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 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 back to part two of my chat with doctor
Speaker 1: an Bergers, who is a legend amongst law enforcement agencies
Speaker 1: across the globe, particularly with those detectives responsible for investigating
Speaker 1: murders and serial offenders. If you miss part one, we're
Speaker 1: talking about how doctor Burger's skills developed as a psychiatric
Speaker 1: nurse and evolved into her working with the FBI, developing
Speaker 1: a process of understanding the mind of serial killers and
Speaker 1: profiling criminals in order to understand and most importantly, catch killers.
Speaker 1: Doctor an Burgers, Welcome.
Speaker 2: Back, Welcome, glad to be back.
Speaker 1: Okay, At the risk of embarrassing myself, I'm going to
Speaker 1: let you into a little little secret here. Early in
Speaker 1: my career as a homicide detective, I'd read John Douglas's
Speaker 1: book Mind Hunter, and quite often myself and my partner
Speaker 1: at the time, Paul Jacob, we'd be standing at murder
Speaker 1: scenes going what would John Douglas do in this situation?
Speaker 1: In that what I liked about it, and bearing in
Speaker 1: mind we're talking thirty years ago. I'd read the book
Speaker 1: but what I took away from it was you've got
Speaker 1: to be proactive in the way that you approach an investigation.
Speaker 1: And I see failings of homicide investigations. I see where
Speaker 1: people saw the stand, they gather the evidence, everyone's trying
Speaker 1: to solve the murder, but they're not proactive in their
Speaker 1: thinking and the way of initiating things happening in the
Speaker 1: crime scene. And I remember, like John Douglas away that
Speaker 1: or the things that I picked up from that book
Speaker 1: and other literature that i'd read at the time, was
Speaker 1: about the strategy that's required when dealing with the media,
Speaker 1: because most killers, and this is in my experience, do
Speaker 1: listen to the media, and when they've committed a crime,
Speaker 1: they're fascinated. And back in the day it was the
Speaker 1: front page paper or the evening news when stories were broken,
Speaker 1: they'd be fascinated by what the detectives were saying. And
Speaker 1: my biggest criticism of police and the use of media
Speaker 1: is where I see someone standing there at police officer,
Speaker 1: usually a senior police officer, standing there going We've got
Speaker 1: no idea what's happened. There's no witnesses, there's no forensic
Speaker 1: evidence and whatever. And I'm thinking, if I was a crook,
Speaker 1: if I was a suss go, I'd be sitting there going, yes, great,
Speaker 1: if I keep my mouth shut, I get away of it.
Speaker 1: What's your thoughts on strategies and the use of the
Speaker 1: media when you're investigating investigating crimes.
Speaker 2: Well, we looked into this, and interestingly enough, when you
Speaker 2: go way back to Jaker Hoover, who was one of
Speaker 2: the first directors of the FBI, one of the things
Speaker 2: he felt very strongly that he wanted to make a
Speaker 2: wanted to influence the media. He had several of his
Speaker 2: agents assigned to that task, and what they would do
Speaker 2: is to play to the media. They would send if
Speaker 2: they knew a birthday or an anniversary, they'd send cards,
Speaker 2: they said, always would say things. So they really use
Speaker 2: the media in a very positive way. And he knew
Speaker 2: that the way that the media portrayed them had a
Speaker 2: lot to do with their public approval, so that was
Speaker 2: very useful. So that's where I would say that John
Speaker 2: Douglas really and Bob Rustler knew how to play the
Speaker 2: media and felt that that was very important in any
Speaker 2: kind of a an investigation they were doing. That was
Speaker 2: one I would say one of them, and John was
Speaker 2: very good at being able to engage the media and
Speaker 2: to you know, get the information out, so the media
Speaker 2: felt a part of it. It was really having them
Speaker 2: work with them. They realized they couldn't catch suspects all
Speaker 2: by themselves sometimes so that they had to that and
Speaker 2: that John Joe Barcase was an excellent example of that,
Speaker 2: where they made it very clear that the community had
Speaker 2: to all be on board to catch this this person.
Speaker 2: So that's one of their story. I think that's one
Speaker 2: of their strongest points that the two agents had and
Speaker 2: they taught that to their junior ones coming along.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, I you said, I'm just trying to think
Speaker 1: of examples that used the media. And a high profile
Speaker 1: case I was investigating, it's still unsolved and it basically
Speaker 1: cost me my career was the abduction of three year
Speaker 1: old William Tyrell, a young boy dressed in a spider
Speaker 1: Man suit, from his grandparents' house on a small rural
Speaker 1: town dead end street ten years ago. This crime occurred
Speaker 1: when I took over the investigation. This was sort of
Speaker 1: five months after his disappearance. A couple of things that
Speaker 1: I did. I made a call that when I took
Speaker 1: it over, I said, it's a homicide lead investigation because
Speaker 1: there was speculation that was missing adventure. I wanted to
Speaker 1: put pressure on the perpetrator by it's homicide. Looking at
Speaker 1: it now, we're not looking at We're not going to
Speaker 1: forget about this. And there weren't that many places in there,
Speaker 1: So I said, anyone that was in a square kilometer
Speaker 1: and had a map of the area from where William
Speaker 1: disappeared that now hasn't come forward, I'd be wondering why
Speaker 1: you haven't come forward? Makes me very suspicious. Why you
Speaker 1: haven't come forward because we did canvases, door knocks and
Speaker 1: public appeals and all that. The other strategy in that
Speaker 1: particular investigation, and this was in consultation with doctor Sarah
Speaker 1: Ull as well, we got a million dollar reward for
Speaker 1: anyone that had information. That was the first time a
Speaker 1: million dollar reward had been announced. Would you agree with
Speaker 1: that type of approach? Do you see there's benefits in
Speaker 1: that type of approach.
Speaker 2: I would agree with that. The other when you have
Speaker 2: a child. It reminds me of a case in which
Speaker 2: the wrestler did is he said, we need to talk
Speaker 2: with the mother because maybe he felt the suspect was
Speaker 2: going to get in touch with her. And he did,
Speaker 2: and he tried to she's alive and I've taken her
Speaker 2: here there and all that, And so the mother was
Speaker 2: able to on the anniversary. This was the case that
Speaker 2: really dragged out. Actually they thought that they knew who
Speaker 2: it was, and she said, I've been waiting for you
Speaker 2: to call and took such surprise, you know, in other words,
Speaker 2: use the technique that she didn't know necessarily if it was,
Speaker 2: but but just saying waiting for you to call with
Speaker 2: a great statement to be able to say and that's
Speaker 2: what Bob.
Speaker 1: That's yeah, that subtleness of it, but yeah, very powerful,
Speaker 1: powerful way of encouraging.
