|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Joe
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 25, 2003 - 9:10 pm: |       |
I just don't understand why many of the posters here on this board depend on suspect profiling so much! Please, profiling is inaccurate and can contradict itself. If people actually respond to this, I’d be glad to give an example.
Joe |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 274
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 26, 2003 - 10:12 am: | |
Joe,
Its not a dependancy. Its a debate. Why do you say depend ?
You're right. Profiling is inaccurate. It should never be used as a set stencil.
But its an art which fascinates many.
Monty
 |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 280
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 26, 2003 - 10:30 am: | |
Hi Joe,
I guess I'm one of those you refer to. If you've read enough of our messages you will find that none of us takes this for granted. Although I believe that profiling has good values and is useful, I have been very clear pointing out that it is NOT a science and shouldn't be regarded as such. I have myself used the word contradictive in this context. But if you want to study the crime scenes and the possible behaviour that is responsible for the actions, you can't disregard from profiling, whatever their limitations.
And even if you can show examples where profiling fails and is contradictive (so can I, believe me!), I can show you several where it has been correct and helpful. So what does that prove?
Noone here has ever stated that profiling is totally accurate, but there are always those who wants to read meanings into words that aren't there. Monty is totally right: it is merely an art and it is by all means subjective. But to claim that it for that reason doesen't save any purpose in this context, is just as questionable as totally relying on witness statements or paper article. We all have are own methods and tools we prefer to use. I'm sure you have yours as well.
P.S. I didn't know we had another webmaster on the board, deciding what subjects are OK to write about...
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 75
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 26, 2003 - 5:05 pm: | |
Hi Joe,
Profiling isn't intended as a "solution", even by those who have the sort of experience and training to do it "properly". However, what it does provide is a way of looking at the limited data that we have and try and draw some tentative inferences. These inferences may not be very strong ones, because none of us are actually trained in this area, but they help to provide a structure to the logic of the arguement. If this logic is flawed, then our inferences will be flawed, and something will eventually be shown to contradict our proposal.
Also, it's a way to get different viewpoints. The more ways a problem is looked at, the more ideas can get discussed, discarded, or accepted as reasonable.
- Jeff |
Alan Sharp
Sergeant
Username: Ash
Post Number: 32
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 7:58 am: | |
Joe
I think you were probably just trying to stir things up, but I would say that disparaging profiling as a diagnostic tool on the same day that you posted on the possibility of Inspector Abberline as being Jack The Ripper would best be described as "a bit rich". Profiling may be an inexact and inaccurate science, but I would say it produces results more frequently than wild speculation based on no evidence whatsoever. |
Michael Blayne Raney
Police Constable
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 3
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 08, 2003 - 6:22 pm: | |
Joe, profiling is NOT nor has it ever been intended to be an exact science. Profiling is used in police work in many cases just to find a starting place or to form a "plausable assumption" to move forward from. When the profile doesn't take you anywhere then other methods are used. It is only a tool, just like a hammer or saw for a carpenter. I know of many cases where profiling has solved the case, not just helped. I have been in law enforcement for many years, I have worked up profiles using similar solved cases as a tool to help solve new ones.
Mikey |
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 508
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 09, 2003 - 12:07 pm: | |
I would be highly interested to hear of one single murder case that has been 'solved' by criminal profiling, and I do mean solved, rather than being used as a useful 'tool' in the solving.
This is a beast I haven't come across yet. |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 159
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 09, 2003 - 6:28 pm: | |
You keep asking this question AP and the answer is that you won't find one. Because solving cases is not what profilers do, it isn't their job. That's what detectives are for. |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 656
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 09, 2003 - 7:12 pm: | |
AP, I thought you said you didn't have a certain view on profiling...
Well, here I tend to agree with Alan. It is a misconception and a falacy that profilers are solving crimes, they are just "tools" among others, and as Alan pointed out, solving the crimes is in the end an assignment for the detectives alone on the case. So it's no wonder you "haven't come across that beast" yet, because there is simply no answer to it.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Brad McGinnis
Sergeant
Username: Brad
Post Number: 44
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 09, 2003 - 9:56 pm: | |
Hi All,
A few weeks ago on another thread I upset a few people by comparing profiling to astrology. After some circumspection I realizied I may have been a bit hasty. To this end I would like to extend my appology to the astrology buffs.
