Ex-Cons The Forgotten — and Now Manipulated – Voting Block

Ex-Cons The Forgotten — and Now Manipulated – Voting Block





Our record breaking prison population means millions of Americans are now not allowed to vote. What's that mean to the upcoming Presidential election?

Tweet

Elder Guardianships a Shameful ‘Racket’ in America

Elder Guardianships a Shameful ‘Racket’ in America

Tweet

The Walter Scott Shooting

by Pat Brown

I recently appeared on CNN to talk about the Walter Scott case and a lot of people are angry over what I said or what I was trying to say. The host of the show had her own agenda of what she wanted me to talk about and kept trying to cut me off, so I lacked the time to present a complete analysis. Some have called me a shill which, if anyone has followed me for any length of time, they know I always just say what I think and I do not speak on behalf of any "side" or organization. I don't have an agenda except for the truth and keeping things in perspective and not going on some campaign outside of the issue of crime scene analysis, to be objective and not subjective, to explain what is the issue facing prosecution and defense, and not to score brownie points with anyone.

Let me break down what happened with this appearance, what I was saying, and why I have been so misinterpreted by a number of people who are sending hate mail and making hate phone calls.

My job as a profiler is to analyze the known evidence and the totality of the known evidence. Prior to the show, I gave a pre-interview discussing what I was going to say, how I wanted to specifically point out that the whole issue comes down to was whether Michael Slager had a right to shoot Walter Scott, to pull the trigger, and how this is what was going to have to be decided in court. I was under the impression I was going to be on the show alone and not on a panel. I was never told we were going to be including another police incident on the show and that the show focus was not going to be on the Scott case but on police brutality and overuse of force.

When it came my turn to talk, I was asked a question by the host about the Slager's demeanor after the shooting. I chose not to talk about that in isolation because it is meaningless in isolation and, in reality, has little to do with his guilt or innocence. His guilt or innocence lies in exactly the point I kept trying to make on the show; was he justified in pulling the trigger or not. The only evidence that matters is what happened THAT day from the time Slager and Scott came in contact. EVEN if he had a history of overuse of force (which has not been proven in spite of the ex-policewoman said on the show; so far just one complaint in six years) and EVEN if he danced a jig after he shot Scott down. EVEN if he planted evidence (which has not been clearly proven) after the fact because we don't know if that would have been done because there he knew there was NO justification for the shooting or because he was so in shock that he panicked and thought he needed to add justification because he was scared that he wouldn't be believed. Believe me, the last thing cops want is to have to shoot someone because that means suspension and investigation and possible loss of the career one worked so hard to get. In fact, most police officers never fire their service weapon in their entire years onthe  force. But, again, all of this is not the issue. All that matters is, when Slager pulled the trigger, did he have a reasonable belief that if he failed to do so, he would be killed in the next few moments or someone else would be killed in the next few moments. Slager has now to prove in court that the EVENTS LEADING UP TO HIS DECISION where such that he was justified in shooting Scott.

This is why I attempted to take the viewers back to what happened prior to the shooting. What I said on the show was up to the end of the altercation, there is nothing to suggest Slager was not doing his job properly. He was polite at the traffic stop. He went back to his vehicle to do his check. Scott then acted improperly, fleeing the scene. Slager pursed and caught up with him. Scott resisted arrest. Even after being tased, he was not complying. He fought with police officer and again fled the scene. All of this shows Slager was dealing with someone who was acting in a violent and criminal manner.

So far, Slager appears to be in the right. Then, comes the end of the tussle and the taser issue which is a bit unclear. What exactly happened with the taser, who had it when, when was it dropped. I preferred not to get into this because it will take quite a bit of analysis to come as close as possible to what truly happened and this is the crux of the case that the prosecution and the defense will battle over. Then, when that is sorted out best as possible, the next issue is at exactly what range did Slager shoot Scott and is there any good reason, considering all the elements and evidence up to the point of pulling the trigger, that Slager or anyone else in his place have to shoot Scott down as he ran? Reasons in the mind of an officer in this situation that might be defensible would be 1) at the time he went to fire, he thought Scott had the taser and could turn and fire on him, incapacitating him, and, thereby allowing him to access his police weapon, or 2) that he thought Scott had a second weapon and could turn and fire and fire on him. One has to keep in mind that all events leading up to such a moment become extremely condensed in and heightened in the human mind which is why a split second decision can be hard to understand in retrospect. Slager might have thought Scott was closer than he was when he shot, thought Scott was more threatening (a taser didn't take him down), was terrified Scott had a hidden weapon, would take a few steps, spin around and kill him. THIS is what he has to prove to a jury if he doesn't want to spend his life in prison for pulling that trigger.

The other scenarios as to why Slager may have shot Scott could be that he was pissed Scott was going to make him run again or Scott had bested him and was going to maybe get away. Maybe Slager is a control freak who doesn't like losing. THIS is what the prosecution has to prove, that none of the events leading up to the moment of pulling the trigger justified Slager in believing that he had the right to shoot Scott.

Television can be a strange animal, especially in a short panel situation. While I was trying to make this point, I had little time to speak and was not allowed to get a thorough statement out. Meanwhile, what I was hearing from the panel were broad negative brushes about law enforcement and assumptions and hearsay. All of this type of discussion does nothing but emotionalize the situation and fuel anger. I was trying to get people to look at the incident itself, in isolation from some bigger political or personal agenda, and allow ALL the evidence to be gathered and presented in court.

