Psychological

profiling

Tushar Singh
Department of Psychology
Banaras Hindu University
Varanasi, U. P. India
Contact: [email protected]
PROFILING
 “Certain type of people behave in a certain manner.”

 Criminal profiling refers to the process in which the nature of a

crime is used to make inferences about the personality and other
characteristics of the likely offender (Louw, 2001 in
International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences)

 Profiling is a behavioral or investigative tool that is intended to

help investigators to accurately predict and list the characteristics
of an unknown criminal or offender.

 Criminal profiling has also been referred to, among less common
terms, as behavioral profiling, crime scene profiling, criminal
personality profiling, offender profiling, psychological
profiling, criminal investigative analysis, and, more
recently, investigative psychology.
HISTORY
 In 1400s catholic church used it for identifying and removing witches.
 W.C. Langer used it during the second World War to create a profile of Hitler for the
Office of Strategic Services.
 In 1957, psychiatrist James Brussels created a profile of the “Mad Bomber” who
terrorized the New York City by 30 bombings over an eight-year period during 1950’s.
 Dr James Brussell provided a profile of an individual who was eastern European, in his
40’s, obsessional and paranoid, and living with a sister or aunt in a neighbouring state.
 Brussell used his personal intuition, psychiatric knowledge, along with medical and
police records to formulate his profile.
 This profile proved extremely accurate as the detail matched that of Metesky the man
arrested and later charged with the offences (Pinizzotto, 1984).
 By 1972, when the Ted Bundy murders began , even FBI started using profiling as a
tool.
 In 1973 when a 7-year-old girl named Susan Jaeger went missing whilst on a camping
holiday with her parents.
 Police could not find the girl for a year, then in 1974 they uncovered the charred
remains of an 18-year old girl close to where Susan had been abducted (Ainsworth,
2001).
 Police suspected one killer and asked the FBI to assist by drawing up a profile for the
likely killer.
HISTORY
 The profile suggested that the killer would be a white male who lived near the
camp, and a loner who was likely to have been arrested before. This profile fitted
David Meirhofer, he was arrested and questioned but later released as there was
no physical evidence linking him to the crime.
 However, later Meirhofer anonymously telephoned the mother of Susan stating he
had abducted Susan.
 The mother had recorded the call which prompted Police to search the house,
whilst doing so they found souvenirs of the crime, he later admitted both crimes
along with two others then he killed himself in his cell (Canter, 1994).
 In 1984, in UK, Psychologist Britton was asked to assist in a case involving a 33-year
old woman named Caroline Osborne.
 Caroline’s body was found with her hands and feet bound and seven stab wounds.
 Britton created a profile by studying the crime scene photographs and autopsy report
and suggested the killer was a young male possibly early twenties, sexually immature,
lacking in social skills and living at home with parents, strong athletic, manual worker,
and had forensic awareness.
 Several months later another murder occurred, this had several differences, however
Britton stated that the murders had been committed by the same man.
 Following the profile, Paul Bostock was arrested and later he confessed to the two
murders (Britton, 1997).
HISTROY
However, in 1992, in Rachel Nickell case the profile by Britton
was discarded by the court and Britton’s career was severely
impacted and the usefulness of offender profiling was called
into question.
It was evident following this case, that profiles could lead to
false arrest and ultimately miss capturing the real offender
leading to possible further crimes (Turvey, 1999)
In 1985, David Canter developed the profile of the “railway
rapist” who was responsible for 30 rapes and 2 murders.
After the Ted Bundy serial killings the FBI established VICAP
(Violent Criminal Apprehension Program).
In 1994, Canter and his faculty began offering Masters and
Doctoral degrees in investigative psychology, in the university
of Liverpool.
Profiling- Types
 Criminal/ Offender Profiling  Victim Profiling
 Criminal profiling refers to the
 In victim profiling, the question
inference of offender characteristics
(Turvey, 2012 in changes from “What are the
Criminal Profiling (Fourth Edition)). characteristics of the attacker?” to
 The analyst can predict offender “What need in the attacker does
characteristics based on statistical this particular victim satisfy?
models, prior research, or experience.  It involves analysis of the physical
 the analyst can use hard physical and lifestyle features of the victim
evidence to make deductions about and analysis of the crime scene to
physical characteristics (DNA to give determine what features of the
sex and race, hairs to give hair color, victim and/or scene made it an
footwear impression to give shoe size, attractive target.
etc); or the analyst can use analytical  In fact, most of the characteristics of the
logic, critical thinking, and the victim that the attacker observes are the
scientific method to make deductions same characteristics that the investigator
about offender relational and can observe. While it is not possible to
psychological characteristics based read the mind of the attacker, the
on an analysis of crime scene features of the victim are plain to see.
behavior (e.g., behavioral evidence
analysis)
Profiling Goals
According to Holmes and Holmes (1996) there are
three major goals of profiling
 to evaluate psychological and social characteristics
 Personality, Age, Sex, Race, Employement, Education,

