|
photographed for Maxim by Alex Farnum |
This article was
originally supposed to be published for Il Messaggero. It was given to me as an
assignment, after the editor and legal expert of the newspaper saw the Maxim
interview with famed FBI profiler, John Douglas, in the January 2011
issue.
When the article was
turned in, albeit shortened, my editor told me – “this article is too dangerous
to print in Italy”.
So, for your reading
pleasure, the article too dangerous for Italy.
There are two kinds of hunters: the hunter that waits and
the hunter that tracks. The difference of two is the complexity of their
hunting techniques though both aim for the same thing; bagging the prey.
Hunters who wait prefer to lure their prey into range. This
is usually the preferred method of serial killers. They watch, and wait for the
chance to pounce. Hunters who track their prey, involves a more detailed
approach; knowing the specific differences, patterns and behaviors of the
hunted, and calculate their next moves. John Douglas is of the latter. However,
he pursues a different kind of animal: serial killers. He is the investigator
and legendary criminal profiler known as “The Mind Hunter”.
When Douglas joined the FBI
at 25 years old, no agents were interviewing captured killers. He began his
study in prisons, speaking with hundreds of criminals to understand who they
were, and what motivates them to kill. “They want to talk. Many are proud of
what they accomplished. In my interviews, I try to make them feel comfortable,
and speak with them in what they desire most; as a fan”. And they talked, one
by one – from Ed Gein, (whose real life-adventures were fictionalized in Psycho
and The Silence of the Lambs), Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, Son of Sam, to Jeffrey
Dahmer, among other nefarious, infamous criminals that have roamed the earth.
Manson is a great example of Douglas’s
approach. “I’m 6’2”, Manson is 5’4”, Douglas
says. “I knew he’d want to dominate the room, so he stood on a chair during the entire
interview. It seemed to make him comfortable, so I let him. All I want is
information, that’s my goal”.
Pioneering modern criminal profiling 25 years ago in the
FBI, Douglas helped create the Behavioral
Science Unit (BSU). “My first office was in Detroit. Back then, we had about 800
homicides a year. It may be a terrible place to live, but for a young agent, it
was a great place to learn”.
The job took its toll in 1985, when he nearly died. He came
down with viral encephalitis; his body temperature reached 107 degrees, his
pulsed raced to over 220 and had uncontrollable seizures. The tombstone was
already etched with his name and the grave site chosen. It was years of
physical rehabilitation. But Douglas was back on the job 5 months later to nab
The Green River killer and countless mass
murderers before retiring in 1995.
“It’s tough. You’re alone, with this extraordinary pressure,
especially the in-between. Here I am trying to work a case, which in of itself
takes a toll; looking at what the murderer did, horrifying things,
forcing myself to enter their twisted, sick minds, then add in the factor that
you are not always welcome by local law enforcement, even hated at times – even
with my background. It gets to you, it really does”.
Bestselling author of over a dozen novels, books and
manuals, he was the inspiration for Jack Crawford’s character in “The Silence
of the Lambs” and probably ever other fictional detective/investigator that a
screenwriter used to sculpt their characters.
In addition, Charlize Theron’s company optioned Douglas’s biography, “Mindhunter” for HBO.
Since retiring as head investigator for the National
Center for the Analysis of Violent
Crime at the FBI, Douglas now travels the
world hired by international and domestic law enforcement and defense teams who
request his help in investigations.
Criminal Behavioral Profiling has also proved to be a useful
tool in exonerating the wrongly accused or convicted, of which Douglas also dedicates his time.
Probably the most well-known of these was the JonBenét
Ramsey case. The case is notable for both its longevity and the media interest
it generated. The media and local law enforcement agencies considered the
girl's parents and brother to be suspects. Douglas
was the first to publicly proclaim their innocence, long before DNA legally exonerated them. He was vilified not
only in the press, but by his colleagues as well.
Douglas has worked on over
5,000 cases, hired by domestic and international defense teams and law
enforcement. Of those 5,000 cases, he’s never been proved wrong. “I think
that’s probably the biggest pressure, is the possibility of being wrong and why
I got sick”, Douglas tells me.
In the January issue of Maxim, Douglas said he
was convinced that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are innocent. In
February, I conducted this interview with Douglas.
This is it in its entirety.
KE: How do you analyze and create a profile in a case?
JD: Criminal investigative analysis or what you call “criminal profiling” is
the overall process whereby crimes are reviewed in their totality. It involves
the process of criminal investigative analysis both by behavior and
investigative perspective. We interpret the behavior before, during and after
the crime. From that, we develop strategies and profile the unknown subject, or
UNSUB. Then we assess the suspects, the UNSUB, and provide interrogation
techniques.
