Ok, I've pored over as much of the evidence as I've been able to find, which is pretty much everything that's been made public. After all that research, I'm pretty sure I can say this with confidence.
Russell Williams is not a "serial killer" (as we understand the term) and he doesn't really fit the diagnostic criteria for antisocial personality disorder (what we normally consider "psyhopaths" to have).
I can understand why both the media and the pundits are claiming that he is, but in reality, they're choosing to overlook far too many inconsistencies in his recent and past behaviours, preferring a simple explanation that resonates with the public.
Evidence:
- People with antisocial personality disorder show very low levels of empathy, starting very early in life. Williams bucks this trend in several ways; concern for his wife, emotional connection to his cat, and apparent remorse for his victims. Even if it's insincere, people with APD don't even exhibit false remorse, and they make no apologies for their actions and feel no sense of shame.
- He has no history of antisocial behaviours in his youth, no evidence of malicious or sadistic actions, and his choice of career is highly incongruous with APD.
- I won't suggest that murder was "incidental" to his crimes, but there's no evidence to indicate that murder was his prime motivation. He didn't seek out women for the sole purpose of killing them, and I wonder if he killed Marie-France Comeau because he knew she could identify him.
- The confirmation bias: we tend to search for information that confirms our suspicions, and ignore information that refutes our beliefs. This is especially true in law enforcement, perhaps moreso than any other profession. Serial killers are killers, but not every killer is a serial killer; however, it's a lot easier to lump someone into this category than to look deeper for the real answers.
- Several of the so-called "experts" who are being quoted in the papers actually have terrible track records when it comes to profiling. Their opinions have been dead wrong on more than a few prior cases. There's a reason why these people are doing interviews for the papers, instead of working in clinical practice - some of them have track records so bad that they can't even get a job in the field.
- There's no incentive for anyone to say differently. As far as the public is concerned, the case is closed, the bad guy has been caught, and he'll rot in KP for the next 25 years, if not forever. If we label him a monster and lock him away, we don't have to worry about him anymore. No police officer or psychologist wants to stake their reputation on refuting the dominant narrative, it's just easier to keep your mouth shut and go with the official party line.
- His crimes are so unfathomable that people would prefer to label him in a way that fits with common knowledge. Quite simply, it's easier to just say he's a monster than to try and understand what really happened.
The most damning reason:
- The cops may have fucked up really, really badly by not doing a better job of warning the community earlier, or making the details of the break-ins public. They want this over with as soon as possible, to avoid shedding light on their utter incompetence. Considering the span of time from his first break-in to his arrest, and the sheer scope of his crimes, it's unfathomable that it went on for as long as it did. No matter how careful he was, it should have been obvious to everyone that there was a big problem, and their failure to warn goes way beyond simple incompetence and right into the realm of negligence - they don't want the public asking questions about how they could have screwed up so badly on this one. I suspect they'll try to settle the lawsuits quickly and quietly, after the initial uproar has died down. By making him out to be a serial killer, that suggests he couldn't have been stopped before he killed, that he was "born to kill" or some such nonsense; much of the evidence suggests this isn't the case at all, and competent police work could have stopped him before either of those two women were killed.
For my part, I've already applied, through both legal and academic channels, for access to the files, and complete videos of his interrogation and subsequent interviews. I don't expect success anytime soon, as there are literally thousands of people more qualified and better connected than I am, and it could be years before I gain access. I don't have enough information to speculate on what's really going on with Williams, but there's a lot of disconfirming evidence to suggest the current claims are erroneous. I hope I get to interview him someday, which seems unlikely at this point, but hey, he's not going anywhere for at least 25 years, so I can afford to be patient.
It could be years before the truth comes out, but we'll only ever know the real motivations if Williams chooses to discuss his thoughts with others. The cops and the Crown accepted too many "I don't know why I did it" answers from him because they wanted to do their dog-and-pony show, throw him in jail, and hope the public overlooks all the massive holes in the official explanation. Well, I know there are others who won't accept the BS at face value without asking questions, and I'm sure as hell one of them.
I'll be long gone from the biz by the time I actually publish anything about this case (if I ever do) but don't be surprised if everything you've been hearing over the last two weeks is thrown out the window in the future. And don't be surprised at the sheer incompetence of the investigators - when it all comes out, we'll all be amazed at how badly the cops actually dropped the ball on this one...