FBI Allstars

No discussion on criminal profiling is complete without addressing the FBI’s role in its development and continuance. Criminal profiling first took root at the FBI in 1972 when the Behavioral Science Unit (BSU) was created. Jack Kirsch was the first official chief of this unit, with eleven agents working under him. Howard Teten, a veteran police officer and FBI agent, is a prominent figure in the history of profiling. Studying Dr. Brussel’s successful technique (see Blog entitled: “The Amazing Dr. Brussel” below), and tinkering on his own and with Special Agent Patrick Mullany who holds an advanced degree in psychology, Teten designed his own method of analyzing offenders. As an instructor at the National Police Academy, he implemented the behavioral analysis aspect into his courses. Before long, his services were in great demand. The BSU continued to flourish and by 1977, with an increasing number of successes, their services were requested by police agencies all over the U.S.

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/criminal_mind/profiling/history_method/5.html

According to former FBI profiler John Douglas, who is recognized as one of the most influential figures in the development of the FBI’s profiling unit, “Evidence speaks its own language of patterns and sequences that can reveal the offender’s behavioral characteristics” (Douglas et al., 1986, p. 402). The criminal-profile-generating process employed by the FBI consists of six stages. The first is the “Profiling Inputs Stage.” During this phase, the profilers gather together all of the case material, such as a complete rundown of the crime and detailed description of the crime scene, background information on the victim, forensic information, autopsy reports, toxicology/serology results, autopsy photographs, and photographs and sketches of the actual crime scene. Information that the FBI profilers do not want included in the case materials is anything dealing with possible suspects. The reason for this is to prevent subconscious bias when developing the profile and in examining the crime. The second stage of this process is entitled “Decision Process Models Stage.” During this phase, the profilers begin organizing and arranging the information into meaningful patterns. There are seven sub-categories in this phase the profilers focus on: Type and Style; Primary Intent of the Perpetrator; Victim Risk; Offender Risk; Escalation; Time Factors; and Location Factors.

Stage three, “Crime Assessment Stage,” involves the recreation of the events and the offender and victim behaviors before, during, and after the crime. This phase, based on the previous stage, provides vital information about specific characteristics that will be included in the final profile. Next, the profilers move into the “Criminal Profile Stage” where an actual profile is formed with information about the type of person who committed the offense and their organization of the crime. In this phase, profilers will also include strategies for investigation and the best approach to dealing with the suspect. The fifth stage in this process is called the “Investigation Stage.” The profilers double-check to ensure that their profile appropriately matches the crime at hand. Also, if the profile leads to successful apprehension the profilers’ work is done; if, however, apprehension has not occurred, but new evidence or related crimes have surfaced, the profilers will take the new information and go back to the drawing board to further tweak the profile. Finally, the sixth stage, “Apprehension Stage,” occurs once a suspect has been apprehended and admits guilt. A detailed interview ensues to check the profiling process for validity.

Douglas, J., Ressler, R., Burgess, A., & Hartman, C. (1986, October). Criminal Profiling from Crime Scene Analysis. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 4(4), 401-421. Retrieved June 11, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database.

The bureau prefers to refer to their work as “Criminal Investigative Analysis,” and the analysts are working tirelessly to further refine the profiling process. The BSU has undergone many changes since its inception. Currently, the unit is divided into the “Behavioral Analysis Unit 1 [counter-terrorism and threat assessment], Behavioral Analysis Unit 2 [crimes against adults], Behavioral Analysis Unit 3 [crimes against children], and the VICAP Unit” (Violent Criminal Apprehension Program). Mark Hilt, the current chief of the FBI’s BAU 2, comments on this breakdown, “By structuring ourselves by crime problem, rather than geographically [as the unit was divided until recently], we are able to develop a concentration of personnel in each unit that possess specialized training and experience in their areas of responsibility.”

