Violence Beyond Murder

Understanding the Psychology of Overkill in Homicide Investigations

Barbara Butcher stood in a Bronx elevator, reconstructing a horrific murder. The victim, an ordinary woman heading out for the day, never made it past the lobby. First came the gun pressed under her chin, fired point-blank. Then a shot to the chest. Then her throat was slashed deep enough to sever the carotid artery. Finally, the coup de grâce: three more stab wounds, all delivered after her heart had stopped beating.

“Now we’re talking about overkill,” Butcher observed in the premiere episode of The Death Investigator. The absence of blood spray from the throat wound told the story: these weren’t injuries meant to kill, but to destroy. “For me, that’s rage.”

This case, with its progression from shooting to stabbing, from fatal to postmortem wounds, captures the essence of “overkill,” a term generally used to describe violence that far exceeded what was necessary to kill. Yet defining exactly what overkill is remains elusive. Is it the number of wounds? The severity of the injuries? The attempt to annihilate? It’s a problem that has real consequences for investigations, prosecutions, and ultimately, the pursuit of justice.

Consider these three U.S. cases: In Columbus, Ohio, a jealous ex-boyfriend broke into his former girlfriend’s home and stabbed her 30 times because he suspected she was seeing someone else. In Washington, D.C., a restaurant owner suffered 10 stab wounds, 30 cutting wounds, and repeated blunt force trauma to his head and face during a robbery; his injuries were so severe that his daughter couldn’t recognize his body. In Pocatello, Idaho, two teenagers armed with knives stabbed their classmate, Cassie Jo Stoddart, approximately 30 times. Twelve of those wounds were potentially fatal. The perpetrators said they were inspired by the horror films they’d watched together.

Cassie Jo Stoddart was murdered by two classmates

All three cases involved shocking levels of violence. All three resulted in murder convictions. But do they all represent “overkill” in the forensic sense? More importantly, what can the pattern of injuries tell investigators about who committed these crimes and why?

These questions matter because overkill, when properly understood, can be a powerful investigative tool. The excessive nature of the violence, the types of wounds, their location and timing, and whether they continued after death can reveal crucial information about the offender’s relationship to the victim, their psychological state, and even whether one or multiple perpetrators were involved. But only if investigators know what they’re looking at and avoid common assumptions that research shows are wrong.

In 2025, a new wave of peer-reviewed research has brought forensic professionals the most comprehensive analysis of overkill patterns to date. Five major studies published this year examine everything from its psychological drivers to its prevalence in vulnerable populations, from standardized assessment methods to its value in criminal profiling. Together, they reveal that many long-held beliefs about overkill, including the assumption that excessive violence signals a close personal relationship, are not supported by data.

This article synthesizes these 2025 findings alongside established forensic research to provide investigators, forensic psychologists, and legal professionals with a practical understanding of overkill: how to define it objectively, what it actually reveals about offenders, and how to avoid the investigative mistakes that can derail cases. Because when violence goes beyond murder, the excess itself tells a story. But only if we know how to read it.

II. The Challenge of Defining Overkill

Here’s the fundamental problem with overkill: everyone thinks they know it when they see it, yet no one can quite agree on what it is. This “I know it when I see it” approach may work for a single investigator on a single case. Still, it creates significant problems when cases need to be compared across jurisdictions, when testimony must hold up in court, or when researchers attempt to identify patterns that could improve investigations.

A 2025 systematic review examining 24 studies on overkill tells us this phenomenon is more than just extreme violence; it’s a window into the killer’s psychology that can help solve crimes. Yet the researchers discovered something troubling: the studies show no unified criteria. Some authors counted wounds, others emphasized emotional intensity or symbolic violence, and still others focused on whether the violence continued after death.

Historically, overkill has been described as inflicting more injuries than necessary to cause death; excessive, disproportionate, or repeated wounds. But this vague language creates real problems. The same crime might be classified differently by different investigators, affecting everything from resource allocation to courtroom testimony.

The consequences reach far beyond academic debates. Without standardized definitions, comparative research becomes nearly impossible. A case classified as overkill in one jurisdiction might not meet the threshold in another. Defense attorneys can challenge the subjective nature of the classification. Most critically, investigators may miss or misinterpret patterns that could point them toward—or away from—particular suspects.

Historical Approaches and Their Limitations

Traditionally, overkill has been associated with sex-motivated homicides where injuries, usually stabbing, target sexually significant parts of the body. But this narrow view fails to capture the full range of cases where excessive violence appears. The phenomenon shows up across different victim-offender relationships, with various weapons, and in contexts ranging from domestic disputes to stranger attacks.

Some researchers have focused purely on quantitative measures, simply counting wounds. Others have emphasized qualitative factors, such as the apparent emotional state of the perpetrator or whether the violence seemed to have a symbolic meaning. Still others have looked at whether injuries continued after death, reasoning that post-mortem wounds serve no practical purpose and therefore represent “excess.”

