You're listening to the Mind over Murder podcast. My name is Bill Thomas.
I'm a writer, consulting, producer, and now podcaster. I am now
trying to use my experience as the brother of a murder victim to help other
victims a violent crime. I'm working on a book on the unsolved Colonial Parkway
murders, and I'm the co administrator of the Colonial Parkway Murders Facebook group together
with Kristin Dilley. My name is Kristin Dilley. I'm a writer, a
researcher, a teacher, and a victim's advocate, as well as the social
media manager and co administrator for the Colonial Parkway Murders Facebook page. With my
partner in crime, Bill Thomas, we are joined today by Mark Olshaker,
author of too many books to count at this point, writing partner with John
Douglas. Mark, Welcome to the podcast. Thank you, Kristin, always
good to be here. Can you actually give us a account of how many
books you've written at this point? Let's see with John, I think we've
done like ten or eleven now I'm not quite sure, something like that.
And then and then on your own, you've written a number of books as
well. Yeah, I've written in five novels and a couple of other non
fiction books. And I know when I talked to you the other day,
you said you're working in one with that doctor Ostroholm. Right now. We're
doing another book of sequel to the one we put out in twenty seventeen,
Deadliest Enemy War against the Killer Germs, which actually, I have to say
our chapter on coronavirus was called Stars and Mirs Harbingers of Things to come.
We're doing another book now about what we've learned and haven't learned from COVID and
how we can apply that, we hope to the next inevitable pandemic. So
yeah, sex, violence and pest holes. That's what I do. And
the first page of that one should just be we told you. Yeah,
I know, but people don't like to hear that, unfortunately, although it
probably is good for all of us to erie you summarize some of what I
hope we've learned from this recent pandemic. I shouldn't even refer to it in
the past, pans. Yeah. No, it's one of the things,
the only thing we really didn't predict and didn't talk about in Deadliest Enemy and
the thing that really surprised us the most was what I would just call the
non compliance. I thought everybody would want to pull together on this common threat.
We would expect humanity to pull together if there was an alien invasion.
We were just surprised that they didn't. That it became so politicized that people
would act against their own best interests just because of a political view they'd taken.
And the other thing is, I think from both sides, from both
the Trump administration and the Biden administration, I have to say I'm very disappointed
in the public messaging, the messaging from CDC, from NIH and others.
We really need to develop a strong sense of humility about what we know and
don't know, and just be prepared. So yeah, I think there's a
lot of lessons and I think we're still just we're still processing them. And
people often ask me what's the connection between the writing you do about public health
and the writing you do about criminal justice? And I say, they're both
mystery stories and about killers who are lurking there when we least expect them,
and they're both detective stories. And I think they're all crime and disease are
always going to be with us, and I have a tremendous amount of respect
for the detectives and investigators in both of those fields who try to get ahead
of the problem. Mark, we wanted to bring you in today to talk
a little bit about John Hinckley, who has been in the news recently because
he has been released from all court oversight with relation to his role in the
near assassination of Ronald Reagan. For any of our listeners who may not be
aware, because we do have international listeners and we also have some younger listeners,
can you just tell us very quickly who John Hinckley Junior actually is.
Yeah. John Hinckley Junior was a young man on March thirtieth, nineteen eighty
one, who waited outside the Washington Hilton Hotel after new President Ronald Reagan was
giving a speech. He came out one of the lower entrances to his waiting
limousine with his press secretary James Grady, and a couple of other aides and
his coterie of guards and secret service agents, and John Hinckley came up to
him and fired into the group, seriously injuring Jim Grady. He never worked
again from that day on, and it turns out when they got into the
limousine and they rushed off, the found out that President Reagan had been seriously
injured. He was taken to George Washington University Hospital emergency room, where we
found out later he almost died. John Hinckley was arrested. He was put
on trial for attempted murder and assassination because at that as a federal crime.
