FBI PROFILER DISCUSSES PROFILING, CRIME IN THE NEWS AND MORE1

None

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, Welcome
back, Adie, Welcome, ICarlos, nice to see you and talk

(00:28):
to you again. I know ouraudience doesn't get to see us, but
you and I do this through zoom, so I get to see your very
handsome face. Yeah. I'm justhappy we get to do two shows back
to back, week to week atYou're back sure, and I know We're
doing another one possibly next week,so I'm excited about that as well.
It's nice to get back in thegroove. I mean, listen, I

(00:51):
would be lying to say I didn'tenjoy my time in Abu Dhabi once I
got settled, mostly because I knewthe next day wasn't going to be raining
or snowing. And I've been backhome, I guess about fourteen days,
and I would say probably about eightof them have either included brain or snow.
I hear you, brother, Ihear it. Welcome back to New

(01:11):
York, right, miss Ada Sunshine. Well this week, I know we're
talking about a topic that's dear toboth of our hearts. And for me,
it's it's society has changed a lotin the last twenty years, and
especially in the last five or tenyears in regards to how they view crime

(01:34):
news or criminal crime news, andI think one of it. Let me
start off with this way, there'sa lot of TV shows that have popped
up and look, I understand they'refor entertainment, but it gives a lot
of people distorted reality. And Ithink you're going to bring some clarity to
that a little later about profiling.So today we're gonna be talking about profiling
folks. Oh, by the way, make sure to share, subscribe,
and hit that I like, butgo check out Behavioral Science Unit LLC dot

(01:57):
com. But that peeve usually isthat people start wanting fast food detective work.
There's a crime committed, they expectedto be done in twenty four hours.
And in today's world, they're alsoconstant. There's a reasonable amount of
skepticism that people should have. Butwhen people constantly have conspiratorial ideas within twelve

(02:22):
hours of an investigation, you've gonea little bit too far. So why
aren't they telling us this? Whyaren't they were First of all, they
don't have to tell you anything.If it's a criminal case in another city,
not even in your state, inyour town. I don't remember any
law that they had to tell youanything about their criminal case. They're just
talking about the criminal case. They'renot going to tell you everything about the

(02:43):
criminal case. But people watch crimeshows and in forty five minutes or fifty
minutes, the case is solved.But they also sometimes forget that some of
those are within four or five days. The show is forty five minutes,
but the actual sequence of events happenswithin days. They can't kind of forget
about that part. But that's whyit kind of distorts people's perceptions. But

(03:06):
I've seen it over and over,and then you got people with just instigators.
They just like to say, oh, why didn't they say this,
Oh what did this happened? Thiscan't be possible, and then of course
they never come back to correct themselvesor admit that they were wrong. So
anyway, one of the biggest petpiece for me is when people look at
these crime stories and it's sad becauseyou have people like the University of Idaho,

(03:27):
four young girls were killed, andpeople treat it as a TV show,
as a game show. Who canfigure it out? What's going on.
You know, that's an interesting pointyou just brought up, because I've
long had an idea and concept andin factive actually written the concept down that
you can use force multiplier, right, you can use the audience. You
can use your base of individuals tohelp expedite investigations. Back in the day,

(03:58):
there was a TV show, America'sMost Wanted and Walsh what was his
first name but John Walsh, JohnWalsh. He would host the show and
they would use this the power ofthe audience to facilitate investigations that had been
stalled out, these fugitive investigations,and were very successful, I think over

(04:19):
a decade plus in that show.So I don't have a problem using it
a little different though, because theywere actually looking for people to see the
guy. Now, what you haveis a lot of people on social media.
I'm not sure how familiar are withTwitter, Instagram, but they're making
up shit, well, creating differencesthe things that aren't even there, and
creating ideas that are completely preposterous,and then saying the cops are in on

(04:43):
it and they don't want to findit. But I'll tell you you're right,
You're absolutely right. The media hasexpanded. In fact, I'll tell
you back in two thousand and ninetwenty ten, I was teaching a course
at the FBI Academies National Academy PoliceExecutive, and I introduced them to the
concept of the universal media. Now, this is just as a high speed

(05:05):
broadband Twitter world was exploding, right, And I explained to them that it
used to be when I was akid, you had to go to a
TV set at six o'clock or tenthirty eleven o'clock to catch one of three
channels and the news, and itwas all pushed to us, right,
So you had Walter Crunkite, youhad Dan Rouder, you had these anchors

(05:28):
that would push the information to usat this given time. And unless you
read a paper which was dated,right, because papers are not instant like
the internet is. But you wouldgo to the TV to get your facts
from people you trusted, and youwould you would have to get this information
pushed to you. If you wereconservative or liberal, you would maybe go
to one channel versus another, orlisten to one anchor that you trusted versus

(05:48):
another. But the keyword is trustbecause you could trust what they said because
it was news. They read thenews. They didn't opine. You know,
they didn't give you unless it wasan editorial part, unless it was
Andy Ruoney giving you an essay oropinion, it was news. Then what
happened is the world changed the adventof the Internet. Thanks to al Gore.

