September 8, 2025 • 62 mins
What turns an ordinary person into a cold blooded lone killer? From the Christchurch massacre to disturbing cases of stalking and coercive control, Consultant Forensic Psychologist Dr Nathan Brooks reveals the warning signs, hidden triggers and psychological make-up of people who execute violent attacks.
Want to hear more from I Catch Killers? Visit news.com.au.
Watch episodes of I Catch Killers on our YouTube channel here.
Like the show? Get more at icatchkillers.com.au
Advertising enquiries: newspodcastssold@news.com.au
Questions for Gary: icatchkillers@news.com.au
Get in touch with the show by joining our Facebook group, and visiting us on Instagram or Tiktok.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
The public has had a long held fascination with detectives.
Detective see aside of life the average person is never
exposed to. I spent thirty four years as a cop.
For twenty five of those years I was catching killers.
That's what I did for a living. I was a
homicide detective. I'm no longer just interviewing bad guys. Instead,
I'm taking the public into the world in which I operated.
(00:23):
The guests I talk to each week have amazing stories
from all sides of the law. The interviews are raw
and honest, just like the people I talk to. Some
of the content and language might be confronting. That's because
no one who comes into contact with crime is left unchanged.
Join me now as I take you into this world.
(00:46):
Welcome back to part two of my chat with forensic
psychologists Nathan Brooks. In part one, we talked about Nathan's work,
the difference between serial killers and mass murderers, and the
emerging trend of loan actors who go on killing sprees.
In part two, Nathan talks about the christ Church massacre,
where the actions of one man led to the death
(01:08):
of fifty one people. Nathan breaks down how and why
this crime occurred and how we can try and prevent
these types of killings in the future. It was a
fascinating and informative chat. Have a listened to what Nathan
has to say, Nathan Brooks or doctor Nathan Brooks, I
should say, welcome back to part two of I Catch Killers.
Speaker 2 (01:27):
Thanks Gary.
Speaker 1 (01:28):
I've got to say I am finding this conversation fascinating
and was working as a homicide detective. I found this
inside the mind of killers or all the type of
things that you're examining absolutely fascinating. I'm sure you're getting
this all the time, but is that people are fascinating?
Speaker 2 (01:48):
I think unpacking what makes troubling and sometimes very violent
people tick is it is it's fascinating because most of
us can't understand it. And when we think about psychopaths,
for instance, Yeah, they are the ones that think different
and make different decisions, and we're often caught up in
our own emotions. But for some folks, like psychopathic folks,
(02:10):
that they're cool and calm under pressure, that they're not
burdened by the anxiety that we have, and that's hard
for everyday people to understand.
Speaker 1 (02:18):
Yeah, yeah, I want to talk about the christ Church
massacre which is you know, I'm sure most people know it.
I'll just read out a summary of it, just so
people that haven't been aware of it they are aware
of what happened. So two consecutive mass shootings took place
in christ Church, New Zealand, on the fifteenth of March
twenty nineteen. They were committed during Friday prayer, first at
(02:41):
the Elnora Mosque at Rickiton at one forty pm, and
almost immediately after at Limbwood Islamic Center at one point
fifty two. Altogether, fifty one people were killed and eighty
nine others were injured, including forty by gunfire. The perpetrator
was an Australian man, Brenton Tarrant, then age twenty eight.
Tarrant was arrested after his vehicles ran by a police
(03:04):
car as he was driving to a third mosque, nash Burton.
He live streamed the first shooting on Facebook, making the
first successful live stream far right terror attack, and had
published a manifesto online before the attack that just sort
of sets the saying. I think anyone that recalls that
incident knows how horrifying it was. You've looked at it
(03:27):
in depth, what's your take on what caused the lead
up to it and why did it get that dramatic
And we touched on small parts of it in part one.
If we could just deep dive into it now.
Speaker 2 (03:39):
Yeah, So before we get into it, my caveat that
I'm obviously with the New Zealand Police and this is
certainly my view on the situation. It's not at all
reflective of theirs. But it is a really complex case.
I think when anyone carries out such a horrific mass
act of violence, there are many many layers and what
(04:01):
we saw in that incident and that tragic attack was
that several years of build up went into it. It
wasn't something that just happened overnight. We know that Tarrent
moved to New Zealand with the intention of carrying out
a mass casualty attack, and that was his reason for
moving over there. I believe he cited the fact that
(04:24):
it was partly the ability to access the firearms that
was one of the primary factors, and shortly after getting
there he commenced training with firearms and acquiring tactical capabilities.
But to understand him, we probably need to trace things
back to his childhood and he had in many ways,
(04:45):
probably something that hasn't garnered a lot of attention. Quite
a traumatic childhood we focused a lot, particularly, I think
the media courage has been a lot around his ideology.
But there are a lot of puzzle pieces that were
there early on for him in his early years.
Speaker 1 (05:02):
What type of things were they.
Speaker 2 (05:04):
So one of the things that we look at for
childhood is whether people experience trauma and the influence that
that can have on them as they develop and grow
into adults. And adverse childhood experiences is often a marker
that we use to look at how bad that trauma
is or how much adversity your child has had in
(05:27):
their upbringing, And a lot of research would say around
four or five adverse experiences can have quite significant impact
on someone as they age and really shape who they become.
And we know Arran had a troubled upbringing. So his
parents separated, which I'll just run through some of it.
(05:47):
So some of the adverse experiences are parental separation, parental
mental health, criminality, unstable housing, financial issues, drug use. So
the tip things that we that we might expect. Yeah,
and so so Terence's parents obviously split up, so we
had the separation his mother then started dating a new
(06:10):
individual I believe it was an aboriginal fellow, and he
was reportedly violent towards Tarrant and his sister, and that
abuse continued over several years. Then we also had his
father who suffered from mental health difficulties and then also
(06:32):
developed cancer I believe for Mary and ultimately then committed
suicide as well. So there were some quite notable things there. Drama, yeah,
and he also Terrant himself was struggled to fit in socially,
as we which touched on before. He was often bullied.
He was considered to be quite overweight as well, and
(06:54):
then in his late teens he had a big transformation
and became quite fixated and about the gym and lost
quite a lot of weight.
Speaker 1 (07:03):
I think it was in your book it was something
like forty or fifty years huge, Yeah.
Speaker 2 (07:09):
Quite remarkable. And also during that adolescence we see that
some early racist remarks were coming out in his school years,
which suggests there's certainly, you know, some difficulties with how
we're seeing the world and people and maybe even seeing
that there's certain people that are to blame or that
are causing hardships for him, and that might have been
(07:32):
reflective of what things were like on the home front,
with you know, with the physical abuse that was happening
at home, and from there as he aged. I think
he has spent a period being a personal trainer after
high school, and then he inherited a large sum of
money once his father passed away, and that basically funded
(07:53):
him to go and travel overseas for quite a few years.
And unfortunately, rather than taking inspiration from the the cultures
and the different people, he became very cynical, and if
we look at the various accounts and things that have
(08:13):
been covered on the topic, his views were shaped in
a very negative manner. It did coincide with while he
was in Europe with some Islamic based attacks occurring, so
in Islamic most terrorist attacks at the time, and that
all sort of seemed to come together along with his
(08:33):
strong reliance on online groups in four chan and eight
chan and some of these other forums where he was
really fueling his beliefs about the world and having those
reciprocad back to him, and the classic sort of echo
chamber effects started to happen from there, where the ideology
really became perpetuated and continued to get reinforced.
Speaker 1 (08:56):
Out the time. I suppose what he's exposing himself too
is only going to people people that share the same ideology,
and that becomes that cycle. Yes, it reinforces his belief Yeah.
Speaker 2 (09:07):
And I think the further down that rabbit hole that
you go, the more you find things that support those views.
And you know, we get that the classic distortion aspect
happen where you look for things that are what you want,
you look for things that reinforce your beliefs, and then
you ignore anything that's contradictory. And that's what we find
(09:30):
with a lot of ideological aspects is people cherry pick
what they focus on and they ignore the things that
are contradictory to that, and that of course can very
easily then start to lead to quite extreme beliefs when
you're only looking at a small fragment of an issue.
Speaker 1 (09:47):
So the build up would you describe as a perfect
storm in terms of what the build up before he
carried out this horrible act.
Speaker 2 (09:58):
Well, there certainly, I think the cycle, logical makeup, the
psychological foundation was a big factor. So he had a
lot of vulnerabilities. There clearly a lot of unresolved anger
that was never addressed, and then we had the Internet
peace on top of that, where he's engaging in various ideological,
(10:18):
extreme right wing views that are being perpetuated and fueled.
He's then quite financially well off as well, which gave
him access and capability factors, and then develops the plan
or the intent to carry out some sort of violence
to avenge or seek justice for the injustice which he's
(10:39):
perceiving in the world. And then starts to begin planning
and moves to New Zealand with the intention of carrying
out a mass casualty attack, And a bit like with
Anders Bravic in Norway, we see the culmination of factors
come together, along with the secrecy and the willingness to
dedicate a couple of years of your life to carrying
(11:04):
out such a horrific active violence. I mean that itself
is nearly unheard of and so remarkable that someone could
be so dedicated over that obsession to give their life
to that.
Speaker 1 (11:15):
Yeah, there were a number of inquiries that flowed on
from the event. Did anything jump out in the part
where it could have been I won't say prevented, because
as I keep saying that it's easy in hindsight, But
is there any indicators or ways that it could have
been diffused? Do you think how could you approach it
(11:35):
if you look back with the benefit of hindsight. Okay,
when he got to this point, there should have been
some intervention.
Speaker 2 (11:42):
Yeah, that's again in hindsight. So there was a Royal
commission in New Zealand into Royal Commission of Inquiry into
the attack and it's a nearly nine hundred page document
which reviewed it. Now, some of the interesting findings were
more around systems and processes rather than terror himself, so
(12:04):
it looked at, you know things. So he had a
gunshot wound in the months prior to the attack, and
at the time there were no mandatory reporting practices for
gunshot wounds. So that has since changed so that if
someone presents to hospital with a gunshot wound, that is
then passed on to police and then followed up. Firearm
register was something that wasn't strong and that's been completely
(12:29):
revamped to make access to firearms much more difficult and
mental health checks and interviews and those sorts of processes.
So again another positive step that has been put in place. Yeah,
and of course the access to guns has been reduced
as well, So some of those capability and incident reporting
systems have been improved, been a lot more funding as well.
(12:53):
That's gone into violent extremism, and I think as well
that improved police practic and that's not being critical at
all of the police practices, but unfortunately when we have incidents,
of course that reviews, that leads.
Speaker 1 (13:09):
To change and the improvements. Of course, when when it
gets that way not well, I suppose it's the magnitude
of the crime that he created there required that review
lesser type of crimes. But one you and I spoke
off camera about it, and you are, you're over here
(13:29):
and you're going to deliver a lecture on it. Stalking.
Stalking to me is a major concern. What message have
you got or what have you learned about stalking people
that are prepared to stalk? And over here in Australia
and not just New South Wales, across the across the country,
we've got a lot of domestic violence where unfortunately it's
(13:49):
male partners invariably murdering female partners. And you look at
it and I can virtually guarantee they'll be stalking involved
and not accepting the relationship being over and different things
like that. What's your your assessment of stalking?
Speaker 2 (14:03):
Oh, look, it's so it's so troubling. And one of
the challenges we're stalking is that it exists on such
a spectrum from small unwanted acts, repeated contact that's unwanted,
all the way through to very predatory and concerning behaviors,
you know, such as breaking into a house and going
(14:23):
through a person's underwear drawer and moving things around. So
it is a type of offending that is so broad,
but we need to think about it, I think from
a from a couple of different lenses, and one is
how persistent is it? And then also how likely is
it to become severe and escalating nature. So stalking can
(14:44):
be very broad in motivation. So sometimes it's targeted because
of you resentment towards an ex partner. Sometimes it's revenge
towards a workplace. Other times it might be because the
person's mentally unwell and they are constantly making unwanted contact
because of quite a distortion about the person of the targeting.
(15:06):
And then other times it's very predatory and that can
often end up being quite significant violence or even sexual
offending towards a person so it's multifaceted and it exists
on a spectrum.
