Speaker 1: The public has had a long held fascination with detectives.
Speaker 1: Detective see a side of life the average persons never
Speaker 1: exposed her. I spent thirty four years as a cop.
Speaker 1: For twenty five of those years, I was catching killers.
Speaker 1: That's what I did for a living. I was a
Speaker 1: homicide detective. I'm no longer just interviewing bad guys. Instead,
Speaker 1: I'm taking the public into the world in which I operated.
Speaker 1: The guests I talk to each week have amazing stories
Speaker 1: from all sides of the law. The interviews are raw
Speaker 1: and honest, just like the people I talk to. Some
Speaker 1: of the content and language might be confronting. That's because
Speaker 1: no one who comes into contact with crime is left unchanged.
Speaker 1: Join me now as I take you into this world.
Speaker 1: Welcome to another episode of I Catch Killers. Today's guests
Speaker 1: had a profound effect on my career as a homicide detective.
Speaker 1: She would not know that, but I'm sure there are
Speaker 1: a lot of other homicide detectives worldwide who feel exactly.
Speaker 2: The same way I do.
Speaker 1: Her contributions to law enforcement, training and criminal investigations have
Speaker 1: had a broad and lasting impact, not only in her
Speaker 1: own country.
Speaker 2: But also across the world.
Speaker 1: She played a crucial role in the advancement of criminal
Speaker 1: profile techniques, helping law enforcement agencies identify and apprehend suspects
Speaker 1: based on behavioral patterns and psychological theories. We're talking real
Speaker 1: mind Hunter stuff here. What we're talking about is getting
Speaker 1: into the mind of killers, including notorious serial killers, by
Speaker 1: understanding what motivates them, how they think, which allows law
Speaker 1: enforcement officers to track these killers down and, in the
Speaker 1: case of serial killers, save further victims. Today, we're going
Speaker 1: to be talking to someone who I consider an absolute
Speaker 1: legend in law enforcement, and I don't hand out those
Speaker 1: accolades lightly. Her groundbreaking work has seen her portrayed as
Speaker 1: a main character and the hugely successful Netflix series mind Hunter.
Speaker 1: Our guest today is doctor Anne Burgess, who started her
Speaker 1: career as a psychiatric nurse, obtained her PhD in nursing,
Speaker 1: and is a professor. She helped develop the methodology that
Speaker 1: FBI agents used to interview, study, and profile serial killers.
Speaker 1: I'm not kidding when I say it's an absolute privilege
Speaker 1: to be able to sit down and speak with doctor Burgers.
Speaker 1: Would you prefer doctor Burgers or doctor Anne Burgers. What
Speaker 1: are you comfortable with?
Speaker 3: Well, whatever you normally do I'm fine with anything.
Speaker 2: Well, Hello, Anne, I'm Gary.
Speaker 3: Okay, Hi Gary, delighted to be invaded and happy to
Speaker 3: be here. Gary.
Speaker 1: Well, I'm going to embarrass you up front. I can't
Speaker 1: say how I'm excited to sit down and speak with you.
Speaker 1: Having been a homicide detective for over twenty years, I'm
Speaker 1: familiar with your work and what emanated from the FBI,
Speaker 1: and I've got to say I'm a big fan because
Speaker 1: the thing that excited me most was trying to get
Speaker 1: into the mind of killers, and you're at the forefront
Speaker 1: of understanding what goes on in that field.
Speaker 3: We're trying to that's what we've been doing, and we're
Speaker 3: still trying to get inside the mind see if we
Speaker 3: can learn more about these serial killers.
Speaker 1: Yeah, right from upfront to understand each killer. And we're
Speaker 1: going to delve deeply into what you've learned. But I
Speaker 1: suppose it's a science or it's an area of study
Speaker 1: that the more you learn, the more you realize you
Speaker 1: don't know. Every time you think you've noiled it, I'm
Speaker 1: sure you see something else.
Speaker 3: Absolutely, that's the way it is, and that's why we
Speaker 3: just keep going because there are just new avenues to pursue.
Speaker 1: Tell us a little bit for our listeners, tell us
Speaker 1: a little bit about your career so they get an
Speaker 1: understanding the work that you've done. And when I say
Speaker 1: your career, we're not talking past tense. I know you've
Speaker 1: just come from lecturing a group of students before you
Speaker 1: sat down here, so you're still very, very active.
Speaker 3: Yeah. I basically started out my career as a nurse.
Speaker 3: As a psychiatric nurse, you specialize in nursing in various fields,
Speaker 3: and so I picked psychiatric nursing and so for many
Speaker 3: years that's what I did. I would do psychotherapy. I
Speaker 3: was a what's called a clinician, but I also was
Speaker 3: an academic, and I've been at Boston College was where
Speaker 3: I first started into some research, and that was on
Speaker 3: rape victims. So I really that was because of a
Speaker 3: colleague of mind, Linda Holmstrom, who said that this was
Speaker 3: going to be an important area for women. And this
Speaker 3: is back in the seventies, and that was true, that
Speaker 3: the Women's movement actually was the Second Movement was just starting,
Speaker 3: and she had been to some of what are called
Speaker 3: consciousness raising groups where women would gather and talk about
Speaker 3: things they had never talked about before. And of course
Speaker 3: much of it had to do with rape, had to
Speaker 3: do with incest, that kind of thing, and so she
Speaker 3: was instrumental in saying we need to do a study.
Speaker 3: And she had tried to find rape victims and was
Speaker 3: having no l up. They're very they hide, they really do,
Speaker 3: they don't pronounce themselves. So that she I said, the
Speaker 3: only place I think we can find them is at
Speaker 3: a hospital, at an emergency room, and so I started
Speaker 3: contacting hospitals and that's where we were able to get
Speaker 3: into Boston City Hospital, which was a very good hospital,
Speaker 3: large urban hospital. It's where police would take rape victims,
Speaker 3: and so that's where the study started. And over a
Speaker 3: year we saw one hundred and forty six people between
Speaker 3: the ages of three and seventy three, so we had
Speaker 3: a wide span the majority, of course where you'd expect
Speaker 3: late teens, early twenties, but then we had some that
Speaker 3: were children, and of course some that were elderly. So
Speaker 3: that is what started me not only an academ but
Speaker 3: also as a research area. And from there, the FBI
Speaker 3: concurrently was being told they had to start screening their
Speaker 3: agents in rape investigation, and so they had nobody that
Speaker 3: was had any expertise in it, and why should they
Speaker 3: They were all investigators. So the another nurse who was
Speaker 3: also a detective out in Los Angeles, had been keeping
Speaker 3: up with her nursing skills. She worked at an emergency room,
Speaker 3: and she said to Roy Hazelwood, who had said he
Speaker 3: had this new assignment he was going to have to
Speaker 3: teach rape investigation. He didn't know where he'd find anyone
Speaker 3: or anything. And she caught him after class and said,
Speaker 3: there's a new article out in the American Journal of
Speaker 3: Nursing and it's by someone out on the East Coast.
