The Fictional World of Criminal Investigative Analysis

I CHOICE JAMeS Bond

Sherlock Holmes and other fictional characters can draw a considerable amount of information from even the slightest crime scene evidence. They can infer detailed characteristics of the offender and can reach conclusions with a great degree of certainty; and, of course, they always seem to solve the crimes they are investigating.

In this Discussion, you select a fictional sleuth, investigate his or her methods for solving crimes, and compare those methods to those currently used in the role of criminal investigator.

To prepare for this Discussion:

Select a fictional character who investigates criminal behavior or crimes (example: Sherlock Holmes, Harry Bosch, Kay Scarpetta, Philip Marlowe, James Bond, Jack Reacher, Alex Cross, Travis McGee, Jane Rizzoli, or

Lucas Davenport).

Describe the fictional crime investigator you selected. Explain a few of his/her methods or signature investigative traits. Compare how these methods may or may not match your perspective of the process and purpose of criminal investigative analysis. Explain what you think modern criminal investigators and criminal profilers should be able to do.

Grading criteria

 

Excellent

excelent

 

Main Discussion Posting Content

Points Range:

27 (54%) – 30 (60%)

Discussion posting demonstrates an excellent understanding of all of the concepts and key points presented in the text/s and Learning Resources. Posting provides significant detail including multiple relevant examples, evidence from the readings and other scholarly sources, and discerning ideas.

 

Reply Post & Peer Interaction

Points Range:

9 (18%) – 10 (20%)

Student interacts frequently with peers. The feedback postings and responses to questions are excellent and fully contribute to the quality of interaction by offering constructive critique, suggestions, in-depth questions, use of scholarly, empirical resources, and stimulating thoughts and/or probes.

 

Writing

Points Range:

9 (18%) – 10 (20%)

Postings are well organized, use scholarly tone, contain original writing and proper paraphrasing, follow APA style, contain very few or no writing and/or spelling errors, and are fully consistent with graduate-level writing style.

Reading Matirali

Bartol, C. R. & Bartol, A. M. (2010). Criminal & behavioral profiling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

• Chapter 1, “Introduction” (pp. 1–20)

Turvey, B. E. (2012). Criminal profiling: An introduction to behavioral evidence analysis (4th ed.). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

• Chapter 1, “A History of Criminal Profiling” (pp. 3–39)
• Chapter 2, “Criminal Profiling: Science, Logic, and Cognition” (pp. 41–66)

Inside the mind of the mind hunter: an interview with legendary FBI agent John Douglas

Source:

The Forensic Examiner. Spring, 2007, Vol. 16 Issue 1, p10, 4 p.

Publisher Information:

KSA Media, LLC

Publication Year:

2007

Subject Terms:

Detectives — Interviews

Criminal profiling

Subject Person:

Douglas, John E. — Interviews

Subject Geographic:

United States

Description:

Meet Criminal Profiler John Douglas at the 2007 ACFEI National Conference! John Douglas, former head of the FBI’s Investigative Support Unit, has hunted some of the most notorious and sadistic […]

Document Type:

Interview

Language:

English

ISSN:

1084-5569

Rights:

Copyright 2007 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

COPYRIGHT 2007 KSA Media, LLC

Accession Number:

edsgcl.161282529

Database:

Gale Academic OneFile Select

Criminal Profiling Works and EVERYONE Agrees Richard N. Kocsis PhD

To cite this article: Richard N. Kocsis PhD (2010) Criminal Profiling Works and EVERYONE Agrees, , 10:3, 224-237, DOI: 10.1080/15228930903550574

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15228930903550574

Published online: 19 May 2010.

Submit your article to this journal Article views: 5313

View related articles
Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wfpp21

Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 10:224–237, 2010 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1522-8932 print/1522-9092 online
DOI: 10.1080/15228930903550574

Criminal Profiling Works and EVERYONE Agrees

Richard N. Kocsis, PhD

Forensic Psychologist in Private Practice

This article considers the empirical evidence currently available, which examines the validity of criminal profiling. The manuscript also serves to highlight a third key flaw in Snook et al. (2007) which, in the writer’s view, further renders its conclusions prob- lematic. The phenomena referred to as the nomenclature illusion is discussed to explain its role in hindering the cogent development of scientific knowledge in the area of criminal profiling. The ram- ifications of these findings for competing theoretical approaches to criminal profiling are also explored. Final comments consider the optimal approach for the development of operationally relevant techniques for profiling violent crimes in the future.

