Russell Williams was a colonel in the Canadian Forces, a pilot who flew dignitaries including Queen Elizabeth II, and commander of the largest airbase in Canada. That is, until he was arrested for breaking into women’s homes and stealing their underwear, sexual assault and murdering two young women.
Lovefraud has written about Williams before: For Halloween: A real monster who liked to dress up.
The question, of course, is how did such a predator achieve the rank of colonel? Should he have been flagged along the way? How was it that Williams received nothing but stellar reviews, and turned out to be a murderer?
The Canadian Forces, stunned by what happened, launched an inquiry into how candidates are selected for senior command positions. Could enhanced psychological testing have revealed Williams’ true nature? Here’s what Macleans reported:
The answer, sadly, is no. Among hundreds of pages of internal military documents, obtained by Maclean’s under the Access to Information Act, is a draft version of that review. It confirms what leading experts have long maintained: there is no off-the-shelf exam that employers, armed forces or otherwise, can use to detect sociopathic killers. “Given the recent events in CFB Trenton, it is natural for the CF to question whether or not the organization could have identified a sexual sadist or predicted that an individual would become a serial sexual murderer,” the report says. But that “would be unrealistic to expect.”
Read There’s no way to spot another Russell Williams on Yahoo.com.
It’s probably true that no one could have spotted Williams. His case, however, is highly unusual. As I wrote in Sudden psychopath: The horrifying yet strange case of Col. Russell Williams, this case is unique in that Williams showed no signs of disorder before he suddenly became a sexual pervert and predator. Unlike most sociopaths, he didn’t have a history of lying, cheating and abusing. That’s why his case is so weird.
Judged by behavior
Although I don’t know much about the various psychological tests that are available, I doubt that any self-report inventory, where the subject answers questions about himself or herself, would work. After all, sociopaths lie. They lie about everything, so of course they’re going to lie on a personality test. Even if the test is designed to spot inconsistencies, how would anyone know which part is true?
To diagnose sociopaths, you need to know about their behavior. Most sociopaths leave a lifelong trail of destruction, ranging from overt crime to subtle emotional and psychological abuse. Dr. Robert Hare developed the Psychopathy Checklist Revised (PCL-R), and it has become the gold standard for diagnosing psychopaths (the term he uses). The PCL-R has two parts—a semi-structured interview, and a “file review.” This means that the individual’s criminal and psychological records are included in the evaluation. In other words, the psychopaths are identified by their behavior, not by their answers on a test.
The Gift of Fear
We, of course, don’t want to experience a sociopath’s behavior. We want to avoid them, so they don’t have an opportunity to inflict any damage of any kind. Can we do it?
I believe the answer is yes. The way to avoid a sociopath is to listen to our intuition.
Several people on Lovefraud have posted about a book called The Gift of Fear, by Gavin de Becker. Oprah Winfrey called de Becker the nation’s leading expert on violent behavior, and his company helps hundreds of people, including celebrities, stay away from stalkers and other predators.
De Becker’s whole point in The Gift of Fear is this: Your intuition will tell you about danger. Listen to it.
I can back this assertion up with data. In the Lovefraud Romantic Partner Survey, conducted earlier this year, I asked the following question: “In the beginning of the involvement, did you have a gut feeling or intuition that something wasn’t right about the person or the relationship?”
Seventy-one percent of respondents said yes. Let me repeat that: 71% of people who became involved with sociopaths knew early on that something was wrong. Unfortunately, most of them stayed in the relationship anyway.
Trust your intuition
I think it’s unlikely that an accurate paper-and-pencil test for spotting sociopaths will ever be developed. However, we all have a built-in early warning system. The system isn’t designed to identify sociopaths in an abstract sense; it’s designed to warn us when we are in the presence of danger.
Here are the three steps to protecting yourself from sociopaths:
- Know that sociopaths exist.
- Know the warning signs of sociopathic behavior.
- Trust your intuition.
The key is to pay attention to the warning signals that we receive. But often we don’t. We doubt ourselves. We give the person another chance. We wait for hard evidence. In the end, we are damaged and filled with regrets.
