FIXATED THREATS

A worrying theme of recent media news has been the number of stalking cases where a high-profile person or their partner has been the victim of a targeted campaign. Those responsible for these campaigns are termed fixated persons. Another trend of fixated persons has been the attacks on the US Governor, the Parisian teacher and the British lawyer, all of whom have been the subject of a targeted fixated attack, with the Parisian teacher being fatal. Defuse specialise in identifying and tackling threats from fixated persons. This paper details some of the most significant research on fixated persons.

 Fixated persons are those who hold pathologically intense fixations on individuals or causes, and these are often pursued to an abnormally intense degree (see Mullen et al., 2009). In this sense, the term ‘fixation’ refers to an obsessive preoccupation with a person or some idiosyncratic cause (Fixated Research Group, 2006). Public figures are at higher risk of intrusive and aggressive activity than are members of the general public (James, Farnham, & Wilson, 2013; Mullen et al., 2009). Among public figures, politicians may be at greater risk of attack. Meloy and Amman’s (2016) archival descriptive study of 56 attacks on public figures in the USA over a 21-year period identified politicians, judges and athletes as the most likely targets.

A series of studies that employed a research instrument with the same core items revealed that a majority of Members of Parliament (MPs) surveyed in four countries had been subjected to at least one intrusive or aggressive behaviour. The figures were 81% in the UK, 84% in Norway, 87% in New Zealand, and 93% in Queensland, Australia. Other consistent findings included mental illness being present in 30-50% of cases (and in many more cases respondents felt unable to make a judgement concerning mental illness), 80-90% of parliamentarians being targeted by persons of interest who were fixated on a cause, a majority of parliamentarians reporting negative impact on themselves and third parties, and a majority of politicians reporting harassment via multiple modalities (letters, faxes, emails, social media contact, alarming behaviour at electoral offices and other locations, interference with private property, verbal abuse, physical attacks). Durations ranged from one hour to many years (Every-Palmer, Barry-Walsh & Pathé, 2015; (Bjelland & Bj?rgo, 2014; James et al., 2016a,b; Pathé, Phillips, Perdacher & Heffernan, 2014).

The role of mental illness in the activities of fixated persons is well known. Meloy and Amman’s (2016) study showed that 44.8% of offenders were known to have a mental health problem (36% unknown). A majority (86%) of those assessed by London’s Fixated Threat Assessment Centre were diagnosed with a psychotic disorder (James et al., 2010a). Indeed, mental illness has been identified among those who inappropriately target different types of public figures and those associated with them (politicians, constituency office staff, royalty, celebrities) in a number of countries (Australia, Canada, several European countries, New Zealand, the USA), both historically and currently (see Adams et al., 2009; Dietz & Martell, 1989; Dietz et al., 1991a,b; Eke et al., 2014; Every-Palmer et al., 2015; Hoffmann, Meloy, Guldimann & Ermer, 2011; Hoffmann, Meloy & Sheridan, 2014; James et al., 2007, James et al., 2008; James et al., 2009, James et al., 2016a,b; Lowry et al., 2015; Meloy et al., 2004; Meloy, Sheridan & Hoffmann, 2008; Meloy et al., 2010; Meloy, Hoffmann, Guldimann & James, 2012; Pathé, et al., 2014; Pathé et al., 2015; Régis, 1890; Scalora, Zimmerman, & Wells, 2008; van der Meer et al., 2012). Given that many studies ask the targets themselves to make a judgement as to whether the person who inappropriately communicated with, pursued or attacked them was likely mentally disordered, rates are likely to be underestimates because lay persons are not trained to recognise specific mental disorders or even the presence of a mental illness (see e.g. Jorm, 2000). It has further been noted that fixated persons can often, outside of the topic of their fixation, present as rational and reasonable (Fixated Research Group, 2006).

Motives for harassing dignitaries have been examined in several recent studies. James et al.’s (2016b) work obtained qualitative responses to a question asking UK MPs about the motivations of POIs and identified the following themes: Persecution by MP (conspiracy, MP perceived as harming the POI), anger at a perceived failure of the MP to help, insistent and unrealistic requests for help, amorous motivation, venting of anger, political quests, help-seeking, mental illness, and a chaotic unclear motivation. Meloy and Amman (2016) identified the most popular motivation to attack public figures as dissatisfaction with judicial or other governmental processes. A typology of the fixated was proposed by Mullen et al. (2009). Some subtypes were exclusive to POIs fixated on Royals, with those most relevant to the current context concerning the persecuted (who believe they are being persecuted by a prominent person or who plead for protection from those they believe to be harming them) and petitioners (unusually persistent individuals who seek support for a cause or assistance with a personal problem). Pathé et al. (2015) noted that 91% of cases referred to QFTAC were fixated on a cause or grievance, while 6% were fixated on a person (in 3% the focus of fixation could not be determined).

