Murder Without Motive: The Chilling Reasons Behind 'Random' Killings

Kathryn Steinle and Carrie Jean Melvin were both killed in the past two weeks, in seemingly random acts of violence. But with any intentional act of violence, even if random, there’s usually an explanation. (Photo: Courtesy of the Steinle Family | Facebook/Carrie Jean Melvin)

Earlier this week, on Sunday, July 5, 2015, Carrie Jean Melvin was walking with her boyfriend in Hollywood, CA, on the way to get a bite to eat. During the stroll, a shadowy man walked up behind her. He pointed a gun at the 30-year-old’s head, pulled the trigger, and then quickly drove off in a black sedan.

Melvin died at the scene. No one else was harmed. Neither she, nor her boyfriend, spoke to the gunman before he fired the shot.

Investigators can’t seem to find a motive, or the gunman. “We just don’t know,” Detective John Skaggs told the LA Times. “On the one hand, she didn’t have any known enemies. On the other hand, it looks like it was directed toward her… We’re looking at all angles.”

Last week, Kathryn Steinle, 32, was walking with her father along the waterfront on one of San Francisco’s most popular piers and tourist spots. She was gunned down in broad daylight by 45-year-old Francisco Sanchez, a seven-times convicted felon who has now admitted to the shooting.

Sanchez claims he found the gun wrapped in a t-shirt on the pier, picked it up, and shot Steinle accidentally. The act has sparked a national debate about immigration policy, although that leaves no solace for Steinle’s grief-stricken family.

Francisco Sanchez. (Photo: San Francisco Police Department via AP)

The gunman pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder on Tuesday. Intentional or unintentional, with no other apparent motive or connection to the victim, the shooting appears senseless and random. Sanchez’s public defender said it appears to be an accident. A court will decide.

Why Random Crimes Are So Tough On Us

The accused are always innocent until proven guilty. But the police and prosecution have a harder time proving first-degree murder with the lack of a clear, connective motive, says Art Markman, PhD, a professor in the Department of Psychology at the University of Texas at Austin.

“Investigators are engaged in a problem-solving process,” Markman tells Yahoo Health. “They start to look at relationships the victim had, and people who might have reason to kill them. In a random killing, none of those relationships are present.”

Even though there are witnesses and physical evidence in Sanchez’s case, for instance, jurors still like coherent storylines when they’re deciding whether there was intent to kill. “It’s human nature to look for an explanation,”says N.G. Berrill, PhD, a forensic psychologist in New York City. “If there’s an interpersonal connection, there’s usually a backstory with emotions people can relate to, like rage or jealousy. ”

When there’s no clear connections, investigators can have a tougher time piecing the storyline together. Cases without obvious motive always cause us to ask, “Why?”On the surface, there seems to be no explanation.

Is There Ever a Crime Without Motive?

True accidents are exceptions. But with intentional acts of violence, even if random, there are explanations. A storyline exists. “The motive may be obscure or not obvious, but in murder, or highly aggressive behavior that results in murder, there’s always motive,” says Berrill. “What may seem random may reflect a religious or political belief, or a state of mind that’s bizarre or not reflective of reality.”

“There is always something that engages people’s motivational system to act,” Markman adds. “It might be a personal motive, like to feel powerful or to try something new. It might even be a motive that is inspired by a fantasy.”

A killer could be a sensation-seeker, looking for a thrill. The killer could be taking revenge for some real or perceived slight by society. The killer could be trying to impress someone. The killer might enjoy making others feel fear, or the social reaction to the killing.

Berrill adds that a killer might be engaging in an initiation of sorts, for inclusion in a group or gang. The killer might also be acting on a flawed political or religious belief, similar to the slayings in the 2013 Boston bombing, where the killers did not know their victims at all; evidence afterward proved their motivations, unconnected to those caught in the crossfire.

Or another explanation for violence is that there might be a true psychiatric issue. Without a clear link to the victim, blurry motivations may make the insanity plea more likely. It’s very gray, says Berrill. “With the suggestion that someone is delusional or paranoid, there’s a fear that those are excuses,”he explains. “If someone is talking about a bizarre ideal, or the devil, and with no clear motive, it’s easier to prove insanity. But then you have to trust and rely primarily on the opinions of doctors.”

John Hinckley Jr. (Photo: Corbis/Bettmann)

Insanity is territory in which few are comfortable, Berrill says, because it’s nearly impossible to feel sure in such a decision. For example, think about the outcry following John Hinckley, Jr.’s acquittal for the attempted murder of President Ronald Reagan on basis of insanity in 1982; he claimed to be infatuated with actress Jodie Foster and was attempting to impress her. In response to the verdict, 30 states changed their laws making the insanity plea tougher to pull off.

We don’t like what we can’t prove.

Never Knowing the Unknowns

The uncertainty and lack of answers is what makes random acts of violence so difficult, especially for the families, but even for the general public. They often catch our eye on news broadcasts, prompt questions and tug at our hearts.

“There is no single motive for people’s actions,” Markman says. “The problem with seemingly random acts is that the motivations are completely unknown, and there can be all kinds of factors that play a role.”

Without a connective motive, we may never know the whole storyline. Or even if we do, we can’t comprehend the“why?”

And like Berrill said before, that question is embedded in human nature. “Even if the crime is senseless and terrible, like with a jealous spouse, people get it,” Berrill says. “They probably don’t agree with it, but they get it. With random acts, we don’t.

“But again, nothing really is purely random,” Berrill continues. “I don’t think there’s such a thing. Random suggests there’s no thought. But there are always motivations.”Even though we don’t understand them.

Read This Next: Inside the Minds of (Surprisingly Young) Hate Crime Perpetrators