The burned interior of Linda Malcom’s home. Image courtesy of Jennifer Bucholtz.
By Jennifer Bucholtz
Faculty Member, Criminal Justice and Forensic Science
Note: This is the seventh in a series of articles examining the details surrounding the murder of Linda Malcom. The first article provides information on the known facts and evidence in her case. Read the second article to learn about crowdsourcing and how this tactic can greatly assist in solving cold cases. The third article offers information on the use of victimology and how it can be applied to Linda’s case. The fourth article details my recent visit to the Port Orchard area. The fifth article provides information on the probable murder weapon. The sixth article discusses the applicability of genetic genealogy to Linda’s case.
In the early morning of April 30, 2008, firefighters were sent to a house fire on Sidney Avenue in Port Orchard, Washington. After the fire was extinguished, the body of Linda Malcom, 47, was found in the master bedroom. An autopsy later determined that it wasn’t the fire that resulted in her death, but the fact that she had multiple stab wounds.
Over the past three years, the University’s Cold Case Investigative Team has conducted a full re-investigation into Linda’s case. Part of our process includes consulting experts who have specialized knowledge applicable to the case.
Recently, fire investigator Alan Haskins and I were invited to appear on The Consult podcast. All of the hosts are retired FBI profilers who worked together in the Behavioral Analysis Unit, and they have spent their careers applying behavioral analysis to countless criminal cases.
For about four hours, we discussed Linda’s case with Julia Cowley, Bob Drew and Susan Kossler Drew. The discussion resulted in a three-part podcast series.
Left to right: Podcast hosts and retired FBI profilers Julia Cowley, Bob Drew, and Susan Kossler Drew. Image courtesy of Jennifer Bucholtz.
What Is Behavioral Analysis?
The investigative process used by FBI experts of the BAU was originally coined “criminal profiling.” However, the more common term used today is “behavioral analysis.”
A tenet of behavioral analysis is that a person’s thinking dictates his or her behavior and in turn, behavior reflects personality. So by analyzing the actions taken during a crime, behavioral analysts (also known as criminal profilers) may be able to determine what type of person committed a crime.
Countless law enforcement agencies have used behavioral analysis to successfully narrow the pool of suspects and identify the most likely characteristics of the offender of a particular crime or series of crimes. This analysis focuses on behavioral and personality characteristics, unknowingly exhibited by an offender during and after the commission of a crime.
Behavioral analysis seeks to understand offender motivation (the “why” of a crime) and the modus operandi (the “how”). Behavior analysts examine both verbal and non-verbal actions and clues from a crime scene.
In cases of murder, there are several behavioral clues inadvertently exhibited by the offender during the commission of the crime. These clues can provide investigators valuable insight into the psychology, personality, and motive of the murderer.
Behavioral Clues in Linda’s Case
Whoever killed Linda went above and beyond the minimal steps necessary to take her life. Stabbing her in the heart, spinal cord or liver one time would have been enough to kill her.
However, her killer stabbed her a total of 24 times, with four of those injuries being lethal in and of themselves. This action is a classic example of “overkill,” in which a person engages in additional actions that are unnecessary to complete a murder.
The killer likely arrived at Linda’s residence in the middle of the night. There is a good possibility Linda was asleep by this time or, at the least, was not expecting anyone to show up at her door. Investigators found no sign of forced entry to her house.
Furthermore, Linda was killed just one to two days before she was due to move to a different residence. She had signed the lease for a two-bedroom townhome that shared walls with neighboring residences.
Linda’s killer also left the property and then returned later to set her house on fire. Her murderer brought the necessary tools to remove her living room window, including a knife and pry bar.
The killer also brought accelerant to pour through that window into the living room and something to light a fire. Linda was already deceased by this time, so the arson was an unnecessary risk the killer took.
What Do the Killer’s Actions Indicate, According to the Retired FBI Profilers?
After we discussed the details of the murder and arson with Julia, Robert, and Susan, they provided a lengthy analysis filled with clues about the killer.
Statistically, most murders of women are committed by males, and this fact probably holds true in Linda’s case. The team estimated the man would have been between approximately 30-50 years old in 2008, which would put that person’s current age at 47 to 67. They also reminded us that, although Linda’s killer was probably a male, they could not eliminate the possibility of a female having committed the murder.
The Consult team felt confident that Linda’s killer was someone she knew and who had previously been to her residence. He probably knew at least basic details about Linda’s lifestyle, including her daily schedule and the fact that she lived alone. Additionally, he probably had knowledge of the layout of her home.
The team did not believe the timing of Linda’s murder was a coincidence. The killer probably knew Linda was due to move that same week.
April 29 or 30 of that year may have been the last night the killer felt that a “safe” confrontation could happen. He may have known that Linda was moving to a location that had shared walls with neighbors. The new address would be a much riskier location to confront her than a single-family home without neighbors immediately next door.
The offender may have arrived at Linda’s house in the middle of the night. If true, that indicates he wanted to catch her off guard, whether she was awake or asleep in bed. This fact points to the presence of some forethought on him approaching or confronting Linda.
However, it does not necessarily point to pre-meditation of murder. The murder may have occurred as a result of an unexpected confrontation.
The group of retired FBI profilers also leaned on statistics when discussing the possibility of whether the killer was injured during the knife attack. Based on autopsy photos, the knife used against Linda did not appear to have a hilt.
In a murder committed with a knife, the knife often becomes bloody and slippery, leading a killer to suffer cuts on their own hand. There is a good possibility he bled at the scene and left behind forensic evidence that could lead to his identification.
A level of overkill usually indicates a high level of rage on behalf of the offender. It also points to a personal relationship between the offender and victim.
A stranger who does not know their victim has no personal connection. In stranger homicides, the offender usually inflicts the minimal amount of injuries necessary to subdue and kill the victim. The offender typically then flees the scene without ever returning.
The lack of forced entry to Linda’s home implies that the offender was either let into the home by Linda or had knowledge of how to gain entry without causing damage. In addressing the latter theory, it’s possible the killer had a copy of Linda’s house key. Other possibilities are that her killer was able to pick her lock or knew where her hide-a-key was located.
Bob pointed out that the arson did some damage to Linda’s home, but it did not destroy her body or succeed in eliminating the evidence of a murder. He opined that the offender was not an effective or experienced arsonist.
That person didn’t know how fire moves as it engulfs a home or how oxygen affects it. It was probably the first arson crime the person had committed.
In my next article, I will discuss more of the analysis of the arson aspect of the crime. I will also discuss the potential motives behind Linda’s murder and review the suggestions The Consult team provided for further investigation.
Readers Can Assist with the Investigation of the Linda Malcom Murder
Readers interested in the team’s work on Linda’s case can follow the renewed investigation by listening to Season 3 of Break The Case, an investigative podcast hosted by George Jared and I. Readers may also join the Facebook group dedicated to seeking justice for Linda Malcom.
Group administrators regularly post updates and topics intended for discussion by group members. Additionally, my recently established nonprofit has a page that contains content relevant to the Linda Malcom case.
Anyone with information about the death of Linda Malcom can email our confidential tip line at tips@justice4linda.com or call Detective Luke of the Port Orchard Police Department at 360-876-1700.
Tipsters are guaranteed confidentiality. There is currently a $7,500 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of Linda’s killer.
Comments are closed.