Victimology is not about blaming the victim. Rather, it is an integral part of forensic psychology where profiling is concerned. Moreover Victimology is what James Adcock was referring to when he said (
link ):
Police need to go back and start again with the victim’s profile, he suggested. “If you know your victim, you know your murderer.”
That said...
This is actually a good question. 12-step groups depend upon anonymity. They achieve this by going by first name, only. And some attendees use nicknames. Importantly, there are no records kept. And privacy is fiercely protected, ala "
what is said here, remains here." Which means it would be tougher to link the victims. That is, it would be tougher to know not only if they attended 12-step meetings but even attended the same meeting. Still, afaik, Audrey wasn't religious, so that could be an argument against attending such groups. They are quite spiritualistic-centric. Though, they use "
higher power" as opposed to "
God." And many of the groups have adjusted the "
higher power" bit to "
higher power as you see it." This encourages people of different belief systems, and even those who do not believe, to work the program. Another possible argument against Audrey attending such a group is the amount of disclosure. The meetings generally encourage fairly extensive disclosure. And for all practical purposes, Audrey was a very private person. Even so, the anonymity could potentially provide her an outlet, without breaching her need for privacy. So... all things considered, I think the 12-step angle is def worth pursuing.
To reiterate, victimology is quite often crucial to solving crimes such as this. Which, btw, is why I began trying to piece together a victim profile when I started following this case (
link )
