Staged Homicides: An Examination of Common Features of Faked Burglaries, Suicides, Accidents and Car Accidents

Abstract

A staged crime scene involves deliberate alteration of evidence by the offender to simulate events that did not occur for the purpose of misleading authorities (Geberth, 2006; Turvey, 2000). This study examined 115 staged homicides from the USA to determine common elements; victim and perpetrator characteristics; and specific features of different types of staged scenes. General characteristics include: multiple victims and offenders; a previous relationship between parties involved; and victims discovered in their own home, often by the offender. Staged scenes were separated by type with staged burglaries, suicides, accidents, and car accidents examined in more detail. Each type of scene displays differently with separate indicators and common features. Features of staged burglaries were: no points of entry/exit staged; non-valuables taken; scene ransacking; offender self-injury; and offenders bringing weapons to the scene. Features of staged suicides included: weapon arrangement and simulating self-injury to the victim; rearranging the body; and removing valuables. Examples of elements of staged accidents were arranging the implement/weapon and re-positioning the deceased; while staged car accidents involved: transporting the body to the vehicle and arranging both; mutilation after death; attempts to secure an alibi; and clean up at the primary crime scene. The results suggest few staging behaviors are used, despite the credibility they may have offered the façade. This is the first peer-reviewed, published study to examine the specific features of these scenes, and is the largest sample studied to date.

Appendix

Offender Characteristics

Number of offenders.

This includes those involved in the actual homicidal act, as well as those conspiring to commit the act. It was expected that this will range from one to five. Offenders were deemed involved, and included in this tally, if they had been formally charged with the homicide, if they had been charged with a lesser offense involved in the same crime, or if they confessed. Also, if an expert opining on staging determines that one, two or more people were involved, this was added to the number of offenders.

Sex of offender.

The sex of the primary offender was also addressed where the primary offender is the offender who engaged in the majority of the attack or assault, or who instigated or ensured the attack or assault was carried out. Their intention to have the attack take place can be illustrated through planning, funding or physically carrying out the crime. In a case where a person hires another person to kill someone else, the person doing the hiring would be the primary offender while the hit-man or woman would be considered a secondary offender. In a case where several people were involved in a homicide that happened without pre-planning, the offender who inflicted the majority of the injuries would be considered the primary offender.

Law enforcement offenders.

According to Turvey (2000), offenders who are currently or previously involved in Law enforcement are more likely to stage scenes than non-Law enforcement offenders. This may be due to their awareness of police procedure. Being deemed ‘involved in Law enforcement’ required offenders to be currently or previously employed in any capacity at a local, state, federal or military police agency.

Victim Characteristics

Number of victims.

The number of victims of the homicide was counted. Victims were included if they died as a result of injuries inflicted  at the primary scene or an associated scene during the same or a related criminal act.

Victim Sex.

This is the sex of the victim(s) as indicated by the factual summary of the case. This was coded as male, female, or both in the case of multiple victims of both sexes.

Victim Age

This variable accounts for the the age of the primary victim (the victim who was targeted for the majority of the attack or assault, or who the attack or assault was instigated against). Primary victims were indicated by the factual summary of the case and could be determined based on the autopsy findings, the testimony of experts related to motive, or the admission of the offender(s) as to why the crime was committed.

Relationship.

The relationship between victims and offenders could take on many forms including: spousal (or ex-spousal) whether the participants are hetero or homosexual; Defacto, common-law or an otherwise cohabiting relationship including both hetero and homosexual ones; other domestic/cohabiting relationships, such as various levels of family members; co-workers or business partners; friends, acquaintances or non-cohabiting family members; or strangers. People that were considered spouses were those who were currently or previously legally married. Those who were considered defacto, or common-law were boyfriends, girlfriends or fiance(e)s (both hetero and homosexual) who lived together in the same dwelling. Family members that share a domestic relationship were those who were related by blood or marriage and also lived under the same roof in the same household. Co-workers were those who worked together at the same company or business and were repeatedly in contact with one another, whereas business partners were those who shared a financial interest in the same company or business. Friends were those people who had a personal relationship that was not sexually intimate (indicated by being in contact on a regular basis), who did not live in the same dwelling, whereas acquaintances were those who were known to each other and shared multiple contacts but were not in contact regularly and did not share an intimate or personal relationship. Strangers were those who have never met before, or who were unfamiliar to each other. For the sake of this research, those people who met the day of the homicide, or immediately before it under circumstances not related to the crime, but shared no previous relationship were considered strangers.

