Schools of Thought Related to Criminal Profiling

12 Pages·2007·0.21 MB·English

Chapter 20
Schools of Thought Related
to Criminal Profiling
Richard N. Kocsis
Summary
Thischapteroffersabriefoverviewofthedifferingschoolsofthoughtrelatedtocriminal
profiling.Asdiscussedinthischapter,therecurrentlyappearstobethreedistinctapproachesthat
operateundertherespectivetitlesofCriminalInvestigativeAnalysis,InvestigativePsychology,
and Crime Action Profiling. The central ideological tenets and methodological characteristics
underpinninganddifferentiatingeacharebrieflyoutlined.
INTRODUCTION
In one context, criminal profiling can be thought of as analogous to
the topic of personality theory. Within the disciplines of psychiatry and
psychology, there is common agreement with the existence of a construct
known as “the mind.” Despite this basic consensus, there exist numerous
rivalingideologicalschoolsofthoughtorapproachesconcernedwithexplaining
how the mind functions. Examples include psychoanalytic, behaviorist, and
biological theories. These theories and their incumbent ideological differences
cumulatively serve to form what is now recognized as the topic of “personality
theory.”
Although there is some disagreement surrounding the precise parameters
of the tangible activities encompassed by criminal profiling, the work and
From:CriminalProfiling:InternationalTheory,Research,andPractice
Editedby:R.N.Kocsis©HumanaPressInc.,Totowa,NJ
393
394 R.N. Kocsis
research surrounding it can be understood in a not too dissimilar fashion. That
is,thereiscommonagreementwiththeideathatitispossibletoevaluatecrime
behaviors to derive some impression of the probable offender. Although there
appearstobeagreementinthisfundamentalconcept,therearerivalingschools
of thought (i.e., approaches) to describe how this may be accomplished.
Before proceeding to discuss these approaches, it is important to first
clarify for the purpose of this chapter the criteria concerning what consti-
tutes a discrete defined approach to profiling. In this respect, an approach
can be conceptualized as a collection of scholarly work that is composed of
original empirical studies that possess some distinctive yet cohesive basis for
the profiling of a variety of crimes (1). In articulating these criteria, it is
importanttoclarifythatadefinedapproachtoprofilinginvolvesabodyofwork
comprisingsomeoriginalsubstantive∗basethatisapplicabletoseveralformsof
crime and is representative of more than one (or a few) forms of information.†
At the time of publication, there appears to be three distinct schools of thought
concerning the profiling‡ of crimes that satisfy these criteria and that operate
under the respective titles of Criminal Investigative Analysis (CIA), Inves-
tigative Psychology (IP) and Crime Action Profiling (CAP). This chapter will
∗ One corpus of thought that, within the criteria proposed by this chapter, is not considered
to be an approach to profiling is that known as behavior evidence analysis (BEA) (2).
The rationale for this being that BEA does not appear to be informed by a distinct and
substantive body of original empirical research. Rather, it appears to be largely a fusion
of existing scholarly literature (sourced primarily from the forensic sciences, criminology,
and forensic psychology/psychiatry disciplines) with philosophical paradigms concerning
reasoning processes for how a profile may be composed. A critique concerning the validity
ofBEAcanbefoundinKocsisandPalermo(3)andPalermoandKocsis(4).
† It should be noted that within the topic of criminal profiling, an area of specialization has
evolved specifically related to the assessment of crime locations as a determinant of infor-
mation relating to the offender. This specialization is commonly referred to as geographic
profiling (5). It should be recognized that whilst geographic profiling does possess its own
discrete corpus of scholarly research, this specialization in itself does not represent a cogent
approach to the profiling of violent crimes. Instead, geographic profiling is better conceptu-
alized as one component of information inherent to a criminal profile alongside other forms
ofinformationsuchasage,gender,andreligion.Anyrationalethatposturesthatgeographic
profiling is a discrete approach unto itself implies that a veritable multitude of profiling
specializationsexistasdefinedbytheirdisciplinaryorigins.Forexample,thereasoningbehind
the prediction of an offender’s race could feasibly represent the basis for anthropological
profiling.Alternatively,theevaluationofanoffender’sreligioncouldbethebasisforeccle-
siasticalprofiling.Assuchconceptionsarenotaccepted,geographicprofiling,whilstatopic
ofrobustscientificinquiry,shouldnotbeviewedasanapproachtoprofilinginandofitself.