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/criminal_mind/profiling/history_method/new_21.html

The FBI is at the forefront of the offender profiling scene, and the work of past and present FBI behavioral analysts has proven invaluable. As the world continues to witness increasingly violent crime with more sophisticated predators, criminal profiling will become an even more necessary component of the investigative process. As law enforcement officials take to the streets as a shield between perpetrators and innocents, one must remember, to cease the monster who hides his face with night, one must impart truth and honour as a guiding light.

Mad Science...or Refined Art???

As criminal profiling gains prominence in the entertainment industry, the question on the minds of many is: how accurate is profiling in reality? This is not an easy question to answer. While there are early accounts of some doctors, criminologists, and psychiatrists dabbling in profiling work, development of this technique didn’t really take off until the 1970s when the FBI undertook a systematic study of the procedure at the Behavioral Science Unit. Due to the fact that profiling is still quite young, and there exist only a small number of true profilers, research in this field has been difficult.

Of the studies that have been conducted, mixed results have emerged. Overall, a majority of professionals in the mental health field believe that profiling lacks empirical evidence to demonstrate its reliability and validity. Those in law enforcement, however, tend to feel that profiling has been a useful element of investigations and has assisted in the apprehension of suspects. One study polled 161 forensic psychologists and psychiatrists to determine how useful they believed profiling to be. Of the total population, only 10% had experience with profiling, though 25% considered themselves knowledgeable about the field. Interestingly, large discrepancies occurred depending on the title given to profiling. For instance, fewer than 25% of those polled felt “profiling” was scientifically reliable and valid; this number jumped to 40% when the title “criminal investigative analysis” was employed. Another study, however, revealed that 95.4% of the psychiatrists polled felt that profiling is a useful investigative tool, while 84.9% of psychologists agreed (Torres, et al., 2006, p. 54).

An additional study attempted to determine the utility of profiling, rather than its acceptance among those in relevant fields. Kocisis and a team of researchers gathered together professional profilers, psychologists, self-identified psychics, college students, and law enforcement officials, asking them to “review crime descriptions and case materials from actual solved cases” (Torres, et al., 2006, p. 52). The results showed the profilers as most accurate, with accuracy rates ranging from 46% to 70%. Kocsis cautioned that it is unclear whether the variability between the profilers “…was due to overall differences in the profilers’ skills or to specific aspects of the cases” (Torres, et al., 2006, p. 52). According to McCann and findings of the most current and valid research, “…the findings point to greater accuracy in profiling by those who have experience in the procedure and who have specialized training in both criminal investigation and human behavior” (1992, p. 478).

Looking at the studies presented here, one can see the difficulty in drawing any concrete conclusions about the utility and reliability of profiling at this time. As the field continues to grow, so will the sample sizes of profiles and profilers that can be accessed for more reliable results. Currently profiling is teetering between a science and an art; however, enough evidence exists in favor of this technique to say that the future of profiling seems optimistic as views among those in law enforcement and psychology appear to support further research and refinement of the skill.

Torres, A., Boccaccini, M., & Miller, H. (2006, February). Perceptions of the Validity and Utility of Criminal Profiling Among Forensic Psychologists and Psychiatrists. Professional Psychology: Research & Practice, 37(1), 51-58. Retrieved June 11, 2009, doi:10.1037/0735-7028.37.1.51

McCann, J. (1992, October). Criminal Personality Profiling in the Investigation of Violent Crime: Recent Advances and Future Directions. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 10(4), 475-481. Retrieved June 9, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database.

Death From a Distance

A recurring theme throughout each post has been the probability factor in profiling. As stated many times before, no profile will ever be a perfect match to the unsub; and, every unsub is going to be different than all of the perpetrators who preceded him. Once in a while a case arises that completely baffles investigators, and once resolved, the persons responsible and their motives prove an even greater enigma.

