In five separate rooms, a process of non-coerced, and in many cases; completely unnoticed subliminal interrogation was being undertaken via terminals, algorithms and a series of operatives gathering information both on the surface and through means of networked psychological targeting.
Our first libertine (non)offender of question, was in most likelihood the one who would commit the least debauchery; yet conversely would do so at the highest caliber of volume, painting himself as almost villainous or anti-heroic figure dependent on the perspective of the onlooker. It was always hard to tell, he treated the interrogation like a game keeping the lot of us guessing and pondering over his riddles, nevertheless he would constantly declare that history and examination would absolve him of all guilt, and it seemed that this would ring true for both him and case two.
Similarly case 1, as we’ll call it for now; would by nobody’s request nor whim whatsoever, have committed far more atrocities against himself than against any fellow human being. Why this is true we are not sure, but we see that it is.
Interestingly case 1 was most conscious of any of the processes being undertaken besides the second. The other three were relatively oblivious. The first two seemed to share a common factor, of seemingly taking offense at the lack of a threat that they appeared to pose against the system, seeming to act out, or needlessly increase their security measures purely for the sake of inciting a seemingly falsely increased sense of importance.
Oddly both of these were likable characters and found themselves being observed far after the cases were over, purely for entertainment value and to satisfy the curiosity of the agency.
The second case had done some genuinely terrible things in his younger years, and we suppose to a far lesser extent so had the first, but it was determined that both cases had cleaned themselves up at relative levels long before intervention would have been necessary.
The third case WAS a bit more troubling. Soft intervention had to be taken, reform was shown to be moderately successful, continual instances of mild outside intervention were scheduled.
Third case was quite violent, troublesome, and mischievous; yet still in his youth, springing up from a household far more troubled than either of the first two cases. Once a moderate level of control was established; he became an asset toward the reformation of future cases.
Like the first two case three was rather likable though far less intelligent in nature; though he did not lack social intelligence nor street smarts. There were many close calls with case three, he bordered on arrest several times, but ultimately patience played off.
The first three cases are for the most part closed, the first two still being observed more for benevolent purposes, and the third receiving long-term intervention, though the thirds understanding of what is going on is quite limited compared to the first two cases, he still had somewhat more of an idea than the last two.
The fourth cases was the most unnerving, but no proof could be established on any of the grounds for which he was being monitored. He was easily the most secretive of the five, and even though he appeared to know nothing of his surveillance, he still played his cards like a career criminal even behind closed doors.
Case four would very often be completely untraceable, spending much time in desolate areas intended for outdoor sport despite showing no signs of interest in hunting, fishing, hiking or anything of the like. He gave the vibe of a complete sociopath.
Cases one and two could easily be defined as maniacs, and case three could possibly be bordering on psychopathic, but case four was almost impossible to read.
He had some quite troubling obsessions with the nazi’s, movies about serial killers, and frequently joked about grotesque ideas like rape. Case one was not entirely dissimilar, but would act in a way that seemed far more sarcastic and ironic, and seemed to sprout more from a desire to create an air of edginess than from any real fascination with the subjects at hand.
Case two was a little in between, but nonetheless was quite sensible, though he did at times have the potential too appear a lot more frightening and malignant than case one who clearly saw himself as little more than a court fool. Despite this case two was never known to be a particularly bad person, though he had a strong distaste for Jewish people he did not appear to view the Nazi’s in a positive light as case four did.
It is speculated that case two’s negative view of Judaism was purely derived from his own religious beliefs being in stark opposition. As well as a bit of narcissism, case two was without a doubt a narcissist’s narcissist but nonetheless he would back everything he said with arduous research. He was quite close with case one, but it would always be hard to tell if case one actually agreed with any of case two’s sentiments, or merely just found them humorous given the relatively closed off context they were discussed in.
Oddly case one when pressed with the smallest amount of seriousness would reveal a genuine perspective almost akin to that of a pesky online social justice warrior, he merely appeared to have a boundless sense of humor (which surprisingly never seemed to get him in as much trouble as one would assume, apparently he was on the side of luck as well.)
Despite the slight similarities, which could all be seen as deriving from too much time spent on darker corners of the internet, cases one through three could not be more different from cases four and five.
We have so far been unable to derive any real conviction regarding case four, but the case will remain open nonetheless, clearly hiding something quite malignant. At this point we would be far more surprised if he wasn’t
Case five we can not really discuss, far too troubling to be brought up here. Case five will be closing soon, termination will likely be undertaken. Almost everything needed to build a case has been gathered.
Case four will be monitored, increased measures of surveillance may be necessary to implicate anything, he’s far smarter than case five. Unfortunately probably one of the smartest ones here. Cases one and two are extremely intelligent, both displaying high levels of creative and a profound level of academic interest that made little sense given their backgrounds, but have nowhere near the level of developed cunning, secrecy and planning skills purely because they lack the need for such.
Case two would have made a decent criminal purely out of an unjustified sense of paranoia likely stemming from overprotective parenting, despite this he was a productive and hard working member of society. He rarely broke the law but when he did it was always for fairly innocent and often drug related means, and when he did his operation security was admirably strong.
Case five probably could’ve taken some tips from case four, or even case two, but we’re glad he didn’t.