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

Risky Business

by Pat Brown

Prostitution is the world's oldest profession and also the most dangerous. Recently, we have had a spate of homicides with victims who put their lives at risk to earn money in the sex trade. Yet, interestingly, the last few times I commented on these homicides, the television shows I was on decided not to report this aspect of these women's lives; the idea is not to lessen the horribleness of the crimes by insinuating that they deserved what they got or that they are less important as victims than a student, a churchwoman, or a middle- or upper-class professional woman.

I can appreciate the concept of presenting a victim of violent crime in a rosier light; she is someone's daughter, sister or mother, and she is loved by her family regardless of her choice of activity. But, it is also a damaging and dangerous concept. Damaging because it can prevent useful information from being offered that might lead to the killer, and dangerous because other women involved in prostitution in a certain jurisdiction might not get the warning they need to avoid being the next victim of a dangerous predator.

Three recent cases I have commented on come to mind.

One is the "Lady in the Suitcase" crime out of East Harlem, New York City. A chilling video of a man dragging a suitcase along the streets of the city has been broadcast repeatedly with the hope someone will recognize the leather-jacketed man who left the suitcase on the sidewalk in front of an apartment building and then just walked away. The name of the victim was known very quickly and not likely because she had her ID on her. Betty Williams, 28, has been arrested some fourteen times in her life. Arrests which include drug involvement, theft, and trespassing. She spent jail time on Rikers Island, which indicates to me she has had a rough life and deals with some tough characters. It would be important to find out whether she has dabbled in prostitution. As it stands, we have no information indicating this, but serious drug users often need to earn money in a hurry. If prostitution is one of Betty's activities, her killer could be a john or not. If she hasn't worked on the streets, then he could be a boyfriend, a drug dealer, or a fellow drug user. The truth will help focus the investigation.

While it is always a possibility that Betty was grabbed off the street by a man who had no connection with her or her activities, it is highly unlikely. The fact that her body was found in the suitcase fully clothed, strangled, and with trauma to the head indicates she was in her killer's apartment and that the crime was not premeditated. Usually when a victim ends up in a piece of luggage, it means the murderer did not plan to kill the victim, which is why he got stuck with a body in his home. Then, he had no way to get the body out of there without being noticed, hence the need for zipping up the victim in a suitcase and toting her down the stairs or elevator and out of his residence.

So, Betty probably knew her killer, and why she might have been in his apartment is very important to figuring out who the perpetrator is. If one wants useful tips, it helps to give people information that will lead them to link someone to the victim or some activity they have in common. Keeping Betty's background a secret is not going to help get justice.

We also have two serial killers on the loose who are clearly targeting prostitutes. One, the "Kensington Strangler," is in the Philadelphia area. Even though the first two victims were both prostitutes, and DNA from the killer matched in both crimes, no warning went out to women working the streets that they could be next. Consequently, a third prostitute became the victim of the same serial killer.

Up in Long Island, a serial killer appears to be getting his victims off of Craigs List's adult service ads. Yet, when I did a TV show on the topic, two of the possible victims were identified, respectively, as a tourist and a local woman. It sounded like some guy was grabbing women off the street as they walked home, or was using some ruse to get them into his car. But this was not accurate. The women were running ads on Craigs List and were going to someone's home to provide their services. Knowing this and getting this information out is crucial in identifying this sexual psychopath and letting women know not to respond to customers in the vicinity of the dump site where four bodies have been found on an isolated beach. Or, at least not to go without letting the john know that his information is being recorded and that the woman is going to have a driver waiting in the car for her.

Not all risky behavior is the reason for women becoming victims, but sex, drugs, and alcohol tend to top the list, and we need to know if these issues are linked to victims so we can catch their killers. We also need to know if they are overly kind, naive, or happy-go-lucky because these not-so-bad behaviors can also put a woman in a situation where she becomes the unlucky victim of a psychopath who catches her in his evil little web. All behaviors are important to recognize in both the victim and the perpetrator; the truth will get someone arrested and put away, hopefully, for good.

