Download this week’s episode on Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music, Stitcher, Spotify or via RSS feed, and watch the video version on Police1’s YouTube channel.
In this episode of the Policing Matters podcast, we explore the groundbreaking work of the FBI Behavioral Science Unit. Host Jim Dudley interviews retired FBI agent Jana Monroe, who shares her expertise in serial killer profiling and her experience consulting on notorious cold cases in her book, “Heart of Darkness.”
Monroe, who is known as the real-life inspiration for Clarice Starling in “Silence of the Lambs,” discusses advancements in forensic science and the importance of ethics in true crime media. As one of the first female agents in the FBI Behavioral Science Unit – now known as the Behavioral Analysis Unit – Jana Monroe was involved in over 850 homicide investigations, helping shape FBI profiling techniques used today.
About our sponsor
This episode of the Policing Matters podcast is sponsored by OfficerStore. Learn more about getting the gear you need at prices you can afford by visiting OfficerStore.com.
Key takeaways from the episode
- Forensic science advancements in cold cases: Monroe shares how luminol, DNA and forensic tools were pivotal in cold case investigations.
- Psychological profiling in the FBI: Learn about FBI profiling techniques Monroe used to understand the behaviors of serial killers.
- True crime ethics and public responsibility: Monroe discusses the responsibility in balancing ethics and public interest in true crime media.
- The role of women in law enforcement: As one of the few women in her field during the 1980s and 1990s, Monroe discusses overcoming the challenges of being a female FBI agent, gaining acceptance and the importance of qualified female representation in law enforcement today.
- Coping with trauma in law enforcement careers: Monroe underscores the mental toll of law enforcement work and stresses the importance of self-care, fitness, and community involvement as tools for managing long-term stress.
Additional resources
- “Heart of Darkness” by Jana Monroe
- The FBI’s Behavioral Science Unit and its role in criminal profiling
Rate and review the Policing Matters podcast
Enjoying the show? Please take a moment to rate and review us on Apple Podcasts. Contact the Policing Matters team at policingmatters@police1.com to share ideas, suggestions and feedback.
Episode transcript
Jim Dudley: Welcome to Policing Matters on Police1.com. I’m your host, Jim Dudley, and we have a great guest for you today! Be sure and check us out on YouTube, where you can see me and my guest and maybe a graphic or two. Well, I’m sure most of you out there have seen “The Silence of the Lambs,” unapologetically one of my favorite movies. You may think that the lead character, FBI fledgling serial killer investigator Clarice Starling, was purely a fictional character. To be sure, there are some artistic freedoms taken in the movie, but the character, in fact, was modeled after my guest today.
Jana Monroe was one of the first analysts and, at the time, the only female agent in the world-renowned FBI Behavioral Sciences Unit at Quantico, Virginia. She consulted on more than 850 homicide cases, including infamous serial killers like Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, Edmund Kemper, and Aileen Wuornos. Monroe was also the model for Clarice Starling in the movie version of “The Silence of the Lambs,” and she even helped train Jodie Foster for her Oscar-winning role. In her book “Heart of Darkness,” Monroe tells her story of her life and career in shaping law enforcement and intelligence analysis.
Welcome to Policing Matters, Jana Monroe.
Jana Monroe: Thank you so much, Jim. It’s great to be here.
Jim Dudley: Yeah, what a great story you have and, uh, a lot of history. What drove you into the law enforcement career? Not mentioning dates, but it was a different era back then with few women in the field.
Jana Monroe: Yes, it was a different era. Sometimes I feel 105 — I’m not, I’m not — and we aren’t going to mention dates. But I think innately, kind of in my DNA, I’m very public-service-oriented. I wanted to do work that would help others, would help people, and I knew I wasn’t going into the medical field. It was a great field, but that one wasn’t for me. And so, at the age of 13, I knew what I wanted to do. I know it’s very unusual, but, um, I knew I wanted to be in law enforcement, and I knew eventually I wanted to be in the FBI.
Jim Dudley: That’s awesome. You know, in the first five minutes of “Silence of the Lambs,” we see Jodie Foster running the Yellow Brick Road, up and down trails, ropes, and obstacles. You went all through that, and then you graduated. What was your first assignment?
