- •Foreword
- •Criminology Comes of Age
- •Rules That Commute
- •Environmental Criminology and the Path to Crime Control
- •Preface
- •The Author
- •Acknowledgments
- •Dedication
- •Table of Contents
- •List of Tables
- •List of Figures
- •Quotation
- •2.1 Serial Murder
- •2.1.1.1 Characteristics
- •2.1.2 Incidence, Population, and Growth
- •2.1.3 Theories
- •2.1.4 Victimology
- •2.2 Child Murder
- •2.3 Murder and Distance
- •3.1 Serial Rape
- •3.2 Serial Arson
- •4.2 Police Strategies
- •4.2.1 Linkage Analysis
- •4.2.1.1 Physical Evidence
- •4.2.1.2 Offender Description
- •4.2.1.3 Crime Scene Behaviour
- •4.2.2 Other Investigative Tactics
- •5.2 Organized and Disorganized Crime Scenes
- •5.4 Critiques
- •5.5 Evaluation Studies
- •5.7 Expert Testimony
- •6.1 Movement and Distance
- •6.2 Mental Maps
- •6.3 Awareness and Activity Spaces
- •6.3.1 Anchor Points
- •6.4 Centrography
- •6.5 Nearest Neighbour Analysis
- •7.1 Geography and Crime Studies
- •7.2 Environmental Criminology
- •7.2.1 Routine Activity Theory
- •7.2.2 Rational Choice Theory
- •7.2.3 Crime Pattern Theory
- •8.1 Target Patterns
- •8.1.1 Place and Space
- •8.1.2 Hunting Grounds
- •8.1.3 Target Backcloth
- •8.1.4 Crime Sites
- •8.1.5 Body Disposal
- •8.1.6 Learning and Displacement
- •8.1.7 Offender Type
- •8.2 Hunting Methods
- •8.2.1 Target Cues
- •8.2.2 Hunting Humans
- •8.2.3 Search and Attack
- •8.2.4 Predator Hunting Typology
- •9.1 Spatial Typologies
- •9.2 Geography of Serial Murder
- •9.2.1 Methodology
- •9.2.1.1 Serial Killer Data
- •9.2.1.2 Newspaper Sources
- •9.2.1.3 Offender, Victim, and Location Data
- •9.2.2 Serial Killer Characteristics
- •9.2.2.1 State Comparisons
- •9.2.3 Case Descriptions
- •9.2.3.1 Richard Chase
- •9.2.3.2 Albert DeSalvo
- •9.2.3.3 Clifford Olson
- •9.2.3.4 Angelo Buono and Kenneth Bianchi
- •9.2.3.5 Peter Sutcliffe
- •9.2.3.6 Richard Ramirez
- •9.2.3.7 David Berkowitz
- •9.2.3.8 Jeffrey Dahmer
- •9.2.3.9 Joel Rifkin
- •9.2.3.10 John Collins
- •9.2.3.11 Aileen Wuornos
- •9.2.3.12 Ian Brady and Myra Hindley
- •9.2.3.13 Jerry Brudos
- •9.4 Serial Murder Characteristics
- •9.4.1 Offenders
- •9.4.2 Victims
- •9.4.3 Locations
- •9.4.4 Crime Parsing
- •9.4.5 Clusters
- •9.4.6 Trip Distance Increase
- •10.1 Mapping and Crime Analysis
- •10.2 Geography and Crime Investigation
- •10.3 Offender Residence Prediction
- •10.3.1 Criminal Geographic Targeting
- •10.3.2 Performance
- •10.3.3 Validity, Reliability, and Utility
- •10.3.3.1 Validity
- •10.3.3.2 Reliability
- •10.3.3.3 Utility
- •10.4.2 Operational Procedures
- •10.4.2.1 Information Requirements
- •10.4.3 Understudy Training Program
- •10.4.4 The Rigel Computer System
- •11.1 Strategies and Tactics
- •11.1.1 Suspect Prioritization
- •11.1.2 Police Information Systems
- •11.1.3 Task Force Management
- •11.1.4 Sex Offender Registries
- •11.1.5 Government and Business Databases
- •11.1.6 Motor Vehicle Registrations
- •11.1.7 Patrol Saturation and Stakeouts
- •11.1.8 Response Plans
- •11.1.9 Mail Outs
- •11.1.10 Neighbourhood Canvasses
- •11.1.11 News Media
- •11.1.12 Bloodings
- •11.1.13 Peak-of-Tension Polygraphy
- •11.1.14 Fugitive Location
- •11.1.15 Missing Bodies
- •11.1.16 Trial Court Expert Evidence
- •11.2 Jack the Ripper
- •DATA CODING FORM #1: SERIAL MURDER OFFENDERS
- •DATA CODING FORM #2: SERIAL MURDER VICTIMS
- •DATA CODING FORM #3: SERIAL MURDER LOCATIONS
- •Glossary
- •Bibliography
remaining victim has never been found. Brady was found guilty of three murders and Hindley of two. The killers escaped death twice: first when police discovered a plan by one of the victim’s uncles to shoot them during the trial, and again when The Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965 was passed a month after their arrest.
