Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Aggression and Violent Behavior 13 (2008) 88 106

Profiling homicide offenders: A review of assumptions and theories

An Crabb , Stef Decoene, Hans Vertommen
Department of Psychology, Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium Received 30 March 2007; received in revised form 20 December 2007; accepted 15 January 2008 Available online 4 February 2008

Abstract The literature on profiling homicide offenders was examined with regard to its underlying assumptions of offender consistency and specificity. While only moderate evidence for the behavioral consistency hypothesis was found, research did support the hypothesis of stable relationships between offense behaviors and offender characteristics (specificity hypothesis). When considering the specificity assumption, special attention has been given to the underlying concepts relating offense and offender characteristics. These underlying concepts were compared with offender profiling theories and a new model was proposed that can account for the current criticisms on offender profiling. This new model of offense pathways provides an overview of the psychological processes the offender experienced during his or her offense, emphasizes the importance of a contextualized perspective, and is consistent with the view that the homicide offense is a process that develops over time. The authors conclude that in order to derive offender profiles, offense pathways in homicide offenders should be investigated as a collection of underlying psychological concepts between offense and offender characteristics. 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Offender profiling; Homicide; Murder; Offense scenario; Offense pathways; Offence scenario; Offence pathways

Contents 1. 2. 3. 4. Offender profiling: an introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Underlying assumptions: offender consistency and specificity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Consistency hypothesis: are offenders consistent in their behaviors across situations? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Specificity hypothesis: are there psychologically important variations between homicides that relate to differences in the offenders who commit them? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1. Direct offender profiling approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2. Indirect offender profiling approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.1. Style of interpersonal transaction as underlying concept between offense and offender characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.2. Degree of organization as underlying concept between offense and offender characteristics . . . . . 4.2.3. Types based on behavioral dimensions as underlying concepts between offense and offender characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 . 90 . 90 . 92 . 92 . 93 . 93 . 94 . 94

The research reported in this paper was supported by the Funds for Scientific Research Flanders. Corresponding author. Catholic University of Leuven, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Centre of Assessment and Psychopathology, Tiensestraat 102, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium. E-mail address: a.crabbe@telenet.be (A. Crabb). 1359-1789/$ - see front matter 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2008.01.001

A. Crabb et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior 13 (2008) 88106

89

Pathological personality and pathology as underlying concepts between offense and offender characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.5. Motive as underlying concept between offense and offender characteristics . . . . . . 4.2.6. Fantasy as underlying concept between offense and offender characteristics . . . . . . 4.2.7. Thinking processes and emotions as underlying concepts between offense and offender characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1. Underlying concepts and offender profiling theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2. Current criticisms and challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3. Towards a new offender profiling model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.2.4.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

94 94 96

. 97 . 97 . 97 . 98 . 99 . 102

1. Offender profiling: an introduction Offender profiling, according to the FBI, is a technique for identifying the major personality and behavioral characteristics of an individual based upon an analysis of the crimes he or she has committed (Douglas, Ressler, Burgess, & Hartman, 1986, p. 405). This technique has also been referred to as criminal (personality) profiling or assessment, criminal investigative analysis, psychological profiling, investigative profiling, (criminal) behavior(al) profiling, and crime scene profiling (Cook & Hinman, 1999; Egger, 1999; Homant & Kennedy, 1998). There is a lack of uniformity in the application of these terms; they are used inconsistently and interchangeably (Turvey, 2003).1 There is, however, a consensus that offender profiling does not provide the identity of the offender, but that it indicates the type of person most likely to have committed the crime. This procedure could limit or better direct the investigation by providing investigatively relevant leads and strategies, such as narrowing down the pool of suspects (by means of predicting the offender's most likely area of residence, previous convictions, biopsychosocial factors etc.), predicting subsequent crime locations, providing interview suggestions and strategies, suggesting proactive strategies (letting the public become a partner in crime solving) and particular items that the offender may have in his2 possession, assisting with case linkage, and preventing/predicting future crimes (Ainsworth, 2000; Ault & Reese, 1980; Douglas et al., 1986; Holmes & De Burger, 1988; Holmes & Holmes, 1996; Meyer, 2000; Ressler, Burgess, & Douglas, 1988; Turvey, 1998, 2000). Additionally, offender profilers can be used to suggest trial and prosecutive strategies, to provide testimony as a witness for the prosecution or as an expert witness during the sentence phase of the trial, and to help develop insight into the offender's fantasy, motivation, and state of mind before, during, and after the commission of a crime (Cook & Hinman, 1999; Douglas & Burgess, 1986; Homant & Kennedy, 1998; Minisini, 1993; Turvey, 2003). Although different types of offenses have been investigated for offender profiling purposes, there exist some disagreements about the most suitable ones. Some authors state that this technique be confined to crimes against the person where the motive is lacking (Ressler et al., 1988) and/or to crimes where an unknown perpetrator has displayed indications of psychopathology (Ault & Reese, 1980; Holmes & Holmes, 1996), while Cook and Hinman (1999, see also Homant & Kennedy, 1998) pointed out that it is not true that crimes suggesting mental illness are the primary types of crimes for which offender profiling can be useful. Others state that offender profiling has been particularly productive in those crimes where the offender has demonstrated repeated patterns at the crime scene (in series of connected crimes Douglas et al., 1986) or in crimes of violence or potential violence (Hazelwood & Douglas, 1980). Additionally, Ainsworth (2000, see also McCann as cited in Van den Eshof, Jackson, & Nierop, 1997) mentioned that the FBI believes that property crimes and robbery are not particularly suitable for offender profiling, as such offenses are unlikely to reveal many clues about an offender's underlying personality. They state that the behavior of the offender should be personal to be useful for further analysis (i.e., indicating sexual fantasies and emotions like anger, hate, love, and fear). Canter (2000, 2004), in contrast, stated that if psychological input is possible for serious violent crimes, it should be possible for other crimes as well, including what are known as mass crimes of burglary or theft.

1 2

We will refer to this technique as offender profiling. Offenders will be described as being male for practical purposes.

90

A. Crabb et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior 13 (2008) 88106

Psychological assistance may be of value for one-off crimes as well as serial crimes and there has been a rapid broadening of the types of crimes for which psychological commentary is deemed applicable. Some authors state that this process is an art, based on the investigator's extensive knowledge and/or intuition, not a science (Ault & Reese, 1980; Hazelwood & Douglas, 1980; Ressler, Douglas, Groth, & Burgess, 1980), others postulate that it is both art and science based (Holmes & De Burger, 1988; Holmes & Holmes, 1996), that although the process is not science, it can benefit from the use of scientific methods (Turvey, 2003) or that is has the potential to be scientific if worked on (Muller, 2000). Finally, Canter (1994, 1995, 2000, 2003) asserted that the collection of empirical evidence to support inferences that may be made about the relationship between crime and the offender is the cornerstone of the inductive method of science. In the following sections, two basic premises will be discussed that are central to the scientific approach to offender profiling, followed by an overview of the (empirical3) literature regarding both assumptions in homicide offenders. Starting from this review, we will investigate the extent to which the different theories in offender profiling are supported in this specific offender population and we will end this article with a proposition for a new offender profiling model that can account for current criticisms. 2. Underlying assumptions: offender consistency and specificity One hypothesis central to offender profiling, (Alison, Bennell, Mokros, & Ormerod, 2002; Canter, 1995, 2000, 2003, 2004; Petee & Jarvis, 2000) is that the way an offender carries out a crime on one occasion will have some characteristic similarities to the way he carries out crimes on other occasions. Even if an offender has committed only one crime, a profile has to be based upon the assumption that the offender is exhibiting characteristics that are typical of that person. This has become known as the consistency assumption: intraindividual behavioral variation across offenses is smaller than interindividual behavioral variation. If there is the possibility that an offender will reveal some consistency, it is also necessary to have some indications of how offenders can be distinguished from each other and of how much of a criminal specialist the offender is. The second premise for developing scientifically based profiling systems (Alison et al., 2002; Canter, 1995, 2000, 2003, 2004; Petee & Jarvis, 2000) is that there are some psychologically important variations between crimes that relate to differences in the people who commit them (i.e., the manner in which an offense is committed corresponds with a particular configuration of background characteristics) which has become known as the specificity (or homology) assumption. 3. Consistency hypothesis: are offenders consistent in their behaviors across situations? Offender consistency has been operationalized in two ways: some researchers have investigated offender consistency between criminal and non-criminal activities, whereas others have investigated behavioral consistency across homicide offenses. When considering cross-situational consistency between criminal and non-criminal activities, Hazelwood, Warren, and Dietz (1993, see also Warren & Hazelwood, 2002) postulated that there has been some evidence that sadists employed the same sexual and physical activities in their consenting relationships as in their non-consensual criminal activities, which was supported by Hazelwood and Warren (1995) who stated that paraphilic patterns of behavior have been found to remain highly consistent over time. The question of cross-situational consistency across homicide offenses, on the other hand, emerged out of one of the purposes of offender profiling, namely the linking of potentially related crimes. In order to link offenses, a distinction has been made between the modus operandi (MO) of the offender and his signature. The MO involves those actions that are necessary to commit the offense; they are aspects of a rational, goal-oriented strategy on behalf of the perpetrator. It is learned behavior and gets modified and perfected as the criminal becomes more skilled at what he does4; it will evolve to meet the demands of the crime. Empirical research supporting a changing MO across offenses has been provided by Beasley (2004) and Harbort and Mokros (2001) in serial (sexual) and by Dietz, Hazelwood, and
When no statistical information is provided, we will speak about postulated, suggested, mentioned etc. When empirical information supporting the associations is provided, we will speak in terms of found, established, proved, demonstrated etc. 4 Note that Turvey (2003) indicates that the MO of the offender can also become less competent and less skilful over time, decompensating by virtue of a deteriorating mental state, increased use of controlled substances or confidence that law enforcement will never apprehend him.
3

