Michael Tabman's Blog: Crime Scene

My interview on CBC Television, Canada: http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/9418235...

In 2013, during the Obama Administration, I released my politcally satirical poem, Who Started the Fire. Time is right for another one. Please enjoy it and if you are so inclined, please share...

https://michaeltabman.wordpress.com/2...

http://michaeltabman.wordpress.com/20...

Now at: http://michaeltabman.wordpress.com/blog/

Ten year old Jessica Ridgeway was abducted and killed in Westminster, Colorado. Her dismembered body was found and a 17-year-old has been arrested, reportedly having confessed to the murder. Body parts were found in the suspect’s house. Who would commit such a horrifying and brutal crime? What is the criminal profile of this kind of pedophile murderer?

The FBI released a profile of the suspect of the Jessica Ridgeway homicide. I recently discussed criminal profiling with a local news station. The question asked was whether we can truly profile a criminal; how accurate are these profiles?

The FBI profile stated that the individual may suddenly change his appearance or leave town. Though I am not a profiler, in my 27 years of law enforcement, I do not recall that as the profile of a child murderer.

In New Jersey, only days earlier, 12-year-old Autumn Pasquale was murdered by two brothers from the neighborhood, aged 15 and 17. Last year, in Brooklyn, NY an 8-year-old boy was kidnapped and murdered by a member of a close knit and trusting religious community. His body was also found dismembered in the perpetrator’s house. Children are most often victimized by people who are known to the family or are neighbors. Law enforcement always considers that the perpetrator may participate in the search for the child.

The FBI Behavioral Science Unit is the leading criminal profiling entity. They are highly trained and well respected in the criminal justice community. Criminal profiling is a valuable law enforcement resource. But, criminal profiling must be viewed from the proper perspective – it is not an exact science; it is not as accurate, specific or detailed as television would lead you to believe.

As a rookie FBI Agent, my first exposure to criminal profiling was after we experienced the stabbing murders of female bank employees. The profile concluded that the perpetrators were clearly heterosexual, drawing an analogy between the stabbings and sexual penetration. The perpetrators were found to be two homosexual partners who killed the women after they made fun of the killers, who were bank customers. In 1993, in Long Island, NY, 12-year-old Katie Beers disappeared. When the police first searched the home of her kidnapper, they did not find her; she was hidden in a specially constructed “dungeon” beneath the house. She was eventually rescued by police who would not be deterred. Explaining the failure of the first search to find Katie, the police stated that they had been distracted by an FBI profile which stated that pedophiles usually did not hide children in their homes.

In 2005, as the Special Agent in Charge of the Red Lake High School Mass Shooting, I requested the assistance of a profiler. We did not need a profile of the shooter, he was dead. We needed a strategy to get teen-agers to cooperate with us. The profiler designed a very creative strategy, which worked.

Everyone knows about the “CSI effect;” how television has affected judges and juries who expect law enforcement to solve crimes within minutes, based on technology that does not exist. Profiling has experienced the same misperception. Criminal profiling is a valuable law enforcement resource, performed by trained personnel, but it has its limitations and is not fool-proof. Solving crime still needs the basics – beating the bushes, interviewing people and employing old fashioned police-smarts.

Please visit michaeltabman.com for more information.

I originally wrote a blog on this subject more than a year ago when I noticed news stories of police officers turned criminal. While "cops going bad" is nothing new, and is what Hollywood is made of, the true stories are never less astonishing or confounding.

Drew Peterson is now officially the poster-boy cop turned criminal, having been found guilty of murdering his third wife. In an internet search of police officers being convicted of crimes, I found several recent stories such as: a Newark police officer convicted of bribery, a former New York City police officer convicted of sexually assaulting a woman, while he was still employed as a cop, but off-duty and a Baltimore police officer convicted of drug dealing. There were more, but the point is made.

Police officers, as with any group, are drawn from the population, and therefore will reflect the characteristics we possess as a society. Accordingly, there will always be police officers who are mean, bigoted, bullies and criminals, even to the point of committing murder. As the level of police officer pre-employment screening continues to improve, these instances will occur even less often than currently. However, no tests or screening will completely eradicate the criminal cop. Why? Because, most police officers do not come on to the job with bad intent. When I was in the police academy, almost all of us became police officers "to help people." Yet, in my three years as a police officer I knew of officers fired and prosecuted for theft and crimes of moral turpitude. Even the FBI, which had extensive screening, experienced Agents committing crimes. In recent history, an FBI Agent was convicted of aiding mobster Whitey Bulger. As a young FBI Agent, I was shocked in 1990 when an FBI Agent was convicted of manslaughter for killing his lover-informant.

Drew Peterson is not alone. How and why do good cops turn bad? First, we must recognize that those attracted to the law enforcement field are usually aggressive by nature. Imagine a cop who shied away from confrontation. Next, they are immersed in an environment that thrives on machismo, physical and mental toughness and winning when challenged. As law enforcement officers, we become accustomed to getting our way through intimidation or actual use of force. These experiences mold a new persona within us. Then, add the stress that comes from the job - not just long and unusual hours, and not just facing danger, but our own agencies that have no shortage of office politics, bureaucracy and often general unfairness. After all, every law enforcement agency is made up of people - a reflection of society. Money, kids, spouses, relationships all combine to create a situation the law enforcement officer cannot control. The gun, the badge and the authority are no match for what life can sometimes throw at us. While most will find their way, some will crack.

