Forensic Crime Scene Analysis in Developing Offender Profiles - Case Study Example

Developing Offender Profiles 12 March 2007 Forensic Crime Scene Analysis in Developing Offender Profiles Introduction The developmentof offender profiles has proven to be exceedingly useful to the police in the past and it is believed that there is considerable potential in this as yet fledgling field to identify and apprehend criminals. In the words of Kocsis et al (2001, p. 79): “The fundamental role of a psychological profiler is to use information gathered at the scene of a crime and from victims and witnesses in order to construct a biographical sketch that is as specific as possible to the type of person who perpetrated the crime”. Therefore it is discerned that the development of an offender profile is a lengthy and complicated process and calls for the painstaking collection of information. For the profiler the process begins at the scene of the crime – the pieces needed in order to solve the puzzle are found here, and it would be impossible to proceed without a thorough investigation of the crime scene. Forensic evidence, details concerning the mode of attack, the victim chosen and other pertinent details are collected by the profiler and these serve as the foundation on which the offender profile is developed. Thus the importance of forensic crime scene analysis in developing the offender profile cannot be stressed enough. The evidence gathered at the scene of the crime, both physical and behavioural serves as the springboard on which the profiler gains access to the criminal mind. The Need for Offender Profiling Over the years, forensic technology has improved vastly and has had a tremendous impact on police investigations as we know it. Some people go as far as to say that the infamous Jack the Ripper would have been nabbed if Scotland Yard could have had the benefits of the enhanced forensic technology available today. Be that as it may, evidence in the form of a fingerprint left on the crime scene, a shoe print, physical evidence like hair, fibres, semen, blood or other bodily fluids can go a long way in helping the police to identify the perpetrator. Locard’s Exchange Principle was a groundbreaking development in forensic technology. According to Saferstein, it “… states that when an offender comes into contact with a location or another person an exchange of evidence occurs” (cited by Turvey, 2002, p.40). Consequently, the perpetrator leaves a part of himself behind while also taking something with him that is bound to link him to the crime. Physical evidence left behind may be compared against a database of known offenders and more often than not the identity of the perpetrator can be established. Fingerprint technology and DNA profiling can further be used to create an airtight case against the offender. Therefore as Weston (2004, p. 22) puts it, “It is against this background of rapidly increasing technology that the crime scene is now examined”. Many people believe implicitly in forensic technology grounded as it is in pure scientific thought and wonder if there is any need for offender profiling, particularly as the latter calls for behavioural expertise and innovative thought processes that deviate from established scientific methodology. The answer is that forensic technology can do only so much in certain cases. According to Ainsworth (2001, p. 99), “ FBI investigators noted that whilst much forensic evidence can prove a link between a perpetrator and certain crime scene, such evidence is only of real value once a suspect has been identified through other means”. There are cases where sophisticated criminals and repeat offenders who have managed to elude arrest are involved. These offenders are meticulous and cautious about leaving physical evidence behind. In these cases as well as cases which are very difficult and lacking in clues, serial killing and the like, offender profiling can be used to narrow down the list of suspects and to point the investigation in the right direction. The profilers of course rely heavily on forensic evidence to glean behavioural information from the scene of the crime. The need for profiling was established following the case of the railway rapist John Duffy, between the years 1983 – 1986 (cited by Ainsworth, 2001). David Canter stepped in when the police where at a complete loss. By the careful use of behavioural theories and integrating it with forensic data, Canter was able to create a profile of the offender and as it turned out he was surprisingly accurate on many points and was instrumental in the eventual arrest of Duffy. Thus Canter established the basis on which British profiling is done to this day. Crime Scene Analysis As mentioned earlier, a thorough, clinical examination of the crime scene is the starting point of the profiler’s journey into the criminal’s mind. The purpose of the analysis is ultimately to enable the profiler to reconstruct the crime as it occurred. According to Lee et al (2001, p. 7), “The objectives of crime scene investigation are to recognize, to collect, to interpret, and to reconstruct all the relevant physical evidence at the crime scene”. Therefore, crime scene analysis is the cornerstone in developing a viable offender profile. Initially every scrap of physical evidence is gathered, photographed and carefully preserved by dint of observation and forensic technology. Physical evidence needs to be treated with care as it serves a twofold purpose - to corroborate any behavioural evidence gathered from the scene and to link the suspect to the scene of crime. An unnecessarily violent and