Journal of Criminal Justice 42 (2014) 213–220

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Criminal Justice

No body, no crime? The role of forensic awareness in avoiding police

detection in cases of sexual homicide☆
Eric Beauregard a,⁎, Melissa Martineau b
a
School of Criminology, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, British Columbia, V5A 1S6, Canada
b
Behavioural Sciences Branch, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, 1426 St. Joseph Blvd, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0R2, Canada

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Available online 8 July 2013 Purpose: The study examines whether the use of forensic awareness strategies increases the chance of
avoiding police detection in sexual homicide.
Methods: Logistic and negative binomial regression analyses are used on a sample of 350 cases of sexual
homicide – 250 solved and 100 unsolved cases – in order to determine if forensic awareness strategies are
related to the status of the case (i.e., solved versus unsolved) and the number of days before body recovery,
while controlling for certain victim characteristics.
Results: Although an offender’s use of precautions does not seem to increase the offender’s chance of avoiding
police detection, some modus operandi behavior adopted by the offender at the crime scene may help to delay
the discovery of the victim, and thus delay the offender’s apprehension. Moreover, the likelihood of whether
or not a sexual murderer is apprehended varied significantly across victim characteristics.
Conclusion: Some offenders seem to exhibit rational thinking in targeting certain types of victims and in adopting
certain strategies in order to delay body recovery. Number of days until body recovery is a more appropriate
measure of detection avoidance than case status, as it is not biased by administrative rules or timing of data entry.
© 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction examination (Walton, 2006). But what of the possibility of offenders

"Wherever he steps, whatever he touches, whatever he leaves, even un-
consciously, will serve as a silent witness against him. Not only his
fingerprints or his footprints, but his hair, the fibers from his clothes,
the glass he breaks, the tool mark he leaves, the paint he scratches,
the blood or semen he deposits or collects. All of these and more bear
mute witness against him. This is evidence that does not forget. It is not
confused by the excitement of the moment. It is not absent because
human witnesses are. It is factual evidence. Physical evidence cannot
be wrong, it cannot perjure itself, it cannot be wholly absent. Only
human failure to find it, study and understand it, can diminish its value."
(Edmond Locard, cited in Kirk, 1953, p. 4).
This citation illustrates one of the most important principles at the
foundation of forensic science as we know it today – the Locard ex-
change principle. Edmond Locard (1877-1966) suggested that if the
offender did not bring something to the crime scene, he certainly took
something away, which could be revealed through proper forensic
☆ This research was supported by a grant (SSHRC # 410-2011-1794) from the Social
Sciences and Humanities Research Council Small Research Grant. The views expressed
are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police.
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 778 782 8134; fax: +1 778 782 4140.
E-mail address: ebeaureg@sfu.ca (E. Beauregard).
becoming aware of forensic science practices and modifying their be-
havior at the crime scene accordingly?
According to Strom and Hickman (2010), the rise in the utilization
of forensic evidence is mainly attributable to technological develop-
ment and the diffusion of knowledge about the value of forensic evi-
dence in both the criminal justice community and in popular culture.
While we have witnessed a significant increase in the use of forensic
evidence in criminal investigation due to technological advancement
in the past 20 years (Beaver, 2010), most research has shown
that better case outcomes (i.e., identifying suspects, pressing charges,
securing convictions) have not followed (e.g., Baskin & Sommers,
2010a; Brown & Keppel, 2012; Ingemann-Hansen, Brink, Sabroe, &
Sorensen, 2008). This can be partly attributed to the minor role that
forensic evidence continues to play in many criminal investigations
(see Horvath & Meesig, 1996 for a review), the decision not to submit
forensic evidence to the crime lab for analysis (Strom, Ropero-Miller,
Jones, Sikes, Pope, & Horstmann, 2007), and case backlogs (Peterson,
Johnson, Herz, Graziano, & Oehler, 2012).
Moreover, some researchers have postulated that the emergent
popularity of forensic science has manifested in a proliferation of
crime-dramas such as CSI – Crime Scene Investigation which could poten-
tially influence offenders’ modus operandi. The hypothesis that the sci-
ence portrayed within crime dramas can influence offender’s criminal
behavior has been termed the “CSI effect” (see Baskin & Sommers,
2010b; Kim, Barak, & Shelton, 2009). Alternatively, Cole and Dioso-Villa

