The Forensic Examiner (Sample) - Fall 2010

$7.50 U.S./$9.50 CAN

SPECIAL ISSUE! THE HISTORY AND KNOWLEDGE OF THE FBI’S BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE UNIT

VOLUME 19 • NUMBER 3 • FALL 2010

Real Cases. Real Experts. Real Science.

Meet the FBI’s

New!Insightful Interviews!

Cutting-edge Research, Trends, and Analyses!

Profiling Network Intrusions

Combating Police Suicide

Challenges in Operational Psychology

Evil Minds Museum

BEHAVIORALSCIENCE UNITBEHAVIORAL

SCIENCE UNIT

02 THE FORENSIC EXAMINER® Fall 201002 THE FORENSIC EXAMINER® Summer 2010

The American College of Forensic Examiners InstituteSM (ACFEI) is an independent, scientific, and professional society that serves as the national center for the continued advance-ment of forensic examination and consultation across the many professional fields of forensic science. There are five levels of membership and 11 different specialty boards designed to benefit you in your forensic specialty.

Earn continuing education credits, advanced certifications, and receive an annual subscription to The Forensic Examiner®, enjoy professional networking with experts and members in multiple disciplines, and enjoy ACFEI membership credit card services and insurance benefits.

Don’t wait to become a valued member of this growing and nationally recognized professional organization committed to benefiting you.

www.acfei.com(800) 423-9737

Forensic Education made

Credentialing

Training

Continuing Education

Networking

EASY…

ACFEI0310EX

Fall 2010 THE FORENSIC EXAMINER® 03

TAB

LE O

F C

ON

TEN

TS

Real Cases. Real Experts. Real Science.

Meet the BSU

TABLE OF CONTENTS

04 THE FORENSIC EXAMINER® Fall 2010

NEW!InternationalCollege of theBehavioralSciences,p. 102

12

VOLUME 19 • NUMBER 3 • FALL 2010

Prouldy presented by the American College of Forensic Examiners International (ACFEI), courtesy of Dr. Robert L. O’Block, founder and publisher of The Forensic Examiner®.

Meet the FBI’sBEHAVIORAL

SCIENCE UNITBEHAVIORAL

SCIENCE UNIT

TAB

LE OF C

ON

TEN

TS

WWW.ACFEI.COM • (800) 592-1399

Interviews

NoPhoto

Available

NoPhoto

Available

26

10782 108 110 112 114 121117 118 120

42 50 56 62 72 98 104 105


26 Steven A. Bongardt42 Thomas J. Dover50 Samuel L. Feemster56 Kirk A. Kennedy62 Steven R. Conlon

72 Jean G. Larned 82 Gregory M. Vecchi 98 Lydia R. Pozzato104 J. Amber Scherer105 Dawn M. Guinn

107 Karla A. Benson108 Andrew Bringuel, II110 D. Darell Dones112 Tiffany L. Hill114 S. Milena Halterman

117 Teresa P. McDonald118 John P. Jarvis120 Thaddeus E. Clancy121 Maria D. Valdovinos

20

52

74

28

58

86

44

64

An Introduction to the Behavioral Profiling of Network IntrusionsSteven A. Bongardt

The Offender Interaction Process ModelThomas J. Dover

Addressing the Urgent Need for Multi-Dimensional Training in Law EnforcementSamuel L. Feemster

Transitioning from the Clinic to the Field of Operations and InvestigationsKirk A. Kennedy

Aberrant Behavior “Unusual”: part 1Steven R. Conlon

Understanding Police SuicideJean G. Larned

The FBI Behavioral Science Unit’s Approach to World-Class TrainingGregory M. Vecchi and Thomas J. Dover

Interpreting Nonverbal Communication for Use in Detecting DeceptionLydia R. Pozzato

Featured Articles2820 44

58

52

64 8674

Also in this Issue

0810

11

102

61

16

122

123

06 ACFEI Board Information

From the Desks Of...

Member News & Announcements

Letters

FBI Training Division

ACFEI Logo Products

International College of the Behavioral Sciences

New Members

Continuing Education Quizzes

18

Nicholas G. Apostolou, DBA, DABFA, CPA, Cr.FALarry Barksdale, BS, MA E. Robert Bertolli, OD, FACFEI, CHS-V, CMI-VKenneth E. Blackstone, BA, MS, CFC, DABFEDavid T. Boyd, DBA, CPA, Cr.FA, CMA Jules Brayman, CPA, CVA, DABFA, FACFEIJohn Brick, PhD, MA, DABFE, FACFEI Richard C. Brooks, PhD, CGFM, DABFEDennis L. Caputo, MS, DABFET, CHMM, FACFEI Dennis H. Chevalier, BS, MSM, DM, CMIDavid F. Ciampi, PhD, FACFEI, DABPSLarry Crumbley, PhD, CPA, DABFE, Cr.FAAndrew N. Dentino, MD, FACFEI, DABFE, DABFM James A. DiGabriele, PhD/DPS, CPA, Cr.FA, FACFEIJohn Shelby DuPont Jr., DDS, DABFD Scott Fairgrieve, Hons. BSc, MPhil, PhD, FAAFSEdmund D. Fenton, DBA, CPA, CMA, Cr.FA Per Freitag, PhD, MD, FACFEI, DABFMNicholas Giardino, ScD, FACFEI, DABFEDavid H. Glusman, CPA, DABFA, Cr.FA, FACFEIRon Grassi, DC, FACFEI, DABFM, DABFERichard C. W. Hall, MD, FACFEI, DABFM, DABFERaymond F. Hanbury, PhD, ABPP, FACFEI, DABFENelson Hendler, MD, DABFMDavid L. Holmes, EdD, FACFEI, DABFE, DABPSLeo L. Holzenthal Jr., PE, DABFET, FACFEILinda Hopkins, PhD, CFC, DABPS, DABRE Nursine S. Jackson, MSN, RN, DABFNPhilip Kaushall, PhD, DABFE, DABPS, FACFEIEric Kreuter, PhD, CPA, DABFA, FACFEIRonald G. Lanfranchi, DC, PhD, CMI-IV, FACFEIRichard Levenson, Jr., PsyD, DABFE, DABPS, FACFEIMonique Levermore, PhD, FACFEI, DABPS Jonathan Lipman, PhD, FACFEI, DABFE, DABPS Judith Logue, PhD, FACFEI, DABFSW, DABPSMike Meacham, PhD, LCSW, DABFSW, FACFEIDavid Miller, DDS, FACFEI, DABFE, DABFDJacques Ama Okonji, PhD, FACFEI, DABFE, DABPS

Norva E. Osborne, OD, CMI-IIIGeorge Palermo, MD, PhD, FACFEI, DABFMRonald J. Panunto, PE, CFC, CFEI, DABFETLarry H. Pastor, MD, FACFEI, DABFE, DABFMTheodore G. Phelps, CPA, DABFAMarc Rabinoff, EdD, FACFEI, DABFE, CFCJerald H. Ratner, MD, CFPHarold F. Risk, PhD, DABPS, FACFEISusan P. Robbins, PhD, LCSW, DABFSWWalter A. Robbins, CPA, PhDJane R. Rosen-Grandon, PhD, DABFC, FACFEIDouglas Ruben, PhD, FACFEI, DABFE, DABPSJ. Bradley Sargent, CPA, Cr.FA, DABFA, FACFEIWilliam Sawyer, PhD, FACFEI, DABFE, DABFMHoward A. Shaw, MD, DABFM, FACFEIIvan Sosa, MDHenry A. Spiller, MS, DABFE, FACFEIRichard I. Sternberg, PhD, DABPSJames R. Stone, MD, MBA, CHS-III, CMI-IVWilliam A. Tobin, MA, DABFET, DABLEE, FACFEIRobert Tovar, BS, MA, DABFE, DABPS, CHS-IIIBrett C. Trowbridge, PhD, JD, DABPS, FACFEIJeff Victoroff, MD, DABFE, DABFMPatricia A. Wallace, PhD, FACFEI, DABFE, DABFM, CFCRaymond Webster, PhD, FACFEI, DABFE, DABFMDean A. Wideman, MSc, MBA, CFC, CMI-III

*Note: For spacing and consistency considerations, the number of designations listed has been limited to four.

FOUNDER AND PUBLISHER:Robert L. O’Block, MDiv, PhD, PsyD, DMin ([email protected])PRESIDENT AND CEO:John H. Bridges III, DSc (Hon), CHMM, FACFEIEDITOR IN CHIEF:Christopher Powers ([email protected])MEMBER SERVICES: Anna Pry ([email protected])EXECUTIVE ART DIRECTOR:Brandon Alms ([email protected])ANNALS® EDITOR:Laura Johnson ([email protected]) INSIDE HOMELAND SECURITY® EDITOR:Teresa Hernandez ([email protected])ADVERTISING:Christopher Powers ([email protected])(800) 592-1399, ext. 116

2010 EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD

CONTINUING EDUCATION

ACFEI provides continuing education credits for accountants, nurses, physicians, dentists, psychologists, counselors, social workers , and marriage and family therapists . Approvals for continuing education activities are subject to change. For the most up-to-date status, please check the course catalog on our Web site, www.acfei.com, or contact the Continuing Education staff toll-free at (800) 423-9737. ACFEI is an approved provider of Continuing Education by the following:Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education National Association of State Boards of Accountancy National Board for Certified Counselors California Board of Registering Nursing American Psychological Association California Board of Behavioral Sciences Association of Social Work Boards American Dental Association (ADA CERP) The Missouri Sheriff’s Association co-sponsors Police Officer Standards Training (POST) accreditation for the American College of Forensic Examiners Institute’s activities. The American College of Forensic Examiners Institute is a member of the National Certification Commission and the Alliance for Continuing Medical Education. The Ethics Course, Law Course, Evidence Course, Certified Medical Investigator®, Certified in Disaster PreparednessSM, Certified Forensic Accountant, Cr.FA®, and the Certified in Homeland Security, CHS® Levels I–V are all approved for the G.I. Bill benefits.

CALL FOR REVIEWERSThe Forensic Examiner® is always seeking mem-bers to serve on the Editorial Advisory Board. It is your expertise and dedication that helps all of our authors produce the most accurate and excellent articles for your prestigious journal. Please contact the editor if you wish to become a member of the Board, and thank you for everything you do to make the journal great!

CHAIR Cyril H. Wecht, MD, JD, FACFEI, CFP; Chair, American Board of Forensic MedicineMEMBERSDouglas Wayne Beal, MD, MSHA, CMI-V, CFP; Chair, American Board of Forensic ExmainersAlexander Lamar Casparis, CPA, MBA, Cr.FA, FACFEI; Chair, American Board of Forensic AccountingSteven R. Conlon, Chair, American Board of Registered InvestigatorsDianne Ditmer, MS, RN, CFN, FACFEI; Chair, American Board of Forensic NursingDouglas E. Fountain, PhD, LCSW, DABFE, DABFSW; Chair, American Board of Forensic Social WorkersRaymond H. Hamden, PhD, FACFEI, CFC, CMI-V, Chair, Ameri-can Board of Psychological SpecialtiesJames H. Hutson, DDS, CMI-V; Chair, American Board of Forensic DentistryMarilyn J. Nolan, MS, FACFEI, DABFC; Chair, American Board of Forensic CounselorsGregg M. Stuchman; Chair, American Board of Recorded Evidence

ACFEI EXECUTIVE ADVISORY BOARD

BO

AR

DS

The American College of Forensic Examiners International (ACFEI) does not endorse, guarantee, or warrant the credentials, work, or opinions of any individual member. Membership in ACFEI does not constitute the grant of a license or other licensing authority by or on behalf of the organization as to a member’s qualifications, abilities, or expertise. The publications and activities of ACFEI are solely for informative and educational purposes with respect to its members. The opinions and views expressed by the authors, publishers, or presenters are their sole and separate views and opinions and do not nec-essarily reflect those of ACFEI, nor does ACFEI adopt such opinions or views as its own. The American College of Forensic Examiners International disclaims and does not assume any responsibility or liability with respect to the opinions, views, and factual statements of such authors, publishers, or presenters,

nor with respect to any actions, qualifications, or representations of its members or subscriber’s efforts in connection with the ap-plication or use of any information, suggestions, or recommendations made by ACFEI or any of its boards, committees, publications, resources, or activities thereof.

The Forensic Examiner® (ISSN 1084-5569) is published quarterly by The American College of Forensic Examiners International, Inc. (ACFEI). Annual membership for a year in the American College of Forensic Examiners International is $165. Abstracts of articles published in The Forensic Examiner® appear in National Criminal Justice Reference Service, Cambridge Scientific Abstracts, Criminal Justice Abstracts, Gale Group Publishing’s InfoTrac Database, e-psyche database, and psycINFO database. Periodicals Postage Paid at Springfield, Missouri, and additional mailing offices. © Copyright 2010 by the American College of Forensic Examiners Interna-tional. All rights reserved. No part of this work can be distributed or otherwise used without the express written permission of the American College of Forensic Examiners International. The views expressed in The Forensic Examiner® are those of the authors and may not reflect the official policies of the American College of Forensic Examiners International.

CONTACT US:Publication, editorial, and advertising offices of ACFEI, 2750 East Sunshine Street, Springfield, MO 65804. Phone: (800) 592-1399, Fax: (417) 881-4702, E-mail: [email protected]. Subscription changes should be sent to ACFEI, 2750 East Sunshine, Springfield, MO 65804.

POSTMASTER:Send address changes to American College of Forensic Examiners International, 2750 East Sunshine Street, Springfield, MO 65804.

BOARDS


AMERICAN BOARD OF FORENSIC ACCOUNTINGCHAIRAlexander Lamar Casparis, CPA, MBA, Cr. FA, FACFEI

MEMBERS Stewart L. Appelrouth, CPA, CFLM, Cr.FA, FACFEIGary Bloome, CPA, Cr.FAD. Larry Crumbley, PhD, CPA, DABFA, Cr.FAJames A. DiGabriele, PhD/DPS, CPA, Cr.FA, FACFEIMichael W. Feinberg, CPA, Cr.FAMichael G. Kessler, Cr.FA, CICA, FACFEI, DABFAEric A. Kreuter, PhD, CPA, FACFEI, DABFARobert K. Minniti, CPA, MBA, Cr.FAJ. Bradley Sargent, CPA, CFS, Cr.FA, FACFEIJoseph F. Wheeler, CPA, Cr.FA, CHS-III, CFF

AMERICAN BOARD OF FORENSIC COUNSELORSCHAIR Marilyn J. Nolan, MS, FACFEI, DABFC, DABCIPChair Emeritus: Dow R. Pursley, EdD, FACFEI, DABFC

MEMBERSGeorge Bishop, LPC, LAT, FACFEI, DABFELaura W. Kelley, PhD, LPC, DABFC, FACFEIWilliam M. Sloane, JD, LLM, FACFEI, CHS-III

AMERICAN BOARD OF FORENSIC DENTISTRYCHAIRJames H. Hutson, DDS, CMI-V, FACFEI Chair Emeritus: Brian L. Karasic, DMD, MBA, DABFD, CMI-III

MEMBERS Bill B. Akpinar, DDS, CMI-V, FACFEI, DABFDStephanie L. Anton-Bettey, DDS, CMI-VJeff D. Aronsohn, DDS, FACFEI, DABFD, CMI-VSusan Bollinger, DDS, CMI-IV, CHS-IVChester B. Kulak, DMD, CMI-V, CFC, DABFD

AMERICAN BOARD OF FORENSIC EXAMINERSCHAIRDouglas Wayne Beal, MD, MSHA, CMI-V, CFP

MEMBERS Jess P. Armine, DC, FACFEI, DABFE, DABFMJohn H. Bridges III, CHS-V, DABCHS, CHMM, CSHM, Ronna F. Dillon, PhD, DABFE, DABPS, CMI-V, CHS-IIIBruce H. Gross, PhD, JD, MBA, FACFEIDarrell C. Hawkins, MS, JD, FACFEI, CMI-VMichael W. Homick, PhD, DABCHS, CHS-VJohn L. Laseter, PhD, FACFEI, CMI-IV, CHS-IIILeonard K. Lucenko, PhD, FACFEI, DABFE, CPSIMarc A. Rabinoff, EdD, FACFEI, DABFE, CFCJanet M. Schwartz, PhD, FACFEI, DABFE, CHS-VAMERICAN BOARD OF FORENSIC ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGYCHAIRBen Venktash, Peng (UK), DABFET, DABFE, FSEVICE CHAIRGeorge C. Frank, CFC, DABFE, FACFEI

MEMBERSCam Cope, BS, DABFET, DABFERobert K. Kochan, BS, FACFEI, DABFET, DABFEJ.W. “Bill” Petrelli Jr., DABFET, CFC, AIA, FACFEI Max L. Porter, PhD, DABFET, CFC, FACFEI

AMERICAN BOARD OF FORENSIC MEDICINECHAIRCyril H. Wecht, MD, JD, FACFEI, CFP

MEMBERS Douglas Wayne Beal, MD, MSHA, CMI-V, CFPZhaoming Chen, MD, PhD, MS, CFPJohn A. Consalvo, MD, DABFE, DABFM, FACFEIVijay P. Gupta, PhD, DABFMLouis W. Irmisch III, MD, FACFEI, CMI-V, CFPE. Rackley Ivey, MD, FACFEI, CMI-V, CFPLawrence Lavine, DO, MPH, CHS-V, CMI-VKenneth A. Levin, MD, CFP, FACFEI, DABFME. Franklin Livingstone, MD, CFP, FACFEI, DABFMManijeh K. Nikakhtar, MD, CFP, MPH, CMI-VMatthias I. Okoye, MD, MSc, JD, FRCPJohn R. Parker, MD, FACFEI, DABFM, CFPJerald H. Ratner, MD, DABFE, DABFM, FACFEIS. Sandy Sanbar, MD, PhD, JD, FCLM

AMERICAN BOARD OF FORENSIC NURSINGCHAIR Dianne T. Ditmer, MS, RN, CFN, CHS-III

MEMBERSHeidi H. Bale, RN, BSN, CFNMarilyn A. Bello, RNC, MS, CFN, CMI-IVWanda S. Broner, MSN, RN, FNE, CENCynthia J. Curtsinger, RN, CFNLinda J. Doyle, RN, CLNC, CFN, CMI-IIIL. Sue Gabriel, EdD, MSN, RN, CFNDiane L. Reboy, MS, RN, CFN, FACFEIElizabeth N. Russell, RN, BSN, CCM, BCSharon L. Walker, MPH, PhD, RN, CFNCarol A. Wood, RN, CFN, BS, NHA

AMERICAN BOARD OF FORENSIC SOCIAL WORKERSCHAIR Douglas E. Fountain, PhD, LCSW, DABFE, DAB-FSWMEMBERSPeter W. Choate, PhD, BA, MSW, DABFSW, DABFEMichael G. Meacham, PhD, LCSW, DCSW, DAB-FSWKathleen Monahan, DSW, MSW, CFC, DABFESusan P. Robbins, PhD, LCSW, DCSW, DABFSWSteven J. Sprengelmeyer, MSW, MA, FACFEI, DABFSW

AMERICAN BOARD OF PSYCHOLOGICAL SPECIALTIESCHAIRRaymond H. Hamden, PhD, FACFEI, CFC, CMI-VCHAIR EMERITUSRaymond F. Hanbury, PhD, FACFEI, DABPS, DABFE

MEMBERSCarl N. Edwards, PhD, JD, FACFEI, DABPSCarol J. Armstrong, PhD, LPC, DABPSRobert J. Barth, PhD, DABPS

Monica J. Beer, PhD, DABCIPRonna F. Dillon, PhD, DABPS, CMI-V, CHS-IIIPaula M. MacKenzie, PsyDHelen D. Pratt, PhD, FACFEI, DABPSDoublas H. Ruben, PhD, FACFEI, DABPS, DABFERichard M. Skaff, PsyD, DABPSCharles R. Stern, PhD, DABPS, FACFEI, CMI-VJoseph C. Yeager, PhD, DABFE, DABPS, FACFEI Donna M. Zook, PhD, DABPS, CFC

AMERICAN BOARD OF RECORDED EVIDENCECHAIRGregg M. StutchmanCHAIR EMERITUSThomas J. Owen, BA, FACFEI, DABRE, CHS-V

MEMBERSEddy B. Brixen, DABFETStephen C. BullerRyan O. Johnson, BA, DABFE, DABREMichael C. McDermott, JD, DABRE, DABFE, FACFEIJennifer E. Owen, BA, DABRE, DABFEJeff M. Smith

AMERICAN BOARD OF REGISTERED INVESTIGATORSCHAIRSteven R. Conlon, MS

MEMBERSKenneth E. Blackstone, MS, CFC, DABFEH. Scott Brown, MS, RS, RIRon Carroll, BSEric Lakes, CHS-III, CLWE, MCSELt. David Millsap, RI, CMI-IIIJoseph A. Juchniewicz, MA, SSI, CHS-III, RIGregory M. Vecchi, PhD, CFC, CHS-V, FACFEIRichard A. Vera, II, MBA, CPACyril H. Wecht, MD, JD, CFP, FACFEI

EXECUTIVE ADVISORY BOARDOF THE INTERNATIONAL COLLEGEOF THE BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES CHAIR Gregory M. Vecchi, Ph.D., CFC, CHS-V, FACFEI

MEMBERS Janet M. Schwartz, PhD, FACFEI, DABFE, CHS-VRaymond H. Hamden, PhD, FACFEI, CFC, CMI-V Janice L. Hargrave, MEd, CFCDavid L. Holmes, EdDGary Kesling, Ph.D., LMFT, LPC, DAPADuane L. Dobbert, PhD, FACFEICarl J. Patrasso, PsyDSue Gabriel, EdD, RN, CFNJerald H. Ratner, MD, CFPTina Jaeckle, PhD, LCSW, MFSW, CFCMark L. Goldstein, PhDClifton D. Croan, MA, LPC, DAPA

ACFEI EXECUTIVE ADVISORY BOARDS

WWW.ACFEI.COM • (800) 592-1399B

OA

RD

S


PUB

LISH

ER’S

NO

TE

FROM THE DESKS OF...

Robert L. O’Block, Founder/Publisher

Twenty years ago, when I started the American College of Forensic Examiners International (ACFEI), I could not have imagined the explosive growth and expanding impact of the association today. Every year, I am pleased to meet the high caliber of members who join ACFEI. Among those members is Behavioral Science Unit (BSU) Chief Dr. Gregory M. Vecchi, who I am proud to recognize for his contributions to our journal and associa-tion, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the entire field of behavioral science. Dr. Vecchi has authored 12 articles appearing in The Forensic Examiner®, Annals of the American Psychotherapy Association, and Inside Homeland Security®. Through Dr. Vecchi’s thorough research displayed in his article series “Principles and Approaches to Criminal Investigation,” we have been able to launch the Registered Investigator®, RI® Program, and he has played an integral role in the creation of our new association targeted at behavioral science specialists, The International College of the Behavioral Sciences (ICBS). These are just few examples of Dr. Vecchi’s contributions to our associations. As you will see in the next 100+ pages, Dr. Vecchi and his staff have taken the BSU and their research into the twenty-first century, expanding into areas that were incomprehensible even 25 years ago.

I visited the BSU for the first time several years ago, in the summer of 1998, which I spent travelling back and forth between Springfield, Missouri, and Quantico, Virginia. I made a series of weekly commutes after I was accepted as a student of the FBI’s Citizens’ Academy to attend the program. This led me to further pursue the avenue of active, engaged citizen; I joined FBI’s InfraGard, which deals in terrorism, criminal, security, and intelligence matters. It is a program I highly recommend all of our members join.

I have since had the pleasure of visiting the BSU several times over the past couple of years, and as always, the staff has been warm and friendly, eager to share the life-saving knowledge found in their cutting-edge research. These agents and staff members truly are on the front lines of defense, working proactively against looming threats and creating solutions to the next big problem before it peaks. I am continually thankful to see the ways the BSU is adapting to modern threats, such as areas of cyber crime and gang-related terrorism, as well as tak-ing new approaches to old tactics, such as the use of microexpressions to analyze suspects’ body language during interrogations and interviews.

So, this issue is our salute to the BSU, the FBI, and all groups who fight every day to protect our freedoms, our liberties, and our rights. Thank you for all you do for our nation.

Respectfully,

Robert O’Block, MDiv, DMin, PsyD, PhDFounder and PublisherAmerican College of Forensic Examiners InternationalSM

American Board for Certification in Homeland Security®

American Psychotherapy Association®

American Association of Integrative MedicineSM

International College of the Behavioral Sciences®


WWW.ACFEI.COM • (800) 592-1399FROM THE DESKS OF...ED

ITOR

’S NO

TE

Special Issue!Christopher Powers, Editor in Chief

This is a very special issue, courtesy of Dr. O’Block, the founder and publisher of The Forensic Examiner®; Dr. Gregory M. Vecchi, unit chief of the FBI Behavioral Science Unit; and the hardworking staff of the FBI’s Behavioral Science Unit (BSU). This issue is dedicated entirely to the BSU and is the culmination of a lot of hard

work and dedication from both sides. As you may have already noticed, this issue is longer than the standard issue—the BSU staff were more than eager to collaborate with us to help spread their knowledge and

increase the visibility of the BSU’s work. Herein, you will find numerous articles and interviews—there is sure to be something of interest to all of our readers.

My visit to Quantico was enjoyable and enlightening. Two colleagues and I were able to spend three days at the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia. I had the pleasure and privilege of rid-

ing the same elevator down to the BSU as Jodie Foster did in The Silence of the Lambs. I toured the hostage rescue training (HRT) area; met various BSU agents and professional staff instructors, researchers,

and administrative staff; and learned more about the long, interesting history of the FBI National Academy and Behavioral Science Unit, among many other fascinating things. The Academy is expansive, beautiful, and full of history; all of these are evident from the moment you arrive.

The instructor and staff interviews were very open-ended; we essentially let the instructors and staff discuss their work with as few interruptions on our part as possible. Many of the interviews lasted the better part of an hour, or as long as the instructors’ and staff ’s schedules would allow. Given the length of these interviews, we were forced to put only short excerpts of the interviews in the journal; the full versions can be found at acfei.com and theforensicexaminer.com. We heard and learned about cyber crime, psycholinguistics, and the other Behavior-Based Specialty Areas within the BSU, which range from criminal to national security topics. Many of the instructors were graciously willing to write articles exclusively for The Forensic Examiner® based on their experiences, work, and research. This issue is the first and only place that these can be viewed, so know that as you read through these pages, you are among the first to do so anywhere.

The enthusiasm and professionalism of the BSU instructors and staff shows in their interviews and articles—you will find the following topics and issues as compelling to read as I found them to listen to at Quantico. Enjoy!

Sincerely,

Christopher PowersEditor in Chief


Get ConnectedACFEI is currently connected to many social media networks. Be friends with us on Facebook, stay in the loop on LinkedIn, follow us on Twitter, and subscribe to our channel on YouTube! We strive to stay interconnected with our members and the forensic com-munity by updating you on the latest news and forensic multimedia. For information on becoming more actively involved with ACFEI online, please contact Jill Smith, multimedia specialist, at [email protected]. What’s in a Name?The American College of Forensic Examiners Institute, along with its sister associations, the American Psychotherapy Association, the American Board for Certification in Homeland Security, and the American Association of Integrative Medicine, are all united underneath the administration of Management Executives, Inc. However, to create an even greater sense of unity and to convey an all-hands approach as a single entity of alignment, Management Executives, Inc. and all sub-bodies as mentioned above will be joined together under the umbrella of The American College of Forensic Examiners International.

Submit Your Videos for Our Multimedia Contest We are accepting video submissions for our Multimedia contest. Send us your video files, DVDs, etc., on a forensic topic, case study, or member testimonial, and you may win an article written about yourself in the next issue of The Forensic Examiner®. Your video will be featured on ACFEI’s YouTube channel. Send your submission to [email protected] by October 31, 2010, to enter the contest.

Board Members WantedThe American Board of Registered Investigators (ABRI) is seeking board members who have 10 years of documented experience in investigations and a degree from an accredited university. Send your résumés/curriculum vitae to [email protected] to apply for a board position.

Conference Registrants, reserve your room at the Renaissance for $100 in member bucks!Members who reserve rooms at the Renaissance Orlando Resort at SeaWorld will receive $100 in member bucks, which can be applied to the 2011 conference registration, creden-tialing programs, and more.

Announcing: New, Cutting-Edge Association!The International College of the Behavioral Sciences (ICBS) envisions becoming the largest professional organization for the establishment of innovative research, information sharing, practices, training, and standards of excellence in the behavioral science disciplines. Call (800) 423-9737 or visit www.behavioralscience.org for more information!

ACFE

I NEW

SACFEI NEWS

ACFEI NEWS and announcements


LETTERS to the editor

Do you have something you would like to say to your fellow Forensic Examiner readers? Pleased, angry, or indifferent, share your opin-ions on articles, issues, trends, or ideas here! E-mail your thoughts and comments to [email protected] or write to: 2750 East Sunshine Street • Springfield, MO 65804 Please note that submissions may be edited for length and content.

In the summer 2010 issue of The Forensic Examiner®, a book review was published discussing the book The Forensic Psychology of Criminal Minds by Dr. Katherine

Ramsland. The first sentence of this book review reads “Katherine Ramsland, PhD, got her start with the help of John Douglas when she wrote The Cases That Haunt Us.”

This line was an unfortunate mistake. The Cases That Haunt Us was actually written by Dr. John Douglas and Mark Olshaker. Dr. Ramsland did assist with the creation of the

work by conducting some background research, but she was not involved in the actual writing of the book. Dr. John Douglas performed the overall analysis of the cases as they were outlined in his text, while Mark Olshaker handled its writing.

Below is a list of the books authored or co-authored by Dr. John Douglas:The Cases That Haunt Us: From Jack the Ripper to JonBenet Ramsey, the FBI’s Legendary Mindhunter •Unravels the Mysteries That Won’t Go Away—By John Douglas and Mark OlshakerMind Hunter: Inside the FBI’s Elite Serial Crime Unit—• By John Douglas and Mark Olshaker (you can also visit www.mindhunter.com for more)Broken Wings—• By John Douglas and Mark OlshakerThe Anatomy of Motive: The FBI’s Legendary Mindhunter Explores the Key to Understanding and Catching •Violent Criminals—By John Douglas and Mark OlshakerObsession: The FBI’s Legendary Profiler Probes the Psyches of Killers, Rapists, and Stalkers and Their Victims •and Tells How to Fight Back—By John Douglas and Mark OlshakerJourney Into Darkness• —By John Douglas and Mark OlshakerInside the Mind of BTK: The True Story Behind the Thirty-Year Hunt for the Notorious Wichita Serial •Killer—By John Douglas and Johnny DoddCrime Classification Manual• —By John Douglas, Ann W. Burgess, Allen G. Burgess, and Robert K. ResslerAnyone You Want Me to Be• —By John DouglasMan Down, Vol. 2• —By John DouglasSexual Homicide: Patterns and Motives• —By W. Burgess and John E. DouglasGuide to Careers in the FBI: Complete Guide to the Skills and Education Required to be a Top FBI Candi-•date—By John Douglas John Douglas’ Guide to the Police Officer Exams: • Your Complete Guide to Becoming a Police Officer—By John Douglas

For a list of works by Katherine Ramsland, visit her Web site: www.katherineramsland.comThe Forensic Examiner® strives to always present the latest and most accurate information in the field of fo-rensics and all relevant specialties. We will continue our dedication to science, integrity, and justice.

WWW.ACFEI.COM • (800) 592-1399LETTERSLET

TER

S


MEE

T T

HE

BSU

BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE UNIT


Meet the FBI’sBEHAVIORAL

SCIENCE UNITBEHAVIORAL

SCIENCE UNIT

WWW.ACFEI.COM • (800) 592-1399M

EET T

HE B

SU

Back row (from left): Jean G. Larned; Tiffany L. Hill; Kirk A. Kennedy; Stephen A. Bongardt; Steven R. Conlon; Thomas J. Dover; Samuel L. FeemsterMiddle row (from left): D. Darell Dones; John P. Jarvis; Karla A. Benson; S. Milena Halterman; Dawn M. Guinn; Lydia R. PozzatoFront row (from left): Thaddeus E. Clancy; Maria D. Valvodinos; Gregory M. Vecchi; J. Amber Scherer; Teresa P. McDonald; Andrew Bringuel, II


BEHAVIORALBEHAVIORAL

MEE

T T

HE

BSU


The FBI Academy at Quantico, Virginia, is well known to law enforcement officers from around the world. Its alumni include graduates from every state and from over 160 foreign countries and United States territories. Tens of thousands of Special Agents of the FBI received their initial training at the Academy, as well as nearly 40,000 graduates of the FBI National Academy. In fact, the National Academy of today is the successor of the FBI’s entry into training of law enforcement personnel. While one may think that the BSU is only involved in one specialty or issue, it is in fact a very diverse unit. Led by Unit Chief Dr. Gregory M. Vecchi, the numerous agents and support staff of the BSU work in an increasing array of fields, including applied behavioral science, crime and analysis futuristics, behavioral science as it relates to cyberspace, conflict and crisis management, death investigations, interpersonal violence, the mindset of terrorists, gangs, spirituality, stress management, and youth violence. They come from a wide variety of educational backgrounds and disciplines, including supervisory special agents, veteran law enforcement officers, operational psycholo-gists, criminologists, crime analysts, and instructional research analysts.

The Behavioral Science Unit (BSU) was established in

1972 at the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia, with

the vision to “inspire excellence and

leadership in the applied behavioral

sciences for the FBI and its partners

to further the Bureau’s strategic prior-

ities.” Through its legacy of training,

research, and consultation activities,

the BSU developed techniques, tac-

tics, and procedures that have become a staple of be-

havior-based programs that support the law enforce-

ment, intelligence, and military communities. It is

here that the term “serial killer” was coined and where

criminal investigative analysis and “profiling” were

developed. Many of these programs

eventually developed into stand-

alone programs, units, and centers,

such as the National Center for the

Analysis of Violent Crime (NCAVC),

Undercover Safeguard Unit, Crisis

Negotiation Unit, Hostage Rescue

Team, and Employee Assistance Unit. These specialty

response entities remain ever vigilant and prepared to

respond within their respective lane of operations.

s Dr. Gregory M. Vecchi, BSU unit chief


HERALDRY OF THE BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE UNIT SEAL Each symbol and color in the Behavioral Science Unit (BSU) seal has special significance. The motto, “Training, Research, Consultation,” succinctly describes the three pillars that form the basis of its mission—to provide academic, administrative, and operational support to the FBI, law enforcement, and national security communities. The three sets of three stars represent the stability provided by these pillars with regard to operational as-sistance, which is analogous to a “three-legged stool” that evenly supports the weight placed upon it. The stars also represent balance, which is analogous to the concept of mind, body, and spirit for individuals, and the balance of power between the ex-ecutive, legislative, and judicial branches of the government. The Greco-Roman-style building represents traditional education and training, the FBI Academy, and the universities with which the BSU collaborates on learning and knowledge initiatives. The Null Hypothesis represents the research that forms the basis of BSU’s training and consultation activities, which is based upon education, experience, and critical thinking. The scales represent

WWW.ACFEI.COM • (800) 592-1399M

EET T

HE B

SU

Behavioral science seeks to understand offender motivation (the “why”) and their behavioral signatures, rituals, and modus operandi (the “how”) by examining verbal and nonverbal activities, as well as interactions between individuals and groups dynamics within social systems, for the purpose of understanding the meaning behind behavior and influencing behavioral change. Social science disciplines such as anthropology, con-flict studies, criminology, psychology, and sociology provide the perceptual theoretical frameworks that underpin this understanding.

s The BSU also hosts seminars and confer-ences in conjunction with various academia.


justice, forensics, and expert witness services that underpin the foundation of BSU consultations. The traditional FBI “G-Man” in the center represents the single-minded purpose of the BSU to develop relevant programs of training, research, and consultation that directly support the FBI and its partners within the scope of FBI strategic priorities. The Thompson submachine (“Tommy”) gun represents the inherent danger and toxicity that is ever present in the FBI operational environment and the tremendous respon-sibility the FBI has with regard to the protection of life, liberty, and the Constitution of the United States. The rope edge that circumscribes the seal symbolizes the unique way in which the behavioral sciences can be “woven” into academic, administrative, and operational venues to address and solve problematic issues that impact the law enforcement and national security commu-nities. The colors of the BSU seal also have significance. Blue symbolizes vigilance, perseverance, and justice; red symbolizes courage, valor, and strength; gold symbolizes value; and white symbolizes purity, light, truth, and peace.

FBI TRAINING DIVISION AT-A-GLANCE

Since 1972, the FBI Training Division (TD) has served as the center of learning excellence for the Bureau, providing a source of knowledge and training for employees. TD’s roots date back to the late 1920s when J. Edgar Hoover institutionalized training for new Special Agents. On July 29, 1935, Hoover also began the FBI National Police School (later to be named the FBI National Academy) with 23 men from seventeen states as the inaugural class. In 1940, the FBI Academy was opened in Quantico, VA where firing ranges and dormitory facilities were built specifically for the Bureau. Those facilities were in use until 1972, shortly after the death of Hoover, when the current complex in Quantico opened. Today, TD continues to train new agents and law enforcement personnel from around the world, and it also focuses on being the career partner for all employees by supporting their professional developmentat the Bureau.

Currently led by Assistant Director Janet L. Kamerman, TD has close to 400 employees including both Special Agents and support personnel (many of whom are former agents). They encompass classroom, firearms, practical applications and physical training instructors; gunsmiths; nurses; librarians; public affairs and communications specialists; printing and reproduction technicians; administrative and financial resource personnel; and curriculum development and distance learning experts.

TD has five marquis programs including: New Agent Training, Center for Intelligence Training, National Academy, Leadership Development Unit, International Training and Assistance Unit.

New Agent Training: The New Agents’ Training Unit (NATU) coordi-nates 20 weeks of instruction at the FBI Academy in Quantico, VA. New Agent Trainees (NATS) are exposed to three components of curriculum involving the following areas: investigative/tactical, non-investigative, and administrative. There are four major concentrations, including academics, firearms, operational skills, and the Integrated Case Scenario.

Intelligence Training Section: The Intelligence Training Section (ITS) is the prototype and forerunner to the FBI’s School of Intelligence which will provide a rich and prestigious learning environment for the FBI’s Intelligence Career Service. ITS trains, educates, and develops the FBI’s intelligence workforce in doctrine and tradecraft from entry to advanced levels with relevant application to the FBI’s unique domestic security mission.

FBI Academy in Quantico, VA

TD Vision

• To be the center of excellence for learning and research for the FBI, national security, and law enforcement organizations worldwide

TD Mission

• To lead and inspire through excellence in training and research, the education and professional development of the FBI, national security, and law enforcement community• To influence change and forge collaborative partnerships to ensure the protection of U.S. interests from evolving threats

TD’s Guiding Principles

• Collaborate with partners to ensure that professional development is educationally sound and designed to meet assessed needs and career paths• Provide a customer-focused service that is flexible and competitive with alternative options in the marketplace• Operate with personal and institutional integrity and respect



National Academy: The National Academy (NA) is a prestigious, world-renowned professional course of study for U.S. and international leaders that serves to improve the administration of justice in police departments and agencies at home and abroad, raising law enforcement standards, knowledge, and cooperation worldwide. The program offers courses in law, behavioral science, forensic science, leadership development, communication, and health/fitness.

Leadership Development Institute: The Leadership Development Institute (LDI) provides education, consultation, and net-working opportunities to develop excellence in leadership at all levels of the Bureau and external partner agencies. Its FBI Leader-ship Development Unit (FBI LDU) is responsible for leadership education of FBI employees, while the Community Leadership Development Unit (CLDU) focuses on leadership education for our external partners. They specifically address leadership in the contexts of domestic and international law enforcement cooperation, intelligence, and counterterrorism.

International Training and Assistance Unit: The International Training and Assistance Unit (ITAU) develops law enforcement training programs for police in the international arena to successfully combat and prevent terrorist acts against citizens and institutions of the U.S. both abroad and domestically.

Among the array of resources offered at TD,the following are among the highlights of the facility:

• The FBI Library – provides research and reference materials to all employees and other law enforcement personnel with its premier collection of law enforcement books, journals, videos, and expert professional staff. • The Counterterrorism Forensic Science Research and Training Center a section of the FBI Laboratory Division that supports the FBI Training Division by providing forensic training to FBI and DEA New Agents, the National Academy, FBI in-service students, and personnel from Federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies.

• Hogan’s Alley – a mock city that replicates a small town used for FBI and DEA New Agent practical training.

• The Tactical Emergency Vehicle Operations Center (TEVOC) – a training center with a 1.1 mile road course that offers a comprehensive driver training program. For general questions or comments regarding TD, please contact the Outreach and Communications Unit (OCU) at 703.632.3600 or [email protected].

MEE

T T

HE

BSU





National Academy: The National Academy (NA) is a prestigious, world-renowned professional course of study for U.S. and international leaders that serves to improve the administration of justice in police departments and agencies at home and abroad, raising law enforcement standards, knowledge, and cooperation worldwide. The program offers courses in law, behavioral science, forensic science, leadership development, communication, and health/fitness.

Leadership Development Institute: The Leadership Development Institute (LDI) provides education, consultation, and net-working opportunities to develop excellence in leadership at all levels of the Bureau and external partner agencies. Its FBI Leader-ship Development Unit (FBI LDU) is responsible for leadership education of FBI employees, while the Community Leadership Development Unit (CLDU) focuses on leadership education for our external partners. They specifically address leadership in the contexts of domestic and international law enforcement cooperation, intelligence, and counterterrorism.

International Training and Assistance Unit: The International Training and Assistance Unit (ITAU) develops law enforcement training programs for police in the international arena to successfully combat and prevent terrorist acts against citizens and institutions of the U.S. both abroad and domestically.

Among the array of resources offered at TD,the following are among the highlights of the facility:

• The FBI Library – provides research and reference materials to all employees and other law enforcement personnel with its premier collection of law enforcement books, journals, videos, and expert professional staff. • The Counterterrorism Forensic Science Research and Training Center a section of the FBI Laboratory Division that supports the FBI Training Division by providing forensic training to FBI and DEA New Agents, the National Academy, FBI in-service students, and personnel from Federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies.

• Hogan’s Alley – a mock city that replicates a small town used for FBI and DEA New Agent practical training.

• The Tactical Emergency Vehicle Operations Center (TEVOC) – a training center with a 1.1 mile road course that offers a comprehensive driver training program. For general questions or comments regarding TD, please contact the Outreach and Communications Unit (OCU) at 703.632.3600 or [email protected].

WWW.ACFEI.COM • (800) 592-1399M

EET T

HE B

SU


The FBI Behavioral Science Unit (BSU) founded the BSU Evil Minds Research Museum in 2008 with the mission to “study serial killer and other offender artifacts for the purpose of developing a deeper under-standing of offender motivation, personality, and intent in order to assist and enhance investigative strategies and techniques.” Simply put, the vision of the museum is to assist in mitigating and preventing future victimization through understanding the meaning behind offender behavior. The BSU Evil Minds Research Museum is located in the basement of the FBI National Academy. Access to the museum is limited to law enforcement personnel, special guests of BSU, or other designated persons by appoint-ment only. This approach is used—first and foremost—out of respect for the dignity of the victims of these horrible crimes and to en-sure that the offenders are not glamorized.

History In December 2008, Dr. Gregory M. Vecchi, unit chief of the BSU, received a call from a man who was not involved in law enforce-ment, but claimed to have studied serial killers for over 25 years and thus had a valu-able “collection” of serial killer items such as paintings, artwork, and correspondence, which he wanted to donate to the BSU. After several telephone conversations, Dr.

Vecchi made arrangements to have the items picked up from the man by local field agents. Upon receipt of the items, it was discovered that the serial killer artifacts were indeed one-of-a-kind, including clown paintings by John Wayne Gacy (the killer clown), greet-ing cards from Lawrence “Pliers” Bittaker (sexual sadist killer), a manifesto, and thou-sands of pages of written correspondence from a dozen serial killers, including Danny Rolling, Ottis Toole, and others. A cursory review of the items revealed a fascinating realization: this was correspondence between the serial killers and their friends and family, rather than information traditionally obtained through interactions with the police (i.e., inter-views, interrogations, research, etc.). The materials provide unique insights into the killers’ motivations, personalities, and the meaning behind their behavior simply because when corresponding with friends, family, and themselves, there was no apparent reason to put forth a certain socially desirable image, whereas, in their interac-tions with the police and other authorities, the killers were more likely to feel compelled to present a certain image and demeanor.

DonationsLaw enforcement agencies, the public, and other entities are encouraged to

donate unneeded evidentiary items, personal effects, or other items of interest that have the potential to provide insight into the minds of serial killers and other offenders. Donations are accepted at the sole discretion of the BSU. Unless otherwise directed, all donors will be recognized by a plaque in their honor within the museum. Moreover, all donations will be preserved for research purposes, and, as appropriate, displayed within the museum.

Visiting Scholar ProgramThe BSU has established the BSU Evil Minds Research Museum Visiting Scholar Program (VSP) for the purpose of analyzing and interpreting serial killer and other offender artifacts. The VSP seeks established scholars with strong research skill sets in handwriting, content, and statement analysis, oil paint-ing and artwork interpretation, paint brush stroke pattern analysis, psycholinguistics, and related specialties. All candidates must be able to pass an FBI background investi-gation. Travel expenses and lodging will be provided based on available funding.

s Paintings by serial killer John Wayne Gacy.

Dr. Vecchi con-tributed articles for Annals of the American Psychotherapy Association.

MEE

T T

HE

BSU


$6.50 U.S./$9.50 CAN

Voices of Reform:Therapists debate

health care proposals

Stressed Out:Methods of crisis intervention

and management

Demystifying OCD:Study reveals link between

anxiety disorders

Age RegressionTherapy:

Quick method fordiscovering ourdeepest dreads

FBI Evil Minds Research Museum acquires slayer

art and artifacts

Inside Serial Killers’ Minds

The FBI Behavioral Science Unit’sEvil Minds Research Museum

s Dr. Gregory M. Vecchi, BSU unit chief, and Mr. Steven R. Conlon, deputy unit chief and curator of the BSU Evil Minds Research Museum.


Serial killer John Wayne Gacy produced clown paintings from prison that generated a reported $100,000 in income before his execution in 1994. Although many consider the sale of this art to be disrespectful and of-fensive to the families of his victims, there is demand for serial killer art and artifacts. Wisps of hair, nail clippings, and even tchotskies from murderers’ homes are sold online to collectors daily.

Andy Kahan, director of the crime victims division of the Houston mayor’s office, dubbed these items “murderabilia.” For nearly a decade, he has been working to get these items off the market—and to keep criminals and their associates from prospering from the sales. Kahan has long been pushing for a federal statute that would prohibit criminals from selling murderabilia through third parties on the Web. “Currently, eight states have passed their version of what I call The Notoriety for Profit Law,” Kahan said. The federal bill, which originated in 2007, was sponsored by Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas and has languished in Congress. “The federal bill never received a hearing and hopefully will be re-filed this year,” Kahan told Annals of the American Psychotherapy Association. Getting the message heard has been an uphill battle because many consider the bill to be a contradiction to First Amendment rights. New York passed “The Son of Sam Law” in the mid-70s to prevent serial killer Sam Berkowitz from profiting by selling his story to publishers. In 1991, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the New York law on the grounds that it violated free speech. “When you’re convicted of a heinous crime, as these individuals have been, you for-feit some of your rights,” Sen. Cornyn told Houston Public Radio. “And one of those rights that you forfeit is the right to profit from your crime. And that’s exactly what this legislation would be designed to do, is to prevent them from profiting, or anyone really, not just the criminal but anyone from profiting from that crime.”

s Sketches by “Gainesville Ripper” Danny Rolling.

WWW.ACFEI.COM • (800) 592-1399M

EET T

HE B

SU

  The FBI Behavioral Science Unit (BSU) is in the development phase of a research museum to study offender behavior   BSU is accepting donations of case artifacts and offender personal items (weapons, implements, drawings, artwork, photographs, correspondence)   Contributors will be recognized   BSU is searching for experts in handwriting analysis, artwork interpretation, content analysis, and related specialties to assist with the research   Contact the Museum Curator, Mr. Steven R. Conlon, 703.632.1153, [email protected], or BSU Unit Chief, Dr. Gregory M. Vecchi, 703.632.1132, [email protected]

VICTIM ADVOCATES WORK TO IMPEDE THE SALE OF ‘MURDERABILIA’

Contact InformationFor further information, please contact the Museum Curator and Deputy Unit Chief, Mr. Steven R. Conlon at (703) 632-1153 or [email protected]; or BSU Unit Chief, Dr. Gregory M. Vecchi, at (703) 632-1132 or [email protected]. n


FEATUREFE

ATU

RE

By Steven A. Bongardt, MASupervisory Special Agent

Cyber Forensics Identifies a Serial KillerIt was inevitable that the world of serial killers would clash with the world of cyber crime, but when it happened, the serial killer self-nicknamed “BTK” (for “bind, tor-ture, kill”), Dennis Rader, was at the intersection of that clash.

Rader started murdering victims in the 1970s, his last in 1991. When he was ar-rested in early 2005, it was reported that he had begun to hunt for additional victims. And what was the crucial piece of evidence that identified him, leading to his arrest? Metadata, in this case data about deleted files, on a floppy disc he had sent to the

media after he started communicating again after a long period of inactivity (AP, 2005). Superb hard work by the local law enforce-ment, computer forensics, and a media strategy informed by Criminal Investigative Analysis (CIA) had caught a sadistic killer who had terrorized Wichita for over three decades. CIA had collided with computer forensics and the digital crime scene.

IntroductionCIA may be applied to provide a significantly different heuristic to investigations, both of a criminal and national security nature, of the unauthorized access of information sys-tems: computers and computer networks. If the basic premise of profiling—“behavior reflects personality”—is accurate, then CIA, in a valid form, can be applied to computer and computer network intrusions. Not surprisingly, with the rapid advance-ment and increased accessibility to Internet- connected devices, law enforcement is finding that cyberspace is affecting a growing number of almost every type of crime investigated. As an instrument of an offense or the offense itself, cyberspace is often chosen because of an affinity of the offender, and how that offender interacts with cyberspace, and learning how we can use that interaction and behavior to identify and apprehend him or her is para-mount to modern criminal “profiling.” This article will focus, in non-technical terms, on the first step of how the inves-tigation of a certain type of cyber crime

or potential national security Information Security (IS) issue, computer intrusion, can be enhanced by what is known as Criminal Investigative Analysis (CIA). Regarding both of these highly complex fields, IS and CIA, it is only a start. It is hoped that this will assist the novice to CIA, but versed in IS, as well as inform the relative novice to IS but versed in CIA, as both come into contact with potential digital crime scenes from a workplace violence or threat scenario to cyber-stalking and harassment to even—yes—serial homicide.

