Criminal Profiler Pat Brown on The Mark In Lululemon Yoga Store Killing
I am at once humbled and honored when guests routinely tell me that they appreciate the thorough and thoughtful research I put into every show that we air on the Blog Talk Radio Network.
To me comments such as these, as well as those from listeners who indicate that we had provided them with new insights and perspectives on a particular story is immensely rewarding. However, and at the end of the day, it is ultimately the subject matter and the expertise of the guests themselves that make for great radio.
I can think of no better way in which this latter point was demonstrated than when criminal profiler Pat Brown, who in providing a preliminary assessment of the Lululemon yoga store killing, opined that the victim’s co-worker was the likely perpetrator of the crime.
Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
It was a bold assertion, but one which Brown made with a level of certainty that reflected her years of experience and expertise. It also turned out that she was 100 percent right as Brittany Norwood, who was convicted of murdering Jayna Murray, was just yesterday sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
While I will leave it to the traditional media such as newspapers to provide you with the overview of the case details, what makes the timing of this story so interesting is that I had just recently received what I can only describe as being an e-mail with an unctuous undertone from a fellow BTR host with whom I have never been previously in contact, questioning Brown’s competency as a profiler.
In a manner reminiscent of an Eddie Haskell compliment, while assuring me that he believed my show was first rate, he nonetheless wanted to let me know that his open criticism of Brown by way of a critique he wrote in a recent episode’s comment section in which Pat was a guest, in no way reflected on my creditability.
The "well intentioned" BTR host even questioned Grace's creditability for having Brown on her show as a regular
Now you have to understand, I have never been one to show reluctance with regard to entering the fray of even the most controversial topics of the day. This has resulted in what has been an at times interesting dialogue with readers and listeners such as when one White House insider suggested that I was a “crazy ignoramus” for suggesting that a show in which the host asks the guest to provide the questions he or she will be asking is not a show to which I would want to listen.
So when this particular host suggested that he was giving me much needed advice with only my best interests at heart concerning the shortcomings with Browns profiling abilities I was, suffice to say, cynical. Similar to someone answering a question that hasn’t been asked, I was immediately suspicious of this individual’s motivation for criticizing someone who according to my research has been forthright and well prepared for each of her appearances on my show.
Of course, and as guest Libby Gill once stated if you are going to be on Jon’s show you better have done your homework and know about what you are talking, because he will have done his own homework, and is not reluctant to raise a point of contention should it be warranted.
So why . . . why did this host feel compelled to expend the effort to reach out to me through multiple channels just to call into question Brown’s credentials?
At this point I do not have the answers but I will tell you this, my only response to the young fellow who so “genuinely” has my best interests at heart, is one word . . . Lululemon!
30
piwindowonbusiness.wordpress.com 
I don’t know the case and I didn’t hear the show, but I do know Pat and she is very compitant. I have learned much from here. You don’t know me, so this might mean much. I am a correctional officer in a maximum security prison and author of “Blood Red: Genisus of a Psychopath,” available at lulu.com
Thank you for your comments Jack. I am certain that Pat will appreciate your comments. For me, and Pat knows this, that I am someone who calls em as I sees em so to speak, which means that if there were any supporting evidence beyond an unsubstantiated opinion to show that she doesn’t know about what she is talking I would report that as being the case. However, from my experiences with her – and the Lululemon case is just one example, she knows her stuff . . . period.
Maybe this has something to do with the book Pat has written about missing Madeleine McCann and her theory as to what happened to the child, and the McCanns demands it be removed from Amazon, and Pat about to start litigation with them over this. The sad fact is that so many people who have dared to suggest other than the McCann’s version of an unproven ‘abduction’ have been harassed by the McCanns’ expensive lawyers, ridiculed, undermined, or vilified by the McCanns and their supporters. Even the best UK blood and cadaver dogs which were used on the case, have been called ‘ludicrous’ because of their alerting to the cadaver scent and blood found in the holiday apartment, and parent’s hire car. The case is shelved at present in Portugal awaiting further evidence, but there was little cooperation from the parents at the time, who have since started up a Fund, netting millions, and suing all and sunder who dare to challenge their version of events. Pat is obviously already on their hit list, and any nonsense comments appearing to try and undermine her should be ignored for the rubbish they are, as it should be expected will happen, since nobody else has been given a pass by the McCanns and their minions, either paid or unpaid.