main | contact | curriculum | bookstore | library | newsletter |
State of Washington v. Robert Parker
Pre-trial Telephone Interview
State of Washington v. Robert Parker
-excerpted from Fitten R. "Defendant denies role in West Seattle Bridge slayings," The Seattle Times Company, Friday, January 29, 1999
"[Robert] Parker is charged with two counts of aggravated murder in the slayings of Renee Powell and Barbara Walsh. Both women, who lived about 100 yards apart, had been bound, gagged and stabbed. Both had items stolen from their apartments, and several fires were set at both apartments.
Powell was killed in February 1995; Walsh in March 1995. At the times of the killings, Parker was living nearby with his girlfriend, Princess Gray.
It was Gray who told her therapist in November 1996 she thought Parker was involved in the killings. Her therapist then contacted police. Gray then took police to her apartment, where property taken from the apartments of the victims was found. Gray told police Parker had brought the items into her home.
A few days later, she recanted, saying she only accused Parker because she was mad at him for his role in her being sent to jail. Gray was arrested in 1996 for assaulting Parker. She said she found the victims' items near a trash can not far from her apartment. She repeated her recantation to the jury earlier this month.
Parker denied killing the women, testifying that he couldn't recall where he was the night of the first slaying, and that he was asleep in bed when the second slaying occurred."
Gregg McCrary, a former FBI Profiler who retired from his work at the Behavioral Sciences Unit (BSU) in the early 1990s, was retained to profile this case for the defense in King County, Washington. He subsequently was allowed to testify in court to the issues and opinions he describes below.
Of note are the following:
NOTE: This material is a part of the public record for this case. It is freely available to anyone who submits a formal request to the court and pays the requisite fees.
SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON
FOR KING COUNTY
NO. 96-1-07511-2 SEA
STATE OF WASHINGTON vs. ROBERT PARKER
TRANSCRIPT OF TELEPHONE INTERVIEW WITH DEFENSE EXPERT WITNESS GREGG McCRARY
DPA'S/INTERVIEWERS: Don Raz, Gina Cahan
DEFENSE ATTORNEYS: Howard Phillips, Marcus Naylor
RAZ: Tape recorder which Mr.Carlstrom assures me will work properly and it is turning. The first question I would have Mr. McCrary, um, in this case you've done one declaration with one supplement.
McCRARY: Yes sir.
RAZ: Okay. Um, and the declaration and the supplement reflect all the opinions that you have reached in regard to this case?
McCRARY: There may be some sub-opinions other than that I may elaborate on, but these are the major opinions that I have, yes sir.
RAZ: Okay. Um, do both of those the declaration and the supplement, also reflect the underlying bases for your opinion?
McCRARY: Yes, sir, they do.
RAZ: Okay. And the supplement wasn't signed, I assume that it was supposed to be included into the declaration itself and the declaration signature would be evidence of your support of what was in the supplement?
McCRARY: That's right, Don. I incorporated by reference an attachment to my motion.
RAZ: Okay. Um, moving on to a different area. Mr. McCrary, what information have you reviewed in this case
RAZ: in order to come to your conclusions?
McCRARY: Okay. Let me go through this briefly with you. I have several documents that were forwarded to me for review, according to, what document is it called -- a Certification For Determination of Probable Cause, about a three page document. The police reports, crime scene diagrams, the like I said the police report itself, some reports from the fire, a fire determination report, let's see, we had an interview with Robert McDermott, autopsy report, both autopsy reports, there was, (hang on as I'm going through this stuff here) also some scene photos, some exterior aerial shots, there's some interior crime scene photos at the scene itself, at the scenes themselves. Then there's a transcript of an interview with Robert Keppel that's dated September 30th of '97. Then transcript of an interview with Sergeant Bob Gebo, for the record who's a friend of mine and a good guy, I think. Interview of Medical Examiner Dr. Harruff H A R R U F F. Then like a death certificate is here, the second autopsy report, and that's it.
RAZ: Let me just clarify on a couple of those - scene diagrams, or both of them
McCRARY: Hang on here, I've got a couple of things here I've misplaced. There was also an interview with Craig Mueller or Muller. And I think that's it. So go ahead, I'll try and clarify for you.
RAZ: Okay. I just wanted to add to the record that Dr. Keppel came in and he's just sitting here and he's our advisor on this.
RAZ: Um, the police reports, can you be specific as to what those are. Are they uh
McCRARY: Let me get back to them.
RAZ: Thank you.
McCRARY: Well there are diagrams of the crime scenes, the apartment and a body located in the apartment. There's also diagrams of apparently the apartment complex where the buildings are located. The police report - what I have here exactly, is a, the number is 95 0621111. And it's Anderson, Angie T., and a Sergeant Crumrine, I guess it is. And it's sort of a narrative report, a chronological narrative report at the scene. What they saw, what they viewed, what happened. Fire investigators coming and going, that sort of thing. And this is through, it looks like a 21-page report.
RAZ: And the officer attributed to that? I'm not sure.
McCRARY: There's also a name a Detective Knauss.
RAZ: Right. Knauss.
McCRARY: There's that one. Then I've got a report from King County Police also Knauss. K N A U S S. Let's see. This is, the number here on this one is 95-095228. And this appears to be, this is 5 of 5 pages on that report. Then the Fire Determination Report is King County Fire Marshall, their number is 95-062109 and there's some diagrams attached to that. That is an 11 page report, 12 page report, excuse me with 2 different diagrams.
RAZ: Is there just one fire determination report?
McCRARY: Uh, I'm going through. These may be in order here while I'm going through them, although I think there's another one on the next case.
McCRARY: down here further that I'm - just bear with me here. I'm - they're probably were in order at one point but uh - there is another Fire Determination report here which is No. 95-062109.
McCRARY: As far as the other official reports, and the autopsy reports of the two victims.
RAZ: Okay. And then uh, transcripts from Craig Mueller and Bob McDermott who were the fire investigators?
McCRARY: That's correct.
RAZ: And um after the scenes photos just generally, who many photos do you have in your possession? Ten, ninety
McCRARY: Let me tell you here, let me - I have, these are colored photo copies I have 16 pages and there are two photos per page.
RAZ: Oh. So 32.
RAZ: And the size of the photos, are they 4 x 6's or 8 x 10's or?
McCRARY: No the page itself is like an 8 x 11. So these would be like 4 x 6's, two on a page.
RAZ: Okay. You also have interviews with Keppel, Gebo, Harruff and that's about
McCRARY: Yes, I think that's about it, yes. McDermott, you said, right?