Speaker 2: So that's another way that you can use media. You
Speaker 2: can find out, especially when you have a child that
Speaker 2: you've got access to to a grantic and you know,
Speaker 2: trying to and if you engage them and say this
Speaker 2: is the way that we can, you can you can
Speaker 2: help us. In other words, you can can and that
Speaker 2: empowers them to be able to want to work with
Speaker 2: you rather than fight you or you know how sometimes
Speaker 2: people get annoyed with the media and so forth. You
Speaker 2: don't want that. So and and they they played it
Speaker 2: along and it got so that he actually broke down
Speaker 2: with This was the I think this is the Meyerhoff case,
Speaker 2: one of the early cases that Bob worked on that worked.
Speaker 2: That works in another one they were able to they
Speaker 2: couldn't figure out where the suspect would know about. It
Speaker 2: was a missing teenager, I think, And it turned out
Speaker 2: that it was the man that was babysitting the house
Speaker 2: or watching the house, and he had written down a note.
Speaker 2: They looked at the paper and realized there's indentation on
Speaker 2: it and were able to get phone number. And that's
Speaker 2: how they tracked them down, so that was another contact.
Speaker 2: So there are all these little techniques that media is.
Speaker 2: If you don't have any other suspects media, you've got
Speaker 2: to try media or try some of these other strategies.
Speaker 1: It's funny because I bought into that, and I can
Speaker 1: attribute it back to reading John Douglas's book about the
Speaker 1: use of the media, and there's other places that know,
Speaker 1: we're not going to use the media, and I just say,
Speaker 1: there's a tool. There was another interesting case. I wasn't
Speaker 1: involved in it, but friends of mine were involved in.
Speaker 1: It was a ripe in a very violent rape in
Speaker 1: a small country town. Talking to a couple of hundred people.
Speaker 1: They put a question there out in the town and
Speaker 1: on what do you think should happen to the person
Speaker 1: if we catch this person? There was yeah, two hundred
Speaker 1: and ninety nine responses going, you know, you should be
Speaker 1: doing time, blah blah blah. And there was one response, well,
Speaker 1: everyone makes mistakes and get reguards and guess who the
Speaker 1: person was. Oh look, oh look something standing out there
Speaker 1: right right?
Speaker 2: Absolutely, well we're using social media.
Speaker 1: Now, yeah, well you'll have to buy into that, yes, yep, Now.
Speaker 2: That's really important and I saw. I have my undergraduate
Speaker 2: students watching the social media and especially if they get
Speaker 2: a suspect that we try to right away get the
Speaker 2: information and run it through AI to see if we
Speaker 2: can learn something. Because it's pretty clear that they have
Speaker 2: to tell someone and they can brag about it, there
Speaker 2: is that need to not keep it so secret, and
Speaker 2: so they do social media. That's a new technique. I
Speaker 2: think that's very, very useful.
Speaker 1: Well, it's something that we've got to got to adopt
Speaker 1: now because the power of the media is shifting to
Speaker 1: that social media side, isn't it to get to get
Speaker 1: that message out. It's definitely something that we've got to embrace.
Speaker 1: And I want to talk about AI. But a little
Speaker 1: a little bit later, if we could crime scenes? What
Speaker 1: the what the crime scenes to you? Because I find
Speaker 1: that another fascinating part of being a detective, interpreting the
Speaker 1: crime scene, taking your time to really taking what you're
Speaker 1: seeing and get a sense of what we're what we're
Speaker 1: dealing with here.
Speaker 2: Right Well, the crime scene, of course, is I think
Speaker 2: is absolutely critical. So you can get you can certainly
Speaker 2: get evidence. Douglas was very good at just going to
Speaker 2: a crime scene and getting a feel as he would
Speaker 2: say about what happened and what he would he would say,
Speaker 2: you have to walk in the shoes of the killer
Speaker 2: to really understand it. And I think that's true because
Speaker 2: you get so familiar with cases and so just looking
Speaker 2: at it that it's where they will take time just
Speaker 2: to try to think of where was he? Where was
Speaker 2: the victim? Because you do have a victim. That's why
Speaker 2: the victimology is so critical. And what position is she
Speaker 2: and what what might she be saying? Did she struggle?
Speaker 2: Was there? You know, how was she located? How was
Speaker 2: she targeted? Where did they encounter each other? Just a
Speaker 2: lot of questions, So get in the line of the
Speaker 2: investigator how this happened and why it happened, Why was
Speaker 2: she targeted? Why did she become a victim? And I
Speaker 2: think that's a one eighty degree turned from the way
Speaker 2: it used to be. Where, Oh, she shouldn't have been there,
Speaker 2: she shouldn't have been out walking. What does she think
Speaker 2: was going to? You know, the blaming of the victim?
Speaker 2: Unfortunately a lot of it started. You got to go
Speaker 2: back to say where was he or where was the killer?
Speaker 2: You know, what was he doing?
Speaker 1: And on that blame blaming the victim. And I'm sure
Speaker 1: you again, probably the work that you did change that
Speaker 1: thinking too that yeah, it's and I think society has
Speaker 1: moved on and we understand better, not just law enforcement,
Speaker 1: but you know the comments, well, she shouldn't have been
Speaker 1: out late at night and those and the impact that
Speaker 1: that has on victims, making them feel like they're they're
Speaker 1: to blame for the crime. And you would have seen
Speaker 1: it as I saw it, dealing with victims where no
Speaker 1: matter the circumstances, it always crosses their mind that they're
Speaker 1: at fault, or even the families of murdered victims are
Speaker 1: blaming themselves should have done something. And I'm always at
Speaker 1: pain to explain, no, you're the victim here, you're you're
Speaker 1: not not the offender. Don't blame lay the blame there.
Speaker 1: Linking crimes. So, and we talked in Part one a
Speaker 1: little bit about that and experiences I've had over here
Speaker 1: in New South Wales. The courts we've got tendency and
Speaker 1: coincidence evidence. So if we're trying to if there's a
Speaker 1: serial rapists, we're looking at tendency and coincidence evidence. If
Speaker 1: a certain type of crime, the mannerisms in which that
Speaker 1: crime has been committed and then put that person before court.
Speaker 1: Instead of charging the person with perhaps five offenses, we
Speaker 1: might put ten offenses on him because the other crimes
Speaker 1: are so strikingly similar. Can you talk us your understanding
Speaker 1: and your knowledge of what you look for when you're
Speaker 1: trying to determine if crimes are linked.
Speaker 2: Well, the linking of crimes was something that I remember
Speaker 2: Bary Hazel would spend a lot of time on looking.
