Most Everything I Know About Trying High-Profile Cases I've Learned From My Ex-Husband, John Henry Browne

by Anne Bremner,

with contributions by Bob Sims

John Henry Browne is defending accused killer Robert Bales. Bales is the Pacific Northwest-based soldier who allegedly gunned down 17 civilians in Afghanistan.

Before the world knew any of the specific details of this case or who the victims were, it knew all about the accused -- and the defenses. And it knew why.

Nature abhors a vacuum. And what a vacuum of information from the military there was. John stepped up and immediately filled it. He spoke of the four stressful deployments, post-traumatic stress disorder, a head injury, financial woes, and the personal strife Bales has experienced. Sentiment prevailed. "I am not putting the war on trial, but the war is on trial," John said. Many agreed. Suddenly, public conversation was elevated beyond this case to the prosecution of the war itself.

John Henry Browne was a hippie in the 1960s. When we were married I remember him talking fondly of those halcyon days, describing San Francisco's Haight-Ashbury district, a mecca for the Hippie movement. He knew every nook and cranny in that neighborhood from his travels. He brought memories of Buena Vista Park during the Summer of Love 1967 come to life when he told me his stories. (I recently found an old picture of him with hair streaming past his shoulders and a drooping hippie moustache, one I used for a birthday invitation for him once.) John walked the walk as a hippie. He protested against the Vietnam War. He never served.

Many people talk of the 1960s as a time of protest, casual sex and civil unrest, a time in which some people think very little was accomplished for bettering American society. I disagree. Positive changes did come. In time. Women's rights and civil liberties improved by leaps and bounds. We steadily climbed out of the chasm of racism. The Vietnam War was ended. And from that time of momentous social change came John Henry Browne.

He has waited all his life for this case. He is made for this case. He will put the war on trial and he will win. It's ironic that decades after his period of discontent in the 60s, and on the eve of his expected retirement, John is handling the most important case of his career -- and one of the most important in this country's history.

Rules in dealing with the media in such a highly publicized case? Be brief and be quiet. Deliver a message that resonates. Tell the truth. Humanize your client. Use your case as a platform for public conversations about the greater good. Be accessible. Be relentless. Never, never, never ever quit.

I have learned all of this -- and more -- from my ex-husband John Henry Browne.

And that's why I know he will win.

Tweet

Press Release: Cease-and-Desist Letter issued to Gerry and Kate McCann, parents of Missing Madeleine McCann

PRESS RELEASE

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 have 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 Leveson Inquiry, “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:

Pat Brown

The Pat Brown Criminal Profiling Agency

she2000@comcast.net

301-633-1151

www.patbrownprofiling.com

www.sheprofilers.com

Anne M. BremnerStafford Frey Cooper, PC
3100 Two Union Square
601 Union Street
Seattle, WA 98101-1374

abremner@staffordfrey.com

206.623.9900

www.annebremner.com

--------------------------------------------

Cease-and-Desist Letter

Anne M. Bremner
Stafford Frey Cooper, PC
3100 Two Union Square
601 Union Street

Seattle, WA 98101-1374

February 1, 2012

Adam Tudor

Carter-Ruck

6 St Andrew Street

London EC4A 3AE

England

Dear Mr. Tudor,

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 communications from Carter-Ruck on behalf of their clients Gerald and Kate McCann that the book was defamatory.

Mon 7/25/2011 7:27 PM

Dear Pat,

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

Best regards,

Robert F.

http://www.amazon.com

This 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.

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:

"I would like to emphasize 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 McCann

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 others.

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.

Respectfully,
Anne M. Bremner

Tweet

Reflections on Snow, Crime, and Punishment

by Anne Bremner
Co-Authored by Bob Sims

Oh no, like salt on snow
I've been melted
Left alone on the side of the road
Is this where I am over
For your sake
Stuck between sleep and awake?

Having been snowbound for days here in wintry Seattle, my thoughts have drifted lately. But, still, I remain vigilant in my thinking about my cases, especially the ones involving missing persons and how inclement weather conditions sometimes affect the lack of crime.

I began pondering this when I started thinking about my clients Chuck and Judy Cox, and their missing daughter, Susan Cox Powell. More than two years ago Susan went missing when her husband Josh Powell supposedly took the couple's then 2- and 4-year-old sons camping in snowy Utah at midnight, browning marshmallows by campfire in the dead of winter.

