Turvey Criminal Profiling

An Introduction to Behavioral Evidence Analysis
4. Auflage 2011
ISBN: 978-0-12-385244-1
Verlag: Elsevier Science & Techn.
Format: EPUB
Kopierschutz: 6 - ePub Watermark

E-Book, Englisch, 728 Seiten

Focused on Behavioral Evidence Analysis (BEA), a method of criminal profiling developed and refined by the author over the past 15 years, the fourth edition of Criminal Profiling maintains the same core foundation that made previous editions best sellers in the professional and academic community worldwide. Written from practicing behavioral analysts and aspiring students alike, this work emphasizes an honest understanding of crime and criminals. Newly updated, mechanisms for the examination and classification of both victim and offender behavior have been improved. In addition to refined approaches towards victimology, crime scene analysis, motivation and case linkage, a chapter on sexual deviance has been added as well. With prior edition in wide use as a primary text in criminal justice, law, criminology, and behavioral science programs around the world, Criminal Profiling, Fourth Edition remains essential for students and professionals alike. - Outlines the scientific principles and practice standards of BEA-oriented criminal profiling, with an emphasis on applying theory to real cases - Contributing authors from law enforcement, academic, mental health and forensic science communities provide a balance perspective - Complete glossary of key termsCompanion Web site includes all appendices from previous volumes and figure collection at http://www.elsevierdirect.com/companions/9780123852434 - Manual Web site provides an instructor's manual for each chapter, powerpoint slideshows, and case reports from Brent Turvey's work

Brent Turvey, PhD is the author of Criminal Profiling: An Introduction to Behavioral Evidence Analysis, 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Editions (1999, 2002, 2008, 2011); co- author of the Rape Investigation Handbook, 1st and 2nd Editions (2004, 2011), Crime Reconstruction 1st and 2nd Editions (2006, 2011), Forensic Victimology (2008) and Forensic Fraud (2013) - all with Elsevier Science. He hold an MS in Forensic Science and a PhD in Criminology. He is a full partner, Forensic Scientist, Criminal Profiler, and Instructor with Forensic Solutions, LLC, and The Forensic Criminology Institute.Dr. Turvey also maintains a caseload of femicides (e.g., sexual homicides, gender motivated homicides), pre-femicidal violence, trafficking, and human rights cases in Latin America. Many of these are related to drug trafficking and human trafficking. This involves the implementation of the UN Model Protocol for Femicide Investigation in Latin America, with The Forensic Criminology Institute's Behavioral Science Lab (BSL). In operation since 2019, the BSL collaborates with USAID, The United Nations, and The Attorney Generals Office in Bogota DC, providing international support and training to attorneys , investigators and forensic professionals.

Autoren/Hrsg.

Turvey, Brent E.

Inhaltsverzeichnis

1;Front Cover;1
2;Criminal Profiling An Introduction to Behavioral Evidence Analysis;4
3;Copyright;5
4;Contents;8
5;Foreword to the Third Edition;12
6;Preface to the Fourth Edition Criminal Profiling: The Imperatives of Scientific Methodology and a Behavioral Science Educatio;16
6.1;Methodology;16
6.2;Skill Identification and Development;17
6.3;Education;18
6.4;Experience;18
6.5;Bea;19
6.6;References;20
7;Preface to the Third Edition The Persistence of Faith-Based Profiling;22
7.1;Working for God;23
7.2;A World of Magical Thinking;28
7.3;The Power of Media;29
7.4;Belief in Psychic Phenomena;33
7.5;Profilers and Psychics: Special Powers?;37
7.6;The Problem;41
7.7;The Solution;42
7.8;References;43
8;Acknowledgments;44
9;About the Authors;46
9.1;Jansen Ang;46
9.2;Eoghan Casey, M.A.;46
9.3;Jeffery Chin;46
9.4;W. Jerry Chisum, B.S.;46
9.5;Craig M. Cooley, J.D.;47
9.6;Jodi Freeman, M.Crim.;47
9.7;Majeed Khader;47
9.8;Michael McGrath, M.D.;47
9.9;Eunice Tan;47
9.10;Angela N. Torres, Ph.D.;48
9.11;Brent E. Turvey, M.S.;48
10;Section 1: An Introduction to Criminal Profiling;50
10.1;Chapter 1: A History of Criminal Profiling;52
10.1.1;Blood Libel;55
10.1.2;Witches and the Medieval Inquisitions;57
10.1.3;Witches and Puritans (1688–1692): Goodwife Ann Glover and the Salem Witch Trials;63
10.1.4;Modern Profilers: A Multidisciplinary Historical Perspective;67
10.1.5;Summary;87
10.1.6;Questions;88
10.1.7;References;88
10.2;Chapter 2: Criminal Profiling: Science, Logic, and Cognition;90
10.2.1;Bias;91
10.2.2;Science and the Scientific Method ;93
10.2.2.1;Science as Falsification;95
10.2.2.2;Critical Thinking;95
10.2.2.3;The Science of Logic;98
10.2.2.4;Induction;98
10.2.2.5;Deduction;101
10.2.2.6;Fallacies of Logic12;102
10.2.2.6.1;Suppressed Evidence or Card Stacking;102
10.2.2.6.1.1;Example;102
10.2.2.6.2;Appeal to Authority;103
10.2.2.6.2.1;Example;104
10.2.2.6.3;Appeal to Tradition;104
