Dark Dreams: Sexual Violence, Homicide And The Criminal Mind

by Hazelwood, Roy

  Enter the Profiler

  My role in this case was unusual. The police had developed a suspect but requested my assistance in approaching his ex-wife as a potential witness. Before I could do that, I needed to know something about her relationship with him, which in turn meant I needed an unbiased idea of what he was like.

  The best source of information about an aberrant offender is his work product. Accordingly, I asked to examine the crime-scene materials in order to build a profile of the killer. My interpretation would inform me about the suspect, and these inferences, in turn, would guide me to make suggestions about interviewing the ex-wife.

  After reviewing case materials, my first questions are always focused on the victim—what type of person was murdered? This is critical information. To understand what happened to Kathy, I needed to know who she was: her personality traits, habits, occupation, lifestyle, and sexual behavior.

  Kathy was an unusual type of victim for such a crime. She was working at the convenience store to earn money for college. Kathy didn’t abuse alcohol and had nothing to do with drugs. She had a steady boyfriend and no interests or habits that would have brought her in contact with criminals. The one important risk factor was her working the late shift at the convenience store (law enforcement officers call them “stop and robs”).

  Those who knew her reported that Kathy would have fought an attacker unless the odds were dramatically against her. Since there was no sign of a struggle at the store, this information suggested several possible scenarios. She could have been abducted by someone she knew. Or her kidnapper might have conned her into leaving the store. For example, he could have told her that someone had broken a window in her car. Or he might have had a gun. Or maybe several abductors were involved. Such a variety of possible explanations is typical when assessing behavioral clues. The important thing is to maintain an open mind, not to lock in on only one possibility.

  Kathy was taken from a well-lighted place of business on a busy road. It was a location that the criminal could not control because someone could walk in at any moment. In my opinion the offender took a high risk of being observed, interrupted, or identified when he committed the crime.

  I next considered the abduction site. The still photos I was given showed that the donuts were shelved in one corner of the store and the milk in an opposite corner. Setting aside the possibility that individuals unconnected to the crime left these items on the counter, I believed they pointed toward an MO and the likelihood that a single individual was responsible. A plausible reconstruction suggested itself: The UNSUB calmly walked around inside the store, ostensibly in search of what he needed, but in fact on the lookout for other people and for the presence of surveillance cameras.

  This scenario indicated that he was a deliberate, cautious offender, interested in reducing his risks as much as possible. He could casually bring the donuts to the counter, and then the milk, without arousing Kathy’s suspicion. In the process he discovered what he wanted to know about the location.

  Since nothing appeared to be missing from either the cash register or Kathy’s purse, I determined that she was his objective not the money. No fingerprints were found on either the donut package or the milk carton. This suggested that he either wore gloves or had wiped the items clean. Since the crime occurred in June, when gloves would have been out of place, wiping was a logical assumption.

  The next question was: Were we dealing with an organized or disorganized killer? The evidence so far suggested to me that an organized offender had kidnapped and murdered Kathy.

  The distinction between organized and disorganized offenders gives investigators a shorthand way to assess from crime scene evidence whether the perpetrator is deliberate and experienced or in a rush, careless and sloppy. The organized offender usually brings with him his preferred weapon and whatever else he needs to commit his crime. He leaves as little evidence as possible of himself and what he has done. The disorganized offender, on the other hand, has not thought ahead. He acts impulsively, using any available weapon, and may leave both his victim and ample evidence of his own identity (i.e., fingerprints or blood) where they can be readily discovered.

  The fact that Kathy’s car was not taken was further evidence that this UNSUB was organized. He had driven to and from the store in his own vehicle. Had hers been missing, we would have had to conclude that he probably arrived on foot or at least did not have access to transportation, which is a sign of disorganization.

  The Crime Scene

  The next issue to consider was the location he chose to take Kathy. It appeared that he had prepared the site in advance, a further suggestion of his high degree of organization. The choice also showed he was familiar with the outdoors and comfortable there, too. The plastic-coated wire strengthened that impression. I guessed that he had laid the wire on the ground to guide him as he navigated the heavily overgrown acreage at night without the use of a flashlight.

  A similar practice was once used in the military. Prior to wireless communications, soldiers installed the communications wire that ran from headquarters to forward areas. Those returning to headquarters were told to “follow the commo wire.” I reflected, This man is a thinker.

  The bra around Kathy’s neck, I surmised, originally had been used as a gag and had slid downward as her body decomposed. The two pieces of wire also served specific functions. In my opinion, the five-inch twisted loop was placed around Kathy’s neck as a collar, to which her abductor attached a lead to guide her as he followed the “commo” wire in the dark. Obviously, her wrists would have been bound, too. I also concurred with the medical examiner that the three-inch loop was the actual weapon of death. He would have used it to slowly strangle Kathy after acting out his aberrant fantasies.