Speaker 2: He would take he had to have a case where
Speaker 2: there are at least ten crimes, and he would look
Speaker 2: at the first, the middle, and the last crime and
Speaker 2: see what were the common themes there. And that's what
Speaker 2: a lot of his research was because he was interested
Speaker 2: in Sometimes it changed, as I said before, the m
Speaker 2: OL change, the method of operation change, but not necessarily
Speaker 2: the signature. So the linkage part sick is the age?
Speaker 2: What is there a certain age? Is a certain gender?
Speaker 2: You know? Is it a child? Is it an adolescent?
Speaker 2: Is it a because that will give you some idea
Speaker 2: of what age you're looking for. Also, race is important
Speaker 2: because more likely than not it's going to be same race.
Speaker 2: It's it doesn't have to be, but if you want
Speaker 2: just more than fifty percent it's going to be that.
Speaker 2: So that can give you that the age of the
Speaker 2: person you're looking for, the gender, the race. Then then
Speaker 2: you would look if you're at the crime scene, then
Speaker 2: you're going to be able to look and see what
Speaker 2: was the weapon. But weapon doesn't weapon. They can use
Speaker 2: multiple weapons, so weapon isn't always a good indicator, but
Speaker 2: it will tell you if it was hands, you know,
Speaker 2: blunt force trauma, or whether it was gone or a knife.
Speaker 2: Certain cultural groups tend to, you know, use we always
Speaker 2: go back to the Mad Bomber. I don't know that
Speaker 2: case anyway that profile that it would because he would
Speaker 2: be Middle Eastern because they tended to use bombs, and
Speaker 2: this was now bomber. Obviously he was in New York
Speaker 2: City buying, so sometimes that he would even be able
Speaker 2: to be that precise, and then the personality features. Isn't
Speaker 2: that clean? Crimes in the deep pickup thing nick it
Speaker 2: the way that kind of thing.
Speaker 1: I would look at the crime scenes, including where the body,
Speaker 1: because sometimes the body is not where the actual murder
Speaker 1: has occurred, but whether a weapon was introduced, if it
Speaker 1: was brought there, or there's some planning that's gone into it.
Speaker 1: The way the body is disposed of. Quite often that
Speaker 1: it doesn't necessarily have to be a serial killing, but
Speaker 1: I can see where there's a panic in the way
Speaker 1: that the body's been disposed of. So the crime that's
Speaker 1: telling me that the crime it wasn't planned, it escalated.
Speaker 1: So you're looking for something that triggered that and the
Speaker 1: way that the body has been disposed of, because quite
Speaker 1: often that's that's the unraveling of the offender, because it's
Speaker 1: they leave a trial like tracking an elephant through the
Speaker 1: snowl What what do you look at in terms of
Speaker 1: the way the body is disposed of and the injuries
Speaker 1: to the body. So digging deep into that, what type
Speaker 1: of thing are you looking at to there?
Speaker 2: Well, I think that any bruising that you see, it's
Speaker 2: going to be anger. I mean I something has triggered
Speaker 2: either it's somebody else and he's using this as what
Speaker 2: we call a displacement. He's angry why it's then so
Speaker 2: he takes it out on this other person. Elderly victims
Speaker 2: are often being a substitute for somebody that they knew
Speaker 2: in their childhood. That's an unusual Although there's a lot
Speaker 2: of crime against the elderly physical. I think the other
Speaker 2: important factor is that you mentioned is whether the body
Speaker 2: was moved, how long did they spend with the body?
Speaker 2: That's important, and that's going to give you a lot
Speaker 2: of the fantasy and that you can pretty much figure
Speaker 2: out what is going on in the mind. If you
Speaker 2: think it's a fantasy, usually it is and a sexual homicide.
Speaker 2: He's acting out something's not over and over, So that's important.
Speaker 2: What else, let's see whether it's been is it posed
Speaker 2: as the body posed? The other thing is is it
Speaker 2: just discarded? Is it just dumped as a word that
Speaker 2: they said, just by the side of the road, in
Speaker 2: other words, just discarded to no emotional attachment of any
Speaker 2: kind is there? And or is that just showing what
Speaker 2: he thinks of that type of person. I'm just going
Speaker 2: to give you an example that I thought in determining
Speaker 2: the size, the size of the offender, if he's big, tall, whatever.
Speaker 2: And then on the Joe Bet case, the first boy
Speaker 2: was just left right kind of off the road. The
Speaker 2: second body was found inside the forest and woods. And
Speaker 2: what was important there is there are two footprints going
Speaker 2: set of footprints going in, only one coming back. So
Speaker 2: what that said, Yeah, so what that said is that
Speaker 2: he was not able to carry the victim in, so
Speaker 2: he marched him in, did what he did to him,
Speaker 2: and then came up.
Speaker 1: I like that again, good detective work. Yeah, it seems simple,
Speaker 1: but these are the little things that can be missed.
Speaker 1: And I think I spent some time in the early
Speaker 1: hours of the morning with someone trying to show me
Speaker 1: where he disposed of a body ten years before. And
Speaker 1: we pulled up there. It's dark, it was in the
Speaker 1: National Park, and he walked in a certain distance and
Speaker 1: he walked hundreds of meters or one hundred and fifty meters,
Speaker 1: which is a long way to carry a body. He was, genuinely,
Speaker 1: I believe, trying to tell us where he disposed of
Speaker 1: the body in a shallow grave. We had no success.
Speaker 1: We searched the area that he indicated, and then we
Speaker 1: tried something. We put him in the actual car that
Speaker 1: he was driving at the time. We managed to get
Speaker 1: access to that at the time he was disposing of
Speaker 1: the body, and we put a manequin. The rescue squad
Speaker 1: uses eighty kilos. It's the weight of a body, a
Speaker 1: limp body, put it in the boot of the car,
Speaker 1: drove down to the location and then said to him, look,
Speaker 1: we've got something in the boot. You show us how
Speaker 1: you where you think you took this body in the dark,
Speaker 1: in the bush, and how difficult it was, And that
Speaker 1: made him sort of rethink about the distance in which
Speaker 1: he carried it and it was in fact not one
Speaker 1: hundred meters in from the road, that was only about
Speaker 1: twenty five meters in from the road.
Speaker 2: So yeah, very good.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I look at homicide. Some homicides are very simple
Speaker 1: to solve. The more difficult ones. I look at opportunity, capability,
Speaker 1: and motive. There are three factors that I fit him
Speaker 1: got You might have literally hundreds of persons of interest,
Speaker 1: and I look at opportunity, I can tick that off
Speaker 1: pretty easy. If the person's in prison, they haven't committed
Speaker 1: that crime, right. Capability looking at is this person capable
Speaker 1: physically capable of committing the crime? Or does this person
Speaker 1: have access to the type of weapons? So that's sort
Speaker 1: of a little bit more subjective. That motive is always.
