During the hearings, FBI personnel pointed out in rebuttal that the U.S.S. Iowa equivocal death analysis was focused on answering the single question as to whether the explosion was suicide, homicide, or suicide/homicide; accidental death was not an option. And while psychologists on the APA panel criticized the FBI’s methodology, not all disagreed with their conclusions (Michaud & Hazelwood, 1998).

Homant and Kennedy (1998) help explain the police perspective on profiling validity. “From a law enforcement point of view, there is no need to wait for assurances that profiling in general is a valid process, as long as there are not any more promising alternatives and as long as the process is used cautiously” (p. 323). While suspects and lines of inquiry should not be excluded just because they fail to fit the profile, investigators sometimes must make hard decisions quickly; under such conditions, profiling information

— even of the “informed guess” type — may be of value.

Still, the APA review contains important warnings regarding the use, limitations, and dangers of psychological profiling.“Profiles should be viewed as supportive and not substantive” (Jackson et al., 1993a, p. 31). The FBI itself cautions that profiling is still more of an art than a science, and should never be considered a replacement for traditional investigative methodologies (Ault & Reese, 1980; Hazelwood & Douglas, 1980; Porter, 1983, 52; Ressler & Shachtman, 1992). Discussion has taken place in regards to developing automated crime profiling through the use of artificial intelligence and com- puter-assisted expert systems, but to date this goal has not been realized (Icove, 1986; Reboussin & Cameron, 1989; see also Benfer, Brent, & Furbee, 1991; Bunge, 1991). Dietz (1985) suggests that “it may be more accurate to regard profiling as a process of logical reasoning that draws on experience, insight, and judgment at each step of the process. In this sense profiling may resemble the process of clinical reasoning in medicine” (pp. 217–218).

5.5 Evaluation Studies

These concerns, critiques, and suggestions have led to a variety of evaluation studies designed to examine the investigative merits of criminal profiling. Evaluative research has occurred in the U.S., Britain, The Netherlands, Canada, and Australia. These studies often approach the assessment task by addressing three key issues: (1) how accurate is profiling; (2) how reliable is the process; and (3) how useful are the results? For a profile to be useful, it must assist in the investigative decision making process. Suggestions that are vague, general, unworkable, or of low probability are not likely to produce helpful leads. These questions and requirements provide an important frame-

© 2000 by CRC Press LLC

differences between the operational mental schemata of experienced police investigators and offender profilers (Jackson et al., 1994). Models for structuring knowledge consist of domain, inference, task, and strategic layers (Adhami & Browne, 1996), and expert knowledge is derived from a series of “if-then” rules (some areas of expertise contain heuristics numbering in the tens of thousands). To be useful, an expert’s knowledge must be applicable, have the potential to be generalized to other situations, contain structure and organization, and possess depth.

The cognitive representations and strategies employed by detectives were found to be qualitatively different from those used by profilers. Specifically, the if-then production rules of the police detectives were either too global (general) or too specific (idiosyncratic) to be of much investigative value. Another component of the study found process differences between an experienced sexual offence detective and an FBI-trained Dutch profiler. The former was observed to work in a bottom-up fashion, concerned with the “what,” while the latter had a top-down approach, and focused on the “who.”

The research revealed interesting differences in how profilers and detectives assimilated data (Jackson, 1994). On average, profilers devoted substantially more time per case on police tip reports than did detectives (12 hours, 29 minutes vs. 2 hours, 33 minutes), and about the same amount of time on the autopsy reports (14 minutes vs. 16 minutes). Profilers spent less time per case on the main police reports (4 hours, 54 minutes vs. 6 hours, 28 minutes), the geographical locations (18 minutes vs. 31 minutes), and the crime scene photographs (26 minutes vs. 1 hour, 9 minutes). Overall, profilers spent considerably more time than did detectives on data assimilation (18 hours, 21 minutes vs. 10 hours, 57 minutes). The observation that, on average, detectives spent more of their time on the geographic locations than did profilers (4.72% of total time vs. 1.6%, a factor of 1.7 in terms of absolute time), is interesting in light of the findings of Pinizzotto and Finkel (1990): “It was the detective group that scored higher in the homicide questions dealing with the offender’s employment and the offender’s residence in relation to the crime scene” (p. 224).

The NISCALE study also looked at “consumer satisfaction” and found the great majority of detective-customers were satisfied with the criminal investigative analysis service (Jackson et al., 1994). While the profiles themselves received mixed reviews, it was observed that several other, perhaps more important, functions were also provided (Jackson et al., 1993a). Investigative suggestions, personality assessments, profile writing, crime assessments, interviewing techniques, and threat assessments were all part of the profiler’s repertoire. Detectives noted additional benefits resulting from the profilers’ expertise with bizarre crimes and the fresh perspective they brought to an investigation. “By taking an independent stance, not bogged down with

© 2000 by CRC Press LLC

the inconsequential details that a detective actively working on a case has to contend with, the professional profiler can offer directions and advice that can result in the team achieving success in apprehending the culprit” (Jackson et al., 1993a, p. 32).

