Trojan2011 PDF

Homicide Studies
http://hsx.sagepub.com/
Linking Criminal History to Crime Scene Behavior in Single-Victim and

Serial Homicide: Implications for Offender Profiling Research
Carrie Trojan and C.Gabrielle Salfati
Homicide Studies 2011 15: 3
DOI: 10.1177/1088767910397281
The online version of this article can be found at:

http://hsx.sagepub.com/content/15/1/3
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Homicide Research Working Group
Additional services and information for Homicide Studies can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://hsx.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://hsx.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://hsx.sagepub.com/content/15/1/3.refs.html
Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on December 5, 2014

HSX39728
1
HSX15110.1177/1088767910397281Trojan and SalfatiHomicide Studies
Homicide Studies
Linking Criminal History 15(1) 3–31

© 2011 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permission: http://www.
to Crime Scene Behavior sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1088767910397281
in Single-Victim and Serial http://hsx.sagepub.com
Homicide: Implications for

Offender Profiling Research
Carrie Trojan1 and C.Gabrielle Salfati2
Abstract
Research has consistently shown that the average individual who commits one or
more homicides is likely to have a criminal record, but little research has focused on
whether individuals behave in a psychologically or thematically consistent way in both
their homicide crime scene actions and prior offending. The current study examines the
crime scene behaviors of single and serial homicide offenders to identify patterns
that can be compared to themes in their prior offending. The results showed that
crime scene actions occurred on a continuum from hostile to cognitive actions with
serial offenders concentrating at the latter end of this continuum. However, only
a small group of the serial homicide offenders committed similarly themed prior
offenses and homicide behaviors, which raises questions regarding the hypotheses of
behavioral consistency underlying offender profiling.
Keywords
Homicide, serial homicide, criminal history, crime scene behavior, smallest space
analysis, multidimensional scaling analysis
Introduction
Offender profiling assumes a homology between the characteristics of an offender and
the behaviors they engage in at the crime scene. These assumed relationships are set
forth in what is sometimes referred to as the “A to C equation” in which “A are the
1
Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY
2
John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York, NY
Corresponding Author:
Carrie Trojan, Department of Sociology, Western Kentucky University, 1906 College Heights Blvd.
No. 11057, Bowling Green, KY 42101-1057.
Email: carrie.trojan@wku.edu

4 Homicide Studies 15(1)
Actions related to the crime and C are the Characteristics of typical offenders for such
crimes” (Canter & Youngs, 2003, p. 187). Establishing an empirical foundation for the
A to C relationships for specific crimes, such as homicide, could ultimately provide
more reliable information to homicide investigators (Canter, 2000) and a growing body
of studies across a variety of criminal offenses is contributing to this effort (e.g.,
Bateman & Salfati, 2007; Canter & Heritage, 1990; Hakkanen, Lindlof, & Santtila,
2004; Hakkanen, Puolakka, & Santtila, 2004; Mokros & Alison, 2002; Salfati, 2000;
Salfati & Bateman, 2005; Salfati & Canter, 1999; Salfati & Taylor, 2006; Santtila,
Hakkanen, Canter, & Elfgren, 2003; Youngs, Canter, & Cooper, 2004). However,
existing studies that aim to identify a link between offender characteristics and crime
scene behavior in homicide have focused broadly on background characteristics typi-
cally combining a number of factors in these examinations, such as gender, ethnicity,
employment, marital status, education, prior military service, and prior criminal
offending (e.g., Mokros & Alison, 2002; Salfati & Canter, 1999). No studies that aim
to establish an A to C link have given the offenders’ criminal history exclusive focus,
despite the clear utility and availability of this objective background characteristic to
investigators. The current study seeks to address this gap in the literature.
It is difficult to deny the assertion that the average individual who commits one or
more homicides is likely to already appear in official police or correction records (e.g.,
Arndt, Hietpas, & Kim, 2004; Broidy, Daday, Crandall, Sklar, & Jost, 2006; Canter,
Missen, & Hodge, 1996; DeLisi & Scherer, 2006; Hickey, 2006; Soothill, Francis,
Ackerley, & Fligelstone, 2002). However, the question remains as to how such infor-
mation can assist homicide investigators. In other words, if groups of co-occurring
crime scene behaviors shown to differentiate offenders are identified, do these indi-
viduals have criminal histories that reflect the same psychological or theoretical pat-
tern? If the answer is yes, then it may prove possible to eventually apply such information
in the refinement of suspect lists using the offender’s likely criminal history as a dis-
criminator. If the answer is no, then applied research would be better served by looking
to other offender characteristics that may be more useful in such a pursuit.
To answer the above question, it must be shown that meaningful patterns exist in
both the criminal histories and crime scene behaviors of homicide offenders that can
then be linked, completing the A to C equation. To address this possibility, the current
study directly examines the crime scene behaviors of single-victim and serial homicide
offenders. In this effort, single and serial homicide offenders are directly compared. It
is appropriate to examine these offenders together, because profiling practices are
assumed to apply to both types of offenders and their similarities and differences are
still contested (see Canter et al., 1996 and Wright, Pratt, & DeLisi, 2008 for a discus-
sion) and direct comparisons will contribute to this debate and have important theo-
retical implications in terms of differentiating these offenders and practical implications
for using criminal history to narrow down suspect pools in investigations of homicide
and serial homicide.
It should be stated that the current study is not intended to supply a “how to”
approach to profiling offenders, but instead the intent is to test whether criminal

Trojan and Salfati 5
history can be linked to crime scene behavior, as profiling would assume that such a
link should exist.
An Empirical Approach to Offender Profiling

Offender profiling is based on the principle premise that there is an underlying psy-
chology to both the actions an offender commits at a crime scene and their personal
characteristics so that it is possible to derive one from the other (Canter, 2000). This
is sometimes referred to as the Actions to Characteristics—A to C—equation (Canter,
2000; Canter & Youngs, 2003). However, the earliest attempts to profile violent
offenders came from the fields of psychology and psychiatry (see Bartol, 1995 for a
discussion) and were heavily reliant on abstract or intangible psychological constructs
that could not be easily measured or translated into actionable information by criminal
investigators (see Brittain, 1970 or Tanay, 1969 for examples of psychiatric profiles).
As offender profiling is intended to act as an investigative aid largely in the prioritiza-
tion of suspects for law enforcement (Canter, 1994), this focus on psychological
processes was problematic and the field of profiling began to turn to behavioral
research in the hope of providing a more objective approach.
The focus on the physical actions committed at a crime scene was spearheaded by
agents at the Federal Bureau of Investigation who aimed to develop a typology of
homicide offenders based on the behaviors evident at a crime scene (Ressler, Douglas,
& Burgess, 1995). The dichotomy they proposed suggested that sexual homicide and
serial homicide offenders’ crime scenes could be classified as organized or disorga-
nized, with offender backgrounds similarly reflecting organization or disorganization
(Ressler et al., 1995). Other typologies of serial homicide followed, most notably that
provided by Holmes and Holmes (2002). While these early typologies were an impor-
tant contribution to the field of offender profiling in their recognition of the more reli-
able nature and greater utility of a behavioral focus over psychiatric constructs,
primary empirical tests of these models have failed to support them (Canter & Wentink,
2004; Canter, Alison, Alison, & Wentink, 2004).
Two related issues proved to be the most problematic for these initial typologies of
profiling. First, tests of the models showed significant overlap between types; offend-
ers typically demonstrated a mixture of crime scene behaviors and characteristics from
more than one defined type (Canter et al., 2004; Canter & Wentink, 2004). This then
raised a second, related problem: the lack of objective criteria for allocating an indi-
vidual to a single type when cross-category variation existed.
In response to these problems, a body of research emerged that aimed to make
offender profiling an empirical pursuit and was designed to provide a more thorough
examination of the fundamental tenets of offender profiling—specifically whether
there is a distinct pattern underlying both an offender’s crime scene actions and their
personal characteristics (Canter, 2000). Studies pursuing such a link through the
development of testable empirical models have been put forth across a variety of
offenses including burglary and robbery (e.g., Bennell & Jones, 2005; Santtila,

