FBI Serial Killer Profiling Vs Psychic Woo.Identical 0 Success Rate As Key To Collar

Cicero · 8th November 2009, 10:24 AM

Split from: Shooting at an army base in Texas

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

May I ask you, GreyIce, Zhou, and anyone else involved in this side story to please take it to another thread? Could you ask the mods to have this discussion split into its own, and rather fascinating, topic of its own? (I lived near KC for a few years, and had one of those "hey, I used to live near that" connections when the story first broke. I also used to pay ConEd for electicity).

I don't find the BTK/Rader and ConEd story set juxtaposed with this one a good fit.

Thanks.

DR

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Cicero: What is left to diagnose?
ZouPrime: Everything?

Sorry, diagnosis is a day late and a dollar short. The went out and killed people. I don't much care about the reason, given what he was supposed to be doing, and what he promised, nay, swore, to do.

Of all the things this guy could have done, this choice takes "diagnosis" and renders it impotent.

Check the flags at half mast if you are unsure of my meaning here.

Originally Posted by Cicero

Knowledge? What in Hell has ever been learned from mass murders and serial killers that has prevented any mass murders or serial killings, or even led to their apprehension?

Good question. Is there an answer to it?

DR

FBI serial killer profiling no more responsible for the direct capture/arrest of any serial killer anymore than the use of psychics for the same purpose. What valuable or practical knowledge has been gleaned from FBI profilers interviews of mass murders and serial killers that has prevented any mass murders or serial killings, or was used as a primary resource that directly contributed to the apprehension of any of these vermin?

drkitten · 8th November 2009, 12:36 PM

Originally Posted by Cicero

Split from: Shooting at an army base in Texas
FBI serial killer profiling no more responsible for the direct capture/arrest of any serial killer anymore than the use of psychics for the same purpose.

You know, when you make statements that are blatantly untrue, it makes you look stupid.

When you make statements that are not only blatantly untrue, but that you know are blatantly untrue (because proof has been offered to you in other threads), it makes you look like a liar.

When you open new threads to make statements that you know to be blatantly untrue, it makes you look like a cowardly liar.

sugarb · 8th November 2009, 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by Cicero

Split from: Shooting at an army base in Texas

FBI serial killer profiling no more responsible for the direct capture/arrest of any serial killer anymore than the use of psychics for the same purpose. What valuable or practical knowledge has been gleaned from FBI profilers interviews of mass murders and serial killers that has prevented any mass murders or serial killings, or was used as a primary resource that directly contributed to the apprehension of any of these vermin?

Oh, interesting topic. I haven't read the thread this is pulled from, but I will shortly. Anyway, Cicero, I'm going to have to disagree with you. Maybe just a little bit, though.

I think profiling serves a very important purpose. There's nothing "wooish" or "magic" about it, and really, if we're observant enough, many of us are capable of doing the same thing. Who is the person closest to you? Are you able to predict their patterns/upcoming actions based on their behavior? Does this help you prevent arguments, or ease them away from making a big mistake? If so, then you've just profiled.

People have predictable patterns (even though we like to think we're unpredictable). Mental illnesses have common patterns. Criminal behaviors have common patterns and factors. Serial killers share some common behaviors and thought processes, and profilers (and most everyone else) are aware of this and use it to figure out patterns, predict behaviors, come up with an idea of who the killer is, what type of person, what motivates the types of murders/injuries/"calling cards", and while they may not *prevent* serial murders, they indeed have, quite obviously, managed to pattern, target, apprehend, and END the sprees.

It's kind of an interesting thing, really. Even here, on this board, if you've been here long enough (I haven't), I bet some of you longtime members can predict how a particular poster will respond, based merely on patterns of behavior. You don't have to know them personally, see them, be buddies with them, talk to them in person...some people are just utterly predictable once or minds work out the pattern.

Fascinating topic, I think. I hope this turns into a good discussion (about profiling I assume?)

casebro · 8th November 2009, 01:11 PM

Okay, Sugarb, that sounds like you agree with the theory. But where are the cites for actual apprehensions based on profiles?

Was the Shoe Bomber caught by profile?

The London subway-ers?

The English Liquid Fuel bombers?

The Washington area guy, with his step son, shooting out of his car's trunk.

Of course, we do hear of busts of cells which were infiltrated by G-men. But those aren't 'profiles' , that's good old fashioned police work. Or entrapment.

Professor Yaffle · 8th November 2009, 01:25 PM

Profiling helped catch Colin Stagg for the Wimbledon Common murder.

Oh hang on, he was innocent.

drkitten · 8th November 2009, 01:26 PM

Originally Posted by casebro

Okay, Sugarb, that sounds like you agree with the theory. But where are the cites for actual apprehensions based on profiles?

Dennis Raeder (BTK), David Meirhofer, as well as George Metesky (the Mad Bomber).

Of course, if you're asking for arrests where the warrant issued based purely on the evidence of a psychological profile, you're deliberately setting up an impossible task. Psychological profiles tell the police where to look (and at what), but to actually make an arrest and conviction, the law demands better evidence. Which is quite reasonable. No one should be convicted based purely on ABO blood typing, but it's certainly useful to know that a murderer has type A blood when you're trying to narrow down a set of a hundred suspects.

Cainkane1 · 8th November 2009, 02:03 PM

Originally Posted by drkitten

You know, when you make statements that are blatantly untrue, it makes you look stupid.

When you make statements that are not only blatantly untrue, but that you know are blatantly untrue (because proof has been offered to you in other threads), it makes you look like a liar.

When you open new threads to make statements that you know to be blatantly untrue, it makes you look like a cowardly liar.

You sure got him told.

CptColumbo · 8th November 2009, 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by drkitten

Dennis Raeder (BTK), David Meirhofer, as well as George Metesky (the Mad Bomber).

Of course, if you're asking for arrests where the warrant issued based purely on the evidence of a psychological profile, you're deliberately setting up an impossible task. Psychological profiles tell the police where to look (and at what), but to actually make an arrest and conviction, the law demands better evidence. Which is quite reasonable. No one should be convicted based purely on ABO blood typing, but it's certainly useful to know that a murderer has type A blood when you're trying to narrow down a set of a hundred suspects.

Yeah, profiling helps narrow the focus of an investigation. If the police already have a suspect that fits the profile, the profiler will offer advice on how best to question him/her.

There seems to be a confusion between what a spree killer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spree_killer) is and how it differs from a serial killer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_killer).

The shooter at Fort Hood would fall more into the category of a Spree Killer. While someone like Ted Bundy is a Serial Killer.

sugarb · 8th November 2009, 02:17 PM

Originally Posted by casebro

Okay, Sugarb, that sounds like you agree with the theory. But where are the cites for actual apprehensions based on profiles?

Was the Shoe Bomber caught by profile?

The London subway-ers?

The English Liquid Fuel bombers?

The Washington area guy, with his step son, shooting out of his car's trunk.

Of course, we do hear of busts of cells which were infiltrated by G-men. But those aren't 'profiles' , that's good old fashioned police work. Or entrapment.

Agree with what theory? I'm sorry, you've confused me, as I didn't see any discussion of a "theory". Of course every person/all people will not be apprehended due to profiling. In fact, I'll even go so far as to say that no one has EVER been apprehended by profiling alone. Profiling is a TOOL. We're simply talking predictive behavior. Good old fashioned police work has ALWAYS, in difficult cases, been aided by profiling, even if not by a "professional" profiler. I don't mean to be rude, but I fail to see how you think police would ever apprehend ANYONE if they never considered predictable behaviors/patterns.

