Pat Brown - criminal profiler - Did Kate McCann read my letter to her?

Saturday, May 21, 2011

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Did Kate McCann read my Letter to her ?

Kate McCann has a new book out, Madeleine, an incredible self-serving propaganda pieces which leads me to believe she must have read my letter (below from October 4, 2007). But, as can happen to people who may have a narcissistic personality disorder, they just don't know when to SHUT UP. For, in the book, Kate's explanations further lead me to doubt the McCann's claims of innocence in the disappearance of their daughter. One simple example is the most peculiar speculation of Kate that all her children may have been drugged by Madeleine's 'abductor' both the night she went missing and the previous night. First of all, Kate, this would serve no purpose to the 'abductor' except to waste time and it would be difficult to accomplish. You must know that, so the only rational reason you are claiming the children were drugged would be to explain away the fact that, indeed, they may have been drugged and that, indeed, the only ones likely to do this would be you and Gerry.

Any good lawyer will tell you to SHUT UP, but, no, you keep talking, Kate, and we thank you for it.

OPEN LETTER TO KATE MCCANN..............can be read here............. I think it is from 2007

http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.com/2011/05/criminal-profiling-topic-of-day-did.html

OPEN LETTER TO KATE MCCANN

Yes, Kate,

It isn’t your breast size or weight that is causing your problems. It is you and your narcissist evaluation of the situation and your PR team’s equally stupid assessment of the situation that is making you look so bad in the public eye.

I am a criminal profiler with years of experience dealing with parents of murder victims and missing relatives. Your behavior and the behavior of your husband fall far outside or the norm for grieving parents. Now, this may be because you are just terribly narcisstic folks who had nothing to do with your child going missing (outside of neglecting your children and putting your needs to party before their needs for comfort and safety, a narcissistic behavior if I have ever seen one). You and Gerry may simply be so narcissistic you have no understanding of how other people view your behaviors and your PR team may share your narcissism so that no one on your team has a clue to normal human behavior.

But, SHUT UP! Every time you open your mouths you do more damage to yourselves. You seem guiltier by the day. Your attempt at “damage control” is so obvious and so very much a day late and a dollar short, everything you do or say seems a cover up and a transparent attempt at proving your innocence.

Let me make clear what I think is weird about what you say and do:

You choose words about Madeleine’s disappearance which make it appear you know there is no abductor and that Madeleine is dead.

Both you and Gerry state your only guilt in the matter is not being their when Madeleine “was taken.” This statement makes no sense for abduction as Madeleine could not be taken if either of you were with Maddie when an abductor would have shown up. It makes more sense in the context that Maddie died while you were not in the apartment.

Your statements and attitude about Madeleine being alive do not square with parents who really believe their daughter is in the hands of a pedophile or pedophiles who are brutally raping and torturing her daily.

Your attempts at “finding” Madeleine do not represent the manner most parents would choose if they were actively searching for a live child but appear more to be the actions of parents trying to prove after the fact of a child’s death that they “cared” (not care) about her.

Your behaviors of “keeping a normal routine” and “keeping up one’s appearance” is admirable, but extremely bizarre. I don’t know any other parents of missing children who can appear so together and cheery. When my daughter cooked our kittens by accident in the dryer, I cancelled Christmas.

Gerry’s blog creeps people out. It is too upbeat. Terrified and distraught parents of missing children are rarely able to jog and play tennis and go to park with their other kids and have a fun time. Over a long period of time, maybe, but this is usually years after the nightmare begins. Some parents never recover from the trauma and it is common for marriages to fail and the brothers and sisters to feel their parents went absent after their sibling went missing.

Your ability to sleep at night after the first five days, Kate, is beyond belief. It is the behavior of one who already knows the answer and even then, is quite a narcissistic trait. If you believed your daughter was being raped as you lay in bed at night, sleep would be very hard to come by. I guess you finally realize this and your mother is saying that NOW you can’t sleep and Madeleine comes to visit you in the night. What changed, Kate?

