Table 34

Major Investigative Steps in the First 48 Hours

Investigative Step %

Collected Information 87.2
Searched 51.4
Collected Evidence 40.3
Disseminated Information 24.8
Direct Contact With Killer 14.1
Organizational Changes 3.9
Other 3.8
Police Contact with Killer

Law enforcement contact with or knowledge of anyone who may physically be around
some aspect of the murder, crime scene, or body disposal site is critical to investigations.
Alarmingly, the evidence shows that the police had contact with the killer about some aspect of
the murder — before he became the prime suspect — in half of the cases. The police often do
not realize or know that they have come that close to the killer — probably early in the
investigation when many names are being recorded, interviews are being done, canvassing is
taking place, records are being searched, tips are being received, and so on. Police need to know
this when conducting the investigation of a child abduction murder — the killer’s name may be
in their possession in a substantial proportion of cases, and probably early in the investigation.

Equally surprising, the data show that the killer’s name became known, not necessarily as
the suspect, very early in the course of most investigations of child abduction murder. In 21.9%

of the cases, the killer’s name came up immediately, in 39.8% within 24 hours, and in 57.0%

49


abduction murder victim was an 11-year-old, white female from a middle class or “blue collar”

family with good family relationships.

Victim’s Race and Gender
As found in the previous first-stage analysis, the race of child abduction murder victims
is not significantly different from all murder victims — both are predominantly white. Table 4

illustrates this similarity.

Table 4
Victim Race

Child Abduction All Murders
White 74.5% 66.0%
Black 14.3% 17.0%
All Other 11.2% 17.0%

The gender of child abduction murder victims differs significantly from the gender of
victims in all child murders and murders in general. The first-stage findings indicated that child
murder victims were more likely to be female (55.0%), while only 38.0% of murder victims in
general are female. But the second-stage analysis indicated that child abduction murder victims

were predominantly female (74.0%). Table 5 shows the differences in gender by type of murder.

Table 5
Victim Gender

Child Abduction Murders All Child Murders All Murders
Female 74.0% 55.0% 38.0%
Male 26.0% 45.0% 62.0%

15


INVESTIGATIVE CASE
MANAGEMENT FOR
MISSING CHILDREN

HOMICIDES: REPORT II

ROB MCKENNA
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON

&

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND
DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

2006
Cooperative Agreement
98-MC-CX-0001

Katherine M. Brown,’ Robert D. Keppel,”
Joseph G. Weis,’ & Marvin E. Skeen*

* Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, Texas, USA

2 Seattle University, Seattle, Washington, USA

> University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA

‘ Washington State Attorney General’s Office, Seattle, Washington, USA


agencies, because the locations are not within the authority of one jurisdiction. Second, the killer

may simply unintentionally separate the location of components over time and distance.

Investigative Implications

The information which identifies the location and time of each site is vitally important to
investigations. The confirmation through evidence of the date, time, and location of a site prior
to the identification of a possible suspect enables the investigator to more accurately check the
whereabouts and verify alibis of a suspect against the time and location of that site (Hanfland, et
al., 1997).

Keppel and Weis (1993) found that when any information on the dates and locations of
the four murder incident sites was known, the probability of case solution increased. The study
also showed a strong positive correlation between knowing the dates of occurrences for the
murder incident locations and the ability to identify a perpetrator. Another important finding
was that case solvability increased as the time separating pairs of murder incident sites
decreased. The study supported their hypothesis that the more investigators know about the
distances between the pairs of the murder incident sites, the more likely a case will be solved.
The research also showed that when the distance between the locations was less than 200 feet,
the solvability increased substantially. Finally, the research showed that when the times and
distances decreased among pairs of murder incident sites, the solvability increased (Keppel,
1992).

The conclusions regarding time and distance in the Keppel and Weis (1993) research
supported what experienced murder investigators have learned through their observations of
murder cases. The more information detectives have about a case, especially about the murder

incident sites, the more likely it will be solved. Their study showed that it was not “just any

58


Table 51 indicates the distance between where the victim was last seen and where their body was
recovered. The victim’s body was recovered at a distance of over one-fourth mile in 67.3% of the
murders. The victim’s body was recovered within 199 feet in only 15.8% of cases.

Table 51

Distance Between Victim Last Seen Site and Body Recovery Site

Distance %
0 feet to 199 feet 15.8
200 feet to %4 mile 16.8
> V4 mile to 1% miles 13.4
> 1% miles to 12 miles 30.5
> 12 miles 23.4

The distance between where the victim and the killer had their first contact and where the
victim was murdered was less than 199 feet in 34.0% of murders. The distance between the
Initial Contact Site and the Murder Site is illustrated in Table 52. The distance between the
Initial Contact Site and the Murder Site was greater than one-fourth mile in 51.8% of murders.
Table 52

Distance Between Initial Contact Site and Murder Site

Distance %
0 feet to 199 feet 34.0
200 feet to %4 mile 14.3
> V4 mile to 1%4 miles 11.5
> 1% miles to 12 miles 24.4
> 12 miles 15.9

69


CHAPTER IT
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
The data used in this study were collected through a cooperative agreement between the

Washington State Attorney General’s Office and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, United States Department of Justice. The objective of the collaborative research
project was to examine murders of abducted children. The data set will be referred to as the
Child Abduction Murder (CAM) data set. This report, the second of two, updates the data and
findings of a prior three-year research project that examined the investigations of murders of
more than 600 abducted children. The findings of the previous study are referred to in this study
as the first-stage findings and were originally published as Investigative Case Management for
Missing Children Homicides (Hanfland et al., 1997). The first-stage study, as well as the
second-stage data collection and analysis, were conducted by criminal justice professionals with

extensive murder investigation and research backgrounds.

Child Abduction Murder Data

The CAM data were collected from 227 municipal police department and county sheriff's
offices in the United States with a service population of 100,000 or more, or that had fifteen or
more murders reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) Uniform Crime Report
(UCR) in 1987 (Hanfland et al., 1997). The department head, detective division commander, or
a detective of each of the agencies meeting the above criteria was contacted by telephone and
asked to participate in the data collection project. To follow up, an introductory letter and a
formal request for case information was mailed to identified agencies, with a resulting initial

response rate of 75% (Hanfland et al., 1997).


The data also indicated a very short time frame between when the initial contact between the victim
and the killer occurred and when the victim was murdered. The abducted child was murdered in
under 5 hours in 85.1% of cases as illustrated in Table 44. The victim was murdered in less than 30

minutes after he or she was last seen in 30.8% of cases.

Table 44

Time Span Between Victim Last Seen and Murder

Time span Interval %
0 minutes to 29 minutes 59 seconds 30.8
30 minutes to 59 minutes 59 seconds 16.5
1 hour to 4 hours 59 minutes 59 seconds 35.6
5 hours to 24 hours 13.5
> 24 hours 3.6

64


Killer’s Employment and Occupation Status

This transient nature may be related to their uneven employment history. Approximately
half (48.3%) of child abduction murderers were unemployed at the time of the murder; and if
they were employed, they worked in unskilled or semi-skilled labor occupations. Table 11

describes the most common occupations of killers at the time they committed the murder.

Table 11
Killer Occupations

Occupation %
Construction Worker 26.4
Food Industry Worker 75
Service Industry 6.9
Student 6.6
Truck Driver 6.6
Auto Maintenance 3.7
Killer’s Lifestyles

Only 10.1% of the killers were described as “model” citizens, and a mere 3.9% were
active in church or civic groups. In fact, 20.1% of the killers were on probation or parole for
another offense at the time they committed the child abduction murder. Many of them (30.2%)
were described as “strange” by others who knew them, 14.7% were described as “friendly to
children,” and 16.0% were considered reclusive. Table 12 reveals other behaviors of the killers
that are considered outside the norm by our society. A number of them abused alcohol (24.6%),

used and abused drugs (22.1%), or were sexually promiscuous (15.5%), according to others who

22


Summary
The differences in the victim-killer relationship by age and gender of the victims can be
more clearly seen when the different types of murders and modus operandi are examined in light
of the research findings in the following chapter. The next chapter will detail the killer’s

motivation for abducting the child. In addition, how the killer selected the victim will be

examined.

29


To justify their suspicions, homicide detectives point to examples of media interference hurting
an investigation. In actuality, in child abduction murder investigations, the media effect on the
criminal investigation is more positive than negative. As shown in Table 37, in 56.8% of these
cases, the media involvement had no effect at all.

Table 37

Effect of Media Coverage on the Investigation

Effect %
No Effect 56.8
Helped 32.9
Hindered 6.2
Unknown 41

However, in 32.9% of the cases, the investigating detective believed that the use of the
media helped the investigation, usually by bringing a witness forward. The detective felt that the
media hindered or hurt the investigation in only 6.2% of the cases. An argument can be made
that any hindrance is too often, but we will learn shortly that there are other institutions that have

a more negative impact on the investigations.

Outside Forces That Created Problems for the Investigation
As demonstrated in Table 38, the three most frequently identified outside forces that
created any kind of problem during investigations were another outside law enforcement agency,

news media, and the family of the victim.

54


kidnapped children. Sexual assault of the victim occurred in 62.8% of these child abduction

murder cases — those easily characterized as acts of violent, sexual predation on children.

Custody Status

In spite of the substantial evidence of prior crimes of violence against children,
approximately half (50.8%) of child abduction killers, like murderers in general (66.0%), were
not in any “official custody status” at the time of the extant murder. A slightly higher percent of
child abduction killers (20.1%) were either on parole or probation when they killed as compared
to 17.0% of all murderers. While most child abduction killers may not have been immediately
accessible in the custodial system, they were slightly more likely than other murderers to be

found in the active files of the correctional or judicial systems.

Summary
Child abduction killers can be characterized as social marginals who have a propensity to
commit crimes of violence against children. Most of them exhibit weak social bonds to
conventional contexts, relationships, and activities--strong predictors of involvement in crime.
Individuals with weak social controls are more likely to commit child abduction murders given
the appropriate motivation and opportunity. The victim-killer relationship discussed in the next

chapter illustrates in greater detail the opportunities available to the killers.

25


1. The Victim Last Seen Site (VLS): the location where and time when the victim was
last seen. The VLS was determined from eyewitness information and records
indicating when and where the victim was last seen alive.

2. The Initial Contact Site (IC): the place where and time when the killer initially
contacted the victim. The IC was established from evidence indicating that the killer
first met the victim at a certain time and at a specific location during the course of
the murder incident.

3. The Murder Site (MS): the place where and time when the victim sustained the
death- producing injuries.

4. The Body Recovery Site (BR): the location where and time when police, medics, or
witnesses found the victim, dead or alive, prior to transportation to a medical facility
or morgue (Keppel, 1992; Keppel & Weis, 1993).

Information about the location and the time of each site within the sequence of the murder incident
has an impact on case solvability. In most murder cases, the events occur simultaneously, and the
research suggests that all events are located in the same place and not separated by distance or spans

of time (Hanfland, et al., 1997; Keppel & Weis, 1993).

Separation of Components by Time and Distance

The sites within incidents of murder may become separated in time and distance in two
ways. First, the killer may consciously attempt to separate time and distance. The killer may
believe that the separation of murder components will delay the discovery of various sites,
perhaps for a long time, contributing to the destruction of evidence. The separation may also

inhibit the investigation by creating communication and cooperation problems among police

57


Table 23 illustrates the differences in area of initial contact by type of murder.
Table 23

Area of Initial Vietim-Killer Contact by Type of Murder

Child Abduction

Area Murders All Child Murders All Murders
Urban 50.5% 17.0% 31.0%
Suburban 32.9% 74.0% 58.0%
Rural 16.7% 9.0% 11.0%

Typically, killers came into contact with the victim because the killer lived in close
proximity to the victim (26.3%). An additional 16.4% came into contact with their victim
because of other criminal activity. Table 24 shows the reasons the killer was at the victim

contact site.

Table 24

Why Killer Was at the Victim Contact Site

Reason %
Lived in Area 26.3
Criminal Activity 16.4
Normal Social Activity 13.9
Normal Non-social Activity 10.2
Meeting Victim Intentionally 4.7
Other 2.2
Unknown 27.9

35


Victims’ Gender

When the victims’ gender was examined, the data show that there was a difference in
victim selection. Males were overselected in the series cases. In non-series cases, males
represented almost one-fourth of the victims, while in series cases they represented almost one-
third of the victims. Table 56 shows that 31.9% of the series victims were males, compared to

24.8% male victims in non-series cases, a difference of 7.1%.

Table 56

Victim Gender by Series and Non-Series Cases

Series Non-Series Total
Female 68.1% 75.2% 70.0%
Male 31.9% 24.8% 30.0%
Victim-Killer Relationship

The series killer is more likely to be a stranger to the victim and less likely to be an
acquaintance than in non-series cases. Table 57 shows that the stranger relationship jumped
from 28.3% in non-series cases to 71.3% in series cases. The important investigative implication
is in prioritizing leads. If it is reasonably suspected that the case at hand is in a series, strangers
(71.3% of series killers) should become the major focus as suspects. On the other hand, if it is
suspected that it is a non-series case, strangers (28.3% of non-series killers) and acquaintances

(36.2% of non-series killers) should be given equal consideration as suspects.

