Evidence of innocence

[MrBarnett]

Well, it was the head of the local police who emphasized the Geordie accent. The FBI dismissed the tapes as a hoax. Also, the FBI were suggesting a number of occupations where the offender could be expected to be driving around at night, postal delivery just being one example they listed (which is quite different from them saying he was a postal delivery worker to the exclusion of other occupations).

That being said, I'm not suggesting their profiles are particularly useful as it's hard to know exactly how to evaluate them. Obviously, some points would be expected to be correct, some not, but at what point does something that doesn't match turn into an error? If they suggest he's a loner, but it turns out he went out a lot, but had no "close friends", is he a loner? Is that correct or not? When is a profile considered "wrong"? How many errors, if we can define them, are "too many"? I've not looked for awhile, but I've never found a study where that sort of thing has been analysed. We hear, of course, about the "successes" in books and media, and we hear about the dismal failures (the Beltway Snipers, for example), but those are the extremes, and are also a very small percentage of the profiles written. What would be useful would be an analysis of a large number of them, to see if they are providing useful information. And if they do, is that information broad and general (like the spatial profiles are - broad regions to consider, with quantifiable and known rates of success and failure?), in which case drop the specific details that just create noise. Or are they little more than a summary of the general information about offenders (probably male, probably 20-40s, etc), in which case they boil down to a general description of offenders while purporting to get beyond that and differentiate this offender from the general description.

There are some things, of course, that one can infer from a crime scene. Certain aspects may require a fair amount of strength to accomplish, so the offender must have that strength. Or in the case of the Snipers, the offender must have marksmanship skills from somewhere. We debate these sorts of things too when it comes to notions about anatomical knowledge, only in this case the medical opinion (then and now) is divided as to how much was required! But if someone is consistently making long range shots on victims, that at least becomes clear - they have marksmanship skills. It doesn't mean, however, they had to be military (though of course that would be one way those skills could be obtained), only that military, hunting, target shooting, gun enthusiast, etc background might be something to look for in a person of interest.

Those sorts of things are pretty obvious though. Where behavioural profiling claims it can go, though, is to find more obscure aspects of behaviour from the crime scene and get to further details about the offender's skill sets, personality, life traits, etc. And I don't think that has ever been studied to determine it can actually do anything like that at all.

Even the spatial analysis area needs a proper large scale study of efficacy, but these are very difficult to do because getting accurate information on a large number of cases is both expensive and complicated. While I've done some small scale testing, as have others, which all show things work, there is nothing like a large data set to really put things to the test. Also, most routines do about the same, so the large broad patterns are being detected, and it will take a large data set to see if the routines can be improved beyond current performance levels.

- Jeff

Could you summarise that in under a million words?

Were the FBI guys taking out of their arses or not? Or don’t you know?

[SuperShodan]

>>You seem to have been away for a bit yourself. Have you caught up on the amount of conjecture that has been put out by the anti-Lechmerians in the past day or two? I know you will think it outrageous and will take them to task over it. <<

Did you catch Bob's post about all the times the papers mentioned Paul hurrying along? Or Christer continued failure to answer the questions he promised?
I know you will think it outrageous and will take them to task over it.

Actually Dusty Lloyds Weekly and the Evening News both had Paul hurrying along. I did make a mistake with that post as I read the first 2 news articles in my collection, both of which had Paul hurrying, and assumed that this ran through the others too without checking. It was an error and I’m happy to hold my hands up and admit it.

Moving on, I think your recent posts about Christer are generally weird and unpleasant and say a great deal more about you than they do about him.

All you ever do is copy and paste others theories and suggestions - and point out errors in a date or if somebody’s got a quote wrong or mixed something up.

It’s very odd, but it says a lot about you.

People like you who only criticise, but offer no suggestions, hypothesis, explanations or theories of their own are usually insecure, low self worth and over compensating. Pointing out a flaw in some else’s work gives your self esteem a boost.

It’s like you want to be noticed and appreciated by Christer, but lack the skills to do so on your own merit. You want to connect and get attention, but have nothing to say. So it’s just negativity and criticism. Never having an original thought and never offering any kind of alternative hypothesis of your own.

The way you copy chunks of Christer’s and others posts is actually pitiful. It’s like the more he ignores you the more desperate you are to get his attention.

I suggest you try and write a few posts that aren’t just fault finding someone’s else’s, you might just find you get the recognition you so clearly want.

[MrBarnett]

Aerial view of Mann, Crossman & Paulin Brewery (Albion) from "Survey of London" on Twitter. No date.

From Twitter? Kudos, RJ!

As you say, no date, but obviously later than 1888.

I think I posted that image a few days ago, but there’s no harm in re-emphasising how massive the complex was and how insignificant the 14ft surrounding walls were in relation to the buildings inside them.

[JeffHamm]

Could you summarise that in under a million words?

The FBI didn't claim he was a postal worker, it was an example.

Behavioural profiling's utility has not been properly studied.

Were the FBI guys taking out of their arses or not? Or don’t you know?

Without being properly studied, nobody knows, though we can each form our own guess and pretend that means we know.

- Jeff

P.S. Does it need to be shorter still?

[MrBarnett]

Aerial view of Mann, Crossman & Paulin Brewery (Albion) from "Survey of London" on Twitter. No date.

