The Austin, Texas Bomber and Criminal Profiling

When I retired from Santa Barbara City College last year and moved to the Austin, Texas area I thought I was moving to a safe community.  Apparently not.

Over the past two weeks a series of bombings in the Austin, Texas area has everyone on edge and, at the time of this writing, there appears to be no end in sight.

First, a brief recap of events.  Starting about two weeks ago there were three package bombs left on different residential doorsteps in the City of Austin.  In each case one of the residents found the package in the morning, took it into the house, and the package exploded when it was being opened.  Two people were killed and several were injured.  Obviously there was a great deal of media coverage of these events and, just as obviously, there was marked police activity in these areas which led to a predictable result.  The bomber changed tactics.

The next bombing, according to media reports, took place on a residential street in a different neighborhood.  This device may have been set off by the use of a tripwire on a sidewalk, injuring two people.

This morning, March 20, 2018, an explosive device hidden in a FedEx box apparently exploded on a conveyor belt at a FedEx transfer facility some 50+ miles away.  Early reports indicate the package was being sent to an address in Austin.

There are two purposes to this blog entry.  First, I want to discuss the process of criminal profiling, especially criminal profiling being done by media “experts,” and how unreliable such profiling can be.  Next, I will then try and suggest my own, and equally unreliable, criminal profile of this bomber.

 

Inductive v. Deductive Criminal Profiling

The type of criminal profiling that we are most often exposed to is the “Inductive” criminal profile.  This is a profile usually based on broad generalizations and statistical averages.  The source of information used for such a profile is commonly media reports, which we know can be wildly inaccurate, and can be misleading to the general public.  These are the profiles which are presented by news outlets using retired police detectives, FBI agents, or experts with a criminological background.  These criminal profiles are also based upon what is professionally called the S.W.A.G. method of analysis…..the Sophisticated Wild Ass Guess.

The more reliable method of criminal profiling is the “Deductive” profile.  This is the process, based on a thorough examination of all physical evidence, witness statements, crime scene analyses, etc. used to infer distinctive personality characteristics of individuals responsible for committing criminal acts.

Obviously, no retired FBI agent or police detective is going to be allowed to examine all of the crime scene evidence and then develop his or her own criminal profile.  Hence, we are left with the very unreliable Inductive method.

 

The Austin, Texas Bomber – A S.W.A.G. Criminal Profile

A general dichotomy of criminal offenders is the Organized v. the Disorganized offender.  The disorganized offender is usually very spontaneous in committing his offenses and is more likely to leave physical evidence behind like fingerprints or DNA.  In the case of the Austin Bomber it would appear, however, that we are dealing with an Organized offender.  This is based on the facts that so far he has apparently not been seen.  Had he been seen, the police would be circulating some form of police sketch.  We know from previous offenders that Organized offenders are generally intelligent, socially competent, and generally maintain their composure during the commission of their crimes.  This means that our offender would probably not stick out if he were to enter a FedEx facility to drop off a parcel containing a bomb.  I keep saying “He” as the statistical likelihood is that our offender is a male.

I saw one “expert” on local television this morning who described the offender as probably being “White.”  I won’t go that far for a number of reasons.  First, the Austin area is ethnically very diverse and there are a lot of intelligent people around here working in the tech industry (Dell Computers, for example).  Also, the apparent level of bomb-making expertise would indicate someone who might have a military or engineering background, and those occupations are clearly not limited to white males.

Another common characteristic of our organized offender is that it is not unusual for them to carefully follow news broadcasts and police press conferences.  Think of this as intelligence gathering for our criminal.  He is intelligent.  He is aware of the increased police presence in the area of his first three attacks so….he adapts, which is another characteristic of an organized offender.

 

The Unanswered Question – Why Is He Doing This?

This is, with the limited information that we have, the hardest question to answer.  When this offender is captured (and he will be) he will probably share his reasons with law enforcement, assuming he isn’t killed during the arrest procedure or take his own life.  Please understand that, no matter how unusual or bizarre these types of crimes appear, they always make sense to the offender.  He will have a reason for his actions.  It may involve some real or perceived “wrong” that has been done to him by specific groups of people…or by the government…or maybe by society at large.  But there will be a reason.

I, for one, am very interested in learning that reason.  If only he’d quit his bombings and tell us.

As always, I welcome your comments.

When is a “School Shooting” Not a “School Shooting?”

“In order to understand the murderer, you must first try and discern his or her motivation.”

Note:  The purpose of this blog entry is NOT to minimize the horror and trauma of school shootings nor is it to comment one way or another on the ongoing political and social debates regarding gun control.  It is solely to provide the reader with investigative insight into mass murders and/or other violent crimes that may occur on school campuses.