‡ In making this statement, it must be clarified that there exist many distinguished scholars in
the field of violent crime who have made substantial contributions; however, the scope of
theirworkdoesnot,asyetintheauthor’sview,constituteanapproachtoprofiling.
Schools of Thought Related to Criminal Profiling 395
discuss the methodological tenets and theoretical characteristics that underpin
and differentiate each of these approaches.¶
CLINICAL PERSPECTIVES INTO CRIMINAL PROFILING
Beforediscussingthedefinedapproachestocriminalprofiling,itisworth-
while commenting on the clinically orientated practice of profiling crimes that
has,attimes,beenreferredtoasdiagnosticevaluation(DE)(4).DEsarerepre-
sentativeofsomeoftheoldestformsofprofiling,astheyinvolveexpertsbeing
consulted to employ their professional training and clinical expertise in the
evaluation of a crime by providing a criminal profile. Historical examples of
such DEs include Dr. Thomas Bond in the Whitechapel murders (aka Jack the
Ripper)(6)orDr.JamesBrusselwiththeMadBomberofNewYorkandBoston
Stranglerinvestigations(7).However,morecontemporaneousexamplesinclude
Russian psychiatrist Dr. Alex Buchonosky (8), Professor George Palermo (9),
or Psychologist Paul Britton (10).
Strictlyspeaking,DEsdonotrepresentadefinedapproachtoprofilingbut
arebetterthoughtofasa“circumstance”inwhichcriminalprofilesare,attimes,
constructed. That is, experts (typically psychiatrists or psychologists) use their
professional training such as their understanding of human psychopathologies
combined with their clinical expertise to evaluate or diagnose crime behaviors
andprofilethelikelyoffender.Consequently,althoughsomescholarlyresearch
can be associated with this circumstance of evaluating crimes (11–14), the
individual efforts of these professionals, though conceptually similar, do not
constitute a cohesive approach to profiling. As a whole, DEs are more repre-
sentative of the independent efforts of various mental health practitioners in
attempting to profile crimes.
Notwithstanding this point, it is nonetheless important to contextually
appreciate the existence of DEs particularly with reference to the subse-
quent evolution of profiling. First, the circumstance surrounding DEs is
evidence of the historical origins of criminal profiling and thus serves to
dispel the notion that the concept of criminal profiling is a recent innovation
or that it was the invention of any particular individual or law enforcement
organization.Second,DEsarguablyremainthemostreadilyaccessiblemethod
¶ This chapter does not intend to offer a substantive critique of the relative merits of the
approachesbutinsteadisfocusedonhighlightingthecentralfeaturesandnuancesthatcharac-
terizeanddistinguisheachofthem.Readerswhowouldlikemoreinformationintheformof
acritiqueoftherelativemeritsoftheseapproachescanconsultPalermoandKocsis(4).
396 R.N. Kocsis
bywhichacriminalprofilemaybeobtained,thatis,byconsultinganavailable
mental health professional.
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE ANALYSIS
Whilst not the inventors, the body of profiling research developed by
the American Federal Bureau of Investigation Behavioral Sciences Unit and
referred to as Criminal Investigative Analysis (CIA) nonetheless represents the
firstcoherentideologicalschoolofthoughtand,arguably,approachtocriminal
profiling.ThroughthedevelopmentofCIA,themembersoftheFBIBehavioral
Science Unit (both past and present) can be credited with another notable
distinction. Through the advocacy of their approach to profiling, these FBI
officers have unquestionably popularized and promoted interest in the concept
of profiling within international law enforcement and scientific communities.
This development should not in any capacity be underestimated, as without
their endeavors it is debatable to what extent or speed the development of
criminal profiling would have progressed beyond the context of DEs (4).
At its most basic ideological level, CIA conceptualizes profiling as a
form of forensic investigative technique used within a policing context. The
impetus for the development of CIA appears to stem from perceived dissatis-
faction with the clinical/treatment-oriented perspectives incumbent to profiles
generatedbyDEs(15,16).Instead,amorepragmaticapproachthatwasfocused
on the provision of information that was directly attenuated to the opera-
tionalneedsofpoliceinvestigatorsseemedpreferable(16).Accompanyingthis
paradigm shift was an abandonment of nomenclature that was perceived to
be overtly psychological/psychiatric in connotation. Thus, as the information
conceived as being within profiles would not be overtly concerned with issues
ofdiagnosisortreatmentterminologysuchas“crimesceneanalysis,”“staging,”
and “signature” emerged and were favored over terms such as “psychological”
or “personality” profiling (15,17).