Tweet

The Arrogance of Psychopaths

by Pat Brown

People often wonder how smart psychopaths can make such stupid mistakes that cause them to get caught for their crimes and make it easy for the state to get a conviction. In one word: arrogance.

Arrogance is going to put Prince George's County, Maryland's County Executive Jack Johnson behind bars for the rest of his life and we who live in his jurisdiction are ecstatic. Jack has a massive ego, and he ran this county like the corrupt leader of a poor African nation. In spite of this, Johnson has been in office for almost eight years. Why the voters here reelected this scumbag, I will never understand. During his two administrations, Johnson has contributed to the demise and bad reputation of our county by giving his unqualified buddies large contracts, ignoring the requirement that these jobs have to be bid on and the work given to the company with the best offer. He and his wife have been arrested for tampering with evidence and he is accused of taking large kickbacks for giving his friends numerous deals that they would not have won if they had gone through the required process.

Graft, extortion and corruption have been rampant in Prince George's County for a very long time. A number of politicians have been arrested in the last few years for using their appointments to pad their pockets. In spite of these arrests, the ever arrogant Johnson thought he was above it all.

The height of his brain-clouding arrogance was Jack Johnson's incredibly stupid last few minutes before he and his wife were arrested. As the FBI descended on his home, his wife called him in a panic and this is the conversation that ensued:

"Don't answer it [the door]," Jack Johnson told his wife, according to the records. He told her to go to a bedroom drawer and grab a check from a developer--believed to be for $100,000, agents wrote. Leslie Johnson asked if she should get rid of cash that was in the drawer as well.

"Tear it up!" he said of the check. She asked about cash that was in the basement. "Put it in your bra and walk out or something...."

Mrs. Johnson must have gone from a 32B to a 38DD with almost $80,000 stuffed in her bra when she met the agents looking like Pamela Anderson. It really didn't matter, though, that she looked ridiculous. The FBI had it all on tape. They had been wiretapping Jack's cell phone since January of this year.

Now, one might think the county executive had no clue he was under suspicion. When others in his administration had been arrested and search warrants had been served in 2008 on the homes and offices of two of his top aides, ya think he would have had an inkling he was being watched. Heck, I was told over a year ago by folks in the know (that would be anyone on the Prince George's County police force who despises Johnson because of his strong anti-law enforcement attitude and any one of the employees of the county government) that he was going to go down.

He was so well known as a crook that when his office asked if Jack Johnson could come to my home to have a photo op with my pet pig (the famous Gwendolyn, who the county tried to send off to die after she had lived on my property for twenty years) I told them, "No, only one swine allowed on the property at a time."

Yet, Jack seemed to think he was above it all and kept right on wheeling and dealing. It apparently never occurred to him that his phones were tapped. Stupidity or arrogance? I would say arrogance.

Arrogant to the very end, Johnson vows to finish out the last three weeks of his term declaring he is innocent of any wrongdoing. His equally arrogant wife/partner-in-crime is planning to be sworn in on December 6 as one of our new council members.

County government "won't be impacted in the least," county spokesperson Jim Keary said.

Thanks, Jim! That is comforting....

Tweet

On Land or on Water

by Pat Brown

Women in Crime Ink contributor Dr. Lillian Glass recently wrote a post concerning her belief that Tiffany Hartley, the wife of missing jet skier, David Hartley, has not been telling the truth concerning his disappearance on Falcon Lake on the Texas-Mexico border. Peter Hyatt, a statement analyst, also came out early on with his dissection of Hartley's comments and has said she is being deceptive. Many people have noted something seems wrong with Tiffany's "story," as she calls her version of the event. However, quite a few people, including the Texas authorities, believe she is telling the truth. I won't recount all the details and deceptions here; I want to focus on where I think the event occurred.