Would listening to their intuition have saved Russell Williams’ victims? We’ll never know. But Gavin de Becker did relate a story about a woman who was assaulted in her apartment. The assailant told her to be quiet, promised he wouldn’t hurt her, and left the room. The woman, filled with fear, didn’t listen to him. She listened to her intuition and slipped away. The guy returned with a kitchen knife, intending to kill her. But she was gone.
Heck lacking intuition imo explains how come spaths can utter the most outrageous lies and not comprehending that they are so unbelievable, like “accidentally falling into a life rescue boat”… They don’t even begin to know how we SENSE reality, including consequential future reality, around us on a deep subconscious level. We hardly even have words for it or understand it, cannot explain it. But we do know and sense the world in a quantum physical way that they can not.
No matter how many times I read the quote from the captain about accidentally falling into the lifeboat t still generates an audible laugh from me. I agree, they don’t have a clue how utterly preposterous their lies are. Worse yet, they rationalize it to the point where they actually believe their own lies. It’s no wonder they are so good at manipulation, they are doing it to themselves all the time!
NB
I don’t know about you–but I am finding it horrible coming to terms that he never loved me.
I am going through photographs just now and I have come across a bag full of love notes from him throughout the 22 years. I am such a sentimental person.
I really believed them.
Reality can be so harsh,
So sorry, I’ve just realised I have went off topic. Apologies.
LWH
xxx
Here’s the thing… this intuitive pre-sensation about a future outcome suggests there is some (probably quantum mathematical) dimension where info about all times (past, present and future) can be got. There are actually mathemathical models that propose an 8D reality: 3d of what we see, a 4th time-space dimension and duplicates of those 4 in the imaginative math dimensionse (number i, which is the square root of -1). Because we can somehow tap into that dimension to get data automatically from it, that would also give us an intuitive sense of an absolute, independent truth being out there. How else could we sense a future outcome otherwise 4 to 17 secs beforehand? Sensing that there is a truth out there, predictable outcomes based on setting things in motion, would hold us back from lying and irresponsible acts on a deep subconscious level. It may even be a source or basis for our moral thinking.
But someone who cannot tap into such data subconscious or not, would lack the sense of an absolute, independent truth. If a spath’s body has no knowledge of the existence of an independent truth of future, present and past at such a deep level, then it would seem to them as if they can just make the truth being whatever they say it is: hence they lie so naturally, change stories all the time. And if you imagine that truth is whatever you make it about to be, and no idea there is an absolute truth data out there that can be tapped into at a subconscious level, then they become the sole reality they ever experience, hence narcism and grandiosity.
It would even explain a lack of the ability to bond at a quantum-like level. Our intuition gives us also the feeling that we are connected and bonded in an invisible way. No intuition, no basic feeling of all being part of an all ecompassing reality.
LWH, coming to terms with the fact he never loved me was by far the most significant hurdle for me to overcome. I believe I am through the worst of it which took about two years. On occasion I still have a fleeting thought that this just can’t all be real. But alas, it is. Hang in there, LWH. It does get better. I’ve been able to separate myself out from the couple. Don’t have a clue what’s ahead or how I am going to get there but I do know I’ve made progress and for now that’s enough.
Darwin’s Mom, again I agree with that. I used to work with someone who purchased an old waterfront cottage, gutted it and did a complete remodel. The remodel disrupted something and apparitions started to appear in her home. At times there would be many literally walking right through the house/walls. When she hired a spiritual intuitive to investigate she was told the house was in the middle of pathway to a picnic area back in colonial times. The only explanation can be another dimension that was somehow impacted by the house being remodeled. Interesting stuff! She eventually sold the house as she has young children and they were frightened by the apparitions and would not sleep in their own rooms.
darwinsmom: very deep and appreciated.
I could completely relate to what you were saying and I so agree with you.
You have it just about ‘pegged’ I would say, although I do believe that each ppath/spath is as unique as our own selves.