There are bad cops out there; some officers have control issues, some love power, some love the hell out of weapons, some are racist, some are assholes. Guess what? Same is true for the teaching profession, the medical profession, etc. While departments need to do the best job they can hiring, the best they can in firing problem officers, the best they can in running their department in as ethical and pro-community as they can, sometimes a portion of the employees just aren't the greatest. I have spoken out quite strongly against certain officers and departments during my life, against incompetence and corruption. We all should but we shouldn't become irrational with anger without evidence to back it. Right off the bat with this case, we had the racism issue go full force simply because the officer was white and the victim was black. Yet, when the dash-cam video came out, that rage has softened a bit because we did not see a cop acting in a racist manner. The argument seemed to change to police brutality and overuse of force. I say, let's make sure we thoroughly understand the whole event properly before we decide if there is a political issue to make of this or just possibly a poor decision made by one lone individual.

The media needs to stop whipping up emotions based on a lot of junk reporting and hyperbole. It needs to start being responsible for what it prints and airs. And, as for us American citizens, let's not take on a lynching mentality. Let's discuss issues civilly and, when it comes down to cases like this, allow some time for the evidence to be gathered and understood and  let the outcome be decided in court.


Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

May 12, 2016

Tweet

Crime Writing: The Almost New York Times Bestseller

Fourteen years ago, on October 1, 2000, crime writer Cathy Scott's second book, The Murder of Biggie Smalls, was released by MacMillan. A few weeks later, she received a phone call that it had sold enough copies the first week to qualify the hardcover as a New York Times bestseller. It was fantastic news, something every author wants to hear. But with it came bad news too. Read full article

Tweet

Former Drug Kingpin Rick Ross Pens Book

Rick Ross was a drug kingpin in the 1980s and early '90s running a multi-million-dollar operation that spanned across the U.S. His world came crashing down when he landed in prison during a federal sting operation after he'd left the business and gone legit. But he was lured back in by his main source, who was working for the feds.

Now, Ross has teamed with bestselling crime writer Cathy Scott and released a book that is a unique behind-the-scenes look at how a kid born into poverty in rural Texas ended up a high-profile player in the drug game. It's titled Freeway Rick Ross: The Untold Autobiography, and it is a powerful read. It's a thought-provoking memoir that holds nothing back while making no excuses for Ross's past actions. Here is an excerpt of the just-released memoir.

The San Diego skyline was the vista from my cell on the maximum-security floor of the federal high-rise where I was housed. The Million Dollar View, inmates called it. Looking out at the skyscrapers across San Diego Bay offered me time to reminisce. And reflect.

I ran from poverty, turning to drug dealing to get a head start as an entrepreneur. That was always the goal: Get into the drug business and go legit.

As a young kid in grade school, I wanted to be a Crip, but my mom wouldn’t have it. I never became a gangbanger, though I got close.

At Dorsey High School, playing tennis on the varsity team was the ticket out of the ‘hood. The dream of a tennis career after I made All City took a major shot, however, when

Coach discovered I’d never learned I couldn’t read or write. I wasn’t going to college after all, and I wasn’t gonna be the next Arthur Ashe, so there was no point in staying in school. I put down the tennis racquet and picked up a gun.

I kept a low profile with my street cred. I never joined a gang, never flashed colors. But I always had key relationships with people who did.

One day, I sat on my porch, dead broke and working out ways in my head to earn cash when Mike McLoren, one of the neighborhood homies, dropped by.

“I have a deal for you,” Mike said.

He pulled out a bag with some kind of white powder in it.

“It’s the new thang, man.” He waved the clear Baggie in front of me. “I can sell this for fifty dollars.”

The powder was cocaine. The real shit. Coke was right in front of me, just like in the movie Super Fly. Mike, who’d left South Central Los Angeles to attend college, explained how he’d been selling powder cocaine to students at San Jose State to make extra money. I barely heard the words “students or “San Jose,” or even “cocaine.” I was totally focused on “extra money.” I wanted in on the game.

It was 1979 and I was 19 when Mike introduced me to the drug that would forever change my life. Powder cocaine appeared as a bright, shining star of opportunity. I bought my first Baggie and doubled my money. Powder cocaine appeared as bright shining star of opportunity. I had no doubt it would take me to being rich in a way that up to that point I’d only imagined.

My instinct on breaking into the drug trade was on point: I was a millionaire by my twenty-third birthday. “Rick Ross” became a household name throughout the black ghettos of South Central L.A. and reached halfway across the country. A bunch of homies worked for me, and they had even more people selling for them. We cooked like a hundred kilos every night. We didn’t call it crack. We called it Ready Rock. We maintained houses where buyers drove up to a window to be served, just like at McDonald’s. We had money-counting houses, cook houses, rock houses, apartment buildings, a Laundromat, and a body shop.

I had everything I needed: money, cars, women, and a thriving business. As time progressed, I was making millions every day. By 1985, record executives were chasing me through South Central trying to invest in their artists. I was the man.

I approached the drug dealing as a businessman, even though the government associated me with gangs, like the Hoover Crips. It’s even in my federal file, because the feds said nobody could have sold drugs and made that kind of cash without being a gangster, so I must have been one. They had it backwards and thought the game was tied to gang violence. It was always about business, never about gangs.

Crack was not in the ‘hood before the ‘80s, so none of us knew the side effects that could and would occur amid the crack epidemic that would sweep over black neighborhoods across the land. Even the cops in the area didn’t know what crack was; they didn’t associate the small white rocks they saw on homies as illegal drugs. All we knew was people wanted it; back then, it was a party drug, recreational. Crack was the upper. And it was all about supply and demand. I was a young entrepreneur making a good living and building a business. I wasn't thinking about the repercussions or even that any existed.

Something else I didn’t know: My supplier was a paid federal informant for the CIA.

Most people are still unaware of what really went down in South Central with crack. My raw materials came from Oscar Danilo Blandón, a Nicaraguan national who, unbeknownst to me at the time, had ties to the CIA and sent his proceeds to fund Iran-Contra rebels. I was the first black drug dealer in South Central Los Angeles to forge a tie with a Colombian. I knew him only as Danilo. He supplied me with cocaine at bargain-basement prices that I converted to crack, and I passed on the savings to my clientele.

The U.S. government didn’t sell the drugs, of course, but they did supply the dealer, turning a blind eye to the operation and allowing massive shipments of coke into the U.S. until it became public and they needed a scapegoat—namely, me. The government wanted to put a face on the War on Drugs, and Rick Ross became the image of the kingpin behind it all.

Danilo was hired by the DEA as an undercover informant with the goal of taking me down. He set me up in a sting operation orchestrated by the feds, who arrested me. By my 37th birthday, I was in the pen serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole. While inside, I kept thinking, “What can I do to better myself?” The one nagging thing that always came back to me was to learn to read. It was a second chance. I wanted to get out and help my community, to try and prevent kids from making the same mistakes I made. I couldn’t do that if I couldn’t read and write.

My self-education began by visiting the prison law library every day. I read more than 300 books. Each day I read the Wall Street Journal, Time magazine, or Forbes. Most nights I fell asleep with a book on my chest or next to my pillow. It paid off: While behind bars, I went from being illiterate to over literate.

My name is Ricky Donnell Ross. People know me as Freeway Rick. This is my story.

Freeway Rick Ross is available in paperback and on Kindle and Nook. Click here to learn more.

Tweet

How To Meditate the Easy Way

How To Meditate the Easy Way

Tweet

Anger, Sterling and the Plantation Mentality

Anger, Sterling and the Plantation Mentality

Tweet

The Agony of the McCanns is Over: Scotland Yard Solves the Case of Missing Maddie

The Murderer of Madeleine McCann

By Pat Brown

It has been a long six years for Kate and Gerry McCann. After the Portuguese police bungled the investigation of the kidnapping of their daughter, Madeleine, who was abducted from their vacation flat in Praia da Luz on May 3, 2007, the McCanns have endured being made suspects in their own daughter's disappearance and then suffered years of fruitless searching by their own private investigators, never coming any closer to finding out what had happened to their daughter.

In 2011, The Met (New Scotland Yard) launched Operation Grange, spending two years and nearly ten million pounds following every lead and tip generated by the PJ and the McCann's PIs post-the-evening of May 3rd, making absolutely no progress at all.

But, in a stunning turnabout just as the McCann's libel trial against Goncalo Amaral comes to a close, Andy Redwood of Scotland Yard has uncovered who kidnapped Madeleine McCann and what they have done with her, according to an unidentified source of Bollux Media.

When Operation Grange reached no conclusion after an incredible number of man hours and money had been frittered away, Redwood decided to use a surprising investigative technique; he would go back to the actual events of the evening of the crime. Although he was unable to get the cooperation of the parents of the missing child or cooperation of any of the friends who dined together with the parents on the night Madeleine went missing, he was able to get the cooperation of the television media and a bunch of actors (including a very capable porn star) and scripted a very believable version of what occurred that evening. Redwood thrilled the public with his incredible breakthrough moment in the case wherein he disclosed that the Tanner sighting was really that of a vacationer who was wandering about in circles with his child trying to locate his apartment which he had misplaced. He then went on to reveal that the Smith sighting of Gerry McCann was now the correct sighting and he was looking forward to the public telling him who they thought it was now that they could show the world the sketches the McCanns had hidden for years.

Lots of callers identified Gerry McCann, but a couple of folks said it was a burglar they knew from the neighborhood and the pieces fell into place. Redwood discovered that a flurry of phone calls had been made by a three man burglary ring that this man was a part of, a number before 10 pm and another number of phone calls a couple of hours later.

Today, Scotland Yard detectives have interviewed the men of the burglary ring and through a clever investigative interrogation method in which the men were asked what they thought a bunch of burglars might have done if they were involved in the crime, they related the following story:

Just after Gerry and Kate's friend looked in on the McCann children, one of the burglars entered the apartment through the unlocked sliding door. Although he knew the layout of the apartment and that any valuables would likely be either in the living room or in the large bedroom, for some reason he felt drawn to go into the smaller of the bedrooms first. When he entered the room, a small girl awoke and began screaming. Without thinking of the possible results, the startled burglar put his hand over her mouth. Being a small child, his hand accidentally covered her nose as well and after a short time, the girl stop breathing. Thinking he had quieted the girl, the burglar released his hand and then made the horrific discovery that he had smothered the child. Panicked, he called his fellow burglars on their cells to ask what he should do and they decided the best plan would be to remove the child from the flat so as to leave no evidence of what had happened. One of the burglars posted himself at the back of the flat, the other in the front, and the burglar inside raised the window. When all was clear, he passed the deceased child through the window to the burglar waiting outside. Having worn gloves to the burglary, no prints were left in the apartment.

The burglar receiving the body of Madeleine then carried the child back to his Praia da Luz flat passing by the Smith family on the way. One of the burglars went to retrieve his boat and the other patrolled the area between the flat and the beach. During this time, the trio kept in touch by cell phone. When the streets became quiet enough to quickly move Madeleine's body from the apartment to the boat, this action was completed and Madeleine's body was disposed at sea.

Scotland Yard is hoping the Portuguese prosecutor will arrest the three suspects and take the case forward to court; however, they feel this is unlikely because the Portuguese prosecutor claims there is insufficient evidence due to the PJ mishandling the case for six years. There is no physical evidence remaining after all this time, and there is a refusal on the part of the suspects to make a full confession.

Kate and Gerry McCann have issued a statement thanking Andy Redwood and Scotland Yard for absolving them of any wrongdoing in the death of their daughter and uncovering a story of her death which is not too awful. They also want the public to know that The Fund will remain active until Madeleine's body is found and brought home for a proper interment.


This newslike article is brought to you by Bollux Media and

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

January 14, 2014


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


 

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

Published: July 27, 2011

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

Tweet

Jack Armstrong: Rapist or Just a Guy who "Got Lucky?"

By Pat Brown

I am about to get another round of angry women bashing me for what I am about to say. And I am willing to stick my neck out again because I am so sick and tired of this injustice happening over and over again; men being accused of rape without evidence of any such thing happening. Again, I remind you, I am not saying women are never date raped, that there aren't quite a few men committing this criminal act; I am simply saying, let's stop condemning men without proof. A charge of rape can destroy a man's life just as an actual rape can destroy a woman's, maybe even more so because while she is seen forever as a victim, he is seen forever as a psychopathic criminal sex predator.

Jack Armstrong's name is now mud. He has had the label "rapist" attached to his name in hundreds of news articles like this one from the Los Angeles Times. Essentially, the story says that in 2010, Armstrong met the woman outside of a Beverly Hills bar, they went in and he bought her a few beers, and next thing she knew, she woke up in a hotel room with her pants off and with soreness in her private parts. She felt nauseous.

Based on her story, it is being insinuated that Armstrong roofied the woman's beer and from that moment on, she was unconscious on her feet (and off of it) and he raped her while she was dead to the world.

 Only, if you read this far better article from CBS Los Angeles, maybe not:

Police say he used his celebrity status to attract his victim.
“He met the victim at a bar in West Hollywood,” Beverly Hills police Sgt. Max Subin said. Armstrong took the victim to a hotel and she reported the rape the next day, March 5, 2010, he said.
The attack could have been drug-induced, Subin said.
“She woke up, didn’t feel right and realized she was assaulted,” he said.

So, there is no proof of any date rape drug being used. Either she never got tested for it or the test came back negative. Just because the woman didn't feel right when she woke up, doesn't mean she was given GHB or Rohypnol  - who feels great in the morning after they drank excessively the night before?  We don't know what alcohol she consumed before she had the three beers nor do we know if she also had drugs in her system that she put there her herself.

So, if no rape drug was used, then what do we have? If the woman was so drunk she didn't know Armstrong was having sex with her, maybe she was so drunk she didn't remember she had sex with him! If she can be so drunk not to remember what she was doing since she was in the bar (and obviously walked to the car and into the hotel room), why should we believe she couldn't have had consensual sex in that same state with Armstrong being totally unaware that she was unconscious on her feet? For that matter, if the woman can be so drunk as to not know what she is physically doing, why can't Armstrong be equally as drunk and unknowledgeable? And, while we are at it, how do we know she herself didn't rape Armstrong while he was flat on his back unconscious? It can happen. Please read this study about the repeated claims women make about being roofied not  being proven to be true, that most of the time, binge drinking is really behind the condition of women who can't remember what happened the evening they went out partying. Men do ply women with alcohol because they know it makes them stupid and willing to have sex with them (hence, that Joe Nichols' country song about tequila making her clothes fall off).

To make matters worse, now the police are reaching out to the other women who might have been raped by this rich guy. Don't you think a few psycho women might be motivated to get attention and money from  making such claims?

What I see here is an irresponsible police department and irresponsible media. Unless they actually have a confession from Armstrong, there would appear to be zero evidence to convict this man, but the damage will have already been done to him. I don't know this guy; he may be a sweetie or a total tool. He might brag about his wealth and celebrity status to get women to sleep with him (which is no a crime as the police seem to suggest) or women might throw themselves at him because they love money and fame. What I do know is that if the police don't have proof that Jack Armstrong put a date rape drug in this woman's beer which it appears they do not, all we have is a woman who drank too much, went willingly with a guy to his hotel room, and had buyer's remorse in the morning or saw an opportunity to get attention by filing a false police report. That is NOT rape and it is an insult to women who have been raped to say it is and it is wrong to charge men with rape just because they "got lucky" and after the fact, their luck changed.

PS. All "Shame on you, Pat Brown, for blaming the victim!" comments will be removed for being obtuse and not reading my blog properly. I am not blaming true victims of rape for the crime of rape. The rapist is 100% responsible for the crime. However, in terms of date rape, there are more responsible behaviors women can make that will keep them out of the hands of such criminals, like not getting trash drunk and going to hotel rooms with strangers because you think he wants to just have tea and explore your brilliant mind.

               

How to Save your Daughter's Life by Pat Brown at Amazon or Barnes and Noble and bookstores near you.

Included in this book, a ton of information about

The Early Years

Partying, Drinking, Drugging, Casual Sex (Hooking Up), and Gangs

Date Rape

The Dangers of Social Networking and the Internet

Risky Relationships

Stalkers

Child Predators, Serial Rapists, and Serial Killers

The Sex Trade and Sex Trafficking

Tweet

Book Trailer: Murder in Beverly Hills

http://www.youtube.com/v/CvDDLh4gfeY?autohide=1&version=3&attribution_tag=k11lf0wwtEsH3Syw1O5Pog&autoplay=1&showinfo=1&feature=share&autohide=1

Tweet

"Madeleine." The Gift that Keeps on Giving...at least to a Profiler

by Pat Brown

I must have tossed a tear gas grenade under a bridge because all the trolls came running out on Twitter. Of all the twisted lies they started throwing out about me- like I got kicked off of Nancy Grace while on air (please post the video someone because I think I would have remembered that; I was just on last week) - the one got the most play was that I a horrid ghoul because I stated on Twitter that I was making a pile of money off of the disappearance of this poor little girl, that Madeleine was a gift that keeps on giving to this profiler.

Of course, they completely ignored (likely on purpose) the quotes around the word "Madeleine" which indicated I was speaking of the book by that title which Kate McCann wrote two years ago and they perverted the meaning of the following phrase, that the gift that keeps on giving was the money I was making off of poor Madeleine, not the clues that the book had to offer a profiler.

