AI transcript
0:00:03 Here’s something remarkable, and not in a good way.
0:00:09 Disengaged employees cost U.S. companies almost $1.9 trillion a year.
0:00:10 That’s a lot of zeros.
0:00:11 Why?
0:00:15 Because when teams lack the right skills, productivity declines,
0:00:19 turnover increases, and strategies stagnate.
0:00:21 But it doesn’t have to be that way.
0:00:26 At Project Management Institute, home of the PMP and globally recognized certifications,
0:00:31 your people can learn to collaborate, deliver on time, and actually get things done.
0:00:33 The cost of not upskilling?
0:00:35 Way higher than the investment.
0:00:37 Project Management Institute.
0:00:41 Find the answers at PMI.org.
0:00:49 We took 23 manifestos written by people that had committed horrendous killings.
0:00:53 And we now have a database so that when we get a new case,
0:00:56 if there’s writings, we can now compare them to the database.
0:01:01 And the reason we’re doing this is for a long time, we looked at after the fact.
0:01:04 We looked at people who had killed after the fact.
0:01:06 And we realized that’s not the way to catch them.
0:01:09 You got to catch them before they act.
0:01:12 And the best thing we thought is, what are they thinking about?
0:01:15 Whether we can identify those red flags.
0:01:20 So that’s why we want to back up into getting them ahead of time.
0:01:24 Good morning.
0:01:26 I am Guy Kawasaki.
0:01:29 This is the Remarkable People podcast.
0:01:34 And for the upteenth time, let me tell you, we’re searching all over the world for remarkable
0:01:37 people to inform and inspire you.
0:01:40 And today’s guest is Anne Burgess.
0:01:45 I must admit, Anne Burgess has one of the most interesting backgrounds that I’ve ever encountered
0:01:46 for this podcast.
0:01:52 She’s been instrumental in some of the worst criminal cases you’ve ever heard of.
0:01:54 And I’ll let her explain that.
0:01:57 She’s basically a nurse and a researcher.
0:02:04 And she has done absolutely groundbreaking work to help, for example, the FBI understand and
0:02:05 profile serial killers.
0:02:11 She has also worked very actively in helping people deal with rape crisis.
0:02:16 And she has devoted much of her career to supporting victims of trauma.
0:02:20 She has a book out about expert witnesses, which we’ll cover.
0:02:26 And I think you’ll find this to be one of the more fascinating episodes of Remarkable People.
0:02:29 So welcome to Remarkable People, Anne Burgess.
0:02:31 Thank you so much, Guy.
0:02:34 I’m happy to be here and talk with your audience.
0:02:40 Well, first of all, I got to ask you, I was reading all the background bio material about
0:02:45 you and I read someplace that says you’re helping your granddaughter do research about
0:02:46 mass shootings.
0:02:48 Did I get that right?
0:02:49 Yes, yes.
0:02:56 Alexandra is my granddaughter and she’s very interested in math and numbers, always has been.
0:03:04 And she took a specialized course to understand AI and writing algorithms and things like that.
0:03:07 We brought her on to help us.
0:03:15 We took 23 manifestos written by people that had committed horrendous killings.
0:03:22 And we now have a database so that when we get a new case, if there’s writings or whatever,
0:03:24 we can now compare them to the database.
0:03:30 And the reason we’re doing this is for a long time, as you read in my background, we looked
0:03:32 at after the fact.
0:03:34 We looked at people who had killed after the fact.
0:03:37 And we realized that’s not the way to catch them.
0:03:39 You got to catch them before they act.
0:03:43 And the best thing we thought is, what are they thinking about?
0:03:46 Whether we can identify those red flags.
0:03:51 So that’s why we want to back up into getting them ahead of time.
0:03:54 So that’s where the process is.
0:03:59 There’s a six level kind of model that has been already developed.
0:04:02 And one of them has to have a grievance.
0:04:06 And then they have to have a, they do some research on it.
0:04:09 In other words, it doesn’t just come in and come out of their minds.
0:04:10 So they start researching it.
0:04:16 That develops into planning something, the whole fantasy of I’m going to kill a group kind of
0:04:16 thing.
0:04:20 Sometimes they even identify the date that they’re going to do this.
0:04:22 And then they act.
0:04:28 So if we could identify these steps earlier, I think we’d have a better chance.
0:04:34 I know that people, of course, are trying to, but rare is the case where they don’t leave
0:04:38 some social media information that they’re going to act.
0:04:44 And obviously, we can’t monitor every single social media.
0:04:50 But if we get people that will look at things and when they see something, call it into a
0:04:51 centralized place.
0:04:53 That’s one of our goals.
0:04:55 Now, we aren’t there yet, but that’s one of the goals.
0:04:56 All right.
0:05:03 So first of all, I want to get a kind of grounding about this criminal justice system.
0:05:08 And it seems to me that you could either have an adversarial criminal justice system where
0:05:13 there’s one team and the other team, and they’re both going at it with the judge as the referee
0:05:14 in the middle.
0:05:15 And then the jury decides.
0:05:24 So that’s adversarial, but there’s also inquisitorial where the judge is listening to various experts
0:05:26 and decides.
0:05:29 And clearly, we have the adversarial system here.
0:05:34 So do you have any thoughts about which is a better system, having gone through so many
0:05:37 of these trials and been so familiar with the criminals?
0:05:43 Well, you know, the UK has even a different part with experts.
0:05:50 The experts from each side have to get together and come up with a decision that then goes to
0:05:51 the judge.
0:05:53 I always found that very interesting.
0:05:54 I’d love to try that.
0:05:58 I don’t know if it would work here in the States, but that’s one.
0:05:59 The other is one.
0:06:05 I’ve done some cases where the judge has said, I don’t want two adversarial experts.
0:06:10 I’m going to just appoint one that can handle both sides kind of thing.
0:06:15 So I’ve done cases like that where it’s been very controversial, and they usually involve
0:06:16 multiple victims.
0:06:18 So those are some alternatives.
0:06:19 But you’re right.
0:06:25 It really is hard in our system because each one has their own point of view, obviously.
0:06:27 And it’s up to the jury.
0:06:33 And I think that’s a hard task for a jury to have to, in a short period of time, separate
0:06:37 out which side they’re going to go on.
0:06:40 So basically, we have these two teams.
0:06:45 They’re each making their own case as opposed to seeking the truth.
0:06:52 And the jury is supposed to decide what the truth is based on this adversary.
0:06:53 Wow.
0:06:55 It’s hard.
0:06:56 Absolutely hard.
0:07:00 Now, when you get into a homicide case, that I think is a little different because you’re
0:07:03 going to have evidence, you’re going to have other kinds of things.
0:07:09 But in cases where you have a surviving victim, like I get into, it’s very hard.
0:07:15 I think for a jury, I have read one book from a juror on the Menendez case, which was fascinating.
0:07:19 Her perspective of it on the first trial.
0:07:25 So every now and then you will get a juror that will publish something that they’ve written.
0:07:39 Since you opened the door with the Menendez brothers trial, I have to say that when I read your interview and how you encourage, was it Eric or Lyle?
0:07:39 Eric, right?
0:07:40 I was Eric.
0:07:43 Yes, Eric was, I was on his team.
0:07:51 You were interviewing Eric and you asked him to draw pictures and he started drawing all these pictures of what happened to him.
0:07:53 Does the jury ever hear that?
0:07:55 Did they ever see those pictures?
0:07:57 I mean, it explains a lot.
0:07:58 It does.
0:08:04 And I have done those pictures in some of my cases and the jury does see them and it makes a big difference.
0:08:09 I was sorry that we weren’t able to introduce those drawings that Eric did.
0:08:21 And the reason I think is very interesting, the lawyers on the team felt that the prosecution would make fun of them because he does what would be called a juvenile type drawing.
0:08:26 He certainly wasn’t an artist, but the whole point was that’s how he saw things back.
0:08:40 And when he was a kid, even though he was 21 or two by the time I got the drawings, don’t forget it was two years later, which I found remarkable that he had the amount of detail to that week leading up to the shootings.
0:08:48 And that’s what I was interested in is exactly what was going through his mind and how that decision came about to do the shooting.
0:08:58 I think anybody looking at it would get a very different view of that testimony when they could see it from his eyes.
0:09:08 How does it make you feel that in the second trial they had a life sentence because your facts weren’t ever available to the jury?
0:09:09 So now they have a life sentence.
0:09:13 Do you believe that life sentence was fair and just and the right thing to do?
0:09:15 No, I don’t.
0:09:20 I feel that everybody has the right to explain why they did something.
0:09:25 And it’s up to the jury of the judge, whoever is judging the case to make that determination.
0:09:28 And I felt that was very unfair.
0:09:32 And other people, especially in the media, have commented on that.
0:09:33 I thought it was very unfair.
0:09:36 I don’t think I need to ask, but I’m going to ask anyway.
0:09:40 How do you feel about their parole being turned down now?
0:09:42 I, again, felt that was unfair also.
0:09:47 I feel it certainly perhaps had a real political aspect to it.
0:09:50 The case was so politicized in the last couple of years.
0:09:56 And so it’s satisfied from the prosecution standpoint, if you will.
0:10:03 And I have heard people say it’s rare for anybody ever to get a parole approval the first time in.
0:10:06 So it kind of has a little protocol itself.
0:10:13 You have to go through it several times or they have to keep making you suffer, if you will, more and more.
0:10:16 So all of those things could have played into it.
0:10:27 I think that having to judge the case on previous rule discrepancies, when the case was felt that they would never get out,
0:10:36 and some of the rule discrepancies I didn’t think were very serious, phone calls and so forth, to their family, I think that’s very, very hard.
0:10:47 And when you learn that any of the approved phone calls could be listened into and that information could be leaked and then paid for by a media output,
0:10:50 and that’s the way we get information, I think that’s unfair too.
0:10:52 So I don’t know what the answer is.
0:10:59 And it will be interesting because if they make no rule problems, discrepancies, will they let them out?
0:11:02 That’s the criteria that they use for this particular one.
0:11:11 I always think, are they going to make what I call a 1990s decision based on really that case versus a 2025 decision,
0:11:23 which has in many ways opened up the area of Paris-side behavior to being family, conflict, real family problems.
0:11:24 We’ll see.
0:11:27 Obviously, we have to wait and see.
0:11:34 I bet most people listening to this episode, they probably don’t realize, I certainly didn’t realize it,
0:11:40 that Eric Menendez’s father was sexually assaulting him beginning at the age six.
0:11:41 Six!
0:11:41 Right.
0:11:42 Six.
0:11:43 Yes.
0:11:47 Did anybody in the mainstream media report that?
0:11:57 Because it seems to me, as soon as it happened, the story was these two rich, spoiled brat kids murdered their wonderful parents,
0:11:59 and they were spoiled and blah, blah, blah.
0:12:03 They were hung immediately in the press.
0:12:04 Yes, they were.
0:12:10 And that’s the way the parasite cases where a child kills a parent seem to go.
