By Jonathan Tate
The disagreement was quite explosive considering it occurred between two criminal psychologists who should have known better than to act in such an unprofessional and immature manner – embarrassing their positions in life and showering disapproval on their specialist areas of knowledge. It was, indeed, quite a spectacle – we can only hope one that will never be repeated – certainly not in any public domain. What could possibly be achieved by such a public outburst? Surely the demise of an incredibly important and fascinating area of study – thus allowing onlookers to question the true professionalism of these two characters who stood for and, indeed, should have commanded respect and reverence in the sphere of Criminal Psychology and Profiling. To express it as an embarrassing occurrence was an understatement. It was a conflict that should never have taken place and created an atmosphere of shame and regret. How could you ever establish a sturdy structure of Criminal Profiling if two giants in the field were going to disagree in such an emotional way? Surely these two men, eminent in their field – practiced, experienced in the art of understanding the inner working of the mind - should never have allowed their debate to escalate to such an extent that it caused such an unforgiveable outburst. Rarely do two such eminent professionals almost come to blows about any subject. Yes, occasionally there are small fall outs between certain individuals that reach the public eye – perhaps following publication of a book or magazine article. Difference of opinion is usual in any profession. However, this was a subject that should only attract constructive comments to support the endless quest for the truth in the protection of innocent victims of certain high profile crimes .Surely there can only be ‘black’ or ‘white’ – we cannot entertain a ‘grey’ area when there is such a high risk to life and future innocent human suffering.
However, naturally I was correct in my assertions and my esteemed colleague was completely wrong – that goes without saying!
It would appear however, that some have strayed from the path of the righteous – been seduced by the soft, smooth, shapely flesh of fame and fortune. That a professional in this field should be enticed by the evil of fame and fortune is, to my mind, a blasphemy. It baffles me beyond belief. There is an unspoken law amongst criminal profilers to prevent any such seduction occurring – even on pain of death! If we – as a profession – can’t wave the flag of truth, offer loyalty and honesty to the victims of these heinous crimes – then who will? We see ourselves almost as a Holy Order – not easily corrupted, not easily enticed into the ever-spreading darkness of the “media circus”. Not for us the fame, fortune or notoriety obtained by selling our souls. Even the notion of such would cause discord for such an eminent order!
Of course, you might point out that I don’t have a lucrative book deal or guest spot on an internet crime series. That this may “color my judgment” and allow me to see the wood from the trees. This may well be true. Perhaps it might be a consideration? Is it ? – No, certainly not. I believe, however lucrative the book deal , however prominent the TV series that I would do the honorable thing, stand by my beliefs – keep the faith. I like to think I am strong enough to remain erect on the battlefield of financial seduction with my banner held high though knee deep amongst the fallen. When the alluring maidens of death sweep across the land offering fame, notoriety, debauchery I will not be dislodged in my powerful stand for what is good and what is right. Obviously, you are not to hold me to this just in case I am a pushover – more easily seduced that I would like to believe! At this point, I appreciate you are trying to decide exactly what I am writing about in this article – Why are you reading it? What is the point? Let me enlighten you! There is a concept that was initiated and molded by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the 1970s - a serial killer detector. The idea of interviewing serial killers to gather and use the information obtained to prevent future similar crimes. It is a “heads up” if you like. Who would know better how serial killers think, plan and work than serial killers themselves? Little did these intrepid FBI profilers realize that they were giving birth to a phenomenon – the genius of a monster that has grown and developed like a plague. I mean no disrespect by these musings – I am an avid fan of Special Agent John Douglas and his colleagues. They had absolutely no idea of the fervor their work would cause – the books, the films, the careers forged. The art of profiling human behavior has been twisted and distorted by writers and film makers into an unrecognizable creature that simply doesn’t exist – the mysterious solitary criminal profiler- always one step ahead of the police – climbing into the dark tangled mind of a serial killer.
The original concept is brilliant and one I support wholeheartedly. However, there was something the Behavioral Science Unit didn’t foresee in the early days – or maybe it just did not happen then – the beckoning of stardom! The incarcerated serial killer interview phenomenon has become the staple diet for countless criminal psychologists who, to be honest, have wandered far from the original script – like a galleon blown of course in a storm! On to the rocks? Now that is the question! We have an endless stream of books, films, documentaries, even serial killer pod casts that have catapulted both killer and interviewer to stardom. Is this deserved or not?
In the 1970s when criminal profiling was conceived, the BSU adapted and developed the idea to produce a tool that could be used to collect useful information from the minds of captured madmen. This information was collated to be applied to new, unsolved cases. As I said – the initial concept was brilliant!