Offense Characteristics

Year of offense.

The year the homicide took place.

Victim discovery.

Where the victim was discovered was examined, and one of a few levels were possible including in the bedroom, bathroom, living room, kitchen, foyer, vehicle or outside of the home of either the offender, the victim or both. Who discovered the deceased or fatally injured victim was also addressed. There were six possibilities for who discovered the victim here, including: the offender; family (by blood or marriage) of the victim; family of the offender; friends, acquaintances, or coworkers of the victim; friends, acquaintances, or coworkers of the offender; or others, including police, random passersby, and so on. Operational definitions from the ‘relationships’ variable were used here.

Cause of death.

The cause of death or the weapon utilized by the offender to inflict the fatal injuries on the victim was indicated by the autopsy findings. The injuries that led to the victim’s death were from: a firearm; blunt force trauma or being hit with an object; sharp force injuries or being stabbed, slashed, or chopped; being hit by a vehicle; manual strangulation; strangulation with an instrument or tool; a drug overdose; a manual beating (no weapon); multiple weapons; suffocation; drowning; poisoning; or a fall.

Availability of weapons

The availability of weapons at the scene, or how the weapon came to be present at the scene was measured. This fell under one of four possibilities. The weapon may have been brought to the scene by the offender, it may have been brought to the scene by the victim and subsequently used against them, it may have been already available at the scene (an opportunistic weapon), or the offender may not have used any weapon at all. This was indicated through the facts of the case, where how the weapon came to be at the scene is a common feature presented to the Judge/jury and it is determined based on the case specifics, such as who a firearm is registered to, who owns a particular knife set, and so on.

Confrontation.

According to Burnley et al. (1996) the vast majority of intimate partner homicides occur during an argument, in relationships that have a history of domestic abuse. In light of the link between previous violence and domestic homicide, and domestic homicide and staged crime scenes, it is important to examine the context under which the fatal attack occurred. The next variable examined whether the attack happened during a confrontation between the victim and the offender. Confrontation was simply coded as present or absent. Those cases that evidenced violence or a verbal argument unrelated to and before the fatal assault were coded as having a confrontation present. This type of confrontation is separate to and before that which would be expected when one person physically attacks another for the purpose of killing them. Evidence of confrontation may come from physical evidence, witness reports, neighbors, or the offender him or herself indicating that they heard or were involved in an argument with the victim prior to the homicide.

Staged Elements

Type of staging.

The first variable in this section is the situation or offense that the homicide was staged to look like, or the type of crime that the offender was attempting to have the scene present as. This can take on one of a number of possible levels including: a burglary, break in or home invasion; a suicide; an accidental death; a car accident; a car-jacking or car-robbery gone wrong; a drug deal gone wrong; a sexual homicide; an execution or ‘hit’; a kidnapping; a runaway; a non-specific stranger attack; a frame-up; a natural death; a hate crime; or a self-defense/justifiable homicide. This was measured based on two dimensions, first, how the scene presented and what the offender said in their statements to police was assessed, followed by what experts believed the scene was meant to present as, or the scenario that the offender admitted to trying to have the scene display as. It was expected that this would be a straight forward determination to make, as it should be obvious what the offender was trying to portray with the staging efforts. For instance, if the victim was found hanging by a noose and there was a fake suicide note present, it is clear that the offender was trying to stage the scene as a suicide. The offender’s statements of what they believe to have happened at the scene were helpful. In case the scenario which was meant to be displayed was unclear, there was a level of this variable which was coded as unknown or unspecific. It is possible that those offenders who are under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or withdrawing from those effects, those who are not forensically aware or who are otherwise in a panic, will not actually attempt to portray any series of events, and will simply manipulate the scene sporadically with no real direction. In these cases the type of staging attempted was unclear, and was thus coded as such.

Point of entry/exit.

The next measure which was examined revolves around the point of entry which may have been staged by the offender. This is not the actual point of entry for the offender, but the point they desire to be perceived as where they entered or exited. This can be staged by cutting a window screen, opening or breaking a window, or breaking in a door. It could also be done by simply leaving a door open or unlocked. In this case the specific point of entry or exit was not examined, but simply whether this behavior was carried out in any form. This behavior was deemed present if it was the opinion of the expert that there was some evidence that the offender did not actually use this point of entry or exit, such as dust on the window sill which is inconsistent with someone coming through the window. It may also be the case that under questioning the offender admitted that he/she staged a point of entry or exit.