10.2.2.6.3.1;Example;105
10.2.2.6.4;Argumentum ad Hominem, or “Argument to the Man”;105
10.2.2.6.4.1;Example;105
10.2.2.6.5;Emotional Appeal;106
10.2.2.6.5.1;Example;106
10.2.2.6.5.2;Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc, or “After This, Therefore Because of This”;106
10.2.2.6.5.3;Example;106
10.2.2.6.6;Hasty Generalizations;107
10.2.2.6.7;Sweeping Generalization;107
10.2.2.6.7.1;Example;107
10.2.2.6.8;False Precision;108
10.2.2.6.8.1;Example;108
10.2.3;Metacognition;111
10.2.4;Summary;112
10.2.5;Questions;112
10.2.6;References;113
10.3;Chapter 3: Alternative Methods of Criminal Profiling;116
10.3.1;Idiographic versus Nomothetic Study;117
10.3.2;Nomothetic Profiling and Nomothetic Profilers;120
10.3.3;Criminal Investigative Analysis and Criminal Profiling: What’s the Difference?;121
10.3.4;Organized versus Disorganized;124
10.3.4.1;The Stages of Criminal Investigative Analysis (CIA);128
10.3.4.2;Criminal Investigative Analysis: Efficacy in Casework;129
10.3.5;Diagnostic Evaluations (DE);130
10.3.6;Investigative Psychology (IP);133
10.3.6.1;The Five-Factor Model;134
10.3.7;Geographic Profiling;136
10.3.7.1;Lazy Criminals: The Least Effort Principle;136
10.3.7.2;Distance Decay;137
10.3.7.3;The Circle Theory;137
10.3.7.4;Limitations of Geographic Profiling;139
10.3.7.5;Geoprofiling Unit Closed;139
10.3.7.6;Geoprofiling the D.C. Sniper(s);140
10.3.8;Conclusion;143
10.3.9;Summary;144
10.3.10;Questions;145
10.3.11;References;145
10.4;Chapter 4: Forensic Psychology, Forensic Psychiatry, and Criminal Profiling;150
10.4.1;Psychology and Psychiatry;151
10.4.2;Insanity and Competency to Stand Trial;152
10.4.2.1;Case Example: Andrea Yates;152
10.4.2.2;Case Example: Jeffrey Dahmer;155
10.4.2.3;Case Example: O. C. Smith;156
10.4.2.4;Psychics;161
10.4.3;Forensic Psychologists and Psychiatrists as Profilers;162
10.4.3.1;Practice Is an Art;163
10.4.3.2;Need for Critical Thinking;163
10.4.3.3;Independent Analysis;164
10.4.3.4;Review of All Available Data;164
10.4.3.5;Reliance on the Facts of a Particular Case or Cases;164
10.4.3.6;Need to Avoid Advocacy;164
10.4.3.7;Contextual Differences;164
10.4.3.8;Ethical Practice;165
10.4.3.9;What Would a Forensic Psychiatrist or PsychologistNeed to Competently Profile?;165
10.4.3.10;Role of the Forensic Psychologist or Psychiatrist as Profiler;165
10.4.3.11;Psychological Pitfalls and the Profiler;166
10.4.3.12;Bias;166
10.4.3.13;Transference;166
10.4.3.14;Projection;166
10.4.4;Summary;167
10.4.5;Questions;167
10.4.6;References;168
10.5;Chapter 5: An Introduction to BehavioralEvidence Analysis;170
10.5.1;The Inference of Traits;171
10.5.2;Behavioral Evidence Analysis (BEA) Defined;172
10.5.3;Forensic Analysis (A.K.A. Equivocal Forensic Analysis);173
10.5.4;Forensic Victimology;174
10.5.5;Crime Scene Analysis;174
10.5.6;Behavioral Evidence Analysis: Goals and Purpose;174
10.5.7;Behavioral Evidence Analysis: Contexts;175
10.5.7.1;Investigative Phase;176
10.5.7.1.1;Primary Goals;176
10.5.7.2;Trial Phase;176
10.5.7.2.1;Primary Goals;176
10.5.8;Behavioral Evidence Analysis Thinking Strategies;177
10.5.8.1;Life Experience;177
10.5.8.2;Intuition;178
10.5.8.3;Avoid Moral Judgments;178
10.5.8.4;Common Sense;178
10.5.9;The Principles of Behavioral Evidence Analysis;178
10.5.9.1;Behavioral Evidence Analysis Standards of Practice;181
10.5.10;Summary;188
10.5.11;Questions;188
10.5.12;References;188
10.6;Chapter 6: An Introduction to Crime Scene Analysis;190
10.6.1;Forensic Assessment/Equivocal Forensic Analysis;193
10.6.1.1;Purpose;193
10.6.1.2;Inputs;198
10.6.1.2.1;Crime Scene Video;198
10.6.1.2.2;Crime Scene Photos;199
10.6.1.2.3;Investigators’ Reports;199
10.6.1.2.4;Crime Scene Sketches;200
10.6.1.2.5;Crime Scene Evidence Logs and Evidence Submission Forms;200
10.6.1.2.6;Results of Forensic Analysis;200
10.6.1.2.7;Medical Examiner’s and Coroner’s Reports;200
10.6.1.2.8;Autopsy Photos;201
10.6.1.2.9;Sexual Assault Protocol;201
10.6.1.2.10;Written and Taped Statements from Witnesses and Victims;201
10.6.1.3;Results;202
10.6.1.3.1;Corpus Delicti;202
10.6.1.3.2;Modus Operandi;202
10.6.1.3.3;Signature Behavior;203
10.6.1.3.4;Linking the Suspect to the Victim;204
10.6.1.3.5;Linking a Person to a Crime Scene;204
10.6.1.3.6;Disproving or Supporting a Witness’s Testimony;204
10.6.1.3.7;Identification of a Suspect;204
10.6.1.3.8;Providing Investigative Leads;205
10.6.2;The Threshold Assessment;205
10.6.2.1;Why a Threshold Assessment?;206
10.6.3;Summary;207
10.6.4;Questions;207
10.6.5;References;207
11;Section 2: Forensic Victimology;210
11.1;Chapter 7: Forensic Victimology;212
11.1.1;Challenges;213
11.1.2;Forensic Victimology and the Scientific Method;214
11.1.2.1;Victim Background/History;214
11.1.2.2;Avoiding Logical Fallacy;216
11.1.2.3;Goals of Forensic Victimology;217
11.1.3;Victim Exposure Analysis;219
11.1.3.1;Categorizing Victim Exposure;219
11.1.3.2;Lifestyle Exposure;221
11.1.3.2.1;Careers;222
11.1.3.2.2;Afflictions;222
11.1.3.2.3;Personal Traits;223
11.1.3.2.4;Assessing Lifestyle Exposure;223
