Freedom of Speech, the McCanns, and Searching for Maddie

by Pat Brown

I have been getting a lot of questions about my search fund to be established with monies from the sale of my book, Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Some of the stuff certain folks are saying is seriously ridiculous, so I thought it best I make a clear statement with simple points they can understand.

1. I am not giving or receiving any monies from the McCanns' search fund.

2. At present, 50% of monies received from the sale of the Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann will go to the Pat Brown Maddie Search Fund. The other 50% earned from the book is income, not donations. I am selling a product and do not have to donate all earnings (or any) to charitable causes (however, I do pro bono work on other cases as there are OTHER missing and murdered children and adults than Madeleine in this world, so part of my earnings through any means funds this). I have chosen to donate 50% of the book's earnings to my Maddie search fund since she is the focus of this book.

3. The Pat Brown Maddie Search Fund monies will be not be spent on a personal salary (any time spent will be pro bono). Monies will be used for expenses related to doing a search: travel, equipment, hiring of local PIs, or bringing in experts.

4. If I can cover any search expenses by another other method (media, work in the same location, etc.), then I will do so. I always endeavor to always keep costs low when I do pro bono work so that the funds will stretch further: inexpensive hotels, staying with local people, cheap meals, etc.). If I choose to spend above the cheapest rate I can achieve, I pay out-of-pocket.

5. The Pat Brown Maddie Search Fund will be transparent with all monies earned on the book tracked, all monies put into the account tracked, and all monies spent tracked. A full account will be made to the public of everything associated with my fund and my searches.

6. The Pat Brown Maddie Search Fund has no connection with the McCanns' search fund and the McCanns have not given my fund any endorsement. However, it would seem to me if I search in previously untargeted places and either locate Madeleine or eliminate those possibilities, then the search is nothing but beneficial to the McCanns and is following in the spirit of "Leaving No Stone Unturned."

7. There are four theories as to what happened to Madeleine which influence how one searches for the child; whether one thinks she is dead or alive.

One:, the child died accidentally in the apartment in Praia da Luz and there was a cover-up; then we are looking for a dead child in Portugal, Spain, or England.

Two: a local pedophile abducted Madeleine; then we are looking for a dead child in Praia da Luz, Portugal or nearby.

Three: A woman wanted a little girl and got a man to kidnap Madeleine. Then we are looking for a live child somewhere in the world.

Four: A pedophile sex ring kidnapped Madeleine and she is being raped and abused on a continuing basis. Then we are looking for a live child somewhere in the world.

Now, as one only has limited funds (even the McCanns, although they have been quite hefty), it behooves one to put the strongest efforts into the most likely scenario. If the McCanns were not involved in any way (other than neglect) in the disappearance of their daughter, they ought to be using kindhearted people's donations in the most proper way; looking for a pedophile who abducted, raped and murdered their little girl, get him arrested and convicted so that Madeleine gets justice, and prevent another little girl from the same horrible fate. They should be putting a good portion of their search and investigative efforts into locating a local child sex predator.

Why? Because the methodology and descriptions of how Madeleine was supposedly kidnapped and by whom match a person from the area without even a vehicle to take her away in. There is zero evidence of any fancy plot nor even a person smart enough to park a vehicle in the car park right outside the window of Madeleine's bedroom in with which to make a quick getaway. Instead, we have the purported actions and descriptions of some creepy, not-so-bright fellow walking down the street with a child in his arms in full view of everyone. The chances of Madeleine being taken by a desperate wanna-be-Mom or a sex ring are minimal.

Should the McCanns still consider these rare possibilities and still look for a living Madeleine? Well, I can't blame the McCanns (if innocent) for wanting to believe their daughter is alive, so I can understand and accept that they want to put some efforts into that miracle possibility. However, they should be honest enough and good enough stewards of donated monies I(if innocent) to admit the likelihood of Madeleine being dead is very, very high and the likelihood of her being buried somewhere in Praia da Luz or environs is also very, very high. Their efforts should be concentrated there, with some monies set aside for the miracle.

