THE BURIED BpDY C.ASES. CONTENT A~A~ YSES PROJECT:~attems m Buned Body Investlgatlons

by

Michael J. Hochrein,5AJennifer Gabra, 55

Stephen P. Nawrocki, PhD, DABFA

A Paper Presented AtThe 51st Annua Meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences

February 18, 1999, Orlando, Florida

Introduction:

Perhaps no ty'Pe Qf homicide draws popular interest like that involving the clandestin~burial of the victim's re~ins. Traits that are common in buried body cases, such as the victim'ssudden disappearance or ~bduction, intense search efforts, and the disposal and condition of theremains draw the interest of the public and press. The Buried Body Cases Content AnalysefProject (BBCCAP) is an ngoing study which takes advantage of that attention by compiling adatabase of victim, subje4t, and environmental attributes from public reports of buried body!cases. The project was f9rrnulated and initiated in 1994 as a means of identifyring patterns in ,thecircumstances surroundiQg the concealment of homicide \rictirns' remains. By focusing onburial as a means of dispqsal, the project impacts a problem that death investigators frequenttyface: locating the victim'~ remains and determining the method, timing, and witnesses of their

disposal. I,

This paper presents data accumulated between 1994 and 1997. In order to expeditiot:islyes:ablish a s~~cient r~se~rch population ?~ data base, wi~hout rel~ng on non-public records,this study utuizes medIa atcounts of hOmICIdes as the basIs for revIew. ~TEXIS@ Services, acommercial database co~prised of printed and broadcast news accounts ha.s been queried. Ekchquery consists of search tfrminology using the key words "buried body(ies)" and "murder(s)"!.Between 1994 and 1996, annual queries identified a total of 8565 articles containingcombinations of those terms. Because ~TEXIS@ is updated daily with the addition of mediaaccounts, sometimes retr~actively, the Service database is not static. After the date of a que~,additional accounts of investigations or new cases might be reported via journals or newspaperswhich had not previously been part of the Service. Since 1994, ~TEXIS@ News Library receivesmedia accounts from mor~ than 2,300 sources consisting of United States and overseasnewspapers, magazines, journals, newsletters, wire services and broadcast transcripts. Abstractmaterial from more than 11,000 information sources are also included (1), (2). Many of thesources consist of major ~etropolitan newspapers. As a result, incidents closer to the largerpopulation centers have a"greater likelihood of being reported. The exceptions are thoseaccounts in smaller market newspapers which are picked up by wire services such as theAssociated Press or UPI qunited Press International). Despite these characteristics of theService database, the number and geographic diversity (Figure 1) of the cases suggest that thesample population is representative of buried body cases across the United States.

Each of the 8565 source articles were first examined by title and synopses.meeting all of the follo\\ring criteria were then selected for further review:

Those

The account was nQ1 fictional or of a historical archaeological nature,

2) The homicide tbok place within the United States or its Territories

3) The reported homicide involved the discovery of, or search for, remains believed tohave been inte:.ntiomally buried;

n"" 0~tj..

2

4) The \1ctim' s rem:ins had been disco\Tered, or in cases where the body was not founq,it co~ld be assumed he b.ody was buri~d becaus~ of admiss~ons pr~vided by the subject~or wItnesses, and th subjects were ultImately trIed or convIcted WIthout the body; and

5) The buried body laccount was investigated by a law enforcement agency.

A total of 2945 accounts m~t the above mentioned criteria and were printed for full contentanalysis. Each article was a~signed a unique code number upon selection. As each wasreview~d a BBCCAP recor1 (Appendix B) was completed. The information from those recordswas then compiled into two databases via Microsoft Access Version 2.00~. One databaseconsisted of source article descriptors, including anecdotal information not necessarily codedelsewhere during the study. The second database included information specific to each victim.The separate databases were linked by case numbers.

Total Population = 1182 Victims

The geographic frequencies of buried body cases \\ithin the BBCCAP population.Figure

The 2945 articles selected for this study reported on 838 cases. Obviously, more "highprofile" investigations like those of John Wayne Gacy or the "Sacramento Boarding HouseMurderer" Dorothea Puente were reported on more often and by more sources than other cases.On average, each case was reported three times. The cases dated from 1951 to 1996 as reportedin articles which dated from 1978 to 1996. A total of 1195 victims were mentioned in the 838cases. These victims and the circumstanceS' surrounding their abductions, murders, and disposalscomprise the total research population for this study. The average case invol\red one buriedvictim. In situations of multiple homicides, where not all of the victims were inhumed,

information about each buried victim was analyzed and the case coded to document the existenceof non-buried victims. The maximum number of bodies buried in one case inciuded 29 of JohnWayne Gacy's victims.

A total of 1254 individuals were reported as suspects in the BBCCAP cases. For eachcase involving multiple offenders, a primary subject was identified on the basis of his, or her, .reported role in the abduction and homicide. The remaining accomplice(s) were coded asassociate subjects. Only biographical information for the primary subject was coded. However,descriptive information for every victim was coded when available. Race is not included as acoded variable in this phase of the study. It became apparent during the review of articles thatneither subjects' or victims' races were routinely reported by the newspapers. The exceptionswere accounts in which information was sought toward identifying Jane Doe or John Doe\rictims.

