Does psychological profiling work?

[TraneWreck]

Recently, I was fortunate to observe a presentation given by two of the investigators involved in the BTK case.

Let me preface my actual question for the august forum crowd with an editorial: people, including myself, often complain about the way television and other media sensationalize normal human activity. Everyone is more attractive, smarter, funnier, stronger, faster and generally better than real life. We live in a comic book culture to some degree.

Let me say without equivocation that nothing ever produced remotely approaches the level of twisted perversion that was BTK. I don't care what stories or accounts of his crimes you've read, reality was a 1000x sicker. The presentation included crime scene photos and items collected from BTK that were not released to the public, and there is no way to ever creatively develop that level of demented cruelty and outright disgusting nature. It's just beyond normal human conceptions.

Moving back to the meat of the topic, one of the issues discussed by the detectives was the role FBI profilers played in the case. A wikipedia search of BTK can give you more detail, but essentially he murdered a number of people in Wichita, KS, between 1974 and 1991, then he just stopped. The case went completely cold. Beginning in 2004, he started sending bizarre letters and packages to the police and media, and the contents of those communications eventually led to his arrest.

Because of the long pause in BTK's activity, they tried to use profilers to pick up the frozen trail. The detectives offered a number of examples of what the profilers came up with. Hundreds of profiles were generated, and not a single one was remotely close to representing Dennis Rader.

They reminded me of psychic "readings" in the sense that out of, say, 50 details, two or three would be correct.

The detectives were completely skeptical of such profiling techniques. They said they were only marginally useful for interogations. So a profiler would give them something like, "subject was likely abandoned by father at an early age." That would allow the questioners to prod that topic, hoping to get a rise out of their target.

As far as describing an unknown suspect, it was 100% useless.

Profiling is now a popular subject for television dramas, so I'm curious what other people know about the process. Is this just another hopeless enterprise like phrenology, or is it a science in its infancy?

 

[Bikewer]

I confess I haven't kept abreast of developments in this area, but I seem to remember some FBI types expressing that the "profiles" of typical serial killers were so similar as to be virtually useless.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

I have no idea who BTK is, but Cracker would have caught him.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Here's a relevant article:

http://www.liv.ac.uk/Psychology/staff/LAlison/lalison19.pdf

In the Rachel Nickell enquiry, a clinical psychologist provided the police with
an offender profile claiming that he was able to deduce from the crime scene both
the murderer’s sexual fantasies and a range of background characteristics. Examples
of statements from the profile include the notion that the offender would be
a lonely individual who was socially and sexually inept, would live nearby and
probably alone, and that the offender would be interested in unusual and isolated
hobbies (Britton, 1997). When the police eventually focused on a suspect whom
they believed fit the profile, a man who had also been identified by a number of
witnesses as being near the scene of the crime at the time of the murder, a covert
operation known as Operation Edzell was set up.
This operation involved a female undercover officer befriending the suspect
through a lonely hearts club the suspect was known to have joined prior to the
murder. The operation was purportedly designed to establish whether the suspect
would divulge sexual fantasies to his newly found partner that corresponded with
those predicted in the psychologist’s profile of the murderer. After an exchange of
numerous letters between the undercover officer and the suspect, which slowly
became more sexually explicit on both parts, the enquiry team were convinced
that the sexual fantasies expressed in the suspect’s letters fit the profile allegedly
constructed at the beginning of the enquiry (the profiler in this case wrote his
original profile on a white board, the details of which were erased, and therefore
it is impossible to ascertain whether the original profile matched the profile that
was subsequently written down). When the suspect was prosecuted for the
murder, however, the judge ruled the evidence of the undercover operation
inadmissible. Subsequent to this decision, no further evidence was offered against
the suspect. Although there was no attempt to use the profile as the basis for
evidence, it is difficult to ignore the possibility that it may have shaped the
sequence of events in the enquiry and the way in which the undercover operation
was conducted.​

(The real killer was convicted recently)​

​

​

And this:
http://skepdic.com/refuge/funk58.html

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

Recently, I was fortunate to observe a presentation given by two of the investigators involved in the BTK case.

Let me preface my actual question for the august forum crowd with an editorial: people, including myself, often complain about the way television and other media sensationalize normal human activity. Everyone is more attractive, smarter, funnier, stronger, faster and generally better than real life. We live in a comic book culture to some degree.

Let me say without equivocation that nothing ever produced remotely approaches the level of twisted perversion that was BTK. I don't care what stories or accounts of his crimes you've read, reality was a 1000x sicker. The presentation included crime scene photos and items collected from BTK that were not released to the public, and there is no way to ever creatively develop that level of demented cruelty and outright disgusting nature. It's just beyond normal human conceptions.

Moving back to the meat of the topic, one of the issues discussed by the detectives was the role FBI profilers played in the case. A wikipedia search of BTK can give you more detail, but essentially he murdered a number of people in Wichita, KS, between 1974 and 1991, then he just stopped. The case went completely cold. Beginning in 2004, he started sending bizarre letters and packages to the police and media, and the contents of those communications eventually led to his arrest.