  As for the lingerie, magazines, and inflatable doll, I felt these were not connected to the crime. For one thing, the magazines were dated both prior to and after Kathy’s abduction, and they fell into the category of “soft” porn. This meant that whoever had brought them was a regular visitor to the remote site, where he could masturbate undisturbed. The lingerie was mostly weather worn, but there were also relatively new items of all different sizes and types.

  Experience told me that a man with an autoerotic interest in such articles was far more passive than the killer we sought. The man who captured Kathy, bound her to the rack, and killed her in such a slow, agonizing manner would not have an unprotected collection of soft pornography. Kathy’s killer was a sexual sadist. He would have a well cared for collection of pornography dealing with bondage, anal sex, and captivity. He would prize his collection too much to allow it to be exposed to the elements or theft.

  My audiences always are curious about the plasticcoated wire. Was it just a coincidence that it ran past the magazines, doll, and assorted lingerie on its way to the rack in the clearing and then Kathy’s remains?

  In short, yes. I can’t completely account for this fact, except to point out that the very seclusion that attracts a sexual killer to a remote site can also make the place attractive for other sorts of sexual purposes.

  For example, Ted Bundy abducted and killed two women in one afternoon at Lake Sammamish State Park near Seattle. The subsequent search of the surrounding woodlands turned up twenty-six pairs of women’s underpants, none belonging to either of Bundy’s victims.

  Sexual crime investigations also routinely reveal sexual deviants who live nearby or knew the victim or had access to the crime site but had nothing to do with the crime in question.

  Another key source of information was the rack. This sadist had built it with the finest lumber and coated it with spar varnish, commonly used on quality watercraft. The rack had deep importance to him, undoubtedly connected to his aberrant fantasy.

  No nails or screws were used in its construction. Instead, it was fastened with wooden dowels and glue. The leather straps were positioned to be used as wrist, thigh, and ankle restraints. They were not simply tacked to the crosspieces, but w
ere attached through the wood itself. Here was a clear indication of this interest in sexual bondage.

  Kathy’s clothes were cut from her body, suggesting that she was dressed when she was bound to the rack. Her bra was used as a gag in her mouth. In such a position, she would also have been vulnerable to torture and sexual assault.

  The location of the crime scene and the obvious amount of preparation underscores how comfortable the killer was in the outdoors. As the profile took form, I noted that he probably had outdoor hobbies, such as hunting and fishing.

  It turned out that he loved to camp.

  Connecting this inference with the bulkiness of his rack, I guessed that his vehicle of choice was large and rugged. Since he also clearly was meticulous, I said the vehicle would be well cared for.

  He drove an immaculate four-wheel-drive pickup truck with a camper top.

  Because I felt he was a sexual sadist who practiced bondage, my profile suggested he would have collections of bondage paraphernalia.

  Not only did he save bondage magazines, he also owned a pair of handcuffs and practiced bondage on his wife.

  The overwhelming majority of sexual sadists are white males, and this man seemed to be no exception. His demonstrated organization and caution suggested that he wasn’t a young person. I placed his age from the late-twenties to mid-thirties.

  He was a white male, thirty-six years of age.

  The skilled construction of his rack suggested to me that he made a living by working with his hands.

  He was a mechanic.

  From the police I learned the suspect had been married, and from my studies of sexual sadists I knew he had probably dominated the former wife through sexual and possibly physical abuse.

  At the time of the offense he was married. His wife, however, had left him in the months since then because he broke her arm as he forced her to participate in anal sex.

  If he was a military veteran, I said, he would have served in the ground forces. The more aggressive sexual offenders who serve in the military perceive the army or marines as the most macho branches of service and therefore more compatible with their self-image.

  The killer had served in the army.

  The complexity and multiple components of his crime, plus the clear evidence of detailed advance planning, told me that this offender was of high-average or better intelligence, but I didn’t think he was educated beyond high school.

  He was of high-average intelligence, and he had completed a high school GED while in the army.

  My research shows that these men typically appear friendly and outgoing, so I described him as an extrovert with a good sense of humor.

  “Life of the party” was how his friends described him.

  In order to reduce their risk of capture, organized killers most often select total strangers as victims. I therefore believed this killer probably was a stranger to Kathy.

  He was.

  Organized killers tend to hunt outside their neighborhoods. I surmised that this one resided a good distance from both the abduction and disposal sites.

  He did not live or work within forty miles of either.

  The Art of the Profile

  This sketch of Kathy’s killer did not require higher psychic powers: no ESP, second sight, intuition, or voodoo. It was a purely deductive exercise based on the facts of the crime and my experience with such crimes and offenders.

  When I joined the BSU in 1978, profiling was a little-known and spare-time service some of us unofficially provided to local law enforcement officers if they specifically requested us to do so. Usually we were called in when police officers who had been selected to attend the FBI National Academy brought their files on strange and unsolved crimes with them to Quantico. We would review the records and then provide our best opinion of the UNSUB’s characteristics and traits.

