Amy Mihaljevic Jonbenet linkage killer's signature - part 1

modus operandi (plural modi operandi) is a Latin phrase, approximately translated as "method of operation".[1] The term is used to describe someone's habits of working, particularly in the context of business or criminal investigations. In English, it is often shortened to M.O.

The expression is often used in police work when discussing a crime and addressing the methods employed by the perpetrators. It is also used in criminal profiling,[2] where it can help in finding clues to the offender's psychology.[3] It largely consists of examining the actions used by the individual(s) to execute the crime, prevent its detection and/or facilitate escape.[1] A suspect's modus operandi can assist in their identification, apprehension, or repression, and can also be used to determine links between crimes.[4]

In business, modus operandi is used to describe a firm's preferred means of doing business and interacting with other firms. References

   Douglas, J. E. and A. W. Burgess, A. G. Burgess, R. K. Ressler. Crime classification manual (John Wiley & Sons, 2006) ISBN 0-7879-8501-5, p. 19-21.
   Vronsky, R. Serial Killers (Berkley Books, 2004) ISBN 0-425-19640-2, p. 412.
   Hazelwood, R. R, A. W. Burgess, Practical Aspects of Rape Investigation, (CRC Press, 2001) ISBN 0-8493-0076-2, p. 517.
   Berg, B.L. Criminal Investigation (McGraw-Hill, 2008) ISBN 978-0-07-340124-9

A signature crime is a crime which exhibits characteristics idiosyncratic to specific criminals, known as signature aspects, signature behaviours or signature characteristics. Where a modus operandi (MO) concerns the practical components of a crime which can also be unique to one suspect, signature aspects fulfill a psychological need and, unlike the MO, does not often change.

Two examples cited in Crime Classification Manual by John Douglas are a bank robber from Michigan who required tellers to undress during the robbery so he could photograph them, and a rape case where the perpetrator forced the husband to return home and be humiliated by the event. These characteristics move beyond modus operandi, because they fulfill a psychological need rather than a need of practical execution of the crime.[1]

The 1898 Gatton murders also exhibited signature aspects. Following the murders, the bodies were re-arranged so their legs crossed over their bodies with the feet pointing west.[2] Ted Bundy also used a complex series of signature behaviours.[3]
Notes

   Douglas, John (2006). Crime Classification Manual (2nd edition ed.). John Wiley and Sons. pp. 23–24. ISBN 0-7879-8501-5.
   Whiticker, Alan J. (2005). Twelve Crimes That Shocked the Nation. ISBN 1-74110-110-7
   Keppel, Robert (2008). Serial Violence. CRC Press. pp. xvii. ISBN 1-4200-6632-3.

Case linkage: offender modus operandi and signature
Brent E. Turvey, Bond UniversityFollow
Jodi Freeman, Forensic Solutions

Case linkage, also referred to as linkage analysis, is the process of determining whether there are discrete connections, or distinctive behavioral factors, between two or more previously unrelated cases by means of crime scene analysis. It involves establishing and comparing the physical evidence, victimology, crime scene characteristics, motivation, modus operandi (MO), and signature behaviors of each of the cases under review.1 It also requires consideration of both behavioral similarities and dissimilarities.

Case linkage is seen in two different contexts: investigative and forensic. In investigative contexts, it is used to assist law enforcement by helping to establish where to apply investigative efforts and resources (e. g., identifying serial or pattern cases or dosing cases by exceptional means).2 In forensic (a.k.a. legal) contexts, it is employed to assist the court with determining whether or not there is sufficiently distinctive behavioral evidence to connect crimes together in their commission. This will be used to help deride specific forensic issues, such as whether similar crimes may be tried together or whether similar past crimes may be brought in as evidence.

This document is currently not available here.
Share

Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on linkedin
Share on email More Sharing Services

This document has been peer reviewed.

Noor Z. Razzaq wrote:
Many aspects of forensic psychology (behavior analysis) are used to identify suspect(s) of violent crime in modern police investigations. The two most basic aspects of measurable and identifiable criminal behavior in the field of forensic behavioral analysis are modus operandi (MO) and offender signature. In order to perform effective investigations of violent or serial crime, investigators should have a rudimentary understanding of these basic profiling concepts beyond the realm of common usage, or rather misuse. This article will focus on the characteristics and differences between modus operandi and offender signature and why this understanding can be integral to violent crime investigations.

