Файл: [D._Kim_Rossmo]_Geographic_Profiling(BookFi.org).pdf

© 2000 by CRC Press LLC

Other researchers have presented a potpourri of theories to explain the

genesis of serial, sexual, and sadistic murder: sexual repression and conflict
(Heilbroner, 1993); maternal seductiveness and rejection coupled with
unavailability of the father (Revitch, 1965); borderline personality organiza-
tion and gender identity conflict (Rappaport, 1988); learning theory (Hale,
1993); antisocial personality disorder (Spore, 1994); dissociation and obses-
sion (Carlisle, 1993); obsessive-compulsive disorder, organicity, and multiple
personality disorder (Brown, 1991b; see also Reese, 1979); paraphilic sexual
sadism (Drukteinis, 1992); the “Right Man” syndrome, defined as a violent
incapacity to be wrong (Wilson & Seaman, 1990); ego-inflating self-concep-
tion and the exercise of dark desires through adventurous risk and sexual
recreation (Green, 1993); Münchausen syndrome by proxy (Keeney & Heide,
1994c); and classical necrophilia and vampirism (Brown, 1991a).

While explanations for the origins of such extreme violent behaviour are

many and varied, ranging from the biogenetic to the socio-historical, very
few of them are based on sound empirical research. Limited case studies,
unrepresentative samples, problematic interviews, unspecified methodolo-
gies, untested classifications, and pure speculation characterize many of the
discussions of serial murder. The lack of an empirically-based taxonomy also
hinders attempts at explanation. The very term “serial killer” acts as a single
label, yet work in the area of criminal profiling suggests several different
personality types are involved, each with distinctive antecedents and violent
behaviour triggers.

Single factor theories are dangerous, and it is likely several critical factors

on multiple levels — biological, psychological, and sociological — must be
present to produce the necessary conditions for the creation of a serial mur-
derer. Such a process requires the overlapping causal influences to be posi-
tioned just so; if anything is out of line then the path of development is
blocked. Thus, serial and multiple murderers are still rare. Available research
suggests that an abusive childhood, inconsistent parenting, and violent sexual
fantasies are likely to be important causative factors.

The lack of a theoretical explanation for the motivations of serial mur-

derers is not an impediment to understanding other elements of their crimes.
The requirements of daily life occupy so much time that it is hard to differ-
entiate offenders from nonoffenders simply because the former typically
behave like the latter (Brantingham & Brantingham, 1998). Searching for
underlying patterns in the “randomness” of such crime series can lead to
analyses that may be informative and telling. This is the effort to find the
“logic” in the pathologic.

© 2000 by CRC Press LLC

2.1.4 Victimology

In cases a lot are just encountered by the serial killer who is hunting for the
victim he needs: As for how are they stalked, approached, attacked, and
trapped, each serial killers has his own personal mode and manner or form
of current style and fashion ... the serial killer kills strangers 95 percent of
the time because as the safest target in terms of avoiding detection ....
Children: young boys and girls are frequently desirable victims by the serial
killer for sex .... Most serial killers have selected there murder scenes by the
place they take there victims to: as for the relevant geographice areas selected
by the offender (serial killer) this dependes on the seasons, and were the
serial killer is killing.

— Clifford Olson’s description of how serial murderers select their

victims and crime sites; Olson, 1992b, pp. 6–8, uncorrected quote

One of the purposes of victimology is to help explain the role of the victim
in the occurrence of crime. It stresses the importance of dynamic behaviours,
and environmental, situational, and triggering factors for an understanding
of crime patterns. “In the victimological perspective, violent behavior is
viewed not as a unilateral action but as the outcome of dynamic process of
interaction” (Fattah, 1991, p. xiv).

The chances of any given individual becoming a victim of serial murder

is extremely low, on par with the odds of being struck by lightning. Most
homicide victims are killed by intimates or associates and stranger murder
is rare (Silverman & Kennedy, 1993). Only 6% of homicides in the U.S.
involve sexual assault. Serial killers are believed to be responsible for 1 to 2%
of all murders in the U.S. and England; such murder would then account for
only 1 out of every 10,000 U.S. deaths (Fox & Levin, 1992; Jenkins, 1988b,
1994). Hickey’s estimates are even lower (1997); he collected a total of 2526
to 3860 recorded serial killings in the U.S. from 1800 to 1995. Even for the
peak period of his study (1975 to 1995, 974 to 1398 victims), the annual risk
rate was only about 1 in 5 million. Cavanagh (1993) calculated a significantly
higher total of 1424 U.S. serial murder victims for the period from 1976 to
1989. His figures are based on Newton’s (1990a, 1990b) collection of cases
which, he cautions, includes incidents that might not be considered as true
serial murders by all researchers.