  At first we called our work “psychological profiling.” Mental health professionals immediately complained that this was misleading, and they were right. We were not licensed psychologists. So we began to call the process “Criminal personality profiling.” Once again, we ruffled sensibilities. After all, what did a bunch of FBI agents know about the human personality?

  We again changed the title, this time to “criminal investigative analysis,” and when no one objected, the term stuck. Eventually criminal investigative analysis (CIA) came to describe not just profiling but all of the various operational tasks performed within the BSU.

  Our informal franchise quickly evolved. Officers began calling to request a profile even if they had a suspect identified or in custody. What they actually wanted was our input on any number of matters where the outcome might hinge on personality and behavior, both the suspect’s and theirs. Sometimes investigators asked us to suggest interview strategies. Other times an officer would want to know what type of materials should be included in search warrant lists.

  Could we suggest how a certain individual may have committed a murder, or how he disposed of the body? What type of investigative strategy might be most successful against a particular UNSUB? Or what type of trial strategy did we recommend for a particular type of case and defendant?

  In response to this broad range of requests, one of the techniques we developed was IPA, or indirect personality assessment. In an IPA you collect as much detailed information as you can about a particular individual in order to identify his strengths and weaknesses. Then, joining that information with your knowledge of criminal behavior, you develop strategies for law enforcement.

  You might advise a proactive investigative technique to draw out a particular type of offender. Then you might suggest when and how to interview him. Some types of offenders respond well to a patient, sympathetic approach. For others, a simple hand on the shoulder, from behind, can have a galvanizing effect.

  Later, you might give advice to the prosecutor on the content of his opening remarks, his cross-examination strategies, or even his order of witnesses. Prosecution strategies used in the trial of Atlanta child killer Wayne Williams are a good example.

  Another of our services was linkage analysis. Here, we examine behavior in a series of crimes in an attempt to assess the likelihood that one person was responsible for all, or some, of them.

  Equivocal death analysis (EDA) also emerged as a BSU subspeciality. An EDA weighs the available evidence to determine if a homicide, suicide, or accident most likely occurred. The process is similar to profiling except that you deal with a lot more variables.

  Profile is among the most overworked terms in the law enforcement lexicon. There are drug courier profiles, child molester profiles, terrorist profiles, and even racial profiling. The usage has spread into society as a whole, so that today we often hear of medical profiles, mental health profiles, and even frequent flyer profiles.

  In the BSU sense of the word, a profile is a listing of the characteristics and traits of an unidentified person. It is not meant to put a name and address on an UNSUB. But if done properly, the profile identifies the offender’s personality type in a way that helps police narrow the focus of their investigation.

  Profiling is subjective rather than objective; more art than science; an investigative tool rather than a magical solution to crime. I would never testify that a particular person must have committed a crime because he or she fit my profile. Likewise, I don’t believe profiles should be part of an affidavit filed in support of an arrest or search warrant. The evidence that an investigator has compiled from experience or research (her own or that of others) is a far more valid basis for search warrants.

  I also strongly urge anyone interested in entering this field as a career to be extremely cautious. There are a growing number of frauds out there who claim they can teach profiling, for a price. Some even claim that they will also find the student a position once he or she is trained. Proceed with caution!

  While these sellers of magical elixirs may be superficially conversant in the lore and terminology of profiling, they’re selling fairy ta
les, not facts. One woman told me that she’d paid a thousand dollars for “expert” training plus a guarantee of employment. But when it came time to place her, she was told that unfortunately all profiling positions were filled at the time.

  In my experience the only legitimate profiling courses have been programs within the FBI National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime (NCAVC) at Quantico, which includes the one-year police fellowship program begun at the Behavioral Science Unit (BSU) in the mid-1980s and the subsequent police understudy program taught by NCAVC-trained police fellows.

  Setting Limits

  When we first started to define what profiles could and could not accomplish, we established three criteria for a crime to be considered for behavioral analysis.

  It must be a violent or potentially violent crime.

  It must be unsolved.

  All major leads must be exhausted.

  While profiling unquestionably could have been adapted to nonviolent crimes, we wanted to restrict the types of cases we would examine in order to contain the volume of work.

  A particularly upsetting example of why we restricted profiling to unsolved offenses came early in my career at the BSU. Two students of mine, both detectives, asked if I could spare some time to examine a homicide they were working. I agreed to do so after class. For several hours I studied the crime-scene photographs and the accompanying materials and asked the two men questions.

  Finally, I presented an oral profile of the type of person I believed had committed the murder. After I finished, one of them said, “You are absolutely correct. That’s what he was like.”

  I asked what he meant by that. They explained that the case was solved and the person responsible was awaiting execution. They just wanted to see if I knew what I was talking about! From that point on, the criterion of “must be unsolved” was added.

  Another rule we established is that we would accept cases only from the agency responsible for the investigation or prosecution of the crime. This precluded the possibility of one jurisdiction requesting a profile in the hopes of proving a point or embarrassing another. It also ensured the cooperation of the agency with the necessary information.