John Douglas´ Profile

[corey123]

Hello Errata,

Why don't you look and read up on some successful profiles, try David Canter. Liverpool.

[Errata]

Hi Errata,
I can understand some of your cynicism in your last post. Many profiles only seem to be of use after the event.

I think what bothers me about profiles is that they seem to be a mix of common sense, and information law enforcement has no way of knowing. How is a detective supposed to know that a guy had a domineering mother which gave him a lifelong inferiority complex? It isn't written on his face. If a police officer pulls over a man for speeding, how is he supposed to know that this guy has a ring belonging to a victim in his pocket? And what is the fundamental difference between a killer like Kemper, who used to buy cops drinks and listen to them talk about the case, and someone like me who just has a dread fascination with the subject? I can see how you can use a profile against someone once they become a suspect, but I don't see how it can be helpful finding a suspect.

[Cuervo]

Hi guys
Yes, you need to have a good knowledge of the cultural setting of the killoings in order to do a good profile. That´s something I think all profilers know. If you are from USA and go to do a profile in Japan, you should get lots af advice and training on the place and uses, or even better train japanees profilers for these things.

What you can´t do is to do a profile like tha one that Ressler (I think it was him) did about Juarez City killings in Mexico. No mexican payed any attention to what he said, and I´m not surprised...that was lack of knowledge of the culture

[Ben]

Hi Brad,

The passage of time that has elapsed since the Whitechapel murders should not prohibit the construction of a profile. It's simply a case of factoring in that "different social environment".

Here's John Douglas' account of the Green River killer profile, for anyone interested:

http://www.johndouglasmindhunter.com/newsletter/031124.php

All the best,
Ben

[Siobhan Patricia Mulcahy]

So if I see the average profile on the news, there is nothing on there that would allow me to say "Holy Crap! That's Jimmy!" As far as I know most of those profiles apply to no one I know, or possibly everyone I know. Equally. Profiles are correct or incorrect in hindsight, and how many people have actually been caught because of a profile? And if people aren't getting caught based on their profile, why profile them?

Hi Errata,
I can understand some of your cynicism in your last post. Many profiles only seem to be of use after the event.
It is true that profilers are only helpful if there is a recognisable pattern of behaviour and enough evidence to provide clues in the case. If the killer changes his behaviour, modus operandi, tampers with evidence then profilers tend to be as lost as everyone else examining the case. Gary Ridgway knew the rules of profiling and changed his m.o., left DNA of others at the crime scenes and transported bodies across state lines. He continued to murder for 20 years and was only convicted because he began to leave his own DNA at the scenes in the later murders - so it was forensic evidence and not profiling that convicted him.
But profilers can be useful if there is a clear pattern of behaviour and sufficient evidence.
They have helped police capture killers so they're not totally useless.

Take the recent case of the murder of Joanna Yeates in Britain.
A profiler on the case was able to help police with the following:
*The killer was known to Joanna and probably knew her boyfriend was away for the weekend.
*He knew the layout of her apartment or at least knew the interior of the building.
*He had a vehicle large enough to transport the body to a different location.
*He had the physical strength to be able to swoop and subdue her very quickly.

The police arrested Joanna's landlord who fitted the above profile in all respects except that he was aged 65 (and physically weak) and unlikely to be able to subdue a young woman without assistance. Police examined his car and found no DNA evidence of Joanna so they let him go.
They continued to use the profile given and soon arrested a neighbour living in the basement next door. A 32-year-old computer geek (who had a girlfriend) is now awaiting trial for Joanna's murder. DNA evidence in his hatchback boot is said to belong to Joanna.The profile did ultimately help the police to capture him in less than 2 weeks.
But you might ask the question (and this is where I understand people's cycnicism): why couldn't the police figure out the simple profile for themselves? To be honest, in such a straightforward one-off murder, it's a valid question and difficult to answer.

Siobhán

[Scorpio]

Hi.

Do you guys think that modern day profiling would apply back in 1888? I do not because of a different social enviroment.

Your friend,
Brad

Hello,I think the eco validity of profiling is questionable. The majority of cases which inform the judgement of so many seem to occupy a narrow geographical and chronological band ( post war North America ), and this limits insight i think. If you take a case of ' honour killing ' for emample; the profilers would no doubt claim to be commited by a insecure,inexperienced young male, who has some form basic of relationship with the victim. This is fair enough, but it tells us nothing about the cultural background, which would reduce the suspect list somewhat.

[Cuervo]

Hi to all
Sorry I didn´t reply to my own question, but I´ve been unable to use the computer in the last hours.
I think there are real masters of bouble lifes (and not only serial killers), but sometimes the make mistakes or they find somone a bit paranoid who gets it right. Take for instance Harold Shipman (a cabdriver realized that something was going on).

