FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, February 1992

http://www.fbi.gov/library/leb/leb.htm

VIOLENT CRIME SCENE ANALYSIS:

MODUS OEPRANDI, SIGNATURE, AND STAGING

By

John E. Douglas, Ed.D.

Special Agent

Chief of the Investigative Support Unit

FBI Academy

and

Corinne Munn

Served as Honors Intern

FBI Academy

Most crime scenes tell a story. And like most stories,

crime scenes have characters, a plot, a beginning, a middle, and

hopefully, a conclusion. However, in contrast to authors who

lead their readers to a predetermined ending, the final

disposition of a crime scene depends on the investigators

assigned to the case. The investigators' abilities to analyze

the crime scene and to determine the who, what, how, and why

govern how the crime scene story unfolds.

To ensure a satisfactory ending, that is, the apprehension

and prosecution of the violent crime offender, investigators

must realize that the outcome depends on their insight into the

dynamics of human behavior. Speech patterns, writing styles,

verbal and nonverbal gestures, and other traits and patterns

give shape to human behavior. These individual characteristics

work in concert to cause each person to act, react, function, or

perform in a unique and specific way. This individualistic

behavior usually remains consistent, regardless of the activity

being performed.

Since the commission of a violent crime involves all the

dynamics of "normal" human behavior, learning to recognize crime

scene manifestations of behavioral patterns enables

investigators to discover much about the offender. It also

provides a means by which investigators can distinguish between

different offenders committing the same types of offense.

There are three possible manifestations of offender

behavior at a crime scene--modus operandi, personation or

signature, and staging. This article addresses each of these

manifestations in order to demonstrate the importance of

analyzing a crime scene in terms of human behavior.

MODUS OPERANDI

In 1989, Nathaniel Code, Jr., a Shreveport, Louisiana, man,

was convicted of murder. The jury determined that on three

separate occasions between 1984 and 1987, Code murdered a total

of eight people. The jury returned a guilty verdict, even

though several disparities existed among the three crime scenes.

For example, the offender gagged the first victim with a

piece of material obtained at the crime scene, but brought duct

tape to use on the seven victims in the other two incidents.

Also, the killer stabbed and slashed the first victim, whereas

the victims of the other two crimes were also shot and showed

signs of ligature strangulation. The victims ranged in age from

8 years to 74 years and included both sexes; however, all were

black. And, the offender took money from one crime scene, but

not the other two.

Considering the evidence found at the three crime scenes,

could one man be linked to all of the murders? Wouldn't such

differences in modus operandi (M.O.), which is the offender's

actions while committing the crime, and victimology

(characteristics of the victims) eliminate the connection to one

offender?

When attempting to link cases, the M.O. has great

significance. A critical step in crime scene analysis is the

resulting correlation that connects cases due to similarities in

M.O. But, what causes an offender to use a certain M.O.? What

circumstances shape the M.O.? Is the M.O. static or dynamic?

Unfortunately, investigators make a serious error by

placing too much significance on the M.O. when linking crimes.

For example, a novice burglar shatters a locked basement window

to gain access to a house. Fearing that the sound of a window

breaking will attract attention, he rushes in his search for

valuables. Later, during subsequent crimes, he brings tools to

force open locks, which will minimize the noise. This allows

him more time to commit the crimes and to obtain a more

profitable haul.

As shown, the burglar refined his breaking-and-entering

techniques to lower the risk of apprehension and to increase

profits. This demonstrates that the M.O. is a learned behavior

that is dynamic and malleable. Developed over time, the M.O.

continuously evolves as offenders gain experience and

confidence.

Incarceration usually impacts on the future M.O.s of

offenders, especially career criminals. Offenders refine their

M.O.s as they learn from the mistakes that lead to their

arrests.

The victim's response also significantly influences the

evolution of the M.O. If a rapist has problems controlling a

victim, he will modify the M.O. to accommodate resistance. He

may use duct tape, other ligatures, or a weapon on the victim.

Or, he may blitz the victim and immediately incapacitate her.

If such measures are ineffective, he may resort to greater

violence or he may kill the victim. Thus, offenders continually

reshape their M.O. to meet the demands of the crime.

In the case of Nathanial Code, M.O. and victimology alone

would have failed to link him to each of the eight murders. But

Code left more than gags, duct tape, and bodies with gunshot

wounds and slashed throats at the crime scenes; he left his

"calling card." Investigators found this "calling card" or

signature aspect at every crime scene, and thus, were able to

link Code to the offenses.

