Virginia Commonwealth University VCU Scholars Compass Theses and Dissertations Graduate School 1995 Observations on The Serial Killer Phenomenon: An Examination of Selected Behaviors of the Interstate Offender Contrasted with the Intrastate Offender Eric W. Witzig Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/etd Part of the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons © The Author Downloaded from https://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/etd/5546 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at VCU Scholars Compass. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of VCU Scholars Compass. For more information, please contact [email protected]. College of Hunanities and Sciences virginia Commonwealth University This is to certify that the thesis prepared by Eric W. Witzig entitled "Observations on The Serial Killer phenomenon: An Examination of Selected Behaviors of the Interstate Offender Contrasted with the Intrastate Offender," has been approved by his committee as satisfactory completion of the thesis requirement for the degree of Master of Science. Profe,sjor James H oker, Director i Coll e of Humanities and Sciences Dr. Malcan, Member Adjunct Professor College of Humanities and Sciences Dr. Roland Reboussin, Member Adjunct Professor The University of Virginia Dr. William V. pelfrey Chairman, Department of Criminal Justice College of Humanities and Sciences and Sciences S- M a.d ,3 )T---'11----!-99 --'----"�_ _____ _ Date T Observations on The serial Killer Pheno.enon: An Rxa-ination of Selected Behaviors of the Interstate Offender Contrasted with the Intrastate Offender A thesis submitted in partial fu lfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science at the Virginia Commonwealth University . By Eric W. Witzig, B.A. , The American University, 1969 Director: Professor James E. Hooker Assistant Professor Department of Criminal Justice Virginia Commonwealth University Richmond , Virginia February , 1995 ii Acknowledgements I would like to thank and express my appreciation to Professor James E. Hooker , the Chairman of my Th esis Committee , who listened carefully to the concerns and apprehensions of this student , and to the Committee Members Dr . Jay W. Malcan and Dr . William V. Pelfrey for the time and care taken to read, review, and suggest revisions in this study . Special thanks are due to Committee Member Dr . Roland Reboussin , who gave so much of himself to shape , guide , and assure the validity of this study . I would also like to thank Lead Crime Analyst Susan McClure , who extracted information from the database of the Violent Criminal Apprehension Program (VICAP) , and Supervisory Special Agent Gregory M. Cooper , whose thinking helped shape the selection of variables used in this study . iii Dedication I would like to dedicate this work to , and thank, my wife of twenty-six years, Barbara S. Witzig, for her patience and encouragement during the past three years . without her support in the myriad of things she did for me , this work and the degree whose requirements it partial ly fulfills, would simply not have been possible. iv Tab le of contents List of Tables vi CHAPTER ONE 1 Introduction Homicide or Murder? 1 Cause and Manner of Death 3 Death Investigators and Homicide Detectives 6 Murder Event sites 9 Getting Away with Murder 10 CHAPTER TW O 13 Literature Review Examination of Definitions 14 Investigative Considerations 23 Closure Rate Analysis . 36 Violent criminal Apprehension Program (VI CAP ) 37 Origins of VICAP . 37 Implementation of Vicap 39 Data Collection Instrument 40 Security of Information 41 Case Matching and Linking 43 Operation of VICAP . 45 VICAP 's Human Difference '- 47 Scope of Tracking 49 Case Submission criteria 49 Goal of VICAP 51 Mandatory Reporting . 52 State Homicide Tr acking Systems 57 Choice of Variables Examined 58 CHAPTER THREE . 61 Methodology . 61 Interrater Reliability 62 Variables Examined 63 Hypothesis . 65 Research Procedure 65 CHAPTER FOUR . 67 Results 67 Control for Survivors 67 victim Occupation 68 Last Known Location 71 Use of Restraints by Offender 73 Cause of victim Death 75 victim Body Placement . 79 v CHAPTER FIVE . 82 Conclusions . 82 Survivors 82 victim occupation 83 Last Known Location 85 Restraint of victims 85 Cause of victim Death 86 victim Body Placement 88 Contrast of Theses with Results 89 Overall Conclusion 92 Literature cited 95 Appendix A 100 Appendix B 120 Appendix C 123 Appendix D 125 Appendix E 131 vita . 133 vi List of Tables Tab le Page 1. Mass Murders List 16 2. Serial Killers List 19 3. Homicides and Clearance Rates 36 4. Attack Outcome by Offender Status 67 5. Frequency of victim occupation .. 69 6. Victim Occupation by Offender Status 70 7. victim Occupation by Offender Status (Controlling for Decedents) 71 8. Frequency for Victim Last Known Location 72 9. Victim Last Known Location by Status .. 