Notes on the USS Iowa Disaster and Psychological Autopsy

The USS Iowa Case

  • Incident Overview: During a routine firing exercise of USS Iowa, three powerful explosions occurred in Turret II's center gun, leading to the deaths of 47 naval personnel.

    • Cause: Five 94-pound bags of propellant ignited when jammed into the gun's breech.
    • Incident Classification: Identified as one of the worst peacetime disasters for the U.S. Navy.

  • Investigation Initiatives:

    • A Judge Advocate General (JAG) investigation was established immediately to evaluate ignition sources and shipboard conditions.
    • Request for a Psychological Autopsy (equivocal death analysis - EDA) was made to understand the mode and motivation behind the explosion.

  • Attendant Circumstances:

    • A letter was received from a victim's sister concerning the insurance payout of $100,000, raising suspicions of deliberate actions.
    • The Naval Investigative Service (NIS, later NCIS) was tasked to investigate the backgrounds of personnel involved.

  • Focus on Clayton Hartwig:

    • The FBI's EDA suggested Gunner’s Mate Clayton Hartwig intentionally caused the explosion due to:
      • Previous experimentation with explosives.
      • Past suicidal ideations and attempts.
      • A report concluded he acted alone, suggesting a suicide mission that resulted in others' deaths.

  • Congressional Investigations:

    • Skepticism from U.S. Senate and House of Representatives regarding the conclusions drawn by the FBI and Navy.
    • Congressional inquiries criticized the EDA's validity, leading the APA to independently examine the case.
    • An independent panel dismissed the FBI's conclusions as unsupported, resulting in the Navy's investigation being termed as “an investigative failure.”

  • Technical Re-assessment:

    • GAO and Sandia National Laboratories later indicated the explosion likely stemmed from over-ramming powder, not deliberate actions, disputing prior findings.

Psychological Autopsy (PA)

  • Definition and Purpose:

    • A PA is conducted posthumously to determine the deceased's mental state and circumstances around their death.
    • Useful for clarifying ambiguous deaths to inform insurance or legal contexts.

  • Types of Psychological Autopsies:

    • Suicide Psychological Autopsy (SPA): Focuses on confirmed suicide cases to understand contributory psychosocial factors.
    • Equivocal Death Psychological Autopsy (EDPA): Aims to clarify incidents where the manner of death is uncertain (e.g., distinguishing between suicide, homicide, or accident).

  • Historical Context:

    • Coined by Edwin Shneidman in 1958 to assist in explaining ambiguous deaths.
    • Initially used to aid medical examiners in understanding unclear deaths.

Purposes of Psychological Autopsies

  • Research:
    • To collect data on mental states influencing suicides, contributing to preventive measures.
  • Clinical Practice:
    • Therapeutic benefits for survivors by clarifying reasons behind suicide to help assuage guilt or unfair blame.
  • Litigation:
    • Important in civil cases where manner of death affects insurance claims or wills, and suing organizations for emotional harm due to preventable causes.

Investigative Process of Psychological Autopsies

  • Assessment involves reviewing a range of materials:
    • Interviews with people close to the deceased, reviewing diaries, medical records, and other documents.
    • Investigation of behavioral patterns, relationship dynamics, and pre-death actions (e.g. preparation for suicide).
  • Reliability and Validity:
    • Reliability concerns consistency of findings from different investigators.
    • Validity involves determining if the autopsy accurately reflects the deceased's intent or manner of death; influenced by potential biases from acquaintances.

Summary & Conclusions

  • The PA is an evolving field within profiling, lacking a standardized approach, leading to criticism.
    • It's employed across many contexts: military, clinical, research, and legal settings.
    • Despite usefulness, significant skepticism exists regarding its reliability in judicial contexts due to the absence of a solid empirical foundation.
  • Further reform is necessary to develop established procedures and methodologies that ensure reliable and valid results in psychological autopsies, particularly in forensic scenarios.