THE SIGNATURE ASPECT

The violent, repetitive offender often exhibits another

element of criminal behavior during the crime--the signature

aspect or "calling card." This criminal conduct is a unique and

integral part of the offender's behavior and goes beyond the

actions needed to commit the crime.

Fantasies of offenders often give birth to violent crime.

As offenders brood and daydream, they develop a need to express

these violent fantasies. When they are finally acted out, some

aspect of each crime demonstrates a unique, personal expression

or ritual based on these fantasies. However, committing the

crime does not satisfy the needs of offenders, and this

insufficiency compels them to go beyond the scope of the offense

and perform a ritual. When offenders display rituals at the

crime scene, they have left their individualized "calling card."

How do crime scenes manifest this "calling card" or

signature aspect? Basically, crime scenes reveal peculiar

characteristics or unusual offender input that occur while the

crime is being committed.

For example, a rapist demonstrates his signature by

engaging in acts of domination, manipulation, or control during

the verbal, physical, or sexual phase of the assault. The use

of exceptionally vulgar or abusive language, or preparing a

script for the victim to repeat, represents a verbal signature.

When the rapist prepares a script for a victim, he dictates a

particular verbal response from her, such as "Tell me how much

you enjoy sex with me," or "Tell me how good I am."

The use of excessive physical force shows another aspect of

a subject's signature. One example of signature sexual behavior

involves the offender who repeatedly engages in a specific order

of sexual activity with different victims.

The signature aspect remains a constant and enduring part

of each offender. And, unlike the M.O., it never changes.

However, signature aspects may evolve, such as in the case of a

lust murderer who performs greater postmortem mutilation as he

progresses from crime to crime. Elements of the original ritual

become more fully developed. In addition, the signature does

not always show up at every crime scene because of unexpected

contingencies, such as interruptions or an unexpected victim

response.

The investigator may not always be able to identify

signature aspects. Violent offenses often involve high-risk

victims or decomposition of the body, which complicates

recognizing the signature aspects of an offender.

MODUS OPERANDI OR SIGNATURE ASPECT?

The following scenarios are fictitious accounts. They are

used to show the difference between a M.O. and a signature

aspect.

A rapist enters a residence and takes a woman and her

husband captive. The offender orders the husband to lie face

down on the floor and then places a cup and saucer on his back.

He tells the husband, "If I hear the cup move or hit the floor,

your wife dies." The offender then takes the wife into the next

room and rapes her.

In another situation, a rapist enters the house, orders the

woman to phone her husband, and tells her to use some ploy to

get him to come home. Once the husband arrives, the rapist ties

him to a chair and forces him to watch the assault on his wife.

The rapist who used the cup and saucer developed an

effective modus operandi to control the husband. However, the

other rapist went beyond just committing the rape. He satisfied

his fantasies fully by not only raping the wife but also by

humiliating and dominating the husband. His personal needs

compelled him to perform this signature aspect of the crime.

In Michigan, a bank robber makes the bank tellers undress

during the robbery. In Texas, another bank robber also forces

the tellers to undress, but he also makes them pose in sexually

provocative positions as he takes photographs. Do both of these

crimes demonstrate a signature aspect?

The Michigan robber used a very effective means to increase

his escape time, i.e., causing the tellers to dress before they

called the police. When interviewed, they offered vague, meager

descriptions because their embarrassment prevented them from

having eye contact with the robber. This offender developed a

very clever M.O.

However, the Texas robber went beyond the required action

to commit his crime successfully. He felt compelled to enact

the ritual of requiring the tellers to pose so that he could

snap photographs. He left his signature on the crime. The act

of robbing the bank itself did not gratify his psychosexual

needs.

LINKING CASES

When attempting to link cases, the M.O. plays an important

role. However, as stated previously, the M.O. should not be

the only criteria used to connect crimes, especially with repeat

offenders who alter their M.O. through experience and learning.

Usually, first offenses differ considerably from subsequent

offenses. However, the signature aspect stays the same, whether

it is the first offense or one committed 10 years later. The

ritual may evolve, but the theme remains constant.

The signature aspect should receive greater consideration

than victim similarities, although these should never be

discounted when attempting to link cases to a serial offender.

Physical similarities of victims are often not important,

especially when linking crimes motivated by anger. The offender

expresses anger through rituals, not by attacking a victim who

possesses a particular characteristic or trait.

