o ffender p rofiling forensic and police psychology 2010

OFFENDER PROFILING

Forensic and Police Psychology

2010

OFFENDER PROFILING

offender profiling

criminal profiling

criminal personality profiling

crime scene profiling

behavioural profiling

psychological profiling

criminal investigative analysis,

investigative psychology

OFFENDER PROFILING

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”.

OFFENDER PROFILINGHallas: “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)”.

OFFENDER PROFILING

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.

OBJECTIVES OF THE OFFENDER PROFILING

(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.

MYTHS AND FACTS

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.

MYTHS AND FACTS

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

EARLY EXAMPLES OF PROFILING

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):

EARLY EXAMPLES OF PROFILING

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 12th of November 2010 from: http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/terrorists_spies/terrorists/metesky/1.html.

EARLY EXAMPLES OF PROFILING1956 – ‘Mad Bomber’ (New York)

1956: Dr. James Brussel, criminal psychiatrist, came up with the following conclusions: The bomber was male. With a few exceptions, historically bombers have always been male. The bomber had a grudge against Con Edison and was likely a former 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 textbook paranoid. The bomber believed that Con Edison and the public at large conspired against him.

The bomber was middle-aged — probably around 50. Paranoia generally peaks around age 35 and the bomber had been active for 16 years.

The bomber was neat, meticulous and skilled 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 overly sensitive to criticism. This is a classic symptom of paranoia. The bomber was foreign 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 a high school education but 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 a Slav and probably Roman Catholic. Culturally speaking, Eastern and Central Europeans most often employ bombs as weapons. Most Slavs are Catholic.

The bomber lived 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 likely unmarried and lived with a single female relative or relatives that were not his mother. He probably lost 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.

EARLY EXAMPLES OF PROFILING1956 – ‘Mad Bomber’ (New York) All the major New York papers including The New York Times published 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 searching for 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, Connecticut with his two unmarried sisters didn't appear to work for a living. Although he was always polite, he was distant 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 noticed a 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 and arrested 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 a double-breasted suit — buttoned.

George Metesky, who fit 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 12th of November 2010 from: http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/terrorists_spies/terrorists/metesky/1.html.

DEDUCTIVE REASONINGDeductive reasoning is logical reasoning. 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 length because of his job in repairing old tyres.

Without clear empirical evidence about 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.

INDUCTIVE REASONING

The collection of empirical evidence in 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 Analyses to the more statistically sophisticated Basysian Belief Networking (Horgan, 2002).

Generalisations are then made (Hallas).

APPROACHES TO OFFENDER PROFILING

1. Clinical Psychological Approach

2. Criminal Investigative – FBI Approach

3. Scientific Statistical – British Approach

4. Geographical Approach

THE CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGICAL APPROACH

Individuals using the clinical practitioner approach rely on their practical 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 from expertise or experience with similar crimes and 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).

THE FBI APPROACH

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).

THE FBI APPROACH

ORGANISED CRIME SCENES reflected an overall level of control and planning, with offender

bringing their own weapons with them and generally coming prepared. 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 to transport the 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 an average or above average intelligence level socially and sexually competent often living with a partner were mobile (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 progress of the criminal investigation often change jobs or leave town as a result

THE FBI APPROACH

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).

PSYCHOPATHOLOGYWhile 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).

THE FBI APPROACH

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

THE FBI APPROACH

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.

THE BRITISH STATISTICAL APPROACH

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).


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).


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).


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 about particular 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 will overlap 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!


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).


The radix model – beyond ‘types’ (by David Canter, 2000)

At the centre of the circle, are actions typical of all the criminals being 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)


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.

THE GEOGRAPHICAL APPROACH

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.

THE GEOGRAPHICAL APPROACH

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.

REFERENCES

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 1st of

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.

o ffender p rofiling forensic and police psychology 2010

Documents