‘Reality behind the myth: an examination of the different methods of Psychological
Profiling.’
‘Reality behind the myth: an examination of the different methods of
psychological profiling.’
Heera Devi Komal Boodhun*
Faculty of Law and Management,
University of Mauritius.
Email: h.boodhun@uom.ac.mu
Abstract:
Profiling refers to the inference of a person’s characteristics based on the behaviour displayed
at the crime scene. The aim of this study is to examine the three methods of profiling namely
the clinical method, the Criminal Investigative Analysis (CIA) method used by the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Investigative Psychology (IP) method. This will be
done by assessing their use in three case studies. The objectives of this paper are therefore to
evaluate the efficiency of the clinical method as used by Britton to help the police arrest
Bostock. Secondly, the usefulness of the CIA will be assessed through the case of the Green
River Killer. Finally, the effectiveness of IP will be examined by looking at the value of
Canter’s contribution to the capture of Duffy, also known as the Railway Killer.
The
conclusions of this study are that profiling can prove to be a useful tool in a police
investigation. However, its effectiveness would be much greater if it were supported by
scientific studies. Moreover, research in this field is still in an infancy stage so more studies
need to be conducted for profiling to progress.
Keywords:
psychological profiling; clinical profiling, Criminal Investigative Analysis,
Investigative Psychology, police investigation.
1
‘Reality behind the myth: an examination of the different methods of Psychological
Profiling.’
INTRODUCTION
Criminal profiling can be defined as “the process of identifying personality traits, behavioural
tendencies, geographic location and demographic variables of an offender based on
characteristics of the crime” (Bartol & Bartol, 2008, p. 8). Practitioners using profiling come
from different backgrounds such as law enforcement, Behavioural Science, Social Science
and Forensic Science (Turvey, 2002, p. 1) and use different terms to refer to it namely
Criminal Profiling, Offender Profiling, Criminal Investigative Analysis, Investigative
Profiling, Psychological Profiling and Criminal Personality Profiling (Kocsis, 2006, p. ix).
The different terms as well as the different perspectives and techniques used have lead to a
lack of consensus among the proponents of the field (Keppel, 2006, p. 1). This rift has lead
to the development of several approaches to psychological profiling out of which, there are
the clinical approach, the Criminal Investigative Analysis (CIA) and the Investigative
Psychology (IP). The aim of this paper is to examine these three different methods of
profiling by assessing their use in three case studies.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The first profiling cases can be traced back to instances where mental health officials were
asked to help the police in solving strange and difficult cases. For example, Dr Thomas Bond
was asked for assistance in the Whitechappel murders in 1888 and Dr James Brussel was
asked for help in the 1940-1950s in the enquiry of the Mad Bomber of New York (Kocsis,
2006, p. xii). Dr Brussel’s achievement inspired the FBI to create a similar strategy to
investigate crimes and as a result the Behavioural Science Unit (BSU) was developed
(Kocsis, 2006, p. 6). However, the first demand for profiling in Britain was in 1984 and the
use of this method increased in the 1990s (Gudjonsson & Copson, 1997, p.70).
2
‘Reality behind the myth: an examination of the different methods of Psychological
Profiling.’
Although profiling has been used for the last several decades, there is a lack of research in
this field (Keppel, 2006, p. xxiii). Slowly researchers have begun conducting studies to
assess different factors involved in profiling. As a result, there is a growing amount of
literature about profiling. However, there is a lack of qualitative study which investigates the
methods of profiling thoroughly. As such, this paper aims to fill this gap in the literature and
contribute to the understanding of the real role of profiling methods in a criminal inquiry.
1.1:
Clinical Profiling
In the clinical approach experts use their knowledge in the fields of Psychiatry, Psychology,
Criminology and other clinical fields to infer the unconscious cognitive processes of the
offender and develop a profile of the latter. It is the most common and accessible means of
profiling violent crimes (Wilson, Lincoln & Kocsis, 1997, p. 3). It is most useful in cases
whereby the police may be confused by the strange nature of an offence committed by
someone suffering from some form of psychopathology (Ainsworth, 2001, p. 140).
However, not all proponents of the clinical method use the same strategy. Instead, the
education, training and experience of the practitioners will determine the strategy they will
apply when dealing with a specific case (Gudjonsson & Copson, 1997, p. 62). Dr Britton for
example, uses his expertise in sexual dysfunction while profiling. By carefully analysing all
the details available he reconstructs what had happened from both the victim’s perspective
and that of the offender and then starts making inference about the cognitive processes of the
likely offender based on the characteristics displayed while committing the offence (Britton,
1997, pp. 82-84).
One important point is that the clinical method is individualistic and therefore every case is
treated as unique and an in-depth analysis of the details is made to produce a profile. As
3
‘Reality behind the myth: an examination of the different methods of Psychological
Profiling.’
such, a thorough examination of the salient points of the case may allow gaining insight of
information which another method may not permit (Ainsworth, 2001, p. 141). However,
Wilson, Lincoln and Kocsis (1997, p.4) have criticised this method as being subjective and
impossible to compare with other profiling methods since its validity and reliability cannot be
assessed. Moreover, the exact method used by clinical profilers to profile is not explicit.
Additionally, Britton has also been criticised for not using psychological principles to back
up his claims, a strategy adopted by other clinical profilers.
Britton also makes the same
statements using different headings so that it seems that he makes a deep analysis of the
material at hand (Canter & Alison, 1999, p. 6). Furthermore, using subjective methods and
instinct to profile has not helped nor will it help the field of profiling in getting a more
scientific basis (Canter & Alison, 1999, p. 8).
The literature available on Britton’s profiling methods is only in terms of autobiographies
where accounts are made of only such cases where his contribution has been useful in an
investigation. Moreover, it is difficult to generalise the findings of a case as they may be
specific to the case. Yet, Britton gives details of his work in criminal investigations publicly
through the autobiographies, whereas the work done by other clinical profilers is not of
public knowledge. This attempt should be commended since it enables the public to know
about his contribution and critically appraise his method. However, although having previous
experience in a criminal investigation is a strong asset, the overemphasis of this experience to
be used in clinical profiling is not recommended. This is because the human brain depends
on cognitive biases, distortions and heuristics to make decisions. As such they are not
completely objective and reliable (Canter & Alison, 1999, p. 30). Therefore the deductions
made by clinical profilers could be influenced by biases and cognitive heuristics, being thus
inaccurate. This could hinder the police investigation by leading it in the wrong direction.
4
‘Reality behind the myth: an examination of the different methods of Psychological
Profiling.’
1.2:
Criminal Investigative Analysis (CIA)
The second method of profiling, Criminal Investigative Analysis (CIA) is used by the FBI
and was inspired by the clinical method but has been modified to suit law enforcement
agencies (Kocsis, 2006, p. xiii). In the late 1970s the FBI Behavioural Science Unit (BSU)
(now known as the Investigative Support Unit-ISU) developed the behavioural analysis of the
scene of crime in a methodical manner, in their Academy at Quantico, Virginia (Jackson &
Bekerian, 1997, p. 4). These profilers learn through brainstorming, intuition and educated
guesswork and use field experience to profile (Ressler, Burgess, Douglas, 1995, p. 135). CIA
involves several steps namely data assimilation, crime classification, crime reconstruction
and profile generation (Jackson & Bekerian, 1997, p. 5).
As such the profilers gather all the data available from different sources such as the crime
scene, forensic reports, preliminary police reports, photos and information about the victim.
Based on all the details, the crime is categorised and decisions are made about different
aspects of the crime. Next there is an attempt to reconstruct the crime and to generate
hypotheses about the victims’ behaviour, the actions which occurred during the crime, the
motivation and the modus operandi of the offenders, based on which a profile is made.
Information about the offenders which are most likely to be in a profile are: their most
possible demographic and physical characteristics, their behavioural habits and personality
dynamics, age, race, type of occupation, marital status, intelligence, educational level, if they
have previous convictions or not and if so for what types of crimes, family characteristics,
military background or not, their habits and social interests, if they have a vehicle or not and
if so what brand and age of vehicle and if they are suffering from some psychopathology
(Ainsworth, 2001, p. 108).
5
‘Reality behind the myth: an examination of the different methods of Psychological
Profiling.’