CIA was originally developed to augment the investigation of crimes that
were not readily resolvable through more conventional investigative avenues
(18–21). These were typically crimes of an aberrant violent nature (serial
murders, serial rapes, etc.), where common criminological causality factors
were not evident. Over the course of time, the scope of CIA’s application
appears to have expanded in some contexts, but the bulk of extant literature
surrounding it nonetheless remains oriented toward being a technique aimed
at assisting in the investigation of intractable crimes most often of an atypical
violent nature.
The methodological basis underpinning the CIA approach to profiling
appears to be largely founded on the empirically based generation of
Schools of Thought Related to Criminal Profiling 397
crime/offender typologies. Possibly, the earliest and most renowned amongst
theseistheorganized/disorganizeddichotomydevelopedfromastudyofsexual
murderers (22,23). This typology, arguably, represents the cornerstone piece
of research to much of the literature surrounding CIA. The premise of the
dichotomy is the differentiation of crime behavior by its inherent level of
sophistication. Accordingly, the “organized” typology is said to be reflective
of methodical, planned behaviors that are believed to concord with offender
characteristics reflective of an individual with a comparatively organized
lifestyle. The opposite to this is the “disorganized” typology that is reflective
of behaviors that are spontaneous, unplanned in nature, and that are said to be
similarly demonstrative of the offender’s personal characteristics such as being
slovenly in appearance. Subsequent to the development of this dichotomy,
Hazelwood and Burgess (24) built on the classifications espoused by Groth
et al. (25,26) to develop a typology related to rapists whilst other researchers
under the CIA banner expanded into the area of arson (27). The culmination
of these endeavors in developing various crime/offender typologies as well as
some conceptual discourse concerning the bona fides of evident crime scene
behaviors(28)appearstobethepublicationoftheCrimeClassificationManual
(29): a veritable almanac of crime/offender templates.
With the development of these templates, the CIA method to profiling
is achieved by comparing similarities between aspects of the crime under
investigation with the relevant typology. Although some step-models have
been articulated that in broad procedural terms describe how profiles are
constructed(30,31)usingtheCIAapproach,apreciseexplanationofhowcrime
behaviorsaresystematicallyinterpretedfromaparticularoffensewithreference
to the developed typologies does not currently appear available. Consequently,
although descriptions of the process of collecting and evaluating case material
are available, clear explanation as to how the multitude of potential variables
contained within any of the typologies are interpreted in a systematic fashion
is yet to be explained. In this respect, the construction of criminal profiles via
the CIA approach appears to be a largely idiosyncratic process dependent on
the interpretations made by the individual practitioner in matching behaviors
evident in a crime with their potential relevance to behaviors and offender
characteristics from the developed typology (4).
INVESTIGATIVE PSYCHOLOGY
Thesecondideologicalschoolofthoughtinformingtheprofilingofcrimes
isthatofInvestigativePsychology(IP).ThefounderofthisapproachisBritish
Psychologist Professor David Canter (32). As the term implies, IP involves
398 R.N. Kocsis
many significant ideological nuances. Foremost among these is its conceptu-
alization of profiling as part of an emerging scholarly discipline (33). That
is, IP appears to be conceived as a discrete discipline of scientific endeavor
concerned with the application of the discipline of psychology to the study
of crimes and their investigation. Unlike CIA, which views profiling more in
terms of a practiced technique, IP appears to adopt a much broader view in
embracingabroaddisciplinary-basedunderstandingofcriminalbehavior.Asa
consequence,theevaluationofcrimebehaviorsandtheassociatedpredictionof
offender characteristics from those behaviors (aka criminal profiling) represent
only one type of activity within the scholarly boundary of knowledge collec-
tively argued to fall under the banner of IP. As a consequence, the ideology of
IPappearstoadoptamuchbroaderconceptualizationsurroundingthescopeof
its application and thus extends beyond aberrant violent crimes and into more
conventional forms of crime (34–39). This is another notable characteristic
of IP distinct from other approaches that are mostly orientated toward more
atypical intractable violent crimes.