Each approach has its merits, but each also has its limitations. Pure wound counts can mislead: a victim who fights back vigorously might sustain many more injuries than one who’s quickly incapacitated, yet the latter case might represent more calculated overkill. Inferring emotional states from wound patterns requires assumptions that may not be valid. And determining precisely when death occurred relative to specific injuries can be forensically challenging.

Best Practices for Defining Overkill

The forensic community has begun to adopt several best practices that strike a balance between the need for objective standards and the recognition that context matters.

Objective and Quantifiable Criteria

Rather than using vague terms like “excessive,” forensic professionals now use specific thresholds. Common criteria include 40 or more skin injuries from blunt, sharp, or gunshot trauma, or three or more sharp or gunshot wounds to vital areas like the head, neck, or trunk with internal organ damage.

That “40 or more skin injuries” threshold has a specific origin. It comes from a 2005 study by Safarik, Jarvis, and Nussbaum published in the Journal of Forensic Sciences. They derived it from retrospective analyses of autopsy data from elderly female sexual homicide victims, where they observed patterns of excessive trauma that far exceeded what was necessary for lethality.

Forty might initially seem high. However, the 40+ cutoff was calibrated based on datasets showing that below this number, injuries are more likely to be functional (necessary or intended to cause death), while above it, they suggest expressive overkill. Subsequent studies, including a 2022 analysis of 71 Italian overkill cases and a Swedish time-trend study, have adopted and validated this criterion in diverse contexts, confirming its utility in quantifying injury severity for profiling and investigations.

Importantly, overkill shouldn’t be based solely on wound count—investigators must also consider severity, distribution, pattern, and weapon type. Even a single deep wound, such as full weapon penetration including the handle, can qualify if it exceeds what’s needed to kill.

The Homicide Injury Scale (HIS)

To address the limitations of general injury scales when applied to homicides, researchers developed the Homicide Injury Scale in 2005. Safarik, Jarvis, and Nussbaum developed the scale as an adaptation of general injury scales, such as the Injury Severity Score and New Injury Severity Score.

These general scales had limitations in homicides, such as undercounting multiple wounds in one region or failing to capture excessive qualitative elements. The HIS focuses solely on injuries directly related to the cause of death, reviewed from autopsy reports, to provide a standardized way to compare cases across diverse causes like blunt force, stabbing, and gunshot wounds.

HIS scores of 5 or 6 explicitly indicate overkill features. The scale can be combined with other metrics, such as the Total Number of Injuries for attack frequency or the Sum of All Abbreviated Injury Scale scores, as a gold standard for overall severity.

The HIS has gained traction in forensic practice because it provides an objective measure that reduces interpretive bias. Rather than relying on subjective judgments about whether violence seems “excessive,” investigators can quantify the severity and extent of injuries using a validated instrument that other professionals can replicate.

Beyond the Numbers: Context and Analysis

Even with objective criteria, best practices require looking at the whole picture. This means conducting thorough autopsies and crime scene evaluations, and bringing in circumstantial data such as the offender-victim relationship and motive.

Forensic professionals should involve pathologists, psychologists, and investigators to assess dynamics like emotional drivers or group involvement. Analyzing cases in larger samples helps control for variables like victim gender or age.

Critically, definitions should prioritize what can be observed and measured—like wound patterns—rather than what has to be inferred, like rage or sadism, which can vary wildly depending on who’s doing the interpreting. This makes it possible to compare cases across different studies and jurisdictions.

The 2025 research makes it clear that, while perfect standards remain out of reach, the forensic community has made significant progress. The combination of quantitative thresholds (such as the 40+ injury criterion), validated assessment tools (like the HIS), and examining the full context provides a framework that’s far more reliable than the purely subjective “I know it when I see it” approach of the past.

Yet challenges remain. As we’ll see in the next section, even as researchers work to standardize definitions, their findings are revealing unexpected patterns about what overkill actually tells us—and what it doesn’t—about the people who commit these crimes.

III. What the Latest Research Tells Us

Five major peer-reviewed studies published in 2025 challenge some of our most basic assumptions about overkill. The findings matter because they can redirect investigations that might otherwise waste time chasing the wrong leads or making assumptions that the data doesn’t support.

The Relationship Myth: What U.S. Data Actually Shows

Here’s what most investigators believe: when you see extreme violence—40, 50, 60 wounds—you’re probably looking at someone close to the victim. An intimate partner. A family member. Someone whose emotional connection drove them to lose control.

Multiple U.S. studies indicate that the data don’t support this assumption.

A 2019 analysis of 411 solved U.S. homicides (using the Forensic Files dataset) found that overkill, present in 23.6% of cases, showed no significant statistical association with relationship closeness. Whether the victim and offender were acquaintances, had a close relationship, or were strangers, the fact that overkill occurred made no difference.

A Kentucky study of 148 female homicide victims found the same thing: higher overkill scores (measured by the Homicide Injury Scale) appeared in elderly victims who were actually less likely to be killed by intimate partners. The researchers found a negative correlation between age and intimate victimization and explicitly stated that overkill does not predict familiarity.