Figures 2: Victims' Ages as compared between BBCCAP and VCR populations.

In rel)ring on media accounts as the source of information for the BBCCAP study, thepossibility exists for errant data caused by inaccurate reporting. Certain variables wererecognized as being more prone to reporting error. Variables such as dates, victim/subjectbiographical information, victim-subject relationships, the locations of the disposal sites, andprosecutive disposition were thought to be reasonably accurate. Variables describing causes ofdeath or the condition of remains, however, were among those more likely to have beeninfluenced by subject.ive or inaccurate interpretations by reporters. The exceptions would be

4,

reports citing the conclusions of forensic experts as trial testimony. Most of the casescomprising the research population were reported on over several months, allowing forcorrections or verifications of previously reported information. For example, the investigationand prosecution of Billy Mansfield for the murders of four victims buried at his family's Floridahomestead was reported over a ten year period from 1981 to 1991. In that case, the discovery ofwhat were later identified as nonhuman bones, and the incomplete condition of some remains,resulted in early reports which errantly inflated the body count. Subsequent reports verifiedaccurate counts. In this phase of the study, the more vulnerable categories are presented withcaution. Attempts are made to validate some data by comparing BBCCAP attribute frequenciesto other homicide statistics. Among variables such as age, cause of death, crime scene location,and victim-subject relationships, attributes were coded using Uniform Crime Report (UCR)l andBureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) formats. This allowed for a comparison of the studypopulation v.ith established homicide statistics. Comparisons (Figures 2 through 6) show thatthe attribute frequencies for this study are relati\re[y consistent with national homicide statisticsin terms of regional occurrences, victims' ages, the sex of offenders, et cetera. In both

Figure 3: Subjects' ages as compared between BBCCAP and VCR populations.

lUniform Crime Report and Bureau of Justice Statistics published for 1994 were usedbecause of their chronological proximity to the BBCCAP study. In terms of homicide trends,1994 represents a midpoint between a period of high murder rates (9.5 per 100,000 inhabitants in1993) and low (7.4 per 100,000 in 1996). It should also be remembered that the BBCCAP studyis not that of rates of buried body cases.

--0 r.6~

5

populations there is a singular mode in the frequencies ofvictim's ages. Both victim populationspeak in the late teens and early twenties. Offender age among general homicides in the 1994VCR was also unimodal v.rith most subjects similar in age to their victims (e.g. late teens andearly nventies). Among the BBCCAP population, two modes appear but still fall predominatelyamong 20 and 30 year olds. If one accepts the causes of death as accurate as reported in thisstudy's source articles, then they remain somewhat consistent with those identified in VCRhomicide statistics. Firearms constitute the weapon used most often in victims' deaths. Knivesor cutting implements are proportionally similar in both populations. One noticeable distinctionis a relatively higher frequency of strangulation/asphyxiation in buried body cases. Blunt traumawas found to occur more frequently than airway trauma in the VCR. Both forms of trauma occurapproximately the same frequency among BBCCAP cases. Victim-Subject relationships in bothpopulations proportionally included more acquaintance relationships. Slightly more strangersthan family or caretakers were subjects in the buried body cases.

Figure 4: Causes of death as compared be~\'een BBCCAP and OCR populations.

,..~'.I'\I'"

6

:igure

5: Victim-Subject relationships as compared bet\\'een BBCCAP and UCR populations.

In a final comparison, the regional occurrences of the buried body cases are, again, comparableto general homicides. Both the South and West demonstrated more occurrences than theNortheast or :Midwest. Within the Southern and Western regions there were distinctions betweenthe two populations. BBCC.A..P cases were equally represented in those regions. Among VCRcases, however, almost twice as many homicides occurred in the South than the West.

BURIED BODY CASE CONTENT ANALYSES (1951-1996)Crime Scene Location

% of Victim Population

SOl UCR Population ~ 23,305

SWdy Population ~ 1182417

40

33

130

20 1~,6 17.3

10

030" Northeast South M~ West Territories

Regional Locations of Disposal Sites

I r ~ Uniform CrimeR:;": I! Based on '994 Uniform Cri~ Rep':\s

, c

Figure 6: Regional occUITences as compared bet\\'een BBCCAP and UCR populations.

"f IY""

7

\' ariables:

The BBCCAP database was created from the content analyses of 2945 source articles.Information gleaned during the analyses was divided into four broad categories interrelated by aunique case number. The categories included information about the source article, the victims,the subjects, and disposal sites. Fifty nine different variables within these categories wereexamined. Each variable included a coded attribute for unknown or missing data. Sevenvariables address the category of Source Articles. These include a unique article number, thename of the source newspaper, journal or wire service, the date of the article, the city in thedateline, the state in the dateline, the represented case number, and the reported investigative orprosecutive disposition of the case.