It is essential to recognize, however, that risk of crime is not spread

uniformly throughout the population. Particular types of people, by virtue
of their sex, age, race, occupation, or location, are at much higher risks of
victimization (Block, Felson, & Block, 1985). “Just as lions look for deer near
their watering hole, criminal offenders disproportionately find victims in
certain settings or high-risk occupations” (Felson, 1987, p. 914). Keppel

© 2000 by CRC Press LLC

(1989) lists six activities commonly engaged in by serial murder victims at
the point of approach: (1) sleeping at home; (2) looking for a job; (3) going
to a tavern; (4) prostitution; (5) walking on a college campus; and (6) hitch-
hiking. Hickey assessed victim facilitation as high in 16%, low in 72% to
75%, and mixed in 9 to 12% of serial murders. Godwin and Canter (1997)
found in a study of 54 male U.S. serial killers, convicted of a minimum of
10 murders, that 92% of their victims were strangers, 4% were acquaintances,
3% were friends, and 1% were family members. Prostitutes accounted for
28% of this sample.

Sexual and physical assaults against prostitutes are disturbingly common.

Between 1991 and 1995, 63 known prostitutes were murdered in Canada,
almost all female (Duchesne, 1997). This represents 5% of all reported female
homicides (n = 1118) during the same time period. The prostitute murder risk
in British Columbia has been estimated at ranging between 60 to 120 times
that of the general adult female population (Lowman & Fraser, 1995). Clients
are responsible for the bulk of these homicides (n = 50), most of which occur
in the offender’s vehicle. Stranger relationships and the private nature of the
street sex trade make the identification of the killer difficult, and the majority
of prostitute murders go unsolved (54% vs. 20% for murder generally).

Godwin (1998) states that the ecology of victim target networks can help

police identify previously unknown victims and possible future victims. He
proposes that the decision-making process of serial murderers is based on
an assessment of gain (potential victims) and risk factors (surveillance, police,
escape routes). Victim social networks also help define the areas of highest
risk for victimization by serial murderers. Such places include urban subcul-
ture domains (e.g., bars, red-light districts), isolated landscapes (e.g., parking
lots, jogging paths), neighbourhoods of the elderly or poor, skid rows, and
university campuses. Hickey (1997) found that some serial murderers
attacked only females or males, but many targeted either sex. Most victims
are strangers but family members and acquaintances are not immune. Two-
thirds of serial murder victims are preyed upon by someone from their own
(usually urban) community. Death is usually from strangulation or beating.

Victim choice may provide insights to the nature of the offender, and

detailed victimology is one of the key information requirements in the crim-
inal profiling process (Douglas, Ressler, Burgess, & Hartman, 1986; Holmes
& Holmes, 1996). The victim is often symbolic and may remind the killer of
someone from their past.

12

 Particular victim appearances, specific actions, or

the elicitation of certain responses may trigger a murderous reaction from
the offender. “The plan or fantasy constructed earlier [by the killer] may call

12 

One study of sexually sadistic criminals, however, found only 17% (5) of the 30 cases

involved a victim that resembled someone of psychological significance to the offender
(Dietz et al., 1990).

© 2000 by CRC Press LLC

for a victim who meets certain criteria, and many murderers have been
known to seek out a victim who is exactly right for the fantasy” (Ressler et
al., 1988, p. 50). Several of the sexual murderers in the FBI study admitted
they hunted nightly for victims,

13

 though the proper circumstances for an

attack only arose occasionally.

