WK1 Assignment: Criminal Profiling Practices and Criminal Profilers

Criminal Profiling

Within the last three decade, criminal profiling has been a very popular topic in

books, movies, and television shows. The 1991 move Silence of the Lambs, adopted

from Thomas Harris’s (1988) book of the same name, was one of the first works to

spawn an interest in criminal profiling among the general public. Two the pioneers of

criminal profiling, John Douglas and Robert Ressler, were actually hired as consultants

for the film and much of Harris’s portrayal of serial murderers were based on lives of real

life serial killers. In the book and movie, young FBI cadet Clarice Starling is the protégé

of Jack Crawford, the head of the FBI’s behavioral science unit. Crawford uses Starling

to aid in the capture of a serial killer known as “Buffalo Bill,” who is so desperate to

become female that he is sowing a woman’s “body suit” for himself out of real human

skin.

In the movie, as the two agents travel to the most recent crime scene in West

Virginia, Crawford reviews the case with Starling and asks her opinion:

Crawford: He keeps them alive for three days. We don’t know why. There is no

evidence of rape or physical abuse prior to death. All of the mutilation

you see there (in the photos) is post-mortem. Ok, three days; then he

shoots them, skins them, and dumps them. Each body in a different river.

The water leaves us no trace evidence of any kind. This is the first victim

These circles (on the map) are where the girls were abducted and the

arrows are where the bodies were found. This new one today washed up

here at Up River, West Virginia. Look at them (the victims) Starling,

what do you see?

Starling: Well, he is a white male. Serial killers tend to hunt within their own

ethnic group. He is not a drifter. He’s got his own house somewhere, not

an apartment.

Crawford: Why?

Starling: What he does takes privacy. He is in his 30s or 40s. He’s got real

physical strength combined with an older man’s self control. He is

cautious, precise, and he is never impulsive. He’ll never stop.

Crawford: Why not?

Starling: He’s got a real taste for it now and he is getting better at his work.

Crawford: Not bad Starling.

In an attempt to gain a better insight of the mind of a serial killer Crawford

instructs Clarice Starling to interview another serial killer, prisoner and psychiatrist Dr.

Hannibal Lecter, who is a brilliant, but murderous cannibal. Crawford believes that Dr.

Lecter may hold the answers to their questions to help locate serial killer Buffalo Bill.

While interviewing Dr. Hannibal, Starling develops a morbid relationship with the serial

killer. In order to obtain answers to her questions, Starling must answer Dr. Lecter’s

questions about her own personal life. This twisted relationship forces Starling to face

her own demons from the past, but also leads her face to face with Buffalo Bill.

Many fictional stories about profiling portray criminal profilers as eccentric loners

who have developed psychic and/or extraordinary investigative skills. In reality, criminal

profiling is a relatively new filed as a science and presently, its practitioners do not

always agree on methodology or even terminology. The FBI, for example, once called

criminal profiling “psychological profiling,” now calls its form of profiling “criminal

investigative analysis.” Forensic psychologists sometimes refer to their profiling work as

“investigative psychology”; and criminologists often refer to the process as simply

“offender profiling.”

The major problem with developing a working definition of criminal profiling is

that profiling means different things to different people. For a homicide detective

profiling may involve examining and using clues at a crime scene to make predictions

about an offender’s personality and demographic characteristics. Profiling for a

psychiatrist’s may mean making a prediction of whether or not a child molester will re-

offend. For a narcotics agent profiling may involve observing airline passengers to

determine if any fit the characteristics commonly found among drug smugglers. Profiling

for a highway patrol officer could be the practice of making traffic stops based on

whether or not a driver is a minority because the patrol officer believes that minorities are

more likely to have illicit drugs in their vehicle. This last example is also known as racial

profiling. Racial profiling and/or profiling used in drug-law enforcement will not be

discussed in this text.

The focus of this book is to examine the common behaviors and characteristics of

such dangers criminals as serial murderers, rapists, and child molesters. For this purpose,

criminal profiling can be defined as “a method of identifying the perpetrator of a crime

based on an analysis of the nature of the offense and the manner in which it was

committed” (Teten, 1995). The goal of criminal profiling is not to be able to tell police

who committed a certain crime; rather, profiling is about making predictions as to the

most probable characteristics that an offender is likely to possess. Profiling is just one

investigative technique that may help solve a case (Ainsworth, 2001).

Profiling is then an educated attempt to generate information about an individual

who committed a crime or series of crimes based upon: (1) the characteristics of the

crime scene(s) and, (2) data from previous crimes that have been committed in a similar

manner. Therefore, modern criminal profiling involves two methods of profiling: (1)

deductive profiling and (2) inductive profiling.

Deductive profiles are drawn from evidence at the crime scene. The basic

premise of deductive profiling is that an offender’s behavior reflects his or her

personality. Everything that is observed at a crime scene tells us something about the

offender who committed the crime. In other words, how a person acts during and after

the commission of a crime reveals something about who he or she is. Deductive profiling

relies on logic and commons sense. From the evidence at the crime scene profiling use

logic and reasoning to attempt to deduce or infer the characteristics of the offender.

Imagine, for example, that five single white women had been raped and killed in

their homes over a three month period. All of the women had been strangled with rope

that the killer had brought with him. At each of their homes, the offender stole at large

flat screen television (three of which were over 50 inches). The offender also left a

massage on the wall of each of the victim’s residence in the living room. The message

read, “I will kill again.” All of the massages were written red paint that the offender had

brought with him. The messages were written on a bedroom wall approximately sex feet,

four inches from the ground. From this information, investigators and deduce that the

offender had above average strength – he was able to carry the television sets out of the

victims’ residences, and he was tall – all of the messages were written at least six feet

from the ground. Since the offender brought his own restraints and red paint, we may

also deduce that the crimes were planned out and that the offender may have even stalked

the victims before raping and killing them.

Inductive profiling uses information from past offenders who have committed a

crime in a similar fashion to predict the characteristics of an unidentified offender.

Inductive profiles are based upon criminological research and statistical data on criminal

offenders and attempt to provide more scientifically valid and reliable profiles for law

enforcement agencies (Ainsworth, 2001; Canter, 2000, Muller 2000). In the 1970s, for

example, members of the FBI’s Behavioral Science Unit began conducting lengthy

interviews with convicted serial rapist and murderers in U.S. prisons to produce

information that could help in the solving of future crime. As John Douglas (1995:26)

states:

“By studying as many crimes as we could, and through talking to experts—the

perpetrators themselves—we have learned to interpret those clues in much the

same way a doctor evaluates various symptoms to diagnose a particular disease or

condition. And just as a doctor can begin forming a diagnosis after recognizing

several aspects of a disease presentation he or she has seen before, we can make

various conclusions when we see patterns start to emerge.

In regard to the previous discussed sexual homicide case; criminological research

has shown that most homicides are intra-racial, in that the offender and the victims are

usually the same race (UCR, 2010; Wilbanks, 1985). Therefore, because the victim is

white we may also infer that the offender is white. There may always be exceptions. The

victims of the Baton Rouge serial killer Derrick Lee were mostly white and famous serial

killer Jeffrey Dahmer killed mostly minority men. In most cases, however, studies have

found that people kill within their own race and/or ethnicity.

Modus Operandi and Signature

MO

Most crimes occur between people who know each other, such as a husband who

physically abuses his wife, a fight between friends at a bar that escalates into a stabbing, a

family member who sexual molests a child, or neighbor who kills a neighbor because of a

long lasting feud. The perpetrator in these types of cases can be easily identified. There

are other crimes, however, where there may be a very limited connection between the

victim and the offender before the crime occurred. Victims of serial murder and serial

rape, for example, often seem to be selected in a much more arbitrary fashion. Offenders

in these types of crime are often seen a monster who preys and innocent victims; and

although these types of incidents occur much less frequently than the former, they often

cause a great deal of fear and attract much more attention from the local and national

media. These types of crimes also require a costly large-scale, intensive police

investigation with few leads. In such predatory crimes traditional police may not be

sufficient and investigators sometimes need alternative investigative strategies to assist

them in these types of cases. As an investigative strategy, criminal profiling can help

investigators narrow the focus of an investigation by developing an overall description

and assessment of the offender.

The basic assumption of criminal profiling is that the behavior and characteristics

of an offender is exhibited at a crime scene or series of crime scenes. By studying the

crime scene(s) profiles may be able to make inferences about the offender. Two of the

most important factors that are examined by criminal profilers when assessing a crime

scene are an offender’s Modus Operandi (MO) and signature.

An offender’s M.O. represents the way in which an offender commits a crime.

M.O. is often used to link cases because offender generally used similar methods during

the commission of their crimes. An offender’s M.O. may include factors such as: the

time of day an offender usually commits his crime, the type of victim, type of approach

(e.g. uses a con approach or blitz approach), whether or not the offender brings weapons

or tools with him, as well as whether or not the offender uses restraints. An offender’s

M.O. can change over time, especially if the offender becomes more experience or learns

new techniques that make them more successful.

MO and Signature

Modus operandi (MO) is a Latin term that means method of operating. It refers to

the manner in which a crime has been committed (Gross, 1924, p. 478). Law enforcement

has long held to the belief that understanding the methods and techniques criminals use to

commit crime is the best way to investigate, identify, and ultimately apprehend them.

This has traditionally required that the best detectives become living encyclopedias of

criminal cases and behaviors. It has also demanded that they learn to utilize the

knowledge and experience of known criminals to inform their investigative strategy.

A criminal’s modus operandi is made up of choices and behaviors that are

intended to assist the criminal in the completion of the crime. An offender’s modus

operandi reflects how the offender commits the crime. It is separate from the offender’s

motives or signature aspects, as these have to do with why an offender commits the

crime.

An offender’s MO behavior is functional in nature. It is comprised of learned

behaviors that can evolve and develop over time. It can be refined as an offender

becomes more experienced, sophisticated, and confident. It can also become less

competent and skilled over time, decompensating by virtue of a deteriorating mental state

or increased used of controlled substances (Turvey, 2000).

MO behaviors most often serve (or fail to serve) one or more of three general purposes:

1. Protection of offender identity: e.g., wearing a mask during a daytime bank

robbery, covering a victim’s eyes during a rape, wearing gloves during a burglary,

killing a witness to any of the above, and staging the crime scene.

2. Successful completion of the crime: e.g., targeting and acquiring the victim, using

a gag to silence a victim, using a weapon to control a victim, making a list of

potential victims with pertinent information, and using a gun to kill the victim.

3. Facilitation of offender escape: e.g., use of a stolen vehicle during the commission

of a crime, disposal of a vehicle after the commission of a crime, and tying

up/knocking out victims to prevent their escape and hamper their attempts to get

help.