The CIA, though very popular and used by several countries as a model to set up their own
profiling unit (Jackson & Bekerian, 1997, p.6), has also been criticised. Firstly, the sample in
a study they conducted on sexual murderers included willing participants only. Thus, it can
be questioned whether this sample is representative of the population (Kocsis, Irwin &
Hayes, 1998 as cited in Palermo & Kocsis, 2005, p. 149). Additionally, the validity of the
findings can be questioned as the veracity of the interviewees’ claims is difficult to verify
(Godwin, 2001, p 67). Furthermore, the dichotomy of offenders as organised or disorganised
may seem obvious yet it is limited in terms of usefulness and relevance (Kocsis, Cooksey &
Irwin, 2002; Alison, 2005, p. 74). For example, Kocsis, Irwin and Hayes (1998 as cited in
Kocsis, 2006, p. 111) conducted a study whereby they found that the dichotomy can be used
positively to distinguish the sophisticated behaviour of an offender in committing a crime;
however, it fails to discriminate between common behaviours and those behaviours unique to
a specific offender.
Wilson et al (1997, p. 4) argue that most offenders display a mixture of behaviours so that
classifying them into rigid categories of organised or disorganised would be inaccurate and
misleading. Therefore, it would be better and more realistic to classify the crime scene
behaviour as being along a continuum with the organised and disorganised dichotomy being
the extremes of the continuum (Bartol & Bartol, 2008, p. 334). Moreover, Canter, Alison,
Alison & Wentink (2004, p. 313) have found that some organised behaviours occur
frequently in murders whereas disorganised behaviours occur more rarely and not
concurrently with organised behaviour. Likewise, some crime scenes can be disorganised
because the offenders display rage and anger while committing a crime, in an act of domestic
violence, the crime scene is staged, the offenders are interrupted or they are under the
influence of drugs or alcohol (Turvey, 2002, p. 226).
6
‘Reality behind the myth: an examination of the different methods of Psychological
Profiling.’
Another major criticism of this method is the lack of scientific studies to back it up (Canter,
1994, p. 320; Jackson & Bekerian, 1997, p. 6). There is no systematic principle to be applied
in the method used by the FBI so that two profilers using this method can come up with two
different profiles (Palermo & Kocsis, 2005, p. 150). Indeed, the FBI state that “at present,
there have been no systematic efforts to validate these profile-derived classifications”
(Douglas, Burgess, Burgess & Ressler, 1992, p. 22). Muller (2000, p. 248) argues that CIA
depends mainly on the experience and intuition of the agents and it therefore cannot be tested
scientifically. Instead, some proponents suggest that this method is an art (Turvey, 2002 p.
234; Vorpagel & Harrington, 1998 as cited in Palermo & Kocsis, 2005, p.150).
1.3:
Investigative Psychology (IP)
The third approach, Investigative Psychology (IP), applies psychological principles to
criminal investigations (Bartol & Bartol, 2008, p. 360).
It is also known as statistical
profiling since its proponents use statistical methods in their approach to profiling and thus
set this method apart from the other methods of profiling. Alison (2005, p. 75) describes this
method as examining the behaviour displayed during the offence and categorising it under
psychological themes so that the demographic details of the offender can be predicted. Using
a psychological approach in profiling implies that the evidence for the claims made have been
tested empirically. As such, this method helps to combat human weaknesses of poor thinking
and biases which are usually used to understand the world (Canter & Alison, 1999, p 26).
According to Canter five offender characteristics could be derived from offending behaviour.
Firstly, the place of attack could indicate the likely base of the offenders. Also, the manner
the attack is conducted could point out the history of offending. The third aspect is the crime
itself which could indicate the social and personal background of the offenders. Additionally,
it is believed that the personal characteristics of the offenders influence the way they attack.
7
‘Reality behind the myth: an examination of the different methods of Psychological
Profiling.’
Finally, the offender background could be perceived through the offence behaviour.
However, out of the five aspects, the first two are more essential in getting an insight of
offender characteristics (Ainsworth, 2001, p. 119).
Professor Canter, in an attempt to give profiling a more scientific basis uses psychological
principles to profile and to test the relationship between the behaviour displayed by the
offender at the crime scene and the characteristics of the offender (Santtila, Hakkanen, Canter
& Elfgren, 2003). Moreover, Canter has also developed the Radex model which has been
supported by other researchers and which is based on two principles in order to help explain
and understand offender behaviour better. The first is that behaviours which are displayed by
most offenders are put in the middle of a circle and the rare behaviours are placed at the
periphery of the circle. Additionally, behaviours are classified into themes which are
represented in different places in a circle (Canter, 2000, p. 31; Kocsis, Cooksey and Irwin,
2002). This classification system is better than categorising criminals into types, which is too
simplistic. This is so because the actions of any offender constitute a subset of the actions
committed by all offenders. Sometimes the actions of an offender overlap with the actions of
many other offenders and at other times they overlap with few other offenders. Thus, if
general characteristics are used to classify offenders into types then most criminals will be
similar.
However, if more specific characteristics will be used to distinguish between
offenders then they will be assigned under different types (Canter, 2000, p. 31). Researchers
conducting studies in this field use statistical methods such as Smallest Space Analysis
(SSA), a computer software to apply the theory of the radex model.
The SSA is a
multidimensional scaling procedure according to which behaviour will be understood best if
the link between all the variables prevalent is tested (Salfati & Canter, 1999, p. 398).
8
‘Reality behind the myth: an examination of the different methods of Psychological
Profiling.’
Another principle proposed by Canter (1995, p. 347) and which has been supported by
several studies is the concept of behavioural consistency which states that offenders display
some similarity of behaviour across offences (Soothill, Francis, Ackerley & Fligelstone,
2002, p. ix; Salfati & Bateman, 2005, p. 142; Woodhams, Hollin & Bull, 2007, p. 233).
Behavioural consistency is important since it allows the police to link several cases to the
same offender based on the behaviour displayed.
As a result, the police have more
information to work on and the probability of catching the offender is higher. Moreover,
behavioural consistency also enables the police to study the pattern of offending and the
evolution of the offender. Thus they gain a better understanding of the individual and can
attempt to predict the future actions of the criminal. However, no similarity has been found
between the characteristics of offenders and their method of offending (Mokros & Alison,
2002; Grubin, Kelly, & Brunsdon, 2001; Alison, Bennell, Mokros & Ormerod, 2002). Canter
has also devised the principle of geographical consistency which is based on the premise that
serial offenders tend to offend within a limited area (Rossmo, 2000; Canter, 2000).
This approach has not been spared of criticism either. The studies used in IP have been
criticised for their statistical complexity. The number of people who may understand the
findings of the research studies is limited, mostly among law enforcement agencies (Palermo
& Kocsis, 2005, p. 176). Moreover, this approach does not take human uniqueness into
consideration. Instead, the actions committed by offenders are used as statistics and applied
to criminal cases (Hamerton, 2001, p. 77). It should also be remembered that even the use of
statistical method of profiling does not mean that a profile is perfect; instead, the predictions
are still probabilistic (Ainsworth, 2001, p. 127). Researchers in this field use police data to
conduct studies. However, the reliability of police data could be questioned. Indeed, not all
crimes are detected and recorded (Hamerton, 2001, p. 77). Furthermore, the police could be
9
‘Reality behind the myth: an examination of the different methods of Psychological
Profiling.’
unable to link a series of crime of a single offender so that their data may not be accurate. As
such, the results obtained could be inaccurate too. Yet, the publication of the findings in
academic journals can enrich the debate in the field of profiling and contribute to its
advancement as a science (Palermo & Kocsis, 2005, p. 177). Besides, the advantage of this
method of profiling over the above two methods is that it has empirical support (Egger, 1999;
Canter & Alison, 1999, p 25; Muller, 2000).
METHODOLOGY
This study uses secondary data analysis which is used frequently in criminology as the
subject under study may not be possible to be observed directly (Riedel, 2000, p. 4). As such,
there is no loss of time and money since the information is already available, some of which
free of cost (King & Wincup, 2008, p. 28). However, the available data may not be complete
so that the researcher may not have all the details of the cases.