If you have any concerns about how to manage a fixated person, Defuse has a number of solutions.

The Behavioural Analysis Service

Our Behavioural Analysis Service is led by Dr Lorraine Sheridan PhD

Dr Lorraine Sheridan is a Chartered Forensic Psychologist. Lorraine completed Europe’s first PhD on stalking. Lorraine is a Police Accredited Offender Profiler and compiles psychological reports related to offenders, highlighting the risks posed by known or unknown suspects. She regularly gives case management advice to the police, security personnel, celebrities and others on stalking, harassment, violence, risk assessment, threat assessment, malicious communications and similar topics.

Lorraine is currently President of the Asia Pacific Association of Threat Assessment Professionals.

Supporting Lorraine is Dr Robert Fein, co-author of US Secret Service Exceptional Case Study Project. Dr Fein helped analyse the pre-attack behaviours and thinking of 74 persons who attacked or attempted to attack a prominent public official or figure in the U.S. This study now forms the bedrock of all threat assessments in targeted violence. In his work with the Secret Service, he reviewed and consulted on several hundred protective intelligence cases concerning the assessment and management of persons who might present harm to the President and other national leaders. He has also served as a member of the U.S. Director of National Intelligence’s Intelligence Science Board and remains a consultant to the FBI’s Behavioural Analysis Unit 1 and to the FBI’s Behavioural Assessment Program.

Benefits of Defuse’s BAS:

? Provide bespoke analysis on a case by case basis.

? Identify levels of concern, signs of escalation, and intervention advise.

? Provide clarity and eliminate the fear of uncertainty.

? Deliver expert guidance to enable the appropriate decisions for ongoing engagement to be made.

? Provide written documentary evidence based on the advice we give, to support your decision making.

? Eliminating wasted costs by ensuring resources are directed effectively and proportionately to the threat analysed

? Scientifically based profile of individuals involved in hostile communications

What we do:

We provide ‘Behavioural and Anonymous Threats Analysis’ to identify whether hostile communications are evidence of an escalating threat of violence, plus an assessment of the profile of the individual responsible for sending the communication to enable a bespoke response.

Any analysis is the result of a thorough evaluation of the actions, communications and circumstances disclosed.

Defuse exists to enable high profile individuals and organisations to continue to perform and communicate safely whilst being targeted by online abuse, threats and intimidation. Such abuse may entail acts of violence, harassment, stalking or other malicious and harmful behaviours. Very often the online abuse has offline impact and causes significant fear, anxiety and uncertainty.

All too often those charged with keeping others safe do so based on experience, ‘common sense’ and a gut feeling, underestimating the severity and materialisation of such abuse.

We know, from Robert’s research for the U.S. Secret Service, that targeted violence is rarely a sudden and unpredictable event.

It is frequently the end result of a process that is discernible to others. A potential attacker’s behaviour is vital to identifying his or her intentions.

Behavioural threat assessments are widely recognised as the most effective means of identifying whether the facts appear to show that an individual is on a pathway to violence and if so, at which stage they may be at.

Defuse’s BAS separates those few who actually pose a threat from the many who make threats, whilst providing evidentially backed guidance to manage all threateners most effectively.

Whilst the mantra of ‘don’t feed the trolls’ is generic advice, Defuse BAS provide specific advice based on evidential characteristics on a case by case basis.

 Psychological Support Service

Working in the public eye comes with a tremendous amount of pressure. But stress, fear, and anxiety can cloud your thoughts, affect your performance, and even make you feel like you’re not yourself. Our specially trained and experienced psychologists provide you with solutions to:

+ Learn new skills to handle the pressure of working in the public eye

+ Overcome the fear and anxiety of a stressful or traumatic situation and retain control

+ Get back to working and performing at your highest level

“For our family, having someone we can turn to in this way has provided a great deal of comfort and reassurance, and I could not have asked for a better person than Philip to turn to for advice. He is honest, straight-talking and does what he says he will do. I am hugely grateful for the guidance Philip has given me so far, and I would recommend his services without hesitation”

Kim Leadbeater Ambassador for The Jo Cox Foundation Chair, More In Common, Batley & Spen. Jo’s sister

Contact Defuse for further details at [email protected] or +447539435424