Pat Brown criminal profiler video on Luke’s case

[Bullseye]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76FYcIMENGE&t=3287s

I thought the video was really good. She appears to know her stuff. Unfortunately it seem she has limited information on the case, there are a couple of points that im not sure is correct but I thought it was good to see another professional experienced person taking an interest in the case. Her initial opinion is that Luke is guilty. Be great if Sandra could go on her channel or provided her with the details to take a look at so she has more information and any facts. Not opinions or observations but just her looking at the information and evidence available and hearing her views on things like the statements, the way the crime scene was handled etc if there was any mistake I’m sure she would pick up on it a lot more than anyone like us who has no experience on the other hand if she feels there is nothing of concern and still believes Luke to be guilty them I’m sure she can explain to us why and maybe help people feel more confident the correct person is in jail.
I believe she is currently reading Sandra’s book, I’m not sure she will be very impressed as she was not with the jack and victor detectives from the channel 5 documentary which I feel was very similar, a bit one sided. Be interesting to hear her thought

[faithlilly]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76FYcIMENGE&t=3287s

I thought the video was really good. She appears to know her stuff. Unfortunately it seem she has limited information on the case, there are a couple of points that im not sure is correct but I thought it was good to see another professional experienced person taking an interest in the case. Her initial opinion is that Luke is guilty. Be great if Sandra could go on her channel or provided her with the details to take a look at so she has more information and any facts. Not opinions or observations but just her looking at the information and evidence available and hearing her views on things like the statements, the way the crime scene was handled etc if there was any mistake I’m sure she would pick up on it a lot more than anyone like us who has no experience on the other hand if she feels there is nothing of concern and still believes Luke to be guilty them I’m sure she can explain to us why and maybe help people feel more confident the correct person is in jail.
I believe she is currently reading Sandra’s book, I’m not sure she will be very impressed as she was not with the jack and victor detectives from the channel 5 documentary which I feel was very similar, a bit one sided. Be interesting to hear her thought

Have to disagree Bullseye. She appeared to know very little about the crime or the chronology of the case. Perhaps with a lot more knowledge she may give some interesting insights but not at the moment. She believes the McCanns had some part in the disappearance of their daughter, which I broadly agree with, but she kind of lost me when she claimed that they may have brought her bones home to the U.K. in their hand luggage.

[Bullseye]

Have to disagree Bullseye. She appeared to know very little about the crime or the chronology of the case. Perhaps with a lot more knowledge she may give some interesting insights but not at the moment. She believes the McCanns had some part in the disappearance of their daughter, which I broadly agree with, but she kind of lost me when she claimed that they may have brought her bones home to the U.K. in their hand luggage.

When I said she knows her stuff I mean her professional background not the details of the case. She said herself she had limited knowledge on the case but some of the point she made on the information she had were interesting. Given more facts and seeing the actual evidence etc I would be interested in what she has to say.

[Chris_Halkides]

From the host's comments at YouTube:

"Oh, Yvonne, I feel sorry for the police in this case who are just being shredded as absolute monsters for railroading this “poor boy.” Now, there are cases I have worked where there has been incompetence (usually due to lack of training), there have been errors (sometimes due to just being human or overwhelmed or lacking manpower or funding), and there have been rare cases of absolute corruption (but this truly are rare although they exist)."
And
"Thank you, Michelle. It is a shame that the wrongful conviction movement doesn’t focus TRULY on clear cases of wrongful conviction and that they are above board and honest in their work to free an innocent person..and they do exist. A good portion of these cases of persons they get out are actually guilty… but they have found some technicality to get them out on along with massive public pressure. Usually if one looks back at the actual case, the appeals, one finds that the guy had incredible amount of evidence against him. But, they hide this and pretend to the public, the fellow was a proper schoolboy and just got grabbed of the street and throw in prison for no reason.

These case taint the whole movement which I would be in support of, if only, they were honest. Once in a while I agree that someone behind bars is not guilty of the crime and should not be there, but, more often, it is not so. And, also - something they don’t admit - might be the wrong guy is behind bars for raping an d killing a woman - but he is already a serial killer and had done time in another case. This they don’t tell the public."

These are two instances in which Ms. Brown comes across as hostile in general to pro-innocence advocates.  She attempts to balance this by paying lip service to the notion that there are problematic investigations and a few wrongful convictions, but I found her comments unconvincing.  For example, one could have said circa 1985, "Why are there so many people banging on about Lindy Chamberlain?  She has used up all her appeals.  These folks should focus on someone truly innocent."  My point is that unless people advocate over the course of years for a possibly wrongfully convicted person, one will not uncover the evidence to demonstrate it.  There is a bit of circularity in her argument. 

