by John Douglas
The problem with psychiatry in a forensic setting is that it is based on self-reporting. If you go to a therapist as a private patient, it is presumably because you are unhappy or mentally troubled and therefore have a vested interest in telling that therapist the truth so he or she can help you. If you see a therapist as an offender, your goal is to get out of whatever institution you’ve been placed in and therefore have a vested interest in telling that therapist whatever you have to in order to accomplish your goal. A psychiatrist might hope his patient is getting better; naturally, that will make him feel more effective as a professional and better as a human being. He will want to believe what the subject is telling him and give him a shot back in normal life. But if by doing so, he’s possibly putting the lives of more potential victims at risk, then that’s a price I, for one, am not willing to have us pay.
Ultimately, we’ve got to ask ourselves as a society if there’s still anything sacred. And if the answer to that question is yes, then I hope the lives of innocent children are always at the top of the list.
CHAPTER 5
For the Children
Walking into the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children in Arlington, Virginia, just outside Washington, D.C., you’re at first struck by how normal the reception area seems. It could be the lobby for a business or a law office. The friendly people you meet seem like regular professionals, an image that’s hard to reconcile with the horrors you know they deal with every day. But if you look at the walls, covered by posters, photos, and plaques, you start to get a sense of the deep level of commitment and involvement these people give to their work.
Moving down the corridors the mood changes. These walls are covered with photos of smiling, childish faces, many of them with toothless six- or seven-year-old grins, posed in front of a fake forest or pasture in the classic school photo setup. The faces are happy, but you know those children are now in a very different place from the day that picture was taken. Surrounded by these faces, NCMEC staff still smile and greet you, but the atmosphere in here is different: people walk quickly past, or they’re on the phone, typing on a computer, taking notes by hand, doing at least two things at once. From them you feel the urgency surrounding their mission: there are so many faces on the walls!
I think to myself that these people face the same overwhelming stresses I faced just before my near-fatal collapse in Seattle: every case is first priority; in every case, time is critical. How can you triage when so many innocent young lives are at stake? How can you stand to take the time for lunch, or go home at the end of the day and unwind, maybe spending time with your own small children? These kids looking out at you—and these are only the small reported fraction of all cases of missing and/or abused children—represent the most unspeakable of horrors.
Look at one specific photo—pick any at random—and imagine what that child’s been through. Wonder if he or she is still alive, and how long loved ones have been waiting for word. Looking at these faces one by one, you’re struck by the fact that these are normal kids. We speak of how beautiful little Cassie Hansen was, or what a promising track star Alison Parrott was, but the fact is child molesters don’t prey only on the most attractive or talented.
Many of the children on the wall are victims of opportunity more than specific targets: this little boy went to the bathroom alone; this little girl disappeared walking home from school; this one was born to a woman who, abused as a child herself, lacking self-esteem, vulnerable and lonely, turned to the wrong man for companionship.
There is another wall of smiling faces under the heading “Recovered.” When you first see it, you might get goose bumps thinking of emotional reunions. Then they explain: “Recovered” simply means located and returned. It doesn’t necessarily mean located and returned alive.
The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children is a private, nonprofit organization that was established in 1984 under the mandate of that year’s Missing Children Act. The Center works in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and has branch offices in California, Florida, New York, South Carolina, and Virginia. In 1990, it merged with the Adam Walsh Child Resource Center, founded by John and Reve Walsh after their six-year-old son was abducted and murdered in Florida in 1981. Today, as described in one NCMEC brochure, it “spearheads national efforts to locate and recover missing children and raises public awareness about ways to prevent child abduction, molestation and sexual exploitation.”
Through the Adam Walsh Children’s Fund, it also provides assistance to missing children’s families, works toward legislative reforms that would protect children, and educates and motivates families and concerned citizens to get involved personally in protecting our nation’s children.
Since there is no federal law requiring police or other agencies to report cases of missing children to the NCMEC, and since the stigma attached to the crimes—and the fear and embarrassment of victims—is so great, there is only sketchy data on how big the problem really is in this country. According to the National Committee to Prevent Child Abuse, there were about 350,000 reported cases of sexual abuse of children in the United States in 1995, about ninety percent of which were perpetrated by someone the children knew—usually a family member. In its first ten years of operation, the NCMEC’s hotline, 1-800-THE-LOST, took more than 900,000 phone calls from people who wanted to make reports on lost or potentially exploited children. In approximately the same time period, the Center assisted in the recovery of more than 28,000.
The best way to protect your children, though, is to know your enemy. Because of my job and the things I’ve seen, I probably went a little overboard with Pam and my kids, but it’s important to be aware.
Even more than with other violent crimes, people are always asking me what kind of person could do this? What kind of monster could abduct, molest, and/or take the life of an innocent child? Since we know now that the image of the scary-looking stranger in the trench coat is not representative of the bulk of child molesters or abductors, how can we recognize them?
As with perpetrators of other types of offenses, these subjects exhibit behaviors—both before and after committing their crimes—that can help reveal their secret identity.