Early this morning (March 2, 2018) there was another breaking news report of a “School Shooting” on the campus of Central Michigan University.  Two people were killed and the suspected gunman was identified.  A law enforcement spokesperson indicated that no students were injured and that the shootings seemed to have stemmed from some sort of domestic dispute.  It is my contention, therefore, that, even though this shooting took place on a college campus, it was not a “school shooting.”

School Shooting – A Definition

There are several definitions available for the term “school shooting” but they generally refer to an attack, often with a firearm, by one student (or former student) on the students and/or faculty where the attacking student went to school.  This definition would clearly apply to the recent shooting at  Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, when Nikolas Cruz shot and killed 17 students and faculty members while wounding 14 others.  Cruz had been a student at Stoneman Douglas but had been expelled.  Clearly his motivation was to attack his former school.

Motivation and Mass Murder

In a previous blog I have described the various forms that mass murder can take.  These typologies can be most readily identified by the offender’s underlying motivation and behavior in carrying out the attacks.

For example, a “Disgruntled Employee Mass Murderer” attacks workers or former co-workers, supervisors, and even customers at his/her place of employment.  For example, on January 30, 2006, Jennifer Sanmarco, 44, gained access to a U.S. Post Office mail facility in Goleta, CA and shot and killed six people before killing herself.  While she clearly had a history of mental health issues, she had been forcibly removed from the mail facility and fired from her job two years previously.  Her motivation, in part, was to attack the people and the facility who, in her mind, had been the cause of her problems.

The “Family Annihilator Mass Murderer” specifically targets members of his/her own family.  This is the most common form of mass murder in the United States and is often brought on by a number of social and/or financial issues with the shooter.

An “Ideological Mass Murderer” seeks to further his/her personal ideological beliefs through violence.  These murderers can include the 9/11 hijackers or Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City Federal Building bomber.  Though McVeigh’s ideological beliefs were quite different than those of the 9/11 hijackers they both felt that they were striking a a blow against the “unjust system” and all those within that system in order to set other people free.

The above examples to not, by any means, cover all the different typologies of mass murderers.  And, while each of the different mass murderers can kill many, many people they are distinguished not by their body counts, but by their individual motivations.

Point #1:  The first main point I want to make in this blog entry is the one stated at the top of the page: “In order to understand the murderer, you must first try and discern his or her motivation.”  In the words of the noted FBI Profiler, John Douglas, “Behavior reflects motivation.”  In other words, by examining the offender’s behavior, we can learn a great deal about his/her motivation.  What, exactly, did the offender do during the commission of the crime?  In what order did he do these things?  Was the attack organized or disorganized.  For example, this morning’s attack at Central Michigan University seems to be a spontaneous one whereas Mr. Cho’s attack at Virginia Tech on April 16, 2007, was as well-planned as a military operation.

Point #2: “It’s not the location, it’s the motivation.” This is the key to understanding the thesis of this blog: Sometimes a school shooting is not a school shooting.

On February 12, 2010, Dr. Amy Bishop walked into a faculty meeting at the University of Alabama, Huntsville.  Other faculty members were surprised to see her as Dr. Bishop had recently been notified that she would not be receiving tenure and that this was her last semester teaching at UA Huntsville.  What the faculty members didn’t know was that Dr. Bishop had recently been at the shooting range practicing with the 9mm pistol that she now carried in her purse.  About halfway through the meeting Dr. Bishop took out that pistol, stood up, and then calmly shot and killed three faculty members while wounding three others.  Did this shooting take place on a college campus? Yes.  Was it a “school shooting?” No.  This was clearly the act of a “Disgruntled Employee.”

In 1999, Buford Furrow walked in to the North Valley Jewish Center in Los Angeles and began shooting at the children who were attending summer events.  Five people, including three children, were wounded but, thankfully, not killed.  Furrow, it turned out, was a known white supremacist and his attack was motivated by his ideological beliefs.  Again, a shooting that took place at a school that was not a school shooting.

This brings us to this morning’s shooting at Central Michigan University.  Did it take place on a school campus? Yes.  Was it a “school shooting?”  Based on initial reports (and these can change, as we all know) this was a case of a domestic violence murder that just happened to take place on a school campus.

You may be asking, “Why doesn’t the media make these distinctions?”  The answer, quite honestly is that they have neither the time nor, in many cases, the knowledge, to be able to make these distinctions.  Another reason is that most people aren’t interested in them. A shooting on a school is, therefore, a school shooting.

But you, as a student of criminology in general and murder to be more specific, are now able to make those distinctions.  Just remember, it’s the motivation, and not the location.

As always,  I look forward to your responses.