I believe she is telling the truth... sort of. She is describing the murder of her husband by drug dealers. She says she did not have any reason to want to kill her husband. I believe her. I just don't believe she is telling the truth about where the event went down. This could be why some of her story rings true and parts of it make no sense. This could also be why certain "facts" change. She may want us to believe her story, so she tries to make it as convincing as possible, fixing things a bit as time goes on without giving up the whole truth. If she is being deceptive, she may be trying to save herself from the inside of a jail cell.

Sometimes when people lie about a tragic crime, which they are guilty of committing or having some sort of involvement in, they change the time it happened or the location of where it happened to eliminate themselves. I think Tiffany may be doing this. I think the murder occurred and Tiffany escaped, but I think the whole thing may have gone down on the shore and not on the lake. I think no boats came after them, just men. Replace the "water" with "land," and "boats" with "men," and see if her story doesn't now seem to make a whole lot more sense.

I had problems with her story. but it all came together for me with Tiffany's recent emphatic statement that her husband's body would be found on land. Why would it be found on land if he were shot on the water? Why wouldn't the cartel just get the heck out of Dodge as soon as they committed the crime? On water, they would be out in the open where they could be seen if they wasted time retrieving his body and trying to trail his jet ski behind their boat or riding off on it. Most bodies are just left where they go down if time is limited to deal with. The only reason Tiffany should be so sure the body is on land is because that is where she saw it last and it makes sense for the killers to then go bury or burn the body, because they have it right there with them in Mexican territory. The jet ski would be right there on their shore, and it makes sense they would then hide it or paint it and sell it.

Tiffany doesn't seem to be very mad at her husband's murderers. She stated on "Issues with Jane Velez-Mitchell" that "we just want David back. And maybe they can't provide a body, I don't know. But they can provide something of evidence... And then we'll go away." Really? You will just leave them alone and not seek justice even though they brutally killed your husband and destroyed your life? Tiffany keeps saying she just wants the body back so she can "move on" and they can "move on." She wants them to be able to go back to dealing drugs and murdering people? How generous! I guess as long as she gets proof he is dead, the insurance money will come in and she can "move on," even if only a couple of weeks have gone by. And why would anyone be so naive as to think a drug cartel would give up evidence that could lead to them, especially one that just sent the head of the lead investigator back in a suitcase? Out of the kindness of their hearts? Because they want Tiffany and David's family to have closure? Unlikely.

By the way, Tiffany and David don't look a bit Mexican, so mistaken identity is not a motive. I doubt the cartels would shoot just anyone, just in case, and bring unnecessary attention to themselves.

So, on to where the murder occurred. When they were leaving the "area," men waved at them. This happens when you are being friendly or saying good-bye, not when you are about to go gun down people. Tiffany also recounts having conversations with the killers, over the sounds of the jet skis and boats and gunshots. It sounds more like parties involved are toe to toe, not bouncing around on the water. Sometime in the scenario, David Hartley gets shot in the forehead, according to Tiffany's story, but that she did not know he was shot in the head until she turned over his body, which had been face down in the water (also, she used two fingers and pointed to her forehead on television when describing the shot that killed him). She commented on how the killers got so close to her she found herself looking down the barrel of a gun. All of these descriptions sound like an encounter one might experience during a drug transaction gone bad... on land.

After David gets shot, Tiffany tries to lift him "onto the jet ski," but he is too heavy. If she tried to get him to his feet on land, he would be too heavy as well. She asks him, "What should I do? What should I do?" I think he would tell her to run, and I would guess she would run to her jet ski and take off and not look back until she was far enough away to take a chance on checking to see if they were following her.

Another fascinating statement Tiffany makes is that she would take a bullet for David because he took one for her. How is that? If they were both simply trying to outrun shooters, wouldn't he just have been the unlucky schmuck who got hit? He wouldn't have done anything spectacular, like trying to save Tiffany. But, on land, maybe he did step in front of her to protect her and got shot. And maybe the reason Tiffany got away was that three men were not shooting at her with machine guns, just one man with a handgun whose clip ran out giving her time to flee.

Those three boats were more likely three men. If one takes the whole scenario and moves it from the water to the land, the way it went down starts to add up. Try it.

Tweet