PROFILING THE 'PROFILER'

And what is this? One of her former fwends has dared to insult brown on her own FB page!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Paul Rees
Do you tell all the people on here who they can be friends with and which groups they're allowed on, you mad control freak? Ego the size of a planet and a head to go with it.

Brown has been lucky, self trained, self proclaimed "profiler", she's received more attention and media success than those with more knowledge and expertise. Like her or loathe her, Nancy Grace is no small achievment for such as Brown. She's done well. No track record of solving any crime with her profiles, a million miles off the mark with Casey Anthony and yet she still rode it out.

That was Brown, in the media, commentating, which is what she is more widely known to do, Pat Brown, Profiler, passing comment on cases.

Pat Brown on Twitter, on Facebook, where her "fans" I would assume would be naturally drawn, seeing her descend to the personal insult, the foot stamping, the petulance.

It's a far cry from the rather unattractive straight faced no nonsense face they've seen on their TV screens isn't it? The "I'm in charge" air about her is still there but instead of, "I'm in charge, I'm a professional" we have "I'm in charge, I'm a temper two stepping berk".

It just doesn't seem to me that the cool professional is sustainable now, she's thrown it all away sticking her nose into something which doesn't concern her, has never concerned her and let's be honest, it never is going to concern her.

ProfilerPatB PAT BROWN
@ @TaZzcutie @LouiseMensch Uh, could care less. Didn't know the woman, don't want to know the woman, have no respect for the woman. #Mensch
41 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply »

ProfilerPatB PAT BROWN
For the record, Louise #Mensch said she'd block anyone tweeting her about the #McCann case. I never tweeted her: I didn't know who she was!
47 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply »

ProfilerPatB PAT BROWN
So now @LouiseMensch calls me a "ghoul" for my #CaseyAnthony tweet? Does she support child murder along with child neglect? #McCann #Mensch
56 minutes ago

1) Yes TBone. She does come across as pleasant on the TV. It's something we have remarked upon on a number of occasions. The public face and online face are startling in their contrast at times.

2. UK MP went bonkers at her? Where did this happen? Again it's Mememememe! Louise Mensch almost certainly doesn't have a clue who Pat Brown is. The only person who went bonkers was Pat Brown when she tweeted like crazy at a rate of one a minute for the best part of an hour.

We all saw it and it is now part of her timeline.

The British press *love* Louise Mensch (as in - she is newsworthy). If they pay any attention to Brown at all on account of her (ahem) "lawsuit" or her (ahem) vacation "pro-bono search", her little meltdown on Twitter over Louise Mensch will be just the thing to include in an article....which would of course include the reason for the ghoul remark - namely wishing someone dead.

Might not be a favourable story...

No one who is balanced and mentally healthy posts publicly that they wish someone was dead. For a supposed expert in the criminal justice field, that's not only bizarre, it's unethical and unprofessional.

A comment - it seems the poster is not at all impressed by brown.

Even members of the Madeleine Foundation (Sharon Bradford) think she's crap.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Implied Credibility = CRAP!
Posted on January 27, 2012

I realize that I at times have some colorful descriptions of the people and activity that I see on the interwebz, and am surely called a few choice names myself, but the lack of intelligence by some in the true crime community is mind boggling! After giving it much thought lately – people are just outright dumb asses. I honestly believe that the internet is becoming a gathering place for mentally unhinged and socially stunted individuals. The general consensus is “if I read it on the interwebz and it’s on the TV then *grunt* it must be true!”. No one wants to do their research anymore. They are happy to just swallow whatever said talking head spits down their throats and call it a day. The internet is filled with CREDIBLE information if people would just look for it rather than just implicitly drinking the snake oil that is being fed to them by the media. Implied credibility is NOT real. Just because someone is on television, it does not make them an expert on anything other than tooting their horn and collecting a paycheck for their time.