brutal killing for instance helps one understand the psychological makeup of the criminal and it would be reasonable to assume that the criminal is sadistic and possesses an ugly temper. The characteristics of the victim need to be studied in order to understand the aspects of the crime and the hidden attributes of the criminal. If the victim has survived, valuable insights can be gained regarding the personality of the offender. His general demeanour, manner of speaking, attitude to the victim, degree of violence employed etc. may be ascertained by interviewing the victim. Even otherwise, the type of victim selected can be very revealing. Valuable clues regarding the offender’s nature, motives, habits, needs and personal grievances can be obtained by studying the characteristics of the victim. Thus an analysis of the crime scene, physical evidence, witness reports and the unique characteristics of the victim selected can help the profiler reconstruct the crime as it occurred leaving no margin for error or doubt. Chisum emphasized the importance of crime scene reconstruction to the development of an offender profile by stating: “Criminal profilers have realized the need to reconstruct the crime. To explain the behaviour of the criminal they need to know what was done at the scene. The study of the crime scene holds many answers to the motives of the suspect, but only if the crime is understood” (cited by Bevel & Gardner, 2001, p. 25). By carefully reconstructing the crime, the profiler can put together the numerous nuggets of information in logical fashion. The modus operandi of the criminal will be understood and this is of particular importance in serial killings, where a link can be established between seemingly unrelated crimes. A skeletal profile of the offender begin to emerge and it is up to the profiler to sift through the information accumulated from an analysis of the crime scene and to use it to flesh out the emerging profile, thereby putting investigators on the scent of the criminal and closing the gap between the offender and justice. Developing an Offender Profile with the Assistance of Crime Scene Analysis It must be understood that the profiler is not a magician, and it is not the purpose of the profile to zero in on the likely criminal, rather the profiler seeks to define probable characteristics of the criminal in the hope of narrowing down the list of suspects and in doing so link the suspect to the scene of crime and in the long run to gather enough evidence to convict the criminal. It is the aim of the profiler to use the raw data available from the crime scene analysis to reconstruct the crime and create a profile. Profiling entails providing information about the offender’s personality traits, approximate age and physical appearance, marital status, behaviour patterns and psychological characteristics. The profiler must also try to predict future attacks in order to nab the criminal red – handed. Profiling may be inductive or deductive. According to Turvey (2002, p.26), “An inductive criminal profile is a set of offender characteristics that are reasoned by correlational, experiential, and/or statistical inference, to be shared by offenders who commit the same type of crime”. In other words an inductive profile is created on the basis of experience, anecdotal evidence and informed generalization. It is a study in averages. An example for inductive profiling was seen in the case of Ginger Hayden, who was stabbed 56 times. The profile of her killer stated that he was likely to be between the ages 17 – 24, was known to the victim and had an explosive temper (cited by Turvey, 2002). However this method has come in for a lot of criticism because of its haphazard technique that emphasizes creative thinking as opposed to scientific rationale. It is also regarded as arbitrary, unreliable inaccurate and invalid. In contrast, a deductive criminal profile does not rely on averages; rather according to Turvey (2002), it focuses on generating a profile that results from an integration of physical as well as behavioural evidence obtained from an analysis of the crime scene. Conclusions drawn about the offender have their basis in physical facts that can be verified and is therefore reliable to an extent. Provided the interpretation of the available facts is correct, chances are the investigators are on the right track. An example for deductive method in creating an offender profile is the Torney case that took place in 1999, Northern Ireland (cited by Gudjonsson & Howard, 1998). The case involved a police officer accused of murdering his wife, son and daughter. The defendant stated that it was his 13 – year old son who was responsible for the murders as he had gone “berserk”. Gudjonsson was called in his professional capacity to testify for the crown. On the basis of the physical and behavioural evidence gathered from the crime scene, he found that the murders appeared to have been perpetrated by a cold – blooded killer, proficient in the use of firearms, who went about his business with care and efficiency. It was a planned execution, one that a 13 – year old gone berserk could not have possibly carried out. Following this testimony, the defendant was convicted. The British approach to profiling is closer to the deductive method. A ‘bottom – up’ approach is followed. As the term suggests, profilers start from the very bottom, gather all the raw material, piece it together, attempt to gather an insight into the workings of the perpetrator’s mind and finally create a profile of the offender that is in keeping with the accumulated facts. This approach is