Posted by AJ on Wednesday, 17 September 1997, at 9:55 p.m.
Robert-- Hi...where have you been? So, knowing how you like the mental stimuli, how about pointing out the negative aspects of inductive profiling? This should be a good one for us!
Good topic
Posted by SheStalker on Wednesday, 17 September 1997, at 10:43 p.m., in response to Let's Talk About...Deductive vs. Inductive Profiling, posted by AJ on Wednesday, 17 September 1997, at 9:55 p.m.
I think your suggestion is excellent, AJ. One of the problems with all the interest in serial killers is the surface fascination with the topic. Hundreds of paperback 'true crime' books are on the market. None of these books addresses any issue of real value. There are simply nonfactual soap opera pulp published to make money. The victims are largely ignored and the criminal is made bigger than life as every tiny aspect of his existence is dramatised as if he is special and worthy of the attention. The problem of inductive profiling suffers from this same kind of emphasis on the 'behaviors' of serial killers. Almost like magic, throw together a number of traits of serial killers, and presto, by the simply fact that these guys 'do' these things, chuck them on the suspect list. The behaviors are elevated to a 'God' status; so special they make you a serial killer. But serial killers are not that different from the rest of the population. It is only the depth of those behaviors, how they act interact in society. Serial killers are not so different from each other either. Read about enough of them and they are extremely boring. Similar to reading pornography. It is the same set of behaviors over and over again. Dull. It is the author of books that managed to titillate the public with a lot of false information and exaggeration. Inductive profiling can become extremely dangerous in the hands of the gullible profilers and public which uses it. A good case in point is Andrew Hobak of PA. June of 1996, a car was found abandoned on the side of a highway in PA. Blood was found near the car. Aimee Willard, a college girl, was found a day later in an abandoned lot in Philadephia, bludgeoned to death and naked. A couple of days later the headlines of the local paper announced "Chatty tow truck driver suspected in murder of college girl." The newspaper went on the 'profile' the suspect. He stopped when he saw police standing by the car and talked to them (serial killers may inject themselves into the investigation), he was a police wannabe, he was weird, and he lived at home with his parents. Because Hobak fell into the inductive bed of quicksand, he was immediately labeled a psychopath and a murderer. While it is true, he is a viable suspect, there was not yet any proof he had done anything illegal. One year later, evidence still has not connected him to the crime. I am sure there were a number of other people in the same region, who probably have exactly the same characteristics. In my own town, I could come up with quite a few psychopaths who could have committed the murder here. Inductive profiling should be considered a psychological tool to be used to help understand the background of the psychopath, not convict him of murder. Deductive profiling is the only responsible method to actually connect a suspect with a crime scene. In deductive profiling one must MATCH the evidence, the MO and the signature with the suspect. I investigated my suspect in connection with a very publicized case in Virginia, the murders of Sophia Silva and the two Lisk sisters. For those unfamiliar with these cases, Sophia Silva, ae 16, was murdered on November 9, 1996 and the Lisk sisters, ages 12 and 16 (?), murdered on May 1, I believe. The murders were in Spotsylvania, VA. The girls were abducted from the front yards of their homes. They were held a number of hours, their pubic hair shaved and then they were dumped, Silva in a creek on the road entering a business and the Lisk sisters were dumped off a bridge into small river. My suspect has relatives near that area. If I followed inductive profiling, I would grab him in a heartbeat and say "Look!" A psychopath in the area. He has every trait of a serial killer. He must have done the girls". However, I spent a lot of time trying to see if I could link him to the evidence, MO and signature. I came up empty. His relatives haven't seen him in years, he had no traffic tickets in the area, no reason to be visiting there. The MO was not his style and the signature completely wrong for him. By deductive profiling, I eliminated him as a suspect. We must realize the world is full of nuts. There is more than one killer in an area. More than one rapist. God knows how many psychopaths of all types. The investigation must evolve out of the evidence in hand and not be based on slapping labels on guys who are heavy into porno and have a speech impediment. Unfortunately, true crime book have lent 'credibility' to this concept. They make the traits of a serial killer to seem so particular to only them that one would think finding that magic combination is proof in itself. In reality, this country has very few serial killers in comparison to psychopaths. So, therefore, logic dictates, while a serial killer is probably a psychopath, a psychopath is not necessarily a killer. Therefore, if the investigation is based on the concept that psychopaths are serial killers, the entire investigative process will be flawed from the outset.