0:12:22 It always goes in favor of the parent, interestingly enough, and I think we’ve opened the door to more of the abuse that can go on in a home that is never reported.
0:12:30 From that standpoint, the victimology aspect, I think, hopefully, has made a difference in people’s view of the case.
0:12:31 Not all.
0:12:35 I know that there are so many people that will just view these brothers as greedy.
0:12:41 The other point I want to make is they keep saying, why didn’t Eric just leave, or Lyle?
0:12:43 Point is, they had planned to.
0:12:45 They had planned that week.
0:12:47 They were going back to college.
0:12:52 Lyle was going to go back to the East Coast, and Eric thought he was going to go to UCSF.
0:12:56 And that day, that Tuesday, is the day he found out that he wasn’t.
0:13:01 The father said he can go to UCLA, which is right near.
0:13:03 They were living in the Los Angeles area.
0:13:08 And the father would buy him a moped so he could go back and forth.
0:13:13 And I found that amazing that nobody saw that as he’s getting away.
0:13:14 He thought he was getting away.
0:13:17 Obviously, he wasn’t going to get away.
0:13:18 And that started on a Tuesday.
0:13:21 And, of course, the shootings were on a Sunday.
0:13:30 It seems to me, when I read your description of this entire case, that, I mean, there’s no question that they actually committed the murder.
0:13:31 Right.
0:13:40 And it seems to me that your findings, your interview, the drawings, all of that, it had nothing to do with proving their guilt or innocence.
0:13:44 It’s more a factor in sentencing than judgment.
0:13:48 So, do you think the emphasis should be on sentencing or judgment?
0:13:50 Oh, I do.
0:13:53 I felt that was where it was important.
0:13:55 At the parole, absolutely.
0:13:58 And now, some people don’t forget all the women.
0:14:03 And when you had juries with gender bias, if you will, there was gender bias.
0:14:07 When they found that out, Hazel Thornton wrote a whole book.
0:14:09 She was juror number eight.
0:14:12 And she wrote a book every day after the court.
0:14:18 And she said the worst thing they did was the day that they went into the jury room, they took a visual vote.
0:14:20 How many for murder?
0:14:22 One, put your hand up.
0:14:23 How many for manslaughter?
0:14:24 Put your hand up.
0:14:26 And it went right down.
0:14:27 She said gender lines.
0:14:29 And they never moved from that position.
0:14:42 When it comes to growing your business, sometimes you need more than financial investment.
0:14:43 You need personal investment.
0:14:48 That’s what Jeff Plotner, Capital One business customer and co-founder of Brackish,
0:14:55 discovered after a unique groomsman gift in the form of a turkey feather bow tie grew into a successful men’s accessory line.
0:15:00 But when they were ready to expand, Jeff turned to his Capital One representative, Alex Parker,
0:15:03 who wasn’t just an advisor, but a Brackish customer.
0:15:10 Because of the encouraging conversation with Alex, Jeff launched a women’s line, scaling the Brackish brand to the next level.
0:15:12 Because at Capital One, it’s not just business.
0:15:15 It’s relationships that help you do more business.
0:15:19 Learn more at CapitalOne.com slash business cards.
0:15:23 You opened up another subject here.
0:15:31 So in reading your book, it’s not like you discussed any case where the perpetrator was female.
0:15:36 Now, is that just coincidence or should I draw some conclusion from that?
0:15:44 You talk about Menendez, Bill Cosby, Larry Nassar, these other mass murders from Louisiana and all that.
0:15:46 Every one of them was a man.
0:15:47 What am I seeing here?
0:15:51 Well, you don’t have a lot of females to pick from.
0:15:54 And we were writing on cases that we had actually been involved in.
0:16:02 In the first book, A Killer by Design, we do put in a case where it’s two high school students, and it’s a female killing a female.
0:16:05 We do have that one case, but you’re absolutely correct.
0:16:11 We don’t put in cases where the mother kills the children, which there are a number of them.
0:16:16 They just don’t, from my perspective, get into the court system that I would deal with.
0:16:17 So you’re correct.
0:16:20 It’s just very different for female offenders.
0:16:24 They do different things to kill than males also.
0:16:26 Can we back up a second?
0:16:39 My exposure prior to reading your book to expert witnesses is probably CSI Las Vegas, CSI Special Crime Victim Unit, all those things, and maybe a movie or two.
0:16:45 But can you explain how expert witnessing truly works?
0:16:48 First of all, what makes an expert witness an expert?
0:16:51 Well, the judge has to determine that.
0:16:58 You have to present your background, and whatever side you’re on has to go before the judge and say, I present this person.
0:17:02 And then the other side is able to cross-examine the witness.
0:17:04 So from that standpoint, I think it’s very fair.
0:17:13 But to get to the nitty-gritty of what does make it, generally, there’s what’s called a dobear hearing, and they have to answer those questions.
0:17:20 The content area has to be well in the range of other people in the field.
0:17:22 You know, certainly publish.
0:17:40 They have to have the error rate, the methodology has to be looked at, and those kinds of things, which is interesting because if you look at the description, it is just someone that has more knowledge of a particular issue at hand than the jury does.
0:17:47 So that you’re supposed to be giving the jury, I believe, basis of science in that whatever your area is.
0:17:51 And of course, in mine, it would be sexual abuse or it might be trauma.
0:17:55 There are several areas I’ve been qualified in as an expert.
0:18:03 On the other hand, in an adversarial position, you are on one side or the other, right?
0:18:19 So now, in a deeply hypothetical question, if the prosecution for the Menendez trial contacted you first and said, we want you to be our expert witness in the prosecution of the brothers, would you or could you have done it?
0:18:26 I have actually been in that situation where it was a very high profile case and both sides contacted me.
0:18:28 So what did I do?
0:18:31 I felt I was obligated to take the first person.
0:18:34 So it wasn’t based on whether they were prosecution or defense.
0:18:39 I felt I was only fair to take the first person that had reached out.
0:18:45 I don’t know if that’s what other people do, but I don’t think that’s unusual that an expert could be contacted.
0:18:52 Now, I get contacted because of the one paper that my partner and I did called Rape Trauma Syndrome.
0:19:07 And so I would certainly on the cases that I’ve been called on both sides, usually they would want to use Rape Trauma Syndrome to boost their side, whichever way they were going with that.
0:19:31 And one of the cases was the Duke Lacrosse case and the defense wanted me to opine on the issue of did this happen, whereas the prosecution wanted to have me opine on why the so-called victim was changing her story or had various versions of what happened and using Rape Trauma Syndrome in that respect.
0:19:45 But what I fundamentally don’t understand is, is there a case, Anne, where you look at it and you say, what that person did is so reprehensible, I will not be an expert witness for that side?
0:19:45 Oh, I have.
0:19:59 Yeah, I’ve turned, not many, but I certainly have turned cases down because either of that issue or I really didn’t feel that I would be able to help that particular side.
0:20:02 And then I would not take the other side.
0:20:04 So I would just remove myself from the whole case.
0:20:10 So can you give us the gist of the ethical guidelines for expert witnesses?
0:20:13 I can give you the guidelines for my discipline.
0:20:16 The criteria for expert, it goes to the judge.
0:20:23 But in nursing, we have specific ethical guidelines about what we are obliged to do.
0:20:27 And those are all written up every 10 years, they review them.
0:20:33 And I think each discipline does, whether it’s nursing or whether it’s social work or psychology or psychiatry.
0:20:36 We all have our own rules.
0:20:41 And technically, you can be called before an ethical committee if you violate them.
0:20:43 So they’re very serious.
0:20:58 It seems to me that everybody who’s convicted of a crime, or I use the term everybody loosely, but let’s just say, generally speaking, you can find some abuse, some neglect, some trauma in their background.
0:21:01 And wouldn’t that be true for almost every criminal?
0:21:06 So when is that a mitigating circumstance that should be used in sentencing?
0:21:08 And when should it just be ignored?
0:21:11 And you did the crime, you do the time.
0:21:12 And you’re absolutely correct.
0:21:19 Everybody, and certainly any criminal or defendant, has much in their background, unless they’re really young.
0:21:24 You know, I’ve had some cases they’re teenagers, so at least you don’t have to go back all the way.
0:21:26 But you have to address that.
0:21:30 It’s not how high a level, but you have to give the circumstances.
0:21:35 And that is one of the areas that, if I’m on one side, the other side is going to bring up.
0:21:38 Why didn’t you consider X, Y, and Z?
0:21:41 You know, all these other horrible things happen as a child to her.
0:21:45 And I usually have to give a reason for why.
0:21:48 Not that I ignored them, but that I considered them.
0:21:54 But they didn’t rise to the level of having an influence, if you will, on the particular crime that was committed.
0:22:00 And I think that’s where it divides into, you have to argue that case.
0:22:03 Hopefully successfully in front of a jury.
0:22:07 Well, a few minutes ago, you mentioned the Duke Lacrosse case.
0:22:12 And again, reading your book was eye-opening for me.
0:22:16 I’m just getting over the fact that Eric Menendez has been sexually assaulted since six.
0:22:19 And then I read the chapter about Duke Lacrosse.
0:22:29 And you go through the timeline, and it’s like impossible for those three players to have raped that woman in that small bathroom.
0:22:35 In the timing, and you have the ATM report, you have the cell phone reports, you have all these reports.
0:22:39 And I don’t think any of that was obvious to me.
0:22:46 And again, the press said, these rich white boys from Duke Lacrosse raped this black woman, and they’re guilty.
0:22:51 I mean, and I bet most people to this day still believe that’s the case.
0:22:56 And these white guys got off because maybe they had better lawyers or something, right?
0:23:03 But in that case, Crystal Magnum, which was a victim’s name, has admitted she lied.
0:23:08 And I think it took 14 years, but you don’t always get that, of course.
0:23:12 But I think in this case, she did come forward and said she lied.
0:23:19 And what it actually turned out to be, we had figured that out early on, because I took the case on from a defense standpoint.
0:23:27 And I did not feel it happened the way she described it, that there was another reason for her to come forward.
0:23:27 And there was.
0:23:34 But I think that the dilemma that I had, if we had gone to trial, was how to present that.
0:23:39 You can’t go in and say, I think she’s lying, because I couldn’t prove it, right, per se.
0:23:50 But I could bring all the arguments that something else might have happened in her life that pushed her to the point where she said these three young men had raped her.
0:23:56 And we were prepared to do that, because the attorney that I was working with was absolutely brilliant anyway.
0:24:02 And I thought so highly of him, and he agreed that we could go in with that particular perspective.
0:24:08 From your book, I have to say that I don’t have a very good impression of mass media.
0:24:11 They’re jumping to conclusions about Duke LaCrosse.
0:24:15 They don’t tell the whole back channel story of the Menendez brothers.
0:24:25 If I’m just listening to this podcast, what is my takeaway about the reports in mainstream media about these heinous crimes?
0:24:26 What do I believe anymore?
