FBI mind attack: the super psychological tactics of the US federal police

Chapter 8 Combining Hardness and Softness, Leveraging Strength to Fight Strength——FBI's Super Psychological Code of Combining Hardness and Softness (3)
In June 1980, two years had passed since Carla was murdered.This year, Bush came to Albuquerque, New Mexico.Here Bush consulted Dr. Campbell.Dr. Campbell is an expert from the University of Arizona who is very accomplished in using computers to process photos.Bush asked Dr. Campbell for help.Dr. Campbell agreed to Bush's request, but the black and white photos still made Campbell's work more difficult.However, Dr. Campbell still made the picture clear by other means.Campbell then found a clue: the deep wound was caused by a nail hammer, and the killer hit Carla with the TV table so that the wheels of the TV table caused a gash in Carla's jaw and forehead.In addition, Dr. Campbell made a new discovery, and it was this discovery that turned the case around. Dr. Campbell found that there were some bite marks on Kara's neck, which were left by the murderer.

Dr. Campbell told Bush that although the images obtained with the help of certain techniques were not optimal, the bite marks on Kara's neck were still very clear.If a suspect is found, a comparison can be made.In fact, bite marks are almost as valid as fingerprints and are conclusive evidence.So after the Illinois police got the images of the bite marks discovered by Dr. Campbell, they immediately focused their attention on several suspects, especially Kara's neighbor Paul Maine.But after the police obtained Paul Maine's dental model, they found that it did not match the bite marks on the autopsy photo.Subsequently, the police obtained dental models of several other suspects, but the murderer was still not found.So far, the progress of the case is still not obvious.Despite this, the police are still investigating the case of Kara’s murder, and finally identified the suspect—Maine, who did not match the autopsy photos in the last dental model comparison.

Afterwards, newspapers, television and other media began to create momentum for the police who had solved the case of Kala’s murder, and continuously reported the progress of Kala’s case.Tom O'Connor of the State Police and Wayne Watson of the Financial Fraud and Fraud Section had a conversation with Maine, ostensibly to investigate Maine's eligibility for benefits, but the two officers were talking to him In the process, he deliberately mentioned the case of Kara's murder.Maine, however, has not confessed and has consistently denied any connection to the case.Nevertheless, the police still obtained an important clue from Maine's performance - Maine has been paying close attention to the media reports on Kara's case.Because Maine knew the importance of Kara's case, he tried his best to avoid everything related to it.For example, Watson once said that Maine did not write "Acton Street" in the column of "address of former residence". In this regard, Maine explained that the police always bothered him with the murder of Carla, and he tried to forget this paragraph. Not a pleasant experience.Watson, who did not get the desired result, continued: "Is she the girl who was shot, strangled, and then drowned in a 50-gallon bucket?" No, the girl wasn't shot."

Later, a man named Martin Higdon came to the police station. He told the police that Kara Brown was his middle school classmate, and a female colleague of his said that she attended a party shortly after the incident. At the party she met a man who claimed he had been to Kara's house the day she was killed.The man had said he found signs of bites on Carla's body.After investigation, the police found that this person was Paul Maine.So, why did Mein know about the bite mark on Kara's neck and tell others about it shortly after the murder?

After discovering this, the police obtained a dental cast of Maine.In fact, after experiencing some things, the police also suspected Maine, but the police overturned their views not long after.A week later, police re-studied Maine's dental cast.The test results showed that Maine's dental model matched the bite mark on Kara's neck.In the end, Main was charged with murder and attempted rape of a private home, while Paul Main was also charged with obstruction of justice.

In fact, the method used by the FBI to detect the murder of Kara was "a strategy of not speaking", because the police did not confront the suspect head-on from the beginning to the end, but arrested the suspect in other ways.And this is very similar to the way people reject requests from others.When people refuse others' requests, they can either directly refuse, or use roundabout tactics to subtly change the subject.The American police used this method in the process of detecting the murder of Kara.During this process, the American police did not interrogate any suspect through judicial procedures, but searched for the murderer by collecting evidence and obtaining dental models.For example, when the U.S. police discovered that Maine was suspected, they did not interrogate him. Instead, they searched for Maine's psychological weakness on the grounds of "investigating whether Maine is eligible for relief funds."Sure enough, the police found an important clue—Main did not fill in the Acton Street where Kara was killed in the column of "address of previous residence", which gave the police more reason to suspect that Maine might be the murderer.So the American police searched for evidence again, and finally confirmed the real murderer of Kara's murder.

It can be seen that when the American police dealt with the murderer, they did not confront the murderer head-on. Instead, they changed their style of interrogating the suspect, waiting for the suspect to show his flaws, and finally solved the case.It can be seen that if people blindly use words to attack others when they are attacking their hearts, it may not necessarily achieve the desired effect. Sometimes you may find new discoveries if you try to change your strategy, and these discoveries may be what make you successful in the heart attack reason.In fact, the so-called "not talking" strategy is not to say nothing in the psychological battle, but to change your way of speaking, and to find factors that can enable you to win the psychological battle from other aspects. A true heart attack master.

4. Use "sugar-coated bullets" to induce opponents to tell the truth
In life, we often encounter such a phenomenon: Sometimes, other people's words and deeds are not very satisfactory to us, and we can't do everything perfectly. At this time, people have to face "criticism" .However, many people do not consider their own purpose of criticizing others before criticizing others, and this is the biggest difference between us and the American police: American police always consider their own purpose of reprimanding others before reprimanding others, and the FBI also The same is true. The FBI is clear that the purpose of reprimanding others is to allow others to provide the views they need, or to correct their previous wrong views, not to vent.