77


43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

31

52

53

54

55

56

37

58

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Time Span Between Victim Last Seen and Initial Contact! 73
Time Span Between Victim Last Seen and Murder 74
Time Span Between Victim Last Seen and Body Recovery. 75
Time Span Between Initial Contact and Murder cece 75
Time Span Between Initial Contact and Body Recovery. 76
Time Span Between Murder and Body Recovery. 77
Distance Between Victim Last Seen Site and Initial Contact Site! 78
Distance Between Victim Last Seen Site and Murder Site 78

Distance Between Victim Last Seen Site and Body Recovery Site. 719
Distance Between Initial Contact Site and Murder Site 79
Distance Between Initial Contact Site and Body Recovery Site 80
Distance Between Murder Site and Body Recovery Site eed 80
Distance Between Murder Incident Component Sites 81
Victim Gender by Series and Non-Series Cases. 87
Victim-Killer Relationship by Series and Non-Series Cases... sccscssseeeeeoo 88

Personal Problems of Killers by Series and Non-Series Cases

viii


TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES oii oo coc ccccesessessessessesvevsvevessvevevsessesessesessvssersvessssvesevstesseseeseveereeeee vi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ooo ceccccecscesvesvesvesseevesseeesseeseeaseaseseestesiestesvesereeeeee 1x
CHAPTERS
I INTRODUCTION oo ccc ce eeeeeeeeeeenteatesteeeeesneseeaeeaee 1
Missing and Abducted Children Statistics, 2
Definitions .
Il METHODOLOGY cece eee esse ena enaeeaeeateitviteiteiteiussassae 5
Tintrod ction oo ccccececesevesevevevevevesevevevvevivevevivesesvesivevessvecevveseseees 5
Child Abduction Murder Data. ooo o...ccsccccscsessccssseeceecssseeseesssueeseeseueeeeeeee 5
Case Criteria cc cccceeecceeeeceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeteeeeeteeesteeeeeeeeeeeeeeseeeeed 6
Data Collection Instrument ccc eeccceeececeeecsteecsseecesneeceseeeee 7
Data Integrity. ooo cccceccccececceeecccececceveceseveccevecesveesveveceeveeseeveceeveesteveceeeees’ 8
Resulting Data cece cccecsccsssessvsssvsssvsssvsssusssussassissassasssaessaceee 8
Defimitions occ ccccececssvsssveesssvestvevessvvsssveessivesesesssvvesesvesesvesesveee 8
Purpose of the Study ec eccecceeccneeneesnnesneestneeseeee 10
Data Amabysis cece cece cece cece ceva eesaeesaeesaeesaeesaeesaeesaeesase 11
Ill VICTIMS 12
Introduction, 12

Initial Police Involvement

When an Abducted Child is Killed 13

Victims Overview 14

Victim’s Race and Gender. 15


Pornography

There is a common belief in our society that pornography plays an important role in the
process of motivating sex killers and lust killers. Interestingly, approximately one-quarter of the
killers in this study used pornography (24.8%), and pornography was a “trigger” for the murder
in 20.7% of the cases, This was an increase in the use of pornography as a trigger over the 4%
reported for the first-stage data. It may be that the role of pornography in the sexual motivation
of these murders was more prevalent but was still not common. It could also reflect differences
in the selection of the first- and second-stage cases. One explanation for the low reliance on
pornography is that child abduction killers may have a predisposition to engage in these types of
violent and sexual acts with children as a deep-seated element of their flawed characters, making
the exposure to pornographic materials unnecessary in the process of “getting motivated” to

commit the murder.

Crises and Stressors

Some observers of murder have proposed that certain kinds of personal problems —
usually revolving around employment or marriage — may serve as “precipitating crises” that
contribute to the motivation of the killer. In the case of child abduction murders, there was
evidence of at least one precipitating crisis (or stressor) in the life of the killer in 25.4% of the
cases. What is striking is that of those cases, the usual crises or stressors emphasized in the
literature did not seem to be as important as others that seemed to resonate with the character of
the killers and with their choice of predominantly female victims. For example, only 4.9%
involved marital problems, 3.8% involved employment problems, and 6.0% involved financial

problems.

32


The Victim Last Seen Site to Body Recovery Site, Initial Contact Site to Body Recovery Site, and
Murder Site to Body Recovery Site were coded into one of the following categories:

1. 0 minutes to 7 hours 59 minutes

2. 8 hours to 15 hours 59 minutes

3. 16 hours to 23 hours 59 minutes

4. 24 hours to 47 hours 59 minutes

5. 48 hours to 71 hours 59 minutes

6. 72 hours to 167 hours

7. 7 days to 14 days

8. 15 days to 30 days

9. >30 days.
The categories were based on the natural breaks in the frequency distribution of the CAM data.

It is interesting to note that the time span between when a victim was last seen and the initial
contact with the killer was less than 30 minutes in over three-fourths of the child abduction murder

investigations. The time span is illustrated in Table 43.

Table 43

Time Span Between Victim Last Seen and Initial Contact

Time span Interval %
0 minutes to 29 minutes 59 seconds 76.3
30 minutes to 59 minutes 59 seconds 79
1 hour to 4 hours 59 minutes 59 seconds 10.8
5 hours to 24 hours 4.1
> 24 hours 39

63


Analysis of Distance by Murder Incident Component
Distance clearly has an impact in murder investigations of abducted children. In order to
more fully understand the investigative implications of how distance between murder incident
component locations relate, the murder incident components will be examined individually. A

detailed analysis follows.

Victim Last Seen Site

The Victim Last Seen Site was within one-fourth mile of the Initial Contact Site in 79.4%
of child abduction murder cases. Also, in 40.3% of the murders, the Victim Last Seen Site was
less than 199 feet from the victim’s home. In 36.1%, the Victim Last Seen Site was within one-
fourth mile of the killer’s home. The data show that the typical victim is near his or her home

when last seen prior to the abduction, and that often the killer is not far away.

Initial Contact Site

Even though these types of murders most often involve stranger relationships, in 57.2%
of the cases, the victim lived less than one-fourth of a mile from the Initial Contact Site and less
than 199 feet from the Initial Contact Site in 35.0% of cases. In 36.5% of the murders, the killer
lived within one-fourth mile of the Initial Contact Site. The initial contact between the killer and
the victim was also typically very close to the victim’s last known location. In fact, it was
located within less than 199 feet in 63.8% of cases. After the initial contact is made, the victim
is taken or transported some distance away and killed. The victim’s body is then disposed of

very near the Murder Site.

72


Homicide Investigation Tracking System
(800) 345-2793

CASE MANAGEMENT
for Missing Children
Homicide Investigation

May 2006

Rob McKenna
Attorney General of Washington

&

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention

Katherine M. Brown
Robert D. Keppel
Joseph G. Weis
Marvin E. Skeen



ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors wish to recognize and thank John Scott Blonien, Division Chief of the
Criminal Justice Division, Washington State Attorney General’s Office, and the members of the
Homicide Investigation Tracking System of the Washington State Attorney General’s Office for
their assistance in this research: Chief Criminal Investigators John Turner, Lockheed Reader,
and Darryl Roosendaal; Investigators George Fox, Robert Gebo, Kenneth Hanfland, James
Hansen, Robert LaMoria, Darrell Noble, Richard Steiner, Frank Tennison, and Gary Trent; and
staff Nicole Siver and Victoria Woods. In particular, the help of Investigator/Analyst Tamara
Matheny was invaluable. We also want to thank the individuals who provided data input:
Carolyn Brooks, Inge A. Fordham, Janusz Springer and Allan Womac. We are grateful to Ke L.
Wendler Deaver for her assistance in data result verification.

The following organizations were instrumental in the primary data collection for this
project:

@ The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC).
@ The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP).
@ NCMEC’s Project Alert and Project Alert Volunteer John Hamilton.
We want to acknowledge Governor Christine Gregoire, who was the Attorney General of
the state of Washington at the inception of this grant project.
We also wish to thank the detectives who investigated the murders of abducted or

missing children and the agencies that provided data.


Table 8

Killer Race

Child Abduction All Murders
White 69.8% 75.0%
Black 19.1% 20.0%
All Other 11.0% 5.0%
Killer’s Gender

Murder is a predominantly male phenomenon, with the great majority of victims and
killers being male. The first-stage research observed that child abduction murderers were even
more likely to be male — 98.5% of child abduction murder killers were males, compared to 87%
of murderers in general. By including the additional cases collected in stage two of the study,
96.1% of the killers were male, still a substantial overrepresentation of male killers. These
murders were carried out almost exclusively by males, and were perpetrated typically against
young females. There were also a number of indicators of social marginality among these
killers, including marital status, residential status, employment and occupation, lifestyle, problem

behavior, and criminal behavior.

Killer’s Marital Status

Only 16.9% of the killers were married at the time they committed the murder, and
another 13.2% were divorced. Accordingly, 83.0% of the killers had no intimate attachments or
bonds with another person at the time of the abduction and subsequent murder. The marital

status of the killers is illustrated in Table 9.

20


Prior Crimes Against Children

Dramatically, 76.9% of the series killers had committed prior crimes against children,
while one-half that many (38.9%) of the non-series killers had victimized children before. And
as discussed earlier, a substantial portion of those priors were violent crimes against children.
Again, there are investigative implications that impact the evaluation of potential suspects. Prior
arrest records and police contact records, particularly evidence of prior crimes against children,

should be considered carefully when evaluating and prioritizing suspects.

Linking Cases

Being able to determine whether two or more murders (or other types of offenses) were
committed by the same killer is often helpful in an investigation. Linking cases can be an
objective, scientific process when it is done by matching physical evidence, such as latent prints,
DNA, or spent bullets. Unfortunately, not all cases have physical evidence for scientific
comparison, and we then enter the realm of subjectivity and uncertainty.

One of the aims of this research project was to identify elements in child abduction
murders that would, absent physical evidence, make the linking process more objective. To
some extent that aim has been fulfilled by the information that has been discovered about series
killers. This information will allow us to make better judgments about whether an arrested killer
might be a series killer. Knowing the facts of the case for which he was arrested may help find
other cases for which he is responsible. However, the more difficult task of linking unsolved
cases continues to be more subjective.

After hundreds of factors were reviewed and thousands of calculations were made, only a
couple of factors emerged that may lend some objectivity to the task of linking unsolved cases:

binding of the victim and gender of the victim. It was found that in series, the killer more often

719


Murder Site

Unfortunately, the site of the actual murder is known less frequently than any other site. For
investigative effectiveness, without the Murder Site, the police have less evidence to tie to any
particular killer. This study has shown that the Murder Site is the richest site in terms of physical
evidence collection. It is second in importance only to the actual body of the victim for evidence
that is connected to the killer.

If the Murder Site is so important, why did we find it in only 69.4% of the child
abduction murders? The data do not provide a specific answer to that question. It is likely that
in some of the cases, the searchers didn’t know where to look. We now know that for over two-
thirds (69.1%) of the murders, the distance between the Murder Site and the Body Recovery Site
was less than 200 feet (one-half of an average city block) (Table 55).

It was stated above that the Murder Site is the most important site in terms of physical
evidence associated with the killer. We know that it is quite often within 199 feet of the body
recovery site. Armed with this information, it is recommended that investigators do a fine-focus
search over the 200 feet in every direction from the Body Recovery Site. While the distance
between the Murder Site and the Body Recovery Site was very short in the majority of the cases,
the distance between the Murder Site and the Initial Contact Site was more variable. However,
in approximately 52.0% of the cases the distance was greater than one-fourth mile, and in 40.7%

it was greater than one and one-half miles.

Body Recovery Site
The terms “Body Recovery Site” and “Body Disposal Site” will be used interchangeably in

this report, depending on the context and whether it is from the point of view of the police or the

74


Missing and Abducted Children Statistics

Missing children cases are typically placed into five categories: family abduction,
nonfamily abduction, runaways, throwaway or abandoned children, and children who become
lost or injured (Baker, Burgess, Rabun, & Nahirny, 2002). In 1988, an estimated 354,100 family
abductions occurred. Forty-six percent of those abductions involved concealment of a child, out
of state transportation, or the intent to keep the child indefinitely or to permanently alter custody.
During this period, an estimated 3,200 to 4,600 nonfamily abductions were known to police
(Finklehor et al., 1992). Unfortunately, less than 5% of those types of cases are reported to
police (Hanfland, et al., 1997), and they are more likely to result in harm or death.
Approximately 200 to 300 of them were stereotypical kidnappings in which the child was
transported a distance of more than 50 feet or kept over night. An estimated 446,700 children
ran away during this period, and approximately 127,100 children were told to leave their home
or were abandoned (Finklehor et al., 1992).

Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult to gather accurate information on child abduction
for a variety of reasons. Existing studies on child abduction are limited in scope, and there are
discrepancies in the statistical information produced. Boudreaux, Lord, and Etter (2000) propose
an explanation for the deficiencies in data on child abduction:

First, a number of highly publicized stranger abduction cases in the early 1980s resulted

in a social climate of heightened concern and emotion regarding the safety of children.

This yielded overestimated initial incidence rates of child abduction (Best & Thibodeau,

1997; Finklehor et al., 1990). Second, early statistics combined many different types of

child abduction (e.g., family and nonfamily abductions) and age groups of children (e.g.,

preteen and teenaged children), impeding researchers’ abilities to identify specific critical

issues and draw clear conclusions regarding the dynamics of child abduction. Third,
many child abductions are not reported to law enforcement agencies such as the Federal

Bureau of Investigation (FBI) or child assistance agencies such as the National Center for

Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC). Finally, data collection has been hindered by

variations in state laws (e.g., definitions) and the use of different data collection methods.

Locating child abduction case files within law enforcement agencies can be particularly

cumbersome because abductions may be filed under other crime categories (e.g.,
homicide and sexual assault). (p. 64)


of the body. On the other hand, 36% of the killers transported victims and dumped their bodies
in jurisdictions different from where they were first contacted, assaulted, or killed. It is a
common belief that such crossing of jurisdictional lines would have a negative impact on the
outcome of the investigation. What was found was that, while the investigation was at times
made more complicated for the detectives, there 1s no statistical difference in the clearance rates

between those cases that crossed jurisdictional lines and those that did not.

