Psychiatry, Psychology and Law

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tppl20

Reframing criminal profiling: a guide for integrated

practice

Wayne Petherick & Nathan Brooks

To cite this article: Wayne Petherick & Nathan Brooks (2021) Reframing criminal profiling:
a guide for integrated practice, Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 28:5, 694-710, DOI:
10.1080/13218719.2020.1837030

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2020.1837030

Published online: 10 Dec 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 4440

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tppl20
Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 2021
Vol. 28, No. 5, 694–710, https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2020.1837030

Reframing criminal profiling: a guide for integrated practice

Wayne Pethericka and Nathan Brooksb
a
Criminology Department, Faculty of Society and Design, Bond University, Gold Coast, QLD,
Australia; bSchool of Health, Medical and Applied Sciences, Central Queensland University,
Townsville, QLD, Australia

Profiling aims to identify the major personality and behavioural characteristics of offenders
from their interactions in the crime. The discipline has undergone numerous changes and
advances since its first modern use by the psychological/psychiatric community. The current
paper reviews the different approaches to criminal profiling, exploring the reasoning and
justification utilised across profiling practices. Profiling aims to assist criminal
investigators; however, the variance in profiling approaches has contributed to
inconsistency across the field, bringing the utility of profiling into question. To address the
current areas of practice deficit in criminal profiling, a framework is proposed to promote
integrated practice. The CRIME approach provides a framework (consisting of crime scene
evaluations, relevancy of research, investigative or clinical opinions, methods of
investigation, and evaluation) to promote structure and uniformity in profile development,
aiming to assist in the reliability of the practice by providing an integrative framework for
developing profiles.
Key words: crime investigation; criminal profiling; offender profiling; psychological
profiling; serial crime.

In its most basic form, criminal profiling (also principles to promote integrated practice.
known as offender profiling and behavioural There have, however, been many attempts to
profiling, among others) is an investigative understand more advanced aspects of profiling
tool to discern offender characteristics from such as the accuracy of one group over another
behaviour. This base understanding is com- (Kocsis et al., 2000; Pinizzotto & Finkel,
mon to most, if not all, approaches to profiling, 1990), or the assistance offered by profilers to
with the main difference between practices end consumers (Cole & Brown, 2011;
being the reasoning and decision-making proc- Copson, 1995), mental health professional’s
esses used to arrive at the final profile attitudes to profiling (Torres et al., 2006) and
(Petherick, 2014a, 2014b). Despite the level of the operational utility of offender profiling
scientific reasoning being notably different (Gekoski & Gray, 2011).
across the approaches, there has been little Criminal profiling details the characteris-
attempt to understand what this reasoning is tics of the likely perpetrator of a given crime.
and how it impacts on profile content. Far from having an abstract relationship to
Profiling has been subject to discrepancies criminal profiling, logic is pivotal to construct-
across practice, with a dearth of processes or ing rational and robust arguments about

Correspondence: Nathan Brooks, School of Health, Medical and Applied Sciences, Central Queensland
University, 538 Flinders Street, Townsville, QLD, Australia. Email: [email protected]

© 2020 The Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law
 Reframing Criminal Profiling 695