We’ll start with sexual predators, considered even by other violent criminals to be the lowest of life forms. Just as we talk about the different types of rapists (so-called gentleman rapist versus a sadistic or power assurance rapist), there are different types of child molesters. Special Agent Ken Lanning, my associate for many years at Quantico and among the world’s leading experts on crimes against children, has studied and published extensively on this subject. He gives the definition of a child molester, from a law enforcement perspective, as someone who “engages in illegal sexual activity with children.” Children are defined as individuals who are under eighteen years old when the criminal activity takes place. Beyond that broad definition, a host of experts including Ken and Dr. Park Elliott Dietz—the noted forensic psychiatrist who has served as a consultant to my unit—define different types of child molesters.
First, there are the true pedophiles—people who prefer sex with children and have them as the subjects of their fantasies—and then there are those whose primary sexual drives and fantasies are directed at adults, but who will have sex with a child to fulfill some other need: perhaps they feel too inadequate to approach the true object of their desires, using a child as a substitute. Dietz and Lanning classify these two types of offenders as preferential child molesters (true pedophiles who molest) and situational child molesters (the child is more a victim of opportunity than a preferential victim).
It is possible for a pedophile to go through his whole life without molesting a child, even having a sexual relationship with an adult, satisfying his urges in other ways: fantasizing about children, masturbating with dolls, or perhaps picking an adult sexual partner who is childlike in some way. His lover may be a flat-ch
ested woman, small in stature, or someone who engages in baby talk, for example. There is nothing criminal in these activities. A pedophile may also hire adult prostitutes to act out his fantasies. Again, at this point, no child has been victimized or exploited. Like someone with a foot fetish, as long as the fetishist’s lover doesn’t mind parading around in high heels, letting him paint her toenails, or whatever, no harm has been done.
But as Ken points out, a lot of these guys are also heavily into pornography featuring children: photos, videos, magazines. They collect and trade child porn the way kids collect baseball cards. Now, from my research and experience, I know that a lot of violent offenders buy and collect pornography, particularly bondage and sadomasochistically related. It’s one of the elements we routinely look for when preparing affidavits for search warrants of the residences of sexually sadistic rape and murder suspects. But I’m not going to tell you that pornography fuels the desires of someone who wasn’t already thinking in that direction. I have often seen an offender stage a scene to resemble something he’s read or seen, as Tien Poh Su did when he killed Deliana Heng up in Canada. But these guys would have done it one way or another if the desire was there. The fact of the matter is that most people who buy and read pornography are not at all dangerous and never commit antisocial offenses. So I’m not about to advocate restricting the First Amendment for the sake of the small percentage of men who consume pornography to bolster their violent and misogynistic conduct.
But child pornography is different. The mere fact that it exists means that a crime has taken place. Just by looking at this stuff, or passing it on to others, the pedophile is perpetuating a crime that occurred against a child and is therefore exploiting the child—whether or not he was present at the original crime scene. Like adult-killers Paul Bernardo, Bittaker and Norris, and Lake and Ng, many molesters make their own child pornography, carefully keeping a record of their illegal sexual encounters so they can relive them over and over. Others may be involved in so-called child sex rings, where one or more adults (usually a trusted friend, not a family member of the victims) has a pattern of abuse and exploitation of several child victims, who may be both male and female. But even if child pornography is purchased mail order, off-the-shelf, by someone who’s never touched a child anyone collecting it is guilty of exploitation. It’s the same as photos taken of an adult rape victim.
Although the pedophile may think nothing’s wrong with using the pornography as fodder for his fantasies, a child is still being victimized. And as with any such paraphilia or fetish, the potential is always there for escalation. There’s a danger that there may come a point where the fantasies aren’t enough and the pedophile feels the need to act on his desires with a real child—maybe by hiring a child prostitute, molesting a child he knows, or abducting a stranger. While he may draw a distinction between what he rationalizes as sex-for-hire and the abduction and rape of a neighborhood kid, the moment he involves that child, criminal exploitation has occurred. Realistically, we don’t need to fear that every guy who has sexual fantasies about children will actually molest a child, but I certainly consider it a red flag to be watched.
I also agree with Ken Lanning that just as not all pedophiles are molesters, not all molesters are pedophiles. A variety of motivations may drive the so-called situational molester. Some may be acting out aggressions they are only able to express against the most vulnerable of victims. These subjects would also be likely to target the elderly, or prostitutes—other relatively easy targets.
A risk with these individuals is that their behavior, too, may escalate. What may begin as an impulsive, isolated event against a child may turn out to be just a trial run if he succeeds without getting caught. Their crimes may grow more violent; they grow bolder as their criminal career progresses, attacking more victims and taking more time with them to act out their fantasies more completely. We saw this type of evolution with the Arthur Shawcross case in Rochester, New York. One of the ways Gregg McCrary figured out how to catch the killer was realizing he was returning to the dump sites to spend more time with the bodies of his victims. And once he was caught, it turned out that his first two victims had been not prostitutes or homeless women, but a young girl and boy.
