Part Two Malignant Sex and Aggression: An Overview of Serial Sexual Homicide; Scott Peterson LA Innocence Project

This podcast wraps up the last part of the Myers, et al study. We also discuss Scott Peterson's case that has been picked up by LA Innocence Project

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/composition-of-a-killer--5602919/support.

Episode Transcript

(00:06):
Killer fans, Doctor Cassidy. Heretoday we're going to be finishing up our
study on the Malignant sex and aggressionand overview of serial sexual homicide. This,
of course was written by Myers,Racopa, Burton and McElroy. If
you want to look it up.We got to the impact on society,

(00:28):
and despite the figures that are presentedin this paper, many feel the significance
of serial murder remains uncertain. Forexample, even the FBI's highest estimate of
annual victims represents less than ten percentof automobile fatalities per year. Yet the
government has allocated considerable research manpower andfunds to the investigation of these homicides.

(00:53):
For instance, the Green River killer, who has claimed possibly thirty victims in
Washington State sineteen eighty two, hasbeen the focus of an ongoing intense investigation
costing well over twenty million dollars.The financial burden placed on society once a
serial murderer has been apprehended is alsostaggering, and trial costs easily run into

(01:14):
the millions of dollars. Initial defensecosts of one million are projected for the
trial of Danny Rawlings, which,of course we know that trial's over and
he was convicted, and it didcost millions, but he was charged in
the nineteen ninety serial sexual murders offive University of Florida students. Ted Bundy's
trial and appeals total roughly nine million, and of course that was in the

(01:41):
nineteen nineties. Talking about the nineteennineties dollars, so you can imagine what
it would be now. One thingabout that is, I mean, I
do have a bit of a problemwith some of these serial killers or violent
offenders. They have the right tohave so many appeals and would I can

(02:05):
understand that perhaps someone else or youknow, should look at the case,
make sure that the trial was fairand that his rights, his or her
rights weren't violated. But I thinkthe cost of these appeals to the taxpayers

(02:25):
is incredibly unreasonable, and I don'tknow how to fix that, but I
do think that I do think thathaving someone on death row for twenty five
years or thirty years is ridiculous.Not only are we paying for their room
and board, we're paying for allof their medical pretty much everything is a

(02:51):
taxpayer burden. And then you've gotall the legal stuff that goes along with
that. So it's a bit ofa It's something that I understand has to
happen, but I don't like it. I don't know if that makes sense
to you, but it's just,you know, it's a lot of money.

(03:12):
Liebert asserted that the excitement generated withina community upon identification of serial murder
far exceeds it's morbid morbidity and mortalityrisks. That's also another reason why it's
so expensive, because there is ahuge, you know, social media presence.
Now things are just blasted all overthe news and again on social media,

(03:37):
and it really does, it reallydoes put a significant hurdle in front
of what the court is charged todo. It's very difficult to find people
who have not heard about a case, especially I mean, just think about
Brian Coburger. Your average person who'swatching the news. They know about Brian
Coburger. Doesn't mean that they're interestedin killers or that kind of thing,

(04:00):
but it's just on the news,so they're going to be It's going to
be very hard for them to finda group of twelve citizens to serve on
jury who have not heard something,which of course creates bias. And that's
what we, of course don't wantto happen, but it's very difficult in
this time because we all, youknow, we're all pretty much obsessed with

(04:27):
it right. One possible explanation forthis reaction is the vast publicity or even
sensationalism giving to this phenomenon by themedia and entertainment industry. As I just
said, some fear the influence ordisinhibiting effect that such coverage has on potential
serial killers in our society. Ofnote, investigations have shown that some killers

(04:51):
tend to study and imitate other celebratedcases. Edgars suggested that a community's anxiety
level rises after an apparently motiveless murderbecause unlike other routine homicides, everyone's true
when you have no explanation, whenyou have no motive, if someone is

(05:14):
just on the prow it's terrifying.There's so much research on that the psychological
impact of serial sexual homicide on acommunity can be profound. In the fall
of nineteen ninety, Gainesville, Florida, police discovered the murdered mutilated bodies of
five college students. Herkoff studied arearesidents to determine the community's response to this

