Talking with Psychopaths, Part I
Preparedness and information can redirect deception to produce forensic gems
Matt DeLisi
Prior to a forensic interview, the interviewer should research the entire life history of the examinee, if a formal forensic assessment, or the interviewee, if a correctional client being interviewed for some other purpose.
There is a lot of ground to cover.
Because serious criminal offenders typically have extensive, life-long conduct problems, there are many records to review. These include school and work records, psychiatric history, delinquent and criminal history, presentence investigation reports, probation and parole reports, correctional records, misconduct reports, and prior forensic assessments, among others.
A 30-year-old male pled guilty to felon in possession of a firearm, resulting from a domestic violence situation where he shot the home of his estranged girlfriend.
The defendant fled from police, before capture with assistance from a K9 unit. Three additional felony charges were dismissed as part of the plea.
While in jail awaiting adjudication on the instant matter, the defendant accrued misconduct for fighting and interfering with the security and/or orderly operations of the jail.
His antisocial career started early.
· Age 13, the defendant menaced four teenagers with a simulated firearm and was referred for four counts of assault with a deadly weapon. He pled guilty to two charges, in exchange for dismissal of the others. By consent decree he was placed at the boys’ training school.
· That sentence was revoked, resulting in juvenile court placement, then probation, which was also revoked. He absconded and police returned him to the training school.
· Continued delinquency caused the series of revocations. At 14, the defendant was charged with simple assault, carrying concealed weapon, and carrying concealed weapon on school property, an incident where he assaulted another boy with a knife while at school. For this, he was adjudicated on the first two charges, the third charge was dismissed.
· Three months later, he had police contact for marijuana possession and interference with police, both of which were dismissed.
· At 17, police contacted the defendant for two counts of carrying weapons, two counts of assault while using or displaying a weapon, and harassment. He was adjudicated delinquent for assault and harassment, the remaining three charges were dismissed.
· Throughout his placements in the state training school, the defendant had numerous misconducts for interference with staff, assault, abusive language, truancy, disrupting the classroom, and fighting.
· At 18, the defendant pled guilty to public intoxication and served one day in jail.
· Three weeks later, police arrested the defendant for possession of a sawed-off shotgun, for which he was convicted and sentenced to over four years in federal prison. His subsequent supervised release was revoked twice for numerous law violations and noncompliance with supervision.
· While awaiting sentencing on the federal case, police arrested the defendant for armed robbery, assault while participating in a felony, unarmed robbery, conspiracy to commit a forcible felony, and interference with police. He received a 10-year state prison sentence served concurrently with his federal case.
· In both state and federal prison, the defendant was a member of security threat groups and engaged in extensive assaultive, weapon-related, and obstructive misconduct.
· Also at age 18, the defendant had three additional arrests for theft, unauthorized use of a weapon, carrying weapons, felony theft, and interference with police. County attorneys dismissed all charges given his pending prison sentences.
· At 23, while at a halfway house, the defendant escaped and was arrested for two new firearms offenses. During that incident, he fired a gun at a man who was walking down the street.
· At 25, the defendant was convicted of domestic violence assault and served two days in jail.
· At 26, police arrested the defendant for burglary, robbery, and assault, but all charges were dismissed.
· At 27, police arrested the defendant for cocaine possession and received a 1-year suspended prison sentence and probation.
· Two days later, police arrested the defendant for burglary and rape. The defendant threatened to murder the victim prior to and during the sexual assault. He pled guilty to burglary and received a 2-year suspended prison sentence and probation. Prosecutors dismissed the rape charge.
· At 28, the defendant was arrested for public intoxication, pled guilty, and served one day in jail.
· At 29, the defendant was arrested for disorderly conduct and criminal mischief stemming from a family violence dispute. He pled guilty to both charges and served 30 days in jail.
“A few times” is how psychopathic offenders with lengthy RAP sheets describe their prior number of arrests. It is a shoulder-shrug, gross minimization.
The defendant is a psychopath, scoring 31 on the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised. His psychopathy is most pronounced in the lifestyle, antisocial, and affective facets, with lower interpersonal deficits.
