Looking for the Why Behind the Idaho Four Murders?

Don't ask Bryan Kohberger or the prosecutors. None of them have a clue

By Jayson Blair

A common complaint following Bryan Kohberger's plea hearing is that people have been denied the opportunity to understand why he committed the crimes. Anyone who was banking on him explaining why he did it was making the fatal mistake of thinking he had a clue. The trial itself was unlikely to deliver answers because, after all, prosecutors are just taking their best guess at what happened and the why behind it.

I have sat down with several killers as a reporter and have concluded that people kill for any reason and no reason, but the last person who has the slightest idea why is the killer. The dime bag was short, the guy looked at me funny, I was disrespected, he was sleeping with my wife, she was sleeping with the neighbor, I didn't want to go through a divorce and so on. These are hardly satisfying reasons, and when they do explain, you should have considerable hesitation in believing them for an assortment of reasons.

There are many reasons you should pause when a killer delivers an explanation. Some of it is unreliable because people often do not want to discuss the darkest corners of their lives. Another reason with sadists is that they quickly realize that uncertainty is another way of keeping the torture going. However, a key reason is that many of them simply enjoy lying. My friend, Julia Cowley, a retired FBI profiler and the host of The Consult podcast, calls it "Duper's Delight."

Bryan Kohberger at his plea hearing last week.

Teams of television programs, docuseries and podcasts have attempted to understand what led serial killer Israel Keyes to commit the murders of Samantha Koenig in Alaska, Bill and Loraine Currier in Vermont and presumably Debra Feldman, who disappeared from New Jersey. Hours of Keyes' interviews with Anchorage Police, prosecutors and the FBI have been released; he left a manifesto before his suicide, and some of the best minds have attempted to tackle the question, but we still really have no idea.

You need to go no further than the real retired FBI profilers from the Behavioral Analysis Unit who were on the case to see the challenge. In an appearance on the Somewhere in the Pines podcast, after some letters emerged that Keyes wrote to his family members, the retired profilers on The Consult, who worked on the case, explained the problem.

"First and foremost, he's a liar to himself and to everyone else," says Susan Kossler Drew, one of the profilers. " There are some things that can be verified, but anyone's internal thoughts and feelings are a mystery unless they honestly disclose them."

But honestly disclosing their reasons is also a problem. Research has shown that criminals struggle with metacognition and one of its key sub-elements – mentalization. Mentalization is a form of imaginative mental activity that enables us to perceive and understand human behavior and intentions. This concept is crucial to developing self-awareness, which, in essence, involves understanding why you do what you do.

In true crime, there's a tendency to focus on personality psychology, and that's a simple way to look at it. In truth, three primary legs make up the stool that leads to behavior: our life experiences, our personality, and motivation. They are what you've been through, who you are and what drives you (some elements, like mental health disorders, can play a role, and someday we will get a better idea about how things like epigenetics impact the development of personality and its impact on motivation and on experiences). These three things interact with each other and also make up how people choose to act. Even when talented or skilled in developing self-awareness, the answers – especially under stress – can be elusive.

Why did I have eggs this morning? I honestly couldn't tell you. Why did I tell a lie? If I am honest about deception, I must admit I have no clue. Why did I choose to help that person? Truthfully, not sure. What I might have for you, after years of reflection, is a "best guess," hardly a definitive answer.

Dennis Rader (left), known as the BTK killer, at his allocution for 10 murders. Alec Murdaugh (right) at his sentencing hearing.

In BTK Killer Dennis Rader's allocution after pleading to murder, he gave a chilling courtroom confession that lasted somewhere around 45 minutes. During that time, he methodically described all 10 of his murders in graphic, emotionless detail, recounting how he bound, tortured and killed victims. In interviews with a neuropsychologist hired by the defense and later, with Katherine Ramsland, a forensic psychologist and with Dr. Scott Bonn, a criminologist, Rader blamed "Factor X." This dark, uncontrollable force drove him to murder. Uh-huh. Yeah. Sure.

Prosecutors are in the same bind as psychologists. Jurors like stories, so they produce one. But they will admit they don't know. Why did Alec Murdaugh kill his wife and son? Was it greed? Was it anger? Was it because of his sordid family history? Was it self-protection? Was it about his drug addiction? Was it because a criminal operation he was involved in might have otherwise been exposed? The prosecution laid out the best theory they could cobble together, but we don't know. And even if he confessed, would we be able to trust Alec Murdaugh?

If you are into true crime for the why, my best recommendation is to listen to legitimate behavioral analysts like the ones on The Consult, who will tell you to pay close attention to the person's verified behavior and then make your best guesstimation, because you are going to be way more likely to put together insights about why these killers do what they do than they will ever give you.

If the killers knew why, some but not all, would probably have never done it.

---

Jayson Blair is a former reporter at The New York Times, the Boston Globe and the Washington Post and the host of The Silver Linings Handbook podcast.