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

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

"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

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

What Exactly is George Zimmerman Guilty of?

by Pat Brown

The trial of George Zimmerman is about half-way though and the six woman jury is gong to have to decide what George is guilty of and if what he is guilty of deserves any time in prison. It is an odd case in that there is no disputing the man on trial killed someone, but there are two questions which make the final verdict a tough one; did George shoot Trayvon Martin in self-defense and how responsible was George for instigating the incident in question?

Both of these questions revolve around the definition of self-defense and one's right to resort to lethal force. Basically it comes down to this: you have the right to defend yourself from injury if you are being attacked (the key words here are "being attacked" and not that your opponent is fighting back after you attacked him nor are the two of you brawling with equal participation) and you have the right to  resort to lethal force if you are in immediate danger of extreme injury or death (and you can't shoot someone because you start losing a fight; you must have conceded and your opponent must be continuing to beat you up). I think anyone listens to this 911 call would easily conclude that George Zimmerman was screaming in terror and felt he was about to be killed.

Let me pause for a minute and discuss whether that is Trayvon or George screaming "Help me!" in the 911 call. Even if we ignore George's statement about how Trayvon punched him in the nose, knocked him down to the pavement, mounted him and started doing an MMA "ground and pound," the scenario one hears in the background of the 911 call has someone repeatedly screaming for help which would be the guy who is losing the fight. George Zimmerman clearly was not winning the battle since Trayvon had no injuries other than the bullet wound. A person who is punching the daylights out of someone or smashing their head into the pavement is not going to be screaming "Help me!" at the same time. Only someone needing a referee to stop the fight is going to be screaming for someone to save him and that someone would be George Zimmerman.

So, George passes the first test of rightful self-defense; he really was on the receiving end of a brutal assault and he thought he was going to die. It is interesting to note that one hears a bunch of screams in the tape so it is clear that George didn't get punched once and then blow away his opponent. This meant Trayvon had ample time to stop beating up George. George's screams also show that Trayvon knew George was terrified and he was not fighting back and, therefore, continuing to attack George is nothing but straight-up assault.

However, one thing that has always troubled me; George Zimmerman's cop-wanna-be attitude and some of his behaviors while in jail and in court. George has issues and one of them is taking on the role of a cop, an armed cop, while patrolling the neighborhood. Clearly, the dude can't fight for shit and following tougher, younger, possibly violent men when you are a wuss and come off like a wuss can only invite trouble. The Guardian Angels patrol neighborhoods, too, but these are usually tough young men and women who don't carry firearms. When they approach someone they think might be dangerous, they do it with the full realization they are putting their life on the line and may have to protect themselves with their fists. If a fight ensues, likely both will walk away, albeit with some damage. And, if you aren't going to carry a gun, you better go out on a group patrol or be a pretty big, tough dude.

George Zimmerman, on the other hand, brought a gun because he felt unsafe, probably because he knew he would lose if he ended up in a fight with anyone. Since George obviously hasn't spent much time in a gym, he quickly did end up on not being able to defend himself with his fists after Trayvon hit him, leaving his only resort to pull his weapon and shoot. Of course, Trayvon clearly went on far too long fighting a man who was no match for him and you do take your chances that the man down is going to pull out the only weapon that will work for him...in this case... a gun.  George says that he only pulled the gun when he realized Trevon was going for it, which actually gives George even more right to pull the weapon and fire. Considering how long the screaming went on, I would have to give George credit for holding off for as long as he did (assuming the reason wasn't that he simply couldn't get to the gun).

So, I conclude that George Zimmerman legally shot Trayvon Martin at the moment he pulled the trigger, but, I still feel like he deserves some penalty for instigating the confrontation, only because anyone carrying a weapon (except the police) should avoid trouble. George, carrying a gun on patrol bothers me because Trayvon might not have retaliated for having his presence be questioned if it had been a police officer. Doing so while armed and without a badge raises the level of risk for both parties. However, manslaughter does not really work in this case and the sentence would likely be way too high.

