O
FFENDER
P
ROFILING
Forensic and Police Psychology
2010
O
FFENDER
P
ROFILING
offender profiling
criminal profiling
criminal personality profiling
crime scene profiling
behavioural profiling
psychological profiling
criminal investigative analysis,
O
FFENDER
P
ROFILING
Alison, et al. (2001): “
Offender Profiling is commonly associated with
inferring characteristics of an offender from the action at a crime scene
”.
Dougles and Burgess (1986) define the process as “
an investigative technique
by which to identify the major personality and behaviour characteristics of
the offender based upon an analysis of the crime(s) he or she committed
”.
Copson
(1995)
defines
offender
profiling
as:
“
Any
prediction,
recommendations and observations based on the inference of offender
characteristics from behaviour exhibited in a crime or a series of crimes, and
offered to the investigators as the product of statistical or clinical expertise
”.
O
FFENDER
P
ROFILING
Hallas: “
Offender profiling is different form ‘clues’ left at the scene (such as
blood, hair, semen, saliva, etc.) in that it provides the police with
less visible
clues at the crime scene
(e.g., choice of victim, location, type of assault,
anything said or not said to the victim)”.
O
FFENDER
P
ROFILING
child abuse, abduction
serious crimes of a serial nature including burglary,
rape, arson, and murder.
Profiling appears to be most useful in cases that suggest some
psychological disorder
in the offender, especially in attempting to
‘profile’ personality from crime-specific behaviour, or in a series of
unsolved crimes that suggest
patterned or distinct
offence-relevant behaviours
(Horgan, 2002).
Holmes (1989) suggests that profiling is most useful when the crime
scene reflects
psychopathology
(e.g., sadistic assault) and 90 % of
profiling attempts involve murder of rape.
O
BJECTIVES OF THE
O
FFENDER
P
ROFILING
(Horgan, 2002):
1.
The development of a
description of an unknown offender
,
based on an interpretation of crime scene elements of the
unsolved offence (this is perhaps the broadest, and most common
purpose of profiling).
1.
Establishing the
probability of a future offence
from the same
offender based on the crime scene analysis.
1.
The
linking of a series of unsolved crimes
that appear to
share distinct features (e.g., often through linking ‘signature
aspects’ – essentially personalized offender specific behaviours
that reflect individual interpersonal behaviour and/or fantasy).
1.
The development of an
interrogation strategy
to assist police
in ‘asking the right questions’. Again, this is based on a
psychological portrait inferred from an analysis of the crime
scene and/or statistical data from offenders thought similar to the
unknown subject.
M
YTHS AND
F
ACTS
MYTH: Psychologists regularly visit the crime scenes.
FACTS: For the most part, the profiler is consulted
in the late stages of
investigation
, and examines the crime scene from a
distance via
materials
provided by the police, and often, but not exclusively,
when police leads have been exhausted (Horgan, 2002).
Information available to a profiler
:
case documents on the crime scene
victim-related information
forensic information, including a pathologist’s report, preliminary police
reports, and a variety and range of photographs
Other profiler’s sources
:
personal experience
or expertise relating to knowledge of both the
type of
crime
in question as well as the type of criminal suggested from the
analysis of crime
experience form
clinical case studies, statistical models of offending etc.
M
YTHS AND
F
ACTS
MYTH: Profiler can identify exact person whom the police should arrest.
FACTS: The profile is certainly
not predicated on any specific ‘absolutes’
(Ainsworth, 2000; In. Horgan, 2002).
PROFILE
The profile is basically a summary document, often not more than 6-10 pages, which
typically contains (Horgan, 2002):
predictions of offender’s
sex
, approximate
age
,
race
and
other general
characteristics
suggestions related to whether or not the offender
is likely to offend again
suggestions related to whether or not the offender
may be forensically aware
(sexual offences) details of the
degree of sexual maturity
of the offender or the
role of specific fantasy themes
in the offending behaviour
information related to the offender’s
likely responses
to police questioning and
suggestions about the
interrogative strategy
to the police
E
ARLY
E
XAMPLES OF
P
ROFILING
1888 – ‘Jack the Ripper’ (London)
Jack the Ripper – his crimes are also known as the ‘Whitechapel Murders’ as
they took place around the Whitechapel area of London.
