First the Crime, Then the Man: A Behavioral Analysis of Stephen Skaggs
- Dead Serious
- Mar 2
- 5 min read
Before You Read
This article does not claim that any person discussed is guilty of a crime. Some cases mentioned here are unsolved. Others involve allegations, not convictions. What follows is a behavioral discussion, not a conclusion. We explore patterns and ask questions to better understand how certain crimes happen, not to declare who committed them. Some topics may be unsettling. Reader discretion is advised.
Start With the Crime, Then the Man
When people hear a name like Stephen Skaggs, the instinct is to ask a single question. Did he do it?
That question is understandable, but it is rarely the first one investigators ask. Before guilt, before motive, before even identity, they look at the crime itself. The act matters. The setting matters. The way violence is carried out often reveals more than any story told later.
In cases connected to Skaggs, the documented starting point is sexual violence. Not rumor. Not theory. Sexual assault is part of the public record. That fact alone places him in a specific behavioral category that investigators take seriously, especially when other violent crimes exist in the same place and time.
But sexual violence by itself does not explain everything. Many offenders commit sexual assault and never escalate further. Others do. The difference is not always obvious in the beginning.
That is why the crime comes first.
What the Behavior Tells Us
Sexual violence is rarely about sex. That may sound strange, but investigators have said it for decades. It is about control. It is about power. It is about taking something from someone who cannot stop you.
When Skaggs assaulted women, the acts did not happen in crowded places. They happened where isolation mattered. That choice alone tells us something. It suggests an offender who understands opportunity. Someone who recognizes when they can act without interruption.
This does not prove anything beyond what is already known. But it raises the kind of questions that matter in unsolved cases.
Was the violence impulsive, or was it situationally controlled? Did the offender lose control, or did he wait until he had it?
Why did he go up the mountain equipped with handcuffs, rope, a knife, and a gun?
Those questions sound subtle, but they are not.
How does this speak to the premeditated nature of the event?
Control Versus Impulse in Early Offenses
One of the hardest things for investigators is determining whether an early violent act represents a breaking point or a starting point.
Some offenders explode once and never do it again. Others begin small, are interrupted, and then disappear from the record. And a smaller number continue, escalating over time.
Looking at Skaggs through this lens does not require assumptions. It only requires acknowledging what is documented. He committed sexual assault. He chose settings that reduced risk. He acted in a way that prioritized control over chaos.
Those traits matter because they show up in other offenders who later became serial predators. Then, there is the compounding of aggression. There was control, restraint, and sexual violence by force. - Followed by an escalation to stabbing, then shooting and abandoning the victim.
A Comparative Lens, Not a Comparison of Guilt
Consider Ted Bundy, not as a name, but as a behavioral example.
Bundy’s early crimes were not immediately recognized for what they were. His methods changed. His approach evolved. But one thing stayed consistent. He sought control over vulnerable victims and used isolation to achieve it.
Bundy was not caught early. History shows us what happened next.
This does not mean Skaggs is Bundy. That would be irresponsible to say. What it does mean is that investigators have long studied how early sexual violence can act as a warning sign when combined with opportunity, proximity, and timing.
The question is not whether two men are the same. The question is whether certain patterns repeat across different cases.
Escalation, Interruption, and the Unanswered Middle
One of the most haunting questions in criminal investigation is this. What happens when someone is stopped early?
In Skaggs’ case, documented sexual assaults resulted in arrest and conviction. That matters. It means the behavior did not continue unchecked in the open.
But it also creates a gap. A space where speculation naturally forms.
What if escalation was interrupted? What if opportunity disappeared, not desire? What if the behavior stopped because the circumstances changed, not because the internal drive did?
These are not accusations. They are questions investigators ask when they look backward at unsolved crimes that share similarities in time and place.
Motive Is Harder to See Than Method
The public often focuses on how crimes are committed. Investigators focus on why.
Method can change. Motive usually does not.
If sexual violence is driven by control, the form it takes can adapt. Different locations. Different victims. Different circumstances. The underlying goal remains the same.
This is why experienced profilers have always warned against overvaluing surface details. Two crimes do not need to look identical to be connected. And two crimes that look similar may come from completely different people.
In Skaggs’ case, the known behavior places him inside a category that investigators would never ignore. That does not mean he is responsible for everything he has ever been suspected of. It means his behavior fits a pattern that demands scrutiny.
Why This Case Still Matters
Cold cases stay cold when people stop asking new questions.
Stephen Skaggs continues to appear in discussions not because of rumor, but because his documented actions overlap with broader investigative concerns. Sexual violence. Timing. Location. Opportunity. Control.
These are not dramatic ideas. They are the quiet, uncomfortable pieces investigators return to again and again. Joan Marie Archer's body was found the day before the Mount Lemmon attacks and her wounds were eerily similar. Dr Allen Jones, a forensic pathologist, and Pima County's medical examiner at the time, reviewed the documents in the two cases and asserted that the stab wounds the victims received were consistent with a person acting in a distinct, methodical way. Both victims sustained similar type horizontal stab wounds to the back and neck areas between either vertebrae or rib cage. These type of horizontal wounds, and also the location of these type of wounds being on the back area, are unique in character and rarely seen. The perpetrator possessed some working knowledge of the human anatomy which is indicated by the method the wounds were inflicted.
It is Dr. Jones' opinion that the perpetrator may have had some type of training or possesses knowledge about the use of a knife.
This is not about certainty. It is about understanding how crimes unfold and why some names never fully disappear from the conversation.
Ending Where It Should End
This article does not claim answers. It does not solve anything.
What it does is start where serious investigation always starts. With the crime. With the behavior. With the patterns that emerge when you stop chasing names and start listening to actions.
Stephen Skaggs is not the conclusion. He is the question.
And in cases that still haunt people decades later, the right questions are often the most important thing we have.
Join the Investigation
This analysis is just one piece of the puzzle. Dive into the complete story of Joan Marie Archer and the investigation that spans decades
Comments