Jana Monroe: My first assignment was Albuquerque, New Mexico. Even though that’s on the West Coast and I was from California, I was from Los Angeles, so going to Albuquerque was kind of like landing on the moon because, as a new agent, they assigned me to all the Indian reservations. Um, which was a great experience, but somewhat sad and somewhat depressing with kind of the Native American situation. Most of the crimes there were incest, alcohol-related homicides. So, for a first office, I got a lot of experience.
Jim Dudley: Yeah, a buddy of mine, uh, served 18 years with me at the San Francisco police, retired early, and went into, um, uh, religion. He became a priest, and he worked on the reservations. I visited him — I know exactly what you’re talking about. Really tough situations there. So, you’re out in the middle of the desert in New Mexico, and then you find yourself at the Behavioral Science Unit back at Quantico. How’d that happen, and what did you do from there?
Jana Monroe: Well, actually, I got transferred from Albuquerque, New Mexico, to Tampa because in between there, I got married to a fellow agent, Dale Monroe, and he was in Tampa. So, they — the FBI calls that — they like to accommodate a common household, so they transferred me to Tampa. When I arrived there, I worked on a criminal squad. I was the only female on a criminal squad. Mostly, they were on espionage or white-collar crimes. And I became what they call an NCAVC, the National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime coordinator, and as a field agent, I worked with Quantico, with the Behavioral Science Unit, for any of the cases in that area that would be appropriate to send back to Quantico for them to either do a linkage analysis, profile, investigative techniques, whatever it is the local law enforcement agency was asking for.
Jim Dudley: So, when did you start getting involved in the actual cases themselves, going to crime scenes, interviewing these suspects? Can you tell us about any particular case that you were involved in?
Jana Monroe: Well, the one case that, um — and I do mention this in the book because it’s the only case out of the numerous that I had the opportunity to work on that I got to see from, if you call it, beginning to end, because in the Behavioral Science Unit at Quantico, we typically work on one aspect of the case. You know, the investigators obviously have jurisdiction—the locals and state people do—so they ask us to do usually one thing. This one, I was at the scene of the Rogers case. It was a mother and two daughters that were killed and left floating in Tampa Bay. So, I was at the crime scene, and after that, I didn’t work on the case, but I was transferred to Washington, D.C., and to the Behavioral Science Unit. So, fast forward a year later, the case had gone cold, so the agency who had the jurisdiction brought it to Quantico and asked for our assistance for investigative techniques. So, we got that all put together — they did a fabulous job of following some of the leads that we worked together on. They found the suspect by blowing up some handwriting that was found in the victim’s vehicle, and nobody had identified that handwriting. We put it up on billboards — this is before the internet, right? So this was like the internet — we put it up on billboards on the biggest street, Dale Mabry, in Tampa, and that crime had had such a negative impact on Tampa because it was, you know, killing the tourist business. No pun intended, but anyway, it was recognized — we had several people call in, identify the person as Oba Chandler. Fast forward, they found him; he was found guilty and executed.
Jim Dudley: Wow, based on handwriting analysis?
Jana Monroe: Well, that was the lead, yes, absolutely, because it had gone cold for, um, I don’t know, 14, 15 months.
Jim Dudley: Wow. Yeah, that brings to mind a question about technology, you know, without, you know, going back, we think about all the advantages that we have today of DNA. We’ve always had, you know, fingerprints since, you know, the turn of the other century. Those were big challenges back then. I mean, you’re really working on interviewing, interrogation skills, and the basics of handwriting. You had hair analysis and blood analysis and things like that. What were the changes while you were there that helped you solve more cases? Were there any breaking technologies or investigative techniques that you picked up while you were there?
Jana Monroe: Absolutely. DNA being one of them. When I first got in the unit, we didn’t have that capability; we didn’t have luminol. So, a lot of the things — if I’m not plugging “Forensic Files,” but since that show does depict real cases and the whole part of it is the forensics — a lot of the things that the cases they highlight were at the time that I was working on cases. So, it was a big deal to have the luminol to go back with cold cases, cases that were, you know, nine, ten, eleven years old, that officers had appropriately preserved the evidence. So, we were able to take that and solve the cases — it was really an exciting time.