Consider this. Actually, this may be a perfect example! Local case, ongoing. Rural thefts, organized group. It went on for months, with a lot of home invasions and property loss, before law enforcement actually organized a meeting with the people who lived in a relatively huge area (considering the size of our sheriff's dept...but hey, you can only have what you can afford, right?)

At that meeting, with both victims and neighbors present, the sheriff's office was able to gather a lot of information and come up with the PATTERNS. Therefore, a few weeks later, two of the burglars were apprehended...BASED ON the profiles given by the people in that particular area. Certain car, certain time of day, always groups of two, always empty homes (or homes that appeared empty). So, they knew which areas to watch, at what time of day, and what to look for. Now, that isn't "psychological" profiling, but it IS profiling, and it, in this instance, has been a very valuable tool. Before that meeting and sharing of information/ideas...it went months with no breaks, no arrests, nothing. Everyone watched everyone's house, and hoped they could go shopping and not come home to a burglary. Pretty crappy method of police work if you ask me. What allowed the first apprehensions and arrests? PROFILING. There is more to profiling than psychology. Like I said, it helps establish PATTERNS.

Am I misunderstanding the discussion? If there's a theory being discussed, could someone clarify that for me?

sugarb · 8th November 2009, 02:19 PM

Originally Posted by CptColumbo

Yeah, profiling helps narrow the focus of an investigation. If the police already have a suspect that fits the profile, the profiler will offer advice on how best to question him/her.

There seems to be a confusion between what a spree killer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spree_killer) is and how it differs from a serial killer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_killer).

The shooter at Fort Hood would fall more into the category of a Spree Killer. While someone like Ted Bundy is a Serial Killer.

Oh, okay. I think I see why I'm confused. I thought we were talking about finding a criminal, not predicting who would BECOME one. Two different things.

CptColumbo · 9th November 2009, 09:07 AM

Originally Posted by sugarb

Oh, okay. I think I see why I'm confused. I thought we were talking about finding a criminal, not predicting who would BECOME one. Two different things.

Profiling is usually about finding criminals after they have commited their crime. As John Douglas talked about in his book "Mindhunter," the majority of serial killers have a common trinity (usually at least two of the three) of behavioral aspects as children (bed wetting to a late age, animal cruelty, fire starting), but not all people who engage in those activities as children end up as serial killers. So you can't go out and arrest everyone who wet the bed until they were 12 years-old.

Cicero · 9th November 2009, 09:18 AM

Originally Posted by Professor Yaffle

Profiling helped catch Colin Stagg for the Wimbledon Common murder.

Oh hang on, he was innocent.

Yes, these "criminal psychologists" should remain in the pages of a Patricia Cornwell novel rather than participating in actual cases.

" Professor David Canter was a pioneer in this nascent field, helping to guide detectives in the mid-80s to an offender who had carried out a series of serious attacks. But he saw the limitations of "offender profiling" - in particular, the subjective, personal opinion of a psychologist.

For psychologists such as Canter the idea of a lone psychologist being called in ad hoc to help in police investigations cannot work. When he is asked at what point a psychologist should be brought into a police investigation his reply is simply: "Before the crime."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0...404994,00.html

Wowbagger · 9th November 2009, 09:40 AM

I suspect that one problem with profiling, is how the perpetrators will devise ways to ellude suspicion by deviating from the profiles - either consciously or unconsciously.

drkitten · 9th November 2009, 09:53 AM

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

I suspect that one problem with profiling, is how the perpetrators will devise ways to ellude suspicion by deviating from the profiles - either consciously or unconsciously.

That's hard to do when part of the profile involves your past history or other aspects not under your control. For example, some of the helpful aspects of the Mad Bomber's profile were sex, age, and Slavic ancestry. I'm not sure how you can click your heels together three times and become a 20-something woman of Italian extraction.

Similarly, if part of your profile is a medical condition -- well, people can't simply will themselves into a state of "not paranoid." People can't even will themselves into a condition of "not well-educated."

Indeed, the whole point of profiling is to come up with a description of a person's psychology, not their actions.

Cicero · 9th November 2009, 10:18 AM

Originally Posted by drkitten

Dennis Raeder (BTK), David Meirhofer, as well as George Metesky (the Mad Bomber).

Of course, if you're asking for arrests where the warrant issued based purely on the evidence of a psychological profile, you're deliberately setting up an impossible task. Psychological profiles tell the police where to look (and at what), but to actually make an arrest and conviction, the law demands better evidence. Which is quite reasonable. No one should be convicted based purely on ABO blood typing, but it's certainly useful to know that a murderer has type A blood when you're trying to narrow down a set of a hundred suspects.

BTK: Not apprehended due to profiling. The Wichita police Lt. Ken Landwehr was already in communication with Rader before the FBI Academy’s Behavioral Analysis Unit became involved. Landwehr's ability to convince rader to send him the floppy disk is about the only thing that could remotely be credited to the FBI profilers. A pep talk in how to keep the suspect talking without antagonizing him is not proof that serial killer profiling was instrumental in the arrest of Rader.

Meteskey: Not only did he not kill anyone (ergo not a serial killer/mass murderer), the police even denied that Dr. Brussell's profile had any impact on the investigation, much lees the actual arrest. Con Ed did not order a search of their files until Metesky's 2nd letter was sent to the Journal American. It was the information contained in that letter that led Con Ed clerk Alice Kelly to Metesky's file.

"Edison Clerk Finds Case in File; Bomber's Words Alerted Her; Alice Kelly Tells of Uncovering Record in Documents--Company Says It Notified Detective Squad Last Friday Night Detective Is Notified State Records Brought Here"

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...8AD85F438585F9

Meirhofer: Profiling had zero to do with the apprehension of Meirhofer. Recordings of Meirhofer's voice were compared to a series of telephone calls to the Jaeger family. When the Jaeger family identified Meirhofer's voice as the voice of the man demanding ransom money, Meirhofer was arrested. Without any assistance from the Behavioral Science Unit, Meirhofer admitted to killing Sandra Smallegan, Bernard Poelman and Michael Rainey. That members of the Behavioral Science Unit figured he also killed Susan Jaeger, which Meirhofer eventually confessed to, is not an instance where profiling "caught" anyone.

Psiload · 9th November 2009, 10:18 AM

Originally Posted by drkitten

Dennis Raeder (BTK), David Meirhofer, as well as George Metesky (the Mad Bomber).

Of course, if you're asking for arrests where the warrant issued based purely on the evidence of a psychological profile, you're deliberately setting up an impossible task. Psychological profiles tell the police where to look (and at what), but to actually make an arrest and conviction, the law demands better evidence. Which is quite reasonable. No one should be convicted based purely on ABO blood typing, but it's certainly useful to know that a murderer has type A blood when you're trying to narrow down a set of a hundred suspects.

Dennis Reader unwittingly identified himself to the police.

Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Rader

Rader then sent his message and floppy to the police department, which quickly checked the metadata of the Microsoft Word document. In the metadata, they found that the document had been made by a man who called himself Dennis. They also found a link to the Lutheran Church. When the police searched on the Internet for 'Lutheran Church Wichita Dennis', they found his family name, and were able to identify a suspect: Dennis Rader, a Lutheran Deacon.

Psychological profiling played NO part in telling police where to look for the BTK Killer. Dennis Rader pointed the police towards Dennis Rader.