Sadly, something rather strange started to occur- human nature got in the way. The interrogator began feeding from the interrogated. “Sinking your own battleship” or “scoring an own goal” or even, “twisting things beyond belief” - all very human traits. What is so strange about that? Not unusual in all walks of life. However, here, with profoundly serious subject matter ranging from pain and fear to brutality and death the introduction of human emotions and desires is a locomotive thundering down the track – no brake – no way of stopping -no justification – no proof. No matter how fast or out of control everyone, and I mean everyone benefits.
At this point, it is beneficial to us to look at the players in closer detail starting with the FBI interviewers. In its infancy the concept of criminal profiling had to be handled tentatively and put to the FBI directors gingerly for fear of it being blocked and shelved before it had even begun. Any way you care to examine it, the idea was sheer brilliance and had to be a valuable – if not invaluable asset in the detection of such heinous crimes. The interviewers could never have imagined the effect they had on the serial killers they interviewed. In the majority of cases, once they started talking, it was impossible to shut them up. It was as if the flood gates had opened – and many talked for hours. The information gathered this way by the FBI was groundbreaking and forms the foundations for all we know today. In my opinion, it was one of the most influential moments in history. A single idea that would change everything. It would also go on to prove priceless in future detection by the police. As criminal profilers and law enforcement officers we should be immensely proud of this heritage. It is hard to imagine criminal profiling taking any other form. The interviews conducted by the original profilers were , I believe, accurate and unbiased. However, as with all new concepts, there was – and still is – resistance! Advice from FBI special agents was and – probably still is – ignored. I can think of a particularly high-profile case in England where this was the case – and I imagine the British detectives lived to regret it! Mainly, I think this is down to human nature and ego. Personally, I don’t think ego should get into the boxing ring when there is murder on the floor. Surely, we should all be “pulling together”? Unfortunately, this has not been the case on many occasions in the past- and I suspect won’t be again in the future. What an appalling state of affairs – many should feel ashamed!
From here on things get a little more controversial. We need to examine the serial killers themselves and – well – quite possibly an equal, if not greater source of evil - the….but no - I digress. To get back to what I was saying, the journey to get criminal profiling off the ground was fraught with danger but utterly fascinating - a bit like a child’s first trip to the seaside- but now things get somewhat darker. When I take you to look at the serial killers, I am going to do a rather contentious thing and spilt serial killers into two groups ( forgive the rather tasteless pun). Using the late 1980s as my benchmark I venture to separate them into pre and post late 1980s. You may be wondering why? Well, I am separating the original serial killers used for the initial FBI interviews in the late 1970s from the more modern serial killers, say 1990 to present while allowing the 1980s to be a sort of “settling in” period. You may already be disagreeing with me but hey I get to write this – not you! So, if we start by looking at what I call the FBI initial serial killers we are thinking about the ones interviewed to collect the original data – the ones in at the birth of criminal profiling. Like every new and radical concept, there was a degree of naivety involved – without putting too much of a dampener on the human race - it was so new people hadn’t had time to come up with ways to abuse the idea! A time of purity- no manipulation, distortion, exploitation. The FBI agents who attended the prison interviews were shocked by how open and willing to talk most of these serial killers was. Many of them were deemed to be of high intelligence. There were the odd few who were difficult and had very little to say - mainly to keep their prison image as “hard, impenetrable men” – I say men as the majority of known convicted serial killers are men – who didn’t wish to share, who wished to avoid the unwelcome attention of other inmates. On the whole though, they couldn’t wait to tell. The FBI interviewers found that part of the motivation seemed to be “fame and glory” or a “slot in history”. Some has even wanted to be caught and shared in depth the grisly details. The limelight was a lure – fan mail, offers of marriage, huge public interest- after the arrest of Dennis Rader (B.T.K.) a member of the public was apprehended stealing his mailbox!
I cringe as I write this – but we seem to have a win-win situation. The FBI interviewers have their priceless information that can be collated into a data base to use in the future. To gain it they had to sit through lengthy telling’s of macabre behavior- often told with diabolical pride. They had to maintain the pretense of sociability. They had to turn off their feelings. They had to get their body language right. On the other hand, the interviewees motives vary greatly but the attention, the chance for self-expression, the “celebrity status” usually overcame the reluctance to talk. Often, they spoke about childhood abuse and trauma – mental, physical, and emotional (although childhood abuse is not a direct path to serial killing!) They disclosed prolonged periods of enuresis (bed wetting),the excitement of lighting fires (arson) and the mistreatment of animals (usually pets – not always their own) by torture and finally killing. Some told of the compulsion to return to the scenes of their crimes, some discussed the need to take souvenirs – trophies, if you like – to be kept as memorabilia or props for sexual acts or just to hold and relive the excitement. Frequently, the discussion turned to their interest in the headlines for their own case. The FBI Interviewers gathered and assembled it all. They logged the frequent mention of violent fantasies, the lack of empathy, the distinct patterns of behavior followed by individual serial killers – the Modus operandi, how organized or disorganized the crime seemed to be. The majority of this information is common knowledge today covered in minute detail in books, articles and TV programs. Back then, it was unprecedented! In my opinion, in these early days of criminal profiling there was a feeling of authenticity, of purity. This was before the internet, before huge media exposure, before the macabre fascination of the public. This was when a serial killer was a deviant low life not a new type of celebrity. This was when the emphasis was on the victims, their families, the horror of the crime rather than money or a spectacle of fascination for their fans.
