Speaker 1: The public has had a long held fascination with detectives.
Speaker 1: Detective sy aside of life. The average person is 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 talked 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. Today,
Speaker 1: I had a conversation about an area of criminal investigation
Speaker 1: I find fascinating. I sat down and spoke with doctor
Speaker 1: Nathan Brooks, who is a forensic psychologist. Although based overseas,
Speaker 1: we're fortunate enough to say speak with him in person today.
Speaker 1: Nathan discussed with a sum of the high profile and
Speaker 1: sensitive cases wherein acts of extreme violence, multiple people have
Speaker 1: been killed. We looked at these crimes, what caused these
Speaker 1: crimes and whether these crimes could have been prevented. I
Speaker 1: learned a lot from today's chat and I found it
Speaker 1: fascinating delving into the minds of people who cause unimaginable
Speaker 1: pain to victims and communities. We talked about serial killers
Speaker 1: and the emerging, frightening trend of lone actors responsible for
Speaker 1: mass casualties. Nathan gave me a fascinating insight into this world.
Speaker 1: Dr Nathan Brooks, Welcome to I Catch Killers.
Speaker 2: Gary. Thank you for having me.
Speaker 1: Well, I'm excited to have you on the podcast, and
Speaker 1: I know our listeners are fascinated by the type of
Speaker 1: work that you do, forensic psychology. It fascinates what goes
Speaker 1: on in the mind.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's a fascinating career and I've been really fortunate
Speaker 2: to find myself now in the police and look at
Speaker 2: the applic of that because it's really where forensic psychology
Speaker 2: gets to come to.
Speaker 1: The fore Yeah. I think so many people talk like
Speaker 1: I have a lot of people come up and say,
Speaker 1: how do you become a homicide detective? But just as
Speaker 1: many I'd love to work as a psychologist in that field.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I think the FBI shows and some of the
Speaker 2: Hollywood shows that we've seen over the years have really
Speaker 2: pushed and made people gravitate to wanting to become a
Speaker 2: forensic psychologist. The hard thing is it's a long road
Speaker 2: to get qualified, and even more challenging is once you
Speaker 2: get qualified, there's actually very few jobs around. If you
Speaker 2: wanted to get into the police, there's certainly lots of
Speaker 2: jobs working in the correctional space, but if you want
Speaker 2: to get into police, it's very hard.
Speaker 1: There's not many spots. We were fortunate that you talked
Speaker 1: about the FBI and that were fortunate that have Professor
Speaker 1: An Bergers on the show, but she the original mind
Speaker 1: Hunters working with John Douglas and that profile and offenders,
Speaker 1: and I found that chat fascinating.
Speaker 2: It is, I mean, it's remarkable, and I think we
Speaker 2: forget now that the work that they pioneered really around
Speaker 2: the early eighties nineteen eighties, it has paved the way
Speaker 2: for how we bring psychology into investigations now, and it's
Speaker 2: easy to forget that. I think time in decades passed
Speaker 2: and new people come along, but we forget that. You know,
Speaker 2: they set that up. But even if you do look
Speaker 2: at the FBI model now, a large part of the
Speaker 2: FBI is still around that behavioral analysis unit or team
Speaker 2: that they have, and there's four or five different branches
Speaker 2: to that now. So that really evolved for the FBI,
Speaker 2: and it certainly has changed the landscape a lot.
Speaker 1: Something that I picked up from the conversation I had
Speaker 1: with Anne about serial killing, and that was their focus
Speaker 1: to start with all serial offenders, but they're also looking
Speaker 1: at trying to profile the mass killings where people strike
Speaker 1: out and the lone actors. Do you agree that sort
Speaker 1: of landscapes changed in a way from serial killing into
Speaker 1: these mass killings.
Speaker 2: It certainly has, and the US, as it seems, with
Speaker 2: a lot of these really horrific crimes, has really been
Speaker 2: the place where we've seen some of those major differences
Speaker 2: in a shift. So there was the serial killers throughout
Speaker 2: the probably the nineteen seventies through to the nineteen nineties,
Speaker 2: which were really challenging over there, and we saw incidents
Speaker 2: of that across other countries across the world, but certainly
Speaker 2: not in the same severity or the same frequency. And
Speaker 2: then from around the nineteen nineties onwards to where we
Speaker 2: are today, there's gradually been a reduction in serial crime,
Speaker 2: but an increase in what we would say these mass
Speaker 2: casualty events, and they are occurring with really high frequency
Speaker 2: over in the US and then again across other international countries.
Speaker 2: We're seeing that the numbers are also rising at the
Speaker 2: same time.
Speaker 1: With serial killing. Do you think part of the practice
Speaker 1: of law enforcement agencies and a better understanding of it
Speaker 1: has in part the advantages we've got in forensic science
Speaker 1: and everything else that comes into play these days. Do
Speaker 1: you think that is a reason for the reduction.
Speaker 2: We've certainly seen with the forensic science, DNA, improved technology,
Speaker 2: mobile phones, CCTV, it's harder to go and commit crimes
Speaker 2: now without leaving some sort of trace or footprint. And
Speaker 2: when serial killing was really rife back in that eighties period,
Speaker 2: we didn't have some of those advancements, so that made
Speaker 2: it very easy for people to go undetected. At the
Speaker 2: same time, we've developed much more specialized expertise in policing,
Speaker 2: such as the Behavioral Analysis Unit in the FBI, and
Speaker 2: most countries now have some form of specialist unit for
Speaker 2: major crimes or serial offending. So I think technology and
Speaker 2: bringing in specialist experts has really changed the landscape around that.
Speaker 1: The rise of mass casualty type attacks that caused the
Speaker 1: chaos that they do in the tragedy that they do.
Speaker 1: My concern is how hard it is to anticipate those,
Speaker 1: and I know that's a lot of the work work
Speaker 1: that you do. Would you agree with that it's harder
Speaker 1: to anticipate that type of attack?
Speaker 2: It is tricky, as we'll probably talk about today. A
Speaker 2: lot has changed in how police approach that now. So
Speaker 2: for a long time, the police in response was always
Speaker 2: detect and intervene. So if there's an issue, will intervene,
Speaker 2: and generally that's by arresting or charging the person. Now
Speaker 2: the model's change to making sure that we can screen
Speaker 2: the issue, then try and understand the issue, then put
Speaker 2: some form of prevention in place, and then basically review
Speaker 2: that and then start again. So we've gotten to the
Speaker 2: place where we're much more proactive around that now rather
Speaker 2: than reactive, so we're not waiting for incidents to happen.
Speaker 2: And when we do identify people that are concerning it's
Speaker 2: about trying to understand the nature of that concern and
Speaker 2: then put some form of support and prevention process around them.
Speaker 2: But of course the limitation of that is we only
Speaker 2: know what we know, so we only know about the
Speaker 2: people that are coming through to us and we're getting
Speaker 2: the information around. If we don't get that though, and
Speaker 2: there's someone out there that we're unaware of, then we're
Speaker 2: very vulnerable.
Speaker 1: Okay. And the intervention side of it. I spent a
Speaker 1: long time in as a homicide detective and my frustration
Speaker 1: looking back at the career is that you come in
Speaker 1: when it's too late, unless you're working the case with
Speaker 1: a serial killer, but invariably it was a murder and
Speaker 1: you're coming in at the end. So this intervention identifying
Speaker 1: risk factors, I would imagine it'd be very rewarding.
Speaker 2: It's hard. I think you'd have to ask the police
Speaker 2: that are doing the real groundwork there because it has
Speaker 2: it's required police to nearly take on social worker type roles,
Speaker 2: which I think so probably fine, challenging or not necessarily
Speaker 2: what they got into the role for and realizing that
Speaker 2: exit to get out and talk to people and engage
Speaker 2: with them and be supportive and put plans in place
Speaker 2: and be available to talk to them if they need to,
Speaker 2: ring them, go outter coffee with them, try and help
Speaker 2: mold and shape them into a more pro social pathway.