Different sources of
information such as biographies written by profilers, data from different newspaper articles
and books written by different professionals where mention was made of the specific cases
were also considered by the researcher. This step counteracts weaknesses such as biased
information, allows for increased reliability and credibility of data (Yin, 2004, p.234) and
enables the researcher to do a coherent and thorough analysis of the data collected (Strauss &
Corbin, 2008, p. 288).
The case study method is used in this study. A case study can be defined as “the in-depth
examination of a single case which is of interest in order to get a better understanding of the
phenomenon” (Stake, 1995, p. xi). The aim of case studies is to increase the knowledge of
the reader in the specific field (Somekh & Lewin, 2005, p. 33). The case study in this work is
10
‘Reality behind the myth: an examination of the different methods of Psychological
Profiling.’
known as intrinsic case study as the researcher is personally interested to know more about
the cases (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000, p. 437).
The case study method involves no manipulation of the case (Denscombe, 2002, p. 32).
Rather, the experiences of individuals are directly or indirectly examined and their feelings
and opinions are taken into account (David & Sutton, 2004, p. 111; Somekh & Lewin, 2005,
p.33). Additionally, a case study can be said to be more informative than other methods
(Yates, 2004, p. 150) since it involves the analysis of a subject in conjunction with the
context surrounding it and using information from several sources to do so (Marshall &
Rossman, 1999, p. 158; Robson, 2002, p.89). Therefore, the matter under study can be
assessed from a wide perspective (Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2004, p. 5). Moreover, being very
detailed in nature, this method involves a thorough description and explanation of the case
being studied (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000, p. 393) and allows for the analysis of the complex
interaction of the different factors involved (Creswell, 2003, p. 182; Yin, 2004, p. 34). Thus,
the researcher may obtain results which a less detailed research method would not allow him
to achieve. Furthermore, the researcher may also get some insight about why and how
something happened instead of being limited to what happened (Denscombe, 2002, p.31; Yin,
2003, p. 1). Bearing all the above factors in mind, the case study method was chosen since it
allows for the thorough description and analysis of the details of the cases and of the type of
profiling method used.
This method therefore, enables the researcher to evaluate the
effectiveness of the profiling methods better.
The case study method is not devoid of weaknesses. However, despite these weaknesses, the
case study method is ideal for this study as the aim is not to compare different cases but to
evaluate the use of each method of profiling. Furthermore, the subject concerned here is
11
‘Reality behind the myth: an examination of the different methods of Psychological
Profiling.’
about the effectiveness of profiling methods through real cases, a subject which would
undeniably be impossible to study in a laboratory. While undertaking any research, it is
important to take account of ethical issues involved. Data for this study was collected from
secondary sources which were available publicly and as such there was no personal
participation of any person. As a result, ethical issues such as ensuring that only voluntary
participants are involved, there is no harm to participants and subjects are not deceived, do
not arise. Moreover, since the sources of information are public documents which are
available easily, the question of confidentiality and anonymity does not arise in this situation
either.
RESULTS
The following part of the paper will give a detailed account of the three case studies whereby
the three methods of profiling have been used. As such, the first case will look at the use of
clinical profiling by Britton in the murder of two women by Bostock. The second case
describes the murders committed by Ridgway where the FBI method of profiling, Criminal
Investigative Analysis (CIA) was used to help in the criminal investigation. Finally, the case
of Duffy who raped and murdered women in London will be looked at.
Canter used
principles of Investigative Psychology (IP) to help the police with this investigation.
Case 1: Paul Botock
The first case under study is the murder committed in Leicester in 1983 where psychological
profiling was used for the first time in the United Kingdom (Britton, 2000, p.14). On 29 July
1983, Caroline Osborne, a thirty-three year old pet beautician, was murdered while she was
out walking her dog and that of her neighbour across Aylestone Meadows (“Appointment
with murder”, 2003, p. 10). A search revealed nothing on the same day however on the next
12
‘Reality behind the myth: an examination of the different methods of Psychological
Profiling.’
day, at about 10.30 am a police dog handler found the body of Osborne fully clothed fifteen
feet down a grassy embankment (Edwards, 2005, p. 16).
Britton was shown the crime scene photos along with those taken at the different stages of the
autopsy. He concentrated on the available information and started to analyse the data at hand
meticulously (Britton, 1997, p. 46). Based on the post mortem reports, the photographs,
details about victimology and last known details about the victim’s actions (Weale, 1994, p.
3) as well as from analysing the wound pattern, he started to brainstorm on the details of the
murder. He supposed that since the weapon, the ligature and the pentagram were brought to
the crime scene, it reflected a degree of planning from the offender. The choice of a public
place whereby the risk of being discovered was high, the rapidity with which the offence was
committed, the exertion of enough control only to subdue the victim and the lack of
sophistication lead Britton to conclude that the offender was a stranger to the victim though
the former could have known the latter.
Another assumption made by Britton was that the murder was sexually motivated. The type
of control and binding used as well as the victim reflected an offender whose sexual desire
was extremely deviant and had become associated with anger and control of others. Thus the
murder mirrored the fantasy of the offender which he should have previously rehearsed in his
mind. A lack of social skills to talk to women leading to frustration and anger towards them
could be the reason for the offender’s actions. Britton also argued that the murder was not
linked to satanic cults as the criminal had wanted to portray since such murders are much
more violent and there are normally more evidence of black magic present. He reasoned that
the pentagram could be a symbol used by the offender to rationalise his behaviour.
13
‘Reality behind the myth: an examination of the different methods of Psychological
Profiling.’
The next step involved writing a profile of the murderer and as a result of the psychological
characteristics derived from the case, Britton made a 19 point profile of the likely offender
(Weale, 1994, p. 3). On Saturday 27th April 1985 a twenty one year old nurse Amanda
Weedon was killed while she was going to work. She had been brutally stabbed about thirty
seven times in the neck, chest and thigh (“Appointment with murder”, 2003, p. 10). Her
body was discovered by a teenage girl at four fifteen in the afternoon, just thirty minutes after
she had last been seen by a witness. The police thought that this could have been committed
by a thief since twenty pounds and Amanda’s cash-card were missing from her handbag.
This time too the police called for the help of clinical psychologist Britton to help them in
their investigations. The latter, after analysing the information available stated that there
were indications that the murder had been sexually motivated. Moreover, the wound patterns
were similar to those found on Osborne’s body earlier. The similarities outweighed the
differences between the two murders. Therefore, it was concluded that the same person was
responsible for both crimes. Based on the details, Britton further stated that the offender
would be very immature and in a state of illness or heightened excitement since unlike other
sexual murderers who improve with each new offence, there was no such sign in this case.
The attack lasted only a few minutes, the offender did not use any bindings to control the
victim nor did he leave any paper behind and he took greater risk since he could have been
discovered at any time so this indicates that unlike Osborne, this victim was a complete
stranger to him. Britton argued that there was a specific reason why Weedon was attacked as
opposed to any other person who had walked down that alley. During the discussion,
detective superintendent Baker mentioned that the murder had occurred near Gilroes
cemetery, where Osborne’s body had been buried. As a result, Britton concluded that the
murderer could have been visiting the place Osborne was buried and this excited him so that
14
‘Reality behind the myth: an examination of the different methods of Psychological
Profiling.’
when he saw Weedon, the urge to kill became strong and uncontrollable for him. The police
used the psychological profile given by Britton to focus their resources on those people who
had been previously interviewed after Osborne’s murder and who matched the criteria from
the profile. Bostock, a nineteen old man who lived in the locality, matched the description
given by witnesses of a man leaving the place where Weedon’s body was found at about four
in the afternoon.
After Osborne’s murder, Bostock had been interviewed thrice by the police but he stated that
he had been with his parents at home on the night of the murder and this was corroborated by
them (“Murder trial of Paul Bostock”, 1986). However, this time the police did not believe
him easily since he not only contradicted himself but he matched several characteristics from
the profile such as his age, he was a local, living with his parents and he worked as a meat
processor and therefore skilled with knives. Additionally, he was obsessed with physical
fitness so that he performed several types of exercise daily and attended martial arts training
twice per week but did not interact with other people. This confirmed Britton’s prediction of
the suspect being fit and asocial. Additionally as mentioned by Britton, Bostock admitted to
know Osborne. Britton had also claimed that a specific feature had led Bostck to kill
Weedon, Bostock admitted that this specific attribute was a red pair of shoes.
In view of the similarities between Bostock and the profile made by Britton, the police
decided to get a search warrant for his house. Surely enough, as described by Britton,
Bostock who was described as always being calm, had collections of pornographic materials
including violent and satanic themes. There were collections of knives in his bedroom along
with other weapons and the walls were covered with pictures and posters of women being
tortured and black magic symbols. One of the symbols found matched the one found near
15
‘Reality behind the myth: an examination of the different methods of Psychological
Profiling.’
Caroline Osborne’s body. Furthermore, while going through his diary, the police found a
mark noted first anniversary and that remark coincided with the first anniversary of the death
of Caroline Osborne (Appointment with murder, 2003, p. 10).
Based on the evidence gained, the police officers were convinced that Bostock was
responsible for both murders, however, they were unsuccessful to get a confession.
Therefore, they appealed to the expertise of Britton again who devised an interview strategy
similar to the one he would use with his patients. The police officers interviewed Bostock for
several days at the end of which he confessed to both murders. In June 1986, Bostock
pleaded guilty for both murders at the Leicester Crown Court and received a life
imprisonment. Britton was positively perceived for this success and this was his first step as
a clinical profiler.
Case 2: The Green River Killer
The second case is that of the Green River Killer who has admitted to have murdered forty
eight women from 1982 to 1998 and where the FBI method of profiling, CIA was used to
help the criminal investigation. In July 1982, the body of a sixteen year old prostitute was
discovered in the green river outside Seattle. One month later, the bodies of four more young
women were found in the same river, therefore, the offender was given the nickname Green
River Killer (Douglas & Olshaker, 1997, p. 359). Soon, other bodies of young prostitutes
were discovered in ravines, on roadsides and in the green river (Booth, 2001, p. A03). The
similarities between the victims were that they had all been sexually abused and were found
naked (Harden, 2003, p. A01). Moreover, all the victims were prostitutes in the same locality
(Douglas & Olshaker, 1997, p. 360). All the women had been strangled and the bodies of
some of them were weighed down with rocks. Many of the victims could only be identified
16
‘Reality behind the myth: an examination of the different methods of Psychological
Profiling.’
through dental records since the bodies were already in an advanced stage of decomposition
when they were discovered (Booth, 2001, p. A03).
In view of the intensity of the inquiry, the Green River task force was set up involving
officials from several jurisdictions.
Major Kraske, who was leading the investigation,
realising the serial nature of these murders, requested assistance from the FBI to develop a
psychological profile of the killer. The FBI agents were presented with the information
available from the first five discoveries. Douglas, the FBI agent in charge described how he
“retreated to the top floor of the library, where I could be alone…and get myself into the
minds of the offender and the victims” (as cited in Douglas & Olshaker, 1997, p. 360).
Douglas analysed all the information available from the crime-scene reports and photographs,
the post mortem reports and details about the victims and stated that irrespective of the age
and race difference of the victim as well as different method of operation used by the
offender, the same person had committed all the offences. His conclusion was supported by
the facts that the similarities far outweighed the differences found from the details he had
(Douglas & Olshaker, 1997, p. 361).
He thus made a detailed profile of the likely offender whom he described as white male who
was physically powerful, who held a manual job, was familiar with the river and who did not
regret his actions. The offender was also portrayed as having feelings of inadequacy and as a
heavy smoker. This killing mission was a manner to seek revenge from the prostitutes,
whom he considered as the lowest among women. However, Douglas argued that even if the
murders were committed in an unsophisticated manner and had involved a lot of risk, the
offender did not have a mental problem and the profile could fit a lot of people (Rule, 2004,
p. 82). Other items contained in the profile included a person who was confident but
17
‘Reality behind the myth: an examination of the different methods of Psychological
Profiling.’
impulsive, he would be middle aged. Douglas added that the offender would revisit the
places he had murdered the victims to relive the experience mentally and he would try to get
involved in the police investigation in some way or the other (Smith & Guillen, 2004, p. 104).
During the inquiry, a taxi driver stood out from the list of suspects as he fitted the profile. Yet,
after an unsuccessful interview, the police had to release him as there was no evidence to link
him to the murders. At the end of 1983, as the number of victims rose to twelve, and seven
more persons were reported missing, Douglas was requested to personally advise the
investigators. He told the police that their best strategy would be to be proactive and supervise
the dump sites unknown to the public. He also asked the police to use police officers disguised
as prostitutes to get to the offender (Douglas & Olshaker, 1997, p. 363).
In April 1983, the boyfriend of one of the victims gave a statement to the police about the last
person he had seen the victim with. However, when the police went to interview Gary
Ridgway, he denied any knowledge of the victims. Later Ridgway’s name came up again in
the inquiry but since he had passed the polygraph test, they did not consider him as a suspect
(Preusch, 2003, p. 24). However, Ridgway’s vehicle was linked to another girl who had gone
missing. Yet, the police never realised that the two incidents were related. By May 1984, the
police was no nearer to catching the criminal. The list of possible suspects had been reduced
from one thousand two hundred to eighty and the task force was investigating the murders of
more than fifty women. Douglas revised his profile to say that several people were involved in
the murders and they each acted individually (Douglas & Olshaker, 1997, p. 363). Yet, a
major step which would bring this investigation to an end occurred when the police asked
Ridgway, a truck painter who lived in Auburn, to give a saliva sample in 1987 as he was still in
18
‘Reality behind the myth: an examination of the different methods of Psychological
Profiling.’
the list of suspects. But it was only in 2001 that he was arrested after being linked to seven of
the murders through DNA technology (Booth, 2001, P. A04).
Indeed, Ridgway’s DNA
matched that of the semen found on the bodies of the victims. Moreover, traces of paint were
also used to link him to the murders (Kershaw, 2003, p. 1).
In a gruesome description of how he raped, tortured, strangled and mutilated his victims
(Hoffmann, 2003, p. 026), he admitted to killing dozens of women in his house but he kept
no souvenirs so that the police did not find any compromising evidence in the house. The
victims’ jewellery and clothes were also taken to make their identification more difficult as
well as to get rid of evidence (Hoffmann, 2003, p. 026). Additional precautionary measures
which he took included using gloves when dealing with the victims, choosing victims who
were alone, replacing tyres of his truck if he thought that he had gone too near a dump site.
Moreover, in order to confuse the police, he left pieces of gum wrappers and cigarettes near
the bodies of his victims even if he did not use these. He also clipped the nails of the victims
to avoid leaving behind any evidence (Harden, 2003, D01). He described his hate for
prostitutes as one of the motivations for killing these women. One of his fantasies was also to
indulge into necrophilia and he revisited the sites where he had buried his victims to relive
the experiences (Hoffmann, 2003, p. 026).
Ridgway matched some of the characteristics included in Douglas’s profile. Indeed, he was a
white male with a manual job.
He was physically fit and was familiar to the region.
Moreover, he had no mental health problem and did not regret his actions (Douglas &
Olshaker, 1997, p. 360).
Additionally, he chose his victims after assessing the risks,
therefore, he was not impulsive. However, Ridgway did not interfere with police inquiry, as
stated by Douglas. Additionally, unlike declared by Douglas, Ridgway had no need to revisit
19
‘Reality behind the myth: an examination of the different methods of Psychological
Profiling.’
the murder sites since he killed his victims in his house and vehicle (Harden, 2003, p. A01).
Ridgway pleaded guilty to the killing of forty eight victims in return of being spared the death
penalty. He was sentenced to forty eight life terms, one for each of the victims he admitted to
have killed (Liptak, 2005, p.1).
Case 3: Railway Killers
The third case discussed involves cases of rape and murder. On the 10th of June 1982, a
woman was attacked and raped by two men near Hampstead station, in London. Over the
next months, several more women were attacked. Some of the crimes involved only one
offender while others involved two assailants. Overall, the police linked twenty five sexual
assaults to those offenders, lasting from 1982 to 1986 without any occurring in 1984. On 29th
December 1985, the offenders then changed their tactic and started killing the victims. They
attacked a nineteen year old girl, Alison Day at the Hackney station and after repeatedly
raping her, they killed her by strangulation. The crime series continued on 17th April 1986
when a fifteen year old girl, Maartje Tamboezer, was abducted from Horsley train station in
East Surrey. After being raped, she was strangled and her body was set on fire. The third
attack occurred on 18th May 1986 when a local television presenter Anne Lock, aged twenty
nine, was abducted from the Brookmans Park train station and she was also killed after being
sexually assaulted (Tendler, 1988).
In January 1986, Professor Canter read a newspaper article about the series of rapes and he
tried to find if there was any pattern between the rapes committed by two perpetrators and
those committed by a sole person. He sent his note to a police detective chief superintendent
Wagstaff. Several months later he was called to Hendon Police College in North London and
asked if he could apply his psychological background to help in the rape and murder
20
‘Reality behind the myth: an examination of the different methods of Psychological
Profiling.’
investigation. As a result, he was assigned two police officers to help him in his endeavour.
The first step was to establish which crimes were linked to the same offender. Since more
behavioural evidence is present in the rape cases, the men started to dissect the details to get a
better understanding of the cases. The two police officers wrote down all the actions which
had occurred in each rape in minute details so that more than one hundred groups of
behaviour were identified from the assaults committed by the same offender. These sets of
behaviour were then compared across the rapes using a computer which analysed the data at
hand quicker and more efficiently as well as with greater accuracy.
The resulting details from the analysis allowed Canter and the police to see the evolution of
the offender with each new crime. Moreover, other similarities mentioned above became
clearer to depict the act of the same offender in spite of the contrasting descriptions of the
offender given by the victims concerning the appearance and the height of the offender. The
analysis also revealed the similarity between the way the offender approached the victim and
his interaction with the victim before, during and after the rape. Indeed, as his confidence
increased, the offender spent more time with his victims after raping them. The computer
was used to sift through the crimes to make a more accurate analysis since the culprit did not
commit the same actions in all the offences.
The next step was to mark the sites where the crimes had been committed on a map. Each
map represented the series of crimes committed for a specific year. As Canter examined the
series of rapes committed in 1982 committed by the lone offender and by both of them,
assuming that the police had already made a similar deduction, he indicated the likely
residence of the lone offender in an area of North London, surrounded by the first three
offences committed. Canter declared that every person has a mental map of the area one is
21
‘Reality behind the myth: an examination of the different methods of Psychological
Profiling.’
used to go to. It was deduced that at first the offender would attack in places where he was
familiar and later, as his confidence and experience increased, he would move away from his
base. In view that the first rapes were committed near West Hampstead, it was predicted that
the offender lived within three miles of that area (Stevens, 1997, p. 86).
On 28th July 1986, Canter gave the police officers a profile of the likely offender. However
one of the weaknesses is that Canter has published two different versions of the profile in two
different books. For example, in one book he mentioned that the offender would be five feet
nine inches tall (Canter, 1994, p. 50) while in the second one he says that the offender is a
physically small man who is unattractive (Canter & Alison, 1999, p. 211). Moreover, in the
second book he asserts that the offender is interested in martial arts or body building, the
offender likes to dominate women and enjoys bondage (Canter & Alison, 1999, p. 211). Yet,
these statements are not made in the first profile (Canter, 1994, p. 50). The police used the
profile containing seventeen points to narrow down their list of suspects which contained
about 2000 names (Boggan, 2006, p. 16). Eventually only two of the suspects lived in the
same location which Canter had predicted and the police concentrated on John Duffy, a
former British Rail carpenter, since he had a police record for having raped his wife while
threatening her with a knife after they had been separated (Stevens, 1997, p.86). Moreover,
thirteen of the points included in the profile were accurate to Duffy’s case. Though his name
had been in the list of suspects from the beginning of the inquiry and he had been interviewed
on several occasions, he had been able to convince them of his innocence and noninvolvement of the rapes and as a result he had been released before.
Yet, taking into account all the factors, the police were convinced of Duffy’s implications.
However, the determining event was when Duffy attacked a fourteen year old girl on 21st
22
‘Reality behind the myth: an examination of the different methods of Psychological
Profiling.’
October 1986 but did not kill her. When the details of the crimes were checked against the
previous rapes, Duffy became a clear suspect and therefore, as a result of intensive
surveillance the police arrested Duffy in November 1986 while he was supposedly planning
another attack. Several forensic evidence such as a rare combination of twine, nylon and
fibres were found to link Duffy to the crimes (Tendler, 1988).
Characteristics which
concurred with the profile written by Canter include the age, place of residence and job.
Moreover, Canter had also rightly predicted that Duffy had had an unsuccessful relationship,
had no children, had only a few friends. Being a former carpenter for the British rail, Duffy
was familiar about the area. Duffy also had a keen interest in martial arts and raped his wife
while threatening her with a knife. Collections of knives and keys taken from his victims
were also found in his house (Canter & Alison, 1999, p. 211). However, unlike predicted by
Canter Duffy was only five feet four. Additionally, he had previous police record, yet, not
for violence as predicted by Canter but for raping his wife under threat (Canter, 1994, p. 51).
At the time of his arrest, Duffy was found with a match box and tissues, referred by the
prosecution as the ‘rape kit’ since he used it to destroy forensic evidence after raping and
killing his victims (Canter, 1994, p. 61). In 1988, Duffy was given six life sentences for the
murders of Day and that of Tamboezer and for four rapes (“‘Railway Rapist’ jailed for more
crimes”, 2001). Though Duffy maintained that he did not remember anything about the rapes
and did not disclose the name of his accomplice at the time of the hearing, in 1997 he
denounced his friend and collaborator in crime David Mulcahy. In 2001 he gave evidence
against Mulcahy who was jailed for life for several murders and rapes (“‘Railway Rapist’
jailed for more crimes”, 2001).
23
‘Reality behind the myth: an examination of the different methods of Psychological
Profiling.’
DISCUSSION
Clinical Profiling
In the case of Bostock, Britton, with a background in clinical psychology and an expertise in
sexual dysfunction, was able to understand the deviant nature of the offender’s sexuality
which had led to murder. According to Ainsworth (2001, p. 140), clinical profiling may help
the police investigate a crime with strange characteristics. A thorough examination can also
enable the profiler to find similarities between cases or to identify crucial aspects of the
offender or offence. Indeed, when Britton examined all the elements from the case materials
as well as the wound patterns on both victims he concluded that both cases were linked.
Examining the murder sites, the victims, the type of attack conducted and other salient details
of the crimes, Britton came up with a very detailed profile of the likely offender. When
Bostock was arrested, he matched the majority of points included in Britton’s profile. In the
Bostock case, Britton applied his knowledge gained from working with patients suffering
from some mental disorder to understand the actions and motivations of the offender. It
could thus be argued that another clinical profiler would have used another strategy and could
have come up with a different profile. Moreover, Britton never really explains the exact
technique he uses or the principles which support his claims. Rather, when describing his
actions to construct the profile of the offender in the double homicide, he only states that he
examines the materials carefully to get a better understanding of what happened.
Canter and Alison (1999, p. 6) have criticised Britton for using many details to describe one
subject so that a reader may be inclined to think that an in-depth profile of the offender has
been given. In the present case, Britton explains that the offender is likely to be in his mid
teens to early twenties, has poor social skills, is sexually immature, is lonely and cannot
communicate easily with girls. The second point made is that he must surely be living with
24
‘Reality behind the myth: an examination of the different methods of Psychological
Profiling.’
his parents.
Yet, logically it could be assumed that someone who has problems to
communicate with others socially is more likely to be still living with his parents and to have
had few, if any, girlfriends and therefore he should undoubtedly be immature sexually. Thus,
Britton stretches one logical point into several sentences to make it seem more detailed.
Gudjonsson and Copson (1997) state that some advice given by profilers cannot be checked.
Therefore, such claims are not useful for the police as it does not help them in apprehending a
suspect. In the Bostock case, Britton claims that the offender has rehearsed the crimes in his
head previously and the crimes are a reflection of his fantasy. However, this claim is difficult
for the police to verify and does not help the police to solve the murder. The profile made of
Bostock in the two murders can be said to be accurate, however, its usefulness in other cases
is limited. It can only be applied in these specific cases and therefore not really useful for the
police when they have to deal with other murders. Therefore, this profiling method is limited
in terms of its usefulness to the police who need to seek the personal help of Britton every
time they have to deal with a difficult case. As a clinical profiler Britton has helped the
police in the Bostock crimes but if his method was more objective and supported by scientific
research then he could be in a better position to help the police in other cases too.
As a whole, clinical profilers such as Britton could be criticised for not using psychological
principles systematically in their work. Moreover, it is important for experts using clinical
profiling to collaborate and discuss their methods so that this approach as a whole could be
improved and thus be more helpful in a police inquiry.
25
‘Reality behind the myth: an examination of the different methods of Psychological
Profiling.’
Criminal Investigative Analysis (CIA)
According to Ressler, Burgess and Douglas (1995, p. 135) profilers at the FBI use
brainstorming, intuition, educated guesswork and field experience to profile. However, in the
Green River case, Douglas mentioned that he went to a secluded room to be able to make a
profile of the offender quietly. Using his experience in the field and it could be argued, some
intuition as well as guesswork, Douglas analysed all the details he had to conclude that one
person was responsible for the murders. However, later in the case Douglas changed his
opinion to say that he believed that at least three people were responsible for the killings, a
claim which was later found to be wrong when the police caught Ridgway. It can thus be
concluded that the claims made by Douglas are inconsistent and their validity could be
questioned.
Ainsworth (2001, p. 108) mentions that among the information included in the profile are the
personal, social and behavioural characteristics of the offender as well as the likely place of
residence. In this case, Douglas describes the offender as being a physically fit middle aged
white male who has a manual job and who is familiar with the region. The last statement was
concluded since the killer spent a lot of time at the dumping site after killing the victim.
However, upon analysis the profile given can fit a lot of people as it is very general.
Consequently, the extent to which it helps the police to focus their resources on the most
likely suspects is limited. Moreover, Douglas also declared that the offender would be a
heavy smoker yet, Ridgway did not smoke and had only put cigarettes at the dumping sites to
confuse the police. In this case it seems that Douglas was unable to read into this act of
staging. Douglas also told the police to focus on a suspect who would try to get involved in
the investigation. However, this led the police to consider a taxi driver as a suspect since he
also matched the characteristics in the profile. Therefore, it is important to realise that just
26
‘Reality behind the myth: an examination of the different methods of Psychological
Profiling.’
because an individual matches the criteria on the profile does not automatically mean that the
person is responsible for the crime. On the other hand, a person cannot be assumed to be
innocent based solely on the fact that the individual does not match the criteria in the profile.
The FBI classified the dichotomy of organised and disorganised offender after conducting
some research. However, this concept has been severely criticised by several scholars as
being limited in terms of usefulness and relevance (Kocsis, Cooksey & Irwin, 2002; Alison,
2005, p. 74). Others (Canter & Alison, 2000, p. 314; Ainsworth, 2001, p. 110) are critical of
the dichotomy in terms of its validity and reliability. The Green River Killer was profiled by
Douglas as being both organised and impulsive, therefore a mixed offender. Therefore, the
validity of the dichotomy can be questioned here since it is not relevant in this case. This
concept can be limited in terms of helping the police since it did not fall within the rigid
categorisation of the CIA and as a result, Douglas is just contradicting one of the main
principles used by FBI agents to profile. It could thus be assumed that this may be one of the
reasons why the profile devised by Douglas was not helpful to help the police catch the
offender here.
The Green River case confirms the claims of Turvey (2002, p. 226) and Wilson et al. (1997,
p. 4) who argue that most crime scenes will display signs of both organised and disorganised
behaviour so that the dichotomy is too rigid and simplistic.
Ridway indulged in both
organised and disorganised behaviour. Absences of any sign of panic at the dumping site and
using rocks to weigh down the bodies of the victims are signs of an organised offender.
Indeed, the attempt to conceal the bodies was nearly successful since the bodies found were
in an advanced stage of decomposition. Additional steps taken by the offender which could
be classified as organised include choosing victims who were alone, using gloves when in
27
‘Reality behind the myth: an examination of the different methods of Psychological
Profiling.’
contact with victims, getting rid of the clothes and jewellery to destroy evidence, clipping his
victims’ nails to eliminate clues and changing the tyres of his vehicle to avoid detection.
Furthermore, Ridgway did not keep any trophy in his house or vehicle, the two murder places
therefore the police could not find any evidence to link him to the crimes.
However, traces of semen found on some of his victims reflected that the offender had not
been meticulous enough about evidence which ultimately lead to his capture. Moreover,
choosing victims at random and using their own clothes as the murder weapon is a
characteristic of the disorganised offender. Yet, a deeper analysis of these actions could also
reveal that Douglas might have been wrong in classifying the manner the offender chose his
victims as disorganised. Indeed, Ridgway was targeting prostitutes and his choice of a
specific victim may have resulted from a conscious appraisal of the level of risk entailed in
the process. Besides, the use of the victims’ clothes to kill could also be deliberate since the
offender took away the clothes of the victims to destroy evidence. It can thus be concluded
that profilers only interpret data available however, their claims may not be accurate. Using
previous personal experience to understand the psyche of an offender is risky since no matter
how experienced, two people may not derive the same meaning from the same action.
Therefore, Douglas could only derive personal meaning from the actions committed by
Ridgway, yet it does not mean that the latter had the same intention as thought by Douglas.
Even Ted Bundy, a serial killer who helped in the case, could not think as Ridway so even his
contribution did not help to capture the killer.
Even if Ridgway matched some of the elements included in the profile when he was caught,
nevertheless the effectiveness of the FBI method of profiling was very limited. To counteract
these weaknesses, proponents of CIA should strive to support their claims such as the
28
‘Reality behind the myth: an examination of the different methods of Psychological
Profiling.’
dichotomy with research. As a result, more knowledge will be gained about criminals and
their psychology. Thus, profilers will be in a better position to help in police investigations.
Investigative Psychology
According to Canter, the base of the offender could be deduced by the place of the offence
(Ainsworth, 2001, p. 119).
In this case, when the map was made about the offence
committed on a yearly basis, Canter concluded that Duffy lived within three miles of West
Hampstead since the attacks had started there (Stevens, 1997, p. 86). When Duffy was
arrested, Canter’s claims were found to be accurate. Canter also applied his concept of mental
maps (Canter, 1994, p. 143) to predict that Duffy would be familiar with railway stations and
here too Canter was correct. Indeed, Duffy, a former carpenter for British Rail only changed
the place of attack after he realised the high risk of apprehension due to high police activity.
Canter applied concepts of behavioural consistency which is supported by several studies
(Canter, 1995, pg 347; Soothill, Francis, Ackerley & Fligelstone, 2002, p. ix; Salfati &
Bateman, 2005, p. 142; Woodhams, Hollin & Bull, 2007, p. 233). Analysing the behaviour
of the offender is useful to investigators since it allows for a better understanding of the
offender’s psyche and the manner in which the crimes are being committed over time.
Moreover, finding consistency between several offences allows law enforcement officials to
link cases with accuracy and thus profilers and the police have more data to work with. The
examination of the behaviours adopted during the rapes and the murders, revealed similarities
which outweighed the differences found in the actions of the offender. Indeed, Duffy’s
interaction with the victims, the type of binding used and method of raping and killing his
victims were similar. Moreover, burning the tissues used to wipe the victims he raped and the
29
‘Reality behind the myth: an examination of the different methods of Psychological
Profiling.’
attempt to burn the bodies of the women he had killed showed the similar way in which he
attempted to get rid of evidence.
Canter mentions that the dynamics of a crime is indicative of the offending history of an
offender and is important to understand the offender characteristics (Ainsworth, 2001, p.
119). In this case, the police was told that the offender would have previously been arrested
for reason other than sexual crimes. The most likely reason for arrest would be violence or
aggression under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Duffy had previous police record but
unlike Canter’s claims, he had been arrested for having raped his ex- wife under the threat of
a knife (Stevens, 1997, p.86). Therefore, it could be said that in spite of the support from
psychological principles and research, even IP is not spared of weaknesses.