An analysis of 1,316 LGBTQIA+ homicides in the U.S. from 1969 to 2018 found overkill in 13.1% of cases, with no association with victim-offender relationships. Whether the perpetrator was a stranger, acquaintance, family member, or intimate partner didn’t predict whether overkill would occur.

This doesn’t mean intimate partners never commit overkill. They certainly do. The point is that the presence of excessive violence doesn’t point toward close relationships any more reliably than it points toward strangers or acquaintances. An investigator who sees 50 stab wounds and immediately focuses exclusively on intimate partners might be starting out in the right place (since we’re all likely to be killed by someone we know), but for the wrong reason (assuming overkill = intimate).

What Overkill Does Predict

While overkill doesn’t reliably indicate relationship closeness, U.S. research consistently shows it is significantly associated with multiple perpetrators.

The 411-case Forensic Files analysis found that overkill cases were 3.771 times more likely to involve multiple perpetrators than cases with a single stranger perpetrator. The LGBTQIA+ study found similar results: overkill was 2.327 times more likely in cases with numerous offenders, with 21.16% of multi-perpetrator cases showing excessive violence compared to 11.17% of single-perpetrator cases.

Does this mean most overkill cases involve multiple perpetrators? No. The Italian study included in the 2025 systematic review found that about 25.4% of overkill cases involved groups of 2-4 people, meaning roughly three-quarters involved single perpetrators. But when you’re using overkill as an investigative indicator, it’s a more reliable pointer toward possible group involvement than toward intimate relationships.

This matters practically. Standard U.S. homicide statistics show that about 50-70% of solved homicides overall involve perpetrators known to the victim, which is why starting investigations with the victim’s inner circle makes good sense, regardless of overkill. But when investigators use overkill itself as additional evidence of a close relationship, they’re adding an assumption that isn’t supported. They risk tunnel vision, potentially overlooking evidence of group dynamics, gang involvement, or stranger attacks.

Different Roads to the Same Dark Place

The 2025 research identifies several distinct pathways to overkill, each requiring different investigative approaches:

Revenge and Psychological Restoration: Research on family homicides reveals that overkill in these contexts often stems from what researchers call a need to “restore psychological balance.” These offenders, typically showing narcissistic or borderline personality traits, low empathy, and obsessive rumination, experience unbearable humiliation or abandonment. The excessive violence isn’t a loss of control; it’s a calculated attempt to regain power and self-worth. These cases can show planning and deliberation, even when the violence looks chaotic.

Group Dynamics and Multiple Perpetrators: When multiple people participate in violence, injury counts escalate. Each perpetrator contributes to the wounds, sometimes competing with one another, sometimes caught up in a collective momentum. The violence serves different purposes for different participants—some are expressive, some are instrumental, and some are performative for the group. This is where overkill appears most reliably in research as a distinguishing feature.

Symbolic Violence and Identity-Based Hatred: Research on transgender victims reveals a particular pattern: antemortem facial injuries that exceed what’s needed for lethality. These wounds deface and dehumanize, serving psychological purposes beyond killing. The facial focus in transgender victim cases often links to contexts involving sex work or intimate relationships, suggesting the violence targets the victim’s identity itself. When investigators encounter facial trauma out of proportion to body wounds, it may signal that who the victim was—not just their existence—drove the attack.

Substance-Induced Violence: Though not a primary focus of the 2025 studies, the research acknowledges methamphetamine and other stimulants as factors that can produce or contribute to overkill through altered perception, paranoia, impaired impulse control, or inability to gauge when violence has achieved its purpose. This pathway can involve victims ranging from intimate partners to complete strangers caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Expressive vs. Instrumental Motives: The research on homicide typologies shows that overkill appears more commonly in expressive (emotional) rather than instrumental (goal-oriented) homicides. Someone killing to express rage, jealousy, or hatred tends toward excess. Someone killing to achieve a specific objective—robbery, silencing a witness—typically keeps violence functional. But this doesn’t automatically mean expressive = intimate relationship. Rage can be directed at strangers, acquaintances, or intimates with roughly equal likelihood of producing overkill.

Psychosis and Delusional States: One of the most misunderstood pathways to overkill involves untreated or inadequately treated psychotic disorders. When investigators encounter extreme violence, they often assume personal rage or hatred drove the attack. But in cases involving psychosis, the offender may be responding to delusions, command hallucinations, or a profoundly distorted perception of reality that has nothing to do with the victim’s actual identity or relationship to the killer.

Psychotic overkill differs fundamentally from rage-driven violence. The excessive injuries don’t express personal animosity—they reflect the offender’s delusional belief system. Someone with Capgras syndrome, for instance, believes an identical impostor has replaced a loved one. The violence targets the perceived threat (the “impostor”), not the actual person. Someone experiencing paranoid delusions may believe they’re being poisoned or harmed and strike in what they perceive as self-defense.

