Journey into Darkness (51 page)

Scott begins, “We have a double homicide in Brentwood—that’s an upper-middle-class neighborhood not too far from the UCLA campus. When you go several blocks north and get on the other side of Sunset Boulevard, it becomes a strictly upper-class neighborhood. You might say the people living south of Sunset aspire to do well enough to move to the north side. Victims are a twenty-five-year-old white male and a thirty-five-year-old white female. Both died from sharp-force trauma, stabbed multiple times outside the residence of the female victim.”

“Have there been any similar crimes lately in the neighborhood?” I ask.

“No, nothing like this,” Scott replies.

“How about burglaries or any voyeuristic activities?”

“No.”

At this point, I tell him that I want the report of the first officer on scene, a map of the area with sites significant to the crime scene marked, I’ll need to see crime scene and autopsy photos, autopsy protocols and the medical examiner’s report, if it’s in yet, and I’ll need as much as he can get me on the victimology—what were these two people like?

What I
do not
want from him is a suspect list (if he’s developed one) or any theories about who it could be. I don’t want to be influenced by what he’s already decided or leads his task force has already pursued.

If this were a major “hot” case—one in which the UNSUB seemed to be active, with danger of new victims at any moment—I might fly out to Los Angeles to give onscene
help and analysis. But in the hours and days following the murders, there haven’t been any others with similar MO, so unless the situation changes, I’ll continue doing my analysis from Quantico, so I don’t get too far behind in my administrative responsibilities or the hundred-plus other cases on which my unit is working.

The Brown-Goldman case materials arrive by overnight mail and I take most of the morning reviewing them, trying to put myself in the place of both victims and perpetrator, trying to discern the “subtext” of the scene. The key thing I’m asking myself is:
Why were these particular people the victims of this violent crime?
Before we can know the
Who?
we must understand the
Why?
And in trying to come up with the answer to that question, I’m asking myself if there is a connection between these two victims or is it simply that one of them was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

By the time I finish, it’s just before lunch—morning on the West Coast. Scott is in his office and can arrange a conference call with other key members of the task force.

“The killing is at close range and confrontational. The weapon is a knife, which tells you this is a very personal type of crime. The crime scene is a
mixed
presentation,” I begin. “There are both organized and disorganized elements to it, which we’ll get to shortly. But I would say the killer was basically organized, which leads me to believe he is a mature individual with intelligence and sophistication and that some planning and intent went into the crime. He wore a cap and gloves and brought a weapon to the scene. The killing of the female victim is efficient and almost militarystyle, along with a tremendous amount of “overkill.ߣ At the same time, there are disorganized elements that suggest it didn’t go quite the way he planned, and that though he is mature, he has little, if any, experience in crime. There is an obvious lack of control relating to the male victim and evidence of panic when things didn’t go quite his way. So you may see some domestic complaints on the offender’s rap sheet, possibly minor altercations or fights in a bar, but certainly nothing like a murder and he hasn’t done time. So don’t expect a police record to lead you to the guy. The mere fact of leaving a cap and glove at the scene and wearing shoes which leave a distinctive footprint speak to a lack
of criminal sophistication and experience. He also cut himself, probably as he comes around her throat, and there’s a cut in the glove found at the crime scene, which shows he wasn’t prepared for that level of fight with Ron Goldman.

“The homicide took place at Nicole Brown Simpson’s residence,” I continue. “That alone is strong evidence to suggest that she was the primary target. We also know that Goldman was there because Brown’s mother had left her glasses earlier in the day at the restaurant where Goldman worked. Nicole had called the restaurant, they’d found the glasses, and Ron had volunteered to drop them by. So his being at Bundy at that particular time was happenstance. Unless the killer actually followed him, he could not be considered the primary target. And if he was being followed, it makes no sense at all that the killer would wait until he was with another person and near potential eye- or ear witnesses. But let’s look at some of the other facts:

“As you said, the ME’s report says that both victims died of multiple stab wounds. And Goldman’s got diffuse multiple defense wounds on his hands and arms. She’s found in a fetal position at the bottom of four concrete steps leading up to her condominium door. Her black dress is hiked high up on her thigh, but this looks like it’s due to the shortness of the dress and the way she fell rather than any attempt to lift the dress or expose her. This is confirmed by the fact that her panties are in place and there’s no evidence of sexual assault and no evidence of staging.

