Wednesday, January 9, 2013

Better The Devil You Know: Haven Profile (Nathan Wuornos)

Date: 1/9/2013
Subject Name: Nathan Thaddeus Wuornos
DOB: 12/23/1978
Gender: Male
Age: 34
Place of Examination: Data compiled at Chandler/Hammett Investigations offices
Occupation: Current chief of police, Haven PD.
Marital Status: Single, currently involved with Jordan McKee (see file TR-####), past involvement with Audrey Parker (see file IN-####)
Race: Troubled.
Classification: PT-TR-####

Presents with: Subject possesses flat affect most commonly seen in abnormal pathology, combined with reticence that borders on extreme even for the local model of discourse. It is probable that his Trouble contributes to the former, and others' reaction to same contributes to the latter; subject displays a tendency to compassion and desire to help people that belies his external traits. He is a prime example of the type whose actions must be watched rather than words, both for lack of words and because he believes that actions mean more. To date, he has risked his life several times, usually for subjects IN-#### and ST-BD-#### but also in his chosen profession. Despite a contentious relationship with his adoptive father (see case file WR-TR-####), subject elected to join the Haven Police Department and work as a subordinate. It is known that subject was adopted by his step- or foster-father, who led his adoptive son to believe their relationship was biological. Given subject WR-TR-####'s reticence, it is most likely this was a lie of omission and that the confusion resulted from the amnesia surrounding the death (and potential resurrection) of subject XX-####. It appears subject was adopted at this time, when his mother was able to leave his biological father, Max Hansen, due to the latter's conviction for multiple homicide. However, given that subject's mother was in a relationship stated to be abusive, it is also possible that the adoption took place while subject was too young to identify Garland Wuornos as someone other than his father. Further data has not yet been recovered from the city clerk's records and may not exist if no information was committed to formal paperwork. Subject's mother is presumed dead at this time as neither he nor his father speak of her in any but past tense; conclusive evidence surrounding her circumstances has yet to be established. Given that subject's mother and biological father were known to be in an abusive relationship and that subject's Trouble was active at the time of the Colorado Kid murder, one possibility for his Trouble's trigger does suggest itself: that he tried to intervene in a domestic dispute and was himself battered as a result. If this is the case, it is further likely that Garland Wuornos felt himself in some way responsible for the child's well-being. Garland Wuornos's own habitual stoicism and patterns of detachment most likely assisted in the subject's recovery, potentially up to the point where many of the subject's coping mechanisms for trauma were modeled after the elder Wuornos, including the trauma of witnessing Wuornos's death. 

With these stressors both known and unknown to the subject, it is unsurprising that he elected a profession that allowed him control over external circumstances, as well as perhaps earning him outward respect and approbation from the only father he knew. When subject was confronted with information he had been lacking regarding his paternity, his reaction was, while understandably angry, also highly controlled to a degree that indicates that he may not be capable of yielding control and must be pushed into it. Despite the initial anger, subject also reverted at the moment of crisis induced by the circumstances of Garland Wuornos's death to responding to Wuornos as his true and only father figure. At this point, the only times subject has been observed in situations where loss of control is at all acceptable to him are with subjects ST-BD-#### and IN-####. While he remains more comfortable with the latter than the former, this is because the former is a longer-term and more contentious relationship, ranging from near-enemies to friends who have risked their lives for each other.

Our earliest knowledge of the relationship between Nathan Wuornos and Duke Crocker comes from mention of knowing each other since they were five years of age, at which time subject appears to have decided the other is 'all bad' for reasons unknown. (Equally if not more likely, subject rewrote his memories of Crocker to be consistent with his stated adult views of the man. We are, after all, intimately familiar with the inconsistent memories of the residents of Haven when they have no choice in the matter of what they remember.) The earliest explicit memory of Crocker comes two to three years later, when they were in school together; subject stated that Crocker convinced some number of their classmates to pat him on the back in encouragement to ask out a crush. Unbeknownst to him, Crocker and their classmates were patting tacks into his back, as subject's Trouble was active at this time. Several things may be extrapolated from this (please see file ST-BD-#### for further details). One, subject's Trouble was common knowledge to his peers if not the authority figures, though since there is a plausible medical diagnosis for this Trouble the subject may have been viewed as a medical abnormality rather than a magical one. (Regardless, children are frequently vicious to those who are abnormal in any way.) Two, this speaks to the duality of each child's response to being in an abusive home. Our subject's response was to isolate himself and withdraw from others emotionally since he could not be reached physically; though a maladaptive coping mechanism it is unlikely that anyone in a position to do so would have had the skills or time to teach more positive ones. He chose to erect a barrier of stoic unfeelingness; in direct contrast Crocker appears to feel everything at once, yet he uses those feelings in misdirection to steer others away from what truly matters. These opposing defense mechanisms would have pitted the two children against one another in expression rather than allowing them to recognize a fellow abuse victim; their peers may have deliberately furthered such a rivalry for their own sense of belonging and/or amusement.