0047-2352/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2013.06.007
214 E. Beauregard, M. Martineau / Journal of Criminal Justice 42 (2014) 213–220
(2007) have termed this hypothesis the police chief’s effect, stating that
crime dramas such as CSI are in fact educational for criminals, providing
them with new strategies for avoiding police detection as well as an
increased sophistication in the commission of their crime. For example,
it has been noted that offenders are more frequently wearing gloves
to avoid leaving fingerprints and using bleach (which destroys DNA)
to clean up blood (Durnal, 2010; Stevens, 2008). Such behaviors and
strategies used by criminals to avoid detection have been associated
to a relatively new concept in criminology: forensic awareness. The
current study aims to examine whether the use of forensic awareness
strategies – i.e., taking additional steps and adapting the modus operandi
used in a crime to hide evidence in order to ultimately avoid apprehen-
sion (Davies, 1992) – increases the chance of avoiding police detection
in cases of sexual homicide.
Literature review
Avoiding detection in homicide
There is a dearth of research on detection avoidance in cases of homi-
cide. Homicide clearance research is one source of data that may con-
tribute to understanding some of the strategies used by offenders to
avoid detection. The different factors which influence homicide clear-
ance rates have been traditionally organized around two conflicting per-
spectives in the literature: the discretionary and the nondiscretionary.
The discretionary perspective – or extralegal (Riedel, 2008) – suggests
that victimology (e.g., age, gender) will influence how vigorously and
diligently the police will work to solve a crime (Black, 1976). For in-
stance, “victim preferencing” could explain why the homicide of a
poor sex trade worker would be less likely to be cleared by the police
than a case involving an upper class female victim. Research on homi-
cide clearance rates that consider the influence of victim characteristics
reveal a general consensus that cases of homicide involving younger
victims tend to be solved more expeditiously (Addington, 2006, 2008;
Alderden & Lavery, 2007; Jiao, 2007; Korosec, 2012; Lee, 2005; Puckett
& Lundman, 2003; Regoeczi et al., 2000; Regoeczi et al., 2008; Roberts,
2008; Roberts & Lyons, 2009; Trussler, 2010). This could be due to
three main factors: (1) when the victim is a child, the public are likely
to experience increased moral outrage, and getter pressure is brought
to bear on investigating agencies, resulting in the dedication of more
time and resources to solve the case (Riedel, 2008); (2) children are
usually in the company of others who may be potential witnesses to
the crime and able to provide information to the police (Riedel, 2008);
and (3) homicides of children are more likely to be committed by a
family member, thus limiting the required scope of the investigation
(Regoeczi et al., 2008).
A similar pattern emerged from the research examining victim
gender. Several studies have shown that, as with cases of child murder,
homicide cases involving female victims are cleared more expeditiously
(Addington, 2008; Alderden & Lavery, 2007; Korosec, 2012; Lee, 2005;
Regoeczi et al., 2000, 2008; Roberts, 2007; Trussler, 2010). However,
a significant number of studies have found no relationship between vic-
tim gender and the solvability of the case (Addington, 2006; Puckett &
Lundman, 2003; Riedel & Rinehart, 1996; Wellford & Cronin, 1999;
Wolfgang, 1958). Studies examining other aspects of victimology have
found lower clearance rates for victims with a criminal record, sug-
gesting that the police may be less attentive to such victims because
of their prior involvement in criminal activities (Jiao, 2007; Litwin &
Xu, 2007). However, other studies have found no relationship (Litwin,
2004; Wellford & Cronin, 1999) or have suggested that what is really
important is not the mere presence or absence of a prior record, but
the nature of the criminal history for both victims and offenders
(Regoeczi & Jarvis, in press).
The nondiscretionary – or solvability (Riedel, 2008) – perspective
suggests that it is the characteristics of the offence itself (e.g., weapon
use, accessibility of witnesses) that are most important in determining
the solvability of the crime. According to this perspective, the police
are fully engaged and committed to clear every homicide, although
they may not be able to do so due to external situational factors
(e.g., characteristics of the offense may influence the outcome of the
investigation, i.e., homicides where witnesses are available are more
likely to be solved) (Gottfredson & Hindelang, 1979; Klinger, 1997).
In this paper, a third perspective that has been previously neglected
and deserves equal attention is suggested, namely the modus
operandi perspective. According to the modus operandi perspective,
criminals avoid police detection because they make specific choices
that will allow them to go unnoticed. This perspective focuses on the
actions of the criminal as opposed to the failure of the criminal justice
system to solve the crime. The perspective indicates that criminals
may target a specific type of victim (e.g., sex trade worker) and
adopt specific behaviors with the express aim of hindering any subse-
quent police investigation and increasing the likelihood of avoiding
detection. Criminals make conscious decisions and choose to act a cer-
tain way in an attempt to evade police detection. One specific subtype
of behavior which increases the chance of avoiding detection is the use
of forensic awareness strategies.
Forensic awareness strategies used by offenders
Some offenders will adapt their modus operandi (MO) or take pre-
cautions before, during or post crime commission to decrease their
risk of apprehension. Arguably, this adaptation of crime strategy may
be deemed an indication of evolving criminal sophistication on the
part of the offender. Offenders who adapt their MO to thwart police in-
vestigative efforts may be said to be exhibiting investigative awareness
(i.e., a knowledge or understanding of police investigative practice;
Beauregard & Martineau, in press). “Forensic awareness” (Davies,
1992) is exhibited when an offender reveals knowledge or an under-
standing of the importance of forensic evidence (e.g., DNA, fingerprints,
dental impressions) to police investigation through their behaviors or
actions. Thus forensic awareness is defined as the taking of additional
steps and adapting the modus operandi used in a crime to hide evidence
in order to ultimately avoid apprehension (Davies, 1992). According to
Davies (1992), forensic awareness is manifested within four aspects of
the offender’s MO: (1) avoiding interruption (e.g., gagging, targeting
women who are alone, disconnecting the phone), (2) protecting identity
(e.g., masking one’s face, leaving neither fingerprints nor semen by using
gloves and condoms), (3) preventing victim reporting (e.g., threatening
to return and harm the victim), and (4) ensuring a safe departure
(e.g., telling the victim not to move, tying up the victim).
Research on the prevalence of forensic awareness among offenders
and the impact that this awareness has on the crime process and inves-
tigation is scarce. Davies, Wittebrood, and Jackson (1997) found in their
sample of 210 stranger rapists that 15% of offenders wore gloves or
made efforts not to leave fingerprints, 5% attempted to avoid leaving
semen at the scene, 28% took steps to prevent being recognized
(i.e., hiding their face), and 20% lied about their name and/or address.
Park, Schlesinger, Pinizzotto, and Davis (2008) found that serial sex
offenders were more likely to exhibit forensic awareness than sex
offenders who had perpetrated only a single sexual offence. However,
the two groups did not show significant differences in relation to the
removal of semen. In their study of 85 serial homicides committed by
17 offenders, Neimeyer, Pepper, and Salfati (2008) used the expression
of “adaptive behavior” to describe the different strategies that would
assist offenders in avoiding detection. Among their sample they found
that less than 20% of offenders were using any one of the following
strategies: hiding or covering the body, using preparatory actions,
abducting at night, staging the crime scene, arson, and cleaning the
