DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CRIMES OF PASSION AND PREMEDITATED MURDER WITH FBI PROFILER

Episode Transcript

(00:06):
Welcome to Inside the Criminal Mind podcast, where we analyze some of the most
notorious criminal cases with psychology and criminologycombined. Welcome back, everybody. Well
Today with me is my co hostAndrew Bringo, retired FBI profile er,

(00:27):
founder of Behavioral Science Unit, andthe sought after keynote speaker on human behavior.
Welcome Andy, Hi Carlos, howare you doing? Wonderful? I
can't wait today, folks. We'regonna be talking about the differences between premeditated
murder and crimes of passion. It'skind of a cousin of domestic violence,
intimate partner of violence. We're gonnabe looking at a lot. We're gonna

(00:49):
be looking at the legal and psychologicalaspects of these era types of crimes.
And Andy, you got I thinka ten point thing that we're gonna be
talking about in a minute. Butbefore we get started, you know what
to do, folks, make sureto share, subscribe, hit that like
button. You do know we likeit. So, Andy, tell us
a little bit about this outline.You got about ten different factors that I
guess a judge would be looking at, or the criminal justice system will be

(01:11):
looking at, and then we cankind of take a deep dive into the
first one. But what are theten Yeah, we're gonna we're gonna talk
about ten today. There's twenty differentdifferences or more between crimes of passion and
premeditated crimes where there's a romance element. One of the first things we should

(01:32):
do, though, is kind ofdefine it because it is a very broad
topic and one of the reasons we'regoing to do a series of these podcasts.
So for the purpose of today's conversation, we're going to focus on some
of the elements that may be seenif the case was taken to court.
And we're looking at crimes of passionand compulsory or are generally impulsive crimes.

(01:53):
They happen spontaneously. They happen asa consequence of a conflict that's unresolved that
leads to some violence, whereas apremeditated crime of romance or sex related murder
would be compulsive. So these arethey may have initiated with a spark or
ignited with an argument, but theviolence doesn't happen contiguous to that argument.

(02:15):
It happens later after the offended partyhas time to think about it and then
become compulsively thinking about that hatred andthat anger and then leading to a planned
murder of someone that they're familiar withor in a romantic partnership with the other

(02:36):
element that kind of is a tangtangible connection. Is is a premeditated serial
killer, a premeditated crime that involvessex but does not have an emotional component.
So we'll talk about a little bitabout that, whether it's Dennis Raider
and a serial killer who is partiallymotivated by the sexual gratification of controlling a

(03:01):
victim or rape. A serial rapistthat then becomes a murderer has a sexual
component, but there's not there's notthat familiar contact, that relational contact with
the victim. So we're going tofocus really today's conversation on the first two
on the crime of passion involving someoneyou're familiar with, dating, married to,

(03:25):
or you know, part of yourfamily, and or the premeditated violence
that is exacted against that individual.So I'll begin The ones we're going to
talk about today are psychological profiles,the distinctions between the two psychological assessments.

(03:46):
We're going to talk about legal consequencesbecause that's where this often lands in court.
The planning of those types of crimes, the emotional state between the victim
and the perpetrator or the bad guyyou will. We're going to talk about
victim perpetrator relationships that exist between thosethat are victims of crimes of passion or

(04:12):
premeditated crimes, the evidence and severityof the violence. There's some distinctions to
be made between the types of evidencegenerally found in crimes of passion versus premeditated
crimes and crime scenes, and thetypes of violence against the victim. And
then we're going to finish up lookingat public perception. There is a distinction

(04:33):
between those individuals who are guilty,oftentimes guilty of crimes of passion. Gypsy
Rose Blanchard is an example where thereare elements of both, and my partner
and I going to talk about wherethere are elements of both the crimes of
passion and premeditated planning, and GypsyRose Blanchard certainly fit that category and garnered

