Read Online Journey into Darkness by John Douglas, Mark Olshaker - Free Book Online Page B
Authors: John Douglas, Mark Olshaker
Ads: Link
give weight to each similarity and difference. There simply is no way of coming up with a numerical value for each piece of information. It can be properly evaluated only by running it through the brain of an experienced profiler like Larry. And putting all of this together, we concluded that all six murders were committed by the same individual and that his motive was the controlled sexualized rage so evident from the knife wounds.
Dan Lamborn, the prosecutor, asked me to testify at the trial. I was already starting to think about retirement and knew that the people who were staying on after me needed to get experience and develop their own independent reputations.Larry had done the key work on the analysis and made a very impressive, credible, and authoritative witness. I suggested that I take the stand to introduce and give background on the discipline of profiling and that Larry should testify on the analysis itself. That was fine with Lamborn and his partner, Rick Clabby.
The defense, represented by public defenders Loren Mandel and Barton Sheela, wasn’t thrilled with the idea of our testifying at all, arguing in pretrial motions that, not being psychiatrists or psychologists, we weren’t qualified to comment on psychological issues, and that what we had to say about the crimes and their linkage would be prejudicial to the defendant. In other words, if the jury believed us and thought that Prince had committed even one of the murders, they’d have to conclude that he did the other five as well. Lamborn and Clabby countered by pointing out that our testimony could actually put the greater burden on the prosecution, because if the jury believed us that the same individual was responsible for all six murders, then if they didn’t feel Prince had done any one of them, they’d have to let him off for all six.
Ultimately, in what had become a growing trend in courts across the country, Judge Charles Hayes ruled that we did have an expertise sufficiently beyond the common sense of the average person that it could be of guidance to the jury. In a complicated logic which tried to balance the concerns of both sides, however, he ruled that we couldn’t actually use the term “signature” in our testimony, as the defense felt that implied psychological motivation. Larry and I both felt somewhat hamstrung by this restriction, but we made the best of it.
The jury deliberated more than nine days before coming back with a verdict on July 13, 1993. They found Cleophus Prince guilty of all six murders and twenty-one burglaries. Since they deemed that there were special circumstances present, including murder during the course of a rape and the commission of multiple murders, the crimes were eligible for the death penalty. The next month, the same jury deliberated one day, returning a recommendation that he be sentenced to execution in the gas chamber at San Quentin or by lethal injection. Judge Hayes affirmed the sentence onNovember 6. As of this writing, he remains on San Quentin’s death row.
In 1986, I was a coauthor of an article for the
Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
entitled “Sexual Homicide: A Motivational Model.” By way of introducing the topic, we wrote:
“When law enforcement officials cannot readily determine a motive for murder, they examine its behavioral aspects. In developing techniques for profiling murderers, FBI agents have found that they need to understand the thought patterns of murderers in order to make sense of crime scene evidence and victim information. Characteristics of evidence and victims can reveal much about the murderer’s intensity of planning, preparation, and follow-through. From these observations, the agents begin to uncover the murderer’s motivation, recognizing how dependent motivation is to the killer’s dominant thinking patterns. In many instances, a hidden, sexual motive emerges, a motive that has its origins in fantasy.”
Tragically, this motive of uncontrolled
Dan Lamborn, the prosecutor, asked me to testify at the trial. I was already starting to think about retirement and knew that the people who were staying on after me needed to get experience and develop their own independent reputations.Larry had done the key work on the analysis and made a very impressive, credible, and authoritative witness. I suggested that I take the stand to introduce and give background on the discipline of profiling and that Larry should testify on the analysis itself. That was fine with Lamborn and his partner, Rick Clabby.
The defense, represented by public defenders Loren Mandel and Barton Sheela, wasn’t thrilled with the idea of our testifying at all, arguing in pretrial motions that, not being psychiatrists or psychologists, we weren’t qualified to comment on psychological issues, and that what we had to say about the crimes and their linkage would be prejudicial to the defendant. In other words, if the jury believed us and thought that Prince had committed even one of the murders, they’d have to conclude that he did the other five as well. Lamborn and Clabby countered by pointing out that our testimony could actually put the greater burden on the prosecution, because if the jury believed us that the same individual was responsible for all six murders, then if they didn’t feel Prince had done any one of them, they’d have to let him off for all six.
Ultimately, in what had become a growing trend in courts across the country, Judge Charles Hayes ruled that we did have an expertise sufficiently beyond the common sense of the average person that it could be of guidance to the jury. In a complicated logic which tried to balance the concerns of both sides, however, he ruled that we couldn’t actually use the term “signature” in our testimony, as the defense felt that implied psychological motivation. Larry and I both felt somewhat hamstrung by this restriction, but we made the best of it.
The jury deliberated more than nine days before coming back with a verdict on July 13, 1993. They found Cleophus Prince guilty of all six murders and twenty-one burglaries. Since they deemed that there were special circumstances present, including murder during the course of a rape and the commission of multiple murders, the crimes were eligible for the death penalty. The next month, the same jury deliberated one day, returning a recommendation that he be sentenced to execution in the gas chamber at San Quentin or by lethal injection. Judge Hayes affirmed the sentence onNovember 6. As of this writing, he remains on San Quentin’s death row.
In 1986, I was a coauthor of an article for the
Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
entitled “Sexual Homicide: A Motivational Model.” By way of introducing the topic, we wrote:
“When law enforcement officials cannot readily determine a motive for murder, they examine its behavioral aspects. In developing techniques for profiling murderers, FBI agents have found that they need to understand the thought patterns of murderers in order to make sense of crime scene evidence and victim information. Characteristics of evidence and victims can reveal much about the murderer’s intensity of planning, preparation, and follow-through. From these observations, the agents begin to uncover the murderer’s motivation, recognizing how dependent motivation is to the killer’s dominant thinking patterns. In many instances, a hidden, sexual motive emerges, a motive that has its origins in fantasy.”
Tragically, this motive of uncontrolled
Similar Books