The NISCALE evaluation discovered that “no criminal was actually caught as a direct result of the profiles made” (Jackson et al., 1993a, p. 24), but this appears to have resulted from problems with customers as well as profilers. While the reports of the profilers were sometimes criticized as being too vague and general, inflexibility on the part of detectives stemming from lack of acceptance, differences in opinion, financial restraints, time delays, and organizational considerations, all contributed to instances where the profiles were not acted upon (Jackson et al., 1993a). The CRI now first confirms that sufficient investigative resources exist to follow up any profiling suggestions that might result (Jackson et al., 1994).

The NISCALE study concluded that profiling is not an end in itself, but only a management instrument for helping direct certain types of criminal investigations (Jackson et al., 1994). The importance of ongoing criminological and evaluative research was also stressed. For example, while an independent study validated some of the derivation principles used in profiling rape cases, other rules were not substantiated within the Dutch context. Collaboration within the scientific forum is therefore regarded as an integral component of the CRI’s ongoing policies.

The Offender Profiling Research Programme is a comprehensive evaluation of profiling use within the U.K. being conducted by the PRC and the National Crime Faculty (Copson, 1993; Davies & Dale, 1995b). Interim study results suggest that the perceived usefulness of profiling advice is more associated with a strategic understanding of the crime and its investigation rather than with the profile’s inferential aspects (Oldfield, 1995). Such a finding is consistent with the conclusions of the Dutch research (Jackson et al., 1994).

As part of this research program, Copson (1995) surveyed detectives who had used profiling services in Britain (n = 184); the majority of cases involved either murder or sex crimes. Profiling was defined as “any predictions, recommendations and observations based on the inference of offender characteristics from behaviour exhibited in a crime or a series of crimes, and offered to investigators as the product of statistical or clinical expertise” (p. v). Detectives were not always clear on what they expected from a profile, but the following information was most commonly mentioned: (1) offender characteristics; (2) understanding of the offender and the future threat level;

(3) interview strategies; and (4) linkages between crimes. When asked if they would seek profiling advice again, 68.5% of the respondents stated they definitely would, and 23.9% that they probably would.

© 2000 by CRC Press LLC

A previous study by Britton in the U.K. suggested that profiles were not particularly helpful in directly leading to the arrest of a suspect, but the process appears viable and shows promise and potential. A review by Goldblatt of profiling advice in solved cases determined that 72% of predicted offender characteristics (n = 114) were correct, 19% were incorrect, and 9% lacked sufficient information to be classified. Copson found that only 14.1% of the profiles helped solve a case and a slim 2.7% actually identified the offender. But profiling advice did open up new lines of inquiry in 16.3% of the cases; 82.6% of the respondents stated the profile provided operationally useful information, and 53.8% that it added value to their investigation.

In addition to the accuracy of a profile, detectives were further concerned over the timeliness and clarity of the response. Verbal profiles, in particular, were not helpful; written reports are less likely to be misunderstood or forgotten. But it is also incumbent upon the investigators to ask questions and seek explanations regarding things they do not understand. Unfortunately, profiling advice was not always acted upon, limiting its potential utility. It would be interesting to compare the results of this study with research on such established investigative techniques as crime scene fingerprinting and eyewitness interviews.

Copson suggests that profiles are most useful indirectly, assisting detectives in understanding the crime and developing an “investigative philosophy.” He also notes they help ensure that a complete and proper investigation has been done. The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) Crime Committee on Behavioural Science and Investigative Support has now developed policy regarding research, operational use, and media disclosure for the British police service in an effort to improve the quality of profiling advice in criminal investigations.

5.6 Profiling and Probability

To many police investigators, profiling is an arcane art, its predictions originating from a black box. For offender profiling to realize its potential, two things must happen. First, profilers must better understand the requirements and needs of police investigations; and second, investigators must better understand the nature and use of profiles. Profiles do not solve crimes as that can only be done by way of a confession, witness, or physical evidence (Klockars & Mastrofski, 1991). Instead, they are best used to guide strategy development, support information management, and improve case understanding.

There is a symbiosis between the investigation and the profile; the more complete and thorough the former, the more accurate the latter (Teten, 1989). For example, if a careful linkage analysis has not been done, then the inves-

© 2000 by CRC Press LLC