Monday, 8 September 2014

cis polda jatim : Violent Crime Scene Analysis: Modus Operandi, Signature, and Staging part 4

Shelton’s M.O. consisted of entering the victim’s dwelling through a window
or patio entrance that faced a wooded area or bushes offering concealment.
He wore a ski mask, stocking, or scarf. He convinced the victims that he
was not there to rape but to rob them. However, when he had the victim under
control, he would return to the rape mode. The victim would comply because
she had seen his propensity for violence by his earlier actions, such as
throwing her on the floor or holding a knife to her throat. In addition,
Shelton would say to the victims, “Keep your eyes down,” “Cover your eyes,”
or “Don’t look at me and I won’t kill you (hurt your kids).” Before he left,
he would verbally intimidate them with such warnings as “Don’t call the police
or I’ll come back and kill you.” These characteristics served as Shelton’s
M.O., whereas his former actions were his signature that linked him to 28
sexual assaults.
Nathaniel Code: Serial Killer
Nathaniel Code, Jr., killed eight times on three separate occasions. The
first homicide, a 25-year-old black female, occurred on August 8, 1984. Code
stabbed her nine times in the chest and slashed her throat.
Approximately a year later, on July 19, 1985, Code killed four people–a
15-year-old girl, her mother, and two of their male friends. Code nearly
severed the girl’s head from her body. He asphyxiated the mother and draped
her body over the side of the bath tub. Code then shot one of the males in
the head, leaving him in a middle bedroom; the other male, who was found
in the front bedroom, was shot twice and had his throat slit.
The last killing took place on August 5, 1987. The victims were Code’s
grandfather and his 8-year-old and 12-year-old nephews. The boys died of
ligature strangulation. Code stabbed his grandfather five times in the chest
and seven times in the back.
The changes in Code’s M.O., exhibited from case to case, show how the M.O.
is refined. For example, in the first murder, Code gagged the victim with
material found at the scene; the next time, he brought duct tape.
Code also kept his victims under surveillance to obtain information on them,
especially with the second killings. In that case, he brought a gun to the
scene to dispose of the males, who posed the greatest threat to him. Since
the last victims, an elderly man and two children, posed little threat to
him, Code did not use a gun on them. All eight killings occurred in single
family dwellings. In each dwelling, the air conditioners and/or televisions
were on, which drowned out the noise as he entered through a door or window.
Code quickly gained and maintained control of the victims by separating them
in different rooms.
Nathaniel Code had a very distinctive “calling card,” one aspect of which
were the injuries inflicted on the victims. Code employed a very bloody method
of attack and overkill. He could have simply murdered each victim with a
single gunshot wound–a clean kill involving very little “mess.” Instead,
Code slaughtered his victims by slashing their throats with a sawing motion
that resulted in deep wounds. Although brutal, the attack didn’t satisfy
his ritual; all victims sustained additional injuries, with the exception
of the 15-year-old girl. One male victim suffered gunshot wounds to the chest,
while another received multiple stab wounds to the chest. Code wounded nearly
all the victims far beyond what was necessary to cause death (overkill).
The physical violence and bloody overkill satisfied Code’s need for domination,
control, and manipulation. He positioned each victim face down, which supports
this theory. Code even forced the mother to witness her daughter’s death
as part of this ritual of control, which was formed from his rage. In fact,
forensic tests found the daughter’s blood on the mother’s dress. If the victim’s
response threatened his sense of domination, Code reacted with anger and
the excessive violence that led to overkill.
The last signature aspect of Code’s crimes probably best illustrates his
unique “calling card”–the ligatures. Code used both an unusual configuration
and material. In all three cases, he bound the victims with electrical appliance
or telephone cords acquired at the scene. Code could have brought rope or
used his duct tape, but the use of these cords satisfied some personal need.
Using a handcuff-style configuration, he looped the cord around each wrist
and then the ankles, connecting them to the wrists by a lead going through
the legs.
The dissimilarities of these cases involves the M.O., not the signature aspect.
The use of a gun with threatening males present reveals an adaptive offender.
At the time of the grandfather’s homicide, additional financial stressors
affected Code, evidenced by the theft of money from his grandfather’s residence.
These financial stressors influenced Code’s M.O., not his “calling card.”