A. Crabb et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior 13 (2008) 88106

91

Warren (1990) in sadistic homicide offenders.5 An offender's signature, on the other hand, are those actions that are not necessary to commit the offense, but that the offender has to do to satisfy psychological and emotional needs; it is the unique manner in which the offender commits his crimes (e.g., displaying the body in a certain manner for shock value, specific sequences of sexual acts etc.). Since the signature of an offender does not change (although the ritual may evolve, the theme persists), it can be used to link cases (for the distinction between MO and signature behaviors see for instance Douglas & Munn, 1992a,c; Holmes & Holmes, 1996; Meyer, 2000; Turvey, 1998, 2003). Some evidence for consistency in offenders' signatures have been found or postulated. Harbort and Mokros (2001), for instance, mentioned that if their sample of serial (sexual) homicide offenders displayed signature behaviors, these signatures seemed highly consistent as not a single one of the participants omitted his ritual if he remained undisturbed during the offense. Furthermore, Douglas and Munn (1992c) reported the release of a man who had been incarcerated for 3 years after an extensive analysis supported the idea that his crime scene was linked to another offender's signature aspect. Keppel (1995) and Keppel, Weis, Brown, and Welch (2005), on the other hand, demonstrated the possibility of linking homicide offenses based on signature behaviors. However, some criticisms against this distinction have been made as well. First of all, signature aspects do not show up or cannot be found in every crime (Douglas & Munn, 1992a,c; Turvey, 2003). Hanfland et al. (1997), for instance, found unusual ceremonies or acts (e.g., leaving satanic symbols at the crime scene) in less than 1% of their sample of murderers of abducted children, while the percentage of offenders who intentionally posed the victim's body was only 3%, only 5% of the offenders removed body parts from their victim and only 6% of the offenders kept the body of the victim for more than one week. Additionally, Harbort and Mokros (2001) found that 22.7% of the serial homicide offenders and 40.9% of the serial sexual homicide murderers did display such signature behaviors at the crime scene. Secondly, signature and MO needs may be satisfied by the same behavior, it is not very clear how to make the distinction between signature and MO behaviors (Homant & Kennedy, 1998; Meloy, 2000; Turvey, 2003). When considering the signature behavior of binding and gagging the victim with pieces of the victim's own clothes, for instance, as mentioned in Harbort and Mokros, one can wonder whether this crime scene behavior is an expression of an underlying psychological need or whether this behavior is functional, in the sense that it provides the offender control over his victim. The problem with the concept of the signature aspect is that it is hardly operationalized and remains very vague. Objective defined criteria must evolve to denote which behaviors are parts of the signature aspect so that more empirically validated studies can arise. Additionally, Salfati and Bateman (2005) operationalized the cross-situational consistency across offenses by looking at the type of aggression the offender displayed at his crime scenes. They found that the preferred classification strategy was able to classify 64% of the serial homicide cases. This classification was based on the distinction between instrumental (the victim is a target secondary to the offender's instrumental motivations or ulterior criminal actions e.g., money or sex; the victim is used as an object through which to obtain the desired objective) and expressive (the victim is a person onto whom the aggression is impulsive; it is an emotional attack with the aim of harming the victim) aggression (see also Bushman & Anderson, 2001; Canter, 2000, 2003; Salfati, 2000). It appeared that 86% of the offenders who performed cases that could be classified were consistent across their series in their type of aggression used.6 Cornell et al. (1996), on the other hand, reviewed the offense history of 20 violent offenders and concluded that most, if not all, of the offenders with a history of instrumental violence also had a history of reactive violence, and that some offenses appeared to have elements of both types of violence. This would challenge the perspective that homicide offenders are consistent in their type of aggression used across offenses. Other investigators found that the offense location choices of serial homicide offenders are guided by a recognizable rationality. This rationality seems to be influenced by the offender's familiarity with and mental mapping of the environment, the psychological role of his home, and previous offense locations and/or his attempts to avoid detection (Canter, Coffey, Huntley, & Missen, 2000; Canter & Hammond, 2006; Lundrigan & Canter, 2001a,b; Snook, Canter, & Bennell, 2002; Snook, Cullen, Mokros, & Harbort, 2005; Snook, Taylor, & Bennell, 20047). Furthermore, Ressler, Burgess, Douglas, Hartman, and D'Agostino (1986) mentioned that organized and disorganized offenders (see infra)
Hanfland, Keppel, and Weis (1997), on the other hand, concluded that child abduction murderers showed more consistency in their MO's than expected as compared to other types of murderers. It appeared that 67% of the prior crimes committed against children had an MO that was similar to that in the abduction murder. 6 Note that this behavioral consistency was only found for 7 of the 23 homicide offenders. 7 Note that these investigations also provide support for the specificity assumption since this implies that one can predict the home location of the offender by looking at his offense locations.
5

92

A. Crabb et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior 13 (2008) 88106

are capable of all types of behavior, challenging the view that offenders are consistent in their degree of organization across homicide offenses. Finally, Bateman and Salfati (2007) investigated serial homicide cases to identify if offenders consistently perform the same behaviors across their series of homicides. The results suggest that both the utilization of individual behaviors and groupings of behaviors are ineffective for identifying behavioral consistency in serial homicide offending behaviors. 4. Specificity hypothesis: are there psychologically important variations between homicides that relate to differences in the offenders who commit them? When reviewing the literature relating to the specificity (or homology) assumption in homicide offenders (i.e., the manner in which a homicide offense is committed corresponds with a particular configuration of offender background characteristics), it appears that two approaches have been followed. The first approach (direct offender profiling) investigates which crime scene relate to which offender characteristics without imposing or inferring some underlying psychological construct. The second approach (indirect offender profiling) hypothesizes about which crime scene relate to which offender characteristics based on an underlying psychological concept.8 4.1. Direct offender profiling approach Some investigators have tried to predict offender characteristics based on information about the victim. Santtila, Canter, Elfgren, and Hkknen (2001), for instance, found that gender of the victim and the offender were significantly related in single victim single offender homicide cases: female offenders were more likely to have killed a male, whereas male offenders were more likely to have killed a female victim. Nelsen and Huff-Corzine (1998, see also Ahmed & Menzies, 2002; Kennedy & Silverman, 1990) found that the risk of theft-related homicide victimization increased with increased age and that it was more likely among socially distant victims and offenders and Lanning (1994) postulated that the younger the victim, the more likely it was that the murderer was a family member. When combining information about the sex and age of the victim, Hanfland et al. (1997) postulated that older girls were more likely to be killed by strangers, younger girls by friends or acquaintances, while young male victims were more likely to be killed by strangers and older male victims by friends and acquaintances. Watanabe and Tamura (1999, 2002), on the other hand, found significant differences in offender characteristics (e.g., age) between three groups of mutilationmurder cases based on the age and sex of the victim. Finally, Santtila, Runtti, and Mokros (2004) found that it was possible to predict presence of a (violent) criminal offender record based on victim characteristics indicative of an antisocial lifestyle and Sapp and Huff (1996) mentioned that in 25 out of the 27 arson-homicide cases, the offender and victim lifestyle and risk classification appeared the same. Other investigators have tried to predict offender characteristics based on information about specific offense behaviors. Ressler, Burgess, Hartman, Douglas, and McCormack (1986), for instance, found that sexual murderers differed from nonsexual murderers both in the mutilation of their victims and on a number of offender characteristics (e.g., cruelty to animals in childhood). Additionally, Ressler et al. (1988) postulated a relationship between postcrime behaviors and method of killing in sexual murders (e.g., those who only used a firearm were more likely to have kept a diary, while sexual murderers who used only blunt or sharp instruments were more likely to have interjected themselves into the investigation). Kraemer, Lord, and Heilbrun (2004) and Harbort and Mokros (2001) compared single versus serial (sexual) homicide offenders and found that both groups differed on a number of crime scene (e.g., offense committed in affect; cause of death) and offender characteristics (e.g., relationship with victim). Harbort and Mokros also found that serial killers were slightly more likely to be of above average intelligence than someone who is randomly picked from the general population and Hanfland et al. (1997) mentioned that in 87% of serial killers of abducted children, the gender of the victim was consistent (with an overrepresentation of male victims), that serial killers more often bound their victims, that they were more likely to be strangers to their victims, to have personal problems, and to have committed prior crimes against children.
8 See for instance Mulkers (2002) for the distinction between direct and indirect approaches to offender profiling and Canter (1995, 2000, 2003, 2004) who refers to relationships between available offense information and characteristics of the offender (that are most useful in facilitating the police enquiry) as profiling equations. Note that both approaches assume a relationship between offense and offender characteristics.

