The Gates of Janus

by Ian Brady

  Prince Myshkin, in Dostoevsky’s The Idiot, is regarded in what is laughingly termed ‘polite society’ as being a simpleton because of his habit of saying what he thinks and believes without due deference to a culture in which social suppression is regarded as a virtue.

  His honesty not only disarms his peers but also scares them, exposing their avaricious shallowness and threatening their defensive lifestyle. To them, Myshkin is too in touch with his feelings for comfort; they are too close to the surface, and that enables him to express his thoughts and emotions without cosmetic social adulteration.

  That is also a characteristic of the criminal, who cannot silently or passively accept the transparent hypocrisy and greed of those who rise to control society and preserve the status quo in their favour. Hence, the expedient term sociopath is applied to him.

  The only absolute knowledge attainable by man is that life is meaningless.

  — Tolstoy

  What do you, the reader, really believe in? And would you dare express it publicly?

  Now it’s time for you to accompany me into the esoteric territory you have chosen to enter. An Hieronymus Bosch landscape. The abyss you already know much more of than you care to acknowledge. Seduced by repulsion. The vision gives form to the act.

  Thou shalt have one God only; who

  Would be at the expense of two?

  No graven images may be

  Worshipped, except the currency.

  Swear not at all; for, for thy curse,

  Thine enemy is none the worse.

  At church on Sunday to attend

  Will serve to keep the world thy friend.

  Honour thy parents; that is, all

  From whom advancement may befall.

  Thou shalt not kill; but need’st not strive

  Officiously to keep alive.

  Do not adultery commit;

  Advantage rarely comes of it.

  Thou shalt not steal; an empty feat,

  When it’s so lucrative to cheat.

  Bear not false witness; let the lie

  Have time on its own wings to fly.

  Thou shalt not covet; but tradition

  Approves all forms of competition.

  — ‘The Latest Decalogue,’ Arthur Hugh Clough (1819–1861)

  CHAPTER SEVEN

  The desire of the moth for the star, Of the night for the morrow, The devotion to something afar From the sphere of our sorrow.

  Shelley (1792–1822)

  As I shall be examining the cases of serial killers who have been caught and ones who have not, I will now explain as briefly as possible both the subjective and objective methodology of psychological/psychiatric profiling and the relevance of its forensic subdivisions.

  I conduct this preliminary in order to demonstrate that psychological/psychiatric profiling is both a behavioral science and an art, not a haphazard system of mere guess-work or hindsight concocted after the killer has been captured.

  In addition, I shall introduce personal, empirical innovations to the existing methodology of psychological/psychiatric profiling, integrating them into the central profiling system, and then logically extending and dividing functional/organic conclusions into two main categories, namely, the psychopathic and the psychotic.

  The personal modifications and interpretations, combined with a psychological/psychiatric emphasis on pathological patterns of thought and behaviour, will perhaps marginally enhance the future possible quotient of prediction and detection in the pursuit of serial killers.

  I personally appreciate the study more when the opponent is unorthodox and versatile:

  The chessboard is the world; the pieces are the phenomena of the universe; the rules of the game are what we call the laws of Nature. The player on the other side is hidden from us. We know that his play is always fair, just, and patient. But also we know, to our cost, that he never overlooks a mistake, or makes the smallest allowance for ignorance.

  — T.H. Huxley (1825–1895)

  The player is hidden but his acts are not, and the primal motivation behind the acts is essentially unoriginal.

  The crime scene should be studied with a degree of atavism. What has taken place has taken place before. What has taken place shall take place again. The answers are within that conviction. That cycle of eternal recurrence.

  Opportunistic homicide, in the context of the emotive terms ‘good’ and ‘evil,’ should be removed from the realms of mysticism.

  There are basically three types of people. The optimist who has the naïve expectation of universal altruism. The pessimist who has a morbid conviction of universal malevolence. And finally, the remainder who exercise a pragmatic, humanistic approach.

  In which category do you believe you belong?

  Your answer will of course largely be dictated first by personal vanity and, second, by which category you believe the criminal or serial killer belongs. Now conjure up the secret urges, images and fantasies which exist in your own mind, and think again.

  Pierce Brooks, ex-captain in the Los Angeles Police Department and Chief of Police in Springfield, Oregon, and Lakewood, Colorado, respectively, had spent over two decades formulating and practising a personal, and therefore necessarily limited, form of psychological profiling to help track down and capture serial killers and other violent criminals. In later years he was to have many conferences with FBI chiefs, particularly members of the Behavioral Science Unit (BSU) at the FBI Training Academy in Quantico, Virginia.

  As early as 1974, Brooks had also attended conferences at the Justice Department to propose the setting up of a computerised system and Task Force which, years later, was to become known as VICAP (Violent Criminal Apprehension Program). Experts in all fields of national and local law enforcement also attended the conferences and expressed enthusiastic support for the concept.

