Episode 243 - Mistakes Writers Make about Forensic Psychology with Katherine Ramsland
June 18, 2024
Forensic psychologists "are not there to catch a killer, that's the work of investigators, and then they don't visit the crime scenes. They may look at crime scene photos. They might visit at some point, but they're not on the scene. We've seen in movies where they'll get into the grave. That was the one I thought was just crazy." —Katherine Ramsland
Are you getting value from the podcast? Consider supporting me on Patreon or through Buy Me a Coffee!
Katherine Ramsland discusses MISTAKES WRITERS MAKE ABOUT FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY, including these commons mistakes and how to avoid them: They are used as profilers because detectives can’t do this work; they visit crime scenes to advise on catching a killer; they profile a person; they interrogate suspects; they undertake hypnosis or therapy in the courtroom; they pronounce defendants to be sane or insane; and they can accurately predict long-range future violent behavior without standardized tools.
If one of those topics piques your interest, you can easily jump to that section on YouTube by clicking on the flagged timestamps in the description.
If one of those topics piques your interest, you can easily jump to that section on YouTube by clicking on the flagged timestamps in the description.
Listen to the full episode ...
Listen to and watch the interview ...
Dr. Katherine Ramsland teaches forensic psychology and behavioral criminology in the graduate program at DeSales University, where she is Professor Emerita. She has appeared as an expert on more than 200 crime documentaries and was an executive producer on "Murder House Flip" and A&E’s "Confession of a Serial killer: BTK." The author of 72 books, including "The Serial Killer’s Apprentice" and "How to Catch a Killer," she pens a regular blog for Psychology Today. She has also written a crime fiction series based on a female forensic psychologist, Annie Hunter, who consults on death investigations.
Links
Katherine's Links:
www.katherineramsland.net
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/shadow-boxing/202405/10-mistakes-fiction-writers-make-about-forensic-psychology
Matty's Links:
Affiliate links
Events
www.katherineramsland.net
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/shadow-boxing/202405/10-mistakes-fiction-writers-make-about-forensic-psychology
Matty's Links:
Affiliate links
Events
I hope you enjoyed my conversation with Katherine! Which of the mistakes she mentioned have you seen in a book or movie, and can you think of a way the author or screenwriter could have fixed it that wouldn’t have undermined or might even have improved the story?
Please post your comments on YouTube--and I'd love it if you would subscribe while you're there!
Are you getting value from the podcast? Consider supporting me on Patreon or through Buy Me a Coffee!
AI-generated Summary
In this episode of "The Indy Author Podcast," host Matty Dalrymple interviews Dr. Katherine Ramsland, a prominent forensic psychologist. Ramsland, who teaches at DeSales University, is an accomplished author with 72 books to her credit, including "The Serial Killer's Apprentice" and "How to Catch a Killer." Her extensive experience as an expert on over 200 crime documentaries and her role on shows like "Murder House Flip" and "Confession of a Serial Killer: BTK" makes her a highly respected figure in the field.
Introduction to Forensic Psychology:
Ramsland explains that forensic psychology lies at the intersection of psychology and the legal system. Forensic psychologists typically analyze competency for courtroom cases, assess mental states at the time of offenses, and develop prison programs. They apply principles from social, clinical, and cognitive psychology to the legal system. Unlike criminologists who focus on trend analysis and crime prevention from a sociological perspective, forensic psychologists deal with individual behaviors and mental states related to crimes.
Common Misconceptions in Forensic Psychology:
Ramsland identifies several common mistakes that writers make when depicting forensic psychologists in fiction.
1. Profiling Misconception:
Contrary to popular belief, forensic psychologists are not primarily profilers. Profiling involves analyzing crime scene behaviors to understand the type of person who might commit a crime, rather than displacing detectives in investigations. Ramsland highlights that detectives, with their extensive training and experience, do not necessarily rely on profilers, and the portrayal of forensic psychologists as superior to detectives in profiling is both inaccurate and insulting.
2. Crime Scene Involvement:
Forensic psychologists typically do not visit crime scenes to catch killers. Their role is more consultative, often analyzing crime scene photos rather than being physically present at the scenes. Ramsland emphasizes the unrealistic nature of depictions where forensic psychologists are shown tramping through crime scenes or exhuming bodies.
3. Profiling Individuals:
The notion of profiling individuals, as popularized by shows like "Criminal Minds," is misleading. Instead, forensic psychologists analyze behavioral clues from crime scenes to understand the type of person who could commit the crime. This approach focuses on crime scene analysis rather than reading or profiling individuals.
4. Interrogating Suspects:
Forensic psychologists do not conduct suspect interrogations. Their role may involve consulting on behavioral strategies but not directly engaging in interrogation processes. Misrepresentations include the idea that psychologists have special insights into detecting deception, which is not supported by research.
5. Courtroom Therapy and Hypnosis:
Depictions of forensic psychologists conducting therapy or hypnosis in courtrooms are highly inaccurate. Ramsland explains that their courtroom role is either to analyze and provide expert opinions or to clarify complex psychological concepts to the jury or judge. Hypnosis, once a common investigative tool, is now largely discredited due to its unreliability in producing accurate memories.
6. Sane or Insane Pronouncements:
Forensic psychologists do not have the authority to declare a defendant sane or insane. Insanity is a legal term, and the decision is made by the trier of fact (judge or jury), not by mental health experts. Psychologists can provide insights into a defendant's state of mind but do not make legal determinations.
7. Predicting Future Violence:
The ability of forensic psychologists to predict long-term violent behavior is limited and relies on standardized tools assessing various risk factors. Predictive accuracy diminishes with time, and changes in a person’s life circumstances can invalidate earlier predictions. Ramsland stresses the importance of adhering to best practice standards to avoid liability for future violent acts committed by released individuals.
Impact of Social Media on Forensic Psychology:
Ramsland discusses how social media has become a vital tool in forensic psychology, providing insights into individuals' behaviors and potential threats. Social media activity can be crucial in assessing imminent threats and preventing violent acts.
Conclusion:
The episode includes Ramsland sharing insights into her crime fiction series featuring Annie Hunter, a forensic psychologist. By integrating real-life forensic techniques and maintaining accuracy, Ramsland enhances the credibility and intrigue of her stories. The discussion provides valuable guidance for writers aiming to create authentic and engaging crime fiction, while also highlighting the complexities and ethical considerations inherent in forensic psychology.
Introduction to Forensic Psychology:
Ramsland explains that forensic psychology lies at the intersection of psychology and the legal system. Forensic psychologists typically analyze competency for courtroom cases, assess mental states at the time of offenses, and develop prison programs. They apply principles from social, clinical, and cognitive psychology to the legal system. Unlike criminologists who focus on trend analysis and crime prevention from a sociological perspective, forensic psychologists deal with individual behaviors and mental states related to crimes.
Common Misconceptions in Forensic Psychology:
Ramsland identifies several common mistakes that writers make when depicting forensic psychologists in fiction.
1. Profiling Misconception:
Contrary to popular belief, forensic psychologists are not primarily profilers. Profiling involves analyzing crime scene behaviors to understand the type of person who might commit a crime, rather than displacing detectives in investigations. Ramsland highlights that detectives, with their extensive training and experience, do not necessarily rely on profilers, and the portrayal of forensic psychologists as superior to detectives in profiling is both inaccurate and insulting.
2. Crime Scene Involvement:
Forensic psychologists typically do not visit crime scenes to catch killers. Their role is more consultative, often analyzing crime scene photos rather than being physically present at the scenes. Ramsland emphasizes the unrealistic nature of depictions where forensic psychologists are shown tramping through crime scenes or exhuming bodies.
3. Profiling Individuals:
The notion of profiling individuals, as popularized by shows like "Criminal Minds," is misleading. Instead, forensic psychologists analyze behavioral clues from crime scenes to understand the type of person who could commit the crime. This approach focuses on crime scene analysis rather than reading or profiling individuals.
4. Interrogating Suspects:
Forensic psychologists do not conduct suspect interrogations. Their role may involve consulting on behavioral strategies but not directly engaging in interrogation processes. Misrepresentations include the idea that psychologists have special insights into detecting deception, which is not supported by research.
5. Courtroom Therapy and Hypnosis:
Depictions of forensic psychologists conducting therapy or hypnosis in courtrooms are highly inaccurate. Ramsland explains that their courtroom role is either to analyze and provide expert opinions or to clarify complex psychological concepts to the jury or judge. Hypnosis, once a common investigative tool, is now largely discredited due to its unreliability in producing accurate memories.
6. Sane or Insane Pronouncements:
Forensic psychologists do not have the authority to declare a defendant sane or insane. Insanity is a legal term, and the decision is made by the trier of fact (judge or jury), not by mental health experts. Psychologists can provide insights into a defendant's state of mind but do not make legal determinations.
7. Predicting Future Violence:
The ability of forensic psychologists to predict long-term violent behavior is limited and relies on standardized tools assessing various risk factors. Predictive accuracy diminishes with time, and changes in a person’s life circumstances can invalidate earlier predictions. Ramsland stresses the importance of adhering to best practice standards to avoid liability for future violent acts committed by released individuals.
