Sample Scenario: The Shooting Range

Agent NMD had heard about a four-person homicide committed near his home in rural Missouri. The crime scene included the bodies of four adult men, each slain by gunfire, at the site of a small, state-supervised shooting range. Three of the men had been robbed, for a total take of over $700. Five days after first offering his assistance, Agent NMD was contacted in the early evening by investigators serving on an investigation squad, and asked to review crime scene photographs and offer a motive and count of shooters. Investigators working the case for over a week, several of whom had collected the evidence at the scene, believed there to be two shooters, motivated by robbery. Later the same evening, Agent NMD hypothesized one shooter, not motivated by robbery but experiencing a recent turmoil in life, committed the crimes. The squad interviewed hundreds of people - some near the scene and date, others related to the victims. Yet, a week after Agent NMD offered his theory, a single arrest was made of a suspect who had no relation to the victims and was losing his wife. The suspect was eventually convicted of capital murder, and executed.

What He Knew:

Agent NMD's review of crime scene photographs and physical evidence revealed:

Two bodies (A,B), stacked on the floor in the rear of an automobile, along with used ammunition boxes stained with blood; another body (C), lying near the rear of the same car; and a fourth body (D), lying approximately 50 yards away, off the grounds of the range, struck twice. All shots had cleared the bodies.
Pants pockets exposed on bodies A, B, and C, but not D.
Drag marks from the shooter's bench to the rear passenger doors of the car.
A second car, with official state of Missouri license plates.
Body C clutching car keys.
Ground of the range covered in expelled shells.
Range located in rural area, with no direct route to it from major roadways.

Agent NMD's review of interviews collected during the investigation revealed:

A and B were preparing to take vacation on a deer hunting trip; their wives were making preparations at home, and they were at the range to prepare their guns.
A had withdrawn the morning of the crime several hundred dollars for the trip.
C had recently been hired by the State of Missouri Game Commission as an inspector, and was tasked by his supervisor to tour the gaming facilities in the region the morning of the crime; D was requested to escort him.
C had withdrawn the morning of the crime several hundred dollars to purchase a gift for his daughter.

Hypothesis #1

The squad hypothesized that the crimes were committed by two shooters, primarily due to the number of bodies. It was proposed that a single shooter could not shoot all four men. Secondly, the squad hypothesized that the primary motivation for the shootings was robbery, due to the missing money.

Hypothesis #2

Agent MND hypothesized one shooter, with only a secondary motivation of robbery. He recalled the moment he offered his profile:

"Their jaws dropped. They weren't happy that I had a different theory of the case. In fact, I gave them more than they asked for. I also said that the shooter would have experienced something dramatic in life just before the shooting."

Agent MND drew on several datapoints for this theory. Regarding the number of shooters, the ground was covered with shells; thus, there was no physical evidence to support either theory. But Agent MND, he noted the drag marks on the ground, the first set leading to the driver side rear door, the second to the passenger side rear door. Both doors showed blood stains on the doorwells. Agent MND suggested that a single person, dragging the bodies, would leave such marks, whereas two people carrying the bodies would not. He further reasoned that the shootings could have happened at two separate times. Specifically, he noted the keys in C's hand suggested he was either headed to or had just exited his car, and the bloodstained ammunition boxes appeared to have been tossed in on top of A and B, which suggested an attempted clean up of the area. This data supported a theory that a single shooter could have shot A and B at Time 1, then shot C and D at Time 2. Agent MND inferred that A and B were shot, then placed in the first car; C and D came later to the range, discovered the bodies, and were then shot by the single, hidden shooter. D was shot as he fled from the shots to C - as he attempted to flee further, he was shot a second time.

Regarding the robbery, Agent MND noted that the rural location and usual users of the range did not present a target of value for robbery. The reasons A, B, and C had over $700 between them were happenstance. There was also no indication that A and B knew C and D. Moreover, C and D had been ordered to tour facilities - their plan to tour the range had been developed the morning of the crime. Also, several weapons were left at the scene, including two shotguns left in plain view on the range bench and in the car. These data suggested that robbery, while clearly having been conducted, was not a primary motive for the crimes.

Without robbery, and given the happenstance nature of his theory, Agent MND needed to develop a motive. He described his process:

"I start out thinking about all the possible motives - sexual, revenge, robbery, organized crime hit, witness testimony. None of them applied, and it's just not where someone would go to rob. They wouldn't know it was there by driving past on the highway. By process of elimination, I consider what is left. What would put someone in the mood to kill in this scene. Since it was such a remote location, I had to think someone went there to kill. It must've been a local - they would've had to have known the range was there. And they would've gone there to kill, probably following some sort of personal upheaval. We know of many cases in which people will kill substitute victims to release anger."

The Investigation

Following his profile, the squad continued their investigation. They interviewed many people in the immediate area, looking for any available information specific to the range on the day of the crimes. They gathered a list of ammunition purchasers near the scene and date of the crime; the list, however, was extensive, as the date of the crime coincided with the start of deer season. Nevertheless, they began to work their way through the list, attempting to contact people who had made purchases. The squad's interviewing process was two weeks old, involved many officers, and was nearing the end of its funding cycle when the case broke. They had attempted on numerous occasions to contact an individual from the list, but had not succeeded in locating him. Finally, they located his wife, and interviewed her. About the day of the crime, she revealed:

He did not know any of the victims.
He worked at the rock quarry [the range is located between his home and the quarry].
He went to work that morning, but his machine broke.
He returned home to find her loading their pick-up truck - she was intending to leave him.
He then left their home.

About her husband, she revealed:

He frequently became distraught about money, particularly when he was intoxicated, and would sometimes place a shotgun on his lap and stroke it, saying he was going to kill.
He would calm down when his wife would give him money, which he promptly took to buy alcohol.

Afterword

The squad subsequently picked up her husband. Upon questioning, he revealed that he had left work that morning after his machine broke. He returned home, then drove back to the range. He had met A and B, and yielded the range to them. While sitting on the hood of his truck, his shotgun accidentally slid off, and struck one of them.

Ballistic evidence demonstrated him to be the sole shooter.