Tested on 100 murders, the organized/disorganized split did not hold

Where did the organized and disorganized labels come from?

From special agents of the FBI’s Behavioral Science Unit at Quantico. In April 1980, two of them, Robert Hazelwood and John Douglas, wrote in the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin that basically two types of individuals commit lust murder: the organized nonsocial and the disorganized asocial personality.^3,4,5

The article was titled “The Lust Murderer.”^3,4 Hazelwood and Douglas allowed that there are always exceptions.³ A Justice Department library abstract says their profile was based on case reports, interviews with investigative personnel and a review of the literature.⁴

Canter and colleagues called the organized/disorganized dichotomy one of the most widely cited classifications of violent serial offenders.^2,6 A 2013 study in Criminal Justice and Behavior puts the model in simple terms: organized offenses are well planned and controlled, committed by relatively high-functioning offenders.² Disorganized offenses are opportunistic and sloppy, committed by relatively low-functioning offenders.² The study adds that the original dichotomy sorted murders and murderers on two grounds: crime scene behaviors and background characteristics.²

What did the FBI’s 1985 study claim?

In August 1985 a special issue of the Bulletin reported research on sexual homicide crime scenes.^5,7 Its project investigators were Robert Ressler, a supervisory special agent in the Behavioral Science Unit, and Ann Burgess.^5,7 The issue said the unit’s agents had developed the organized and disorganized classification from years of experience and knowledge, and “were anxious to know if this classification system could be scientifically tested.”⁵

Thirty-six convicted sexual murderers were interviewed by FBI agents: 25 serial murderers and 11 who had committed a single homicide, a double homicide or a spree.^5,7 The agents first classified the 36 as 24 organized and 12 disorganized.^5,7 The study reported significant differences between the two groups’ crime scenes, and some differences in background.^5,7 Its conclusion called the study exploratory.⁵

What happened when researchers tested the split?

It did not hold. Testing how 39 aspects of 100 murders by 100 U.S. serial killers co-occurred, Canter and colleagues found “no distinct subsets of offense characteristics reflecting the dichotomy.” A subset of organized features was typical of most serial killings. Disorganized features were much rarer and did not form a distinct type.^1,6

In 2004, David Canter, Laurence Alison, Emily Alison and Natalia Wentink published the test in Psychology, Public Policy, and Law.^1,6 They wrote that, despite weaknesses in the classification, it is drawn on for offender profiles, theories of offending and in murder trials.¹ They called the FBI’s sample an opportunity sample of 36 offenders who agreed to talk to the agents.⁶ They found no subsequent test of the dichotomy’s reliability on other violent offenses or offenders in the academic literature.⁶

Their data were 100 murders in the United States, one from each of 100 convicted serial killers, drawn from published accounts cross-checked with court reports.^1,6 They coded 39 aspects of the crimes that corresponded to crime scene characteristics the Crime Classification Manual outlines as distinctive of an organized or a disorganized offense.^1,6 A multidimensional scaling procedure then examined the co-occurrence of every aspect with every other.^1,6 If the split were real, organized features would occur together, disorganized features would occur together, and the two sets would rarely mix.^2,6

The publisher’s abstract states the result: “Results revealed no distinct subsets of offense characteristics reflecting the dichotomy. They showed a subset of organized features typical of most serial killings. Disorganized features are much rarer and do not form a distinct type.”¹ The authors concluded that being organized is typical of serial killers as a whole, not one subtype.⁶

What did the FBI say about typologies in 2008?

In 2008 the FBI’s National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime published a monograph on serial murder.^8,9 It says that over the past twenty years, law enforcement and experts from many disciplines tried to identify serial murderers’ motives and apply them to typologies, from simple, definitive models to complex, multiple-category systems laden with inclusion requirements.⁸ Most typologies, it says, are “too cumbersome to be utilized by law enforcement during an active serial murder investigation, and they may not be helpful in identifying an offender.”⁸

The monograph calls identifying motive a standard procedure for law enforcement, one that typically lets police narrow the suspect pool.⁸ Most homicides are committed by someone known to the victim, so police focus on the relationships closest to the victim.⁸ The majority of serial murderers are not acquainted with their victims, so investigators try to discern motive to narrow their focus.⁸

The 1980 article had set its own limit at the outset: prescribed investigative procedures should not be suspended, altered or replaced by receipt of a profile.^3,4 A typology describes crimes. It does not name the person who committed them.