Certainly by the time they are adults, Wuornos and Crocker reputedly loathe each other, distrust each other, and the subject believes there 'is nothing good in [Crocker].' Crocker is also indirectly responsible for the resurgence of subject's Trouble, having baited him onto the Cape Rouge for the ostensible purpose of setting aside their differences only to use him as cover for a smuggling job. This led to what is probably best described as a schoolyard brawl, during the course of which subject's Trouble reappeared. Though it is unknown what passed between them growing up, it is safe to say that they have never felt neutral toward one another; Troubles are most easily triggered in highly charged emotional situations. Furthermore, for a trained officer to lose control and engage in a fistfight is a clear indication of significant emotional ties. Continued observation and interaction between the two has only deepened those preexisting bonds, pushing the subject and Crocker into situations in which either could easily have allowed the other to be gravely wounded if not killed (and in some cases to pass it off as accidental), yet they have never done so out of malice.

Instead, the subject, along with Crocker, is most often seen to sacrifice his well-being for that of subject IN-#### designation Audrey Parker. In many respects Parker is the balance point between the subject and Crocker; though inclined to be self-contained she is more likely to reveal her true emotions, particularly in front of Wuornos when feeling vulnerable. As they are both law enforcement officials by training (albeit in Parker's case by implanted memories), they form an immediate and work-specific bond based on their conception of partnership. Due to the unique nature of Haven, their caseload propels them to greater and greater familiarity and depths of trust, though the subject is frequently seen to attempt to decide what is best for their relationship and/or Parker herself. Her willingness to take him to task for such actions is one reason he respects and admires her; her ability to do so without undermining the subject's sense of self-worth is one reason he has fallen in love with her. Despite the subject's early inclination to keep all information regarding IN-####'s past to himself (likely accentuated by the aforementioned memory issues surrounding Lucy Ripley's 1983 sojourn in Haven), he appeared to determine quite rapidly that she was a person he could trust. This is a drastic change in mannerisms for someone who rarely trusts others, though it is in keeping with the subject's tendency to pass immediate judgment on others and refuses to change his stance despite contradictory empirical evidence. Parker is his partner and therefore always in the right; Crocker is his childhood nemesis and always in the wrong; his father is distant and does not truly love him, and so on. Yet the subject's actions often speak differently than his words; it is likely that he attaches significant negative import to admitting fault aloud and finds it easier to alter his actions to suit a changed perspective. Most likely this is a result of both his abusive biological parent, who would have reacted with overt negativity if not violence to any verbal admission of guilt but might have overlooked actions taken to cover or fix the issue, as well as his adopted parent, who it has been well documented was unaccustomed and unskilled with verbal communication, positive or negative.

We have observed that most other people (though notably not subjects IN-#### or ST-BD-####) have difficulty reconciling this incongruity between the subject's spoken sentiments and his actions, in no small part due to subject's flattened affect. Parker and Crocker, however, are accustomed to responding to the subject's action first and his words second if at all. In contrast to Crocker, Parker has shown some desire to challenge this contradiction between actions and words, specifically as regards the burgeoning romance in which she has consistently encouraged the subject to make verbal commitments regarding particular events as well as acting on those events. Unfortunately, these attempts have been recently contravened due to a number of situations, which we will take by type rather than by chronological sequence.

With subject IN-####'s realization that she was slated to disappear, according to all known data not by her own will, she elected to distance herself from Wuornos, reasoning that furthering their relationship would only lead to greater emotional damage in a matter of weeks with her disappearance. The subject, as has been previously noted, did not take well even to Parker's belief that she knew what was best for him, but opted to begin a romantic relationship with another woman under pretense of learning about the Guard. (See file TG-#### for further data about this organization.) Though he did this with the intention of learning about the Guard and, hopefully, learning about the manner of Parker's imminent departure, there were clearly a number of factors at play in this choice, not least of which was his desire for retaliation in response to being rejected. We must also consider the strong likelihood that subject TD-BD-#### deliberately placed Jordan McKee in the subject's path, knowing the chances of their forming a unique bond were high. As, indeed, they did; the subject found himself in the position of returning the ability to be touched to another as subject IN-#### gave it to him, with his Trouble nullifying subject TR-BD-####'s. This power over another was seen to be somewhat addictive for him, though more so to subject TR-BD-####, creating a severe power imbalance between the pair which both were undoubtedly aware of. It seems likely that this contributed to McKee's choice to manipulate and betray the subject's trust, in a misguided attempt to rectify the imbalance in their relationship, though her primary motivation we can safely assert as her connections with the Guard and desire for greater power there. Whatever the subject's formative years were like as regards relationships and the power balance within them, it is reasonable to say that his current belief system does not correspond to a relationship in which neither person is honest with the other about the most basic truths. Lies of omission may be acceptable to him; direct lies are not. This, combined with the probability that he was never interested in a long-term relationship with McKee and the retrieval of a large amount of data regarding subject IN-#### and indicative of the Guard's malicious intentions toward same, resulted in the termination of their relationship.