(04:59):
a lot of sympathy in the generalpublic, the court of public opinion,
if you will. And then thelast the impact on the community between these
types of crimes. So we'll talkabout those and then we'll talk about others
in an upcoming podcast, Yes,Carlos, Yeah, it's the great stuff.
I can't wait. And I knowthat some of those get kind of
blurry and gray areas. I justwanted the for listeners out there give the

(05:24):
neuroscientific look at the difference between impulsivebehavior and compulsive behavior, because you mentioned
those distinctions and I think impulsive behaviorobviously is something that happens at the spur
of the moment. Compulsive it's kindof ruminating, over thinking about it a
lot. And the impulsive behavior seemsto be affecting a particular area the prefunnal
cortex called the ventral medial. I'mnot going to get too neuroscientific on it

(05:47):
for everybody out there, but justwanted to highlight it the PFC. If
you've listened to my podcast, youknow, and in this particular area of
the PFC deals with decision making andrisk assessment and the inhibition of pulsive actions.
So a lot of times we seein this area with individuals who are
in prison tend to be lower volumes, smaller volumes. We also see the

(06:08):
nuclear cucumbers, which is the brain'sreward system that can also drive impulsive behaviors.
And the last part is the amygdala, which gets fired a lot for
fear and emotional processing, and believeit or not, we may be touching
some of these cases too, wherethe individual gets caught cheating and now decides
to remove the white or the husbandbecause of that. That could elicit the

(06:31):
fear and contribute it. While thecompulsive behavior it activates different areas of the
brain, still in the pre funnelcortex, but it activates more of a
an area where it plays a rolein the repetitive nature of compulsive behavior.
So it's interesting to see other scientifically, they're actually different areas of the brain
that are lighting up between compulsive compulsionand impulsive expulsivity. And I think anecdotally

(06:54):
we see those exhibited in different quoteunquote personality traits. Certain people are more
calculating than others, And you know, I always go back to the extreme
profiles of Captain Kirk and doctor Spockin Star Trek right. One is almost
robotic, instrumental in his approach tolife and decision making and cognition, and

(07:15):
the other, you know, fliesby the seat of his pants. He's
an emotional heart on his sleeve kindof guy. So where doctor Spock may
be more compulsive. Captain Kirk ismore impulsive, and I think that we're
all a blend of those, right, we're not. There's very few of
us that are extreme of one orthe other. The other thing, too,

(07:36):
I think to remember is that allhumans, and we've talked about this
in past podcasts, that all humansare. Our behaviors are made up of
three dimensions, and in a fourthdynamic. The three dimensions are your biology,
your psychology, and your sociology,right, so biopsychosocial model. But

(07:58):
the fourth dimension, or the fourthdi is a dynamic. It is the
impetus. It's the catalyst for muchof our behaviors context, time and space.
And so some people, because ofwhat you just mentioned, you know,
neurobiological and psychological components allow some peopleto restrain themselves. I'd like to

(08:20):
strangle you, but I don't,right, and so I'm less impulsive,
whereas unfortunately a lot of people injail, our people don't have that inner
control, and so I'd like tostrangle you, and I do, and
you're dead. And then I realizedwhat I did, and I feel bad
about it, but it's too late. And so when we talk about crimes

(08:41):
of passion, oftentimes it is thatkind of impulsivity that leads one to lose
their senses, and oftentimes, ina legal sense, that's their defense,
temporary insanity, a reduction of judgment, and so they lost a connection to
reality and the actual killing was amoment when they were not in their faculty

(09:03):
or not within their sanity, andthey try to then make that argument in
court. And you know, again, fifty states, we have fifty different
standards for mental illness that leads tocrime or you know, not guilty by
reason of insanity. And then thatdoesn't mean there's fifty different standards. They're
about I think three or four standards, but fifty states, you know,

(09:26):
have their own interpretation of those.So and I think it's one Arizona does
not have a standard for not guiltyby reason of insanity, that you can't
use that defense, one state outof the fifty. But that's that's part
of the component. The psychological profileof the perpetrators that commit these types of
crimes show that those who have,or perpetrate, or engage in crimes of