And it turns out that his whole attempt was he wanted to impress the actress
Jodie Foster, who he'd first seen in the movie Taxi Driver with Robert de
Niro, and he thought that somehow if he committed this dramatic act and had
her come away with him, she would be impressed and he would win her
affection. Through that, he was i suspect. Through that, and through
some probably good representation, he was found not guilty by reason of insanity and
committed to Saint Elizabeth's Hospital for the mentally Ill at that time and where he
remained for several decades, eventually being allowed some limited privileges, then being allowed
to go to his parents' home in Williamsburg, Virginia, and, as Kristen
said, most recently being deemed completely recovered, maintained saying whatever you want to
call it, and allowed to go about his business. He's now in his
sixties. I believe, yes, before we get into Hinckley and some of
the mechanics involved. It seems to me the Secret Service has been back in
the news recently. I don't feel like a president in twenty twenty two,
regardless of who the president might be, would be exposed in the same way
the President Reagan was on the steps of a major hotel. You're probably right,
Bill, but things have gotten tighter and tighter as we've gone along.
It's unimaginable now to think that president could be exposed the way President Kennedy was
on November twenty second, nineteen sixty three, riding in a somewhat hostile city
of Dallas, Texas in an open top limousine. That's just in a slow
moving motorcade. That's unthinkable today. During the Clinton administration, the Secret Service
closed off Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House to avoid truck bombs or
car bombs. More and more things have happened like this, if you remember.
Since this has also been in the news, President Trump wanted to go
to the Capitol on January sixth, the twenty twenty one, after his incendiary
speech near the White House, and the Secret Service said that he couldn't go.
He in fact, he also wanted the magnetometers taken away from the site
where he was speaking so that the more and more people of his followers can
be let in. The Secret Service, of course, we're trying to keep
all weapons out. Trump didn't seem to care about that because he thought that
the weapons were not aimed at him. Yeah. I think there's been tighter
and tighter security as we've gotten more sophisticated about what's going on in this country.
And look, we are a violent country. There was a mass murder
in Copenhagen, Denmark, just this past week. Now what's interesting is Copenhagen
has one twenty fourth of the mass murders that we do, according to my
latest information. But we're seeing things all over the place now. I know
sometimes too, the presidents have surprised the Secret Service with impromptu jumping out of
limousines and that sort of thing. I know that in the example you just
brought up, President Trump didn't want the magnetometers used because he wanted a larger
crowd. But I also remember President Obama jumping out. I was talking him
around the mall, and I'm sure it gave his Secret Service detail. You
can only do, you can only do a certain amount. But I felt
the same way when I saw that scene of Obama Bill, I said,
this is crazy. As a citizen, I liked it because I thought,
wouldn't it be cool to see the president and be able to interact with the
presidents closely? But from a Secret Service a details perspective, they had to
be having a cat. Yeah, this is the Secret Service has been criticized
a lot of late, sometimes validly, sometimes not validly, But yeah,
it's an increasing problem as our country becomes more and more politicized, more and
more diverse in its political views, and people are just angry. So prior
to attempting to assassinate Reagan, Hinkley had actually stalked President Jimmy Carter and he
had stalked to Jodie Foster in that seven months prior to actually shooting President Reagan?
Does the Secret Service have an awareness of those sorts of things? Would
they have been aware that Hinckley was a stalker and that that only come out
later? Try they try to and is, But this is not unusual.
Most assassins really are not focused as much as you would think on the object
of their violence. It's more about making a name for themselves, feeling some
kind of importance. I can say, I think without any exception, all
of the assassins that I can think of have been deeply troubled individuals, very
inadequate, feeling that they had to make their statement somehow. John Hinkley thought
that by killing Reagan that he would impress what he fostered. Why he thought
that remains under discussion. But Arthur Bremer, who tried to assassinate Governor George
Wallace when Wallace was running for a president on a third party ticket in the
nineteen seventy two he got him at a shopping center in Laurel, Maryland.
Wallace was a paraplegic for the rest of his life and pine after that.
But what's interesting is Bremer had nothing particular against Wallace. He had first stalked
President Nixon and tried and stalked him for several months, but because of the
Secret Service, he was never able to get close enough to Nixon to do
anything. He should switch to an easier, less hard, hardened target.
All of these got most. Almost all of these guys, with the exception
of a couple like Sarah Jane Moore and Squeaky From, both of whom tried
to were Manson family members who tried to assassinate President Ford. Most almost all
of these others are men. Almost all of them come from the backgrounds that
were not optimum in one way or another. They almost all kept diaries and
lists of their grievances, So these are pretty much unfocused, angry young men
who look for a focus for their grievance or something to make them stand out,
to make them important. Even somebody like Mark David Chapman, who assassinated
John Lennon. John Lennon was an international celebrity. Chapman was a nobody.