Speaker 2: And get in front of them and change the way
Speaker 2: that they maybe perceive police. And I think that is
Speaker 2: why we're seeing some good results. But again, as I
Speaker 2: was mentioning before, it is only who we know that
Speaker 2: we get to do that response with.
Speaker 1: Okay, we've jumped straight into it. Let's find out a
Speaker 1: little bit about yourself. What got you into this field
Speaker 1: of expertise and what studies have you done to become
Speaker 1: a forensic psychologist.
Speaker 2: So study for a long time. I think I did
Speaker 2: about eleven years all up with the pH d, which
Speaker 2: I've never intended to at the beginning.
Speaker 1: Easy task.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And look, initially I probably went in a bit
Speaker 2: blind and thought psychology was interesting, and I was very
Speaker 2: much keen on sports psychology and the way things aligned.
Speaker 2: At the time, sports psychology wasn't available, so the option
Speaker 2: was really standard normal psychology where you sit there and
Speaker 2: talk to people, or forensic which seemed much more intriguing
Speaker 2: and exciting, and I gravitated to that and I liked
Speaker 2: the challenge. I was doing triflons at the time, so
Speaker 2: I was very probably goal focused and liked to be tested.
Speaker 2: And then as I got into forensic psychology, I then
Speaker 2: came across psychopaths, and I did my PhD on psychopaths,
Speaker 2: and it was fascinating because they were folks that did
Speaker 2: everything different to what normal people did. And you know,
Speaker 2: we grow up and we learn about people, but we
Speaker 2: don't really ever learn about psychopaths unless you've had certain
Speaker 2: experiences or challenging upbringing where you might have been targeted
Speaker 2: or victimized by them. But psychopaths are the ones that
Speaker 2: stay calm and cool under pres They are the ones
Speaker 2: that are a few steps ahead. And that was really
Speaker 2: intriguing to look at those fellows, and that kept me
Speaker 2: really pushing through forensic psychology and then wanting to work
Speaker 2: with high risk and high harm offenders that present with
Speaker 2: some pretty I think difficult offending behavior and difficult interpersonal styles.
Speaker 2: And so for much of my early career I spent
Speaker 2: a long time in the treatment space with probably thirty
Speaker 2: different offenders a week. I was working with for several
Speaker 2: years and then moved into specializing in higher sex offenders,
Speaker 2: and then had a brief stint working in academia lecturing
Speaker 2: in forensic psychology before jumping into the New Zealand Police.
Speaker 1: Where did you get the access to that many criminals
Speaker 1: to work with was that through creative services, So.
Speaker 2: Part of it was through coreative services, but I was
Speaker 2: working as a contracting forensic psychologists in a private capacity
Speaker 2: for quite a few years, and corrections are always needing
Speaker 2: private independent practitioners to assist them, but also to send
Speaker 2: them send offenders for treatment in the community. So a
Speaker 2: lot of it was there's the treatment aspect, but in
Speaker 2: many ways it's actually having conversations with offenders and trying
Speaker 2: to build a relationship with them where they haven't actually
Speaker 2: had a lot of stability or predictability in their life,
Speaker 2: and a lot of the time it's just holding space
Speaker 2: for them to actually feel like they could have a
Speaker 2: trusting relationship with someone and open up and talk about
Speaker 2: the problems in their life because many of them have
Speaker 2: never had that opportunity.
Speaker 1: Didn't have the people that they could turn to. No,
Speaker 1: the obvious question that I ask if you've done a
Speaker 1: PhD in psychopaths, nature and nurture, have you got a
Speaker 1: learning like that question gets asked so many times and
Speaker 1: different views.
Speaker 2: It's a combination of both. I don't think. I don't
Speaker 2: think exclusively it's genetics, but there's certainly a genetic aspect
Speaker 2: to that, and then the environment can either really dial
Speaker 2: up those traits and make them much more maladaptive or dysfunctional,
Speaker 2: or potentially it could keep them somewhat contained. I always
Speaker 2: go back to the scenario that you can have potentially
Speaker 2: the genetic makeup to be psychopathic, but if you've got
Speaker 2: a good upbringing, a good education, you learn pro social
Speaker 2: ways to express those tendencies. If you're able to go
Speaker 2: and do sport, if you're able to find ways to
Speaker 2: community Kate, it could be driving fast car, skydiving, you
Speaker 2: can find ways to manage those if you have a
Speaker 2: level of self awareness as well. I think people become
Speaker 2: very much handicapped though, if they have some of those
Speaker 2: tendencies and then they are also dealt with a difficult childhood,
Speaker 2: because it really puts that person on really a one
Speaker 2: way path to offending or something else.
Speaker 1: It's interesting you answer it that way. I had the
Speaker 1: fortune to speak to a neuroscientist from the United States
Speaker 1: that did pet scans on the whole range of people
Speaker 1: that were considered psychopaths, and they were some of the
Speaker 1: country's most notorious psychopaths that had been brought down for
Speaker 1: the crimes that they've done. And without going into the
Speaker 1: neuroscience because I've got no idea what I'm talking about.
Speaker 1: He basically said with a PET scan of their brain
Speaker 1: that they had a common feature in there. So he
Speaker 1: needed a reference point and did scans on people that
Speaker 1: weren't identified as a psychopath. James Fallon was his own. Yes,
Speaker 1: PET scanned his own brain and that had the same predisposition,
Speaker 1: all the same that features as the psychopaths. And he
Speaker 1: reasoned that he grew up in a loving environment, a
Speaker 1: nurturing environment where he was cared for and that and
Speaker 1: that probably steerred him in those formative years till the
Speaker 1: age of three or whatever, steered him in a direction.
Speaker 1: And then with the people that had the psychopaths that
Speaker 1: had played out in the criminal world, they didn't have
Speaker 1: that nurturing around them, they didn't have that family environment.
Speaker 1: They said that might make a difference. So I take
Speaker 1: on what you're saying that's a combination of both.
Speaker 2: Yeah, absolutely, and that his book's really interesting where he
Speaker 2: does talk about that. Yeah, he had the brain structure
Speaker 2: as he described to be the same as serial killers
Speaker 2: looking that he was assessing. But yeah, he certainly I
Speaker 2: think he says he pushed push, pushed lots of boundaries,
Speaker 2: and he could be quite dominant and overbearing at times.
Speaker 2: But yeah, it didn't go into becoming full fledged violence.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it was channeled in a positive way. Or he
Speaker 1: could talking to psychopaths. And you said, how some people
Speaker 1: that plays out? Is my understanding, it's just a general
Speaker 1: talk that you know, some of the headed industries are psychopaths,
Speaker 1: successful soldiers, all sorts of different even sportsmen, all sorts
Speaker 1: of personalities might have that psychopathic trait, but they stir
Speaker 1: it towards another thing. Is that Is that true?
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's interesting, you know, having a level of boldness
Speaker 2: and ruthlessness, some of those traits can be quite desirable
Speaker 2: for certain occupations, maybe even the police.
Speaker 1: I'm just pulling back on I was thinking that, but
Speaker 1: I'm not going to.
Speaker 2: And you do get some psychopathic folks that are skilled
Speaker 2: enough to again modify those traits and rather than going
Speaker 2: and violently stabbing someone, they might go and ruthlessly cul
Speaker 2: people in organizations. So there's some really interesting books. You know.
