Inside the Mind of an Assassin

Dr. Marshall N. Heyman, then-director of the Behavioral Assessment Systems Center, in Falls Church, Virginia, back in 1984, published a study of 22 people who were presidential assassins or other similarly dangerous perpetrators.

FBI opens JFK Assassination Files Library of Congress 01/01/1977

Source: Library of Congress

His investigation explains that as far back as the 1980s, the U.S. Secret Service commissioned an investigation into presidential assassins to identify common psychological characteristics.

Of those in the study, 11 had killed, wounded, or otherwise assaulted presidents; five had killed or wounded others of interest to the Secret Service, either directly or in an effort to attack the president; and five had been placed under investigation as potentially dangerous, three of whom were apprehended while engaged in potentially dangerous attacks on the president or vice-president.

Deep Personality Inadequacies

One common theme that emerged was a tendency for these perpetrators to suffer from various deep personality inadequacies, so they kept failing at jobs and relationships throughout their lifetimes.

They were all loners.

The author contends that it was this combination of inescapable inadequacy, and the chronic, frustrating, unrelenting inability to achieve any recognizable goal that eventually rendered them fatally, dangerous.

They had “nothing personal” against their targets. Instead, the president merely symbolized the frustrations they experienced or personified the “system” that was forever letting them down.

Frustration

The author of the investigation points out that one of the few dependable associations in emotional life is that frustration leads to aggression.

The subjects in this study were generally chronically frustrated people, who were not just unable to derive any satisfaction from life, but, crucially, they never learned how to deal with their sense of failure and futility.

They did not have the usual outlets that the rest of us deploy, which enable us to displace our exasperation with the world. They did not express their frustrations in more socially acceptable ways, such as in playing sports or yelling at ball games.

Instead, the authors argue, they would brood, and so their vengeance would turn inward. They would hide it, and they would write and create visions for themselves. Besides being thought of as loners, they were usually characterized as quiet, reserved, and well-behaved—as people who “would not hurt a flea.”

What observers did not sense, this author argues, was the morbid, moody nurturing of unexpressed tension within these people, that had no normal or socially acceptable means of ventilation.

The author contends, therefore, that when they had ultimately “had enough,” they “went for broke.”

Dr. Heyman refers to a characteristic "Walter Mitty" syndrome, Walter Mitty being a character created by James Thurber (adapted into a more recent Ben Stiller movie), who lives in a fantasy world, which is how he survives the daily mundane reality of a life that is basically always failing.

Dr. Heyman argues that a carefully evolved fantasy eventually develops that offers them a chance, once and for all, to prove themselves, to pull off one enormous undertaking, to get attention, at least, from a world that had systematically ignored or rejected them. Until that point is reached, it is characteristic of their psychology that they appear bland, controlled, even-tempered, measured, quiet, harmless, and contemplative.

Dr. J. Reid Meloy, professor of psychiatry, University of California, and Molly Amman, supervisory special agent, program manager, Behavioral Analysis Unit, Critical Incident Response Group, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Quantico, VA, published a study entitled, ‘Public Figure Attacks in the United States, 1995–2015’, which investigated 58 attackers.

The authors refer to The U.S. Secret Service Exceptional Case Study Project, which was the first operational study of attempted and successful attacks and assassinations of prominent public officials or figures. Eighty-three individuals who participated in 74 principal incidents comprised the basis for that study, and more than 20 of these subjects were directly interviewed.

Politics Essential Reads

Can Wall Art Predict Your Politics?

Is It Time for Presidential Fitness-for-Duty Evaluations?

The authors concluded that ideologically motivated attacks represented only 9 percent of the incidents; instead, personal grievances, inadequate personalities, and anger were much more relevant.

Social Media, the Internet, and 24-Hour TV News

This study emphasized the issue of a new breed of public figure that has recently evolved thanks to social media, the internet, and 24-hour rolling news on TV, which the authors refer to as the “publicly intimate figure.”

The authors argue that what it means to be famous has changed considerably in modern times so that the public begins to believe and experience aspects of an actual connection with a famous person.

The authors contend that this new normal relationship between public figures and the ordinary public is both intimate and impersonal. This blurring of the boundaries between public and private does not pose a problem for most people, who can distinguish between fantasy and reality.

This phenomenon, however, makes it much more difficult for the mentally disturbed or even psychotic, who cannot so easily distinguish the real from wish fulfillment. They may be deeply disturbed and feel personally affected by public figures because they think they know them well, and in some cases, believe the public figure actually knows them, too.

The authors concluded with a quote from famous author Gabriel Garcia Marquez, who once wrote, “All human beings have three lives: public, private, and secret” (The Paris Review Interviews, The Art of Fiction No. 69).

The authors argue that attacks on public figures in the United States in recent times accentuate the blurring of these distinctions, so that now homicidal acts against public figures, such as the president, are now much more personal, as opposed to overtly political, and therefore now more often driven by the emotional dynamic of retaliation for personal grievances, hurts, losses, and inadequacy.

Another study entitled, "A Psychometric Study of Incarcerated Presidential Threateners" found high rates of depression and anxiety in this group, so their threat appeared to arise out of this personal upset, but the author concluded that the question of exactly why they had become so fixated on the president remained mysterious.