(09:52):
passion exhibit traits of impulsivity and emotionalinstability. The thing, the very things
you just talked about that near alot of going on, whereas those people
who have been committed or guilty ofpremeditated romance crimes demonstrate traits of meticulous planning
and lack of empathy, so thatthe idea of lacking empathy could be something

(10:16):
that started with a traumatic event,you know, a trigger, an argument,
a beating, right, and soit's funny, uh, not funny
haha, but funny iranic ironic thatI was told once by a therapist that

(10:37):
the tolerance correlates directly to how inlove you are with someone. The less
in love you are with someone,the less tolerant you become. So the
little annoyances that when you first metand fell in love are cute even right,

(10:58):
they become annoying the life, youknow, the it's now a hackle.
The confidence now appears to be arrogance. These traits that we accepted and
we even embraced when we were inlove, we tolerated, become intolerable when
we despise this person and we wantthem out of our lives. But out

(11:20):
of the millions of divorces and brokencouples, it's a tiny, tiny,
tiny fraction that then go to thepoint where they exact violence against their partner
or ex partner. So those aresome distinctions in the and psychological profiles.
Let me ask you a question,and I'm sure this is going to have
an impact not only on the profile, but also on probably the legal determinants

(11:45):
would be the history of violence inthat family and substance use, because those
two seem to play a lot,right. We know you mentioned before the
show that they get deluded sometimes.Yeah, I don't. I don't want
to get too far off topic,but you talk of you, You've talked
about some interesting points. There's agreat documentary I just saw this past week,
Six Schizophrenic Brothers. I think Imight have mentioned it to you,

(12:09):
Oh, the Galvin documentary, theGalvin Galvin case. In that case,
you had those elements. Now,you did have impulsive crime or impulsive violence,
brothers beating brothers, and but thatin that situation they had leading to
some genuine diagnosed mental illness. Youhad the predisposition genetically, you had the

(12:33):
trauma events, and then you ledviolence and drug abuse. So all those
elements were there. There is theKnights doctor and it happens again, and
there's cited cases again and again atleast anecdotally that those elements are there.
And so, yes, there arecases where people Gypsy Rose Blanchard, where

(12:58):
a person who's been severely used andthen strikes out against her abuser and then
makes the argument that this was acrime of passion, that it wasn't premeditating,
that it got to a breaking point. But from a legal perspective,
in terms of the state, thestate has all this evidence, you know
of this history where you were abusedand you were a victim, but you

(13:20):
didn't commit the crime, right,So then their argument is, well,
no, you you were able towithstand it and then you didn't commit the
crime, so it wasn't impulsive.This was a planned attack. You planned
to kill her, And in GypsyRose blanchered that was the argument. So

(13:41):
you and our pre podcast discussion mentionedwell, is it possible to have both
elements? And I think there isa possibility that there are elements of both
crimes of passion leading to premeditated violence. Yeah, I know, we're going
to look at that later on atzero point eight or nine come up.

(14:01):
So't I don't want to derail you. I'm known for that, so I
don't want to do that. Sopsychological assessment. By the way, folks,
again this is retired FBI profiler AndrewBringle, founder Behavioral Science Unit and
sought after a keynote speaker and humanbehavior. So go ahead and tell us
about psychological assessment. What's that allabout. Well, again, these criminals
of premeditated romance crimes may exhibit characteristicsof narcissism. So when there's an assessment

(14:28):
of their such psychological state or characteristics, they find often find narcissistic traits,
psychopathology or psychopath pathy. Meticulous planningin the assessments are found, whereas crimes
of romantic passion, of criminals thatcommit crimes of romantic passion involve evaluations focused

(14:54):
on emotional instability and trauma. Therethey find those individuals who commit crimes of
passion to have had a history ofemotional instability and or trauma. So it
goes back again to you know this, this sense that the person who commits
generally these are general assessment traits.The perpetrator of a premeditated crime has gone

