4.2.2Other Investigative Tactics

responsible for a serial murder investigation (see Brooks, 1982; Brooks et al., 1988); and

•Payment of money to a serial murderer for evidence. To date, this has only occurred in the Clifford Olson case in British Columbia (Bayless, 1982; Mulgrew, 1990).

Police departments may also use psychics to help search out clues (see Dettlinger & Prugh, 1983; Lyons & Truzzi, 1991), and have been involved in the production of special television programs designed to elicit tips, witnesses, and bring about designed responses in the offender. And normal investigative techniques, routine police patrol work, unsolicited suspect confessions, and sheer luck have all played significant roles in the solving of serial murder cases (Keppel, 1989; Levin & Fox, 1985).

© 2000 by CRC Press LLC

‘Now, I have here a watch which has recently come into my possession. Would you have the kindness to let me have an opinion upon the character of the late owner?’

‘He was a man of untidy habits — very untidy and careless. He was left with good prospects, but he threw away his chances, lived for some time in poverty with occasional short intervals of prosperity, and, finally, taking to drink, he died. That is all I can gather.’

‘How in the name of all that is wonderful did you get these facts? They are absolutely correct in every particular.’

‘Ah, that is good luck. I could only say what was the balance of probability. I did not at all expect to be accurate.’

‘But it was not mere guesswork?’

‘No, no: I never guess. It is a shocking habit — destructive to the logical faculty. What seems strange to you is only so because you do not follow my train of thought or observe the small facts upon which large inferences may depend.’

— The Sign of the Four, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, 1888

Sherlock Holmes’ inductive construction for Doctor Watson of the personal characteristics of the owner of a pocket watch was part of the craft of profiling. Criminal or psychological profiling24 is one of the primary investigative

24 The terms offender profiling, criminal personality assessment, and crime scene profiling are also used.

© 2000 by CRC Press LLC

tools used to prioritize suspects and assist in cases of sexual violent crime. It can be defined as the identification of “the major personality and behavioral characteristics of an individual based upon an analysis of the crimes he or she has committed” (Douglas et al., 1986, p. 405). Or, more simply and generally, as the inference of offender characteristics from offence characteristics (Copson, 1995).

The construction of such a behavioural composite — a social and psychological assessment — is based on the premise that the proper interpretation of crime scene evidence can indicate the personality type of the individual(s) who committed the offence. Human action is “the expression of an individual personality structure within a concrete framework of space and time” (Rebscher & Rohrer, 1991, p. 243). Certain personality types exhibit similar behavioural patterns, and knowledge of these patterns or “clue texts” can assist in the investigation of the crime and the assessment of potential suspects.

Profiling is therefore an attempt to generate a consistent personality pattern, and is based on the principle that character traits can be inferred from crime scene behaviour and then used to predict other behaviour (Homant & Kennedy, 1998). Trait theory assumes that human behaviour is consistent and predictable, though some social psychologists hold that personality is not a good predictor of action in a specific situation. The fundamental attribution error results when behaviour is seen only as the product of internal dispositions and situational influences are ignored (Homant, forthcoming). Profilers counter they deal with cases involving extreme pathology, and serious adult antisocial behaviour appears to be particularly stable. In any case, traits are best measured through multiple tests.

Offender dangerous prediction is related to profiling. But as difficult and contentious as future behaviour assessment is, the inferential burden is even greater in crime scene profiling because the latter must go from behaviour to individual to behaviour. Criminal profiling structures its analysis through answers to three primary questions:

1.What happened at the crime scene?

2.Why did these events happen?

3.What type of person would have done this?

Responses to these questions are “based on a mixture of operational experience with similar crimes, statistical knowledge gleaned from the analyses of sets of similar cases and knowledge gathered from clinical research and practice” (Jackson et al., 1994, p. 22). Unlike the “just the facts” nature of most investigative methodologies, profiles are composed of probabilistic knowledge concerning the criminal offender. There is a

© 2000 by CRC Press LLC

hierarchy of investigative methods in terms of quality of information content: (1) physical evidence; (2) witnesses; and (3) profiling. It is therefore important to realize that profile information should be considered subservient to physical evidence.

5.1 Development of Profiling

While research on “criminal anthropology” dates back to 1820 (Teten, 1989), the first known offender profile was prepared for the investigation of the murders of Jack the Ripper (Rumbelow, 1988). Dr. Thomas Bond, a surgeon with the Great Western Railway and a lecturer in forensic medicine, conducted the postmortem examination of Mary Kelly, generally acknowledged as the last of the Ripper victims. In a report written November 10, 1888, and sent to Robert Anderson, the Head of CID (Criminal Investigation Department) for the London Metropolitan Police, Bond made inferences regarding the Ripper’s physical appearance and condition, occupation, income, habits, motives, sexual paraphilias, and mental health. He concluded that the murderer was subject to periodical attacks of “homicidal and erotic mania.”

The modern use of psychological profiling in the criminal investigation process can be traced to the work of psychiatrist Dr. James A. Brussel, who profiled New York City’s Mad Bomber in 1956 (Brussel, 1968). By combining criminal statistics, psychiatry, and crime scene investigative insights, Brussel made several accurate predications concerning the description and background of the bomber, George Metesky (Teten, 1989). Another early profiling effort came from the Medical-Psychiatric Committee formed in 1964 to analyze the Boston Strangler; it was unsuccessful as its members could not agree on which of the murders were linked (Frank, 1966).

Since 1978, investigative support, research, and training in this area has been provided within the U.S. by the Behavioral Science Unit — now known as the National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime (NCAVC) — located within the Critical Incident Response Group (CIRG) at the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia. Training for criminal profiling in North America is provided by the NCAVC and the International Criminal Investigative Analysis Fellowship (ICIAF) (Lines, 1999). The NCAVC was established in 1984 by the FBI in response to concerns over the rapid increase in violent crime throughout the U.S. during the previous decade (Depue, 1986). In addition to providing profiling services, referred to as criminal investigative analysis (CIA), the NCAVC is responsible for VICAP, research, and instruction components (Ressler et al., 1988; Van Zandt & Ether, 1994).

The Police Fellowship, initiated by the FBI but now an independent professional body, provides a structured and mentored two-year intensive

© 2000 by CRC Press LLC