Criminal Investigative AnalysisAn Investigative Tool to Aid InvestigatorsCIA is an investigative tool, a range of ser-vices provided by specially trained investiga-tors, primarily offered to law enforcement and national security professionals. These services can provide various degrees of behav-ioral, investigative, and forensic perspectives of a criminal case. Although the most popu-lar of these services is behavioral profiling, made popular by such movies as Silence of the Lambs and popular television shows like Criminal Minds, far more often the Criminal Investigative Analyst, or criminal “profiler,” provides investigative, interview, and even trial strategies to investigators. Additionally, modern CIA, in certain cases, particularly in national security matters, adds an addi-tional service and attempts to do a “remote assessment” of certain subjects. A “remote assessment” attempts to assess the traits and

COMPUTERAn Introduction to the Behavioral Profiling of

NETWORKINTRUSIONS

s Convicted killer Dennis Rader: Travis Heying, MCT

20 THE FORENSIC EXAMINER® Fall 201020 THE FORENSIC EXAMINER® Fall 2010

WWW.ACFEI.COM • (800) 592-1399FEAT

UR

E

characteristics of an individual without a direct interview of that person—most often with no contact whatsoever. Although one could argue that modern “profiling” dates back to perhaps police sur-geon Thomas Bond’s assessment of Jack the Ripper’s skill in 1988 (Petherick, 2005), the last almost 40 years could be considered the age of modern “profiling” services in law en-forcement. While advances have been made during this period in behavioral services for intelligence-related activities, law enforce-ment has predominantly focused on violent crime—murder, rape, sexual assault—and, specifically, serial offenses thereof. The goal of the profiler of a computer intrusion is the same as the profiler of a violent crime: determine the motive(s) of the offender, focus an investigation for in-vestigators, assess potential future threat or escalation of the perpetrator(s), provide recommendations for an investigative strat-

egy, and finally, an interview strategy once subjects have been identified and are to be interviewed. If enough information about the offense is available, a behavioral composite of the offender might be constructed. The more behavioral and physical (or digital) evidence available to analyze from a crime scene, the better the analysis or this retroactive “profile.” The same is true of a digital crime scene. In traditional violent crime analysis, the profiler is not a substitute for the detectives who investigate the crime, evidence col-lection personnel, forensic experts, crime analysts, medical examiners, or even media representatives. They are all critical to the ef-fort. In a way, the profiler serves to facilitate the assessment of data provided in a new way through the filter of CIA. The same thing can be said about digital crime analy-sis. Here, however, we have investigators, forensic experts, forensic examiners, but ad-ditionally, the system administrators, system

analysts, information security officers, and human resource representatives. The last, human resources representatives, often are the most important team members in cases where it is believed the intrusion may have been perpetrated by someone from the inside of an organization or formerly inside.

ATTACKERS

Amateur computer hackers / criminals Employees

Organized crime groups Contractors or consultants

Professional non-state actors Outsourced firms or employees

Rival corporations Software and hardware vendors

Nation-states (Unethical) advertisers/commercial entities

Table 1: Taxonomy of Computer Network Attackers (Ullrich, Skoudis, & Northcutt, 2008)

NETWORK

“Not surprisingly, with the

rapid advancement and in-

creased accessibility to Internet

connected devices, law en-

forcement is finding that cy-

berspace is affecting a grow-

ing number of almost every

type of crime investigated.”

The views expressed in thisarticle do not necessarily

represent the views of the FBI.

Fall 2010 THE FORENSIC EXAMINER® 21Fall 2010 THE FORENSIC EXAMINER® 21

FEAT

UR

E

Also, in the same way as for violent crime, not every information system intrusion case is suitable for CIA. Intrusions that have been contaminated—where it is difficult to distinguish the behavior of the investigators, incident response (first responders of a digital crime scene) or others from that of the in-truder—are not usually suitable for analysis. Unsuitability for CIA can also be concluded about violent crime scenes where there is not a lot of behavior that can be observed or the victim was very “high risk.” In such situations, where such investigations need be assisted in some way by CIA, it is often only a thorough examination of what is known as victimology. Simply stated, victimology is all pedigree and background information as to the lifestyle of a victim (Gerberth, 1996).

OBJECTIVES

Theft of credit and financial data

Theft of personal information for identity theft

Extortion – information disclosure

Extortion – denial of service

Alteration of data on Web or “trusted sources”

Political purposes/disrupting trusted communications

Exploitation for remote control or spam

Exploitation for remote control for DDOS

Exploitation for remote control of spyware

Exploitation for physical attack

Theft of information

Theft of defense secrets

Steven A. Bongardt, MA, has been a Special Agent in the FBI for over 14 years. For the last several years, first at the FBI’s Behavioral Analysis Unit and then following his transfer to the FBI’s prestigious Behavioral Science Unit, SSA Bongardt has been focused on offender behavioral assessments in the areas of cybercrime, terrorism, threat assessment, and traditional violent crime. He is the program manager for the BSU’s Behavioral Based Specialty Area CANDAULES—Cyber Adversaries of Networks and Digital Asset Users & Law Enforcement Solutions. The perception of anonymity is often a valuable attribute to modern cybercrime offenders, but Candaules was also the name of a king, a victim of anonymity in a classic story about the conformity of man in Plato’s Republic. SSA Bongardt is a recipient of the Director’s Award for Excellence in Investigation for his work in terrorism matters and holds a Master of Arts in Forensic Psychology and Certified Information System Security Professional accreditation. He is a 1985 graduate of the United States Naval Academy.

About the Author

Table 2: Taxonomy of Computer Network Attackers’ Objectives(Ullrich, Skoudis, & Northcutt, 2008)

COMPUTER CRACKING:

Kevin Mitnick first gained unau-thorized access to a computer network around 1979—be-fore it was even illegal to do so.

Decades later, he remains on the short list of the most notorious hackers, in part because of the highly publicized two-year search that ended with his arrest by the FBI in 1995. It was Mitnick’s interest in phone “phreaking,” or studying and exploiting communication systems, that got him started as a teenager on the path to becoming a hacker. In a June 2009 interview with technology Web site CNET.com, Mitnick said he was introduced to phreaking by a fellow student around the time that phone companies were beginning to convert to electronic systems controlled by computers: “The phone company was in the process of automating their processes. To further my phone phreaking I needed to become familiar with the phone systems’

computers. So that was my foray into hacking.” Mitnick used what is known as “social engineering”—gaining information by deceit—to accomplish his crimes. Rather than overtly hacking into computer systems, he typically gained access by duping authorized users within a company into handing over source codes and other sensitive information. While Mitnick drew probation or light sentences for his early offenses, by November 1992 he had become a fugitive from the law after violating parole. During his time on the run, Mitnick reportedly hacked dozens of computer networks and cloned cellular phones to hide his location. Selecting computer expert Tsutomu Shimomura as a target of his hacking ultimately led to Mitnick’s undoing, and he was ap-prehended in February 1995 at an apartment in Raleigh, North Carolina. He was reportedly found with cloned cellular phones and multiple pieces of false identification.

The case of Kevin Mitnick



UR

E

An equivalent “high-risk and minimal behav-ior” situation in cyber profiling might be an attempt to provide a behavioral assessment of a cybercrime scene in which an automated worm has penetrated a wide open network that has not had its anti-virus software up-date in quite some time. With regard to this type of attack, there were probably too many opportunities for too many possible attackers using automated “behavior” of the malicious code (worm) for most tools of CIA to be effective. However, even in this case, a thorough review of the victimology of the targeted network and its organization by the cyber Criminal Investigative Analyst may prove productive. Victimology in this case and all digital crime scene analysis ide-ally would be everything known about the Information System, including operations

and physical security, security management practices, information assurance training, hiring and firing procedures, applications and systems development, access controls, and use of cryptography, as well as tradi-tional networking and telecommunica-tions security, and vulnerability and exploit information.

Profiling and Cyber Adversary CharacterizationFor investigators, ascertaining accurate motive(s) of a crime can at times be rela-tively easy and at times relatively challenging. It is at the core of every investigation, every “profile,” and in what has come to be known in at least some part of the IS field as “Cyber Adversary Characterization.”

Two Types of ProfilingThere are basically two types of “profiling.” The first is called “retrospective” profiling. This is what has been discussed regarding profiling to this point. It is based on induc-tive and deductive logic. This type of profile is based on the details of a crime or series of linked crimes that have already occurred, and a “behavioral composite” of possible person-ality traits and characteristics of the likely of-fender is constructed. A very simple example of a characteristic inferred in this way of a cyber adversary might be “frustration/persis-

tence.” Suppose an investigator learns that over several weeks or even months, a cyber intruder attempted to penetrate a network many different ways at many different times. Although many other variables would need to be considered, a cyber profiler may con-clude that the attacker (if only one) might have low “frustration” or high “persistence” as a characteristic. Often if deduced from the scene or scenes, or inferred from several specific variables observed at the scene, socio-demographic characteristics might be inferred about the offender as well. An example of this type of characteristic in a digital crime scene might be an inferred age of a network attacker if he or she used certain shell commands in a manner that was indicative of a certain time period of training or application in computer science. The second type of “profiling” is “pro-spective” profiling. This type of profiling studies past offenders and is used to predict, in a general sense, the traits and character-istics, behavioral and socio-demographic, of future offenders. It is differential in that it attempts to predict general characteris-tics of an offender from a group of specific characteristics of offenders studied. The goal is to create a template to overlay on a population group to predict who within that group has an elevated potential or risk

1981 Age 17; theft of computer manualsProbation

1983Broke into Univ. of S. Calif. computers6 months jail

1982 Broke into computer of North American Air Defense Command

1987Broke into software publisher’s computer3 years probation

1995Arrested in Raleigh, N.C.; charged with parole violation, computer break-ins

1999Seeking to reduce sentence, pleads guilty to wire fraud

2000Granted supervised release from prison

2004Starts Mitnick Security Consulting, LLC

1988Theft of Digital Equipment software1 year in jail plus 6 mon. in halfway house

1992Violated parole; became fugitive; resumed hacking

Mitnick served four and a half years in prison pre-trial—eight months of that time in solitary confinement—before he eventu-ally agreed to plead guilty to wire and computer fraud. In his plea deal he admitted to causing $5 million to $10 million in losses, but he now contends that the only actual losses he caused were due to the companies’ time spent investigating and securing their systems. Mitnick and his supporters say the government and mainstream media exaggerated the extent of his crimes, leading to a disproportionately harsh sentence. Today, Mitnick is the owner of Mitnick Security Consulting, LLC, an information security consulting firm based in Henderson, Nevada. He is the co-author of two books on computer security, The Art of Deception and The Art of Intrusion, and he spends much of his time at speaking engagements worldwide. In an official

biography on his company’s Web site, Mitnick states that his pursuit of hacking was purely to satisfy his intellectual curiosity and that, contrary to many reports, he never destroyed data or profited from his exploits. In the CNET.com interview, Mitnick said he was young and immature when he committed his crimes. He offered this ad-vice to potential hackers: “Don’t follow in my footsteps. There are definitely other roads or other opportunities and ways that people can learn and educate themselves about hacking, security, and pen testing. "

- By Laura Johnson Examiner staff

“For the last 40 years, the BSU has been the leading law enforcement entity in inno-vation, providing behavioral training, research, and con-sultation to law enforcement agencies around the world.”


to commit a certain type of offense. If not used appropriately and critically, “prospec-tive” profiles can cause problems in that they may create false positives – i.e., they indi-cate someone likely is a hacker (technically a “cracker”—an individual who penetrates an information system they do not have authorized access to be on) and he or she, in reality, is not a hacker. An example of this type of “prospective” profiling work is the GYGES Research Project at BSU, which consists of archival reviews and interviews of individuals who have created, modified, or used malicious code to determine com-mon behavioral traits, characteristics, or situational variables among this specific subpopulation of offenders.

Cyber Adversary Characterization“Cyber Adversary Characterization” (CAC), a term used by Parker (2004), while not CIA, is a term for attempts to understand what motivates an adversary and the threat that adversary poses to an organization’s assets. It is an understanding “of an adversary’s core properties and set of proven threat charac-terization metrics to measure these proper-ties and determine how any given adversary would behave in a defined situation—or more important, against a specific asset” (Parker, 2004). Although terms like “metrics” and “asset” are terms used in IS, this description can be a baseline for CIA ap-

plied to the computer or network intru-sion. “Metrics” in this sense are CIA’s crime scene observations, and a “specific asset” is the victim. Answers to questions like “What metrics can one measure on our networks?” can provide valuable information in making these assessments. While CIA is not directly concerned about network metrics or per-forming an IS risk assessment, it is hoped that as many metrics as possible relevant to the risk to the assets that could be threatened are being captured. Remember, CIA is only as valid as the amount of behavior and evi-dence one can collect and only then if we can separate the offender’s behavior from artifact. Artifact is causality not related to the offender’s behavior.

A Starting Point: Attacker Categorization and ObjectiveThere is a need to start somewhere, and basic CAC is the first step of cyber CIA. In this step, the profiler selects a taxonomy of possible offenders and considers the possible category or categories an “attacker” may be classified into while making an accurate as-sessment of their “objective” based on the global, or broad, attributes of the attack. BSU may utilize any one (or more) of 10 such taxonomies regarding the information system attacker. Many overlap. A review of all the taxonomies and categories by the

profiler is recommended as a way of minimizing his confirmation

bias—fitting the attack into a category that

fits a preconceived bias he believes is the correct one prior to a thorough analysis of the attack or attacks. One possible basic taxonomy of computer network “attackers” and their “objectives,” Table 1 and Table 2, may be derived from the fall 2008 poster titled “SANS Cyber Attack Threat Map” published by the SANS Institute, a coop-erative research and education organization for information security (Ullrich, Skoudis, & Northcutt, 2008). A crucial step within this categorization of the attacker is determining whether an attack was done by an “insider” or an “out-sider.” Additionally, an attack by an “insider” who was an “outsider” can be specified as an “outside-in” attack, and an attack done by an “outsider” who was an “insider” can be specified as an “inside-out” attack. An example of the former could be a corporate or nation-state spy whose purpose in work-ing for an organization from the beginning is espionage, and an example of the latter is the classic disgruntled, terminated employee. Interestingly, research indicates that the behavioral composite is different for “insid-ers’ than “outsiders” and that perhaps the “insider” prospective profile is more reliable (Shaw, 2006). Sometimes determining these categoriza-tions is obvious, and sometimes they can be challenging. It is important that the profiler revisit this task often throughout the analysis, particularly as information is developed that, when assessed critically, does not fit the hypothesis of who actually FE

ATU

RE


conducted the attack. The essence of CIA in any offense is determining a proper offender classification with a proper objective. This leads to a clearer picture of motive. Often an accurate analysis in this basic step of categorization could focus the suspect pool substantially, whereas an inaccurate analysis could relegate an investigation in a hopeless direction. Properly categorized, and often that means qualitatively assigning a probability to a range of possible categories of the selected taxono-my or taxonomies, the goal of the remaining tasks of the profiler in computer intrusion investigations is inferring traits and character-istics of the adversary whenever and wherever possible using additional concepts of CIA. Depending on the amount of behavior ob-served and the context within the intrusion, some of the following behavioral variables may be inferred or deduced about the ad-versary (Gudaitis, 2001, Parker, 2004):

Self-control•Need for achievement•Frustration/persistence•Agreeableness•Comfort•Organization•Environmental needs•Risk tolerance•Predatory needs•Escalation•Sociocultural issues•Skill•Cognitions•Resources•

While these estimates certainly do not always lead to an arrest, when a person is identified, they usually can provide important informa-tion for formulating an often overlooked important product of CIA—an interview or recruitment strategy of the offender or adversary.

SummaryThis article has covered the first steps of behaviorally profiling one type of digital offense—the computer network intrusion. Choosing appropriate adversary taxonomies and selecting a range of probabilities as to the likely category of the adversary are the first steps of behaviorally profiling computer network intrusions. These steps are based on the global attributes of the attack and, initially, the attacker’s apparent objectives. These inferences will be critically assessed throughout the analysis as additional tools of CIA are applied to details of the attack. Some of these tools are a thorough review of the target’s victimology (also briefly dis-cussed in this article), modus operandi–ritual signature analysis of the attack, indicators of staging, and the possible application of what in CIA is known as a possible typology. The resulting analysis could assist the overall risk assessment of incident response, help focus the investigation, or inform an investigative or mitigation strategy. For the last 40 years, the FBI’s Behavioral Science Unit has been the leading law en-forcement entity in innovation, providing behavioral training, research, and consulta-

tion to law enforcement agencies around the world, using CIA and applying behav-ioral and psychological disciplines to new and existing areas of deviant behavior. As it continues this mission and leadership, it will continually expand its role to intelligence functions. The traditional “crime scene” has expanded for the behavioral profiler. Applying Criminal Investigative Analysis, with important caveats, to the behavioral profiling of computer network intrusions is only the beginning of behavioral profiling in this ever-expanding digital arena.

ReferencesAssociated Press. Computer disk may have cracked BTK

case (2005). Retrieved 11/30/2007, 2007, from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6988048/.

Gerberth, V. (1996). Practical homicide investigation: tactics, procedures, and forensic techniques (3rd ed). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press LLC.

Gudaitis, T. (2001). The human side of incident re-sponse. In E. E. Schultz, R. Shumway (Eds.), Inci-dent response: a strategic guide to handling system and network security breaches (pp. 207- 246). Indianapo-lis, IN: New Riders Publishing.

Parker, T (ed) (2004). Cyber adversary characterization: auditing the hacker mind. Rockland, MA: Syngress Publishing, Inc.

Petherick, W. (2005). The science of criminal profiling. London: Elwin Street Limited.

Shaw, E. D. (2006). The role of behavioral research and profiling in malicious cyber insider investigations. Digital Investigation, 3(1), 20-31.

Ullrich, J., Skoudis, E., & Northcutt, S. (2008) SANS cyber attack threat map. Downloaded on 7/22/2009 from http://www.sans.org/whatworks/poster_fall_08.pdf?bcsi_scan_A848BF6CC6E2E358=0&bcsi_scan_filename=poster_fall_08.pdf n


UR

E


INTERVIEWwith Steven A. Bongardt, MA

INT

ERVI

EW

Bongardt: I came into the Bureau in December 1995. I wanted to work terrorism; that was April 1, 1996, my first day in the New York office. At that time it was difficult for brand-new agents to work terror-ism, but since I have former military experience, it was possible I might be allowed to start working it. Soon after my arrival, there was the TWA Flight 800 explosion off the coast of Long Island. I had been a Navy fighter pilot with a subject matter expertise in air-to-air missiles, when it was originally thought the flight was brought down by a missile, I was sent to Long Island to work that aspect of the case. After that, I continued to work terrorism cases. In August 1998, I was part of the Rapid Deployment Team. When the East African embassy bombings occurred in August 1998, I deployed, and for nearly two years I worked the embassy bombings case. When the USS Cole attack happened in October 2000, I was deployed on that case and was the co-case agent in charge of it. I worked that investigation for over three years. On September 11, 2001, I was back from Yemen at the time, and was in New York when the World Trade Center was destroyed. I remember running toward the build-ing while everyone else was running away from it. So I worked 9/11 and the connections between 9/11 to the at-tack on the USS Cole. I had several different deployments back and forth overseas, but a highlight was being in the first group of agents to go into Afghanistan. There were eight of us who went in December 2001. I continued to work terrorism related to Al-Qaeda and many elements connected to 9/11. I spent another tour over in Afghanistan in the summer of 2002 and then came back. In the summer of 2003, I heard that the Behavioral Analysis Unit (BAU) was looking for agents with terrorism experience. They are a separate entity from BSU—has anyone given you a breakdown of the two units, the Behavioral Analysis Unit and the Behavioral Science Unit?

TFE: Just very briefly.Bongardt: The Behavioral Analysis Unit grew out of the Behavioral Science Unit, which was and still is the original behavioral profiling unit. BAU came into existence because the Bureau needed to have

a behavioral component in a reactive entity, and the theory after Waco was that the hostage negotiators,

at least some cadre of profilers, and the Hostage Rescue Team should be reporting to the same boss. BAU is prob-

ably a little bit bigger, size-wise, than BSU. You don’t have to have a graduate degree like you do at BSU to go to the BAU; the goal is primarily just to have experience. BAU specializes in a specific type of behavioral profiling,—Criminal Investigative Analysis. In 2003, BAU wanted to grow the area of the application of Criminal Investigative Analysis to terrorism, and since my background was mainly that, I applied to the BAU. I came down to the BAU in January 2004. I was at BAU for just under six years. While I was over there, I worked terrorism cases and cross-trained on the kinds of cases that BAU works. The other area that BAU initially wanted to grow was applying behavioral assessment to the cyber arena. One of the things we have realized is that cyber is taking over every crime, or at least there’s some element of cyber in almost every type of crime, whether it’s stalkers, hackers, or insiders. I worked on developing cyber offense behavioral analysis, terrorism assessment, and threat cases. Though the training at BAU is valuable, I realized I needed to go back to school. Through night school I went back to school and obtained my Master’s in Forensic Psychology. Once I received my degree, I had the opportunity to come over here (to BSU). Both BSU and BAU provide consultation services, but one thing BSU is known for is innovation in applying behavioral sciences—figuring out the next discipline of Criminal Investigative Analysis or expand-ing its application. Because of this, the cyber program concerning behavioral profiling transferred to BSU in November of 2009 and I’ve been here since.

TFE: So you’re working the cyber aspect now?Bongardt: Greg (Vecchi) wanted to develop a National Academy class, a university-level class on behavioral science applications in cyber space, and that’s the class that I have developed.

TFE: Teach how to investigate it, how to detect…?Bongardt: I’m not a computer scientist, per se, but my goal is to get investigators away from focusing solely on the technical side

INTERVIEW


WWW.ACFEI.COM • (800) 592-1399IN

TERVIEW

of looking at computer intrusions by insider and outsider threats. We get so focused on the technical elements at times that we forget that it’s a human being on the other side. Even malicious code had to start somewhere. So the goal is to explore behavioral science and determine what can be applied to cyberspace. One of the valuable things I think the behavioral units do specifically is look at all the research that is out there, read it with a critical eye, and try to see what makes sense. What could the Bureau apply to an investigation tomorrow? Because the field agents don’t get a chance to do that and almost all don’t get any training to do it. Some of them do; some of them go on to get advanced degrees. One of the things that we do in trying to develop this course is to take a lot of the data that is out there, or research what has been done—and there isn’t a lot, but there is some—and try to put together how does the computer affect crime? What is it about the computer; is it something different? One major area of my National Academy course, “Behavioral Science in Cyberspace,” is exploring how our senses of self and our psychology are being affected by cyberspace, combined with the fact that many of us have PDAs, computers, Twitter accounts, Facebook accounts, MySpace accounts. We are developing an ability to assess any type of a case with a cyber element from a behavioral perspective. One of the strengths of BSU is innovation. Nearly 40 years ago the members of this unit looked around, before things like forensic psychology, and they said, “What can we do as agents of this unit? We have access to offenders, these violent criminals; let’s go talk to them.” So, consistent with those efforts, one of the research projects I started a couple of years ago at BAU, that transferred with me to BSU, is behavior-based interviews of hackers and any-one that has used or modified malicious code. We have a research project called the Gyges Project to go and talk to them. That can be difficult.

TFE: They lie?Bongardt: Yes, but it is a way to gather data. A lot of the meth-odology that we’ve developed here, some of the academics will say, “Ah, they’re lying to you; how can anyone believe an offender?” I think that’s a valid point, but that’s not the entire story. We don’t just listen to what they say; we look around it.

TFE: Can you talk a little bit about cyber bullying? Isn’t that some-thing that BSU is going to focus on more?Bongardt: There’s some research that says that cyber bullying, cyber stalking, cyber harassment—the way to look at it is it’s all in a spectrum, a continuum. Cyber bullying involves those younger than 18 years of age. Cyber harassment and cyber stalking—they’re all on a continuum of engaging between an older victim and of-fender. There’s a theory with regards to computers, that may apply to several types of offenders in cyberspace, including cyberbullies—that computers cause us to regress. It’s the immediate gratification we get from having something right in front of us and that we can get any kind of information. We can get any image. To a certain extent; we can satisfy any impulse, some of them good and some of them bad, and all of this may cause human beings to regress. The danger is that we all become, to a certain extent—we all become children. And what does a child do when someone hits them? They want to strike back, and the computer makes it very, very easy to do so. In behavioral research, I think a lot of times, whether we’re looking at serial killers, or hackers, or terrorists, we try to—we

want to—find that one key factor, and it’s not like that. There are multiple factors—individual, environmental, and social factors. Causation is really a cluster of factors. Another interesting factor regarding behavior in cyberspace is the power of anonymity. Did someone explain to you how we’re broken down here, Behavior-Based Specialty Areas?

TFE: Yes.Bongardt: Mine is called CANDAULES. It stands for Cyber Adversaries of Networks, Digital Asset Users (somebody who has a PDA or a computer, like somebody who’s a victim of a stalker or harassment), and then the LES is Law Enforcement Solutions. CANDAULES comes from a story in Plato’s The Republic. It is interesting because of all places, a 2400-year-old book we never wanted to read in college (but that you now kind of wish you had) provides a valuable story about the power of anonymity in cyber-space. In Book 2 of The Republic, there’s a discussion between a couple of characters about why, in general, mankind conforms to rules and laws of behavior. Glaucon, one of Socrates’ pupils in the book, says the only reason men and women conform is that if they don’t, they would get in trouble. There are rules. To illustrate this story, he talks about a shepherd, Gyges, who finds a golden ring. After he finds this ring, the shepherd boy, Gyges, realized that when he twisted it, he became invisible. After this discovery, he proceeds to kill the king, marry the queen, and become one of the kings of Lydia. This is just a story, but the king’s name was Candaules. The tie-in is that the computer is in many ways, a modern, very real “Ring of Gyges.” It gives us the power of anonymity or, at the least, perceived anonymity. In the story, the victim is Candaules. Our goal with CANDAULES is to study behavior in cyberspace to protect all victims in cyberspace. To some extent, behavioral research through the years has shown Glaucon to be right—people will do things anonymously that they would never do otherwise. It’s one of the reasons we wear uniforms and masks. It’s one of the reasons terrorists cover up with masks. There is kind of a de-individuation, also. We lose a sense of ourselves and those we interact with as individuals and human beings on the computer. This is a major theme that shows up throughout behavior in cyberspace. On one level, we may think of it as a new problem, but it’s not; it’s just one of the ways that we all may lose sense of ourselves—and for offenders, their victims.

TFE: You come from a military background. I was wondering what role that had in shaping your interests, if any.Bongardt: I have to say that when I got out of the Navy, I still wanted to be part of national security on some level. That’s just part of me, and that’s one of the reasons I wanted to work in terrorism. Some people come to the Bureau and they just want to kick down doors. I like that too, but I like the thought of doing something that has an even bigger impact. By learning about behavior, maybe I can help put a terrorist away who could have killed thousands of people. In a hacker/cyber-extortion case I profiled, I directly assisted our field agents in identifying and arresting a hacker who had sensitive personal information on a million people. Hundreds of positive HIV test results were also in the data. That is quite an impact. n


CE

ART

ICLE

The

CE ARTICLE: 1.5 CE CREDITS


WWW.ACFEI.COM • (800) 592-1399C

E ART

ICLE

By Thomas J. Dover, MSCrime Analyst

Interaction Process Model

The views expressed in this article do not necessarily represent the views of the FBI.

One particular area of criminal behav-ior that has helped to shape the BSU into the unit it is today is the study of murder and murder offenders. Yet, the subject of murder is still, in many ways, an enigma and in need of further examination.

This article describes human interaction through a General Interaction Process Model (GIPM). This GIPM explores inter-action as a cycle comprised of multiple iterations of sequential phases. Furthermore, the current article proposes that violent crime should be regarded as a possible outcome of human interaction. It is further discussed that violent crime, specifically the outcome of murder, can be described by a variation of the GIPM called an Offender Interaction Process Model (OIPM). Among other uses, this OIPM provides a conceptual framework from which to inves-tigate violent crime motivational origins.


CE

ART

ICLE

Describing MurderIn 1977 David Luckenbill defined criminal homicide (murder) as a collective trans-action in which the victim, offender, and witnesses assume roles that eventually in-tersect to produce a fatal outcome. In his study, Luckenbill found this so-called “sit-uated transaction” could be described as an escalating confrontation to establish or maintain “face.” In 1979 Lawrence Cohen and Marcus Felson proposed their Routine Activities Theory based on the rational choice model. They proposed that criminal interaction occurs when a motivated of-fender encounters a suitable target that lacks capable guardianship. While these two seminal works began to define crime (and murder) as the result of complex interaction, they, and subsequent works on the subject, have focused on spe-cific types of murder, specific behaviors and circumstances that contribute to murder, or specific ways to classify murder and murder scenes (Ressler et al., 1986; Ressler et al., 1988; Douglas et al., 1992; Salfati & Canter, 1999; Schlesinger, 2004; Palermo & Kocsis, 2005; Canter & Youngs, 2009). However, all of these descriptions fall short of identifying a generalizable process model by which all murderous interactions can be organized, described and further developed. The FBI Behavioral Science Unit (BSU) is responsible for providing the law enforce-ment community with behavioral training, consultation, and research. Part of this man-date is to develop and provide innovation and new thought on topics of concern to law enforcement. One particular area of criminal behavior that has helped to shape the BSU into the unit it is today is the study of mur-der and murder offenders. Yet, the subject of murder is still, in many ways, an enigma and in need of further examination. This article proposes that while the specific details of every murder are different and, in combination, unique, the general interaction process that ends with murder is the same. To better understand murder, therefore, it is important to understand the process of how people interact and develop a way to study this interaction as a process model. If interaction is described as a process, then the process can be distilled into basic components using a task analysis. Once a general process model for interaction has been described, then all murder, as a spe-cific subset of human interaction, can be described using a similar method of task

analysis. Thus, we can describe an inter-action in which the offender progresses through a series of dynamic, iterative, and cumulative steps to produce the final out-come of murder. We can conceptually describe the actions of murder and the attributes of a murder. Yet by studying the process of interaction we will lay the foundation for understand-ing how these murder actions and attributes fit together and evolve from commonplace circumstances. By looking at the process of interaction as the context for murder, we can identify how murder can develop as a result of internal and external factors that shape the trajectory of the interaction.

FalsifiabilityAt a coarse level of granularity, a process model is conceptual. It should describe all of the processes intended to be described by the model. A process model that describes interactions that result in murder should, therefore, describe all interactions that end in murder. This type of process model is procedural because it describes a method to achieve a particular output. The basis of a process model’s validity is couched in whether or not it is falsifiable. If a scenario can be found that does not meet the process model’s construction of reality, then the model is falsified. This is not a bad thing. The procedure for building a process model incorporates the continual testing and retesting of the model in light of new evidence and experiences. If a scenario falsifies the model, then the model should be adjusted to incorporate the falsifying scenario.

Creating a Process ModelTask analysis is a detailed description of the activities and elements required to satisfy a specific goal. Consider, for instance, the task of “filling a glass with water.” This task can be accomplished many different ways and may involve a variety of behaviors. However, to complete the task, the process must in-volve a glass and water, and it must end with the water in the glass. A simple analysis of this task involves identifying the following requirements:

Incentive to fill a glass with water (e.g. •quench thirst, water plants, etc.)Understand the basic terms of the task •(i.e. “water,” “glass,” “filling”)Identify a source of water (e.g. faucet, •pitcher, barrel, etc.)

Consider the following three scenarios:

Scenario 1A young woman has been murdered in her first floor apartment. She is found naked and supine on her bed in a pool of blood. Investigation quickly reveals that she has also been bound, sexually assaulted, beaten about the head with a blunt object, and stabbed 23 times. The cause of death is, however, deter-mined to be exsanguination due to a deep cut to her throat. The apartment is thoroughly processed for forensic evidence. Several loca-tions throughout the living room, kitchen and bathroom of the apartment contain various forms of blood spatter. There are no signs of forced entry.

Scenario 2A young man is gunned down on his porch by the occupant of a passing vehicle. Seven 9mm rounds are fired at the victim. Three strike him—one in the leg, one in the abdo-men, and the third in his chest. The other four rounds strike various parts of the porch. The victim dies on the way to the hospital. Several witnesses recall that the occupant of the vehicle looked like a man the victim had an altercation with earlier in the day.

Scenario 3A middle-aged man calls the police to report that he has found his wife of four years mur-dered in their suburban home, which has been burglarized. When police arrive, they find that the house has been ransacked, and the victim has been shot twice, once in the head and once in the chest. Upon further investigation, it is learned that the victim’s husband was having an affair and had recently taken out a large life insurance policy on his wife. The victim’s husband is arrested after his mistress admits that he had shared with her a plot to kill his wife and cash in on the insurance policy.

These are three different murders with three different motives committed by three different offenders. The differences are clear in terms of method, premeditation, and crime scene behaviors. There seems to be very little similarity between these events, and yet, there are similarities. All three involve motivation on the part of the offender. All three involve action taken by the offender to commit the murder. All three involve murder as the result of a dynamic interaction.


WWW.ACFEI.COM • (800) 592-1399C

E ART

ICLE

Locate and acquire a glass (e.g. in the •cupboard, dishwasher, table, etc.)Identify a method to fill the glass with •water (e.g. pour, dip, spray, etc.)Execute the task (attempt to fill the •glass with water)Evaluate the results of the task execu-•tion (determine success or failure)

This task is second nature to most people. Yet, it is amazing how complex even a simple task can become. Each of these requirements (except for evaluating the results) must be completed before the glass actually has water in it. They must be completed regardless of how they are actually satisfied. A task analysis also identifies requirements that may, to a certain extent, be affected by feedback. For instance, if the individual’s initial incentive is thirst, his motivation to fill a glass with water may be cut short if he locates a soda instead. This task analysis is not sequential and does not include the order of the steps nec-essary to complete the goal. For instance, identifying a source of water may follow or precede locating and acquiring a glass. However, some of the requirements, in the context of the task, have an inherent se-quence. For example, evaluating the results of task execution must come after actually attempting to perform the task. Task analysis is a step toward understand-ing a process. To fully describe a process, we can model it as a sequence of steps that accomplish the task. Process models tend to describe what is happening during the process, explain how the process elements fit together, and explore possible variations of process trajectory throughout the model.

The General Interaction Process ModelHuman interaction is the means by which individuals interface. Interaction is a com-plex behavioral process. In a general process model that describes interaction, however, specific behaviors are manifestations of how the individual has fulfilled the requirements of the task at hand. Human interactions contain an inherently dynamic quality. This dynamism places an interaction in a constant state of flux as inter-nal and external influences impact the flow, tone, and outcome of the interaction itself. Human interactions are also cyclical because the completion of one interaction produces feedback for the next. In addition, human interactions are iterative because interac-tion cycles repeat. In any process, feedback can reinforce or dampen outcome effects. In the case of human interaction, feedback can influence further interaction in further iterations of the same exchange, in additional interactions with the same individual, or in other future interactions with different individuals. The experience of feedback has a cumu-lative effect. Thus, previous iterations of an interaction process will affect current and future interactions. This cumulative effect adds a sequential quality to an interaction so that each iteration of the process builds on previous iterations. An essential feature of a dynamic, iterative, and cumulative process is that no two iterations can ever be exactly the same because each new cycle builds on those cycles that came before. Thus, each individual in an interaction has his or her own internalized interaction process that is contextualized by previous interactions.

The General Interaction Process Model (GIPM) is a representation of the process an individual must go through to interact with someone else. This model is similar to the one that was previously used to describe an action or task. However, the GIPM describes a cycle. Figure 1 describes the GIPM from the perspective of a single participant in an interaction. It is important to note that in any interaction, each of the individuals participating in the interaction engages in their own version of the general interaction process. The participants follow the same cycle, but the details of each phase may be very different. Thus, in any interaction there are as many general interaction processes in play as there are participants in interactions. In addition, each participant progresses through the process at his or her own pace. Thus, it is conceivable that a highly complex interaction may involve a number of general interaction processes at different points of the specific cycle. Generally, an individual’s foundation has been shaped by his cognitive schema and

Foundation(incentive and understanding)

Foundation(incentive and understanding)

Cognition(identification, acquisition,

and methodology)

Cognition(identification, acquisition,

and methodology)ExecutionExecution EvaluationEvaluation

Dover, 2010

General Process Model

FIGURE 1

s The conceptual requirements above have been generalized to such a degree that the model could, in effect, describe any task.

Execution

CognitionFoundation

Evaluation

Dover, 2010

General Interaction Process Model

A general process model to describe the steps necessary to “fill a glass with water” organizes the task into groupings of activi-ties that can be sequenced. These steps then represent conceptual requirements that must be satisfied to complete the task. The model and these activity groupings are as follows:


CE

ART

ICLE

provides an impetus for participating in the interaction. This foundation is followed by cognitive processing that addresses who the individual will interact with and how to interact. Ultimately, the entire interaction hinges on the individual’s ability to execute the interaction and react to the intended sub-ject’s own interaction processes. In the end, the cumulative results of the entire cycle are evaluated and become part of the individual’s foundation for continued interaction and/or future interactions. This general interaction process can be il-lustrated by describing the steps that a young man must go through to ask a woman out on a “date.” First, the interaction must start with the type of person the young man is attracted to. This “type” may be very specific (i.e. blonde women between the ages of 21 and 27, with tattoos) or very general (i.e. any woman who looks at him). In addition, the young man’s experience will inform his definition of “date,” his expectations of what the concept entails, and what he wants this specific “date” to involve. “Date,” for in-stance, may mean dinner and a movie or it may mean sex. Finally, the young man will have a level of experience and knowledge of how to approach and ask someone out on a “date.” This level of experience may be very extensive or virtually non-existent. All of these factors contribute to the foundation phase of the GIPM. Next, the young man must identify the specific target of his interest. This is the transition point that separates the founda-tion phase from the cognition phase in the GIPM. Up until this point, the young man has not been expending energy on a specific individual. His efforts have been hypotheti-cal. However, once he has selected who he wishes to ask out on the “date,” he now has a specific individual to focus on. In the cognition phase, the young man has a very real set of circumstances to address in order to fulfill his goal. The young man’s relationship to the woman of interest and his general impression of her are important factors in how he may approach her. The young man may find that if there is not a pre-existing relationship, he must establish rapport through conversation. If his expec-tations of a “date” mean immediate sex and his impression of the woman of interest is that she is a prostitute, then his approach may simply entail offering her money. The cognition phase is where the young man must iron out the details of the interac-

tion. His level of attention to and anticipa-tion of these details may reflect greatly on his ability (or inability) to plan, his level of impulsivity, his ability to employ social skills, his diversity of skill sets, and his level of com-mitment to his final goal. Finally, the young man will likely formulate an expectation of what her answer will be. His expectations may be well grounded or they may prove to be completely off-base. Ultimately, the young man must actually approach and interact with the woman he wishes to ask out on a “date.” This puts into motion the execution phase of the GIPM. During this phase the young man’s cognitive plan is put to the test. He may find that he has adequately anticipated the event, or he may find that he has gravely misjudged the circumstances. During this phase, several factors become apparent: the presence and level of disso-nance between his cognitive plan and the actual interaction, his ability to deal with unforeseen events and circumstances, and his ability to remain mission focused. If the interaction does not go as planned yet the young man is flexible, he may be able to ef-fectively manage the interaction into a favor-able outcome. If, however, his expectations were off-base or he is unable to adjust, the interaction may end in disappointment. The final stage of the GIPM is the evalua-tion phase in which the young man assesses and re-incorporates the results of the execu-tion phase into the foundation of future interactions. If he is successful in securing a date, then the experience will become part of his basis for further interactions of this type and with this individual. If, however, the interaction ends in rejection or the young man is not flexible, then the result may im-bue the young man with confusion, embar-rassment, or even anger. Thus, this negative foundational experience may become a factor in future interactions with this individual or in further attempts to ask any woman out on a “date.” In this example, we can start to understand how even a simple interaction may result in a potentially problematic circumstance. At each phase of the GIPM we can identify the trajectory of the interaction from the young man’s interest in a “date” to who he wants to “date” to how to initiate it. These factors are fundamental to the young man’s expecta-tions. Yet, if these expectations are unrealis-tic and the young man is unable to handle rejection, then this circumstance could end

in further negative contact, stalking, or even rape and murder.

Murder and the Process of InteractionMurder is not a process; it is a by-product of interaction. In its simplest form, an interaction that results in murder contains at least one in-dividual who, in the end, assumes the role of “victim” and another individual who assumes the role of “offender.” Examining murder from an interaction perspective requires understand-ing that the murder itself is a manifestation of the intersection between a victim and offender in time and space. Thus, for the interaction to have occurred, the victim and offender (or the offender’s proxy, e.g. a sniper bullet, or an ex-plosive device) must, for a moment, interact. Interaction infers that regardless of the type, duration, intensity, or even one-sided-ness of the relationship between the victim and offender, a relationship does exist. Even if this relationship began with the immedi-ate interaction that results in the victim’s murder. This relationship exists from the perspective of the victim and the offender independently. Additionally, this relation-ship is measured by the level of familiarity the victim and offender have with each other, the basis of the relationship, and the extent the relationship had facilitative effects on the interaction that has resulted in murder. These relationship factors are specific to the foundation that the victim and the offender bring to the interaction. The initial phases of an interaction that results in murder may or may not involve the immediate assignment of the victim and of-fender roles. In some premeditated murders the roles are defined from the initial stages of the interaction. However, in other more spontaneous acts of murder, the roles only become evident as the interaction becomes more dynamic. Interactions that are, from the onset, in-tended to result in murder may not actually end with the victim’s death. Although the offender may enter the interaction with intent to kill, he may not be successful due to environmental circumstances encoun-tered during the interaction (e.g. the victim is not alone) or the victim’s own defensive interaction cycle (e.g. the intended victim negotiates a safe release or manages to fight the offender off ). These factors highlight the dynamic na-ture of interaction and the role that iterative cycles and cumulative effects of the out-


WWW.ACFEI.COM • (800) 592-1399C

E ART

ICLE

comes of those cycles play within the entire interaction process. Ultimately, the interac-tion itself, and by extension the relationship between victim and offender, is dynamic, iterative, and cumulative; and it culminates in the resulting murder.

The Offender Interaction Process ModelThe GIPM focuses on the broad-spectrum of human interaction. However, when fo-cusing on interactions that result, or were intended to result, in murder (or another type of crime), the model can be made more explicit. Specifically, the focus of this model can be shifted to the ensuing offender be-cause the murderous action comes from the offender’s interaction process. This so called Offender Interaction Process Model (OIPM) is illustrated in Figure 2. The OIPM has been modified from the GIPM to provide more relevant phase de-scriptors. Thus, the foundation and cogni-tion phases of the GIPM can be described, respectively, as the strategic and tactical phas-es of the OIPM. Additionally, the transition point between these two phases can be des-ignated as target selection. The OIPM does not have to focus exclu-sively on murder. In fact, as a process that may involve multiple iterations, the OIPM is applicable to any type of criminal activity in which an offender can be defined. Moreover, the OIPM can be substituted for interaction process cycles that are initially non-criminal. Thus, an interaction may first be described by the GIPM, but after the evaluation phase and during the foundation phase of the next inter-action iteration, the OIPM can be adopted. The OIPM described in Figure 2 contains four basic phases. These phases are strategic, tactical, execution, and evaluation. Each phase contributes cumulatively to the im-pact of ensuing phases. It is not necessary that the motivation for murder exist in all phases, yet it can exist in multiple phases. In fact, an advantage of the OIPM is that it accommodates dynamic shifts in motivation during the course of the interaction. It is important to understand that this model represents a fundamental paradigm shift. The phases described in the OIPM do not define emotional or cognitive state. Instead they provide a framework that de-scribes a sequence of requirements to make the interaction possible. The offender’s cog-nitive and emotional states are important when contextualizing the offender’s trajec-

tory through the OIPM phases, but they do not define the phases themselves. Thus, the strategic phase provides a need, the tactical phase provides a target and a method, the execution phase provides an ac-tion, and the evaluation phase defines what will happen next. These phases exist in every interaction regardless of motivation and the offender’s state of mind.

Strategic Phase:The strategic phase encompasses what the offender brings to the interaction in terms of fantasy, cognitive schema, and primary incentive for the interaction. This phase is where the offender has established a general sense of what he would like to do and his eventual strategic goals for the interaction. These initial strategic goals do not have to be criminal. The goal may be to confront someone or to express frustration. In other circumstances the strategic goal may be crim-inal but not murder, for instance burglary, robbery or rape. Yet in other interactions, the strategic goal may explicitly be murder. The strategic phase is divided into two components: long-term strategic and short-term strategic. In many ways these two com-ponents can be considered the opposite ends of a continuum that describes the immediacy of the strategic goal. Long-term strategic fac-tors have their roots in the offender’s cogni-tive schema development. The long-term factors are the most cemented concepts of the offender’s personality and attitudes that shape his reality. The short-term strategic compo-nent encompasses more contemporaneous incentives for the immediate interaction. The short-term strategic component addresses why the offender needs to interact.

For instance, an offender who has a long history of misogynistic attitudes towards women gets into a fight with his girlfriend and leaves his apartment looking for some-one to assault. An interaction that he has with the next woman he meets on the street will be heavily influenced by the very recent (short-term) domestic fight in the context of his deep-seated (long-term) attitudes to-wards women. His strategic goal is to vent his frustration, and he may seek to achieve this goal through assault. In another example, the offender’s long-term strategic attitudes may tell the offender that it is okay to commit robbery under cer-tain circumstances. His short-term strategic goal may be to score money for drugs. Thus, his short-term goal provides the incentive to commit a robbery, and his long-term strate-gic attitudes allow him to do it.

Target Selection:Target selection is not a phase. It is a mile-stone in the OIPM that marks the transition from an offender who is in a strategic phase to an offender who is in a tactical phase. Target selection is actually the first part of the tactical phase. However, it necessitates further explanation. Note that in Figure 2 target selection pro-vides a necessary conduit from the offender to factors outside of his internal process model. In fact, the OIPM illustrates that the selec-tion of a target requires that the offender seek an external target to focus on. Thus, while the OIPM is primarily an internal cycle, target selection requires external input. Target selection refers to the person with whom the offender wishes to interact. This is who he wishes to argue with, or who he

FIGURE 2

Evaluation

Short-Term

TargetSelection

Execution

Tactical

Dover, 2010

Long-Term

Strategic

Offender Interaction Process Model

Execution

CognitionFoundation

Evaluation

Externalvictim

Victim interaction

Externalstimuli


CE

ART

ICLE

wishes to rob, or who he wishes to kill, etc. Target selection has several aspects that will set the tone for the rest of the interaction. First, the type of target the offender has selected is very important. Is the target a person or a general entity? It could be argued that a bomber, for instance, may choose to kill a person, or he may choose to destroy a specific landmark. In the latter circumstance, people killed in the blast were not killed be-cause of who they specifically are, but rather where they were when the bomb went off. The second aspect to target selection is specificity. How specific is the actual tar-get. This aspect is connected to the victim-offender relationship. For instance, if the intended target is the offender’s girlfriend who recently broke off their relationship, then the victim is very specific. However, given the wrong set of circumstances, the offender might also harm one of his ex-girl-friend’s friends. Another offender may have locked-in on a specific target not because of a pre-existing relationship but because she fits a demographic he is interested in vic-timizing. For instance a rapist may target a specific coed because he is targeting coeds in general. The third aspect to consider is the offend-er’s commitment to the target. Is the target so specific that if he or she is not available, the offender’s incentive evaporates? Or is the target based instead on availability or victim type? The offender’s commitment to the se-lected target has bearing on his commitment to the interaction itself. Furthermore, his commitment to the target may be one of the first parts of the offender interaction process where the offender’s adaptability becomes a factor.

Tactical Phase:The tactical phase is all about how the of-fender plans to initiate, sustain, and com-plete an interaction with the identified tar-get. Until the target is selected, the actual interaction is academic. However, once the target is selected, specific obstacles and chal-lenges to the interaction will begin to take shape and require that the offender develop a plan to address them. This does not mean that every murder involves viable or complex tactical planning. In fact, some impulsive murders involve a marked absence of obvious tactical fore-thought. Rather the tactical phase implies a point in the OIPM where the offender must address how he will interact with whom he has selected to accomplish what he wants to achieve. While this tactical phase may seem me-thodical, it does not have to be. If the of-fender’s tactical phase consists solely of the decision to blitz the victim and drag her into the woods, then the offender has still determined how he will approach and con-trol the victim even though his methods are unrefined. The tactical phase is where the offender, given his abilities, must create an opportunity for the interaction to occur. Another aspect to the tactical phase is the offender’s expectations of how the event will unfold. He will need to have at least a cur-sory understanding that the interaction will satisfy his strategic goals for the interaction. He will also have to anticipate, if only for a moment, how the victim will react to the interaction. None of this means that the of-fender’s estimation of how the event will un-fold is based in reality. In fact, the difference between his plan and reality may in some

cases contribute to the victim’s death, or in other cases spare the victim from death.

Execution Phase:The execution phase is where the offender’s tactical plan, or lack thereof, is tested in reality. It is impossible to plan for every contingency or alternative. The offender’s expectations of how the interaction will unfold may not have accounted for environ-mental variables, such as a police car around the corner or the victim’s friend staying over that night. In addition, the offender may have underestimated the victim’s ability to fight or her level of resistance. The execution phase itself can become a dynamic interaction process in which the offender must quickly react to any number of catalytic events. For instance, the offender may approach the interaction with a plan to physically overpower the victim. Yet, he may find that he has underestimated her capac-ity to fight back. Thus, during a catalytic event (e.g. she breaks away and runs for the door) the offender may find that to control the victim he must use a weapon of oppor-tunity (e.g. a knife from the counter). This reactive violence can lead to any number of interaction outcomes between the offender and victim. The victim may fight her way to safety. The offender may give up and leave. The victim may kill the offender. The of-fender may kill the victim. At the end of the interaction, reality may be vastly differ-ent than the offender’s tactical vision of the interaction.

Evaluation Phase:The evaluation phase is where the offender assesses how well his original strategic goals were met by the interaction. This does not mean that the offender undergoes a self-critique. However, this is the phase where he may learn how to improve his modus operandi, techniques, or skill sets. Perhaps instead of depending on brute force, next time he will bring a gun. Or perhaps he realizes that he did not have to bring bind-ings because the victim’s residence had a phone cord. The impact of the interaction on both the offender and the victim may be realized at this phase as well. For instance, the offender may realize that the confrontation that he wanted to culminate in a rape had unexpect-edly spiraled into murder. The impact of the offender’s culpability will also become a factor at this point. Issues of how to avoid capture

s Dover refines the Offender Interaction Process Model.


WWW.ACFEI.COM • (800) 592-1399C

E ART

ICLE

either through hiding the interaction, hiding the identity of the offender, or hiding the identity of the victim will come into play. The evaluation phase gives the offender the opportunity to reincorporate the experience of the interaction either into the long-term strategic phase where it will become part of the offender’s future interactions, or in the short-term strategic phase to reinvigorate a new cycle in the OIPM. For instance, if the interaction did not end with the victim’s death but rather a robbery, then the evalua-tion phase may provide a short-term strategic incentive to eliminate the victim as a witness and the second cycle of the interaction with the victim may result in murder.

Issues of Note:The OIPM can be used to describe any in-teraction that involves an offender. Yet the argument can be made that often there is very little tactical forethought or post inter-action evaluation performed by offenders. The model does not require that any phase involve complex planning, or extended time. Instead, the model defines the pathway that the interaction must follow. The virtual ab-sence of tactical forethought, for instance, can inform us about one offender as much as significant levels of preparation and pre-planning can inform us about another. It does not matter how or to what extent an offender satisfies the requirements of the OIPM. It only matters that he had to travel along the pathway. During various phases of the OIPM, the offender may begin to identify and acquire items that are eventually used in the dynamic phase. It would be a mistake to attribute the acquisition of items entirely to one phase. For instance, prior to selecting a victim, the offender may begin to collect props and/or tools that he would like to use to achieve his strategic goal. A robber may obtain a gun because he wants to rob someone, but he doesn’t know who yet. A rapist may acquire items to use in a rape kit without a specific victim in mind. Once the target has been selected and the offender enters the tacti-cal phase, the offender may begin to collect items that he will need to facilitate the spe-cific interaction. For instance, the offender may acquire a screwdriver to pry open a lock. During the execution phase, the offender may find that, to cope with unexpected cir-cumstances, he must spontaneously acquire items such as a weapon or bindings.

Compound OffensesA compound offense can be conceptualized as the cumulative result of an interaction in which the offender begins with one of-fense and during the interaction develops a second offense that runs parallel to, alters, or eliminates the first offense. A compound offense can develop during the same cycle. One advantage of regarding murder as the result of interaction is that interaction can be viewed as an iterative process that can involve multiple cycles. This permits the existence of compound offenses within the OIPM that also develop during multiple cycle iterations. This concept is illustrated in Figure 3. For instance, an offender may have the initial strategic goal of performing a robbery. However, during the robbery he may find that he has a young woman under his control and he decides to rape her. The robbery consti-tutes the first cycle because the robbery was

the initial strategic goal for the interaction. The second cycle starts when the offender develops the new strategic goal of rape.

