Journey into Darkness (20 page)

First, there are the true pedophiles—people who prefer sex with children and have them as the subjects of their fantasies—and then there are those whose primary sexual drives and fantasies are directed at adults, but who will have sex with a child to fulfill some other need: perhaps they feel too inadequate to approach the true object of their desires, using a child as a substitute. Dietz and Lanning classify these two types of offenders as preferential child molesters (true pedophiles who molest) and situational child molesters (the child is more a victim of opportunity than a preferential victim).

It is possible for a pedophile to go through his whole life without molesting a child, even having a sexual relationship with an adult, satisfying his urges in other ways: fantasizing about children, masturbating with dolls, or perhaps picking an adult sexual partner who is childlike in some way. His lover may be a flat-chested woman, small in stature, or someone who engages in baby talk, for example. There is nothing criminal in these activities. A pedophile may also hire adult prostitutes to act out his fantasies. Again, at this point, no child has been victimized or exploited. Like someone with a foot fetish, as long as the fetishist’s lover doesn’t mind parading around in high heels, letting him paint her toenails, or whatever, no harm has been done.

But as Ken points out, a lot of these guys are also heavily into pornography featuring children: photos, videos, magazines. They collect and trade child porn the way kids collect baseball cards. Now, from my research and experience, I know that a lot of violent offenders buy and collect pornography, particularly bondage and sadomasochistically related. It’s one of the elements we routinely look for when preparing affidavits for search warrants of the residences of sexually sadistic rape and murder suspects. But I’m not going to tell you that pornography fuels the desires of someone who
wasn’t already thinking in that direction. I have often seen an offender stage a scene to resemble something he’s read or seen, as Tien Poh Su did when he killed Deliana Heng up in Canada. But these guys would have done it one way or another if the desire was there. The fact of the matter is that most people who buy and read pornography are not at all dangerous and never commit antisocial offenses. So I’m not about to advocate restricting the First Amendment for the sake of the small percentage of men who consume pornography to bolster their violent and misogynistic conduct.

But child pornography is different. The mere fact that it exists means that a crime has taken place. Just by looking at this stuff, or passing it on to others, the pedophile is perpetuating a crime that occurred against a child and is therefore exploiting the child—whether or not he was present at the original crime scene. Like adult-killers Paul Bernardo, Bittaker and Norris, and Lake and Ng, many molesters make their own child pornography, carefully keeping a record of their illegal sexual encounters so they can relive them over and over. Others may be involved in so-called child sex rings, where one or more adults (usually a trusted friend, not a family member of the victims) has a pattern of abuse and exploitation of several child victims, who may be both male and female. But even if child pornography is purchased mail order, off-the-shelf, by someone who’s never touched a child anyone collecting it is guilty of exploitation. It’s the same as photos taken of an adult rape victim.

Although the pedophile may think nothing’s wrong with using the pornography as fodder for his fantasies, a child is still being victimized. And as with any such paraphilia or fetish, the potential is always there for escalation. There’s a danger that there may come a point where the fantasies aren’t enough and the pedophile feels the need to act on his desires with a real child—maybe by hiring a child prostitute, molesting a child he knows, or abducting a stranger. While he may draw a distinction between what he rationalizes as sex-for-hire and the abduction and rape of a neighborhood kid, the moment he involves that child, criminal exploitation has occurred. Realistically, we don’t need to fear that every guy who has sexual fantasies about children will actually
molest a child, but I certainly consider it a red flag to be watched.

I also agree with Ken Lanning that just as not all pedophiles are molesters, not all molesters are pedophiles. A variety of motivations may drive the so-called situational molester. Some may be acting out aggressions they are only able to express against the most vulnerable of victims. These subjects would also be likely to target the elderly, or prostitutes—other relatively easy targets.

