it turns out that I get ANY information that proves Madeleine was abducted
or if any evidence turns up that points to her murder by a stranger, this information will go straight to the police and the
McCanns. If Maddie was abducted and murdered by a child predator, I want justice for Maddie and I want that creep put away
and I want other children to be safe from him.
My theory as I laid out in my Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann is just that; a theory. If evidence surfaces that changes my view of what happened to Madeleine, I have no problem disclosing
this and adjusting my theory. Theories change based on available evidence; hence, they are called theories, not facts. Theories
often change over time, even those postulated by law enforcement and the McCanns. Even Kate admits in her book, Madeleine, her theories of what happened that night have undergone change as she has spent more time analyzing the evidence or after
receiving new information.
Why the McCanns had Carter-Ruck threaten Amazon with legal action
to get a theory removed from public view is curious as it is only a theory, an opinion, one person's take on probabilities
based on what is known at this point in time. Perhaps we will find out why they went to these lengths when the McCanns get
on the witness stand in a court of law (when my lawsuit for libel and tortious interference with business makes it to court;
I have retained prominent attorney Anne Bremner of Stanford Frey Cooper). Perhaps, then, they will explain why one person's opinion is so concerning they need to go to extremes to get have
Madeleine McCann is the most recognized missing child in the world, with the most media attention
of any missing child in the world. Unless I am mistaken, more money has been donated to finding Madeleine McCann than any
child in the world. My Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann should hardly affect such a large and successful (moneywise) campaign; so one wonders if the real issue the McCanns have
with my profile is that my theory might actually be correct.
I believe in Freedom of Speech. I don't object to the theories
of others on cases even if they differ from mine. I don't even object to someone analyzing my theory and writing their
opinion of it. I would never try to shut down their viewpoint (even when things are taken out of context and misrepresented
in some way); I merely suggest that interested people go to the source and compare the two viewpoints and think for themselves
about what theories and concepts are more supportable by evidence and logic.
The McCanns could simply have ignored
this profiler's opinion on Madeleine's disappearance or made a statement that they do not think my analysis is very
good. If the book was truly libelous as they claimed through their solicitors, Carter-Ruck, they should have informed me of
this or sued me directly. Instead, they went behind the scenes and had the book pulled from the market. Inquiring minds wonder
I will be in Portugal in February to support Detective Amaral's fight against the McCanns in court, to
begin search analysis, and to hear just what Gerry and Kate McCann have to say.
May the truth come out one day
and justice for Madeleine McCann prevail.
The Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann is available online through Barnes & Noble and Smashwords.
Are Cadaver Dogs saying You're Lying?,
13 December 2011
|Are Cadaver Dogs saying You're Lying? Women in Crime Ink
by Pat Brown
Tuesday, December 13, 2011 11:44 AM
Funny thing about those cadaver dogs; they haven't got a
bone to pick with the person being investigated, no interest in closing a case or in railroading anyone. They just do what
they have been trained to do. They may not be perfect in that they miss hitting on a spot, but they don't hit on spots
for no reason. They are trained to locate where dead bodies of humans have been, not live human beings, not dirty diapers,
not on a package of meat, nor a hundred other unseen types of biological items. There is only one thing that trips them up;
the body of a decomposing pig (because of the similarity it has to a human body). Unless you can prove you had a dead hog
lying about in you living room or in your car, the hit a cadaver dog makes is going to be on human remains. Actually, I am
the one of very few people who could actually have a cadaver dog hit in my house for that very reason since my beloved potbelly
pig, Gwendolyn, did indeed expire on my living room floor; however, most people can't make that claim.
Gerry and Kate McCann, parents of the missing child, Madeleine
McCann, dismiss the fact that Eddie, the cadaver dog, hit in their vacation apartment and in their rental car in 2007 (but
not in any of their friends' vacation apartments nor early suspect Robert Murat's house or property) as meaningless
because cadaver dogs are "rubbish." In that same year, a cadaver dog also alerted to the smell of death in Adrian
Prout's UK home after his wife, Kate, vanished. Although he claimed he was innocent and her body had not been found, Prout
was convicted. After having a fan club that protested steadily that Prout was railroaded, Prout confessed and indicated the
area where the body was buried; then more cadaver dogs helped police in the search and Kate's body was found on his farm.
Next we have cadaver dogs hitting in the case of missing baby,
Lisa Irwin, who supposedly was abducted in the middle of the night while her intoxicated mother slept. They hit on one spot
in the Kansas City home of the parents, Deborah Bradley and Jeremy Irwin, right on the floor next to the bed in the master
bedroom. Deborah, the mother, claims she changed diapers there, but if the dogs were hitting on dirty diapers in the home,
I would gather they would hit in more places than that one spot.