The police surgeon Dr. Phillips drew some conclusions about the killer’s
personality by examining the wounds of the victims. He concluded that the
killer must have had some medical training because some of the victim’s
organs had been removed with a skill that only a medical professional would
have. (Turvey, 1999, In. Hallas)
In November 1888 Dr. Thomas Bond offered the following opinion (Cited in
Rumbelow, 1987, p. 140-141; In. Canter, 2004):
E
ARLY
E
XAMPLES OF
P
ROFILING
1956 – ‘Mad Bomber’ (New York)
The Mad Bomber had planted his first bomb at the Consolidated Edison
building on West 64th Street on November 16th, 1940.
The Mad Bomber (or F.P. as he signed his mysterious, paranoid letters)
had been planting bombs in New York City for sixteen years (till 1956).
He detonated over 30 explosive devices in locations all over the city.
The Mad Bomber's devices were getting more powerful with every
explosion. He sent arrogant letters to the department and local media.
from: Madden, M. A. (no date). George Metesky: New York’s Mad Bomber. Downloaded 12thof November 2010 from:
E
ARLY
E
XAMPLES OF
P
ROFILING
1956 – ‘Mad Bomber’ (New York)
1956: Dr. James Brussel, criminal psychiatrist, came up with the following conclusions: The bomber wasmale. With a few exceptions, historically bombers have always been male.
The bomber had agrudge against Con Edisonand was likely aformer employee. He believed himself to have been permanently injured by the company and was seeking revenge. This conclusion was obvious from the letters.
The bomber was a textbookparanoid. The bomber believed that Con Edison and the public at large conspired against him.
The bomber was middle-aged — probablyaround 50. Paranoia generally peaks around age 35 and the bomber had been active for 16 years.
The bomber wasneat,meticulous andskilled at his work. Everything from the carefully constructed bombs, to the neat lettering, to the careful planning of the bombs indicated his neatness. Also, paranoids tend to set high standards for themselves so as not open themselves to unwanted criticism.
The bomber was overlysensitive to criticism. This is a classic symptom of paranoia.
The bomber wasforeign or spent the majority of his time with foreign people. The bomber wrote in stilted, formal language bereft of any contemporary slang. He utilized phrases like "dastardly deeds" that sounded as if out of Victorian fiction. He referred to Con Edison as "the Con Edison" when New Yorkers had referred to the utility giant without the article "the" for years.
The bomber had at least ahigh school educationbut probably no college. The stilted language of the letters and skilled construction of the bombs spoke of self-education. The excellent handwriting indicated at least some formal schooling.
The bomber was aSlavand probablyRoman Catholic. Culturally speaking, Eastern and Central Europeans most often employ bombs as weapons. Most Slavs are Catholic.
The bomberlived in Connecticut, not New York. Some of the letters had been mailed from Westchester Country (a location in between Connecticut and New York) and Connecticut was home to large communities of Eastern and Central Europeans.
The bomber suffered from an Oedipal Complex. Like most Oedipal sufferers he was likelyunmarriedand lived with a single female relative or relatives that were not his mother. He probablylost his mother young. Dr. Brussel made these conclusions based on the phallic construction of the bombs; the strange (and breast-like) W's in the bomber's otherwise perfect handwriting and the strange slashing and penetration of the movie theatres seats.
E
ARLY
E
XAMPLES OF
P
ROFILING
1956 – ‘Mad Bomber’ (New York)
All the major New York papers includingThe New York Timespublished summaries of Dr. Brussel's profile.
Dr. Brussel predicted that if, in fact, anything was wrong with the profile the bomber wouldn't be able to resist telling the police and media about the error. Even if the profile was on target, the bomber might be goaded into revealing details that could lead the police to him.