The criminal profilers had thirty years to work the case, yet in the end they contributed essentially nothing towards the actual identification and apprehension of Dennis Rader. Even if you argue that the profilers did manage to "narrow the field" of potential suspects, it's obvious that the field was still so broad as to render their profile useless for all intents and purposes.

Cicero · 9th November 2009, 11:01 AM

Originally Posted by drkitten

Dennis Raeder (BTK), David Meirhofer, as well as George Metesky (the Mad Bomber).

Of course, if you're asking for arrests where the warrant issued based purely on the evidence of a psychological profile, you're deliberately setting up an impossible task. Psychological profiles tell the police where to look (and at what), but to actually make an arrest and conviction, the law demands better evidence. Which is quite reasonable. No one should be convicted based purely on ABO blood typing, but it's certainly useful to know that a murderer has type A blood when you're trying to narrow down a set of a hundred suspects.

You just described the role of psychics in criminal investigators. No wonder psychics and profilers have the same batting average when it comes to solving a case based on their methods of woo.

GreyICE · 9th November 2009, 11:47 AM

Originally Posted by Cicero

You just described the role of psychics in criminal investigators. No wonder psychics and profilers have the same batting average when it comes to solving a case based on their methods of woo.

Yes, and curing cancer describes the role of licensed medical practitioners and Reiki 'masters' equally well too.

But since you're feeling so forthcoming here, I have to ask - ideally, what sort of evidence should be used to track down serial killers. And if 'means, motive, and opportunity' still apply, is it smart to cut out 'motive?'

Wowbagger · 9th November 2009, 12:13 PM

Originally Posted by drkitten

Indeed, the whole point of profiling is to come up with a description of a person's psychology, not their actions.

If an adaptation helps someone cover up their past, or their conditions, or what-ever.. they can evade the profiling. It might only be a little bit- but just enough to fool someone or cast reasonable doubt.

And, the adaptations might not even need to be consciously planned or developed. It could happen through the power of natural selection.

ETA: I do NOT mean to imply that profiling is useless. I only mean to contribute the idea that there could be an "arms race" regarding it. As I see it, it's a potential problem Profilers have to deal with.

Segnosaur · 9th November 2009, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

I suspect that one problem with profiling, is how the perpetrators will devise ways to ellude suspicion by deviating from the profiles - either consciously or unconsciously.

John Douglas addresses that issue in some of his books.

He suggests that if a criminal did attempt to change their behavior to mess up any "profile", they'd probably end up making mistakes that they wouldn't make otherwise.

Psiload · 9th November 2009, 01:12 PM

Originally Posted by CptColumbo

Profiling is usually about finding criminals after they have commited their crime.

I'd say that "profiling" is usually more about matching the profile to the criminals after they have been apprehended.

Quote:

As John Douglas talked about in his book "Mindhunter," the majority of serial killers have a common trinity (usually at least two of the three) of behavioral aspects as children (bed wetting to a late age, animal cruelty, fire starting), but not all people who engage in those activities as children end up as serial killers. So you can't go out and arrest everyone who wet the bed until they were 12 years-old.

John Douglas is especially prone to ex post facto matching of his profile to the criminal AFTER the criminal has been caught... no thanks whatsoever to his profile.

He loves to point out how his profile correctly predicted that David Carpenter "The Trailside Killer" would have a speech impediment... which he did. A nice "hit" for Douglas... but one that played no part in the identification, arrest and conviction of David Carpenter. John Douglas likes to overlook the fact that the cases he works are either A. Unsolved, or B. Solved by conventional investigative techniques.

David Carpenter was caught after he was linked from work to his last victim, and the officers who were sent to interview him noted that he exactly matched a composite sketch based on a surviving victims testimony, and his car matched the description of a car scene leaving the scene of one of his prior murders. After that it was all basic science, forensics, and eyewitness identification.

John Douglas' profile was little more than a curiosity, and of no real "help" at all.

ponderingturtle · 9th November 2009, 01:14 PM

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

If an adaptation helps someone cover up their past, or their conditions, or what-ever.. they can evade the profiling. It might only be a little bit- but just enough to fool someone or cast reasonable doubt.

And, the adaptations might not even need to be consciously planned or developed. It could happen through the power of natural selection.

ETA: I do NOT mean to imply that profiling is useless. I only mean to contribute the idea that there could be an "arms race" regarding it. As I see it, it's a potential problem Profilers have to deal with.

The problem with this is that most criminals really are not that smart.

ponderingturtle · 9th November 2009, 01:16 PM

Originally Posted by Psiload

He loves to point out how his profile correctly predicted that David Carpenter "The Trailside Killer" would have a speech impediment... which he did. A nice "hit" for Douglas... but one that played no part in the identification, arrest and conviction of David Carpenter. John Douglas likes to overlook the fact that the cases he works are either A. Unsolved, or B. Solved by conventional investigative techniques.

The thing is can any case be solved by profiling? The most it does is help dirrect resources towards likely leads.

Careyp74 · 9th November 2009, 02:29 PM

There are a whole bunch of 25 to 35 year old white males that wet the bed late into childhood, that don't socialize well, tortured animals, were probably sexually abused as a child, and hold menial jobs, have a psychologically traumatic event that triggers rage, kills habitually, and get involved with the case, and may or may not speak with a stutter (footpath killer) that would be out killing, right now, but are in jail today because of profiling.

ok, I really don't have anything to contribute to this thread yet.

Professor Yaffle · 9th November 2009, 02:39 PM

Profiling also led police to Barry George as the Jill Dando killer.

Actually I don't have such a problem with profiling, but with the police putting too much reliance in it, and perhaps it being overinflated in trials, so as to make flimsy evidence seem more substantial.

Look up the Colin Stagg and Barry George cases to see what I mean.

Darat · 9th November 2009, 02:42 PM

Originally Posted by Professor Yaffle

Profiling also led police to Barry George as the Jill Dando killer.

Actually I don't have such a problem with profiling, but with the police putting too much reliance in it, and perhaps it being overinflated in trials, so as to make flimsy evidence seem more substantial.

Look up the Colin Stagg and Barry George cases to see what I mean.

I think those cases help illustrate "confirmation bias" as much as anything, once the police started down a particular route they seemed to interpret everything as supporting their conclusion.

Wowbagger · 9th November 2009, 04:54 PM

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

He suggests that if a criminal did attempt to change their behavior to mess up any "profile", they'd probably end up making mistakes that they wouldn't make otherwise.

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

The problem with this is that most criminals really are not that smart.

MOST of the time, maybe.

But, you are both assumimg all such "hiding" would be part of the potential perpetrator's plans.

Maybe this point is hardly worth belaboring, but: Even a dumb criminal could happen upon the right mix of circumstances that will camouflage them from profilers effectively. And, those circumstances could (even by "accident") be inherited by others.

How effectively do profiling systems adapt to changes in the criminal profile fitness landscape?

Dr Adequate · 9th November 2009, 05:50 PM

Originally Posted by Cicero

Yes, these "criminal psychologists" should remain in the pages of a Patricia Cornwell novel rather than participating in actual cases.

" Professor David Canter was a pioneer in this nascent field, helping to guide detectives in the mid-80s to an offender who had carried out a series of serious attacks.

And that's bad, obviously. It would have been OK if he'd done it in a Patricia Cornwell novel, but catching criminals in real life is going too far.

Cicero · 9th November 2009, 05:57 PM

Originally Posted by GreyICE

Yes, and curing cancer describes the role of licensed medical practitioners and Reiki 'masters' equally well too.