CASES LINKED BY OFFENDER SIGNATURE

Ronnie Shelton: Serial Rapist

Ronnie Shelton committed as many as 50 rapes. When

convicted of 28 of them, he received a prison sentence in excess

of 1,000 years. (1) Both his verbal communication and sexual

assaults manifested his signature.

Verbally, Shelton was exceptionally degrading and

exceptionally vulgar. In addition, he would make such comments

as "I have seen you with your boyfriend," "I've seen you

around," or "You know who I am." Thoughts of Shelton lurking

around their neighborhoods terrorized the victims.

However, it was the sexual assault itself that occupied the

central position in Shelton's ritual. He would rape his victims

vaginally, then withdraw and ejaculate on their stomachs or

breasts. Shelton would also frequently masturbate over the

victims or between their breasts or force them to masturbate him

manually. Then, he would use their clothing to wipe off the

ejaculation. He also forced many of his victims to have oral

sex with him and then insisted that they swallow the

ejaculation. The combination of these acts displayed Shelton's

signature.

Shelton's M.O. consisted of entering the victim's dwelling

through a window or patio entrance that faced a wooded area or

bushes offering concealment. He wore a ski mask, stocking, or

scarf. He convinced the victims that he was not there to rape

but to rob them. However, when he had the victim under control,

he would return to the rape mode. The victim would comply

because she had seen his propensity for violence by his earlier

actions, such as throwing her on the floor or holding a knife to

her throat. In addition, Shelton would say to the victims,

"Keep your eyes down," "Cover your eyes," or "Don't look at me

and I won't kill you (hurt your kids)." Before he left, he

would verbally intimidate them with such warnings as "Don't call

the police or I'll come back and kill you." These

characteristics served as Shelton's M.O., whereas his former

actions were his signature that linked him to 28 sexual

assaults.

Nathaniel Code: Serial Killer

Nathaniel Code, Jr., killed eight times on three separate

occasions. The first homicide, a 25-year-old black female,

occurred on August 8, 1984. Code stabbed her nine times in the

chest and slashed her throat.

Approximately a year later, on July 19, 1985, Code killed

four people--a 15-year-old girl, her mother, and two of their

male friends. Code nearly severed the girl's head from her

body. He asphyxiated the mother and draped her body over the

side of the bath tub. Code then shot one of the males in the

head, leaving him in a middle bedroom; the other male, who was

found in the front bedroom, was shot twice and had his throat

slit.

The last killing took place on August 5, 1987. The victims

were Code's grandfather and his 8-year-old and 12-year-old

nephews. The boys died of ligature strangulation. Code stabbed

his grandfather five times in the chest and seven times in the

back.

The changes in Code's M.O., exhibited from case to case,

show how the M.O. is refined. For example, in the first murder,

Code gagged the victim with material found at the scene; the

next time, he brought duct tape.

Code also kept his victims under surveillance to obtain

information on them, especially with the second killings. In

that case, he brought a gun to the scene to dispose of the

males, who posed the greatest threat to him. Since the last

victims, an elderly man and two children, posed little threat to

him, Code did not use a gun on them.

All eight killings occurred in single family dwellings. In

each dwelling, the air conditioners and/or televisions were on,

which drowned out the noise as he entered through a door or

window. Code quickly gained and maintained control of the

victims by separating them in different rooms.

Nathaniel Code had a very distinctive "calling card," one

aspect of which were the injuries inflicted on the victims.

Code employed a very bloody method of attack and overkill. He

could have simply murdered each victim with a single gunshot

wound--a clean kill involving very little "mess." Instead, Code

slaughtered his victims by slashing their throats with a sawing

motion that resulted in deep wounds. Although brutal, the

attack didn't satisfy his ritual; all victims sustained

additional injuries, with the exception of the 15-year-old girl.

One male victim suffered gunshot wounds to the chest, while

another received multiple stab wounds to the chest. Code

wounded nearly all the victims far beyond what was necessary to

cause death (overkill).

The physical violence and bloody overkill satisfied Code's

need for domination, control, and manipulation. He positioned

each victim face down, which supports this theory. Code even

forced the mother to witness her daughter's death as part of

this ritual of control, which was formed from his rage. In

fact, forensic tests found the daughter's blood on the mother's

dress. If the victim's response threatened his sense of

domination, Code reacted with anger and the excessive violence

that led to overkill.

The last signature aspect of Code's crimes probably best

illustrates his unique "calling card"--the ligatures. Code used

both an unusual configuration and material. In all three cases,

he bound the victims with electrical appliance or telephone

cords acquired at the scene. Code could have brought rope or

used his duct tape, but the use of these cords satisfied some

personal need. Using a handcuff-style configuration, he looped

the cord around each wrist and then the ankles, connecting them

to the wrists by a lead going through the legs.