Speaker 1 (15:18):
Have you in your work with New Zealand Plece some
have been involved in stalking cases and how they play
that You don't have to identify the specific case, but
stalking cases are the vscalated. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (15:31):
Look as both a consultant forensic psychologist and also working
in the police and a lot of the times it's
looking at it from a threat lens and how concerned
do we need to be about the case. And sometimes
it's about understanding the motivation and the functionality of the
stalking So what is it that the person's trying to
achieve here and why is it that they are failing
(15:55):
to understand that that behavior is unwanted and not reciprocated.
Often there's an educational component and then sometimes it's looking
at as well, is this going to persist or is
this going to escalate with the stalking case. Intimate partner
violence is another one that we sometimes become very concerned about.
(16:16):
Often stalking will exist amongst a range of other forms
of intimate partner violence, particularly coercive control, and we know
that across cases of fatal intimate partner violence that around
about seventy five percent of those cases have stalking in them.
And often when a partner is killed or an ext
(16:38):
partner is killed, it's where there's been a high level
of coercive control and the victim has tried to regain
a level of independence and autonomy and that has been
the final tipping point for the offender and they have
killed that person as that sort of final active trying
to have dominance and control over their lives, which is
really quite horrific.
Speaker 1 (16:59):
Well, the scary part is a dangerous period is in
those domestic violent situations when the partner is trying to leave,
that's when they're at the greatest, greatest risk.
Speaker 2 (17:08):
Absolutely. Yeah, ed is concerning and again education is quite important,
but the flip side of that is it's hard to
have that conversation with people as well, and should people
really have to be that well educated and informed? You know,
everyone has a right to safety in many ways, and
(17:28):
unfortunately we still have huge concerns with people willing to
take matters into their own hands and become violent.
Speaker 1 (17:36):
Do you think and I'm talking New South Wales or
Australia may be relevant to New Zealand whether the courts
fully appreciate the nature of it. If someone even the
public's perception that's almost a joke, like I've got a
stalker and we saw the laugh. Yeah, but I've had
(17:57):
so many people contact me when I was in the
police as police, but people contact me post police, reaching
out and they've got a stalker and no one seems
to take it seriously and they're terrified. Do you think
the courts take it and the police take it seriously
enough for stalking.
Speaker 2 (18:15):
It's hard to give a blanket answer to that. But
with what you're saying, there are of course many cases
where people just go it's unwanted contact, they'll stop, or
they just dismiss it. And that's where stalking becomes a problem,
because when we dismiss it, it keeps going, and we
need to make sure that we're putting the right level
(18:37):
of response to a situation. And the temptation is unfortunately
to water down the seriousness of it, and that of
course allows it to keep going, and then before you
know it, it's three months, then it's six months. We've
hit a year, and that's a really reinforced and ingrained
pattern and the person may or the offender may have
(18:58):
had quite a bit of feedback that this is a
successful way to keep that person in their life. By
that stage, well.
Speaker 1 (19:05):
I think, and this is when I'm giving people advice.
If they've got a stalk with if they make contact
that does end up in court, their concern is that
brings this person back into my life. And so the
stalkers achieved what they want to achieve. So it's a
hard thing to police, but it's something that I've always thought.
They were red flags to me when I saw it
(19:26):
in any capacity of an investigation. If someone was stalking someone,
the being told we don't want to speak to you,
stay away from us, and they ignore that, that is
a warning sign of I on the right track there,
Like it's.
Speaker 2 (19:38):
Yeah, absolutely, yeah. You look at things like approach behavior.
You know, how much are they prepared to or toward
extent are they prepared to approach the victim, to be
intrusive towards the victim? Are they engaging inst surveillance like behaviors,
are they entering the person's residence, And also factors such
as mental illness can play a role, personality disorders, and
(20:01):
we look at as well, you know, are they deterred
by things such as court orders. If it keeps going
after court orders again, that's very troubling.
Speaker 1 (20:10):
Well, I've had people that the victims of the stalking
that have come back to me when the courts haven't
gone hard on the stalker, the stalker comes back to
them just laughing, going, look the courts don't even care
and empowers them on coercive control. Relatively recently had that
start to come into a play, legislation that come into play.
(20:31):
I haven't seen it actually play out in court, so
I think a big part of it is going to
be how the police uses as a tool. I think
it's a powerful tool. Is coercive control legislative over in
New Zealand? Is that something that's come into play over there?
Speaker 2 (20:44):
No, it's not legislated over there yet. And remarkably, we
don't actually have a stalking law or a stalking chargers yet.
So there's been talk that shouldn't say talk, it's probably
a loose word for that, but there's been political movement
that legislation is going to be proposed quite soon and
(21:04):
then we will have a stalking law, but no coercive control.
Over in Australia, here is a reasonably new charge in
a couple of states, so it'd be really interesting to
monitor how that goes. But the research on intimate partner
violence has certainly been the big reason that we're seeing
that law come in because it's been so prevalent but
(21:28):
also relevant to fatal cases.
Speaker 1 (21:31):
Yeah, yeah, there's been to many of them in this country,
that's for sure. The interview room, Yes, you're working for
New Zealand Police. Is that part of the role that
you do help investigators prepare for an interview, to sit
down in the interview room.
Speaker 2 (21:48):
Yeah. We've been doing quite a bit of work in
that space of late over the last two years or so,
and it is one of the main things that we're
doing currently around how do we under stand the person
in front of us and how do we tailor our
response to ensure that we're meeting them at their level.
Speaker 1 (22:09):
Yeah, yeah, I look, I find the interview room fascinating.
That was that was my happy place in policing. I
found it very stimulating to be in the interview room.
A lot of pressure, a lot of build up and
all that, but the way that you approach and the investigation.
I'll throw a couple of things out just for a
point of discussion I learned from people that I looked
(22:29):
up to as interviewers, and I've sort of tried to
adopt the aspects of the way they approached the interview.
But I also learned that you've got to be You've
got to be legitimate, like you've got to be yourself
in the interview room. I've seen people try to I've
tried to mimic people the way they interview someone doesn't work.
I've got to be myself. I've had other people try
to mimic me the way I interview. It doesn't work.
(22:52):
So I think there's something that you've got to build,
that rapport with someone in the interview room. Would you
agree agree with that?
Speaker 2 (22:58):
Yes, spot on. I member poor has become arguably the
most crucial ingredient in an interview now, and we have
come a long way. It's hard to talk about what
current police practices are, but I dare say that across
Australia and New Zealand there's an improved understanding that rapport
(23:20):
really is a cornerstone of the interview. So it's very
hard to have a serious major crime interview without rapport.
We can't just get the person in now and go
straight into the offending straight into the issues that there's
got to be a build up to that because we
can't we can't expect someone to want to talk to
us if we're not establishing rapport with them.
Speaker 1 (23:42):
Yeah, I agree with that, and I people have said
characteristics of a good detective empathy empathy in the interview
room that you're sitting down and trying to understand where
this person's coming from. It might discuss me where they're
coming from. I might agree with it, but I won't
show that on my face. That will be very much
a poker face in what they're telling me, So there's
(24:04):
not judgment there to go with people. Again, I'll just
throw in some of my thoughts on the interview room
because I'm interested in getting getting your thoughts. Some people
are going to the interview room and I would be
very professional. I'd deliberately present professionally because I thought that
was the best way to communicate. Otherwise I'd get in
(24:24):
there and be very relaxed when we talk about rapport.
That's the type of thing I'm assessing the person in
the way that I want to approach. Sarah Ure, the
forensic psychologists I work with a talk about the carrot
or the stick, whether you're dangling something to them that
they want or they're feeling. And we can't threaten people
in an interview room obviously stick figuratively, we don't go
(24:47):
in there with a stick. What's your thoughts on different
approaches for different offenders, Like, there's not a one model
fits all, is there?
Speaker 2 (24:54):
No? No, there's not, But I think there's some rules
of thumb that do hold up really well with with rapport.
So firstly, we need to foster commonality. So first principle
is if you're going in to interview someone, what is
it about you that's going to allow you to relate
to that person? What have you got in common? So
(25:15):
everyone should be able to find those things. Secondly, wein
look at our ability to compliment the person. And I
think when we say compliments, people think, oh, you know,
what are you on about? You're just basically trying to
praise them unnecessarily. But there's always things when we step
back and look at someone's life that we can acknowledge
(25:36):
and validate, and that is quite crucial that we still
do that we recognize them as individuals and as small
as that achievement may be, it may be significant for them,
So where is this scope to compliment and validate that person?
And then the other one is humor, and that probably
sounds like it doesn't belong in an interview room. But
(25:57):
how can we find moments of lightheartednessnst a really heavy
and serious conversation.
Speaker 1 (26:03):
Yeah, okay, I get where you're coming from. And that's
very much creating that relaxed environment where the conversation will
be for flowing. I think the way I approach interviews,
some people are very specific, word orientated. Listening to your answer,
what you exactly you said? I know, I've got that's
(26:25):
what comes down because the transcripts only reflects what you said.
But if I'm interviewing you in an interview room, in
a tense interview, and this is one where it's not
a lay down, as you haven't got all the evidence,
A lot's going to depend on what the person of
interest that you're interviewing talks about. It's about creating that,
creating that environment where they feel comfortable to talk. But
(26:47):
I'm watching their body language like I might throw something
out a little bit left field, a little bit strange.
See how you react, Which way do you lean to
within interviewing or is this coming down to I said
at the start that it's individual styles.
Speaker 2 (27:03):
Look, I think of these individual styles and some people
naturally have a really good style and some can learn it.
There's the intrusiveness peace to an interview as well. So
when do you become intrusive about the content of that conversation.
And when I say intrusiveness, what I'm really talking about
is topics that are uncomfortable and maybe more confronting. So
(27:26):
you would want to start low and soft and easier
conversation piece topics in the early stages of the interview,
and as the rapport develops, then you can become more
intrusive because there's a level of trust and respect understanding
developed between the interviewer and the interview we so you
(27:47):
can't go in too hot or too intrusive too early,
because you put yourself on the back foot and you
risk upsetting the person. So I think with the peace model,
which is widely used, you know, really in some ways
it's a bit like a five set tennis match where
we're looking at the cumulative momentum over several hours and
(28:09):
it's going back and forth, and if you do enough,
thing's the right way, it tips in your favor.
Speaker 1 (28:16):
And a lot of the public's perception is that we've
got the right to interview people too, as in you're
obliged to answer questions. That's very much not the case,
so they're well within their rights. I've also found, and
talk to me about the characteristics of the people that
would buy into this, that I've sat down with people
that have an arrogance about them and that's the very
(28:39):
thing I'm going to exploit that, Like, they're dumb to
sit down and have an interview with me, but they're
so arrogant they think they're going to it doesn't have
to be me outsmart the police. I'm smarter than you,
and that's why they can't resist themselves sitting down having
an interview. Do you see that type of personality.
Speaker 2 (28:56):
Yeah, there's the tendency of people that believe that they
can control the situation and that they can talk their
way out of it, although they are the smartest person
in the room and that can sometimes bring them undone.
You A case over in New Zealand which has been
quite public and there's been a Netflix documentary on it
is Jesse Kimson and the Grace Malayan case and.
Speaker 1 (29:17):
Your assessment on that.
Speaker 2 (29:18):
Yeah, there's been a lot published and segments of the
interview that have been publicly put out there of Kimsen
during his interview, and we certainly saw that he started
off very calm and believed that he could talk his
way out of it during the first interview that ended
up bringing him undone during the second interview, where a
(29:38):
lot of those stories were then able to be corroborated
and that worked against him in the end. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (29:46):
Yeah, but it is interesting what may devates people to
sit down and participate in the interview. What about crime scenes?
Your interpretation of crime scenes? And I think a discussion
initially when you came in here before on camera talking
about psychopaths how they can commit a horrendous crime and
(30:08):
not be rattled by it than leave. I would see
crime scenes where I would call it like a panic
crime scene. I don't think the person planned this, that
shocked them, that they've killed a person, and the crime
scene represents that. What's you're taken? What can you learn
from going to a crime scene?
Speaker 2 (30:25):
Crime scenes are so valuable from anyone in the operational spaces.
You nearly need to see the crime scene or at
least have incredibly good photos of it to be able
to form any conclusions around it. But look, you look
for contradictions ultimately in the crime scene, don't you. And
sometimes chaotic crime scenes are stage crime scenes as well,
(30:47):
and then the absence of things that crime scenes can
also be very telling. So it's sometimes it's what's not
there that's important, and then the disarray as well can
also be quite telling. So I know that you know,
FBI would say that you study the work of the artists,
which is their crime scene, to try and understand them.