Motivational OriginsThe motive for murder is often difficult to fully establish. Is the motivation for a rape and murder sadistic pleasure, practical witness elimination or both? In the OIPM, motive is viewed as cumulative at each phase. Thus, the origin of the motive for sadistic murder is in the offender’s fantasy and therefore a long-term strategy. His short-term strategic goals, tactical planning, execution, and evaluation should all reflect the sadistic motivation and its origins. In the OIPM, determining an offender’s apparent specific motives is not as important as identifying the earliest phase in which the offender was motivated to commit the specific offense. This so-called motiva-tional origin provides the basis of the offense throughout the rest of the model.

FIGURE 3

Evaluation

Short-Term

TargetSelection

Execution

Tactical

Dover, 2010

Long-Term

Strategic

Externalvictim

Victim interaction

cycle 1

cycle 2

Offender Interaction Process Model: Multiple cycles

FIGURE 4

Evaluation

Short-Term

TargetSelection

Execution

Tactical

Dover, 2010

Long-Term

Strategic

Externalvictim

Victim interaction

Offender Interaction Process Model: Motivational origins

instrumental

adaptive

incentive

dynamic

fantasy


CE

ART

ICLE

In a compound offense the motivation for one of the offenses may occur much earlier in the process than the others. Therefore, it is important to identify which motivation is of interest and specifically identify the moti-vational origins of each offense. For instance, are we more interested in what motivated the robbery or the ensuing murder? In fact, the motivation for the robbery may stem from a short-term strategic incentive and the motivational origin of the murder may stem from an altercation that occurred during the execution phase. Figure 4 (page 35) illustrates five pro-posed motivational origins associated with the OIPM. These five motivational origins are based on the phase in which they occur. They are fantasy, incentive, instrumental, dynamic, and adaptive.

The motivational origins are explained below:

Fantasy• —This motivational origin is rooted in the offender’s long-term strategic phase. It stems from the of-fender’s internal cognitive schema. This motivational origin exists before the short-term impetus for the interac-tion and is a result of issues within the offender’s psycho-emotional, psycho-sexual, and social development. Incentive• —This motivational origin stems from the short-term strategic phase. It is tied to committing the of-fense as a response to recent events or stimuli that have affected the offender. This is related to a buildup of the of-fender’s internal tension, or a relatively recent shift in affect or emotional state.

Instrumental• —This motivational origin is based in the tactical phase. It is tied to the offender’s decision to use the offense to facilitate the overall strategic goal. Therefore, instrumental motivation occurs after the strategic goal has been set and the target has been selected. Furthermore, to be con-sidered the motivational origin, the overall strategic goal must be different then the specific offense.Dynamic• —This motivational origin is based in the dynamics of the execution phase. It indicates that the motive for the offense did not occur until during the actual execution of the interaction. Thus, the expression of a dynamic motivational origin would tend to be spontaneous or reactive. Adaptive• —This motivational origin comes from a post-cycle evaluation by the offender. It stems from the end of one cycle and provides the impetus for a second cycle. The adaptive motiva-tion is incorporated into the OIPM and expressed as a new strategic incen-tive. This new strategic incentive may be the new motivational origin itself, or it may be the impetus for the inter-action that results in the new offense somewhere within the cycle.

Each of these motivational origins defines where the motivation for each specific of-fense starts. The motivation retains the char-acteristics of the origin, but cascades through the interaction and accumulates characteris-tics from subsequent phases as well. Figure 5 illustrates the motivational origins and

shows which phases contribute to further-ing the motive. A murder with a fantasy-driven motiva-tional origin will also have the characteristics of an instrumental motivation from the tac-tical phase. A murder with an instrumental motivational origin, however, will not have the attributes of a fantasy-driven motivation from the long-term strategic phase. The adaptive motivational origin is incorporated directly from the evaluation phase of one cycle into the short-term strategic phase of the next cycle (effectively bypassing the long-term strategic phase). Thus, an adap-tive motivational origin in the next cycle will exhibit the cumulative characteristics of all of the other motivational origins except fantasy.

Consider Scenario 1 from the beginning of this article. A young woman has been murdered in her first floor apartment. She is found naked and supine on her bed in a pool of blood. Investigation quickly reveals that she has also been bound, sexually assaulted, beaten about the head with a blunt object, and stabbed 23 times. The cause of death is, however, determined to be exsan-guination due to a deep cut to her throat. The apartment is thoroughly processed for forensic evidence. Several locations throughout the liv-ing room, kitchen and bathroom of the apart-ment contain various forms of blood spatter. There are no signs of forced entry.

The execution phase of this interaction involved a number of dynamic elements: the various locations with blood evidence and the use of multiple weapons to identify a few. A careful consideration of the dynamic event as expressed in the execution phase is very important. Does the presence of mul-tiple locations of blood spatter highlight the offender’s inability to control the victim or does it indicate that the offender purpose-fully moved the victim throughout the scene? Is there an indication that some or all of the weapons the offender used came from the vic-tim’s apartment, or is there reason to believe that the offender brought the weapons with him? Did the offender come to the scene pre-pared to bind the victim, or were the bindings introduced as an adaptation to a combative victim? The answers to these questions and many others will begin to identify and address the motivational origins that exist within the interaction and will reveal the underlying structure of the eventual murder.

FIGURE 5

fantasy

incentive

instrumental

dynamic

adaptive

Strategic(long-term)

Strategic(short-term)

Tactical

Execution

Evaluation

cycle 1

cycle 2

Offender Interaction Process PhaseM

otiv

atio

nal O

rigin


WWW.ACFEI.COM • (800) 592-1399C

E ART

ICLE

This murder is either the result of an in-teraction that started as a sexual murder or as an interaction that involved two offenses (sexual assault and murder) with different motivational origins. Identifying and ad-dressing the motivational origins that exist within the interaction will reveal the under-lying structure of the eventual murder. A discussion of the difference between sexual murder, sexual assault with accompanying murder, and sexual assault with adaptive murder will help to distinguish and illustrate some of the significant attributes of these events. In a practical sense, this discussion gives investigators a framework to organize and assess a case.

Sexual murder:The motivational origin for a sexual murder exists in the strategic phase of the OIPM. If the offender’s psycho-sexual development has involved melding sexual activity and mur-der so that both are entwined into the same strategic goal, then the motivational origin is fantasy and it exists in the long-term strategic phase (see Figure 6). On the other hand, if the sexual murder is not based in long-term fantasy but rather more immediate emotional or affective violence, then murder as a “sexual expression” exists as incentive in the short-term strategic phase and is the motivational origin for the interaction (see Figure 7). In the OIPM the difference between the fantasy (long-term strategic) and incentive (short-term strategic) motivational origins of sexual murder are very similar to the differences between chronic and acute catathymic homi-cide (Schlesinger, 2004). In the OIPM, sexual murder is defined as interaction in which the resulting sexual assault and murder have mo-tivational origins in the strategic phase. Another point to consider is that in future interactions (if the offender is a serial sexual murderer) the motivational origins for sexual murder may shift from short-term strategic incentive to long-term strategic fantasy. Especially if the offender reinforces the bond between sexual assault and murder in future fantasy.

Sexual Assault with Accompanying Murder:In a sexual assault with accompanying mur-der, the sexual assault and the murder have separate motivational origins. Figure 8 illus-trates a sexual assault with an instrumental murder. In this case, the sexual assault mo-tivational origin pre-dates the murder moti-

FIGURE 6

FIGURE 7

FIGURE 8

Evaluation

Short-Term

TargetSelection

Execution

Tactical

Dover, 2010

Long-Term

Strategic

Externalvictim

Victim interaction

Offender Interaction Process Model: Sexual Murder / Fantasy motivational origin

Sexual Murder

fantasy

Evaluation

Short-Term

TargetSelection

Execution

Tactical

Dover, 2010

Long-Term

Strategic

Externalvictim

Victim interaction

Offender Interaction Process Model: Sexual Murder / Incentive motivational origin

Sexual Murder

incentive

Evaluation

Short-Term

TargetSelection

Execution

Tactical

Dover, 2010

Long-Term

Strategic

Externalvictim

Victim interaction

Offender Interaction Process Model: Sexual Assault / Instrumental Murder

Sexual Assault instrumental

Murder


CE

ART

ICLE

vational origin. The sexual assault originates from either a long-or short-term strategic motivation. The murder, while pre-meditated in the tactical phase, is used to facilitate the sexual assault and is not the primary strategic goal. For instance, the offender, foreseeing the need to eliminate her as a witness, may tactically plan the victim’s death prior to the execution phase. Figure 9 illustrates a sexual assault with a dynamic murder. As in the sexual assault with instrumental murder, this sexual assault originates in the strategic phase and provides the primary strategic goal. However, in the sexual assault with dynamic murder, prior to the interaction the offender has no intention of murdering the victim during the execution phase. Yet due to dynamic factors during the execution phase the offender ends the inter-action by killing the victim. This murder may be the result of expressive violence applied by the offender when the victim resists or some other catalytic event that the offender is un-able to adapt to and accommodate without resorting to murder. If murder stems from a dynamic motivational origin, during the evaluation phase the results of the interaction will be assessed in the context of the strategic sexual assault motivation. The question to ask is whether or not the result of murder now becomes a basis for future motivation, or does it become a basis for better methods of control?

Sexual Assault with Adaptive Murder:Sexual assault with adaptive murder is a multi-cycle interaction (see Figure 10). The sexual assault is the strategic goal for the first cycle. However, once the execution phase is completed, the offender identifies a new strategic incentive in the evaluation phase and starts a second cycle from the short-term strategic phase. For instance, the offender may have lost his mask during the sexual as-sault and so realizes in the evaluation phase that the victim can identify him. Thus, the

FIGURE 10

FIGURE 11

Supervisory Special Agent Steve Bongardt has been a Special Agent in the FBI for over 14 years. For the last several years, first at the FBI’s Behavioral Analysis Unit and then following his transfer to the FBI’s prestigious Behavioral Science Unit, SSA Bongardt has been focused on offender behavioral assessments in the areas of cybercrime, terrorism, threat assessment, and traditional violent crime. He is the program manager for the BSU’s Behavioral Based Specialty Area C.A.N.D.A.U.L.E.S. – Cyber Adversaries of Networks and Digital Asset Users & Law Enforcement Solutions. The perception of anonymity is often a valuable attri-bute to modern cybercrime offenders, but Candaules was also the name of a king, a victim of anonymity in a classic story about the conformity of man in Plato’s The Republic. SSA Bongardt is a recipient of the Director’s Award for Excellence in Investigation for his work in terrorism matters, and holds a Master of Arts in Forensic Psychology and Certified Information System Security Professional accreditation. He is a 1985 graduate of the United States Naval Academy.

About the Author

Thomas J. Dover, MS serves as a crime analyst within the Behavioral Science Unit (BSU), Federal Bureau of In-vestigation (FBI). Mr. Dover conducts research, training, and consultation activities in the use of analysis techniques, concepts, and principles to examine complex violent crimes.

Evaluation

Short-Term

TargetSelection

Execution

Tactical

Dover, 2010

Long-Term

Strategic

Externalvictim

Victim interaction

Offender Interaction Process Model: Sexual Assault / Adaptive Murder

Cycle 1:Sexual Assault Cycle 2:

Murder

adaptive

Evaluation

Tactical

Dover, 2010

Offender and Victim Interaction Process Models

Strategic

Evaluation

Tactical Strategic

Offender Interaction

Process

Victim Interaction

Process

Execution

targetselection

threat identification

FIGURE 9

Evaluation

Short-Term

TargetSelection

Execution

Tactical

Dover, 2010

Long-Term

Strategic

Externalvictim

Victim interaction

Offender Interaction Process Model: Sexual Assault / Dynamic Murder

Sexual Assault

Murderdynamic


WWW.ACFEI.COM • (800) 592-1399C

E ART

ICLE

new strategic incentive for the new interac-tion cycle is to feel safe from capture. The murder is not the original motivation for the interaction but becomes a tactical solu-tion (eliminating the witness) to satisfy the new strategic goal for the next iteration of the cycle.

Consider Scenario 2 from the beginning of this article.A young man is gunned down on his porch by the occupant of a passing vehicle. Seven 9mm rounds are fired at the victim. Three strike him – one in the leg, one in the abdomen, and the third in his chest. The other four rounds strike various parts of the porch. The victim dies on the way to the hospital. Several witnesses recall that the occupant of the vehicle looked like a man the victim had an altercation with earlier in the day.

This scenario involves a two cycle inter-action. The first interaction may or may not have been criminally motivated, yet at the execution phase it involved an “alterca-tion” between the victim and offender. After the execution phase (when the altercation ended) the victim may have thought the interaction was over. However, when the offender entered the evaluation phase of the interaction process he developed an adaptive motivational origin for the murder; perhaps the offender felt that he lost “face.” When the offender started the second cycle of the interaction, his lingering feelings about the altercation from the first cycle provided him with a strategic incentive for the next iteration. His determination that the specific victim was responsible for making him feel this way, may have led to conceiving of the shooting and taking action.

Consider Scenario 3 from the beginning of this article.A middle-aged man calls the police to report that he has found his wife of four years mur-dered in their suburban home, which has been burglarized. When police arrive, they find that the house has been ransacked, and the victim has been shot twice; once in the head and once in the chest. Upon further investigation, it is learned that the victim’s husband was having an affair and had recently taken out a large life insurance policy on his wife. The victim’s husband is arrested after his mistress admits that he had shared with her a plot to kill his wife and cash in on the insurance policy.

In this scenario it appears that the of-fender’s strategic goals consisted of acquiring money and ending his marriage. The motiva-tional origin for the murder is instrumental

StrategicShort-termLong-term

Tactical Execution Evaluation

obsession with violent sexual fantasy stressors lead

to heightened affectviolent sexual fantasy

involves killing victim

adequate victim

identified

method to approach, control

and kill victim.

Targetselection

dynamic Interaction includes catalysts and reactive aggression. killing results from

interaction

evaluates success and determines next

course of action

obsession with violent sexual fantasy

stressors lead to heightened

affect

killing is seen a viable solution

dynamic Interaction includes catalysts and reactive aggression. killing results from

interaction


course of action



affectdynamic Interaction

includes catalysts and reactive aggression. killing results from

interaction


course of actionkilling facilitates practical aspects of

the rape

adequate victim

identified

method to approach, control

and kill victim.

adequate victim

identified

method to approach & control victim.



affect

dynamic Interaction includes catalysts and

reactive aggression evaluates success and determines next

course of actionkilling results from reactive & dynamic

interaction

adequate victim

identified




affect

dynamic Interaction includes catalysts and

reactive aggression


course of action

adequate victim

identified


fear of being identified by victim

goal is to avoid identification

victim can identify

killing facilitates practical aspects of capture avoidance

killing results from reactive & dynamic

interaction


course of actioncycle 2

sexual assault

murderFantasy

Incentive

Instrumental

Dynamic

Adaptive

The following chart illustrates the construction of motivational origin structure for the OIPM as it relates to distinguishing be-tween sexual murder and sexual assault with an accompanying murder.


CE

ART

ICLE

and exists in the tactical phase of the inter-action. The murder was a means to achieve the strategic goals.

Crime Interaction Process ModelIt is important to note that so far this ar-ticle has focused on the interaction process from primarily the offender’s perspective. However, if the OIPM can be used to de-scribe the internal process model an offender must go through during an interaction, then it stands to reason that a Victim Interaction Process Model (VIPM) could also be de-veloped that describes the process that a victim must go through during the same interaction. In fact, the OIPM is designed to com-bine with a VIPM at the execution phase to describe the interaction from both an offen-sive and defensive perspective (see Figure 11, page 38). This Crime Interaction Process Model (CIPM) would allow us to better understand how the offender and victim are internalizing the interaction. It would also address the dynamic inter-action that occurs during the execution phase of both processes and how (and if ) the OIPM and VIPM synchronize during an interaction.

ConclusionThis article has discussed in some detail the development of the Offender Interaction Process Model. The OIPM provides a dy-namic, iterative, and cumulative cycle that can be used to explore and investigate the phenomenon of human interaction and its sometimes unfortunate results. This gives us a generalizable process model by which all offender interactions can be organized, described, and further developed. The OIPM offers the means to provide contextual bases for identifying and pre-dicting offender pathways and trajectories. It can be used to provide a framework for understanding the way empirical data about behavioral characteristics of a crime scene fit together. Ultimately, the OIPM gives us a means to understand offender-based activ-ity and behavior and how the offense is a result of the offender’s perspective on the interaction.

ReferencesAinsworth, P. (2009). Offender Profiling and Crime

Analysis. Devon, U.K.: Willan Publishing.Andrews, D. & Bonta, J. (1994). The Psychology of

Criminal Conduct. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Pub-lishing Co.

Babbie, Earl (2006). The Practice Of Social Research (11th edition). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publish-ing Co.

Bartol, C.R. (1999). Criminal Behavior: A Psychoso-cial Approach. (5th Edition). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Canter, D. and Youngs, D. (2009). Investigative Psy-chology: Offender Profiling and the Analysis of Criminal Action. U.K.: Wiley

Cohen, L. and Felson, M. (1979). Social Change and Crime Rate Trends: A Routine Activities Approach. American Sociological Review, 44(4), 588-608.

Cooper, G. and King, M. (2001) Analyzing Criminal Behavior II. USA: IQ Design Publishing

Cornell, D.; Warren, J.; Hawk, G; Stafford, E.; Oram, G.; & Pine, D. (1996). Psychopathy in Instrumental and Reactive Violent Offenders. Journal of Consult-ing and Clinical Psychology. 64(4), 783-790.

Crandall, B. Klein, G., and Hoffman, R. (2006). Work-ing minds: a practitioner’s guide to cognitive task analysis. MIT Press

Douglas, J.; Burgess, A.; Burgess, A. & Ressler, R. (1992). Crime Classification Manual. New York: Lexington Books

Douglas, J. & Munn, C. (1992). Violent Crime Scene Analysis: Modus Operandi, Signature and Staging. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, February, 1-10.

Dover, T. (1995). Consolidating the Salient Dimen-sions of Homicide from the Homicide Information and Tracking System (HITS) Data Set, 1981-1986. Unpublished thesis, Virginia Commonwealth Uni-versity, Virginia.

Egger, S. (1984). A Working Definition of Serial Mur-der and the Reduction of Linkage Blindness. Jour-nal of Police Science and Administration, 12(3), 348-357.

Egger, S. (ed.) (1990). Serial Murder: an Elusive Phe-nomenon. New York: Praeger.

Eliopulos, L. (2003). Death Investigator’s Handbook. Boulder. CO: Paladin Press

Falsifiability. (2010, May 15). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 14:42, May 21, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falsifiability&oldid=362274548

Last, S. & Fritzon, K. (2005). Investigating the Nature of Expressiveness in Stranger, Acquaintance and In-trafamilial Homicides. Journal of Investigative Psy-chology and Offender Profiling, 2, 179-193

Luckenbill, D. (1977). Criminal Homicide as a Situated Transaction. Social Problems, December, 176-186.

Miethe, T. & Drass, K. (1999). Exploring the Social Context of Instrumental and Expressive Homicides: An Application of Qualitative Comparative Analysis. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 15(1)

National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime (1993). Deviant and Criminal Sexuality. Washing-ton, D.C.: Federal Bureau of Investigation.

National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime (1990). Criminal Investigative Analysis: Sexual Homicide. Washington, D.C.: Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Palermo, G. and Kocsis, R. (2005) Offender Profiling: An Introduction to the Sociopsychological Analysis of Violent Crime. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thom-as Publisher, Ltd.

Process modeling. (2010, April 25). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 14:40, May 21, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Process_modeling&oldid=358303264

Ressler, R.; Burgess, A. & Douglas, J. (1988). Sexual Homicide: Patterns and Motives. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Ressler, R.; Burgess, A.; Douglas, J.; Hartman, C. & D’Agostino, R. (1986). Sexual Killers and Their Victims: Identifying patterns through crime scene analysis. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1(3), 288-308.

Salfati, G. & Canter, D. (1999). Differentiating Strang-er Murders: Profiling Offender Characteristics from Behavioral Styles. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 17, 391-406.

Santtila, P.; Canter, D.; Elfgreen, T. & Häkkänen, H. (2001). The Structure of Crime-Scene Actions in Finnish Homicides. Homicide Studies, 5(4), 363-387.

Schank, R. & Abelson, R. (1977). Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding: An inquiry into Human Knowl-edge Structures. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum

Sclesinger, L. (2004). Sexual Murder: Catathymic and Compulsive Homicides. New York: CRC Press.

Task analysis. (2010, March 10). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 14:43, May 21, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Task_analysis&oldid=349042000

Turco, R. (1990). Psychological Profiling. Internation-al Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 34(2), 147-154.

Tufte, E. Visual Display of Quantitative Information. Cheshire, Connecticut: Graphics Press.

Walsh, Z.; Swogger, M. & Kosson, D. (2009). Psy-chopathy and Instrumental Violence: Facet Lev-el Relationships. Journal of Personality Disorders, 23(4), 416-424.

Westveer Jr., A. (2002) Managing Death Investiga-tion. Washington, D.C.: Federal Bureau of Inves-tigation. n

EARN CE CREDIT

To earn CE credit, complete the exam for this article on page 123 or complete the exam online for FREE at www.acfei.com (select “Online CE”).

This article is approved by the following for continuing education credit:(ACFEI) The American College of Forensic Examiners International provides this continuing education credit for Diplomates and certified members.

After studying this article, participants should be better able to do the following:

Explain murder as an outcome of an 1. interaction.Discuss the cyclical nature of the GIPM 2. and OIPM.Identify the four primary phases of the OIPM.3. Distinguish between the five motivational 4. origins that are described by the OIPM.

KEY WORDS: Interaction, murder, violent crime, offender, process modelTARGET AUDIENCE: Law enforcement, inves-tigators, law enforcement instructorsPROGRAM LEVEL: BasicDISCLOSURE: The authors have nothing to disclose.PREREQUISITES: None


CREDENTIALS PAY!

The American College of Forensic Examiners InstituteSM offers credentials that show the world your expertise!

• Certified Forensic Accountant, Cr.FA®

• Certified Medical Investigator®, CMI• Certified Forensic Nurse, CFN®

• Certified Forensic Consultant, CFC®

• Registered Investigator®, RI®• Certified Forensic Physician®, CFP• Certified Master Forensic Social Worker, CMFSWSM

• Accredited Forensic Counselor, AFCSM

Call (800) 423-9737 or log on to www.acfei.com for more information.

CERT0310EX

ACFEI’s NationalPatch Exchange Program

We are PROUD of your service!

In honor of all who work in the many forensic specialties, ACFEI is creating a large display of official patches at headquarters. Make sure your agency is represented!

Please send your agency’s official patch to ACFEI and you’ll receive this beautifully em-broidered ACFEI association patch absolutely free!

Mail your patch to: ACFEI Patch Exchange,

2750 E. Sunshine, Springfield, MO 65804

Please include your full name, mailing address, and telephone number with your patch. Non-members are also encouraged to participate.

PATCH0310EX


INTERVIEWwith Thomas J. Dover, MS

INT

ERVI

EW

TFE: What is your title in the BSU?Dover: I am a crime analyst.

TFE: What does a crime analyst do?Dover: Crime Analysis, as a profession, is practiced in a variety of different ways depending on the agency. Although the primary focus of my career has been in violent crime tactical analysis and case assessment, many other analysts excel at providing strategic analysis and planning support. Crime Analysis is a growing discipline and many analysts have started to branch out into specialty niches.

TFE: What is your role at the BSU?Dover: As a crime analyst, I specialize in using a variety of analysis techniques, concepts, and principles to analyze case information and identify serial offenses, patterns, trends, and case linkages. I have experience in developing analytical sources of information, adapting data collection strategies to fit available source data, and devising methods to resolve collection, collation, query, and assess-ment issues relating to multifaceted crime information. I also have been working on using algorithmic solutions and process modeling to explore violent criminal behavior. I bring these skill sets to the BSU in several research projects that I am currently working on, through instruction to the National Academy, and in consultation with law enforcement agencies. I am also an active member of the Futures Working Group (FWG). The FWG is a partnership between the FBI and Police Futures International (PFI) that is designed to evaluate the future of law enforcement issues. The FWG provides a forum for discussions about how to create positive and ethical change to reach preferred long-term law enforcement goals and strategies.

TFE: How long have you been with the BSU and what have been your previous assignments? Dover: I have been a member of the BSU for approximately one year. I spent about six months prior to that on a temporary assign-ment to BSU for a specific project. I was a crime analyst with the FBI’s Violent Criminal Apprehension (ViCAP) Unit for approxi-mately four years. Before joining the FBI, I spent ten years with the

Henrico County Division of Police, in Richmond, Virginia, as a tactical Crime and Investigative Analyst

in the Division Intelligence, Violent Crimes, and Cold Case Units.

TFE: Could you tell me about your research with the BSU? Dover: The primary reason for my initial assignment to BSU was to pursue research on comparative case analysis, or case linking, and determine how we can establish analytically based algorithmic solutions. This research involves the identification and use of crime scene and investigative attributes and extends to data mining and exploring how to apply supervised and unsupervised machine learn-ing techniques to investigative data.

TFE: How does the FBI use this information?Dover: This research will be used to supplement FBI practices in linking cases and enable operational analysts to perform more robust and efficient analyses.

TFE: How is the goal of your current research applicable to law enforcement?Dover: This research is intended to assist local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies in identifying violent crime offenses that have been committed by the same individual(s). This can mean con-necting cases that have similar investigative, behavioral, and forensic attributes to the same unknown offender or it could mean identifying unsolved cases that are connected to a known offender.

TFE: What advice would you share with the readers of the journal?Dover: The way I see it, the most important aspect of research is the opportunity to re-conceptualize our ideas and reconfigure our understanding of the world around us. I think it is important to look outside of our areas of expertise to other paradigms to find new ways to understand, enhance, and provide innovation to our respective professions.

TFE: What other areas of research are you interested in pursuing that have not been addressed by BSU in the past?

INTERVIEW



TERVIEW

Dover: Aside from comparative case analysis, I have research inter-ests in a number of topics that focus on the investigation of violent crime. Several projects I am involved in entail redefining victim-offender interaction and relationship, translating observables from an investigation and/or crime scene into actionable information, and identifying dynamic aspects of violence and aggression. Also, along with several other colleagues here at BSU, I am working on a project to identify best practice models and processes for consultation and non-biased assessment. The goal of this project is to deconstruct and evaluate consultation procedures from a variety of sources and then standardize general consultative services within the BSU.

TFE: What constitutes a typical workday for you at the BSU?Dover: There is no such thing as a typical day at the BSU.

TFE: How does one come into a career path such as yours?Dover: I started as a fine arts and English major at Tufts University in Medford, Massachusetts. I originally wanted to write and illus-trate children’s books. I had a roommate who was sold on the idea of becoming an FBI agent but refused to find out anything about how to actually become an agent. I told him I would go with him, basically to light a fire under him. After I cut off my pony-tail and got rid of my earring, we went to the FBI Boston field office where we talked to an agent. When we left, my roommate decided to become a lawyer, and I decided to change my major to sociology/criminology and pursue a career in law enforcement. I was not in-terested in being an agent, but I knew I wanted to solve puzzles that would make a difference.

TFE: Is that when you decided to become a crime analyst?Dover: There was really no such thing as a “crime analyst” career path when I graduated from college. After I earned my graduate degree from Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU), I worked for about a year in the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services Research Center. Eventually, I was hired as a “research ana-lyst” at Henrico County Division of Police, just north of Richmond, Virginia. My first assignment at Henrico was as the neighborhood watch coordinator for the county. This was a far cry from what I thought I

would be doing as a “research analyst.” However, I was lucky enough to move to the new crime analyst position within the Criminal Investigations Section (CIS). Once in the CIS, I started to work almost immediately with the Violent Crimes Unit. Once Henrico instituted a cold case unit, I started working on cold case assessments and performing tactical and behavioral analysis functions.

TFE: What is it like being a crime analyst in a local agency?Dover: During my time at Henrico, I was the only crime analyst in the section. I learned a lot from the detectives who eventually began to see me as a colleague. In fact, partly because I was still attempting to establish my role within Henrico and partly because no one re-ally knew what to do with a crime analyst, I had the opportunity to become very involved in aspects of investigation that crime analysts are not normally exposed to. I went to murder scenes, I monitored interviews, and I even went on surveillance. Eventually, I applied to the FBI as an analyst with the ViCAP Unit.

TFE: What is ViCAP?Dover: The ViCAP Unit maintains a database of nationwide vio-lent crimes. The ViCAP database is primarily centered on homicide, sexual assault, and missing and unidentified human remains cases. Many of these cases are suspected to be serial in nature. ViCAP analysts work with local, state, and federal agencies to analyze and identify cases that are potentially linked to other cases or known offenders. While at ViCAP I had the opportunity to be involved in a number of high-profile cases and provide analytical support to a number of ongoing investigations. However, I also developed a research inter-est in a number of issues that revolved around these types of cases. Eventually, one of the projects I designed was determined to be a priority project, and I was assigned to the BSU so I could focus on the research and development aspects of the project.

TFE: So where does this career path take you now?Dover: I am heavily involved in several projects here at the BSU. Also, in the fall I will be starting up a class for the National Academy entitled “Crime Analysis: Theory and Application.” I am glad to be here—and loving every minute of it. n

Did You Know?

Systematic Understanding, Management and Mitigation of Insider ThreatsThe U.S. intelligence community has done significant work to identify indicators of malicious insider activities so that future incidents can be prevented or detected earlier. The problem with that approach is that there are so many indicators that result in “cry wolf” alerts (or false positives) that such a list is almost useless. Through comprehensive, detailed classifica-tion and analysis of actual insider incidents, we can produce decision-making rules (or “rule sets”) to evaluate the behavior of insiders and alert administrators and security professionals to actual or potential malicious insider activity and avoid or mitigate organizational compromise. Further, these rule sets can improve investigative processes and can be implemented in supporting detection and alert systems and associated tools. Further, to lessen law enforcement resources utilized during the course of investigations by identifying behavioral characteristics, methods, and technology which are common to these criminal behaviors. Such information may assist law enforcement’s expedient identification of malicious insider activity.


CE

ART

ICLE

Addressing the Urgent Need for Multi-Dimensional Training in Law Enforcement

The law enforcement community is not immune from the base predispositions that adversely affect life in all societies. They are wounded in all human dimensions. Historically, law enforcement agencies and the communi-ties they serve have failed to cultivate the skills, attitudes and practices that would help their officers thrive as whole persons. Despite the obvious and well documented problems that plague law enforcement, training has not evolved to at minimum mitigate and at best eliminate maladaptive behaviors normalized by the law enforce-ment culture. This article reflects upon the urgent need for multi-dimensional training in law enforcement so that officers may thrive throughout their vocational ca-reers and beyond.

By Samuel L. Feemster, JD, MDiv Supervisory Special Agent

CE ARTICLE: 1 CE CREDIT

The views ex-pressed in thisarticle do not necessarilyrepresent the views of the FBI.


WWW.ACFEI.COM • (800) 592-1399C

E ART

ICLE

Never before have law enforcement officers and agencies worldwide been perplexed by so many facets of crime, toxicity, and stress. From terrorism, cybercrime, environmental sabotage, political misconduct, and tradition-al criminal violations to random violence, of-ficers need enhanced resources to perform at peak levels. The FBI’s Behavioral Science Unit (BSU) has openly embraced this exigent reality and strategic opportunity to address the urgent need for multi-dimensional train-ing in law enforcement. Supervisory Special Agent Samuel L. Feemster along with law enforcement executives attending the FBI National Academy have been exploring pos-sible responses to an unaddressed gap in police training for the past decade. This unintended training gap manifests in oth-erwise proficient officers as the occasional or constant inability to readily access the spiritual human dimension to affirm the meaning and purpose of their vocation in light of the relentless demand to process irrational and criminal behaviors. Student deliberations, in various courses facilitated by SSA Feemster at the FBI academy, have provided the foundation for a research en-deavor titled Beyond Survival Toward Officer Wellness (Project BeSTOW). The mission of

Project BeSTOW is to develop and imple-ment multi-dimensional training curricula designed to foster officer wellness. The primary forum for discussions about the mission and objectives of BeSTOW is a BSU course titled “Spirituality, Wellness and Vitality Issues in Law Enforcement Practices.” In this course, law enforcement executives from across the nation and around the world have acknowledged that there is a serious discrepancy between the requi-sites for vocational vitality and the content and method of existing training at police academies. The primary forum for discuss-ing ongoing research to inform curricula development and future law enforcement training is an annual international BeSTOW symposium hosted by the BSU. Among other goals, symposium participants are committed to conceptualize spirituality through field observations, interviews, focus groups, statistical surveys, and secondary analyses of existing data sources; develop empirical bodies of knowledge to validate the nexus between spirituality and law en-forcement; and to update the curriculum of the FBI National Academy’s course titled “Spirituality, Wellness, and Vitality Issues in Law Enforcement Practices.”

Beginning in 2007, National Academy (NA) students enrolled in courses titled “Stress Management in Law Enforcement” (SMILE) and “Crime Analysis, Futuristics and Law Enforcement: The 21st Century” were given opportunity to address two ques-tions. First they were asked to identify the courses required by their department or re-gional training academy to become a sworn police officer. Second they were asked to identify what is required for vocational sur-vival. Informed by student discussions and disclosures over the course of several classes between 2007 and 2009, the second question evolved as follows: Identify what it takes to maintain law enforcement vocational vitality, from pre-recruitment to post-retirement? Predictably, the required courses for be-coming a sworn officer included but were not limited to defensive tactics, firearms, report writing, physical training, finger-printing, traffic, DUI, arrest techniques and arrest/search and seizure. Officers must demonstrate proficiencies in these courses in various stages during training and after graduation. Unpredictably, consensuses of requisites for vocational vitality included but were not limited to passion, compassion, be-lief in something, balance, emotional health,


CE

ART

ICLE

purpose, tolerance, grace, humility, empathy, and a solid spiritual foundation. The gap in the content and focus of required courses and requisites for vitality underscores the widespread failure of the law enforcement community to embrace holistic training as a possible remedy for maladaptive behaviors normalized by existing law enforcement culture. These questions have since been incor-porated in the “Spirituality, Wellness and Vitality Issues in Law Enforcement Practices” class where students are challenged to iden-tify the dimensions of humanity experienced as a result of a common daily event such as writing an incident report. Without fail these law enforcement executives readily acknowledge the engagement of the physi-cal and mental dimensions. After reflective dialogue, they also agree that the choice of words used in the report reflects the engage-ment of the emotional dimension and that the present or absence of integrity in report writing is an issue initially addressed in the spiritual dimension. Likewise, officers are challenged to reflect upon the efficacy of engaging developed in-telligence dimensions during the of course of police actions. Although the concept of spiri-tual intelligence is not commonly addressed in law enforcement, law enforcement execu-tives enrolled at the NA embraced the value of a more immediate and accurate intuition, which results from a developed spirituality, to officer safety training (Feemster, 2009). Spirituality and integrity revitalize officers against the internal cancers and/or external

contagions of toxicity in the performance of their sworn duties. They foster continuous improvement in executing the spirit of the law via fidelity, bravery, and integrity. Law enforcement officers know very well that humans are engaged in the vocation of law enforcement because of the horrific nature of the human condition. Too many citizens use unlawful means to meet basic needs, con-scious or unconscious. The human condition reflects the failure of humans to delay per-sonal gratification in favor of the common good. Around the globe, aggression, crime, deviance, disorder, dysfunctional and de-structive behaviors, disease, greed, and wars manifest the individual base nature, which requires governance. On a larger scale, in technologically advanced societies, the ab-dication of environmental husbandry—as evidenced by practices such as strip-mining, coupled with the embrace of unscrupulous corporate policies and practices—manifests the collective human condition. Society’s reliance upon these industries and businesses for employment, financial stability, insur-ance, and a host of essential commodities underscores the pervasive and potentially dehumanizing proclivity of the human con-dition. The global law enforcement commu-nity routinely responds to the consequences of these conditions. The law enforcement community is not immune to the base predispositions that ad-versely affect life in all societies. According to successive waves of empirical data collected by the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report (UCR), law enforcement officers face unprecedented

levels of toxicity, stress, crime, and deadly vi-olence (FBI Uniform Crime Report: http://www.fbi/ucr/ucr.htm ). In today’s world of terrorism, mass shootings, and other heinous acts of violence, law enforcement officers are exposed to increasingly toxic situations that adversely affect their bodies, their minds, and most of all their spirits. These stressors are compounded by internal conditions re-sulting from the prevalence of non-requisite hierarchies within many police departments. A non-requisite hierarchy is one in which promotions may be based on numerical measures of success by numbers (number of arrests, cases closed, etc.) or longevity instead of demonstrated proficiency in application of the knowledge, skills, and abilities essential for holistically meeting the needs of officers. Consequently, this type of hierarchy results in internal stressors from which officers often have no recourse. Ultimately, this unrelent-ing exposure to criminals, crime scenes, civil discord and arguably, dysfunctional police departments critically impact officers’ abilities to effectively perform their sworn duties. Long before the advent of modern polic-ing, citizens hired citizens to govern them-selves. In order for one human to effectively enforce civil and criminal laws against an-other human, however, we must be adapted at functioning in all human dimensions of existence. Humans are multi-dimensional (Seaward, 1995; Tipping, 2004). We are spirit, mind, emotion, and body. Our spiri-tual well-being encapsulates our mental, emotional, and physical well-being. Humans


WWW.ACFEI.COM • (800) 592-1399C

E ART

ICLE

also possess at least four dimensions of in-telligence, which informs and enriches our existence. These are the intelligence quotient (IQ), emotional intelligence (EQ), spiritual intelligence (SQ), and social intelligence (SI), (Zohar & Marshall, 2000; Goleman, 2006). In the remainder of this article we explore the facets and implications of multi-dimensional training as demanded by the reality of human governance and assess it against the training paradigms that currently characterize modern policing. With respect to training, law enforcement has historically focused on the mental and physical development of officers. The pri-mary goal of this training focus has always been to ensure that police academies produce tactically proficient warriors who can take charge of a situation, bring order to chaos, remove disruptive elements, and protect the public from harm. As a result of this type of training, officers are able to develop the skills necessary to apprehend those who deceive, oppress, terrorize, rape, pillage, and murder citizens. In standing up for good, howev-er, they are repeatedly exposed to evil that wounds them in every human dimension (Feemster, 2007; See notes).1 While current paramilitary training paradigms develop the skills to physically combat these evils, they do not do an adequate job of acknowledging and proactively addressing the effect of these exposures on the spiritual and emotional well-being of officers, the effects of which can be seen in the characteristic range of maladaptive behaviors (burnout, departmen-tal discord, alcohol abuse, domestic abuse

etc.) that plague police organizations and most probably the institution of policing at large. As a society we must understand that while it is we who authorize officers to use force to secure life and liberty, the perfor-mance of law enforcement duties is a learned behavior. As such we must realize that by demanding and expecting officers to sup-press their feelings, keep churning out the work, and cope as best they can as long as their self-destructive behaviors stay behind the scenes, we unintentionally condone the same behaviors that we would otherwise not condone of our children, friends, and loved ones. Without adequate training and protections, the good men and women who accept their call to the law enforcement voca-tion often develop or are exposed to harmful conditions or environments that give rise to emotional disorders, personal crises of faith, and suicide. The concomitant negative im-pact on the communities served by such law enforcement officers is thus manifest. It is a sad reality that as a result of the unwilling-ness or inability to discuss officer wellness and how to implement appropriate multi-dimensional training, law enforcement agen-cies and the communities they serve often fail to provide for each other opportunities to cultivate the skills, attitudes, and practices that would enable them to help their officers thrive as whole persons. In recent decades, as research and ob-servation have revealed the negative effects of stress generated by police work, tradi-tional training has been supplemented by

instruction on stress management and how to handle some of the emotions that law enforcement personnel experience (Territo, 1999; Gilmartin, 2002). The addition of stress management awareness and emotional survival training has been beneficial and has helped many officers cope more effectively with critical incidents and cumulative daily stressors and stresses. Yet, law enforcement personnel need to be developed in all human dimensions to help them move beyond mere-ly surviving an incident, a day, or a career. They need a developed spiritual intelligence that will enable them to thrive during and after their term of service. While legitimate concerns regarding the appropriateness of multi-dimensional train-ing abound, one thing is certain: the reality of law enforcement exposures demands that effective training targets the spirit, mind, emotions, and physical well-being of our officers. Officer safety training for physical survival does not morph into impenetrable protection for emotional and spiritual sur-vival. Law enforcement academies must embrace a more holistic curriculum designed to inoculate officers with learned behaviors that produce a more effective vocation. And although we cannot predict the future, there are certain constants that we can count on that remain the same throughout future generations:

Despite the many different ways in which we learn, one thing that remains and will continue to remain the same from infancy throughout adulthood is that via our senses, we learn at almost


CE

ART

ICLE

every single moment of the day, from every single stimulus we encounter.

Our environment will not, however, remain the same. The present world is drastically dif-ferent from 100 years ago and it is virtually guaranteed that our future world will also be very different from our present world. Living and learning is a context-dependent process whether at the cellular level or at organismic level. It is dynamic and highly dependent on the outcomes of our inter-actions with other entities, whether they are living or non-living. And although one may not always be readily cognizant of the outcome of such interactions, it cannot be denied that the product of such interaction is vital learning. There are about as many types of learning as there are types of environments. Any type of learning model that is adopted in order to improve and maintain perishable skills (such as firearms and driving proficiencies) or even more socioculturally driven, deeply embedded skills (such as communication norms) should keep in mind the requisites for thriving in a dynamic, multi-dimension-al environment. Even during our sleeping

hours and at the cellular level our environ-ments are never ever really static. This may sound like simply stating the obvious, and in many respects it is. It is important to re-alize, however, that in obviousness there are often dangers hidden in plain sight. One of these dangers is that we don’t necessarily always train and target education and train-ing models to emphasize and cultivate, in a holistic and integral manner, the dimensions of humanity and intelligence (cognitive, physical, emotional, social and spiritual) that inform decision making and performance in any profession and certainly throughout life. Understanding that training and learning models of education should align with the dynamic and multi-dimensional reality of our environment is important in any profes-sion. There are certain professions, however, in which this understanding is not just im-portant but vital. Arguably, law enforcement is primary among these professions. Let’s posit a scenario. Imagine a veteran police officer, father or mother of a large family including a college age daughter, com-manding response to a mass casualty event such as the Virginia Tech shootings, which occurred in April 2007. This commander is from a small Midwestern town in the Bible Belt. The commander considered going to medical school before discovering his or her love of policing. What kinds of actions do you think this commanding officer and other responding officers might likely be required to undertake? They may perhaps help physically move injured students to safer ground. They may have to mentally and visually remember where the emergency exits are located, all the while listening for noises that could signal trouble as they help guide a group of Spanish speaking foreign exchange students safely out of the building. They may have to help comfort emotional parents gathered at a designated location and wondering if their children are okay all the while being concerned about the welfare of

their own children. They may have to com-fort traumatized students all the while trying to gather intelligence that will allow them to get to safety as well as allow fellow officers to successfully identify and apprehend a suspect before more people get hurt. In do-ing all of this the commanding officer will not only have to remain situationally aware at all times but will also need to make his or her presence known and exude authenticity, clarity, and empathy in order to efficiently and effectively obtain cooperation from the public as well as the responding officers un-der his or her command (Albrecht, 2005). In a life or death situation such as this one, time is of the essence and mistakes cannot be afforded. The physical, emotional, mental, social, and spiritual toll of an event such as this for the community is unquestioned. But what about the toll such an event takes on the first responder? As previously queried, do current po-lice training and learning models equip our officers with not only the cognitive and tactical but also the emotional, social, and spiritual tools necessary to effectively com-mand such an event without neglecting their vitality? Based upon the consensus of law enforcement executives responding to these questions at the FBI National Academy, the answer to this question is a resounding “NO” (Feemster, 2007). This is the princi-pal question that must not only be directly asked but which must also be at the forefront of modern and future police training and education. Police training in the United States sub-scribes to a paramilitary or tactical model of policing which aims to train officers to be tactically skilled warriors in the “war on crime” (Stevens, 2008). While there are many situations encountered on a daily basis that require officers to be tactically profi-cient, the fact remains that there are equally as many situations, if not more, that require them to also be emotionally, socially, and

About the Author

During his 27 years with the FBI, Supervisory Special Agent Samuel L. Feemster, JD, MDiv, served in the Charlotte, Saint Paul and Washington D.C. offices, where he investigated numerous types of statutory violations. Currently, he is an instructor in the Behavioral Science Unit at the FBI Academy where he teaches law enforcement executives a new course titled “Spirituality, Wellness, and Vitality Issues in Law Enforcement Practices.” His research involves disclosing the correlation between spirituality and law enforcement performance, practice, vitality and longevity; inoculating first responders against the toxic exposures of their vocation, and empowering communities to meet first-responder needs. He is also project manager for Beyond Survival Toward Officer Wellness (BeSTOW), a wellness project that grew out of his research initiatives.

s National Academy class in session.


WWW.ACFEI.COM • (800) 592-1399C

E ART

ICLE

spiritually proficient. In fact all situations encountered by them require optimal train-ing in all facets or dimensions of intelligence and humanity in order to ensure that they are able to serve the needs of their commu-nity effectively and safely while at that the same time helping these same communities understand that the police’s role is not “to serve as an occupational army” (Stevens, 2008). Currently there is a training gap of enor-mous proportions in the law enforcement culture. Law enforcement trainers must help bridge this gap by incorporating course work at the police academy that helps recruits develop the virtues and skills that enable officers to extract meaning and purpose from a calling that can require daily direct or indirect contact with pain, loss, fear, hor-ror, anger, and evil. Despite the obvious and well-documented problems that plague law enforcement, training has not evolved to at a minimum mitigate and at best eliminate such problems (Asken, retrieved 02/04/08). Students attending certain FBI NA courses consistently indicate that despite the need for such development their academy curricula do not address these issues either in scope or method (Feemster, 2007). In order to accomplish this, any scenar-io, role-play, simulation, individual exer-cise, and/or lab should aim to incorporate all of the human dimensions involved in the real world version of the event. The dimensions of which, in any given event, are physical, emotional, mental, and spiri-tual. Accordingly, the training should also strive to cultivate and train the intelligences involved. In any given event, these intelli-gences include IQ, EQ, SI, and SQ. While rote memorization and regurgitation of facts is necessary for learning certain things (for example, IQ is sufficient for thinking in a relatively static world) the implementation of such learning in real-world situations will never be static. The outcome of these scenarios, whether in the lab or in the real world, is highly dependent on the cultivation of our emotional intelligence (which allows us to be self-aware of our own and other peo-ple’s feelings, of our personal strengths and weaknesses and allows us to self-manage), of our social intelligence (which enhances our social awareness and fosters our ability to understand and manage men and women effectively) and of our spiritual quotient (which informs our intuition and problem solving abilities in times of rapid paradigm

shift and chaos). By giving adequate focus to the human dimensions and human intel-ligences involved in the real-world version of the event (through briefing and debriefing of training exercises and labs) critical think-ing skills are primed so they can be readily accessed in future expected and unexpected situations. As Stevens (2008) notes, one of the criti-cisms of paramilitary models of training is that they don’t always help officers inform the majority of what they do in terms of interacting with the community face to face and the emotional and spiritual toll that takes on both ends. By knowing the effect of such exposure to toxicity, stress, crime, and deadly violence on the law enforce-ment community, exposures that wound them in every single dimension, and not addressing such effects proactively, it can readily be argued that police departments and the communities they serve have not only a training gap on their hands but also an integrity issue of enormous proportions (Feemster, 2009). Blatantly stated, the ques-tion is: “how can we continue to allow our current police academies to not cultivate and train in their officers all of the skills, attitudes and practices that would help them not only physically survive but also reap vo-cational vitality and enjoy both individual and organizational wellness?” This is the question that SSA Feemster poses in every single National Academy session and which he hopes law enforcement executives across the nation will begin asking of themselves and of their departments in order to ensure that police training of our present and fu-ture is designed to not only meet ALL of the needs of their communities but also of their OFFICERS.

Note1Eighty-six percent of officers responding to a survey con-

ducted by the FBI Academy’s Behavioral Science Unit reported that they believed in evil, and seventy-one percent reported having met an evil person. Among those same respondents, only twenty-nine percent reported being trained to cope with evil. Feemster, Samuel L., “Spirituality: The DNA of Law Enforcement Practice,” The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, November 2007, p. 15.

ReferencesAlbrecht, K. (2006). Social Intelligence: The new sci-

ence of success. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.Asken, M. J., “The Need to Integrate Psychological

Training with Tactical Training,” Police One.com, 03/02/07. Last accessed 02/04/08.

FBI Uniform Crime Report: http://www.fbi/ucr/ucr.htm.

Feemster, S.L. (2007). “Spirituality: The DNA of Law Enforcement Practice,” The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, p. 15.

Feemster, S.L. (2009). “Spirituality: An invisible weap-on for wounded warriors,” The FBI Law Enforce-ment Bulletin, p. 9

Feemster, S.L. (2009). “Wellness and Spirituality: Be-yond Survival Practices for Wounded Warriors,” The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin.

Gilmartin, K.M, (2002). Emotional Survival for Law Enforcement. Tuscon, AZ: E-S Press.

Goleman, D. (2006). Social Intelligence: The new sci-ence of human relationships. New York, NY: Ban-tam Dell.

Stevens, D.J. (2008). “War on Crime and Paramilitary Model of Policing” in Police Officer Stress: Sourc-es and Solutions, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Territo, L. & Sewell, J.D., (1999). Stress Management for Law Enforcement. Durham, NC: Carolina Ac-ademic Press.

Tipping, C.C. (2004). Spiritual Intelligence at Work: A radical approach to increasing productivity, rais-ing morale and preventing conflict in the workplace. Marietta, GA: Global 13 Publications.

Zohar, D. & Marshall, I. (2000). Spiritual Intelligence: The ultimate intelligence. London, UK: Blooms-bury. n


EARN CE CREDIT

To earn CE credit, complete the exam for this article on page 124, or complete the exam online for FREE at www.acfei.com (select “Online CE”).



Explain the multiple dimen-1. sions of human nature.Discuss how learning is a context-2. dependent and dynamic process.List the elements of scenario train-3. ing that allow police officers to ad-dress real-world issues.Explain why the performance of law 4. enforcement duties is learned behavior.Critique the aim of a paramilitary or 5. tactical model of police training.Discuss the differences between surviving 6. law enforcement exposures and thriv-ing in the law enforcement vocation.Prepare a training scenario that addresses 7. the multi-dimensional nature of humans.

KEY WORDS: Police training, spirituality, well-ness, vitality, learning modelsTARGET AUDIENCE: First responders, train-ing academiesPROGRAM LEVEL: BasicDISCLOSURE: The authors have nothing to disclose.PREREQUISITES: None

INTERVIEW

INT

ERVI

EW

with Samuel L. Feemster, JD, MDiv

Feemster: My official Bureau name is Samuel L. Feemster. I entered on duty April 3, 1983. As a young lad in North Carolina, I entertained no thoughts of being an agent, either as a job, voca-tion or career calling. I was raised in an isolated and segregated community. We had little to no contact with law enforcement. I matriculated through the public school system and ended up at Wake Forest University School of Law. It was there where I was first exposed to the intricacies of jurisprudence as it extends from the bench to the police officer and the connections in between. I did come into contact with some FBI agents during my second year but I simply was not interested in law enforcement. I saw myself as a barrister in a small town, doing everything from divorce counseling, to real estate and personal injury settlements. I just didn’t see myself in the FBI. However, it did happen. At some point, I was encouraged to apply and in 1983 I swore my oath of office. Since that time I have worked in the Charlotte division, spent two winters in the Minneapolis division, ten years on the streets of Washington D.C., and then came to the FBI Academy in 1995. At the Academy I have been assigned to three units. Initially, I worked in the Investigative Training Unit, then I supported the National Academy Unit in an administrative capacity and finally in 2000, I was fortunate enough to be assigned to the Behavioral Science Unit. This is where I started the path that lands me here today. My path to Project BeSTOW (Beyond Survival Toward Officer Wellness) had its beginning in my initial encounter with a criminal. I was assigned to locate and arrest a subject from Connecticut who was hiding out in Charlotte, North Carolina. He was a murderer fleeing prosecution—unlawful flight to avoid prosecution. On the day that we located and arrested him, my field-training agent and I had gone into the community where we were told he resided. It was during the process of detaining him—clearing the house, bringing him under control and preparing to transport him to the jail—that I had my first encounter with the art and practice of exercising dignity while executing my duty to the public, that is, to make sure that we all have the right to the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. That day my field-training agent taught me how to make an arrest with dignity. He taught me how to use the powers that I had taken the oath to uphold and he taught me how to do that with dignity. He never said a word. He just modeled for me how to do it. This happened inside the house.

