Does the Organized Sexual Murderer Better Delay and Avoid Detection?

Abstract

According to the organized–disorganized model, organized sexual murderers adopt specific behaviors during the commission of their crimes that contribute to avoiding police detection. The current study examines the effect of sexual murderers’ organized behaviors on their ability to both delay and/or avoid police detection. Using a combination of negative binomial and logistic regression analyses on a sample of 350 sexual murder cases, findings showed that although both measures of delaying and avoiding detection are positively correlated, different behavioral patterns were observed. For instance, offenders who moved the victim’s body were more likely to avoid detection but the victim’s body was likely to be recovered faster. Moreover, victim characteristics have an impact on both measures; however, this effect disappears for the measure of delaying detection once the organized behaviors are introduced. Implications of the findings are discussed.

Keywords

detection avoidance rational choice sexual homicide organized–disorganized typology homicide clearance criminal investigation

Introduction

Sexual homicide is arguably one of the hardest types of homicide for police to solve. This is in large part due to the low base rate for sexual homicide—representing between 1% to 4% of all homicides in North America (Chan, Heide, & Myers, 2013; J. V. Roberts & Grossman, 1993). Given the low prevalence of this type of crime, detectives cannot necessarily rely on the experience gained during previous investigations. As these crimes typically involve a stranger victim, it can be difficult to establish the connection between the offender and the victim (Beauregard & Proulx, 2002; Proulx, Beauregard, Cusson, & Nicole, 2007). Sexual murderers may also target particularly vulnerable or high-risk victims (e.g., sex trade workers), also making the crime more difficult for the police to solve (Salfati, James, & Ferguson, 2008). The absence of a prior relationship between the offender and the victim can result in a longer time period between offense and the recovery of the victim’s body. Despite the fact that these crimes usually present more than one source of forensic evidence, such evidence may be destroyed if the body has been exposed for a long period of time to the elements. Finally, sexual homicide may appear motiveless due to the apparent randomness of the victim selection, which constitutes an additional hurdle for the police investigation.

Due to the complexity of sexual homicide cases, such investigations are not immune to criminal investigative failures (Rossmo, 2009). However, not all unsolved sexual homicide cases constitute such a failure. In some cases, offenders make rational choices which enhance their ability to avoid police detection. These offenders not only benefit from the difficulties inherent in the investigation of sexual homicides but also incorporate specific strategies within their modus operandi (MO) to delay body discovery and ultimately, avoid police detection. The current study examines some of these behaviors—that is, organized behaviors by sexual murderers—and their relationship to the number of days before body recovery. The study also examines such behaviors as they relate to case status, that is, solved or unsolved.

Avoiding Police Detection in Theory

Avoiding detection is a topic of particular importance for law enforcement, and three non-mutually exclusive criminological approaches have emerged which address this topic. When looking at factors influencing the solvability of homicide in general, the non-discretionary or solvability perspective suggests that it is the characteristics of the offense itself that are most important in determining if the crime will be solved (Riedel, 2008). For instance, offenders who kill late at night (Alderden & Lavery, 2007), leave the body in a vehicle or a public location (Xu, 2008), and use a firearm (Litwin, 2004; Mouzos & Muller, 2001; Puckett & Lundman, 2003; Regoeczi, Kennedy, & Silverman, 2000; however not in Xu, 2008) are less likely to be apprehended by the police. Moreover, previous studies have identified several target selection characteristics significantly associated with the clearance rate of homicide. Homicides involving younger (Litwin, 2004; Mouzos & Muller, 2001; Puckett & Lundman, 2003; Regoeczi et al., 2000), female (Alderden & Lavery, 2007; however not in Regoeczi et al., 2000, study), White (Litwin, 2004; Litwin & Xu, 2007; A. Roberts & Lyons, 2009; however not in Regoeczi et al., 2000), and non-stranger victims (Ousey & Lee, 2010; Riedel & Jarvis, 1999; Xu, 2008) are more likely to be solved. According to this perspective, the police are fully engaged and committed to clear every homicide, although they may not be able to do so due to external situational factors.

Another approach focuses on the offender’s action in relation to detection avoidance. In expanding the concept of “restrictive deterrence”—which refers to any strategies employed by the offender to evade detection (Gibbs, 1975)—Jacobs (1996a, 1996b) examined the strategies developed by drug dealers to avoid detection. Offenders who adapt their modus operandi to thwart police investigative efforts may be said to be exhibiting investigative awareness—that is, a knowledge or understanding of police investigative practice (Beauregard & Martineau, 2012). In a study of 222 rape events, Beauregard and Bouchard (2010) examined the effect of disinhibitors (e.g., drug consumption), target selection behaviors (e.g., non-random victim selection), and acts that may potentially leave evidence at the crime scene (e.g., offender ejaculated at the scene) on the use of forensic awareness strategies—that is, the taking of additional steps and adapting one’s modus operandi to hide evidence to ultimately avoid apprehension (e.g., wear gloves, wipe semen; Davies, 1992). In addition to the finding that offenders with target preferences are more likely to show forensic awareness, Beauregard and Bouchard (2010) found that some offenders are more likely to take precautions and make sure to destroy or clean up any evidence that could have been left behind due to some of their actions (i.e., breaking and entering, penetrating the victim, and ejaculating at the crime scene).

