I await your replies Pat Brown

It is Sunday morning and I see a slight problem again with what Pat Brown is saying.

You see, yesterday she posted a tweet that said she will produce books and show everyone exactly what her search fund is spent on and that she is getting no salary.

So has she changed her mind and decided to put all the money in the search fund now?

Because back in July 2011 she was telling everyone only 50% was going to be used for the search.  In fact she tweeted it twice on the 27th July 2011

On the 4th August 2011 she clarified it was HER search fund and that she is NOT giving the 50% to the McCann family Search Fund.

Pat Brown clarified this because of the name she gave her search fund, The Madeleine Search Fund.  Whether she was scared people would donate to the Official Find Madeleine Fund, I don’t know.  But she was at that moment in time still only talking about 50% of the proceeds raised.

She has even informed people that a Bank account is being created for this search fund.

And that there will be books to show what is exactly spent.

Pat Brown also stated, back in July 2011, that her search fund will be used to search Praia da Luz, Huelva and Rothley

So my questions to you Pat Brown are this:

  • Are you now putting 100% of the sales of the Book into the fund instead of the original 50% you had previously stated?
  • If you are only still going to use 50% of the proceeds from the book towards your search fund, what is the other 50% going to be used for?
  • Are you demanding that the McCann family give you access to their property in order for you to search?
  • Are you going to demand entrance to the homes of the relatives and friends of the McCann family?
  • And if they deny you access are you going to accuse them of hindering your search?
  • Are you planning on interviewing every witness of the case and have you applied and/or sought permission from the relevant authorities to do this, ie the Police Forces in Portugal and UK or any national Police Force where a witness may reside?
  • What are you actually searching for?
  • Is the search going to be to help find Madeleine?
  • If not, why not?

I am sure there must be a million and one questions that will arise over the coming days, but should anyone think of others, please feel free to add them as comments and I will add them to this post.


With regards to this tweet:

To which you replied

Admittedly, there was mention in the papers back in November 2007 that there was a possibly of them suing the police as mentioned in the Daily Mail and then again in July 2008 in the Metro after the case was archived, but I have never seen any statement or heard of any court dates or anything official.

  • Any chance you could supply the source and dates as to when the McCanns actually sued the Police.

60 comments on “I await your replies Pat Brown

  1. Another one:

    Did the McCann’s or Carter Ruck publish the cease and desist letter in public, or not?

    “… In the end, the issue remains between the McCanns and Pat Brown and a court of law should either party wish to go there as to whether the Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann is libelous or their claims that my book is libelous are libelous!”

    So far, it seems to be Pat who published the Amazon notification concerning Carter Ruck. So, how can this constitute libel?

    “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 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 StreetLondon EC4A 3AET 020 7353 5005Best regards,Robert F.”http://www.amazon.comhttp://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.com/

  2. Oh, and, ahem, why would the “search” only start in Feb? 
    Couldn’t possibly be related to hoping to make contacts and gain media attention in the light of the libel trial, surely?

  3. So Pat Brown answers the questions then

    So she is not taking any salary out  of the 50% she is donating to the fund but she is pocketing the other 50% for herself and telling people basically to mind their own business.

    Poor Madeleine.

    And now the search starts in February because of the Court case …. 

  4. Why would the  “search” require attending the trial? She could follow it from home on Twitter. 

    She could go straight to PdL or Huelva and bang people’s doors down without a permit. Hope she speaks fluent Portuguese and Spanish. Oh, and doesn’t get arrested.

    • She is a bloody disgrace and despicable, she is going to Lisbon for the trial to get in the media and the media spotlight.  Madeleine was never in Lisbon so why go there?

  5. The Pat Brown Maddie Search Fund will be properly established I presume?

    Not sure how Anne B got dragged into this. I think it would be much better for Bennett to represent her. 🙂

  6. My god Carana she has turned up on Bennett forum now explaining why she has been quiet on the #McCann twitter feed.

  7. I think this Pat person is a gold digger. 

    • Good morning Maggadora, yes I think you have hit the nail on the head with that one.  There is no Casey Anthony trial now so she needs a new source of income in my opinion.

  8. Here’s a little gem for you, looks like she is even less popular in the USA than one would believe.


  9. Jeez what PROFESSIONAL  profiler would join a place such as haverns.

    speaks volumes.

    • More to the point Samantha what PROFESSIONAL would have to turn to the likes of Havern and Bennett for support?

      Surely this so-called TV celeb would have enough support in her own professional circles and her own media, wouldn’t she?

      A media that has far more weight than Bennett and his groupies who post rabid anti-McCann comments as if they are going out of fashion.

    • Oh I see that they had to remove her comments 

      Editors’ Note: This story was revised on Aug. 18 to remove opinions from a criminal profiler about post-partum depression. 

      So she is now a Doctor then and Post Natal Depression is caused through changes in hormones after having a baby.  A lot of women can suffer with it.  Some suffer mild forms of PND but some really do have a battle on their hands trying to fight PND.  