So, I will be focusing on the two top theories; that Madeleine died in an accident and her body was hidden somewhere, or a local pedophile took her and her body is buried locally. IF it turns out that I get ANY information that proves Madeleine was abducted or if any evidence turns up that points to her murder by a stranger, this information will go straight to the police and the McCanns. If Maddie was abducted and murdered by a child predator, I want justice for Maddie and I want that creep put away and I want other children to be safe from him.

My theory as I laid out in my Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann is just that; a theory. If evidence surfaces that changes my view of what happened to Madeleine, I have no problem disclosing this and adjusting my theory. Theories change based on available evidence; hence, they are called theories, not facts. Theories often change over time, even those postulated by law enforcement and the McCanns. Even Kate admits in her book, Madeleine, her theories of what happened that night have undergone change as she has spent more time analyzing the evidence or after receiving new information.

Why the McCanns had Carter-Ruck threaten Amazon with legal action to get a theory removed from public view is curious as it is only a theory, an opinion, one person's take on probabilities based on what is known at this point in time. Perhaps we will find out why they went to these lengths when the McCanns get on the witness stand in a court of law (when my lawsuit for libel and tortious interference with business makes it to court; I have retained prominent attorney Anne Bremner of Stanford Frey Cooper). Perhaps, then, they will explain why one person's opinion is so concerning they need to go to extremes to get have it silenced.

Madeleine McCann is the most recognized missing child in the world, with the most media attention of any missing child in the world. Unless I am mistaken, more money has been donated to finding Madeleine McCann than any child in the world. My Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann should hardly affect such a large and successful (moneywise) campaign; so one wonders if the real issue the McCanns have with my profile is that my theory might actually be correct.

I believe in Freedom of Speech. I don't object to the theories of others on cases even if they differ from mine. I don't even object to someone analyzing my theory and writing their opinion of it. I would never try to shut down their viewpoint (even when things are taken out of context and misrepresented in some way); I merely suggest that interested people go to the source and compare the two viewpoints and think for themselves about what theories and concepts are more supportable by evidence and logic.

The McCanns could simply have ignored this profiler's opinion on Madeleine's disappearance or made a statement that they do not think my analysis is very good. If the book was truly libelous as they claimed through their solicitors, Carter-Ruck, they should have informed me of this or sued me directly. Instead, they went behind the scenes and had the book pulled from the market. Inquiring minds wonder why.

I will be in Portugal in February to support Detective Amaral's fight against the McCanns in court, to begin search analysis, and to hear just what Gerry and Kate McCann have to say.

May the truth come out one day and justice for Madeleine McCann prevail.

The Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann is available online through Barnes & Noble and Smashwords.

Read More

When Parents Hate Their Children

by Gina Simmons, Ph.D.

I once counseled a 12 year old girl, Amanda, whose parents hated her. Prior to her first therapy session, Amanda had fallen off a wall, breaking her collar-bone. Her father made her wait three hours to go to the hospital because he wanted to watch a football game. In a videotaped session she cried, "why don't my parents love me?" As tears flooded Amanda's cheeks, her stunningly beautiful mother looked at herself on the television monitor and smiled.

While nature provides healthy mothers with lovely bonding brain chemistry, like oxytocin, to stimulate feelings of love and connection, some truly hate their offspring. Hate does not demonstrate itself in simple anger, resentment or hostility. Most parents get very angry when their children misbehave, keep them awake at night, or act disrespectfully. When children disobey parents, a feeling of helplessness follows. When you feel helpless you get angry. Anger can lead to inappropriate discipline and even abuse. In that case parents need anger management training, support and parenting classes. Hate is a different animal.

Another patient described her mother's cold rant, "I wish you had never been born." At 50 years of age the damage from those words still wounded. Another patient said that when her father got angry at the children he would get up from the table and shout, "I'm going to get my gun!" At that point the family would flee the table and hide until the storm passed. When parents hate their children they wish for their annihilation.