A discussion of criminal profiling cannot be complete without acknowledging that sometimes, no amount of experience or investigative insight can shed light on the perpetrator(s) of a crime. This was the case concerning the D.C. snipers who left 11 dead, 3 critically wounded, and millions terrorized on the eastern coast of the United States in October 2002. Once the snipers were apprehended, many were left scratching their heads, muttering to themselves and anyone who would listen, “They just don’t fit the profile.”

When the “sniper” first appeared, many considered him a very public serial killer. Knowing that over 90% of serial killers are white males, profilers hypothesized that the unsub would be a member of this category. Serial killers tend to be loners, relishing every moment of the kill, wanting that pleasure and power only for themselves. Furthermore, serial killers have particular tastes. There is often a clear commonality between victims, such as gay males, college aged females, pubescent girls; and, serial killers rarely kill outside of their own race. The victim plays a huge role in the fulfillment of the fantasy. Investigators were also perplexed by the timeline of the killings. Serial killers tend to start off slow, their first kill often highly disorganized with a lack of premeditation. As the killer gains confidence and his taste for blood grows, so does the victim pool, and the period between killings becomes shorter with each death. The kill tends to be up close and personal; the killer desiring the power and control that comes from looking into another’s eyes and watching the life that is there slip away, yielding to his merciless hands.

The “sniper” in this case turned out to be two perpetrators, not one. Both were male, but neither was white. John Allen Muhammad was a 41 year old Army veteran with expert marksmanship skills, and seemingly the dominant player of the two. John Lee Malvo, a 17 year old Jamaican citizen played his subservient counterpart. Experts estimate that only 10 to 28 percent of serial killers operate in teams; and, 13 to 22 percent of American serial killers are black. The fact that these two were squarely situated in both categories is an anomaly in itself. These two seem to have chosen their victims completely at random, considering everyone fair game, crossing all lines of gender, race, and age. As far as the timeline goes, rather than starting off slow, testing the waters, the two worked in an opposite manner. Within the first 24 hours, 6 victims were gunned down. After this initial burst, the two began committing single shootings which slowed in frequency as time passed. Also considered strange, was the distance with which each kill occurred. The suspects fled the scene immediately after the shooting demonstrating no desire to watch the torturous death; and, they never had any close contact with their victims. The snipers also seemed eager to discuss their crimes with authorities, and they made a demand for $10 million dollars.

Clearly when comparing the “typical” serial killer profile, to that of the D.C. Snipers, one can see that it would have been highly unlikely for anyone to accurately theorize the characteristics of these perpetrators. Knowing, however, that these anomalies do occur, profilers always encourage law enforcement to use the profile simply as another investigative tool, and not to eliminate anyone solely on the basis of the profile. While many have gone on to claim that these two killers are a hybrid of the serial killer mind and a spree killer’s actions, the fact remains that these two are in a category of their own, and will be added to the ample information we already possess on those who defy the natural human order.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1162266/serial_killers_an_american_anomaly.html

http://www.criminalprofiling.ch/sniper.html

The Amazing Dr. Brussel

Cases aren’t solved based on the profile alone, as television often portrays. We use profiling to provide direction, during the investigative process and/or during interrogations with suspects. Profiling, has at times, led to such an accurate portrayal of suspects, one can’t help but wonder if the profiler possesses psychic abilities. At other times, the profile has been almost completely incorrect. Often, the reality lies somewhere in between these extremes.

To demonstrate how much profiling can assist in the apprehension of an offender, I am including a well known and successful case study. On the flip side of the coin, to illustrate how profiling can sometimes lead police down the wrong path, I will be including in a later blog, a case the critics of this technique find irresistible to cite.

Between the years 1940 and 1956, a crazed bomber struck fear into the hearts of New Yorkers. Multiple bombs were placed around the city, the vast majority of which detonated. Police progress in the case was slow, and it wasn’t long before public and political pressures mounted. Desperate, the police contacted psychiatrist Dr. James A. Brussel, requesting a profile of the offender, hoping it would help to focus the investigation.

