The Murder of a Priest

Father Ed Hinds was murdered inside his parish rectory and the church’s long-time janitor, Jose Feliciano, is in custody for that murder.  In the end, this was not a difficult murder to solve.

In broad terms, there are “Organized” murderers and “Disorganized” murderers.  Organized offenders are generally intelligent people who take the time to plan their offenses.  They are less likely to leave physical evidence behind, they bring their weapons with them and take them away when they are done, and they often follow stories in the media about their offenses.  A classic “organized” offender would be the BTK killer, Dennis Rader of Wichita, Kansas.  Dennis carefully stalked his victims, learning their daily habits, and took with him all of the “tools” he would need to overpower, control, and kill his victims.

“Disorganized” offenders are just that – disorganized.  These are people who are of average intelligence and who generally fail to plan their crimes.  In many cases, their offenses are spontaneous and triggered by events in their lives.  They often use a weapon of opportunity and don’t often do a very good job of cleaning up after themselves.  Investigators may find fingerprints, DNA, or even the identification of an offender at the scene of the crime.

It is speculated that, in this case, Mr. Feliciano and Father Hinds were involved in some sort of argument.  Feliciano then picked up a kitchen knife and stabbed Father Hinds at least 32 times in the upper torso and the back.  One news report indicated that Father Hinds may have used his cell phone to call 9-1-1 but was interrupted.  When the 9-1-1 operator called back, Feliciano told the operator that everything was O.K.  Since it was a cell phone, however, the 9-1-1 operator did not have an actual address to send officers to.

Feliciano was one of two people who “found” Father Hind’s body.  He even tried to give Hinds CPR but it was noted that he quit after just a few moments.

The investigators noted the absence of Father Hind’s cell phone at the crime scene.  They were apparently able to trace it to Feliciano’s house.  When they arrived there, they also found bloody clothing and bloody towels in Feliciano’s home.

Mr. Feliciano was obviously a spontaneous, disorganized offender.  In his panic after the murder he made an effort to clean himself up but failed to get rid of the incriminating evidence.  He even tried to make himself appear innocent by helping to “find” Father Hind’s body, a not too uncommon behavior for disorganized offenders.

A neighbor described Feliciano this way: “Jose is a very nice guy who has been around for many years.  He’s the last person I would have suspected.”

In homicide investigations, however, we need to remember those wise words of Inspector Clouseau.  ”I suspect everyone, and I suspect no one.”  No one is ever eliminated as a suspect until a thorough investigation is conducted.

The Somer Thompson Murder – What We DON’T Know

On Monday, October 19th, 7-year old Somer Thompson disappeared on her way home from school in Orange Park, Florida.  She was last seen less than a mile from her house and, apparently, was walking alone as she had been involved in some sort of argument with other students.  On Wednesday her body was discovered in the local landfill when police decided to check on the trash from all the trucks that service her neighborhood.  Her mother has made several angry public statements to the “killer” that he will be found and brought to justice.

There will, undoubtedly, be a significant amount of speculation in the media by “experts”.  As I pointed out in a previous blog, this speculation is fairly worthless unless it is based on a review of all of the facts of the case.  While we know about Somer’s abduction and murder, there is significant information that we do NOT know, such as:

1.  The Mode of Death.  How was this young girl killed?  Was she strangled?  Stabbed?  Shot?  Were there signs of torture on her body or evidence of sexual assault?  This type of information can provide law enforcement significant information on the personality of the offender.  If an offender’s DNA was found on her body, this would also be an invaluable lead towards identifying the killer.

2.  The Location of Death.  Somer was last seen, by at least one witness, standing in front of a vacant house.  The Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) has been processing that house for possible clues. If she was taken to that house, and killed there, it raises some interesting questions.  Was she lured into the house or abducted outside?  How did she end up in a trash truck (abandoned houses normally aren’t serviced by trash trucks)?