Outside the house, as I was putting the handcuffed subject into the car, one of the officers who was on

the scene to help us out suggested I was being too nice. Within half an hour I was shown an example of

what dignity in law enforcement looks like and I was giv-en the opportunity to violate that dignity. This experience has

been with me since 1983, the whole idea of bringing to my vocation those virtues and values that I hold dear and making sure that I do not forget to hang onto myself as I am exposed to law enforcement and the underbelly of society. To hang onto myself, I found out, is a very important thing because many officers lose touch with who they are, they lose touch with reality. It is these circumstances and the resulting maladaptive behaviors, which result from that loss and disconnect, that brought me to Project BeSTOW. The objective of Project BeSTOW is to try and infuse into law enforcement a new paradigm of training that advocates for the well-being of officers first so that they are then healthy enough and well enough to take care of the community. Project BeSTOW sees this as an imperative for the individual, for the agency, and for the community. I’d like to emphasize the community aspect because Project BeSTOW believes that there is a reciprocal relationship here. We take care of you but you also take care of us. The reality is that in law enforcement we are—depending on whose stats you read—three or four times more likely to die from self-inflicted fatali-ties than we are to die in the line of duty. Yet, we live in a country

INTERVIEW



TERVIEW

where, in our nation’s capital, we have a memorial to law enforce-ment officers who made the “ultimate sacrifice” as we seek to serve and protect. While we are serving and protecting, we ourselves are unprotected. If there is simply all giving and no receiving, then we end up with a deficit. It is much like my bank account. If I continue to make withdrawals and never make deposits then I am going to be overdrawn. For us, overdrawn looks too much like maladaptive behaviors such as substance abuse, domestic abuse, citizen abuse, the “blue flu,” work-related injuries, cynicism, and those kinds of things. Project BeSTOW is about preventing all of that. What we’re doing in Project BeSTOW is trying to infuse into law enforcement a new language and a new paradigm. We’re really trying to save the good people that we hire from the pitfalls of our exposures. This has to be an intentional endeavor. It can’t happen if we just think it’s a good idea. It will only happen if we change our training methodology. First of all, we must change our recruiting strategies and second of all our retention strategies so that our officers can make it to retirement and continue to do good post-retirement. This conversation began at the BSU in 2000, with two satellite broadcasts titled “Communities Answering the Call” and two con-ferences titled “Spirit of the Law.” At the last conference in 2003 the conferees said, “we need some empirical data,” and you know how true that is. In law enforcement credibility is key. If you have no credibility then you can’t talk to law enforcement officers. If you have no data, you can’t get anything that the officers say they need. In 2005, the Bureau authorized me to survey four National Academy sessions. I was able to distribute a 52-item questionnaire, talking about everything from the reality of evil to the appreciation of the difference between spirituality and religion, to whether or not the law enforcement officers surveyed felt they had been properly prepared to withstand vocational exposures. From this data then we started to march directly toward the establishment or creation of a spirituality and wellness curriculum for the National Academy. We’ve got this information; now what are we going to do with it? We started to include in our stress management class more con-versations about the data we had collected. One of the data sets—I think it’s the best, the most important data we collected—basically asked the question whether the law enforcement officers taking the survey had ever considered committing suicide. Seven percent said yes. Somehow they had moved beyond that moment when suicide seemed like an option and they were now here at the Academy. If you ask that question of officers in their local departments nation-wide, certainly it’s going to be a different figure. Some suggest that the figure as reported here in the Academy was low. Based on these results we asked the Bureau to allow us to convene yet again and they did. I think it was in 2008 that we were able to convene under the umbrella of “Beyond Survival: Wellness Practices for Wounded Warriors.” We began to understand that we (the law enforcement community) were wounded—not because we had been assaulted by an assailant but because we have to strap on a weapon. You see, strapping a piece of iron onto your chest or your ankle or your waist and wearing it around for 8 or 10 hours a day wounds us. It wounds us because we don’t strap it on to guard against lions and tigers and apes; we strap it on to guard against humans, and that’s devastating when you think about it. We leave humans behind, we leave our families behind, we leave our spouses, our children, and our communities behind and when we go out we hope that whomever we have to deal with that day is not somebody we know.

These exposures wound the person and without intentionally redeeming or restoring that person, then we leave them and their wounds to fester. This frequently happens in law enforcement work where an individual is not allowed to acknowledge that they are wounded. If one tries to deny the reality of exposures they may be overcome by those exposures. One writer has said that it’s like put-ting rocks into your backpack. If you never unload your backpack, sooner or later, your backpack gets too heavy and you can’t carry it. It’s not up the mountain where one struggles, it’s on the level playing field that one struggles and if you take this person who is burdened and you put them into a situation where you have a supervisor who lacks social and/or emotional intelligence then you have a double whammy. If you take this person who is thus burdened and you put them in a situation where you have a supervisor who lacks social and/or emotional intelligence, and you send them out to answer a question or respond to a call in a community that is itself already toxic, we’re asking a person to drive into a situation where all the odds are stacked against them. Their backpack is too heavy, their supervisor doesn’t understand, and the people in the community just want results. We ask our officers to do this and this is where the analysis or the image of the officer as a robotic, mechanistic person who has no feelings emerges—this is where it comes from. Often times that is who we become in order to deal with ourselves and all of those situations—we have to truncate our feelings. If you truncate your emotions then you become less human. It is the same thing as truncating your circulatory system. If I cut off the circulation to my arm, pretty soon I lose that arm. The rest of me may survive, but I have become a one-armed man. When I ask officers about their wounds and how they manage, some say, “Well, I’ve learned to compartmentalize. I don’t take my work home. I leave my work at work and I’m here at home.” My question has then become, if you don’t have your whole self at work and you don’t have your whole self at home, then which part are your leaving at work and which part are you leaving at home? You see, I don’t know you or your associates. I have your cards here but I brought myself in here and I’m giving you all I’ve got. I have all 286 pounds right here and this is who I am. I’m giving it to you. So the question that we ask is what child deserves to have half a par-ent? What spouse deserves to have half a spouse? What community deserves half an officer?

TFE: I was happy to talk to you today because a couple of years ago I was entertaining the idea of becoming a police officer but I was concerned I’d get jaded in terms of seeing all the bad stuff that people do. I’m glad to see that there are programs that combat this. Feemster: Thank you so much. We talk about the reality of calling as opposed to applying. You know, we apply for jobs and we do what we do professionally but I think data shows that we acknowledge that law enforcement is a calling. This is a vocational enterprise where we bring our whole selves to it and have the opportunity to vocalize our values and our virtues. The problem is when our values and our virtues change and we’re still in the vocation. We have to understand that when what we do no longer gives us life, then it’s death—“this job is killing me,”—well, that’s a reality for some law enforcement officers. We need to be careful who comes in this noble vocation and obviously we need to help people if law enforcement becomes the wrong thing for them. n


FEAT

UR

EFEATURE

TransitioningCLINICFROM

THETOTHE

There exists a growing area of psychological specialization

in consulting to United States government (USG) opera-

tions and investigations referred to as either “operational

psychology” or “national security psychology” (Kennedy,

Borum, & Fein, 2010). While operational psychology has

achieved critical mass and is now a going concern, it has

yet to achieve specialty status in psychology as a profession.

The main specialty areas within the profession of psychol-

ogy include: clinical, experimental (research), forensic, geri-

atric, industrial-organizational, neuropsychology, pediatric

(or child), and social. There are over 50 divisions within

the American Psychological Association (APA), an orga-

nization with over 150,000 members (APA, 2010). While

a majority of the APA membership consists of licensed,

doctoral-level clinical psychologists, some achieve multiple

areas of specialization. It is not uncommon for a clinician

to also be a neuropsychologist and/or a forensic psycholo-

gist, depending upon the primary work setting. Like our

colleagues in forensic psychology and neuropsychology, it

will take several additional steps for operational psychology

to achieve specialty status. Even so, most clinical psycholo-

gists (herein referred to as “clinicians”) develop an idea that

they have entered a new arena when they participate in an

operational or an investigative consultation. Indeed, clini-

cians entering the field of operational psychology from

the therapist’s chair encounter significant challenges as

they take the necessary steps of additional training and

supervised experience on their way to developing expertise

in operational consultation.

The views expressed in thisarticle do not necessarilyrepresent the views of the FBI.



UR

E

This article is primarily written for those clinicians interested in ethically transitioning from a clinical setting to consultation in the field of USG operations and investigations. For the purposes of this article, the emphasis will be placed upon USG operations over investigations. Operational personnel will understand the key distinctions between the primary functions of clinicians and op-erational psychologists and will develop an appreciation for how psychologists, just like physicians, are not all the same. It is impor-tant to note that the number of clinicians working in operational settings with com-mensurate security clearances is minuscule when compared with the total population of clinicians. Why is this? There are very few positions to begin with. Also, approximately half the clinicians who self-select to this work are unable to successfully complete the exten-sive—and at times, rather intrusive—security clearance process. As the focus of the article is upon the clinician’s transition rather than the investigations and operations themselves, the reader is referred elsewhere to learn more about the latter. For more information on the specifics of the areas in which operational psychologists consult, including counterter-rorism and counterintelligence operations and investigations, begin with Shumate and Borum (2006) and Morgan et al. (2006). Sometimes clinicians may appear to have everything they need to consult to USG operations and investigations, including knowledge of both healthy and unhealthy personality and behavior patterns, how to clinically interview and psychologically as-sess a wide range of individuals, and knowl-edge of the impact of critical demographic variables like gender, age, and ethnic and racial differences in the U.S. In addition,

the clinician is usually viewed in their or-ganization as a high-status person with so-cial skills and a solid record of achievement in assessment and selection activities and/or helping people to overcome problems, and a keen interest in helping operational personnel achieve their goals. And, after all, a psychologist is a psychologist is a psychologist, right? Unfortunately, that is not the case. The following discussion illustrates some of the areas where clinicians new to the field of operations require some additional training, education, and super-vised experience. Social psychologist Kurt

Lewin (1946) exquisitely pointed out that BEHAVIOR is a function of the PERSON and their ENVIRONMENT. This equation is expressed as B = f (p,e). “P,” or “Person,” factors encompass all aspects of an individual to include physiological and biological ele-ments as well as personality and motivational factors. “E,” or “Environmental,” factors include situational circumstances as well as systems and organizations. What follows is a discussion of what additional knowledge clinicians need to develop on both the “P” and the “E” dimensions of the equation in

order to function effectively within the op-erational arena. The final section will address some of the ethical challenges clinicians face in operational consultations.

Person (“P”) FactorsWith regard to P factors, clinicians have a head start in the operational consulting arena because they have learned the main facets of healthy and unhealthy personality and behavior patterns. Moreover, they already know how to clinically interview and psy-chologically assess a wide range of individu-als experiencing some of type of behavioral, emotional, mental, and/or interpersonal dysfunction. The main purpose of this pur-suit is to accurately assess these problems and then provide good therapeutic outcomes for those in distress. In addition, clinicians are trained to accomplish all this as they take into account various important demographic variables like age, gender, socioeconomic factors, and ethnic/racial background in the U.S. However, therein lies one of the main gaps in a clinician’s knowledge: familiarity and in-depth understanding of people from foreign cultures that may be the central fea-ture of the operation or investigation with which they are involved. Thus, clinicians consulting in operations or investigations involving persons of foreign origins also need to learn about foreign cultural norms regarding each of the P and E factors listed herein and to account for any exposure an individual may have had to life in the U.S. It is also critical for the psychologist to carefully consider how all of his or her assessment techniques and procedures would need to be altered in order to reach unbiased results when dealing with persons from foreign backgrounds, even if they are acculturated

OPERATIONSFIELD OF

AND

INVESTIGATIONS

“Detailed training and supervised experience should focus on critical

individual, group, environ-mental, situational, and

organizational factors that impact successful opera-

tional performance.”

By Kirk A. Kennedy, PhD Chief Operational Psychologist


FEAT

UR

Eto life in the U.S. Seemingly obvious yet important to mention here is the need for the clinician to concentrate on learning more about the individuals and groups concerning which they are being asked to consult. For example, it is critical to learn more about terrorist groups, both their motivations and their operational activities. For a good start in this area, see Borum (2004) and Borum & Gelles (2005). Many clinicians also apply their psycho-logical assessment skills to screen out those suffering from major mental, emotional, and/or behavioral disorders from taking on certain job responsibilities. However, in the opera-tional arena, psychologists draw from their clinical experience and assessment skills to help predict, prevent, and/or obtain specific operational outcomes. These outcomes vary from predicting and preventing operational problems from developing to the point of terminating the operation, all the way over to the positive side of being able to influ-ence and move the operation or investigation toward favorable outcomes. Typically, these favorable outcomes take the form of accurate source reporting on issues critical to the U.S. national interest, prevention of a terrorist at-tack, prevention of loss or damage to parts of the U.S. critical infrastructure, and/or success-ful resolution of investigative cases including espionage, sabotage, theft, fraud, and other crimes. The operational consultant may be called upon at any point during the life cycle of an intelligence collection operation—that includes the developmental, recruitment, “handling” or case management, and termi-nation phases. In order to accomplish these outcomes, clinicians need to supplement their existing knowledge by learning how to adequately appreciate and measure how individuals and groups of operational interest develop their political views and how their beliefs, attitudes, and values affect not only their relationships, but their behaviors in the workplace and within the operational envi-ronment. It is not uncommon for those en-gaged in intelligence collection to have some dysfunctional behavior patterns that could

have a negative impact on their own personal safety as well as broader operational goals. This leads now to a brief discussion some of the “E” (environmental, situational, systemic, and/or organizational) factors involved in the operational arena that require additional knowledge and supervised experience.

Environmental (“E”) FactorsE factors include operational performance issues, organizational culture issues, and situ-ational factors. As was pointed out above, clinicians are trained in how to interview and psychologically assess a wide range of individuals for the purposes of positive thera-peutic outcomes and/or screening people out of performing particular jobs or specific responsibilities within certain jobs for which certain types of mental, emotional, and/or behavioral dysfunction would preclude adequate performance outcomes. However, to be successful in the operational arena, it behooves clinicians to become much more familiar with the specific facets of perfor-mance success to which they could apply their assessment skills. This requires some degree of additional job-specific awareness training regarding the specific operational area of consultation interest, if not actual personal experience in performing the job itself when possible. Once this familiarity is achieved, and a more formal job task analysis of the various aspects of performance success is understood, the psychologist is then in a better position to consult on operational performance issues in general and/or to provide a comprehensive assessment program in which candidates are “selected in” due to the likelihood of success-ful job performance. In this regard, clinicians are required to learn much more than they have ever been required to know before to understand how our industrial-organizational psychologist colleagues think about and ex-ecute “person-to-job fit” assessments. The psychologist also needs to become fa-miliar with the organizational cultural factors that affect their operational consultations. For example, to what extent is there an emphasis on quantity over quality in operational ac-

tivities? Is there an emphasis on vetting the quality of the information obtained from a reporting source? How is quality measured? How often does the organization rotate of-ficers who are handling human sources of in-telligence? When does the psychologist con-sulting on operations usually get involved? Is it when the case is at or near termination, or is it early on in the developmental phase, or is it somewhere in between? Finally, the clinician needs to learn how to adapt and apply his skills in a wide variety of situations with which he is unfamiliar. Certain situational factors make psychologi-cal assessments extremely challenging and are reflected in the following examples. One, time is limited and the psychologist may have the opportunity to see the person only once. Rescheduling is unlikely. Two, the space in which the assessment is conducted can be less than ideal. The venue could range from a home environment with many distractions to a “safe house” with dim lighting and no type of air conditioning. Three, either the psychologist or the person being assessed (or both) overestimated their language ability to communicate with the other person and no interpreter was involved. Four, an interpreter was involved in the assessment but proved to be more of an obstacle to the assessment than necessary due to a variety of factors. The most common problem is the lack of an opportunity for the psychologist and the interpreter to have an advance meeting to sort out how best to work together. Five, the psychologist is unable to speak directly with the person of interest and thus must try to piece together bits of information and develop operationally useful hypotheses and methods of collecting information that is presently incomplete. Once the clinician gains a fuller awareness and even experience with the P and E fac-tors noted above, the stage is set for the next level of development that includes supervised experience. This is the stage where, just as clinicians move from the classroom into the therapist’s chair for the first time, they need to get their feet wet operationally under

About the Author

Dr. Kirk A. Kennedy, PhD, has over 20 years of experience in psychological assessment, consultation, research, train-ing, and counseling in various agencies within the U.S. intelligence community, including the FBI. He has over 11 years of experience consulting to operations and investigations; more than four years of overseas experience. Demonstrated skills in intelligence and law enforcement arenas including asset/source assessment and vetting; risk assessment and threat management; leadership assessment and organizational consultation; individual, couples, and group counseling; program design and implementation of effective consultation, research, and training programs.



UR

Ethe guidance of an experienced operational psychologist. Usually, this is initially done in tandem as both psychologists work together on a particular case or within the context of an assessment and selection program. Then, as confidence is gained, the psychologist can move into taking the lead consultant role before operating independently. Even in this last phase, there remains a need for supervision as the clinician develops some sophistication in dealing with the multiple demands and the wide variety of situations involved in the new consultation role. This process can last from several months to a year or two, depending upon the complexity of the consultations as well as the abilities, experiences, maturity level, and motivations of the psychologists involved.

Ethical IssuesAs noted above, to ethically transition from the clinic to consulting on USG operations and investigations, it is critical for the clini-cian to gain both additional training and supervised experience, as these are consistent with APA ethical guideline 2.01, which ad-dresses “Boundaries of Competence” (APA, 2002, pp. 1063-1064):

(a) Psychologists provide services, teach, and conduct research with populations and in areas only within the boundar-ies of their competence, based on their education, training, supervised experi-ence, consultation, study, or profes-sional experience. (e) In those emerging areas in which generally recognized standards for pre-paratory training do not yet exist, psy-chologists nevertheless take reasonable steps to ensure the competence of their work and to protect clients/patients, students, supervisees, research partici-pants, organizational clients, and others from harm.

What are the boundaries of competence for psychologists consulting to USG opera-tions and investigations? While the author lists a few of the contours to the boundaries above, given the lack of established standards, most psychologists in the operational arena grapple with this question. In the post-9/11 world, the field of operational psychology has been growing both in size and scope. But the field is still relatively young, with questions of how best to establish competence still being developed and explored (Stephenson and Staal, 2007a). Despite the fact that this specialty area is only just evolving, training practices are rapidly emerging in response

to the need. Stephenson and Staal (2007b) recommend the use of a “naturalistic decision model that integrates rational and intuitive elements” (p. 61) in order to assist psycholo-gists in resolving ethical dilemmas in opera-tional settings. In this approach, operational psychologists are encouraged to ask questions regarding the safety, legality, ethicality, and ef-fectiveness of their activities with an emphasis on principles of fidelity, responsibility, integ-rity, and respect for others’ rights and dignity. The questions regarding additional training and supervised experience revolve around the issues of “which type and how much?” Good questions. The answers depend upon several factors. One issue is the availability of courses, training, and supervision. Another factor concerns the personal and organiza-tional risks and threats involved in the opera-tional activity. Third, there are a plethora of legal and ethical issues to consider which are too plentiful to explicate here. In Kennedy, Borum & Fein (2010), the following ethi-cal guidelines are explored in detail as they pertain to operational applications: “1.01 Misuse of Psychologists’ Work” (APA, 2002, p. 1063); “1.03 Conflicts Between Ethics and Organizational Demands” (APA, 2002, p. 1063); “2.01 Boundaries of Competence” (APA, 2002, pp. 1063-1064); “3.07 Third Party Requests for Services and Multiple Relationships” (APA, 2002, pp. 1068); and Section 9, “Assessment.” These authors con-clude with the following questions for each operational psychologist to ask with regard to their work:

Who is my client? If the client is the •USG and the operational activity in-volves psychological assessment of an individual, what professional ethical obligations do I have toward the per-son being assessed?Have I taken the opportunity to dis-•cuss my findings with the client before committing my thoughts to writing?Have I been clear with myself as well •as my client regarding the limitations of the methods I am using?Have I carefully considered the safety, •legality, ethicality, and effectiveness of my methods before I proceed?(If new to the area of operational appli-•cations of psychology) Have I sought adequate training and supervision in the arena of operational consultation?(When faced with an ethical dilemma) •Have I sought input from my peers in operational psychology prior to pursu-ing a particular course of action?

ConclusionIn order to make a transition from one fo-cused field of inquiry or practice to another within psychology or any other profession, it is important to seek out additional train-ing and supervised experience. It behooves clinicians wishing to consult to USG op-erations and investigations to advance their knowledge through training and supervised experience in several key areas. Primarily, the clinician needs to learn much more about how all assessment skills can be adapted to accurately appreciate foreign individuals and groups. Also, clinicians need to learn more about the psychology of the individuals and groups about which they are asked to consult. In addition, clinicians need to adapt all their assessment skills from a focus upon success-ful therapeutic outcomes to the facilitation of successful operational outcomes. Thus, detailed training and supervised experience should focus upon critical individual, group, environmental, situational, and organization-al factors that impact upon successful opera-tional performance. Finally, several key ethical issues such as boundaries of competence were discussed, and key questions were suggested for successful resolution of ethical dilemmas that inevitably arise in consultations to USG operations and investigations.

ReferencesAmerican Psychological Association (2010). Retrieved

May 14, 2010 from http://www.apa.org.American Psychological Association (2002). Ethical

Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. American Psychologist, 57, 1060-1073.

Borum, R. (2004). Psychology of terrorism. Tampa: Uni-versity of South Florida.

Borum, R., & Gelles, M. (2005). The operational and or-ganizational evolution of Al-Qaeda: A behavioral per-spective. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 23, 467–483.

Kennedy, K.A., Borum, R., & Fein, R. (2010). Ethical dilemmas in consultation to counterintelligence and counterterrorism activities. In C.H. Kennedy and T.J. Williams (Eds.), Ethical practice in operational psycholo-gy: military and national intelligence applications. Wash-ington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Lewin, K. (1946). Behavior and development as a func-tion of the total situation. In L. Carmichael (Ed.), Manual of child psychology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wi-ley & Sons, Inc.

Morgan, C.A., Gelles, M., Steffian, G., Coric, V., Tem-porini, H., Fortunati, F., et al. (2006). Consulting to government agencies—indirect assessments. Psy-chiatry, 3, 2-6.

Shumate, R.S. & Borum, R. (2006). Psychological con-sultation in defense counterintelligence operations. Military Psychology, 18, 283-296.

Stephenson, J.A., & Staal, M.A. (2007a). Operational psychology: what constitutes expertise? The ABPP Specialist, 13, 30-31.

Stephenson, J.A. & Staal, M.A. (2007b). An ethical decision-making model for operational psychology. Ethics &Behavior, 17, 61-82. n


INTERVIEWwith Kirk A. Kennedy, PhD

TFE: How does one come into a career path such as yours? Kennedy: I like how this question is phrased as I “came into it” as opposed to planning a clear path to it. I was interested in assessment and selection, as well as treatment of individuals involved in a variety of sensitive national security programs. Over time, I was asked to consult directly on those programs. With regard to how I got to BSU, I have been a friend of the unit since 1992, when I assisted with the develop-ment of a cold-case methodology involving the use of hypnosis. Over the years I have had the privilege of working with FBI agents on a variety of cases and projects. Eventually, when BSU wanted to expand again (see Don DeNevi and John Campbell’s Into the Minds of Madmen for explication of the career of famous BSU alum Richard Ault, PhD) into the realm of national security, they invited me to transfer over from DoD.

TFE: Could you tell me about your research with the BSU? How does the FBI use this information? Kennedy: Project SUMMIT (Systematic Understanding, Mitigation, and Management of Insider Threats) was just approved by the IRB, and it is a project devoted to understanding malicious insider (employee or contractor) activity against the U.S. government (USG), such as espionage, sabotage, theft, or fraud. Interviewees will be questioned regarding motivations, personality, behaviors, and or-ganizational and other work-related factors that may have impacted the criminal activity of the convicted individuals. The FBI will use

this to step up efforts to prevent, detect, deter, miti-gate, and investigate insider threats.

TFE: How is the goal of your current research applicable to law enforcement and society?

Kennedy: To help federal investigators understand the per-sonality, motivations, and environmental factors that lead malicious insiders to develop a crime script.

TFE: How are new programs or areas of study determined, and why? Kennedy: Identify gaps, how behavioral science can help, and make proposals. Eventually you’ll break through.

TFE: What would constitute a typical workday and a very unusual day at the office? Kennedy: The most unusual thing would be to have a typical workday. Given the variety of consultation, research, and training activities with which each of us is involved, it is impossible to have a “typical” day.

TFE: Do you ever work directly with criminals or psychopaths?Kennedy: Not directly, no.

TFE: Does the BSU deal more with terrorists or domestic criminals?Kennedy: One of the main emphases of BSU has been the develop-ment of criminal investigative analysis for domestic criminals. Now, BSU is branching out to the national security arena. nIN

TER

VIEW

INTERVIEW

Did You Know?

Hogan’s Alley complex is a realistic, urban, practical problem training area which was initiated in March 1987. Built with the help of Hollywood set designers, it includes a post office, a hotel, laundromat, barbershop, and the most frequently “robbed” bank in the world. The Hogan’s Alley complex is a unique venue that allows New Agents to apply principles taught in other areas at the FBI Academy, including firearms, academics, physical training, and legal training. New Agents are taught surveillance, arrest procedures, and tactical street survival techniques. The new agents are then taken through real-life training exercises such as a bank robbery, day and night surveillance, a kidnapping, and an assault on a federal officer. During the exercises, which encompass criminal, international, and domestic terrorism matters, role players confront trainees and portray various characters to create reactions that are more spontaneous and representative of the general population. Trainees are also exposed to compliant and armed and dangerous arrest scenarios. Paint Gun (Simunition) exercises are also utilized in order to test New Agents’ tactical skills.


FEAT

UR

E

part 1

n the assessment of violent crime, behavior is examined to identify the potential insight it offers concerning the offender responsible for the crime. Some of the information utilized to provide this insight includes what is learned about the

victim as well as from potential witnesses who actually observed the crime or the offender’s behavior before, during, or after the crime took place. Interviews by investigators can be the basis for the degree of success an investigation will ultimately have. A successful interview will not only depend upon who is interviewed but also what questions are asked. Part 1 of this series will examine a simple word that can often be used by authorities and misunderstood or misinterpreted by the individual being interviewed.

IBy Steven R. Conlon, MSCriminal Investigations Instructor

The views ex-pressed in thisarticle do not necessarilyrepresent the views of the FBI.

FEATURE

Aberrant Behavior

“Unusual”



UR

E

During an investigation, investigators con-duct numerous interviews to identify the facts surrounding the reported event. The event may or may not be a crime as that is the purpose of conducting the investiga-tion, to determine if a crime occurred and if so, who is responsible for it. During this process, there can be numerous interviews conducted to identify potential witnesses in support of any conclusions drawn as a result of the investigation. A neighborhood canvass is often conducted to determine if there are any witnesses to the event as well as if anyone can provide facts or information to investigators relevant to what happened. During the interviews of neighbors, the investigator may ask the question “Did you hear or see anything “unusual”? To examine what this question entails, let us first define what “unusual” is. Webster’s II Dictionary defines the word “unusual” as “Not usual: uncommon or extraordinary.” Now, if we apply this definition to the investigators’ questioning, let’s examine possible responses.

Situation 1A drive-by shooting has occurred in a high-crime area of a city at 1:30 a.m. This area of the city has a history of violent crime, illegal narcotics trafficking, and prostitution, as well as other criminal activity. Police respond to this area on a daily basis for a variety of reports of the above crimes. Citizens resid-ing in this area hear and see evidence of these crimes on a regular basis, and it is a common occurrence to hear gunfire in this neighborhood. The first interview was with a person who has lived in the neighborhood for over 10 years and when asked by the investigator, he responded that he did not hear or see anything “unusual.” The person wanted to help the police and was trying to be as hon-est with them as possible. Why did he advise the officer with that response? Was he trying to conceal information concerning the crime from the police? In his mind, nothing that occurred was “unusual” for the area. The nightly gunfire in that area had become so frequent that it was not “unusual” in his mind.

Situation 2A motel clerk was robbed and shot but man-aged to survive the incident. The motel is located in a vice area of a city and is fre-quented by prostitutes who bring their cli-

ents to the motel. There are also transients who either stay at the motel or spend time panhandling on the sidewalks surrounding it. Several regulars of the area were located and interviewed by police. They were asked if they had seen anything “unusual” the night of the crime. Not a person interviewed re-ported anything as “unusual.” The activity of the area had become common, so those working or living there did not view it as being “unusual.”

Situation 3A rapist would walk to the residence of his victims, enter their homes in the darkness of the evening and commit his crimes, then leave again, walking or running from the scene. When the neighbors were interviewed, they were asked if they had seen anything “unusual.” The neighborhood was popular

with joggers, and it was not uncommon to see someone walking a pet or to just be out exercising. When area residents were asked, they responded that they had not seen any-thing “unusual”—seeing someone walking or running at night was fairly common. When we look at interviews conducted with victims, the same line of questioning can occur. In an attempt to identify why this victim was selected at this particular date, time, and location, the person may be asked about their background, including his or her activities and whether or not they had done anything or were involved in anything “unusual” at the time of the crime. When obtaining information from the victim, the interviewer needs to keep in mind the fol-lowing aspects of the person:

Their education•Their life experiences•Their occupation•Where they live and work•

This will provide us with what they may view as “unusual” from their life or lifestyle. Let us look at some examples involving in-terviews of victims.

Situation 4A female in her 20s lived alone in a small house for approximately one year. Several months after moving into the rental house, she started receiving hang-up telephone calls. This lasted several weeks, then stopped abruptly. Several months had gone by when she one day noticed that her cable television was not working. She called the cable pro-vider and they discovered her line had been cut, disabling her service. This occurred again and the cable company repaired it for the second time. Within a month after this incident, the woman was sleeping on her couch one evening when she awoke to find an unknown person standing over her. His face was covered with a mask and when she screamed, he simply turned and walked out the front door. She was questioned by police and was asked if anything “unusual” had occurred. She did not mention the telephone calls or the cable being cut twice. In later interviews this information did come out, and when asked why she had not mentioned this ear-lier, she responded that she did not see it as “unusual.”

Situation 5An investigation is being conducted con-cerning the murders of prostitutes. Known prostitutes working in the same area in which the victims were last seen are interviewed and again the question is asked if they had any clients that asked or demanded anything “unusual”? Based upon what they may have experienced in the past, their definition of “unusual” may exclude actions by their clients others would consider not only “unusual” but could be even viewed as “very unusual.” The questioning of the suspect can pro-vide us with the same dilemma as we have seen during the neighborhood canvass and with the victim. When interviewing the of-fender, it is important to keep in mind the same four aspects mentioned in our earlier discussion concerning the interview of the victim. Each of these aspects have a potential basis as to how they will respond to question-ing by authorities during an investigation. Several examples of this include the follow-ing situations.

“Important facts of

an investigation can

be missed because

of another person’s

interpretation

or perception of

the definition of

that word.”


FEAT

UR

E

About the Author

Steven R. Conlon, MS, has served as a municipal police officer, state trooper, and state criminal investigator during his career. He is currently a staff instructor in the FBI Behavioral Science Unit (BSU) and has provided training to investigators and prosecutors on topics of aberrant behavior and violent crime. He is involved in research projects involving topics of aberrant behavior and violent crime in his duties with the BSU. Mr. Conlon also coordinates and is the curator for the Behavioral Science Unit’s “Evil Minds Research Museum” located at the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia.

Situation 6A victim of a sexual assault has reported that before and during the assault, the of-fender displayed behavior that is described as “unusual.” Specifically, it is described that the offender gains control over the victim, then requires her to put on certain articles of clothing, followed by her drinking wine with him while discussing the events of her day. He then has her say certain words and phrases to him, spank him while saying how bad he is, then engages in sexual intercourse. A suspect is identified and asked if he did anything “unusual” while with the victim. He admits assaulting the victim but denies doing anything “unusual.” When questioned further, he admits the actions she described but denies doing anything “unusual” as he does not view his actions as “unusual” be-cause in his mind they are part of his “nor-mal” desired sexual activity.

A recent article appearing in a newspaper described a reported crime as “unusual.” An immediate thought is, “Unusual to whom and by what standards?” Just the word itself can draw attention and perhaps pique curiosity to read further and see what this “unusual” crime was. A police officer can be asked what their most “unusual” case involved or consisted of. As the police are exposed to all types of hu-man behavior—as well as misbehavior—an “unusual” case could be viewed by an officer as one in which it is not necessarily what has occurred, but the infrequency of this occur-rence is what makes it “unusual.” Police of-ficers may have their own definition of what is unusual based upon the exposure they have to a variety of criminal acts as well as the non-criminal activities they respond to. The intent of Part 1 was to look at how the use of a simple word can cause important

facts of an investigation to be missed because of another person’s interpretation or percep-tion of the definition of that word. The next time you interview someone, keep in mind that if you use the word “unusual,” both you and the person being asked the question have the same definition in mind as it pertains to the information you are seeking through the interview. In Part 2 of this series, some examples of aberrant behavior will be examined with a focus on the behavior exhibited by the in-dividuals involved.

ReferencesWebster’s II Dictionary. 2005. New York: The Berkley

Publishing Group. n



ACFEI Logo ProductsA. ACFEI wooden laser carved wall plaque—$100*B. ACFEI fleece blanket (available in black and pink)—$25C. ACFEI luggage tag—$5D. ACFEI pocket bouillon—$60*E. ACFEI pen & letter opener set—$12F. ACFEI men’s camp shirt (dark navy, sizes: S to XXXL)—$55G.ACFEI men’s all-weather jacket (Navy, sizes: S to XXXL)—$60H. The Forensic Examiner T-shirt men’s or women’s (black, sizes: men’s—S to XXXL; women’s—S to XXL)—$24I. ACFEI men’s T-shirt (navy, sizes: M to XXL)—$24J. ACFEI men’s fleece jacket (black, or lt. blue/gray, sizes: S to XXXL)—$60K. ACFEI men’s or women’s polo shirt (navy, sizes: men’s S to XXXL; women’s—S to XXL)—$48L. ACFEI men’s polo shirt (tan, sizes: S to XXXL)—$48M. ACFEI women’s dress shirt (blue, sizes: S to XXL)—$55N. ACFEI men’s dress shirt (gray, sizes: S to XXXL; XLT & XXLT)—$55O. ACFEI lapel pin—$5P. ACFEI jotterpad—$5Q. ACFEI padfolio—$20R. ACFEI labcoat (sizes: 32-50)—$40S. ACFEI track suit (sizes: men’s S to XXXL; women’s—S to XXL)—$99

* A & D are special orders requiring 12-16 weeks for delivery.

A B C D E

F G H I J

K L M N O

P Q R S

Name I.D. Number

Deliver To (Street Address Only)

Address

City/State/Zip

Credit Card Number Exp. Date

Signature

Payment Method (Please do not send cash.) rCheck/Money Order rMastercard/Visa rAm.Express rDiscover(please make checks payable to ACFEI)

Item Size Quantity Total

Sub-Total Shipping & Handling (See chart below) Rush Delivery Total

Arrive in style to the 2010 National Conference. Order your ACFEI logo products today!

2750 E. Sunshine, Springfield, MO 65804 • Phone: (800) 423-9737 • Fax: (417) 881-4702 • www.acfei.com

Shipping and handling costs:Lapel pin or luggage tag only: $5.001 item (other than above) $10.00, 2 items $11.50, 3 items $13.00, Add $1.50 for each additional item. Overnight and International shipping may be available. Call for pricing. Allow 4–6 for delivery

EXLOGO0310EX

INTERVIEWwith Steven R. Conlon, MS

INT

ERVI

EW

Conlon: I probably have a unique background as far as a relationship with the Behavioral Science Unit, as back in the mid-1980s, the then-Behavioral Science Unit started a police fellowship program, and it was a year-long program that incorporated education, case consultation, training, and a little bit of research. There were six of us representing city, county, and state agencies that came here and spent literally the entire calendar year working with the staff. The first three months or so were spent primarily in training environments. One of the staff would come in and talk about a case or some aspect of training that they do here for the Behavioral Science Unit. After those three months or so, we were assigned cases that came in for—at that time the term was “profiling”—and we were responsible to work those up and prepare an analysis on the case, then present it to the rest of the class and discuss it, then formulate the assessment, prepare a written draft, and present it to the staff. They would review it and it would be sent to the agency for their review and investigation. Also during that time, we would go to spe-cialized training, programs, seminars, and it was a very fascinating time. As a result of that, I had the unique opportunity to maintain contact with the Behavioral Science Unit, and I remember that as a very memorable time of my life. I worked for the state agency as well, and had this opportunity to come here. I was blessed to have this opportunity to come on board as staff here and have really enjoyed it. I tell Dr. Vecchi that this is not work at all; it’s just a fabulous environment, great people here, a tremendous opportunity. I tell him I have won the lottery of work. One thing I see here involving the students and people that come into the Academy is a heightened sense of enthusiasm, professionalism, dedication, and to do the best for the citizens they serve. That enthusiasm is very contagious.

TFE: I’ve seen a lot of that enthusiasm today. Their eyes just light up when they start talking about their work.Conlon: Absolutely.

TFE: So, you’re not an agent, right? How does that work? Explain that to me, because I’m not really sure.Conlon: We are a family down here, and each brings a wide vari-ety of background experiences, educational levels; and that really complements the entire unit, and I think it is that diversity that has

made it so great in the past and that will continue to make it so.

TFE: What is your research area of interests and what are you doing?

Conlon: Well, probably right now, my main focus now is aberrant behavior, and it’s really all aspects of that. Basically, aberrant behavior is unusual behavior, and it can be legal, it can be illegal; it can be harmful, or it can be harmless; but it’s either unusual and/or a lot of times viewed as unacceptable behavior according to society or cultural norms.

TFE: And so you do the consultation and the training here on those topics?Conlon: Yes.

TFE: Are you working on any research projects right now, or is it more consultation/training?Conlon: We’ve got several research projects that we’re working on right now, and the first one is that we’re involved in the interviewing

INTERVIEW



TERVIEW

of spouses of child molesters. We have found some very interesting information from that perspective about their life with a child mo-lester. It’s been very fascinating thus far, and I am very anxious to see what kind of results we get in conclusion. We are also looking at the area of false allegations. Literature shows a wide variety of what percent are suspected as false allegations, and I’m talking about sexual assaults, and we’re hoping that through this, we can identify some traits or characteristics or factors that may lead to or support that maybe something is not as accurate as reported; some things or com-monalities that are in actual, factual reports of sexual assault. TFE: In terms of research that hasn’t been conducted by the BSU at all, is there anything that you would like to see in the future that currently has no existing research?Conlon: I wish I had about three lifetimes; I think that’s how long it would take to accomplish all of them. Dr. Vecchi’s enthusiasm and creativity have been very open, and he wants us and encourages us to be involved. I think probably all of us have a list of different topics that we would one day like to research and become more knowledge-able about, and the downside of that is that there’s so much to do that we’ve got to priori-tize them and identify those that we can do in a time limit, but that there’s some purpose in them and that we can get some kind of results beneficial to law enforcement. A couple of the other areas I’m looking at right now are some of the teacher offenders. It’s really nothing that is new or that has just started occurring, but this is something that has been there. I think that in the current day of the fast transmission of media and informa-tion, it certainly hits across the area, state, or country. There are some aspects of that I want to explore. If it’s a male offender, probably it will make some local news, maybe some regionalized news. If it’s a female schoolteacher offender, the media’s going to grab onto that and it’s going to get a lot of media attention. What is driving the person that has invested the education into their profession and is doing very well and it ap-pears that they are very happy, both in their personal life as well as professional life, and then to discover that there is a relationship in their life that, to them, they could not resist, or what is the actual reality of that developing into a lifelong relationship? And what’s in it for law enforcement or society to take the time to research some-thing like that, or are there factors that may more readily identify the type of person who is more susceptible to engaging in this type of behavior; are there factors that law enforcement can use investi-gatively in early identification of these crimes?

TFE: So, your research focuses mainly on sexual aberrant behavior? What others are out there? Conlon: Actually, if you look at the definition of aberrant behavior, almost anything that is in a criminal code could loosely fit under aberrant behavior, because it’s either unusual behavior or against societal norms. The sky’s the limit as far as topics go.

TFE: What are some of the most unusual things you’ve come across? Conlon: It’s interesting... the fact that it’s just not—it’s probably

a misconception, people who are involved in some forms of aber-rant behavior look like monsters, and we know that this is simply not the case. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who are highly educated, that are very successful in their careers, their professions, but yet sometimes there is that other side of them, and it’s that other side that has or contains that aberrant behavior. And again, a lot of times it may not be illegal and it may not be harmful, so it may never come out.

TFE: How are new areas of programs or study determined? Conlon: Well, I think one of the things that Dr. Vecchi has told us all that if there is a topic or subject matter that we would like to research and prepare a course on to talk about it and present it to him and see if it’s consistent with something that would benefit law enforcement and benefit society. There are a lot of interesting and fascinating subject or topic matters, but we have to keep it in the realm of, “Okay, what is our real objective? What’s our goal?” and

that is to provide information and training to the law enforcement agencies so that they can utilize this information in better doing their job. So usually it has to be something that has to do with protection, prevention, or investiga-tion. As far as actual topic matters or subject matters themselves, I think that he has given us a wide-open area to research if an interest exists. One thing I like about my topic area is that it encompasses almost anything and every-thing that law enforcement does. If they have us responding to a vandalism call, or if there’s somebody writing bad checks, or if there’s a con man out there conning people or swindling people’s life savings, to the more traditional sexual offenses, deaths, everything.

TFE: Do you work with one of the groups that has one of those acronym, like BeSTOW? Do you work under one of those?Conlon: Yes, it’s SAVE—Studies of Aberrant Violence and Exploitation.

TFE: So is there one issue under what you study that you think our members, our readership, anyone—needs to know more about, one of those things that maybe is a big problem but it’s not talked about? What would you say we need more education about, we need more coverage, we need more people to know this is happening? Conlon: Probably that’s going to vary from agency to agency and jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and there will be topics of priorities expressed by them, depending on what’s transpiring in their com-munities at any given time. Thinking back here recently, within the last few years, what did we know about snipers? Well, that may not have been a real big priority until a couple of individuals were going out shooting people, and suddenly that’s a very big priority to know what’s going on with that kind of offender; what’s driving their motivation to carry that out? If you think back on the com-munities where you’ve lived, maybe it’s a rash of burglaries, maybe it’s a series of robberies, maybe it’s a series of sexual assaults, maybe child abductions. So some of that is going to vary depending upon the particular community. n

“Aberrant behavior

can be legal or

illegal, harmful or

harmless, but is

generally unacceptable

according to

societal norms.”


CE

ART

ICLE

he focus of this paper is to examine and help further the understanding of police suicide. The primary goal is to make law enforcement officers, their families, and the community they serve more cognizant of the stressors encountered on the job, from the patrolman on the streets to the executives in the offices. To

that end, personal, community, and organizational issues involving law enforcement stress as it affects police officer suicide will be examined. Through this paper, you will be able to understand the body’s reaction to stress, identify the mental and physical factors of stress, and recognize the external and internal stressors that could lead to suicide within law enforcement agencies and the communities they serve.

Screened through psychological and physi-cal assessments, police officers ideally start out ahead of the public when it comes to mental and physical well-being. Given this, why are their rates of heart disease, cancer, and depression higher than those of the general public? More officers are taking their own lives than are being killed in the line of duty, which begs the question “what must change?” It is widely agreed that stress is a significant factor, especially in a culture in which new recruits are slowly indoctrinated into an atmosphere that prevents them from acknowledging issues that would make them appear weak or vulnerable. The purpose of this article is to identify those at risk, edu-cate those affected by stress and depression, and promote the use of appropriate coping mechanisms long before a crisis is reached. There is a significant correlation between stress, depression, and suicide. It is important to note that not all people who are stressed or depressed will commit suicide—but some will. Though officers are trained to identify threats from the outside, they may miss or

dismiss the obvious clues of danger lurking within their midst. Officers expect strength from the person next to them knowing that one day their life may depend on it. Signs of perceived weakness are often hidden or not discussed for fear of losing the confidence and support of other officers, or even worse, being removed from the job. When the emo-tional call for help is missed, the result can be deadly—approximately every 17 hours, a peace officer ends his or her own life. While some suicides are impulsive acts, in many cases the warning signs can be traced back for years. Frequently, a suicidal individual gives thought to how they will take their life and yields clues to their intentions. Recognition of these clues is key to prevention.

Common Suicide MythsPeople who talk about suicide will not do it. Fact: Approximately 80% of people who commit suicide exhibited indicators of their intentions. Suicide threats should be taken seriously. People who talk about

UNDERSTANDING

POLICESUICIDE

By Jean G. Larned, MACriminal Investigations Instructor

The views expressed in thisarticle do not necessarily

represent the views of the FBI.

CE ARTICLE: 1 CE CREDIT


WWW.ACFEI.COM • (800) 592-1399C

E ART

ICLE


CE

ART

ICLE

suicide may contemplate or even try an act of self-destruction.

Mentioning suicide or confronting a per-son about suicide will only make them angry and increase the risk of suicide. Fact: For people considering suicide, having someone to talk it out with can be a strong preventive measure. Directly asking someone about suicidal intent lowers anxiety, opens communication, and lowers the risk of an impulsive act.

Only experts can prevent suicide. Fact: Suicide prevention is everybody’s busi-ness, and anyone can help prevent the trag-edy of suicide.

Suicidal people keep their plans to themselves.Fact: Most suicidal people communicate their intent sometime during the week pre-ceding the event.

Suicidal people always want to die.Fact: Many suicidal people want to live bet-ter and happier lives, even while stating that they want to die. What they are really saying is that they need help and relief from the in-tense emotional pain they are experiencing.

We as officers understand that suicide oc-curs every day in every part of the world. The feelings of loss are universal; we lose

someone we love and from that a sense of abandonment, betrayal, and hopelessness consumes us. These feelings can be over-whelming, with no discernible end in sight. We (police officers) feel alone, like no one else ever experienced these feelings. We feel isolated, despondent, and sure that there is no chance of making it through even one more day. Knowing this, how can we better help those at risk, like law enforcement per-sonnel? There is a recognizable problem with the occupation of law enforcement, which has a suicide rate twice that of the general population. If the tables were turned and twice the number of police were killed in the line of duty than took their own lives, it would be addressed very quickly. More im-portantly, the role of a police officer is one of high stress, danger, violence, and constant hypervigilance. To that end, coping mechanisms for po-lice officers are sometimes harmful, such as alcohol abuse, substance abuse, anger, impatience, violence, and arguments with loved ones. Additionally, police officers have notoriously higher rates of cancer, heart disease, and depression than the rest of the population. There needs to be an awakening among the rank and file and management. In a larger sense, this tragic and desperate act damages more than just the immediate family—it is generally accepted that suicide permanently affects at least six other people who knew the victim.

When a police officer commits suicide, it sets in motion a chain of events that will affect many people for a long time. In the aftermath of a suicide, everyone begins to “second-guess” what they could have done to prevent it. Police departments around the country are finally addressing this cri-sis through training, Employee Assistance Programs, peer groups, social support sys-tems, faith and religion, or by simply being supportive. Knowing that we are not alone in this tragedy and that others have survived is comforting. We know that this happens daily to families and agencies like ours. We need to understand that communicating and sharing one’s grief with others can be one of the most beneficial, cathartic, and healing methods for both the officer and his or her family. With this said, there are a number of resources that can help us get better and/or understand this problem further, which can easily be found on the Internet, in the existing literature, and through medical professionals and support groups. Let us examine this a bit closer; when at-tempting to understand depression and sui-cide, we must learn about what we are deal-ing with. If one looks closely, there are clues or obvious warning signs that someone is on the brink of taking his or her own life.

Critical Warning Signs Talking about suicide or death•Giving direct verbal cues, such as “I •wish I were dead” and “I’m going to end it all”Giving less direct verbal cues, such as •“What’s the point of living?”, “Soon you won’t have to worry about me,” and “Who cares if I’m dead, anyway?”Self-isolation from friends and family•Expressing the belief that life is mean-•ingless or hopelessGiving away cherished possessions•Exhibiting a sudden and unexplained •improvement in mood after being de-pressed or withdrawnNeglecting his or her appearance and •hygiene

These signs are especially critical if this indi-vidual has attempted suicide in the past or has a history of or current problem with depres-sion, alcohol, or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Research indicates that a combina-tion of alcohol use and PTSD produces a tenfold increase in the risk of suicide for law enforcement personnel (Violanti, 2004).

s Larned conducting one of his classes.


WWW.ACFEI.COM • (800) 592-1399C

E ART

ICLE

Another possible explanation, or warn-ing sign, for higher rates of suicide among police officers is having a ready access to firearms, making them more susceptible to impulsive acts. Officers do not need to seek out a means for committing suicide because they carry one with them—the majority of police suicides involve the officer’s service weapon.

Additional Warning Signs Experts have identified other warning signs that indicate a fellow officer may be thinking of self-harm. Officers at risk of suicide may do one or more of the following (Mohandie & Hatcher, 1999):

Announce that they are going to do •something that will ruin their careers, but that they don’t careAdmit that they feel out of control•Appear hostile, blaming, argumenta-•tive, and insubordinate or appear pas-sive, defeated, and hopelessDevelop a morbid interest in suicide or •homicideIndicate that they are overwhelmed •and cannot find solutions to their problemsAsk another officer to keep their weap-•on or inappropriately use or display their weaponExhibit reckless behavior; taking un-•necessary risks on the job and/or in their personal livesCarry more weapons than appropriate•Exhibit deteriorating job performance •(which may be the result of alcohol or drug abuse)

It is critical to understand that suicide is never the right answer. If you are con-templating suicide or suspect that someone you know may be in danger of committing suicide, seek help immediately. The National Suicide Prevention Life line is 1-800-273-Talk. Remember, suicide is a permanent act to a temporary problem. You cannot come back to receive the intended attention.

Stress and Depression Facts That Can Lead to SuicideThe Day My World Was Torn Apart, 12/27/91—a personal story from the author: I have experienced unbearable pain that at the time seemed insurmountable. My story is one of devastating loss, involving a death of a loved one through suicide. I grew up in a

law enforcement family with my father, a 37-year law enforcement veteran who worked for the San Antonio Police Department. We were a very close family, and I was my parents’ only child. I experienced the denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and accep-tance that Kubler-Ross (1969) spoke of. In the winter of 1991, only three months after my wedding and two days after Christmas, my mother shot herself with my father’s .38 revolver in the living room of our home. My father was in the adjoining room playing chess with one of his friends. To his horror, upon entering the living room, he found my mother slumped back on our couch with a single gunshot wound through the center of her chest. Needless to say, chaos ensued and medical personnel were called to the residence. At the time, I was a young Marine stationed at Camp Pendleton, California, but was off duty at our apartment when my stalwart father, whom I never observed shaken in my life, called me distraught with the grim news. He said, “Johnny boy, I’ve got bad news about your mama; she just shot herself and is on the way to the trauma cen-ter at Brooke Army Medical Center. I don’t know if she will make it.” At that point, I slumped to the floor in a ball; it was all I could do to be strong for my father. I im-mediately called my wife with the news and told her that I needed to get home quickly. The next day I was in San Antonio, Texas, but it was already too late. My mother had passed away on the operating table the night before. From that point on, my life was for-

ever changed. I was a victim and survivor of suicide all at once. Being my mother’s only child, I was very close to her. You can imagine the sense of disbelief, abandonment, denial, loss, betrayal, confusion, and vulner-ability that overcame me that day. I learned to cope the best way that I could by pouring myself into work and school. My support network was my wife, her family, and my friends. I found that talking with others was a good start toward recovering. Support systems saved me in my darkest hour. I could not imagine having no one to lean on during those times. I found true comfort in others. Having someone to talk with is sometimes all it takes. “Speaking to others is an important way to recover from any traumatic experience. Usually the people in your family or your close friends are the ones who provide sup-port. In fact, experts say that your ability to successfully recover from a traumatic shock can be predicted by evaluating the strength of your support system. Unfortunately, when someone you are close to commits suicide, it is likely this death will be traumatic to most of the people who comprise your support network as well” (Smolin & Guinan, 1993). Smolin and Guinan were spot on with the aforementioned quote. The death of my mother affected everyone in my support sys-tem. As a result, I became the strong one. Peer support is instrumental in identifying those at risk and in helping officers obtain assistance. However, limitations to peer as-sistance exist. Laymen cannot provide the


CE

ART

ICLE

professional care of licensed mental health practitioners and are not equipped to offer real counseling. If critical signs are witnessed, take steps to seek help; do not leave the person alone, and confiscate weapons, drugs, or ob-jects that could be used to complete the act.