Valuables.

The next measure was used to determine whether or not any valuables such as cash, credit cards, jewelry, electronics, or firearms were taken or disturbed by the offender in an effort to simulate a robbery or burglary. Offenders may remove items from the scene in order to lend credence to the story that a burglary has taken place, or they may simply disrupt or alter valuable items at the scene in order to give this impression. This could be done by moving these items around in the scene, removing them from their usual locations to another within the scene, or taking them away altogether.

Personal items.

Similarly, whether non-valuable personal items were removed or disturbed by the offender at the scene in order to stage the offense was also measured. These items could also be disrupted, altered or removed entirely. Statements of witnesses and/or the offenders admissions were used to make this determination, where people who live in the house which was supposedly burglarized may be able to account for what is missing or what has been moved, valuable or otherwise. These statements were indicated in the factual summary of the case.

Weapon arrangement.

Whether or not a weapon was arranged or positioned at the scene in order to give the illusion of something that did not occur was addressed. According to Chisum and Turvey (2007) determining whether the weapon found at the scene inflicted the injuries on the victim, or what the purpose of the weapon may be if not, is an important determination to be made at all crime scenes. Therefore whether weapons exist in the scene or near the body that did not inflict the fatal injuries, and whether those weapons could have been used in the way their positioning indicates to inflict the injuries was examined. This was a dichotomous variable, where the presence of an unrelated weapon, or the positioning of the murder weapon was coded together as the arrangement of a weapon. This could take the form of pulling a car over the victim’s body to imply they have been run over when they have not, or putting a firearm in a victim’s hand to imply they shot themselves at close range when they were actually shot from some distance, and so on.

Body transportation.

Those cases where there was evidence that the homicide did not take place at the discovery site were coded as those involving transportation of the body. This evidence could be a lack of blood stains at the discovery scene which would be expected, drag marks or other indications that the body has been moved, as well as transfer evidence that came from another location as indicated by the factual summary.

Body arrangement.

A related issue is whether or not the body was arranged or moved within the scene of the crime. Instead of moving the body to another location entirely, the offender may arrange or position the body where it fell to hide what actually took place, to imply that something else took place, or both. This repositioning of the body can also include dressing the victim after death, or undressing them. Evidence that the body has been positioned could be things like nudity or sexualized positioning despite the absence of evidence of a sexual assault, or a lack of consistency between the livor mortis and rigor mortis present and the positioning of the body. Wound patterns, bloodstains and other physical evidence inconsistent with the discovery positioning may also be an indication that the body has been moved. Body posing was assessed separately, where the body is posed in a sexually degrading fashion to shock the finder or for the offender’s own pleasure (Keppel & Weis, 2004). Posing may thus be unrelated to thwarting capture. The presence of these behaviors was indicated by facts of the case and the opinion of the expert or statements made by the offender that the scene was staged.

Fake notes

In cases which are staged to appear as suicides, runaways or kidnappings the offender may attempt to provide a note or letter indicating where the victim has gone or why they are doing what they are supposedly doing. Providing a fake note may be perceived by offenders as a good way to legitimize the presentation of the crime scene. This variable was used to code for whether or not a fake note was used in the simulation of the crime. This may take on the form of a fake suicide note, a fake letter of revenge from the supposed offender and so on. If there was a note at the scene, which the offender admits to writing, or which does not come from the victim, then this variable was coded as present.

Drugs planted.

Equally important was the determination of whether any drugs or illicit substances were planted at the scene. These may be arranged near the body to give the illusion of instability on the part of the victim, or possible overdose. It is also possible that while no illegal drugs were present, paraphernalia were arranged in order to give this same impression. This was coded as present when an expert opined that the paraphernalia or substance has been planted or staged at the scene, or when the offender admitted to doing so. This may be based on an absence of the substance in the victim’s toxicology report at autopsy.

Simulated self-injury

This involves the offender simulating self-injury to the victim. This can be done by giving the victim hesitation marks on the throat or wrists, cutting the throat or wrists, gunshot wounds to the temple, under the chin, inside the mouth or to the chest, as well as superficial cuts to the stomach, arms, wrists and genitals. Evidence of pseudo self-injury was coded as present or not, and was most likely to be a determination made by the medical examiner or forensic pathologist.

