Making a Killing off a Murderer: An Analysis of the Crime and Documentary - Part Three

While not all criminals are psychopaths and not all psychopaths are criminals, certainly a good portion of criminals have personality disorders and a good portion of psychopaths commit crimes of one sort or another. But, first I want to talk about what crime is.

A crime is something that society has deemed illegal, as something you should not do because it is harmful to others or the community. Drug use is often included as a crime because it is believed to not only harm the individual, but to bring blight and crime to the neighborhood, but let's put drug use aside and talk about other crimes; drug dealing, burglary, robbery, fraud, arson, rape, and murder. These are crimes that when an individual commits such acts he has done so in a premeditated fashion, knew he was going to break the law, knew he was going to cause harm to another person, and, yet, went ahead and committed the act anyway. There are only two reasons for stepping over that line: desperation (benefit triumphs harm) and selfish desire for power and control (what I want is more important than your rights; my ego needs to fed). Desperation might be something like stealing food to feed your child or committing a theft to pay for medicine for your very ill wife. You know it is wrong but you believe committing the crime is the only way to save a life and the harm it does is minimal in comparison. A person who commits this kind of crime may not be a bad guy or have a personality disorder; he just can't think of any other way to deal with a bad situation. Sometimes a drug dealer could fit in this category if he cannot find a way to earn legitimate money and he lives in a houseful of starving siblings. If he shows up on the corner with a lot of bling and is driving a BMW, probably he is not dealing out of desperation.

And most crime is not committed out of desperation. It is committed out of selfishness. I am more important than you and I will get mine. Even shoplifting is an act of selfishness; thrill seeking or a ha-ha to big business or desiring instant gratification rather than working to earn money to then purchase what you want. When shoplifting isn't about stealing food for your family, it is about selfishness. The reason criminals are so often repeat offenders is because they LIKE committing crime. Since the majority aren't committing crimes out of desperation, they are doing it because it make them feel good, it makes them happy. And since they don't care too much that they are harming others, there is no reason for them to stop unless they feel the punishment isn't worth it. If they don't get caught or don't mind the time in jail, they will repeat offend until the punishment is severe enough to keep them off the streets forever or until they get tired of incarceration or until they become physically unable to commit crime.

So by the time you get to repeat offenders - especially violent repeat offenders - you are usually looking at psychopathy or another serious personality disorder. Serial rapists and serial killers are always psychopaths...you just can't commit that kind of heinous premeditated crime without being a psychopath.

Steven Avery, as I pointed out in the previous post, has all the traits of a psychopath. He has all the traits of a serial killer. His claims about desiring a quiet life with a good woman is a lie; he would find that boring; he needs to have a much higher level of power and control and excitement. The police were well aware of his criminal capabilities which is why he was on their radar. When the sexual assault was committed on the beach and the woman gave a description that matched Avery, it is no surprise they thought it was him.

The mistake the police made was immediately thinking it must be that guy: there is often not a shortage of violent sexual offenders in the radius of any town or city. Attacking a female jogger is a very common crime for a rapist or serial killer. In fact, the majority of serial sexual crimes involving strangers are just this sort; few actually involve kidnapping and imprisonment and torture. Hollywood tends to make people think all serial killers are deranged geniuses who plot intricate crimes but this is simply not true. Most serial killers just see an opportunity (read: woman walking or jogging alone) and jump out and brutalize her. Consequently, there isn't much that looks different from one of these crimes to the next. There is no "signature," some calling card that would point to a specific guy. Pretty much any violent sexual offender could have done the crime, so you need physical, circumstantial, or witness evidence to link him to the crime. Unfortunately, the police just went with a witness ID from the victim and used this to put Avery away. It was unfortunate for Avery that he looked enough like the guy who really did the crime to be misidentified. Since there was DNA left in the crime, if it happened today, Avery would not have been charged, but at that time, DNA was not so advanced. However, even today, the right guy might not have been charged either because the police might have no clue who he is; they might just have to put his DNA into the CODIS system and hope he was previously a felon and get a lucky hit.

Now, to the Halbach crime. I am not going to detail all of what makes Avery guilty. If you want to examine each issue in depth, here is a fabulous analysis of each and every segment of "Making a Murderer" by a non-profiler - broadcaster Dan O' Donnell.

http://www.newstalk1130.com/onair/common-sense-central-37717/rebutting-a-murderer-14280387/

What I want to do here is just point out the basic profiling and crime analysis issues relating to the Halbach crime.

1) Where victim's body is found

The body was found on Avery's property. This is why the police went to Avery and talked to him. He wasn't targeted. You have the corpse of a murdered individual on your property; you are going to become a person of interest.

2) Where the victims' vehicle is found.

That was on Avery's property as well. Again, police are not targeting Avery. They are doing their job which is to investigate where the vehicle was found and who could have put the vehicle at that location. Since it was hidden on Avery's property, he is going to become a person of interest.