Your PR team coming up with an answer to every accusation, answers that are ludicrous in themselves, makes you seem awfully defensive, and, if there is no way you or Gerry had anything to do with Maddie’s disappearance, you have nothing to defend. Furthermore, if all you care about is finding Maddie, you shouldn’t be wasting your time on such silliness. After all, as Gerry said, Maddie is the only important thing, right?

So, SHUT UP, Kate. SHUT UP, GERRY. Fire your PR team as they are totally worthless. If both of you really are innocent and your think Maddie is alive, return to Portugal. Start searching for real (and it took six months to set up a hotline?). Cooperate with the police. Take the polygraphs as you have zero to hide and, with competent polygraph examiners, the questions are so simple you can’t screw them up. I will even give you the four questions that should be asked:


“Did Madeleine die while you were present?”
“Did you return to the apartment and find Madeleine dying or dead?”
“Did you move Madeleine’s body at any time?”
“Did your spouse move Madeleine’s body at any time?"

These are simple questions. The answer to all of them should be “No.” There is no ambiguity in these questions (unlike a question such as “Do you feel responsible for the disappearance of Madeleine?” which you could if you acknowledge leaving her without an adult caretaker is irresponsible; an affirmative answer to such a question would be useless to the detectives as it could falsely indicate that you had something to do with Maddie going missing when you are only feeling guilty over leaving her unattended. Also, an affirmative answer could mean you simply do not feel responsible for what happened to Maddie no matter what happened to her as a total narcissist might).

The above four questions are simple and unambiguous and even a narcissist can’t misconstrue the meaning of the questions. The answers will be a simple “Yes” or “No.” Have the polygraph session videotaped so the police will be unable to do any underhanded scare tactics or interrogation that might distort the results of the tests.

Quite frankly, Kate, you and Gerry had everything going for you as parents of a missing child if you hadn’t left your children unattended night after night to go out partying. THIS is what made people dislike you. It was to your advantage that you are both relatively attractive people because IF you had big breasts and a porky physique and were not well-heeled professionals, you would have become suspects right off the bat and you would have not had the incredible monetary support you have been blessed with nor all those kindly letters. You would have been viewed as just a pair of slobs who probably abused their children as well as neglected them and you wouldn’t have gotten the phenomenal amount of publicity worldwide concerning Maddie’s disappearance. Other parents have gone public, run campaigns, and had web sites, but your fortune with publicity and support has been unprecedented. And, you complain, Kate, that people are treating you badly because you are fit! It was being fit and professional and well-off that got you so much attention. It was you and Gerry’s fitness as parents and your peculiar behaviors that got you the negative attention.

I have a final suggestion. Ask the PJ if I can come analyze the case. My organization will send me pro bono. As a criminal profiler I can analyze the actual evidence to advise the investigators as to the best investigate strategy. I have no problem determining this crime as an abduction and finding the creep that took Madeleine if the evidence points that way. I don’t have to like you and Gerry as people to view the evidence in an impassionate and professional manner. No one should be convicted of a crime simply because of personality and because people don’t like the individual’s personality. Solid physical and circumstantial evidence must exist to the point where there is no question as to who committed the crime. I would work very diligently to assist the PJ with the evidence and the facts and do a thorough crime scene analysis that would move the case forward.

Furthermore, if you and Gerry get charged in Madeleine’s disappearance and must truly defend yourselves, my services are available to you and your lawyers. I will be more than happy to analyze the evidence and, if you are innocent, do all I can to serve in your defense.

Good luck, Kate. May the truth be brought to light soon and you and Gerry get the justice you deserve in the case of your missing daughter.

All the best,

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Allthough I don't like Pat Brown too much, I have to say she has a very sharp way of pointing out the truth.

Pat Brown refers to Kates book:
Kate McCann has a new book out, Madeleine, an incredible self-serving propaganda pieces which leads me to believe she must have read my letter (below from October 4, 2007). But, as can happen to people who may have a narcissistic personality disorder, they just don't know when to SHUT UP. For, in the book, Kate's explanations further lead me to doubt the McCann's claims of innocence in the disappearance of their daughter. One simple example is the most peculiar speculation of Kate that all her children may have been drugged by Madeleine's 'abductor' both the night she went missing and the previous night. First of all, Kate, this would serve no purpose to the 'abductor' except to waste time and it would be difficult to accomplish. You must know that, so the only rational reason you are claiming the children were drugged would be to explain away the fact that, indeed, they may have been drugged and that, indeed, the only ones likely to do this would be you and Gerry

---

'lead me to doubt the mccanns claims of innocence"

Way to go Pat

candyfloss wrote:Saturday, May 21, 2011

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Did Kate McCann read my Letter to her ?