11.1.3.3;Situational/Incident Exposure;224
11.1.3.3.1;Assessing Situational Exposure;226
11.1.3.4;Case Example: Paige Birgfeld;226
11.1.4;Victimology Guidelines;231
11.1.4.1;Personal Package;231
11.1.4.2;Digital Package;232
11.1.4.3;Residence Package;232
11.1.4.4;Relationship Package;232
11.1.4.5;Employment Package;232
11.1.4.6;Financial Package;233
11.1.4.7;Medical Package;233
11.1.4.8;Court Package;233
11.1.4.9;Creating a Timeline: The Last 24 Hours;234
11.1.5;Summary;234
11.1.6;Questions;235
11.1.7;References;235
11.2;Chapter 8: Sexual Deviance;236
11.2.1;Everybody Lies;237
11.2.2;Defining Deviant Sexual Behavior;238
11.2.3;Modern Sexual Development;238
11.2.4;Sexual Arousal;243
11.2.5;Sexual Fantasy;243
11.2.6;Pornography;245
11.2.6.1;Historical Access to Porn;246
11.2.6.2;Porn as Harmful;246
11.2.6.3;Porn as Mainstream;250
11.2.7;Deviant Sexual Behavior;251
11.2.7.1;Exhibitionism;251
11.2.7.2;Fetishism;252
11.2.7.3;Sexual Coercion;253
11.2.7.4;“Open” Relationships;253
11.2.7.5;Infidelity;255
11.2.7.6;Sadomasochism;257
11.2.7.7;Sexual Asphyxia and Autoerotic Asphyxia;258
11.2.8;Summary;258
11.2.9;Questions;259
11.2.10;References;259
11.3;Chapter 9: Sexual Asphyxia;262
11.3.1;Problem with Sexual Asphyxia;263
11.3.2;Nature of Sexual Asphyxia;265
11.3.3;Demographics;269
11.3.4;Findings at the Death Scene;272
11.3.5;Findings at Autopsy;274
11.3.6;Findings of Psychological Autopsy;275
11.3.7;Female Sexual Asphyxia;275
11.3.8;Differentiating between Accidental Death from Sexual Asphyxia and Other Causes;276
11.3.9;Sexual Homicide with Asphyxia: A Lethal Hookup;277
11.3.10;Summary;280
11.3.11;Questions;280
11.3.12;References;280
11.4;Chapter 10: False Reports;284
11.4.1;Historical Context;286
11.4.2;High-Profile Cases;287
11.4.3;Frequency of Cases;288
11.4.4;Motivations;290
11.4.4.1;Profit;290
11.4.4.2;Anger and Revenge;290
11.4.4.3;Crime Concealment;291
11.4.4.4;Concealment of Illicit Activities;291
11.4.4.5;Mitigation of Responsibility;291
11.4.4.6;Mental Defect—A Contributing Motivational Factor;291
11.4.5;Types of False Reports;292
11.4.5.1;False Report of Murder;292
11.4.5.2;False Report of Kidnapping;292
11.4.5.3;False Report of Rape and Sexual Assault;293
11.4.5.4;False Report of Child Abuse and Neglect;293
11.4.5.5;False Report of Hate Crimes;293
11.4.5.6;False Report of Robb;294
11.4.5.7;False Reports for Insurance Fraud;294
11.4.5.8;False 911 Calls;295
11.4.6;Conclusion;296
11.4.7;Summary;296
11.4.8;Questions;296
11.4.9;References;296
12;Section 3: Crime Scene Analysis;300
12.1;Chapter 11: An Introduction to Crime Reconstruction;302
12.1.1;Approaching the Reconstruction;304
12.1.2;Crime Reconstruction and Experience;305
12.1.3;Reason, methods, and confidence;307
12.1.4;Event Analysis;308
12.1.5;The Role of Evidence: Reconstruction Classifications;309
12.1.6;Evidence dynamics;315
12.1.7;Dynamic Influences: Pre-Discovery;316
12.1.7.1;The Other Side of the Tape;316
12.1.7.2;The Crime Scene;317
12.1.7.2.1;Example;317
12.1.7.3;Offender Actions;317
12.1.7.4;Staging;318
12.1.7.5;Victim Actions;320
12.1.7.6;Secondary Transfer;320
12.1.7.7;Witnesses;320
12.1.7.8;Weather/Climate;321
12.1.7.8.1;Hurricane Katrina;321
12.1.7.9;Decomposition;322
12.1.7.10;Insect Activity;322
12.1.7.11;Animal Activity/Predation;322
12.1.7.12;Fire;323
12.1.7.13;Fire Suppression Efforts;323
12.1.7.14;The First Responder/Police Personnel;323
12.1.7.15;The Emergency Medical Team;323
12.1.7.16;Security;324
12.1.8;Dynamic Influences: Post-Discovery;325
12.1.8.1;Failure to Search or Recover;326
12.1.8.2;Evidence Technicians;326
12.1.8.3;Coroner/Medical Examiner;326
12.1.8.4;Premature Scene Cleanup;326
12.1.8.5;Packaging/Transportation;326
12.1.8.6;Storage;327
12.1.8.7;Examination by Forensic Personnel;327
12.1.8.8;Premature Disposal/Destruction;328
12.1.8.9;Chain of Custody/Chain of Evidence;328
12.1.8.9.1;The Case of Jamie Penich;329
12.1.9;Questioning the Evidence Dynamics;332
12.1.10;Evidence Dynamics: The Influence of Future Technologies;333
12.1.11;Conclusion;334
12.1.12;Summary;334
12.1.13;Questions;334
12.1.14;References;335
12.2;Chapter 12: Crime Scene Characteristics;336
12.2.1;Limitations;338
12.2.2;Utility;338
12.2.3;Location Type;339
12.2.3.1;Location of the Scene;339
12.2.4;Crime Scene Type;339
12.2.4.1;Primary Crime Scene;340
12.2.4.2;Secondary Crime Scene;340
12.2.4.3;Intermediate Crime Scene;340
12.2.5;Victim Location;342
12.2.6;Victim Selection;342
12.2.6.1;Targeted Victim;343
12.2.6.2;Opportunistic Victim;343
12.2.7;Point of Contact;343
12.2.8;Method of Approach;344
12.2.8.1;Surprise;344
12.2.8.2;Con;344
12.2.8.3;Pre-Existing Trust;344
12.2.9;Method of Attack;345
12.2.9.1;Blitz;345
12.2.10;Use of Force;345
12.2.10.1;Lethal Force;346
12.2.10.2;Administrative Force;346
12.2.10.3;Brutal Force;346
12.2.10.4;Overkill;347
12.2.10.5;Control-Oriented Force;347
12.2.10.6;Corrective Force;347
12.2.10.7;Defensive Force;347
12.2.10.8;Precautionary Force;347
12.2.10.9;Experimental Force;348
12.2.10.10;Physical Torture;348
12.2.10.11;Sexual Force;348
12.2.11;Methods of Control;348