offender characteristics, not only in the profile framework provides a better understanding of
itself but also in the communication of the ele- the processes employed by the profiler, as well
ments of the profile to consumers. Indeed, as the discipline itself. Additionally, the differ-
devoid of any logical process, conclusions ence in the ways that profiles are argued is of
about the offender remain nothing more than great practical importance (Goldsworthy,
unfounded assumption or ill-informed guess- 2001, p. 30):
work. The type of logic reasoning employed
by the profiler is the most fundamental differ- One important factor that should be
ence between approaches, and it is critical to considered is how acceptable the method
of profiling is to those who will be using
consider the different types of reasoning the profile. . . . Like any product, the
employed across profiling practices. Logic, the profile must be end-user friendly. Few law
process of argumentation, is defined by Farber enforcement personnel have qualifications
(1942, p. 41) as ‘a unified discipline which in psychology or related disciplines, and it
investigates the structure and validity of is this very fact that can make
investigators dubious as to how
ordered knowledge’. Further, according to conclusions presented in the profile were
Battacharyya (1958, p. 326): reached. For instance, a claim that a
particular type of serial murderer will be
Logic is usually defined as the science of 40 years old, white and a blue collar
valid thought. But as thought may mean worker will be treated with derision by
either the act of thinking of the object of investigators unless it can be shown how
valid thought, we get two definitions that conclusion was reached, and further
of logic: logic as the science (1) of the act that the conclusion is likely to be true.
of valid thinking, or (2) of the objects of
valid thinking. Goldsworthy argues two key points: first,
that logic and reasoning should be employed
Stock (2004, p. 8) adopts a differ- in the construction of the profile, and, second,
ent approach: that the logic and reasoning employed be
clearly elucidated throughout. While it should
Logic may be declared to be both the
stand to reason that logic and reasoning should
science and the art of thinking. It is the art
of thinking in the same sense that be used in profiling, we use the term in a more
grammar is the art of speaking. Grammar formal sense to move the process away from
is not in itself the right use of words, but a such idiosyncrasies as ‘intuition’ or
knowledge of it enables men to use words ‘common sense’.
correctly. In the same way a knowledge of There are primarily three types of logic
logic enables men to think correctly or at
least to avoid incorrect thoughts. As an used in developing profiles: induction, abduc-
art, logic may be called the navigation of tion and deduction. Rather than representing
the sea of thought. different types of logic, these are best thought
of as different points along the logical con-
It is the purpose of logic to analyse the tinuum, beginning with various hypotheses
methods by which valid judgements are about what may have occurred or that may be
obtained in any science or discourse, which is true (induction), and through the scientific
met by the formulation of general laws dictat- method we falsify each conclusion until we
ing the validity of judgements (Farber, 1942). are left with the best possible explanation
More than simply providing a theoretical (abduction) or only one that is based on uni-
framework for structuring arguments, the basic versal laws or principles and cannot be falsi-
principles of logic allow for a more rigorous fied (deduction). Sometimes, because of the
formulation and testing of any argument. A nature of human behaviour, evidence dynam-
better understanding of this theoretical ics or active attempts to thwart the
696 W. Petherick and N. Brooks

investigation (referred to as staging, among reveals that criminal activity often has com-
others), we are left with the best explanation mon features (Navarro & Schafer, 2003). The
for the evidence we are observing – that application of inductive logic where the simi-
is, abduction. larity is drawn from research on criminal
An inductive argument is where the con- behavioural patterns can be appreciated
clusion is likely or a matter of probability through the following (Kocsis, 2001, p. 32):
based on supporting premises, such as physical
evidence or research. While a good inductive To use this model to produce a
psychological profile, behaviours from
argument provides strong support for the con-
any of the [behaviour] patterns are
clusion, the argument is still not infallible. For compared and matched with those of the
example, in research on behavioural consist- unsolved case. Once a behaviour pattern
ency, Bateman and Salfati (2007) found that has been matched with the unsolved case
hiding the body occurred 67.8% of the time, it can be cross referenced with offender
characteristics.
and that moving the body after the homicide
occurred in 61.1% of the time. While cited as
Abduction is a style of reasoning that
high-frequency behaviours, these results sug-
could be summed up as reasoning to the best
gest that each will only be found approxi-
explanation (Davis et al., 2018). That is, the
mately two thirds of the time. As a result,
evidence in a case is more indicative of a sin-
investigators using a profile that reports such gle hypothesis from a number of possible
statistical inferences may equate probability hypotheses, though not inclusive of one to the
with certainty. However, these behaviours exclusion of all others. According to
occur in some cases and not others, raising an Niiniluoto (1999) this type of reasoning has
issue with both the utility of this information been the staple heuristic method of classical
and in determining where offending behaviour detective stories, and ‘the logic of the
is consistent and inconsistent with research. “deductions” of Sherlock Holmes is typically
This may be especially true in cases where the abductive’ (p. S441).
level of certainty is communicated in a vague Deduction relies on induction, where
or general way, such as ‘most of the time the hypotheses are drawn based on case similar-
body will be hidden’. While technically true, ities and are then tested against the evidence in
this argument does not communicate the exact the current case. Offender characteristics are
level of certainty. arrived at through a systematic study of the
Induction proceeds from a specific set of patterns and themes present in the physical
observations to a generalisation known as a and behavioural evidence, where if the prem-
premise, and the premise is a working assump- ise is true, the conclusion must also be true
tion (Thornton, 1997). From observations in (Bevel & Gardner, 2008). Neblett (1985, p.
each case, comparisons are made to determine 114) goes further, stating that ‘if the conclu-
the level of similarity to past cases sharing sion is false, then at least one of the premises
similar features. These similarities provide must be false’. For this reason, when employ-
generalisations that may then be offered as a ing a deductive approach, it is incumbent on
conclusion in the current case. For example, a the profiler to establish the validity of each
woman is found murdered, and a generalised and every premise before drawing conclusions
conclusion is reached that the suspect is likely from them.
to be male, due to male offenders perpetrating Because a deductive argument is struc-
between 85–90% of homicides (Federal tured so that the conclusion is implicitly con-
Bureau of Investigation [FBI], 2002; Mouzos, tained within the premise unless the reasoning
2005). The central premise in induction is is invalid, the conclusion will follow as a mat-
similarity, where analysis of unlawful activity ter of course. Put another way, a deductive
 Reframing Criminal Profiling 697

