Personalities and Motivations of Murderers

¶ … personalities and motivations of murderers who have been the subjects of forensic psychology as a tool to law enforcement. While this paper touches on some of the aspects of the individuals and the information processing that is essential to the forensic psychologist, it barely touches the vast wealth of information and expert thoughts on the subject. However, it does tease the reader's curiosity such that the reader is inspired to do further research on forensic psychology, and on the individuals mentioned here.

Forensic Psychology and Serial Murders

Once limited to the wok of treating offenders, usually in an institutional setting, forensic psychology has in the past three decades taken on an expanded role in law enforcement (Horley, J., 2003, p. 1). Today, forensic psychology plays an important part in analyzing crime scenes, and in helping to solve serious crimes. A professional who lends his or her expertise to the criminal justice system, forensic psychologists now work side by side with police detectives, lawyers, judges and other law enforcement officials to bring closure to cases that have in some instances gone unsolved for decades. By providing a psychological profile of the murderer based on crime scene information, a forensic psychologist helps bring justice to individuals wrongly convicted, as well as assisting to bring violent perpetrators to justice an perhaps even preventing future crimes.

Forensic psychology helps criminologists to better understand the minds of psychopathic criminals. This understanding has, and will continue to be of valuable service to law enforcement and society. The research presented here examines the role and work of forensic psychology in solving serial murder cases. The serial murders who will be studied for this report are Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, Stephanie Wernick, Jeffrey Dahmer, and David Berkowitz; all convicted of brutal serial murders.

The Art and Science of Forensic Psychology

James Horley (2003), writes that forensic psychology exists today as a sub-discipline of psychology, and applies the application of its psychological research, technology, and principles to law (p. 1). Where does this synergy of law and psychology begin? That answer is that it begins with the crime scene, usually, but not always, violent in nature. From there, the professional merging of law and psychology to form a personal construct theory, or PCT.

The constructivistic theory that has been used and promoted by a number of forensic clinicians (e.g., Horley, 2000; Houston, 1998; Needs, 1988) is personal construct theory (PCT). Since its development by Kelly (1955), PCT has offered a unified psychological theory, personality assessment techniques, and clinical interventions to psychologists in various areas of practice (see Neimeyer, 1985, for the development of PCT). The relatively voluminous literature generated by PCT attests to the fecundity of the theory (for literature reviews, see Adams-Webber, 1979; Bonarius, 1965; Fransella & Bannister, 1977; Winter, 1992) (Horley, 2003, p. 4)."

Horley points out that the biomedical models to understanding, and, therefore, unlocking the crime scene, is lacking an essential element of "human agency," or the person affected by the pathology that leads to murder or some other harmful destruction (2003, p. 4). Horley refers to Weeks (1995), saying, "Agency, autonomy, and choice appear crucial to an adequate explanation of individual social behaviour to many observers (e.g., Weeks, 1995, as cited by Horley, 2003, p. 4). This, of course, arises out of the fact that humans tend to be medically determined in large part by their biology; genetically, neurologically, chemically, endocrinologically, and, most often, as these factors pertain to the irregularities of these systems and determinants, or their imbalances (p. 4).

As far as the excessively deranged thinking of a serial murderer is concerned, this is how the personal construct theory would lend itself to that process:

Extending a construct system" is one main reason for selecting one act or behaviour, and Kelly (1970) viewed all behaviour as experimental, or a tentative trial to observe whether an outcome was acceptable or not. Having sex with a young boy or killing a rival gang member could allow an individual, as normatively unappealing or repulsive as it may seem, to experience power or status through self-understanding as 'attractive' or 'tough'. The extension to an individual's construct system -- really, one's self-concept -- does not require any degree of social acceptability, although social demands undoubtedly shape an individual's likely construal of an act before, during, and after the experience. Definition, for Kelly and PCT, refers to more explicit and clear self-definition. The act of murder or rape could lead to a more refined sense of self. Whether the self-referent includes a 'negative' label such as 'killer', 'pervert', or 'loser', or whether it would lead to a 'positive' label such as 'predator', 'strong man', or 'someone no one messes with' probably is a function of the actor's thinking at the time and the immediate social feedback that they receive (Horley, 2003, pp. 4-5)."