The father of Psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud, coined the term Oedipus Complex, from the Greek story of Oedipus, about a man who killed his father and married his mother. He used this story to describe a stage of child development when a boy wishes to be close to his mother and push his father away. Eventually, the healthy boy resolves the complex when he identifies with his father and becomes independent from his mother.

I prefer to spotlight the other side of the story, the story of Laius, Oedipus' father. King Laius was told by an oracle that he should never have a child with his wife because that child would kill him, marry his wife and become king. After the birth of his son Oedipus, Laius makes several attempts to kill his son in order to thwart the prophesy and maintain his power. The Laius Complex describes parents who feel so threatened by the power of their children that they wish for and sometimes cause their death.

M. Scott Peck, in his chilling book, The People of the Lie: The Hope For Healing Human Evil, described a case where a family brought in their only remaining son for counseling due to depression after the suicide of their other son. While chatting with the boy to make him feel comfortable Dr. Peck asked about Christmas, and if he received any presents. The boy said he received a gun from his parents for Christmas. Concerned that the parents gave a depressed and suicidal boy a gun for Christmas, Dr. Peck asked more questions. Not only did the parents give a gun to their son, they gave him the same gun the brother had used to kill himself.

Hatred of this sort has a cold, calculating quality. Children raised in these homes feel confused, like Amanda. They feel love for and attachment to their parents, but don't understand why they get only coldness in return. Pioneering psychoanalyst Karen Horney used the term, "basic evil" to define parental indifference. She believed it was not the heat of anger, but the cold indifference of parents that led to many neurotic disorders.

When children lack basic warmth and affection from caregivers they can and do die. Failure to thrive, refers to children whose current weight and rate of growth are lower than expected for their age and gender. The emotional deprivation of unloving parents is listed as one of the causes for failure to thrive syndrome.

Some of my patients raised in emotionally deprived environments talk about how lonely they feel when they try to tell their story. "Most people say, 'oh all parents love their children, maybe your parents just didn't know how to be parents,'" one patient shared. Sometimes what helps break down that feeling of alienation is when someone says, "yes, some parents do hate their children." And it's not your fault.

Photos courtesy of: Pink Sherbet Photography, Picture Truths and Vlad Sfichi.

Read More

A Colorful Little Tale of Halloween Poison

by Deborah Blum

I grew up on a dead-end street in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, where remnants of swampy forest surrounded the old wood-frame homes. Live oaks lined the streets. Spanish moss dripped from their branches. Snakes coiled under the ancient azaleas that edged the yards.

It was, in fact, the perfect setting for a haunted Halloween night. And there was this one house, you know, where the yard was so dense with bush and tree that it could barely be seen through its thicket of shadow. To trick-or-treat, you walked up the dark sidewalk toward a faint glow on the front porch, just the one lit window. The air hummed with passing insects and the porch creaked like Dracula’s coffin under your feet, the slow, dry eek of old wood.

Reader, you had to beware on Halloween night. Just a block over lived a maniacal dentist who liked to dress up like a werewolf on October 31 and fill his front hall with clouds of drifting fog created by dropping dry ice (super-chilled chunks of carbon dioxide) into water. Bwa-ha-ha, he would chortle as he opened the door, as the chilly wisps of fog drifted out around him.

But this silent house, dressed in darkness, was so much scarier. We children would gather in front of the gate, unable to walk alone through those prowling shadows. The crowd would form on the sidewalk: tiny pillowcase ghosts and jeweled princesses, small pirates and glittery fairies. When someone decided we’d achieved a safe number, we’d start edging toward the green door at the top of the porch steps. Whispering about what the old man who lived there would hand out – what dangerous treats might wait for us there.

This was the 1960s and even then, people told stories, warned their children, about the psychopaths out there who might drop poisoned candy into one’s hands. In the long history of the holiday, truthfully, this has almost never happened. But the very nature of Halloween – the witch at the door, the monster in the closet – lends itself to such ideas. Wasn’t there a crazy woman on Long Island in 1964, after all, who handed out arsenic to trick-or-treaters she thought too old for the candy hunt?