Speaker 1: Motive is the one that is always. I think motive
Speaker 1: points you in the direction when you're looking for a suspect.
Speaker 1: What's your thoughts on motive, Because if one person understands motive,
Speaker 1: it would be you.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, I mean that that's crucial. Now you don't
Speaker 2: have to prove it in court, but they always want
Speaker 2: you to, right.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, they want the faction in the narrative. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they don't want you going the course. I don't
Speaker 2: any idea why he did this. I mean, that's the
Speaker 2: last thing that you want to say. You want to
Speaker 2: have some idea or at least have some what we
Speaker 2: call hypotheses that are that are going to be plausible
Speaker 2: that or he will understand. Yeah, because a lot of
Speaker 2: times they may say this is just a horrible murder
Speaker 2: because maybe there's been dismemberment. Dismemberment can sometimes be because
Speaker 2: they can't carry the body, they can't get it to
Speaker 2: another place. And that's so it's it's more of a
Speaker 2: practical motive, if you will, of why that happened, rather
Speaker 2: than any deep seated psychological rationale. Because I did a
Speaker 2: case like that where he it was he had really
Speaker 2: cut the body up and he just left he just
Speaker 2: left it all because he couldn't. He tried putting him
Speaker 2: in bags, and I mean it was so I always
Speaker 2: remember that to say, don't go beyond any un reasonable
Speaker 2: explanation kind of thing. So I think that that's really
Speaker 2: really important as a motive, is that we have four
Speaker 2: categories of motive. The first one is criminal enterprise. Is
Speaker 2: this something that like a hit or an insurance killing,
Speaker 2: or something that's going to be more gun weapon kind
Speaker 2: of thing, or is it The biggest category is more
Speaker 2: the personal cause, in other words, is this personal to
Speaker 2: the person. They are about fourteen categories there of whether
Speaker 2: it's vene or whether it's not sexual, sexual as a whole,
Speaker 2: separate unit. And then the fourth is group cause. But
Speaker 2: the personal cause, as I said, we have about twelve
Speaker 2: or fourteen categories that to the person, and I think
Speaker 2: they make sense. It could be domestic, it could be
Speaker 2: a variety of others. But that's why we do the
Speaker 2: studies we're doing. We're doing one now on Indigenous murdered
Speaker 2: and missing men and comparing them to a group we've
Speaker 2: done on women. Why did they do this in their culture?
Speaker 2: So I do think that that's something that's really important
Speaker 2: to do to get that motive.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and it's interesting and the understanding that you're given
Speaker 1: and people quite often they want it all tied up
Speaker 1: in a bow. This is what's happened, and this is
Speaker 1: the motive. And again I learned a lot from dealings
Speaker 1: with Sarah Yule in that and even reference to the
Speaker 1: William Tyrell case that she said, the person that's committed
Speaker 1: this crime mightn't even know why they've committed this crime. So,
Speaker 1: you know, it's really hard to nail down the motive
Speaker 1: on the crime like that a three year old child.
Speaker 1: The public wanted all to be a pedophile, a scary person.
Speaker 1: That seems to be what the public perceived if a
Speaker 1: three year old child's disappeared. But Sarah was always at
Speaker 1: pains to point out to me when we're working the
Speaker 1: case that the person responsible for the case mightn't even
Speaker 1: know why.
Speaker 2: They may not know why. That was in mind Hunter,
Speaker 2: that was one of the cases that they did and
Speaker 2: Mighty Russell. They so they said, we're here to study
Speaker 2: men and why they do what they do. And he says,
Speaker 2: I hope you can tell me why I did what
Speaker 2: I did. Yeah, yeah, yeah, it's great, very honest.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, you get you sit down in an interview room
Speaker 1: and you're interviewing someone and they've got all the detail
Speaker 1: and why did you do it? I'm not really sure
Speaker 1: it's yeah, fascinating, fascinating, fascinating will serial killing and mass
Speaker 1: killings I'm thinking here and I haven't got the facts
Speaker 1: and figures in front of me, but mass killing seem
Speaker 1: to be more prominent than serial killing in current current times.
Speaker 1: Do you is that something that you're a trend that
Speaker 1: you've seen or.
Speaker 2: Yes, that's what I said. You're right that serial killings.
Speaker 2: That's why I think we don't hear about them. I
Speaker 2: don't think they're being done as much as that more
Speaker 2: people are moving into mass shootings, especially shootings, which makes
Speaker 2: every bit at risk. You know, you can be out
Speaker 2: of the grocery store, or you could be in the
Speaker 2: mall and you've got mass shooting and everybody gets hit.
Speaker 2: So it's I think it's it's a very much more
Speaker 2: fearful for the average person than the cereal Most people think, well,
Speaker 2: I don't think any I'm going to encounter or any
Speaker 2: serial killer, because they usually try to get some kind
Speaker 2: of conversation going, you know, and some kind of relationship,
Speaker 2: whereas a mass shooting doesn't. It's all very impersonal.
Speaker 1: And what in the work that you can do, like
Speaker 1: I know over here for that type of the lone
Speaker 1: wolf situation ideology where there's ideology crossing too, you know action,
Speaker 1: what type of views do you have on the prevention
Speaker 1: of that type of crime.
Speaker 2: Well, right now you're venturing into an area we're looking
Speaker 2: at and that's a school shooter. We're having a terrible
Speaker 2: school shooter, and so we almost think that's a separate
Speaker 2: We're looking at a whole data set to see if
Speaker 2: we can justify that the it's separate from a weight
Speaker 2: supremist or an extremist or an insult that there's something
Speaker 2: unique there. So we've got about thirty cases we're going
Speaker 2: to look at and run through AI to see if
Speaker 2: we can come up with something because I think you're
Speaker 2: onto something and we're onto it too.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that would be interesting if you see a pattern
Speaker 1: emerging and you look back when the crime's being committed,
Speaker 1: and you look back and you think red flag, red flag,
Speaker 1: red flag. But to stop that happening, we've got to
Speaker 1: identify the seriousness of the offense of I think Laura
Speaker 1: Richard's made the point with stalking. If someone's been in
Speaker 1: a relationship and he's being stalked by a person that
Speaker 1: they've been in an intimate relationship with and that person
Speaker 1: then makes a threat to kill that person. There's a
Speaker 1: fifty to fifty chance that'll be carried out, so we
Speaker 1: look at yes. So I always thought stalking was a
Speaker 1: really dangerous crime that we didn't jump on with the
Speaker 1: full weight of the law that needed or given the importance,
Speaker 1: because I think it tells me something about the mindset
Speaker 1: of a person that's prepared to stalk another person.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's very dangerous, and I'm doing a case right now.
