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

© 2000 by CRC Press LLC

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 pos-
sessed specific traits of interest to the offender. It would appear the “random-
ness” 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 origi-
nally 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.

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)

Table 9.5    Serial Murder Victim Data (continued)

Characteristic

Results

© 2000 by CRC Press LLC

The raptor approach was the most common attack method. Ambushes

were primarily associated with either hunting or poaching search behaviour.
There were no instances of victims being stalked (as defined in the hunting
typology) prior to attack,

53

 despite commentary that serial and lust killers

often engage in elaborate stalking as part of their careful, pre-crime planning
(Holmes, 1991; Norris, 1988). Keeney and Heide (1994c) found little evidence
of stalking behaviour on the part of female serial murderers, though over one
third of the women in their study aggressively procured or lured victims.

Multiple responses were allowed for victim activity, and 225 actions were

recorded. Disturbingly, almost one-third of the victims in this sample were
attacked within their homes.

54

 Other common activities included walking or

jogging, and prostitution. Not quite three quarters of the victims were
females. Multiple responses were allowed for control and murder methods,
and 201 and 210 responses, respectively, were recorded. Over half of the
victims were controlled through an immediate and deadly blitz attack. Stran-
gulation was the preferred method of murder. Only one-quarter of the vic-
tims’ bodies were well hidden by the killer.

9.4.3 Locations

A breakdown of characteristics for the 347 crime locations in the data set is
given in

 Table 9.6

. Percentages and frequencies, or means, are used as appro-

priate.

55

 This is a summary of the information collected in the 

Data Coding

Form #3: Serial Murder Locations

 (see Appendix B for the data coding form).

Information regarding offence weekday and distance from offender residence
to crime site (measured on a Manhattan metric) is also presented.

The crime location type counts are based on all 347 offence locations.

The rest of 

Table 9.6

 is based on 320 crime locations (those sites connected

to same-incident secondary victims were excluded). Day of week is deter-
mined only from the encounter site dates. The other characteristics are pre-
sented for victim encounter sites, body dump sites, and all sites. For this
purpose, the following crime locations types are classified as victim encounter
sites (a total of 155 locations): (1) encounter; (2) encounter/attack;
(3) encounter/attack/murder; and (4) encounter/attack/murder/body dump.
The following crime locations types are classified as body dump sites (a total

53 

Stalking behaviour has been observed in cases of serial rape. The determination of victim

routine activity overlaps to identify common ground or “fishing holes” used by the offender
is a viable line of police inquiry.

54 

Schlesinger and Revitch (1999) found 53.7% of the sexual homicide victims (n=106) they

examined were murdered within their residence. In the FBI rape study, 64% of the encounter
sites were at the victim’s home or workplace, and 70% were indoors (Warren et al., 1995);
only 15% of the crimes involved transportation. Offenders who primarily raped indoors
tended to be more selective in choice of victim.

55 

Percentages may add to more than 100 because of multiple responses.

© 2000 by CRC Press LLC

Table 9.6    Serial Murder Location Data 

Characteristic

Results

Crime Location Type

Encounter Site

27.7% (96)

Encounter/Attack Site

2.3% (8)

Encounter/Attack/Murder Site

1.4% (5)

Encounter/Attack/Murder/Body 

Dump Site

19.9% (69)

Attack Site

1.7% (6)

Attack/Murder Site

11.0% (38)

Attack/Murder/Body Dump Site

15.0% (52)

Murder Site

2.6% (9)

Murder/Body Dump Site

1.4% (5)

Body Dump Site

13.5% (47)

Body Dump/Vehicle Drop Site

0.9% (3)

Vehicle Drop Site

2.3% (8)

Found Evidence Site

0.3% (1)

Day of Week

Encounter Sites

Monday

12.9% (20)

Tuesday

10.3% (16)

Wednesday

8.4% (13)

Thursday

16.8% (26)

Friday

7.7% (12)

Saturday

16.1% (25)

Sunday

23.2% (36)

Unknown

4.5% (7)

Distance to Crime Site

Encounter

Body Dump

All Sites

Number of Crimes Sites

155

104

320

Mean Distance

21.8 km

33.7 km

25.8 km

0 Kilometres

1.3% (2)

16.3% (17)

11.9% (38)

0.1 — 1.0 kilometres

7.1% (11)

1.0% (1)

4.4% (14)

1.1 — 5.0 kilometres

14.8% (23)

2.9% (3)

8.8% (28)

5.1 — 10.0 kilometres

11.6% (18)

13.5% (14)

10.3% (33)

10.1 — 15.0 kilometres

15.5% (24)

5.8% (6)

9.4% (30)

15.1 — 20.0 kilometres

4.5% (7)

4.8% (5)

4.4% (14)

20.1 — 50.0 kilometres

34.2% (53)

29.8% (31)

29.1% (93)

Over 50 kilometres

5.2% (8)

20.2% (21)

10.6% (34)

Unknown

5.8% (9)

5.8% (6)

11.3% (36)

Crime Location Known to Police

Encounter

Body Dump

All Sites

Yes

70.3% (109)

67.3% (70)

60.9% (195)

No

29.7% (46)

32.7% (34)

39.1% (125)

© 2000 by CRC Press LLC

Area Land Use

Encounter

Body Dump

All Sites

Residential

45.8% (71)

45.2% (47)

45% (144)

Commercial

43.2% (67)

3.8% (4)

24.4% (78)

Industrial

0% (0)

5.8% (6)

3.4% (11)

Institutional

3.2% (5)

1.0% (1)

1.9% (6)

Park

1.3% (2)

5.8% (6)

2.5% (8)

Rural or Agricultural

0.6% (1)

12.5% (13)

5.3% (17)

Wilderness or Uninhabited

1.3% (2)

21.2% (22)

9.1% (29)

Unknown

4.5% (7)

4.8% (5)

8.4% (27)

Site Description

Encounter

Body Dump

All Sites

Residence

29% (45)

17.3% (18)

27.2% (87)

Hotel or Motel

0.6% (1)

0% (0)

1.3% (4)

Public Building

1.3% (2)

0% (0)

0.6% (2)

School or Educational

0.6% (1)

0% (0)

0.3% (1)

Business or Shopping Site

11% (17)

1.0% (1)

7.8% (25)

Entertainment Site

5.8% (9)

0% (0)

2.8% (9)

Red-Light Zone

23.2% (36)

0% (0)

11.3% (36)

Vehicle

6.5% (10)

5.8% (6)

11.6% (37)

Public Transportation

10.3% (16)

1.0% (1)

5.3% (17)

Private Yard

1.3% (2)

5.8% (6)

2.5% (8)

Parking Lot

3.9% (6)

2.9% (3)

3.4% (11)

Street or Sidewalk

51% (79)

16.3% (17)

34.7% (111)

Alley, Lane, Pathway, or Trail

0.6% (1)

11.5% (12)

5.3% (17)

Highway or Ditch

5.8% (9)

3.8% (4)

5.6% (18)

Park

1.9% (3)

6.7% (7)

3.1% (10)

Farm, Field, or Open Area

0% (0)

11.5% (12)

4.1% (13)

River, Lake, or Marsh

0% (0)

20.2% (21)

7.2% (23)

Forest or Woods

0.6% (1)

21.2% (22)

8.4% (27)

Hills or Mountains

0% (0)

4.8% (5)

1.6% (5)

Desert or Wasteland

0% (0)

3.8% (4)

1.3% (4)

Other

0% (0)

4.8% (5)

2.5% (8)

Unknown

0% (0)

0% (0)

0.9% (3)

Site Classification

Encounter

Body Dump

All Sites

Inside Private

27.7% (43)

15.4% (16)

27.2% (87)

Inside Semi-Public

7.1% (11)

0% (0)

3.4% (11)

Inside Public

2.6% (4)

0% (0)

1.3% (4)

Outside Private

1.3% (2)

3.8% (4)

2.2% (7)

Outside Semi-Public

0% (0)

6.7% (7)

2.5% (8)

Outside Public

61.3% (95)

73.1% (76)

62.5% (200)

Unknown

0% (0)

1.0% (1)

0.9% (3)

Table 9.6    Serial Murder Location Data (continued)

© 2000 by CRC Press LLC

of 104 locations): (1) attack/murder/body dump; (2) murder/body dump;
(3) body dump; and (4) body dump/vehicle drop.

Figure 9.3

 shows serial murder incidents by day of week (based on

encounter site date). Almost 40% of the cases occurred on the weekend as
evidenced by the Saturday/Sunday bulge in the radar chart. Consistent with
the routine activity approach, this finding is explained both by the greater
opportunity an offender has to hunt during the weekend, and by the
increased availability of victims.

56

The valid percentages of cases falling into various distance-to-crime site

ranges are shown in 

Figure 9.4

.

57

 Excluding those cases where the offender

kept the victim’s remains at home, body dump sites tend to be located further
than victim encounter sites from the killer’s residence. This is probably the
result of two factors. First, it appears that victim search activity occurs fre-
quently while body disposal happens infrequently (see the case synopsis for
Clifford Olson, for example). Second, optimal body disposal sites are often
situated in uninhabited regions located some distance from urban areas.

The mean distance ratio between body dump and encounter sites is 11.6

(standard deviation = 25.9).

58

 Ratios less than one usually involve incidents

in which an attempt was made to hide the body. There is some relationship
between this ratio and the distance from offender residence to encounter site.
If the latter is less than 1.0 kilometres, then the mean distance ratio is 26.0; 

Killer Travel Method

Encounter

Body Dump

All Sites

Vehicle

81.9% (127)

78.8% (82)

83.4% (267)

Public Transportation

8.4% (13)

6.7% (7)

7.2% (23)

On Foot

7.7% (12)

13.5% (14)

8.1% (26)

Other

1.3% (2)

0% (0)

0.6% (2)

Unknown

0.6% (1)

1.0% (1)

0.6% (2)

Victim or Killer Residence

Encounter

Body Dump

All Sites

Killer Residence

1.3% (2)

16.3% (17)

11.9% (38)

Victim Residence

25.2% (39)

1.9% (2)

12.8% (41)

Both

0% (0)

0% (0)

0% (0)

Neither

73.5% (114)

81.7% (85)

74.1% (237)

Unknown

0% (0)

0% (0)

1.3% (4)

56 

Warren et al. (1995) found no difference in serial rape occurrence by day of week, but did

observe larger hunting areas associated to weekend offenders. Such a result is consistent
with the greater victim search opportunities available to employed offenders on Saturdays
and Sundays.

57 

Outliers were excluded.

58 

A crime was excluded if either the victim encounter or body dump occured at the

offender’s residence.

Table 9.6    Serial Murder Location Data (continued)