Ritvanen, & Mokros, 2003), arson (e.g., Canter & Fritzon, 1998; Hakkanen, Puolakka,
et al., 2004), rape and serial rape (e.g., Canter & Heritage, 1990; Canter, Bennell,
Alison, & Reddy, 2003; Hakkanen, Lindlof, et al., 2004; Kocsis, Cooksey, & Irwin, 2002a),
and homicide and serial homicide (Bateman & Salfati, 2007; Kocsis, Cooksey, &
Irwin, 2002b; Salfati, 2000; Salfati & Bateman, 2005; Salfati & Canter, 1999;
Santtila, Hakkanen, et al., 2003). These studies have looked for A to C relationships
through analyses of actions and characteristics that co-occur across cases linked by
a common underlying psychological or theoretical construct, or theme (Canter &
Heritage, 1990). In other words, rather than attempting to differentiate offenders by
cataloguing the occurrence or absence of single individual behaviors as done by early
behavioral typologies, the studies cited above look for groups of behaviors that
co-occur across a sample of offenders as a whole. The advantage of this approach
compared to a focus on single behaviors or item-to-item correlations is that it can
account for the fact that a serial offender may not engage in the same behavior across
a series of crimes, or similarly, that two different offenders may not engage in the
same exact behavior, but the offender does engage in behaviors that are thematically
similar. For example, consider the situation where a serial offender fully hides a body
of one victim perhaps by burying it at one scene, but transports the body of a second
victim away from the murder scene. While these are different individual behaviors,
they are thematically similar in that both are psychologically distancing from the vic-
tim and represent actions going beyond merely killing the victim (Salfati, 2003).
Another example of thematically similar behaviors was seen in the findings of Salfati
(2000), where single-victim homicide offenders who engaged in sexual behaviors with
the victim were also likely to steal from the victim; again these behaviors are themati-
cally similar in that both are instrumental where the offender is seeking to satisfy an
ulterior goal through their actions (Salfati, 2000). Using the thematic approach and
focusing on how variables co-occur across a sample of offenders, it becomes possible
to identify similarities and differences between behaviors, characteristics, or offenders
that would not be apparent otherwise. In addition, these thematic models can then be
tested to determine if individual offenders can be allocated to a single dominant theme
and therefore differentiated more clearly and systematically than with early behavioral
typologies (see Trojan & Salfati, 2008 for a more complete discussion).
Many of these recent empirical profiling studies have used Multi-Dimensional
Scaling (MDS) analysis, specifically Smallest Space Analysis (SSA). SSA allows the
researcher to examine all variables (e.g., crime scene actions or offender characteris-
tics) simultaneously to identify groups of co-occurring variables that are thematically
similar. (See methods section for a more detailed description of SSA.) MDS proce-
dures and SSA have been used and validated in a variety of research areas over the
years, such as educational (e.g., Maslovaty, Marshall, & Alkin, 2001), psychiatric
(e.g., Schultze-Lutter, Steinmeye, Ruhrmann, & Klosterkotter, 2008), personality
(e.g., Zak, 1982), advertising (e.g., Hetsroni, 2000), and social attributions (e.g., Wilson
& Mackenzie, 2000), as well as sadomasochistic behavior (e.g., Alison, Santtila,
Sandnabba, & Nordling, 2001), but has only recently been applied to the analysis of

criminal offending. In one of the first studies to use SSA to identify meaningful
patterns in the behaviors of 27 rapists responsible for 66 sexual assaults, Canter and
Heritage (1990) identified five groups of co-occurring variables, or five themes, each
dealing with a different mode of interacting with the victim, such as attempting inti-
macy or controlling the victim. Since this study, SSA has been used to study a range
of offenses (e.g., Canter, 2000; Godwin, 2000; Hakkanen, Lindlof, et al., 2004; Kocsis
et al., 2002b; Salfati, 2000; Salfati & Bateman, 2005; Salfati & Canter, 1999; Salfati
& Taylor, 2006; Santtila, Hakkanen, et al., 2003; Santtila, Runtti, & Mokros, 2004).
Wilson and Alison (2005) provide a discussion of how studies using thematic
behavioral analysis techniques and MDS analysis developed and have been largely
successful in identifying core behaviors of certain offenses and themes of offending
behavior that are useful in terms of differentiating behavioral patterns in offending.
However, linking the identified themes to themes of offender characteristics has been
less successful (Wilson & Alison, 2005). For example, in an examination of stranger
rapes, Hakkanen, Lindlof, et al. (2004) identified three behavioral themes of crime
scene behavior and four themes of offender characteristics but only found a significant
association between one crime scene theme and one background characteristic theme.
Mokros and Alison (2002) did not find significant associations between offending
behaviors in rape and prior convictions, offender age, and various sociodemographic
features. In a similar vein, Salfati (2000) found that both crime scene actions and
offender characteristics of homicide offenders showed co-occurrences according to
themes of expressiveness and instrumentality. However, she found a substantial cross-
theme mix, with most offenders committing an expressive homicide but demonstrat-
ing an instrumental background (Salfati, 2000). A different picture emerges from the
study of sexual murder by Kocsis et al. (2002b) who identified four themes of crime
scene behavior in sexual homicides (in addition to a central, undifferentiated cluster of
variables characteristic of the sample as a whole) and each of the four themes were
found to be related to distinct offender characteristics. With the exception of this last
study, it appears that the bulk of the studies aiming to identify meaningful patterns in
crime scene behaviors or characteristics that can differentiate groups of offenders are
able to do so but the link between these facets remains elusive.
This raises questions about the assumption of behavioral consistency that underlies
offender profiling. However, empirical research in this area is fairly new, dating back
to only the early 1990s and the study by Canter and Heritage (1990). Therefore further
research examining the key issues from every potential angle is certainly warranted.
Even a cursory examination of the literature reveals a potential missing piece. Most
studies that have extended beyond examinations of crime scene behaviors to offender
characteristics have examined a wide range of background variables, such as educa-
tion level, ethnicity or race, employment, prior military service, and prior offending
(see Mokros & Alison, 2002 and Salfati, 2000, for example). The variety of back-
ground factors in such research may be due, at least in part, to the fact that the field
arose to directly test the assumptions of profiling techniques and early typologies of
offenders, which used such an approach. Therefore, the current state of research is not

able to address the possibility that a more narrow focus, on a specific characteristic,
could identify a thematic link to crime scene behaviors.
For this to have any practical or theoretical utility, however, it would have to be a
characteristic that (a) is present in most offenders, (b) can be examined in such a way
that it allows for meaningful differentiation of offenders (i.e., using race, for example,
would only yield a very restricted range of possibilities with most offenders falling
into one or two groups and would be more akin to item-to-item correlations than the-
matic), and (c) would need to be easily accessible to law enforcement who are intended
to be the eventual beneficiaries of such information. While other background charac-
teristics of homicide offenders could potentially fit these criteria, prior criminal
offending stands out as particularly useful in terms of investigative support (Canter &
Youngs, 2003).
If offenders have meaningful patterns in their criminal histories showing that cer-
tain offenses tend to occur together in offenders’ backgrounds while other offenses are
less likely to co-occur (i.e., the “C” portion of the A to C equation) and patterns are
also evident in their crime scene actions (i.e., the “A” portion of the A to C equation),
then a thematic link between them may be present. If such a result is found then it may,
in turn, be possible for investigators to use this information to narrow down suspect
pools in homicide investigations using criminal history as a discriminator.
The totality of the literature in this area shows that such an approach has not yet
been undertaken in thematic examinations of homicide. Such a process, therefore,
involves several steps: (a) identification of groups of co-occurring criminal offenses
(themes) in the backgrounds of homicide offenders, (b) identification of groups of
co-occurring crime scene behaviors (themes), and (c) identification of thematic con-
sistency between them. The first step was undertaken in a previous study of the crimi-
nal backgrounds of single-victim and serial homicide offenders discussed in the next
section (Trojan & Salfati, 2010). The current study builds on this prior work and
examines the second and third step outlined above as the first effort to empirically
examine a link between a single offender characteristic and their crime scene behavior.
What follows is a brief review of the relevant literature that acts as a guide to this
process of linking offender criminal history to crime scene behavior among single-
victim and serial homicide offenders.
Offender Criminal History

Wolfgang (1958) noted that homicide offenders in general are unlikely to be a first
time offender when the homicide is committed. In fact, among single-victim offend-
ers, multiple studies have consistently found that more than 50% of homicide offenders
have a recorded criminal history prior to the homicide (e.g., Broidy et al., 2006;
DeLisi & Scherer, 2006; Dobash, Dobash, Cavanagh, Smith, & Medina-Ariza, 2007;
Soothill et al., 2002; Wolfgang, 1958). A similar finding pertains to serial offenders
and studies have found prevalence rates for serial homicide offenders’ criminal histo-
ries as high as 51% (Arndt et al., 2004) and 75% (Canter et al., 1996). These statistics

show that serial and single offenders are both likely to have a recorded criminal history
and they may be more similar in their criminal backgrounds than previously thought.
In fact, Wright et al. (2008) found that the criminal histories of single and multiple
homicide offenders did not significantly differ and that multiple homicide offenders
do not specialize in murder. At the present time, however, it is unclear as to exactly
what can be ascertained from the prior offending of those who commit homicides and
those who murder multiple victims serially in terms of its application to later homi-
cide crime scene behavior, because no study before the current one has adopted such
a specific focus.
Most early typologies of homicide and serial homicide offenders examined prior
criminal offenses in their singularity—listing specific offenses likely to appear in the
backgrounds of different offender “types.” This approach does not account for whether
the named offenses are the only offenses likely to be present in a particular “type” of
offender’s background or may mislead investigators when other offenses are present
in a case that are not listed in that offender type. To avoid this pitfall, a study of
offender criminal history was recently undertaken that sought to identify patterns in
prior offending according to how offenses co-occurred in cases across a sample of
homicide offenders (Trojan & Salfati, 2010).
Trojan and Salfati (2010) examined the prior convictions of a sample of single-
victim and serial homicide offenders to determine if patterns of offending specializa-
tion were evident and what differences, if any, existed between single and serial
offenders. This study measured criminal specialization according to themes—groups
of offenses linked by a common underlying psychological or theoretical construct
(Canter, 2000)—as opposed to considering someone a specialist only if they commit-
ted the same legally defined offense repeatedly. Using this approach, Trojan and
Salfati (2010) found that a single thematic framework could be used to conceptualize
the prior convictions of both single and serial homicide offenders in that two groups of
offenses co-occurred across cases in the sample, those pertaining to a violent versus
instrumental theme. The violent theme contained offenses that involved direct vio-
lence against a person, such as assault and domestic violence, those involving indirect
violence without physical contact, such as harassment, and violence against property,
such as criminal damaging (Trojan & Salfati, 2010). The instrumental theme was com-
prised of not only offenses aimed at monetary or material gain with or without con-
frontation of a victim, such as theft, burglary, and robbery but also contained offenses
that were instrumental to the offender in that they allowed the offender to avoid some-
thing negative, such as evasion of arrest. Furthermore, a higher proportion of serial
offenders were convicted of the majority of the instrumental offenses and a higher
proportion of single-victim offenders were convicted for most of the violent offenses
(Trojan & Salfati, 2010). This led the authors to hypothesize that serial homicide
offenders would be more likely to specialize in instrumental offenses and each case
was individually examined and an offender was allocated to one theme over the other
if they had at least two times the number of convictions in the dominant theme (Trojan
& Salfati, 2010). Using this method, 78% of serial offenders and 72% of single-victim