RAZ: I did say McDermott and Mueller?
McCRARY: Yes, uh huh.
RAZ: I guess I should have asked about, of the photos, what the respective breakdown of interior versus exterior?
McCRARY: Okay. Uh, some of these are also autopsy. So far, let me go through it here, I can tell you, I have one, two, all right, two photographs, two aerial photographs of exterior. That's all the exterior shots that there are.
McCRARY: Some of these are also autopsy shots. Let me go through them, if you want I'll break that down for you.
RAZ: Yeah, just if you could.
McCRARY: Yup, sure, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve. All right, I've got 20 scene photos and 10 apparently autopsy photos. Does that come out to 32?
RAZ: It does.
RAZ: Those are the little victories. Um, and pretty much those are all - that's all the documentation that you have received for your review?
McCRARY: That is correct.
RAZ: Let me just make sure of a couple of other items I was curious about. You didn't receive copies of the crime scene videos?
McCRARY: Uh, no.
RAZ: Okay. And you didn't get a detective's follow up that documented the defendant's statements to the detectives after his arrest?
McCRARY: Uh, that is correct.
RAZ: No copies or supporting documentation of property recovered that was identified as victims' property?
McCRARY: Uh, That is correct.
RAZ: No uh DNA materials for Forensics Science Associates?
McCRARY: Uh, no.
RAZ: And not provided with mental evaluations of Mr. Parker by Muriel Lezack, Kenneth Asher or Charles Lurid?
McCRARY: That is correct.
RAZ: Can I ask you, other than these materials that were provided, did the defense attorneys provide or describe to you, or provide you any information about the crime scenes?
McCRARY: Uh, no.
RAZ: Let me just ask my colleague if she had any further questions about the documentation.
CAHAN: I have two. Actually, did the defense attorneys tell you anything about the case, any information whatsoever?
McCRARY: Yes. I inquired as to why the DNA wasn't there. I was curious about that. And as to what the DNA showed. My understanding - what was represented to me by defense counsel was that the spermatozoa that was recovered was -- the DNA system was PCR and that it couldn't exclude the defendant in the case. It wasn't uh, again, I'm not a forensic scientist or DNA specialist, but it wasn't of such a high degree of concordance that it specifically identified him sort of to the exclusion of all others, but on the other hand it couldn't exclude him either. So it was in that sort of a continuum is the word where the DNA evidence. The other thing that was represented to me even though I didn't have the statements was that the defendant's girlfriend apparently had some material stolen or some items stolen from the scene of these homicides in her possession and at one point had alleged that he had confessed or he had given her this stuff and then she retracted, retracted that confession I think at some point. So that's all the discussion that we had about the case. Again, I was uh, retained primarily to look at the crime scene and analyze the crime scene so this other stuff, you know, it's certainly important in the overall investigation, but it wasn't critical to me when I was doing a crime scene evaluation.
CAHAN: Can I get you to specify - what were you specifically asked to do?
McCRARY: Uh, to do a crime scene analysis and to uh look at this and interpret it as to the degree of organization or disorganization, talk about the type of offender, perhaps describe some characteristics and traits, pre-offense behavior, perhaps some post-offense behavior, and look at the crime scene and analyze the crime scene from the behavioral perspective.
RAZ: So you were asked to uh, I guess, as best you could, do a profile of the offender?
RAZ: Um, I mentioned, I asked you about a number of things moments ago that you had not received. Would any of those been significant for the review you were asked to perform?
McCRARY: When we're doing this sort of behavioral analysis or profiling, we don't like suspect information because that can taint the objectivity of the analysis. So typically we ask not to see that sort of information. We prefer and I prefer just to look at the crime scene itself and look at the offender behavior and not be, not run the risk of being tainted by suspect information.
RAZ: Okay. We'll move on to a different area now. You um, are
CAHAN: Can I ask a question. Would you describe - one second, okay?
RAZ: Are you there?
PHILLIPS: Hello, yes. I think they may have uh.
NAYLOR: Yea, it sounds like they went away.
RAZ: No, no. We're still here.
CAHAN: We're here.
RAZ: We heard everything you say, Howard.
CAHAN: Okay, one second.
CAHAN: Okay, never mind.
RAZ: Okay, uh. There are some other areas here. Mr. McCrary, you're not a psychiatrist or a psychologist, is that correct?
McCRARY: Uh, that's correct.
RAZ: And you have not conducted an interview of Mr. Parker or been asked to evaluate him in any way?
McCRARY: That's correct.
RAZ: So you're not in a position to offer any opinion as to Mr. Parker's abilities mentally or his abilities to perform any of the criminal activities that comprise these two crimes?
McCRARY: Uh, that's correct.
RAZ: Okay. Um, you are currently employed as an associate with Park Dietz & Associates?
McCRARY: Uh, yes, that's uh, I'm an independent contractor as far as the business relationship, I'm an independent contractor with Park Dietz & Associates as well as his other corporation, the Threat Assessment Group. And then I run my own consulting business as well.
RAZ: Can you tell us generally what services you offer to your employers?
McCRARY: Uh, yes. Uh, I work in primarily two areas. One is in this area of providing expert testimony to either criminal or civil litigation dealing with violent crimes. Civil litigation mostly at the premise liability violent crime sort of thing and then obviously criminal litigation speaks for itself. And I do that either independently or through Park Dietz & Associates, just depending upon who sources the work. And then the other area is with the threat assessment group where I work with Park Dietz and the group in work place violence and work place violence prevention. We've trained approximately 200 of the Fortune 500 companies in work place violence and how to a lot of that deals with threat assessments, assessments of dangerousness, how to deal with potentially violent employees and that sort of thing. So that's the overview of what I'm involved in.
RAZ: And, uh, can you roughly tell us how often you are employed by police, defense or prosecutors in your current capacity?
McCRARY: Uh, not terribly often on criminal cases. I've offered, since I've retired I think I've testified in criminal cases as far as testimony, I've testified in one case in Boston. I've been retained by the police and uh, some work I've done for free for police on profiling and things when they just don't have money and they'd like some answers and I've worked a number of cases with police departments, you know, pro bono sort of basis. I'm, this is the only case I've been retained on by defense counsel.
RAZ: Now you indicated that you've since leaving, let me clarify -- since leaving the FBI you've testified once in court, is that correct?
McCRARY: Oh no. I've testified once for prosecution in a criminal case, I've testified probably 20 to 30 times in civil litigation.
RAZ: And um, in the criminal case, what was the subject matter of your testimony?
