American Board of Psychological Specialties

John Douglas, former head of the FBI’s Investigative Support Unit, has hunted some of the most notorious and sadistic criminals of our time: the “trailside killer” in San Francisco, the “Atlanta child murderer,” the “Tylenol poisoner,” the man who hunted prostitutes for sport in the woods of Alaska, and a case that nearly ended his own life—Seattle’s “Green River Killer.” Despite the FBI’s original lack of support and attempts to ignore his pioneering techniques and methods, he developed the first psychological profile of the Unabomber. He confronted, interviewed, and studied dozens of serial killers and assassins— including Charles Manson, Sirhan Sirhan, Richard Speck, John Wayne Gacy, David Berkowitz (Son of Sam), and James Earl Ray—to understand their motives and get inside their minds. He identifies with both predator and prey. He examines a crime scene and creates profiles of the perpetrators, describing their habits and predicting their next moves. He is a renowned figure in law enforcement and the model for the Scott Glenn character in the movie, The Silence of the Lambs. As chief of the FBI’s Investigative Support Unit—the team that tackles the most baffling and senseless of unsolved violent crimes—Douglas ushered in a new age in behavioral science and criminal profiling. He retired after 25 years of eventful service, and now he can finally tell his unique and compelling story. You can hear Douglas present his workshop as a optional one-day addition to the 2007 APA National Conference in Kansas City, Missouri. Expanding on his national bestsellers, Obsession, Mind Hunter, and Unabomber: On the Trail of America’s Most Wanted Serial Killer, Douglas’ presentation will be a fascinating inside look at some of the most intriguing criminal cases of our time. His most recent book, The Anatomy of Motive, analyzes such notorious criminal minds as Lee Harvey Oswald, Theodore Kaczynski, and Timothy McVeigh. It will help you learn how to anticipate potential violent behavior before it is too late. Drawing from his long and extraordinary career, Douglas will take you inside the cat-and-mouse struggle between his elite squad of investigators and a chilling rogues gallery of assailants, a sort of surreal chess game with life-and-death consequences. Annals of the American Psychotherapy Association interviewed Douglas about his career and his upcoming presentation at the 2007 National APA Conference. You are well known for your exceptional career in criminal profiling. Please tell our readers about your background and how you became a famous FBI profiler. As a child, I watched a popular television show called The FBI starring Efrem Zimbalist Jr., who played the part of Inspector Erskine. This show was on television for 9 years (1965–74) and had 240 episodes based on the work of Inspector Erskine, who was all business. He didn’t laugh, didn’t love, and didn’t play. He worked every type of case and flew in a private jet to wherever the action was. In truth, this type of position was non-existent at the time. An FBI agent was, and still is, assigned to 1 of 59 field offices and generally remains in that office unless transferred. Little did I know in 1970, when I joined the FBI, that one day I would actually create a position within the FBI based on Inspector Erskine that would have me traveling throughout the United States and abroad providing on-site consultations in the form of crime analysis and criminal profiling. As a young FBI agent I enjoyed investigations of interpersonal violence—cases where the subjects were attempting to avoid prosecution or confinement—and cases where the subjects were fugitives from justice. Though the investigations and arrests were fun, I was really interested in learning something about who the subjects were and why they perpetrated their crimes, particularly violent crimes, against innocent people. I received graduate degrees in educational psychology, guidance and counseling, and adult education. I enrolled in many abnormal and clinical psychology courses —but, though I found the classes interesting, they never addressed the question of motive. Perhaps it was because the professors teaching those courses had little, if any, experience with the criminal element. In 1977, when I was promoted and transferred to the Behavioral Science Unit at the FBI Academy, I hoped I would learn more about the motives behind criminal behavior. The students (law enforcement officers enrolled in the criminal psychology classes taught at the FBI Academy) and I found the classes entertaining and sometimes humorous, and the instructors received the highest praises each semester from their students. Yet, I still felt there was something missing. None of the instructors had actually gone into prisons and personally asked violent offenders about the specifics of their crimes. I wanted to know about the offenders’ pre-offense behaviors, victim selections, personal backgrounds, motivations, and post-offense behaviors and how they were identified so I could apply that information to present-day cases. By the early 1980s, another colleague and I received a federal grant to conduct research on serial murderers. It seemed obvious to me that to learn from the “experts,” it was necessary to speak with them. I’ve had three personal mantras in all my books: To understand the artist, look at the artwork. Behavior reflects personality. The crime is a reflection of the offender. The above seemed obvious, so I was surprised and amused when some people and organizations began praising this enlightenment into the criminal mind. But not everyone agreed—especially people in mental health, parole, and corrections (see later question for more information). During your career, the criminal profiling profession made important advancements. Can you describe your position as an FBI profiler and your role in implementing the expansion of this field? In 1977, when I was transferred to the FBI Academy as a criminal psychology instructor, the criminal profiler position did not exist. After first conducting the research and then passing on what I learned in classes, we began to receive cases for analysis. In 1981, I began creating a criminal profiling program within the FBI’s Behavioral Science Unit. During the first year we received 54 cases, and every subsequent year the caseload expanded. By the time I retired from the FBI in 1995, we were analyzing more than 1,000 cases a year. When I retired, I had 43 employees in my unit. Only 12 of those employees profiled, so it was very stressful for all of us. We had to deal with life-and-death situations with very short deadlines. Even today, there are many people who think the FBI only profiles serial murder cases. In reality, the majority of cases are single homicides, and every type of violent crime has been researched and analyzed by profilers. 