Some serial murderers have specific and articulated victim criteria. Joel

Rifkin, who strangled 17 street prostitutes in New York, confessed to driving
around for hours, circling the red-light strolls of Lower Manhattan in a search
for just the right type of woman — petite, with straight dark hair and sexy
jewelry (Pulitzer & Swirsky, 1994a). He only killed those who accepted money
for sex and then did something to anger him. Robert Hansen, Alaska’s worst
serial killer, had three triggering requirements. Victims had to approach him
for sex, refuse to do a requested sexual act, and then try to escape (Du Clos,
1993; Gilmour & Hale, 1991; Pulitzer & Swirsky, 1994b).

By comparison, Clifford Olson varied both the age and sex of his victims

(Ferry & Inwood, 1982; Mulgrew, 1990). He picked up potential victims at
bus stops, offered them jobs, and enticed them into his car through beguile-
ment and seduction (Worthington, 1993). Some he drove home, others he
sexually assaulted or even murdered. Olson himself does not seem to know
why he killed those he did; on one occasion he stated he murdered so the
victim would not report the sex assault to the police, and on another he
blamed his use of alcohol and pills.

Victim selection may depend upon serial murder type because of varia-

tions in offender motivation (Holmes & Holmes, 1996). Nonspecific victim
selection is associated with the visionary serial murder type, known victims
with visionary and comfort killers, and relational victims with comfort serial
murderers. Barrett (1990) observes that over time serial killers become less
selective as they become constrained by victim availability.

In an excerpt from an interview with a convicted serial murderer, Holmes

and Holmes (1996) presents an offender’s perspective on the issue of victim
selection:

The traditional school of thought has it that serial murderers, on the whole,
select their victims on the basis of certain physical and/or personal charac-
teristics … male or female, black or white, young or old, short or tall, large-
busted or small, shy or forward, and so on. … [W]hen a typical serial killer
begins an active search for human prey, he will go to great lengths to capture
and victimize only those individuals who closely fit the mold of his preferred
“ideal.”

13 

See the discussion in Ressler and Shachtman (1992) on the hunting behaviour of David

Berkowitz, the Son of Sam.

© 2000 by CRC Press LLC

I am personally convinced that every serial killer does indeed nurture a
rather clear mental picture of his own ideal victim ... Notwithstanding this
point, however, I strongly believe that in the case of most serial killers, the
physical and personal characteristics of those on their respective list of
victims only infrequently coincide with the desired traits of their imagined
“ideal”...

There are two basic, interrelated reasons for this disparity. The first centers
upon the extreme caution exercised by a serial killer in his predatory search
for a victim; the second, upon the nature of the compulsion that drives him
to violence .... This unremitting sense of caution has direct ramification on
victim selection in that, during the course of his search for human prey, a
serial killer is seldom apt to find his preferred ideal victim in a position of
safe and easy capture. In truth, it is a difficult and time-consuming task to
locate any potential victim who can be readily seized without risk of detec-
tion.... A serial killer could, of course, bide his time. He could reject all other
easy prey until, at last, his ideal victim appeared in circumstances perfectly
suited to his caution. In actual practice, however, he rarely will choose to
wait very long.

Why is this so? Because as the second reason given earlier, the nature of a
serial murderer’s compulsion for violence is such that it precludes any
prolonged or self-imposed delay in acting out his brutal urges. Initially, he
may have set out fully determined to succeed at capturing his ideal victim
… But, as time passes without his promptly accomplishing this specific end
— a common occurrence within his many hunts … his intense and mount-
ing hunger for real life violence against a real life captive inevitably compels
him to settle for any soonest-available victim of opportunity. (pp. 69–70)

As suggested by this offender, target choice is not just determined by

fantasy and psychological pathology; it is also influenced by such factors as
victim availability and attack opportunity (Jenkins, 1993b). By definition, a
serial killer must have been responsible for at least three separate acts of
homicide, and to achieve this status a criminal needs to escape apprehension.
Consequently, murderers who prey on “easy victims” whose actions make
them easy targets and whose lifestyle socially marginalizes them, are more
likely to be repeatedly successful (Cleary, Klein, & Luxenburg, 1994). Egger
(1998) refers to these victims as the “less-dead” — the prostitutes, street
people, runaways, homosexuals, and elderly who are society’s throwaways.
Opportunity is thus important in understanding and explaining patterns of
victimization. “Fashions in multiple homicide appear to change over time in
ways that reflect changes in potential victim populations .... Victimological
factors can ... [also] go far toward accounting for distribution by place and
region” (Jenkins, pp. 471–472).