McCRARY: Uh, that was in a case called The Commonwealth v. O'Brien in Massachusetts. And it dealt with a transfer hearing of a 15-year old youth who'd stabbed a neighbor, the mother of his best friend. He'd stabbed her about 100 times and there were some sort of subtle sexual components there at the crime scene that I interpreted as well as the violence and that sort of thing. And that was in a transfer hearing to determine whether or not uh the defendant should be transferred from the juvenile court to the adult court.
RAZ: Have you testified as to profiling?
McCRARY: No. I've testified to crime analysis and crime scene analysis which is what I testified to in that case and what we typically testify to. We don't testify to profiling per se, we analyze the crime and the crime scene.
RAZ: Okay. Um, let me ask this. Throughout your career have you ever testified to profiling or behavioral assessment?
McCRARY: Uh, not directly to profiling but certainly to behavioral assessments of crimes and crime scenes. And what that behavior might imply. For example, that was the subject matter of the O'Brien case up there. It wasn't that I was profiling the case, or profiling the offender, I was analyzing and testifying as to the behavior the offender exhibited during the course of the commission of the crime.
RAZ: Okay. Are you aware of anyone else that you've been associated with throughout your career, either with Park Dietz or with the FBI who have testified actually to profiling or a profile that was generated after a crime scene assessment?
McCRARY: Uh, it is my understanding that profile testimony per se has not been entered into evidence. Sort of what we testify to is crime scene and crime scene analysis and uh, there are two sort of -- crime scene is part of the overall crime analysis but it goes to motivation, uh we may talk about the potential here for pre or post offense behavior in the over all crime analysis. The crime scene would deal specifically with the behavior at the crime scene. But as far as offering a profile that this is probably, you know, say hypothetically a white male in his 30's and that sort of thing, that to my knowledge has not been testified to.
RAZ: Um, you made, I guess maybe it's just easier to refer to them as one, the declaration, including the supplement, you've indicated that you and/or colleagues, I take it from the FBI, have testified previously in cases. And I was unclear as to what the subject matter of those cases that you were referring to, what the subject matter of the testimony was that you were referring to.
McCRARY: Uh, huh. Well it could have been just these things I'm telling you about that myself and agents I've worked with and agents I still continue to work with and some retired agents as well offer testimony on a variety of different issues in court. But it deals primarily as I said with crime and crime scene analysis and interpreting the behavior of offenders in the commission of the crime. There may be other areas -- crime analysis is another area, again it's not profiling, but it deals with the behavior of the offender of potentially linking crimes together based on behavior evidence, that sort of thing.
RAZ: Well let me ask you specifically about the, you know, I think there are four or five areas or topics that you have in your declaration, beginning with the first one which I guess would be called signature analysis or at least the conclusion that you draw that both of these crime scenes were probably caused by or done by the same person?
RAZ: Have you testified to signature analysis in court before?
McCRARY: Uh, I have.
RAZ: How many times, and if you know, if it's a small number and you know the specific cases and locations,
McCRARY: Yup. NO, I've only testified one time to signature crime analysis and that was in a serial murder case in Austria. And it involved the analysis of 11 homicides that occurred, one in Prague, Czechoslovakia, seven in different places in Austria and three in Los Angeles. We had an inter-continental serial murder case I was involved in. And I testified as to the signature crime analysis linking those 11 crimes together.
RAZ: Um, as to uh disorganized vs. organized crime scenes. Have you been called upon to testify either in your current capacity or with the FBI on that?
McCRARY: Uh, well yes. I mean, that many times is woven into the fabric of a lot of the testimony as to the degree of organization or disorganization of again an offender. So it hasn't necessarily been the specific topic, but it's many times woven into there in the testimony itself.
RAZ: Yeah. Any idea how many times it would have been woven in during the testimony?
McCRARY: Almost every time we deal with that issue on homicide, on homicide cases. You are always evaluating the degree of organization or disorganization at the scene and that will tell you different things about the offender. For example, in civil cases the issue many times is deterability and degree of criminal sophistication and you know, it's a little bit speculative to a degree but what certain types of security have deterred this particular offender from committing this sort of crime so we're always evaluating the level of organization and criminal sophistication a given offender displays.
RAZ: As to victimology, have you been called upon to testify to that in court?
McCRARY: Yes. That's also a thing that's pretty consistently woven into the overall crime or crime scene analysis is the victimology of looking at, you know looking at that as part of the overall assessment, that's a critical part of the crime analysis. And again that's another aspect that's woven into most every case.
RAZ: Forgive me, I should have asked this before the victimology question, but in regard to disorganized or organized testimony, has that come up in any criminal cases that you've testified in?
McCRARY: Well I think that it's, like I say, it's in there, uh, sometimes its uh, its not specifically the focus many times but like I say, it's woven in to the fabric of the testimony we're talking about, how sophisticated a given crime or crime scene may be. You know, for example, it's woven in there if we're talking about staging or staged crime scenes. There may be, we're talking always about the level of organization and an organized offender may be is more likely to stage a crime scene. And then we'll look at that and how sophisticated was the staging and that would give us some idea of the level of criminal sophistication or intelligence of the offender. So this whole idea of organization or disorganization is sort of a foundation that's always there when we're testifying.
RAZ: Well let me ask this: Have you ever been specifically asked to decide whether a crime scene is organized or disorganized in a, in any case?
McCRARY: Uh, again, that's part of the testimony in, it isn't either A or B, it isn't either organized or disorganized. We try and place it on a continuum which is really the proper way to conceptualize this. It isn't black or white, its A or B organized or disorganized, it's going to be a - the way the analogy I use is like a color spectrum. You have black on one end and white on the other but in between there are many different shades and hues and blues and greens and blue-greens and yellows and oranges and reds, etc. And where on this continuum does this particular, or a particular crime fall - is it more organized, is it highly organized, is it a little more disorganized, etc. So that's always in the fabric of the testimony.
RAZ: So really what you're saying is that using the disorganized and organized continuum you can't really say one way or the other that it is organized or disorganized, but it would fall somewhere on that continuum.
McCRARY: Well it's going to be more organized or more disorganized. Some have mixed characteristics, you know, which are more of the you know, the middle of the road sort of case if you will, where there's elements of disorganization or organization but other are highly disorganized and other highly organized and yet others fall some place in the middle.
RAZ: Isn't it true that even now the FBI have included, or at least indicated in recent learned treatises or publications that they consider the in between thing a mixed category?
McCRARY: That is correct.
RAZ: So there is now organized mixed and and disorganized.