The methodology underpinning the IP approach to profiling is predom-
inantly(cid:3) characterized by a stylized procedure for the ideographic analysis
of crime behaviors and offender characteristics using the statistical tool of
multidimensional scaling (MDS).§ In what appears to be the first publication
characteristic of the IP approach, Canter and Heritage (40) posit that other
endeavors are flawed and argue that the effective profiling of crimes requires
the differentiation of crime behaviors as distinct from the inference of motiva-
tions. The entanglement of these constructs is argued to be present in much
of the previous literature such as that of CIA (40). Thus, over the years,
researchers operating under the IP banner have produced a variety of studies
focusedonespousingthematicpatternsinoffensebehaviorsofvariousformsof
crime (35,40,41).
What is perhaps most important to appreciate in differentiating the
ideologicalcharacteristicsofIPisnotonlytheexactmethodologicalprocedure
concerning how the MDS statistic is used but the manner in which the results
(cid:3) This discussion pertains to the overall work associated with the IP movement in the context
ofprofilingbiographicalfeaturesofanoffender.
§ Forthosereadersunfamiliarwithstatisticalprocedures,MDSisaformofstatisticalanalysis
whereby relationships between variables can be assessed and depicted through a diagram
(commonlyreferredtoasamap),utilizingdot-pointicons.Thus,thecloseranytwovariables
are depicted to each other in geometric space on an MDS map, the stronger the relationship
betweenthevariables,andconversely,thefurtherapartthevariablesmayappear,theweaker
the relationship between the variables. Further explanation of MDS analytic procedures can
befoundintheworkofKocsis(1)orCoxon(42).
Schools of Thought Related to Criminal Profiling 399
oftheanalysesareputtouse.InthecontextofIP,theMDSstatisticistypically
usedtoundertaketwoseparatesetsofanalyses(i.e.,oneofcrimebehaviorsand
the other, offender characteristics). The results of these analyses form the basis
for developing an understanding or theorems concerning patterns or aspects
inherent to such crime behaviors as well as discernable groups of descriptive
characteristicsfortheoffendersofthosecrimes.AnexampleoftheIPmethod-
ology and its characteristic use of MDS is an analysis of domestic homicides
to generate a theorem that argues that the perpetration of such crimes can be
differentiated on the basis of either serving an “instrumental” or “expressive”
purpose (35). Alongside such conceptions will typically be another set of
analyses concerned with patterns in offender characteristics that may relate to
eitherofthesebehavioralthemes.Consequently,constructingacriminalprofile
(in the traditional context∗∗) when tackled from the IP perspective involves an
examination of the crime in question with reference to a previously developed
theorem concerning the relevant form of crime behavior to in turn espouse
characteristics about any given offender.
CRIME ACTION PROFILING
The third school of thought concerning criminal profiling is the work of
the author referred to as Crime Action Profiling (CAP) (1). At its most funda-
mental level, CAP takes the view that profiling is, akin to CIA, a technique
that an individual performs but within the disciplinary boundaries of forensic
psychology/psychiatry.†† Thisconceptionisimportanttoappreciateasitdiffers
from that of CIA, which also adopts the view that profiling is a technique but
withinapolicingdisciplinarycontext,andisalsodifferentfromthatofIP,which
suggeststhatprofilingisrepresentativeofadistinctpsychologicalsubdiscipline.
Asaconsequenceofthisperspective,theapproachofCAPassumesknowledgeof
theexistingliteraturerelatingtohumanbehaviorandpsychopathologies(1).Also
integraltotheCAPapproachisitspragmaticorientation.Thatis,CAPfocuseson
specificformsofcrimethat,withintheoperationalenvironmentofpoliceinves-
tigations,mayoftentangiblyuseand/orbenefitfromtheuseofacriminalprofile.
This perspective is somewhat analogous to CIA, but quite different from IP, as
∗∗ Asopposedtosomeoftheotheractivities,IPpractitionersappeartohaveexpandedinto(43).
†† Itmustbeclarifiedthatthisconceptualizationofcriminalprofilingasatechniquewithinthedisci-
plinaryboundariesofforensicpsychiatry/psychologyrelatestothebodyofscientificknowledge
associatedwiththesedisciplines.Thisisnottomeanthatthepracticeofconstructingcriminal
profilesshouldberestrictedtoindividualsprofessionallyqualifiedfromthesedisciplinesbut
thatthebodyofscientificknowledgethatcomprisesprofilingisbetterviewedasoriginating
fromthetopicdomainsofforensicpsychologyandpsychiatry(1).