It is a difficult case for six untrained jurors to decide (and most of you folks know I dislike the jury system). I don't know if I could fault them for going any direction with their verdict because there the beginning of the exact confrontation is unknown although evidence seems to indicate Trayvon circled around and then sucker punched Zimmerman which would mean at that point Trayvon was the aggressor and the attacker. I wish them the best in trying to come up with a satisfactory conclusion and I hope the public will not burst out in anger regardless of which way these jurors go. Sometimes the law cannot so clearly address a complicated scenario in which both parties deserves some of the blame for the outcome, although Trayvon Martin actually is responsible for the criminal action.

Tweet

'Teach Your Sons Not To Rape'

by Pat Brown

There have been many very angry women expressing this sentiment following the Steubenville, Ohio conviction of the two high school football players who sexually assaulted a very drunk and near comatose young lady and then proceeded to threaten and humiliate her via social media. There is ample evidence in this case against these young men and that these two creeps were found guilty makes me very happy, Often, in these date or acquaintance type rape crimes, it is a he said-she said situation and it is very difficult to prove a rape or sexual assault actually occurred, that the alleged victim didn't  participate consensually in the act. A Montana college student and  football player was recently found not guilty because there simply wasn't ample proof the girl didn't want sex with him. I thought that verdict was correct.

But in the wake of these cases, I see a lot of furious women mad as hell about anyone recommending that they should educate their daughters on how to keep themselves from getting attacked. These angry women say, "Why do we have to keep teaching our daughters this stuff? Why can't YOU teach your sons not to rape?"

Umm, ladies, you can't teach your sons not to rape. You can't have a birds and a bees discussion and say, "By the way, don't rape girls; it's not nice."

If your son doesn't know that "no means no," and that having sex with unconscious girls is sick and criminal, you have a little psychopath on your hands and he doesn't give a crap about what you say. You lost him years ago when he was a little boy.

What we all SHOULD be are good parents, ones who teach both sons and daughters to be decent people, - kind and respectful, empathetic and law-abiding. When these children get to be teens and adults, they don't commit crimes. I did not have a talk with my sons about not raping girls; they would have been appalled that I would even have considered it necessary to tell them that. I didn't have a talk with my daughter about not tricking a guy into getting her pregnant and to not stalk and kill her boyfriend like Jodi Arias; she would have said, "Just what kind of girl do you think I am, Mom?"

I started giving lessons in morality and ethics when my children were very young, teaching them not to hit, not to be poor sports, to be polite, to not be bullies, to not take what isn't theirs, to not be greedy, to be willing to share, and so on. I started when they were at the breast ("don't bite Mommy") and then kept them from thinking it was okay to pull the cat's tail when they learned to crawl and grab. I kept up the lessons in how to be a decent human being all through their childhood and into their teens. But,  I never had to tell them not to shoplift, steal cars, burglarize the neighbors' homes, set fires, or sell drugs. And I didn't have to tell my boys not to rape. Why? Because I hadn't raised psychopaths or criminals. If you really think you need to have a "rape" conversation with your son, you dropped the ball long, long ago.

And since there are enough young men out in the world who are past the point of moral return and the justice system cannot catch them all and keep them locked up, I will continue to encourage parents to teach their daughters how to keep from getting raped and sexually assaulted. Just because young men should never do bad things, doesn't mean some aren't going to. Being angry about it isn't going to keep your daughter from becoming a victim. So, in spite of a number of angry bloggers who attacked my book, How to Save Your Daughter's Life, for educating parents on how to keep their daughters safe, I am going to keep on educating young women and their parents because I know sex predators are out there - in the high schools, in the colleges, in the neighborhood, and in the home. As a female, I, too, am frustrated at having so many sexual crimes perpetrated against women and I am all for coming down harder on these sex offenders with a much tougher criminal justice system, but, right now, the reality is such that we women have to do what we can to not end up a victims of horrible crimes that will ruin our lives.

Just because some parents need to do a better job raising their sons doesn't mean we should stop doing the job of raising our daughters.They need our help keeping them safe.