Marital Status
 to evaluate possessions (souvenirs) found at suspects
homes (Canter, 1994),
 Possessions which may associate offender with crime scene
eg. Sovenirs, photos, pornography
 and to provide effective strategies once the suspect
has been arrested (Canter & Heritage, 1990)
 Specific interviewing strategies developed for particular
offenders
PROFILING PROCESS
Geberth (1996) identified 6 important items for
creating a profile:

Photos of the crime scene

Information about the neighborhood
Medical examiner’s report
Information about victim’s travel before death
Background information about the victim
Detailed investigative report
Steps in Profiling
 Criminal profiling is done in the following seven steps (Douglas,
Ressler, Burgess & Hartman, 1986).
 Profiling inputs in which all evidence related to the victim, the crime
scene and other sources is collected.
 Crime assessment in which all inputs are evaluated.
 Crime classification in which the criminal is classified under one of
three following categories
 organized criminal
 disorganized criminal
 and mixed type if the criminal cannot be categorized under one of the previous
two categories.
 Reconstruction of crime in which the scenario of the crime is
constructed from the beginning to the end.
 Criminal Profiling in which the criminal is profiled.
 Investigation in which the suspects are gathered and their testimonies
are taken.
 Apprehension in which after necessary trials, the criminal is sentenced
and sent to prison.
Profiling Approaches
Top- Down Approach Bottom Up Approach
 American Method  British Method
 Based on psychological theories and
 From FBI research (1978)
methodlologies
 In-depth interviews with convicted  Show how and why variations in criminal
murders behaviour occue
 Created classification system-  Consistencies within actions of offenders
 Differences between offenders
Organized vs disorganized  More objective and reliable than Top-down
 Canter et al (2004) found that approach
 Useful mainly in sex and rape crimes  Main Features
 No real distinction between two  Interpersonal coherence- Degree of violence/
types of serial murder: all crimes control and Type of victim
 Significance of time and place
have organised element
 Forensic awareness- Previous offenders/ links
 Distinctions between serial killers:
to subsequent crimes
function of different ways they  Canter & Heritage (1990) found that
exhibit disorganised aspects of their  Useful approach
activities  Help determine whether two or more offences
 Better to look at individual were committed by same persons
personality  Analysis are offen extended to other crimes-
Show useful patterns of behaviour
Profiling can be
Inductive: preparation of the profile of the
METHODOLOGIES AND TYPOLOGIES
unknown criminals on the basis of crimes
committed in the past, criminals that have
already been identified, or other sources like
books, media etc.
Deductive: crime scene, available evidences and
victims are minutely studied and analyzed to
create a profile of the unknown criminal.
ORGANIZED AND DISORGANIZED DICHOTOMY
 During 1970’s FBI developed a systematic ‘top down’ approach to
offender profiling in which profilers utilised psychological theory and
research that focused on offender behaviour (Grubin, 1995; Ressler et
al., 1993 as cited in Grubin, 1995).
 They also used previous cases from incarcerated murderers and sexual
offenders for evidence (Grubin, 1995)
 These previous cases enabled profilers to formulate a picture through
making comparisons (Weber, 2010).
 Research was conducted to strengthen the approach by interviewing
36 serial killers, some of whom were high profile killers such as Bundy
and Manson.
 Findings revealed that there were two different types of offenders,
these were known as organised and disorganised types.
 They argued that this was an important finding as these two different
types of offenders have very different demographic and personality
characteristics.
ORGANIZED AND DISORGANIZED
DICHOTOMY
The organized serial murderer:
anti social
Often more gregarious
Quite normal on the outside
Maintaining normal relations
Forensically more aware, mobile, creative, adaptive
Preferred type of victim
Taunts the police and community
Lures the victims to deaths
Improves on planning with each subsequent killing
Angry frame of mind at the time of murder but behavior
is calm during commission of murder.
ORGANIZED DISORGANIZED DICHOTOMY
The disorganized serial murderer:
Loner, withdrawn and cowardly in his crimes
Crimes committed without a plan
Victims attacked in a blitz style
Motivation consists of uncontrolled sexual drives
Unable to change action in consideration of others.
Shows no forensic awareness
Show signs of overkill and excessive blunt trauma to
the face (indicates that the victim knew her attacker)
Often makes no attempt to conceal the body
Behaviors that describe each type are not
mutually exclusive. A variety of combinations
could occur in any given murder scene.