Speaker 2: Quadruple killing horrible. And it was so clear it was
Speaker 2: sexual jealousy that we're not sure was even possible that
Speaker 2: she We haven't had any confirmation and we won't because
Speaker 2: of course she was murdered. But this whole matter, when
Speaker 2: you look at a pattern that's a common pattern in
Speaker 2: these domestic killings, that it's it's a paranoia, is suspicious
Speaker 2: that the partner is having, you know, some kind of
Speaker 2: affair with somebody else. So that is really I would
Speaker 2: agree that it's very and it's hard to stop. You
Speaker 2: can't stop it. The only way you stop it is
Speaker 2: you can't in any way encourage it, and you have
Speaker 2: to almost disappear. In that particular case, he had done
Speaker 2: that to an earlier partner, and she were two years,
Speaker 2: went underground nobody, she gave her information out, didn't let
Speaker 2: anybody know where she was. That's what it took for her.
Speaker 2: And then of course he then gets into this other
Speaker 2: relationship and he ends up killing and killing anybody that
Speaker 2: was guarding her. That was you know, she had a
Speaker 2: detective order out. I mean, she did everything that she
Speaker 2: possibly could.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I look, we've had a spate of domestic related murders,
Speaker 1: and quite often it's that jilted lover or jilted partner
Speaker 1: and ends up in someone being killed. We've had a
Speaker 1: real spade of them at the moment in this country.
Speaker 1: But I think we've got to start. We're changing. We're
Speaker 1: bought in new legislation coercive control, which I think is
Speaker 1: a step in the right direction. And that's because police
Speaker 1: hands were tied in that you'd turn up to a
Speaker 1: domestic situation where there hasn't been the physical assault. What
Speaker 1: can we charge this person with now? Coercive control because
Speaker 1: again indicators that lead up to the eventual act, which
Speaker 1: tends to be a very violent, violent crime.
Speaker 2: Sure. Well, the other thing, just to go back to
Speaker 2: that case, that I'm working on now. Sheeve was so
Speaker 2: scared she wanted to carry a little knife to protect herself,
Speaker 2: and because she was on probation for another matter, they said, no,
Speaker 2: you can't have it. She might have been able to
Speaker 2: have protected herself when he comes in because he changes weapons,
Speaker 2: he changes from gun to knife, so the personal the
Speaker 2: use of a knife is so much more personal, and
Speaker 2: you might have been able to pull that in and
Speaker 2: saved herself. So it's awful.
Speaker 1: Another question I want I want to ask you that
Speaker 1: I get asked a lot, and I think you've got
Speaker 1: a lot more you know, understanding of it than myself.
Speaker 1: Nature or nurture, like people often often raise that with me,
Speaker 1: is a homicide to take the Do you think it
Speaker 1: was the environment or do you think that will bone that? Why? What?
Speaker 1: What's your what's your type natural nurture.
Speaker 2: I don't think that it's genetic. I don't that there's
Speaker 2: any genetic link. But they've grown up in an atmosphere.
Speaker 2: If they've grown up in an atmosphere where there is
Speaker 2: role modeling, if you will uh that that can be
Speaker 2: very dangerous and that they can they can learn, you know,
Speaker 2: it's what we kind of call from a learning if
Speaker 2: they've been abuse, say, our father can be very aggressive
Speaker 2: and very physically damaging to his son, and especially if
Speaker 2: he's targeted as the favored child, not favor necessarily positively
Speaker 2: that I think environment is very very important. As to
Speaker 2: the nature part, I think not so much. But they've
Speaker 2: never had I've never seen any studies that have compermed it.
Speaker 2: It's a very would be very hard to do that.
Speaker 2: So I'm much more that the environment, environment, and especially
Speaker 2: the people that they are around. Yeah, and that they
Speaker 2: themselves have been traumatized in some way that has stuck
Speaker 2: with them. Don't forget. We use the theory that it's
Speaker 2: a fantasy that gets nurtured and kind of acted out
Speaker 2: and it's got to come from somewhere, and that it
Speaker 2: could come from something that happened to them, and that
Speaker 2: that's a way that they're expressing it.
Speaker 1: Okay, I had I'm not sure if you're familiar with
Speaker 1: the work of James Fallon, the neuroscientists that did pet
Speaker 1: scans of the people that were considered psychopaths, including some
Speaker 1: serial killers. He made the observation he did pet scans
Speaker 1: on the brains and the frontal cortex or whatever and
Speaker 1: clearly I'm not a brain expert, but said there was
Speaker 1: a pattern that he would see in people that have
Speaker 1: been identified as psycho paths, and he needed something to
Speaker 1: cross reference the study, so he got a PET scan
Speaker 1: done of his own brain and other people he knew
Speaker 1: he had the same predisposition of some of the psychopaths
Speaker 1: that whose brains that pet scan was done on. But
Speaker 1: he came to the conclusion. I found this interesting. He
Speaker 1: came to the conclusion that his environment that he grew
Speaker 1: up in those nurturing years from birth to the age
Speaker 1: of three, those crucial years, was in a loving, caring environment.
Speaker 1: And then he's looking at these other ones that have
Speaker 1: acted out as a psychopath as he would think and
Speaker 1: turned into the trust killers have grown up in that
Speaker 1: traumatic environment when there wasn't love, there wasn't nurturing and
Speaker 1: all that. And so that his take on it was
Speaker 1: almost like a combination, and it seemed to make sense
Speaker 1: what he was saying there, and it ties into what
Speaker 1: you're saying about the environment having a part in.
Speaker 2: It, right right. I just think it's critical, and the
Speaker 2: trauma piece is critical too. But I think that if
Speaker 2: he's got some good research that you can't ignore it.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 2: That's really good. That's an addition to the feit.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, well it was. It was interesting. You've mentioned
Speaker 1: a AI a lot, and yeah, I'd like to think
Speaker 1: I embraced technology. I'm coming along to that thinking I've
Speaker 1: recently started to delve into AI and a lot of
Speaker 1: stuff that I'm doing, and I keep reflecting back, and
Speaker 1: I've been out of the police for four or so
Speaker 1: years and I'm reflecting back. How handy that would be.
Speaker 1: You've referenced a lot. Can you just talk to us
Speaker 1: about how you're using AI and what you're seeing in
Speaker 1: contemporary law enforcement, how they're using AI these days.
Speaker 2: Well, we're using it, mister Whitskoll, machine learning because it
Speaker 2: is the machine computer is a machine and we're looking
Speaker 2: at what we call topic modeling that when you enter,
Speaker 2: you put in the data, you're going to get patterns
Speaker 2: that come out. Now, we talked, we've talked about a
Speaker 2: lot patterned. But this doesn't like in five minutes where
Speaker 2: we might have taken five years. We did that a
Speaker 2: comparison with a group out in Kansas, and we said,
Speaker 2: you send us and we do this for a threat assessment,
Speaker 2: you know, Leice will get in somebody saying I'm going
Speaker 2: to blow up a building or I'm going to kill somebody,
Speaker 2: and that's really scary and they have to decide. So
Speaker 2: I said, send us a case as much data as
Speaker 2: you can, and we'll run it through our algorithm. And
Speaker 2: they did, and it took fifteen minutes. We sent back back.