offenders could be allocated to a single theme; the remaining offenders were considered
generalists (Trojan & Salfati, 2010). While the violent/instrumental framework could
be applied to both serial and single offenders, differences were identified in terms of
the degree of specialization for each theme. Single-victim homicide offenders were
almost equally likely to specialize in instrumental (52%) or violent (48%) offenses,
but the majority of serial homicide offenders were allocated to the instrumental theme
(86%; Trojan & Salfati, 2010), suggesting that serial offenders may demonstrate
offending patterns that are more goal-oriented compared to single-victim offenders.
Whether such a pattern is evident in their crime scene behaviors is the focus of the
current study.
Examining patterns in the prior offending of single and serial homicide offenders in
isolation has its merits in that it contributes to our overall understanding of the crimi-
nal trajectories of these offenders and their progression to homicide. However, the
overall criminal offending patterns both preceding the homicide as well as the behav-
ioral patterns that emerge at the homicide crime scene would allow us to also under-
stand the relationships between prior and current actions that could have practical
applications in addition to the theoretical implications.
The Nature of Single-Victim Versus Serial Homicide

National homicide statistics demonstrate that approximately 23% of homicides are
committed in the course of another felony (i.e., robbery, rape, burglary, etc.) and 44%
of homicides occur during the course of an argument (Federal Bureau of Investigation
[FBI], 2004). General trends indicate that female victims are significantly more likely
to be murdered by a current or former intimate partner, while males are more likely
to be murdered by an acquaintance or friend (Bureau of Justice Statistics [BJS],
2006). This indicates that the average single-victim homicide arises from an interper-
sonal dispute occurring between individuals known to one another or suggests a more
impulsive and reactive violent response to a specific situation. Therefore, single-
victim homicide offenders may primarily display impulsive or hostile crime scene
actions that are centrally aimed at inflicting harm on the victim, and rarely progressing
beyond the physical act of murder as compared to serial homicide offenders who may
display a higher degree of control in their behaviors.
Studies of large samples of serial homicide offenders have suggested that it is pred-
atory and likely to target strangers (e.g., Godwin, 2000; Hickey, 2006), which may be
reflective of the means by which offenders rationally choose to satisfy their needs by
maintaining control of their crimes and minimizing the risk of detection. In other
words, serial offenders may be more likely to go beyond the physical process of killing
the victim either to satisfy an ulterior goal or to distance themselves from the victim
and homicide, physically or psychologically. This suggests that serial homicide may
best be viewed as less impulsive than single-victim homicide, with a higher degree of
control exhibited in their homicide behaviors.

In this sense, it is possible that serial and single-victim homicide offenders may be
conceptualized within a single framework of crime scene behaviors that progresses
from hostile behaviors where the central focus is simply to harm the victim to much
more controlled actions where the offender is acting at a more cognitive level engag-
ing in behaviors that go above and beyond killing the victim. As outlined above, dif-
ferences would be expected between single-victim and serial homicide offenders in
terms of where their emphasis lies within this framework. If such patterns in crime
scene behavior are identified, it would then be possible to link individual offender’s
criminal history to their crime scene behaviors to determine how these two ends of the
behavioral equation relate to one another—the ultimate goal of the current study.
Aims of the Current Study

The first aim of the current study is to determine if single-victim and serial homicide
offenders can be conceptualized along a single framework of crime scene behavior.
The second aim of this study is to individually link each offender’s criminal history,
as found by Trojan and Salfati (2010), to the offender’s homicide crime scene behav-
ior to identify whether or not their prior offending and current behaviors are themati-
cally similar. In other words, the current study aims to determine if a specific focus
on offender criminal history to the exclusion of other offender characteristics can be
linked to homicide crime scene actions, which, to date, has not been examined in
empirical offender profiling research.
Method
As stated previously, no study to date has examined the Actions to Characteristics
equation of offender profiling through a direct focus on criminal history and testing
for such a relationship is a rather involved process. For this reason, the analyses were
divided into two studies so that each end of the A to C equation could be given thor-
ough consideration. While the prior study by Trojan and Salfati (2010) focused on
offender criminal history and the present analyses will focus on crime scene actions
and the link to prior offending, the same samples of offenders were used and data was
collected at the same point in time, with no variation in collection procedures between
the two studies. The samples and methodology are restated here.
Data Sources, Selection Criteria, and Samples

Serial homicide cases were drawn from closed, fully adjudicated state and local cases
that were contributed from law enforcement agencies from around the country for the
purpose of research. All identifiers, including names of victims, suspects, offenders,
officers, departments, and correctional agencies, are removed. Only aggregate data
are reported on. Only cases involving a single offender and a minimum of three victims,

at least two of whom were deceased, were included in the sample. Finally, the homicides
had to occur over time in discrete, separate incidents and occurred without the direction
of any criminal or political organization to exclude mass murderers and “contract”
killers from the sample. All cases available to the authors were included provided they
met the above criteria. All cases included in the analyses occurred in the United States
and international comparisons are inappropriate.
Single-victim homicide cases were collected from the homicide case files of the
Cincinnati Police Department. Cases were drawn from all homicides occurring in that
city between 1997 and 2006. To be selected for inclusion, each case had to involve a
single offender and a single targeted victim and be resolved by a conviction.
The above criteria resulted in initial samples of 17 serial homicide offenders and
137 single-victim homicide cases. For analyses, cases were further selected according
to two criteria. First, because criminal convictions were examined by Trojan and
Salfati (2010), offenders with no prior convictions were dropped from both samples.
Juvenile offenders were removed from the single-victim sample because a large pro-
portion of their offenses were status offenses, such as truancy, which do not have
equivalents in adult populations making them unsuitable for comparison to the remain-
ing cases; there were no juvenile offenders in the serial homicide sample. This resulted
in final samples of nine homicide series and 122 single-victim homicides. It is recog-
nized that the serial homicide sample is small; 8 of the initial 17 offenders could not
be included in current analyses because these offenders had no prior convictions.
There may be important theoretical differences in terms of crime scene behavior
between these offenders and those in the current analyses, which should be examined
in future studies. The present findings can provide a base for such studies seeking to
explore the potential link between prior and current offending. Caution is warranted in
generalizing the results prior to replication on larger samples that may be able to pro-
vide a more robust test of the current findings and those of Trojan and Salfati (2010).
Despite the small number of serial homicide offenders that could be used in the
current study, these nine offenders were responsible for a total of 45 victims. This
provided a sufficient sample of crime scenes that could be examined in the current
analyses. All crime scenes were examined in the analyses in relation to Aim 1 of the
current study. However, as per Aim 2—to link the offenders’ criminal history thematic
classification to a behavioral crime scene pattern—a single theme had to be dominant
across their series. The number of victims per offender in the sample ranged from 3
to 6, but to allocate a serial offender to a single dominant theme for their entire series,
only the first three homicides in each series were used in this portion of the study. The
first three homicides in the series were chosen in part not only due to necessity (one
offender only had three crime scenes) but also because using different series lengths
can bias the results by giving too much weight to more prolific serial offenders that
may display increased or decreased behavioral stability over time (Bennell & Canter,
2002; Bennell & Jones, 2005). For these reasons, the current study allocated the nine
serial homicide cases to a dominant theme for the series as a whole if two of the first
three crime scenes were of the same thematic type.

