Monday, November 12, 2007

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: All the Wrong Emotions

People often get upset when fingers are pointed at them in criminal cases, The suspect will say, "Why me?" because he has no insight into that the behavior he exhibits are not the norm for the situation. Their supporters, often kind people who thinking judging others is wrong; that everyone is not the same and their behaviors, just because they do not represent how the majority would act under the same circumstances, doesn't mean anything. I beg to differ. Human beings tend to have similar behaviors, albeit different levels of them depending on sex, age, culture, and circumstances. When one accounts for these, there should be an expected response. For example, it is not normal for pretty much anyone to say, "Oh, well," as he watches his house burn to the ground. This reaction is grounds to check whether he set the fire to collect the insurance. The only reason one might determine this behavior isn't a red flag is that we know the guy is a rich hippie freak (inherited money) and he changed residences regularly and didn't keep much in the way of sentimental possessions. If this were so, friends would immediately tell the cops about the guy's nature and then the fire would not seem suspicious.

Drew Peterson's wife goes missing. He claims she left him for another guy. He also claims their marriage is good. Now, let's assume he really believes this to be true.

His reaction should be:

1) I am pissed as hell; she has broken my heart
2) I am pissed as hell; she has deserted her children.

Peterson seems to not even care his wife is missing.

Now, it has been quite a while since his wife has not contacted anyone. Her cell phone hasn't been used since she "left."

His reaction should be:

1) Now, I am worried as hell. Maybe something DID happen to her after she called me and my children may never get their mother back.

Peterson only cares that the media is "harassing" his children and frightening them. Apparently, the fact the children don't know where there mother has gone isn't a concern to him

Wrong reactions. No good explanation why Peterson should act this way. Verdict: he makes a good suspect in the disappearance of his wife.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

4 comments:

transfattyacid said...

intresting post.

Reading it I was thinking of Newton's first law of motion.

That the reaction is judged in proportion to the triggering event.

Not enough, too much or inappropriate reaction is suspicious.

Everything else is investigation.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown said...

You nailed it exactly! Actions bring reactions and those reactions focus investigation. The actions may turn out to be just peculiar and not related to the crime which is why one doesn't arrest and prosecute someone because they are weird (although it sure happens as in the Martha Moxley case; Michael Skakel was convicted purely on the fact he masterbated in trees and had a big mouth).

Ronni said...

I was watching that interview on "Today," and I agree that he makes a very good suspect. He is not as smart as he thinks he is--that comment to Matt about Stacy regularly asking for a divorce, depending on her menstrual cycle made me want to hurl things at the TV.

There were also a couple of times that he had to stop and think, "Let's see...what answer did I give to that the last time?"

amy said...

"There were also a couple of times that he had to stop and think, "Let's see...what answer did I give to that the last time?"

Kind of reminds you of the McCanns doesn't it?