Speaker 3: Why don't you contact her? And that's what he did,
Speaker 3: and he invited me to come down to teach their agents,
Speaker 3: their special agents about rape victims. So that's how my
Speaker 3: research in the area of victims connected with the FBI,
Speaker 3: who were having to train repe investigators. And from there
Speaker 3: is where the project on a criminal personality study started
Speaker 3: with Bob Wrestler and John Douglas, and that's how I
Speaker 3: got into the profiling. What they needed was somebody that
Speaker 3: knew methodology. They were not trained as science listeners, as researchers,
Speaker 3: and so they needed to bring in somebody that could
Speaker 3: set up a research study. So that's very basically how
Speaker 3: I got from point A to point B.
Speaker 1: Well, I'm sure when you started out nursing, you didn't
Speaker 1: in visage that you'd be working for a large majority
Speaker 1: of your career very in depth with the FBI.
Speaker 2: So I never never, I've got to say.
Speaker 1: In prepping for the podcast and understanding your background and
Speaker 1: the type of things that you did, it made me
Speaker 1: reflect on my early times in homicide. I was fortunate
Speaker 1: enough to work with a partner of Paul Bradley as
Speaker 1: a young detective who had spent twenty years as a
Speaker 1: psychiatric nurse, and it was interesting just as we're both
Speaker 1: setting out as learning the traders detectives. I always had
Speaker 1: fascinating discussions with Paul about what are we dealing with
Speaker 1: here and the type of expertise that he brought into
Speaker 1: the field. So yeah, I do understand the benefits of it,
Speaker 1: and that shaped me in the way that I was
Speaker 1: looking at crimes, having someone just a bounce some ideas off,
Speaker 1: because I think and you would see it, with all
Speaker 1: the law enforcement offices you dealt with, we have a
Speaker 1: tendency there's some black and white thinking and to think
Speaker 1: a little bit abstract doesn't come naturally to a lot
Speaker 1: of police officers. I would suggest, I would agree, whinding
Speaker 1: back on your studies with sexual assault victims rape victims
Speaker 1: that one thing, and correct me if I'm wrong, But
Speaker 1: I think that's when the thinking started to change that
Speaker 1: rape wasn't about the sexual act, it was about the control.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 3: That was really one of our major papers that rape
Speaker 3: certainly happened in a sexual context, that it had more
Speaker 3: to do with dominance, power and anger. And that was
Speaker 3: one of the articles we wrote and published, and I
Speaker 3: think that really caught on. People began to understand a
Speaker 3: little bit more that it wasn't just a sexual act.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I think opening your mind up to what's
Speaker 1: made evating the crime just with that, I won't say subtle,
Speaker 1: because it's a significant shift in thinking, does change the
Speaker 1: way you follow an investigation.
Speaker 2: Victimology.
Speaker 1: That's one thing in homicide that I was fortunate enough
Speaker 1: to work under some very good mentals, and I really
Speaker 1: didn't get the importance initially that they were put in
Speaker 1: on victimology. I'd just like to talk to you about
Speaker 1: victimology because now, having been what I consider an experienced
Speaker 1: homicide detective, understand the importance of it. So victimology and
Speaker 1: the homicide investigation or yeah, of Cereal rapist, any serious crime.
Speaker 1: What can the victim tell you about the perpetrator of
Speaker 1: the crime?
Speaker 3: Well, they tell an awful lot. And that's where I
Speaker 3: think the payoff is because up until that point, everybody
Speaker 3: just thought O rape was the same thing as sex.
Speaker 3: And until you listen to what the victim tells you
Speaker 3: about what occurs between how they get targeted if you
Speaker 3: will you want to use that word, or how they
Speaker 3: get selected, and then what they do, what they say,
Speaker 3: how they behave all of that, they're not going to
Speaker 3: tell you. The offender's not going to tell you. You have
Speaker 3: to get it from the victim. And when you talk
Speaker 3: with enough victims, you begin to see the patterns. And
Speaker 3: that's what I think the payoff was is, so we
Speaker 3: learned about the offender from the victim, So we try
Speaker 3: to emphasize that, and I think that the profilers done
Speaker 3: at Quantico really caught on to that and they use
Speaker 3: that as the key piece of information to start with.
Speaker 3: You know, after they have a victim, why was that
Speaker 3: victim target and why was he or she usually a she?
Speaker 3: And what type of person victimized her, so you and
Speaker 3: then where should we look for a possible suspect. And
Speaker 3: they began to see that they could use these patterns
Speaker 3: as a way to better classify who they were looking for,
Speaker 3: and I think that's what sharpened their investigative techniques. It's
Speaker 3: the victimology, the study of the victim, and that goes
Speaker 3: for any type of crime. It doesn't have to be
Speaker 3: just rape, but certainly was in our situation of because
Speaker 3: nobody had talked about the victim early on, and so
Speaker 3: our Lindham Our work was very very important. And then
Speaker 3: the traumatic aftermath and the fear. I mean it was
Speaker 3: really based on fear. They fear that they were going
Speaker 3: to be killed, especially if the stranger not necessarily a
Speaker 3: domestic rate, but certainly a stranger rate.
Speaker 1: During the course of my career I got to because
Speaker 1: it was homicide and serial violent crime, and got to
Speaker 1: work on quite a few serial rapists and the way
Speaker 1: that they target their victims. And quite often it was
Speaker 1: the type of victim that alludes to the fact that
Speaker 1: we had a serial rapist, whether the female that was
Speaker 1: in the ones that I investigated, they are always female victims,
Speaker 1: but they were when I say vulnerable. They were exposed
Speaker 1: in that they were walking home late at night, that
Speaker 1: type of stranger sexual assault. So they get that thinking
Speaker 1: about why they targeting victims. Do you think it also
Speaker 1: links the crimes together too, because I know in my
Speaker 1: early days in policing, and I spent over the thirty
Speaker 1: years in policing, we sort of operated in silos. We
Speaker 1: didn't link a fan is to give us say, quite
Speaker 1: often they'd be a ripe reported in this area, and
Speaker 1: then they'd be a ripe report in another era, and
Speaker 1: they'd be two groups of groups of detectives working in
Speaker 1: isolation and not really comparing notes right right.