               

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

The Murder of Cleopatra

Excerpt from The Murder of Cleopatra

by Pat Brown
Publication date: February 19, 2013 by Prometheus Books

Prologue: The Myth of Cleopatra's Death

"When the sun rose over the city of Alexandria on the morning of August 12, 30 BCE, it did not shine down on the great Alexandria of Egypt, but the new Alexandria of the Roman Empire. The air was heavy with resignation and solemn respect for the passing of the queen, and the transfer of Alexandria into the hands of the Roman general Octavian. Cleopatra had provided a dignified conclusion to the great dynasty with her brave, if surprising, exit from the world.

"The story was simple, yet awe-inspiring. Octavian had been in the palace, and Cleopatra in her tomb with her two favorite handmaidens. Somehow, a cobra had been smuggled into the mausoleum hidden in a basket of figs. A soldier delivered a letter to Octavian in which Cleopatra explained that she was about to take her life with a request that her body be buried next to her beloved husband and Roman general, Mark Antony, who had already committed suicide a few days earlier, dying in the arms of his wife.  Octavian immediately dispatched his men to the mausoleum to intervene and stop the queen from this rash course of action. However, by the time the soldiers arrived, Cleopatra was dead. Word was sent back to Octavian, “We were too late.”

Unwilling to believe Cleopatra was truly dead, Octavian hurried to the mausoleum. He was stunned and angered by the sight of the motionless queen. This determined woman who had refused to yield at any time in her life, this enchantress who lured married Roman men into unfaithfulness and turned them against their countries, this queen who had refused to recognize his superiority in life, preferred death over submission to his sovereignty. He would now be unable to bring her back to Rome in shackles and parade her though the streets in his grand triumph—his final coup de grace. Queen Cleopatra, the greatest prize in the entire world, had slipped out of his grasp.

"Hoping she was perhaps in a coma, the sleep that mimics death, Octavian desperately sent for the physician and for specialists in snake venom who might still find a way to save her. But the snake venom experts had no remedies and the doctor pronounced her dead. All of this was witnessed by the soldiers, and after they left, Octavian met with his advisors.

"The story of Cleopatra’s death did not take long to spread beyond the compound and soon the city was in mourning. Later that week, a wealthy friend of Cleopatra's came to Octavian and gave him a large sum of money to maintain statues of the queen. Wishing to prove he was a moral leader who respected the sentiments of his new subjects, Octavian agreed.

"This is the account of Cleopatra’s death, a tale that has been dutifully retold for two thousand years. But the real story of how Octavian got away with the most perfect crime in history, the murder of Cleopatra, has never been uncovered until now."

 

In 2004, I hosted the Discovery Channel documentary, The Mysterious Death of Cleopatra, and debunked the “death by snake theory.” I also stated that I believed Cleopatra was murdered. But I wasn't able to go into my reasoning on the show that was just an hour long. I decided only a book would allow me to present my research and an in-depth analysis, to present a solid profile of history and to reconstruct the events of Cleopatra's life and death.

During the work on the documentary and throughout the next eight years, I spent time in Egypt, Rome, and England working with Egyptologists, poison experts, archeologists, and historians of the ancient world and I began to piece together another, more credible story behind the death of Cleopatra.

• I believed Cleopatra was tortured.

• I believed Cleopatra was strangled.

• I believed Anthony was murdered.

• I believed Cleopatra did not hide in her tomb with her treasure.
• I believed Cleopatra did not bargain with Octavian.

• I believed Cleopatra planned a brilliant military maneuver at Alexandria, her Actium Two, which this time would not have been an escape strategy from a failed naval battle, but a faux naval battle to permit a successful escape from a dire military position that offered little hope of survival.

• I believed Cleopatra never loved Antony.

• I believed Cleopatra never loved Julius Caesar.

• I believed Cleopatra did not have Caesar’s son.

• I believed Cleopatra may have been one of the most brilliant, cold-blooded, iron-willed rulers in history and the truth about what really happened was hidden behind a veil of propaganda and lies set in motion by her murderer, Octavian, and the agenda of the Roman Empire.

And now The Murder of Cleopatra brings this new view of history to you with my full analysis of the world's greatest cold case.           

           

The Murder of Cleopatra is in stores February 19 and available for order now at Amazon, Amazon Canada) and Barnes & Noble. Kindle  format is also available in the US and UK and Canada.