Another invalid analogy. Neither profiler or psychic have been instrumental in the arrest of any serial killer, so what does this have to do with finding a cure for cancer?

Quote:

But since you're feeling so forthcoming here, I have to ask - ideally, what sort of evidence should be used to track down serial killers. And if 'means, motive, and opportunity' still apply, is it smart to cut out 'motive?'

Obviously, the same things that have been used to successfully apprehend all the serial killers that have been apprehended. Since profiling has never been responsible for any arrest of a guilty serial killer, who will miss the profilers?

Cicero · 9th November 2009, 06:03 PM

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

And that's bad, obviously. It would have been OK if he'd done it in a Patricia Cornwell novel, but catching criminals in real life is going too far.

Until an FBI profiler actually catches a serial killer using profiling, their voodoo will be relegated to Cornwell novels.

Jeff Corey · 9th November 2009, 06:51 PM

I may have to help fill in for a colleague who is sick in a forensic psychology course and I'm sure this will come up. Any good links to evidences?

Professor Yaffle · 10th November 2009, 07:22 AM

This mentions some research done, might be a decent starting point:

http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug04/criminal.html

ETA Here's a couple of links critical of FBI profiling:

http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/funk58.html
http://www.liv.ac.uk/Psychology/staf.../lalison19.pdf

drkitten · 10th November 2009, 08:03 AM

Originally Posted by Cicero

You just described the role of psychics in criminal investigators.

Yes. The difference is that profiles can tell people where to look with substantially better accuracy than chance.

GreyICE · 10th November 2009, 08:09 AM

Originally Posted by Cicero

Another invalid analogy. Neither profiler or psychic have been instrumental in the arrest of any serial killer, so what does this have to do with finding a cure for cancer?

So you're asking why criminal profilers don't cure cancer?

You're not very good with this entire 'analogy' thing, are you?

Quote:

Obviously, the same things that have been used to successfully apprehend all the serial killers that have been apprehended. Since profiling has never been responsible for any arrest of a guilty serial killer, who will miss the profilers?

Talk about a cop out. The point of serial killers is that they're very hard to track down, because motive is such a huge part of police investigations. Means and opportunity are both reasonably weak on their own - motive is how you develop a starting point.

Criminal profilers have been successful in both putting together a motive, and creating information that lets the police interact with and finally catch the killer.

drkitten · 10th November 2009, 08:14 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

The thing is can any case be solved by profiling?

Of course not. Profiles won't even generate admissible evidence.

But this doesn't mean they're not useful or that they're as inaccurate as psychic "leads."

Quote:

The most it does is help dirrect resources towards likely leads.

.... which is an important part of ANY investigation.

Let's consider a more mundane example. Suppose that there is a robbery at a store, and an eyewitness says that she spotted a black Camaro parked outside the crime scene at about the same time the robbery was happening.

Can this "solve" the case? Of course not. Even if there were only one black Camaro in the world, that wouldn't prove that the person who owned/drove it was involved with the murder. And, of course, in any good-sized city, there are probably lots of any particular color and model of car.

But that doesn't mean that the eyewitness report isn't helpful or useful. If you happen to know, for example, that someone who was recently fired from the store also drives a black Camaro, that's definitely enough of a lead for the investigating officers.

And that's exactly what happened, for example, with the Mad Bomber. A Con Ed investigator had read the psych profile and went looking through the files for someone that matched the profile, just like the cops might go through the files looking for someone who drives a black Camaro. Having found a person, she tipped off the cops who were then able to focus their resources on George Metesky.

drkitten · 10th November 2009, 08:15 AM

Originally Posted by Cicero

Until an FBI profiler actually catches a serial killer using profiling, their voodoo will be relegated to Cornwell novels.

Well, good. This means that they haven't been ghettoized like that since 1957.

Except in Cicero's Bizarro-world of active evidence avoidance.

ponderingturtle · 10th November 2009, 08:46 AM

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

MOST of the time, maybe.

But, you are both assumimg all such "hiding" would be part of the potential perpetrator's plans.

Maybe this point is hardly worth belaboring, but: Even a dumb criminal could happen upon the right mix of circumstances that will camouflage them from profilers effectively. And, those circumstances could (even by "accident") be inherited by others.

How effectively do profiling systems adapt to changes in the criminal profile fitness landscape?

How often are the crimes that profiling is a major part of the ones that are part of the criminal fitness landscape? Sure criminals change criminal behavior in responce to changes in enforcement and evidence gathering techniques at least some times. You would think that everyone would wear gloves if they are going to commit a crime and would have done so for many decades. It isn't accurate of course.

The thing is that profiling is about who the criminal is, not what he does and that would be even harder to change the fitness landscape for. How do you turn people into a different kind of serial killer?

Cicero · 10th November 2009, 09:30 AM

Originally Posted by drkitten

And that's exactly what happened, for example, with the Mad Bomber. A Con Ed investigator had read the psych profile and went looking through the files for someone that matched the profile, just like the cops might go through the files looking for someone who drives a black Camaro. Having found a person, she tipped off the cops who were then able to focus their resources on George Metesky.

You keep going back to the Metesky case when that case has already been debunked as an example of a profiler catching a serial killer. This probably stems from your total reliance on the wiki for guidance.

1) Metesky had not killed anyone, so he is not even a serial killer.
2)Con Ed did not order a search of their files until Metesky's 2nd letter was sent to the Journal American.
3) It was the information contained in the letters sent to the Journal American that led Con Ed clerk Alice Kelly to Metesky's file.
4) There is no annotation that provides evidence Kelly said she relied on Brussel's profile. This is wiki nonsense. In fact, Kelly used the words found in Metesky's letter(s) to locate his file. Brussell's profile had zilch to do with finding Metesky
5) The authorities never attributed Dr. Brussell's profiling as a key componet to crack the case. In fact, they said his profiling didn't have any impact on the investigation, much lees the actual arrest.

That you continue to pony up this jejune example as your go to case about how profiling saved the day, only illustrates the paucity of even cases where profiling was successfully used to capture a NON serial killer.

drkitten · 10th November 2009, 09:32 AM

Originally Posted by Cicero

You keep going back to the Metesky case when that case has already been debunked as an example of a profiler catching a serial killer.

That's because it has not been debunked.

No matter how often you tell a lie, it will not suddenly become true.

JJM · 10th November 2009, 09:40 AM

There is a book review on psychology myths. http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=2463

Quote:

In most studies, professional profilers barely do better than untrained persons. Most of what they say can be inferred from “base rate information” about criminals: guessing that a serial killer is a white male will be right more than 2/3 of the time just based on statistics.

One hopes there are legit references in there.

I have read a couple books by proponents of profiling and they have wonderful accounts of successful descriptions in dozens of cases. However, when I realized that these guys had worked thousands of cases and their profiles were vague, cherry-picking of the data cannot be ruled-out. The only cases which the profilers could really claim success in apprehending someone involved those where they staged some publicity about the murder that drew-out the murderer. For example, they would issue a press release about an old murder, and then watch who showed-up at the scene of the crime or grave.