The dichotomy does not explain why

murderers select certain victims and not
others.
LIMITATIONS (ORGANIZED AND DISORGANIZED DICHOTOMY)
 Holmes and Holmes (1996) classified serial murderers into 4
types:

THE HOLMES’ APPROACH

Visionary serial murderers(V)- impetus to kill is propelled by
voices they hear or visions they see. (eg-Hurburt Mullin killed
13 people on the command of GOD to avoid earthquake)
Mission serial murderers (M)- impetus to kill is need on a
conscious level to eradicate certain group of people. (eg. The
Boston Strangler)
Hedonistic serial murderers (L)- lust or thrill murderers, crimes
have sexual overtones (eg- Jack the ripper mutilated)
Power/control serial murderers (P)- impetus to kill is a need for
sexual gratification and complete domination of their victims
(eg- Hannibal lector killed “to be like GOD”; Ted Bundy)
Classification scheme appears to be like a story line.

Classifications are not exhaustive nor mutually

exclusive
In case of women haters it is difficult to tell if this is a
true mission to eradicate women or there are other
motives too.

Fail to pick up interactions between victims and

LIMITATIONS
murderer, and environment and are not flexible enough
to accommodate serial( THE
killers
HOLMES’who may have different
APPROACH)
motives for different victims, or whose motives change
overtime.
HICKEY’S APPROACH
This model is called “trauma control model for serial
murder.
Hickey suggests that the triggering mechanism in the
serial murderer may be some form of trauma which
the individual is unable to cope.
Some deal with past trauma in a more destructive
framework.
Serial murderers’ motives seem to focus on :
Financial security
Revenge
Enjoyment
Sexual gratification
LIMITATIONS (THE HICKEY’S APPROACH)

Focuses more on victims and less on

actions of the offender.
He did not rely on self reports, took data
from case files
Hickey included in his study ‘black
widows’ which most researchers would
exclude while studying serial murderers
KEPPEL AND WALTER APPROACH
4 types of sexual murders:
Power- assertive rape-murder: rape is planned.
Murder is unplanned response of increasing
aggression to control the victim.
Power- reassurance rape-murder: rape is planned,
followed by unplanned overkill of the victim.
Anger- retaliatory rape- murder: rape is planned
and initial murder involves overkill. Getting revenge
on women due to poor past relationships.
Anger- excitation rape-murder: both rape and
murder are planned to inflict pain and terror on the
victim for personal gratification.
Instruments
MMPI (eg- child molesters show maximum
mean elevation on scale 4 (psychopathic
deviate )and 9 (hypomania). Incestuous and
non incestuous child molesters scored more
on scale 4.
Penile plethysmography
Hare Psychopathy Checklist, now called
Psychopathy Checklist- Revised (PCL-R)
Limitations of profiling
 Only appropriate for small number of specific crimes (Holmes
& Holmes 1996
 Sadistic torture (sex assaults)
 Postmortem slashing/cutting
 Rape
 Motiveless fire starting
 Satanic and ritualistic crime •
 Problem of assessing profiling: cases rare; difficult to analyse
effectively
 Other problems
 Reliability of interviewing (to provide basis for theories)
 Insufficient empirical investigation
 Too instructive/intuitive
 Bias in police analysis (Barnum effect)- Barnum Effect, also
known as The Forer Effect, is a cognitive bias when an individual
believes that personality descriptions apply specifically to them,
for example, reading your horoscope in a newspaper and
Profiling- Evaluation
Debate continues whether profiling is an art or
science.
Holmes & Holmes, (1996) argue that profiling is not
appropriate for all crimes, but is most effective with
crime scenes that indicate psychopathology, contact
crimes, crimes that are part of a series, attacks on
strangers and violent crimes.
Background of behavioral sciences is important
Investigative experience is important
In various literature and cinema often psychics are
portrayed as successful profilers. So its scientific
accuracy is rendered to be of little credibility.
PROFILING IN INDIA
Use of profiles in India is not widely spread
Profiles are largely prepared by the police
with the help of forensic expert
Traditional policing system (KOTWALI) had a
system of recording behavioral traits of the
criminal, similar to the profiling process.
Gujrat Forensic Sciences University was
established in 2008.