Because of the long pause in BTK's activity, they tried to use profilers to pick up the frozen trail. The detectives offered a number of examples of what the profilers came up with. Hundreds of profiles were generated, and not a single one was remotely close to representing Dennis Rader.

They reminded me of psychic "readings" in the sense that out of, say, 50 details, two or three would be correct.

The detectives were completely skeptical of such profiling techniques. They said they were only marginally useful for interogations. So a profiler would give them something like, "subject was likely abandoned by father at an early age." That would allow the questioners to prod that topic, hoping to get a rise out of their target.

As far as describing an unknown suspect, it was 100% useless.

Profiling is now a popular subject for television dramas, so I'm curious what other people know about the process. Is this just another hopeless enterprise like phrenology, or is it a science in its infancy?

Let me give you an old investigators point of view. ( no searches, just speaking from experience)

"profiling" as it started out was ( and IS) a very valuable tool. ( its not a do all, end all, flawlessly accurate or anything else but it worked reasonably well)

Heres the problem- you had "groups" starting to whine about "profiling" and it got "political".
What it started out to be was good and effective- what it has become is wholly almost worthless.

Just FWIW

 

[TraneWreck]

Let me give you an old investigators point of view. ( no searches, just speaking from experience)

"profiling" as it started out was ( and IS) a very valuable tool. ( its not a do all, end all, flawlessly accurate or anything else but it worked reasonably well)

Heres the problem- you had "groups" starting to whine about "profiling" and it got "political".
What it started out to be was good and effective- what it has become is wholly almost worthless.

Just FWIW

In investigative procedure do you not distinguish between the "politically incorrect profiling" (Suspect is a young black male) and psychological profiling (because of the cut marks we know the person in question has a lot of rage towards women...)?

I know the often unjustified restriction of the first kind is a popular political issue, but the second seems to be a much more detailed system. I'm just curious what you've seen in your time as an investigator.

 

[TraneWreck]

Here's a relevant article:

http://www.liv.ac.uk/Psychology/staff/LAlison/lalison19.pdf

(The real killer was convicted recently)​

​

​

And this:
http://skepdic.com/refuge/funk58.html

That was the impression I gained from the two detectives. It seems like a new generation of hocus pocus. It seems to be popular in entertainment because profilers come of as Sherlock Holmes-esque magicians: "I can tell by the way you wear your watch that you and your wife are currently having marital problems..."

I wonder how much time and effort goes into this sort of thing.

Edit: and the case study in the exerpt you provided is one of the most egregious examples of confirmation bias I've ever seen. They just started sending this guy dirty e-mails until he responded in a way they thought the killer would respond? Wow.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

In investigative procedure do you not distinguish between the "politically incorrect profiling" (Suspect is a young black male) and psychological profiling (because of the cut marks we know the person in question has a lot of rage towards women...)?

I know the often unjustified restriction of the first kind is a popular political issue, but the second seems to be a much more detailed system. I'm just curious what you've seen in your time as an investigator.

In my day ( in the 70's) you "tried"- the problem was it was TOO accurate.

Back then it was "criminal" profiling ( looked at all the ancillary issues) then all the "psycho-babble" came in and honestly, it got watered down to the point of worthless.( as an investigative tool on the front end)

Now they focus on the "end" metrics of what it "was".

I've heard from people that it has a bit of merit but doesnt help much in finding or pre-empting a killer( which was the goal) but in convicting him.( after the body count)

 

[Harpyja]

Like any investigative measure trying to read too deeply into too little facts invariably results in nonsense. However, that's not to say it's completely useless.

For example when a perpetrator's modus operandi is by strangulation or by a small weapon such as a knife versus a projectile weapon, it may indicate that the perpetrator in that particular instance felt little to no need to separate himself from the victim. If the victim was well-concealed off a road less-travelled-by in a particular location that would more than likely have never been discovered unless a particular set of circumstances occurred, it may indicate that the perpetrator was familiar with the area.

I found this website informative: Green River Killer

 

[TraneWreck]

In my day ( in the 70's) you "tried"- the problem was it was TOO accurate.

Back then it was "criminal" profiling ( looked at all the ancillary issues) then all the "psycho-babble" came in and honestly, it got watered down to the point of worthless.( as an investigative tool on the front end)

Now they focus on the "end" metrics of what it "was".

I've heard from people that it has a bit of merit but doesnt help much in finding or pre-empting a killer( which was the goal) but in convicting him.( after the body count)

That makes a lot of sense. The two detectives giving the presentation were constantly mocking the information the profilers came up with. It would be something like, "a young, white male loner. Social outcast, avoids community involvement....etc." It turns out the guy was a leader in his Church and was involved with every level of the community from the schools to politics. They were just stabbing in the dark.

I'm curious what you mean by "ancillary" issues. I don't think I fully understand the distinction you're making. What kind of things would you look at before all the psychology was involved?

 

[TraneWreck]

For example when a perpetrator's modus operandi is by strangulation or by a small weapon such as a knife versus a projectile weapon, it may indicate that the perpetrator in that particular instance felt little to no need to separate himself from the victim.