(15:22):
through a process where they've extracted theemotional component. They feel really nothing,
no empathy. The person simply wantsthat person the victim gone a friend of
mine once said that the distinction betweenanger and hate. He's Mark frank doctor

(15:46):
Mark Franken, University of Buffalo.The distinction between anger and hate. He
said, when you're angry at someone, you want them to hurt emotionally or
physically. You want them to feelsome pain and remorse for what they did.
Right. That's anger. When youhate someone, you no longer want
them to exist. So the personwho the subject that generally commits premeditated crimes

(16:11):
and romance crimes, has gotten tothe point where they hate the victim to
the point they no longer want themto exist, and so compulsively they go
through these these planning phases of howthey would go about getting rid of their
girlfriend, wife, husband, boyfriend. And that leads to a lot of

(16:36):
behaviors. And we'll start talking aboutsome of that as at least relates to
evidence. But you can imagine someof the things they may search on their
Google search engine. There was ayeah, I'm go ahead, Well I
was gonna mention you know, it'snot exactly a case of romance crime,

(16:57):
but a case related to this processor assessment is. And you and I
have talked about this in the past. By the way, before I talk
about this case, the acronym PEPsthe motive for human motivation. Right,
So one of the things that behavioralscienti you we look at in terms of

(17:17):
human motivation is this taxonomy. It'sa category of human motivation and that is
personal economic power or political based andsocial. We believe that human motivation to
behave comes from those an amalgam ofthose. The real trick, the art,

(17:40):
if you will, is to measurethose because each of those are weighted
and those are those are categories,those aren't the traits. So how important
is it to someone to have alife insurance policy in order to get that
life insurance policy economic incentive, theyhave to kill their spouse or how how
important is it to that individual tosee an outcome, even if it means

(18:06):
the killing of another person in orderfor them to feel the personal gratification.
And there was a case cases GrahamFrederick Young, who was known as the
Teacup poisoner, and he was aBritish serial killer. This is back in
nineteen sixty two through seventy one.So he was killing people for what nine

(18:26):
years, poisoning family members, sopeople he had a relationship with and other
colleagues in His chosen form of poisonwas thallium. This Italian is a highly
toxic metal, and so this guywas knowledgeable about chemistry. His motivation was

(18:48):
simply to see the results of poisoningcoworkers and his family with this toxic substance,
which resulted in multiple deaths before hewas arrested in nineteen s one.
So this guy was obviously crime ofpassion. Don't think so, right,
This is definitely a premeditated crime.He began his crime spree in his teenage

(19:14):
years. He poisoned his stepmother,which resulted in her death and caused illness
to his father. He was actuallyimprisoned in a mental institution for a while
and then released and then later committedthe other crimes which led to his conviction
in a sentence of life imprisonment.So the whole motivation of this guy was

(19:36):
personal, his fascination with the toxicologyof this particular poison, and he had
to go through meticulous planning to executehis poisoning. I would never accept tea
from this guy. I don't knowwhat his colleagues were thinking when he was
released in working, but it goesto show that there are some of these

(19:56):
predators, in this case a serialkiller, and there are others. Will
talk about Dennis Raider probably in anotherpodcast, but they do meticulous planning,
their crimes are premeditated, and theymay or made in this case didn't have
a sexual component. But some ofthe others will talk about Doo. That's
interesting because that teacup poisoner. Ithink they they initially diagnosed some of the

(20:18):
possible personality disorder and I think hechecked off a couple of boxes. Maybe
Obviously, psychopathy will probably be therebecause of lack of empathy, remorse,
and the calculations that he put into the killings. As other ones,
they kind of kind of looked atoc oc D. I guess it's a

