October 1st, 2013 Psych 3CC3: Forensic Psychology

Criminal Profiling

Murders in the Rue Morgue, 1842 - Uses information from a crime scene to estimate the characteristics and

nature of the suspect - “His results, brought about by the very soul and essence of method, have, in

truth, the whole air of intuition…the analyst throws - Least scientific area of all forensic psychology

Sherlock Homes

- A Study in Scarlet, 1887 - Arthur Conan Doyle’s - Sherlock Homes is a profiler - Characteristics of a crime scene and from that deduces the characteristics of

the suspect Profile of Jack the Ripper, 1888

- First profile of an actual killer - Dr. Thomas Bond - Whitechapel murders - The murderer must have been a man of great physical strength and of great

coolness and daring. He must…be a man subject to periodical attacks of homicidal and erotic mania… the murderer in external appearance is quite likely to be a quiet inoffensive looking man probably middle-aged and neatly and respectably dressed. I think he must be in the habit of wearing a cloak or overcoat…he would be solitary and eccentric in his habits, also he is most likely to be a man

Purposes of Profiling

1. Provide offender characteristics 2. Help understand crime scene 3. Provide leads for investigators 4. Narrow pool of viable subjects 5. Prioritize investigation of subjects 6. Risk of offender escalation? Frequency or intensity of crimes in serial murder

or serial rape 7. Evaluate suspect possessions 8. Develop interrogation strategies; how can we push there buttons, lower the

defenses to obtain a confession 9. Show links between crimes; looking for a signature 10. Supportive trial testimony; much rarer

Challenges of Profiling

1. Turning crime scene info into description of offender

2. Personality tests can’t do this; link between personality and crime scene is not very strong

3. Unscientific – intuition, experience; does not proceed from scientific method but from intuition

4. Not well evaluated – utility unclear; professional profilers do not release their profile as they are constantly adjusting their profile as new information comes in and therefore it is hard to evaluate these profiles

Little evidence for or against

October 3rd, 2013 FBI: Behavioural Analysis Unit

- Founded in 1972 - Howard Teten -1st director - Most attention in the media - Early profilers

Robert Ressler: Co-author of FBI’s Crime Classification Material Sexual homicide patterns and motives: rape/homicide

Roy Hazelwood Co-author of a number of books The only living witness

John Douglas Highest profile in the media Has written countless books Model for several media portrayals of FBI profilers

o Silence of the lamb: agent Jack Crawford o Criminal minds: agent David Rossi

- National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime Behavioural analysis unit

East region (Criminal Minds) West region Total of 15 profilers in the FBI, largest report in the world

CASMIRC: Child abduction serial murder investigative resources center

Abduction and murder of children Coordinate activities of regional police offices in the

investigation of these crimes VICAP: violent criminal apprehension program

Data collection center, much like CASMIRC Serial murders, serial rape, children Provide resources to local and regional police offices

- Description of how FBI profilers work - Characteristics of different crimes - Profiling is the least scientific of each area of forensic psychology - Profiler does not include how they do their work

- No instructions for conducting a profile - Profiling based on intuition - Stage 1: Profiling inputs

Pulling all information that will be used to construct profile Crime scene information Victimology – trend in profiling literature, if you know more about the

victim you will be able to deduce something about the offender Forensic information Police reports Photographs

- Stage 2: decision Process model Homicide type and style: classification system

Single Double Triple More than three is a mass murder: victims were all killed in the

same place in a short amount of time Spree killing: victims killed in different places; multiple

homicides without a cooling off period between victims Serial murder: multiple victims, typically in different locations,

at different times that can be separated by days, weeks, or months; cooling off period between crimes

Primary intent Reason for murder

Victim, offender risk Did the victim put themselves in a high risk situation How much risk did the offender take in committing the crime Inductive reasoning: statistical analysis based on previous

crime database – early years spent interviewing criminals to obtain information about offenders and building up their database

Escalation risk Time, location factors

Late night: works during the day Midday: someone who does not have regular obligations 4-5 different locations

o Meeting place o Assault phase o Final rape/murder phase o Where does the body end up? o If vehicle is involved, where is it?