Jim Dudley: Yeah, we’ve had several detectives on the show talk about they’re doing cold case homicides and sexual assaults dating back 30 years, and now with the, you know, breakthrough not just in DNA but also the ancestry apps that are helping lead to relatives of relatives of relatives of the murderer, and they’re able to sift through and find them. Wouldn’t that have been great while you were there?
Jana Monroe: Oh my God, yeah, that would have been a huge help. That’s part of the thing that’s exciting, but none of these things — or I should say all of these things — are techniques and tools, and they do not take over the fact that you still have to be a good investigator. You have to pay attention to details. You have to know what it is you’re looking for when you go to ask questions. You ask open-ended questions, of course, and don’t be judgmental. But I think sometimes, with the advance of this technology, people who are newer in the field rely very heavily on that and maybe don’t focus as much on their good old investigative work.
Jim Dudley: So tell me about the nuances — how did you work if, say, you were asked to consult on a case? You had maybe a small town or even a larger town with a case, and you’re coming in with fresh eyes to look at what they’ve done so far. What was the acceptance level back then?
Jana Monroe: Well, again, taking a look at it, these cases that were brought to the Behavioral Science Unit, it was because — by invitation — they were asking us for help, because we didn’t have jurisdiction on that. So it was a very, for the most part, very symbiotic working relation, very cooperative, and I really enjoyed that part because it was actually the teamwork that you look for, right? So everybody was, you know, people brought different sets of eyes, different sets of experiences. You put all that together, and it was really very good energy for looking at cases. So my experience, my five and a half years there, was one of very mutual cooperation. And I think also, being housed at the Behavioral Science Unit was at Quantico, and the National Academy, which is — well, we won’t go into that, I’m sure you’ve discussed that before, but the National Academy was there with the police officers, and there was so much opportunity to interact with them. Even if they were not involved in a certain case, I would sometimes invite them into a consultation also for their expertise.
Jim Dudley: Yeah, I mean, the FBI Academy for law enforcement, I think, is a great opportunity for, you know, like you say, a symbiotic or mutual relationship, where we were asked — when I was in my session, we were asked to get into groups and present a case from start to finish, how we solved them. And I think the benefit was in getting critiqued or getting advice on the case, but also in sharing how we did it at our level with other agencies, not just across America but internationally, and also with the Behavioral Science Unit as well. It was a fantastic opportunity to show off a little bit.
Jana Monroe: Yeah, and you mentioned large agencies or small agencies. A point to that, which is interesting, because it really — you look at some of the very small rural areas, and a lot of those that would come to us, they hadn’t experienced a case like this. They really did not know how to investigate it, or they did not have the resources to do that. And I remember one that was funny, asking for aerial shots before the two officers were coming to Quantico said, “We’re going to need, you know, a variety of things. One of them is an aerial shot of the crime scene.” Well, they got on the cab of his truck and took a shot — they didn’t have any kind of aviation or whatnot. And so that was the best he could do, and I just remember trying not to laugh, but I’m like — then we had somebody from, you know, LA Sheriff’s Department come in, and a whole different ball game. We had a few from, you know, New York, and they had all kinds of resources. So, very different with what they brought to the consultation.
Jim Dudley: Yeah, so I think about the technology advantages today and the fact that almost any agency in America can have access to a police drone. You don’t have to have a helicopter or a fixed wing, but just the amazing technology from drones today and how useful they can be, not just in those aerial shots but in evidence reconstruction, crime scene reconstruction, to the inch, as if a CSI analyst was drawing it up, you know, freehand.
Jana Monroe: Drones are amazing, and like a lot of technology, they’re great when they’re used for the right purpose, but not so much if there’s something nefarious. But yeah, they have assisted law enforcement extremely.
Jim Dudley: Yeah, yeah, the bad guys, I don’t think, have touched into their capabilities just yet. Well, I want to ask you about the challenges that you might have had in your career and more of the high-profile cases. But first, I’d like to take a moment and thank our sponsor.
