17 settembre 2019

Andrew Cunanan: an interview with former FBI Special Agent Peter Ahearn

An Italian translation is available here.

In 1997 spree killer Andrew Cunanan killed five people in a three month span; after killing his friend Jeff Trail with a hammer, he killed four other people by firearm and the last of his victims was fashion designer Gianni Versace. To better understand Cunanan's motives and some details about the investigation, we offer today our readers an interview with Peter Ahearn, former FBI Assistant Special Agent in Charge of the FBI San Diego office who coordinated the FBI response there.

We would like to thank Peter Ahearn for his kindness and willingness to help.




Nastro di Möbius: How was this case different from others you've investigated?

Peter Ahearn: From an investigative perspective, not much. It was a typical fugitive case. Realize, on any given day in the U.S. there are 25,000 or so fugitives on the run, some very dangerous, some not so.

The media frenzy was nothing new, once a case of this nature becomes publicly socialized. Remember, the internet aspects were new, we did not have social media per se, and had this case been happening today, probably would have led to an earlier apprehension. The nature of this case escalated when a noted celebrity was murdered, absent that, this would have been a normal fugitive hunt. Until that time, this was a homicide investigation by local authorities. Once they found Cunanan had fled Minnesota, a standard manhunt for a fugitive began from a federal perspective.

As an example, the first week I arrived in Buffalo, NY, we had a local homicide spree killing begin. The individual, Frank Murphy, killed four family members and friends and went on the run. Concerns he would kill again enabled me to place him on the FBI Top Ten list. The day we were to announce it, he was captured. His motive: money, drugs and hate of his family. Does it sound like Cunanan? Cunanan, once he began with his first kill, eventually fixated on and killed Versace, making an emotionally motivated, psychologically broken and mentally ill person become a murderer on the run with a mission to kill Versace.


Nastro di Möbius: In your opinion, what started Cunanan's murder spree all of a sudden?

Peter Ahearn: That question remains today and has never been answered as you know and several conventional wisdom theories have been thoroughly debunked. Not being a trained or certified behavior scientist or phycologist, this is sheer speculation on my part. I believe his mental stability was questionable, compounded by years of a persona he could not keep up with. Money, drugs, paranoia, narcissistic personality and historical family failures, led to a point where he could not take rejection and recognized failure of all he had wanted or thought he could achieve. This culminated in his Minnesota visit.

He was a user of people: family, friends, people he did not even know well. I thoroughly believed all this led up to him snapping and beginning what became a spree of killings starting with his close relationships that evolved into deaths of two people, Versace included, who he really had no social relationship.


Nastro di Möbius: In your opinion, why did he choose Versace as a victim? They had nothing in common, unless an alleged meeting some seven years before, which was very quick.

Peter Ahearn: The key to that answer is mental health. He was a walking disaster, a ticking time bomb. It would build and build over years. All the years he focused himself on this fictional relationship with Versace, once he did his first killing, it was understandable Versace was a key target of his. In his mind he blamed Versace for all of his failures.

Once he murdered those he knew, he began to focus on his evolved target, Versace. The question is, once he killed his lover and friend, did he then decide to go on the spree looking for Versace and unattributed vengeance? Or did he start with that in mind? I firmly believe the initial killing just happened based on his explosive temper, noting he used a hammer in the apartment, to do the killing. Not sure premeditated when he arrived, but does not matter, it began there.

I believe it evolved once he killed Trail, using a hammer, stealing his gun. Then it was too late, he could not go back and began his spree, ultimately fixating on Versace. As you know, he also had a so called “hit list” of noted celebrities, all contacted by the FBI to warn them of the concerns the FBI had with Cunanan on the run. There was no list I know of, but the list came from investigative interviews of friends of Cunanan, leading to the need to advise anyone Cunanan mentioned he knew or wanted to know, or threatened in conversations with friends.


Nastro di Möbius: As far as you know why did he choose to hide in a houseboat (thus condemning himself to death) instead of keep running and hiding?

Peter Ahearn: I believe he chose it because it was self-contained, not a hotel exposing him to being identified as authorities were closing in having verified he was still in the area. And for sure I believe his plan was to continue to run. He did not pick the houseboat for his final stand, it just happened. His choice did not at all condemn himself to certain death.

He killed himself with I believe one of the last bullets in his gun. Had he opted not to kill himself as police entered the house to investigate if he was there, police would have attempted to contain the situation and apprehend him alive. He had three options: kill himself, give up or die in what would be called suicide by cop; point the gun at police or engage in confrontation with the few rounds he had left. No other ammunition was found than what was in the gun if I recall correctly. That to me goes to his lack of planning once he went on the run.


Nastro di Möbius: How come he was able to hide in plain sight for such a long time before killing Versace?