Updated 1/28/13: Subject appears to have rebounded from the relationship with subject TR-BD-#### such that he is more inclined to match words with actions than ever before, especially as regards subjects IN-#### and ST-BD-####. His devotion to each in their respective relationships has reached probably unhealthy heights, though it is an indication of how important they have become to him that he is so focused on matching words to actions. It is also likely that the sudden knowledge of having a son who is alive (albeit tied to a mystical-magical location) rather than a son he never knew, who died when the subject was perhaps 7, served as a reminder that he would prefer to parent in a manner opposite to that of Garland Wuornos (and Max Hansen, assuming subject remembers anything from that time). However, subject IN-####'s decision to enter the barn in order to save Haven from destruction via meteors triggered a collapse of subject's usual ability to consider the greater good. As mentioned in the original profile, subject views the Troubles and thus his role within them through an intensely personal lens, and this decision appears to have shattered his ability to separate what is good for him personally from what is good for Haven, or at least to prioritize the one over the other, a necessary trait in a law enforcement official. Subject has shot AG-#### multiple times, resulting in confirmation that subject AG-#### is intimately tied to the barn but also resulting in some kind of implosion which may have directly harmed the structural integrity of the edifice designed to end the Troubles for 27 years. (What effects that may have are beyond the scope of this profile; see file AG-#### for further details.) It is extremely indicative of subject's loss of stability that he would consider this a reasonable solution, given that he had no direct evidence (though admittedly a great deal of circumstantial) that AG-#### was anything other than human when subject shot him, though it is also probable that subject shot AG-#### in partial response to being shot by subject TR-BD-####. This would have been both a natural reflex from a law enforcement training standpoint and from subject's knowledge about the Guard and the nature of the Troubles; though only partially complete it would be enough for him to make the assumption that if McKee wants AG-#### protected then he should be working against both of them.

Observations & Speculation: Due to the prodigious quantities of data on this subject, this profile is to be taken as a work in progress. Frequent updates may be made, and a long form profile will be distributed to the office via hard copy to prevent security breaches.

As with Crocker, there are a great many details lacking as regards Wuornos' formative years; however, we may make some early assessments based on what we do know. He grew up in a home with what by all accounts was an abusive biological father and an abused mother; subsequent to Max Hansen's incarceration he was placed in the home of a distant and authoritarian adoptive father. We do not know what became of his mother after 1983, though from brief references by both subject and Garland Wuornos we may safely assume her to be dead. It is possible that this was a suicide due to years of depression and c-PTSD, though we have no evidence other than common victimology patterns to work with on this matter. The subject experienced some degree of bullying from his peers, instigated in at least one case by subject ST-BD-####, and presumably spent his youth isolated from them despite the cessation of the Troubles in late 1983 or early 1984. The subject additionally claims to have first noticed his Trouble during a sledding accident; while this was certainly a major event and could have triggered his Trouble it is also possible due to the amnesia issues surrounding the Ripley cycle that his Trouble was active prior to that and this is simply the first manifestation that the subject was unable to ignore. He had at least one girlfriend despite this enforced solitude, and probably decided during his childhood (high school, at a guess) that he preferred a largely solitary lifestyle. Because of this, his influences have been few but highly important to him, beginning with subjects WR-TR-#### and ST-BD-#### and continuing through with subject IN-####. Indeed, these are the only people we have seen the subject accept as having positive bearing on his choices; others (Edmund Driscoll, the Teagues) are generally seen as influences he should actively work against. Because he so often conflates police work with personal missions, he rarely differentiates between working against for the sake of the town and working against in an effort not to emulate such people.

