Stalking PowerPoint

STALKING BEHAVIOUR
and
The Crime of
CRIMINAL HARASSMENT
Det. Gord Robertson, CPS

STALKING…Case Study
13 month relationship, co-hab. for 9 months.
Separate 02/03
due to internet porn, financial deceit,
and suspected drug use.
02/04 Staged suicide attempt.
Phone calls & e-mails.
e
(42/11 – wk.)
Lengthy letter in mailbox & under wiper.
Driving slowly past house.
Knocking persistently on door, late at night.
Phone calls & e-mails e
to family and friends (22/12)
02/09 False cancer scare – e-mail to friends.
Phone calls & e-mails.
e
(38/8 – wk.)

STALKING…Case Study
02/14 Flowers to victim & two friends.
Phone calls & e-mails.
e
(31/4 – wk.)
Surveillance - Approach vehicle in morning.
Walking around house, peering in windows (x2).
Driving slowly past house.
Lengthy letter in mailbox.
(apology)
02/27 Final voice message.
02/27 Standing on porch looking in window.
02/27 Male friend answers phone, returns and barges
in.
02/27 Arrest.

OBJECTIVES
SERIOUSNESS of this
BEHAVIOURAL CRIME.
Understanding of the
PSYCHOLOGY and
MOTIVATIONS of
Stalkers.
IMPACT of crime on
victims.
Evaluating RISK and
implementation of
THREAT MANAGEMENT.

PSYCHOLOGICAL
TERRORISM…
Stalking is intentional or
unintentional mind games
intended to elicit fear and
compliance from the intended
target.

“ I have an obsession
with the unattainable.
I have to eliminate
what I cannot attain.”
( Robert John Bardo – to his sister )

FACTS
STALKING LAWS FIRST APPEARED IN
CALIFORNIA IN 1991 AND WERE
BASED ON HOMICIDE/ STALKING
CASES (eg. Rebecca Schaeffer )
ALL STATES HAVE STALKING LAWS
1993 - CANADA INTRODUCES
CRIMINAL HARASSMENT, 264 (1) CC.

“Fast Facts”

FACTS
DERIVED FROM 1995 RCMP STUDY
( 2000 Juristats Report )
1995/96 1,700 + CASES
(1999 5,382 CASES)
NINE STALKING RELATED HOMICIDES,
FROM 1997 TO 1999 (New case law)
THE MAJORITY OF STALKERS ARE MEN WHO
PREY ON WOMEN (1999 –77%)
APPROX. 75% OF ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS
THAT END RESULT IN STALKING
BEHAVIOUR.

FACTS
Female Victims
58% WERE STALKED BY SOMEONE THEY
HAD BEEN INTIMATE WITH (1999 – 55.4%)
24% WERE STALKED BY CASUAL
ACQUAINTANCES (1999 – 25%)
3% WERE STALKED THROUGH A WORK
RELATIONSHIP (1999 – 4.7 %)
7% STALKED BY A STRANGER (1999 – 7.2%)

FACTS
Male Victims
MALE VICTIMS WERE USUALLY STALKED BY A
CASUAL ACQUAINTANCE (1999 – SAME)
MALE VICTIMS ARE MOST OFTEN STALKED BY
ANOTHER MALE (1999 - SAME)
9% WERE STALKED BY AN EX-SPOUSE
(1999 –
9.1%)
4% WERE STALKED BY A CURRENT OR
FORMER GIRLFRIEND (1999 – 5.5%)

VICTIMOLOGY
1 in 12 Woman
1 in 45 Men
(U.S. National Survey, 1998)
Majority of victims: 18 to 29 yrs

Duration of Stalking
Less than 1 year 52%
1 to 2 years 16%
2 to 5 years 23%
5 years or more 9%
On average, stalking cases last 1.8 years (21
months)
Stalking cases involving current or former
intimate partners last significantly longer than
stalking cases involving non-intimate
partners.
1998 U.S. study, 759 cases.