3.  Victimology.  Just because we have an apparently grieving mother making public statements doesn’t mean that she can be removed from our list of suspects.  Remember Susan Smith?  She was the woman who claimed to have been car jacked and her two small sons abducted.  It turned out that she had killed her sons by pushing her car into a lake with them strapped into their car seats.  The FDLE will take a close look at the relationship that Somer had with her mother and any other members of the family. (A recent news report said that police took “evidence” from Somer’s home.  If she was abducted before she got home, what evidence would they have found?)

4.  Registered Sex Offenders.  It was quite a surprise for people to learn that there were over 80 registered sex offenders living within five miles of Somer Thompson’s home.  Of course, not all registered sex offenders must register because of crimes against children, but this is a very provocative fact.  As of this writing, however, the police claim that ALL of these registered sex offenders have been interviewed and that none is currently considered a suspect.

5.  Motive.  There is no such thing as an “accidental” murder.  There is always a motive, even though it may only make sense to the offender.  Hopefully, after a careful review of all of the circumstances surrounding this little girl’s tragic death, police will be able to develop a theory on “Why” she was killed.  ”Why”, after all, is one of the quickest ways to determine “Who” it was that killed her.

So, until we know more, or until an arrest is made, any speculation made about mode of death or motivation are purely speculative.  This case will be a great topic of discussions for the “experts”.  That is, until the next case comes along.

Criminal Profiling, The News Media, and the “Expert Effect”

In the course I teach called, “The Study of Murder” we spend a lot of time talking about rapists, sexually-motivated offenders, serial killers, and mass murderers.  Since the main thrust of my course is an understanding of motivation, it is necessary to explore the many and varied reasons that lead people to commit the crime of murder.

We spend a lot of time dealing with typologies.  Many people believe that there is only one type of serial murderer, or one type of mass murderer, and that is simply not true.  The famous FBI profiler John Douglas said it best when he said that “Behavior reflects personality.”  Different murderers kill for different reasons, but they ALL have their reasons.  These identifiable reasons lead to the development of typologies.

In studying the various typologies of serial murderers or mass murderers, however, unless we are closely examining a specific case study, we are dealing with averages.  In other words, experts such as John Douglas, Robert Ressler or Stephen and Ronald Holmes have examined multiple cases of the same typology of murderer and created an “average” set of characteristics.

For example, it is pretty well accepted that the “average” male serial killer is white and kills white females.  That is not an absolute, however, it is only an average.  There are black male serial killers, and asian male serial killers, and some of them kill other males and some of them kill interracially. While understanding these average characteristics is educational, this becomes a problem when it comes to the analysis of major homicide cases by the news media.

Whenever there is a major homicide or series of homicides, local and national news commentators will jump on the story with a ratings-driven intensity.  The higher the body count, the greater the fervor to “get the story” and grab the audience.  Retired FBI profilers, homicide detectives, and pathologists are put on camera to provide their “expert” opinion on each and every gory detail.  While there is no doubt whatsoever that these men and women are highly experienced and knowledgeable about homicide investigation, the reality is that, for the most part, they are all guessing when they give their opinions.  These are educated guesses, to be sure, but they are guesses nonetheless and should be taken cum grano salis and not accepted as fact.

The first thing to keep in mind when listening to these experts is that they are NOT the primary case investigators.  They do not know all the facts of the case.  They have not seen the crime scene photos, nor read the police reports, nor have any insight into either the m.o. and/or signature of the offender or the detailed victimology of the deceased.  In most cases, they are going on previously published news reports, “inside” information which may or may not be valid, and their detailed knowledge of the averages of homicides.

Any criminal profiler will tell you that, in order to complete a criminal profile, the profiler must have access to all pertinent material and that means crime scene information, autopsy information, and each and every report written.  Obviously, until a case has been brought to trial, the public will not have access to this information so any media profiles will be purely speculative…and sometimes grossly wrong.