Understanding the Suicide EnigmaIf we lose a loved one to suicide, the ensuing grieving process can be difficult. Some can-not cope with the loss. Grieving is normal, and each person grieves in his or her own way. The phases of grief are different for each individual. Kubler-Ross (1969) identified phases of recovery after a traumatic event as “denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance.” Sooner or later, we will all ex-perience one—if not all—of these emotions. Understanding that we will heal with time brings a sense of hope that occurs after even the darkest hours. According to Smolin and Guinan, “after a traumatic event like sui-cide, the sooner a survivor starts the healing process, the better.” Again, the importance of speaking with others who have lost loved ones to suicide is probably one of the best coping mechanisms. To that end, there are many groups that meet in cities across the nation with the goal of helping someone overcome and adjust to this traumatic event (Smolin & Guinan, 1993). Clinically speaking, depression and depressive disorders are the primary predic-tors of suicidal acts. While the exact cause of depres-sion is unknown,

it is widely considered to be a combination of stressful factors and neurotransmitter imbalances within the brain. Emotional and physical components must be addressed. Medications designed to correct chemical imbalances, combined with therapies to address emotional needs, are highly effec-tive. Some types of depression are based on heredity, but many are not. Depression produces irrational feelings of hopelessness and isolation. Just as serious injuries require medical care, serious depression requires a professional diagnosis and help. Those suf-fering from depression should not assume it is only an emotional issue; they need to investigate the underlying physical causes. Stress can trigger depression, and it takes a physical and mental toll on the body. Over time, personal resilience, or our ability to “bounce back” and deal with stress can de-crease. Stress tolerance and resiliency are unique to each individual. Law enforce-ment officers face an unrelenting barrage of crises, explicit within their profession, inc lud-ing job

dangers, critical incident stressors, lawsuits, exposure to murders and sexual crimes, and shift work. Officers find little time at work to recover and deal with the trauma and emotion they witness on a regular basis. Physiologically, stress triggers alarms that indicate the need for assistance. The hypo-thalamus senses “danger,” igniting a complex series of chemical reactions that sends hor-mones racing into the bloodstream to trigger production of adrenaline (fear hormone) and noradrenalin (the anger hormone). Blood pressure increases to aid circulation; hy-perventilation increases the availability of oxygen; sugars and fats spill into the blood from the liver, generating energy; and the digestive system slows the rate of absorp-tion, manufacturing more energy-producing substances. In the short term, stress triggers the “fight or flight” responses in the body that assist officers confronted by danger. Hypervigilance or the constant awareness that protects officers in the field causes stress hormones to continually trigger, initiating hormonal imbalances in the body, affecting

health issues, including depression. The same hormones may lead to a distorted perception of others as well. Officers who are enthused and energized on the job may feel apathetic, disinterested, and bored in non-police environments.

These feelings are often attributed to the unreasonable and demanding behaviors

of people around them at home. Dr. Kevin Gilmartin, author of Emotional Survival in Law Enforcement, suggests these feelings may be a misidentification of physical experiences of adrenaline withdrawal. The surge of stress


WWW.ACFEI.COM • (800) 592-1399C

E ART

ICLE

hormones that results in excitement and alertness on the job dips after arriving home, resulting in apathy, fatigue, and disinterest, and is more commonly called the “Biological Rollercoaster” (Gilmartin, 2002). While the officer may perceive that this mental distor-tion stems from demanding and uninterest-ing loved ones at home, surprisingly, the feelings could be a result of chemical imbal-ances from a high adrenaline output during work hours to low output at home. This adrenaline cycle causes officers to long for the excitement they derive from their work. The addictive nature of the adrenaline rush drives officers to spend increasing hours at work and talk about work to relive the rush, creating a widening gap in the “non-police” social support system. This is particularly damaging because support from family and friends is a vital buffer against stress.

Addressing the Issues within the Law Enforcement CommunitySpecifically, what would drive a police officer to commit suicide? Research indicates that the death of a spouse or a child, the loss of a child or spouse through divorce, terminal illness, responsibility for a co-worker’s death, legal issues, indictment, lonely feelings, sex-ual accusations, loss of employment, and retirement are the primary culprits. These are all legitimate concerns, but most of society is exposed to these stressors as well. There must be a definitive and distinct difference between law enforcement and society as a whole. The most obvious would be the constant stress of life and death within the law enforcement occupation itself. There is often no second chance to “get it right” as a cop. Once a traumatic incident happens that involves a police officer, he or she will be judged many times over for extended periods of time for something that can happen in seconds. This stress can lead to depression, and the depression can lead to negative cop-ing techniques like violence, alcohol, and substance abuse. The law enforcement culture is one that is enclosed; it is an us-versus-them mentality. To that end, with officers being routinely ex-posed to danger, death, murder, sexual crimes, long and unstable work hours, pressure from superiors and the public, and a myriad of other stressful events, there comes a tipping point that can lead to marital problems, job performance issues, emotional withdrawal, isolation, and the loss of social support sys-tems. When signs of possible suicide ideation

appear, medical professionals suggest reducing stress, treating depression, and utilizing good coping techniques are critical in addressing the crisis of health problems directly in law enforcement. Fellow officers and department personnel are made aware when officers experience a death in the family or are having marital difficulties, financial troubles, involved in critical incidents at work, or even use deadly force. These key moments may spur the onset of crisis. Established programs must involve the officer and provide training to family members, and peer and professional coun-seling must be made immediately available. While attention and support may be offered to the officer immediately following any of these incidents, additional plans should be developed to assist the officer over a longer period of time. Crucial follow up at periodic intervals and around anniversary dates of traumatic incidents reminds officers they are not alone and help is close at hand.

Remember, red flags such as mood swings, depression, increased use of alcohol, in-creased sick time, late arrivals and early de-partures, citizen complaints, changes of physical appearance, isolation, sudden feel-ings of happiness, giving possessions away, and subtle self-deprecating comments could possibly demand the same level of action as officers working distress calls on the job. Matters of life and death dictate a call to ac-tion when these subtle warning signals arise. It is incumbent upon the administrators in the law enforcement community to educate officers in the nature of mental illness, de-pression, and addiction. Through education and open discussion, the law enforcement community can provide a supportive cul-ture that allows officers to admit problems, discuss solutions, and seek help.

What Do We Do As An Agency Once It Happens?What about the funeral? Funerals for police officers who take their own lives have always

been a sensitive subject within law enforce-ment ranks. When an officer takes his or her life, it is difficult enough; compound that with the taboo subject of suicide in law enforcement circles, and it becomes tenuous. Remember that they were part of you and no one will ever truly know all the reasons they came to that final “solution.” To that end, funerals are for the living to support the of-ficer’s family. The officer’s family needs your support in this most difficult time in their life. The family is stunned, hurting, even “shell shocked.” Do not add to their pain by passing judgment—you don’t know every-thing that happened. Just be there for them. Regardless of the cause of death, the deceased was a fellow officer, and his survivors will always be a part of the police family. Do we have the responsibility to train new recruits about being aware of suicidal indica-tors? It’s never too early to start learning basic intervention techniques that can be used to help those in trouble and to understand the myths, misinformation, warning signs, and available support groups. The courage to help teach and reinforce that seeking help is a strength, not a weakness, and the knowledge that help is available, if needed, is vitally important. So how do we identify those at risk, that officer on the brink of the most self-destruc-tive act, the permanent “solution” to tem-porary problems, the most selfish act, and one that affects the ones we care about the most? According to Dr. Beverly J. Anderson, clinical director of the Metropolitan Police Employee Assistance Program (MPEAP), there are early indicators that can help us identify someone at risk: “personal and fi-nancial problems for which the officer feels there are no solutions, increase in alcohol use, work-related problems, divorce or break-up of a relationship, increase in sick days, mood swings, depression, recent death in the family, exposure to a work-related trauma and use of deadly force” (Anderson, 2002). Learning how to become more resilient and understand “emotional intelligence” or being introspective is important. With self-awareness, one can become familiar with recognizing one’s emotions, strengths, and limitations. Self-confidence is another form of emotional intelligence; it denotes a strong sense of one’s self-worth and capabilities. It is the basic belief that we can do what is needed to produce the desired outcome. Self-control is important to keep disruptive emotions and impulses in check. Trustworthiness is


“Through education and open discussion, the law enforcement community can provide a supportive culture that allows officers to admit problems, discuss solutions, and seek help.”

CE

ART

ICLE

important to maintain standards of honesty and integrity. Conscientiousness is impor-tant for taking responsibility for personal performance. Adaptability is important in being able to handle change. Innovation is important in being comfortable with novel ideas, approaches, and new information. Self-regulation is important in understand-ing how to control our impulses like anger. Having an achievement drive is important in striving to improve or meet a standard of excellence. Having a commitment in aligning with the goals of the group or organization and initiative or readiness to act on oppor-tunities is important for the overall success of the mission (Goleman, 1995).

Finally, learning to be positive and opti-mistic in life is crucial. “Cognitive restructur-ing” is an example of having the ability to change a negative belief or perception into a positive one. Optimism is the persistence in pursuing goals despite obstacles and setbacks. Remaining constantly positive is associated with hope, and hope is a predictor of success. People with less hope give up easily when en-countering difficulties. Dr. Lyubomirsky of the University of California put forth eight steps toward a more satisfying and happier life:

Count your blessings•Practice acts of kindness•Savor life’s joys•Thank a mentor•Learn to forgive•Invest time and energy in friends and •familyTake care of your body•Develop strategies for coping with •stress and hardships

In the end, as a way to help those in cri-sis, we can utilize “emotional intelligence.” Emotional intelligence centers on empathy and an understanding of others’ feelings and perspectives and takes an active interest in their concerns as well as developing and building bonds with others and bolstering their abilities while listening openly, work-ing with others toward shared goals and finally, creating group synergy in pursuing collective goals. Moreover, John Violanti, PhD, author of Police Suicide: Epidemic in Blue, outlines several steps in an overall approach to pre-vention, intervention, and understanding of suicide in law enforcement:

Psychological assessment •Tracking high-risk officers•

Access to firearms •Getting the officer’s family involved •Training •Developing stress awareness and cop-•ing skillsCrisis and personal interventions•Peer support•Retirement counseling•

To recapitulate, “There are as many paths to healing as there are those who are hurting. Each one takes a different direction. Some appear to be direct roads; others twist and turn. Some traverse level territory; others pass through valleys and peaks. No one way is correct for everyone. You will take the journey that you need to take. Do not expect it to be easy. Do not expect the trip to be quick. You will lose many things along the way: preconceived ideas, old ways of think-ing, and notions about explanations, guilt, and retribution. You will gain many others: sensitivity, understanding, compassion, and forgiveness of yourself and others” (Smolin & Guinan, 1993).

Coping Mechanisms: Good and BadThere are a surprising number of simple mechanisms officers can use to address stress, but not everyone will utilize them. If you follow only these simple coping techniques and nothing else, you will still greatly increase your chances of becoming a survivor. Do not use alcohol as a coping mecha-nism. It is present in 95% of police suicides. Taking a fellow worker out for the prover-bial drink when they are feeling down can exacerbate the situation. While alcohol may provide a temporary feeling of wellness, it is a fact that alcohol affects the brain in areas

About the Author

Jean G. Larned, MA, travels nationally to present at workshops, seminars, in-services, symposia, and conferences in the area of stress management in law enforcement, traumatic event management, and officer wellness. Mr. Larned sets in motion the transformation of the role of a police officer from one of just a career and gaining a pension to that of a passionate, involved, and conscientious individual. He is currently a criminal investigations instructor at the FBI Academy, where he teaches in the New Agent and National Academy programs. In addition to his duties with the FBI, he is a U.S. Army Medical Services reserve officer with numerous commendations and medals earned during his 27 years in the military. Mr. Larned is a member of the renowned FBI Behavioral Science Unit (seen in The Silence of the Lambs) within the FBI. He is a former Special Agent with the DEA and police officer with the San Antonio Police Department. In addition, Mr. Larned is a faculty member at the FBI Academy where he teaches “Critical Incident Stress Management,” “Deployment Issues for Law Enforcement,” Building Resilience, Police Suicide, Suicide By Cop, Physiology and Psychology of Stress, and an adjunct faculty member at the University of Virginia. Mr. Larned received his bachelor’s degree from California State University Long Beach and his master’s degree from Our Lady of the Lake University. He also attended Yale University, where he majored in psychology, and is currently in the process of defending his doctoral dissertation from the University of Southern Mississippi.

s Larned shares his experiences and insights with new agents.


WWW.ACFEI.COM • (800) 592-1399C

E ART

ICLE

that promote depression, impair judgment, and remove inhibitions. Exercise is a tremendous stress reliever as well as a factor in good health. Officers spend a significant amount of time at work in vehicles and may be fatigued from stress and long hours. Exercise actually helps to even out hormonal processes and reduce stress. Exercise should be frequent. Be fit! Developing social support from friends, family and colleagues both in and outside of law enforcement is crucial. To that end, support systems are vital in the well-being of law enforcement officers, especially dur-ing a period of loss. There can be a sense of bewilderment; loss of interest in everyday events; and even physiological effects like loss of appetite, sleep, and concentration; and increased illness through a weakened immune system. To counter these issues during these stressful times, it is impor-tant to understand what is happening to the body mentally and physically, and to then adjust accordingly. Embrace support systems, including good communication with a significant other and extended fam-ily. The more an officer talks about his or her feelings, the better they are going to be.

It is, in a sense, a catharsis. Time by itself will not cure the deepest sorrow, but with a combination of communication with friends and family and healthy living, time will pass and in turn ease the pain. The long-held cliché “this too shall pass” is very true. Providing training and information to family members and significant others on the demands and pitfalls of police work early on can offer departments and officers allies for encouraging officers through difficulties, and offers additional eyes and hands to help identify struggling officers. Finally, rest, relaxation, and recreation are easy ways to reduce stress. The men and women who have dedicated their lives to law enforcement should be encouraged to take time to enjoy life, develop hobbies, express spirituality, and most importantly, engage in emotionally fulfilling activities that enhance the quality of life and the lives of loved ones. Applying some simple strategies to adjust attitude and actions parallels the strategy of the deputy who shouts to his partner while chasing an escaping robber, “We’ll head him off at the pass”!

Disclaimer: The information contained with-in this article is for informational purposes only and is not intended to be a substitute in any way for care and treatment by a qualified health professional.

ReferencesAnderson, Beverly. (2002). Police Suicide: Understand-

ing Grief & Loss, Gift From Within – PTSD Re-sources for Survivors and Caregivers. http://www.giftfromwithin.org

Gilmartin, Kevin, Ph.D., (2002). Emotional Survival in Law Enforcement, Tucson, Arizona, ES Press.

Goleman, Daniel. (1995). Emotional Intelligence, Ban-tam Books, New York, NY.

Hope for life: Suicide prevention and bereavement sup-port (2007). http://salvos.org.au/suicideprevention/index.php

Kubler-Ross, Elisabeth (1969). On Death and Dying, Scribner, New York, NY.

Lyubomirsky, Sonia, (2008). Eight Ways to Happiness: Steps Towards a More Satisfying Life.

Mohendie, K. & Hatcher, C. (1999). Suicide and Vio-lence Risk in Law Enforcement: Potential Guidelines for Risk Assessment, Prevention and intervention. Behavioral Science and the Law, 17(3), 357-376.

Smolin, Ann, C.S.W. & Guinan, John, Ph.D. (1993). Healing After the Suicide of a Loved One, Simon & Shuster, New York, NY.

Suicide Prevention Resource Center. http://www.sprc.org

Violenti, John, Ph.D. (2007). Police Suicide: Epidemic in Blue, Charles C. Thunes, Springfield, Il.

Violenti, John, Ph.D. (2007). Predictors of Police Sui-cide Ideation, Social and life-threatening behav-iors, 34(3), 277-283. Charles C. Thunes, Spring-field, IL. n


EARN CE CREDIT

To earn CE credit, complete the exam for this article on page 125, or complete the exam online for FREE at www.acfei.com (select “Online CE”).



Explain the precipitating factors that lead to 1. law enforcement officers taking their lives.Identify personal internal and exter-2. nal realities within officers’ agencies or communities that can cause or perpetu-ate the stress that leads to suicide.Identify the mental and physical factors 3. related to stress and the body’s reaction that can lead to depression and possible suicide.

KEY WORDS: Suicide, police, stress, familyTARGET AUDIENCE: Law enforcementPROGRAM LEVEL: BasicDISCLOSURE: The authors have nothing to disclose.PREREQUISITES: None

“Do not use alcohol as a coping mechanism. It is pres-ent in 95% of police suicides. Taking a fellow worker out for the proverbial drink when they are feeling down can exacerbate the situation.”

INTERVIEWwith Jean G. Larned, MA

INT

ERVI

EW

TFE: Please begin by telling us about yourself and how you came to work with the BSU.Larned: I grew up in San Antonio, Texas, as the only child of two loving parents. After high school, I entered the military (1983) and have been serving ever since in both an active and reserve capacity. During the spring of 1994, I became a police officer with the city of San Antonio; my assignments included patrol and the police academy. During that time, I was an adjunct faculty member at the University of Texas at San Antonio. In 2001, I attended Basic Agent Training at Quantico, Virginia for the DEA. Upon graduation, I was assigned as a special agent with the San Diego Field Division. I have been married for 19 years and have five wonderful children.

TFE: Congratulations!Larned: After seven years of working with the DEA, I found an opportunity to continue my academic pursuits with the FBI. I was nearing the end of my doctoral work and found a position at the FBI Academy’s Behavioral Science Unit as an instructor. I currently teach the “Stress Management in Law Enforcement” block, which includes police suicide, suicide by cop, identifying stressors, psychology and physiology of stress, resiliency, critical incident management, and retirement issues. My educational background was rooted in psychol-ogy and sociology, which became a perfect fit with the BSU. During my days as a young Marine, I would work early mornings and go to school in the afternoons and evenings, eventually attaining my bachelor’s degree in 1993. As a police officer, I worked evening and night shifts in order to go to school for my master’s degree. It did not end there—during my time as a DEA agent, I went to school for my PhD. For a time, I attended Yale University, where I stud-ied psychology. This was a fantastic opportunity for my academic development. The draw of police work was too powerful and so I returned to the SAPD. After 9/11, Operation Enduring Freedom began and I was called up to serve my country as an Army officer. I was a commander of a small unit that trained other reservists for duty in Afghanistan or Iraq. After that year, I returned to my duties as a field agent with the DEA.

TFE: Can you discuss your research areas? What do you teach?Larned: My current research involves the study of police suicide. It

is a priority of mine to help understand and prevent this growing phenomenon. One of my main goals

is to revise the “police suicide” compendium that is used here in our unit.

My research is also in the realm of resilience training, so I have gone to courses provided by the Army. I’ve made

a connection between the Army and the Behavioral Science Unit, where they’ll let me attend their courses in combat operational stress and resilience. I’ve attended traumatic event management courses in stress, courses which fall right in line with my topic, because I teach that as well, to include PTSD. And if anybody’s cutting-edge, it’s the U.S. Army on post-traumatic stress disorder, though they actually try not to classify it as that anymore.

TFE: What is the new classification?Larned: There is a new paradigm going on with regard to stress research. It is called Post-Traumatic Growth. The thinking behind this is that difficult situations can actually make you stronger and more resilient given the right mindset. Learning to become more resilient and not labeling it a disorder is important for the individual. This is an important topic because some individuals are affected by what they experience overseas. My research goal is to help law enforcement officers with these same type of challenges.

TFE: We’re familiar with that. We have a sister association, The American Association of Integrative Medicine, which brings to-gether Eastern and Western medicine, so we are very familiar with the whole idea.Larned: I know there was one course I wanted to take on behav-ioral medicine, just to have a working background on that. I’m going to get a counseling degree to go with the PhD because we counsel already. I’ve had people who were in my class come to me with problems they’ve had before with alcoholism, suicide, and so on, and I covered all those topics in my class, and they’ve come out of the class for the better. They’ve told me when they first return home that they no longer drink; they no longer have the inclina-tion. And it’s mainly from the Academy or the course, and beyond just the negative ramifications of alcohol and what it does to your body, but knowing that there are people to talk to. It’s such a stigma if you’re in Alcoholics Anonymous because you’re an officer.

INTERVIEW



TERVIEW

TFE: Do you travel a lot?Larned: Yes, in fact, I just returned from Wisconsin where I pre-sented on “suicide by cop.” I also will present a condensed version of what I teach during the National Academy to departments or agencies in need of assistance.

TFE: So having you on board is great for the new mission, where they expand to the military.Larned: It is important to make connections with other agencies to be able to help those that need it the most.

TFE: What sort of one-on-one work do you do with depressed or disturbed individuals? Could you tell me more about that process?Larned: Yes. First and foremost, it’s all done in confidence. I have them complete a stressor paper as a part of the curriculum, and in that I instruct them to discuss anything from the past that is still affective—it doesn’t have to be monumental—anything in the past that is still a personal stressor that needs to be overcome and dealt with. It could be work-related, social, familial...

TFE: Anything from their past.Larned: Yes, that’s right. After they complete the self-assessment, I will read and grade them. It’s not hard grading; it’s a personal topic. I do this for their catharsis. Individually, if they want to talk further about that, I meet them in a one-on-one counseling consultation in my office. I set up a schedule when I can, but it’s all completely confidential. I have met so far with three out of this class for a length of at least an hour, and I’ve also had several shorter, private sessions. I do meet with the students many times, because that part of my class is therapeutic and problem-solving.

TFE: So going off of that, are there ever individuals, based on how much you learn about them and their psychiatric history, for example, that there is an issue of their eligibility to remain in the program here at the Academy?Larned: That’s a fine line, being that it’s confidential. If it was a threat to the safety of the other students, I would be obligated to

bring it up. Normally, it never rises to that level. There have been some major issues with some of the students, even up to contempla-tion of suicide. It takes courage to bring that up, especially in front of a stranger, but they feel they can trust me. I hope I make a “circle of trust” in the class environment, where they understand that ev-erything they say is in confidence. But short of academic missteps, so to speak, I haven’t had any serious problems with students.

TFE: The details of your one-on-one contacts are of course com-pletely confidential. When you’re in the classroom setting, do you ever have open-panel discussions?Larned: Focus groups?

TFE: Yes.Larned: Yes, we break off into focus groups and I give them a flip chart and we talk about it. Now, getting people to talk among 50-plus people is difficult, because even in your late 40s or early 50s, peer pressure is tough, so I have to open them up. I have to tell them, “look, I’ve told you about me, it’s okay.” I have to call on people periodically, and then it’s like starting a fire. I tell my col-leagues, “did you bring your flint?” You see, you’ve got to start your flint; to get the conversation going, you find somebody that looks at you and starts to nod or says something, and you start talking. Just like a comedian.

TFE: I guess further down the line, some of the people who are more reserved hear what people before them have said and they’re like, “you know, my problems aren’t really all that different or all that bad.”Larned: When I read the papers, there are so many similar prob-lems. For another project, I’m going to start maintaining statisti-cal records. No names or other identifying information would be collected, just the prevalence of divorce-related, social, physical, substance abuse, alcohol, and work-related problems. I would say divorce and family issues seem to be the most common, followed by health problems, then by loss of loved ones. Fear of retirement is another obstacle for officers at the end of their careers. n

Did You Know?

Stress Management in Law Enforcement (SMILE) involves preventative and reactive health and wellness for law enforcement officers at various stages in their careers. It provides helpful techniques on how to identify stressors and build resilience for mindful and happy living. Courses include:

Deployment Issues for LE Officers •

Identifying Stressors •

Suicide by Cop •

Burnout •

Progressive Music Relaxation (PMR)•


FEAT

UR

E

The FBI Behavioral Science Unit’s Approach to World-Class Training

IntroductionInstruction can be thought of as an art and a science; however, many instructors focus only on the science in terms of knowledge and forget that influencing how the audience feels about both the instructor and the instruction as an art is just as important. For example, if an instructor is a subject matter expert in a given area (objective criterion), that does not guarantee he or she will be effective un-less the knowledge is effectively delivered and the audience perceives the instructor as be-ing credible (subjective criteria) (Brookfield, 1995; Davis, 2001; Jamieson, 1999; Madonik, 2001; Pickles, 1996; Schwarz, 1994). This article will examine the objective and subjec-tive aspects of effective instruction with an emphasis on delivery and credibility in terms of communication.

By Gregory M. Vecchi, PhD, CFC, CHS-V, FACFEISupervisory Special Agent/Unit Chief, and

Thomas J. Dover, MSCrime Analyst

The views expressed in this article do not necessarily represent the views of the FBI.

FEATURE



UR

EEffective InstructionInstruction comprises two aspects of impart-ing knowledge to an audience: teaching and training (Brookfield, 1995; Davis, 2001; Jamieson, 1999; Pickles, 1996; Schwarz, 1994). Teaching involves learning concepts and constructs from a purely cognitive meth-odology using lectures, presentations, and case studies such as with legal instruction. Training is the acquisition of knowledge, skills, and competencies that result in the development of job-related operational skills such as in forensics, policing, psychothera-py, and homeland security. Using a hybrid of teaching and training approaches has been found to be very effective because it combines the explicit knowledge that is a characteristic of teaching (cognitive) with the tacit knowledge that is characteristic of training (using the five senses) (Bowman, 1998; Horton, 2000).

Effective instruction comprises three ar-eas in which an instructor must excel: 1) knowledge, 2) delivery, and 3) credibility (see Figure 1). Knowledge refers to a thor-ough understanding of the subject matter to include working experience. For example, an instructor who conducts training in coun-terterrorism should have experience working terrorism investigations and have the ap-propriate education and research experience to support the instruction (Lubet, 1998). Delivery is the ability to impart knowledge to the audience in an efficient and effective manner. This is analogous to two individuals telling the same joke to the same audience but only one of them obtaining the desired response (laughter). Credibility is the abil-ity of the instructor to appear believable to the audience (Lubet, 1998). This involves whether or not an instructor is perceived as being trustworthy and as having expertise in


the subject matter. Credibility is the most subjective of these areas. Effective instruction is supported by re-search and practice. The FBI Behavioral Science Unit (BSU) has developed a very effective model for delivering world-class training to the criminal justice, military, and intelligence communities. This model requires all training to be supported by re-search and consultation (Brookfield, 1995; Lubet, 1998). In other words, “if they train it, they research it and if they train it, they consult it.” This approach ensures that the training is, and remains, effective. Applied research is used to support training from the standpoint of relevancy and accuracy. BSU research studies human beings and how they behave as individuals and groups with a spe-cific focus on internal and external reactions to stimuli. This comes from the position that behavior is a function of the person and the environment (Lewin, 2007), which can be expressed as:

B = f(P,E)

Social science disciplines such as psychology, sociology, criminology, and conflict studies underscore and inform this research. Research validates the training programs. Practice, in the form of case and operational consultation, keeps BSU instructors credible to the learners and prevents them from becoming stale.

Effective Communication At its core, instruction is a knowledge-trans-fer process that is reliant on effective com-munication. Communication, in general, entails the concept that a message is being conveyed from a sender to a receiver (see Figure 2). More specifically, it involves the process of codifying knowledge into an eas-ily transmitted bundle of information that can be sent from one entity (the sender) to another (the receiver) (Shannon & Weaver, 1949; Schramm, 1954; Berlo, 1960). As the recipient of codified information, the receiv-er must decode the information bundle and absorb (or reject) the knowledge contained in the message. Within an instruction paradigm, com-munication entails the delivery of knowl-edge from the instructor to a student, or in some cases from a presenter to an audience. Furthermore, in a learning environment,

communication is best regarded as a two-way street that enables the instructor to transfer knowledge to a student and receive feedback from the student to enhance and modify further instruction. In instruction, the primary objective of communication is to provide students with appropriate knowledge that has been codified into an easily decoded and interpretable form. Thus, the method of instructor communication should ensure that once the information has been received by a student, it is clear, understandable, and pertinent to the topic at hand. In communication it is always possible that a receiver is unaware of a sender’s mes-sage, the receiver is uninterested in the send-er’s message, the sender miscommunicates a message, or the receiver altogether misinter-prets the sender’s message. These issues can usually be traced to ambient confusion that confounds the communicative process. In instruction, this “noise” can be related to the environment of the instruction, physiologi-cal impairment of the instructor or student, semantic inconsistencies, syntactical noise, organizational structure, cultural differences, or even the psychological or emotional state of the instructor or student (Berko, Wolvin, & Wolvin, 2010). With all of the possibilities for faulty com-munication, it is sometimes a wonder that messages are ever conveyed with any sense of accuracy. Effective communication must involve three elements: a sender with a clear message, an unambiguous and well delivered message, and a receptive audience. Without all of these elements, a communication is doomed to noise and confusion. For a communication to be effective, the receiver must be receptive. There is no sense in transmitting a radio signal if the receiving radio is turned off. In the same respect, the ambient noise encountered during instruc-tion can effectively overpower a student and turn the student’s desire or ability to receive a message off. Much of the noise encountered

FIGURE 1: Factors of Effective Instruction

FEAT

UR

E


Factors of EffectiveInstruction

Knowledge Delivery

Credibility

FIGURE 2: Sender-Receiver Conveyance

WWW.ACFEI.COM • (800) 592-1399

during communication and the instructional process can be traced to the student’s percep-tion of the instructor. How an instructor communicates affects how the topic of instruction is received. Furthermore, the initial receptivity of the audience is an important part of “priming” the audience to accept and absorb the topic of instruction. The initial receptivity of an audience is often determined prior to any face-to-face contact with an instructor and may have more to do with word of mouth about quality of instruction from previ-ous students, the institution the instructor represents, or the perceived relevance of the topic to the students’ short- and long-term goals. The receptivity of an audience may be further affected by the physical location, time-of-day, or even timeliness of the topic. The bottom line is that there are a huge number of factors that will affect the audi-ence’s interest, motivation, or even the abil-ity to receive a message (Brookfield, 1995; Madonic, 2001). While all of the factors that affect student receptivity cannot be controlled by an in-structor, there are certainly some factors that the instructor can directly influence and oth-ers that an instructor can, at the very least, manage. For instance, the instructor does have a certain amount of control over the immediate environment within which the instruction is to take place. If the instructor is to communicate face-to-face then room temperature, classroom configuration, and learning aids such as dry-erase board and presentation materials are all potentially subject to stylistic change. Furthermore, distance learning via Internet or teleconfer-

ence gives the instructor a level of control over the learning environment and how the instructor’s message is conveyed. Even in environments that are fixed or that afford the instructor little opportunity for re-configu-ration, the instructor’s flexibility and adapt-ability are key to effective communication.

ReceptivityIn communication, the receiver’s receptiv-ity, or willingness to accept the message, is paramount to the successful completion of a communication. The message conveyed exists between the sender and receiver, but the reception of the message is internal to the receiver. Successful instruction neces-sitates that a student not only receives the instruction, but also absorbs it. Therefore a discussion of what constitutes a receiver’s receptivity is very important to understand-ing effective instruction.

Figure 3 illustrates the internal process of receptivity within a receiver. When a message is conveyed to a receiver, the message must first be received, that is it must be experi-enced by the receiver in its encoded form free from error or defect. In an instructional en-vironment, this means the student has heard the actual words and seen the actual images that the instructor intended to convey. After the message has been received, it must then be decoded. The receiver must interpret the language, images, and concepts that have been conveyed by the sender, thus, the student must make sense of the instruc-tor’s message. The student must assign mean-ing and value to the message being conveyed. The student will decide if this message is

valid, if this message is meaningful, and if the message is worth retaining. At this point, the student’s impressions of the instructor and his or her credibility as an expert will be evaluated and the message will be given weight or dismissed. If the receiver has validated the message, then the message will be absorbed. This means that the student will accept the mes-sage and incorporate it with previous in-struction, experience, and the overall subject matter. If, however, the message is not ab-sorbed, the student may reject the message and regard not only the message but also the instructor as a non-credible. Within the first few minutes of a com-munication, most people know whether or not there is a reason to be receptive to continued communication, or whether to effectively tune the sender out. In an in-structional environment, one important factor in this decision is whether or not the student respects who or what the instructor represents and whether or not the student clearly understands and accepts the instruc-tor’s perspective. In other words, the student needs to feel that the instructor knows what he or she is talking about.

SenderIn communication, it is very difficult to separate the message from the sender. The sender frames the message, encodes the mes-sage, and delivers the message. As a conveyer of a message, the instructor brings a per-sonal level of experience to the classroom. The sender is the resident subject matter expert and sets the tone for expectations of expertise.

Experience and ExpertiseExperience is a dynamic process that involves the buildup of practical understanding and subject familiarity (Lubet, 1998). Experience leads to special knowledge or skill of a sub-ject matter that is gained through frequent exposure to the subject on a variety of levels. It is the accumulation and cultivation of ex-perience that results in expertise. Experience and expertise grow over time and always af-fect and frame an individual’s perspective. In law enforcement most instructors have, at the very minimum, a generalized idea of how the criminal justice system works, however, often times this general knowledge is not enough to be an effective instructor especially in a highly specialized discipline. Take, for instance, a course on

FEATU

RE


FIGURE 3: Receiving, Decoding, and Absorbing a Conveyed Message

crime analysis. It would be reasonable to assume that a member of law enforcement could speak in generalities about the process of crime analysis. If not an expert him- or herself, then the instructor might consult with individuals considered experts in the field. Ideally, in a course on crime analysis, the instructor would have more than an aca-demic grasp of the discipline because it is an applied specialty. Therefore, in a class on crime analysis one would expect a truly effective instructor to have a certain level of experience in practical crime analysis applica-tion and be able to relate his or her expertise to the instruction. Not only does practical experience give an instructor a legitimate frame-of-reference to inform instruction, it also gives the instructor a higher likelihood of being able to talk off-text on the subject and handle in-depth questions and answers from students. Furthermore, an instructor who has practi-cal experience in the subject matter also has a place as a de facto subject matter expert in the eyes of the students. Even if a class on crime analysis includes crime analysts, the subject matter expertise displayed by an instructor with experience gives the instructor an op-portunity to speak the language of the topic and relate to the class. Practical experience, however, is not the only way to establish a level of subject mat-ter expertise. Research (especially when informed by practical experience) gives the instructor not only the opportunity to evoke a sense of knowledge and profi-ciency in the subject, but also allows the instructor to step outside of his or her own experiential knowledge and provide a more empirically-based perspective. Thus, while it is helpful and very appropriate to speak

to the topic on a personal experience level, it is even more beneficial to supplement that knowledge with empirical research and statistics. Ultimately, an instructor who demon-strates a practical- and research-based com-mand of the subject matter will even further enhance his or her expertise by incorporating a sense of innovation on the topic. While it is very effective to learn of techniques from a practitioner and see the results of research, instruction from the conceptual innovator of the subject matter that underlies the practice and research is even more impressive. Thus, whether you agree with his theories or not, who wouldn’t jump at the chance to attend a class in psychoanalysis where Freud himself is the instructor? Subject matter expertise, then, is devel-oped through practice, research, and in-novation. An instructor will be made more effective and more credible only as he or she accumulates and cultivates an expertise.

Communication and ExperienceCommunication not only depends on the sender’s experience, but also and perhaps more importantly, depends on the receiver’s experience. If a message is sent from a sender who is qualified to send the message, then the receiver must have a means to recognize that the sender is qualified. Thus, a student’s experience, both external and internal to the instructional environment, matters. In fact, while the student may initially ac-cept or reject an instructor as an expert, it is through experience with that instructor that the student may start to change his or her perspective. A student’s long-term experience is de-veloped through involvement or lack of involvement with the subject matter, which

may color his or her initial perceptions of an instructor. However, short-term experience, which is controlled by the instructor and his or her delivery of the subject matter, may reinforce or dampen the initial perception. This may be good or bad. For example, if an instructor has a reputation that precedes him as a great instructor, then student ex-pectations may be dampened if he is, in the short term, less than engaging. On the other hand, an instructor who has a tedious subject may stimulate his students with his delivery style and create a short-term experience that excites and motivates them.

Source CredibilityTo effectively communicate, the sender must engender trust from the receiver that the message is legitimate and appropriate (Berko, Wolvin, & Wolvin, 2010; Berlo, 1960; Katz & Lawyer, 1992; Shannon & Weaver, 1949, Schramm, 1954). In doing so, the sender must establish a sense of credibility. In other words, the sender’s expertise should be in-stitutionally, experientially, and personally believable. Credibility is assigned by the receiver of a message and is intertwined with the receiver’s perception of the sender. While it is quite possible in some instructional environments that there are students who have firsthand knowledge of an instructor’s expertise, the majority of students most likely do not, thus, the instructor must rely on his or her sense of credibility. In an instructional environment that is designed to challenge the student’s understanding, the instructor’s message is likely to be met, at first, with some level of skepticism or resistance. It is the perceived credibility that an instructor cultivates that gives him or her benefit of the doubt from students.

About the Authors

Gregory M. Vecchi, PhD, CFC, CHS-V, FACFEI, is the Unit Chief of the Behavioral Science Unit (BSU), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Dr. Vecchi conducts research, training, and consultation activities in behavior-based conflict analysis and resolution, crisis management, conflict and crisis communication, and global hostage-taking.

Thomas J. Dover, MS, serves as a crime analyst within the Behavioral Science Unit (BSU), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Mr. Dover conducts research, training, and consulta-

tion activities in the use of analysis techniques, concepts, and principles to examine complex violent crimes.

FEAT

UR

E


WWW.ACFEI.COM • (800) 592-1399

Credibility can be categorized as per-sonal credibility, experiential credibil-ity, and institutional credibility. Personal credibility is the sense that students get from the instructor that he or she will un-derstand the student’s perspective. It also refers to the perception that the instruc-tor is honest about what he does and does not know. Experiential credibility refers to the perception that the instructor is qualified by experience, practice, research, or innovation to be talking authoritatively about the subject mater. In law enforce-ment, this experiential credibility may come from knowledge of the instructor’s previous unit assignments or involvement in specific cases. Institutional credibility refers to organizational vetting that assures the student that the instructor is qualified. This type of credibility may take the form of credentials, certifications, or degrees. Institutional credibility can be considered reciprocal because not only does an insti-tution affect the instructor’s credibility but in the end, the instructor affects the institution’s credibility based on his or her performance. Credibility is not necessarily accumula-tive. Unlike experience, credibility may grow over time, but it can also be very quickly diminished by sanction. As a per-ception-driven factor, credibility depends on engendering an enduring trust in the perceiver. Thus if the sender who was ini-tially determined to be credible sends mes-sages that ultimately are not credible, the receiver will reconfigure his or her per-ception of the sender’s credibility. In an instructional environment, the instructor must continue to foster the perception of credibility to his or her students.

DeliveryThe delivery of the message is the transfer of knowledge from the sender to the receiver (Katz & Lawyer, 1992). The delivery of instruction must take into account the sub-ject matter and the student receptivity. The student’s motivation for being instructed, as well as the relevance of the topic to the student must be considered. In communication, there is never one single way to convey a message. In the in-structional environment, there are numerous educational theories and methodologies to construct compelling curriculums and en-courage active learning. These methods are beyond the scope of this article; however,

it is worth mentioning that an instructor who wishes to effectively communicate to his students must understand that students have different modalities of learning. Some students are visually oriented, others learn best through auditory stimuli, and others learn through motion and writing, thus, the effective instructor will show students, tell students, and encourage students to write it down.

Instruction as a Multi-Dimensional ConceptIt is not a stretch to call effective instruction an “art.” In fact, many effective instructors come by their effectiveness naturally; how-ever, for the rest of us who wish to become effective instructors, the study of effective techniques is in itself instructive. Ultimately, the “art” of instruction comes down to the interplay of several factors:

FEATU

RE


FIGURE 4: Interplay of Sender, Delivery Method, and Credibility During Instruction

FIGURE 5: Influences on Student Perception

Sender•Perceived credibility of the sender•Delivery method employed by the •senderReceptivity of the receiver•

Figure 4 illustrates a model of the rather complex relationships posed by instructor communication. The interplay of sender (instructor), delivery method, and credibility as perceived and interpreted by the receiver (student) of said instruction. Note the mul-tiple layers of sender experience and types of credibility perceived by a receiver.

Figure 5 shows a much more simplified view of this dynamic model. It is important to note that while the objective of instruction is to convey a message from the instructor (sender) to the student (receiver), there is no direct way to achieve this. Figure 5 illustrates that credibility and delivery are vehicles for the instructor to convey a message to stu-dents. The instructor must codify the mes-sage (subject matter) and relay it through the delivery method. By conveying a message of expertise and trust through perceived cred-ibility, the instructor has an opportunity to enhance the subject matter directed through the delivery method. Credibility and delivery constantly inter-act and can be used to reinforce each other; however, because both are being interpreted by the student receivers, they also can nullify each other’s effectiveness. Thus an instruc-tor with great delivery but no expertise and, therefore, no credibility will be ineffective. In the same respect, a credible instructor who is highly qualified as an expert but does not know how to properly deliver a lecture will also ultimately be ineffective.

Instructional PathwaysThe model proposed in Figure 5 offers an opportunity to further illustrate the interac-tion of the instructor and student through delivery and credibility. In Figure 6, instruc-tional pathways can be discerned as routes by which the student’s receptivity to instruction is based on the student’s perception of the instructor’s credibility (as it is affected by de-livery method) and the instructor’s delivery method (as it is reconciled with the student’s growing perception of the instructor’s cred-ibility). Note the student only experiences the instructor through the filters of delivery and credibility. It is important to note that this process model is based on dynamic

perception of the instructor by the student which is constantly revised by the student’s experience with the instructor’s delivery and perceived credibility. Typically, prior to any instruction, the stu-dent’s impression of the instructor is filtered by the student’s perception of the instruc-tor’s credibility. Thus, students may have heard of the instructor, read a document authored by the instructor, be familiar with the instructor’s institutional affiliation, etc. Once instruction has begun, the student’s receptivity is affected as a result of the stu-dent’s dynamic perception of the instructor’s credibility which is now informed by the instructor’s delivery methods. Ultimately, effective instruction will be achieved if the delivery method and credibility reinforce each other in a positive fashion.

ConclusionThe interplay between an instructor and the students is complex in terms of knowledge transfer. Instructors must realize that subject matter expertise is only one criterion in effec-tive instruction. The more subjective criteria of delivery and credibility are just as impor-tant and must be taken into consideration for an instructor to be effective.

ReferencesBerko, R. M., Wolvin, A. D., & Wolvin, D. R. (2010).

Communicating. 11th ed. Boston: Pearson Educa-tion, Inc.

Berlo, D. K. (1960). The process of communication. New York: Holt, Reinehart, and Winston.

Bowman, D. P. (1998). Presentations: Proven techniques for creating presentations that get results. Avon, MA: Adams Media.

Brookfield, S. D. (1995). Becoming a critically reflec-tive teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Davis, B. G. (2001). Tools for teaching. San Francis-co: Jossey-Bass.

Horton, W. (2000). Designing web-based training. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Jamieson, D. W. (1999). The facilitator’s fieldbook. New York: Amacom.

Katz, N. H., & Lawyer, J. W. (1992). Communica-tion and conflict resolution skills. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Lewin, K. (2007). Principles of topological psychology. York, PA: McGraw-Hill.

Lubet, S. 1998). Expert testimony: A guide for expert witnesses and the lawyers who examine them. Chi-cago: National Institute for Trial Advocacy.

Madonik, B. (2001). I hear what you say, but what are you telling me? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Pickles, T. (1996). Tool kit for trainers. Tucson, AZ: Fisher Books.

Schramm, W. (1954). How Communication Works in W. Schramm (Ed.) The Process and Effects of Communication (pp.3-26). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Schwarz, R. M. (1994). The skilled facilitator: Practical wisdom for developing effective groups. San Fran-cisco: Jossey-Bass.

Shannon, C., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. n

FEAT

UR

E


FIGURE 6: Importance of Credibility and Delivery on Student Perceptions

WWW.ACFEI.COM • (800) 592-1399C

E ART

ICLE


INTERVIEWwith Gregory M. Vecchi, PhD, CFC, CHS-V, FACFEI

INT

ERVI

EWINTERVIEW

TFE: Dr. Vecchi, how did you hear about the American College of Forensic Examiners International (ACFEI) and start your involve-ment with the association?Vecchi: From 1997–2003, I was a street agent in Miami working organized crime, and I was also a hostage negotiator. In late 2003, I transferred to the FBI Academy to specialize in crisis management and negotiation and eventually landed in the Behavioral Science Unit. As a hostage negotiator, I realize the importance of associations and the networking and training they provide. So before leaving Miami, I searched around and came across ACFEI and looked at it and went to one of the conferences. I met Dr. Robert O’Block, the founder, and became more and more involved and realized it was the right association for me. Through ACFEI I have expanded my network, improved my training and consultation skills, and I’ve made a lot of really good friends.

TFE: Could you tell us about yourself and BSU?Vecchi: I arrived at BSU in January 2006 as an instructor, where I focused on crisis management and crisis communication, because of my experience as a hostage negotiator, my doctoral education in conflict analysis and resolution, and my interest in global hostage-taking. I was an instructor from January 2006 until I became unit chief in September 2008. Traditionally the BSU has focused on violent crime. My predeces-sors in BSU were the ones who originally developed profiling, criminal investigative analysis, and defined and operationalized the concepts of victimology and serial killing. Moreover, nearly all of the specialized units within the FBI (Behavioral Analysis, Crisis Management, Crisis Negotiation, Employee Assistance, Hostage Rescue, SWAT Operations, Undercover Safeguard, Violent Criminal Apprehension, etc.) can trace their history as a “child, grandchild, or great-grandchild” of BSU. Since becoming unit chief, I’ve been reworking the BSU and expanding our scope into emerging threat areas such as cyber and national security, which is in addition to our staple violent crime mission.

TFE: Tell us about BSU.Vecchi: The Behavioral Science Unit has been around since 1972 as part of the FBI’s Training Division, and we are physically located in the basement area of the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia. We are one of a number of training units at the FBI Academy. Our main function here is to train the National Academy students. The National Academy is akin to a war college for law enforcement offi-cers. The National Academy consists of experienced law enforcement officers who compete and, if selected, come to the FBI Academy to train for 11 weeks in the subject areas of their choice. If it’s in be-

havioral science, they take BSU courses. Our courses are accredited by the University of Virginia, so they get college credit for them. In addition to support-

ing our traditional law enforcement clients, we also train the military, the intelligence community, and

our international partners. Along with training, we also conduct research and consultations. Our tag line—the way we

do business—is: if we train it, we research it, and if we train it, we consult it. For example, a former student may call us for help on an unusual case and ask for interview strategies. Let’s say he’s working a gang matter or some sort of case involving aberrant behavior. He may have only one opportunity to interview the subject. We try our best to equip him with some idea of strategies and tactics in order to get the person to confess or at least make admissions based on behavior and our institutional knowledge, which covers nearly 40 years. So we end up really helping them with cases. That’s our consults. The other piece is the research. We’re all about understanding motivation, understanding how an offender thinks. We want to know why they do it, we want to know how they do it, and much of our research is derived from direct interaction with the offenders. In the past, we’ve talked to serial killers, rapists, computer hackers, gang members, hostage takers, and the list goes on and on. Then we take what we learn through that interaction in conjunction with our consultation experience and feed it into world-class training products.

TFE: What is the mission of BSU?Vecchi: The primary mission of the Behavioral Science Unit is to implement original ideas into unique, cutting-edge projects and programs of training, research, and consultation for the law en-forcement and national security communities in alignment with FBI priorities and available resources. Behavioral science seeks to understand offender motivation by examining verbal and nonverbal activities, as well as interactions between individuals and group dy-namics within social systems, for the purpose of understanding the meaning behind behavior and influencing behavioral change. The BSU was established in 1972 with the vision to inspire excellence and leadership in the applied behavioral sciences for the FBI and its partners. Since then, the BSU has pioneered the development of different tactics, techniques, and procedures adopted as industry standards by investigators throughout the world.

TFE: Can you tell us more about your training?Vecchi: The BSU conducts specialized, behavior-based training for the FBI National Academy, New Agents, Intelligence Analysts, employee in-services and Citizens’ Academy, as well as domestic and



TERVIEW

international field schools for the criminal justice, intelligence, and military communities. The BSU has instituted the FBI National Behavioral Research Certification Course to establish Bureau-wide standards for behavioral research conducted by the FBI. Some of our training courses include:

Behavior-Based Investigative Strategies for Violent Crime•Behavioral Science in Cyberspace•Conflict and Crisis Management: Theory and Practice•Crime Analysis, Futuristics, and Law Enforcement: The 21st •CenturyGroup Dynamics•Interpersonal Violence•Managing Death Investigations•Problem Solving/Crisis Intervention•Psychology of Perception and Memory•Psychopathology•Psychosocial Behavior, Mindset, and Intelligence Trends of •Violent Street and Prison GangsSpirituality and Wellness Issues in Law Enforcement Practices•Stress Management in Law Enforcement•Understanding Terrorism: Mindset, Methodologies, and Response•Youth Violence•

TFE: Tell us about your research activities.Vecchi: The BSU focuses on developing new and innovative bodies of knowledge in the applied behavioral sciences to support the law enforcement, intelligence, and military communities to further the Bureau’s strategic priorities. Research is conducted in partnership with clients and outside institutions to support the BSU’s training and consultation activities through descriptive and empirical meth-odologies and publications.

Beyond Survival Toward Officer Wellness (BeSTOW)• fo-cuses on officer wellness and vitality issues to include stress management and spirituality. A six-year research study is un-der way with the DOJ Office of Community Oriented Polic-ing Services and the University of Virginia. Comprehensive Analysis of Military Offenders (CAMO)• supports National Academy classes and the military services with regards to understanding violence in the military and its effect on law enforcement operations. The Pentagon has mandated that the military services consult with CAMO on identifying behavioral indicators of violence specific to DoD personnel as a result of the Fort Hood Shooting Independent Review. Cyber Adversaries of Networks and Digital Asset Users •and Law Enforcement Solutions (CANDAULES) focuses on understanding behavior in cyberspace in both criminal and national security environments. Evil Minds Research Museum• was established to study serial killer and other offender artifacts for the purpose of develop-ing a deeper understanding of offender motivation, person-ality, and intent in order to assist and enhance investigative strategies and techniques.Futures Working Group (FWG)• promotes innovation in po-lice training, research, and consultation in police futures by examining the future of certain crimes by studying behavioral patterns. The focus is on mitigation, prevention, and pre-paredness measures in dealing with future criminal activity.

Global Hostage-Taking Research and Analysis Project •(GHosT-RAP) focuses on understanding the meaning behind behavior associated with worldwide kidnappings through the application of vetted methodologies (Perpetrator-Motive Re-search Design or PMRD) via the interviewing of incarcerated hostage-takers globally. Intelligence and Counter-Espionage Research and Training •(iCERT) project focuses on understanding offender behavior with regard to insider threats and source validation issues. International Consortium of the Applied Behavioral Sci-•ences (ICABS) is a BSU-led joint collaboration with other behavioral units across the world that aims at pooling re-sources, preventing redundancy, and collaborating on com-mon challenges relating to behavior-based training, analysis, assessment, consultation, and research issues. An annual sym-posium supports ICABS activities.Joint Communication Exploitation Research (JCER)• proj-ect draws upon the expertise of members from the BSU and its partners to perform psycholinguistic and statement analysis in the detection of deception and to assist in developing inves-tigative strategies. Studies of Aberrant Violence and Exploitation (SAVE)• fo-cuses on the behavior of individuals involved in both violent and non-violent activities that are deemed as unusual or unac-ceptable in society. Motives involved in this behavior include power, sex, revenge, retaliation, etc. Terrorism Research and Analysis Project (TRAP)• focuses on understanding the behavior and mindset of terrorists, par-tially from interaction with former activists.