(20:40):
CDPD. Yeah, I was thinkingabout obsessor compulsive personality disorder, but that's
not the same obsess with compulsive.So that's gonna be another one that was
there, and that kind of fitsin the category. Again. But this
is nineteen sixty two when that happened, so sixty years ago. Psychopathy had
only been identified maybe a decade ortwo before, by check Lee's check Cleckley's

(21:00):
checklist, which I'm sure you're familiarwith. Yeah, it's a very difficult
folks, because back then the diagnosticmanual was only about one hundred and sixty
pages. I think we only hadabout ninety or about one hundred or two
one hundred and twenty or so diagnosisfifty years ago or sixty years ago.
Now we have over four hundred.That's another story for another day. Yeah,

(21:22):
so that's really interesting with the teacuppoison, and maybe we'll explore that
again later and get more detail intoit and look at the story, see
what he did, and maybe breakit down with your analysis. Well,
ultimately, ultimately it comes down tomotive when it gets to the point where
a cord is involved. Right,So that's a very important element for both
the prosecutor and the defense, iswhat was the motive? So we go

(21:44):
back to that, you know PEPs, you know personal, economic, political,
or social, and oftentimes it's anamalgam of those, and as I
mentioned, they're often weighted. Thegoal of the prosecutor is to show that
the motive was malicious and was premeditatedand there was all this planning involved,

(22:07):
whereas the defense is trying to showthat the subject was actually the victim and
they'll try to flip it on thevictim, and the Blancher case is a
good example of that. In bothcases, by the way, a similar
we've been talking about some of thedistinctions between premeditated and spontaneous or crimes of

(22:27):
passion. One of the distinct oneof the elements it's the same or similarities,
is emotional involvement. So Dennis Raidereven you could argue, probably young,
and a number of these other casesand some we may even talk a
little bit about just to show thecontrast, they don't have an emotional involvement.

(22:51):
So for our discussion in terms ofthese domestic based crimes of passion versus
premeditated crimes, there's an emotional involvementin both types of crime, often involving
strong emotions love, jealousy, revenge, obsession, which can lead to compulsion
you know that you mentioned earlier.A crime of romantic passion typically arises from

(23:12):
intense emotional reaction, while a premeditatedromantic crime is driven by calculated planning and
motives such as gaining insurance or recoupingpension, you know, a pension and
ap owing to somebody else still inan intense yeah, no, but again,

(23:32):
and I think that's important. Wetalked about this in our pre podcast
interview. A lot of us,including myself, have gone through bad relationships.
I'm through two divorces, right andI made the mistake the other day
of calculating how much it's cost mein the last two divorces and to date.
And I am still required to paymy first wife half my pension,

(23:55):
but to date it has cost menine hundred and seventy thousand dollars. You
look at retirement and pension and spouseand support, et cetera. House you
know, payoff for houses nine hundredand seventy thousand oates. But and how
does that affect you? Of courseI'd like that money back, but the
here's the way I look at it, and it's everybody's different in terms of

(24:18):
the calculus. I signed up forthat, and so that's what I have
to pay to, you know,for that contract to end, That's what
I have to pay A good segue. Well, We're gonna definitely do a
podcast on this at another time,but I don't want to get too far
off topic. I bought a carlast November and I went all, ev
we're gonna have a whole podcast onthis, I think. But I bought

(24:40):
an ev A Chevy Bolt. Thecar has been nothing but problems. It's
been in the shop nine times.It is just by every definition, elemon
or something's wrong with it, right, But now they've got it back to
me, so fingers crossed. Theyfixed it. But it's but I had
an agree with GM, and Iwant both parties to live up to that

(25:04):
agreement. So if the car andthe agreement is, if the car isn't
fixed, then they give me anothercar, they buy the car back.
My position is if they fix thecar, even if I don't want the
car, if it's fixed, thenthey've lived up to the contract. I
got to keep the car. Andyou know that's that's the rules of the