Real-world examples: In Buffalo, New York, in 2003, Jeremy Perkins stabbed his mother, Elli Perkins, 77 times. Perkins had been diagnosed with schizophrenia, but his mother, following Scientology doctrine, refused to allow him psychiatric treatment or medication. Jeremy believed his mother was poisoning him with the vitamin supplements she forced him to take. When he attacked her in the kitchen, he later told police: “I tried to slit my wrists after the shower...But I wouldn’t die, so I decided to do my mom in instead...She was screaming, ‘No, Jeremy, don’t.’ I stabbed her about four to five times before she fell...I then stabbed her about ten more times in the stomach after she fell to the ground.” The total: 77 stab wounds. The district attorney noted that death by stabbing isn’t unusual in homicides, but 77 stab wounds is “really rare.”

Similarly, in 2016, Sarra Gilbert of New York stabbed her mother, Mari Gilbert, 227 times. Sarra had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, and voices in her head told her that her mother was an “evil god” who was dangerous. When police arrived for a welfare check, they found Mari’s body riddled with stab wounds, and Sarra immediately told officers, “I am under arrest.” She had attacked her mother with both a kitchen knife and a fire extinguisher.

Sarra Gilbert stabbed her mother, Mari, 227 times. Mari was also the mother of Shannon Gilbert, the young woman whose disappearance led to the discovery of the Gilgo Beach murders.

Both cases demonstrate extreme overkill driven not by personal hatred in the conventional sense, but by psychotic delusions. Jeremy didn’t hate his mother—he believed she was poisoning him and acted in perceived self-defense. Sarra didn’t hate Mari—she believed voices commanding her to kill a dangerous entity. The excessive violence reflected the intensity of their delusional states, not the nature of their actual relationships.

Investigative implications: When overkill appears alongside seemingly senseless targeting or bizarre statements, consider whether psychosis might be involved. Look for:

• Recent medication non-compliance—both Jeremy and Sarra had stopped taking prescribed antipsychotic medication before their attacks

• History of psychiatric hospitalizations—particularly recent discharges or failed attempts by the family to get the person committed

• Bizarre statements or beliefs—persecution, poisoning, command hallucinations, belief that loved ones are impostors or evil entities

• Prior attempts to harm the victim or others—escalating violence that family members may have reported to authorities

• Family members’ attempts to get help—calls to mental health crisis lines, emergency room visits, involuntary commitment petitions

Don’t assume extreme violence automatically means personal rage in cases involving known mental illness. The wound count may reflect the offender’s delusional intensity rather than their actual feelings toward the victim. In psychotic cases, investigators should expedite psychiatric evaluations and review medical records for treatment history, medication compliance, and any documented delusions that might explain the attack.

These cases also highlight systemic failures in mental health intervention. Jeremy’s mother was told by mental health facilities that they couldn’t admit him because he wasn’t threatening to hurt himself. Sarra’s family struggled to get her long-term treatment. When families report concerns about someone with severe mental illness, and that person later commits overkill, review what barriers prevented intervention—not to excuse the violence, but to understand the full context and potentially prevent similar cases.

Sexually-Motivated Serial Killers and the Decline of Overkill: While most of this article focuses on single-victim homicides, understanding overkill in serial murder contexts provides a vital perspective, particularly because patterns are changing in ways that affect how investigators should think about extreme violence.

Recent research analyzing U.S. serial killers from 1975 to 2025 reveals a striking trend: overkill in serial murders has declined dramatically. During the “Golden Age” of serial killing (1975-1995), overkill appeared in 22.9% of serial murder cases. In the modern era (1996-2025), that rate dropped to 13.53%. Related behaviors also declined: torture (11.29% to 6.98%), mutilation (11.09% to 6.11%), and necrophilia (3.02% to 0.71%).

Why does this matter for investigators working on single homicides? Because it illuminates an important distinction about what drives overkill.

The decline correlates directly with a shift in serial killer motivations. Sexual motivations have dropped from 34.29% to 21.42%, while anger motivations have increased from 14.46% to 29.31%. This might seem counterintuitive—wouldn’t anger produce more overkill, not less?

The research shows the opposite. Sexually motivated killers engage in prolonged, sadistic acts. They bind victims, torture them for psychological or physical gratification, and continue violence post-mortem. The act itself becomes ritualistic, drawn out to fulfill fantasies. This creates overkill: extensive wounds, mutilation, prolonged attacks that far exceed what’s necessary to kill.

Anger-motivated killers, by contrast, act more impulsively. They want immediate venting of rage, leading to quick kills rather than extended torture sessions. Modern serial killers also favor firearms more (up from 29.2% to 36.54%), which enable efficient kills with less opportunity for the repeated, intimate strikes that produce overkill. Stabbings, which allow for repeated wounds and escalation, have declined (from 11.2% to 7.65%).

The research also shows that modern serial killers kill faster (67.89% quick kills vs. 64.31% historically), take fewer trophies (12.47% to 7.01%), and pose bodies less often (3.49% to 1.81%). Fewer serial killers overall (under 50 active in the U.S. today compared to hundreds in the 1980s) means shorter killing series with less opportunity for behavior to escalate into overkill.