Peter Ahearn: As pointed out above, at any one time there are 25,000 fugitives evading capture. This is a big country, a big world and aside from what many thinks, it is not easy to find someone who does not want to be found. Bin Laden is a good example. Eric Rudolph the Olympic bomber, Whitey Bulger, and I could go on and on and on.

There is an old investigative saying that I like: “I would rather be lucky than good any day of the week”. With the advent of social media, the internet, records being digitized and available, it is a bit harder to hide as a fugitive, but also, it depends on the resources allocated to a fugitive hunt and the resources a fugitive can have at his or her disposal.

The US Marshals (USMS) are the primary fugitive hunters in the U.S. and they are exceptional at it. State and local authorities, with USMS assistance, are the primary ones in local jurisdiction, but once a person runs out of state, the USMS take the lead for the most part. The FBI still hunts fugitives but based on the threat that person dictates, the FBI react accordingly. Since 9/11, resources have been redirected and the FBI is not as deeply involved today as they were pre-911 in all federal fugitive matters.

With Cunanan, the FBI, Pennsylvania and NJ authorities had finally pinpointed Cunanan in the Philadelphia area but the information was overheard by median monitoring local police radio and reported on air. This enabled Cunanan to evade capture and lead him to steal the truck of William Reese, killing him and buy more time.


Nastro di Möbius: Was his ability of disguise a key factor in him escaping police for over two months?

Peter Ahearn: I do not believe it was a key to him escaping and evading. Granted, there were some key leads missed by authorities in Florida. His realization that a manhunt was underway and closing in made him up his game so to speak to evade and be more cautious. I am sure his evasion by changing his looks, although minimally, did not make it easy as well as the many, many sightings of him that were not factual led investigators on wild goose chases.


Nastro di Möbius: What is surprising to me is that Cunanan lived a normal life for 27 years, and then turned into a killing machine and killed four people in two weeks. Do you see many cases like this in your everyday work or was he a unique case?

Peter Ahearn: Absolutely I have seen several, noting one above in Buffalo, Frank Murphy that I’ve already mentioned. Cunanan was a spree killer, not at serial killer. The spree killer is triggered by a sole event mostly and then realizing you cannot go back and change the incident, goes about then taking care of grudges, hate of specific people, hate of any person they run into, until they are stopped, give up or kill themselves or killed by police. Short period of killing time is associated with a spree killer, maybe not a day or two, could be a few months.

After Versace, Cunanan did not kill again. Why? He did not run into a threat to turn him in or identify him, or maybe he would have killed. I am sure there are former spree killers that are fugitive to this day. For example, if he broke into the houseboat and people were there, I have no doubt he would have killed them. We will never know, I guess.


Nastro di Möbius: Do you think it would have been possible to catch him alive? Were any mistakes made by investigators that allowed him to keep escaping?

Peter Ahearn: I am sure mistakes were made, there always are mistakes in any investigations. After an investigation of magnitude, there is some type of after-action review such as what investigators would have done, should have done and did. “Shit happens” as one could say.

Remember, luck plays a huge role in an investigation, every case I ran or oversaw had mistakes, big ones and little ones. About 98% of them had exceptional investigative results. Not all succeeded for many reasons, such as human failures or procedural issues. The nature of investigations is much like a reporter chasing a story.

Maureen Orth called Cunanan’s case the “largest failed manhunt in FBI history”. I take issue with that for sure. There have been several other over the history of the FBI. It happens. And there will be more. The FBI is not perfect, damn close I will say, but not perfect. This was not a perfect case in any sense, but not an unusual one historically.

I close these comments adding these are my opinions and not official FBI comments. As the FBI Assistant Special Agent in Charge of the FBI San Diego office, I coordinated the FBI response there. Most of our investigation supported the rest of the FBI divisions during the manhunt. We conducted leads for interviews of family, friends, perceived targets of Cunanan’s so-called threats, etc. We dealt closely with the LTGBQ community given the fear within the community Cunanan was coming back to San Diego to kill those he may have wanted to settle unknown scores with. We attended community meetings, met with LTGBQ leadership, dealt with press inquiries, worked with Cunanan’s mother to understand Andrew’s motive, history and, helped her deal with the microscope of media she was under.

Daily I oversaw the phone conference calls with all FBI offices having direct investigation participation: San Diego, Los Angeles, FBIHQ, Minneapolis, Chicago, Philadelphia and Miami. So, I was not deep into all aspects of the investigation, so I cannot judge factually any mistakes made, only based on what I read from media interpretation of facts or so-called facts.

Overall, this was a complete tragedy given the deaths of those involved, the mental health of Cunanan and his persona. We are lucky more lives were not lost, again, luck being the operative word.

Nessun commento:

Posta un commento