Unknowing Witnesses

Unknowing witnesses are witnesses who saw some aspect of the crime but at the time did
not realize that they were witnessing part of a crime or potential abduction. It was discovered
that this is quite common — there were unknowing witnesses in 32.9% of the cases. This would
indicate that a neighborhood or area canvass would be of great importance in generating

investigative leads.

Neighborhood Canvass

“Neighborhood canvass” means the checking, by police, around the area of the victim’s
last known location and/or the location the victim was known to be going, or around any site
determined to be important to the investigation, in an effort to locate witnesses or to obtain facts
about the circumstances. This typically involves going from door to door, person to person. An
area search differs from a neighborhood canvass in that the latter typically involves going from
door to door to contact potential witnesses, while the former is more likely part of the actual
search for the victim and/or physical evidence. These two activities may occur simultaneously

or separately, depending on circumstances. They are separated here for greater specificity.

44


MA: Lexington Books.

Hanfland, K. A., Keppel, R. D., & Weis, J. G. (1997). Investigative case management for
missing children homicides. (Cooperative Agreement 93-MC-CX-K006). Olympia, WA:
Attorney General of Washington.

Keppel, R. D. (1992). An analysis of the effect of time and distance relationships in murder
investigations (Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington, 1992). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 53(03A), 933.

Keppel, R. D., & Weis, J. (1993). Time and distance as solvability factors in murder cases.
Journal of Forensic Sciences, 39(2), 286-401.

Lanning, K. V. (1995). Sexual homicide of children. APSAC Advisor, 7(4), 40-44.

National Center for Missing & Exploited Children. (2000). Missing and abducted children: A
law-enforcement guide to case investigation and program management. Alexandria, V A:
Author.

National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children in
America (NISMART). (2002). National estimates of missing children: An overview.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice Programs, Office

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

86


The bodies of abducted children were recovered within 24 hours of when the victim was last
seen in 37.6% of cases, within 48 hours in 49.4% of cases, and within a week in 68.5% of cases
(Table 45).

Table 45

Time Span Between Victim Last Seen and Body Recovery

Time Span %
0 hours to 7 hours 59 minutes 17.9
8 hours to 15 hours 59 minutes 11.0
16 hours to 23 hours 59 minutes 8.7
24 hours to 47 hours 59 minutes 11.8
48 hours to 71 hours 59 minutes 6.4
72 hours to 167 hours 12.7
7 days to 14 days 8.7
15 days to 30 days 6.1
> 30 days 16.7

Table 46

Time Span Between Initial Contact and Murder

Time span Interval %
0 minutes to 29 minutes 59 seconds 38.1
30 minutes to 59 minutes 59 seconds 15.2
1 hour to 4 hours 59 minutes 59 seconds 31.8
5 hours to 24 hours 11.5
> 24 hours 3.4

65


CHAPTER V
VICTIM-KILLER RELATIONSHIP
Introduction
It is vitally important to understand the demographics of both the victim and killer in the
study of the murder of abducted children. However, it may be more important to understand the
victim-killer relationship in order to protect our children. The following chapter will present an

overview of the relationship between the child abduction murder victims and their killers.

Victim-Killer Relationship
Child abduction murderers were strangers to the victim in 44.4% of the cases, and were
family friends or acquaintances in 41.9% of the cases. The killer was an intimate or family

member of the victim in 13.7% of the cases (Table 15).

Table 15

Victim-Killer Relationship

Child Abduction

Relationship Murders All Child Murders All Murders
Stranger 44.4% 5.0% 20.0%
Friend/ Acquaintance 41.9% 28.0% 42.0%
Family/Intimate 13.7% 67.0% 38.0%

The killers were strangers to the victim in 44.4% of the cases, in contrast to 5.0% of all
child murders and 20.0% of murders in general. Victims are much more likely to be killed by

family members in child murders (67.0%) than in child abduction murders (13.7%).

26


Table 27

Cause of Death by Type of Murder

Child Abduction
Cause of Death Murders All Child Murders All Murders
Strangulation 33.2% 13.0% 9.0%
Blunt Force Trauma 23.3% 37.0% 18.0%
Stabbing/Cutting 23.9% 9.0% 23.0%
Firearms 11.8% 16.0% 43.0%

Unusual Acts

There is a common belief that killers who commit murders that are out of the ordinary are
involved in a variety of unusual acts during the murder incident, ranging from cult rituals, to
“posing” victims, to grotesque mutilation. In general, the data suggest that child abduction
murders are not characterized by unusual, bizarre, or weird acts and rituals. There is almost no
evidence that unusual ceremonies or acts had been performed at the crime scene (e.g., evidence
of ritual (1.1%), masochistic acts (1.1%), burnt candles, dead animals, satanic symbols). The
extreme rarity of these kinds of acts in child abduction murders is consistent with what is found

for all murder cases.

Body Disposal/Recovery

The geographic location of the body disposal site chosen by killers is shown in Table 28.

These child abduction killers chose rural areas for the body disposal location in 52.6% of the cases.

38


CHAPTER VII
INVESTIGATION
Introduction
The previous chapters detailed valuable information about the victims, killers, their
relationship, the killers’ motivation, and how the killers chose their victims. In addition to this
information, variables relating to the actual investigation process may prove valuable to
detectives. A descriptive analysis of the variables affecting abducted child murder investigations

will be explored in the following sections.

Police Refusal to Accept a Missing or Runaway Child Report

The data for this study showed that a law enforcement agency refused to accept an initial
report for a missing or runaway child in less than two percent (1.8%) of child abduction murder
cases. Because this number was sufficiently small, it cannot be determined whether the refusal
to accept the initial missing or runaway child report had any effect on the investigations.

Fortunately, the refusal to accept an initial report about a missing or runaway child was rare.

Muttiple Police Agencies

Some murder victims are reported to be missing from within one law enforcement
agency’s jurisdictional boundary, and the body is subsequently discovered within another
jurisdiction. While this is not unusual, what has not been well understood is to what extent that
actually happens. Of the murders studied in this project, 64% of the victim bodies were
discovered within the jurisdictional boundaries of the law enforcement agency that received the
initial missing/abduction report. In short, almost two-thirds of the victims apparently did not

cross law enforcement jurisdictional boundaries in the course of events that led to the discovery

43


Table 28

Area of Body Recovery

Area %
Rural 52.6
Suburban 20.5
Urban 27.0

The choice of a rural location for body disposal contrasts with findings by Hanfland et al. (1997) for
all murder cases (Table 29). Killers in general murders choose suburban body disposal locations in

about half of all cases (54.0%) but rural locations in only in 22% of the murders.

Table 29

Area of Body Recovery Site by Type of Murder

Child Abduction

Area Murders All Child Murders All Murders
Urban 27.0% 14.0% 25.0%
Suburban 20.5% 61.0% 54.0%
Rural 52.6% 26.0% 22.0%

The killers deliberately chose the body disposal location in 48.0% of cases. It was a random
selection in 32.6% of cases. As shown in Table 30, killers were forced by circumstances to choose

the body disposal location in only 10.4% of the murders.

39


Table 49 indicates the distance between the Initial Contact Site and the Victim Last Seen Site.

Table 49

Distance Between Victim Last Seen Site and Initial Contact Site

Distance %
0 feet to 199 feet 64.2
200 feet to %4 mile 15.9
> Y% mile to 1% miles 8.3
> 1% miles to 12 miles 7.2
> 12 miles 4.4

This distance was 199 feet or less in 64.2% of murders. The distance between the Victim Last
Seen Site and the Murder Site was 199 feet or less in 26.6% of child abduction murder cases (Table
50).

Table 50

Distance Between Victim Last Seen Site and Murder Site

Distance %
0 feet to 199 feet 26.6
200 feet to %4 mile 19.2
> mile to 1% miles 13.7
> 1% miles to 12 miles 24.5
> 12 miles 16.0

The killer transported the victim more than one-fourth mile from where the victim was last seen in

54.2% of cases. The victim was transported under one-fourth mile in 45.8% of murders.

68


Table 57

Victim-Killer Relationship by Series and Non-Series Cases

Relationship Series Non-Series Total
Stranger 71.3% 28.3% 66.7%
Friend/ Acquaintance 20.0% 36.2% 22.2%
Family/Intimate 6.1% 11.9% 11.1%
Killers’ Personal Problems

Table 58 shows that of those series killers with a history of personal problems, 58.0% of
them had a history of sexual problems, more than twice the rate for non-series killers (25.3%).
Table 58

Personal Problems of Killers by Series and Non-Series Cases

Series Non-Series
Sexual Problems 58.0% 25.3%
Drug Problems 33.9% 20.1%
Alcohol Problems 30.4% 22.6%
Mental Problems 25.9% 17.1%

Here, too, there are investigative implications that go to the issue of evaluating potential
suspects. Ifthe child abduction murder is known to be part of a series; the presence of a history
of sexual problems in the background of a suspect should statistically make him a better suspect

than one without such a background.

78


This research shows that 11.3% of the child abduction murderers had a “conflict with a
female,” and 8.4% with “criminal/legal problems.” The majority of these killers had extensive
criminal histories, so it is not surprising that their related criminal/legal problems might be
implicated somehow in the motivation to commit murder. We also know that there was a

dramatic, disproportionate preponderance (74.0%) of young, vulnerable, female victims.

Choosing and Controlling the Victim

The child abduction murderers overwhelmingly chose their victims because the
opportunity presented itself (40.3%). Killers rarely chose their victims for their physical
characteristics (9.7%) or because of a prior relationship with the victim (14.4%). Killers had a
specific motivation to murder a particular victim in only 12.7% of the cases.
Table 20

How Killer Chose Victim

Choice %
Victim of Opportunity 40.3
Prior Relationship with Victim 14.4
Specific Motivation 12.7
Physical Characteristics 9.7

Table 21 indicates that some killers initiated contact with their victims through deception
(27.3%) and others through normal activities (22.9%). Only 12.9% of the killers contacted their
victims through other illegal or criminal activity. In 34.2% of the cases the manner of initial

contact was unknown.

33


The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this
publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the
Department of Justice.

This project was supported by Grant No. 98-MC-CX-0001 awarded by the grantor
agency’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice

Programs.


CHAPTER VIII

MURDER INCIDENT SITES

Introduction

Keppel and Weis (1993) conceptualize the crime of murder as an incident. Each murder

incident includes multiple sites or locations of contact between the killer and the victim, as well as

potential witnesses. The investigation of a murder should emphasize the search for information

about the major sites of a murder incident. The presence of information that establishes the

existence of each site, coupled with when and where each site is located within the incident, and the

manner in which their relationships affect each other, greatly influences the solution of murder

investigations.

According to Keppel and Weis (1993), the follow-up investigation of a murder involves the

gathering of information about the various components that are locations of victim-killer contact.

The types of information crucial to the investigation, in order of their usual occurrence within the

murder incident are:

1.

Where and when the victim was last seen.
Where and when the killer initially contacted the victim.
Where and when the murder took place.

Where and when the body was recovered.

Components of the Murder Incident

Each of these components occurs in a murder, and therefore each is important to a murder

investigation. The components are defined as:

56


disposal — for example, to play out sexual fantasies with the corpse or to treat it like a trophy.
And this is a very small number of cases.

More striking is the number of child abduction killers who returned to the body disposal
site. Almost one-fourth (23.7%) of the killers returned to the body disposal site after a
significant period of time. Of those killers who did return, an incredible 83.3% did so prior to
the discovery of the body, and 33.1% did so within three days after the murder. Clearly, a
significant proportion of child abduction killers returned to the body disposal site, particularly
soon after the murder occurred. As one would expect, very few returned after the body had been
discovered and reported in the media. But an opportunity exists — albeit for a short period of
time — for investigators to observe potential suspects between the time the body is reported to

the police and, then, made public by the media.

42


Victim’s Age

According to Hanfland et al. (1997), approximately one-half of all children who are
murdered are between the ages of 15 and 17 years old. Among child abduction murder victims,
only 22.2% of victims were older teenagers between the ages of 16 and 17 years old. Table 6
illustrates the age distribution of child abduction murder victims. The mean age of victims was
11.52 years. About 10% of the victims were children five years old and younger, a group
smaller than one might expect, based on the common perception that it is “little kids” or “young
children” who are most vulnerable and selected most often as victims. Older children (6-9),
preteens (10-12), young teens (13-15), and older teens (16-17) each constituted about 20% of the
victims of child abduction murders. Only a slight majority of the victims in this sample (52.3%)

were not yet teenagers at the time of their death.

Table 6

Distribution of Victims by Age Groups

Victim Age Group %
1 to 5 years old 10.1
6 to 9 years old 21.5
10 to 12 years old 20.7
13 to 15 years old 25.5
16 to 17 years old 22.2

16


CHAPTER III
VICTIMS
Introduction

The existing research on the rarity of child abduction murders, particularly those
committed by non-family killers, shows clearly that most law enforcement jurisdictions in the
United States will not be called on to investigate a child abduction murder. In fact, most
homicide investigators will never investigate a child abduction murder over their entire career.
However, it is prudent for investigators to be prepared. These investigations can put enormous
strain on even the best prepared detectives, investigations, and jurisdictions. Their typically
emotion-laden, volatile, high-profile characteristics present unique challenges to law

enforcement.

Initial Police Involvement

Police involvement in the child abduction murder investigations in this study began with
the report and identification of the victim as a “missing child” in 60.2% of the cases. The case
investigation was initiated by the recovery of a dead body in 20.3% of the cases. Only 8.5% of
the investigations began as reports of a runaway child, and 9.7% as abduction investigations.