"One more thing," said Dr. Brussel with his eyes dramatically closed, "When you catch him — and I have no doubt you will — he'll be wearing a double-breasted suit." "And it will be buttoned.“
Con Edison assigned several of its administrative staff members to go through its vast
"troublesome" employee files searchingfor anyone who fit the profile.
The neighbours didn't know what to make of George Metesky. The dapper, Slavic man who lived at Number 17 Fourth Street in Waterbury,Connecticutwith his two unmarried sisters didn't appear to work for a living. Although he was always polite, he wasdistant and nobody in the neighbourhood knew anything about him.
Around the same time as the newspapers began to publicize the Dr. Brussel's profile of the mad bomber, the neighbours noticeda change in Metesky. He seemed friendlier — even talkative at times. He helped a local boy fix his model airplane, and the neighbourhood children were no longer afraid of him. People in the neighbourhood remarked to one another that they might have misjudged the eccentric Metesky.
A few nights later, the neighbours were shocked when the police came andarrested Metesky. Dressed in his bathrobe, he pleasantly and politely confessed to being the bomber. VIDEO The police requested that Metesky change clothes before they arrested him. He obliged, and when they took him away he was wearing adouble-breasted suit — buttoned.
George Metesky, whofit Brussel's profile in every detail, was found insane and committed to the Matteawan asylum for the criminally insane. As is the case with most acute paranoids, he was unresponsive to treatment — believing the psychiatrists were part of the conspiracy against him. He proved to be a model patient and spent much of his time trying to legally win his release.
from: Madden, M. A. (no date). George Metesky: New York’s Mad Bomber. Downloaded 12thof November 2010 from:
D
EDUCTIVE
R
EASONING
Deductive reasoning islogicalreasoning. It tends to be more definite than inductive reasoning (Hallas).
“Deduction is a form of implicit reasoning in which whatever experience or logic the reasoner can draw upon will be used to derive inferences about the culprit from aspects of the crime” (Canter, 2000).
DEDUCTIVE CRIMINAL PROFILING
If the first statement is true, then the conclusion is also true
Example (Turvey, 1999): The situation is that the offender disposed of a victim’s body in a remote area and tyre tracks were found at the scene. The profiler could say ‘if the tyre track belong to the offender, then the offender has access to a vehicle and can drive’ (Hallas).
Example (Canter, 2000):
The offender had short finger nails on his right hand and long nails on his left hand.
This is a characteristic of people who are serious guitar players.
The offender was somebody who played the guitar.
In fact in the case of question, the offender who was eventually identified had no contact with guitars and had this peculiar pattern of nail lengthbecause of his job in repairing old tyres.
Without clearempirical evidenceabout the prevalence of this particular pattern of nail length it is difficult to know whether the claim that it is unique to guitar players is valid.
I
NDUCTIVE
R
EASONING
The collection ofempirical evidencein order to support the inferences that may be made about the relationship between the crimes and the offender is the cornerstone of the inductive method of science (Canter, 2000).
Information from the environment and many other sources is weighed up, and the conclusion are drawn (Hallas).
INDUCTIVE CRIMINAL PROFILING
ICP uses statistics, especially correlation, in order to see whether there are shared characteristics between crimes.
Today the statistical procedures vary enormously from Linear Discriminant Function Analysis and Logistic Regression through Multidimensional Scaling and Cluster Analysesto the more statistically sophisticatedBasysian Belief Networking(Horgan, 2002).
A
PPROACHES TO
O
FFENDER
P
ROFILING
1.
Clinical Psychological Approach
2.
Criminal Investigative – FBI Approach
3.
Scientific Statistical – British Approach
4.
Geographical Approach
T
HE
C
LINICAL
P
SYCHOLOGICAL
A
PPROACH
Individuals using theclinical practitioner approachrely on theirpractical experience, knowledge, and to varying degrees intuition to draw inferences from crime scene information (Alison, et al., 2010).