In fact, from the perspective of the FBI, it should also pay attention to this point when engaging in psychological warfare with suspects.If you blindly criticize without mercy, sometimes it will inevitably make people disgusted.However, if the momentum is not strong, the strength of persuasion is not strong, so the purpose of making the other party correct their mistakes cannot be achieved.Therefore, many people who are eager to learn the art of attacking the mind really want to know what to do in order to make the other party obey their own words and act according to their own wishes in the battle of mind attack, and then make themselves win the battle of mind attack.In fact, the FBI has a way to do this, which is to use "sugar-coated bullets" to induce opponents to tell the truth.When many mind attacking masters tell others the secrets of mind attacking, they will tell such a case: the department head finds an employee whose work performance this month is not as good as before.The head of the department reprimanded him: "Why is your work so bad this month? Everyone else is improving, but your grades are not as good as before. If your work continues to fail, I will raise other people's salaries, and you will not. It’s the number one job.” Before the employee could speak, the supervisor threw a thick stack of work reports in front of him, and then there was a burst of “bombing”.The employee hoped that he could get a chance to explain, but the supervisor directly rejected his request: "Don't explain, and reflect on yourself. This month is your chance. If your performance this month still does not improve, then your The year-end bonus is about to be deducted." The supervisor impatiently listened to the employee's explanation, and waved him to go out.This made the employee feel very complicated. He felt that he was wronged and that it was not in line with his performance.As a result, his relationship with his supervisor got worse and worse, and his performance declined.

In fact, as long as the supervisor talks to employees in a different way, there will be another result.For example, after finding an employee, the supervisor can first say: "I have always admired you and valued you very much, but why did your performance drop so badly this month?" In this way, the employee will naturally tell the supervisor the reason for the decline.In this way, two people will discuss the solution to the problem, and the employee's performance in the next month is very likely to improve.In contrast, the second method is of course better.

Carnegie once said: "If people hear others criticize their shortcomings after hearing others praise their strengths, they will feel much better." If you want to have a point of view and act according to your own wishes, you must first affirm its advantages, and then point out its shortcomings, which can motivate others.In this way, the other party will easily accept your point of view.At this time, it is not difficult to win the heart attack.

5. Refutation is not necessarily useful everywhere, and proper defense will also be rewarding

In the psychological warfare, people will inevitably have to face other people's verbal attacks and other attacks. Many people will choose to refute or continue to explain at this time, and even the voice of explanations will continue to rise due to emotional fluctuations, but this is not necessarily true. Play a role in helping you win the psychological battle.In fact, rebuttals are not always useful in psychological warfare, and sometimes it will make the person who has the upper hand lose the chance of winning, or even lose in the psychological warfare.In the wisdom of the FBI, rebuttal is indeed not a foolproof tactic. In the struggle between the FBI and the suspect, although sometimes it will not refute, but the FBI is still the winner in the psychological battle.

In 1989, the bodies of some women were found along Interstates 40 and 13.After inspection, the FBI found that these dead women were prostitutes, and their skulls had been broken.The police found some obvious signs of sexual abuse and destruction from the surface of the body. In addition, the police also believed that these prostitutes were all strangled to death.

After the investigation, the FBI initially described the appearance of the criminal: the perpetrator was a white male, about 30 years old, who was engaged in construction work.The police deduced that before the incident, he was driving an old van looking for the target.In life, he has a very harmonious relationship with his wife or girlfriend, but he likes to dominate women and always faces women like a tough guy.He may carry a well-chosen weapon with him, but the evidence must be destroyed after committing a crime.In addition, the man was very familiar with the area, so he chose this place as the dump site.Moreover, this person was very calm when he committed the crime, he repeatedly killed people, and he seemed to never give up until he was caught.Based on the above inferred characteristics, the FBI noticed a man named Stephen Pennell.

Subsequently, the American police in charge of the matter sent a female police officer disguised as a prostitute to lure Stephen into the bait.One day, when the female policewoman named Lano was walking, a white man who fit the characteristics deduced by the police in all aspects stopped in front of her in a van.Because the police had previously found blue fibers on one of the victims, and this fiber was the fiber on the car carpet, when the van's door was opened, Lano first noticed the blue carpet on the car.Lano complimented the other man's van while casually scraping up a carpet fiber with his fingernails.Laboratory tests by the FBI confirmed that the carpet fibers were consistent with previous fiber samples they had obtained.

Later, the Stephen case entered the judicial process, and John Douglas was also called to testify for the identification mark of this case. The FBI found that the victims of these cases have one thing in common, that is, they have all suffered physical and mental torture.For example, in one case, the perpetrators used pliers to pinch off certain parts of the victim's body, bound the hands and feet of other victims, cut their legs, whipped their bodies or hit them with a hammer victim.As a result, lawyers defending the killers claim that because the modus operandi of these cases is different, it cannot be the same person.However, John Douglas believes that although the murderer has a different method of killing the victim, the murderer derives pleasure from the process of torturing the victim and the screaming of the victim in pain. The FBI believes that these methods are the characteristics of the murderer. Even if the real murderer already knows that the FBI has mastered his crime characteristics, he cannot change his behavior when he commits another crime.Perhaps, he would try to devise a crueler method to harm the victim, but he couldn't restrain his desire to harm.

(End of this chapter)