Criminal Profiling of Serial Killers

Does Criminal Profiling Work or is it Unjustified The Case of Tim Masters
Introduction
Criminal profiling allows law enforcement to develop their understanding of particular types of crime, criminals, criminal behaviors, and crime-ridden areas. The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program is one data set tool used in criminal profiling (FBI, 2019). However, criminal profiling is not an exact science but rather more of an art and there is a high degree of subjectivity that goes into creating a criminal profile. Thus, when it comes to the criminal profiling of serial killers, there are many factors that must be considered—biological, sociological, environmental, criminological, and psychological inputs. This paper will describe what is involved in the criminal profiling of serial killers, how the process works, who conducts it, what traits of serial killers profiles tend to focus on, and how effective the process is at helping law enforcement agents catch killers. It will ultimately show that while criminal profiling of serial killers has enjoyed some success in the past, it is far from being the end-all-be-all facilitator of serial killer investigations. Far more helpful in fact is traditional police and detective work, such as interviewing witnesses, collecting forensic evidence at the scene of the crime, and getting police into the community to help raise awareness about what is going on.
The Process of Criminal Profiling
The primary task of profiling serial killers falls to the FBI's Behavioral Unit and the National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime (NCAVC) (Van Aken, 2015). Although profiling assists investigators, it is not 100% a reliable source, and is understood more as an investigatory tool than as a prosecutorial tool (Van Aken, 2015). The FBI’s NVAVC has definitions and typographies that can be used to assist law enforcement investigations in the identification of or search for serial killers in cases where serial killing is suspected. The term serial killer stems from the Son of Sam killings in the 1970s when the phrase serial murderer was used to characterize and label the individual behind the string of murders (Miller, 2014). However, since the introduction of the term, the exact parameters of inclusion in this category have been argued. Because of the alternative phrase “mass murderer” and the overlapping nature of the two categories, including time spans and number of victims, there has been no precise definition of serial killer.
The process of criminal profiling of serial killers begins with establishing what type of individual is most likely to engage in this kind of act. Based upon the data collected on crime reports from the various crime databases like the UCR, the typical demographic for serial killers is white, middle-aged and male (Miller, 2014). Another data source used by profilers is the theoretical framework used by various researchers in the social-psychology field. Biology, society, and psychology are often studied to help researchers better understand what goes into making a serial killer, and case studies like those of Ted Bundy help researchers identify patterns and behaviors that are common among serial killers (Samuel & Widiger, 2007). To develop a full-spectrum analysis, profilers must know the history of serial killings, which indeed goes back as far as the 1400s.
History
From Gilles de Rais of the 15th century in France, to Jack the Ripper in 19th century England, the West has no lack of cases to study. Sexual deviance, necrophilia, violent mood swings, isolation, and social dysfunction have generally stood out as cues of abnormal mental behaviors associated with serial killers. It was not until the mid-20th century, however, that criminal profiling of the Mad Bomber in New York City led law enforcement to the arrest of the suspect (Van Aken, 2015). One of the differences that was eventually determined to be a differentiating factor between serial killers and spree killers was that serial killers were assessed to compulsively motivated—unable to stop their obsessions—while spree killers operated out a desire to exact revenge on society (Warf & Waddell, 2002).
Another thing that researchers do agree upon is that serial killers tend to have some form of personality disorder and must kill more than one person at various times; i.e., there should be some amount of time that passes between killings (Van Aken, 2015). Aside from this broad definition, there are typographies of serial killers that have developed over time. These typographies include: the control type, the predator type, the hedonistic type, the visionary type and the mission-focused type (Dogra et al., 2012). The control type is one who is motivated by a compulsion to exert power and control over his victims. Ted Bundy would be an example of a control type. The predator type describes a serial killer who enjoys hunting his victims as though for sport. The hedonistic type derives some pleasure or satisfaction, often sexual, from the act of killing. The visionary type refers to the killer who is motivated by voices in his head. And the mission-focused type is one who believes he is on a mission of good by ridding the world of evil people, such as prostitutes. Jack the Ripper would be an example of the mission-focused type. In many cases, there is overlap among typologies. The FBI further has stated that serial killers tend to fall into one of two categories when it comes to their approach to killing: either they are “organized, methodical, careful, and purposeful—or disorganized, erratic and usually suffering from mental illness” (Van Aken, 2015, p. 132).