KEYWORDS criminal profiling, investigative psychology, meta- analysis, predictive validity, psychological profiling

The manuscript by Snook, Eastwood, Gendreau, Goggin, and Cullen (2007) offers an evaluation of the validity of criminal profiling via meta-analyses of various original data-driven studies. The writer identified three1 key issues that, in his view, rendered claims of Snook et al. (2007) flawed. In the writer’s subsequent manuscript concerning the validity of criminal profiling (see Kocsis, Middledorp & Karpin, 2008), the statistics reported on in Snook et al. were reconfigured, with discussion devoted to two of its key flaws. The first key flaw concerned a contradiction between previously opined criticisms and the analysis of Snook et al. (2007). Specifically, Snook et al. suggested

1

Australia

Since producing this manuscript, the author has identified further issues related to statistical principles in employing meta-analysis that appear to have also been overlooked by Snook et al. (2007). Address correspondence to Dr. Richard N. Kocsis, P.O. Box 662, Dee Why, NSW 2099

224

Criminal Profiling Works 225

that many of the original studies evaluating profiling were methodologi- cally flawed, ergo invalid. Notwithstanding this, Snook et al. used these same purportedly flawed studies as the basis for their own meta-analyses, the outcomes of which they claimed were robust. Thereafter, Kocsis et al. (2008) sought to highlight the inconsistency in the Snook et al. approach and argued that the use of the original studies necessitated by implication that they were regarded as sufficiently valid to have not been discounted in the meta-analyses conducted by Snook et al. (2007).

The second key flaw concerned an inappropriate combination of data that, in the writer’s view, served to undermine the validity of the Snook et al. (2007) conclusions. Specifically, Snook et al. asserted that samples of police personnel were a representative measure of the capabilities of expert profilers and, based on this, samples of both profilers and police personnel were combined in their analysis. However, as Kocsis et al. (2008) indicated, there is no legitimate reason to equate police personnel with the abilities of profilers. Consequently, the combination of these samples is inherently problematic for the claims advanced by Snook et al. (2007).

After the publication of Kocsis et al. (2008), a rebuttal by Snook et al. (2010) was produced, and this manuscript is a rejoinder. When Kocsis et al. (2008) was prepared there were a number of issues, which the writer wished to discuss, which were foregone in lieu of the need to produce a concise manuscript. In the wake of Snook, Eastwood, Gendreau, and Bennell (2010) however, the relevance of these issues seem especially pertinent and will be canvassed herein in the context of addressing the contentions of Snook et al. (2010).

OBSTACLES IN RESPONDING TO SNOOK ET AL. (2010)

Before proceeding further, two issues need to be identified that, in the writer’s view, impact upon the ability to address some of the matters raised in Snook et al. (2010). The first are contradictions and/or inconsistencies concerning the assertions posited by Snook et al. The second involves disparities between the articulated criticisms of Snook et al. and what the studies of Kocsis et al. posit. That is, the writer is in the unenviable position of having to respond to criticisms that do not appear to be reflective of what appears in the subject research but instead seem to be more premised upon what Snook et al. have synthesized about the writer’s work and/or that of others.

Contradictions

The writer in the limited space provided by this rejoinder cannot detail every perceived contradiction. Consequently, only a small number are referred to

226 R. N. Kocsis

herein to illustrate the flavor and occurrence of such contradictions. One notable example is the following statement: “The issue here is not to rehash criticisms with Kocsis’ research that have been debated elsewhere” (Snook et al., 2010, p. 221).