A third perspective to explain the use of detection avoidance strategies by offenders—rational choice or the modus operandi approach—has been suggested by Beauregard and Martineau (2014). According to this approach, criminals avoid police detection because they make specific choices that will allow them to go unnoticed. This perspective focuses on the actions of the criminal based on a cost-benefit analysis as opposed to the failure of the criminal justice system to solve the crime. In their study of sexual murderers, Beauregard and Martineau (2014) found that although an offender’s use of precautions does not seem to increase the offender’s chance of avoiding police detection, some modus operandi behavior adopted by the offender at the crime scene (e.g., concealing the victim’s body) may help to delay the discovery of the victim, and thus delay the offender’s apprehension.

Regardless of theoretical explanation, it seems that offenders are capable of identifying and adopting behaviors that may increase their chance of avoiding police detection.

“Organized” Behaviors as a Way to Avoid Detection

In the late 1970s and beginning of the 1980s, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Behavioral Science Unit conducted an important research project aimed at collecting information on the modus operandi, crime scene characteristics, and criminal profiles of sexual murderers, to better understand how some of these offenders were able to elude police detection for so long (Douglas, Burgess, Burgess, & Ressler, 2006; Ressler, Burgess, & Douglas, 1988; Ressler, Burgess, Douglas, Hartman, & D’Agostino, 1986). They identified and interviewed 36 incarcerated sexual murderers—the lust murderers—who collectively were responsible for 118 victims. According to Hazelwood and Douglas (1980), “the lust murder is unique and is distinguished from the sadistic homicide by the involvement of a mutilating attack or displacement of the breasts, rectum, or genitals” (p. 18). Based on their investigative experience, the researchers identified two types of individuals who commit the lust murder: the organized non-social and the disorganized asocial personalities (Hazelwood & Douglas, 1980). According to their model, the organized murderer feels rejection by and hatred for the society in which he lives. This offender manifests overtly his hostile feelings with the lust murder as the final expression of his hatred. In comparison, the disorganized murderer also reports feelings of rejection and hatred, but withdraws and internalizes his feelings. This offender prefers to live in a fantasy world until he acts out that fantasy with his victim (Hazelwood & Douglas, 1980). The organized sexual murderer, in comparison with the disorganized offender, is more likely to avoid detection due to his victim targeting practices, his actions during the crime, and because of the adoption of certain post-offense behaviors. Typically, the victims of the organized offender are targeted because they are in a particular location (e.g., isolated area), they are frequently strangers even though the crime is planned, and they present a high-risk profile, meaning that their lifestyle increases their risk of victimization (e.g., sex trade workers, hitchhikers). As he is socially adept, the organized offender often uses a con approach to encounter his victim, such as impersonating a security guard or simply by striking up a conversation. These offenders often use weapons (brought to the crime scene but removed after crime completion) and restraints such as blindfolds, chains, ropes, handcuffs, and gags to control the victim during the attack. Signs of aggressive acts such as the beating of the victim (and even overkill) are present and sexual acts such as vaginal or anal penetration take place prior to death. Organized offenders are likely to take items as trophies or souvenirs, such as jewelry, pictures, or even clothing. Most of the time, the body is moved from the death scene and concealed in a location familiar to the offender (Douglas et al., 2006; Ressler et al., 1988; Ressler et al., 1986). Ressler et al. (1986) caution the adherence to a dichotomous application of the model. Rather, the organized/disorganized model should be viewed more as a continuum, whereby an offender is rarely wholly one or the other.

Aim of the Study

The aim of the study is to specifically examine organized behaviors in relation to an offenders’ ability to delay and/or avoid police detection. Using a sample of solved and unsolved cases of sexual homicide, the current study seeks to determine whether a predictive relationship exists between the behaviors associated with the organized offender and their ability to delay or avoid police detection.

Method

Sample and Procedure

The sample includes a total of 350 cases of sexual homicide committed between 1948 and 2010 in Canada.¹ This sample may be divided into solved cases (n = 250) and cases that, at the time of entry within the database, were unsolved (n = 100). Solved cases are those where the offender has been identified but may or may not have been charged with the offense. If there is more than one offender responsible and any of the offenders are not identified, the case is considered unsolved.

To be included in the current sample, all homicide cases had to be identified as completed real incidents (no attempts), and had to involve a sexual element (i.e., there was evidence of sexual activity and/or the crime was sexually motivated). More specifically, the case had to meet the definition of sexual homicide provided by the FBI, that is, the case had to include at least one of the following: (a) victim’s attire or lack of attire; (b) exposure of the sexual parts of the victim’s body; (c) sexual positioning of the victim’s body; (d) insertion of foreign objects into the victim’s body cavities; (e) evidence of sexual intercourse; or (f) evidence of substitute sexual activity, interest, or sadistic fantasy (Ressler et al., 1988). In the current sample, 25.1% (n = 88) of the cases presented evidence of sexual activities at the crime scene, other than vaginal and anal intercourse,² while it was established that in 10.6% of cases (n = 37) post-mortem sexual activities occurred. Biological evidence suggesting sexual activities between the offender and the victim was also present in 24.0% of the cases (n = 84). In 85.4% (n = 299) of cases, the victims were found completely or partly naked and evidence of foreign object insertion was found in 8.0% of cases (n = 28). Unusual or bizarre acts (5.7%, n = 20), biting the victim (7.4%, n = 26), and use of blindfolds or gags (7.1%, n = 25) were also evidence of sadistic fantasies identified at the crime scene. Finally, victims’ bodies were discovered lying face down (26.0%, n = 91) or lying face up (39.4%, n = 138), and in 26.9% (n = 94) of the cases, the body was fully exposed. Information on all cases of sexual homicide was collected from a national database operated by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). The data contained within this database are provided by investigators assigned to the individual cases and is submitted approximately 45 days into the investigation. Data related to the victim(s), the potential or suspected offender, the behavior of the offender during and after the crime, and any forensic information that may be available was utilized in this study.