Why does stalking stop ?
The victim moved 19%
Stalker got new love interest 18%
Police warned stalker 15%
Victim talked to stalker 10%
Stalker was arrested 9%
Stalker moved 7%
Stalker got help 6%
Unexplained, it just stopped 1%

Dynamics of Stalkers
Can be anyone
Extreme emotional needs
Relentless and determined
Manipulative/sometimes clever
Substance abuse and propensity for
addiction
May be delusional
Consider their actions normal
Information Freaks

Common Traits
Obsessive personality
Above Average Intelligence
Few personal relationships
Non-conformity to societal norms
Low self esteem

Narcissistic
linking fantasy
Acute or
Chronic
Rejection
Feelings of Shame
or Humiliation
Defense of
Rage
Fuels Behavioral
Pursuit
Restores
Narcissistic
linking fantasy

HOSKINS
BARDO
TYPOLOGIES OF STALKERS
Mullen et al. (1999)
HINKLEY
CHAPMAN
TREMBLAY

The REJECTED
• As a result of relationship dissolution, stalker desires a
mixture of reconciliation and revenge.
• Experiences feelings of loss, frustration, anger, jealousy, and
depression.
• SIMPLE OBSESSIONAL subtype.
The INTIMACY SEEKER
• Pursue intimate relationship with an individual perceived as
their “true love”, but attention is unwanted.
• Often have delusional disorder or hold morbid fascination.
• EROTOMANIC and LOVE OBSESSIONAL category.

The INCOMPETENT
• Intellectually limited and socially incompetent individuals
desiring intimacy.
• Lack sufficient skills in courting rituals.
• May display a sense of entitlement.
• They are not infatuated, only attracted.
The RESENTFUL
• Goal is to frighten and distress victim.
• Experience feelings of injustice and desire revenge.

The PREDATORY
• Sense of power and control gives the stalker gratification.
• Strive to learn more about the victim.
• May mentally rehearse a plan to attack victim.
• Most have diagnosed paraphilias, and more likely to have
histories of sexual offense convictions.
• Would include PSYCHOPATHIC offenders.
• Includes PARAPHILIC STALKERS and SINGLE ISSUE STALKERS.

Most Common
STALKERS
(L.A.P.D. Model)

SIMPLE OBSESSIONAL
A PRIOR RELATIONSHIP EXISTS
STALKER IS USUALLY MALE
EX-LOVER, EX-SPOUSE, FORMER BOSS
SUSPECT HAS BEGUN A CAMPAIGN OF
HARASSMENT
SHORTER IN DURATION
MOST DANGEROUS TYPE OF STALKING CASE

Simple Obsessional Stalker
July 28, 1995

LOVE OBSESSIONAL
STALKER PROFESSES LOVE FOR THE VICTIM,
WITHOUT THE VICTIM ACTUALLY KNOWING
THE SUSPECT. AN OBSESSED STRANGER.
CAMPAIGN TO MAKE HIS/HER EXISTENCE
KNOWN.
MOST INITIAL CONTACTS WITH VICTIM ARE VIA CORRESPONDENCE
FACTORS WHICH ENHANCE RISK:
EXCESSIVE NUMBERS OF LETTERS
STATED INTENTION OR EVIDENCE OF DIRECTED TRAVEL
DURATION OF STALKING IS OFTEN LONG
TERM

THE LOVE OBSESSIONAL STALKER

EROTOMANIC STALKER
STALKER BELIEVES (FALSELY) THAT THEY
ARE LOVED BY THE VICTIM
OBJECT OF AFFECTION IS USUALLY OF
HIGHER STATUS, CAN BE STRANGER.
VERY RESOURCEFUL, MULTIPLE CONTACT
BEHAVIOURS
MOST OFTEN FEMALE SUSPECT
DELUSIONAL DISORDER (DSM IV)
(IDEALIZED ROMANTIC LOVE & SPIRITUAL UNION)
NOT INCLINED TO HURT VICTIM
THIRD PARTY INDIVIDUALS MORE AT RISK
(EG. WIFE, NEW GIRLFRIEND – VIEWED AS OBSTACLES)
LONG TERM DURATION

Gagnon – Whitbread
1983-2001
( with permission )
Fall 1983
– Meet in High School
– Invited to gathering
– Paints Portrait
Spring 1984
– Knocking on door, waiting
– Walking in, uninvited

Summer 1984
– Afternoon nap
1984 - 1985
– Rumors of intimate relationship
– Surveillance of activities
Summer 1986
– Victim moves to Greece
Fall 1986
– Pens lengthy letter (MAILED 86-11
11-07)
“I’m m living to see you…”