“But there is a lot of bleeding and she bled out on this last step, which was probably where the fatal assault took place. Her throat is cut so deeply she’s practically decapitated. The other stab wounds are much more concentrated and directed than they are with Goldman. The killer didn’t have trouble controlling her as he did with Ron. He stabbed her repeatedly, not because he “hadߣ to, but because he ߢwantedߣ to. And this is another reason I say the woman was the primary victim, not the man: the attacker knew her, and knew her well.”

“Why do you say that, John?” one of the detectives asks.

“As we’ve noted, there’s no sexual assault, so this isn’t a scenario where she pissed off a rapist. This kind of overkill represents rage directed at a particular person, especially
since so many blows were directed at the neck. This is not a stranger murder. He did not have to do what he did simply to kill her. He was making a statement. He was punishing her.

“The wounds on the male victim are different. Goldman put up an incredible struggle, one hell of a fight. The types of wounds on him—the defense wounds on the hands and arms and the deeper thrusts to the body—show that the UNSUB was doing what he had to strictly to kill him. He wasn’t interested in punishing him or making a point. He was just trying to neutralize him. That’s what I mean when I say it didn’t go quite the way the attacker planned. He didn’t plan for another man to be there. That messed up his organization real fast.”

“But as you know, we found a glove and a dark knit watch cap at the scene, John. Couldn’t that belong to someone who came to rob?”

“Sure it could,” I say. “But nothing was taken. In fact, the UNSUB never entered the house.”

“But you said yourself that he was surprised by Goldman being there. Maybe it was his intent to rob and he never got to it.” I don’t think the investigator really believes this. He’s probably playing devil’s advocate with me, which is fine, since I should have to support the logic behind everything I say. I’m not necessarily telling them things they don’t know or haven’t figured out on their own, but it’s important to go through my take on the events before we start sharing information.

“First of all, you told me you weren’t having problems with burglars in this neighborhood,” I say. “But more to the point, a burglar doesn’t generally bring a knife with him to the scene. He either brings a gun or no weapon at all. A burglar has two goals: the first is to get in and out without a confrontation and without being seen. If he can’t achieve that and he does find himself in a confrontation, his second goal is to get the hell out as quickly as possible. He won’t stick around to hurt anyone unless he feels that’s his only option for escape. A gun might help him do that; a knife isn’t going to do the job. It’s too up-close-and-personal and too labor-intensive a way of killing. It is possible, however, that the offender planned on going inside to commit the
crime, but was sidetracked when he saw Nicole and Ron together and probably thought there was a romantic relationship between them. She had candles lit all over the house—the kitchen, the bathroom—in spots that could be seen through the windows. This had always been a romantic ritual with her. So someone who knew the meaning of this ritual, who had participated in it himself, might be enraged if he presumed that she was preparing it for someone else.

“We don’t know for sure whether or not there was a relationship beyond friendship between Brown and Goldman, but we do know at the very least that they weren’t planning anything that night because Goldman was scheduled to meet several of his buddies after he dropped off the envelope containing the glasses.”

“So you think he was in the process of attacking her when Goldman happens to show up at the scene?”

“That’s possible,” I acknowledge. “But I don’t think so, because it appears that he began with her, went to him, then back to her. What I think happened was: the UNSUB sees the two of them together; he’s been watching, he’s been stalking her. He doesn’t like what he sees. So he comes out and confronts them. She recognizes him. Goldman probably does, too, so he puts out his hands, palms up, like, “Hey, stay cool, man. Nothing going on here. I just came to return her mom’s glasses.”

“But the offender whacks her on the head with blunt force—boom—probably the butt of the knife, probably sufficient to knock her out.