Variables

Dependent variables

The current study examines two different but connected issues: delaying and avoiding police detection in sexual homicide. In line with prior studies (e.g., Beauregard & Martineau, 2014), avoiding detection is operationalized with the variable status of the case (0 = solved; 1 = unsolved). In the current sample, 250 cases are solved and 100 cases are unsolved. In addition, the study looks at a measure of delaying detection, that is, the number of days before body recovery. This variable is measured by subtracting the date the victim was last seen alive from the date the body was recovered by police. As can been seen in Table 1, it takes on average 71 days to recover a body in cases of sexual homicide (SD = 384.2; range = 6-49).

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics for the Sample of Sexual Homicide Cases (n = 350).

Variables	Percentage (n)
Dependent variables
Case solved	71.4 (250)
Number of days before recovery^a	71.1 (384.2)
Victim characteristics
Victim is a sex trade worker	17.7 (62)
Victim is a stranger	25.7 (90)
Organized behaviors
Offender targeted the victim	18.9 (66)
Offender used a con approach	40.6 (142)
Offender used restraints	14.9 (52)
Offender beat the victim	47.1 (165)
Offender had vaginal intercourse with victim	46.3 (162)
Offender had anal intercourse with victim	16.3 (57)
Offender used a weapon	54.0 (189)
Evidence of overkill	43.1 (151)
Offender took items from victim	37.7 (132)
Offender moved the victim’s body	34.0 (119)
Offender concealed the victim’s body	36.0 (126)
Offender selected less risky locations^a (1 to 6)	1.83 (2.11)

The mean is presented with the standard deviation between parentheses.

Independent variables

Organized behaviors as well as victimology associated with the organized sexual murderer have been identified mainly through the Crime Classification Manual (Douglas et al., 2006) as well as the book by Ressler et al. (1988). The study examines two victim characteristic variables, coded dichotomously (0 = no; 1 = yes): (a) victim is a sex trade worker and (b) victim is a stranger. Table 1 shows that one out of four victims (25.7%) is a stranger and 17.7% of the victims are sex trade workers.³ Targeting stranger victims and sex trade workers have been associated with the behaviors of the organized offender (Douglas et al., 2006; Ressler et al., 1988; Ressler et al., 1986). Moreover, a total of 12 variables related to organized behaviors in sexual homicide are examined. Out of the 12 variables, 11 are coded dichotomously (0 = no; 1 = yes): (a) offender targeted the victim,⁴ (b) offender used a con approach,⁵ (c) offender used restraints, (d) offender beat the victim, (e) offender had vaginal intercourse with victim, (f) offender had anal intercourse with victim, (g) offender used a weapon, (h) evidence of overkill, (i) offender took items from victim, (j) offender moved victim’s body, and (k) offender concealed victim’s body. The last variable examined is offender selected low-risk crime locations. Originally, three scales were computed for the three locations associated with the crime (i.e., contact, offense, and body recovery scenes) by summing two dichotomous (0 = no, 1 = yes) items together—(a) potential to see what was happening and (b) potential to hear what was happening—for each crime scene (for more details, see Beauregard & Martineau, 2012). However, for the purpose of the current study, one scale was utilized for all locations. Therefore, the three scales were summed to create a scale (0 to 6) representing a continuum going from no risk (i.e., 0) to high risk (i.e., 6). The reliability analyses showed good consistency within the scale, Cronbach’s alpha reaching .77.

As can be seen in Table 1, 18.9% of sexual murderers targeted the victim, 40.6% used a con to approach the victim, and 14.9% used some form of restraints while committing the crime. Close to half of the sexual murderers beat the victim (47.1%), had vaginal intercourse with the victim (46.3%), and engaged in overkill (43.1%), whereas only a few sexual murderers had anal intercourse with the victim (16.3%). Approximately a third of the sexual murderers took items from the victim (37.7%), moved the victim’s body (34.0%), and concealed the victim’s body (36.0%) after the murder. Finally, more than half of the sexual murderers used a weapon (54.0%) and selected low-risk locations (M = 1.83, SD = 2.11). All of these variables have been associated with the organized offender as described by Douglas and colleagues (2006) as well as Ressler and colleagues (1986; Ressler et al., 1988).

Analytical Strategy

Data analysis was performed in two stages. First, the impact of victim characteristics and organized behaviors on the number of days until body recovery was analyzed. As the distribution of this variable was highly skewed—with a large percentage of bodies being recovered during the first few days—the normality assumption of ordinary least squares (OLS) regression was violated. As such, negative binomial regression⁶ was employed. To control for the potential effect of specific victim characteristics, analyses were performed in a sequential fashion. Second, logistic regression was used to assess the impact of the independent variables in a sequential fashion in relation to case status (i.e., solved/unsolved). In addition to taking into account victim characteristics, this stage of the analysis included the number of days until body recovery as a third block of independent variables.