Now, cadaver dogs have hit again in a missing
child case. Two-year-old Bianca Jones went missing in Detroit on December 2. Her father, D'Andre Lane, who was babysitting
her at time, claimed on the day he was to return the child to her mother's home, he was carjacked at 10 in the morning
by two men with guns. Now, his story stinks worse than a decomposing body. First of all, the "carjackers" choose
him (a streetwise felon) driving a 1994 Mercury Marquis (not exactly a hot car from the most carjacked automobiles list).
Daddy, seeing two thugs are about to drive off with his little girl puts up no resistance. Instead he calls 911 and the police
go searching for the car.
Oddly, it is found just six blocks away (and one block from
Binika Jones' house, the mother of Bianca), with no child in it. So, let me get this straight. These two carjackers went
to the trouble of ousting D'Andre Lane from a car with a toddler in the car seat, don't take the car somewhere and
strip it, don't sell it, don't use it for committing robberies (a common use of a carjacked vehicle) and don't
take it for a joyride. They drive just six blocks and dump it. Maybe they didn't realize there was a child in it and,
therefore abandoned the car? Maybe, but then why would they take the child? The story blows. And so did Dre's attempt
to pass the polygraph. Not only that, but two witnesses saw the action: one saw D'Andre driving alone down the street
and the other, standing by a window overlooking the alley, saw Lane pull the vehicle into it and walk away. No baby seen with
him or in the car.
D'Andre Lane is swearing up and down he didn't have anything to do with his daughter
going missing, but everything about his story has been pretty much been annihilated by the circumstances and witnesses. The
cadaver dogs hitting in his apartment and in his car pretty much puts a bow on his story as being a crock.
Lane is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, but he isn't a suspect for nothing. In the words of Gerry McCann,
"Ask the dogs."
(left: cadaver dog hits behind sofa in the McCann's Praia
da Luz, Portugal vacation rental apartment. From police files.)
My ebook, Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann,
removed from Amazon following threat of legal action by Carter-Ruck on behalf of Gerry and Kate McCann, can still be found online at Barnes and Noble and Smashwords. Keep posted for news of my upcoming legal action with attorney Anne Bremner against the McCanns for tortuous interference with business and libel.
Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Why
Madeleine McCann is Likely Dead, 15 December 2011
Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Why Madeleine McCann
is Likely Dead The Daily Profiler
Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
December 15, 2011 1:23 PM
No one likes to think of an abducted child as being dead, least of all the parents.
Even detectives on a case hold out hope that a kidnapped juvenile will be found alive and returned home to his or her family.
Police officers deal enough every day with sad endings and they cross their fingers and hope that this time, they will save
a child's life, not find her skeleton in the weeds along the side of a road. They would like to triumphantly reunite the
child with her parents, not knock on the door and deliver the dreaded message to the poor mother and father.
then there is reality. Most stranger abductions don't end well unless you stop them in progress. Unfortunately, the statistics
out there on child abduction are vague and distorted. In spite of stranger child abduction being a major fear of parents the
world over, it is hard to the actual facts on the issue. Here are the only bits I could find on the statistics:
children were the victims of "stereotypical" kidnapping. (These crimes involve someone the child does not know or
someone of slight acquaintance, who holds the child overnight, transports the child 50 miles or more, kills the child, demands
ransom, or intends to keep the child permanently.)
46 percent of non-family abductions, the child was sexually assaulted. Of abducted children who are ultimately murdered, 74
percent are dead within three hours of the abduction
- 40% of children in stereotypical kidnappings are killed.
- 4% of children are never found.
- 79% kidnappings are carried out by strangers and 21% by acquaintances.
Okay, so what do we actually have here? Of the 115
stereotypical kidnapped children, a good portion of these are pre-teens or teens that sex predators took and killed or enslaved
as their little wives. A bunch are babies that some women wanted to pretend were their own. Some of these children were found
quickly, within hours, and were saved from a worse fate. Some were kidnapped by a close acquaintance who was angry with the
family for some reason.
Very few are toddlers or little girls from ages three to five. There seem to be no exact
statistics on the age of the children abducted, by whom, and what happened to them. So, in lieu of finding these, I put out
a challenge to the folks that believe statistics support Madeleine McCann being alive. I asked people to give me the names
of little girls who had been abducted by total strangers who were found alive after months or years. So, far I have had only
one name given to me; Tara Burke, a toddler who was found alive ten months after she was abducted by a sexual predator duo.