0:24:31 That’s the problem, is the citizenry will run with the media.
0:24:33 The media is so powerful.
0:24:36 And to try to fight it, they don’t want to hear it.
0:24:42 Even if you try to say there’s a other side, they just don’t want to hear it.
0:24:50 And I think they should be called out on it, because people should see it as a, why it’s in court is because there’s conflict.
0:24:52 You don’t go to court if there’s no conflict.
0:24:55 So they should be saying, what does the other side have to say?
0:24:58 How do they explain what happened?
0:25:00 The other is, where’s the science?
0:25:12 I’m going to be publishing a paper, hopefully with some of these drawings, in which we say that the Menendez, they avoided anything that would have made a difference, if you will.
0:25:18 And it was a double-parasite case, if you want to officially classify it.
0:25:24 There’s very little literature, or let alone any research, on double-parasite.
0:25:26 There is some on single-parasite.
0:25:29 That’s where one child will kill a parent.
0:25:34 But where two children would kill both parents.
0:25:37 There are probably no more than 100 cases internationally.
0:25:40 We did get some research from the UK.
0:25:42 England has done some work on it, and Wales.
0:25:45 But we didn’t do a full search.
0:25:49 But that’s where I say, the research committee isn’t doing their work either.
0:25:56 They should be doing more research on some of these very small, esoteric kinds of cases.
0:25:59 Because I think that would help the media.
0:26:03 If they would publish it, they should publish research.
0:26:05 Let’s switch topics to profiling.
0:26:12 And once again, my entire data set on profiling is special victims unit, whatever.
0:26:22 So, first of all, can you take us back in time and talk about how you and John Douglas and Robert Ressler created this behavioral science unit of the FBI?
0:26:27 Well, the BSU came into existence in 1972.
0:26:37 And it was on the basis of Howard Teton and Patrick Mullaney, two agents that were in teaching at the academy.
0:26:46 And what they would do is they would meet with the agents after classes, and they’d just sit around informally and talk about cases that hadn’t been solved.
0:26:57 And they got so good that people began to bring in cases for them, and what it was, was looking at a crime scene.
0:27:02 And from the crime scene, finding characteristics, not names.
0:27:05 Everybody gets all upset over this, you’re going to be saying Joe Smith did something.
0:27:07 No, it’s characteristics.
0:27:16 And then put those characteristics together and see if you can come up with a suspect profile on these characteristics.
0:27:17 And that’s what it started.
0:27:21 The person most interested in this was Bob Ressler.
0:27:27 And so he really interned with these two senior agents.
0:27:31 And the first case was a fascinating, horrible case.
0:27:40 But it was an eight-year-old that was kidnapped from a tent, the Meyerhoff case, where the parents were in one tent camping.
0:27:45 And the kids, the children, there was more than just one child, were in another.
0:27:49 And this Meyerhoff, they didn’t know who it was.
0:27:57 But anyway, he had cut a slice into the tent, was able to abduct, to kidnap this young, seven or eight years old.
0:27:59 And that was a hard one to solve.
0:28:00 But they did.
0:28:01 They did.
0:28:06 And not only did they solve it, but they even got the suspect, Meyerhoffer, to come forward.
0:28:11 What was unfortunate in that case is he suicided once he was in jail.
0:28:14 So they never got to get any more information.
0:28:16 But, of course, he had a criminal background.
0:28:18 But that really started them.
0:28:22 And then Bob Ressler needed a partner.
0:28:25 And so John Douglas was added to the equation.
0:28:29 And now that was the 70s, late 70s, early 80s.
0:28:33 And they really hit well on several cases.
0:28:35 And they made the congressional record.
0:28:41 They did the Nebraska Newsboy case was a big one where they did get the offender.
0:28:48 And the Atlanta case down in Atlanta, Georgia, with all of those killings.
0:28:50 And John Casey, of course, with his 33.
0:28:53 So they were able to solve a number of cases.
0:28:55 And that made them.
0:29:06 So are we at the point where you can take all the case reports, all the background, shove it into an LLM, and it’ll instantly give you a profile?
0:29:08 Are we going to get there?
0:29:09 You’re going to get there.
0:29:10 You bet you’re going to get there.
0:29:19 Yeah, you can put that in machine learning, and it will print out the topics that are important.
0:29:21 And then you’ve got something to work with.
0:29:25 Not only can you get the topics, but you get the supporting statements.
0:29:33 That’s the part I really like, because heretofore, you had to read everything, make notes, and things like that.
0:29:34 This machine does it all.
0:29:38 It’s absolutely amazing in a very short time.
0:29:39 Absolutely amazing.
0:29:44 We did the Ted Kaczynski manifesto, 137,000 pages.
0:29:46 I think they did that in five minutes.
0:29:48 We’ve already done that one.
0:29:50 We’ve already published on that one.
0:29:53 It’s amazing how fast the machine is.
0:29:58 Wait, so you stuck in 37,000 pages about Ted Kaczynski.
0:30:00 Ted Kaczynski.
0:30:01 Do you remember him?
0:30:04 Yeah, 137.
0:30:08 Okay, so were you pretending that we don’t know who did it.
0:30:16 We put in his manifesto, and you found out if it pointed to a person like Ted.
0:30:18 No, it was Ted, so we could say it was Ted.
0:30:22 So we didn’t have to identify him, but we have that in our database.
0:30:27 I’ll tell you, you know, all of these shooters have their own, quote, heroes.
0:30:37 And there is the one who shot and killed the UnitedHealthcare, Brian Thompson was the victim, and Luigi Maggioni, I think it is.
0:30:40 Ted Kaczynski was his kind of hero.
0:30:45 So if he had any writings, they haven’t released anything, of course.
0:30:50 But if they did, we could measure that against Ted Kaczynski and see whether there’s some similarity or differences.
0:30:52 It isn’t just similarities.
0:30:54 It gives you both similarities and differences.
0:31:00 And do you think it’s going to get so good that it’ll be predictive and preventative?
0:31:03 I believe it would be a tool.
0:31:11 It will be a hybrid tool in which you will get the machine learning topics, but you still have to interpret it.
0:31:14 You always need the human piece.
0:31:19 So it’s just that it’s such a fast tool to give you certain kind of information.
0:31:22 And that’s where I think we’re going to see a hybrid type.
0:31:27 Okay, so this next question, you don’t have to answer.
0:31:32 And we can cut this, but I am so curious.
0:31:46 So do you think that this kind of research and science can now go on in the FBI, in the Trump administration, run by Kash Patel?
0:31:56 Because, like, I see pictures of FBI agents walking around D.C., not exactly doing high-level forensics and science.
0:31:59 So what do you think is going on in the FBI right now?
0:32:05 Well, I’m going to be giving a talk to them next week, so maybe I’ll be able to answer you better.
0:32:06 Okay.
0:32:22 But I will tell you that back in the 80s, when AI, artificial intelligence, was just starting up, I had proposed a grant, a research grant, and they told me that was Star Wars, that they weren’t interested in all that predictive stuff.
0:32:24 That was not going to be a thing of the future.
0:32:28 So I say to you, where are we now, 40 years later?
0:32:33 Your question, you know, is, so they weren’t with it back in the 80s.
0:32:34 They didn’t want to do it.
0:32:40 My point is, a large system like that takes a long time to make any change.
0:32:47 So you’re asking, can they make a change in the way that they profile or the way they look for suspects?
0:32:57 You’d have to have trainers come in and get the agents trained, let alone get it down to the police officer level.
0:33:10 And whether they could do it now, I’d like to think, let me put it that way, I’d like to think that they would entertain a small pilot project to test whether it’s a possible point.
0:33:19 And then they could make a better determination, rather than give us a blanket no, to give us a maybe, prove it kind of thing.
0:33:20 Proof of concept.
0:33:21 You have to do proof of concept.
0:33:28 And we did proof of concept with our first paper on threat assessment with the 23 manifesto.
0:33:33 So we have that published and it isn’t in a very high level journal.
0:33:42 But, you know, listen, I thought the CDC had decades of history and you can’t change the CDC that fast.
0:33:46 But clearly you can change the CDC very fast.
0:33:49 So why can’t you change the FBI very fast?
0:34:04 And I could easily see where there would be some kind of top down decision that says all your profiling, all your magic, your science is always coming up, that it’s a white male perpetrator.
0:34:06 And that is woke.
0:34:08 So we’re banning profiling in the future.
0:34:12 I would hope not, but at least we have some history with it.
0:34:13 It isn’t all white.
0:34:15 But I think that in itself is important.
0:34:21 If it is, that’s important that the other races aren’t involved in this kind of horrific killing.
0:34:43 Meet Nicole Nicholas, Capital One business customer and co-owner of Ansett Uncles, a plant-based restaurant and community space in Brooklyn, New York, that got its start from a need for unity.
0:34:52 The inspiration, it was born from the desire to create a space that felt like home, where we can connect community culture, good food, and come together with family and friends.
0:34:53 That’s how we birthed aunts and uncles.
0:34:59 Nicole and her husband, Mike, were fulfilling their dream of bringing people together out of their home kitchen.
0:35:03 But they soon learned that the demand for community was greater than they knew.
0:35:07 It became overwhelming and we were like, we need home, but not in our actual home.
0:35:12 We realized that there was also a need in our community for something bigger in our neighborhood.
0:35:14 So we had to find a place.
0:35:18 Moving from a home operation into a storefront was a huge next step.
0:35:22 But Nicole and Mike were able to take it on with the help of Capital One Business.
0:35:24 It’s not for the weak.
0:35:31 As a small business, finding resources is super important because that’s the way you’ll be able to manage and scale.
0:35:36 We would have never done that without having Capital One to be able to help us along the way.
0:35:38 The cashback rewards are very helpful.
0:35:42 You know, it just gave us that runway to be able to breathe a little bit.
0:35:46 Then you get to focus on the cooking of the food and making the experience great.
0:35:50 To learn more, go to CapitalOne.com slash business cards.
0:35:55 You do a lot of work with rape trauma.
0:35:58 And I want to talk about that.
0:36:02 First of all, is E. Jean Carroll a big hero for you?
0:36:03 No.
0:36:04 No?
0:36:05 No.
0:36:06 Why not?
0:36:08 I don’t know enough of the case.
0:36:11 I’ve seen what’s been written about her, but not knowing background information.
0:36:13 I like to work from science.
0:36:16 I just don’t know enough about the case, quite frankly.
0:36:19 Only what I’ve read in the media, and we’ve already talked about the media.
0:36:19 True.
0:36:20 Okay.
0:36:22 That is a great answer, actually.
0:36:28 I think you can tell a lot about a person by what they say they don’t know, because most
0:36:31 bullshitters will not say they don’t know something.
0:36:34 And that never stops them from opining.
0:36:36 I’m sure I can tell you what I don’t know.
0:36:37 I don’t know a lot.
0:36:43 It takes a certain kind of intelligence to know what you don’t know, which many people do not
0:36:44 have that intelligence.