RAZ: Um, let me jump back to victimology. I know you just indicated that you have testified to that as it is woven into your crime scene assessment and other testimony. What I'd like to know is have you testified specifically as to offender characteristics, at least in the supplement to the declaration you indicate that this offender would likely have surveilled to some extent the women that eventually became his victims. Have you testified in court as to that conclusion, that either profile or assessment of what the offender must have been like in respect to his victims?
McCRARY: Uh, yes. That goes to victimology and how particular offenders works some pre select victims and other don't. And I have testified to the probability that that's what's occurred in a given crime.
RAZ: Uh, let me ask you, in this crime, what is the probability that the offender conducted some type of surveillance on his victims prior to attacking them?
McCRARY: I think it's highly probable that these victims were pre-selected for attack.
RAZ: I don't believe you indicate specifically what you mean by surveillance. Can you kind of define what the parameters of the word surveillance mean when you use it?
McCRARY: When I'm talking about. The pre selecting means these victims. We have two women who lived alone at the time of the attack. They were also doing, apparently involved in doing laundry and that sort of thing at the time of the attack. So I don't think that it's coincidence that he just happened to stumble into two women who lived alone who were doing the laundry at the time. I think that there is - it's more probable that this offender had surveilled for a period of time, had been in that area, either peeping or prowling or doing whatever he had to do to know that. Now that could be going into those apartments when they weren't there, we see that with different offenders for example who go in - some rapists do this to go in and pre select victims they do daytime break-ins to insure that there is not a male living there, no men's clothing in the closet, that sort of thing. So they know that that now is a potential target. Sometimes they do it by peeping or prowling at night. Sometimes they do it, you know, just by hanging out and being there in the area at different times and trying to blend in with the residents that live there. So I think it's very unlikely that he just got lucky twice and found women who lived alone and you know, were in the midst of doing their laundry. I think he was probably familiar with the laundry room, probably familiar with these women, at least to the extent that he knew that they lived alone and they would be viable targets if be got them back to their apartment that that would then be a safe environment for him to act out against these victims.
RAZ: SO it could be a minimal amount of surveillance up to an extensive amount? You just can't - that you won't be
McCRARY: Well I think it's probably more rather than, you know, more rather than less. I mean if he grabbed these women just coming out of the laundry room and didn't know anything else about them, it would be very risky thing and a dangerous thing for him to take them back to their apartment. Or even if they were entering their apartment to sort of, you know, come into the apartment without knowing who was there. So I think there is probably a little more surveillance here than less. I mean this is different than a woman who is just walking through a park and then just gets assaulted by a guy coming the other way. I mean, that's a very opportunistic sort of a crime and it's just, you know, a victim of opportunity really where I think in this case with that apartment complex being selected twice, with women who lived alone in apartments are doing their laundry, I think that all tips the scale in favor of more surveillance and more victim pre-selection rather than less.
RAZ: And um, I guess the scientific bases on which you support this conclusion are those that were stated in the sexual homicide patterns and motives by Ressler Burgess, Douglas, is that correct?
McCRARY: It's certainly based partly on that and the other part, and again, careful to say this is not science per se. This is based on training, experience, education and specialized knowledge. I don't know of any scientific test that can be applied to a given crime scene that would always yield this result. It's based on like I say training, experience, education, specialized knowledge.
KAZ: Okay, so it's not truly scientific. The only scientific research that arguably would play into this conclusion would come from that - the research in that book?
McCRARY: Well that book and the work that has been done on rapists and that. Basically violent offenders, how do they pre select, how do they target victims. DO they pre select or don't they pre select. And then of course, you know the many cases I've been involved in as well.
RAZ: And would you not agree that your opinion that the offender would have been conducting some surveillance would, in fact be based on our victims here, would in fact be a profile or an aspect of the profile of the offender who likely committed these crimes?
McCRARY: Well, the profiling is - this is not specifically profiling. I am not telling you that this is a white guy or a black guy that's this old or that way. What we're talking about is crime analysis and crime scene analysis. In this case it's crime analysis which deals with the pre-offense behavior and the likelihood. In other words, when you're looking at victimology you're trying to determine what, if anything elevated these particular individuals to be at risk for becoming the victim of a violent crime. And they did not lead, my understanding, that there is no evidence that I'm aware of, that they led a lifestyle or engaged in high risk behavior that would have elevated their chance for becoming the victim of a violent crime like being a prostitute or involved in drug dealing, or anything like that. These women were home alone doing their laundry which is overall a pretty safe thing to be engaged in. So when that happens you've got, you know, you begin to look elsewhere as to what elevated their risk and in this case the probability is that they were targeted. Now that doesn't so much profile the offender, it just outlines the dynamics of the crime.
RAZ: But at least it does say something about the offender, that the offender used surveillance as part of his means to carry out the crime?
McCRARY: Right. There's a way to overlook, I mean, a way that this overlaps where I suppose you could (unintelligible) it's, think of it, it could be seen, I suppose if you wanted to look at it that way as potentially profiling, but it isn't profiling in the sense I'm telling you, or attempting to tell you what type offender did this. I just explained during a behavioral analysis of the crime and crime scene, I'm telling you about the probabilities that led up to these women being victimized.
RAZ: Moving on to the criminal history conclusions...
RAZ: ...that you draw about the offender in this case. How often have you testified to that in court?
McCRARY: Well, I'm trying to think. It has come up, this has come up on several occasions, I couldn't give you an exact number, for example, I know I testified to that in the O'Brien case up in Massachusetts, about sort of developmental issues and background history of violent offenders, you know, in that case, so, I've done it, I can't, I couldn't give you an exact number but I have testified to that.
RAZ: Okay, so, the O'Brien case is the one that sticks out in your mind, but there were other criminal cases that you would have testified to, testified to that in regards to.
McCRARY: Yes sir.
RAZ: Now, that would be profiling testimony, correct? I mean, you are drawing a conclusion about...
McCRARY: We are getting closer to, we're getting closer to profiling testimony because that deals less with the crime and the crime scene itself and more with what we've found to be in the background of the particular individual, so it moves a little closer to that, you know, into that arena than strictly a crime or crime scene analysis, yes sir.
RAZ: Okay. And, these conclusions are based upon the statistics generated by the F.B.I. studies found in sexual homicide patterns and motives?
McCRARY: That's the basis but again I go back to the point I mentioned earlier, it's also based on my experience education of specialized knowledge working with many many violent crime cases.
RAZ: I just wanted to clarify that the statistics reflected in the supplement to the declaration, they, there are a number of percentages offered here.
McCRARY: Yes sir.