Data Collection and Variables

All data was collected using the Homicide Profiling Index (HPI)© version 3 and ver-
sion 4 (Salfati, 2005).1 The HPI is a coding dictionary comprised of more than 200
variables across a wide range of items such as crime scene behavior, offender and
victim background characteristics, motivation, postcrime behaviors, offense timing,
and victim–offender relationship (Salfati, 2005). It contains detailed variable defini-
tions and coding instructions to ensure confidentiality of the data collected and coding
reliability. The HPI was developed specifically to be used with homicide case files
and has shown interrater reliability ratings as high as 89% (Salfati, 2005).
The HPI uses a numerical coding scheme that helps to ensure the confidentiality of
the information collected given the sensitive nature of the information contained in a
homicide case file. A dichotomous coding method, where variables are scored as
either absent (0) or present (1), is used for most variables because it has been shown to
enhance the reliability of data collection (Canter & Heritage, 1990; Salfati, 2005).
Variables that cannot be coded according to a dichotomous coding scheme are made
categorical and a number is assigned to each category.
The variables included in the HPIv3 and HPIv4 were selected because they had
been identified as important in homicide research (see Salfati, 2005 for a discussion)
and the crime scene variables in the current study were selected to maintain consis-
tency with prior thematic studies of homicide and serial homicide (e.g., Salfati, 2000,
2003; Salfati & Bateman, 2005; Salfati & Canter, 1999). However, only variables that
were present in at least one single-victim and one serial homicide case could be included
because these offenders were being directly compared in the same analyses.
Analyses
To identify thematic patterns in the crime scene behaviors as per Aim 1, Smallest
Space Analysis (SSA) was used. SSA is based on the assumption that the underlying
structure of a system of behaviors can be best appreciated through the examination of
each variable’s relation to every other variable in the model (Canter & Heritage,
1990). In other words, SSA examines all variable relationships simultaneously and a
series of correlation coefficients are computed, but “an examination of the raw math-
ematical relationships between all the variables would be difficult to interpret” so the
rank orders of the correlation coefficients are used to form a visual representation of
the relationships in a geometric plot (Canter & Heritage, 1990, p. 192). In this plot,
variables are represented as individual points and their physical distance from one
another represents the strength of their associations or the degree to which they are
likely to co-occur (Borg & Shye, 1995). Variables that occur closer to one another in
the geometric plot, therefore, have a higher degree of association and are more likely
to co-occur in any given case (i.e., it is likely that if one is present in a case, the other
will be as well); variables that occur farther apart in the plot are less likely to co-occur
(Guttman & Greenbaum, 1998). In addition, SSA assumes an inherent regionality

where variables that occur in the same region of the plot share a common underlying
theme (Canter & Heritage, 1990). In this manner, it is not the meaning of the indi-
vidual variable (e.g., behavior) considered in isolation that is important, but how it is
thematically similar to those with which it tends to co-occur (Salfati, 2000). Finally,
unlike other forms of multivariate analyses, such as factor analysis, SSA is appropri-
ate for use on small sample sizes. “Although a large sample can make the SSA more
robust, large sample size is not critical when SSA is used” (Maslovaty et al., 2001,
p. 75), provided there are more cases in the sample than there are variables analyzed;
this requirement is satisfied in the current study.
To interpret how well the geometric plot and spatial distances between variables
represents the underlying association matrix, SSA calculates a coefficient of alien-
ation. A smaller coefficient of alienation indicates a better fit of the plot to the associa-
tion matrix and coefficients below 0.2 are considered an acceptable “fit” between the
visual plot and the original matrix (Salfati & Bateman, 2005).
Results
Aim 1: Patterns in Crime Scene Behavior
To answer Aim 1 of the current study, whether a single thematic framework could
conceptualize the crime scene actions of single-victim and serial homicide offenders,
an SSA was run on the crime scene behaviors of the combined samples of offenders.
The resulting SSA is seen in Figure 1.
As stated previously, each of the labeled points in Figure 1 represents one of the crime
scene variables included in the analyses. Variables occurring closer to one another have
a higher degree of association and are more likely to co-occur in the same case; those in
the same region of the plot share a common underlying theme (Canter & Heritage, 1990).
Examination of the plot in Figure 1 shows a grouping of four high frequency variables
that were present at the crime scene in more than 50% of cases. Radiating outward from
the high frequency variables are two thematic groups of variables. Surrounding the high
frequency variables—on the left side and below—are actions that are hostile, aimed at
direct harm to the victim. Further out from the high frequency variables across the bot-
tom of the plot are co-occurring actions that are more cognitive—these behaviors go
above and beyond killing the victim. It is important to state that the thematic division
described above and indicated by the different symbols in the plot should not be taken to
indicate discrete boundaries or “types” of offenders, as offenders can demonstrate behav-
iors from both themes provided they fall primarily under one (Salfati & Bateman, 2005)
and dominance in the identified thematic regions is examined shortly.
Hostile Crime Scene Behaviors

The variables in the hostile region—most immediately surrounding the high frequency
variables—involve the infliction of direct harm to the victim and how the victim was
killed, where they were wounded, and how the wounds were inflicted.

stab
Hostile limbs
manual face weapfrom

neck
multdist
bluntins head
vaginal
partdres
anal multone
hidden
propstol cover
forensic
Cognitive
High Frequency Behaviors (>50%)

(Indicated by stars in the plot) Cognitive Actions
1. Body found same as murder site (75%)
2. Wounds to victim’s torso (58%) Hostile Actions
3. Weapon brought to the crime scene (57%)
4. Victim shot (54%) High Frequency (>50%)
Figure 1. Smallest space analysis showing thematic division between hostile crime scene
actions aimed at killing the victim and cognitive crime scene actions going above and beyond
killing the victim
Note: Coefficient of alienation = 0.15467, indicating a very good fit of the plot to the underlying
association matrix.
Examination of the basic variable frequencies, shown in Table 1, helps to under-

stand the general nature of crime scene actions in this sample in terms of the hostile/
cognitive framework.
All of the hostile variables occurred in 17% to 49% of cases, demonstrating they are
not uncommon features of the crime scenes in the sample. Moreover, those behaviors
occurring in roughly one third to one half of cases are more frenzied hostile actions
indicating a sudden attack on the victim using a weapon available at the scene, attack-
ing the more vulnerable parts of the victim’s body, and inflicting multiple wounds to
different parts of the body. Collectively, these behaviors can be taken to indicate a
sudden attack arising during the course of some sort of interpersonal dispute. The
remaining hostile actions involve the manner of death or a more concentrated attack to
a single area of the body.
Cognitive Crime Scene Behaviors

The behaviors occurring across the lower portion of the SSA plot in Figure 1 are behav-
iors that are not necessary to complete the homicide but show the offender to be acting
at a more cognitive level where they are taking their time to engage in behaviors

Table 1. Crime Scene Actions
% Occurrence Label Variable description Theme

≥ 50% murdsite Body found at same location as murdersite —
weapto Offender brought weapon to the scene —
shot Victim shot —
torso Wounds to the torso —
29 to 49% face Wounds to the face Hostile
head Wounds to the head Hostile
limbs Wounds to the limbs Hostile
multdist Multiple wounds distributed Hostile
weapfrom Weapon from crime scene Hostile
17 to 28% stab Victim stabbed Hostile
manual Manual wounding Hostile
bluntins Blunt instrument used Hostile
neck Wounds to the neck Hostile
multone Multiple wounds to one body area Hostile
<17% anal Anal penetration Cognitive
Vaginal Vaginal penetration Cognitive
hidden Body hidden/buried Cognitive
partdres Victim found partially dressed Cognitive
propstol Property stolen from victim Cognitive
forensic Remove or avoid leaving forensic evidence Cognitive
cover Victim’s body covered Cognitive
beyond merely killing the victim. Several of these behaviors—vaginal/anal penetration

and theft—suggest some sort of ulterior goal or motive of the offender or may be
engaged in opportunistically on completion of the homicide. The offenders also took
care not to leave or to remove forensic evidence from the scene, which again indicates
that the offender is acting at a more cognitive level. Other behaviors involve physical
or psychological distancing from the victim or from the homicide itself through hiding
or covering the body (Salfati, 2003).
Frequency Analyses and Serial/Single-Victim Comparison

The frequency structure in Table 1 demonstrates a continuum of behaviors from
highly impulsive behaviors, such as shooting the victim and leaving the body at the
murder site, to more controlled homicide behaviors where the offender is acting at a
more cognitive level. As seen in Figure 2, the high frequency behaviors seem to dif-
ferentiate between serial and single-victim homicides to a significant degree.
More than one half of the single-victim offenders committed three or all four of
these impulsive behaviors compared to only 15% of serial homicide offenders. In fact,
12% of single-victim homicide offenders and none of the serial offenders committed

45% 42%
Total (N = 167)
40% Single (N = 122)
35% Serial (N = 45) 33%
31% 33%
30%
30%
% of Cases
25% 25%
25%
22%
20% 18%
15% 13%
9% 9%
10%
5%
5% 3% 2%
0%
0 1 2 3 4
# High Frequency Behaviors
Figure 2. Distribution of high frequency behaviors across serial and single-victim crime
scenes (N = 167)
only high frequency behaviors. Conversely, more than one half of serial offenders
committed none or only one of these behaviors compared to only about 12% of single-
victim offenders.
To further examine potential differences between single-victim and serial homicide
offenders, offender type—serial versus single—was treated as an external variable.
This involves calculating proportional scores for each of the behaviors in the analyses
to reflect the percentage of single-victim and the percentage of serial offenders who
engaged in that particular crime scene action. As expected, given the findings reflected
in Figure 2, a higher proportion of single-victim offenders was found for all of the high
frequency impulsive behaviors and three of the hostile behaviors in the next frequency
group, and serial offenders were proportionally more likely to commit all of the cogni-
tive crime scene actions. A series of chi-square tests was run to test the significance of
these relationships and single-victim offenders were significantly more likely to leave
the body at the murder site, χ2(1) = 9.538, Fischer’s Exact Test (FET) = .004, shoot the
victim, χ2(1) = 21.497, FET < .001, injure the victim’s torso, χ2(1) = 21.565, FET < .001,
and injure the victim’s limbs, χ2(1) = 5.540, FET = .024. In addition, there were three
hostile behaviors that were significantly more likely to be committed by serial
offenders: using a blunt instrument, χ2(1) = 9.083, FET = .005, wounds to the neck,
χ2 = 6.464, FET = .014, and multiple wounding to one body area, χ2(1) = 15.583,
FET < .001; all remaining hostile behavioral relationships were not significant. In
accordance with what was expected given the external variable analyses, serial offend-
ers were significantly more likely to engage in all of the cognitive behaviors in the
model (all FET < .05).

