Добавил:
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
[D._Kim_Rossmo]_Geographic_Profiling(BookFi.org).pdf
Скачиваний:
91
Добавлен:
15.09.2017
Размер:
5.11 Mб
Скачать

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