Impact of Social Media on Forensic Psychology:
Ramsland discusses how social media has become a vital tool in forensic psychology, providing insights into individuals' behaviors and potential threats. Social media activity can be crucial in assessing imminent threats and preventing violent acts.
Conclusion:
The episode includes Ramsland sharing insights into her crime fiction series featuring Annie Hunter, a forensic psychologist. By integrating real-life forensic techniques and maintaining accuracy, Ramsland enhances the credibility and intrigue of her stories. The discussion provides valuable guidance for writers aiming to create authentic and engaging crime fiction, while also highlighting the complexities and ethical considerations inherent in forensic psychology.
Transcript
Matty: Hello and welcome to The Indy Author Podcast. Today, my guest is Katherine Ramsland. Hey, Katherine, how are you doing?
Katherine: I'm doing well, thank you. Thanks for having me.
Meet Katherine Ramsland
Matty: I am pleased to have you here and to give our listeners and viewers a little bit of background on you. Dr. Katherine Ramsland teaches forensic psychology and behavioral criminology in the graduate program at DeSales University, where she is Professor Emerita.
She's appeared as an expert on more than 200 crime documentaries and was an executive producer on "Murder House Flip" and A&E's "Confession of a Serial Killer: BTK." The author of 72 books, including "The Serial Killer's Apprentice" and "How to Catch a Killer," she pens a regular blog for Psychology Today.
She's also written a crime fiction series based on a female forensic psychologist, Annie Hunter, who consults on death investigations. I invited Katherine on the podcast because I ran into her at the Mechanicsburg Mystery Bookshop's I Scream for Mysteries event. As I had told her, I tried to go to one of her talks at a conference one year, and it was full. It was beyond standing room only when I showed up, so I was not able to hear her. I'm fascinated by what she does, and we're going to be talking about mistakes writers make about forensic psychology.
What is Forensic Psychology?
Matty: It's probably useful to provide a little more context and just talk a little bit about what a forensic psychologist is and what their role is before we dive into some of the things about what their role is not.
Katherine: Okay. Forensic psychology is where the court and investigative systems interact with psychology, and most forensic psychologists are clinical psychologists. They are there to analyze for competency for the courtroom or mental state at the time of the offense, or prison programs. Quite often, they're there to apply concepts from social, clinical, and cognitive psychology to the court system.
Criminologists, who are often confused with forensic psychologists, approach crime through a sociological frame. They're looking at trend analysis, trying to look at the factors that elicit crimes, cause crimes, and trying to contain or prevent crimes. Criminalists are people working with the physical evidence, and criminal psychologists, a subset of forensic psychology, study things like motive and offender behavior pre-crime, post-crime, and things like that. Forensic psychology itself is a broad, sweeping subject area with many different aspects to it.
Mistake #1: "Forensic psychologists are used as profilers because detectives can’t do this work."
Matty: So we're going to dive right in with the first one, which is they're used as profilers because detectives can't do this work.
Katherine: So, I want to put some context in this. When I was doing an MFA fairly recently, as one of my graduate degrees, I read a lot of crime fiction, specifically with female protagonists, British and American. Because there's a lot of forensic psychology that comes into these novels, I was very surprised to find out so many people thought that's about all they do is profiling.
And that really limits the range of things that a forensic psychologist can actually talk about or consult on. There was also this idea that they were better at it than detectives, and some of the crime shows do this as well, the fiction shows. The detectives have lots of experience, they often get training, and often they don't even think the idea of profiling is very helpful, because they're looking at investigative things that aren't really about personality issues and motivation. So, the idea that a forensic psychologist can come in as a profiler and in some way displace the detective is, first of all, insulting, and secondly, it just doesn't work that way. It just doesn't work that way.
Now, in England, they operate as, I think it's called behavioral investigative analysts. And they are consultants, but again, they don't displace detectives in any way.
Matty: Well, it is nice to hear that if someone's writing a book or a series with a detective protagonist, they don't have to shy away from this. Normally when we hear from experts, they say, you know, you really shouldn't be doing this, but here's a case where you're saying, here's an opportunity that people aren't really taking advantage of, because a detective can have a wider scope of responsibility than maybe people think.
Katherine: Yeah, and forensic psychologists have a much greater range of skills and abilities than they're given credit for in some of the crime fiction, in a lot of the crime fiction, most of it.
Mistake #2: "They visit crime scenes to advise on catching a killer."
Matty: I have the feeling we're going to be hitting what some of those are in our conversation, but another mistake that you would call out that writers make is they visit crime scenes to advise on catching a killer. Talk about that a little bit.
Katherine: So, they're not there to catch a killer, that's the work of investigators. They are there, and then they don't visit the crime scenes. They may look at crime scene photos. They might visit at some point, but they're not on the scene. We've seen in movies where they'll get into the grave. That's, that was the one I thought was just crazy. They'll go, they'll just tramp right in through, go right to the body. These are not things that they do. They will consult. They often will never even look at crime scene photos. That's not necessarily what they're there to do. And so that's not really the point for them. They're not there to help catch a killer.
Matty: I'm going to be curious as we work through these Mistakes Writers Make lists that, since you yourself are writing fiction with a forensic psychologist, how did you accommodate the needs of entertaining fiction along with the reality that you're aware of in how these things actually work?
Katherine: Well, that is why my forensic psychologist, Annie Hunter, operates in a PI agency. So she has a team, and that cuts through a lot of the... so she has a PI who goes to do the research. She has a data analyst. She has a range of consultants, as I have, doing the kind of work I do. She's a suicidologist, as I also am. I consult with coroners and medical examiners. I have trained police officers. So I give her the same things that I have as access to other professionals who come in and help cut through some of the timing aspects. I try to keep it pretty accurate. I don't have the same problems with having to wait on crime labs, you know, because we're doing psychology here. So if she's consulting, or sometimes she'll take on a case just because it's of interest to her, or she has something, you know, like in the second novel, she lost a childhood friend to a guy who abducted her right in front of her, and it was never found. So that's her own case. That's her own personal agenda. She uses her team for that, and she's not held back by timing issues.
So there are things that you can do with forensic psychology, but you have to bring in these adjunct people who can do things. Like, I have a forensic meteorologist who assists with reading the geology and the weather factors, so Annie doesn't have to do that. But the great thing about having a team is they can go do the research and report back, so you don't have a lot of painstaking, "I did this, I did this, I did this," and it is told from a first-person perspective because she is a lot like me. But when you use these adjunct experts, much of that work is taken care of so you can attend to the suspense and the plot.
Matty: That seems like another good opportunity for people, not something to hold them back, but something to take advantage of. Because if you do have this team of people, then it takes care of some of these situations where you have a solo practitioner, and they're doing these things, and sometimes they're these very labored ways that, like, it's the point of view character they're trying to... what they're learning with the reader. But if you have a team of people like you're describing, then it's very natural, it's just a natural part of their interaction that they're describing what they found out or what their theories are, what investigation they've done. And I think that feels more natural, but it's also fun for a reader to kind of eavesdrop on.
Katherine: It is, and you put it into conversations, you can introduce new characters, unusual characters. You know, what are you doing with this drone? How does this work? How can we use a cadaver dog with that? So, and these are all based on things that I've done. Some of the characters are based on people I know, so that actually helps with the sense of reality. But at the same time, I understand you need the suspense, you need the build-up and whatnot. So I build in that. That is not something most forensic psychologists face, but because she runs a PI agency and it's called the Nutcrackers because they take on hard nuts to crack. So she always has really twisty cases, but they're based on real cases. That really are twisty in bizarre ways, and that's the fun of it.
Matty: Well, I have to ask a question that was not on your Mistakes Writers Make list, which is how much do you feel like you have to change the facts of an actual case for the purposes of your fiction work?
Katherine: The cases I use are not well known, so that helps. And then I change names. I'll change the nature of certain relationships. Place, dates, I'll shift that, but I'll keep the gist of the case pretty much intact, and that doesn't violate anything. It doesn't violate privacy. It doesn't, you know, I'm not... all I'm doing is taking a really bizarre case, because they always are strange, and putting it in a different context. And creating characters that grow organically from that context that can present the case, and then Annie gets into it. This is part of my MFA work because I had already had a number of other master's degrees. My MFA supervisors were able to do this with me, but what I presented was narrative non-fiction, but inject my fiction characters into it. So I used the exercises in the MFA program to put my characters in motion in real cases that I knew about or that I'd been involved in. So I kind of had that going for me when I was doing that work, not knowing that I was going to then make this into a fiction series. It was really more of an exercise for me and now, you know, it grew into something, but it always was based on actual cases. And I would typically change dates, names, and locations.
Matty: And did you say that these were less well known, these were just cases that you came across in the process of your professional life?
Katherine: Mostly, I mean, there is one that got national attention, but I changed the names and I injected people into it that hadn't been part of it. But mostly I will try to find cases that aren't well known. That's the nice thing about being in the forensic world in a professional context is that I find and I hear about cases that the general public just never will have, they'll never hear about it. And even if they try looking them up, they probably can't.