100% 95% Hostile

% Classifiable Cases
Cognitive
80%
60% 51% 49%
40%
20% 5%
0%
Single (n = 95) Serial (n = 37)
Offender Type
Figure 3. Distribution of classifiable crime scenes (N = 132)
Given these findings it is reasonable to expect that when individual cases were
examined to determine whether each crime scene could be allocated to a dominant
theme, hostile or cognitive, serial crime scenes would be significantly more likely to
be allocated to the cognitive theme.
Thematic Dominance
To determine if homicide crime scenes could be allocated to a single thematic region
in the cognitive/hostile framework, each of the 167 crime scenes was examined and a
proportional score was calculated for each theme reflecting the proportion of behav-
iors within that theme committed by the offender. The resulting proportional scores
were compared and an offender was allocated to a single theme if they had at least
two times the proportional score compared to the second theme. If a score did not
meet this criterion, the scene was considered “mixed” or unclassifiable. This particu-
lar cutoff point was selected to maintain consistency with previous thematic studies
(e.g., Hakkanen, Lindlof, et al., 2004; Hakkanen, Puolakka, et al., 2004; Salfati, 2000;
Salfati & Haratsis, 2001). (See Trojan and Salfati, 2008 for a complete discussion of
this procedure and a discussion of alternative methods.) Fifteen single-victim offend-
ers committed only the high frequency behaviors and, therefore, were not used for this
portion of the study.
The results showed that 87% of the crime scenes were allocated to a single, domi-
nant theme; 89% of single-victim crime scenes (N = 95) and 82% of serial crime
scenes (N = 37) were classifiable. Figure 3 shows the further breakdown of these clas-
sifiable crime scenes according to the percentage classified as hostile versus cognitive
for serial and single-victim offenders.
Single-victim offenders were overwhelmingly allocated to the hostile theme, while
serial offenders were almost equally likely to be allocated to either theme. Despite
this, of those allocated to the cognitive theme 78% were serial offenders and 22% were

single-victim offenders, and this difference was statistically significant, χ2(1) = 34.836,
FET < .001.
Summary of Aim 1
In response to Aim 1 of the current study the results demonstrated that the crime scene
behaviors of single and serial homicide offenders could be differentiated according to
a hostile versus cognitive theme. Subsequent analyses revealed a significant point of
difference between serial and single-victim offenders in that single-victim offenders
were more likely to engage in most of the impulsive high frequency behaviors and
serial offenders were more likely to engage in all of the cognitive actions. Finally,
most cases could be allocated to a single dominant theme using a stringent criterion
and serial offenders were significantly more likely to be allocated to the cognitive
theme compared to single-victim offenders.
Aim 2: Linking Criminal History and Crime Scene Behavior

Aim 2 of the current study was to determine if offenders commit their homicides in a
manner that is thematically similar to their criminal history. Based on the findings
presented thus far in the current study and the previous findings of Trojan and Salfati
(2010), if prior offending were truly reflected at the crime scene, it would be reason-
able to expect those with an instrumental criminal history to commit more controlled,
cognitive actions at their crime scene(s) and those with more violent criminal histories
to commit more violent, hostile homicides. Such consistent thematic patterns across
both the offender’s background and current homicide(s) would lend support to the
underlying assumptions of offender profiling.
To derive a crime scene classification to cover the totality of serial offenders’
behavior across their series, the first three homicides in each series were examined and
an offender was allocated to a single thematic region if two of the three scenes have
the same thematic classification, cognitive or hostile. Using this approach, three series
of homicides were considered mixed. All offenders were individually examined to
match criminal history to crime scene behaviors.
For single-victim offenders, the most common criminal history to crime scene pair
was an instrumental criminal history and hostile crime scene (26%). In agreement with
the hypothesis stated at the outset of this section, the next most common pair was a
violent criminal history and a hostile crime scene (24%). However, the third most
common pair was a generalist (unclassifiable) criminal history and a hostile crime
scene (17%). All other possible pairs, including cases with only high frequency prior
offenses or crime scene actions and generalist criminal history or mixed crime scene
were found in less than 10% of single-victim cases.
For serial homicide offenders, the most common criminal history to crime scene
pair was an instrumental criminal history and a cognitive crime scene (33%), as

Table 2. Distribution of Combinations of Crime Scene and Offender Criminal History

Themes Among Classifiable Cases Only
Serial offenders (N = 6)
Criminal history theme
Crime scene theme Violent (n = 1) Instrumental (n = 5)
Hostile (n = 3) 1 (17%) 2 (33%)

Cognitive (n = 3) 0 (0%) 3 (50%)
Single offenders (N = 64)
Criminal history theme
Crime scene theme Violent (n = 32) Instrumental (n = 32)
Hostile (n = 61) 29 (45%) 32 (50%)
Cognitive (n = 3) 3 (5%) 0 (0%)
expected. However, 22% of the serial homicide offenders had an instrumental back-
ground and mixed series and 22% had a generalist criminal history and mixed series.
Table 2 examines the distribution of only those cases whose criminal history and
crime scenes could be allocated to a single theme (N = 70; serial n = 6, single-victim
n = 64).
As seen in Table 2, of the classifiable serial cases more offenders had an instrumen-
tal background (83%) but were equally likely to have a hostile or cognitive crime
scene (50% each). Fifty percent of the classifiable serial cases had an instrumental
criminal history and committed cognitive behaviors across the homicides in their
series, 33% had an instrumental background but committed hostile behaviors across
their series, and 17% had a violent criminal history and committed hostile behaviors
across their series. For single-victim offenders, one half had an instrumental criminal
history and committed a hostile homicide, 45% had a violent criminal history and
committed a hostile homicide, and 5% had a violent criminal history but committed
a cognitive homicide. However, these relationships were not significant with one
exception—single-victim offenders were significantly more likely to commit a hostile
versus a cognitive crime scene, χ2(1) = 52.563, FET < .001.
Discussion
The current study examined if a consistent theme existed between the actions commit-
ted at a homicide crime scene and the offender’s criminal history, which has not been
undertaken by prior research in this field. The assumption that such an underlying
psychological theme should connect crime scene behavior and offender characteris-
tics is a central component of offender profiling. However, the totality of the results

in the current study indicated that it would be difficult at best to use criminal history
in the manner proposed by offender profiling. Still, as with the prior examination of
criminal history by Trojan and Salfati (2010), meaningful patterns in crime scene
behavior were identified in the current study.
The analysis of offenders’ crime scene behavior demonstrated a thematic division
between crime scene actions that were hostile and those that were cognitive. The find-
ing that the majority of single-victim offenders’ crime scenes were hostile is in accor-
dance with previous literature showing that most homicides are expressive/hostile
(e.g., Salfati, 2000; Salfati & Canter, 1999). According to Feshbach (1964), hostile
aggression is centrally aimed at inflicting harm to a victim and this concept of hostile/
expressive aggression has been extended to studies of homicide by several authors
(e.g., Block, 1977; Block & Block, 1993; Block, Devitt, Donoghue, Davies, & Block,
2001; Salfati, 2000; Salfati & Canter, 1999). The second theme was comprised of
cognitive actions that went above and beyond the actions necessary to carry out the
murder and were more characteristic of the serial offenders. Furthermore, closer
examination of the framework revealed a modulating facet in which the elements of
the themes are occurring along a continuum from highly impulsive actions to more
controlled, cognitive actions. A similar continuum has been found by prior studies of
single-victim homicide (Salfati, 2003). Moreover, serial and single-victim offenders
fell at opposite ends of this continuum to a significant degree.
However, when linking criminal history to crime scene behavior, thematic consis-
tency was not evident in most cases. In the current study, for single-victim offenders,
nearly all crime scenes were classified as hostile; in other words, single-victim homi-
cides were aimed at directly harming the victim and once the homicide was complete,
few offenders engaged in any subsequent actions. For serial offenders, only one third
of offenders demonstrated thematic consistency between their prior offending and cur-
rent homicide behaviors, having an instrumental criminal history and committing cog-
nitive crime scene actions. These findings are not fully consistent with the underlying
assumptions of offender profiling.
Essentially, the results show that most single-victim homicide crime scenes display
the same theme and that offenders are almost equally likely to have a pattern of either
violence or instrumentality in their criminal background and a decent number have no
pattern in their criminal history. This suggests that under the current crime scene
model and the criminal history model provided by Trojan and Salfati (2010), it would
be difficult to apply this information in investigations. Similarly, when a series of
homicides display the controlled, cognitive behaviors analyzed here, they are more
likely to have an instrumental, as opposed to violent, background. However, this only
applied to one third of the sample. Many of the remaining serial homicide offenders
were likely to be unclassifiable at one or both ends of the behavioral (A to C) equation.
In other words, the totality of the findings reflect those of prior empirical examinations
of the A to C equation where meaningful patterns are identified in the actions at a
crime scene and the offender’s personal characteristics, but typically do not find a
consistent link between them. The possible reasons for these findings may be due to