12.2.11.1;Control-Oriented Force;348
12.2.11.2;Verbal Threat of Controlling, Punishing, Sexual, or Lethal Force;349
12.2.11.3;Unarticulated Presence of the Physical Threat of Controlling,Punishing, Sexual, or Lethal Force;349
12.2.12;Weapon and Wounds;349
12.2.12.1;Blunt-Force Trauma;350
12.2.12.2;Burns;350
12.2.12.3;Sharp-Force Injury;350
12.2.12.4;Gunshot Wounds;350
12.2.12.5;Therapeutic and Diagnostic Wounds;351
12.2.12.6;Postmortem versus Antemortem Wounds;351
12.2.13;Victim Response;351
12.2.13.1;Victim Compliance;351
12.2.13.2;Victim Resistance;351
12.2.14;Nature and Sequence of Sexual Acts;352
12.2.15;Time;353
12.2.16;Multiple Offenders;353
12.2.17;Planning/Preparation;353
12.2.18;Precautionary Acts;353
12.2.19;Missing Items;354
12.2.19.1;Evidentiary Items;355
12.2.19.2;Valuables;355
12.2.19.3;Personal Items;355
12.2.20;Opportunistic Elements;356
12.2.21;The Body;357
12.2.22;Staging;357
12.2.22.1;“Appears Staged”;357
12.2.23;Verbal Behavior/Scripting;358
12.2.24;Summary;358
12.2.25;Questions;359
12.2.26;References;359
12.3;Chapter 13: Interpreting Motive;360
12.3.1;Rationale;362
12.3.2;Motive: Crime Scene State or Offender Trait?;363
12.3.2.1;Crime Scene Motives;363
12.3.2.2;Offender Motivation;363
12.3.3;Theories of Motive;364
12.3.4;Motive vs. Intent;365
12.3.5;The Behavioral-Motivational Typology;366
12.3.5.1;Power Reassurance Behavior (Compensatory);367
12.3.5.1.1;Verbal Behavior;367
12.3.5.1.2;Sexual Behavior;367
12.3.5.1.3;Physical Behavior;367
12.3.5.1.4;MO Behavior;368
12.3.5.1.5;Signature Behavior;368
12.3.5.2;Power Assertive Behavior (Entitlement);368
12.3.5.2.1;Verbal Behavior;368
12.3.5.2.2;Sexual Behavior;369
12.3.5.2.3;Physical Behavior;369
12.3.5.2.4;MO Behavior;369
12.3.5.2.5;Signature Behavior;369
12.3.5.3;Anger Retaliatory Behavior (Anger or Displaced Anger);370
12.3.5.3.1;Verbal Behavior;370
12.3.5.3.2;Sexual Behavior;370
12.3.5.3.3;Physical Behavior;370
12.3.5.3.4;MO Behavior;370
12.3.5.3.5;Signature Behavior;371
12.3.5.4;Sadistic Behavior (Anger Excitation);371
12.3.5.4.1;Verbal Behavior;371
12.3.5.4.2;Sexual Behavior;372
12.3.5.4.3;Physical Behavior;372
12.3.5.4.4;MO Behavior;372
12.3.5.4.5;Signature Behavi;373
12.3.5.5;Administrative Behavior (Instrumental);373
12.3.5.5.1;Profit-Oriented Behavior;373
12.3.5.5.2;Verbal Behavior;373
12.3.5.5.3;Sexual Behavior;373
12.3.6;Psychological Crime Scene Tape;375
12.3.7;Contributing Motivational Factors;376
12.3.8;Summary;377
12.3.9;Questions;378
12.3.10;References;378
12.4;Chapter 14: Case Linkage;380
12.4.1;Evidentiary Thresholds;381
12.4.2;Modus Operandi;382
12.4.2.1;Elements of Modus Operandi;384
12.4.2.2;Influences on Modus Operandi;385
12.4.2.2.1;Fortifying Factors;385
12.4.2.2.2;Destabilizing Factors;387
12.4.2.2.3;X-Factors;388
12.4.2.3;MO in Court: Case Example;388
12.4.3;Offender Signature;392
12.4.3.1;Offender Psychodynamics;392
12.4.4;Signature Behavior;393
12.4.4.1;Repetition;393
12.4.4.2;Active and Passive Signature Behaviors;394
12.4.4.3;Limitations;394
12.4.5;Signature Patterns;394
12.4.5.1;Recognizing Offender Signature;395
12.4.5.2;Case Linkage: Offender Signature in Court;395
12.4.6;Distinguishing MO and Signature Behavior;396
12.4.7;Interpreting Behavioral Linkage;397
12.4.7.1;Behavioral Dissimilarity;398
12.4.7.2;An Investigative Linkage;398
12.4.7.3;Behavioral Commonality;398
12.4.7.4;Probative Link;398
12.4.7.4.1;New Jersey v. Steven Fortin;399
12.4.8;Case Example: Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Timothy Imbriglio;405
12.4.9;Summary;408
12.4.10;Questions;408
12.4.11;References;408
12.5;Chapter 15: Cyberpatterns: Criminal Behavior on the Internet;410
12.5.1;Crime and Computers;411
12.5.2;Cybertrails;413
12.5.3;Profiling Computer Criminals;416
12.5.3.1;Psycholinguistic Analysis of Digital Communications;418
12.5.4;Digital Behavior of Unknown Offenders;418
12.5.5;Managing Offender Behavior;421
12.5.6;Victimology;421
12.5.7;Deductive Profiling of Computer Intruders;423
12.5.8;Summary;425
12.5.9;Questions;426
12.5.10;Acknowledgments;426
12.5.11;References;426
12.6;Chapter 16: Fire and Explosives: Behavioral Aspects;428
12.6.1;Definitions;429
12.6.2;Limitations;430
12.6.3;Fire and Explosives use as Force;432
12.6.4;Victimology;432
12.6.4.1;Individuals;433
12.6.4.2;Groups;433
12.6.4.3;Property: Objects and Symbols;433
12.6.5;Crime Scene Characteristics;434
12.6.5.1;Accelerants and/or Explosive Material;434
12.6.5.2;Point of Origin;434
12.6.5.3;Method of Initiation;435
12.6.5.4;Nature and Intent;435
12.6.5.5;Offender Skill;436
12.6.5.6;Motivation;436
12.6.6;Applying the Behavior-Motivational Typology;437
12.6.6.1;Precautionary-Oriented Fire Setting and/or Explosives Use;438
12.6.6.2;The Profile of a Serial Arsonist? The Case of Allen Wayne Penson;439
12.6.6.2.1;Background;439
12.6.6.2.2;Behavioral Issue;439
12.6.6.2.3;Court Ruling;440
12.6.6.2.4;Discussion;440
12.6.6.3;The Murder of Melanie Richey: Pipe Bomb;440
12.6.6.3.1;Background;440
12.6.6.3.2;Use of Explosives;442
12.6.6.4;Rape-Homicide: Arson for Crime Concealment;443