A. Crabb et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior 13 (2008) 88106

93

Other investigators have postulated (Douglas & Munn, 1992b,c) that if the crime scene involves staging,9 the offender is almost always someone who had some kind of association or relationship with the victim, which was confirmed in the profile that Hazelwood and Napier (2004) gave of the offender in staged crime scenes involving fatalities: a white male who was an intimate partner of the victim and between 26 and 35 years old. These statements, however, are mainly based on the experience of the investigating officers and lack empirical validation. Safarik and Jarvis (2005, see also Safarik, 2002; Safarik, Jarvis, & Nussbaum, 2000, 2002), on the other hand, found that the offender's race, age, relationship with the victim, and distance between the offender's residence and that of the victim in serial (sexual) homicide cases involving elderly females could be predicted based on crime scene information (e.g., the neighborhood's racial composition). Additionally, Karlsson (1999) developed a model to predict the relationship between the victim and the offender in sharp-force homicides based on information on the crime scene (e.g., amount of wounding) and Rajs, Lundstrom, Broberg, Lidberg, and Lindquist (1998) postulated that there was a connection between the perpetrator's occupation and the method of mutilation and choice of instruments in more than half of the mutilation cases. Finally, Sapp and Huff (1996) stated that when the victim of an arson-homicide case was left in an indoor location, the offender was more likely to know the victim and that when the victim was left in an outdoor location or in a vehicle, the offender was more likely to be unknown to the victim. 4.2. Indirect offender profiling approach The findings mentioned in the section on the direct approach to offender profiling, although practically useful, make this a technology, in which relationships are established but the reason for them are not understood.10 The challenge is to establish themes that will help to identify and explain the links between crime based consistencies and characteristics of the offender (Canter, 1994, 1995). In the following sections, conclusions from the indirect approach to profiling homicide offenders will be discussed in terms of the underlying concepts relating offense and offender characteristics: style of interpersonal transaction, degree of organization, types based on behavioral dimensions, pathological personality and pathology, motive, fantasy, and thinking processes and emotions. 4.2.1. Style of interpersonal transaction as underlying concept between offense and offender characteristics Some researchers established to prove that crime scenes of single victim single offender (attempted) homicide cases could be classified according to the style of interpersonal transaction the offender used during his crime scene (instrumental versus expressive distinction, see supra), which relates to the role the offender assigns to his victim (Fritzon & Ridgeway, 2001; Salfati, 2003; Salfati & Dupont, 2006; Salfati & Haratsis, 2001; Santtila et al., 2001). Others have used this distinction to predict related offender characteristics based on the idea that an individual is consistent in their use of previously learned and encoded interpersonal strategies. Sometimes offender characteristics related in the anticipated way to the different crime scene styles (Salfati & Canter, 1999), sometimes the expectations were only partially fulfilled (Santtila, Hkknen, Canter, & Elfgren, 2003), and sometimes the results didn't support the hypothesized relationships (Salfati, 2000). The reason for this is probably due to difficulties in assigning a particular case to a particular crime scene theme.11 Varano and Cancino (2001), however, were able to predict deviant homicides (in contrast with normative homicides involving expressive motives between intimates and instrumental motives between strangers) based on crime scene information (e.g., victim's race), providing some indication that this instrumental/expressive distinction relates to the relationship between the offender and the victim. This was confirmed by a study of Last and Fritzon (2005) who found support for the link between the level of expressiveness evident in the crime scene and the nature of the victim offender relationship: intrafamilial homicides were characterized by more expressive crime scenes. It appeared that the best single predictor of the relationship between the offender and the victim was the presence of multiple wounding. Cornell et al. (1996), on the other hand, found no significant association between instrumental and reactive violent offenders and the degree of injury to the victim.
The purposeful alteration of a crime or crime scene in an attempt to mislead investigators. We must note, however, that Santtila et al. (2004) mention that the reason for associated victim and offender lifestyle indicators resides in the fact that the offender attacks persons resembling himself. 11 According to Canter (2000, 2003) these themes do not mean to indicate distinct types of offenders, but rather themes that will be present in all offenses to some degree.
10 9

94

A. Crabb et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior 13 (2008) 88106

4.2.2. Degree of organization as underlying concept between offense and offender characteristics Other studies have classified sexual crime scenes and offenders in terms of an organized (nonsocial)disorganized (asocial) distinction. Although much has been written about this classification system (Crime scene and profile characteristics, 1985; Hazelwood & Douglas, 1980; Holmes & Holmes, 1996; Lanning, 1994; Meloy, 2000; O'Connor, 2007; Ressler et al., 1988; Turvey, 2003) little empirical research exists to support this distinction. One exception is a study of Ressler, Burgess, Douglas et al. (1986) who found significant differences between organized and disorganized murderers in crime scene (e.g., use of restraints) and offender characteristics including background variables (e.g., skilled occupation), the precrime state (e.g., angry frame of mind), variables relating to residence, vehicle use and distance to crime scene (e.g., living with someone), and postoffense behavior variables (e.g., following the crime in the media). In contrast, Canter, Alison, Alison, and Wentink (2004) have investigated this organized disorganized distinction in serial killers and found that organized features were typical of most serial killers, while disorganized features were much rarer and did not form a distinct type. The authors hypothesized that the differences between the offenses are a product of the different modes of interaction with the victim in which the victim has undergone an act of mutilation, execution, sexual control or plunder. 4.2.3. Types based on behavioral dimensions as underlying concepts between offense and offender characteristics Other underlying themes were also found that are less well-defined (in contrast with the instrumentalexpressive and organizeddisorganized distinctions) and include a mix of behaviors, motivations, feelings etc. Kocsis, Cooksey, and Irwin (2002), for instance, found five different clusters of sexual murder behaviors: a central cluster, a predatory cluster (very violent crime scene characteristics, suggesting an element of deliberateness and cruelty in behavior), a fury cluster (very violent in nature, but with much less calculation and deliberation evident, perhaps coupled with a motive of revenge and anger), a perversion cluster (an antisocial perversion theme without the calculation of the predatory cluster), and a rape cluster (crime scene characteristics suggestive of less violent intent where the offender and the victim tended to be acquainted and brutality was not strongly evident, almost as if death had not been intended). The authors found that these themes were correlated with distinctive offender (e.g., being employed), offendervictim interactions (e.g., crime scene outdoor), and victim characteristics (e.g., race). Additionally, Beauregard and Proulx (2002) found two pathways in sexual homicide offenders: the angry and sadistic pathway which differed significantly on offense behaviors (e.g., use of restraints), emotions before crime (e.g., positive affect), postoffense behaviors/ attitudes towards their crimes (e.g., giving oneself up), occupational problems (e.g., problems of idleness), and relationship problems (e.g., loneliness problems). The authors state that offenders in the angry pathway present some characteristics of the borderline personality disorder, but no testing of this assumption has been made. 4.2.4. Pathological personality and pathology as underlying concepts between offense and offender characteristics Some studies provided a relationship between the manner in which the offender carried out his offense, his underlying pathological personality or pathology, and his background characteristics. Anderson and Holcomb (1983), for instance, found five different MMPI profiles in general homicide offenders which differed significantly both on crime scene variables (e.g., offender shot victim with a handgun) and offender characteristics (e.g., relationship to victim). Additionally, Geberth and Turco (1997) mentioned that serial sexual murderers fit the criteria for antisocial personality and Gratzer and Bradford (1995) found that sadists differ from nonsadists on a number of offense (e.g., the use of instruments to torture their victims) and offender characteristics (e.g., known homosexual experience). 4.2.5. Motive as underlying concept between offense and offender characteristics Some investigators have considered the relationship between offense behaviors and offender motivation. Schmidt, Padosch, Rothschild, and Madea (2005), for instance, investigated multiple homicides and found no correlation between the method of commitment and offender's motives (see Table 1), which arises the question whether the use of a particular weapon and mode of commitment in multiple homicides is determined by the offender's motive rather than by external circumstances implicating the need to kill a certain number of individuals. Turvey (2003), on the other hand, mentioned five behavior-motivational categories within the general population of homicide offenders (see Table 1) and provided the following information for every motivational category: method of approach, method of attack, verbal, sexual, physical, MO, and signature behaviors. However, no empirical results were provided to support this behavioralmotivational typology, nor were there any reported relationship with offender characteristics. The same could be said about articles discussing the link between certain specific offense behaviors and the offender's motivation

A. Crabb et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior 13 (2008) 88106 Table 1 Overview of motivations Author(s) Schmidt et al. (2005) Turvey (2003) Motivation(s) for homicidal act(s)

95

Concealment of prior homicide; greed; domestic argument; revenge; family honor; jealousy; sexual motives; other Power reassurance or compensatory The offense is restorative of the offender's doubts about himself, his fear of personal inadequacy. Power assertive or entitlement The offender wishes to appear to have absolutely no doubt about his own adequacy and masculinity, he may be using his attacks as an expression of his own virility. Anger retaliatory or displaced The offender is acting on the basis of cumulative real or imagined wrongs, the victim may be one of the people who did him wrong or may symbolize that person to the offender. Sadistic or anger excitation Motivated by intense, individually varying fantasies that involve inflicting brutal levels of pain on the victim solely for offender sexual pleasure. Profit or material gain Motivation oriented toward material or personal gain. Tita and Griffiths (2005) Gang; drug; felony; argument; familial/domestic Douglas et al. (1992) Criminal enterprise; personal cause; sexual; group cause Every type of motivation is divided into subcategories. Bijleveld and Smit (2006) Criminal contract killing; criminal drug related; criminal other; sexual; robbery; disputes inmates; disputes acquaintances, disputes strangers; other; psychotic; unknown Keppel and Walter (1999) Power assertive Increasing aggression with the victim ensures control and power. Power reassurance Acts out fantasy and seeks reassurance from the victim. Anger-retaliation Seeks revenge for his anger towards another person by attacking a symbolic person. Anger-excitation Engages in prolonged torture, exploitation, and/or mutilation, which energizes the killer's fantasy. Holmes and De Burger Visionary (1988) Homicides are committed in response to voices or visions that demand that a person or category of persons be destroyed. Mission oriented Conscious goal of eliminating a particular group or category of people. Hedonistic Thrill seeking Derives pleasure directly from the murder event. Comfort Instrumental homicides in meeting the killer's goal of pleasure, creating comfort, the good life. Lust Sexual arousal and gratification are integral to the homicidal act. Power-control oriented Derives profound satisfaction from the process of having complete life-or-death control over his victim. Levin and Fox (1996) Revenge (individual, category specific or nonspecific); love; profit; terror

for performing these behaviors. Some associations have been made between motivation and, for instance, choosing a disposal site location or type of wounding (Turvey, 2003), using a blindfold (Holmes & Holmes, 1996), staging a crime scene (Douglas & Munn, 1992b,c; Hazelwood & Napier, 2004), performing mutilation acts (Rajs et al., 1998), eyegauging (Bukhanovsky et al., 1999), using arson in homicide cases (Sapp & Huff, 1996), ligature strangulation (Hkknen, 2005), the homicide of children (Boudreaux, Lord, & Jarvis, 2001; Lanning, 1994), and motives for healthcare worker homicide (Gaetjens, 2000). These findings, however, have no practical application for offender profiling since no relationships between motivation and offender characteristics have been postulated. Tita and Griffiths (2005), on the other hand, did find a relationship between the offender's motivation and the offender's mobility to the homicide location. After introducing a spatial typology (based on combinations of victim and offender mobility to homicide incident location), they found that mobility to homicide incident locations is most often associated with event characteristics, such as motive (see Table 1), rather than with characteristics of the participants.