Many speculate that Susan is out there in the snow, the snow that has melted and then fallen again and again over two long intervening winters. Others speculate she is alive and at some point has been kept secretly by Josh Powell and his father Steven Powell. But not many do. She is somewhere between sleep and awake.

Statistics show that snowy conditions reduce crime rates. This has been described in Dr. Emily Bloom's "The Ice Factor," where she wrote about how "snow slays crime."

And it is true. Crime declines during snowstorms. Is it the calming quiet that tames the beast in us? Or the inablity to get out and do things -- good or evil?"

It reminds me of what my psychiatrist father said when he was doing studies for Prozac, in the face of claims that Prozac made some people kill. My father said it just helped them get out of bed and they would've killed anyway.

"The first fall of snow is not an event, it is a magical event."

The thoughts of an icy, snowy death are unimaginable to me, like learning about those mountain climbers who died on Mt. Everest, as expressed so eloquently by Jon Krakauer in his book, "Into Thin Air."

It's almost akin to Titanic passengers drowning in the dark, icy North Atlantic waters long ago -- the same fate for some on the sinking cruise ship Costa Concordia off the Italian coast recently.

I believe Susan Powell didn't die in the snow, and the snow story just might turn out to be the Cox family's salvation. Almost everyone who has heard the story has scoffed and pointed toward her husband Josh Powell as a person of interest, for the very reason he has concocted this improbable tale.

"The future lies before you, like paths of pure white snow. Be careful how you tread, for every step is sown."

Crimes are not committed in snow.
In fact, such a claim makes me incredulous. As a prosecutor, I use the "footprints in the snow" analogy to describe circumstantial evidence.

When you retire to bed at night, the ground is covered with fresh and pristine snow, untouched. When you wake up in the morning, there are footprints in the snow, leading to your doorstep where the morning's newspaper is there. You didn't see the person deliver your newspaper directly, but circumstantial evidence tells you, via footprints in the snow, that someone indeed did.

Snow. Crime. Punishment. Help us find Susan Cox Powell.

Tweet

My Story – The Friends of Amanda Knox

by Anne Bremner

My initial involvement in the Amanda Knox case came when I received a phone call from King County Superior Court Judge Michael Heavey nearly four years ago while I was at a conference for the American College of Trial Lawyers. Mike and I talked for some time about Amanda's legal plight. I was interested and probably got hooked on this case at that time. Soon thereafter, I met Mike and Tom Wright for lunch and breakfast at AJ's Restaurant on two occasions in Seattle. Following my conversations with these two remarkable men at those meetings, I was hooked for sure.

What happened next is that we met with the Knox family in West Seattle. I then spent weeks with a certain individual watching the crime-scene videos and studying all the evidence of the case. By then I was more than hooked, and completely convinced that Amanda was innocent. I also conducted my extensive research and found my beliefs to be confirmed.

It was decided that I would release all the evidence to the world's press. The individual specifically required me to not reveal that he was the person behind this. I then released the crime-scene videos to the Today Show and a shot was heard around the world. I felt as if I was Daniel Ellsberg releasing the "Pentagon Papers."

Mike Heavey, Tom Wright and I became “The Friends of Amanda Knox”. We were joined by best-selling author Douglas Preston, “The Monster of Florence” who had lived through the same terrifying experience as Amanda with the prosecutor Mignini; Jim Lovering (our brilliant writer and researcher extraordinaire); Paul Ciolino (famed and talented investigator) and sometime later, Mark Waterbury (extraordinary DNA scientist and author of “The Monster of Perugia). This fine group of people were responsible for turning the “supertanker” around of false and malicious press accounts about Amanda Knox. And in that, they turned around the trial.

The Friends of Amanda Knox consisted of a small group of extraordinarily talented and motivated individuals. What I recount here is but a fraction of what they did. I hope that they tell their stories to show how a group with unique and complimentary talents and skills can turn around an international sensation- in what could be a template for other future efforts to save victims of injustice – innocents abroad. The Friends of Amanda did all of the work, I was the mouthpiece or messenger.

This is what we discovered: the now-famous bra clasp with mixed DNA --purportedly Rafael Sollecito's -- turned from white to black from dirt because it hadn't been collected for months and was dropped repeatedly; a policewoman disturbed the crime scene when she crashed through a window in the house by mistake and shattered glass everywhere; investigators did not cover their heads, letting their long hair hang over the scene; unidentified observers were lounging around the scene and talking on cell phones; and the filming of the evidence was conducted like an old high-school audio-visual class project. We called this fiasco "Fellini Forensics," in mock honor of the famous Italian filmmaker's surreal style. My friend Jim Lovering stayed up all night culling through the tapes and then cataloging them.