A risk with these individuals is that their behavior, too, may escalate. What may begin as an impulsive, isolated event against a child may turn out to be just a trial run if he succeeds without getting caught. Their crimes may grow more violent; they grow bolder as their criminal career progresses, attacking more victims and taking more time with them to act out their fantasies more completely. We saw this type of evolution with the Arthur Shawcross case in Rochester, New York. One of the ways Gregg McCrary figured out how to catch the killer was realizing he was returning to the dump sites to spend more time with the bodies of his victims. And once he was caught, it turned out that his first two victims had been not prostitutes or homeless women, but a young girl and boy.

There are probably a lot more situational than preferential child molesters, although a pedophile who molests will likely molest far more children over the course of his lifetime because that is where his primary sexual urges lie. It’s what he’s going to be thinking about all the time. It is possible that a situational offender may molest just one child, one time, or it may become a long-term behavior for him.

In
Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis for Law Enforcement Officers Investigating Cases of Child Sexual Exploitation,
published by the NCMEC, Ken outlines four types of situational child molesters: repressed; morally indiscriminate; sexually indiscriminate; and inadequate. Repressed types are guys you find abusing their own children because they’re most readily available. Not surprisingly, they tend to have very low self-esteem and have sex with children as a substitute for adults they can’t approach. This type of subject is more likely to use a lure or con rather than force
to get a child to go with him, and the incidents are usually linked to some precipitating stressor in his life.

The morally indiscriminate type would also molest his own children, although he will manipulate, lure, or even use force to obtain other victims. This subject is probably abusive in virtually all areas of his life: he abuses his wife and friends, is a liar and a cheat at home and at work, and he has no qualms about stealing something he wants. Because this type of subject has no conscience, it is not difficult for him to act on impulse.

Both this type and the sexually indiscriminate molester, if asked why they molested a child, might think to themselves, “Why not?” but the sexually indiscriminate molester takes that thought a step further. He abuses children because he is bored and the experience seems new, exciting, and different to him. Ken describes these types as “try-sexuals,” meaning that they’ll try anything. These guys might pursue group sex with adults, spouse swapping, bondage, whatever—acts which aren’t criminal with consenting adults—but then they may involve a child (even their own) in that sexual experimentation. Compared with the other types of situational child molesters, these subjects generally come from a higher socioeconomic level and are more prone to molest multiple victims. Whereas the other types are into child pornography, this type might have a much more diverse collection of erotica.

Finally, the inadequate type of situational child molester is much like the subjects described in other chapters. In fact, in my unit we dealt mostly with the morally indiscriminate and inadequate types. This subject is a social outsider. He’ll have few friends his own age as a teenager and may continue to live with his parents or an older relative as he grows older. For this subject, children are nonthreatening, like his other potential targets—the elderly, prostitutes. His victim could be a child he knows well or a stranger he can use as a substitute for a peer he can’t approach. The subject is not so much naturally sexually attracted to children as he is sexually curious but insecure around adults. If he collects pornography, it will involve adults, not children. Because he is so withdrawn from society, the danger is that his hostility and anger could build up until he finds an outlet for them.
This subject can be very dangerous, then, if his rage explodes, often leading to torturing and killing his victim.

I dealt with a combination inadequate and morally indiscriminate type in a case I handled in the early 1980s, just when the profiling program at Quantico was getting geared up.

The police department in Dickinson, North Dakota, is proud of the work they do and they should be. In March 1983, they had only one unsolved murder case on their books. But that one case was a particularly gruesome double homicide that was almost two years old. They asked for a profile that might help in their investigation.

As they described it, early in the morning of November 16, 1981, a transient worker staying at the Swanson Motel in Dickinson stopped by the motel office for a cup of coffee, as he did every morning. But this time, he found the body of the manager, fifty-two-year-old Priscilla Dinkel, lying face-down on the floor, bound and gagged, with an electrical cord tied around her wrists and neck. Her nightgown and housecoat had been pulled down, partly exposing her back.

