Geographic Profiling for No-Body Homicides
Investigative psychology, or more commonly known as profiling, has become very popular in recent years due to popular TV series like Criminal Minds (Bartol and Bartol, 2021). The basis behind investigative psychology, coined by David Canter, involves the application of psychological research and principles to the investigation of criminal behavior (Bartol and Bartol, 2021). Our textbook breaks down profiling into five categories, one of which is geographical profiling (Bartol and Bartol, 2021). Bartol and Bartol (2021) describe geographical profiling as a technique used to help locate geographical locations related to a serial offender’s residence or base of operations as well as where the next crime by this perpetrator may take place. This process tends to be highly actuarial and generally involves sophisticated computer software programs, like Criminal Geographic Targeting Program (CGT), Crimestat, or Dragnet, that apply statistical probabilities to areas that seem to fall within the perpetrator’s territory based on their known movement patterns, comfort zones, victim-searching patterns, and the location of the previous crimes (Bartol and Bartol, 2021). Although geographic profiling does not lend to the demographic, motivational, and psychological features of the crime or the perpetrator, it focuses more on how the location of the crime relates to the residence and/or base of operations for unknown offenders of both violent crimes and property crimes (Bartol and Bartol, 2021).
Another form of geographical profiling that was not mentioned in our textbook was brought to my attention about a year ago and it involves the inverse process of what is described above – instead of finding the offender, it focuses on finding undiscovered clandestine graves, body dumps, or scattered remains when the offender is known or still at large but their behavior has revealed a pattern (Moses, 2019). For no-body homicides, or cases in which the victim is suspected to be deceased, but their remains have not been located, with known offenders, investigators can gather all the areas the perpetrator is familiar with, their personality preferences, and risk factors, like risk of being discovered when disposing a body, to try to narrow down where the body may be located (Just Science, 2022). This type of profiling is very important to the field because it helps to allocate resources appropriately, converge manpower on areas that have the highest chance of reaping success, and increases the odds of proper prosecution (Just Science, 2022).
This type of profiling is primarily actuarial and based on statistics, or base rates, gathered by the FBI regarding body disposal (Bartol and Bartol, 2021; Just Science, 2022). For example, people who kill their own children or close family members (not including spouses) often dump the bodies in a one to five mile radius from the home where they were likely killed (Just Science, 2022). This is evident in the death of Caylee Anthony, where her remains were found in a wooded area close to the family home prosecution (Just Science, 2022). In cases where the victim is an intimate partner or spouse, the offender will likely move the body further away, usually 30 miles or more from where they were killed (Just Science, 2022). This is evident in the death of Laci Peterson and her unborn child, where they were dumped in the San Francisco Bay about 90 miles from their home (Just Science, 2022). If the victim was a friend or acquaintance, they are usually found within a radius of ten miles from where they were killed (Just Science, 2022). Additionally, if the victim was a stranger, they may be found closer to the offender’s known area than an acquaintance, but the offender may not try to hide the body, whereas for acquaintances and friends they might (Just Science, 2022).
With humans, sometimes their motivations may vary. For example, some people may try to hide the body so it won’t be found, while others, like serial killers, may want the body in a place where it will be found fairly quickly or in a place where they can return to it easily (Just Science, 2021). Additionally, distance is understood differently among different groups of people (Just Science, 2022). For example, people who live in rural areas travel long distances without a lot of traffic to conduct business, so their perception of distance may be quite different than someone who lives in a metropolitan area (Just Science, 2022). Lastly, in spur of the moment type homicides, the offenders may leave the body where they are or make a haphazard attempt to move it (Just Science, 2022). These differences in perceptions, personality, and motivations are calculated into geographic profiling, so inconvenient areas can be excluded (Just Science, 2022).
If you’re interested in learning more, I interviewed Dr. Sharon Moses in a Just Science podcast episode about this topic here: https://forensiccoe.org/podcast-2022casestudies-part1-ep3/.
References:
Bartol, A. and Bartol, C. (2021). Criminal Behavior: A Psychological Approach. (12th Edition). Pearson.
Moses, S. K. (2019). Forensic Archaeology and the Question of Using Geographic Profiling Methods Such as “Winthropping”. In Forensic Archaeology: Multidisciplinary Perspectives (pp. 235-244). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03291-3_15.
Just Science. (2022). Just Forensic Archaeology and Body Dump Sites. Forensic Technology Center of Excellence. https://forensiccoe.org/podcast-2022casestudies-part1-ep3/.