Moreover, this method could be criticised for merely converting human action into statistical
data (Hamerton, 2001, p. 77). This oversimplification of human interaction is detrimental as
it means a loss in important information. Indeed, though many offenders could indulge in the
same behaviour while committing a crime, their motivation behind their actions could be
different. This method, in an attempt to refer all criminal actions into statistical analyses,
loses the human uniqueness involved. As such proponents of this approach may not identify
important aspects of a crime and this could thus be said to be a major weakness of IP
approach.
Canter can also be criticised for publishing two versions of the Railway Killer profile in two
of his books. In one book Canter only refers to the points in which he is accurate (Canter &
Alison, 1999, p. 211). Moreover, the points he mentions to justify how accurate he has been
do not match the characteristics of the offender given in a previous book (Canter, 1994, pp.
30
‘Reality behind the myth: an examination of the different methods of Psychological
Profiling.’
50-52). This is a major weakness on Canter’s part and his motivation to do so can be
questioned. This type of misleading information does not allow the reader to make an
objective assessment of Canter’s claims and therefore his credibility can be questioned. Such
attempts are also detrimental to the field of profiling since they do not contribute to help
profiling gain a more scientific status.
This profiling method is also criticised for its statistical complexity as it is not easy for law
enforcement officials to understand and use the method (Ainsworth, 2001, p. 133; Palermo &
Kocsis, 2005, p. 176). In this case, Canter supervised the work of the police however, it
might be better if academics such as Canter train the police and teach them how to apply the
results found from research to their practical investigations. Then, these principles could be
used in more investigations, even if the profiler is unable to help in the investigation
personally. Besides, although this method is supported by empirical studies (Egger, 1999;
Canter & Alison 1999, p 25; Muller, 2000) it is nevertheless important to bear in mind that it
is not prefect and the predictions are still probabilistic (Ainsworth, 2001, p. 127). As such,
even if Canter’s contribution to this investigation is considerable, four of the points included
in the profile are not accurate. Yet, the effort of profilers using this method to make profiling
more scientific by publishing their studies should be commended since it can only lead to the
progress of the field (Palermo & Kocsis, 2005, p. 177).
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The clinical approach and Investigative Psychology approach were successfully used in the
cases studied in this paper. However CIA was not successful in this particular case. It can be
concluded that clinical profiling can help in a police investigation by assisting the police in
31
‘Reality behind the myth: an examination of the different methods of Psychological
Profiling.’
focussing their resources to those persons most likely to be guilty. However, there needs to
be a consensus between the proponents of this method and more research should support
claims made by clinical profilers. As a result, clinical method of profiling would be more
credible and useful in a police investigation. However, the efficiency of the CIA cannot be
undermined since it is used in the USA to solve difficult cases and it has inspired the creation
of similar units in several other countries. Investigative Psychology is helpful to criminal
investigations, it applies psychological theories to criminal investigation and uses statistical
methods to conduct studies. As such, this method is more credible since it is supported by
research. Yet, this method is only probabilistic in nature and ignores human uniqueness.
Moreover, it depends on police data to conduct studies and the degree of accuracy of such
data can be questioned since not all crimes are detected or recorded.
Overall, this paper also reviewed the weaknesses of the three methods of psychological
profiling. Profilers using any of the three methods should be careful and ethical in their work
since a wrong advice could lead an investigation in a wrong direction. Another danger of
profiling is that it could lead the police to lose resources in terms of time and money if the
profile given is incorrect. Finally this paper also attempted to give a realistic perspective of
psychological profiling which, unlike portrayed by the myth, cannot be used to solve all
criminal cases.
It should be noted that this study has a few limitations too. Firstly, this study only considers
one case for each method of profiling and as such, the assessment could be said to be limited.
It was also difficult to verify the accuracy of all the details of the cases since the accounts
from different sources in some cases were inconsistent.
32
‘Reality behind the myth: an examination of the different methods of Psychological
Profiling.’
Profilers have shown their superiority in profiling a rape case but not a murder case
(Pinizzotto & Finkel, 1990). This study could be replicated to understand the reasons behind
this result and how profilers could improve on their methods. Moreover, other studies could
be used to look at the performance of profilers on murders which are more suitable for
profiling such as serial murders and cases where the offender shows signs of
psychopathology (Holmes, 2002, p 10; Palermo & Kocsis, 2005, p 128; Bartol & Bartol,
2008, p 360).
Profiling is slowly showing its usefulness in assisting the police to solve crimes such as serial
crimes and stranger crimes (Davis, 1999, p. 297). It could be argued that the best strategy for
profilers is to be more scientific in the approach they use and support their techniques using
psychological principles. More studies should be conducted to confirm results of previous
studies and to refine the different methods of profiling. As such, this method which is still in
its infancy, will be more credible in the eyes of its critics and the police could be more
inclined to use the help of a profiler. At present, the contribution of the three methods of
profiling in criminal cases cannot be denied however, it can be hoped that with more research
findings, the contribution of profiling to criminal investigations could increase.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank all those who have contributed directly or indirectly to make this paper
a reality. My deepest gratitude goes to those who read this paper and provided me with
valuable advice and suggestions. Finally, this part would be incomplete if I failed to thank
God for constantly showing me the right path in life and for being there always for me.
33
‘Reality behind the myth: an examination of the different methods of Psychological
Profiling.’
REFERENCES
AINSWORTH, P. B. (2001). Offender profiling and Crime Analysis. Cullompton: Willan.
ALISON, L. (2005). The Forensic Psychologist’s Casebook: Psychological Profiling and
Criminal Investigation, Cullompton: Willan.
ALISON, L., BENNELL, C., OMEROD, D., & MOKROS, A. (2002). The Personality
Paradox in Offender Profiling. [Electronic Version]. Psychology, Public Policy and Law,
8(1), 115-135.
APPOINTMENT WITH MURDER. (2003, March 20). Leicester Mercury, p. 10. Retrieved
on April 11, 2008 from Nexis UK database.
BARTOL, C.R., & BARTOL, A. M. (2008). Criminal Behaviour: A Psychological Approach
(8th ed.). London: Pearson.
BOGGAN, S. (2006, January 10). The real cracker: we’ll catch burglars too. The Times, p.
16. Retrieved on April 11, 2008 from Nexis UK database.
BOOTH, W. (2001, December, 2). A long-sought break in Green River killings; DNA
said to link longtime suspect to serial murders. The Washington Post, p. A03. Retrieved
May 20, 2008 from the Nexis UK Database.
BRITTON, P. (1997). The Jigsaw Man, London: Corgi.
34
‘Reality behind the myth: an examination of the different methods of Psychological
Profiling.’
BRITTON, P. (2000). Picking up the pieces. London: Corgi
CANTER, D. V. (1994). Criminal Shadows: Inside the Mind of the Serial Killer, London:
HarperCollins.
CANTER, D. V. (1995). Psychology of offender profiling. In R. Bull and D. Carson (Eds)
The Handbook of Psychology in Legal Contexts (pp. 343- 356). Chichester: Wiley.
CANTER, D.V. (2000). Offender profiling and criminal differentiation. Legal and
Criminological Psychology, 5, 23-46.
CANTER, D. V., & Alison, L. J. (1999). Profiling in Policy and Practice, Aldershot:
Ashgate.
CANTER, D. V. & ALISON, L. J. (2000) Profiling rape and murder,. Aldershot: Ashgate.
CANTER, D.V., ALISON, L.J., ALISON, E., & WENTINK, N. (2004) The organised/
disorganised typology of serial murder: Myth or model?, Psychology, Public Policy and Law,
10 (3), 293-320.
CRESWELL, J. W. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods
approaches (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
DAVID, M. & SUTTON, C. D. (2004). Social research: the basics. London: Sage.
35
‘Reality behind the myth: an examination of the different methods of Psychological
Profiling.’
DAVIS, J. A. (1999). Criminal Personality Profiling and Crime Scene Assessment: A
Contemporary Investigative Tool to Assist Law Enforcement Public Safety. [Electronic
version]. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 15, 291-301.
DENSCOMBE, M. (2002). Ground rules for good research. Buckingham: Open University.
DENZIN N. K. & LINCOLN, Y. S. (2000). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.).