8th November 2009, 10:24 AM	#1
Cicero Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 5,750	FBI Serial Killer Profiling Vs Psychic Woo.Identical 0 Success Rate As Key To Collar Split from: Shooting at an army base in Texas Originally Posted by Darth Rotor May I ask you, GreyIce, Zhou, and anyone else involved in this side story to please take it to another thread? Could you ask the mods to have this discussion split into its own, and rather fascinating, topic of its own? (I lived near KC for a few years, and had one of those "hey, I used to live near that" connections when the story first broke. I also used to pay ConEd for electicity). I don't find the BTK/Rader and ConEd story set juxtaposed with this one a good fit. Thanks. DR Originally Posted by Darth Rotor Cicero: What is left to diagnose? ZouPrime: Everything? Sorry, diagnosis is a day late and a dollar short. The went out and killed people. I don't much care about the reason, given what he was supposed to be doing, and what he promised, nay, swore, to do. Of all the things this guy could have done, this choice takes "diagnosis" and renders it impotent. Check the flags at half mast if you are unsure of my meaning here. Originally Posted by Cicero Knowledge? What in Hell has ever been learned from mass murders and serial killers that has prevented any mass murders or serial killings, or even led to their apprehension? Good question. Is there an answer to it? DR FBI serial killer profiling no more responsible for the direct capture/arrest of any serial killer anymore than the use of psychics for the same purpose. What valuable or practical knowledge has been gleaned from FBI profilers interviews of mass murders and serial killers that has prevented any mass murders or serial killings, or was used as a primary resource that directly contributed to the apprehension of any of these vermin?
Cicero Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 5,750	__________________ Qui audet superat - Who Dares Wins

8th November 2009, 12:58 PM	#3
sugarb Muse Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 869	Originally Posted by Cicero Split from: Shooting at an army base in Texas FBI serial killer profiling no more responsible for the direct capture/arrest of any serial killer anymore than the use of psychics for the same purpose. What valuable or practical knowledge has been gleaned from FBI profilers interviews of mass murders and serial killers that has prevented any mass murders or serial killings, or was used as a primary resource that directly contributed to the apprehension of any of these vermin? Oh, interesting topic. I haven't read the thread this is pulled from, but I will shortly. Anyway, Cicero, I'm going to have to disagree with you. Maybe just a little bit, though. I think profiling serves a very important purpose. There's nothing "wooish" or "magic" about it, and really, if we're observant enough, many of us are capable of doing the same thing. Who is the person closest to you? Are you able to predict their patterns/upcoming actions based on their behavior? Does this help you prevent arguments, or ease them away from making a big mistake? If so, then you've just profiled. People have predictable patterns (even though we like to think we're unpredictable). Mental illnesses have common patterns. Criminal behaviors have common patterns and factors. Serial killers share some common behaviors and thought processes, and profilers (and most everyone else) are aware of this and use it to figure out patterns, predict behaviors, come up with an idea of who the killer is, what type of person, what motivates the types of murders/injuries/"calling cards", and while they may not prevent serial murders, they indeed have, quite obviously, managed to pattern, target, apprehend, and END the sprees. It's kind of an interesting thing, really. Even here, on this board, if you've been here long enough (I haven't), I bet some of you longtime members can predict how a particular poster will respond, based merely on patterns of behavior. You don't have to know them personally, see them, be buddies with them, talk to them in person...some people are just utterly predictable once or minds work out the pattern. Fascinating topic, I think. I hope this turns into a good discussion (about profiling I assume?)
sugarb Muse Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 869

8th November 2009, 01:11 PM	#4
casebro Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 3,727	Okay, Sugarb, that sounds like you agree with the theory. But where are the cites for actual apprehensions based on profiles? Was the Shoe Bomber caught by profile? The London subway-ers? The English Liquid Fuel bombers? The Washington area guy, with his step son, shooting out of his car's trunk. Of course, we do hear of busts of cells which were infiltrated by G-men. But those aren't 'profiles' , that's good old fashioned police work. Or entrapment.
casebro Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 3,727	__________________ Please pardon me for having ideas, not facts. Some have called me cynical, but I don't believe them. It's not how many breaths you take. It's how many times you have been breathless that counts. Last edited by casebro; 8th November 2009 at 01:13 PM.

8th November 2009, 01:25 PM	#5
Professor Yaffle Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs Moderator Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Emily's shop Posts: 7,126	Profiling helped catch Colin Stagg for the Wimbledon Common murder. Oh hang on, he was innocent.
	__________________ I think you'll find it's a little bit more complicated than that.

8th November 2009, 02:03 PM	#7
Cainkane1 Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: The great American southeast Posts: 2,563	Originally Posted by drkitten You know, when you make statements that are blatantly untrue, it makes you look stupid. When you make statements that are not only blatantly untrue, but that you know are blatantly untrue (because proof has been offered to you in other threads), it makes you look like a liar. When you open new threads to make statements that you know to be blatantly untrue, it makes you look like a cowardly liar. You sure got him told.
	__________________ If at first you don't succeed try try again. Then if you fail to succeed to Hell with that. Try something else.

8th November 2009, 12:36 PM	#2
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wits' End Posts: 17,338	Originally Posted by Cicero Split from: Shooting at an army base in Texas FBI serial killer profiling no more responsible for the direct capture/arrest of any serial killer anymore than the use of psychics for the same purpose. You know, when you make statements that are blatantly untrue, it makes you look stupid. When you make statements that are not only blatantly untrue, but that you know are blatantly untrue (because proof has been offered to you in other threads), it makes you look like a liar. When you open new threads to make statements that you know to be blatantly untrue, it makes you look like a cowardly liar.

8th November 2009, 01:26 PM	#6
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wits' End Posts: 17,338	Originally Posted by casebro Okay, Sugarb, that sounds like you agree with the theory. But where are the cites for actual apprehensions based on profiles? Dennis Raeder (BTK), David Meirhofer, as well as George Metesky (the Mad Bomber). Of course, if you're asking for arrests where the warrant issued based purely on the evidence of a psychological profile, you're deliberately setting up an impossible task. Psychological profiles tell the police where to look (and at what), but to actually make an arrest and conviction, the law demands better evidence. Which is quite reasonable. No one should be convicted based purely on ABO blood typing, but it's certainly useful to know that a murderer has type A blood when you're trying to narrow down a set of a hundred suspects.

8th November 2009, 02:12 PM	#8
CptColumbo Just One More Question Join Date: May 2004 Location: Minneapolis, MN Posts: 7,770	Originally Posted by drkitten Dennis Raeder (BTK), David Meirhofer, as well as George Metesky (the Mad Bomber). Of course, if you're asking for arrests where the warrant issued based purely on the evidence of a psychological profile, you're deliberately setting up an impossible task. Psychological profiles tell the police where to look (and at what), but to actually make an arrest and conviction, the law demands better evidence. Which is quite reasonable. No one should be convicted based purely on ABO blood typing, but it's certainly useful to know that a murderer has type A blood when you're trying to narrow down a set of a hundred suspects. Yeah, profiling helps narrow the focus of an investigation. If the police already have a suspect that fits the profile, the profiler will offer advice on how best to question him/her. There seems to be a confusion between what a spree killer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spree_killer) is and how it differs from a serial killer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_killer). The shooter at Fort Hood would fall more into the category of a Spree Killer. While someone like Ted Bundy is a Serial Killer.
	__________________ I've been involved in a lot of cults, both as a leader and a follower. You have more fun as a follower, but you make more money as a leader.--Creed, "The Office" The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices to be only found in the minds of men. Prejudices and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own.--Rod Serling Last edited by CptColumbo; 8th November 2009 at 02:13 PM.

