Crime is defined to be a violation of an imposed decree or rule for which a fitting penalty will be given by an authority (Saferstein, 1990). Crime has always been a huge dilemma in our society nowadays. Unwanted circumstances cannot be stopped from happening, no matter how harmless or secure a place might be, a crime can take place—which people fear about. Some people commit misdemeanor for reasons not comprehensible by many, but no matter what their reasons are, it will be dealt fairly with proper grounds for punishment.
Crimes in the past had been difficult to solve and some remains unsettled due to insufficiency of evidences and methods of investigation that can be utilized to solve it (Fischer, 1987).
However, authorities have been alarmed to notice the need for developing methods of investigation in order to obtain a social order as well as crime prevention. It is an undeniable fact that crimes these days are continuously increasing and people suffering from it are searching for justice and demanding fairness.
Various ways are employed to regulate behavior which includes imposing laws and policing people to ensure they follow the rules to maintain peace and order.While the call for justice arises, the authorities are designing mechanisms in order to come up with effective methods of investigation, equipments and tools to reduce crime, implement the law and uphold criminal justice (O’Reilly-Fleming, 1996).
This research paper primarily discusses methods used in criminal investigations for murder and theories applied to a particular case study, specifically how the Labeling, Environmental and Shaming theory facilitated the investigation of the case. This paper also intends to provide deep understanding of criminal investigation methods, the procedures, and techniques applied, essential evidences and system analysis that will help the investigating team or investigator arrive at a conclusion of solving the case and pointing who the murderer was.
According to Edwin H. Sutherland (in Fischer, 1987), criminology is described as a social-scientific study which deals with crime as individual and social phenomenon. It is an interdisciplinary field in behavioral sciences specializing in sociology, psychology and law. In 1885, Raffaele Garofalo, an Italian law professor, used the term criminology or criminologia in Italian. Criminology covers the processes of making laws, deviating to rules and reaction towards breaking imposed policies. All of these create a unified order of events.
Criminologists have devised different methods from various disciplines. They measure and assess crime over place and time. Moreover, characteristics of criminals, victims and crime scenes are rigorously observed using different techniques. Legislatures called mala prohibita set laws that describe misdemeanor which violate social norms. Laws vary with respect to its kind (e.g. gambling laws), time and place. Mala in se are crimes such as murder, rape and theft, are universally outlawed (Fischer, 1987).
The current paper focuses on the case of Martha Moxley, and how the Skakel brothers’ criminal behavior may be assessed juxtaposed against the labeling theory, environmental theory and shaming theory. It relates the parties involved in the case, specially the suspects, to the principles that are espoused by each of these criminological theories.The labeling theory asserts that certain stereotypes may influence how a person behaves; in this instance, the wealth and influence of the Skakel brothers did have an effect on their apathy and lack of guilt in being suspects in the case.
The environment theory, on the other hand, shows that the circle of friends in which the brothers have interfaced with did have an influence on how they have reacted to the crime – with indifference – as reinforced by their affluent circle who did not care about being involved in crime believing they can buy their way out of it. Finally, the shame theory suggests that there was absolutely no expression of guilt or shame on the part of the brothers, from the time they were pronounced as suspects to the time they were convicted. Again, a reinforcement of how they were brought up as spoiled children, growing up to be spoiled adults.
Prior to discussing the case proper, a visit of the history of modern criminology may be worthwhile. Modern criminology has started in the middle of the 19th century. Gone are the days when free will that portrays crime as an outcome of actions is just based on rational calculation. Previous criminology suggests that people who committed crimes are just means of breaking the law and thus, costs should be outweighed.
Criminal technology has succeeded in showing a different view of crime as criminal cases nowadays, require a basis for explanation. For instance, crime was viewed as a type of event wherein individual was forced or provoked by several factors that are beyond his control. Thus, modern criminology now involves explanations based on the search for probable causes (Fischer, 1987).