- Stage 3: Crime Assessment Where the offender classification takes place Crime reconstruction

Temporal sequence of the crime

Offender classification: “organized/disorganized” FBI has simplified classification Organized: plans out the murder, brings a weapon or means of

immobilizing victim, uses deception or ruse to lour the victim, careful to get rid of evidence, typically has picked his victim early

Disorganized: spur of the moment, victim by chance, opportunistic

Staging Staging the crime scene to appear as something else Disorganized offenders do no stage, lots of evidence left behind Organized does not leave behind a lot of evidence

Motivation Rolling process, especially when serial crime is involved Modify the profile as new information comes along

Crime scene dynamics Activities of the crime scene

- Stage 4: Criminal profile Demographics

Sex Age

Physical characteristics Habits Beliefs and values

About women primarily Recommendations Difficult to predict profile from crime scene evidence

- Stage 5: investigation - Stage 6: apprehension - Last two stages are law involvement, generally FBI is not involved - Modus aparenda: suggests a standard way of committing crimes - Signatures: one thing that the offender does differently then others and

always shows up in the crime, ex.: bomb construction Holmes and Holmes

- Developed in the late 90s (FBIs 80s) - Offender typologies

Disorganized asocial (avoids other people; weird)/organized non-social (doesn’t care about social interaction) – critics are unsure about social aspect

Serial murderers o Spatial mobility: committing crime in small area or

traveling some distance? o Visionary: typically is in the grasp of a delusion when he

or she conducts the murder, experiencing symptoms of

a mental disorder, almost always found not criminally responsible by virtue of mental disorder

o Mission: victims all come from the same class of people, targeting victims; for example, sex trade murders are very popular, mostly morally based missions

o Hedonistic: individuals who kill for their personal pleasure, sexual gratification, display of personal power over another individual, robbery (obtain money or other goods)

o Power and control: typically the case in serial rape murders, individual reassuring his ability to control others (where the motive lies)

Rapists o Motive: what is the rapist after? o Power reassurance: insecure who rapes to reinsure

himself of his ability to control his environment o Anger retaliation: angry and what’s to get back through

rape, may not be directly to the individual, may be a resemblance or a convenience stand-in, purpose to harm

o Exploitative: has the right to take things from others, demonstrate power, ability, and dominance over others, believes he is entitled to take what he wants

o Sadistic: likes to inflict pain and torture on the victim, may lead to murder

Child molesters: o Situational o Preferential

Arsonists o Jealousy motivated o Would-be hero o Excitement fire-setter o Pyromaniac

October 7th, 2013

Keppel & Walter: Rape/Murder Offender Typologies - Power assertive

Assertion of power through rape and murder; rapes planned; murders incidental

- Power reassurance Expresses sexual competence through seduction. Rape planned; but

murder overkill. Motivated by seduction-conquest fantasy. Victim younger, known to killer. May mutilate post-mortem.

- Anger retaliatory

Rape and murder planned out of anger, revenge; may be triggered by criticism, likely to be periodic to relieve stress. Assault is violent, disorganized. May take souvenir.

- Anger excitation: Gains gratification from inflicting pain and terror; rape and murder

planned. Has fantasies of dominance and control; has eroticized his anger. Murder ritualized.

- Power assertive is the most common - No cases that fell between categories - No cases that didn’t belong to any of the categories

Brent Turvey

- Founded the academy of behavioural profiling to train others to become profilers

Turvey: Inductive vs. Deductive Profiling

- Inductive profiling Starts with statistical generalizations: e.g., most rapists are single

males aged 18 to 30 Problem: conclusion (this rapist is single male between 18 and 30)

does not logically flow - Deductive profiling

Starts with specific crime scene evidence: e.g., there are motorcycle tracks at the crime scene

Conclusion: if they belong to the rapist, then he has access to a motorcycle

- Work is based on experience Turvey Deductive Profiling Model; Four Components of Profiling

- Forensic and behavioural evidence Reconstruct sequence of crime events: witness and victim statements;

crime photos; wound pattern and blood spatter analysis; ballistic evidence; other forensic evidence

0

20

40

- Victimology Physical characteristics; habits; lifestyle; relationships; risk level

- Crime scene characteristics Method of attack; nature of sexual or violent acts; verbal behaviour;

precautionary acts - Deduction of offender characteristics - Behaviour-motivational typology:

Power reassurance Power assertive Anger retaliatory Anger excitation Profit: personal gain from a murder (i.e. money)

- Problem with intuitive approach: no way to explain how to deduce a profile Hicks and Sales (2006)

1. Lack of goals and standards No agreement on the goals of profiling How do you assess the accuracy of the profile, especially with rolling

profiles used by FBI Some models state no goals No agreement on goals of profiling No agreement on crimes suitable for profiling No standards to evaluate success of profiling