Violent Crime Scene Analysis: Modus Operandi, Signature, and Staging

Physical characteristics, age, and even sex do not enhance or diminish the
ritual driven by rage. Code’s ritual of anger required control and domination
of his victims, so victimology was not as important. Code, like Ronnie Shelton,
the serial rapist, selected victims he could control, manipulate, and on
whom he could project his anger.

Importance Of Offender Signature

Understanding and recognizing the signature aspects is vital in the apprehension
and prosecution of an offender, especially a serial offender. No one appreciates
the importance of recognizing an offender’s “calling card” more than David
In 1984, Vasquez pled guilty to the murder of a 34-year-old Arlington, Virginia,
woman. The woman had been sexually assaulted and died of ligature strangulation.
The killer left her lying face down with her hands tied behind her back.
He used unique knots and excessive binding with the ligatures, and a lead
came from the wrists to the neck over the left shoulder. The body was openly
displayed so that discovery offered significant shock value.
The offender spent considerable time at the crime scene. He made extensive
preparations to bind the victim, allowing him to control her easily. His
needs dictated that he move her around the house, exerting total domination
over her. It appeared that he even took her into the bathroom and made her
brush her teeth. None of this behavior was necessary to perpetrate the crime;
the offender felt compelled to act out this ritual.
Vasquez had a borderline I.Q. Believing this would make it difficult to prove
his innocence, his lawyers convinced him that he would probably receive the
death sentence if the case went to trial. Instead, Vasquez opted for life
imprisonment by pleading guilty.
Three years later, in 1987, police discovered a 44-year-old woman lying nude
and face down on her bed. A rope bound her wrists behind her back, and a
ligature strand tightly encircled her neck with a slip knot at the back.
It continued over her left shoulder, down her back, and then was wrapped
three times around each wrist. Forensics revealed that she died of ligature
strangulation, and that she had been sexually assaulted. The offender left
the body exposed and openly displayed. He appeared to have spent a considerable
amount of time at the crime scene. This homicide occurred 4 blocks from the
1984 murder.
David Vasquez had been imprisoned 3 years when the 1987 murder occurred.
At the request of the Arlington, Virginia, Police Department, the National
Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime (NCAVC) conducted an extensive analysis
of these two murders, a series of sexual assaults, and several other killings
that occurred between 1984 and 1987. Eventually, the NCAVC linked these offenses
through analogous signature aspects of another local suspect. Physical evidence
later corroborated this connection and determined that the “calling card”
left at the 1984 homicide did not belong to David Vasquez. As a result of
this finding, the Commonwealth of Virginia released Vasquez from prison and
exonerated him of the crime.


When investigators approach a crime scene, they should look for behavioral
“clues” left by the offender. This is when investigators attempt to find
answers to several critical questions. How did the encounter between the
offender and victim occur? Did the offender blitz (ambush) the victim, or
did he use verbal means (the con) to capture her? Did the offender use ligatures
to control the victim? What was the sequence of events? Was the victim sexually
assaulted before or after death? When did the mutilation take place–before
or after death? Did the offender place any item at the crime scene or remove
something from the crime scene?
As investigators analyze crime scenes, facts may arise that baffle them.
These details may contain peculiarities that serve no apparent purpose in
the perpetration2 of the crime and obscure the underlying motive
of the crime. This confusion may be the result of a crime scene behavior
called staging. Staging occurs when someone purposely alters the crime scene
prior to the arrival of the police.
Reasons for Staging
Principally, staging takes place for two reasons–to direct the investigation
away from the most logical suspect or to protect the victim or victim’s family.
It is the offender who attempts to redirect the investigation. This offender
does not just happen to come upon a victim, but is someone who almost always
has some kind of association or relationship with the victim. This person,
when in contact with law enforcement, will attempt to steer the investigation
away from himself, usually by being overly cooperative or extremely distraught.
Therefore, investigators should never eliminate a suspect who displays such
distinctive behavior.