argument is designed to go from truth to truth. without the reliance on a definitive cause,
A deductive argument will therefore be valid instead determined based on the likelihood,
if (Alexandra et al., 2002, p. 65): feasibility and practicality of a given hypoth-
esis. According to Niiniluoto (1999), in con-

It is not logically possible for the con-
sideration of Pierce’s (1898) position on an
clusions to be false if the premises
abductive argument, the following is con-
are true. cluded (p. S439):

The conclusions must be true, if the
premises are true.
The surprising fact C is observed.

It would be contradictory to assert the
But if A were true, C would be a mat-
premises yet deny the conclusions. ter of course.

Hence, there is reason to suspect that
In profiling, deduction relies upon the sci-
A is true.
entific method which is a ‘reasoned step by
step procedure involving observations and The use of abductive reasoning is com-
experimentation in problem solving’ (Bevel, mon practice in the clinical process of differ-
2001, p. 154). Induction, abduction and deduc- ential diagnosis, along with providing the
tion relying on the scientific method go hand- underpinnings for crime assessment and pro-
in-hand in criminal profiling: theories are file development (Davis et al., 2018; Rainbow
developed based on research and experience & Gregory, 2011). As Davis et al. (2018)
(induction), which are then examined in light observed, ‘profilers should take time to argue
of the current case to determine which may or against their opinions and consider alternate
may not be true given the available evidence hypotheses (p. 187–206). Consequently, the
(abduction), and attempts are then made to current review intends to examine the reason-
falsify those that remain through hypothesis ing and decision making employed across
testing and revision (the scientific method that offender profiling. The major profiling practi-
in ideal scenarios would lead to deduction). ces are discussed, and the utility of these
Only when theories have withstood this pro- approaches explored. As noted by Fox and
cess of falsification can they be considered Farrington (2018), ‘there appears to be sub-
complete, and that a truth has stantial variation in what is considered to be
been determined. OP [offender profiling], who is conducting it,
While there is no conclusive data on the the methodology and approach that is used,
commonality and occurrences of profiling the findings that are achieved, as well as
practices, it would make reasoned sense to where and how the results are presented’ (p.
suggest that induction is the most common, 1248). The significant differences amongst
given that many approaches rely on statistics approaches to offender profiling, along with
or case experience in developing the final pro- widespread disputes between practitioners,
file. Furthermore, induction is the foundation have greatly impeded the field (Fox et al.,
for both abduction and deduction. Owing to 2020). These limitations have caused scepti-
the nature of crime scenes and criminal behav- cism about the investigative utility of profil-
iour and the lack of universal principle in ing, along with the scientific efficacy of the
human behaviour overall, deduction would be practice (Fox et al., 2020). For offender profil-
considered the least common type of reason- ing to have scientific validity and more wide-
ing, making abduction second by default. spread recognition in investigations and
Although deduction is concerned with abso- admissibility in court, a uniformed approach
lutes, abduction centres on probable reasoning to practise remains essential (Fox &
derived through hypothesis testing. Hence, in Farrington, 2018; Freckelton, 2008). The cur-
abductive reasoning, conclusions are reached rent review contends that for profiling to be
698 W. Petherick and N. Brooks