(05:38):
violence. One hundred and sixty fourGainsville residents were surveyed at three time periods,
initially when it happened, at ninemonths, and at eighteen months following
the murders regarding their psychological distress,coping responses, and perceptions of police and
media performance. Nearly half, orsix percent of residents reported moderate disevere desruption

(06:03):
of their daily lives, and onethird, which is thirty five percent,
indicated that they felt panicked or frightenedin the weeks following the murders. Large
numbers of residents also reported experiencing anumber of post traumatic stress disorder symptoms,
including increased startle response thirty six percent, distressing thoughts thirty five percent, sleep

(06:26):
difficulties nineteen percent, and concentration difficultiesat ten percent. Those residents most affected
were female students living close to themurder sites, which makes complete sense right.
The psychological distress tended to decrease overtime, with most residents reporting little
distress at eighteen month follow up.However, anxiety and fear symptoms were the

(06:49):
most persistent, with ten percent ofresidents reporting increased startled response and seven percent
reporting distressing thoughts eighteen months after themurders. Residents that attempted to deal with
these stresses through a number of copingresponses, including increasing home security and that
was at eighty four percent, avoidingtraveling alone at twenty nine percent, and

(07:12):
purchasing or carrying a firearm at elevenpercent. Media coverage of events was generally
criticized as being sensational. In fact, one third thirty six percent of revidence
of residents reported that hearing about thebody mutilations caused them to become more frightened.
And I do think that's an issue. I think that in the general

(07:33):
media, you know, what theyshare with the population should be limited.
If you are like you and me, and you're interested in the details of
it for whatever reason, then Ithink you should be able to, you
know, search and find more informationon your own and not rely on the

(07:54):
news telling, if you will,an innocent group of people watching the show
all of these details that they donot want to know. And I think
that that's important. If we chooseto watch a show or choose to watch
documentaries, that's on us, right, that's on us. But if you're

(08:16):
just watching TV and you're watching thenews, and they, you know,
broadcast all these things that are goingon and they go into great, great
detail. You have been exposed tosomething that you are not interested in,
you don't want to be for whateverreason, And I think it needs to

(08:37):
be controlled. I think there needsto be not so much of the detail
readily available. So I mean,honestly, do we really need to know
all that? No, we don't. It's important enough that someone died and
that we don't know who's who isresponsible for that. But is it necessary

(08:58):
for everyone to know that the personwas mutilated or raped or any of those
things. I don't think it is. So I think that I agree that
that is Agger is right. Ithink that there's definitely issues with that.
Herkoff actually wasn't It was Herkoff thatdid that study. Sociologicon Kim. Sociologists

(09:26):
theorize that these crimes carry such asubstantial impact because they violate traditional taboos in
Western society, namely murder and illicitsexual relations. From a psychoanalytic level,
perhaps the most unsettling aspect of thesecrimes is that they divulge an extremely potent,
destructive id residing in normal humans.It is our tendency to view these

(09:50):
serial sexual homicides as the product ofmadness. An attempt to reassure ourselves that
we are incapable of such evil.And I think that I think that overall,
this this report tells us quite abit of information actually about how how

(10:16):
humans react to this type of tragedyand what it does to us. Certainly,
I'm interested in that because I wantto know how these early childhood experiences
affect a child and their growth patternas well as their you know, their

(10:39):
brain, how it affects their brain. Obviously, we know there's quite a
few things that we know about howit affects a child. That's why we
have the Ace's List. Remember,But you know, what do we what
have we looked at recently the effectof media, social media and the intense

(11:07):
coverage that it gives on these typeof situations that most people don't need to
know. It's to me that's equalto these parents who allow their children to
watch those horror films. I can'ttell you how many students that I've had,

(11:28):
preschool students that I've had who wereexcited for the weekend to come so
that they could go watch Saw withtheir father. That was like their weekend
thing. They like to sit aroundand watch those movies. That's not appropriate
viewing. And I think I've talkedabout it before. It's not appropriate viewing
for young children. They don't havethe capacity to understand what is happening and

(11:52):
to also understand that that's not thenorm. You know, we might be
able to have tons of horror movies, but it's not the norm that things
like that happen. It's not thenorm that we have serial killers. That's
why it's phenomenal, right, Butthinking forward on this, I really feel