Speaker 2: What we found as terms of this is it was
Speaker 2: a serious case where they weren't sure if this guy
Speaker 2: was crazy quote quote or whether he was really going
Speaker 2: to kill somebody, and they had decided that it was
Speaker 2: not a threat, so we ran it took fifteen minutes.
Speaker 2: They had taken almost fifteen months to look at it.
Speaker 2: They the poor woman that collapse you' I can't believe
Speaker 2: you did in fifteen minutes, but came up with many
Speaker 2: of you. I felt badly for her, but it came
Speaker 2: with the other kinds of things that they hadn't thought of.
Speaker 2: So we sent it back to them and said, maybe
Speaker 2: you better keep this and if he gives you another threat,
Speaker 2: because he had given the multiple threats, this wasn't just
Speaker 2: slated one, that maybe you should take it seriously and
Speaker 2: let us know if there's anything. So that was just
Speaker 2: an example of how fast we were able to drub
Speaker 2: the material that they had taken so long. So it's
Speaker 2: wonderful if you've got a large amount of data that
Speaker 2: you want to look at very quickly and if you
Speaker 2: get the right algorithm, I mean that that's your key.
Speaker 2: You've got to have that, and then it just whips
Speaker 2: through the data. So we've looked at twenty three murderers manifestos,
Speaker 2: some of them you know Rogers, any of the they're
Speaker 2: on the lists. And now when we get a case,
Speaker 2: we could run the single case as comparison to the
Speaker 2: thirty twenty three that we have, and that will tell
Speaker 2: us what we're looking for. The whole thing is are
Speaker 2: they telling the truth? That's our next step is when
Speaker 2: we get data or they do an interview, are they
Speaker 2: telling us the truth? They're version of the truth. That's
Speaker 2: our next step. We have to come up with the algorithm. There.
Speaker 2: We're going to take some court testimony that was done
Speaker 2: under oath. People'll start with the Menendez case and see
Speaker 2: whether they were the truth kind of thing. So that's
Speaker 2: where it's going.
Speaker 1: It's something that we have to doing. Bryce, isn't I
Speaker 1: started in homicide and it was CODs that was. Yeah,
Speaker 1: there was CODs that we alphabetically the suspects information and
Speaker 1: all that and where we've got to now.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, we have to go with it. I don't
Speaker 2: think we can ignore it. I mean, everybody is into
Speaker 2: it so and it's it should be not fun, but
Speaker 2: it should be looked at as just another tool, another technique,
Speaker 2: and we shouldn't say have going to do it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, no, it make sense reflecting on your career, some
Speaker 1: of the people that you've come into contact with, and
Speaker 1: there was I had a quote losing the paperwork here,
Speaker 1: but I had a quote from when you first started
Speaker 1: hearing the interviews that John Douglas and the team we're
Speaker 1: doing with some of the nia notorious serial killers, like
Speaker 1: eavesdropping on the rawest fringes of humanity. What can you
Speaker 1: I would imagine that would have been fascinating. What are
Speaker 1: some of the people that or some of the cases
Speaker 1: you've looked at that you you just you think memorable,
Speaker 1: not for any particular reason, but just things that have
Speaker 1: stood that to you in the time that you've been
Speaker 1: working in the field, that you have.
Speaker 2: Well, it's one of the things I always wondered about,
Speaker 2: but maybe I shouldn't is. And again I go back
Speaker 2: to Joe Bart. He was classic for that. He was
Speaker 2: one of our first is. They would do the horrendous
Speaker 2: killing and then they might go and have dinner, or
Speaker 2: have breakfast, or go to sleep. You know, it was like,
Speaker 2: oh nothing, It didn't seem to impact on them. And
Speaker 2: I remember Joe Bert saying in the interview we did
Speaker 2: with him, he said, you know, that's what the prosecutor said,
Speaker 2: is how callous could it be? And he said it
Speaker 2: was so they admitted. I think that gets to your
Speaker 2: point about the psychopathic quality that they don't have any empathy.
Speaker 2: They're unable. So is that something that is genetic nature
Speaker 2: versus do they just learn it or do they so
Speaker 2: cold to it? But that's what Kemper'd say, that they
Speaker 2: would go home and sleep, I remember, or they would
Speaker 2: talk about how hard it was to kill someone, that
Speaker 2: that it took a lot of energy. Oh yeah, no,
Speaker 2: I mean we have a horrible case here up in
Speaker 2: Idaho Univerversity where this one person killed four young women,
Speaker 2: three women and a man. He did it all within
Speaker 2: a very short time. I mean that took a lot
Speaker 2: of They haven't had the trial yet. They have a suspect,
Speaker 2: but that takes a lot of energy and a lot
Speaker 2: of time, and I don't think we think in those
Speaker 2: terms that we should be more just very very logical
Speaker 2: about it and how can they do that? You know,
Speaker 2: that's always been when you say, what would surprise me?
Speaker 2: That that that is, that's that did, what they would
Speaker 2: do afterwards, or that how they would keep the souvenirs
Speaker 2: and what they would do with them, And it was
Speaker 2: just no can of what that meant to the family
Speaker 2: or what that meant, you know, it did that was
Speaker 2: used to that.
Speaker 1: The bt K killer. What were you dealings or understanding
Speaker 1: we've that particular case and that particular person.
Speaker 2: Well, no, it was needing to know that. I needed
Speaker 2: to know that. And when and doing other interviews, we
Speaker 2: would ask the same thing, what did you do right after?
Speaker 2: That was a new question. A lot of times they
Speaker 2: weren't thinking about that. Obviously, they were thinking about was
Speaker 2: there any evidence left or something to make their case.
Speaker 2: But this is a more human kind of psychological thing
Speaker 2: of what kind of behavior do they show and then
Speaker 2: how fast would they do another crime? Because we were
Speaker 2: looking at cases and the escalation is clearly there. I
Speaker 2: think That's another major point that we found is that
Speaker 2: how fast the escalation when was one victim not enough?
Speaker 2: I think the other thing is when there would be
Speaker 2: multiple victims at the same time, How did that happen?
Speaker 2: Number one case, two little girls or two seven year
Speaker 2: old girls and they're both dead and post how did
Speaker 2: one person do it? It turned out, and it took
Speaker 2: a long time. He did two more murders before able
Speaker 2: to finally. He would always read first until finally one
Speaker 2: read victim survived, and that's how they're able to get.