3) The last place the victim was seen

That was on Avery's property. Anyone who lives on the Avery property is going to become a person of interest; this includes Steven Avery

4) The last person to have contact with the victim

That would be Steven Avery. The police are obviously going to investigate the last person who was in contact with the victim or was with the victim.

5) Where physical evidence of the crime exists

That would be in the Avery fire pit, in the Avery burn barrel, in Steven Avery's house, and in the victim's car on Avery's property. All the physical evidence implicates Steven Avery (his DNA in the car), the victim's body parts, DNA, and personal items in the firepit and barrel, and the key and his DNA in his house.

6) Witnesses

The only people that claim to have seen Teresa Halbach right before or after her disappearance are Bobby and Brendan Dassey. Bobby Dassey states he say Halbach photographing a car and then heading toward Steven Avery's house. Brendan Dassey states he saw Halbach tied up in Steven Avery's house, saw Steven Avery kill her and saw Steven Avery burn her. There are no witnesses saying they saw Teresa Halbach anywhere else or with anyone else.

So, it comes down to this. Overwhelming evidence that Steven Avery is guilty of the murder of Teresa Halbach. Unless he was framed.

Framing Steven Avery would require:

Someone knowing or getting lucky that Halbach was coming out to Avery property that day.
Someone getting lucky that there are two witnesses to say she was with or near Steven Avery that day
Someone getting lucky that a witness can describe the crime in detail so that most of it matches the evidence
Someone has to kill Halbach for some reason and burn her body on the property right under the nose of Steven Avery (or bring her burned body parts (this did not happen) to the property and mix them in with the stuff Steven Avery had already burned.
Someone had to hide the victim's car on the Avery property
Someone had to hide the victim's car key in Steven Avery's house
Someone had to plant Steven Avery's DNA in the victim's car and on the key

So either law enforcement found out Halbach was going out to Steven Avery's house and just as she was leaving, they kidnapped her, killed her, burned her up, and spread all the evidence and DNA around Avery's property and house OR someone else saw the opportunity to kill Halbach, killed her, burned her up somewhere and spread her cremains and personal items around the Avery property and then law enforcement saw a great opportunity and jumped on board by planting Avery's DNA and the key.

Or maybe Steven Avery is just guilty as hell and all the evidence proves it.


Part Two 

Part One


Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

January 21, 2016

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Dead SC Murderer is NOT a Serial Killer

I have been watching network after network stating that the man shot dead in North Carolina is the South Carolina serial killer. This is incorrect. Yes, the dead man is the guy who offed five people during the last week, but he is a spree killer, not a serial killer.

Is this important point? You bet. Serial killers don't want to get caught; they like sneaking around and getting their jollies in whatever method amuses them, then, feeling better about themselves for having taken someone's life, get a hamburger and get a good night's sleep. Serial killers are not fed up with life and want to get caught or die. They want to win, beat the people they hate, the society they live in.

Spree killers, on the other hand, are mass murderers in slow motion. They plan on suicide, usually suicide by cop. They have had enough of life and they want out but they want to go out in a blaze of glory and take their enemies with them. On occasion, a spree killer kills off his wife or mother and realizing that his freedom is coming to an end, prefers to raise his body count and go out with a bang.

This was the South Carolina killer. He had way too many kills in too short a time to be a calculating serial killer. He was a burning star and he knew law enforcement would catch up with his in due time. And as soon as the police showed up, he shot at them rather than go with them peacefully. The police shot back and he got his suicide by cop as he always intended to get.

It will be interesting to see what caused this man to go on a spree. Does he have dead bodies back at his house or did he just realize he was a colossal failure at middle age and decide to quit life. Most mass murderers and spree killers are either in their twenties or their forties: the young ones see no great future in their lives and the older one know that the have already hit their zenith.

Spree killer, not serial killer. It makes a difference in an investigation and protecting oneself. While mass murderers, spree killers, and serial killers are all psychopath, the serial killer is the one living down the street for the next twenty years slowing picking off the citizens. At least we know this bastard is done.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: That nice "Mr. Brooks."

The scariest thing about the new Kevin Costner film isn’t that Demi Moore looks like a wax mannequin, or that there are more plots in this movie than can be found in a veteran’s cemetery, or that a number of well known actors are so desperate for work that they agreed to be in this ridiculous piece of crap. What is really frightening is that I, a criminal profiler, apparently had no clue that serial killers could be such totally wonderful human beings (minus the killing stuff). It seems that Mr. Brooks doesn’t have a psychopathic bone in his body, just a little glitch in his brain chemistry that suddenly makes him need to do a thrill kill, a glitch of biology that he has sadly passed down to his daughter who also interrupts who her fine behavior with a violent hatchet slaying.