Matty: About forensic meteorology, I think is what you said, was interesting to me because I'm a big aviation nerd and I have to say that I watch an embarrassingly large number of aviation accident investigations on YouTube. And it's interesting because there is always this aspect like at the time of the accident, you know, there was a scattered cloud layer at 1,000 feet. I never thought of that as being like a specific sort of expertise area, which is, I'm assuming what you mean by forensic meteorology.
Katherine: It is an expertise area. I always have weather in my novels because I love weather, and I think weather is a great character. So the first one has a hurricane, the second one has a tornado, and the third one has a snowstorm. And of course, forensic meteorology will figure into when you find bodies in these weather situations, they bring in expertise for that. But in particular, in the second novel, there was a device that was invented recently for looking at, you know, with a drone, getting sensor readings from trees, and how they would have sucked up nutrients from the soil, and if there were a body buried, it would show up in different foliage colors. Typically, you need the sensor to see it. It's not that visible to the human eye, so she comes in with her drone, and what she needs is Annie Hunter's access to cadaver dogs to corroborate. So it became a really fun scene, introducing her story, and then having that all in motion for what they needed to do. And then the meteorologist ended up in the third book because she, at the end of the second one, she says, "Oh, I found this case of someone who was killed in a tornado, and it looks like it wasn't an accident." So the weather figures into that. And that sets me up for the third one.
Matty: That's very cool. Yeah. I can imagine that the nutrients from the body are reflected in the trees in some way. It could not only be good for crime fiction, but also there's kind of like a fantasy-esque aspect there. I think that people who write fantasy as well are going to be intrigued by that. Like, that's a pretty cool idea.
Katherine: Yeah. And it's complicated because animals die too in the woods. So, hence the cadaver dogs, because they're specialists in human scent.
Matty: Yeah. It's very interesting. The timing of this is nice because I just interviewed Kathleen Donnelly about mistakes writers make about working canines. And part of the conversation was about search and rescue dogs and exactly what you're saying, you know, how do you train a dog to alert on human remains, but not chipmunk remains, for example.
Katherine: Yeah, and I worked with someone who did that, and we did several... I was on an exhumation team, so we did several searches with human
Here is the corrected text with improved readability:
Mistake #3: They profile a person.
Matty: Yeah, that's very interesting. One of the other things that you had sent as a mistake people make, which I think really goes to kind of probably the heart of a lot of what forensic psychology addresses, is that a mistake is that they profile a person. Can you talk about that a little bit?
Katherine: Yeah, they're not there to profile a person. The notion of that is like reading behavior, and typically that's about trying to do threat assessment, something like that. They're not there to, that's not what profiling is. Profiling is about what are the behavioral clues at a crime scene or series of crime scenes that we can try to figure out the type of person who would do this.
So you're focused on crime investigation and crime scene analysis, not reading a person, or you don't form a profile like a blueprint. It's not a blueprint against which you measure people, but that's a common misunderstanding in crime fiction and in crime shows. They'll say things like, he doesn't fit the profile, like, there isn't a profile of this. There's no profile of a serial killer. It's profiling the crime scene to see the kind of person who would do this. It's a very different concept, but there is a confusion, and part of it I will blame the show "Criminal Minds" for, because they used to misuse that concept of, you know, one would come in all tired, "Don't profile me," like, that isn't, that is not what we're talking about, you know, looking at you and trying to figure you out, that's not it at all.
Matty: So, can you describe, just walk through a scenario where the forensic psychologist is looking at the data that's appropriate for their role to be looking at and what kind of information they would and would not be sharing with the investigative team?
Katherine: Okay, well, a suicidologist, like my person, is going to be looking at antecedent behavior. They're going to be specifically looking for state of mind evidence to support or refute the possibility that a death scene is a suicide, and that follows something called the Nash classification: natural, accident, suicide, or homicide.
And if you can't figure out one of those classifications because the circumstances are too ambiguous and they can go more than one way, the forensic psychologist can do a mental state analysis to see what is the probability, based on everything we know, that this person was suicidal. And they're also going to be looking for signals to a staged kind of death incident. So, somebody killed the person and wants to make it look like an accident or suicide. What are some of the indicators that this is, in fact, staged? So, that's what a forensic psychologist could do. They would do what's called a psychological autopsy. And if they don't find a good sense that this person clearly had suicidal intent, or suicidal background, or ideation, they're going to suggest this is an indication that you should be looking in a different direction.
Matty: And that's focused specifically on the individual as opposed to, like, the physical circumstances of the death?
Katherine: You're, no, you're certainly looking at the physical circumstances, because that's the start of it. You're looking, victimology is the collection of facts about the death incident. You're not calling it a crime because you don't know what it is, so where was the person found? You know, what disposition were they found in? How did they die? So, you want cause and effect and mechanism of death. The Nash classification is manner of death, and so you want as much information as possible, but the psychologist is trained to ask people questions specific to suicidal state of mind and to look for signals, because there's a lot of myths out there in society about suicidal people. The suicidologist knows those myths, knows what to look for, and knows when it looks like we might have a staged crime.
Matty: Are there common pitfalls that a killer falls into either in real life or in the fictional world where they're acting on what they think is going to be an effective way of making a death look like a suicide when in fact what they're doing is counter to what a suicidologist would know to be more likely?
Katherine: Yeah, suicide notes are a good giveaway. My character Annie Hunter talks a lot about this because I've done suicide note studies specific to authentic versus faked suicide notes, and there are signals in faked suicide notes. When a killer has written one, they typically follow one of the myths or make a mistake about the decedent and just do odd things. Like, one killer had typed the suicide note. The woman, the decedent, always handwrote everything. She had nothing in her home on which to type anything, and she kept handwritten journals and whatnot. Also, he says something in the note about her new love and she didn't have anybody in her life, and everybody who knew her knew that. So these are all signals and errors that he had made. He assumed that if he staged the body right, the suicide note was going to be helpful. But a lot of people think suicide notes are always there, and they're not. They're only in about 25 percent of suicides, and when they are, they often are nothing like what you expect them to be. They're not explanations for why I do this. They're often instructions or other kinds of things. But people who are faking a suicide note make the wrong assumptions. And those who have studied suicide note content and format can see these things almost very quickly.
Matty: If a fiction writer is concerned about getting this right, are there resources they can go to, to see examples of actual suicide notes?
Katherine: Sure. The study I did is in a book called "The Psychology of Death Investigation." I did that with a coroner where we studied the suicide notes that he had collected over several years. And then we went to a person, the only person in the world who has a database for looking at content in a digital manner. So we had used some of her work as well. So that's right there in that book. You can find them on the internet if you just look up "suicide note," but you're not going to necessarily know the fake ones in terms of what's the difference. You'd have to look at a study like mine to know that. And also there are whole books devoted strictly to the analysis of suicide notes. So they're out there, you just have to go find them.
Mistake #4: They interrogate suspects.
Matty: Another mistake that you had called out that writers often make is that they interrogate suspects. Can you talk a little bit about what you've seen and what the truth is there?
Katherine: This is the notion, I think, that psychologists have some special insight on deception detection. Unless they're really trained well and have done a lot of research on it, they're no better, and neither are detectives, any better than the average person in seeing if somebody's lying. So sometimes you'll see a psychologist being put in place because a detective has just come up short.
So now they need to have the psychologist come in and do the interrogation and get the confession. And that just wouldn't happen. That's fraught with ethical issues and concerns, privacy issues that psychologists don't do that. Now, they might consult on, "Here's the behavior we see. This might be the best approach to this person. Here are some ideas for a strategy." They might do that, but they're not going in there and taking over the interrogation.
Matty: It is interesting when you think about, you know, you hear these things like if people look up and to the left, it means they're lying and things like that.
Katherine: Don't get me started.
Matty: Oh, I'm here to get you started.
Katherine: Exactly where that came from, and that's just silly. And what we do know about deception, there's been some great research on it. Again, this is available, but typically you have to do a search on Google Scholar to get these because they are academic articles.
But we do know that there aren't any clear signals to when someone's lying. You have to first study them for baseline behavior and then look at deviations, behaviors that deviate from that. And that's not necessarily, again, about deception. But those are red flags to now follow further investigation. It's not as simple as it seems. People, I know that detectives are trained on simple formulas, I know that they are, but those are misleading and get them into trouble, actually.
Matty: Have you ever encountered in real life or addressed in your fiction the scenario where an investigator has a feeling about, "I just knew he was lying," and now you have to resolve this into like a viable legal procedure to pursue whether the person is lying or not?
Katherine: Well, I often hear detectives say, "I'm the best lie detector there is." I hear that a lot, but the research doesn't support it. There are two groups that are, in fact, good at deception detection. Secret Service officers, because they're vigilant about that at all times, and gamblers. They are much better than detectives, psychologists, or judges, or parents, for that matter.
Matty: Now, do you think the Secret Service is good because they're picked because they display that ability, or do you...
Katherine: There's certainly ability, but there's training. There is also training, and they do turn up better on the research than other groups, but detectives don't. And the unfortunate thing is if you're too confident of your ability to do that, you can develop tunnel vision, confirmation bias, you know, all the cognitive error pitfalls because you're so confident of your ability, and that can be a problem. But you can turn that clearly into a character trait. It's called high need for closure, and we know a lot about that in the field of psychology. The kind of person who needs that closure and believes in themselves too much can help lead the plot.
