Why We Love Serial Killers

by Scott Bonn

  It is also important to note that a serial murder case can also be a mix of organized and disorganized. This occasionally occurs, for example, when there are multiple offenders of different personality types involved in the killings. It can also occur when a lone offender is undergoing a psychological transformation throughout his killing career.

  Modus Operandi and Signature

  In addition to the organized/disorganized dichotomy, a serial killer may leave traces of one or both of the following behavioral characteristics: MO (modus operandi or method of operation) and signature—the personal mark or imprint of the offender. While every crime has an MO, not all crimes have a signature. The MO is what the offender must do in order to commit the crime. That is, the MO is the means by which the perpetrator is able to commit murder. For example, the killer must have a means to control his victims at the crime scene such as tying them up. Significantly, the MO is a learned behavior that is subject to change. A serial killer will alter and refine his MO to accommodate new circumstances or to incorporate new skills and information. For example, instead of using rope to tie up a victim, the offender may learn that it is easier and more effective to bring handcuffs to the crime scene. The MO of Jack the Ripper, for example, was that he attacked prostitutes at night on the street with a knife.

  The signature, on the other hand, is not required in order to commit the crime. Rather, it serves the emotional or psychological needs of the offender. That is, the signature is something the killer deeply desires or wants. The signature comes from within the psyche of the offender and it reflects a deep fantasy need that the killer has about his victims. Fantasies develop slowly, increase over time, and may begin with the torture of animals during childhood, for example, as they did with Dennis Rader. The essential core of the signature, when present, is that it is always the same because it emerges out of an offender’s fantasies that evolved long before killing his first victim. The signature may involve mutilation or dismemberment of the victim’s body. The signature of Jack the Ripper was the extensive hacking and mutilation of his victims’ bodies that characterized all of his murders.

  Staging and Posing

  As explained by Vronsky in Serial Killers: The Method and Madness of Monsters, the FBI profiler may also encounter deliberate alterations of the crime scene or the victim’s body position at the scene of the murder. If these alterations are made for the purpose of confusing or otherwise misleading criminal investigators, then they are called staging and they are considered to be part of the killer’s MO. Staging reflects a conscious and calculated choice on the part of the killer to confuse his or her pursuer. On the other hand, if the crime scene alterations only serve the fantasy needs of the offender, then they are considered part of the signature and they are referred to as posing. Thus, posing operates at the emotional level of the killer and reflects his or her secret desires. Sometimes, a victim’s body is posed to send a message to the police or public. For example, Jack the Ripper sometimes posed his victims’ nude bodies with their legs spread apart to shock onlookers and the police in Victorian England.

  Step 4: Criminal Profile

  In step 4 of the process, the FBI profiler produces a report for local investigators that predicts the possible personality, physical, and social characteristics of the unknown offender. The profile lists objects that might be in possession of the killer, such as pornography, and may propose strategies for identifying, apprehending, and even questioning the accused. An FBI profile can vary in length from a few paragraphs to a number of pages depending on how much information the FBI had to analyze at the input step.

  Step 5: Investigation

  In step 5 the local police department incorporates the criminal profile developed by the FBI into its own investigative strategy. Using the specific characteristics outlined in the FBI profile, local law enforcement authorities can narrow the list of suspects and implement strategies that are likely to lead to an arrest. If or when additional murders occur or additional information is discovered, the profile can be updated or expanded by the FBI during the investigation stage. The first high-profile case in which FBI profilers successfully assisted local authorities in a hunt for an unidentified serial killer was the Atlanta child murders in the early 1980s. FBI agents Douglas and Hazelwood were sent to Atlanta to work with local police and develop a profile in order to assist in the massive search for the killer.

  Step 6: Apprehension

  The final step of the FBI profiling process is apprehension. This is the accountability or proof-of-performance step. The accuracy of an FBI profile can be determined by matching its characteristics and details to those of the actual offender in custody. In the case of the Atlanta child murders, for example, the profile developed by FBI agents Douglas and Hazelwood proved to be extremely valid. When Wayne Williams was arrested in 1981, as predicted in the profile, he was a single young black male who owned a German shepherd, as well as a vehicle fitted with police lights that he used to impersonate a police officer and lure his young victims. The results of such successful investigations are added to the database in Quantico and the computerized algorithms used by the profiling system are fine-tuned in order to increase profiling accuracy in the future.

  How Accurate Is the FBI System of Criminal Investigative Analysis?

  Over the past quarter-century, the BSU in Quantico has further developed the FBI’s profiling process, including a refinement of the organized/disorganized dichotomy into a more seamless continuum and the development of other serial predator classification schemes. However, despite the public notoriety afforded profiling as a result of the numerous books and Hollywood films that have focused on it in recent years, the FBI system is not without its critics. Contrary to popular mythology and as argued by Dr. Schlossberg, criminal profiling is not an exact science. As such, there have been numerous calls among criminal justice practitioners and researchers for unbiased, scientific testing of its validity and reliability.