(31:09):
But I think the crime scene gives us very good
insights into one how the crime has occurred, and then
why things may or may not be there that should
be there or have been removed from a scene. So
it really looks at, you know, three stages before the crime,
during the crime, and then after the crime, and that
(31:30):
can give us valuable information across those three and then
together you form whether it's a profile or a working
theory around the offender and how.
Speaker 1 (31:39):
They breakdown in an example or give examples for those
three breakdowns all.
Speaker 2 (31:44):
So we go back to the Jesse Kimson case. So
it's been quite well publicized that he met Grace mulane
and then they went out for dinner, and then they
went back to his hotel room. Something transpired there which
resulted in Grace's death. It certainly seems like it was
(32:04):
probably unlikely that there was any intention to kill her.
But then when we look at post crime, we see
that he was very methodical after the offense, and there
was a lot of clean up. There was a lot
of stages, it's been well documented around him. He moved
her body, went and buried the body, cleaned the scene,
(32:29):
and there was quite a calmness in the chaos at
the time. And that's rather unusual. You know, we think
about someone trying to recover from a horrific event. There's
a lot of anxiety and panic and concern. It's unusual
to be quite methodical and calm.
Speaker 1 (32:49):
Very much so, and that was something I always look
to exploit that mistakes made after that the murders occurred
or the crime has occurred. Little things like if a
murder weapon has been introduced to the crime soon, if
someone's bought, if it's a murder's happened in the house
and it's the kitchen knife from the kitchen bench that's
(33:10):
been used as a murder weapon. That tells me it
wasn't intent at the time they're going there, something escalated,
something has happened at the time, so not the planning.
These are the type of things you look for as
a forensic psychologist.
Speaker 2 (33:23):
Yeah, definitely, you know, how prepared and planned was someone
prior to the crime And going back to is there
evidence of cleanup and have items been taken away from
the scene, whether it's weapons or belongings of the victim.
Has the body been moved? If the body is there,
you know, is there a quite a bit of forensic
(33:46):
evidence it still remains. You know, often we think loosely
as a rule of thumb, you know, the less evidence
that's at the scene and the more that has been removed.
We're talking about a plan and prepared offender. Go back
to the classic FBI organized disorganized profile, which looked at
that the organized fellows tend to come to the scene
prepared and take things away and leave limited forensic evidence.
(34:09):
That disorganized Often there's a lot of forensic evidence. Things
are in disarray. There can be a scrambled a tempt
to cover the crime up and make it look like
something else.
Speaker 1 (34:18):
Well, I take a lot away from the way the
bodies are disposed of to and you can almost see
the panic in the way some bodies are disposed of,
or you can see the planning and the time. So
that's all very telling, isn't it.
Speaker 2 (34:32):
Yes, so some of them are quite superficially disposed of
essentially it's the first opportunity, or they're buried very.
Speaker 1 (34:38):
Basically get this body.
Speaker 2 (34:40):
Away from me here, and then others are you know,
take much longer and much more time.
Speaker 1 (34:45):
Without going into methodology, is this the type of thing
you sit down with police New Zealand Police like, they'll
come to you, there's been a crime, the body has
been found, they contact you and this is how you
work work with the police.
Speaker 2 (34:57):
Yes, yeah, absolutely so. It could be in avariety of stages.
It could be the homicides just happened and we're trying
to understand the crime scene and the behavior that's happened
and insights into the offender. It could be that we're
four weeks on and things have hit a wall and
leads have run dry, and will review the crime and
(35:18):
look at trying to generate new lines of inquiry.
Speaker 1 (35:20):
Right, we spoke in part one about serial killers or
the demise of serial killers, which is a pretty good
way of saying that that's good that they're reducing that
serial sex offenders, but yeah, I've worked serial sex crimes.
Have they reduced serial killing? So the same things that
(35:42):
are reducing serial murderers reducing serial sex offenders or is
it still Yeah?
Speaker 2 (35:48):
The big one would be our intrue to rapists and
it is rare for us to get a series of
those these days. I think that's true across Australia and
New Zealand. We still get lots of touch based offenses
towards strangers, bus stops, those sorts of public public areas,
but you know, the rapist that's targeting strangers or going
(36:10):
in to homes is it's much less common. That doesn't
mean that they don't happen those offenses, but it's rare
that they are a series. Now they are often caught
much quicker, and again that's because of all the improvements
in technology that we.
Speaker 1 (36:24):
Have and just a sharing of information too. I think
that's a big part because before we would often be
looking for an offender that's got a certain type of
characteristic about characteristics about the way he commits a crime.
Someone else in the neighboring lac might be doing the
same thing. In the old days, it wasn't a case
that would be sharing the information, But we've to waken
(36:46):
up to that.
Speaker 2 (36:47):
Now and see New Zealand runs by Class which catalogs
all the stranger sex offenses across the country. So our
behavioral science unit is keeping a data lot of over
a decade and more of all the stranger six crimes.
So if we do have something that comes up, we're
(37:08):
able to draw on more than eight to nine thousand
cases and look at what we know about something of
a similar nature with a similar type of offending pattern.
And of course if we do get something, we could
also look back at whether it is linked to any
other crimes as well.
Speaker 1 (37:22):
Okay, again, excuse me from jumping from point to point,
but I'm finding the whole chat very interesting. Mental health
what part does that play? And I've got some stats
here that I pulled out of your book, so I'm
hoping they're correct that seventeen and fifty percent of loane
actors are suffering from a mental illness at the time
(37:43):
of offending. Two thirds of perpetrators experiencing mental health concerns
in the period leading up to their attack. So look,
regardless of the specifics of the stats, it's saying that
mental health is a big thing in loan actors. What
type of mental health issues are we looking at them?
Speaker 2 (38:02):
Yeah, I mean it's the catch twenty two, isn't it?
In many ways of mental health, because again it's on
a spectrum, and it can be all the way from
psychotic based presentations where someone has completely lost touch with
reality and they are unaware and they don't have sound
mind with what they're doing. And it seems as though
(38:22):
that is a good example of the bond dijunction with
attack with Joel Kuchi, that he was schizophrenic for a
long period of time and psychotic at the time.
Speaker 1 (38:32):
How much did you know about that particular case.
Speaker 2 (38:35):
Well, I think it's still emerging. I know there was
the recent inquiry and the results haven't been published, but
the psychotic aspect and his long term schizophrenic diagnosis seems
to be quite central.
Speaker 1 (38:47):
And I think it's already been mentioned in the public
and would have been mentioned that the inquest. But the
parents had concerns about him with his fascination with knives
and different things.
Speaker 2 (38:58):
Yeah, and that's where where mental health is tricky because
there are so many people with mental health difficulties or
mental illness or psychosis or schizophrenia that aren't ever violent,
So that is quite important to put into context. But
you have to add layers to the mental health that
(39:18):
then add to the potential then to be violent. So yeah,
the various issues with grievances in life, very very very
much violent interests or things like that can then be
exacerbators for the mental illness. But then we can also
have things like depression that can be a catalyst for
then developing a grievance and affixation, and that can then
(39:41):
perpetuate and grow from there. So I think mental health
can be a causal factor or an indirect factor as well,
and sometimes as well. We also say that there's subclinical
things that are not really at the diagnostic threshold which
drive behavior. It might be that someone the struggles with
shame and envy of others, and it's very likely to
(40:04):
get quite jealous, and they've got a personality that makes
them prone to collecting grievances or feeling like they've been wronged,
and that then walks them down that path to violence.
Speaker 1 (40:15):
That's sitting here talking to you, I'm getting an appreciation
of how complicated it is. If you see Sarah you're
at the conference, apologize to her. I expected too much
from her. There are so many layers and variables, isn't it.
So I can see why you try to structure things
as best you can. It's not foolproof, but yeah, here's
(40:36):
some indicators. This might be the way we prevent this.
Speaker 2 (40:39):
Yeah, I think we need to be careful that as psychologists,
we're not always trying to come up with an explanation.
So it's over complicated, but loosely, I always go how
dyed up? Or are the dials for the persons or
how intense are things? Then we can also think about
how frequent is the symptoms or the traits, and then
what's the severity of it as well, So we need
(41:02):
to look at it through frameworks that make it understandable.
Speaker 1 (41:05):
And a framework makes it as understandable as best you
can hope for. Leading into the use of AI, do
you see that as something that's going to be very
much in the forefront of criminal investigation.
Speaker 2 (41:21):
It's hard. I mean, in terms of the mass casualty
space we've already seen over in the US that people
have had AI right plans around how to carry out
a mass casualty attack.
Speaker 1 (41:32):
For I was thinking from the good guys, you're looking
from the bad guys.
Speaker 2 (41:36):
Offender capability enhancement aspect, and we know that that's happening already.
What it means for police investigations, it's really hard to say.
It'll make some of them more boring tasks of writing
up things easier, but you know, facial recognition and those
sorts of things I think will transform as well, So
it's hard to anticipate where it will go.
Speaker 1 (41:58):
I'm thinking like by class you talk about like if
you had an AI component of assessing all the information,
that might make it even more readily about I think.
Speaker 2 (42:08):
The ability to analyze mass amounts of data or information
will greatly improve, but it will still require the human
analysts to develop the right meaning and interpretation of that.
Speaker 1 (42:23):
I'm looking at getting back to and prevention is the
key of hopefully what you're achieving. And I've got a
couple of headings here, but fixated thread assessments, fixated persons, unit,
need for information sharing. So three main points. So if
we're talking about preventing these type of loan actor attacks.
(42:46):
Breaking down those three headings like fixated threat assessments, how
do they play a part? And I know we've touched
on it, but just breaking it down again.
Speaker 2 (42:56):
So, fixated threat assessments really are police and mental health
specialists working together to make decisions about a person of concern,
and that starts by information coming in about a person
and then doing a screening judgment to look at, Okay,
(43:16):
do we need to be concerned about this based on
the information? Do we need to dig more? We might
find that once we dig that it is concerning, then
you would go through the process of doing a more
rigorous assessment. Then you might look to engage with the
person to understand things further, and then if you're still
concern then it would be going, okay, let's put some
wrap around support towards the person, and then you'd monitor,
(43:40):
you'd review, and if it's still not improving, that might
be then when there's more targeted responses that could emerge.
Speaker 1 (43:48):
It's a multi agency, isn't it. It's very much. It's
not just the police, it's mental health, the health system,
all sorts of things.
Speaker 2 (43:57):
Yeah, and in this space we've realized that it is
multi agency that we need to be very careful of
silos of information being held and locked down and not
being shared. Man around Monus was probably a good example
of that. That information needs to flow to the right people,
and then those reviews and those assessments then need to
(44:20):
go back to other people in return, so we can't
be locking down on things. We need to be very
mindful of gaps in practice where we don't have knowledge
disconnects between agencies as well, And I'd probably also say
that a couple of other things around bunkers. So not
just doing an assessment on someone and going, oh, you know,
look that low concern. We'll just put the paperwork in
(44:44):
the file and we're done with that, and two weeks
later there's an incident. So we can't necessarily be reassured
by the fact that we've done an assessment and go okay,
we can wash our hands of that. And then the
last one really is myopia, where we simply lose focus
because we're looking at this too much, or we're not
getting an outside perspective, so too much group think, well,
(45:07):
whatever it might be, where it causes us just to
not to see that this has changed. And probably I
think in the lone actor space that the myopia aspect
is where we may come undone again in the future
because we're seeing more and more young people now presenting
with risk factors and concerning behaviors that if someone had
(45:29):
said that to you a decade ago, you would have
been horrified and you would have hit the panic button.
Now that our tolerance.
Speaker 1 (45:37):
For that we've become desensitizes.
Speaker 2 (45:40):
So you know, people with very violent ideations and purchasing
of weapons and engagement in quite extreme goal and extremist
material that are very young. It's become commonplace is not
the right word, but in the work that we do,
it's a little bit more commonplace now that that is
the type of person of concerned that you're seeing. And
(46:02):
the worry then is that we go, Okay, well, we're
so used to that now and we've seen so many
of them that don't do anything, but we need to
be very rigorous and understand that that could change and
that could escalate.
Speaker 1 (46:19):
I could see people dropping their guard down because we've
seen this and there's one hundred people that are like that,
Why are we worried about this person? But that could
be the one person.