Matty: Yeah, I think an interesting companion episode to this conversation would be, I had a conversation with Tiffany Yates Martin, who's an editor, about the pitfalls of magical knowing, and we talked about this idea that our theory was that when fiction writers get themselves into a jam, they sometimes fall back on this, "I just knew it, I just knew that she was lying," or "I just knew that he was such and such," and that oftentimes if you can step back from it a little bit, you can see that there's a much more interesting way of addressing that than, "I just had a feeling," which is a little bit unsatisfying, I think, for a reader.
Katherine: Yeah, and an honest investigator is going to know they can be duped, they can be mistaken, and they are more vigilant to that, and that's more helpful to an investigation.
Mistake #5: They undertake hypnosis or therapy in the courtroom.
Matty: This one was a very interesting one. You said one of the mistakes that you see writers making is that the characters, the forensic psychologists, undertake hypnosis or therapy in the courtroom. Talk about where you see that and why that's a no-no. Which I can understand. Just on the surface of that, that seems suspicious.
Katherine: I saw that in a James Patterson novel. As soon as that happened, I went, oh my God, no, that would never happen. And, you know, his fallback is, it's fiction. You can make it up. Well, you can, and you can do all the things that I'm saying are errors. But I'm saying you can stay true to the way it's done and still write good fiction. You don't have to do something like that. But when a psychologist goes into the courtroom, they're there for typically one of two reasons. Either they have been called upon to analyze, so they are experts to criticize the defendant and provide an opinion on their behavior, mental state, etc. Or they're there as experts to explain difficult concepts to the trier of fact, the jury or judge, depending on what kind of trial you have. So, they're not there to be therapists, they're not there to be advocates for the defendant in any way. And they're not there to demonstrate a methodology on a defendant without anyone knowing what the potential outcome might be. That isn't the way our courtrooms operate. Yes, there's surprise factors, great, but anyone who knows how this is done would stop reading immediately. This is horrible. And especially with hypnosis, it's not even allowed in the courtroom in most of the states. In this country, it's not allowed as part of the case. It used to be, but they have found that hypnosis is highly unreliable, and it plants false memories. I think it's only in New Mexico right now that allows it in a limited context. But if somebody were to do that in the courtroom, for me, as a reader, it's over.
Matty: Yeah. I feel like I see the whole hypnosis thing in the last, I don't know, five years or something like that. I see it more often as something that happens in an unauthorized manner. And then suddenly the investigators are faced with a situation where what they thought was a reliable witness or reliable story has suddenly been called into question because a person, like on their own, went and sought hypnosis or something like that. And now the things that the investigators were relying on that person to testify to, they can't rely on them anymore because they've muddied the water with the hypnosis.
Katherine: Now, there was a training program for law enforcement during the 1980s into the 90s, and Texas was a leader in this, investigative hypnosis. They used it a lot. They trained police officers in it, they trained prison psychologists in it, believing that it was giving them the truth about someone's memory. And now we have a lot more research showing that it just isn't as reliable. And if you're going to use it, there is one case, I think it's Hurd v. New Jersey, that puts the safeguards, shows if you're going to do it, you have to do it in this particular way. And if you do it outside that, then everything that you bring to the case is now suspect.
Matty: You know, one thing. This is not on any of your lists, but it just struck me, because this is a question I wonder about. Right after something happens, when the police interview someone, you know, it's just happened, it's fresh in their minds, and they're going to give us a story about what happened, a true story, perhaps, about what happened from their perspective. And then, you know, maybe the police come back a week later and they ask them again, and a month later and they ask them again. Maybe the thing goes to trial a year later, and they're being asked to answer the question again. And I always thought that if I were in that position of being a witness, let's say, that I would believe that my memory of what happened right after the incident was going to be as fresh as it was going to be, as fresh and as accurate as it was going to be. And I would just keep saying that same story, not because I was trying to pull the wool over anybody's eyes, but because I would believe that I was being most accurate by just repeating what I originally said. But you don't see that like in real life and in fiction. You always see people's stories changing over time.
Katherine: You have so much faith in human memory, that what you are repeating, you think, is the same. But I think you would find out it likely has shifted a bit, especially if you've been told, "Oh, that's great, you're doing a good job." Because one of the best stories to demonstrate the problems of memory is the Jennifer Thompson-Ronald Cotton case, where she picked him out as her rapist. She was a young white woman; he was a black man. She was very articulate, she really wanted to do this right. The cops had already picked him out as their chief suspect. Terrible reasons. And they kept, you know, "Atta girl, you're doing great." The more they did that, the more confident she became in her memory. She kept telling the same story, but she became more confident, more confident, and then she picked him. He did look very much like the actual rapist, which she found out later. Ronald Cotton was convicted, went to prison for a lot of years, and then DNA exonerated him. She was horrified. Horrifying. They wrote a book called "Picking Cotton," which I thought was the greatest title for that, and they go around talking about this terrible mistake she made. A lot of it had to do with the way the police handled her, and the fact that they had made up their minds about him and didn't believe any of his alibi witnesses because they already had decided he was the guy, and they subtly manipulated her memory without her realizing over the course of preparation for trial. So that when she saw, and the most interesting part of this, when she found out who the real rapist was, her memory stuck with Ronald Cotton's face. Even though she knew it wasn't him, her memory stuck with him. And that's important. I think memory is such a malleable thing that people should educate themselves on the way memory works. You may really want to do the right thing, you may want to say the same thing over and over as you just said, but over the course of a year, maybe two years before it finally gets to trial, it's very likely you are not going to say the exact same thing you said on the day of the incident.
Matty: Yeah, if I were putting together a list of book ideas, if I needed that, I'd already have like six or seven from our conversation.
Mistake #6: Forensic psychologists pronounce defendants to be sane or insane.
Matty: Another mistake that you called out that writers make is that forensic psychologists pronounce defendants to be sane or insane.
Katherine: Yeah, people really confuse the idea of psychosis and insanity. During the 19th century, medical insanity was psychosis, different forms of psychosis, delusional disorders, schizophrenia, things like that. Over the course of it coming into the courtrooms, it has become a legal term, and it's very specific, and different states have different insanity standards.
But it is specific to whether the person has a disease or defect that prevents them from understanding that what they did was wrong. It gets complicated, but at any rate, it is for the trier of fact to decide if the person is sane or insane, not guilty by reason of insanity. It is not for the mental health expert to say it. They can talk about state of mind, psychotic features, diagnoses, but they're not there to pronounce the legal rendering. Insanity is a legal term. They're not supposed to address the ultimate issue for the courtroom.
Mistake #7: Forensic psychologists can accurately predict long-range future violent behavior without standardized tools.
Matty: And I think that the last question I wanted to ask about was the mistake writers make which is forensic psychologists can accurately predict long-range future violent behavior without standardized tools. Can you talk about that a little bit?
Katherine: Yeah. We try, and everyone seems to think that psychologists have a special insight into whether someone would be violent in the future. And they don't, but there are tools to assist. For prediction, to a certain extent, as long as all the factors in that person's life stay the same, any change is going to throw that whole prediction off. So they use different domains: the person's past history of violence, substance abuse, their association with violent peers, their role models, you know, there's a number of things that they look at, but they need to do it with standardized instruments that have already been proven to give reliable results.
And because if they don't, they could be liable if the person is allowed to leave prison or go on parole, whatever, they could be liable for behavior that that person did if they don't follow best practice standards. But they can only predict so far in like maybe 72 hours from once they leave the clinic or the prison. Anything, there's so many different things that could happen in their lives, that we really can't go very far with this. So, that's their limitation, and they do try to convey that to judges and police officers and whatnot. If somebody's going to be released and that person becomes violent, does something terrible, it's really not on them. They did everything they could within best practice standards. Now, if they didn't do that, like, just sort of, my feeling about this guy is that a woman is that they're gonna, they're gonna be fine and they use their gut clinical instinct. That's, you know, something from the 1960s. And, and wrong quite often. Standardized instruments assist with making careful decisions and taking a lot of factors into account, not just your gut instinct about a person. So it's not just about clinical instinct. It is about using the best tools we have and knowing what the limitations are, and it's very difficult to do. It's probably the most difficult thing a forensic psychologist is called on to do.
Matty: Is the forensic psychologist usually a consultant that an investigative arm like the police department brings in, or are there circumstances where a police department would employ a forensic psychologist? What is the organizational relationship there?
Katherine: Usually it's only in very large departments that have the funds to be able to hire someone like that. What they will do is fitness for duty exams, post-incident stress disorders. I mean, they have a specific set of duties. They're not profilers. That's not what they're there for. They are there specific to the mental condition of the officers and the staff. They're a staff person, essentially, or they might work in a prison, something like that. They, however, might be called in by attorneys to do assessments. So that's how they might get into a case, and that's an entrepreneurial thing. It's not a job for them, but they might get into a case for that. So now they're clinical forensic psychologists. They might be called in as consultants, but not very often, because the FBI does offer services for free from their profiling program, and not many departments have the funds to pay someone. Now, I have done consulting as a quid pro quo. I get case details I can teach in my classes in exchange for consulting on some of the suicide cases that I've done.