the nature of some homicides, the fundamental underpinnings of offender profiling, or

the approach adopted in the current study. Each of these issues is considered sepa-
rately next.
Despite the lack of support for thematic links between criminal history and current
crime scene actions in the analyses presented here, the current study’s findings reflect
much of what is known about homicide and serial homicide and, therefore, reaffirms
some of the findings already reported in the related literature. The bulk of the research
on homicide suggests that it is highly situational in nature (e.g., Schlesinger, 2004) and
national statistics support such a contention, as 44% of homicides occur during the
course of an argument (FBI, 2004). The fact that highly impulsive behaviors were
present at more than 50% of crime scenes and that single-victim offenders were statis-
tically more likely to engage in nearly all of these behaviors demonstrate that there is
an important situational element or reactive aggression that is characteristic of many
homicides, as found by prior homicide studies (e.g., Salfati, 2000; Salfati & Canter,
1999). The typical single-victim homicide, therefore, may be an impulsive reaction to
an adverse situation or dispute committed by an individual who has developed aggres-
sive scripts through the use of aggression in prior interpersonal interactions and more
readily relies on them in current situations (Salfati, 2003). While most individuals are
able to control their reactions to frustrating situations, this mechanism may be under-
controlled in violent individuals (Toch, 1992) and such individuals may be predis-
posed to react in an aggressive manner due to a lower level of behavioral constraints
or self-control (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). According to Gottfredson and Hirschi
(1990) such individuals are impulsive and may not possess the cognitive skills involved
in offense planning or long-term goal directed behavior. The results of the current
study pertaining to crime scene behavior demonstrated, in fairly clear terms, that the
typical single-victim homicide event is impulsive and committed by someone with an
established criminal history, suggesting that Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) general
theory of crime in relation to low self-control may apply to even the most serious
offense. In addition, most single-victim offenders did not engage in behaviors that
went beyond inflicting harm to the victim, which further supports the same conclu-
sions found by Salfati (2003). The finding that most single offenders’ crime scenes
were allocated to the hostile thematic region is in accordance with prior research find-
ings that most homicides are expressive or hostile in nature (e.g., Block & Block,
1993; Salfati, 2000; Salfati & Canter, 1999). However, the same theoretical paradigm
was found to be less useful when applied to serial homicide.
Douglas, Burgess, Burgess, and Ressler (1992) state that serial murders are
“hypothesized to be premeditated,” involve planning, careful selection of a specific
victim type and the offender “carefully monitors his behaviors to avoid detection”
(p. 21). While not all of these assertions have received direct scrutiny by empirical
research, there is research that lends some support to these assertions. Canter et al.
(2004) found that more than 50% of a sample of 100 serial homicide offenders engaged
in actions that either went beyond merely killing the victim, such as positioning the
victim’s body, torturing the victim, and sexually assaulting the victim before death,

and actions designed to conceal the crime, such as removing the murder weapon and
concealing the victim’s body. Therefore, it is not surprising that the current study
found that all of the controlled, cognitive behaviors within the hostile/cognitive frame-
work here were significantly more likely to be engaged in by the serial offenders, even
considering the small sample size, demonstrating that serial offenders may take the
time to engage in actions that transcend the actual homicide aimed at satisfying an
ulterior instrumental goal or to conceal or distance themselves from the crime. Despite
the consistency of these findings with the relevant literature, only one third of the
serial homicide offenders in the current study had an instrumental criminal history,
also characterized by prior offenses aimed at satisfying an ulterior goal or motive. This
group of serial offenders, albeit a very small group, who did demonstrate thematic
consistency between their prior offending and crime scene actions typically engaged
in crime scene behaviors with an identifiable instrumental goal, such as sexually
assaulting and/or stealing from the victim. As stated previously, most thematic studies
have not been able to demonstrate a psychologically consistent link between crime
scene actions and background factors (Wilson & Alison, 2005). However, the study by
Kocsis et al. (2002b) was able to link four distinct themes at the crime scenes of sexual
murderers and link each theme to distinct offender characteristics. While a conclusive
statement linking this finding to those of the current study may be premature, it at least
raises the question of whether or not murders involving overt sexual behaviors, or
stated more simply, sexual homicides and their associated perpetrators are more able
to be differentiated and therefore more suitable to profiling. This possibility and the
theoretical reasons for it certainly deserve serious examination in future research.
Although the current study set out to test whether there is a common underlying
psychology to offender criminal history and crime scene behaviors, the current diffi-
culties of establishing these links to support profiling does not mean that the results
have no practical application. The prior study by Trojan and Salfati (2010) confirmed
that when investigators are confronted with a homicide, or one that may be part of a
series, they are most likely dealing with an offender who appears in official arrest
records. Hypothetically, if the current study were designed to provide direct feedback
to investigators—something that would obviously not be advisable prior to replication—
it could at least provide base rates to investigators who could then weigh the utility of
such information in their decision to apply it. Even if the base rates are low, it at least
provides an objective criterion that allows investigators to judge its true utility, some-
thing lacking in early typologies (e.g., Holmes & Holmes, 2002; Ressler et al., 1995).
For example, suppose the current study’s finding that of the single-victim offenders
who committed a hostile homicide, 45% had committed prior offenses linked by an
overall violent theme and 50% committed prior offenses that were instrumental, was
upheld by subsequent studies using different samples. Investigators could at the very
least decide, that this information—presenting a roughly 50-50 chance that the offender
likely responsible for the homicide will have a violent or instrumental criminal history—
is not useful in prioritizing suspect lists and decide to focus on other characteristics in
focusing their investigation.

Beyond the provision of such basic information, empirical offender profiling

research and its investigative applicability may be best served by revisiting in more
detail the fundamental assumptions underlying it (see Canter, 2000 and Canter &
Youngs, 2003 for a complete discussion). The issue of identifying the most salient
behavioral features of various types of offending and the most salient offender charac-
teristics that may be linked to behaviors has been addressed in offender profiling
research (Canter, 1995, 2000). The process of empirically and reliably linking actions
to characteristics centrally involves identifying what features best differentiate types
of offenses, such as sexual murder versus rape (Salfati & Taylor, 2006) and what fea-
tures differentiate between subgroups of offenders within a single offense, such as
domestic versus stranger homicide. Once such features are established by multiple
studies, a more refined and concentrated examination of the A to C equation may be
possible.
Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

Clearly the central limitation of the current study is posed by the sample of serial
homicide offenders. Small samples have inherent problems with generalizability and
this should be taken into consideration before extrapolating the findings to other
works. Comparison of the current findings to prior studies of serial homicide were
undertaken in the previous section and the findings were primarily consistent with this
literature, but replication studies are of central importance in terms of testing the
models of criminal history/crime scene behavior developed by Trojan and Salfati
(2010) and the current analyses as well as the conclusions that can be drawn from
them. However, because this study was the first to directly focus on the link between
criminal history and crime scene actions, it provides an important first step for more
in-depth examinations.
The current study examined single-victim and serial homicide together because few
studies have directly focused on how patterns in prior offending relate to actions at a
subsequent crime scene(s) and examining these offenders together to fully understand
their similarities before relegating them to separate examinations based on their dis-
tinct differences was thought to be appropriate. Perhaps, however, this introduced
another limitation in that examining these groups separately would have helped to
further identify points of refinement in the crime scene behavioral model. The reper-
toire of behaviors engaged in by the single-victim offenders was rather narrow com-
pared to the serial offenders. However, because the offenders were examined together
here, only behaviors that occurred in cases in both samples could be used in the analy-
ses. It is unknown if examining offenders separately would have allowed for the iden-
tification of links between current and prior criminal behavior. Expansion of both of
the samples or separate examinations would probably allow for the inclusion of a wider
variety of crime scene behaviors that could be included in the current framework.
Another limitation of the current work is that it did not examine the crime scenes
of those with no prior criminal convictions. There could be important theoretical