(06:12):
Right the Internet, we have thisbroadband capability, not only and then
it went from a desktop to cellular. So now you have some guy in
Pakistan with his Twitter account telling youin real time that our helicopters are coming
in out of bad to kill Osamabin Laden. It's incredible. This guy's

(06:33):
like a news reporter in a warzone at ground zero. Then you have
another guy in China who's showing youhelicopters in Pakistan that aren't there because the
video was four years ago. Okay, so now we're going to go back.
Now we're gonna go to your Nowwe're going to go to your point,
which is the way we receive newstoday has fundamentally changed from the sixties

(06:59):
and seventies. Now it's not justpush technology, it's pull technology. I
can go and find whatever information suitsme in my own personal bias, my
own echo chamber, and I pullthat information to service my own needs my
mental state, right, so Ican. If I'm one of these individuals

(07:19):
it loves rumor and conspiracy, Ican get my news from Alex Jones or
from TikTok. Here's what I offerto our audience. If you want to
know about the Idaho murders and allthe rumors, go to TikTok and search
Idaho murder and you have amateur anchorafter amateur anchor telling you what they interpret

(07:43):
from the media. Right, Solisten. The media is legitimate, and
these are professionals. Most of themhave journalistic backgrounds and degrees from Brown and
Harvard and whatever, and they servea purpose for the public because the public
does have a need to know,a right to know of an individual in
Idaho than an uncaught killer is intheir community. And any information it helps

(08:07):
me secure myself and the people Ilove is valid information. And there's a
free press and it's embedded as oldas our constitution. No problem there.
But there's also a responsibility that Joethe journalist has, you know, reporting
from ABC News or you know,the Fox News or whatever to validate and
verify the information that he's providing.When they don't do that, and there's

(08:31):
a long history even reputable, formallyreputable anchors who've lost their jobs. Dan
rather among them, right was itBrian? I forget his name, Williams
Williams and a lot of his historyis full of professionals that did not properly
vet their information and suffer the consequence. Even now, it's Jones has felt

(08:56):
that I think I mess mis expressmyself. I don't mean the journalists.
I could care less about them,and I disagree with you a little bit
on the need to know and theright to know. The right to know
is definitely true. They need toknow. I think certain areas need to
know. If you're in New Yorkor it's Florida, Idaho's murder doesn't concern
you at the moment. But Ido think my concern is more about how

(09:20):
people are treating it. This channel, this podcast is all about education and
setting things straight, and that's myconcern is that when you have a lot
of people who are just doing itto be contrarians, to confuse people,
to have ideas out there. Yeah, I don't care about the journalists or
the news. They you know,they're doing what they're doing. We get

(09:41):
it, Okay, So we're talkingabout motive. Now, if we're going
to talk about motive, you're right, there are those out there, the
contrarians that are looking to stir thepot and make it it clicks. But
there's also the news media, youknow, the mass media, if you
want to call it that, thereare they're in the business of making money.
The way they make money is bypresenting the news in a way that

(10:03):
draws the viewers, right, andso they can sell their their their ads
and make more money to pay forthose anchors. And I get that it's
a business, but they also buthere's the difference. They have a professional
responsibility and if they don't, ifthey don't live up to that responsibility,
then there are consequences both for theanchor and the and the station itself.

(10:26):
And so they have they have thingscalled standards. Alex Jones doesn't have that,
right, the guy finds no offenseto you or even myself, But
we don't. We don't have thoseprofessional standards that we have to live up
to. And so if we're notprofessional, right, and I would think

(10:50):
that you and I are, Butif we if we don't have that responsiblity,
So listen, I get asked tospeak to in you know, the
news media as a talking head.I have a strict rule that I do
not comment on the guilt or innocenceof a specific individual. There's reasons for
that standard, but I will nottalk about a particular suspect in an ongoing

(11:13):
investigation. I believe that an individualhas the right to be presumed innocent until
proven guilty, and if there's aquestion of guilter innocence, the best place
for that, in my opinion,is in a courthouse, in a courtroom
where there's representation. So if someoneasked me to speak about the processes of

(11:33):
an investigation, if they want meto talk about quote unquote a profile,
which we're going to talk about profiles, I have no problem with that.
If they want me to talk aboutwhat the procedures might be in terms of
the FBI's participation in a local investigation, mind you, the Idaho murders are
a local investigation. Murder is astate violation. Very few federal laws cover

(11:58):
the killing of some in the federalsystem. It's an assault on a federal
officer in a murder case or crimeon a government reservation. So in these
cases, these are state violations.It's a small department. Moscow is a
very small department, much like aplace called Hayleyville, Alabama, where I
was involved in an investigation, notunlike this. And so when you have

(12:22):
federal resources brought in, they playa secondary role. The same thing is
true with the state police. Thestate police have access to greater resources,
maybe a lab that they have astate run lab, So they're very important
as well as a supporting role.But the tip of the spear is still
the local police department. And soit's very important that that police department understands

(12:46):
that relationship and fosters that relationship withthe state and the resources and assets in
this particular case, there's been reportedby the press and by the way,
everything you and I say is opensource, right, that's right. Neither
one of us have access to thecase files or the investigators. But based

(13:07):
on what i've I understand the localpolice have requested assets from the FBI's Behavioral
Analysis Unit to agents evidently have beento Idaho, looked at the case jacket,
looked at that the investigation to date, and have probably postate some opinion

(13:28):
about what they believe the proper investigativestrategy might be or more specifically, as
the interest of the community is thequote unquote profile, What do you tell
us about I know you can't shareeverything, but I'm assuming we're going to
get into what are you guys galslooking at when you go to start creating
a profile. Because I know wehave the criminal minds, it kind of

(13:52):
distorts reality a little bit. Ithink that would be kind of important for
people to know, is what doyou guys really I mean you actually sit
there, five of you guys comingfrom a plane to land somewhere. So
here's how I would start. Youknow, something everybody can relate to.
You know, two types of books. You have, fiction and non fiction,

(14:15):
right, criminal Minds it's fiction,Yeah, it's fiction. The Silence
of the Lambs, that's fiction.The FBI's Behavioral Science Unit, the FBI
formally be able to science you nowb A U five and the FBI's Behavioral
Analysis units and major departments like NewYork depart Police Department and and l A

(14:39):
Department Police Department. Larger departments mayhave a specially unit with some a specialty
unit that has criminologists and or psychologiststhat look at victimology and and use deductive
reasoning and formal brainstorming as the methodologyfour, isolating potential leads in an investigation.

