FORENSICS
CRIMINAL PROFILING
• Investigative tool used when solving crimes w/ main aim to narrow field of enquiry/list of
suspects.
• Professional profilers will work alongside the police, esp. during high profile cases.
• Methods vary but compiling of profile will usually involve careful scrutiny of the crime scene
and analysis of the evidence to generate hypothesis about the probable characteristics of the
offender. (age, background, occupation.)
• Helps police focus time and resources on specific types of individual.
TOP-DOWN APPROACH (TYPOLOGY APPROACH)
• Originated in US as result of research carried out by the FBI in 1970s.
o Behavioural science unit drew upon data gathered from in-depth interviews w/ 36
sexually transmitted serial killers including Ted Bundy and Charles Manson.
§ Limited sample: generalisability?
• Match what is known about the crime and the offender to a pre-existing template the FBI
developed.
o Murderers/rapists are classified in 1 of 2 categories on basis of evidence
(organised/disorganised.)
§ This classification informs the subsequent police investigation.
• Distinction based on idea serious offenders have a certain signature
way of working and correlations with a particular set of
social/psychological characteristics that relate to the individual.
PRE-EXISTING TEMPLATES
• Everything they find to be regular characteristic of murderer/rapist
• Trying to capture key variables of a ‘regular’ serial killer.
o E.G. quiet at school with few friends.
ORGANISED
• Planned crime in advance:
o Victim deliberately targeted + will reflect the fact killer/rapist has a ‘type’.
• High degree of control during the crime + may operate w/ almost surgically detached
precision.
• Little evidence/clues left at the scene.
• Above-average intelligence- skilled professional job.
• Socially + sexually competent.
• Usually married w/ kids.
, DISORGANISED
• Little evidence of planning- the offence may have been spontaneous act.
• Crime scene reflects impulsive nature of the attack- body still usually at the scene + there
appears to have been very little control.
• Lower than average IQ
• Unskilled work/unemployed.
• History of sexual dysfunction/failed relationships.
• Live alone + often relatively close to where offence took place.
CONSTRUCTING FBI PROFILE (DOUGLAS ET AL)
1. Data Assimilation: profiler reviews the evidence.
2. Crime scene classification: organised/disorganised.
3. Crime reconstruction: hypothesis in terms of sequence of events, behaviour of the victim.
4. Profile generation: hypothesis related to likely offender- demographic background, physical
characteristics, behaviour.
EVALUATION OF THE TOP-DOWN APPROACH
CHALLENGE
• Based on outdated models of personality:
o Typology classification system is based on assumption offenders have patterns of
behaviour and consistent motivations across time and context.
o ALISON ET AL- (critic) suggests it is naïve and informed by old-fashioned models of
personality that see behaviour as being driven by stable dispositional traits rather
than external factors that may be constantly changing.
o The approach, based on ‘static’ models of personality is likely to have poor validity
when identifying possible suspects and/or trying to predict their next move.
• Only applies to particular crimes:
o Best suited to crime scenes revealing important details about the suspect- rape,
arson, cult killings as well as crimes involving sadistic torture, dissection of the body,
and acting out fantasies.
§ More common offences don’t lend themselves well to this approach as the
crime scene reveals very little about the offender.
• Limited approach
• Evidence does not support disorganised offender:
o CANTER ET AL w/ ‘smallest space analysis’ analysed data from 100 murders in US.
Details of each case examined w/ reference to 39 characteristics thought to be typical
of organised + disorganised killers.
§ Findings suggested evidence for a distinct organised type, but not
disorganised type, seeming to undermine whole system.
• BUT the organised/disorganised distinction is still being used in the
US w/ widespread support.
• Classification is too simplistic
o Behaviours in organised/disorganised are not mutually exclusive: variety of combos
could occur on any crime scene.
, § GODWIN asks how police would classify killer w/ high intelligence and sexual
competence who commits a spontaneous murder, where the body is left at
the scene.
o Has prompted other researchers to propose more detailed typological models:
§ HOLMES: 4 types of serial killer: visionary, mission, hedonistic +
power/control.
§ KEPPEL + WALTER- focus on diff. motivations killers might have rather than
trying to determine diff. types.
• Original sample
o 25 serial killers + 11 single/double murderers is criticised as too small and
unrepresentative.
o CANTER argues it isn’t sensible to rely on self-report data w/ convicted killers-
inaccuracies are certain: social desirability bias, or exaggeration of crimes for
notoriety.
BOTTOM-UP APPROACH
• Focus on individual and unique circumstances of the crime.
• Aim to generate picture of offender through systematic analysis of the crime scene.
• British.
• Doesn’t begin with fixed typologies: data-driven, emerges as investigator engages in
deeper/more rigorous scrutiny of the details of offence.
• Grounded in theory more than top-down.