It hardly mattered that as Snopes points out, she didn’t kill anyone. And her deliberate poisoning attempt seems to be an odd exception to the general goodwill of the holiday. The psychopath at the door is an urban myth. Most of the poisonous Halloween stories turn out to be mistakes or far more personal tragedies. The worst is that of a Texas father who murdered his eight-year-old son in 1974 for insurance money.

He did so by putting cyanide into into the fruit-flavored sugar inside a Pixie Stick, one of the child’s favorites. In an attempt to make the death seem like a random poisoning, the father – Ronald Clark O’Bryan – also gave cyanide-laced candy to his daughter and three other children in his Deer Park neighborhood. These other lethal treats were collected by police as (fortunately) the children hadn’t touched them.

O’Bryan – nicknamed The Candyman by the Texas media – was executed by lethal injection ten years after his son’s death. But people remembered. And they forgot that the worst outbreak of Halloween candy poisoning had nothing to do suspected killers. The biggest poison outbreak – linked to Halloween of 1950 – was simply caused by orange food coloring used by candy manufacturers.

Scores of children across the country fell ill with severe diarrhea and welting rashes after eating candy and popcorn balls tinted by the FDA approved Orange Dye No. 1 ( also known as FD&C Orange No. 1, Acid Orange 20, and Orange 1). The “FD&C” indicates that the dye is used in food, drugs and cosmetics. Throughout the first half of the 20th century, Orange 1 was used primarily in candy, cookies, cakes, carbonated beverages, and meat-products such as hot dogs.

As federal investigators would discover upon investigation, the dye was also a rash-inducing occupational health hazard. Orange 1 belonged to a group of seven dyes first approved by the federal government in the year 1906, the first year that this country began regulating food safety. All seven of these dyes were coal-tar dyes, derived originally from the hydrocarbon byproducts of processed coal. Orange 1, for instance, contained benzene, today one of our better known toxic compounds.

But at that Halloween moment in 1950, no one had thought much about colored food. In fact, officials at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration suddenly realized that no one had really taken a good look at these turn-of-the-century food dyes for almost 50 years. The FDA promptly launched an investigation that found that, yes, Orange 1 was definitely poisonous: an oral dose of one gram of the dye per one kilogram of food killed two out of five mice in a day. A 20-week-experiment mixing the dye into rat food killed three of eight test rats.

The researchers also found that manufacturers were tossing the dye into candy corn and sugary little pumpkins with surprising enthusiasm. According to a 1954 article in The New York Times, one piece of candy was 1,500 parts per million pure Orange 1. Two years later, in 1956, the FDA delisted Orange 1 as well as Orange 2 (used to deepen the color of oranges) and Red Dye No. 32. Twelve other food colorings have been delisted since that time. This doesn’t reassure everyone; consumer advocates still worry over the health effects of food coloring.

But – take at least this reassurance: it’s been a long time since we saw children falling ill across the country because they indulged in an extra handful of candy corn, not realizing that its cheerful orange was a signal for trouble. We’re mostly smart enough to realize that regulating food safety offers more protection than worrying about the crazy man behind the door.

Which brings me back to my friends and I hesitating at that shadowy gate on a Halloween night in Louisiana. Let me tell you what happened, Halloween after Halloween. Slowly, we inched down the sidewalk, creaked up the steps, quavered at the door. Slowly, the door pulled open and the slightly tottering elderly man opened the screen to drop glossy red apples into our bags.

Every year it added an extra thrill to the night. But, reader, you had to beware on Halloween night. I’m almost positive they were just bright fall apples. But our parents wouldn’t let us eat them.

Read More

Another Missing Baby

by Holly Hughes

Once again, another child has gone missing and another mother tells an evolving story. On Tuesday, October 4th, 2011, at approximately four a.m., the alarm was sounded when ten month old Lisa Irwin was reported missing by her parents, Deborah Bradley and Jeremy Irwin. The mother, Deborah Bradley, initially reported that she last saw her baby girl when she put her to bed at ten thirty p.m. Now, weeks into the investigation, it comes to light that she last saw her at six forty p.m. 