  The only known utility study of criminal profiling based on actual cases profiled by the FBI was conducted in 1981.11 Conducted by FBI forensic psychologist Anthony Pinizzotto, PhD, this cost-benefit analysis of profiling included a sample of 192 cases, 46 percent of which were closed or solved. The findings of the study revealed that the actual perpetrator was identified by local authorities as a result of the FBI profile in only 17 percent of the closed cases. That is not a very significant rate of success for FBI profiling, even during its rudimentary stages of development. Nevertheless, the study also reported that local investigations were “focused and aided” by the FBI profile in 77 percent of the closed cases—a much more favorable measure of profiling utility. Also, possible suspects were located in 20 percent of cases and successful prosecution was supported in 6 percent of cases due to the FBI-provided profile. On the other hand, in 17 percent of the cases profiling was considered to be of “little or no assistance” to local law enforcement authorities. Recognizing how long ago this lone study was conducted, additional research is certainly warranted to assess the validity and utility of FBI profiling techniques. However, it must be remembered that FBI case files are closely guarded and getting access to them is extremely difficult, so utility studies of actual cases will likely remain an extreme rarity.

  In addition to criminal justice practitioners and social scientists, some psychologists have also questioned the scientific merits of the FBI profiling system. They note that the FBI agents who pioneered the system of criminal profiling, including Douglas, Ressler and others, were not psychologists. Opponents contend that some of the assumptions and methods underlying the FBI process are flawed. Some former FBI profilers do not entirely refute this criticism. For example, retired FBI special agent Gregg McCrary agrees that some of the FBI’s early research and conclusions were less than scientific. “Early on it was just a bunch of us [FBI agents] basing our work on our investigative experience,” he said, “and hopefully being right more than we were wrong.”12 McCrary maintains that they w
ere, in fact, right more often than they were wrong, and he points out that the FBI profiling system has been improved and refined since the early 1980s.

  Alternatives to the FBI Profiling System

  For several decades, psychologists have been conducting their own research in an attempt to assess and increase the scientific rigor of criminal profiling techniques. A number of experiments have been conducted by psychologists on the central assumptions and techniques of criminal profiling, but these studies have usually involved recreations of FBI profiling in a controlled setting and were not based on actual cases. Moreover, many of these studies have never been replicated, so their reliability is questionable or unknown.

  Despite an inability to conduct utility tests on actual serial homicide cases, several prominent psychologists who oppose the FBI system have nonetheless developed new approaches to profiling which they claim outperform the FBI process. At least two of these newer approaches have gained acceptance among criminal justice practitioners over the past few decades. They are as follows.

  Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling

  This approach is based on the work of applied psychologist David Canter, PhD, who pioneered the field of investigative psychology in the early 1990s. He founded the Centre for Investigative Psychology at the University of Liverpool in England. Investigative psychology, according to Dr. Canter, includes many areas where psychology can contribute to criminal investigations, including behavioral profiling. The goal of offender profiling, as performed by investigative psychologists, is similar to the goal of the FBI system of profiling—that is, to infer the defining characteristics of an unknown suspect based on his or her behavior during the commission of a crime. The difference between the two systems, according to Dr. Canter, is that all of the inferences made by investigative psychologists are based on empirical, peer-reviewed research, as opposed to the FBI model where inferences are based on the anecdotal experiences of individual criminal investigators.

  Dr. Canter and his colleagues analyzed crime scene data from 100 serial homicide cases they found in the Centre for Investigative Psychology database to test the FBI’s organized/disorganized dichotomy of serial crimes.13 Their findings indicate that, contrary to the assertions of FBI profilers, virtually all of serial murderers in their study exhibited some level of organization. Dr. Canter contends that organized behaviors such as concealing the victim’s body are “constants” of serial homicide that tend to occur along with variables such as mutilation or necrophilia. Dr. Canter and his colleagues concluded that the actual difference between serial murderers lies in the type of “disorganized behaviors they exhibit” rather than the organized/disorganized dichotomy adhered to by the FBI. They further concluded that serial murderers can be divided into categories based on their interactions with their victims, including sexual control and domination, mutilation, or torture.

  Dr. Canter argues that empirical research studies performed by investigative psychologists, based on proven scientific methods, are the only way to establish valid and reliable descriptions, categories, and classifications of serial killers. The approach utilized by investigative psychologists, according to Dr. Canter, “considers all the information that may be apparent at the crime scene and to carry out theory-based studies to determine the underlying structures of that material.”14 Dr. Canter and his colleagues have little faith in the serial offender descriptions and categories developed by FBI agents from their own personal crime scene investigations. Dr. Canter believes that investigative psychologists must work from the ground up to gather data, develop theories, and classify offenders using empirical research methods that are not limited or biased by the experiences of criminal investigators.

  Forensic Psychology and Crime Action Profiling

  In the late 1990s, forensic psychologist Richard Kocsis, PhD, sought to construct criminal profiles for serial crimes that are not readily solved through conventional police investigative methods. Dr. Kocsis and his colleagues developed highly regarded profiling models based on large-scale analyses of serial murder, rape, and arson. Their system, which is known as Crime Action Profiling (CAP), came into being as a result of a massive research study funded by the Australian government.15 It was developed by Dr. Kocsis in collaboration with law enforcement agencies in that country. Their approach is distinctly different from the FBI system. The models developed by Dr. Kocsis and his associates are similar in design to in-depth structured interviews that clinical psychologists use to make diagnoses of their patients.