Speaker 2 (46:28):
Yes, And I think in Australia as well. You know,
we had a good probably wake up call last last
year in twenty twenty four. So obviously we had the
Bondi Junction attack, which was sort of separate in some ways,
but then there was the good chaper Church. A couple
of weeks later, there was a young sixteen year old
(46:48):
over in Western Australia that stabbed someone at Bunnings and
then was killed by police. And then about six or
seven weeks later it was either was it Paramatter or Newcastle,
I can't remember. Young person with a go pro tactical
vest walked in with a couple of knives into politician's
office and fortunately they didn't go through with the attack.
(47:10):
But you know, within that space of two months, that
potentially could have been four very serious mass casualty attacks.
Speaker 1 (47:17):
Young males involved in it too. What there's a reason
so many young males seem to be the ones that
do these things that can be influenced.
Speaker 2 (47:29):
Yes, it's it is very concerning, and I think there's
been a lot spoken about men and masculinity and where
men at at the at the moment, a lot of
them are searching for identity and their their place in
society and for me, when they are struggling and can't
(47:49):
find a way to connect, or can't have an intimate relationship,
or are unsure how to cope with their mental health,
they're not they don't know how to communicate, can take
a troubling turn. And there's a lot of work I
think for men to do and to find pro social
outlets to express their challenges in the right way, because
(48:12):
it's easy to turn to blame and frustration and also
believe that you know others are others are responsible for
what's happening to you, for your shortcomings and difficulties. So
I think there's so much that we need to be
doing with men to help them improve how they handle
(48:32):
stresses and problems in their life.
Speaker 1 (48:33):
Well, I think it's in the nature of men that
they internalize too and not creating an environment where they
can express their feelings. And yeah, I think most men
understand this. If you're going through an issue and your
mate says how you go, and you say good, and
that's oh, that's good, mate, I was worried about you.
And then you move on from the conversation where if
(48:55):
it's and this is probably been too harsh a comparison,
and then with females it might be they talk. I
can put my hand up. I know my partners know
more about my friendships and life than I do. Like
your best mates just had a baby? Did he? Who've
told you that? Oh, Susan told me that or something
(49:18):
like that. So we need to communicate a little bit better,
don't we.
Speaker 2 (49:21):
Males? Unfortunately, they disproportionately make up the statistics for suicide, yeah,
and disproportionately make up the statistics for violent offenses. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (49:32):
It's not good with the work that you're doing with
New Zealand Police. Can you see down the track where
more attention will be given to the type of work
that you do, because quite frankly, listening to you talk
about your risk assessments and different things, there is so much.
Speaker 2 (49:51):
Work to do.
Speaker 1 (49:52):
Are we probably? I think policing. Then you don't have
to comment because you're still employed by police. But I
thought we fell behind the forensic science field in that
with DNA and all that, we didn't have the capability
of properly examining a crime scene. We didn't properly resource
it with INTEL. Probably not properly resourced in your field,
(50:12):
forensic psychology do you think police are starting to understand
the benefits as a whole.
Speaker 2 (50:17):
Well, look, I've got very complimentary things to say about
New Zealand place.
Speaker 1 (50:21):
So you're clever that your employees.
Speaker 2 (50:24):
Yeah, of course they're my employer. But look, I think
New Zealand's running a really good model which is very
positive for bringing expertise in. So they have a fixated
Threat Assessment Center over there as well, which but that's
purely for politicians, so politicians that are subject to threats
and being targeted. But we have our Behavioral Science Unit
(50:46):
which is very much bring specialists in for operational support.
So the model over there is really strong and there's
a recognition that for major crimes, the input or experts
or specialists is really one of the tools that we
need to solve in these. In Australia, unfortunately it has
(51:07):
fawned by the way. So we had that, but many
of the units have closed down.
Speaker 1 (51:12):
Fixated Persons unit that in my experience notoriously under resource,
but it was something a need that we just didn't
have it. We had intel officers attached to major crime
squads and that, but we really needed someone with the
expertise for specifically fixated persons and being able to assess
them properly.
Speaker 2 (51:32):
Yeah. Yeah, and I think it will come back again
because sometimes, as in policing, its money and resources that
dictate where things go. And look Victoria, New South Wales,
I think Western Australia, they all had specialist operational psychology
arms to them. It's only Queensland Police now that still
(51:55):
have it that I'm aware of.
Speaker 1 (51:56):
How do we go backwards in a progressive field?
Speaker 2 (51:59):
It is, yeah, because I look over in the UK
they have behavioral investigative advisors over there, so they've got
specialists that are recognized and they've done some great work.
Over in the Canada, Royal Canadian amount of Police they've
got a specialist behavioral unit as well. It's a mixture
of psychologists and psychiatrists providing operational support. FBI have four
(52:27):
dedicated units towards bringing specialty expertise in and then you
look across all the different US states they've got specialized
threat teams and things. So look, it is the model
for dealing with challenging and difficult cases in policing.
Speaker 1 (52:45):
And UK and Canada. I've worked in both those eras
in policing. Inquiries from New South Wales and they're set
up very similar to what we've got here in Australia.
New Zealand's are same and they're all moving forward with
it and we're moving backwards. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (53:00):
One of the things that's interesting with New Zealand is
it is a small place, but there's one police service
for the country, so it's just one national unit. And
obviously Australia has some of the challenges on a smaller
scale to the US with the states at the federal level,
and when it's one unit or one force for the country,
(53:21):
then you can be a little bit more focused with
what you're doing.
Speaker 1 (53:26):
And we're not too bad in this country compared to America.
We had someone I forget who it was, that his
first assignment as a police officer, there was twelve people
in the police forces is in America and he had
to buy his own gun. But that was I remember
who it was. It was Steve Murphy from the Netflix
(53:48):
Nacos series that took down Pablo Escobart and that was
his first star first police force. One of the other
points and we talked on fixated Persons Unit, the fixated
threat assessments, need for information sharing. We talked about within organizations,
government organizations, law enforcement agencies. But what about the public.
(54:09):
What part can the public play in the role of
making sure we identify these loan actors?
Speaker 2 (54:15):
Yeah, it's some ways. It's the bystander challenges that we
have with crime, that people are aware of something happening,
but for whatever reason, it might be their own self doubt,
it might be that they minimize it, but they don't
always report really valuable information. And ultimately preventing loan actor
attacks or mass casualty events is it's about information flowing
(54:39):
from members of the community through to police or that
police are then able to look over it, assess it,
and make sense of that information. And a lot of
policing is about information gathering and the public are a
crucial part of that. So whether it is anything from
unusual activities such as suddenly being into in firearms or
(55:01):
trying to collect knives, and also at the same time,
they might be saying that they're very angry with someone
or they've got a particular problem with this person or
an organization, all the way through to knowing maybe that
your child is viewing some problematic and unhealthy content. So
may not be always going to the police, But of
(55:22):
course it's important that that information is shared with someone
it might be a school counselor, but sharing the information
so that it's not siloed and not pocketed and allowing
some other eyeballs to get across that to make more
informed judgments about that, and then if it needs to
be escalated and passed on, then hopefully it does get
to the police.
Speaker 1 (55:42):
Well, we do need to share that because quite often
when you hear of an incident and men, yeah, the
media have done their a bit and everyone's talking about, oh,
that person was always strange, it was strange ever since
that he went to kindergarten. All these people come out
and identify with that. That's the type of information that
we're going who has got to get across absolutely because
(56:03):
it's sharing that information. We touched on the media and
the copycat type situation and also about the media giving
too high a profile to the people that carry out
these crimes. I've thought for a long time, and it's
hard because there's an inquiry in mind. People want to
find out and there's a benefit by putting the name
(56:25):
out because if it's someone man Mimus, other people might
come forward and say, well he did this and did that,
so you find out more information about it, but you
don't want them to be put up there on a pedestal.
What way do you think the media should treat someone
like what happened in christ Church.
Speaker 2 (56:42):
I think uniform policies would be ideal.
Speaker 1 (56:45):
So they're not competing against each other.
Speaker 2 (56:48):
Especially across the trans Tasmin. I think we could get
uniform policies that would be achievable. Where we need to
make a decision around what we will and won't publish. Now,
New Zealand made a really interesting decision to not publish
Terrence's name was he is and will be forever known
(57:08):
as the terrorist, so he wasn't named in New Zealand.
Obviously it's very different within Australia. But that certainly I
think took the sting out of it and the power
of his actions and that he didn't receive the notoriety
and it was very much victim lens focus and that
is important the narratives and the survival stories of victims
(57:32):
is it's probably what we want to come out of
these attacks rather than it being about the perpetrator. Now
that's chicky because talking about the perpetrator does as you say,
serve some purposes where there's an understanding that we do
need and it generates more information. But we don't want
to sensationalize that. And that's a tricky point. But I
(57:54):
think if we make it heavily victim focused, with basic
details about the person rather than writing at length about
their motivations or their ideology, then that's a nice balance.
Speaker 1 (58:07):
Point we might finish up here. I reckon we could
talk all day. I just you're a wealth of knowledge
and you've taken me back into a world that make
me appreciate how complicated it is what you're doing. You're
over here in Australia. Are you talking at some conferences?
Speaker 2 (58:26):
Yes, I'm at the New South Wales Correction Conference which
is on and also we're also running a stalking symposium
with a host of guests in Melbourne as well.
Speaker 1 (58:36):
Right, you work with corrective services. I haven't really touched
on that. But what can you learn from people in prison?
Speaker 2 (58:44):
Oh? An enormous amount. I mean, we have individuals that
are there for lengthy stints in custody and there's always
the temptation to go, let's just lock them up, forget
about them and not go and talk to them. And
by talking to them and in engaging with them, first
of all, we gain a rich amount of insight from
(59:06):
their stories and their motivations and their reasons and their
pathways to carrying out their active violence. We think can
then improve our responses by learning about that. Now, the
other side, of course, is rehabilitating them as well. Do
we want to put the time and resources into them?
And I think it's somewhat negligent if we don't go
(59:27):
through the process of at least trying, and certainly in
the lone active space, we've seen where some things have
gone wrong for various reasons, that people have been held
on remand for long periods and they haven't had treatment,
and then they've come out and they've committed a mass attack.
So that's a whole different landscape. But probably my key
takeaway is that we shouldn't just lock people up and
(59:50):
forget that they're there. There's a lot of value for
various reasons to engage with them.
Speaker 1 (59:57):
That makes sense. Can we do radicalized people like young people?
That doesn't have to be age based, but can you
deradicalize someone with the proper proper work.
Speaker 2 (01:00:08):
You think de radicalization is an interesting one. It's topical
and controversial. The UK has probably had the most challenging
implications of that. So there was big efforts to deradicalize
people in the UK and a lot of the de
radicalization programs were emerged from there and they made their
(01:00:32):
way over to Australia and New Zealand and we've kind
of learned that de radicalization programs don't work right. But
part of that is they were brought out during a
time when it was all Islamic inspired violence or Gihardi
inspired violence. A couple of years later it had evolved
and then it was right wing violence, and then it
was grievance based violence. So the fundamentals of a lot
(01:00:55):
of the de radicalization process assume that it was just
ideology that was causing violence, when actually maybe ideology was
only the top layer of the problem and it didn't
get to the core reasons that the person was becoming violent.
So I think we need to take a few steps
back and ask the questions of really around you know,
(01:01:16):
why was violence a solution for this person? How did
they start on the pathway to violence? So try and
get to some of the core things rather than going okay,
they just need to deradicalize and change these unhealthy and
problematic beliefs.
Speaker 1 (01:01:32):
Well, you haven't disappointed me, because like every psychologist I
speak to, there's always an if or but or maybe
but yeah, that's I bring it back to Sarah. She
would always yeah, that might be the case, but it
could be this, and just can you give me a
yes or not? No, I can't give you a yes
or note. But I like the way you mind thinks
(01:01:54):
and the work you're doing, and I think it's important work.
And I thank you so much for taking time out
of your busy schedule to come into the studio and
talk to us today. And I thoroughly recommend your book
mass Casually The Rise of Loan Actors so interesting. Really,
where can people get it if they want it?
Speaker 2 (01:02:13):
So? It's available obviously on Amazon and online bookstores. It'll
be Barnes and Noble overseas and shortly in bookstores here
and also on the publisher's website, Groundproof Forensics dot com.
Speaker 1 (01:02:28):
Very good if people want to get in contact with you,
and you don't have to answer this because you might
get inundated, But if people wanted to reach out to
how could they reach out?
Speaker 2 (01:02:37):
There? So I do private consulting works so doctor Nathan
Brooks dot com as well.