Typologies are not enough to completely identify a serial killer, however, and the FBI also looks at relationships between killer and victim (if one exists) to better understand the possible identity of the killer. Environment, time of day, and characteristics of the victim are also helpful clues in criminal profiling. Moreover, the history of the suspect is also something that psychologists look at when constructing a profile. For instance, many serial killers often have disturbed childhoods (as was the case with Dahmer, Bundy, and others); or they have serious mental issues that rarely surface throughout the course of the killer’s individual daily life, thus allowing the killer to blend into everyday settings without arousing much suspicion. And although most profiling of serial killers focuses on white, middle-aged men, there is a growing population of female serial killers that is deserving of attention as well, to the point where by the end of the 20th century, female serial killers accounted for one-fifth of all serial killings (Taylor Lambeth, Green, Bone & Cahillane, 2012).
Steps in Profiling
The first step in the profiling process is to obtain profiling inputs. These consist of obtaining all the pertinent data pertaining to the case. Before the investigator can know that he is dealing with a serial killer, he has to have the crime scene report, photographs of the crime scene, knowledge of where the crime occurred, understanding of the victim and where the victim was in the hours leading up to the attack, and so on. Profiling the serial killer actually starts with a profile of the victim (Bonn, 2019).
Once the details of the crime are gathered, the second step is taken: this involves assessing the characteristics of the crime and is where the investigator attempts to discern a motive and whether this is a one-off incident or part of a pattern of crimes that have occurred already. The investigator asks whether murder was the main motive or whether there was something else at play—such as theft, rape, assault, etc. The type of victim is assessed as being low-risk or high-risk (professional individual vs. homeless person or sex worker). Where the killing took place and where the body was found are also important clues that factor into this step. If the body is located where the killing took place it might indicate a one-off event; if the body was taken elsewhere, it might indicate pre-planning.
The third step involves assessing the type of offender that one is dealing with. The investigator asks whether the crime scene report reveals the actions of an offender who is organized, disorganized or some mixture of both. One of the clues that profilers use in this step is how the body is found—whether it appears to have been positioned by the killer or whether it is in the position that it naturally fell into when the murder took place. Other clues include whether any sexual assault took place before or after the killing. A sexual act committed with the corpse is typically an indication of mental disturbance and a possible indicator of a serial killer. Mutilated corpses or evidence of cannibalism are other acts that signal to the profiler of the nature of the killer. The investigator tries to discern the extent to which the killer was organized throughout the process of the murder, as this helps the profiler to develop a sense of the modus operandi and use it in the investigation (Bonn, 2019)
The fourth step involves the profile being created by the FBI and distributed to local investigators. The profile will attempt to predict what type of suspect investigators should be searching for. The profile will suggest a potential personality type, potential physical attributes, possible social traits, and possible possessions that the killer might have on him—such as pornography, souvenirs from the crime scene, etc.
Once local police have the criminal profile they will begin their own local investigation. Police can use the profile to narrow their own search, and if more murders occur they can build the profile based on what is learned in the subsequent crime scenes. Once the suspect is apprehended, the actual characteristics of the suspect will be compared to the profile developed. The degree to which the suspect, once apprehended, matches the profile helps criminal profiles to develop their skills and assess their own performance.
Organized vs. Disorganized
Whether a killer is organized or disorganized says a lot about the likely characteristics of the suspect. Organized killers tend to be intelligent, often married or involved in some sort of relationship; they tend to be attractive and have charm (thus the ability to draw a victim close without giving off a sense of alarm); they are usually educated and professionally employed in some capacity. The investigator will look at three other clues to determine the extent to which the killer was organized: where the victim was approached, where the killing took place, and where the body was found. These details will also show how organized the killer was.
Because organized killers tend to be intelligent, they are often capable of hiding or altering their forensic footprints. They understand what investigators look for and they deliberately will try to mislead investigators. To the extent that a crime scene shows this level of organization will reveal to the profiler the extent to which one is dealing with a potential serial killer.