CANTER’S 5 CHARACTERISTICS OF A PROFILE
1. Personal characteristics.
2. Criminal history.
3. Residential location.
4. Domestic + social characteristics.
5. Occupational/educational history.
INVESTIGATIVE PSYCHOLOGICAL APPROACH
• Interpersonal coherence is central: the way an offender behaves at the scene, including how
‘interact’ with the victim could reflect their behaviour in everyday situations.
o E.G. rapists waning to maintain control and humiliate vs those who feel guilty -> tells
police about how offender relates to women generally.
• Attempts to apply statistical procedures, and psychological theory to analysis of crim scene
evidence.
• Aims to establish patterns of behaviours that likely occur across crime scenes to develop a
statistical database -> acts as a baseline for comparison w/ other crimes
o Specific details of an offender/related offences can be matched against this database
to reveal important details about offender-> determines whether series of offences
are linked (could they have been committed by the same person?)
, o Database of crime may contain behavioural patterns, geographical patterns +
timelines. These patterns tell us more about everyday life and gives clues as to what
past/present features to seek.
§ Can then cross-reference types of behaviour at crime scene to see if other
crimes have been committed by same person, or can focus on crimes
committed years apart in similar locations.
• It comes from crime scene, not pre-existing typology.
• Time and place = important variables; may indicate where offender is living.
• Forensic awareness= individuals who’ve been subject of police interrogation before-
behaviour can denote how mindful they are of ‘covering their tracks.’
GEOGRAPHICAL PROFILING (FIRST EST. ROSSEMO)
• Uses info to do w/ location of linked crime scenes to make inferences about likely
home/operational base of an offender- (crime mapping.)
• Can be used in conjunction w/ psychological theory to create hypothesis about offender’s
thoughts and modus operandi.
• Assumes serial killers restrict ‘work’ to geographical areas they are familiar with-
understanding spatial pattern of their offender’s base (often middle of spatial pattern.) may
help police make educate guesses about where they may strike next (jeopardy surface.)
CANTER’S CIRCLE THEORY
• 2 models of offender behaviour:
1. MARAUDER- operates in close proximity to home.
2. COMMUTER- travels a distance away from usual residence.
• Pattern of offending likely forms circle round usual residence -> more apparent w/ more
offences.
• Offers important insight into nature of the offence- planned/opportunistic? (for example) +
other key factors e.g. ‘mental map’.
EVALUATION OF BOTTOM-UP APPROACH
STRENGTHS
EVIDENCE SUPPORTS INVESTIGATIVE PSYCHOLOGY
CRIMINAL PROFILING
• Investigative tool used when solving crimes w/ main aim to narrow field of enquiry/list of
suspects.
• Professional profilers will work alongside the police, esp. during high profile cases.
• Methods vary but compiling of profile will usually involve careful scrutiny of the crime scene
and analysis of the evidence to generate hypothesis about the probable characteristics of the
offender. (age, background, occupation.)
• Helps police focus time and resources on specific types of individual.
TOP-DOWN APPROACH (TYPOLOGY APPROACH)
• Originated in US as result of research carried out by the FBI in 1970s.
o Behavioural science unit drew upon data gathered from in-depth interviews w/ 36
sexually transmitted serial killers including Ted Bundy and Charles Manson.
§ Limited sample: generalisability?
• Match what is known about the crime and the offender to a pre-existing template the FBI
developed.
o Murderers/rapists are classified in 1 of 2 categories on basis of evidence
(organised/disorganised.)
§ This classification informs the subsequent police investigation.
• Distinction based on idea serious offenders have a certain signature
way of working and correlations with a particular set of
social/psychological characteristics that relate to the individual.
PRE-EXISTING TEMPLATES
• Everything they find to be regular characteristic of murderer/rapist
• Trying to capture key variables of a ‘regular’ serial killer.
o E.G. quiet at school with few friends.
ORGANISED
• Planned crime in advance:
o Victim deliberately targeted + will reflect the fact killer/rapist has a ‘type’.
• High degree of control during the crime + may operate w/ almost surgically detached
precision.
• Little evidence/clues left at the scene.
• Above-average intelligence- skilled professional job.
• Socially + sexually competent.
• Usually married w/ kids.
, DISORGANISED
• Little evidence of planning- the offence may have been spontaneous act.
• Crime scene reflects impulsive nature of the attack- body still usually at the scene + there
appears to have been very little control.
• Lower than average IQ
• Unskilled work/unemployed.
• History of sexual dysfunction/failed relationships.
• Live alone + often relatively close to where offence took place.
CONSTRUCTING FBI PROFILE (DOUGLAS ET AL)
1. Data Assimilation: profiler reviews the evidence.
2. Crime scene classification: organised/disorganised.
3. Crime reconstruction: hypothesis in terms of sequence of events, behaviour of the victim.
4. Profile generation: hypothesis related to likely offender- demographic background, physical
characteristics, behaviour.