A good case in point occurred in October of 2002.  Over a span of a couple weeks, 10 people were killed and 3 seriously wounded in Washington, D.C., Virginia, and Maryland by someone the media dubbed “The Beltway Sniper.” At one point, a witness told police about a white van that was seen fleeing from the scene of one of the shootings.

News media experts, mostly former FBI profilers and retired homicide detectives, went with the averages and speculated that the suspect was a disgruntled white male.  A few offered various versions of his probable background and motivations, but they all pretty much stuck with white male.

Of course, nothing was farther from the truth.  First, the information on the white van was completely wrong and wasted probably hundreds of hours of law enforcement time.  In the end, two black males, John Allen Mohammed and Lee Boyd Malvo were arrested while sleeping in their 1990 Chevrolet Caprice.  Both were subsequently convicted and Mohammed is on death row.  After the trials, significant investigative information was released that pointed to the two black males and not to a single white female.  But the news media didn’t have that information.  Nor did their experts and they were just guessing.

Criminal profiling is an important investigative tool that, when used properly, can assist law enforcement in solving homicide cases.  It requires, however, a thorough knowledge of all of the facts of a case before a profile can be completed.  Any criminal profile constructed with less than all of the available information, no matter how newsworthy and interesting it might be, is nothing more than speculation.

What is “Dexter’s” Serial Killer Typology?

Some of my students have recently asked me if I watch the Showtime series “Dexter”.  While I did watch the first season out of curiosity I really haven’t watched it since.  The reason, I tell them, is that Dexter really does not fit one of the generally-accepted serial killer typologies and the characters, overall, are just not that interesting to me.

This is when students tell me that they enjoy “Dexter” and have concluded that he is a “Mission” serial killer.  While this is an interesting hypothesis, let’s examine whether or not “Dexter” is a match for a “Mission” serial killer.

We know that a “Mission” serial killer often kills people who represent a person or group of persons that have done him wrong in the past, or who he feels are worthless and, therefore, deserve to die.  Hence, he is on a “mission” to eradicate these undesirables.  My students, at this point, inform me that “Dexter” is, indeed, on a “mission” to eradicate certain, targeted bad guys.  Using only the one criteria, they seem to have solved the puzzle.  But, alas, there is more to this puzzle than just the why of killing people.  There’s the “how”.

From what we have seen of Dexter’s pre-murder set-up (we never actually see the complete act), Dexter would obviously be classified as an “organized” offender.  He is intelligent, methodical, socially-adept, and a good planner.  Even that matches our “Mission” serial killer.

But, in examining Dexter’s set-up, there are some glaring inconsistencies.  First, Dexter has his victims completely immobilized.  This suggests a psychological need for power, domination, and control.  Dexter’s satisfaction, in large part, is derived from his being totally in control of his victim’s destiny.  His set-up also strongly suggests that he takes his time in killing his victims, which makes him a “process” murderer.  As you know, the “Mission” serial killer is an “act-focused” offender who gets no real satisfaction from the act of murder, only from the result.  Dexter, it would seem, obtains significant pleasure from the act of taking another person’s life.  In fact, he gets so much pleasure that, in earlier episodes, we learn that his step-father, the cop, recognized this developing characteristic and re-directed it towards “bad guys” so that Dexter’s murderous behavior would have some form of social value.

So, if Dexter is not a “Mission” serial killer, what typology does he fit?  The answer: None, really.

The closest I have come to a suitable typology is the “Thrill” serial killer but there are obvious problems with that.  While it’s true that the “Thrill” serial killer has an Ideal Victim Type (IVT), it is a stretch to assume that “really nasty criminal” is an IVT.  Another problem, as I’m sure you know, is that the “Thrill” serial killer, like most organized offenders who derive sexual pleasure from their killings, fantasize about their victims while they stalk them and plan for their demise.  If Showtime really wanted to stress this characteristic, we would see scenes of Dexter, sitting alone, daydreaming about how he plans on killing his next victim, while masturbating to these images.