      What a bitch, this Pat Brown is turning out to be.

    • I see someone else wrote to her about her comments on that AOL article

      And she wrote back saying:

      The reply from Pat Brown:

      I never said depression doesn’t exist and that women don’t need help for it. The depression after birth, however, like all depression, is based in reality and personality, not chemical issues. We as a society needs to stop blaming chemicals in our brains and start looking for answers in reasonable life expectations, support from family and community, and lifestyle. Psychotherapy is a good idea to deal with true life issues and our handling of them.Pat Brown

    • And here is another one 

      In your story on the recent murder of two boys in South Carolina you quote an “expert” who I find unbelievably offensive.  I am outraged. 

      “Most women who suffer depression after their children are born are suffering from post-how-did-I-get-stuck-with-this-kid, this body, this life? They may be depressed, but it is their situation and their psychopathic personality that brings them to kill their children, and not some chemical malfunction.

      “PPD is a “crock”?  What?  Are you serious?  Who the heck are you Pat Brown, and exactly what expertise do you have on postpartum depression?  Based on that comment, you can’t possibly know the first thing about it.  You can’t possibly know an eighth of the first thing about it.  And AOL?  You’re complicit in this spreading this awfulness.  How dare you not check with real experts, or provide a balanced view?  Does the writer of this story, David Lohr, have an editor? 

      Honestly, I could throw up.


    • Well Graham you only have to google – Pat Brown comments on PPD – to find a whole of of people objecting to what she said.


      If one other woman who is suffering finds me and recognizes herself, I’ve done some good. If a woman sees Pat Brown’s comments and takes them to heart, something very, very bad could result.

      • Thanks for the B ougher link, Bren, it has been posted elsewhere.  The more of these comments of hers that get posted up for all to see, especially her hangers-on in the UK, the better.  As most of them are women, and may one day run the risk of PPD, or are already suffering with it, her heartless dismissal of anyone who is subject to this nasty problem just might make them realise she isn’t in this for Madeleine, she is only in this for the money she can scam out of the gullible.

  10. Seems as if she liked my tweet to her, she made it a favourite

  11. Made you a favorite????   Oh, my!!  Could it be that the reaction she has got to her stupidity from both sides of the fence in the UK is actually worrying her.  The only positive reactions she seems to have had is from the expected antis;  and now some of the really negative stuff re her and how most people in the USA regard her is surfacing very quickly.  I wonder how many of her erstwhile supporters may have second thoughts about giving her monetary support, in fact giving her any support?  Anyone with one iota of sense can see she’s jumping on the money bandwagon;  I would call her a money-grabbing chancer.

  12. Apart from herself, will she be taking any dogs to assist with the search?

    • Well she ain’t borrowing my dog, that is for certain….. I know he barks a lot (often at fresh air) which would assist them but I care too much for him to put him in the custody of Pat Brown.  I read about some other animals that came to harm.

  13. Here is another site not happy with her AOL PPD comments

    In a relatively short period of time, with fast and furious tweets and the speed at which blog posts were put up by many bloggers soon thereafter, AOL got the hint.  Within 1-1/2 hours, it pulled all reference to a crime profiler by the name of Pat Brown (who is she?).  Well, now many of us will always know her to be the one who made the following horrendously off-the-mark and demeaning remarks about women who have suffered or are suffering from PPD–words which should incite anger in every one of us:

    Most women who suffer depression after their children are born are suffering from post-how-did-I-get-stuck-with-this-kid, this body, this life? They may be depressed, but it is their situation and their psychopathic personality that brings them to kill their children, and not some chemical malfunction.

    WTF?  The first sentence implies that PPD is nothing but a “crock,” a lame excuse for not being able to cope with the new baby and motherhood.


  14. And another 

    Earlier today, AOL posted an article about the South Carolina mom who killed her two children. In that article, criminal profiler Pat Brown provided an expert quote. The problem is, Pat Brown decided to give her “expert” opinion on postpartum depression. And she said she thinks it’s a crock. She doesn’t think there’s any kind of hormonal or chemical changes in the body after pregnancy. She thinks that women who are depressed after giving birth are just kind of ticked off because they’re fat or because they can’t go out with their friends as often. I kid you not.


  15. And this one 


    I don’t know the specifics of the case in South Carolina, but, in this situation, they don’t seem to matter.  Pat Brown wasn’t just speaking specifically about this one case.  She was making a blanket statement about women everywhere.

  16. http://katekripke.wordpress.com/2010/08/19/please-help-raise-awareness/

    The community of folks working to support women who suffer from Postpartum Mood Disorders is outraged.  Emails are circulating.  Blog Posts are accumulating.  People are, rightfully, angry and amazed and appalled.  Yesterday, AOL News published a story about a tragedy in South Carolina in which two young boys were killed by their mother.  The outrage around this story is due to the fact that not only is there an assumption that PPD played a role in this mom’s actions (we don’t know the reality about what may or may not have played a role) but also that AOL chose to quote an “expert” by the name of Pat Brown  who stated the following:

    “Most women who suffer depression after their children are born are suffering from post-how-did-I-get-stuck-with-this-kid, this body, this life? They may be depressed, but it is their situation and their psychopathic personality that brings them to kill their children, and not some chemical malfunction.”