What this means for single-homicide investigations: When you encounter overkill in a single-victim case, don’t automatically profile for a sexually-motivated serial killer in the making. The golden age of the sadistic, ritualistic serial killer who leaves mutilated bodies is essentially over, driven by better forensics, surveillance technology, and faster detection.

If sexual motivation seems present in your case—sexual assault, targeting of sexual body parts, evidence of sexual gratification from the violence—then yes, consider whether this could be part of a series. But overkill alone, even extreme overkill, more commonly points to the other pathways discussed in this section: revenge in close relationships, substance-induced violence, group dynamics, psychotic delusions, or symbolic hatred in bias crimes.

The sexually-motivated serial killer pathway still exists, but it’s far less common than media portrayals suggest. Don’t let Hollywood’s obsession with Hannibal Lecter distort your investigative priorities.

For Investigators: What to Look For

Rather than using overkill as automatic evidence of a close relationship, the research suggests a more nuanced approach:

Start with the usual suspects, but don’t narrow prematurely: U.S. homicide statistics show 50-70% of solved cases involve known perpetrators, so beginning with the victim’s inner circle makes sense. But don’t let overkill convince you to focus exclusively there. The wound count doesn’t add additional evidence of intimacy.

Actively investigate for multiple perpetrators: This is where overkill appears most reliably as a distinguishing factor. Look for:

• Evidence of gang involvement or organized crime connections

• Witness reports of multiple people at the scene

• Forensic evidence suggesting different weapons or attack angles

• Social media or communications indicating group planning

• Prior incidents involving the victim and groups

Don’t assume loss of control—look for evidence of planning: High wound counts can coexist with premeditation. Check for:

• Tools or weapons brought to the scene

• Evidence of surveillance or stalking before the attack

• Staged elements at the crime scene

• Digital evidence showing research into methods

• Recent purchases of weapons, restraints, or cleaning supplies

• In family/domestic cases: recent triggering events like relationship breakdown, divorce filings, custody disputes, or public humiliation

Expedite toxicology on both the victim and the suspects: Substance use, particularly methamphetamine and stimulants, can produce overkill in cases involving strangers. Don’t assume high wound counts automatically mean personal motivation.

Consider victim resistance in your wound count analysis: A victim who fought back vigorously may sustain many more injuries than one who was quickly incapacitated. Look at:

• Defensive wounds on hands and forearms

• Signs of prolonged struggle (furniture overturned, items scattered)

• The victim’s physical condition and ability to resist

• Time estimates for the attack duration

In multi-method cases, distinguish the pattern:

• Multiple DISTINCT methods that stop at death = likely combined homicide (premeditated, methodical)

• Repetitive SIMILAR injuries continuing post-mortem = likely overkill (expressive, emotional)

This distinction should guide your investigation toward evidence of planning versus impulse, as well as calculated motive versus emotional explosion.

Look for symbolic targeting: Excessive facial injuries or attacks focused on specific body parts may indicate:

• Identity-based hatred (particularly in transgender or minority victims)

• Symbolic significance to the offender

• Attempts at depersonalization or dehumanization

• Consider bias crimes, hate motivation, or violence rooted in the victim’s identity.

Use objective assessment tools: The Homicide Injury Scale and similar validated instruments can help quantify violence objectively rather than relying on subjective gut reactions. This reduces bias and improves consistency across cases.

Bring in multidisciplinary expertise: Pathologists can sequence injuries and determine what was inflicted before versus after death. Psychologists can assess offender characteristics based on behavioral evidence. Working together produces better analysis than any single discipline alone.

The research recommends casting a wide net initially, using overkill as one piece of information among many, rather than as definitive proof of relationship type or offender psychology.

The Standardization Problem

Despite these advances, the 2025 studies all acknowledge a fundamental problem: the field still lacks truly standardized criteria for defining overkill. Some researchers use the 40+ injury threshold, others focus on post-mortem wounds, and still others emphasize qualitative excessiveness. This variability means findings across studies aren’t always comparable.

The research calls for validated criteria, uniform terminology, and larger, more diverse datasets. A systematic review analyzing 24 studies found significant variability in how researchers define and measure overkill, which hinders cross-study comparisons and limits the generalizability of findings. Until the field achieves better standardization, investigators should exercise caution when making assumptions based solely on wound counts. They should always consider the broader context, the offender’s psychology, and the entire constellation of evidence.

Understanding what overkill does and doesn’t tell us is only half the battle. The other half is recognizing how these misconceptions play out in real investigations, and how they can derail them.

IV. Common Investigative Mistakes

Understanding what overkill means in theory is one thing. Avoiding the pitfalls it creates in actual investigations is another key consideration. The research reveals several specific mistakes that investigators make when confronted with extreme violence—errors that can misdirect entire investigations, waste critical resources, and sometimes leave the real perpetrator free while innocent people come under suspicion.