  Dr. Kocsis, who is now in private practice, says that crime action profiling models are rooted in practical knowledge developed by forensic psychologists, psychiatrists, and criminologists. CAP models provide demographic, geographic, and psychographic measures or predictors of unknown subjects. He contends that a vital part of every crime action profile is an examination of the process of behavioral profiling itself. “Everybody seems to be preoccupied with developing principles for profiling,” Dr. Kocsis told a reporter from the APA Monitor on Psychology. He believes that much more attention must be given to determining the necessary elements of a criminal profile:

  What seems to have been overlooked is any systematic examination of how to compose a profile. What type of information . . . should profiles contain? What type of case material do you need [in order] to construct a profile? How does the presence or absence of [case] material affect the accuracy of a profile?16

  Dr. Kocsis and his colleagues in forensic psychology believe that the future of behavioral profiling lies in more empirically based scientific research, similar to Dr. Canter’s and that conducted by investigative psychologists. He believes that profiling is an acquired skill and that levels of ability vary greatly among practitioners, as was suggested by Dr. Schlossberg some years ago. Just as some clinical psychologists are better therapists than others, some forensic psychologists are better practitioners of CAP than others. Dr. Kocsis echoes Dr. Schlossberg when he admits that CAP is not an exact science. When asked by the APA Monitor on Psychology whether the practice of profiling is more of an art or a science, Dr. Kocsis said, “Realistically, I think it is probably a bit of both.” Nevertheless, his CAP system has received acceptance among forensic psychologists, criminologists, and profilers around the world.

  The Improving Relationship Between Psychology and Law Enforcement

  Although tension between law enforcement and psychology concerning criminal profiling still exists to some degree, it is much abated. “The difference [today] is really a matter of the FBI being more oriented towards investigative experience than [academic or clinical psychologists] are,” says retired FBI agent Gregg McCrary.17 “However, it’s important to remember that we’re all working toward the same thing,” he adds.

  Indeed, the FBI has worked closely with forensic psychologists in recent years and also employs them in high-level positions. Influential psychologist Stephen Band, PhD, is the former chief of the Behavioral Science Unit (BSU) and clinical forensic psychologist Anthony Pinizzotto, PhD, was one of the FBI’s chief scientists for over twenty years. Dr. Pinizzotto was the senior scientist and clinical forensic psychologist assigned to the FBI’s training division of its BSU. These two psychologists, in particular, helped to establish a professional and productive working relationship between the FBI and psychologists.

  The BSU also conducts research with forensic psychologists at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City. One of the FBI’s collaborators at John Jay College is Gabrielle Salfati, PhD, who received her doctorate in investigative psychology from the University of Liverpool, England, in 1998. “Whenever we do research, we try to bring in as many varied points of view as possible,” Dr. Pinizzotto has said.18 “Dr. Salfati’s expertise on the statistical aspects of evaluating crime scenes is a great contribution,” he added. Dr. Salfati is part of the first group of people who emerged from within the field of investigative psychology, and she was instrumental to its gaining worldwide recognition for
the analysis of violent criminal behavior.

  More recently, the BSU also began collaborating with forensic psychologists at Marymount University in Arlington, Virginia, which is a further indication of the commitment by law enforcement and psychology to continue their work together toward improving the science of criminal profiling. As former chief of the BSU, Dr. Band concludes, “I think that there is an incredible value added when applications of professional psychology enter into the mix of what we [at the FBI] do.”19

  Psychologists greatly assist law enforcement authorities today in serial homicide investigations because they help to identify the motivations and emotional needs of serial offenders. Psychologists have concluded, for example, that serial killers must continuously kill because they become addicted to the feelings they get from the act of murder. Serial killers also rationalize every aspect and detail of their killings so, in their self-centered reasoning, there is no reason why they should stop. As explained in chapter 2, most serial killers know exactly what they are doing and are aware of the legal consequences of their actions. They are also very adept at avoiding capture. According to psychologists, most serial killers are “consummate chameleons” who are able to hide their rage and true intentions behind a charismatic, civilized façade called the “mask of sanity.”20

  Many organized serial killers are psychopaths—that is, they manifest the psychopathic personality. As such, they are not legally insane but they are likely to be amoral, self-absorbed, and absolutely unflappable. Although they understand the difference between right and wrong, they are simply not bothered or affected by breaking the law, and they have no feelings of guilt or remorse for their killings. They tend to dehumanize other people and treat them as if they are objects. Psychopathic serial killers are simply unable to feel empathy for others, although they are very good at mimicking empathetic behavior after watching others demonstrate it. Consequently, cold-blooded, psychopathic killers are often charismatic and persuasive but their outward charm is only an act designed to lure their victims into a trap.