REVISION OF THE ATCHERLEY MODUS OPERANDI SYSTEM AUGUST VOLLMER1 An old officer in the police service once said, "There is a clew to every crime. Finding the clew proves that you are working, and not playing in your chosen profession." There is a clew to every crime. The most important and easiest to get, though more often overlooked than found. That clew is the method employed by the criminal in securing his ill-gotten loot. Experienced investigators are alive to the fact that professional criminals are specialists and seldom deviate from their individual methods of attack. Accordingly, they narrow the scope of their investigation, and consider only the criminals likely to commit the kind of offense which has been assigned them for investigation, and some investigators are often able to fix responsibility for the crime in a comparatively short time, due to their knowledge of individual methods of criminal operations. It must be remembered, however, that the ability to bring their case to a successful termination in the manner described is limited to experienced investigators. The young and inexperienced officer, after tireless effort looking for some bit of evidence that will help him to unravel the problem before him, usually concludes his reports with the stereotyped form "Unable to find any clew." Identification experts, in their efforts to satisfy the demands of officers for information concerning specialists in various crimes as well as to reduce their search for previous records of prisoners, evolved the plan of keeping separate photograph albums in which are kept special types of criminals, such a bunko-men, pickpockets, safe-crackers, holdup men, check-men and burglars. In some of the identification bureaus these photographs are found divided in albums according to the hair-color, eye-color, height and age. No orderly system of classifying the professional criminal's methods of operation was used in any police department in this country or in England until the Modus Operandi System devised by Major L. W. Atcherley, N. V. O. West Riding of Yorkshire Constabulary, was adopted by some of the English police organizations. Major Atcherley's system is growing in popularity, and no self-respecting 1Chief of Police, Berkeley, Cal.; Associate Editor of this JOURNAL. police department will be without a Modus Operandi file in the very near future, because unless their plans miscarry, or they are caught in the commission of an offense, migratory crooks enjoy immunity from arrest for long periods by reason of the fact that they seldom remain long in any one community. Police officials are continually confronted with the problem of determining the identity of professional criminals who are operating in their community. The officials were seriously handicapped in their efforts, first, because there was no system used to detect criminals by their operations, and secondly, because of a lack of co-operation between departments. This weakness may be easily remedied by the adoption of a uniform Modus Operandi System, and the establishment of a clearing house in each state as well as a national bureau to each of which records from every city and county describing the Modus Operandi of criminals would be sent. The plan here presented is a revision of the Atcherley method. We have eliminated some of the details, and elaborated others wherever it was thought advisable, for the purpose of describing criminal methods peculiar to our own country. It was also found necessary to deviate somewhat from the arrangement of departments in order that the decimal plan might be utilized to the fullest extent. We do not believe that the present arrangement is the best that can be devised, nor that all of the points of criminal methods of operation have been covered. But it is necessary that a start be made somewhere in this country, and we are hopeful that this plan may stimulate the interest of American police officials in the identification and detection of criminals by the Modus Operandi System, and ultimately producing a system which may be adopted by all police organizations in the United States. The primary divisions in this Revision include: A-CRIME. B-PERSON OR PROPERTY ATTACKED. C-How ATTACKED. D-WITH WHAT ATTACKED OR MEANS OF ATTACK. E-TIME OF ATTACK. F-OBJECT OF ATTACK. G-BY WHOM ATTACKED. H-NATIONALITY OF ATTACKERS. I-COLOR AND NUMBER OF ATTACKERS. J-INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ATTACK OR Trademark. A brief explanation of each of the above divisions follows: A-CRIME: Burglary is the entering of any place surrounded by walls and having a roof with the intent to commit larceny or any felony. Worthless checks or orders, includes any check or order whether fictitious, fraudulent or forged, used to defraud. Robbery is the felonious taking of personal property in the possession of another from his person or immediate presence and against his will by means of force or fear. Theft is the obtaining from another, with or without his consent, of money or property by fraud, trickery, imposture, sneaking, or any other schemes, commonly called "bunko," "con-game," "flim-flam,” etc. B-PERSON OR PROPERTY ATTACKED: One class of criminals will select a certain class of persons or property, whereas they will hesitate to attack another class. An effort should be made to describe so exactly the actual person or property in each case as to leave no doubt on this point in the mind of the reader. C-HOW ATTACKED: In burglary the actual point of entry should be clearly specified. For example, "basement, "front door," "first floor, side window," "second floor, sky-light," etc. In worthless checks, robbery, and theft, the manner in which the offense was committed