TFE: Can you tell us more about your consultations and publications?Vecchi: The BSU supports the FBI and external clients by providing different types of consultative services from an applied behavioral science perspective.

Academic consultations include teaching, lectures, training, •research, and publication support.Program consultations include strategic, tactical, procedural, •organizational, policy, and developmental support.Case consultations include behavior-based investigative and •operational support.

The BSU publishes its training deliverables and the results of its applied research in compendiums, peer-reviewed journals, trade journals, and books for use by the criminal justice and national security communities.

TFE: We are glad to announce that you’re presenting at the ACFEI 2010 National Conference in Orlando, September 22nd—24th. What will you be discussing and presenting at the conference?Vecchi: I’m going to be doing a keynote and a breakout session. The keynote is going to be an expansion of what I’ve discussed here. I really want to put out exactly what we’re doing with our training and research so we can identify partners and opportunities for the people who are there to collaborate with us in a number of venues in order to move our programs forward. The breakout session is going to be on conflict and crisis communication, which is about assessing verbal behavior and applying the appropriate skill sets in order to influence and persuade a person to do as you suggest. n



Save the Date!

CON0310EX


Name Member ID # Address

City State Zip Phone ( ) Fax ( ) E-mail

2011 National Conference Registration FormOctober 12-14, 2011 • Branson, MO • Branson Convention Center

ATTENDEE INFORMATION (please print)

4 Easy Ways

to Register: 1ONLINEwww.acfei.com 2 FAX

(417) 881-4702 4MAIL

2750 E. SunshineSpringfield, MO 65804

3PHONE

(800) 423-9737

CANCELLATION POLICY: All requests for cancellation of conference registration must be made to Association Headquarters in writing by fax, mail, or e-mail. Phone cancellations will not be accepted. All cancelled/refunded registrations will be assessed a $75 administrative fee. All refunds will be issued in the form of credit vouchers and are pro-rated as follows: cancellations received 4 or more weeks prior to the conference=100% refund (less $75 administrative fee); cancellations received less than 4 weeks but more than 1 week prior to the conference=50% refund (less $75 administrative fee); cancellations received 1 week or less prior to the conference=no refund. For more information on administrative policies, such as grievances, call (800) 423-9737. The performance of this conference is subject to acts of God, war, government regulation, disaster, strikes, civil disorder, curtailment of transportation facilities, or any other emergency that makes it impossible to hold the conference. In the event of such occurrences, credit vouchers will be issued in lieu of cash. Conference schedule is subject to change. Please be prepared to show photo identification upon arrival at the conference. A $20 NSF fee will be assessed for each returned check.

Special Services: ❑ Please check here if you require special accommodations to participate in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Please attach a written description of your needs.

ACFEI, ABCHS, APA, AAIM, ICBS, & ACC NATIONAL CONFERENCE REGISTRATIONWednesday, October 12–Friday, October 14All registration rates include one ticket to the Annual Banquet and one ticket to the Working Luncheon. Registration with ACFEI, ABCHS, APA, AAIM, ICBS, or ACC grants you full access to all conference sessions. You will receive only the complimentary conference merchandise for the association with which you register. Student and group pricing is available; please call for details.

❑ American College of Forensic Examiners Institute (ACFEI) ❑ American Board for Certification in Homeland Security (ABCHS)❑ American Psychotherapy Association (APA) ❑ American Association of Integrative Medicine (AAIM) ❑ International College of the Behavorial Sciences (ICBS)❑ American College of Counselors (ACC)

❑ One-Day Conference Pass $249 ❑ Thursday, October 13 ❑ Friday, October 14

Please check the primary association with which you wish to be affiliated (check only one):

PAYMENT PROCESSING

❑ Check enclosed (payable to ACFEI, ABCHS, APA, AAIM, or ACC) ❑ Purchase Order *ACC Members: Check Payment Only

❑ MasterCard/Visa ❑ American Express❑ Discover

Card Number Exp

Name (as it appears on card)

Signature

Total Amount Due: $

$399 $449 $499 $549 $599 $649

$359 $400 $449 $494 $539 $584

$299 $349 $399 $449 $499 $549

$564 $614 $664 $714 $764 $814

Member Loyalty(before 12/31)

Early-Early Bird(before 2/28)

Advanced Early Bird

(before 4/30)

Early Bird(before 6/30)

Regular(before 8/31)

Late/Onsite(after 8/31)

Please circle the appropriate registration rate.

Member

Life Member (save 10%)

Active Duty Military Member

Non-Member

❑ Additional Banquet Ticket $75 ❑ Additional Lunch Ticket $25

CE

ART

ICLE

Interpreting Nonverbal Communication for

Use in Detecting

The views expressed in this article do not neces-sarily represent the views of the FBI.

CE ARTICLE: 2 CE CREDITS


WWW.ACFEI.COM • (800) 592-1399C

E ART

ICLE

“How do you know when someone is lying to you?” This is a question to which many law enforcement professionals might answer “I just know, that’s all.” By saying this, they are presumably not suggesting that they are psychic, but rather that their career-long experience in dealing with all types of lies, made by a variety of people across many different situations, has led them to believe that they have effectively become human lie detectors. Unfortunately, however, these dedicated officers and agents may not be as good at separating fact from fiction as they might think they are, especially if they do not use all of the tools at their disposal. In the following article, the author will exam-ine the typical physiological responses to stress that are at the root of the most com-mon nonverbal indicators of deception. In doing so, she will show investigators and others how to significantly improve their odds of correctly identifying deception in any investigative interview. Through this overview of nonverbal communication, the reader will learn how to more accurately and reliably read people by observing how people’s bodies can betray their innermost thoughts.

Physiology

The Triune Brain TheoryBefore one can appreciate just how effective body language can be as a tool in detecting deception, it is important to understand that most nonverbal cues have their roots in the physiological stress response. Neuroscientist and psychologist Paul MacLean proposed his triune brain theory in 1952. This theory holds that the human brain is composed of three distinct components that act together as one, with each level of this triune brain having developed sequentially, in response to evolutionary needs (Nummela-Caine & Caine, 1990). According to MacLean, the human brain developed in three increasingly advanced levels. He identified these levels as the reptilian complex, the limbic sys-tem, and the neocortex. The most primitive level of the brain, the reptilian complex, is composed of the brain stem and cerebellum. This is the part of the brain responsible for the body’s involuntary life-support functions such as heartbeat, res-

piration, etc. In this system, one also finds the basic survival-oriented impulses, such as the familiar fight-or-flight response, that require little, if any, conscious thought. The next level, which will be discussed in much greater depth below, is known as the limbic system. This includes the amygdala, which associates events with emotions, and the hippocampus, which is largely respon-sible for memory and recall. Finally, the last portion of the human brain to have evolved is the neocortex, also known as the cerebral cortex. It is this outer level of the brain that is responsible for ad-vanced cognition, speech, writing, plan-ning, and voluntary actions, among many other functions (Nummela-Caine & Caine, 1990).

The ability to accurately detect deception is a skill that many law enforcement professionals think they possess, but often, they do not—at least, not at a rate much greater than that of chance. Of course, having this skill would be incredibly valuable in police work, as well as in life in general. In the following article, the author presents an overview of the subtle, subconscious, nonverbal cues that deceptive people reveal as they try to relieve their own discomfort caused by their lies. The author explains briefly the physiological basis of some nonverbal elements such as kinesics, paralanguage, and microexpressions (Ekman, 2009). And, she concludes with some tips to help law enforcement professionals more accurately and reliably detect deception.

By Lydia R. Pozzato, MASupervisory Special Agent


CE

ART

ICLE

The Stress ResponseAnyone who has ever faced a serious threat, real or imagined, can appreciate the rapidity of the stress response and its overwhelming physiological effects, all of which are de-signed solely to ensure survival. This physi-ological response has changed very little since prehistoric times, when human beings were first threatened by predators. Then, as now, the instinctive response that is initiated by the sudden release of stress chemicals like cortisol and adrenaline, activates the lim-bic brain, which regulates the autonomic nervous system (Everly & Lating, 2002). To avoid going into too much detail on this point, it is sufficient to know that the quickest and most effective way for the body to burn off potentially damaging stress hor-mones is for it to move, i.e., to either flee or fight. That is, after all, what the limbic system prepares the body to do, in order to ensure survival. Navarro (2008) pointed out that the stress response should more correctly be thought of as the “freeze, flight, or fight” response (in that order), since those terms more accurately describe what occurs when someone is faced with a serious threat (Navarro, 2008). With most people, their first response to a potential threat, such as a “bump in the night,” is to stop, suck in air, and say (or think), “What

was that?!” Without a doubt, freezing is of-ten an appropriate immediate reaction to physical threats, as it allows one to assess the situation before reacting. Of course, if one happens to be a deer caught in the headlights of an oncoming truck, such a fear response could prove fatal. However, as most animals (people included) have learned over the mil-lennia, moving prey attracts far more atten-tion than prey that is standing still. For this reason, freezing is a logical survival instinct. Fleeing, then, would be the next logical step to ensure survival. And, given humankind’s lack of protective fur, claws, and fangs (in most people, anyway), fighting would typi-cally be left as a last resort.

LeakageSince the stress response makes people want to move, in order to relieve the tension caused by the buildup of stress chemicals in the body in response to a threat, it is easy to understand why it is that the body reveals what the mind conceals (or more accu-rately, what the neocortex attempts to hide through lying). These automatic, and often subconscious—or rather, absentminded movements—are known by many names: nonverbal cues, self-comforting movements, nervous habits, tells, “pacifiers” (Navarro, 2008), etc. Whatever one chooses to call

them, these movements are simply attempts by the body to comfort and calm itself in reaction to stress. An accidental expression of the stress response that originates in the limbic system, but is not actively suppressed by the neocortex, is referred to as leakage. It is important to remember that it is because of the neocortex that people are capable of formulating not only lies, but also the elaborate plans needed to conceal them. It is through the more primitive limbic system, however, that these lies may be exposed. In short, while the neocortex may lie, the body cannot (Navarro, 2008).

Cognitive LoadAnother important consideration is cogni-tive load. This term refers to the fact that people have limited mental resources and are therefore capable of accomplishing only a limited number of mental tasks simultane-ously. While most people are actually able to walk and chew gum at the same time, studies have shown that it becomes increasingly dif-ficult for one to maintain a consistent and believable story when one is mentally dis-tracted by other cognitive demands (Meyer & Kieras, 1997). Although some people believe that they can successfully multitask, recent research suggests that most people are able to concentrate effectively on only one

Cerebrum(neocortex, or New Brain)

Limbic System(Mammalian or Mid Brain)

Reptillian Complex(Old Brain)

Brain StemCerebellum

Corpus Callosum


WWW.ACFEI.COM • (800) 592-1399C

E ART

ICLE

task at a time (Meyer & Kieras, 1997). Just like watching a computer slow down while its operator tries to run too many programs at once, interviewers can observe their inter-viewees’ cognitive processes slowing down as they are distracted by the mental effort of trying to come up with a believable lie while actively attempting to conceal it (Vrij, Edward, Roberts & Bull, 2002). It is when people are in this distracted state that their unconscious mind lets slip those very truths that their conscious mind is working so hard to hide (McAdams, 2008). In short, people say what they mean, even when they don’t mean to say it. Cognitive load, then, may serve to explain the typical increase in speech hesitations, er-rors, and pauses, as well as the slower speech rate, which are common indi-cators of deception when they deviate from the speaker’s norms. It may also explain why there is often a sudden, and noticeable, decrease in illustrators such as hand and finger movements, or a general neglect of

body language, such as that described by Navarro as freezing (Vrij, Edward & Bull, 2001; Navarro, 2008).

Why do People Lie?Human behavior is endlessly complex, and for that reason, it would be impossible to list all of the reasons why people lie. Obviously, the reasons will vary tremendously, from trying to avoid personal embarrassment or punishment to trying to save another from hurt feelings or humiliation. There are many malicious reasons as well, such as trying to cause trouble for another person, or sim-ply, in the case of compulsive liars, because they enjoy it, or cannot help themselves. One could argue that, in certain circum-stances, lying is the grease that smooths out the sticky spots in social interaction and

might even be essential for harmonious, interpersonal interactions (McAdams, 2008). For example, when one teaches one’s children good manners, some of those lessons include sublimating their true emotions in order to spare the feelings of others. This is a neces-

sary part of socialization. One may recall having received

a disappointing gift as a

child and having been told to thank the giver while looking happy about it. This early training in prevarication is the main reason facial expressions are often unreliable measures of deceptiveness (Vrig, Edward, Roberts & Bull, 2006). However, if a lie is evident in someone’s face, it is likely due to the lack of congruence between the speaker’s words and the subtle movements or expres-sions that should support them. For most appropriately socialized hu-man beings, lying is an uncomfortable act. Even when people are engaging in socially acceptable—and even desirable—forms of lying, such as the little white lie of the type that is intended to spare someone else’s feel-ings, genuinely honest people will usually hesitate before making a false statement, even in response to such a question as, “Honey, do these jeans make me look fat?” In es-sence, as with any threatening situation, the responders would need a moment to weigh the impact of their potential responses to maximize the chances of survival. In po-lice work, it is common to see lies by omis-

sion, i.e., people leaving out important details to pro-

tect themselves or others, rather than outright fab-



If po

tent

ially

dec

eptiv

e in

terv

iew

ees

do

not h

ave

a ca

n, c

up o

r ot

her

obje

ct, s

uch

as a

pur

se, j

acke

t or

bri

efca

se t

o hi

de

behi

nd, t

hey

may

use

som

e ot

her,

com

-m

on, s

igna

l blu

nter

, suc

h as

cla

spin

g th

eir

hand

s tig

htly

fold

ed in

thei

r la

p, or

cro

ss-

ing

thei

r ar

ms

in fr

ont,

whi

ch is

an

alm

ost

univ

ersa

l sig

nal o

f clo

sing

one

self

off.

Ges

ture

s us

ed to

em

phas

ize

wha

t is

bein

g sa

id v

erba

lly, t

end

to d

ecre

ase

whe

n pe

ople

ar

e ly

ing.

This

goes

bac

k to

the

idea

of c

og-

nitiv

e lo

ad, in

sofa

r as

the

liars

are

con

cen-

trat

ing

so h

ard

on th

eir

lie th

at th

ey fo

rget

ab

out m

ovin

g th

eir

hand

s. In

his

expe

rienc

e as

an

FBI p

olyg

raph

exa

min

er, Jo

e N

avar

ro

notic

ed th

e ab

ove

phen

omen

on a

nd c

alle

d it

“fre

ezin

g” (N

avar

ro, 2

008,

pp.

26-2

9). H

e al

so o

bser

ved

that

dec

eptiv

e in

divi

dual

s w

ould

freq

uent

ly e

mph

asiz

e th

eir

verb

al

stat

emen

t w

ith a

han

d ge

stur

e th

at w

as

not i

n sy

nchr

ony

with

whe

re it

sho

uld

have

be

en, u

nder

nor

mal

circ

umst

ance

s.

Mov

ing

the

hand

to th

e fa

ce

in a

sub

tle r

eflec

tion

of th

e de

sire

to

cove

r th

e m

outh

an

d ke

ep t

he li

e hi

dden

,

Joe

Nav

arro

not

iced

tha

t w

omen

, w

hen

aske

d a

ques

tion

that

cau

sed

them

str

ess,

wou

ld t

ypic

ally

pla

ce

thei

r fin

gers

at

or n

ear

the

regi

on

at th

e ba

se o

f the

ir th

roat

that

is r

e-fe

rred

to

as t

he s

upra

ster

nal n

otch

.

Mor

e co

mm

only,

it s

eem

s to

the

aut

hor,

whe

n w

om-

en fe

el o

verh

eate

d, th

ey fa

n th

emse

lves

with

thei

r ha

nd,

or e

ven

crea

te a

mak

eshi

ft fa

n, if

mat

eria

ls, s

uch

as p

a-pe

r, ar

e av

aila

ble.

Cro

ssed

leg

s of

ten

indi

cate

re

sist

ance

or

pres

ent

a ba

r-ri

er t

o c

om

-m

unic

atio

n.

Cro

ssed

arm

s ca

n in

dica

te r

e-sis

tanc

e or

pre

sent

a b

arrie

r to

co

mm

unic

atio

n.

The

legs

are

“th

e m

ost

hone

st p

art

of

the

body

,” w

hen

it co

mes

to

reve

alin

g di

scom

fort

(Nav

arro

, 200

8. p.

53).

Perh

aps

beca

use

of t

he im

port

ance

of t

he le

gs in

su

rviv

al, t

hey

seem

to b

e es

peci

ally

sen

si-

tive

to in

put

from

the

lim

bic

syst

em. O

r, pe

rhap

s it

is b

ecau

se t

he le

gs a

re n

ot a

pa

rt o

f the

bod

y th

at p

eopl

e ar

e ac

cus-

tom

ed t

o th

inki

ng a

bout

whi

le t

hey

are

lyin

g, th

at t

hey

fail

to n

otic

e a

nerv

ous

resp

onse

to

a qu

estio

n fr

om t

heir

legs

or

feet

. But

, for

wha

teve

r re

ason

, the

legs

ap

pear

to

be t

he b

ody

part

leas

t ca

pabl

e of

con

ceal

ing

eith

er s

tres

s, or

joy.

One

nee

d on

ly lo

ok a

t th

is p

erso

n’s

feet

to

see

whe

re th

ey w

ould

rea

lly li

ke to

be

at th

at m

omen

t. If

they

are

unc

omfo

rtab

le

and

wou

ld li

ke t

o le

ave,

mos

t lik

ely,

thei

r fe

et w

ill b

e po

inte

d to

war

ds t

o th

e do

or,

or s

ome

othe

r es

cape

rou

te.

Ano

ther

wel

l-kno

wn

indi

cato

r of

dis

com

fort

, i.e

., th

e no

se

rub,

ste

ms

from

the

fact

tha

t th

e in

flux

of b

lood

to

the

ex-

trem

ities

as

part

of t

he s

tres

s re

spon

se m

ay c

ause

a t

ingl

ing

sens

atio

n in

the

nos

e, a

s w

ell a

s th

e ba

ck o

f the

nec

k. T

his

give

s ri

se to

peo

ple’

s ne

ed to

rub

, tou

ch o

r ot

herw

ise r

elie

ve

them

selv

es o

f tha

t tin

glin

g.

A n

otic

eabl

e de

crea

se in

sm

iling

ca

n be

a s

ign

of b

eing

dec

eptiv

e.

A n

onco

mm

ittal

or

half-

shou

lder

sh

rug

indi

cate

s a

lack

of c

onvi

c-tio

n in

wha

t th

ey a

re s

ayin

g, et

c.

Dur

ing

an in

terv

iew

, liar

s, pa

rtic

ular

ly h

abitu

al li

ars,

may

act

ually

m

aint

ain

mor

e ey

e co

ntac

t th

at w

ould

be

cons

ider

ed n

orm

al,

simpl

y be

caus

e th

ey b

elie

ve (i

ncor

rect

ly) t

hat i

f the

y lo

ok a

way

, th

e ot

her

pers

on w

ill s

uspe

ct t

hat

they

are

lyin

g.

Sinc

e st

ress

(as

wel

l as

light

) ca

uses

pup

ils t

o co

n-tr

act,

an in

terv

iew

er m

ay s

ubco

nsci

ousl

y be

com

e su

spic

ious

of a

per

son

with

“be

ady

eyes

,” i.e

., pi

n-po

int p

upils

(Pea

se &

Pea

se, 2

006)

As

with

NLP

eye

ac

cess

ing

cues

, mea

suri

ng p

upil

dila

tion

as a

n in

dica

-to

r of

dec

eptio

n sh

ould

be

done

with

gre

at c

autio

n,

and

only

afte

r es

tabl

ishin

g a

norm

al b

asel

ine

for

the

inte

rvie

wee

by

aski

ng n

on-t

hrea

teni

ng q

uest

ions

to

whi

ch o

ne a

lread

y kn

ows

the

answ

ers.

CE

ART

ICLE

rications, which require more mental ef-fort. After all, as the humorist Mark Twain (1835–1910) is attributed as having said, “If you tell the truth, you don’t have to remem-ber anything.”

Psychopaths and the PolygraphWhile nonverbal indicators can be very helpful in detecting deception, it is impor-tant to note that approximately 4% of the population is estimated to be able to lie suc-cessfully, i.e., they could pass a polygraph examination when they are actually being deceptive (Klaver, Lee & Hart, 2007). Not surprisingly, this is also approximately the same percentage of psychopaths who are esti-mated to be in the United States population (Hare, 1993). When one considers what a polygraph measures—the stress response of increased respiration, heart rate, and perspi-ration—it is hardly surprising that a person who feels no stress at all about lying, such as a psychopath, would have little difficulty in passing a polygraph.

Moderating FactorsThe degree to which leakage can be detected in a deceptive statement depends greatly on a number of factors, including the content of the statement and the type of lie being told, i.e., are they fabricating a complex story with a great amount of detail, or are they simply telling a little white lie? Also of tremendous importance is the level of the stakes of the lie, or the liar’s motivation. This point cannot be overemphasized, be-cause it is generally true that the higher the stakes, the greater the stress associated with making the lie. And, the greater the stress, the higher the likelihood that there will be leakage of nonverbal cues (Porter & ten Brinke, 2010). This fact points to one of the biggest problems with much of the research that has been conducted on this topic. Since it can be very difficult to get honest answers from self-reporting on a socially proscribed behavior like lying, most of the studies that have been conducted on this topic have typi-cally been done in a university setting with a sample comprised of college students who are asked to lie about relatively trivial mat-ters that are of little personal importance to them. For example, they may be shown a cartoon, then asked to lie about which of the characters they saw (Vrij, Harden, Terry, Edward & Bull, 2001). Needless to say, that type of lie would be much more difficult to detect by means of measuring the stress re-

sponse, since the student is unlikely to feel much stress at the thought of being caught in such a “lie.” To the subject in that setting, lying may seem like more of a game than a high-stakes gamble over their reputation for honesty. The context of the lie is also important. Is it interactive or non-interactive? Most people seem to find it more difficult to lie directly to another person’s face than to lie on a written survey. Unfortunately, the survey approach is how many of the studies on lying have been conducted in the past. Other factors to con-sider, with regard to people’s facility in lying, include the time that they have to prepare or rehearse their lie and the number of times that they must repeat it. As is the case with any skill, “practice makes perfect.” A lie told often enough can take on a sense of reality, even for the person creating the lie. In essence, in the liar’s own mind, it stops being a lie and becomes a story to tell, thus reducing the stress associated with telling it. It is because of this that some compulsive liars are said to believe their own lies. This writer suspects that they do not really believe their falsehoods; it is simply that they have come to no longer think of their fabrications as “lies.” The mention of skill, in terms of lying, may cause some concern among those for whom lying remains a social taboo. As men-tioned above, research has shown that lying, as unsavory as it may be to most people, is a necessary evil in terms of maintaining social harmony. Several studies have shown, in fact, that there is a strong correlation be-tween skill in lying and intelligence, as well as in success in social interactions (Nyberg, 1993; Seiter, Bruschke & Bai, 2002). From a law enforcement standpoint, it is very impor-tant to note that with accomplished liars, or those who are well-rehearsed in their lie, the length of the interview will be very impor-tant to the interviewer’s success in detecting deception. Generally, the longer that liars maintain their deception, the more dif-ficult it becomes to do so. This is because their cognitive load increases as they are forced to remember what they have already told the interviewer, possibly hours earlier. In addition, keeping up a false front for a long period of time is extremely mentally taxing. For this reason, when a guilty person is left alone for a long time following a lengthy interrogation, he or she will typically fall asleep, while an innocent person will remain awake and may show signs of fear, nervous-ness, curiosity, impatience, boredom, etc.,

depending upon their degree of stress over being interrogated.

Can a Person Really Be a Human Lie Detector?Despite the popularity of television shows such as Lie To Me, which is based on the pio-neering work of Paul Ekman, discoverer of facial microexpressions; and despite the con-fidence of experienced law enforcement pro-fessionals who fully believe that they possess the ability to detect deception in anyone, the truth is that even the best of the professional lie detectors only have an accuracy rate of about 60% (Navarro, 2008). These trained professionals include polygraph examiners, police officers, experienced interrogators, and anyone else who gets lied to constantly. Unfortunately, their success rate is often only slightly better than chance. In general, people tend to overestimate their ability to detect deception, because in many cases, they are very good at doing it with people they know. Police officers can often success-fully read the emotional state of those with whom they are familiar, because they either recognize the particular habits or cues that their informants or children tend to use, or because they know, on a subconscious level, that something is wrong, when there is a de-viation from the norm. That is, essentially, the secret to reading body language. Typically, deception (or more significantly, discomfort) is exposed either through ner-vous habits or through behaviors that devi-ate from a person’s norm or from what an observer might expect to see. To the poker player, such nervous habits are known as tells, since they inadvertently “tell” what the other players are really thinking, despite their best efforts to conceal their thoughts and emotional reactions. With regard to the deviations from a person’s normal behaviors, though, it is essential that the observer view inconsistencies within the totality of circum-stances, and only after establishing a baseline of behavior for that person.

The FaceWhen asked how a person can tell if another person is lying, most people, police officers included, say “They won’t look you in the eye!” There is little doubt that children who have not yet learned how to be accomplished liars do avert their eyes out of shame, as do many adults who are uncomfortable with lying. However, the fact remains that liars, particularly habitual liars, may actu-


WWW.ACFEI.COM • (800) 592-1399C

E ART

ICLE

ally maintain more eye contact than would be considered normal, simply because they believe (incorrectly) that if they look away, the other person will suspect that they are lying. Vrij et al. have shown that 75% of the population erroneously believes that the best indicator of deception is that liars avert their gaze (Vrij, Edwards, Roberts, & Bull, 2000). Ultimately, gaze aversion alone has proven to be an unreliable indicator of deception since it is so easy to control (Vrij, Edward, Roberts & Bull, 2000). Also, with regards to the eyes, a deceptive interviewee may either blink excessively, or less than one might normally expect, de-pending upon a variety of factors which will be discussed in greater detail, below. A good investigator must remember to compare any behavior with the baseline that they set at the beginning of their interview, as well as considering it in conjunction with other sus-picious behaviors or comments. Ultimately, it all comes down to identifying inconsistencies with what a reasonable person might consider normal, or expected, behavior for any given situation. In addition, after making a false statement, liars will often immediately search the interviewer’s face to see if the interviewer believed their story or not. It is important to note, however, that cultural, social, emotional, and mental health issues can affect an indi-vidual’s degree of eye contact. Cultural issues can also affect one’s interpretation of gestures and the meaning of proxemics.

Unfortunately, people, including eyewit-nesses and police investigators, tend to put far too much emphasis on facial expressions as indicators of truthfulness or deception. However, the author’s personal experience has proven that facial expressions are gen-erally more accurate indicators of the liar’s acting ability than of his or her truthfulness. Without a doubt, those areas over which a person has the most control are the least likely to reveal deception (Pease & Pease, 2006). That being said, there is a means of examining a face to detect possible decep-tion that is on the verge or revolutionizing deception detection.

Microexpressions The term “facial microexpressions” was origi-nally coined by Dr. Paul Ekman who, in contrast to prevailing thought in the 1950s, believed that human expressions are in-nate, rather than being learned behaviors. He identified seven expressions that reflect specific emotions: happiness, sadness, anger, disgust, contempt, fear, and surprise (Ekman & O’Sullivan, 1991). His pioneering re-search supported his hypothesis that these seven expressions are universally understood by every human being, from infant to adult. Since Ekman first made his discovery, an entire industry has developed around facial microexpression recognition and its use in detecting deceptions, as well as in identify-ing potential security threats. Emerging

technologies will enable investigators to record and interpret an interviewee’s micro-expressions while conducting their interview unimpeded and undistracted. This should prove extremely helpful in improving in-vestigators’ accuracy in detecting deception. As it stands now, simply trying to observe microexpressions in the process of conduct-ing an interview may prove too difficult for many investigators who have not had a great deal of training and practice in using that technique. Without such training, it would be very easy to damage rapport, interfere with note taking, or otherwise negatively influence the interview by paying too much attention to the suspect’s microexpressions and not enough to the actual words being spoken. When all is said and done, no matter how good an interviewer is at reading body language, ultimately, it is the witnesses’ or suspects’ statements that are essential to a successful prosecution.

The Eyes Have It!It is impossible to discuss nonverbal behav-ior without addressing the issue of the eyes, which, according to an old French proverb, are “the mirror of the soul.” Based on the assumption that the eyes generally do reflect a person’s mind, one may find the use of eye accessing cues to be helpful in detecting deception (Bandler & Grinder, 1956). This technique, which is an important part of neurolinguistic programming (NLP), has been used effectively by professional men-talists and others to tell when a person is lying (Brown, 2007). The principle behind Bandler and Grinder’s (1956) eye accessing cues is that different types of memories are stored in different places in the brain. For most right-handed people, accessing recalled events causes one’s eyes to dart up and to the left, whereas fabricating a memory causes the eyes to dart up and to the right. Without going into this controversial technique any further here, Bandler and Grinder (1956) argued that, after determining a baseline, an observant person would be able to watch a person’s eye movement to determine which regions of the brain the speaker is accessing, and thus determine whether that person is recalling a fact or fabricating an event. Although the eye accessing cues have proven (in this writer’s experience) to be fairly reli-able and accurate measures of deception, the difficulty of becoming truly proficient in reading these cues, while simultaneously at-tending to what the speaker is saying, makes


Unfocused, forward gaze can indicate either imagining or re-membering something = Vc/r

Vr (Visual remembered) = Seeing a remembered image

Vc (Visual Created) = Imagining images

Ac (Auditory created) = Imagining sounds

K (Kinesthetic) = Either remember-ing or imagining feelings, emotions, or sensations

Ar (Auditory remembered) = Hearing a remem-bered sound

Ad (Auditory digital) = Internally talking to self

Note: This chart applies only to most right-handed people. Always establish a baseline before using. Source: Richard Bandler and John Grinder, (1982)

(NLP) Eye Accessing CuesWhat do those fleeting glances mean? RECOLLECTIONFABRICATION

CE

ART

ICLE

this system less useful that one might hope. As before, it is testimony, not eye movement, that will get a guilty suspect convicted. One recommendation that the author makes to her students is that they audio- and video-tape their suspect’s interview, being sure to get a full-face view of the suspect, if possible. Ideally, there should be no obstructions be-tween the interviewer and the interviewee, allowing for a view of the person’s entire body, including the legs. This would prove beneficial in detecting deception, for reasons explained further, below. Finally, one other accurate measure of stress that interviewers might be able to use (if they are very observant) involves pupil dilation. As anyone who has ever stared into the eyes of a lover knows, emotional arousal is involuntarily revealed by the dila-tion of one’s pupils. Interestingly, studies have shown that people are subconsciously attracted to those whose pupils appear larger than normal. The viewer perceives this as the other person having a positive emotional re-action to them (Pease & Pease, 2006). Not surprisingly, advertisers know this and will purposely enlarge the pupils on photographs of models to make them appear more attrac-tive (Pease & Pease, 2006). The opposite is also true. Since stress (as well as light) causes pupils to contract, an interviewer may sub-consciously become suspicious of a person with “beady little eyes,” i.e., pinpoint pupils (Pease & Pease, 2006). As with NLP eye ac-cessing cues, measuring pupil dilation as an indicator of deception should be done with great caution, and only after establishing a normal baseline for the interviewee by ask-ing non-threatening questions to which one already knows the answers.

Exposing Lies

Kinesics One should keep in mind that observant police interviewers, just like polygraph ex-aminers, looks for signs of discomfort in an interviewee, rather than actual deception, since that cannot yet be definitively deter-mined without knowing critical facts about the case. They also should be looking for inconsistencies, remembering that if some-thing that a witness said doesn’t make sense, or if their story changes, there is probably deception involved. Finally, one should re-member that, as Paul Ekman is often quoted as saying, “There is no single behavior that is indicative of deception—not one.” Of

course, this is not counting verbal behaviors such as when as suspect tells an interviewer a blatant lie that the interviewer knows to be untrue. All these things considered, there are quite a few nonverbal cues that are fairly reliable in helping investigators identify lies or half-truths. There are also a few tips that this author has discovered over the years that might help police investigators uncover the truth, or at least help them to know where, in a person’s story, he or she is being decep-tive. Obviously, it would be impossible to cover all of them in the next few pages; how-ever, the few included below will, hopefully, prove to be of some use to the reader.

Blocking (Defensive) BehaviorsWhen one considers blocking behaviors, one need only imagine the three monkeys that “see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil” to fully understand the nature of blocking behaviors (Pease & Pease, 2006). Just as facial microexpressions appear to be innate and uni-versal, equally universal is the human desire to distance oneself from that which is dangerous, frightening, or otherwise unpleasant. Small children do this very overtly, clamping their hands over their ears when they do not wish to hear a reprimand or covering their eyes to avoid seeing something scary. If one has ever watched children say something that they did not intend to say, what happens? Their hands immediately fly to cover their mouth, as if trying to prevent those words from escaping. These instinctive reactions stay with people throughout their lives. Only as they mature, and learn how to disguise their discomfort more subtly, does one see the hands-over-the-ears movement reduced to a subtle tug on the ear lobe. The hands over the eyes motion can be minimized with a squint and slight turn of the head. Or, in cases of truly distressing images, one can avert one’s gaze. Perhaps the most common form of block-ing used to relieve discomfort is, as men-tioned previously, placing a physical bar-rier, such as a bag, pillow, or even a drink between oneself and the interviewer, or less obviously, simply creating distance which will be discussed further, below. Finally, it seems almost clichéd to say that crossed arms or legs indicate resistance or present a barrier to communication. While this is often true, both of these moves could simply represent a more comfortable sitting position for the interviewee. As always, such actions must be assessed in relation to other indicators, i.e., as part of a cluster of other behaviors.

Proxemics The term “proxemics” refers to the distance that one keeps from others and how that difference affects social interactions. Most police interviewers are well-acquainted with certain tried-and-true methods of position-ing themselves in relation to the suspect in order to elicit a confession. Some of these methods include moving in very closely, to the point of touching knees with a suspect whose demeanor suggests defeat (and thus, a possible readiness to confess). An important part of this is understanding personal space and the effect that invading it has on a sus-pect’s ability to resist telling the truth. But, there is one other important psychological advantage which is related to blocking, as was mentioned above. That is, that suspects must not be allowed to have any object, in-cluding something as seemingly innocuous as a coffee cup or a drink can, that they can place between themselves and the inter-viewer. Amazingly enough, this tiny barrier may be all that is needed to provide suspects with sufficient psychological protection that they will feel comfortable enough to lie suc-cessfully to the interviewer. Now, this does not mean to say that a suspect should not be given a drink during an interview. But, if a drink is provided, the interviewer needs to be aware of how the interviewee is using it. A common trick among job interviewees is to accept the proffered cup of coffee (if there is one) because that will allow them time to think before answering a question, under the guise of taking a sip. If potentially deceptive interviewees do not have a can, cup or other object, such as a purse, jacket or briefcase to hide behind, they may use some other common signal blunter, such as clasping their hands tightly folded in their lap, or crossing their arms in front, which, as mentioned previously, is an almost uni-versal signal of closing oneself off…unless, of course, they are simply more comfortable sitting like that (Navarro, 2008). It is a basic, animal instinct to retreat from danger and move to be closer to that which is pleasing. For this reason, non-sociopathic interviewees who feel comfortable with their answers, and with the interviewer, are more likely to lean forward. Conversely, those who are uncomfortable, and suspect that the in-terviewer does not believe them, will often attempt to place distance between them by leaning away from the interviewer, or actu-ally turning their body so they do not have to face the interviewer directly. This signal


WWW.ACFEI.COM • (800) 592-1399C

E ART

ICLE

can also be seen in social situations, when a person wants to escape from a conversation. One need only look at this person’s feet to see where they would really like to be at that moment. If they are uncomfortable and would like to leave, most likely, their feet will be pointed towards to the door, or some other escape route.

Synchrony Versus EmphasisLack of congruence is often the key to detect-ing deception on a subconscious level. One may have experienced a situation in which one notices that a friend appears distressed, so the friend is asked, “Is there anything wrong?” At this, the friend answers, “No. I’m fine, thanks.” But the friend’s pained expres-sion tells another story. This contradiction between words and expression demonstrates a lack of congruence that would be most ap-parent when one is familiar with the friend’s behavioral norms. In recognizing deviations from the norm, one should note that gestures used to em-phasize what is being said verbally tend to decrease when people are lying. This goes back to the idea of cognitive load, insofar as the liars are concentrating so hard on their lie that they forget about moving their hands. In his experience as an FBI polygraph examiner, Joe Navarro noticed the above phenomenon and called it “the freeze response” (Navarro, 2008). He also observed that deceptive in-dividuals would frequently emphasize their verbal statement with a hand gesture that was not in synchrony with where it would have been under normal circumstances. For ex-ample, truthful people might shout, “I didn’t kill her!” while punctuating their words by slamming their hand on the table on the words “didn’t” and “kill.” But deceptive people might delay emphasizing their words with a gesture until after the statement was complete, possibly leaving observers wonder-ing what it was about what they said that seemed disingenuous. Often, such cues are so subtle that people only perceive them on a subconscious level. In short, there should be congruence between a truthful person’s statements and the gestures that they use to emphasize them, as well as the expressions on their face, as they make them.

Verbal IndicatorsFrom a psycholinguistic standpoint, it is important to note that typically, the easi-est and most direct way to say something is also the truthful way. Conversely, deceptive

statements tend to be very convoluted and cumbersome, reflecting the cognitive disso-nance behind them (if any) or the attempt to obfuscate or leave wiggle room, should the need arise to have any. As is often seen through statement analysis, deceptive an-swers tend to be longer than truthful ones—full of extraneous information. Yet typically, they will answer the question less specifically, if at all. In the field of statement analysis, this tendency is described as seeking to “convince rather than convey” (Bellmer, A., personal communication, August 3, 2009). A com-mon indicator of this is the oath, “I swear to God!” As any police interviewer can attest, this, and similar phrases that invoke God or religion, are often indicative of decep-tion; although when viewed alone, do not definitely point to a lie. As always, one must establish a baseline for the individual being interviewed. If such phrases are commonly used by the suspect, then they may have no more meaning than other verbal habits, such as saying “you know” or “like.” While these, too, can suggest that the speaker is leaving something out and hoping that the listener will draw the desired conclusion, they may simply be typical of a certain generation or regional slang. Another commonly heard emphasizer, “I swear on my mother’s grave,” more often than not seems to accompany a lie, as would the use of qualifiers, such as “I’m trying to be as honest as possible” (Adams, 1996). Although McClish (2001) points out that three is typically the liar’s number, any police officer can attest to the fact that the statement, “I only had a couple of drinks,” is almost always untrue. In detecting lies, however, it is important to understand the speaker’s frame of reference. For example, of the few people who could successfully “fool” a polygraph, many would do so by reframing the question into something that they could answer truthfully. For example, President Clinton’s infamous statement in his testimo-ny before the independent council regarding the Monica Lewinsky scandal, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” was not ex-actly a lie, because, as he later stated, he “did not have sexual relations as defined by that” (Clinton, 1998). Clearly, in his own mind, he was able to differentiate between the generally accepted notion of what constitutes sexual relations and how he personally interpreted the meaning of that phrase. This is similar to a person being pulled over for DUI saying that he “had only one glass of wine,” which

might have been true, except for the fact that he neglected to tell the officer that his “glass” was the size of a small bucket. As is so often the case, perception is everything. Another common verbal red flag is the declaration, “That’s about it,” at the end of a statement. As most police officers know, that means that there is almost definitely something else left to be said, or that what was said is not entirely true (McClish, 2001). Also, a sudden shift in verb tense from past to present may suggest that a person is ac-tively fabricating a portion of their story, having mentally moved from an event that happened in the past to one that they are observing unfolding in real time. An example of this would be, “I was really tired after working the late shift. So, when I got home, I went right to bed. After I turned the lights out, I heard a loud noise. Then, I see this guy at the window, and I reach for my gun and shoot at him…” However, for this to be helpful, one must first establish a norm for their speech. If they regularly shift between tenses in their speech, then this observation will be meaningless. Speech hesitations and errors, including stuttering, repeating words, omitting specific words, and suddenly using full words when a contraction would be more natural are also red flags. For example, saying “I did not kill that woman” instead of the more expected “I didn’t kill my wife” points to two worri-some verbal indicators of guilt. On the one hand, the absence of the contraction, espe-cially when the suspect had previously been using contractions, is a red flag, as is the de-personalization of his wife (which implies a relationship) and “that woman,” which does just the opposite. Since, however, this is not supposed to be an examination of psycho-linguistics or statement analysis, suffice it to say that these disciplines are closely related to elements of reading body language, such as kinesics and paralanguage.

ParalanguageParalanguage is a subcategory of body lan-guage in which one registers changes (rises) in vocal pitch during deceptive responses. While there has been considerable contro-versy over the value of techniques such as voice stress analysis, there is little doubt that vocal tone and volume can be influenced in relation to stress. While looking at paralan-guage, one should consider such factors as the speed of the response, as well as the onset and duration of the response. Oftentimes,


CE

ART

ICLE

lengthy delays in answering, as well as speech hesitations such as “um,” “let me see…”, or repeating the question are good indicators of possible deception, since they may be provid-ing the speaker with the time needed to fab-ricate a response or to consider the ramifica-tions of lying. Then again, they could merely indicate that the speaker is thinking carefully before responding. One should always get a baseline. And, as with all indicators, the observer must look for clusters of behaviors before drawing any conclusions regarding veracity or deceptiveness.

Some Common Nonverbal Cues Indicating StressFor the most part, men and women expe-rience stress in the same areas of the body and will thus use many of the same self-comforting habits, or pacifiers. However, they often vary in intensity and frequency between the genders—and between indi-viduals of those genders—as well. Some of these shared movements include a decrease in smiling while being deceptive, moving the hand to the face in a subtle reflection of the desire to cover the mouth and keep the lie hidden, a noncommittal or half-shoulder shrug that indicates a lack of conviction in what they are saying, etc. The use of the non-Duchenne, or Pan American Smile, named for the notoriously insincere smile of some airline attendants, involves only the zygo-matic muscles around the mouth and not the orbicularis oculi, or those around the eyes (Navarro, 2008). This plastic smile may be recognized as the fashion model smile. That smile is purposely employed by models in an effort to avoid developing crow’s feet and wrinkles around their eyes and mouths. Another well-known indicator of discomfort, the nose rub, stems from the fact that the influx of blood to the extremities as part of the stress response may cause a tingling sensation in the nose, as well as the back of the neck. This gives rise to people’s need to rub, touch, or otherwise relieve that tingling.

But, as always, before reading into this, one must ensure that the person does not sim-ply have an itchy nose, due to allergies or some other factor. Both women and men may engage in preening behavior, either to help themselves relax or to convey their su-periority. But again, they may simply have noticed a bit of lint that they thought made them look unprofessional! One should not read too much into such movements unless they come in a cluster of other behaviors. Some pacifiers, however, are characteristic of one gender or the other, and these deserve a closer look.

Men’s Nonverbal CuesIn general, men’s self-comforting move-ments tend to be more pronounced than are women’s (Navarro, 2008). In particular, men tend to touch their faces more when stressed and rub the back of their neck more robustly than a woman might. They may also bite their lips with greater frequency. In addition, those with facial hair frequently stroke their moustaches or beards as a self-comforting move. As far as their clothing manipulations are concerned, when asked questions that cause them stress, men may button their coat (adding an extra layer of defense), tug on their pant legs, straighten their collar, or smooth their tie, among other movements. Gulping, which is almost a stereotypical reaction to stress in either gender, is more pronounced in men than in women, simply because of the prominence of the Adam’s apple (Pease & Pease, 2006). Although there are many other cues that cannot be included here, one of the best known nonverbal cues that indicates stress is the collar tug, made popular by the come-dian Rodney Dangerfield. Navarro (2008) refers to this move as ventilation, because its purpose is to help cool someone who has, literally, become “hot under the col-lar.” This move, as one might imagine, does not necessarily indicate deception, but it is a clear indicator of discomfort. This should

indicate to an interviewer that the question that elicited this response is one worthy of greater exploration.

Women’s Nonverbal CuesIn his years working as a polygraph exam-iner for the FBI, Joe Navarro noticed that women, when asked a question that caused them stress, would typically place their fin-gers at or near the region at the base of their throat, which is referred to as the supraster-nal notch. He noticed that if their arms were folded, the speed at which their dominant hand rose to cover their suprasternal notch was directly related to the degree of stress caused by the question. This self-comforting move was sometimes so obvious that he came to call it the “Stress Meter” (Navarro, 2008). In cases in which their necks are not exposed, women may finger the top button on their blouse or play with their necklace (Pease & Pease, 2006). That action could be seen as the female equivalent of tie straightening or the collar tug. More com-monly, it seems to the author, when women feel overheated, they fan themselves with their hand, or even create a makeshift fan if materials such as paper are available. Also, in contrast to men, women tend to touch their faces less, but that generality appears to be limited to women who are wearing makeup. Some other clothing manipula-tions that women may perform include (but are not limited to) closing the gap at their neck if their blouse is open and tugging at the hem of their skirt. All of this is done in an effort to reduce their stress and increase their comfort level. Since most women do not have facial hair to play with (not typically, anyway), they tend to restrict their self-comforting movements to hair twirling and other, more subtle movements. While hair twirling is not restricted to women, it is seen more com-monly among women, simply because they often have longer hair than men. Obviously, these gender-specific observations are not

About the Author

Lydia R. Pozzato, MA, is a Supervisory Special Agent in the FBI’s Behavioral Science Unit at the FBI Academy, in Quantico, Virginia. Prior to joining the Bureau, SSA Pozzato was a Military Intelligence officer with the U.S. Army and, among other duties, provided training in interviewing and interrogation. Today, at the FBI Academy, SSA Pozzato instructs national and international law enforcement leaders in a wide variety of topics, to include psycholinguistic and behav-ioral analysis, death investigations, cognitive interviewing, psychopathology, perception, and memory, etc. As a founding member of the FBI’s Joint Communications Exploitation and Research (JCER) project team, SSA Pozzato consults on challenging cases, and assists investigators in detecting deception through statement analysis and the observation of nonverbal cues.


WWW.ACFEI.COM • (800) 592-1399C

E ART

ICLE

universally true. And, because of the tre-mendous diversity in human behavior, they remain broad generalizations. But, they are generalizations that are based on research and on the personal and professional experiences of this author and many others who have written on this subject.

A Few Final Tips for Exposing LiesAs mentioned above, accomplished, or path-ological, liars can rehearse a fabrication to the point that it no longer appears to be de-ceptive. This is because they come to know their lie so well that they are able to think of it as a story rather than a lie. To counter this, one might consider employing a very useful technique borrowed from the field of cognitive interviewing, which was developed by Fisher and Geiselman (1992). To expose an elaborate deceit, the interviewer should have the questioned witnesses tell their sto-ries backward (in reverse order). What typi-cally happens in this situation, particularly if the story is long and highly complex, is that the deceptive person will forget important details, or leave significant pauses, as he or she tries to remember the various compo-nents of the fabrication. However, the main purpose of doing this is to increase the stress that this puts on the storyteller, which may expose more nonverbal cues than they might otherwise have displayed. Needless to say, one would not wish to cause distress in an innocent person. But, it is often through an innocent person’s anger and indignation at being unjustly accused that their innocence is supported. For ex-ample, the interviewer might ask, “Did you kill your wife?” An innocent person might respond (quickly), “No! I didn’t kill my wife!” Conversely, when a guilty person is directly accused, they often do not rapidly and definitively deny the accusation, but rather will repeat the question, buying time to think of an appropriate response. Or, a guilty person might respond, “I would never hurt my wife” (not answering the question asked), or they might turn it around and ask, “You think I killed my wife?” On a final point regarding body language, this author can confirm, from personal ex-perience, that Navarro’s observation that the legs are “the most honest part of the body” is true, when it comes to revealing discom-fort (Navarro, 2008). Perhaps because of the importance of the legs in survival, they seem to be especially responsive to input from the limbic system. Or, perhaps it is because the

legs are not a part of the body that people are accustomed to thinking about while they are lying that they fail to notice a nervous re-sponse to a question coming from their legs or feet. But, for whatever reason, the legs appear to be the body part least capable of concealing either stress or joy. This is very evident with children, who will literally jump for joy when happy, but it is only slightly less so with adults (Navarro, 2008; Pease & Pease, 2006). Since the topic of using nonverbal commu-nication to help detect deception is so vast, it is only possible to offer a brief glimpse here of some of the most common and (hopefully) most useful indicators of deception. It is the author’s goal to pique the reader’s interest in learning more about this exceptionally valu-able tool that can greatly assist police (or other) interviewers in detecting deception. And, provided that the interviewer remem-bers that there is no single indicator of decep-tion, and that the most accurate assessment of deception will come from examining the subject’s words in relation to his or her body language, then the interviewer will have a much better chance of accurately and reli-ably distinguishing between truthful and false statements. At the very least, the interviewer will be able to identify areas that make the interviewee uncomfortable, and thus warrant further exploration.

ReferencesAdams, S. (1996, October). Statement analysis: What do

suspect’s words really reveal? The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Jus-tice, Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Bandler, R. & Grinder, J. (1982). Reframing: Neurolin-guistic programming and the transformation of meaning. Moab, UT: Real People Press.

Brown, D. (2007). Tricks of the mind. London, England: Transworld Publishers.

Clinton, W.J. (1998). Testimony before the independent council. [Video recording]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClfpG2-Bv4.

Ekman, P. (2009). Telling lies. New York, NY. W.W. Nor-ton & Company.

Ekman, P. & O’Sullivan, M. (1991). Who can catch a liar? American Psychologist. 46, 913-920.

Everly, Jr., G. S. & Lating, J. M. (2002). A clinical guide to the treatment of the human stress response (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers

Fisher, R. and Geiselman, R. (1992). Memory-en-hancing techniques for investigative interviewing: The cognitive interview. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas,Publisher.

Hare, R. (1993). Without conscience: The disturbing world of the psychopaths among us. New York, NY: The Guil-ford Press.

Klaver, J., Lee, Z., and Hart, S. (2007). Psychopathy and nonverbal indicators of deception in offenders. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 337-351.

McAdams, D. P. (2006). The person: A new introduction to personality psychology (4th ed). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

McClish, M. (2001). I know you are lying: Detecting de-ception through statement analysis. Winterville, N.C.: PoliceEmployment.com

Meyer, D. E. & Kieras, D. E. (1997a). A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: Part 1. Basic mechanisms. Psycho-logical Review, 104, 3 -65.

Navarro, J. (2008). What every body is saying: An ex-FBI agent’s guide to speed-reading people (pp. 26-53). New York, NY: Collins Living.

Nummela-Caine, R. & Caine, G. (1990). Making con-nections: Teaching the human brain. Nashville, TN: In-centive Publications.

Nyberg, D. (1993). The varnished truth. Chicago, IL.: University of Chicago Press.

Pease, A. & Pease, B. (2006). The definitive book of body language. New York, NY: Bantam/Dell.

Porter, S., & ten Brinke, L. (2010). The truth about lies: What works in detecting high-stakes deception? Legal and Criminological Psychology, 15(1), 57.

Seiter, J.S., Bruschke, J., & Bai, C. (2002). The accept-ability of deception as a function of perceivers’ culture, deceiver’s intention, and deceiver-deceived relationship. Western Journal of Communication, 66(2), 158–180.

Vrij, A., Edward, K., Roberts, K., & Bull, R. (2000) De-tecting deceit via analysis of verbal and nonverbal be-havior. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 24(4).