One of my issues with implied credibility and the media is they continue to have these people on their shows who do not have the professional credentials to speak for their implied professions. The uneducated masses believe that just because Nancy Grace says so — by God this is the truth and this person speaks for all!! Is it because they are just too dumb to care? There is someone who appears regularly on some of the news shows who, in my opinion and according to tard logic, because I say so that might make me an expert, has very questionable credentials. In fact, she has NO real credentials other than those that she has “implied” or created by way of “reading lots of books”. I won’t bother to mention her name. I think everyone knows who it is, but apparently her panties are in a twist because someone in her field got a television series and she didn’t. She is throwing an internet temper tantrum and asking people to boycott the show. NEWSFLASH: she nor Nancy Disgrace have enough viewership to be more than a nuisance to that network.

She issued a diatribe about what profiling is and I’m giggling like a schoolgirl at the irony! The basic idea of profiling is very simple. Its aim is to predict characteristics of the undetected offender(s) from characteristics of the offense(s) and the victims (Farrington, 2007). Criminal profiling is the process of using behavioral evidence left at a crime scene to make inferences about the offender, including inferences about personality characteristics and psychopathology. In its most basic form, profiling is simply the “postdiction of behavior; an action has taken place that allows investigators to make inferences about the person responsible” (Davis & Follette, 2002). It just DOES NOT happen like it does on shows like Criminal Minds.

Profiles are also subjective and contain varying amounts of accuracy, if accurate at all. There is a lack of information regarding cases where profiling made a critical contribution to an investigation, and I have found NO PUBLISHED CASES that said “profiler” has solved or assisted on in a professional capacity – other than making INFERENCE on television and dropping her favorite adjective to describe the psychopath du jour. Can someone please point these cases out to me? Am I just overlooking them? WHAT serial killing cases does she have anything more than IMPLIED knowledge? Help me out here.

The FBI studies previous crimes and criminals and utilizes this information for profiling. However, according to the self-proclaimed profiler — who happens to have neither law enforcement nor psychological background — the murdertainment specialist:

That is pure garbage, Nicole. A serial killer is a pathological liar who makes up crap people want to hear. Secondly, that is not how one profiles serial homicides, by guessing stuff about the murderer. Thirdly, allowing a convicted murderer to be a star is disgusting.

The TV profiler in her hissy fit is doing what psychologists would refer to as projecting. This really made me laugh – “makes up crap people want to hear”. LMAO Isn’t that what SHE does? *caw caw PSYCHOPATH!! caw caw SERIAL KILLER* Does said profiler utilize psychological assessments to determine the cognitive core of the alleged offender? (LMAO – pretty sure the answer to that is NOT).

WHY wouldn’t a serial killer be able to provide information about serial crimes? The early FBI profilers spoke to MANY serial murderers in order to glean knowledge about why they killed. Qualitative interviewing and research is essential in understanding the inner workings of the serial killer’s mind, and that entails SPEAKING to serial killers so that we can understand what makes them tick! Criminal psychologists and forensic psychologists interview criminals all the time in the hopes of determining what makes a criminal mind. Please explain to me how the TV personality is able to squawk PSYCHOPATH! and SERIAL KILLER! without EVER having viewed so much as the investigative files in the cases she “profiles” on television? How does one diagnose a personality disorder without EVER speaking to or interviewing the individual or even administering psychological testing? Buehler? Anyone? Anyone?

I did a lot of reading and research while writing this blog post. I have also read a lot of books, journal articles, peer reviews, DSM-IV-TR, etc. in pursuit of my education in psychology and for my thesis. According to TV profiler logic…does this now make me a criminal profiler? *smirk* You can become a profiler, too. Here’s a link to the BRACE cognitive analysis tool where you can profile Hannibal Lecter. Who knows…if you market yourself well enough you can get on TV just like that other one!! caw caw!!!

Some sources for ya: Am I a profiler now? Or just a bitch?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Farrington, D. (2007). Criminal profiling, principles and practice [Book review]. International
Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 51, 486-487.
Risinger, D. M., & Loop, J. L. (2002). Three card monte, monty hall, modus operandi and
“offender profiling”: Some lessons of modern cognitive science for the law of evidence.
Cardazo Law Review, 24, 193-285.

