The person who crucified a dog in Mosta is probably a delusional adolescent male suffering from some form of personality disorder and who lives close to the crime scene, two forensic psychologists believe.
The crucifixion and halo are examples of ritualistic behaviour
Last Sunday, a priest walking along Main Street, Mosta, came across a dead dog nailed upside down to a wooden cross. The dog and cross were affixed to the door of an abandoned house.
A halo had been placed over the dog’s head and police investigating the case discovered a note, presumably left by the perpetrator. The suffering he had gone through, the note said, was worse than that of the dog.
The crime may be mind-boggling but according to forensic psychologist Kevin Sammut it would be wrong to call it senseless.
“No form of violence is blind or random,” he said. “There is always a motive of some sort. Every person is capable of acts of violence but only a minority give in to this side to themselves.
“The perpetrator has some grievance and feels the only way they can draw attention to their situation is through such acts. This would point to a certain degree of psychological disorder.”
Forensic psychologist Roberta Holland went one further. “Judging by the limited information available, I would expect the perpetrator to either be a violent, emotionless individual with personality disturbances, or else somebody with significant cognitive deficiencies.”
Ms Holland explained the religious imagery: “Both the crucifixion and placing of the halo are examples of ritualistic behaviour, which is itself an indicator of psychiatric problems. The perpetrator is blending delusions and fantastical thoughts with reality.”
It was also likely that the perpetrator lived nearby, both said. “Anyone crucifying a dog on a main street would need to know the area well and understand when police did their rounds,” Mr Sammut said.
The house in question was the notorious scene of a violent crime – the 1999 murder of Maria Buhagiar by her brother Francis. The police yesterday interviewed Mr Buhagiar, who denied any connection with the killing of the dog. Both forensic psychologists did not rule out the possibility of the perpetrator knowing about the murder. The perpetrator was most likely an adolescent male, said Mr Sammut, although this was more down to the general demographic of criminals rather than due to any specific indications of gender.
The police would be able to make more accurate deductions based on the note the perpetrator left behind, he said.
To the casual observer, it would appear as though there has been a sudden rise in animal abuse throughout Malta. But according to criminologist Saviour Formosa, it is public awareness, not incidents of abuse, that have increased.
“National consciousness is moving towards better protection of animals,” he said. “It’s like domestic violence – once public awareness began growing, the number of reported cases increased.”
All three experts, however, felt increased media reporting of animal abuse cases could have been a motivating factor. “Many crimes induce copy-cat behaviour when reported, and this could be an example of that,” Ms Holland said.
“People who want to attract attention may be drawn to this form of crime.
“Burning a car or house door no longer has the impact it once had,” Mr Formosa said.
He warned against drawing similarities between this crime and other cases of animal cruelty, such as that of Star, the dog found buried alive with gunshots to his head last May.
“The motives differ. In this case, the perpetrator used the animal to bring their message across. In the other cases, the death of the animal was the motive itself. In the other cases, the criminals tried to hide their actions – but this crime was made to be seen.”