London: Sage.
DOUGLAS, J. E., BURGESS, A. W., BURGESS, A. G., & RESSLER, R. K. (1992). Crime
Classification Manual. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.
DOUGLAS, J. E. & OLSHAKER, M. (1997). Mindhunter: Inside the FBI Elite Serial Crime
Unit. London: Arrow.
EDWARDS, K. (2005, September 16). Caroline tribute welcomed. Leicester Mercury, p.8.
Retrieved on April 11, 2008 from Nexis UK database.
EGGER, S. A. (1999). Psychological Profiling: Past, Present and Future. [Electronic version].
Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 15, 230-242-261.
GODWIN, G. M. (2001). Criminal Psychology and Forensic Technology, Boca Raton: CRC
Press.
36
‘Reality behind the myth: an examination of the different methods of Psychological
Profiling.’
GRUBIN, D., KELLY, P., & BRUNSDON, C. (2001). Linking Serious Sexual Assaults
Through Behavior. Home Office research, development and Statistics Directorate. London:
Home office.
GUDJONSSON, G.H., & COPSON, G. (1997). The Role of the Expert in the Criminal
Investigation. In J.L. Jackson & D. A. Bekerian (Eds). Offender Profiling: Theory, Research
and Practice (pp. 61-76). Chichester: Wiley.
HAMERTON, P. (2001). Two offender profiling techniques used in British police
investigations: a critical analysis and integrative suggestions. Police research and
Management, 5(4), 71-84.
HARDEN, B. (2003, November, 6). Green River suspect admits to 48 murders. The
Washington Post, p. A01. Retrieved May 20, 2008 from the Nexis UK Database.
HESSE-BIBER, S. N. & LEAVY, P. (2004). Approaches to qualitative research. New York:
Oxford University Press.
HOFFMANN, B. (2003, November 6). Fiend says: I murdered 48 women. The New York
Post, p. 026. Retrieved May 20, 2008 from the Nexis UK Database.
HOLMES, R. M., & HOLMES, S. T. (2002). Profiling Violent Crimes: An Investigative Tool
(3rd ed.). London: Sage.
37
‘Reality behind the myth: an examination of the different methods of Psychological
Profiling.’
JACKSON, J. L., & BEKERIAN, D. A. (1997). Does Offender Profiling Have a Role to
Play? In J. L. Jackson & D. A. Bekerian (Eds.) Offender Profiling: Theory, Research and
Practice (pp. 1-8). Chichester: Wiley.
KEPPEL, R. D. (2006). Offender Profiling (2nd ed.). Mason: Thomson.
KERSHAW, S. (2003, November, 7). 21-Year hunt for killer shapes man and family. The
New York Times, p. 1. Retrieved May 20, 2008 from the Nexis UK Database.
KING, R. D. & WINCUP, E. (2008). Doing research on crime and justice (2nd ed.). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
KOCSIS, R. N. (2006). Criminal Profiling: Principles and Practice, Totowa: Humana Press.
KOCSIS, R. N., COOKSEY, R. W., & IRWIN, H. J. (2002). Psychological Profiling of
Sexual Murders: An Empirical Study. [Electronic version]. International Journal of Offender
Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 46, 532-554.
KOCSIS, R. N., HAYES, A. F., & IRWIN, H. J. (2002). Investigative Experience and
Accuracy in Psychological Profiling of a Violent Crime. [Electronic version]. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 17, 811-823.
LIPTAK, A. (2005, October 2). To more inmates, life term means dying behind bars. The
New York Times, p. 1. Retrieved May 20, 2008 from the Nexis UK Database.
38
‘Reality behind the myth: an examination of the different methods of Psychological
Profiling.’
MARSHALL, C. & ROSSMAN, G. B. (1999). Designing qualitative research. CA: Sage.
MOKROS, A., & ALISON, L. (2002). Is offender profiling possible? Legal and
Criminological Psychology, 7(1), 25-43.
MULLER, D. A. (2000). Criminal Profiling: Real Science or Just Wishful Thinking?
[Electronic version]. Homicide Studies, 4, 234-264.
MURDER TRIAL OF PAUL BOSTOCK AT LEICESTER CROWN COURT. (1986, June
5). The Guardian. Retrieved on April 11, 2008 from Nexis UK database.
PALERMO, G. B., & KOCSIS, R. N. (2005). Offender Profiling: An Introduction to the
Sociopsychological Analysis of Violent Crime, Springfield: Thomas.
PINIZZOTTO, A. J. (1984). Forensic psychology: criminal personality profiling. Journal of
Police Science and Police Administration, 12, 32-40.
PINIZZOTTO, A. J., & FINKEL, N. J. (1990). Criminal personality profiling: an outcome
and process study. Law and Human Behaviour, 14, 215-233.
PREUTSCH, M. (2003, December, 19). Families speak as Gren River Killer gets 48 life
terms. The New York Times, p. 24. Retrieved May 20, 2008 from the Nexis UK Database.
‘RAILWAY RAPIST’ JAILED FOR MORE CRIMES’. (2001, March 9). Retrieved May 17,
2008, from BBC website: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1211771.stm
39
‘Reality behind the myth: an examination of the different methods of Psychological
Profiling.’
RESSLER, R. K., BURGESS, A., & DOUGLAS, J. E. (1995). Sexual Homicide: Patterns
and Motives. Toronto: Lexington.
RIEDEL, M. (2000). Research strategies for secondary data: a perspective for criminology
and criminal justice. London: Sage.
ROBSON, C. (2002). Real world research (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
ROSSMO, D. K. (2000). Geographic Profiling, Boca Raton, CRC Press.
RULE, A. (2004). Green River, Running Red. New York: Free Press
SALFATI, C. G., & BATEMAN, A. L. (2005). Serial Homicide: An investigation of
behavioural consistency. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 2 (2),
121-144.
SALFATI, C. G., & CANTER, D. V. (1999). Differentiating stranger murders: profiling
offender characteristics from behavioural styles. Behavioural Sciences and the Law, 17, 391406.
SANTTILA, P. HAKKANEN, H., CANTER, D. V., & ELFGREN, T. (2003). Classifying
homicide offenders and predicting their characteristics from crime scene behaviour.
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 44, 107-118.
40
‘Reality behind the myth: an examination of the different methods of Psychological
Profiling.’
SMITH, C. & GUILLEN, T. (2004). The search for the Green River Killer. New york:
Penguin Books.
SOMEKH, B. & LEWIN, C. (2005). Research methods in the social sciences. London: Sage.
SOOTHILL, K., FRANCIS, B., ACKERLEY, E., & FLIGELSTONE, R. (2002). Murder and
serious sexual assault: What criminal histories can reveal about the future serious offending.
Police Research Series, Paper 144. London: Home Office, Police Department.
STAKE, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. London: Sage.
STEVENS, J. A. (1997). Standard investigatory tools and offender profiling. In J. L. Jackson
& D. A. Bekerian (Eds.) Offender Profiling: Theory, Research and Practice (pp. 77-92).
Chichester: Wiley.
STRAUSS, A. & CORBIN, J. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory. London: Sage.
TENDLER, S. (1988, February 27). Killer captured by intuition, science and sheer hard
work. The Times. Retrieved on April 11, 2008 from Nexis UK database.
TURVEY, B. E. (2002). Criminal Profiling: An Introduction to Behavioural Evidence
Analysis (2nd ed.). London: academic Press.
41
‘Reality behind the myth: an examination of the different methods of Psychological
Profiling.’
WEALE, S. (1994, July 18). Psychologist played key role in devising strategy. The
Guardian, p. 3. Retrieved on April 11, 2008 from Nexis UK database.
WILSON, P. R., LINCLN, R., & KOCSIS, R. N. (1997). Validity, utility and ethics of
profiling for serial violent and sexual offender. Psychiatry, psychology and Law, 4, 1-12.
WOODHAMS, J., HOLLIN, C. R., & BULL, R. (2007). The psychology of linking crimes:
A review of the evidence. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 12, 233-349.
YATES, S. J. (2004). Doing social science research. London: Sage.
YIN, R. K. (2003). Case study research: design and methods. London: Sage.
YIN, R. K. (2004). The case study anthology. London: Sage.
42