In addition, the Italian appellate court would discover that the knife that was such an important part of evidence in this case was shoddily transported in a shoe box, further validating the fact that the forensic evidence was unreliable, contaminated and inadmissible.

I then wrote my piece, "Amanda Knox, My Truth and My Challenge," for the Perugia Shock. I also posted it on my Seattle Post-Intelligencer newspaper blog for "City Brights." Jim was the genius behind these as well. This was a stepping stone for more articles and discussions, including ones with CNN Anderson Cooper (I blogged for AC 360 on the Amanda Knox subject), Bill O'Reilly, Gerald Rivera, Jane Velez Mitchell, CNN.com, AOL.com, MSNBC, CNN, HLN, Fox News Channel, NBC, CBS, ABC, the BBC, most of the United Kingdom press, the Italian press and local Seattle media. I made weekly appearances for years in the national and local media. All told, I have made hundreds of appearances on behalf of Amanda Knox.

A number of on-air personalities -- and even Donald Trump -- offered to fly to Italy -- and have Amanda's family flown there -- and advocate and fund-raise for Amanda and do anything they could on her behalf and bring her home. I appeared on Dateline NBC with Dennis Murphy and the Today Show over time. I developed relationships with most everyone in the national and local media. And I appeared with Sollecito's and Meredith Kercher's attorneys on the Italian version of "Oprah," "Porte a Porte."

I spent a huge amount of time trying to turn people around on the issue: All of the previously mentioned media outlets required this. I met with the UK Observer and did scores of BBC interviews. I talked to Nick Pisa and debated Barbie Nadeau on the air. For three-and-a-half years I went on TV and radio weekly to get the word out about Amanda Knox. I met with Time Magazine's Tiffany Sharples and a fantastic Time story resulted from this exchange. And New York Times writer Timothy Egan interviewed me and others on the case. Tim's two pieces were real turning points for Amanda. I partnered with KING-TV Seattle's Linda Bryon as well as Kathy Goertzen of KOMO-TV in public appearances and speeches.

My assistant, Joan Stapleton, and Tom Wright set up the websites "friendsofamanda.com" and "amandadefensefund.org." They hired a lawyer to create a trust fund at our own expense. They worked very closely with the Knox family on both sites and ultimately turned it over to them. Tom Wright, the true heart and soul of the Friends of Amanda, took on the torch of these projects and developed a world class website that was translated into many languages. It was and is the most definitive site for information about Amanda Knox. The site has received nearly a million hits from all over the world.

Tom Wright kept an ongoing blog on the website to inform the public the press about any new developments. The Internet hits exploded off the charts. The research receptacle that Tom Wright and Jim Lovering, our researcher extraordinaire, nurtured was vast. We advocated for the securing of a State Department lawyer. We spent considerable time on this issue. We actually contacted an attorney, who later became President Obama's White House Lawyer. We then spent a lot of time with John Q. Kelly, who was excellent. The family chose Ted Simon, who ultimately found little apparent success with the State Department. We, of course, wrote to Congress and to Obama. The Friends of Amanda Knox was a force to be reckoned with.

I became the target of much ire and vitriol against Amanda because I chose to be the face for the Friends of Amanda Knox. Amanda's attorneys and family were not able to step forward to address the evidence and their public-relations representative was tight-lipped, recommending silence, on the advice of Italian counsel, because of fear of retribution and defamation charges in Italy. Websites adverse to Amanda posted terrible comments about me online, including vicious attacks voiced on the Perugia Shock. Amanda-haters posted tasteless, doctored pictures of me online as well as false and defamatory remarks about me, too. I received more death threats than I can count. Every article or story where my name appeared had hideous, menacing comments. In my 25 years of legal practice, prior to my involvement with the Amanda Knox case, I had never had a negative news article or comment published about me in the media or on the Internet. That all changed with Amanda Knox. I received a virtual avalanche of negative publicity, comments and posts. My involvement in this case nearly ruined my reputation and career.

I staked my reputation and career for Amanda Knox. I would still do it all over again if asked. Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere.