Results

Table 2 presents the findings from the sequential negative binomial regression analyses on the number of days until body recovery using the victim characteristics and the organized behaviors. Model 1 examines only the effect of victim characteristics on the number of days until body recovery. Results show that it takes longer to recover the victim’s body when the victim is a sex trade worker (β = 0.78, p < .05). Model 2 looks specifically at the effect of organized behaviors on the number of days until body recovery. If the offender has vaginal intercourse with the victim (β = 0.57, p < .05), he conceals the victim’s body (β = 1.34, p < .001), there is some evidence of overkill at the crime scene (β = 0.62, p < .05), and the offender selects low-risk locations (β = −0.16, p < .05), it will take longer to recover the victim’s body. Alternatively, the findings also indicate that when the offender targets the victim (β = −1.16, p < .001), uses restraints (β = −1.02, p < .01), has anal intercourse with the victim (β = −0.98, p < .01), uses a weapon (β = −1.03, p < .001), and moves the victim’s body (β = −0.80, p < .01), the time to body recovery is shorter. In Model 3, the effect of organized behaviors on the number of days until body recovery is examined, while considering also victim characteristics. Contrary to what is observed in Model 1, the victim as a sex trade worker is no longer significantly related to a greater number of days until body recovery. With respect to the organized behaviors, we observe that when there is evidence of overkill (β = 0.61, p < .05), the offender conceals the victim’s body (β = 1.31, p < .001), and he selects lower risk locations (β = −0.17, p < .01), it will take longer to recover the victim’s body. When the offender targets the victim (β = −0.89, p < .05), uses restraints (β = −1.15, p < .01), uses a weapon (β = −0.94, p < .001), and moves the victim’s body (β = −0.77, p < .01), the victim’s body will be recovered sooner. When considering also victim characteristics in Model 3, the offender has vaginal intercourse with the victim is no longer significant.

Table 2.

Sequential Negative Binomial Regression Analysis on the Number of Days Until Body Recovery Using Victim Characteristics and Organized Behaviors.

	Number of Days Until Body Recovery
	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3
	β (SE)	β (SE)	β (SE)
Victim characteristics
Victim is a sex trade worker	0.78 (0.34)*	—	0.63 (0.34)
Victim is a stranger	−0.08 (0.30)	—	0.32 (0.31)
Organized behaviors
Offender targeted the victim	—	−1.16 (0.34)***	−0.89 (0.36)*
Offender used a con approach	—	0.24 (0.32)	0.04 (0.33)
Offender used restraints	—	−1.02 (0.36)**	−1.15 (0.36)**
Offender beat the victim	—	−0.08 (0.28)	−0.01 (0.27)
Offender had vaginal intercourse with victim	—	0.57 (0.29)*	0.45 (0.29)
Offender had anal intercourse with victim	—	−0.98 (0.36)**	−0.90 (0.37)*
Offender used a weapon	—	−1.03 (0.27)***	−0.94 (0.27)***
Evidence of overkill	—	0.62 (0.30)*	0.61 (0.29)*
Offender took items from victim	—	−0.09 (0.30)	−0.14 (0.30)
Offender moved the victim’s body	—	−0.80 (0.29)**	−0.77 (0.29)**
Offender concealed the victim’s body	—	1.34 (0.27)***	1.31 (0.27)***
Offender selected less risky locations (1 to 6)	—	−0.16 (0.07)*	−0.17 (0.06)**
Intercept	4.10 (0.15)***	4.26 (0.28)***	4.11 (0.28)***
Deviance	1.01	0.99	1.01

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 3 presents the results of the sequential logistic regression analyses on the status of the case (i.e., solved/unsolved) using victim characteristics, organized behaviors, and the number of days until body recovery. Model 1 examines the effect of victim characteristics only on the status of the case. Results show that when the victim is a sex trade worker (β = 1.90, p < .001), the case is more likely to remain unsolved but when the victim is a stranger (β = −1.79, p < .001), the case is more likely to be solved. Model 2 looks specifically at the impact of organized behaviors on the status of the case. As can be seen, when the offender moves the victim’s body (β = 0.76, p < .05) and selects less risky locations to commit his crime (β = −0.29, p < .001), the case is more likely to remain unsolved. However, when the offender uses a con approach (β = −1.24, p < .001), has vaginal (β = −0.72, p < .05) and anal (β = −1.35, p < .05) intercourse with the victim, and uses a weapon (β = −0.79, p < .01), the case is more likely to be solved. Finally, Model 3 examines the impact of the victim characteristics, organized behaviors, and the number of days until body recovery on the status of the case. Similar to Model 1, both victim characteristics are significantly associated to the case status. Sexual murderers who killed a sex trade worker (β = 1.85, p < .001) are more likely to see their case remain unsolved but when they target a stranger (β = −1.68, p < .001), the case is more likely to be solved. As with Model 2, the same significant variables are observed, except for three specific behaviors. The behavior of using a weapon (β = −0.49, p > .05) and moving the victim’s body (β = 0.43, p > .05) are no longer significant when taking into consideration victim characteristics, but the presence of overkill (β = −0.70, p < .05) becomes significant, suggesting that when there is evidence of overkill at the crime scene, the case is more likely to be solved. Interestingly, the number of days until body recovery is not significantly associated with the status of the case at the multivariate level (β = 0.001, p > .05).

Table 3.

Sequential Logistic Regression Analysis on the Status of the Case (Solved/Unsolved) Using Victim Characteristics, Organized Behaviors, and Number of Days Until Body Recovery.

