Chapter 3077: Mercury Chronicle (27)

Jenna's conflict with her classmates was essentially resolved, because after all, it was Jenna who proposed the method. If they actually caught the murderer as she suggested and added a glorious touch to her resume, no one would really have the face to trouble her anymore.

Moreover, if Jenna truly apprehended such a brutal serial killer based solely on a few words in the classroom, then no one could ever again claim that the Psychoanalysis Method was just guesswork.

After all, it wasn't blind guessing; the Behavioral Analysis Method analyzed a heap, but could only identify the murderer's probable appearance. Gotham being so vast, even after narrowing the circle, they could still identify at least a few dozen people.

Even if they ultimately pinpointed Super Villain Scarecrow, a Super Villain who made a name for themselves in Gotham would definitely be very cunning. Arresting him would be troublesome, and who knew how much effort it would take or how many police officers would be sacrificed.

Analyzing the unique psychological traits of the suspect directly and using these traits to lure them in was undoubtedly the simplest and most efficient method.

Moreover, as Shiller had said before, neither the Psychoanalysis Method nor the Behavioral Analysis Method should be viewed independently, because humans are not solely logical or solely emotional; the so-called two paths were actually one, with one being primary and the other supplemental.

Therefore, the success of the Psychoanalysis Method was not proof that the Behavioral Analysis Method was ineffective. On the contrary, Jenna's opening remarks leaned towards Behavioral Analysis, proving that the Psychoanalysis Method also needed to be based on facts, not merely wild guesses.

The two methods were founded on facts from different times; Behavioral Analysis Method looked at past facts, while Psychoanalysis Method felt current facts. If both could be perfectly combined, a kind of future prediction could be achieved.

The atmosphere in the classroom immediately relaxed, but unexpectedly, Shiller was not completely satisfied. He said,

"Miss Jenna performed very well, but perhaps she was too tense in class and didn't delve deeply enough. However, that's alright, this is just the beginning, and I believe she will perform even better in the future."

The classmates were somewhat surprised. This wasn't deep enough, what more did he want? Literal "Mind Reading Technique"?

At this point, Shiller began to explain to them the difference between past facts and current facts.

One very important point was that analyzing the past had a latency issue. Even if it was reviewing a crime scene from just a few hours ago, it still bore certain lateness.

For instance, if a footprint was left at the scene, and the sole's pattern on the footprint could be identified, it could be inferred that the murderer's shoe sole had the same pattern. But the murderer might have changed shoes after leaving the crime scene, making that clue ineffective.

The ability of a Super Villain to fly could also cause such effects. Clear footprints might be seen at the scene, but once outside, no footprints could be found. This was because the Super Villain was standing on the ground while committing the crime, and flew away when escaping. Even if only a few minutes had passed, the facts had changed.

Latent facts could not be used as evidence, nor could they even support the next logical step. Once changed, the entire line of inquiry might be broken.

Thus, modern criminal investigation seeks current evidence, which are things that cannot be alter with time, such as DNA, which remains unchanged even after decades, making it much more reliable than past evidence that could alter with time.

Now, is a person's psychology considered past evidence or current evidence? Actually, it counts as both.

A person's psychology at the time of murder could be considered past evidence. During the murder, he might be extremely brutal, but after that phase, he might feel panic and remorse. Therefore, if you search based solely on a brutal character profile, you might not find him at all.

But a person's personality counts as current evidence, just like DNA. As the saying goes, "It's easier to change mountains and rivers than to alter one's nature." Thus, as long as you can identify the characteristic traits in their foundational personality, you'll have firm evidence like DNA, which is essential for the existence of the Psychoanalysis Method.

If you want to infer a person's personality, you must perform psychoanalysis, even if it starts with inferring behavior. In the end, it inevitably becomes purely psychological analysis because only by going deeper can you find the most solid, unchangeable current facts in a person's character.

And relying on facts about a person's character might even be easier than relying on genetic comparison in pinpointing the murderer because, to compare DNA, one must first come in contact with the murderer. However, character can be externally manifested and does not require physical contact; mere observation is sufficient for comparison.

This is also why modern criminal investigation requires conducting visits and surveys, investigating the suspect's acquaintances, friends, and neighbors in various ways—this is a form of personality comparison.