SHE
Re: Let's Talk About...Deductive vs. Inductive Profiling
Posted by Robert on Thursday, 18 September 1997, at 2:23 a.m., in response to Let's Talk About...Deductive vs. Inductive Profiling, posted by AJ on Wednesday, 17 September 1997, at 9:55 p.m.
AJ,
I am never too far away...I think that Shestalker has provided some good information. I just had a lot of information written and some how I was disconntected from the site...before I could post the message...so this is going to be the brief version.
In my opinion, the biggest problem with the inductive method is that it provides generalizations that are based on case studies. These cases are assumed to be representative of the rest of the population...this alone is problematic. Any intro to psych text will describe the pros and cons of case studies. One is that they may allow some insight or understanding in a single case or disorder but that this understanding should not be generalized to the rest of the population due to the dynamics of the individual.
The lack of, or need for the inductive profiler to have training in certain aspects of the forensic sciences can be problematic...the homicide victim does indeed tell a story but the profiler needs to know how to decipher this story...that is where the importance of the forensic training comes in...the deductive method is guided largely by the forensic evidence.
Equally as important, is the victimology. A close and careful study into this area, can tell much about the offender. No matter what other variables exist or are missing, one fact remains...the offender and the victim at some point came into contact with one another. Understanding how this interaction took place and evolved can tell much...sadly, the inductive method often neglects to give the victimology aspect a through investigation or the level of importance that is much needed.
Both the interpretation of the physical evidence and a through investigation into the victim, helps to generate an understanding of the offender's MO, Signature and possible Motive.
Additional problems with the inductive method is that the data that is used is assumed to be a good representation of the questioned criminal population...questions arise around the offenders that were more successful, not being sampled because they are yet to be caught. Obviously, the data sample cannot include a certain percentage of the more successful offender population.
Another common problem is that when playing the percentages, or generalizing, the inductive profile is bound to include a certain amount of inaccuracies. The generalizations show some promise in descibing the common traits of a given population but in attempting to say something about a single individual, the process must be looked upon with a certain amount of uncertainty...This method, due to it's general statement about the unknown offender can unfortunately sometimes lead to a "witch hunt" and this we all know to be BAD!
Sorry if this is not complete but I am getting tired...please, offer up your questions and comments. This is an excellent topic to discuss.
Robert
Re: Let's Talk About...Deductive vs. Inductive Profiling
Posted by AJ on Thursday, 18 September 1997, at 8:48 a.m., in response to Re: Let's Talk About...Deductive vs. Inductive Profiling, posted by Robert on Thursday, 18 September 1997, at 2:23 a.m.
Robert-- I feel this an important topic too because many people, first, don't know there's 2 different methods, and two, that there are actually terminology available for it.
I also feel that victimology is essential--there is NO way it should be discounted. I took Intro to Profiling with Knowledge Solutions and did my paper based on victimology.
Sure there are faults with case studies, but they did set the foundation for much of profiling and should not be disregarded. If nothing else, it led the deductive profilers material to improve methods. As part of the history of profiling, the scase studies can be looked at as a stepping stone, kind of to be familiar with how the whole process has evolved. Perhaps that is a backwards way to look at it, but many out there are still learning things the inductive way and if they are anything like me, they are simply ignorant to the newer ways. I am not afraid to say that now that I have learned the one way, I need to advance to the next way...or level. Which I am eager to do.
Just some of my own thoughts on the matter.
Good stuff, Robert
Posted by SheStalker on Thursday, 18 September 1997, at 3:33 p.m., in response to Re: Let's Talk About...Deductive vs. Inductive Profiling, posted by Robert on Thursday, 18 September 1997, at 2:23 a.m.