Telephone/lighting.

The next two variables were used to determine whether the offender disabled the telephone or lighting at the scene as part of the staging effort. This may be carried out by individuals who are attempting to create a scene similar to how they believe legitimate scenes would present, based on their experiences with the media or otherwise. Both of these elements were coded as either present or absent. Whether phones or lighting had been disabled purposefully was indicated by the factual summary and the expert’s testimony, or the confession of the accused that the scene was staged.

Ransacking.

Ransacking was defined as going hurriedly through a scene in an attempt to look for something or steal things, in so doing the scene will become disordered, and may sustain damage. In the staged cases, ransacking may be used to imply that things were stolen when in fact they were not, or more simply to give the impression that someone was looking for valuables within the scene and disrupted it in the process. A determination of ransacking was made based on the presentation of the scene as indicated by the factual summary and the testimony of experts, or the offenders admission that the scene had been staged.

Bloodstains.

The next element examined whether any bloodstains were staged at the scene. This could come in the form of placing blood around the supposed point of entry or exit, planting blood on items belonging to, or the person of another in order to make it appear as though they were somehow involved, or placing the victim’s blood on a weapon or instrument to imply its use in the homicide. Coding this element as present required an opinion on the part of an expert that the bloodstains present could not have been deposited in the way they were presented, or the confession of a perpetrator that they purposefully applied the stains to the area in order to mislead investigators.

Clean up.

Any case involving staging something that did not happen may also involve hiding, concealing or cleaning up what did occur. This may come in the form of taking the weapon away from a scene and disposing of it, removing or destroying clothing or other materials used during the offense, or physically washing or tidying up the scene in order to make it appear as though something else happened there. It was thought that this would be a fairly easy indicator to deem as present. For example, in those cases where expected items or evidence is absent, such as the murder weapon or bloodstains, it is clear that someone has removed them. In other cases instead of an absence of evidence which indicates clean up, there may be a presence of evidence such as the smell of cleaning products or bloody clothing in the washing machine.

Mutilation.

Another way to mask what truly occurred, and make it appear as though something else occurred is by mutilating the body of the victim after death. For example, if the staged scene is meant to portray that the victim died as a result of an accidental fire, the body of the deceased may be set alight after death. This would seemingly serve the purpose of both concealing what actually occurred as well as implying that something else occurred. Similarly, if a victim has been beaten to death, they may then be placed in a car and the car rolled off a cliff with the goal that the injuries sustained while going over the cliff would mask the injuries from the beating, and give the impression that death resulted from the fall. Mutilation, for the purposes of this work, was defined as a disfiguring injury which happened after death. The reason that the postmortem stipulation has been put on this definition is to ensure that this measure is valid, in that it actually measures injuries sustained by the victim as part of the staging, not injuries which led to the death itself. If weapons or other objects were placed into the victim’s orifices after death, this was also considered mutilation. Although these behaviors may not have involved disfiguring injuries, they did involve manipulation of the victim’s body after death aside from simply moving or repositioning the body. Therefore, these behaviors were also classed as mutilation. Mutilation was coded as either present or absent, and was deemed present based on the findings of the wound pattern analysis conducted by the medical examiner or forensic pathologist.

Arson.

The arson variable assessed whether the body or the scene was set on fire by the offender as part of the staging effort. This is separate to body mutilation in that the offender may set fire to the scene as opposed to the victim’s body itself. This was coded as present if the scene involved a fire which was not the cause of the death and was deliberately lit. This was indicated by the facts of the case as well as the expert’s testimony or offender’s admission as to which elements of the crime were not deposited legitimately.

Self-injury of offender

In an effort to legitimize the scenario which the offender seeks to portray, they may self-injure. The next variable examined whether the offender attempted to self-injure as a part of the staging effort, and was deemed present or absent based on the opinions of the experts working the case, the medical professionals involved if the offender sought medical attention, or the admissions of the offender. Those individuals who solicited others to injure them were also coded as present for this measure, as the intent behind the behavior is the same.

Alibi.

The next element determined whether the offender arranged, or attempted to arrange an alibi for themselves. It is possible that these behaviors may run the gamut from rudimentary to elaborate. This aspect was coded as either present or absent, and was dependent on two things. First, it was necessary to be aware of the time of death according to the medical examiner or forensic pathologist, and secondly it had to be determined that the suspect’s statement as to where they were and what they were doing at that time was untrue based on the factual summary.