(12:13):
like we need to encourage social mediato watch how much they share, to
pull back on how much they share. Do we need to know that there's
a murderer loose? Of course wedo. We need to be cautious,
we need to be safe. Butdo we need to know all those gory

(12:33):
details? Know? We absolutely don't. So I feel like that is an
important thing to look at as asociety. I think we need to really
rain that in. And I hopeyou agree with that. I mean,
if you don't, I'd love todiscuss it. I'd love to see you
know what your rationale is on that, and if of course you agree,
I'd like to get your take onhow we go about doing it. And

(12:58):
you can always email me if youwant to discuss these things at doctor Kimberly
Cassidy eighty nine at gmail dot com. Now let's talk a little bit about
Scott Peterson. So many of youmay remember this case. I remember vividly
watching this case, buying magazines inthe grocery line that had Scott Peterson's picture

(13:24):
on it and Lacy Peterson, hiswife, and I was just as you
can imagine, obsessed with the story. There was so many different twists and
turns to it. Certainly it readskind of like a novel, you know,

(13:45):
it reads kind of like a novel. Most of them do. There's
some pretty interesting things, especially whenit's a husband and wife murder, like
a domestic setting. But if youdon't recall, let me summarize it.
This was the notorious case of ScottPeterson, who was convicted in Northern California
for the murder of his wife anunborn child whose name was Connor, and

(14:07):
it was recently picked up by theadvocacy group who is set to defend his
innocence. This is the La InnocenceProject that I mentioned earlier. It's not
like the Innocence Program or the Innocenceproject that we are used to talking about,
and we'll get into that a littlebit more in a minute. So

(14:28):
Medesto resident Lacy Peterson disappeared on ChristmasEve two thousand and two. Her husband,
Scott Peterson, told police that hewas fishing in Berkeley when she went
missing. The dead bodies of LacyPeterson and her infant son Connor washed up
to shore near the same location whereScott Peterson claimed to be fishing in April
of twenty twenty three. Shortly afterthis he was arrested. We also know

(14:52):
now that fishing was not something thatScott Peterson did. He had just bought
this bow. They found concrete mixand different materials that you would need to
pour into a bucket and make weights. They found that in a personal storage

(15:18):
unit that he had, So therewere a lot of things that were very
circumstantial. There is literally no DNAevidence that he proves that he did,
but there's also not a lot ofevidence that helps prove that he didn't.
But they're saying now that there isnew information. Well, this case,

(15:41):
of course caught national attention, andalthough Scott maintained his innocence, he was
convicted in two thousand and four ofthe first degree murder of Lacy Peterson,
who was twenty seven and was eightmonths pregnant when she disappeared. He also
was convicted of second degree murder ofhis unborn son, Connor and sentenced to
death in two thousand and five.So fifteen years later, in twenty twenty,

(16:04):
Scott Peterson's death sentence was changed tolife in prison after the California Supreme
Court rule that Peterson's jury was improperlyscreened for bias against the death penalty.
According to a previous Fox forty report, Stanislaus County District Attorney burget Flateger,
who rose to fame as one ofthe three prosecutors in Peterson's trial, settled

(16:29):
for life without parole. That's alsovery common. Sometimes states will repeal that
law and anybody who's on death rowit'll go to it'll roll back to life
in prison with no possibility of parole. And that's kind of like a when

(16:51):
it says here that burget Flateger settledfor life without parole, it's a compromise.
It's a compromise. So now wehave Scott Peterson in for life,
and even still he says he's notguilty of the crimes he was convicted of.
The Los Angeles Innocent Project or LAIP, picked up the case in January

(17:14):
twenty three to help defend him.According to multiple reports, laip's mission is
to exonerate the wrongfully convicted, freethe wrongfully incarcerated, uncover and remedy past
misuse of forensic and other scientific evidencein the courtroom, improved standards for the
use of forensic and other scientific evidencein the courtroom, and reform the criminal

(17:36):
legal system to prevent future injustice.Attorneys with the LAIP claim that Scott Peterson's
state and federal constitutional rights were violated. They also stayed there is newly discovered
evidence that prove Scott Peterson's innocence.According to the court filings. They say
the evidence raises many questions about whoabducted and killed Lacy and Connor Peterson.

