 |
 |
November
14, 2002 |
 |
"The men and women who had been
described on the air and in print as 'forensic psychologists' and
'former FBI investigators' took many swings at the who and why of
the sniper case - and mostly missed."
- Paul Farhi and Linton Weeks (The Washington Post)
- 10/25/02
When people, from acquaintances to reporters, asked me what I thought
about the "Beltway Sniper" or the "DC Sniper" or whatever the buzz
words were that day, I'd say, "I don't know." When I got calls to
do media appearances about the case, I'd say, "No." That's been
my practice. On the occasions that I have answered questions about
highly publicized cases, especially serial killings, I've tended
to speak very generally, and talk about profiling as a technique.
I'm not trying to grandstand, but since the suspects are in custody,
I felt I could finally say something for the integrity of the profiling
program. Maybe some of my colleagues and some wanna-be profilers
will listen.
Speculation is not Profiling; Profiling is not Speculation
It's dangerous to speculate if you have any shred of authority or
expertise or influence but aren't directly involved in the investigation.
In this case, it was especially cavalier given that these guys,
the snipers, were responding to the press. On one side of the equation,
you've got people working around the clock, from now-famous Chief
Moose to the guys in my old unit at the Bureau. They're sorting
through thousands of leads, evidence gathered at very difficult
sites, witness accounts, and so forth, and they're piecing it together.
They're in communication with the snipers (at this time, most "profilers"
still believed it was the work of one person), and from their end
it's largely through the press. So the snipers are paying close
attention. Then some very well-trained, some semi-trained and some
self-trained individuals make statements to the press that are almost
always based on the same information we all had.
Most of the people profiling on television were introduced as "network
analysts". It seems when you're hired as an analyst you're forced
to say something. You can't really go on TV and say "I don't know"
again and again. So you get yourself in trouble, make statements
that are bad guesses (as opposed to behavioral analyses based on
good information), and maybe damage the investigation.
Such statements are just speculation. But the "profilers" speak
with such authority about the "sniper" that most viewers take them
seriously, listening intently to the talk of how the sniper has
a lot of anger and how he's probably going home every night and
won't leave the DC area, and so forth. Who's to say the snipers
aren't taking it seriously, too? That's a dangerous chance to take.
The dangers of that sort of speculation aren't just theoretical.
Every day the snipers were at large they could've killed another
person, or several more. Every time someone's speculations misdirected
the public's attention, or possibly provoked the snipers, the investigation
was at stake. Since the snipers were choosing victims seemingly
at random in an easily and frequently traveled geographic area,
there were a lot of lives at risk. What is the motivation for me,
or for the "profilers" we saw on TV? 15 more minutes on a morning
show or CNN--more like 1.5 minutes actually, with the speed of things
these days.
That's not enough.
Good Apples, Bad Apples
I said "No" to interviews because I had no access to information.
I wasn't part of the formal investigation, either as I had been
with the Bureau when our unit was called in, or I've been since
retiring when called in by authorities. The reporters I quoted at
the beginning of this piece included me in their article among the
profilers broadcasting their opinions on the TV. (They'd perhaps
be interested to know that I concur with many of their opinions,
and that I chose to quote them here.) But they missed an important
point: When I "told Larry King and Katie Couric and everybody in
between" what my observations were about the JonBenet Ramsey case,
it was because I was involved--I'd been called in by the Ramseys'
legal team to determine whether, in my opinion, the Ramseys could
have had anything to do with their daughter's murder. I had access
to witnesses, the crime scene, the medical examiner's findings,
victimology, and to the Ramseys themselves. I had similar access
when I worked on the O.J. Simpson civil trial.
If we're not involved, we have little reason to comment. And if
we are involved, we're bound by what the authorities want or will
allow. I realize that doesn't leave much for television profiling,
but since there's not much real information there, that means most
of it's simply entertainment--which we can do without.
I think most of the men and women I've worked with would agree.
If only those highly visible other folks would concur. Because on
top of it all, they're giving profiling a bad name. I don't care
about that for the sake of my reputation, or anybody's reputation
for that matter. It's much more important than that: Profiling is
a very, very important investigative and prosecutorial tool. If
police officers, prosecutors, and others stop trusting profilers,
we won't be called in to help on investigations and trials, which
means one very important tool won't be used to solve cases and put
criminals behind bars the way it should.
Which means more criminals stay free to commit more crimes.