In my first book, "Walking the Corporate Beat," I discuss the many of our not-so-rational thought processes that lead to trouble. In my novel, "Midnight Sin," the cop psyche and lifestyle are explored in depth. These stories straddle that thin line between cop and criminal.

Here we are - another shooting in a public venue. This was not a mass shooting as occurred at the Sikh Temple in Wisconsin or the movie theater in Colorado, but no less tragic. In the heavily visited area surrounding New York City's Empire State Building, one man fatally shot another man in what appears to be a workplace violence related incident. The New York City Police Department responded quickly, killing the assailant after he trained his weapon on them, perhaps in a suicide-by-cop.

The New York City Police Department is one of the most well-trained and prepared police departments in the country, if not the world. Their readiness to respond to dangerous events has been further honed and improved upon since their stellar performance on 9/11. Many years of my career in the FBI were spent on task forces with NYPD. I admire and respect the department and the individual detectives and officers. I am honored to have as one of my closest friends a retired NYPD detective with whom I worked more than 25 years ago. Accordingly, the point I am about to make should not be considered as criticism in any manner.

One difference in this recent New York City shooting that tells a very revealing story is that innocent bystanders were hurt by rounds fired by the police. Again, this is not a criticism of the police. But that reality must cause us to stop and think. If that can occur in a confrontation with highly trained and capable police officers, what may have happened if average citizens, armed with guns had responded? Some would argue that the threat may have been eliminated earlier. I doubt it. Citizens, even those who have received minimum training for a carry permit do not have the training, experience and presence of mind of a New York City cop. Had armed citizens responded, we may have been looking at a more deadly if not catastrophic event.

The answer to fighting gun violence is not to flood our streets or college campuses with more guns. Logical, common sense gun control laws are the most practical response. No laws and no law enforcement activity can completely stop crime or tragedies from occurring. No rights are absolute and beyond some controls and restrictions. Gun control laws can and should respect the rights of law-abiding citizens who wish to own guns for self defense, sport or hunting. Yet, gun control laws with well grounded rules and procedures can also slow down the process and make obtaining a weapon more difficult for those who should not own any type of gun. Every step that must be taken gives our authorities an opportunity to intervene and thwart another shooting.

There is a middle ground that can be reached. Everyone must be willing to give up a little for the common good. Just as rights are not absolute, neither is security. But, we must do all that we can to give ourselves a fighting chance.

We all have our opinions as to what our Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the 2nd Amendment. Those differing opinions have led to spirited and even hostile debate. But, there is only one opinion that matters.

While the 2nd Amendment argument was not necessarily settled, the Supreme Court made a bold statement in its October 2010 decision in the McDonald v. Chicago case when Justice Samuel Alito Jr. wrote, "It is clear that the Framers . . . counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty." The decision did not address all issues of state versus federal rights and the reality that no right is without limits. We often cite the prohibition of yelling “fire” in a crowded theater as a reasonable limit on free speech. If we can limit free speech, we should be able to limit the right to bear arms.

Having grown up in New York City, I was accustomed to an environment where nobody I knew owned a gun. Despite the high crime rates, I was comfortable with those strict gun laws as were almost all people I knew. When I became a police officer in Fairfax County, VA, I began to change my mind a bit; I felt people should be allowed to maintain guns in their homes for self defense. However, there is a clear line separating the right to have a gun in your home for self defense or hunting as opposed to stockpiling automatic weapons and high capacity magazines.

With two mass shootings occurring in a short time period, the gun law debates will heat up. As I stated in my blog following the Aurora, Colorado shooting, I still believe the debate will dissipate and the gun laws will not change. The strength of the gun lobby and the NRA, the lack of political will and the fleeting public resolve render the argument for gun control impotent.

I admire and strongly believe in the basic tenets of our Constitution. Yet, we cannot lose sight that the Constitution was written in an era that accepted slavery and hung a man for stealing a horse – so legend has it. Times change and the Constitution allows for change while still protecting our civil rights.

If we do not take a strong stance now, we will get what we ask for.

Walmart stores in the Kansas City area have been receiving bomb threats during the past week. As of yesterday, about a dozen stores had been victimized. Fortunately, all the calls were hoaxes, as most bomb threats are. These threats came on the heels of the Aurora, Colorado theater shooting, followed by a disgruntled employee in Maryland threatening his employer and invoking the name of “The Joker.” The timing of these Walmart threats does not appear random. We are understandably on edge; imposing panic is easy. To our credit, the ensuing evacuations of the affected Walmart stores were without incident.

During this time, I spoke with three major news stations in Kansas City. Reflecting the concern of our area residents, the questions were the same – Who, why and what should we do? What are the authorities doing?