Furthermore, there are points in which modern criminology and the traditional criminology agrees. Traditional criminology relies on rational estimation and modern criminology, on the other hand, though uses methods and equipments in deciphering crimes, also uses rational estimation as a ground to call for an investigation. Modern criminology focuses on deterministic elucidation of driving forces which causes a crime to occur.
According to biological positivists Cesare Lombroso, a systematic and scientific approach should be established in carrying out a particular technique as criminals have inherent characteristics that are deemed leading to the cause of crime. If the scheme has been properly designed thus theoretical ideas will be formulated. Techniques and methods will be devised, as well as collection of findings will be done that will result to establishing the resolution of the crime.
From today’s perspective, such assumptions seem peculiar and are now treated with surprise. Moreover, different structure of methodologies has been imperative, even though with different levels of analysis. Since the advent of modern criminology, successive surges of criminological explanations have been observed.
Martha Moxley Murder Case
With the purpose to present and demonstrate a deep understanding of criminological strategies and designs, as well as theories applied in a case study, the author intends to use Martha’s Murder Case as a basis for analysis and study.
On October 30, 1975, in Greenwich, Connecticut, Martha Moxley’s group scheduled a night out for pranks to do the traditional Halloween activities. They threw out toilet papers and eggs and sprayed shaving cream around their neighborhood and one of their harmless pranks victims were Tommy and Michael Skakel. Tommy and Michael Skakel were known in the neighborhood for bad behavior boasting of their uncle Senator Robert F. Kennedy (Geringer, n.d.).
Around 9:30 PM of October 30, 1975, Martha Moxley left Tommy and Michael’s house. Though her house was not that far from the Skakel’s, she never reached her home. Her body was found in her backyard the next day with pants and underwear pulled down. Though this was the case, there was no evidence of rape or sexual assault. She had several bruises that showed she was beaten several times.
The culprit used a shaft and a piece of it was the tool used to stab her neck. After the initial investigation, the investigatory team found out that the shaft used was an expensive one, a Toney Penna brand which belonged to Anne Skakel, Tommy and Michael’s mother who died of cancer two years before the said incident. Accordingly, Martha was last seen with Tommy Skakel. It was also found in Martha’s diary that Tommy was after her and had several attempts of bringing Martha to first base and second base. The policemen did cursory search however they were not given a search warrant due to influential reasons (Geringer, n.d.).
The case was lengthened since a year after the crime; the Skakels refused to undergo investigations and had stopped cooperating. Atty. Emmanuel Margolis, the Skakel’s family lawyer insisted that the Skakel brothers were innocent (Geringer, n.d.).
Skakels were not the only prime suspects for the crime. A young neighbor who was living with the Skakels was also questioned. Borders living along the Interstate 95 were also questioned considering that they had no circumstantial evidence to use besides the club, not even one witness who could state what really happened (Geringer, n.d.).
The case had slept for several years, not even a single development until sometime in 1983, one of the advocates of Greenwich hired Len Levitt, to write about the case and it has then became controversial again. Many publishers heated up the issue until a rumor that William Kennedy Smith, which at that time was facing a rape case had something to do with the murder. Though, irrelevant to the case, it aroused public interest bringing back the case to air (Geringer, n.d.).
Martha Moxley’s murder case remained unsolved for many years. Nevertheless, authorities continued to research and investigate on it. It was hard because there were few leads not to mention that these leads were also irrelevant and far related from the case (Geringer, n.d.).
In 1994, Detective Frank Garr who was a retired Greenwich policeman took the job as an investigator at the State Prosecutors Office and was assigned the Martha Moxley file. This did not give bright light to the case though. Few years later, Detective Mark Fuhrman started writing a book particularly mentioning the Martha Moxley’s case. This gave hope to Martha’s family (Geringer, n.d.).
Development of comprehensive and coherent theories for a given crime has risen to give way to criminology’s progress. Moreover, systematic collection and analysis of gathered evidences are factors that contribute to the advancement of solving crimes. These evidences and findings are called data and a wide range of data is often used in contribution to a criminological enterprise Analysis of the Martha Moxley’s case took investigators a long period of time for the case to be deciphered since there are no strong evidences and that gathered data or findings were scarce (Saferstein, 1990).