	Status of the Case (Solved/Unsolved)
	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3
	β (SE)	β (SE)	β (SE)
Victim characteristics
Victim is a sex trade worker	1.90 (0.32)***	—	1.85 (0.43)***
Victim is a stranger	−1.79 (0.41)***	—	−1.68 (0.47)***
Organized behaviors
Offender targeted the victim	—	−0.38 (0.41)	−0.33 (0.43)
Offender used a con approach	—	−1.24 (0.32)***	−1.48 (0.37)***
Offender used restraints	—	−0.20 (0.43)	−0.12 (0.48)
Offender beat the victim	—	−0.16 (0.29)	−0.07 (0.31)
Offender had vaginal intercourse with victim	—	−0.72 (0.29)*	−0.65 (0.32)*
Offender had anal intercourse with victim	—	−1.35 (0.53)*	−1.18 (0.57)*
Offender used a weapon	—	−0.79 (0.29)**	−0.49 (0.31)
Evidence of overkill	—	−0.43 (0.30)	−0.70 (0.33)*
Offender took items from victim	—	0.34 (0.29)	0.29 (0.32)
Offender moved the victim’s body	—	0.76 (0.30)*	0.43 (0.35)
Offender concealed the victim’s body	—	−0.37 (0.31)	−0.34 (0.35)
Offender selected less risky locations (1 to 6)	—	−0.29 (0.08)***	−0.25 (0.09)**
No. of days until body recovery	—	—	0.001 (0.001)
Constant	−1.00 (0.15)***	0.79 (0.32)*	0.65 (0.36)
χ²	65.11***	95.95***	3.59*
Cox & Snell R²	.17	.24	.33

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Discussion

The current study aimed at testing whether organized behaviors among sexual murderers were related to their ability to delay (i.e., number of days until body recovery) and/or avoid (i.e., solved/unsolved case status) police detection. Although some behaviors seem to have the effect of delaying and avoiding police detection, the majority of organized behaviors do not. This suggests that the adoption of certain organized behaviors by sexual murderers may not be motivated by a conscious intention of avoiding police detection or that offenders erroneously believe that certain behaviors will aid them in avoiding detection, when in fact, they will not.

Victimology

The effect of victim characteristics on the ability of sexual murderers to delay or avoid detection is particularly interesting. First, although the results showed that when the victim is a sex trade worker it takes longer to recover the body, this relationship disappeared when we included other organized behaviors. This particular finding contrasts with the findings by Beauregard and Martineau (2014) who showed that when the victim was a sex trade worker, it took longer to recover the victim’s body, even after considering forensic awareness strategies. This discrepancy may be due to the fact that certain organized behaviors adopted by sexual murderers may have a significant impact on the number of days it will take to recover the victim’s body that exists independently of victim characteristics. For instance, sex trade workers may be more likely to accompany offenders to isolated low-risk crime locations, and the offender is more likely to be using a vehicle if soliciting a sex trade worker and to leave the victim’s body in an obscure location.

However, a rapid recovery of the victim’s body does not necessarily mean that the homicide will be solved. In fact, the findings show that when the victim is a sex trade worker, the homicide is more likely to remain unsolved whereas when the victim is a stranger, the opposite is likely to occur, even after considering the organized behaviors of the sexual murderer. Such findings are in the expected direction and have been previously explained in the literature. Sex trade workers are more likely to be nomadic, living a very transient lifestyle. This lifestyle decreases the likelihood that their absence will be immediately noticed when they go missing (Beauregard & Martineau, 2014). This may result in a delay in reporting the victim missing, if such a report is made. Moreover, as previously mentioned, some sex trade workers are willing to travel to very isolated locations with unknown clients, limiting the potential for the crime to be interrupted or witnessed. In addition, investigations into the murder of sex trade workers are often hampered by low public interest, a lack of credible witnesses, the unwillingness of other sex trade workers to cooperate with the police (Salfati et al., 2008), and the likelihood of more than one sample of DNA being found on the body (Beauregard & Martineau, 2014)—all consistent with the non-discretionary approach to solving homicide.

The selection of a victim who is a sex trade worker is also congruent with the restrictive deterrence and rational choice approaches to avoiding detection. As suggested by Beauregard and Martineau (2014), some offenders may avoid police detection by choosing to behave in ways that decrease their chance of being apprehended. Thus, some sexual murderers may, in fact, target a specific type of victim and adopt offense behaviors that complicate or increase the complexity of the police investigation. Targeting a victim that, by virtue of a higher risk lifestyle, may be more vulnerable to victimization is one example.

The fact that homicides involving stranger victims are more likely to be solved was rather unexpected. In fact, this is contrary to what Proulx et al. (2007) have suggested. Although a clear explanation for this finding is not readily apparent, it is possible to hypothesize that sexual homicide involving stranger victims may also be more likely to involve a specific set of behaviors that increase the likelihood of police detection. For example, our findings indicate that the use of a con approach is associated with the sexual murderer being detected. It is possible that offenders targeting stranger victims are more likely to adopt a con approach to initiate contact. By necessity, offenders take risk when targeting a stranger victim. They are unlikely to encounter stranger victims in the intimate settings that afford offender who target acquaintance and familial victims privacy. Offenders targeting strangers are more likely to encounter their victim in a public location. Approaching and interacting with the victim in a public place may lead to witnesses being able to provide information as to when the victim was last seen and with whom. Therefore, it is possible that with a stranger victim, offenders adopt a crime-commission process involving higher risk behaviors that ultimately will increase the odds of their being detected by the police.