So it really has a lot to do with what resources do they have? What is their need? I remember one officer called me and said, "Our chief wants us to call the FBI profilers, but give me your opinion, what would they really say about this case that we're working on?" I wouldn't be able to say very much about it because there's not much behavior there at this point. So that's what I thought. And, you know, so his instinct was right about it. The profilers aren't, you know, magical, larger-than-life geniuses who can come in and offer the most amazing opinions on a case. They have to always work with behavior. So a psychologist will typically develop relationships with the local police officers, but they're probably not going to be called in very often on cases because, you know, they don't really need... you know, you're not going to get these thorny cases that often. Now, what you may get are people who are out in the community, and they're not well cared for by our system. They might be homeless, or they might, you know, we, we at this point don't hold people who might become dangerous unless they're imminently a threat, like imminently a threat. Not just maybe they're a threat or they're voicing threats. They have to be an imminent danger to self or others in order to be held for observation for a certain period of time, usually two or three days.
So those people might blow up all... you know, have a fight with their family members. We had one guy who killed both of his parents and then went down to the police department, and they knew he was potentially violent, but they could not do anything because it wasn't imminently violent. It was an explosive incident that couldn't have been predicted. So in a case like that, a psychologist might be asked to give advice. How do you, how do we deal with this? Because our hands are tied in terms of bringing them in and enforcing them into an observation situation. We, we can't, we used to be able to do that, and many mistakes were made holding people against their will, and they weren't in danger of being violent. So, I'm teaching like two weeks' worth of class here in five minutes, but it's a very complex and thorny issue, and I think for writers it can, the potential is there for a lot of great plot points and character points.
Matty: I'm just curious as to how the role, how the job has changed with social media, because now there is so much more potential fodder for documentation of a person's behavior that wasn't there 10, 15, 20 years ago. Is examining somebody's social media persona considered a valid part of forensic psychology?
Katherine: Yes, it definitely is. Any behavior, any layer of behavior. Now, you're going to run into privacy issues, so they are going to have to be working with somebody with a warrant or, you know, some good reason why the social media is being examined, but any of that would be useful, certainly.
Matty: So if someone is putting something out, you know, videos on Facebook or whatever, is there a legal, like, "I need to get a search warrant" kind of thing about that? Or if it's put out there publicly, can any investigator take advantage of it?
Katherine: It's still that same imminent threat, imminent danger. Just because somebody's venting, or even showing themselves with guns or whatever, doesn't mean they're going to do something, and you can't just go in and stop them. But we have risk levels, like low, medium, high risk. If they have a date and they name the Columbine killers and they have a location and they start giving details about how they've prepared for it, their risk of acting out rises. And yes, the police can go and bring them in because now they are an imminent threat to someone: the school system, the workplace, their family, whatever. But they've demonstrated with sufficient detail that they are planning, and they're putting a plan into motion, and they have the means to do it, and they have the mental set to do it. And there have been a number of these mass shooters stopped because of their social media kinds of things. And we also have examples of some who could have been stopped had the police looked at their social media. Because it was right there, what they were going to do, and how they were going to do it. And we need police to be more trained in cyber investigation.
Matty: Yeah, I can imagine that that's a whole thorny issue that if you are looking with 20/20 hindsight at someone who's done something horrible and you look at their social media feed and you see them making threats, then it seems very obvious. But then if you look at the other 99 percent of the people who said exactly the same thing, made exactly the same threats, made exactly the same kind of video, that didn't do anything.
Katherine: It didn't, right? And that's the problem. And it takes a certain critical mass before you can act and justify your actions as warranted. And if somebody's calling the police saying, "Hey, I saw this guy posting on social media, he's got a grudge list, you know, I'm named on the grudge list, he's got guns, I've seen them," they can go in and do something about that. But just because someone's venting, and which we have a lot of now with our political situation, just because someone's venting and showing themselves trying to look powerful and whatnot, you know, there's not a lot they can do, and that's our laws that keep them from doing that. The civil rights of the people come, to some extent, before safety. You know, it's just, what's the balance? Public safety versus people's rights, individual rights. It's unclear. There is no formula for knowing when it's the right thing to do to go in and try to intervene.
Matty: Well, I'd say if any fiction writer was looking for crime fiction-related topics to address and we haven't given them about a dozen possible ideas for stories, then they're just not paying attention. So, Katherine, thank you so much. This was so interesting. I appreciate you talking about this so much, and please let everyone know where they can go to find out more about you and everything you do online.
Katherine: Okay, well, actually, my website is devoted to the crime fiction series that I'm writing, the Annie Hunter series. I set up a website specific to that. That's KatherineRamsland.net. My other books are more true crime and real forensics related, but you can find everything on Amazon pretty much. And actually, I have book number 73 done this week, and that's a book for my horse.
Matty: Well, that's fantastic. Congratulations on that because that is an astounding number, and to add another one, another book to that number, is very impressive.
Katherine: Thank you.
Matty: Thanks so much.
Katherine: I'm doing well, thank you. Thanks for having me.
Meet Katherine Ramsland
Matty: I am pleased to have you here and to give our listeners and viewers a little bit of background on you. Dr. Katherine Ramsland teaches forensic psychology and behavioral criminology in the graduate program at DeSales University, where she is Professor Emerita.
She's appeared as an expert on more than 200 crime documentaries and was an executive producer on "Murder House Flip" and A&E's "Confession of a Serial Killer: BTK." The author of 72 books, including "The Serial Killer's Apprentice" and "How to Catch a Killer," she pens a regular blog for Psychology Today.
She's also written a crime fiction series based on a female forensic psychologist, Annie Hunter, who consults on death investigations. I invited Katherine on the podcast because I ran into her at the Mechanicsburg Mystery Bookshop's I Scream for Mysteries event. As I had told her, I tried to go to one of her talks at a conference one year, and it was full. It was beyond standing room only when I showed up, so I was not able to hear her. I'm fascinated by what she does, and we're going to be talking about mistakes writers make about forensic psychology.
What is Forensic Psychology?
Matty: It's probably useful to provide a little more context and just talk a little bit about what a forensic psychologist is and what their role is before we dive into some of the things about what their role is not.
Katherine: Okay. Forensic psychology is where the court and investigative systems interact with psychology, and most forensic psychologists are clinical psychologists. They are there to analyze for competency for the courtroom or mental state at the time of the offense, or prison programs. Quite often, they're there to apply concepts from social, clinical, and cognitive psychology to the court system.
Criminologists, who are often confused with forensic psychologists, approach crime through a sociological frame. They're looking at trend analysis, trying to look at the factors that elicit crimes, cause crimes, and trying to contain or prevent crimes. Criminalists are people working with the physical evidence, and criminal psychologists, a subset of forensic psychology, study things like motive and offender behavior pre-crime, post-crime, and things like that. Forensic psychology itself is a broad, sweeping subject area with many different aspects to it.
Mistake #1: "Forensic psychologists are used as profilers because detectives can’t do this work."
Matty: So we're going to dive right in with the first one, which is they're used as profilers because detectives can't do this work.
Katherine: So, I want to put some context in this. When I was doing an MFA fairly recently, as one of my graduate degrees, I read a lot of crime fiction, specifically with female protagonists, British and American. Because there's a lot of forensic psychology that comes into these novels, I was very surprised to find out so many people thought that's about all they do is profiling.
And that really limits the range of things that a forensic psychologist can actually talk about or consult on. There was also this idea that they were better at it than detectives, and some of the crime shows do this as well, the fiction shows. The detectives have lots of experience, they often get training, and often they don't even think the idea of profiling is very helpful, because they're looking at investigative things that aren't really about personality issues and motivation. So, the idea that a forensic psychologist can come in as a profiler and in some way displace the detective is, first of all, insulting, and secondly, it just doesn't work that way. It just doesn't work that way.
Now, in England, they operate as, I think it's called behavioral investigative analysts. And they are consultants, but again, they don't displace detectives in any way.
Matty: Well, it is nice to hear that if someone's writing a book or a series with a detective protagonist, they don't have to shy away from this. Normally when we hear from experts, they say, you know, you really shouldn't be doing this, but here's a case where you're saying, here's an opportunity that people aren't really taking advantage of, because a detective can have a wider scope of responsibility than maybe people think.
Katherine: Yeah, and forensic psychologists have a much greater range of skills and abilities than they're given credit for in some of the crime fiction, in a lot of the crime fiction, most of it.
Mistake #2: "They visit crime scenes to advise on catching a killer."
Matty: I have the feeling we're going to be hitting what some of those are in our conversation, but another mistake that you would call out that writers make is they visit crime scenes to advise on catching a killer. Talk about that a little bit.
Katherine: So, they're not there to catch a killer, that's the work of investigators. They are there, and then they don't visit the crime scenes. They may look at crime scene photos. They might visit at some point, but they're not on the scene. We've seen in movies where they'll get into the grave. That's, that was the one I thought was just crazy. They'll go, they'll just tramp right in through, go right to the body. These are not things that they do. They will consult. They often will never even look at crime scene photos. That's not necessarily what they're there to do. And so that's not really the point for them. They're not there to help catch a killer.
