Gilly MacMillan - What She Knew

FM: So apart from the negative press, were you happy with the response to the press conference? Did any good come of it?

JC: We did get some positive response. Like I said we had a lot to manage but once we’d weeded out the nutters, we were hoping something would come of it, maybe a sighting, maybe people to add to the list we had to interview.

He’s got me interested. If truth be told, this case fascinated me at the time, as it did many people. I must have let this show, the fact that I’m finding what he’s telling me compelling, because he leans forward, asks me the question that’s really on his mind.

JC: How many sessions do you think it will take until you can sign me off?

I have to put my professional face firmly back in place.

FM: That’s impossible for me to say. All I can say is that you’re making good progress so far.

He sits back again, but he’s agitated. His right knee jiggles up and down.

FM: I’m interested in the work that the forensic psychologist was doing. Can you tell me more about that?

JC: He’d not submitted anything in writing at this point, but Fraser and I had both talked to him.

FM: And what were his thoughts?

JC: They were a mixed bag.

FM: Can you describe them to me?

JC: It’s not nice stuff.

FM: I’m interested. It’s not a million miles away from what I do.

JC: The main distinction that profilers make in child abduction cases is between family and non-family abduction.

FM: Is either one more likely?

JC: Statistically, a family abduction, because they’re usually the result of divorces or custody arrangements that have gone bad. You often read about kids who are kidnapped and taken abroad by a parent. Rarely, a family abduction involves a member of close family: an uncle, or a stepfather maybe, who harbours an unhealthy sexual interest in a child, but in those cases the victim is usually a girl.

FM: Presumably those cases are easier to solve.

JC: Absolutely. The non-family perpetrator is much more challenging for us. If a child is snatched right out of their lives, without trace, the pool of potential suspects can become vast. Obviously we look at everyone they know, but once you’ve ruled them out, it could be anyone. And time is always against you.

FM: It must leave the parents in a living hell.

JC: You wouldn’t wish it on anyone.

FM: No, you wouldn’t. There’s a term we use for it: ‘ambiguous grief’. It can be a life sentence. It’s a kind of unresolved grief. You might feel it if you have a child or another family member who is mentally impaired. You might mourn the person you think they could have been if things had turned out differently. That person is physically present but psychologically absent. Conversely, and this is what happens in cases of abduction, or more commonly in divorce, the child or the person is psychologically present but physically absent. And in the case of abduction the parents have the added uncertainty over whether the child is alive or dead.

JC: It’s what we wanted to avoid. We wanted to get that kid back safe and well. We were waiting to get written profiles from the psychologist, but he’d told Fraser he was veering towards a non-family abduction, because of the circumstances of the abduction.

FM: Why?

JC: Based on Ben’s age and gender it was likely to be a lone male abductor with a sexual motive, probably acting opportunistically.

FM: And how did he come to this conclusion?

JC: Past cases, the circumstances of Ben’s life and his disappearance. He advised us to look out for someone odd when we were interviewing and looking through statements.

FM: Odd? You surely didn’t need a profiler to tell you to look out for somebody odd?

JC: I don’t mean overtly odd. There are signs to look for. Often they are craving control, in sexual relationships perhaps, or just in their lives.

FM: Which presumably might have been a fit for your fantasy role-play suspect?

JC: That’s right.

Describing his work has given him an energy I haven’t seen before. I change the subject, hoping he’ll carry this momentum into talking about his personal life.

FM: And Emma?

JC: What about her?

FM: What were her thoughts?

JC: To be honest we hadn’t really had a chance to talk properly. She was getting on with the job though. Fraser was pleased with her.

FM: I’m very surprised you hadn’t talked. I understood that you were living together.

JC: It was hard once the case started. You don’t keep sociable hours. When you get home you’re so tired you just want to sleep. It was easier for us both to sleep at our own places some nights. And Emma could be hard to read sometimes, you know?

FM: What do you mean?

JC: I don’t know. You know how people sometimes get very quiet, go into themselves a bit when they’re focused on the job?

FM: Yes.

JC: She’s like that. So when she wanted to keep herself to herself I respected that. And, to be honest, we didn’t really have time for our relationship once the case started because it consumed us both. It’s the nature of it.

FM: Do you think Emma was prepared for that?

JC: Absolutely.

FM: You put a lot of responsibility on her, recommending her for the post.

JC: I’ve already told you, I had faith in her.

FM: Did you talk about that?

JC: I wasn’t going to patronise her. That would have been out of order. And she didn’t need me to.

His foot begins to tap a swift staccato on the floor, signalling that he knows it’s only minutes until the end of our session.

FM: Just one last thing before you go.

He raises an eyebrow enquiringly.

FM: Did you feel that you were able to keep your distance from the case? Personally?

JC: What do you mean?

FM: The age of Benedict Finch, the visit to his school. Occasionally when I read your report I get the feeling that he might have got under your skin a bit.

JC: I was professional.

FM: I’m not suggesting for a moment that you weren’t.

He stares at me.

JC: It’s not wrong to care.

FM: Was this the first case you worked on where a child was involved, or in danger?

JC: Yes.

FM: Was that hard?

JC: It was hard in that we had to find him. It was our responsibility to him. He’d done nothing wrong. He was just a kid. But that didn’t make any difference to anything I did.

FM: Do you think your response to the case could have been affected by the relatively recent death of your father?

JC: What?

FM: Sometimes when we lose a parent it makes us reflect on our childhoods. It’s not an uncommon response to parental bereavement. That might have made you more vulnerable to identifying with Benedict Finch, and what could be happening to him?

He doesn’t reply. He looks incredulous.

FM: DI Clemo?

JC: No. It didn’t. You’ve got the wrong end of the stick. I was doing my job. Isn’t this session supposed to be over by now?

Although there’s a clock in plain view on my desk, he glances at his watch. It’s obvious that he’s not going to engage with this today.

Crimes against children, particularly cases involving abduction and homicide, continue to be problematic as both a social phenomenon and judicial responsibility. Such cases routinely receive intense community, media, and law enforcement attention, and can rapidly overwhelm local investigative resources.

Boudreaux M C, Lord W D, Dutra R L, ‘Child Abduction: Aged-based Analyses of Offender, Victim, and Offense Characteristics in 550 Cases of Alleged Child Disappearance’, J Forensic Sci, 44(3), 1999