Speaker 3: And actually what has even helped advance the science even more,
Speaker 3: of course is DNA that they're finding that they always
Speaker 3: they can change their MOO. That was confusing. I know
Speaker 3: that Douglas put that a lot of emphasis on that
Speaker 3: the signature, what was the signature of the offender that
Speaker 3: he had that was psychologically based, But he could change
Speaker 3: the m O. But he couldn't change the signature because
Speaker 3: it was it was part of him. So those were
Speaker 3: some of the things that we learned in the It
Speaker 3: had to be a serial type offense.
Speaker 2: Could you give us an example of the type of
Speaker 2: thing break that down.
Speaker 3: Well, there would be I'm thinking of John Simonis. He
Speaker 3: was one of the big ones cases that we had.
Speaker 3: They took years for them to find him and his
Speaker 3: m all would he put as much effort into his
Speaker 3: message of gaining access to a victim, and so that
Speaker 3: could change, but he always would have them. He had
Speaker 3: to immobilize them. He had to have people aware of
Speaker 3: what he was doing. He was an exhibitionist. He wanted
Speaker 3: the husband or the children to witness the rape. I
Speaker 3: mean it was really so psychological if you you know,
Speaker 3: that's where one of the things is. They wanted to know, well,
Speaker 3: what did I think of that? And I said, I
Speaker 3: bet you go back in his childhood and find out
Speaker 3: that he had witnessed something in the family. And sure enough,
Speaker 3: there had been some whether it was ever confirmed, but
Speaker 3: something between the father and the sister, and he had
Speaker 3: witnessed that, and so he carried that out in his
Speaker 3: own rapes. So there's a one where he didn't change
Speaker 3: his Uh, he didn't change his signature, but he might
Speaker 3: change you know, where he found a victim. He might
Speaker 3: have found her inside a house, or he could find
Speaker 3: him on the street. That that kind of thing.
Speaker 1: Okay, and that that helps you link the crime, understand
Speaker 1: the type of person you're looking for and what maivates
Speaker 1: a person.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but I will say they used their good detective work.
Speaker 3: You probably would appreciate that the profilers all were interested
Speaker 3: in the car, the type of car that the and
Speaker 3: of course the car was very important in detective work
Speaker 3: in those days. And sure enough they had pinpointed the
Speaker 3: type of car be very flashy, it'd be like a
Speaker 3: sports car because that seemed to match the personality that
Speaker 3: of the type of person that they were looking for.
Speaker 3: And sure enough it was a red trans am that
Speaker 3: caught their attention at two separate places. And so that's
Speaker 3: how they they So even though we have.
Speaker 1: Look, I love the good detective stories and again it
Speaker 1: makes me reflect on reflect on my career. The things
Speaker 1: that you learn I couldn't understand with these experienced detectives
Speaker 1: that I was working with initially, are just so focused
Speaker 1: on the car, and I'd be thinking, all right, we've
Speaker 1: gone over the car, and they'd be fixated with there
Speaker 1: was a red car or whatever, and they'd be fixated
Speaker 1: on it. But quite often that it leads to leads
Speaker 1: to a successful result. And when you do unravel a
Speaker 1: serial offender, little things that come to mind that you
Speaker 1: look back at it with hindsight and if you had
Speaker 1: better better thought process and the type of work that
Speaker 1: you guys have been doing over there. One serial rapists
Speaker 1: who were working on the victims were always attacked on
Speaker 1: the Tuesday and Thursday night. And then when we finally
Speaker 1: caught the offender, he was married, had kids, normal home life,
Speaker 1: but he was supposed to be going to evening college
Speaker 1: during the Tuesday and days and that's when he's struck.
Speaker 1: So you see patterns like that. And I remember when
Speaker 1: we had him targeted as a possible suspect and then
Speaker 1: we realized that he's got a or not an alibi,
Speaker 1: but an excuse to be out of his home on
Speaker 1: those two nights. That sort of firmed it up as
Speaker 1: we're heading in the right direction. I also, and you
Speaker 1: mentioned DNA, and I probably want to talk about that
Speaker 1: later a little bit more detail, but I was listening
Speaker 1: to one of the many interviews that you've done and
Speaker 1: you said the benefit of DNA is not only yeah,
Speaker 1: it's advanced criminal investigation in huge ways, but it also
Speaker 1: helps eliminate suspects, and I thought, that's someone that understands
Speaker 1: that world because the DNA, it's so helpful because you
Speaker 1: can spend so much time focusing on one person and
Speaker 1: if you can compare it to the DNA, makes a difference,
Speaker 1: doesn't it.
Speaker 3: I think it makes huge difference. And I think that's
Speaker 3: really one of the best benefits of DNA is to
Speaker 3: exclude people a course is very helpful for them.
Speaker 2: Yeah, too well to be excluded.
Speaker 1: I learned or it shaped my career early in homicide.
Speaker 1: We were targeting the person you ticked the boxes of.
Speaker 1: This is a good suspect that it was a sexual
Speaker 1: assault and murder of an elderly lady. It was a
Speaker 1: horrendous crime. Someone had broken into his house. We got
Speaker 1: a suspect that ingratiated himself into the crime in that
Speaker 1: he was a witness and said he was walking his
Speaker 1: dog and his dog got off the lead and he
Speaker 1: ran past the place, which gets us suspicious. He gave
Speaker 1: a detailed description of someone he saw coming out of
Speaker 1: the place, which he just couldn't He was describing the
Speaker 1: earring this bloke had on from across the road. Details
Speaker 1: like that the victim was a member of a church group.
Speaker 1: He went to the same church. He also also knocked
Speaker 1: on a door of another elderly lady a couple of
Speaker 1: weeks after the murder and asked for a cup of
Speaker 1: a glass of water because he was hot. We couldn't
Speaker 1: work get how this person got access into the place.
Speaker 1: We look at his criminal history and he's got past
Speaker 1: offenses in another state for sexually assaulting a elderly lady.
Speaker 1: You can understand. To take this point of view, We've
Speaker 1: got this bloke, had him under surveillance, picked him up,
Speaker 1: got his DNA. First DNA case I worked on. First
Speaker 1: time we used DNA and the laboratory comes back because
Speaker 1: seaman was left at the scene. No, that's not your man,
Speaker 1: and we were gobsmacked. We demanded the game go down
Speaker 1: to the laboratory to have it. Can you explain this
Speaker 1: DNA stuff to us? And we're staring at this screen
Speaker 1: not fully understanding it. But it taught me a lot
Speaker 1: that you can be headed off in the wrong direction
Speaker 1: on investigations because because of the circumstances.
