Crime scene assessment

The crime scene of the murder of Jane was a public place where people often flock for bird viewing and recreation. Therefore the offender was aware that the body would be spotted quickly. The offender also lit the body to make passers-by curious hence lead to its recovery. Another factor which indicates that the offender or offenders wanted the body to be spotted quickly is the fact that the weather at that time was conducive and people would most probably be outside. The location of the body was 30 yards from the road which means that it was perhaps brought by a vehicle and dropped a few steps from the road. The short distance from the road shows that it might have been one offender, but it does not necessarily mean it was one person because they might have been two or more people also. The seat of the fire was around the lower abdomen and the genital parts of the body, and therefore the offender might have sexually assaulted the victim, or it might have been a case of necrophilia. These assertions are backed up by the fact that she was undressed.

It is highly probable that Jane was held by the offender in an area around the town of Bletchingham because the Common is not far from the crime scene. The body seems to have been covered by a tarpaulin because of the metal eyelets found around it which makes the assertion that she was killed in another place and dumped there more profound. There are signs that she struggled to death because a pair of tights tightly tied her neck. The offender had an intention of burning the body because petrol ignited the fire. Therefore, the disposal method of the body might have been premeditated. There were no indications that the body had been at that spot for a long time hence the assumption that it might have been dumped there and set on fire a few minutes ago before being discovered are on track. Tests on the body revealed that the body had been dead for some weeks. Therefore, the offender might have killed her and kept the body before then dumping it in the Common.

The location of Jane’s shoes was near the pub she was going to, and the bus park. The indication of this is that she might have been accosted and taken away by force while walking to the pub after being dropped off at the bus stop. It is most likely that she resisted the capture and in the process, her shoe slipped off her foot. She might have been kept alive by the offender for approximately one and half months before being murdered because she disappeared on 24th May and her body discovered in mid-July.

Offender characteristics

The offender seems to have planned how to commit the crime very well. Jane was last seen at 6:30 PM when heading to the pub where she was going to meet her friends. The capturing must have happened few minutes from this time because she did not reach the pub which was a ten-minutes walking distance from the bus stop. It is most likely that the offender had been trailing the victim for some time and saw that it was easier to capture her at this time of the day, and at that place. Jane was alone and had earlier in the day spend some time with her fiancée. According to the report, this was the only time she was alone, and it was nearly falling dark making this crime look like a well-planned one. Moreover, Jane is described as a woman of regular routines and steady habits. The offender might have been aware of her movements over time and where she hangs out and at what time.

The offender seems like a person who was motivated by rage and maybe revenge because of the way he or she executed the crime. She seems to have been forcefully captured and most probably driven away in a vehicle because she was in a public place. The probability of the offender having planned the capture is high because if it was an ordinary theft or robbery, she would have been robbed and let free. Her detention gives advances the thought of the offender’s motivation to kill her. The offender seems to have planned to detain her and prepared a place or a room to take her after capturing her. Because Jane is friendly and a shy lady according to the report, it is not highly probable that she provoked the offender as she was heading to the pub. This assumption rules out a possibility of Jane provoking the offender before the offender becoming enraged and planning to kill her. The fact that the CCTV camera in the street where Jane was captured had been taken for repair recently before her capture shows that the killing was a premeditated act. The offender might have colluded with another person to make the CCTV system not to work to facilitate the offense.

The probable motivation for the killing might have been sexual because of the nature of the disposal of the body. Jane was naked at the time she was discovered, and her lower abdomen, specifically the genital area was burned. May be it was a case of the offender being rejected by Jane that triggered the rage to do away with her. It is likely that the offender decided to capture her and sleep with her during the one and half months and kill her so that she does not live to tell about it. The offender might have been motivated by showing her that he can control her and has authority over to her.

Further lines of inquiry

Some additional information which might help to identify the offender is closely focusing on people who she has been interacting with over time. It is highly probable that the person who killed Jane knew her and was very angry with her. The nature of the disposal of the body shows a person who was very angry and who was on a revenge mission because if the killing was a mistake, the body would not have been burned. Investigating people close to her will make it possible to know if the offender was a person known to her because he capture and disposal seem to have been done by a person who knew her. Another additional information which may assist to interpret the behaviour of the offender would be that the offender seems not to have asked for anything such as money or favour. This assumption cements the point that the killing was not motivated by an intention to steal. It is most likely that the offender was a disgruntled person who was on a revenge mission. The report does not indicate that one of her body organs was missing. Therefore, cannibalism is not an issue to consider.