“He then goes to Goldman, who is about five or six feet away, near a palm tree growing up through the ground. This is maybe two or three seconds later and Ron is caught off guard by the attack on Nicole. He’s trapped in this small area—a four-by-six-foot space with a fence behind him—and he’s blocked by this palm tree. Instinctively, he goes into a pugilistic stance—we can tell this from the defense wounds—and he’s also stabbed in his left thigh and left abdomen. There’s a struggle between the two men. The shirt Goldman’s wearing is twisted around his body so that when he’s stabbed and stabbed again the holes don’t seem to line up with the stab wounds when the body is examined later.

“Now, the defense wounds are primarily concentrated on
the fingers of his left hand, and the palm of that hand. What I think happened is that he reached out as the attacker was stabbing with his right hand. Goldman reached out and pulled the left glove off, which is the one found at the scene.

“By this point the offender has worked himself up into a frenzy. As soon as he’s got Ron neutralized, which is not easy, he goes back to Nicole, lifts her head from behind, and cuts her throat, slicing right through her voice box, nearly taking her head off.

“The UNSUB then goes back to Goldman because he has to make sure he finishes him off. We know he goes back because her blood is found on the bottom of one of Goldman’s shoes. Now, this is very, very important, because it tells you that the offender is not a professional killer. This is not a hit man. He doesn’t know exactly what it takes to kill this guy. He has to come back and check on him. He sees that Goldman is dying and he goes back and stabs him multiple times. In fact, he’s actually stabbed more times than Brown, even though the personalized sort of attack is reserved for her. That’s because even though she’s the one he’s out to punish, to revenge himself on, the male is the greater physical threat. That’s another reason we know the crimes were committed by a single offender. Two or more killers would have been able to control the situation better. You wouldn’t have the evidence of such a struggle on Goldman’s body.”

Even if it didn’t happen exactly this way, even if Ron came upon the scene as the offender was already attacking Nicole, that doesn’t change my assessment of the type of individual responsible for the crimes or what his motive would have been.

“So you don’t think this could be a drug killing, then, John?”

I don’t. “Was either victim involved in the drug scene?” I ask.

“Not really. They may have tried recreational drugs. A lot of that crowd does. But there’s nothing in the tox screens and both of them took pride in their bodies. Certainly neither of them had ever sold.”

“Then who butchers two people who aren’t any threat to a dealer’s commerce? You expect a drug murder to be very
symbolic, like the ’Colombian necktie’ in which the victim’s throat is cut and his tongue is brought out through the wound. Something like that. It would be done in some symbolic place, not the victim’s home. And as I said, it would be done by professionals who would have been better prepared to subdue the male victim. Or, if they weren’t, upon finding him at the scene they would have been dispassionate enough to walk away and try again at a more opportune time.”

It is very important at this stage to try to classify the type of homicide we’re dealing with. If this isn’t a rape-murder or a burglary gone bad, if it’s not a drug killing, an insurance murder, a criminal enterprise murder, or what have you, what is it? I was lead author on a book entitled
Crime Classification Manual
, which was published in 1992. After years of research and consultation on thousands of cases, some of us at Quantico felt the need for a system of classifyingand thereby explaining—serious crimes that would have the same rigor and organization that DSM -the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
—has on the psychiatric side. The result was the volume which has come to be called CCM. Outside the Bureau, Dr. Ann Burgess of the University of Pennsylvania and her husband, Allen, a professor of management at Northeastern University in Boston, served as co-authors and oversaw the compiling and organization of the voluminous data. Virtually all the special agents in the Investigative Support Unit and many in Behavioral Science also contributed. For example, Jud Ray headed up the Personal Cause Homicide classification committee and worked with Jim Wright on the Group Cause committee.

In CCM, we classified homicide, arson, and rape and sexual assault according to motive and elements and told police and investigators what the components and investigational considerations of each should be. The first of the homicide categories, Criminal Enterprise Homicide, is broken down into eight sub-groups and four sub-sub-groups. Personal Cause Homicide is broken down into two sub-groups, ErotomaniaMotivated Killing and Domestic Homicide. Domestic Homicide, in turn, is broken down into Spontaneous and Staged classifications. None of these are arbitrary or subjective categories. They’re based on extensive research and experience.