But if Chapman had power over Lennon, he became a somebody in his own
mind. I want to jump back to Kristen's earlier question for a second.
Mark, I know you were crediting the Secret Service, who deserved the credit
for keeping our public figures safe. When you say that the Secret Service was
able to head off some of these assassinations, does that mean then that those
individuals who may have thought of attempting those assassinations move on to the radar?
Are of the Secret Service or a lot of a lot of them? Do
the ones you don't hear about are all the people that the Secret Service keeps
track of, and there are hundreds of them, if not thousands. I
was involved in a situation once where I contacted the Secret Service about somebody who
I thought from communications with me, I thought might have been a threat.
And the Secret Service said, yeah, we know about him. Yeah,
so this is someone we are aware of and on some level we're tracking or
whatever. Do you know if this has always been a bit of a rumor
that goes around Williamsburg, because of course Hinckley spends a lot of time here
in Williamsburg. More so, now does Secret Service still keep track of John
Hinckley? I'm sure they do. We've never been able to I've never been
able to get You won't get that confirmed, but I'm sure that I wasn't
sure if that was. Is there a Secret Service person on him at all
times? And I suspect that his release was not an arbitrary time. I
believe he would. I believed he would not be released until Nancy Reagan died
and after that very interesting. What's sad then is that James Brady has died.
Yes, he does as well. And Kristen and I talked about this.
You could make a case that Hinckley is directly responsible for Jim Brady's untimely
demise, yes you could. The problem is since he was found not guilty
by reason of insanity, that would be a very hard case to make them
up. So what are the crates here? Are required to find someone not
guilty by reason of insanity to said something to do with it? This is
very interesting and very relevant. Unfortunately, this really goes back to the McNaughton
case in Britain in the late seventeen hundreds early eighteen hundreds, Daniel McNaughton sometimes
spelled McNaughton, tried to had some grievances against the British government and tried to
assassinate the Prime Minister, Sir Robert Peel outside the Prime ministers of residence.
He ended up not being able to assassinate Heal, but was able but able
to kill his private secretary. He was put on trial and he was found
essentially not guilty by reason of insanity. The McNaughton rule which came out of
that into British common law essentially said two things. Somebody is not guilty by
reason of insanity if number one he does. And we always use the term
he because overwhelmingly the people the offenders were talking about are male. The two
issues are he does not know the difference between right and wrong and number two
cannot conform his behavior to the dictates of society. Now, there have been
many reinterpretations since then, but that is essentially still the insanity defense. Today
we talk about a doctor known as the policeman at the elbow, and the
doctrine states that if there is a uniformed policeman at the scene of the crime,
and the criminal goes ahead and commits the crime anyway, he is probably
insane. If the uniformed police officer's presence deters him from the crime, then
he is probably not insane. Now that's a very simple explanation. The next
thing that always comes up in these discussions when I explain this is they say,
don't you have to be crazy to kill somebody in cold blood as opposed
to self defense or anything like that. And the answer is crazy doesn't mean
anything to the law. Is somebody mentally ill. Who does that? Most
likely they are. I can't think of many cases where somebody would commit cold
blooded murder or attempt to and not be mentally ill. However, mental illness
and insanity are two different things. Mental illness is a very vague psychiatric term.
Insanity is a legal term which has to do with your ability to comport
yourself according to the dictates of society. In other words, somebody who is
delusional may or may not be insane. Somebody who is hallucinatory most likely is.
So. I would submit to you that somebody like John Hinckley, while
certainly mentally ill, I don't think he was insane by any stretch of the
of a reasonable approach to the law. Yeah, I remember reading that he
was found to have schizophrenia and major depressive disorder. So do you feel like
the insanity defense wasn't warranted there? I absolutely feel it wasn't. I don't
think I saw no indication then or now that he ever suffered from schizophrenia,
which is a shattered personality. One hears voices, one has delusions and sometimes
hallucinations. He probably did have some kind of depressive disorder, but that again
is does not conform to the definition of insanity. He knew right from Braun
he was able to conform his behavior. Also, he planned this, He
knew exactly what he was doing. You could say that there's some very irrational
behavior. The idea that he was going to impress a beautiful, famous actress
into going off with him by killing the president. That's certainly a rational One
could call it delusional, whatever you want to say, But that's not insane.