(15:05):
So when we talk about profiling,we have to first remember the separate
the fantasy fiction from the reality.If and here's how I start my lectures
on this process. First of all, I don't call myself a profile or
others have. I'm a behavioral analystand was you know about fifteen of my
twenty seven years spent at the behavioralscience looking at human behavior. Human behavior

(15:28):
is only partly personality or psychology,right. Human cognition involves a lot of
different aspects biology, sociology, andpsychology. It's three. It's called the
biopsychosocial model. When we look ata crime scene, and one of my
heroes, late Roy Hazelwood, cameup with the idea of organized and disorganized

(15:52):
crime scenes. What he really understoodwas that a crime scene tells a story.
That story is partly psychology based,but it may not be. There's
a lot of story that's told justfrom the forensic evidence. So he starts
with the concept of organized and disorganizedcrime scenes and and from that draws suppositions

(16:17):
that you know, in an organizedcrime scene, the perpetrator, the offender
will often position a body, willwell, usually leave a signature, will
take a trophy, will plan methodicallyhis attack against this particular victim, as
opposed to a disorganized crime scene,where the perpetrator often will use an improvised

(16:42):
weapon, will act in an extremeof rage against the victim, does does
leaves the body alone, doesn't tryto position the body. Usually in the
disorganized crime scene, you or perpetrator, you'll see someone who has a history

(17:03):
of drug use or maybe on apsychotropic drug at the time of the crime.
Right, So he looked at thesetwo things. Now there have been
other researchers who try to debunk someof what he said and said there's actually
several types of crime scenes, andwithout getting into the specifics, the idea
is that you can analyze a crimescene as it relates not only to the

(17:23):
physical evidence, but the relationship betweenthe offender and the victim, to narrow
the field of potential suspects, tomake the investigation more efficient and effective.
And the way it comes to thebehavioral analysis unit, and they have specialty
units crimes against adults, children,terrorism and so forth, is that they

(17:48):
bring these experts, these investigators thathave had a lot of, you know,
years of experience, and they drawupon those years. It's face validity.
They bring their expertise and use brainstormingby looking at the evidence and then
creating questions. And these questions helpedsupport an investigative theory that may take five

(18:11):
suspects down to two or three.And basically that's all you end up with
is a theory or supposition that thepolice officer who's the case manager may have
come up with himself. In fact, most cases, the behavioral analysis units
conclusions helped support what's already going onat the field level. The idea that

(18:33):
they're going to say, well,you know, this guy's you know,
left handed, blue eyes, blondehair. I'll tell you how random it
can be. In Washington, dC. Some years ago, there were
two individuals that were sniping people,the DC snipers, Mohammad and Malvo.
I think was the namesty, andat first the behavioral analysis unit said,

(18:56):
it's a white male in his midforties with a military background, uh,
driving a white van and maybe creatinga cross. This may be some religious
kind of motivation and he's developing across down I ninety five and Highway.
I think it was to ten Ithink or some whatever. It was County

(19:18):
Road. And because the victims theywere they were again what they were doing
was taking this broad piece you know, of evidence and information, and they
were creating, through a brainstorming sessionand deductive reasoning, a investigative theory.
My question to you was, wasthe theory correct? Yeah? I forgot

(19:41):
that. I'm not here, andI'm assuming you're saying no, it was
spot on? Yeah, yeah,one hundred percent spot on. There were
two black males driving I think itwas like a cutlass or something. It
was a sedan. They had cuta hole out the back of the trunk,
and the youngest young man was witha snipe rifle shooting these guys,

(20:02):
shooting these people. Yeah, canthrow an atheist, I guess, just
for the heck of it. Idon't know. I think one was a
Muslim. I had nothing to dowith Islam, had nothing to do with
terrorism. This was These were twomurderers, thrill killers. And my point
is that a quote unquote profile bydefinition would be static, you know,

(20:27):
so you would have this type ofcrime committed by these types of people,
and that doesn't exist, and thereis no quote unquote profile for these types
of cases, even the case inIdaho, there's no profile that you can
lay over these facts and say thisis the person you're looking for. Here's
what we know. Let me askyou. You know that you made a
point earlier. You've made this pointbefore. But that's the scary thing about

(20:49):
the Idaho thing. As you said, you were looking at the relation between
the victim and the perpetrator, andin this case, I don't know who
the perpetrator is. And usually gotthat forty eight hour window and we're going
into now almost seven hundred hours.Great point, that's some point. So
in fact, there was a TVshow and by the way, fiction non

(21:10):
fiction. This TV show was nonfiction, right, And what they did
is they took cameras in a documentarytype style and they followed investigators on murder
cases. They murder a homicide squad, and they have a window that they
defined as forty eight hours. Nowit's not you know, it's not set

(21:30):
in stone, so to speak,but in forty eight hours you normally know
who the offender is. Why becausein most murders, the offender knows the
victim has a personal grievance against thevictim, or an economic incentive to kill
the victim they robin them, right, or they have a political or social
We've talked about PEPs as the asa motive model. Right, this taxonomy

(21:53):
of motive personal economic power based forsocial. If we take that toomy and
we apply it to the Idaho murders, we can rule out at this point
political social. Typically in those casesthere's some statement made I did this in
the name of you know, Islam, or I did you know, you

(22:15):
know, Christiana, whatever, whateverthe group is, I did this the
name of the army of God orpolitical you know, uh, clearly stated
power or political. It's either goingto be you know, try to gain
some some ground in terms of ahierarchy of an organization, killing the boss
so you could be the boss,or making a political statement that's not the

(22:37):
case. Or economic And again youand I are going off of open source
information. The police have not reportedanything stolen from the home, so we
can rule out economic. That leavesone so we can and this is the
deductive process when they do behavioral analysis, not profiling per sec. When you
do behavioral analysis, try to narrowthe scope of suspects. They can say

(23:03):
hmm, Our investigative theory is itwas personal. Motive was personal. Now,
what type of personal motive would anindividual have based on the victimology.
We've said this and I've said thisin previous news reports. The timeline is
critically important to these investigations, knowingwho the first victim was and has been
reported by the press, open sourceand then retracted I think by the police.