body. Similarly, Salfati and Haratsis (2001) examined 210 cases of
solved and unsolved homicide occurring in Greece. They found a signif-
icant correlation between the use of forensic awareness strategies and
the solvability of cases. Specifically they found that offenders’ failure
 E. Beauregard, M. Martineau / Journal of Criminal Justice 42 (2014) 213–220
to use forensic awareness strategies was related to cases being solved.
There was one exception to this finding. The use of arson to destroy
the crime scene or body of the victim (although rare – 5% of cases)
did not relate to case status, with almost equal numbers of cases being
solved (5%) and remaining unsolved (6%). In their study of child mur-
derers, Brown and Keppel (2012) found that 47.3% of offenders (347
cases) did not destroy any evidence at the crime scene. In the remaining
cases, the evidence destroyed at the scene included clothing (6.9%),
blood (4.7%), actual crime scene (4.4%), body or body parts (4.3%),
other physical evidence (4.2%), other personal items (1.8%), murder
weapon (1.0%), and bindings (0.5%). Further the most common
methods used by offenders to destroy physical evidence included
cleaning or washing (7.8%), burning (3.4%), hiding or burying (3.8%),
cutting up (0.9%), throwing away (2.7%), removing from scene (2.5%),
and other disposal (2.1%).
In their examination of 222 stranger sexual assaults, Beauregard and
Bouchard (2010) found that offenders displayed some form of forensic
awareness in 55.9% of cases. Offenders, however, were not necessarily
consistently forensically aware across multiple sexual assaults. The
most common strategies used by offenders related to protecting identity
(i.e., disguising their identity, wearing gloves). DNA removal behaviors
were scarcely found among the sample of sexual offenders with only
6.8% removing DNA from the scene by wiping away semen evidence
and wearing condoms in only 4 cases. It would seem that offenders
are forensically aware to the extent that they will make efforts to protect
their identity during the crime-commission process. However, the ma-
jority of offenders fail to avoid leaving the type of evidence (i.e., DNA)
that is most likely to lead to their apprehension and could link them to
prior offenses. One possible explanation is that offenders may be more
likely to use detection avoidance strategies in the early stages of the
crime-commission process (pre-offence) as opposed to strategies that
require cognitive effort post-offence and may delay the offenders exit
from the scene. Forensic awareness appears to be situational and may
vary according to the context of the crime-commission process. Inter-
estingly, Beauregard and Bouchard (2010) also found that certain target
selection behaviors (pre-offence), were related to forensic awareness,
which was evident at the crime scene. Thus a minority of offenders
who exhibit investigative and/or forensic awareness at the early stages
of crime commission will also exhibit such awareness at the later stages
of their offence.
Aim of the study
The modus operandi of sex offenders has been described extensively
in the literature. Although facilitating escape and avoiding detection are
primary aims of modus operandi, research specifically focusing on these
strategies is scarce (Cornish & Clarke, 2002). More importantly, there is
a lack of empirical studies examining the outcome of using such strate-
gies. As Bouchard, Beauregard, and Kalacska (2013) suggest, “examining
the outcome of criminal decision-making under a rational choice model
is important because what makes a decision “rational” is also tied to re-
sults. Offenders may show much deliberation and thinking but still
come up short—at least shorter than if they had made a ‘better decision’.
In other words, a rational choice approach should recognize that while
most to all offenders show thinking and deliberation prior to offending,
not all of them are as successful in their endeavors” (p. 35).
The current study aims to build upon existing research, examining
forensic awareness in cases of sexual homicides. The study examines
whether the use of forensic awareness strategies increases the chance
of avoiding police detection among a sample of solved and unsolved
cases of sexual homicide. Efforts will be made to control for victim
characteristics that could affect the analysis. Two measures of detec-
tion avoidance will be utilized. The first measure is that of case status
(i.e., whether the case is solved or unsolved). The second measure is
the number of days from victim disappearance to the date police dis-
cover the victim’s body.
215
Method
Sample and procedure
In order to be included in the current sample all homicide cases had
to be identified as completed real incidents (no attempts), and had to
involve a sexual element (i.e., there was evidence of sexual activity
and/or the crime was sexually motivated). More specifically, the case
had to meet the definition of sexual homicide provided by the FBI,
that is the case had to include at least one of the following: (a) victim's
attire or lack of attire; (b) exposure of the sexual parts of the victim’s
body; (c) sexual positioning of the victim’s body; (d) insertion of
foreign objects into the victim’s body cavities; (e) evidence of sexual
intercourse; or (f) evidence of substitute sexual activity, interest, or sa-
distic fantasy (Ressler, Burgess, & Douglas, 1988).
Information on all cases of sexual homicide was collected from a
national database operated by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
(RCMP). Investigators assigned to the case are required to collect the in-
formation from the case file via close-ended and multiple choice ques-
tions approximately 45 days into the investigation. Data collected for
this study relates to the victim(s), the potential or suspected offender,
the behavior of the offender during and after the crime, and any forensic
information that may be available.
A query of the database yielded a total of 350 cases of sexual homi-
cide committed between 1948 and 2010 in Canada (except for the
provinces of Quebec and Ontario). This sample may be divided into
solved cases (N = 250) and cases that, at the time of entry within the
database, were unsolved (N = 100). Solved cases are those where the
offender has been identified but does not need to be charged with
the offence. If there is more than one offender responsible and any of
the offenders are not identified, the case is considered unsolved.
Variables
Dependent variables
The current study examines the issue of avoiding police detection in
sexual homicide from two different perspectives. In line with prior
studies, the first dependent variable that we consider is the status of
the case (0 = unsolved; 1 = solved) at the time the case was entered
into the database, which is approximately 45 days into the investiga-
tion. In the current sample, 250 cases are solved and 100 cases are
unsolved. In addition, the study looks at a complementary measure
that has not been considered before in the research on avoiding detec-
tion, that is, the number of days before body recovery. This variable is
measured by subtracting the date the victim was last seen alive from
the date the body was recovered. As can been seen in Table 1, it takes
an average of 71 days to recover a body in cases of sexual homicide
(SD = 384.2; range = 6,491).
Independent variables
Victim characteristics. The study examined four victim characteristics
variables, coded dichotomously (0 = no; 1 = yes): (1) victim is a fe-
male, (2) victim is 12 year or older, (3) victim abuses drugs, and (4) vic-
tim is a sex trade worker. Table 1 shows that the majority of victims in
sexual homicide are female (89.7%) and that they are mainly older than
12 years of age (93.7%). One out of four victims was known to abuse
drugs and 17.7% were sex trade workers.
Forensic awareness. A total of 16 variables that relate to forensic aware-
ness in sexual homicide were examined. The first grouping of variables
concerns specific precautions taken by the offender to avoid detection. The
first variable is the use of any specific precautions to avoid detection
(0 = no; 1 = yes). As reported in Table 1, in more than half of the
sexual murders (54.3%), police could not identify the use of any specific
precautions to avoid detection during the commission of the crime.
216 E. Beauregard, M. Martineau / Journal of Criminal Justice 42 (2014) 213–220