Tweet

How to Save Your Daughter's Life

by Pat Brown

There once was a girl who, after having a fight with her boyfriend, left their apartment in a huff. While she as out wandering around, she decided she might as well check a few places to see if there were any jobs available she might apply for. She walked into the local bowling alley and talked with the manager. She filled out an employment form and they chatted. He was cute and sweet, and he asked if she wanted to hang out and go smoke a joint when he went on break. She was in a bad mood, so she said yes.

He directed her to a door that led into an unused area of the building. He said he would slip in through the back and let her in; he didn't want the other employees to see him sneaking out with her. She followed his directions. He let her into the other part of the building, and they sat down just inside on the floor and smoked the weed and chatted. Not so abnormal for a couple of young people (she was just twenty-two and he was about thirty).

After twenty minutes, his break was over, and he told her he had to get back to work. He instructed her to follow him out the back so he wouldn't get caught "playing hooky" with her. He indicated they would need to go down some stairs into the basement and out the back way.

Suddenly, the girl felt something was wrong. She felt the "gift of fear," as security specialist Gavin de Becker would call it. (Becker is the author of the book of that name in which he advises women to pay attention to their gut feelings about danger.) She told the man she wouldn't go out that way, and she stood next to the glass door at the front. 

He looked at her with dead eyes and said, "You think I am going to kill you, don't you?"

She looked straight back at him and said, "Yes, I do."

He let her out the  front door. Whether he did this because he knew she would put up one hell of a fight or because he admired her for being so direct with him, we will never know.

One thing I do know: I am happy to be alive, because that dumb girl who went off to smoke dope with a stranger was me.

(excerpt from How to Save Your Daughter's Life: Straight Talk for Parents from America's Top Criminal Profiler by Pat Brown)

For more on the book, listen to my interview on Elliot in the Morning.

                 

How to Save your Daughter's Life by Pat Brown available now in local bookstores and online at from Amazon or Barnes and Noble.


Included in this book, what parents of teen girls need to know 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

My Anti-Fan-Fiction of Fifty Shades of Grey: When Christian killed Ana

Out on August 15, 2012

SAVE THE LIFE OF A YOUNG WOMAN - Link this post to any place young women go on the Internet who think Fifty Shades of Grey is a romance, that the exact type of guy we warn young women to run from is somehow now cool, exciting, and will change if you just love and understand him. The kind of man Christian Grey is, a serial sex predator, will get you abused, stalked, and killed. Women every day are filing restraining orders against this kind of controlling obsessive sadistic psychopath and a good many of them find themselves with gas thrown at them and set on fire, disappearing down mine shafts, and shot dead on the courthouse steps. Fifty Shades of Grey is one of the most dangerous pieces of fiction to get into the hands of young women that I have even seen. Make sure they read the story below to get the real ending of Fifty Shades of Grey which would never have made it to a trilogy if it were anywhere close to the truth. - Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

When Christian Killed Ana

Christian gazes down at me from above, my hands tied behind my head to the bed rail with that grey tie of his, my ankles bound with rope to the side rails at the foot. His expression is unreadable but as my eyes shift from his face to his chest and then to those jeans of his hanging deliciously off his hips, my inner goddess jumps for joy; heat rushes down there and I squirm desperately as I wait for Christian to touch me. Oh, shit, he is so hot.

He runs his hands through that slightly tousled hair of his.

"I'm bored with you, Ana," he says quietly.

I am stunned. How can he be bored with me? I have done everything he wanted, minus a few items I put a line through on the contract.

"But we have only been together a couple of months, Sir!" I had thought I was different then the train of other women he had been through. "I thought I was special."

Christian actually laughs. "Special? What would you think I would find so special about you?" He admonishes me. "You are a mildly attractive run-of-the-mill college girl with nothing particularly alluring or interesting about you."

Tears flood my eyes. "But, Sir, you said I was special, different, that you had never had vanilla sex or slept the night with anyone but me!"

"And you believed me, you little fool." He smirks. "Why don't you bite your lower lip again? You really think that drives me mad for you, don't you? It doesn't do anything but make me hate you." He reaches out out with both hands and grabs my nipples, twisting them cruelly. I yelp with pain.