All criminals have a MODUS OPERANDI consisting of techniques, habits, and peculiarities in behavior which are performed with three basic objectives (Turvey, 2002):

1. Complete the crime

2. Affect escape

3. Avoid capture (e.g., investigation)

Serial offenders modify and perfect their MO as they become more adept at what they do. The improvement or slight adjustment to an offender’s MO is something for investigators to bear in mind in analyzing a criminal pattern over time and formulating a behavioral profile. This is especially true in the first stages of profiling when the investigator begins his or her profile from the paradigm of the Organized/Disorganized continuum. While offender MO pertains to the methods used to commit a crime, offender signature has a much less pragmatic role for the perpetrator.

OFFENDER SIGNATURE can be broken down into two separate but interdependent halves: signature aspect and signature behavior. Signature aspect defines the theme or motive of an offense, and can include motivational categories such as profit, anger, retaliation, assertiveness, sadism, and et cetera (Turvey, 2002). Signature behaviors, on the other hand, are committed to satisfy the emotional and psychological needs of the offender and usually define the theme of a crime.

The common challenge in distinguishing the MO from offender signature lies in the fact that certain offender actions committed in the act of the offense may satisfy both the offender’s MO and his or her signature. The key to determining which behavior falls into what category lies in the totality of the circumstances surrounding the offense. An example would be a rapist who covers his face. The act in and of itself could be an MO behavior in that the rapist may be attempting to conceal his identity. It could also be classified as offender signature in that covering his face enhances the sexual pleasure he may derive from the rape scenario in itself.

However, in profiling a burglar or bank robber who covers his face with a mask, the investigator could assume the action to be primarily MO due to the fact concealment of identity is integral to the completion of the crime without being caught. Differentiating between MO and offender behavior in other types of crimes may be a little more obvious. For example, MO behavior for an arsonist could be if he leaves his car running near a building he is about to set fire to in order to affect a quick escape. An offender signature for that arsonist would be to return to the scene of the crime and watch the havoc subsequent to the arson in order to experience pleasure, sexual or otherwise.

Although a sometimes confusing and often neglected subject, it is absolutely imperative for violent crime investigators to have a rudimentary understanding of the concepts behind ‘modus operandi’ and ‘offender signature’. The virtual impossibility of two or more offenders fitting the same modus operandi and the signature behavior(s) while operating in the same geographic area at the same time is the key to the importance of this understanding. Ultimately, it is up to the investigator to effectively analyze the totality of the circumstances surrounding the offense in order to make determinations regarding the classification of these behaviors. Once classifications are made, further profiling can be conducted allowing for one more tool to be used in further narrowing of the suspect pool and the building of a case against the offender, ultimately resulting in a quicker resolution to the investigation.

References:

Turvey, B. (2002). Criminal Profiling: An Introduction to Behavioral Evidence Analysis (2nd Ed.). London, UK: Elsevier Academic Press.

Meyer, C.B. (2000). Introduction to Criminal Profiling. Retrieved April 9, 2007, from: http://www.criminalprofiling.ch/introduction.html

ehow wrote:
Modus Operandi is About Habits

   Modus operandi, or MO, is an offender's actions during the commission of a crime. It represents the way he commits a crime in order to be successful and escape capture, revealing habits, peculiarities and techniques. An MO typically changes with education, experience and maturity. For example, an offender may use torn rags to gag his victims, because screams increase his chances of getting caught. Although he may use different gags over time, going from torn rags to duct tape, his continual use of them represents his MO.


Signature is About Expression or Ritual

   An offender's criminal signature is his "calling card," going further than simply the actions needed to carry out a crime. It is the personal and unique expression or ritual of a crime scene -- what the offender does to satisfy his emotional and psychological needs. Unlike an offender's MO, his criminal signature remains the same. For example, during a sexual assault, a rapist's criminal signature may be use of abusive or vulgar language, preparing a script for his victim to read, or taking photos of the victim in specific positions.