96

A. Crabb et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior 13 (2008) 88106

This means that when one can infer the underlying motivation for the homicidal act, together with other information like victim residence, homicide location etc., one can make a prediction of the likely home location of the homicide offender. Other investigations have postulated links both between offense characteristics and the offender's motivation and between the offender's motivation and background characteristics. Douglas, Burgess, Burgess, and Ressler (1992), for instance, classified general homicide offenses according to their predominant motive. Their crime classification manual includes four major categories (each category being divided into subcategories, see Table 1) and for every category the following characteristics are provided: defining characteristics (victimology, crime scene indicators frequently noted, staging, and common forensic findings), investigative considerations useful in apprehending the offender, and search warrant suggestions. Although this classification may be useful for determining offender characteristics by inferring the offender's motive from the crime scene, this classification has not yet been investigated empirically. In contrast, Bijleveld and Smit (2006) classified homicides according to two main dimensions, namely the motive of the offender and the relationship between the offender and the victim (see Table 1) and investigated the clustering of offense (e.g., homicide location), offender (e.g., relationship with victim), and victim (e.g., age) characteristics. The authors found that the different homicide typologies did not imply dramatically distinct or unique profiles when included in this analysis, instead, the homicide types ranked along a more or less circular figure. One could interpret the first dimension of this figure as a businesspersonal dimension and the second dimension could be interpreted as a personal settlementimpersonal escalation/brawl dimension. This indicates that offense behaviors, offender motivation, and offender characteristics are related both to each other and to the two postulated dimensions. Furthermore, Keppel and Walter (1999) postulated four different motivational categories in sexual murder (see Table 1). Every homicidal type was further explained by providing the dynamics of the homicidal behavior, the homicidal pattern, and the suspect profiles. The authors did determine the frequency for each category among convicted murderers but provided no empirical support for the linking of this motivational typology with offense and offender characteristics. Holmes and De Burger (1988), on the other hand, postulated a four-category typology of serial murderers that reflect their dominant motives in the homicidal act. For every motivational type of serial killer, the following characteristics have been given: overview of victims (specific versus nonspecific, random versus nonrandom, affiliative versus strangers), methods (act versus process oriented, planned versus spontaneous, organized versus disorganized), and murder locations (dispersed versus concentrated). This means that if one knows the motivation of the serial killer based on, for instance, the murder locations, one could possibly predict the victimoffender relationship. The authors, however, did not provide any empirical support for this classification system of serial killers based on their motivations.12 The same could be said about a study of Levin and Fox (1996) who postulated a typology of mass murderers based on their motivation (see Table 1) and provided information about the victimoffender relationship, the planning, randomness, and state of mind for every type of mass murderer. 4.2.6. Fantasy as underlying concept between offense and offender characteristics The importance of a fantasy life in the development of (serial or multiple) (sexual) (sadistic) homicide offending has been stressed by a large number of authors (e.g., Arrigo & Purcell, 2001; Burgess, Hartman, Ressler, Douglas, and McCormack, 1986; Douglas et al., 1992; Douglas & Munn, 1992c; Gresswell & Hollin, 1994; Hazelwood, Dietz, & Warren, 1992; Hazelwood & Douglas, 1980; Hazelwood & Warren, 1995; Holmes & De Burger, 1988; Holmes & Holmes, 1996; the men who murdered, 1985; Pistorius, 1997; the split reality of murder, 1985; Turvey, 2003). Some studies have supported this hypothesized link between fantasy and behavior. Meloy (2000) found that 39% of the sexual homicide perpetrators produced more passive human movement than active human movement responses on the Rorschach, which is an indication of fantasy abuse rather than problem solving. Additionally, Ressler, Burgess, Hartman et al. (1986, see also Ressler et al., 1988) stated that murderers with sexual abuse history reported fantasizing about rape earlier than murderers without sexual abuse histories. Furthermore, Warren, Hazelwood, and Dietz (1996)
12 Canter and Wentink (2004) have investigated this typology in serial sexual murderers and found that power or control killings were typical of their sample as a whole. Limited support for aspects of lust, thrill, and mission styles of killing was found but this support drew attention to differences in the ways victims were dealt with through mutilation, restraints or ransacking their property rather than motivations. The authors focus on the nature of the transaction with the victim as a useful model of serial killers that places much more emphasis on how the offender interacts with the victim (as object, vehicle or person). We must note, however, that the offender population was restricted to serial sexual murderers, that Canter and Wentink did not include the specific motivations of the respective offenders in their study, and that the choice of offense variables reflecting each type of serial offender could be questioned.

A. Crabb et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior 13 (2008) 88106

97

found that 80% of their sample of sadistic serial murderers had violent fantasies that were linked to their ritualized, repetitious behavior across successive murders, indicating that this internal representation is the script followed by the offender during his crime. Finally, MacCulloch, Snowden, Wood, and Mills (1983) found a crucial link between sadistic fantasies and behavior: when they compared the sexual fantasy life with the corresponding index offense and the type of force used, they found a striking concordance. These findings, on their own, however, have no practical implication for offender profiling since no inferences about offender characteristics have been made. Hazelwood and Warren (2000), on the other hand, mentioned differences in the crime scene (e.g., reactive versus carefully developed), offender characteristics (e.g., psychopathic character style versus less exploitive personality style), and the complexity of the fantasy life in impulsive and ritualistic sexually serial offenders. These statements, however, have not been validated empirically. The same authors (1995) also mentioned that since the ability to fantasize is dependent upon the intelligence of the offender (it needs continuity of thought), investigators can assume that the more complex the crime, the more intelligent the offender. This statement has been validated in a study by Prentky et al. (1989) who compared single and serial sexual murderers. The authors stated that, while IQ seemed to have little bearing on the content or quality of the fantasy, it did influence how well the fantasy was translated into behavior. Furthermore, they found that serial murderers not only differed from their single colleagues in their fantasies of rape, murder or both, but also on a number of offense (e.g., organized crime scenes) and offender characteristics (e.g., fetishism). 4.2.7. Thinking processes and emotions as underlying concepts between offense and offender characteristics Some information about the cognitive mapping and processing of sexual murderers (e.g., deals in absolutes) can be found in the motivational model of sexual homicide (Burgess et al., 1986; Ressler et al., 1988), while Arrigo and Purcell (2001) mention the role of a low self-esteem in sexual murderers. Furthermore, information about the attitudes of 36 sexual murderers (e.g., world viewed as unjust; the men who murdered, 1985) has also been provided, as well as a decision making process model that would underlie the selection of locations and victims in serial killers (Godwin, 1998). However, no empirical research has been reported to support these assumptions neither were inferences about differences in related offense and offender characteristics provided.13 In contrast, De Waele (1990) inferred four criminogenetic types that indicate the way in which the homicide offender dealt with problematic situations, leading to the development of a criminogenetic process that ended in a homicide incident: impaired cognitive abilities, avoidance of problems, the anomalies, and the offenders who have a conflict with their self-image. These four different criminogenetic types could partially be differentiated based on information about the offender (e.g., age) and about the offense (e.g., sex of the victim). This means that theoretically, one could distinguish the type of criminogenetic process the offender experienced based on information on the crime scene and based on this information, one could deduce offender characteristics. When considering the role of emotions, Douglas et al. (1992, see also Meyer, 2000) mentioned that undoing frequently occurs at a crime where there is a close connection between the offender and the victim or where the victim represents someone of significance to the offender. The underlying concept between this crime scene behavior (undoing) and offender characteristic (relationship with the victim) is the emotion that the offender experienced during the crime: an offender displays his remorse by emotionally undoing the murder (e.g., washing the victim, displaying the corpse of the victim as if the victim is sleeping peacefully). However, no empirical support for this assumption has been provided. 5. Discussion 5.1. Underlying concepts and offender profiling theories When considering the literature about offender consistency and specificity, it appears that the psychopathology (axis I or axis II) and the deviant fantasy of the offender can go some way in explaining offenseoffender relationships. Furthermore, since indications for consistent signature behaviors have been found in homicide offenders, some support

However, as mentioned in the section about offender consistency, some support have been found that the offense location choices of serial offenders are guided by a recognizable rationality.