(25:25):
gate. So if you're in arelationship and the relationship ends and the courts
deem in their infinite wisdom that you'vegot to pay nine hundred and seventy thousand
dollars, well then you know,buckle up, butter Cup, it's going
to be a rough ride. Youget to get to continue to do podcasts
with Carlos. Well, you knowwhat's interesting too, is and we can

(25:47):
talk about it. This is goingto definitely be another topic for another podcast.
Would be a couple of years ago. I'm not going to take long
on this, kinda one derail ofthe conversation, but a couple of years
ago, I remember studying evil.Yeah, just the concept of evil,
and I thought it was going tobe pretty binary, you know, good,
bad, that's the end of it. And I looked at it and
started reading all these different books,and then there was a professor I spoke

(26:08):
with who teaches philosophy of evil.Yeah, and boy it was complicated.
It got complicated really fast when peoplestarted rationalizing. And one of the examples
I'll use real quick is the exampleI gave is, Hey, as I
ever justified to be a serial killer? And this was a pole question I've
asked and most people will say no. However, the minute I changed it

(26:32):
and I changed the target and Isaid, well what about serial killers?
The target pedophiles like the guy inEastern Europe. Yeah. Well, now
all of a sudden, you havethree quarters of the room raised their hands
say yeah, it was justified,and it's really interesting. Well, you
have a good concept for a TVshow called Dexter actually hbox, Yeah,
that's the benevolent serial killer who onlygoes after bad guys. Right, you're

(26:56):
right. And here's the reason isbecause morality gets involved. Right, and
so our moral code is such thatif we feel sympathy towards somebody like Gypsy
Rose Blanchard because her action was lesserof an evil than what her mother did,

(27:17):
then we can rationalize the common lawof necessity. It was necessary for
Gypsy Rose to kill her mother toend the torture that her mother was imparting
on her. He ended that,and that's a human process. We juxtappose
our own moral code on the decisionbehavioral decisions we make. So if you
look at morality, there's three types. The absolute moralist sees the world black

(27:41):
and white. They see oftentimes ina god code, God's code, you
know, God's law is higher thanman's law kind of thing. So their
interpretation of right and wrong is blackand white. Whereas a moral relativist most
of us are, we said pens. So it gives us some leeway to

(28:03):
make a decision. And it's morallyokay in Saudi Arabia, for example,
to have four wives, but inthe United States morally wrong to have more
than one wife. Right, Somorals can change based on context, time
and space and so forth. Thenthere's my favorite one, and that's the
moral nihilist, you know, theFrederick Nietzsche type, and they don't believe
in right or wrong. They onlybelieve in winning and losing. So if

(28:26):
I kill somebody who poses a threatto me, it's not right or wrong.
I won. They lost. Andthere are a lot of people that
have that moral code and they canthen juxtapose that in terms of their behavior
that they were right right because theywon. And that becomes difficult because you

(28:48):
start seeing that that manifests itself indifferent forms of psychology and behavior, different
groups that people join and side with, and even affects the biology, as
you mentioned very early in our conversation, or it's chicken or egg. Does
the biology affect the psychology and thegroups that they choose to be with?

(29:12):
And that's the that's the debate.That's interesting. Yeah, it kind of
reminds me of the sociologists that saidthere wouldn't be as much crime if we
didn't compare each other all the time, because then I can see that giving
the impetus for somebody who looks atit like you mentioned a zero sum game
as the moral nihilists right as awinner and the loser kind of thing.

(29:33):
And one more comment for future podcastisn't don't elaborate on this, but we
can think about this one for thefuture. As you mentioned, people are
going to look at them differently,like you said, sympathy towards Blanchard the
gypsy rose. But then we haveto talk about that the psychology of the
jury, how they're going to getimpacted by society, their past histories.