The dissimilarities of these cases involves the M.O., not

the signature aspect. The use of a gun with threatening males

present reveals an adaptive offender. At the time of the

grandfather's homicide, additional financial stressors affected

Code, evidenced by the theft of money from his grandfather's

residence. These financial stressors influenced Code's M.O.,

not his "calling card."

Physical characteristics, age, and even sex do not enhance

or diminish the ritual driven by rage. Code's ritual of anger

required control and domination of his victims, so victimology

was not as important. Code, like Ronnie Shelton, the serial

rapist, selected victims he could control, manipulate, and on

whom he could project his anger.

IMPORTANCE OF OFFENDER SIGNATURE

Understanding and recognizing the signature aspects is

vital in the apprehension and prosecution of an offender,

especially a serial offender. No one appreciates the importance

of recognizing an offender's "calling card" more than David

Vasquez.

In 1984, Vasquez pled guilty to the murder of a 34-year-old

Arlington, Virginia, woman. The woman had been sexually

assaulted and died of ligature strangulation. The killer left

her lying face down with her hands tied behind her back. He

used unique knots and excessive binding with the ligatures, and

a lead came from the wrists to the neck over the left shoulder.

The body was openly displayed so that discovery offered

significant shock value.

The offender spent considerable time at the crime scene.

He made extensive preparations to bind the victim, allowing him

to control her easily. His needs dictated that he move her

around the house, exerting total domination over her. It

appeared that he even took her into the bathroom and made her

brush her teeth. None of this behavior was necessary to

perpetrate the crime; the offender felt compelled to act out

this ritual.

Vasquez had a borderline I.Q. Believing this would make it

difficult to prove his innocence, his lawyers convinced him that

he would probably receive the death sentence if the case went to

trial. Instead, Vasquez opted for life imprisonment by pleading

guilty.

Three years later, in 1987, police discovered a 44-year-old

woman lying nude and face down on her bed. A rope bound her

wrists behind her back, and a ligature strand tightly encircled

her neck with a slip knot at the back. It continued over her

left shoulder, down her back, and then was wrapped three times

around each wrist. Forensics revealed that she died of ligature

strangulation, and that she had been sexually assaulted. The

offender left the body exposed and openly displayed. He

appeared to have spent a considerable amount of time at the

crime scene. This homicide occurred 4 blocks from the 1984

murder.

David Vasquez had been imprisoned 3 years when the 1987

murder occurred. At the request of the Arlington, Virginia,

Police Department, the National Center for the Analysis of

Violent Crime (NCAVC) conducted an extensive analysis of these

two murders, a series of sexual assaults, and several other

killings that occurred between 1984 and 1987. Eventually, the

NCAVC linked these offenses through analogous signature aspects

of another local suspect. Physical evidence later corroborated

this connection and determined that the "calling card" left at

the 1984 homicide did not belong to David Vasquez. As a result

of this finding, the Commonwealth of Virginia released Vasquez

from prison and exonerated him of the crime.

STAGING

When investigators approach a crime scene, they should look

for behavioral "clues" left by the offender. This is when

investigators attempt to find answers to several critical

questions. How did the encounter between the offender and

victim occur? Did the offender blitz (ambush) the victim, or

did he use verbal means (the con) to capture her? Did the

offender use ligatures to control the victim? What was the

sequence of events? Was the victim sexually assaulted before or

after death? When did the mutilation take place--before or

after death? Did the offender place any item at the crime scene

or remove something from the crime scene?

As investigators analyze crime scenes, facts may arise that

baffle them. These details may contain peculiarities that serve

no apparent purpose in the perpetration (2) of the crime and

obscure the underlying motive of the crime. This confusion may

be the result of a crime scene behavior called staging. Staging

occurs when someone purposely alters the crime scene prior to

the arrival of the police.

Reasons for Staging

Principally, staging takes place for two reasons--to direct

the investigation away from the most logical suspect or to

protect the victim or victim's family. It is the offender who

attempts to redirect the investigation. This offender does not

just happen to come upon a victim, but is someone who almost

always has some kind of association or relationship with the

victim. This person, when in contact with law enforcement, will

attempt to steer the investigation away from himself, usually by

being overly cooperative or extremely distraught. Therefore,

investigators should never eliminate a suspect who displays such

distinctive behavior.