Naturally, findings are often generated by different forms of technique. These are initially done through different methods:
- Structured Interview
The structured view system is sometimes used by investigators to produce data. Potential suspects are being interviewed in this technique and asks essential questions that may be related or helpful to unravel the event (Saferstein, 1990).
Examples of the questions are (using Martha’s case):
- Do you know Martha Moxley?
- How are you related to her?
- When did you last see her?
- Where were you and what were were you doing at the time of the crime?
Structured interviews are designed to allow the flow of information spontaneously as the interviewee answers the questions. This means that the following question will vary depending on the answer to the first question. An example for this would be:
Q1: Do you know Martha Moxley?
Q2: How are you related to her?
A2: She is my friend.
Q3: Were you with her on that night?
Q4: She was doing the traditional Halloween practice with her friends; you were her friend but how come you were not with her?
A5: I was with in my grandmother’s house because it’s her birthday.
The investigator stops there because the answer was no longer leading to the case.
- Social Survey design
The Social Survey Design is method where questions are originally designed for the people to answer. It is similar with the structured interview design. This method reproduces variety of possibilities in the problem which provides close leads and suspects (Saferstein, 1990).
- Correlation Analysis
This is how data are analyzed housing the need for broad research strategy. For example, after doing the survey design and structured interview, the investigator will check the probable relation of probable suspects in the case.
The above were just preliminary methods of criminal investigation. These methods are not sufficient to point to a lead to what transpired to the Martha Moxley’s case, and here is where the need for theoretical assumptions and methods arise (Saferstein, 1990).
Data that were gathered are indispensable for the proceedings of the investigation, though techniques that were described earlier were just utilized for initial investigation. Though in different ways, the diversity and plurality within criminological project are considered assumptions of the nature of crime, types of data may be implicit (Maxfield, 1989).
These are assumptions such as crime is legitimately measured depending on the level of analysis either by social group, individual and primacy which can then be given to causality and background of any kind of analysis. A data distinction is usually slow and requires full amount of time. However, distinctions help depict the range of available data which are related to types of methods to be used (Saferstein, 1990).
Theories of Crime Related to the Martha Moxley Case
This is also known as the social reaction theory. This design focuses by how the identity of an individual is influenced by how he or she is classified or “labeled” by the public . In addition to that, it is concerned with the linguistic tendency of majorities to negatively label people who are observed to be deviant from norms and is also associated with the concept of stereotyping. Labeling theory has been accused of promoting impractical policy implications, and criticized for failing to explain society’s most serious offenses (O’Reilly-Fleming, 1996).
In connection to the Martha Moxley’s case, the labeling theory was applied. The Skakel brothers are known to have appalling and inexcusable behavior in their neighborhood. In addition to that, they often boast that they are Kennedy which makes them feel authoritative for having such wealth, influence, connection and power. Given that Tommy and Michael are labeled indifferently by the people in their neighborhood for having such ghastly behavior, and also both being identified to have interest to Martha Moxley, the brothers are the prime suspect of the murder case (Leyton, 1986).
Moreover, since these people are wealthy and influential, the case hasn’t been solved or looked into by the authorities for a long time; more like the case was forgotten. These are usual stereotypes among people related or have political influences. It is possible that the police or the authorities have inaccuracies with their investigations. Also, it is an undeniable fact that since the Skakel family are rich, they may have paid someone to hide the truth of investigation. Neither of the assumptions are accurate, however with this theory, it clearly illustrates that labeling is part of this crime case (Gresswell & Hollin, 1994 ; McKenzie, 1995)).
This design defines the course of dealing or discussing environmental factors when formulating or creating instructions, program, plans or products. In 1960s, the concepts of considering environmental factors have been precise and open by the environmental movement, though the Classical design considered this theory as well. CPTED or also known as the crime prevention through environmental design is a mufti-disciplinary approach of discouraging criminal manners and behavior. The technique of this approach is centered to the capability than can persuade delinquent decisions that lead criminal acts (O’Reilly-Fleming, 1996).