RAZ: I'm just trying to understand those and just looking at the first paragraph after the heading of criminal history and developmental issues, you say daydreaming 82%.
RAZ: That's 82% of more than 50% of the 36 individuals interviewed, or 33 of the individuals?
McCRARY: That would be the percentage of the interviews, I'd have to get the book out and look at exactly what the number was on that to see what the end was to determine what that, what that (unintelligible)was, but, again it's in that book, (unintelligible) for anyone to look at.
RAZ: And I was just confused over, you know, it says over 50%, this is what's in your supplements and declaration, over 50% of the murders report the following present in childhood.
RAZ: It says daydreaming, 82%.
RAZ: So is that 82% of slightly more than 50% of the murderers?
McCRARY: No, that's, my understanding is that's the whole thing - in other words you see each one of those percentages is over 50% (unintelligible) included in that, and those are things that we considered obviously statistically significant if you've got over half the people reporting these things then, then this is indicative of two sets of patterns.
RAZ: As to the criminal history, are you able to say with a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that he would in fact have reported or recorded criminal history?
McCRARY: It's my opinion that I think it's highly probable that this offender would have based on the behavioral aspects of the crime and the crime scene, he seemed very comfortable around the dead bodies, the amount of time he spent, to me, it's consistent with an offender who has some sort of a criminal history, now, I grant that a lot of the criminal histories, a lot of offenders don't get arrested for every crime and many times the crimes that they're arrested for are just the tip of the iceberg and many times are a lot of other offenses that go, you know undetected or unreported because he hasn't been charged, but offenders who commit this sort of crime typically have some sort of a violent history as reflected again the stats there come out of the book I believe it was like 6% had no prior sexual assault conviction and 38% had four or more such convictions, so I think that it's highly probable that this offender probably has had some encounter with law enforcement with the criminal justice system for either sexually violent crimes or perhaps some arson related incidents.
RAZ: So, this is part, your conclusions are part from this study and part from experience and training, just various cases you've been involved with. You would only be able to testify as to probable, highly probable, but you wouldn't be in a position to testify as to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty?
McCRARY: Well, this is not science. I would testify to the, along those lines you just indicated, what would be probable, highly probable, somewhat probable, you know that sort of thing, I mean more probable than not would be the way I would typically phrase my opinions.
RAZ: Okay. The more probable than not, would that be the standard that you would apply to...
McCRARY: (unintelligible) some things I think are highly probable, like for example, we go back to the victim pre-selection and doing that, I think it's, more powerful than that, I think it's better than 52% or 55%, I think it's up fairly close to 90% that he, or better, that he had targeted or pre-selected these victims in some manner, so, some of these things I feel very strongly about, I think would be more highly probable, some maybe more probable than not.
RAZ: The criminal history would be more probable than not?
McCRARY: Yes sir.
McCRARY: Okay. Sorry about that. I'm back.
RAZ: Okay, I should let the defense know that our tape recorded stopped at one point here so we might have missed a little bit of that last conclusion, but let me go back, let me just go back to that, and the tape recorder is still working, so you would say that it is more probable than not that he would monitor the crime scene and crime scene investigation after the murder?
McCRARY: Uh, yes.
RAZ: And the, were you told what type of trip the defendant took after this?
McCRARY: I'm not aware of any, I don't want suspect information, I'm not aware about anything what the suspect did or didn't do.
RAZ: Okay, so, let me ask you this. I mean, if the trip was a short one, you would be less likely to find that unusual activity as opposed to a long trip where he may be out of the country or out of the state or away from media sources or other sources that may report on the investigation of this case?
McCRARY: Well I think he would be, he'd find a way I think to monitor this situation and want to follow it, he's evidence conscious (unintelligible), in the crime scene he's trying to obliterate evidence, he's trying to destroy it, he's trying not to get caught, I think this is someone who is going to be a little more keenly interested than other offenders who just really don't care or are oblivious to what they're doing and leave a lot of evidence around and so forth. So I think this offender is going to find a way to monitor the investigation.
CAHAN: What's your definition of monitor?
McCRARY: Well, it depends on the situation. A lot of these guys like to stick around, we have some organized offenders who inject themselves in the investigation. They become witnesses. They come forward, they do this. Others are less active and watch the news, follow the media, guys who normally wouldn't care about the six o'clock news, or care about the morning paper will pick it up and read it because it's about them and what they've done and there is undoubtedly a bit of thrill to that for them, it's a sense of power and they enjoy the notoriety even though they can't come forward to claim credit for it. But yet it also, it's sort of damage assessment, how am I doing, am I in trouble, or am I not in trouble, what's going on and so forth. So, we're talking about monitoring it can be that sort of passive monitoring of monitoring the news and the media, some actively inject themselves in the investigations and some of these crimes where they come forward and put themselves at or near the crime scene or come forward as a witness or get involved in some way. I don't necessarily see that happening in this case, but I, my sense of it is this is someone who is going to be interested enough to monitor what's going on in the media, because the media again, is probably the easiest conduit of information about what the status of the investigation is, the evening news and the newspapers and that sort of thing. So when I say monitor, I'm talking about someone who would be interested in that end of it and probably engage in those sorts of activities.
CAHAN: So is it your opinion in this case, from your crime scene assessment, that it was passive monitoring?
McCRARY: I think more likely than not, that they would monitor the news and the media and maybe be aware of what was going on in the neighborhood and stay somewhat close to it in that regard, less likely to take an active role and inject themselves in the investigation.
CAHAN: Well, is it your opinion in this case that the person could have just got away for a couple of hours and still come back and watched the news that night?
McCRARY: Uh, yeah, I think certainly that he could have gone away for a couple of hours and come back, yeah.
RAZ: Have you been called upon to testify to this subject area in any criminal case before?
McCRARY: To post-offense behavior?
McCRARY: I'm trying to think. Well, to the degree, post-offense behavior in some of the serial cases like the signature crime case, (unintelligible) talking about it's post-offense behavior, but it's really interim behavior between the crimes. It's after one crime and before another. So, I've testified, and the same with like serial rapes sort of thing, I mean, between the crimes and sort of post-offense behavior, post-offense from one crime but pre-offense to another. So it's that sort of interim behavior that I testified to.
RAZ: So it's been more interwoven with other testimony rather than specifically said, can you tell us what, more likely than not, the offender did in regard to monitoring after the crime was committed? In other words, you weren't called on specifically to testify this opinion, you just came up as part of the testimony and explanation of other testimony?
McCRARY: I'd say that's been my experience. It's been in there but it's been more or less in that sort of a context.