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. Criminal profiling is a rough line of work. Please describe some of the more difficult aspects of the job. 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. It has been my experience that if a profiler uses the defense mechanism of “isolation of affect,” he or she will not be successful. When I train profilers I tell them they must walk in the shoes of both the subject and victim. You have to experience the feelings and emotions of both. There is danger in this technique. In 1983, I nearly died in Seattle while working on the Green River murder case. I was found in a coma in my hotel room because I had a body temperature between 104 and 107 degrees. After 5 days in the coma, I woke up and found myself paralyzed on my left side. I had viral encephalitis, and doctors attributed my weakened immune system to high stress levels. I was later treated for post-traumatic stress disorder. Please describe the most fascinating case you have tackled. There have been many interesting and personally rewarding cases in my career. Most recently I was able to interview Dennis Rader, the “BTK Strangler,” whose murders resurfaced after 30 years. I did the original profile in 1979 and later updated it with my colleagues. I briefly wrote and profiled the BTK Strangler in my book, Obsession. Rader told me he read Obsession and personally critiqued my analysis. He said my analysis was very good, but his identification, arrest, and conviction were not attributed to it. In August 2007, Jossey-Bass will be publishing my book on BTK, and during the 2007 APA National Conference, I will be presenting this case along with many others. Do you think mental-health professionals receive enough training in how to recognize warning signs of violent behavior? Some therapists question at what point, or even whether, they should intervene. What is your advice? I’ve given presentations to mental health professionals, and some have told me that they do not want to look at crimes perpetrated by the offender, because—if they did—it may prejudice their evaluation. They would instead rely on self-reporting, which to me is worthless because rarely will offenders tell you the truth. They will test you to see whether you know their case. Once they know you have no clue, be ready to be shoveled a lot of manure. To understand the artist you must look at the artwork. If you want to understand the criminal, you MUST look at the crime because the crime is a reflection of who he really is. When I hear about the patient-therapist relationship, Charles Whitman comes to mind. Also known as the “Texas Tower Sniper,” Whitman was seeing a therapist at the time he decided to shoot dozens of people. He even told the therapist of his desire to go up in the University of Texas tower and shoot people. The therapist never advised law enforcement, and the rest is tragic history. Do you think that becoming a criminal profiler is a viable option for today’s mental health professionals? The best way is to work in law enforcement in the capacity of a psychologist and saddle up next to detectives and learn their job. Most medium-to-large police departments and agencies have behavioral science units dealing primarily with police stress and problems from their jobs, which subsequently spills into their personal lives. There is nothing stopping the psychologist from creating a new position, i.e. criminal profiler. I did. What are the most common warning signals that mental health professionals must know to head off a potentially violent threat? The warning signals first surface in early childhood and are first observed by teachers, who in most cases are ill-prepared to handle the angry or defiant child. Signs such as firesetting, animal cruelty, bed-wetting, destructive behavior, and being a school bully are a few early indicators. I rarely see a violent offender who came from a family where there were loving, supportive parents. What else will you teach at the 2007 APA National Conference? Profiling, in the right hands and with good training, can be a viable investigative tool. The seminar will give a better appreciation and understanding of the overall profiling process. Criminal profiling is not accurately portrayed in the movies or on television. Attendees will learn the process of criminal profiling, and I will demonstrate that criminal investigative analysis is very similar to a physician’s actof diagnosing a patient with an unknown illness or disease. Both the medical doctor and criminal profiler can be wrong at times. We are only as good as the information provided to us for analysis. Unfortunately, not every case investigated is a perfect one, but it is important to recognize the imperfections and consider them in the overall analysis. How will your conference presentation relate to all attendees’ professions? I’ve spoken to college students, physicians, lawyers, school teachers, nurses, stockbrokers, sales personnel, and to people in many other occupations. At the very least the audience will be entertained in a forensic area with which most are not intimately familiar. The seminar will have direct application to their forensic specialty. I hope that everyone attending the seminar takes the information, digests it, and then applies it, not only to their work, but also to their lives.