One must be able to identify with both the victim and the
suspect, in order to answer the investigative of formula of: why + how = who.
JD: The criminal profiling process alone does not convict
anyone. The foundation of any case is a properly conducted, thorough and well
planned investigation. If the investigation is not good, the results will
be tainted. Garbage in…garbage out!
KE: What did you know about the case beforehand, and what interested you?
JD: I really didn’t know much about the case. Just what I
read in passing – perhaps it’s just as well. It had extraordinary media
attention, and it was controversial. There seemed to be strong arguments on
both sides. The public seemed convinced of either their innocence or
their guilt. This always interests me.
KE: Did you speak with the Knox family?
JD: No. I’ve never met them. The case was brought to me by a former FBI
agent who strongly believed they (Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito) were
innocent.
KE: Why did you decide to take this case, in particular?
JD: I thought I could come up with an analysis. I was interested to find
the truth, and not be swayed by either side. In fact, whenever someone brings
me a case, I tell them that my answer may not support their theories – you may
not like what I have to say. I act like the lone ranger; I give my opinion
without caring about the politics. I don’t care how it really works out; in my
mind, I am working for the victim. Part of my downfall, the viral encephalitis,
was due, in part, because people do not always necessarily like me or my
findings.
KE: Did you feel you had all the information necessary or at your disposal to
make your conclusion?
JD: I won't do an analysis unless I am provided with all the information
necessary. In this case, I had everything I needed. In fact, more than I've had
in other cases. Fortunately, I also had the crime scene evidence collection
tapes to view. Often in America,
we only have photos (of a crime scene) and you can't clearly understand what is
happening. There was more than enough to assess.
KE: What was your conclusion of the behavioral profiles you conducted?
JD: From the profiles created, none of the behavioral or forensic evidence
leads to Amanda and Raffaele. There's no history or experience related to violence
or mental illness in their backgrounds. None of the behavioral or forensic
evidence leads to them. This is not a case of serial killers,
cold blooded murderers. They used marijuana, but that’s not some hard core drug
that will change a normal personality.They should’ve walked out of there.
KE: What behavioral evidence should there have been?
JD: Well, fleeing for one, which only Guede did. They
would’ve been nervous, may drink heavily, or become rigid in their
personalities, behaviors along that line – certainly not buying underwear and
kissing. The fact that they were kissing - people looked at this as a sign of
guilt, if anything; I look at it as a sign of innocence. These two individuals
– Amanda and Raffaele, for them to commit this horrific crime and leave the
crime scene that way – it was a massacre – and then hours later, be back at the
crime scene, just doesn’t fit. These were two young people who couldn't fathom
what had taken place. (It was so surreal) they thought they were going to
stroll in and out of there and justice would prevail. But, it didn’t
happen that way. Justice did not prevail.
KE: Do you believe more than one person could've killed
Meredith?
JD: Based on my experience, the crime scene does not
indicate the presence of three individuals in the room where Meredith was
murdered. What was done to the victim, the way in which the crime occurred, was
not the result of three people. This can be concluded without a DNA test.
KE: And third suspect, Rudy Guede?
JD: Behavior reflects personality. And that behavior fits
only Rudy Guede. Guede has the history; he was an experienced criminal, he had
the motive (are you listening, Mr. Pisa?*) and all evidence points to him. It
was a brutal, bloody homicide, and it’s a reflection of his personality. And that
behavior was exhibited at the crime scene. That’s his “canvas”; the result is
his “artwork” of the subject (victim).
You should be able to find other “canvases” of his like that – not necessarily
homicide, but you should find a violent past in this person’s background. I
know that he committed some robberies, but I’ll bet money there are more cases
that he may have been involved with which remain unsolved. I don’t know, maybe
before he came to Perugia
– whatever he may have been escaping previously.
KE: What was the motive?
JD: The primary motive was burglary. But we have an opportunistic offender
here. And that opportunity was presented when Meredith came home, and she
became the victim of the opportunity.
KE: There are many who’ve said covering Meredith’s body with
a duvet proves the murderer was female.
JD: That’s absurd. There are different reasons why someone
will cover a body. There's a certain sense of wanting to undo the crime. Guede
didn’t leave after the crime, but he doesn’t want to look at her. It’s not that
he didn’t feel good about what he has done; I can see that because of the way
he killed her and sexually assaulted her. He’s a sadistic individual with a
violent past. He put the blanket over her because he was wandering around the
apartment and didn’t want to see her.