(23:29):
If one victim was more savagely murderedthan an other's, that may that's
gonna tell. That's gonna help theinvestigators do their analysis because in a knife
murder, murder with a with ablade, it's very personal, very up

(23:49):
close and stab people again and again, partially decapitate somebody is a You have
to be full of rage, youhave to have animalist towards that person.
A colleague of mine once said,the difference between anger and hate is anger
is when you want someone to hurt. Hate is when you no longer want

(24:11):
them to exist. That person whokilled these people hated at least one of
those victims so much that they savagelyattack them. So you have somebody who
has a personal grievance that is beyondanger. This person is has hatred for
this individual. Right, So nowyou have the idea. And I was

(24:33):
asked on a new show, whyare you saying it's a male? Well,
again, the bias is that inthese types of cases it's been historically
males. That yeah, So whenwhen the FBI or the local police do
a quote unquote profile or they doa behavioral analysis summary, they make it.

(24:59):
All they are is a supposition.So yes, as we come up
with a theory that it's a whitemale, right because in the area generally
white males, and that he's inthis twine. And I heard quote unquote
profile or talk about this in anearlier show. These seem all very obvious,
right, white male, twenties localIt was a high risk a crime.

(25:21):
This person knew the house, thelayout of the house, knew to
come in through the sliding glass door, and you know, went on through
these all. Everything that was statedwas extremely obvious. But that's what you
got to start with, right,And that's what these police officers have done
and their investigative theory. And goingback to the earlier point, I used

(25:42):
to teach a course on the investigativeprocess, and there's only two ways,
only two ways, and correct meif you thought if anything more than this.
There's only two ways that an investigationbegins. You either get a call
that somebody is attempting to commit acrime against you or is committing a crime
against you, or you get acall that a crime has been committed one

(26:06):
of the two, right, Soif you can think, if you could
think of another way of an investigationsinitiated. Let me know. So you
have either a complaint comes in andsays, hey, you know someone's trying
to commit a crime against me,or hey, I'm a victim of a
crime, or you get a call. In this case, you got to
call there's somebody unconscious in this house. Nine to one. One comes and

(26:27):
there's a crime scene. Could havebeen natural death, but it was a
crime scene. So now you youstart roping off the crime scene, and
as soon as the first investigator getsthere, you, because we're humans,
you start processing the crime scene andyou come up with an investigative theory.
Let me I had stopped there first. This is one of the things I

(26:48):
want. I've noticed a lot latelyin the last couple of years. There's
not to disparage anybody, but Iwant of people who may have clarity on
it. People confuse theory with facta lot of times, and I think
that does I do blame partially themedia for that, because they it's much
better clickbait to present a theory asa fact than as a theory, because

(27:08):
if it's a theory, people won'twell that's to somebody's opinion. I'm not
going to worry about it. Butthey kind of present these theories as this
is the way it is, andpeople getting misunderstood. So theories are not
facts, folks. And number two, correct me if I'm wrong any Obviously
you're the expert here about this.But profiling really is all about probability.
That's why you pick those people thatyou said you were a picking. Actually

(27:30):
you're right, quote unquote. Profilingor behavioral analysis is more about a hypothesis
than a theory, that's right.It's more about the question if this than
this right? And then your answersare based on probability a lot of times,
because a seven year old person isnot going to commit the crime,
so you rule that person out right. Ninety five year olds are really small.

(27:51):
So yeah, when you talk aboutit, I mean it's from an
academic standpoint, it's not that complicated, right, And it goes back to
the way you know research is done, because that's essentially my approach to every
investigation I did in twenty seven years. And so you come up with a
theory based on the facts as youuncover them, but it really comes down

(28:11):
to the possibilities of questions that youtalk about and the probability of those questions
being answered. So it is ayou come up with what your theory might
be, and you may have coupletwo or three of those, but when
you bring in behavioral analysts, theycome up with different questions that you need
to answer to support that theory orrefute that theory. And here's what you

(28:33):
have in this particular case, youhave multiple theories you have because again and
I use the metaphor of a pebblein a pond. So you take the
pebble and you throw it in upond, and you first have the impact zone.
Right, So think of that impactzone as the victim and the people
that they knew or were close toin the first and that twenty four hours

(28:56):
before their death, right, andso you're going to cut and that's what
they did, and that's what's beenreported, right, they talked to the
guy at the video of the atthe food truck. They talked to the
Uber driver or whatever driver that guywas. They talked to people at the
frat house that Ethan was and Zenawere at. So what you do is
you the investigators look at those people. Then they broaden that the gumshoe part

(29:19):
of it, as it's been said, is the apartment complex. Next they
do what we call the neighborhood,and so that gumshoe activity is to then
have an expanding ring people that mayhave been associated with these individuals, including
the quote unquote stocker, which turnedout the p two guys trying to pick
up girls and police rule that out. And I think the police have done

(29:41):
a heck of a job informing thepress and the community of these leads that
they've covered and have cleared. Now. Having said that, the term cleared
has been a big part. Right, if someone is quote unquote cleared at
this time doesn't mean they're cleared fromthe investigation completely. So the police have
made it very clear, say whatI did there, but the police have

(30:04):
made it clear that if you arecleared at this time, it doesn't mean
that if other evidence comes back,if they find your alibi to be faulty.
If they find physical evidence that refutesor disputes what you've told them,
then you're not cleared anymore. Cleardoes not mean exonerated. Right, There

(30:25):
is no double jeopardy on the clearedpart. So if sometimes they clear somebody
in hopes that they slip up later, could be. You know, most
investigators I know don't play games,you know, that kind of psychological backup.
They don't. But having said that, if you're cleared, and here's
the reason for that, let mego back to a point I was going