RAZ: And you would agree that this type of testimony would be profiling testimony because it calls upon you based on experience and scientific studies done by the F.B.I. to draw a conclusion about what the perpetrator would be doing after his crime based on what you saw in the crime scene.
McCRARY: It gets closer to profiling testimony, it deals with offender behavior, but then so does the behavioral aspects of the crime and crime scene. Again, I'm not describing a particular individual, I'm not providing personality traits, age and race and that sort of thing. It's perhaps one step closer to that, it's part of the overall crime analysis as pre offense offense, post-offense sort of behavior, so it's under the larger umbrella of crime analysis.
RAZ: Let me ask you this. What is your definition of profiling?
McCRARY: Profiling is a description of offender characteristics and traits in unknown cases. Where we provide specific characteristics and traits of an offender that this is say, hypothetically, you know the offender is a white male and put him within an age bracket of seven years or so and talk about the characteristics and traits of him, now some of this may overlap, we may talk about prior criminal history, we may talk about some of this (unintelligible) that they might look for, so there is some, a bit of overlap in some of this, but we're talking about profiling, we're talking about the description of characteristics and traits of a given offender. For example, with a sex crime, we might talk about the underlying sexual pathology of a given offender, if there's indication of say sexual sadism or some parasylic disorder, we might talk about those things, those particular characteristics and traits that may help define the offender.
RAZ: I'm concerned about what characteristics and traits mean to you, as an example, would a perpetrator who would be inclined to return to the dump location, would that be a characteristic that you would include into, I mean the body dumping location, would that be a characteristic that you would include in the profile?
McCRARY: That could be, it would depend on what his behavior has been, if there's some reason to believe that. Now, is that, (unintelligible) less of a profile and more of an observation made about what be might be doing. That may fall more into, again, these things kind of move, together, from that, that might be an investigative consideration that we would offer if we think that has occurred, but that could be part of the crime analysis, in other words, when you look at a crime scene, say if someone has been, say a victim has been subjected to post-mortem mutilation, then the chances are that this offender has returned to that scene to do that. Now that is not so much as a characteristic and trait of the offender as it is a crime scene assessment. And yet these things are all woven together, it isn't so much a characteristic and trait of the offender as it is an analysis and interpretation of the crime and crime scene.
RAZ: What about, I mean, you offer an opinion that someone, suppose a serial killer of prostitutes would be more likely to be an average looking fellow who would not draw attention to himself and would just blend in and be able to convince prostitutes who are normally savvy, to go along with him even though there was a rash of homicides going on. Would that be part of the profile of the person who is the perpetrator?
McCRARY: Yes, yeah sure, to a degree that would be, again here, we are deciding characteristics and traits the offender, not so much the crime or the crime scene, but that would be more along the lines of describing the characteristics and traits of the offender.
RAZ: So the closer it gets to describing the characteristics and traits of the offender then it would be closer to being profiling testimony?
McCRARY: I'm sorry, can you ask that again?
RAZ: The more it describe the characteristics of the offender...
RAZ: ...the more likely it is to be profiling testimony, under your definition of profiling?
McCRARY: Yes sir.
RAZ: Okay. Let me just see if my colleague has other questions as to this area and then we would go back to disorganized versus organized.
CAHAN: How do you define crime scene assessments, behavioral assessments?
McCRARY: Well, it's just what we've been talking about. It's assessing the behavior of the offender during the commission of the crime. In other words, the offender has a number of choices to make while he commits the crime and we are going to analyze all of those choices and the behavior that he exhibits during the course of the commission of the crime.
RAZ: Just one moment.
RAZ: Let's just go back to organized versus disorganized. It's true to say that you don't offer an opinion in the declaration or in the supplement to the declaration as to whether this crime scene is organized or disorganized?
McCRARY: That's correct.
RAZ: Okay. And I assume that's because it is somewhat impossible to either arrive at either of those two definitive ends of the continuum.
McCRARY: Well it's, my opinion is in this particular crime scene, is that it's, it would fall into the mixed category with some indication of organization. There is also, (unintelligible) any indications of disorganization at the scene, there are some, but there are some rather strong indications of organization as well, so this to me would be one of these things that we could sort it out and talk about the different behaviors that are there, but it would be sort of a mixed category with some components of organization to it.
RAZ: Okay. And with that opinion, to what degree do you hold that opinion?
McCRARY: To a high degree.
RAZ: That it is mixed, some indication of organized, um, what does that tell you about, I mean, can you draw any conclusion about the mental abilities or intellectual level of the offender from that opinion of mixed organization?
McCRARY: Well, yeah, I think this is again, on the continuum, it's more organized than disorganized, but certainly in the mixed continuum, it isn't a highly organized crime, but there's lots of indications here of sort of adaptability and resourcefulness in the ability to control the victims, I think all of that is in there, which all goes to meet a more sophisticated offender, one who's probably capable and confident interpersonal skills being able to control victims, lure them perhaps, you know, back to their apartment or whatever, the use of restraints, he's a sexually confident offender, all of these things go to the more sort of organized offender, which would be by definition, sort of a more intelligent, adaptive and resourceful sort of an offender.
RAZ: Now you would agree that those conclusions that you just drew about the perpetrator here, based on your observations and consideration of the organized or disorganized nature of the crime scene would be a profile?
McCRARY: That would be more profiling type testimony, what I'd testified to (unintelligible) in the past, that just the crime scene itself whether it would be a more organized or more disorganized, and what that and why that might be, and so I certainly feel strongly about the organization of the crime scene and the adaptability (unintelligible) that's shown in the sexual standpoint, sexual competency of the offender, we're talking about apparently penile penetration, some spermatozoa found vaginally in the first victim, the use of restraints, that sort of thing. And again, the thing that we don't see here that we see in disorganized attacks which is sort of a frenzied nature to the crime many times a blitz attack when those things are absent, and then in their place you have this it tends to reflect a more organized sort of a scene.
RAZ: So you have been called upon in the past to testify to just the organized disorganized mix but you have not been called upon, or allowed, to testify to the next step, about what your observations mean about the perpetrator, or indicate about the perpetrator?
McCRARY: That's correct.
RAZ: Are you aware of anybody that's been allowed to testify in that regard, either profilers associated with the F.B.I. or other profilers?
McCRARY: I am not aware of anyone that's offered that sort of testimony, no. That doesn't mean that it might not have happened someplace, I'm just not aware of it.
RAZ: Right. So it's most likely that, in your profession, you would have probably come in, the position you hold in (unintelligible) your profession you probably would have become aware of it?
McCRARY: Probably, but again, I, you know, I'm not out researching every case that (unintelligible) everyone have testified in.