Brad
|
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 657
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 09, 2003 - 10:18 pm: | |
Very funny, Brad...
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Brad McGinnis
Sergeant
Username: Brad
Post Number: 46
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 09, 2003 - 11:04 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
Let me eloborate. Last fall the D.C. NOVA area of America was terrorized by a sniper. The profile guys (including Douglas and Renssler) said it was a single white male acting alone, between 28 and 35. Wrong on all counts.
At the same time my Astrograph said I was an extremeley good looking and highly intelligent fellow, a joy to be around because of my modest, humble nature.
See? Astrologers 1 Profilers 0.
Warm regards...Brad |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 385
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 09, 2003 - 11:13 pm: | |
Hi Brad
Lets combine astrology with profiling for the best of both worlds.
Just a Thought
Gary |
Brad McGinnis
Sergeant
Username: Brad
Post Number: 47
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 10, 2003 - 12:17 am: | |
Good Idea Gary! Now what is Jacks sign?
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1203
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 10, 2003 - 4:27 am: | |
According to the Barnettists, it's Pisces - but some think that's a load of Taurus.
Robert |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 160
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 10, 2003 - 8:35 am: | |
Okay Brad, the profilers got it wrong on that occasion. It happens. When James A. Brussel profiled New York's Mad Bomber he said that the perpetrator would be a middle aged white Eastern European, unmarried and living with female relatives, who lived in Connecticut but not in the town from which he sent his letters and would be a fussily neat man of the type who would always wear a suit buttoned up.
The police looked over the Con Edison files (it was obvious that the culprit was a former employee) for someone matching this description and found George Matesky. He was Polish, in his forties and lived in Westport Connecticut with his two sisters. They went to his house and knocked on the door. He opened it, saw two policemen standing outside and the first thing he said was "you think I'm the mad bomber, don't you?" They asked him to get dressed and accompany them, he went into his bedroom and returned wearing a suit, buttoned up.
For every example you can give where they got it totally wrong, there is also an example like this where they got it absolutely right. |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 660
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 10, 2003 - 9:14 am: | |
"For every example you can give where they got it totally wrong, there is also an example like this where they got it absolutely right."
Indeed, Alan, Indeed! It is not an exact science and those who work with it are humans like the rest of us.
Brad!
What's the address to your astrologist? Sounds like someone I would like to use!
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Brad McGinnis
Sergeant
Username: Brad
Post Number: 48
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 10, 2003 - 2:02 pm: | |
Glenn,
I'd like to help you out but today my horoscope read, "Beware of profiling types". Next time maybe... |
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 515
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 10, 2003 - 2:29 pm: | |
I would merely point out that the poster before myself had claimed that many cases had been solved purely by profiling.
And I just wanted them to name one case of murder where this had happened.
I was interested not critical.
I'm not sure whether the Mad Bomber qualifies for this role.
Back to the brandy. |
Donald Souden
Sergeant
Username: Supe
Post Number: 25
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 10, 2003 - 2:35 pm: | |
Alan,
A few corrections on the Metesky case. To begin with, he lived in Waterbury, not Westport, Connecticut (a big difference there in terms of demographics) and Brussel was not quite so specific as suggested -- but still quite close.