As illustrated in Table 2, most reports to the police of a missing, runaway, or abducted
child were made relatively soon after the child was missed. Of the children reported missing,
19.6% of the victims were reported missing “immediately,” 42.9% within two hours, and 86.6%
within 24 hours of being missed. Two hours lapsed before reports were made in 56.2% of the
cases, and at least a whole day passed in 12.5% of the cases. Unfortunately, 1.0% of cases never

had a missing person report filed.

12


Table 13

Personal Problems of the Killers

Child Abduction All Murders
Sexual Problems 30.4% 3.0%
Alcohol Problems 23.8% 27.0%
Drug Problems 22.3% 14.0%
Mental Problems 18.4% 13.0%
Killer’s Prior Crimes

In addition to victim and killer demographic and behavioral characteristics, information

was collected regarding the killers’ criminal background and motivation to commit murder. A

large percent of the murderers had a substantial history of prior crimes against children (46.0%).

Table 14 shows the types of crimes committed against children by these killers.

Table 14

Prior Crimes Against Children By Killers

Prior Crimes

%

Sexual Assault (Non-Rape)
Rape (or attempt)

Murder (or attempt)
Kidnap

Assault

21.0

13.3

10.7

6.5

6.1

These killers clearly demonstrated violent predispositions toward children prior to the

child abduction murder. Sexual assaults (21.0%) and rapes (13.3%) were the prior crimes most

frequently committed against children. Incredibly, the murder of another child was committed

previously by 10.7% of the killers in this study. An additional 6.5% had also previously

24


Table 33

Who Discovered Victim’s Body

Body Discovery %
Passerby 55.3
Police 25.4
Search Party 5.9
Relative/Acquaintance of Victim 4.4
Killer 2.8
Fire Department/Aid Crew 2.2
Witness to Death 1.7

Investigative Steps in the First 48 Hours

The investigative activities of the critical first 24 to 48 hours of the murder investigations
were classified into seven general categories, as listed in Table 34. Collecting information was
by far the most common investigative activity (87.2%). Circumstances in the early phases of an
abducted child murder case can vary from simply accepting a missing child report and
conducting no immediate investigation, to immediately dispatching officers to the area and
conducting a neighborhood canvass and an area search, to a full-scale crime scene investigation

and arrest of the killer.

48


The bodies of abducted children were recovered within 24 hours of when the killer and victim had
their initial contact in 39.0% of cases, within 48 hours in 52.6% of cases, and within a week in
73.0% of cases. The time frame between when the initial contact and when the victim’s body was
recovered is illustrated in Table 47.

Table 47

Time Span Between Initial Contact and Body Recovery

Time Span %
0 hours to 7 hours 59 minutes 20.1
8 hours to 15 hours 59 minutes 10.0
16 hours to 23 hours 59 minutes 8.9
24 hours to 47 hours 59 minutes 13.6
48 hours to 71 hours 59 minutes 6.1
72 hours to 167 hours 14.3
7 days to 14 days 7.2
15 days to 30 days 5.4
> 30 days 14.5

The bodies of abducted children were recovered within 24 hours of when the murder occurred in
46.4% of cases, within 48 hours in 57.6% of cases, and within a week in 76.3% of cases. The time
frame between when the murder occurred and when the victim’s body was recovered is illustrated

in Table 48.

66


CHAPTER IV
KILLERS
Introduction
Just as child abduction murder victims are unique, their killers are unique among
murderers. Those who kill abducted children share many characteristics with other types of
murderers, but they differ in important ways that suggest a different etiology to their predatory
behavior. Their unique characteristics call for different investigative strategies. This chapter

will focus on the personal and social attributes and behavior of child abduction killers.

Killer Attributes
In addition to their choice of victims—the substantial overselection of female victims —
child abduction killers are unique among murderers in general. Hanfland et al. (1997)
characterized child abduction murderers as “social marginals.” Child abduction killers are not:
active, successful participants in mainstream, conventional social life, but, rather, they
occupy a position in society that is, indeed, on the “edge, brink, border, precipice, or
margin.” They are not integrated, personally or socially, into the kinds of relationships or

activities that produce and sustain effective self or social controls. Their personal and
social attributes establish and define their social marginality. (Hanfland et al., 1997)

Killer’s Age
The mean age of child abduction murderers is 27.8 years old. Table 7 shows the

distribution of child abduction killers by age group.

18


speaking to strangers” and “not getting into cars with strangers.” We should carry those
precautions one step further. Our children should be taught not to even approach a car, whether
the occupant of the car is a stranger or not, no matter what they tell or ask them.

Citizens need to be aware of strangers and unusual behavior in their neighborhood. They
need to have the presence of mind to observe and to write down descriptions of people, vehicles,
and license numbers. Many child abductions are witnessed by people who do not realize that a
crime is being committed. For example, when a citizen observes an adult pulling a struggling
child in a public place, it is easy to interpret the event as a guardian taking control of an unruly
child. In most instances, that is exactly what it is. However, nothing prevents a citizen from
evaluating the circumstances, intervening, and, certainly, from noting descriptions and license
numbers, because it may be a person with criminal intentions. Finally, we need to remind
parents that if their child is missing, they must call the police immediately. An immediate
response to a missing or abducted child may be the difference between life and death for the

child.

84


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Cases of abducted and missing children found murdered continue to
traumatize victims’ families and friends and the public. While these cases are still
quite rare, with the amount of national and international media attention they are
given, we too quickly recognize the victims’ names.

Our first research into this subject was “undertaken in an effort to better
understand these types of murders and to identify investigative techniques and
strategies that will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the criminal
investigations and the apprehension rate of murderers who abduct children.” This
follow-up research continues that effort.

We collected 175 solved cases and added them to the original data set. We
obtained the new cases from agencies of all sizes in the United States and even
went to some states not included in the original survey.

The additional cases are reflective and supportive of the original report with
several significant and definite differences between the first study and this one.
With more killers identified, we find that the relationships between them and their
victims change from strangers to an almost equal likelihood of being
friends/acquaintances. The probability of the killer’s name coming up during the
first week of the investigation decreases. Another significant change is the
increase of the use of pornography by killers as a trigger. This should not be

surprising, given the overwhelming sexual motivation of killers in these cases.

ix


Table 48

Time Span Between Murder and Body Recovery

The distance between murder incident components was also examined. In the first-stage
analysis, the distance between each pair of murder components was measured in feet or miles for

each pair of components. Then the actual distance was placed into one of the following categories

before inclusion in the CAM data set:
1. 0 feet to 199 feet
2. 200 feet to <“%mile
3. Yamile to < 1% mile
4. 1% mile to < 12 miles

5. >12 miles

67

Time span Interval %
0 hours to 7 hours 59 minutes 26.1
8 hours to 15 hours 59 minutes 11.4
16 hours to 23 hours 59 minutes 8.9
24 hours to 47 hours 59 minutes 112
48 hours to 71 hours 59 minutes 5.8
72 hours to 167 hours 12.9
7 days to 14 days 6.1
15 days to 30 days 43
> 30 days 13.2
Distance Between Sites


The Initial Contact Site, and knowledge about its location and time of occurrence, is the
single most important site in terms of its effect on the outcome of the investigation. If the Initial
Contact Site was not discovered by police, the solvability rate dropped to 23.9%. Ifthe Initial
Contact Site was discovered by police, the solvability rate was 79.7%.

We visited this issue briefly when the importance of the neighborhood canvass was
discussed. At that time we learned that the initial contact site is where there is probably the
greatest chance for a witness to observe the killer and the victim together. This is where the
killer is most likely to expose and connect himself to the victim, to be observed by a witness.

In 79.4% of the murders, the Initial Contact Site was within one-fourth mile of the
victim’s last known location. If the Initial Contact Site is not found, the witnesses who might put
the killer with the victim are not identified. This information is so important that it is
recommended that the neighborhood canvass be comprehensive and thorough and followed up
with a repeat canvass.

Why was the killer at the Initial Contact Site? The killer was in the area because he lived
in the area (26.3%), was involved in normal social activity (13.9%), or was there for some other
purposeful activity like working (10.2%). The child abduction may make more sense in light of
this information, because the research shows that 40.3% of the victims were “victims of
opportunity.” The fact that the killer belonged in the area of the Initial Contact Site in almost
half of the cases suggests that officers conducting the neighborhood canvass should ask, “What

and who did you see?”

73


TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Ix SERIES CASES occ eeeeneeeeneeenneesenenstneestnneeseneestnneeseneeseneeetnee 76

Tntroductionn cece eeccceeeceeeeeveeeeeteeeeeeeeeeeeeeeteeeveeeeetieeeteeeeeeeeeeee 76

Comparison of Series and Non-Series Cases 76

Victims? Gemder ecco eecccececcoeeeccseeceoveeesueeceeeessvevectoveeseueessecesesaveceeees 77

Victim-Killer Relationship cece eeeeeseeseeseesteseeseseeseeseene 77

Killers’ Personal Problems (0000 ooo cose vecesevecesevessveveesvevevveeeseeeeene 78

Prior Crimes Against Children eect 79

Linking Cases ccc eeccceeeceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeteeeeveeeeeteeeeeneeeteeeeeeeeeeeee 79

x SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 81

Tintrod ction cc cccceeeccceeeccsceecsececeeeceeveesseveceeveeseeveceeveeseeveseeeeeseeveceeee 81

How Can We Protect Our Childrem? cece cece eese cessed 83

REFERENCES ooo ooo ccccccccceccseesevevevevevesevevevssvesssesesessevessvssevsseesesvssevssevesevstevsvvesvevvseeveee 85
PROJECT STAFF.



Finally, the distance between each of the murder incident component sites was examined
in relation to the other murder incident component sites. Table 55 illustrates this comparison.
The distance between the Initial Contact Site and the Victim Last Seen Site was less than 199
feet in 64.2% of the murders. The distance between the Murder Site and the Body Recovery Site
was less than 199 feet in 69.1% of the murders.

Table 55

Distance Between Murder Incident Sites

Initial Contact Murder Body Recovery
Victim Last Seen < 199 feet >Y% mile > Y mile
(64.2%) (54.2%) (67.3%)
Initial Contact >Y% mile > Y mile
(51.8%) (65.1%)
Murder < 199 feet
(69.1%)

The distance was greater than one-fourth mile between the Victim Last Seen Site and
Murder Site (54.2%), and the Initial Contact Site and the Murder Site (51.8%) in just over one-
half of the murders. A majority of the cases showed a distance of greater than one-fourth mile
between the Victim Last Seen Site and the Body Recovery Site (67.3%), and between the Initial

Contact Site and Body Recovery Site (65.1%).

71


while the oldest females, 16 to 17 years old, tend to be killed by strangers. But both the youngest
and oldest male victims are likely to be killed by strangers.

The average age of killers of abducted children is around 27 years old. They are
predominantly unmarried, and half of them either live alone or with their parents. Half of them
are unemployed, and those that are employed work in unskilled or semi-skilled labor
occupations. The killers can generally be characterized as “social marginals.”

Almost two-thirds of the killers have prior arrests for violent crimes, with slightly more
than half of those prior crimes committed against children. The most frequent prior crimes
against children are rape and other types of sexual assault. Most of the murderers’ prior crimes
are similar in MO to the child abduction murder.

Commonly, the killers are at the initial victim-killer contact site for a legitimate reason.
They either live in the area or were engaging in some normal activity. Most of the victims of
child abduction murder are victims of opportunity. Seldom does the killer choose his victim
because of some physical characteristic of the victim. The primary motivation for the child
abduction killer is sexual assault.

A unique pattern of distance relationships exists in child abduction murders. Often, the
initial contact site is located very close to the victim’s last known location. Conversely, the
distance between the Initial Contact Site and the Murder Site increases to distances greater than
one-fourth mile. The distance from the Murder Site to the Body Recovery Site again decreases
to less than 199 feet in the vast majority of cases.

There are investigative implications of these spatial relationships. Ifthe Initial Contact
Site is not identified by the police, the clearance rate drops drastically, and vice versa. The close
proximity between the Initial Contact Site and the Victim’s Last Seen Site suggests thorough

neighborhood canvass and area searches be completed to locate the initial contact site. The

82


within a week. This might be cause for alarm, but there is other evidence that the police are on
the trail of the killer relatively early in the investigation as well.

Police focused on the killer as a suspect or person of interest almost immediately at the
beginning of the investigation in 17.7% of the cases, and within one and one-half days in an
additional 39.9%. But, unfortunately, there was a dramatic drop-off — after a month from the
beginning of the murder investigation, there was still no primary suspect in more than 34.7% of
the murders. Fortunately, it also means that by a month’s end, investigators had focused on the

killer in a large majority of cases.

Physical Evidence

Physical evidence linked to the killer was collected in 67.2% of the cases. While there is
a correlation between the gathering of physical evidence and solvability, physical evidence by
itself does not ensure solution. The most common evidence collected that is related to the killer
was hair (Table 35). Strands of the killer’s hair were collected in 26.1% of the cases of child
abduction murder. When we look at hair evidence in all murder cases, it is present in only
18.0% of the cases, and that includes killer, victim, animal, and “unknown” hair evidence.

The most common evidence collected in all murder investigations is a weapon (39.0%).
In child abduction murders, weapons were collected in only 20.0% of the cases. This is
consistent with cause of death data that show children are killed less often with a weapon and

more often by human physical agency.

50


The initial neighborhood canvass is also an opportunity for law enforcement officials to
put everyone contacted “on the record.” A useful technique in conducting a neighborhood
canvass is to provide patrol officers and detectives printed questionnaires that include specific
questions, including the identification of everyone who lives in each residence. The completion
of these questionnaires facilitates easy reporting of the results of the interviews of each
house/business, and the content of subsequent interviews can be compared with the initial
statements. Such comparisons can identify inconsistent statements and persons who have left the
area since the initial canvass. It is worth pointing out that in 33.5% of the cases examined in this
research, a physical description of the killer was obtained before he was identified. In those

cases the clearance rate increased by 15.0%.