RAZ: Um, now, as to the organized versus disorganized, that is addressed with a chapter in the sexual homicide patterns and motives book by Ressler, Burgess and Douglas?
RAZ: However, that chapter doesn't indicate what scientific basis or if there were any scientific basis relied upon in creating those two categories. Um, what, I guess my question is, is this an investigative classification that has been put together by the F.B.I to help explain crime scenes or is it, you know, something that has been generated scientifically?
McCRARY: Um, I don't think any of this has been generated scientifically, um, again, I come back to the idea that this is experience and specialized knowledge, it's not a hard science, it isn't chemistry, it isn't mathematics where you are going to always get, (unintelligible) not everyone is going to be able to replicate and experiment and come up with the same results every, every time. It's based on training, experience, education, specialized knowledge, it's, for example, you bring in an expert in art to give you an evaluation of a painting, you know, is this a real Picasso or a Rembrandt or isn't it and how much is it worth? That's expert testimony but it's not scientific, it's, and what I'm talking about is parallel to that sort of testimony. It's not scientific in nature yet it's based on specialized knowledge and training and education.
RAZ: I think you have indicated this in one of the answers that you have given but I just wanted to be a little bit more precise. The characteristics that indicate, the characteristics of organization that you find present in these crime scenes would be what? There were mixed and then there are some indicators of organized, what are those?
McCRARY: Right. (unintelligible) talk about a couple of these things. Apparently there's indication of planning and pre-selection and targeting of the victim. It looks as though there was no blitz attack or physical force used to either gain or maintain control over the victim, so we've got some sort of interpersonal skill here, which would go to someone confident in their ability to use a con or a ruse approach to get these victims alone. The use of restraints. For example, to control the victim. This is something we typically see in more organized offenders. The sexual penetration, penile penetration, is something we see in more organized offenders, the evidence consciousness here to try and obliterate the evidence through arson, again, those are the things that I see that tend to come down on the side of organization.
RAZ: And it is true though, however, that the arson could have other reasons why it's involved in this crime scene rather than solely to obliterate evidence? It could be...
McCRARY: Are you asking me, could it have?
RAZ: Yes, could it have other importance to the perpetrator rather than just to destroy evidence?
McCRARY: It's possible. It certainly is and that's a very valid question because we have multiple, many times multiple motivations in offenders who exhibit behavior and many times there is more than one motivation for any particular behavior that you've seen. Now, he may like lighting fires, I mean, he may have, he may find that thrilling to do that as well, he may enjoy that, so there may be that motivation as well, and then it just happens to destroy evidence as well. But I think when you see fire set here like in the vaginal area, around the vaginal area of the victim, I think we're talking about a more concentrated effort there to obliterate or destroy evidence. So, it could be a mix of potential motives.
RAZ: How would you describe then, at the Walsh scene, the second murder, there were fires set in some unusual locations, there was one fire set that was a number of empty Pepsi bottles, two quart jugs that had not appeared to be set in a location that would (unintelligible) destruction of the kitchen area. Um, I guess, what would you make of those?
McCRARY: Um, again, I said there can be multiple motivations for this behavior, I think some of the arson could be there for obliterating evidence, and others could be there in that type of thing just for the fun of setting fires. Perhaps they think it's going to confuse investigators if they have multiple points of origin that, you know, it's hard to know exactly what the offender was thinking, but, that sort of thing is important when you look at things the offender did that he didn't need to do and choices that he made, he didn't need to set those Pepsi bottles on fire up there, and that's what leads me to believe that there's probably a pre offense history of fire setting and arson, because he seems to be doing more of this than needs to be, being done. He seems to enjoy it for it's own sake, so I think there maybe multiple motivations on this particular case.
RAZ: You speak about blitz attack and how the absence of that indicates more likely some type of con or some type of ruse to be used to gain entry into the apartment, are you saying on your analysis here that there wasn't any type of physical attack that may have allowed the perpetrator to gain entry into the apartment?
McCRARY: Well, usually in the disorganized scene, we see some sort of a blitz attack, and let me define that for you. I'm talking about the immediate application of injurious physical force to overcome the resistance that the victim may have, may have thought about employing or using. And usually what it is, is the offender immediately attacks the victim, punches, kicks, and then renders them helpless or establishes control over them in that manner. And then there's no need to fend for restraints, they don't use restraints they don't do that sort of thing because they usually typically beaten or stabbed or whatever or blitzed the victim into submission, so, I didn't really see that in this case, any strong evidence that there was a blitz attack here, and then of course there was clear evidence of use of restraints.
RAZ: Um, but you couldn't rule out that there wasn't some type of physical attack, maybe not meeting your definition of blitz attack, but, there could have been a grabbing or a production of a weapon, such as a knife, that could have achieved the same type of violent control over the situation as opposed to some type of verbal manipulation of the victim?
McCRARY: Certainly there could have been a combination of those things, but that's not a blitz attack. Again, going back to the definition I'm using in blitz attack being the immediate application of injurious physical force, displaying of a weapon to control a victim is common, you know, that certainly could have, the possibility of that occurring is certainly there, but again, it's someone who relies on their ability to intimidate and control the victim other than by physical force, that they've got confidence in their ability to control a victim in some other way other than through the application of injurious physical force.
RAZ: Let me ask my colleague here if she has some, (unintelligible) she did pass me a note with some questions here, um, as to, jumping back, as to the likely actions of the perpetrator after the crime, when we were talking about monitoring of the crime scene, um, are you in a position based on the different experiences that you've had, to render an opinion about what his demeanor may have been like after the crime? I mean, can you make that call, or is there any evidence, scientific evidence that could assist you in making that type of call?
McCRARY: Well, sometimes we talk about that in the post-offense behavior as far as describing demeanor of an individual. Again, I think this is an individual that has shown a degree, some degree of organization here in the crime scene, I don't think that he's going to become totally devastated by the crime, I think he's going to be very interested in the crime in following it, but it isn't the sort of (unintelligible) disorganized crime where someone gets drunk, they commit a crime, and then they realize what they've done and it's oh my God, what have I done, and they go into sort of a tailspin where they may try and employ maladaptive coping mechanisms like staying drunk for a week or something like that. Um, I don't think that indicates that this offender is more organized, he would have been interested in the crime scene, in the investigation, would have followed the investigation, monitored it, but I don't know if he would have been terribly, that there would be any dramatic change in his demeanor, other than an interest in this particular crime and crime scene. That might have been the most notable thing that would be some interest in that. But other than that, I wouldn't see a huge change in the behavior.