Speaker 2: Would you agree with.
Speaker 3: That, I absolutely would agree with that, And I can
Speaker 3: think of many times when they are looking for a
Speaker 3: suspect and exactly as you say, and they get the
Speaker 3: DNA back and it excludes the person. So but it's
Speaker 3: helpful if you can get the DNA early enough so
Speaker 3: that you don't get so invested in the case because
Speaker 3: you are left of how can this be? It must
Speaker 3: be this guy.
Speaker 1: Well, it taught me a lesson from you know, you've
Speaker 1: got to keep an open mind.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Absolutely, criminal profiling.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of everyone's got a view on what
Speaker 1: criminal profiling is. And you see some shows, fictional shows
Speaker 1: or whatever, and it's almost like you can describe the
Speaker 1: person to the tea and you virtually everything other than
Speaker 1: the name you provide. Can you explain to all of
Speaker 1: us what criminal profiling is all about. When someone says,
Speaker 1: I'm a criminal profiler, or have you got a criminal profile?
Speaker 1: Could you explain what it actually is? Because I think
Speaker 1: you're one person that's earned the right to explain what
Speaker 1: it is.
Speaker 3: And I think it depends on what one's background is,
Speaker 3: because we work. When I talk about criminal profiling, and
Speaker 3: we're talking about out what has done through investigators, not
Speaker 3: through psychologists. And I think psychologists who like to be
Speaker 3: they are going to profile through their understanding of personality
Speaker 3: and psychiatric lingo and things like that. So I see
Speaker 3: that as very different than the investigators whose work is
Speaker 3: finding suspects, and I think that gives them a heads
Speaker 3: up to be able to understand that you're looking for
Speaker 3: someone that has committed you're looking for suspect that has
Speaker 3: committed an ex crime, rape or a murder or something,
Speaker 3: and you have to bring all of the skills. You
Speaker 3: have special skills. Investigators have special skills that other disciplines
Speaker 3: do not have, and vice versa. So I may try
Speaker 3: to make it very clear that we're talking about behavior.
Speaker 3: It started out with In fact, even the FBI Academy
Speaker 3: called their department the Behavioral Science Department unit. They later
Speaker 3: have changed it to call it now it's more criminal
Speaker 3: investigative or support services or things. So over time they
Speaker 3: have changed and advanced. I would like to say that
Speaker 3: they had advanced using the work that they had learned from.
Speaker 3: So what our work was in profiling was to get
Speaker 3: a large amount of data that could be analyzed to
Speaker 3: either support or not support what we had been learning.
Speaker 3: And we learned some things that weren't right, you know,
Speaker 3: we weren't doing it right, that the patterns were different,
Speaker 3: and so that's where research comes into it and the
Speaker 3: methodology that we use. That's what they needed me for
Speaker 3: was the methodology. And because they were researchers, you know,
Speaker 3: they didn't have any courses in that, so that I
Speaker 3: think with what made a big difference in their type
Speaker 3: of fling. So answer your question, you need to know
Speaker 3: what type of profiling the person does and that's going
Speaker 3: to match to his back or her background. Well, but
Speaker 3: that's why I think you have so many different definitions
Speaker 3: of profiling.
Speaker 1: I work very closely with a criminal psychologist, doctor Sarah Yule,
Speaker 1: throughout my police career, especially in homicide. She's a good
Speaker 1: friend of mine, and I don't think a lot of
Speaker 1: the police fully understood how you could use someone like
Speaker 1: Sarah's skills, and she was the first one that was
Speaker 1: attached to a law enforcement agency specifically to help with investigations.
Speaker 1: I like Sarah's input because she would think outside the
Speaker 1: square from what we do as police. Where I used
Speaker 1: her to the best benefit I thought was preparing for interviews,
Speaker 1: talking about and not so the saying you tell me
Speaker 1: what question to ask this person. I'm a detective. I
Speaker 1: know what questions I want to ask, But how I
Speaker 1: might that person, whether that person would relate more to
Speaker 1: a female officer, whether that person might relate to a
Speaker 1: person in authority, that type of thing. Is that a
Speaker 1: tool that you think is worthwhile using in criminal investigation?
Speaker 3: Absolutely? I think that more cases are sabotaged. Whatever words
Speaker 3: you want from an interview, I've seen a lot of
Speaker 3: cases just go down the drain because investigators are not
Speaker 3: really trained in that. I think they need training in that.
Speaker 3: And I've talked with I've seen cases where because I
Speaker 3: just think back to what you learned. Did you really
Speaker 3: ever learn to interview a victim when you're early on
Speaker 3: in your career or did you kind of learn it
Speaker 3: as you went along? See, I think who would be
Speaker 3: the person you bring in is very helpful to be
Speaker 3: able in that particular area of how to get the
Speaker 3: most information. One of the big problems in criminals is
Speaker 3: they will lie and you have to think through is
Speaker 3: he telling me the truth or is he not? So
Speaker 3: that's why we want to get into their thoughts. Thoughts
Speaker 3: drive behavior, right, that's a basic premise of that's how
Speaker 3: we all work. And so how do you get to
Speaker 3: those thoughts? And that's where we put so much we
Speaker 3: tried it through behavior. We're doing something different. Now we're
Speaker 3: trying to get them before they act in any kind
Speaker 3: of social media posts written things they've done, and we're
Speaker 3: using AI to give us new information. And it's amazing
Speaker 3: how we miss things when we just do an interview
Speaker 3: after you put it through AI for example, you know. Yeah,
Speaker 3: And that's trying to see this is before they have
Speaker 3: it's when they're personally putting down information. We looked at
Speaker 3: twenty three called manifestos. These were all written before they
Speaker 3: were incarcerated of the murderers, and then see how they
Speaker 3: pat what their patterns are. I mean, it's a fast way,
Speaker 3: if you will, of trying to get inside their thinking,
Speaker 3: because it's their thinking that gets them off base, right,
Speaker 3: it's their thinking. Yeah, so how and so we have
Speaker 3: what we call a step way to murder and there
Speaker 3: are about six steps that they go through, so that
Speaker 3: if we can get early on, we might be able
Speaker 3: to prevent. Everything is in the service of prevention. Can
Speaker 3: you get them when they just have a grudge, you know,
Speaker 3: or do you have and maybe they're still doing their
Speaker 3: research and they go through these rather predictable.