General types of MO can include crime scene characteristics such as, but not limited to,

the following.

Number of offenders

Amount of planning before a crime

Offense location selected

Route taken to offense location

Pre-offense surveillance of a crime scene(s) or victim

Use of restraints to control the victim during a crime

Nature and extent of injuries to the victim

Method of killing the victim

Nature and extent of precautionary acts

Method of transportation to and from the crime scene(s)

Direction of escape/route taken from offense location

It is important to note that an offender’s modus operandi can be an act or a failure to act.

Common examples include not using a condom during a sexual assault, not using a

firearm during the commission of a robbery, and not killing witnesses during the

commission of a home invasion burglary. These are all choices that an offender makes.

An offender’s MO behaviors are learned, and by extension they are dynamic and

malleable. This is because MO is affected by time and can change as the offender learns

or deteriorates. An offender’s MO is therefore a function of both fortifying and

destabilizing factors.

Fortifying Factors - Offenders may realize that some of the choices they make

during a crime are more proficient and effective than others. They may subsequently

repeat them in future offenses, becoming more skillful as well as strengthening or

fortifying their MO. Over the course of a criminal career, offenders may also incorporate

criminal experience and confidence. As offenders commit more of the same type of

crime, they become more proficient at it. They may act more confidently, be able to

handle the unexpected more smoothly (or even be prepared for it), or they may have

tailored their precautionary acts to the type of criminal activity they expect to engage in.

It is important to establish, in any crime, what the offender had planned for, as

evidenced by what the offender brought to the crime scene and the behaviors the offender

engaged in. The question that criminal profilers need to ask is whether the materials

brought and the behaviors committed were appropriate to the crime. The next question is

whether the materials brought and the behaviors committed suggest proficiency with

another type of crime (suggesting a criminal history apart from the crime at hand).

Contact with the criminal justice system - Being arrested just once may teach an offender

an invaluable lesson about how to avoid detection by law enforcement in the future.

Furthermore, and ironically, a prison term in the United States is referred to by some in

both law enforcement and the criminal population as “going to college.” This is because

in prison, younger and less experienced offenders have the opportunity to network with

older and more experienced offenders who have already accumulated a great deal of

criminal knowledge. Consequently, a prison term of only a few years has the potential to

advance an offender’s skill level far beyond that person’s original MO. Once released,

that offender may take this “education” and embark on criminal enterprises that

previously would have been beyond his or her ability.

The media - Some offenders monitor investigations into crimes by paying close

attention to media accounts in the newspapers and on television. It is important that

investigators and profilers alike pay attention to the release of any such information to the

media, when it was released, and how that may affect the future crimes of a given

offender in a serial case. Not only may information relating to a case provide an offender

with insight into future precautionary acts, but also it may provide other offenders with

adequate information to “copycat” a particular series and deflect investigative suspicion

from them-selves. For example, a rapist may commit five different attacks in a single

region. The serial nature of his crimes may have been undetected until DNA results

demonstrated that the rapes were more than likely committed by the same offender. If the

media publishes a headline that reads “Serial Rapist Linked to Five Attacks by

DNA!” the rapist may alter his MO to prevent law enforcement from linking future cases.

For example, he may use a condom during any future rapes. Or he may decide to make a

more permanent change and get a vasectomy. In summary, the rapist may make a

conscious attempt to prevent detection based on what he has learned from the media

coverage of his crimes or similar cases.

Destabilizing Factors - MO may also deteriorate over time and become less

skillful, less competent, more careless, and even more irrational than when the criminal

behavior began. Common ways that an offender’s MO can de-evolve or destabilize over

time include, but are certainly not limited to:

Deteriorating mental state

Use of controlled substances

Overconfidence, which can lead to carelessness

Offender mood (e.g., agitated, excited, or otherwise distracted)

Untested or unreliable tools or vehicles (e.g., weapons prone to jamming or misfire, and

old and malfunctioning vehicles)

The American serial murderer Ted Bundy (Figure 14.2), who killed at least 30

victims across five states between 1973 and 1978, began his criminal career with a

competent, well-thought-out MO. He was polite and friendly, was extremely mobile, and

often approached his victims in a manner that made him appear helpless or weak and

essentially non-threatening. He sometimes accomplished this by presenting himself as a

motorist who needed assistance with a disabled vehicle, and he would often wear his arm

in a sling. He also tended to select victims who were teenage females, stalking them and

selecting disposal sites for their bodies well in advance of committing an actual crime.

But his MO deteriorated remarkably over time.

After being incarcerated and then escaping on two separate occasions in

Colorado, he made his way to Florida. He began to drink heavily and he also began to

interact with the bodies of his victims, keeping them for days after death. There was also

evidence that, with some victims’ bodies, Bundy shampooed their hair and applied

makeup to their faces, rather than disposing of them immediately. In short, he began to

leave more and more evidence behind, engaged in fewer precautionary acts, and became

involved in more ritual behavior.

His victim selection also changed; he chose his last victim, a 12-year-old female student

from Florida, totally because of her availability. This was a marked departure from his

previous MO of carefully stalking victims in advance and selecting victims who were in

their late teens and early twenties (Hickey, 1991, pp. 157–162).

Signature

An offender’s signature, are acts that often go beyond what necessary to commit a

crime. Signature aspects of a crime scene hold a special significance to the offender and

often fulfill an offender’s fantasies. Unlike M.O., an offender’s signature is usually stable

over time and can be witnessed from crime scene to crime scene.

Signature behaviors are those acts committed by an offender that are not

necessary to commit the crime, but rather suggest psychological or emotional needs. An

offender’s signature behaviors are not functional in nature. Because of ongoing confusion

amongst some analysts and attorneys, it is necessary to explain that the mere repetition of

a given behavior across multiple offenses is not enough to make it a signature. It may

simply be part of the offender’s MO. Generally the following will be true of a signature

behavior:

1. Takes extra time to complete, beyond more functional MO behavior

2. Unnecessary for the completion of the crime

3. Involves an expression of a need or emotion

4. May involve an expression of fantasy

If a behavior satisfies these criteria, then it is a signature—that is to say, it is

related to the offender’s psychological and emotional needs (fantasy and motive) rather

than functional crime-related needs.

There are two types of signature behaviors: active and passive. Active signature

behaviors are conscious or deliberate acts committed by the offender. They result from an

offender who is in control and intends to leave a specific psychological impression or to

satisfy a particular emotional need. Examples can include, but are not limited to,

Specific and repeated victim type

Specific and repeated constellation of injuries to body

Notes left at the scene

Specific and repeated weapons that go beyond mere function

Specific and repeated ligature/binding type or configuration

Active signature behavior represents a clear message from the offender; the

offender is aware it is being sent and it is meant to be recognized and understood.

Passive signature behaviors are incidental in nature. They result from an offender

who is not in control and unintentionally leaves a particular psychological impression.

Examples can include, but are not limited to:

Overkill or brutal levels of force

Obsessive/compulsive behavior (e.g., stalking, harassment)

Jealous or self-deprecating language or scripting

Passive signature behavior is the result of offenders who are not in control of their

emotions and are unaware that their psychological needs.

It is important to accept that it may not always be possible to link or unlink cases using

signature behaviors for the following reasons:

An offender may not always leave behind evidence of signature behaviors

An offender may engage in precautionary acts that conceal the evidence of

signature behaviors (burning evidence, removing unknown fantasy items from the

crime scene, staging the crime scene, etc.)

Evidence of offender behavior may be lost, overlooked, or destroyed by forensic

personnel and criminal investigators signature patterns

While signature behaviors refer to specific acts committed by an offender, overall

offender signature refers to the pattern or cluster of MO behaviors, signature behaviors,

and motivations that are found within an offense. This pattern of behaviors may be

unique to a particular offender and may be used to distinguish between crime scenes and

potentially between offenders, it may be rare within a particular type of offense, or it may

even be common.

An offender’s signature is sometimes referred to inappropriately as a “calling

card” or a “trademark” (Keppel, 1995). These terms evoke the vision of a static,

inflexible, indelible psychological imprint of offender behavior on the crime scene. As

should be clear to readers by now, this is a highly misleading description. There are

important limitations to the concept of offender signature that must be understood. Many

serial or predatory offenders do not have a need to engage in personal expressions of

emotion that are distinct to their individually formed personality. Furthermore, despite an

offender signature’s distinctiveness, which is a result of the many variables affecting the

human developmental process, it is not truly appropriate to state that two crime scenes

related by signature alone are psychologically “identical.” The terms identical and match

can be misleading to those who do not fully understand the concept and psychology of

offender signature.

The term match may be used to suggest identical, shared characteristics between

two things. But by their very nature, crime scenes and crime scene behaviors cannot be

precisely the same across offenses, even when the same offender is responsible for them.

Not only are the locations likely to be different, but the victims are most certainly

different people with their own responses to offender behaviors that will in turn influence

the offender’s behavioral expressions, both MO-oriented and signature-oriented. One of

the other primary reasons for the lack of absolute certainty in interpreting signature

behaviors as unique to a specific offender is the subjectivity of the interpretation itself.

While offenders may be psychologically distinct, profilers cannot see through the eyes of

an offender with perfect, objective clarity.

Case Linkage

Case linkage is another important profiling concept, but it is also a process that is

gaining increasingly more research attention (Tonkin, Woodhams, Bull, Bond, & Palmer,

2011). Sometimes called linkage analysis, it is a method of identifying crimes that are

likely to have been committed by the same offender because of behavioral similarity

across the crimes (Woodhams, Bull, & Hollin, 2010). Recall the illustration from the

Fortin case at the beginning of the chapter. In that case, the profiler focused on several

similarities between the two sexual assaults, but critics have also pointed out that there

were many differences in these two cases as well (Ebisike, 2008). Case linkage is most

often used with crimes such as stranger rape and murder, but may also be used for

burglary, arson, and robbery. In fact, there is some evidence that different types of crimes

(e.g., a violent crime and a property offense) may be linked to the same offender (Tonkin

et al., 2011). The correct linking of cases is likely to be a valuable contribution to police

investigation and ultimately reduces the number of suspects (Grubin, Kelly, & Brunsdon,

2001); on the other hand, an incorrect linking of cases can result in a wrongful

conviction. In the extensive commentary on the Fortin case, no one suggested that Fortin,

the person convicted of the crime, was not the perpetrator of both offenses; rather, critics

were concerned about the scientific status of linkage analysis (Risinger & Loop, 2002).

The profiler may link crimes in one of two ways: He or she may search for simila

crimes among a database of crimes, without a preconceived notion of who the offender

might be; the discovery of other crimes with similar characteristics of victims, MOs, or

offender signatures will suggest that the same individual could have committed them. Or,

the profiler may search for other crimes that are highly similar to the crime committed by

someone who has already been identified. For example, police may have arrested and

charged an individual with a crime and may want to know whether he is likely to be

responsible for other unsolved offenses. Victim accounts of the crime are important in the

process—provided of course that the victim survived the crime.