Kate McCann has a new book out, Madeleine, an incredible self-serving propaganda pieces which leads me to believe she must have read my letter (below from October 4, 2007). But, as can happen to people who may have a narcissistic personality disorder, they just don't know when to SHUT UP. For, in the book, Kate's explanations further lead me to doubt the McCann's claims of innocence in the disappearance of their daughter. One simple example is the most peculiar speculation of Kate that all her children may have been drugged by Madeleine's 'abductor' both the night she went missing and the previous night. First of all, Kate, this would serve no purpose to the 'abductor' except to waste time and it would be difficult to accomplish. You must know that, so the only rational reason you are claiming the children were drugged would be to explain away the fact that, indeed, they may have been drugged and that, indeed, the only ones likely to do this would be you and Gerry.

Any good lawyer will tell you to SHUT UP, but, no, you keep talking, Kate, and we thank you for it.

Pat Brown

I've been thinking about this more. If all of the children were in the same room every night, being looked after by an adult, there would have been be no need to drug any of the children. But on the night of the 3rd, when the twins had to play their big parts in the cots with no sheets, staying very still and quiet, not letting the cat out of the bag when the GNR arrived, it would have been very important to them to ensure the twins said nothing. To me, it would suggest that it was just the twins who may have been drugged and that night only. It would also explain why Gerry cancelled a drugs test being done on the twins.

[/quote] from Stella
"I've been thinking about this more. If all of the children were in the same room every night, being looked after by an adult, there would have been be no need to drug any of the children. But on the night of the 3rd, when the twins had to play their big parts in the cots with no sheets, staying very still and quiet, not letting the cat out of the bag when the GNR arrived, it would have been very important to them to ensure the twins said nothing. To me, it would suggest that it was just the twins who may have been drugged and that night only. It would also explain why Gerry cancelled a drugs test being done on the twins.[/quote]"


And, personally speaking, if I’m going to fake an abduction and allege that the abductor forced a window to gain entry, well now, it would be rather prudent of me to make sure a window appears forced. Kind of makes the story look even more ridiculous if I don’t. But I know that when those shutters break they make a heck of a row, I know because I practised it earlier in the week. Can’t have the little mites waking up and screaming their lungs out when I come back to do that. Particularly as I will have to do it from the inside as it is almost impossible from the outside. They might see me. Last thing I want when the police are here is them blurting out “Dada break window...!!”.... Not my fault I met that fellow in the street and it was too risky to do. Or that my mate lost his nerve.

In some ways it would have been easier for the PJ if one of the T9 had of broken the shutters. Then there probably would have been DNA and forenxic evidence left by the chosen amateur villian from within their ranks that was concrete and would have scuppered their evil plan from the start.

I would have thought that if all the children were left together in one room to sleep at night with one adult watching them, that might be a very good reason to drug them (if you are that way inclinced and think you know what you are doing with sedation).
Can you imagine one adult trying to get all those young children to sleep in the same tiny room.

Why was David Payne the last to leave from their apartment on some occasions?
Could it be because he was waiting for someone to arrive, to look after all of the children?

From Fiona Payne’s Rogatory Interview:

Reply “Erm, of what happened on those different nights. The, erm, you know, our, our bath time and bedtime routine would usually take sort of forty-five minutes and the kids would, would be in bed sort of by quarter past eight, half eight. Erm, they were so exhausted, erm, with everything that was going on, that they were very good at going down. I mean, we were quite amazed that week, you know, normally we’d have a bit of crying out of Scarlet even, but, no, both of them would, were very good at going off. And in terms of going down to the Tapas Bar, Dave usually stayed in the apartment a bit longer than me and my mum, erm, just to make sure that all was quiet before leaving the apartment and Lily sometimes would sort of just chat to herself a bit before going to sleep, so he’d just, erm, you know, and at least on a couple of occasions, stayed behind a bit longer than we did and I’d order a starter for him”.
1485 “Uh hu”.
Reply “Then he’d toddle along, you know, when all was quiet”.