Mistake #1: Assuming Overkill Automatically Indicates a Close Relationship

This is the most common and consequential error. When investigators see 30, 40, or 50 wounds, they instinctively think, “This is personal,” and immediately focus their investigation on intimate partners, family members, and close friends.

The assumption seems logical. After all, who else would be angry enough, hurt enough, invested enough to inflict that level of violence? The answer, according to the data, is that there are lots of people.

What the research actually shows: As discussed in Section III, multiple U.S. studies found no statistically significant association between overkill and relationship closeness.

Why this mistake happens: Confirmation bias plays a huge role. High-profile cases that make the news often involve intimate partners, such as jealous exes or enraged spouses. These cases stick in investigators’ minds and reinforce the pattern. Training materials from earlier decades explicitly taught that overkill signals personal relationships, and many investigators learned this as gospel. It’s also a cognitive shortcut: assuming intimacy narrows the suspect pool quickly, making the investigation feel more manageable.

Real-world example: In Columbus, Ohio, Chance Donohoe broke into his ex-girlfriend Shannon Hiott’s home and stabbed her 30 times because he thought she was seeing someone else. He called 911 afterward to confess. This case fits the stereotype perfectly, and that’s dangerous, because it reinforces the assumption.

But consider the flip side: In Pocatello, Idaho, two high school juniors, Brian Draper and Torey Adamcik, stabbed their classmate Cassie Jo Stoddart approximately 30 times. Twelve wounds were potentially fatal. The killers were inspired by horror movies and chose their victim almost arbitrarily—she was house-sitting alone and represented an opportunity—the relationship? Casual acquaintances at best. An investigator who focused exclusively on close relationships based on the wound count would have missed these perpetrators entirely.

How to avoid this mistake: Start with the victim’s inner circle because general homicide statistics support it, not because overkill demands it. Cast a wider net from the beginning. Look for evidence of multiple perpetrators, which the research shows is what overkill actually predicts more reliably. Interview witnesses about groups the victim had conflicts with, not just intimate relationships. Check for gang involvement, organized crime connections, or group dynamics. Don’t let wound count narrow your focus prematurely.

Mistake #2: Misinterpreting Overkill as Loss of Control When Planning Is Present

Investigators often see extensive violence and conclude the offender “snapped” or “lost control.” The assumption is that someone methodical enough to plan would use only the force necessary. Excessive force, therefore, must mean impulsive rage.

The research shows this assumption is wrong—and dangerous.

What the research actually shows: The 2025 study on revenge in family homicides found that offenders showing overkill often demonstrated significant premeditation. These weren’t spontaneous explosions of rage. They were calculated attempts to restore psychological balance through violence, showing planning and deliberation even when the actual attack appeared chaotic. The combined homicide research reinforces this: methodical offenders may use extensive violence precisely because they’re being thorough, not because they’ve lost control.

Why this mistake happens: The sheer brutality of overkill cases creates an emotional reaction in investigators. It appears bizarre, so investigators often assume the person who committed the act must have been out of control. This assumption then shapes how they interpret other evidence. Staged elements at the scene might be dismissed as ineffective attempts to cover up rather than seen as evidence of planning. Methodical preparation is often overlooked because it doesn’t fit the “heat of passion” narrative that the wound count suggests.

Real-world example: In Columbus, Georgia, in January 2025, a man ambushed his ex-girlfriend, shooting her twice and stabbing her 37 times. Investigators discovered he had purchased zip ties, antifreeze, and a knife from multiple stores beforehand. The evidence showed planning across multiple locations, including purchasing supplies, staging the ambush, and bringing specific tools. The 37 stab wounds might suggest rage and loss of control. Still, the preparation tells a different story: premeditated violence that included excessive injury as part of the plan, not as a deviation from it.

The distinction matters for prosecution. Proving premeditation requires showing planning, deliberation, and intent—all of which can be present even when the violence appears excessive. Investigators who dismiss evidence of planning because “this looks like rage” may build weaker cases or pursue lesser charges.

How to avoid this mistake: Treat overkill and premeditation as potentially coexisting, not mutually exclusive. Actively look for:

• Tools or weapons brought to the scene that the offender didn’t find there.

• Evidence of surveillance, stalking, or reconnaissance before the attack

• Recent purchases of weapons, restraints, cleaning supplies, or other relevant items

• Digital evidence showing research into methods, locations, or the victim’s schedule

• Staged elements at the crime scene, no matter how crude

• In family/domestic cases, triggering events that gave the offender time to plan: divorce filings, custody hearings, protective orders, public humiliation

Even when wound counts are high, look for planning. Don’t let the violence convince you it was spontaneous.

Mistake #3: Confusing Overkill with Combined Homicide

This mistake fundamentally mischaracterizes the offender’s psychology and can send an investigation in entirely the wrong direction.

What the research actually shows: Overkill involves excessive repetition of similar methods, often continuing post-mortem—30 stab wounds, 50 blunt force blows, all using the same basic approach. Combined homicide involves using distinct, different methods in sequence to ensure death: strangulation, then blunt force, then stabbing. The first suggests emotional overflow; the second suggests methodical problem-solving.