2. Use of unclear terms and definitions Signature and modus apparandus

3. Misuse of typologies Inappropriate use of typologies

Offender may fall into several; fail to meet full criteria for any Inconsistency within typologies

H&H: use pedophile and child molester both as synonyms and as different

Overlapping categories Many categories, same characteristics (e.g., single male, use of

weapons, etc.) Limited value of typologies

Don’t help police narrow suspect list; more like horoscope 4. Rely on intuition, professional knowledge

Described as a non-science No empirical basis

5. Lack of clear procedures 6. Little evidence of investigative value

October 8th, 2013 Canter’s Scientific Model

1. Behavioural salience

What are the behavioural features of crime that might help identify offender? Positioning of the body, mutilation of the body, staging, use of weapons – virtually no literature

2. Distinguishing between offenders What is it about the crime scene behaviours that allow us to identify

the offender Crime linkage How do we indicate differences between offenders and crimes?

3. Inferring characteristics What inferences can we make about offender that would help identify

him? 4. Linking offenses

How can we determine whether same offender committed a series of crimes?

Crime linkage Canter’s Equation

- f1A1 + f2A2 + f3A3 + …fnAn = k1C1 + k2C2 + k3C3 + …knCn - Where:

A = offender action C = offender characteristic f and k are weights, probability or significance that you place to

determine the characteristics of the offenders from the actions Theoretical Links: Action to Offender

- Psychodynamic typologies: to distinguish personality types Freudian typology

- Personality differences General personality differences: introversion vs. extroversion,

conscientiousness, aggressiveness Trait based picture

- Career routes Non-sexual, non-murder crimes Paths that the offenders follow in their criminal carriers Certain types never progress to murder; others do

- Socioeconomic subgroups White collar crime vs. blue collar crime Higher vs. lower education

- Interpersonal narratives Distinguish on the basis on interpersonal narratives The stories or fantasies they are living out when they are committing

the crime Offender and victim have roles in the fantasies Different goals of the fantasies

Interpersonal Narratives: Role of the Victim - Victim as object: offender has no feeling or connection with victim, who does

not play any active role in the assault, no sense of a personal relationship High desire for control

May involve mutilation Low intelligence, poor contact with reality – could be suffering

from mental illness Eccentric From dysfunctional background

Low desire for control Sexual component prominent Murder not major goal Will not understand seriousness of crime Probably little contact with people, undemanding job

Most of this information is useless for police investigation - Victim as vehicle: offender is tragic hero, angry about self and his lot in life.

Assault regain him his rightful place (resembles power reassurance typology)

High desire for control Like FBS’s spree murderer May kill many in single bout May also kill self “Samson syndrome”

Low desire for control FBI’s organized offender Killings more deliberate Motivated by failed/lost relationship Offender intelligent, good social skills

- Victim as a person” offender sees victim as individual, tries to understand their experience but has no true empathy for them

No distinction between high desire for control and low desire for control

Like power reassurance; believe they are having a relationship with the victim

Canter’s Smallest Space Analysis

- Mathematical/statistical analysis to identify which aspects of a crime scene which determines which type of offender we have

- Behaviours of the crime scene: which tend to occur together in a crime scene?

- Calculated the correlation effect of the different behaviours of the crime scenes

- Smallest space analysis: distance between two items is inversely proportional to their correlation

- Physical distance represents the probability of two things occurring together in the crime scene

- Which items are related to the type of interpersonal narrative - No scientific evidence to backup the division

Hicks and Sales Critique

- Lack of conceptual clarity Victim’s role in themes unclear Inconsistency within themes

- Unverifiable assertions re inner narratives Investigator cannot determine the interpersonal narrative

- SSA inappropriate: No factors indicated by analysis Factor analysis: mathematically identify things that go together Small space analysis: topographical, geometric; cannot determined

the underlying factors or how many there are Themes not linked to offender characteristics Can themes predict offender characteristics?