In addition, he has lifetime diagnoses for ADHD combined type, conduct disorder, adolescent onset, adjustment disorder with depressed mood, depression not otherwise specific, alcohol dependence, cannabis dependence, and cocaine abuse. Although he is a textbook case of antisocial personality disorder, he has never been diagnosed with that condition.
The defendant presents as withdrawn, with an air of resignation. He is unusually quiet. It is a sharp contrast to the consistently violent, aggressively noncompliant nature of his criminal history.
He provides minimal information in his answers, thus his pathological lying and manipulation are more passive than overt. The defendant says he has been arrested “a few times” in his life, to which, I say “Not just in one month, but in your entire life.”
The comment causes the defendant to smile and shrug his shoulders, sitting up straight in his chair is if ready to provide more accurate information. Throughout our interaction, that smile is the only indication of positive affect.
The defendant is a polysubstance abuser with alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, ecstasy, and synthetic marijuana history.
“How has your drug use contributed to your legal problems?”
That question sparks a significant reaction; the defendant connects his cases and various punishments to the substance that he was most abusing at the time.
“Which drug has caused you the most problems?”
“Alcohol.”
“Do you think alcohol is going to help with the depression?”
“Nothing helps. I’m doing all right. I have my ups and downs.”
There is no doubt his depressive disposition contributes to his slower, non-reactive interpersonal style. The internalizing features tax his interest in being too engaging or demonstrative.
Although his life history is textbook externalizing conduct, with lots of violence and weapons, he also carries a significant depressive burden.
Evasive about his behavioral history, the defendant is willing to discuss his drug use because he thinks it absolves his responsibility for his behavior. Drugs are the portal he can rely on to explain away his crimes.
It is pure blame externalization that nevertheless gets him talking.
During a lull, he suddenly interjects: “That’s probably why I went so far with the drugs, taking so much, taking more. If I OD, who cares, no more problems.”
The defendant has extensive relationship problems with family members, significant others, and peers. His consistent response in his evaluation about the quality of these relationships is they are “all right.”
“Since early adolescence, you have consistently used weapons—knives and guns—to hurt people in the community, who you were in a relationship with, and other offenders in prison. Violence and weapons are the consistent thread. What makes you assault, stab, or shoot someone else?”
“I guess we weren’t seeing eye to eye,” he suggests with a blank expression and a disquieting glint in his eyes.
Psychopathic offenders’ unfeeling affective style frequently becomes their interpersonal style. When asked why he assaults, stabs, or shoots his prior victims, the defendant blankly states, “I guess we weren’t seeing eye to eye.”
The defendant portrays that his offending history is limited, benign, and mostly just an outgrowth of his substance problems. He uses his drug use as a crutch to justify his criminal history.
He registers no emotion about his victims.
At no point does he suggest he is a violent person or acknowledge violent conduct. Awareness of an interviewee’s violence history can jar them from their typical reaction style, especially those who are under responsive.
Doing so can inadvertently produce forensic gems that highlight the affective voids—remorselessness, callousness, lack of empathy—so evident in psychopathic chronic offenders.
Regarding the armed robberies, shootings, and assaults with weapons on his record, the defendant advises he “needs to cut people off from his past.”
In a glib manner and oblivious tone, the defendant says “we need to stop holding onto the past.”
Referencing his heavy cocaine use and arrest for burglary and rape, a crime where he made explicit homicidal threats, the defendant indignantly states “They say I raped somebody.”
He refuses to discuss details of the incident, only saying that the rape charge was dismissed. “If something gets dismissed, it never happened.”
The discussion of the rape has touched a nerve. Psychopathic offenders often have no difficulty discussing their homicides, usually riffing with forensic details about the event. But they tend to resist the rapist label.
The defendant becomes sullen with this line of questioning, but offers a statement implying he knows full well he perpetrated the act, despite its legal dismissal.
“I was high anyway.”
***
Unlike their chatty and grandiose peers, psychopaths with lower interpersonal deficits can be very reluctant interviewees, content to sit quietly, shrug their shoulders, and see how much information the interviewer has.
Preparedness and a firm understanding of their developmental and criminal history provide opportunities for them to open up.
And psychopaths will open up and talk, particularly if it is in a context that to them mitigates their responsibility or presents them in a more positive light.