There are probably a lot more situational than preferential child molesters, although a pedophile who molests will likely molest far more children over the course of his lifetime because that is where his primary sexual urges lie. It’s what he’s going to be thinking about all the time. It is possible that a situational offender may molest just one child, one time, or it may become a long-term behavior for him.
In Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis for Law Enforcement Officers Investigating Cases of Child Sexual Exploitation, published by the NCMEC, Ken outlines four types of situational child molesters: repressed; morally indiscriminate; sexually indiscriminate; and inadequate. Repressed types are guys you find abusing their own children because they’re most readily available. Not surprisingly, they tend to have very low self-esteem and have sex with children as a substitute for adults they can’t approach. This type of subject is more likely to use a lure or con rather than force to get a child to go with him, and the incidents are usually linked to some precipitating stressor in his life.
The morally indiscriminate type would also molest his own children, although he will manipulate, lure, or even use force to obtain other victims. This subject is probably abusive in virtually all areas of his life: he abuses his wife and friends, is a liar and a cheat at home and at work, and he has no qualms about stealing something he wants. Because this type of subject has no conscience, it is not difficult for him to act on impulse.
Both this type and the sexually indiscriminate molester, if asked why they molested a child, might think to themselves, “Why not?” but the sexually indiscriminate molester takes that thought a step further. He abuses children because he is bored and the experience seems new, exciting, and different to him. Ken describes these types as “try-sexuals,” meaning that they’ll try anything. These guys might pursue group sex with adults, spouse swapping, bondage, whatever—acts which aren’t criminal with consenting adults—but then they may involve a child (even their own) in that sexual experimentation. Compared with the other types of situational child molesters, these subjects generally come from a higher socioeconomic level and are more prone to molest multiple victims. Whereas the other types are into child pornography, this type might have a much more diverse collection of erotica.
Finally, the inadequate type of situational child molester is much like the subjects described in other chapters. In fact, in my unit we dealt mostly with the morally indiscriminate and inadequate types. This subject is a social outsider. He’ll have few friends his own age as a teenager and may continue to live with his parents or an older relative as he grows older. For this subject, children are nonthreatening, like his other potential targets—the elderly, prostitutes. His victim could be a child he knows well or a stranger he can use as a substitute for a peer he can’t approach. The subject is not so much naturally sexually attracted to children as he is sexually curious but insecure around adults. If he collects pornography, it will involve adults, not children. Because he is so withdrawn from society, the danger is that his hostility and anger could build up until he finds an outlet for them. This subject can be very dangerous, then, if his rage explodes, often leading to torturing and killing his victim.
I dealt with a combination inadequate and morally indiscriminate type in a case I handled in the early 1980s, just when the profiling program at Quantico was getting geared up.
The police department in Dickinson, North Dakota, is proud of the work they do and they should be. In March 1983, they had only one unsolved murder case on their books. But that one case was a particularly gruesome double homicide that was almost two years old. They asked for a profile that might help in their investigation.
As they described it, early in the morning of November 16, 1981, a transient worke
r staying at the Swanson Motel in Dickinson stopped by the motel office for a cup of coffee, as he did every morning. But this time, he found the body of the manager, fifty-two-year-old Priscilla Dinkel, lying face-down on the floor, bound and gagged, with an electrical cord tied around her wrists and neck. Her nightgown and housecoat had been pulled down, partly exposing her back.
When the police arrived, they noted splinters of wood in her hair and made another horrible discovery: searching the premises, they found Ms. Dinkel’s granddaughter, seven-year-old Dannelle Lietz, in the back bedroom, also murdered. Her body was found under the covers on the bed, with another cord around her neck. There were ligature marks on her wrists. Autopsies indicated both victims died as a result of strangulation and Dannelle had been sexually assaulted.
In the year and a half since the crime, investigators had followed many leads but still had nothing concrete.
In evaluating the case, I started with victimology. Priscilla Dinkel had recently moved to Dickinson to take the job as manager of the motel, which catered to transient workers in the area’s booming energy industry. Rooms typically were rented by the week, and the motel was located in a part of town whose character had changed quickly with the influx of temporary workers to feed the industry’s growth. In fact, the chief of police had warned locals to start locking their doors, a practice previously unheard of up there.
Although there was nothing in her personal background to indicate Priscilla Dinkel was high-risk, her job, the location of the motel, and the transient nature of the place led me to classify her as a high-risk victim. I felt her granddaughter, on the other hand, was simply at the wrong place at the wrong time. At her young age, she had no control over her life or her environment and I saw her as a victim of opportunity.
The UNSUB in this case had time to tie up both victims and brutalize them. Ms. Dinkel was not sexually assaulted, but was rendered unconscious through blunt-force trauma to her head. The offender also cut her bra and underwear, fulfilling some need of his and displaying hatred and aggression, dominance and control. He struck Dannelle in the head at some point, too, fracturing her skull. Before he left, he also took money from the motel’s cash box.
