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.
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.
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!