Area Search

The area most commonly searched (98% of the cases) was the area in which the victim
was last seen. It was searched within five hours in 72.9% of the cases. Searching resulted in
finding evidence or leads in 45.5% of the murders. Of course, when evidence or leads were
found by searching, cases had a higher solution rate than those in which no evidence or leads
were found.

Like the neighborhood canvass, the initial area search is frequently conducted by
uniformed patrol officers. Later searches are often conducted with volunteers, such as Explorer
Scouts or Search and Rescue teams. However, experience has found that explicit instructions on
what the searchers are looking for are missing from these searches.

For every child abduction murder a police agency handles, there could be hundreds to
thousands of reports of a missing child. This issue is important because it is easy for officers

responding to a missing child call to think in terms of a lost child, and not the possibility of an

46


Data Integrity

After the data collection instrument was received from participating agencies, it was
reviewed for validity and internal consistency. The data were then entered into a database
designed specifically for the project. To ensure data integrity, a printout was generated from
each new computer record, and was visually compared with the original data collection
instrument. Any necessary corrections were made by the data entry clerk, and the resulting
printout and the original data collection instruments were given to the project coordinator for an
additional review for errors. Any additional errors were corrected, and the form was placed ina

file (Hanfland et al., 1997).

Resulting Data

The data set used for this research was collected with the purpose of determining proper
and effective avenues of investigation in missing and abducted children cases. In order to
determine which factors were effective investigation tools, information on solved cases was
collected for this report. Information on unsolved cases was also collected to examine the
differences between solved and unsolved cases. Thirty-five percent of the cases of child murder
from the original CAM data set were unsolved at the time the data were collected. The original
CAM data set contained 577 case investigations with a total of 621 victims (some cases had
multiple victims) and 419 killers. Of the 735 cases analyzed for this report, 27.4% were

unsolved at the time of data collection.

Definitions
Defining the terms used in this research project was critical. In order to select appropriate

variables for analysis in our study, certain terminology was defined: abduction, components of


The source of the binding material was known in 96.8% of the cases involving binding.
In those known cases, 16.2% of the killers brought the binding material with them to the crime

scene. This has evidentiary implications for matching binding material found in the possession

of the killer after he is identified.

Cause of Death
Death by strangulation was the leading cause of death of victims (33.2%), followed by
blunt force trauma (23.9%), and stabbing/cutting (23.3%). Firearms, a frequent cause of death in

general murders, only accounted for 11.8% of child abduction murder victim deaths.

Table 26
Cause of Death
Cause %

Strangulation — Ligature and Manual 33.2
Blunt Force Trauma 23.9
Stabbing/Cutting 23.3
Asphyxia — Unknown Means 12.2
Firearm 11.8
Drowning 3.7

Table 26 lists common causes of death for victims, and Table 27 compares the common causes
of death in general murders and child murders findings by Hanfland et al. (1997) to the causes of

death in this analysis.

37


interjected themselves into the murder investigation in some way. Each of the behaviors may
provide valuable leads for investigators to pursue.
Table 32

Post Offense Behavior of Killers

Behavior %
Returned to Body Disposal Site 23.7
Left Town 16.1
Confided in Someone 16.1
Followed Case in Media 14.3
Interjected Self Into Investigation 10.0
Contacted Victim’s Family 9.7
Contacted Police or Media 9.7
Changed Residence 8.3

In 15% of the cases, the killer kept the body longer than necessary to dispose of it and
kept it in convenient and accessible places where it could be concealed, moved quickly, and/or
“played” with. The killer kept the body in his residence (53.0%), in his car (21.0%), or ina
variety of other places within easy reach. However, contrary to beliefs about murderers,
especially serial killers who prolong their relationship with the victim, these child abduction
killers only held onto the bodies for very short periods of time. Of the bodies that were kept by
the killer, 32.1% were in his possession for three hours or less and 56.6% for 24 hours or less. So
it is likely that most of the bodies were being kept only until they could be disposed of safely.
Only 15.1% of the bodies that were kept by the killer were in his possession for more than a

week. It is likely that in these cases there was a reason for keeping the body other than delayed

41


The victim’s body was recovered over one and one-half miles away from where the initial contact
with the killer occurred in 53.5% of the murders. The distance between the Initial Contact and the
Body Recovery Site is indicated in Table 53.

Table 53

Distance Between Initial Contact Site and Body Recovery Site

Distance %
0 feet to 199 feet 19.7
200 feet to %4 mile 15.2
> V% mile to 1% miles 11.6
> 1% miles to 12 miles 28.7
> 12 miles 24.8

The distance between the Murder Site and the Body Recovery Site was less than 199 feet in
69.1% of the murders as shown in Table 54. (The killers informed police where the Murder Site
was or confirmed its location in their statement to police in 55.9% of cases).

Table 54

Distance Between Murder Site and Body Recovery Site

Distance %
0 feet to 199 feet 69.1
200 feet to %4 mile 6.1
> Y% mile to 1% miles 4.5
> 1% miles to 12 miles 10.8
> 12 miles 9.6

70


Definitions

There is no consistent, standard social scientific definition of child abduction. According
to Fass (1999, p. 9), “our definition of the crime (even, indeed, the courts’ definition) has been
historically derived.” According to Boudreaux et al. (2000), a single definition is problematic
for two reasons:

(a) there is no single accepted definition of child abduction (i.e., the legal definitions of

the terms child and abduction can vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction), and (b) there are

different forms of child abduction, each with inconsistent terms, which if not specifically
defined, can cause confusion (e.g., parental abduction, family abduction, stereotypical

abduction, missing children, and kidnapped children). (p. 64)

In addition, legal definitions of child abduction vary widely across jurisdictions.

Finklehor et al. (1992) propose that the definition of child abduction should be “the
coerced unauthorized movement of a child, the detention of a child, or the luring of a child for
the purposes of committing another crime” (p. 228). The National Incidence Studies of Missing,
Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children (NISMART) (2002) defines stereotypical
kidnapping as: “A nonfamily abduction perpetrated by a slight acquaintance or stranger in which
a child is detained overnight, transported at least 50 miles, held for ransom or abducted with
intent to keep the child permanently, or killed” (p. 2) and nonfamily abduction as:

(1) An episode in which a nonfamily perpetrator takes a child by the use of physical force

or threat of bodily harm or detains the child for a substantial period of time (at least 1

hour) in an isolated place by the use of physical force or threat of bodily harm without

lawful authority or parental permission, or (2) an episode in which a child younger than

15 or mentally incompetent, and without lawful authority or parental permission, is taken,

detained or voluntarily accompanies a nonfamily perpetrator who conceals the child’s
whereabouts, demands ransom, or expresses the intention to keep the child permanently.

(p. 2)
There has been disagreement over the amount of distance required to transport a child in

order to establish an abduction (Finklehor et al., 1992). According to Forst and Blomquist


A neighborhood canvass was conducted within less than 2.5 hours of a report of an
abducted or a missing child in 62.1% of the cases. A canvass was conducted in less than 12
hours in 70.4% of the cases. But in over 21% of reported abducted or missing children
investigations, no neighborhood canvass was conducted.

What was not collected in this research was information on who actually conducted the
neighborhood canvass. However, it is a common practice in law enforcement to have uniformed
patrol officers conduct the initial neighborhood canvass. Whether or not this is done is usually a
simple issue of manpower availability. Unfortunately, most police agencies do not have
Standard Operating Procedures for these types of cases, and patrol officers frequently are not
given specific guidance as to what to ask the people they interview. It is also unfortunate that in
many cases there is no follow-up canvass by detectives.

On the surface, the lack of a neighborhood canvass may not appear to be a critical factor
in these types of mvestigations. However, it may be one of the most critical factors uncovered in
this research project, especially when combined with what we know from the data concerning
murder incident sites. We know that the victim’s last known location was usually very close to
the site of the initial contact between the killer and the victim. When the police did not know the
initial contact site, the solvability rate dropped to 23.9%. When the initial contact site was
known, the solvability rate increased to 79.7%.

The initial contact site is the location at which there is potentially the greatest chance for
a witness to observe the killer and the victim together. This site is where the killer may be most
likely to expose himself to observation by others. There are quite often witnesses, some
unknowing, to the initial contact, as evidenced by the fact that agencies that conducted thorough

neighborhood canvasses discovered those witnesses and obtained their statements.

45


TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Vieotim’s Age cece een ecnesneenesnesteesneeneene 16
Lifestyle of Victims 17
IV KILLERS oe cece eeceeeeesesneseesnesoesossaesavessesnesssssassassatsaesasssnsanssnssesneeneee 18
Tintroduction. cece esses seeseeenseeestetensteestvesieeennesseseenneseesee 18
Killer Attributes (occ cccccccesevessvevevevevevevesevevevsvevesnveceveveseeeesees 18
Killer’s Age ccc ecceecnecoeecneeceesonesosesisesseesonesneessneenneeee 18
Killler’s Race ccc eeeeceeeveeeeeee eevee eeeteeeeveeeevteeeeeneeeeteeeveeeeees 19
Killler’s Gender cece ecccseecsneecesucesesesesteeseneecesneeseaeseen: 20
Killer’s Marital Status. occ ccc cceccccscescecsuceeseecseceesessseescesseeesseesneeees 20
Killer’s Residential Status 00000 ooo cesccssccssssssevessvsseveessenseeeesenseneeed 21
Killer’s Employment and Occupation Status. 22
Killer’s Lifestyles.
Killer’s Past Behavior 0 ccc cccceeeeceeeeeceeeeveeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 23
Killer’s Prior Crimes (cece eeccceeecesueecssesesteesnaeesesneeseaessen: 24
Custody Status cece eeeeeeoteiteeneteeseeseed 25
Vv VICTIM-KILLER RELATIONSHIP ooo cesses cesessseseeseeseesesevseeseeee 26
Tintroduction occ cccccsessevessse seve vevesevevesveveseeeesievessuseveieeeesvseeeeeeeeen 26
Victim-Killer Relationship cece eee ceecceecceecneecneeeeeeee 26
Victim-Killer Relationship by Age and Gender 27


location was most often “known” was the Murder Site (98.0%), followed by the Victim Last Seen
Site (77.7%), Body Recovery Site (77.2%), and the Initial Contact Site (62.6%) as indicated in
Table 42.

Table 42

Murder Incident Component Time and Place Known

Murder Incident Component %
Victim Last Seen 717
Initial Contact 62.6
Murder 98.0
Body Recovery 72.2

The Initial Contact Site was the murder incident component least identified by time and place in
child abduction murders. This is not surprising, given that much of this information is gathered

from witness statements or statements by the killer.

Time Interval Between Incidents

In addition to “knowing” about the time and place of the murder incident components, the
actual time span between murder incident components was examined. The time spans between the
Victim Last Seen Site to Initial Contact Site, Victim Last Seen Site to Murder Site, and Initial
Contact Site to Murder Site, were then coded into one of the following time interval categories:

1. 0 minutes to 29 minutes 59 seconds

2. 30 minutes to 59 minutes 59 seconds

3. 1 hour to 4 hours 59 minutes 59 seconds

4. 5 hours to 24 hours

5. > 24 hours

62


Lifestyle of Victims

There is also a public misconception that children who are killed during an abduction are
particularly vulnerable or high-risk victims, but most of the victims (67.5%) were described by
those who know them as “normal kids.” On the other hand, approximately one-third (32.5%) of
the victims were not considered average kids. Only 16.9% of the victims were described as
street kids and 13% as runaways. As one might expect, those types of victims are typically
teenagers rather than younger children. Community resources focused on runaway children and

at-risk children who are prone to live on the street would be prudent preventive measures.

Summary
It is vitally important to identify which children are most at risk for child abduction
murder. It is also imperative that the killer is examined and, hopefully, better understood. The

next chapter discusses the characteristics of the typical child abduction murderer.

17


Table 39

Murder Incident Component Time Known

Murder Incident Component %
Victim Last Seen 98.9
Initial Contact 87.5
Murder 84.5
Body Recovery 98.6
When Place is Known

The murder incident component about which “location” was most often known was the
Body Recovery Site (98.4%). This knowledge was followed in order by the Initial Contact Site
(78.2%), Victim Last Seen site (78.1%), and the Murder Site (69.4%). Table 40 illustrates these
findings.
Table 40

Murder Incident Component Place Known

Murder Incident Component %
Victim Last Seen 78.1
Initial Contact 78.2
Murder 69.4
Body Recovery 98.4

60


inconclusive or led the investigation in a false direction. This discussion is not intended to be a
condemnation of the use of the polygraph. It is intended to provide facts on which to base future
decisions regarding whether or not the polygraph is appropriate in a specific abducted child

murder investigation.

News Media

Anyone familiar with criminal investigations understands that media involvement
sometimes disrupts orderly investigation. At times there tends to be a distrust of the news media
by law enforcement officers. There are many concerns about the media; for example, fear of
inappropriate information being released, telling the suspect what the police know or do not
know, or that media representatives will interfere with the progress of the investigation. Of the
detectives interviewed, 46.8% believed that the media coverage of the investigation was
“excessive.”

Those concerns have led many police agencies to establish a Media Relations Officer,
either as a full time position or as a position appointed on a case-by-case basis for potentially
high-visibility investigations. We know from experience that a designated media relations
officer generally makes for a smoother working relationship with the news media. However,
there is absolutely no correlation between whether a law enforcement agency has a media
relations officer and the clearance rates of the murders of abducted children.