Reviewing this theory, it appears that the environment has a huge impact with the intent of the primary suspects to kill Martha Moxley. There exist a lot of factors that may contribute to the evidences why the Skakel brothers were pointed to be the crime’s suspect. According to some reviews, the Skakel brothers are accompanied with some of their friends during the night of the crime. (Leyton, 1986; Maxfield, 1989).
In relation to the Labeling theory, since the brothers came from an influential family, one of the spoiled brat boasted that he can go away with anything because of his connections. Also, they have been discussing about the murder even before it happened. In addition to this, while in rehabilitation center, one of them confessed that he murdered Martha Moxley. Moreover, their friends committed murder in the past and have no doubt of doing it again, which makes evidences or claims strong about the brothers (Leyton, 1986).
Shaming is defined as all societal processes of expressing social disapproval which have the intention or effect of invoking remorse in the person being shamed/or condemnation by others who become aware of the shaming (Holmes, 1989; Tomaszewski, 1997). The conception of shaming is markedly extensive, such that this theory is not necessarily public, humiliating or a special type of behavior. It might involve a discussion between parents and a child of how an act impacted upon others. Similarly, a well handed down by a court might be evaluated on the extent to which it is shaming; the extent to which it is an expression of disapproval toward the offender’s behavior (Harris, 2006).
Going back to the case, shaming theory has not been applied to the brothers. They were not subjected to a shameful scene were they have to be arrested and interrogated by authorities. In addition to that, since they have a wealthy and influential family, they were protected against any harm or damage that may be done is they were arrested.
Moreover, the brothers did not experience the process where the case is still under investigation since it appears that authorities may have forgotten this case for quite some time. In return, not being shamed gave the brothers confidence that either of them will be convicted. They did not even showed remorse to what have happened to the victim, showing that they will be able to surpass anything that will be accused to them (Holmes, 1989; Tomaszewski, 1997).
Going Back to the Case
Mark Fuhrman guaranteed to name the criminal; however Greenwich authorities did not permit him. They refused to be interviewed claiming they didn’t want to jeopardize with the ongoing investigation. Mark Fuhrman claimed that the authorities were hiding old inaccuracies. He said in his book that knowing a mistake and not allowing it to be corrected is such a disastrous error (Geringer, n.d.).
Detective Stephen Carroll, one of those cooperating with Fuhrman agreed that there was a mistake in the investigation since the police authorities in the area has not handled any murder case for 30 years not to mention that the involved are wealthy families. It was in 1998 when Mark Fuhrman’s book was released. He bravely mentioned the name of the Skakel brothers as the prime suspects for the murder.
At the same time, another book written by Timothy Dumas also concerned the name of the Skakel brothers in the murder case. Sometime in May 1998, a panel of judges approved the request of the prosecutor to conduct a grand jury investigation for the Martha Moxley’s case appointing Bridgeport Superior Court Judge George N. Thim to handle the investigation of the evidences gathered by the Greenwich Police Authority and Attorney’s office (Geringer, n.d).
This case is very rare in Connecticut as such grand juries are only used when the rest of investigative procedures failed. Judge Thim was able to release subpoena to witnesses. Connecticut prosecutors do not have the authority to issue subpoena which in turn had paralyzed them to act on the Martha Moxley’s case (Geringer, n.d.).
The Grand jury conducted an interview with 50 witnesses as they were connected to the case. They were previous residents of Elan School in Maine where the older Skakel was allegedly accused for a murder case while rehabilitating. Several closed door hearings were held for 18 months and all of these officially ended in December of 1999. Judge Thim was officially given the authority to decide whether there was enough evidence to issue a warrant of arrest.