Violent Crime Scene Analysis: Modus Operandi, Signature, and Staging

The second reason for staging, to protect the victim or the victim’s family,
occurs for the most part in rape-murder crimes or autoerotic fatalities.
This type of staging is performed by the family member or person who finds
the body. Since perpetrators of such crimes leave their victims in degrading
positions, those who find the bodies attempt to restore some dignity to the
victim. For example, a husband may redress or cover his wife’s body, or in
the case of an autoerotic fatality,3 a wife may cut the noose
or the device suspending the body of her husband.
Basically, these people are trying to prevent future shock that may be brought
about by the position, dress, or condition of the victim. In addition, they
will often stage an autoerotic fatality to look like a suicide, perhaps even
writing a suicide note. They may even go so far as to the make it appear
to be a homicide.
For both types of crime scene investigations, rape-murders and autoerotic
fatalities, investigators need to obtain an accurate description of the body’s
condition when found and to determine exactly what the person who found the
body did to alter the crime scene. Scrutiny of forensic findings, crime scene
dynamics, and victimology will probably reveal the true circumstances surrounding
the deaths.
Finally, at some crime scenes, investigators must discern if the scene is
truly disorganized or if the offender staged it to appear careless and haphazard.
This determination not only helps to direct the analysis to the underlying
motive but also helps to shape the offender profile. However, recognition
of staging, especially with a shrewd offender, can be difficult. Investigators
must examine all factors of the crime if they suspect it has been staged.
This is when forensics, victimology, and minute crime scene details become
critical to determine if staging occurred.
“Red Flags”
Offenders who stage crime scenes usually make mistakes because they arrange
the scene to resemble what they believe it should look like. In so doing,
offenders experience a great deal of stress and do not have the time to fit
all the pieces together logically. As a result, inconsistencies in forensic
findings and in the overall “big picture” of the crime scene will begin to
appear. These inconsistencies can serve as the “red flags” of staging, which
serve to prevent investigations from becoming misguided.
To ensure this doesn’t happen, investigators should scrutinize all crime
scene indicators individually, then view them in context with the total picture.
Crime scene indicators include all evidence of offender activity, e.g., method
of entry, offender-victim interaction, and body disposition.
When exploring these issues, investigators should consider several factors.
For example, if burglary appears to be the motive, did the offender take
inappropriate items from the crime scene? In one case submitted to the National
Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime (NCAVC), a man returning home from
work interrupted a burglary in progress. The startled burglars killed him
as he attempted to flee. But, an inventory of the crime scene determined
that the offenders did not steal anything, although it did appear that they
started to disassemble a large stereo and TV unit.
Further examination of the crime scene revealed that they left smaller, and
easily transported, items of far greater value (jewelry, coin collection,
etc.). The police subsequently determined that the victim’s wife paid the
burglars to stage the crime and kill her husband. She, in fact, was having
an affair with one of the suspects.
Another factor to consider is the point of entry. Did the point of entry
make sense? For example, did the offender enter the house through a second-story
window, even though there was an easier, less conspicuous entrance that could
have been used? Why did the offender increase his chance of being seen by
potential witnesses who might alert authorities?
Investigators should also consider whether the offender put himself at high
risk by committing the crime during the daylight hours, in a populated area.
If the crime scene is a place of residence, they should also evaluate any
obvious signs of occupancy, such as lights on in the house, vehicles in the
driveway, etc.

