Behavioral Investigative Adviser Report on Case No C09/02861 - Essay Example

1. Introduction This is a Behavioral Investigative Adviser Report on Case No C09/02861, which involves the death of Carl Rogers of 58 Westminster Place, whose dead body was found in the bathroom of his flat on 6 June 2010 by his girlfriend, Miss Angela Bates. Rogers was a 23 year-old male and he died by strangulation with the use of a ligature, probably a rope or a cord. The victim also suffered several head blows and bruises on the top and front of his head possibly by a blunt instrument. A wrench, covered in blood, was found in his living room, where drug paraphernalia, cannabis and a small packet of white powder residue were also found. This report aims to make sense of the physical evidence thus far collated from the crime scene. Potential forensic pieces of evidence are, as of this time, still undergoing processing to determine their nature and identity. A section of this paper is devoted to a summary of the offence on the basis of the evidence so far collated as well as an overview of the data collected and data that the undersigned thinks need to be collected to establish a more complete profile of the crime and the attacker. A significant portion of this paper is allocated to the assessment of the crime scene on the basis of the preliminary physical evidence gathered from the crime scene, of the possible sequence of immediate events that led to the death of the victim, the implied significance of the evidence collected to the crime and the role of the victim’s lifestyle to the crime. The paper also makes a tentative conclusion as to the possible characteristics of the attacker and his motivations. 2. Terms of Reference 2.1 Review the information known to date in order to conduct a crime scene assessment to assist in better understanding the offence from a behavioural perspective. 2.2 To review the information known to date in order to provide an informed initial opinion about the possible characteristics of the offender or offenders responsible for the offences committed. 2.3 To provide any further investigative considerations resulting from the above. 2.4 To provide a written report detailing all these no later than 13 January 2011. 3. Offences Summary The case involves killing of a person apparently by another person and hence, is a case for criminal homicide. Criminal homicide as distinguished from non-criminal homicide is killing of another person by another person that is not caused accidentally and therefore punishable. The English law on criminal homicide distinguishes between murder and voluntary manslaughter, where the distinguishing element between the two is the presence of malice aforethought. To establish murder, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the perpetrator killed with malice and not in the heat of passion or with sufficient provocation. The present case strongly indicates the offence of murder because of the resolute manner by which the victim was killed and the underhanded way by which the offender gained entrance to the victim’s flat. 4. Overview of Information Types 4.1 Forensic Data and other Data Available Some forensic evidence, subject to identification tests, are: blonde hair, likely from a female, found on the victim’s front clothing; skin found under the fingernails of the victim; victim’s toxicology positive for cannabis and alcohol; impression marks on the victim’s front door; a blood-stained wrench found atop the sofa’s arm in the living room; red-coloured swipes on bedroom walls; passive blood transfer on the sofa, walls and door; drug paraphernalia, cannabis and small polythene bag with white powder residue in the living room, and; fingerprints of victim and his girlfriend in the area. The coroner placed the victim’s death on June 4, 2010 between the hours of 6:15 am to 6:15 pm or a 48 to 60 hours from time of assessment. 4.2 Unavailable Information and/or other Required Information Other information that would prove to be valuable to the investigation are: fingerprints on the wrench; ownership of the wrench; identification of missing things from the victim’s flat; presence of blood on the bed; the kind of clothing the victim was wearing at the time he was killed; the victim’s work, if any, and related details; the cord or rope used to strangle the victim; if flats are occupied at the time of the victim’s death, the occupants’ observation as to the impressions found on the main door of the building, and; consistency of victim’s head wounds with blows inflicted by a wrench. 5. Crime Scene Assessment The death of the victim occurred between 6:15 a.m. to 6:15 p.m. of June 4, 2010 since the coroner arrived at the crime scene on 6 June 2010 (erroneously referred to in the physical evidence report as 6 August 2010) at 6:15 p.m. and estimated the victim’s death to have occurred between 48 to 60 hours earlier. The victim’s girlfriend had also revealed that the victim was supposed to meet her for lunch on June 4 but missed it, which prompted her to send text and voice-mail messages to him. The messages were not answered, and presuming that Ms. Bates was telling the truth, it is likely that the victim was killed before lunchtime of 4 June 2010. The victim shared a building with two other flats as can be seen from the sign above the frame of on the main door that says “Flats G H & I” (see Fig. 1) of the picture provided. Another sign etched on the door says “Please ring” and a doorbell can be seen to the left of the door. Fig. 1 Front door of building Fig. 2 Impression on main front door frame Another picture that depicts a similar door shows that there were impressions indicating forced entry. If the picture (see Fig. 2) is the same door depicted in Fig. 1, then there was forced entry into the lobby of the building. The investigators must ask all occupants of the building living in the two other flats when they first noticed these impressions on the door frame. This is important to establish that the attacker did indeed enter the building by force and not allowed entry by any of the other building occupants. The victim’s girlfriend, Angela Bates, earlier told the police that she noticed, upon approach to the victim’s flat, that it was open. Ms. Bates must have referred to the door in Fig. 3, which does not bear resemblance to that of Figs. 1 and 2, as far as paint colour