Choosing Between Delaying or Avoiding Detection

The current study has shown that some organized behaviors have a similar effect on both delaying and avoiding detection. As such, when the offender has anal intercourse with the victim and uses a weapon, these behaviors are negatively related to the ability of the offender to delay and avoid detection. Similarly, when sexual murderers select a less risky location to commit their crime, they are more likely to both delay and avoid detection. However, such a pattern is not found for most organized behaviors. Interestingly, as can be seen in Table 4, some organized behaviors adopted by sexual murderers may have a positive effect on delaying detection while having a negative effect on avoiding detection and vice versa, although both measures of delaying and avoiding detection are positively correlated.⁷ Offenders who moved the victim’s body were more likely to avoid detection but the victim’s body was likely to be recovered faster. A similar pattern was observed with the presence of overkill and vaginal intercourse with the victim. Sexual murderers who showed evidence of overkill were less likely to avoid detection while the adoption of this particular behavior was related to a greater number of days to recover the victim’s body. Moreover, sexual murderers who had vaginal intercourse with the victim were less likely to avoid detection while this behavior was related to delaying detection. In light of the literature on the organized sexual murderer, these findings are very informative. These findings seem to suggest that some organized behaviors constitute a “trade-off” for the offender. In other words, the adoption of a particular behavior by the sexual murderer may help him to delay detection but ultimately will not help him to avoid detection by police. Fortunately for the sexual murderers, only three organized behaviors had reverse effects on both measures.

Table 4.

Comparisons Between the Effects of Organized Behaviors on the Two Measures of Delaying and Avoiding Detection.

	Delaying and Avoiding Police Detection
Organized Behaviors	Delaying Detection	Avoiding Detection
Offender targeted the victim	Negative	Non-Significant
Offender used a con approach	Non-Significant	Negative
Offender used restraints	Negative	Non-Significant
Offender beat the victim	Non-Significant	Non-Significant
Offender had vaginal intercourse with victim	Positive	Negative
Offender had anal intercourse with victim	Negative	Negative
Offender used a weapon	Negative	Negative
Evidence of overkill	Positive	Negative
Offender took items from victim	Non-Significant	Non-Significant
Offender moved the victim’s body	Negative	Positive
Offender concealed the victim’s body	Positive	Non-Significant
Offender selected less risky locations (1 to 6)	Positive	Positive

Although from a rational choice perspective delaying and/or avoiding detection is crucial to the crime-commission process, the behaviors of sexual murderers are likely motivated by other factors as well. Organized behaviors, whether related or not to delaying and/or avoiding police detection, may be contributory to an offender’s deviant fantasies (e.g., Keeney & Heide, 1994; Myers, 2004; Ressler et al., 1986; Warren, Hazelwood, & Dietz, 1996). As such, some organized behaviors may represent behavioral manifestations associated with the actualization of the offenders’ deviant sexual fantasies, which could influence (arguably to a greater extent than the desire to avoid detection in some cases) an offender’s decision-making process during the crime (e.g., Beauregard, Lussier, & Proulx, 2005; Chan & Frei, 2013; Chan & Heide, 2008; Chan, Myers, & Heide, 2010; Chan, Frei, & Myers, 2013; Meloy, 2000; Myers & Chan, 2012).

Different Purposes to Organized Behaviors?

Researchers from the FBI used their investigative experience to classify sexual murderers according to the level of organization or disorganization evident in the crime-commission process. Organized offenders were said to be more likely to leave an “organized” crime scene with little to no evidence present, increasing the difficulty of apprehension compared with disorganized offenders. In the current study, we examined the behaviors that were said to be typical of the organized offender to test whether they were associated with the offender’s ability to delay and/or avoid police detection, as postulated by the FBI model. What we found is somewhat surprising. Of a total of 12 organized behaviors, only 4 were positively associated with the ability to delay detection, and only two were positively associated with an ability to avoid detection. This means that the great majority of organized behaviors identified by the FBI are actually associated with a failure to delay or avoid detection. Using a con approach, having vaginal and anal intercourse with the victim, using a weapon, and leaving evidence of overkill are all associated with the inability of avoiding police detection. Although this might seem surprising based on the organized-disorganized model, these findings are congruent with the deterrent effect of forensic evidence (Beauregard & Bouchard, 2010). Thus, all these behaviors have the potential to leave more evidence at the crime scene and therefore to increase police detection. If the offender has vaginal and/or anal intercourse with the victim and exhibits overkill during the crime, it is likely that forensic evidence will be left in or on the victim (e.g., semen, fibers, hair). Moreover, the use of a weapon can be traced back to the offender (e.g., fingerprints) and the use of a con approach may have caused witnesses to notice the offender–victim interactions when they were last seen. These behaviors, taken together, seem to suggest that a theme exists within the organized behaviors when it comes to examining detection avoidance. It is possible that the combination of these specific behaviors form a theme related to the offender’s fantasy, similar to what has been suggested by Prentky, Burgess, Rokous, Lee, Hartman, Ressler, and Douglas (1989). This theme is not concerned with delaying or avoiding detection, but the behaviors are manifestation of fantasies in sexual murderers. An alternate explanation is that offenders are not necessarily consciously avoiding detection but rather committing their offenses based on fantasy, which may actually undermine their own efforts to avoid detection. We suggest that instead of looking at the effect of individual behaviors on the ability to avoid detection, it would be interesting to investigate the presence of behavioral themes within the organized behaviors (see Balemba, Beauregard, & Martineau, 2014).

The situational context of the crime may provide further explanation or understanding of the current findings. Although the organized offender is expected to exhibit more “organization” in the commission of his crimes, the FBI researchers have neglected to consider the situational or contextual elements of the crime that are typically beyond the control of the offender (see Beauregard & Mieczkowski, 2012; Mieczkowski & Beauregard, 2010). It is thus possible that some offenders were planning to commit a sexual assault on the victim, but the adoption of specific behaviors (e.g., the use of a weapon) has elevated the violence and resulted in fatality. Although all cases included in the current study met the criteria of the sexual homicide definition suggested by the FBI, it is possible the initial intention of some offenders was not to commit a sexual homicide. Contextual factors may have influenced the decision-making of the offender and changed the outcome of the sexual assault.