13

98

A. Crabb et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior 13 (2008) 88106

for underlying psychological and emotional needs has been provided.14 This is in accordance with the theory of Holmes and Holmes (1996) who stated that the crime scene reflects the underlying pathology of the offender's personality, that the signature will remain the same, and that the offender's personality will not change. Furthermore, the role the offender assigns to his victim and hence the type of aggression used, was able to explain the victimoffender relationship which is in agreement with Canter (1994, 1995, 2000, 2003, 2004) who stated that the crucial distinctions between the dramas (narratives15) that violent men write for themselves are the variations in the roles that they give their victims: as an object (something just to be used and controlled through restraint and treat, often involving alternative gains in the form of other crimes, such as theft; central is the lack of any feeling for the victim), as a vehicle (to carry the offender's own emotional state e.g., anger and frustration) or as a person (some level of pseudointimacy with attempts to create some sort of relationship). Additionally, the offender's motive was able to explain some offenseoffender relationships which accords with the theory of some authors (Ault & Reese, 1980; Douglas et al., 1986; Douglas et al., 1992; Douglas & Burgess, 1986; Hazelwood & Napier, 2004; Holmes & De Burger, 1988; Ressler et al., 1988) that knowledge of the offender's motivation provides vital information about the perpetrator. Cognitive processes also seemed to play a role in the offense locations choice which is in agreement with the view that thinking patterns guide offense behaviors (Burgess et al., 1986; Douglas et al., 1986; Holmes & De Burger, 1988). Finally, some indications have also been provided that the degree of organization, the predatory-fury-perversion-rape, and the anger-sadistic themes could explain offender offense relationships in sexual homicide cases. Empirical evidence for the role of emotions (Ault & Reese, 1980) or personality of the offender (Ault & Reese, 1980; Douglas et al., 1986; Douglas & Burgess, 1986; Hazelwood & Douglas, 1980; Holmes & De Burger, 1988; Ressler et al., 1988; Ressler, Burgess, Douglas et al., 1986) as underlying psychological constructs has been less straightforward. Homant and Kennedy (1998), however, pointed out that there does not seem to be any particular personality theory, psychodynamic or otherwise, that guides the FBI trained profilers. The authors argue that when profilers refer to the personality of the offender, they are speaking both about the interpersonal style and the underlying motives of the offender. If one considers this as the personality of the offender, some evidence for the personality as underlying concept has been found (see supra). Furthermore, some investigations indicating themes in offense behaviors (e.g., organizeddisorganized, angry-sadistic) did provide significant differences in the emotions the different types of offenders experienced during their offenses. Thus, although no direct evidence for the role of emotions and personality has been provided, we consider these as promising underlying concepts that should be investigated in future research. 5.2. Current criticisms and challenges The review on homicide offenders provides some support for the consistency and specificity assumption, but also points to some criticisms against the current view on offender profiling. First of all, although different concepts emerge as relevant underlying constructs between offense and offender characteristics, there appears to be a lack of an explicit theoretical framework encompassing all the different concepts used to explain these relationships. Muller (2000), for instance, mentions that Canter's approach is more a collection of related theories and hypotheses than a comprehensive methodology. Secondly, there exists some conceptual confusion in the established underlying concepts. Motivation (see Table 1), for instance, often includes more than just the intention of the offender like type of relationship with the victim (e.g., domestic motivation) or external circumstances (e.g., felony, dispute, psychotic homicides). Furthermore, the thematic distinctions in sexual offenders, as discussed above, are also fuzzy, including elements of deliberateness (e.g., predatory versus fury cluster), degree of violence (e.g., predatory and fury versus rape cluster), motivations (e.g., rape versus fury cluster), and indications of underlying personality disorders (e.g., perversion cluster). Additionally, offender profiling relies on a nave trait perspective which attributes behavior to underlying, relatively contextfree dispositional constructs (traits) within the offender that are not directly observable, but can be inferred from the
It is, however, unclear which specific psychological and emotional needs are expressed through these signature behaviors. Interpersonal narratives emphasize the sense the offender makes of his life and his agency in acting out his life story as he sees it unfolding. Since violent crime is always a transaction between at least two people, it must reveal something about the way in which the offender deals with people. Personal narratives models reflect the criminal's interpretation of his actions and the meaning of the shadow that the criminal casts. Narratives are patterns of expected actions, organized, often loosely around personal objectives (Canter, 1994, p. 228).
15 14

A. Crabb et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior 13 (2008) 88106

99

crime scene (Alison et al., 2002; Homant & Kennedy, 1998). The organizeddisorganized or instrumentalexpressive distinctions, for instance, all place offenders on an underlying trait (degree of organization or degree of instrumentality/ expressiveness) and infer some offense and offender characteristics based on the position of the offender on this underlying trait. Review of the consistency in instrumentalexpressive or organizeddisorganized behaviors across offenses, however, appeared to be limited or nonexistent. We agree with Cassar, Ward, and Thakker (2003) who stated that most classifications of homicide offenses and offenders have limited explanatory value in the sense that they are typically static and simplistic. We argue that a static approach to offender profiling neglects the role of the situation in which the offender finds himself and take the point of view that the behavior of the offender should be explained both in terms of his underlying psychological processes and the situation in which the homicide occurs. When considering the investigation of Safarik (2002), for instance, the proportion of explained variance of offender characteristics ranged between 5.4% and 21.9%, leaving a large amount of unexplained variance. We argue that a contextualized approach could increase this percentage of explained variance. As Busch and Cavanaugh (1986) stated a long time ago: Research guided by a focus on these interactive factors may be able to account for a larger percentage of the variance in studies of multiple murder than can traditional approaches that have emphasized personality variables in isolation from situational variables (p. 2021). Furthermore, most research in the field of homicide profiling has paid little attention to the homicide offense as a process that develops over time. For exceptions see for instance The split reality of murder (1985) and Ressler et al. (1988) who described processes that play a role in the four phases of homicide offending (antecedent behaviors, committing the murder, disposing of the body, and postcrime behavior in sexual murderers). Folino (2000) and Arrigo and Purcell (2001) described triggering factors in sexual homicide offenders (e.g., questions of power or control respectively rejection) and Hanfland et al. (1997) described crises and stressors in child homicide offenders. Levin and Fox (1996), on the other hand, made a distinction between predisposers (long term and stable preconditions) and precipitants (short term and acute triggers) in mass homicide offenders, while Gresswell and Hollin (1994) reviewed the predisposing, maintaining, situational factors, and triggers in multiple murders. Although these exceptions exists, most investigators take the homicide event as the unit of their analysis without considering the different elements that play a role in the different stages of the offense process and how these elements influence each other in and over the different stages of the offense. Finally, most of the research on profiling homicide offenders have neglected the point of view of the offender, but focused on the behavioral manifestations of the offender at the crime scene (except for the organizeddisorganized distinction which was based on interviews with the respective offenders). We argue that including the point of view of the offender could increase the richness of the offense description, its comprehensibility and could add some depth to the profiles rendered by offender profilers in practice. 5.3. Towards a new offender profiling model These criticisms can be accounted for if one: 1) approaches offender profiling from a contextualized perspective in which situational factors are associated with the homicidal act, 2) recognizes the homicide offense as a process that develops over time, in which different elements influence each other in and over the different stages of the offense process, and 3) includes the underlying psychological processes the offender experienced at the time of his offense. We take the point of view that homicidal behavior is the result of an interaction between psychological and situational characteristics (Behavior = Person Situation) which evolves over time. This means that when one wants to investigate homicidal behavior, one needs to look at the homicide offense as a process that develops over time and needs to consider both the psychological as well as the situational characteristics of the specific homicidal act. The focus on behavior as a result of an unfolding interaction between psychological and situational characteristics can be linked to (cognitive) behavioral theories. Possible underlying psychological processes between situational characteristics and behavioral outcomes have for instance been elaborated by Mischel and Shoda (Mischel, 1999; Mischel & Shoda, 1995; Shoda & Leetiernan, 2002). These authors postulated five different process variables: encodings, expectancies and beliefs, affects, goals and values, and competencies and self-regulatory plans. It is argued that every individual differs both in the chronic availability and ease of activation of particular cognitions and affects, and in the organization of the inhibitory and excitatory relations among them. The resulting behavior is a product of the interactions between the psychological situational characteristics and the network of cognitive and affective

100

A. Crabb et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior 13 (2008) 88106

components. When considering the underlying explanatory mechanisms for the offenseoffender relationships (see supra: indirect approach to offender profiling), some resemblances with these process variables can be found (for the definitions of the process variables see for instance Mischel & Shoda, 1995). For example, motive relates to the process variable of goals and values (desirable outcomes and affective states; aversive outcomes and affective states; goals, values, and life projects), the organizeddisorganized distinction relates to competencies and self-regulatory plans (potential behaviors and scripts that one can do and plans and strategies for organizing action and for affecting outcomes and one's own behavior and internal state), and the instrumentalexpressive distinctions relates to encoding (categories (constructs) for the self, people, events, and situations (external and internal)). When investigating homicidal behavior as the product of the unfolding interaction between psychological and situational characteristics, one could keep this theory in mind by investigating both the psychological aspects of the homicidal situation (e.g., insulting situation) instead of looking at its nominal aspects (e.g., at home), as well as the stated relevant underlying psychological processes. This view of a contextualized perspective on behavior can also be found in the theory and practice of behavioral therapy models (e.g., Hayes, 1990; Hermans, Eelen, & Orlemans, 2007; Ishaq, 1996; Nelson & Hayes, 1981) in which behavior is viewed as the product of individual learning experiences and contextual factors. Furthermore, in behavioral assessment used in behavioral therapy, the importance of behavior as a process that develops over time is stressed by stating that (problematic) behavior is integrated in a chain of antecedent and consequent situations and behaviors, whereby the process of looking at behavior at this concrete, descriptive level, is called a topographic analysis (e.g., Cone, 1997; Ferster, 1965; Hermans et al., 2007 see also the behavioral interview as described in Spiegler & Guevremont, 1998). Looking at behavior in this way (contextualized approach and the significance of investigating behavior as it develops over time) is the same as what Ward and Hudson (1998b, see also Cassar et al., 2003; Hudson, Ward, & McCormack, 1999) have denoted as level III theories. Ward and Hudson have formulated a metatheoretical framework that differentiates between different levels of theory, such as comprehensive or multifactorial theories (level I), middle or single-factor theories (level II), and micro-level theories (level III). At level I are the multifactorial etiological frameworks attempting to provide a comprehensive and integrated explanation for offense behaviors, that is, theories attempting to explain a phenomenon in terms of the various mechanisms that lead to its occurrence. The motivational model of Ressler et al. (1988) is an example of such a level I theory: sexual homicide is explained by five different phases, namely an ineffective social environment, formative events, critical personality traits, actions towards others and self, and a feedback filter. Level II theories, on the other hand, focus on specific factors or single issues thought to be particularly important in the generation of crimes (e.g., the role of violent fantasy in sexual homicides, see for instance MacCulloch et al., 1983). Finally there are level III theories (microtheories e.g., Cassar et al., 2003; Polaschek, Hudson, Ward, & Siegert, 2001; Ward & Hudson, 1998a; Ward, Hudson, & Keenan, 1998) which attempt to provide a description of the offense process as it unfolds over time and specify the cognitive, behavioral, motivational, affective, and contextual factors associated with the problem behavior process. They include an explicit temporal factor and focus on proximal causes, or the how of offending. These microtheories should be articulating what the higher level theories are seeking to explain. They are not explanatory but descriptive; in a sense provide the touchstone for all other theoretical work and serve to identify possible clinical phenomena that subsequent theory sets out to explain. Level I and II theories need to be able to explain the actual offending behavior, which is described in level III or microtheories. Such a descriptive level III theory will be called an offense scenario, the method to construct this scenario, is the offense scenario procedure, while the individual path followed by the respective offender, will be described as an offense chain or pathway. Such an offense scenario in general homicide offenders has been provided by Cassar et al. (2003) and by Demarest (2001) and VanHumbeeck (2004) in spousal homicide. In the following paragraphs, we will describe the process of obtaining an offense scenario in more detail. Since we need to look both at the person and situation component in understanding homicidal behavior, we need to have a detailed description of what happened (in terms of behavior, feelings, motivation, situational characteristics) before, during, and after the homicidal act. Although different methods could be used to collect this information, we point to a procedure, used in behavioral analysis, to obtain such rich descriptive information, namely the topographic analysis (e.g., Cone, 1997; Ferster, 1965; Hermans et al., 2007 see also the behavioral interview as described in Spiegler & Guevremont, 1998). In a topographical analysis, concrete behavior that occurred at a certain place and time is described at a very concrete level: where, when, with whom did the behavior occur, what were the accompanying thoughts, what were the consequences? The client is asked to remember the situation as lively as possible and to describe this as detailed as possible. This method is sometimes referred to as the video method since a specific episode is reviewed in