Tweet

Freedom of Speech, the McCanns, and Searching for Maddie

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."

7. 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.

So, I 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 it silenced.

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 why.

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.

Tweet

More Questions Than Answers –Justice Requires That Rebecca Zahau Case Be Reopened

by Anne Bremner

A woman screams for help at 11:30 p.m. in a 27-room historic mansion in Coronado, California; a 6-year-old child, Max Shacknai, has fallen two days earlier and is in critical condition; the millionaire boyfriend and father of the child, Jonah Shacknai,  and his girlfriend, Rebecca Zahau, have been consumed by the boy’s care and condition in the hospital.

Rebecca Zahau, the live-in girlfriend of Jonah Shacknai, who loved Max as her own, had had a wonderful career. But she gave it up to care for Jonah and his family and their homes. She was kind, athletic, generous to a fault, and beautiful. On the evening in question, Rebecca had gone to dinner with Jonah and his brother Adam. Adam had just flown in that day from Tennessee. Rebecca returned to the mansion, Adam to the mansion guesthouse, and Jonah reportedly to the hospital. Rebecca had a relatively uneventful telephone conversation with her sister Mary and then was never heard from again. The authorities maintain that she received a telephone call at 12:30 a.m. advising that young Max had tragically taken a turn for the worse. She purportedly retrieved that message at 12:50 a.m. Yet, the message was erased, and her phone records do not show any such incoming call at 12:30.

Adam Schacknai found Rebecca at 6:30 the next morning. She was hanging from a Juliette balcony off one of the mansion’s guestrooms. Her feet and hands were bound, she had abrasions, there was tape residue on her legs, and a turquoise women’s athletic shirt was wrapped around her neck three times and part of the shirt was used as a gag in her mouth. There was blood on her legs. The ropes used in the hanging were tied with expert knots to a bed in the room. Partial footprints were found on the balcony, including two footprints from a man’s boot. Written on a door in paint was the phrase “She save him, can you save her.” But the autopsy cites the language as “She saved him, can you save her. “

The family said Rebecca had never been depressed or suicidal (she had no history whatsoever of psychological or psychiatric disturbance or treatment), the note was not in her handwriting, and she did not know how to tie expert knots like that. And she would never have killed herself, because she loved her family so much and, because of her religious beliefs, did not allow, in any event, to do so in such a violent and appalling manner. There is no recorded suicide involving a woman with circumstances like this one. Women simply do not kill themselves this way. The authorities said it was possible that she could have killed herself this way. They illustrated it with a video demonstration of a woman binding her own hands. But they did not show a demonstration of the rest (binding her feet, gagging herself) could have been accomplished. It would have taken a contortionist – frankly, a Cirque De Soleil performing artist – to accomplish such a “suicide” feat.

Expert pathologists have confirmed that Rebecca died while on her back – not from or while hanging.  Lividity was fixed in her back, not in her legs or feet. Renowned pathologist Dr Cyril Wecht has reviewed the autopsy report and has concluded this is not a suicide and that she had blunt force trauma in four places on the top of her head, inconsistent with the fall and consistent with blows that could have rendered Rebecca unconscious. The bed that was tied to the rope did not drag across the carpet.  It was picked up and moved. Hair clumps and black gloves were found at the scene.  Rebecca screamed for help before getting any call (if indeed there was a call) about Max. Someone was seen lurking around the front door shortly before the screams. News helicopter footage showed the balcony French doors open and no rope on the balcony while Rebecca’s body lay naked on the lawn. Doctors Larry Kobilinsky and Maurice Godwin, both famed criminologists, have weighed in that this was not a suicide as have forensic psychiatrists and suicide experts. A polygraph was administered to Adam Shaknai, and the results were reported as inconclusive. No one else was polygraphed or fingerprinted. Phone journals from eight months prior were cited as being contemporaneous, and a witness said Rebecca was not training as much six months earlier. Her own trainer disputes this. 

After seven weeks of investigation, the case was closed. The investigation concluded, and Rebecca’s death was classified as a suicide. Still, so many questions remain. In fact, there are more questions than answers. We think the investigation should be reopened. What do you think? Doesn’t justice so require?

As disclosure, Anne Bremner represents Rebecca Zahua's family as they press authorities for a more thorough investigation into Rebecca's death. Click here to donate to the Rebecca Zahau Fund.