Table 1
Descriptives and bivariate analyses for the dependent variables, victim characteristics, and forensic awareness strategies exhibited by the offender

Variables Total % % Unsolved χ2 or F

% Solved (n)
(n = 350) (n)

DEPENDENT VARIABLES
Case solved 71.4 (250) - -- -- - -- -
Number of days before recoverya 71.1 (384.2) 40.9 (147.5) 146.4 (676.5) 5.4***

VICTIM CHARACTERISTICS
Victim is a female 89.7 (314) 87.6 (219) 95.0 (95) 4.2*
Victim is 12 year old or older 93.7 (328) 92.0 (230) 98.0 (98) 4.4*
Victim abuses drugs 25.7 (90) 21.2 (53) 37.0 (37) 9.3**
Victim is a sex trade worker 17.7 (62) 9.2 (23) 39.0 (39) 43.5***

FORENSIC AWARENESS
Any specific precautions taken 45.7 (160) 55.6 (139) 21.0 (21) 34.5***
Specific precautions used by offender
Destroying or removing evidence 30.6 (107) 38.8 (97) 11.0 (11) 25.9***
Disposing of victim’s body 11.1 (39) 11.2 (28) 11.0 (11) .003
Protecting his identity 4.3 (15) 8.0 (20) 2.0 (2) 4.4*
Acting upon victim/environment 11.4 (40) 15.6 (39) 1.0 (1) 15.0***
Staging the crime scene 0.9 (3)
Other precaution 12.0 (42) 12.8 (32) 4.0 (4) 5.9*
Number of specific precautions takena .93 (1.02) .33 (.73) 28.4***
0 54.3 (190)
1 24.9 (87)
2 11.7 (41)
3 or more 9.1 (32)
MO behavior indicative of forensic awareness
Any semen located 27.7 (97) 30.0 (75) 22.0 (22) 2.3
Other biological evidence left to analyze 24.0 (84) 21.2 (53) 31.0 (31) 3.8†
Body moved 34.0 (119) 30.8 (77) 42.0 (42) 3.9*
Body concealed 36.0 (126) 38.0 (95) 31.0 (31) 1.5
Body dismembered 6.3 (22) 6.4 (16) 6.0 (6) .02
Risk of detection – Contact scene (0-2)a 0.9 (0.9) 1.0 (.95) .46 (.81) 26.6***
Risk of detection – Offense scene (0-2)a 0.5 (0.8) .62 (.87) .14 (.49) 26.9***
Risk of detection – Body recovery scene (0-2)a 0.5 (0.8) .56 (.84) .31 (.69) 6.7*

* p b .05 ** p b .01 *** p b .001 † p b .10.

Note a : the mean is presented with the standard deviation between parentheses.

A second variable measures the number of specific precautions taken by
the offender to avoid detection. One out of four offenders (24.9%) were
found to use one precaution, 11.7% used two precautions, and a 9.1%
used three or more precautions during their crime. Six dichotomous
variables (0 = no; 1 = yes) describe the specific precautions taken by
offenders to avoid police detection. The most common strategy used
was to destroy/remove evidence (30.6%); this includes wearing gloves,
using a condom, setting fire to the scene, and cleaning the scene. This is
followed by acting upon the victim and/or the environment (11.4%).
Such precautions include threatening the victim not to report, disabling
the lighting, the telephones, security system, and/or the victim’s vehicle,
administrating a drug to the victim, tying up the victim, blocking access
in and out of doors or windows, and killing the victim for the purpose of
eliminating the witness. Other offenders simply disposed of the body
(11.1%), while a minority attempted to protect their identity (4.3%)
through the wearing of a mask, giving out a false name, attempting
to disguise or altering their appearance, and changing residence after
the crime. Some offenders used “other” precautions (10.3%), which in-
cluded using a scanner to ascertain police activities, using a devise to
alert them to anyone approaching, using a look-out or establishing a
look-out location where the offender could observe the scene without
being noticed, covering the victim’s eyes, gagging the victim, and ar-
ranging an alibi. Staging of the crime scene1 was observed in only 0.9%
of the cases.
The second grouping of variables includes modus operandi behavior
indicative of forensic awareness. Two dichotomous variables (0 = no;
1 = yes) look specifically at evidence left at the crime scene: semen
was found at the scene in 27.7% of the cases and availability if other
biological evidence was reported for almost one quarter of the
cases (24%), both presenting the possibility for DNA analysis. Three
dichotomous variables (0 = no; 1 = yes) look specifically at actions
performed to the body. The offender moved the victim’s body from
the offence scene to a body disposal site in 34% of the cases, and the
body was concealed and dismembered in respectively 36% and 6.3% of
the cases.
In order to examine the level of risk taken by the sexual murderers
while committing their crimes, risk scales were created for the contact,
the offense, and the body recovery scenes (for more details, see
Beauregard & Martineau, in press). These scales were computed by
summing two dichotomous (0 = no, 1 = yes) items together – (1) po-
tential to see what was happening and (2) potential to hear what was
happening – for each scene of the crime. The reliability analyses showed
strong consistency within the scales, Cronbach’s Alpha reaching 0.90,
0.89, and 0.87 for contact, offense, and body recovery scenes respective-
ly. As shown in Table 1, although the risks taken by sexual murderers is
on average close to 1 (scale ranging from 0 to 2) at the contact scene
(SD = 0.9), the risk drops to 0.5 on average at the offense and body re-
covery scenes.
Analytical strategy
The relationship between each independent variable with the de-
pendent variable, case status (i.e., solved/unsolved), was examined at
the bivariate level. Subsequently, logistic regression was used to assess
the impact of the independent variables in a sequential fashion in rela-
tion to case status. Sequential logistic regression was selected in order
to be able to assess the effect of forensic awareness strategies on the
ability of offenders to avoid police detection while controlling for rele-
vant victim characteristics. Third, the impact of victim characteristics
and forensic awareness strategies on the number of days until body
recovery was analyzed. As the distribution of this variable was highly
skewed – with a large percentage of bodies being recovered during
 E. Beauregard, M. Martineau / Journal of Criminal Justice 42 (2014) 213–220 217