The first bomb had been left at Consolidated Edison, an energy utility company, in November 1940. The bomb failed to detonate, and the note it was wrapped in read, “Con Edison Crooks, this is for you.” A year later, a similar device was found, and due to its location and construction, the authorities theorized the same bomber was on his way to the Consolidated Edison company, but was forced to abandon the explosive. During the second World War, the bomber sent a note to the police stating that he would abandon his efforts during the war due to his “patriotic feelings,” but stated that, “…later I will bring the con Edison to justice – they will pay for their dastardly deeds.”

The bomber was quiet for the next nine years. Then, in 1950, a third bomb was discovered. After this point, events began to change, and the bomber’s fourth bomb actually detonated at the New York Public Library, followed by a fifth explosion in Grand Central station. Over the next 6 years, 30 bombs were planted, most of which detonated.

In constructing his profile, Brussel asserted that the police should be on the lookout for a “male, former employee of Consolidated Edison, injured while working there so seeking revenge, paranoid, 50 years old, neat and meticulous persona, foreign background, some formal education, unmarried, living with female relatives but not mother who probably died when he was young, upon capture he will be wearing a buttoned up double breasted jacket.”

Dr. James A. Brussel

Brussel played probabilities in assuming the bomber would be male, as the majority of bombers are. The hostility relayed in the content of the notes, led Brussel to believe a former employee, feeling wronged by the company was the most likely culprit. The claim that the bomber was foreign was based on the language of the note. The author spoke in an overly formal way, using phrases such as “dastardly deeds” and never utilizing contemporary slang. The most impressive aspect of the profile proved to be Brussel’s “psychiatric and psychoanalytical interpretations” of the bomber. Brussel believed the bomber had an Oedipal complex. Knowing that most with this complex are unmarried and live with female relatives, he felt this would be true in the bomber’s case. Brussel’s belief in the presence of this complex was based on the way the bomber wrote “breast-like” W’s, the “phallic construction” of the bombs, and the fact that the bomber would “slash” and “penetrate” the seats in movie theaters where he planted bombs.

Using this information, the police instructed Con Edison to scour their past and current employee files, looking for someone who matched the description. George Metesky, a former employee of the company who suffered an accident at work and filed an unsuccessful disability claim, soon came to the attention of the investigators. Metesky had written a letter to the company, which referred to their “dastardly deeds.”
Metesky was arrested soon after the profile’s construction and confessed immediately. He was escorted to the police station in his buttoned up double breasted jacket.

George Metesky

http://www.all-about-forensic-psychology.com/criminal-profiling.html

Nature vs. Nurture...It's Not an Either / Or (Part II)

To further build on my previous post, when an un-nurturing environment meets an individual already genetically susceptible to sociopathic tendencies, a violent serial offender is born. It is not inconceivable that depending on genetics people are more or less prone to emotions such as anger, fragility or meekness, complacence and so forth. Likewise, it is reasonable to conclude that some individuals are born without a strong sense of empathy. Based on the environment they are exposed to during childhood, they may learn consideration and fairness to help balance what their genetic coding has left lacking; or, their lack of concern for others may be further encouraged as the product of an abusive and neglectful upbringing.

This would explain why two boys who grow up in similarly abusive environments would diverge later in life to where one is a contributing member of society, while the other becomes a serial killer unleashing the furies of his rage on hapless victims.

Researchers seeking to determine whether genetics are a factor pertaining to issues such as violence and alcoholism, for example, have found that adoptive children have rates of use and abuse closer to that of their natural parents than to their adoptive parents (Goode, 2008, p. 61). This signifies that a part of who we are is determined even before birth. The question then becomes, what do we do about it?