He didn't have to do it, and he knew it. But many
of us civilians use these terms interchangeably, don't you think Right now, Look,
we all use the term crazy, we say that's a crazy idea or
whatever. But my point is that insanity has over the last three centuries had
a very specific legal connotation, and in my view, obviously the jury disagreed
with me. But in my view, John Hinckley was not insane at the
time, nor has he been. I think it was obsessional. Certainly,
he certainly had mental problems, but those don't excuse what he did. Particularly
with Jim Brady said, the more appropriate punishment, in your view, would
have been life in prison. Absolutely, now I tend to agree with you
on that. So in two thousand and five, they started loosening restrictions on
him at Saint Elizabeth, and that was the first time that I remember,
as a citizen of Williamsburg hearing they're gonna let John Hinckley come home. They're
going to let him visit his parents. Do you And then just three weeks
ago, as we said at the top of the pod, he was freed
from all court oversight. Do you feel like that's the right call to make?
Should he be freed from something? I think the psychiatrists and the officials
were in a bind because if he had been declared not guilty by reason of
insanity and he was no longer insane, which I don't think he was,
to begin with, what is your logic for holding him in prison? So
I think this was a miscarriage of justice to begin with. Had he been
look Sirhan who assassinated Robert Kennedy certainly had the same kind of mental instabilities as
John Hinckley, But he was found sane and guilty and he's still in prison
where he has been since spring of nineteen sixty eight. I don't have a
good solution for what you do with the John Hinckley now, had there been
what I would consider a reasonable jury verdict. I think that he would still
be in prison and it wouldn't be an issue. Now, let me say
at the same time, I have read the judge's instructions many times. They
are so complicated and so convoluted based on both defense and prosecution. But I
would think a jury of layman would be very confused by this, and they
probably gave him the benefit of the doubt. I think a better case maybe
could have been made explaining just exactly what the insanity defense is, because,
as you both know from your own research and criminology, the insanity defense doesn't
work very often. It's invoked a lot, but most juries are not willing
to let killers out on that basis, and they really worry that if you
don't convict somebody, then it's an open question about when they're going to be
back on the street again. It feels like the holy Grail for a lot
of defense. Oh sure, attorneys like they're going to try it, but
they're not likely to succeed. And if you said a moment ago in my
most recent book with John Douglas, when a killer calls about the Larry Jeane
Bell murder case, in South Carolina in the mid nineteen eighties. What this
man did to these two victims, one seventeen year old girl just graduating from
high school and then two weeks later a nine year old girl, both of
whom he abducted, sexual violated, and then killed in horrible fashion. The
defense was, okay, he did it. Clearly this guy is insane,
and the way he was acting out in court. But again, the prosecution
was able to prove, with John Douglas's help, that while this guy was
bizarre, while he was certainly mentally unstable, he knew exactly what he was
doing. He planned it, he planned his escape, he planned not getting
caught, He hid the bodies, all of these things. Again, we
really, I can't emphasize this enough. We have to make a distinction between
mental illness and insanity, and there was a lot of illness itself is not
an excuse. And when you see tons and tons of rational behavior by the
killer or killers, there are clearly an ability to make decisions which will minimize
the opportunity for them to get caught. We don't want, I don't want
to get really personal here, but whoever it was who killed your sister,
by the mere fact that he was able to get away is not insane.
They're still wandering around years later. Was rational able to plan and carry out
his evil, no question about it. I also think sometimes juries fear letting
someone out. In other words, I think, well they should. Yeah,
on some level, you have to say to yourself, if you're a
citizen who's been chosen for a jury, after sitting through a day's week,
sometimes even months worth a testimony, on some level, I think the thought
must cross the minds of every juror do you want this person back out in
society with the opportunity perhaps to reoffend? And some of these people are people
that could easily cross over to whatever their darkest behaviors represent. Absolutely, and
from my experience, juries take their responsibilities very seriously, particularly in capital cases
or murder cases or violent crime of any sort. I think they really do,
and they are very aware of victims and potential victims. So yeah,
I agree with it. You're listening to Mind over Murder. We'll be right
back after this word from our sponsors. We're back here at Mind over Murder.