When the police arrived, they noted splinters of wood in her hair and made another horrible discovery: searching the premises, they found Ms. Dinkel’s granddaughter, seven-year-old Dannelle Lietz, in the back bedroom, also murdered. Her body was found under the covers on the bed, with another cord around her neck. There were ligature marks on her wrists. Autopsies indicated both victims died as a result of strangulation and Dannelle had been sexually assaulted.

In the year and a half since the crime, investigators had followed many leads but still had nothing concrete.

In evaluating the case, I started with victimology. Priscilla Dinkel had recently moved to Dickinson to take the job as manager of the motel, which catered to transient workers in the area’s booming energy industry. Rooms typically were rented by the week, and the motel was located in a part of town whose character had changed quickly with the influx of temporary workers to feed the industry’s growth. In fact, the chief of police had warned locals to start locking their doors, a practice previously unheard of up there.

Although there was nothing in her personal background
to indicate Priscilla Dinkel was high-risk, her job, the location of the motel, and the transient nature of the place led me to classify her as a high-risk victim. I felt her granddaughter, on the other hand, was simply at the wrong place at the wrong time. At her young age, she had no control over her life or her environment and I saw her as a victim of opportunity.

The UNSUB in this case had time to tie up both victims and brutalize them. Ms. Dinkel was not sexually assaulted, but was rendered unconscious through blunt-force trauma to her head. The offender also cut her bra and underwear, fulfilling some need of his and displaying hatred and aggression, dominance and control. He struck Dannelle in the head at some point, too, fracturing her skull. Before he left, he also took money from the motel’s cash box.

Clearly, he spent quite a bit of time at the scene and appeared to be comfortable there, leading me to profile an offender who knew his victims and the area. It did not appear that he went there that night specifically to kill them, though. More likely, the homicides occurred spontaneously. The crime scene reflected elements of both disorganization and inventiveness; the offender was adaptable, using electrical cords from lamps and a vacuum cleaner to tie up his victims.

A mixed scene of this nature led me to believe that alcohol was a factor that night and that the UNSUB probably had a history of alcoholism. With the level of aggression demonstrated against the older victim, I figured he was one of those Jekyll and Hyde drinkers. Normally a loner—not at all a ladies’ man—a louder, more aggressive side of his personality would come out after a few drinks, although he’d only be able to express this to people he felt he could dominate. He would have difficulties in any relationships with women.

Since people don’t just jump into double homicide, this subject would have been in trouble with the law before. He might have done time for crimes like assault, robbery, or burglary. Offenders leaving this kind of crime scene are typically of average intelligence, but this guy probably had not finished high school. When he had a job, it would involve physical rather than intellectual work, such as a laborer, mechanic,
or truck driver. He would not keep himself neat; he’d appear in need of a bath, shave, and haircut.

Of all the behavioral clues left throughout the apartment, the most significant came from the crime scene in the bedroom with the young girl. When he attacked Dannelle, her grandmother was out of the picture and he could act out his fantasies, easily dominating and controlling her. In his assault he was consuming her, reinforcing his power over the situation. The fact that he covered her up with the bedclothes, however, said a lot about his feelings after the fact. He was trying to eliminate the assault, feeling disgust and distaste over his actions. With this apparent change of heart, he felt some remorse over her death, in contrast to the apparent justification he felt for his actions against her grandmother.

Whenever you have any signs of remorse like that at the scene, there’s going to be spillover into the UNSUB’s postoffense behavior. He would be compelled to talk to someone, to find out what the police were doing regarding the investigation, he’d increase his alcohol consumption, alter his physical appearance in some way, maybe visit the girl’s grave.

The only area of the UNSUB’s life that I had trouble with was his age. As I’ve mentioned, this aspect is often problematic. I’ve seen subjects like this range in age from the late teens to early fifties, so I advised police to focus on the post-offense behavior and the other elements of the profile instead of looking for an offender of a particular age. I also warned that after the publicity died down, the subject had probably skipped town. As I always do, I told the investigators to give me a call if they wanted to discuss things further or brainstorm on proactive and/or interrogation techniques.