At 9:00 AM of January 19, 2000 in a conference in Bridgeport, some prosecutors announced that an issuance of warrant of arrest for unnamed juvenile and Michael Skakel was the person judged. Michael Skakel was surrendered to Frank Garr and he was accused for murder charges and was given bail amounting to $500,000 to get released (Geringer, n.d).
The Value of Methods
Criminological methods aim to carry out criminological research. It doesn’t concern answering questions such as “what it is?” or “what it should be?” (Saferstein, 1990). However, in Martha Moxley’s situation, it would be a folly to ignore core problems of criminology and the different theories bore on them. On the other hand, methods that have implications for such ways in conceptualizing problems are needed for the type of explanation. Some research methods are more appropriate and useful to some aspects of the investigation.
For instance, detailed insights into ways in which crime is done are not likely to be analyzed by format which is short and highly structured (Williams & Flewelling, 1987). In addition to that, some different theories seem to have partiality as to the methods because of the different types of data that can be collected, the unit or level of analysis which are applied and primacy which are used for search for causes (Saferstein, 1990).
With this in mind, what is the need for a method? Different theme of methods can be interpreted narrowly using the different types of data gathered by criminological researchers, and with these, the data are evaluated. Several technicalities of these matters usually remain buried an unanswered. Using both ways, data are invariably viewed except with special interest.
Methodological validity suggests fundamental justification of methods employed in a criminological research. It is almost similar as to what was described above though it generally engage to consideration of theories, techniques and assumptions that are implicit in a particular method or design. These assumptions are usually bound up with issue about the manners in which theories and methods connect (Maxfield, 1989; Saferstein, 1990).
Analytical methods translated from other disciplines are where criminologists and criminal justice researchers depend on. The analytical method of criminology and criminal justice, like other fields of social research, originated in statistics, econometrics, psychometrics and epidemiology (Lion, 1991). There is a rapid pace of development in analytical methods in criminology nowadays.
However, they key in advancing our knowledge in criminology is to better understand data and measurement rather than developing sophisticated techniques. Criminologists and criminal justice researchers play a major role in manipulating the data they utilize. The content and type of data that will be gathered can limit or expand the range of questions that will be used in the investigation (Saferstein, 1990).
Below are some of the methods used in the Martha Moxley’s murder case. These methods are also commonly used in the usual murder cases where leads are vague and evidences are insufficient.
- DNA TEST
The importance of an appropriate and effective approach to processing a crime scene should never be taken for granted.
A genealogical DNA test is used to examine the nucleotides at certain locations on an individual DNA for genealogical purposes (Ratner, 1996; Steadman, 2003). The results are meant to have no informative medical value and do not determine specific genetic diseases or disorders. The normal procedure for taking a genealogical DNA test involves taking a painless cheek-scraping at home and mailing the sample to a hereditary genealogy laboratory for testing (Ratner, 1996; Tovar, 2004).
Some laboratories offer to store DNA samples for ease of future testing. The most popular ancestry tests are Y chromosome (Y-DNA) testing and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) testing (Warren, 1991). Other tests attempt to determine a researcher’s comprehensive genetic history and/or ethnic origins (Comey & Budowle,1991; Geller & Warrington, 1994.Steadman, 2003).
Blood Stain. This method discusses applications, research and the latest view of bloodstain interpretation within the criminological system at the appellate levels, as well as scientific approaches and developments in the field. Scientific and Legal Applications of Bloodstain Pattern Interpretation helps lawyers who are cross-examining and questioning expert witnesses to have a good working knowledge of this method (Culliford, 1971; Grispino, 1990; Laux, 1991; Scott,1987).
Fingerprints Analysis. The condition of the victim’s fingers would generally not allow for the normal fingerprinting technique to be successfully carried out. Mostly in these cases, the victim’s fingers would need to be taken away from the body to the laboratory. In the laboratory, the fingers would be dehydrated by a selection of substance soaking techniques to return the tissue to a soft and pliable condition (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1984; Schuetts-Hendrickson, 1983; Spear et al, 2003; Trozzi et al, 2000; Wilgus, 2002).