More important, though, the profile had nothing to do with his arrest. He made the mistake of writing a letter to a New York newspaper in which he mentioned the date of his industrial accident (September 5, 1931) at Consolidated Edison and a check of the records promptly singled him out. |
Michael Blayne Raney
Police Constable
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 5
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 12, 2003 - 1:59 pm: | |
AP - I didn't mean to say that many cases are solved totally by profiling. I meant that there have been times when we have given the detective the profile and he has been able to solve the case using the profile as a major tool. I have also seen muderers that didn't even come close to matching the profile. I also clearly stated that profiling is NOT an exact science, just a starting point. My experience shows that child molesters are more likely to fit a profile than are murderers. I must also note that it is almost impossible to profile cases so far back in time because circumstances were so totally different than they are now. We just don't know, what we don't know. Detectives today keep very accurate notes that go into a computer database that we can utilize to work up a profile. We also work with the FBI and with Mental health professionals. Now, in the case of a married woman that is murdered in her home or place of business, the profile will work up to a husband, boyfriend or other type of signifcant other. 90% of the time, this is an accurate profile. This comes from many years of research into domestic violence and murder. Sorry if I caused any confusion. I am not trying to argue on the side of profiling, but merely stating that it can be an effective tool.
Last comment on the subject,
Mikey |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 212
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 12, 2003 - 6:10 pm: | |
Well, I'm not a fan of profiling, but fair is fair and I have to make a correction to the above. Ressler didn't believe the DC sniper was a single white male, acting alone. He actually said early on that the crimes were committed by two people. The following is Ressler's actual words on the Larry King show Oct 18, 2002, (ie., before the snipers were caught):
"RESSLER: I believe it's "they." I really do. It's a little too complex for one individual, and one individual tends to be more mentally unbalanced. When you have a pair, they tend to be a little more mentally intact, although still seriously distorted people. "
Ressler's educated guess was actually better than most. Still, I have to wonder whether these speculations have any real practical value. RP |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 171
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 12, 2003 - 6:42 pm: | |
And while we are all in a mood for correction, yes the final evidence with which the police went to arrest George Matesky was the letter containing the date of his accident, but the police were already investigating him before this letter was recieved after Con Edison clerk Alice Kelly had identified his file based on Brussel's profile, therefore it is not correct to say that the profile had nothing to do with his arrest. |
Dustin Gould
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 12:41 am: | |
I honestly don't believe even profilers themselves would argue that the art/science of "profiling" is exact. At the very least, it's a guess, albeit an educated one. The key word being "educated". A guess based the substance, of hard investigative work. I will say, that I've read and observed cases, where in the end, the profile matched the person profiled almost word for word. In one instance, the profiler even alluded to the fact that they person caught, would have a serious speech impediment. Which turned out to be true. But again, I don't believe any profile should be taken as law. It should only be taken for what it is supposed to be. A guideline. |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 248
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 22, 2003 - 4:40 am: | |
A profiler is only as good as the detectives that document the cases for them. Problem is, each case is different and each detective does the case according to their own beliefs. What ones sees as important another might overlook.
What the FBI teaches their profilers is a history lesson based on previous cases. They take all previous sexual / serial killer cases and break it down into victim, motive, kill, signature, and killer. Once the killer is caught and they can fill in all the missing elemments they get the true picture of events.
What they are doing in today's cases is comparing the first four elements of the crime and based on previous cases where the elements were the same, making a determination on the last element; the killer.
Problem with their logic is that it doesnt allow for variations on a theme. Each time a "new" serial killer strikes, they have to add to the database of existing cases. The Washington Sniper(s) is a perfect example: For the first time you have two black male serial killers working together. Since most serial killers are white males approx 30 years old, they started out looking in the wrong direction.
The fact that there were half a dozen well placed kill shots to the head of the victims, and several less lethal shots to the body of other victims told anyone with military/police experience it was more than one killer.
Fact that the weapon used was the same, told them it was a pair.
The killers were talking to the police on the phone and provided clues to race, education, dialect, syntax, word usage, all of which went into building a picture of the killer.
This wasnt the work of a profiler, it was just good police work based on the facts as they became available.
Not rocket science, or astrology...
Shannon
(Joseph's horoscope for today:Perhaps you should suspend your inhibitions for the day, dear Gemini, and allow your dreams to guide you. For instance, you might imagine that the need to make any kind of choices has vanished.  ) |
Erin Sigler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 114
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2003 - 1:27 am: | |
The snipers don't exactly qualify as serial killers, if we're using the FBI's definition, that is. They would fall more into the "spree killer" category, I would think. |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