The clinical psychological profiling is performed by clinical psychologists or psychiatrists who rely more heavily on clinical data and models of offending, although as Silke (2001) asserts, the clinician will prefer to regard each case as unique thereby deserving a detailed case-specific analysis and classification (Horgan, 2002).
Rather than relying on investigative experience (FBI approach), the clinician relies on drawing inferences fromexpertiseorexperience with similar crimesand offenders, often in forensic and/or mental health settings (Horgan, 2002).
The clinical profiling is not a uniformly discrete process. For example,clinical profilers could easily arrive at different profiles from the same profile inputs. This can reflect differences in the professional backgrounds and training of the clinicians as well as differences in their theoretical orientation within the discipline of psychology (Horgan, 2002).
Subjective / professional judgement!
Some clinical profiles highlight issues to do with the significance of the murders to the offenders, “internal conflicts and fantasy life” (Canter, 1989, p. 12), all of which Canter argues “are hidden from view and therefore not readily open to conventional police investigation” (Horgan, 2002).
T
HE
FBI A
PPROACH
The American approach is called ‘
top-down
’ because it builds a classification
system using information that is already known (i.e., interviews with known
criminals) together with a behavioural analysis of crime scenes and
information from victims and witnesses (Hallas).
In
1979,
FBI
investigators
interviewed
serial
killers
and
sex
murderers
. They interviewed 36 sexual murderers including Charles
Manson and Ted Bundy. They found that out of these 36 subjects:
24 were ‘
organised’
12 were ‘
disorganised’
In general, the FBI
dichotomised the crime scenes
of this group of
offenders into two broad categories – organised and disorganised. Both the
organised
and
disorganised
crimes
were
then
correlated
with
characteristics of the offender sample
(Horgan, 2002).
T
HE
FBI A
PPROACH
ORGANISED CRIME SCENESreflected an overalllevel of control and planning, with offender bringing their
own weapons with them and generally comingprepared. The offenders carefully
planned their offence, often using restraints in subduing the victims.
reflected an overall level of organisation, the organised offender would take
care totransportthe victim to a predetermined location both in the execution of
the offence or sometimes post-mortem to hide the location of the body.
The victim of the organised offender would be ‘personalised’, in that the victim
may have been a stranger, they were seen to represent a vital element of the offender’s fantasy (Ressler et al. 1988, In. Horgan, 2002).
OFFENDER WITH ORGANISED CRIME SCENE BEHAVIOUR
anaverage or above average intelligencelevel
socially and sexually competent
oftenliving with a partner
weremobile(with a car)
often had a degree of negative stress precipitating the crime itself (e.g.
through personal turmoil at home, at work, etc.)
follow the reported progressof the criminal investigation often change jobs or leave town as a result
T
HE
FBI A
PPROACH
DISORGANISED CRIME SCENES
The crimes often appeared the result
of unplanned, spontaneous
‘blity’-style attacks, often subsequently resulting in greater levels of
exhibited
violence
reflecting an overall
lack of planning and forethought
.
The overall crime scenes were ‘
chaotic
’
, with little effort made to conceal
either the victim, or materials used in the offence (e.g. weapons).
OFFENDER WITH DISORGANISED CRIME SCENE BEHAVIOUR
below average intelligence
level
socially, sexually and occupationally unskilled
were reported to be
quite anxious
during the commission of the crime
lived
alone
would
not bother to ‘follow’ the news reports
or make subsequent
efforts to purposely avoid detection (Ressler, 1988; In. Horgan, 2002).
PSYCHOPATHOLOGY
While the
organised
offender’s behaviour and personality appear to reflect
psychopathic
behaviour, the
disorganised
offenders were more typically
representative of the presence of some
psychotic
disorder (Turvey, 1999).