Conclusion

The current study examined whether organized behaviors of sexual murderers are associated with the offenders’ ability to delay and/or avoid detection. Although some organized behaviors may assist offenders in this regard, the great majority of organized behaviors do not. In fact, many have the opposite effect, reducing the number of days it takes to recover the victim’s body and increasing the likelihood of detection by police. Moreover, victim characteristics may influence detection avoidance by the police but have no impact on the ability of an offender to delay detection after controlling for organized behaviors.

Such findings suggest that contrary to what Beauregard and Martineau (2014) proposed, delaying detection (i.e., number of days before body recovery) does not automatically mean “avoiding” detection. Despite both measures being correlated at the bivariate level, our findings have shown that at the multivariate level they are not. Moreover, results show that the same behaviors may have an opposite effect depending on the measure utilized (delaying or avoiding police detection). Rather, the current findings suggest that the two measures are complementary and that the use of both is of benefit. Although it may be logically deduced that the longer it takes to recover a body, the greater the chance of crucial evidence being destroyed, the findings suggest that such a measure cannot replace the status of the case variable (i.e., solved/unsolved). Despite the fact that this measure is biased by administrative rules or timing of data entry (e.g., information about the case should be entered after a specific number of days into the investigation), it continues to be of use in research exploring detection avoidance.

The use of police data in the current study does result in certain limitations. The data are limited to what is observed by the police at the crime scene or revealed through investigation. This is particularly important for this study as some of the organized behaviors are difficult to identify through crime scene analysis and in some cases, are better revealed by the offender himself. Moreover, as the study includes cases that were unsolved at the time of data entry, it was not possible to examine offender characteristics and how they relate to the ability to delay and/or avoid police detection. Also, it was beyond the scope of the current study to take into account some situational factors that could have influenced offenders at the crime scene. For instance, it is possible that an offender adopting a majority of organized behaviors may have been easily detected by the police due to the context of the offense (e.g., presence of a witness). Finally, it is important to stress the fact that our measures of delaying (i.e., number of days before body recovery) and avoiding (i.e., case status, solved or unsolved) police detection should be considered as proxies of these two concepts. It is not possible to know with certainty that our measures of delaying and avoiding detection are in fact related to the actual motivation and intention of the offender. In other words, we can only hypothesize that offenders whose case remained unsolved and/or who took longer to discover the victim’s body had the intention to do so to avoid detection and made choices to obtain this particular outcome. We need to keep in mind that without interviewing directly the offenders on their decision-making and motivation during the crime, we can only assume correlation and not causality. However, despite this limitation, such measures have been used in previous studies on criminal achievement (e.g., Lussier, Bouchard, & Beauregard, 2011).

Future studies should attempt to incorporate offender characteristics and contextual aspects of the crime. It is important to take into consideration the various factors which may influence an offender’s behavior during the crime-commission process, particularly those which are beyond the offender’s control.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

The views expressed are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by a grant (SSHRC # 410-2011-1794) from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council Small Research Grant.

Notes

Author Biographies

Eric Beauregard is a Professor in the School of Criminology at Simon Fraser University. His research interests focus on the crime-commission process, decision-making, and the criminal investigation. Some of his most recent work has appeared in Criminal Justice and Behavior, Journal of Criminal Justice, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, and Violence and Victims.

Melissa Martineau is a senior research specialist in the area of behavioral sciences within the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. She has 12 years of experiences conducting applied research and other related operational work within the area of behavioral sciences. Her research interests include the analysis of serial and violent crime, sexual offending, crime linkage, geographic profiling, and threat and risk assessment. Some of her recent work has appeared in the International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology and the Journal of Criminal Justice.

References

Alderden

M. A.

Lavery

T. A.

(2007). Predicting homicide clearances in Chicago: Investigating disparities in predictors across different types of homicide. Homicide Studies, 11, 115-132.

Balemba

Beauregard

Martineau

(2014). Getting away with murder: A thematic approach to solved and unsolved homicides using crime scene factors. Police Practice and Research, 15, 221-233.

Beauregard

Bouchard

(2010). Cleaning up your act: Forensic awareness as a detection avoidance strategy. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 1160-1166.

Beauregard

Lussier

Proulx

(2005). The role of sexual interests and situational factors on rapists’ modus operandi: Implications for offender profiling. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 10, 265-278.

Beauregard

Martineau

(2012). A descriptive study of sexual homicide in Canada: Implications for police investigation. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 57, 1454-1476.

Beauregard

Martineau

(2014). No body, no crime? The role of forensic awareness in avoiding police detection in cases of sexual homicide. Journal of Criminal Justice, 42, 213-220.

Beauregard

Mieczkowski

(2012). Risk estimations of the conjunction of victim and crime event characteristics on the lethal outcome of sexual assaults. Violence and Victims, 27, 470-486.

Beauregard

Proulx

(2002). Profiles in the offending process of nonserial sexual murderers. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 46, 386-399. doi:10.1177/0306624X02464002

Booth

J. G.

Casella

Friedl

Hobert

J. P.

(2003). Negative binomial loglinear mixed models. Statistical Modelling, 3, 179-191.

10.

Chan

H. C.

Frei

(2013). Female sexual homicide offenders: An examination of an underresearched offender population. Homicide Studies, 17, 96-118.

11.