(30:45):
to make earlier. I've been involvedin a couple of cases, high profile
investigations. Right. One involved ajudge, a federal judge in nineteen eighty
nine. I'm gonna date myself.He opens a Christmas package, it blows
up in his face. He DiesudgeWilliam Vance. There were all types of
assets, local, state, federalassets from two different states, Georgia and

(31:07):
Alabama, work in this investigation assaulton this federal officer. No stone was
left on turned. Now, thiswas not somebody that knew him well,
right, it was clear the behavioralanalysis unit was brought in, profiles,
all that good stuff. It turnsout, short story is a guy named
Walter Leroy Moody was responsible for themurder. He eventually was found guilty,
tried both in the federal and statesystem. A state of Alabama found him

(31:32):
guilty for state murder charge and wasput to death about twenty years after killing
the judge. But I was partof this investigation early on. A lot
of press interest, national news.In fact, there's so much national news
in this case that Moody's trial wasmoved from Atlanta to Minneapolis Saint Paul.
But here's the important part of whatI'm about to say. During the investigation,

(31:52):
a lot of investigative theory, alot of press interests, and a
lot of suspects were named. Butone person was a particular. His name
was Robert O'Farrell. He lived inSouth Alabama. We were looking for,
say, we the FBI was lookingfor a typewriter that was used to write
these letters to Judge Vance and theCircuit court, the appellate court. And

(32:16):
the typewriter was the type of typewriterthat was used by O'Farrell in a letter
that he had written. So theassumption, the investigative assumption, right,
this is the theory was that O'Farrellhad a problem with the appellate court and
targeted William Vance and so an armyof FBI agents with warrants end up at

(32:37):
his home looking for this typewriter.Search warrant couldn't find it. But the
bias was that this is the guy, based on the evidence, based on
your quote unquote profile, if youwill, right, this is our guy.
So they ended up digging up sendingan FBI agent down into his septic
tank. Right, guy named RobertBeard, an agent out of Birmingham.

(33:00):
He goes into the septic tank lookingfor typewriter pieces. Typewriter was never found.
By the way, you know whybecause Walter le Roy Moody had bought
the typewriter. Walter le Roy Moodyhad used that typewriter to write the letters.
Walter le Roy Moody was the bomber. He killed not only the judge
in Alabama, but an NAACP lawyerin Savannah, Georgia. Walter Lee Roy

(33:24):
Moody was the monster who ultimately wasbrought to justice and was put to death
for his crimes. My point isthe damage done to o'vero was such that
he filed the federal tour claim againstthe government because the media put out,
you know, that he was responsibleand you know, hurt his reputation in

(33:46):
the community. Now fast forward,guilty doesn't exist in the media exactly.
Well, in the court of publicopinion, it doesn't. Right, there's
a difference between what the police andIdaho trying to do and the rest of
the world. The public court ofpublic there's two courts. You know.
The judicial court requires that the governmentproved beyond a reasonable doubt the guilt of

(34:10):
the suspect or the defendant. Atthat point, the defendant is presumed innocent
until such time as they're convicted.The court of the federal courts. The
judicial courts require not only proof beyonda reasonable doubt, but they require evidential
procedure and which does not allow hearsay, rumor, lies, or innuendo.

(34:35):
All of those are admissible in theAlex Jones world. In the court of
public opinion, you can lie allyou want, you can spread all the
rumor you want. Conspiracies are welcome. Well kind of for Alex Jones was
a little bit of extreme because wesaw him, right, I'm not equating

(34:55):
Alex Jones with the mainstream media.I know what I'm saying, There are
limitations to how much you can liebecause obviously he got for that, and
there should be. That goes backto the earlier point about standards, professional
standards, and I think those samestandards should apply to the TikToker, not
just Alex Jones and not just toNBC News, but to everyone who comes

(35:17):
out here and espouses their theories andtheir opinions. And if they if they
are libel or slanderous to someone,they should then then there are laws for
that. Right. But my simplepoint is the difference between the the the
admissible evidence in the court of publicopinion versus the judicial court totally different standards,

(35:38):
right. So looking at that pointtoo real quick, something people don't
realize when you go to you're hearingcourt cases. A lot of times,
whatever the prosecutor, the defense attorneysays, you're not getting one hundred percent
of the facts either. You're gettinghowever they frame it, and you're getting
whatever they want you to know becausethey're not going to tell you anything that
would incriminate their client. But okay, but that's not I don't have a

(36:00):
problem with that cut off. ButI'm telling the audience because sometimes the audience
thinks that core cases, you're gettingeverything you're going to find out. But
in reality is that's the way thesystem is. And I still think we
have one of the best systems.But people misunderstand a lot of times court
cases thinking that oh, this isexactly what happened, and this is all
the facts and not necessarily Well again, you know, that's why you have
a jury to decide insider out whatwhat the facts are admissible and and by

(36:24):
the way, and cases I've beeninvolved in many, many times, the
defense will stipulate to the state's caseif the evidence is clear and unencumberable.
So, yes, my point isfor people not to quick to jump to
quick conclusions, I guess is mypoint. Well, that's that's a good

(36:45):
point, and not for the jury, but for the for the people in
general when they're listening to court cases, when they're hearing the media, like
you said, and things of thatnature. You just got to sit back
and wait till the end of theday. So, and the point I
was making with o'ferrell, and I'mgonna double it down by talking about another
one, is it when these casescreate a gain a life of their own

(37:07):
in the national spotlight. Then youhave the amateur sleuths, and you have
you know, the world press,and you have a lot of information,
and the pressure then becomes more palatablefor the police to solve the case and
perhaps focus on an individual circumstantially thatseems part that fits the theory, the

(37:30):
investigative theory, but may in factcircumstantially may fit, but in reality is
not the responsible party. Another case, in point nineteen ninety six Olympics bomb
goes off. The person who reportedthis guy named Richard Jewel. Richard Jewel
becomes a suspect. Why because hewas logically the one closest to the event,
and so it turns out he's notthe responsible party. But by the