Fall 1986
– Phoning and asking around
January 1987
– Buys one-way ticket to Greece
– Taxi ($300. For 500 km.)
– Phone calls & knows address
– Arrives at door (embrace, proposal)
– Follows onto airplane
– Arrival at home, calls begin
– Phone calls of congratulations

March 1987
– Telegram to parent’s s house
“Coming to Edmonton to see his girl…”
April 1987
– At house with suitcase
– Police attend and carry off
Spring 1987
– Telling people that married
– Spends night in graveyard
– Phoning parent’s s house
– Calls victim at her apartment (police)
– Temporary R.O. obtained
– Attends apartment, victim away

Breach – Court – “No Contact”
Summer 1987
– Attends at house, w. beer
November 1987
– Five page love letter
“The things you say to me in my head are
wonderful and give me happiness I never
dreamed possible…”
Christmas 1987
– Gifts at parent’s s house
( Black Candles, Othello, Witch story)

May 1988
– Love letter from Ontario
June 1988
– Moves back to Edmonton
Summer 1988
– Shows up at apartment, w. gift
August 1988
– Card left at parent’s s house
“Dear Katherine, Happy 6 th Wedding
Anniversary… Love Simon”
Christmas 1988
– Attends at parents with gifts, inc. baby
– Police attend and take away

Spring 1989
– Library book and Detective Fantasy
– Frequent surveillance begins
1992
– Telling people that married & child
1994
– Attends house “to see baby”
1995
– Victim pregnant and learns of
change in Health care

July 20, 2001
Arrest & Investigation
Interview: “says wife and family”
AHC card: “Katherine E. Gagnon”
10,000 pages in 10 binders
Christmas gifts every year, since 1987
Frequent surveillance observed by
parents and neighbors
12 hours in presence of victim

2 Chgs of Crim. Harass.
Nov 2001 – “Fit for Trial”
Mar 2002 – 2 day trial
Jan 2003 – “ NCR ”
Alberta Hospital
Review on 2003-09
09-23

FALSE VICTIMIZATION SYNDROME
(VERY RARE, 2-5%) 2
THE CONSCIOUS OR UNCONCIOUS DESIRE TO BE
PLACED IN THE ROLE OF A VICTIM.
“MUNCHAUSEN SYNDROME” (SEEKING ATTENTION)
VICTIM IS USUALLY SUFFERING A CRISIS,
WILL CONTROL WHEN AND WHAT IS REPORTED,
WILL OFTEN NOT FOLLOW ADVICE IN A PRECISE MANNER.
• WARNING: BE SURE BEFORE YOU ACCUSE
COMPLAINANT OF FALSE REPORTS
• Conduct “personal inventory” as Victim Vulnerability.

Characteristics of a False Allegation
Stalker has no IDENTIFIABLE GOAL or
OBJECTIVE. (“Shadows don’t t exist”)
Stalker is OMNIPOTENT. (Knows
victim’s s plans and police investigation)
Stalker leaves no EVIDENCE OF
IDENTITY.
“Hollywood Script”…
Escalation for Attention…

Triangulation
Secondary Target. . Usually a new
romantic interest or someone
“perceived to be”. . Could also be a
parent, friend or co-worker.
RISK can often be higher than that
posed to the Primary Target.

Psychopathic Offenders…
THEY ARE PREDATORS !

JEAN GUY TREMBLAY
HAS SHOWN A PATTERN OF REPETETIVE BEHAVIOR – NINE
WOMEN IN THE PAST 10 ½ YEARS
“HE WAS FOREVER CALLING ME A BITCH…A A BARBIE DOLL
BITCH”
“HE TOLD ME I WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR HIM LOSING HIS JOB”
“BEFORE I WOULD LEAVE FOR WORK, HE WOULD LAY OUT THE
OUTFIT I WAS TO WEAR”
“HE INSISTED I LEAVE THE BATHROOM DOOR OPEN WHEN
USING THE WASHROOM AND NEVER LET ME HAVE A SHOWER
WITHOUT HIM”
“HE CONTROLLED EVERY ASPECT OF MY LIFE INCLUDING MY
CAR, BANK ACCOUNT, WHO I GAVE MY PHONE NUMBER TO,
HOW I RAISED MY SON, WHAT I ATE, LISTENED TO AND
WATCHED”
“HE CALLED ME A WHORE AND WORSE AND BLAMED ME FOR
CAUSING THE ARGUMENTS”
HE FELT HE DID NOT HAVE A PROBLEM THAT REQUIRED
COUNSELLING