Remember the case that got Pat Brown going on her "career"? Namely that she suspected her new lodger was a serial killer?

Well here is her account of one of her conversations with the police over the matter:-

Foxwell proceeded to not answer any of the questions I raised nor did he answer the question about Dodson from the Mayor. He stated he did not want to impune my character and then claimed I was a liar, had an agenda and was "promoting myself". He gave no facts to support his claims.

Anyone else recognise the "theme"?

Kym L. Pasqualini This is great! After working with families of the missing for nearly two decades I place some criminal profilers in the same category as psychics. I go back to the days of Ressler, Douglas and have worked on task forces with Hagmeir who I highly respect. Long time bothersome to me are those who instead of finding the criminal there are on national news promoting their newest book, criticizing the law enforcement agency who are already typically under pressure from media and families to produce results. Recently,one profiler in particular was rallying the public against the parent of a missing and murdered child, actually antagonizing and joking about the new developments. Really? Even if the parent was guilty of the homicide (though the jury made the right decision based upon the evidence presented them), where could humor be found in the circumstances surrounding a child's homicide. I would love to see some, alright one in particular, placed on the hot seat and prove the unprofessional crap coming out her mouth is the same color as her name.
29 January at 10:06

Prinnie says:
February 6, 2012 at 7:08 pm
IMO, the only reason Pat wrote her “book” *snort* was to garner publicity for herself and ride the coattails of Kate McCann’s book release. PB’s book is total crap and reads like an illiterate wrote it. How can she PROFILE without having access to crime scene and case file? This was a calculated revenue building move, IMO.

Prinnie says:
February 6, 2012 at 7:05 pm
IMO, she is uncomfortable because she is being asked valid questions that she does not have the answers to. She is selling snake oil. The FBI and real profilers think she is a joke and a menace. I’ve asked many times — WHAT CASES has she solved? WHAT serial killers has she identified with her “profiling”? She has self-made herself a profiler and the media doesn’t care that she is not a real profiler. Just goes to show that the shows that have her on are for entertainment purposes only because they do not vet their guests.

I listened to a fascinating interview with a real FBI profiler and he was modest and informative. He was asked about these self professed media profilers and he quietly warned about the risk of them misleading the public. The FBI profilers work closely with the police, using primary source case evidence. They have access to witnesses, lab reports, crime scene evidence. These media profilers are basing their "profiles" on tabloid stories which are drawn from secondary sources which are often inaccurate and/or incomplete. The problem is that the media profilers are reaching potential witnesses with their false and misleading versions.

This real profiler said it was vital to vet a profiler before accepting what they have to say. He said that training and on the job experience are essential.

When you think about it, Pat Brown has not even profiled the McCann case. She did not look at the case evidence and say what kind of person would take a child. Instead she looked at the McCanns and bitched about the way they looked and spoke.

Media crime gossip would be more accurate a job description.

Training and on the job experience are essential

And that's something else Criminal Pat lacks.

I still find it hard to understand how a (wo)man without any real qualifications, who hasn't accomplished anything in this field, can become such a talking head.

Perhaps (opposite to any real qualified profilers) it's because she's saying what the general audience wants to hear, which is simply gossip.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Way down upon the Swannee River far far away there, where my heart is turning ever there, where the old folks stay’.

I love that old song. Reminds me of days gone by in Florida; which I hasten to add were not all sunshine and roses but good days none the less.

Back then there weren’t many profilers selling their wares. Sure you had a few but their profiling technique was somewhat primitive. A point of the finger followed by “they done it look at the way they is walking” was the scope of their expertise.

In today’s world things are very different. Those who set their sights on becoming a profiler and wish to shine in the profession require qualifications. For instance, a master degree in criminal justice, a PhD in criminal psychology and a working knowledge of forensic science; of course knowing what the hell you are talking about also helps.