0:36:45 So my hat’s off to you.
0:36:53 So let’s talk about, with all your involvement in rape trauma, what is your advice to a rape
0:36:54 victim?
0:36:55 Do you report?
0:36:56 What do you do?
0:36:57 What’s your actions?
0:37:03 That’s really hard, because we haven’t changed the numbers very much in terms of who reports
0:37:04 to authorities.
0:37:05 I’m going to clarify.
0:37:10 They may report to a friend, they may report to other people, but they don’t report to authorities
0:37:14 such as police, in any numbers that I’m happy with.
0:37:20 But what I do say is they have to make their own decision, because it’s a very personal thing.
0:37:26 And the minute you tell somebody, other people now know, and that you can’t control that information.
0:37:31 Whereas when you have it as a kind of private secret, you can control it, as long as whoever
0:37:33 you’re telling, you can trust.
0:37:37 So given that aside, they have to make the decision.
0:37:39 But I always add a caveat.
0:37:44 You decide whether you want to go forward, but try to get somebody that you can talk to
0:37:45 about this.
0:37:49 In other words, get into counseling or get into therapy, because they are supposed to keep
0:37:51 private any conversation.
0:38:01 And I really hand it to the military, now has a technique that you can report anonymously and
0:38:02 get services.
0:38:04 That is good.
0:38:06 Because in the military, it’s very different.
0:38:09 They’re usually going to know who the defendant is.
0:38:11 And it can be in their own unit.
0:38:13 And it can be a higher rank.
0:38:17 And it can really ruin a career when that kind of thing comes out.
0:38:19 We’ll have to get into all the bias that’s out there.
0:38:22 But at any rate, you can now do an anonymous report.
0:38:23 I think that is good.
0:38:25 Because they will get the services.
0:38:27 They can have the rape exam.
0:38:29 They can talk with someone.
0:38:35 And it can get recorded as an anonymous report so that you’re not losing data, if you will,
0:38:37 or numbers, if you will.
0:38:41 But for those that are obviously not in the military, they have a bigger question.
0:38:43 But we have a lot of good rape crisis centers now.
0:38:46 And they will keep very private.
0:38:51 They won’t even go into court if one of their clients’ victims is reporting.
0:38:58 So my answer to you is that as long as they can get some counseling and get someone to talk to about it.
0:39:03 And many of them will report the name because they’re now concerned about serial.
0:39:07 I think we finally have enough information about serial offenders.
0:39:11 And rapists are notorious for being serial offenders.
0:39:20 So if you can get into the DNA, you know, and if you have DNA, that’s very useful to go into the CODIS national database.
0:39:26 Okay, so now let’s say that your friend or your relative is a rape victim.
0:39:29 What are the best ways to support the victim?
0:39:33 There are a lot of good techniques that have been utilized.
0:39:35 Talking therapy still is number one.
0:39:38 But they are expanding it.
0:39:41 I’m a great believer in having multi-approach.
0:39:47 Activity is very good because action is a good antidote for depression.
0:39:57 And so get into something, whether it’s walking or playing some sport or something, do it because that will get your whole body moving.
0:39:59 Yoga, any of those kinds of things.
0:40:11 And when able to have a support person so you can get back if you’re working, whatever the lifestyle was before, you want to get them back as soon as they can.
0:40:17 I just take a multidisciplinary approach, get a number of things going if you can for the victim.
0:40:23 Now, based on what I’ve read at mainstream media, again, is my foundation for this.
0:40:29 So I want to ask an expert like this, and I hope it doesn’t have an unintended consequence.
0:40:42 But will you describe if you go forth and you report and it becomes a reported crime and, you know, it’s one of the few that come to trial.
0:40:52 What is going to do to the person who reports a rape?
0:40:56 Unfortunately, they have to try to discredit you.
0:41:02 They have to try to not only discredit you, the victim, but they have to discredit anybody that’s supporting you.
0:41:03 I go into court.
0:41:05 That’s what I know the defense is going to be.
0:41:09 They’ll try to, in some way, and in fact, they used to do it.
0:41:12 I was going to write a chapter in my book on, you’re just a nurse.
0:41:18 They would try to diminish my profession to, you’re only a nurse.
0:41:19 You’re not a psychiatrist.
0:41:20 You’re not a psychologist.
0:41:22 How can you do this?
0:41:33 So for your victim, now, Andrea Constant, who was the victim of Bill Cosby, has done something very, I think, innovative and important up in Canada.
0:41:42 She did get them a money award, and so she established a foundation, and she helps women that are doing exactly what you say.
0:41:50 They are going to have to go to court, and she prepares them because she’s gone through the gauntlet, if you will, with that case.
0:41:53 And so she helps prepare them for what they’re going to do.
0:41:59 One of my early cases, I wasn’t there as an expert, but I was there to help.
0:42:11 And what I did is I took my whole class to court, and they sat in that front row and were supportive of the victim, because the victim in those days had to sit right in the same row with the offender.
0:42:23 And they were hissing at her and saying, how can you do this, you know, to my son, and making her feel terrible, let alone what she had been gang raped by these three young men.
0:42:24 And it was a horrible situation.
0:42:28 So there are other things that you can do to show support for the victim.
0:42:32 And that’s where I think good friends come in or family come in.
0:42:35 So this is now 2025.
0:42:44 And my question for you is, is the degree to which men can treat women however they want, is it increasing or decreasing?
0:42:47 Is the world getting better or worse this way?
0:42:48 There are still a lot of cases.
0:42:50 What can I say?
0:42:51 That hasn’t gone down.
0:42:53 The numbers have only gone up.
0:42:58 Even homicide is taking a different twist now with mass shooting.
0:43:00 That’s moved from single shooting.
0:43:03 And that’s very scary to people.
0:43:07 Good grief, you saw on the TV this week, we’re just riding the subway.
0:43:12 And wherever it was, a young woman was killed.
0:43:17 I think it’s a very scary time that we’re living in, and we have to get a handle on it.
0:43:20 And there has to be more involvement than just police.
0:43:23 The citizenry has to get involved.
0:43:31 And that’s where I think programs like yours are very important, to get, hopefully, out some information on the problem.
0:43:34 I wish I had a better report card for you, but I don’t.
0:43:38 Knowing how deep the problem is step number one, right?
0:43:42 Better than saying it doesn’t exist, so we don’t need to do anything.
0:43:43 You’re right.
0:43:46 I think that you’re putting a spotlight on it is going to help.
0:43:47 Yes, very much.
0:43:48 All right.
0:43:51 So I’ll let you have the floor now.
0:43:58 And I just want you to explain what you want people to get from reading your book about expert witness.
0:44:00 And I’ll tell you what I got.
0:44:12 I got to learn a side of the story of the Menendez brothers, Bill Cosby, the Duke lacrosse team.
0:44:15 I never, never knew the other side.
0:44:16 So that’s what I got.
0:44:18 And it opened my eyes.
0:44:22 So would you just say, you know, what people will get out of reading your book?
0:44:27 I would just say exactly what you got out of it is the other side.
0:44:32 I hope that on these controversial cases that at least people will know there is another side.
0:44:36 Even the Larry Nassar case, he had over 500 victims.
0:44:42 And how those victims felt, I think I want to emphasize that of how awful the victims feel
0:44:44 when they’ve been tricked, if you will.
0:44:47 And in that case, don’t forget, he was a Dr. Rostopea.
0:44:51 But they all thought they were getting a bona fide medical exam.
0:44:52 And it wasn’t.
0:44:58 I remember one of the victims saying, I just felt so foolish and stupid that I
0:45:00 thought he was doing the right thing.
0:45:02 And so it reflects on them.
0:45:04 My point is it reflects badly on them.
0:45:05 And they feel awful.
0:45:07 And that’s one of the reasons they don’t talk about it.
0:45:12 It’s not the type of an experience that men or women can talk about.
0:45:17 And since we’ve done the Menendez case, nobody could believe that this doesn’t happen to men.
0:45:18 Wrong.
0:45:19 It does.
0:45:25 I’ve written on one case out of the Midwest where it was a rogue physician that gave examinations
0:45:29 to all of the athletes in this one particular university.
0:45:36 And it took 40 years for it to finally come out, even though the institution knew about it.
0:45:39 And that’s the point I want to make about institutional betrayal,
0:45:44 is that when it is known and it is tried to cover up, that’s wrong.
0:45:49 The institution has to come forward and say, we’ve got a rogue professional here.
0:45:50 We’ve got to get rid of them.
0:45:54 Otherwise, it empowers the offender.
0:45:55 They get away with it.
0:45:56 It just empowers them.
0:45:58 It’s like serial rapists.
0:46:00 We need to stop them.
0:46:01 They can’t stop themselves.
0:46:05 Even serial killers will tell you, I couldn’t stop myself.
0:46:07 So you’re doing them a service.
0:46:09 I always say the police did you a service to stop you.
0:46:15 So I think all of those things I hope people can get from reading expert witness.
0:46:18 And it also gets into, courtrooms are very formidable.
0:46:22 There’s such a formality about it that it’s scary for many.
0:46:24 And to be a witness can be very frightening.
0:46:31 So I want that to hopefully open that up a little bit about the courtroom.
0:46:37 And if you’re going to be involved in any way, that there are people out there that can help you navigate it.
0:46:40 Okay, and Burgess, wow.
0:46:43 It was a very eye-opening and disturbing read.
0:46:45 So I thank you for that.
0:46:48 You definitely pushed me out of my comfort zone.
0:46:49 So thank you for that.
0:46:51 And I wish you all the best.
0:46:59 And you and your granddaughter, Alex, from MIT, will just revolutionize all this kind of stuff.
0:47:00 I hope you deserve it.
0:47:01 I hope I can get it.
0:47:02 Yeah.
0:47:03 Alrighty.
0:47:03 Thank you.
0:47:15 I’m just going to wrap up and thank Madison Nisemer, co-producer, Jeff C, co-producer, Shannon Hernandez, sound design engineer, and Tessa Nisemer, our ACE researcher.
0:47:18 This is the Remarkable People team, Anne Burgess.
0:47:28 And that’s a whole team trying to bring out your remarkable perspective, your remarkable insights, and your remarkable recommendations.
0:47:32 So thank you, Anne, for being a guest on the Remarkable People podcast.
0:47:37 This is Remarkable People.
0:00:09 Disengaged employees cost U.S. companies almost $1.9 trillion a year.
0:00:10 That’s a lot of zeros.
0:00:11 Why?
0:00:15 Because when teams lack the right skills, productivity declines,
0:00:19 turnover increases, and strategies stagnate.
0:00:21 But it doesn’t have to be that way.
0:00:26 At Project Management Institute, home of the PMP and globally recognized certifications,
0:00:31 your people can learn to collaborate, deliver on time, and actually get things done.
0:00:33 The cost of not upskilling?
0:00:35 Way higher than the investment.
0:00:37 Project Management Institute.
0:00:41 Find the answers at PMI.org.