    The quote has since been removed by the editor due to the outrage that it instilled.

  17. And Pat Brown speaking in 2005 about Medication for Bi-Polar, depression, etc and doctors prescribing drugs.

    Yes, I was depressed. But, I fought back. I didn’t get drugs. I got a life. I made new friends, took up new hobbies, and thanked God my life wasn’t worse. I had a great sister who I am best friends with, wonderful children, kind parents who are still alive, and a fulfilling career. I joined a dance group and a book club, picked a new foreign language to learn, made new friends, traveled, and accepted the exciting challenges in my life. Three years have passed and I am thrilled with every day I am able to experience life on earth.

    My feelings weren’t something to medicate away. They were telling me to take stock of my life and what I wanted. They told me to analyze my situation, get new ideas, and take chances. Medication would have prevented me from moving on.

    Let’s face it. “Medication” for children and adults is nothing more than street drugs given a blessing. We should be aware that – instead of seeking to correct our out-of-balance lives and improve our physical and mental health – we are taking what is the equivalent of amphetamines (speed) to make ourselves artificially happy or at least oblivious to caring whether we are achieving success in life. Doctors who give this crap out as a long-term measure are no better than the pushers down on the street corner and if we take this stuff for longer than an emergency period of our lives, we are drug users, plain and simple. If we give this poison to our kids, we are contributing to the delinquency of minors. Let’s start seeing drugs for what they are – drugs. As parents and teachers and physicians, we should, “Just say no to drugs,” shouldn’t we?