9.2.3.13 Jerry Brudos
Jerry Brudos, the Lust Killer, murdered at least four women in western Oregon from 1968 to 1969 (Lane & Gregg, 1992; Newton, 1990a; Rule, 1983a, Time-Life, 1992b). After strangling them, he mutilated their bodies in the garage beside his house before dumping their corpses, weighed down with automotive parts, in local rivers. His family was forbidden from entering the locked garage. After the first murder, Brudos moved from Portland to Salem. He used one of his dump sites twice.
Brudos had a shoe fetish and was attracted to some of his victims because of their footwear. He possessed a collection of 40 pairs of high-heeled shoes and often broke into homes to steal shoes or lingerie. Brudos liked to dress up and photograph the corpses of his victims. He amputated the foot of his first victim and stored it, shod, in the freezer.
Arrested after a tip from a suspicious college student whom he had dated, Brudos eventually confessed to police investigators. A search of his home revealed, amongst other bizarre souvenirs of the crimes, disturbing photographs of his captive victims. Brudos pled guilty and was sentenced to three consecutive life sentences. Incarcerated in the Oregon State Penitentiary, he became eligible for parole in 1999.
9.4 Serial Murder Characteristics
9.4.1Offenders
A breakdown of the characteristics for the 15 offenders in the SFU serial murder data set is provided in Table 9.4. Percentages and frequencies, or means, are used as appropriate. This is a summary of the information collected in the Data Coding Form #1: Serial Killers (see Appendix B for the data coding form). Co-killer information is also presented indicating whether a serial murderer operated alone or with a partner.
Of the various serial murderer classifications discussed in the literature, only the FBI organized/disorganized dichotomy and the Holmes and De Burger typology are examined in the present research. The former was included because degree of organization influences offender activity space, and the latter because it is a commonly used typology.
© 2000 by CRC Press LLC
Table 9.4 Serial Murder Offender Data
Characteristic |
Results |
|
|
Sex |
|
Male |
87% (13) |
Female |
13% (2) |
Co-Killer |
|
Operated Alone |
73% (11) |
Operated With Partner |
27% (4) |
Mean Total Number of Victims |
12 |
Mean Total Number of Locations |
23 |
Mean Duration of Murder Activity |
2.7 years |
Degree of Organization |
|
Organized |
47% (7) |
Somewhat Organized |
20% (3) |
Mixed |
20% (3) |
Somewhat Disorganized |
7% (1) |
Disorganized |
7% (1) |
Typology |
|
Visionary |
20% (3) |
Mission-Oriented |
0% (0) |
Lust |
13% (2) |
Thrill |
13% (2) |
Comfort |
7% (1) |
Power/Control-Oriented |
47 % (7) |
Residence Type |
|
Detached House |
53% (8) |
Semi-Detached House |
0% (0) |
Apartment |
33% (5) |
Hotel or Motel |
7% (1) |
Rooming or Lodging House |
0% (0) |
Trailer |
0% (0) |
Institution |
0% (0) |
Transient |
7% (1) |
Homeless |
0% (0) |
|
|
The mean values for total number of victims, total number of locations, and duration of murder activity are case, not offender, based. There was an average of 1.9 crime locations per victim in the sample. A lone offender was involved 85% of the time. Table 9.4 reveals no significant differences on these variables from the larger serial killer data set (see Table 9.2). Most of the offenders fit the power/control-oriented serial murder type. Mean level of organization was 2.1 (somewhat organized), assuming an interval coding
© 2000 by CRC Press LLC
scale. Detached house and apartment building were the most common offender residence types.
9.4.2Victims
A breakdown of the characteristics for the 178 victims in the SFU serial murder data set is provided in Table 9.5. Percentages and frequencies, or means, are used as appropriate (percentages may add to more than 100 because of multiple responses). This is a summary of the information collected in the Data Coding Form #2: Serial Murder Victims (see Appendix B for the data coding form). Information is also presented on crime type (murder, attempted murder, rape, or other sexual assault, coded as the most serious offence), and secondary victim status (yes/same incident, yes/same day, or no). The latter field is used to distinguish cases of multiple victims, either murdered in the same incident, or else on the same day. Crime location set data is presented and discussed below.