Speaker 2: John Ronson wrote a book and he talked about our
Speaker 2: Dunlap who has known aed Texas I think Texas chainsaw
Speaker 2: Our or something like that. Who would go into organizations
Speaker 2: and he worked for Sunbeam for a while and basically
Speaker 2: just he would just go in and cut and fire
Speaker 2: hundreds of employees in a very ruthless way. Bernie Madoff,
Speaker 2: who was the head of the Nasdaq ran I think
Speaker 2: it was a thirteen billion dollar ponzi scheme over a
Speaker 2: couple of decades over in New York. He's often considered
Speaker 2: the poster boy for corporate psychopaths. So we do see
Speaker 2: that Summer are quite capable of channeling those traits without
Speaker 2: needing to get their hands dirty in.
Speaker 1: That spec Understand what you're saying, Yeah, it's interesting and
Speaker 1: the different way they steer their life. So the work
Speaker 1: you do with New Zealand place, what'said involved? What do
Speaker 1: you engage with?
Speaker 2: So I'm an operational psychologist in our behavioral science unit
Speaker 2: over there, and we have two operational psychologist roles that
Speaker 2: serves the country and within that we also run the
Speaker 2: VY Class, so the Violent Crime Analysis Linkage system where
Speaker 2: we track stranger sex crimes across the country and that's
Speaker 2: got three analysts that are staffing that, and then we
Speaker 2: also have a sworn senior sergeant that sits over the
Speaker 2: top of our unit as well, and so our unit
Speaker 2: really is brought into major crime investigations to provide operational support,
Speaker 2: particularly when we have very serious crimes just homicide, could
Speaker 2: be terrorism offenses, major sexual offenses, all the way through
Speaker 2: to arsons and other sorts of offending, and we provide
Speaker 2: a range of different services. Sometimes it's very much advice
Speaker 2: on the fly as a homicide is evolving or emerging
Speaker 2: in the early stages of the investigation. Other times it
Speaker 2: will be risk assessments around what do we need to
Speaker 2: know about this person and how concerning are they to
Speaker 2: the community. We also occasionally will do the classic criminal
Speaker 2: profile of a who done at crime, but most of
Speaker 2: them are solved very quickly now so there's not the
Speaker 2: need for criminal profiles. And then also things like cold
Speaker 2: case reviews and a lot of work around interviewing as well.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I know you're familiar with her, doctor Sarah Ule.
Speaker 1: I work closely with her in New South Wales Police
Speaker 1: and I not use her on all the investigations I
Speaker 1: had some there wasn't a need for the role that
Speaker 1: she could fulfill, the tricky ones, the ones that it's
Speaker 1: not blatantly obvious for what has occurred here, or an
Speaker 1: interpretation of a crime scene as you said, or we've
Speaker 1: interviewing of what's the bets buttons to push? Is that
Speaker 1: Carrotle's stick? Which way to approach that? I found it
Speaker 1: so beneficial and I'm surprised, and I've been out of
Speaker 1: New South Wales Police for a couple of years. I
Speaker 1: don't know what the status is now, but we didn't
Speaker 1: properly resource that. Like I think it is a tool
Speaker 1: that can be really used in the difficult investigations. I
Speaker 1: see that's the role where you guys come in.
Speaker 2: I found that it is really well received and certainly
Speaker 2: over in New Zealand it's a major crimes the lead
Speaker 2: investigators and also the investigated team, but they often really
Speaker 2: are quite receptive of that advice. It's rare that we
Speaker 2: get pushed back, and I think that the challenges. Of course,
Speaker 2: it's your reputation and what you provide for a product
Speaker 2: and service. In some ways, people keep coming back to
Speaker 2: you if you provide good service, but if you provide
Speaker 2: you know, poor service, or go to sort of far
Speaker 2: one way or the other way, or you know, don't
Speaker 2: quite tailor it to what the investigation needs. The unit
Speaker 2: can become vulnerable in that respect. So it's there's a
Speaker 2: constant process there of needing to make sure what you're
Speaker 2: doing really holds up and supports investigations.
Speaker 1: And I think it's also important that investigators understand what
Speaker 1: you can bring to the investigation. Yes, I saw some
Speaker 1: misunderstandings in working with Sarah. Other investigators thought this is
Speaker 1: what they can provide to the investigation, but wasn't the
Speaker 1: type of thing that she could.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there's the risk that someone thinks that you're going
Speaker 2: to come out and say of it or find the
Speaker 2: magical clue. And you know, policing is as you know,
Speaker 2: it's a combination of different areas of specialty coming together
Speaker 2: to get the end product and the end outcome. And
Speaker 2: it's really you know, one person or one unit. It's
Speaker 2: a cumulative effort. And sometimes I think even if we're
Speaker 2: adding one percent towards helping the investigation and you've got
Speaker 2: another unit adding one percent, those small one percents come
Speaker 2: together and they can be the difference.
Speaker 1: They're the things that make a difference with a case
Speaker 1: being solved or not. You invariably get one shot at
Speaker 1: it and then if you miss it, and that one
Speaker 1: or two percent. But with Sarah, I found that what
Speaker 1: I liked working with a forensic psychologist was a different take,
Speaker 1: a different perspective. We get a little bit of group
Speaker 1: think in policing. We tend to think the same and
Speaker 1: it's good to have someone independent, someone outside the circle
Speaker 1: that looks at it from a different view. And quite
Speaker 1: often with Sarah, have you considered this? And I'd be
Speaker 1: looking at it. Go No, I haven't a very good idea, see,
Speaker 1: but I found that beneficial. It was a really powerful,
Speaker 1: powerful tool to have.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's good to sometimes have someone that can step
Speaker 2: back and bring that different perspective. And often psychologists are
Speaker 2: going to look at the person and try and in
Speaker 2: some ways deconstruct the puzzle and then rebuild it and
Speaker 2: look at what does that then give us for the investigation,
Speaker 2: So that might be understanding the functionality of the behavior
Speaker 2: all the way through to let's go and approach the
Speaker 2: person and try this style of engagement, because that's the
Speaker 2: type of individual they are. And if we go in
Speaker 2: really hot and in our suits and quite brazen and
Speaker 2: kick the door in, that's not going to get their
Speaker 2: response and they're not going to engage with this and
Speaker 2: then we're going to miss the opportunity to interview with them.
Speaker 1: Serial killing, the type of investigations we're talking about. I
Speaker 1: read your book Mass Casually over the weekend and it's
Speaker 1: you me up to speed on quite a few things,
Speaker 1: and I found a fascinating, fascinating read and putting sort
Speaker 1: of might take in it from a homicide detective and
Speaker 1: your thoughts and theories. What I found particularly interesting was
Speaker 1: the onset of the loan actors in the way that
Speaker 1: they're starting to leave their mark. Sadly, because when someone
Speaker 1: commits an offense of mass casual these a lot of
Speaker 1: lives are destroyed. What's your involvement in that type of work?
Speaker 2: So our unit really is the main unit within New
Speaker 2: Zealand that would service persons of concern, whether it be
Speaker 2: a sort of a fixation or grievance point of view,
Speaker 2: or also a terrorism aspect. So we would provide the
Speaker 2: operational consultation on those matters. And that's an ongoing area
Speaker 2: as it is in Australia, where there's people that are
Speaker 2: often presenting with concerns or concerning behaviors and the task
Speaker 2: then is to try and understand the extent of that concern.
Speaker 2: I always think it's good to boil it down to
Speaker 2: looking at two factors, so their intent and their capability.
Speaker 2: So do they have the intent to act violently or
Speaker 2: the intent to act on these concerning thoughts or beliefs
Speaker 2: or whatever they might be exhibiting, and do they have
Speaker 2: the capability to progress with that behavior? So that might
Speaker 2: be all the way through to the capability to carry
Speaker 2: out an attack, capability to plan, the capability to resource.
