A/N: This came to me last night. No excuses for it.

Suppression is the key to human misbehaviour. And the key to defining misbehaviour is by looking at other people's oppressive states. In other words, it is a merry-go-round, one that can never be ridden fully because the circle never quite meets.

My 'abnormal' behaviour is evident in my work. I don't need an outside view to comprehend how involved I get in case; I know, although it isn't an urge I can fight.

Take the serial killer inquiry. Now that one I got heavily involved in, not to the benefit of my career either which, to the entire station, seemed to be my goal. I can assure anyone that it wasn't. My one and only driving force during that case was finding the murderer and putting them away for a very long time. Slowly, of course, it dragged me in, firstly with the Peter Baxter aspect.

He fascinated me. I wanted to find his suppressed side; I learned early on it wasn't his monstrous side. The fact that he'd been in prison for twenty-seven years as a convicted rapist was evidence enough of that. So I looked deeper, to the detriment of the investigation actually. One of my hidden reasons for my refusal to eliminate Baxter from the enquiry as early as I could have was the intrigue as to just what society had forced him to suppress. And I found it. His emotive side. I think perhaps it was when his mother died, he was only a kid and he found the body. Afterwards, shipped from foster home to foster home, he wouldn't have found a viable port for his emotion. Baxter was pitiful, no doubt, but he was driven like that. As is everybody really.

Pat Kitson, for example. The true river murderer who was about to add me to her list before she was finally apprehended. Her problem was her restricted love for her brother. That was her 'abnormality', if one wishes to put a label on it. Her love for Simon led to her to do terrible things yet it was more down to society than anything else. Like with Peter, they'd both been rejected. Him by his mother dying and Pat by her inability to conduct a real romance with a man because he was her brother. Both matters out of their control really.

Family is an insight into oppression. Most cases involve an entanglement, a rejection of some kind and there you've got your 'abnormality', stemming right from it. But I'm not saying it's all a bad thing, the family connection can be a real tool in certain situations. Alan Kennedy for one.

The death of his mother was paramount to understanding his hunger for rape. It quite often turns out to be something like that which sets off a rampage like the one Kennedy was on. It's never an excuse though. For him it was about his fifteen minutes of fame, he earned recognition in any form. That's quite common too. You see it all the time with celebrities and film stars, the only difference between them and Kennedy being their ability to achieve it without deviant means.

Hugh Wallis. His hidden side was jealousy, quite obviously by the end of the ordeal. Resentment of me that spilled into a research exercise for him as he strove to overtake my achievements. Again, by deviant means.

As mentioned, my so-called 'abnormality' is my desperation for work. In the grand scheme of things it isn't a bad vice to have. Occasionally though, I look that little deeper as perhaps I've managed to do with every single person I've come into contact with over the last ten years. What I sometimes find is the fear of being a failure. Just once in a while that strikes me as my suppressed side. Once in a while anyway.