Mr. Brooks, as far as I can see, is able to work hard and achieve long term goals, marry and be faithful to an intelligent woman, raise and adore his daughter and be willing to do anything for her (yeah, like kill another person in her college town while she is home to get the police off her trail), enjoy a hobby with a high level of expertise, show depth of emotion, be forthright and honest (except about the killing), and truly feel remorse about being a killer (but oddly never about the victims – wait, that might be an odd bit of psychopathy).

Oh, Mr. Script-hack, please call me next time you write a serial killer movie for a bit of consulting! Serial homicide isn’t in the genes; you don’t inherit it. Psychopaths become that way through early childhood problems coupled with a personality type. And they don’t grow up to be fine members of society without a trace of creepiness. All the serial killers I have met or studied show every psychopathic trait without exception. They are all pathological liars, manipulators, have flat affect and have shallow emotions, lack empathy, have grandiose thinking, are narcissistic, and refuse to accept responsibility for their actions, etc. Few serial killers accomplish much in their lives either, outside of racking up murders.

Actually, we can be thankful that this movie is full of hooey. If serial killers were really like Mr. Brooks, we would have zero warning signs to go on and we wouldn’t be able to trust anyone out there. While people often say after a serial killer is arrested, “He seemed like a nice man,” or “I can’t believe he would do something like this,” the serial killer has always shown psychopathic behaviors that a good many people recognized and preferred not to be around.

I think the most upsetting thing about this movie (besides the fact I tossed $8.50 to see it) is that we are actually supposed to like the serial killer. We feel sorry for Mr. Brooks and hope he feels better soon. Never mind those pesky victims that he so cold-bloodily shot. We didn’t like them nearly as much as we like him. How sad is that…..

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: The Madeleine McCann Letter

Someone has sent a letter to the Dutch press claiming that he knows where little Madeleine McCann is buried. Apparently this fellow had sent a similar letter last year when the police were searching for the missing Belgian sisters, Stacy and Nathalie, which arrived just on the day they were found. Is this a hoax or could this be the abductor of all three girls? Now, there was an arrest made in the case of the murdered Belgian girls, but this letter writer is said to have known where they were buried by the train tracks and so the police are taking the Madeleine letter fairly seriously.

Let’s profile this letter and see what the possibilities are. First of all, the Belgian girls were killed within hours of their abduction and if Madeleine’s body really is where this writer says it is – seven miles from the resort from which she was taken – I think we can eliminate the pedophile ring scenario (a scenario I never really bought). The Belgian girls were raped and killed quickly; there was no transporting of them anywhere and certainly no time to do any selling of them or videotaping of them being tortured and murdered. If Madeleine is found right in the vicinity of the resort, we can eliminate any fancy sex ring kidnapping little kids for profit.

Therefore, in both cases, we would have a pedophile or a pedophile duo grabbing and amusing themselves, not involving themselves in organized crime. The letter writer could, in theory, be a traveling man and have gone to Belgium, found a couple of victims, left the country and sent the letter when he was back at home in Holland. He could have been on the road again, come across another child left unattended (the Belgian girls were left to play in the street at midnight while their parents were drinking it up inside a bar), grabbed her, raped her and killed her, and then gone back home to Holland where he once again writes a letter at leisure to the newspaper he must read all the time. He would be a publicity lover and get a kick out of having the girls found and reading about the discovery over his morning coffee. Of course, there was a man convicted of the sisters’ murder but it is possible he isn’t guilty, just a dupe, and the real killer finds this annoying and wants to set the record straight.

This is one possible scenario. However, there is a problem with it. It is said that the letter writer was right on the money as to where the sisters’ bodies would be found. I beg to differ. The letter writer marked a location that turned out to be one mile away from where the girls were found. This wouldn’t be such a big deal if he was one mile off from where he claimed Madeleine would be found – six miles or seven miles on a lonely road – well, maybe he just didn’t remember exactly how far he drove, but being one mile off of the sisters’ dump site is a different story entirely.

The sisters’ bodies were found within 300 meters of the bar, not over a mile from the bar. I would think a killer well know the difference between “at the end of the block” and “more than a mile down the road.” Furthermore, a killer who leaves the kids at the end of the block probably doesn’t have a car and the one who would leave them more than a mile away would have to have a car to carry them that far.

At this point, unless Madeleine is found exactly where the letter writer claims, the letters were probably the work of an armchair detective who just guessed where he thought they might be. If you add to this toss of the dice to all the possible locations any other tipster gave and all the psychics gave, someone is likely to get lucky and get close to the right spot.

The police, of course, would be remiss not to check this out just to be sure they aren’t ignoring a serial killer’s clues. But, chances are, there are two different pedophiles at work in these crimes. Unattended children are easy targets for pedophiles and just because the MO is similar, it doesn’t mean there is just one guy committing the crimes. Yes, there is a serial killer of children out there, but whether there is one serial killer or two serial killers involved in these crimes remains to be seen.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown