You lose your 1st Amendment rights to protest when you....

• Incite Violence

• Harass

• Intimidate

• Make Threats

• Protest on private property without permission

• Enterer public domain to impede and interfere with public progress and transportation

The mob of rioters lost their 1st Amendment right by illegally protesting in one area then pursuing, chasing and running after my husband and me yelling threats in an attempt to harass, intimidate and incite violence.

"Bloodlines and Bullets"

An Analysis of Generational Crime and Systemic Failures in Springfield

Beth Donahue - Author

LISTEN TO THE WHOLE STORY AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE BELOW

"Bloodlines and Bullets" presents a detailed criminological investigation into the homicides in Springfield, (Ohio), from 2021 to July 2025. The research moves beyond surface-level incident reporting to analyze the deep-rooted patterns of violence. The book's central thesis is that the majority of Springfield's murders are not random acts but are concentrated within a specific, high-risk, and socially interconnected population. Using forensic victimology as its primary analytical lens, the research establishes a significant "victim-offender overlap," demonstrating that victims and perpetrators often share similar high-risk lifestyles, criminal backgrounds, and social networks. The book further identifies critical systemic failures within the city's public safety and justice systems, including significant crime data underreporting, mismanagement of public funds, and a near-total failure to prosecute domestic violence cases, all of which contribute to the cycle of violence.

The book's research is grounded in the principles of victimology, the scientific study of victimization. It specifically employs forensic victimology to build detailed profiles of both victims and offenders. By analyzing a victim's lifestyle, habits, relationships, and criminal history, the research assesses their risk level. This distinction is crucial.

Low-Risk Victim: A homicide victim with a stable lifestyle and small inner circle strongly suggests the offender is known to them.

High-Risk Victim: A victim involved in dangerous activities (e.g., drug markets, weapons offenses) points to a much wider and more complex suspect pool, often populated by other high-risk individuals.

The book heavily explores this concept, which challenges the binary of "victim" vs. "offender." The research shows that many offenders are former victims, and, critically, that many victims of Springfield's homicides were not "innocent" in the traditional sense. They are often classified as "Voluntary Victims" or "Victims More Guilty than Offender," (per victimology archetypes) meaning they were active participants in the criminal enterprises or conflicts that led to their deaths.

"Bloodlines and Bullets" is divided into three main sections, with the latter two focusing on institutional failures that compound the violence. The analysis of Springfield's homicides from 2021 to 2025 reveals distinct patterns, contradicting the narrative of widespread, random crime. High-Risk Profiles Dominate: Approximately 80% of Springfield's murder victims fit a high-risk profile.

The primary contributing factors are:

Direct involvement in drug-related crime.

A history of extensive domestic disputes.

A significant personal criminal history (arrests, charges, weapons offenses).

The "80/20 Rule" is confirmed. The findings align with the established criminological principle that 80% of crimes are committed by 20% of the population. Springfield's violence is identified as a persistent reoffender issue, where a small, consistent group of individuals commits a vast majority of crimes. The use of Social Network Analysis (SNA) is used. A "link analysis" included in the book provides a quantitative exclamation point to the findings. It reveals that victims and offenders are highly connected through family and social relationships. This data visualizes the "birds of a feather" concept, showing that routine interactions with crime, drugs, and weapons within these social circles create a high probability of lethal violence. One central node in the network, for example, was socially connected to six other individuals, four of whom (including the node itself) were ultimately murdered.

Part 1: Homicide Analysis (2021-2025) and details the murders that form the core of the study.

Part 2: Data Reporting and Financial Mismanagement: This section criticizes the city's administrative response to the violence. The city failed to report accurate crime data to the FBI, resulting in an official murder count that is over 20% lower than the actual number. Grant Mismanagement of a $1.3 million federal "Gun Violence Reduction Plan" grant (supplemented by $1.2 million from the Springfield Foundation) was canceled by the federal government. Subsequently, over $400,000 was spent on "administrative costs," with no public challenge or accountability for the missing funds.

Part 3: This section uncovers a critical failure in the justice system. In 2024, the Springfield Police Department (SPD) recorded its highest-ever number of domestic violence arrests. From 2022 to 2024, the Municipal prosecutor’s office dismissed over 85% of these domestic violence cases annually. This lack of prosecution, which came to light in March 2025 and preceded the prosecutor's resignation, effectively denied justice to victims and allowed serial offenders to remain on the street, perpetuating the cycle of violence that often escalates to homicide.

Conclusion

"Bloodlines and Bullets" argues that Springfield's crime problem is not an unsolvable wave of random violence. It is a predictable and concentrated phenomenon driven by a specific high-risk demographic, enabled by a justice system that fails to hold offenders accountable—particularly in cases of domestic violence—and obscured by a municipal administration that has failed in its duties of transparent reporting and fiscal responsibility.

The book is about Victimology; it is not a biography where the author interviews victims’ families and gets a day pass to prison to interview the suspected killer.

Basic crime scene investigation, you start with the victim of a murder, because in most cases the police NEVER have an assailant unless they are also dead at the scene or seemingly willing to turn themselves in to police. What you get is a crime scene, and you work it outwards. You examine clues close at hand and extend out to who else was at the scene of the crime. You go to friends, family, relationships, and last known acquaintances. Next, you develop a profile of the murdered person. Are they a clean, outstanding person? Or do they have a criminal past? Are they involved in the drug market or some other illegal markets, such as dealing guns, stolen property, or worse, sex trafficking? Law enforcement begins to look at the deceased's inner circle. Is anyone in the deceased's inner circle involved in those types of endeavors?  The old saying "Birds of a feather flock together" has been held true for thousands of years. People tend to associate with others based on similar behavior, desires, addictions, or reciprocal influences.

The book Bloodlines and Bullets is about my research into Springfield's murders and the use of victimology. Victimology is the scientific study of victimization, examining the psychological effects on victims, their relationships with offenders, and their interactions with the justice system. It's best understood as a subfield of criminology. There are distinct schools of thought: 'Positivist' victimology, which focuses on victim characteristics and risk (sometimes leading to 'victim-blaming'), and 'Critical' victimology, which analyzes how social structures like poverty create victims.

So, how does Victimology solve crimes?

The most practical application is known as 'forensic victimology.' You do this by building a detailed victim profile—analyzing their lifestyle, habits, and relationships—investigators can narrow the suspect pool. For instance, a 'low risk' victim (who rarely goes out) points to a suspect in their small inner circle, while a 'high-risk' victim (involved in dangerous activities) points to a much wider pool of potential offenders. This analysis is crucial for understanding the offender's motive and how they selected their target. In the Ted Bundy case, the FBI's profile of his victims—'young, attractive women with long hair parted in the middle' was a key insight. For Andrew Cunanan, his victims appeared random until victimology linked them through his personal orbit. John Wayne Gacy's victims fit a clear 'high-risk' profile (runaways, hitchhikers).

Case Study of Andrew Cunanan

In the Andrew Cunanan case, the key victimological insight was that his victims were not a physical 'type,' but were instead linked biographically. His spree began with personal targets—a former friend and an ex-lover—driven by personal rage. His next victims were targets of opportunity to gain resources for his escape. His final, famous victim, Gianni Versace, was symbolic, representing the wealthy lifestyle Cunanan coveted. This understanding was crucial as it showed investigators, he was moving along a path defined by his past relationships, not randomly.

Case Study of Dennis Rader (BTK-Killer)

The analysis of the 'BTK' case revealed a different kind of profile. His victimology was defined by a process of fantasy, stalking, and control, not a consistent type. He referred to his victims as 'projects,' indicating he stalked them for long periods. His motive was purely psychological and sexual—the fantasy of 'Bind, Torture, Kill.' This insight suggested the killer was highly organized, methodical, and likely 'hiding in plain sight' with a seemingly normal life, which he did for decades.

But what about all the Springfield murders?

Many of the murders were not related to a serial killer. No, some murders were purely random, and some would say it was about "being in the wrong place at the wrong time". However, for about 80% of the Springfield murders, the crimes all revolved around three important issues:

1.    The Victims were all involved in a "drug-related crime".

2.    The victims were involved in many domestic disputes over the years.

3.    Lastly, the victims had extensive past or ongoing criminal charges, arrest records, and were associated with other criminal offenders. In all three scenarios, there were victims with past arrests with gun crimes, many obtaining charges of Having Weapons While Under Disability, Carrying a Concealed Weapon, and Improperly Handling Firearms in a Vehicle.

My book built a detailed victim profile—analyzing their lifestyle, habits, and relationships and I found many 'high-risk' victims involved in dangerous activities. My book also built a detailed profile analyzing the offender's lifestyle. What did I find? Both victims and offenders were involved in interrelated (friends and family) socialization and routine interactions with crime, drugs, and weapons.

Was this a new finding in the world of criminology?

NO! In fact, almost every law enforcement community will state the 80/20. It goes like this: 80% of crimes recorded are committed by 20% of the same people. It is a reoffender issue, not a widespread crime issue, where many crimes are being committed by many people. Conversely, there are many arrests and crimes committed by the same people over and over and over. Victimology analyzes the interactions between victims and the criminal justice system, including their engagement with police, the courts, and corrections officials. Victimology considers that old saying, "Birds of a feather flock together."

One of the most profound and complex areas of study within the field of Victimology is the "victim-offender overlap". This concept challenges the simplistic binary of "victim" versus "offender," as empirical research demonstrates that "most offenders have been victims."

You can look at victimology as a multi-level study, from a purely innocent victim to a willing victim and participant in a crime.

1. Completely Innocent Victim - A victim who bears no responsibility for their victimization and did not contribute to it in any way.

EXAMPLE: A person was attacked while unconscious.

2. Victim with Minor Guilt - A victim who inadvertently places themselves in harm's way due to ignorance or carelessness.

EXAMPLE: A person who frequently visits a high-crime area and is subsequently robbed.

3. Voluntary Victim (As Guilty as Offender) - A victim who bears as much responsibility as the offender, often in cases where both parties are engaged in criminal activity.

EXAMPLE: A person who enters into a suicide pact, OR a victim of a drug deal gone wrong.

4. Victim More Guilty than Offender - A victim who instigates or provokes their own victimization.

EXAMPLE: An individual who attacks another person and is subsequently harmed or killed by the other party.

5. Victim as Guilty as Offender

EXAMPLE: An individual who instigates a conflict but is ultimately killed in what is determined to be self-defense by the perpetrator.

6. Imaginary Victim - An individual who claims to be a victim but is not, often by falsifying a police report.

EXAMPLE: A person who falsely reports a crime for insurance purposes.

Maybe, the most likely reason those mob members are upset… 

Cognitive Dissonance!

Cognitive dissonance is the intense mental discomfort of holding two conflicting beliefs at the same time.

Belief 1 (Self-Concept): "I am a good person at heart," "I am a loyal friend," "I am trying to change," and "My actions were justified."

Belief 2 (The Truth): " I am a criminal," "My past defines my future," and since all my friends are all criminals, so shall I be."

Having a criminal record often means a person is permanently marked by the system. Publicly bringing up a criminal’s past is a powerful reminder and one in which criminals have inability to escape their history. It begins with angry backlash, a desperate attempt to regain control of the narrative (I’m a good person). By attacking the messenger, they are trying to discredit the information (criminal) and reclaim power over their own story (Cognitive Dissonance).

Yochelson and Samenow are the founders of criminal personalities. They suggest crime is not cause of:

Environment: They argued that environment is, at best, a context and, more often, an excuse used by the offender.

Psychological Illness: They were rational actors who knew right from wrong but chose to do wrong.

Lack of Opportunity: They found offenders had often been given numerous opportunities (jobs, education, help from family) but actively rejected them as "boring" or "too slow," preferring the "excitement" of a criminal’s life.

The Core of the Theory is Criminal Thinking Errors! Yochelson and Samenow identified over 50 "thinking errors" (cognitive distortions) that define the criminal personality. These are not symptoms; they are the cause of criminal behavior. Behavior is a logical (to them) outcome of this distorted thinking.

Grandiosity / Super optimism: An incredibly inflated sense of self-worth. They believe they are superior to everyone else, smarter, tougher, and more cunning. This leads to super optimism: the absolute belief that they can commit any crime and will not get caught. When they are caught, it's just "bad luck" or a "stupid mistake," not a flaw in their thinking.

"Zero State" and Power Thrust: A persistent, deep-seated feeling of being a "nobody," "worthless," or having no power. This state is intolerable. The "power thrust" is the criminal's chosen method to escape this "zero state" committing a crime (stealing, assaulting, conning) gives them a surge of power and makes them feel like "somebody."

Lack of Empathy: A profound inability or, more accurately, refusal to understand or care about the impact of their actions on their victims. Victims are seen as objects or "pawns" to be used.

Instant Gratification (Lack of Time Perspective): A total inability to delay gratification. They want what they want, and they want it now. The legitimate world's path (working, saving, studying) is seen as slow, boring, and for "suckers."

Criminality as a Choice

The most critical takeaway is that, in this theory, criminality is a choice. The person is not driven by uncontrollable impulses. They rationally, consciously, and repeatedly choose a criminal way of life because it aligns with their thinking patterns. They prefer the "excitement" and "power" of crime to the "boredom" and "effort" of a responsible life.

So, what is the connection to "Bloodlines and Bullets"

When this mob attacked me and my husband, it was not a 1^st amendment right to protest, they lost that the minute it became about, threats intimidation, harassment and violence. They lost that first amendment right the minute they protested on private property without permission. They lost that right when they entered within the public domain and interfered with public progress and transportation. They lost that right when illegally protesting in one area to going chasing and running after my Husband and me implying intimidation.

The anger you see from these mob members at the riot and at City Commission is when an offender's past is mentioned, it is a perfect demonstration of the Victim Stance. They are not angry because they are ashamed (which would be guilt); they are angry because, in their mind, my husband and me are the aggressors for "victimizing" them by "disrespecting" them.

The 80/20 Reoffender Issue: Yochelson and Samenow's entire study focused on this "20%" group. Their theory explains why they reoffend. Prison and probation do not fix the thinking. Unless the underlying thinking errors are confronted with and changed, the individual will always return to crime, regardless of the punishment or external circumstances.

Social Networks: The "criminal personality" would actively seek out and associate with others who share and validate their thinking patterns, reinforcing the in-group loyalty identified in the book.

Mob Members with Criminal Arrest Records:

Davidd Rose

Amanda Ovando

Cara "Dynamite" Graham

Tyla Mays (with 3x5 card)

Another loser

Click on the video and listen