Psychological and forensic analysis of a mass murder case: Ilnaz Galyaviev's psychological profile

The article describes the system of psychological profiling of Ilnaz Galyaviev, who is accused of committing a mass murder on May 11, 2021, in Gymnasium No. 175 in Kazan. The range of problems affects the methodological, criminological, forensic, and psychological aspects. The study focused on the complex of personal characteristics of criminals reflected in the characteristics of the commission of mass murders (several murders committed in a specific place and in a relatively short period of time). In the study, the general scientific methods were used: analysis, synthesis, system-structural. The following particular scientific methods were also used: modeling, statistical analysis, comparative historical, peer review. Identification of the psychological profile of the subject and its correlation with a certain type of criminal behavior made it possible (a) to come to an understanding of Galyaviev's important psychological characteristics; (b) to determine the role of factors of the external situation in relation to personal factors; (c) to establish the direct trigger for the mechanism of criminal behavior; (d) to put forward a version about the possible presence of an operator that controlled the subject's behavior. The article reports the following conclusions. Since the crime considered in the article was committed in a limited area, it is necessary to immediately identify the person who committed it as a mass murderer. To implement the applied tasks of investigating mass crimes, a refinement of the methodological search schemes of foreign forensic scientists - a more detailed classification - is needed. It is unproductive to divide mass murderers into organized and disorganized, since this classification has become established in relation to serial criminals, who form a completely different unique criminal group. The significant amount of data indicates a preliminary thorough preparation and a rational scheme for committing a crime. Hence, the perpetrator is more likely to belong to a group of explosive mass murderers than to spontaneous killers. Despite the fact that the typical model of Galyaviev's behavior is closer to the model of an explosive mass murderer, an excessive number of elements of his criminal behavior go beyond this model. The hysterical accentuation of the subject actually finds very weak confirmation in his behavior during the commission of the crime, but is clearly expressed in the behavior before and after the criminal event. The expressed contradictions between Galyaviev's psychological type and the peculiarities of his criminal behavior indirectly indicate the presence of an unidentified operator in the case.

Keywords

Authors

References