indicative of journey-to-crime distances greater than 5 miles. Organized murderers follow their crimes in the news and may move or change jobs to avoid apprehension (Ressler et al., 1988).
Disorganized offenders may know their victims. They act spontaneously, and tend to live or work within walking distance of the crime sites, usually with their parents or in a small apartment. Disorganized killers murder their victims at or near the encounter site, and often leave the body in plain view at the murder scene. They often choose crime sites from familiar areas and strike close to the nodes and routes of their activity space. The awareness space of the disorganized criminal is likely to be smaller and less complex than that of the organized offender. Disorganized offenders are not concerned about the media, and are unlikely to significantly change their lifestyle to avoid apprehension.
8.2 Hunting Methods
Throughout accounts of serial murders run themes of adventurous risk in the stalking of human prey by stealth or deception, the excitement of the kill ... The egoism of the hunter permits the degradation of potential victims to the level of wild game. The planning, excitement, and thrill of the hunt overrides all other considerations except eluding capture.
– Green, 1993, pp. 143, 147
Serial violent criminals are predators — they search for human victims in manners similar to carnivores hunting for animal prey. And like wildlife, they employ various hunting styles in their efforts to seek out and attack victims. Target patterns are determined by offender activity, victim location, environment, and situational cues. Any analysis of the criminal hunt must consider these factors.
8.2.1Target Cues
In a study of active urban burglars in Texas, Cromwell, Olson, and Avary (1990, 1991) found environmental and target cues played key roles in offender assessment of risk, effort, and gain. The burglars first determined if a premise was occupied using various external visual indicators. If the place appeared uninhabited, they assessed its surveillability (from neighbouring homes), and then its accessibility (usually from the side or rear). These burglars were looking for satisfactory, not optimal target choices. Offenders influenced by drugs or alcohol viewed targets as more vulnerable and crime as less risky.
Burglars search for their targets along obvious routes (Cusson, 1993), and Cromwell et al. (1990, 1991) found routine activity variables to be useful
© 2000 by CRC Press LLC
predictors of break-ins. Corner location, average traffic speed, proximity to schools, businesses, parks, churches, stop signs, traffic lights, four-lane streets, and the presence of a carport or absence of a garage were all significantly related to burglary risk. Corner homes, premises situated along streets with slower traffic, and places close to stop signs or traffic lights are more likely to be noticed by scouting burglars. Homes with carports or without garages allow occupancy to easily be assessed from vehicle presence. The time patterns of these criminals were determined by the time patterns of their victims. “The typical burglar is much more aware of our use of time than we are” (p. 59).
In a study of active burglars in St. Louis, Missouri, Wright and Decker (1996) observed that offenders found burglary sites in one of three ways: (1) through prior knowledge of the victim; (2) by obtainment of inside information; or (3) most commonly, by observation of potential targets. The third method provides insight to how certain violent criminal predators behave.
Typically, the choice of a house to break into is not spontaneous; instead, the groundwork has been done, possible targets lined up, and preliminary information collected. Offenders wish to determine potential risks and rewards before committing a break and enter. “‘I look at a house two or three times before I go in it’” (Wright & Decker, 1996, pp. 41–42). Burglars are attracted by certain external “reward and risk” cues that allow them to make inferences regarding the occupants and contents of the house (a process that also leads some offenders to transfer responsibility for the crime to the target, claiming that the house was “just asking for it”). They had some knowledge of the occupants’ routines, and noted such things as the number, presence, and absence of vehicles.
Wright and Decker (1996) considered how burglars locate their residential targets:
But how do offenders come to be watching those places to begin with? Do they purposely seek them out? Or do they simply stumble on them in the course of their daily rounds? For most of the offenders in our sample who typically watched dwellings before breaking in to them, the answer seemed to fall somewhere between these two extremes. The subjects usually did not go out with the specific intention of looking for potential targets. Nor did they generally just happen upon places when locating prospective burglary sites was the last thing on their minds. Rather they were continually “half looking” for targets … “I might go to the neighborhood park or something and then I might say, ‘Well, I’m a go home this way today.’ Then while I’m walkin’ up the street I just be lookin’, checkin’ it out.” (pp. 42–43)
Targets were usually found by offenders attuned to their surroundings during the course of their daily routine activities, and then intermittently
© 2000 by CRC Press LLC
watched (see also Cromwell et al., 1990, 1991). While this search process is more casual than determined, it is surprisingly effective, allowing offenders to build up a mental “card file” of potential targets. When a burglar wants to commit a break in, the various possibilities are reviewed and a decision made. If it turns out that a particular selection is unsuitable at the time, then the next target in the “card file” is chosen. This search process provides insight to the target selection of those serial rapists who break into homes, many of whom have previous burglary experience (see Schlesinger & Revitch, 1999).