Profiles are usefull of course. We had a "playing cards killer" of whom a psychology and criminology teacher made a profile who the police didn´t use because of two different police forces started a "battle". He publisehd the profile in a newspaper and he did the whole thing right. At the end the killer turned himself to the police because he wanted to be famous and none catched him (how embarrasing for police, if they had payed attention to the profile...)

[celee]

Hi.

Do you guys think that modern day profiling would apply back in 1888? I do not because of a different social enviroment.

Your friend,
Brad

[Errata]

Errata,

This is the last post I will write about this, because obviously people are totally closed minded, and are unwilling to accept that while risky, profiles are helpful. Does the number matter? What matters is when done right they work.

Though it is nigh impossible to convince the world full of people who know more than the FBI right?

I'm really not all that closed minded. I don't enjoy the company of profilers in my experience, but thats a far cry from saying that their job is crap. I don't think profilers are wrong, I think some parts of some profiles are wrong. It's just that I read alot about these cases, and while I have seen profiles giving law enforcement information they did not have before, I have not read of a case where a profile has even indirectly led to an arrest.

I think in the case of Wayne Williams, Douglas and Hazelwood came up with two mutually exclusive profiles, both of which were mostly wrong. I think that when predicting criminal behavior changes due to increasing pressure from law enforcement and media, profilers do very well.

A profiler (I cannot for the life of me remember his name I apologize) once put it that a profile is a tool that narrows down the suspect pool from everyone to half of everyone. But for example, the wiki-consolidation of Douglas's Green River Killer profile:

Probably a white male who had a dysfunctional relationship with women.
Organized since he tried to hide the bodies and appeared to spend some time at the river
Cunning in using rocks to weigh the victims down in the water to conceal them.
Very mobile with a vehicle.
Going to kill again.
Like other serial killers, he would be prone to contacting police wanting to help in the investigations

To the best of my knowledge this describes my dad. My uncle. Two out three of my closest friends. Barring male it could be me. I can see how after you catch the guy you can look back at the profile and see it was accurate, but how does it help the police before they know who it is? What in this profile could trigger someone to say "holy crap thats Gary!"

And maybe this is a bad example. I have always been more fascinated with offenders than offender profiles. But I was not being snarky when I asked if it ever worked. I feel like it must have worked at least a few times to get the money for a new department. So I'm actually asking. How many have been caught as a direct result of their offender profile?

[corey123]

Corey123,
I created my own profile of Jack the Ripper using modern day serial killers which you complimented me on. So obviously I agree that profiles are useful (if I spent time creating one myself) therefore I am not jumping on the ignorance bandwagon as you choose to call it.

http://wiki.casebook.org/index.php/User:Spryder

You have a short memory and are talking through your elbow to put it politely!

Siobhán

Siobhan,

No no no, heh-heh I apologize, I was replying to Errata and I haven't a clue why I put your name down, my apologies.

Also I remember, yet I agree, I must have been talking through my elbow

[Siobhan Patricia Mulcahy]

Talking through your elbow

Siobhan,

As I say to everyone, read some profiles, don't just jump on the ignorance bandwagon and say they are worthless. Many a criminal has been stopped by the aid of a criminal profile. Why else would the FBI, one of the world's leading investigative agencies use them?

Would you call them stupid?

Corey123,
I created my own profile of Jack the Ripper using modern day serial killers which you complimented me on. So obviously I agree that profiles are useful (if I spent time creating one myself) therefore I am not jumping on the ignorance bandwagon as you choose to call it.

http://wiki.casebook.org/index.php/User:Spryder

You have a short memory and are talking through your elbow to put it politely!

Siobhán

[corey123]

Errata,

This is the last post I will write about this, because obviously people are totally closed minded, and are unwilling to accept that while risky, profiles are helpful. Does the number matter? What matters is when done right they work.

Though it is nigh impossible to convince the world full of people who know more than the FBI right?

[Errata]

Many a criminal has been stopped by the aid of a criminal profile. Why else would the FBI, one of the world's leading investigative agencies use them?

Well there have been some suggestions that the offender profiler department was built up in order to get extra funds to distribute to other underfunded departments within the F.B.I. Now this would be absolutely paranoid if it weren't for the fact that it is common practice in business, and not unheard of in the law enforcement world. I don't think I believe this, although I can't imagine what they do to earn that kind of a budget. But it's an interesting theory.

Out of curiosity, do we know how many serial killers have been caught based on a profile, versus say, getting pulled over for speeding with a body in the car?

[Wickerman]

The FBI also use psychic's for the same reason.

http://www.noreenrenier.com/

...She helped to locate a plane containing the body of a relative of an FBI agent."
— Robert Ressler (Ex-FBI)

Any help is better than no help at all....

[corey123]

Siobhan,

As I say to everyone, read some profiles, don't just jump on the ignorance bandwagon and say they are worthless. Many a criminal has been stopped by the aid of a criminal profile. Why else would the FBI, one of the world's leading investigative agencies use them?

Would you call them stupid?