the first few days –the normality assumption of ordinary least-squares
(OLS) regression was violated. As such, negative binomial regression
was used. Negative binomial regression is a technique designed
for count discrete models that allows for non-normal distributions
(Long, 1997) and whereby any dependencies among the count data is
accounted for through the inclusion of linear combinations of linear
effects in the linear predictor (Booth, Casells, Friedl, & Hobert, 2003;
Land, McCall, & Nagin, 1996). Once again, in order to control for the po-
tential effect of specific victim characteristics, analyses were performed
in a sequential fashion.
Results
Along with the descriptive statistics of the sample, Table 1 presents
the results of the bivariate analyses conducted between the indepen-
dent variables and the case status. In relation to victim characteristics,
results show that cases involving a female (χ2 = 4.2, p b .05), who is
older than 12 years of age (χ2 = 4.4, p b .05), abuses drugs (χ2 = 9.3,
p b .01), and is working as a sex trade worker (χ2 = 43.5, p b .001)
are more likely to remain unsolved. In examining forensic awareness
strategies used by the offender in cases of sexual homicide, results
show that, unexpectedly, taking any precaution in order to avoid detec-
tion is significantly and positively related to the probability of a sexual
homicide case being solved (χ2 = 34.5, p b .001). Offenders who
destroy and/or remove evidence (χ2 = 25.9, p b .001), protect their
identity (χ2 = 4.4, p b .05), act upon the victim and/or the environ-
ment (χ2 = 15.0, p b .001), or use other precautions (χ2 = 5.9,
p b .05) are more likely to be apprehended by police. Moreover, results
show that the police identify on average more precautions by the
offender when the case is solved (F = 28.4, p b .001) compared to
when it remains unsolved. Finally, cases where the offender decided
to move the body (χ2 = 3.9, p b .05) and where the risk of detection
at the contact (F = 26.6, p b .001), offense (F = 26.9, p b .001), and
body recovery (F = 6.7, p b .05) scenes were lower, are more likely to
remain unsolved.
Table 2 presents the findings of the sequential logistic regression
analyses with respect to case status (i.e., solved/unsolved). Model 1
includes only the victim characteristic variables. Findings indicate
that offenders who target victims who are sex trade workers (β =
1.80, p b .001) are more likely to avoid detection. All other victim
characteristics are not significantly related to the case status. When
introducing the forensic awareness strategies in Model 2, the significant
relationship between the case status is unsolved with the indicator
“victim is a sex trade worker” remains (β = 1.62, p b .001). Moreover,
and congruent with the bivariate analyses, results show that taking any
precautions to avoid detection is significantly and negatively related to
the chance of avoiding detection (β = -1.73, p b .001) and that leaving
biological evidence (i.e., blood, hair, etc.) at the crime scene is related to
the case remaining unsolved (β = 1.05, p b .01). However, the findings
also indicate that when offenders leave no semen at the crime scene
(β = -.72, p b .05) and their risk of detection is calculated as low
(β = -.36, p b .001) they are more likely to avoid police detection.
Finally, Table 3 presents the findings of the negative binomial se-
quential regression analyses2 with respect to the number of days until
body recovery. Similar to the logistic regression analyses, model 1 in-
cludes only the victim characteristic variables. Results indicate that in
cases involving victims who are female (β = .99, p b .05), older than
12 years of age (β = 1.58, p b .01), and sex trade workers (β = 1.15,
p b .01), the time to body discovery is likely to be longer compared to
cases involving other victim characteristics. In addition to the victim
characteristics, model 2 introduces forensic awareness strategies. Al-
though all victim characteristics that were significant in model 1 remain
significant, Table 3 shows that in cases where offenders leave semen at
the crime scene (β = -1.04, p b .001) or commit their crime when the
risk of detection is higher (β = -.24, p b .001), the police are likely to
recover the victim’s body in less time. However, offenders who conceal
the body after the murder (β = .93, p b .01) are likely to delay the dis-
covery of the victim’s body.
Discussion
The current study examined the use of forensic awareness strate-
gies and the ability of offenders to avoid detection in cases of sexual
homicide. In order to examine the issue of avoiding detection, two
different approaches were utilized: one using a traditional measure
of case status – i.e., solved versus unsolved – and the other using
a measure of the number of days until body discovery. While the
two measures are significantly correlated,3 they yielded very different
findings. Although an offender’s use of precautions does not seem to
increase the avoidance detection, some modus operandi behavior
adopted by the offender at the crime scene may contribute to delay
the discovery of the victim, and thus delay the offender’s apprehen-
sion. Moreover, victimology has an influence on the likelihood of
whether or not a sexual murderer is apprehended, such that offenders
who target certain groups of victims may delay detection by the
police.

Table 2 Table 3
Sequential logistic regression analysis on the status of the case (solved/unsolved) using Sequential negative binomial regression analysis on the number of days until body
victim characteristics and forensic awareness strategies recovery using victim characteristics and forensic awareness strategies

Case Status – Number of Days Until Body

Unsolved Recovery

Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2

β (S.E.) β (S.E.) β (S.E.) β (S.E.)

VICTIM CHARACTERISTICS VICTIM CHARACTERISTICS

Victim is a female .54 (.51) .50 (.55) Victim is a female .99 (.43)* 1.05 (.42)*
Victim is 12 year old or older 1.04 (.76) .87 (.83) Victim is 12 year old or older 1.58 (.54)** 1.63 (.55)**
Victim abuses drugs -.14 (.34) .06 (.38) Victim abuses drugs -.68 (.39) .05 (.42)
Victim is a sex trade worker 1.80 (.36)*** 1.62 (.43)*** Victim is a sex trade worker 1.15 (.44)** 1.25 (.47)**

FORENSIC AWARENESS FORENSIC AWARENESS

Any specific precaution taken - -- -1.73 (.33)*** Any specific precaution taken - -- -.15 (.34)
Any semen located - -- -.72 (.34)* Any semen located - -- -1.04 (.31)***
Other biological evidence left to analyze - -- 1.05 (.35)** Other biological evidence left to analyze - -- -.12 (.32)
Body moved - -- .24 (.33) Body moved - -- -.58 (.34)
Body concealed - -- -.28 (.32) Body concealed - -- .93 (.30)**
Body dismembered - -- -.59 (.63) Body dismembered - -- -.03 (.52)
Scale of risk of detection – All scenes (0-6) - -- -.36 (.09)*** Scale of risk of detection – All scenes (0-6) - -- -.26 (.07)***
Constant -3.31 (1.21)** -1.94 (1.36) Constant .73 (.85) .71 (.87)

* p b .05 ** p b .01 *** p b .001. * p b .05 ** p b .01 *** p b .001.