Hicks and Sales (2006)

- Questions we need to answer – not answered by any systems 1. What evidence should be gathered? 2. How should we interpret evidence? 3. What are the relationships between evidence and offender

characteristics? – assumption on which criminal profiling is based, where is the evidence that demonstrates that this relationship exists

4. Which offender characteristics important to investigate crime?

October 10th, 2013 D.C. Beltway Snipper (2002)

- FBI profile:

White male, 24 to 40 years old Not a sniper; not military Lives in or near community; no children Firefighter or construction worker Possible terrosit links

- Offenders (John Allen Mohammed; Lee Malvo) African-American male, 42 years old (Malvo was 17) 16 years National Guard, Army Expert marksman (highest level

assigned to a soldier not specifically assigned to a snipper) No terrorist links

Baton Rouge Serial Killer (2003)

- FBI profile: White male, 25 to 35 years old Unsophisticated social outcast Awkward around women; doesn’t’ get along with them Impulsive, quick-tempered

- Offender (Derrick Todd Lee) African-American male, 34 years old Smooth, charming, Casanova Out with a different women each night

Atlanta Olympic Bomber (1996)

- FBI profile: Single, white middle-class male Intense interest in police work Richard Jewell, security at Olympics was released as a suspect

- Offender (Eric Rudolph) Anti-abortion activist Lower-class single-parent family Strong hatred for government and authority

Unabomber (1978-1995)

- FBI profile (Tafoya): Constructed several different profiles; the one released to the public

was not accurate Profile by Tofoya was the most accurate White male, early 50s University graduate with advanced degree Background in science, math, or engineering Strongly anti-technology

- Offender (Ted Koczynski) White male, early 50s M.S. and Ph.D. in math

Living alone in Montana cabin Strongly anti-technology Not caught based on profile; brother turned him in

Paul Bernardo (1987-1992)

- FBI profile: Single white male, 18-25 years old Lives in Scarborough area High school education only Angry, disparaging toward women Spotty work record

- Offender (Paul Bernardo) Single white male, 18 at first rape Living in Scarborough area University graduate Gainfully employed (Price Waterhouse, Amway)

Criticisms of Profiling

1. Personality models lack empirical support Very little data underlying personality or profiling

2. Assumes primacy of personality over situation Behaviours at the crime scene are primarily determined by

personality and not by strengths and demands of the situation Situational demands may be a powerful shaper

3. Profiles vague and ambiguous – fit many Example: single with male between the ages of 20-30

4. Many aspects of profile common sense Draw very easily from the nature of the crime scene

Kocsis et al (2002)

- Studied 6 groups of Australian profilers: 35 police officers 30 psychologists 30 2nd year university students (science, economics) 20 psychics 23 university economic students (control)

- Given details of two solved homicides: crime scene report, forensic biologist’s report, forensic entomologist’s report, pathologist’s, post-mortem report, information on victim, plan and photos of crime site and victim

- Control group not given any information - Rate a narrative about the criminal and the crime - 45-item multiple-choice test asked questions about perpetrators behaviour,

personals characteristics, thoughts and motives, personality - Accuracy based on the same questions asked to police officers who

conducted the investigation

- Physical characteristics of the offender: Profilers no better than psychologist, police, and students Profilers did only better than control group who was guessing

(stereotyping) - Offense behaviours

Psychics did the same as control group No statistical differences

- Cognition Profilers statistically better than everyone; not a big difference

- Personality Much greater accuracy in psychologist Profilers were not statistically different than any of the other groups

(except for the psychologist)

Kocsis (2004)

- Studied 6 groups of Australian profilers – serial arsonist 3 profilers 13 police detectives 12 fire investigators 21 2nd year B.S. students (chemistry) 47 community college students (control

- Given detail re serial arsonist (13 fires): crime scene schematic, incident reports, forensic report, 13 captioned photos

- Control given no details - Answer M/C about characteristics of the serial arsonist - Physical characteristics: profilers are statistically more accurate than

everyone else; science students are second highest - Cognitions: profilers more accurate, no statistical difference between science

students and control; arson investigators do worse on cognitive - Behaviours: no statistical differences - Social/habits: statistical differences between profilers; science students do

fairly well - Overall accuracy: no significant difference between profilers and science

students - Science students have skills required for profiling – not intuition and

experience

- Concludes: profilers are more accurate in profiling but are not that much better than others; statistical difference but not that high

Copson (1995)

- Surveyed 184 detectives who had used profiles How useful? How much did it help

- 83% said profiles “useful” 61% - profiles helped them understand the case 52% - profiles supported their own opinions about the case and the

offender - 2.7% said profiles led to identification of offender

Whitechapel Murders

- Dr. Thomas Bond (1888) - John E. Douglas (1988) - Nothing in the new profile that goes beyond the original profiler, who had no

experience