Speaker 1 (01:02:42):
Okay, thanks very much for coming on. I've enjoyed the chat.
Speaker 2 (01:02:46):
Thanks for having me Gary. Cheers
The public has had a long held fascination with detectives.
Detective see aside of life the average person is never
exposed to. I spent thirty four years as a cop.
For twenty five of those years I was catching killers.
That's what I did for a living. I was a
homicide detective. I'm no longer just interviewing bad guys. Instead,
I'm taking the public into the world in which I operated.
(00:23):
The guests I talk to each week have amazing stories
from all sides of the law. The interviews are raw
and honest, just like the people I talk to. Some
of the content and language might be confronting. That's because
no one who comes into contact with crime is left unchanged.
Join me now as I take you into this world.
(00:46):
Welcome back to part two of my chat with forensic
psychologists Nathan Brooks. In part one, we talked about Nathan's work,
the difference between serial killers and mass murderers, and the
emerging trend of loan actors who go on killing sprees.
In part two, Nathan talks about the christ Church massacre,
where the actions of one man led to the death
(01:08):
of fifty one people. Nathan breaks down how and why
this crime occurred and how we can try and prevent
these types of killings in the future. It was a
fascinating and informative chat. Have a listened to what Nathan
has to say, Nathan Brooks or doctor Nathan Brooks, I
should say, welcome back to part two of I Catch Killers.
Speaker 2 (01:27):
Thanks Gary.
Speaker 1 (01:28):
I've got to say I am finding this conversation fascinating
and was working as a homicide detective. I found this
inside the mind of killers or all the type of
things that you're examining absolutely fascinating. I'm sure you're getting
this all the time, but is that people are fascinating?
Speaker 2 (01:48):
I think unpacking what makes troubling and sometimes very violent
people tick is it is it's fascinating because most of
us can't understand it. And when we think about psychopaths,
for instance, Yeah, they are the ones that think different
and make different decisions, and we're often caught up in
our own emotions. But for some folks, like psychopathic folks,
(02:10):
that they're cool and calm under pressure, that they're not
burdened by the anxiety that we have, and that's hard
for everyday people to understand.
Speaker 1 (02:18):
Yeah, yeah, I want to talk about the christ Church
massacre which is you know, I'm sure most people know it.
I'll just read out a summary of it, just so
people that haven't been aware of it they are aware
of what happened. So two consecutive mass shootings took place
in christ Church, New Zealand, on the fifteenth of March
twenty nineteen. They were committed during Friday prayer, first at
(02:41):
the Elnora Mosque at Rickiton at one forty pm, and
almost immediately after at Limbwood Islamic Center at one point
fifty two. Altogether, fifty one people were killed and eighty
nine others were injured, including forty by gunfire. The perpetrator
was an Australian man, Brenton Tarrant, then age twenty eight.
Tarrant was arrested after his vehicles ran by a police
(03:04):
car as he was driving to a third mosque, nash Burton.
He live streamed the first shooting on Facebook, making the
first successful live stream far right terror attack, and had
published a manifesto online before the attack that just sort
of sets the saying. I think anyone that recalls that
incident knows how horrifying it was. You've looked at it
(03:27):
in depth, what's your take on what caused the lead
up to it and why did it get that dramatic
And we touched on small parts of it in part one.
If we could just deep dive into it now.
Speaker 2 (03:39):
Yeah, So before we get into it, my caveat that
I'm obviously with the New Zealand Police and this is
certainly my view on the situation. It's not at all
reflective of theirs. But it is a really complex case.
I think when anyone carries out such a horrific mass
act of violence, there are many many layers and what
(04:01):
we saw in that incident and that tragic attack was
that several years of build up went into it. It
wasn't something that just happened overnight. We know that Tarrent
moved to New Zealand with the intention of carrying out
a mass casualty attack, and that was his reason for
moving over there. I believe he cited the fact that
(04:24):
it was partly the ability to access the firearms that
was one of the primary factors, and shortly after getting
there he commenced training with firearms and acquiring tactical capabilities.
But to understand him, we probably need to trace things
back to his childhood and he had in many ways,
(04:45):
probably something that hasn't garnered a lot of attention. Quite
a traumatic childhood we focused a lot, particularly, I think
the media courage has been a lot around his ideology.
But there are a lot of puzzle pieces that were
there early on for him in his early years.
Speaker 1 (05:02):
What type of things were they.
Speaker 2 (05:04):
So one of the things that we look at for
childhood is whether people experience trauma and the influence that
that can have on them as they develop and grow
into adults. And adverse childhood experiences is often a marker
that we use to look at how bad that trauma
is or how much adversity your child has had in
(05:27):
their upbringing, And a lot of research would say around
four or five adverse experiences can have quite significant impact
on someone as they age and really shape who they become.
And we know Arran had a troubled upbringing. So his
parents separated, which I'll just run through some of it.
(05:47):
So some of the adverse experiences are parental separation, parental
mental health, criminality, unstable housing, financial issues, drug use. So
the tip things that we that we might expect. Yeah,
and so so Terence's parents obviously split up, so we
had the separation his mother then started dating a new
(06:10):
individual I believe it was an aboriginal fellow, and he
was reportedly violent towards Tarrant and his sister, and that
abuse continued over several years. Then we also had his
father who suffered from mental health difficulties and then also
(06:32):
developed cancer I believe for Mary and ultimately then committed
suicide as well. So there were some quite notable things there. Drama, yeah,
and he also Terrant himself was struggled to fit in socially,
as we which touched on before. He was often bullied.
He was considered to be quite overweight as well, and
(06:54):
then in his late teens he had a big transformation
and became quite fixated and about the gym and lost
quite a lot of weight.
Speaker 1 (07:03):
I think it was in your book it was something
like forty or fifty years huge, Yeah.
Speaker 2 (07:09):
Quite remarkable. And also during that adolescence we see that
some early racist remarks were coming out in his school years,
which suggests there's certainly, you know, some difficulties with how
we're seeing the world and people and maybe even seeing
that there's certain people that are to blame or that
are causing hardships for him, and that might have been
(07:32):
reflective of what things were like on the home front,
with you know, with the physical abuse that was happening
at home, and from there as he aged. I think
he has spent a period being a personal trainer after
high school, and then he inherited a large sum of
money once his father passed away, and that basically funded
(07:53):
him to go and travel overseas for quite a few years.
And unfortunately, rather than taking inspiration from the the cultures
and the different people, he became very cynical, and if
we look at the various accounts and things that have
(08:13):
been covered on the topic, his views were shaped in
a very negative manner. It did coincide with while he
was in Europe with some Islamic based attacks occurring, so
in Islamic most terrorist attacks at the time, and that
all sort of seemed to come together along with his
(08:33):
strong reliance on online groups in four chan and eight
chan and some of these other forums where he was
really fueling his beliefs about the world and having those
reciprocad back to him, and the classic sort of echo
chamber effects started to happen from there, where the ideology
really became perpetuated and continued to get reinforced.
Speaker 1 (08:56):
Out the time. I suppose what he's exposing himself too
is only going to people people that share the same ideology,
and that becomes that cycle. Yes, it reinforces his belief Yeah.
Speaker 2 (09:07):
And I think the further down that rabbit hole that
you go, the more you find things that support those views.
And you know, we get that the classic distortion aspect
happen where you look for things that are what you want,
you look for things that reinforce your beliefs, and then
you ignore anything that's contradictory. And that's what we find
(09:30):
with a lot of ideological aspects is people cherry pick
what they focus on and they ignore the things that
are contradictory to that, and that of course can very
easily then start to lead to quite extreme beliefs when
you're only looking at a small fragment of an issue.
Speaker 1 (09:47):
So the build up would you describe as a perfect
storm in terms of what the build up before he
carried out this horrible act.
Speaker 2 (09:58):
Well, there certainly, I think the cycle, logical makeup, the
psychological foundation was a big factor. So he had a
lot of vulnerabilities. There clearly a lot of unresolved anger
that was never addressed, and then we had the Internet
peace on top of that, where he's engaging in various ideological,
(10:18):
extreme right wing views that are being perpetuated and fueled.
He's then quite financially well off as well, which gave
him access and capability factors, and then develops the plan
or the intent to carry out some sort of violence
to avenge or seek justice for the injustice which he's
(10:39):
perceiving in the world. And then starts to begin planning
and moves to New Zealand with the intention of carrying
out a mass casualty attack, And a bit like with
Anders Bravic in Norway, we see the culmination of factors
come together, along with the secrecy and the willingness to
dedicate a couple of years of your life to carrying
(11:04):
out such a horrific active violence. I mean that itself
is nearly unheard of and so remarkable that someone could
be so dedicated over that obsession to give their life
to that.
Speaker 1 (11:15):
Yeah, there were a number of inquiries that flowed on
from the event. Did anything jump out in the part
where it could have been I won't say prevented, because
as I keep saying that it's easy in hindsight, But
is there any indicators or ways that it could have
been diffused? Do you think how could you approach it
(11:35):
if you look back with the benefit of hindsight. Okay,
when he got to this point, there should have been
some intervention.
Speaker 2 (11:42):
Yeah, that's again in hindsight. So there was a Royal
commission in New Zealand into Royal Commission of Inquiry into
the attack and it's a nearly nine hundred page document
which reviewed it. Now, some of the interesting findings were
more around systems and processes rather than terror himself, so
(12:04):
it looked at, you know things. So he had a
gunshot wound in the months prior to the attack, and
at the time there were no mandatory reporting practices for
gunshot wounds. So that has since changed so that if
someone presents to hospital with a gunshot wound, that is
then passed on to police and then followed up. Firearm
register was something that wasn't strong and that's been completely
(12:29):
revamped to make access to firearms much more difficult and
mental health checks and interviews and those sorts of processes.
So again another positive step that has been put in place. Yeah,
and of course the access to guns has been reduced
as well, So some of those capability and incident reporting
systems have been improved, been a lot more funding as well.
(12:53):
That's gone into violent extremism, and I think as well
that improved police practic and that's not being critical at
all of the police practices, but unfortunately when we have incidents,
of course that reviews, that leads.
Speaker 1 (13:09):
To change and the improvements. Of course, when when it
gets that way not well, I suppose it's the magnitude
of the crime that he created there required that review
lesser type of crimes. But one you and I spoke
off camera about it, and you are, you're over here
(13:29):
and you're going to deliver a lecture on it. Stalking.
Stalking to me is a major concern. What message have
you got or what have you learned about stalking people
that are prepared to stalk? And over here in Australia
and not just New South Wales, across the across the country,
we've got a lot of domestic violence where unfortunately it's
(13:49):
male partners invariably murdering female partners. And you look at
it and I can virtually guarantee they'll be stalking involved
and not accepting the relationship being over and different things
like that. What's your your assessment of stalking?
Speaker 2 (14:03):
Oh, look, it's so it's so troubling. And one of
the challenges we're stalking is that it exists on such
a spectrum from small unwanted acts, repeated contact that's unwanted,
all the way through to very predatory and concerning behaviors,
you know, such as breaking into a house and going
(14:23):
through a person's underwear drawer and moving things around. So
it is a type of offending that is so broad,
but we need to think about it, I think from
a from a couple of different lenses, and one is
how persistent is it? And then also how likely is
it to become severe and escalating nature. So stalking can
(14:44):
be very broad in motivation. So sometimes it's targeted because
of you resentment towards an ex partner. Sometimes it's revenge
towards a workplace. Other times it might be because the
person's mentally unwell and they are constantly making unwanted contact
because of quite a distortion about the person of the targeting.
(15:06):
And then other times it's very predatory and that can
often end up being quite significant violence or even sexual
offending towards a person so it's multifaceted and it exists
on a spectrum.
Speaker 1 (15:18):
Have you in your work with New Zealand Plece some
have been involved in stalking cases and how they play
that You don't have to identify the specific case, but
stalking cases are the vscalated. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (15:31):
Look as both a consultant forensic psychologist and also working
in the police and a lot of the times it's
looking at it from a threat lens and how concerned
do we need to be about the case. And sometimes
it's about understanding the motivation and the functionality of the
stalking So what is it that the person's trying to
achieve here and why is it that they are failing
(15:55):
to understand that that behavior is unwanted and not reciprocated.
Often there's an educational component and then sometimes it's looking
at as well, is this going to persist or is
this going to escalate with the stalking case. Intimate partner
violence is another one that we sometimes become very concerned about.