Chan

H. C.

Frei

Myers

W. C.

(2013). Female sexual homicide offenders: An analysis of the offender racial profiles in offending process. Forensic Science International, 233, 265-272. doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2013.09.011

12.

Chan

H. C.

Heide

K. M.

(2008). Weapons used by juveniles and adult offenders in sexual homicides: An empirical analysis of 29 years of US data. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 5, 189-208.

13.

Chan

H. C.

Heide

K. M.

Myers

W. C.

(2013). Juvenile and adult offenders arrested for sexual homicide: An analysis of victim-offender relationship and weapon used by race. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 58, 85-89.

14.

Chan

H. C.

Myers

W. C.

Heide

K. M.

(2010). An empirical analysis of 30 years of U.S. juvenile and adult sexual homicide offender data: Race and age differences in the victim-offender relationship. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 55, 1282-1290.

15.

Davies

(1992). Rapists’ behaviour: A three aspect model as a basis for analysis and the identification of serial crime. Forensic Science International, 55, 173-194.

16.

Douglas

J. E.

Burgess

A. W.

Burgess

A. G.

Ressler

R. K.

(2006). Crime classification manual (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Wiley.

17.

Gibbs

J. P.

(1975). Crime, punishment, and deterrence. New York, NY: Elsevier.

18.

Hazelwood

R. R.

Douglas

J. E.

(1980). The lust murderer. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 49, 18-22.

19.

Jacobs

B. A.

(1996a). Crack dealers and restrictive deterrence: Identifying narcs. Criminology, 34, 281-299.

20.

Jacobs

B. A.

(1996b). Crack dealers apprehension avoidance techniques: A case of restrictive deterrence. Justice Quarterly, 13, 359-381.

21.

Keeney

B. T.

Heide

K. M.

(1994). Gender differences in serial murderers: A preliminary analysis. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 9, 383-398.

22.

Land

K. C.

McCall

P. L.

Nagin

D. S.

(1996). A comparison of poisson, negative binomial and semiparametric mixed poisson regression models: With empirical applications to criminal careers data. Sociological Methods & Research, 24, 387-442.

23.

Litwin

K. J.

(2004). A multilevel multivariate analysis of factors affecting homicide clearances. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 41, 327-351.

24.

Litwin

K. J.

(2007). The dynamic nature of homicide clearances: A multilevel model of three time periods. Homicide Studies, 11, 94-114.

25.

Long

J. S.

(1997). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

26.

Lussier

Bouchard

Beauregard

(2011). Patterns in criminal achievement in sexual offending: Unravelling the “successful” sex offender. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39, 433-444.

27.

Meloy

J. R.

(2000). The nature and dynamics of sexual homicide: An integrative review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5, 1-32.

28.

Mieczkowski

Beauregard

(2010). Lethal outcome in sexual assault events: A conjunctive analysis. Justice Quarterly, 27, 332-361. doi:10.1080/07418820902960105

29.

Mouzos

Muller

(2001, October). Solvability factors of homicide in Australia: An exploratory analysis (Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, No. 216). Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.

30.

Myers

W. C.

(2004). Serial murder by children and adolescents. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 22, 357-374.

31.

Myers

W. C.

Chan

H. C.

(2012). Juvenile homosexual homicide. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 30, 90-102.

32.

Ousey

G. C.

Lee

M. R.

(2010). To know the unknown: The decline in homicide clearance rates, 1980-2000. Criminal Justice Review, 35, 141-158.

33.

Proulx

Beauregard

Cusson

Nicole

(2007). Sexual murderers: A comparative analysis and new perspectives. Winchester, UK: Wiley.

34.

Puckett

J. L.

Lundman

R. J.

(2003). Factors affecting homicide clearances: Multivariate analysis of a more complete conceptual framework. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 40, 171-193.

35.

Regoeczi

W. C.

Kennedy

L. W.

Silverman

R. A.

(2000). Uncleared homicides: A Canada/United States comparison. Homicide Studies, 4, 135-161.

36.

Ressler

R. K.

Burgess

A. W.

Douglas

J. E.

(1988). Sexual homicide: Patterns and motives. New York, NY: Free Press.

37.

Ressler

R. K.

Burgess

A. W.

Douglas

J. E.

Hartman

C. R.

D’Agostino

R. B.

(1986). Sexual killers and their victims: Identifying patterns through crime scene analysis. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1, 288-308.

38.

Riedel

(2008). Homicide arrests clearance: A review of the literature. Sociology Compass, 2, 1145-1164.

39.

Riedel

Jarvis

(1999). The decline of arrest clearances for criminal homicide: Causes, correlates and third parties. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 9, 279-306.

40.

Roberts

Lyons

C. J.

(2009). Victim-offender racial dyads and clearance of lethal and nonlethal assaults. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 46, 301-326.

41.

Roberts

J. V.

Grossman

M. G.

(1993). Sexual homicide in Canada: A descriptive analysis. Annals of Sex Research, 6, 5-25.

42.

Rossmo

D. K.

(2009). Introduction. In Rossmo

D. K.

(Ed.), Criminal investigative failures (pp. 3-8). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

43.

Salfati

C. G.

James

A. R.

Ferguson

(2008). Prostitute homicides: A descriptive study. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 505-543.

44.

Warren

J. I.

Hazelwood

R. R.

Dietz

P. E.

(1996). The sexually sadistic serial killer. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 41, 970-974.

45.

(2008). Characteristics of homicide events and the decline in homicide clearance: A longitudinal approach to the dynamic relationship, Chicago 1966-1995. Criminal Justice Review, 33, 453-479.