The 2025 combined homicide study makes clear these are different phenomena requiring different investigative approaches. Combined homicide accounts for only about 2.77% of homicides but is frequently misclassified as overkill, skewing the investigation toward personal rage when the evidence actually points toward calculation.

Why this mistake happens: Both patterns produce high injury counts and extensive violence. At first glance, they look similar: a body with stab wounds, blunt force trauma, and strangulation injuries. Without careful forensic analysis, investigators may lump them together as “extreme violence” and miss the critical distinction in how the violence unfolded.

Real-world example: The 2025 Italian case study provides a clear illustration. A 72-year-old man with severe COPD and mobility issues killed his 59-year-old wife, who had become dependent on him after a stroke. He used three distinct methods: first, 11 hammer blows to the back of her head, causing skull fractures and brain injuries; then strangulation with an electrical cord, causing neck trauma and thyroid rupture; finally, 18 stab wounds to the abdomen, penetrating her heart, lungs, stomach, and liver.

An investigator seeing this scene might think: “Multiple methods, extensive violence, this must be rage-driven overkill from years of caregiver stress.” But the forensic analysis told a different story. Each method was potentially fatal on its own. The methods were distinctly different—blunt force, asphyxiation, and sharp force—no post-mortem wounds. The offender admitted he had prepared the tools in advance in a specific room and lured his wife there. He switched methods because he doubted his physical ability to kill her with just one, given his age and health limitations. This was a combined homicide: methodical, premeditated, and motivated by what he described as an overwhelming caregiver burden.

Misclassifying this as overkill would lead investigators to focus on recent explosive conflicts or psychiatric breakdowns when the evidence actually points to long-term planning and a calculated decision. The motive isn’t sudden rage; it’s sustained desperation and premeditation.

How to avoid this mistake: Work closely with your medical examiner or forensic pathologist to sequence the injuries:

• Are the methods of injury repetitive (multiple stab wounds all from similar angles and depths) or distinct (different mechanisms of death attempted sequentially)?

• Which injuries were inflicted first, second, and third? Does the pattern indicate switching between methods or a focus on one?

• Are there post-mortem injuries? If so, the case likely involves overkill. If violence stopped at or near death, consider a combined homicide.

• What do the scene and evidence suggest about the offender’s physical capabilities and confidence? Combined homicide often involves offenders who doubt their ability to kill efficiently—the elderly, the physically impaired, or those with no prior violent history.

• Look for evidence of method preparation: Were multiple weapons brought to the scene? Were they positioned in advance?

The distinction should fundamentally shape your suspect profile: impulsive/emotional versus organized/methodical, recent trigger versus long-term planning, personal rage versus calculated problem-solving.

Mistake #4: Overlooking Situational Variables That Inflate Wound Counts

Investigators sometimes treat wound count as a pure measure of offender psychology, ignoring situational factors that can dramatically increase injuries without indicating the psychological characteristics typically associated with overkill.

What the research actually shows: Victim resistance, poor weapon choice, offender panic, and substance intoxication can all produce high wound counts that don’t reflect the emotional drivers usually linked to overkill. A robbery that escalates when the victim fights back may cause dozens of wounds as the panicked offender tries to subdue an actively resisting victim. These injuries serve a different purpose than the expressive violence seen in true overkill.

Why this mistake happens: Wound counts are easy to quantify. Thirty stab wounds are an objective, countable fact. Determining why those wounds occurred requires more complex analysis of context, victim behavior, offender state of mind, and environmental factors. Under time pressure, investigators may focus on the simple number rather than the complicated story behind it.

Real-world example: In Washington, D.C., Alexander Gomez-Enamorado robbed restaurant owner Antonio Ventura in 2010. Ventura fought back, and the struggle resulted in 10 stab wounds, 30 cutting wounds, and repeated blunt force trauma to his head and face. His daughter couldn’t recognize his body at the scene.

The injury count, 40 total wounds, easily meets the threshold some researchers use for overkill (40+ skin injuries). An investigator seeing these numbers might assume intense personal hatred, a close relationship gone wrong, or psychological pathology in the offender. But the context tells a different story: this was a robbery that escalated when the victim resisted. The high wound count reflected a panicked offender trying to subdue an actively fighting victim, not expressive violence continuing beyond death.

Misclassifying this case as overkill would lead investigators to focus on personal motives and intimate relationships when they should be investigating robbery suspects, reviewing surveillance footage of the area, and interviewing witnesses about strangers casing the business.

How to avoid this mistake: Always analyze wound counts in context:

Victim resistance: Look for extensive defensive wounds on hands and forearms, signs of prolonged struggle (overturned furniture, scattered items, drag marks), and consider the victim’s physical condition and ability to fight back. A young, physically fit victim who refuses to submit may sustain far more injuries than an elderly or incapacitated victim, regardless of the offender’s psychology.

Weapon effectiveness: Did the offender use a small knife requiring multiple strikes? A blunt object that didn’t immediately incapacitate? Poor weapon choices can inflate injury counts as the offender tries repeatedly to achieve their goal.