12.6.6.5;Insurance Fraud: Arson for Profit;444
12.6.6.6;Crack, Domestic Violence, and Arson;444
12.6.6.6.1;Background;445
12.6.6.6.2;Admissibility Issues;446
12.6.6.6.3;Use of Fire;447
12.6.7;Summary;447
12.6.8;Questions;448
12.6.9;References;448
13;Section 4:Offender Characteristics;450
13.1;Chapter 17: Inferring Offender Characteristics;452
13.1.1;The Homology Debacle;454
13.1.2;Purpose;454
13.1.3;Criminal Profiling and Criminal Identity;456
13.1.4;Deducing Offender Characteristics;458
13.1.4.1;Evidence of Criminal Skill;461
13.1.4.1.1;Example;461
13.1.4.2;Knowledge of the Victim;462
13.1.4.3;Knowledge of the Crime Scene;462
13.1.4.3.1;Example: Intimate Fetish Burglary;463
13.1.4.4;Knowledge of Methods and Materials;463
13.1.5;Problem Characteristics;464
13.1.5.1;Age;464
13.1.5.1.1;Example (from Sugawara, 1997);464
13.1.5.2;Sex;465
13.1.5.3;Intelligence;465
13.1.6;The Written Profile;466
13.1.7;Criminal Profiling and Daubert;466
13.1.8;Testing and Falsifiability;467
13.1.9;Peer Review and Publication;467
13.1.10;Error Rates;469
13.1.11;General Acceptance;470
13.1.12;Recommendations;470
13.1.13;Criminal Profiling in Court;471
13.1.13.1;Criminal Profilers in Court;472
13.1.13.1.1;The Problems;472
13.1.13.1.2;Misperceptions;473
13.1.13.1.3;Lack of Restraint;473
13.1.13.1.4;Virginia v. Shermaine Ali Johnson (1998);473
13.1.13.1.4.1;Background;474
13.1.13.1.4.2;Expert and Opinion;474
13.1.13.1.4.3;Issue;474
13.1.13.1.4.4;Court Ruling;474
13.1.13.1.4.5;Discussion;474
13.1.13.1.5;Tennessee v. William R. Stevens (2001);475
13.1.13.1.5.1;Background;475
13.1.13.1.5.2;Expert and Opinion;475
13.1.13.1.5.3;Issue;477
13.1.13.1.5.4;Court Ruling;477
13.1.13.1.5.5;Discussion;478
13.1.13.1.6;United States v. Gordon E. Thomas ii (2006);479
13.1.13.1.6.1;Background;479
13.1.13.1.6.2;Expert and Opinion;479
13.1.13.1.6.3;Court Ruling;483
13.1.13.1.6.4;Discussion;489
13.1.14;The Future of Criminal Profiling in Court;489
13.1.14.1;Wisconsin v. Peter Kupaza (2000);489
13.1.15;Summary;494
13.1.16;Questions;494
13.1.17;References;494
13.2;Chapter 18: Psychopathy and Sadism: Interpreting Psychopathic and Sadistic Behavior in the Crime Scene;496
13.2.1;Psychopathy;498
13.2.1.1;Psychopathic Characteristics;499
13.2.1.1.1;Lack of Empathy;500
13.2.1.1.2;Conning/Manipulative;501
13.2.1.1.3;Criminal Versatility;501
13.2.1.1.4;Failure to Accept Responsibility for Actions;501
13.2.1.1.5;Glib and Superficial;501
13.2.1.1.6;Grandiose Sense of Self-Worth;501
13.2.1.1.7;Impulsivity;502
13.2.1.1.8;Lack of Remorse or Guilt;502
13.2.1.1.9;Poor Behavioral Controls;502
13.2.1.2;Motivations;502
13.2.1.3;Case Examples;503
13.2.1.3.1;Profile of a Psychopath: United States v. Aquilia Barnette (2000);503
13.2.1.3.1.1;Background;504
13.2.1.3.1.2;Behavioral Determination;505
13.2.1.3.1.3;Discussion;506
13.2.1.3.2;Crawford Wilson: Psychopathic Rapist;507
13.2.1.3.2.1;Behavioral Determination;508
13.2.1.3.2.2;Discussion;508
13.2.1.3.3;Leon James Preston: Juvenile Sex Offender;508
13.2.1.3.3.1;Behavioral Determination;509
13.2.1.3.3.2;Discussion;509
13.2.2;Sadistic Behavior;509
13.2.2.1;Background;510
13.2.2.2;Sadism: An Applied Standard;511
13.2.2.3;Confusion of Sadism and Lustmurder;512
13.2.2.4;Definitions in the Literature;513
13.2.2.5;Case Examples;515
13.2.2.5.1;Non-Sadistic Cases;515
13.2.2.5.1.1;Jerome Brudos;515
13.2.2.5.1.2;Nathaniel Code;517
13.2.2.5.1.3;Ted Bundy;518
13.2.2.5.1.4;Jack the Ripper;519
13.2.2.5.2;Sadistic Cases;520
13.2.2.5.2.1;Neville G. C. Heath;520
13.2.2.5.2.2;Paul;521
13.2.2.6;Generalized Behavioral Assumptions;521
13.2.2.6.1;Rape;521
13.2.2.6.2;Anal Assault;522
13.2.2.6.3;Strangulation;523
13.2.2.6.4;Biting;523
13.2.2.6.5;Killing the Victim;523
13.2.2.6.6;Killing a Victim in Front of Another Victim;524
13.2.2.6.7;Postmortem Mutilation;524
13.2.2.6.8;Expressing “Sadistic” Tendencies in a Post-Offense Interview;524
13.2.3;Conclusion;525
13.2.4;Summary;526
13.2.5;Questions;526
13.2.6;References;527
13.3;Chapter 19:Sex Crimes;530
13.3.1;The Historical View;532
13.3.2;Consent;533
13.3.2.1;Age;533
13.3.2.2;Drugs and Alcohol;534
13.3.2.3;Physical or Mental Disability;535
13.3.3;Types of Sex Crimes;535
13.3.3.1;Rape/Sexual Assault;536
13.3.3.2;Child Molestation;536
13.3.3.3;Bestiality;539
13.3.3.4;Voyeurism;540
13.3.3.5;Fetish Burglary;541
13.3.3.6;Necrophilia;542
13.3.3.7;Prostitution/Soliciting/Sex Trafficking;544
13.3.4;Developmental issues;546
13.3.5;Female Sex Offenders;546
13.3.6;Sex Crimes and Communications Technology;548
13.3.6.1;Virtual Worlds and Exploitation;549
13.3.6.2;“Sexting” as a Crime;551
13.3.7;Summary;552
13.3.8;Questions;552
13.3.9;References;553
13.4;Chapter 20: Domestic Homicide;556
13.4.1;Risk and Exposure;557
13.4.2;Pregnancy as a Risk Factor;559
13.4.3;The Dynamics of Abusive Relationships;561
13.4.4;Intent;563
13.4.5;Intimate Homicide;564
13.4.6;Domestic Child Homicide;564
13.4.7;Honor Killings;565
13.4.8;Domestic elder homicide;565
13.4.9;Discussion;566
13.4.10;Summary;567
13.4.11;Questions;567
13.4.12;References;567