  18. Very interesting here is the full article 

  19. From AJR,   December 2002Off Target   The news media, particularly cable channels, relied heavily on profilers during the sniper coverage. But their speculation often turned out to be wildly inaccurate. Is there a better way to take advantage of their wisdom, or should they be used at all?By Rachel Smolkin      Related reading:   » What They Said ShareThisOn the morning of October 3, local and national media seized on a gripping and terrifying story: five people dead near Washington, D.C., picked off seemingly at random, in the same region where last year a plane slammed into the Pentagon and mysterious anthrax attacks felled two postal workers. Over the next three weeks, the death toll would mount to 10.Confronting an unprecedented news story, a panicked public and a dearth of hard information from law enforcement officials, 24-hour cable news channels and other media outlets filled time and space with a parade of profilers, criminologists, forensic specialists and former detectives. In theory, these designated “experts” could educate and perhaps even reassure the public by providing context and perspective about the unknown sniper. The commentators could divulge statistics, discuss similar episodes and assess the unfolding case based on their own experience.But the reality was less constructive. Many profilers and pundits, prodded by interviewers, plunged into a din of speculation, much of it wrong. Certainly no one predicted the eventual suspects would be two black men, the elder, John Allen Muhammad, 41, a father figure to the younger, John Lee Malvo, 17. No one envisioned Malvo as a Jamaican immigrant or Muhammad as a drifter born in Louisiana–many of the profilers said they were local. Nobody anticipated that SWAT teams would apprehend the unemployed, homeless pair asleep in their blue Chevy Caprice. Far from sharpening the public’s comprehension, the incessant speculation may have exacerbated people’s confusion and frustration–and, perhaps, hampered the search for the snipers.At times, the predictions appeared as haphazard as the selection of victims. “He’s probably Caucasian. He’s probably in his 30s,” forensic psychologist N.G. Berrill told ABC on October 8.Bo Dietl, a retired New York City homicide detective and chairman of a security and investigations company, said he believed two white teenagers, brainwashed by video games, had styled themselves after Columbine shooters Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. “There’s probably two skinny kids out there who have made a pact with each other,” Dietl told the New York Times. James Alan Fox, a Northeastern University criminal justice professor and frequent television commentator, said in the same October 16 article: “It’s probably some introverted guy living by himself, working by himself, living out the ultimate fantasy.”Fox’s colleague Jack Levin, a criminologist and director of the Brudnick Center on Violence and Conflict at Northeastern, told Larry King on October 18, during one of six appearances on King’s show: “He’s probably a middle-aged guy…. Truth is, he has other responsibilities in his life. He may be married. He may be playing with his children, watching football on Sunday. Or he may have a part-time job.”Robert Ressler, a former FBI profiler in the formative years of the FBI’s behavioral science unit, told CNN’s King that night: “It was clear that this individual and, in my opinion, these individuals, were going to stay in the major metropolitan Washington area, which tells me that they’re residents. These people are long-term residents.”And Pat Brown, a self-taught criminal profiler, author and ubiquitous television presence during the sniper case, told CBS on October 22: “I do believe he’s working between Montgomery County, Maryland, and Spotsylvania, Virginia. I think those are his two points. I think he lives in one location, possibly works in the other or has a relative down in the other one…. I have surmised from the beginning that he probably lives…somewhere about three miles from the Olney, Maryland, area.”Less than 48 hours later, SWAT teams descended on a sleeping Muhammad and Malvo at a rest stop outside Frederick, Maryland, near the West Virginia border. Former residents of Washington state, the pair apparently lived in their 1990 Chevy Caprice and are suspected in killings in Washington state, Alabama, Louisiana and Georgia in addition to the spate of shootings in Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia.Some predictions were indeed accurate. Ressler and Dietl rightly inferred that there were two shooters. Berrill correctly surmised that the suspect probably had military experience. Fox and others accurately postulated the shooters’ interpersonal failures. The pundits almost uniformly eliminated women from suspicion, and many anticipated the shooters’ fascination with guns. Perhaps the experts arrived at these deductions through aptitude and experience. Perhaps they got lucky. Perhaps, if you make enough predictions, the odds increase that at least some will be correct.Regardless, the myriad speculation–much of which turned out to be wrong–has prompted a flurry of post-crisis self-examination by the news media.In the aftermath, media commentators and law enforcement officials have focused much of their criticism on the 24-hour cable news channels that provided such a visible forum for the pundits.”The important question is, was the orgy of speculation harmless–or was there a very dangerous undercurrent to it?” Washington Post reporters Paul Farhi and Linton Weeks wrote on October 25, one day after the suspects’ arrest. “By saturating the public’s consciousness with phantom images of thirtyish white men, did the media profilers distract attention from a more general and possibly open-minded search for the perpetrators?… If so, the media’s performance raises a chilling possibility: that the suspects might have evaded detection for so long because witnesses were focusing too intently on media-created ‘profiles’ that didn’t come close to the real thing.”Not all news organizations relied so heavily on designated experts. WRC-TV, an NBC-owned station in Washington, D.C., declined to use profilers or other pundits despite the intense public interest in the case. “People were hanging on every word, and we thought it was appropriate that we stick to the facts as we knew them and not get into the realm of speculation,” says News Director Robert Long. “Those who were working on the case were unavailable, and the others were kibitzers.”Greta Van Susteren, the Fox News Channel host who vaulted to TV stardom as a pundit during the O.J. Simpson trial, also decided not to use profilers on her program. “Crimes are always solved the same way, the old-fashioned way: clues and tips,” says Van Susteren, a former defense attorney. “I did not think profiling was something I should put out there as a way to find these people.”But cable news executives defend their reliance on profilers and other crime experts as a way to provide the public with assessments based on facts.”We would do it all over again,” says CNN Vice President Joy DiBenedetto. “We were very careful about the arrangements we made to have people on the air. We had people who stayed with us throughout the length of the story to educate the public on all the new information that we did get from police.”MSNBC Vice President Mark Effron asks, “Do I think that cable news erred by having on smart, experienced former FBI and other law enforcement people to give their take on it? No, I don’t.” Effron compares his network’s coverage of the sniper case to its handling of possible military action against Iraq, when MSNBC invites former generals to discuss the likelihood and ramifications of U.S. military action.”The viewers understand that they’re listening to smart people who don’t necessarily have