You'd mentioned Sihn a couple of minutes ago, who, for the benefit
of our listeners assassinated Robert F. Kennedy in nineteen sixty eight blank range.
By the way, at point blank range, Yeah, is the only difference
between his case and John Hinckley is the fact that he succeeded where Hinckley fails.
I think that's a large part of it. Yes, do you feel
like it would be appropriate to let Sihon out of prison? This many years
on? I know Rfk's son even was saying, Hey, I think it's
time to let this guy out. Any thoughts on that, Yeah, No,
I would say you don't let him out, or they may be a
more glib way of putting it into yeah, let him out. When Robert
Kennedy is brought back to life. This brings up a very interesting and difficult
philosophical point, Kristen. There are traditionally three pieces of logic for imprisonment.
One is rehabilitation, which we've all heard about. The other is punishment,
which we all know about, and the third is simply warehousing. In other
words, if somebody is dangerous, you just have to keep them off the
street. And the emphasis on these three goals changes with the public opinion and
how the crime rate and things like that rehabilitation is a nice idea when it
can be done, I would submit that almost no sexual predators can be rehabilitated.
That's my own opinion based on my research and experience warehousing. I think
that if you take somebody likes Sirahan, or let's say, the remaining members
of the Manson family, there is no need to warehouse them. Now.
None of them are going to be none of them are going to dangerous on
any level. They're all in their seventies at this point. So the third
element is punishment. And I would say with I don't know about Sirhan,
because he's now saying he doesn't know whether he committed the crime or not.
But the remaining members of the Manson family, they all understand what they did.
They have had forty years or more to sometime fifty years to reflect on
what they did on that horrible two nights in the summer of nineteen sixty nine
in Los Angeles. On the other hand, I've seen I've studied the cases,
I've seen the crime scene photos. I've seen the horrible things that these
people did. How they stabbed a nine month pregnant Sharon Tate to death.
Wrote on the walls with her blood, and some things just can't be forgiven.
I'm afraid. And while I think that these people all have understood the
error of their ways, I don't think they're dangerous anymore. I don't want
to let them out of prison because there are some things that are just too
horrible to forgive. If there's an if there is an afterlife, then that's
taken care of in the next world. I don't think we have the capacity
or facility to take care of it in hours. All we can do is
balance the scales to the extent that is humanly possible. No, I don't
want Sir hand out. I agree with Governor knew symptom the Manson family members
out And had John Hinckley been had John Hinckley been convicted as I think he
should have been, I think he should have spent the rest of his life
in prison, as should Mark, David Chapman and other assassin personalities. So
that just leads me back to Mark. How in the world is John Hinckley
Junior being allowed to wander around Williamsburg, Virginia essentially unsupervised. Yeah, I
don't think there's a I would be very surprised if the Secret Service is not
keeping track of him, at least on a surreptitious or unofficial basis, since
he was declared not guilty, with the caveat that he was insane, and
he's no longer is. Since again, I think he no longer he never
was. I don't know what else you can do. If it were May
and he jaywalked, I'd pick him up. The whole thing's preposterous, just
to review, he wounded two police officers, He shot and nearly killed President
Reagan, a sitting president. He paralyzed Jim Brady, a key member of
the president's staff, And as we discussed a few minutes ago, I definitely
believe, as a big fan of Jim and Sarah Brady's, that he shortened
mister Brady's life unquestionably. Not only that, but I happen to know from
some inside sources how hard and how difficult Jim's life was after that. The
only person I've talked to about this in the Reagan family is their daughter,
Patty, and I know she certainly does think he should have been led off
with an insanity plea and eventually let out, And I know she knew that
how this affected her mother for the rest of her life. Oh my gosh,
it's just the thing of nightmare. And Kristen and I talk about this,
and Kristen keeps thinking she's going to run into Hinckley at one of the
area bookstores that she frequents, because he frequents there too. People actually keep
tabs on where does this guy go? We know he goes to Sweet Frog
Dantique's market the books tour that I like. And then the other issue is
he's going on this music tour, this concert tour, and I understand he's
selling out in some places. I think I'm enough of a I'm enough of
a First Amendment defender. And since he's not actually doing things having to do
with the assassination the son of Sam, laws don't apply to him. I
really question anybody who would pay money to see this free. Yeah. That
that for context for any of our listeners who aren't aware. A federal judge
did rule in twenty mony that John Henckley could showcase and market his artwork,
his writing, which is bad, and his music, which is not great
either, under his own name. He now has a YouTube channel where he
posts videos of himself performing his original songs and then covers of other songs.