However, not all serial killers are organized. Some are very disorganized. These killers will usually attack out of nowhere and leave evidence all over the crime scene. They are impulsive and do not plan or premeditate the event. These type of killers are generally young and often have some sort of dysfunctional background. They may have had disturbed childhoods or they may be severely impaired by a handicap.
Some killers will leave behind crime scenes that are alternately organized and disorganized. This occurs with serial killers who have multiple personalities. It can also happen when the serial killer changes over the course of time, either becoming more organized or less organized (Bonn, 2019). When this type of organized-disorganized transformation occurs, it indicates to profilers that they should be on the lookout for an individual who is undergoing a mental transformation and thus may be showing signs of alteration in his own daily life.
When Criminal Profiling Works
There are many cases in which criminal profiling of serial killers has been used to help authorities find the suspect and apprehend him. The Mad Bomber in New York City was one of the first cases in which criminal profiling was used to nab a high profile serial killer. The Mad Bomber engaged in his acts for more than a decade and a half, planting more than 30 bombs all over the city over the course of this time frame. Police were unable to find the suspect based upon their own clues, so they turned to the help of a professional psychologist, James Brussel, who was the assistant commissioner of the state’s Mental Hygiene department. Brussel examined crime scene photos and reports and helped the police to create a psychological profile of the perpetrator, using his understanding of psychology. This was one of the first cases in which it became evident to investigators how important it is to examine crime from the perspective of psychological background. The profile helped New York City police find the Mad Bomber, who confessed his crimes once apprehended.
The profile created to capture Ted Bundy worked differently but nonetheless facilitated in the capture of the killer. Criminal profilers examined the pattern of killings to determine that the serial killer tended to focus on areas where young women were easy to find. Thus, investigators kept their focus on college campuses, dance clubs, and vacation resorts. They were able to create a profile that was used to inform the public about what type of individual to be on the lookout for. By raising awareness among the public about the type of individual the police were seeking, investigators were able to act on tips that led them to the arrest of Ted Bundy.
Bundy’s modus operandi allowed profilers to understand how he approached women and what type of place he tended to target. However, investigators also relied a great deal on eye witness testimony, which helped them to know what type of car the suspect was driving, what he looked like in appearance, and how he duped women into coming near (often pretending to be injured so as to rouse their sympathies). The profile created did not come about as a result of guesswork but rather as a result of police work—the interviewing of witnesses, the canvassing of the scene of the crime from the point of contact with the victim to the place where the body was found. Still, Bundy committed killings for years before finally being arrested, so the extent to which creating the profile actually helped investigators may be debated (Sarteschi, 2016).
An Argument for Why Criminal Profiling Does Not Work
However, not every scholar or professional psychologist is convinced that criminal profiling of serial killers is an effective or even helpful way to catch these killers. Karson (2017), for example, not only argues that criminal profiling of serial killers does not work but also argues that it cannot work. In fact, Karson (2017) argues that criminal profiling can lead to wrongful prosecution, as was the case with Tim Masters, who fit the profile of a serial killer, was arrested, charged, prosecuted, and found guilty—and yet was completely innocent. Criminal profiling can give prosecutors and juries a false sense of accuracy and reliability that alters their judgment and causes them to perceive guilt based on a pre-conceived notion of who the guilty party is. Instead of looking at the evidence, it takes a speculative prediction of who the guilty person might be and then seeks to match that prediction with the suspect who is charged. The evidence may be lacking as it was in the case of Tim Masters (who was ultimately freed from prison), but it does not mean that the right person is always found. In short criminal profiling can mislead just as often as it may help police to go in the right direction. At the end of the day, it is an art—not a science.
Karson (2017) argues that profiling of serial killers is a bad idea from a different perspective as well. He notes, first off, that on average it is argued that at any one time in America there are roughly 50 serial killers on the loose. That means that in a state about the size of Colorado there would be one serial killer for the whole state. That makes everyone else a potential suspect. The profile created tends to be so broad, argues Karson (2017), that it essentially has no utility whatsoever. Unless there are other clues from the crime scene that point to the identity of the suspect, the profile is going to focus the attention of the investigators on a certain type, even though there could very well be a flaw in the profile, meaning that there is a huge blind spot on the actual identity of the killer.
Karson (2017) suggests that DNA evidence is a much better approach to capturing serial killers, but of course DNA evidence is not fool-proof either. In fact, there is no fool-proof way to conduct an investigation—only best practices. What is today known as the CSI Effect, so-called because of the popular misconception that the larger public has regarding the power of crime scene investigations, has had a negative impact on criminal justice proceedings. For instance, Alldredge (2015) points out that the CSI Effect unfortunately has led to jurors in courtroom trials having unrealistic expectations about the strength of forensic evidence.
The fact of the matter is that every type of evidence or profile can be abused and used to manipulate the facts of a case. Prosecutors, judges, jurors, investigators, law enforcement officers—all of them are prone to mistakes or even to indulging malicious intent. This does not mean, however, that criminal profiling is unhelpful. The CSI Effect may be a real phenomenon but it is up to attorneys in a trial to make sure that juries understand the strength of evidence.
The Merits of Criminal Profiling of Serial Killers
The merits of criminal profiling of serial killers can be seen over time—not necessarily all at once. For instance, in the early stages of profiling it is harder to understand the typography of the suspect. As time goes on, it becomes more apparent what sort of individual investigators are dealing with. It helps immensely for profilers to have a background in psychology and behavioral health as these types of backgrounds provide great insight into how individuals with mental disorders or with personality disorders behave (Dogra et al., 2012). The more information and perspective that profilers can bring to the practice, the more useful a criminal profile of a serial killer can be. The profile created by Brussel, for instance, immediately helped lead police to the suspect. The profile created for Bundy enjoyed less immediate success but nonetheless did help police catch the killer in the end.
Criminal profiling is essentially the culmination of police and investigatory work. It is the culmination of the information collected from crime reports and indexed in databases like the UCR. It is the expression of knowledge that professionals in the criminal justice field have in understanding motives for crime, the type of individuals who engage in specific types of crime, how victims relate to the offenders, and so on. There is a pattern to crime that can be seen throughout the decades and decades of data and this is what enables criminal profiling to have utilty in today’s world.
Conclusion
Though criminal profiling can be said to be more an art than a science, it nonetheless is a helpful tool that investigators and law enforcement officers can rely upon to help apprehend suspected serial killers. The tool has been used in the past to catch killers like Mad Bomber—and in spite of what critics of profiling suggest the fact is that these profiles can assist police in narrowing a search, especially if the killings are confined to a certain region or community. However, this does not mean criminal profiling cannot be used erroneously to prosecute and convict innocent persons. The case of Tim Masters shows that it can. But in the end, criminal profiling is a helpful tool that must be used cautiously and ethically—that is when it provides the best service for law enforcement.
References
Alldredge, J. (2015). The" CSI Effect" and Its Potential Impact on Juror Decisions. Themis: Research Journal of Justice Studies and Forensic Science, 3(1), 6.
Bonn, S. (2019). How the FBI Profiles Serial Offenders. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/wicked-deeds/201905/how-the-fbi-profiles-serial-offenders
Dogra, T.D. et al. (2012). A psychological profile of a serial killer: A case report. Omega: Journal of Death & Dying 65(4), 299-316.
FBI. (2019). Summary of the Uniform Crime Reporting Program. Retrieved from https://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2009/aboutucr.html
Karson, M. (2017). Why Profiling Serial Killers Can’t Work. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/feeling-our-way/201711/why-profiling-serial-killers-can-t-work
Miller, L. (2014). Serial killers: I. Subtypes, patterns and motives. Aggression and Violent Behavior 19, 1-11.
Samuel, D. B., & Widiger, T. A. (2007). Describing Ted Bundy's personality and working towards DSM-V. Practice, 27, 20-22.
Sarteschi, C. M. (2016). Serial Murder. In Mass and Serial Murder in America (pp. 45-67). Springer, Cham.
Taylor, S., Lambeth, D., Green, G., Bone, R., & Cahillane, M.A. (2012). Cluster analysis examination of serial killer profiling categories: A bottom-up approach. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling 9, 30- 51.
Van Aken, C. (2015). The use of criminal profilers in the prosecution of serial killers. Themis: Research Journal of Justice Studies and Forensic Science, 3(1), 7.
Warf, B. & Waddell, C. (2002). Heinous spaces, perfidious places: The sinister landscapes of serial killers. Social & Cultural Geography 3(3), 323-345.