T
HE
FBI A
PPROACH
CRITISICM (e.g. Canter, Turvey, Alison)
lack of scientific methodological rigor and sound theoretical underpinning
overgeneralisation and oversimplification
the oversimplification of complex situational behaviours into dichotomous
categories, a typical strategy used within this approach, has been
empirically refuted
MIXED CATEGORY
offenders who display elements of both ‘organisation’ and ‘disorganisation’
crime scenes behaviour, or the crime scene when exists the likelihood of
the presence of more than one offender
T
HE
FBI A
PPROACH
NATIONAL CENTRE FOR THE ANALYSIS OF VIOLENT CRIME (NCAVC)
Services
provided by the behavioural analysis units include:
crime analysis; profiles of unknown offenders; linkage analysis; investigative
suggestions;
threat assessment; interview strategies; media strategies;
search warrant affidavit assistance; prosecution and trial strategies;
expert testimony; critical incident analysis; and
geographic profiling
NCAVC Research Program
how offenders commit their crimes,
how they attempt to avoid detection,
and how they are identified, apprehended, and convicted.
Violent Criminal Apprehension Program (ViCAP)
the largest investigative repository of major violent crime cases in the United
States.
web-based data information centre designed to collect and analyze information
about homicides, sexual assaults, missing persons, and other violent crimes
involving unidentified human remains.
the database compares information in an attempt to identify similar cases and
help move investigations forward.
T
HE
B
RITISH
S
TATISTICAL
A
PPROACH
The British approach is called ‘
bottom-up
’ because it involves working
with detailed information gathered from the scene of the crime and
from information about the crime. A picture of the criminal is then
suggested (Hallas).
Differences between the British and American approaches
Boon and Davies (1992) argue that
the British approach
is based on
‘bottom-up’ data processing (an analysis of existing evidence), the aim being to identify
associations between offences and offender characteristics.
The American
approach
is ‘top-down’ and uses subjective conclusions drawn from both
experience of crimes and interviews with criminals (Hallas).
T
HE
B
RITISH
S
TATISTICAL
A
PPROACH
The statistical approach is primarily based on the
multivariate
analysis
of behavioural and other information found at the crime
scene to infer an offender’s characteristics and psychological processes
(Alison et al., 2010).
Prof.
David Cater
is one of the leading advocates of the development
of ‘investigative psychology’ in the UK. He encourages an empirical
approach to profiling based on the collation of
offence and offender
characteristics
and their
subjection
to
statistical modelling
in order
to support any inferences of profile characteristics (Horgan, 2002).
The technique primarily employed by Canter and his colleagues was
multidimensional scaling (MDS)
in which offences and/or their
features were represented as points in space. They use the principle of
‘smallest space’ (developed by of Louis Guttman). Thus the MDS
methods typically used are usually known as
‘smallest space
analysis’ (SSA)
(Horgan, 2002).
T
HE
B
RITISH
S
TATISTICAL
A
PPROACH
5 basic dimensions of offender behaviour
violent behaviour
sexual behaviour
impersonal behaviour
criminal behaviour
intimacy behaviour
The statistical profile in isolation (with no connection to the clinical approach)
will not be able to offer inferences about the perpetrator’s background or other
predisposing influences (Horgan, 2002).
T
HE
B
RITISH
S
TATISTICAL
A
PPROACH
A Hierarchy of criminal actions (by David Canter, 2000)
The major premise - there are some
psychologically important variations
between crimes
that relate to
differences in the people
who commit them.
Questions aboutparticular subsets of activities that occur in a crime, such as, whether a particular type of weapon (MODUS OPERANDI).
MODUS OPERANDI – the method of operation used by criminal -all the actions and behaviours that were needed to commit the crime
Some of the actions willoverlap with those of other offenders, for example whether the criminal carries out his or her crimes on impulse or plans them carefully.
There will be relatively few aspects of offending, if any, that are unique to one given offender (SIGNATURE). Even those may not be apparent in all the crimes that a person commits!
T
HE
B
RITISH
S
TATISTICAL
A
PPROACH
Problem with this model:
The linear ordering of this table is an
over-simplification.