Vrij, A., Harden, F., Terry, J., Edward, K., & Bull, R. (2000). The influence of personal characteristics, stakes and lie complexity on the accuracy and confidence to detect deceit. In R. Roesch, R.R. Corrado, & R. J. Dempster (Eds.), Psychology in the courts: Interna-tional advances in knowledge. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic. n


EARN CE CREDIT

To earn CE credit, complete the exam for this article on page 126 or complete the exam online for FREE at www.acfei.com (select “Online CE”).



Discuss MacLane’s Triune Brain theory and 1. how it applies to the detection of deception.Explain how the limbic system re-2. acts to stress and how that reac-tion can be used to expose lies.List several common nonverbal cues that 3. people display unconsciously when trying to reduce the discomofort associated with lying.

KEY WORDS: Triune brain, tells (or pacifiers), blocking behaviors, detecting deception, cognitive loadTARGET AUDIENCE: Law enforcement interviewers/interrogators, forensic psychologists, intelligence community interrogatorsPROGRAM LEVEL: BasicDISCLOSURE: The authors have nothing to disclose.PREREQUISITES: None

INTERVIEWwith Lydia R. Pozzato, MA

INT

ERVI

EW

TFE: So, how did you come to be in the FBI?Pozzato: Prior to joining the Bureau, I was a military intelligence officer with the Army National Guard. While I was studying Chinese Mandarin at DLI, I met a couple of female agents who told me that the Bureau “really needs Chinese-speaking agents.” After talking to them, I thought, “Well, why not apply?” Three years later, I got my appointment letter. And, after completing my training at the FBI Academy, I became an agent and was sent to San Diego, where I worked on the Border Corruption Task Force, investigating public corruption matters and alien/drug smuggling cases. I presume that this posting was primarily due to the fact that I had previously served as a Spanish linguist for the military. In addition to Chinese and Spanish, I also speak German, Italian, and French fairly well.

TFE: How did you happen to end up at the BSU?Pozzato: Having started out in the military working in psychologi-cal operations (PSYOPS), I developed an interest in psychology and the behavioral sciences. Although I worked for years in the fields of intelligence, and later, criminal investigations, I always hoped to eventually work in the field of human behavior. I feel particularly blessed to have ended up here, especially after spending about six years out in San Diego working border crimes and public corrup-tion matters. Although I was good at what I did, I have to say that I didn’t enjoy it all that much. Eventually, because I was so successful in working those violations, I was assigned to investigate complex election law matters. While this was very important, high-profile work, I personally found it incredibly boring. So, when an opening for the Tactical Operations Center (TOC) Commander with the Hostage Rescue Team (HRT) became available, I applied for that position. While supporting the HRT was very gratifying work which was both interesting, and exciting, I have to admit that, ultimately, that job was not for me. Or rather, the constant travel was a prob-lem. I’m afraid that I was just too old to be constantly on red-alert. Although it was often thrilling, it’s a young person’s game. I actually began to find it depressing to put in a 10-hour day, only to hear on my way home, the “beep-beep-beep,” of my pager, bearing the command to grab my gear and head out again to points unknown. I have to say, though, that while that job was very stressful, I did get

a big thrill out of deploying via chartered jet! I was with the HRT for about a year, until the opportunity

arose to teach in the Academy, with the Investigative Training Unit. I eagerly took that position, since

teaching is a lifelong passion of mine, and taught there for about five years. However, all that time, I was trying to

make my way down to the BSU. So finally, when a position opened up, I applied for it and got in. Originally, I was brought on board to fill in as the interim stress management instructor, while the full-time instructor was being selected. So, when the person who was specifically hired for that job came on board, I started teaching the Managing Death Investigations course. I was fortunate to have had the opportunity to go through the Harvard Associates in Police Science course, which was extremely informative! In fact, I learned more there than I thought I ever could about death investigations. Since then, I have also studied forensic pathology and a myriad of other topics related to death. However, while I enjoy teaching the death course, my greatest passion has always been psycholinguistics. Currently, I’m pursuing my PhD in psychology, but I want to em-phasize the psycholinguistic aspects of it; looking at, for example, detecting deception in verbal/nonverbal statements. That’s what I

INTERVIEW



TERVIEW

want to eventually teach. I currently teach a cognitive interviewing course, which is a form of interviewing that is very useful. In cogni-tive interviewing, the interviewer encourages the interviewee to use all parts of his or her brain, in order to gather the most information possible. It differs from the traditional question-answer format, and instead, requires the witness to remember facts along multiple retrieval paths. By doing this, an interviewer can obtain a lot more information. Smell is one of the senses most closely tied to memory; for example, you might ask them, “Do you remember any smells?” They may not remember anything until they put themselves back in the scene, mentally, and think, “Yeah, he smelled like gasoline,” or something along those lines. There are a number of different techniques in cognitive interview-ing, including using “recall in reverse order,” which, again, takes them out of the normal flow of things and is actually very good for detecting deception. If you have someone who’s rehearsed their story, you ask them to tell it to you backwards. That’s where they will start slipping up. They’re not expecting it. Something I’m working on right now, and have been for over two years now, is the JCER Project. That is, the Joint Communications Exploitation and Research Project, which is a joint project between the BSU and the LECRU, (the Law Enforcement Communication Resources Unit), which teaches statement analysis. This is another wonderful tool for law enforcement! Are you familiar with statement analysis?

TFE: Not really.Pozzato: You’ll hear terms like “scientific content analysis.” It goes by a lot of differ-ent names, but statement analysis is a field that has become highly respected in law enforcement for its usefulness in detecting deception in written and verbal statements. It’s easier to use with written statements, but it is also helpful in identifying leads in investigations, because, as its practitioners say, “People say what they mean, even when they don’t mean to say it.” So, you really have to pay attention to what people say and how they say it. For example, let’s say you have a person whom you suspect may have killed his wife. With any guilty individual, i.e., the person who actually committed the crime, or who knows about it, there will be certain elements present in their statement that are indicative of potential deception. To obtain a statement for analysis, we typically ask the suspect or witness, “Please write down everything that happened from the moment you got up that morning to the moment you went to bed.” If they are willing to do that, what we often find is that the person will have a disproportionately long preamble that includes lots of extraneous details, such as what he had on his toast that morning. However, the section in which he describes the event (the murder or other crime) will be very short and lacking in detail, as well as being full of equivocation, e.g., “kind of,” “maybe,” “if I remember correctly,” etc. Why do you think that is?

TFE: Because he didn’t want to give anything away.Pozzato: True.

TFE: He didn’t think out his lie enough.Pozzato: That’s possible, because even when they have their story very well rehearsed, the preamble will still be really long, by compari-son. Basically, it’s because human beings, unless they are pathological liars, such as a psychopath, don’t feel comfortable with lying. Now, a lot of that is because they don’t want to get caught, but a lot of it is their subconscious reluctance to go down that path. So, they’re putting off that horrible moment for as long as they can, even if they don’t realize that’s what they’re doing. They’ll give you a lot of “why’s”—why I did this, why I did that—as if they’re trying to convince you of the fact that they couldn’t possibly have done it, as opposed to just conveying information. The statement of an honest person, a truthful person, will have a pretty good balance between sections, overall. Of course, there’s a lot more to statement analysis

than this, but you get the idea.

TFE: I do have a question, on something you said several minutes ago, that written analysis is actually easier than verbal analysis?Pozzato: It’s easier for us to do, physically, because we can number the lines. That makes it easier to determine the balance. We can also highlight the various parts of speech and equivocations. If you’re just listening to a per-son talking, it’s harder to evaluate their state-ment. That doesn’t mean that we can’t benefit from listening to a statement. In fact, what I like to do, from a psycholinguistic standpoint, is to read, listen, and watch. If we’re lucky enough to get an actual videotaped statement, we can learn so much more than we can with just a written statement. That’s a whole dif-ferent discipline within the JCER. It would fall under psycholinguistic analysis, which is behavioral analysis by means of looking at

the words that people use, i.e., the way they express themselves. Oftentimes we’ll get an audiotaped interview which provides only the voices. We then have to transcribe it before we can do a com-plete statement analysis. The transcript of an interview, though, will be harder to assess than a written statement would be, because you have to deal with the potential influence of the interviewer. If you have a good interviewer who uses cognitive interviewing, it will be mostly the witness talking. We can use that. But, with a standard police interview in which the interviewer directs the interview, there is always a risk that the interviewer will subconsciously influence the witness’s responses. A suspect may cue off the interviewer’s nonverbal signals which could affect the success of the interview. For example, let’s say you’ve got a psychopath you’re interviewing. Chances are that anything you say will instruct your subject as to what you are looking for. He or she will then tailor the responses accordingly. A psychopath would be a difficult subject to interview because psycho-paths are also very adept at hiding their true feelings. In fact, they’re probably the most effective liars in the world. They can sometimes even pass a polygraph. Do you know why?

“In cognitive interviewing,

the interviewer encourages the

interviewee to use all parts of his or her brain, in order to gather the most

information possible.”


INT

ERVI

EWTFE: They don’t care if they’re lying?Pozzato: Exactly right! They feel no remorse. After all, what is a polygraph? It measures the stress response. And, they are not at all stressed about lying.

TFE: I have a question about nonverbal communication. It’s in the movies and everywhere, that the current stats say that up to 90% of communication is nonverbal. What is your take on that?Pozzato: I would say more like 80% to 85%.

TFE: But it’s really that high?Pozzato: Oh, yes. People give away stuff (nonverbally) that they don’t even know they’re giving away. We all learn to control our face from early childhood on, so the face is probably the most unreli-able part of the body to use to detect deception. And yet, what do we always look for? You’re always hearing, “Look at his eyes!” Well, again, the eyes can tell us a lot, but a truly accomplished liar knows to suppress, or at least disguise, such overt “tells” as pupil dilation or eye accessing cues. That’s why reading the body is so helpful; because the body is not used to hiding deception. Of course, by reading microexpressions (those little fleeting glances—little things that people do before they’re able to override them through higher-level thought processes) it is possible for a trained person to catch nonverbal cues that appear in the face of a liar. But conversely, we don’t want to spend so much time staring at a person’s face that we forget to listen for what they’re saying. After all, that’s what’s really important from a legal standpoint. You can’t go into court and say, “Well, his microexpressions indicated that he was lying.” You have

to be able to show where in his statement he was actually lying and then confirm it through evidence. This is just an additional tool that we use.

TFE: I have one last question. Not necessarily to you personally, but people in your field. You do, of course, a lot of analysis of writ-ing, of communication, verbal and nonverbal. Is personal bias an issue with your interpretation of all of this? And not just you, but in your field in general?Pozzato: That’s a very good question. It’s something that we look at very seriously. We have to think about where we are in relation to this individual. Sometimes, you may get a crime scene photo that is so horrendous that you think, “How could anyone do something like that to this poor person?” One thing that the legendary Roy Hazelwood (one of the pioneers of profiling who retired from the BSU, but still graciously shares with us his vast knowledge) always tells us is not to call these offenders “sickos” or “wackos,” no matter how much such terms might fit the bill. Don’t make any kind of assumptions. You have to keep an open mind, because otherwise it can easily lead you down the wrong path. If you have a suspect, for example, whose situation, crime, or personality touches a nerve, or brings to mind something in your own background that may cause you to develop a bias in that case, you need to recuse yourself from that investigation and give it to somebody else, because criminal investigators can’t afford to make mistakes. You’ve got to keep an open mind, be a “dispassionate fact-finder,” and let the evidence lead you to the truth. n

The JCER Project Team was formed in October 2008, at the FBI Academy, by members of the FBI’s Behavioral Science Unit and Law Enforcement Communication Resources Unit. Since its inception, the team has provided invaluable services to law enforce-ment and other governmental agen-cies throughout the country, with its members using their individual and collec-tive expertise to provide needed guidance and direction in a wide variety of complex investiga-tions. Team members regularly conduct expert linguistic

statement analysis (LSA) to detect deception in written and verbal statements; provide forensic psycholinguistic

and behavioral analyses to assist in identifying in-terviewing and interrogation strategies; conduct

threat assessments; and identify and provide investigative leads in cold case and active homicide investigations, sexual assaults,

and missing persons cases. SSA Pozzato and Mr. Steven Conlon of the BSU received the 2010

FBI Director’s Award for their assistance in solving several violent crime investigations.

THE JCER PROJECT TEAM



International College of the Behavioral SciencesSM

Membership Application

First Name___________________________ M.I.______ Last Name__________________________________ DOB________________

Address___________________________________________ City_________________________________ State______ ZIP___________

Office Phone___________________________Home Phone ___________________________Cell Phone___________________________

E-Mail_________________________________Fax Number__________________________Designation__________________________

License Number/State (If Applicable) __________________________Primary Specialty Area___________________________________

How did you hear about us? ___________________________________Occupation____________________________________________

Terms of Agreement I certify that the information I have provided to International College of the Behavioral Sciences℠ (ICBS) is true, correct, and complete. I am not providing misleading, false, or deceptive information. I understand that if I have provided misleading, false, or deceptive information, the association will pursue aggressive legal action. I may be asked to provide additional documentation. I understand that ICBS reserves the right to verify any and all information that I provide. If I misrepresent my credentials, refuse to provide documentation at a later time if asked, or allow my membership with ICBS to lapse, I understand and agree that my membership and/or certification status will be revoked and my membership terminated. If the documentation required for the credential or membership status for which I am applying is not received within 6 months from the date of application, I understand that no refund will be issued in the event of the cancelation or denial of my application. I agree that I will notify ICBS in writing of any civil, criminal, or complaint that is made against me. I agree to hold harmless and indemnify ICBS and its officers, directors, employees, and agents for any misrepresentation of my credentials and for all claims, loss, judgment, or expense. ICBS does not endorse, guarantee, or warrant the work or opinions of any individual members. Membership does not imply licensing or registration by the organization of a member’s qualifications, abilities, or expertise. The objective of ICBS’s publications and the activities that it sponsors are for informative and educational purposes. The views expressed by the authors, publishers, or presenters are their own views and do not necessarily reflect those of ICBS. ICBS does not assume any responsibility or liability for its members or subscribers’ efforts to apply or use the information, suggestions, or recommendations made by the organization, publication resources, or activities.

YES NO

� � Have you ever been convicted of a felony? If yes, please explain on a separate sheet of paper.

� � Have you ever been disciplined, or are you currently under investigation, by a legal or licensing board? If yes, please explain on a separate sheet of paper.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Signature Type or print your name exactly as it should appear on your certificate. Date

Membership Categories

Check one of the following levels of membership. International mailing addresses, please add $25 to annual dues to cover additional postage. For membership, please submit a copy of your resume and license (if applicable). For those individuals applying for Diplomate status, please submit a portfolio of relevant documentation by email to [email protected], by fax to (417) 881-4702, or by mail to: Association Headquarters, 2750 East Sunshine St., Springfield, MO 65804. Diplomates, Fellows, Life, and credentialed members of ACFEI, the American Psychotherapy Association (APA), the American Association of Integrative Medicine (AAIM), and the American Board for Certification in Homeland Security (ABCHS) may be able to take advantage of a limited grandfathering period after submitting their portfolio and application for review.

Membership Categories Student Member: $65 annually (Must be enrolled in 9 or more credit hours per semester and provide proof of enrollment) Member: $125 special first-year price; $165 annually after first year Diplomate and Membership Fee: $395 ($250 certification fee + $145 first year’s dues)

Diplomate status is awarded to those who have made professional achievements and contributions to the field of behavioral science. Total $ __________

Payment Information

Payment must accompany application. You may choose the payment method that is most convenient (personal/company check or credit card). Payment plans are available. For the payment plan, a minimum of $150 or more down payment must be made, and the balance can be paid in monthly installments ($100 minimum) by check or automatically charged to your credit card. Certificate(s) will be issued upon full payment. Annual membership dues for the year are $165 for members and $190 for certified individuals. International mailing addresses, please add $25 to annual dues to cover additional postage. There is a $75 administrative fee for all canceled or rejected applications and a $20 NSF fee assessed for each returned check. ICBS does not accept wire transfers.

Visa MasterCard American Express Discover Check Enclosed (Payable to: ICBS)

Money Order

Paid in full $_______

Please accept $______ (min. $150) as down payment and charge $_____ (min. $100) per month until balance is paid in full. Card Number______________________________________ Expiration Date_________________ Signature__________________________________________________

Fax: (417) 881-4702 or Mail: ICBS, 2750 E. Sunshine, Springfield, MO 65804 Phone: (800) 423-9737 Email: [email protected] Online: www.behavioralscience.org

ICB

SICBS


ACFEI invites all current members and mem-bers of the American Psychotherapy Association (APA), the American Association of Integrative Medicine (AAIM), and the American Board for Certification in Homeland Security (ABCHS), to take part in the official launch of the International College of the Behavioral Sciences, ICBS! The ICBS was created to sup-port the theory and practice in the growing behavioral science discipline, and embraces the concepts and practice of the interplay be-tween research, training, and consultation. Diplomates, Fellows, Life, and credentialed members of ACFEI, APA, AAIM, and ABCHS may be able to take advantage of a limited grandfathering period after submitting their portfolio and application for review.

Brought to you by the American College of Forensic Examiners International

WWW.ACFEI.COM • (800) 592-1399IC

BS


Created by ACFEI founder Dr. Robert L. O’Block, the vision of the International College of the Behavioral Sciences is to become the premier international forum for innovative research, information sharing and collabo-ration, practice innovations, and consulting standards in the behavior sciences. The ICBS also strives to become the clearinghouse for professional consultation services in the behavioral sciences. The International College of the Behavioral Sciences’ mission is to bridge the gap between practitioners and academics by facilitating and disseminating cutting-edge research, training, and consultation practices. The ICBS will be working toward establishing a na-tional presence in the coming months as its esteemed advisory board sets the foundation for the association. Chaired by Gregory M. Vecchi, PhD, CFC, CHS-V, FACFEI, the ICBS is poised to bring an entirely new model to the field of the behavioral sciences. The BSU focuses on the behavioral aspects of criminals and terrorists and why they carry out the acts that they do. Using what is commonly called “behavioral assessment and analy-sis,” the staff at the BSU apply their knowledge of behavioral sciences to the task of studying criminal behav-ior. This in-depth analysis helps with both solving crimes and helping the victims of crimes and terrorist attacks. The behavioral sciences are not limited to just behav-ioral assessment and analysis, however. Behavioral science can be broken up into two categories: neural-decision sci-ences and social-communication sciences. Neural-decision sciences involve those disciplines primarily dealing with the choices an organism makes in relation to its environ-ment and anatomy. Some of these disciplines are social psychology, biopsychology, cognitive theory, social neu-roscience, and management science. The final discipline, management science, is applied specifically in the business world to help companies understand employee behavior and improve efficiency. On the other hand, social-communication sciences ob-serve the impacts of language and communication on hu-mans, in broad terms (society) or very narrow terms (self ). Social-communication sciences include those fields which study the communication strategies used by organisms

and the dynamics between organisms in an environment. Some disciplines under social-communication sciences are anthropology, memetics, organizational behavior, and organizational ecology. Behavioral scientists can obtain information in a variety of ways. One of the primary methods is observation of individuals or groups, depending on the goals and impli-cations of the study. A controlled experiment is another way to obtain information for a behavioral scientist. These experiments are aimed at finding the limits of normal be-havior so the scientist may discover the reasons for both normal and abnormal behavior. Behavioral scientists used to be limited to careers in academics, psychology, counseling, or social work. Even when colleges and universities were experiencing high levels of enrollment, there were few openings for behavioral scientists. This concern was raised by some

professionals throughout the educational field. Fortunately, the field of behavioral science has

been redefined over the years, and those pro-fessionals who had very limited options

several years ago now find an abundance of career choices. Some have applied their work to the business world, helping to improve efficiency within organizations, while others work in

low-income areas to help communities and families. Government agencies and

nonprofit organizations have also utilized the skills of professionals in the behavioral sciences in recent years. Some behavioral scientists do not work for one particular company or agency, instead choosing to work freelance so they may apply their skills to many different client companies who seek their expertise. The United States Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is projecting a 10 percent growth in behavioral science careers by the year 2016. Businesses and organizations will begin making room in their budgets for behavioral science experts as the body of literature grows and the field becomes more timely and important. The board members of the ICBS will be holding the first-ever board meeting at this year’s National Conference in Orlando, Florida. This historic meeting will set the precedent for the coming years as the foundation is laid for this groundbreaking new association. n

For more information on joining this exciting new association, contact the CAO at (800) 423-9737 or [email protected]. Don’t wait, get involved today!

INTERVIEWwith J. Amber Scherer, BA

INT

ERVI

EWINTERVIEW

Scherer: I am a contractor for the University of Virginia with the Behavioral Science Unit, so I am not actually an FBI employee. My contract is a dual contract with both the Global Hostage-Taking Research and Analysis Project (GHosT-RAP) and the Futures Working Group (FWG), which is a collaborative ef-fort between law enforcement and academia to examine future chal-lenges facing law enforcement. I work with the program managers of both. I learned of the position through the research I do in the master’s program with the John Jay College of Criminal Justice.

TFE: Which is? Scherer: I am currently pursuing my master’s in forensic psychol-ogy. I do research with a couple of professors. I primarily work with Dr. Gabrielle Salfati on homicide crime scene behaviors and implica-tions for offender profiling. Dr. Salfati is one of the top researchers in the field of investigative psychology and offender profiling at John Jay. She brought this field of research over from the U.K. and started a Center for Investigative Psychology in the U.S. This is why I wanted to enroll at John Jay in the first place. I also work with Dr. Diana Falkenbach on psychopathy research. Dr. Falkenbach is our resident psychopathy expert at John Jay and is also well-known in the field of psychopathic assessment.

TFE: What are you working on now? Scherer: At work, I’m doing basically anything that they need me to do to keep the two projects moving in the right direction, like any research activities in either project. It is necessary to keep the projects up-to-date, mostly with the global hostage-taking that occurs daily, whether it be in the media, in the literature, or information from colleagues. Or, I research what might be the future of a relevant challenge law enforcement faces today. One of the classes we teach the National Academy is “Futuristics in Law Enforcement for the 21st Century,” and I help develop course material for this class. I also plan upcoming conferences for both programs, and I attend conferences that are relevant to the projects and their goals.

TFE: Do you see yourself as staying with the FBI for a while? Scherer: I would like to. In order to start here at BSU I was going to originally try to pursue an unpaid internship position, but due

to budgetary constraints I found out they were not offering any internships. I soon found out about this

prospect to be a contractor in November of 2009 and began the job in February 2010.

This is an incredible opportunity for me that doesn’t come along often. I am so fortunate to come to work every day with great people and learn from experts in their field.

TFE: So with the background you’re building, and bearing in mind that you said you’re interested in staying with the FBI, what would be your ideal job with the FBI? Scherer: I like the research field. Given everything that we have going on here at the BSU, everyone has his or her own research project on top of training and consultations. Of course, if I could choose, I would love to stay here and do the training and teaching and develop my own research project as well. That is what I would ideally like to do.

TFE: Do you look to become an agent? Scherer: Originally, that’s what I thought I wanted to do, but the more I became interested in research and methodologies and how they can be applied to real-world settings, the more I liked it, so I think I would like to consider that option as well.

TFE: Do you have any thoughts on what type of research you’d be interested in? Scherer: I am still interested in the research that I did with the two professors at John Jay. I am also working on completing my thesis, with Dr. Salfati as my advisor. Juvenile homicide was my main in-terest for a while when I began researching the subject matter as I, along with a colleague, completed a research project in this area. I have done some work on a research proposal that looks at hostage-taking offenders who may also be psychopathic. I have done some work on the Future of Homicide, examining both offending and investigations. Finally, I am interested in the offending trajectory of a perpetrator throughout the crime. More specifically, how be-haviors may change during an offense based on specific behaviors of the offender or the victim and this may furthermore affect the investigation. Overall, homicide or violent crime and psychopathy are still my main research interests. n


INTERVIEWwith Dawn M. Guinn


TERVIEW

TFE: What you do here in the BSU?Guinn: I am currently assigned to the Behavioral Science Unit as an Instructional Research Analyst. I assist instructors with their classes, conferences, and research. I maintain the unit’s travel budget and serve as the liaison between BSU and the Financial Resources Unit here at the Academy. I am responsible for updating and maintaining the unit’s internal Web site. In the near future I will be updating the BSU information on the external Web site and the Law Enforcement Online site.

TFE: Could you tell me some more about your background?Guinn: I began my career with the Bureau at FBI Headquarters in the Tour Unit. After spending one year on that route, I decided it was time to further my career. I became the secretary for the National Press Office, also located at Headquarters. My primary goal was to get to the FBI Academy. After one year with the National Press Office, a job opening in the Legal Instruction Unit became available. I applied and got the job. I worked there for four years before moving on to become a training technician for the Academy, where I eventually became a team leader for the in-service team. From there, I moved on to the Third Party Draft Office and then to my current position.I am also currently enrolled at Germanna Community College in Fredricksburg, Virginia; I am taking courses for the Graphic Communications Certificate. Over the last several years I have realized that I can use my creativity to help others. I love working with graphic design software to create numerous types of products, including posters and flyers for our many meetings and conferences; I have also assisted with the design and creation of a 100-year an-niversary book for the Academy.

TFE: So would you say that you enjoy being able to apply some of your creativity in your work?Guinn: Absolutely.

TFE: A huge trend we’ve noticed with everyone we have interviewed is that everyone wears a lot of different hats, yourself included. Everyone in the BSU does a lot of different things from day to day. Which part of your work are you most drawn to?

Guinn: I am not drawn to any particular work; I enjoy everything I do because it ultimately falls

within the mission of the FBI.

TFE: It sounds like you’re very enthusiastic about the Bureau and the work it does.

Guinn: Yes. I’m passionate about the Bureau, about the training, about everything we collectively accomplish here. Everything rates on the same level for me because every task or duty performed ul-timately serves the greater good.

TFE: Did you always want to work at the FBI Academy?Guinn: Yes. The Training Division is the heart of the FBI—this is where it all begins for the agents and analysts. Not only do we train our agents here, but also national, state, local, and international po-lice officers, which is the National Academy. Collaboration between the National Academy and the FBI is amazing. I love my job here at the Behavioral Science Unit, and I am dedicated to the Bureau. Both of my parents retired from the Bureau, so I grew up around it. I am very passionate about my job, the training, etc. I give 110%, if not more, each and every day. That’s just who I am. I am extremely proud to work with the folks in the Behavioral Science Unit. n


SM

Protect Your Homeland.Become Certified in Homeland Security, CHS® today.

The CHSSM program has earned its reputation as the premier group dedicated to providing certification, training, and continuing education to professionals across the nation who are committed to improving homeland security. We boast a total commitment to our country’s safety, an extraordinary knowledge base, and an in-place organizational structure that delivers the highest-quality certification and continuing education opportunities in homeland security.

Join us today as we work together to protect what matters most—our families, communities, country, and way of life.

CHS0310EX

OOO GI BILL APPROVED! OOO

The American Board for Certification in Homeland Security, CHS®

2750 E. Sunshine St. | Springfield, MO 65804 | www.abchs.com | (877) 219-2519 | [email protected]


United for trUthA history

The inside story of how the nation’s foremost experts in forensic sci-ence, mental health, and homeland security “United for Truth” and formed the world’s largest, most prestigious network of associations, including the American College of Forensic Examiners Interna-tional (ACFEI), for the advancement of education, training, and standards of excellence in professional credentials.

All new 2010 edition — AvAilAble now

order yoUr copy todAy!

800.592.1399

sAve 10%

UFT0310EX

INTERVIEW


TERVIEW

with Karla A. Benson

TFE: What is your background?Benson: I’ve been with the FBI for a little over five years. The first few years were spent in Records and then a few years in an administrative/human resourc-es capacity. Prior to coming to the FBI, I worked in a variety of positions. I was married to a military spouse and we moved quite a bit. I worked for the Department of the Air Force while overseas, then transitioned to a position with the Department of the Army upon our return to the U.S. I then spent several years with the U.S. Postal Service. Next was the Coast Guard, which was then under the Department of Transportation when I started, then transitioned into the Department of Homeland Security after the events of 9/11. That is when I made the shift toward law enforce-ment, which led to me getting a job with the FBI.

TFE: What did you go to school to do?Benson: I will finish my bachelor’s degree in criminal justice this semester, and I plan to continue on with a master’s program next year. I am still trying to decide which program direction I would like to take.

TFE: What is your role at BSU?Benson: I have a dual role in the unit. I was offered a position based on my experience with records, human resources, and admin-istration. Part of my job involves administrative activities within the unit, such as procurement, records management, and human resource matters. The other part of the job is working with the in-

structors and on the various training and research projects in which BSU is involved. I recently com-pleted a trip to gather reports and information to

create subject dossiers for the Global Hostage-Taking Research Analysis Project (GHosT-RAP). I also provide

logistical and budget support for conferences supporting various research programs.

TFE: What part of your job are you most drawn to?Benson: I am most drawn to the fact that my job is never routine. There is always something happening and the duties vary from day to day, sometimes even minute to minute. The various programs are diverse and interesting, and I feel like I am contributing to the further-ance of the FBI mission with the support I provide to the unit. n

INTERVIEW

Did You Know?

The Tactical and Emergency Vehicle Operations Center (TEVOC) teaches FBI em-ployees and their partners, including DEA and other government and military personnel, how to drive safely and effectively—both to track and catch criminals and terrorists and avoid getting harmed by them. The training prepares drivers to handle an array of dangerous situ-ations, from maneuvering out of a common rear-end spinout to more dangerous techniques such as how to ram a threatening vehicle. The instructors use real-life situation exercises that

give drivers only seconds to recognize danger and react accordingly. Situated on 80 acres, it includes a 1.1-mile road course with two side branches off the main oval; a separate area used to teach a variety of skills including serpentine driving, evasive lane changes, backing, emergency braking, and a skid pan where student are taught counter-steering techniques.


INTERVIEWwith Andrew Bringuel, II, MA

INT

ERVI

EWINTERVIEW

Bringuel: I came to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) after 10 years with Eastern Airlines as the station manager in Milwaukee, and in April 1989 I had the unenviable task of furloughing 50 employees when the company filed bankruptcy. I needed to find another job with more stability; my father knew an FBI agent, so I talked to him about the job. I applied for the Special Agent position in the fall of 1989, and became an agent in February 1990. I just celebrated my 20th anniversary in February 2010. I am currently assigned to the Behavioral Science Unit (BSU) at Quantico. After completing New Agent’s training as NAT 90-04, I was as-signed to Squad 4, in Birmingham, Alabama. Squad 4 was responsible for all white collar investigations, as well as crimes against federal officers. My first assignment was significant because it involved the death of William Vance, a federal judge who was murdered in December 1989 with an improvised explosive device (IED). Judge Vance sat on the 11th Circuit appellate court in Alabama. He was killed when an IED disguised as a Christmas gift was opened in his home. The same device injured his wife. As a new FBI agent, I was assigned the task of looking for 8d finishing nails, similar to the ones used in the IED. Today, I joke that my “claim to fame” is that I’m in a book about the case as a result of my investigative skills, such as they were. Being the newbie to the squad I was only given a small, rather insignificant lead. It was my job to look for the type of nails that were used in the bomb that killed Judge Vance. The case agent gave me a series of pictures depicting physical evidence gathered at the crime scene, including pictures of 8d finishing nails, galvanized, with an off-center punch. He said any nails that appeared to look like the photos should be given to the evidence collection team who would have them “tested.” I began the process with learning how nails are made. I found out that nails are made by “wiring companies.” They begin as long strands of wire, and while one piece of machinery holds the tail end of what will become a nail (that’s why they have those little rivulets at the end), another piece of machinery bites off the front end of the wire, giving it the sharp point. While the nail is still malleable, another piece of machinery hits it on the tail end to give it a dimple, if it’s a finishing nail. If it’s made in Taiwan, the quality control isn’t so good, so the center punch is “off-centered,” giving it a distinct mark. The nails used to kill Judge Vance were in fact galvanized 8d finishing nails with off-centered punches. For about two months I would get samples of finishing nails from Home Depot, Lowe’s, Ace Hardware, and HQ, and I would compare them with the photographs. Simple comparative analysis was about all I was

capable of, and in my estimation none of the col-lected samples matched. In total, I did this for about

three months from April to July 1990. On the Fourth of July weekend I was in Atlanta, Georgia, preparing

my house for sale. New agents are responsible for selling their own home, and mine was still on the market. I spent the

weekend preparing the house and realized there was a broken piece of furniture; I needed wood glue. I went shopping at Kroger grocery store around 11:30 p.m. that night and at the hardware section I noticed 8d finishing nails, galvanized, with an offset punch. They were made by a manufacturer I had not heard of, Basix, and were made in Taiwan. I purchased the nails and brought them back to the FBI field office in Birmingham. I gave the nails to the evidence agent, who looked at the nails and then looked at the picture and said, “Damn, I think we got the nails.” The evidence agent took the sample nail to the case agent, who sent them to the FBI’s laboratory. Eventually the case agent and the lab examiner traveled to Taiwan. They actually traced the nail back to the manufacturing plant. They also dated the nail—metallurgists can actually date nails; as a nail is manufactured by metal machines that leave indelible marks. That metal-against-metal contact will leave microscopic trace markings. The case agent said that the nails bought at Kroger were made about an hour before or after the nails that were used to kill Judge Vance. This increased interest in a suspect, Walter Leroy Moody, as a Kroger grocery store was located close to his home. Moody had been a suspect in the investigation because he had previously built an IED in the 1970s that looked similar to the type used in Vance’s murder. Moody was also a suspect in a murder of a NAACP lawyer in Savannah, Georgia. Moody’s wife cooperated with the investigation and dimed (sic) him out, saying Moody shoplifted the nails from a Kroger grocery store in November 1989. I testified in both Moody’s federal and state trials in 1991 and 1992, respectively. He was convicted and is serving a federal life sentence and is sitting on death row for the state conviction. That was my initiation into the FBI as an investigator—more sheer luck than brilliant investigative technique, I might add. As a result of that, and the bona fides that were created from that experience, I got to do a lot of interesting things as a field agent—at least, to me they were interesting. I worked undercover for a year on a counterfeiting case. I know way too much about women’s fashions—Dooney-Bourke purses, Evan Picone, Starter jackets, etc. I managed an import-export com-pany along with my partner; we made cases against counterfeiters.



TERVIEW

The biggest arrest was against a third-party manufacturer that was counterfeiting Guess blue jeans in Selma, Alabama. We recovered about $2.5 million worth of economic losses in that case. I also worked a RICO investigation that ended up being a money-laundering case against associates of the Genovese family, a La Cosa Nostra family from New York. As the case agent, I led a team that was awarded an Attorney General’s citation. I also worked a number of dif-ferent fraud cases, Ponzi schemes, fraud by wire, mail fraud, bank fraud, insurance fraud schemes, etc., for five years. Then in 1996, I transferred over to the counter-terrorism, civil rights, and computer crimes squad. I was also on the Special Operations Module (SOM), a surveillance group, and a field negotiator. I responded to several bank robberies, the Atlanta Olympics, the Montana Freemen barricade in Jordan, Montana, and Andrews, North Carolina, during the Rudolph search. I was a first responder to the Eric Robert Rudolph abortion clinic bombing, and I worked that case both as an investigator and as a negotiator. Then in 1999, I accepted a promotion to FBI Headquarters as a Supervisory Special Agent in the National Domestic Preparedness Office (NDPO). I was intrigued by the idea of this inter-agency of-fice designed to reduce “stove-piping” of information and looking at counter-terrorism and national security issues. The FBI wasn’t the only agency being accused of this; every federal agency was ac-cused of being isolated, insular, and of stove-piping information. The NDPO consisted of six federal agencies, collocated, with the purpose of sharing information, specifically related to counter-ter-rorism preparedness issues. I happened to land in the Information and Outreach Unit as the supervisor. I talked to communities about connecting consequence managers with the crisis managers. My job was to go out and tell them why they needed to have interoperable communications, why they needed to have standardized personal protection equipment, and why they needed to understand and create policies that were interrelated for terrorist response and then practice those response methods. I did what was referred to as the “Chicken Little” speech: “The terrorists are coming, the terrorists are coming,” you know, “the sky is falling, the sky is falling,” the briefings were intended to get the communities to take the potential threat seriously, as low probability but high consequence incidents. I did that from 1999 to 2001. I left in May 2001 to come to the FBI Academy, and of course, the sky fell on September 11, 2001. In fact, I had been to the twin towers briefing NYPD on September 11, 2000 at the city’s emergency operations center. Transferring to the FBI Academy, I reported to the Investigative Computer Training Unit (ICTU), so I went from counter-terrorism back to cyber-crimes. I taught new agents how to seize computers and how to exploit data off the hard drive in terms of investigative analysis. Essentially, I taught investigative analysis of digital infor-mation. When September 11 happened, I was called back to FBI Headquarters. I worked the Pentagon crime scene collecting poten-tial evidence and classified documents for about three or four weeks before returning to the Academy to resume my teaching duties. In 2005, I came to the BSU where I manage a counterterrorism working group called the Terrorism Research and Analysis Project (TRAP), and I created a National Academy (NA) graduate course I currently teach, called “Understanding the Mindset of Terrorists and the Government’s Response.” TRAP is a research consortium made up of academics, law enforcement officers, and a few not-for-profits. The group currently has 45 members. The TRAP members have writ-ten 13 essays that will be published in a first volume this fall and are

currently drafting another 14 essays. The group also has several field research projects underway. The NA course is a counter-insurgency/counter-terrorism course that focuses on the process that all mass movements—what I refer to as either inclusive or exclusive mass movements—go through in developing a mindset. The course looks at the individual believer as they move their personal identity to a shared group identity through the process of indoctrination, initiation, radicalization, and ratio-nalization regarding the use of violence for their cause. The course looks at mass movements and explores government response meth-ods: assimilation, exploitation, and suppression/containment. The course examines the process of group identification from personal identification. For example, how does one become an FBI agent? It’s assumed that FBI agents join the FBI for personal motivations and arrive with distinct personal identities made up of their personal-ity, background, and attitudes. In my case, my company—Eastern Airlines—went bankrupt. I needed a job that offered good stability and a good pension, and some reward in terms of personal satisfac-tion. I personally identified with the FBI because of past experiences. Once I personally identified with the FBI, I was indoctrinated within the FBI during New Agent training. Through certain initiation rites I was given a new name—my Bureau name is Andrew Bringuel, II, without my middle name. I was given a new language with all kinds of FBI acronyms; I was given loyalty tests including an oath and other initiation rites like getting sprayed with pepper spray. I was introduced to a new social contract, a set of rules and regulations that I had to abide by if I wanted to remain an agent. I assumed a new group identity; I was given a group name, 90-4, complete with a chant: “90-4 we want more.” Then beyond that, I was given cre-dentials and a badge that identified me as an FBI agent, and I joined a hierarchical organization that is a node off of a larger network, an intelligence and criminal investigative network. The process of as-suming a group identity furthered itself, as it often does, in isolation here at Quantico. As a member of a new group isolated from the rest of the world, I was given a uniform, stripped in a sense from my personal identity, and was told I was part of something bigger than me personally; I was now part of the world’s best law enforce-ment organization. Through this process I was indoctrinated, some might say I was radicalized, because I do believe the FBI is the best law enforcement agency in the world. So we ask the question, is the process similar for all groups, good and bad? I study mass movements, and I study the process of devel-oping violent, true believers in mass movements, both inclusive and exclusive mass movements, looking for similarities and differences…trying to understand what brings an individual to identify with a radical group and develop into a radicalized mindset—some would even say inoculated against alternative truths. What makes a person radicalized to a point that they rationalize the use of violence against noncombatants, civilian targets? Moreover, how do the FBI agents and governments respond to those threats and identify, infiltrate, and neutralize those organizations before they have an opportunity to strike criminally against noncombatant targets? My course looks at human behaviors and group identities and teaches how to spot and assess the group member that provides the best opportunity for exploitation in developing a confidential human source. It is through this intelligence-based policing that the government can penetrate and disrupt criminal organizations and prevent exclusive mass movements from threatening our nation. n


INTERVIEWwith D. Darell Dones, MS, MEd

INT

ERVI

EW

Dones: I have been in the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for 23 years and assigned to the Behavioral Science Unit (BSU) for approximately six years. I take a proactive approach to my research and in working with violent criminal matters. My re-search interests include the psychosocial behavior of radi-cal extremists, violent criminals, to include US-based Street and Prison Gangs. I regard gangs as “urban terrorists” because they are considered to be a social network of criminals, which conduct criminal enterprises using violence, fear, and intimidation. I am currently completing a doctoral program in biodefense terror-ism at George Mason University in Virginia. My dissertation broadly hypothesizes, “whether [or not] foreign terrorist groups are attempt-ing to radicalize U.S. gangs into using weapons of mass destruction against the United States.” My efforts are aimed at providing a more accurate account of the psychosocial mindset, behavior, and causation of violent criminal groups. I am also an adjunct instructor with the University of Virginia, located here at the FBI National Academy. The FBI National Academy, through the University of Virginia, provides college courses and credits to senior law enforcement ad-ministrators and executives. This 44-hour course, “Psychosocial Behavior, Mindset, and Intelligence Trends of Violent Street and Prison Gangs,” is a comprehensive study and overview of past and current gang history, intelligence trends, infrastructure security threats, and investigative knowledge of violent street and prison gang subcultures. This course was designed to provide a working under-standing of future gang trends that pertain to global violent criminal organizations, as well as to street and prison gang activities. I am in the unique position to be able to travel internationally to conduct training, research, and behavioral criminal analysis of extreme violent criminals. Also, as an intricate part of international law enforcement liaison and partnership cooperation, I provide the latest research, training, criminal investigative analysis, and behav-ioral consults to global law enforcement. Law enforcement must be able to stay abreast of the “new wave” of violent criminal phenomena currently taking place transnationally and globally. These efforts will assist in curtailing the extreme violent criminal activities conducted by organized crime groups, violent gangs, drug cartels, and radical terrorists. This type of criminal psychosocial behavior must be im-mediately addressed through aggressive law enforcement measures and specific policies, which should be equally shared by local, state, federal, and international law enforcement agencies. An example of the radical psychosocial behavior which is rapidly taking hold—not only in the United States, but also globally—can

be witnessed by the massive criminal integration and expansion of the notorious Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) Street Gang. Over the past several years, I

have been involved with US-based multi-jurisdictional (MS-13) investigations, and anti-gang programs such as

the FBI International Law Enforcement, Central American Law Enforcement Exchange Program (CALE). This exchange

program was created specifically to address the violent and criminal gang activities of MS-13. I have also worked with the countries of Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Mexico, and Canada in an at-tempt to coordinate transnational law enforcement efforts in order to disrupt and dismantle this violent global gang.

TFE: Would you say there’s just a lack of education in general about gangs, or do you think it’s becoming better known? Dones: One of the things I do in the (BSU) is coordinate stake-holder efforts, which address gang trends and intelligence gaps that have not traditionally been addressed in the past. Gang activity concerns are not only seen with US-based law enforcement, but also within other global law enforcement agencies and with citizens who feel the impact of violent gang activity. Again, all law enforcement should be more proactive rather than reactive towards developing more innovative ideas and investigative techniques. Only then can law enforcement continue solving more complex investigative mat-ters in the new millennium. Most stakeholders are unfamiliar with the psychological mindset, behavior, and causation of gangs. Due to the sociopathic dynamics of gang phenomena continuing to grow in both rural and metropolitan cities all over the world, some stakeholders and law enforcement agencies do not think outside the box (non-traditional thinking). Law enforcement agencies, city

INTERVIEW



TERVIEW

leaders, and other stakeholders comparatively continue to view gang activity as an urban problem instead of a global, social, and crime problem. Gang violence and criminal activity will continue to grow if law enforcement fails to stay a step ahead. Global leaders and law enforcement can not continue to conduct business in the same way that they have in the past. Remember, we cannot buy or arrest our way out of the gang problems we encounter. Stifled thinking, lack of proactive measures, and preparedness will only ensure continued violent gang activity. In the FBI National Academy, I teach the “Dones Global Enterprise Theory,” which describes how traditional organized crime groups (Italian (LCN), Asian, and Russian Organized Crime Syndicates), and other global criminal organizations are interconnected. The Dones Global Enterprise Theory explores potential ways criminal organizations socialize with other criminal groups, integrate, and expand their criminal businesses. US-based gangs are theorized by law enforcement and social researchers to be involved in every facet of organized crime and global criminal activity. The Dones Global Enterprise Theory also shows the connections of major organized crime syndicates and how these criminal groups are connected to other major criminal syndicates, such as gangs in the military, entertainment, professional sports, and terrorism, which you don’t hear a lot about. My FBI National Academy classes are always full because I teach violent gang activity from a global ap-proach. I focus on the criminal concept of new gang and intelligence trends for law enforcement. This gang dynamic is taught largely from an academic and operational perspective. The more the Dones Global Enterprise Theory is explored, the further law enforcement investigators and administrators who attend my classes are willing to embrace this theory and the new era of gangs. Prior to the early 1990s, most law enforcement officials did not be-lieve that violent street gangs produced the skills, social networks, or dynamics to operate in the international and global criminal arenas. Most law enforcement officials and stakeholders believed that gangs were loosely formed organizations with very little organizational structure. The past 23 years of working violent criminal enterprises has afforded me the operational experience to expel those notions and beliefs. I have been able to prove—through empirical research and violent criminal studies—that the traditional misconception by law enforcement that most criminal organizations such as gangs are not all as loosely structured, and as unorganized as they once were. Another focus is on the transnational scope of gang and drug violence currently stemming out of Mexico and along the southwest borders of the US violent gang and drug cartels have started another trend of “gang-terrorism,” which is the subject of one of the largest blocks I teach. For example, one of the perspectives I teach is the “Million-Dollar Enterprise.” If there’s a million dollars to be made anywhere globally—in any town, city, province, or barrio—you can expect to see criminal activity. There is always a criminal group will-ing and able to separate a businessperson from his or her earnings, or worse, their life, in an effort to take over lucrative businesses. Major organized crime groups outsource, or use other criminal syndicates, to actually conduct specific criminal activities in a more structured manner. Organized crime groups are considered the “brains” of the criminal syndicate, while the conduct of criminal activity is actually conducted by smaller, less structured criminal organizations (such as gangs), which take all of the risks.

Once the crime has been committed, both the traditional or-ganized crime group and their gang associates share in the profit. Because organized crime syndicates operate as the “brains” during the criminal enterprise and have long-reaching global tentacles, both criminal organizations are more successful. Every criminal agreement starts with a handshake or ad hoc agreement. Such criminal agreements often build up to a criminal affiliation or as-sociation, where there is more money to be made for both criminal organizations.

TFE: Overseas, how do they initially get in touch with gangs over here? How does that communication begin? Dones: A criminal enterprise is the same as in any other non-criminal business or organization. Communication starts with supply and de-mand. If an individual needs drugs, they seek out the best and cheap-est drug supplier. Once an alliance or criminal affiliation is formed, specialized criminal groups begin to put their operations into effect.

TFE: So major criminal organizations, such as traditional organized crime groups, just go seek out what they need? Dones: Because law enforcement has always been more reactive than proactive, violent criminal organizations in the past have tradition-ally been able to successfully conduct unknown criminal activity for short periods of time around the globe. Some criminologists, researchers, and law enforcement officials may have once believed that many criminal syndicate affiliations or associations were more sinister, or something bigger than they actually were. Most major criminal enterprises, such as traditional organized crime groups, and nationally syndicated street and prison gangs suc-ceed by conducting a simple business meeting. For example, criminal leaders will seek out the type of criminal partners with which they desire to combine criminal activity. Criminal partners then justify who they are and explain what services they can provide. Criminal courtesies are usually extended or reciprocated on the other side by the seeker. This is one of the reasons there are over 30,000 estimated gangs cited in the United States and its territories. Actually, that fig-ure is upwards of 42,000; every two to three months, at least two to three new gangs form. The larger, nationally syndicated gangs have global influence with traditional organized crime groups, as well as less structured criminal groups.

TFE: What would you say to our members who are in the field of forensics? We have nurses, we have doctors, we have investigators— what is it that they really should know about gangs? Dones: Gangs are in every walk of life. Gangs are found within 200 miles of where you live. Whatever criminal activities make money, traditional organized crime groups and gangs are involved in them to support their criminal enterprises. Criminal organiza-tions, including gangs, are in forensics, and even pharmaceuticals—anything that makes money. Gangs run their criminal enterprises through coercive means, fear, intimidation, and violence. US-based gangs have been able to extort and steal millions of dollars through criminal enterprises such as health care fraud, mortgage fraud, and identification fraud. n


INTERVIEWwith Tiffany L. Hill, MS

INT

ERVI

EW

Hill: I have a degree in biology, which is an non-traditional background for law enforcement. While completing my undergraduate degree, I worked in a microbiology lab conducting research. Working in the lab, I realized the lack of human interaction was wearing on me, so I began to explore alternate career op-tions. I started volunteering with the Lincoln Police Department, in the Identification Unit, taking elimination prints. I was able to observe forensic science in action and realized there was a way I could pair my science degree with a career in law enforcement. It was then that I knew which career path I wanted to pursue. I enrolled in a forensic science master’s program and started working at the local county jail. I applied for the FBI before 9/11, during the hiring freeze, so I didn’t hear back for two years, which gave me time to complete my graduate degree. Everything happens for a reason! To this day, my mother still asks me, “Honey, are you sure you don’t want to go back to school and get into the medical field?” The idea of becoming a law enforcement officer came from the desire to help—help people with issues, help victims get answers, help people find closure. I am taking my science background and applying it to my role as a special agent—it’s great! I was fortunate enough to have worked in our resident agencies or small offices, which gave me the opportunity to investigate a variety of federal violations. Since I have been in the Behavioral Science Unit, everything has been a whirl-wind. I teach new agents behavioral science classes to help prepare them for the field, and I also teach an Interpersonal Violence class to the National Academy, and I am starting up a research project on military interpersonal violence called the Comprehensive Analysis of Military Offenders (CAMO).

TFE: What is it like being a female agent?Hill: It is different working in a male-dominated field and chal-lenges do come along the way. Wardrobe modification was my first. You have to be mindful of concealing your tactical equipment every day—on duty or off, while still looking professional. Most women’s suits are tailored and don’t have belt loops or pockets. There is no way to conceal a weapon, an extra magazine, handcuffs, and a cel-lular telephone with a tailored suit coat. It took some time to find clothing that was functional, and I am always looking for new ideas. I feel I have a certain advantage in some situations being a female agent. It’s all about people’s perceptions, or how the job is

perceived. And it’s true, people believe what they see on television. They expect the FBI agent to be a

man dressed in a black suit, wearing dark sunglasses. People don’t expect me to be the agent—it’s perfect.

I have found I can move in and out of areas without people suspecting law enforcement presence. Conversely,

people underestimate your capabilities simply because you are a woman, but I guarantee they’ll only do that once! The people I have worked with have all been wonderful. It’s an amazing job, definitely a once-in-a-lifetime experience. No two days are ever the same, but that is also one of the challenges. Inevitably your day will not go as planned, you may not get everything accomplished you intended, however, this is a marathon, not a sprint, and it will still be on your desk in the morning. I’ve learned to always have food, water, and a change of clothes in the trunk of may car, because you never know what’s going to happen.

TFE: So you carry your gun when you’re just doing your daily civilian tasks.Hill: Yes. We take an oath of office to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and you never know when you are going to be called on to do just that. We deal with dangerous individuals. Being the subject or a witness in an FBI investigation can turn someone’s life upside down. We do our best to conduct our investigations without drawing attention, but sometimes infor-mation gets out, potentially placing the case agent in a dangerous situation. If something were to happen and I did not have a way to protect myself or those around me, I don’t know if I could ever forgive myself.

TFE: So now you feel well-prepared for situations that before the Academy you weren’t sure about?Hill: Without question. The academy is intensive and sometimes grueling, but every block of training serves an important purpose. You are thrown into situations that you may have never seen before in order to learn how to deal with them. You learn that practice makes permanent, whether it’s on the range, in defensive tactics, or personal awareness. You will find yourself in a similar scenario in the field and when that time comes, you will just react without thinking. That’s good training.