(18:00):
And again, the Los Angeles InnocentProject is not Innocence Project is not to
be confused with a similar group thatwe're aware that we are more aware of,
which is called the Innocence Project.And they released a statement after this
was announced, which was on Januaryeighteenth, twenty twenty four. The Los

(18:21):
Angeles Innocence Project filed motions seeking DNAtesting and post conviction discovery on behalf of
its client, Scott Peterson. TheInnocence Project set on its website any and
all inquiries about mister Peterson's case shouldbe directed to the Los Angeles Innocence Project,
a nonprofit organization wholly independent of theInnocence Project. So of course they're

(18:45):
saying, you know, stop callingus. You know, we're not doing
that. It's not us. Sohere's what the Innocence Project says that they
there and their values are. TheInnocence Project works to free the innocent,
prevent wrongful convictions, and create fair, compassionate, and equitable systems of justice

(19:07):
for everyone. And I mean,I think that sounds very very similar,
very very similar, And it's fineif it is that similar. I'm sure
that the Innocence Project just wanted toclarify to the public because I'm sure they're
getting loads of requests that this wasnot them. I'm going to make a

(19:30):
guess here and say, I wouldimagine that people who believe Scott Peterson is
innocent, his family, his attorneys, they have probably applied to the Innocence
Project. And that's that's what hasto happen. You have to fill out
an application and it takes a longtime. They have to go through all

(19:52):
your files, and there's a lotof things they have to do before they
agree to take on your case.And sometimes you know they are They really
do exonerate people. And I loveto see those videos. I'm sure you
do too, where people were wrongfully, you know, convicted of a crime
and then DNA freeze them up,right, But I don't, I mean,

(20:17):
unless they've got some really chilling evidencethat we didn't know anything about earlier,
I don't know if they're just goingthrough the motions of trying to get
Scott Peterson out on some sort oftiny little infraction. I completely understand if
his rights were violated. No onewants that to happen. That's why we

(20:41):
live in the United States. Weall have rights, and if they were,
then maybe he does need a newtrial. I'm okay with that.
I'm definitely okay with a new trial. I'm not okay with just saying he
we think that there's enough evidence tosay he's innocent and they release him based

(21:02):
on that, which I mean,that doesn't happen. But some people seem
to think that. I mean,some of my students have even been talking
about, well, you know,the Innocence Project picked this up, so
he'll be free. No, notmeantime, soon will he be free.
He has nothing but time, andso he doesn't. He although he wants

(21:22):
to get out quickly like all ofthem do, he has nothing but time
to sit around and work on thisand collaborate with these attorneys. So they're
going to try and nitpick every littlething that happened in this trial to either
get it thrown out or a newtrial granted. Now, the Innocence Project,

(21:44):
they have actually helped to free orexonerate hundreds of wrongfully convicted people,
pass transformative state laws and federal reforms, and advance the innocence movement. And
I think that's probably the biggest differencebetween the La Innocence Project and the Innocence
Project, is that the Innocence Projectthey really look to pass transformative state laws

(22:12):
and federal reforms. So they're reallyan important voice for victims and a very
important voice for people who are wrongfullyconvicted. And I say that they're important
voice for victims because as a victim, you want the person who did this

(22:33):
to you or your family member orloved one. You want them caught and
punished. Well, if they've caughtand punished someone who wasn't involved, you
don't want them in jail, right. We want the right person to pay
for these crimes. So it reallyis a domino effect. Not only does

(22:56):
it affect do these things affect theperson who's in prison, affects the families
of the victim. It affects thefamily of the person who's in prison.
You've got these law students and attorneyswho are working on this Innocence Project,
and it was actually started in nineteenninety two by Barry Sheck and Peter Neufeld

(23:19):
at the Benjamin N. Cardozas Schoolof Law at Yeshiva University, and the
Innocence Project is a national litigation andpublic policy organization dedicated to exonering, exonerating
wrongfully convicted individuals through DNA testing andother scientific advancements, and they also are