JEAN GUY TREMBLAY
“INSTEAD OF A KEY AND A BARS…ITS THREATS AND
INTIMIDATION… IT’S S A PSYCHOLOGICAL PRISON”
“HE DID’T T LET ME ASSOCIATE WITH FRIENDS OR FAMILY AND
ACCUSED ME OF INFIDELITY”
“HE TOLD ME HE OWNED A GUN”
“HE OFTEN SHOWED UP AT WORK AND QUESTIONED ME
ABOUT WHAT I WAS DOING AND WHO I WAS TALKING TO”
“HE WANTED ME TO BECOME PREGNANT IN THE FIRST 3 ½
MONTHS OF OUR RELATIONSHIP AND FORBADE ME FROM
USING BIRTH CONTROL”
“HE BROUGHT ME FLOWERS AND A SYMPATHY CARD HE
MISTOOK FOR AN APOLOGY CARD AND PROMISED THE
VIOLENCE WOULD END”
HE WAS ALLOWED TO QUESTION TWO VICTIMS IN COURT AND
ONE DEMANDED “ DON’T T MOVE YOUR ARMS, DON’T T MOVE
YOUR ARMS”
“HE WOULD STRANGLE ME TO THE POINT OF
UNCONSCIOUSNESS AND TOLD ME NOT TO WORRY BECAUSE
HE KNEW WHEN TO STOP SO I WOULDNT DIE”

Stalking Behaviours:
SENDING GIFTS… from seemingly
“romantic” (flowers, candy) to the bizarre
(bullets, blood soaked items).
DEFAMATION… lying to others about the
victim (destroy reputation – drug abuse,
infidelity, STDs, etc.)
“OBJECTIFICATION”…
degrades the victim to
an object (able to feel angry and act
vindictive without experiencing empathy).

DEFAMATION & OBJECTIFICATION

Stalker’s s Prior History
(Meloy & Gothard, 1995)
Drug / Alcohol abuse – 52%
Mental Illness – 30 %
Violence or Physical Abuse – 49%
Criminal Record – 34%
Violent Family Background – 31%
Stalked another person(s) – 30%

Contact made by Stalker
Telephone calls – 87%
Surveillance of home – 84%
Followed – 80%
Drive by home – 77%
Appearing at workplace – 54%
Sent letters – 50%
Made other types of contact – 49%
Spread gossip – 48%

Contact made by Stalker
Property damage – 43%
Left things on property – 43%
Threatened to harm others – 41%
Broke into home – 39%
Hit or beat victim – 38%
Sexual assault – 22%
Injured or killed pets – 13%
Kidnapping – 8%

RED FLAGS
COMMUNICATED THREATS ARE A SIGNIFICANT
INDICATOR OF HIGH RISK.
PRIOR CRIMINAL HISTORY RAISES RISK OF
HARM.
GREATER DANGER AS ESCALATION FROM LESS
PERSONAL MODES OF CONTACT TO MORE
PERSONAL MODES OF CONDUCT.

Verbal
Communications
PHONE CALLS
VOICE MESSAGES
(AUDIO EVIDENCE)
( LETTERS, CARDS, E-MAILS, E
DRAWINGS, SONGS )

Verbal & Written
Communications
(“TEXTUAL ANALYSIS’)
What is being said ?
Why is it being said ?
How was it delivered ?
“CONTEXT” more important than
“CONTENT”…

COMMUNICATIONS
REASON VS. EMOTION
HIGH EMOTION = UNPREDICABILITY
HIGH REASON = MANIPULATION
“EXPRESSIVE” – ventilating anger.
Threat ?
“INSTRUMENTAL” – intended to control
or influence the behavior of recipient
through an aversive consequence.