Speaker 2: So where they sit on the intent and capability scale
Speaker 2: is important. And then of course as the intent increases
Speaker 2: and the capability increases, then we get quite concerned.
Speaker 1: Right. If I can refer to a couple of things
Speaker 1: from the book, that one that I found particularly interesting
Speaker 1: was the Toronto vehicle ramming attack where a number of
Speaker 1: people A person that's gotten in the.
Speaker 2: Car, Alec Manassian.
Speaker 1: That's the one twenty five year old killing eleven people
Speaker 1: and then during fifteen others. Could you just describe what
Speaker 1: happened and then we'll break that investigation down.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So he was a twenty five year old. He
Speaker 2: was studying I can't remember the exact I think it
Speaker 2: was a computer science degree and had just graduated and
Speaker 2: was about to start his first first day of professional
Speaker 2: work for his career, and he heed a van. He
Speaker 2: made the decision to book that a couple of weeks earlier,
Speaker 2: picked it up and drove into downtown Toronto and through
Speaker 2: a heavy pedestrian area in the city and struck numerous
Speaker 2: people so killed eleven, injured fifteen, and initially they thought
Speaker 2: it was an Islamic inspired attack. Once they had him
Speaker 2: in custody, they then began to look through his various
Speaker 2: online accounts and discovered a really interesting post that he'd
Speaker 2: made earlier that morning which talked about this in cell rebellion.
Speaker 2: And I've spoken with Rob Thomas, who was the lead
Speaker 2: interviewer of Manassian, and he mentioned that a lot of
Speaker 2: the planning went into preparing for an Islamic state type
Speaker 2: of offender. And then as the day progressed, they discovered
Speaker 2: that it was actually this in cell ideology that had
Speaker 2: been a heavy motivating factor for that, and that really
Speaker 2: was I think one of the first public examples that
Speaker 2: we got of an in cell and spied attack. It
Speaker 2: was sort of known, I guess in the underground space
Speaker 2: and in online forums, but it really brought it to
Speaker 2: the fore and that then interview of Manassin where he
Speaker 2: talks about chad's and stacy.
Speaker 1: Fascinate fascinating breakdown what the in cels are for people
Speaker 1: that don't know.
Speaker 2: So in cells are those that are self described as
Speaker 2: being involuntarily celibate, so they're unable to find a sexual
Speaker 2: or intimate part. And they would say that that it's
Speaker 2: forced on them in many ways due to the social
Speaker 2: hierarchy and social structure. And this is where it gets
Speaker 2: a little distorted in a little extreme, where they attribute
Speaker 2: that to basically a set group of men having access
Speaker 2: to the majority, so roughly eighty percent of the women.
Speaker 2: So these our for males with the chisel jewels and
Speaker 2: abs and biceps of the chads, and the blonde barbie
Speaker 2: type as you know, as you imagine, is known as
Speaker 2: the staceys. And so it's really this hierarchy of chads
Speaker 2: and Staceys, and the in cells want to be aut
Speaker 2: to date and have sex with the staceys, but because
Speaker 2: of the sort of social and evolutionary nature, they're unable to.
Speaker 2: So there's also another level, which is the Bicki's that
Speaker 2: kind of a step or rank below staceis, and the
Speaker 2: in cells don't desire the Beckies, they want the they
Speaker 2: want the Staceys. And we also have normies as well
Speaker 2: that sit above above in cells and normis are the
Speaker 2: ones that are not necessarily attractive and not necessarily succeeding.
Speaker 2: They're kind of just floating by in life. And underneath
Speaker 2: them are the in cells who are basically deprived of
Speaker 2: all the joys and successes in life because they've been
Speaker 2: disadvantaged by looks and various other aspects. And as you
Speaker 2: step back, it's just it blows your mind, because it's
Speaker 2: a bit like you're reading a teenage science fiction magazine
Speaker 2: or its game characters in some sort of sci fi
Speaker 2: sci fi game. And but we've seen so many of
Speaker 2: these ideologies that have even the Sovereign Citizen movement for example,
Speaker 2: where there's all these different rules and laws and norms,
Speaker 2: and it's very confusing to get your head around.
Speaker 1: Do you think they're on the increase or decrease in Australia.
Speaker 2: It's a hard one to answer whether they are on
Speaker 2: the increase. I certainly don't think that the numbers are
Speaker 2: reducing at all. We're seeing more and more just fringe
Speaker 2: social groups are attracting people, and people are identifying with
Speaker 2: others on an online space because they are not having
Speaker 2: those face to face conversations now. So I think in
Speaker 2: cell culture and those that are struggling with socially and
Speaker 2: also on intimate relationships maybe conversing with others in these groups,
Speaker 2: I don't think we're necessarily seeing any more violent or
Speaker 2: misogynistic views increases or directly from these groups at the present.
Speaker 2: I think the numbers are staying pretty stable around about
Speaker 2: that five percent, but we may be seeing more people
Speaker 2: that are identifying with the underlying themes and messages around that.
Speaker 1: I wonder with the advent of dating apps that seems
Speaker 1: to be the norm of people meeting people these days,
Speaker 1: and the picture of the profile and all that, a
Speaker 1: lot of people be getting rejected without even understanding who
Speaker 1: they are or what they are, and I can see
Speaker 1: some resentment perhaps building building from that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think that that's a piece that probably hasn't
Speaker 2: really been answered. And you raise a really good point.
Speaker 2: You know, what's the implication of not only face to
Speaker 2: face rejection but online rejection as well, and how does
Speaker 2: that amplify that. An interesting point is we've got in cells.
Speaker 2: There's also fem cells, which are female in cells, and
Speaker 2: I think a couple of years ago I saw it.
Speaker 1: Can't we put the in cells together with them?
Speaker 2: Well, it's the females that are having a similar challenges
Speaker 2: and they're not liking the available males to them, and
Speaker 2: they are involuntarily celibate. And yeah, I saw recently, you know,
Speaker 2: there was a TikTok I think with twenty six million
Speaker 2: likes or hashtags around fem cells. So we're certainly seeing
Speaker 2: more and more unusual and maybe fringe sort of groups
Speaker 2: popping up.
Speaker 1: Well, see how it plays out because the social norm
Speaker 1: has changed, isn't the way that only in the last
Speaker 1: a couple of decades. It's changed significantly how people used
Speaker 1: to meet and because like the in cell's sitting in
Speaker 1: isolation and what you described, you can picture many lonely
Speaker 1: people in that situation. But the world is set up
Speaker 1: now that they can reach out and that their views
Speaker 1: can be validated, so they can get on social media
Speaker 1: or what they're before them, and their views can be
Speaker 1: magnified by the people that are supporting their ideologies. Is
Speaker 1: that a fair or a simplistic assessment of it?
Speaker 2: Well, I think we're finding more and more groups pop
Speaker 2: up and various online communities now that people are identifying
Speaker 2: with and that's okay because it's not necessarily unhealthy. So
Speaker 2: jumping onto an insell forum by itself is not a problem.
Speaker 2: But there's been debate around, particularly in Australia or in
Speaker 2: New Zealand, you should in cell forums or even identifying
Speaker 2: with the in cell ideology be classified as terrorism at
Speaker 2: the moment. It's not. What the research tends to say
Speaker 2: is it's about five percent of people that are on
Speaker 2: in cell forums that are very misogynistic and promoting quite
Speaker 2: violent rhetoric towards females. So it is only a small proportion.
Speaker 2: Where we get worried though, is there's always someone out
Speaker 2: there that may be very vulnerable though to those ideas
Speaker 2: and that messaging and then progress to carry out a
Speaker 2: violent act.