Despite making this assertion, Snook et al., it appears, do just that, with their criticisms concerning the skill basis of participants and the col- lected samples.2 Indeed, Snook et al. (2010) devote considerable space to questioning the parameters of the collected samples while simultaneously overlooking, it seems, the impact this has upon the earlier Snook et al. (2007) article, the findings of which they maintain are sound. That is, in advancing their criticisms, it seems that Snook et al. (2010) have overlooked that the data set in Kocsis et al. (2008), and Snook et al. (2007) are one and the same. This approach results in the situation whereby the identical data set is sufficiently robust for Snook et al. to conclude “The evidence generated from this research confirms. . . . that profilers do not decisively outperform other groups . . .” (Snook et al., 2007, p. 448) and yet is simulta- neously defective for Kocsis et al. (2008). Logically speaking, if the data set is insufficient for Kocsis et al. (2008) to draw any robust conclusions, then surely it is similarly inherently defective for the purposes of Snook et al. (2007). This same conclusion expressed in Snook et al. (2007) also seems to be unequivocal in its pronouncement, yet Snook et al. (2010) appears to somewhat inconsistently adopt a more equivocal position: “. . . Snook et al. [2007] were clear that the results of their meta-analyses should be treated as tentative . . .” (p. 216). The writer is unable to discern the “tentative” aspect in the aforementioned pronouncement by Snook et al. (2007).

Disparities

It is not the intention of the writer to chronicle each perceived disparity but to instead highlight examples so readers can perhaps gain an appreciation of the issue.3 Snook et al. (2010) for example, state, “We maintain that there is a rush to judgement by KMK regarding the positive forecasting abilities of profilers” (p. 218). The basis for reaching this conclusion is not clear, as the Kocsis et al. (2008) manuscript to which they refer as “KMK” unambiguously states “The present conclusions can be viewed as inchoate evidence of a

2

of the criticisms presented by Snook et al. (2010) concerning the skill basis of participants and sample

sizes. 3

Readers should refer to the writer’s previous manuscript Kocsis (2006b, p. 466–470) for discussion

Readers can also refer to Kocsis (2006b, pp. 460–462 and pp. 465–466) for other examples of disparities previously identified.

Criminal Profiling Works 227

growing technique . . .” (Kocsis et al. 2008, p. 258).4 The writer fails to see how Snook et al. can interpret “inchoate evidence” as being “a rush to judgment.”

Another conclusion that appears to have been drawn in Snook et al. (2010) is that the writer does not appreciate the importance of holistically for- mulated research and knowledge accumulation. The writer however, would have hoped that his publication record demonstrated a clear commitment to producing research of this nature. Kocsis et al. (2008) in particular rep- resents a holistic evaluation of the validity of criminal profiling which takes into account Snook et al. (2007) and, in the writer’s view, debunks its find- ings. Snook et al. (2010) may have misinterpreted that the issues canvassed in Kocsis et al. (2008) primarily relate to misguided applications of meta- analysis (Ioannidis & Lau, 1999; Esteban, Hernadez, & Kattan, 2008) and other methodological weaknesses.

THE FIRST KEY FLAW: THE CONTRADICTION OF GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT

The first key flaw in Snook et al. (2007) does not, in the writer’s view, lie in the conclusions per se but rather in drawing conclusions based on original studies subject to their meta-analyses, which they maintain were inherently compromised. The dilemma for Snook et al. (2007) is reconciling their conclusions as valid in the face of relying upon original studies that they considered flawed. In an effort to address this Snook et al. (2010) suggest that their use of the studies was to “include all available research (regardless of quality) that has examined the accuracy of criminal profilers in mock pro- filing exercises” (p. 216). Notwithstanding that the notion of “quality” in the absence of articulated criteria is nebulous, such inclusion nonetheless over- looks their assessment of the integrity of the original studies that produced the data and fails to address what Kocsis et al. (2008) highlights: this being the contradiction of using the original studies viewed as methodologically defective to support conclusions that Snook et al. maintain are sound.5

Their arguments, in the writer’s view, when examined under a less- contorted prism, appear to be little more than an unsound compromise and an attempt to retrospectively explain the inherent contradiction. When the

4

research I have undertaken ever been represented as an authoritative treatise on the topic of criminal

profiling. Rather my findings are clearly reported as tentative observations concerning a practice for

which scientific inquiry is long overdue. Further replication and development in the future is clearly

emphasized” (Kocsis, 2006b, p. 470).