8th November 2009, 02:17 PM	#9
sugarb Muse Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 869	Originally Posted by casebro Okay, Sugarb, that sounds like you agree with the theory. But where are the cites for actual apprehensions based on profiles? Was the Shoe Bomber caught by profile? The London subway-ers? The English Liquid Fuel bombers? The Washington area guy, with his step son, shooting out of his car's trunk. Of course, we do hear of busts of cells which were infiltrated by G-men. But those aren't 'profiles' , that's good old fashioned police work. Or entrapment. Agree with what theory? I'm sorry, you've confused me, as I didn't see any discussion of a "theory". Of course every person/all people will not be apprehended due to profiling. In fact, I'll even go so far as to say that no one has EVER been apprehended by profiling alone. Profiling is a TOOL. We're simply talking predictive behavior. Good old fashioned police work has ALWAYS, in difficult cases, been aided by profiling, even if not by a "professional" profiler. I don't mean to be rude, but I fail to see how you think police would ever apprehend ANYONE if they never considered predictable behaviors/patterns. Consider this. Actually, this may be a perfect example! Local case, ongoing. Rural thefts, organized group. It went on for months, with a lot of home invasions and property loss, before law enforcement actually organized a meeting with the people who lived in a relatively huge area (considering the size of our sheriff's dept...but hey, you can only have what you can afford, right?) At that meeting, with both victims and neighbors present, the sheriff's office was able to gather a lot of information and come up with the PATTERNS. Therefore, a few weeks later, two of the burglars were apprehended...BASED ON the profiles given by the people in that particular area. Certain car, certain time of day, always groups of two, always empty homes (or homes that appeared empty). So, they knew which areas to watch, at what time of day, and what to look for. Now, that isn't "psychological" profiling, but it IS profiling, and it, in this instance, has been a very valuable tool. Before that meeting and sharing of information/ideas...it went months with no breaks, no arrests, nothing. Everyone watched everyone's house, and hoped they could go shopping and not come home to a burglary. Pretty crappy method of police work if you ask me. What allowed the first apprehensions and arrests? PROFILING. There is more to profiling than psychology. Like I said, it helps establish PATTERNS. Am I misunderstanding the discussion? If there's a theory being discussed, could someone clarify that for me?
sugarb Muse Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 869

8th November 2009, 02:19 PM	#10
sugarb Muse Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 869	Originally Posted by CptColumbo Yeah, profiling helps narrow the focus of an investigation. If the police already have a suspect that fits the profile, the profiler will offer advice on how best to question him/her. There seems to be a confusion between what a spree killer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spree_killer) is and how it differs from a serial killer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_killer). The shooter at Fort Hood would fall more into the category of a Spree Killer. While someone like Ted Bundy is a Serial Killer. Oh, okay. I think I see why I'm confused. I thought we were talking about finding a criminal, not predicting who would BECOME one. Two different things.
sugarb Muse Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 869

9th November 2009, 09:07 AM	#11
CptColumbo Just One More Question Join Date: May 2004 Location: Minneapolis, MN Posts: 7,770	Originally Posted by sugarb Oh, okay. I think I see why I'm confused. I thought we were talking about finding a criminal, not predicting who would BECOME one. Two different things. Profiling is usually about finding criminals after they have commited their crime. As John Douglas talked about in his book "Mindhunter," the majority of serial killers have a common trinity (usually at least two of the three) of behavioral aspects as children (bed wetting to a late age, animal cruelty, fire starting), but not all people who engage in those activities as children end up as serial killers. So you can't go out and arrest everyone who wet the bed until they were 12 years-old.
	__________________ I've been involved in a lot of cults, both as a leader and a follower. You have more fun as a follower, but you make more money as a leader.--Creed, "The Office" The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices to be only found in the minds of men. Prejudices and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own.--Rod Serling

9th November 2009, 09:18 AM	#12
Cicero Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 5,750	Originally Posted by Professor Yaffle Profiling helped catch Colin Stagg for the Wimbledon Common murder. Oh hang on, he was innocent. Yes, these "criminal psychologists" should remain in the pages of a Patricia Cornwell novel rather than participating in actual cases. " Professor David Canter was a pioneer in this nascent field, helping to guide detectives in the mid-80s to an offender who had carried out a series of serious attacks. But he saw the limitations of "offender profiling" - in particular, the subjective, personal opinion of a psychologist. For psychologists such as Canter the idea of a lone psychologist being called in ad hoc to help in police investigations cannot work. When he is asked at what point a psychologist should be brought into a police investigation his reply is simply: "Before the crime." http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0...404994,00.html
Cicero Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 5,750	__________________ Qui audet superat - Who Dares Wins

9th November 2009, 09:40 AM	#13
Wowbagger The Infinitely Prolonged Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space) Posts: 7,724	I suspect that one problem with profiling, is how the perpetrators will devise ways to ellude suspicion by deviating from the profiles - either consciously or unconsciously.
	__________________ WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be. SkeptiCamp NYC 2009: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/ Photos and Stuff Now Available A conference on science and skepticism where *you* could be a presenter!

9th November 2009, 09:53 AM	#14
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wits' End Posts: 17,338	Originally Posted by Wowbagger I suspect that one problem with profiling, is how the perpetrators will devise ways to ellude suspicion by deviating from the profiles - either consciously or unconsciously. That's hard to do when part of the profile involves your past history or other aspects not under your control. For example, some of the helpful aspects of the Mad Bomber's profile were sex, age, and Slavic ancestry. I'm not sure how you can click your heels together three times and become a 20-something woman of Italian extraction. Similarly, if part of your profile is a medical condition -- well, people can't simply will themselves into a state of "not paranoid." People can't even will themselves into a condition of "not well-educated." Indeed, the whole point of profiling is to come up with a description of a person's psychology, not their actions.

9th November 2009, 10:18 AM	#15
Cicero Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 5,750	Originally Posted by drkitten Dennis Raeder (BTK), David Meirhofer, as well as George Metesky (the Mad Bomber). Of course, if you're asking for arrests where the warrant issued based purely on the evidence of a psychological profile, you're deliberately setting up an impossible task. Psychological profiles tell the police where to look (and at what), but to actually make an arrest and conviction, the law demands better evidence. Which is quite reasonable. No one should be convicted based purely on ABO blood typing, but it's certainly useful to know that a murderer has type A blood when you're trying to narrow down a set of a hundred suspects. BTK: Not apprehended due to profiling. The Wichita police Lt. Ken Landwehr was already in communication with Rader before the FBI Academy’s Behavioral Analysis Unit became involved. Landwehr's ability to convince rader to send him the floppy disk is about the only thing that could remotely be credited to the FBI profilers. A pep talk in how to keep the suspect talking without antagonizing him is not proof that serial killer profiling was instrumental in the arrest of Rader. Meteskey: Not only did he not kill anyone (ergo not a serial killer/mass murderer), the police even denied that Dr. Brussell's profile had any impact on the investigation, much lees the actual arrest. Con Ed did not order a search of their files until Metesky's 2nd letter was sent to the Journal American. It was the information contained in that letter that led Con Ed clerk Alice Kelly to Metesky's file. "Edison Clerk Finds Case in File; Bomber's Words Alerted Her; Alice Kelly Tells of Uncovering Record in Documents--Company Says It Notified Detective Squad Last Friday Night Detective Is Notified State Records Brought Here" http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...8AD85F438585F9 Meirhofer: Profiling had zero to do with the apprehension of Meirhofer. Recordings of Meirhofer's voice were compared to a series of telephone calls to the Jaeger family. When the Jaeger family identified Meirhofer's voice as the voice of the man demanding ransom money, Meirhofer was arrested. Without any assistance from the Behavioral Science Unit, Meirhofer admitted to killing Sandra Smallegan, Bernard Poelman and Michael Rainey. That members of the Behavioral Science Unit figured he also killed Susan Jaeger, which Meirhofer eventually confessed to, is not an instance where profiling "caught" anyone.
Cicero Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 5,750	__________________ Qui audet superat - Who Dares Wins Last edited by Cicero; 9th November 2009 at 10:21 AM.