recognised as a scientific and evidence-based experience and intuition, it had its failures as
tool, homogeny in practice must be achieved, well as its successes’ (Burgess & Ressler,
best viewed through an integrative approach 1985, p. 3). Indeed, the study’s two quantita-
to offender profiling. tive objectives were to first identify whether
there are crime scene differences between
organised and disorganised murderers and
Profiling approaches
second to identify variables that may be useful
While there is considerable overlap between in profiling sexual murderers for which organ-
practitioners and how they approach the devel- ised and disorganised murderers differ.
opment of a profile, there are also significant However, Douglas et al. (1986), acknowl-
differences. Whether these constitute enough edged that profile development did not solely
to be considered different methodologies is rely on a classification of organised or disor-
currently a subject of debate, with some sug- ganised, explaining that profiles are derived
gesting that differences are more about through ‘the classification of the crime, its
emphasis on various parts of the process organised/disorganised aspects, the offender’s
(Davis et al., 2018). selection of a victim, strategies used to control
the victim, the sequence of the crime, the stag-
Criminal investigative analysis ing (or not) of the crime, the offender’s motiv-
Owing to its depiction in film and television, ation for the crime and the crime scene
perhaps the best known profiling approach dynamics’ (p. 412).
would be that developed by the FBI. Criminal An organised crime is one with evidence
investigative analysis, or CIA, is inductive and of planning, where the victim is a targeted
abductive with its roots in early law enforce- stranger, where the crime scene reflects overall
ment attempts to understand patterns of crim- control, restraints are used, and there are
inal behaviour. Early CIA thinking allocated aggressive acts prior to death. This suggests
offenders to one of two types: The organised the offender is organised with the crime scene
asocial and the disorganised nonsocial, with being a reflection of personality; they will gen-
these terms first appearing in The Lust erally be above average intelligence, be
Murderer in 1980 (see Hazelwood & Douglas, socially competent, prefer skilled work, have a
1980). Between 1979 and 1983, FBI agents high birth order, have a controlled mood dur-
interviewed offenders in federal custody (see ing the crime, and are more likely to use alco-
Burgess & Ressler, 1985) to formalise this tax- hol (Douglas & Burgess, 1986; Ressler et al.,
onomy and determine whether there were con- 1992). Conversely, a disorganised crime
sistent features across offences that may be shows spontaneity, where the victim or loca-
useful in classifying future offenders tion is known, the crime scene is random and
(Petherick, 2014a). At these early stages, the sloppy, there is sudden violence, minimal
FBI method employed this organised/disor- restraints are used, and there are sexual acts
ganised typology as a decision process model, after death. This is again suggestive of the per-
which classifies offenders by virtue of the sonality of the offender, with a disorganised
level of sophistication, planning and compe- offender being below average intelligence and
tence evident in the crime scene. According to socially inadequate, and having lower birth
the study’s authors, ‘the agents involved in order, anxious mood during the crime and
profiling were able to classify murders as minimal use of alcohol or drugs (Douglas &
either organised or disorganised in the com- Burgess, 1986; Ressler et al., 1992). Despite
mission of their crimes’ further noting that having discrete classifications, it is generally
‘because this method of identifying offenders acknowledged that no one offender will fit so
was based largely on a combination of neatly into either type, with most being
 Reframing Criminal Profiling 699

categorised as ‘mixed’ – that is, having ele- that, on average, 2% of the total monthly
ments of both types. The FBI dichotomy has workload of in-house psychologists was spent
received criticism from some practitioners on profiling, and that 3.4% of the monthly
(Canter et al., 2004; Canter & Heritage, 1990; workload of part-time consultants was spent
Canter & Youngs, 2003), and there have been on profiling. Interestingly, despite diagnostic
limited empirical findings published by the evaluations being among the earliest
FBI in relation to practice changes (Fox & approaches, research on the attitudes of clin-
Farrington, 2018). One exception to this was ical practitioners revealed scepticism of profil-
the study conducted by Morton et al. (2014), ing as a whole. For example, Bartol (1996)
who observed that ‘Dichotomous typologies found that 70% of those questioned did not
by their very nature have challenges, as an feel comfortable giving this advice, and felt
“either/or” choice, cannot possibly explain that the practice was questionable. What is
complex, multiple event human interactions’ more (Bartol, 1996, p. 79):
(p. 5). Further to this, Morton and colleagues
suggested that profiling should serve as a tool One well-known police psychologist with
that provides law enforcement investigators more than 20 years of experience in the
with investigative information, rather than pro- field, considered criminal profiling
viding classifications from predetermined cate- ‘virtually pointless and dangerous’. Many
of the respondents wrote that much more
gories or cumbersome typologies. research needs to be done before the
process becomes a useful tool.
Diagnostic evaluations
Diagnostic evaluations do not represent a sin- Torres et al. (2006) show similar disdain
gle profiling method per se but are instead a for the practice. Of the 161 survey respond-
generic description of the services offered by ents, 10% had profiling experience, and
mental health professionals, and largely rely 25% considered themselves knowledgeable
on clinical judgement (Bradley, 2003). The of the practice. Less than 25% considered
profile provided by psychiatrist Dr James the practice to have sufficient scientific reli-
Brussel in 1956 to assist in the ‘Mad Bomber’ ability or validity. However, despite this,
case is by far the most famous example of this many respondents also considered profiling
approach to profiling (Brussel, 1968). In the a useful tool for law enforcement. In exam-
early stages of profiling, the diagnostic and ining their role in profiling, McGrath (2001,
clinical approach occurred on an as-needed p. 321) suggests that clinicians may be well
basis (Wilson et al., 1997), usually as one part suited to the profiling process, owing to the
of a broad range of psychological services. following reasons:
The contribution of mental health experts to
Their background in the behavioural
investigations took shape when various police
sciences and their training in psycho-
services asked whether clinical interpretations
pathology place them in an enviable
of unknown offenders might help in identifi-
cation and apprehension (Canter, 1989). Even
position to deduce personality and
though other methods have come to the fore, behavioural characteristics from crime
largely eclipsing these early contributions, at scene information.
the time of publication, Copson (1995)
The forensic psychiatrist is in a good
claimed that over half of the profiling done in position to infer the meaning behind
the United Kingdom was by psychologists signature behaviours.
and psychiatrists using a clinical approach. In
Given their training, education, and
an early study of the range of services offered focus on critical and analytical think-
by police psychologists, Bartol (1996) found ing, the forensic psychiatrist is in a
700 W. Petherick and N. Brooks

