The Criminal Behavior of the Serial Exterminist

as if you needed to read any more…




From 1984 to 1986, FBI Special Agents assigned to theNationalCenterfor the Analysis of Violent Crime (NCAVC) interviewed 41 men who were responsible for raping 837 victims. Previous issues of the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin provided an introduction to this research (1) and the characteristics of the rapists and their  victims. (2)  This article, however, describes the behavior of these serial rapists during and following the commission of their sexual assaults.  The information presented is applicable only to the men interviewed; it is not intended to be generalized to all men who rape.


The Report by Robert R. Hazelwood, M.S. , Special Agent,  Behavioral Science Instruction/Research Unit,Quantico,VAgives an excellent insight into the major methods of approach. The one which comes close to fitting a pattern espouse by Dr Jacobs or Anita Schatz is “The Con”


The “Con” Approach

Case Number 1


John, a man who raped more than 20 women, told the interviewers that he stopped one of his victims late at night and identified himself as a plainclothes police officer.  He asked for her driver’s license and registration, walked back to his car and sat there for a few moments.  He then returned to the victim, advised her that her registration had expired and asked her to accompany him to his car.  She did so, and upon entering the car, he handcuffed her and drove to an isolated location where he raped and sodomized the victim.


As in the above case account, the con approach involves subterfuge and is predicated on the rapist’s ability to interact with women.  With this technique, the rapist openly approaches the victim and requests or offers some type of assistance or direction.  However, once the victim is within his control, the offender may suddenly become more aggressive.

The con approach was used in 8 (24%) of the first rapes, 12 (35%) of the middle rapes, and 14 (41%) of the last rapes. Various ploys used by the offenders included impersonating a police officer, providing transportation for a hitchhiking victim, and picking women up in singles bars.  Obviously, this style of initiating contact with victims requires an ability to interact with women.



The alleged rapist who would allegedly “crossdress” and use a gender identity law as cover would be someone who can not interact with women thereby needs this “disguise.”

Far flung.


The models of serial rapists don’t support it.


To assert any other concerns about public safety of women, in a post concerning gender identity protections and the people who would willingly lie and claim cases where none exist, is to add credence to their arguments.


For the last full year in which statistics have been reported show:


  • In 2010, victims age 12 or older experienced a total of 188,380 rapes or sexual assaults.1


  • In 2010, 91.85 percent of rape or sexual assault victims were female.2


  • Of female rape or sexual assault victims in 2010, 25 percent were assaulted by a stranger, 48 percent by friends or acquaintances, and 17 percent were intimate partners.3



Whereas 188,380 rapes where committed, and wherein 91.85% are women, there were 173,027 women raped. Where as 25% were by strangers, there were 43,257 cases where such laws could have caused a rape. Yet in 2010 only 40% of the country had such laws so proportionally approximately 17,302 cases occurred in jurisdictions where there are gender identity laws.  If these laws caused a mere 1% spike in rapes due to such a law would easily be evident. That’s 173 cases last year alone. However there are no cases, nor is there casework from other years. Because it not only doesn’t fly with the statistical data, it flies in the face of the analysis of some of the FBI’s top profilers.



Can we table the meme and get to the real issue



  1.  Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Criminal Victimization, 2010,” (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 2011), Table 1, September 28, 2011).
  2. Ibid., calculated from data on p. 9, Table 5.
  3. Ibid.,