He is selling out concert halls, although his Brooklyn concert recently had to be
canceled due to security concerns. Should he be allowed to profit from his artwork
and his music? Again, many states, and I don't know if the
District of Columbia or Virginia are among them, have what's called son of Sam
lay A criminal cannot a convicted criminal cannot profit by anything having to do with
his crime. Since my understanding is that for these songs or artwork don't have
to do directly with the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan and the wounding of Jim
Brady and several others, that this would not fit under the son of Sam
rules. So yeah, I think this is one of those things where I
would absolutely defend his right to do this, and I would just as vociferously
condemn anybody who supports it. I guess that's a little weird, but that's
how I feel. I just find the whole thing so infuriating. The maybe
is insane a word that would maybe come to mind, but here you go
again talking about the civilians. It's certainly crazy. It is crazy, and
it's offensive and the idea that unfortunately someone would Unfortunately in our country, I
haven't decided which being offensive is not a crime. I'm afraid not, but
wow, it's a crime against horrible, but not a crime against the state.
It would be great if the Secret Service is keeping an eye on him
and just one little thing. As I say, if I were the police
chief of Williamsburg, I would be looking out every time he steps off the
curve. It is really something else. What a lot of people may not
know about Hinckley is that he does have tremendous financial resources at his disposal.
His family has millions of dollars. Oh where does that money come from?
Do you know, Kristin? They had They ran an energy company. Yeah,
and I suspect Kristen that a lot of the reason that he was able
to get off with an insanity defense was his family's financial resources. Lawyer's money
can buy that. He certainly wasn't dependent on a public defender who had thirty
other cases. And it's a shame the prosecutors couldn't have rammed home an appropriate
guilty verdict because we all saw what happened there. It was on national telling.
So I guess in case I haven't completely answered your question from before.
Do I think he's dangerous? Probably not, although I wouldn't be I wouldn't
be sure of it, but I think probably not. Is he despicable?
Absolutely and the punishment of that troita that you mentioned, the three legged stool
of incarceration, punishment is a valid it end in terms of if you've done
something particularly heinous, which John, this is an attempt, so far as
is humanly possible in the case of murder or attempted murder or malicious wounding,
to balance the scales. We can't do it the way we'd like to.
We can't bring the dead back to life or really balance the scales. But
this is an attempt at proportionality. And I would submit to you that if
you kill somebody, anything short of the death penalty is disproportionate in your favor.
I like that. Oh, but I just made it off. Okay.
This may be referred to as the old Shaker formula down the road enough,
I'm still shocked when people get out of jail twenty or twenty five years
having been found guilty in some examples of murder. They don't even serve life
with that parole. They are quarter of a century, which admittedly is a
long time. And as someone who's never been incarcerated, and let me clear
the air here, I think there are types of murder, specifically felony murder,
where a murder is committed in the commission of another crime, like a
robbery or something where things happen very quickly. There may not have been any
intent to kill or even harm. Somebody used a gun, they panicked,
whatever. I think those people oftentimes can be rehabilitated. I think they should
serve long sentences, and I think their lives should certainly be altered, and
there should be some kind of attempt at restorative justice. But I would submit
that people like that you don't have to keep them in prison forever. Twenty
years or whatever is certainly enough time. But the people who intend to kill,
who go about it in a planned, methodical way, who are sexual
predators, who do it just for their own satisfaction, if you will,
their own sexual needs or desires, these kind of people should never be let
out on the street again under any circumstances. This isn't somebody. Let me
just say one more thing we've written about in our book Obsession. We wrote
about the case of a twenty year old woman named Stephanie Schmidt in Kansas who
shortly before her twenty first birthday was abducted and raped and murdered by a co
worker who the parole board. Her parole officer had not wanted to let anybody
know what his previous crime was, which was aggravated sexual assault with a knife.