Jim Dudley: And we’re back, and I’m speaking with Jana Monroe, retired FBI special agent and author of “Hearts of Darkness.” Wow, “Hearts of Darkness” — I’m sure you’ve seen some depravity over your time. We actually just had Anne Schwartz. She was the reporter who was first on the scene at the Jeffrey Dahmer case. Chilling recollection on her part of that crime scene. Well, not to give away all of your book—we want our listeners and our viewers to buy your book—but tell us about the “aha” moments in some of these cases. Like, what really struck you or maybe sent a chill down your back as you’re talking to some of these characters?
Jana Monroe: Yeah, I like that term, the “aha” moment, because there definitely were. And the serial killers that I interviewed were all, you know, incarcerated, right? And there was nothing that we, the FBI, could do for them. We couldn’t get a stay of execution, better food, a different prison, so there was nothing — no bargaining chip, if you will. So the approach that we took was kind of hat in hand, saying, you know, “You’re the one that’s the expert at this. We need to learn from you.” And there are kind of two ways. Some of them were like, “You know, okay,” and I think it was a pretense, but, “Yeah, I’ll tell you this information because I don’t want others to do this,” or just played to the ego, and it’s like, “Yeah, I got away with, you know, 20 homicides, so I’m really good at this, and so I’ll let you know what I did. You’re not very bright, so I’ll help you out.” So those things — but some of the — we knew the cases, right? You have to study the cases before you go in, and it’s not a news revelation that they lie, so it was good to have done your homework ahead of time to know what really happened and then ask them things. But some of the forthcoming statements that would be made about what they had done — you know, severed a head, done this, that.
Edmund Kemper, who was a very prolific serial killer, I always say he’s one of my favorite — that sounds kind of ghoulish — but what I mean by that is he was, if you believe in IQ tests, he was brilliant, you know, 160, 180. He tested all over the place but truly a sociopath. I won’t go into the case because it’s too long, but my “aha” moments with him were, and some of this was on film when the psychiatrists were talking to him, he would try to show emotion. He had been a matricide — killing your mother — that was his last victim. It was a horrible thing. Well, he could say those words; he was very articulate, but he could not up a tear. And here you’re looking at, at this time, a 40-some-year-old man trying to look, make his face look sad, and it was very contrived, and you could see that. And to see him struggling, such a bright person like that, to me, he epitomized the sociopath. And it was just chilling, you know, listening to him.
You look at also Hannibal Lecter, who, thank goodness, was a fictitious character. However, he was a compilation of some of the serial killers. And one of the ones, no name recognition, but that I interviewed — he, the same thing, he would go into extreme detail about what he did in some very gruesome crimes. And he, unlike Kemper, would actually kind of smile. You could see a glee, and he was reliving the moment, and he derived pleasure from that. And that also would just — I had to, you know, you can’t have any expression or emotion. You can’t pass judgment or anything; you’re just taking notes, and that part was really, really challenging.
Jim Dudley: I mean, these guys, they want to show off; they want to show how smart they are. That’s sometimes how we catch them, right? And we struggle between the public thirst for knowledge in these cases — I mean, you know, true crime podcasts, you know, the books, the serial TV — no pun intended — but the TV shows. Yeah, I mean, they’re big in the public, and we want to appease them to some degree, but in some cases, they involve a manifesto from a madman, as I call him. Where do we draw the line in saying, “Okay, we’re not going to go into all that”? I mean, there’s some things that I just won’t watch because I don’t want to know the details. Over my career, I’ve seen a lot. And in cases where, you know, I was assigned to the case, I did them, put my head down, did the work, but I wasn’t so curious that I went to, you know, look over the shoulder of someone else in a real-life case. Where do we draw the line in how much we show the public?