Speaker 1: Well, I suppose, And we're not saying that that initially
Speaker 1: thought as a terrorist attack, but it's not being called
Speaker 1: a terrorist attack. But that's very similar to how terrorist
Speaker 1: groups bring in the extremists, isn't it, yeh, a shared
Speaker 1: ideology that they've got like minded people and then it
Speaker 1: starts to escalate from there.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and it doesn't necessarily need to be in ideology,
Speaker 2: we're seeing more and more people that are just promoting
Speaker 2: just violent, violent intentions, self harm, the idea of trying
Speaker 2: to dominate others. The FBI recently talked about the seven six'
Speaker 2: four group that are basically a group that are promoting
Speaker 2: dominance and control and satanistic. Practices there's a right wing
Speaker 2: sort of white, supremacy lean and Neo nazi spect to,
Speaker 2: it but a lot of it is about trying to
Speaker 2: get absolute dominance and control over, someone so that may
Speaker 2: be getting someone to self harm or make engravings on
Speaker 2: themselves of someone's, initials all the way through to encouraging
Speaker 2: them and trying to basically coerce them into carrying out
Speaker 2: a violet. Acts, so, unfortunately we're seeing with the rise
Speaker 2: of The internet and certain subcultures that we are getting
Speaker 2: more and more pockets of violence emerging with.
Speaker 1: That, okay with The toronto, massacre was there any red
Speaker 1: flags or indicators that when we look back and hindsight
Speaker 1: it's a wonderful, Thing but is there anything that jumps
Speaker 1: out to. You we've identified in cell was the seed
Speaker 1: that generated the, Attack but was there any things that
Speaker 1: warning signs that you could see looking at.
Speaker 2: It it's really tricky looking back at that one Because Alec,
Speaker 2: menassian he was a fellow that had struggled throughout his.
Speaker 2: Schooling he had an autistic spectrum, disorder never really was
Speaker 2: able to form strong social. Relationships he was bullied throughout
Speaker 2: his schooling even though he was quite intellectual and quite academically.
Speaker 2: Successful socially he. Struggled but he wasn't talking openly in
Speaker 2: person to anyone about his ideological positions or his views
Speaker 2: about Female it was largely done from the confines of his.
Speaker 2: Room and that is the. Challenge so our responses to lone,
Speaker 2: actors it has improved a, lot but it is very
Speaker 2: contingent on information. Flows so With, manassian the challenge there
Speaker 2: was he basically was, isolated kipt to, himself wasn't sharing
Speaker 2: this and planned it in. Secrecy and, again you, know
Speaker 2: someone Like Anders bravic over In norway is a very
Speaker 2: good example where we do occasionally get what we would
Speaker 2: say are Black swan types of, incidents so outlies where
Speaker 2: we don't get a lot of leaked information or shared
Speaker 2: information with others about and.
Speaker 1: You're talking that the concert At norway is that the So.
Speaker 2: Anders bravic in twenty, eleven carried out that the bombing
Speaker 2: at the news at The Norwegian government building and then
Speaker 2: got on a boat To Utoya island and went over
Speaker 2: there it was a young labor party camp and carried
Speaker 2: out the mass shooting there AND i think it was
Speaker 2: around around seventy seven people that he killed in.
Speaker 1: Total and he you were saying and then sorry in
Speaker 1: the rupted you just to clarify the. Event but he
Speaker 1: was very, isolated was.
Speaker 2: He so he spent years preparing and planning for that.
Speaker 2: Attack he he used his savings to basically, plan, prepare
Speaker 2: purchase various tops of, ingredients, firearms tactical equipment over a
Speaker 2: number of, years trained himself in using, weapons groundown fertilizer
Speaker 2: pellets for several months to create a bomb that he
Speaker 2: set off in The Norwegian government building and used multiple
Speaker 2: different sort of aliases, online have packages delivered in certain
Speaker 2: locations and in other locations with various bits of. Equipment
Speaker 2: so he wasn't an exceptional outlier because he was so
Speaker 2: meticulously planned and he viewed it very much as a
Speaker 2: cat and mouse game with police where he was intending
Speaker 2: to carry out this mass casualty, attack but at the
Speaker 2: same time he was preparing like a warrior and trying
Speaker 2: to keep any types of warnings to the minimum to
Speaker 2: not alert.
Speaker 1: Authorities, okay with the view of not being. Caught isolation
Speaker 1: seems to be one of the. Things and isolation is. Hard,
Speaker 1: well you can't legislate against, isolation but it seems to
Speaker 1: be a common theme in these people that or in an,
Speaker 1: event and that could be a breakup of a. RELATIONSHIP
Speaker 1: i Had Tim watson mun On The Criminal psychologist talking
Speaker 1: about The Hottle street massacre where a person that was
Speaker 1: rejected in the army his car broke. Down it was
Speaker 1: sort of a build up when you look at it looking,
Speaker 1: backwards you, go, okay this was, okay there's breaking point
Speaker 1: and all of a sudden the. Damage the damage is
Speaker 1: done with a lot of these a lot of these.
Speaker 1: Things it is the. Isolation so how do we encourage
Speaker 1: people to come forward if someone's acting, strangely if they're,
Speaker 1: isolated it's very hard to pick up.
Speaker 2: On, yeah there's a couple. ASPECTS i think fixations are,
Speaker 2: important grievances and then the isolation component that you spoke
Speaker 2: about as.
Speaker 1: Well fixation grievances and.
Speaker 2: Isolation, yes, yeah and the isolation as tricky as, well
Speaker 2: because what we find is that a lot of lone
Speaker 2: actors do have social, interactions so they're not isolated in
Speaker 2: the traditional sense where they have no conversations with anyone
Speaker 2: and they're just sitting at home. Alone many will have
Speaker 2: supportive family. Members they may even be in a, relationship
Speaker 2: but what's missing is the social, Reciprocity so they don't
Speaker 2: get the same things out of social relationships that often
Speaker 2: you AND i, Would so they don't get their enjoyment
Speaker 2: out of the. Relationship they don't feel that strong sense
Speaker 2: of connection or. Longing so there's often something just missing
Speaker 2: there that makes them feel isolated and disconnected from, others
Speaker 2: rather than the classic sense of this person's just isolated
Speaker 2: and not around.
Speaker 1: Others, okay so even in an environment they can internally feel, yes,
Speaker 1: yeah we're referring to these people for the mass casualties
Speaker 1: as loan. Actors it used to be called lone. Wolf
Speaker 1: what was the logic behind the changing of the way
Speaker 1: that we identify, This, Yeah SO.
Speaker 2: I think around the nineteen nineties late, nineties THE us
Speaker 2: were populating the turn lone wolf and it got a
Speaker 2: bit of pushback because it added a level of mysteriousness
Speaker 2: to these, fellows and you, know they were someone that
Speaker 2: was planning in secrecy and carrying out a, mission and
Speaker 2: the sort of mystique ended up in some WAYS i
Speaker 2: think fueling them. Encouraging, yeah, Absolutely and that was then
Speaker 2: rebranded really probably in the academic space to loan, actors
Speaker 2: so those that basically are acting alone or with minimal outside.
Speaker 2: Influence and we cavet at that though now BECAUSE i
Speaker 2: would say that it's those that are self initiating towards
Speaker 2: violence and they're not doing that at the direction of someone,
Speaker 2: else but they could very easily be online communicating in
Speaker 2: a group and getting ideas or sharing extreme views with.
Speaker 2: People so they are self initiating to, violence but they
Speaker 2: may not be loan or alone in that classical.
Speaker 1: SENSE i think that there's an importance and it always
Speaker 1: worries me AND i now work in the media coming
Speaker 1: from law, enforcement if we give too much of a
Speaker 1: profile to someone who's committed a horrendous. Crime AND i
Speaker 1: think lone wolf could be a pretty Cool i'm a lone.