Table 9.5 Serial Murder Victim Data
Characteristic |
Results |
|
|
|
|
Crime Type |
|
|
Murder |
75.3% |
(134) |
Attempted Murder |
16.9% |
(30) |
Rape |
5.1% (9) |
|
Other Sexual Assault |
2.8% (5) |
|
Secondary Victim |
|
|
Yes — Same Incident |
12.9% |
(23) |
Yes — Same Day |
4.5% (8) |
|
No |
82.6% |
(147) |
Sex of Victim |
|
|
Male |
27.5% |
(49) |
Female |
72.5% |
(129) |
Victim/Killer Relationship |
|
|
Stranger |
93.8% |
(167) |
Casual Acquaintance |
6.2% (11) |
|
Known |
0% (0) |
|
Killer Selection |
|
|
Nonrandom/Patterned |
74.7% |
(133) |
Random/Nonpatterned |
25.3% |
(45) |
Victim Traits |
|
|
Specific |
47.8% |
(85) |
Nonspecific |
52.2% |
(93) |
© 2000 by CRC Press LLC
Table 9.5 Serial Murder Victim Data (continued)
Characteristic |
Results |
||
|
|
|
|
Victim Activity |
|
|
|
At Home |
30.9% |
(55) |
|
At Work |
1.1% |
(2) |
|
Commuting |
6.2% |
(11) |
|
Walking or Jogging |
21.9% |
(39) |
|
Hitchhiking |
5.1% |
(9) |
|
Other Travel |
12.4% |
(22) |
|
Visiting Friend |
2.2% |
(4) |
|
Outdoor Recreation |
0% (0) |
||
At Bar or Nightclub |
10.7% |
(19) |
|
At Other Social Event |
5.1% |
(9) |
|
Prostitution |
22.5% |
(40) |
|
Other |
8.4% |
(15) |
|
Killer Hunting Style — Search Method |
|
|
|
Hunter |
31.6% |
(49) |
|
Poacher |
54.8% |
(85) |
|
Troller |
11.6% |
(18) |
|
Trapper |
1.9% |
(3) |
|
Killer Hunting Style — Attack Method |
|
|
|
Raptor |
78.7% |
(122) |
|
Stalker |
0% (0) |
||
Ambusher |
21.3% |
(33) |
|
Control Method |
|
|
|
Firearm |
6.7% |
(12) |
|
Knife |
3.4% |
(6) |
|
Blunt Instrument |
2.8% |
(5) |
|
Strangulation |
0.6% |
(1) |
|
Physical Force |
18.5% |
(33) |
|
Intoxicant |
16.9% |
(30) |
|
Threat |
6.2% |
(11) |
|
Blitz Attack (Victim Immediately Killed) |
51.1% |
(91) |
|
Unknown |
6.7% |
(12) |
|
Murder Method |
|
|
|
Firearm |
25.8% |
(46) |
|
Knife |
16.9% |
(30) |
|
Blunt Instrument |
21.3% |
(38) |
|
Strangulation |
37.6% |
(67) |
|
Physical Force |
2.2% |
(4) |
|
Poison |
0.6% |
(1) |
|
Other |
0.6% |
(1) |
|
Unknown |
3.9% |
(7) |
|
No Murder Attempt |
9% (16) |
© 2000 by CRC Press LLC
Table 9.5 Serial Murder Victim Data (continued)
Characteristic |
Results |
|
|
|
|
Attempt to Hide Body |
|
|
Displayed |
7.3% (13) |
|
Dumped |
10.7% |
(19) |
Other Not Hidden |
34.3% |
(61) |
Casually Hidden |
10.1% |
(18) |
Well Hidden |
25.3% |
(45) |
Other |
12.4% |
(22) |
Linked |
|
|
Linked |
72.3% |
(112) |
Unlinked |
27.8% |
(43) |
|
|
|
Percentages for hunting style/search method, hunting style/attack method, offender approach, and victim linkage are based on the 155 crimes not involving same-incident secondary victims. Cases classified as “other” for attempt to hide body typically involved escape of the victim. Almost three quarters of the victims in this sample were linked to the murder series at the time by police. Cases not connected usually involved the failure to recognize the existence of a serial killer rather than the inability to match a specific victim with a known series. If unrecognized offenders are not included, the percentage of linked crimes increases to 96%.
Cleary and Rettig (1994) suggest that stranger victims of serial killers are not randomly selected, but instead fit into a particular agenda known to the murderer. Similarly, Warren et al. (1995) observe that “serial rapists do not manifest random patterns when geographically choreographing their offenses” (p. 247). Three-quarters of the victim selections in this study were classified as nonrandom or patterned, and almost half of the victims possessed specific traits of interest to the offender. It would appear the “randomness” ascribed to serial murder refers more to its stranger nature (94% in this sample) than to any mathematical description of sampling process (i.e., method of victim selection).
Most of the victims were sought out by the offender either through poaching or hunting search methods. The former characteristic was originally thought to make a case unsuitable for geographic profiling. It appears, however, if criminals commute, they often do so in various directions. There is a substantial likelihood after a sufficient number of crimes that the offender’s residence will be located within the hunting area. The findings of this study support the suggestion of Davies and Dale (1995b) that marauding (hunting) and commuting (poaching) are only ends of a continuum.
© 2000 by CRC Press LLC