I think the problem is that claims like this are as wrong as often as they are right. So you won't do any better than just flipping a coin, you might as well hire a psychic.

And from something like that tidbit, they try to develop an idea of what kind of person wouldn't need that separation. They try to give you age, race, marital status, and the sort of details that would aid an investigation. You can't just search for someone who likes to kill his victims up close. I suppose you could go door to door and ask, but for the normal course of detection it isn't all that useful. You need some way of limiting the general population.

If the victim was well-concealed off a road less-travelled-by in a particular location that would more than likely have never been discovered unless a particular set of circumstances occurred, it may indicate that the perpetrator was familiar with the area.

I'm not sure that's really psychological profiling though. That's more standard investigative deduction.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

Like any investigative measure trying to read too deeply into too little facts invariably results in nonsense. However, that's not to say it's completely useless.

For example when a perpetrator's modus operandi is by strangulation or by a small weapon such as a knife versus a projectile weapon, it may indicate that the perpetrator in that particular instance felt little to no need to separate himself from the victim. If the victim was well-concealed off a road less-travelled-by in a particular location that would more than likely have never been discovered unless a particular set of circumstances occurred, it may indicate that the perpetrator was familiar with the area.

I found this website informative: Green River Killer

I wouldnt go that far ( calling it nonsense) but I'm going to park in the far end of that lot.

When we had to fill out the checklists ( presumably for PhD's to analyze) they were obviously worded to get datapoints to build profiles.

Thats fine and in a controlled environment- that would work.

In the field, as you stated, the random element made it difficult to be acurate

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

I'm curious what you mean by "ancillary" issues. I don't think I fully understand the distinction you're making. What kind of things would you look at before all the psychology was involved?

OK but remember, this was decades ago.

They tried to ascertain facts about a killer because of what he did when he was killing.

Sure, at the thousand foot level- he was after girls ( no brainer) but they didnt want to consider the "social" elements of the crime scene. They didnt like to incorporate "details" UNLESS they repeated with frequency.

Then they didnt like to ask questions of the vic.

For example- a guy killed girls outside of a bar with dark hair. They wanted the dark hair part.( build a metric)

They DIDNT want to know if she was loose, a first timer, had other encounters, wose dresses exclusively, had a particular habit etc.

The profile would end up as the "killer" preferred "dark haired" women at bars when in fact that may hae been an innocent coincidence.

 

[TraneWreck]

OK but remember, this was decades ago.

They tried to ascertain facts about a killer because of what he did when he was killing.

Sure, at the thousand foot level- he was after girls ( no brainer) but they didnt want to consider the "social" elements of the crime scene. They didnt like to incorporate "details" UNLESS they repeated with frequency.

Then they didnt like to ask questions of the vic.

For example- a guy killed girls outside of a bar with dark hair. They wanted the dark hair part.( build a metric)

They DIDNT want to know if she was loose, a first timer, had other encounters, wose dresses exclusively, had a particular habit etc.

The profile would end up as the "killer" preferred "dark haired" women at bars when in fact that may hae been an innocent coincidence.

Ah, I see. It's always fascinating to watch society deal with conflicting desires: more accurate investigation vs. worry about not violating rights, as in an illegal search, but worry about appearing inappropriate or judgmental. I'm not sure that one came out correctly.

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Recently, I was fortunate to observe a presentation given by two of the investigators involved in the BTK case.

Let me preface my actual question for the august forum crowd with an editorial: people, including myself, often complain about the way television and other media sensationalize normal human activity. Everyone is more attractive, smarter, funnier, stronger, faster and generally better than real life. We live in a comic book culture to some degree.

Let me say without equivocation that nothing ever produced remotely approaches the level of twisted perversion that was BTK. I don't care what stories or accounts of his crimes you've read, reality was a 1000x sicker. The presentation included crime scene photos and items collected from BTK that were not released to the public, and there is no way to ever creatively develop that level of demented cruelty and outright disgusting nature. It's just beyond normal human conceptions.

Moving back to the meat of the topic, one of the issues discussed by the detectives was the role FBI profilers played in the case. A wikipedia search of BTK can give you more detail, but essentially he murdered a number of people in Wichita, KS, between 1974 and 1991, then he just stopped. The case went completely cold. Beginning in 2004, he started sending bizarre letters and packages to the police and media, and the contents of those communications eventually led to his arrest.

I know exactly what you mean. The story of the BTK killer's rampage is so off the wall and so unbelievable, it would be laughed at if it were in one of the countless Hollywood movies about serial killers. A bad police procedural show couldn't have dreamed it up.

You almost want to say "Dennis, you sent the police taunting messages? Really? You actually did that? What a cliche! And you are an Air Force veteran? And you tortured animals as a child? And you don't like women?And all your neighbors think you are the biggest Joe Schmo there is? Oh, come on. Be a little original! The only thing you didn't do was have a wall filled with articles and pictures in your basement."

Maybe the saying that cliches are cliches because they are true has some merit.

A fairly recent Hollywood movie based on a true story had people complaining about the hero being given a love interest. Surprisingly or not so surprisingly, the real man actually did have a romance with a young woman at the time shown and they did marry and have children. Cliched but true.