Speaker 1: Wolf the lone actor doesn't sound quite as. Cool and
Speaker 1: when you talk about the one, percent that might be
Speaker 1: the one. Percent that makes a difference that someone that
Speaker 1: doesn't get a fantasy about being seen as a lone.
Speaker 2: Wolf, yeah AND i Think australia And New zealand have
Speaker 2: done it pretty. Well certainly over in THE us with
Speaker 2: the high rates of school shooting as workplace, incidents there's
Speaker 2: just this constant stream of news coverage which really sort
Speaker 2: of sensationalizes the action in some.
Speaker 1: Ways with loan actors my, understanding and most of the
Speaker 1: play out in the media tend to be. Male is
Speaker 1: there a predominance of male loan actors or can? Female
Speaker 1: is there female loan actors as?
Speaker 2: Well looks mostly. Males it's quite heavily steered towards. Males
Speaker 2: around about ninety to ninety five percent of loan actor
Speaker 2: attackers are. MALE a good example of a female probably
Speaker 2: here In australia would have Been Momina schomer down In,
Speaker 2: victoria WHO i think is the first female charged with
Speaker 2: the terrorism In, australia and she stabbed her homestay, host
Speaker 2: obviously identifying with The Islamic jehardy ideology and had influences
Speaker 2: from several others that were affiliated with Other islamic based,
Speaker 2: attacks but she traveled solely To australia to carry out an.
Speaker 1: Attack did she tax and mind in custody as? Well
Speaker 1: there was another attack and the sister over yep from
Speaker 1: their homeland attacked the police officer of making.
Speaker 2: The year your spot. On so she, RECENTLY i think
Speaker 2: it was a Blonde canadian female in custody that she
Speaker 2: attacked and afterwards made comments About allah would be happy
Speaker 2: with her for, THAT i think with a pair of gardening.
Speaker 2: Shares and then, yeah the time that she was, charged
Speaker 2: police over there went to speak with her sister and
Speaker 2: when they arrived at the, door the sister came out
Speaker 2: with a knife and tried to attack the. Officers, no
Speaker 2: it was.
Speaker 1: The fact that both sisters continents apart that there's something
Speaker 1: that's got into their ideology and going out the.
Speaker 2: Attacks, yeah AND i think that the differences with males
Speaker 2: and females in respect to this form of violence probably
Speaker 2: is very similar to what we see with a lot
Speaker 2: of different forms of. Offending, yeah you, know males are
Speaker 2: often the ones doing the more serious, homicides and they
Speaker 2: certainly perpetrate homicides at at much higher rates than. Females
Speaker 2: and in some, ways you, know males tend to act
Speaker 2: out their emotions and females are often internalizing. Those SO
Speaker 2: i think we see different ways of coping with emotion
Speaker 2: and dealing with. Problems and for, men when they have,
Speaker 2: struggles it is acted out and it's, expressed often in harmful,
Speaker 2: ways in quite destructive. Ways and we do talk about
Speaker 2: there being copycat effects and it can take.
Speaker 1: IT i was going to ask, that like when you
Speaker 1: see a series and then shortly after there's another, one
Speaker 1: and especially in THE, US i think we're all aware
Speaker 1: of that with the school, shootings and do you think
Speaker 1: that that the copy can come into?
Speaker 2: PLAY i no doubt that we've seen many attacks that
Speaker 2: have been copied over the, years and As Bravic Brenton
Speaker 2: tarrant In New zealand have certainly given inspiration and also
Speaker 2: tactical knowledge to other perpetrators that have then gone on
Speaker 2: to carry out attacks after. That we also probably have
Speaker 2: a contagion aspect as, well you, know like the social.
Speaker 2: Contagion and for a long time media outlets didn't report
Speaker 2: suicides because suicides are known to have a contagion, aspect
Speaker 2: where if you've got friends that then others that know
Speaker 2: that person that at increased risk of, suicide particularly they've
Speaker 2: got mental health. Vulnerabilities we know that if suicides are
Speaker 2: in the, media it actually leads to people thinking about
Speaker 2: the idea. More AND i think no doubt that it's
Speaker 2: a similar thing with mass casualty. Attacks that the more
Speaker 2: that we see that people are trying to resolve life
Speaker 2: problems in this, way then the more it. Normalize it
Speaker 2: normalizes that and that's quite.
Speaker 1: Frightening, yeah, well you saw it with, schools and with
Speaker 1: schools if a child has committed, suicide it was always
Speaker 1: a concern that other, kids friends and all, that and
Speaker 1: it's something that you, know, again if we can will
Speaker 1: it back or reduce minimize the risk factors all the.
Speaker 1: Better terrorism has distinct from low and actors BECAUSE i
Speaker 1: think we've all been caught up in you, know we're
Speaker 1: living in times when there are terrorist attacks and have
Speaker 1: been some significant, ones and then the loan actor attacks
Speaker 1: and sometimes they get a little bit caught. Up it's
Speaker 1: all the same, thing, like if it's a mass casually
Speaker 1: it must be a terrorist. Attack what's the difference between the.
Speaker 2: Two, yeah it's a really good. Question and in some
Speaker 2: ways terrorism is more at a legislative criminal prosecution. Level
Speaker 2: we often see that there's many common, threads so there
Speaker 2: could be fixations and grievances and. Ideologies, now it's often
Speaker 2: the presence of an ideology that leads to something being
Speaker 2: classified as, terrorism and we also look at it in
Speaker 2: terms of what was the intended outcome and often is
Speaker 2: there an intention to create social and political, change and
Speaker 2: that's often where the ideology is paired with, that and
Speaker 2: that would then become classified as. Terrorism we've seen, though
Speaker 2: that many mess casualty attacks are not perpetrated with clear
Speaker 2: intentions to create social and political. Change they are instead
Speaker 2: a result of grievances or fixations and other, factors sometimes
Speaker 2: coupled with aspects of, ideology but they don't necessarily meet
Speaker 2: the classification for. Terrorism so it is a bit of
Speaker 2: a fine, line AND i think the risk is we
Speaker 2: focus too much on terrorism and miss that there's actually
Speaker 2: more universal threads amongst all of these. Individuals and sometimes
Speaker 2: it's terrors, specific but other times it's just intended to
Speaker 2: really be a form of revenge, retribution trying to restore
Speaker 2: natural order or response to perceived.
Speaker 1: Injustice, well i'd take on board what you said earlier
Speaker 1: on about, grievances how that plays a, part and that's you,
Speaker 1: know we've all been slighted in some, way and there's
Speaker 1: ways of dealing with your anger and your, grievances but
Speaker 1: you can imagine people that haven't got the emotional skills
Speaker 1: to handle. That it just becomes a fixation That i've been,
Speaker 1: Wronged i'm going to get.
Speaker 2: Revenge, Yeah and we talk about querulous individuals to those
Speaker 2: that just constantly make complaints that are unable to be,
Speaker 2: pleased that are distrusting and suspicious and. Paranoid and, look
Speaker 2: there are people out there like, that but they don't
Speaker 2: ever resort to. Violence and that really raises the question
Speaker 2: around what is it that is tipping people over the into,
Speaker 2: Violence and it's often it is the violent. Identification so
Speaker 2: they start in some way trying to see themselves as
Speaker 2: someone that's going to make a big statement to bring
Speaker 2: an ultimate conclusion to an, event and then we do
Speaker 2: pair that with ideology in certain, times then we really
Speaker 2: get this quite sort OF i, guess concerning mix or
Speaker 2: factors that come. Together and one of the MODELS i
Speaker 2: quite like is this idea of the bathtub, model where.
Speaker 1: It was bath tub all the, staircase the staircase you explain.
Speaker 1: THAT i found that quite.