(16:16):
Often stalking will exist amongst a range of other forms
of intimate partner violence, particularly coercive control, and we know
that across cases of fatal intimate partner violence that around
about seventy five percent of those cases have stalking in them.
And often when a partner is killed or an ext
(16:38):
partner is killed, it's where there's been a high level
of coercive control and the victim has tried to regain
a level of independence and autonomy and that has been
the final tipping point for the offender and they have
killed that person as that sort of final active trying
to have dominance and control over their lives, which is
really quite horrific.
Speaker 1 (16:59):
Well, the scary part is a dangerous period is in
those domestic violent situations when the partner is trying to leave,
that's when they're at the greatest, greatest risk.
Speaker 2 (17:08):
Absolutely. Yeah, ed is concerning and again education is quite important,
but the flip side of that is it's hard to
have that conversation with people as well, and should people
really have to be that well educated and informed? You know,
everyone has a right to safety in many ways, and
(17:28):
unfortunately we still have huge concerns with people willing to
take matters into their own hands and become violent.
Speaker 1 (17:36):
Do you think and I'm talking New South Wales or
Australia may be relevant to New Zealand whether the courts
fully appreciate the nature of it. If someone even the
public's perception that's almost a joke, like I've got a
stalker and we saw the laugh. Yeah, but I've had
(17:57):
so many people contact me when I was in the
police as police, but people contact me post police, reaching
out and they've got a stalker and no one seems
to take it seriously and they're terrified. Do you think
the courts take it and the police take it seriously
enough for stalking.
Speaker 2 (18:15):
It's hard to give a blanket answer to that. But
with what you're saying, there are of course many cases
where people just go it's unwanted contact, they'll stop, or
they just dismiss it. And that's where stalking becomes a problem,
because when we dismiss it, it keeps going, and we
need to make sure that we're putting the right level
(18:37):
of response to a situation. And the temptation is unfortunately
to water down the seriousness of it, and that of
course allows it to keep going, and then before you
know it, it's three months, then it's six months. We've
hit a year, and that's a really reinforced and ingrained
pattern and the person may or the offender may have
(18:58):
had quite a bit of feedback that this is a
successful way to keep that person in their life. By
that stage, well.
Speaker 1 (19:05):
I think, and this is when I'm giving people advice.
If they've got a stalk with if they make contact
that does end up in court, their concern is that
brings this person back into my life. And so the
stalkers achieved what they want to achieve. So it's a
hard thing to police, but it's something that I've always thought.
They were red flags to me when I saw it
(19:26):
in any capacity of an investigation. If someone was stalking someone,
the being told we don't want to speak to you,
stay away from us, and they ignore that, that is
a warning sign of I on the right track there,
Like it's.
Speaker 2 (19:38):
Yeah, absolutely, yeah. You look at things like approach behavior.
You know, how much are they prepared to or toward
extent are they prepared to approach the victim, to be
intrusive towards the victim? Are they engaging inst surveillance like behaviors,
are they entering the person's residence, And also factors such
as mental illness can play a role, personality disorders, and
(20:01):
we look at as well, you know, are they deterred
by things such as court orders. If it keeps going
after court orders again, that's very troubling.
Speaker 1 (20:10):
Well, I've had people that the victims of the stalking
that have come back to me when the courts haven't
gone hard on the stalker, the stalker comes back to
them just laughing, going, look the courts don't even care
and empowers them on coercive control. Relatively recently had that
start to come into a play, legislation that come into play.
(20:31):
I haven't seen it actually play out in court, so
I think a big part of it is going to
be how the police uses as a tool. I think
it's a powerful tool. Is coercive control legislative over in
New Zealand? Is that something that's come into play over there?
Speaker 2 (20:44):
No, it's not legislated over there yet. And remarkably, we
don't actually have a stalking law or a stalking chargers yet.
So there's been talk that shouldn't say talk, it's probably
a loose word for that, but there's been political movement
that legislation is going to be proposed quite soon and
(21:04):
then we will have a stalking law, but no coercive control.
Over in Australia, here is a reasonably new charge in
a couple of states, so it'd be really interesting to
monitor how that goes. But the research on intimate partner
violence has certainly been the big reason that we're seeing
that law come in because it's been so prevalent but
(21:28):
also relevant to fatal cases.
Speaker 1 (21:31):
Yeah, yeah, there's been to many of them in this country,
that's for sure. The interview room, Yes, you're working for
New Zealand Police. Is that part of the role that
you do help investigators prepare for an interview, to sit
down in the interview room.
Speaker 2 (21:48):
Yeah. We've been doing quite a bit of work in
that space of late over the last two years or so,
and it is one of the main things that we're
doing currently around how do we under stand the person
in front of us and how do we tailor our
response to ensure that we're meeting them at their level.
Speaker 1 (22:09):
Yeah, yeah, I look, I find the interview room fascinating.
That was that was my happy place in policing. I
found it very stimulating to be in the interview room.
A lot of pressure, a lot of build up and
all that, but the way that you approach and the investigation.
I'll throw a couple of things out just for a
point of discussion I learned from people that I looked
(22:29):
up to as interviewers, and I've sort of tried to
adopt the aspects of the way they approached the interview.
But I also learned that you've got to be You've
got to be legitimate, like you've got to be yourself
in the interview room. I've seen people try to I've
tried to mimic people the way they interview someone doesn't work.
I've got to be myself. I've had other people try
to mimic me the way I interview. It doesn't work.
(22:52):
So I think there's something that you've got to build,
that rapport with someone in the interview room. Would you
agree agree with that?
Speaker 2 (22:58):
Yes, spot on. I member poor has become arguably the
most crucial ingredient in an interview now, and we have
come a long way. It's hard to talk about what
current police practices are, but I dare say that across
Australia and New Zealand there's an improved understanding that rapport
(23:20):
really is a cornerstone of the interview. So it's very
hard to have a serious major crime interview without rapport.
We can't just get the person in now and go
straight into the offending straight into the issues that there's
got to be a build up to that because we
can't we can't expect someone to want to talk to
us if we're not establishing rapport with them.
Speaker 1 (23:42):
Yeah, I agree with that, and I people have said
characteristics of a good detective empathy empathy in the interview
room that you're sitting down and trying to understand where
this person's coming from. It might discuss me where they're
coming from. I might agree with it, but I won't
show that on my face. That will be very much
a poker face in what they're telling me, So there's
(24:04):
not judgment there to go with people. Again, I'll just
throw in some of my thoughts on the interview room
because I'm interested in getting getting your thoughts. Some people
are going to the interview room and I would be
very professional. I'd deliberately present professionally because I thought that
was the best way to communicate. Otherwise I'd get in
(24:24):
there and be very relaxed when we talk about rapport.
That's the type of thing I'm assessing the person in
the way that I want to approach. Sarah Ure, the
forensic psychologists I work with a talk about the carrot
or the stick, whether you're dangling something to them that
they want or they're feeling. And we can't threaten people
in an interview room obviously stick figuratively, we don't go
(24:47):
in there with a stick. What's your thoughts on different
approaches for different offenders, Like, there's not a one model
fits all, is there?
Speaker 2 (24:54):
No? No, there's not, But I think there's some rules
of thumb that do hold up really well with with rapport.
So firstly, we need to foster commonality. So first principle
is if you're going in to interview someone, what is
it about you that's going to allow you to relate
to that person? What have you got in common? So
(25:15):
everyone should be able to find those things. Secondly, wein
look at our ability to compliment the person. And I
think when we say compliments, people think, oh, you know,
what are you on about? You're just basically trying to
praise them unnecessarily. But there's always things when we step
back and look at someone's life that we can acknowledge
(25:36):
and validate, and that is quite crucial that we still
do that we recognize them as individuals and as small
as that achievement may be, it may be significant for them,
So where is this scope to compliment and validate that person?
And then the other one is humor, and that probably
sounds like it doesn't belong in an interview room. But
(25:57):
how can we find moments of lightheartednessnst a really heavy
and serious conversation.
Speaker 1 (26:03):
Yeah, okay, I get where you're coming from. And that's
very much creating that relaxed environment where the conversation will
be for flowing. I think the way I approach interviews,
some people are very specific, word orientated. Listening to your answer,
what you exactly you said? I know, I've got that's
(26:25):
what comes down because the transcripts only reflects what you said.
But if I'm interviewing you in an interview room, in
a tense interview, and this is one where it's not
a lay down, as you haven't got all the evidence,
A lot's going to depend on what the person of
interest that you're interviewing talks about. It's about creating that,
creating that environment where they feel comfortable to talk. But
(26:47):
I'm watching their body language like I might throw something
out a little bit left field, a little bit strange.
See how you react, Which way do you lean to
within interviewing or is this coming down to I said
at the start that it's individual styles.
Speaker 2 (27:03):
Look, I think of these individual styles and some people
naturally have a really good style and some can learn it.
There's the intrusiveness peace to an interview as well. So
when do you become intrusive about the content of that conversation.
And when I say intrusiveness, what I'm really talking about
is topics that are uncomfortable and maybe more confronting. So
(27:26):
you would want to start low and soft and easier
conversation piece topics in the early stages of the interview,
and as the rapport develops, then you can become more
intrusive because there's a level of trust and respect understanding
developed between the interviewer and the interview we so you
(27:47):
can't go in too hot or too intrusive too early,
because you put yourself on the back foot and you
risk upsetting the person. So I think with the peace model,
which is widely used, you know, really in some ways
it's a bit like a five set tennis match where
we're looking at the cumulative momentum over several hours and
(28:09):
it's going back and forth, and if you do enough,
thing's the right way, it tips in your favor.
Speaker 1 (28:16):
And a lot of the public's perception is that we've
got the right to interview people too, as in you're
obliged to answer questions. That's very much not the case,
so they're well within their rights. I've also found, and
talk to me about the characteristics of the people that
would buy into this, that I've sat down with people
that have an arrogance about them and that's the very
(28:39):
thing I'm going to exploit that, Like, they're dumb to
sit down and have an interview with me, but they're
so arrogant they think they're going to it doesn't have
to be me outsmart the police. I'm smarter than you,
and that's why they can't resist themselves sitting down having
an interview. Do you see that type of personality.
Speaker 2 (28:56):
Yeah, there's the tendency of people that believe that they
can control the situation and that they can talk their
way out of it, although they are the smartest person
in the room and that can sometimes bring them undone.
You A case over in New Zealand which has been
quite public and there's been a Netflix documentary on it
is Jesse Kimson and the Grace Malayan case and.
Speaker 1 (29:17):
Your assessment on that.
Speaker 2 (29:18):
Yeah, there's been a lot published and segments of the
interview that have been publicly put out there of Kimsen
during his interview, and we certainly saw that he started
off very calm and believed that he could talk his
way out of it during the first interview that ended
up bringing him undone during the second interview, where a
(29:38):
lot of those stories were then able to be corroborated
and that worked against him in the end. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (29:46):
Yeah, but it is interesting what may devates people to
sit down and participate in the interview. What about crime scenes?
Your interpretation of crime scenes? And I think a discussion
initially when you came in here before on camera talking
about psychopaths how they can commit a horrendous crime and
(30:08):
not be rattled by it than leave. I would see
crime scenes where I would call it like a panic
crime scene. I don't think the person planned this, that
shocked them, that they've killed a person, and the crime
scene represents that. What's you're taken? What can you learn
from going to a crime scene?
Speaker 2 (30:25):
Crime scenes are so valuable from anyone in the operational spaces.
You nearly need to see the crime scene or at
least have incredibly good photos of it to be able
to form any conclusions around it. But look, you look
for contradictions ultimately in the crime scene, don't you. And
sometimes chaotic crime scenes are stage crime scenes as well,
(30:47):
and then the absence of things that crime scenes can
also be very telling. So it's sometimes it's what's not
there that's important, and then the disarray as well can
also be quite telling. So I know that you know,
FBI would say that you study the work of the artists,
which is their crime scene, to try and understand them.
(31:09):
But I think the crime scene gives us very good
insights into one how the crime has occurred, and then
why things may or may not be there that should
be there or have been removed from a scene. So
it really looks at, you know, three stages before the crime,
during the crime, and then after the crime, and that
(31:30):
can give us valuable information across those three and then
together you form whether it's a profile or a working
theory around the offender and how.
Speaker 1 (31:39):
They breakdown in an example or give examples for those
three breakdowns all.