In spite of the law enforcement concerns, and in spite of the high-profile nature of these
types of murder, the police used the news media in one way or another in 74.9% of these
abducted child murder cases. The most common use of the media was in an attempt to locate
witnesses. Even while using and cooperating with the news media, there is a fear in law

enforcement that news media involvement may hinder the investigation in one way or another.

53


Solvability. In the CAM data set, solvability was defined and measured two ways: “Has
the killer been arrested, or does probable cause exist for an arrest?” and “Has the investigation
resulted in a conviction?” For the analysis here, solvability was based on investigations resulting
in an arrest. Cases with a “Yes” to the question “Has the killer been arrested, or does probable
cause exist for an arrest?” at the time of coding were considered “solved”; cases with a “No” to
that question were considered “unsolved.” Cases with “Unknown” as the answer to the question

were considered to have missing data and were not included in the analysis.

Purpose of the Study

According to Hanfland et al. (1997), the rarity of these types of cases has allowed a body
of “commonly held beliefs” to develop that has little to no basis in fact. Hence detectives, case
managers, police executives, and the media sometimes operate with false assumptions and
misperceptions. Homicide investigators, through no fault of their own, sometimes fail to realize
that the investigations of the murders of abducted children are very different from the other
murders they usually investigate. Consequently, they sometimes make decisions about the
direction of the investigation that are not “high percentage” choices. For example, some
detectives believe that in any murder of a child the logical suspect is a parent and, therefore, they
devote a considerable amount of resources to prove that belief. But this research shows that the
parents are the least likely suspects in an abduction murder of a child. This kind of false
assumption is made, in part, from lack of experience with these types of cases and because there
is very little empirical research on these types of child murders and their investigations from
which detectives can draw guidance. This research will help investigators make those decisions,
identify the strategies, and implement the tactics that will lead to the more certain and timely

capture of the killers of abducted children.

10


Victim-Killer Relationship by Age and Gender

The victim-killer relationship was also examined by age and gender. The victim-killer

relationship varied by the age and gender of the victim. Table 16 shows the victim-killer

relationship for females by age group. The youngest females (1 to 5 years old) were most likely

killed by a friend or an acquaintance (49.0%). In contrast, older female victims (10 to 17 years

old) were more likely to be killed by strangers.

Table 16

Female Victim-Killer Relationship, By Age Group

Victim Age Group
Relationship 1-5 6-9 10-12 13-15 16-17
Stranger 15.7% 33.0% 41.6% 37.2% 40.2%
Friend/ Acquaintance 49.0% 39.4% 32.7% 28.4% 22.7%
Family/Intimate 17.6% 8.3% 11.9% 74% 14.4%
Unknown 17.6% 19.3% 13.9% 27.0% 22.7%

Table 17 shows the differences in the victim-killer relationships for males. The youngest
victims (1 to 5 years old) were almost as likely to be killed by family members (34.8%) as they
were by strangers (30.4%). The youngest victims were least likely to be killed by friends or
acquaintances. The older male victims (16 to 17 years old) were almost as likely to be killed by

strangers (41.9%) as friends or acquaintances (48.4%). In this sample, family or intimates did

not kill male teenagers, but only younger boys.

27


abduction murder. A lost child is usually thought to be alive, not dead. With a “lost child”
mindset, one could overlook the body of a murdered child that has been concealed or
inadvertently destroy evidence when murder is not considered as a possibility.

There are examples of cases in which officers made contact with the killer at his
residence and, unknown to the officers, the body of the victim was on the premises at that
moment. While there is no way of knowing whether a body is in the residence of a potential
witness while investigators are at the front door, in at least one of the cases, during a search of
the killer’s residence, investigators missed discovering the body that was hidden in a box. The
chances of such things happening are slight, but officers should always remain mindful of the
possibility.

The research confirmed that the body of the victim is the single most important source of
physical evidence that can be connected to the killer. It also told us that 55.4% of the victims’
bodies were concealed when they were disposed of by the killer. These two facts make a
thorough area search very important in the investigation. (See the section on the Body Recovery

Site for further discussion of investigative implications related to the area search.)

Who Discovered the Body of the Victim?

It is important to examine who finds the body ofa child abduction murder victim. Table
33 shows that in the majority of cases the victim’s body was found by an innocent passerby or by
the police. The killer claimed to have “discovered” the body in about three percent (2.8%) of the

cases.

47


Table 2

Percent of Missing Children Reports within Time Periods

Case Reported to Police %
Immediately 19.6
Within 1 Hour 27.5
Within 2 Hours 42.9
Within 4.5 Hours 68.4
Within 24 Hours 86.6
> 24 Hours 99.0

These reporting delays are important to the course of the investigation. The data show that
delays are much more critical in child abduction murders than in other types of investigations,

because missing children who are murdered are killed quickly after their abduction.

When an Abducted Child is Killed

Missing children were killed within a very short period of time after their abduction.
Table 3 illustrates that 46.8% of the victims were dead within one hour after the abduction,
76.2% within three hours, and 88.5 % within 24 hours after being abducted. There is a
misconception that killers keep children alive for long periods of time after an abduction.
Clearly, this misconception is not supported by the data. Hours and even minutes are critical in
an abducted child investigation. While the murder of an abducted child is rare, immediate
reporting of the abduction and swift investigative measures may ensure that the child is

recovered alive.

13


bound his victims. Binding is used by killers in only 4% of all murder cases, and in only 2% of
all child murder cases. But in child abduction murder, the binding of the victim was present in
24.0% of the cases. In non-series cases, binding was used on 21.2% of the victims, but in a
much larger 38.9% of the serial murders of abducted children. Clearly, the binding of child

victims may be a useful indicator of a serial killer at work.

80


Table 21

How Killer Initiated Contact with Victim

Method %
Through Deception 27.3
Through Normal Activity 22.9
Through Illegal/Criminal Contact 12.9
Other 2.7
Unknown 34.2

The initial victim-killer contact most often took place in a suburban (32.9%) area and least often in a

rural area (16.7).
Table 22

Area of Initial Victim-Killer Contact

Area

%

Suburban

Urban

Rural

32.9

50.5

16.7

34


killer. For the location of the Body Recovery Site, the general geographical areas were shown.
previously in Table 28. Of particular note, it was discovered for abducted children murders that
even though the body recovery sites were found in all of the geographical locations, they were more
often found in rural areas. This contrasts with all murder cases, in which rural body disposal is
much less frequent (Table 29).

The killers deliberately chose the Body Disposal Site for their own reasons (48.0%). In
32.6% of the cases, the choice of the Body Disposal Site was purely random, while in 10.4%, the
killer was forced by outside circumstances to use a certain site. In general murder cases, the
killer is typically (69%) unconcerned whether or not the body is found. However, murders of
missing or abducted children are quite different.

The most telling information about the location of the child’s body is that the killers
disposed of them mostly by concealment (55.4%), while concealment of the body is present in
only 14.0% of all murder cases (Hanfland et al., 1997). The implication for investigation is that
when the police are searching for the body of a murdered abducted child, they should pay close
attention to ground that has been disturbed for burial purposes and should move material
available to conceal victims, such as broken tree branches or large portions of discarded rugs.

In 62.7% of the cases, the Body Recovery Site was further than one and one-half miles
from the victim’s home. Interestingly, the younger the victim, the closer the body was found to
the victim’s home. The body was found at the victim’s residence in only 2.9% of cases, and in

5.4% at the killer’s residence.

75


Polygraph

The use of the polygraph in investigations of murder of abducted or missing children is
fairly common (47.1%). While it is a common practice, its utility is in question. As shown in
Table 36, the polygraph was used to test acquaintances (26.3%) and family members (22.7%) of
the victim. However, in 33.8% of the cases in which the polygraph was used, a person other
than the accused showed “deception” on the test. Interestingly, of those persons who showed

deception, 13.3% were family or friends of the victim, the two groups most often polygraphed.

Table 36

Relationship of Persons Polygraphed to Victim

Relationship %
Acquaintances 26.3
Family Members 22.7
Strangers 19.2
Neighbors 7.2

When two additional facts are considered, the use of the polygraph becomes more
clouded: 1) the younger the victim, the less likely police believe the polygraph helps the
investigation; but 2) the younger the victim, the more likely the family or friends of the victim
will be polygraphed. So it seems that those who are more likely to be polygraphed are more apt
to show a “false deception.” And the less likely the polygraph may help the case, the more likely
it is to be used.

Overall, the use of the polygraph was perceived by detectives to have helped the

investigation in 62.1% of the cases, while in 9.0% of the cases detectives believed that it was

52


CHAPTER IX

SERIES CASES

Introduction

There were 116 series cases examined in this study. The data were analyzed in two ways.

The first involved comparisons between the series and non-series cases. For example, was the

ratio of male to female victims the same? The second analysis entailed an examination of the

individual cases within a series. This approach was an effort to identify “flags” that would aid in

the linking of cases. Basically, it was an attempt to find a “common thread” within a series.

Comparisons of Series and Non-Series Cases

There are several MO and investigative issues that are similar between series and non-

series murders of abducted children. Following are some of those similarities:

1.

2.

5.

6.

Concealment of victims’ bodies when disposed of.

Consistent rate of body parts being removed.

Average distance from the initial contact site to the body recovery site.
Average distance from the victims’ last known location to the body site;
The rate of sexual assault.

The rate at which “red herrings” show up in the investigation.

There are also dissimilarities between series and non-series cases.

76


Table 9

Marital Status of Killer

Marital Status %
Single 69.8
Married 16.9
Divorced 13.2

Killer’s Residential Status

Contrary to perceptions that killers who kill children are “loners,” only 17.1% of the

killers lived alone, while 74.8% lived with someone. It is perhaps a little unusual that 33.2% of

them lived with their parents. Table 10 describes the killers’ living arrangements.

The killers in this sample also changed their residence frequently. The majority of them

moved at least once within the five years preceding the murder (79.7%). Of this group, 44.5% of

killers changed residences three or more times, and 19.7% moved five or more times.

Table 10

Living Arrangements of Killer

Living Arrangement

%

Living with Parents

Living Alone

Living with Spouse and/or Children
Living with Girlfriend/Boyfriend
Living with Other Roommates

Other

33.2

17.1

17.1

14.2

10.3

8.2

21


21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

How Killer Initiated Contact with Victim 0c cece ces ceseeseeeseeseeeeeed 44
Area of Initial Victim-Killer Contact 00 occ cccccseecesevessvveseseeeesveseeeeeeee 44
Area of Initial Victim-Killer Contact by Type of Murder 45
Why Killer Was at the Victim Contact Site ce cccceeecceeeeceeeeeeeeeee 45
How Killer Gained Control of Victim cece eecee eee eeeeeeeeeeed 46
Cause of Death,

Cause of Death by Type of Murder eed 48
Area of Body Recovery ooo ccccevecsvevesssvessvivessvevevivesesevesevevessveeesnveeeeveeee 49
Area of Body Recovery by Type of Murdered 49
How Killer Selected Body Disposal Site eee ececceecceeeeesteesesteeeeees 50
How Killer Disposed of Body 50
Post Offense Behavior of Killers 2c cecccececececececesececeeeseeeseeeseveseeneen 51
Who Discovered Victim’s Body eee eect eee teers 58
Major Investigative Steps in the First 48 Hours 59
Physical Evidence Related to Killer eee cece eecceecceeeceeeneeeneeeed 61
Relationship of Persons Polygraphed to Victim ed 62
Effect of Media Coverage on the Investigation, 64
Problems Caused by Outside Forces. 65

Murder Incident Component Time Known.

Murder Incident Component Place Known reece 70
Murder Incident Component Time or Place Known 71
Murder Incident Component Time and Place Known 72

vii


The majority of killers gained control over the victim by using direct physical assault
(47.2%). An additional 2.1% used verbal threats, with deception (11.6%) and victim incapacity
(11.1%) used equally as often to gain control of their victims. Table 25 illustrates the methods of
control used by these child abduction murderers.

Table 25

How Killer Gained Control of Victim

Method %
Direct Physical Assault 47.2
Deception 11.6
Victim Incapacity IL
Verbal Assault 2.1
Unknown 30.6
Binding of Victim

There is evidence that child abduction killers are 6 to 12 times more likely than other
murderers to “bind” their victims. Child abduction killers bound their victims in one-fourth
(24.0%) of the cases, compared to only 2.0% in child murders and 4.0% in all murders. The
much more frequent binding of child abduction murder victims reflects both control and sexual
elements. Binding a victim makes control easier, and for uncooperative, strong victims it may be
absolutely necessary. For child victims, this control function of binding is less critical. But in
these types of murders, with their strong sexual component, the binding (or “bondage”) is more
likely to serve more primary and secondary sexual functions. These victims are being bound less

to physically control them than to fulfill the sexual fantasies and needs of the killers.

36


TABLE

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

LIST OF TABLES

CAM Data Set.

Percentage of Missing Children Reports within Time Periods

When an Abducted Child is Killed.

Victim Race.

Distribution of Victims by Age Groups.
Distribution of Killers by Age Groups

Killer Race

Living Arrangements of Killer.
Killer Occupations
Perceived Lifestyle of Killer.

Personal Problems of the Killer

Prior Crimes Against Children by Killer
Victim-Killer Relationship.
Female Victim-Killer Relationship, By Age Group.
Male Victim-Killer Relationship, By Age Group
Victim-Killer Relationship by Victim Gender
Modus Operandi (MO) Similarities Between Other Crimes and

Child Abduction Murder

vi

PAGE

21

23

24

25

25



CHAPTER VI
KILLER MOTIVATION AND VICTIM SELECTION
Introduction

Surprisingly, over half (58.4%) of the prior crimes committed by a killer against children
had a modus operandi (MO) that was similar to the extant murder. For example, a child
abduction killer who lures the child away by asking for help locating a lost pet is very likely to
lure away the next victim in a similar way. The similarities in MOs produced other surprises:
they were most alike, by a large margin, in the “commission of the offense,” or the way the
crimes were committed (Table 19). In the cases that had similar MOs, the priors were committed
in similar ways — for example, the choice of weapon was the same across different crimes
committed by a killer.