Some might argue, in seeing these interview segments, that the interviewees all say the murderer is a good person. Is such a comparison really accurate?

But in reality, the comparisons in modern criminal investigation are not based on others' verbal assessments of whether someone is good or bad. That's irrelevant; the objective is to gather some details about the person's life from these informants.

"It is said that laymen enjoy the show while experts examine the doorway," the audience in front of the television could only discern the quality, whereas the true criminal investigation experts could collect enough evidence to judge someone's character from all these assessments.

Are current facts more important than past ones now? Actually, this is not the case as everything now stems from the past, and the simplest way to judge someone's character is to understand their life and educational background, which is the approach taken in modern criminal investigation.

After all, individuals like Shiller and Jenna who are born with strong empathy abilities are rare. If one were to expect them to communicate with spirits, the basic-level police wouldn't be needed; most people engage in psychoanalysis through behavioral analysis.

Furthermore, this also involves an issue of experience: an outstanding detective who has worked at the grassroots level for years and a newly emerging empathizer—undoubtedly, the former would analyze more quickly and accurately because he has a multitude of cases as references in his mind.

Although empathizers can sense certain things, there are several barriers between realizing, summarizing, and verbalizing them—it's not that easy.

Moreover, most strong empathizers suffer from over-empathy disorder; they are high in attack but fragile in defense. By empathizing continuously, they easily empathize themselves into the situation.

Mental issues and such are minor; 80% of those obsessed with psychopathy and serial killer copycats have over-empathy disorder. This shows that many choose to join if they can't beat it, not to mention many who haven't had proper education simply choose to join directly.

Guiding these empathizers is quite troublesome because negative emotions damage one's psyche far more than positive emotions can heal, so empathy is an endless abyss, continuously plunging—managing to not jump off a cliff with a murderer is considered exceptional performance, expecting these people to save the world is unrealistic.

After Shiller explained the differences and connections between past and present facts, most students found their bearings.

Plainly speaking, compared to empathy which requires talent, is unstable, and can have strong negative effects, they chose to steadfastly learn behavioral analysis and accomplish deductions through studying and accumulating experience.

Some even began to sympathize with Jenna; this seemingly mind-reading-like ability is definitely cool but it also interferes with her learning behavioral analysis, making her too presumptuous and fanciful, which slows down her experience accumulation rate compared to others.

And this ability is not omnipotent and is quite unstable—like mindreading at its peak and mere gibberish when weak.

Even Shiller doesn't dare claim that his empathy is accurate every time. It's only because his experience is extensive and he uses various methods for analysis that he seems to have a high accuracy rate.

The classroom atmosphere livened up again as most students realized that combining behavioral and psychoanalysis is indeed unbeatable.

But everyone is a student; it's difficult for anyone to excel at both, and most are better at behavioral analysis. If they teamed up with someone adept at psychoanalysis, wouldn't they be unbeatable in future lessons?

Instantly, some started looking at Jenna with fervent eyes.

What's wrong with being a monkey? If one has to be a monkey, then be the best monkey in the troupe.

Immediately, a girl flipped her chair from the back row, sat next to Jenna, and with shining eyes asked, "You're really incredible, to be able to say such a long string, did you really think of all that yourself? How did you come up with it, can you teach me?"

"Just forget it, Christina, with that brain of yours you want to learn this? Don't mind her, Jenna. In our group, we're just three people and missing one, do you want to join?"

Jenna couldn't carry on playing the victim for even half the act, worried if she kept pretending to be weak, these people would want to avenge her. If teachers started fighting during class, she'd surely get trampled to death.

She could only pretend to laugh shyly, never before so eagerly awaiting the bell for class to end.

But in reality, a class that lasted an hour had only gone by halfway; at least another half-hour remained before dismissal, Jenna felt desperate.

Fortunately, Shiller finally started teaching according to the lesson plan, mainly integrating some basics of criminal psychology with the case, in his usual by-the-book style. Most students then turned their focus back to their notes.

As the class neared its end, a student asked Shiller a question, not about the knowledge in the textbook, but out of curiosity, "Professor, you said Jenna's analysis wasn't deep enough? Is that true? Then what should a truly deep analysis look like?"

The other students also curiously looked towards Shiller.