Speaker 1: The nature of the crimes that seen in your time.
Speaker 1: One thing that I was always at pains without understanding
Speaker 1: the depth of the psychology of it than the mindset
Speaker 1: of the people as you do. But I was always
Speaker 1: at pains when I'm doing briefings on murder investigations and
Speaker 1: people would go, but why would you do this if
Speaker 1: you've done that? And I would say, you're trying to
Speaker 1: put a rational thought into an irrational action or an
Speaker 1: irrational mindset, because because I used to get frustrated where
Speaker 1: you talk about hypothesis and you're sitting around the briefing
Speaker 1: room and you're going, Okay, maybe this happened, but I
Speaker 1: couldn't have because he made a phone call ten minutes later.
Speaker 1: And I'm thinking, you're giving the rational thought to a
Speaker 1: totally irrational act or crime. Do you subscribe to my
Speaker 1: thought process there?
Speaker 2: And absolutely you said it perfectly, You absolutely did. Is
Speaker 2: that How can we in our logic make sense out
Speaker 2: of it?
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 2: You can't. That's why we've got to get into what
Speaker 2: is driving that thought? What is driving it? Because the
Speaker 2: thought is what drives the behavior. So we have to
Speaker 2: get into the thought. Not that we know what he did, right,
Speaker 2: We know what he did, we know the act, but
Speaker 2: we don't know the thought.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Interesting, Interesting, getting how do we get to that? Interesting?
Speaker 1: Getting your take on it. The other thing that's come up,
Speaker 1: or two things I'll just a touch on these. A
Speaker 1: lot of the people that you've dealt with, and I've
Speaker 1: seen it in my own investigation career, that upbringing in
Speaker 1: the resentment to the mother, the bond between what turns
Speaker 1: out to be this killer and what's taken place with
Speaker 1: the mother. It seems to come up time and time again.
Speaker 1: Thoughts on that situation, well, the mother.
Speaker 2: And the father, the whole issue of parenting. It was
Speaker 2: interesting in the study, you know, we did thirty six
Speaker 2: serial killers. But what we found is that very often
Speaker 2: the family would disrupt around when the boy was around
Speaker 2: adolescent and at a very critical time, I think for
Speaker 2: not only boys, girls too, And so they would always
Speaker 2: complain about the mother and they had always wanted to
Speaker 2: be with the father. Well, the problem was the father
Speaker 2: deserted them, right, he was the absent father. So then
Speaker 2: they only have the mother to blame. So I would
Speaker 2: often get annoyed early on. We would talk about the
Speaker 2: Domino mothers. Well, she was the only parent. She had
Speaker 2: to be both mother and father and discipline. And I said,
Speaker 2: they have no appreciation.
Speaker 1: That makes sense, you know.
Speaker 2: So I think we I wanted people to be a
Speaker 2: little careful about what they said about the bad mother,
Speaker 2: because I think it was unfair in some cases. No,
Speaker 2: maybe not all cases, but certainly in some cases. And
Speaker 2: some mothers tried to do the right thing. They saw
Speaker 2: their son having this odd behavior and they would take
Speaker 2: them to the psychiatrists, and a psychiatrist would say, oh,
Speaker 2: he'll grow out of it, he's just it's just that
Speaker 2: lesson thing. Well that's no help, you know, And and
Speaker 2: so what would I try to do? This is the
Speaker 2: other area that I think we have to pay more
Speaker 2: attention to is how to help people who get these cases,
Speaker 2: whether they're clinicians or social workers, whatever they are, is
Speaker 2: to pay attention to it and get some consultation. In
Speaker 2: other words, if you can't answer, and you really think
Speaker 2: that this is odd, but you don't know what to say,
Speaker 2: there are plenty of people that will be happy to
Speaker 2: do a consult you know, I do them all the
Speaker 2: time to help people, just to you know, this is
Speaker 2: this bad behavior, is this dangerous behavior, or is this
Speaker 2: behavior that will resolve, you know, by the next couple
Speaker 2: of years. Well, that's really important because people don't know
Speaker 2: to how to handle the young adolescent. The emerging adult,
Speaker 2: I think is the correct term we should use now.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, and you quite rightly identified that that's such
Speaker 1: a crucial stage in development, isn't it where life can
Speaker 1: go off in different directions that that lescence stage.
Speaker 2: And hormones are changing. We cannot deny that fast grown
Speaker 2: is going certainly for the young male. And that's that's
Speaker 2: that which is aggression, right, It's normal, So we shouldn't
Speaker 2: be afraid of it. If it gets off on the
Speaker 2: wrong track, we better be careful. We have a lot
Speaker 2: of cases here in the States where the parents and
Speaker 2: the schools get concerned and they won't do anything. They've
Speaker 2: got to do something. They can't put guns, give their
Speaker 2: kids guns.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I really because we're watching from this country and
Speaker 1: we're just horrified with the school shooting. So I think
Speaker 1: it's fantastic that you're looking into that aspect of it,
Speaker 1: because it's just got it's got to stop. It's horrendous,
Speaker 1: such a horrendous, horrendous crime. The people that ingratiate themselves
Speaker 1: into investigations, that's another thing that I've seen, whether it's
Speaker 1: a murder investigation or it could be something at a
Speaker 1: lower level. People that and I've always thought it's just
Speaker 1: a curiosity they want to know what's in or they're
Speaker 1: reflecting on their crime. Look at all the drama I've cause,
Speaker 1: did you encounter that a lot during during your studies
Speaker 1: and your work.
Speaker 2: Trying to think of whether there certainly was a great
Speaker 2: deal of what we call narcissism, kind of taking pride
Speaker 2: in these horrible things that they were doing. So I
Speaker 2: think that that plays a bril in it that I
Speaker 2: don't know how much that plays into their denial. You
Speaker 2: know how many chapels say, oh, I don't know why
Speaker 2: I did what I did. Well, yeah, maybe you do
Speaker 2: know what you did and you're just saying that that's
Speaker 2: what we have to get at. But I do think
Speaker 2: that there is the narcissism that they I can think
Speaker 2: of a number of cases where they did it because
Speaker 2: they felt they were entitled to be able to do
Speaker 2: it and get away with it. I think the boldness.
Speaker 2: I've had a couple of cases, just in rape cases
Speaker 2: where the boldness has astounded me that they felt they
Speaker 2: could just get away with it.
Speaker 1: They didn't what was that base on the tournament or
Speaker 1: just they.
Speaker 2: We had we had a case where the the it
Speaker 2: was a rape and he liked elderly women. He went
Speaker 2: into a hospital and he went on the eighth floor.
Speaker 2: He got a victim and when the nurse came and
Speaker 2: said who are you and he said, I'm a nursing student.