Matty: I'm going to be curious as we work through these Mistakes Writers Make lists that, since you yourself are writing fiction with a forensic psychologist, how did you accommodate the needs of entertaining fiction along with the reality that you're aware of in how these things actually work?
Katherine: Well, that is why my forensic psychologist, Annie Hunter, operates in a PI agency. So she has a team, and that cuts through a lot of the... so she has a PI who goes to do the research. She has a data analyst. She has a range of consultants, as I have, doing the kind of work I do. She's a suicidologist, as I also am. I consult with coroners and medical examiners. I have trained police officers. So I give her the same things that I have as access to other professionals who come in and help cut through some of the timing aspects. I try to keep it pretty accurate. I don't have the same problems with having to wait on crime labs, you know, because we're doing psychology here. So if she's consulting, or sometimes she'll take on a case just because it's of interest to her, or she has something, you know, like in the second novel, she lost a childhood friend to a guy who abducted her right in front of her, and it was never found. So that's her own case. That's her own personal agenda. She uses her team for that, and she's not held back by timing issues.
So there are things that you can do with forensic psychology, but you have to bring in these adjunct people who can do things. Like, I have a forensic meteorologist who assists with reading the geology and the weather factors, so Annie doesn't have to do that. But the great thing about having a team is they can go do the research and report back, so you don't have a lot of painstaking, "I did this, I did this, I did this," and it is told from a first-person perspective because she is a lot like me. But when you use these adjunct experts, much of that work is taken care of so you can attend to the suspense and the plot.
Matty: That seems like another good opportunity for people, not something to hold them back, but something to take advantage of. Because if you do have this team of people, then it takes care of some of these situations where you have a solo practitioner, and they're doing these things, and sometimes they're these very labored ways that, like, it's the point of view character they're trying to... what they're learning with the reader. But if you have a team of people like you're describing, then it's very natural, it's just a natural part of their interaction that they're describing what they found out or what their theories are, what investigation they've done. And I think that feels more natural, but it's also fun for a reader to kind of eavesdrop on.
Katherine: It is, and you put it into conversations, you can introduce new characters, unusual characters. You know, what are you doing with this drone? How does this work? How can we use a cadaver dog with that? So, and these are all based on things that I've done. Some of the characters are based on people I know, so that actually helps with the sense of reality. But at the same time, I understand you need the suspense, you need the build-up and whatnot. So I build in that. That is not something most forensic psychologists face, but because she runs a PI agency and it's called the Nutcrackers because they take on hard nuts to crack. So she always has really twisty cases, but they're based on real cases. That really are twisty in bizarre ways, and that's the fun of it.
Matty: Well, I have to ask a question that was not on your Mistakes Writers Make list, which is how much do you feel like you have to change the facts of an actual case for the purposes of your fiction work?
Katherine: The cases I use are not well known, so that helps. And then I change names. I'll change the nature of certain relationships. Place, dates, I'll shift that, but I'll keep the gist of the case pretty much intact, and that doesn't violate anything. It doesn't violate privacy. It doesn't, you know, I'm not... all I'm doing is taking a really bizarre case, because they always are strange, and putting it in a different context. And creating characters that grow organically from that context that can present the case, and then Annie gets into it. This is part of my MFA work because I had already had a number of other master's degrees. My MFA supervisors were able to do this with me, but what I presented was narrative non-fiction, but inject my fiction characters into it. So I used the exercises in the MFA program to put my characters in motion in real cases that I knew about or that I'd been involved in. So I kind of had that going for me when I was doing that work, not knowing that I was going to then make this into a fiction series. It was really more of an exercise for me and now, you know, it grew into something, but it always was based on actual cases. And I would typically change dates, names, and locations.
Matty: And did you say that these were less well known, these were just cases that you came across in the process of your professional life?
Katherine: Mostly, I mean, there is one that got national attention, but I changed the names and I injected people into it that hadn't been part of it. But mostly I will try to find cases that aren't well known. That's the nice thing about being in the forensic world in a professional context is that I find and I hear about cases that the general public just never will have, they'll never hear about it. And even if they try looking them up, they probably can't.
Matty: About forensic meteorology, I think is what you said, was interesting to me because I'm a big aviation nerd and I have to say that I watch an embarrassingly large number of aviation accident investigations on YouTube. And it's interesting because there is always this aspect like at the time of the accident, you know, there was a scattered cloud layer at 1,000 feet. I never thought of that as being like a specific sort of expertise area, which is, I'm assuming what you mean by forensic meteorology.
Katherine: It is an expertise area. I always have weather in my novels because I love weather, and I think weather is a great character. So the first one has a hurricane, the second one has a tornado, and the third one has a snowstorm. And of course, forensic meteorology will figure into when you find bodies in these weather situations, they bring in expertise for that. But in particular, in the second novel, there was a device that was invented recently for looking at, you know, with a drone, getting sensor readings from trees, and how they would have sucked up nutrients from the soil, and if there were a body buried, it would show up in different foliage colors. Typically, you need the sensor to see it. It's not that visible to the human eye, so she comes in with her drone, and what she needs is Annie Hunter's access to cadaver dogs to corroborate. So it became a really fun scene, introducing her story, and then having that all in motion for what they needed to do. And then the meteorologist ended up in the third book because she, at the end of the second one, she says, "Oh, I found this case of someone who was killed in a tornado, and it looks like it wasn't an accident." So the weather figures into that. And that sets me up for the third one.
Matty: That's very cool. Yeah. I can imagine that the nutrients from the body are reflected in the trees in some way. It could not only be good for crime fiction, but also there's kind of like a fantasy-esque aspect there. I think that people who write fantasy as well are going to be intrigued by that. Like, that's a pretty cool idea.
Katherine: Yeah. And it's complicated because animals die too in the woods. So, hence the cadaver dogs, because they're specialists in human scent.
Matty: Yeah. It's very interesting. The timing of this is nice because I just interviewed Kathleen Donnelly about mistakes writers make about working canines. And part of the conversation was about search and rescue dogs and exactly what you're saying, you know, how do you train a dog to alert on human remains, but not chipmunk remains, for example.
Katherine: Yeah, and I worked with someone who did that, and we did several... I was on an exhumation team, so we did several searches with human
Here is the corrected text with improved readability:
Mistake #3: They profile a person.
Matty: Yeah, that's very interesting. One of the other things that you had sent as a mistake people make, which I think really goes to kind of probably the heart of a lot of what forensic psychology addresses, is that a mistake is that they profile a person. Can you talk about that a little bit?
Katherine: Yeah, they're not there to profile a person. The notion of that is like reading behavior, and typically that's about trying to do threat assessment, something like that. They're not there to, that's not what profiling is. Profiling is about what are the behavioral clues at a crime scene or series of crime scenes that we can try to figure out the type of person who would do this.
So you're focused on crime investigation and crime scene analysis, not reading a person, or you don't form a profile like a blueprint. It's not a blueprint against which you measure people, but that's a common misunderstanding in crime fiction and in crime shows. They'll say things like, he doesn't fit the profile, like, there isn't a profile of this. There's no profile of a serial killer. It's profiling the crime scene to see the kind of person who would do this. It's a very different concept, but there is a confusion, and part of it I will blame the show "Criminal Minds" for, because they used to misuse that concept of, you know, one would come in all tired, "Don't profile me," like, that isn't, that is not what we're talking about, you know, looking at you and trying to figure you out, that's not it at all.
Matty: So, can you describe, just walk through a scenario where the forensic psychologist is looking at the data that's appropriate for their role to be looking at and what kind of information they would and would not be sharing with the investigative team?
Katherine: Okay, well, a suicidologist, like my person, is going to be looking at antecedent behavior. They're going to be specifically looking for state of mind evidence to support or refute the possibility that a death scene is a suicide, and that follows something called the Nash classification: natural, accident, suicide, or homicide.
And if you can't figure out one of those classifications because the circumstances are too ambiguous and they can go more than one way, the forensic psychologist can do a mental state analysis to see what is the probability, based on everything we know, that this person was suicidal. And they're also going to be looking for signals to a staged kind of death incident. So, somebody killed the person and wants to make it look like an accident or suicide. What are some of the indicators that this is, in fact, staged? So, that's what a forensic psychologist could do. They would do what's called a psychological autopsy. And if they don't find a good sense that this person clearly had suicidal intent, or suicidal background, or ideation, they're going to suggest this is an indication that you should be looking in a different direction.
Matty: And that's focused specifically on the individual as opposed to, like, the physical circumstances of the death?
Katherine: You're, no, you're certainly looking at the physical circumstances, because that's the start of it. You're looking, victimology is the collection of facts about the death incident. You're not calling it a crime because you don't know what it is, so where was the person found? You know, what disposition were they found in? How did they die? So, you want cause and effect and mechanism of death. The Nash classification is manner of death, and so you want as much information as possible, but the psychologist is trained to ask people questions specific to suicidal state of mind and to look for signals, because there's a lot of myths out there in society about suicidal people. The suicidologist knows those myths, knows what to look for, and knows when it looks like we might have a staged crime.
