Criminal Poisoning: Investigational Guide for Law Enforcement, Toxicologists, Forensic Scientists, and Attorneys (12 page)

3.3. POISONER SCHEMATIC

For law enforcement to stand a better chance of solving poisoning homicides, it is important to understand why an individual would choose this type Poisoners

51

of weapon over more traditional weapons such as a gun, knife, club, or rope.

To understand the motive behind the choice to use poison, and to develop a “criminal investigative analysis” (sometimes referred to as a “psychological profile”) of this type of offender, the criminal investigation community must carry out a carefully planned study of convicted poisoners that looks for commonalities in their background and behavior. Such a study would be of immense value in guiding homicide investigators in their awesome task. Currently, I and my colleagues are in the early design stages of a plan to carry out this critical research on the psychopathy of the poisoner.

However, one can make some hypotheses about this type of individual by examining the personalities involved in the published cases of poisonings in which there have been convictions. There are commonalities among these types of poisoning offenders. Poisoners are for the most part cunning, avaricious, cowardly (physically or mentally nonconfrontational), childlike in their fantasy, and somewhat artistic (meaning that they can design the plan for the murder in as much detail as they would if they were writing the script for a play).

If one looks at the characteristics in the standard reference
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
, 4th ed. (American Psychological Association, 2000) in the section on personality disorders, clusters A, B, and C, one will find characteristics that seem to fit very well with our poisoner hypotheses. The poisoner’s personality especially correlates with the cluster B disorder known as narcissistic personality disorder, whose characteristics include the following a grandiose sense of self-importance (lies about achievements), a belief that the person is “special” and “unique,” a sense of entitlement (expects favorable priority treatment), a need to take advantage of others without regard to feelings, a lack of empathy (no acknowledgment of the needs of others), a feeling of envy toward others, an arrogant/haughty behavior or attitude, a preoccupation with fantasies of self-importance (fame, wealth, achievement), a requirement for excessive admiration, and an inter-personal exploitativeness (uses others to achieve his or her own end).

Why does the poison murderer select this weapon as the means of achiev-ing his or her goal? One of the major reasons is that it provides a very good chance of getting away with the crime. Another reason is the fact that a poison allows completion of the assault without physical confrontation with the victim. The poisoner is truly an intelligent coward or, one could say, has the mindset of an
enfant terrible
(incorrigible child) in the body of an adult. This is a very dangerous combination. If one also looks at many, if not most, of the male poisoners who have been tried and convicted, one will see that they tend to deal with conflict in a manner that is not physically confrontational.

Fig. 3-2
summarizes these characteristics.

52

Criminal Poisoning

Figure 3-2

3.4. POISONER’S THOUGHT PROCESS

What goes through the poisoner’s mind as he or she is planning his or her crime? Certainly all behavior is caused. The instigating force is the
motive
, or the force that moves the poisoner to the decision to eliminate that individual who stands between the poisoner and his or her goal. First, the poisoner says, “I want something!” and that is the
motive
to the crime. The poisoner’s
intent
is to remove the obstacle that stands between the poisoner and his or her goal. Second, the poisoner realizes that he or she must devise a plan to access both the knowledge of the poison and the poison itself, which is the
means
to committing the crime. The poisoner also realizes that he or she must have knowledge of the victim’s habits in order to have access to the target, or the
opportunity
to commit the crime. Finally, the poisoner believes that he or she can escape detection by ensuring that there are no witnesses to all the aspects of the crime, that he or she sufficiently distances himself or herself from the crime, and that no visible signs of the crime are left. Although the poisoner may be able to control most of these aspects of the crime, he or she cannot control the autopsy, analytical toxicology testing, and possible exhumation.
Fig. 3-3
summarizes these thought processes.

Poisoners

53

Figure 3-3

3.5. “PSYCHOLOGICAL PROFILE” OF POISONERS

In the personality of the poisoner, the investigator will probably find some of the following traits: an absolute defiance of legal authority; a refusal to accept any moral basis for life; a drive to kill in order to gain either emotionally or materially; an unfortunate married life for the offender; a childhood in which the poisoner was either spoiled by parents or reared in an unhappy home; a tendency to turn the victim into an object with no feelings; an abnormal life with wife, children, or home; a feeling that he or she has failed to make any kind of impression on life; a tendency to be a daydreamer and fantasist; a touch of an artistic temperament; possible connections with the medical world as a physician, nurse, pharmacist, dentist, other health care worker, or laboratory worker familiar with chemicals; possession of vanity in thinking that he or she cannot be discovered as being involved in the crime, because he or she carefully calculated the odds; a limited mind without sympathy; and a weak, cowardly, and avaricious temperament (Glaister, 1954; Rowland, 1960).

One sees in the childish personality of the poisoner an immature desire for one’s own way, and a dreamy, romantic disposition. Something seems to be hidden in the psyche of poisoners that keeps them permanently immature; 54

Criminal Poisoning

they never seem to grow up. They try to make the world obey their will by cheating it in minor ways, thereby stealing what it refuses to give them.

