An Act of Evil? When Monsters Kill!

Not long ago, there was a high profile case in which a father killed himself and his two young sons in a horrific way. He set his house on fire with his sons inside. Prior to setting the fire and most likely to control his children and to keep them from escaping he assaulted them. Injury patterns on both boys suggest this father used a hatchet—type instrument on them. People described the father as a monster and his behavior as evil. As an FBI Profiler for many years, I consulted on crimes that were horrific, and I interviewed the offenders who committed these crimes. Many of these people have also been referred to as monsters and their crimes as evil.

But labels like this only serve to perpetuate misperceptions about violent offenders and their crime and catapult us back to the 18th century when due to a lack of science the only explanations for violence was to attribute it to mystical, evil figures like monsters, werewolves and vampires. We have come a long way since that time and our knowledge of this kind of behavior can be largely explained and analyzed without resorting to mystical concepts.

Words matter and labels make a difference. The more we understand criminal behavior, the more likely we'll be able to identify and interpret the precursor red flags and take some actions to prevent it.

Evil is a spiritual term and has no legal or behavioral implications. The term monster is a fictional term. It also has no behavioral or legal meaning. For example, there are no legal textbooks with a chapter on "How to Interview an Evil Person or a Monster." There is no course at the FBI Academy or other Law Enforcement Academy that offers training in how to investigate an evil crime committed by a monster. You may see it in a Hollywood movie or on popular TV crime shows. But the fact is evil monsters don't exist and they certainly are not responsible for crimes of violence. There is however training and education in the area of psychopathy, which very likely played an important role in the case of the father killing his two sons.

Let's look at some of this father's behavior from a behavioral viewpoint. He did not just snap and decide to kill himself and his sons. He was a person of interest in the disappearance of his wife, the boys' biological mother, several years before this crime. After her disappearance he went on with his life but child custody issues eventually developed and days before the fire, because of material found on a family computer, this father was court ordered to undergo a psychosexual evaluation, which he indicated he did not want to do. This event could have been a strong motivator to carry out his crime. However, his behavior indicates preplanning to include how he would carry out the crime to assure he was successful. He appears to have left nothing to chance. According to media accounts he gave away the boys' toys. He provided instructions on how to handle his estate and where to find his money. He made goodbye phone calls and sent emails to family and friends suggesting this was the end of the line for him. Several months before this crime he allegedly changed the beneficiary on his life insurance.

His actions showed an extraordinary callous lack of concern and empathy for his boys, and surviving family members and others involved in the case. His violence was instrumental. Instrumental violence is cold-blooded, purposeful and the preferred type of violence for psychopaths.

The sensational nature of a crime can indicate grandiosity on the part of the offender. Murder-suicides crimes, as despicable as they are, are frequently carried out in a quiet and low-key manner. However in this case, the father physically assaulted his children in a particularly brutal manner, and then exploded his home by using accelerants to cause a giant fireball for everyone in the area to see—a fireball so powerful even firefighters could not immediately approach the home. This father wanted and got what we called in the FBI "maximum lethality". It is likely that his's two sons were more like possessions to him and if the courts were ultimately going to rule against him having his children, then his attitude was "no one will have them."

I have seen it over and over again in my career, people do not expect or believe that a biological parent could hurt their child in such a horrible way. The fact is, it happens all too often. Being a parent cannot be used as an indicator of normalcy. We need to dig deeper into their personality to see if they are capable of such violence and if the circumstances in their life are creating the "perfect storm" for it to occur.

The behaviors in this crime suggest offender personality traits indicative of a person who was grandiose (narcissistic), lacking in empathy and compassion, cold-blooded and able to strategically think through a terrible crime and its consequences, knowing it would be the final hours of his life and the lives of his children. This is someone who can do well under very stressful circumstances. This behavior suggests psychopathy.

Psychopathy is a devastating personality disorder hallmarked by 20 personality traits and characteristics. The more than 40 years of research on this personality disorder suggests that some of these traits manifest themselves at a very early age—sometimes as young as 5 or 6 years of age. Psychopathy is a lifetime pattern of behavior, and when professionals know what to look for they can identify the red flags. Were there warning signs in the above case for years that would have been indicative of this disorder? The sad answer is yes, very likely there were. But without knowledge of this disorder, people who work in the field of law enforcement, the courts, child welfare services, etc. will either misinterpret the red flags or miss them altogether, and when that happens we are all capable of regressing to explanations that cross over the lines of reality into fiction and mythology. Words matter and labels make a difference.

The opinions and views expressed in the article are those of Mary Ellen O'Toole and do not reflect the opinions or views of the FBI.