Once the profiler has collected all the relevant information, he or she composes a

list of the behaviors demonstrated by the offender. According to Woodhams et al. (2010),

“Some behaviors might be more spontaneous, whereas others may be produced as a

reaction to the victim or witnesses.” In addition, the profiler may classify the offender

behaviors as modus operandi or ritualistic or signature behaviors (Hazelwood & Warren,

2003). Alison, Goodwill, and Alison (2005) posit that MO behaviors are functionally

significant and depend on the context of the crime; they are necessary to commit the

crime—such as a belt around the victim’s neck. The signature, on the other hand, is

psychologically significant, or ritualistic, and is not dependent on the context.

Determining these distinctions generally requires a subjective judgment on the part of the

profiler. Discovery of a signature, however, is extremely helpful, if not essential, in

linkage analysis.

In order for case linkage to work, the offender must demonstrate consistent but

distinct behavior in each crime. In other words, the behavior must be distinguish-able

from other offender behavioral patterns but consistent across crimes for the offender in

question. For instance, the signature may be unique for the offender, and he consistently

exhibits it across crimes. This task is not as easy as it sounds, as the profile must be

distinctive and unique enough to reveal something about motive, intent, or signature of a

particular offender (Santtila et al., 2008). Santtila et al. examined 116 Italian homicides

committed by 23 offenders. The researchers found that the offender’s crime scene

behavior was consistent across serial murders as well as different from that of other

offenders. This finding lends support to the serial killer model concerning consistency

and variability in behavior; that is, serial killers tend to be more consistent than not,

although there is also variability as their crimes progress. For example, their crimes may

become more or less brutal, and their choices of victims may broaden. In general,

however, research indicates that there is consistency in the behavioral patterns of these

offenders (Alison, Goodwill, Almond, van den Heuvel, & Winter, 2011; Canter &

Youngs, 2009). However, the consistency is not always found in the offender’s MO, as

this may change according to the situation and the effectiveness of the MO in prior

offending. In fact, a majority of research in criminal behavior finds only a moderate level

of consistency associated with the MO (Bennell, Snook, MacDonald, House, & Taylor,

2012). In a recent study of serial rapes, however, researchers found sufficient similarity in

MO to conclude that the assumption of behavioral consistency underlying case linkage

was justified (Woodhams & Labuschagne, 2012).

Victimology and Offender Profiling

Forensic victimology has largely been over-looked as an important component of

crime scene analysis. There can be no doubt that part of the reason for this absence of

attention is because it is not easy to study victims. In fact, there are many circumstances

under which profilers and investigators will be actively discouraged from doing so.

First, there are emotional challenges. The coping mechanisms of overtaxed,

underpaid, and undervalued detectives, investigators, and forensic personnel involve

continuous doses of personal detachment and dissociation from the victim and the

horrible things that they have suffered. The victim is compartmentalized and seen as an

object. The victim’s body, living or dead, and all of the terrible things that it has endured,

is regarded as evidence to be analyzed and catalogued. The advantage of this coping

mechanism is that there is no emotional investment, no opening up to be affected by the

pain and suffering of a fellow human. The disadvantage is that we risk surrendering our

humanity when we regard victims and their suffering as objects.

We risk losing our humanity because compartmentalization and distancing

demand that we continually reinforce our view of the victim as an object. If we humanize

victims, we know that there is the risk of recognizing that they are not unlike our own

daughter, son, mother, father, sister, brother, wife, husband, or friend. To maintain the

necessary detachment, we may actively avoid or suppress information about the victim as

a person. We do not get to know victim; we do not familiarize ourselves with the victim’s

personal life outside of the crimes committed against them. We avoid the victim’s family.

We do not wish to make time to see them as people—all because it might affect us

emotionally; it might make us feel bad. However, these reasons are not sufficient.

Conversely, some investigators cross the line and identify too closely with victims. They

see themselves as protectors and the victims as objects of their own rescue fantasy. When

this happens, the line between investigator of fact and advocate is violated. Otherwise

thorough professionals avoid investigating clear inconsistencies; obvious falsehoods are

explained away or swept under the rug; and false reporters are given cover and, in some

cases, encouragement.

When profilers or investigators take on a case, they must take on the whole

case—good and bad—and they have a responsibility to do the best job possible, not just

the best job with those parts that are comfortable and safe. Anything less than this is a

disservice to real victims and, in a broader sense, the criminal justice system. Those who

cannot overcome their emotional disabilities are not going to fully meet their professional

responsibilities and may even contribute to miscarriages of justice.

Second, there are political challenges. In some cases, the culture within which an

investigator or forensic examiner operates openly encourages the marginalization,

vilification, or deification of certain victim populations. When the profiler takes a stance

that is at odds with the accepted view within their culture, chances are that he or she will

feel pressure to move their findings back into step. They may even be advised to stop

generating findings at all. In other cases, there may be direct political pressure to cast a

victim in a certain light or gloss over a victim’s actual history in favor of a popular theory

or stereotype. A dead child is better portrayed as an angel without blemish; a homosexual

found dead in a motel room is better portrayed as a worthless deviant; prostitutes are

regarded as drug-addicted liars on the make (especially if they are minorities); and

attractive white females never lie and always need at least double the normal amount of

detectives working their case, if not all available male personnel. Such circumstances are

all too common.

These realities explain why the performance of a thorough victimology is not

routine practice for many detectives, investigators, and forensic personnel. When

gathered without regard to a predetermined outcome, victimology forces us to get to

know the victim better than we know most of the people in our own lives. It opens us up

to potential internalizations, where we make a victim’s personal feelings our own.

It opens us up to potential transference, where we shift our thoughts and feelings about

other people onto the victim. It can even raise doubts about the victim’s story or

complicity, as may be the case when things are not as they were first reported. Getting to

know the intimate details of a victim’s history and personality is not professionally or

emotionally safe. Moreover, getting to know the victim prevents the easy stereotypes

from maintaining a hold over the investigation. Getting to know the victim is rough on all

levels, but it is necessary for the objective investigator and examiner.

The propensity to assume that everything found in a crime scene or in relation to a

crime must somehow be related is a common logical fallacy, referred to as Post hoc, ergo

propter hoc, or “after this, therefore because of this.” For example, a victim or

complainant may present with extensive bruising of the shins and may not clearly recall

its origins. Such injuries might be related to a sexual assault, depending on the events

described. Or, after conducting a history, the forensic examiner may learn that the

complainant played a soccer game in the days preceding the alleged attack, in which her

shins were repeatedly kicked. This is true for injuries related to sexual activity as well.

The forensic examiner interpreting any victim injury without the proper history

could improperly proceed with the assumption that the injury must be related to a sexual

assault. Therefore, collecting history from the complainant, as well as collateral sources

(e.g., friends, family members, other witnesses), is necessary to ensure that the most

complete and accurate information is relied upon before examinations and scientific

interpretations of the evidence are finalized.With these as our standards, it is not possible

to avoid the fact that the best way to objectively build case knowledge and render valid

interpretations is through the scientific method. This means developing a clear and honest

picture of victim history, rendering victim theories in accordance with the established

facts, and working to disprove those theories to avoid confirmation bias.

Forensic victimology is an essential component of crime scene analysis, and

therefore an unavoidable feature of any criminal profile. The information gathered from a

thorough victimology has the potential to affect each stage of a criminal profile, from

crime reconstruction to establishing offender motivation. The goals of forensic

victimology include, but are not limited to, the following:

Assist in understanding elements of the crime. By studying the victim, the

examiner is better able to understand the relationship between a victim and

his or her lifestyle and environment, and subsequently of a given offender

to that victim. Victimology provides the context for the victim-crime

scene interaction, the offender-crime scene interaction, and the victim-

offender interaction.

Assist in developing a timeline. Retracing a victim’s last known actions

and creating a timeline are critical to understanding the victim as a person,

understanding the victim’s relationship to the environment, understanding

the victim’s relationship to other events, and understanding how the victim

came to be acquired by an offender.

Define the suspect pool. In an unsolved case, where the offender is

unknown, a thorough victimology defines the suspect pool. The victim’s

lifestyle in general and his or her activities in particular must be

scrutinized to determine who had access to them, what they had access to,

how and when they gained and maintained access, and where the access

occurred. If we can understand how and why an offender has selected

known victims, then we may also be able to establish a relational link of

some kind between the victim and that offender. These links may be

geographic, work related, schedule oriented, school related, hobby related,

or they may be otherwise connected. The connections provide a suspect

pool that includes those with knowledge of, or access to, the related area.

Provide investigative suggestions. A thorough victimology compiled in

the investigative stage will offer suggestions and provide direction to the

investigation. Such suggestions may include interviewing those in the

defined suspect pool, interviewing witnesses about discrepancies in their

statements or contradictions with timeline information, and examining any

physical evidence that may have been overlooked during the initial

investigation.

Assist with crime reconstruction. By understanding the victim’s behavior patterns,

the examiner is better equipped to complete a thorough crime reconstruction.

Knowing why a victim was in the location where he or she was acquired or what

the victim was doing in that location will provide the examiner with information

that may be necessary when inferring the most reasonable behavior of that victim.

Assist with contextualizing allegations of victimization. Developing a clear and

factually complete victim history will provide context to the allegations of

victimization. Victimological information may also support or refute the

allegations of victimization.

Assist with the development of offender modus operandi. Knowledge of the

victim’s pattern of behavior in relation to the location where the victim was

acquired may assist with the development of the offender’s modus operandi

(MO), specifically in victim selection. For example, an offender who is trolling

for victims may choose to acquire an opportunistic victim at a location with

increased victim availability and vulnerability, such as a busy pub with

intoxicated patrons. This information tells us about the offender’s MO or the

choices made during the commission of the crime.

Assist with the development of offender motive. Without a thorough examination

of victim history, the examiner may overlook important victimological

information that may reflect the offender’s motivation. For example, an examiner

can only appropriately establish a list of items missing from a crime scene if it is

known what the victim had in his or her possession at the time of victimization.

Without this information, a profit-oriented motivation may be disregarded.

Assist with establishing the offender’s exposure level. Offender exposure is the

general amount of exposure to discovery, identification, or apprehension

experienced by the offender. The context surrounding the point at which the

offender acquired the victim may assist with establishing the offender’s level of

exposure. For example, an offender who acquires a victim in broad daylight is at

an increased risk of detection and apprehension, which may suggest an increased

level of confidence or skill.