best exemplified by the technique employed by David Canter in the railway rapist episode. Offender Profiling – An Evaluation Offender profiling has faced more than its fair share of criticism. It has been suggested that its greatest failing is the lack of professionalism and unscientific approach. But this approach is demanded by the nature of the work done by profilers, every profiler has his own unique style and any attempt to create and follow a prescribed procedure on the basis of scientific fact will merely hinder rather than help the creative process that is called for in this line of work. Still others point to the meagre success ratio profilers have. While the media lauds profilers who appear to have miraculously drawn up a profile that led to the perpetrator’s eventual arrest the fact remains that there are many more cases were profiles have proven to be woefully inaccurate. According to Campbell: “…profiles offer no more information than could be obtained from the local bartender; that they are so vague and ambiguous as to be no more than common sense and the only reason the police take any notice of them is that they are impressed by the qualifications of academia” (cited by Dwyer, 2001, p. 58) There is precious little evidence to show that profiles are useful in the investigative process. However it would be wrong to dismiss the use of offender profiling as there is plenty of potential to be tapped and harnessed in order to fight crime. Besides it would be unwise to ignore the genuinely talented profilers who have the special knack to strike a balance between the scientific process and intuition in order to draw up useful profiles. Provided one is aware of the limitations of profilers, there is no reason to prevent the development of offender profiling. Another serious charge levelled against profilers is that sometimes profiles are manipulated to fit the attributes of the most likely suspect and merely serve to strengthen the case of the prosecution. The case of Rachel Nickell has been put forward as an example of such misuse (cited by Gudjonsson & Howard, 1998). The victim was murdered as she was walking her dog and was reportedly stabbed 46 times. One of the prime suspects in the case, Colin Stagg was found to match the profile put forward by Paul Britton. The suspect repeatedly protested his innocence, but a controversial undercover operation was authorized on the strength of the profile alone to force a confession from him. A female officer known as Lizzie James was asked to forge a relationship with him and gradually elicit a confession. An enormous hue and cry was raised following this operation, which was largely deemed a failure. In this case according to Ormerod and Sturman (2005, p. 184), “… the psychological profile was tendered to support the prosecution case that the offender had certain characteristics and that the accused (Colin Stagg) matched those characteristics”. This kind of bias against the suspect is a pitfall that needs to be avoided in order to avoid prosecution of the innocent. In this regard it must be mentioned that forensic technology is also not exempt from errors arising from bias. In the words of Field and Thomas, in police investigations once a suspect has been identified, “…the objective of the inquiry becomes the one – sided collection (and sometimes ‘manufacture’) of evidence to support the police version of what happened” (cited by McCartney, 2006, p. 31). Taking these factors into consideration, it must be said that neither forensic technology used in crime scene analysis nor offender profiling taken alone are infallible when it comes to crime detection. Therefore the best points in both methods must be incorporated into the process of criminal investigation in order for it to be effective. Conclusion In light of all the facts outlined above, we may conclude that crime scene analysis is invaluable in drawing up offender profiles and both methods taken alone or together have the potential to apprehend criminals and make the investigative process easier. However one must remember the shortcomings of this approach and proceed with caution. Reference List Ainsworth, P.B. (2001). Offender profiling and crime analysis. Cullompton: Willan Publishing. Bevel, T. and Gardner, R. (2001). Bloodstain pattern analysis. 2nd ed. London: CRC Press. Dwyer, D. (2001). Angles on criminal psychology. Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes. Gudjonsson, G.H. and Howard, L.R.C. (1998). Forensic psychology: a guide to practice. London: Routledge. Kocsis, R.N., Irwin, H., Hayes, A.F. and Dunn, R. (2001). Criminal psychological profiling in violent crime investigations: a comparative assessment of accuracy. Criminal Psychology and Forensic Technology: A Collaborative Approach to Effective Profiling, ed. M. Godwin, p. 79 – 104. London: CRC Press. Lee, H.C., Palmbach, T. and Miller, M.T. (2001). Henry lee’s crime scene handbook. London: Elsevier Academic Press. McCartney, C. (2006). Forensic identification and criminal justice: forensic science, justice and risk. Cullompton: Willan Publishing. Ormerod, D. and Sturman, J. (2005). Working with the courts: advice for expert witnesses. The Forensic Psychologist’s Casebook: Psychological Profiling and Criminal Investigation, ed. L. Alison, p.170 – 196. Cullompton: Willan Publishing. Turvey, B. (2002). Criminal profiling: an introduction to behavioural evidence analysis. London: Elsevier Academic Press. Weston, N. (2004). The crime scene. Crime Scene to Court: The Essentials of Forensic Science. 2nd ed, ed. P.C. White, p. 21 – 55. Cambridge: Royal Society of Chemistry. Read More