5

Furthermore, in a previous article the writer has also stated: “. . . importantly, at no point has the

One apparent ambiguity surrounding this issue is the suggested notion by Snook et al. of “quality” and the writer’s concomitant delineation of methodological standards in published studies. Unfortunately, this concept of quality does not, in the writer’s view, appear clear in their prior arguments. Instead, arguably the criticisms by Snook et al. concerning the writer’s studies seem to be expressed in more categorical terms as either acceptable or unacceptable.

228 R. N. Kocsis

layers of sophistry are laid bare, the insurmountable obstacle confronting Snook et al. is, in the writer’s view, reconciling their assertions in the first instance with their actions thereafter, in the face of the more commonly expressed logic of garbage in, garbage out.6

THE SECOND KEY FLAW: WHO ARE NOT CRIMINAL PROFILERS?

The quintessential flaw present in the Snook et al. (2007) article, in the writer’s view, is combining police personnel with profilers as it is the col- lapsing of these distinct sample groups that largely underpin the assertions concerning the lack of proficiency of profilers. As previously argued in Kocsis et al. (2008, p. 251–253), this is an inappropriate combination of data. In all fairness, however, the Snook et al. approach in this regard is not entirely of their own creation but is, in part, attributable to the absence of any uniformly recognized criteria governing who is qualified to operate under the colloquial mantle of profiler(see Kocsis, 2009). Snook et al. are, it appears, in agreement with the writer in noting the lack of consensus of an operational definition for profiler. As a clear demarcation does not exist governing who is and is not a criminal profiler, it seems rather disingenuous, then, to argue that police personnel should be construed in some capacity as reflective of the capabilities of profilers. Nonetheless, in the context of the studies that the writer has been involved in producing, this question can be answered not by debating the ambiguities of who are profilers but rather via a process of elimination in assessing who are not criminal profilers. Common sense dictates that individuals who have not studied criminal profiling, who do not engage in criminal profiling or claim to be criminal profilers, should not be regarded as profilers. Similarly also, police personnel who do not claim to be profilers and have not studied or engaged in criminal profiling should likewise not be regarded as profilers. In this context, therefore, the merging of data pertaining to police personnel with profilers that has been made by Snook et al. (2007) is not, in the writer’s view, appropriate, thus rendering the validity of the conclusions drawn from the assembled data set problematic.

THE THIRD KEY FLAW: EXPERT AND TRAINED PROFILERS

Once again, to be fair to Snook et al. (2007), the third key flaw present is not one entirely of their own making but in part appears to stem from a nuance in Pinizzotto and Finkel’s (1990) original research. It needs to

6

One hypothetical analogy to illustrate the untenable nature of the Snook et al. position may be to formulate conclusions on the nature of criminality drawn from a meta-analysis of studies on phrenology. That is, although we state as researchers that the scientific basis of phrenology is invalid, we will nonetheless utilize a collection of these studies in a meta-analysis, the outcomes of which we then contend are sound.

Criminal Profiling Works 229

be understood that Pinizzotto and Finkel is an amalgam of small exper- iments examining different facets in the construction of criminal profiles. Thus, one experiment examined the content of written profiles, another involved a recognition task, and yet another examined the types of case materials differing participants attenuated upon. The groups that were used in these experiments are typically described in a cursory manner as being composed of four types of participants: profilers, detectives, psychologists, and students. The one sub-component to Pinizzotto and Finkel that has arguably attracted the most attention, and which many of the writer’s stud- ies are modeled upon thereafter, involves a multiple-choice questionnaire in conjunction with case materials as a method of objectively measuring the accuracy of profile predictions.

Though Pinizzotto and Finkel’s (1990) study is composed of numerous small experiments, there were in fact five, not four, groups of partici- pants. This fifth group, importantly however, did not feature in all of the experiments. That is, Pinizzotto and Finkel’s research involved a sample of detectives, psychologists, and students but also contained not one, but two, distinct groups of profiler type participants. The first group was labeled “Group A, Expert/Teacher” and was composed of

“. . . profiling experts [emphasis added] who train police detectives in profiling at the F.B.I. Academy in Quantico, Virginia. Each of these sub- jects is or was an agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation. They shared a combined total of 42 years of profiling . . . range of 4–17 years experience” (Pinizzotto & Finkel, 1990, p. 218).