Assist with case linkage. When determining whether a series of crimes can be ignored

during a linkage analysis. A study of the victims across a series of cases may reveal a

unique connection between the victims, or the exposure levels of the victims may allow

the examiner to support or refute a linkage.

Assist with public safety response. If we can understand how and why offenders

have selected their previous victims, then we have a better chance of predicting

the type of victim they may select in the future. This will allow the appropriate

public safety messages to be delivered to the public with the aim of reducing the

exposure levels of those affected individuals. For example, an offender who

enters multiple residences through unlocked windows may prompt a public safety

message to be delivered to affected communities warning them to lock their

windows and doors.

Reduce victim deification and vilification. The objective, scientific, and thorough

examination of victims assists in reducing victim deification and vilification.

Deification involves idealizing victims based on who or what they are, without

consideration of the facts (e.g., young schoolchildren, missing adolescents, and others

who are favored in the press or by public opinion). Because of the political or public

culture of a certain area or region, certain victim populations tend to be more politically

or publicly sympathetic. This view facilitates rationalizations about time expended on the

deified case while other investigations suffer, and it does not allow for an unbiased

victimology by virtue of depriving the crime and the investigation of true victim context.

Deification has the capacity to accomplish the following:

Remove good suspects from the suspect pool

Provide coverage for the false reporter

Provide coverage for suspects who are family or household members

Vilification involves viewing a victim as worthless or disposable by virtue of who

or what they are, without consideration of the facts (e.g., the homeless, the poor, minority

groups, and prostitutes). This view presumes that it is okay, or not as bad, to commit

crimes against people of certain lifestyle, races, religions, or creeds. Ultimately, this tends

to be guided by an investigator’s subjective sense of personal morality—or that of a like-

minded community. Ultimately, it facilitates investigative apathy. Examples of vilified

groups, or groups toward which there is no lack of apathy, commonly include the

following:

The homeless/mentally ill

Homosexuals

Minority populations within particular regions, such a immigrants and Native

Americans

Prostitutes

Drug dealers

Drug addicts

Teen runaways who becomes prostitutes or drug addicts

Individuals of particular religious beliefs

Below is a quick checklist of victim information that may be useful in an investigation:

1. Basic Demographic Information

Sex

Race

Height

Weight

Hair color/length/dyed

Eyes: color/glasses/contacts

Socio-economic status

Residence

Employment History (Place of employment/work schedule/supervisor)

Marital Status

Educational background and history

Home Address

2. Lifestyle Information

Grooming/manner of dress

Hobbies/skills and Interests

Alcohol and Drug Use

Routine daily activities and commitments

Recently scheduled events

Upcoming scheduled events

Type of Personality

Sexual History (Dating History, was the victim having an affair?)

Did the Victim Carry a Weapon?

Location/condition of personal vehicle

Current and previous intimate or marital partner(s)

Current and previous family members

Current and previous household members

Current and previous friends

Current and previous co-workers

Current medical conditions (physical and mental)

Current medications (see purse, desk drawers, and medicine cabinets)

Compile a list of the victim’s daily routines, habits, and activities

3. History with the Criminal Justice System

Had the victim a history of crime? A history of reporting crimes?

Has the victim been the subject of any field [police] reports?

911 calls and criminal history of residence

Criminal history (active investigations, protection orders, arrests, warrants,

convictions)

Civil court history (lawsuits, judgments, and role)

4. Personal Digital Evidence

Cell phone: calls, chats, address book, GPS, photos, video.

Laptop/desktop: email, calls, chats, documents, address books, browser history,

photos, video.

Personal Web sites: recent browser history, social network activity (e.g., Facebook,

Twitter), blogs, dating Web sites, and other personal subscription Web sites.

Personal GPS device: recent trips, destinations, bookmarked points of interest

Credit cards/history

Bank accounts/history

5. Time Line Evidence

Create a map of the victim’s route for the 24 hours before the attack, as detailed as

possible.

Physically walk through the victim’s last 24 hours using the map and forensic

evidence as a guide

Document expected background elements of the route in terms of vehicles, people,

activities, professionals, and so on for the time leading up to, during, and after the

victim was acquired. It is possible that the offender is, or was masquerading as, one of

those expected elements

Attempt to determine the following:

The point at which the offender acquired the victim

The place where the offender attacked the victim

How well the attack location can be seen from any surrounding locations

Whether the offender would need to be familiar with the area to know of this

specific location or get to it.

Whether knowledge of the route would require or indicate prior surveillance

Whether this route placed the victim at higher or lower exposure to an attack

Whether the acquisition of the victim on that route placed the offender at higher

or lower exposure to identification or apprehension.

The Uses of Criminal Profiling

When constructing a criminal profile investigators attempt to obtain information

from as many different sources as possible. Information may come from police reports,

witness and/or victim statements, crime scene photos, the victimology or extensive

background information on the victim, results of a neighborhood investigations and

witness interviews, medical examiner’s report or autopsy report if the crime was a

homicide.

Criminal profiling can help define the type of offender responsible for a crime and

help focus an investigation by narrowing down the list of possible suspects. For criminal

profilers, crime scenes can tell a story. Clues left at a crime scene can provide insights to

not only the crime itself, but also provide information about the offender. Depending on

how much evidence is available at a crime scene, the information in a criminal profile

may include:

(1) demographic information about an offender, such as age, race, education, social

economic status, marital status or dating habits, and type of occupation;

(2) a physical description of the offender, such as body type, strength, height, weight,

and perhaps personal even hygiene;

(3) information about the offender’s lifestyle, such as hobbies, living arrangement,

area of residence, drug/alcohol use, and criminal history;

(4) personality characteristics, such as intelligence, impulsiveness, psychosis,

compulsiveness, and possibility of mental illness;

(5) information concerning the offender’s sexual habits, such sexual orientation,

paraphilias, whether or not the offender collects pornography;

(6) geographic information about the offender, such as information concerning a

offender’s mobility and victim selection including how far a offender may live

from a crime scene and the type of vehicle he or she is likely to drive;

(7) the offender’s post-offense behavior, such as level of remorse, interest in

following the media, collection of souvenirs, whether or not the offender will

volunteer information, whether or not the offender is a police groupie, whether or

not the offender will return to the crime scene, whether or not the offender will

move bodies, and the likelihood of committing the same type of crime again.

A common misconception is that offender profiles are used solely to help catch a

suspect. In reality, criminal profiles can be very helpful even after an offender has been

arrested. There are several other possible uses of criminal profiles. First, offender

profiles can provide police investigators interviewing suggestions and strategies after a

suspect has been taken into custody. Based upon developing a psychological profile of

the offender, profilers can suggest the most proper method of interviewing a suspect. Not

all offenders react to questioning in a similar manner. For one type of serial rapist, for

example, a profiler may suggest that the police use a low-key counselor approach in the

interrogation room. For another type of serial rapist, a profiler may suggest that the

police use a more aggressive, direct approach to get the information that they need.

A second use of criminal profiles is to aid in probation and parole considerations.

Criminal profilers, for example, have found that certain child molesters (regressed) are

less likely to re-offend than other types of child molesters (fixated). Criminal profilers

working as forensic psychologist often offer psychological evaluations of offenders that

assist criminal justice personnel in their decision as to whether or not to release an

offender on probation or parole. (get more and better info from forensic psychology

book)

Criminal profilers have been used to develop threat assessments that describe the

type of person or persons that is likelihood to commit a certain type of crime, such as

workplace violence or a school shooting. Such threat assessments can provide a model

that can help employers, educators, mental health professionals, and law enforcement

personnel identify and evaluate potential perpetrators of violence. Recently, profilers

working at the FBI’s Behavioral Analysis United released a study entitled “The School

Shooter: A Threat Assessment Perspective” which examined several common

personality, behavioral, social, and family characteristics among school shooters. School

shooting and workplace murder will be discussed later in Chapter --

A fourth use of criminal profiles is to help prosecuting attorneys develop a trial

strategy. Profilers can help attorneys and the juries understand the behavior of offenders,

their motivations and how the and offender’s fantasies can inspire them to commit

sexually motivated crimes. Profilers often formulate a strategy to help prosecutors bring

out the defendant’s true personality during a trial Profilers have also helped in developing

cross-examination strategies by answering such questions as: How should an offender be

approach on the stand? Should one be aggressive and use a very direct or confrontation

approach? Or, should an attorney be more sympathetic in his or her approach? How

likely is the offender to “break” under questioning? Once

One of the most famous cases in which criminal profilers aided the prosecution’s

attempts to convict a serial killer was the Wayne Williams’s case, discussed earlier in this

chapter. Wayne Williams was the primary suspect in the murder of 29 young black

males that occurred in Atlanta, Georgia, from 1979 to 1981. Much of the prosecution’s

case rested on about seven hundred pieces of hair and fiber, and although investigators

did a thorough job in collecting the fiber evidence, their courtroom testimony was

extremely complex and by its nature, not very interesting. On the other hand, Wayne

Williams, who took the stand to defend his self, did not look like a serial killer. He had

very soft features, wore very thick glasses, and had delicate hands. He came across as a

mild-mannered, well-spoken, friendly man, who claimed him was framed by the FBI

because of his race.

Believing that they may be losing the case, prosecutors turned to profiler and FBI

agent John Douglas to help them in their trial strategy. Douglas had developed a profile

of Wayne Williams while the murders were still taking place. Douglas’s profile

described Williams as an obsessive-compulsive with a very rigid and over-controlling

personality. Douglas suggested that the prosecution pressure Williams on the stand and

invade Williams’ personal space by touching him. Douglas believed that if the

prosecuting attorney created enough tension between himself and Williams, that

Williams would explode, and it happened.

While cross-examining Williams, Assistant District Attorney Jack Mallard

reached in, put his hands on Williams’s arm said, “What was it like, Wayne? What was it

like when you wrapped you fingers around the victim’s throat? Did you panic?”

Williams softly said, “No.” and then flew into a rage, pointing his finger at John

Douglas and screaming, “You’re trying your best to make me fit that FBI profile, and I’m

not going to do it!”

For the first time the prosecution successfully showed that the man who the jury

thought would not hurt a fly had another side. They saw a metamorphosis before their

own eyes and after eleven hours of deliberation, the jury returned a guilty verdict.

Wayne Williams was sentenced to two consecutive life terms.