When asked who would do this, my answer was simple – just some disaffected jerk that enjoys watching the fear and disruption he can cause from the safety of an anonymous telephone call. He knows there will be evacuations, and he knows that the media will cover this story. That is what he wants. Is he a disgruntled employee? That would seem a logical assumption, but in this case, I do not get that feeling. I believe that this is a young man, living in the Kansas City area who recently experienced some frustration (real or imagined) that stripped him of a sense of power and control. Creating fear and panic is his way of getting that power back. Walmart may figure in to that frustration or he may have reasoned that targeting a major chain as Walmart would get the attention he sought. There are other actions he could have taken if he had more nefarious intent, but I do not want to give him any ideas.

Most major chains, shopping centers, office buildings, and other public venues are prepared for a bomb threat. They should have a bomb threat checklist for anyone who may get that call. The decision to evacuate will rest with the management of that venue. As shoppers, customers or visitors to public places, we can do our part. Be alert for suspicious activity. Even a shopper has a profile – you know how somebody acts when they are shopping. If a person appears more interested in the facility, such as the lay-out, security cameras, ingress/egress, closets or utility rooms, than they are of the merchandise, there may be a problem. Do not challenge that person, but approach an employee or police officer; they know what to do. The same rule applies if you see an unattended package. Stay alert and be aware of your surroundings. My motto: vigilance sans paranoia.

Finally, the question was about what the police are doing. The police and FBI are tracking these calls, and they will find the perpetrator. Recent news reports indicated that the calls had been traced to a specific number in a certain location. If that is true, I do not see the value of law enforcement showing their hand at this point. Federal laws and most state laws prohibit these kinds of threats. While there may have been no actual bomb, no casualties and no damage, a bomb threat creates panic, disruption and may lead to our not responding to a bona fide threat. When you call in a bomb threat under the cloak of anonymity, you are a coward and a jerk, and there is a law against that.

Another mass shooting. Another day of agony for our country. A time for us to question, debate and jump to conclusions. And ultimately, another lost opportunity to learn lessons from a tragedy that will get overshadowed by more recent news and shocking events. Except of course, for those who suffered through the unimaginable; they will never forget.

Who was the shooter? What is his profile? What led to this? We will discuss these questions for the next few weeks, and then move on.

In March 2005, I was the FBI Special Agent in Charge of the mass shooting at Red Lake High School, leaving 10 people dead. After my news conference, I was contacted by people from all over the world. For a few weeks, the event, its aftermath and the ensuing investigation were headline news. Six months later, Red Lake had disappeared from our collective memory. Our memories are short.

The same questions tend to arise after a mass shooting: Isn’t there a profile of these shooters? Aren’t there red flags? Usually, the answer is yes. There is a basic profile of mass shooters. Certain life events and changing patterns of behavior often unfold prior to the shooting. These are not hard and fast rules, but generalities that are frequently present.

Reports from family and friends of the alleged shooter James Holmes describe him as shy, but otherwise unremarkable – not the kind of person you are concerned about “going off the edge.” Yet, some neighbors have described him as a loner – a clear inference to someone who is odd and socially inadequate. Had this horrific event not occurred, would they still describe him that way, or is this just the effect of the commonly held shooter profile?

When the recent life of the shooter is examined, as is already happening, we often find stressors and triggers. These are the negative events which make one’s life unhappy and possibly unbearable. These stressors can be real or imagined. The triggers are the events that bring the shooter to the point of committing mass murder.

Holmes recently dropped out of his Ph. D. program, according to news reports. That could have been one red flag. By itself, it would not signal impending violence. Were there other signs? His mother was reported as saying, "You have the right person." If a mother can readily accept that about her son, then there must have been other warning signs. These warning signs will be uncovered. His accumulation of weapons and ammunition should have been red flags. Did anyone else know about this? As of now, the police are confident he acted alone. That does not mean someone did not know something.

Mass shootings usually occur at school or the workplace as the shooter is seeking revenge against specific people or a group of people he sees as the source of his misery. School and the workplace are usually where these stressors are most intense. So, why the movie theater? Yes, he referred to himself as “The Joker.” Did he have some fascination with Batman, or did he seek a venue for inflicting maximum damage?

These events often end in suicide by the shooter’s own hand or by forcing the police to shoot him – suicide by cop. That did not happen; he readily surrendered. Why?

I suspect that he knew his life and story would be in the headlines for the next few weeks; he wanted to see his story told. As always, I must point out that Holmes is the alleged shooter; his guilt has not been determined.

Why do we tell the story of the shooter? We justify that by saying we need to understand; we need to recognize the warning signs; we need to discuss mental health issues and intervention and we need to re-visit the gun laws. These would be important conversations if we actually accomplished anything. But we don’t.

Holmes is not cooperating with law enforcement at this point. I think eventually he will. That will be the only way to bring his name back in to the spotlight after our attention turns to the next tragedy.

Maybe we should not give any coverage to the life and times of mass murderers. Do we really need to provide them with any more motivation than they create for themselves?