  William H. Webster, then Director of the FBI, was instructed by the Subcommittee on Juvenile Justice of the Senate Judiciary Committee to examine the VICAP concept, with a view to incorporating it into the administration of the FBI Behavioral Science Unit at the FBI Academy. The subcommittee heard the testimony of innumerable expert witnesses from police agencies nationwide, all enthusiastically in support of setting up the VICAP Task Force under the control of the FBI BSU, and funded by them.

  It was disclosed to the subcommittee that the FBI BSU in Quantico had already researched and instigated a restricted, computerised national crime analysis unit, in tandem with a special FBI team researching the concept of psychological profiling. The FBI psychological profilers were already interviewing in depth many serial killers in prisons throughout the country, attempting to ascertain common characteristics and traits they shared. This project remained obscure to the American public until the films Manhunter and Silence of the Lambs appeared.

  Meanwhile, back in 1984, the Reagan administration finally agreed that the VICAP project would be set up under the auspices of the FBI BSU at Quantico, in conjunction with the psychological profiling unit already in existence there, and that the resulting computerised data would be made available to all national and local law enforcement agencies.

  The vision first conceived by Brooks Pierce in prior decades had at last come into being. Psychology and technology had joined forces and become a formidable weapon to combat all violent criminals, particularly the high-profile threat of the mobile, trawling serial killer.

  When a definite pattern of killings is detected by state or local police, a team from the FBI Behavioral Science Unit is called in to assist. Their prime task is to study the crime scenes closely and assess whatever forensic evidence has already been collated, then to look for anything that might have been overlooked or not properly interpreted at a local level.

  It is by tabulating and evaluating the where, when, how and why of the murders that the serial killer’s personality print and crime scene signature begin to emerge, and a possible rhythm to the killings detected, perhaps leading to a working hypothesis or subsequent predic
tion of where and when the killer is likely to strike next.

  For instance, from the series of in-depth interviews the FBI Behavioral Science Unit conducted with captured serial killers who were sexually motivated, some of the following statistics were tabulated:

  1. Almost 90% had received psychiatric treatment at some stage in their life.

  2. Over 50% had family members with a psychiatric illness.

  3. 35% had at some time attempted to commit suicide.

  4. More than 40% had been sexually abused as children, and this figure almost doubled in the instances of psychological abuse as children.

  5. 45% had a criminal record at an early age.

  6. 75% did not have a steady job.

  7. 30% were Caucasian.

  8. 44% came from a one-parent family.

  9. 70% had a strict mother.

  10. 75% had a strict father.

  11. 70% had an interest in pornography.

  These figures, and many other additional criminal statistics, assisted the Behavioral Science Unit in formulating a table of traits and characteristics which would help to identify a serial killer.

  But that is not to say, as some authoritarian schools of thought might expediently argue, that a violent criminal or a serial killer can be identified as such by reference to his/her childhood behaviour before an age when a sense of conscience, aesthetics or idealism has been given a chance to evolve. If that were the case, you might easily confuse the serial killer with a far more aggressive and dangerous future general or politician!

  However, as can be clearly predicated from the above statistics, if a child is physically/psychologically abused or rejected in early childhood either by parents or (as the statistics carefully neglect to mention because of the political implications) social deprivation, the chances of him/her reacting violently against ‘authority’ in later life is dramatically enhanced.

  As previously stated, I have constructed a table divided into two main categories, the ‘Psychopathic’ and the ‘Psychotic.’ However, this does not mean that the two categories are mutually exclusive.

  A psychopathic killer may have secondary affective symptoms of psychosis; the psychotic killer may have secondary affective psychopathic symptoms. Further, very occasionally, a schizoid serial killer may emerge who possesses, almost in equal quantity, affective psychopathic and psychotic traits and characteristics.

  In another more general instance from my experience, the initial murder(s) by either a psychopath or a psychotic invariably takes place in or near the area in which the killer lives or works, as familiarity breeds both desire and self-confidence. Therefore, expert assessment of what can be ascertained to be the killer’s first ventures into homicide will produce the most comprehensive personality print or crime scene signature of the serial killer. From study of the crime scene data, one should at least be able to make a tentative estimation as to which main category the killer belongs.

  Obviously, computerised national records would be exhaustively cross-referenced to establish whether previous crimes bearing the same — or similar — modus operandi had been tabulated in some other part of the country. Tracking back on a national scale, to establish and intensively study the forensic evidence of the initial murder by the killer is made no less important by distance. The ‘first-strike’ principle of proximity still applies.

  The high-I.Q. serial killer is a complex, eclectic individual who is not ruled by mere consistency or routine. He is likely to resort to pragmatic innovations where necessity or intellect dictates. Therefore, this category of killer is so much more difficult to predict or trap by mere pedantic or academic adherence to the textbook. One must be extremely careful never to equate insanity with stupidity.

  There is often a grandeur in insanity, and an insanity in grandeur. The seed of genius (which, I hasten to add, I do not claim to possess) can thrive just as robustly in the dark as in the light.