Coded information about the primary subject in each case again included a crossreference to a case number, a unique subject number, the primary subject's name, and whether ornot an accomplice was involved. The nature and condition of the sites at which the victim'sremains were found, or expected, were coded by the following variables:

1)2)3)

4)5)6)7)8)9)10)11)

Case number;The location of the final disposal site (City, State, and Region);The location of the final disposal site (subject's propertr, victim's property,public access areas);The date that the victim disappeared;The date that the victim's remains were discovered;The means by which the victim's remains were located;The type of matrix concealing the buried remains;The type of tool used by the subject to dig the grave;Preparation of the victim's grave in anticipation of the homicide;The reported cause of death;The reported presence of a forensic scientist, (other than a medical examiner orforensic pathologist), on site during the exhumation.

Like the primary subjects in each case, each victim's biographical information wascoded. Distinguished by unique victim numbers and cross referenced via the ubiquitous casenumber, information about each victim included name, age, sex, and the victim's relationship tothe primary subject. As mentioned above, variables such as age and relationship were duplicatedusing VCR and/or BIS classifications. Victim and subject ages were coded in three differentmanners:

2In situations where the victim's remains were buried on property jointly owned orresided upon by the subject and victims (ie. spousal. homicides), the location of the disposal sitewas coded as "subject's".

..\,

8

1) Actual age at the time of the victim's abduction or murder;2) VCR age classifications beginning with "infant", "1 to 4", "5 to 8", "9 to 12", andcontinuing to "65 and older"; and3) BJS age classifications beginning v.ith "under 12", "12to 14", "15 to 17", andcontinuing to "65 and older".

The study also consolidated some attributes to simplify the analyses. As a result,categories such as victim-subject relationship are represented in the database by three separatevariables of increasingly more condensed attribute definitions:

1) The relationship of the victim to the primary subject as described directly fromreviewed articles;2) The victim's relationship to the primary subject as it fell into VCR defined attributedefinitions of: acquaintance, boyfriend, brother, daughter, employee, employer, father,friend, girlfriend, husband, mother, neighbor, other family, son, stranger, or wife; and3) In a more general category, attributes were coded into one of five attributeclassifications:

"acquaintance": victim was kno,,"'n to the subject as a friend or acquaintance notfalling into any of the categories described below.

"custodial": victim was in the care of the subject in situations such as a child-babysitter or elderly-nursing home, etcetera, but where the relationship was not that inwhich the subject and victim were related by family, blood, marriage, et cetera.

"family": victim was related to the subject by blood, marriage, step relationshipas an in-law, or as some other type of relative.

no known re.lationship is reported between the victim and subject(s)

'none'

(missing infoffi1ation designated by "-0-")

Findings:

Appendix A of this paper contains attribute frequencies for articles examined to date.Based on those frequencies the following basic observations were made about the BBCCAP

population:

The victim's remains were usually found within a year of their disappeara11ce. In a totalof 881 instances where the dates of disappearance and discovery were reported, 69% of thevictims were found within a year. Of those instances in which the remains were found (810),40.5% were found within a month of the victim's abduction or disappearance.

9

Total Population = 881 Victims Total Population = 810 Victims

Figures 7 and 8: Lengthoftirne bet\\'een the victims' disappearances and discoveries.

The remains of \'ictims were most often found via iliformation pro\Jided by the subject orhis associate. In 788 instances where the reasons for the victim's discovery were reported, 55%were found when a witness to the actual disposal, or the subject's description of the disposal,di\'Ulged the information to law enforcement. This frequency is thought to be conser\'ative inthat media accounts may mention "informant" information as the reason for discovery butrarely report the identity of the informant or relationship to the subj ect. It is the senior author'sexperience that informants are often associates of suspects.

Professional (6%)Pedestrian (19%)

Nonhuman (1%)

Informant (12%)Search (20%)

VictimfAssoc (2%)

SubjectJAssoc (40%)

Total Population. 788 VictimsTotal Population -788 Victims

Figures 9 and 10: The means by \vhich the remains ofBBCCAP\rictims \~'ere found.

10

Subjects tended to bury victims' bodies on property they controlled or to which they hadprivate access. Of 784 accounts ofvictim's clandestine burials, 386 (49%), were found onproperty owned by, occupied by, or on which subj ects or their family worked. Property to whichthere was public access, and which the article reported no known association with the subject orvictim, included cultivated fields, landfills or dumps, desert, cemeteries (among or withlegitimate inhumations), and public lands such as parks, game lands, or utility right ofways.

Public Lands (25%)Subject's (49%) Field (5%)

Dump (2%)

Desert (8%)

Cemetery (2%)

Victim's (9%)Victim's (9%)

Subject's (49"1.)Public (42%)

Total Population = 784 Victims Total Population = 784 Victims

Figures 11 and !12: The tJ-pe of setting chosen as the disposal site for the \'ictim's remains.

The victims most often knew their killers. Among the reported buried body cases, thevictim and subject were strangers in only 15% of the instances. This may reflect the moreintimate nature of burial as a concealment method. Among victims and subjects who wereimmediate family, 68% (91 of 133) of the victims were the subject's offspring.