A Brief History of Criminal Profiling

Many trace the origins of criminal profiling back to the positivist school of

criminology that develop during the 1800s. Positivists believed that science could be

used to identify criminals before some even committed crimes. The leader of the

positivist school of criminology, was Ceasare Lombroso, who influence by the work of

Charles Darwin, believed that criminal were “evolvutionary throwbacks.” In his book,

The Criminal Mind, published in 1876, Lombroso believed that criminals could be

distinguished from non-criminals by what he termed “physical stigmata” or physical

characteristics, such as a long lower jaw, flattened nose, and long, apelike arms. These

physical characteristics themselves did not cause criminal behavior; rather they were

visible indicators of a personality type which Lombroso called atavism. According to

Lombroso, the “mentality of atavistic individuals is that of primitive man, that these are

biological ‘throwbacks’ to an earlier stage of evolution, and that the behavior of these

‘throwbacks’ will inevitably be contrary to the rules and expectations of modern civilized

society.” Most criminologists today, agree that there is no clear evidence that physical

appearance or physical characteristics are correlated with criminal behavior.

In 1888, Dr. Thomas Bond became what many regard as the world’s first profiler.

Dr. Bond was the police surgeon who performed the autopsy on Mary Kelley, the last

known victim of Jack the Ripper. The Ripper’s murders occurred between 1888 and

1891 in the White Chapel district of London. The White Chapel district can best be

described as a slum in which approximately 900,000 people lived under horrible

conditions. The area was known for its poverty and crime. Most of the inhabitants of

White Chapel were working poor who either lived in tenement houses or lodge houses

that held long sleeping room with rows of beds, often infested with disease and insects.

Most persons lived from day-to-day and the only reliable means by which a woman could

make a living was by prostitution. It was estimated that over 1,200 prostitutes work the

streets of White Chapel (Sugden, 1994).

It is unclear how many women Jack the Ripper killed. From April 3, 1888 to

February 13, 1891 police investigated eleven murders that could have possibly we the

work of Jack of the Ripper. It is generally accepted that Jack the Ripper was responsible

for at least five of the murders, although some criminologist believe that he killed all

eleven women (Keppel, R., Weis, J., Brown, K., & Welch, K., 2005). The following

discussion will examine the murders of the five that are almost universally agreed upon

as the work of Jack the Ripper, collectively called the "canonical five" victims.

The first victim was Mary Ann Nichols whose body was discovered on August

31, 1888 at between 3:40 and 3:45 on the ground in front of a gated stable entrance in

Buck’s Row a back street in the White Chapel district. The victim was lying on her back

with her skirt up above her waist. Her throat had been cut twice from ear to ear with a

long bladed sharp knife. The cuts were so deep that they nearly severed her head from

her body. Her faced had two bruises on it, one bruise was located on her left cheek and

another bruise located on her lower right jaw. The coroner determined that both bruises

were consistent with being caused by a fist. Five of the victim’s teeth were missing. The

victim’s abdomen had been cut open and the coating of the stomach was cut in several

places. None of her internal organs were missing. There were two stab wounds on her

“private parts.” There was no blood found on the victim’s breast, which suggest that

injuries to the victim’s neck were most likely post-mortem and occurred while the victim

lay on the ground. Most of the blood from the victim’s throat formed a small pool on the

pavement beneath her neck, and the rest was absorbed by the back of her dress. The

coroner believed that abdominal injuries were inflicted first can were the cause of death.

Investigators did not collect semen from victims during this time period, therefore, it in

unknown whether or not the offender had sexual intercourse with the victim. The post

mortem report showed that the murder was committed where the body was found, there

were no signs of struggle or drag marks. A search of the area was conducted, but police

did not find the murder weapon. Police also noticed that there were no markings on the

road near or around the body from carriage wheels.

Mary Ann Nicholas (nickname was Polly) was approximately 43-years-old, about

5 feet 2 inches tall, with brown or grey eyes, a dark complexion, and dark brown, graying

hair. She was a know prostitute who drank heavily. Nichols did have a police record, but

she was arrested for only minor offenses, such as drunkenness, disorderly conduct, and

prostitution. At the time of her death, Nichols lived with four women in a lodging house.

Nichols was last seen at a lodging house at 2:30 a.m. where one witness claimed that she

was going out to make money needed for lodging that night. The witnessed believe

Nichols to be drunk.

The second victim was Annie Chapman, whose body was found around 6:00 a.m.

on September 8, 1888 by a carriage driver. The coroner estimated that she had been dead

for at least two hours. The victim was discovered lying on her back approximately two

feet from the back wall of a house. Her dress was pushed up over her waist and like

Mary Ann Nichols, Chapman’s throat was severed by two cuts, one deeper than the other.

One of her handkerchiefs was found around her neck and her hands were raised and bent

with the palms towards her upper body as though she had reached for her throat.

The victim’s abdomen was cut entirely open and her uterus was removed. Her

small intestines were removed from her body and a flap of the abdomen was lying above

her right should attached by a chord, with the rest of her intestines still inside the body.

Two flaps of skin from the lower part of her abdomen were lying in a pool of blood

above her left shoulder. The following body parts were missing: part of the stomach

wall, including the navel, the womb, the upper part of the vagina, part of the bladder, and

a kidney. The coroner believed that the knife used in the murder was not an ordinary

knife, but an amputating knife or a slaughter man’s knife with a narrow, sharp blade

approximately 6 to 8 inches in length. He also believed that the offender had anatomical

knowledge. Two rings were torn from her fingers and placed on the ground next to the

victim. The contents of her pockets, which included two coins, were emptied and

arranged in order at her feet.

Annie Chapman, known to her friends as “Dark Annie” was between the ages of

45 and 47 years old. She was 5 feet tall, with a fair complexion, dark brown hair, blue

eyes, and was miss two teeth in her lower jaw. She was malnourished, had tuberculosis,

and possibly syphilis (Keppel, et al., 2005). She had once been married to a coachman by

the name of John Chapman. They had two children, one of which died from meningitis.

Later, John died and Annie lost all her money and had to resort to prostitution to make

money. Several witnesses reported that Annie Chapman was a hostile person when she

was drunk and would often get in physical altercations with other women. All her known

addresses were public lodgings.

On September 30, 1888, there were two killings in one night. The first victim was

Elizabeth Stride, Jack the Ripper’s third victim. Her body was found at approximately

1:00 a.m. lying in a pool of blood near the gates of Dutfield’s Yard. Her body was still

warm. Her throat was deeply cut and had a silk handerchief tied around it. She was lying

on her left side with her skirt her legs drawn up and her feet up against a wall. Her right

hand was left open on her chest and was smeared with blood. Her left hand was lying on

the ground partially closed around a small packet of breath sweeteners wrapped in tissue

paper. No blood was found on any of the victim’s clothing.

Elizabeth Stride was about 45 years old and a known prostitute who went by the

name “Long Liz.” She was Swedish with a pal complexion, curly hair, and

approximately 5 feet 3 inches tall. She lived with a laborer named Michael Kidney for

three years before her death. She generally well liked, but every once a while when

drunk, she became loud and boisterous.

The body of Jack the Ripper’s fourth victim, Catherine Eddowes, was found by a

police constable at approximately 1:45 a.m. on Sunday, September 30, 1888. Her body

was still warm. She was lying on her back in a pool of blood with her clothing pulled

above her waist. The victim’s throat had been cut and there was a neckerchief tied below

the cut. The cause of death was determined to be the severance of the left carotid artery.

There were several cut across her face made by a knife that was estimated to be about

approximately 6 inches in length. Both eyelids had been cut and there was a deep cut

over the bridge of her nose that extended from the top of the nose to her jaw. The tip of

her nose had been severed and her right ear lobe had been completely removed and had

fallen from her clothing as she was taken to the morgue. Several stab wounds were

observed on her body; one in the liver and one in the left groin.

He body appeared to have been posed and was mutilated after her death. Her

intestines were cut out and placed over her right shoulder and smeared with fecal matter.

Another piece of intestine was detached from her body and placed between her body and

left arm. An autopsy revealed that she was missing her uterus and left kidney, but the

mutilation is not believed done by a skilled hand. A portion of the apron the victim had

been wearing had been cut and was found inside her dress. Another part of the cut apron

was found at a nearby location lying on the street. At the spot where the apron was

found, the words “The Juwes are the men That Will not be Blamed for nothing” were

written in chalk on a wall. The police chief destroyed the writing: why?

Catherine Eddowes was known by Kate by her friends. She was between the ages

of 43 and 46 years old. She was not a prostitute at the time of her death, but like the

other victims, she had a periodic drinking problem which lead to quarrels with her friends

and family. On the night she was killed she got drunk and was put in jail to sleep it off.

On the way home from jail she was killed.

Hundreds of letters allegedly from the murder were sent to the police, news

agencies and individuals associated with solving crimes. Two of these letters are written

by the same individual and gave rise to Jack the ripper.

The fifth victim of Jack the Ripper is believed to be Mary Kelly. Mary Kelly was

a good looking young Irish girl. In 1887 she met Joe Barnett, a respectable market

porter, and lived with him at various locations. Every once and awhile, they would drink

up the rent money and get evicted. Finally they ended up at 13 Miller’s Court. Mary did

not have many relationships and the one she had with Joe was a solid one. They lived

together until they had an argument and he moved out. Since he did not have any work,

she had been forced to return to prostitution to survive.

On Friday November 9, 1888, Mary’s landlord, John McCarthy sent his assistant

Thomas Bowyer to see if he could collect any rent money from Mary that Friday

morning. When his knock went unanswered, he reached inside the broken window and

pulled aside the curtain. He saw a horrible sight and ran back to John McCarthy who

called for the police.

The police opened the door to a small room with almost no furniture. Mary’s

body, unbelievable mutilated, lay on the bed. The cause of death was the severance of

the carotid artery of the throat. The horrendous mutilation of this last and most hideous

Ripper murder was done after her death.

The body was lying naked in the middle of the bed. The whole surface of the

abdomen and thighs was removed and the abdominal cavity emptied of its viscera. The

breasts were cut off, the arms mutilated by several jagged wounds and the face was

hacked beyond recognition. The viscera were found in various parts, the uterus, kidney,

and one breast were found under the victim’s head. The other breast by the right foot.

The liver between the feet and the flaps removed from the abdomen and thighs were on

the table. Her faced was gashed in all directions, the nose, cheeks, eyebrows and ears

were all partly removed.

The victim’s face was covered with a sheet at the time of the killing. One breast

was found by her right foot and one of her kidneys was placed under her head. The arms

and hands had defensive wounds. The lower part of one lung was ripped and torn off.

Several witness saw Mary Kelly with a man that night. Each had a somewhat different

description of the man.

Let’s examine the MO and signature of Jack the Ripper. As discussed previously

in this chapter, MO refers to the offenders actions before, during, and after the

commission of a crime that are necessary to complete the crime. A killer’s signature is

like a “calling card” in that it is those actions that are unique to the offender and go

beyond what is necessary to kill the victims. Experience and confidence can often

modify an offender’s MO. Therefore, an offender’s MO may change over time, however,

signature characteristics usually remains stable.