There is a misconception that child abduction killers are looking for a child with a certain
appearance. Contrary to murderers in general, child abduction killers were much less likely to
select certain types of victims based on personal characteristics. A mere 7.2% of prior crimes
were committed against similar victims. The killers were even less likely (5.2%) to approach
their victim in similar ways. Finally, 16.5% of the prior crimes against children were similar to
the extant murder in the kinds of specific acts that were performed during the commission of the
crimes. For example, the killer used rope to bind and control a kidnap victim, as well as the
subsequent murder victim.

These findings regarding the similarity of MOs across the majority of crimes committed
by child abduction killers show that there is more consistency in the MOs of child abduction
killers than expected, especially compared to other types of murderers. The data also suggest

that there may be a greater predisposition to serial offending among child abduction killers.

30


the murder incident, time and distance intervals, and solved cases. Once the terminology was

defined and the proper parameters set, appropriate variables were selected for statistical analysis.

Abduction. For purposes of this research, abduction was defined as:

1.

2.

The victim was kidnapped.

The victim was detained and his/her freedom of movement was restricted.

A victim of domestic violence was reported by the family (or someone else) as a
missing child.

The police were initially of the opinion that the victim was taken or held against
his or her will, whether or not that turned out to be the case in the end (Hanfland

et al., 1997).

Components of the Murder Incident. Each of these components occurs in a murder, and

therefore each is important to a murder investigation. The components are defined as:

1.

The Victim Last Seen Site (VLS) was defined as the location where and time when
the victim was last seen. The VLS was determined from eyewitness information and
records indicating when and where the victim was last seen alive.

The Initial Contact Site (IC) was defined as the place where and time when the killer
initially contacted the victim. The IC was established from evidence indicating that
the killer first met the victim at a certain time and at a specific location during the
course of the murder incident.

The Murder Site (MS) was defined as the place where and time when the victim
sustained the death-producing injuries.

The Body Recovery Site (BR) was defined as the location where and time when
police, medics, or witnesses found the victim, dead or alive, prior to transportation to

a medical facility or morgue (Keppel, 1992; Keppel & Weis, 1993a).


(1991), some jurisdictions follow the “any movement” rule, while some jurisdictions abide by
the “incidental rule” in which movement in the context of another crime is incidental. To add to
the confusion, some definitions depend on the motivation of the killer, and there is even
disagreement about the definition of child (Lanning, 1995). The confusion and ambiguity
regarding definitions contribute significantly to difficulties in collecting rigorous data on child

abduction murder. However, those obstacles are not insurmountable.

Summary
This report discusses the findings from a research project which examined the
investigations of more than 800 child abduction murders. The report is particularly salient to
homicide detectives who are confronted with an unsolved murder case involving child abduction.
Results from this study will help police investigators identify strategies and implement tactics to

focus investigations that will improve their ability to solve child abduction murder cases.


TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

VI KILLER MOTIVATION AND VICTIM SELECTION.

Introduction

Pornography

Crises and Stressors

Choosing and Controlling the Victim

Binding of Victim

Cause of Death

Unusual Acts

Body Disposal/Recovery

Post Offense Behavior

VII INVESTIGATION.

Introduction

Police Refusal to Accept a Missing or Runaway Child Report

Multiple Police Agencies

Unknowing Witnesses

Neighborhood Canvass

Area Search,

Who Discovered the Body of the Victim

Investigative Steps in the First 48 Hours
Police Contact with Killer

Physical Evidence

iti

49

50


information” that will enhance solvability — some information is more valuable and useful than

other information in murder investigations.

Separation of Components in Child Abduction Murders
Because information known about each murder incident component is critical to murder
investigations of abducted children, the murder incident components were examined by time and
distance separation. The variables used for this analysis captured the date of occurrence (exact or
approximate), the type of location, and/or the address of that location. The following sections
outline what information about the murder incident component was known on time, location, or

both in the investigations of child abduction murders contained in this data set.

When Time is Known

Because information known about each site is critical to the basic model for child abduction
murder investigations, the murder incident components were examined by whether or not the time
of the component was known. The murder incident component about which “time” was most often
known was the Victim Last Seen Site (98.9%), followed by the Body Recovery Site (98.6%), Initial

Contact site (87.5%), and the Murder Site (84.5%). This knowledge is detailed in Table 39.

59


Table 3

When an Abducted Child is Killed

Time Period %
<1 Hour 46.8
Within 3 Hours 76.2
Within 24 Hours 88.5
Within 7 Days 97.9
Within 30 Days 100.0

The dictum that the first 24 to 48 hours of an investigation are the most critical must be
modified in child abduction cases. An absent child should be reported to authorities
immediately. Police should concentrate their investigative resources as quickly as possible once
a child is reported missing. Swift action by law enforcement will increase the odds that a child is
found alive; and if the child is murdered, it will increase the probability that the killer is caught.
In addition to information about the time lapse between when a child is missing and when the
absence is reported to police, this research identified unique characteristics of child abduction
murder victims. This information will assist investigators in identifying and differentiating
potential murder victims from the vast majority of missing children who eventually turn up alive

and well. This information will help investigators prioritize investigative resources.

Victims Overview
The typical child abduction murder victim was a white (74.5%) female (74.0%),
approximately 11 years old (M=11.52). They were predominantly from a middle class (35.2%)
or “blue collar” (35.8%) family, living in an urban (29.3%) or suburban (35.2%) neighborhood,
in a single-family residence (71.1%). The victim’s relationship with family was good (49.8%),

and the family situation was not considered high risk (83.5%). In summary, the typical child

14


Victims continue to be females slightly over 11 years of age, leading normal
lives and living with normal families — typical low-risk victims. The initial contact
between the victim and killer is still within “% mile of the victim’s residence.

The killers remain around 27 years old and are predominately unmarried,
with half of them living either alone or with their parents. Half of them are
unemployed, and those who are employed work in unskilled or semi-skilled
occupations.

More than half of these cases are initially reported to a law enforcement
agency as a “missing child.” Fast action is necessary since there is typically over
a two-hour delay in making the initial missing child report, and the vast majority of
the abducted children who are murdered are dead within three hours of the
abduction.

One question answered by this research is this: What can we tell parents to
help them protect their children? Even though child abduction murders are rare,
parents must eliminate, or minimize, the opportunity for their children to become
victims. We need to tell parents that if their child is unaccounted for, call the

police immediately.


Table 7

Distribution of Killers by Age Groups

Killer Age Group %
«18 years old 12.2
18 to 20 years old 21.2
21 to 25 years old 22.3
26 to 30 years old 22.3
31 to 40 years old 23.4
> 40 years old 10.1

Only 12.2% of the killers were juveniles (under 18), and only 10.1% were over 40 years old.
The great majority of killers (65.8%) were young adult men between 18 and 30 years old. The
oldest killer in this sample was 61 years old, with the youngest killer being 9 years old. Contrary
to the belief that these killers are “dirty old men,” the evidence shows that they are more similar

in age to killers in general — young adults.

Killer’s Race

The race of the killers in this sample was predominantly white (69.8%). Only 19.1%
were black, and the remaining 11.0% were other racial/ethnic groups, when adjusted for the
missing race identification of 158 killers. The results on the race of killers supported the earlier
first-stage findings, that there were no important differences in race between child abduction
killers and other killers. Table 8 shows the racial breakdown of child abduction murder killers

compared to murderers in general.

19


CHAPTER X
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Introduction

The murder of an abducted child, particularly by a stranger, is a rare event. There are
estimated to be about 100 such incidents in the United States each year. The victims are
typically “average” children, leading normal lives, and growing up in normal families. The vast
majority of them are girls, with the average age between 11 and 12 years old. In most cases, the
initial contact between the victim and killer is within one-fourth mile of the victim’s residence.

These cases are typically reported to a law enforcement agency as a “missing child.”
Often there is no initial indication of foul play, just a report that the child is unaccounted for.
This is a difficult time for the investigator, not knowing whether the “missing child” is simply
late in returning home, is the victim of foul play, or has been abducted. Any report to the police
of a missing child should be taken seriously. As many facts as possible surrounding the missing
child occurrence should be obtained as quickly as possible. An assessment of the nature of the
case made should be made expeditiously. Factors to consider in assessing the case should
include the age and gender of the child, the circumstances surrounding the child’s missing status,
and the history of the child.

Immediate action is dictated by two facts: 1) there is typically over a two-hour delay in
making the initial missing child report, and 2) the vast majority of the abducted children who are
murdered are dead within three hours of the abduction. Because of these critical time features,
there is a need to respond quickly in a comprehensive, labor intensive investigation. Over half of
the child abduction murders are committed by a killer who is a total stranger to the victim.
However, the relationship between the victim and the killer varies with the gender and age of the

victim. The youngest females, 1 to 5 years old, tend to be killed by friends or acquaintances,

81


CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Child abduction murder is every parent’s worst nightmare. To compound the problem,
child abduction murders are incredibly difficult to solve and deeply impact law enforcement
officials involved in the investigation. According to the National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children (NCMEC), abductions resulting in a child’s death present many investigative
and emotional obstacles for law enforcement officers (National Center for Missing & Exploited
Children, 2000). Hanfland, Keppel, and Weis (1997) state that the rarity of child abduction
murders, even among criminal homicides, and their complex, emotion-laden, high profiles, make
them extremely difficult to investigate.

The 1979 abduction of seven-year-old Etan Patz and the 1981 abduction and murder of
six-year-old Adam Walsh terrified parents throughout the nation. As a result of the notoriety of
these cases, inflated and unsubstantiated numbers of missing children were widely reported to be
over 2 million per year. The number of children who were abducted and then murdered was
erroneously reported to be as high as 5,000 per year (National Center for Missing & Exploited
Children, 2000).

The public outcry over concern for the safety of America’s children contributed to the
establishment of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children by the United States
Congress. To the contrary, careful research has shown that between 40 and 150 incidents of
child abduction murder occur each year, which is less than one half of one percent of the murders
committed nationally. On average, there is one child abduction murder for every 10,000 reports

of a missing child (Finklehor, Hotaling, & Sedlak, 1992).


PROJECT STAFF

Katherine M. Brown, MA: Ms. Brown received her Master of Arts Degree in Criminal
Justice and Criminology from Sam Houston State University and is currently finishing her Doctorate in
Criminal Justice at the same institution. Ms. Brown’s research interests include child abduction
murder investigation, crime scene investigation, serial murder, offender profiling, forensic evidence,
and other solvability factors affecting murder investigations. Her work experience includes
employment in Texas State Government and the legal field.

Dr. Robert D. Keppel, Ph.D., Project Director: Dr. Keppel is a visiting professor of
Criminal Justice at Seattle University. He retired after 17 years as the Chief Criminal Investigator with
the Washington State Attorney General's Office and was the founder of the Homicide Investigation
Tracking System (HITS).. Prior to that, he was a member of the King County Sheriff's Office for 11
years. He has investigated, reviewed, and consulted on over 2000 homicide investigations for local,
county, and state law enforcement agencies. He has been the project director of several federal grants.
He is the author of several articles and four books.

Dr. Joseph G. Weis, Ph.D., Research Manager: Dr. Weis is Director of the Center for Law
and Justice and a Professor of Sociology at the University of Washington. He was the past Editor of
Criminology, the official journal of the American Society of Criminology. His research interests
include the etiology of juvenile crime, delinquency prevention, the measurement of crime, violent
crime, and the measurement of violence. He has authored numerous articles in the field of
criminology.

Marvin Skeen, B.S., Project Coordinator: Mr. Skeen is an investigator with the Homicide
Investigation Tracking System of the Criminal Justice Division of the Washington State Attorney
General’s Office. He was a police officer for 25 years in the Bellevue Police Department, where he
spent nineteen years as a detective investigating violent crimes. He is also the president of the

Washington Violent Crime Investigators Association.

87


Table 38

Problems Caused by Outside Forces

Outside Forces %
Police Agencies 9.9
News Media 9.1
Family of Victim 5.0
Community/Political Pressure 2.8
Lawyers 1.3
Red Herrings

A “red herring” is something that diverts attention from the matter at hand. An example
of a red herring in a murder investigation might be a vehicle that detectives believe to be the
killer’s vehicle, with a major commitment of manpower devoted to finding it — at the expense
of other avenues of inquiry — only to learn later that the car was not involved.

Red herrings were reported in 38.0% of the investigations. They ranged from “good”
suspects, to physical evidence, to erroneous polygraph results. While troublesome and time

consuming for the investigation, the presence of a red herring had no statistical effect on the

clearance rate of the cases.

55


When Time or Place is Known

The murder incident component about which “time or location” was most often known was
the Victim Last Seen Site (99.3%). This was followed by the Body Recovery Site (99.0%), Initial
Contact Site (93.5%), and the Murder Site (91.3%). Table 41 indicates the results of this analysis.
Table 41

Murder Incident Component Time or Place Known

Murder Incident Component %
Victim Last Seen 99.3
Initial Contact 93.5
Murder 91.3
Body Recovery 99.0

This order is unique to child abduction murder investigations. In general murder, Keppel
(1992) found that the location of the Body Recovery Site was the location most often known,
followed by the Murder Site, Victim Last Seen Site, and the Initial Contact Site. The data indicates
that in child abduction murder investigations the order switched to the Victim Last Seen Site as the
location about which information was most likely known. This is due to the nature of the victim.
Children are missed more quickly than adult victims in some cases, especially small children who
are usually in the presence of a caregiver. It is also not surprising that in these types of
investigations that the percentage of knowledge about murder incident locations is higher than in

general murders because of the high-profile nature of child abduction murder investigations.