111..'

Victim's Relationship to the Primary Subject

272

Total Population = 837 VictimsNo. of Victims

[uniform Crime Re.,.:.rts Categories)

Figures 13!and 14: The relationships ben\"een the BBCCAP \!ictims and subjects.

The remt:litzs of most of the buried victims were not altered In a category which couldnot be compared to general VCR and BJS homicide statistics, most of the BBCCAP victims v.'erenot reported as~a\ting their concealments enhanced beyond simple burials. Alteration orenhanced burial was defined as dismemberment, cremation or atten-lpted cremation, the additionof lime-like substances or acids to the grave, or secondary burial.

Enhanced (44%)

Simple (56%)

Total Population = 290 VictimsTotal Papulation = 290 Victims

~igures ISland 16: Subjects' enhancements of BBCCAP clandestine burials.

II".

12

Discussion:

As an introduction, this paper is limited to a presentation of a few observations andconting~ncies. It has ~ot e~phasiz~d s:atis:ics b~cause o~the.obvious qualita:ive significance. ofsome faIrly robust vanables. QuantItatIve, IncludIng multI vanate, analyses WIll be addressed mfuture papers. The observa ions presented here are based predominately on data thought lesssusceptible to biased or inaQcurate reporting. Obviously, the most accurate and completeinformation will come during the next phase of the BBCCAP with an examination of lawenforcement reports of seleated cases. Information such as burial locations through informantinformation may never be cCilnfirmed. The confidentiality of informants is held virtually sacredby criminal investigators. In general, however, the examination of official police reports willafford opportunities at validFition and further interpretation ofiriformation presented in this

paper. I

The impact of this s~dy may be felt in the design of empirical research, the interpretationof buried body crime scenesl and investigative profiling. For example, the demonstration ofahigher probability of locating clandestine graves within a year bodes well for short duration.empirical studies of decomposition (taphonomy). Research and field school exercises have beenjustified by the authors on the basis of this infonnation. For first responders at buried bodycrime scenes, the greater lik/:';lihood of short post-depositional intervals emphasizes theimportance ofunderstandin$ the greater potential for preservation of trace evidence, and theneed to appropriately process scenes to recover same.

\\'hether or not forensic experts were involved in the discovery and processing of the

crime scene was another variable for which each article was reviewed. Specifically, those

articles which mentioned th r on-site presence offorensic scientists other than medical examiners

or coroners, were coded (1 6 or 9.7% of the BBCCAP recoveries). Certainly, the immediate

~nv,olvement o~ f~rensic exp~rts v.rill be i?cluded in police ~eports, and th~ frequencies of such

Involvement WIll Increase. However, thIS study offers a glImpse of how Infrequent qualified

experts such as forensic anthropologists, forensic entomologists, forensic botanists, et cetera, are

present during the collection of evidence they may ultimately examine. This reinforces

arguments for early interverttion by forensic specialists and appropriate trainIng of first

responders in evidence recognition and collection techniques.

The results of this s dy will bring to crime scene interpretation a database of physicaland circumstantial conditio s surrounding the disposal of victims via burial. One example of theneed for such a database is eflected in the relatively infrequent mention of digging implementsused by subjects. This wou d imply that subterranean toolmark examination is often overlookedat buried scenes. Hochrein (3), demonstrated the resilience of such evidence and how it mightimpact investigation of buried body cases. Even though few BBCCAP articles reported the typeof suspected digging implement, those mentioned were quite varied, (shovel, pick, rake, stick,hubcap, axe, tire iron, and sea shell). These observations suggest that interpreters of buriedscenes should take a closer ,look at the types of implements subjects use to dig clandestine gravesand how they reflect preparation or intent. Similarly, reports of graves having been dug in

'.!-;'t'iPi.I,,!

...J

anticipation OfhomiCid~ were sparse (24 cases or 2% of the BBCCAP -population) but mayoccur more frequently t an realized. When reported, the information was gleaned from subjectsor witnesses who spoke of the grave being dug prior to the homicide. Hochrein (4) speaks ofgeotaphonomic indicati ns of subsurface sedimentation as evidence of graves laying open priorto backfilling. The findings in this study support a need for further research in identi~ring

physical indications of tIle grave's history (geotaphonomy).

A collateral advalntage to the BBCCAP will be its examination of the accuracy of mediaaccounts. Na\\'rocki (unpublished observation), in tracking media accuracy in the Midwest overthe past five years has n6ted significant and systematic departures from reality in reportedhomicide accounts. Not, surprisingly, the discrepancies are related to over imaginative, or "spun"

.descriptions of remains and conjecture about their peri- and postmortem history. As accounts ofburied body cases repOr1Jed in the source articles are compared to facts presented in availablepolice reports, the natur~ and frequency of inaccurate or subjective reporting can be examined.Future considerations ot:BBCCAP data, in general, will continue to attempt validation throughits comparison with nati«>nal crime statistics. In addition to UCR and BJS reports, TheSupplementary Homicid~ Report (SHR) will also be consulted. The SHR offers more detailabout individual homici~es. In addition to age, sex, race, and victim-offender relationship, SHRscode the month and yearl of each reported murder, the location of the incident (e.g.: home, hotel,roadside, et cetera). Th; numbers of victims/subjects per incident, weapon used, and thecircumstances precipitat~ng the homicide. As with BBCCAP data, SHR's will be limited by theaccuracy of reported inf~rmation (5), (6).