Jana Monroe: Thank you. That is an excellent question. I have struggled with that for years, and I can make this analogous — when you’re on a freeway and there’s an accident, right? A traffic accident on the other side, and so you’re wondering, why are we stopping on this side? The accident’s over there. Well, it’s because of people looking at it, right? And it’s that compelling and repulsive at the same time. And I look at the serial crime, or, you know, homicide, let’s just say — doesn’t have to be serial — it’s the same way. And in my opinion, you see the tension between the public interest and the media coverage, and then there’s that ethical handling of the serial killer cases, and that becomes, I think, particularly acute when manifestos or personal writings are involved. Because then it’s like, these are documents, and that expresses the killer’s distorted view or grievances. And simultaneously with that, you’ve got people that are fascinated by it and horrified. And it’s that balance of, especially, I think, for responsible journalists as to where to draw that line for public safety and the potential harm caused by amplifying or glorifying. And that’s one of the things I put in my book in the forward to it, is that it’s for the too many victims of violent crime and the loved ones who grieve their losses. Because people have far more name recognition with these notorious, heinous killers than victims typically.
Jim Dudley: So, we’re talking about historical serial killers. I mean, their names are synonymous with these kinds of crimes. I try not to mention their names either, and it’s at the risk of, you know, setting off a copycat or someone with like-mindedness who may want to, you know, use it as a template, if you will, for their own deeds. I like that. So, as a woman in a male-dominated field, especially in that era that we’re talking about — not to go into the eras, but I’m talking about the ’80s and maybe even the ’90s — what was it like? Did you come upon any resistance, or did you find the fact that you were in these roles, that you were easily accepted?
Jana Monroe: No, there was no Welcome Wagon — wasn’t easily accepted. However, one of the things that I don’t engage in at all is history revision or looking back and trying to change something. It was the way it was, and it was a different time, so I don’t pass aspersions on my male counterparts. What I learned, Jim, is the more I was able to prove myself — because I did go into a field that I knew I was qualified for and capable of. If I wanted to be an opera singer, I was going down the wrong road, right? But I knew I could do this, and so I’d say even worse than resistance was being dismissed — dismissive. It’s almost like being invisible, right? Especially in the FBI; the police department was different, but I’m going to focus on the FBI for now because they were the last federal agency to allow women into the bureau. It was after J. Edgar Hoover passed away that there was a class-action suit to allow women in. But I would say, when the FBI had the advantage typically of not being first responders — and even if they were, they went in numbers, right? — so I would not be invited. It’s like being on a playground, and it’s like, “We’ll take, you know, six of these guys, and whatever name is here isn’t coming.” So when that term about, you know, I need a seat at the table—I knew I wasn’t going to get one of those, so I brought a folding chair. I would invite myself, and I would know what some of the cases were without — I took the initiative myself, say, “Oh, you’re working on the such-and-such case? Where’s the arrest? Where’s the off-order? I want to come.” And I did work harder because I did that to gain experience, and for me, it worked because once I had my first arrest, I wasn’t supposed to be a part of it — I mean, the first arrest that I went on with the guys and the case agent, we — it was a vehicle stop. He throws the handcuffs to me and said, “You know, see what you can do.” Well, if I hadn’t been confident, you know, be like, “Oh…” Fortunately, I caught the cuffs — that number one, that was good — but, I mean, if I’d been like, “Oh, I don’t know how to handcuff him, or what do I do?” So I went and did it, and, you know, just like my male counterparts would have, so the little tests along the way, I was fortunate enough to pass most of them.
Jim Dudley: Yeah, that’s great. And now we have initiatives like the 30x30 initiative to attract women — 30% women in law enforcement by 2030. Are we there yet?
Jana Monroe: No, no. And I’m always cautiously optimistic about numbers and initiatives. I think having this initiative and focusing on it is great, but you have to be cautious. Just to have numbers, you need people who are qualified for the position, trained for it, have all of the right characteristics that you’re looking for — not, back in the day, we used to call it a “token.” But I’m going to use that, but not just somebody because they fulfill a number. But I think the focus and the highlight, I think the 30x30 initiative is great.
Jim Dudley: Yeah. So, thinking about your career and all the horrific things you’ve seen, the vicarious trauma from victims and their families that you’ve come across over your career, what have you been doing for yourself? What maybe would you have done differently knowing, you know, here you are at the end of that career, and what are you doing now to take care of yourself?