218 E. Beauregard, M. Martineau / Journal of Criminal Justice 42 (2014) 213–220
Discretionary perspective or rational choice approach?
The discretionary perspective suggests that factors related to the vic-
tim (e.g., age, gender) will influence how vigorously and diligently the
police will work to solve a crime (Black, 1976; Riedel, 2008). This per-
spective has been suggested to explain why homicide cases involving
certain groups of people (e.g., sex trade workers) would be less likely
to be solved by the police. The current findings indicate that it takes po-
lice longer to discover the victim’s body in cases of sexual homicide in-
volving sex trade workers. The discretionary perspective would suggest
that such a finding is congruent with “victim preferencing”, where the
police are not putting the same time and resources into investigating
cases involving marginalized victims compared to more affluent victims
(e.g., upper class woman). Although this perspective received a great
deal of attention in the late 1970s and 1980s and was subjected to em-
pirical scrutiny, this perspective may no longer provide an adequate or
appropriate explanation for the current findings. A perspective based on
the rational choice approach, which postulates that criminals may avoid
police detection by choosing to behave in ways that decrease their
chance of being apprehended may be a more appropriate theoretical
approach. Thus, rather than attributing an unsolved case status to inves-
tigative failure, a rational choice theorist argues that, some criminals
may, in fact, target a specific type of victim and adopt offence behaviors
that complicate or increase the complexity of the police investigation.
Some criminals may consciously choose to act a certain way in an at-
tempt to evade police detection. Following the inclusion of the forensic
awareness strategies variables, the victim characteristic variables of ‘vic-
tim is a sex trade worker’ remained significantly related to a greater
number of days to body recovery. This suggests that some offenders tar-
get victims that, by virtue of a higher risk lifestyle, may be more vulner-
able to victimization. For instance, research has shown that sex trade
worker homicides are more difficult for police to solve (Salfati, James,
& Ferguson, 2008). There are many dangers associated with working in
the sex trade. Some sex trade workers are nomadic, living a very tran-
sient lifestyle. This lifestyle decreases the likelihood that their absence
will be immediately noticed when they go missing. This may result in a
delay in reporting the victim missing, if such a report is made, and will
influence the number of days it takes to discover the victim’s body post
crime. Moreover, some sex trade workers are willing to travel to very
isolated locations with unknown clients. Investigations into the murder
of sex trade workers are often hampered by low public interest, a lack
of credible witnesses, the unwillingness of other sex trade workers to
cooperate with the police (Salfati, James, & Ferguson, 2008), and the like-
lihood of more than one sample of DNA being found on the body. A study
by Brewer, Dudek, Potterat, Muth, Roberts, and Woodhouse (2006)
showed that involvement in the sex trade considerably increases a
woman’s risk of becoming a victim of homicide. Targeting specific groups
of victims, when done intentionally in order to avoid detection is an
indicator of investigative awareness (Beauregard & Martineau, in press).
CSI effect? Not for the offenders
Some authors have suggested that the CSI effect – i.e., the theory that
juries will no longer convict without forensic evidence – (Baskin &
Sommers, 2010b; Kim, Barak, & Shelton, 2009) could be extended to
offenders as well. The police chief’s effect, suggests that crime dramas
such as CSI are in fact educational for criminals, providing them with
new strategies to avoid police detection as well as increasing their
sophistication in the commission of their crime (Cole & Dioso-Villa,
2007). The current findings as well as findings from previous studies
do not support this assertion. Although previous studies have differed
in the behaviors examined, the findings all support that offenders are
using precautions aimed at avoiding detection in only a minority of
cases. Whether we are looking at serial rape (Park et al., 2008), serial
homicide (Neimeyer et al., 2008), or child abduction homicide (Brown
& Keppel, 2012), it is the exception rather than the norm for offenders
to take active measures to avoid leaving forensic evidence at the crime
scene. The current study is no exception. Less than half of the offenders
took at least one precaution in order to avoid detection. The precaution
most commonly used in cases of sexual homicide is destroying or re-
moving evidence, with only 30.6% of offenders doing so. Not only does
this number appear to be low, considering that this type of crime is
likely to result in several forms of forensic evidence (i.e., DNA, semen,
fingerprints, blood, fibers) being left at the scene, but it contrasts
sharply with research findings relating to serial rape. Beauregard and
Bouchard (2010) found that the most common forensic awareness
strategies used by serial rapists had to do with protecting their identity.
Surprisingly, very few offenders took precautions involving the removal
of forensic evidence that could contain traces of DNA from the crime
scene. Thus, serial rapists are aware that if they allow their victim to
see their face they may be identified. However, they do not seem to un-
derstand that DNA left at the crime scene can aid in their identification
and connect them to the crime scene. Beauregard and Bouchard (2010)
hypothesized that this could be due to the fact that offenders are capa-
ble of forensic awareness in the early stages of the crime-commission
process but become less careful after the actual rape, suggesting that
forensic awareness is in fact situational. This hypothesis is supported
by the current findings. In the case of sexual homicide, protecting
one’s identity is less of a concern as the deceased victim does not pose
a risk of identifying the offender. Destroying or removing evidence is
the more salient precaution if the offender is to avoid detection and
therefore, more logically the focus of the sexual homicide offender.
How to measure avoiding detection?
The current study operationalized the case status variable (i.e., solved
vs. unsolved) commonly used in homicide clearance research (see
Riedel, 2008) in order to measure detection avoidance. The findings
were in the opposite direction of the working hypothesis. Cases of sexual
homicide involving the use of at least one precaution to avoid detection
were more likely to be solved. Moreover, offenders who did not leave bi-
ological evidence at the crime scene were more likely to be detected by
the police. Two possible explanations may be offered to make sense of
these contradictory findings. First these counter-intuitive findings may
be due to the nature of police data. Without access to the statements of
victims, witnesses, or even the offender himself, information regarding
the use of the forensic awareness strategies examined in this study,
may be limited, not reflecting the true prevalence of use of these strate-
gies. Some forensic awareness strategies may be quite difficult to identify
based upon careful study of the crime scene. Therefore, police may be
more aware of the use of forensic awareness strategies in solved cases.
Another possibility is that the forensic awareness strategies which
have been observed by police, are not the most effective. It is possible
that offenders who successfully avoid detection use alternative strate-
gies not yet identified by law enforcement through interviews with
offenders or through the study of crime scene evidence. The adoption
of these more effective strategies and modus operandi (Beauregard,
Proulx, Rossmo, Leclerc, & Allaire, 2007) may be enabling offenders to
continue evading police detection.
No body, no crime?