The most salient impact of the BB,CCAP study lies in its potential for searchers andprofilers. The cursory fi dings presented above identify some basic patterns useful forinvestigators trying to 10 ate clandestine graves with few clues. The most obvious pattern is therepeated significance of ubject/witness cooperation. The predominance of buried bodydiscoveries \~a subject! "tness information attests to the importance of effective interview andinterrogation techniques Proportionally, subjects more often confessed to the location of theirvictim when they were related to that victim. Subjects tended to work alone. When anaccomplice was involved it surprisingly did not decrease the time it took to find the victim. Withor without accomplices, most victims were found within a year of their disappearance. Blindsearches were, by far, th~ least effective means of finding clandestine graves. The relationshipbetween subjects and viqtims appears to influence a number of site parameters. Contingencytables comparing relatio~ship to the location of burial sites clearly demonstrate that victims areburied on subject propeI1ty except when there is no known relationship between the assailant and\rictim. When relations~p and disposal effort are compared, victims related by blood to thesubject were far less likely to have their burials enhanced or altered. This lack of alteration, orpost-depositional disturbance, could reflect intimacy with the subject's reluctance to disturb a"loved one". The "typical" buried body case, as represented by the BBCCAP data, involves asingle subject and victim who knew each other. The subject was slightly older (205 -30s) thanthe victim (late teens -early 20s). The victims tended to be killed with a gun and their bodiesburied on property the subject controlled. The remains were usually not altered or disturbedafter burial. They were {lis covered relatively soon after their disappearance with the cooperation

~4

of the subject. It is hoped th,t future analyses \\rill be able to suggest potential search areas orsubject profiles given infom1~tion already known about the subject, 'victim, or disposal site.

An intriguing aspect~fthis research is that of the unknown. What of those cases inwhich the body is never foun ? One might think that if found their situations would faIl intopatterns reflected by the stud to date. But is there a systematic factor causing them not to belocated? If those cases in wijich the body was not found, but subjects/witnesses told of theirdisposal, are any indication t~en perhaps the physical nature of the site is the key. In several ofthose cases, the subj ect' s selection of sites which were not conducive to search or accidentaldiscoveries (ie. landfills, desJrt), forever concealed the remains. Again, the opportunity tosurvey law enforcement ageqcies and forensic anthropologists regarding the BBCCAP cases, as Iwell as their general experie~ces in unsolved homicide, might clarify this and other issues.

:O:Z3

5

References:

Gongla-qoppinger L, editor. Lexis-Nexis Directory orOcline Services. Da1 on

Lexis-Ne~s, 1998.

2 Gongla-qopinger L, editor. Lexis-Nexis Directory of Online Senices. Daytdn:Lexis-Nefis, 1994. I

..,

.) HOChrein1MJ. The dirty dozen: The recognition and collection of tool marks it the forensic eotaphonornic record. Journal of Forensic Identification 1997

47(2):17 -98.

"'"t Hochreinf 1J. ~i autopsy of the grave: the preservation of forensic

fgeotapho omic evidence. A paper presented at the 50th Annual Meeting of t eAmerica Academy of Forensic Sciences, San Francisco, CA. February 9-141998.

5 Tennenb urn AH. The Supplemental Homicide Report (SH:R): A neglected utvaluable ource .for homicide research. In: Block CR Block RL, editors.Question and answers in lethal and non-lethal violence: Proceedings of thesecond a ual workshop of the Homicide Research Working Group. Washin on,DC: Unit d States Department of Justice, 1993;77-86.

6. LangfOr1L, Isaac Nancy, Kabat Stacey. Homicides related to intimate partf r

violence n Massachsetts: examining case ascertainment and validity of the S

Homicid Studies 19982(4):353-377.

116

APPENDIX AGeneral List of Frequencies

POPULATION FREQUENCIES

29451978 -1951-838

12541195

29

Total Number of Source Articles 1.'ed:Date Range of Source Articles:Date Range of Cases:Total Number of Cases:Total Number of Subjects (pri.-n ' and Associate):Total Number of Victims (ObseI"\' tions):Maximum Number of Buried Vic ims Per Case:Minimu.'1l Number of Bu.-ied Vic ims Per Case:Me~' Number of Buried Victims Per Case: .4

ATTRIBUTE FREQUENCIES

°. O~KnO\\l1 Obser\.ations. ;-.'umber ofObsm.ationsJcar of \'ictim 's Disappcarance

19511954196219641965196619681969197019711972197319741975197619771978197919801981198219831984198519861987198819891990199119921993199419951996unknO\\"I1

(.I~Io)