(37:52):
time it's found out that he's not, his life had been turned upside down,
right, and his reputation sullied andso forth. Another federal court tourt
claim, I think it was successfulin his case. In fact, there's
bet a movie made about Richard Jewel. It turns out a guy named Eric
Robert Rudolph was the offender blew upthe Olympics In ninety six. A couple

(38:14):
of nightclubs in the Atlanta area thencame to my division in Birmingham, killed
the police officer, Sandy Sanderson,then ran up into the hills of North
Carolina. It took seven years forus to catch that fugitive. I say
we the FBI to catch the fugitive. A local police officer caught him rummaging
through a dumpster. He was broughtto justice. He is now serving a
life sentence in Florence, Colorado atSupermax in Florence, Colorado. But point

(38:37):
being Richard Jewel, the late RichardJewel, was the person who was focused
on by the media, right becausethe media was student that case too,
and the FBI because circumstantially he fit. So now let's jump back to Idaho
and the whole concept of what thisshows about, and that's the profiling aspect.

(39:00):
When you look at the Idaho murders, there are a number of who
you know, it's who done it, which you know always intrigues a lot
of people. But there's a numberof suspects that seeing, you know,
wow, this guy has you know, fits this mold in this this category,
and this cat and this and this, and circumstantially this must be the
most likely guy. And then thepolice say well, he's been cleared.

(39:23):
We don't have the access to theinvestigator jacket, so clear means that maybe
the alibi has panned out. Maybethere isn't any physical evidence at this time.
This verse don't have access to that. I don't. I mean the
FBI doesn't mean it's different. Ihave, Yeah, of course the team,

(39:43):
but you and I don't. Thethousands of TikTokers don't. The guy
working for News Nation or CNN orABC, they don't have that, right.
So what we're doing is we're relyingon hearsay, We're relying on rumor,
We're relying on all the things thatin the court of public opinion are
admissible. Right, But that's notthat's not the arena that the FBI,

(40:07):
the Moscow Police, and the statepolice are working it. They're working in
the court's rules and regulations, totallydifferent standards that they have to ably by,
And if they really want to bringjustice to the families and the victims,
then they have to abide by thosestandards, right, And they have
to they have to be very judiciousin terms of information they share, and

(40:30):
they have to be very digitalan inthe investigation and the leads that they process.
And so bottom line is when wetalk about profiling, I can,
you know, sit here and Ican give you a supposition. I can
give you a character that may ormay not fit. You know. Forget
about the white van. Right now, we're looking at a white sedan that
the police a Hyundai that they're lookingfor. Right, so we can but

(40:52):
we can make some assumptions. AndI have said that the suspect, the
subject, it's likely a male,right, He's likely to be a young
male in his twenties, likely tobe a hunter. Anybody that used a
knife to kill four people and brutallykill them with you said the specific knife

(41:17):
that they were using, it's kbar and kbar knife often used military and
hunting. But the idea that you'recutting and stabbing an individual, and the
next one and the next one andthe next one tells me that you're familiar
with blood. You're not. Itdoesn't freak you out right, and you
probably have been up. You're ahunter, you have a history of hunting.

(41:39):
You probably have a history of rageor explosive disorder. You've had issues
with relationships in the past. Youare probably someone who has used drugs.
The I would lean you know,going back to Roy hazel and we're going
back now we're looking at quote unquoteprofile and or behavioral analysis. If you

(42:01):
look at the categories and the descriptionsof what hazel Wood talks about, we're
clearly in the disorganized crime scene andperpetrator. Right. So those are the
easy those are the obvious ones.That's what you're hearing from all these former
agents or police detectives because those arethe obvious things. What now has to

(42:22):
be done is looking at this casein more detail, and the investigators have
to look at, Okay, thoserings, it's not somebody that's immediately in
contact with these individuals. It's nota family member, it's not a family
friend, it's not a bff.Then is it somebody that they had some

(42:43):
association with, maybe that night,maybe the previous week, maybe you know,
at a frat party two weeks before. If it's not those individuals,
now the case becomes more complicated becausenow you're talking about people they may have
associated, have no associations with.Right, the serial killer theory that this

(43:05):
is someone who maybe isn't even intheir community any longer, you know,
like a Ted Bundy. I don't, I don't I'm not leaning in that
way. I don't think that's thecase here specifically. The reason I don't
believe that's the case is they theyhave assets from the FBI and VISCAP.
They're looking at at crimes that aresimilar nature. They ruled out one but

(43:30):
four hundred miles away, a stabbingin the middle of night of a couple.
They ruled that out absent that connectionto previous murders. I think you
have to rely on the on thetheory that this was a targeted attack against
one or more of the individuals inthe home. The individual went in to

(43:52):
kill, not to torture, notto sexually assault, very specific reasoning,
because they have been slighted unrequited loveor rejected love, or some slight maybe
they were disinvited to one of theparties in that party house. And when

(44:13):
the police are talking about, bythe way, when they're talking about the
house was targeted or the people weretargeted, I know they got a lot
of press too. The way Iwould explain that is you can target a
location and then whoever's in that locationbecomes a victim. And typically those are
political and socially motivated crimes. Right, So remember the gay nightclub in Orlando,

(44:37):
Florida. Okay, the nightclub wasthe target, the individuals inside that
he was shooting. Schools shootings areanother good example. The school is the
target. There's very rare. Doyou have a it has happened, You've
had a hit list, But mosttimes it's just the school. Whoever's in
the way, it's it's collateral damage. The World Trade Center was the target.