This helps us understand the usefulness and application of PCT as it relates to the individual propensity for murder. It also begins to become clear that serial murder would be seeking the "public opinion," and would hope for that public opinion to describe him, or her, in a positive way,.".. A positive' label such as 'predator', 'strong man', or 'someone no one messes with' probably is a function of the actor's thinking at the time and the immediate social feedback that they receive (Horley, 2003, pp. 4-5)."

The publicity is probably as important to the serial murder as the act of murder itself.

Fame and Stardom

Ted Bundy is perhaps a clear example of PCT, and how serial murderers thrive on the positive feedback of publicity. Bundy was responsible for the bludgeoning deaths of 38 young women, but was convicted for just two of those murders (). It was, for Ted Bundy, the ultimate publicity campaign P.L. Simpson (2000), talks about the extensive coverage of the Bundy murders (p. 1). With a trail of bodies from the west to the east, ending in Florida, Bundy received a lot of press, and a film was made portraying his life (Simpson, 2000, p. 1). He has also been the subject of numerous professional studies and books. Bundy's trail of murder made headlines, and he was famous (Simpson, 2000, p. 1). By virtue of the fact that he alluded authorities as long as he did, probably made him feel very smart, and, as will be demonstrated here, it was important to Bundy to appear smart, to be perceived by others as being intelligent.

What made Bundy stand out and seem interesting, was that he was, outwardly, the appearance of a young man who had many choices, many opportunities, but who made the choice instead to murder. Joyce Carol Oates, commenting on the Bundy "character," that might be inspired in works creating other "monsters," will probably receive attention in that respect because:

Ted Bundy is actually -- this sounds a little bizarre -- less realistic in terms of the serial killer profile than my Zombie. My Zombie is much more representative. Though I think of him as a real person and he has his own unique identity, he fits the profile much more than Ted Bundy did, who was so charming, so intelligent... sort of free enterprising, you know. A serial killer is the ultimate Darwinian, after all. it's a free market kind of thing (Joyce Carol Oates cited by Simpson, 2000, p. 156).'"

Bundy had the appearance of a college student, which must have made it easy for him to move around the campuses where he stalked young murder as potential victims. Also, Bundy's appearance as a young, handsome looking college student explains why he was able to lure more than 30 victims, because he had the appearance of being a trustworthy person. He was visually - and this was not lost on him - good television, because he was a handsome young man. PUT in SOMETHING BOUT HIS TRIAL - HE REPRSENTED HIS SELF HERE Serial killer David Berkowitz, who murdered six women in New York and was given the name of "Son of Sam" by law enforcement and the media, also was the subject of a film based on his nick name, Summer of Sam (1999). Both Berkowitz, Bundy and other serial killers have been the subjects of numerous documentary films as experts and filmmakers explore the minds of these men.

In a journal article titled 'How Psychopaths Threaten Moral Rationalism: Is it Irrational to be Amoral?, Shaun Nichols (2002), explores the moral implications of psychopathological individuals. Nichols presents this scenario:

John is a psychopathic criminal. He is an adult of normal intelligence, but he has no emotional reaction to hurting other people. John has hurt, and indeed killed, other people when he has wanted to steal their money. He says that he knows that hurting others is wrong, but that he just doesn't care if he does things that are wrong. Does John really understand that hurting others is morally wrong?

Bill is a mathematician. He is an adult of normal intelligence, but he has no emotional reaction to hurting other people. Nonetheless, Bill never hurts other people simply because he thinks that it is irrational to hurt others. He thinks that any rational person would be like him and not hurt other people. Does Bill really understand that hurting others is morally wrong? (Nichols, 2002, p. 285)."

