21.2 Investigating Cyberstalking

There are several stages to investigating a cyberstalking case. These stages assume that the identity of the cyberstalker is unknown. Even if the victim suspects an individual, investigators are advised to explore alternative possibilities and suspects. Although past research suggests that most stalkers have prior relationships with victims, this may not apply when the Internet is involved since stranger stalking is easier. Therefore, consider the possibility that the victim knows the stalker, but do not assume that this is the case:

Interview victim - determine what evidence the victim has of cyberstalking and obtain details about the victim that can be used to develop victimology. The aim of this initial information gathering stage is to confirm that a crime has been committed and to obtain enough information to move forward with the investigation.
Interview others - if there are other people involved, interview them to compile a more complete picture of what occurred.
Victimology and risk assessment - determine why an offender chose a specific victim and what risks the offender was willing to take to acquire that victim. The primary aim of this stage of the investigation is to understand the victim-offender relationship and determine where additional digital evidence might be found.
Search for additional digital evidence- use what is known about the victim and cyberstalker to perform a thorough search of the Internet. Victimology is key at this stage, guiding investigators to locations that might interest the victim or individuals like the victim. The cyberstalker initially observed or encountered the victim somewhere and investigators should try to determine where. Consider the possibility that the cyberstalker encountered the victim in the physical world. The aim of this stage is to gather more information about the crime, the victim and the cyberstalker.
Crime scene characteristics - examine crime scenes and cybertrails for distinguishing features (e.g. location, time, method of approach, choice of tools) and try to determine their significance to the cyberstalker. The aim of this stage is to gain a better understanding of the choices that the cyberstalker made and the needs that were fulfilled by these choices.
Motivation - determine what personal needs the cyberstalking was fulfilling. Be careful to distinguish between intent (e.g. to exert power over the victim, to frighten the victim) and the personal needs that the cyberstalker's behavior satisfied (e.g. to feel powerful, to retaliate against the victim for a perceived wrong). The aim of this stage is to understand the cyberstalker well enough to narrow the suspect pool revisit the prior steps and uncover additional evidence
Repeat - if the identity of the cyberstalker is still not known, interview the victim again. The information that investigators have gathered might help the victim recall additional details or might suggest a likely suspect to the victim

To assist investigators carry out each of these stages in an investigation, additional details are provided here.

21.2.1 Interviews

Investigators should interview the victim and other individuals with knowledge of the case to obtain details about the inception of the cyberstalking and the sorts of harassment the victim has been subjected to. In addition to collecting all of the evidence that the victim has of the cyberstalking, investigators should gather all of the details that are required to develop a thorough victimology as described in the next section.

While interviewing the victim, investigators should be sensitive to be as tactful as possible while questioning everything and assuming nothing. Keep in mind that victims tend to blame themselves, imagining that they encouraged the stalker in some way (e.g. by accepting initial advances or by making too much personal information available on the Internet) (Pathe 1997). It is therefore important for everyone involved in a cyberstalking investigation to help the victim regain confidence by acknowledging that the victim is not to blame. It is also crucial to help victims protect themselves from potential attacks. The National Center for Victims of Crime has an excellent set of guidelines developed specifically for victims of stalking (NCVC 1995).

21.2.2 Victimology

In addition to helping victims protect themselves against further harassment, investigators should try to determine how and why the offender selected a specific victim. To this end, investigators should determine whether the cyberstalker knew the victim, learned about the victim through a personal Web page, saw a Usenet message written by the victim, or noticed the victim in a chat room.

It is also useful to know why a victim made certain choices to help investigators make a risk assessment. For example, individuals who use the Internet to meet new people are at higher risk than individuals who make an effort to remain anonymous. In some instances, it might be quite evident why the cyberstalker chose a victim but if a cyberstalker chooses a low risk victim, investigators should try to determine which particular characteristics the victim possesses that might have attracted the cyberstalker's attention (e.g. residence, work place, hobby, personal interest, demeanor). These characteristics can be quite revealing about a cyberstalker and can direct the investigator's attention to certain areas or individuals.

Questions to ask at this stage include:

Does the victim know or suspect why, how, and/or when the cyberstalking began?
What Internet Service Provider(s) do(es) the victim use and why?
What online services does the victim use and why (e.g. Web, free e-mail services, Usenet, IRC)?
When does the victim use the Internet and the various Internet services (does the harassment occur at specific times suggesting that the cyberstalker has a schedule or is aware of the victim's schedule)?
What does the victim do on the Internet and why?
Does the victim have personal Web pages or other personal information on the Internet (e.g. AOL profile, ICQ Web page, customized finger output)? What information do these items contain?

In addition to the victim's Internet activities, investigators should examine the victim's physical surroundings and real world activities.