(44:57):
Anybody in the World Trade Center atthe time is a victim. Those
are targeted attacks against buildings, right, The difference would be Nicole Simpsonnicle Simpson
was the target. Goldman right,Ron Goldman was. It was a collateral
damage. So it's possible that thebuilding, the house, the frat house,

(45:19):
was a target, right because theperson was disinvited from a party or
wasn't invited to a party, andso now they're going in to kill everybody
that happens to be in the house. I don't think that's the case,
because didn't go down to the firstfloor, left two people live. Right,
not to say that he wasn't spooked. Maybe he intended to kill those
two and then he was spooked andleft before he did so. But in

(45:43):
any case, it appears, andif the facts has been reported by the
press or true that one person wasmore savagely brutalized and murdered, that maybe
that individual was the target. Andthe focus of the investigation is on victimology
of that individual. Who would have, as we mentioned earlier in PEPs,

(46:04):
who would have the personal grievance againstthis individual? And go back to that
pebble theory, who's the closest,who's you know, family and friends,
and draw a little longer or broaderring who's been associated with this person for
the last you know, ninety daysor six months, then bigger ring,
you know, who might be acasual associate of this individual. And that's

(46:28):
the process that it's going through rightnow with the police. And there's so
much too, I mean, talkingto homicide detective buddies, I mean,
there's just so much going on withblood splatter, DNA looking at the fingernails
now they're talking about they're looking atsomebody said at least to genetic genealogies now,
so it makes me wonder if theyhave the DNA already from the defensive

(46:50):
wound. So it's kind of curiousto see that, I mean, hair
well there's a lot of that's thepoint. That's not profiling, by the
way, that's good friendly investigations,and that's what probably happened to, right.
It can add in context. Itcan certainly add context to a behavioral
assessment, and things of that naturecan help you guys out. Absolutely.

(47:12):
They can look at you know,whether you know by the way that the
knife was used in the weapon,whether he's left handed or more most likely
right handed. The chances that thisindividual four victims that had to have fought
back at some point, that theydidn't get some of his skin DNA as
they're grabbing under the fingernail, orthat maybe that that he stabbed himself and
left some blood at this crime scene, or you know, fingerprints because you

(47:37):
know he's got a bloody hand andthen he touches the wall and so maybe
the fingerprint is different. There isso many opportunities for the evidence. Now,
having said that, as it's beenreported in public source or open source,
this the crime scene was contaminated becausetwo individuals came to the home before
the police arrived, to the extentthat the crime scene was contaminated by those

(47:59):
two people, and how that canthat impacts the investigation. I don't know,
but you make an excellent point thatthe physical evidence can contribute and enhance
the behavioral assessment of who's likely responsiblefor these crimes. And the only point
I would make is when is again, when the behavioral analysis unit does these

(48:20):
assessments, they're oftentimes looking at investigativeprocess or investigative steps uh interrogation or interviewing
uh strategies. They're not simply lookingat, Hey, he's a white male,
twenty five years old, left handed, blonde hair, played basketball.
You know that kind of stuff.Right, that's Hollywood. That's what Hollywood

(48:42):
does. Yeah, that's left becauseof this or whatever. Right, that's
not Yeah, that's that That makesgood TV show. That's not the real
that's not the real world. It'samazing. I mean it's to me,
it's still I guess the brutality ofthe crime, and I get it.
And we've seen it a lot decadesgo where you had brutal crimes and it
was difficult to try to solve them. But with today's world and technology and

(49:05):
cameras everywhere and everything going on,Yeah, it's amazing. I just wonder
how sophisticated is this person or justa matter of coincidences and luck that he
got out of it. I don'tknow yet. Let me listen. You
know, I know of at leastone other brutal murder with a knife.
Two individuals were involved in the casewhere the offender got got away with it,

(49:30):
right, and the civil case wasthen held liable and so, but
in the criminal case got away withSo I can I can cite at least
one other case. It's not unprecedented. Having said that, by the way,
the other thing that we were talkingabout, I do. I'm an
advocate for the use of the community. So going back to that simple point,

(49:52):
I think that you know, therewas an experiment called the red balloon
experiment. I believe it was outof MIT and George Tech involved in Stanford
and so forth, and it actuallymay have been out of Stanford. But
the experiment was how to use thisconcept of force multiplication or force multiplier to

(50:12):
find these red balloons. And theyput these balloons randomly around the United States,
and they offered few clues to theseteams, and they were using the
power of the Internet to locate theseballoons. They thought it was going to
take a couple of weeks or aweek or so you can find this experiment
detailed online if I think google redballoon experiment. But what they've proved was

(50:34):
the power of force multiplication. Sowithin hours they identified where these balloons were
located, simply through the power ofthe Internet and connection. So it is
very possible that this case could besolved by the public. And I'm a
big proponent of using the public.If you look at the FBI's history,
the biggest investigations, the most importantinvestigations the FBI was involved in, involved

(50:57):
some form of the public, eitheran informant or a witness who came forward.
There is someone out there that hasinformation that would be helpful to the
Idaho Moscow Police and the Idaho StatePolice. The investigation has gotten a tremendous
amount of publicity and coverage from thenews media because of the type of case

(51:19):
it is, and so I thinkthat with the work from the local,
state and federal police, I thinkthat it's only a matter of time that
they catch a break. Going backto the h the Walter Moody case a
lot of press, but ultimately thatcase was made by a chemist that puts

(51:39):
some things together that that went backto WALTI Libermody, an ATF investigator,
and it came back down to UHidentifying one key piece of evidence a nail
that was used in the bomb andtying it back and then having the cooperated
by his ex wife Susan McBride.Good investigative work by the agents in Atlanta

(52:05):
that that brought that case to forThat's what it's going to take in this
case. Good strong investigative work bythe Moscow Police Department, the Idaho State
Police, the FBI in a supportingrole. They will identify who this person
is and will solve this case andbring that individual to justice for the victims
and their victims families. I wantto clarify at one point to your comment

(52:31):
about using the public, I don'thave a problem with using the public for
help. I think America's Most Wantedwas a great show. I think using
the public if it's for if thepublic met pet Peeve, is this people
who are contrarians who are just throwingcrap out there to get clicks, to
get people to come to their blogs, and it leads to confusion and then