400 R.N. Kocsis
itseestheendeavorsofCAPadoptingacomparativelynarrow‡‡ focusoncrime
modalities that are of an aberrant and often intractable nature, that is, atypical
crimesthatseemtochallengetypicalinvestigativeresponses(44).
How CAP conceives of profiling as a technique within the existing disci-
plinaryboundariesofforensicpsychology/psychiatryisalsoimportantinappre-
ciating the two separate tiers of research produced under the CAP banner.
In addition to the study of mental disease, the disciplines of psychology and
psychiatry invest significant effort in developing skills of its practitioners in
performing tasks within these professions such as interviewing, diagnosis, and
treatment (45–48). In a similar context, work and research under the banner
of CAP has diversified into not only developing models for the profiling of
crimes but also into studying the efficacy and logistical factors surrounding
the processes related to the construction of criminal profiles. This represents
a significant deviation as other approaches to profiling have, thus far, been
predominantly oriented toward developing techniques for profiling.
Finally, the conception of profiling as a technique within the disciplinary
boundariesofpsychiatry/psychologyisalsothebasisforthetitleCAP.Thatis,
the term is used to help differentiate it from other tasks that psychiatrists and
psychologistsmayperform,suchasthedevelopmentofpersonalityprofilesvia
the use of psychometric tests (49,50). In this context, the title CAP is intended
to reflect the inherent processes involved in the consideration of crime actions
and the prediction of characteristics of the likely perpetrator (i.e., profiling) of
those crime actions.
ThemethodologicalbasisunderlyingtheCAPapproach¶¶ toprofilingata
cursorylevelmayappearsimilartoIPinthatitanalysescrimebehaviorsutilizing
a form of MDS statistic. Beyond the use of this statistical tool, however, the
methodologies and approaches differ markedly. As previously mentioned, the
characteristic style of the IP approach is to often conduct many separate MDS
analyses on data pertaining to crime behaviors and offender characteristics and
fromtheseanalysesespousetheorems.CAPdoesnotoperatetoadoptsuchconcep-
tions.Instead,itsanalysesareorientatedtowardusingMDSincombinationwith
other statistical and mathematical tools to develop conceptual models that can
‡‡ Feasibly, CAP models could hypothetically be developed for any form of crime. However,
whether such models would have any pragmatic, as opposed to purely academic, value is
debatable.OwingtotheutilitarianorientationofCAPresearchandthelogisticalencumbrance
indevelopingCAPmodels,researchanddevelopmenteffortsarefocusedonatypicalcrimes
thatare,arguably,mostlikelytobenefitfromtheuseofcriminalprofiles.
¶¶ Pertaining to procedures for the analysis of crime actions as opposed to the practice of
constructingprofiles—theotherresearchstrand.
Schools of Thought Related to Criminal Profiling 401
operateasaguidingmechanismforthegenerationofpredictionsthatservetoform
the basis of information contained in a criminal profile.§§ In this context, large
studieswereconductedbytheauthorandhiscolleaguesinvolvingvariousforms
of crimes, which, as previously mentioned, are argued to be suited to profiling.
These studies generated an MDS map/diagram of commonly interrelated crime
behaviors.Ontopoftheseinitialanalysesofcrimebehaviorsarestatisticalcorre-
lations of numerous offender characteristics that are directly related to those
crime behaviors. These statistical relationships between crime scene behaviors
andoffendercharacteristicsaredepictedontheMDSmapthroughtheuseoflarge
arrowsthataredrawnovertheMDSdiagram.Theorientationsofthesearrowsare
determinedbygeometricalgorithms.Thecombinationoftheseanalysescombined
withthesuperimposedarrowsontheMDSdiagramrepresentsaCAP“model.”
Consequently,eachofthestudiesconductedinrespectofcrimesofserial/sexual
murder,serialrape,andserialarsonhasproducedtheirowndistinctCAPmodel
that can be used for the purpose of profiling future offenses exhibiting each of
thesecrimemodalities.Theoperationalprocessofconstructingacriminalprofile
throughtheCAPapproachisthroughtheuseofoneofthesemodels.Anindividual
assesses the behaviors evident in the crime in question and then refers to the
relevantCAPmodeltomatchcrimebehaviorswiththosedelineatedinthemodel
andthusidentifiesoffendercharacteristicsassociatedwiththosebehaviorsfrom
thedirectionofthevariousarrows.TheprocessofusingoneoftheCAPmodels,in
ametaphoricalcontext,isnottoodissimilarinconcepttohowreadingsaretaken
fromacompass.ThecompendiumofworkandresearchencompassedbytheCAP
approachcanbefoundinKocsis(1).