13.5;Chapter 21:Mass Murder;570
13.5.1;Mass Murder Versus Genocide;571
13.5.2;Mass Murder and the Media;572
13.5.3;Myths;573
13.5.4;Nomothetic Profiles of Mass Murder;575
13.5.5;Nomothetic Data: Numbers and Averages;576
13.5.6;Types of Mass Killers;577
13.5.7;Mass Murder Protocols;579
13.5.8;Summary;580
13.5.9;Questions;580
13.5.10;References;580
13.6;Chapter 22:Serial Cases: Investigating Pattern Crimes;582
13.6.1;Case Example: Brent J. Brents;584
13.6.2;Terms and Definitions;590
13.6.2.1;Serial in Nature;591
13.6.3;Serial Homicide;591
13.6.3.1;Media and the Serial Murderer Archetype;592
13.6.3.2;Serial Killer Myths;594
13.6.3.3;Gary L. Ridgway: The Green River Killer;596
13.6.4;Serial Rape;601
13.6.4.1;Rapist Motivation;602
13.6.4.1.1;Sex and Lovemaking;603
13.6.4.1.2;Sex and Shoplifting;603
13.6.4.1.3;Uniting;604
13.6.4.1.4;Dividing;604
13.6.4.1.5;Power;604
13.6.4.1.6;Anger;605
13.6.4.1.7;Sadism;605
13.6.5;Case Examples;605
13.6.5.1;Terrance Bolds: Serial Rape and Burglary;605
13.6.5.2;Steven Sera: Serial Rape and Rohypnol;607
13.6.6;Evaluating Serial Behavior;608
13.6.6.1;Victim/Target Selection;608
13.6.6.2;Offender Departure Strategy;609
13.6.6.3;Disposal Site Aspects;610
13.6.6.3.1;Convenience Aspect;610
13.6.6.3.2;Remorse Aspect;610
13.6.6.3.3;Preselected Aspect;610
13.6.6.3.4;Precautionary Aspect;610
13.6.6.3.5;Staged Aspect;610
13.6.6.3.6;Arranged Aspect;610
13.6.7;Solving Cases;611
13.6.7.1;Using the Media;612
13.6.7.2;Task Force Pra;612
13.6.7.2.1;Problems;612
13.6.7.2.2;Solutions;613
13.6.8;Conclusion;615
13.6.9;Summary;615
13.6.10;Questions;616
13.6.11;References;616
13.7;Chapter 23:Introduction to Terrorism: Understanding and Interviewing Terrorists;618
13.7.1;Nomothetic Terrorist Profiles: Oversimplified, Uninformed, and Unadaptive;620
13.7.2;Interviewing Terrorists: Suggestions for Investigative Interviews;623
13.7.2.1;Terrorism Research: A Brief Background;623
13.7.2.2;Profiling Terrorists: An Impossible Task?;624
13.7.2.3;Suggested Strategies for Rapport-Based Interviews;625
13.7.2.3.1;Adopt Good Standards for Investigative Interviewing before Commencing;625
13.7.2.3.2;Torture Does Not Make for a Good Investigation;625
13.7.2.3.3;A Terrorist May Have Different Needs than a Criminal;627
13.7.2.3.4;Respect Begets Respect;628
13.7.2.3.5;Interviewer–Interviewee Matching;628
13.7.2.3.6;Attempt to Understand the Cultural Background of the Interviewee;628
13.7.2.3.7;Understand Some of the Jargon or Language Used by Your Interviewee;629
13.7.2.3.8;Talk to the Individual, but Don’t Forget the Group That’s Behind Him;629
13.7.2.3.9;Attempt to Understand the Interviewee’s Idiological Beliefs;630
13.7.2.3.10;Expect Deception and Learn to Be a Better Lie Detector;630
13.7.3;Conclusion;630
13.7.4;Summary;631
13.7.5;Questions;631
13.7.6;References;631
13.8;Appendix: Threshold Assessment Homicide of Armida Wiltsey;634
13.8.1;Purpose;634
13.8.2;Case Materials;635
13.8.3;Background;635
13.8.4;Timeline;636
13.8.4.1;Tuesday, November 14, 1978;636
13.8.4.2;Wednesday, November 15, 1978;636
13.8.5;Victimology;636
13.8.6;Victim Exposure;638
13.8.7;Crime Reconstruction;638
13.8.7.1;Findings;639
13.8.7.2;Discussion;639
13.8.8;Crime Scene Characteristics;641
13.8.9;Motivation;644
13.8.10;Offender Characteristics;645
13.8.10.1;Knowledge of Crime Scene;645
13.8.10.2;Knowledge of Victim;645
13.8.10.3;Knowledge of Methods and Materials;645
13.8.10.4;Evidence of Criminal Skill;646
13.8.10.5;Physical Characteristics;646
13.8.11;Investigative Suggestions;646
13.8.12;References;647
14;Section 5: Professional Issues;648
14.1;Chapter 24: Ethics and the Criminal Profiler;650
14.1.1;When Profiling Harms;652
14.1.1.1;Colin Stagg;652
14.1.1.2;Richard Jewell;653
14.1.2;Ethical Guidelines for the Criminal Profiler;655
14.1.3;The Media and Entertainment Industry: Conflicts of Interest;656
14.1.3.1;Books, Films, and TV;656
14.1.3.2;True Crime;657
14.1.3.3;News Agencies;657
14.1.3.4;Case Example: Murdertainment;658
14.1.4;High Station: Abusing Positions of Power;658
14.1.5;Ethics in Publishing;659
14.1.5.1;Example: Assuming or Inferring Legal Guilt for Research Purposes;659
14.1.6;Criminal Profiling and Forensic Fraud;661
14.1.6.1;Simulators;661
14.1.6.1.1;Case Example: JonBenet Ramsey;661
14.1.6.2;Dissemblers;662
14.1.6.2.1;Case Example: Waco;663
14.1.6.2.2;Case Example: Fabrication of Credentials and Experience;665
14.1.6.2.3;Case Example: Misrepresentation of Multiple Professional Credentialsand Affiliations;671
14.1.7;Solutions;673
14.1.8;Summary;673
14.1.9;Questions;674
14.1.10;References;674
14.2;Chapter 25:Criminal Profiling on Trial;676
14.2.1;Introduction;677
14.2.2;Criminal Profiling: From Categorizing to Individualizing Offenders;678
14.2.2.1;Traditional or UNSUB Profiling;678
14.2.2.2;Modern-Day Profiling: Motivational Analysis and Linkage Analysis;679
14.2.2.3;Motivational Analysis;680
14.2.2.4;Linkage Analysis;681
14.2.3;Admissibility Standards: From General Acceptance to Gatekeeping Judges;683