Sadly, this was a very pedestrian murder. And that’s not to
diminish this beautiful woman’s life, Meredith. It’s not that complicated,
crimes are not so complicated.
After a week, I would’ve said to the investigators on the case, “Are you kidding me? You mean you haven’t
arrested the guy?”
KE: In your professional opinion, what went wrong?
JD: Let me first say, for the police in Perugia, they may only
have the opportunity to see a case like this in a career. Unfortunately here,
we see homicides like this all the time.
The first investigators didn’t know what they were handling.
The collections and preservation of evidence was done incorrectly and led to
contamination. Luckily we have the video; not only photos. You can see all the
mistakes that were done. If I was brought in on this investigation, I would
have told them they were on the wrong track.
KE: The media have been very interested and involved in this case from the
beginning: do you think their role helped or damaged the investigator’s job and
the judge’s assessments?
JD: It absolutely damaged both. The media can shape people's
opinion. A single photograph seen out of context, can affect us. The
investigators can also be responsible for leaking information to manipulate the
media and thus, public opinion.
KE: Do you believe the investigators made mistakes that
subsequently diverted the course of the investigation?
JD: Well, that’s the entire story, isn’t it? First, there
were too many people in those rooms. They should have removed Amanda,
Raffaele and anyone who was not part of the investigation team, and roped it
off.
From the video taken from the crime scene, there were
numerous mistakes. The investigators can be seen passing evidence, dropping it
on the ground, using the same tweezers, not changing gloves, no protective caps
to cover hair. Any insider can recognize these errors. What the
investigators have done may seem right on the "outside", they had
their protective clothing, boots, but cross- contamination of the evidence was
more than evident.
KE: What is cross-contamination, exactly?
JD: It means simply that evidence from anyone, anyone who
came and went in those rooms have the potential to leave their DNA, prints, etc. and run the risk of being
transferred microscopically.
KE: Allegedly, DNA
of Sollecito’s was said to have been found on Meredith's bra clasp. DNA of Amanda Knox’s is said to be on the murder
weapon; on the knife’s handle and Meredith’s on the blade.
JD: It’s not the murder weapon. As far as I’m concerned, it
hasn’t been found; probably never will. It doesn’t fit with the imprint made on
the bed sheet, or the wounds found on Meredith. The evidence collection video
from December
18th shows a knife, randomly chosen, from Sollecito’s apartment and transported
to the lab.
The video taken on November 2nd shows the bra clasp, very
clearly on the floor of the crime scene. On December 18th, after returning to
the scene more than 16 times, the video shows the bra clasp, still there. It
had already been kicked and shuffled around on the floor for six weeks!
Secondly, the amount of DNA,
supposedly, that was Sollecito’s, is highly suspect.
Moreover, if that’s all the evidence you’ve got, two tiny
pieces of DNA, of the plethora
that should have been there... well, it’s simply ludicrous.
KE: Are these errors by the investigators more common in Italy than in
other parts of the world?
JD: Are all the investigators in Italy incompetent? Are they badly
trained? Absolutely not! The training is probably good, very good. But in any
profession people get careless, they can get lazy. But this doesn't mean that
the system does not work. Look at the West Memphis Three case. Just because
there was incompetency there, does not mean all the investigators in Tennessee are
incompetent.
KE: You understand that the Italian officials might
see your conclusions on this case as an external interference.
JD: No one in Italy,
America
or elsewhere in the world, likes anyone looking over their shoulders. But I
think if an investigation has been carried out accurately, without errors, you
shouldn't fear the analysis of other professionals.
KE: What about Amanda’s confessions during the
interrogations?
JD: To be interrogated from 10 pm until 6 am
in the morning? These are not sophisticated young people – it would not take a
dozen interrogators to break them. I know the tricks, I know what they do in
there; I’ve done it. No one could hold up. I couldn’t hold up - especially over
5 days.
KE: Amanda, while under interrogation accused another man,
Patrick Lumumba. Why would she have done that?
JD: The police knew they had negroid hairs at the crime
scene. Amanda exchanged texts the night before with Patrick Lumumba, who's of
African descent, like Guede (Note: Lumumba owned the bar where Amanda worked as
a waitress. He told her she wasn't needed for work that night). Because the DNA evidence had not come back yet, they jumped to
the conclusion the hairs belonged to Lumumba. They interrogated her
accordingly. The tactics used was to have Amanda say what the police wanted.
You get people to confess under this psychological torture.
KE: Do you think the prosecution acted based on prejudices
towards Amanda and Raffaele?