differences between these individuals and such comparisons are certainly important
from an investigative standpoint but went beyond the aims of this study.
A final limitation concerns where the current study and that of Trojan and Salfati
(2010) can and cannot contribute to the literature on criminal careers and offending
specialization. According to Britt (1994), the idea of criminal specialization is rooted
within the criminal career paradigm, in which, over the course of an individual’s
offending career they gain experience with particular crimes and “recognize that they
are more skillful at those crimes” (p. 173). Stated differently, as an offender gains
experience in a particular area of crime they will learn what behaviors and skills best
help them achieve their purported goals (Simon, 1997). In this manner, specializing in
a crime becomes cost-effective and offenders will demonstrate greater specialization
in the types of offenses they commit. In contrast to the criminal career model, control
theory would propose that offenders will demonstrate versatility in offending because
lack of self-control can be manifested in different ways and in different criminal
offenses (Britt, 1994; Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990; Mazerolle, Brame, Paternoster,
Piquero, & Dean, 2000; Simon, 1997). However, this dichotomy of views regarding
offense specialization may not be appropriate to examinations where the purported
intent is to identify broader patterns of offending linked through common underlying
theoretical constructs (Farrington, Snyder, & Finnegan, 1988). As the study by Trojan
and Salfati (2010) demonstrated, how specialization is conceptualized and measured
will have different implications for how to best examine specialization within an over-
all offending trajectory, including how a subsequent homicide is committed. Most of
the offenders in the current samples committed their homicide(s) subsequent to a doc-
umented criminal history. This supports the contention made by Wright et al. (2008)
that “classification of criminals into specific offender types may be unjustifiable”
because offenders who commit only a single type of offense rarely exist (p. 395).
Stated differently, it may be inappropriate to consider offenders as purely robbers, rap-
ists, and so on and stepping away from rigid perspectives based on such labels would
go some way in understanding overall offending careers, escalation, and potential
investigative recommendations based on such an understanding.
Unfortunately, because the study by Trojan and Salfati (2010) that formed the basis
for the current analysis did not include a timeline of offending, the overall findings of
both studies cannot directly or significantly contribute to the theoretical discussion
regarding the nature and place of homicide in the criminal career paradigm and the
interactional learning process that may be at work in the progression to homicide.
According to Wright et al. (2008), “an offender is more likely to have a versatile career
the earlier that career starts” (p. 310). The impact of the age of onset for offending
specialization is well documented as important for understanding criminal trajectories
(e.g., Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990; Moffitt, 1993; Sullivan, McGloin, Pratt, & Piquero,
2006). The lack of an offending timeline in the current study precludes contributing to
this body of literature. In hindsight, given the current study’s results a timeline could
have allowed for examinations of whether shorter periods of prior offending could be
linked to crime scene behavior. In other words, it is at least plausible that the offenses

in the months/years immediately preceding the homicide(s) may have been more
reflective of the homicide crime scene actions. This will unfortunately have to be left
to future studies.
Related to this, increased specialization later in the offender’s career may indicate
learning processes. The theoretical possibility that learning from prior criminal experi-
ences can be reflected at a later homicide warrants serious future study. Research
needs to undertake a concerted effort to identify the most salient behaviors that may
indicate such a learning process, such as whether those who destroy genetic evidence
(e.g., semen) are more likely to have prior convictions for offenses likely to involve
such evidence (Davies, Wittebrood, & Jackson, 1997). The theoretical implications
for this in relation to escalation to homicide would be tremendous and consequently
better investigation recommendations may result.
As stated at the outset of the current study, empirical offender profiling research
is a relatively young field. The key issues in the field cited here do not form an
exhaustive list. Studies in this area should continue building off one another to cre-
ate a more solid empirical base for establishing the nature of the A to C profiling
equation.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to express their gratitude to the FBI’s Behavioral Science Unit for
coordinating access to the serial homicide data used in this study. The authors’ opinions, state-
ments and conclusions should not be considered an endorsement by the FBI for any policy,
program or service. The authors would also like to greatly thank the John Jay College of
Criminal Justice Office for the Advancement of Research for the support of the FBI–John Jay
College research collaboration. The authors would also like to sincerely thank the Cincinnati
Police Department and the CPD Homicide Unit for providing access to the single-victim data
used in this study and their immense help during data collection.
Authors’ Note
Research for this study was conducted while the first author was affiliated with John Jay
College of Criminal Justice.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or
publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.
Note
1. Because single-victim and serial data were collected at two points in time, two versions of
the HPI© were used. HPIv3 was used to collect single-victim data and HPIv4 was used to

collect serial homicide data. The use of two different versions of the HPI is not problematic
because there were no substantive changes to the definitions of the variables used in this
study between the HPIv3 and HPIv4.
References
Alison, L., Santtila, P., Sandnabba, N. K., & Nordling, N. (2001). Sadomasochistically oriented
behavior: Diversity in practice and meaning. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 30(1), 1-12.
Arndt, W. B., Hietpas, T., & Kim, J. (2004). Critical characteristics of male serial murderers.
American Journal of Criminal Justice, 29(1), 117-132.
Bartol, C. R. (1995). Criminal behavior: A psychosocial approach (4th ed.). New Jersey, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Bateman, A. L., & Salfati, C. G. (2007). An examination of behavioral consistency using indi-
vidual behaviors or groups of behaviors in serial homicide. Behavioral Sciences & the Law,
25, 527-544.
Bennell, C., & Canter, D. V. (2002). Linking commercial burglaries by modus operandi: Tests
using regression and ROC analysis. Science & Justice, 42, 153-164.
Bennell, C., & Jones, N. J. (2005). Between a ROC and a hard place: A method for linking serial
burglaries by Modus Operandi. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling,
2, 23-41.
Block, C. R., & Block, R. L. (1993). Overview of the Chicago homicide project. In C.R. Block
& R. L. Block (Eds.), Questions and answers in lethal and non-lethal violence: Proceed-
ings of the first annual workshop of the Homicide Research Working Group (pp. 97-106).
Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
Block, C. R., Devitt, C. O., Donoghue, E. R., Danes, R. J., & Block, R. L. (2001). Are there
types of intimate partner homicide? In P. H. Blackman, V. L. Leggett, J. P. Jarvis (Eds.),
The diversity of homicide: Proceedings of the 2000 Homicide Research Working Group
(pp. 92-111). Chicago, IL: Loyola University.
Block, R. (1977). Violent crime. Lexington, MA: Lexington.
Borg, I., & Shye, S. (1995). Facet theory: Form and context. London, UK: Sage.
Britt, C. L. (1994). Versatility. In T. Hirschi & M. R. Gottfredson (Eds.), The generality of
deviance (pp. 173-191). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Brittain, R. P. (1970). The sadistic murderer. Medicine, Science and Law, 10, 198-207.
Broidy, L. M., Daday, J. K., Crandall, C. S., Sklar, D. P., & Jost, P. F. (2006). Exploring demo-
graphic, structural, and behavioral overlap among homicide offenders and victims. Homicide
Studies, 10, 155-180.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2006). Homicide trends in the United States. U.S. Department
of Justice—Office of Justice Programs. Retrieved from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/
homicide/homtrnd.htm
Canter, D. (1994). Criminal shadows. London, UK: Harper Collins.
Canter, D. (1995). Psychology of offender profiling. In R. Bull, & D. Carson (Eds.), Handbook
of Psychology in Legal Contexts (pp. 343-345). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Canter, D. (2000). Offender profiling and criminal differentiation. Legal and Criminological
Psychology, 5, 23-46.

Canter, D., Alison, L. J., Alison, E., & Wentink, N. (2004). The organized/disorganized typology
of serial murder: Myth or model? Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 10, 293-320.
Canter, D., Bennell, C., Alison, L. J., & Reddy, S. (2003). Differentiating sex offenses:
A behaviorally based thematic classification of stranger rapes. Behavioral Sciences and the
Law, 21, 157-174.
Canter, D., & Fritzon, K. (1998). Differentiating arsonists: A model of firesetting actions and
characteristics. Journal of Legal and Criminological Psychology, 3, 73-96.
Canter, D., & Heritage, R. (1990). A multivariate model of sex offence behavior: Developments
in “offender profiling.” Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, 1, 185-212.
Canter, D., Missen, C., & Hodge, S. (1996). A case for special agents? Policing Today, 2(1),
2-11.
Canter, D., & Wentink, N. (2004). An empirical test of Holmes and Holmes’s serial murder
typology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 31, 489-515.
Canter, D., & Youngs, D. (2003). Beyond “offender profiling”: The need for an investigative
psychology. In D. Carson & R. Bull (Eds.), Handbook of Psychology in Legal Contexts (2nd
ed., pp. 171-205). West Sussex, UK: John Wiley.
Davies, A., Wittebrood, K., & Jackson, J. L. (1997). Predicting the criminal antecedents of a
stranger rapist from his offence behavior. Science & Justice, 37, 161-170.
DeLisi, M., & Scherer, A. M. (2006). Multiple homicide offenders: Offense characteristics,
social correlates, and criminal careers. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33, 367-391.
Dobash, R. P., Dobash, R. E., Cavanagh, K., Smith, D., Medina-Ariza, J. (2007). Onset of
offending and life course among men convicted of murder. Homicide Studies, 11, 243-271.
Douglas, J. E., Burgess, A. W., Burgess, A. G., & Ressler, R. K. (1992). Crime classification
manual: A standard system for investigating and classifying violent crimes. San Francisco,
CA: John Wiley.
Farrington, D. P., Snyder, H. N., & Finnegan, T. A. (1988). Specialisation in juvenile court
careers. Criminology, 26, 461-485.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2004). Crime in the United States 2004: Murder. Washington,
DC: Department of Justice. Retrieved from http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/
violent_crime/murder.html
Feshbach, S. (1964). The function of aggression and the regulation of aggressive drive. Psycho-
logical Review, 71, 257-272.
Godwin, G. M. (2000). Hunting serial predators: A multivariate classification approach to
profiling violent behavior. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Guttman, R., & Greenbaum, C. W. (1998). Facet theory: Its development and current status.
European Psychologist, 3(1), 13-36.
Hakkanen, H., Lindlof, P., & Santtila, P. (2004). Crime scene actions and offender characteris-
tics in a sample of Finnish stranger rapes. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender
Profiling, 1(1), 17-32.