She has steadfastly refused to speak with local media, when clearly, they would be the most effective outlet to keep Baby Lisa’s story alive in their neighborhood and the surrounding locales. Yet, when she does give an interview to a national media outlet, we hear more disturbing and unbelievable claims. 

Deborah Bradley insists she hasn’t spoken to her two boys, ages five and eight, about the night that Lisa disappeared. Another puzzling statement she has made is that she didn’t go looking for her baby, even in her own backyard because she “was afraid of what she might find.” On top of all that, neither Bradley nor Irwin are cooperating with the police and have denied police access to the two little boys who were admittedly present that night, until this week.

All of these behaviors are inconsistent with a mother who desperately wants to find her child. If my child went missing, the police would not have to be hunting me down, begging for an interview. I would be in their face, on their phones and setting up shop in their precinct. I would be tearing around my entire neighborhood, including my own back yard, looking high and low, shouting her name.

I would not lie to the police about the crucial time in question, altering my story by four hours. Surely, Bradley must know that in child abduction cases, every second counts. A perpetrator could be hundreds of miles away, seriously changing the scope and course of the investigation. I don’t think I’m alone in this. I believe this is the way most parents would behave who were not involved.

But does this odd behavior mean she is guilty of anything? It certainly raises eyebrows. Is it consciousness of guilt or just quirkiness. Are there too many coincidences and oddities here? The very first night that Irwin works the overnight shift, Lisa goes missing. The same night, incidentally, that Bradley is passed out drunk. Admittedly someone else could have known that Irwin was to begin the night shift, but who could have possibly known that Bradley would drink herself into oblivion?

They have hired attorneys and a private investigator to handle things. Well, that is hardly going swimmingly. They seem to making a bigger mess. The attorneys made a big deal of announcing they were going to be giving daily press releases and they would open the house, the crime scene, so the press could walk through. Well, neither of those things occurred, raising even more questions.

Much ado has been made about the fact that a “cadaver dog” hit in the bedroom of Bradley and Irwin. Unfortunately, that does not mean there was a decomposing body there. It could be blood from an old wound, sloughed off dead skin, or any number of other things. The forensic testing done on those samples will hopefully give us more definitive answers and point us in the right direction.

Although things don’t seem to look good for Bradley, there are other possible scenarios here. Maybe she is just an emotionally immature young woman who does not know how to handle all that has been thrust upon her.

Police have also reported that several credible witnesses have come forward to state that they saw a man walking with a baby around midnight, the same night that Lisa Irwin disappeared. They have obtained some grainy video surveillance that seems to corroborate that, indeed, there was a man out at that time in the reported area, but it is too poor quality to tell if he is indeed holding a baby. Then there was the finding of a backpack with purportedly soiled diapers in them found near an abandoned house not far from the Bradley/Irwin residence. 

Sadly, until Lisa Irwin is found, dead or alive, we will not have any more answers than we have now. There is always the hope that she was taken by someone who desperately wanted a baby to love and raise. At least that way, there is hope that she may be returned to her family some day.

Read More

Some Reflections on Segregation

by Katherine Scardino

I have told you before that I grew up in a small farming community in the Piney Woods of East Texas. I was up there last weekend and on Sunday I drove the three hours back to the big city listening to the radio. I tuned to CNN on my radio and learned that the Martin Luther King National Memorial dedication ceremonies were ongoing in Washington, D. C. I was a young girl during the 50's and 60's and like most young girls, I was caught up in myself and not much aware of what was going on in the world around me. Only as an adult have I thought about that period of time.

I can remember going to the movie theater in my hometown and noticing that the black boys and girls had to sit in the balcony. I remember watching them walk up the stairs as I sauntered to my cushy seat close to the screen. I remember watching them go to the water fountain marked "Black" while I used the water fountain marked "White." As a girl, I never thought twice about the meaning of all that.

