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