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

© 2000 by CRC Press LLC

Serial Murder

2.1 Serial Murder

When the throat of Victorian prostitute Polly Nichols was slashed in Buck’s
Row on Bank Holiday, August 31, 1888, serial murder became part of our
cultural lexicon (Rumbelow, 1988). Jack the Ripper was certainly not the first
nor last of his type, but the unsolved mystery of the Whitechapel murders
still symbolizes our inability to understand these dangerous predators. Serial
murder is a frightening and perplexing phenomenon that has proven to be
a difficult puzzle for both criminal investigators and criminological research-
ers. Despite being a rare event, this crime has a broad-based impact on the
larger community (Jenkins, 1992a; Silverman & Kennedy, 1993). Fear, shock,
repugnance, scientific curiosity, and morbid fascination are all common
reactions to such cases (see Dietz, 1995). There are also growing concerns
about the increase in the prevalence of these dangerous predators. It has even
been suggested that serial killers are the quintessential criminal of a violent,
postmodern society (Carputi, 1990; Richter, 1989; see Ellis, 1991; Kerr, 1992).

Adequate definitions and typologies are necessary for the study of any

phenomenon. Serial murder means different things to different people, and
the label risks lumping a diverse group of offenders into a single synthetic
category. As Clifford Robert Olson, Canada’s most infamous serial murderer,
aptly states (uncorrected quotation): “We cant look into other serial killers
minds as to what they do unless they allow to give there thoughts and views,
You dont find many that have done this any place” (personal communication,
September 10, 1991). The thoughts of interviewed serial killers show just as
many differences as they do commonalities.

Murder, abhorrent as it may be, is still possible to understand. Feelings of

anger, betrayal, and frustration; motives of revenge, money, and expediency;

2

© 2000 by CRC Press LLC

assaults that cross the line between injury and death — all these are within the
scope of our imagination. Indeed, it has been said that almost anyone is a
potential killer. Serial murder, however, is beyond our normal range of expe-
rience. It is what the ghost of Hamlet’s father describes as “foul and most
unnatural murder.” Unfortunately, this strangeness does not facilitate efforts
to explain, predict, and prevent.

2.1.1 Definitions and Typologies

Patterns of murders committed by one person, in large numbers with no
apparent rhyme, reason, or motivation.

— Title of hearings before the U.S. Senate, 98

th

 Congress, on the issue of

serial murder; 

Patterns of Murders

, 1983

Defining serial murder is less than straightforward and attempts to dis-

tinguish and classify the phenomenon are often inconsistent. The label mul-
tiple murder

2

 is generally used to refer to mass, spree, and serial murders.

Time interval between separate offences is the most common variable used
to distinguish these groupings (Holmes & De Burger, 1988). Mass murder
involves those incidents where several victims are killed simultaneously, or
within a relatively brief time period — a “sustained burst” (Leyton, 1986).
Holmes and De Burger (1988) define mass murder as “the slaying of several
people, in the same general area, at roughly the same time, by a lone assailant”
(p. 18).

Spree killings, an intermediate classification between mass and serial

murder, involve those incidents where several victims, usually selected ran-
domly, are killed over a relatively short period (hours to weeks) by a reckless,
impulsive assailant (Holmes & De Burger, 1988). The Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) defines spree murders as those characterized by “killing
at two or more locations with no emotional cooling-off period between
murders. The killings are all the result of a single event, which can be of short
or long duration” (Ressler et al., 1988, p. 139).

Definitions of serial murder are more problematic as the time periods

involved are greater. Brooks, Devine, Green, Hart, and Moore (1987) provide
the following definition of serial murder:

Serial murder is defined as a series of two or more murders, committed as
separate events, usually, but not always, by one offender acting alone. The
crimes may occur over a period of time ranging from hours to years. Quite

2 

The term multicide has also been used to refer to instances where an offender kills more

than one victim (Dickson, 1958).

© 2000 by CRC Press LLC

often the motive is psychological, and the offender’s behavior and the phys-
ical evidence observed at the crime scenes will reflect sadistic, sexual over-
tones. (p. vii)

Keeney and Heide (1994a) review and criticize ten different definitions

for serial murder from the literature, and then suggest an eleventh, more
inclusive, description. Perhaps the simplest and most functional definition
is the one used by the FBI:

Serial murderers are involved in three or more separate events with an

emotional cooling-off period between homicides. This type of killer usually
premeditates his crimes, often fantasizing and planning the murder in every
aspect, with the possible exception of the specific victim. Then, when the
time is right for him and he has cooled off from his last homicide, he selects
his next victim and proceeds with his plan. The cool-off period can be days,
weeks, or months and is the main element that separates the serial killer from
other multiple killers. (Ressler et al., 1988, p. 139)

Other researchers have proposed replacing counts of crime with an

assessment of propensity to re-offend (Kocsis & Irwin, 1998; see below).
Holmes and De Burger (1988) suggest the following elements as central to
serial murder: (1) a pattern of repetitive homicide; (2) one victim and one
assailant per murder event; (3) victim and perpetrator are strangers or slight
acquaintances; (4) murders are psychogenic in origin; and (5) a lack of an
obvious motive (though intrinsic motives, nonrational to an outsider, may
exist).

The condition of one victim and one assailant per murder event are not

central elements of serial murder. There is no shortage of cases involving
incidents of more than one victim per attack (Kenneth Bianchi, Edmund
Kemper III, and Richard Ramirez, for example). And four separate studies
have determined multiple offenders are involved in a significant percentage
of serial murder cases: (1) 14% (Hickey, 1997); (2) 21% (Jenkins, 1990); (3)
11.9% (Rossmo, 1995a); and (4) 25% (Simonetti, 1984). These estimates
suggest that over one quarter of serial killers operate as teams or in groups
(e.g., 28% in Hickey’s study), though Newton (1992) found 87% of the
American serial killers in his sample were “lone wolves.”

Holmes and De Burger (1988) divide serial murderers into four catego-

ries (one of which is broken down into three subcategories) according to
motive, pattern of homicidal behaviour, and decision-making process. This
grouping is based on such variables as victim selection, choice of murder
location, and method of killing. They derived their classification from an
analysis of the crime behaviour patterns of 110 serial murderers, using inter-
view and biographical data, court transcripts, case studies, and clinical
reports as information sources. Their schema is as follows.

© 2000 by CRC Press LLC

1. Visionary motive serial murderers hear messages and see visions that

create a “rationale” for the killings.

2. Mission-oriented motive serial murderers believe that they have a task

to accomplish, involving the elimination of some “sinful” group such
as prostitutes from society.

3. Hedonistic motive serial murderers derive pleasure from the homi-

cidal act. This type is subdivided into: (1) lust killers, who typically
indulge in sexual sadism, anthropophagy, piquerism, or necrophilia;
(2) thrill killers, who enjoy the “high” of murder; and (3) comfort
killers, who are oriented towards enjoying life, a goal facilitated
through the use of someone else’s money (e.g., “black widow”
murderers).

4. Power/control-oriented motive serial murderers seek dominance over

others. Control of a person’s life and death is seen as the ultimate act
of power.

Barrett (1990) proposes a five-category scheme for classifying serial mur-

derers by motive, based on a cross between the Holmes and De Burger
typology, and the FBI system for classifying serial rapists (Hazelwood, 1995):
(1) the visionary serial killer; (2) the revenge serial killer; (3) the anger
excitation serial killer; (4) the power assertive serial killer; and (5) the oppor-
tunist serial killer. Fox and Levin (1992) also propose a modified Holmes
and De Burger typology, with three categories, each with two subtypes: (1)
thrill serial killers — (a) sexual sadism, (b) dominance; (2) mission serial
killers — (a) reformist, (b) visionary; and (3) expedience serial killers — (a)
profit, (b) protection. They note thrill killings are the most common, and
expedience killings the least common types. Rappaport (1988) divides serial
killers into functionaries of organized crime groups, custodial poisoners and
asphyxiators, psychotics, and sexual sadists. This grouping is somewhat con-
fusing, however, as it is based on a mixture of method and cause.

Serial murder definitions and taxonomies are problematic because of

ambiguities concerning victim number and temporal spacing.

3

 Some types

of multiple murder — the Nazi concentration camp massacres, ethnic cleans-
ing, political terrorism killings, and organized crime contract executions —
cannot be accurately classified within these parameters (Levin & Fox, 1985;
Leyton, 1986; see Dillon, 1989). In Pennsylvania, there is a town square
monument to Tom Quick, the celebrated Delaware “Indian Slayer,” who was
responsible for 99 kills (Randall, 1988). Yet many of these deaths were legally
murders, occurring after the signing of peace treaties. By some definitions,

3 

See Ball and Curry (1995) for a discussion of the logic, methods, and errors of definition

within criminology.

© 2000 by CRC Press LLC

Tom Quick was a Colonial frontier hero; by others, he was one of America’s
earliest serial killers.

A nurse who poisons a number of patients within the same hospital over

several months would likely be classified as a serial killer, even though the
crimes all occurred in one location (Leyton, 1986). Cases of random mass
poisonings, such as the 1982 Chicago Tylenol tamperings, are even more
complicated to categorize (Levin & Fox, 1985). If several people die over an
extended period of time and in different geographic locations as the result
of a single episode of tampering, are they the victims of a mass or serial killer?
Most typologies of human behaviour lack inclusiveness and category mutual
exclusivity. Despite their grey areas, they can be helpful for understanding
variations in offender behaviour.

The 

Crime Classification Manual

 (CCM) is the first attempt to develop

a comprehensive diagnostic system, using standardized terminology, to clas-
sify offence and offender characteristics for the crimes of murder, sexual
assault, and arson (Douglas, Burgess, Burgess, & Ressler, 1992a). The result
of a research project conducted by the National Center for the Analysis of
Violent Crime at the FBI Academy, the CCM was designed to assist police
investigations, facilitate research, and improve communication between
criminal justice and mental health experts. It is modeled on the American
Psychiatric Association’s 

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disor-

ders

, and uses subcategories of Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) definitions

based on four types of primary criminal intent: (1) criminal enterprise;
(2) personal cause; (3) sexual intent; and (4) group cause. Classification
variables include modus operandi, weapon use, victimology, physical evi-
dence, autopsy results, and similar factors. The CCM provides investigative
questions and considerations for each crime subtype. While it is a useful step,
the CCM has been criticized for being atheoretical and lacking empirical
verification of its category structure.

2.1.1.1

Characteristics

From a study of 42 mass and serial killers and FBI data on simultaneous
homicides, Levin and Fox (1985) constructed profiles of the typical multiple
murderer. Such killers are most often white males in their late twenties to
early thirties. Rarely psychotic, they are more ordinary in background,
appearance, and personality than anything else. The murderous act is usually
precipitated by a period of frustration and then triggered by some particular
event.

Levin and Fox (1985) note that while half of the single victim homicides

in America involve black offenders, only 20% of the multiple murders in
their study (U.S. cases from 1974 to 1979) had a black perpetrator — con-
siderably closer to the 11.7% actual racial composition of blacks in the U.S.