Genuine profilers are a quiet studious group of people who believe actions and results speak louder than words alone. You will find no flamboyancies or yearnings to be noticed in their work; as professionals they know what is expected of them and will with diligence meet if possible that expectation.

Unfortunately we still have the “they done it look at the way they is walking” tribe. Ones who call themselves profilers but are really just moths flitting around a light. Making it flicker but without the brains or expertise to know it burns.

These people are referred to as wannabes. Loud and obnoxious, they sell their wares to anyone who has yet to learn the definition of the word truth. The wannabes attempt to make what they say sound professional but if you listen closely; you hear them for what they are - second rate vaudeville performers.

I am watching one of those performers right now. And as per expectations she has got everything wrong but kudos to her for the entertainment value…..it is hilarious.

I wonder how many of Pat's fans have read her book about her life hunting serial killers and psychopaths? In it, she tells of how she was persuaded to "seek help". She doesn't say who was urging her to do this but I would hazard a guess that it was someone whose opinion counted - i.e. a close friend, relative or employer.

She eventually consulted several therapists, two of whom diagnosed her in need of anti-psychotic medication. In true Brown fashion, she disagreed with both diagnoses and consulted a third. However, she describes how she walked out of that consultation when the therapist advised her that she was "on call" having patients who were suicidal. Seemingly, Pat could not tolerate a session with a therapist who would place the needs of a suicidal patient over her own - she was paying for it after all.

From Page 54 of her book:-

I know this sounds a bit egotistical, like I thought I was the only one who could save the world...

Several people suggested I should get some therapy and counseling

And the third one told me that she was going to have to take calls during my appointment. "During my appointment?" I objected in disbelief, since I was paying for the damn thing.

The psychotherapist looked at me blankly, apparently failing to see the problem. "Well,some of these people could be suicidal."

"And some of these people sitting in your office could be homicidal," I muttered to myself, wishing I could have carried a weapon. Then I just shook my head, walked out, and laughed all the way home.

She eventually got the response she wanted in a helpline where the nurse who answered suggested she address her issues by developing more cases. She owes her career, she says, to this nurse.

Hmm. Makes you think. Several people urging her to seek help? Seeing not just one therapist but several different ones until "a nurse" gave her the advice she wanted to hear...

I think she is on a different planet.

The problem is that Pat Brown is used to being allowed to spout whatever garbage comes into her head on the Levi Page and Nancy Grace Shows. No-one in the US networks is questioning her credentials or her right to spew misinformation about current cases.

Here in the UK, we have broadcasting standards which Brown cannot comprehend. She squawks about not getting interviewed and blames it on this mythical McCann power but fails to see that actually, no-one is interested in hearing the libelous ravings of a narcissistic housewife who has delusions of profiling prowess. If she were FBI trained and had a proven record of providing profiles which led to the arrest of a number of criminals, she might get a degree of interest, but the British media are no more interested in interviewing Ms Brown about her opinions than they are in interviewing me about mine! Nor should they be.

We care about the fairness in justice here. Ensuring a fair trial comes much higher in the judicial pecking order than the rights of some publicity hungry delusional to ram her opinion down everyone's throat.

The silence from Portugal is deafening. Then again, it can't be easy searching for ways in which to make her "everyone was in on it" theory to work.

I watched these Nancy Grace videos. There is one where she appallingly tried to get Elizabeth Smart to relive her kidnap ordeal and completely ignored Elizabeth's requests to stop. Another is where she viciously attacks the mother of a missing child and demands answers to questions which the woman repeatedly tells her she has been told not to discuss. It's a truly shocking interview and one which would have had very serious legal ramifications in the UK. The child's mother committed suicide hours later. Pat Brown later went on TV and defended Nancy Grace saying that the family of the missing child's mother were more to blame for her suicide than the woman who drove her over the edge on national TV!

Over the past couple of weeks, we have seen Pat Brown make a complete ass of herself with treegate and lightgate and then the bizarre puppygate. We've seen her appalling ebook on which she determines that the McCanns dunit based upon assumptions drawn from the most appalling misinformation - none of which she retracted when it was demonstrated to her by critics on boths side of the debate.