As I was listening to the music and the speeches of men and women who spoke at the dedication ceremony that day, I started reflecting upon that period of time for me. I can honestly state that I never once went to any school with an African American child. Further, I can state that I cannot recall ever having known any African American child or adult during my years in this community. I was an adult before I ever had a black friend or realized the enormity of the Civil Rights movement. I wish I had known Rosa Parks. Ms. Parks is the black lady who refused to sit in the back of the bus, and was subsequently arrested. I am not sure what the crime was, but she was taken to jail because she refused to obey the bus driver and proceed to the back of the bus with all the other black men, women and children, as all the white people, you know, sit in the front of the bus. I know that I would have loved her.

Martin Luther King must have been a courageous man. He was considered not only a a peacemaker (since he won the Nobel Peace Prize) but also an agitator. Without him and other people like him, the Civil Rights movement would not have happened as it did. I believe it would have happened, because no group of people in America can be subordinated as that race was and continue without an uprising. (Remember the Revolutionary War and the Civil War?) But, the message of Martin Luther King was agitate. Speak out for your rights as an American citizen, but do it without violence.

How brave these people had to be to speak out. Mr. King was called every name imaginable; he was stabbed, had rocks thrown at him, his house was bombed, and then, finally James Earl Ray happened along and put a bullet or two in him. But, during this period of uprising and demand for equality, Mr. King never wavered. He never said OK, let's stop now. We can live with what we have. After all, the Supreme Court decided Brown v. Board of Education and directed that education in America must be equal. But, I can attest to the fact that during my early school years, that was not the case. And, in my business as an attorney now, from what I can tell, that is still not the case. Our children are not educated equally. We have a long way to go.

It was interesting to me that I even began to listen intently to the MLK dedication ceremonies after my weekend in east Texas. Because, this weekend, I heard the word "nigger" for the first time in years. It was embarrassing and startling to hear someone I know use that term. Of course, as someone who has never learned to hold the tongue and be silent, I did speak out and made it clear that while I cannot demand that she never use that word again, I can demand that it not be used in my presence.

As I drove down the highway, listening to the radio last Sunday, I think I learned something. I learned that every aspect of our childhood does not have to follow you into adulthood. We can learn better ways to do things and better ways to think about our society. We can learn that because of courageous people like Mr. King and Ms. Parks and many others, the African American society in the United States of America can overcome hatred, racism and ignorance. And, we can learn - and remember - what those brave men and women did in the mid-1700's who produced this document called the Constitution of the United States of America that states "all men are created equal" and it is imperative that we uphold that document. It takes time to change, as Mr. King knew, and as our first black president is learning now. We can hope, but change takes longer. We are still changing, but this time around, let's all hope that it is for the good of our country and benefits all of us. What benefits one segment of our society will ultimately benefit all of us.

photo credits (flickr.com): Trevor.Huxham; caboindex; Elvert Barnes; Elvert Barnes 2

Read More

Paying The Price Twice

by Diane Dimond

With the U.S. unemployment over nine percent these days nearly everyone knows someone who is out of work or under-employed. It’s a tragic and desperate time for millions of Americans.

But there is one sector of the population hit harder than any other – those Americans who carry the stigma of a past criminal conviction. An almost unbelievable 65 million people – one in every four U.S. adults – falls into this category. And, in this War-on-Terror era employers are conducting background checks on new hires like never before. No matter how exemplary a life a person has led since their conviction, their past record will pop up.

Look, no one could fault an employer for thinking twice about hiring someone who has been convicted of murder or child molestation. But, according to the author of a National Employment Law Project study that’s not what we’re talking about here. Michele Rodriguez says, “We’re not talking primarily about hardened criminals, but your friends, relatives and neighbors who may have shoplifted once or twice, who have DUI’s on their record or have drug charges that date back to the 1980’s.”