Speaker 1: Stages in regards to six steps to murder.
Speaker 2: Can you break that damn for us?
Speaker 3: Yes, it starts, it always starts with a grudge there
Speaker 3: it's something that bothers the person that they are very
Speaker 3: upset and angry about. And then that can develop into
Speaker 3: what we call an ideology where they align themselves with
Speaker 3: a group that may or may not happen. And then
Speaker 3: they do research and that's where in the research they
Speaker 3: look around they find out other people are feeling that,
Speaker 3: and we break it down into which called in cells.
Speaker 3: Are you familiar with in cells nationalists or extremists? I
Speaker 3: think there are three. And then they begin to plan.
Speaker 3: This is when they now have enough information and they
Speaker 3: plan a killing. So that's the I think that's a
Speaker 3: third of the fourth. Uh, they might they get a
Speaker 3: date and all these manifestos they said it's going to
Speaker 3: be whatever the data is. Now that can change and
Speaker 3: it can change for various reasons. But they will then
Speaker 3: go on and in all of the cases, of course,
Speaker 3: they did kill and that would be the last step
Speaker 3: where they do it. And we use the the Elliott
Speaker 3: Elliott case out of where he videotapes himself in the
Speaker 3: car and it's just after he has killed his three
Speaker 3: roommates and he's now going to go he's a misogynist
Speaker 3: and he's going to go to a sorority house and
Speaker 3: he goes, he can't they won't let him into the
Speaker 3: sorority house. Luckily, well, he kills three women outside. That's
Speaker 3: Elliott Rogers. I don't know if it's he would be
Speaker 3: what's called also an inceel, and he's one of the
Speaker 3: We kind of use him as the example of the
Speaker 3: steps to violence or the steps to murder, and pretty
Speaker 3: much we were that's our research now where we're really
Speaker 3: trying to see if we can get them early enough
Speaker 3: before they act and catch them either when they're planning it,
Speaker 3: because many most of them give and give a warning.
Speaker 3: So that's where the interview is hard, because you have
Speaker 3: to know how they whether they're telling you the truth
Speaker 3: or not a lot of times to tell you what
Speaker 3: they think you want to hear is the problem.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I had respect for you before. It's just gone
Speaker 1: up even higher. That you understand the importance of interviewing,
Speaker 1: because that's one thing that I think detectives we don't
Speaker 1: get the training, and it is crucial, It is absolutely crucial.
Speaker 1: And I found that the most stimulating part of my
Speaker 1: career in criminal investigation was sitting down in the interview room.
Speaker 1: And I was fortunate enough to have people that I
Speaker 1: really respected, and I just I was like a sponge
Speaker 1: learning from them the way that they approached the interview
Speaker 1: and the thought process that went into how we're going
Speaker 1: to approach.
Speaker 2: That level of detail.
Speaker 1: They had before they stepped into the interview room, so
Speaker 1: they could pick up and drop things when it suited them,
Speaker 1: like contradict the person's version of events. And I love
Speaker 1: the fact that you say people lie in interviews and
Speaker 1: don't tell the truth, because I've had I've worked with
Speaker 1: some people and they come out and go, oh, but
Speaker 1: he seems like a nice man. It looks like he's
Speaker 1: telling the truth. And I haven't got any But I
Speaker 1: wanted to pull my hair out because it would just
Speaker 1: frustrate me. Frustrate me so much. But the approach that
Speaker 1: you take in the interview room, the atmosphere you create.
Speaker 1: I don't want to refer to a fictional TV show,
Speaker 1: but I've been binging on mind Hunter in the lead
Speaker 1: up to this rewatching it. There was one part in
Speaker 1: season one and the character, I think it was the
Speaker 1: character portrayed portrayed on you and they were interviewing a
Speaker 1: suspect and it was a female involved in a murder
Speaker 1: where there was the husband and the brother in law
Speaker 1: of something. And she would used the words splashed as
Speaker 1: in it was splashing about blood as in stabbing.
Speaker 2: And the point that was made.
Speaker 1: Just with that one comment that she was there when
Speaker 1: that crime occurred. She wasn't relaying it.
Speaker 3: I tried the person was still alive. Yes, that's one
Speaker 3: of our cases, one of the early cases. I was
Speaker 3: also going to say, you have to we train, or
Speaker 3: the FBI trained for doing an interview versus doing an interrogation.
Speaker 3: There are two different.
Speaker 2: Well that's another great point.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, and so you have to know there's techniques
Speaker 3: for each one that are very important I think for
Speaker 3: investigators to learn, and I bring in when I'm teaching it.
Speaker 3: I have a retired FBI person who's really good, really
Speaker 3: good on the difference, and he will roleplay it as
Speaker 3: and he plays the subjects to the subject and one
Speaker 3: of the agents to have to interview him or have
Speaker 3: to interrogate him.
Speaker 1: I prepared and it was shown to me. That's something
Speaker 1: I've adopted and I've tried to pass it on because
Speaker 1: I would lecture about interviewing on courses, and I would
Speaker 1: prepare before I went into the interview room for a
Speaker 1: couple of scenarios. One is that the offender is going
Speaker 1: to put their hands up and confess, So then it's
Speaker 1: about gathering all the facts that you need to present
Speaker 1: it to court and make sure it's a done deal.
Speaker 1: Then the second, and this can change during the course
Speaker 1: of the interview. The second thing. Okay, if the offenders denying,
Speaker 1: what type of line the questioning, how you're going to
Speaker 1: approach it. I think you need to be flexible when
Speaker 1: you step into the interview.
Speaker 3: Room, absolutely, and you have to know your material. You're
Speaker 3: so right, you have to know because then you can
Speaker 3: catch them in a lie. That's what the agent would do.
Speaker 3: And then once you catch them in a lie, he
Speaker 3: doesn't dare to do it, he better not do it again.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and you can drop that at the appropriate time
Speaker 1: when you point out that they've just lied. Sometimes their
Speaker 1: lies are as good as a confession if you can
Speaker 1: contradict what they've got. But anyway, you just get me
Speaker 1: excited about my police career. It makes me want to
Speaker 1: go back in and be a homicide detective. So the
Speaker 1: early days when you and my understanding, John Douglas and
Speaker 1: the team were going out and interviewing serial killers getting
Speaker 1: a lot of information, and that was going to let
Speaker 1: against the grain or the thinking at the time that
Speaker 1: will what are you going to get we've locked them up.