0:00:49 We took 23 manifestos written by people that had committed horrendous killings.
0:00:53 And we now have a database so that when we get a new case,
0:00:56 if there’s writings, we can now compare them to the database.
0:01:01 And the reason we’re doing this is for a long time, we looked at after the fact.
0:01:04 We looked at people who had killed after the fact.
0:01:06 And we realized that’s not the way to catch them.
0:01:09 You got to catch them before they act.
0:01:12 And the best thing we thought is, what are they thinking about?
0:01:15 Whether we can identify those red flags.
0:01:20 So that’s why we want to back up into getting them ahead of time.
0:01:24 Good morning.
0:01:26 I am Guy Kawasaki.
0:01:29 This is the Remarkable People podcast.
0:01:34 And for the upteenth time, let me tell you, we’re searching all over the world for remarkable
0:01:37 people to inform and inspire you.
0:01:40 And today’s guest is Anne Burgess.
0:01:45 I must admit, Anne Burgess has one of the most interesting backgrounds that I’ve ever encountered
0:01:46 for this podcast.
0:01:52 She’s been instrumental in some of the worst criminal cases you’ve ever heard of.
0:01:54 And I’ll let her explain that.
0:01:57 She’s basically a nurse and a researcher.
0:02:04 And she has done absolutely groundbreaking work to help, for example, the FBI understand and
0:02:05 profile serial killers.
0:02:11 She has also worked very actively in helping people deal with rape crisis.
0:02:16 And she has devoted much of her career to supporting victims of trauma.
0:02:20 She has a book out about expert witnesses, which we’ll cover.
0:02:26 And I think you’ll find this to be one of the more fascinating episodes of Remarkable People.
0:02:29 So welcome to Remarkable People, Anne Burgess.
0:02:31 Thank you so much, Guy.
0:02:34 I’m happy to be here and talk with your audience.
0:02:40 Well, first of all, I got to ask you, I was reading all the background bio material about
0:02:45 you and I read someplace that says you’re helping your granddaughter do research about
0:02:46 mass shootings.
0:02:48 Did I get that right?
0:02:49 Yes, yes.
0:02:56 Alexandra is my granddaughter and she’s very interested in math and numbers, always has been.
0:03:04 And she took a specialized course to understand AI and writing algorithms and things like that.
0:03:07 We brought her on to help us.
0:03:15 We took 23 manifestos written by people that had committed horrendous killings.
0:03:22 And we now have a database so that when we get a new case, if there’s writings or whatever,
0:03:24 we can now compare them to the database.
0:03:30 And the reason we’re doing this is for a long time, as you read in my background, we looked
0:03:32 at after the fact.
0:03:34 We looked at people who had killed after the fact.
0:03:37 And we realized that’s not the way to catch them.
0:03:39 You got to catch them before they act.
0:03:43 And the best thing we thought is, what are they thinking about?
0:03:46 Whether we can identify those red flags.
0:03:51 So that’s why we want to back up into getting them ahead of time.
0:03:54 So that’s where the process is.
0:03:59 There’s a six level kind of model that has been already developed.
0:04:02 And one of them has to have a grievance.
0:04:06 And then they have to have a, they do some research on it.
0:04:09 In other words, it doesn’t just come in and come out of their minds.
0:04:10 So they start researching it.
0:04:16 That develops into planning something, the whole fantasy of I’m going to kill a group kind of
0:04:16 thing.
0:04:20 Sometimes they even identify the date that they’re going to do this.
0:04:22 And then they act.
0:04:28 So if we could identify these steps earlier, I think we’d have a better chance.
0:04:34 I know that people, of course, are trying to, but rare is the case where they don’t leave
0:04:38 some social media information that they’re going to act.
0:04:44 And obviously, we can’t monitor every single social media.
0:04:50 But if we get people that will look at things and when they see something, call it into a
0:04:51 centralized place.
0:04:53 That’s one of our goals.
0:04:55 Now, we aren’t there yet, but that’s one of the goals.
0:04:56 All right.
0:05:03 So first of all, I want to get a kind of grounding about this criminal justice system.
0:05:08 And it seems to me that you could either have an adversarial criminal justice system where
0:05:13 there’s one team and the other team, and they’re both going at it with the judge as the referee
0:05:14 in the middle.
0:05:15 And then the jury decides.
0:05:24 So that’s adversarial, but there’s also inquisitorial where the judge is listening to various experts
0:05:26 and decides.
0:05:29 And clearly, we have the adversarial system here.
0:05:34 So do you have any thoughts about which is a better system, having gone through so many
0:05:37 of these trials and been so familiar with the criminals?
0:05:43 Well, you know, the UK has even a different part with experts.
0:05:50 The experts from each side have to get together and come up with a decision that then goes to
0:05:51 the judge.
0:05:53 I always found that very interesting.
0:05:54 I’d love to try that.
0:05:58 I don’t know if it would work here in the States, but that’s one.
0:05:59 The other is one.
0:06:05 I’ve done some cases where the judge has said, I don’t want two adversarial experts.
0:06:10 I’m going to just appoint one that can handle both sides kind of thing.
0:06:15 So I’ve done cases like that where it’s been very controversial, and they usually involve
0:06:16 multiple victims.
0:06:18 So those are some alternatives.
0:06:19 But you’re right.
0:06:25 It really is hard in our system because each one has their own point of view, obviously.
0:06:27 And it’s up to the jury.
0:06:33 And I think that’s a hard task for a jury to have to, in a short period of time, separate
0:06:37 out which side they’re going to go on.
0:06:40 So basically, we have these two teams.
0:06:45 They’re each making their own case as opposed to seeking the truth.
0:06:52 And the jury is supposed to decide what the truth is based on this adversary.
0:06:53 Wow.
0:06:55 It’s hard.
0:06:56 Absolutely hard.
0:07:00 Now, when you get into a homicide case, that I think is a little different because you’re
0:07:03 going to have evidence, you’re going to have other kinds of things.
0:07:09 But in cases where you have a surviving victim, like I get into, it’s very hard.
0:07:15 I think for a jury, I have read one book from a juror on the Menendez case, which was fascinating.
0:07:19 Her perspective of it on the first trial.
0:07:25 So every now and then you will get a juror that will publish something that they’ve written.
0:07:39 Since you opened the door with the Menendez brothers trial, I have to say that when I read your interview and how you encourage, was it Eric or Lyle?
0:07:39 Eric, right?
0:07:40 I was Eric.
0:07:43 Yes, Eric was, I was on his team.
0:07:51 You were interviewing Eric and you asked him to draw pictures and he started drawing all these pictures of what happened to him.
0:07:53 Does the jury ever hear that?
0:07:55 Did they ever see those pictures?
0:07:57 I mean, it explains a lot.
0:07:58 It does.
0:08:04 And I have done those pictures in some of my cases and the jury does see them and it makes a big difference.
0:08:09 I was sorry that we weren’t able to introduce those drawings that Eric did.
0:08:21 And the reason I think is very interesting, the lawyers on the team felt that the prosecution would make fun of them because he does what would be called a juvenile type drawing.
0:08:26 He certainly wasn’t an artist, but the whole point was that’s how he saw things back.
0:08:40 And when he was a kid, even though he was 21 or two by the time I got the drawings, don’t forget it was two years later, which I found remarkable that he had the amount of detail to that week leading up to the shootings.
0:08:48 And that’s what I was interested in is exactly what was going through his mind and how that decision came about to do the shooting.
0:08:58 I think anybody looking at it would get a very different view of that testimony when they could see it from his eyes.
0:09:08 How does it make you feel that in the second trial they had a life sentence because your facts weren’t ever available to the jury?
0:09:09 So now they have a life sentence.
0:09:13 Do you believe that life sentence was fair and just and the right thing to do?
0:09:15 No, I don’t.
0:09:20 I feel that everybody has the right to explain why they did something.
0:09:25 And it’s up to the jury of the judge, whoever is judging the case to make that determination.
0:09:28 And I felt that was very unfair.
0:09:32 And other people, especially in the media, have commented on that.
0:09:33 I thought it was very unfair.
0:09:36 I don’t think I need to ask, but I’m going to ask anyway.
0:09:40 How do you feel about their parole being turned down now?
0:09:42 I, again, felt that was unfair also.
0:09:47 I feel it certainly perhaps had a real political aspect to it.
0:09:50 The case was so politicized in the last couple of years.
0:09:56 And so it’s satisfied from the prosecution standpoint, if you will.
0:10:03 And I have heard people say it’s rare for anybody ever to get a parole approval the first time in.
0:10:06 So it kind of has a little protocol itself.
0:10:13 You have to go through it several times or they have to keep making you suffer, if you will, more and more.
0:10:16 So all of those things could have played into it.
0:10:27 I think that having to judge the case on previous rule discrepancies, when the case was felt that they would never get out,
0:10:36 and some of the rule discrepancies I didn’t think were very serious, phone calls and so forth, to their family, I think that’s very, very hard.
0:10:47 And when you learn that any of the approved phone calls could be listened into and that information could be leaked and then paid for by a media output,
0:10:50 and that’s the way we get information, I think that’s unfair too.
0:10:52 So I don’t know what the answer is.
0:10:59 And it will be interesting because if they make no rule problems, discrepancies, will they let them out?
0:11:02 That’s the criteria that they use for this particular one.
0:11:11 I always think, are they going to make what I call a 1990s decision based on really that case versus a 2025 decision,
0:11:23 which has in many ways opened up the area of Paris-side behavior to being family, conflict, real family problems.
0:11:24 We’ll see.
0:11:27 Obviously, we have to wait and see.
0:11:34 I bet most people listening to this episode, they probably don’t realize, I certainly didn’t realize it,
0:11:40 that Eric Menendez’s father was sexually assaulting him beginning at the age six.
0:11:41 Six!
0:11:41 Right.
0:11:42 Six.
0:11:43 Yes.
0:11:47 Did anybody in the mainstream media report that?
0:11:57 Because it seems to me, as soon as it happened, the story was these two rich, spoiled brat kids murdered their wonderful parents,
0:11:59 and they were spoiled and blah, blah, blah.
0:12:03 They were hung immediately in the press.
0:12:04 Yes, they were.
0:12:10 And that’s the way the parasite cases where a child kills a parent seem to go.
0:12:22 It always goes in favor of the parent, interestingly enough, and I think we’ve opened the door to more of the abuse that can go on in a home that is never reported.
0:12:30 From that standpoint, the victimology aspect, I think, hopefully, has made a difference in people’s view of the case.
0:12:31 Not all.
0:12:35 I know that there are so many people that will just view these brothers as greedy.
0:12:41 The other point I want to make is they keep saying, why didn’t Eric just leave, or Lyle?
0:12:43 Point is, they had planned to.
0:12:45 They had planned that week.
0:12:47 They were going back to college.
0:12:52 Lyle was going to go back to the East Coast, and Eric thought he was going to go to UCSF.
0:12:56 And that day, that Tuesday, is the day he found out that he wasn’t.