14.2.4;Criminal Profiling’s Empirical Proof, Relevance, and Predictability;685
14.2.4.1;Motivational Analysis;686
14.2.4.2;UNSUB Profiling;687
14.2.4.3;Linkage Analysis;688
14.2.4.4;Profiling in the Courts;690
14.2.4.5;Traditional UNSUB Profiling;690
14.2.4.5.1;Excluding Courts;690
14.2.4.6;Motivational Analysis;691
14.2.4.6.1;Admitting Courts;691
14.2.4.6.2;Excluding Courts;693
14.2.4.7;Linkage Analysis;695
14.2.4.7.1;Admitting Courts;695
14.2.4.7.2;Excluding Courts;696
14.2.4.8;Harmless Error Courts;697
14.2.5;Conclusion;698
14.2.6;Summary;699
14.2.7;Acknowledgments;701
14.2.8;Questions;701
15;Glossary;702
16;Index;712

Leseproben

Foreword to the Third Edition
—W. Jerry Chisum Men of genius do not excel in any profession because they labor in it, but they labor in it because they excel. —William Hazlitt (1778–1830) In the 1970s, I was introduced to profiling at the FBI Academy when several classes were taught to the American Society of Crime Lab Directors. I saw this field as an adjunct to crime scene investigation and I had a great deal of enthusiasm for its merits. Later in my career, I worked with the FBI-trained profiler for the California Department of Justice (CA DOJ) and even considered transferring out of the crime lab business to follow a similar path. The successor to the original DOJ profiler caused me to rethink my position. In the early years of profiling’s development at the FBI, the public knew little about the actual methods used by profilers, or that there were such things as profilers at all. They perhaps knew, for example, that a profiler had helped with the Atlanta Child Murders, but little else. It was the later films based on the works of author Thomas Harris that caught the public eye and caused profiling to become a profession of interest; in particular, Mindhunter (1986) and Silence of the Lambs (1991). As a direct result of these and other similar films, and of the TV shows that came after, ike UNSUB (Unknown Subject), Millennium, Profiler, and more recently Criminal Minds, more than a few criminal justice students have been inspired to become profilers. However, many of the television programs became more supernatural in their orientation, with the profiler having “flashes” of the crime as it had occurred. This did not provide a real sense of what profilers actually can and cannot do. Profiles do not come in a flash or vision; they take long hard work examining physical and behavioral evidence. This was something that I wanted my own students to understand. During the 1990s, when I worked for CA DOJ, I often invited our DOJ profilers to lecture in my crime reconstruction class. They had been trained by the FBI and could explain some of the methods and services that were available. On one such occasion, one of my students asked, “What happens if there are different opinions or interpretations about a profile?” The profiler responded, in essence, “That could never happen. We get together before a report is finalized and all come to an agreement.” The “we” referred to the DOJ profiler and the FBI profiling unit back in Quantico. Bear in mind, this statement was made to a class of forensic scientists; all of them were criminalists with at least 10 years in crime labs, and who actively responded to crime scenes. We were shocked that there could not be different opinions about the same evidence. That everyone must reach a consensus before an FBI-style profile could be drawn up was unbelievable. Criminalists frequently disagree about the interpretation of physical evidence and do not always reach consensus. You can’t compromise a physical fact, just the interpretation. And interpretations can vary. For someone interpreting the characteristics of a person committing a crime to say that all profilers (in the field and back at Quantico) must reach agreement before a report could be written just blew our minds. While this tradition builds consensus and squashes dissent (and lets it appear as though the final report has passed a form of peer review), it’s fairly bad practice. At that moment, my class realized that FBI-style profiling was not an infallible discipline, despite what we were previously led to believe. Good science dictates that we cannot always agree; there must be room for differing opinions and interpretations. As Samuel Butler wrote,1 Then he saw also that it matters little what profession, whether of religion or irreligion, a man may make, provided only he follows it out with charitable inconsistency, and without insisting on it to the bitter end. It is in the uncompromisingness with which dogma is held and not in the dogma or want of dogma that the danger lies. The pioneering work done by the FBI in forming their profiling group was certainly groundbreaking and commendable. However, as is too often believed within closed law enforcement circles, they considered themselves somehow unique, considerable, and exceptional. FBI profilers continue to believe that criminal profiling can only be performed by those trained in a very