September 24, 2003

Brian Douglas Wells: Victim or Criminal?

This is a highly unusual, shocking crime. No possible explanation for what happened on August 28 in Erie, Pennsylvania will allow it to fall easily into a broad category of criminal behavior.

Authorities have ruled out the possibility that Wells acted alone and are now working with two scenarios. Either Brian Douglas Wells was a hostage-victim, forced by subjects unknown to rob the PNC Bank under the threat that the bomb hanging from the locked, metal collar around his neck would detonate—and those “others” made good on the threat—or he was complicit in the crime and took the risk that the bomb would go off before he and his accomplices could defuse or remove it—and lost.

But those who knew Wells insist the part-time pizza deliveryman would have never robbed the PNC Bank in Erie, Pennsylvania on his own—they’re certain he was under the control of others. They believe he was a “bomb hostage”. This was the explanation Wells himself gave police as he panicked, handcuffed and seated in the middle of the street—a safe distance from officers and the public, and just a stone’s throw from the bank he’d just robbed. As he waited for the bomb squad to arrive, he begged police to help him remove the device that hung from the collar, imploring them, “I don’t have a lot of time,” and insisting the device would explode soon.

As we know, that much of his account was true. Which begs the question: what about the rest of it?

Wells had an extensive note for the bank staff. He had another note with instructions for him. On the latter, there were other locations Wells was to go to for further directions or information. Investigators won’t say whether the note specified where or how the collar would be removed or the bomb defused. With the release of the sketches of two men seen running “suspiciously” not far from the scene, and with the ongoing analysis of the collar and the device that locked it, authorities may be getting closer to the truth.

Bank Robbers Want Money

I’m not involved with this investigation, but can comment on certain trends I’ve seen first-hand. As some of you know, I started my FBI career working bank robberies in Detroit, Michigan. And I can say that bank robbers are usually after one thing: money. They almost always claim to be armed, but often are not. They know the threat is what makes tellers hand over the cash, which is their number one goal. Not violence, not hostages, not murder, though these can be part and parcel to such crimes.

I realize some of that may seem obvious, but I’m making a point. Whether Wells was a willing participant or not, the bank robbery was secondary to what motivated this crime.

What he did while wearing that bomb collar was not the point.

Domination and Control

When the evidence indicates a criminal was not out for the obvious payoff, you’re usually dealing with someone acting out an underlying fantasy. The question in this case seems to be: whose fantasy?

Without getting into undue speculation, it’s apparent that investigators are looking at issues of domination and control as central to this case. There are two pertinent dynamics, both of which can be part of the sort of fantasy referenced above: 1) the domination of criminal partners and/or 2) the domination of victims—way beyond what is required for the commission of the crimes.

Domination of Criminal Partners

There have been many cases, some famous, in which one criminal seemed to have control over others. These are situations in which a charismatic, powerful individual, through his attention and/or the use of threats, manipulates and controls one or more highly suggestible and relatively weak-willed partners, who typically suffer from significant feelings of inadequacy.

This has been the speculation in the case of Perry Smith and Dick Hickock, both executed for the brutal murders of the entire Clutter family in rural Kansas some forty years ago (chronicled in Truman Capote’s In Cold Blood, the prototype for today’s “true crime” books). It was apparently the dynamic in the “Manson family”—followers of guru Charles Manson, who deprived them of sleep, gave them drugs, and manipulated them emotionally and sexually until they would do anything for him, including committing several infamous, bloody murders.

I don’t believe Manson asked them to kill Sharon Tate, her unborn child, and her three houseguests. The fantasy for him had evolved from his original goals in life: fame and fortune. (He achieved half of that.) But the “family” was vying for his approval and drastically increased the stakes in their struggle with each other. He had created the collective monster that committed those crimes and did what he could to remain in control—he led them to the site of their subsequent murders.

Domination of Victims

The domination of victims is much more common. You see it with the sadistic rapist, whose goal is to control and torture his victim. The sexual act is secondary to him. The payoff for him is having his victim in his power and hurting her. He will often negotiate with his victim, controlling her actions and behavior by telling her he won’t hurt her if she cooperates. He will often keep his victim in a secluded place for days, repeatedly attacking her. By the time he has her within his control, she has ceased to exist as an individual to him. He has depersonalized her, and her only hope is to break through this dissociation—murder is more common with the sadistic rapist than other types, and he may even continue his attacks post-mortem.

Steven Pennell, who was executed just over ten years ago, was a sadistic rapist. He would whip, beat, and torture his victims, using pliers, a hammer, and other items. For him, the sexual act was not the primary objective. He needed to control his victims and torture them, making them suffer repeatedly before killing them.

Domination of victims is a main theme among serial killers. You see it with the serial killer who keeps his victim alive for a time before murdering her. There is a pattern of control and torture, of coercion and manipulation, and of repeated attacks. The killing is part of the fantasy, but what he wants and needs is to have complete control over his victim for some amount of time, during which he can have her obey his commands—and he can do whatever he wants to her.

I’ve written about Robert Hansen before in other contexts; you may remember him as the baker in Anchorage, Alaska who flew prostitutes out to his remote home in the wilderness, stripped them naked, and hunted them down in the woods like the big game he’d killed over the years. He had utter control over them and could have killed them as soon as the plane landed, yet he gave the line a little slack, as it were. What he was after was the hunt. He watched them panic and run and who knows what else, and then he shot them dead.

Conclusions

Now, I am not saying Wells was complicit, by virtue of domination, in the bank robbery and even his own death. Nor am I saying he was a victim, violently forced through the events of that day. I do not know if either is true. My goal here is to present what I know about what seem to be the basic elements of this highly complex crime.

One thing is certain—we will all learn something from the outcome of the investigation.