Whoever fights monsters...

Ritualistic (Signature) Behavior of sexual murderers

Many sexual murderers, particularly serial murderers, exhibit repetitive ritualistic behavior at the crime scene that goes beyond what is necessary to carry out the homicide. Thus, the offender injects an aspect of his personality by leaving his own unique “signature,” or “calling card,” or psychological imprint (Keppel, 1995, 1997). Unlike an offenders modus operandi (MO), which can change and develop as he learns and perfects techniques to carry out an abduction, rape, or murder, the signature - or, at least, its underlying theme - remains relatively constant (Douglas, Burgess, Burgess & Ressler, 1992; Keppel, 2000). In such cases, committing a murder is not enough to satisfy the offender’s psychosexual needs: such murderers “must often act out fantasies in some manner over and beyond inflicting death-producing injuries” (Keppel, 1995). For example, Krafft-Ebing (1886) noted that one offender was compelled “to pull the hairpins out of the hair of my victims” (p. 67); another, to press the hands of victims together; and yet another, to fill the mouth of victims with dirt. Other examples of signature behavior include:  

• mutilation of the body
• overkill
• carving on the body
• leaving messages
• rearranging or positioning the body
• engaging in postmortem activity
• or making the victim respond verbally in a specified manner (Douglas, et al., 1992). 

(an excerpt from Potential Sex  Murderer, Ominous Sings, Risk Assessment by Louis B. Schlesinger, 2001)

Signature

The “signature” of a crime is the part of the crime that the offender must do to satisfy himself, it has been called the psychological component of the crime, or the killer’s “calling card”. For example, posing the body or overkill can be signatures.

Ted Bundy described “signature” as something the killer must do “to get his rocks off”.

OFFENDER SIGNATURE, and The Case of David Vasquez/Timothy Spencer

In 1984, Vasquez pled guilty to the murder of a 34-year-old Arlington, Virginia, woman.  The woman had been sexually assaulted and died of ligature strangulation.  The killer left her lying face down with her hands tied behind her back.  He used unique knots and excessive binding with the ligatures, and a lead came from the wrists to the neck over the left shoulder. The body was openly displayed so that discovery offered significant shock value. 

 The offender spent considerable time at the crime scene. He made extensive preparations to bind the victim, allowing him to control her easily.  His needs dictated that he move her around the house, exerting total domination over her. It appeared that he even took her into the bathroom and made her brush her teeth.  None of this behavior was necessary to perpetrate the crime; the offender felt compelled to act out this ritual. 

Vasquez had a borderline I.Q.  Believing this would make it difficult to prove his innocence, his lawyers convinced him that he would probably receive the death sentence if the case went to trial.  Instead, Vasquez opted for life imprisonment by pleading guilty. 

Three years later, in 1987, police discovered a 44-year-old woman lying nude and face down on her bed.  A rope bound her wrists behind her back, and a ligature strand tightly encircled her neck with a slip knot at the back.  It continued over her left shoulder, down her back, and then was wrapped three times around each wrist.  Forensics revealed that she died of ligature strangulation, and that she had been sexually assaulted.  The offender left the body exposed and openly displayed.  He appeared to have spent a considerable amount of time at the crime scene.  This homicide occurred 4 blocks from the 1984 murder.

David Vasquez had been imprisoned 3 years when the 1987 murder occurred.  At the request of the Arlington, Virginia, Police Department, the National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime (NCAVC) conducted an extensive analysis of these two murders, a series of sexual assaults, and several other killings that occurred between 1984 and 1987.  Eventually, the NCAVC linked these offenses through analogous signature aspects of another local suspect.  Physical evidence later corroborated this connection and determined that the “calling card” left at the 1984 homicide did not belong to David Vasquez.  As a result of this finding, the Commonwealth of Virginia released Vasquez from prison and exonerated him of the crime.

Timothy Spencer, “The Southside Strangler” was arrested, tried, and convicted for two other rape-murders. He was never formally prosecuted in the Vasquez incident because he already had been sentenced to death. The United States Supreme Court denied Spencer’s request for a new DNA test. On April 27, 1994, Spencer became the first person in the United States executed on the basis of DNA testing.

(photo: Timothy Spencer)

Nathaniel Code Jr.

A Killer’s Signature

In 1989, Nathaniel Code, Jr., a Shreveport, Louisiana, man, was convicted of murder.  The jury determined that on three separate occasions between 1984 and 1987, Code murdered a total of eight people.  The jury returned a guilty verdict, even though several disparities existed among the three crime scenes. 

 For example, the offender gagged the first victim with a piece of material obtained at the crime scene, but brought duct tape to use on the seven victims in the other two incidents. Also, the killer stabbed and slashed the first victim, whereas the victims of the other two crimes were also shot and showed signs of ligature strangulation.  The victims ranged in age from 8 years to 74 years and included both sexes; however, all were black.  And, the offender took money from one crime scene, but not the other two. 

Considering the evidence found at the three crime scenes, could one man be linked to all of the murders?  Wouldn’t such differences in modus operandi (M.O.), which is the offender’s actions while committing the crime, and victimology (characteristics of the victims) eliminate the connection to one offender? 

In the case of Nathanial Code, M.O. and victimology alone would have failed to link him to each of the eight murders.  But Code left more than gags, duct tape, and bodies with gunshot wounds and slashed throats at the crime scenes; he left his “calling card.”  Investigators found this “calling card” or signature aspect at every crime scene, and thus, were able to link Code to the offenses.

Nathaniel Code had a very distinctive “calling card,” one aspect of which were the injuries inflicted on the victims. Code employed a very bloody method of attack and overkill.  He could have simply murdered each victim with a single gunshot wound—a clean kill involving very little “mess.”  Instead, Code slaughtered his victims by slashing their throats with a sawing motion that resulted in deep wounds.  Although brutal, the attack didn’t satisfy his ritual; all victims sustained additional injuries, with the exception of the 15-year-old girl. One male victim suffered gunshot wounds to the chest, while another received multiple stab wounds to the chest.  Code wounded nearly all the victims far beyond what was necessary to cause death (overkill).

The physical violence and bloody overkill satisfied Code’s need for domination, control, and manipulation.  He positioned each victim face down, which supports this theory.  Code even forced the mother to witness her daughter’s death as part of this ritual of control, which was formed from his rage.  In fact, forensic tests found the daughter’s blood on the mother’s dress.  If the victim’s response threatened his sense of domination, Code reacted with anger and the excessive violence that led to overkill.  

The last signature aspect of Code’s crimes probably best illustrates his unique “calling card”—the ligatures.  Code used both an unusual configuration and material.  In all three cases, he bound the victims with electrical appliance or telephone cords acquired at the scene.  Code could have brought rope or used his duct tape, but the use of these cords satisfied some personal need.   Using a handcuff-style configuration, he looped the cord around each wrist and then the ankles, connecting them to the wrists by a lead going through the legs.