This crime was 29 years ago in 1982.
I can, however, name little girl after little girl who was abducted by a stranger
and was found dead in the following days, weeks, months, or years. But, so far, I have only been given the name of one child
victim over a period of three decades who was found alive. I am sure there are a few more but the point I am making is there
are incredibly few of these cases with a "happy ending" in comparison to little abducted girls who have been murdered
by their kidnappers. Yes, a few preteen and teen girls have been found alive after being abducted: Jaycee Dugard, Elizabeth
Smart, Natascha Kampusch - these girls were kept as sex slaves and were at an age the rapist viewed them as "young women"
who should enjoy being taught sex techniques and could learn how to please the captor. Little three-year-old girls like Madeleine
McCann are not going to do well in the "girlfriend" department and will lie there and cry and scream. Little girls
are raped and murdered almost 100% of the time. Sad but true.
Therefore, if Madeleine McCann was indeed kidnapped
by a stranger, there is very little possibility she was alive even three hours later. Does that mean a truly good tip should
be ignored that points in the direction that she is alive and held captive somewhere? Of course not. She could be the one
in whatever high number that wasn't murdered. But, detectives have to be realistic when it comes to using resources. They
can't waste millions of dollars and massive hours of manpower running down ridiculous sightings and unlikely scenarios.
Likewise, Gerry and Kate McCann should tell donators that, although they hope Madeleine will be the miracle child
recovered alive this decade, they recognize the chances of that happening are very, very slim. Then, if people want to contribute
to finding a perpetrator who might have taken Maddie and killed her (to get justice and save other little girls), they can
do that. If they want to give money in spite of the horribly poor odds of finding Madeleine alive, this is their choice. But
the McCanns should tell the truth and donators should know it.
The McCanns, if they didn't have anything to
do with the disappearance of Madeleine McCann and want to find her and who took her, they ought to be using donations to look
for a dead child in Praia da Luz buried in someone's backyard.
FAQ: Statistics for Missing Children missingkids.com
Child Abduction Statistics ABP World Group Ltd
Kidnapping Statistics Kids Fighting Chance
Crime Time with Vito Colucci (with Pat Brown),
18 December 2011
Crime Time with Vito Colucci (with Pat Brown) Business TalkRadio
Press Release: Cease-and-Desist Letter issued
to Gerry and Kate McCann, parents of Missing Madeleine McCann, 01 February 2012
|Press Release: Cease-and-Desist Letter issued to Gerry
and Kate McCann, parents of Missing Madeleine McCann Women in Crime Ink
Posted by Pat Brown at 8:55 PM
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Gerry and Kate McCann, parents of the missing Madeleine McCann, find themselves for the first time at the
other end of a potential legal action. Top defense attorney, Anne Bremner, counsel to the Friends of Amanda Knox and the families
of Rebecca Zahau and Susan Cox Powell, has issued a cease-and-desist letter (content posted below) on behalf of American criminal
profiler Pat Brown whose book, Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann was removed from sale by Amazon following
a claim by the McCanns that the book was defamatory. In recent years, the McCanns have instructed their solicitors, Carter-Ruck,
to send numerous cease-and-desist letters to people who have publicly questioned their possible involvement in their daughter's
disappearance nearly five years ago while on family holiday in Portugal.
Next week on February 8th, retired solicitor
Tony Bennett faces English prison as the McCanns' fight to shut down his efforts to bring focus to aspects of the missing
child case that point to the parents' possible involvement. Also, the McCanns have sued the detective on their daughter's
case, Dr. Goncalo Amaral, for libel and have had his book, Truth of the Lie, pulled off the worldwide market. The
trial is scheduled in Portugal for April. Now, Pat Brown has fought back for the cause of freedom of speech and justice, alleging
that the McCanns have interfered with her right to conduct business and have damaged her professional reputation with their
successful removal of her book from sale. On Monday, Pat will leave for Portugal to continue her quest for truth and justice
in the case of Madeleine McCann. The Find Madeleine Campaign operated by Gerry and Kate McCann has spent some 2.5 million
pounds on the supposed search for their daughter, Madeline, who vanished in Praia da Luz, Portugal while on vacation with
the family nearly five years ago and come up empty handed. Since last May, a 37-man team headed up by Scotland Yard has spent
1.5 million pounds on salaries plus many more pounds following up supposed leads with no sign of success. Altogether, four
million pounds has been forked out to locate a missing child with zero results. What, then, does American criminal profiler
Pat Brown hope to accomplish with her two week trip to Portugal, beginning next week on February 6, with her small band of
assistants and a few hundred euros of her own money?