JD: I don’t think prejudice is exactly correct. The
prosecution had a theory from the beginning and continued with it – despite the
facts. They discounted evidence that didn’t support their theory. Their theory
was a threesome murder and let this theory guide them. The prosecution allowed
theory to rule over evidence.
KE: Manuela Comodi, lead prosecutor recently said that
“there is a huge, powerful and unbreakable picture of circumstantial evidence
which points against both of them”.
JD: Circumstantial evidence is the weakest evidence of
all. Witnesses can be bought off, or bargain for favors, recollections
that can’t be counted on...it’s fine to start with, in fact, so are hunches, so
are theories, but that all has to go out the window if the hard evidence, and
in this case, there’s an overwhelming amount of it, points in another
direction.
You can see the motivation of some prosecutors to win, no matter
what it takes, even if truth doesn’t fit into their facts and figures.
This isn't exclusive only to Italy. For instance, during the
West Memphis Three case, the prosecution team created a grand, theatrical scene
in the courtroom. They viciously stabbed a grapefruit with a knife in the
attempt to prove it was the type of a weapon that created wounds on the
victims. They did this to influence the jury and win the case. Only later,
during the appeal, it was discovered that the wounds on the bodies of the boys had not been inflicted by a knife
at all, but by an alligator snapping turtle! (The children's' bodies were thrown
into a river).
KE: So, you’re saying you don’t think there wasn't any
“conspiracy” to convict Amanda and Raffaele?
JD: No, but, they did began to panic when the evidence returned
and didn’t match up to the other two; it was all going to Guede. Instead, they
returned, over and over to the crime scene, even six weeks later – what was it?
Why do you have to go back? Did you miss something? Did you get some new lead?
Did you develop something in the lab, and now you have to find it? No. They had
to go back because they were looking for something, anything, to fit their
theory.
KE: When you mean “they”, are you referring to PM Giuliano
Mignini?
JD: He certainly spearheaded it. Speaking of behavior reflecting
personality – he has similar behaviors of following theory over evidence in the
past. He’s got to win, no matter what; even if the truth doesn’t fit and will
break the law to win. The Monster of Florence case is a great example.
I understand Mr. Mignini was under indictment for abuse of
office, illegal harassment, and the wire-tapping of journalists relating to
that case while prosecuting this trial. It boggles the mind why he was not
removed from his office. Moreover, that he was/is allowed to continue to his
duties.
KE: But the PM didn’t convict her, a jury did.
JD: It’s the way the evidence was presented to the jurors.
There was no evidence, there is no evidence.
Isn’t it strange that all the officers and technicians
working on the case received medals and official recognitions? They were
preparing the next jurors. When I read that I said to myself, oh, they’re
greasing the wheels!
KE: Do you agree with the court of appeals to give the
DNA analyses of the evidence to
third parties experts?
JD: Absolutely. The more the merrier.
KE: Do you trust the Italian justice system?
JD: It's not a question of trust in a system. I may
not trust certain individuals in a system. I am not here to create tensions
between America and Italy, or teach
others how to do their job.
KE: Are you aware the two defendants said they trusted the
Italian justice system?
JD: If I were in prison, I'd probably say the same thing!
Amanda and Raffaele at this time have no control over their lives. If they are
released, they might express a different opinion.
Two people were convicted that should have never been
convicted. The media pictured Amanda as a cold-blooded murderer. Frankly, I was
surprised that they were charged. I was surprised by the conviction. The appeal
is wrong. It’s wrong because of the lack of concrete evidence. No forensic
evidence, no behavioral evidence. Nothing points to their guilt. They’ve got
nothing.
This is like the Ramsey case. DNA
eliminated the family as suspects. The family did not do it. Besides, I saw
what was done to that child (JonBenet Ramsey), how she was sexually
assaulted. Parents kill, they do. But not these parents. Not in the way
and method that child was killed. They're not the type to kill their
daughter.
There are people on websites that hate me to this day because of the Ramsey
case. I want to say to them, give it up! – but they just won’t do it.
I believe in Crime and Punishment. I know Meredith’s family
wants this nightmare to end, they want closure. But they have the person that
killed their daughter! It is Guede. Only Guede.
Thank you to John Douglas for his extensive time for this
interview.
*From Nick Pisa's article of September 24th 2011 for the MAIL ONLINE Pisa wrote: "The DNA is crucial in the case, where no clear motive
for the brutal killing has emerged".
http://www.maxim.com/amg/STUFF/Articles/%22I+Have+Only+One+Objective--+to+Catch+a+Killer%22