No matter, the whole thing is troll silliness, but the reason I originally posted that tweet shortly after I read the book, Madeleine, was because I was absolutely stunned at the information to be gleaned from this story of a parent of a missing child. What Kate made public in the book was what propelled me to write my own book, Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann - which was subsequently removed from sale at Amazon after they were threatened by the McCanns' attorneys with a libel lawsuit. The book also prompted me to make a trip to Portugal to do my own study of the area and reconstruction of the crime and to search the area for a possibly body dumping ground which I eventually came to believe might be the area called Monte do Jose Mestre just west of Praia da Luz. The trip was mostly financed by what I had made from my book before it was removed from sale.

The most striking bit I got from Kate's book was her pooh-poohing of the Smith sighting at 10 pm, only giving it the slightest credence IF and only IF it could be linked to the earlier Tanner claimed sighting at 9:15 pm. And, now, just days ago, a bombshell dropped into the media. After Scotland Yard dismissed the Tanner sighting as another tourist and his child and put up two e-fits of the man the Smiths saw on the Crimewatch show, the first bit of negative publicity about the McCanns showed up in the British media in years. It was stated that those e-fits were made by the McCanns' own PIs five years ago and that the PIs said they were threatened with a lawsuit if they turned them over to law enforcement. But, what struck me the most was this: the McCanns not only did not put this suspect's pictures up on their website, Kate did not include them in her book in which she put a number of other e-fits of possible suspects (the Tanner sighting and some fellows lurking about town in the days previous to the "abduction").

If my child had been abducted and was possibly being raped on a daily basis, just the thought of my child being terrified and tortured would have forced me to clear myself with the police, take a polygraph, do a reconstruction, AND, absolutely, AND release those e-fits to the public even if that suspect looked a lot like Maddie's dad. Hey, somebody who looks like Maddie's father might be raping my daughter right now!

But, no, the McCanns did not clear themselves - they ran the country which resulted in the police no longer looking for someone who was raping the crap out of their daughter, they refused polygraphs, they refused a reconstruction, and they HID the e-fits from the public eye.

It is exactly this kind of behavior that is a gift that keeps on giving to a profiler - evidence, true behavioral evidence - that makes this profiler find that the parents should be the top suspects in the disappearance of their daughter, Madeleine and not some long dead ex-hotel employee that happened to make a cell phone in Praia da Luz on the day Maddie went missing.

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

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

Published: July 27, 2011

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

Tweet

Why the Portuguese Reopening of the McCann Case is but a Political Farce

By Pat Brown

It has been an incredibly busy last couple weeks in the alternate universe of Madeleine McCann and I say alternate universe because the shenanigans that have ensued in recent days - the Met's "startling revelations" on CrimeWatch, the discovery of a blonde girl "abducted" by a near enough Gypsy family, and, now, the reopening of the McCann investigation in Portugal based on "new evidence" found a of couple years back, you know, far before New Scotland Yard came up with its new discoveries - all of this hokum which makes little sense unless you understand the politics behind it which most of us do not.

Let's see what these new developments mean:

1) Jane Tanner really did see a man carrying a child away from the McCann's vacation flat - although an innocent tourist with his own child - which proves that the McCanns aren't lying about their prime suspect's existence.

2) The discovery of a little blond girl living with a Roma family proves that little blonde girls are targeted for Gypsy abductions - only now it turns out that that little blonde girl IS Roma; hence, gypsy do not need to steal little blonde girls, they can make them themselves.

3) Portugal has reopened the case based on "new" evidence they unearthed a while back. In other words, the UK isn't going to make us look like total putzes; we actually were already ahead of them when they did CrimeWatch.

4) Goncalo Amaral is going to be the scapegoat. This is actually a fairly old ploy used by police departments aiming to redeem their public reputation; blaming the previous administration. In other words, when a case goes cold and there is a public uproar, nothing usually happens until the old guard leaves. Then, whoever takes over can simply point fingers back at who used to be in charge and say, "It didn't happen on my watch." And, "Now that you have better people in the job, we will show you how great we are." There will be a flurry of activity and then, after a reasonable stretch of time has passed, the case will have a "conclusion," one that points toward an abduction, proves Amaral was wrong, and, sadly, Madeleine will never be recovered because the suspect that was found by the new administrator is dead and we only have a vague statement of what happened to Maddie (something like an accident during the abduction that will give the parents some peace of mind). Mind you, nothing will be proven. The Portuguese police will not make that information public rather like that mystery man of Tanner's that the Met says exists but won't tell us who he is and why he was quiet for six years.

Now, here is the most important point: NO ONE has any new evidence and I will tell you why.

I have worked on enough cold cases to know why they remain cold. Here is what happens: the police department follow a particular theory believing it to be correct. If it isn't, they reach a dead end with no evidence to back that theory and prove their suspect or motive to be the right one. Then, when the cold case analyst comes in (or Scotland Yard or the new Portuguese investigators) whatever evidence existed years ago is surely long gone. Blood, clothing, memories...gone. The only way one can say they have new evidence is if the body of that long missing child is found or photos showing her demise are found (like sexual sadistic serial killers sometimes have locked up in there homes). But, has Maddie's body been found or has their been a raid on someone's home netting souvenirs from the captivity of the little girl? No.

New evidence is not a bunch of tips from citizens or psychics. Sorting through tips is usually a huge waste of manpower because in a case like this where an abduction would likely only involved one lone creep, no one has a clue who he is or what he has done including his mother or his wife. Therefore, all of those tips are pure garbage, taking hours and hours for investigators to sift through, and hope that some needle in that haystack happens to be someone who really saw something or knows something. Very few colds cases are ever solved by tips brought in by appeals to the public; mostly this is done to make it look like the police are doing something and that they care. It also makes the family and the public feel good, but it rarely has results.