When the identity of the cyberstalker is known or suspected, it might not seem necessary to develop a complete victimology. Although it is crucial to investigate suspects, this should not be done at the expense of all else. Time spent trying to understand the victim-offender relationship can help investigators understand the offender, protect the victim, locate additional evidence, and discover additional victims. Furthermore, there is always the chance that the suspect is innocent in which case investigators can use the victimology that they developed to find other likely suspects.

21.2.3 Risk Assessment

A key aspect of developing victimology is determining victim and offender risk. Generally, women are at greater risk than men of being cyberstalked and new Internet users are at greater risk than experienced Internet users. Individuals who frequent the equivalent of singles bars on the Internet are at greater risk than those who just use the Internet to search for information. A woman who puts her picture on a Web page with some biographical information, an address, and phone number is at high risk because cyberstalkers can fixate on the picture, obtain personal information about the woman from the Web page, and start harassing her over the phone or in person.

Bear in mind that victim risk is not an absolute thing - it depends on the circumstances. A careful individual who avoids high risk situations in the physical world might be less cautious on the Internet. For example, individuals who are not famous in the world at large might have celebrity status in a certain area of the Internet, putting them at high risk of being stalked by someone familiar with that area. Individual who are sexually reserved in the physical world might partake in extensive sexual role playing on the Internet, putting them at high risk of being cyberstalked.

If a cyberstalker selects a low risk victim, investigators should try to determine what attracted the offender to the victim. Also, investigators should determine what the offender was willing to risk when harassing the victim. Remember that offender risk is the risk as an offender perceives it - investigators should not try to interpret an offender's behavior based on the risks they perceive. An offender will not necessarily be concerned by the risks that others perceive. For example, some cyberstalkers do not perceive apprehension as a great risk, only an inconvenience that would temporarily interfere with their ability to achieve their goal (to harass the victim) and will continue to harass their victims, even when they are under investigation.

21.2.4 Search

Investigators should perform a thorough search of the Internet using what is known about the victim and the offender and should examine personal computers, log files on servers, and all other available sources of digital evidence as described in this book. For example, when a cyberstalker uses e-mail to harass a victim, the messages should be collected and examined. Also, other e-mail that the victim has received should be examined to determine if the stalker sent forged messages to deceive the victim. Log files of the e-mails server that was used to send and receive the e-mail should be examined to confirm the events in question. Log files sometimes reveal other things that the cyberstalker was doing (e.g. masquerading as the victim, harassing other victims) and can contain information that lead directly to the cyberstalker.

CASE EXAMPLE

Gary Steven Dellapenta became the first person to be convicted under the new section of California's stalking law that specifically includes electronic communications. After being turned down by a woman named Randi Barber, Dellapenta retaliated by impersonating her on the Internet and claiming she fantasized about being raped.

Using nicknames such as "playfulkitty4U" and "kinkygal30," Dellapenta placed online personal ads and sent messages saying such things as "I'm into the rape fantasy and gang-bang fantasy too." He gave respondents Barber's address and telephone number, directions to her home, details of her social plans and even advice on how to short-circuit her alarm system.

Barber became alarmed when men began leaving messages on her answer machine and turning up at her apartment. In an interview (Newsweek 1999), Barber recalled that one of the visitors left after she hid silently for a few minutes, but phoned her apartment later. "What do you want?" she pleaded. "Why are you doing this?" The man explained that he was responding to the sexy ad she had placed on the Internet.

"What ad? What did it say?" Barber asked. "Am I in big trouble?"

"Let me put it to you this way," the caller said. "You could get raped."

When Barber put a note on her door to discourage the men who were responding to the personal ads, Dellapenta putting new information on the Internet claiming that the note was just part of the fantasy.

In an effort to gather evidence against Dellapenta, Barber kept recordings of messages that were left on her machine and contacted each caller, asking for any information about the cyberstalker. Two men cooperated with her request for help, but it was ultimately her father who gathered the evidence that was necessary to identify Dellapenta.

Barber's father helped to uncover Dellapenta's identity by posing as an ad respondent and turning the e-mails he received over to investigators.

[Investigators] traced the e-mails from the Web sites at which they were posted to the servers used to access the sites. Search warrants compelled the Internet companies to identify the user. All the paths led police back to Dellapenta. "When you go on the Internet, you leave fingerprints - we can tell exactly where you've been," says sheriff's investigator Mike Gurzi, who would eventually verify that all the e-mails originated from Dellapenta's computer after studying his hard drive. The alleged stalker's M.O. was tellingly simple: police say he opened up a number of free Internet e-mail accounts pretending to be the victim, posted the crude ads under a salacious log-on name and started e-mailing the men who responded. (Newsweek 1999)

Dellapenta admitted to authorities that he had an "inner rage" against Barber and pleaded guilty to one count of stalking and three counts of solicitation of sexual assault.