Tweet

Pursue Justice, Not Rumors

by Anne Bremner

A prominent world figure is arrested for the brutal rape of a hotel maid after he has boarded an Air France flight, perhaps hoping he can flee to a country without an extradition treaty. Soon after, the accused appears before cameras handcuffed like any common criminal. The news spreads shock and outrage around the world.

"The force of public opinion cannot be resisted," Jefferson said. Except by judges and juries.

Democracy in America is difficult. One of the most important protections in our criminal-justice system is the presumption of innocence. That protection is not necessarily extended to someone tried in the court of public opinion. In a society with freedom of the press, readers and viewers exposed to earnest yet incomplete reports of an incident jump to conclusions, especially when the accused's version is not immediately provided. The fallout lands not just on the accused, but also on family and friends.

Thomas Jefferson writes to Lafayette in 1823 about America's freedom of the press: "... The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure."

Fortunately, Manhattan district attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. takes seriously his responsibility to examine evidence and make decisions to bring charges based on reason rather than emotion.

Many situations in life are ambiguous and can't be adequately explained or understood in a 90-second TV report, ten column inches in a newspaper, or breaking news on the Internet. The truth is usually complex, and people often don't turn out as bad as they are made out to be.

As a practicing attorney, I would not ask a jury to make a decision based on such limited information. In a trial it can take days, weeks or even months to set out and explain relevant facts so jurors can take as much time as they need to review and carefully analyze what was presented.

In this case, savvy news consumers need to recognize the natural limitations of what they are seeing or reading. When a report sounds too simple -- or too one-sided -- ask yourself who didn't get a chance to tell their story.

Don't join the rush to judgment. Pursue justice instead.

*Originally Posted May 27, 2011; NewYorkTimes.com

Photo Credits: Abode of Chaos;  OZinOH;  donsutherland1

Tweet

My Truth and My Challenge – Amanda Knox

by Anne Bremner

The following piece was originally written in March, 2010, and still holds true today, as the Italian appeals court hears DNA evidence that may set Amanda Knox free.

One year after the murder of Meredith Kercher, a man has been convicted and two other suspects await trial. Public interest in the case remains strong, and the truth about what happened is emerging, gradually and inexorably. But the truth is not without staunch foes who are doing their best to keep it submerged beneath a sea of resentment. Recently, for example, La Nazione published an article quoting Rudy Guede’s lawyers Walter Biscotti and Nicodemo Gentile, who allegedly made the following comment:

“A request was made to move the trial to the United States. Maybe to an outdoor affair in Alabama, where there’s a tree with a noose ready to hang the negro whose turn it is.”

This statement is spectacular in malicious intent. It goes beyond slander and reaches the level of hate speech. And since I am the one who supposedly made this request, I should clarify the record.

I did not request, and would never request, that Italy yield jurisdiction over a criminal case arising within its borders. This erroneous allegation was made by the London Telegraph, and they formally retracted it the next day, but not before it was widely repeated. Italy is one of the world’s great democracies, with public institutions that befit that status. I have no doubt that the Italian court system will deliver justice in the end.

At the same time, this particular case has been managed by Perugia’s chief prosecutor, Giuliano Mignini, in a way the public should know about. Somebody needs to challenge the bizarre conjecture through which Mignini and his associates have turned a straightforward murder into a fable with no precedent in the annals of crime.

And somebody needs to make the point, again and again until the world understands, that Amanda and Raffaele Sollecito are innocent. The case against them is based on evidence so ambiguous and compromised it should have no place in a fair trial. But the prosecution has done a good job of using lies, distortions and innuendo to incite resentment and public prejudice against these innocent suspects, and that is why I am speaking out. No one is paying me to do so. I have practiced law for 25 years, both as a prosecutor and as a defense attorney, and I recognize an outrage when I see one. This case is an outrage.

Someday the smoke will settle, the mirrors will be pulled away, and the public will see that. I’m going to stay involved until that day comes. And if people slander me along the way, I’ll take whatever steps are necessary to deal with it.

Tweet

Does She or Doesn't She Want to Testify?

by Anne Bremner

I, for one, think Casey Anthony wants to testify. But should she?

Casey is the decider, not her defense team. Many people believe that the decision for a client to testify is solely the lawyer's prerogative. Yet, legally, the decision rests with the client, taken under the lawyer's advisement. If the lawyer knows the client will lie willfully on the stand, however, the lawyer must in-camera inform the court and may have to withdraw. In a trial where many viewers might expect Casey Anthony to stand and confess, there are others who anticipate her remaining sullen and silent--as she has consistently been so far. The world is riveted by this case, wondering whether she will, or will not, testify, while legal commentators constantly debate the question, "Should she, or shouldn't she?"