She could find the truth. She could find Madeleine. She could
find nothing but at least she won't be costing the taxpayers millions or draining the pocketbooks of kindhearted donators
chasing useless leads.
Pat Brown will be following up on the theory she purported in her Profile of the Disappearance
of Madeleine McCann, her eBook which was pulled by Amazon at the request of the British solicitors Carter-Ruck on behalf
of Gerry and Kate McCann. Amazon was told the book was defamatory in spite of the fact Ms. Brown clearly stated facts in the
case, developed a theory based on those facts, and repeated numerous times that she makes no claim that the McCanns are guilty
of any involvement in their daughter’s disappearance (other than leaving three children unattended night after night
in the resort apartment). Since Gerry McCann clearly stated during the Levinson hearing, "I strongly believe in freedom
of speech" and "I don't have a problem with somebody purporting a theory," it is difficult to understand
why the McCanns wanted the book to be repressed except that it was selling well and that the theory she presented was being
considered credible by a number of readers.
During her trip to Portugal, Pat Brown will study the town of Praia
da Luz and environs, reconstruct the crime, and examine possible locations as to where Madeleine might have been taken, dead
or alive. If she discovers evidence to support a theory other than the one that was the focus of her book, she will pursue
that information. She is looking forward to meeting with Dr. Goncalo Amaral, the ex-detective on the McCann case. Meanwhile,
it is her hope and that of her lawyer, Anne Bremner, that the McCanns rethink their actions regarding the Profile of the
Disappearance of Madeleine McCann and instruct their solicitors to have Amazon return the book to the market (now available
at Smashwords and Barnes & Noble online).
For interviews and media appearances, please contact:
The Pat Brown Criminal Profiling Agency
Anne M. Bremner
Stafford Frey Cooper, PC
3100 Two Union Square
601 Union Street
Seattle, WA 98101-1374
Anne M. Bremner
Stafford Frey Cooper, PC
3100 Two Union Square
601 Union Street
Seattle, WA 98101-1374
February 1, 2012
6 St Andrew
London EC4A 3AE
Dear Ms. Duarte,
In July 2011, American criminal
profiler, author, and television commentator, Pat Brown, released on June 15, 2011 a self-published book of thirty-pages on
Amazon.com, Amazon.co.uk, and Amazon.de, for the price of US2.99. It was titled Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine
McCann, sold 850 copies over the next five weeks and garnered 49 nearly all five star reviews on Amazon.uk alone. Then,
the book vanished from sale on all three sites. Upon questioning, Pat Brown was informed by Amazon that they had received
a communications from Carter-Ruck on behalf of their clients Gerald and Kate McCann that the book was defamatory.
7/25/2011 7:27 PMThis
was quite a surprise to Pat Brown as she had never received any communications from the McCanns nor their solicitors concerning
any defamatory material in this book nor had she ever received any communication concerning any defamatory material in her
blogs on the case she has posted online at The Daily Profiler over the last four years. As Ms. Brown is an analyst of evidence,
she is careful to not state anything as a fact that is not a fact and to clearly state what is a hypothesis or a theory as
opposed to proof. She has publicly and repeated explained to anyone reading her analyses of crime that criminal profiling
is a methodology which explores the possible and theoretical scenarios that might be considered as logical based on evidence
connected with the crime - forensic, linguistic, or behavioral. Any findings resulting from investigative tools which are
not acceptable in certain courts of law (such as cadaver dogs or polygraphs) are noted as suitable for speculation, but not
as solid proof of anyone's guilt or involvement in criminal activities. Criminal profiling itself is an investigative
tool and not a finding of guilt as Pat Brown clearly notes in her book.
We have received a notice of defamation from Carter-Ruck Solicitors that
says the content of Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann (UPDATED) B0055WYVCQ, contains defamatory statements
regarding their clients, Gerry and Kat (sic) McCann.
Because we have no method of determining whether the content
supplied to us is defamatory, we have removed the title from sale and will not reinstate it unless we receive confirmation
from both parties that this matter has been resolved.