Hakkanen, H., Puolakka, P., & Santtila, P. (2004). Crime scene actions and offender character-
istics in arsons. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 9, 1-18.
Hetsroni, A. (2000). The relationship between values and appeals in Israeli advertising: A smallest
space analysis. Journal of Advertising, 29(3), 55-68.
Hickey, E. W. (2006). Serial murderers and their victims. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Holmes, R. M., & Holmes, S. T. (2002). Profiling violent crimes: An investigative tool (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kocsis, R. N., Cooksey, R. W., & Irwin, H. J. (2002a). Psychological profiling of offender char-
acteristics from crime behaviors in serial rape offences. International Journal of Offender
Therapy & Comparative Criminology, 46, 144-170.
Kocsis, R. N., Cooksey, R. W., & Irwin, H. J. (2002b). Psychological profiling of sexual
murders: An empirical model. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative
Criminology, 46, 523-554.
Maslovaty, N., Marshall, A. E., & Alkin, M. C. (2001). Teachers’ perceptions structured through
facet theory: Smallest space analysis versus factor analysis. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 61(1), 71-84.
Mazerolle, P., Brame, R., Paternoster, R., Piquero, A., & Dean, C. (2000). Onset age, persis-
tence, and offending versatility: Comparisons across gender. Criminology, 38, 1143-1172.
Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course persistent antisocial behavior: A
developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100, 674-701.
Mokros, A., & Alison, L. J. (2002). Is offender profiling possible? Testing the predicted homol-
ogy of crime scene actions and background characteristics in a sample of rapists. Legal &
Criminological Psychology, 7(1), 25-43.
Ressler, R. K., Douglas, J. E., & Burgess, A. W. (1995). Sexual homicide: Patterns and motives
(2nd ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
Salfati, C. G. (2000). The nature of expressiveness and instrumentality in homicide: Implica-
tions for offender profiling. Homicide Studies, 4, 265-293.
Salfati, C. G. (2003). Offender interaction with victims in homicide: A multidimensional
analysis of frequencies in crime scene behaviors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18,
490-512.
Salfati, C. G. (2005). Homicide Profiling Index (HPI)—A tool for measurements of crime scene
behaviors, victim characteristics, and offender characteristics. Homicide research: Past,
present and future: Proceedings of the 2005 Meeting of the Homicide Research Working
Group. Chicago, IL: Homicide Research Working Group.
Salfati, C. G., & Bateman, A. L. (2005). Serial homicide: An investigation of behavioral consis-
tency. Journal of Investigative Psychology & Offender Profiling, 2(2), 121-144.
Salfati, C. G., & Canter, D. V. (1999). Differentiating stranger murders: Profiling offender char-
acteristics from behavioral styles. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 17, 391-406.
Santtila, P., Hakkanen, H., Canter, D., & Elfgren, T. (2003). Classifying homicide offenders
and predicting their characteristics from crime scene behavior. Scandinavian Journal of

Salfati, C. G., & Haratsis, E. (2001). Greek homicide: A behavioral examination of offender
crime-scene actions. Homicide Studies, 5, 335-362.
Salfati, C. G., & Taylor, P. (2006). Differentiating sexual violence: A comparison of sexual
homicide and rape. Psychology, Crime & Law, 12(2), 107-125.
Santtila, P., Ritvanen, A., & Mokros, A. (2003). Predicting burglar characteristics from crime
scene behavior. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 6, 136-154.
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, 541-557.
Schlesinger, L. B. (2004). Sexual murder: Catathymic and compulsive homicides. Boca Raton,
FL: CRC Press.
Schultze-Lutter, F., Steinmeyer, E. M., Ruhrmann, S., & Klosterkotter, J. (2008). The dimen-
sional structure of self-reported “prodromal” disturbances in schizophrenia. Clinical Neuro-
psychiatry: Journal of Treatment Evaluation, 5, 140-150.
Simon, L. (1997). Do criminal offenders specialize in crime types? Applied and Preventive
Soothill, K., Francis, B., Ackerley, E., & Fligelstone, R. (2002). Murder and serious sexual
assault: What criminal histories can reveal about future serious offending. Police Research
Series, Paper 144. London, UK: Home Office.
Sullivan, C. J., McGloin, J. M., Pratt, T. C., & Piquero, A. R. (2006). Rethinking the “norm” of
offender generality: Investigating specialization in the short-term. Criminology, 44, 199-233.
Tanay, E. (1969). Psychiatric study of homicide. American Journal of Psychiatry, 125, 1252-1258.
Toch, H. (1992). Violent men: An inquiry into the psychology of violence. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Trojan, C., & Salfati, C. G. (2008). Methodological considerations of determining dominance in
multi-dimensional analyses of crime scene behaviors and offender characteristics. Journal
of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 5(3), 125-145.
Trojan, C., & Salfati, C. G. (2010). A multi-dimensional analysis of criminal specialization
among single-victim and serial homicide offenders. Homicide Studies, 14(2), 107-131.
Wilson, G., & Alison, L. (2005). Suspect prioritization in the investigation of sex offenses:
From clinical classification and profiling to pragmatism. In L. Alison (Ed.), The forensic
psychologist’s casebook: Psychological profiling and criminal investigation. Portland, OR:
Willan.
Wilson, M. A., & Mackenzie, N. E. (2000). Social attributions based on domestic interiors.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20, 343-354.
Wolfgang, M. E. (1958). Patterns in criminal homicide. Philadelphia, PA: University of
Pennsylvania Press.
Wright, K. A., Pratt, T. C., & DeLisi, M. (2008). Examining offending specialization in a sample
of male multiple homicide offenders. Homicide Studies, 12, 381-398.
Youngs, D., Canter, D., & Cooper, J. (2004). The facets of criminality: A cross-modal and
cross-gender validation. Behaviormetrika, 31(2), 1-13.
Zak, I. (1982). On the multidimensional structure of personality: An improved definition.
Multivariate Experimental Clinical Research, 6(1), 1-14.

Bios
Carrie Trojan is an assistant professor in the Department of Sociology at Western Kentucky

University. Her research focuses on homicide and serial homicide, prior criminal offending of
homicide offenders, investigative considerations of homicide, and empirical tests of profiling
assumptions.
C. Gabrielle Salfati is currently professor of psychology at John Jay College of Criminal

Justice where she directs the Investigative Psychology Research Unit (IPRU) and is a fellow of
the International Association of Investigative Psychology. Her main areas of expertise relate to
the methodology of research in offender profiling and homicide, violent sexual crimes, and
linking serial crimes and has presented and published widely both nationally and internationally
on her work.

Trojan2011 PDF

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Trojan2011 PDF

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Homicide Studies

Linking Criminal History to Crime Scene Behavior in Single-Victim and

The online version of this article can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://hsx.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on December 5, 2014

Linking Criminal History 15(1) 3­–31

Homicide: Implications for

Carrie Trojan1 and C.Gabrielle Salfati2

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on December 5, 2014

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on December 5, 2014

An Empirical Approach to Offender Profiling

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on December 5, 2014

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on December 5, 2014

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on December 5, 2014

Offender Criminal History

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on December 5, 2014

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on December 5, 2014

The Nature of Single-Victim Versus Serial Homicide

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on December 5, 2014

Aims of the Current Study

Data Sources, Selection Criteria, and Samples

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on December 5, 2014

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on December 5, 2014

Data Collection and Variables

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on December 5, 2014

Hostile Crime Scene Behaviors

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on December 5, 2014

manual face weapfrom

High Frequency Behaviors (>50%)

Examination of the basic variable frequencies, shown in Table 1, helps to under-

Cognitive Crime Scene Behaviors

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on December 5, 2014

Table 1. Crime Scene Actions

% Occurrence Label Variable description Theme

beyond merely killing the victim. Several of these behaviors—vaginal/anal penetration

Frequency Analyses and Serial/Single-Victim Comparison

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on December 5, 2014

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on December 5, 2014

100% 95% Hostile

Figure 3. Distribution of classifiable crime scenes (N = 132)

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on December 5, 2014

Aim 2: Linking Criminal History and Crime Scene Behavior

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on December 5, 2014

Table 2. Distribution of Combinations of Crime Scene and Offender Criminal History

Hostile (n = 3) 1 (17%) 2 (33%)

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on December 5, 2014

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on December 5, 2014

the nature of some homicides, the fundamental underpinnings of offender profiling, or

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on December 5, 2014

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on December 5, 2014

Beyond the provision of such basic information, empirical offender profiling

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on December 5, 2014

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on December 5, 2014

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on December 5, 2014

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on December 5, 2014

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on December 5, 2014

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on December 5, 2014

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on December 5, 2014

Carrie Trojan is an assistant professor in the Department of Sociology at Western Kentucky

C. Gabrielle Salfati is currently professor of psychology at John Jay College of Criminal

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on December 5, 2014

Linking Criminal History 15(1) 3–31