The nearly uniform opinion of the legal analysts is that she should not testify. This is because they believe she is a chronic, habitual liar. It is also because this is a case for the defense to raise reasonable doubt; to call a particularly weak defendant just might upset the applecart. Calling Casey to the stand could do far more than that. Recall the epic cross-examination question in the film Witness For the Prosecution? "Were you lying then, or are you lying now, or are you just a contemptible, habitual liar?"

Or consider the Latin phrase, Falset in unum; Falset in omnibus. False in one. False in everything. In some jurisdictions, and in any event in jurors' minds, if a witness testifies falsely, all the testimony can be disregarded. And if this defendant testifies falsely--which she will be judged to have already done considering evidence of her contemptible history of lying--a death-penalty verdict could become a reality, where, at this time, it is only a distant possibility in her mind.

Many have correctly discussed the fact that the defense bears no burden of proof. True, indeed. Also, that there is no need for the defense to provide evidence about the drowning theory in the Casey Anthony case. False. Falset in unum. Once the defense asserts that certain evidence will be adduced in the trial, the court accedes implicitly that there is good-faith basis for the assertion.

Opening statements can be looked at as tables of content, coming attractions and road maps of what the evidence will show. They are not supposed to be flights of fantasy, conjecture or full of hopefulness with regard to the evidence. Many say Casey need not testify. Falset in omnibus. As a legal commentator, I believe Casey Anthony has to testify. There is no evidence of a drowning accident, nor of sexual abuse, nor will there be, unless Casey Anthony, herself, takes the stand. If she doesn't, the prosecution should ask that the defense's opening remarks be stricken. With that, the defense team could be tainted as well by the inference evoked by the web of lies, leaving it without its primary defenses of accident and abuse.

Does she or doesn't she want to testify? Should she or shouldn't she testify? Will she, or won't she testify? I believe that only Casey knows. But, as we all know, she has been wrong before.

Tweet

Exciting News from Women in Crime Ink!

by Women in Crime Ink

Notice anything different about us? Nope, no new hair styles, and no we haven’t lost weight. Here’s a hint: Peruse the photos on the right-hand column. Ah ha, you say. There it is! Two new women. And you recognize them? Of course you do!

Women in Crime Ink, the blog the Wall Street Journal calls “worth reading,” is adding two new contributors. Beginning August 1, legal analyst Anne Bremner and body language expert Dr. Lillian Glass will join our ranks. We know they'll be assets in our quest to deliver provocative, educational, and inspirational takes on cases in the headlines. All of us at Women in Crime Ink are excited to welcome Anne and Lillian.

Now, a little bit about our newest members:

Anne Bremner:

A trial attorney for 26 years, Anne is a litigation shareholder in the Seattle law firm of Stafford Frey Cooper. She received her B.A. from California's Stanford University and a law degree from Seattle University. She’s a former deputy prosecutor at the King County Prosecutor's Office, specializing in sex crimes. Since entering private practice, Anne has represented police departments, private and public entities, priests and judges in civil and criminal trials. If that weren't enough, Anne is a fellow in the prestigious International Academy of Trial Lawyers, widely regarded as the most exclusive trial-lawyer group in the world.

Why do you recognize Anne? She’s a regular on CNN, HLN, Nancy Grace and Fox News. For a taste of what she'll bring to WCI, check out her take on the Amanda Knox case here.

Dr. Lillian Glass:

An early bloomer, Lillian earned her Ph.D in communication disorders from the University of Minnesota when she was just 24. One of the world’s foremost and most-respected authorities in the human communications arena, she’s a renowned body language expert. Lillian educates her readers and viewers entertainingly and compellingly.

She’s a sought-after media expert for her unique perspective on breaking news, and she's a prolific author. Her books include the bestselling Toxic People. To whet your appetite, check out her analysis of Casey Anthony's truthfulness or lack thereof here.

Thank you all for being Women in Crime Ink readers. As we go forward, watch for Anne's and Lillian's posts, and don't forget to make WCI part of your daily routine. Tweet and post the links for your friends to share, and don't hesitate to comment. We're always eager to hear from you!

Tweet