Psychopathology in John

John is showing psychopathology in his treatment towards Valerie (Ormel J, Laceulle & Jeronimus 2014). As acquaintances observe, the physical and psychological abuse by John is increasing with time. John seems to have anger management issues because he gets furious due a minor provocation. Valerie is the target of John’s anger because she does not fight back. John wants to control Valerie entirely and projects his frustrations on her. John thinks that it is normal to punish Valerie and treats her like an object. The problem with the violence being meted on Valerie by John is that it is increasing with time. It began by kicking and punching at home and has escalated to using objects such as spanners and car doors to assault her in public. John seems to have an inferiority complex or a feeling of inadequacy because he attacks a person who does not fight back. He is a bully and bullies are people who have low self-esteem and oppress others to feel in control.

According to Mills & Kroner (2003), abusive partners are compulsive and cause severe physical and psychological trauma to the victim. The frequency of their attacks are frequent, and they have a sadistic satisfaction when they see their victims experiencing pain. That is the case with John. He seems to like the way he controls Valerie.

 

John’s attitudes towards, and perception of, his behaviour

John’s attitude towards his behaviour is positive. He feels that he should abuse her because he does not show any remorse. If John felt terrible about his actions, he would have shown signs of trying to change and trying to stop physically and verbally abusing Valerie. The fact that Valerie does not fight back and does not seek help makes John feel his actions are justified. He thinks that he is punishing Valerie and helping her become a better person, which is wrong because he is violating her human rights. John’s attitude and perception towards his behaviour make him continue. That is why he is threatening to punish her severely in future. He is not remorseful for his abusive actions and has an “I don’t care” attitude. His attitude towards his actions is causing him to become bold and even attack her in front of her friends. Therefore, John is likely to continue verbally and physically abusing Valerie because he feels that he is doing the right thing. For an individual to change, he or she must think that there is a need to change, but John has not realized his mistakes.

Factors maintaining John and Valerie’s relationship

According to Stroshine & Robinson (2003), most domestic violence victims just like Valerie do not want to leave because of dependence on the abuser financially, or due to religious beliefs. Another reason that may be causing Valerie not to leave is that maybe she feels that she has invested a lot in the relationship and leaving will mean that she loses what she has made in the two years. Also, she may be thinking that John will change and become a better person in future. Many domestic abuse victims fall into depression, and their self-esteem is lowered because of constant verbal abuse and being told that they are weak, ugly, and much more (Lysaker, Clements, Wright, Evans, & Marks, 2001). John verbally abuses Valerie and criticizes her appearance in front of people. Maybe this has lowered Valerie’s self-esteem to the extent that she feels worthless and unable to get another partner if she leaves John.

Another reason why maybe the relationship has not ended is that Valerie fears after leaving John he may harm her even more. According to Raj and Silverman (2003), some domestic violence victims fear to move on from a relationship because they fear being killed or harmed severely by their abusers. They feel that if they stay, they are safer which may be the case with Valerie who is not leaving despite the frequency and intensity of abuse is on the rise.

Two conflicting psychological offense profiles of this case

Adrian might have been set up by his friends while they were drinking. He remembers being in the third pub but does not remember when he came out of it or how he got into the room he was in with the two foreigners. It is most likely that his drink was spiked with his friends’ knowledge because why did they leave him with strangers. The different accounts given by his friends about what transpired gives a clue that they might have been involved in setting him up because why should they conceal details which would be helpful in getting to the bottom of the case. Adrian being an over-controlled person could not have engaged in sodomy just because of being tipsy. Therefore, it is most likely that his friends tricked him.

Another angle would be that Adrian wandered away from his friends and met with the foreigners who dragged him. The fact that he woke up eight hours after going home shows that he might have been under the influence of drugs. The imaginations he is having and the inability to remember whatever transpired during the night also indicates that he was spiked because he says that he had not drunk much to lose his memory. Therefore, maybe the foreigners saw him alone in the pub and put a drug in his drink and later on carried him to the room. He woke up naked and the foreigners were half naked. One of them told him that they enjoyed the night and they hope that he enjoyed too. The fact that they were conscious as he woke up indicates that they were not drunk as he hence were able to overpower and control him.

Psychological advice to investigators

I would advise the investigating team to adopt the first profile in which Adrian’s friends colluded with the foreigners. There are many indications why this profile is more profound compared to the second one. First, Adrian’s friends did not raise any alarm after he got lost. After he contacted them the following day, they did not bring up the topic of what happened the previous day. Moreover, the foreigners would have preferably left Adrian alone in the room after sexually assaulting him if they had not colluded with his friends. Telling him that they enjoyed the night shows that they did not care whether they were found doing it or not.

Adrian’s friends should have given the same account of events if there was nothing sinister in their actions. It is strange how they let him get lost and did not care what happened to him and did not report to the police, his friends, or family. Also, another strange thing with the friends is that they did not try to give Adrian information about how he got lost. They acted as if everything was okay while they were not. Therefore, it is more likely that Adrian’s friends knew what transpired in the night that he was allegedly sexually abused.

