Uncertainties

A number of problems must be dealt with in any criminal inquiry. This is generally so in a homicide investigation and especially in a known serial killer investigation. Four areas will be addressed here that relate to computer crim- inal profiling: conceptual considerations, investigative dilemmas, interagency obstacles, scholarly concerns, and related issues.

A. Conceptual Considerations

Philosophically there are some important considerations associated with pro- filing. There are legitimate authorities, and there are charlatans who claim expertise as profilers. There are three categories of American investigators I regard as authentic profilers. FBI agents (active duty and retired) who have trained at the FBI Academy’s Behavioral Science Unit are one category. (Of course, not all FBI agents receive this training.) Other law enforcement officers (active duty and retired) trained by the FBI, are also qualified pro- filers. The third group constitutes the handful of criminal investigators (active duty and retired) who were trained other than at the FBI Academy but who, nevertheless, are legitimate profilers. In my estimation, there are fewer qual- ified profilers in this latter category.

Outside of law enforcement there are also individuals qualified to con- struct a criminal profile — some physicians, for example. Psychiatrists spe- cifically educated in dealing with abnormal human behavior and experienced at interviewing criminals could do so, as did James Brussel in the Mad Bomber investigation. Under the best of circumstances, however, it is difficult to assess human behavior. Some of the most talented of such psychiatrists have been duped by savvy criminals (Samenow 1984; Yochelson and Same- now 1976). Scholarly individuals with graduate degrees in a social science discipline such as psychology fall into a gray area. This is because it is a rare academic who has had hands-on experience. Few have interviewed a known or acknowledged serial offender. Fewer still have examined a crime scene. Reading about profiling does not make an expert profiler, and talking to a self-described hacker or cracker does not make an expert cyber profiler.

Lacking an appropriate background but having a gift for gab and famil- iarity with the jargon, empirics take advantage of the gullible and desperate. Amongst the unscrupulous are those who have no relevant education, train- ing, nor experience. Unfortunately, some of these opportunists are former law enforcement officers; still others are lettered. As in any endeavor in life, the watchword for the prospective employer is caveat emptor (buyer beware). A useful rule of thumb is to check the bona fides of the prospective consultant (profiler). If they are legitimate, they will have an established reputation and

70 Forensic Computer Crime Investigation

a verifiable track record. NDAs (nondisclosure agreements) notwithstanding, profilers who offer their services should be willing to identify the law enforce- ment agencies and/or corporations where they have undertaken profiling consultations and their points of contact.

B. Investigative Dilemmas

A major hurdle not easy to overcome is that the senior detectives, who typically investigate homicide or computer crime cases, frequently lack a background in the behavioral sciences. They may also dismiss outright the utility of the behavioral sciences generally and profiling specifically. Their examination of a crime scene may thus overlook important behaviorally relevant clues. Another problem is that the first responder may be an inex- perienced patrol officer who also lacks relevant training. This lack of expe- rience may result in the crime scene being compromised. As it concerns computer crime scenes, disturbing the crime scene may mean destroying the evidence. A third problem is that there seems to be a direct correlation between the spectacular nature of the crime and the number of unassigned personnel who show up at the crime scene. It has not happened yet in a computer crime case — but it will. Unless organizationally prohibited, some who have no need to be at the crime scene will nevertheless make an appear- ance. They want to look around and will sometimes push their way past the rookie protecting the crime scene. Executives, who ought to know better, are sometimes the worst offenders.

C. Interagency Obstacles

It is not uncommon for serial offenders to commit their crimes in more than one jurisdiction. But agencies conduct investigations as they present themselves sequentially, usually singly. By the time a series of serial cases becomes evident, multiagency involvement frequently becomes obvious and inevitable. Each agency finds itself in a situation in which it must interact with one or more other agencies. Inevitably, each believes they should be in charge. Predictably, each believes their way of doing things is superior to the way the other(s) are handling the investigation. Insecurity turns to defensiveness that leads to obstructionism. Failure to share, cooperate, or coordinate information are the major ways in which displeasure is expressed over the undesirable situation.