Evaluating THREATS
Unconditional vs. Conditional
(Unless CONDITION is time-related)
Direct vs. Implied
Private vs. Public
Written vs. Verbal
Specific vs. Vague
Severity of proposed action

STALKER LETTER 1

Stalker Fantasies
Delusions of ownership
“Death before divorce”…
“If I can’t t have you then no one can”…
“you belong to me forever”…
Level of detail indicates length
of consideration
Do-able
fantasy (access to resources)
Realistic fantasy
“I I will kill every other man in the world and see
if you still reject me”…

STALKER LETTER 2

STALKER LETTER 3

STALKER LETTER 4

STALKER LETTER 5

“Credible Threats”
include:
VERBAL or WRITTEN THREATS, as well as
A threat implied by a “PATTERN OF
CONDUCT”
(includes “GESTURES”)

CRIMINAL HARASSMENT
SECTION 264(1) CRIMINAL CODE
(1) NO PERSON SHALL, WITHOUT LAWFUL
AUTHORITY & KNOWING THAT ANOTHER
PERSON IS HARASSED OR RECKLESSLY AS TO
WHETHER THE OTHER PERSON IS HARASSED,
ENGAGE IN CONDUCTED REFERRED TO IN SUB-
SECTION 2.
THAT CAUSES THAT OTHER PERSON
REASONABLY, , IN ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES, , TO
FEAR FOR THEIR SAFETY OR THE SAFETY OF
ANYONE KNOWN TO THEM.

PROHIBITED CONDUCT
264(2) CRIMINAL CODE
(a)
REPEATEDLY FOLLOWING FROM
PLACE TO PLACE THE OTHER
PERSON OR ANYONE KNOWN TO
THEM;
(b)
REPEATEDLY COMMUNICATING
WITH, EITHER DIRECTLY OR
INDIRECTLY, THE OTHER PERSON
OR ANYONE KNOWN TO THEM;

PROHIBITED CONTACT
(c)
BESETTING OR WATCHING THE
DWELLING-HOUSE, OR PLACE
WHERE THE OTHER PERSON, OR
ANYONE KNOWN TO THEM,
RESIDES, WORKS, CARRIES ON
BUSINESS OR HAPPENS TO BE; or
(d)
ENGAGES IN THREATENING
CONDUCT DIRECTED AT THE
OTHER PERSON OR MEMBER OF
THEIR FAMILY.

THE SECTION OF CRIMINAL
HARASSMENT (264 CC) USES
SEVERAL WORDS WHICH ARE
NOT DEFINED. THE MEANING
OF THESE WORDS HAVE BEEN
DECIDED IN COURTS ACROSS
CANADA. (CASE LAW)

HOW MANY OCCURRENCES
(CONDUCTS) DO WE NEED TO
CONSTITUTE CRIMINAL
HARASSMENT?
GENERALLY, TAKING ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES
INTO CONSIDERATION - THE COURTS HAVE
STATED “TWICE IS ENOUGH.”
WHEN DEALING WITH THREATENING
BEHAVIOUR 264(2)(d), A CONVICTION IS
POSSIBLE WITH ONE OCCURRENCE - ALL THE
CIRCUMSTANCES MUST BE CONSIDERED

SAFETY
THE SECTION WAS DESIGNED TO
PROTECT NOT ONLY THE PHYSICAL
WELL-BEING OF PERSONS.
SEVERAL COURT CASES HAVE
ESTABLISHED SAFETY ALSO INCLUDES
THE EMOTIONAL & PSYCHOLOGICAL
SAFETY OF PEOPLE.
THE COURTS HAVE STATED CRIMINAL
HARASSMENT IS A CRIME OF POWER &
CONTROL.

“THE COMPLAINANT MUST HAVE
FREEDOM FROM MENTAL, EMOTIONAL,
& PSYCHOLOGICAL HARASSMENT.”
R. v. Lafrenier (1994) 22 W.C.B. (2d) 519 (Ont.
Ct. Prov. Div.)
R. v. Gowing (1994), 25 W.C.B. (2d) 513 (Ont. Ct
Gen. Dev.), leave to appeal to Ont. C.A.
refused 37 W.C.B. (2d) 199
R. v. Hertz (1995), 170 A.R. 139 (Prov. Ct.)
R. v. Meehan (1998), 158 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 217
(Nfld. S.C.)