Offenders are not necessarily specialists in one particular type of crime (Klen, 1984; In. Canter, 2000).
It may mean that, for example, it is more valid to consider the difference between an offender who came prepared to carry out his or her crime and one who just grabbed what was available, rather than focusing on differences, say, whether it was a robbery or burglary. In effect, this makes the
description of crimes multi-dimensional(Canter, 2000).
T
HE
B
RITISH
S
TATISTICAL
A
PPROACH
The radix model – beyond ‘types’ (by David Canter, 2000)At the centre of the circle, are actionstypical of all the criminalsbeing considered.
As the action become more specific to particular styles of offending so they would be expected to be conceptually further from the ‘centre’ of general criminality and thus more differentiating between criminals.
This model has two facets to in:
1) the facet of specificity, moving
from the general, shared by all offences and therefore conceptually in the middle, to the specific at the periphery.
2) the thematic facet that distinguishes between the different qualities of the offences, conceptually radiating around the ‘core’ (e.g., the degree of planning, the forms of contact with the victim)
T
HE
B
RITISH
S
TATISTICAL
A
PPROACH
Research recommendation (by Davis Canter, 2000)
Researchers have therefore usually focused on one or other of the ‘levels’ of this hierarchy.
For example, there are many studies examining the differences between offenders and non-offenders. There are fewer comparing the differences between those convicted of one crime and those convicted of another,
and very few considering the differences between people who carry out similar crimes (e.g. rape) in different ways.
T
HE
G
EOGRAPHICAL
A
PPROACH
The basis for the geographical profiling is that
it may be possible to locate
the probable residential or employment base of a criminal
. This is based
on
an
analysis
of
apparent
patterns
in
the
criminal’s
offence
characteristics (Horgan, 2002).
The theoretical underpinnings of this approach essentially borrow from
mathematical and statistical models
, but are interpreted on an
individual basis through the filters of
environmental and cognitive
psychology
(Horgan, 2002).
The approach involves assumptions about the
spatial dimensions to
behaviour
routine behaviour patterns of victims,
the location of offence,
demographic attributes of the surrounding environment, etc.
T
HE
G
EOGRAPHICAL
A
PPROACH
Canter and Larkin (1993) in their work on
serial rapists
suggests that offenders
operate within distinctive ‘offence regions’.
Their analysis of 45 male serial rapists illustrated that some serial offenders (the
‘
marauders’
) tend to hunt in areas with which they are familiar: 87 % of the
sample move outwards from their home base to conduct their attacks.
They also proposed the existence of ‘
commuters’
, thought to travel to a ‘target
location’ both to hunt for and victimise targets. The travelled distance tends to
correlate directly with the distances between offences.
R
EFERENCES
Alison, L. et al. (2001). Interpreting the Accuracy of Offender Profiles. UK: University of Liverpool.
Alison, L. et al. (2010). Pragmatic Solution to Offender Profiling and Behavioural Investigative Advice. The British Psychological Society. 15, 115-132.
Canter, D. (2000). Offender Profiling and Criminal Differentiation. UK: The British Psychological Society.
Canter, D. (2004). Offender Profiling and Investigative Psychology. Centre for Investigative Psychology. UK: The University of Liverpool.
Hallas, S. (no date). Offender Profiling. Psychology Factsheets. Downloaded 1stof Novemeber 2010
from:www.curriculum-press.co.uk.
Horgan, J. (2002). Understanding Criminal Behaviour: Beyond ‘Red Dragon’. Faculty of Science Public Lecture Series, Ireland: University College Cork.
Madden, M. A. (no date). George Metesky: New York’s Mad Bomber. Downloaded 12th of
November 2010 from:
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/terrorists_spies/terrorists/metesky/1.html.
Turvey, B. E. (2008). Criminal Profiling. An Introduction to Behavioral Evidence Analysis. Third Edition. Elsevier, UK: Adademic Press.