(29:57):
I know there are a lot ofelements. We can take the O.
J. Simpson case for example,but yeah, you're right, let's not
get sidetracked on it. But Ithink there's this a rich, rich area
for us to explore. The nextone I wanted to talk about was legal
consequences, because that's what you know. A lot of this leads up to
the bad guy gets caught and thelegal defense has to make has to come

(30:23):
up with a reason, a justifiablereason for the violence. So legal defenses
and outcomes differ significantly. Crimes ofpassion may lead to considerations of temporary insanity
diminished capacity, while a premeditated romancecrime often results in harsher penalties due to
the planning nature, the premeditation ofit. And here's a real distinction when

(30:45):
it gets down to the you know, nuts and bolts, is if we
can show it's a crime of passion, we can get maybe you know,
homicide and second degree secondary homicide ormanslaughter. But if we at a if
we get shown guilty and premeditated case, we're looking at life of that parole

(31:07):
or worst case, we're looking atthe death penalty for me premeditated crime.
So again depends on the state.You know, fifty different states have you
know, murder charges murder crime statutesthat are different, I'm sorry, serious
differences in consequences, absolutely, andand that you know, there are a

(31:30):
lot more state laws than there arefederal laws, right, and murder is
but our listeners may not realize this. Murder generally speaking, murder is not
a federal crime. It's a statecrime. Murder there has to be a
federal nexus for it to be chargedas a murder as a federal crime.
For example, terrorism, I thinkdrug commission, you know, murder in

(31:51):
the commission of crime, drug crimeacross the state lines like a RICO it
tar, interstate transportation aid toracketeering.Those can be murder federal murder charges.
I think now recently legislation has includedbiased crimes that result in murder, so

(32:14):
hate crimes, biased crimes, butthey are very few relatively speaking. There
You know, those are state domain, so cases are often tried in part
on the person's motive. As Imentioned, the fifty states have different laws
from murder, and if a persongenerally gets tried and convicted for a crime
and passion, the jail time issomewhat less. There's also premeditated crime.

(32:43):
Oftentimes the motives and the methods involvedrange from financial gain to psychological factors like
like you know, killing people becauseyou want to see the what happens with
the toxology of the poison. Soto speak. We almost have sadism that

(33:04):
absolutely that could be sadism involved.Drugs could be involved in crimes of passion
where people have become so high ondrugs that they then commit a crime of
passion. Yep, go ahead.All I wanted to say, Andy,
is got I know. In theupcoming podcast, we'll be tackling the OJ

(33:25):
Simpson case, of course, oneof the most infamous trials in American legal
history. And if we get sometime we'll also tackle Dalia Dippolito case.
If you haven't heard of it,it's a fascinating case as well. But
before, by the way, folksyou know us by now. We try
to keep to the structure as muchas we can, but as times we
think of things, we add it. There's different topics. These are very

(33:47):
complex topics. So I know we'llget to the OJ case. Whether we
get to the Dipleto case the nextpodcast, we don't know quite yet.
But we appreciate your patience. SoAnnie, you want to give us a
quick recap, but we'll we coveredit because boy, we covered a lot.
Yeah, and we've left a lotuncovered. We're going to talk about
in the future some other elements anddifferences between premeditated and crimes of passion,

(34:12):
including planning, emotional state, andvictim porptrayer relationships. Today we covered quite
a bit. I think we talkedabout psychological profiles, psychological assessments, UH,
legal consequences, and motive. Ithink that those are, you know,
important aspects, but there there areother aspects that distinguish between our distinctions

(34:34):
between crimes of passion and crimes thatare premeditated that involve sex or romance.
So I'm looking forward to our nextpodcast, and I always enjoy talking to
you and exploring the the human brainand human behavior. I'm so happy we
started it up again. I'm sureeverybody out there is also very happy.
By the way, folks, ifyou have questions, you can put them

(34:55):
on there for us and we'll behappy to try to answer them for you
on the NE podcast. Also,go visit Behavioral Science Unit LLC dot com
Behavioral Science Unit LLC dot com tolearn more about Andrew Bringle over there.
And hey, folks, you knowwhat to do, Share, subscribe,
hit that I like button. Youknow we like it. Stay safe everyone,
all right, Carl'll see it right,