Speaker 2 (31:44):
So we go back to the Jesse Kimson case. So
it's been quite well publicized that he met Grace mulane
and then they went out for dinner, and then they
went back to his hotel room. Something transpired there which
resulted in Grace's death. It certainly seems like it was
(32:04):
probably unlikely that there was any intention to kill her.
But then when we look at post crime, we see
that he was very methodical after the offense, and there
was a lot of clean up. There was a lot
of stages, it's been well documented around him. He moved
her body, went and buried the body, cleaned the scene,
(32:29):
and there was quite a calmness in the chaos at
the time. And that's rather unusual. You know, we think
about someone trying to recover from a horrific event. There's
a lot of anxiety and panic and concern. It's unusual
to be quite methodical and calm.
Speaker 1 (32:49):
Very much so, and that was something I always look
to exploit that mistakes made after that the murders occurred
or the crime has occurred. Little things like if a
murder weapon has been introduced to the crime soon, if
someone's bought, if it's a murder's happened in the house
and it's the kitchen knife from the kitchen bench that's
(33:10):
been used as a murder weapon. That tells me it
wasn't intent at the time they're going there, something escalated,
something has happened at the time, so not the planning.
These are the type of things you look for as
a forensic psychologist.
Speaker 2 (33:23):
Yeah, definitely, you know, how prepared and planned was someone
prior to the crime And going back to is there
evidence of cleanup and have items been taken away from
the scene, whether it's weapons or belongings of the victim.
Has the body been moved? If the body is there,
you know, is there a quite a bit of forensic
(33:46):
evidence it still remains. You know, often we think loosely
as a rule of thumb, you know, the less evidence
that's at the scene and the more that has been removed.
We're talking about a plan and prepared offender. Go back
to the classic FBI organized disorganized profile, which looked at
that the organized fellows tend to come to the scene
prepared and take things away and leave limited forensic evidence.
(34:09):
That disorganized Often there's a lot of forensic evidence. Things
are in disarray. There can be a scrambled a tempt
to cover the crime up and make it look like
something else.
Speaker 1 (34:18):
Well, I take a lot away from the way the
bodies are disposed of to and you can almost see
the panic in the way some bodies are disposed of,
or you can see the planning and the time. So
that's all very telling, isn't it.
Speaker 2 (34:32):
Yes, so some of them are quite superficially disposed of
essentially it's the first opportunity, or they're buried very.
Speaker 1 (34:38):
Basically get this body.
Speaker 2 (34:40):
Away from me here, and then others are you know,
take much longer and much more time.
Speaker 1 (34:45):
Without going into methodology, is this the type of thing
you sit down with police New Zealand Police like, they'll
come to you, there's been a crime, the body has
been found, they contact you and this is how you
work work with the police.
Speaker 2 (34:57):
Yes, yeah, absolutely so. It could be in avariety of stages.
It could be the homicides just happened and we're trying
to understand the crime scene and the behavior that's happened
and insights into the offender. It could be that we're
four weeks on and things have hit a wall and
leads have run dry, and will review the crime and
(35:18):
look at trying to generate new lines of inquiry.
Speaker 1 (35:20):
Right, we spoke in part one about serial killers or
the demise of serial killers, which is a pretty good
way of saying that that's good that they're reducing that
serial sex offenders, but yeah, I've worked serial sex crimes.
Have they reduced serial killing? So the same things that
(35:42):
are reducing serial murderers reducing serial sex offenders or is
it still Yeah?
Speaker 2 (35:48):
The big one would be our intrue to rapists and
it is rare for us to get a series of
those these days. I think that's true across Australia and
New Zealand. We still get lots of touch based offenses
towards strangers, bus stops, those sorts of public public areas,
but you know, the rapist that's targeting strangers or going
(36:10):
in to homes is it's much less common. That doesn't
mean that they don't happen those offenses, but it's rare
that they are a series. Now they are often caught
much quicker, and again that's because of all the improvements
in technology that we.
Speaker 1 (36:24):
Have and just a sharing of information too. I think
that's a big part because before we would often be
looking for an offender that's got a certain type of
characteristic about characteristics about the way he commits a crime.
Someone else in the neighboring lac might be doing the
same thing. In the old days, it wasn't a case
that would be sharing the information, But we've to waken
(36:46):
up to that.
Speaker 2 (36:47):
Now and see New Zealand runs by Class which catalogs
all the stranger sex offenses across the country. So our
behavioral science unit is keeping a data lot of over
a decade and more of all the stranger six crimes.
So if we do have something that comes up, we're
(37:08):
able to draw on more than eight to nine thousand
cases and look at what we know about something of
a similar nature with a similar type of offending pattern.
And of course if we do get something, we could
also look back at whether it is linked to any
other crimes as well.
Speaker 1 (37:22):
Okay, again, excuse me from jumping from point to point,
but I'm finding the whole chat very interesting. Mental health
what part does that play? And I've got some stats
here that I pulled out of your book, so I'm
hoping they're correct that seventeen and fifty percent of loane
actors are suffering from a mental illness at the time
(37:43):
of offending. Two thirds of perpetrators experiencing mental health concerns
in the period leading up to their attack. So look,
regardless of the specifics of the stats, it's saying that
mental health is a big thing in loan actors. What
type of mental health issues are we looking at them?
Speaker 2 (38:02):
Yeah, I mean it's the catch twenty two, isn't it?
In many ways of mental health, because again it's on
a spectrum, and it can be all the way from
psychotic based presentations where someone has completely lost touch with
reality and they are unaware and they don't have sound
mind with what they're doing. And it seems as though
(38:22):
that is a good example of the bond dijunction with
attack with Joel Kuchi, that he was schizophrenic for a
long period of time and psychotic at the time.
Speaker 1 (38:32):
How much did you know about that particular case.
Speaker 2 (38:35):
Well, I think it's still emerging. I know there was
the recent inquiry and the results haven't been published, but
the psychotic aspect and his long term schizophrenic diagnosis seems
to be quite central.
Speaker 1 (38:47):
And I think it's already been mentioned in the public
and would have been mentioned that the inquest. But the
parents had concerns about him with his fascination with knives
and different things.
Speaker 2 (38:58):
Yeah, and that's where where mental health is tricky because
there are so many people with mental health difficulties or
mental illness or psychosis or schizophrenia that aren't ever violent,
So that is quite important to put into context. But
you have to add layers to the mental health that
(39:18):
then add to the potential then to be violent. So yeah,
the various issues with grievances in life, very very very
much violent interests or things like that can then be
exacerbators for the mental illness. But then we can also
have things like depression that can be a catalyst for
then developing a grievance and affixation, and that can then
(39:41):
perpetuate and grow from there. So I think mental health
can be a causal factor or an indirect factor as well,
and sometimes as well. We also say that there's subclinical
things that are not really at the diagnostic threshold which
drive behavior. It might be that someone the struggles with
shame and envy of others, and it's very likely to
(40:04):
get quite jealous, and they've got a personality that makes
them prone to collecting grievances or feeling like they've been wronged,
and that then walks them down that path to violence.
Speaker 1 (40:15):
That's sitting here talking to you, I'm getting an appreciation
of how complicated it is. If you see Sarah you're
at the conference, apologize to her. I expected too much
from her. There are so many layers and variables, isn't it.
So I can see why you try to structure things
as best you can. It's not foolproof, but yeah, here's
(40:36):
some indicators. This might be the way we prevent this.
Speaker 2 (40:39):
Yeah, I think we need to be careful that as psychologists,
we're not always trying to come up with an explanation.
So it's over complicated, but loosely, I always go how
dyed up? Or are the dials for the persons or
how intense are things? Then we can also think about
how frequent is the symptoms or the traits, and then
what's the severity of it as well, So we need
(41:02):
to look at it through frameworks that make it understandable.
Speaker 1 (41:05):
And a framework makes it as understandable as best you
can hope for. Leading into the use of AI, do
you see that as something that's going to be very
much in the forefront of criminal investigation.
Speaker 2 (41:21):
It's hard. I mean, in terms of the mass casualty
space we've already seen over in the US that people
have had AI right plans around how to carry out
a mass casualty attack.
Speaker 1 (41:32):
For I was thinking from the good guys, you're looking
from the bad guys.
Speaker 2 (41:36):
Offender capability enhancement aspect, and we know that that's happening already.
What it means for police investigations, it's really hard to say.
It'll make some of them more boring tasks of writing
up things easier, but you know, facial recognition and those
sorts of things I think will transform as well, So
it's hard to anticipate where it will go.
Speaker 1 (41:58):
I'm thinking like by class you talk about like if
you had an AI component of assessing all the information,
that might make it even more readily about I think.
Speaker 2 (42:08):
The ability to analyze mass amounts of data or information
will greatly improve, but it will still require the human
analysts to develop the right meaning and interpretation of that.
Speaker 1 (42:23):
I'm looking at getting back to and prevention is the
key of hopefully what you're achieving. And I've got a
couple of headings here, but fixated thread assessments, fixated persons, unit,
need for information sharing. So three main points. So if
we're talking about preventing these type of loan actor attacks.
(42:46):
Breaking down those three headings like fixated threat assessments, how
do they play a part? And I know we've touched
on it, but just breaking it down again.
Speaker 2 (42:56):
So, fixated threat assessments really are police and mental health
specialists working together to make decisions about a person of concern,
and that starts by information coming in about a person
and then doing a screening judgment to look at, Okay,
(43:16):
do we need to be concerned about this based on
the information? Do we need to dig more? We might
find that once we dig that it is concerning, then
you would go through the process of doing a more
rigorous assessment. Then you might look to engage with the
person to understand things further, and then if you're still
concern then it would be going, okay, let's put some
wrap around support towards the person, and then you'd monitor,
(43:40):
you'd review, and if it's still not improving, that might
be then when there's more targeted responses that could emerge.
Speaker 1 (43:48):
It's a multi agency, isn't it. It's very much. It's
not just the police, it's mental health, the health system,
all sorts of things.
Speaker 2 (43:57):
Yeah, and in this space we've realized that it is
multi agency that we need to be very careful of
silos of information being held and locked down and not
being shared. Man around Monus was probably a good example
of that. That information needs to flow to the right people,
and then those reviews and those assessments then need to
(44:20):
go back to other people in return, so we can't
be locking down on things. We need to be very
mindful of gaps in practice where we don't have knowledge
disconnects between agencies as well, And I'd probably also say
that a couple of other things around bunkers. So not
just doing an assessment on someone and going, oh, you know,
look that low concern. We'll just put the paperwork in
(44:44):
the file and we're done with that, and two weeks
later there's an incident. So we can't necessarily be reassured
by the fact that we've done an assessment and go okay,
we can wash our hands of that. And then the
last one really is myopia, where we simply lose focus
because we're looking at this too much, or we're not
getting an outside perspective, so too much group think, well,
(45:07):
whatever it might be, where it causes us just to
not to see that this has changed. And probably I
think in the lone actor space that the myopia aspect
is where we may come undone again in the future
because we're seeing more and more young people now presenting
with risk factors and concerning behaviors that if someone had
(45:29):
said that to you a decade ago, you would have
been horrified and you would have hit the panic button.
Now that our tolerance.
Speaker 1 (45:37):
For that we've become desensitizes.
Speaker 2 (45:40):
So you know, people with very violent ideations and purchasing
of weapons and engagement in quite extreme goal and extremist
material that are very young. It's become commonplace is not
the right word, but in the work that we do,
it's a little bit more commonplace now that that is
the type of person of concerned that you're seeing. And
(46:02):
the worry then is that we go, Okay, well, we're
so used to that now and we've seen so many
of them that don't do anything, but we need to
be very rigorous and understand that that could change and
that could escalate.
Speaker 1 (46:19):
I could see people dropping their guard down because we've
seen this and there's one hundred people that are like that,
Why are we worried about this person? But that could
be the one person.
Speaker 2 (46:28):
Yes, And I think in Australia as well. You know,
we had a good probably wake up call last last
year in twenty twenty four. So obviously we had the
Bondi Junction attack, which was sort of separate in some ways,
but then there was the good chaper Church. A couple
of weeks later, there was a young sixteen year old
(46:48):
over in Western Australia that stabbed someone at Bunnings and
then was killed by police. And then about six or
seven weeks later it was either was it Paramatter or Newcastle,
I can't remember. Young person with a go pro tactical
vest walked in with a couple of knives into politician's
office and fortunately they didn't go through with the attack.
(47:10):
But you know, within that space of two months, that
potentially could have been four very serious mass casualty attacks.