(.10,0)

(.1°'~)

(.10,~)

(.3%)

(.3°'~)

(.10,0)

(.2~0)

(.2°/0)

(2.8% )

(. 7°/~)

(.5°'0)(.7°4)

(1.0°0)

(1.2%)

(2.1~~)

(3.5°;0)

(2.8Oco)

(4.1°'0)

(4.9~0)

(6.1 °'0)

(5.7%)

(5.1 ~/o)

(6.1°'0)

(5.~~)

(6.9%)

(4.~,0)

(4.0~'0)

(3.5°10)(5.8°'0)

(5.2~.0)

(3.5.~)

(4.20,'0)

(4.9°/0)(2.7°'°)

.percentages rounded

1113

3

1

2

2

28

7

5

7

101221

352842

SO62

58526258704941

3559533543SO27 -!.ill

181

l'l,j"'~

u1;/

19961996

7

\ "icrim"s Sex

FemaleMalelinknO\\"I1

(46.8'!.'o)(53.2°,'0)

549625Jill.21

Victim's Age (tTCR)

(3.7°'0) 36(3.8°/~) 37(3.4°,°) 33(3,10;0) 30(9.2°'°) 89(16.30,0) 158(12.0°,/0) 116

(10.70,0) 104(10,0°'°) 97(6.3°,°) 61(5.4'!0) 52(3.3°,°) 32(2.3°'0) 22(2.7'!.0) 26(2.7°~) 26(1. 7~..) 16(1.55°'0) 15

(2.0°0) 19-2§;2.226

Infant1 to 45 to g9to1213 to 1617 to 1920 to 2425 to 2930 to 3435 to 3940 to 4445 to 4950 to 5455 to 5960 to 6465 to 6970 to 7475 and o\"erUnknO\\l1

(Too numerous to list her~)Victim's A2~

\"ictim"s Af!e IBJS)

(13 7°,.) 133(4.5~Ig) 44(12.2°'0) 118(13.2~o) 128(7.8%) 76(10.7~'0) 104(10.0"'0) 97(6.3~1g) 61(8.~,0) 84(7.6°.'0) 74(5.2%) 50-2§2-

226

Un12151822253035405065Ur

Prim3J"\' Suhi~ct's S~x

(7.6%) 83(92.40,10) 1005~

107

Female!\1a.leUnknO\\11

""I 'r"'"..','. ~i

d~tototototototototoanlkn

121417212429

34394964d olderO\\TI

IS

Prima!"' Suhie...,"s AQ~ roo numerous to list here)

Primar\- Subject's AQe (l'CR)

Infant1 t045 to 89 to 1213 to 1617to1920 to 2425 to 2930 to 3435 to 3940 to 4445 to 4950 to 5455 to 5960 to 6465 to 6970 to 7475 and overVnknO\\11

(0.00,~) 0(0.0%) 0(0.00,'0) 0(0.1%) 1(2.30,-0) 23(5.6°/~) 55(15.7%) 154(14.3°,~) 140(22.00,~) 216(19.8%) 194(8.60,.~) 84(4.8o,~) 47(3.0%) 29(1.80,~) 18(0.8%) 8(0.4~~) 4(0.4%) 4

(0.4%) ~214

Primar\" Subject"s A!!e (BJS)

Under 1212101415 to 1718t02122 to 2425 to 29.30 to 343S to 3940 to 49SO to 646S and olderUnknO\\"I1

(0.0°,.) 0(0:4°'0) 4(3.8°,.) 37(8.5°~) 83(11.1~'o) 109(14.3°'0) 140(22.0%) 216(19.8%) 194(13.3°;.) 131(5.6°,.) 55(1.20,-0) 12-lli

214

Other \'jctim's?

:-fultipleSingleUnkno\\'!l

(51.9°,.) 573(48.1°'°) 531 1104

91

(36.5"'0) 391(63.5~'~) 681 1072

123

AccomDlice?

YesNoUnknO\\T1

Relatio~ship (Too numerous to list here)

Re!ation!'hi!1 (Genera!) (Too num~rous to list h~rc)

--0 '7;TT"

"

'"

!I

19

Relationship (G~~aI)

AcquaintanceCustodialFamily~oneul1knO\\11

(52.6~.~) 440(2.5%) 21(29.6°/0) 248

(15.3°'0) 128-D].358

Relationship (t!CR)

Acquainw1ceBo)friendBrotJ1eT

DaughterEmployeeEmployerFatJ1~rFriendGirlfriendHusband~fother~eigl1\>or0tl1er FamilySon

St.--anger\Vifel't1kno\\l1

(32.5%) 272(0.4°,°) 3(0.6°,-0) 5(5.1~'0) 43(5.7~'0) 48(1.0°0) 8(2.6°;0) 22(6.2%) 52(5.4~0) 45(2.9°,0) 24(1.8°'~) 15(2.6°0) 22(2.4°0) 20(5. 7~0) 48(15.3°"0) 128(9;8°;-0) 82-ill

358

~odvci~' (Too numerous to list here)