Crime Scene Diagram. A picture of the crime seen is taken by investigators as the first step of this technique. This way, they have the idea of the key elements that needs to be analyzed. In addition to that, this will provide itself easier explanation of the function of a particular element or object in the crime scene (Saferstein, 1990).
Rough sketches need to be legible and orderly. Restoration or preparation of a clean copy is needed by investigators to present to the court and support their claims. However, it will take time before documents like these will be presented. Moreover, it may be exposed. A graphing paper is needed in this method. Searching for the outer border of the scene is where the rough sketch starts (Saferstein, 1990).
An investigator should acquire a systematic approach in collecting, gathering and preserving evidences. In Martha Moxley’s case, the evidences should be preserved, kept or documented as the proceedings for the case took a longer time. The researcher or the investigator is opt to obtain and collect as much data as possible to determine the significance and scope of evidences that may be available before going to the crime scene. This information or data may consist of statements of witnesses, statements of suspects, and information from the authority or responding officer, detectives, etc. (Saferstein, 1990).
Data are gathered to avoid the destruction of any important and/or delicate evidence such as trace evidence, etc. Logic and keen observation are important factors needed by investigators in searching for useful and important evidences; moreover, he or she should stretch his or her own imagination and more importantly has to have a fair and reasonable judgment. As investigators and/or crime researchers become more experienced, they begin to establish that definite patterns come into view and solid fundamentals are ordinary among similar cases.
This is due to the erratic nature of faction and the forces of disorder. Once the examiner has gathered as much data as possible; then he should form a written or mental plan to go on with the collection, documentation and preservation of such evidences (McKenzie, 1995). The investigator or police officer should also go by any pertinent data to the laboratory analyst. This allows the involved to make decisions about the best approach and methods to the scrutiny from the evidence.
The examiner should thoroughly study every document that will be collected. Every aspect of the crime scene analysis should be monitored, from the preliminary walk towards the preservation of the collected evidences. Documentation is important to record the state of the crime picture and its related verification as much as possible to their original circumstance at the crime. Modifications, though minimal, is generally inevitable between the crime scene and investigation periods (Williams & Flewelling, 1987).
Other people in the picture may also innocently or involuntarily alter the scene. At any circumstance, the proof must be well documented as perfect as to whatever the condition will allow. There are number of tools available for documenting evidence including notes, videotape, photographs, sketches, and chain of custody forms. The investigator may decide to use several or all of these methods of documentation. In addition to that, this documentation will be used in the future to refresh the investigator’s memories of the case. .
The labeling theory, crime prevention through environmental design and shaming theory are all discussed in the Martha Moxley case. All of the said theories are applied in her murder case. These theories make evidences against the Skakel brother stronger. One theory is related to or is somehow connected to the other. All of them explained why such crime happened, possible reasons for suspect’s behavior and why leads point to a particular suspect. Though trial of this case took a longer time, this is also considered evidence supported by one of the theories discussed in this paper.
A crime scene investigation generally starts with a criminologist or investigator walking through the area where the crime took place. The area or region of the crime scene is called the “track” where all evidences can be found and actions associated with the crime happened. It is usually marked by the occurrence of evidence. The “track” in a murder case includes point of admission, position of the body, areas where the suspect may have cleaned up and the exit.
The objective is to note the location of probable evidence and to mentally illustrate how the crime was processed. . The walk through should begin as close to the point of admission as possible. The very first place the investigators should scrutinize is the position on which they are about to tramp. If any data is found, then an indicator should be placed at the location as an advice not to step on the thing of interest.
Criminological methods and research strategies applied in any crime investigation are essential in the progress of solving an unlawful case. With these methods, though it requires appropriate knowledge, effective techniques and extensive studying, a light that will lead to the revelation of who the culprit is will be shown.
Comey, C.T. & Budowle, B., 1991. Validation studies on the analysis of the HLA DQà locus using the polymerase chain reaction. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 36(6), p. 1633-1648.