A. Crabb et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior 13 (2008) 88106

101

much detail. The behavioral analyst holds the remote control in his hands and can rewind, zoom in, pause etc. The method aims at filming a certain episode and allows a script of that episode to be made. If this script should be filmed, it should provide a nearly perfect image of the truth (as it has been perceived by the client). This is an interesting method if one wants to obtain a rich description of some problem behavior and we argue that this could also be used by offenders instead of clients. When making a topographical analysis of homicidal behavior, the interviewer could keep the process variables (as mentioned before) in mind to be sure that all the relevant elements have been provided and should include a temporal dimension in the description of all the relevant elements (cf. behavioral chain in behavioral therapy). Once individual offense descriptions have been provided by a number of offenders, the information needs to be compared and collapsed into a coherent scheme, incorporating the similarities and differences between the individual offense descriptions (the offense scenario, including subtypes of offense chains e.g., those who planned the homicidal act versus those who reacted impulsively on a given situation). This offense scenario is a global scheme, including all the relevant psychological processes and situational characteristics that play a role in the development of homicidal behavior. The information should be ordered under a common denominator which requires a qualitative method of information ordering. We argue that grounded theory methodology (e.g., Strauss & Corbin, 1998; see also Cassar et al., 2003; Hudson et al., 1999; Polaschek et al., 2001) is one such possible method to organize descriptive information. Grounded theory is a set of procedures that seek to inductively derive a theory or model about a particular phenomenon starting from an initial set of qualitative descriptions or transcripts. The value of this methodology lies in its ability not only to generate theory but also to ground that theory in data. Grounded theory is a process of interpretation, carried out for the purpose of discovering concepts and relationships in raw data and then organizing these into a theoretical explanatory scheme. The procedure starts with a detailed line-by-line analysis to generate initial categories with their properties and dimensions. If the provisional categories are unable to cope with existing categories, then new categories are formulated and the process continues. Once the existing categories are sufficient, that is, they do not need to be modified in the face of new data, the model is saturated. A hypothetical example of using grounded theory in qualitative data is the following: suppose that we have a description of the homicide offenses of a number of offenders. One offender had a drug addiction before the offense occurred, one had money problems, one had an argument with the victim, and another one had some relational problems with his wife (who was not the victim of his homicidal act). When looking at this information, some similarities appear: all the offenders experienced some problems before their homicidal act. Some differences appear as well: some offenders had problems involving other people, while other offenders had problems that were not related to other people. We could make a general category, namely problems and two subcategories, namely intrapersonal and interpersonal problems. When looking at the offenders who experienced interpersonal problems, it appeared that one offender had problems with the victim and another offender had problems with a third person, providing some differentiation into the subcategory of problems-interpersonal, namely with victim or with third person. However, if another offender stated that he had no problems whatsoever before the offense, the categories need to be broadened i.e., we need to add another category, namely no problems. If we continue to analyze other offense descriptions, it could be possible to find that some had problems with the victim because the offender and the victim had some argument, while other offenders had some problem with the victim because the victim was maltreating a beloved one. In that case, the category problems-interpersonal-with victim can be further differentiated into two categories: those offenders who had problems with the victim because the victim maltreated the offender and those who had problems with the victim because the victim maltreated a beloved one. This is an example in which situational characteristics of a number of offenses are categorized, but the same procedure applies also for the categorization of feelings, thoughts etc. One important note to make in this process is that all the relevant variables need to contain a definition so that the meaning of the variables is as clear as possible, avoiding conceptual confusion and leading to a higher interrater-reliablity. Another important note to make is that the literature can provide some guidelines in the organization of the descriptive information. We don't start with a detailed theory in mind, but if we find some variables that seems to be related (for instance, negative versus positive feelings), one can always turn to the relevant literature to grasp the differences between these variables in more detail. In our own research (Crabb & Vertommen, submitted for publication), for instance, we found different motivations for performing violent behavior: some offenders performed the homicide to obtain some money to maintain their drug addiction, others murdered their victims because of self-defense (in the case where the victim tried to rape the offender), others performed homicidal behavior because they feared that the victim would tell about the rape that happened just before

102

A. Crabb et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior 13 (2008) 88106

the homicidal act etc. When looking at these examples, the resemblance between these motivations and escape, active avoidance, and positive reinforcement behaviors from behavior analysis stood out. This information helped us to differentiate between different motivations: to avoid a negative result to appear (kill the victim because they feared that the victim would tell about the rape active avoidance), to avoid a negative situation (kill the victim because of a sexual attack escape) or to obtain something positive (collect some money to maintain a drug addiction positive reinforcement). Using these more general, well established terms could decrease conceptual confusion, but one should always make sure that the generated categories are in line with the information provided by the offenders (in other words: the theory should match the data not the other way round). After having constructed an offense scenario in homicide offenders, possible links both with offense and offender characteristics can be investigated. A hypothetical example: suppose that we have an offense scenario for homicidal behavior and that we found that the act of overkill (using more violence than necessary to kill the victim) could be related to different elements of the offense scenario: panic because of an unexpected situation (the offender is breaking in into a house while the owner of the house returns, the offender panics and hits the victim, the victim start to scream and the offender keeps hitting the victim until he notices that the victim is death), rage towards the victim (the offender is very angry at the victim and ventilates this rage by using much more violence than necessary), consideration of the amount of suffering the victim will endure (the offender feels pity for the victim in a robbery murder and uses much more violence than necessary in order to limit the time that the victim suffers), group pressure (the offender has multiple co-offenders and they all feel they have to prove themselves, they don't want to be the only offender who didn't attack the victim). This information can then be used as hypotheses which should be checked with other information obtained from the crime scene. Some behaviors will be more associated with the different motivations for overkill than others, for instance, the way in which the body was left: undisturbed (panic and group pressure) versus openly displayed in a humiliating manner (rage) versus covered with a blanked (pity). Combining the information obtained from the crime scene with the hypotheses derived from the offense scenario, one can conclude that one hypothesis receives more support than the other. Using this information (e.g., the offender performed overkill because of his rage towards the victim), offender information can be deduced based on the obtained associations between the offense scenario and offender characteristics in earlier research (e.g., in cases where the offender ventilated his rage towards the victim, there was a higher probability of the victim and the offender to have a very close relationship). This statement should be treated as a hypothesis as well and other information should be collected to evaluate it (e.g., in cases where the offender knew the victim, there was more chance of facial wounding to the victim). In a sense, the information obtained by the investigation of the relationships between offense behaviorselements of the offense scenariooffender characteristics can serve as the basis for the formulation of hypotheses which should be checked with the total information obtained from the crime scene. Note that in this example, we started from one specific offense behavior, but the same procedure could also apply if one considers clusters of offense behaviors. In conclusion, considering the homicide offense scenario as a collection of underlying concepts between offense and offender characteristics could provide a coherent theoretical framework encompassing the different explanations for the offenseoffender relationships as stated earlier. In this way, one can bring offender profiling more in agreement with recent interactive theories, can clarify the underlying processes in offenseoffender relationships, and can account for current criticisms on offender profiling. References
Ahmed, A. G., & Menzies, R. (2002). Homicide in the Canadian prairies: Elderly and nonelderly killings. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 47(9), 875879. Ainsworth, P. B. (2000). Crime analysis and offender profiling. In P. B. Ainsworth (Ed.), Psychology and crime: Myths and reality (pp. 102120). Harlow: Langford. Alison, L., Bennell, C., Mokros, A., & Ormerod, D. (2002). The personality paradox in offender profiling: A theoretical review of the processes involved in deriving background characteristics from crime scene actions. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 8(1), 115135. Anderson, W. P., & Holcomb, W. R. (1983). Accused murderers: Five MMPI personality types. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 39(5), 761768. Arrigo, B. A., & Purcell, C. E. (2001). Explaining paraphilias and lust murder: Toward an integrated model. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 45(1), 631. Ault, R. L., & Reese, J. T. (1980, March). A psychological assessment of crime: Profiling. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 2225. Bateman, A. L., & Salfati, C. G. (2007). An examination of behavioral consistency using individual behaviors or groups of behaviors in serial homicide. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 25, 527544. Beasley, J. O. (2004). Serial murder in America: Case studies of seven offenders. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 22, 395414.