(23:40):
looking to reform the criminal justice systemto prevent future injustice. I love the
fact that this started in a universityand that I personally think that the best
way for students to learn is toactually work in the field and This is

(24:02):
bringing these law students into the fieldin a way that is, you know,
not only good for our society,but they learned so much through that
process. You know, being anattorney is difficult. It's a lot of
lecture. If you're trying to getyour law degree, it's a lot of
lecture. It's a lot of knowingresources and knowing the laws and the precedents,

(24:29):
all those kind of things, andso it can be very abstract.
But that's abstract. Learning is difficultfor many people. However, if you
have someone who wants to be anattorney and they come into this program,
this hands on learning is I mean, it's proceless. You can't I can't

(24:55):
even imagine. I would imagine thatthey have the laundry. They have a
huge waiting list of people who wantto be in this program. I would
personally love to go through this program, and I did at one time want
to be an attorney, but Ijust have you know, I have different

(25:15):
thoughts about that, and I'm notgoing to get into that today. But
it's very interesting. This Innocence Projectis run by donations and you can pledge
monthly, and it even says atthe very top you know, they work
on just the public's generosity, andthat's you know, it's in the general

(25:44):
population's best interest to support a programlike this. You never know when you
may be or a family member thatyou have may be wrongfully convicted of something.
You know, it doesn't take muchin this day and age. The
power that they have right now isDNA testing and with you know, twenty

(26:07):
five year old cases, when wedidn't have this advanced DNA, we might
have had a little bit, rightwe had some DNA that would determine if
it was a male or female,but that really doesn't help too much DNA
today. I mean, we canwe can do DNA with a family member

(26:30):
and see if you know, theDNA is this is similar and have a
percentage of you know, it's ninetyseven percent positive that someone in this person's
family is the killer. Right.That's how exact it has become. Doesn't
mean that there's not mistakes. Thereare mistakes in the lab, there are

(26:52):
mistakes in how DNA is collected.There's you know, there's issues like cross
contamination where you know, two sourcesof DNA are you know, on top
of each other. So it's nota perfect science and that's why we have
these innocence projects. If you geta chance, look at Barry Shick s

(27:15):
C H E c K and thenPeter Neufeld which is n e U F
E l D, and it tellsa pretty good story about how this got
started and how they how this grewinto a you know, a national program,
probably an international program that that isreally at the forefront in our in

(27:42):
our judicial system. I mean,everybody knows about it. It's it's that
powerful and so for powerful, notonly for those who are incarcerated. In
my opinion, though, is somuch more powerful for people who are training

(28:02):
to become attorneys to have, youknow, to learn both sides of what's
happening, you know, prosecuting attorneys, defense attorneys, how the science works
in both of those situations. AndI think that that's information and experience that

(28:23):
they can't get anywhere else. SoI think it's fascinating. I am interested
to see what happens with this ScottPeterson situation. I would be really interested
to see how long it takes andwhat information they have. And I'm not

(28:45):
sure when they're gonna when that's goingto be released. There's no there's no
time limit on it, I'm sure, But for them to pick up the
case, they have to have something, and of course they may think that
it's you know, the court systemmay say that that it's not admissible in
court, and if they can't getanything, you know, positive or moving

(29:11):
forward, they'll drop the case.I really don't think that they're gonna I
don't think they're going to come outwith anything significant that's going to prove he
didn't do it. If you lookat the information released on this case,
unless they're holding something back from us, like they often do, it's even

(29:34):
the circumstantial evidence is powerful. Ido know. I do remember specifically that
in the neighborhood the day of herdisappearance, there was or maybe the day
before, there was a robbery acrossthe street and three men I believe,

(29:56):
and they did not the police didnot really follow up on that, and
the defense said that it was probablythese these perpetrators who killed Lacey and Connor,
not Scott, and they didn't reallyfollow up on that. And unfortunately
that we know that happens. Youknow, the police do the best they

(30:19):
can, but it's certainly they're humanand they make mistakes. All right.
Well, thanks for listening today,and if you have thoughts or questions,
you know you can always email meand look out for another another podcast,
probably next week. I look forwardto it. Have a great day.