Speaker 2: Interesting so the bath tub is the idea that we
Speaker 2: have a couple of different water faucets that are pouring
Speaker 2: into a bath, tub and that can be different motivating.
Speaker 2: Factors so sometimes it's sometimes it's, political sometimes it's personal,
Speaker 2: factors sometimes it's social, factors and they gradually pour in
Speaker 2: over time and fill up the bath. Tub it might
Speaker 2: be that your relationship breaks, down you get fired at,
Speaker 2: work you then start looking at concerning media on the,
Speaker 2: internet and gradually they all just.
Speaker 1: Or three of. Those, sorry, no you're not looking at.
Speaker 1: Me i'm not going to do, Anything so.
Speaker 2: Start filling up the. Bathtub and where it goes wrong
Speaker 2: is there's no release style on the, bathtub so it
Speaker 2: just fills up over. Time and EXAMPLE i used in
Speaker 2: the book of that Was Thomas, mayor who Kills Joe
Speaker 2: cox over in THE, uk and he's a guy that
Speaker 2: had long term right wing Neo nazi views and they
Speaker 2: just simmled away for roughly twenty. Years but then When
Speaker 2: brexit came, about that really just fueled things for him
Speaker 2: that tipped him over the. Edge and then we look
Speaker 2: at something like the, staircase and that looks at really
Speaker 2: how things transform for someone over. Time and the idea
Speaker 2: is that you walk into the base of the. Staircase
Speaker 2: so you walk into the first door because things are
Speaker 2: not quite going right or the way that you'll you
Speaker 2: want them to in, life and you walk into the
Speaker 2: door looking for an, answer looking for a, solution and
Speaker 2: you get to the first level or the ground, floor
Speaker 2: and then if you don't find any solutions, there you
Speaker 2: walk up the next, level and, gradually as you keep
Speaker 2: going up the, levels your options narrow and Violence, ultimately
Speaker 2: once you get to the fifth, level becomes the only
Speaker 2: solution and the last resort answer to your. Problems so
Speaker 2: we see that as the person climbs the, staircase not
Speaker 2: only do the options and solutions, dwindle but they're thinking
Speaker 2: about the situation changes and they come to accept that
Speaker 2: the only way through this or the only justifiable response.
Speaker 1: Is violence and breaking it down in the simple concept
Speaker 1: of the bath tub and the. Staircase does that help
Speaker 1: a lot of the times you might be doing the thread,
Speaker 1: assessment is that the type of thing that you're looking
Speaker 1: at the build up or, okay how dangerous AND i
Speaker 1: really take on. Board one of the aspects that you
Speaker 1: say is, capability because that's a big. FACTOR i look
Speaker 1: from a homicide investigator point of, view opportunity made even,
Speaker 1: capability could have the, opportunity could have the, motive but
Speaker 1: if they haven't got the, Capability so that's another fact
Speaker 1: that comes into.
Speaker 2: It it is an unfortunately capability though is becoming as
Speaker 2: we've seen with say The BOND dii junction. Attack now
Speaker 2: it's just a, cheap easy available weapon and someone can
Speaker 2: do an enormous amount of. Harm but we don't dismiss
Speaker 2: capability because it is still very, important and things like
Speaker 2: the Cross church attack highlight something like capability. Factors but
Speaker 2: we do need to balance that then with, intent so you,
Speaker 2: know how strongly is this or how strong is this person's,
Speaker 2: Intent and then if we are concerned about the, intent
Speaker 2: well then we know that they could be capable of
Speaker 2: doing a low capability. Attack so it is a bit
Speaker 2: of a balancing act where we need to look at all.
Speaker 2: FACTORS i always, think how died up are the dial
Speaker 2: for this? Individual how concerned do we need to? Be
Speaker 2: so as you, know the more concerning things that we,
Speaker 2: see then, generally as a loose, principle you would be
Speaker 2: you'd be saying that you, know there's a lot of
Speaker 2: risk or threat that needs to be mitigated here.
Speaker 1: Looking at just pick a, case if you'd be familiar
Speaker 1: with The linp cafe With Man, Momus, yes looking back
Speaker 1: that and people know we've spoken about on here we
Speaker 1: had one of the hostages from the siege that was
Speaker 1: in the cafe the whole time and some of the police.
Speaker 1: Involved but looking At Man, momus like you look back
Speaker 1: and you go red, flag red, flag red. Flag but that's.
Speaker 1: Hindsight it's a wonderful. Thing is there anything that you
Speaker 1: see in that if you're familiar with it at? All
Speaker 1: something About Man momis's background that if you were assessing
Speaker 1: him prior to him committing this, offense is what sort
Speaker 1: of vindicators would concern?
Speaker 2: You, yeah that's, look that's a really good. Question and
Speaker 2: the coronial inquest that looked at The Link cafe siege
Speaker 2: had some really good findings and one of them was
Speaker 2: the need for a Fixated Threat Assessment, center which came
Speaker 2: into place in twenty seventeen In New South wales AND
Speaker 2: i Think queensland was the first state to bring that
Speaker 2: in Because monus he had the grievance and the fixation
Speaker 2: And Michelle, pathay who's done a lot of work in
Speaker 2: the F tach space and set up The queensland F
Speaker 2: tach and also The VICTORIAN. TACH i saw a presentation
Speaker 2: that she did and she talked About monus and we
Speaker 2: looked at him through the terrorism. Lens and that's one
Speaker 2: of the biggest shortfalls probably of our management or response
Speaker 2: To monus was he was a fixated and grievance fueled.
Speaker 2: Individual but we were making all our assessments and judgments
Speaker 2: on him based on is he a whole risk of
Speaker 2: a terrorism? Offense and the worry was that wein we're
Speaker 2: missing him as a person and what was actually motivating
Speaker 2: and driving? Him and so it was the grievance and
Speaker 2: the need for notoriety and significance rather than the presence
Speaker 2: of a strong. Ideology so we got caught up in
Speaker 2: does he have the ideology and the desire to act
Speaker 2: violently for that, ideology rather than is this an individual
Speaker 2: that's got the psychological makeup and the psychological factors that
Speaker 2: are fueling him towards? Violence AND i think now looking
Speaker 2: back at, that we've seen that had you, know the
Speaker 2: emergence of f tax and more specialized, police particularly you
Speaker 2: know psychologists and. Psychiatrists we've come a long way since.
Speaker 1: Then, yeah looking for the dangers of those fixated. PERSONS
Speaker 1: a lot of the work that you're doing now and
Speaker 1: break it down into prevention and. Intervention And i've just
Speaker 1: got some of the discussion points here policing. STRATEGIES i
Speaker 1: suppose you touched in part on that that the way
Speaker 1: we were looking at man momus was more from a
Speaker 1: terrorist point of view than a fixated person with a
Speaker 1: grievance that might play out risk. Assessments that's the work
Speaker 1: that you're. In break us down for a risk. Assessment
Speaker 1: what IF i was seeing here GOING i am so
Speaker 1: angry at The New South Wales police for how my
Speaker 1: career came to an, end what sort of assessments would
Speaker 1: you be making without getting too? Personal MAYBE i should
Speaker 1: have used another, example but, Okay i'm, angry BUT i
Speaker 1: think my, Situation i'll just move on and get on
Speaker 1: with my. Life another. Chapter so what type of things
Speaker 1: would be a warning sign to?
Speaker 2: You and that's part of, it isn't is that rigidity
Speaker 2: and the cognitive. Rigidity do you have the ability to
Speaker 2: think about other, options other, solutions other ways of coping
Speaker 2: or is it tunneling down to you becoming very fixed
Speaker 2: and very stuck and very fueled by this? Injustice and
Speaker 2: so we do look at we look at factors like.
Speaker 2: Fixation how psychologically preoccupied is someone with this issue or this?