A. Crabb et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior 13 (2008) 88106

103

Beauregard, E., & Proulx, J. (2002). Profiles in the offending process of nonserial sexual murderers. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 46(4), 386399. Bijleveld, C., & Smit, P. (2006). Homicide in the Netherlands: On the structuring of homicide typologies. Homicide Studies, 10(3), 195219. Boudreaux, M. C., Lord, W. D., & Jarvis, J. P. (2001). Behavioral perspectives on child homicide: The role of access, vulnerability, and routine activities theory. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse, 2(1), 5678. Bukhanovsky, A. O., Hempel, A., Ahmed, W., Meloy, J. R., Brantley, A. C., Cuneo, D., et al. (1999). Assaultive eye injury and enucleation. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 27(4), 590602. Burgess, A. W., Hartman, C. R., Ressler, R. K., Douglas, J. E., & McCormack, A. (1986). Sexual homicide a motivational model. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1(3), 251272. Busch, K. A., & Cavanaugh, J. L. (1986). The study of multiple murder: Preliminary examination of the interface between epistemology and methodology. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1(1), 523. Bushman, B. J., & Anderson, C. A. (2001). Is it time to pull the plug on the hostile versus instrumental aggression dichotomy? Psychological Review, 108(1), 273279. Canter, D. (1994). Criminal shadows: Inside the mind of the serial killer. HarperCollinsPublishers, Hammersmith: London. Canter, D. (1995). Psychology of offender profiling. In R. Bull & D. Carson (Eds.), Handbook of psychology in legal contexts (pp. 343355). John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Canter, D. (2000). Offender profiling and criminal differentiation. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 5, 2346. Canter, D. (2003). Beyond offender profiling: The need for an Investigative Psychology. In D. Bull & R. Carson (Eds.), Handbook of psychology in legal contexts (pp. 171205)., (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Canter, D. (2004). Offender profiling and investigative psychology. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 1, 115. Canter, D. V., Alison, L. J., Alison, E., & Wentink, N. (2004). The organized/disorganized typology of serial murder: Myth or model? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 10(3), 293320. Canter, D., Coffey, T., Huntley, M., & Missen, C. (2000). Predicting serial killers' home base using a decision support system. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 16(4), 457478. Canter, D., & Hammond, L. (2006). A comparison of the efficacy of different decay functions in geographical profiling for a sample of US serial killers. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 3, 91103. Canter, D. V., & Wentink, N. (2004). An empirical test of Holmes and Holmes's serial murder typology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 31(4), 489515. Cassar, E., Ward, T., & Thakker, J. (2003). A descriptive model of the homicide process. Behaviour Change, 20(2), 7693. Cone, J. D. (1997). Issues in functional analysis in behavioral assessment. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 35(3), 259275. Cook, P. E., & Hinman, D. L. (1999). Criminal profiling: Science and art. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 15(3), 230241. Cornell, D. G., Warren, J., Hawk, G., Stafford, E., Oram, G., & Pine, D. (1996). Psychopathy in instrumental and reactive violent offenders. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64(4), 783790. Crabb, A., & Vertommen, H. (submitted for publication). Offense pathways in homicide offenders. Crime scene and profile characteristics of organized and disorganized murderers (1985, August). FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 1825. Demarest, L. (2001). Het ontwikkelen van een descriptieve theorie van het delictscenario van een partnerdoding [The development of a descriptive theory of the offense scenario of spousal homicide]. Unpublished master's thesis, Catholic University of Leuven, Leuven. De Waele, J. P. (1990). Daders van dodingen: Vergelijkende analyses [Homicide offenders: Comparative analyses]. Kluwer rechtswetenschappen: Antwerpen. Dietz, P. E., Hazelwood, R. R., & Warren, J. (1990). The sexually sadistic criminal and his offenses. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 18(2), 163178. Douglas, J. E., & Burgess, A. E. (1986, December). Criminal profiling: A viable investigative tool against violent crime. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 913. Douglas, J. E., & Munn, C. (1992a). Modus operandi and the signature aspects of violent crime. In J. E. Douglas, A. W. Burgess, A. G. Burgess, & R. K. Ressler (Eds.), Crime classification manual (pp. 259268). Lexington Books. Douglas, J. E., & Munn, C. (1992b). The detection of staging and personation at the crime scene. In J. E. Douglas, A. W. Burgess, A. G. Burgess, & R. K. Ressler (Eds.), Crime classification manual (pp. 249258). Lexington Books. Douglas, J. E., & Munn, C. (1992c, February).Violent crime scene analysis: Modus operandi, signature and staging. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 110. Douglas, J. E., Burgess, A. W., Burgess, A. G., & Ressler, R. K. (Eds.). (1992). Crime classification manual. New York: Lexington Books. Douglas, J. E., Ressler, R. K., Burgess, A. W., & Hartman, C. R. (1986). Criminal profiling from crime scene analysis. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 4(4), 401421. Egger, S. A. (1999). Psychological profiling: Past, present and future. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 15(3), 242261. Ferster, C. B. (1965). Classification of behavioral pathology. In L. Krasner & L. P. Ullmann (Eds.), Research in behavior modification (pp. 626). Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. Folino, J. O. (2000). Sexual homicides and their classification according to motivation: A report from Argentina. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 44(6), 740750. Fritzon, K., & Ridgeway, J. (2001). Near-death experience The role of victim reaction in attempted homicide. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16(7), 679696. Gaetjens, R. E. (2000). A review of occupational, behavioral, and organizational differences in healthcare worker serial homicide. Unpublished master's thesis, College of Winsconsin. Geberth, V. J., & Turco, R. N. (1997). Antisocial personality disorder, sexual sadism, malignant narcissism, and serial murder. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 42(1), 4960.

104

A. Crabb et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior 13 (2008) 88106

Godwin, M. (1998). Victim target networks as solvability factors in serial murder. Social Behavior and Personality, 26(1), 7583. Gratzer, T., & Bradford, J. M. W. (1995). Offender and offense characteristics of sexual sadists: A comparative study. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 40(3), 450455. Gresswell, D. M., & Hollin, C. R. (1994). Multiple murder: A review. The British Journal of Criminology, 34(1), 114. Hkknen, H. (2005). Homicide by ligature strangulation in Finland: Offence and offender characteristics. Forensic Science International, 152, 6164. Hanfland, K. A., Keppel, R. D., & Weis, J. G. (1997). Case management for missing children homicide investigation. Olympia, Washington: Office of the Attorney General, State of Washington, and U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Harbort, S., & Mokros, A. (2001). Serial murderers in Germany from 1945 to 1995: A descriptive study. Homicide Studies, 5(4), 311334. Hayes, S. N. (1990). Behavioral assessment of adults. In G. Goldstein, & M. Hersen (Eds.), Handbook of psychological assessment (pp. 423463)., (2nd ed.). Pergamon Press. Hazelwood, R. R., Dietz, P. E., & Warren, J. (1992, February). The criminal sexual sadist. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 1220. Hazelwood, R. R., & Douglas, J. E. (1980, April). The lust murderer. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 1822. Hazelwood, R. R., & Napier, M. R. (2004). Crime scene staging and its detection. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 48(6), 744759. Hazelwood, R. R., & Warren, J. (1995). The relevance of fantasy in serial sexual crime investigation. In R. Hazelwood & A. Burgess (Eds.), Practical aspects of rape investigation (pp. 127137). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Hazelwood, R. R., & Warren, J. I. (2000). The sexually violent offender: Impulsive or ritualistic? Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5(3), 267279. Hazelwood, R., Warren, J., & Dietz, P. (1993). Compliant victims of the sexual sadist. Australian Family Physician, 22(4), 474479. Hermans, D., Eelen, P., & Orlemans, H. (2007). Inleiding tot de gedragstherapie [Introduction to behavioral therapy]. Bohn Stafleu Van Loghum: Houten. Holmes, R. M., & De Burger, J. (1988). Serial murder. : Sage Publications, Inc. Holmes, R. M., & Holmes, S. T. (1996). Profiling violent crimes: An investigative tool, (2nd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc. Homant, R. J., & Kennedy, D. B. (1998). Psychological aspects of crime scene profiling: Validity research. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 25(3), 319343. Hudson, S. M., Ward, T., & McCormack, J. C. (1999). Offense pathways in sexual offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14(8), 779798. Ishaq, W. (1996). The social relevance of applied behavior analysis and psychological intervention strategies. In J. R. Cautela & W. Ishaq (Eds.), Contemporary issues in behavior therapy: Improving the human condition (pp. 235259). Plenum Press: New York. Karlsson, T. (1999). Multivariate analysis (forensiometrics) A new tool in forensic medicine: Findings on the victim of sharp-force homicide can predict the interrelationship with the perpetrator. Forensic Science International, 101(1), 3341. Kennedy, L. W., & Silverman, R. A. (1990). The elderly victim of homicide: An application of the routine activities approach. The Sociological Quarterly, 31(2), 307319. Keppel, R. D. (1995). Signature murders: A report of several related cases. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 40(4), 670674. Keppel, R. D., & Walter, R. (1999). Profiling killers: A revised classification model for understanding sexual murder. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 43(4), 417437. Keppel, R. D., Weis, J. G., Brown, K. M., & Welch, K. (2005). The Jack the Ripper murders: A modus operandi and signature analysis of the 1888 1891 Whitechapel murders. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 2, 121. Kocsis, R. N., Cooksey, R. W., & Irwin, H. J. (2002). Psychological profiling of sexual murders: An empirical model. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 46(5), 532554. Kraemer, G. W., Lord, W. D., & Heilbrun, K. (2004). Comparing single and serial homicide offenses. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 22(3), 325343. Lanning, K. V. (1994). Sexual homicide of children. American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children, 7(4), 4044. Last, S. K., & Fritzon, K. (2005). Investigating the nature of expressiveness in stranger, acquaintance and intrafamilial homicides. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 2, 179193. Levin, J., & Fox, J. A. (1996). A psycho-social analysis of mass murder. In T. O'Reilly-Fleming (Ed.), Serial and mass murder: Theory, research and policy (pp. 5576). Canadian Scholars' Press: Toronto. Lundrigan, S., & Canter, D. (2001a). A multivariate analysis of serial murderers' disposal site location choice. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21(4), 423432. Lundrigan, S., & Canter, D. (2001b). Spatial patterns of serial murder: An analysis of disposal site location choice. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 19(4), 595610. MacCulloch, M. J., Snowden, P. R., Wood, P. J. W., & Mills, H. E. (1983). Sadistic fantasy, sadistic behaviour and offending. British Journal of Psychiatry, 143, 2029. Meloy, J. R. (2000). The nature and dynamics of sexual homicide: An integrative review [Special article]. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5(1), 122. Meyer, C. B. (2000, January). Introduction to criminal profiling. Basel University Law Student's Journal, 111. Minisini, C. (1993). Criminal investigative analysis. Australian Family Physician, 22(4), 524528. Mischel, W. (1999). Personality coherence and dispositions in a cognitiveaffective personality systems (CAPS) approach. In D. Cervone & Y. Shoda (Eds.), The coherence of personality: Social-cognitive bases of consistency, variability, and organization (pp. 3760). The Guilford Press: New York. Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitiveaffective system theory of personality: Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychological Review, 102(2), 246268. Mulkers, J. (2002). Offender profiling: Analyse van een forensische techniek [Offender profiling: Analysis of a forensic technique]. Police, Policy and Techniques.