  The pathological killer affectively influenced by cyclical factors axiomatically gives advantage and proactive initiative to the detective. But the killer to whom the universe teaches chaos or absurdity is unlikely to fall victim to an easily recognized pattern or less than sophisticated proactive strategy by the police.

  By definition, the very fact that the killer thinks in universal, existential or cautiously omnipotent terms widens the mindscape in which his acts are likely to be committed.

  Essentially, belief in either chaos or absurdity creates the same vision of man: an ant trying to fathom the mysteries of the cosmos and dismally failing. Therefore, the acts of such a killer will probably be as much a product of intellect as of passion. Far harder to comprehend or predict.

  If he conceives murder as an art, he will naturally perceive his acts as spontaneous creative destruction, and therefore he himself possibly has no idea where or when his next brushstroke shall fall, or whether the result will be aesthetically pleasing. If not pleasing, he will not repeat the hue.

  How then can the detective anticipate in such a case?

  If the killer is so consciously mindful of effect, his subconscious will nevertheless leave identifiable psychological traces, personal traits and characteristics. The more complex the creation, the more information his subconscious shall reveal. His ‘paintings’ will become identifiable primarily by their brushstrokes rather than the subject matter.

  There will doubtless be killers aware of this trace element who will attempt to create diversions, in much the same manner as some people can appear to converse a great deal about themselves as a method of concealing their true nature.

  However, all in all, despite such precautionary tactics, the subconscious will nevertheless reveal more than the serial killer consciously wishes. Even silence reveals evidence by omission.

  The worst possible scenario for the detective would be a killer educated in the employment of auto-hypnotic techniques, which would enable him to modify and programme his subconscious to a controlled, effective degree, like a chameleon capable of consciously altering the colour of his personality at root level. This concept is not simply theoretical. I myself used it successfully.

  The practical mechanics of examining and analysing the crime scene presented by any serial killer naturally requires insight as well as deductive skills. The most important answers are already within the psyche of the investigator. Within us all, in my opinion. The serial killer is in effect your alter ego, that facet of character you strive so hard to conceal and repress.

  You study serial killers not only to understand him/her but also yourselves.

  Like every other individual, the serial killer doesn’t wish anyone to know something until he is ready to reveal it himself.

  The collating of crime scene information with whatever other factual, physical and circumstantial evidence routine police work has managed to come up with also requires expertise, the prime object being to build a psychological portrait of the type of killer who would commit a particular type of murder — his probable pathology and motivation. And, by tried and tested principles, to attempt to chart and predict the possible course, cyclical parameters, choice of environment, type of victim and general methodology his next crime is likely to include. In short, his crime signature.

  In reality, the investigator is asking why he himself would commit that particular kind of murder.

  Ideally, the detective should always assess the killer in both psychological and philosophical/metaphysical terms, in order to determine what the killer believes in, or what he believes he is accomplishing, or aspiring to accomplish, by his crimes.

  We can safely predicate that the serial killer has confronted the chaos or absurdity of existence, as previously mentioned, the spiritual abyss — whether it be religious or secular in nature — and is trying to impose upon it some meaning and order of his own. Although there have been serial killers whose crimes were motivated by orthodox religious fanaticism or visions, in my experience they are a small minority.

  But there are ki
llers who, not believing in any orthodox god, create one of their own. Or, more accurately, who believe in a form of personal philosophy (predominantly nihilistic in character) so devoutly that it has the psychological power of a religion. This category, in my opinion, constitutes the majority of serial killers.

  Seeing no divine order of things, no hidden significance to life, other than the hedonistic or existential, they create their own spiritual or aesthetic microcosm. Metaphorically gods in their own kingdom, whimsically sampling everything that was once forbidden, eventually taking the lives of those who have entered their private domain, witnessed their darkest desires and, therefore, must never be allowed to leave or testify. The killing also affirmatively defines their new powers. That is why, in this primarily metaphysical context, some can often regard destruction as an act of creation — an ‘act of God.’

  Man created God in his own image, then claimed that God created him in His. The serial killer juggles dreams and fantasies in similar fashion. He is impatiently withering under the confinements of what is generally accepted as ordinary reality. Most people are.

  He daily observes people throwing their entire lives away on repetitive jobs, territorial obsessions, promotion to a particular desk, key to the executive toilet, etc. To his eyes this is insanity. He craves excitement. Vibrant meaning. Purpose. But it never seems to come.

  He cannot wait indefinitely. Life has become a funeral cortège. Indifference and ubiquitous mediocrity provoke him. He appoints himself possessor, enlightened inhabitant, of a vacant universe. A cynical Don Quixote tilting at any laws and customs questioning his newfound sense of nihilistic integrity.

  Time has been squandered. Time to catch up. A hidden agenda to foster, personal accounts to settle, dormant fantasies to fulfil. He thirsts for the realm of total possibility.

  Where should he draw the line? Unconditionally and spontaneously far beyond any border which others have had the arrogance to draw for him.

  Ideally, he must perform the dualistic feat of proving to himself that he is literally capable of anything, whilst knowing he is not. Dream as reality. Life a work of art. The attempt, all.