10922, 1235 PM EBSCOhosthttpsweb.s.ebscohost.comeho.docx

10/9/22, 12:35 PM EBSCOhost
https://web.s.ebscohost.com/ehost/delivery?sid=8852739e-b077-
4f08-9f4a-
7b8ed5056ac0%40redis&vid=1&ReturnUrl=https%3a%2f%2fwe
b.s.ebsco… 1/14
Title:
Authors:
Source:
Document Type:
Subject Terms:
Abstract:
Full Text Word Count:
ISSN:
Accession Number:
Database:
Record: 1
Understanding mass murder: A starting point.
Holmes, R.M.

Holmes, S.T.
Federal Probation. Mar92, Vol. 56 Issue 1, p53. 9p. 2 Charts.
Article
*MURDER
Examines the nature and causes of mass murder. Questions as to
what
mass murder is; Differences between mass and serial murder;
Classification of mass murder ; Behavioral background: basic
sources;
Typology of mass murder; The family annihilator; Disgruntled
employees; Set-and-run killers; Conclusion; More.
5824
0014-9128
9205184279
Academic Search Complete
UNDERSTANDING MASS MURDER: A STARTING POINT
There is a great deal of misunderstanding about mass murder.
Often, the terms mass murder, serial murder,
and spree murder are used interchangeably. But there are
fundamental differences in these three forms of
"multicide," the killing of three or more victims. Motivation,
anticipated gains, selection of victims, methods of
murder, and other important elements are unique to each type.
Here, one type of multicide--mass murder--is
examined.

What is Mass Murder?
Obviously, the complexities of mass murder cannot be
explained in a simple definition. However, briefly stated,
mass murder is the killing of a number of persons at one time
and in one place. What constitutes "a number of
persons," however, has been the topic of debate. Although some
authorities have stipulated four as the
minimum number of victims necessary for an incident to be
called a mass murder (Hazelwood & Douglas,
1980), others have set the number at three (Holmes and
DeBurger, 1985, 1988; Hickey, 1991). Dietz also
offers the number three ". . . if we define mass murder as the
wilful injuring of five or more persons of whom
three or more are killed by a single offender in a single
incident" (1986, p. 480).
The concern with numbers becomes complicated when injured
victims are factored into the definition. Of
course, if only two persons are killed and 30 are saved by the
heroic actions of medical personnel, is this not
also a mass murder? One can see the danger of limiting the
definition to the number of victims killed.
Time is another critical element in the basic definition of mass
murder. Typically, mass murder is a single
episodic act of violence, occurring "at one time and in one
place." One such case occurred at a McDonald's
restaurant in San Ysidro, California. The victims, 40 in all (21
died), just happened to be in the "one place," the
restaurant. Many similar situations have occurred. However, one
must recognize that incidents may occur at
slightly different times, say minutes or even a few hours apart,
and also at different locales, perhaps only a few

4f08-9f4a-
b.s.ebsco… 2/14
blocks away, and still constitute mass murder. For example, a
mass murderer may go into a business
establishment and kill several customers and then go across
town and kill another person. This must be
considered a single act of mass murder despite the slightly
varying times and locations.
Thus, a definition of mass murder should take into
consideration 1) the number of victims, 2) the location of the
murders, 3) the time of the killings, and 4) the possibility of
distance between murder sites. These components
become vitally important when differentiating between mass
murder, serial murder, and spree murder. The
determination of the type of homicide holds the key to
understanding the character of the person who would
commit such an act and enables law enforcement to put into
motion the procedures and protocol called for in
such a situation.
No matter how you define it, mass murder is neither an
American nor a modern phenomenon. Cases
spreading across history depict acts of mass murder. In recent
times, however, mass murder seems to be on
the increase--or is it? It may seem that such crimes have
escalated because of the manner in which they are
currently detected and reported. Table 1--which shows the
names, locations, and number of victims of mass
killers in the past 50 years in the United States--gives some idea
of the magnitude of mass murder.

Differences Between Mass and Serial Murder
There are significant differences between mass and serial
killers. One difference is that mass murderers often
die at the scene of the multiple slayings. They either commit
suicide or place themselves in situations where
they "force" the police to take lethal action. Only occasionally
do they turn themselves into the police after the
deed is done. Serial killers, on the other hand, take great pains
to avoid detection and take elaborate measures
to elude apprehension.
Community reaction to the two types of murders is also
different. Typically when a mass murder occurs, the
immediate community, as well as the rest of the nation, is
alerted to the event and shocked by it. The
community's panic is direct and severe but short-lived in that
the mass murder is almost always either
apprehended immediately or winds up dead. Shortly the social
climate returns to what is was before the
incident. Such is not the case with serial murder. The terror
instilled by a serial murderer permeates the
community's consciousness. There is no perceived end to the
situation--it only ends when the killer is
apprehended. Such situation existed in Seattle, which was
terrorized for more than a decade by the Green
River Killer, who murdered 49 women--some prostitutes, some
not--and remained unapprehended. The news
media recently reported that the Green River Killer may have
returned to Seattle. Forty more victims--a
quantity similar to the number originally attributed to this
killer--have been found. The community's fears remain
unassuaged. The mass murderer is often painted as a demented,
mentally ill person. People interviewed on
TV after the fact of a mass murder will make such statements as
the killer had been seeing a mental health

professional, had been on medication, or had been threatening
fellow employees. In other words, the killer was
displaying certain signs that should have made him or her
detectable had society used appropriate expertise
and resources to do so. The serial murderer, on the other hand,
gives no such clues. Ted Bundy, Gerald Stano,
Randy Craft, one and all, were not easily discernable serial
killers. They walked into the lives of many, often
invited, and fatally dispatched them with little concern. Serial
killers generate a social paranoia that mass
murderers do not; people feel a personal vulnerability when a
serial killer is at large.
Surrette (1992) discusses two types of social behavior: front
stage and back stage. Front stage behavior is that
which is public and displayed to others. The mass murderer has
often been judged in an ex post facto manner
4f08-9f4a-
b.s.ebsco… 3/14
as angry, raging with outward-directed hatred, or displaying
other behaviors which those who bother to notice
would see as certainly atypical. Those interviewed after the
recent mass slaying in Killeen, Texas, all saw the
killer as an angry and hostile person. One survivor of the
Wesbecker killings in Louisville, Kentucky, upon
hearing what were simply loud and unusual sounds, remarked,
"I bet that's crazy Joe Wesbecker coming back
to kill us all." Another employee in the plant said Wesbecker

told him of a plan to arm a model airplane and fly
it into the plant,exploding it once it was inside (Yates, 1992).
This is front stage behavior typical of mass
murderers.
The front stage behavior of serial killers is typically a "normal"
picture of societal adjustment: The person
functions as a law student, the owner of a construction
company, a social worker, or an engineer. But the
secret behavior--the back stage behavior--is something only the
victim sees. It is the early detection of the front
stage behavior of the mass killer that may alert to the
catastrophic back stage behavior which may follow.
Classification of Mass Murder
As with many forms of human conduct and behaviors,
sociologists and other social and behavioral scientists
have taken it upon themselves to organize mass murder into
social constructs. Such constructs are often
based upon behavioral dynamics, motivation, victim
characteristics and selection methodologies, loci of
motivations, and anticipated rewards. This methodology was
used by Holmes and DeBurger in their
development of a typology of various types of serial killers
(1988, pp. 46-60). This typology has been widely
cited as an instrument for analysis and discussion and will be
employed here.
Behavioral Background: Basic Sources
The exact etiology of the mass murderer is unclear. As it is true
that mass murderers are different from, serial
killers, it is true that the root causes of such personalities are
also different. It is the unique combination of the
biology, the sociology, and the personal psychology of an
individual which accounts for the personality and thus
the behavior of an individual.

No one factor causes a person to become a mass murderer. The
total personality of multicidal offenders
cannot easily be explained by simple biological inherirance
(Hickey, 1991). Moreover, brain disorders, a blow to
the head (Norris, 1988), or simple chemistry cannot totally
explain behavior (Podolsky, 1964). The same is true
of sociogenic factors. The root causes of delinquency, which
many held dear in the 1960's--poverty, female-
headed families, etc.--do not explain mass murder any more
than they explained delinquency. If these factors
were direct causative factors, then all who experienced poverty
as a child or who were raised in a home with
an absent father or father-figure would become delinquent.
Holmes and DeBurger relate:
"Bad" neighborhoods, economic stress, family instability, and
violence in the culture do not directly produce
serial murderers. Out of a cohort that experiences the worst
possible combinations of social stresses, relatively
few will engage in outright criminal behavior and fewer still
will become homicidal . . . . (1988, p. 48)
Another important distinction regarding mass and serial killers
is that, based on the analysis of more than 400
cases of serial murder, there is overwhelming evidence that
serial murderers do not wish to be apprehended.
They wish to continue their killings for whatever motivation
impels them to do so. Very few surrender
themselves to the police. Edmund Kemper is an exception to the
rule. He said that "the killings had to stop"
(HBO, Murder No Apparent Motive). Kemper killed his mother
in California one day, her friend the next day,
and then drove to Colorado. He turned himself in to the police
after driving back to California. Such behavior is
unlike that of all other known serial killers. As for the mass

murderer, apprehension is not an issue. The mass
4f08-9f4a-
b.s.ebsco… 4/14
murderer has no intent to kill again unless he is a revenge or
mercenary type of mass killer. As mentioned
earlier, most of the time the mass murderer will be willing to
die at the scene of the crime, either committing
suicide or forcing those in authority to kill him.
Victim Characteristics
Victim traits do not appear to be a crucial element in mass
murder. The victim is in the wrong place at the
wrong time. The customers at the McDonald's restaurant had no
role in the Huberty mass murder scene other
than simply being there. The victims of the Tylenol killer
shared no common trait other than buying a particular
brand of medicine at varied and unrelated stores.
Motivation
Another element used to categorize mass murderers is
motivation. What is the motivation for a person to
commit such an act of human atrocity as the murder of a large
number of people? This is not an easy question
to adequately address. A partial answer lies in the location of
motivation, either intrinsic or extrinsic. For
example, is there something deep within the person, something
over which the person has no control? This is
a common theme often heard in interviews with multicidal

offenders, e.g., serial killers. They identify an "entity"
within their personality, an entity which impels them to kill.
This entity is a small part of the serial killer's
personality, but this one percent can take over the other 99
percent (Michaud & Aynesworth, 1983). Such
phenomenon does not appear to be true with mass murderers.
More likely the motivation rests outside the individual,
something which commands to kill. For example,
Charles Manson commanded Tex Watson, Susan Atkins, Leslie
Van Houten, and Patricia Krenwinkel one night
to kill Sharon Tate, Steven Parent, Abigail Folger, Voytek
Frykowski, and Jay Sebring, and Leno and Rosemary
LaBianca the second night. This instruction to kill rested
outside the personalities of the killers themselves;
Manson served as the motivational locus.
With James Huberty the motivation to kill rested within Huberty
himself. For a myriad of reasons ranging
perhaps from occupational and social class frustrations to other
stresses, he killed--not because someone
commanded him to, but because he believed that society was
operating against him, and he was reacting to
the injustices he perceived in society.
Anticipated Gain
The anticipated gains are also something to consider in any
typology. What is the person to realize from his
personal behavior? Is it revenge at a former supervisor in the
workplace for giving a poor job performance
rating (Wesbecker)? Is it to acquire a monetary reward by
setting a fire in a business building? Clearly, the
anticipated gains here are entirely different. The results,
however, are the same: the deaths of a number of
innocent persons. The gains are either expressive
(psychological) gains or instrumental (material) gains.

Examination of perceived gains is important in the
consideration of the type of mass killer, not only from a law
enforcement point of view, but from a social/behavioral
perspective as well.
Spatial Mobility
Much has been discussed about geographical mobility as a trait
of serial killers. Spatial mobility was a
significant factor in Holmes and DeBurger's development of the
four types of serial killers: Visonary, Mission,
Hedonistic, and Power/Control (Holmes & DeBurger, 1985).
However, spatial mobility as related to victim
selection does not play a critical role in mass murder. Unless
the person is involved in mass murder for pay,
4f08-9f4a-
b.s.ebsco… 5/14
e.g., an arsonist who is compensated by others to set fires for
the personal profit of a business, most mass
murderers are geographically stable.
One exception to spatial mobility is the Disciple Killer. Falling
under the spell of a charismatic leader, these
mass killers are often runaways or castoffs from a family. They
are not necessarily indigenous to the area
where they fall under the spell of their leader. However, the
domicile is often semi-permanent, and the victims
unfortunately live in the same locale as the killers and their
leader.

Typology of Mass Murder
The development of a typology of mass murderers is an arduous
task. The first decision, discussed earlier,
concerns what is the base number of victims for a mass murder
case. Already decided is the baseline number
of three.
The next task is the development of a taxonomy predicated upon
the following elements: basic sources, victim
characteristics, motivation, anticipated gain, and spatial
mobility. There are also other elements to consider,
e.g., type of weapon used, lifestyle of the killer himself,
relational closeness or affinity of the victims, and
personal mental/physical health of the killer. Four raters placed
47 known mass murderers--responsible for a
total of 437 victims--into one of the five theoretical categories
discussed below. The agreement rate among the
raters was 93 percent. Table 2 illustrates the traits of the five
categories of mass murderers.
The Disciple
The Disciple follows the dictates of a charismatic leader. There
are more than a few examples of a disciple
mass killer. Consider Leslie Van Houten. A former high school
cheerleader and beauty queen, this young
woman of 16 fell under the spell of Charles Manson. Of course,
she was not alone. Lynette Fromme, Tex
Watson, Bobbie Beausoleil, and others fell under the spell of
their leader.
What caused these "nice, normal" young people of the peace
generation to become ruthless and merciless
killers? There is no easy answer. But what is known is that in
the case of the disciple mass murderer, selection
of victims is at the discretion of the leader. Manson allegedly

told his followers to kill those who happened to be
at a formerly rented home at 10050 Cielo Drive. The house was
the former residence of Doris Day's son, Terry
Melcher, and actress, Candice Bergen (Bugliosi, 1974, p. 4).
The motivation for mass murder for the Disciple Killer rests
outside the killer. The leader of the group demands
the action. The killer wants acceptance by the leader--this is the
psychological gain, the expressive gain. This
psychological acceptance is paramount in the need hierarchy of
the mass killer; he feels he deserves
psychological approbation only if he carries out the wishes of
the leader. Money, revenge, or sex are not the
motivating factors nor the anticipated gain. The disciple
scenario was also played out by the followers of Jim
Jones at the massacre at Jonestown in Guyana.
Spatial mobility is a consideration here. Typically the acts of
violence associated with the slaughter of
innocents are near the location of the leader. So, a Disciple
Killer would not be a traveler in the same sense as
would a geographically transient serial killer. However, the
mass murderer will follow the leader and is unlikely
to be from the area where the homicide occurred. The types of
weapons used in this form of multicide are
usually restricted to hand weapons, knives, guns, etc. The
Jonestown case, where death was by poison, was
an exception.
4f08-9f4a-

b.s.ebsco… 6/14
With the Disciple Killer, unlike others, there does not appear to
be a general dislike of the world around the
killer. Neither is the person placed in a situation in which the
only way to remove himself from the situation is to
kill. The Disciple Killer is murdering because of the effect the
leader has upon him. There are no particular
victims (the victim trait is inspecific) to be dispatched. The
victims, typically strangers, are selected by the
leader, and the orders are carried out by the dispatched disciple.
One may compare the case of a soldier in
war who leads prisoners to their certain demise not because of
the soldier's fear for his own life, but because of
his dedication to following the orders of the leader. By the same
token, a certain amount of personal
responsibility is relieved in this scenario. Many defendants at
Nuremburg raised this point as part of their
defense.
The Disciple Killer may have an additional dimension, a trait
more likely found in the serial killer. If a Disciple
Killer's leader demands further action--and since the killer's
"reason to be" centers around the approbation of
the leader--the killer will not be willing to die through suicide
or police interdiction. The Disciple Killer will live to
kill again.
The Family Annihilator
Dietz (1986) has offered another type of mass murderer. The
Family Annihilator is one who kills an entire
family at one time. This killer may even murder the family pet.
The murderer is the senior male in the family,
depressed, often with a history of alcohol. abuse, and exhibits
great periods of depression. The motivation
typically lies within the psyche of the individual. Oftentimes

feeling alone, anomic, and helpless, this killer
launches a campaign of violence against those who share his
home. Because of the despair in his own life, the
killer wishes to change the situation by reacting in the most
bizarre fashion.
Concerning spatial mobility, the Family Annihilator is
indigenous to the area in which the crime occurs. A
lifelong member of the community, he chooses to end the life of
his own family for reasons which may be
unclear not only to the investigators but to the killer as well. In
1988, David Brown in Minnesota axed four
family members to death for no clear reason. George Banks in
1982 shot 13 family members and relatives for
unknown reasons. These killers were well known in their
communities. Ronald Simmons, recently executed in
Arkansas for his crimes, killed 16 members of his family. James
Colbert killed four in his home in New
Hampshire. Spatial mobility plays little role in this type of mass
murder.
Pseudocommandos
Dietz offers yet another type of mass murderer. The
Pseudocommando is preoccupied with weaponry. Often
the killer stockpiles exotic weapons in his home. Assault
weapons, machine guns, even hand grenades are not
unknown to this mass murderer. This killer'shomicide usually
occurs after a long period of deliberation and
careful planning. There is no clear understanding of the etiology
of the Pseudocommando. Certainly there are
social components to the behavior--the killer's world plays an
integral part in his behavior. But the
Pseudocommando lashes out at society in a most grotesque way.
Something in his world is not correct, and he
will "teach the world a lesson" by his behavior.

Victim characteristics play no role in the victim selection
process. Unlike the case of the serial killer with a shoe
fetish (Jerry Brudos) or preoccupation with hair style (as Rule
[1980] arguably claims about Ted Bundy), the
victims here may simply be in the wrong place at the wrong
time. When Huberty walked into McDonald's in
1984, the only relationship he shared with the victims was that
they were all in the same place at the same
time.
4f08-9f4a-
b.s.ebsco… 7/14
Motivation rests within the psyche of the Pseudocommando.
There is something inside him which impels, or
commands, that the massacre occur. There is nothing outside the
personality exacting the killing of innocent
persons, as with the Disciple Killer. Anticipated gain of the
Pseudocommando is twofold. First, the activity of
the mass kill calls attention to the issue which the killer
believes to be important. In Huberty's case, the nation's
economic state--which resulted in his moving to California from
Ohio--was certainly one of the reasons he
committed the act. The second anticipated gain is that the name
of the killer will live in infamy. Most of us
recognize the name of James Huberty; how may know any of the
names of his 40 victims? Most of us recall
the name of Charles Whitman; what is the name of even one of
his more than a score of victims? Such is the
point.

Concerning spatial mobility, there is little evidence to suggest
that it is a significant factor for
Pseudocommandos. Huberty, for example, moved to California
and committed his murders there; Whitman
lived in Texas, the site of his crime.
Disgruntled Employees
Disgruntled Employees are often former employees of a
company who have been dismissed or placed on
some form of medical leave or disability. Many times, as a
result of psychiatric counseling, the person
perceives that he is suffering a great personal injustice beyond
his control. He retaliates by going to the place
where he was once a valued employee and searching for those
who have wronged him. Both Joseph
Wesbecker and Patrick Sherrill played out such scenario. In
1986, Sherrill returned to the post office where he
had been an employee. Looking for supervisors, he started
firing in the rooms and corridors of the post office,
wounding and killing indiscriminately. Even though Sherrill's
primary motive was to kill supervisors, he actually
wounded and killed many coworkers. Joseph Harris also killed
his fellow workers in the post office, partly in
response to his perception that he was unfairly treated there.
The psychological sources of a Disgrunted Employee's
mentality are certainly worthy of consideration. This
type of killer often has severe psychological problems which
interfere with normal day-to-day functioning. The
person either may be on some form of medication or undergoing
counseling or psychotherapy for a condition
which is often diagnosed as paranoia. The anticipated gain is
also psychological. There is no money to be
realized, no social justice issues, nothing outside the world of
work and the imagined injustices which were

committed against him there.
The victim selection process for the Disgruntled Employee is
nonrandom. He seeks a particular group of
persons to kill, those who shared the workplace. However, once
inside the workplace, the killer will then
randomly fire, shooting anyone who happens to be there. The
motivation to kill here--a drive to "right a wrong"-
-rests within the murderer's personality. He is there to call
attention to a wrong directed and carried out against
him.
Spatial mobility with this type of mass murderer is quite
limited. Often this person has been employed with the
same company and has lived in the same community for years.
Wesbecker, for example, worked for Standard
Gravure Company for more than 15 years. Sherrill was a postal
worker for over a decade. Wesbecker was a
native of Louisville, Kentucky, where he committed his
murders; Sherrill had lived in the same community for
more than 20 years. The danger to citizens in the community,
however, is quite limited. This may mollify the
citizens in the community at large but does little to placate the
families of the victims.
Set-and-Run Killers
4f08-9f4a-
b.s.ebsco… 8/14

Another type of mass murderer is the Set-and-Run Killer (Dietz,
1986). Spurred sometimes by a motive for
revenge, sometimes for anonymous infamy, and sometimes
simply for creature comfort reasons, this type of
killer is qualitatively different from the others discussed.
Most mass killers either commit suicide at the scene or force
law enforcement officials to kill them. Such is not
true with the Set-and-Run Killer. This murderer will employ
techniques to allow escape before the act itself
occurs. For example, a Set-and-Run Killer may plant a bomb in
a building, setting a time device so that the
murderer is far removed from the scene when the explosion
occurs. In other cases, this killer tampers with a
food product or a medicine, places the container back upon the
shelf, and leaves. The killer, then, does not
directly observe the consequences of his act. He may be across
town or even in another country when the
results of his actions become evident.
Obviously depending on the motivation of the act itself, victim
selection varies. For example, if a person is
employed to set a building afire for insurance purposes and a
hundred people are inside the building at the
time of the blaze, the characteristics of the victims are of no
significance. The anticipated gain here is
monetary. The owner of the building is paying the killer,
perhaps an arsonist, to do the deed. There is no
psychological motivation; there is no injustice to prove to
society. The motivation lies not within the personality
of the killer but is instrumental gain, money.
In some instances, the victim of the Set-and-Run Killer may be
once removed. Take, for example, someone
who tampers with a food product from Company X. Five people
purchase and ingest the food. All five die. But

in the mind of the killer in this scenario, Company X is truly at
fault and is actually the intended victim.
Therefore, the motivation here is psychological, exacting
revenge on the company for a perceived wrong. The
gain is also psychological. No money is realized. Moreover,
Company X may lose money because customers
will no longer purchase the product for fear that it may be
contaminated.
Because he flees the scene before the killings actually occur,
the Set-and-Run Killer is very difficult to
apprehend. Realizing the motivation, anticipated gain, and
victim characteristics (in this instance, once
removed) is crucial to understanding and apprehending the Set-
and-Run Killer.
Conclusion
Since the authors started this article, at least nine more cases of
mass murder have occurred in the United
States. And there is no indication that incidences of such crimes
will subside. There will always be persons
who will be motivated by personal, economic, or social
pressures to commit multicide. This is not an easy truth
for society to accept, if only because the murder of innocent
victims reminds us of our own personal
vulnerability.
The first step in dealing with a concern as somber as mass
murder is a clear understanding of the nature of the
act itself. A theoretical typology, such as the one outlined in
this article, can aid in this understanding. The
typology offered here, which is unique in the literature, not only
helps to explain the anticipated gains and
behavioral motivations of mass murderers, but also considers
victim selectivity, victim relationship, and
perpetrator mobility. Such information will give a somewhat

clearer picture of what types of persons would
commit such heinous acts.
This is not to give the impression that it is easy to spot potential
mass murderers. What separates mass
murderers from persons with similar traits who do not resort to
such violence is a question that is difficult to
4f08-9f4a-
b.s.ebsco… 9/14
answer. Indeed, there may be no sufficient response. But what is
known is that friends and relatives often
report--unfortunately all too late--"danger signs" which should
have been recognized. For example, the
individual who has verbalized a plan to kill is not taken
seriously, and he later kills eight persons in his
workplace. Such situation is not unique. The person who
exhibits gross signs of depression, an anomalous
interest in exotic weapons, a stated sense of anomie, or other
such behavioral traits may be only a step away
from carrying out an act of multicide.
Mental health professionals and probation/parole officers,
among others, may be in a position to recognize
potentially dangerous individuals who are physically--and more
importantly psychologically--poised for fatal
violence on a large scale. In becoming aware of the behavioral
and psychological traits of mass murderers,
mental health and criminal justice practitioners at least open the

door to the possibility of circumvention. Law
enforcement officers, too, need to be apprised of their unique
position in relation to mass murderers. As
mentioned earlier, mass murderers often place themselves in
situations that force law enforcement officers to
kill them. Other times, the murderers commit suicide. In either
case, the officers are placed in a situation where
their own lives are in jeopardy.
What can society do about mass murder? Unfortunately, little
can be done once an attack commences. As far
as stopping the crime before it happens, some say that effective
gun control legislation is the answer. Certainly,
if gun control could be rigorously enforced, it might deter some
mass murderers, but it is not the answer for
society's protection from the mass killer. Except in the case of
mass murderers who kill for pay, underlying the
actions of most of these killers are problems which stem from
pressure, real or imagined. These pressures
may arise at a societal level or from the individual's own
position in a work situation or family unit. Mass
murderers lack the motivations commonly associated with serial
murderers--a point that must be recognized
and appreciated.
Recognizing that mass murder is fundamentally dissimilar from
other forms of homicide and must be dealt with
differently is important. Certainly, a better understanding of
mass murder will not be the pivotal element in
eradicating this form of violence. What it is, however, is a
recognition of the problem--a first step, a starting
point.
TABLE 1. MODERN MASS MURDERERS
Year State Murderer Death Toll

1949 New Jersey Howard Unruh Shot 13 neighbors
1950 Texas William Cook Shot 5 family members
1955 Colorado John Graham Bomb on a plane, 44
died
1959 Kansas Richard Hickock Stabbed/shot 4
members of Culter
family
1959 Kansas Perry Smith Stabbed/shot 4
members of Culter
family
1966 Illinois Richard Speck Stabbed/strangled 8
student nurses
4f08-9f4a-
b.s.ebsc… 10/14
1966 Texas Charles Whitman Shot 16, mostly
students
1966 Arizona Robert Smith Shot 5 women in a
beauty salon
1969 California Charles Watson Stabbed 9 persons for
Charles Manson
1969 California Patricia Stabbed 9 persons for

Krenwinkel Charles Manson
1969 California Linda Kasabian Stabbed 7 persons for
Charles Manson
1969 California Susan Adkins Stabbed 9 persons
for Charles Manson
1970 N. Carolina Jeff MacDonald Stabbed 3 members
of his family
1971 New Jersey John List Shot 5 family members
1973 Georgia Carl Isaacs Shot 5 members of a
family
1973 Georgia Billy Isaacs Shot 5 members of a
family
1974 Louisiana Mark Essex Shot 9, mostly police
officers
1974 Long Island Ronald DeFeo Shot 6 family
members
1975 Florida Bill Ziegler Shot 4 adults in a
store
1975 Ohio James Ruppert Shot 11 family
members
1976 California Edward Allaway Shot 7 coworkers
1977 New York Frederick Cowan Shot 6 coworkers
1978 Guyana Jim Jones Poisoned/shot 912

cult members
1982 Pennsylvania George Banks Shot 13 family and
acquaintences
1983 Louisiana Michael Perry Shot 5 family
members
1983 Washington Willie Mak Shot 13 people in
the head
1983 Washington Benjamin Ng Shot 13 people in
the head
4f08-9f4a-
b.s.ebsc… 11/14
1984 California James Huberty Shot 21 at
McDonald's
1985 Pennsylvania Sylvia Seigrist Shot several at a
mall, 2 died
1986 Oklahoma Patrick Sherrill Shot 14 coworkers
1986 Arkansas Ronald Simmons Shot 16 family
members
1987 Florida William Cruse Shot 6 persons at
a mall

1988 California Richard Farley Shot 7 in a computer
company
1988 Illinois Laurie Dann Shot, poisoned many,
1 death
1988 California James Purdy Shot 5 children in
a playground
1988 N. Carolina Michael Hayes Shot 4 neighbors
1989 Kentucky Joseph Wesbecker Shot 8 coworkers
1990 Michigan Lawrence DeLisle Drowned his 4
children
1990 Florida James Pough Shot 13 in an auto
loan company
1990 New York Julio Gonzalez 87 people died in
a night club fire
1991 Michigan Ilene Russell 4 adults and 1 child
in a fire
1991 Arizona Leo Bruce Shot 9 adults in a
Buddhist Temple
1991 Arizona Michael McGraw Shot 9 adults in a
Buddhist Temple
1991 Arizona Mark Nunez Shot 9 adults in a
Buddhist Temple
1991 Arizona Dante Parker Shot 9 adults in a

Buddhist Temple
1991 Ohio Kim Chandler Shot her 3 children
1991 Kentucky Michael Brunner Shot girlfriend, her
2 children
1991 New Jersey Joseph Harris Shot 4 people at
post office
4f08-9f4a-
b.s.ebsc… 12/14
1991 New York Andrew Brooks Shot father and 3
men
1991 Hawaii Orlando Ganal Shot 4 people
including inlaws
1991 Texas George Hennard Shot 22 people in
a restaurant
1991 Iowa Gang Lu Shot 5 college
students and
officials
1991 New Hampshire James Colbert Strangled wife,
suffocated 3
daughters

1991 Kentucky Robert Daigneau Shot wife and three
strangers
1991 Michigan Thomas McIlwane Shot 3 workers in
a post office
TABLE 2. TRAITS OF MASS MURDER TYPES
Legend for Chart:
A - Discipline
B - Family Annihilator
C - Pseudocommando
D - Disgruntled Employee
E - Set & Run
A B C D E
Motivation
Intrinsic -- X X X --
Extrinsic X -- -- -- X
Anticipated Gain
Expressive X X X X --
Instrumental -- -- -- -- X
Victim Selectivity
Random X -- X -- X
Nonrandom -- X -- X --
Victim Relationship
Affiliative -- X -- X --
Strangers X -- X -- X

Spatial Mobility
Stable -- X X X --
Transient X -- -- -- X
Victim Traits
4f08-9f4a-
b.s.ebsc… 13/14
Specific -- -- -- -- --
Nonspecific X X X X X
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bugliosi, V. (1974). Helter skelter. New York: Bantam Books.
Dietz, M. (1983). Killing for profit. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Dietz, P. (1986). Mass, serial and sensational homicides.
Bulletin
of the New York Academy of Medicine. 62(5), 477-491.
Fox, J., & Levin, J. (1989). Satanism and mass murder.
Celebrity
Plus, 49-51.
Graysmith, R. (1976). Zodiac. New York: Berkley Books.
Hazelwood, R., & Douglas, J. (1980). The lust murder. FBI Law

Enforcement Bulletin, 49(4), 1-8.
Hickey, E. (1991). Serial murderers and their victims. Belmont,
CA: BrooksCole Publishing Co.
Holmes, R., & DeBurger, J. (1985). Profiles in terror: The serial
murderer. Federal Probation, 49(3), 29-34.
Holmes, R., & DeBurger, J. (1988). Serial murder. Beverly
Hills:
Sage Publications.
Howard, C. (1979). Zebra. New York: Berkely Books.
Levin, J., & Fox, J. (1985). Mass murder. New York: Plenum
Press.
Lunde, D. (1976). Murder and madness. San Francisco: San
Francisco
Book Company.
Michaud, S., & Ayneswortb, H. (1983). The only living witness.
New York: Signet Books.
Murder: No apparent motive (1980). HBO Undercover Series.
Norris, J. (1988). Serial killers: The growing menace. New
York:
Dolphin Books.
Podolsky, E. (1964). The chemistry of murder. Pakistan Medical
Journal, 15, 9-14.
Rule, A. (1980). The stranger beside me. New York: Signet.
Surette, R. (1992). Media: Images and realities. Belmont, CA:

Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.
Yates, C. (1992, November 13). Personal interview.
~~~~~~~~
BY RONALD M. HOLMES AND STEPHEN T. HOLMES
Ronald M. Holmes is professor, School of Justice
Administration, University of Louisville. Stephen T. Holmes is
research assistant, University of Cincinnati.
4f08-9f4a-
b.s.ebsc… 14/14
Copyright of Federal Probation is the property of
Superintendent of Documents and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.
Criminal Profiling
Within the last three decade, criminal profiling has been a very
popular topic in

books, movies, and television shows. The 1991 move Silence of
the Lambs, adopted
from Thomas Harris’s (1988) book of the same name, was one
of the first works to
spawn an interest in criminal profiling among the general
public. Two the pioneers of
criminal profiling, John Douglas and Robert Ressler, were
actually hired as consultants
for the film and much of Harris’s portrayal of serial murderers
were based on lives of real
life serial killers. In the book and movie, young FBI cadet
Clarice Starling is the protégé
of Jack Crawford, the head of the FBI’s behavioral science unit.
Crawford uses Starling
to aid in the capture of a serial killer known as “Buffalo Bill,”
who is so desperate to
become female that he is sowing a woman’s “body suit” for
himself out of real human
skin.
In the movie, as the two agents travel to the most recent crime
scene in West
Virginia, Crawford reviews the case with Starling and asks her
opinion:

Crawford: He keeps them alive for three days. We don’t know
why. There is no
evidence of rape or physical abuse prior to death. All of the
mutilation
you see there (in the photos) is post-mortem. Ok, three days;
then he
shoots them, skins them, and dumps them. Each body in a
different river.
The water leaves us no trace evidence of any kind. This is the
first victim
These circles (on the map) are where the girls were abducted
and the
arrows are where the bodies were found. This new one today
washed up
here at Up River, West Virginia. Look at them (the victims)
Starling,
what do you see?
Starling: Well, he is a white male. Serial killers tend to hunt
within their own
ethnic group. He is not a drifter. He’s got his own house
somewhere, not
an apartment.

Crawford: Why?
Starling: What he does takes privacy. He is in his 30s or 40s.
He’s got real
physical strength combined with an older man’s self control.
He is
cautious, precise, and he is never impulsive. He’ll never stop.
Crawford: Why not?
Starling: He’s got a real taste for it now and he is getting better
at his work.
Crawford: Not bad Starling.
In an attempt to gain a better insight of the mind of a serial
killer Crawford
instructs Clarice Starling to interview another serial killer,
prisoner and psychiatrist Dr.
Hannibal Lecter, who is a brilliant, but murderous cannibal.
Crawford believes that Dr.
Lecter may hold the answers to their questions to help locate

serial killer Buffalo Bill.
While interviewing Dr. Hannibal, Starling develops a morbid
relationship with the serial
killer. In order to obtain answers to her questions, Starling
must answer Dr. Lecter’s
questions about her own personal life. This twisted relationship
forces Starling to face
her own demons from the past, but also leads her face to face
with Buffalo Bill.
Many fictional stories about profiling portray criminal
profilers as eccentric loners
who have developed psychic and/or extraordinary investigative
skills. In reality, criminal
profiling is a relatively new filed as a science and presently, its
practitioners do not
always agree on methodology or even terminology. The FBI,
for example, once called
criminal profiling “psychological profiling,” now calls its form
of profiling “criminal
investigative analysis.” Forensic psychologists sometimes refer
to their profiling work as
“investigative psychology”; and criminologists often refer to the
process as simply
“offender profiling.”

The major problem with developing a working definition of
criminal profiling is
that profiling means different things to different people. For a
homicide detective
profiling may involve examining and using clues at a crime
scene to make predictions
about an offender’s personality and demographic
characteristics. Profiling for a
psychiatrist’s may mean making a prediction of whether or not a
child molester will re-
offend. For a narcotics agent profiling may involve observing
airline passengers to
determine if any fit the characteristics commonly found among
drug smugglers. Profiling
for a highway patrol officer could be the practice of making
traffic stops based on
whether or not a driver is a minority because the patrol officer
believes that minorities are
more likely to have illicit drugs in their vehicle. This last
example is also known as racial
profiling. Racial profiling and/or profiling used in drug-law
enforcement will not be
discussed in this text.

The focus of this book is to examine the common behaviors and
characteristics of
such dangers criminals as serial murderers, rapists, and child
molesters. For this purpose,
criminal profiling can be defined as “a method of identifying
the perpetrator of a crime
based on an analysis of the nature of the offense and the manner
in which it was
committed” (Teten, 1995). The goal of criminal profiling is not
to be able to tell police
who committed a certain crime; rather, profiling is about
making predictions as to the
most probable characteristics that an offender is likely to
possess. Profiling is just one
investigative technique that may help solve a case (Ainsworth,
2001).
Profiling is then an educated attempt to generate information
about an individual
who committed a crime or series of crimes based upon: (1) the
characteristics of the
crime scene(s) and, (2) data from previous crimes that have
been committed in a similar
manner. Therefore, modern criminal profiling involves two
methods of profiling: (1)

deductive profiling and (2) inductive profiling.
Deductive profiles are drawn from evidence at the crime scene.
The basic
premise of deductive profiling is that an offender’s behavior
reflects his or her
personality. Everything that is observed at a crime scene tells
us something about the
offender who committed the crime. In other words, how a
person acts during and after
the commission of a crime reveals something about who he or
she is. Deductive profiling
relies on logic and commons sense. From the evidence at the
crime scene profiling use
logic and reasoning to attempt to deduce or infer the
characteristics of the offender.
Imagine, for example, that five single white women had been
raped and killed in
their homes over a three month period. All of the women had
been strangled with rope
that the killer had brought with him. At each of their homes,
the offender stole at large
flat screen television (three of which were over 50 inches). The
offender also left a

massage on the wall of each of the victim’s residence in the
living room. The message
read, “I will kill again.” All of the massages were written red
paint that the offender had
brought with him. The messages were written on a bedroom
wall approximately sex feet,
four inches from the ground. From this information,
investigators and deduce that the
offender had above average strength – he was able to carry the
television sets out of the
victims’ residences, and he was tall – all of the messages were
written at least six feet
from the ground. Since the offender brought his own restraints
and red paint, we may
also deduce that the crimes were planned out and that the
offender may have even stalked
the victims before raping and killing them.
Inductive profiling uses information from past offenders who
have committed a
crime in a similar fashion to predict the characteristics of an
unidentified offender.
Inductive profiles are based upon criminological research and
statistical data on criminal

offenders and attempt to provide more scientifically valid and
reliable profiles for law
enforcement agencies (Ainsworth, 2001; Canter, 2000, Muller
2000). In the 1970s, for
example, members of the FBI’s Behavioral Science Unit began
conducting lengthy
interviews with convicted serial rapist and murderers in U.S.
prisons to produce
information that could help in the solving of future crime. As
John Douglas (1995:26)
states:
“By studying as many crimes as we could, and through talking
to experts—the
perpetrators themselves—we have learned to interpret those
clues in much the
same way a doctor evaluates various symptoms to diagnose a
particular disease or
condition. And just as a doctor can begin forming a diagnosis
after recognizing
several aspects of a disease presentation he or she has seen
before, we can make
various conclusions when we see patterns start to emerge.

In regard to the previous discussed sexual homicide case;
criminological research
has shown that most homicides are intra-racial, in that the
offender and the victims are
usually the same race (UCR, 2010; Wilbanks, 1985). Therefore,
because the victim is
white we may also infer that the offender is white. There may
always be exceptions. The
victims of the Baton Rouge serial killer Derrick Lee were
mostly white and famous serial
killer Jeffrey Dahmer killed mostly minority men. In most
cases, however, studies have
found that people kill within their own race and/or ethnicity.
Modus Operandi and Signature
MO
Most crimes occur between people who know each other, such
as a husband who
physically abuses his wife, a fight between friends at a bar that
escalates into a stabbing, a
family member who sexual molests a child, or neighbor who
kills a neighbor because of a

long lasting feud. The perpetrator in these types of cases can be
easily identified. There
are other crimes, however, where there may be a very limited
connection between the
victim and the offender before the crime occurred. Victims of
serial murder and serial
rape, for example, often seem to be selected in a much more
arbitrary fashion. Offenders
in these types of crime are often seen a monster who preys and
innocent victims; and
although these types of incidents occur much less frequently
than the former, they often
cause a great deal of fear and attract much more attention from
the local and national
media. These types of crimes also require a costly large-scale,
intensive police
investigation with few leads. In such predatory crimes
traditional police may not be
sufficient and investigators sometimes need alternative
investigative strategies to assist
them in these types of cases. As an investigative strategy,
criminal profiling can help
investigators narrow the focus of an investigation by developing

an overall description
and assessment of the offender.
The basic assumption of criminal profiling is that the behavior
and characteristics
of an offender is exhibited at a crime scene or series of crime
scenes. By studying the
crime scene(s) profiles may be able to make inferences about
the offender. Two of the
most important factors that are examined by criminal profilers
when assessing a crime
scene are an offender’s Modus Operandi (MO) and signature.
An offender’s M.O. represents the way in which an offender
commits a crime.
M.O. is often used to link cases because offender generally used
similar methods during
the commission of their crimes. An offender’s M.O. may
include factors such as: the
time of day an offender usually commits his crime, the type of
victim, type of approach
(e.g. uses a con approach or blitz approach), whether or not the
offender brings weapons
or tools with him, as well as whether or not the offender uses
restraints. An offender’s

M.O. can change over time, especially if the offender becomes
more experience or learns
new techniques that make them more successful.
MO and Signature
Modus operandi (MO) is a Latin term that means method of
operating. It refers to
the manner in which a crime has been committed (Gross, 1924,
p. 478). Law enforcement
has long held to the belief that understanding the methods and
techniques criminals use to
commit crime is the best way to investigate, identify, and
ultimately apprehend them.
This has traditionally required that the best detectives become
living encyclopedias of
criminal cases and behaviors. It has also demanded that they
learn to utilize the
knowledge and experience of known criminals to inform their
investigative strategy.
A criminal’s modus operandi is made up of choices and
behaviors that are
intended to assist the criminal in the completion of the crime.
An offender’s modus
operandi reflects how the offender commits the crime. It is
separate from the offender’s

motives or signature aspects, as these have to do with why an
offender commits the
crime.
An offender’s MO behavior is functional in nature. It is
comprised of learned
behaviors that can evolve and develop over time. It can be
refined as an offender
becomes more experienced, sophisticated, and confident. It can
also become less
competent and skilled over time, decompensating by virtue of a
deteriorating mental state
or increased used of controlled substances (Turvey, 2000).
MO behaviors most often serve (or fail to serve) one or more of
three general purposes:
1. Protection of offender identity: e.g., wearing a mask during a
daytime bank
robbery, covering a victim’s eyes during a rape, wearing gloves
during a burglary,
killing a witness to any of the above, and staging the crime
scene.

2. Successful completion of the crime: e.g., targeting and
acquiring the victim, using
a gag to silence a victim, using a weapon to control a victim,
making a list of
potential victims with pertinent information, and using a gun to
kill the victim.
3. Facilitation of offender escape: e.g., use of a stolen vehicle
during the commission
of a crime, disposal of a vehicle after the commission of a
crime, and tying
up/knocking out victims to prevent their escape and hamper
their attempts to get
help.
General types of MO can include crime scene characteristics
such as, but not limited to,
the following.
Number of offenders
Amount of planning before a crime
Offense location selected

Route taken to offense location
Pre-offense surveillance of a crime scene(s) or victim
Use of restraints to control the victim during a crime
Nature and extent of injuries to the victim
Method of killing the victim
Nature and extent of precautionary acts
Method of transportation to and from the crime scene(s)
Direction of escape/route taken from offense location
It is important to note that an offender’s modus operandi can be
an act or a failure to act.
Common examples include not using a condom during a sexual
assault, not using a
firearm during the commission of a robbery, and not killing
witnesses during the
commission of a home invasion burglary. These are all choices
that an offender makes.
An offender’s MO behaviors are learned, and by extension they
are dynamic and
malleable. This is because MO is affected by time and can
change as the offender learns

or deteriorates. An offender’s MO is therefore a function of
both fortifying and
destabilizing factors.
Fortifying Factors - Offenders may realize that some of the
choices they make
during a crime are more proficient and effective than others.
They may subsequently
repeat them in future offenses, becoming more skillful as well
as strengthening or
fortifying their MO. Over the course of a criminal career,
offenders may also incorporate
criminal experience and confidence. As offenders commit more
of the same type of
crime, they become more proficient at it. They may act more
confidently, be able to
handle the unexpected more smoothly (or even be prepared for
it), or they may have
tailored their precautionary acts to the type of criminal activity
they expect to engage in.
It is important to establish, in any crime, what the offender had
planned for, as
evidenced by what the offender brought to the crime scene and
the behaviors the offender

engaged in. The question that criminal profilers need to ask is
whether the materials
brought and the behaviors committed were appropriate to the
crime. The next question is
whether the materials brought and the behaviors committed
suggest proficiency with
another type of crime (suggesting a criminal history apart from
the crime at hand).
Contact with the criminal justice system - Being arrested just
once may teach an offender
an invaluable lesson about how to avoid detection by law
enforcement in the future.
Furthermore, and ironically, a prison term in the United States
is referred to by some in
both law enforcement and the criminal population as “going to
college.” This is because
in prison, younger and less experienced offenders have the
opportunity to network with
older and more experienced offenders who have already
accumulated a great deal of
criminal knowledge. Consequently, a prison term of only a few
years has the potential to
advance an offender’s skill level far beyond that person’s
original MO. Once released,

that offender may take this “education” and embark on criminal
enterprises that
previously would have been beyond his or her ability.
The media - Some offenders monitor investigations into crimes
by paying close
attention to media accounts in the newspapers and on television.
It is important that
investigators and profilers alike pay attention to the release of
any such information to the
media, when it was released, and how that may affect the future
crimes of a given
offender in a serial case. Not only may information relating to a
case provide an offender
with insight into future precautionary acts, but also it may
provide other offenders with
adequate information to “copycat” a particular series and
deflect investigative suspicion
from them-selves. For example, a rapist may commit five
different attacks in a single
region. The serial nature of his crimes may have been
undetected until DNA results
demonstrated that the rapes were more than likely committed by
the same offender. If the

media publishes a headline that reads “Serial Rapist Linked to
Five Attacks by
DNA!” the rapist may alter his MO to prevent law enforcement
from linking future cases.
For example, he may use a condom during any future rapes. Or
he may decide to make a
more permanent change and get a vasectomy. In summary, the
rapist may make a
conscious attempt to prevent detection based on what he has
learned from the media
coverage of his crimes or similar cases.
Destabilizing Factors - MO may also deteriorate over time and
become less
skillful, less competent, more careless, and even more irrational
than when the criminal
behavior began. Common ways that an offender’s MO can de-
evolve or destabilize over
time include, but are certainly not limited to:
Deteriorating mental state
Use of controlled substances
Overconfidence, which can lead to carelessness
Offender mood (e.g., agitated, excited, or otherwise distracted)

Untested or unreliable tools or vehicles (e.g., weapons prone to
jamming or misfire, and
old and malfunctioning vehicles)
The American serial murderer Ted Bundy (Figure 14.2), who
killed at least 30
victims across five states between 1973 and 1978, began his
criminal career with a
competent, well-thought-out MO. He was polite and friendly,
was extremely mobile, and
often approached his victims in a manner that made him appear
helpless or weak and
essentially non-threatening. He sometimes accomplished this by
presenting himself as a
motorist who needed assistance with a disabled vehicle, and he
would often wear his arm
in a sling. He also tended to select victims who were teenage
females, stalking them and
selecting disposal sites for their bodies well in advance of
committing an actual crime.
But his MO deteriorated remarkably over time.
After being incarcerated and then escaping on two separate

occasions in
Colorado, he made his way to Florida. He began to drink
heavily and he also began to
interact with the bodies of his victims, keeping them for days
after death. There was also
evidence that, with some victims’ bodies, Bundy shampooed
their hair and applied
makeup to their faces, rather than disposing of them
immediately. In short, he began to
leave more and more evidence behind, engaged in fewer
precautionary acts, and became
involved in more ritual behavior.
His victim selection also changed; he chose his last victim, a
12-year-old female student
from Florida, totally because of her availability. This was a
marked departure from his
previous MO of carefully stalking victims in advance and
selecting victims who were in
their late teens and early twenties (Hickey, 1991, pp. 157–162).
Signature
An offender’s signature, are acts that often go beyond what
necessary to commit a

crime. Signature aspects of a crime scene hold a special
significance to the offender and
often fulfill an offender’s fantasies. Unlike M.O., an offender’s
signature is usually stable
over time and can be witnessed from crime scene to crime
scene.
Signature behaviors are those acts committed by an offender
that are not
necessary to commit the crime, but rather suggest psychological
or emotional needs. An
offender’s signature behaviors are not functional in nature.
Because of ongoing confusion
amongst some analysts and attorneys, it is necessary to explain
that the mere repetition of
a given behavior across multiple offenses is not enough to make
it a signature. It may
simply be part of the offender’s MO. Generally the following
will be true of a signature
behavior:
1. Takes extra time to complete, beyond more functional MO
behavior
2. Unnecessary for the completion of the crime
3. Involves an expression of a need or emotion

4. May involve an expression of fantasy
If a behavior satisfies these criteria, then it is a signature—that
is to say, it is
related to the offender’s psychological and emotional needs
(fantasy and motive) rather
than functional crime-related needs.
There are two types of signature behaviors: active and passive.
Active signature
behaviors are conscious or deliberate acts committed by the
offender. They result from an
offender who is in control and intends to leave a specific
psychological impression or to
satisfy a particular emotional need. Examples can include, but
are not limited to,
Specific and repeated victim type
Specific and repeated constellation of injuries to body
Notes left at the scene
Specific and repeated weapons that go beyond mere function
Specific and repeated ligature/binding type or configuration

Active signature behavior represents a clear message from the
offender; the
offender is aware it is being sent and it is meant to be
recognized and understood.
Passive signature behaviors are incidental in nature. They result
from an offender
who is not in control and unintentionally leaves a particular
psychological impression.
Examples can include, but are not limited to:
Overkill or brutal levels of force
Obsessive/compulsive behavior (e.g., stalking, harassment)
Jealous or self-deprecating language or scripting
Passive signature behavior is the result of offenders who are not
in control of their
emotions and are unaware that their psychological needs.
It is important to accept that it may not always be possible to
link or unlink cases using
signature behaviors for the following reasons:
An offender may not always leave behind evidence of signature

behaviors
An offender may engage in precautionary acts that conceal the
evidence of
signature behaviors (burning evidence, removing unknown
fantasy items from the
crime scene, staging the crime scene, etc.)
Evidence of offender behavior may be lost, overlooked, or
destroyed by forensic
personnel and criminal investigators signature patterns
While signature behaviors refer to specific acts committed by an
offender, overall
offender signature refers to the pattern or cluster of MO
behaviors, signature behaviors,
and motivations that are found within an offense. This pattern
of behaviors may be
unique to a particular offender and may be used to distinguish
between crime scenes and
potentially between offenders, it may be rare within a particular
type of offense, or it may
even be common.
An offender’s signature is sometimes referred to inappropriately
as a “calling

card” or a “trademark” (Keppel, 1995). These terms evoke the
vision of a static,
inflexible, indelible psychological imprint of offender behavior
on the crime scene. As
should be clear to readers by now, this is a highly misleading
description. There are
important limitations to the concept of offender signature that
must be understood. Many
serial or predatory offenders do not have a need to engage in
personal expressions of
emotion that are distinct to their individually formed
personality. Furthermore, despite an
offender signature’s distinctiveness, which is a result of the
many variables affecting the
human developmental process, it is not truly appropriate to state
that two crime scenes
related by signature alone are psychologically “identical.” The
terms identical and match
can be misleading to those who do not fully understand the
concept and psychology of
offender signature.
The term match may be used to suggest identical, shared
characteristics between

two things. But by their very nature, crime scenes and crime
scene behaviors cannot be
precisely the same across offenses, even when the same
offender is responsible for them.
Not only are the locations likely to be different, but the victims
are most certainly
different people with their own responses to offender behaviors
that will in turn influence
the offender’s behavioral expressions, both MO-oriented and
signature-oriented. One of
the other primary reasons for the lack of absolute certainty in
interpreting signature
behaviors as unique to a specific offender is the subjectivity of
the interpretation itself.
While offenders may be psychologically distinct, profilers
cannot see through the eyes of
an offender with perfect, objective clarity.
Case Linkage
Case linkage is another important profiling concept, but it is
also a process that is
gaining increasingly more research attention (Tonkin,
Woodhams, Bull, Bond, & Palmer,

2011). Sometimes called linkage analysis, it is a method of
identifying crimes that are
likely to have been committed by the same offender because of
behavioral similarity
across the crimes (Woodhams, Bull, & Hollin, 2010). Recall the
illustration from the
Fortin case at the beginning of the chapter. In that case, the
profiler focused on several
similarities between the two sexual assaults, but critics have
also pointed out that there
were many differences in these two cases as well (Ebisike,
2008). Case linkage is most
often used with crimes such as stranger rape and murder, but
may also be used for
burglary, arson, and robbery. In fact, there is some evidence
that different types of crimes
(e.g., a violent crime and a property offense) may be linked to
the same offender (Tonkin
et al., 2011). The correct linking of cases is likely to be a
valuable contribution to police
investigation and ultimately reduces the number of suspects
(Grubin, Kelly, & Brunsdon,
2001); on the other hand, an incorrect linking of cases can
result in a wrongful

conviction. In the extensive commentary on the Fortin case, no
one suggested that Fortin,
the person convicted of the crime, was not the perpetrator of
both offenses; rather, critics
were concerned about the scientific status of linkage analysis
(Risinger & Loop, 2002).
The profiler may link crimes in one of two ways: He or she may
search for simila
crimes among a database of crimes, without a preconceived
notion of who the offender
might be; the discovery of other crimes with similar
characteristics of victims, MOs, or
offender signatures will suggest that the same individual could
have committed them. Or,
the profiler may search for other crimes that are highly similar
to the crime committed by
someone who has already been identified. For example, police
may have arrested and
charged an individual with a crime and may want to know
whether he is likely to be
responsible for other unsolved offenses. Victim accounts of the
crime are important in the
process—provided of course that the victim survived the crime.

Once the profiler has collected all the relevant information, he
or she composes a
list of the behaviors demonstrated by the offender. According to
Woodhams et al. (2010),
“Some behaviors might be more spontaneous, whereas others
may be produced as a
reaction to the victim or witnesses.” In addition, the profiler
may classify the offender
behaviors as modus operandi or ritualistic or signature
behaviors (Hazelwood & Warren,
2003). Alison, Goodwill, and Alison (2005) posit that MO
behaviors are functionally
significant and depend on the context of the crime; they are
necessary to commit the
crime—such as a belt around the victim’s neck. The signature,
on the other hand, is
psychologically significant, or ritualistic, and is not dependent
on the context.
Determining these distinctions generally requires a subjective
judgment on the part of the
profiler. Discovery of a signature, however, is extremely
helpful, if not essential, in
linkage analysis.

In order for case linkage to work, the offender must demonstrate
consistent but
distinct behavior in each crime. In other words, the behavior
must be distinguish-able
from other offender behavioral patterns but consistent across
crimes for the offender in
question. For instance, the signature may be unique for the
offender, and he consistently
exhibits it across crimes. This task is not as easy as it sounds,
as the profile must be
distinctive and unique enough to reveal something about
motive, intent, or signature of a
particular offender (Santtila et al., 2008). Santtila et al.
examined 116 Italian homicides
committed by 23 offenders. The researchers found that the
offender’s crime scene
behavior was consistent across serial murders as well as
different from that of other
offenders. This finding lends support to the serial killer model
concerning consistency
and variability in behavior; that is, serial killers tend to be more
consistent than not,
although there is also variability as their crimes progress. For
example, their crimes may

become more or less brutal, and their choices of victims may
broaden. In general,
however, research indicates that there is consistency in the
behavioral patterns of these
offenders (Alison, Goodwill, Almond, van den Heuvel, &
Winter, 2011; Canter &
Youngs, 2009). However, the consistency is not always found in
the offender’s MO, as
this may change according to the situation and the effectiveness
of the MO in prior
offending. In fact, a majority of research in criminal behavior
finds only a moderate level
of consistency associated with the MO (Bennell, Snook,
MacDonald, House, & Taylor,
2012). In a recent study of serial rapes, however, researchers
found sufficient similarity in
MO to conclude that the assumption of behavioral consistency
underlying case linkage
was justified (Woodhams & Labuschagne, 2012).
Victimology and Offender Profiling
Forensic victimology has largely been over-looked as an
important component of

crime scene analysis. There can be no doubt that part of the
reason for this absence of
attention is because it is not easy to study victims. In fact, there
are many circumstances
under which profilers and investigators will be actively
discouraged from doing so.
First, there are emotional challenges. The coping mechanisms of
overtaxed,
underpaid, and undervalued detectives, investigators, and
forensic personnel involve
continuous doses of personal detachment and dissociation from
the victim and the
horrible things that they have suffered. The victim is
compartmentalized and seen as an
object. The victim’s body, living or dead, and all of the terrible
things that it has endured,
is regarded as evidence to be analyzed and catalogued. The
advantage of this coping
mechanism is that there is no emotional investment, no opening
up to be affected by the
pain and suffering of a fellow human. The disadvantage is that
we risk surrendering our
humanity when we regard victims and their suffering as objects.

We risk losing our humanity because compartmentalization and
distancing
demand that we continually reinforce our view of the victim as
an object. If we humanize
victims, we know that there is the risk of recognizing that they
are not unlike our own
daughter, son, mother, father, sister, brother, wife, husband, or
friend. To maintain the
necessary detachment, we may actively avoid or suppress
information about the victim as
a person. We do not get to know victim; we do not familiarize
ourselves with the victim’s
personal life outside of the crimes committed against them. We
avoid the victim’s family.
We do not wish to make time to see them as people—all because
it might affect us
emotionally; it might make us feel bad. However, these reasons
are not sufficient.
Conversely, some investigators cross the line and identify too
closely with victims. They
see themselves as protectors and the victims as objects of their
own rescue fantasy. When
this happens, the line between investigator of fact and advocate

is violated. Otherwise
thorough professionals avoid investigating clear
inconsistencies; obvious falsehoods are
explained away or swept under the rug; and false reporters are
given cover and, in some
cases, encouragement.
When profilers or investigators take on a case, they must take
on the whole
case—good and bad—and they have a responsibility to do the
best job possible, not just
the best job with those parts that are comfortable and safe.
Anything less than this is a
disservice to real victims and, in a broader sense, the criminal
justice system. Those who
cannot overcome their emotional disabilities are not going to
fully meet their professional
responsibilities and may even contribute to miscarriages of
justice.
Second, there are political challenges. In some cases, the
culture within which an
investigator or forensic examiner operates openly encourages
the marginalization,
vilification, or deification of certain victim populations. When
the profiler takes a stance

that is at odds with the accepted view within their culture,
chances are that he or she will
feel pressure to move their findings back into step. They may
even be advised to stop
generating findings at all. In other cases, there may be direct
political pressure to cast a
victim in a certain light or gloss over a victim’s actual history
in favor of a popular theory
or stereotype. A dead child is better portrayed as an angel
without blemish; a homosexual
found dead in a motel room is better portrayed as a worthless
deviant; prostitutes are
regarded as drug-addicted liars on the make (especially if they
are minorities); and
attractive white females never lie and always need at least
double the normal amount of
detectives working their case, if not all available male
personnel. Such circumstances are
all too common.
These realities explain why the performance of a thorough
victimology is not
routine practice for many detectives, investigators, and forensic
personnel. When

gathered without regard to a predetermined outcome,
victimology forces us to get to
know the victim better than we know most of the people in our
own lives. It opens us up
to potential internalizations, where we make a victim’s personal
feelings our own.
It opens us up to potential transference, where we shift our
thoughts and feelings about
other people onto the victim. It can even raise doubts about the
victim’s story or
complicity, as may be the case when things are not as they were
first reported. Getting to
know the intimate details of a victim’s history and personality
is not professionally or
emotionally safe. Moreover, getting to know the victim prevents
the easy stereotypes
from maintaining a hold over the investigation. Getting to know
the victim is rough on all
levels, but it is necessary for the objective investigator and
examiner.
The propensity to assume that everything found in a crime scene
or in relation to a
crime must somehow be related is a common logical fallacy,
referred to as Post hoc, ergo

propter hoc, or “after this, therefore because of this.” For
example, a victim or
complainant may present with extensive bruising of the shins
and may not clearly recall
its origins. Such injuries might be related to a sexual assault,
depending on the events
described. Or, after conducting a history, the forensic examiner
may learn that the
complainant played a soccer game in the days preceding the
alleged attack, in which her
shins were repeatedly kicked. This is true for injuries related to
sexual activity as well.
The forensic examiner interpreting any victim injury without
the proper history
could improperly proceed with the assumption that the injury
must be related to a sexual
assault. Therefore, collecting history from the complainant, as
well as collateral sources
(e.g., friends, family members, other witnesses), is necessary to
ensure that the most
complete and accurate information is relied upon before
examinations and scientific

interpretations of the evidence are finalized.With these as our
standards, it is not possible
to avoid the fact that the best way to objectively build case
knowledge and render valid
interpretations is through the scientific method. This means
developing a clear and honest
picture of victim history, rendering victim theories in
accordance with the established
facts, and working to disprove those theories to avoid
confirmation bias.
Forensic victimology is an essential component of crime scene
analysis, and
therefore an unavoidable feature of any criminal profile. The
information gathered from a
thorough victimology has the potential to affect each stage of a
criminal profile, from
crime reconstruction to establishing offender motivation. The
goals of forensic
victimology include, but are not limited to, the following:
Assist in understanding elements of the crime. By studying the
victim, the
examiner is better able to understand the relationship between a
victim and

his or her lifestyle and environment, and subsequently of a
given offender
to that victim. Victimology provides the context for the victim-
crime
scene interaction, the offender-crime scene interaction, and the
victim-
offender interaction.
Assist in developing a timeline. Retracing a victim’s last known
actions
and creating a timeline are critical to understanding the victim
as a person,
understanding the victim’s relationship to the environment,
understanding
the victim’s relationship to other events, and understanding how
the victim
came to be acquired by an offender.
Define the suspect pool. In an unsolved case, where the
offender is
unknown, a thorough victimology defines the suspect pool. The
victim’s
lifestyle in general and his or her activities in particular must be
scrutinized to determine who had access to them, what they had

access to,
how and when they gained and maintained access, and where the
access
occurred. If we can understand how and why an offender has
selected
known victims, then we may also be able to establish a
relational link of
some kind between the victim and that offender. These links
may be
geographic, work related, schedule oriented, school related,
hobby related,
or they may be otherwise connected. The connections provide a
suspect
pool that includes those with knowledge of, or access to, the
related area.
Provide investigative suggestions. A thorough victimology
compiled in
the investigative stage will offer suggestions and provide
direction to the
investigation. Such suggestions may include interviewing those
in the
defined suspect pool, interviewing witnesses about

discrepancies in their
statements or contradictions with timeline information, and
examining any
physical evidence that may have been overlooked during the
initial
investigation.
Assist with crime reconstruction. By understanding the victim’s
behavior patterns,
the examiner is better equipped to complete a thorough crime
reconstruction.
Knowing why a victim was in the location where he or she was
acquired or what
the victim was doing in that location will provide the examiner
with information
that may be necessary when inferring the most reasonable
behavior of that victim.
Assist with contextualizing allegations of victimization.
Developing a clear and
factually complete victim history will provide context to the
allegations of
victimization. Victimological information may also support or
refute the

allegations of victimization.
Assist with the development of offender modus operandi.
Knowledge of the
victim’s pattern of behavior in relation to the location where the
victim was
acquired may assist with the development of the offender’s
modus operandi
(MO), specifically in victim selection. For example, an offender
who is trolling
for victims may choose to acquire an opportunistic victim at a
location with
increased victim availability and vulnerability, such as a busy
pub with
intoxicated patrons. This information tells us about the
offender’s MO or the
choices made during the commission of the crime.
Assist with the development of offender motive. Without a
thorough examination
of victim history, the examiner may overlook important
victimological
information that may reflect the offender’s motivation. For
example, an examiner

can only appropriately establish a list of items missing from a
crime scene if it is
known what the victim had in his or her possession at the time
of victimization.
Without this information, a profit-oriented motivation may be
disregarded.
Assist with establishing the offender’s exposure level. Offender
exposure is the
general amount of exposure to discovery, identification, or
apprehension
experienced by the offender. The context surrounding the point
at which the
offender acquired the victim may assist with establishing the
offender’s level of
exposure. For example, an offender who acquires a victim in
broad daylight is at
an increased risk of detection and apprehension, which may
suggest an increased
level of confidence or skill.
Assist with case linkage. When determining whether a series of

crimes can be ignored
during a linkage analysis. A study of the victims across a series
of cases may reveal a
unique connection between the victims, or the exposure levels
of the victims may allow
the examiner to support or refute a linkage.
Assist with public safety response. If we can understand how
and why offenders
have selected their previous victims, then we have a better
chance of predicting
the type of victim they may select in the future. This will allow
the appropriate
public safety messages to be delivered to the public with the
aim of reducing the
exposure levels of those affected individuals. For example, an
offender who
enters multiple residences through unlocked windows may
prompt a public safety
message to be delivered to affected communities warning them
to lock their
windows and doors.
Reduce victim deification and vilification. The objective,

scientific, and thorough
examination of victims assists in reducing victim deification
and vilification.
Deification involves idealizing victims based on who or what
they are, without
consideration of the facts (e.g., young schoolchildren, missing
adolescents, and others
who are favored in the press or by public opinion). Because of
the political or public
culture of a certain area or region, certain victim populations
tend to be more politically
or publicly sympathetic. This view facilitates rationalizations
about time expended on the
deified case while other investigations suffer, and it does not
allow for an unbiased
victimology by virtue of depriving the crime and the
investigation of true victim context.
Deification has the capacity to accomplish the following:
Remove good suspects from the suspect pool
Provide coverage for the false reporter
Provide coverage for suspects who are family or household
members

Vilification involves viewing a victim as worthless or
disposable by virtue of who
or what they are, without consideration of the facts (e.g., the
homeless, the poor, minority
groups, and prostitutes). This view presumes that it is okay, or
not as bad, to commit
crimes against people of certain lifestyle, races, religions, or
creeds. Ultimately, this tends
to be guided by an investigator’s subjective sense of personal
morality—or that of a like-
minded community. Ultimately, it facilitates investigative
apathy. Examples of vilified
groups, or groups toward which there is no lack of apathy,
commonly include the
following:
The homeless/mentally ill
Homosexuals
Minority populations within particular regions, such a
immigrants and Native
Americans
Prostitutes

Drug dealers
Drug addicts
Teen runaways who becomes prostitutes or drug addicts
Individuals of particular religious beliefs
Below is a quick checklist of victim information that may be
useful in an investigation:
1. Basic Demographic Information
Sex
Race
Height
Weight
Hair color/length/dyed
Eyes: color/glasses/contacts
Socio-economic status
Residence
Employment History (Place of employment/work
schedule/supervisor)

Marital Status
Educational background and history
Home Address
2. Lifestyle Information
Grooming/manner of dress
Hobbies/skills and Interests
Alcohol and Drug Use
Routine daily activities and commitments
Recently scheduled events
Upcoming scheduled events
Type of Personality
Sexual History (Dating History, was the victim having an
affair?)
Did the Victim Carry a Weapon?
Location/condition of personal vehicle
Current and previous intimate or marital partner(s)
Current and previous family members
Current and previous household members

Current and previous friends
Current and previous co-workers
Current medical conditions (physical and mental)
Current medications (see purse, desk drawers, and medicine
cabinets)
Compile a list of the victim’s daily routines, habits, and
activities
3. History with the Criminal Justice System
Had the victim a history of crime? A history of reporting
crimes?
Has the victim been the subject of any field [police] reports?
911 calls and criminal history of residence
Criminal history (active investigations, protection orders,
arrests, warrants,
convictions)
Civil court history (lawsuits, judgments, and role)
4. Personal Digital Evidence

Cell phone: calls, chats, address book, GPS, photos, video.
Laptop/desktop: email, calls, chats, documents, address books,
browser history,
photos, video.
Personal Web sites: recent browser history, social network
activity (e.g., Facebook,
Twitter), blogs, dating Web sites, and other personal
subscription Web sites.
Personal GPS device: recent trips, destinations, bookmarked
points of interest
Credit cards/history
Bank accounts/history
5. Time Line Evidence
Create a map of the victim’s route for the 24 hours before the
attack, as detailed as
possible.
Physically walk through the victim’s last 24 hours using the
map and forensic
evidence as a guide

Document expected background elements of the route in terms
of vehicles, people,
activities, professionals, and so on for the time leading up to,
during, and after the
victim was acquired. It is possible that the offender is, or was
masquerading as, one of
those expected elements
Attempt to determine the following:
The point at which the offender acquired the victim
The place where the offender attacked the victim
How well the attack location can be seen from any surrounding
locations
Whether the offender would need to be familiar with the area to
know of this
specific location or get to it.
Whether knowledge of the route would require or indicate prior
surveillance
Whether this route placed the victim at higher or lower
exposure to an attack
Whether the acquisition of the victim on that route placed the
offender at higher

or lower exposure to identification or apprehension.
The Uses of Criminal Profiling
When constructing a criminal profile investigators attempt to
obtain information
from as many different sources as possible. Information may
come from police reports,
witness and/or victim statements, crime scene photos, the
victimology or extensive
background information on the victim, results of a
neighborhood investigations and
witness interviews, medical examiner’s report or autopsy report
if the crime was a
homicide.
Criminal profiling can help define the type of offender
responsible for a crime and
help focus an investigation by narrowing down the list of
possible suspects. For criminal
profilers, crime scenes can tell a story. Clues left at a crime
scene can provide insights to
not only the crime itself, but also provide information about the

offender. Depending on
how much evidence is available at a crime scene, the
information in a criminal profile
may include:
(1) demographic information about an offender, such as age,
race, education, social
economic status, marital status or dating habits, and type of
occupation;
(2) a physical description of the offender, such as body type,
strength, height, weight,
and perhaps personal even hygiene;
(3) information about the offender’s lifestyle, such as hobbies,
living arrangement,
area of residence, drug/alcohol use, and criminal history;
(4) personality characteristics, such as intelligence,
impulsiveness, psychosis,
compulsiveness, and possibility of mental illness;
(5) information concerning the offender’s sexual habits, such
sexual orientation,
paraphilias, whether or not the offender collects pornography;
(6) geographic information about the offender, such as
information concerning a

offender’s mobility and victim selection including how far a
offender may live
from a crime scene and the type of vehicle he or she is likely to
drive;
(7) the offender’s post-offense behavior, such as level of
remorse, interest in
following the media, collection of souvenirs, whether or not the
offender will
volunteer information, whether or not the offender is a police
groupie, whether or
not the offender will return to the crime scene, whether or not
the offender will
move bodies, and the likelihood of committing the same type of
crime again.
A common misconception is that offender profiles are used
solely to help catch a
suspect. In reality, criminal profiles can be very helpful even
after an offender has been
arrested. There are several other possible uses of criminal
profiles. First, offender
profiles can provide police investigators interviewing
suggestions and strategies after a
suspect has been taken into custody. Based upon developing a

psychological profile of
the offender, profilers can suggest the most proper method of
interviewing a suspect. Not
all offenders react to questioning in a similar manner. For one
type of serial rapist, for
example, a profiler may suggest that the police use a low-key
counselor approach in the
interrogation room. For another type of serial rapist, a profiler
may suggest that the
police use a more aggressive, direct approach to get the
information that they need.
A second use of criminal profiles is to aid in probation and
parole considerations.
Criminal profilers, for example, have found that certain child
molesters (regressed) are
less likely to re-offend than other types of child molesters
(fixated). Criminal profilers
working as forensic psychologist often offer psychological
evaluations of offenders that
assist criminal justice personnel in their decision as to whether
or not to release an
offender on probation or parole. (get more and better info from
forensic psychology
book)

Criminal profilers have been used to develop threat
assessments that describe the
type of person or persons that is likelihood to commit a certain
type of crime, such as
workplace violence or a school shooting. Such threat
assessments can provide a model
that can help employers, educators, mental health professionals,
and law enforcement
personnel identify and evaluate potential perpetrators of
violence. Recently, profilers
working at the FBI’s Behavioral Analysis United released a
study entitled “The School
Shooter: A Threat Assessment Perspective” which examined
several common
personality, behavioral, social, and family characteristics among
school shooters. School
shooting and workplace murder will be discussed later in
Chapter --
A fourth use of criminal profiles is to help prosecuting
attorneys develop a trial
strategy. Profilers can help attorneys and the juries understand
the behavior of offenders,

their motivations and how the and offender’s fantasies can
inspire them to commit
sexually motivated crimes. Profilers often formulate a strategy
to help prosecutors bring
out the defendant’s true personality during a trial Profilers have
also helped in developing
cross-examination strategies by answering such questions as:
How should an offender be
approach on the stand? Should one be aggressive and use a very
direct or confrontation
approach? Or, should an attorney be more sympathetic in his or
her approach? How
likely is the offender to “break” under questioning? Once
One of the most famous cases in which criminal profilers aided
the prosecution’s
attempts to convict a serial killer was the Wayne Williams’s
case, discussed earlier in this
chapter. Wayne Williams was the primary suspect in the
murder of 29 young black
males that occurred in Atlanta, Georgia, from 1979 to 1981.
Much of the prosecution’s
case rested on about seven hundred pieces of hair and fiber, and
although investigators
did a thorough job in collecting the fiber evidence, their

courtroom testimony was
extremely complex and by its nature, not very interesting. On
the other hand, Wayne
Williams, who took the stand to defend his self, did not look
like a serial killer. He had
very soft features, wore very thick glasses, and had delicate
hands. He came across as a
mild-mannered, well-spoken, friendly man, who claimed him
was framed by the FBI
because of his race.
Believing that they may be losing the case, prosecutors turned
to profiler and FBI
agent John Douglas to help them in their trial strategy. Douglas
had developed a profile
of Wayne Williams while the murders were still taking place.
Douglas’s profile
described Williams as an obsessive-compulsive with a very
rigid and over-controlling
personality. Douglas suggested that the prosecution pressure
Williams on the stand and
invade Williams’ personal space by touching him. Douglas
believed that if the
prosecuting attorney created enough tension between himself
and Williams, that

Williams would explode, and it happened.
While cross-examining Williams, Assistant District Attorney
Jack Mallard
reached in, put his hands on Williams’s arm said, “What was it
like, Wayne? What was it
like when you wrapped you fingers around the victim’s throat?
Did you panic?”
Williams softly said, “No.” and then flew into a rage, pointing
his finger at John
Douglas and screaming, “You’re trying your best to make me fit
that FBI profile, and I’m
not going to do it!”
For the first time the prosecution successfully showed that the
man who the jury
thought would not hurt a fly had another side. They saw a
metamorphosis before their
own eyes and after eleven hours of deliberation, the jury
returned a guilty verdict.
Wayne Williams was sentenced to two consecutive life terms.
A Brief History of Criminal Profiling

Many trace the origins of criminal profiling back to the
positivist school of
criminology that develop during the 1800s. Positivists believed
that science could be
used to identify criminals before some even committed crimes.
The leader of the
positivist school of criminology, was Ceasare Lombroso, who
influence by the work of
Charles Darwin, believed that criminal were “evolvutionary
throwbacks.” In his book,
The Criminal Mind, published in 1876, Lombroso believed that
criminals could be
distinguished from non-criminals by what he termed “physical
stigmata” or physical
characteristics, such as a long lower jaw, flattened nose, and
long, apelike arms. These
physical characteristics themselves did not cause criminal
behavior; rather they were
visible indicators of a personality type which Lombroso called
atavism. According to
Lombroso, the “mentality of atavistic individuals is that of
primitive man, that these are
biological ‘throwbacks’ to an earlier stage of evolution, and that
the behavior of these

‘throwbacks’ will inevitably be contrary to the rules and
expectations of modern civilized
society.” Most criminologists today, agree that there is no clear
evidence that physical
appearance or physical characteristics are correlated with
criminal behavior.
In 1888, Dr. Thomas Bond became what many regard as the
world’s first profiler.
Dr. Bond was the police surgeon who performed the autopsy on
Mary Kelley, the last
known victim of Jack the Ripper. The Ripper’s murders
occurred between 1888 and
1891 in the White Chapel district of London. The White Chapel
district can best be
described as a slum in which approximately 900,000 people
lived under horrible
conditions. The area was known for its poverty and crime. Most
of the inhabitants of
White Chapel were working poor who either lived in tenement
houses or lodge houses
that held long sleeping room with rows of beds, often infested
with disease and insects.
Most persons lived from day-to-day and the only reliable means
by which a woman could

make a living was by prostitution. It was estimated that over
1,200 prostitutes work the
streets of White Chapel (Sugden, 1994).
It is unclear how many women Jack the Ripper killed. From
April 3, 1888 to
February 13, 1891 police investigated eleven murders that could
have possibly we the
work of Jack of the Ripper. It is generally accepted that Jack
the Ripper was responsible
for at least five of the murders, although some criminologist
believe that he killed all
eleven women (Keppel, R., Weis, J., Brown, K., & Welch, K.,
2005). The following
discussion will examine the murders of the five that are almost
universally agreed upon
as the work of Jack the Ripper, collectively called the
"canonical five" victims.
The first victim was Mary Ann Nichols whose body was
discovered on August
31, 1888 at between 3:40 and 3:45 on the ground in front of a
gated stable entrance in
Buck’s Row a back street in the White Chapel district. The
victim was lying on her back

10922, 1235 PM EBSCOhosthttpsweb.s.ebscohost.comeho.docx

10922, 1235 PM EBSCOhosthttpsweb.s.ebscohost.comeho.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to 10922, 1235 PM EBSCOhosthttpsweb.s.ebscohost.comeho.docx

Similar to 10922, 1235 PM EBSCOhosthttpsweb.s.ebscohost.comeho.docx (8)

More from durantheseldine

More from durantheseldine (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

10922, 1235 PM EBSCOhosthttpsweb.s.ebscohost.comeho.docx