(52:52):
I also want to warn people aboutthose individuals so they don't get misled and
misunderstood. Or get into these kindof conspiracy theories, because we see a
lot of that. I agree withyou. I think using the force multiplier
of the public is great, andI think it can be very helpful if
it's legitimately done. Hey, youhad the Kristen Smart case over in LA

(53:15):
where a podcaster when interviewing and hededicated a whole podcast on that case.
And it was his interview with awoman who worked with the mom of the
suspect, who all he heard hersay was, you know what, she
was really tired because her husband gota strange call at two in the morning,

(53:35):
and he followed that lead, whichled the police eventually to catching to
arresting him and his father. Ican't remember how the case ended. I
don't know if they convicted him ornot yet, but so I definitely agree
with that if it's legitimate. Ijust don't want to get people to minimize
it. Go ahead. I know, I get your point, and a
couple of points I'd make on piggybackingon that one. We talk about cold

(53:57):
cases. This case is a longway from being a cold case because four
plus years in Nicole case investigation.But you just tickled my memory a little
bit because I was part of aninvestigation of a kidnapping case. This young
lady, his name is Carrie Lawson. So she was kidnapped and is a
rare case because it was a traditionalkidnapping where there's a ransom and all that.
So the FBI helps again, similarto this case in Idaho. It

(54:22):
was a small department Hayleyville, Alabama, very very rural, very small police
department. They were overwhelmed by thiskidnapping investigation, and so they call in
the FEDS. So now the FBIcomes on the white horses to help him
out. In this particular case lastedabout two weeks. Their total from soup

(54:43):
to nuts, from the taking ofthe victim to finding the suspect, the
subject who unfortunately committed suicide before hewas brought to justice. So in that
particular case, though there was aransom call, the special Agent charge in
Alabama held on to that ransom callfor a couple of days but decided this

(55:06):
was you know, again the typesof decisions that the Idaho police are making
right now, what evidence to disseminate, us, to elicit the help of
the public. The sac and thisinvestigation went ahead and sent out the recording
of the kidnapper making his ransom demand. Almost immediately the public said, several

(55:31):
people in the public said, Irecognize that voice. It turns out that
the guy's name was Jerry Bland,and Bland was a coal miner in the
area, and he had an ideathat the family of Kerry Lawson had some
money and could pay this ransom right. He had a co conspirator, Sherry

(55:53):
McPherson was the woman's name, andshe McPherson and and Bland kidnapped carry Laws
and they later we believed theorized becausehe killed himself. Bland murdered Lawson put
her body in a coal mine.She's never been found. It's been thirty
one plus years. But my pointis it was the use of the public

(56:19):
that investor helped the investigators find outwho the perpetrator was the offender in this
case. Had they not sent outthat that audio clip of this individual's ransom
demand, we still wouldn't have aclue, probably that it was Jerry Blant
and Carry Lawson. Still her bodywould still be gone and unrecovered. So
the police and Idaho are making determinationson a daily basis what to release and

(56:46):
I know there's been information disseminated byfamily members and I understand their frustration,
but you have to trust that thepolice's are professionals at the local, state,
and the federal level, and they'renot making decisions in a vacuum.
They're talking to each other and decidingwhat is best, what's the best card

(57:07):
to play at a given time.And when they send out that information like
the latest is the White Hondi,there's a reason for it, and the
public I believe assisting them will helpbring these the subject to the justice as
I mentioned earlier, and I'll tellyou this folks too, because I've seen

(57:29):
some people on social media criticize thepolice they don't know what they're doing.
I'm assuming most of those people arejust doing it again for clickbait, because
they probably have no experience whatsoever inlaw enforcement. And if you have an
expertise in anything, which everybody hasan expertise in something, think about it
when somebody tells you you don't knowwhat you're doing in your area of expertise
and they've never done it. Cancops make mistakes or FBI profilers, of

(57:52):
course they can. It's the amountof mistakes relative to somebody else who doesn't
have any experience doing that job.They would really tell you the different between
the professional and the not professional.Yeah, I guess. Yeah, that's
about it for me. I thinkI'm going to wrap up on my soapbox.
A little too much of a soapboxtoday for me. Yeah, you
know, I don't think it's somuch as a soapbox. I think it's,

(58:13):
you know, a clear understanding ofthe process that's going on in Idaho.
And as I mentioned, it's youknow, the pebble in the pond.
It would have been done weeks agoif it was somebody that was clearly
associated with these individuals and there wasevidence to point in that direction. The
fact that it's gone this long lendsleads me to believe that it's probably someone

(58:37):
who had a looser association to thevictims or the specific victim that was targeted,
and that makes it a much moredifficult investigation for police. The worst
case scenario is that this is aserial killer, a disorganized serial killer who
will strike again and much like youknow Ted Bundy, maybe not in the

(59:02):
same state and for months that's theproblem, that's right, and you may
not know that for months or evena year or so, so you know,
he may have filled his need ifthat's the case, and we can
use again we use the he uhpronoun because that's typically the type of of

(59:22):
subject that commits these crimes. Butyeah, let's hope that's not the case.
Let's hope that the police have theevidence or the public brings the evidence
to the police that points to aspecific person who's responsible, and that person's
given a fair trial and justices isgiven to the victims and the victims families.

(59:43):
Maybe next week we'll tackle the AlecBaldwin cases. We're talking about some
of these cases. Yeah, that'sa good idea I'm looking forward to.
You also promised that we're going todo one on on our other podcasts.
I want the public to also checkout our Psychology Romance podcast. I think
that's going to be a growing thing. You know. I have some good

(01:00:06):
ideas to talk about and that inthat particular podcast. So we want to
explore more the psychology of romance andall aspects of love and hate. Sounds
good, all right, Thank youeveryone for listening. Hey, you know
what to do? Share, subscribehit that I like, but you know,
we like it. Yeah. Spreadthe word and we will talk to

(01:00:29):
you later. Carlos, have agreat weekend.