If they were very good at going off, why the need to stay behind? They had a monitor to check "all was quiet".

David appears to be a "hands on" type of dad then. IIRC, he even bathed other peoples children on previous holidays (allegedly). How modern.

Smokeandmirrors wrote:David appears to be a "hands on" type of dad then. IIRC, he even bathed other peoples children on previous holidays (allegedly). How modern.

Smokeandmirrors wrote:David appears to be a "hands on" type of dad then.

The only trouble is, according to David, he left at the same time as everyone else.

From David Payne’s Rogatory Interview:

"So you know we did chat you know right from the beginning whether we felt that was, you know that was reasonable and in our assessment we felt that was reasonable. Err you know we, we generally stayed err in the room, no sorry in the apartment until the children you know had fallen asleep, you know and then, you know we did all go down together and err so yeah there was occasions where you could hear something perhaps on the monitor in the room while you were you know over in the Tapas area. Err so you know on the whole we, you know, we were happy…”

I just don't know who to believe here when they disagree like this.
Perhaps I should toss a coin. Heads it's Fiona, tails it's David.
Perhaps I should phone a friend.

David and the rest of the T7....."You know, you know, you know"
Interviewing Officer....."Er, I don't actually. That's why I'm asking you."
David et al....."Erm, yeah, well, you know, we erm, yeah ..like I said you know erm, and then, like yeah, you know"
Interviewing Officer..."Oh, I give up!"

Well there are only two possibilities really, seeing as Fiona Payne seems quite sure she did on occasions order his starter for him.

1.He simply has forgotten that he did on occasion leave on his own. Judging by the ill considered incoherent barely literate blithering tangled nonsense that spills like an unrestrained cataract from his mouth this would appear to be a distinct possibility.

2. Or he is deliberately side stepping his late departures.

monkey mind wrote:Well there are only two possibilities really, seeing as Fiona Payne seems quite sure she did on occasions order his starter for him.

1.He simply has forgotten that he did on occasion leave on his own. Judging by the ill considered incoherent barely literate blithering tangled nonsense that spills like an unrestrained cataract from his mouth this would appear to be a distinct possibility.

2. Or he is deliberately side stepping his late departures.

I'm betting it's No 2.

I bet kate must have read Pat Brown's letter.
She wasn't pre-warned about letter's content to avoid opening it I would imagine.

Imagine her reaction? and Gerry's ?

kate and gerry the two f*****g tossers (borrowing kate's words) must be blind with rage. According to her self protrayal in her bewk she's a fiery temper and tends to lash out by kicking furniture and chanting her favourite two-word phrase. Bet she was doing those when she got the letter vowing revenge hence her subsequent legal letter to Amazon.

Wouldn't it be more normal that innocent parents would jump at the chance of such offer. since mccanns like to keep their case high profile...engaging the public in the search so to speak... what can be better than a crime profiler helping you keep your plight in the public engaging the public, telling the public that in her professional view, mccanns were not involved for x and y reasons and the search for the creep who took Maddie must go on. Any parent of a missing child would accept the chance of pro bono help.
If they decide not to for whatever reasons, they would at least have the courtesy to write a thank you letter to Pat Brown for her offer to help.

Would the mccanns have done that? Who is betting what?

They went and did exactly what Pat Brown's advised them not to do - that is bring more negative attention to themselves by their stupid action of suing people left right centre - their only way to force people to believe their innocence as if there isn't any other better ways.



But not mccanns and these are people who force abduction down your throat!

Kate McCann is the weak one in all this. She will crack and hubby knows it. The rest of the Tapas gang might be able to wriggle (with the exception of Tanner and Payne) but I am certain that with the right application of pressure then controlled release, application of pressure again etc without the media darlings to back them then she will most surely crack and maybe tell the truth. That is unless she befalls some accident beforehand.