This presents some interesting directions of thought. However, it is time to go into the relationship between serial murderers and forensic psychology as it applies to the crime scene. Ted Bundy seemed very much aware that he was committing crimes against society, certainly crimes against his victims. Berkowitz, it was argued, was more psychotic, and for that reason perhaps less aware of his actions as crimes against society or individuals. Berkowitz was known to have started more than a thousand fires, and had a history of cruelty to animals; both manifestations of deeper emotional problems (Schlesinger, 2004, p. 328). This does not make any egregious the crimes, it does perhaps relieve Berkowitz of the responsibility that he was moving about society freely and in a state where he could harm people since his history and propensity for violence seems to have been well documented (Schlesinger, 2004, p. 328).

Understanding the personality and motivation and potential action of a serial killer is essential to bringing to a halt the serial killer's campaign of violence against society.

Forensic Psychology and the Psychopath

In the cases of Bundy and Berkowitz, there was an extensive body of work in forensic psychology done in connection with law enforcement efforts to apprehend these murderers. John Douglas (2007), former head of the FBI's Investigative Support Unit, was involved in assisting local and state law enforcement officials in analyzing evidence and building profiles of serial killers.".. Richard Speck, John Wayne Gacy, David Berkowitz (Son of Sam), and James Earl Ray -- to understand their motives and get inside their minds (p. 8)." Douglas says that to understand the artist, one should look to the work of the artist (p. 8). On using the tools and techniques of forensic psychology in helping to analyze and create profiles on lethal personalities, Douglas writes:

Profiling is not the only investigative tool available. For example, there are some cases where profiling an unknown offender would not be suitable because of the high risk-level of the victim. What could possibly still be provided are proactive techniques: research-based probable cause for search warrants, interview and interrogation techniques, prosecution and defense counseling, and possibly expert testimony... The very nature of profiling violent crimes makes for a highly stressful job. One must be able to identify with both the subject and victim in order to answer the investigative formula of why + how = who (p. 8)."

There are warning signs of danger that should not be ignored - if they can be detected. In the case of Berkowitz, the warning signs were there. Schlesinger cites Ressler and Schactman (1992), who.".. concluded that Berkowitz' fire setting as well as his torture of animals was an outgrowth of his control fantasies involving power over living things. These fires were all a prelude to his moving into the arena in which he could exercise the ultimate control, homicide" (p. 80) (Schlesinger, 2004, pp. 328-329)."

The Forensic Echo (2002), a web site dedicated to forensic psychology as a tool of law enforcement, found online at http://echo.forensicpanel.com/1997/1/1/neonaticidesyndrome.html, discusses Stephanie Wernick's neonaticide, or murder of her own infant following delivery of the child. Wernick's defense was that she was not of a sound mind, and that she demonstrated her psychopathic behavior not at the moment of delivery, but prior to that, when during the nine months of her pregnancy she denied to herself that she was in fact pregnant (2002). The outcome of her trial is as follows:

After a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of criminally negligent homicide and was sentenced to one and a third to four years in prison (NYU, 11/22/96, p. 1) the Appellate Division affirmed, and the plaintiff appealed.

Held: The conviction was affirmed. The trial court properly excluded the "neonaticide testimony" without a "reliability hearing" to determine whether it is generally accepted by the scientific community. Said the Court, even the defense conceded that its experts shouldn't be allowed to testify that Wernick suffered from "neonaticide syndrome" as such, since it had not been classified as an illness. But the defense claimed that its experts should have been allowed to utilize the clinical experience of various doctors to support their opinions that the defendant suffered from a brief reactive psychosis. The Court said that "regardless of whether defense counsel classified its proffered evidence as an attempt to establish a 'pattern', 'profile', 'theory' or 'syndrome'...the essential defense theory was an attempt to portray a pattern of behavior not generally recognized in the relevant medical...community." Further, said the Court, "No threshold evidentiary foundation whatsoever" was offered by the defense "that acknowledged the validity or existence of defense counsel's postulate" to warrant the expert's use of extrapolated material to bolster their opinions (2002, 2007).