In a study using routine activity and lifestyle/exposure perspectives, Warr (1988) found that homes — and women — at greater risk for burglary are also at greater risk for inside rape. A comparison of 1980 UCR Index offences for 155 Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSA) revealed rape and burglary to be strongly correlated (r = 0.79). Both crimes also showed close and consistent similarities in their coefficients with a set of opportunity variables. These variables were grouped into three categories: (1) housing (e.g., low income, newer areas, rental premises, multiunit structures, etc.); (2) female occupancy (e.g., divorced, living alone or without other adults, etc.); and (3) combinations of the first two groups. For example, one of the strongest combination variables was “female householders, no husband present, aged 25–34, in a renter-occupied structure with more than 50 units” (rape, r = 0.59; burglary, r = 0.54,). A summary index of similarity was also very high (r2 = 0.99). Warr concluded that home-intrusion rape (rape following an unlawful entry of the home) is a hybrid offence — it is a violent crime with the opportunity structure of a property crime (see also Felson & Clarke, 1998).
Police interviews with serial rapists have revealed a high awareness of environmental cues. One offender stated he selected homes by looking for driveways with oil spots, suggesting the absence of a vehicle. If he then saw a woman inside the house he presumed the man was absent. Another rapist said he avoided homes with boats parked outside as that indicated the presence of a male. A surprising number of victims leave their curtains open at night, even after being attacked. Even a cursory look inside a home can reveal much about who lives there, be they female, male, a couple, the elderly, or children. Some offenders demonstrate prior knowledge of their victims, probably gained through past surveillance, although others have been known to search through a victim’s purse during the attack and then pretend to have possessed such information beforehand.
The search process described by Wright and Decker can also explain the clustering of rape sites and the occurrence of two or more attacks in a single evening. It is not surprising that targets with suitable offence characteristics are often situated close together. If an attack fails, a criminal simply has to go to the next location in their mental “card file” and try again, as in the case of the rapist with multiple preselected victims, described earlier. Because the
© 2000 by CRC Press LLC
contents of this file are strongly determined by the offender’s activity space, the crime locations may provide a “road map” with significant investigative implications.
8.2.2Hunting Humans
Anatoly Onupriyenko, convicted of murdering 52 people including families with children in Zhitomir, Ukraine, referred to himself as a hunter and his victims as the game. “ ‘I look at it very simply. As an animal. I watched all this as an animal would stare at a sheep’ ” (Shargorodsky, 1998).
The hunt for humans is much like the search for other criminal targets. But there are two complicating factors for the offender: first, people move about, and second, they have to be controlled. Criminal predators must employ search and attack methods that address these issues. Most previous classifications of serial murder and rape geometry have been limited to description, ignoring the processes that underlie the outcomes. One of the few exceptions is Petrucci’s (1997b, 1998) empirical typology of victimacquisition techniques used by serial sexual killers. Offenders from the U.S. (n = 146) were selected from Hickey’s comprehensive serial murder database and coded on the basis of a six-item protocol. Petrucci found the following distinct groupings:
1.Abduction — The victim was attacked by surprise, and then transported to a different location where the murder occurred. This was the most common victim-acquisition technique (36%), and is suggestive of a fantasy-motivated offender. Of all serial murderers using this method, 67% were local, 94% were Caucasian, and 31% were disorganized.
2.Attacking — The victim was surprise attacked and then killed, with no transportation. This was the least common technique (16%), and is suggestive of an offender who is less concerned with apprehension. Of all serial murderers using this method, 71% were local and 43% were a minority.
3.Luring — The victim was first attracted or lured by deception, then attacked by surprise and killed. Voluntary or involuntary transportation may be involved. This was the second most common victim acquisition technique (25%), and is suggestive of a fantasy-motivated offender. Of all serial murderers using this method, 41% were local and 41% were travellers.
4.Combination — Victims were acquired through the use of multiple tactics. This was the third most common victim acquisition technique (23%), and is suggestive of an instrumental rather than a fantasy-
© 2000 by CRC Press LLC