Idaho Murders: He Wanted To Get Caught
Most murderers, like school shooters and serial killers, enjoy the notoriety that follows getting caught. Researchers call them unsuccessful criminal psychopaths. But, they want credit. They relish the pampered treatment in prison due to the status of the crime. From the armored security to the specialized confinement and exclusive interviews, these “-pathies” are only concerned with themselves. The cat-and-mouse game is an incentive. The BTK killer, whose biographer was the accused Idaho murderer’s master’s professor, teased local law enforcement after becoming frustrated by his effective evasiveness. How could he be admired for his prowess if he remained unidentified? BTK eventually got caught with something as mundane as the user identification on the public computer he used to send taunting letters to the police.
Now, that was stupid.
The Idaho murderer* (IM) orchestrated the entire process of his crime. He previously posted a questionnaire about feelings related to committing a crime. He doesn’t care. He welcomes the attention from the media, law enforcement, and other prisoners. More so, he wants to feel the complete experience. Presumably.
Yet, doing multiple “stupid” things has been pegged as uncharacteristic of a “brilliant” criminology PhD student. IM was allegedly on social media discussing details of the murders, including potential evidence like a knife sheath. He also took obvious missteps. Does anyone presume that he wanted to get caught with the least amount of evidence? Evidence that can be argued as circumstantial or unreliable?
Knife Sheath. This probably was not inadvertently left with the victims at the crime scene. The small amount of DNA on the button of the sheath matched to the DNA extracted from IM’s father’s trash through genealogy screening. Only around 16 cells are needed for forensic analysis and it can be old. Several cases have been documented in which innocent people have been falsely imprisoned based on a strong DNA match. The knife has not been found.
Eye Witness. Leaving an eye witness allows IM to challenge the believability of a woman and further intimidate her. Fear, PTSD, alcohol, and sleep deprivation can affect memory. One surviving roommate was ‘frozen by fear’ when she saw him in the dark and remembers “bushy eyebrows”, height and build. Her perception and consciousness at 4am may be questioned. Also, too familiar are interrogations about the number of alcoholic drinks female college students drink.
Shoe Print. Shoe prints and clothing fibers are more likely to be contained with a biohazard suit or disposable coveralls and shoe covers found in most labs or at Home Depot for as little as $5. Protective gear also minimizes transport of fibers and hairs, including from the victim’s dog. IM was probably not wearing unique Bruno Magli shoes like OJ Simpson. The affidavit suggests that he wore Vans. Unless they find the shoe with material from the crime scene, it can be argued that “latent” shoe prints are that of any college student.
Site Visits. As typical of these perpetrators, IM visited the site before and after the crime. Several times. So many times, even hours before and after the crime using his car, that seasoned analysts are convinced of his absolute idiocy. Impulsivity is a characteristic of non-psychopathic criminals, making it less likely that he could not help himself but to be there that many times. Still, this does not place him in the house committing homicide.
Cell Phone. Pings from cell phones are not accurate and have been found unreliable in other cases like that of Adnan Syed**. IM also shut off his phone during the time of the murders.
Criminals of this type use tactics to make themselves feel and look powerful. A game with law enforcement to connect the puzzle pieces is one. Controlling the amount and types of evidence is part of that. The legal system provides an additional opportunity for manipulation by mandating what is and is not admissible. For the OJ case, a bloody glove and a bloody sock were retrieved from his home. This was publicly and professionally viewed as indisputable. Yet, he was acquitted due to reasonable doubt. DNA evidence was used in that case as well.
More solid evidence, like the perpetrator’s skin, clothing fibers or blood under one of the victim’s fingernails, may be available. For now, IM may be exploiting what he can get away with and to what extent. This makes a difference in being found guilty to the extent of the death penalty or a burglary charge.
The Science
There is a high probability that IM’s neuromoral network is distorted. In this condition, there is a lack of empathy and an absence of fear. Using a knife in a murder is particularly personal and violent. Such a self-obsessed and intentional act is regulated by the prefrontal cortex, which is responsible emotion and impulsivity.
A multitude of neurobiological deviations that span from the amygdala to the striatum result in the lack of emotional development that underlies criminal psychopathy in a societal context. But, these scientific findings do not eclipse the victims who were living their lives and planning their futures. It is difficult to fathom that someone would do this with such a shallow motive- just to see. To see what it felt like as his criminal justice survey asked. But, we now live in an age where generations grow up on social media and develop a disconnect from other humans. Empathy is diminishing. This is exacerbated with underlying or pre-existing anti-social conditions.
There is a possibility of rehabilitating psychopaths through non-invasive stimulation of the prefrontal cortex. This may be a cost effective method to rectify risky behavior and aggression. Until then, we need to come to terms with the fact that certain people, despite the scientific explanation, purposely hurt others to please themselves.
Bottom Line
Given what is known about the narcissism and lack of remorse of criminal psychopaths, it is not unreasonable to postulate that IM planned to commit the crime, get caught and work toward an acquittal. He most likely considered the evidence required for a conviction, including the possible blood stained sheet and latex glove found in his apartment. A prominent interview or a book deal adds to the future possibilities for this type of criminal. Ted Bundy eagerly monitored and contributed to his trials, and gave interviews flaunting his “intellect”. But he didn't do the latter (with an FBI psychologist) for the money. He did it to keep pulling the strings with his arrogance.
The Idaho case is an important reminder to refrain from dismissing homicidal individuals as stupid. If he was so stupid, then how was he able to carry out a quadruple homicide? How was he able to stalk his victims for months (at the least)?
A Final Note
Those blaming the survivors or confused as to their actions should remember that Richard Speck murdered eight nursing students by dragging them one-by-one from a shared room.