When searching for evidence of cyberstalking it is useful to distinguish between the offender's harassing behaviors and surreptitious monitoring behaviors. A victim is usually only aware of the harassment component of cyberstalking. However, cyberstalkers often engage in additional activities that the victim is not aware of. Therefore, investigators should not limit their search to the evidence of harassment that the victim is already aware of but should look for evidence of both harassment and surreptitious monitoring.

If the victim frequented certain areas, investigators should comb those areas for information and should attempt to see them from the cyberstalker's perspective. Could the cyberstalker have monitored the victim's activities in those areas? If so, would this monitoring have generated any digital evidence and would Locard's exchange principle take effect? For example, if the victim maintains a Web page, the cyberstalker might have monitored its development in which case the Web server log would contain the cyberstalker's IP address (with associated times) and the cyberstalker's personal computer would indicate that the page had been viewed (and when it was viewed). If the cyberstalker monitored the victim in IRC, he might have kept log files of the chat sessions. If the cyberstalker broke into the victim's e-mail account the log files on the e-mail server should reflect this.

Keep in mind that the evidence search and seizure stage of an investigation forms the foundation of the case - incomplete searches and poorly collected digital evidence will result in a weak case. It is therefore crucial to apply the Forensic Science concepts presented in this book diligently. Investigators should collect, document, and preserve digital evidence in a way that will facilitate the reconstruction and prosecution processes. Also investigators should become intimately familiar with available digital evidence, looking for class and individual characteristics in an effort to maximize its potential.

21.2.5 Crime Scene Characteristics

When investigating cyberstalking, investigators might not be able to define the primary crime scene clearly because digital evidence is often spread all over the Internet. However, the same principle of behavioral evidence analysis applies - aspects of a cyberstalker's behavior can be determined from choices and decisions that a cyberstalker made and the evidence that was left behind, destroyed, or taken away. Therefore, investigators should thoroughly examine the point of contact and cybertrails (e.g. the Web, Usenet, personal computers) for digital evidence that exposes the offender's behavior.

To begin with, investigators should ask themselves why a particular cyberstalker used the Internet - what need did this fulfill? Was the cyberstalker using the Internet to obtain victims, to remain anonymous, or both? Investigators should also ask why a cyberstalker used particular areas of the Internet - what affordances did the Internet provide? MO and signature behaviors can usually be discerned from the way a cyberstalker approaches and harasses victims on the Internet.

How cyberstalkers use the Internet can say a lot about their skill level, goals, and motivations. Using IRC rather than e-mail to harass victims suggests a higher skill level and a desire to gain instantaneous access to the victim while remaining anonymous. The choice of technology will also determine what digital evidence is available. Unless a victim keeps a log, harassment on IRC leaves very little evidence whereas harassing e-mail messages are enduring and can be used to track down the sender.

Additionally, investigators can learn a great deal about offenders' needs and choices by carefully examining their words, actions, and reactions. Increases and decreases in intensity in reaction to unexpected occurrences are particularly revealing. For example, when a cyberstalker's primary mode of contact with a victim is blocked the cyberstalker might be discouraged, unperturbed, or aggravated. How the cyberstalkers choose to react to setbacks indicates how determined they are to harass a specific victim and what they hope to achieve through the harassment. Also, a cyberstalker's intelligence, skill level, and identity can be revealed when he modifies his behavior and use of technology to overcome obstacles.

21.2.6 Motivation

There have been a number of attempts to categorize stalking behavior and develop specialized typologies (Meloy 1998). However, these typologies were not developed with investigations in mind and are primarily used by clinicians to diagnose mental illnesses and administer appropriate treatments.

When investigating cyberstalking, the motivational typologies discussed in Chapter 3 can be used as a sounding board to gain a greater understanding of stalkers' motivations. Also, as described earlier in this chapter, some stalkers pick their victims opportunistically and get satisfaction by intimidating them, fitting into the power assertive typology.

Other stalkers are driven by a need to retaliate against their victims for perceived wrongs, exhibiting many of the behaviors described in the anger retaliatory typology. For instance, Dellapenta, the Californian cyberstalker who went to great lengths to terrify Randi Barber, stated that he has an "inner rage" directed at Barber that he could not control. Dellapenta's behavior confirms this statement, indicating that he was retaliating against Barber for a perceived wrong. His messages were degrading and were designed to bring harm to Barber. Furthermore, Dellapenta tried to arrange for other people to harm Barber, indicating that he did feel the need to hurt her himself. Although it is possible that Dellapenta felt some desire to assert power over Barber, his behavior indicates that he was primarily driven by a desire to bring harm to her.