I'm not stretching here. It took years of hard work and proving
ourselves, proving the science, going from city to city and working
with police officers and prosecutors around the country before profiling
was incorporated into their work. They had good reason to be skeptical.
It seemed like a pseudo-science to them at first, and we had to
demonstrate that it was based on years of education, training, experience,
statistics, interviews and research.
But profiling is like any other profession. There are some very
good profilers, some very average ones, and some that aren't very
good. I speak to a lot of medical groups and demonstrate the similarities
in our professions; I've written about those similarities in the
past. For example, doctors use patient history and diagnostic tests
to determine a course of treatment; we use victimology and forensic
evidence to determine a course for an investigation.
The harm done to the medical profession by disreputable doctors
and quacks is similar to that done to profiling by unscrupulous
profilers and unqualified people calling themselves profilers. But
medicine has had centuries to establish itself. Profiling is in
its infancy, relatively speaking, and its misuse or misrepresentation
can have a much bigger, more damaging impact because of that.
An Uncommon Profile
Even with access to all the pertinent information, these snipers
had an uncommon profile. From what I understand from colleagues,
they were a real challenge because this case was unlike any other.
It was very difficult to profile the Unabomber at first because
of Motive. We didn't know what the guy wanted. The sniper shootings
also had no easily identifiable motive, and from the outside it
looked like the clues were few and far between. Just like the Unabomber,
once the snipers started to communicate with law enforcement it
made it a lot easier.
Now there was something to work with. Even then, the best route
to take was to get information out to the public and to develop
possible proactive techniques. Had the subjects not been identified
at that Maryland rest stop, law enforcement could've considered
releasing any handwritten text of the snipers' threats and demands,
or an audiotape recording of the snipers, like the call to Rockville,
Maryland 911 we've been hearing on TV. Both would be clues to the
public, ways to get folks who might recognize someone's handwriting
or voice and be able to give authorities a name to go with it.
Whatever authorities chose to do, it was up to those of us on the
sidelines to stay out of it.
Connections
Now they're in custody: John Allen Muhammad and John Lee Malvo,
the alleged snipers. They're linked with 20 shootings and 13 deaths;
the number increases weekly it seems. It includes the Virginia and
Maryland shootings between October 2 and October 22 (the last known
shooting prior to their arrest), as well as shootings as far back
as February 16 in Tacoma, WA and as recently as September 23 in
Baton Rouge, LA.
The publicity the snipers have gotten has led to these connections
being made. How many people will end up on their list of victims?
Why weren't the other cases linked sooner? Remember the "Railroad
Killer"--Angel Resendiz--who's admitted to killing eight people
in three states (though he may have killed more) during a three-year
rape and murder spree from 1997 - 1999, during which he eluded authorities
by moving from state to state and from the U.S. to Mexico. Due to
the national publicity of that case, police started looking at similar
cases in their jurisdictions, which helped them isolate Resendiz
as their man. I'd hoped that after that case the federal government
would have mandated our violent crime database but they didn't.
I talk and talk about the need for a mandatory violent crime database,
and I hope this case spurs the government and various state and
local agencies to make this a reality. As it stands, participation
in VICAP (in existence since 1985) is voluntary, which means police
officers can enter information about violent crimes if they elect
to, but it isn't required. So cities and states don't always share
information with the national database (and therefore with each
other). The federal government should fully support and mandate
the participation of all agencies relative to the VICAP program.
Think of all the cases in America that do not receive national publicity,
and imagine if every violent crime was entered into our national
database...those "low-profile" cases (as these cases now connected
with the snipers once were) might have a better chance of getting
solved. VICAP data could be modified and enhanced over time and
cross-referenced with other databases, like those for gun registrations.
It's Over
I know everyone on the East Coast, practically, breathed a sigh
of relief when we learned that Muhammad and Malvo were in custody
and that authorities were certain they had their men. It's over,
everybody said. And it is, in a sense. The public that was cowering,
afraid to stand up straight while pumping gas, can now return to
a state of normalcy. And we all forget, of course. Even the Twin
Towers have left our immediate consciousness, for the most part.
It's over.
But not for the people most directly affected by Muhammad and Malvo--the
friends and families of the victims, those we know they killed or
wounded, as well as those whose murders are unsolved but who may
end up on their long list of victims.
I hope in all that's to come we remember them.
|
|
|