The recent series of events gives us several data points. One, there is little about events within Haven that Wuornos does not view through personal biases. When hurt, he will act on that hurt while simultaneously attempting to regain the status quo. He is capable of great patience but less capable of taking a big-picture view of any situation due to his deep emotional investment in subject IN-#### as well as the town itself. Too, he has been seen to treat his Trouble as though it were a superpower, ignoring standard recuperation periods for serious injuries due to his drive to prove himself worthy, first to his father and later to Parker. More recently, this desire for worthiness has manifested more subtly but with equal strength in relation to subject ST-BD-####. The subject is closely bonded to both IN-#### and ST-BD-####, and though at this time the former bond appears stronger than the latter, the latter is the one he will be forced to return to if Parker enters the barn and loses this cycle's memories. Crocker must be considered a strong and potentially stabilizing influence on our subject, therefore; we do not recommend tampering with the bonds as they currently rest. As with Crocker's stability or lack thereof should Parker leave Haven, so we can safely anticipate Wuornos undergoing fundamental emotional destabilization in such circumstances, assuming he survives the initial disappearance. It is likely that Wuornos' self-destructive tendencies would be more private though potentially more obvious were they known than Crocker's; with the return of his physical capacity for sensation it would not be surprising to see him descend into some form of addictive behavior. However, if a reason or a goal is placed in front of him, he may focus his personal issues on such things; we strongly recommend that he be given a direction in which to move should Parker no longer be present in his life. It is possible that his police work will suffice for a time, but safeguards should be taken. Target fixation is a common basis for functionality with this subject, and lacking the time and resources to alleviate it, it may be possible to direct it to more positive areas. In this event, and in the event that the decaying influence of the Troubles removes Crocker as an influence as well, subject may incur risk of suicide up to 68%. Should, for some reason, subject IN-#### not leave, we may still expect some degree of destabilization due to the increasingly detrimental nature of the Troubles, including but not limited to the sort of emotional and physical traumas he has already experienced in the last several months. 

Updated 1/28/13: Subject has indeed destabilized dramatically as subject IN-####'s departure grew from imminent to a conscious choice. He continues to approach his Trouble as though it has few or no downsides, and shot and may have killed subject AG-#### in a final attempt to prevent Parker from leaving. Subject no longer appears to care about the good of the town and instead has fixated on his abandonment issues; despite this he encouraged and indeed pleaded with subject ST-BD-#### to leave him in order to reach Audrey Parker. It is unknown at this time if subject would willingly continue his duties were subject IN-#### not present; we may speculate that he would continue for a time (presuming the town is not destroyed) out of lack of any other motivating force in his life, but that he would continue to search for ways to recover his variant on subject IN-#### to the detriment of his professional life. (Subject has little observed social life that does not involve Parker or Crocker, or we would stipulate the decline of that aspect as well.) It is also interesting to speculate, should subject IN-#### return from the barn as Audrey Parker, whether or not the subject will continue his line of work if it conflicts with whatever course Parker decides upon. Unfortunately, until we acquire further data regarding said barn and the probability of return of either of subject's stabilizing influences, this is purest speculation. We may, however, make a final note that if subject does not by now suffer from c-PTSD due to the ongoing and traumatic nature of the Troubles and his job, it is only because the symptoms are currently useful to subject's continued survival, and that if the situation becomes less turbulent it is extremely likely that this will manifest in maladaptive behavior.

History (Clinical): Subject refuses any and all approaches for interviews at this time. There is some reason to believe Miranda will be a more suitable candidate, though subject's mulishness must be presumed to overrule any attempts at manipulation at this time. Subject also has been seen to refuse formal sessions with subject CB-####. Due to subject's experience with toxic personalities, standard SR-AG approaches and hard-PT tactics are to be considered unsafe and for use in extremis only. See Miranda for further details and instructions.
History (Family): Biological father Max Hansen; adoptive father Garland Wuornos. Both deceased. Mother deceased, name and history unknown though subject WR-TR-#### indicated she was abused by Hansen. Oldest son as evidenced by Smith's Trouble (see file HV-201), no known biological siblings. Grandparents unknown, presumed deceased, both biological and adoptive. Updated 1/28/13: One son, James Cogan, by subject IN-#### designation Sarah Vernon.
History (Medical): See attached folder of hospital records. Due to the nature of subject's Trouble, his medical file is too long to be contained within the bounds of a normal profile.
Recommended Action: Shift to Miranda for surveillance and further updates.

1 comment:

  1. I don't know why, but I expected a little more. there was no mention of the sledding accident where Nathan broke his leg and had bone poking through the skin. Also no mention of his reaction to the Chief's death and the putting of his pieces in the cooler and the secret burial.

    ReplyDelete