This confounding circumstance is what Egger (1984) termed “Linkage Blindness,” which is the unwillingness of the agency head (or some other authority figure) to admit that outside assistance is needed to solve a case in their jurisdiction. As it concerns computer crimes, bringing in a consultant does not yet seem to have been a widespread problem — but it will. Linkage blindness is most evident when agencies at different levels must interact. For example, when a suburban agency must work with a big city agency, when

Criminal Investigation Analysis and Behavior 71 a municipal agency must work with a state agency, or when any of the former must work with a federal agency. This can occur intra-agency as well. The desire for glory, promotion, or even something as trivial as overtime pay has driven some detectives in one unit to hold back information from investiga- tors in another unit within the same agency. This problem has surfaced in several high-profile serial murder investigations: David Berkowitz, Larry Eyler, and Ted Bundy, to name but three (Douglas and Olshaker 1998). This amounts to cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face. But it happens consis- tently. I postulate that this is not solely an American phenomenon. Petty professional jealousy and insecurity has long existed in law enforcement. There is little indication that the problem will soon resolve itself or that computer crimes will be exempt.

D. Scholarly Concerns

The FBI’s profiling program too has its detractors. One highly qualified critic asserts that it “lacks … validity and reliability … and … a proper theoretical basis” (Rossmo 1996, 71–72). Another skeptic contends that the inferences drawn from the data rest on too meager a baseline. That is, the original sample size was inadequate (Copson 1995). There are also those who question the utility of profiling altogether (Levin and Fox 1985). In spite of such controversy, to a large extent “many, if not all, of the psychological profiling units in other countries have been modeled on the FBI approach” (Jackson and Bekerian 1997, 6). It is also noted that renowned psychiatrist and adviser to the American Psychiatric Association Park Elliott Dietz applauds the work of the FBI. He says, “I think I know as much about criminal behavior as any mental-health professional and I don’t know as much as the Bureau’s profilers do” (Michaud 1986, 42). Although expertise in this investigative niche may not be easy to objectively evaluate, its mantle continues to be bestowed upon the FBI. For this reason, if no other, it is hoped that the FBI will be the vanguard for the development of the first wave of certified cybercrime profilers.

E. Related Issues

Professional recognition of profiling as a legitimate technique, at least in the United States, lacks academic standing. Few institutions — I know of none — confer a degree in this esoteric field. Just over two dozen institutions have recently been identified that do offer coursework in this domain. Some schools in the United States that have been noted for the quality of their programs are the Illinois School of Professional Psychology, Fielding Institute (Santa Barbara, California), University of Virginia, and Northwestern Uni- versity. The only cyber counterpart that has surfaced, thus far, is the CyberPsychology Institute at Brandeis University (Waxman 2003).

72 Forensic Computer Crime Investigation

There is also a lack of published work or organizational reporting. Too little of it reports scholarly research with a sufficiently large baseline to be able to infer from a sample to its population of offenders or to assess the accuracy of the techniques utilized. Fortunately, an excellent source of mate- rial concerning conventional profiling is available at the FBI Academy Library, thanks largely to the efforts of Ms. Cynthia Lent. Quantico probably holds the single largest collection of profiling literature in the world. It is expected that the FBI Academy will also become the major repository for computer crime profiling literature. “Profiling,” a chapter in the forthcoming second edition of Know Your Enemy by the Project Honeynet staff (Kilger, Arkin, and Stutzman 2002), will make a significant contribution to this embryonic niche of the profiling literature. Insofar as violent crime profiling practitio- ners are concerned, the most reputable and experienced of the consulting firms in this arcane domain is the Academy Group of Manassas, Virginia. Many of the profiling pioneers, the original FBI Academy Behavioral Science Unit faculty, constitute its primary staff. A cyber counterpart of such expertise has not yet emerged publicly.