73 10. Restraint of Vict ims by Offender Status 74 11 . Frequency of Use of Bindings by Offender 74 12 . Type of Restraints Used by Status 75 13 . Frequency of victim Cause of Death 76 14 . Cause of victim Death by Offender Status 78 15. Decedents ' Cause of Death by Offender Status (Controll ing for Death of the Victim) 79 16. Frequency of victim Body Placement ... 80 17 . Victim Body Placement by Offender Status 80 Abstract OBSERVATIONS ON THE SERIAL KILLER PHENOMENON: AN EXAMINATION OF SELECTED BEHAVIORS OF TH E INTERSTATE OFFENDER CONTRASTED WITH THE INTRASTATE OFFENDER By Eric Warren Witzig, B.A. A thesis submitted in partial fu lfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science at Virginia Commonwealth University. Virginia Commonwealth University , 1995. Maj or Director: Professor James E. Hooker Department of Criminal Justice College of Humanities and Sciences The purpose of this work was to compare serial homicides committed by interstate and intrastate offenders and to determine differences in behavior between them . Knowledge of such differences would enable the trained homicide detective to structure his investigation according to the killer 's inferred range of action . Th is study used homicide data collected by the Violent criminal Apprehension Program (VI CAP) , of the National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime (NCAVC). VICAP 's data was voluntarily submitted by investigators working at the state , local , and federal levels. Th e VICAP database had information on more than 804 cases of homicides committed by 241 different , serial offenders . The VICAP data was examined in order to learn whether offender behaviors could reveal a distinction between the viii interstate serial offender and the intrastate serial offender . Five variables of conscious or unconscious offender behavior were selected : (1) the victim 's occupation, (2) the victim 's last known location, (3) the type and kind of restraints used on the victim (if any) , (4) the victim 's cause of death , and (5) the level of concealment of the victim at the body disposal site . Information from the attributes in these variables could be helpful to the homicide detective in an early determination of the types and kinds of investigative resources that should be applied to the case for a successful resolution . A hypothesis was formed : there is a detectable difference on the five variables in the behaviors of interstate and intrastate serial killers . The findings supported the hypothesis that there was a detectable difference between the two types of serial killers . An unexpected finding revealed _that one type of offender was more deadly than the other , and thus less likely to leave behind surviving victims . CHAPTER ONE Introduction The purpose of this work is to compare serial homicides committed by interstate and intrastate offenders and to determine differences in behavior between them . Knowledge of such differences would enable the trained homicide detective to structure his investigation according to the killer's inferred range of action. Homicide or Murder? The terms homicide and murder are used in this thesis. The act of homicide is defined as the death of a human being at the hands of another . Homicide may 'be excusable, justifi-able, or murder . From experience, an example of excusable homicide is the death of a probable felon caused by a police officer who took lawful action while acting in an official discharge of his sworn duty . An example of justifiable homicide is the death of an armed robber killed by a-store employee during the commission of bus iness place robbery . Felony murder is a killing while a defendant , aider , or abettor , is in the process of committing , or attempting to 1 2 commit, a felony . ' Title 22, section 2401, of the District of Columbia Code , codified the common lawZ and provided that murder in the first degree is, " ... an intentional homicide done 3 deliberately and with premeditation ... • " Murder in the second degree is defined in Title 22 , section 2403, of the District of Columbia Code : "Whoever with malice aforethought , except as provided in 22-2401, 22-2402 , kills another , is guilty in the second degree ."4 The difference between murder in the first degree and murder in the second degree is a lack of premeditation and del iberation . s There are two other forms of homicide : voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter . Voluntary manslaughter is defined as , " ... an unlawful killing committed with a general intent to do the act which cause the death , rather than with the specific intent to cause death ..." 6 Involuntary _ manslaughter is held to be , II a killing without justification 'United states v. Mack , 466 F.2d 333 (D.C. Cir) , cert denied, 409 U.S. 952 , 93 S.ct. 297 , 34 L. Ed . 2nd 233 (1972) , as cited by District of Columbia Criminal Law and Procedure, 1981 Edition (Charlottesville, VA : The Michie Company , 1981) , p. 154 . 20'Conner v. united States , App . D.C. , 399 A.2nd 21 (1979) , as cited by D.C.