In the five cases discussed, Jack the Ripper’s MO included attacks on poor, white,

female prostitutes, between the ages of 24 and 45 that often because loud, boisterous, and

sometimes even violent when they consumed alcohol. The killer planned his attacks; he

did not act on impulse. The killer brought his own weapon to the crime scene and he

most likely “trolled” the city streets looking for victims. His attacks occurred when the

streets were most vacant, striking between midnight and 6:00 a.m. It is believed that Jack

the Ripper solicited the females for sex on the street and when the women hiked up their

skirts in preparation for sex, he grabbed their throats and began strangling them. Some of

the victims may have been killed through strangulation, while others may have been

simply subdued. The killer then lowered the victims to the ground and then cut their

throats. This scenario is supported by the lack of blood on the victims’ chest area and the

fact the most of blood from victim neck pooled on the ground behind the victims’ head

and bodies. By using this method, the killer was able to incapacitate and kill his victims

quickly, enabling him to live out his fantasies.

After the attacks occurred, the killer did not move the bodies or attempt to hide

them. The killer left the victims’ bodies in the open, except for Mary Kelly, who was left

in her own room to be quickly discovered by anyone who might have been looking for

her. The killer may have communicated with the police through letters, however, the

validity of the Ripper’s letters is still under debate.

Jack the Ripper’s signature included three major elements, (1) picquerism, (2)

post-mortem mutilation and organ removal, and (3) posing of the victims’ bodies.

Picquerism is deriving sexual pleasure through the stabling, cutting, or slicing of another

person or by observing these actions (Geberth, 1996). It is likely that Jack the Ripper

received sexual gratification from picquerism, rather than sexual intercourse. He used his

knife to penetrate the victim and to satisfy himself through violence and domination

(Keppel et al, 2005). While not all of the victims received the same number of stab

wounds, picquerism remained constant as Jack the Ripper escalated his violence into

mutilation and the removal of organs. As Jack became more confident and bold, he spent

more time with his victims, increasing post mortem mutilation and the harvesting of

organs. Killing Mary Kelly at her private residence allowed Jack the Ripper the time and

privacy to live out all of his sexual fantasies, including mutilation of the genitalia and

amputation of body parts, such as the breast.

A third characteristic of Jack the Ripper’s signature was the way he posed or

displayed the victim’s bodies in the open in an effort to further degrade them. Except

when he was interrupted in the Stride case, he left the bodies posed flat on their backs

with their legs spread apart, and their genitalia exposed. Each murder also had some

element of posing in his placement or arrangement of body parts outside of the body at

the crime scene. In each murder, his efforts to pose the body and arrange body parts

became more blatant as the series progressed. The posing of the victims bodies in public

places suggests that Jack the Ripper had at lot of confidence in himself and believed the

victims were only disposable objects.

The police surgeon was very surprised that the mutilations had been do skillfully

and in what must have been a short period of time. The body had not been dissected, but

the injuries had been made by someone who had considerable anatomical skill and

knowledge. There were no meaningless cuts. It was done by one who knew where to

find what he wanted and how he should use his knife, so as to abstract the organs without

damaging them. No unskilled person could have known where to find it, or have

recognized it when it was found.

Dr. Bond’s Profile

The murder must have been a man of physical strength and great coolness

and daring. There is no evidence that he had an accomplice. He must in my

opinion be a man subject to periodic attacks of homicidal and erotic mania. The

character of the mutilations indicate that the man may be in a condition sexually,

that may be called Satyriasis (a sexual deviancy that is today referred to as

hypersexuality). It is of course possible that the Homicidal impulse may have

developed from a revengeful or brooding condition of mind, or that religious

mania may have been the original disease but I do not think that either hypothesis

is likely. The murderer in external appearance is quite likely to be a quiet

inoffensive looking man probably middle-aged and neatly and respectably

dressed. I think he might be in the habit of wearing a cloak or overcoat or he

could hardly have escaped notice in the streets if the blood on his hands or clothes

were visible.

Assuming the murdered to be such a person as I have just described, he

would be solitary and eccentric in his habits, also he is likely to be a man without

regular occupation, but with some small income or pension. He is possibly living

among respectable persons who have some knowledge of his character and habits

and who may have grounds for suspicion that he is not quite right in his mind at

times. Such persons would probably be unwilling to communicate suspicions to

the Police for fear of trouble or notoriety, whereas if there were prospect of

reward it might overcome their scruples.

Source: Donald Rumbelow, The Complete Jack the Ripper, 1987, pp. 140-141

To learn about the Jack the Ripper case, students should visit the following website.

http://www.casebook.org/intro.html

Profiling Hitler

One of the most famous profiles was created in 1943, when the Office of Strategic

Services (OSS) asked psychiatrist Walter Langer to develop a profile of Adolph Hitler.

The OSS wanted a report that could help them predict Hitler’s strategies and how he may

react to capture and interrogation near the end of the war. Langer’s gathered information

from a number of Hitler’s associates and wrote a report that described Hitler’s ambitions,

his reasons for invading neighboring countries, how he sees himself, how the German

people see Hitler, and Hitler’s psychological makeup. The last chapter of the report

included a section on possible future behaviors and the possible means of his demise.

Langer predicted that as the war came to a close, Hitler would make progressively fewer

public appearances, he would grow increasing paranoid, and his mental condition would

continue to deteriorate. Lange believed that Hitler would not flee Germany and seek

refuge in a neighboring country, he would not surrender, and he would not allow himself

to be capture by Ally troops. Langer believed that Hitler would bring an end to his rule

by committing suicide:

This is the most plausible outcome. Not only has he frequently threatened to

commit suicide, but from what we know of his psychology it is the most likely

possibility. It is probably true that he has an inordinate fear of death, but being an

hysteric he could undoubtedly screw himself up into the super-man character and

perform the deed. In all probability, however, it would not be a simple suicide. He

has too much of the dramatic for that and since immortality is one of his dominant

motives we can imagine that he would stage the most dramatic and effective death

scene he could possibly think of. He knows how to bind the people to him and if

he cannot have the bond in life he will certainly do his utmost to achieve it in

death. He might even engage some other fanatic to do the final killing at his orders.

It turns out that Langer’s predictions were remarkably correct. As the Russian and

United States armies entered Germany, Hitler realized that Germany had lost the war, but

allowed no retreats. Several of his final writings showed that his mental condition was

deteriorating. When Soviet troops were within a block or two of his bunker, Hitler

committed suicide by shooting himself in the mouth while simultaneously biting into a

cyanide capsule. Hitler’s body and the body of his mistress, Eva Braun, were put into a

bomb crater by several of his aids, doused in gasoline, and the set on fire.

The Mad Bomber

In 1957, a psychiatrist by the name of Dr. James Brussel, became the first

criminal profiler to assist police departments on cases of serial arson, bombing, and serial

murder. Dr. Brussel’s most famous case, and the one that made him famous, was the

“Mad Bomber” case. Between 1940 and 1956, the Mad Bomber terrorized New York

City by placing and/or setting off bombs in or near public buildings. The case opened on

December 16, 1940, when an un-detonated bomb was found inside a toolbox, on a

window ledge of the Consolidated Edison Building in Manhattan. The device was an

unexploded pipe bomb that was wrapped in a hand-written note that read, “Con Edison

Crooks – This is for you.” Police were puzzled to why the bomber wrapped a note

around the bomb since it would have been destroyed if the bomb had exploded.

The company Consolidated Edison, was and remains the chief supplier of electric

for New York City, and the company’s offices were so large and busy, no one said that

they noticed anyone on the window ledge. The NYPD Bomb Squad did not find

fingerprints or any other evidence on the bomb. After briefly checking the company’s

records of employees who had been fired or who had grievances, the police gave up on

finding the bomber. Detectives believed that the bomb was an isolated incident and their

investigation into the event remained idle.

A year later a second bomb was found lying in a street gutter a few blocks from

the offices of Con Edison. The bomb was wrapped in a woolen sock and had an alarm-

clock detonator that had not been wound. The construction of the device was very

similar to the first, but this time the bomber had left no note. Investigators believed that

the bomber may have been on his way to the Con Edison building, but for some reason

aborted the bombing and dropped the bomb on the street.

A few months later the U.S. entered World War II and police received a letter

from the bomber that read: “I will make no more bomb units for the duration of the War –

My patriotic feelings have made me decide this – Later I will bring the Con Edison to

justice – they must pay for their dastardly deeds.”

During the next nine years the bomber did not plant any more bombs, but did

write dozens of threatening letters to Con Edison, the police, movie theatres and private

individuals. The bomber always signed his letters “F.P.”

Then on March 29, 1950, the bomber started a new bombing campaign. He

planted is third bomb at Grand Central station, which was discovered before the bomb

went off. The bomber planted a fourth device in a telephone booth in the New York

Public Library. This bomb did denote, but did not harm anyone. In the following six

years more than 30 bombs were found in public places, such as libraries, transit stations,

and movie theaters, where slash open the underside of a seat and insert the bomb before

sneaking out of the theatre. In most cases the bombs were duds or did not harm anyone

when they went off; although a bomb set off in 1953 did injure several people. The

bomber’s devices were, however, getting more power. The police were becoming

increasing frustrated as most of their leads failed to give them in answers. In addition,

the newspapers were now making them look bad by printing story after story about the

“Mad Bomber.”

On December 2, 1956, the Mad Bomber carried out the act that would motivate

the police into seeking outside help. Inside the Paramount movie theatre in Brooklyn

Christmas shoppers were taken a break by watching a movie when a bomb exploded at

7:55 p.m. injuring six people. In attempting to try something new, Inspector Howard

Finney of the New York City crime asked his friend, Captain Cronin at the Missing

Person’s Bureau if he had any ideas. Cronin suggested that a man he had worked with, a

criminal psychiatrist by the name of Dr. James Brussel, could help by possibly

developing a profile of the bomber.

Although the remained skeptical, Finney decided to give the idea a try. Finney

visited Brussel at his Manhattan office and presented him with the case file. After

studying the casse file, Brussel believed the bomber was a former employee of Con

Edison who had a grudge against the company. He assumed that the bomber was male,

because historically bombers are usually always male. Brussel believed that bomber was

European because the bomber wrote his letter in a formal language that was absent of any

contemporary slang. The bomber’s letters, for example, contained phrases like “dastardly

deeds” that sound as if out of Victorian fiction. In the letters the bomber referred to Con

Edison as “the Con Edison.” It is common practice for foreigners to put “the” in front of

company names. New Yorkers would have simply referred to the company as “Con

Edison” not “the Con Edison. Brussel concluded that the bomber may be Slavic or least

Eastern European, because culturally speaking, at that time, Eastern and Central

Europeans would most often employ bombs as weapons. Because several of the letters

were mailed from Connecticut and Connecticut was home to large communities of

Eastern and Central Eruopeans, Brussel concluded that the bomber lived in Connecticut

Psychologically speaking, Brussel believed that the bomber suffered from

paranoia. Paranoia generally peaks around the age of 35, and since the bomber had been

active for 16 years, Brussel believed the bomber was middle-aged, probably around 50.