We've seen her selectivity in quoting Gerry McCann as saying he believes in freedom of speech when in fact, he quite clearly qualified this:-

I would like to emphasise that I strongly believe in freedom of speech, but where you have people who are repeatedly carrying out inaccuracies and have been shown to do so, then they should be held to account.

Anyone with a shred of intelligence would understand this is not an endorsement for the freedom for people to tell lies or spread misinformation as she does.

Yesterday, in watching these videos and reading comments about them, a penny dropped with me. Pat Brown's activities have nothing to do with criminal profiling. Hers and others' definition of criminal profiling bears little resemblance to what she is doing in the McCann case.

Another poster described it beautifully in saying that Pat Brown is "crime gossip". She goes on US TV and mouths off about the behaviour and demeanour of people whose lives are touched by serious crime. Thankfully, the British legal system and broadcasting standards do not permit this kind of reality tv. But she does this for a living and no-one is going to persuade or shame her into NOT doing it on the grounds that it's morally or ethically wrong. She will continue doing it as long as she is making money from it. No matter if her audience are a bunch of low-lifes who openly say they hope a missing child is dead or who wish her parents would die in a motorway crash. It's the attention which matters - positive or negative. It is obvious that she's a woman who craves attention for herself and we've all seen her desperate attempts to gain publicity whether that be through begging her small fan base to contact newspapers or by emailing Piers Morgan himself.

As it stands, her attempts to get national publicity for herself have failed miserably. She seems to believe that this is because the all-powerful McCanns are controlling the media. In fact, it's because no-one is interested in a self-promoting fantasist who thinks it's OK to make money from far-fetched "imagined scenarios" in a missing child case. Expecially when the evidence in no way supports them (something Brown has herself admitted when she said that there is no evidence to prove the McCanns did anything). People generally view bitching about crime victims and making up nasty theories which involve them as sick, weird and unjustifiable.

Some of us know through our own media contacts that there is no interest in Brown's activities. Her trip to Portugal and her laughable "lawsuit" have been covered only by a few anti-McCann blogs. One "exclusive interview" will be published in a free classified ads rag later this week but we all know that it was planned in advance and has been written by a woman who participates in the anti-McCann Twitter bitchfest along with RothleyPillow and co. The cynical among us might well be justified in concluding that this is a set up article, written by a McCann hater who could stand accused of misusing her position to indulge her personal obsession.

Back to crime gossiping. Pat Brown, whose apparent inability to get even the most basic of facts right about the McCann case, finds her sole audience on the forums and social networking sites. She has said it herself that we are providing her with publicity. If you take away us - the pro-McCanns, she is left with a bunch of people made up of the Twitter nasties who get blocked by all decent people and the cloned Maddie idiots. That's the only people who'd be left "noticing her".

ETA - the French book which excited the antis turned out to be a big fat nothing. It's pure and utter fiction. The apparent similarities to the McCann case whilst perhaps a little tactless, appear to be little more than some arty-farty "artistic effect". I seriously doubt the McCanns or their lawyers wil be interested in it.

Bravo. You have summed up the horrible woman quite succinctly. Perhaps this should be the final word about her silliness as she really is a useless non-entity.

I agree. She's proved she's nothing more than a gossiping housewife. No professional takes her seriously. No police force wants to "work" with her. She is too much of a joke to take seriously.

Imo she's a waste of time and talking about her is a waste of bandwidth.

IMO pat brown is a narcissist. Part of the narcissism complex is that they cannot be seen to be beaten. At the low end, this would manifest itself as "needing to have the final word" in a dispute.

With the banning of her book, the humiliating rebuttal and her failure to get media attention, Brown wasn't getting the final word. IMO that led to what **** described as the monster. The monster fought back with the trip and the lawsuit. She knows she cannot prove the McCanns did it. But she did her trip, made her "press release" and that could satisfy her need to have the final word. I agree with **** that she may now move on feeling that she is doing so on her own terms.