and door frame are concerned (as the main door has a blue doorframe). Moreover, the list of physical evidence provided indicated that there were impression marks on the front door of the victim’s flat. As can be seen from Fig. 3, the door frame has uniform horizontal impressions on it indicating forced entry. Fig. 3 Impressions on door of victim’s flat Preliminary investigations showed that none of the victim’s neighbours heard or saw anything suspicious. Further investigation must be made into the occupants of the two other flats and establish what time they left or were around in their respective flats on the 4th of June. Assuming that they were inside their flats that day, the attacker could have conducted his foray into the building and into the victim’s flat between 6:15 and before anybody in the building was up. Moreover, the victim’s building is located at the end of the block with no immediate neighbour to the right although it is facing a row of flats across (see Fig. 4). To narrow down the time of death, it must be ascertained if the victim worked and if he did, had he reported that day. It would also help to know the kind of clothing the victim had on at the time he was killed. If he was still in sleeping clothes, obviously he was attacked in the early morning before he could have dressed up for work. Fig. 4 The area where victim’s flat is located (marked by red) The initial physical and forensic evidence suggest that the attack against the victim was initially made in the bedroom because of the presence of so much blood, both transferred and projected, on the walls, closet door and even on the floor (see Figs. 5 and 6). These suggest that the victim was probably evading the blows and was forced to the wall, his bloodied head coming in contact with it as he moved from side to side. There is also the possibility that after he was inflicted with blows using a heavy weapon, another attacker strangled him with a cord or rope pinning him to the wall struggling from side to side, hence, the kind of blood impression on the wall and on the closet door. It is also noticeable that the bloodstain on the wall seems to have gone lower from right to left (see Figs. 7 and 8), suggesting that the victim was still upright at the right side but staggered down as he moved to the left side. The transferred bloodstain on the floor suggests that the victim fell to the floor his head near the bed. The bloodstain had a definite shape to it (see Fig. 7) as if the victim was dragged but not all the way, which could mean that the attacker or attackers dragged him a few inches to lift him and bring him to the bathroom, where Angela Bates found it. Fig. 7 The victim’s bedroom The question is why the attacker or attackers had to remove the victim from the bedroom and into the bathroom. The report did not include finding similar projected and transferred bloodstains on the bathroom, which means that no further struggle occurred in that area. The physical evidence suggests that the attacker or attackers returned to the bedroom after the victim was removed from the area. Figures 7 and 8 show that clothes and other things were strewn all over the place after the victim was attacked evident from the absence of blood on them where blood can be gleaned underneath some of them. Fig. 7, for example, shows that a blue thing was on top of the bloodstain on the floor, yet it is not drench in blood itself. Moreover, white and peach coloured pieces of clothing, which are not bloodied, are on top of another blood streak near the big bloodstain on the floor as shown on both Figs. 7 and 8. On the lower part of the picture, another bloodstain was partially covered by a piece of rug or cloth. In Fig. 8, there are bloodstains on the wall of the room and the right closet door but none on the heap of clothes below them, suggesting that these clothes were thrown on the floor only after the struggle with the victim. Fig. 8 The victim’s bedroom (another angle) The physical evidence also shows that the attacker or attackers stopped by in the living room, at least after the victim was inflicted with blows. There are several traces of passive bloodstain on the sofa, walls and door, which could have been created by drippings from the wrench, which is presently the suspected weapon used in inflicting heavy blows on the victim’s head. The wrench, as shown by Fig. 9, is peacefully resting on a sofa arm in the living room whilst the other arm has bloodstains as shown on Fig. 10. From the toxicology screening, it was established that the victim was positive for alcohol and cannabis. The physical evidence report, however, mentions a small polyethylene bag with a suspicious white powder residue, along with cannabis resin and drug paraphernalia. The chemical identity of the white powder residue must be clearly established because it might make a difference in the investigation considering that the victim was not positive for it: it might have been brought by the attacker or attackers themselves. Drug users have high exposures to crimes and criminals. According to the lifestyle theory, there are people who are more prone to victimisation because their behaviour, habits or customs give them more exposure and contact with crimes and criminals (Turvey & Petherick 172-173). Since drug use is a crime that entails dealing with criminals, drug users, such as the victim here, are at high risk of being victims of violent crime. 