Speaker 1: What are you going to get from these people? What information?
Speaker 1: They interviewed a cross sector, not a cross section, but
Speaker 1: they interviewed quite a few serial killers that were in
Speaker 1: custody by the nature, and I would imagine that most
Speaker 1: people I know in that that field, they like to
Speaker 1: talk because they're board in jail, so it's pretty easy
Speaker 1: get if you walk in there, they're they're happy to
Speaker 1: talk to you. The information they got when it was
Speaker 1: shown to you, I think you looked at them thought
Speaker 1: that it's amazing, but the it hadn't got the structure,
Speaker 1: the academic structure, or the way that they were extracting
Speaker 1: the information. Can you talk us through that, how you
Speaker 1: came to be working with those guys and what you
Speaker 1: brought to the table from the information they had.
Speaker 3: Sure they needed what we got an interview, They needed
Speaker 3: a questionnaire so that we collect the data systematically, and
Speaker 3: that that's in my end counter that that doctor Wendy
Speaker 3: Kark tries to do that. It's kind of funny the
Speaker 3: way they do it. But at any rate, we had
Speaker 3: fifty seven pages. It was five sections color coded, and
Speaker 3: it had to do with the crime element itself. They
Speaker 3: had to do with the victim. It had a section
Speaker 3: that just was on the forensics, any forensics that were found,
Speaker 3: and last one was on aspects of the crime that
Speaker 3: we were interested in, and so we take all of that. Now.
Speaker 3: What they would do, though, is they would collect all
Speaker 3: of the records that they possibly could, and that's where
Speaker 3: there was the advantage. So it wasn't just going in
Speaker 3: and doing a cold interview, you know, it was having
Speaker 3: all the information so they knew when they could whether
Speaker 3: he was telling the truth or not because the records
Speaker 3: would have contained that. And then all of that was
Speaker 3: run data, and that's how we came up with the
Speaker 3: patterns we call patterns and motives and serial homicide. That
Speaker 3: was big question they had. They didn't know what was
Speaker 3: the motive in these many of these killings, and we
Speaker 3: determined it had to have a sexual motive, even though
Speaker 3: it didn't look like a sexual crime. So many of
Speaker 3: the myths were or the biases were dispelled there getting
Speaker 3: here to go in and even though the victim may
Speaker 3: be fully dressed, et cetera, et cetera, we began to
Speaker 3: realize and talking with them afterwards, to make your point
Speaker 3: about what can you learn if in talking with the
Speaker 3: is that they would have the victim dress themselves, they
Speaker 3: would rape, they'd have the victim dressed themselves, and then
Speaker 3: they killed so that it looked like it wouldn't look
Speaker 3: like a sexual kitten. And you wouldn't think of that, right.
Speaker 3: So that was just one little example of why we
Speaker 3: were able to it. But we needed that information from them,
Speaker 3: and that was tell me about what you did and
Speaker 3: how it was, and just keep encouraging them to talk
Speaker 3: about it and in a naturalistic way. And they, as
Speaker 3: you said, they like to talk. There would be things
Speaker 3: though that they wouldn't say, they wouldn't reveal, and I
Speaker 3: always wanted and you always knew that had to be
Speaker 3: something very personal, and that's where a lot of the
Speaker 3: trauma stuff was found. When they couldn't about that. They
Speaker 3: could boast about what they did to the victim, and
Speaker 3: they can do, but when you ask them about their
Speaker 3: own life, childhood, growing up. Those were some of the
Speaker 3: very the very acts that they couldn't talk about, and
Speaker 3: it usually was going to be something related to some
Speaker 3: sexual act that had been done to them.
Speaker 1: It's interesting that the sexual side of it that comes
Speaker 1: into comes into the killings. I was investigating serial killer
Speaker 1: three children that we've been battling through the courts for
Speaker 1: a very, very long time, three Indigenous children, and part
Speaker 1: of the problem was there was an argument that, well,
Speaker 1: how can you link these crimes evidence on one of
Speaker 1: the murders, and my position was that they're linked. The
Speaker 1: children were all known to each other, They're living in
Speaker 1: the same street in a small country town. They disappeared
Speaker 1: over a five month period. Two of the bodies were
Speaker 1: recovered dumped in a bush track on the outskirts of town.
Speaker 1: The first victim's clothing that she's wearing at the time
Speaker 1: of her disappearance was dumped in the river at the
Speaker 1: end of that dirt road. I'm thinking, yeah, yeah, a
Speaker 1: pretty common sense that this is in a very small
Speaker 1: country town, these crimes are committed by it by one person,
Speaker 1: and I would argue with legal people that would be
Speaker 1: because we're trying to push the matter through.
Speaker 2: The courts and the one stumbling block I had there.
Speaker 1: Was a sixteen year old girl, sixteen year old boy,
Speaker 1: and a four year old girl, and the legal minds
Speaker 1: were saying, well, you know, the victims not even the
Speaker 1: same sex, different age and all that. Sarah yure, she
Speaker 1: looked through it, and when she tells me it's so
Speaker 1: common sense, I'm sort of kicking myself. Wire didn't formulate
Speaker 1: this idea to start with. She said that it's a
Speaker 1: serial killer, but killing the end result because he was
Speaker 1: driven by sex. The person what he was looking for.
Speaker 1: Sixteen year old girl sexually attracted to that lady, the
Speaker 1: sixteen year old boy sexually attracted to the girlfriend of
Speaker 1: the sixteen year old boy, and the four year old
Speaker 1: girl sexually attracted to the mother of the girl. So
Speaker 1: Sarah broke it down. This person was prepared to kill
Speaker 1: for their sexual gratification. And then once I started articulating that,
Speaker 1: people started to get it and understand, Okay, this is
Speaker 1: how those crimes are linked. Different ways of looking at things.
Speaker 3: Absolutely, absolutely yeah, And we would find that, and you
Speaker 3: would when you had I would always ask when you
Speaker 3: had multiple victims, is which one did you like for something?
Speaker 3: Which one did you like sexually, which one did you like?
Speaker 3: You know, and you would find some differences there when
Speaker 3: you had when they were all sexually murdered, is there
Speaker 3: had been one that really stood out and it was
Speaker 3: fascinating the one that and this one killer he had
Speaker 3: killed ten or eleven and I was really amazed at
Speaker 3: the one that he picked was the most sexually gratifying
Speaker 3: after he killed her. And that what's important is it
Speaker 3: can be in the act of killing. I'm trying to
Speaker 3: think if we had any that they would talk about that.