Carter-Ruck can be reached at:
6 St Andrew Street
London EC4A 3AE
T 020 7353 5005
Due to the speculative, if analytical,
nature of Deductive Criminal Profiling, the methodology used by Pat Brown, she was careful to repeat numerous times throughout
her publication that she was not accusing the McCanns of being involved in any crime or in the disappearance of their daughter,
Madeleine. She was clearly only "purporting a theory" and exercising "free speech," both manners of communication
Gerry McCann stated he strongly supported under oath at the Leveson Inquiry on November 23, 2011 in London:
would like to emphasise that I strongly believe in freedom of speech, but where you have people who are repeatedly
carrying out inaccuracies and have been shown to do so, then they should be held to account. That is the issue. I don't
have a problem with somebody purporting a theory, writing fiction, suggestions, but clearly we've got to a stage
where substandard reporting and sources, unnamed, made-up, non-verifiable, are a daily occurrence." Gerry McCannAs
Pat Brown also believes in free speech and the right to purport a theory, it would seem she and Gerry McCann are in agreement
that any work that purports a theory as opposed to false statements of fact is acceptable under freedom of speech. Pat Brown's
Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann opens up discussion of what happened to the McCann's daughter,
further stimulating interest in the case, and keeping Madeleine in the minds of the public. As the McCanns claim this is what
they want, Pat Brown's book is in accordance with this desire. In fact, it is the McCanns themselves who have clearly
encouraged massive interest and speculation on this case. Pat Brown is in no way, therefore, infringing on any wish to keep
talk about the case to a minimum.
By speaking and writing out quite often and in such a high profile manner, the
McCanns have succeeded in making Madeleine McCann the most well-known missing child in modern history (since the Lindbergh
baby in 1932). They have stimulated debate worldwide as to what happened to Madeleine. They have publicly purported their
own theories; that someone took Madeleine because they wanted to raise a child, that she is being held captive in a sex ring,
and that a pedophile had taken her. They have publicly disclosed many details of the case and repeatedly told their version
of what occurred before, during, and after the disappearance of the daughter. They have discussed their emotions, behaviors,
and opinions. Pat Brown is carrying on that discussion.
Utmost of importance in the entire matter, is the handling
and funding of child abduction cases, the prevailing attitudes toward these crimes, and the future of catching child predators.
Because the victims are so young and innocent, missing children are among the most publicized cases in the world. In the last
three decades with the increase of the Internet and the 24-hour news cycle, awareness of child sex predators and stranger
child abduction has radically increased fears of parents that their child will be taken and murdered. In reality, stranger
abduction continues to be exceedingly rare for children of Madeleine's age. Regardless, the paranoia that is engendered
when a small child goes missing is a great stress to the community, the police, and resources. Therefore, it is extremely
important that each and every case be properly analyzed and understood so that wrong ideas aren't promulgated and funding
and efforts are wasted investigating such crimes improperly. Each child that goes missing is a terrible tragedy for the parents,
siblings, relative, friends, and community. Pat has great empathy for any family of a missing child and, most of all, compassion
for the innocent young person who has suffered abuse, terror, sexual assault, and, possibly, an early death at the hands of
We are requesting that you respect Pat Brown's right to free speech and to purport a theory as Gerry
McCann has stated is not a problem for him. We request that the claim of libel be retracted for the Profile of the Disappearance
of Madeleine McCann and the book permitted to be returned for sale at Amazon.
Note: The addressee of Isabel Duarte (the McCanns' Portuguese lawyer)
later changed (02 February 2012) to Adam Tudor, a Partner at Carter-Ruck.
Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Occam's
Razor and The Madeleine McCann Case, 06 September 2012
Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Occam's Razor and
The Madeleine McCann Case The Daily Profiler
Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
Thursday, September 6, 2012 at 12:51 PM
The concept of Occam's Razor, that the simplest explanation
is likely to be true, is useful when analyzing the case of missing Madeleine McCann. With Scotland Yard having flushed millions
of pounds of British taxpayer's money down the toilet in an effort to promote the most ludicrous of theories (in complete
opposition to Occam's Razor), I want to step back to the night of May 3, 2007 and examine the simplest of answers.
Why did the McCanns leave Madeleine and her siblings alone in the vacation apartment evening after evening?
Because they were not worried that anyone would get into the apartment or that the children would get out.
Why were they not worried that anyone would get into the apartment or that the children would get out?
Because the apartment was thoroughly locked down so that it would be extremely difficult for anyone to get in or for the
children to get out.
As then it would be routine for the McCanns to lock down the apartment when they went
to the Tapas bar in the evening, would it be likely that they would change their routine on the evening of May 3, 2007 and
leave the doors unlocked so that someone could get in or that one of their children could get out?
Therefore, it is most likely that the apartment was locked down on May 3, 2007.
to Nigel at