Explosion Investigation in an United States Ship

Give a brief summary of the timeline of events in this case

On April 19, 1989, an explosion had occurred on the USS Iowa (Fulero & Wrightsman, 2009). One of the gun turrets had exploded killing 47 sailors in the process. The Navy had believed that the explosion was an intentional act of one sailor, Clayton Hartwig. The Naval Investigative Services (NIS) collected data to conduct an investigation. However, the Navy believed it was not appropriate to conduct the investigation, so they sought the help of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to conduct the investigation.

The FBI came in to conduct an equivocal death analysis and try to determine if Clayton Hartwig was the culprit (Fulero & Wrightsman, 2009). The FBI submitted their conclusions to the Armed Services Committee of the US House of Representatives. However, there were many questions and controversies surrounding the investigation and conclusions, so the Armed Services Committee sought the expertise from the American Psychological Association (APA) to analyze the FBI’s investigation and conclusions. The experts from the APA testified to the Armed Services Committee about their conclusions.

2. What is a psychological autopsy (equivocal death analysis)? Why was one ordered for the USS Iowa?

A psychological autopsy is an investigative technique, usually employed by psychologists, which is used to determine how death had occurred in equivocal death cases (Fulero & Wrightsman, 2009). This technique is used to try and understand the mindset of the deceased person to help answer certain questions like why did the individual do what they did and why did it occur at that time? The investigator will collect data about the individual, like written correspondence and journ...

... middle of paper ...

...em, their conclusions appeared to be valid. However, the information was questionable since it was provided by the Navy who had already decided that the explosion could not have been an accident. The information was not concrete evidence and was speculative of what experts believed was Hartwig’s mental state. As Ewing and McCaan state, there is little research to support the validity and reliability of using indirect methods to determine a person’s mental state when direct methods are not able to be used (2006).

References

Ewing, C., & McCann, J. (2006). Minds on trial: Great cases in law and psychology. NY: Oxford University. pp. 129-139. Retrieved from http://undergrad.floridatechonline.com/Courses/PSY3100/Critical_Reading_Ewing_McCann.pdf

Fulero, S. M., & Wrightsman, L. S. (2009). Forensic psychology. (3rd ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.