As far as poisoners’ motives for murder, they are not much different from those of other homicides, in that they usually revolve around money (insurance); elimination of a goal blocker; jealousy (lover’s triangle); revenge (make the person pay); sadism (make the person suffer); conviction (political motives, such as assassination or terrorism); boredom (wants to have fun by having a challenge of wits with law enforcement); and ego (belief in mental superiority).

3.6. PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF POISONERS

When one looks at how the general public views the poisoner, one can often see a sort of morbid fascination with this type of crime. In general, the public has a special hatred for the poisoner’s sinister nature. The public generally believes that poison is a coward’s weapon, because it is administered unemotionally and by stealth, often gradually over a long period of time. The poison is administered in full recognition of the victim’s often prolonged suffering. The public reviles the poisoner for his lack of pity.

3.7. THE TOXICOMANIAC

A very rare mental condition is toxicomania. An individual who has toxicomania is obsessed with poisons, much like someone with pyromania is obsessed with fire. Toxicomaniacs relish the feeling of power provided to them by their weapon. A major example of this rather rare condition is the English case of Graham Frederick Young, discussed in Chapter 1, who from the age of 11 became obsessed with poisons, and eventually caused several deaths and many ill effects by experimenting on his relatives and coworkers with various poisons. He treated the victims not as humans, but as though they were rats in a toxicological study. The 1995 British movie
The Young Poisoner’s Handbook
, a black comedy, was based on Young’s life as a poisoner; it is unlikely, however, that most homicide investigators would find the film humorous.

3.8. THE MEDICAL MURDERER

Poisoners can also be found inside health care systems, although it is surprising that individuals who have sworn to their professional standards (e.g., the Hippocratic Oath) could coldheartedly kill their patients. Their murder is often covered by the fact that a sudden death in an already gravely ill or Poisoners

55

elderly individual is not unlikely. And yet, there are numerous cases of physicians and nurses who have turned into serial killers for a number of different reasons. For some it was to create the medical crisis during which they could be seen as a hero trying to save the patient (e.g., Genene Jones, RN). For others it was to exercise “power” over life and death
(
e.g.. Michael Swango, MD). And there are those who were motivated to kill for financial profit (e.g., Harold Shipman, MD).

3.9. THE JUVENILE TAMPERER AS POISONER

Of great concern is the number of juveniles who have been involved in recent tampering incidents. An analysis of the 1026 cases in my
“
Poisoner Database” revealed that between 1838 and 2005, there were 41 cases in which the offender was under the age of majority, with 27 (66%) of the cases having occurred since the year 2000. The intended victims of these incidents were as follows: 17 (42%) teachers, 5 (12%) classmates, 4 (10%) family members, 3 (7%) employees, 3 (7%) other, and 9 (22%) unidentified. Examples of these acts are adding a school cleaning substance to the teacher’s coffee or thermos, baking products made with chocolate laxatives, and adding mouse poison to a classmate’s lunch items.

Most of these incidents were probably intended as a prank, and owing to naiveté, the offender most often used a substance that would not be of toxicological significance in a single acute dose (e.g., cleaning substances, or rodenticide containing the anticoagulant warfarin or the “superwarfarin” brodifacoum).

However, such offenders do not realize the legal significance of their actions.

In October 13, 1983, the federal government passed the Federal Anti-Tampering Act [Public Law 98-127], which provides felony penalties for tampering with or threatening to tamper with any product covered by the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Offenders included in this legislation would be those who “with reckless disregard for the risk that another person will be placed in danger of death or bodily injury and under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to such risk, tampers with any consumer product that affects inter-state or foreign commerce, or the labeling of, or container for, any such product, or attempts to do so.” There are also state laws regarding the tampering of products, which will determine whether the action is to be regarded as a misdemeanor or felony. An example of such a state law might read like this: Tampering with a consumer product in the second degree: A person is guilty of tampering with a consumer product in the second degree when, having no right to do so nor any reasonable ground to believe that he 56

Criminal Poisoning

has such right, and with intent to cause physical injury to another or with intent to instill in another a fear that he will cause such physical injury, he alters, adulterates, or otherwise contaminates a consumer product. Tampering with a consumer product in the
second degree
is a class A misdemeanor.

Tampering with a consumer product in the first degree: A person is guilty of tampering with a consumer product in the first degree when, having no right to do so nor any reasonable ground to believe that he has such right, and with intent to cause physical injury to another or with intent to instill in another a fear that he will cause such physical injury, he alters, adulterates, or otherwise contaminates a consumer product and thereby creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury to one or more persons.

Tampering with a consumer product in the
first degree
is a class E felony.

A judge or jury would determine whether the crime would most appropriately fit into the degree of a misdemeanor or felony, based on the offender’s “intent” and the “potential danger” to the victim represented by the poisonous exposure. Investigators and attorneys confronted with these types of cases of tampering should consult their state and local statutes to determine the most correct manner in which to proceed.