IJ"/~~/j,''i

120

BodvS!at~

o.1Ja..;ka..1JabamaArkansasoA.nzonaCalifonuaColoradoConnecticutDistrict of ColumbiaDeIa\\OareFloridaGeorgiaIowaIdahoIllinoisIndianaKansasKentuckyLouisiana).fassachusetts)'fa!")-Iand).faine

).fichig:m)'finn;:sou)'iissouri

)'Iississippi)'fonuna;-.'orth Carolina:---ebraska~e\\" Hampshire:---e\\" Jersey:---e\\" ).[exico:---e\"ada:---e\\" i'orkOluoOklahoma

OregonPenns:--IvaniaPuerto RicoRl1ode IslandSOUtil CarolinaTenn~ss;:eTexasUuh

\'irginiaVirgin Islands\'errnont\\'ashington\Visconsin\Vest Virginia

\\'yoming:---ot found

(0.4°/0) 5

(1.2°'0) 14(O.~..) 9(2.5%) 30(17.6%) 208(1.9%) 22(1.00,~) 12(0.2%) 2(0.3%) 3(6.5°'~) 77(1.3%) 16(0.30,0) 4(1.1~~) 13(5.3°,i,) 63(2.2°'~) 26(0.7°'°) 8(2.0!';~) 23(0.6°/~) 7(2.1%) 25(1.5%) 18(0.3°,°) 4(1.9°;~) 22(1.2°'0) 14(2.3°'0) 27(0.3~1o) 4

(0.1°;0) 1(1.2°/0) 14(0.60,0) 7(0.8%) 9(1.9°/0) 22(0.8%) 9(2.2~'0) 26(7.3°/0) 86(2.6%) 31(1.30,10) 16(2.6%) 31(3.00,0) 36(0.1°/0) 1(0.6%) 7(1.40,10) 16

(1.30,0) 16(8.9~!0) 105(1.6°'°) 19(1.7°'°) 20(0.2%) 2(0.3%) 4(2.00,0) 24(1.5°/~) 18(0.3~~) 4(0.2%) 2 1182

13

B:s:,giQJl

(17.3%) 205(30.&%) 364(18.6%) 220(33.0°/0) 390(0.3°/~) 3-1m

13

~ortheastSouth!-fidwest\VestTerritories~ot found

21

i"ear Gone (See above)

~fontll Gon~

Januaf)"FebruaryMarch"-1.pril

MayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecemberUrJ-..no\..n

(7.5°'/0)(7.2~',)(6.4~',)(8.5",0)(8.0°/0)(11.1~1o)(9.8~'0)(8.7°/0)(8.2'!,0)(9.7~.~)(7.2°/0)(7.8°0)

636054

71679382736981606L!J.£

357

D:lV Gone (Too numerous to list here)

I-ear Found

(0.1°,o)

(0.1°'°)(2.5°,;))

(0.10.;')

(2.90,-0)

(0.7°;0)

(0.1°;0)

(0.20.'0)

(0.90.'~)

(4.3°/0)

(0.7°'0)

(2.7°'0)

(4.4°/0)

(4.7°'°)

(7.1°'°)(4,4°,°)

(6.7°'0)

(5.50,~)

(6.6°'0)

(5.20,'.)(3.4°/0)

(5,3'1'0)(5.6%)

(6.2°,.)

(4.6°/0)

(5.5°'0)

(5.5°;0)

(4.4°'°)

I

I25

I297I

29

437

27444771446755665234535662465555

44-71120

1954196919711972197319741975197619771978197919801981198219831984198519861987198819891990199119921993199419951996~ot foundlinkno\\'I!

.lQQ:1

~2

Month Found

Janua!)'F~brua!)'March

.A.prilMayJune

JulyAugustS~pt~mberOctoberNovemberDecemberNot foundUnknO\\'I1

(5.4°'0) 50(4.5°'0) 42(8.6°;0) 80(9.40,:0) 88(9.9%) 92(9.9"10) 92(9.1°/G) 85(i1.5°'G) 107(7.3°/0) 68(7.1°'G) 66(7.60,'G) 71

(9.80,:0) 9L2.J1.71

192

(Too numerous to list here)Da~' Found

Tim~ GO:l~

(25,4~'0) 206(9,0°;0) 73(40,50,0) 328

(25,1~~) 203~71

314

1 .6 mon!!1S

6 -12 months

< month

> year

~ot foundlilkno\m

Tit!]; Gone (G;:1;:-a!)