There is no one measure or way to define their each and unique separate personalities, although they ALL contain the very most common threads of lying; manipulating; etc., but I believe the underlying basis is exactly what you said. I have been around this a long time now and you start to see ‘certain patterns’ that evolve around this type of personality.
THEY BECOME THE “reality” they lie themselves into.
I know that’s difficult to wrap your mind around, but it’s true. If you do something to highly displease a ppath who is a bit on the violent side, anyways, they will tell themselves lies in order to justify their behavior and actually come to believe those lies.
When you see a person who is starting to exhibit this personality trait, it’s best to excuse yourself and not look back because the resulting encounter(s) will either leave you completely confused and/or psychologically dumbfounded trying to understand their behavior, at worst, injured, maimed and/or dead.
They don’t know how to bond so they manufacture these beautiful visions in their mind that they really aren’t sure they want, but yet, they have proven THEIR truths to themselves so your validation is not necessary. For anything. In fact, I think we are only in their lives to afford them an ‘audience’ and the ‘attention’. They thrive on negative attention.
Thanks darwinsmom…you have given me something to stretch my mind with today. Happy day to you. xxoo
Dupey
NB
Yep progress-I am getting there. I am sorting out memory boxes for my kids right now. Before it was all a jumble. I have a pile face down that’s him. Kids accepted it. YEAH.
Last night my youngest who is 14 asked me what I am going to do with the pile that is just me and him.
I braced myself and said ‘cut him out’. I told her that she had plenty with her and her dad.
She accepted it no problem.
So tonight I will be cutting. Got a tummy bug so can’t make my mum’s for dinner.
Darwin’s mum-I am hopeless with physics and maths but I got the gist. In my nightmare last months with him when he revealed all-I was shocked that his history of us was entirely different from mine.
It started to become obvious that he was on a different planet completely-all enmeshed with our children and me. His grandiosity took the form that he was some sort of wealthy business man. What he would have liked to be I presume. He is -I don’t want to say his trade-but working class.
I was terrified because not one thing he was saying was based on reality.
Skylar.
Mine was preoccupied with money and image which was hidden behind a humble mask but slipped through occasionally. Also-I used to call him slippery slidey sam affectionately because of his inability to answer a question.
I just put it down to human inperfections. I was so trusting. But my reasoning was-what’s the point of being in a relationship if you don’t trust.
Fool me
LWH
xxx
LWH,
accepting that he never ever loved me was the rock in the pit of my stomach too. It made me physically ill for about a month. Trust is everything and betrayal is its opposite.
Darwinsmom,
I have some issues with the methods that were used. The 10 second delay should have been a random time interval. The body gets accustomed to delays and will “expect” the next picture. Generally, there should have been more randomness, including violent pictures and some with no picture at all after a click.
Also, there was some explanation of “cleaning up” the data by statisticians. It was hard to understand. I read once, (I wish I had the article, it’s hard to remember what it was about) about some experiment, in which I think astronomers were listening for particular sounds or perhaps it was radio-active decay… I can’t remember. Anyway, the data was cleaned up to remove meaningless background noise and the conclusion was that there were no meaningful results. The experiment was repeated over and over and they were having trouble replicating it, I think. Anyway, as it turned out IT WAS THE BACKGROUND NOISE that proved or disproved the hypothesis. I’m sure that I’m not explaining it correctly but the point is that we live in an analogue world and when you try to create digital data, we lose something.
Also, there is a researcher named Dr. Ioannidis, whose main research is about errors in scientific research. He is meticulous. I like to read articles about his experiments. But right now I can’t find the ones that I’ve enjoyed most. Here’s one that’s pretty good.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/8269/?single_page=true
For me, the most fascinating way to refute any scientific evidence is presented in this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfGwsAdS9Dc&feature=player_embedded
It’s about the left and right brain. In the video, (around minutes 4 thru 6) it shows how a person with a severed corpus callosum communicates a word that his right brain sees (through the left eye), by drawing a picture of it, with his left hand. When he sees a word with his other eye, it goes to his left brain and can be written with his right hand. The two brain hemispheres cannot communicate inside the brain. It must occur on paper or by saying it out loud.