REASONABLY
THIS TERM REFERS TO THE CONNECTION
BETWEEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES & THE STATE
OF MIND OF THE COMPLAINANT. “IS IT
REASONABLE FOR THE COMPLAINANT, IN ALL
CIRCUMSTANCES, TO BE AFRAID?”
THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION INVOLVES
AN EXAMINATION OF ALL THINGS KNOWN TO
THE COMPLAINANT, , IN ADDITION TO ALL
EVENTS THAT OCCURRED.
VIEWED THROUGH THE VICTIM’S S EYES…

BACKGROUND INFORMATION OF ANY
MISCONDUCT KNOWN TO THE
COMPLAINANT IS ADMISSIBLE TO PROVE
THE REASONABLENESS OF FEAR. IT ALSO
SHOWS THAT THE ACCUSED KNEW THE
COMPLAINANT WAS HARASSED.
R. v. B(s) Ont. 1996
R. v. Minter Ab. Court of Appeal
R. v. Hau BC Supreme Court
R. v. Ducey BC Supreme Court

INTENTION
INTENTION NEED NOT BE PROVEN. THE TEST IS
SUBJECTIVE. . WAS THE ACCUSED RECKLESS AS
TO WHETHER THE COMPLAINANT WAS
HARASSED.
SIMPLY PUT, WOULD A REASONABLE PERSON
BELIEVE THE VICTIM WAS HARASSED,
GIVEN ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES?
WARNINGS BY VICTIM, OTHERS, POLICE OR
COURTS WILL ALSO PROVE INTENTION.

PUNISHMENT
264(4) CRIMINAL CODE
AN AGGRAVATING FACTOR WHICH MUST
BE CONSIDERED BY A JUDGE AT
SENTENCE —
WHEN A COURT ORDER WAS IN EFFECT
DURING THE OFFENCE.

POST-CHARGE EVIDENCE IS
ALSO RELEVANT AND CAN
BE ADMITTED AT TRIAL.
THIS ALSO SPEAKS TO
INTENT

COHABITATION
COHABITATION HELD NOT TO
OPERATE AS A BAR TO A CONVICTION
OF CRIMINAL HARASSMENT.
R. v. Sanghera BC Provincial Court,
1994
R. v. Tremblay Alberta Court of QB,
1999

THE TEST THE COURT MUST APPLY
R. v. Sillipp (1997) Alberta Court of Appeal.
(a) It must be established that the accused has
engaged in the conduct set out in sec. 264(2)
a, b, c, or d;
(b) It must be established the complainant was
harassed;
(c) It must be established that the accused who
engaged in such conduct knew that the
complainant was harassed or was reckless or
willfully blind as to whether the complainant was
harassed;

(d)
(e)
It must establish that the conduct
caused the complainant to fear for
their safety or the safety of anyone
known to them; and
It must be established that the
complainant’s s fear was, in all of the
circumstances, reasonable.

Case Compilation
Aggravating Factors
Impact of offence on victim,
Suspect’s s perception of relationship,
Vulnerability of victim,
Time of day or night the harassment is occurring,
Pre-existing existing court orders,
Previous conduct of the suspect,
Request by victim for suspect to cease,
Commission of other related offences,
Access to weapons or firearms.

INTERVIEWING STALKERS
DO NOT CONFRONT, CALMLY INTERVIEW
MAY ADMIT TO OBSESSION, BUT NOT CRIME
WILL WANT TO TALK ABOUT TARGET
DO NOT TRY TO “TALK SENSE”
MAY VIEW AS “PERSONALLY INVOLVED”
GENERIC ROOM, NOT OFFICE
SECURE FILE, COMPUTER, ETC.

THREAT ASSESSMENT
SEVERAL RISK ASSESSMENT TOOLS &
INSTRUMENTS ARE USED TO ASSESS
RISK.
WHERE FORMER DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
CAN UTILIZE THE S.A.R.A. - SPOUSAL ASSAULT
RISK ASSESSMENT GUIDE
NEWLY DEVELOPED S.A.M. – STALKING
ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT GUIDE

THREAT ASSESSMENT
( S.A.M. )
NATURE OF HARASSMENT (10)
PERPETRATOR RISK FACTORS (10)
VICTIM VULNERABILITY FACTORS (10)
UTILIZE INTERVIEWS WITH PERPETRATOR, PRIMARY AND
SECONDARY VICTIMS, WITNESSES, COLLATERAL RECORDS.