(31.1°'0) 274(68.9~'0) 607-.m

314

}'fore than a year\\'ithin a yearLnklI0\\11

Fo"nd B"-(12.5°;") 99(0.8°0) 6(18.~/o) 149(5.6°0) 44(19.7~.0) 155(40.5°;") 319(2.0°'0) 16~

71337

Informant>.'onllumanPedestrianProfessionalSearchSubject/subject associateSuf"\ivori,'ictirn associate>.'ot foundUnknoml

found By (G;:n;:ral)

(25.2°,'0) 199(55.1°,.) 434(19.7~.'o) 155~

407

Accidental\\'itnes5Searchl:nkno\\ll.'not found

23~

C.:m.:t.:ryD.:s.:rtDumpFieldPublic

Subject'sVictim'sUnknO\\"tJ

(1.80,.) 14(8.0°,.) 63(2.20,~) 17(5.4°,~) 42(24.6°.) 193(49.2~..) 386(8.8~'.) 69-1M

411

S~ning (G~~raI)

Subject"s\;jctim'sPublicUnknO\'11

(49.2°..) 386(8.8~'o) 69

(42.0~.) 329-lli411

~AvailableBurialSoilStructureL"nknO\\'IJ

(13.5'!0) 154(O.4'!0) 5(69.5°0) 791

(16.5%) 188-1ill57

Tool l7sed

~umber of obse!"\°ations ~dicating tool used: 38 (3.2°-'0 of the total population)

Pr~para!ion

~umber of obser\"ations i1dicating dIe burial '''as predug: 24 (2"Oo~ of the total population)

CO!ldition

(5.2'!'.)(35.52'!/o)(23.4'!0)(10.0'!0)(5.52'!.'.)(20.30,0)

Bum~dCol1tain~dDism~mb~r~dExllum~d-s~condar)' buriaLilne or acid appliedPartially buriedUnkno\\'!1

Condition (General)

Enhanced disposalSimple disposalUnknO\\'!1

(44.1%)(55.9°,°)

12816 2 --12.Q;905

IS103682916

S9~90S

24

.-\ir.vay traumaBlunt traumaBuried aliveCombinationEdge traumaGunshotOtherUru~O\\tI

(19.1'!'o) 161(14.4'!o) 121(1.2'!o) 10.(9.1%) 77(12.0'!o) 101.(37.80,0) 319

{6.4°/o) 54~352

~umber of obse1"\"ations indicating eJl.-pert \\11$ on site: 116 E? 70,'0 oftl1~tota.1population)

--~-.-.-z~Q.

Q.

-<

'Ct-o()Qj

ItE:;()

:>..2UJ

..2t-0(,)U

UJ

"r,-'U

JO"r,C

C~

c.U

cn>

UJ

Ocn

O~

m~

02UJ~

-~~m

'C'-0()C)

~Cj

-()t~Q()'-=0~

~

M-0tI0-Ma,'2-=, cc

E M

M

o,.c~

~M

E

=~

cIIE

=

!..,.Q

.Q=

~=

,ocE

Eg>

a~c..

~~

.00

zZ..o

-=c

>.IO

C°.§~

.'C

.xal-o

c~a~

;~

~oe

C()~

Ct

..()()

"0''-00Q

)~~0Q

)-.c=(f)~=E!no

]

i-o-i!:.O

CO

IOc:C

-'E.~

-~--~

~~

~~

~~

~~

c't-i:~

c,"cC,

'"lcEcc,"

~,cE

'tE~

CE

E'tc"i:C

i~

z~~

..a.,"cz

..c..Cc

>.ccc°,c::

'C.~

c,E~

cccc~~

~coU

)~~

z~

, -

0 ...

-..~,A

, ""

E0

.a.a.a.a ~

---E

E E

E

-~

~~

~

.t

~~

~~

~

".~

Z

ZZ

Z

,.a.a.a).).).).

EE

EE

-.~~

~-g

C=

==

-!.E

i 0000-

.Z

ZZ

Z!

~

IE

cccc "'~

~o

-5 E

- ~

~~

~E

0""

iio 'O

~

'ee'~

,EE

E~

.ao~

~>

' E

EE

E~

~

ccc~E

-" ~

~~

C

CIC

~

=zzzw

~t,

°oE

zzzz- ~

~---

< C

o ~ c..

,., ..IZ

~ C

, co..

Z=

p W

~

q c

).- --c

,oc,c_, 0

'-0000-.=

-.a E

EE

E=

c.,.;

o'~'I

E'

E

--~-o

g .a.D

.a-g

tClco~

1 oooo-g

~=

==

-g<

ozo~zo

»»ct. ~

~=

~<

0]~4 ]

~c-o0aIttaI~U

)-=~0C

o~-0

Ii.. ~II i."0z..,.c..9.

iE'"0ei-0'a0.c<

---~

c

! 'C

I

C

§ E

0 -

~

II. :

1 .0-

-;

~

c~"'

c. ~

- 'C

"Ia. 'ig8.~

oI-E

tcc

.'C;=

81;;C

§~~

~c.E

o--0;

,-f;<'-;E

II..c.!cQ.-o

I =

E"->

'-c.c ,O

'oEo

;=o

oE

=E

-=

"-0 -I

~~

>o'c--ooo

zzo>~

~06=

~>

';;;~c.'io;

'C._-~

.c."o>&

~~

~~

Q?:~

Q=

ii.q'C!i0.!iC.Co

~

i~~C&.0t!c -0 .-.-cC

O)c..0

01

~ cl

0 ~I

iico

~~O-

Il. 01

'0.'Eg.~.ic