In the first forty minutes I heard her make some questionable statements about the present case.  I will listen to the rest as the week progresses, but I don't have high expectations.
EDT
I watched another hour, and it went from bad to worse.  She provides erroneous information and rank speculation.

[Venturi Swirl]

Ieally wouldn’t give Pat Brown the time of day frankly.

[Chris_Halkides]

Ms. Brown made an argument to the effect that if Andreana Bryson had seen a different pair of people, why have they not come forward.  Once one remembers that Ms. Bryson's original statement would have put her at the base of the path much later in the day, there is a simple answer.  A couple who had been there later would not have recognized themselves from the earlier time was put forward at the trial.

[Bullseye]

Ms. Brown made an argument to the effect that if Andreana Bryson had seen a different pair of people, why have they not come forward.  Once one remembers that Ms. Bryson's original statement would have put her at the base of the path much later in the day, there is a simple answer.  A couple who had been there later would not have recognized themselves from the earlier time was put forward at the trial.

Also they were never asked in the news papers etc to come forward, probably had no idea they were being looked for.

[faithlilly]

Also they were never asked in the news papers etc to come forward, probably had no idea they were being looked for.

Which is odd considering that the police appealed for the moped boys, stocky man and the lady with the pram. In fact the stocky man was being publicised as the last positive sighting of Jodi even though Bryson had already given several statements to the police about the couple at that point.

For me the police believed that Bryson’s original timings excluded the sighting from being Luke and Jodi and it was only latterly, when they had no other evidence linking Luke to the crime, that the manipulation of her statements began. If you use the bank receipt then Bryson’s journey has gaping holes in it. It’s also interesting that no CCTV was obtained of Bryson’s journey, as was done with Corrine and Alan Ovens, which could have settled the point conclusively.

[Rusty]

For me the police believed that Bryson’s original timings excluded the sighting from being Luke and Jodi and it was only latterly, when they had no other evidence linking Luke to the crime, that the manipulation of her statements began. If you use the bank receipt then Bryson’s journey has gaping holes in it. It’s also interesting that no CCTV was obtained of Bryson’s journey, as was done with Corrine and Alan Ovens, which could have settled the point conclusively.

1. You have never seen her statements in full.
2. You never attended the 42-day trial.
3. Been done to death.

Anything new to discuss?

[KenMair]

Ieally wouldn’t give Pat Brown the time of day frankly.

Can't say I know too much about her but would like to see her going head-to-head with SL, but after all it's just more opinions much like David Wilson. She did get one thing right:

As to Lean, she is not a criminologist and never has been. She was a paralegal and she received a PhD in philosophy, her research for that degree being this case as of the fight of a “wrongly accused.”   I will not immediately discount Lean’s work based on her background..... But, I do find it funny that she adds/ lies the criminalist title when, in fact, that is not her field of expertise. From the above video comments.

[faithlilly]

1. You have never seen her statements in full.
2. You never attended the 42-day trial.
3. Been done to death.

Anything new to discuss?

I’m quite happy discussing this, thank you. Of course no one is forcing you to join in.

[faithlilly]

Can't say I know too much about her but would like to see her going head-to-head with SL, but after all it's just more opinions much like David Wilson. She did get one thing right:

As to Lean, she is not a criminologist and never has been. She was a paralegal and she received a PhD in philosophy, her research for that degree being this case as of the fight of a “wrongly accused.”   I will not immediately discount Lean’s work based on her background..... But, I do find it funny that she adds/ lies the criminalist title when, in fact, that is not her field of expertise. From the above video comments.

It appears that apart from a liberal arts degree from the University of the State of New York Pat Brown has no qualifications in either criminology or the law. Of course I’m prepared to be corrected.

[Venturi Swirl]

It appears that apart from a liberal arts degree from the University of the State of New York Pat Brown has no qualifications in either criminology or the law. Of course I’m prepared to be corrected.

have you got a degree in either of those two subjects or can we dismiss everything you have to say about this and the McCann case too?  Quite happy to do so on both counts.

[KenMair]

It appears that apart from a liberal arts degree from the University of the State of New York Pat Brown has no qualifications in either criminology or the law. Of course I’m prepared to be corrected.

If you'd looked further than Wiki: MA in Criminal Justice (2007) plus decades of actual case research and profiling alongside assisting various official agencies. I don't know enough about her but agree with her comment about SL using her "Dr" title rather deceptively.

[Chris_Halkides]

I’m quite happy discussing this, thank you. Of course no one is forcing you to join in.

The single largest problem I have with Andrina Bryson's testimony is the fact that her testimony changed in a material way, specifically in whether she saw the pair of people before or after looking at the house.  There are other problems, one of which I will mention now.  I don't refer to the two people whom Ms. Bryson saw as a couple.  A report of her testimony indicated that "He was a few steps away."  For all anyone knows they might have been strangers to each other.