So, where is this new evidence coming from? If the McCanns aren't involved in the disappearance of their daughter, there are only three possibilities for abduction: sex predator, child sex ring, and abduction for adoption. Now, I think our little blonde Maria found with the Roma family pretty much gets rid of that theory. If you want a little blond child, you can adopt one from a desperate woman who has too many children to care for. I have been trying to tell people for years, blonde children and blonde teens do not need to be abducted for adoption or to prostitute out; they can be gotten without kidnapping.

So, that gets rid of the stupid abduction for adoption theory. Let's go to the sex ring theory. Did you just read what I said about not needing to kidnap little blonde girls for adoption? Same goes for sex rings. There are enough drug using, poor, and criminal parents who will let you use their blonde child for prostitution or porn, so, again, abduction is not necessary.

That leaves only one plausible reason for anyone to abduct Maddie, the only reason I have been stating for years could be the only alternative to the McCanns' involvement; a child sex predator. And that is the EXACT theory the early Portuguese police focused on and why Murat became an arguido; they thought he was a creepy dude who lived near the McCann flat and could have been watching the area, slipped in and kidnapped the child, rape and murdered her, and then buried her on his own property or elsewhere. The police followed that very good theory and came up with zilch. Why? Because, probably, as Goncalo Amaral would say, this was a red herring and steered the investigation in the wrong direction. By the time they swung around to another possible theory, that of the McCann's involvement, much evidence went missing. Not all, though - they still had the dog evidence of cadaver and blood in the apartment and the rental car and they had all the conflicting stories and bizarre behaviors of the McCanns and their friends. Then, the McCanns fled and the case was shelved.

Now, open that case again and go back and try to find any evidence that some child sex predator abducted Madeleine McCann six years ago and you will come up empty barring stumbling across her body or those photos. Certainly, you are not going to find "new evidence" in the files, maybe a possible lead or two, but certainly not evidence. And, two years after Portugal now says they found some "new evidence" they are opening the case? Does this make sense? Why not two years ago? I can tell you why; they were hoping that New Scotland Yard would waste a bunch of time and money and then go away. But, instead, they came up with this big CrimeWatch media extravaganza and their "new evidence" eliminating one suspect and e-fits they claim aren't Gerry for the public to opine about. Portugal was looking badly, so time to one up them by reopening the case and claiming it is because of evidence already found prior to Scotland Yard's involvement.

This is politics. This is saving face. This is an attempt by Portugal to come out of this whole mess with some dignity. Maybe I will be wrong; maybe there will be some amazing turnabout and the McCanns and their friends will be brought back to Portugal for a reconstruction and they will become arguidos again. I would like to be wrong. I would like to see this happen. But, in my experience, once politics rears its ugly head, justice and truth become victims along with the missing child, the dogged detectives, and the public.

BREAKING NEWS! THIS JUST CAME OUT IN THE UK MEDIA! I am stunned. I can only hope this means I might be wrong about the politics and there really IS something being done by law enforcement to finally prosecute the McCanns.

Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years

The new prime suspect was first singled out by detectives in 2008. Their findings were suppressed. Insight reports
The Sunday Times Insight team Published: 27 October 2013
Comment (0) Print
Madeleine disappeared from the Praia da Luz resort in May 2007Madeleine disappeared from the Praia da Luz resort in May 2007 (Adrian Sheratt)
THE critical new evidence at the centre of Scotland Yard’s search for Madeleine McCann was kept secret for five years after it was presented to her parents by ex-MI5 investigators.

The evidence was in fact taken from an intelligence report produced for Gerry and Kate McCann by a firm of former spies in 2008.

It contained crucial E-Fits of a man seen carrying a child on the night of Madeleine’s disappearance, which have only this month become public after he was identified as the prime suspect by Scotland Yard.

A team of hand-picked former MI5 agents had been hired by the McCanns to chase a much-needed breakthrough in the search for their missing daughter Madeleine.


Click to enlarge
10 months after the three-year-old had disappeared from the Portuguese resort of Praia da Luz, and the McCanns were beginning to despair over the handling of the local police investigation. They were relying on the new team to bring fresh hope.

But within months the relationship had soured. A report produced by the investigators was deemed “hypercritical” of the McCanns and their friends, and the authors were threatened with legal action if it was made public. Its contents remained secret until Scotland Yard detectives conducting a fresh review of the case contacted the authors and asked for a copy.

They found that it contained new evidence about a key suspect seen carrying a child away from the McCanns’ holiday apartment on the night Madeleine disappeared.

This sighting is now considered the main lead in the investigation and E-Fits of the suspect, taken from the report, were the centrepiece of a Crimewatch appeal that attracted more than 2,400 calls from the public this month.

One of the investigators whose work was sidelined said last week he was “utterly stunned” when he watched the programme and saw the evidence his team had passed to the McCanns five years ago presented as a breakthrough.

The team of investigators from the security firm Oakley International were hired by the McCanns’ Find Madeleine fund, which bankrolled private investigations into the girl’s disappearance. They were led by Henri Exton, MI5’s former undercover operations chief.

Their report, seen by The Sunday Times, focused on a sighting by an Irish family of a man carrying a child at about 10pm on May 3, 2007, when Madeleine went missing.

An earlier sighting by one of the McCanns’ friends was dismissed as less credible after “serious inconsistencies” were found in her evidence. The report also raised questions about “anomalies” in the statements given by the McCanns and their friends.

Exton confirmed last week that the fund had silenced his investigators for years after they handed over their controversial findings. He said: “A letter came from their lawyers binding us to the confidentiality of the report.”

He claimed the legal threat had prevented him from handing over the report to Scotland Yard’s fresh investigation, until detectives had obtained written permission from the fund.

A source close to the fund said the report was considered “hypercritical of the people involved” and “would have been completely distracting” if it became public.