the inside information but are speculating based on their experience,” Effron says. “We kept the focus on a story that there was enormous interest in, not just in the D.C. area but all around the country.”He adds that during a big, ongoing story, the emergence of inaccurate information is inevitable. The police, for example, mistakenly told the public to look for a white van, when the suspects’ actual vehicle turned out to be a blue Chevy Caprice. “To put blame on the all-news cable networks is kind of a cheap shot,” Effron says.TV sniper commentators contend that the press, which gladly quoted them and pressed them to share opinions, is now unfairly blaming them. Although a few admit to some discomfort about their performance, others justify and defend their predictions.”When you’re working on an unprecedented case with very little information, of course you’re not going to get it completely right,” says Northeastern’s Levin. “This is going to sound really defensive, and it is. I was criticized because I suggested, based on probability, that the killer would turn out to be a white, middle-aged male. The killer turned out to be a black, middle-aged male. So I got two out of three. But nobody ever says anything about the ones I got right.”Levin dismisses the Post’s fears of a “chilling possibility” that profilers distracted public attention from the actual suspects as “laughable. The most important, misleading information was given by the police. All they talked about was the white van.”Adds Fox: “There were a lot of things that were right and a lot of things that were wrong. Most of the media I’ve seen focuses on the things that were wrong.” Fox, a social scientist who with Levin coauthored several books about serial murder, says interviewers prodded him to profile the sniper and to speculate. Still, he doesn’t believe his remarks harmed the public.”Do you really think people were walking around and ducking every time they saw a white person?” Fox asks. He suggests that he and other commentators actually might have served a useful role. “There was a tremendous amount of airtime, obviously, that had to be filled, and given the level of panic and fear, people didn’t feel like they had any control of the situation,” Fox says. “Sometimes when people don’t feel in control they like to watch TV and see what people are saying.”Profiler Brown says police made a common mistake by providing so little information to the public and by overemphasizing some pieces of information, such as the elusive white van. She contends profilers stepped in to fill the vacuum. “At least they gave some information and got people thinking,” says Brown, adding that she qualified her remarks as much as possible.Although Dietl, the retired homicide detective, had speculated that two teenagers were responsible for the shootings, he unabashedly pronounces himself “half right.” As early as October 3, Dietl concluded based on his experience that two people were committing the murders, with one pushing the other in a deadly game.Dietl says he appeared on CNN and other networks to teach the public that they could help police crack the case by remaining vigilant. He denies misleading viewers with his remarks about teenagers and video games. “I don’t think everybody’s listening to what I said,” Dietl declares. “I don’t think everybody was so in tune that when I speak, everybody listens and believes every syllable that I say. Now if you had the police chief coming out and saying, ‘It’s two white skinny guys,’ then you have a problem.”Berrill, a faculty member at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice at City University of New York, based his hunches about the shooter as a thirtyish white man on precedent. “It’s like saying statistically, a fellow’s going to live until he’s 70 years old,” says Berrill, who as a forensic psychologist has been hired by courts, defense attorneys and prosecutors to assess the mental status and competency of accused criminals.But Berrill admits to feeling a bit “weird” as he participated in an increasingly “circus-like” media atmosphere. “Did I get caught up in it?” he asks. “Probably. It’s hard to say no to ‘Good Morning America’ or to [being told], ‘you’re a fantastic expert.’ I tried to preface it with, ‘who knows?’ and ‘probably.’ Thank God I said ‘probably.’ “Candice DeLong, a retired FBI agent, emphasizes what she sees as the accuracy of her statements. DeLong worked for more than a decade as an FBI field profiler in Chicago and San Francisco, submitting her profiles to the main FBI unit in Quantico, Virginia, for approval before providing them to police. In an October 16 article in the New York Times, she said she saw the sniper as “into this stealth ninja stuff, walking around with a swagger, used to bossing people around, maybe a fireman or construction worker.”Although the suspects were neither construction workers nor firemen, DeLong says she correctly envisioned a “macho profession” because Muhammad had been a soldier. “I was not getting the sense the shooter had lace curtains in the living room,” she says.Perhaps more frequently than during the sniper extravaganza, profilers now emphasize that their line of work is an art, not a science. The behind-the-scenes tool does not identify one particular suspect but can help police focus investigations or choose strategies. Profilers assisting police study crime-scene evidence and photographs and then postulate the unknown offender’s behavioral traits and tendencies.”Any profiler who tells you he knows something ‘absolutely, positively’ is delusional,” says Clint Van Zandt, a 25-year FBI veteran who led negotiations with the Branch Davidians in Waco and correctly profiled the Oklahoma City bomber as a single, white male with military experience. “It’s a broad-brush art based upon experience and education. All you’re doing is taking a very large population group and shrinking it down so investigators can go out and work.”During the sniper case, Van Zandt appeared as an MSNBC commentator but declined to predict the shooter’s age and race or commit to the number of shooters. “On the outside, it’s opinion and supposition,” Van Zandt says. “On the inside, it’s investigation. You have to maintain that firewall.”About a week before police arrested Muhammad and Malvo, Van Zandt says he called an MSNBC official, whom he declines to name, and said he no longer wanted to comment on the sniper case. He felt pundits were talking too much, speculating too much and positing too many theories as absolutes, and that he unwillingly had been sucked in. But the official told Van Zandt that if he didn’t participate, somebody else would, and that other person might not share his care and concern for law enforcement issues.Ultimately, Van Zandt reconsidered and continued to appear on MSNBC. “I really had to think about it: Am I helping, or hurting?” Van Zandt says. “In the [Washington] Post, I saw myself lumped in with people saying absolutes, and I try so hard not to say absolutes, it really bothered me.” He says he’s still not sure he made the right decision by continuing his television appearances.Gregg McCrary, a former profiler and instructor at the FBI Academy’s profiling unit, says he was careful never to offer a profile of the shooter. But he did tell the Washington Post on October 23: “When you break down the demographics of the Washington region, there is a statistical probability that the sniper is a white man.”In retrospect, McCrary, an ABC commentator during the shootings, says he “probably overstepped the line just by talking about statistical probabilities” because they “really don’t mean anything. What counts is what’s going on in this case.”If McCrary seems a bit self-critical, he saves most of his contempt for fellow sniper commentators. He contends many pundits designated as “experts” by the press lacked proper qualifications to discuss the case. He faults Brown, who has no formal police training, for criticizing police and for calling the shooter a “loser”–a remark that McCrary says could have provoked further violence.”To put people on who say those things is reckless of the media,” McCrary says. “I hope something like this is a learning experience, that they’ll go back and look at the people they’ve put on, and say, ‘Are these really the best people to put on?’ Go back to the people who’ve really done this, worked cases, been qualified to profile, maybe been qualified in court as an expert in this area. Just declaring yourself to be a profiler doesn’t really make you a profiler.”Brown disputes as “foolishness” the accusation that she might have provoked the snipers. The CEO of a nonprofit company that investigates murders free of charge for families of victims and police, Brown says she acquired her skills by reading “hundreds” of psychology and forensics books, attending training seminars and working “dozens and dozens” of homicide cases.”There are many methodologies to learning profiling and to get the skills,” Brown says. “There is simply no way you can say, ‘This is what makes a good profiler.’ It’s really an investigative skill and a logic skill.” She recommends that reporters focus on “expert explanation” rather than “expert opinion” by asking profilers to explain the reasons for their theories.Profilers and crime commentators undoubtedly will resurface during the trials of Malvo and Muhammad and during inevitable future tragedies. Media analysts recommend that journalists provide more rigorous screening of designated experts’ qualifications and more fully explain the value and limitations of their opinions to viewers and readers.”Just as we try to educate ourselves about using medical reports, we in the journalism industry need to educate ourselves about how to use profilers and how we can discern who is good and who is not,” says Kelly McBride, a member of the Poynter Institute’s ethics faculty.McBride has no quarrel with the wall-to-wall coverage of the sniper story. “It’s not should you cover it 24 hours, it’s how you cover it that I think needs to be discussed,” she says.McBride, who spent the first six years of her career as a police reporter at Spokane’s Spokesman-Review, suggests asking profilers and other analysts: Where were you trained? What experience do you have? Who are your current or former employers?”There needs to be more transparency in the process to give it more credibility,” McBride says. “For example, who is Pat Brown? What makes her qualified to share her opinion, and why are her opinions so important that they merit the type of coverage that they got? We should all be looking at explaining to the public who we talk to and why we talk to them. Sometimes their only qualification seems to be that they’re available.”McBride also says networks should disclose whether they are paying guests to share opinions, perhaps by adding an Internet link where interested viewers can peruse consultants’ qualifications and learn whether they received financial compensation.Some sniper analysts–such as MSNBC’s Van Zandt, ABC’s McCrary and CNN’s Casey Jordan, a Western Connecticut State University criminologist — received payment in return for providing exclusive services. McCrary, for example, says he signed a six-month contract as a consultant to ABC and will assist with future crime stories. Jordan says she received a daily stipend from CNN to cover her 24-hour-availability during the case. Other sniper commentators, such as Brown, maximized their television exposure by forgoing payment and declining to commit to one client. Brown is paid, however, for appearances on Court TV’s “I, Detective” series.”It is relevant, and I think it should be disclosed to the viewers who care,” McBride says of the financial arrangements. “It just casts the information that they’re giving in a different light and helps the viewer weigh the information. Maybe the viewer will say, ‘If the person’s good enough to be paid by the network, I should listen,’ or maybe, ‘If this person is paid, they’re spouting off to get more money or to be more entertaining.’ “Poynter President James M. Naughton adds that reporters can make better use of experts. Instead of asking profilers with minimal information to speculate, “you might ask them how profiling works, and what kinds of things authorities are going to be looking for to create the profile. Obviously, in hindsight, the speculation was worthless.”Naughton says journalists instinctively want to extract as much information as possible. But he adds, “when they can’t get it from authorities, getting it from someone who has no earthly idea is not a second-best option.” He suggests that reporters resist the impulse to press pundits when they say they don’t know the answer.Ted Gest, president of Criminal Justice Journalists, doesn’t fault the media for using profilers but does object to their perpetual presence. “What they added was an analysis of the previous cases, which is fine, but I think they were overused,” says Gest, a crime and legal affairs reporter for three decades at U.S. News & World Report and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. “I do fault the media for quoting them as being very definite. A lot of the quotes I saw went over the line because the profilers were stating definitely the background of the person or people involved in this case.”Nor does Gest applaud pundits who defend their commentary because it turned out to be partly correct. They’re “just saying [they] guessed 10 different things and three were right,” Gest says. “It’s not a scorecard here. You should be basing this on actual facts.”Law enforcement authorities have scolded the media for relying on profilers and other crime commentators. On October 9, Charles Moose, the Montgomery County, Maryland, police chief, admonished the media for disclosing that police had found a tarot card at Benjamin Tasker Middle School in Bowie, Maryland, where a 13-year-old student had been shot. Moose then lambasted the pundits for speculating about the case.”Unfortunately, we have any number of talking heads in the media, retired police professionals. They’re ranting and raving on all of the various stations,” Moose said. “It’s all fun to be on television. If they’re putting people in this community at risk so that they can have the pleasure of being on TV, it is so sad. We’ve got retired police chiefs out there, looking for other jobs, taking advantage of this situation to get their face on television.”Hours after police arrested Muhammad and Malvo, Montgomery County State’s Attorney Douglas Gansler upbraided the press for exacerbating public panic. “The fear was such that everyone thought they were going to get shot,” he told the Associated Press Managing Editors conference in Baltimore. “Speculation, pontification by people who had no knowledge was amazing.”Possibly the news media and the pundits have learned from this experience. Possibly profilers and other crime analysts will frame their thoughts more carefully during future cases, douse their commentary with caveats and refrain from uninformed speculation. Possibly journalists will rigorously vet profilers and criminologists, use them sparingly, limit them to providing context about past cases and resist the urge to test their clairvoyance.But probably, based on precedent and experience, as the profilers would say, the specter of a thirtyish, macho white man, familiar with the area and fascinated by guns, is destined to haunt airwaves and fill news pages in the future.”Now it’s time for the finger-pointing,” Van Zandt says of the reproaches ricocheting among press, pundits and police. “We’ll all just bite each other half to death, and then we’ll go in corners and heal our wounds. And then next time, we’ll all come out and do it again–but hopefully do it better.”