9th November 2009, 10:18 AM	#16
Psiload Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 1,849	Originally Posted by drkitten Dennis Raeder (BTK), David Meirhofer, as well as George Metesky (the Mad Bomber). Of course, if you're asking for arrests where the warrant issued based purely on the evidence of a psychological profile, you're deliberately setting up an impossible task. Psychological profiles tell the police where to look (and at what), but to actually make an arrest and conviction, the law demands better evidence. Which is quite reasonable. No one should be convicted based purely on ABO blood typing, but it's certainly useful to know that a murderer has type A blood when you're trying to narrow down a set of a hundred suspects. Dennis Reader unwittingly identified himself to the police. Quote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Rader Rader then sent his message and floppy to the police department, which quickly checked the metadata of the Microsoft Word document. In the metadata, they found that the document had been made by a man who called himself Dennis. They also found a link to the Lutheran Church. When the police searched on the Internet for 'Lutheran Church Wichita Dennis', they found his family name, and were able to identify a suspect: Dennis Rader, a Lutheran Deacon. Psychological profiling played NO part in telling police where to look for the BTK Killer. Dennis Rader pointed the police towards Dennis Rader. The criminal profilers had thirty years to work the case, yet in the end they contributed essentially nothing towards the actual identification and apprehension of Dennis Rader. Even if you argue that the profilers did manage to "narrow the field" of potential suspects, it's obvious that the field was still so broad as to render their profile useless for all intents and purposes.
Psiload Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 1,849	__________________ You're not the boss of me.

9th November 2009, 11:01 AM	#17
Cicero Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 5,750	Originally Posted by drkitten Dennis Raeder (BTK), David Meirhofer, as well as George Metesky (the Mad Bomber). Of course, if you're asking for arrests where the warrant issued based purely on the evidence of a psychological profile, you're deliberately setting up an impossible task. Psychological profiles tell the police where to look (and at what), but to actually make an arrest and conviction, the law demands better evidence. Which is quite reasonable. No one should be convicted based purely on ABO blood typing, but it's certainly useful to know that a murderer has type A blood when you're trying to narrow down a set of a hundred suspects. You just described the role of psychics in criminal investigators. No wonder psychics and profilers have the same batting average when it comes to solving a case based on their methods of woo.
Cicero Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 5,750	__________________ Qui audet superat - Who Dares Wins

9th November 2009, 11:47 AM	#18
GreyICE Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 6,540	Originally Posted by Cicero You just described the role of psychics in criminal investigators. No wonder psychics and profilers have the same batting average when it comes to solving a case based on their methods of woo. Yes, and curing cancer describes the role of licensed medical practitioners and Reiki 'masters' equally well too. But since you're feeling so forthcoming here, I have to ask - ideally, what sort of evidence should be used to track down serial killers. And if 'means, motive, and opportunity' still apply, is it smart to cut out 'motive?'
GreyICE Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 6,540	__________________ I love these forums If Hitler was a bloodthirsty psychopath don't you think at least someone would have noticed? - MagZ

9th November 2009, 12:13 PM	#19
Wowbagger The Infinitely Prolonged Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space) Posts: 7,724	Originally Posted by drkitten Indeed, the whole point of profiling is to come up with a description of a person's psychology, not their actions. If an adaptation helps someone cover up their past, or their conditions, or what-ever.. they can evade the profiling. It might only be a little bit- but just enough to fool someone or cast reasonable doubt. And, the adaptations might not even need to be consciously planned or developed. It could happen through the power of natural selection. ETA: I do NOT mean to imply that profiling is useless. I only mean to contribute the idea that there could be an "arms race" regarding it. As I see it, it's a potential problem Profilers have to deal with.
	__________________ WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be. SkeptiCamp NYC 2009: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/ Photos and Stuff Now Available A conference on science and skepticism where *you* could be a presenter! Last edited by Wowbagger; 9th November 2009 at 12:15 PM.

9th November 2009, 12:23 PM	#20
Segnosaur Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 3,918	Originally Posted by Wowbagger I suspect that one problem with profiling, is how the perpetrators will devise ways to ellude suspicion by deviating from the profiles - either consciously or unconsciously. John Douglas addresses that issue in some of his books. He suggests that if a criminal did attempt to change their behavior to mess up any "profile", they'd probably end up making mistakes that they wouldn't make otherwise.
Segnosaur Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 3,918	__________________ Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer I cheered when then the WTC came down. - UndercoverElephant (a.k.a. JustGeoff) I cheer Bin Laden... - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant) Bin Laden delivered justice - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant) Men shop for lingerie the way kids shop for breakfast cereal... they will buy something they know nothing about, just to get the prize inside. - Jeff Foxworthy

9th November 2009, 01:12 PM	#21
Psiload Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 1,849	Originally Posted by CptColumbo Profiling is usually about finding criminals after they have commited their crime. I'd say that "profiling" is usually more about matching the profile to the criminals after they have been apprehended. Quote: As John Douglas talked about in his book "Mindhunter," the majority of serial killers have a common trinity (usually at least two of the three) of behavioral aspects as children (bed wetting to a late age, animal cruelty, fire starting), but not all people who engage in those activities as children end up as serial killers. So you can't go out and arrest everyone who wet the bed until they were 12 years-old. John Douglas is especially prone to ex post facto matching of his profile to the criminal AFTER the criminal has been caught... no thanks whatsoever to his profile. He loves to point out how his profile correctly predicted that David Carpenter "The Trailside Killer" would have a speech impediment... which he did. A nice "hit" for Douglas... but one that played no part in the identification, arrest and conviction of David Carpenter. John Douglas likes to overlook the fact that the cases he works are either A. Unsolved, or B. Solved by conventional investigative techniques. David Carpenter was caught after he was linked from work to his last victim, and the officers who were sent to interview him noted that he exactly matched a composite sketch based on a surviving victims testimony, and his car matched the description of a car scene leaving the scene of one of his prior murders. After that it was all basic science, forensics, and eyewitness identification. John Douglas' profile was little more than a curiosity, and of no real "help" at all.
Psiload Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 1,849	__________________ You're not the boss of me. Last edited by Psiload; 9th November 2009 at 01:13 PM.

9th November 2009, 01:14 PM	#22
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Ossining NY Posts: 18,760	Originally Posted by Wowbagger If an adaptation helps someone cover up their past, or their conditions, or what-ever.. they can evade the profiling. It might only be a little bit- but just enough to fool someone or cast reasonable doubt. And, the adaptations might not even need to be consciously planned or developed. It could happen through the power of natural selection. ETA: I do NOT mean to imply that profiling is useless. I only mean to contribute the idea that there could be an "arms race" regarding it. As I see it, it's a potential problem Profilers have to deal with. The problem with this is that most criminals really are not that smart.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

9th November 2009, 01:16 PM	#23
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Ossining NY Posts: 18,760	Originally Posted by Psiload He loves to point out how his profile correctly predicted that David Carpenter "The Trailside Killer" would have a speech impediment... which he did. A nice "hit" for Douglas... but one that played no part in the identification, arrest and conviction of David Carpenter. John Douglas likes to overlook the fact that the cases he works are either A. Unsolved, or B. Solved by conventional investigative techniques. The thing is can any case be solved by profiling? The most it does is help dirrect resources towards likely leads.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

9th November 2009, 02:29 PM	#24
Careyp74 Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Trevose, PA Posts: 1,656	There are a whole bunch of 25 to 35 year old white males that wet the bed late into childhood, that don't socialize well, tortured animals, were probably sexually abused as a child, and hold menial jobs, have a psychologically traumatic event that triggers rage, kills habitually, and get involved with the case, and may or may not speak with a stutter (footpath killer) that would be out killing, right now, but are in jail today because of profiling. ok, I really don't have anything to contribute to this thread yet.