ASSESSMENT - NATURE OF HARASSMENT
COMMUNICATES ABOUT VICTIM
COMMUNICATES WITH VICTIM
APPROACHES VICTIM
DIRECT CONTACT WITH VICTIM
INTIMIDATES VICTIM
THREATENS VICTIM
VIOLENT TOWARDS VICTIM
STALKING IS PERSISTENT
STALKING INVOLVES VIOLATIONS
STALKING IS ESCALATING

ASSESSMENT - PERPETRATOR RISK
FACTORS
ANGRY
OBSESSED
IRRATIONAL
UNREPENTANT
SOCIALLY ISOLATED
ADJUSTMENT PROBLEMS
DISTRESSED
SUBSTANCE ABUSE PROBLEMS
NON-VIOLENT CRIMINALITY
VIOLENT CRIMINALITY

ASSESSMENT - VICTIM VULNERABILITY
FACTORS
INCONSISTENT BEHAVIOUR TOWARD PERP.
INCONSISTENT ATTITUDE TOWARD PERP.
EXTREME FEAR OF PERPETRATOR
INADEQUATE ACCESS TO RESOURCES
SOCIALLY ISOLATED
ADJUSTMENT PROBLEMS
DISTRESSED
SUBSTANCE ABUSE PROBLEMS
UNSAFE LIVING SITUATION
CONCERNS RELATED TO DEPENDANTS

INVENTORY OF FACTORS PRESENT
(NO EVIDENCE, PARTIALLY or PROBABLY, DEFINITELY)
POSSIBLE SCENARIOS
NATURE OF STALKING
SEVERITY
IMMINENCE
FREQUENCY AND DURATION
LIKELIHOOD
PRIORITY * INTERVENTION * RESPONSE
VICTIM SAFETY PLANNING

CAN WE DETERMINE
ABSOLUTE RISK?
EVERYONE IS AN INDIVIDUAL
WHAT MAY BE HIGH RISK INDICATORS
FOR ONE, MAY NOT BE FOR ANOTHER
INDICATORS OF RISK ARE VARIABLE
WE USE THE TERMS; LOW, MEDIUM &
HIGH
WE SPEAK IN TERMS OF PROBABILITY
RISK IS DYNAMIC

Can we predict whether a woman
is at risk of being murdered by an
abusive partner ?
After an abuser tries to strangle a
woman, he’s s almost certain to to turn to
more lethal methods, such as shooting or
stabbing…
He has communicated to her “I I can kill
you at any time. I have shown you how
easy it is.”
(San Diego, study of 300 cases)

Triggers
anniversaries
weekend nights
holidays (valentines & mother’s s Day)
payday
counselling appointments
Court appearances, jail releases
Custody exchanges
Emotional crisis
weather & cycles of the moon

“Early Warning”
Frequent loss of temper, and threats
Abuse of alcohol and/or drugs
Extreme jealousy
Constant demand to know what you’re doing and who
you’re with at all times
Makes family and friends feel uneasy / Isolates you from
family and friends
Refuses to accept “no” for an answer

Advice to VICTIM
(Behavioural Changes)
STOP ANY & ALL CONTACT !
Deny legitimate reasons for contact.
Be aware of surroundings and “high
risk” behaviours.
• Do not succumb to manipulation.
• Avoid going anywhere alone.
Get support.

Advice to VICTIM
(Security Measures)
Improve physical security of home.
Improve information security.
(GARBAGE, INTERNET, ETC.)
Change the locks on your house.
Bethany and Security upgrades.
Personal safety plan
Get a Restraining Order or EPO.