The second reason for staging, to protect the victim or the

victim's family, occurs for the most part in rape-murder crimes

or autoerotic fatalities. This type of staging is performed by

the family member or person who finds the body. Since

perpetrators of such crimes leave their victims in degrading

positions, those who find the bodies attempt to restore some

dignity to the victim. For example, a husband may redress or

cover his wife's body, or in the case of an autoerotic fatality,

(3) a wife may cut the noose or the device suspending the body

of her husband.

Basically, these people are trying to prevent future shock

that may be brought about by the position, dress, or condition

of the victim. In addition, they will often stage an autoerotic

fatality to look like a suicide, perhaps even writing a suicide

note. They may even go so far as to the make it appear to be a

homicide.

For both types of crime scene investigations, rape-murders

and autoerotic fatalities, investigators need to obtain an

accurate description of the body's condition when found and to

determine exactly what the person who found the body did to

alter the crime scene. Scrutiny of forensic findings, crime

scene dynamics, and victimology will probably reveal the true

circumstances surrounding the deaths.

Finally, at some crime scenes, investigators must discern

if the scene is truly disorganized or if the offender staged it

to appear careless and haphazard. This determination not only

helps to direct the analysis to the underlying motive but also

helps to shape the offender profile. However, recognition of

staging, especially with a shrewd offender, can be difficult.

Investigators must examine all factors of the crime if they

suspect it has been staged. This is when forensics,

victimology, and minute crime scene details become critical to

determine if staging occurred.

"Red Flags"

Offenders who stage crime scenes usually make mistakes

because they arrange the scene to resemble what they believe it

should look like. In so doing, offenders experience a great

deal of stress and do not have the time to fit all the pieces

together logically. As a result, inconsistencies in forensic

findings and in the overall "big picture" of the crime scene

will begin to appear. These inconsistencies can serve as the

"red flags" of staging, which serve to prevent investigations

from becoming misguided.

To ensure this doesn't happen, investigators should

scrutinize all crime scene indicators individually, then view

them in context with the total picture. Crime scene indicators

include all evidence of offender activity, e.g., method of

entry, offender-victim interaction, and body disposition.

When exploring these issues, investigators should consider

several factors. For example, if burglary appears to be the

motive, did the offender take inappropriate items from the crime

scene? In one case submitted to the National Center for the

Analysis of Violent Crime (NCAVC), a man returning home from

work interrupted a burglary in progress. The startled burglars

killed him as he attempted to flee. But, an inventory of the

crime scene determined that the offenders did not steal

anything, although it did appear that they started to

disassemble a large stereo and TV unit.

Further examination of the crime scene revealed that they

left smaller, and easily transported, items of far greater value

(jewelry, coin collection, etc.). The police subsequently

determined that the victim's wife paid the burglars to stage the

crime and kill her husband. She, in fact, was having an affair

with one of the suspects.

Another factor to consider is the point of entry. Did the

point of entry make sense? For example, did the offender enter

the house through a second-story window, even though there was

an easier, less conspicuous entrance that could have been used?

Why did the offender increase his chance of being seen by

potential witnesses who might alert authorities?

Investigators should also consider whether the offender put

himself at high risk by committing the crime during the daylight

hours, in a populated area. If the crime scene is a place of

residence, they should also evaluate any obvious signs of

occupancy, such as lights on in the house, vehicles in the

driveway, etc.

Case Scenario

The following case scenario brings to light some "red

flags" that investigators should look for at a crime scene.

One Saturday morning, in a small Northeastern city, an

unknown intruder attacked a man and his wife. By placing a

ladder against the house, the suspect made it appear that he had

climbed to a second-story window, removed the screen, and

entered the residence. All this occurred in a residential area

during a time when neighbors were doing their weekend chores and

errands.

The husband claimed that he heard a noise downstairs, so he

went with a gun to investigate. A struggle with the intruder

ensued, during which the husband was left unconscious by a blow

to the head.

Presumably, the intruder then went upstairs and killed the

wife by manual strangulation. He left the body with a nightgown

pulled up around the victim's waist, implying that he sexually

assaulted her. The couple's 5-year-old daughter remained

unharmed, asleep in the next room.

While processing the crime scene, detectives noted that the

ladder made no impression in the moist soil near the house,

although it did when they tried to climb the ladder. Also, the

intruder positioned the ladder with the rungs facing away from

the house, and many of the rungs on the wooden ladder had

rotted, making it impossible for it to support anyone weighing

over 50 pounds.