While it may not be feasible to believe that we can determine who children will become, it is important to understand the influences that act upon individuals, in order to comprehend them. This is where the criminal profiling comes into play. Profilers are simply attempting to understand the person behind the crimes. The more we understand motives, personality, behavior, environmental influences, and the events that led to the obliteration of empathetic feelings, as well as the world as viewed by sociopaths, the better we can become at following the clues to the perpetrator before the body count climbs to double digits. It’s all about understanding, not about fortune telling.

Goode, Erich. (2008). Drugs in American Society. New York: McGraw Hill.

Nature vs. Nurture...It's Not an Either / Or

Serial killers are fascinating to us because they deviate so significantly from the norm. These sadists enjoy watching the souls of their victims slip from bodies that grow ever more still.
Robert Ressler, a criminologist who is well known for his work in criminal profiling, has claimed to have traced psychopathic behavior to fractured families. According to a report by Everett Gratrix (1993), Ressler believes that “serial killers are less likely to be born than created.” Ressler has worked with and interviewed over 100 mass and serial killers, attempting to “understand the events leading up to the crimes as the killer saw them…” (Gratrix). In his work, Ressler has found that almost all of the killers he interviewed sustained physical and emotional abuse as children. Also, Ressler determined that “mental illness, criminal activity or alcohol or drug abuse existed in the immediate families” (Gratrix). Ressler also goes on to explain that serial killers are disproportionately present in North America because of the demise of the nuclear family, violence on television, easy access to weapons, and a lack of supervision.

While I agree with Ressler, that these factors indeed create a rich environment in which to breed a sociopath, I feel that he places too much prominence on nurture, and pays no attention to nature. Our environments greatly contribute to the people we become without a doubt. It is absurd, however, to believe that we are all genetically identical in terms of our emotions and personalities when we are born.

We know that anti-social personality disorder, or sociopathy, is present in all serial killers. "Current experts believe that sociopaths are an unfortunate fusion of interpersonal, bioligical and sociocutltural disasters."

According to the DSM IIIR, a psychological surveying tool, between 3-5% of men, and less than 1% of women are sociopaths. Shirley Scott argues that it is the sociopath's perception that others are worthless and available for manipulation, combined with a history of perceived injustices that lead to gruesome murders.

Current tests have shown that the nervous system of a sociopath is indeed different. The sociopath feels less fear and anxiety than the average person. One study found that the sociopath's arousal levels are quite low, leading to impulsiveness and thrill-seeking. Also interesting are the findings of several more studies that have determined that the biological relatives of adopted sociopaths were 4-5 times more likely to also be sociopathic than the average person; and, when sociopahts inherit developmental disabilities, it is usually a stunted development of the higher function of the brain. 30-38% of sociopaths show abnormal brain wave patterns, with the abnormal activity being found in the temporal lobes and the limbic system, which control memory and emotions. These studies indicate a powerful argument toward a modern day Frankenstein theory that serial killers really can be made.

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/notorious/tick/psych_6.html

Gratrix, E. (1993). When Men Become Monsters. Alberta Report / Newsmagazine, 20(16), 27. Retrieved June 11, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database.

It's Just The Beginning...

To me, a sociopath’s career begins when his ability to feel empathy is destroyed. It has been determined that serial killers, for example, have typically sustained prolonged emotional abuse during their formative years (before age 12). It is reasonable to hypothesize that a person who is subjected to physical and emotional mistreatment, such as beatings, rejection from a parent, and abandonment, will subconsciously shut down the parts of the brain (the limbic system) that allow us to feel emotions; or, perhaps this area of the brain is altered. This enables the “victim” to block out the negative feelings that result from abuse, but at the same time, positive emotions, such as love, and empathy are destroyed as well.

Empathy acts as our moral compass, or conscience if you will. Without this powerful emotion, we are unchecked and fall prey to the most basic of primitive human instincts. Not all sociopaths kill. All sociopaths, do however, act without thought or understanding of how their actions will impact others.