Jana Monroe: Okay, I think there’s like three questions in there, but let me give it a whirl. Yeah, I think like so many people in a law enforcement or military cocoon, when you leave that either to go into another career, a job, retire — and again, don’t retire from life. I became very introspective; I pay attention to details anyway, and I looked at, like, there’s a whole world out here, right? A whole other world where there are different standards, there are different things you can do, different opportunities. Again, I really like public service. I have joined some charitable organizations; I do community service work — I love that. Not only are you helping others, you meet some great people. And I’ve enjoyed meeting people from different backgrounds. I still, of course, love my law enforcement brethren, but, you know, there are people that do other things, and so that’s opened up a whole new world.
I’ve always been into fitness and health. I’m actually even a little bit more into that — vitamins and all those kinds of good things. I’m not advocating that; I’m just saying that’s what I do. And I’ve learned the word “retire” gives a connotation that you’re sitting with your feet up on a coffee table, watching daytime TV. Now, for me, that has never happened. I wrote the book. I’ve had some unexpected success for it. I wrote it, like I said, to highlight the victims and to tell a little bit about cases and the FBI from my experience, because it’s accurate — it’s not a TV depiction of it. And then, to my surprise, we’re going to — we’ve been offered five different TV studios — we’re pitching to for a TV series. I don’t know if that’ll come to fruition, but that kind of comes back to what you were talking about, the sensationalizing of things and fictionalizing it.
And I think when you look at stories that are loosely based on—this will probably be loosely, loosely, loosely based on. But I’ve also found, and I don’t mean to sound like a Pollyanna because I’m not, but I’ve really learned to appreciate things more. And I start my day either with a devotional or looking at—I look outside; we’re blessed to have a nice backyard — I look out and say, “Hey, you know, this is great.” And even — it’s not a contrived positiveness, but I like to start out that way, and to me, it’s been very helpful.
Jim Dudley: Yeah, that’s great. Those are all great. Fitness—we’ve had so many health and well-being experts on the show, and we talk about the importance of sleep and fitness and nutrition, and tempered alcohol, and things like that. Sounds like you’re doing it all, and sounds like you’ve got, you know, very little residual effects from this fantastic career.
Jana Monroe: Well, yeah, thank you. I’ve worked on it. I know we just briefly covered those things, but I’ve worked on it with intent. It was something that I was aware of, and I didn’t want to, you know, have that drag me down. I think there’s a — especially today — well, I guess historically, there’s a lot of ugly things going on. I’m aware of them, but I don’t focus on things that I can’t have an impact or an influence. I have put in perspective what it is I can do, and then the things that I can’t, I go along with my business.
Jim Dudley: Yeah, so like you said, I stuck three questions in there. Let me go back and ask you, what would you recommend to someone in the field today? Tough day, saw some awful things, come home now, you watch daytime TV, grab a big tumbler of your favorite imbibe—is that your recommendation?
Jana Monroe: No, no, not at all. What I used to do, and I would — and there are bad days, and as you know, sometimes it’s the people that you report to or some — organization — yeah, I had to testify before Congress. That was fun. But I think, you know, to me, I would go out — I’m not able to do that — I would go out for a run. Exercise is like an elixir for me. Now, I go out for a walk. I’m fortunate to have a small — I’m actually going to refer to them as friends — people that are a support group. And I like to think I’m a good friend, and so the times that I need someone there for that support, I’ve been blessed to have that. I think you can be good to yourself without having a tumbler of whatever and running away from it. So whatever the things are that you like to do — be it exercise, be it read a book, distractions — some people like to do house chores, whatever that is, if you’ve identified it, do that. And I think, for me, looking back, I would have told my younger self — and I’m going to just say myself because everybody’s different — I did work a lot, and was always trying to, you know, like, prove myself here, that — and it was successful, but I don’t think now, especially after a certain point in a career, that it was really necessary. I would have focused more on some of the things that I am now, other aspects of life.
Jim Dudley: Well, that’s great advice. Hey, Jana Monroe, retired FBI Special Agent and author of “Hearts of Darkness” — look for it on the shelf or audio versions, or if you can wait it out, maybe it’ll be the next serial, if you will, on television cable. Hey, thanks so much for spending time with us today.
Jana Monroe: Thank you so much for inviting me. It was my honor. It was great.
Jim Dudley: Yeah, well, look forward to reading or listening to your book. Thanks so much. Take good care.
