FBI profiles of other serial killers

[gnote]

Yes i realize they are very broad in scope. (At best helpful and at the worst extremely misleading) I've read the FBI JTR profile but after some (admittedly quick searching) have not been able to find similarly "formatted" profiles of serial killers before they were caught.

Can somebody provide links to profiles as they were written before the killer (or killers) unknown to investigators was apprehended?

[Scorpio]

I am not sure that such formatted profiles exist.
I have read the books of noted FBI profilers ; they provided insight on the sort of criminals that local Detectives leading the investigation should be seeking, and could use to reduce suspects lists and direct resources. It was ' Off the cuff ' you might say.

[Batman]

Yes i realize they are very broad in scope. (At best helpful and at the worst extremely misleading) I've read the FBI JTR profile but after some (admittedly quick searching) have not been able to find similarly "formatted" profiles of serial killers before they were caught.

Can somebody provide links to profiles as they were written before the killer (or killers) unknown to investigators was apprehended?

First of all, Douglas published a book with JtR in one chapter out of five, in a book called Crimes that Haunt Still Us. In that book he says DeSalvo isn't the Boston Strangler and that the Ramsey's are innocent. We know he is categorically wrong about DeSalvo because of DNA evidence and the Ramsey case, well, don't bode well.

Even if you could find some, it doesn't mean profiling works. What you have to show is that profiling is statistically more likely to identify stuff about the subject than alternative methods. Does it work? Yeah if you keep it simple. By simple I mean MO, Signature, Victimology. However on its own its useless and only has value to investigators trained in interviewing suspects. I mean look at the concept of repeat offending. If a crime occurs you automatically check lists of known felons involved in that type of crime. You find the person that fits the MO/crime and find out if they have an alibi.

I don't buy much into behavioural sciences when it comes to crime profiling. I think if kept mimimal, its useful, if developed in complexity, useless.

As for the type of advanced serial killer profiling you see in movies/TV. That's basically one person. His name of Robert D. Keppel. He had compiled and profiled Ted Bundy before Ted Bundy was caught. Keppel said Bundy was the best profiler he ever met. Keppel then interviewed Bundy for insights into the Green River Killings and was able to profile Ridgeway.

[Gman992]

Read ALL of John Douglas' books...not just the one...included all of the cases were the caught the guy...

[SirJohnFalstaff]

I'm no expert but I don't think the work is a two way street.
I think it can somehow narrow down when there are too many suspects, but it shouldn't rule anyone out. It's a way to prioritize, I guess.

I value the statistics, but that's pretty much it.
Especially since people are aware of statistics, which kind of falsify statistics.
Unless we're talking about a very stupid serial killer, unconscious of the outside world, there is little chance it will be helpful.

but it's fun in a Hollywoodish kind of way.

[Batman]

Read ALL of John Douglas' books...not just the one...included all of the cases were the caught the guy...

Well this is a book of unsolved cases as opposed to solved ones and one has to be aware of possible biases because of hindsight. It's not a science.

So in his 5 unsolved he lists

Jack the Ripper
Lizzy Borden,
Charles Lindbergh Jr, (not really that mysterious and they probably caught the guy)
Zodiac killer,<-- says its Allen (DNA says it isn't).
Boston Strangler. <-- says it wasn't DeSalvo (DNA says otherwise)

That doesn't bode well with 2 wrong out of 5, one that isn't really unsolved, Borden and his guess at who JtR is.

[gnote]

I own a copy of Crimes that Haunt Still Us. It's been years since i read it but Batman covered that one well enough for me.

Although i don't buy much into behavioral sciences either i still think it would be interesting to see a list of official profiles (compiled before capture) and compare them with solved serial murder cases. What they got wrong, what they got right and so on.

[Rosella]

I also own a copy of 'The Cases that Haunt Us' which I've enjoyed reading over the years. However, in the chapter on Lizzie Borden, Douglas's suggested strategies for drawing a confession out of Lizzie are frankly ridiculous. I'm a regular poster on the Lizzie Borden Society Forum and I do believe she was guilty. However, applying modern day interviewing techniques and strategies in examinations of cases over a hundred years old is fraught with dangers.

[gnote]

I also own a copy of 'The Cases that Haunt Us' which I've enjoyed reading over the years. However, in the chapter on Lizzie Borden, Douglas's suggested strategies for drawing a confession out of Lizzie are frankly ridiculous. I'm a regular poster on the Lizzie Borden Society Forum and I do believe she was guilty. However, applying modern day interviewing techniques and strategies in examinations of cases over a hundred years old is fraught with dangers.

All i can gather is that he was trying to demonstrate the importance about the psychology of a killer. If you understand their motivation then you have an easier time getting a confession. I think that much is obvious but you would still have to be correct with your initial assessment. Applying modern day interviewing techniques like you say could be worthless. I think that would be the case if it were tomorrow (let alone a hundred years ago) when wrong about your subject.

When dealing with serial murders there is at least a common thread. It's straining credulity to assign a "profile" of a killer from a single homicide even given incredible circumstances.

[Ghost]

To the degree that it is information culled from commonalities of real killers, it probably is more helpful than we think, compared to police work in JtR's era.

[sdreid]

The last time I checked, profiling has never solved a single case.

[Steadmund Brand]

The last time I checked, profiling has never solved a single case.

Wait I have seen in work in lots of films

I have read conflicting accounts on if Bundy's profiling helped solve the case...it makes sense but at the same time wasn't it quite a generic profile (I don't remember all the facts....and don't want to cheat by googling it now)

Steadmund Brand

[sdreid]

I think Bundy came up on the radar because he gave his real name to a wary victim and because he looked like the sketch that the potential victim participated in creating. The killer was also known to have a yellow VW (if I recall) and was found to have a murder kit in it when a traffic cop pulled him over. All that is plain old police work, not profiling.

I would be interested in knowing what the killer's profile was before Bundy "showed" himself. My guess would be that it was one of those "single white male between 25 and 35" profiles that only narrows the pool down to about 5 million people and then only if it's correct which it isn't always.

[Steadmund Brand]

I think Bundy came up on the radar because he gave his real name to a wary victim and because he looked like the sketch that the potential victim participated in creating. The killer was also known to have a yellow VW (if I recall) and was found to have a murder kit in it when a traffic cop pulled him over. All that is plain old police work, not profiling.

I would be interested in knowing what the killer's profile was before Bundy "showed" himself. My guess would be that it was one of those "single white male between 25 and 35" profiles that only narrows the pool down to about 5 million people and then only if it's correct which it isn't always.

I'm sorry, I meant the profile Bundy gave for Ridgway..

Steadmund Brand