Take, as an example, the case of Ted Brown (not his real name) a whiz-bang software engineer that was downsized out of a job last winter. He thought he had landed a prestigious job with a five figure bonus when suddenly the offer was rescinded. Turned out the employer’s background check had discovered that during a nasty divorce several years earlier Ted had pleaded guilty to a charge of child endangerment. He had left his son alone in the car on a cool fall day while he quickly sprinted in to Starbucks for coffee. Never thinking that the episode would affect his ability to do a job Ted checked “no” on the application box that asked about arrests and convictions. He compounded his police record with a lie.

Then there’s the story of 40 year old Johnny Magee of Dublin, California. Twelve years ago the developmentally disabled Magee was asked by his uncle to pick up a package for him. Unbeknownst to Johnny it contained drugs and even though he had no police record he was convicted of a misdemeanor drug offense. In 2008, Johnny was laid off from his long time landscaping job at the Livermore National Laboratory. Even with his experience Lowe’s Garden Center refused to consider him for a garden assistant’s job citing his police record. In 2009, Johnny’s lawyer filed charges with the EEOC against Lowe’s citing the Commission’s pronouncement that “an absolute bar to employment based on the mere fact that an individual has a conviction record is unlawful under Title VII.”

As NELP’s Rodriguez says, “People are human, they make mistakes,” – especially in their early years – and ought not to be discriminated against for the rest of their lives.

I agree it is not fair to the jobseeker and, frankly, I don’t think it’s fair to society to limit the employment pool at such a crucial economic time. For every one who pulls from the unemployment coffers the burden shifts to the rest of us – the working taxpayers.

But how are these 65 million Americans supposed to get a new job if they suddenly become unemployed? A quick glance at the Craigslist employment page reveals insurmountable company policies:

“No Exceptions! No Misdemeanors and/or Felonies of any type ever in background.”

”DO NOT APPLY WITH ANY MISDEMEANORS / FELONIES”

“You must not have any felony or misdemeanor convictions on your record. Period.”

Last year at least five major federal civil rights lawsuits were filed against some of the country’s largest employers such as Accenture, First Transit, Inc. and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Company for their blanket policies against hiring anyone with an arrest record. Even the U.S. Census Bureau was sued for refusing to consider “roughly 700,000 people” with criminal records as suitable for temporary Census jobs.

Some of those suits – and many more filed at the state or local level – mention the racially discriminatory nature of refusing to consider applicants with a police record since African Americans and Latinos are over-represented in the criminal justice system. These legal actions are sure to have begun to seep into the corporate mindset where bean counters realize how costly litigation can be. Policy shifts are certainly underway.

I’m all about law and order and people doing the time for the crimes they commit. But once time has been served – especially if it’s for a non-violent offense – we need to welcome these people back into the fold. They need the work and we need them to be working for the betterment of our communities.

And to those who have an arrest record and are looking for a job? Don’t be like Ted Brown the software guy and lie about it on your application. Realize that a background check is going to discover your past so be upfront about it. A black mark on your background check might not stop a company from hiring you. But lying most certainly will.

Read More

Baby Lisa: Gone, Baby, Gone

by Pat Brown

Pretty much, that is all we know right now. Ten-month-old baby Lisa Irwin was there and then she wasn't. Two weeks have passed since her disappearance and she hasn't reappeared, dead or alive. Wait, we know one other thing: she didn't climb out of her crib and go for a walkabout. Someone removed her from her home, so we know someone knows something. We just don't know who.

In missing baby cases where proof of abduction is weak, there ends up being two scenarios: the parents did something to the child or someone else slipped in and made off with the child. Unlike an abduction where a child is seen by witnesses being dragged into a vehicle or a case where a child walking from school never arrives home but her parents have solid alibis, a child who goes missing on the parents' watch often causes the parents to become suspects at some point in time. 

The parents of Sabrina Eisenburg became suspects very quickly; the parents of Madeleine McCann became suspects when the police focus when the detective on the case eventually began to think the timeline and parents' behavior didn't add up. Both of these cases remain open and the missing children have never been found. Both cases have a camp that believes the child was abducted and a camp that thinks the parents caused the death of the child and orchestrated a cover-up. If Baby Lisa is never found, the parents, Deborah Bradley and Jeremy Irwin, will be added to this club.

