OFFENDER PROFILING
AND THE EVOLUTION OF
INVESTIGATION
David Canter, Centre for Investigative
Psychology, The University of Liverpool, UK
Kristen Welch, Sam Houston State
University, USA
Robert Keppel, Criminal Justice Program,
Seattle University, USA
Phases in the Developmental
History of Investigations

Phase 1 – Observation

Phase 2 – Classification

Phase 3 – Knowledge about Criminals and their
Actions

Phase 4 – Inductive Inference

Phase 5 – Decision Support
Phases in the Developmental
History of Investigations

Phase 1 – Observation

Phase 2 – Classification

Phase 3 – Knowledge about Criminals and their
Actions

Phase 4 – Inductive Inference

Phase 5 – Decision Support
Profile of a Witch
Used to identify witches in Europe from 1400’s to 1700’s:
Elderly female beyond child bearing range
Poor
Lives on edge of town
Displays knowledge of herbal medicines
Mark of the Devil (insensitive spot)
Steals men’s potency, causing impotence in the surrounding areas
Collects a great number of male members
and keeps them in a birds nest or box
(Cyriax, 1993; Kramer & Sprenger, 1971; Ruiz, 2004).
The Munsell Colour Circle
An analogy that shows how ‘themes’ (hues) can be
distinguished without the need for pure types.
Base rates:
i.e. what is
typical of the
entities being
studied.
Distinct
‘themes’
Phases in the Developmental
History of Investigations

Phase 1 – Observation

Phase 2 – Classification

Phase 3 – Knowledge about Criminals and their
Actions

Phase 4 – Inductive Inference

Phase 5 – Decision Support
Lombroso’s (1876) Profile of Murderers
An aquiline beak of a nose
Fleshy swollen, and protruding lips
Small receding chin
Dark hair and bushy eyebrows that meet across the nose
Little or no beard
Displays an abundance of wrinkles, even in those younger than thirty
4 to 5 times greater taste sensibility than the average person
A cynical attitude, completely lacking remorse
More likely to bear a tattoo
Attaches no importance to dress and are frequently dirty and shabby
1888 - 1964
Kretschmer’s Somatotypology (1925)
Cycloid Personality
heavyset, soft body type
vacillate between normality and abnormality
lack spontaneity & sophistication
most likely to commit nonviolent property crimes
Schizoid Personality
most likely have athletic, muscular bodies
some can be thin and lean
schizophrenic
commit violent type of offenses
Displastic Personality
mixed group
highly emotional
often unable to control themselves
mostly commit sexual offenses or crimes of passion
Phases in the Developmental
History of Investigations

Phase 1 – Observation

Phase 2 – Classification

Phase 3 – Knowledge about Criminals and their
Actions

Phase 4 – Inductive Inference

Phase 5 – Decision Support
Hans Gross 1847 -1915
In Criminal Psychology (1934), Gross illustrated the importance of
determining the offender’s character, his wishes and beliefs. He
contended:
Is it not known that every deed is an outcome of the total character
of the doer? Is it not considered that the deed and the character are
correlative concepts, and that the character by means of which the
deed is to be established cannot be inferred from the deed alone?...
Each particular deed is thinkable only when a determinate character
of the doer is brought in relation with it – a certain character
predisposes to determinate deeds, another character makes them
unthinkable and unrelatable with this or that person (1934: 55-56)
In the case of a pickpocket or theft at a ball, rout, or gathering in a
home, Gross advised detectives to search for an innocent looking
woman because females were often used as an accomplice to hide
stolen items (Adam, 1934). Or if a burglary took place and the
watchdog was unaccounted for, Gross advised investigators “to take
stock of wandering people who are in the possession of a bitch and
have been seen in the vicinity of the place of the crime” (1934: 455),
arguing that vagabonds and wandering tribes kept female dogs to
lure away watchdogs.
Phases in the Developmental
History of Investigations

Phase 1 – Observation

Phase 2 – Classification

Phase 3 – Knowledge about Criminals and their
Actions

Phase 4 – Inductive Inference

Phase 5 – Decision Support
APPROACHES TO INFERENCE
?
?
Reveal the
complexity of the
concept of ‘motive’
APPROACHES TO INFERENCE
Actions are the Characteristics
Actions are the Characteristics
e.g. controls
Essentially Instrumental
victim without force
Approaches to Inference 2:
Characteristics Cause the Actions
Approaches to Inference 2:
Characteristics Cause the Actions
e.g. nasty people commit nasty crimes
Essentially emotional
Approaches to Inference 3:
Actions and Characteristics share a process
Often Intellectual
Approaches to Inference 4:
Actions lead indirectly to Characteristics
Often Experiential
Approaches to Inference 5:
?
?
Actions and Characteristics part of
same unfolding process
The development of interpersonal transactions
Phases in the Developmental
History of Investigations

Phase 1 – Observation

Phase 2 – Classification

Phase 3 – Knowledge about Criminals and their
Actions

Phase 4 – Inductive Inference

Phase 5 – Decision Support
MODUS OPERANDI – PRO FORMA
Please tick all boxes that apply and add comments where applicable.
How did the offender gain access to the property?
Forced entry
Entry via front of house
Entry via rear of house
Which room in house did offender gain entry via? ______________________________
Insecure premises. Details: ____________________________________________
(via open window/door)
Secondary insecurity. Details: ___________________________________________
(Doors closed but not locked, concealing key in garden)
Window. Details: ______________________________________________________
(force or insecurity)
Climbed to entry point. Details: ___________________________________________
Conned access. Details: _________________________________________________
Were any implements used to facilitate access?
Tool carried. Details: ___________________________________________________
(Brought to scene by offender)
Tool scene. Details: ____________________________________________________
(Tool improvised at scene)
Was the house occupied at time of burglary? _________________________________
If not, how long was the property vacant for? ________________________________
When did offence take place, (approx)? _____________________________________
If house was occupied at time of burglary, did tenants see/hear anything? _________
If so, what and state any outcomes.
________________________________________________________________________
Who are the tenants?
Male (lone)
Female (lone)
Couple
Family
Elderly person(s)
The Traditionial ‘detective fiction’ idea
of Psychological contributions to
Investigations
Expert

Investigation
A more appropriate model for
Investigative Psychology
Investigative Process
Scientific Knowledge


Scientist
Identification
of
Problem
Elicitation
of
Formulation
Information Options

Investigation
Offender ID
Address
Probability
MO
Match
124
Location A
0.28574311864
0
427
Location B
0.27038233898
0
427
Location C
0.26035169492
0
226
Location D
0.25577861017
0
48
Location E
0.23282991525
0
124
Location F
0.22445984746
0.3
124
Location G
0.21932662712
0