Speaker 2: Person how aggrieved are they so how strong is that
Speaker 2: grievance for some of these folks that they wake up
Speaker 2: every day living and breeding. This then you look at the,
Speaker 2: intent so you, know do they have an intent to
Speaker 2: progress that? Issue and then do they have the capability
Speaker 2: to act on? That so that is a simple way
Speaker 2: of looking at. It another way is to think about
Speaker 2: it from a threat perspective and Read, malloy who's a
Speaker 2: forensic psychiatrist over in THE us has done some really
Speaker 2: good work and he talks about eight key warning. Behaviors
Speaker 2: and so the first one's, pathway so is the evidence
Speaker 2: of planning and preparation for some sort of. Act we
Speaker 2: then have, fixation so that psychological. Preoccupation then there is,
Speaker 2: identification so is the person experiencing a shift in their
Speaker 2: identity so that they are now starting to see themselves
Speaker 2: more as a as a warrior or someone that's being
Speaker 2: driven towards a. Mission so often that commando type of
Speaker 2: identity that they're developing novel. Aggression so are they engaging
Speaker 2: anything to test their ability to the? Results how we
Speaker 2: also have. Leakage so have they made any remarks to
Speaker 2: anyone about an intent to carry out an active? Harm
Speaker 2: we have a directly communicated threat as? Well have they
Speaker 2: made any threats to? Anyone last resort as? Well so last?
Speaker 2: Resorts often have they reached their end of?
Speaker 1: Tether is?
Speaker 2: This are they at the position where they think.
Speaker 1: This, loss loss of family and just what else have
Speaker 1: they got left in the?
Speaker 2: Eye this is never going to be, resolved AND i
Speaker 2: need to do something about. IT i need to make
Speaker 2: a final statement and make my. Mark and often that
Speaker 2: making your mark is often quite crucial in this in
Speaker 2: these sorts of, offenses because unfortunately we see that it's
Speaker 2: often people that don't have significance that are wanting, significance
Speaker 2: and that the act becomes part of gaining that. Significance,
Speaker 2: okay it's, interesting that's.
Speaker 1: FASCINATING i love like the structure you put into such
Speaker 1: a because it's such a gray area with so many different.
Speaker 1: Layers but you actually need the, structure don't. You, well
Speaker 1: as you're breaking down the. Structure it helps me even
Speaker 1: the bathtub and the. Staircase, okay if you told me
Speaker 1: the science behind it, All i'll probably get, Lost BUT
Speaker 1: i understand what you're, saying and you really do need the.
Speaker 1: Structure government. Influencers we had the shooting situation down In
Speaker 1: tasmania and we restricted guns and made a very strong gun.
Speaker 1: Policy is that the type of thing you're talking with government. Influencers.
Speaker 2: Yeah government influences are the fascinating and sometimes concerning at
Speaker 2: the same, time and they can be spot on or
Speaker 2: really missed the. MARK i think understanding the lone actor
Speaker 2: landscape In, australia it's hard to have that conversation Without Port.
Speaker 2: Arthur so where we are now and maybe the lack
Speaker 2: of significant incidents that we, have AND i say that
Speaker 2: cautiously is probably largely a result of the decisions that
Speaker 2: were made back in nineteen ninety six around the. Firearms
Speaker 2: if we think about even The Link cafe ces or
Speaker 2: some of the other even The bondai attack, recently had
Speaker 2: those people been able to get high caliber, firearms it may,
Speaker 2: yeah very very. Different and the potentially the argument there
Speaker 2: for the Christ church terrorist attack may that have happened
Speaker 2: In australia if our firearm policy hadn't ever been, changed
Speaker 2: because part of the part of that was the accessibility
Speaker 2: of firearms at the. Time so governments have a really
Speaker 2: important part to. Play my concern is that we try
Speaker 2: and restrict our way out of, things and there's a
Speaker 2: balance there between.
Speaker 1: You because you could create another potential offend.
Speaker 2: That absolutely the everyday person is doing the right thing
Speaker 2: and they are losing a lot of their freedoms because
Speaker 2: of restrictive measures that are put in. Place AND i
Speaker 2: always think, that you, know people need to have a
Speaker 2: level of. Autonomy we can't regulate and control our way
Speaker 2: out of, everything AND i think it's good to put
Speaker 2: safeguards and parameters in, place but becoming too restrictive and
Speaker 2: too intrusive risk thin creating another problem on the flip
Speaker 2: side of that with someone then getting aggrieved and FEELING.
Speaker 1: I, think and TALKING, covid THE covid, RESTRICTIONS i saw
Speaker 1: PEOPLE i knew that the way they were, reacting you
Speaker 1: could almost see the, tension the anger build up and
Speaker 1: the frustration build up in them in the, restrictions and
Speaker 1: you could see how that could play out in the
Speaker 1: extreme And i'm not saying my, friends BUT i just
Speaker 1: saw how many people are, affected and affected each and
Speaker 1: every one of. Us you had the isolation and then
Speaker 1: the restrictions and loss of, control and people are losing
Speaker 1: their livelihood or losing contact with their. Families those type
Speaker 1: of RESTRICTIONS i think is just sort of pouring fuel
Speaker 1: on the.
Speaker 2: Fire, Yeah So i'm always big on empowering and educating,
Speaker 2: People and THEN i think governments ideally put the safeguards
Speaker 2: and the parameters in, place but people still need that.
Speaker 2: Autonomy AND i think rather than restricting and, controlling we
Speaker 2: should try and educate and. Teach and there's the, argument,
Speaker 2: say with the restrictions for social media that are looking
Speaker 2: like coming in for, adolescents which which is, positive adolescents
Speaker 2: will still go and find other platforms like discord and
Speaker 2: all sorts of online groups that they can still access
Speaker 2: and still find extreme. Content so what about if we
Speaker 2: taught people or children to use social media, safely you,
Speaker 2: know something like a social media. License we teach people to,
Speaker 2: drive you, know we teach them how to do things
Speaker 2: in a safe. Manner SO i think there's a role
Speaker 2: there where we can empower rather than.
Speaker 1: Restrict, well giving that degree of, autonomy it takes a
Speaker 1: sting out of any, restrictions doesn't. It you've got a
Speaker 1: little bit of. Control, okay you've just got to go
Speaker 1: through this, pathway but you can get. THERE i see
Speaker 1: what you're. Saying i've never thought of it that, way but,
Speaker 1: yeah we shut down the social media for the, kids
Speaker 1: they're going to get access to. Things.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, yeah and again it's the masses that are probably
Speaker 2: doing the right thing that are impact in. IT i
Speaker 2: think it's a good conversation to have because there are
Speaker 2: always pros and, cons but the ones that seek this
Speaker 2: out will still be able to find. It.
Speaker 1: Yeah, okay look we might take a break. Here when
Speaker 1: we get, BACK i want to talk in detail about
Speaker 1: the Christ church massacre and put in or discuss some
Speaker 1: of the things we've discussed here and how that played
Speaker 1: out in the build up to the. Case i'd also
Speaker 1: like to talk about. STALKING i know part of you
Speaker 1: the reason you're over here that you're delivering a lecture on.
Speaker 1: Stalking i've always thought from a policing point of, VIEW
Speaker 1: i always had concerns when people were. Stalking it starts, off,
Speaker 1: well nothing's really, done but the way that they become
Speaker 1: fixated on the person they're. Stalking always concerned, me And
Speaker 1: i'm sure there's a lot of other things we've got
Speaker 1: to talk. About i'm finding it quite quite. Fascinating so
Speaker 1: we'll take a break and we'll be back shortly for part.
Speaker 1: Two Thanks, Gary cheers.
Speaker 2: Two Nine ka