Violent Crime Scene Analysis: Modus Operandi, Signature, and Staging

Case Scenario
The following case scenario brings to light some “red flags” that investigators
should look for at a crime scene.
One Saturday morning, in a small Northeastern city, an unknown intruder attacked
a man and his wife. By placing a ladder against the house, the suspect made
it appear that he had climbed to a second-story window, removed the screen,
and entered the residence. All this occurred in a residential area during
a time when neighbors were doing their weekend chores and errands.
The husband claimed that he heard a noise downstairs, so he went with a gun
to investigate. A struggle with the intruder ensued, during which the husband
was left unconscious by a blow to the head.
Presumably, the intruder then went upstairs and killed the wife by manual
strangulation. He left the body with a nightgown pulled up around the victim’s
waist, implying that he sexually assaulted her. The couple’s 5-year-old daughter
remained unharmed, asleep in the next room.
While processing the crime scene, detectives noted that the ladder made no
impression in the moist soil near the house, although it did when they tried
to climb the ladder. Also, the intruder positioned the ladder with the rungs
facing away from the house, and many of the rungs on the wooden ladder had
rotted, making it impossible for it to support anyone weighing over 50 pounds.
In addition, the crime scene raised questions that could not be answered
logically. Why didn’t the offender choose to enter the residence through
a first-story window to decrease the possibility of detection by both the
occupants and neighbors? Why did the offender want to burglarize the residence
on a Saturday morning when there was a good chance that he would be seen
by neighbors? Why did the intruder choose a residence that was obviously
occupied (several vehicles were in the driveway)?
Inside the residence, other inconsistencies became apparent. For example,
if the intent was murder, the intruder did not seek his victim(s) immediately,
but went downstairs first. He also did not come equipped to kill because,
according to the one witness, the husband, he never displayed a weapon. Also,
the person posing the most threat, the husband, received only minor injuries.
By analyzing the crime scene, which revealed excessive offender activity,
it became apparent that there was no clear motive for the crime. Therefore,
based on the numerous inconsistencies found at the crime scene, NCAVC criminal
investigative analysts concluded that the husband staged the homicide to
make it appear to be the work of an intruder. He was eventually convicted
of his wife’s murder.
Forensic “Red Flags”
Forensic results that don’t fit the crime should also cause investigators
to consider staging. Personal assaults should raise suspicion, especially
if material gain appears to be the initial motive. These assaults could include
the use of a weapon of opportunity, manual or ligature strangulation, facial
beating (depersonalization), and excessive trauma beyond that necessary to
cause death (overkill). In other words, do the injuries fit the crime?
Sexual and domestic homicides usually demonstrate forensic findings of a
close-range, personal assault. The victim, not money or property, is the
primary focus of the offender. However, this type of offender will often
attempt to stage a sexual or domestic homicide that appears to be motivated
by personal gain. This does not imply that personal assaults never happen
while a property crime is being committed, but usually these offenders prefer
quick, clean kills that reduce the time spent at the scene.

Violent Crime Scene Analysis: Modus Operandi, Signature, and Staging

Forensic red flags are also raised when there are discrepancies between
witness/survivor accounts and forensics results. For example, in one case,
an estranged wife found her husband in the tub with the water running. Initially,
it appeared as if he slipped and struck his head on a bathroom fixture, which
resulted in his death by drowning. However, toxicological reports from the
autopsy showed a high level of Valium in the victim’s blood. Also, the autopsy
revealed several concentrated areas of injury or impact points on the head,
as if the victim struck his head more than once.
Subsequently, investigators learned that the wife had been with the victim
on the evening of his death. She later confessed that she laced his dinner
salad with Valium, and when he passed out, she let three men into the house.
These men had been hired by the wife to kill the victim and to make it look
like an accident.
Often, investigators will find forensic discrepancies when an offender stages
a rape-murder, that is, positioning the body to infer sexual assault. And
if the offender has a close relationship with the victim, he will only partially
remove the victim’s clothing, never leaving her completely nude. However,
despite the position of the body and the removal of some of the victim’s
clothes, an autopsy can confirm or deny whether any form of sexual assault
took place, thereby determining if the crime scene was staged.
If investigators suspect a crime has been staged, they should look for signs
of association between the offender and the victim. Or, as is frequently
the case with domestic violence, the involvement of a third party, who is
usually the one who discovers the victim. For example, in the case involving
the husband who staged his wife’s murder to make it look like the crime was
committed by an intruder, the husband did not immediately check on his wife
and daughter once he regained consciousness. Instead, he remained downstairs
and called his brother, who went upstairs and discovered the victim. Offenders
will often manipulate the discovery of victims by a neighbor or family member,
or conveniently be elsewhere when the victim is discovered.


Violent crime scenes require investigators to be “diagnosticians.” They must
be able to analyze crime scenes for the messages they emit and understand
the dynamics of human behavior displayed at crime scenes. Investigators must
also be able to recognize the different manifestations of behavior, so they
can ask the right questions to get valid answers.
By approaching each crime scene with an awareness of these factors, investigators
can steadily improve their ability to read the true story of each violent
crime scene. By doing so, they will be more knowledgeable and better equipped
to apprehend the violent crime offender.


  1. SA Douglas has qualified as an expert in criminal investigative analysis and has provided testimony in the area of signature crime analysis during the following court proceedings: State of Ohio v. Ronnie Shelton, State of Louisiana v. Nathaniel Code, and State of Delaware v. Steven B. Pennell.
  2. P.E. Dietz, M.D. and R.R. Hazelwood, “Atypical Autoerotic Fatalities,” Medicine and Law, 1, 1982, 301-319.
  3. Ibid.


Post a Comment