In comparison, the second group was labeled “Group B, Profilers” and consisted of

“police detectives from different police agencies across the country who have been specifically trained in personality profiling . . . The course of studies involved 1 year at the Behavioral Science Unit of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Quantico . . . and 14 years of com- bined experience in profiling (range = 1–6)” (Pinizzotto & Finkel, 1990, p. 218).

What is perhaps overlooked is that the expert profilers of the FBI’s Behavioral Science Unit did not participate in the multiple-choice question- naire sub-component of Pinizzotto and Finkel (1990). The trained detectives who had undertaken a 1-year course in the FBI’s profiling method how- ever, did. Consequently, the findings of the multiple-choice experiment in Pinizzotto and Finkel are not reflective of the FBI’s expert profilers but, rather, individuals who have undertaken a 1-year training course in the FBI profiling method and possessed a modest amount of profiling experience

230 R. N. Kocsis

in comparison to the expert/teacher group.7 As has already been discussed, the classification of who are profilers is a contentious issue. In evaluating accuracy, however, the writer has endeavored to test individuals who might be regarded as suitable professionals. Accordingly, sampled profilers have been described as “. . . well-regarded, senior members of the forensic mental health profession” (Kocsis, 2004, p. 348). The years of formal tertiary educa- tion and training, as well as forensic clinical experience of these subjects, in the writer’s view, surpass and are not thus equivalent to the trained police detectives tested in Pinizzotto and Finkel. Consequently, the third key flaw in the Snook et al. (2007) manuscript is, as the writer sees it, another inap- propriate combination of data pertaining to trained profilers in Pinizzotto and Finkel with profiler subjects collected in the studies by the writer. It was partly owing to this issue that the Kocsis et al. (2008) study concluded by observing

. . . simplified comparisons such as profilers versus nonprofilers are not ideal but have been followed here to make the present research directly comparable with that of Snook et al. (2007). In so doing, it can be seen that the contentions advanced by Snook et al. concerning the accuracy of profilers have been demonstrated to be invalid. Nonetheless, a more incisive depiction of the capabilities of profilers in comparison to a range of other individual skill based groups of participants can be found in Kocsis (2003) (Kocsis et al., 2008, p. 259–260).

This final paragraph of Kocsis et al. (2008) clearly indicates that the reconfigured data are not ideal; however, readers are referred to Kocsis (2003) for a clearer assessment.

MISSING THE POINT: BESD STATISTICS AND CONFIDENCE INTERVALS

As previously indicated, the writer’s capacity to respond to Snook et al. (2010) is hampered by the perceived disparities. What appears to be another manifestation of this problem is a variety of statistical issues raised by Snook et al., as these arguments, in the writer’s view, are suggestive of a funda- mental misunderstanding of the flaws of Snook et al. (2007). For example, it appears that Snook et al. have failed to appreciate that the BESD statistics

7

The writer wishes to take this opportunity to clarify that these comments should not in any capacity be construed as criticism of the work undertaken by Pinizzotto and Finkel (1990) and/or the activities of the FBI’s BSU or the courses that organization conducts. The focus of the comments is to highlight the distinction in the profiler participants. The significance of this distinction between the differing groups of profilers is fundamentally manifest in the very creation of such a distinction between the two groups of profilers by Pinizzotto and Finkel (1990).

9

It appears that Snook et al. may be suggesting that they possess a higher standard of objectivity,

Criminal Profiling Works 231

in Kocsis et al. (2008) served as a simple mechanism by which the overall patterns of the meta-analyses in Snook et al. (2007) were displayed. That is, the statistics illustrated how measures of accuracy were influenced by vari- ous combinations of data such as combining police personnel with profilers. The significance of the previous extract from Kocsis et al. (2008) appears to have not been understood, as it indicates that the analysis is not ideal but was adopted to be directly comparable, and thus demonstrate the invalid nature of the assertions in Snook et al. (2007).8 It seems that Snook et al. (2010) have simply missed the point, that the basis to the three key flaws in Snook et al. (2007) do not originate in statistical numbers per se but, rather, the methodology employed to generate those numbers.

Hazards With Self-Appointed Experts