Speaker 3: It was hard to get them to talk about it.
Speaker 3: But that's that's where some of the payoff would be
Speaker 3: in learning more about what it meant to kill, what
Speaker 3: ultimate question.
Speaker 1: You know, getting to understand one of the killers over there, Camper.
Speaker 3: At Temper, Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2: Tell us a bit about that.
Speaker 1: It was portraying the mind Hunter series, and I've read
Speaker 1: up a little bit about him. I think it was
Speaker 1: fairly close to the type of personality was tell us
Speaker 1: about those crimes.
Speaker 3: Well, Kemper always would kill very fast because he didn't
Speaker 3: want the victim to suffer, right, I mean, that's that's
Speaker 3: amazing that you know, figure that one out, and so
Speaker 3: he would kill and then he would do the sex.
Speaker 3: So he was a thataviliac. He'd got more out of
Speaker 3: doing things to the victim after he killed. And I
Speaker 3: would compare him to Monte Rissel, who was just the opposite.
Speaker 3: He was a rape murderer. He would rape first and
Speaker 3: then kill, whereas Kemper was just the opposite. And that
Speaker 3: he now he had he had both domestic murders as
Speaker 3: well as stranger murders. He had remember his grandparentsparents. Yeah,
Speaker 3: his grandparents were first, and he shoots grandmother in the
Speaker 3: back and she turns him back to him to return
Speaker 3: to whatever she was doing, and then he waits for
Speaker 3: grandfather and claims, well, he knew that he would grandfather
Speaker 3: would be up to see grandmother and dead. Well, I
Speaker 3: suppose that's true, but still there is more to it
Speaker 3: than that. And men who look at who he kills
Speaker 3: last as his mother, and he thought that there would
Speaker 3: be the end, but of course it wasn't, and he
Speaker 3: luckily did turn himself in. He's still alive, you know.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I've watched, I've seen him actually interviewed.
Speaker 4: I'm saying I've wanted to kill my mother since i
Speaker 4: was eight years old and I'm not proud of that.
Speaker 4: And then a month later I'm up living with my
Speaker 4: grandparents in the mountains, and ten months later I murdered them,
Speaker 4: and I knew I was paranoid at that moment. I
Speaker 4: knew anybody that came up there and give me a
Speaker 4: funny look or fishy eye or quizzical look out of
Speaker 4: blowing their brains out thinking they were coming to get me.
Speaker 4: And if had been in a city, I would have
Speaker 4: been a mass murder at age fifteen. I would have
Speaker 4: killed until he gunned me down. I wouldn't have been
Speaker 4: able to reason my way out of it. I was
Speaker 4: scared to death and I was violent. I felt my
Speaker 4: back hit that wall. I was the rabbit that always ran,
Speaker 4: that always backed away, always burns bridges. Suddenly there weren't anymore,
Speaker 4: and my back hit that wall, and I came out
Speaker 4: screaming and kicking and shooting. When more months after I
Speaker 4: was out, I was back into the fantasy bag. I
Speaker 4: was losing a grasp on something that was too violent
Speaker 4: to keep inside forever. As I'm sitting there with a
Speaker 4: severed head in my hand, talking to it or looking
Speaker 4: at it, and I'm about to go crazy, literally I'm
Speaker 4: about to go completely flywheel loose and just fall apart.
Speaker 4: I say, wow, this is insane, and then I told myself, no,
Speaker 4: it isn't. You're saying that, and that makes it not insane.
Speaker 1: It's quite chilling, isn't it. But that yes, And that's
Speaker 1: the work that you're looking into and the work that
Speaker 1: you uncover in homicide investigations. What's going on in their mind?
Speaker 3: Well, they're very bright, that's the problem, is there. Very bright.
Speaker 3: He's very articulate. I mean, he could stand up like
Speaker 3: he's giving a lecture.
Speaker 2: And you'd be fascinated. Wouldn't you sit there?
Speaker 1: If you stood up there and gave an election, you'd
Speaker 1: be sitting there going this is incredible.
Speaker 3: But yes, he's not charming in a psychopathic way, but he's,
Speaker 3: as you say, more captivating. Interesting.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, the way he relays it. What was when
Speaker 1: you first started working I got the scenes with the FBI,
Speaker 1: and probably it would have been difficult for you because
Speaker 1: we're talking the seventies at this stage when you started
Speaker 1: with the FBI started working with the fbies.
Speaker 3: Mainly in the eighties the end of the seventies.
Speaker 1: Yes, there would have been some resistance to even a
Speaker 1: female coming in and a nurse coming in to help
Speaker 1: these fbiddes. What type of resistance did you get there?
Speaker 3: And part of that I was kind of intrigued with
Speaker 3: that is I wasn't a threat. See, oh she's a nurse.
Speaker 3: Now you know she doesn't what does she know?
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 3: What do women know? So there was I am sure
Speaker 3: now that was never said to me, but I am
Speaker 3: sure that was part of it. Now. Bob Wrestler tried
Speaker 3: to get his projects started before a couple of years before,
Speaker 3: and he was shot down in terms of we're investigators.
Speaker 3: Leave the research. We're not research, we're not interested in that.
Speaker 3: Leave that to the social work. So he had to
Speaker 3: wait until, like I retired, and then it brought it
Speaker 3: up again, and this time he had William Webster, who
Speaker 3: was young. He was academically inclined. He wanted to pull
Speaker 3: the qualifications of the academy up, so he was very
Speaker 3: much in favor of doing it. But he warned Bob,
Speaker 3: he said, don't do any shoe box research and got
Speaker 3: to make the feral look good. Don't do anything to
Speaker 3: embarrass us. You know that was always there, as which
Speaker 3: you can understand.
Speaker 1: I can imagine that's interesting. You picked up that. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and you're saying you're not that you didn't hear them talk.
Speaker 1: I can assure you they would have been talking about you.
Speaker 1: It's a nurse, and they would have been a lot
Speaker 1: of a lot of comments. There was there's one crime
Speaker 1: where people started like there was that slow resistance in
Speaker 1: what could you bring to an investigation, but when it
Speaker 1: was demonstrated. I think there was one particular case where
Speaker 1: you show that could be used as an investigative tool,
Speaker 1: Like it's one thing to gather the data and understand
Speaker 1: why these people are in jail. But the naysayers might say, well,
Speaker 1: who cares, We've locked them up, let's work on the
Speaker 1: next one. But you demonstrated the skills that you guys
Speaker 1: were compiling and the information and the understanding that it
Speaker 1: could be worked in a strategic way. Can you talk
Speaker 1: about that particular case.