Because paranoids tend to set high standards for themselves so as to open themselves up

to unwanted criticism, Brussel saw the bomber as a very neat and merticulous person that

carefully planned is crime, from the construction of the bombs to the neat lettering in his

letters. In fact, Brussel predicted that when caught by police, the bomber would be

wearing a three piece suit that would be button.

Once he had finished his profile, Brussel told police that they should publicize it

and the investigation itself by releasing the information to newspapers, radio, and

television. Brussel believed that the bomber want publicity and wanted credit for his

work. If media stories contained any information that was incorrect, the bomber was the

type of person that would find it hard to resist telling the media or the police about their

mistakes. Brussel predicted that if the publicity about the bombings was handled

correctly, the police may be able to goat the bomber into coming forward, or at least

revealing more information about himself.

As the police began their publicity campaign the bomber planted more bombs and

wrote more letters. He also called Dr. Bussel directly telling him to, “Keep of this or

you’ll be sorry.” Dr. Brussels was actually pleased that the bomber had called him and

felt it was only a matter of time before the bomber’s overconfidence would get the better

of him.

Meanwhile, the police had several staff members at Con Edison search employee

files for anyone who fit Brussels profile. The job was montenous and difficult since Con

Edison was a comprised of several smaller utility companies that merged together in the

late 1920s and early 1930s. The post-merger records were well organized, but the pre-

merger recorders were incomplete and were not well-kept. Brussel believed that the

bomber could have been an employee of one of the small utility companies before the

merger.

One day a clerk by the name of Alice Kelly came across the file of George

Metesky. Metesky had worked for United Electric & Power Company and lived in

Waterbury, Connecticut. He suffered an on site accident at the plant where he worked

and he believed that this accident was the cause of his subsequent tuberculosis, a claim

that could not be proven. After his disability claim was denied, Metesky wrote several

letters to the company, one of which promised he would punish the company for its

“dastardly deeds.”

When the police came to arrest Metesky at his house he was dressed in his

bathrobe. He politely confessed to being the bomber and revealed the signature on his

letters of “F.P.” stood for “Fair Play.” The police requested that Metesky put on some

clothes before that take him to the station. He obliged and when he came out of his

bedroom he was wearing a double-breasted suit – buttoned.

At his trial Metesky was found insane and committed to the Matteawan asylum

for the criminally insane. He was a model inmate and was released in 1973. He died at

the age of 90 in 1994. Dr. Brussel became famous as the result of his work in the mad

bomber case. He continued his profiling work and was often called to work as consultant

in some of the most famous hard to solve case, most notably the Boston Strangler case.

The FBI and Criminal Profiling

Following Hoover’s death in early 1972, restrictions on the practice of

psychology within the agency became more relaxed. A new FBI Academy was opened

that year in Quantico, Virginia, and the Behavioral Science Unit was developed. The

BSU’s mission was to bring behavioral science into the training curriculum for federal

law enforcement officers. Behavioral science was meant to be an umbrella term to

encompass specific social science disciplines—criminology, psychology, and

sociology—in the hope of understanding human behavior, particularly criminal behavior,

along with the social factors that influence it. The BSU also evolved into a resource for

various state and local law enforcement agencies interested in obtaining help in solving

difficult cases.

One of the pioneers of profiling at the FBI was Howard Teten, who taught

Applied Criminology at the FBI Academy. In an effort to incorporate more practical and

useful content in his course, Teten consulted with psychiatrist James A. Brussel, who had

become well-known for his profiles of the Mad Bomber and, to a lesser extent, his

consultation in the Boston Strangler case (both discussed in Chapter 1). Brussel agreed to

teach the fundamentals of his profiling technique to Teten. After consulting with Brussel,

Teten—along with Special Agent Patrick J. Mullany, who had a master’s degree in

counseling psychology—made profiling a more central theme of his Applied

Criminology course. Eventually, Teten and Mullany changed the course’s title to Applied

Criminal Psychology.

Teten’s experience with Brussel resulted in a breakthrough in Teten’s approach to

analyzing crime (J. E. Douglas & Olshaker, 1995). Although Teten did not agree with

many of Brussel’s Freudian interpretations, he came to the conclusion that one could

learn about the motives and personalities of the offender by focusing on the evidence

found at the crime scene. In fact, identification of the motivation of offenders in com-

mitting crime became the early hallmark of the FBI approach to crime scene profiling.

It is a form of deductive analysis. The deductive approach to profiling is case focused and

attempts to infer characteristics of an offender from an analysis of the evidence gathered

from a particular crime or series of crimes (Alison et al., 2004). “Deduction involves

drawing a conclusion from what we already know” (Carson, 2011, p. 83). In contrast,

inductive analysis concentrates on statistical averages of the characteristics of the

“typical” offender. “Induction involves making an inference from what we already know.

With inductive reasoning, we are not certain about our premises and, therefore, we cannot

be sure about our conclusions. Both deductive and inductive reasoning are essential

components of the profiling.

One of the most important research articles that introduced criminal profiling

techniques to the general public an article written by Hazelwood and Douglas (1980)

entitled: “The Lust Murderer.” In the article, the authors described characteristics of

individuals who commit heinous sexual offenses, even more heinous than those of other

sadistic murderers. The lust murderer could be distinguished because he engaged in

mutilation of the breast, rectum, or genitals. However, Hazelwood and Douglas also

introduced, in this article, the organized nonsocial offender and the disorganized asocial

offender, along with an accompanying crime scene dichotomy, the organized versus

disorganized (O/D) crime scene. With very few exceptions, lust murderers could be

placed into one of the above two categories, and lust murders fell into one of these two

crime scenes.

The organized nonsocial offender was methodical and cunning, could be quite

amiable, and usually carried out his crimes at a distance from his residence. By contrast,

the disorganized asocial offender lacked cunning, had an aversion to society, and

experienced difficulty maintaining relationships. He tended to commit his crimes closer

to his residence, where he felt secure. The crime scenes left behind in the wake of these

offenders’ actions—a deliberate, cold, systematic scene, or a chaotic and messy one—

reflected their personalities.

Hazelwood and Douglas (1980) indicated that their conclusions were based on

case reports of lust murders, interviews with investigative personnel, and a careful review

of the literature. However, during the same time period, Douglas also was beginning field

research with imprisoned sexual murderers, so it is likely that the information he derived

from them had some effect on his conclusions. As Douglas continued his prison research,

he and his colleagues also continued to develop the O/D dichotomy. The O/D dichotomy

is often used in the profiling of serial murderers and will be discussed in more detail in

the Serial Murder Model of this class.

A second important publication that came out of the FBI’s Behavioral Science

Unit was the “The Crime Classification Manual.” Much of the research on profiling

carried out by the FBI during the 1980s was summarized in the Crime Classification

Manual (CCM), first published in 1992 (J. E. Douglas et al.) and reissued in 2006.

The manual is a compilation of offender profiling applications and crime scene

characteristics related to a wide variety of violent crimes. The defining characteristics of

each crime are outlined, and each is accompanied by a case study that includes

background information about the crime, characteristics of the victim, crime scene

indicators, and forensic findings. The second edition of the CCM (2006) adds computer

crimes, religious-extremist murder, and elder female sexual homicide. The second edition

also contains new information on stalking and child abductions.

Note that the CCM includes victim characteristics. According to the FBI, in

answering the question, “Why was this particular person targeted for a violent crime?”

investigators will often be led to the motive. Even if the crime seemed to be a random

one—for example, the victim was just in the wrong place at the wrong time—the motive

of the offender could be gleaned. The victim might share characteristics with other

victims of similar crimes. In addition, the CCM attempts to standardize the language,

terminology, and definitions of these crimes for investigators and criminal justice

personnel. Concluding chapters on crime scene analysis in the CCM define many of the

concepts we will discuss in this course.

An Early Case: The Vampire Killer

Profiles work best when the offender displays obvious psychopathology, such as

sadistic torture, postmortem mutilation, or pedophilia. Some killers leave a signature

behavioral manifestation of an individualizing personality quirk, such as positioning the

corpse for humiliating exposure, postmortem biting, or tying ligatures with a complicated

knot. This helps to link crime scenes and may point toward other types of behaviors to

look for.

Richard Trenton Chase, the "Vampire of Sacramento," was quickly identified and

apprehended with the help of a psychological profile in 1978. He had murdered a woman

in her home, eviscerating her and drinking her blood. It was so brutal that the FBI was

called in, and it gave the profilers a chance to show what they were worth. Agents Robert

Ressler and Russ Vorpagel developed independent profiles, and both wrote about this

case in their respective books.

Ressler says it was the first time he was able to go on-site with a profile, and he

was ready. He offers a step-by-step method analysis for how he derived the traits he lists.

For example, from a psychiatric study of body type and mental temperament hed read, he

decided the offender was scrawny. Given the disorder at the scene, it was likely that the

UNSUB did not have a career or much education - nothing that required organized

thinking and concentration. The profile was all a matter of logic and knowledge about

principles of human behavior, which Ressler was able to fully explain to anyone who

asked. Vorpagels profile was similar.

Ressler figured the UNSUB for a disorganized killer as opposed to an organized

one, with clues pointing toward the possibility of paranoid psychosis. He clearly had not

planned the crime and did little to hide or destroy evidence. He left footprints and

fingerprints, and had probably walked around oblivious to the blood on his clothing. In

other words, he gave little thought to the consequences. His domicile would be as sloppy

as the place he had ransacked, and his mental capacity was likely screwed up. That meant

he probably did not drive a car, indicating he lived in the vicinity of the crimes. He was

white, 25-27, thin, undernourished, lived alone, and probably had evidence that pointed

to the crime in his home. He was likely unemployed and the recipient of disability

money. All of this was derived from known information that such crimes tended to be

intra-racial, specific to a certain age range, and similar to other people with a paranoia-

based mental illness. From what Ressler knew, it was also likely that this offender would

kill again, and keep on killing until he was caught. They had to work fast.

Richard Trenton Chase

Three days after the first murder, the killer struck again, this time slaughtering

three people in their home, including a man and a child. He grabbed a baby and stole the

family car, but then abandoned it in broad daylight. This suggested an oblivious,

unhinged mind and offered more information for refining the profile. Ressler and

Vorpagel were sure he lived close to both scenes, and after a massive manhunt the police

found Chase living less than a block from the abandoned car. His appearance was just as

anticipated and he suffered from paranoid delusions. He was also 27 years old. Body

parts, empty pet collars, and a bloodstained food blender were found in his apartment. He

lived alone, was unemployed, and had a history of psychiatric incarceration. He had been

released only months before he began to kill. His arrest stopped a string of murders that

apparently, from marks on his calendar, was to include some 44 more victims that same

year.