0:13:01 The father said he can go to UCLA, which is right near.
0:13:03 They were living in the Los Angeles area.
0:13:08 And the father would buy him a moped so he could go back and forth.
0:13:13 And I found that amazing that nobody saw that as he’s getting away.
0:13:14 He thought he was getting away.
0:13:17 Obviously, he wasn’t going to get away.
0:13:18 And that started on a Tuesday.
0:13:21 And, of course, the shootings were on a Sunday.
0:13:30 It seems to me, when I read your description of this entire case, that, I mean, there’s no question that they actually committed the murder.
0:13:31 Right.
0:13:40 And it seems to me that your findings, your interview, the drawings, all of that, it had nothing to do with proving their guilt or innocence.
0:13:44 It’s more a factor in sentencing than judgment.
0:13:48 So, do you think the emphasis should be on sentencing or judgment?
0:13:50 Oh, I do.
0:13:53 I felt that was where it was important.
0:13:55 At the parole, absolutely.
0:13:58 And now, some people don’t forget all the women.
0:14:03 And when you had juries with gender bias, if you will, there was gender bias.
0:14:07 When they found that out, Hazel Thornton wrote a whole book.
0:14:09 She was juror number eight.
0:14:12 And she wrote a book every day after the court.
0:14:18 And she said the worst thing they did was the day that they went into the jury room, they took a visual vote.
0:14:20 How many for murder?
0:14:22 One, put your hand up.
0:14:23 How many for manslaughter?
0:14:24 Put your hand up.
0:14:26 And it went right down.
0:14:27 She said gender lines.
0:14:29 And they never moved from that position.
0:14:42 When it comes to growing your business, sometimes you need more than financial investment.
0:14:43 You need personal investment.
0:14:48 That’s what Jeff Plotner, Capital One business customer and co-founder of Brackish,
0:14:55 discovered after a unique groomsman gift in the form of a turkey feather bow tie grew into a successful men’s accessory line.
0:15:00 But when they were ready to expand, Jeff turned to his Capital One representative, Alex Parker,
0:15:03 who wasn’t just an advisor, but a Brackish customer.
0:15:10 Because of the encouraging conversation with Alex, Jeff launched a women’s line, scaling the Brackish brand to the next level.
0:15:12 Because at Capital One, it’s not just business.
0:15:15 It’s relationships that help you do more business.
0:15:19 Learn more at CapitalOne.com slash business cards.
0:15:23 You opened up another subject here.
0:15:31 So in reading your book, it’s not like you discussed any case where the perpetrator was female.
0:15:36 Now, is that just coincidence or should I draw some conclusion from that?
0:15:44 You talk about Menendez, Bill Cosby, Larry Nassar, these other mass murders from Louisiana and all that.
0:15:46 Every one of them was a man.
0:15:47 What am I seeing here?
0:15:51 Well, you don’t have a lot of females to pick from.
0:15:54 And we were writing on cases that we had actually been involved in.
0:16:02 In the first book, A Killer by Design, we do put in a case where it’s two high school students, and it’s a female killing a female.
0:16:05 We do have that one case, but you’re absolutely correct.
0:16:11 We don’t put in cases where the mother kills the children, which there are a number of them.
0:16:16 They just don’t, from my perspective, get into the court system that I would deal with.
0:16:17 So you’re correct.
0:16:20 It’s just very different for female offenders.
0:16:24 They do different things to kill than males also.
0:16:26 Can we back up a second?
0:16:39 My exposure prior to reading your book to expert witnesses is probably CSI Las Vegas, CSI Special Crime Victim Unit, all those things, and maybe a movie or two.
0:16:45 But can you explain how expert witnessing truly works?
0:16:48 First of all, what makes an expert witness an expert?
0:16:51 Well, the judge has to determine that.
0:16:58 You have to present your background, and whatever side you’re on has to go before the judge and say, I present this person.
0:17:02 And then the other side is able to cross-examine the witness.
0:17:04 So from that standpoint, I think it’s very fair.
0:17:13 But to get to the nitty-gritty of what does make it, generally, there’s what’s called a dobear hearing, and they have to answer those questions.
0:17:20 The content area has to be well in the range of other people in the field.
0:17:22 You know, certainly publish.
0:17:40 They have to have the error rate, the methodology has to be looked at, and those kinds of things, which is interesting because if you look at the description, it is just someone that has more knowledge of a particular issue at hand than the jury does.
0:17:47 So that you’re supposed to be giving the jury, I believe, basis of science in that whatever your area is.
0:17:51 And of course, in mine, it would be sexual abuse or it might be trauma.
0:17:55 There are several areas I’ve been qualified in as an expert.
0:18:03 On the other hand, in an adversarial position, you are on one side or the other, right?
0:18:19 So now, in a deeply hypothetical question, if the prosecution for the Menendez trial contacted you first and said, we want you to be our expert witness in the prosecution of the brothers, would you or could you have done it?
0:18:26 I have actually been in that situation where it was a very high profile case and both sides contacted me.
0:18:28 So what did I do?
0:18:31 I felt I was obligated to take the first person.
0:18:34 So it wasn’t based on whether they were prosecution or defense.
0:18:39 I felt I was only fair to take the first person that had reached out.
0:18:45 I don’t know if that’s what other people do, but I don’t think that’s unusual that an expert could be contacted.
0:18:52 Now, I get contacted because of the one paper that my partner and I did called Rape Trauma Syndrome.
0:19:07 And so I would certainly on the cases that I’ve been called on both sides, usually they would want to use Rape Trauma Syndrome to boost their side, whichever way they were going with that.
0:19:31 And one of the cases was the Duke Lacrosse case and the defense wanted me to opine on the issue of did this happen, whereas the prosecution wanted to have me opine on why the so-called victim was changing her story or had various versions of what happened and using Rape Trauma Syndrome in that respect.
0:19:45 But what I fundamentally don’t understand is, is there a case, Anne, where you look at it and you say, what that person did is so reprehensible, I will not be an expert witness for that side?
0:19:45 Oh, I have.
0:19:59 Yeah, I’ve turned, not many, but I certainly have turned cases down because either of that issue or I really didn’t feel that I would be able to help that particular side.
0:20:02 And then I would not take the other side.
0:20:04 So I would just remove myself from the whole case.
0:20:10 So can you give us the gist of the ethical guidelines for expert witnesses?
0:20:13 I can give you the guidelines for my discipline.
0:20:16 The criteria for expert, it goes to the judge.
0:20:23 But in nursing, we have specific ethical guidelines about what we are obliged to do.
0:20:27 And those are all written up every 10 years, they review them.
0:20:33 And I think each discipline does, whether it’s nursing or whether it’s social work or psychology or psychiatry.
0:20:36 We all have our own rules.
0:20:41 And technically, you can be called before an ethical committee if you violate them.
0:20:43 So they’re very serious.
0:20:58 It seems to me that everybody who’s convicted of a crime, or I use the term everybody loosely, but let’s just say, generally speaking, you can find some abuse, some neglect, some trauma in their background.
0:21:01 And wouldn’t that be true for almost every criminal?
0:21:06 So when is that a mitigating circumstance that should be used in sentencing?
0:21:08 And when should it just be ignored?
0:21:11 And you did the crime, you do the time.
0:21:12 And you’re absolutely correct.
0:21:19 Everybody, and certainly any criminal or defendant, has much in their background, unless they’re really young.
0:21:24 You know, I’ve had some cases they’re teenagers, so at least you don’t have to go back all the way.
0:21:26 But you have to address that.
0:21:30 It’s not how high a level, but you have to give the circumstances.
0:21:35 And that is one of the areas that, if I’m on one side, the other side is going to bring up.
0:21:38 Why didn’t you consider X, Y, and Z?
0:21:41 You know, all these other horrible things happen as a child to her.
0:21:45 And I usually have to give a reason for why.
0:21:48 Not that I ignored them, but that I considered them.
0:21:54 But they didn’t rise to the level of having an influence, if you will, on the particular crime that was committed.
0:22:00 And I think that’s where it divides into, you have to argue that case.
0:22:03 Hopefully successfully in front of a jury.
0:22:07 Well, a few minutes ago, you mentioned the Duke Lacrosse case.
0:22:12 And again, reading your book was eye-opening for me.
0:22:16 I’m just getting over the fact that Eric Menendez has been sexually assaulted since six.
0:22:19 And then I read the chapter about Duke Lacrosse.
0:22:29 And you go through the timeline, and it’s like impossible for those three players to have raped that woman in that small bathroom.
0:22:35 In the timing, and you have the ATM report, you have the cell phone reports, you have all these reports.
0:22:39 And I don’t think any of that was obvious to me.
0:22:46 And again, the press said, these rich white boys from Duke Lacrosse raped this black woman, and they’re guilty.
0:22:51 I mean, and I bet most people to this day still believe that’s the case.
0:22:56 And these white guys got off because maybe they had better lawyers or something, right?
0:23:03 But in that case, Crystal Magnum, which was a victim’s name, has admitted she lied.
0:23:08 And I think it took 14 years, but you don’t always get that, of course.
0:23:12 But I think in this case, she did come forward and said she lied.
0:23:19 And what it actually turned out to be, we had figured that out early on, because I took the case on from a defense standpoint.
0:23:27 And I did not feel it happened the way she described it, that there was another reason for her to come forward.
0:23:27 And there was.
0:23:34 But I think that the dilemma that I had, if we had gone to trial, was how to present that.
0:23:39 You can’t go in and say, I think she’s lying, because I couldn’t prove it, right, per se.
0:23:50 But I could bring all the arguments that something else might have happened in her life that pushed her to the point where she said these three young men had raped her.
0:23:56 And we were prepared to do that, because the attorney that I was working with was absolutely brilliant anyway.
0:24:02 And I thought so highly of him, and he agreed that we could go in with that particular perspective.
0:24:08 From your book, I have to say that I don’t have a very good impression of mass media.
0:24:11 They’re jumping to conclusions about Duke LaCrosse.
0:24:15 They don’t tell the whole back channel story of the Menendez brothers.
0:24:25 If I’m just listening to this podcast, what is my takeaway about the reports in mainstream media about these heinous crimes?
0:24:26 What do I believe anymore?
0:24:31 That’s the problem, is the citizenry will run with the media.
0:24:33 The media is so powerful.
0:24:36 And to try to fight it, they don’t want to hear it.
0:24:42 Even if you try to say there’s a other side, they just don’t want to hear it.
0:24:50 And I think they should be called out on it, because people should see it as a, why it’s in court is because there’s conflict.
0:24:52 You don’t go to court if there’s no conflict.
0:24:55 So they should be saying, what does the other side have to say?
0:24:58 How do they explain what happened?
0:25:00 The other is, where’s the science?
0:25:12 I’m going to be publishing a paper, hopefully with some of these drawings, in which we say that the Menendez, they avoided anything that would have made a difference, if you will.
0:25:18 And it was a double-parasite case, if you want to officially classify it.