INTERVIEW



TERVIEW

TFE: Out of everything you’ve done, or what you’re doing now, what is it that gets you the most excited?Hill: I am really excited about the CAMO project. The rate of mili-tary interpersonal violence is increasing, posing a threat to military infrastructure, service men and women, private citizens, and law enforcement officers. To date, no significant research project has examined the behavioral aspects of military offenders and empirically assessed the motivation from the standpoint of the offender. CAMO is a unique research and analysis project that will be conducted in cooperation with military, government, and academic stakeholders. CAMO will build a platform between military investigative analysis, academic empirical support, and perpetrator-motivated behavioral perspectives by examining military offender motivations. This will be accomplished by interviewing offenders to elicit their values, beliefs, and paradigms to determine their motivations for committing acts of interpersonal violence. The resulting data will be used to develop vetted training and consultative deliverables designed to improve mitigation and prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery measures relating to acts of interpersonal violence that enhance and exceed current practices. It is expected that this research project will bridge an existing gap between military investigative analysis and perpetrator motivated behavioral perspectives to effectively address this specialized type of interpersonal violence. n

Military interpersonal violence is an increasing threat that

negatively affects military operations, domestic and inter-

national security, and the interests of the United States. In

response, BSU established the Comprehensive Analysis of

Military Offenders (CAMO) project in October 2009 to

develop and provide training, research, and consultative

products for use by the Department of Defense in col-

laboration with military, governmental, and academic stake-

holders. CAMO is a long-term research project designed

to examine the behavioral aspects of military offenders

and empirically analyze their motivation utilizing BSU’s

Perpetrator-Motive Research Design methodology for the

purpose of preventing, mitigating, and defeating aspects of

military interpersonal violence.

COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS OFMILITARY OFFENDERS

Certified Forensic Consultant, CFC®

Combine your expertise with knowledge of the judicial system by becoming a Certified Forensic Consultant, CFC®.

You are most comfortable and efficient in familiar surroundings: your primary field of expertise. Yet, it can be difficult to put your expertise to work if you are unfamiliar with and uncomfortable in a courtroom setting. The Certified Forensic Consultant, CFC®, program will educate you in the complexity of the American judicial system. (800) 423-9737 • www.acfei.com

AVAILABLE ONLINE

CFC0310EX


INTERVIEW

INT

ERVI

EW

Halterman: The Behavioral Science Unit (BSU) has been of interest to me even before I became an agent. This interest was sparked by the movie depicted in the poster behind you—The Silence of the Lambs. My background is in clinical psychology. I grew up in the tri-state area and worked as the director of a psychiatric outpatient program for children and adolescents. I also conducted behavioral science research in several hospitals in New York City and New Jersey. When I watched The Silence of the Lambs as a young adolescent and the BSU’s and the special agent’s roles were spotlighted, I thought, “Wow, that’s what I am going to do when I grow up.” I was hired as a special agent under the Language Program because I speak a foreign language. I currently coordinate the Southwest por-tion of the Global Hostage-Taking Research and Analysis Project (GHosT-RAP). This project has many offshoots in areas pertaining to kidnappings. My focus in the Southwest portion of the project is to develop a protocol, a liaison with the Phoenix Police Department, as well as with several stakeholders who have a vested interest in the outcome of the project. I will also be conducting some of the inter-views of the kidnappers. The Southwest portion of the project will be the pilot. After the pilot the unit hopes to conduct interviews in Mexico, South America, and the Middle East. The BSU originally reached out to me because of my foreign language capability and because I had been working out of one of our Southwest border Resident Agencies for the past three years. Other projects that I am currently pursuing include research into youth violence, animal cruelty, and attachment disorders. In the 70s, the BSU conducted research on serial killers. You’ve heard of the terms “disorganized” and “organized” as they relate to crime? These terms were coined by the BSU and are still being used today by law enforcement in their serial killer cases. I am very interested in studying individuals before they reach adulthood, before they become serial killers, especially if they show anti-social characteristics. This has sparked my interest in studies on attachment. It is fasci-nating to read about the different attachment styles and how these develop early based on your relationship with your parents. I am particularly interested in what role attachment styles have on youth violence. How does attachment style contribute to violence not only in youth but later in adulthood. These are the major areas of inter-

est for me. I hope to take the GHosT-RAP project into South America. Being from South America, I

would love to be able to spearhead the project and work with the leftist groups involved in kidnappings.

I hope to understand the mindset of a kidnapper and to make available the research findings to the law enforcement

community. Eventually, I would like to be a part of the effort to move the project into the Middle East. My tour in the Middle East sparked my interest in radicalized youth. We are reading and seeing (via the media) more and more reports of radicalization not only in the Middle East but here in the West as well.

TFE: That’s interesting. Is the radicalization of young people hap-pening in the schools or in the streets?Halterman: It depends. When one hears “radicalization,” we all assume it is religious. Radicalization can occur in different areas. It is taking place through the Internet, at the community level, and/or in the penal system. It can be religious and/or political in nature.

TFE: Would you say that’s synonymous with brainwashing?Halterman: I think there is a component of brainwashing in radicalization. Research conducted by agencies like the NYPD, who have vast experience in this area, indicates that certain individuals are targeted. It is not the individual most people would assume—not the economically challenged or uneducated. It is actually the opposite.

TFE: They probably want people with affluence in society. Halterman: They want young adults who are smart. Most of these young adults, like many of us did, are going through a transition in life. They are questioning what or where their place in this world is, the meaning of their lives, and what their role might be. I may be oversimplifying at this point. What I see are young adults who are at times overlooked. One of the issues I address in my National Academy classes is perception. We may have an adolescent who is a killer, but we say, “Oh, it’s just a kid”. Or an adolescent who is a sex offender and again we say, “Oh, it’s just a kid; give them a break.” The youngest child in the U.S. to kill someone and be tried as an adult was 12. Prior to killing, this child had come in contact with law enforcement approximately 27 times. We must change

with S. Milena Halterman, MA

INTERVIEW



TERVIEW

our perception and biases and pay attention to the young and what their behavior reveals.

TFE: Does the entire record disappear when he/she turns 18?Halterman: Yes, if the adolescent was not tried as an adult. And even if the adolescent was to have legal issues later in life as an adult, it is my understanding that their juvenile record could not be brought to light at all. I address how our perceptions of children and adolescents sometimes cloud our judgment as law enforcement officers. Before I became a special agent, I was a clinician and I had a child under 6 who met the criteria for a sex offender. By the time she came to my attention she had sexually assaulted three victims.

TFE: A child under six years of age? Halterman: Yes, a child that was under six years of age. It took me three years to get this child sex-offender specific treatment, because she was so young, physically beautiful, a “pretty little girl,” no one wanted to label her a sex offender despite her sexual assaults. There were certainly other issues involved. There was a history of mental health issues and emotional neglect in the family. What I teach in my National Academy Classes are the cases involving children, adolescents, and adults have many layers like onions. Each of these layers has to be taken into consideration as they are integral parts of the individual.

TFE: Right.Halterman: It is important to ask ourselves in cases where children are acting out at a young age, what will they be capable of doing say at 12, 15, 20, etc. if we don’t give their case the attention it merits? To me this is an important part. Do we need to wait until their violent/aggressive behavior escalates before we do something?

TFE: Obviously, there are a lot of environmental factors that contribute to child development. Do you think there are any in-born predispositions or tendencies for psychologically disturbed individuals?Halterman: I’m glad you brought that point up. I want to stress that there are many variables and combinations of the same that are involved when it comes to a psychologically disturbed individual. There is not one single variable or a specific profile that defines someone who is mentally unstable. Let’s take, for example, a serial killer like Jeffrey Dahmer who was said to have engaged in animal cruelty at a young age. One cannot turn around and then state that every child who tortures animals is or will be a serial killer. Instead, we note that animal cruelty is one of the variables seen in the history of some but not all adult violent offenders. And when we are thor-oughly researching our cases, noting these aspects is very important in understanding the individual, their history, and their behavior. Take a variable like IQ; research indicates that a lower IQ contrib-utes to youth violence. Nevertheless, some violent youth and adults have high IQ. When it comes to youth violence there are personal (biological, psychological, and behavioral), societal (demographic, politics, and culture) and community (gangs, guns, and drugs) fac-tors which contribute.

TFE: Few things are ever “one size fits all.”Halterman: Absolutely, and for me as a law enforcement officer it is imperative that when I am in front of an individual I learn every-

thing there is to know about them and do so in the least amount of time as possible. Knowing everything about the individual helps me to understand history, motivation, fantasies, etc. Most importantly, it helps me to devise a time line that shows how the individual got from point A to point B and what happened during this time period. Many agents who do not have the same clinical background may conduct their investigations without noting variables like family history, for example. They will focus on what led to the individual robbing a bank, the event itself, the here and now. I want to know what happened before the bank robbery, what was going on at home with their spouse or children, what was their childhood like, etc. Is there an overbearing spouse? Did they recently get fired? How many stressors were present? I will use this information to learn more about the individual and this will help me in developing interview-ing strategies. Somebody who is irrational can pose a threat to my partner and me in the course of an interview. Someone who’s calm and feels they are in a safe environment will be more comfortable talking. Knowing about the individual helps me provide this safe environment. I’ll give you an example: If I was in the room with a pedophile and they begin to tell me about their favorite Web sites, while this part is distasteful to me, I’m not going to have a reaction. I’m going to create a safe environment where they feel it’s okay to share these things with me without being judged.

TFE: In these interviews is it ever difficult for you to hear some of the things that are said, or do you find yourself pretty well pre-pared for it?Halterman: Some of it is really difficult. Most of us in the law enforcement community have in some way trained our brains to handle the shock and in most instances not react to the same. If you were an observer during some of our interviews, you wouldn’t know that at times we are really appalled and disgusted by what we hear. During one of my interviews with a pedophile they discussed their interest and fascination with bestiality. In fact, one of their favorite Web sites showed children engaging in sexual acts with animals. As an animal lover and someone who has worked with children and adolescents for most of my life, this was especially gruesome. Was I completely disgusted? Absolutely, it’s tough to maintain your com-posure and not show any reaction. Another case involved a suspected terrorist who felt they needed to describe in detail the manner in which they killed soldiers, females, and males. Did that bother me? You bet, but I always remember that my ultimate goal is to listen and collect information to establish a solid case.

TFE: How do you keep yourself from getting emotionally attached to any of the cases that you work?Halterman: I think my clinical psychology background has helped. As I told you earlier, I was the director of children services for an outpatient psychiatric program. The children and adolescents I worked with had been sexually, physically, and or emotionally abused and neglected. I learned to put my feelings aside because I had a very important job that needed to be done helping these children and their families. At times the children/adolescents needed to be removed from their homes. Difficult? Absolutely, I think training and doing the job over and over again helped.

TFE: It’s got to be difficult.Halterman: Yes, when I conduct psychological assessments for


INT

ERVI

EWspecial agents involved in sensitive projects, I liken the shock of some cases to the first time I witnessed an autopsy. I’ll always remember that first body, but I can’t tell you about the third, fourth, fifth, sixth body, etc., because it just became a routine job I performed on a regular basis. You think “Okay, what is it I need to do or should be doing” and press on. Children, however, always get to you. When an agent tells me about recovering a child’s body, we talk about it as long as it takes to “normalize the event.” You become desensitized to a certain degree. Every now and then however, regardless of how desensitized you are, there are cases that are really disturbing and for me they usually involve children.

TFE: Somebody will always come up with something that will shock you.Halterman: Right. You learn to never say “I have seen it all” here.

TFE: You‘re from South America?Halterman: Yes, I became a U.S. citizen when I was a young adult, through my parents. I was born in South America and I come from a different background than most of my coworkers. I grew up in the inner city in what most would consider the projects. I was the first person in my family to graduate from high school, college, and graduate school. In college, I was in the honors program. There was a class that required that you invite an individual from the commu-

nity to give a speech on their career. I invited an FBI agent from the local field office. At the time, the federal government had placed a hiring freeze on government jobs. The agent basically said “Look, we’re not hiring anybody right now; you should stay in school and continue to pursue your education.” That is what I did.

TFE: A lot of our members ask, “How do I get started on this path?” and “What is it like being a woman in the FBI?Halterman: You know what, it’s tough. It is tough not only as a woman but as a petite, Hispanic woman. I remember at the Academy, sometimes they give you nicknames, and mine was “Munchkin.” There is a particular perception when you walk in the room, and you walk in as a small, Hispanic, female, assumptions are made. That is part of our society, not just the FBI…nevertheless, there are many opportunities for women in the FBI and those perceptions are changing as we speak. I encourage young ladies and young men when I go to schools to follow their dreams. This is especially true when I go to the schools in the inner city where most young adults see becoming an FBI agent as an unattainable goal. When I give presentations at schools, I am often greeted by “We are here to see the FBI agent/guy.” I usually end up saying “Yep, that’s me.” And when I tell them about my experiences, I hope I am also dispelling some of the preconceived notions and perceptions of what defines an FBI agent. n

Share your forensic expertise—submit an article on a forensic topic for publication in The Forensic Examiner®!

Regardless of your specialty or interest in the forensic science arena, we’re sure you have important insight and information to share with fellow forensic professionals. The Forensic Examiner® includes scientific articles, case studies, new research in the area of forensic informa-tion, and interviews with forensic professionals. We will accept article submissions on any topic of interest to our diverse membership base. Share your knowledge and experience with our readers!

Submit your articles to The Forensic Examiner® editorial department by e-mail to [email protected].

Please visit us at www.acfei.com to review submission guidelines, or call (800) 423-9737 for more information.

CALL

FOR S

UBMI

SSIO

NS

CFS0310EX


INTERVIEWwith Teresa P. McDonald

TFE: Please tell us about your Bureau career and share any advice you may have for those wanting to follow in your footsteps. McDonald: My name is Teresa McDonald, and I am a Supervisory Instructional Research Analyst. I have been with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for well over 25 years. I am a professional support employee for the FBI. I have been fortunate to spend my career in a variety of positions within the Bureau. During my early years I held various positions to learn all I could about every topic the Bureau had to offer. I found this to be a wonderful opportunity to gain ex-tensive knowledge on many aspects of the Bureau’s inner workings. If I were asked to give advice today, it would be to take the time to learn. Everyone today comes in wanting to get to the top quickly, but if you have not taken the time to learn, you will not know what is expected of you when you get to those positions. I quickly earned a reputation for always doing the right thing and in the Bureau’s best interests. I was known for delivering a good work product and always doing an extensively thorough job. Managers began to take notice, and I was asked to apply to the Institutional Research and Analysis Unit (eventually this would be called the Research and Analysis Center, RAC). I took the opportunity and never looked back. I had great mentors and I would carry a note pad around taking notes and learning from those with more experience. I wanted to surround myself with people who were knowledgeable. Change was something I welcomed because of its innate ability to prevent stagnation. I became the division representative for the Department of Justice, and I have sat on numerous panels and committees for various di-verse topics. I was involved with a lot of survey research as well as designing and writing programs for them. I became very fluent in the software and began writing programs for databases and various research studies to analyze and interpret the data. During my time in RAC, I handled all New Agent evaluations (these are trainees in class to become special agents), National Academy evaluations (these include 265 law enforcement officers who attend the Training Division four times a year), and all Budapest evaluations (these are international law enforcement officers who attend four times a year in Budapest). During my 16 years in that unit, I had the opportunity to do many interesting and challenging studies. Those that I can mention are being part of the infancy of the New Agent Review Board. A panel was formed to evaluate areas in which a new agent is having difficulty and may be afforded the opportunity to either be recycled into another class or dismissed based on the board’s recommenda-

tion and current protocols. Another component of that unit was the Undercover Program, in which I assisted in the process of standardized evaluations.

I was later chosen to be a part of the three-person team that created the Climate Survey for the FBI. This

instrument has changed over the years as the Bureau has grown. The Climate Survey is one of the many measures

the FBI continues to use to make changes in its leadership roles and to get an overall pulse on how it is measuring up by their own employees.

TFE: What was it like working in Research Analysis Center?McDonald: Working in RAC meant that we were unique in the research services we provided and were therefore always being tasked with the difficult assignments. These studies add a significant impact on the division, which were typically congressionally mandated. Thus, I learned to work well under pressure. One of the most time-sensitive studies I worked on was after 9/11. I was tasked to be part of a three-member team to analyze all the thousands of e-mails that came from the public domain and determined their validity of threat level. This was time-sensi-tive. Ultimately, our analysis was added to a package given to the Director for delivery to the White House. Projects and studies like these have provided me with the foundation to have the un-derstanding and knowledge that the recommendations and policy changes that you make affect others. Your reputation says a lot about your character, and being thorough is critically important in this line of work.

TFE: Tell me about your time in BSU.McDonald: The Behavioral Science Unit (BSU) has been a different type of opportunity. I no longer have a wide scope of responsibility, but a more focused one. I sit on various panels and committees for the Unit, and I supervise professional support staff within the Unit, assisting them with various research challenges and hurdles. I still provide reports, although on a much smaller scale. I serve a major role in the development of Perpetrator-Motive Research Design (PMRD) methodology. This is a multifaceted methodology that looks at “why” someone would commit a criminal act, and “how” they do it, instead of the “who,” “what,” “where,” and “when.” We have partnered with many agencies and are looking to provide shared information that will facilitate preventive life-saving measures. Working in the scope of PMRD has presented unique challenges that continuously push the limits of behavioral science and keeps the BSU at the forefront of understanding criminal behavior. n


TERVIEW

INTERVIEW


INTERVIEWwith John P. Jarvis, PhD

INT

ERVI

EWINTERVIEW


Jarvis: I perhaps have a little different perspec-tive here at the BSU than some others. I am not an agent, and I am not someone who came to the BSU after a long stint in law enforcement. Prior to my arrival in the BSU, I worked on crime analysis for the Bureau and policy analysis for the Commonwealth of Virginia. I have conducted quantitative analyses of criminal jus-tice issues and written academic peer-reviewed law enforcement and criminal justice articles my whole career. These efforts have been con-ducted largely with the Bureau and other academic and government partners during the 15 years I have worked in the BSU. I, therefore, have seen a lot of individuals come and go compared to some of the other current staff. The BSU is at an important crossroads though, as a lot of newer folks and those who have 10 to 20 years of experience in the Bureau are now coworkers here in the BSU. This often leads to fresh and different perspectives for approaching today’s problems. I came to the BSU from our Headquarters operations to respond to two distinct needs that had been identified—one, the need to enhance the volume and quality of research that could inform law enforcement operations at the time, much like the efforts the BSU is doing again today; and two, because of my involvement in the academic community. There was an impetus at the time (in 1995) for the Bureau to become more involved with researchers and other ex-perts outside of the Bureau. Some would argue that this came out of Waco, after which Congress reviewed the facts and determined that the Bureau should be informed by other professionals and academics instead of developing solely their own methods for responding to law enforcement and criminal justice crises. That was the environment that led me here in 1995. With a doctoral academic background in criminology and an undergraduate degree in mathematics, I’ve been involved in quantitative research and analysis ever since.

TFE: What exactly does that entail?Jarvis: Most of what I do has been in the area of crime analysis, and in the last couple of years I took over what is called the Futures Working Group (FWG). That’s the primary area in which I spend most of my time. It’s a bit of a hybrid for me because I’m a crimi-nologist, not a futurist; those are two different endeavors. The whole purpose behind the FWG, perhaps similar to me coming to the BSU post-Waco, was in the aftermath of the tragedies of 9/11 to respond to the need to be more proactive in our analysis and research efforts for what will confront law enforcement in the future. In fact, the 9/11 Commission concluded that perhaps the biggest barrier in preempting the events of 9/11 was the barrier of imagination. As

a result of that, the FWG is dedicated to trying to be more imaginative in terms of what the future of law enforcement might hold, and hopefully provid-

ing some guidance to law enforcement agencies as to what the future might hold. We embark upon numerous

research projects and working groups to write monographs, white papers, or articles that relate to future issues law enforce-

ment may encounter. I do much more of that work right now than mainstream criminological work. So I wear several hats—first, and foremost, I train law enforcement; write criminology and criminal justice academic articles; chair the Futures Working Group; and lastly, I support a number of the research efforts, in a consultative capacity, throughout the Bureau that may or may not be crimino-logical or futures-related. In terms of substantive criminological work, most of my work is in the area of homicide, but it is certainly not exclusive to this area of inquiry. I am an active member in the Homicide Research Working Group (HRWG). That group has been active for nearly 20 years as well, examining all the different dynamics of homicide, with the basic underlying assumption that homicide is preventable. The members of this research working group are active in developing numerous bodies of work to further our understanding of victims, offenders, offenses, and the dynamics that are at play in these lethal outcomes. In some limited ways, at least at the national level, I at-tempt to build a bridge between the homicide research community and the police who respond to these calls for service. Prior to getting involved in that area of research, I spent consider-able effort supporting and developing an understanding of how to measure crime—how much crime’s going on, who’s being victim-ized, determining data reliability, existing problems, etc. I support numerous areas in the BSU, but the most significant is perhaps mea-surement issues—there’s always something to do in the Behavioral Science Unit—and I never know what the next topic will be. For example, I’ve done some work in cyber crimes (as noted earlier, most of my work has been in homicide and violence-related issues). If there were a recent case I was going discuss in which I provided expertise, perhaps the most memorable one would be my analysis of 9/11 calls and trying to determine if the content of the calls might give any clue as to the directions law enforcement may take in a case, or whether there was any information that would actually exclude the caller as being a potential suspect. I want to highlight this case because, one, research has been published pertaining to this area of inquiry, and two, it was a point of controversy in a recent case in a Southern state. I was asked to come down and provide expert testi-


TERVIEW


mony at a Daubert hearing for someone who wanted to qualify as an expert in 9/11 tape analysis. The problem, however, was whether the witness could qualify as an expert. I went down and provided consultation to the prosecution, notably the questions to ask this supposed expert, so the court could see that his conclusions were not based on analytical practices that had been accepted by the scientific community. Some of it was the statistical assumptions he was mak-ing, and some of it was that he was simply making illogical assump-tions. The biggest problem was that only a single peer-reviewed study had shown any linkage of this type, and that does not constitute acceptance by the scientific community. So, we provided that kind of input to the prosecution and the end result was the individual’s disqualification as an expert. He was thus unable, in my mind, to confuse the jury about his conjecture regarding the 9/11 call in this case. The outcome of that case is another matter entirely, but in that particular issue we were able to support the prosecution, as we did not want the case or its outcome clouded by this conjecture.

TFE: What would constitute an atypical workday?Jarvis: An atypical day involves one of two things. One is the emer-gence of an investigative matter in which they (a law enforcement agency, etc.) need some behavioral science assistance. In those cases, I have to leave here and go meet someone to assist them with some matter in which they are involved. It could come from the field of-fice, headquarters, a local agency, etc., and they’ve got a situation that would benefit from behavioral science assistance—either they’ve got an erratic subject or a situation where they’re not quite sure how to proceed, such as a series of bank robberies, murders, etc., and they need some analytical support since it involves something unusual. That’s atypical. People tend to think that’s the more typical day, but it’s not. A more typical day is one where I teach a class, collect data, run statistical models, and network with research partners to collaborate on research papers. This happens frequently when in-teracting with academics at college campuses. As for the relatively infrequent investigative consultations; I’ve probably done 20 of those in as many years, so they’re obviously rare.

TFE: So when an investigative matter emerges, it takes precedence over everything else you have going on?Jarvis: That’s correct. We have mechanisms in place to cover our classes; investigations are our first priority.

TFE: Have you ever worked with any criminals or psychopaths?Jarvis: Yes, mostly in a research environment. In terms of actual, face-to-face contact, those are always a little different than people expect. You can’t control the environment. You use the space (prison, etc.) you are given. You have to try to control the staff, because they sometimes want to be in on the research or interview.

TFE: Is an outside witness required?Jarvis: That depends on the nature of the research project, but usu-ally not, because the interviews are not adversarial; they’re research interviews. The research effort is not to indict the person or extend the prison term—we are simply trying to figure out how the indi-vidual behaves. As soon as they realize that this work is not designed to get them into more trouble, that we are there because of an interest in them as a person, they typically relax. Most often they’re pretty easy to deal with. There’s a very different perception of me and other

researchers than that of an agent who is trying to get them to confess to a string of murders. I’m asking “Why?” not “What did you do?” For example, I’ve never had a research interview turned down by the interviewee, except for one instance in which the interviewee knew too little English to result in a productive interview.

TFE: Have you ever had a hostile encounter with a subject?Jarvis: More often than not, there are no issues like that. Again, the research nature of the efforts embarked upon eliminates most of that. We do get involved in adversarial areas, but from a methodological standpoint I try to avoid that. It damages everything and the subject will begin to reveal all sorts of things that may not be completely true or may just be lies spawned from agitation or anger with the researcher. The ideal situation is to avoid evoking many emotions at all. Sometimes you’ll interrupt an interview with a break when you suspect you’re beginning to stir up too many emotions in the inter-viewee, which might contaminate the facts. The whole idea is to get neither an exaggeration nor any sort of understated information. The big concern you face with an offender interview is that the interview is a self-report—how much are they lying to you? They lie all the time. But we do have a number of measures we use to try to confront this situation. I don’t think the research subjects often realize this, but the fact of the matter is that we have institutional review board rules in place; the offenders have to consent to every-thing. They have rights, and we respect those.

TFE: Interesting! One more question: how much do you travel?Jarvis: The Bureau is an interesting place in that, depending on your background, if you want to travel, the Bureau has more de-mands than it usually can meet so you can travel more than you could possibly imagine. There are more requests than we can field. When I first came on with the Bureau, I would have given up my apartment (due to frequent travel) if it weren’t for a need to have some place to keep my belongings. However, the need to field the calls and travel to respond is complex. The safety of the United States is at stake when it comes to terrorism. But when it comes to a serial killer who is running around a city, that community is at stake, and it’s our responsibility to re-instill that safety. As a result, there is a certain commitment you bring to the table. You often say, “I have to do this whether I’m tired, whether it affects my spouse, my kids, etc.” So one has to try to engender that understanding in those individuals. Doing that repeatedly all the time can begin to show its effects, so it is really as much as you can travel and balance the individual and family needs that we all consider in performing our jobs. An important aspect of networking that often provides relief in this area is that when you know other experts in your field, you can refer them for some of these requests. Often an expert that is closer geographically or even in the same city as the individual who initially made the request can be of assistance; thus, more efficient work can be done. Your network is an ongoing resource in that and many other respects. The Behavioral Science Unit has expanded and contracted over the years with budget fluctuations and personnel changes, but we are at the largest we’ve been in some time right now, which is atypical in the government because most are now smaller. However, we’ve also got more instruction, more research, more consultation requests, and more programs going on right now than in all the time I’ve been in the BSU. n

INTERVIEWwith Thaddeus E. Clancy, BS

INT

ERVI

EWINTERVIEW

TFE: Could you please tell me about yourself and what brought you to the BSU?Clancy: My name is Thaddeus Clancy, and I am an Instructional Research Analyst with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Behavioral Science Unit (BSU). I have been working with the BSU for about two years now. I came on board with the FBI as an intern with the BSU while completing my degree from the Florida Institute of Technology with a major in forensic psychology. The forensic psychology pro-gram provided me an interdisciplinary foundation in psychology, as well as a solid grasp in research methods that allowed me to excel as an intern at the BSU. Once I completed my 12-week internship program with the BSU, I became an intern with the FBI Tampa Division at the Brevard Resident Agency (BRA). While at the BRA, I gained valuable exposure to a variety of cases by providing assis-tance to the special agents. The mentorship from the agents and the support staff from BRA expanded my institutional knowledge of the Bureau. I was extremely fortunate that the BSU offered me a position as a government contractor. As a contractor, I was the “Global Hostage-Taking Project Manager.” One of my priorities was to support the National Academy (NA) by assisting in the development of the Conflict and Crisis Management course. I traveled extensively to facilitate the project mission by coordinating efforts with a variety of stakeholders, including local law enforcement (LE).

TFE: Now you’re a Bureau employee. What do your duties entail as an Instructional Research Analyst?Clancy: I was recently hired as a Bureau employee. I am responsible for supporting four instructors within the BSU. I help them with their research, curriculum development, and administrative du-ties. For example, the behavior-based specialties I help support are: Psychosocial Behavior, Mindset, and Intelligence Trends of Violent Street and Prison Gangs, Advanced Behavior-Based Investigative Strategies for Violent Crime, Death Management, and Crime Analysis: Theory and Application. I also support the NA by provid-ing presentations on the Routine Activity Theory, to include other general theories of crime. This presentation is built upon some of BSU’s core principles, which incorporate criminological theories (i.e., Routine Activity Theory) and make them applicable and pragmatic for LE and practitioners in the field. In furtherance, a good theory

should be tested upon its applicability and practi-cal application to the real world. It is important that these theories bridge the gap and provide LE

with pragmatic approaches. I also present a block on the captive-taking dichotomies across the U.S.-Mexico

border area. I have been working for the BSU Unit Chief Gregory M. Vecchi and his Global Hostage-Taking Research and Analysis Project (GHosT-RAP) team to develop the methodology for GHosT-RAP. As a member of the research team, I was an asset in the construc-tion of the Interview and Protocol Pilot Test that was paramount to identifying research pitfalls, reconstruction of the protocols, and developing a sound interview process that is academically pure, and most importantly, that would support practitioners in the field as well as law enforcement on the streets. I have played an instru-mental role in the development of the GHosT-RAP protocols, the job task analysis of our interview team, and identified equipment to develop and construct our “go kits” for the interview teams. In the near future, I am fortunate that I will be part of the upcoming interview team when we begin interviewing hostage-takers. GHosT-RAP has been designed to incorporate stakeholders from the very beginning of the project. I have been working with many of these stakeholders, which include a variety of local law enforcement, military, and intel communities. By incorporating law enforcement and other stakeholders early in the development process, we can tai-lor our deliverables to meet their needs and create a behavior-based tool kit to support efforts to mitigate, prepare, prevent, defeat, and respond to all aspects of captive-taking. n

Did You Know?

The BSU publishes its training deliverables and the results of its applied research in compendiums, peer-reviewed journals, trade journals, and books for use by the criminal justice and national security communities.


INTERVIEWwith Maria D. Valdovinos, BA

TFE: If you would like, please feel free to start by discussing what you do here in the BSU. Valdovinos: I am currently assigned to the Behavioral Science Unit (BSU) as a contractor. I work in a support capacity with SSA Samuel L. Feemster on the Beyond Survival Toward Officer Wellness (BeSTOW) research initiative. I came on board in December 2009 after finish-ing my internship at the FBI’s National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime. It is truly a privilege to be in the position I am in today. The agents here in the unit will readily tell you that many of them started their careers in the Bureau with the ultimate goal of getting to the Behavioral Science Unit. My introduction to the Bureau started here! If that is not a privilege, I don’t know what is.

TFE: How do you like working on Project BeSTOW? What is a typical day like?Valdovinos: I truly enjoy doing the work that I do. Since my first day as an intern and now as a contractor on BeSTOW, the days and weeks seem to fly by. I guess it is not so surprising; that happens when you are doing what you love. A typical day usually consists of a meeting early in the morning with SSA Feemster to plan out the week’s projects and to evaluate the progress of the prior week’s activities. One project I am currently assisting SSA Feemster on is on institutionalizing a relatively new course titled Spirituality, Wellness and Vitality Issues in Law Enforcement Practices. One way I have been assisting SSA Feemster on this project is by accompa-nying him to class and taking notes on the aspects of the class that are working well and those that need refining. A typical afternoon usually consists of some administrative work, conference planning, research, and writing. There is always writing to be done in the BSU in fulfillment of the unit’s mission of providing world-class training to law enforcement.

TFE: The National Academy classes are made up strictly of law en-forcement officers, aren’t they? What is it like to sit in on a class?Valdovinos: It is a great experience. Each and every one of the students in the National Academy has easily 20-plus years of law enforcement experience to share. Particularly, with respect to the topic of police officer wellness, I have had the opportunity to hear firsthand from officers about the significant toll that law enforce-ment work takes on them and how important it is to be proactive

in one’s approach towards finding balance in life and leading a healthy lifestyle. As I work towards my own career in law enforcement, the opportunity to

be mentored by such knowledgeable and experienced men and women is truly invaluable.

TFE: You seem extremely enthusiastic about your work. Do you see yourself staying in the FBI for a while?Valdovinos: Absolutely! I have worked extremely hard to get where I am. Right now I am trying to balance work with school. I have been out of school for about a year but am ready to go back and improve my research skills and language skills so that I can join a new agent class in a few years.

TFE: What did you study? What languages do you speak?Valdovinos: I have a background in Middle Eastern studies, lan-guages and civilization. I am fluent in Spanish and have been study-ing German since high school and Arabic since college.

TFE: What would you say to our readers who are interested in working for the FBI?Valdovinos: I would simply say work hard, be creative, and be persistent. It is a long and challenging road. As far as I have gotten, I still have miles to go. When you are part of (or are looking to be part of ) an agency whose mission is to protect and defend the United States, you simply cannot be afraid of a challenge! n

WWW.ACFEI.COM • (800) 592-1399INTERVIEWIN

TERVIEW

Did You Know?

The BSU conducts specialized, behavior-based training for the FBI National Academy, New Agents, Intelligence Analysts, employee in-services and Citizens’ Academy, as well as domestic and international field schools for the criminal justice, intelligence, and military communities. The BSU has instituted the FBI National Behavioral Research Certification Course to establish Bureau-wide standards for behavioral research conducted by the FBI.


WELCOME New Members

New LifeJames P. Waltz

New MembersAdesoji A. Adeboye Constance Augustyn Joseph A. Balatan Judith M. Bank Marguerite R. Bender Katie C. Bess Mario G. Bocanegra Jeremy R. Calva David S. Capelli Cynthia Cavazos-Gonzalez Carole E. Chaski Wood M. Deming Lucia J. Dest Katherine Emerick Deborah K. Evans Carl Flora Thomas L. Floyd Kathy Gill Hopple Donna L. Goudberg Lockhart Simeleke Gross

Robert D. Hall Kristin Hangge Ronald W. Haycock C B. Illingworth IIIKathleen Justice Cindy R. Kelly Michael J. Kierzynski Akinlolu S. Kolade Robert E. Lee Deorah K. Leporowski Adoria Lim Julie K. Lindroth Jeanette JN Louis-Hughes Karen K. Ludwig Denise M. Lyons Joyce A. McLendon-Cottrell Sharon L. Mendenhall Claire E. Metzgar Blan V. Minton William Moore Muritala J. Olotu Jimmy Romero Synthia J. Ross David W. Sandor

Sergio Santinelli Nasim Sarvaiya Glenn Schanel Patrick L. Schaum Michael Scherbinski Jean Seidl Sean L. Sharp Tricia-Ann N. Smith Kristin K. Smith Mark S. Snyder Mark L. Songer Scott Sperberg Jason M. Stancil Susan J. Sterner-Howe Eric W. Suddoth William Thatcher Charles Thomas Robert Thomas Deidre C. Tift Monique Troncone John M. Vaughn Spencer B. Wagner Donna Washington Sanford L. Weiss Paul Wertheim Beyshinah Woods

CrFAAdesoji AdeboyeJay P. AnthonySameh Soliman AttallaJeremy R. CalvaJerri CreamerKirk M. Da SilvaAnasthasia LewisAdoria LimKaren J. LordEdmund MilotCatherine NerinDaniel R. PriceCarolyn RussellAamer SheikhAndrew SmullenScott SperbergPeggy SticklinEric William SuddothPaul WertheimDeborah Wyatt CFCDavid S. CapelliSusette ClineSean Coetzee

David F. O’Connell CFNMarguerite R. BenderKristin Hangge CMIJocelyn CuevasValdee Harmon-SheffieldAlbert L. McFarland CFPWood M. DemingValdee Harmon-SheffieldSynthia J. Ross CFSWJudith Bank CMFSWMarlene AbadNancy AldridgeConstance AugustynMelvin A. Coleman

Thomas FloydSimeleke GrossChristine HeerRobert E. LeeMarlene R. LeftonJulie K. LindrothJoyce A. McLendon-CottrellSharon L. MendenhallBlan MintonDavid SandorNasim SarvaiyaDeidre TiftKimberly A. WilliamsBeyshinah Woods RIJoseph BalatanRaymond M. EarnestCarl FloraRobert Frank Mance

Due to space limitations, degrees and professional designations are not listed.

You entered the field to help people. When was the last time an organization provided any real help to you?

BECOME A BOArd CErtifiEd PrOfEssiOnAl COunsElOr, BCPCSM

www.americanpsychotherapy.com • (800) 592-1125BCPC0310EX

NEW

MEM

BER

SNEW MEMBERS


WELCOME New Members

Law Enforcement

Information was relevant and applicable.Learning objective 1 was met.Learning objective 2 was met.Learning objective 3 was met.Learning objective 4 was met.You were satisfied with the article.ADA instructions were adequate.The author’s knowledge, expertise, and clarity were appropriate.Article was fair, balanced, and free of commercial bias. The article was appropriate to your education, experience, and licensure level. Instructional materials were useful.

1 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 5

EVALUATION: Circle one (1=Poor 2=Below Average 3=Average 4=Above Average 5=Excellent)

KEYWORDS: Interaction, murder, violent crime, offender, process model

TARGET AUDIENCE: Law enforcement, investigators, law enforcement instructors

PROGRAM LEVEL: Basic

DISCLOSURE: The authors have nothing to disclose.

PREREQUISITES: None

A process model that describes interactions that result in murder should describe:1. all interactions that result in murder.a. interactions that involve the same classification.b. interactions that start as non-criminal.c. only those interactions that involve tactical forethought.d.

Interactions are cyclical because:2. completion of one interaction produces feedback for the next interaction.a. a task cannot be completed in one iteration.b. a process model is always dynamic.c. no two interactions are ever exactly the same.d.

The GIPM is a model of the process an individual must go through to:3. commit a murder.a. interact with someone else.b. complete any task.c. create a dynamic cycle.d.

The phases described in the OIPM define specific emotional and cognitive states.4. Truea. Falseb.

In the OIPM, determining an offender’s motive is not as important as identifying the earliest phase 5. in which the offender:

tactically planned the offense.a. was motivated to commit the specific defense.b. exhibited erratic behavior.c. attacked the victim.d.

Which motivational origin exists within the Tactical phase?6. Dynamica. Incentiveb. Instrumentalc. Adaptived.

In the OIPM, which phase is the motiviational origin of sexual murder?7. Strategica. Tacticalb. Executionc. Evaluationd.

POST CE TEST QUESTIONS (Answer the following questions after reading the article)

ATTENTION ACFEI MEMBERS: Journal-Learning CEs are FREE when taken online. Visit www.acfei.com.

CE ARTICLE 1: (Pages 28–40)The Offender Interaction Process Model

ABSTRACT

After studying this article, participants should be better able to do the following:Explain murder as an outcome of an interaction.1. Discuss the cyclical nature of the GIPM and OIPM.2. Identify the four primary phases of the OIPM.3. Distinguish between the five motivational origins that are described by the OIPM.4.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

In order to receive CE credit, each participant is required to1. Read the continuing education article.2. Complete the exam by circling the chosen answer for each question. Complete the evaluation form. 3. Mail or fax the completed form, along with the $15 payment for each CE exam taken to: ACFEI, 2750 East Sunshine, Springfield, MO 65804; fax to (417) 881-4702.Visit www.acfei.com and take the test for FREE.

For each exam passed with a grade of 70% or above, a certificate of completion for 1.5 continuing education credits will be mailed. Please allow at least 2 weeks to receive your certificate. The participants who do not pass the exam are notified and will have a second opportunity to complete the exam. Any questions, grievances or comments can be directed to the Registrar at (800) 423-9737, fax (417) 881-4702, or e-mail: [email protected]. Continuing education credits for participation in this activity may not apply toward license renewal in all states. It is the responsibility of each participant to verify the requirements of his/her state licensing board(s). Continuing education activities printed in the journals will not be issued any refund.

If you require special accommodations to participate in accordance with the Americans with Dis-abilities Act, please contact the Registrar at (800) 423-9737.

TO RECEIVE CE CREDIT FOR THIS ARTICLE

This article is approved by the following for 1.5 continuing education credits:

(ACFEI) The American College of Forensic Examiners International provides this continuing education credit for Diplomates and certified members, whom we recommend obtain 15 credits per year to maintain their status.

CE ACCREDITATIONS FOR THIS ARTICLE

This article describes human interaction through a General Interaction Process Model (GIPM). This GIPM explores interaction as a cycle comprised of multiple iterations of sequential phases. Furthermore, the current article proposes that violent crime should be regarded as a possible outcome of human interaction. It is further discussed that violent crime, specifically the outcome of mur-der, can be described by a variation of the GIPM called an Offender Interaction Process Model (OIPM). Among other uses, this OIPM provides a conceptual framework from which to investigate violent crime motivational origins.


Name: State License #:

Phone Number: Member ID #:

Address: City:

State: Zip: E-mail:

Credit Card #

Circle one: check enclosed MasterCard Visa American Express Discover

Name on card: Exp. Date:

Signature Date

PAYMENT INFORMATION: $15 per test (FREE ONLINE)

Statement of completion: I attest to having completed the CE activity. Please send the completed form, along with your payment of $15 for each test taken. Fax: (417) 881-4702, or mail the forms to ACFEI Continuing Education, 2750 E. Sunshine, Springfield, MO 65804. If you have questions, please call (417) 881-3818 or toll free at (800) 423-9737.

FEFA0110

Law Enforcement

Information was relevant and applicable.Learning objective 1 was met.Learning objective 2 was met.Learning objective 3 was met.Learning objective 4 was met.Learning objective 5 was met.Learning objective 6 was met.Learning objective 7 was met.You were satisfied with the article.ADA instructions were adequate.The author’s knowledge, expertise, and clarity were appropriate.Article was fair, balanced, and free of commercial bias. The article was appropriate to your education, experience, and licensure level. Instructional materials were useful.

1 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 5


KEYWORDS: Police training, spirituality, wellness, vitality, learning models

TARGET AUDIENCE: First responders, training academies



PREREQUISITES: None

Learning is:1. static.a. a context-dependent process.b. an independent process.c. a one-dimensional process.d.

In order to accurately address real-world issues police may face, training scenarios should aim to:2. include some of the human dimensions.a. include the intelligence dimensions but not the human dimensions.b. include non-critical thinking skills.c. include both the intelligence dimensions and the human dimensions.d.

The performance of law enforcement duties is learned behavior.3. Truea. Falseb.

What is the aim of a paramilitary or tactical model of police training?4. To teach officers to get in touch with their emotional side.a. To make officers proficient at community policing.b. To train officers to be tactically skilled warriors in the “war on crime.”c. To help officers assess their personal strengths and weaknesses.d.

Who must bridge the gap in law enforcement?5. Police chiefsa. Law enforcement trainersb. Community leadersc. All of the aboved.

What is the mission of Project BeSTOW?6. To develop and implement multi-dimensional training curricula designed for officer wellness.a. To ensure that police academies produce tactically proficient warriors.b. To identify the courses required by police departments or regional training academies to become c. a sworn police officer.None of the above.d.



CE ARTICLE 2: (Pages 44–49)Addressing the Urgent Need for Multi-Dimensional Training in Law Enforcement

ABSTRACT

After studying this article, participants should be better able to do the following:Explain the multiple dimensions of human nature.1. Discuss how learning is a context-dependent and dynamic process.2. List the elements of scenario training that allow police officers to address real-world issues.3. Explain why the performance of law enforcement duties is learned behavior.4. Critique the aim of a paramilitary or tactical mode of police training.5. Discuss the differences between surviving law enforcement exposures and thriving in the law enforcement 6. vocation.Prepare a training scenario that addresses the multi-dimensional nature of humans.7.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES


For each exam passed with a grade of 70% or above, a certificate of completion for 1.0 continuing education credit will be mailed. Please allow at least 2 weeks to receive your certificate. The participants who do not pass the exam are notified and will have a second opportunity to complete the exam. Any questions, grievances or comments can be directed to the Registrar at (800) 423-9737, fax (417) 881-4702, or e-mail: [email protected]. Continuing education credits for participation in this activity may not apply toward license renewal in all states. It is the responsibility of each participant to verify the requirements of his/her state licensing board(s). Continuing education activities printed in the journals will not be issued any refund.



This article is approved by the following for 1 continuing education credits:



The law enforcement community is not immune from the base predispositions that adversely affect life in all societies. They are wounded in all human dimensions. Historically, law enforcement agencies and the communities they serve have failed to cultivate the skills, attitudes and practices that would help their officers thrive as whole persons. Despite the obvious and well documented problems that plague law enforcement, training has not evolved to at minimum mitigate and at best eliminate maladaptive behaviors normalized by the law enforcement culture. This article reflects upon the urgent need for multi-dimensional training in law enforcement so that officers may thrive throughout their vocational careers and beyond.




Address: City:

State: Zip: E-mail:

Credit Card #



Signature Date



FEFA0210

TARGET AUDIENCE: First responders, training academies


Law Enforcement

Information was relevant and applicable.Learning objective 1 was met.Learning objective 2 was met.Learning objective 3 was met.You were satisfied with the article.ADA instructions were adequate.The author’s knowledge, expertise, and clarity were appropriate.Article was fair, balanced, and free of commercial bias. The article was appropriate to your education, experience, and licensure level. Instructional materials were useful.

1 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5


KEYWORDS: Suicide, police, stress, family

TARGET AUDIENCE: Law enforcement



PREREQUISITES: None

Suicide occurs without _______.1. warninga. anyone presentb. provocationc. premeditationd.

When depression lifts, there is no longer any danger of suicide.2. Truea. Falseb.

Which of the following is not listed as being a harmful coping mechanism for police officers?3. Alcohola. Substance abuseb. Violencec. Prescription medicationd.

Approximately 80% of people who commit suicide:4. reveal nothing of their intentions.a. do so accidentally.b. exhibit indicators of the intentions.c. are not successful.d.

Approximately how often is a law enforcement officer lost to suicide?5. Every 30 minutesa. Every hourb. Every 15 hoursc. Every 17 hoursd.

According to the text, there is a significant correlation between __________ and suicide.6. stress, depressiona. depression, alcoholb. alcohol, drugsc. years on the forced.



CE ARTICLE 3: (Pages 64–71)Understanding Police Suicide

ABSTRACT

After studying this article, participants should be better able to do the following:Explain the precipitating factors that lead to law enforcement officers taking their lives.1. Identify personal internal and external realities within officers’ agencies or communities that can cause or 2. perpetuate the stress that leads to suicide.Identify the mental and physical factors related to stress and the body’s reaction that can lead to depression 3. and possible suicide.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES


For each exam passed with a grade of 70% or above, a certificate of completion for 1.0 continuing education credit will be mailed. Please allow at least 2 weeks to receive your certificate. The participants who do not pass the exam are notified and will have a second opportunity to complete the exam. Any questions, grievances or comments can be directed to the Registrar at (800) 423-9737, fax (417) 881-4702, or e-mail: [email protected]. Continuing education credits for participation in this activity may not apply toward license renewal in all states. It is the responsibility of each participant to verify the requirements of his/her state licensing board(s). Continuing education activities printed in the journals will not be issued any refund.



This article is approved by the following for 1 continuing education credit:



The focus of this paper is to examine and help further the understanding of police suicide. The primary goal is to make law enforcement officers, their families, and the community they serve more cognizant of the stressors encountered on the job from the patrolman on the street to the executives in the offices. To that end, personal, community, and organizational issues involving law enforce-ment stress as it affects police officer suicide will be examined. Through this paper, you will be able to understand the body’s reaction to stress, identify the mental and physical factors of stress, and recognize the external and internal stressors that could lead to suicide within law enforcement agencies and the communities they serve.




Address: City:

State: Zip: E-mail:

Credit Card #



Signature Date



FEFA0310

Law Enforcement

Information was relevant and applicable.Learning objective 1 was met.Learning objective 2 was met.Learning objective 3 was met.You were satisfied with the article.ADA instructions were adequate.The author’s knowledge, expertise, and clarity were appropriate.Article was fair, balanced, and free of commercial bias. The article was appropriate to your education, experience, and licensure level. Instructional materials were useful.

1 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5


KEYWORDS: Triune brain, tells (or pacifiers), blocking behaviors, detecting deception, cognitive load

TARGET AUDIENCE: Law enforcement interviewers/interrogators, forensic psychologists, intelligence community interrogators



PREREQUISITES: None

According to MacLane’s Triune Brain theory, how does the pur-1. pose of the limbic brain differ from that of the neocortex?

The limbic system regulates memory, emotions, and recall, a. while the neocortex is responsible for advanced cognition, speech, writing, and planning.The neocortex regulates memory, emotions, and recall, while b. the limbic system is responsible for advanced cognition, speech, writing, and planning.The limbic system is not discussed in the Triune Brain theory.c. The neocortex regulates memory, writing, speech, and d. advanced cognition, while the limbic system is responsible for emotions, recall, and planning.

Who is credited as the discoverer of microexpressions?2. Sigmund Freuda. Aristotleb. Paul Eckmanc. Joe Navarrod.

What is paralanguage?3. The registering of changes in body positioning during decep-a. tive responses.The detection of stress in a verbal response.b. A cluster of nonverbal behaviors.c.

The registering of changes in vocal pitch during deceptive d. responses.

Which gender typically has more pronounced nonverbal cues?4. Femalea. Maleb. Both exhibit the same level of nonverbal cues.c. There is no data to support this.d.

According to the text, a lack of _________ is often the key to 5. detecting deception on a subconscious level.

Emotiona. Nonverbal cuesb. Congruencec. Contradictiond.

What percentage of population is estimated to be able to lie 6. successfully?

2%a. 4%b. 8%c. 16%d.

The text indicates that studies have shown a strong correlation 7. between _________ and _________.

deceptive behavior, depressiona. skill in lying, intelligenceb. intelligence, depressionc. nonverbal cues, moderating factorsd.

75% of the population erroneously believes that the best indica-8. tor of deception is that:

liars change vocal tone.a. liars wring their hands.b. liars cross their arms.c. liars avert their gaze.d.



CE ARTICLE 4: (Pages 86–97)Interpreting Nonverbal Communication for Use in Detecting Deception

ABSTRACT

After studying this article, participants should be better able to do the following:Discuss MacLane’s Triune Brain theory and how it applies to the detection of deception.1. Explain how the limbic system reacts to stress and how that reaction can be used to expose lies.2. List several common nonverbal cues that people display unconsciously when trying to reduce the discomo-3. fort associated with lying.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES


For each exam passed with a grade of 70% or above, a certificate of completion for 2.0 continuing education credits will be mailed. Please allow at least 2 weeks to receive your certificate. The participants who do not pass the exam are notified and will have a second opportunity to complete the exam. Any questions, grievances or comments can be directed to the Registrar at (800) 423-9737, fax (417) 881-4702, or e-mail: [email protected]. Continuing education credits for participation in this activity may not apply toward license renewal in all states. It is the responsibility of each participant to verify the requirements of his/her state licensing board(s). Continuing education activities printed in the journals will not be issued any refund.



This article is approved by the following for 2 continuing education credits:



The ability to accurately detect deception is a skill that many law enforcement professionals think they possess, but often, they do not; at least, not at a rate much greater than that of chance. Of course, having this skill would be incredibly valuable in police work, as well as in life in general. In the following article, the author presents an overview of the subtle, subconscious, nonverbal cues that deceptive people reveal as they try to relieve their own discomfort caused by their lies. The author explains briefly, the physiological basis of some nonverbal elements such as kinesics, paralanguage, microexpressions (Ekman, 2009), et al. And, she concludes with some tips to help law enforcement professionals more accurately and reliably detect deception.




Address: City:

State: Zip: E-mail:

Credit Card #



Signature Date



FEFA0410


Fall 2010 THE FORENSIC EXAMINER® 127RI01EX


American College of Forensic Examiners InternationalSM

2750 E. Sunshine StreetSpringfield, MO 65804

www.acfei.com(800) 592-1399

TO REGISTER: CALL TOLL-FREE (800) 423-9737 OR VISIT WWW.ACFEI.COM

The Forensic Examiner (Sample) - Fall 2010

Documents

Transcript of The Forensic Examiner (Sample) - Fall 2010