From here, I want to move forward in time to the 1990s and beyond. There are still serial killers (there were serial killers in the 1980stoo) and there are still interviewers but to my mind the balance has shifted. Are the serial killers different? They still torture and murder. They can still be fitted to key traits identified by the FBI all those year ago. They still cause complete devastation to the families of victims. So, perhaps not. Which leaves us with my “equal – if not greater-source of evil ” mentioned earlier in this article – the interviewers. Working in the psychology field myself, I appreciate that not all are amoral (I have chosen this word carefully). Many are good people simply “doing their job” and those have my full respect. However, there is such a fine line between doing what is needed and necessary and exploitation of the situation. People in the media ( not all but the majority) and psychologists (more than you would imagine) have taken something that was (and is) truly innovative and twisted it to fit their own motives. The advent of the world wide web connected people in a way that was not possible before and flung serial killers into wide circulation-in our pocket or handbag, on the screen in front of us. Suddenly serial killers are big business – household names that grab the public consciousness, seized by the media and glamorized. Suddenly there are books and films and fan bases. There are in depth interviews and analysis by psychologists who themselves become household names – and we reach a point where the pain, the anguish, the torture, the death of a mother, sister, daughter, father, son, friend…. have been forgotten. What about the victims? What are their names? Who were they?
It seems that the serial killers come out of the washing machine cleaner than those interviewing or reporting on them. Not white, not pure, not innocent – heavens no – but dare I say- less devious, less conniving. Ultimately, heinous crimes have been committed- maybe with motivated reasoning, maybe due to mental illness or maybe just because they could. The evil has been committed and depending upon where in the world these acts took place the punishment has been dealt out. That should be that – lethal injection, death row, life behind bars. All that is left is the stories they can tell, the tales they can weave. Alas, it is not. There are many temptations in this world for the human race and, in my opinion one of the biggest is to forget the needs of others to focus upon yourself. The media and psychologists fall over themselves to get interviews knowing that the films, books and articles will be an instant hit with a public who are mesmerized by the thought of those who violate boundaries they could never have imagined. Guaranteed to make money, lecture tours, book deals, and award winning films. What about the victims? What are their names? Who were they?
It seems to me the serial killers themselves have a ball. They have nothing but time to accept visitors, chat, offer graphic diagrams of murder scenes. They become instant celebrities – household names – superhuman. There is fan mail, marriage proposals ( yes, really - I don’t want to get into this one) , fame , immortality. While I agree they will never be forgotten personally I would go for notoriety rather than fame. They have become “the main man.” This leads me to wonder how much being shared in these interviews is actually true. We all know peering into the depths of human debauchery, grotesque behavior, depravity makes money and sells books. I suspect serial killers know this too. A tweak here, a fabrication there and suddenly truly horrific acts become sensationalism. There you have it – the serial killer has gained the status he craved and someone has just been given a huge boost up the career ladder. This is a long way from the humble beginnings of criminal profiling when the sole aim was to produce a tool that could identify and catch serial killers. What message are we sending society? Is the worship of false gods encouraging other “would be” serial killers to “dip their toe in the water “? I sincerely hope not but I wonder…
A friend of mine mused aloud on reading this article whether my opinion would still be the same if I was part of a long running crime documentary series, if I has several bestselling books under my belt or would I too “sell my Granny ” to feed the media monster? I have always thought - What about the victims? Call me cynical – but that is probably why I don’t have a lucrative book deal or TV series! My thoughts still remain – when modern day serial killers are interviewed are we collecting fact or fabricated fact: Sense or Sensationalism.
Editor's note: this piece ran in Serial Killer Magazine and is reproduced as written. It is an opinion essay rather than a case report, and its central claim, that the modern prison interview serves the interviewer's career more than the investigation, is the author's argument and not a finding of this archive. The factual references check out. The FBI's Behavioral Science Unit did begin interviewing imprisoned offenders in the 1970s, and John Douglas was among the agents involved. Dennis Rader is in this archive with ten murders, and the theft of his mailbox after his arrest is a matter of record. The article names no other case.