“No body, no crime” is an old saying which illustrates how a delay in
locating or worse failure to locate a body may have disastrous implica-
tions for investigative outcome. This saying originates from the English
Common Law rule of “no body, no murder.” However, the United States
case of People v. Scott 176 Cal. App. 2d 458 (1960) held that "circumstan-
tial evidence, when sufficient to exclude every other reasonable hy-
pothesis, may prove the death of a missing person, the existence of a
homicide and the guilt of the accused" (Columbia Law Review
Association, 1961, p. 740). Despite this precedent, the reality is that
this saying continues to hold true. The longer it takes to recover a
 E. Beauregard, M. Martineau / Journal of Criminal Justice 42 (2014) 213–220
body, the greater the chance of crucial evidence being destroyed. For
this reason, we purport that the number of days until body recovery is a
more appropriate measure of detection avoidance than case status.
The number of days until body recovery is not biased by administrative
rules or timing of data entry (e.g., information about the case should be
entered after a specific number of days into the investigation).
The findings of the current study indicate that the use of precau-
tions to avoid detection is related to case status, it is not related to
the number of days until body recovery. The specific precautions
taken by the offender to avoid detection investigated in the current
study (e.g., destroying/removing evidence, protecting identity, acting
upon victim/environment) have no direct impact on finding the body
(unless an offender uses arson to destroy evidence that could be found
on the body). These strategies were hypothesized to have an effect on
the solvability of the case. The findings of the current study have
shown that in order to delay body recovery in cases of sexual homicide,
the best strategy is to conceal the body after the murder – a modus
operandi behavior indicative of forensic awareness (Beauregard &
Field, 2008). Sexual murderers who choose to conceal the victim’s
body post murder are likely to see the number of days until body
recovery increased. This does not necessarily mean that the police will
never apprehend the offender. However, delaying body recovery in-
creases the chance of forensic evidence being lost and decreases the
likelihood of the offender being connected to the crime.
Conclusion
Although exploratory in nature, the current study shows that de-
spite a supposedly greater knowledge of forensic science by the general
public and criminals alike, this has not manifested in more cautious of-
fence behaviors. This contrasts largely with the media-inspired idea of
a CSI effect or what Cole and Dioso-Villa (2007) have termed the police
chief effect where crime dramas such as CSI are believed to be education-
al for criminals. The findings reveal that some sexual murderers exhibit
signs of forensic and investigative awareness in the crime-commission
process. However, it appears that offenders generally do not engage in
specific actions or precautions which would destroy and/or remove fo-
rensic evidence left on the body or at the crime scene that could connect
them to their offence. Instead, some offenders opt to conceal the vic-
tim’s body, effectively increasing the time to body recovery. Although
this selective use of concealment over the arguably more effective strat-
egy of removing DNA, may appear at face value as “irrational” behavior
on the offender’s part, it may well be the opposite. Despite a significant
increase of the use of forensic evidence in criminal investigations due to
technological progress (Beaver, 2010), research has not shown a related
improvement in cases outcomes (i.e., identifying suspects, pressing
charges, securing convictions). Research has shown that in several
cases forensic evidence is simply not submitted to crime lab for analysis
(Strom, Ropero-Miller, Jones, Sikes, Pope, & Horstmann, 2007). When it
is submitted, there are often extensive backlogs (Peterson, Johnson,
Herz, Graziano, & Oehler, 2012). This could explain why forensic evi-
dence still plays a minor role in many criminal investigations (Horvath
& Meesig, 1996). Until there is evidence that the adoption of forensic
and investigative awareness strategies aids in detection avoidance,
criminals are not likely to invest time and effort to adapt their modus
operandi. Rather offenders are likely to continue to base their offence
behaviors on their experience and what has been effective in the past.
While this study provides some novel information on avoiding de-
tection and sexual homicide, it is not without limitations. Perhaps the
most obvious limitation is the nature of the data. Police databases are
a useful source of data which provide a significant amount of detail re-
lating to criminal offences. On the other hand, such data is limited to
what is observed by the police at the crime scene or revealed through
investigation. This is particularly important for this study as some foren-
sic awareness strategies are difficult to identify through crime scene
analysis and in some cases, can only be revealed by the offender himself.
219
Moreover, besides including specific victim characteristics, the study
did not take into account offender characteristics or the situational com-
ponents of the sexual homicide. As Beauregard and Bouchard (2010)
have shown, it is possible that the use of forensic awareness strategies
will be dictated by the circumstances of the offence. Future studies
should investigate the specific contexts in which forensic awareness
strategies are the most effective and whether offender characteristics
are related to the ability to use such strategies.
Notes
1. A crime scene is ‘staged’ when the offender manipulates the scene to make it ap-
pear as though an offence other than that which actually occurred has taken place. For
example, a homicide may be staged to appear as a suicide.
2. The two negative binomial regression models were over-dispersed. As a result
the models were re-run with a scale weight variable, which was equal to the inverse
of Deviance/degrees of freedom. This procedure does not change the parameter esti-
mates. Rather adjusted standard errors are computed by dividing the standard errors
by the scale variable. This procedure makes the significance tests more conservative.
After running the analyses with scale variables, model 1 and 2 showed both Deviance
coefficients of 1.00, suggesting the corrected models were no longer over-dispersed.
3. Spearman’s rho = .19, p b .01.
References
Addington, L. A. (2006). Using National Incident-Based Reporting System murder data
to evaluate clearances: A research note. Homicide Studies, 19, 140–152.
Addington, L. A. (2008). Hot v. cold cases: Examining time to clearances for homicides
using NIBRS data. Justice Research and Policy, 9, 87–112.
Alderden, M. A., & Lavery, T. A. (2007). Predicting homicide clearances in Chicago:
Investigating disparities in predictors across different types of homicide. Homicide
Studies, 11, 115–132.
Baskin, D., & Sommers, I. (2010a). The influence of forensic evidence on the case out-
comes of homicide incidents. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 1141–1149.
Baskin, D., & Sommers, I. (2010b). Crime-show-viewing habits and public attitudes
toward forensic evidence: The “CSI Effect” revisited. The Justice System Journal, 31,
97–113.
Beauregard, E., & Bouchard, M. (2010). Cleaning up your act: Forensic awareness as a
detection avoidance strategy. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 1160–1166.
Beauregard, E., & Field, J. (2008). Body disposal patterns of sexual murders: Implications
for offender profiling. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 23, 81–89.
Beauregard, E., & Martineau, M. (2013). A descriptive study of sexual homicide in Canada:
Implications for police investigation. International Journal of Offender Therapy and
Comparative Criminology (OnlineFirst) (in press).