Once upon a time we believed parents of missing children: we never doubted that the people standing in front of the camera, crying and begging for their child's return, were playing us. But after we got burnt by the performance of Susan Smith and a number of others, we have become more skeptical. We now replay the video to see if the parent is crying real tears and we watch their body language. We examine every bit of evidence. We don' t want to yet again be duped into expending emotion on a parent who will turn out to be a killer and a fake and we don't want to spend our valuable time searching for a child whose parents already know exactly where she is.

Baby Lisa is missing and many people are not accepting the parents' story at face value and throwing them their unconditional support. They are searching for inconsistencies in their story, for proof that the baby was abducted, for alibis that are supportable, and for behaviors that don't seem right.

And, unfortunately, for Deborah Bradley and Jeremy Irwin, they are not faring well in the analysis.

The basic hurdles parents must clear these days to keep the public faith in them include:

• Real tears: Deborah clearly had tears in many interviews; Jeremy, no.
• Strong emotion: Deborah, yes, Jeremy, no.
• Nice house, well kept: yes
• Good looking baby: yes
• Charming photos and video: yes
• Willingness to speak in the media: yes, but then refused to do local media, only national. Made it seem like a desire to be famous might be at play
• Willingness to talk to the police: yes, until they stopped. Then they started again, only now police say they are not answering all the questions
• Pass the polygraph: Deborah says she failed; Jeremy didn't take one.
• Consistent story: Deborah has changed the time frame and now claims she was drunk; Jeremy originally said he checked the kids first and now says he talked to Deborah first
• Crime scene has visible signs of abduction: There is only a slightly opened window and left- unlocked door which does not prove an abduction occurred
• Parents show responsible behavior: Deborah now states it is okay for her to be drunk while caring for the children
• Suspicious strangers have been lurking around: So far there has only been a homeless handyman who is said to have been cleared
• Police not focusing on parents: The police are clearly heavily focusing on the parents
• Not lawyering up: They now have Joran van der Sloot's lawyer which may be smart but makes the them look like they need a strong defense.
• Not having things about the case that make you go "hmmm:" Deborah has stated that her children heard some strange noises but she has never asked them about what they heard and when because she doesn't want to upset them. Another thing that has bugged me is that Deborah has called her child "Baby Lisa" in television interviews; this is a name given by the media to identify the story and not something a mother usually calls her own child. Then, the "drunk/blackout" story came out after the parents got a lawyer and one wonders if this is a defense strategy for court or a way to excuse Deborah from answering any more police questions about what happened that night. Finally, Deborah changing the time she last saw her daughter (put her to bed) seems like a way to take emphasis off the later time, a time that her sons may have heard something and that Mom doesn't want to acknowledge. Oh, and Deborah also said she thought she would be arrested which is very odd unless she is aware there is more evidence implicating her than we know.

If I add up this list, I have to say the parents haven't done so well going over these hurdles. Public suspicion is likely increasing rather than decreasing. Right now, I would say as a criminal profiler, the evidence and behaviors indicate the parents are more likely to have involvement in the disappearance of Baby Lisa than a stranger to have abducted her. But, without proof or solid evidence, this set of inputs could be misinterpreted - an abductor might have managed to sneak in and out without detection; maybe he did turn on the lights and steal phones because he is a major weirdo. 

The parents might have odd behaviors - even personality disorders - which cause them to act in a manner that arouses suspicion but they still didn't do anything to their baby. Mom and Dad could be awful parents and still be innocent of doing anything criminal. But, because they are not passing the "hurdle" test very well, the police are going to be all over them, people are going to stop looking for the baby, and, if no abductor is ever caught (and the parents aren't found guilty), then, like the Eisenburgs and the McCanns, a cloud of suspicion will always hang over their heads.

Where do you stand on the likelihood of Baby Lisa's parents being involved in her disappearance? What would you add to the list of "hurdles?" How does what you have seen of the case and the parents affect your willingness to support the search for Lisa?

Read More