Dusty, Jeff,

If RJ has posted this photo of the Mann’s brewery in the 1890s to support his contention that in 1888 Robert Paul couldn’t have seen a brewery clock on his way to work, or that the sound of the chimes from the Mann’s brewery clock would have reached Elizabeth Long’s ears half a mile away in Brick Lane in 1888, is he maintaining the high standards expected of an anti-Lecmerian

[MrBarnett]

The FBI didn't claim he was a postal worker, it was an example.

Behavioural profiling's utility has not been properly studied.



Without being properly studied, nobody knows, though we can each form our own guess and pretend that means we know.

- Jeff

P.S. Does it need to be shorter still?

I’m fully aware it was an example. You give the impression that I’ve said otherwise.

Their example was a guess of who might be able to move about Leeds at night.

[Darryl Kenyon]

As could anyone driving through Leeds for any reason?

Where’s the unique FBI expertise in suggesting the killer may have been a postal worker?

You know I am not Douglas or Ressler so I can't answer for them. Abby asked a question which I tried replying to. That's all . Do I believe in psychological profiling etc ? Well, I think it can be an added pair of eyes if used in the right way. It's when it starts wagging the dog that problems arise. The killer wouldn't flee from a murder scene if nearly caught but be super cool and bluff his way out for instance.

Regards Darryl

[MrBarnett]

Pissed, the FBI ‘experts’ guessed at the YR’s educational achievements:

[MrBarnett]

Pissed, the FBI ‘experts’ guessed at the YR’s educational achievements:

Just look up the words ‘winged’ and ‘undoubtedly’ in the dictionary.

[JeffHamm]

I’m fully aware it was an example. You give the impression that I’ve said otherwise.

Their example was a guess of who might be able to move about Leeds at night.

Well, in #5330 you had posted "Why specifically a mail carrier, then? Why not just say we think he may have driven a vehicle for work?", and in the posts since then it's all about postal workers and combined with your 2nd question, it doesn't come across that you were aware it was an example. But if you were, my mistake, though I can't see the point of your 2nd question if it's something you already know.

And again, postal delivery was one of a list of examples, including cabbie, delivery driver, police, and some others (I forget the exact list, but there were multiple occupations). It's a way of illustrating "someone who drives for work", by making suggestions of the types of occupations to consider. But yes, you can call those guesses, suggestions of the underlying principle, examples, etc. There's lots of ways to phrase a concept.

- Jeff

[MrBarnett]

You know I am not Douglas or Ressler so I can't answer for them. Abby asked a question which I tried replying to. That's all . Do I believe in psychological profiling etc ? Well, I think it can be an added pair of eyes if used in the right way. It's when it starts wagging the dog that problems arise. The killer wouldn't flee from a murder scene if nearly caught but be super cool and bluff his way out for instance.

Regards Darryl

Darryl,

Do you think it’s impossible that a criminal might decide to stay and engage a witness who suddenly arrived at a crime scene rather than haring off?

Gary

[MrBarnett]

Well, in #5330 you had posted "Why specifically a mail carrier, then? Why not just say we think he may have driven a vehicle for work?", and in the posts since then it's all about postal workers and combined with your 2nd question, it doesn't come across that you were aware it was an example. But if you were, my mistake, though I can't see the point of your 2nd question if it's something you already know.

And again, postal delivery was one of a list of examples, including cabbie, delivery driver, police, and some others (I forget the exact list, but there were multiple occupations). It's a way of illustrating "someone who drives for work", by making suggestions of the types of occupations to consider. But yes, you can call those guesses, suggestions of the underlying principle, examples, etc. There's lots of ways to phrase a concept.

- Jeff

Guesses will do very nicely, Jeff.

My guess is that the next person who dies of a heart attack in my town will be someone with two legs who drives for or to work. I’m filling out an FBI job application form as we speak,.

[JeffHamm]

Guesses will do very nicely, Jeff.

My guess is that the next person who dies of a heart attack in my town will be someone with two legs who drives for or to work. I’m filling out an FBI job application form as we speak,.

Good luck in your new career.

As I say, I don't put much faith in the behavioral profiles either, but I also can't say they are as simplistic as you paint them by your example. They have not been properly evaluated, and the ones we hear of are selective, either for being exceptionally good or exceptionally bad. Neither alone nor in combination informs us as to the general utility.

And without that information I see them as a source for one set of opinions from people who at least work in the area. But without knowing how reliable they are, they should be placed low on the scale. The YR one in particular Nas it wasn't even done to their own standards and protocols.

- Jeff

[MrBarnett]

Well, in #5330 you had posted "Why specifically a mail carrier, then? Why not just say we think he may have driven a vehicle for work?", and in the posts since then it's all about postal workers and combined with your 2nd question, it doesn't come across that you were aware it was an example. But if you were, my mistake, though I can't see the point of your 2nd question if it's something you already know.

And again, postal delivery was one of a list of examples, including cabbie, delivery driver, police, and some others (I forget the exact list, but there were multiple occupations). It's a way of illustrating "someone who drives for work", by making suggestions of the types of occupations to consider. But yes, you can call those guesses, suggestions of the underlying principle, examples, etc. There's lots of ways to phrase a concept.

- Jeff

So, when you choose a limited set of examples to represent an almost universal activity and by sheer chance one of those examples turns out to have committed a crime, you qualify as an expert profiler?

[JeffHamm]

So, when you choose a limited set of examples to represent an almost universal activity and by sheer chance one of those examples turns out to have committed a crime, you qualify as an expert profiler?

No, I believe the qualification requires more than that.

You might want to inform yourself about the job before you submit that application.

- Jeff