  20. Profilers don’t help their own cause much, either, at least not with the “amateur internet cybersleuths,” and we are legion. An example is Pat Brown, a Minnesota-based profiler who manages to accrue a remarkable amount of face-time every time a major serial case hits the news. When the alleged BTK Strangler, Dennis Rader [Google search], was arrested in late February 2005, Brown seemed to defy time and space, showing up to do commentary for nearly every special break-in about the arrest. No one bothered to note that Brown’s profile of BTK, while on-the-mark in some general and a few specific ways (something that could also be said about my own completely off-the cuff profile of this killer), was based on one particular person she’d zeroed in on a while back – and unfortunately for her, not Dennis Rader, but an ex-employee of the Wichita Eagle who many suspected was guilty of his wife’s murder while on a camping trip about 10 years ago.

    Profiler Brent Turvey, who at one time was Pat Brown’s teacher, said the following about the peripatetic profiling pundit:

    Pat Brown (…)approached me years ago, after taking several courses, to get my assistance in naming a person that she was essentially stalking as a serial murderer. No evidence. No proof. Just her firm belief that she knew better than anyone else. I of course refused, told her to stop stalking the guy lest she find herself arrested, and this did not make her happy at all. Ignoring admonishments regarding this and other terribly unprofessional conduct, she continues to go her own way in her corner of the profiling community…
    Read more: http://blogcritics.org/culture/article/who-is-haunting-houma-louisiana/page-3/#ixzz1d84mV1mi

  21. Thank you sans for finding that article

    “Make it simple for the public. Don’t give them a seven-page description of a psychopath,” said Pat Brown, an investigative criminal profiler who teaches on the subject. “I think they turn out a generic profile and it goes out on every case: he’s a loser, he’s probably between 25 and 35 and has problems with women.”

    The problem with profiles, and the criticism that comes when they are found to miss the mark, isn’t new and likely will not change, Brown continued. She recommends that police share what they know from crime scene analysis and keep their theories to themselves.

    “I’m sorry, most of the psychological stuff is junk,” she said. “Putting together a vague, generic profile doesn’t serve anyone.”

    I do love this line

    She recommends that police share what they know from crime scene analysis and keep their theories to themselves.

    Not going to go down well in Portugal when she tells Goncalo Amaral he should have kept his theory to himself and stuck to the facts.    LOL


  22. And it seems that it is not just supporters of the McCanns that can see through Pat Brown.  So can Hardlinemarxist who runs McCannExposure blog, she writes back in June 2011 this:

    I’ve addressed the issue of the Tony’s response to the rebuttal in a previous reply to you.

    Regarding Pat Brown. Her recent kindle publication has angered me immensely. One only has to look at the woman’s history to see that she is a complete failure in the realm of criminal profiling, and nothing more than a media whore on the make. I have had information passed to me from someone whom has dealt with her in person over the last month with regards to her so called ‘profile’. It is clear from this information that she put minimal work into the publication. She merely gathered information from a number of sources, didn’t check a damn thing, banged the lot together and bobs your uncle – A profile on the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. The woman has no integrity, nor has she any understanding or respect for scientific inquiry. One only has to read her tweets, blog and Facebook page to see the total lack of objectivity with respect to the McCann case, and likely many other cases she has profiled. I find it disheartening, and slightly irritating, that many that sit on the so called ‘anti-mccann’ side of the fence have taken to peddling her tripe merely because it as good as confirms that Madeleine is dead and the parents were complicit. What is more, this appears to have been done in the complete absence of consideration of its contents, originality, her ‘get out of all shit’ disclaimer and claims of willingness to do ‘pro bono’ work – what about all the media interviews that would follow thereafter. Suffice to say, those that place faith in Brown’s profile are deluded if they believe it carries any weight, the woman cannot even provide her data!

    ETA and yes, I have read her kindle publication, courtesy of the kind sole who published it for free on the internet,


  23. Interesting article :

    Whodunnit? Criminal profilers were once the heroes of police work, nailing offenders with their astonishing psychological insights. So why did it all fall apart?

