How to Handle Poison Pen Letters

The writer demanded a $2.75 million settlement or the CEO’s family would be physically harmed. To underscore the threat, the writer included detailed, accurate information about the daily schedules of the CEO, her husband, and her children. That made corporate authorities take the letter seriously.

 

Many companies lack policies and procedures to address threatening anonymous correspondence. They tend simply to dismiss it as “nut mail” before discarding it. That’s the wrong approach. Companies should not ignore this type of correspondence. Protection agents should investigate any perceived threat and apply available assets and resources to mitigate the potential for physical harm and psychological trauma to the identified targets. And security should develop protocols for handling and analyzing these threats using a collaborative approach that brings security managers, investigators, and mental health risk experts to the same table.

 

 

In the case of the CEO in our example, the company did not have policies in place to address the threats. At best, any threatening correspondence sent to the company’s field offices was forwarded to the organization’s headquarters. Of those correspondences, almost all were interpreted as a low risk by security, primarily because the communiqués came from an unknown source. Most cases were never investigated, but fortunately the correspondence was not thrown out: it was stored in a closet.

 

When the CEO received the threatening letter that included such personal details, it finally prompted an investigation. As a result, the company discovered that the CEO’s personal assistant had kept back three harassing letters from the same writer because she did not want to upset her boss. Clearly, action needed to be taken.

 

The CEO and the organization’s security director began by calling local police to file a complaint. The police response was that little could be done, because the department did not have the resources to investigate an unknown threat-maker.

 

A decision was made to consult Mid-West Protective Service, Inc. (the authors’ security and investigation firm), to provide logistical support and threat assessment services. Based on what was known at the time, the consulting company suggested that armed security officers be deployed to the corporate headquarters and an executive protection team detailed to watch over the CEO and her family until the threat could be more fully assessed. As a precautionary measure, all of the company’s field offices were placed on alert, and a formal threat assessment was launched.

 

Assessing the situation. An assessment’s objective is to identify and understand the who, what, when, where, how, and why of the threat; gauge the credibility of the threat; and determine if the writer is moving toward or away from attack-related behaviors. Clinical and forensic psychiatrists and psychologists are often consulted to assist in this analysis.

 

Accurately understanding an unknown correspondent’s motivation is arguably the most important and difficult variable to investigate. This typically includes trying to identify any real or perceived grievance driving the writer’s behavior.

 

Threats may be direct, indirect, conditional, veiled, or implied. Each of these types of threats may be placed into one of two categories identified by noted forensic psychologist Dr. J. Reid Meloy—expressive or instrumental. Expressive threats can be best described as someone venting their frustration and anger as a means of regulating their emotions. In contrast, instrumental threats are intended to influence or control the behaviors of an intended target and are often based on demanding conditions—for example, “Unless you do X, I will do Y.”

 

Threats in either category may have various motivations, such as revenge. Sometimes, however, the threat may be rooted in delusional belief systems that may involve grandiose, persecutory, or paranoid themes as opposed to any rational motivation.

 

Given that the letter writer’s motivation can be wide ranging and may not have a basis in fact, it can be a significant challenge for investigators to assess what prompted the threat. For instance, it is not always the case that the target directly interacted with the correspondent leading to a perceived harm. It may be that the threat writer is reacting to a media story, a press release, or other public announcement. For example, press reports about the CEO receiving a large bonus could be a trigger for someone to send a threatening letter. In some cases, it may be the time of year that adds the extra pressure—for instance, tax season.