Speaker 3: I'll see, well, you under one of the special cases.
Speaker 3: I think that the Jolbert case was a very good
Speaker 3: example of that, and that was the case of young boys.
Speaker 3: Two young boys were killed within a matter of three months,
Speaker 3: and that really terrified the community. These one was the
Speaker 3: son of a military colonel, I think, and they would.
Speaker 3: They were all in the morning, early morning, and that's
Speaker 3: where wrestlers thought, this is somebody that either is coming
Speaker 3: off work that he can he's going out and doing
Speaker 3: this and sure not that match when we finally got hot,
Speaker 3: when they finally identified it. But Russa put the profile
Speaker 3: down almost to a t. He got everything. He said,
Speaker 3: this is something. It was out in Nebraska, and he said,
Speaker 3: this is going to be someone that is military on
Speaker 3: the air base. They had offered air base was out there,
Speaker 3: that he will be an E I think he's an
Speaker 3: E four And that was the only thing he got wrong.
Speaker 3: He was an E three, just one level, isn't that amazing?
Speaker 3: And that he would do this after he came home
Speaker 3: from work, and he would have also do some work
Speaker 3: with young people. He was the junior director of the
Speaker 3: Y of the Boy Scouts. He had murdered that day
Speaker 3: and he went to the evening night with the parature
Speaker 3: all there talking about that. I mean, you can imagine
Speaker 3: how that played out in his mind. I mean, that
Speaker 3: was very and it was John jo Bert turned out
Speaker 3: to be who the suspect was, and they got him. Luckily,
Speaker 3: they put they used the technique of media. They put
Speaker 3: out the profile out there and said anybody that sees
Speaker 3: anything suspicious please let us know. And by golly, there
Speaker 3: was a teacher that had watched that and she had
Speaker 3: this strange person had had come near her and she
Speaker 3: thought was acting suspicious and she uh, she took down
Speaker 3: his license plate number and called then and this is
Speaker 3: it turned out to be. She was one digit shy,
Speaker 3: but it was easy to run through they you know. Anyway,
Speaker 3: that was the John jo Bert case, and they got
Speaker 3: him who was out looking for another victim, and they
Speaker 3: he would say he would go out all the time
Speaker 3: just looking for a victim, and if the everything was right,
Speaker 3: he would act. So that I think is where they
Speaker 3: combined their strategies of some good detective work but also
Speaker 3: led it to some of the things that we were finding.
Speaker 3: And that was a very important case. And then they
Speaker 3: founded that that case was Bob would do that back
Speaker 3: at Quantico, and one time a detective came up to
Speaker 3: him after class and said, you know, this sounds like
Speaker 3: a case that we had that we couldn't solve of
Speaker 3: a young eleven year old boy up in Maine. And
Speaker 3: Bob said, send us the material, and by golly, they
Speaker 3: got it was they solved it with and he confessed,
Speaker 3: so he really had three and he had prior little
Speaker 3: encounters with that kind of what we call the practice.
Speaker 3: He would ride his bicycle and like try to hit somebody,
Speaker 3: and turned out that he had three other victims. Not murder,
Speaker 3: but three other victims is practice. So that was put together.
Speaker 3: What they're going to start off doing something as a
Speaker 3: way and it escalates up and they murder.
Speaker 1: That's interesting and it's another interesting side of understanding the
Speaker 1: crime and understanding because when you're looking back at a
Speaker 1: person's criminal history, there might be a willful obscene exposure
Speaker 1: early and then it's a low level sexual assault, just
Speaker 1: an assault but with a sexual overtone and then you're
Speaker 1: looking at that history and they're not My take on
Speaker 1: it from a detective point of view was okay, well,
Speaker 1: it's not rocking their boat anymore. They're not getting the
Speaker 1: enjoyment from that level of crime, and it escalates, escalates
Speaker 1: and gets to the point where the crime becomes more horrific.
Speaker 1: But looking for those type of patterns, I would imagine
Speaker 1: you see those type of patterns when you're looking at
Speaker 1: the ind of the criminal minds. These serial killers like,
Speaker 1: I don't think they just there would have to be
Speaker 1: red flag leading up to them committing crimes of that nature.
Speaker 1: Would that be fair to say, that'd.
Speaker 3: Be fair to say. Yeah, Well, Kember even said he
Speaker 3: was going to go looking and become what we would
Speaker 3: call a mass shooter if he hadn't stopped that he
Speaker 3: wanted to go and take out more people than just one.
Speaker 3: And that's very scary.
Speaker 1: It is scary. Will look like I could hear. I
Speaker 1: know it's it's in the evening over there. I could
Speaker 1: keep you here all night, and I promised you a
Speaker 1: certain time we might might take a break here. But
Speaker 1: I just leave with the thought. I was speaking to
Speaker 1: had her on the guests on My Catch Killers, Laura
Speaker 1: Richard's crime and Analysts. Yeah, and she was talking about
Speaker 1: the names that serial killers get.
Speaker 2: And I like Laura.
Speaker 1: She's got a practical sense and she understands the concerns
Speaker 1: when they're stalkers. But she made the point about these
Speaker 1: serial killers, they get names, and we're like it over
Speaker 1: here in this country. We've got the backpacker killer, we've
Speaker 1: got the granny killer. They all seem to get names.
Speaker 1: And she suggested that you should certain killers should be
Speaker 1: called the small penis killer or something like that, just
Speaker 1: not to make it, not to give them that grandiosa
Speaker 1: with it, because with yeah, you can you can imagine
Speaker 1: that would have been something Laura said.
Speaker 2: But I understand, yeah, I understand.
Speaker 1: That's where where she's coming from in that the profile
Speaker 1: that they get and it's the police and the police
Speaker 1: start working on this type of killer and the media
Speaker 1: get hold of it. When we get back into part two,
Speaker 1: I want to talk about the use of the media
Speaker 1: and the work that you do and how to use
Speaker 1: the media properly, because I saw in the high profile
Speaker 1: cases over here that the media is a real strategy
Speaker 1: and a real tool, And any time I spoke in
Speaker 1: the media, I was speaking what I believe directly to
Speaker 1: the offender, and that was very strategic in the way
Speaker 1: that you approach it. So we might delve into that
Speaker 1: and quite a few other things if if that's something,
Speaker 1: So we'll take take a short break now, okay, m hm.