Speaker 2: I mean, he lied, And then he goes to the
Speaker 2: seventh floor and that time he says that he's a
Speaker 2: family member. This is like one in the morning, so yeah,
Speaker 2: very quiet, and he gets to the sixth floor before
Speaker 2: finally security comes, and what does he do with security.
Speaker 2: He said, he drives a hit him. He have saltson.
Speaker 1: Okay, So I mean that.
Speaker 2: That boldness, isn't it in the hospital.
Speaker 1: Well, you've touched on one of our states most notorious
Speaker 1: serial killers, and a lot of people that I worked
Speaker 1: with worked the case was the granny killer and murdered
Speaker 1: six women and all elderly ladies living in a certain
Speaker 1: area in Sydney, a fairly affluent area in Sydney. And
Speaker 1: he was They got on to him because he was
Speaker 1: a pie salesman and he went to a nursing home
Speaker 1: and was sexually assaulted one of the elderly victims. And
Speaker 1: that sort of a lot more layers to it than that,
Speaker 1: but that led it led it to tracking him down.
Speaker 1: But he had issues with his mother that her promiscurity,
Speaker 1: I believe it was. And the ladies that he attacked,
Speaker 1: he would pull their underwear down and display them in
Speaker 1: vulnerable positions and leave their bodies their And yeah, I
Speaker 1: think that changed the way because that would have it
Speaker 1: was during the eighties. The way that we approach the
Speaker 1: criminal investigation taught us how to investigate serial killing because
Speaker 1: it was happening so frequently and it was just a
Speaker 1: hop profile situation. I want to ask you mindful of
Speaker 1: the time, but I just want to wrap up with
Speaker 1: the type of work that you've done and not done
Speaker 1: you're still doing clearly and full credit to you. It's
Speaker 1: been an absolutely amazing career. How do you keep your
Speaker 1: faith in humanity? Because sitting down and chatting to you, you
Speaker 1: come across like you can laugh, you can smile, you've
Speaker 1: look like you've you're enjoying life. And how have you
Speaker 1: managed to step away or not be destroyed by the
Speaker 1: evil darkness that you've seen during your career.
Speaker 2: No, that's a very fair question, but I think that
Speaker 2: as a nurse we're trained to separate ourselves from terrible situations.
Speaker 2: You know, we see all disease and sadness and so forth.
Speaker 2: So you have to be able to separate out and
Speaker 2: not let it that. That said doesn't mean that you
Speaker 2: don't think about the cases. Certainly I do, and some
Speaker 2: of them, really child cases really are are hard to take.
Speaker 2: But I think that that's where you have to be trained.
Speaker 2: You have to be able to separate well you yourself
Speaker 2: as a you can't go taking your cases home at
Speaker 2: night or you'd be sleeping much so I think that
Speaker 2: that's something you have to learn and you have to
Speaker 2: be trained for, and that's what I do. The other
Speaker 2: thing is I do teaching. I try to translate what
Speaker 2: I'm doing for younger generations to be able to carry
Speaker 2: on and to understand so we can stamp out some
Speaker 2: of this. That's where I get most of my uh,
Speaker 2: that's where I think that. I like to think that
Speaker 2: I'm doing something really good.
Speaker 1: I get that, and it's nourishing, nourishing for you because
Speaker 1: it is a dark world, but you can you can
Speaker 1: work it and come out come out relatively unscathed. I
Speaker 1: found that that you can correct me if I'm wrong.
Speaker 1: But I read somewhere that you had some of the
Speaker 1: notorious serial killers sending you Christmas.
Speaker 2: Cards Easter cards too.
Speaker 1: I'm glad they didn't forget Easter bizarre. Well, how did
Speaker 1: you feel about that?
Speaker 2: Well, I'd like to think that they, you know, they
Speaker 2: appreciated something for out of Mind Hunter or something like that.
Speaker 2: But it was pretty funny.
Speaker 1: It is funny, and I've had situations, situations like that
Speaker 1: and you've just got to got to laugh about it.
Speaker 2: And I knew that I knew where they were. They
Speaker 2: were Cecily locked up, so I wasn't worried.
Speaker 1: Okay, yeah, that makes you a bit tougher and a
Speaker 1: bit braver if you know they're they're locked up. But
Speaker 1: the things that you've accomplished in your career and whining
Speaker 1: in the back, I'm focusing on the homicide, the stuff
Speaker 1: that you've done in nursing, and the role model that
Speaker 1: you've been for women in law enforcement and nursing. Full
Speaker 1: credit to you, and I mean that with the utmost
Speaker 1: honestly and respect. And I think it's really funny that
Speaker 1: you guys wouldn't even appreciate how much respect you got
Speaker 1: over here with what I call the true homicide detectives
Speaker 1: that understand the of the work that you're doing. So
Speaker 1: full credit to you and getting you on eye catch Killers.
Speaker 1: I can't explain how excited I was getting you on
Speaker 1: so well.
Speaker 2: I've certainly enjoyed it. You're wonderful to talk with. I
Speaker 2: enjoy it very much.
Speaker 1: Well, Thank you, Thank you very much. One question, because
Speaker 1: the listeners will criticize me if I don't ask the
Speaker 1: character that you based loosely on you in Mind Hunters,
Speaker 1: Dr Wendy Carr, do you like they do you like
Speaker 1: the portrayal. She seems like a pretty cool lady to me,
Speaker 1: and what I've seen on the show.
Speaker 2: I loved her as an actress. I thought she did
Speaker 2: a great job and she did the case as well,
Speaker 2: but I didn't like about her background. And the other
Speaker 2: two is they got it so wrong that and they
Speaker 2: must they did not consult with John about all that
Speaker 2: kind of stuff. They had all of our material, but
Speaker 2: I and I know it was just for Hollingwood that
Speaker 2: they wanted to get a wider audience. But dogs are
Speaker 2: my favorite cat. Sorry, well remember she with the cat,
Speaker 2: Remember she had the cat.
Speaker 1: Well, as you said, it's for Hollywood, but look the
Speaker 1: way the way it's betrayed. And I've got to say
Speaker 1: on the on the show, I like the way they
Speaker 1: approach interviews. I like the the edginess of taking like
Speaker 1: the person sitting there expecting they're going to get a
Speaker 1: standard question and then they go off on the tangent.
Speaker 1: I love that aspect of it.
Speaker 2: But look, it's very good.
Speaker 1: Well, look all the best for all the best for
Speaker 1: the future. Thank you so much for your time, and
Speaker 1: our listeners are going to absolutely love love this chat
Speaker 1: and the stuff that you talk about such an interesting,
Speaker 1: interesting era.
Speaker 2: Well, thank you for your coming words. I appreciate it.