Matty: Are there common pitfalls that a killer falls into either in real life or in the fictional world where they're acting on what they think is going to be an effective way of making a death look like a suicide when in fact what they're doing is counter to what a suicidologist would know to be more likely?
Katherine: Yeah, suicide notes are a good giveaway. My character Annie Hunter talks a lot about this because I've done suicide note studies specific to authentic versus faked suicide notes, and there are signals in faked suicide notes. When a killer has written one, they typically follow one of the myths or make a mistake about the decedent and just do odd things. Like, one killer had typed the suicide note. The woman, the decedent, always handwrote everything. She had nothing in her home on which to type anything, and she kept handwritten journals and whatnot. Also, he says something in the note about her new love and she didn't have anybody in her life, and everybody who knew her knew that. So these are all signals and errors that he had made. He assumed that if he staged the body right, the suicide note was going to be helpful. But a lot of people think suicide notes are always there, and they're not. They're only in about 25 percent of suicides, and when they are, they often are nothing like what you expect them to be. They're not explanations for why I do this. They're often instructions or other kinds of things. But people who are faking a suicide note make the wrong assumptions. And those who have studied suicide note content and format can see these things almost very quickly.
Matty: If a fiction writer is concerned about getting this right, are there resources they can go to, to see examples of actual suicide notes?
Katherine: Sure. The study I did is in a book called "The Psychology of Death Investigation." I did that with a coroner where we studied the suicide notes that he had collected over several years. And then we went to a person, the only person in the world who has a database for looking at content in a digital manner. So we had used some of her work as well. So that's right there in that book. You can find them on the internet if you just look up "suicide note," but you're not going to necessarily know the fake ones in terms of what's the difference. You'd have to look at a study like mine to know that. And also there are whole books devoted strictly to the analysis of suicide notes. So they're out there, you just have to go find them.
Mistake #4: They interrogate suspects.
Matty: Another mistake that you had called out that writers often make is that they interrogate suspects. Can you talk a little bit about what you've seen and what the truth is there?
Katherine: This is the notion, I think, that psychologists have some special insight on deception detection. Unless they're really trained well and have done a lot of research on it, they're no better, and neither are detectives, any better than the average person in seeing if somebody's lying. So sometimes you'll see a psychologist being put in place because a detective has just come up short.
So now they need to have the psychologist come in and do the interrogation and get the confession. And that just wouldn't happen. That's fraught with ethical issues and concerns, privacy issues that psychologists don't do that. Now, they might consult on, "Here's the behavior we see. This might be the best approach to this person. Here are some ideas for a strategy." They might do that, but they're not going in there and taking over the interrogation.
Matty: It is interesting when you think about, you know, you hear these things like if people look up and to the left, it means they're lying and things like that.
Katherine: Don't get me started.
Matty: Oh, I'm here to get you started.
Katherine: Exactly where that came from, and that's just silly. And what we do know about deception, there's been some great research on it. Again, this is available, but typically you have to do a search on Google Scholar to get these because they are academic articles.
But we do know that there aren't any clear signals to when someone's lying. You have to first study them for baseline behavior and then look at deviations, behaviors that deviate from that. And that's not necessarily, again, about deception. But those are red flags to now follow further investigation. It's not as simple as it seems. People, I know that detectives are trained on simple formulas, I know that they are, but those are misleading and get them into trouble, actually.
Matty: Have you ever encountered in real life or addressed in your fiction the scenario where an investigator has a feeling about, "I just knew he was lying," and now you have to resolve this into like a viable legal procedure to pursue whether the person is lying or not?
Katherine: Well, I often hear detectives say, "I'm the best lie detector there is." I hear that a lot, but the research doesn't support it. There are two groups that are, in fact, good at deception detection. Secret Service officers, because they're vigilant about that at all times, and gamblers. They are much better than detectives, psychologists, or judges, or parents, for that matter.
Matty: Now, do you think the Secret Service is good because they're picked because they display that ability, or do you...
Katherine: There's certainly ability, but there's training. There is also training, and they do turn up better on the research than other groups, but detectives don't. And the unfortunate thing is if you're too confident of your ability to do that, you can develop tunnel vision, confirmation bias, you know, all the cognitive error pitfalls because you're so confident of your ability, and that can be a problem. But you can turn that clearly into a character trait. It's called high need for closure, and we know a lot about that in the field of psychology. The kind of person who needs that closure and believes in themselves too much can help lead the plot.
Matty: Yeah, I think an interesting companion episode to this conversation would be, I had a conversation with Tiffany Yates Martin, who's an editor, about the pitfalls of magical knowing, and we talked about this idea that our theory was that when fiction writers get themselves into a jam, they sometimes fall back on this, "I just knew it, I just knew that she was lying," or "I just knew that he was such and such," and that oftentimes if you can step back from it a little bit, you can see that there's a much more interesting way of addressing that than, "I just had a feeling," which is a little bit unsatisfying, I think, for a reader.
Katherine: Yeah, and an honest investigator is going to know they can be duped, they can be mistaken, and they are more vigilant to that, and that's more helpful to an investigation.
Mistake #5: They undertake hypnosis or therapy in the courtroom.
Matty: This one was a very interesting one. You said one of the mistakes that you see writers making is that the characters, the forensic psychologists, undertake hypnosis or therapy in the courtroom. Talk about where you see that and why that's a no-no. Which I can understand. Just on the surface of that, that seems suspicious.
Katherine: I saw that in a James Patterson novel. As soon as that happened, I went, oh my God, no, that would never happen. And, you know, his fallback is, it's fiction. You can make it up. Well, you can, and you can do all the things that I'm saying are errors. But I'm saying you can stay true to the way it's done and still write good fiction. You don't have to do something like that. But when a psychologist goes into the courtroom, they're there for typically one of two reasons. Either they have been called upon to analyze, so they are experts to criticize the defendant and provide an opinion on their behavior, mental state, etc. Or they're there as experts to explain difficult concepts to the trier of fact, the jury or judge, depending on what kind of trial you have. So, they're not there to be therapists, they're not there to be advocates for the defendant in any way. And they're not there to demonstrate a methodology on a defendant without anyone knowing what the potential outcome might be. That isn't the way our courtrooms operate. Yes, there's surprise factors, great, but anyone who knows how this is done would stop reading immediately. This is horrible. And especially with hypnosis, it's not even allowed in the courtroom in most of the states. In this country, it's not allowed as part of the case. It used to be, but they have found that hypnosis is highly unreliable, and it plants false memories. I think it's only in New Mexico right now that allows it in a limited context. But if somebody were to do that in the courtroom, for me, as a reader, it's over.
Matty: Yeah. I feel like I see the whole hypnosis thing in the last, I don't know, five years or something like that. I see it more often as something that happens in an unauthorized manner. And then suddenly the investigators are faced with a situation where what they thought was a reliable witness or reliable story has suddenly been called into question because a person, like on their own, went and sought hypnosis or something like that. And now the things that the investigators were relying on that person to testify to, they can't rely on them anymore because they've muddied the water with the hypnosis.
Katherine: Now, there was a training program for law enforcement during the 1980s into the 90s, and Texas was a leader in this, investigative hypnosis. They used it a lot. They trained police officers in it, they trained prison psychologists in it, believing that it was giving them the truth about someone's memory. And now we have a lot more research showing that it just isn't as reliable. And if you're going to use it, there is one case, I think it's Hurd v. New Jersey, that puts the safeguards, shows if you're going to do it, you have to do it in this particular way. And if you do it outside that, then everything that you bring to the case is now suspect.
Matty: You know, one thing. This is not on any of your lists, but it just struck me, because this is a question I wonder about. Right after something happens, when the police interview someone, you know, it's just happened, it's fresh in their minds, and they're going to give us a story about what happened, a true story, perhaps, about what happened from their perspective. And then, you know, maybe the police come back a week later and they ask them again, and a month later and they ask them again. Maybe the thing goes to trial a year later, and they're being asked to answer the question again. And I always thought that if I were in that position of being a witness, let's say, that I would believe that my memory of what happened right after the incident was going to be as fresh as it was going to be, as fresh and as accurate as it was going to be. And I would just keep saying that same story, not because I was trying to pull the wool over anybody's eyes, but because I would believe that I was being most accurate by just repeating what I originally said. But you don't see that like in real life and in fiction. You always see people's stories changing over time.
Katherine: You have so much faith in human memory, that what you are repeating, you think, is the same. But I think you would find out it likely has shifted a bit, especially if you've been told, "Oh, that's great, you're doing a good job." Because one of the best stories to demonstrate the problems of memory is the Jennifer Thompson-Ronald Cotton case, where she picked him out as her rapist. She was a young white woman; he was a black man. She was very articulate, she really wanted to do this right. The cops had already picked him out as their chief suspect. Terrible reasons. And they kept, you know, "Atta girl, you're doing great." The more they did that, the more confident she became in her memory. She kept telling the same story, but she became more confident, more confident, and then she picked him. He did look very much like the actual rapist, which she found out later. Ronald Cotton was convicted, went to prison for a lot of years, and then DNA exonerated him. She was horrified. Horrifying. They wrote a book called "Picking Cotton," which I thought was the greatest title for that, and they go around talking about this terrible mistake she made. A lot of it had to do with the way the police handled her, and the fact that they had made up their minds about him and didn't believe any of his alibi witnesses because they already had decided he was the guy, and they subtly manipulated her memory without her realizing over the course of preparation for trial. So that when she saw, and the most interesting part of this, when she found out who the real rapist was, her memory stuck with Ronald Cotton's face. Even though she knew it wasn't him, her memory stuck with him. And that's important. I think memory is such a malleable thing that people should educate themselves on the way memory works. You may really want to do the right thing, you may want to say the same thing over and over as you just said, but over the course of a year, maybe two years before it finally gets to trial, it's very likely you are not going to say the exact same thing you said on the day of the incident.