It makes perfect sense that individuals who grow up in abusive environments learn to hurt others. This is what they know about human interaction. Albert DeSalvo, a.k.a. The Boston Strangler,for instance, was sold as a slave by his alcoholic father. "Childhood abuse may not be the sole excuse for serial killers, but it is an undeniable factor in many of their backgrounds."

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/notorious/tick/abuse_3.html

I am certainly not excusing the actions of violent offenders. My point is simply that we must understand where these violent criminals come from, how they see the world and others, and how they were molded into the monsters that nightmares are made of. If we can isolate the common variables between these offenders, finding what makes them different from the child who was not abused, or even more so, from the child that was, perhaps we can discover the “trigger(s)” that causes one to take the lives of others.

Profiling: Psychic Visions or Scientific Soudness?

When it comes to offender profiling, the argument often boils down to proponents claiming it is a science, while critics claim it is simple subjectivity. The truth is that profiling does indeed rely on a certain amount of subjective reasoning. In the same token, research on past offenders, as well as the psychological research on human behavior that has occurred for far more than a century, is also relied upon heavily in devising a profile. Science generally likes everything to be neat and tidy. However, when one is dealing with the human element, not as a whole, but on an individual basis, neat and tidy are not luxuries one can depend upon.

In addition to this, profiling is not meant to single handedly solve every crime. It’s one of many investigative tools that can aid law enforcement. Like many aspects of law enforcement, this investigative tactic has received an idealized reputation due to Hollywood, and movies such as Silence of the Lambs and Mindhunters, which make superheroes out of everyday people, granting them abnormal powers akin to x-ray vision and movement equal to a speeding bullet. In reality, we study cases of past offenders, delving into every orifice we can find, and from the results of this detective work, find similarities and patterns that can be extrapolated to other offenses and offenders. Every individual is unique in background, experiences, beliefs, and cognitions. These are unpredictable variables that make it nearly impossible to fit any offender strictly within the parameters of one category; however, as humans, we are alike enough that the factors that influence our motives often result in similar behavioural patterns.

While many critics of offender profiling claim that this practice is merely a combination of common sense and the guess and check method, the fact of the matter is, in the words of former F.B.I. profiler John Douglas, “…it all comes from interviewing a lot of subjects and getting a sense of what they’re all about.”

The argument over the practicality of profiling is an important one. It is pertinent to consider though, that our traditional methods of law enforcement have been based on a reactive mentality. Today, we focus more on being proactive, meaning we seek to stop crime before it happens. In order to do this we must be open to experimenting with progressive and innovative techniques. Much of the resistance facing profiling has stemmed from the old school veterans who entered law enforcement at a time when maintaining law and order meant responding to calls once that radio crackled to life. Today, we realize that simply responding to calls is like putting a band aid on a broken bone. We are doing nothing to prevent crime and keep society safe if we do not seek new methods to cut crime off at the pass.

Profiling works towards two goals. The first, is to apprehend suspects as quickly as possible to prevent future victims; the second, is to develop an understanding of why criminals do the things they do, how they become involved with the criminal element, and whether there are physical and mental characteristics that exist among specific types of offenders that are absent from the generally law abiding element of society. If the latter can be uncovered, we may find the elusive key to unlocking the formidable lock on the criminal mind, and thus have the capability of reaching these individuals before the innocent are forced to suffer.

Profiling is still a young practice that needs to develop more fully. Good profilers do not claim to have all of the answers, are not reading the stars, and warn that a profile is based on statistical and empirical data, but will not match the offender on every point. As most psychologists will tell you, when one works with people on a daily basis, studying behavior and thought processes, one develops a deeper understanding of human nature and the factors that play into the development of each individual. Profilers are trained to see what most lay persons would find no significance in, and are capable of reading between the lines of the physical evidence. Intuition, knowledge, experience, training, common sense, and investigative abilities all equip profilers with the tools that are necessary to mold from a lump of formless clay, a Michelangelo masterpiece that shortens, or in the best of cases, eliminates the lead that the offender has managed to maintain over law enforcement.