Here’s the amazing part: the left brain, when it doesn’t know what the right brain is thinking, will simply make up stories and BELIEVE THEM about why the right brain drew or did certain things. The left brain is what we use to interpret what is going on around us. The left brain is kind of like a spath, it makes up stories and lies all the time, just to try to make sense of what happened. These aren’t intentional lies, it is doing what left brains are supposed to do, make sense of patterns to form a coherent picture. But the problem is that in science, we are using our left brains to interpret the results of what we see and the left brain can’t really be trusted!
Sky,
They did compare expectancy sign patterns and took it into account with the rest of the graphs. They did nto treat it as meaningless noise though. The expectancy from delays would appear for both calm or emotive pictures, so the rest of the pattern is what was consistently different. Also the 10 secs was a cooldown period after they had seen the image, before they could click the mouse again. The delay after clicking the mouse before getting the image was 6 secs.
You suggested there ought to be violent pictures included. From what I read in the paper, that was what was included in the emoting imagery. Also in the roulette test they refer to how the violent and sexual images for the other test made it impossible to say test children, and that people respond emotionally different to violent and sexual images for example. They also said that with the imagery and violent imagery you always get a type of desensitivity. It was the reason they developed the roulette test.
With the roulette test timing was start new trial, 5 secs to make up your mind to bet red or black, then 13 secs before learning the outcome.
In both type of tests the heart started to respond specifically related to the future outcome 1 sec after starting the trial. The positive brainwave spike would come a little less than 1.5 secs later after the heart rhythm drop. The only influence the waiting time seems to have is that the body responds appropriately as if it knows just longer before the outcome is known. But if you regard it as
A: point in time that sets event in motion (starting a trial)
B: point in time when the heart rate changes consistently to what later turns out to be the accompanying outcome
C: point in time when the brainwave shows information gathering responses
D: point int time when brain responds with “got it” signal
E: outcome of the event put in motion
The times between A-B-C-D are consistently the same average over different type of pre-sensation tests. The only time that differs between the roulette and imagery test is between D-E.
Your issue with the long time and consistent time of waiting between A-D would be if the responses would get stronger over time. But that is not the case.
I’ve dug on the internet for other papers and articles that reviewed it and or referenced it. I came across several articles that summed up century long tests and the one from the heartmath was reviewed in it.
BTW I still prefer to play a LP record over a dc or mp4… though scratchy, the sound is fuller to me… not surprising since the first is analogue, the others are digital and ittie bittie chopped off.
I saw the video you posted. It’s true that the left hemisphere lied and rationalised with the test person why he pointed at a belltower instead of other imageries more related to music than the belltower. However, it’s also clearly spelled out that the test person’s brain hemispheres cannot communicate, and that this is so because the links between the two hemispheres were severed by an operation to solve his epilepsy.
The man rationalizes his choice because the left brain is unaware of the word belltower his right hemisphere has read, but cannot reproduce unless through imagery.
The tests are used to help locate and prove that each hemisphere specialised in a certain task. However, I would not extrapolate it as the left hemishpere being unreliable and spathic, because obviously people who do not have severed brain hemispheres have both brains communicate with each other. Alan Alda has no problem reading the left word “belltower” and pass it along to his left brain for him to say it.
To me, the test only shows that explaining and reasoning comes from the left side, and as long as both hemispheres are connected there is no reason to doubt explanations from patterns you see with the right brain hemisphere.
That doesn’t mean that an explanation is necessarily valid. And people do tend to rationalize an act or decision they made without being caused by cognitive deductive reasoning. They do somethign on a whim like impulse buying a flashy car (right brain), and then rationalize it afterwards.
But noting that a heart rate goes down for a certain future outcome several secs before the outcome is known is not an explanation or rationalisation. Noting a pattern of that heart rate drop is not an explanation either. It is actually right brain pattern recognition.