    Jon RonsonThe Guardian, Saturday 15 May 2010 http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/may/15/criminal-profiling-jon-ronson

  24. This is her latest (I hope this works!)  She admits she is after the McCanns for money:

  25. Herlatest, which does show all she is after is the money:

  26. I am gobsmacked … I am totally lost for words at what she has posted on Facebook

  27. Sorry, Bren my post got duplicated. Feel free to delete the second one.  

    Have you seen this link:  http://davidbretisagod.forumotion.co.uk/

    Ignore the name, there is a whole section given over to brown, with quite a few posts you may or may not have seen.

  28. This is date June so she has been looking for $$$$ for some time:


  29. [img]http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/2084/fessup.png[/img]

    You know, I have never seen anyone dig such a big hole in my life.

  30. You couldn’t make this lot up Graham.  I just can’t believe that someone who wants to be classed as a professional acts in such a manner.

    She cares nothing about Madeleine.  And I do hope our press really do show the UK population what this woman is doing to the family of a missing child.

  31. Jayelles has made an excellent observation:

    She writes on JATYK 

    Now that we know this was about the $$$$$, we can look back and see that the “clues” were always there:-

    It puzzled me that she was suing the McCanns when she hadn’t actually been prevented from selling her profile, but look and this post she made at Havern’s :-

    The reason the book is listed at a low price on Amazon is two-fold; one, if one puts it up free, the haters claim the book (profile) is so worthless, the author and profiler can’t even sell it and no one should take it seriously.

    On Amazon, whenever anyone looked at Kate’s book, Brown’s pamphlet showed up as a “related reading” option. That was free publicity for her. Her pamphlet has clearly bombed on B&N and Smashwords. She was looking for a free ride on the back of KJate’s book’s success!

    Here is the screenshot for the whole of Pat Browns post on Jill Haverns 


  32. Oh yes her Gift as she posted on Facebook

  33. And she knew, so she says, the McCanns would act this way

  34. Seems that she is not willing just to attack the McCanns even Martin Grime is a target

  35. Oh she loves to accuse, doesn’t she?

  36. It’s all about the money money money

  37. Now to the Facebook entry that is just beyond words

  38. Now who will be getting money… my money is not on Pat Brown

  39. Not sure where I found this, quite possibly PFA and originally on JATYK (?).

    So, according to Pat’s “profile”, one or other of the McCanns supposedly smuggled a mummified human body in a suitcase on an international flight back to the UK. 

    A few simple questions:
    – If that were the case, why is she going to Portugal to “search”?

    – On what basis does she assume that a human skeleton would not appear suspicious in a luggage scan?

    – What is she suggesting about the search around Odiaxere? That the search teams found the body and handed it to Gerry to pack in his luggage?

    – In case she missed it: “The team are obliged to consider evidence rather than repetition of the myriad of views and beliefs that individuals choose to interpret from the available information.”

    • I knew there was something niggling at the back of my mind.  Now back in 2006 you couldn’t get on a plane with a bottle of pepsi due to tightened security checks.  

      Slowly they relaxed the rules but in June 2007 the airports in the UK were back on high alert after the Glasgow airport attack.


      And I think it wasn’t until January 2008 that they were allowing more than one piece of hand luggage through.

      I can remember the queues, the plastic bags and all the scanning that had to be carried out on bags, hand luggage.

      So how the hell did Gerry manage this?  Don’t tell me the airports and airlines are ” in on it”.

  40. By “stow” luggage, I think she means hold (as opposed to cabin) luggage. With all the fuss over cabin luggage, I find it hard to imagine that hold luggage isn’t scanned as well.  To say nothing about the fact that you can hardly go to the loo without a CCTV camera scrutinising you. You’d be nabbed for “dodgy” behaviour way before luggage collection. 

    • Exactly Carana, I don’t know who she flies with but it must be “flaparmsandpray” because I can assure her that we might relax those border controls when it comes to letting people in but, you try getting through airport security without being searched, scanned and having every bit x-rayed, it has been virtually impossible since 9/11 and even more so since 7/7

  41. She bin talking to thentherewere4.

    He posted the same tinpot theory, many moons ago on 3a, that a 20 plus day old body had been brought back on an EJ flight.

    • So they did Samantha, yes I remember that, in between the Masonic stuff.  They said something about Gerry being rushed through as he helped the person on the plane who was taken ill.

      And if I remember rightly what proved their theory was that no-one has come forward and thanked him for saving their life.

  42. Yep Bren, Thentherewere4 had to rank as one of the major conspiraloons.

  43. Is she still selling her “profile” online?
    “I will post exactly the earnings from the book and what anything is spent on (no salary)” She could start with telling how many she’s sold up till now and how much is in her fund. Preferably with a copy of the last bank statement (or whatever you call it).

  44. […] one more thing are you planning on searching in Huelva and Rothley like you originally […]

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: