The different ways that a given law is broken reflects individuality of offender’s behavioural aspects for offending. The role of criminal profiling in criminal investigation of crime scenes and offender identification is used to narrow down the broad range of offenders into an accurate suspect pool (Turvey, 1999). The suspect pool may contain a large number of possible offenders and in the past the wrong person has been convicted of an offence. This is sometimes based on the admission fact by an offender rather than on the evidence (Douglass & Munn, 1992), and this is an injustice because individuals have the right to natural Justice especially when the offence in question is considered a Serious offence. Profiling principles such as Modus Operandi (MO) Signature (S) and Staging (Sg) allow investigations to be more precise and accurate (Turvey, 1999; Douglass & Munn 1992; Holmes, 1989). Wrongly convicted individuals have benefited from the use of Criminal Profiling when convictions were quashed through correct application of MO, S and Sg (Douglass et al, 1992).
One way of assessing offender personality types is with the
organized non-social offender and disorganized a-social offender dichotomy
(Holmes, 1989). The personalities of these two offenders’ styles allow
investigators to appraise crime scene inconsistencies with better accuracy. The
capability of an offender is usually a good indicator of wether or not a
particular suspect is a credible suspect. This approach is not parsimonious and
is not substantial enough for a court of law without the support of physical
evidence, which is not usually evident in the organized level though the lack
of it does suggest an organized offender’s presence. However it allows a more
accurate approach in suspect identification that can lead to better leads in a
case. Such leads have been shown to uncover vital evidence that was removed
from the scene by the offender for the purpose of staging and is demonstrated in the
|
organized non-social
offender |
disorganized
a-social offender |
|
Planed offence Targeted stranger Controlled conversation Controlled crime scene Submissive victim Restraints used Aggressive acts Body moved Weapon taken Little evidence |
Spontaneous event Victim Known Minimal conversation Chaotic crime scene Sudden violence No Restraints Sex after death Body not moved Weapon left Good physical evidence found |
|
R. Holmes (1989) The analysis of crime scene, In Profiling violent crimes. p. 51. |
|
MO is the most basic actions that are necessary to completing an offence (Turvey, 1999). MO reflects learned and skilled behaviours, and as such may evolve or de-evolve over time (Turvey, 1999). The MO for a crime can reflect the extent of planning that was present or not during the planing stage of an offence. If high levels of planning wasn’t present in an offence the MO may assist investigators to show disorganisation and randomness in the Behavioural style (Homes, 1989). This has relevance to both S aspect because of the possibility that an offender may be attempting to mislead the authorities by Staging events to make the scene look disorganised such as when a murder is made to look like a burglary gone wrong. In general then it is true that evading the authorities reflects Staging behaviour.
S behaviour refer to the acts committed by an offender, which are above and beyond the basic elements that would constitute and offence (Turvey, 2000). Keppel (2000) has stated that S accounts for emotional or psychological needs inherent to an individual offender. S and MO can both meet offenders motive (Keppel, 2000). The reason or motive for offending varies from offender to offender. S behaviour can be difficult to recognize when victim and offender behaviour create unusual crime scene patterns. Keppel (2000) states that S aspect is the progressive fantasies inherent in the offenders mind relating to offences overtime. Offenders externalize these fantasies during an offence. Ted Bundy for example had particularly sadistic fantasies that he acted out when he murdered his victims displayed by his necrophiliac tendencies (Keppel, 1995; Bell, 2004). Actualizing and externalizing of thoughts into actions is the reflection of unmet emotional needs apparent in the offender’s day-to day interpersonal relationships (Keppel, 2000). Therefore offender S is an indication of the extent of abnormality in the externalized thoughts and actions of the offender, unmet emotional needs may be directly in-proportional to normal behaviour.
S aspects of crimes may be compared with the characteristics of similar crimes to suggest typical or atypical styles of offenders. Douglas and Munn (1992) would say that offenders have fantasy like thoughts, or delusions. S is thus the expression of delusions, which are displayed in the course of events as acts more than necessary to qualify the elements of the offence. In a crime scene investigation there may be evidence of MO and S, “crime scene’s reveal particular characteristics or unusual offender input that occurs while the crime occurs” (Douglas & Munns, 1992, p. 3). Furthermore the stability of S in an offender’s personality can account for fluent escalations of S in an individual offender as evidenced by Serial Killers or Specialist Recidivist offenders.
When a crime scene is odd S aspects and MO can reflect Staging (Sg) behaviour present at the crime scene. A Staged crime scene is a “disposal site that an offender has contrived for the purposes of purposely misleading the investigation” (Turvey, p. 434, 1999). Clues at crime scenes will show inconsistency with the way the crime scene was left by the offender (Douglas & Munns, 1992). Sg is like a synthetic plot that reflects an offender’s idea of what Police will need to solve an offence used to manipulate a misleading trail of evidence referred to as “red flags” (Douglas & Munns, 1992). For example, when physical evidence is left behind on the victim of sadistic crime the mutilated and or naked body is left exposed for the purpose of shocking the investigators into thinking the offender is a monster (Keppel, 1992). Another example is when the offence is made to look like an accident (Douglas & Munns, 1992). Motives and drives are accountable for the use of deception, which is supposed to make the criminal behaviour look like an act of god or an accident (Douglas & Munns, 1992).
The offender profile of an organized offender may look more like a disorganized offender’s profile. The MO of organized offenders shows that violent behaviour is instrumental in nature rather than spontaneous burst of anger and aggression (Holmes, 1987). During an offence the extent of planning will encompass various aspects of MO. Mo is a reflection of learned behaviour. It is a form of cultural identification. For example MO is relative to IQ and IQ is a result of education norms to a given culture (Weiten, 1995). As IQ levels vary among individuals MO can give clues into the personality and or experiences of the offender (see table 2).
|
Table 2. MO variables and Offensive use of Methods. MO
variables |
Offensive
use of Methods |
|
Educational and technical learning experiences |
Specialized computer education may be needed to understand computer mainframes, which can be attacked by computer hackers and stalkers. |
|
Trade or professional experience |
Soldiers or Police (etc) may understand security protocols and use the knowledge to avoid detection when offending (Turvey, 1999). |
|
Criminal experience and confidence. |
When in prison offenders share information about how they got away with offences and correct each other on where they went wrong. |
B. Turvey (1999) Criminal Profiling. Adapted from ch. 13.
Learning experiences are not related to motives, when focusing on MO. All that is important is the behaviour that would alone produce an offence. This is subject to what constitutes an offence in a particular jurisdiction. For example “Disabling in order to commit an indictable offence” (Criminal Code W.A. s. 292) is a provision that caters to offenders who may use ligatures for the purpose of depriving their victim of liberty and leading from this the offender may easily steal from of sexually abuse the victim, which is evident the profiles of violent serial killers. Research shows that violent behaviour is connected to “Imitational learning” (Bandura, Ross & Ross) where individuals observe and then copy what they see. How accurately the observed acts are imitated however can make connecting the criminal behaviour with any discipline. Furthermore a roadblock for investigators is trying to comprehend how sadistic or other heinous acts are learned and practiced. However there are many opportunities on the internet and film media that document such behaviour. The use of fire arms is a common form of MO behaviour in modern crime. Using a gun is often made to look easy (Weiten, 1995). However using a gun takes a little practice where the user learns how to load, operate, aim and mange recoil. Investigating Gun usage in crime involves tracing for physical evidence to uncover the identification of the fun and determining the extent of expertise that is needed to use a gun in a given way (Keppel, 2000).
Another aspect of MO is Stalker MO. Stalking a victim may be
necessary to find the best location to carry out an assault, or determine
information to help a person commit an offence. Stalking in this sense is
surveillance behaviour. Interviewing neighbours about non familiar people seen
around the area an offence occurs may be useful to detect such behaviour. When
a predatory serial offender is on the loose people are often reminded to be on
the lookout for seemingly innocent individuals who appear to be asking or
searching for confidential, private or sensitive information. For example a
murderer may steal an individual’s phone bill from the letterbox in order to
obtain the phone number of the victim. Stalkers often learn there methods from
legitimate surveillance techniques. For example the
Keppel’s (2000) profile of a double murder shows how MO is helpful in case linkage even when MO is not specifically related to both murders. The Canadian police made procedural errors during an interview with a suspect that resulted in a public policy issue arising that led to a re-trial. Evidence of an admission was to be excluded subject to the unfair obtaining of evidence rules. The method used to murder the victims involved the use of a high calibre shot gun. During the two murders the offender took care to remove expelled shot gun cartridges from the scene of the crime. As this was done in both murders and both murders were 3 months apart it can be clearly seen that the offender MO involved cleaning up the crime scene to avoid being caught. In that sense the MO is also an act of staging. Keppels profile is more representative of the way an offenders signature aspects can reveal important clues to help solve a case. The profile showed that two homicides had almost identical signature aspects. One aspect was a control oriented signature reflected in the choice of weapon the used in both offences, which was describes as a form of overkill well above what a reasonable person may describe as necessary to seek and destroy a person. As mentioned before the MO in the two homicides did have very different aspects however the key to the retrial was the hypothesis that signature is relatively stable.
Table 3. Signature aspects used in the Code case and the matching signature behaviour.
|
Murder 1 and 2 signature aspects |
Signature aspects |
|
Both victims were shot twice in the Head. |
Overkill, acts more than necessary to bring about the death of the victim. |
|
Shotgun cases were removed from the scene of the crime. |
Avoiding detection to make detectives look more closely at the heinous acts committed to cause shock and outrage. |
|
|
|
The shotgun overkill aspect allowed Keppel (2000) to conclude that a comparison of characteristics of similar crimes suggests a “typical or atypical style of offender” (Turvey, p. 94, 1999). Table 3 shows a full comparison of these two offender styles. Rape murders are usually related to anger and power (Keppel, 2000). In the majority of signature murders the offenders will ultimately have some comprehension of what acts they have committed, and “knowledge is secondary in importance to the sexual excitement of terrorizing the victims” (Keppel, p 502, 2000). Keppel (2000) would say therefore that the method of establishing control in a victim is of considerable relevance. Furthermore Keppel (2000) has noted that a sexual killer would not ordinarily or commonly frighten the victim. The shotgun overkill element was identified as a pre-planned action that was not appropriate and that became an S aspect (Keppel, 2000). Apart from the shotgun wounds there was no serious damage to both victims, “Physical assault and mayhem are common in rape murder crimes” (Keppel, p. 502, 2000). The unique absence of this was probative of S behaviour as the use of a high calibre shotgun produced the desired effects of controlling the victim and avoiding resistance. The emotional/psychological needs are achieved in this case with controlling behaviour beyond the necessary acts to commit an offence and as such the evidence may be useful as similar fact evidence even though the actual outcome in the Code case was not determined on the reliability of the Profile evidence. The similar fact may be useful to show a propensity were hard evidence is available to suggest that there was a propensity, which was the case.
The case of Mr. Vasquez demonstrates Case Linkage (CL) aspects. CL refers to “the process of demonstrating discrete connections between two or more previously unrelated cases” (Turvey, p. 435, 1999). The wrongful conviction Mr. Vasquez for murder was detected during an investigation of a murder 3 years following the suspect’s conviction. The suspect’s legal counsel persuaded him to plead guilty to the offence to avoid the death penalty. In the investigation of the new murder the detective noticed that the murder Vasquez was convicted of had a similar theme to the murder under investigation (Douglass and Munn, 1992). The new murder had similar fact evidence, being the use of electrical cords to tie up the victim. However the most striking similarity of S behaviour for the purpose of case linkage was the manner and style in which the ligature was tied. This was specific enough to be similar fact evidence. The murderer’s motive was once again reflected by the ligature ties intricate pattern that had the intention of causing shock and fear when the discovery of the body occurred. The signature aspect reflects the need to do that though the reasons why someone does such a thing may vary considerably. The motive, which is “the emotional, psychological or material need that impels, and is satisfied by, a behaviour” (Turvey, p. 443, 1999) was matched with similar motives in other crimes in previous years and a lot of signature resemblances in 3 other unsolved murders led to a new suspect and some real physical evidence (Douglass and Munn, 1992). The physical evidence found also linked the killer to the murder allegedly perpetrated by Vasquez and he was set free.
Crime scenes possess “behavioural clues”. The chain of events in a crime usually indicates a number of acts necessary to complete the MO and S aspects of the crime. For example a person’s contact with the criminal justice system may lead the individual to understand that being caught is not a pleasurable experience so an attempt to stage the scene will occur. Staging is described as “the disposal site that an offender has contrived for the purpose of purposely misleading the investigation” (Turvey, p. 142. 1992). One thing that is important is that the clues at the crime scene will not add up to the acts committed (Keppel, 2000). This can be matched with the MO information to assess how a person has committed the acts and the evidence matches the acts. To notice when this occurs a detective may need to look for red flags or “mistakes offenders make which reflect their idea of how the crime scene should look” (Douglass and Munn, p. 9, 1999). The inconsistence between the crime actually committed and the staging are fed flags that prevent investigations from being misdirected. Crime scene indicators are all evidence of offender activity. A burglary turned homicide may look like an act associated to a disorganized offender profile however the burglary turned homicide may look like an act that was a disorganize aspect of the crime scene however the burglary may have been staged at the time the person would be arriving home so a killing could be made look like an accidental escalation. The Police in one case had realized that valuables left behind in a robbery was suspicious which was therefore a red flag that led to a more thorough investigation that uncovered a plot of a staged crime scene (Douglass and Munns, 1999). The staging will be an attempt to redirect investigations. Police need to be cautious with witnesses who seem to be too helpful or melodramatic as they may be attempting to mislead. A proper crime scene analysis is important. The differences between atypical and typical offenders are a key factor in such an investigation. Investigators must determine if the crime scene is truly disorganized or the offender staged it to appear careless or haphazard (Douglass and Munns, p. 7. 1999).
In summing up it is clear that MO, S and SG aspects are an interdisciplinary method of suspect pooling and identification and prosecution. Profiling of criminals is an important aspect in the mysterious crimes that baffle the minds of detectives and investigators alike. The caution would be worth while examining for investigators as well as the rules of evidence which may either cause a case to be dismissed if the rules are not obeyed or lead to wrongful conviction were evidence is weak and the defendant makes an admission that is held to be fairly obtained that is not in-fact fair as such as noted in this paper via Mr Vasquez’s situation. Detectives may be able to piece together enough leads by noticing red flags or analysing the elements of the crime scene and correlating it with the offender behavioural style guidelines that will lead to more unsolved cases being solved and less wrongful prosecutions.
References
Bandura,
A., Ross, D., and Ross, S. A., (1961) TRANSMISSION OF AGGRESSION THROUGH
IMITATION
OF AGGRESSIVE MODELS Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63,
575-582. available http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Bandura/bobo.htm
(accessed
Bandura, A., Ross, D., and Ross, S. A., (1995) Vicarious
reinforcement and imitative learning, In Weiten, W. Psycholgoy Themes and
Variations.
Homes, R. (1989) The analysis of the crime scene. In Profiling
violent crimes. ch. 5, p. 42-54.
Keppel, R., D., (1995) 
Riverman: Ted Bundy & I Hunt for the Green River Killer
.
Weiten, W. (1995). Psychology: Themes & Variations 3rd ed.
USA: Brooks/Cole.