You think well, even when you are tired! I liked your points. Case studies leading to generalizations about serial killers can help orient one in the general personality profile of this kind of person. As long as one doesn't use it to condemn someone, the knowledge can be beneficial. Certainly, I might not have understood what I was looking at if I had not read a checklist of traits of a serial killer when I was considering the possiblity the man I had rented a room to may have committed a crime. The fact that he match almost every trait gave me reason to think further on the matter. But, that alone, does not constitute guilt. I think that is where people get off course and use the information incorrectly. I, myself, have never read of a serial killer who did NOT exhibit psychopathic traits. Sometimes, their friends, wives and families did not recognize those traits but they were there. Also, I have had difficulty with police departments believing that if a suspect does not have EVERY trait, then he couldn't be the one. (Didn't kill animals when he was a kid? He has been cleared then). I also believe that when the police cannot see immediately the traits on the list, they toss suspects out that really DO have the traits and they would have discovered that if they had looked a little longer. For example, Bundy WAS a thief, but he had no record. My suspect has been known to steal, but he also has no record. Bundy MAY have been a law student but his record of employment and school showed quite a bit of confusion. In my investigation, I often thought my suspect had no connections to something or someplace or did not have a particular behavior. I often tried to prove that he did not do certain things so as not to railroad him. But a few hundred more hours of work would often prove that he was involved in something or did have the behaviors I had no evidence of up to that point. That is the reason I stress so heavily the investigative side of profiling. All the brains in the world, all the fine theories, mean nothing without a suspect to link to the crime and the evidence to prove it. And that takes extremely careful police work and a whole lot of exhaustive, investigative work checking out every possiblity to its conclusion.
By the way, Robert, I almost broke my keyboard one night after I printed six pages out on the Knowledge Solutions Bulletin Board only to have them all wiped. Oh, well, maybe there are some thankful students over there that escaped my pontificating. SHE
AJ, Shestalker
Posted by Robert on Thursday, 18 September 1997, at 4:52 p.m., in response to Good stuff, Robert, posted by SheStalker on Thursday, 18 September 1997, at 3:33 p.m.
Hello,
I would like to say that both of you have added significant points to this discussion. I would like to point out that I am a firm believer in the deductive method, for the most part, due to my training. I have been trained to look for and be able to appreciate what the forensic sciences can do for the criminal profiler...this also includes the limitations of physical evidence.
I do not completely discount or overlook what these case studies have provided...a foundation. However, the inductive method has been described to me a couple of times as simple "number crunching"...this is scary to me. Profiling, in the way that it was originally developed, is much more than number crunching. The fact that through the inductive method, many people can falsly claim to be a criminal profiler and offer up misguided information to an agency that is requesting...I'm sure you understand.
The deductive method is also no without it's opponents...I have recently read a investigative psychologist's argument against the deductive method...follow the links to the psychology of violent crime page...I think that's where I saw it.
Robert
Suspect Pool
Posted by SheStalker on Thursday, 18 September 1997, at 7:54 p.m., in response to AJ, Shestalker, posted by Robert on Thursday, 18 September 1997, at 4:52 p.m.
Robert, I think I found the article you are referring to where it discusses using the inductive method as an aid to creating a suspect pool; a viable group of suspects narrowed down from the population. I, myself, feel that this is a valid concept as long as it is only used as a tool and a starting point for deductive profiling. I think I may have already argued with Brent about this and I am not sure if it was more a matter of terminology than opposite schools of thought. My contention is you have got to have someone to investigate and therefore you will undoubtably use an inductive method to choose possible suspects from. Otherwise, you would have to investigate everybody or nobody and common sense say we must make a judgement call. I often do not have an objection to the choice of suspects being investigated by the police using an inductive method to narrow the field. Unfortunately, I feel the police are often sloppy in doing this, not understanding that life is full of variety and therefore nothing is set down in psychological stone. It would be far better, in my opinion, to place suspects on a continuum rather than separate them into piles; fits the profile, doesn't fit the profile. Using my own husband as an example (poor guy), he would probably have been on the low end of the continuum in the 1990 rape/murder on the bike path and my suspect on the extreme high end. My husband was also known to have jogged on that path quite often. He lived near the path. The woman looked a lot like me (hmmm). His mother was domineering and his father ineffective (and not in the home most of his life). But my husband has had the same job for ten years, married for eighteen years to the same woman, does not obssess in any fantasy world, etc. So it is doubtful he is a likely suspect. However, is it possible, that for some reason he COUlD have committed the crime? Sure. And for that reason one would not want to completely toss the name. Perhaps put it way for future reference. My suspect, on the other hand, would pop up as the most viable suspect. However, that in itself is not proof. He could have all of the seeming connections and not have done the crime. So, yes, inductive profiling as a research tool and as a help in establishing a suspect pool can be valuable if used in conjunction with thorough police techniques.
SHE