|
By Dr. Rick Shadrick
Most crime scenes tell a story.
And like most stories, crime scenes have
characters, a plot, a beginning, 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 was 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 involve 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 perpetration2
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
concluded-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.
Reflections
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.
About The Author
Dr. Rick A. Shadrick has over twenty years of
experience in law enforcement, education and
music. With past experience as a Patrol Division
Sergeant, Major Crimes Investigator, and Forensic
Profiler, he currently consults with law
enforcement institutions, teaches at police
academies, and instructs as an online-associate
professor of Criminal Justice, Psychology, and
Music Ministry. Dr. Shadrick's faculties and work
have been honored with receiving several awards
for songwriting, music composition, and ongoing
publication of psycho-analytical theories.
Dr. Shadrick can be contacted by email at
rickshadrick@gmail.com
Endnotes
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. |