Actions and potential effects of “date rape” drugs

Most commonly used date rape drugs are alcohol-related. The sex offenders mostly use alcohol because the victims are likely to take it willingly without suspecting any foul play (Webber & Craig 2009). The drugs dissolve easily in alcohol and are not easy to discover when used on a victim. The victim’s drinks are mostly spiked after they have drunk to an extent where their conscience is impaired. They make the victims lose inhibitions and consciousness such that they cannot recollect whatever happens to them after they take them. It is not possible for the victim to remember whatever happened after the drug took a toll on them and the time they gained their consciousness. The “rape drugs” affect a victim’s sexual behaviour such that it may arouse the victim because it does away with consciousness hence the person lacks inhibitions of his or her actions. They may also cause aggressive sexual behaviour and dangerous sexual tendencies such as sex without protection (Webber & Craig 2009). They also lead to impaired judgment and loss of muscle power. The drugs make cause victims to black-out and may experience distorted images or hallucinations such as the images Adrian was seeing of being attacked by one of the foreigners. The drugs also cause a lot of sleep to the victim. Adrian slept the whole night and extra eight hours after leaving the room with the foreigners.

Source of Mary’s motivation

Mary’s most likely motivation is revenge. She was not part of the civil rights group, was not invited through a call, but just learned about the demonstration over the internet. Therefore, maybe Mary wanted to have revenge on a person who worked in the center and saw this as the best chance to do it. The report indicates that she traded insults with another female in the research centre. It is highly probable that that woman was the motivation behind her use of abusive behaviour and shouting. She is a sociable person and seems to have self-awareness because she doesn’t show peculiar behaviours when put in a room by the police. Therefore, Mary may have had a grudge with the other woman, and she decided to use the demonstration as the avenue to get back to her in the name of the demonstrations.

The fact that she came the three days show that she wanted very much to take part in the demonstration. The first two days Mary covered herself but uncovered herself to make her target person realize her. Therefore, it is highly probable that she was coming to embarrass the other woman who worked in the centre.Another source of Mary’s motivation might have come from the love of animals. However, her use of abuses during the demonstrations indicates that she might be suffering from aggression problems. Maybe she had frustrations in her life and didn’t have somewhere to pour them. She was aware that she was doing the wrong thing when abusing the workers because she covered her face. Moreover, she seemed to be aware of her actions.

The psychological mechanisms operating in Mary

Mary is most likely to be using the demonstration as a coping mechanism. Maybe Mary experienced a frustrating situation but is using the demonstration to cope with the pain. According to McMahon (2013), projection is a defense mechanism used by individuals to cope with stress whereby the person directs his or her frustrations to a lesser being to feel even. It is likely that Mary targeted the demonstrators because in a demonstration people are many and she will not be detected. The fact that she was not invited to the demonstration shows that she was not part of it, but invited herself to satisfy her needs.

Moreover, Mary covered herself with a scuff to hide her identity because she was aware that she was doing a wrong thing. It seems that abusing the workers of the research centre made her feel good and vindicated because she did not show any remorse after being arrested. When asked the reason for abusing the worker, Mary said that she intended to inform them to stop killing animals. However, her way of doing that was wrong but she does not show any regrets even after using unprintable words to refer to them.

Kramer & Ueli (2010) maintain that psychological mechanisms are aimed at making the individual feel at peace with themselves.  Therefore, it is highly likely that Mary wanted to offload her frustrations in the demonstration anonymously. It is not coincidental that she came for the demonstrations in three days and all those days she was the loudest and most abusive. If she was genuinely demonstrating, she could have behaved like the other demonstrators.

References

 

Buss, D.M. (2004).Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind. Boston, MA. Pearson Education, Inc.

Kramer, Ueli (June 2010). “Coping and defence mechanisms: What’s the difference? – Second act”. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice. 83 (Pt 2): 207–221.

Kroner, D. G., Mills, J. F., & Morgan, R. D. (2006). Social desirable responding and the measurement of violent and criminal risk: Self-report validity. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 6(4), 27-42.

Lysaker, P. H., Clements, C. A., Wright, D. E., Evans, J., & Marks, K. (2001). Neurocognitive correlates of helplessness, hopelessness, and well-being in schizophrenia. Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases, 180, 457–462.

McMahon, S. B. (2013). Wall and Melzacks textbook of pain. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier/Saunders.

Ormel J, Laceulle OM, Jeronimus BF (2014). “Why Personality and Psychopathology Are Correlated: A Developmental Perspective Is a First Step but More Is Needed”. European Journal of Personality. 28 (4): 396–98.

Raj, A., & Silverman, J. G. (2003). Immigrant South Asian women at greater risk from intimate partner violence. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 435–437.

Stroshine, M. S., & Robinson, A. L. (2003). The decision to end abusive relationships: The role of offender characteristics. Criminal Justice and Behaviour, 30, 97–117.

Webber, Craig (2009). Psychology & crime. London: Sage. p. 67.

This entry was posted on February 22, 2018 at 2:42 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.