0:25:24 There’s very little literature, or let alone any research, on double-parasite.
0:25:26 There is some on single-parasite.
0:25:29 That’s where one child will kill a parent.
0:25:34 But where two children would kill both parents.
0:25:37 There are probably no more than 100 cases internationally.
0:25:40 We did get some research from the UK.
0:25:42 England has done some work on it, and Wales.
0:25:45 But we didn’t do a full search.
0:25:49 But that’s where I say, the research committee isn’t doing their work either.
0:25:56 They should be doing more research on some of these very small, esoteric kinds of cases.
0:25:59 Because I think that would help the media.
0:26:03 If they would publish it, they should publish research.
0:26:05 Let’s switch topics to profiling.
0:26:12 And once again, my entire data set on profiling is special victims unit, whatever.
0:26:22 So, first of all, can you take us back in time and talk about how you and John Douglas and Robert Ressler created this behavioral science unit of the FBI?
0:26:27 Well, the BSU came into existence in 1972.
0:26:37 And it was on the basis of Howard Teton and Patrick Mullaney, two agents that were in teaching at the academy.
0:26:46 And what they would do is they would meet with the agents after classes, and they’d just sit around informally and talk about cases that hadn’t been solved.
0:26:57 And they got so good that people began to bring in cases for them, and what it was, was looking at a crime scene.
0:27:02 And from the crime scene, finding characteristics, not names.
0:27:05 Everybody gets all upset over this, you’re going to be saying Joe Smith did something.
0:27:07 No, it’s characteristics.
0:27:16 And then put those characteristics together and see if you can come up with a suspect profile on these characteristics.
0:27:17 And that’s what it started.
0:27:21 The person most interested in this was Bob Ressler.
0:27:27 And so he really interned with these two senior agents.
0:27:31 And the first case was a fascinating, horrible case.
0:27:40 But it was an eight-year-old that was kidnapped from a tent, the Meyerhoff case, where the parents were in one tent camping.
0:27:45 And the kids, the children, there was more than just one child, were in another.
0:27:49 And this Meyerhoff, they didn’t know who it was.
0:27:57 But anyway, he had cut a slice into the tent, was able to abduct, to kidnap this young, seven or eight years old.
0:27:59 And that was a hard one to solve.
0:28:00 But they did.
0:28:01 They did.
0:28:06 And not only did they solve it, but they even got the suspect, Meyerhoffer, to come forward.
0:28:11 What was unfortunate in that case is he suicided once he was in jail.
0:28:14 So they never got to get any more information.
0:28:16 But, of course, he had a criminal background.
0:28:18 But that really started them.
0:28:22 And then Bob Ressler needed a partner.
0:28:25 And so John Douglas was added to the equation.
0:28:29 And now that was the 70s, late 70s, early 80s.
0:28:33 And they really hit well on several cases.
0:28:35 And they made the congressional record.
0:28:41 They did the Nebraska Newsboy case was a big one where they did get the offender.
0:28:48 And the Atlanta case down in Atlanta, Georgia, with all of those killings.
0:28:50 And John Casey, of course, with his 33.
0:28:53 So they were able to solve a number of cases.
0:28:55 And that made them.
0:29:06 So are we at the point where you can take all the case reports, all the background, shove it into an LLM, and it’ll instantly give you a profile?
0:29:08 Are we going to get there?
0:29:09 You’re going to get there.
0:29:10 You bet you’re going to get there.
0:29:19 Yeah, you can put that in machine learning, and it will print out the topics that are important.
0:29:21 And then you’ve got something to work with.
0:29:25 Not only can you get the topics, but you get the supporting statements.
0:29:33 That’s the part I really like, because heretofore, you had to read everything, make notes, and things like that.
0:29:34 This machine does it all.
0:29:38 It’s absolutely amazing in a very short time.
0:29:39 Absolutely amazing.
0:29:44 We did the Ted Kaczynski manifesto, 137,000 pages.
0:29:46 I think they did that in five minutes.
0:29:48 We’ve already done that one.
0:29:50 We’ve already published on that one.
0:29:53 It’s amazing how fast the machine is.
0:29:58 Wait, so you stuck in 37,000 pages about Ted Kaczynski.
0:30:00 Ted Kaczynski.
0:30:01 Do you remember him?
0:30:04 Yeah, 137.
0:30:08 Okay, so were you pretending that we don’t know who did it.
0:30:16 We put in his manifesto, and you found out if it pointed to a person like Ted.
0:30:18 No, it was Ted, so we could say it was Ted.
0:30:22 So we didn’t have to identify him, but we have that in our database.
0:30:27 I’ll tell you, you know, all of these shooters have their own, quote, heroes.
0:30:37 And there is the one who shot and killed the UnitedHealthcare, Brian Thompson was the victim, and Luigi Maggioni, I think it is.
0:30:40 Ted Kaczynski was his kind of hero.
0:30:45 So if he had any writings, they haven’t released anything, of course.
0:30:50 But if they did, we could measure that against Ted Kaczynski and see whether there’s some similarity or differences.
0:30:52 It isn’t just similarities.
0:30:54 It gives you both similarities and differences.
0:31:00 And do you think it’s going to get so good that it’ll be predictive and preventative?
0:31:03 I believe it would be a tool.
0:31:11 It will be a hybrid tool in which you will get the machine learning topics, but you still have to interpret it.
0:31:14 You always need the human piece.
0:31:19 So it’s just that it’s such a fast tool to give you certain kind of information.
0:31:22 And that’s where I think we’re going to see a hybrid type.
0:31:27 Okay, so this next question, you don’t have to answer.
0:31:32 And we can cut this, but I am so curious.
0:31:46 So do you think that this kind of research and science can now go on in the FBI, in the Trump administration, run by Kash Patel?
0:31:56 Because, like, I see pictures of FBI agents walking around D.C., not exactly doing high-level forensics and science.
0:31:59 So what do you think is going on in the FBI right now?
0:32:05 Well, I’m going to be giving a talk to them next week, so maybe I’ll be able to answer you better.
0:32:06 Okay.
0:32:22 But I will tell you that back in the 80s, when AI, artificial intelligence, was just starting up, I had proposed a grant, a research grant, and they told me that was Star Wars, that they weren’t interested in all that predictive stuff.
0:32:24 That was not going to be a thing of the future.
0:32:28 So I say to you, where are we now, 40 years later?
0:32:33 Your question, you know, is, so they weren’t with it back in the 80s.
0:32:34 They didn’t want to do it.
0:32:40 My point is, a large system like that takes a long time to make any change.
0:32:47 So you’re asking, can they make a change in the way that they profile or the way they look for suspects?
0:32:57 You’d have to have trainers come in and get the agents trained, let alone get it down to the police officer level.
0:33:10 And whether they could do it now, I’d like to think, let me put it that way, I’d like to think that they would entertain a small pilot project to test whether it’s a possible point.
0:33:19 And then they could make a better determination, rather than give us a blanket no, to give us a maybe, prove it kind of thing.
0:33:20 Proof of concept.
0:33:21 You have to do proof of concept.
0:33:28 And we did proof of concept with our first paper on threat assessment with the 23 manifesto.
0:33:33 So we have that published and it isn’t in a very high level journal.
0:33:42 But, you know, listen, I thought the CDC had decades of history and you can’t change the CDC that fast.
0:33:46 But clearly you can change the CDC very fast.
0:33:49 So why can’t you change the FBI very fast?
0:34:04 And I could easily see where there would be some kind of top down decision that says all your profiling, all your magic, your science is always coming up, that it’s a white male perpetrator.
0:34:06 And that is woke.
0:34:08 So we’re banning profiling in the future.
0:34:12 I would hope not, but at least we have some history with it.
0:34:13 It isn’t all white.
0:34:15 But I think that in itself is important.
0:34:21 If it is, that’s important that the other races aren’t involved in this kind of horrific killing.
0:34:43 Meet Nicole Nicholas, Capital One business customer and co-owner of Ansett Uncles, a plant-based restaurant and community space in Brooklyn, New York, that got its start from a need for unity.
0:34:52 The inspiration, it was born from the desire to create a space that felt like home, where we can connect community culture, good food, and come together with family and friends.
0:34:53 That’s how we birthed aunts and uncles.
0:34:59 Nicole and her husband, Mike, were fulfilling their dream of bringing people together out of their home kitchen.
0:35:03 But they soon learned that the demand for community was greater than they knew.
0:35:07 It became overwhelming and we were like, we need home, but not in our actual home.
0:35:12 We realized that there was also a need in our community for something bigger in our neighborhood.
0:35:14 So we had to find a place.
0:35:18 Moving from a home operation into a storefront was a huge next step.
0:35:22 But Nicole and Mike were able to take it on with the help of Capital One Business.
0:35:24 It’s not for the weak.
0:35:31 As a small business, finding resources is super important because that’s the way you’ll be able to manage and scale.
0:35:36 We would have never done that without having Capital One to be able to help us along the way.
0:35:38 The cashback rewards are very helpful.
0:35:42 You know, it just gave us that runway to be able to breathe a little bit.
0:35:46 Then you get to focus on the cooking of the food and making the experience great.
0:35:50 To learn more, go to CapitalOne.com slash business cards.
0:35:55 You do a lot of work with rape trauma.
0:35:58 And I want to talk about that.
0:36:02 First of all, is E. Jean Carroll a big hero for you?
0:36:03 No.
0:36:04 No?
0:36:05 No.
0:36:06 Why not?
0:36:08 I don’t know enough of the case.
0:36:11 I’ve seen what’s been written about her, but not knowing background information.
0:36:13 I like to work from science.
0:36:16 I just don’t know enough about the case, quite frankly.
0:36:19 Only what I’ve read in the media, and we’ve already talked about the media.
0:36:19 True.
0:36:20 Okay.
0:36:22 That is a great answer, actually.
0:36:28 I think you can tell a lot about a person by what they say they don’t know, because most
0:36:31 bullshitters will not say they don’t know something.
0:36:34 And that never stops them from opining.
0:36:36 I’m sure I can tell you what I don’t know.
0:36:37 I don’t know a lot.
0:36:43 It takes a certain kind of intelligence to know what you don’t know, which many people do not
0:36:44 have that intelligence.
0:36:45 So my hat’s off to you.
0:36:53 So let’s talk about, with all your involvement in rape trauma, what is your advice to a rape
0:36:54 victim?
0:36:55 Do you report?
0:36:56 What do you do?
0:36:57 What’s your actions?
0:37:03 That’s really hard, because we haven’t changed the numbers very much in terms of who reports
0:37:04 to authorities.
0:37:05 I’m going to clarify.
0:37:10 They may report to a friend, they may report to other people, but they don’t report to authorities
0:37:14 such as police, in any numbers that I’m happy with.
0:37:20 But what I do say is they have to make their own decision, because it’s a very personal thing.
0:37:26 And the minute you tell somebody, other people now know, and that you can’t control that information.