Speaker 1 (47:17):
Young males involved in it too. What there's a reason
so many young males seem to be the ones that
do these things that can be influenced.
Speaker 2 (47:29):
Yes, it's it is very concerning, and I think there's
been a lot spoken about men and masculinity and where
men at at the at the moment, a lot of
them are searching for identity and their their place in
society and for me, when they are struggling and can't
(47:49):
find a way to connect, or can't have an intimate relationship,
or are unsure how to cope with their mental health,
they're not they don't know how to communicate, can take
a troubling turn. And there's a lot of work I
think for men to do and to find pro social
outlets to express their challenges in the right way, because
(48:12):
it's easy to turn to blame and frustration and also
believe that you know others are others are responsible for
what's happening to you, for your shortcomings and difficulties. So
I think there's so much that we need to be
doing with men to help them improve how they handle
(48:32):
stresses and problems in their life.
Speaker 1 (48:33):
Well, I think it's in the nature of men that
they internalize too and not creating an environment where they
can express their feelings. And yeah, I think most men
understand this. If you're going through an issue and your
mate says how you go, and you say good, and
that's oh, that's good, mate, I was worried about you.
And then you move on from the conversation where if
(48:55):
it's and this is probably been too harsh a comparison,
and then with females it might be they talk. I
can put my hand up. I know my partners know
more about my friendships and life than I do. Like
your best mates just had a baby? Did he? Who've
told you that? Oh, Susan told me that or something
(49:18):
like that. So we need to communicate a little bit better,
don't we.
Speaker 2 (49:21):
Males? Unfortunately, they disproportionately make up the statistics for suicide, yeah,
and disproportionately make up the statistics for violent offenses. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (49:32):
It's not good with the work that you're doing with
New Zealand Police. Can you see down the track where
more attention will be given to the type of work
that you do, because quite frankly, listening to you talk
about your risk assessments and different things, there is so much.
Speaker 2 (49:51):
Work to do.
Speaker 1 (49:52):
Are we probably? I think policing. Then you don't have
to comment because you're still employed by police. But I
thought we fell behind the forensic science field in that
with DNA and all that, we didn't have the capability
of properly examining a crime scene. We didn't properly resource
it with INTEL. Probably not properly resourced in your field,
(50:12):
forensic psychology do you think police are starting to understand
the benefits as a whole.
Speaker 2 (50:17):
Well, look, I've got very complimentary things to say about
New Zealand place.
Speaker 1 (50:21):
So you're clever that your employees.
Speaker 2 (50:24):
Yeah, of course they're my employer. But look, I think
New Zealand's running a really good model which is very
positive for bringing expertise in. So they have a fixated
Threat Assessment Center over there as well, which but that's
purely for politicians, so politicians that are subject to threats
and being targeted. But we have our Behavioral Science Unit
(50:46):
which is very much bring specialists in for operational support.
So the model over there is really strong and there's
a recognition that for major crimes, the input or experts
or specialists is really one of the tools that we
need to solve in these. In Australia, unfortunately it has
(51:07):
fawned by the way. So we had that, but many
of the units have closed down.
Speaker 1 (51:12):
Fixated Persons unit that in my experience notoriously under resource,
but it was something a need that we just didn't
have it. We had intel officers attached to major crime
squads and that, but we really needed someone with the
expertise for specifically fixated persons and being able to assess
them properly.
Speaker 2 (51:32):
Yeah. Yeah, and I think it will come back again
because sometimes, as in policing, its money and resources that
dictate where things go. And look Victoria, New South Wales,
I think Western Australia, they all had specialist operational psychology
arms to them. It's only Queensland Police now that still
(51:55):
have it that I'm aware of.
Speaker 1 (51:56):
How do we go backwards in a progressive field?
Speaker 2 (51:59):
It is, yeah, because I look over in the UK
they have behavioral investigative advisors over there, so they've got
specialists that are recognized and they've done some great work.
Over in the Canada, Royal Canadian amount of Police they've
got a specialist behavioral unit as well. It's a mixture
of psychologists and psychiatrists providing operational support. FBI have four
(52:27):
dedicated units towards bringing specialty expertise in and then you
look across all the different US states they've got specialized
threat teams and things. So look, it is the model
for dealing with challenging and difficult cases in policing.
Speaker 1 (52:45):
And UK and Canada. I've worked in both those eras
in policing. Inquiries from New South Wales and they're set
up very similar to what we've got here in Australia.
New Zealand's are same and they're all moving forward with
it and we're moving backwards. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (53:00):
One of the things that's interesting with New Zealand is
it is a small place, but there's one police service
for the country, so it's just one national unit. And
obviously Australia has some of the challenges on a smaller
scale to the US with the states at the federal level,
and when it's one unit or one force for the country,
(53:21):
then you can be a little bit more focused with
what you're doing.
Speaker 1 (53:26):
And we're not too bad in this country compared to America.
We had someone I forget who it was, that his
first assignment as a police officer, there was twelve people
in the police forces is in America and he had
to buy his own gun. But that was I remember
who it was. It was Steve Murphy from the Netflix
(53:48):
Nacos series that took down Pablo Escobart and that was
his first star first police force. One of the other
points and we talked on fixated Persons Unit, the fixated
threat assessments, need for information sharing. We talked about within organizations,
government organizations, law enforcement agencies. But what about the public.
(54:09):
What part can the public play in the role of
making sure we identify these loan actors?
Speaker 2 (54:15):
Yeah, it's some ways. It's the bystander challenges that we
have with crime, that people are aware of something happening,
but for whatever reason, it might be their own self doubt,
it might be that they minimize it, but they don't
always report really valuable information. And ultimately preventing loan actor
attacks or mass casualty events is it's about information flowing
(54:39):
from members of the community through to police or that
police are then able to look over it, assess it,
and make sense of that information. And a lot of
policing is about information gathering and the public are a
crucial part of that. So whether it is anything from
unusual activities such as suddenly being into in firearms or
(55:01):
trying to collect knives, and also at the same time,
they might be saying that they're very angry with someone
or they've got a particular problem with this person or
an organization, all the way through to knowing maybe that
your child is viewing some problematic and unhealthy content. So
may not be always going to the police, But of
(55:22):
course it's important that that information is shared with someone
it might be a school counselor, but sharing the information
so that it's not siloed and not pocketed and allowing
some other eyeballs to get across that to make more
informed judgments about that, and then if it needs to
be escalated and passed on, then hopefully it does get
to the police.
Speaker 1 (55:42):
Well, we do need to share that because quite often
when you hear of an incident and men, yeah, the
media have done their a bit and everyone's talking about, oh,
that person was always strange, it was strange ever since
that he went to kindergarten. All these people come out
and identify with that. That's the type of information that
we're going who has got to get across absolutely because
(56:03):
it's sharing that information. We touched on the media and
the copycat type situation and also about the media giving
too high a profile to the people that carry out
these crimes. I've thought for a long time, and it's
hard because there's an inquiry in mind. People want to
find out and there's a benefit by putting the name
(56:25):
out because if it's someone man Mimus, other people might
come forward and say, well he did this and did that,
so you find out more information about it, but you
don't want them to be put up there on a pedestal.
What way do you think the media should treat someone
like what happened in christ Church.
Speaker 2 (56:42):
I think uniform policies would be ideal.
Speaker 1 (56:45):
So they're not competing against each other.
Speaker 2 (56:48):
Especially across the trans Tasmin. I think we could get
uniform policies that would be achievable. Where we need to
make a decision around what we will and won't publish. Now,
New Zealand made a really interesting decision to not publish
Terrence's name was he is and will be forever known
(57:08):
as the terrorist, so he wasn't named in New Zealand.
Obviously it's very different within Australia. But that certainly I
think took the sting out of it and the power
of his actions and that he didn't receive the notoriety
and it was very much victim lens focus and that
is important the narratives and the survival stories of victims
(57:32):
is it's probably what we want to come out of
these attacks rather than it being about the perpetrator. Now
that's chicky because talking about the perpetrator does as you say,
serve some purposes where there's an understanding that we do
need and it generates more information. But we don't want
to sensationalize that. And that's a tricky point. But I
(57:54):
think if we make it heavily victim focused, with basic
details about the person rather than writing at length about
their motivations or their ideology, then that's a nice balance.
Speaker 1 (58:07):
Point we might finish up here. I reckon we could
talk all day. I just you're a wealth of knowledge
and you've taken me back into a world that make
me appreciate how complicated it is what you're doing. You're
over here in Australia. Are you talking at some conferences?
Speaker 2 (58:26):
Yes, I'm at the New South Wales Correction Conference which
is on and also we're also running a stalking symposium
with a host of guests in Melbourne as well.
Speaker 1 (58:36):
Right, you work with corrective services. I haven't really touched
on that. But what can you learn from people in prison?
Speaker 2 (58:44):
Oh? An enormous amount. I mean, we have individuals that
are there for lengthy stints in custody and there's always
the temptation to go, let's just lock them up, forget
about them and not go and talk to them. And
by talking to them and in engaging with them, first
of all, we gain a rich amount of insight from
(59:06):
their stories and their motivations and their reasons and their
pathways to carrying out their active violence. We think can
then improve our responses by learning about that. Now, the
other side, of course, is rehabilitating them as well. Do
we want to put the time and resources into them?
And I think it's somewhat negligent if we don't go
(59:27):
through the process of at least trying, and certainly in
the lone active space, we've seen where some things have
gone wrong for various reasons, that people have been held
on remand for long periods and they haven't had treatment,
and then they've come out and they've committed a mass attack.
So that's a whole different landscape. But probably my key
takeaway is that we shouldn't just lock people up and
(59:50):
forget that they're there. There's a lot of value for
various reasons to engage with them.
Speaker 1 (59:57):
That makes sense. Can we do radicalized people like young people?
That doesn't have to be age based, but can you
deradicalize someone with the proper proper work.
Speaker 2 (01:00:08):
You think de radicalization is an interesting one. It's topical
and controversial. The UK has probably had the most challenging
implications of that. So there was big efforts to deradicalize
people in the UK and a lot of the de
radicalization programs were emerged from there and they made their
(01:00:32):
way over to Australia and New Zealand and we've kind
of learned that de radicalization programs don't work right. But
part of that is they were brought out during a
time when it was all Islamic inspired violence or Gihardi
inspired violence. A couple of years later it had evolved
and then it was right wing violence, and then it
was grievance based violence. So the fundamentals of a lot
(01:00:55):
of the de radicalization process assume that it was just
ideology that was causing violence, when actually maybe ideology was
only the top layer of the problem and it didn't
get to the core reasons that the person was becoming violent.
So I think we need to take a few steps
back and ask the questions of really around you know,
(01:01:16):
why was violence a solution for this person? How did
they start on the pathway to violence? So try and
get to some of the core things rather than going okay,
they just need to deradicalize and change these unhealthy and
problematic beliefs.
Speaker 1 (01:01:32):
Well, you haven't disappointed me, because like every psychologist I
speak to, there's always an if or but or maybe
but yeah, that's I bring it back to Sarah. She
would always yeah, that might be the case, but it
could be this, and just can you give me a
yes or not? No, I can't give you a yes
or note. But I like the way you mind thinks
(01:01:54):
and the work you're doing, and I think it's important work.
And I thank you so much for taking time out
of your busy schedule to come into the studio and
talk to us today. And I thoroughly recommend your book
mass Casually The Rise of Loan Actors so interesting. Really,
where can people get it if they want it?
Speaker 2 (01:02:13):
So? It's available obviously on Amazon and online bookstores. It'll
be Barnes and Noble overseas and shortly in bookstores here
and also on the publisher's website, Groundproof Forensics dot com.
Speaker 1 (01:02:28):
Very good if people want to get in contact with you,
and you don't have to answer this because you might
get inundated, But if people wanted to reach out to
how could they reach out?
Speaker 2 (01:02:37):
There? So I do private consulting works so doctor Nathan
Brooks dot com as well.
Speaker 1 (01:02:42):
Okay, thanks very much for coming on. I've enjoyed the chat.
Speaker 2 (01:02:46):
Thanks for having me Gary. Cheers
Popular Podcasts
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show. Clay Travis and Buck Sexton tackle the biggest stories in news, politics and current events with intelligence and humor. From the border crisis, to the madness of cancel culture and far-left missteps, Clay and Buck guide listeners through the latest headlines and hot topics with fun and entertaining conversations and opinions.