Kate and Gerry McCann: now officially not suspects, say the Portuguese authoritiesKate and Gerry McCann: now officially not suspects, say the Portuguese authorities (Adrian Sheratt) Oakley’s six-month investigation included placing undercover agents inside the Ocean Club where the family stayed, lie detector tests, covert surveillance and a forensic re-examination of all existing evidence.

It was immediately clear that two sightings of vital importance had been reported to the police. Two men were seen carrying children near the apartments between 9pm, when Madeleine was last seen by Gerry, and 10pm, when Kate discovered her missing.

The first man was seen at 9.15pm by Jane Tanner, a friend of the McCanns, who had been dining with them at the tapas bar in the resort. She saw a man carrying a girl just yards from the apartment as she went to check on her children.

The second sighting was by Martin Smith and his family from Ireland, who saw a man carrying a child near the apartment just before 10pm.

The earlier Tanner sighting had always been treated as the most significant, but the Oakley team controversially poured cold water on her account.

Instead, they focused on the Smith sighting, travelling to Ireland to interview the family and produce E-Fits of the man they saw. Their report said the Smiths were “helpful and sincere” and concluded: “The Smith sighting is credible evidence of a sighting of Maddie and more credible than Jane Tanner’s sighting”. The evidence had been “neglected for too long” and an “overemphasis placed on Tanner”.

The new focus shifted the believed timeline of the abduction back by 45 minutes.

The pictures of a man who may have taken Madeleine were drawn up in 2008The pictures of a man who may have taken Madeleine were drawn up in 2008 (Adrian Sheratt) The report, delivered to the McCanns in November 2008, recommended that the revised timeline should be the basis for future investigations and that the Smith E-Fits should be released without delay.

The potential abductor seen by the Smiths is now the prime suspect in Scotland Yard’s investigation, after detectives established that the man seen earlier by Tanner was almost certainly a father carrying his child home from a nearby night creche. The Smith E-Fits were the centrepiece of the Crimewatch appeal.

One of the Oakley investigators said last week: “I was absolutely stunned when I watched the programme . . . It most certainly wasn’t a new timeline and it certainly isn’t a new revelation. It is absolute nonsense to suggest either of those things . . . And those E-Fits you saw on Crimewatch are ours,” he said.

The detailed images of the face of the man seen by the Smith family were never released by the McCanns. But an artist’s impression of the man seen earlier by Tanner was widely promoted, even though the face had to be left blank because she had only seen him fleetingly and from a distance.

Various others images of lone men spotted hanging around the resort at other times were also released.

Nor were the Smith E-Fits included in Kate McCann’s 2011 book, Madeleine, which contained a whole section on eight “key sightings” and identified those of the Smiths and Tanner as most “crucial”. Descriptions of all seven other sightings were accompanied by an E-Fit or artist’s impression. The Smiths’ were the only exception. So why was such a “crucial” piece of evidence kept under lock and key?

The relationship between the fund and Oakley was already souring by the time the report was submitted — and its findings could only have made matters worse.

As well as questioning parts of the McCanns’ evidence, it contained sensitive information about Madeleine’s sleeping patterns and raised the highly sensitive possibility that she could have died in an accident after leaving the apartment herself from one of two unsecured doors.

There was also an uncomfortable complication with Smith’s account. He had originally told the police that he had “recognised something” about the way Gerry McCann carried one of his children which reminded him of the man he had seen in Praia da Luz.

Smith has since stressed that he does not believe the man he saw was Gerry, and Scotland Yard do not consider this a possibility. Last week the McCanns were told officially by the Portuguese authorities that they are not suspects.

The McCanns were also understandably wary of Oakley after allegations that the chairman, Kevin Halligen, failed to pass on money paid by the fund to Exton’s team. Halligen denies this. He was later convicted of fraud in an unrelated case in the US.

The McCann fund source said the Oakley report was passed on to new private investigators after the contract ended, but that the firm’s work was considered “contaminated” by the financial dispute.

He said the fund wanted to continue to pursue information about the man seen by Tanner, and it would have been too expensive to investigate both sightings in full — so the Smith E-Fits were not publicised. It was also considered necessary to threaten legal action against the authors.

“[The report] was hypercritical of the people involved . . . It just wouldn’t be conducive to the investigation to have that report publicly declared because . . . the newspapers would have been all over it. And it would have been completely distracting,” said the source.

A statement released by the Find Madeleine fund said that “all information privately gathered during the search for Madeleine has been fully acted upon where necessary” and had been passed to Scotland Yard.

It continued: “Throughout the investigation, the Find Madeleine fund’s sole priority has been, and remains, to find Madeleine and bring her home as swiftly as possible.”

Insight: Heidi Blake and Jonathan Calvert

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

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

Published: July 27, 2011

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

Tweet

Crimewatch and Scotland Yard Team Up to pull One Big One over on the Public

By Pat Brown

I just finished watching BBC's Crimewatch on the new findings in the Madeleine McCann case. With the cooperation of New Scotland Yard (Metropolitan Police), a new "reconstruction" was shown (that was little more than a condensed version of the previous pro McCann documentary "Madeleine was Here" and new theories were laid out (because Detective Andy Redwood seems to not have found enough evidence of abduction to really point to any particular motives. There is new "evidence" (and I put quotes around that because Scotland Yard wishes us to take them at their word) to eliminate one suspect, and there is "new" evidence (and I put quotes around "new" because there isn't anything new) putting another suspect in the top slot.

My immediate reaction to the show was this post to Twitter:

Distortion, Revisionist history. Ridiculous "reconstruction." Conveniently missing details. 

Let me try to break down what was off with this show without having to completely explain the entire case. I do suggest for those that become confused to read Goncalo Amaral's book, The Truth of the Lie or see the documentary on it, or read my book, The Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann available at B&N and Smashwords (not at Amazon where the McCanns had it banned), and read my blogs that I wrote following my trip to Praia da Luz on The Daily Profiler.