CONCLUSIONS
Although criminal profiling as a scientific endeavor has experienced a
somewhat tardy start, scientific progress in the area appears to be gaining
momentum. This chapter has attempted to sketch out a general history
surrounding the development to date of different approaches to criminal
profiling. Analogous to developments in the field of personality theory,
something of an evolutionary path can be discerned between the different
approachesaseachseekstobuildandimproveonitsideologicalandconceptual
foundations. Analogous also to the various rivaling personality theories, each
approachtoprofilingdiscussedpossessesitsinherentstrengthsandweaknesses.
§§ Thus,thekeydifferenceisthatIPusesMDSasamethodofstatisticalanalysistoelucidatesome
conceptionaboutcrimebehavior.Incontrast,CAPutilizestheMDSstatisticasanintegralpart
ofitsmodelsforprofiling.
402 R.N. Kocsis
With further refinements and innovations occurring over time, it is hoped that
greater possibilities for the profiling of crimes will emerge in the future.
REFERENCES
1. Kocsis, R.N. (2006). Criminal Profiling: Principles and Practice. Totowa, NJ:
Humana Press.
2. Turvey, B. (2000). Criminal Profiling: An Introduction to Behavioral Evidence
Analysis. London: Academic Press.
3. Kocsis,R.N.&Palermo,G.B.(2005).Tenmajorproblemswithcriminalprofiling.
Am J Forensic Psychiatry, 26(2), 1–26.
4. Palermo, G.B. & Kocsis, R.N. (2005). Offender Profiling: An Introduction to the
SociopsychologicalAnalysisofViolentCrime.Springfield,IL:CharlesC.Thomas.
5. Rossmo, D.K. (2000). Geographic Profiling. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
6. Rumbelow, D. (1988). The Complete Jack the Ripper. London: Penguin.
7. Brussel,J.(1968).CasebookofaCriminalPsychiatrist.NewYork:BernardGeis.
8. Conradi, P. (1992). Red Ripper. New York: Dell.
9. Palermo, G.B. (2004). The Faces of Violence (2nd ed.). Springfield, IL: Charles
C. Thomas.
10. Britton, P. (1997). The Jigsaw Man. London: Bantam Press.
11. Brown, J.S. (1991). The psychopathology of serial sexual homicide: a review of
the possibilities. Am J Forensic Psychiatry, 12, 13–21.
12. Drukteinis, A.M. (1992). Serial murder: the heart of darkness. Psychiatr Ann, 22,
532–538.
13. Fahy,T.A.,Wessely,S.&David,A.(1988).Werewolves,vampiresandcannibals.
Med Sci Law, 28, 145–149.
14. Rappaport, R.G. (1988). The serial and mass murderer: patterns, differentiation,
pathology. Am J Forensic Psychiatry, 9, 39–48.
15. Douglas, J.E. & Oleshaker, M. (1995). Mindhunter. New York: Scribner.
16. Ressler, R.K. & Shachtman, T. (1992). Whoever Fights Monsters. London:
Simon & Schuster.
17. Ressler,R.K.(1995).CriminalInvestigativeAnalysisandCrimeSceneAssessment
Seminar. Paper Presented at the Training Seminar of the Bates Crime Society,
Sydney, Australia.
18. Ault, R.L. & Reese, J.T. (1980). A psychological assessment of crime profiling.
FBI Law Enf Bull, 49(3), 22–25.
19. Pinizzotto, A.J. (1984). Forensic psychology: criminal personality profiling. J
Police Sci and Admin, 12(1), 32–40.
20. Ressler,R.K.(1985).Violentcrimes.FBILawEnforcementBulletin,54(8),1–31.
21. Vorpagel,R.E.(1982).Paintingpsychologicalprofiles:charlatanism,coincidence,
charisma or new science. Police Chief, 3(8), 156–159.
22. Hazelwood,R.R.&Douglas,J.E.(1980).Thelustmurderer.FBILawEnforcement
Bulletin, 49(4), 18–22.