0:37:31 Whereas when you have it as a kind of private secret, you can control it, as long as whoever
0:37:33 you’re telling, you can trust.
0:37:37 So given that aside, they have to make the decision.
0:37:39 But I always add a caveat.
0:37:44 You decide whether you want to go forward, but try to get somebody that you can talk to
0:37:45 about this.
0:37:49 In other words, get into counseling or get into therapy, because they are supposed to keep
0:37:51 private any conversation.
0:38:01 And I really hand it to the military, now has a technique that you can report anonymously and
0:38:02 get services.
0:38:04 That is good.
0:38:06 Because in the military, it’s very different.
0:38:09 They’re usually going to know who the defendant is.
0:38:11 And it can be in their own unit.
0:38:13 And it can be a higher rank.
0:38:17 And it can really ruin a career when that kind of thing comes out.
0:38:19 We’ll have to get into all the bias that’s out there.
0:38:22 But at any rate, you can now do an anonymous report.
0:38:23 I think that is good.
0:38:25 Because they will get the services.
0:38:27 They can have the rape exam.
0:38:29 They can talk with someone.
0:38:35 And it can get recorded as an anonymous report so that you’re not losing data, if you will,
0:38:37 or numbers, if you will.
0:38:41 But for those that are obviously not in the military, they have a bigger question.
0:38:43 But we have a lot of good rape crisis centers now.
0:38:46 And they will keep very private.
0:38:51 They won’t even go into court if one of their clients’ victims is reporting.
0:38:58 So my answer to you is that as long as they can get some counseling and get someone to talk to about it.
0:39:03 And many of them will report the name because they’re now concerned about serial.
0:39:07 I think we finally have enough information about serial offenders.
0:39:11 And rapists are notorious for being serial offenders.
0:39:20 So if you can get into the DNA, you know, and if you have DNA, that’s very useful to go into the CODIS national database.
0:39:26 Okay, so now let’s say that your friend or your relative is a rape victim.
0:39:29 What are the best ways to support the victim?
0:39:33 There are a lot of good techniques that have been utilized.
0:39:35 Talking therapy still is number one.
0:39:38 But they are expanding it.
0:39:41 I’m a great believer in having multi-approach.
0:39:47 Activity is very good because action is a good antidote for depression.
0:39:57 And so get into something, whether it’s walking or playing some sport or something, do it because that will get your whole body moving.
0:39:59 Yoga, any of those kinds of things.
0:40:11 And when able to have a support person so you can get back if you’re working, whatever the lifestyle was before, you want to get them back as soon as they can.
0:40:17 I just take a multidisciplinary approach, get a number of things going if you can for the victim.
0:40:23 Now, based on what I’ve read at mainstream media, again, is my foundation for this.
0:40:29 So I want to ask an expert like this, and I hope it doesn’t have an unintended consequence.
0:40:42 But will you describe if you go forth and you report and it becomes a reported crime and, you know, it’s one of the few that come to trial.
0:40:52 What is going to do to the person who reports a rape?
0:40:56 Unfortunately, they have to try to discredit you.
0:41:02 They have to try to not only discredit you, the victim, but they have to discredit anybody that’s supporting you.
0:41:03 I go into court.
0:41:05 That’s what I know the defense is going to be.
0:41:09 They’ll try to, in some way, and in fact, they used to do it.
0:41:12 I was going to write a chapter in my book on, you’re just a nurse.
0:41:18 They would try to diminish my profession to, you’re only a nurse.
0:41:19 You’re not a psychiatrist.
0:41:20 You’re not a psychologist.
0:41:22 How can you do this?
0:41:33 So for your victim, now, Andrea Constant, who was the victim of Bill Cosby, has done something very, I think, innovative and important up in Canada.
0:41:42 She did get them a money award, and so she established a foundation, and she helps women that are doing exactly what you say.
0:41:50 They are going to have to go to court, and she prepares them because she’s gone through the gauntlet, if you will, with that case.
0:41:53 And so she helps prepare them for what they’re going to do.
0:41:59 One of my early cases, I wasn’t there as an expert, but I was there to help.
0:42:11 And what I did is I took my whole class to court, and they sat in that front row and were supportive of the victim, because the victim in those days had to sit right in the same row with the offender.
0:42:23 And they were hissing at her and saying, how can you do this, you know, to my son, and making her feel terrible, let alone what she had been gang raped by these three young men.
0:42:24 And it was a horrible situation.
0:42:28 So there are other things that you can do to show support for the victim.
0:42:32 And that’s where I think good friends come in or family come in.
0:42:35 So this is now 2025.
0:42:44 And my question for you is, is the degree to which men can treat women however they want, is it increasing or decreasing?
0:42:47 Is the world getting better or worse this way?
0:42:48 There are still a lot of cases.
0:42:50 What can I say?
0:42:51 That hasn’t gone down.
0:42:53 The numbers have only gone up.
0:42:58 Even homicide is taking a different twist now with mass shooting.
0:43:00 That’s moved from single shooting.
0:43:03 And that’s very scary to people.
0:43:07 Good grief, you saw on the TV this week, we’re just riding the subway.
0:43:12 And wherever it was, a young woman was killed.
0:43:17 I think it’s a very scary time that we’re living in, and we have to get a handle on it.
0:43:20 And there has to be more involvement than just police.
0:43:23 The citizenry has to get involved.
0:43:31 And that’s where I think programs like yours are very important, to get, hopefully, out some information on the problem.
0:43:34 I wish I had a better report card for you, but I don’t.
0:43:38 Knowing how deep the problem is step number one, right?
0:43:42 Better than saying it doesn’t exist, so we don’t need to do anything.
0:43:43 You’re right.
0:43:46 I think that you’re putting a spotlight on it is going to help.
0:43:47 Yes, very much.
0:43:48 All right.
0:43:51 So I’ll let you have the floor now.
0:43:58 And I just want you to explain what you want people to get from reading your book about expert witness.
0:44:00 And I’ll tell you what I got.
0:44:12 I got to learn a side of the story of the Menendez brothers, Bill Cosby, the Duke lacrosse team.
0:44:15 I never, never knew the other side.
0:44:16 So that’s what I got.
0:44:18 And it opened my eyes.
0:44:22 So would you just say, you know, what people will get out of reading your book?
0:44:27 I would just say exactly what you got out of it is the other side.
0:44:32 I hope that on these controversial cases that at least people will know there is another side.
0:44:36 Even the Larry Nassar case, he had over 500 victims.
0:44:42 And how those victims felt, I think I want to emphasize that of how awful the victims feel
0:44:44 when they’ve been tricked, if you will.
0:44:47 And in that case, don’t forget, he was a Dr. Rostopea.
0:44:51 But they all thought they were getting a bona fide medical exam.
0:44:52 And it wasn’t.
0:44:58 I remember one of the victims saying, I just felt so foolish and stupid that I
0:45:00 thought he was doing the right thing.
0:45:02 And so it reflects on them.
0:45:04 My point is it reflects badly on them.
0:45:05 And they feel awful.
0:45:07 And that’s one of the reasons they don’t talk about it.
0:45:12 It’s not the type of an experience that men or women can talk about.
0:45:17 And since we’ve done the Menendez case, nobody could believe that this doesn’t happen to men.
0:45:18 Wrong.
0:45:19 It does.
0:45:25 I’ve written on one case out of the Midwest where it was a rogue physician that gave examinations
0:45:29 to all of the athletes in this one particular university.
0:45:36 And it took 40 years for it to finally come out, even though the institution knew about it.
0:45:39 And that’s the point I want to make about institutional betrayal,
0:45:44 is that when it is known and it is tried to cover up, that’s wrong.
0:45:49 The institution has to come forward and say, we’ve got a rogue professional here.
0:45:50 We’ve got to get rid of them.
0:45:54 Otherwise, it empowers the offender.
0:45:55 They get away with it.
0:45:56 It just empowers them.
0:45:58 It’s like serial rapists.
0:46:00 We need to stop them.
0:46:01 They can’t stop themselves.
0:46:05 Even serial killers will tell you, I couldn’t stop myself.
0:46:07 So you’re doing them a service.
0:46:09 I always say the police did you a service to stop you.
0:46:15 So I think all of those things I hope people can get from reading expert witness.
0:46:18 And it also gets into, courtrooms are very formidable.
0:46:22 There’s such a formality about it that it’s scary for many.
0:46:24 And to be a witness can be very frightening.
0:46:31 So I want that to hopefully open that up a little bit about the courtroom.
0:46:37 And if you’re going to be involved in any way, that there are people out there that can help you navigate it.
0:46:40 Okay, and Burgess, wow.
0:46:43 It was a very eye-opening and disturbing read.
0:46:45 So I thank you for that.
0:46:48 You definitely pushed me out of my comfort zone.
0:46:49 So thank you for that.
0:46:51 And I wish you all the best.
0:46:59 And you and your granddaughter, Alex, from MIT, will just revolutionize all this kind of stuff.
0:47:00 I hope you deserve it.
0:47:01 I hope I can get it.
0:47:02 Yeah.
0:47:03 Alrighty.
0:47:03 Thank you.
0:47:15 I’m just going to wrap up and thank Madison Nisemer, co-producer, Jeff C, co-producer, Shannon Hernandez, sound design engineer, and Tessa Nisemer, our ACE researcher.
0:47:18 This is the Remarkable People team, Anne Burgess.
0:47:28 And that’s a whole team trying to bring out your remarkable perspective, your remarkable insights, and your remarkable recommendations.
0:47:32 So thank you, Anne, for being a guest on the Remarkable People podcast.
0:47:37 This is Remarkable People.
Ann Wolbert Burgess is no ordinary nurse or researcher—she helped shape the FBI’s profiling program and redefined forensic nursing. In this episode of Remarkable People, she shares gripping insights from the Menendez brothers trial, the Duke lacrosse case, and decades of work with victims of trauma. We also discuss her new book Expert Witness, which shines light on what really happens inside courtrooms and why hearing the “other side” of a story is crucial for justice.
—
Guy Kawasaki is on a mission to make you remarkable. His Remarkable People podcast features interviews with remarkable people such as Jane Goodall, Marc Benioff, Woz, Kristi Yamaguchi, and Bob Cialdini. Every episode will make you more remarkable.
With his decades of experience in Silicon Valley as a Venture Capitalist and advisor to the top entrepreneurs in the world, Guy’s questions come from a place of curiosity and passion for technology, start-ups, entrepreneurship, and marketing. If you love society and culture, documentaries, and business podcasts, take a second to follow Remarkable People.
Listeners of the Remarkable People podcast will learn from some of the most successful people in the world with practical tips and inspiring stories that will help you be more remarkable.
Episodes of Remarkable People organized by topic: https://bit.ly/rptopology
Listen to Remarkable People here: **https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/guy-kawasakis-remarkable-people/id1483081827**
Like this show? Please leave us a review — even one sentence helps! Consider including your Twitter handle so we can thank you personally!
Thank you for your support; it helps the show!
See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.