When Both Time and Place are Known
An examination of the murder incident components about which both time and place were

known produced a decrease in the known percentages. The murder site about which both time and

61


An additional teletype was sent to each police agency in the United States at three
different time intervals on different days of the week, with a request to contact the coordinator of
the project. Basic screening information was then recorded about the cases. Additional methods
were employed to identify relevant cases for the study. Appropriate state and federal agencies
were contacted and asked for case information. Homicide detectives across the country were
also contacted for additional information (Hanfland et al., 1997).

Initially, data were collected by interviews with the detectives and the review of
investigative case files from 1,025 cases. Responses were received from both large and small
agencies and departments. The agencies were representative of all regions of the country,
covering 44 states. Of the original 1,025 cases, 621 were found to meet the criteria established
for inclusion in the original data collection collaboration (Hanfland et al., 1997). The second
stage of the research, described in this report, was designed to expand the original CAM data set.
Over a number of months, more than 200 additional cases have been collected, resulting in 833
child abduction murder cases from 1968 to 2002. The additional cases came from municipal

police departments and county sheriff's offices of all sizes.

Case Criteria
The cases of murder in the original CAM data set were chosen for inclusion based on the
following criteria:
1. The victim was younger than 18 years old (except as described in #3 below), whose body
had been recovered; or if the body had not been recovered, the killer was identified, tried,

and convicted.


Data Analysis

Throughout the report data are presented as simple percentages. Often comparisons are
made with “all murder cases” and, at times, with “all child murders,” which include domestic
child abuse murders, mutual combat murders, and others that do not involve abduction.
Percentages are used to provide a sense of how often or how rarely a characteristic or
circumstance can be expected in these types of cases. The logic is that knowing the “spread”
will help the detective make better decisions and prioritize courses of action. In most cases,
simple descriptive frequencies were run on appropriate variables. Where the impact of a variable
on solvability was examined, a cross-tabulation was performed to test statistical significance.

The CAM data set utilized for the second stage research consists of 833 child abduction
murders. Of those cases, 735 victims are 17 years old or younger, with 516 of those victims
being single-victim murder cases rather than part of a series. Of the 735 cases analyzed, 27.4%
remained unsolved at the time of data collection. Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of the

CAM data set that was used as the basis for the data analysis discussed in this report.

Table 1
CAM Data Set

All Cases in CAM Data set Victims <17-Years-Old

N % N %

Solved 589 74.1 527 72.6
Unsolved 206 25.9 199 27.4
Disposition 38 46 9 1.2
Unknown
Total N 833 735

11


Table 30

How Killer Selected Body Disposal Site

Selection %
Deliberately Selected 48.0
Random Arbitrary Choice 32.6
Forced by Circumstances 10.4

Killers concealed the victim’s body in 55.4% of cases and were unconcerned with the location of
the body in 36.4% of cases. As illustrated in Table 31, the victim’s body was simply left in the open

in only 8.1% of cases and was left in an unusual position even less often (3.2%).

Table 31
How Killer Disposed of Body

Selection %
Concealed 55.4
Unconcerned 36.4
Open 8.1
Post Offense Behavior

After the murder was committed and the body disposed of, the killer apparently engaged
in a variety of behaviors that are related to the murder, which for many of them constituted a
prelude to apprehension and arrest. The killers did a number of things after the murder (Table
32). A surprising 23.7% of child abduction killers returned to the body disposal site. Some
killers left town right after the murder (16.1%) or confided in someone about their involvement

in the murder (16.1%). Some followed the case in the media (14.3%). Ten percent actually

40


REFERENCES

Baker, T., Burgess, A., Rabun, J., & Nahirny, C. (2002). Abductor violence in nonfamily infant
kidnapping. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17(11), 1218-1233.

Boudreaux, M. C., Lord, W. D., & Dutra, R. L. (1999). Child abduction: Aged-based analysis of
killer, victim and offense characteristics in 550 cases of alleged child disappearance.
Journal of Forensic Sciences, 44(3), 539-553.

Boudreaux, M. C., Lord, W. D., & Etter, 8. E. (2000). Child abduction: An overview of current
and historical perspectives. Child Maltreatment, 5(1), 63-387.

Boudreaux, M. C., Lord, W. D., & Jarvis, J. (2001). Behavioral perspectives on child homicide.
Journal of Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 2(1), 56-78.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1999). Homicide trends in the United States. Crime Data Brief
(NCJ Publication No. 173956, pp. 1-4). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2000). Homicide trends in the United States: 1988 update. Crime
Data Brief. (NCJ Publication No. 179767, pp. 1-4). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2003). Homicide trends in the United States: 2000 update. Crime
Data Brief. (NCJ Publication No. 197471, pp. 1-4). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice.

Fass, P.S. (1999). Kidnapped: Child abduction in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.

Finklehor, D., Hotaling, G. T., & Sedlak, A. J. (1992). The abduction of children by strangers
and nonfamily members: Estimating the incidence using multiple methods. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 7(2), 226-243.

Forst, M. L., & Blomquist, M. E. (1991). Missing children: Rhetoric and reality. Lexington,

85


knew them and characterized their behaviors and identity before they were identified as a child
abduction killers.
Table 12

Perceived Lifestyle of Killers

Perceived Lifestyle %
Described as “Strange” 30.2
Alcohol Abuser 24.6
Drug User/Abuser 22.1
Reclusive 16.0
Sexually Promiscuous 15.5
Friendly To Children 14.7
Transient/Semi-transient 11.9

Killer’s Past Behavior

Child abduction murderers experience more serious personal behavioral problems than
the typical killer. Over three-fourths of them (78.5%) had a recognized and identified history of
at least one serious behavioral problem. The child abduction murderers in this study differed
significantly from general murderers in the extent of their problems (Table 13). Almost one-
third (30.4%) of the killers of abducted children suffered from “sexual problems,” in contrast to
an extremely low rate among killers in general murder (3.0%). The former were ten times more

likely than the latter to have a history of identified sexual problems.

23


2. The police agency receiving the initial contact about the case, whether as a missing,
abducted, runaway, or dead body case, acted on the premise that abduction was a
possibility.

3. The case was part of a series in which at least one victim in the series met the above
stated criteria (Hanfland et al., 1997, p. 14).

Additionally, cases were included that were not considered “closed” in the traditional sense. If
the reporting agency believed that abduction was a possibility, and began investigating the case
as a child abduction, it was included in the data set. The murders of abducted children to be
examined in the second-stage research were selected from the CAM data set based on the
following criteria: the victim was 17 years old or younger, whose body had been recovered; or if
the body had not been recovered, the killer was identified, tried, and convicted. A total of 735

cases met all of the criteria and were the focus of analysis.

Data Collection Instrument

The CAM data collection instrument was designed by homicide investigators Kenneth
Hanfland and Dr. Robert D. Keppel, and criminologist Dr. Joseph G. Weis. It was used to
collect information on 412 items representing the essential characteristics of the murder of an
abducted child and of its investigation (See Hanfland et al., 1997). The instrument was designed
to evaluate the criminal investigation process, including the initial response of the police agency,
basic investigation, extended investigation, physical evidence, geographical considerations, and
victim and killer information. It was field tested on ten cases of child abduction resulting in

murder, after which a few changes were made.


Table 35

Physical Evidence Related to Killer

Evidence %

Hair 26.1
Weapons 20.0
Prints (Finger and Shoe) 18.0
Semen 17.2
Fibers 15.9
Blood 14.3
Discarded Evidence

The police found physical evidence deliberately discarded by the killers in 24.2% of the
cases. Of that discarded evidence, 36.0% of it was found along the roads on which the killer
traveled in the course of the murder, body disposal, or escape. It is important to note that 56.5%
of the evidence found along a road was within one mile of the body recovery site. Increased
clearance rates are observed when discarded evidence is found by the police in general murders.
This has important investigative implications for child abduction murder investigations.

Ina child abduction murder, there is a good chance that there is discarded physical
evidence along the road within one mile of the body disposal site, and that improves the odds of
case solution. Is it worth the effort to do that kind of search? The answer depends on the
circumstances surrounding the case. The detectives at the scene have to make that decision.
However, there is now strong evidence that it might pay off in catching the killer to have a set of

objective criteria to apply during consideration of investigative options.

51


TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Discarded Evidence... ooccccccscsssssssessssssssssssusuvsssssssssssssussssssssessesesesnsees 51
Polygraph cece eecceeeeeeeeeceveeeeveeeeeteeeeeeeeeveeeeeseeeeeeeeeeieeeteeeeeeeeeeees 52
News Media cc cece ccccneecnseeessaecesueessaesssneestaeesesneeseaeesen: 53
Outside Forces That Created Problems for the Investigators... 54
Red Herrings. cece eee eeceeseeseeeseesesseesessessessssessstessssseeeeeseeseses 55
VIII MURDER INCIDENT SITES occ cccccceeececeveseesvesevsveseeeeeveeees 56
Trntrodurctiony occ cceccccseececsssueeeecessseesesssseeeseesuseeesessuseeseesuueeeseesaseeeseseees 56
Components of the Murder Incident 0d 56
Separation of Components by Time and Distance. S7
Investigative Implications eect eeceeceeteeseeeeee 58
Separation of Components in Child Abduction Murders. 59
When Time is Known. 59

When Place is Known,

When Time or Place is Known 2c eeccceeeeceeeeceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 61
When Both Time and Place are Known 61
Time Interval Between Incidents ooo occ ecceccccseeeececsueesscecsecessescnseee! 62
Distance Between Sites ooo cecccccssessessseessesssesessesseneeseetsesesseeseseseed 67
Analysis of Distance by Murder Incident Component. 72
Victim Last Seem Site ccc ececcssscssssssssseeessssssessssssussssssssssssessssnseee 72
Initial Contact Site cece ecccceeeeceeecneeeeeveeeeeeeeeeteeeeeeeeeeteeeseeee 72
Murder Site cc cccceeeccnneessnecesueesenessaneeseneesesneessaeesene 74
Body Recovery Site eee ecececeeoeeoeeteetetene 74

iv


Murder Site is second only to the body of the victim as a source of physical evidence that can be
connected with the killer. Its close proximity to the Body Recovery Site suggests that a thorough
search be completed to locate it.

It was discovered that once the murder investigation has begun, the name of the killer is
likely to be in the investigative file within the first week. This provides an opportunity for
investigators who may have run out of viable leads to regroup and review everyone whose name
has been uncovered during the investigation. Similarly, it is not uncommon for the police to
have actual contact with the killer before he becomes a primary suspect, for example, during the
initial neighborhood canvass. Also, while at times the media seem to “get in the way,” in the end
they are much more likely to have a positive effect on the investigation than a negative one. In

short, the media are more likely to bring witnesses forward than to aid the killer in his escape.

How Can We Protect Our Children?

One question answered by this research is this: What can we tell parents to help them
protect their children? Even though child abduction murders are rare events, the thing for
parents to do is to eliminate, or minimize, the opportunity for their children to become victims.
The first step is to be aware that children are not immune from abduction because they are close
to home. In fact, well over half of these abductions that led to murder took place within three
city blocks of the victim’s home and approximately one-third of the abductions occurred within
one-half block. Perhaps the most important single thing we can do as parents to protect our
children is to be certain that our children are supervised, even if they are in their own front yard
or neighborhood street.

“Stranger Danger” has become a common warning issued by American parents to

children. There has been extensive publicity about educating children to avoid abduction by “not

83


Table 17

Male Victim-Killer Relationship, By Age Group

Victim Age Group
Relationship 1-5 6-9 10-12 13-15 16-17
Stranger 30.4% 36.7% 35.3% 28.6% 41.9%
Friend/ Acquaintance 26.1% 34.7% 39.2% 40.0% 48.4%
Family/Intimate 34.8% 14.3% 7.8% 0% 0%
Unknown 8.7% 14.3% 17.6% 31.4% 9.7%

The overall victim-killer relationship by gender is shown in Table 18. Females were
most often killed by strangers (35.9%), while males were most likely killed by friends or
acquaintances (37.9%). Both genders were least likely to be killed by a family member or
intimate.

Table 18

Victim-Killer Relationship by Victim Gender

Victim Gender
Relationship Female Male
Stranger 35.9% 34.7%
Friend/ Acquaintance 32.0% 37.9%
Family/Intimate 11.1% 10.5%
Unknown 21.1% 16.8%

28


Table 19

Modus Operandi (MO) Similarities Between Other Crimes And Extant Murder

MO %
Commission of the Crime 16.5
Victim Characteristics 7.2
Specific Acts Committed 5.7
Approach to Victim 5.2

Sexual Motivation

Child abduction murderers share a characteristic with classic serial killers — both show a
sexual component to their motivation to kill, More than two-thirds (69.2%) of child abduction
murders involved a sexual motive, compared to only 5% of all murders and 14% of child
murders. Almost one-half (46.3%) of the child abduction murders were classified as rapes and
21.9% as other sexual assaults. As one would expect in these types of murders, a large group
(27.8%) were kidnappings, which is approximately 15 times greater than in all child murders and
30 times greater than in murders in general.

Some of the kidnappings also included a secondary sexual component, because there was
physical evidence that almost two-thirds (62.8%) of the child abduction murder victims had been
sexually assaulted, compared to only 7% of all murder victims and 15.0% of all child murder
victims. The dramatic differences in the role of sexual motivation and conduct across the
different types of murder clearly demonstrate the unique role that sex plays in child abduction

murders. The great majority of these killers would qualify as sexual predators in most states.

31