6. Predictive Profile and Investigative Considerations From the manner of killing the victim, it could be inferred that there was really intent to kill considering that after he was immobilised by heavy blows presumably with a wrench, the attacker or attackers went a step further by strangulating ensuring his death. This should qualify the crime as murder because of the indicative intent and premeditation. The attacker, or main attacker if there is more than one, is male considering the weapons used against the victim and the overwhelming manner of attack. The manner of attack on the victim suggests that the attacker was a strong, male adult considering that the victim was not able to subdue the blows. Moreover, strangling an adult male victim using a ligature will take some kind of strength that a woman may not possess. In addition, the attacker or attackers was able to move the victim’s body from the bedroom to the bathroom with no signs of dragging the victim’s body from one area to the other, implying that the attacker or attackers was strong enough to lift the victim. The strand of a girl’s hair, if proven to be that of the girlfriend can be explained by her presence on the crime scene on 6 June 2010 trying to revive the victim. The same explanation can also be used for her fingerprints within the victim’s flat. In the event the strand is proven to belong to another female, who is not part of the police operatives that attended the crime scene on 6 June 2010, it would suggest the presence of a secondary attacker who is female. The use of the wrench and the ligature indicates confidence on the part of the attacker to overwhelm the victim with the use of raw power and strength. The manner of attack and strangulation also suggest rage against the victim. In addition, the attacker may have been an acquaintance of the victim, who was deeply antagonised by him considering the rather personal way he expressed his anger against the victim. In a study conducted in Finland from 1996 to 2002 on homicidal strangulation cases, it was shown that in 45% of the cases, the victim and the offender were acquaintances and only in 1.7% were they complete strangers. The rest were family members and ex-intimates. In 66% of the cases, the offenders were alcohol dependents and in 14% drug dependents. In addition, 63% of the cases involved multiple forms of violence where 39% of the victims were also kicked and hit, 25% stabbed, 14% were hit by a blunt instrument and 5% suffocated (Kocsis 2007 79-80). The choice of weapon and assault and the manner by which the attacker broke into the building suggest that he more often relies on strength than skills suggesting employment in work that uses manual labour more than mental deftness. Rather than pick the lock, the attacker forced the door open by prying it, relying on force as opposed to relying on deftness and hand skill. Despite this reliance on mere force rather than skill, the attacker left no fingerprints as reflected in the report. This implies that either he took the time to erase his fingerprints or that he wore gloves, which further implies that he had planned the attack. The attacker’s motive was not consistent with stealing, and therefore, with mere burglary, because the victim’s watch was left lying on the floor of the bedroom and the evidence of ransacking does not make any sense. Fig. 8 shows that the things at the top of the closet or the top of the drawer were not touched. This suggests that the attacker had either found the item he was specifically looking for and did not bother looking further or that the ransacking appearance was merely staged to mislead the authorities. But staging is inconsistent with the earlier profile discussed: that of a man who relies on strength rather than mental calisthenics. Besides, there is something terribly wrong with the picture presented in Fig. 8. The mixture of piles of clothing, shoes, books and other items are shown to be covering the closet door and drawers. If the attacker ransacked the drawers and closet, clothes and other ransacked items should have been thrown away from the closet doors and drawers into the middle of the room and not piled along the side as if to keep them away from the bloodstain in the middle of the room. The investigating police at the crime scene may have something to do with this and this should be clarified in the report. 6. Conclusion The pieces of evidence, physical and potential forensic, presented by the investigating officers, point to the offence of murder committed in the case of the death of Carl Rogers. There was malice aforethought and there was intention to take the life of the victim. The attack was planned and not merely random considering that the attacker most probably wore gloves because of the absence of fingerprints, other than that of the victim and his girlfriends. It would be close to impossible for the attacker to erase all his fingerprints considering that he was in all rooms in the flat: bedroom, bathroom and living area. He even tarried in the living room perhaps partaking of the drugs left behind by the victim the night before, which could have made him forget the wrench he had laid down on the arm of a sofa. The motive is apparently not stealing in the generic sense because the victim’s watch was lying open on the floor for everyone to see. On the other hand, the ransacked appearance of the victim’s bedroom is disturbing. The attacker may have conducted a search for a specific item in the possession of the victim but the arrangement of the piles of clothes and a mix of several items on the closet door and drawers laying open the middle of the room where the big bloodstain was or the untouched items on top of the drawers and the closet do not make sense. It could have been staged but this is unlikely as this is inconsistent with the other manifestations of the character of the attacker. There is a probability that the stack of clothes and other items were strewn in the middle of the room but the police on the scene pushed them away to reveal the big bloodstain that was on the floor in the middle of the room. The pieces of evidence also suggest that the attacker was of the same height or taller than the victim because most of the blows were made at the top of the head of the victim. The attacker was also a strong, male adult because the victim was not able to parry and stop the powerful blows of the blunt and heavy instrument and had the strength to strangulate the victim using a ligature. He relies on force and strength and had no patience for subtleties and hand skills as shown by the way he forced the door open by prying it rather than picking the lock. The way the attacker generally operated indicates that he knew the victim but not necessarily on friendly terms, was enraged at him and had planned the attack. The police must focus on male persons with whom the victim had previous altercations with. References: Kocsis, R.N. Criminal Profiling: International Theory, Research and Practice (Humana Press, New Jersey 2007). Turvey, B.E. Criminal Profiling: An Introduction to Behavioral Evidence Analysis (3rd edn Academic Press, London 2008). Turvey, B. E. & Petherick, W. Forensic Victimology: Examining Violent Crime Victims in Investigative and Legal Contexts (Academic Press, London 2008). Read More