Now, he I think had been sentenced to twenty five years. He
was let out in about ten or twelve or fifteen, and what he learned
from being in prison was, if you're going to commit this kind of crime
again, you don't leave any witnesses to put you back in prison. So
now we all know the formulation, which I believe originally came from the Reverend
Increase Mather back in pre colonial times, about it's better to let one hundred
guilty men go free to one innocent man. We all agree with that,
and as we should. But let's turn that on its head. If you
have one hundred sexual predators, violent sexual predators who've been incarcerated, and you're
going to let them out on parole, what's your acceptable rate of failures?
Hundred people? How many? What a percentage are you willing to concede,
Okay, they may go on to commit the same kind of crime or worse.
Again, is it five percent, is it three percent? Is it
one percent? I would submit to you that my acceptable rate of failure is
zero percent. Why I'm very hesitant to let these kind of guys out of
prison early. I'm at zero Kristen, Where are you on that A zero?
Yeah? Absolutely? Because you know, here's another thing that directly affects
Kristen in a way that I'll explain in a minute. People ask John Douglas,
can you tell who is going to grow up to be a serial killer?
And he says, no, I can't tell you who's going to grow
up to be a serious killer. But I can tell you I can tell
you by looking at kids whether they're going to grow up to have real problems
with anger and aggression and all of that. And he said, but so
can any good teacher. Yeah, now I agree. We ended up actually
having a conversation very interestingly at the end of the year about kids that we
had taught who went on to become criminals. If you've been in the profession
long enough, you do invariably have something how disturbing. Yeah, disturbing disturbing
but not surprising, and yet at the same time, we can't incarceerate those
kids as they're finishing up their year with you or whatever. Now, you
try to intervene as best you can, but often there's a there's a lot
of pushback to try from parents or other people who say you're stigmatizing them or
whatever. The problem, absolutely it is. We want to make sure we
get in a plug for at least one of your books. If you want,
you read more about John Hinckley, Mark, David Chapman, Charles Whitman,
and other shooters. There is a chapter in The Anatomy of Motive by
John Douglas and Marcole Sha that covers all of that information. And Mark,
I know you said that, there's a chapter in Obsession as well that covers
that. It covers the Stephanie Schmidt case. But also I would say our
book The Killer's Shadow talks about Joseph Paul Franklin, who was, as far
as we know, the first racist, anti Semitic serial killer and definitely an
assassin personality. Yeah, I think you can. You'll get a lot of
insight about this kind of personality through The Killer's Shadow, And I know our
latest book which we mentioned earlier, When a Killer Calls, also a very
moving, tragic story, but an important one. I think that was one
of your best ones. Actually, thank it And of course we did cover
that episode earlier in this year, which we will make sure we can listen
to the podcast again. Everybody, run it again, absolutely, and Mark,
I know it's always hard to predict when you've got multiple projects in development,
but what do you think the next book to be released will be.
Gosh, I really don't know, but I'll confess something here what I'd really
like to do in my old age years. I'd like to go back to
novel writing and see if I can still do it. Really in a while
since I've written a novel, but I've got three ideas which I think are
pretty compelling, and if I get time, i'd really like to go back
to see if I can go back to fiction. Our guest today is then
Mark all Shaker. Mark, thank you so much for joining us. As
always, it's a pleasure, and always it's a pleasure on this end to
Kristen, thank you very much. That's going to do it for this episode
of My Never Murder. We'll see you next time. Mind Over Murder is
a production of Absolute Zero and Another Dog Productions. Our executive producers are Bill
Thomas and Kristin Dilley. Our logo art is by Pamela Arnois. Our theme
music is by Kevin McLeod. Mind Over Murder is distributed in partnership with Coral
Space Media. Can follow us on Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram. You
can also follow our page on the Colonial Parkway Murders on Facebook, and finally,
you can follow Bill Thomas on Twitter at Bill Thomas. Five six.
Thank you for listening to mind Over Murder.