Matty: Yeah, if I were putting together a list of book ideas, if I needed that, I'd already have like six or seven from our conversation.
Mistake #6: Forensic psychologists pronounce defendants to be sane or insane.
Matty: Another mistake that you called out that writers make is that forensic psychologists pronounce defendants to be sane or insane.
Katherine: Yeah, people really confuse the idea of psychosis and insanity. During the 19th century, medical insanity was psychosis, different forms of psychosis, delusional disorders, schizophrenia, things like that. Over the course of it coming into the courtrooms, it has become a legal term, and it's very specific, and different states have different insanity standards.
But it is specific to whether the person has a disease or defect that prevents them from understanding that what they did was wrong. It gets complicated, but at any rate, it is for the trier of fact to decide if the person is sane or insane, not guilty by reason of insanity. It is not for the mental health expert to say it. They can talk about state of mind, psychotic features, diagnoses, but they're not there to pronounce the legal rendering. Insanity is a legal term. They're not supposed to address the ultimate issue for the courtroom.
Mistake #7: Forensic psychologists can accurately predict long-range future violent behavior without standardized tools.
Matty: And I think that the last question I wanted to ask about was the mistake writers make which is forensic psychologists can accurately predict long-range future violent behavior without standardized tools. Can you talk about that a little bit?
Katherine: Yeah. We try, and everyone seems to think that psychologists have a special insight into whether someone would be violent in the future. And they don't, but there are tools to assist. For prediction, to a certain extent, as long as all the factors in that person's life stay the same, any change is going to throw that whole prediction off. So they use different domains: the person's past history of violence, substance abuse, their association with violent peers, their role models, you know, there's a number of things that they look at, but they need to do it with standardized instruments that have already been proven to give reliable results.
And because if they don't, they could be liable if the person is allowed to leave prison or go on parole, whatever, they could be liable for behavior that that person did if they don't follow best practice standards. But they can only predict so far in like maybe 72 hours from once they leave the clinic or the prison. Anything, there's so many different things that could happen in their lives, that we really can't go very far with this. So, that's their limitation, and they do try to convey that to judges and police officers and whatnot. If somebody's going to be released and that person becomes violent, does something terrible, it's really not on them. They did everything they could within best practice standards. Now, if they didn't do that, like, just sort of, my feeling about this guy is that a woman is that they're gonna, they're gonna be fine and they use their gut clinical instinct. That's, you know, something from the 1960s. And, and wrong quite often. Standardized instruments assist with making careful decisions and taking a lot of factors into account, not just your gut instinct about a person. So it's not just about clinical instinct. It is about using the best tools we have and knowing what the limitations are, and it's very difficult to do. It's probably the most difficult thing a forensic psychologist is called on to do.
Matty: Is the forensic psychologist usually a consultant that an investigative arm like the police department brings in, or are there circumstances where a police department would employ a forensic psychologist? What is the organizational relationship there?
Katherine: Usually it's only in very large departments that have the funds to be able to hire someone like that. What they will do is fitness for duty exams, post-incident stress disorders. I mean, they have a specific set of duties. They're not profilers. That's not what they're there for. They are there specific to the mental condition of the officers and the staff. They're a staff person, essentially, or they might work in a prison, something like that. They, however, might be called in by attorneys to do assessments. So that's how they might get into a case, and that's an entrepreneurial thing. It's not a job for them, but they might get into a case for that. So now they're clinical forensic psychologists. They might be called in as consultants, but not very often, because the FBI does offer services for free from their profiling program, and not many departments have the funds to pay someone. Now, I have done consulting as a quid pro quo. I get case details I can teach in my classes in exchange for consulting on some of the suicide cases that I've done.
So it really has a lot to do with what resources do they have? What is their need? I remember one officer called me and said, "Our chief wants us to call the FBI profilers, but give me your opinion, what would they really say about this case that we're working on?" I wouldn't be able to say very much about it because there's not much behavior there at this point. So that's what I thought. And, you know, so his instinct was right about it. The profilers aren't, you know, magical, larger-than-life geniuses who can come in and offer the most amazing opinions on a case. They have to always work with behavior. So a psychologist will typically develop relationships with the local police officers, but they're probably not going to be called in very often on cases because, you know, they don't really need... you know, you're not going to get these thorny cases that often. Now, what you may get are people who are out in the community, and they're not well cared for by our system. They might be homeless, or they might, you know, we, we at this point don't hold people who might become dangerous unless they're imminently a threat, like imminently a threat. Not just maybe they're a threat or they're voicing threats. They have to be an imminent danger to self or others in order to be held for observation for a certain period of time, usually two or three days.
So those people might blow up all... you know, have a fight with their family members. We had one guy who killed both of his parents and then went down to the police department, and they knew he was potentially violent, but they could not do anything because it wasn't imminently violent. It was an explosive incident that couldn't have been predicted. So in a case like that, a psychologist might be asked to give advice. How do you, how do we deal with this? Because our hands are tied in terms of bringing them in and enforcing them into an observation situation. We, we can't, we used to be able to do that, and many mistakes were made holding people against their will, and they weren't in danger of being violent. So, I'm teaching like two weeks' worth of class here in five minutes, but it's a very complex and thorny issue, and I think for writers it can, the potential is there for a lot of great plot points and character points.
Matty: I'm just curious as to how the role, how the job has changed with social media, because now there is so much more potential fodder for documentation of a person's behavior that wasn't there 10, 15, 20 years ago. Is examining somebody's social media persona considered a valid part of forensic psychology?
Katherine: Yes, it definitely is. Any behavior, any layer of behavior. Now, you're going to run into privacy issues, so they are going to have to be working with somebody with a warrant or, you know, some good reason why the social media is being examined, but any of that would be useful, certainly.
Matty: So if someone is putting something out, you know, videos on Facebook or whatever, is there a legal, like, "I need to get a search warrant" kind of thing about that? Or if it's put out there publicly, can any investigator take advantage of it?
Katherine: It's still that same imminent threat, imminent danger. Just because somebody's venting, or even showing themselves with guns or whatever, doesn't mean they're going to do something, and you can't just go in and stop them. But we have risk levels, like low, medium, high risk. If they have a date and they name the Columbine killers and they have a location and they start giving details about how they've prepared for it, their risk of acting out rises. And yes, the police can go and bring them in because now they are an imminent threat to someone: the school system, the workplace, their family, whatever. But they've demonstrated with sufficient detail that they are planning, and they're putting a plan into motion, and they have the means to do it, and they have the mental set to do it. And there have been a number of these mass shooters stopped because of their social media kinds of things. And we also have examples of some who could have been stopped had the police looked at their social media. Because it was right there, what they were going to do, and how they were going to do it. And we need police to be more trained in cyber investigation.
Matty: Yeah, I can imagine that that's a whole thorny issue that if you are looking with 20/20 hindsight at someone who's done something horrible and you look at their social media feed and you see them making threats, then it seems very obvious. But then if you look at the other 99 percent of the people who said exactly the same thing, made exactly the same threats, made exactly the same kind of video, that didn't do anything.
Katherine: It didn't, right? And that's the problem. And it takes a certain critical mass before you can act and justify your actions as warranted. And if somebody's calling the police saying, "Hey, I saw this guy posting on social media, he's got a grudge list, you know, I'm named on the grudge list, he's got guns, I've seen them," they can go in and do something about that. But just because someone's venting, and which we have a lot of now with our political situation, just because someone's venting and showing themselves trying to look powerful and whatnot, you know, there's not a lot they can do, and that's our laws that keep them from doing that. The civil rights of the people come, to some extent, before safety. You know, it's just, what's the balance? Public safety versus people's rights, individual rights. It's unclear. There is no formula for knowing when it's the right thing to do to go in and try to intervene.
Matty: Well, I'd say if any fiction writer was looking for crime fiction-related topics to address and we haven't given them about a dozen possible ideas for stories, then they're just not paying attention. So, Katherine, thank you so much. This was so interesting. I appreciate you talking about this so much, and please let everyone know where they can go to find out more about you and everything you do online.
Katherine: Okay, well, actually, my website is devoted to the crime fiction series that I'm writing, the Annie Hunter series. I set up a website specific to that. That's KatherineRamsland.net. My other books are more true crime and real forensics related, but you can find everything on Amazon pretty much. And actually, I have book number 73 done this week, and that's a book for my horse.
Matty: Well, that's fantastic. Congratulations on that because that is an astounding number, and to add another one, another book to that number, is very impressive.
Katherine: Thank you.
Matty: Thanks so much.