Culliford, B.J., 1971. The examination and typing of bloodstains in the crime laboratory. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1984. The science of fingerprints. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, US Government Printing Office, p. 393-402.
Fischer, B., 1987. Techniques of crime scene investigation. New York: Elsevier.
Geller, J.& Warrington, R. J., 1994. Use of “stun gun” devices for making electrostatic dust print lifts. Journal of Forensic Identification, 44 (4), p. 364-374.
Geringer, J., n.d. The Martha Moxley murder. [Online]. Available at: [accessed 25 February 2008]
Gresswell, D. & Hollin, C., 1994. Multiple murder: A review.“British Journal of Criminology, 34(1), p. 1-14.
Grispino, R.R.J. (1990). The effects of luminol on the serological analysis of dried bloodstains. Crime Laboratory Digest, 17 (1), p. 13-23.
Harris, N., 2006. Reintegrative shaming, shame and criminal justice. [Online]. Available at: http://regnet.anu.edu.au/program/publications/PDFs/2006_Harris_ReintegrativeShamingShameandCriminalJustice.pdf
Holmes, R. M., 1989. Profiling violent crimes: An investigative tool. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
Laux, D.L. (1991). Effects of luminol on the subsequent analysis of bloodstains. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 36(5), p. 1512-1520.
Leyton, E., 1986. Hunting humans: The rise of the modern multiple murderer. Toronto: McClelland- Bantam, Inc.
Lion, J.R., 1991. Pitfalls in the assessment and measurement of violence: A clinical view. Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 3(2), p. 40-43.
Maxfield, M. G., 1989. Circumstances in supplementary homicide reports: Variety and validity. Criminology, 27(4), p. 671-695.
McKenzie, C., 1995. A study of serial murder. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 39(1), p. 3-10.
O’Reilly-Fleming, T., 1996. The evolution of multiple murder in historical perspective. In Thomas O’Reilly- Fleming (ed.) Serial and mass murder: Theory, research and policy. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press, p. 1-37.
Ratner, R.S., 1996. Ideological homicide. In Thomas O’Reilly-Fleming (ed.) Serial and mass murder: Theory, research and policy. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press, p. 123-131.
Saferstein R. (1990). Criminalistics: An introduction to forensic science. New York: Prentice Hall.
Schuetts-Hendrickson, M. (1983). A casting method for fingerprinting the deceased. Identification News, 33 (11), p. 13.
Scott, S., 1987. Bloodstain pattern analysis – five years later. Juried Paper presented at the Southern Association of Forensic Scientists’ Fall, 1987 Meeting, September 18, 1987. Atlanta, Georgia.
Spear, T., Khoshkebari, N., Clark, J., & Murphy, M., 2003. Summary of experiments investigating the impact of fingerprint processing and fingerprint reagents on PCR-Based DNA typing profiles. (2003). California Association of Criminalists.
Steadman, D. W., 2003. The pawnshop mummified head: discriminating among forensic, historic, and ancient contexts. In Hard Evidence: Case Studies in Forensic
Tomaszewski, E., 1997. ‘AlterNative’ approaches to criminal justice: John Braithwaite’s theory of reintegrative shaming revisited. Journal of Critical Criminology, 8(2), p. 105-118.
Tovar, R. M., 2004. The use of electrostatic equipment to retrieve impressions from the human body. Journal of Forensic Identification, 5 (5), p. 530-533.
Trozzi, T. A., Schwartz, R. L., & Hollars, M. L., 2000. Processing guide for developing latent prints. Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Warren. J., 1991. Optimal medium for the transfer of crime scene stains for DNA analysis. Paper presented at the La. Association of Forensic Scientists’ Fall, 1991 Meeting, October 26, 1991, Harahan, La.
Wilgus, G., 2002. Latent print recovery from human skin. Journal of Forensic Identification, 52 (2), p. 133-135.
Williams, R. & Flewelling, R., 1987. Family, acquaintance, and stranger homicide: Alternative procedures and rate calculations. Criminology, 25(3), p. 543- 560.