In addition, the crime scene raised questions that could

not be answered logically. Why didn't the offender choose to

enter the residence through a first-story window to decrease the

possibility of detection by both the occupants and neighbors?

Why did the offender want to burglarize the residence on a

Saturday morning when there was a good chance that he would be

seen by neighbors? Why did the intruder choose a residence that

was obviously occupied (several vehicles were in the driveway)?

Inside the residence, other inconsistencies became

apparent. For example, if the intent was murder, the intruder

did not seek his victim(s) immediately, but went downstairs

first. He also did not come equipped to kill because, according

to the one witness, the husband, he never displayed a weapon.

Also, the person posing the most threat, the husband, received

only minor injuries.

By analyzing the crime scene, which revealed excessive

offender activity, it became apparent that there was no clear

motive for the crime. Therefore, based on the numerous

inconsistencies found at the crime scene, NCAVC criminal

investigative analysts conclud-ed that the husband staged the

homicide to make it appear to be the work of an intruder. He was

eventually convicted of his wife's murder.

Forensic "Red Flags"

Forensic results that don't fit the crime should also cause

investigators to consider staging. Personal assaults should

raise suspicion, especially if material gain appears to be the

initial motive. These assaults could include the use of a weapon

of opportunity, manual or ligature strangulation, facial beating

(depersonalization), and excessive trauma beyond that necessary

to cause death (overkill). In other words, do the injuries fit

the crime?

Sexual and domestic homicides usually demonstrate forensic

findings of a close-range, personal assault. The victim, not

money or property, is the primary focus of the offender.

However, this type of offender will often attempt to stage a

sexual or domestic homicide that appears to be motivated by

personal gain. This does not imply that personal assaults never

happen while a property crime is being committed, but usually

these offenders prefer quick, clean kills that reduce the time

spent at the scene.

Forensic red flags are also raised when there are

discrepancies between witness/survivor accounts and forensics

results. For example, in one case, an estranged wife found her

husband in the tub with the water running. Initially, it

appeared as if he slipped and struck his head on a bathroom

fixture, which resulted in his death by drowning. However,

toxicological reports from the autopsy showed a high level of

valium in the victim's blood. Also, the autopsy revealed several

concentrated areas of injury or impact points on the head, as if

the victim struck his head more than once.

Subsequently, investigators learned that the wife had been

with the victim on the evening of his death. She later

confessed that she laced his dinner salad with valium, and when

he passed out, she let three men into the house. These men had

been hired by the wife to kill the victim and to make it look

like an accident.

Often, investigators will find forensic discrepancies when

an offender stages a rape-murder, that is, positioning the body

to infer sexual assault. And if the offender has a close

relationship with the victim, he will only partially remove the

victim's clothing, never leaving her completely nude. However,

despite the position of the body and the removal of some of the

victim's clothes, an autopsy can confirm or deny whether any

form of sexual assault took place, thereby determining if the

crime scene was staged.

If investigators suspect a crime has been staged, they

should look for signs of association between the offender and

the victim. Or, as is frequently the case with domestic

violence, the involvement of a third party, who is usually the

one who discovers the victim. For example, in the case

involving the husband who staged his wife's murder to make it

look like the crime was committed by an intruder, the husband

did not immediately check on his wife and daughter once he

regained consciousness. Instead, he remained downstairs and

called his brother, who went upstairs and discovered the victim.

Offenders will often manipulate the discovery of victims by a

neighbor or family member, or conveniently be elsewhere when the

victim is discovered.

CONCLUSION

Violent crime scenes require investigators to be

"diagnosticians." They must be able to analyze crime scenes for

the messages they emit and understand the dynamics of human

behavior displayed at crime scenes. Investigators must also be

able to recognize the different manifestations of behavior, so

they can ask the right questions to get valid answers.

By approaching each crime scene with an awareness of these

factors, investigators can steadily improve their ability to

read the true story of each violent crime scene. By doing so,

they will be more knowledgeable and better equipped to apprehend

the violent crime offender.

FOOTNOTES

(1) SA Douglas has qualified as an expert in criminal

investigative analysis and has provided testimony in the area of

signature crime analysis during the following court proceedings:

State of Ohio v. Ronnie Shelton, State of Louisiana v.

Nathaniel Code, and State of Delaware v. Steven B. Pennell.

(2) P.E. Dietz, M.D. and R.R. Hazelwood, "Atypical

Autoerotic Fatalities," Medicine and Law, 1, 1982, 301-319.

(3) Ibid.