specific program by the FBI or by those who have “apprenticed” under an FBI-trained profiler. The exclusivity of the group has rendered it just that—a closed society of narrow-thinking law-enforcement investigators. Ironically, they were and are actually treading in the realms and research of other established professionals: forensic scientists, forensic psychologists, forensic psychiatrists, and criminologists. And being a closed circle working outside of their actual profession (the formal education and actual experience of FBI profilers varies greatly), they don’t always know what they are doing or when they are wrong. With a propensity for quashing dissent and everyone having to agree all the time, I guess it’s not a surprise that their methods haven’t changed substantially in three decades. Film, television, and good public relations by the FBI have continued to inspire students toward criminal profiling as a career choice. However, even in the mid 1990s, there were no organized programs of study, no specific practice standards or principles, and the only publicized route was through law enforcement—specifically the FBI. For those students unfamiliar with the players and the field, there was no visible profession to enter. This remains a problem for students interested in FBI profiling, because the FBI has fewer than 20 “profilers” working for them at any given time—and they often don’t even call themselves profilers anymore. What does it take for a vocation to become a profession? Is forensic science a profession? This basic question has caused many heated discussions at forensic science meetings. According to one definition, which is as good as anything I’ve seen,2 A profession is an occupation that requires extensive training and the study and mastery of specialized knowledge, and usually has a professional association, ethical code and process of certification or licensing. In many legal regimes that have “regulated professions” the issues of “public safety” or “client welfare”, harm, ethics, accreditation or credentialing, licensing, peer discipline, special knowledge, judgment, training, practical experience and oaths of conduct are common to the regulated professions. One or more of these factors may suffice to distinguish the profession from a related trade. The professional is obligated and sworn to exercise expert judgment on behalf of the client’s interest. The client is not usually assumed to understand the complexities of the professional’s special knowledge domain. In the Preface to the First Edition of this textbook (1999), Brent Turvey wrote that criminal profiling “has not yet achieved the status of a profession.” He then gave several reasons why. However, in the past few years there have been developments that may have overcome his reasoning, not the least of which is that Dr. Saferstein correctly refers to the field as the “profiling profession” at the end of the first paragraph of the Foreword to the First Edition. When Brent Turvey first moved to California, criminalist Keith Inman told him “his first onus was to his profession.”3 That made an impression on him. The public face of criminal profiling was at that time almost exclusively law enforcement. The only entry, it was often stated, was through law enforcement, and within that construct only a few were allowed to become profilers. Brent did his homework and realized that there was a community of professionals already practicing criminal profiling beyond this narrow scope, and he saw the need to bring them together. In 1998, after he finished the manuscript for the first edition of this book, Brent reached out to a group of forensic scientists, mental health professionals, and investigators. He wanted them to meet with him under one roof. The group included NYPD Detective John Baeza, ex-FBI profiler Mike Chamberlin, Dr. Michael McGrath, and myself. The subject of discussion was the formation of a professional association for profilers. The result of that meeting was the formation of the Academy of Behavioral Profiling (ABP). The ABP was the first independent professional organization for criminal profilers, with firm educational requirements and a published code of ethics. Brent took the additional measure of inviting several people from various parts of the world to participate in the formation of the association. The first step was taken to establish profiling as a profession: an association. The ABP has various levels of membership, from students to affiliates, to full members in the investigative, forensic, behavioral, criminological, or general sections. The membership, currently almost 200 strong, is able to participate in an on-line forum for discussion of events in the field, to attend the ABP’s annual meeting, and to publish their work in the Journal of Behavioral Profiling. Full membership requires, among other things, an examination—the Profiling General Knowledge Exam (PGKE). The exam was designed by an international committee of...