Advice to VICTIM
(Assist Investigation)
Save all EVIDENCE (*57, recordings,
tapes, gifts, letters, etc.)
Keep a log of occurrences.
Have someone else retain documents.
Change telephone number.
(RETAIN OLD NUMBER TO GAIN EVIDENCE)

VICTIM IMPACT
Most commonly diagnosed effect is
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (37%)
Flashbacks and Nightmares
Appetite Disorders
Depression
Desperation and Suicidal Thoughts
Easily Frightened and overly cautious
Self blame and self doubt

Uncooperative Victims
False Victimization Syndrome
Stockholm Syndrome
Battered Spouse Syndrome
Requires trust and rapport
Frozen by fear / feels helpless
Fearful that taking action will cause
escalation

Police Tactics
Risk Assessment
Safety Planning
Warrant Applications
Detailed Show Cause
*57 Traces, One Party Consent
Surveillance
Undercover Operator
Monitor RELEASE CONDITIONS – Breaches

Every breath you take
Every move you make
Every bond you break
Every step you take
I’ll be watching you …
Oh can’t t you see,
You belong to me ?
Sting

A Nonrandom Study of
82 Female Stalkers
J. Reid Meloy, PhD, ABPP
Cynthia Boyd, MA
San Diego, California
August 29, 2001

Perpetrator
Demographics
N=82 females
Age range: 17-58, Median age: 37-38
38
– Caucasian: 77%
– African-American:
American: 8%
– Asian: 6%
– Hispanic: 5%
– Other: 4%

Perpetrators’ sexual
orientation
(n=75)
Heterosexual: 80%
Lesbian: 8%
Bisexual: 12%

Victim/perpetrator
relationship prior to the
onset of stalking
(n=79)
Prior Sexual Intimate: (22) 27%
Acquaintance: (40) 50%
Stranger: (17) 21%
Family member: ( 2) 2%

Personal Sexual Intimacy &
Violence
55% of sexual intimates were
violent
15% of non sexual intimates
were violent

Victim initiated contact with
the perpetrator after
stalking began
(n=71) 31%
Increased stalking: 68%
Decreased stalking: 5%
No effect on stalking: 27%

Summary of Findings
Intelligent & educated
Heterosexual orientation
Majority are acquaintances or strangers
Older male victims
Not antisocial or psychopathic
Less following behavior than men
More threaten and do not act violently

Summary of Findings
1 in 4 are violent toward victim
Sexual intimacy is key to violence risk
No weapon, minor injury
Borderline Personality Disorder
They escalate, daily pursuit, 1-51
5 years
Do not initiate contact with the stalker

Sept. 19, 1995

Stalker Motivation
“OBSESSION
OBSESSION”
“Let me explain”
Revenge
Wants attention
Looking for love

Psychiatric Assessment
Mr. X suffers a severe mental disorder of the
psychotic kind (impaired contact with
reality)… a mental disorder diagnosed as
delusional disorder. He presents with
delusions (fixed false unshakeable beliefs).
Specifically, he experiences delusions of an
erotomanic type (delusions that another
person is in love with the individual), and
persecutory type (delusions that the personal
is being malevolently treated)…

Psychiatric Assessment
He believed that his admission to the forensic
unit was “just a game”… that his admission
to the forensic unit is a test from his exgirlfriend
so that he can prove his love for
her… He described how his ex-girlfriend is
someone who was meant for him… He made
reference to the bible and history to confirm
this. Further, he described how events in the
community such as a traffic light falling off at
an intersection was a specific sign to him that
his ex-girlfriend and he were meant to be
together…

THE ROLE OF ALCOHOL
ALCOHOL AND/OR DRUGS IS A
DISINHIBITOR
ALCOHOL AND/OR DRUGS ARE USED TO
BLOT OUT AFTER INCIDENT
WILL INCREASE RISK
ALCOHOL AND/OR DRUGS ARE NOT TO
BLAME FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OR
STALKING BEHAVIOUR.

CYBERSTALKING
The dark side of Technology
LACK OF SOCIAL CONSTRAINTS
E-MAIL
WEB SITES
SEQUENTIAL SERVERS

Offences related to Criminal
Harassment
(Canada, 1999)
Uttering Threats
Administration Of Justice
Harassing Phone Calls
Common Assault
Mischief
0 5 10 15 20 25

STALKER LETTER 6
Jodie, GOODBYE! I love you six trillion
times. DON'T YOU MAYBE LIKE ME A LITTLE
BIT? (YOU MUST ADMIT IT I AM DIFFERENT).
It would make all the difference.
JOHN HINCKLEY of course