Beauregard, E., Proulx, J., Rossmo, K., Leclerc, B., & Allaire, J. -F. (2007). Script analysis of
hunting process in serial sex offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 1069–1084.
Beaver, K. M. (2010). The promises and pitfalls of forensic evidence in unsolved crimes.
Criminology and Public Policy, 9, 405–410.
Black, D. (1976). The Behavior of Law. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Booth, J. G., Casells, G., Friedl, H., & Hobert, J. P. (2003). Negative binomial loglinear
mixed models. Statistical Modelling, 3, 179–191.
Bouchard, M., Beauregard, E., & Kalacska, M. (2013). Journey to grow: Linking process
to outcome in target site selection for cannabis cultivation. Journal of Research in
Crime and Delinquency, 50, 33–52.
Brewer, D. D., Dudek, J. A., Potterat, J. J., Muth, S. Q., Roberts, J. M., Jr., & Woodhouse, D. E.
(2006). Extent, trends, and perpetrators of prostitution-related homicide in the
United States. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 51, 1101–1108.
Brown, K. M., & Keppel, R. D. (2012). Child abduction murder: The impact of forensic
evidence on solvability. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 57, 353–363.
Cole, S. A., & Dioso-Villa, R. (2006-07). CSI and its effects: Media, juries, and the burden
of proof. New England Law Review, 41, 435–470.
Columbia Law Review (1961). Murder conviction upheld despite lack of direct evi-
dence of corpus delicti. Columbia, Law Review, 61, 740–744.
Cornish, D. B., & Clarke, R. V. (2002). Analyzing organized crimes. In A. R. Piquero & S.G.
Tibbetts (Eds.), Rational choice and criminal behaviour: Recent research and future
challenges (pp. 41–63). New York: Routledge.
Davies, A. (1992). Rapists’ behaviour: A three aspect model as a basis for analysis and
the identification of serial crime. Forensic Science International, 55, 173–194.
Davies, A., Wittebrood, K., & Jackson, J. L. (1997). Predicting the criminal antecedents of
a stranger rapist from his offence behaviour. Science & Justice, 37, 161–170.
Durnal, E. W. (2010). Crime scene investigation (as seen on TV). Forensic Science Interna-
tional, 199, 1–5.
Gottfredson, M. R., & Hindelang, M. J. (1979). A study of the behavior of law. American
Sociological Review, 44, 3–18.
Horvath, F., & Meesig, R. (1996). The criminal investigation process and the role of
forensic evidence: A review of empirical findings. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 41,
963–969.
Ingemann-Hansen, O., Brink, O., Sabroe, S., & Sorensen, V. (2008). Legal aspects of sexual
violence – Does forensic evidence make a difference? Forensic Science International,
180, 98–104.
220 E. Beauregard, M. Martineau / Journal of Criminal Justice 42 (2014) 213–220
Jiao, A. Y. (2007). Explaining homicide clearance: An analysis of Chicago homicide data
1965-1995. Criminal Justice Studies, 20, 3–14.
Kim, Y. S., Barak, G., & Shelton, D. E. (2009). Examining the “CSI-effect” in the case of
circumstantial and eyewitness testimony: Multivariate and path analyses. Journal
of Criminal Justice, 37, 452–460.
Kirk, P. L. (1953). Crime investigation. New York: Interscience Publishers.
Klinger, D. A. (1997). Negotiating order in patrol work: An ecological theory of police
response to deviance. Criminology, 35, 277–306.
Korosec, L. M. (2012). The Changing Nature of Homicide and its Impact on homicide Clear-
ance Rates: A Quantitative Analysis of Two Trends From 1984-2009. Unpublished
Master’s Thesis, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.
Land, K. C., McCall, P. L., & Nagin, D. S. (1996). A comparison of poisson, negative binomial
and semiparametric mixed poisson regression models: With empirical applications
to criminal careers data. Sociological Methods & Research, 24, 387–442.
Lee, C. (2005). The value of life in death: Multiple regression and event history analysis of
homicide clearance in Los Angeles County. Journal of Criminal Justice, 33, 527–534.
Litwin, K. J. (2004). A multivariate analysis of factors affecting homicide clearances.
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 41, 327–351.
Litwin, K. J., & Xu, Y. (2007). The dynamic nature of homicide clearances: A multilevel
model comparison of three time periods. Homicide Studies, 11, 94–114.
Long, J. S. (1997). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Neimeyer, E., Pepper, K., & Salfati, C. G. (2008). Avoiding detection: An examination
of adaptive and maladaptive behaviors in serial homicide. Paper presented at the
American Society of Criminology Annual Meeting, St. Louis, MO.
Park, J., Schlesinger, L. B., Pinizzotto, A. J., & Davis, E. F. (2008). Serial and single-victim
rapists: Differences in crime-scene violence, interpersonal involvement, and crim-
inal sophistication. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 26, 227–237.
Peterson, J., Johnson, D., Herz, D., Graziano, L., & Oehler, T. (2012). Sexual assault kit
backlog study. Final Report, NIJ. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,
National Institute of Justice (120 pp.).
Puckett, J. L., & Lundman, R. J. (2003). Factors affecting homicide clearances: Multivariate
analysis of a more complete conceptual framework. Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency, 40, 171–193.
Regoeczi, W. C., & Jarvis, J. (2013). Beyond the social production of homicide rates:
Extending social disorganization theory to explain homicide case outcomes.
Justice Quarterly (OnlineFirst article) (in press).
Regoeczi, W. C., Jarvis, J., & Riedel, M. (2008). Clearing murders: Is it about time? Journal
of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 45, 142–162.
Regoeczi, W. C., Kennedy, L. W., & Silverman, R. A. (2000). Uncleared homicides:
A Canada/United States comparison. Homicide Studies, 4, 135–161.
Ressler, R. K., Burgess, A. W., & Douglas, J. E. (1988). Sexual homicide: Patterns and motives.
New York, NY: Free Press.
Riedel, M. (2008). Homicide arrests clearance: A review of the literature. Sociology
Compass, 2, 1145–1164.
Riedel, M., & Rinehart, T. A. (1996). Murder clearances and missing data. Journal of
Crime and Justice, 19, 83–102.
Roberts, A. (2007). Predictors of homicide clearance by arrest: An event history analysis
of NIBRS incidents. Homicide Studies, 11, 82–93.
Roberts, A. (2008). Explaining differences in homicide clearance rates between Japan
and the United States. Homicide Studies, 12, 136–145.
Roberts, A., & Lyons, C. J. (2009). Victim-offender racial dyads and clearance of lethal
and nonlethal assaults. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 46,
301–326.
Salfati, C. G., & Haratsis, E. (2001). Greek homicide: A behavioral examination of offender
crime-scene actions. Homicide Studies, 5, 335–362.
Salfati, C. G., James, A. R., & Ferguson, L. (2008). Prostitute homicides : A descriptive
study. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 505–543.
Stevens, D. J. (2008). Forensic science, wrongful convictions, and American prosecutor
discretion. The Howard Journal, 47, 31–51.
Strom, K. J., & Hickman, M. J. (2010). Unanalyzed evidence in law-enforcement agencies:
A national examination of forensic processing in police departments. Criminology and
Public Policy, 9, 381–404.
Strom, K. J., Ropero-Miller, J., Jones, S., Sikes, N., Pope, M., & Horstmann, N. (2007). The
2007 survey of law enforcement forensic evidence processing. NIJ Full Report, U.S. De-
partment of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice (83 pp.).
Trussler, T. (2010). Explaining the changing nature of homicide clearance in Canada.
International Criminal Justice Review, 20, 366–383.
Walton, R. H. (2006). The cold case problem. In R. H. Walton (Ed.), Cold case homicides:
Practical investigative techniques (pp. 1–26). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Wellford, C., & Cronin, J. (1999). An analysis of variables affecting the clearance of homicides:
A multistate study. Washington, DC: Justice Research and Statistics Association.
Wolfgang, M. E. (1958). Patterns in Criminal Homicide. Philadelphia, PA: University of
Pennsylvania Press.