RAZ: So he could probably project a demeanor not unlike his demeanor prior to the murder to individuals who may have contacted him after the murder?
McCRARY: Possibly. He may have been a little more rigid, but, the thing would have been distinguishing his interest in the crime and crime scene. (unintelligible) Investigation and what was going on with it.
RAZ: But other than that interest, he very well may have, otherwise you probably wouldn't have noticed anything.
McCRARY: I don't think he's the type of guy who would go on a five day drunk or go shoot up a lot of dope, or decompensate in some pathological way like that. I think there would be a little more rigidity on the part of the offender, there's always the, remember he's trying to get away with this crime, he's trying To obliterate evidence, he's doing his best, and there's going to be some stress, there's going to be some stress afterwards, so I think he's going to be a little more rigid, he's going to try and control that rigidity and he's going to be interested in the crime, so those around him may have seen a little more rigidity, a tightness, a little more concern and an interest in the crime.
RAZ: Excuse me a minute.
CAHAN: You'd agree that what you just stated about characteristics of the offender would then be profilative? Correct?
McCRARY: When we're talking about this sort of thing? Right.
McCRARY: Right. We're getting closer to profiling (unintelligible) characteristics of the offenders, when we get into post offense behavior, so we're moving in that direction, yes ma'am.
RAZ: And um, as to that opinion, we just asked you, you haven't testified with that type of opinion before in court, on a criminal case?
McCRARY: Not that I recall. Not specifically, I'm trying to think. Again, the, sometimes the serial crime we talked about that interim behavior, which is post-offense as well as pre offense behavior, but I don't know that I've testified to that directly.
RAZ: Okay. Let me ask my colleague here if she has any questions, I have one other question that I'm sure I will butcher horribly, but um...
CAHAN: One second.
RAZ: Okay. Let me try to ask an intelligent question. Um...
McCRARY: You've done very well counselor.
RAZ: Thanks. Well, all of that will go probably down the drain now, um, I know that you have, you indicated that based on the indications at the scene that your opinion would be, the perpetrator would be, and I don't know if you used the word intelligent, but you indicated more either organized, not organized, this is why it's hard for me to say, are you able to draw any conclusion about his intelligence level, based on your evaluation of the crime scene and whether it's organized or disorganized?
McCRARY: My opinion would be that because of the elements that we've talked about, the elements of organization, that this is going to be someone a little more criminally sophisticated someone who is going to be perhaps of average intelligence, maybe slightly more than average intelligence, who's going to be able to adapt and react, you know, to the crime scene and to things as they unfold (unintelligible) doesn't seem to be a person who is panicky, this is someone who spent some time there, so, I tend to see it as a more criminally sophisticated individual than someone who is criminally unsophisticated, less intelligent.
RAZ: You would be, based on your training and education, be able to somehow tie that to say, an intelligence quotient of a person?
McCRARY: Not directly, no sir. I couldn't say, well his I.Q. would be, you know, 76, 102, or, you know, (unintelligible) more intelligent, less intelligent, average or above average intelligence, that sort of thing.
RAZ: And as well you wouldn't be able to state someone who had a lower I.Q. necessarily would not possess the ability to be criminally sophisticated.
McCRARY: That, what we have to look at is this. That the measure of the I.Q., sometimes is not an accurate measure of the intelligence of the offender. It depends on the tests and how they were taken and when they were taken. Prisoners who are sometimes arrested and thrown in jail and given I.Q. tests don't do very well because they are not motivated to do very well. What you have to do is look at the crimes, and what we say is, a good measure of intelligence is looking at the crime scene and the level of sophistication or criminal experience as evidence in the crime scene because offenders at the crime scene are trying hard to get away with the crime, and they're being as intelligent as they can many times. So you have to look at the totality of the circumstances. You have to look at not just the I.Q. test, but how do they perform in life in general. You know, are they sharp guys who are just, who don't do well because they don't care to do well and they under perform, or are these people who really just can't perform. Are they just people who are really unintelligent and can't perform very well in life, then there may be more validity to that I.Q. test if it carries out. But, I've seen offenders who don't do too well on I.Q. tests but are really sharp guys and get along and have a lot of skills and do sophisticated crimes, they just don't give a damn about taking I.Q. tests, so you just really need to look at the totality of the circumstances to evaluate whether or not the I.Q. test may or may not be valid.
RAZ: So what you would suggest, and I see that you have a Master of Arts in psychological services, and I don't have anything dealing with psychological anything, but, you would need to look at what adaptive behaviors the individual has developed over time to either make up for an accurate intelligence quotient test result or, those are the things that you're talking about, let me rephrase that question again, I told you I would botch one several. You would need to look at how the particular person in question has adapted, regardless of what their intelligence quotient test results may indicate?
McCRARY: You look at the totality of the circumstances of how their functioning or level of functioning that they're at, how they are interacting with people, sort of on a daily basis and then, if that's consistent with the I.Q. test, that's probably a fairly valid test. If he's, some of these offenders don't do well, they don't like structure, they don't like tests, they don't do well in school, but they're sharp guys otherwise. You know, they're manipulative and devious, and they do pretty well on other scores, in other avenues of life. But if you've got a guy who really isn't very intelligent, that's going to show itself overall in the totality of the context, so I think you have to take any given test score and look at it in the totality of the circumstances and context of that 'person's life, and then you get a sense of whether that's a valid score or invalid score.
CAHAN: Your opinion that the suspect in this case would be highly intelligent (unintelligible) is a profile, correct?
McCRARY: If we took it that far, that would be more of a profiling of the person because we're talking about characteristics of the offender, but, certainly the crime scene would be indicative of an organized offender who is adaptive and resourceful, so I think we can talk certainly about the crime scene reflecting organization and so forth. That would be the crime scene assessment.
CAHAN: But linking it to who you then think would commit that crime scene, would be profiling evidence?
McCRARY: That would be the next step if you wanted to take it to the next step.
RAZ: Let me just ask my colleague if she has any further questions, I don't have any further, and, um, we thank you for the time you've given us to ask these questions.
McCRARY: Happy to talk with you Don
RAZ: Okay, thank you.
RAZ: Okay, we're going to hang up, Howard.
RAZ: Wait. Oh, we have um, well, I'm sure if you're going to talk to Mr. McCrary any further, we do have a suggested description of the case, why don't you call me back or call Gina back as soon as you're done with him.
RAZ: We can fax it over, what's your fax number?
RAZ: It's heading over and give us a call back.
PHILLIPS: Thank you.
© 1999 Knowledge Solutions LLC