EVALUATION OF THE TOP-DOWN APPROACH
CHALLENGE
• Based on outdated models of personality:
o Typology classification system is based on assumption offenders have patterns of
behaviour and consistent motivations across time and context.
o ALISON ET AL- (critic) suggests it is naïve and informed by old-fashioned models of
personality that see behaviour as being driven by stable dispositional traits rather
than external factors that may be constantly changing.
o The approach, based on ‘static’ models of personality is likely to have poor validity
when identifying possible suspects and/or trying to predict their next move.
• Only applies to particular crimes:
o Best suited to crime scenes revealing important details about the suspect- rape,
arson, cult killings as well as crimes involving sadistic torture, dissection of the body,
and acting out fantasies.
§ More common offences don’t lend themselves well to this approach as the
crime scene reveals very little about the offender.
• Limited approach
• Evidence does not support disorganised offender:
o CANTER ET AL w/ ‘smallest space analysis’ analysed data from 100 murders in US.
Details of each case examined w/ reference to 39 characteristics thought to be typical
of organised + disorganised killers.
§ Findings suggested evidence for a distinct organised type, but not
disorganised type, seeming to undermine whole system.
• BUT the organised/disorganised distinction is still being used in the
US w/ widespread support.
• Classification is too simplistic
o Behaviours in organised/disorganised are not mutually exclusive: variety of combos
could occur on any crime scene.
, § GODWIN asks how police would classify killer w/ high intelligence and sexual
competence who commits a spontaneous murder, where the body is left at
the scene.
o Has prompted other researchers to propose more detailed typological models:
§ HOLMES: 4 types of serial killer: visionary, mission, hedonistic +
power/control.
§ KEPPEL + WALTER- focus on diff. motivations killers might have rather than
trying to determine diff. types.
• Original sample
o 25 serial killers + 11 single/double murderers is criticised as too small and
unrepresentative.
o CANTER argues it isn’t sensible to rely on self-report data w/ convicted killers-
inaccuracies are certain: social desirability bias, or exaggeration of crimes for
notoriety.
BOTTOM-UP APPROACH
• Focus on individual and unique circumstances of the crime.
• Aim to generate picture of offender through systematic analysis of the crime scene.
• British.
• Doesn’t begin with fixed typologies: data-driven, emerges as investigator engages in
deeper/more rigorous scrutiny of the details of offence.
• Grounded in theory more than top-down.
CANTER’S 5 CHARACTERISTICS OF A PROFILE
1. Personal characteristics.
2. Criminal history.
3. Residential location.
4. Domestic + social characteristics.
5. Occupational/educational history.
INVESTIGATIVE PSYCHOLOGICAL APPROACH
• Interpersonal coherence is central: the way an offender behaves at the scene, including how
‘interact’ with the victim could reflect their behaviour in everyday situations.
o E.G. rapists waning to maintain control and humiliate vs those who feel guilty -> tells
police about how offender relates to women generally.
• Attempts to apply statistical procedures, and psychological theory to analysis of crim scene
evidence.
• Aims to establish patterns of behaviours that likely occur across crime scenes to develop a
statistical database -> acts as a baseline for comparison w/ other crimes
o Specific details of an offender/related offences can be matched against this database
to reveal important details about offender-> determines whether series of offences
are linked (could they have been committed by the same person?)
, o Database of crime may contain behavioural patterns, geographical patterns +
timelines. These patterns tell us more about everyday life and gives clues as to what
past/present features to seek.
§ Can then cross-reference types of behaviour at crime scene to see if other
crimes have been committed by same person, or can focus on crimes
committed years apart in similar locations.
• It comes from crime scene, not pre-existing typology.
• Time and place = important variables; may indicate where offender is living.
• Forensic awareness= individuals who’ve been subject of police interrogation before-
behaviour can denote how mindful they are of ‘covering their tracks.’
GEOGRAPHICAL PROFILING (FIRST EST. ROSSEMO)
• Uses info to do w/ location of linked crime scenes to make inferences about likely
home/operational base of an offender- (crime mapping.)
• Can be used in conjunction w/ psychological theory to create hypothesis about offender’s
thoughts and modus operandi.
• Assumes serial killers restrict ‘work’ to geographical areas they are familiar with-
understanding spatial pattern of their offender’s base (often middle of spatial pattern.) may
help police make educate guesses about where they may strike next (jeopardy surface.)
CANTER’S CIRCLE THEORY
• 2 models of offender behaviour:
1. MARAUDER- operates in close proximity to home.
2. COMMUTER- travels a distance away from usual residence.
• Pattern of offending likely forms circle round usual residence -> more apparent w/ more
offences.
• Offers important insight into nature of the offence- planned/opportunistic? (for example) +
other key factors e.g. ‘mental map’.
EVALUATION OF BOTTOM-UP APPROACH
STRENGTHS
EVIDENCE SUPPORTS INVESTIGATIVE PSYCHOLOGY