In the end, I’ve come to the conclusion that the only real serial killer typology that Dexter fits is the “Media-driven” serial killer.  This is a serial killer who kills to satisfy the needs of the writer, the script, and the network.  Judging by the number of movies and television shows about this typology, he, or she, is undoubtedly the most deadly typology of them all.

What do you think?

People Don’t “Snap”

I’m constantly reading news stories about individuals who “snap” just before they commit a violent act.  This, I suppose, is a way for society to believe that there aren’t that many truly violent people around but that some of us, given the right (or wrong) circumstances will reach a state of such intense emotional distress that we “snap” and do things we wouldn’t normally do.  The concept of a person snapping is much akin to another dubious societal creation called “temporary insanity.”

To save some of you the time of reading any more, this is where I should mention that, to me, the concepts of “snapping” or “temporary insanity” are bullshit.  Pure, unadulterated bullshit.

Let’s look at “temporary insanity” first.  The Psychologists and psychiatrists that I have spoken to all pretty much agree that mental illness, except in very rare cases, is a progressive process.  In other words, people who were completely sane one day do not generally wake up  the next morning severely mentally ill or clinically insane.  It is, therefore, difficult for me to believe that someone can get in an argument with another person and, after slipping into a state of extreme mental illness, murder that person and then, miraculously, return to a prior state of equilibrium. They will then want us to believe that, because of this temporary insanity, which does not reflect the good and honest person they normally are, they should not be punished as harshly as if they really meant to do that horrible deed.

The problem, as I see it, with the concept of temporary insanity, is that it was created by sane people.  Now that sounds like a joke, but please bear with me.  A sane person looks at a Jeffrey Dahmer, or a Dennis Rader (BTK) or a Gary Leon Ridgeway (Green River Killer) and says to him/herself, “I am a sane person and I could never do what that person did.  Therefore, the only way that someone could actually do that would be if they were insane at the time.”  Logical?  Yes….but wrong.

This is the same logic that exists to support the idea that good people become violent people only after they “snap”.  “Did you hear about that student at Virgina Tech?  That guy named Cho?  He shot a whole bunch of students and then killed himself.  He must have snapped.”

In actuality, Mr. Cho’s assault on Virgina Tech was a well-planned, methodical, military-style operation.  While it’s obvious that Cho had some mental health issues, it is just as obvious that no insane person could have planned and carried out his operation.  In fact, but for the decision on the part of the Blacksburg, VA Police Chief to call in the SWAT team early enough to respond to Cho’s shooting, his body count would undoubtedly been a lot higher.

Think about this: we can’t do anything that we haven’t previously thought about.  We can’t feed ourselves, we can’t drive a car, and we can’t punch someone in the nose or point a gun and shoot them without first thinking about the actions we are about to take.  Even the self-defense responses of black belts in karate have been thought about and practiced thousands of times.

When we do act (feed ourselves, drive a car, or punch someone in the nose) it’s because we have thought about the action, no matter how briefly, and then made a decision to act on our thoughts.

Of course, not all the decisions that are made are good ones.  Which one of us, my friend, does not have at least one decision that they wish they could go back in time and change?   But, no matter how ill-informed or ill-advised our actions were in the past, they were nonetheless the result of decisions we made. Intentional acts.  But NOT the result of ‘temporary insanity” or “snapping”.

Scott Peterson may have thought that there was nothing left for him to do except murder Laci because he did not want a child to interfere with his extra-curricular love life.  He may have felt pressured to do something, or might even have felt desperate.  But his planning to kill Laci, and his covering up of her murder, were calculated decisions.

In 2008, an 8-year old Arizona boy shot and killed his father and another man with a bolt-action rifle.  Of course, the first thought was that the child was the victim of child abuse, harsh discipline, etc. and “snapped.”  The police, however, determined that his actions were premeditated based, in part, on the fact that each of the four shots fired had to be separately loaded into the rifle’s chamber.  While I certainly agree that this young man made some very bad decisions, I do not believe that he was either temporarily insane or that he snapped.

Please let me know what you think.