Okay.

I will start with the conveniently missing details: any and all evidence or information in the police files that points to the McCanns' involvement, the death of the child in the flat, the cadaver dogs hits in the flat and the rental car, the  inconsistencies in the statements of many of the Tapas 9, within their own statements and in relation to each others' statements, and the fact that the Mr. Smith of the Smith family said that the man they saw carrying the little girl toward the beach looked like Gerry. Also left out; that there was no evidence of an abductor or anyone breaking into the flat through the window, that Gerry thought an abductor was behind the door, and that Matthew Oldfield never really saw Madeleine when he did his supposed check. Oh, and while they show that Jane walked past the McCanns apartment and saw a man with a child, nothing was mentioned about her passing Gerry and Jeremy talking on the street (the narrow street that would caused her to have to cha-cha around the men but they never saw her).

The new reconstruction is a bare bones version, which does not explain how an abductor might have gotten in and taken Madeleine, nor which way he might have gone with her, nor any other particulars. All we learn is that Gerry went to make his check at 9:15,, saw Madeleine and that the door was not in the position he thought he left it and he set it back, that at 9:30 Matthew Oldfield made the next check, and then Kate made her check, saw the door was a bit off, the window open and Madeleine gone. That is it.

So, we don't learn how an abductor got in, how he got Madeleine out, and when he did this.

Without presenting a shred of evidence, Scotland Yard gives us two conclusions that push the abduction toward 10 pm. Now, for some who think the McCanns found Madeleine dead behind the sofa where the cadaver dog hit and then Gerry carried her off to the beach passing the Smith family who told the police of their sighting, they might think this might be a clever plan of Scotland Yard to finally close in on the McCanns, but I don't think this is what they are attempting to do.

Let's look at the big news on the show tonight; Jane Tanner's sighting is NOT the "kidnapper" of Madeleine McCann. He is some tourist who happened to be carrying his own child home from the creche where she was being babysat (mind you he was walking in the wrong direction, toward the creche, but....never mind). Also, he was wearing the exact clothes described by Jane Tanner because the man remembers precisely what he was wearing six years ago. Interestingly, with all the hoopla about this man at the beginning of the Portuguese investigation, he never came forward, but now Mr-whoever-he-is (and Scotland Yard is not going to tell us), suddenly pops up and admits it was him.

What does this very questionable "discovery" do? It validates Jane seeing someone and invalidates the crime occurring at around 9:15. On the face of it, this should be a bad thing for the McCanns because this man was really Gerry's alibi. But, the way this is being spun, it will not matter. Why? Because Jane was not believed to be telling the truth by the Portuguese police (the PJ) and they believed the Smith sighting was Gerry (although Redwood claims the PJ overfocused on Jane's sighting as the suspect and ignored the Smith sighting - serious revisionist history). So, if Jane is a liar, then she is lying for a reason and the PJ believed it was to prove an abduction had occurred and Gerry put her up to the lie.

Now, if Jane is telling the truth, then the McCanns didn't push her to cover for them. This puts them one step closer to innocence.

But, of course, now that the only real "proof" of abduction while Gerry is alibied - Jane seeing someone carrying the child away while Gerry is on the street chatting with Jeremy- is gone, there is a problem. The way to solve it is to make sure there is another abductor and that is going to be the Smith sighting. Hence, the fact Matthew Oldfield didn't see Madeleine in her bed at 9:30 is left out of the reconstruction, so it appears that the abductor struck later than that, closer to 10 PM. So, now we have the right time for the abduction to coincide with the Smith sighting. The simple fact there could have been an abductor that late, now allows for that sighting not to be Gerry. Redwood also clearly states the man had graying hair which, as far as I know, Gerry did not have at the time. Does anyone remember the Smiths stating they saw any graying hair on the man with child heading to the beach? I don't.

Many think the e-fits looks just like Gerry; I don't think so. I think they had to make e-fits look similar enough because Mr. Smith said the guy looked like Gerry. But, the e-fits are just enough off for another man to be "found" that looks enough like Gerry to say it is understandable why Mr. Smith was confused. Of course, that Mr. Smith said the man looked like Gerry wasn't mentioned in the show so most people won't know, but later on, this can be addressed when it is necessary.

I think that man will surface just like the Jane Tanner suspect surfaced. At some point, we will hear that an innocent fellow who looks like Gerry came forward and said it was him with his daughter. Then, Gerry is completely exonerated and Scotland Yard will just have to find another suspect who was never seen. OR we will hear that Scotland Yard has identified some person from a sex ring who sort of looks like Gerry but they cannot divulge more. OR we will hear that  it was likely some dead predator who looked enough like Gerry to be mistaken for him. No proof will every be provided that any of these people really exist but it doesn't matter to the general public. If Scotland Yard says it is so and the media backs it, it must be so. It may sound convoluted but, the combination of vagueness and connecting dots that don't exist can be a successful method to use to convince people of something that they are not going to thoroughly research themselves. A magician calls this "misdirection."

Then, mission accomplished. The McCanns are "proven" innocent, the PJ incompetent, Amaral a libeler, and Scotland Yard a fine police agency that did a great investigation to find Madeleine and at least answer the question of what happened to her.

Tweet

Media, Please Stop Giving Mass Murderers the Attention They Want

Media outlets,

This is the only statement you needed to make today about the mass murderer in DC.

"The mass murderer is dead. Out of respect for the victims and their families and to not give media attention to the perpetrator, we will not be discussing the killer."

Here is the only photo of the killer you needed to run with the story.

Mass murders will continue as long as the media encourages perpetrators by giving them the infamy they crave. Please, all media outlets, for the sake those innocent people you will put in danger in the future by aiding and abetting the desires of mass murderers, change how you handle the coverage of these crimes.

Thank you.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Tweet