Vorpagel faced this man in the interrogation room, and Chase admitted he had

committed the murders, but had done nothing wrong. He was saving his own life,

because his blood was turning to sand and he needed theirs to prevent it. Talking to

someone like Chase helped to confirm what the profilers thought, and it was cases such

as this that gave Ressler an idea.

The Atlanta Child Murders

What the FBI profilers needed was a case that would demonstrate their technique

with a clear success that would get the publics’ attention. The Vampire of Sacramento

was interesting, but that threat had been local and quickly contained. With all the calls

coming in from around the country, it was likely the profilers would find a good

opportunity, and they did: a string of deaths in Atlanta that was making national news. In

Mindhunter, Douglas tells how he and Roy Hazelwood were the BSU representatives on

this case.

Chatahoochee River

From 1979 to 1981, someone was killing Atlanta's youth. More than 25 black

males, some as young as nine, had been strangled, bludgeoned or asphyxiated. All

potential leads had turned into dead ends. The only real clue was the presence on several

of the bodies of fiber threads. A few also bore strands of what was determined to be dog

hair. Douglas and Hazelwood, who arrived after a number of the murders had been

committed, walked around the neighborhood where the victims had lived and said that

this was not a racial crime; they predicted the killer would be black. They also indicated

that the next victim would likely be dumped in the Chattahoochee River, since that was

the pattern.

Wayne Williams

The police set up a stakeout. On May 22, 1981, this strategy appeared to pay off.

In the early morning hours, the stakeout patrol heard a loud splash. Someone had just

thrown something large into the river. On the James Jackson Parkway Bridge, they saw a

white Chevrolet station wagon, and when they stopped it, they learned that the driver's

name was Wayne Williams. He was a 23-year-old black photographer and music

promoter. They questioned him, but when he said he'd just dumped some garbage they let

him go.

Only two days later, the police found the body of 27-year-old Nathaniel Cater.

Hed been asphyxiated approximately 48 hours before. A single yellow-green carpet fiber

was found in his hair. The police got a search warrant for Wayne Williams' home and car,

and the search turned up some valuable evidence: The floors of Williams' home were

covered with yellow-green carpeting, and he also had a dog. Comparisons from the

samples removed from the victims showed good consistency with Williams' carpet. Three

separate polygraph tests indicated deception on Williams' part.

The prosecution relied on only two of the twenty-eight suspected murders---the

one from the river, Nathaniel Cater, and another recovered in the same general area a

month before, Jimmy Ray Payne. A single rayon fiber had been found on his shorts,

which was consistent with the carpeting in Williams' station wagon. They also introduced

into evidence the fibers found on the bodies of ten of the other victims, which also

matched those in Williams' car or home. In total, there were 28 fiber types linked to

Williams. In addition, several witnesses had come forward to place him with some of the

victims.

John Douglas acted as a consultant in the 1981 trial, predicting Williams behavior

to certain strategies, and he records the moment when Williams became upset and

shouted that he wasnt going to fit the FBIs profile. Douglas also knew that Williams

would take the stand and try to control the proceedings - and even that he would pretend

one day to be sick. It was a showcase for him, Douglas says.

After only 12 hours, the jury returned a guilty verdict against Williams, with two life

sentences. That was good for our program, Jeffers quotes Douglas as saying afterward.

Wed proven that a psychological profile can help convict a killer.

Incorrect Profiles

In 2002, over a three-week period, people living along the I-95 corridor from

Maryland to Virginia were getting shot and killed as they performed mundane tasks such

as getting gas. The nation went into a frenzy over this serial sniper and the profilers were

called for their professional opinions. With no behavior to assess except for accurate

marksmanship, commentators shot from the hip and offered all sorts of ideas about the

white loner with military background driving a white box truck or van. One media

darling with no profiling background even said that the box truck was now ditched in a

lake somewhere.

It soon became clear that the offender was listening to what the commentators and

police were predicting, because whatever was concluded about him was soon

undermined. He doesnt shoot children - then he did. He doesnt shoot on weekends - then

he did. So that was a bit of additional behavior, as were the quick getaways that

suggested two people working together.

D.C. snipers, John Muhammad & Lee Malvo

McCrary pointed out that when there are few clues in a case, people can develop

tunnel vision, such as believing that the sniper drove a white van, which was based only

on a witness report. No one really knew if a white van was involved, yet the media and

the investigators clung to it. They also clung to the notion from a profile offered on

television that the shooter was white (because most lone snipers up to this point have

been white). But it turned out that they were wrong about the van, the offenders race, and

the idea that they could publicly spout whatever they wanted without inflaming this

UNSUB to keep killing. The shooter turned out to be a team of black men and one of

them later admitted that he shot certain people after watching the police chief on news

programs try to anticipate what he would or would not do next.

Because it was such an unusual spate of crimes, data from past cases that bore no

relationship to it fueled erroneous conclusions. Yet all behavioral scientists know that

human behavior is full of anomalies. While it was reasonable to say this shooter was

white, that did not eliminate the possibility that he was of another race - or gender.

When Chief Moose later came out with a book on his experience, he indicated

that the actual FBI profile did not make the claims that the commentators had made who

had presented themselves as profilers. But the media had run with whatever they had

said, conveying the impression that all profilers were of a common opinion, and all were

therefore wrong.

Similarly, profiling took a hit in the case of the Baton Rouge serial killer, a man

who had murdered five women in Louisiana. Contrary to the FBIs predictions of an

unskilled white man awkward around women, the killer, Derrick Todd Lee, turned out to

be black, personable, and had a family and a job. But reporters failed to mention that the

local police officers, not the profilers, had neglected to include witness reports that

identified a black man near one victims home. What they showed the FBI profilers who

came into the case were the witness reports that described a white male.

Derrick Todd Lee

In fact, while the Baton Rouge killers profile was mistaken on a couple of points,

it was actually right on many more. They were correct about his age, his controlling

behavior, his strength, his tight finances, and his non-threatening style. The accuracy of

many other details are still unknown. But the media did not report any of that. They only

pointed out the errors, and that is what stays in the publics’ mind.

What got lost in the frenzy was the fact profiles are merely tools, and they are

only as good as the information they get. They are also based on probability from the

analysis of past cases that are similar to the one under investigation. If most past serial

killers have been white males, it is reasonable to suggest that a current UNSUB will

likely be a white male. With more data on female, black and Hispanic serial killers in the

future, the range of possibilities will become more flexible. Until that time, as long as

most serial killers remain white males, the probability analysis in a given profile is still

going to favor a white male. Probability always has a margin of error and any other

approach is just wild-ass guessing.

Gary Leon Ridgway

Not long after that, reporters discovered that famed profiler John Douglas had

been wrong about something in the Green River Killer case that might have made a

difference in the investigation - perhaps even saved lives. After Gary Ridgway was

caught and confessed to 48 murders, he said that had sent an anonymous letter to the

newspaper in 1984, in the midst of his long spree. Douglas had decided it was amateurish

and had no connection to the murders. While he was correct on several other things, it

was this mistake that made headlines.

Criminal Profiling Today

Crime scene profiling is the process of identifying cognitive tendencies,

behavioral patterns, motivation, emotional dispositions, and demographic variables of an

unknown offender based on characteristics and evidence gathered at the scene of the

crime. Based on crime scene information and the predicted characteristics and habits of

the offender derived from the scene, the analyst or profiler tries to describe general

characteristics of the offender or offenders and possibly predict where and how the next

crime may occur. In serial murder cases, for example, a profiler may find clues indicating

that the span of time between offenses is lessening. In some cases, a possible suspect has

been identified and police want to know whether this individual has personality

characteristics that are consistent with the crime scene.

Crime scene profiling is used most often when investigators have few clues that

could help solve the case, and they are making little headway as to who may have

committed the crime. In some situations, however, the behavioral consultant is brought in

at the very beginning of a case. This is most likely to occur if the case is a particularly

heinous one or if law enforcement officers have a working relationship with the

behavioral expert. Crime scene profiling also is often used in rape and homicide

investigations, particularly when a crime appears to be committed by a serial offender, or

in child abduction cases, where the first few hours after a child’s disappearance are

crucial. Each of these crimes will be discussed in more detail in later in the course.

It should be emphasized that crime scene profiling—even in its most sophisticated

form—rarely can point directly to the person who committed the crime. Instead, the

process helps develop a manageable set of hypotheses for identifying who may have been

responsible for the crime. The development of the profile is a probabilistic process that

requires a considerable amount of information about the offense. For example, police

reports, detailed crime scene photographs, witness statements, forensic laboratory reports,

and—if the case is a homicide—autopsy reports are important (O’Toole, 1999). If at all

possible, the profiler should visit the crime scene. Detailed information about the victim’s

lifestyle, background, and physical characteristics is also paramount.

If done competently, a profile will provide some statistical probabilities of the

demographics, geographic patterns, and psychological features of the offender.

According to Mary Ellen O’Toole (1999)—an FBI special agent for 28 years who is now

associated with a private company that trains criminal justice officials—a profile may

suggest the offender’s lifestyle, race, gender, emotional age as well as chronological age,

marital status, level of formal education or training, occupation, and work history. It may

also contain information about the offender’s ability to relate and communicate with

others, the likelihood of prior criminal behavior, the presence of dementia or other mental

deterioration, feelings of guilt concerning the crime, the likelihood of committing the

crime again, and motivation for the offense. In addition, the profile report should—if

possible—include how the crime most likely occurred and the interaction between the

offender and the victim. Profiles also may be able to indicate what type of victim is at

risk. Finally, a profile should eliminate substantial segments of the population from

further investigation.

Basically, crime scene profiling is usually done in three stages. First, police

officers and detectives collect crime scene data, such as forensic photographs, autopsy

results, and all relevant physical evidence. Second, this information is then turned over to

a profiler or team who analyzes the data and offers an “educated hypothesis” about

important characteristics of the offender. Recall from the first chapter that Brussel

reviewed information provided by police and produced a preliminary profile within a few

hours, while detectives awaited his conclusions. Likewise, the “profilers” in the popular,

fictionalized accounts (TV shows such as Criminal Minds, Bones, Numbers) waste little

time in providing their input. Responsible, professional analysts in the real world are

more guarded and cautious. Third, the profile report, including predictions, is then

communicated to the police investigating the case. In some cases, profilers do not have

the luxury of thoughtful, deliberative assessment of the evidence. In child abduction

cases, for example, time is of the essence—making information both crucial and,

unfortunately, more subject to error.