Christian looks at me with disdain. "You don't think I have told each one of my girls how adorable they are? Don't you realize I told every one the same stupid things that I told you? You are all so easy to dupe." He sighs. "All of you who think you are going to be the one. You are going to change me. From what? From myself? I like myself just the way I am." He leans in and snickers. "Do you know, my dear Anastasia, that I was never abused as a child? Not once. But, oh, how easy it was to make you feel so sorry for me."

My inner goddess curls up into a ball. I feel sweat break out on my forehead. Panic starts rising in my chest. I look into the eyes of Christian Grey and see nothing there at all, nothing. Everything I thought he might have been has vanished and I realize I have been living in a dream. Reality hits. I am tied up, hand and foot, alone with a sadistic psychopath, a snake, a demon.

Christian's face appears inches away from mine behind my wall of tears. "You know all those things that weren't in the contract? Well, today you get to do them all." He smiles, so coldly, so evilly. "I am going to use you as my toilet, I am going to put my fist up your ass, I am going to whip you until your body is covered with marks and listen to you scream until you have no voice left to scream with."

He leers at me and suddenly he is holding a razor sharp knife against my cheek. I feel searing pain and he pulls the blade back, red with my blood, oh god, my blood, my blood, and he licks it off with that tongue that I used to adore.

"I am going to cut that annoying bottom lip off of you."

I start screaming uncontrollably and the hell begins. I am just a young girl and I thought I had my whole life ahead of me. I now know that I have never known true love nor had anyone actually make love to me.Why I ever thought I should be treated in such a demeaning and ugly manner, I do not know. All I know is that now I have no choice; then I did. I should have run; I should never have trusted a stranger, a stalker, a sadist who told me he was so taken by me that he would never hurt me. How stupid I was.

I will not tell you each and everything that happened that day, the hours of terror, the hours of humiliation, the hours of unending pain. I will just tell you what I see from above my body, well, above the pieces of my body. My bottom lip that I always bit, he cut that off first. It was then I knew for sure I was going to die. Next he removed my breasts and then he put them to his chest and danced around with them while I gazed down at the gaping holes on my own body. I cannot go on and tell you what he did next, but when I felt the knife cut through my throat, I wished I had valued myself a whole lot more than I did the day I met that psycho Christian Grey.

He is now placing my legs and arms in a suitcase. What is left of my body, a torso is what I believe they call it, is lying in the center of the bed. I am not tied up anymore, I note ironically. My head, yes, that is my head with the bottom lip missing and the eyes gone from their sockets, it is laying where it was tossed, in the corner of the room, like an old soccer ball with some of the air missing from it.

Christian finishes packing up my parts and he takes them from the room. I see him drive off in his car, and when he returns a bit later, he showers and dresses, immaculately as always. He leaves again in his fine automobile and I follow him down the street. He pulls into an upscale pub and glides over to the marble bar. He seats himself next to a pretty blonde, college age. She turns her head and I can see she is immediately attracted to him.

"I'm Christian," he says softly and he takes her hand. She does not pull it back. I cannot watch any more.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

June 16, 2012

Pat Brown’s ONLY THE TRUTH

Harkening back to the writing styles of the earlier American authors – John Steinbeck, Harper Lee, and Carson McCullers, "Only the Truth" is a story of soul searching, a psychological mystery which examines the question, “Whom should one love and when should one quit doing so?” Billy Ray, a lonely and rather slow, uneducated African-American man living in the mountains of Arkansas, runs across a mysterious young woman at the railroad tracks. She asks to go home with him and Billy Ray takes her with him as she requests. He comes to love this woman, Charlene, unconditionally. She is the only woman he has ever loved, and life is finally good for Billy Ray. Then Charlene shoots the neighbor and burns down the neighbor’s house. His happy life destroyed, a confused and devastated Billy Ray is at a loss. Is the woman he loves “just a troubled girl” or a psychopathic killer? Billy Ray sets out on a quest to find the truth, only the truth, whether it leads him to be able to save Charlene from a death sentence or it frees him from her spell.

Tweet