9th November 2009, 02:39 PM	#25
Professor Yaffle Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs Moderator Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Emily's shop Posts: 7,126	Profiling also led police to Barry George as the Jill Dando killer. Actually I don't have such a problem with profiling, but with the police putting too much reliance in it, and perhaps it being overinflated in trials, so as to make flimsy evidence seem more substantial. Look up the Colin Stagg and Barry George cases to see what I mean.
	__________________ I think you'll find it's a little bit more complicated than that.

9th November 2009, 02:42 PM	#26
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 47,681	Originally Posted by Professor Yaffle Profiling also led police to Barry George as the Jill Dando killer. Actually I don't have such a problem with profiling, but with the police putting too much reliance in it, and perhaps it being overinflated in trials, so as to make flimsy evidence seem more substantial. Look up the Colin Stagg and Barry George cases to see what I mean. I think those cases help illustrate "confirmation bias" as much as anything, once the police started down a particular route they seemed to interpret everything as supporting their conclusion.
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

9th November 2009, 04:54 PM	#27
Wowbagger The Infinitely Prolonged Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space) Posts: 7,724	Originally Posted by Segnosaur He suggests that if a criminal did attempt to change their behavior to mess up any "profile", they'd probably end up making mistakes that they wouldn't make otherwise. Originally Posted by ponderingturtle The problem with this is that most criminals really are not that smart. MOST of the time, maybe. But, you are both assumimg all such "hiding" would be part of the potential perpetrator's plans. Maybe this point is hardly worth belaboring, but: Even a dumb criminal could happen upon the right mix of circumstances that will camouflage them from profilers effectively. And, those circumstances could (even by "accident") be inherited by others. How effectively do profiling systems adapt to changes in the criminal profile fitness landscape?
	__________________ WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be. SkeptiCamp NYC 2009: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/ Photos and Stuff Now Available A conference on science and skepticism where *you* could be a presenter!

9th November 2009, 05:50 PM	#28
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,902	Originally Posted by Cicero Yes, these "criminal psychologists" should remain in the pages of a Patricia Cornwell novel rather than participating in actual cases. " Professor David Canter was a pioneer in this nascent field, helping to guide detectives in the mid-80s to an offender who had carried out a series of serious attacks. And that's bad, obviously. It would have been OK if he'd done it in a Patricia Cornwell novel, but catching criminals in real life is going too far.

9th November 2009, 05:57 PM	#29
Cicero Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 5,750	Originally Posted by GreyICE Yes, and curing cancer describes the role of licensed medical practitioners and Reiki 'masters' equally well too. Another invalid analogy. Neither profiler or psychic have been instrumental in the arrest of any serial killer, so what does this have to do with finding a cure for cancer? Quote: But since you're feeling so forthcoming here, I have to ask - ideally, what sort of evidence should be used to track down serial killers. And if 'means, motive, and opportunity' still apply, is it smart to cut out 'motive?' Obviously, the same things that have been used to successfully apprehend all the serial killers that have been apprehended. Since profiling has never been responsible for any arrest of a guilty serial killer, who will miss the profilers?
Cicero Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 5,750	__________________ Qui audet superat - Who Dares Wins

9th November 2009, 06:03 PM	#30
Cicero Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 5,750	Originally Posted by Dr Adequate And that's bad, obviously. It would have been OK if he'd done it in a Patricia Cornwell novel, but catching criminals in real life is going too far. Until an FBI profiler actually catches a serial killer using profiling, their voodoo will be relegated to Cornwell novels.
Cicero Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 5,750	__________________ Qui audet superat - Who Dares Wins

9th November 2009, 06:51 PM	#31
Jeff Corey New York Skeptic Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,731	I may have to help fill in for a colleague who is sick in a forensic psychology course and I'm sure this will come up. Any good links to evidences?
	Last edited by Jeff Corey; 9th November 2009 at 06:54 PM.

10th November 2009, 07:22 AM	#32
Professor Yaffle Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs Moderator Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Emily's shop Posts: 7,126	This mentions some research done, might be a decent starting point: http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug04/criminal.html ETA Here's a couple of links critical of FBI profiling: http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/funk58.html http://www.liv.ac.uk/Psychology/staf.../lalison19.pdf
	__________________ I think you'll find it's a little bit more complicated than that. Last edited by Professor Yaffle; 10th November 2009 at 07:31 AM.

10th November 2009, 08:03 AM	#33
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wits' End Posts: 17,338	Originally Posted by Cicero You just described the role of psychics in criminal investigators. Yes. The difference is that profiles can tell people where to look with substantially better accuracy than chance.

10th November 2009, 08:09 AM	#34
GreyICE Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 6,540	Originally Posted by Cicero Another invalid analogy. Neither profiler or psychic have been instrumental in the arrest of any serial killer, so what does this have to do with finding a cure for cancer? So you're asking why criminal profilers don't cure cancer? You're not very good with this entire 'analogy' thing, are you? Quote: Obviously, the same things that have been used to successfully apprehend all the serial killers that have been apprehended. Since profiling has never been responsible for any arrest of a guilty serial killer, who will miss the profilers? Talk about a cop out. The point of serial killers is that they're very hard to track down, because motive is such a huge part of police investigations. Means and opportunity are both reasonably weak on their own - motive is how you develop a starting point. Criminal profilers have been successful in both putting together a motive, and creating information that lets the police interact with and finally catch the killer.
GreyICE Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 6,540	__________________ I love these forums If Hitler was a bloodthirsty psychopath don't you think at least someone would have noticed? - MagZ

10th November 2009, 08:14 AM	#35
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wits' End Posts: 17,338	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle The thing is can any case be solved by profiling? Of course not. Profiles won't even generate admissible evidence. But this doesn't mean they're not useful or that they're as inaccurate as psychic "leads." Quote: The most it does is help dirrect resources towards likely leads. .... which is an important part of ANY investigation. Let's consider a more mundane example. Suppose that there is a robbery at a store, and an eyewitness says that she spotted a black Camaro parked outside the crime scene at about the same time the robbery was happening. Can this "solve" the case? Of course not. Even if there were only one black Camaro in the world, that wouldn't prove that the person who owned/drove it was involved with the murder. And, of course, in any good-sized city, there are probably lots of any particular color and model of car. But that doesn't mean that the eyewitness report isn't helpful or useful. If you happen to know, for example, that someone who was recently fired from the store also drives a black Camaro, that's definitely enough of a lead for the investigating officers. And that's exactly what happened, for example, with the Mad Bomber. A Con Ed investigator had read the psych profile and went looking through the files for someone that matched the profile, just like the cops might go through the files looking for someone who drives a black Camaro. Having found a person, she tipped off the cops who were then able to focus their resources on George Metesky.