A. Crabb et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior 13 (2008) 88106

105

Muller, D. A. (2000). Criminal profiling: Real science or just wishful thinking? Homicide Studies, 4(3), 234264. Nelsen, C., & Huff-Corzine, L. (1998). Strangers in the night: An application of the lifestyle-routine activities approach to elderly homicide victimization. Homicide Studies, 2(2), 130159. Nelson, R. O., & Hayes, S. C. (1981). Nature of behavioral assessment. In M. Hersen & A. S. Bellack (Eds.), Behavioral assessment: A practical handbook (pp. 337). Pergamon Press. O'Connor, T. (2007). The disorganized/organized typology: A guide to understanding its components. Retrieved March, 12, 2007, from http:// faculty.ncwc.edu/TOConnor/428/428lect07.htm. Petee, T. A., & Jarvis, J. (2000). Analyzing violent serial offending. Homicide Studies, 4(3), 211218. Pistorius, M. (1997). An explanation of the boy next door syndrome in serial killers. International Criminal Police Review, 465, 26. Polaschek, D. L. L., Hudson, S. M., Ward, T., & Siegert, R. J. (2001). Rapists' offence processes: A preliminary descriptive model. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16(6), 523544. Prentky, R. A., Burgess, A. W., Rokous, F., Lee, A., Hartman, C., Ressler, R., et al. (1989). The presumptive role of fantasy in serial sexual homicide. American Journal of Psychiatry, 146(7), 887891. Rajs, J., Lundstrom, M., Broberg, M., Lidberg, L., & Lindquist, O. (1998). Criminal mutilation of the human body in Sweden A thirty-year medico-legal and forensic psychiatric study. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 43(3), 563580. Ressler, R. K., Burgess, A. W., & Douglas, J. E. (1988). Sexual homicides patterns and motives. Lexington Books: New York. 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(3), 288308. Ressler, R. K., Burgess, A. W., Hartman, C. R., Douglas, J. E., & McCormack, A. (1986). Murders who rape and mutilate. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1(3), 273287. Ressler, R. K., Douglas, J. E., Groth, N. A., & Burgess, A. W. (1980, September). Offender profiles: A multidisciplinary approach. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 2933. Safarik, M. E. (2002). The elderly female victim. In W. C. Myers (Ed.), Juvenile sexual homicide (pp. 147161). : Academic Press. Safarik, M. E., & Jarvis, J. P. (2005). Examining attributes of homicides Toward quantifying qualitative values of injury severity. Homicide Studies, 9(3), 183203. Safarik, M. E., Jarvis, J., & Nussbaum, K. (2000). Elderly female serial sexual homicide: A limited empirical test of criminal investigative analysis. Homicide Studies, 4(3), 294307. Safarik, M. E., Jarvis, J. P., & Nussbaum, K. E. (2002). Sexual homicide of elderly females: Linking offender characteristics to victim and crime scene attributes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17(5), 500525. Salfati, C. G. (2000). The nature of expressiveness and instrumentality in homicide. Homicide Studies, 4(3), 265293. Salfati, C. G. (2003). Offender interaction with victims in homicide: A multidimensional analysis of frequencies in crime scene behaviors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18(5), 490512. Salfati, C. G., & Bateman, A. L. (2005). Serial homicide: An investigation of behavioural consistency. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 2, 121144. Salfati, C. G., & Canter, D. V. (1999). Differentiating stranger murders: Profiling offender characteristics from behavioral styles. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 17, 391406. Salfati, C. G., & Dupont, F. (2006). Canadian homicide: An investigation of crime-scene actions. Homicide Studies, 10(2), 118139. Salfati, C. G., & Haratsis, E. (2001). Greek homicide: A behavioral examination of offender crime-scene actions. Homicide Studies, 5(4), 335362. Santtila, P., Canter, D., Elfgren, T., & Hkknen, H. (2001). The structure of crime-scene actions in Finnish homicides. Homicide Studies, 5(4), 363387. Santtila, P., Hkknen, H., Canter, D., & Elfgren, T. (2003). Classifying homicide offenders and predicting their characteristics from crime scene behavior. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 44, 107118. Santtila, P., Runtti, M., & Mokros, A. (2004). Predicting presence of offender's criminal record from antisocial lifestyle indicators of homicide victims. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19(5), 541557. Sapp, A. D., & Huff, T. G. (1996). Arson-homicides: Findings from a national study. Quantico, VA: National Centre for the Analysis of Violent Crime, FBI Academy. Schmidt, P. H., Padosch, S. A., Rothschild, M. A., & Madea, B. (2005). Forensic case profiling aspects on multiple homicides from the CologneBonn metropolitan area 19852000. Forensic Science International, 153(12), 168173. Shoda, Y., & Leetiernan, S. (2002). What remains invariant? Finding order within a person's thoughts, feelings, and behaviors across situations. In D. Cervone & W. Mischel (Eds.), Advances in personality science (pp. 241270). The Guilford Press: New York. Snook, B., Canter, D., & Bennell, C. (2002). Predicting the home location of serial offenders: A preliminary comparison of the accuracy of human judges with a geographic profiling system. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 20(12), 109118. Snook, B., Cullen, R. M., Mokros, A., & Harbort, S. (2005). Serial murderers' spatial decisions: Factors that influence crime location choice. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 2, 147164. Snook, B., Taylor, P. J., & Bennell, C. (2004). Geographic profiling: The fast, frugal, and accurate way. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18(1), 105121. Spiegler, M. D., & Guevremont, D. C. (1998). Contemporary behavior therapy, (3rd ed.). Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory, (2nd ed.). Sage publications: Thousand Oaks, California. The men who murdered (1985, August). FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 26. The split reality of murder (1985, August). FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 711. Tita, G., & Griffiths, E. (2005). Travelling to violence: The case for a mobility-based spatial typology of homicide. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 42(3), 275308.

106

A. Crabb et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior 13 (2008) 88106

Turvey, B. (1998, January). Deductive criminal profiling: Comparing applied methodologies between inductive and deductive criminal profiling techniques. Knowledge Solutions Library. Retrieved May, 25, 2000 from http://www.corpus-delicti.com/Profiling_law.html. Turvey, B. (2000, March). The estate of Sam Sheppard v. state of Ohio. Retrieved September, 6, 2002 from http://www.corpus-delicti.com/sheppard.html. Turvey, B. E. (Ed.). (2003). Criminal profiling: An introduction to behavioral evidence analysis, (2nd ed.). Academic Press: London. Van den Eshof, P., Jackson, J. L., & Nierop, N. (1997). Profielanalyse in de politiepraktijk. [Profile analysis in police practice]. In P. J. Van Koppen, D. J. Hessing, & H. F. M. Crombag (Eds.), Het hart van de zaak: Psychologie van het recht (pp. 220241). Deventer: Gouda Quint. Vanhumbeeck, T. (2004). Delictscenario's bij plegers van een passioneel delict, een validering [Offense scenario's in passionate crime offenders, a validation]. Unpublished master's thesis, Catholic University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. Varano, S. P., & Cancino, J. M. (2001). An empirical analysis of deviant homicides in Chicago. Homicide Studies, 5(1), 529. Ward, T., & Hudson, S. M. (1998a). A model of the relapse process in sexual offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 13(6), 700725. Ward, T., & Hudson, S. M. (1998b). The construction and development of theory in the sexual offending area: A metatheoretical framework. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 10(1), 4763. Ward, T., Hudson, S. M., & Keenan, T. (1998). A self-regulation model of the sexual offence process. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 10(2), 141157. Warren, J. I., & Hazelwood, R. R. (2002). Relational patterns associated with sexual sadism: A study of 20 wives and girlfriends. Journal of Family Violence, 17(1), 7589. Warren, J. I., Hazelwood, R. R., & Dietz, P. E. (1996). The sexually sadistic serial killer. Journal of Forensic Science, 41(6), 970974. Watanabe, K., & Tamura, M. (1999, July). Mutilation-murder cases in Japan: The relationships among victim, offence and offender factors. Paper presented at the APLS/EAPL Psychology and Law International, Interdisciplinary Conference, Dublin. Watanabe, K., & Tamura, M. (2002). Mutilation-murder cases in Japan. In D. P. Farrington, C. R. Hollin, & M. McMurran (Eds.), Sex and violence: The psychology of crime and risk assessment (pp. 211229). Harwood Academic Publishers.