must be carefully noted, as this is an important division. D-WITH WHAT ATTACKED OR MEANS OF ATTACK: This point should be clearly expressed due regard being paid to the method used by the criminal in reaching the point of entry, when the offense is burglary; also, to the tools used after so reaching it. Where money is obtained by worthless check or order, the specific instrument should be noted. In robbery the weapon used must be named and when money or property is obtained by means of theft, the particular methods employed by the criminal should be specified. E-TIME OF ATTACK: Not only the day of the week, but the exact hour should be given. This often narrows down the investigation to criminals who operate at certain periods. F—Object of ATTACK: Some criminals specialize in their stealing; thus one thief steals clothing, another jewelry, while another prefers automobiles. The object of an attack is often a valuable clew. G-BY WHOM ATTACKED: The description of the person wanted in connection with an offense can often be obtained by a complete in quiry, and when such description can be had it is nearly possible to ascertain the account which the criminal has given of himself, including the particular business which brings him into the neighborhood at this time. Occasionally the investigator must depend on the opinion of witnesses as to the particular profession or calling which the criminal may follow. This is frequently helpful though incorrect. H-NATIONALITY OF ATTACKERS: The nationality of the criminal, while not necessarily important, is often helpful when considered with other points in the Modus Operandi. I-COLOR AND NUMBER OF ATTACKERS: The investigator should nearly always be able to ascertain whether the work is that of one or several persons. Many facts revealed in the investigation will lead him to this opinion. It is a fact that occasionally criminals work in pairs or in greater numbers. Others invariably work alone. This information when supplemented by the color of attacker or attackers is important in reducing the scope of investigation. J-INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ATTACKER OR TRADEMARK: Criminals are known frequently to commit certain extraordinary acts not associated with the object of the crime such as poisoning the dog, leaving a note behind, changing their clothes or even committing a nuisance on the scene of the crime. These habits must never be overlooked. "Telling the tale" is an expression thoroughly understood among officers. It is almost impossible for a stranger to stay for even a short time in a community without disclosing his business whether he desires to do so or not. The criminal is usually prepared with some explanation so as to be ready for any inquisitive person and has generally a reference to certain localities and places, the business which he represents, where he has been working, and other similar details. In false pretenses the tale, of course, is the principal factor in the crime. It is also valuable for fixing the identity of checkpassers. The primary divisions are found divided into as many points as necessary in order that specific methods of operation may be accurately described, and by reducing the scope of the inquiry, make possible the identification of the offender. Each of the crimes have their own set of factors. In some of the divisions they are exactly the same, though in others they differ materially. A few examples of the application of this Revision of the Modus Operandi System will serve to illustrate its usefulness and simplicity: 1. The crime of burglary (A-1) has been committed in an apartment house (B-2) where a room was entered through a second story rear window (C-52) via the fire escape (D-6) sometime between 7 P. M. and 9 P. M. Sunday evening (E-6) and jewelry (F-13) was stolen. A book-agent (G-31) was seen loitering in the halls of the apartment house. He had a German accent (H-46) and was accompanied by another man (I-16). The blinds were pulled down while the thief operated (J-17). The Modus Operandi Formula: G H I J A B C DE F 1 2 52 6 6 13 3 46 16 17 2. A check was passed (A-2) on a florist (B-35), which was a forged (C-1) certified check (D-2). A stranger entered the store Saturday afternoon (E-46) and tendered a $50.00 check (F-4). He claimed to be an actor (G-107) from Alabama (H-131). With him was a woman (1-6) who was introduced as his wife. He purchased flowers and asked that they be sent to a sick friend (J-3). The Modus Operandi Formula: A B C Ꭰ E F G H I J 2 35 1 2 46 4 107 131 6 3 3. A robbery (A-3) was committed. The victim, a night watchman (B-152) was held up (C-10) at the point of a revolver (D-9) Saturday evening at 10:15 (E-49) and his watch (F-4) and money taken. The robber was dressed like a laborer (G-61) and had an Irish accent (H-60). He was alone (I-15) and was very deliberate and cool (J-5). The Modus Operandi Formula: A B C D E F G H I J 3 152 10 9 49. 4 61 60 15 5 4. A theft was committed (A-4) in a jewelry store (B-45) by exchanging (C-15) a bogus diamond ring (D-14) for a better one. The thief entered the store Monday at noon (E-11) and stole a two carat diamond ring (F-13). He said he was a wealthy mine owner (G-92) from California (H-135). A woman (1-6) entered the store with him, and he told the salesman that he wanted to purchase a present for her (J-20). The Modus Operandi Formula: E F G H I J A B C D 4 45 15 14 Whenever any of the factors are unobtained, that fact is indicated by a cipher as shown in the following example: A burglary (A-1) was committed. The property attacked was a dwelling place (B-1). There were no marks to indicate the point of entry (C-0) or with what entered (D-0), nor when entered (E-0). |