Substance involvement: Expedite toxicology on suspects. Methamphetamine, PCP, and other stimulants can produce extreme violence through altered perception and paranoia. These substance-induced attacks can involve strangers with no prior connection to the victim, producing wound patterns that look like intimate-partner overkill but stem from entirely different causes.

Scene dynamics: Did the attack occur in a confined space where the victim couldn’t escape? Were there obstacles that prolonged the struggle? Environmental factors can extend the duration of violence and increase injury counts.

Offender panic or inexperience: First-time violent offenders or those who panic during the commission of another crime may continue striking long after it’s necessary because they’re terrified, not because they’re expressing rage toward someone they know.

The research on expressive versus instrumental homicides is relevant here: instrumental violence (goal-oriented, like robbery) typically remains functional, but when it escalates due to victim resistance or offender panic, the wound count can climb without the offender ever entering the psychological state associated with true overkill.

Don’t let the wound count alone determine your investigative direction. Always ask: What situational factors could have produced these injuries?

Mistake #5: Failing to Expedite Toxicology and Substance Screening

When investigators see overkill, they often focus immediately on relationship dynamics and psychological motives, delaying or deprioritizing toxicology work that might reveal substance involvement.

What the research actually shows: Substance use, particularly methamphetamine and stimulants, can produce overkill-level violence in attacks involving strangers. The 2025 research acknowledges drugs as a factor creating altered perception, paranoia, and the inability to gauge when violence has achieved its purpose.

Why this mistake occurs: The assumption that overkill means personal connection leads investigators to prioritize relationship interviews, social media analysis, and psychological assessments over toxicology testing. The tox screen is ordered as a routine protocol, but it isn’t fast-tracked. By the time results come back weeks later showing methamphetamine or other drugs, the investigation has already invested heavily in the wrong direction.

How to avoid this mistake: When overkill is present, immediately expedite toxicology on both the victim and any suspects. Treat substance involvement as a primary investigative avenue, not an afterthought. If the victim or a suspect tests positive for stimulants, shift your focus toward drug-related connections, dealers, users in the victim’s network, and substance-induced violence patterns rather than assuming intimate partner rage.

Document the scene for evidence of drug use—paraphernalia, residue, behavior witnesses describe as erratic or paranoid. Interview witnesses specifically about the suspect’s or victim’s drug use patterns, recent behavior changes, or connections to drug networks.

Moving Forward

These five mistakes share a common thread: they involve letting overkill create assumptions that override evidence and narrow investigative focus prematurely. The wound count becomes a lens that distorts everything else investigators see.

The 2025 research shows that overkill is a behavioral pattern that can arise from multiple sources: intimate rage, group dynamics, substance-induced altered states, victim resistance, identity-based hatred, or methodical planning. It’s important information, but it’s not a shortcut to identifying suspects or understanding motives. The most effective approach treats overkill as one piece of a puzzle, not as the picture on the box.

---

References

Amadasi, A., Brandolini, E., Mazzarelli, D., Cappella, A., Merli, D., Cattaneo, C., & Zoja, R. (2025). The issue of “combined homicide”: A review of the literature and an explanatory case including blunt force trauma, strangulation, and stab wounds. Forensic Science, Medicine, and Pathology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12024-025-01007-6

Chatzinikolaou, F., Vavoulidis, E., Tsiapla, T., Margioula-Siarkou, C., Dinas, K., & Petousis, S. (2025). Overkill in forensic medicine: A systematic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2025.101925

Dziemianowicz, J. (2025, September 26). Why the Bronx murder scene, where a woman was shot and stabbed, indicates rage “overkill.” Oxygen True Crime.

Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling. (2025). Examining the criminal patterns within the expressive-instrumental homicide typology. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling.

Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling. (2025). Psychological mechanisms of revenge and revenge ideations in family homicide: Results from qualitative research of forensic assessment reports. BMC Psychiatry.

Panter, A. T., Harms, K. A., & Beauregard, E. (2025). Overkill and antemortem facial injuries in U.S. transgender and gender non-conforming homicides (2013-2023). Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling. https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.70003

Reynolds, D., & Throat, K. (2019). Overkill: We know it when we see it? Examining definitions of excessive injury in homicide research. Asia Pacific Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 15(1).

Safarik, M. E., Jarvis, J. P., & Nussbaum, K. E. (2005). Sexual homicide of elderly females: Linking offender characteristics to victim and crime scene attributes. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 50(5), 1126-1130.

U.S. LGBTQIA+ homicide analysis. (2018). Analysis of 1,316 cases from 1969-2018. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/387606991_Offender_and_Offence_Characteristics_of_LGBTQIA_Homicide_Incidents

Yaksic, E. (2025). Declining trends in serial murder and overkill. Consolidated Serial Homicide Offender Database (CSHOD).

As always, thank you for reading this issue of The Mind Detective. If you enjoyed this content, please pass it along to just one of your true crime-following friends.