Thus, the relationship between investigative psychology and forensic psychology is fairly lucid. Investigative psychology largely provides the means of identifying suspects and eventually indicting them. The mechanics of investigative psychology are multi-fold. For instance, in the case of the so-called "D.C. Sniper" in 2002, investigators were able to gain forensic evidence regarding ballistics and fingerprints. The former enabled them to identify the type of weapon that was repeatedly used during the attacks; the latter was used to procure a suspect in this particular case (Federal, 2007).
However, the true value of this sort of methodology becomes manifest in court during subsequent trials. In the previously mentioned sniper case, two suspects were convicted largely due to the evidence gathered against them. It is important to note that this sort of evidence is empirically based and confirms to scientific methodology. Without...
Essentially, without empirically-based scientific evidence, investigators and prosecutors would only be left with circumstantial evidence which, although it certainly has value in some criminal cases, is nowhere near as convincing as that validate by solid scientific fact. The convictions of Muhammad and Malvo attests to the veracity of this sort of evidence, and to investigative psychology.
References
Knox, D., Limbacher, J., & McMahan, K. (1993). "Thomas Dillon, hunter of humans." Akron Beacon Journal.
Retrieved from http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/767482/posts
Federal Bureau of Investigations: Headline Archives: A Byte Out of History: "The Beltway Snipers, Part 1." Retrieved from http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2007/october/snipers_102207