good position to ‘channel their training part of an overall approach (Canter, 2000,
into a new field’. p. 1091):
Despite supporting this role, McGrath
(2001) also notes that the clinician should The domain of investigative psychology
covers all aspects of psychology that are
be careful not to get caught up in, or focus relevant to the conduct of criminal and
too heavily on, treatment issues. This role civil investigations. Its focus is on the
confusion may come about because those ways in which criminal activities may be
conducting diagnostic evaluations may not examined and understood in order for the
often be exposed to the needs and wants of detection of crime to be effective and
legal proceedings to be appropriate. As
investigations, having little experience in such, investigative psychology is
reviewing crime scene data or witness depo- concerned with psychological input to the
sitions (West, 2000). However, the diagnos- full range of issues that relate to the
tic evaluation approach to profiling has management, investigation and
prosecution of crime.
largely changed since these empirical studies
were conducted during the 1990s through to
Canter (2011) discussed the action–charac-
the early 2000s. There has been an uprising
teristics equation, whereby crime scene actions
in specialised police roles requiring registra-
are followed by a process of deriving infer-
tion as a psychiatrist or psychologist along
ences, resulting in the identification of
with knowledge or experience in law
offender characteristics. The stage of inference
enforcement investigations (e.g. see below a development employs empirical procedures
description of behavioural investigative and a conceptually driven approach to estab-
advice). Consequently, the clinical and diag- lish actions and characteristics. The inference
nostic approach to profiling is now process seeks to examine interpersonal style,
embedded in specialised police positions, emotions, intellect, knowledge and familiarity,
rather than in general forensic psychology and skills. Upon analysis, conclusions are pro-
and psychiatry practice. vided regarding the salience of the crime, case
linkage, offender characteristics and based
Investigative psychology location. At the cornerstone of the IP approach
Investigative psychology (IP) employs scien- to profiling is advanced statistical modelling
tific research and is largely dependent on the and facet theory, forming both the empirical
empirical analysis conducted on individual and conceptual approaches to IP practice
crime types. Because IP relies more on empir- (Canter & Youngs, 2003; Davis et al., 2018).
ical research than other inductive methods, However, although IP empirical research has
strengths of this approach to practice are evi- provided a substantial contrition to profiling
dent. However, a considerable issue in the use and investigating the nuanced aspects of
of applying this process to developing a crim- offending, there is contention in regard to
inal profile is the potential variance that may whether IP constitutes an individual approach
arise between profilers in determining the to profiling, or instead an essential step in the
details of the crime and the applicability of provision of a profile (Davis et al., 2018;
relevant or suitable research. Furthermore, reli- Rainbow et al., 2014; Snook et al., 2010).
ance on research may mean that crimes of
extreme violence or low frequency may not be Behavioural evidence analysis
adequately researched to base a profile on. As The literature on behavioural evidence analysis
with CIA, IP identifies profiling as only one (BEA) identifies that when rigorously applied
 Reframing Criminal Profiling 701

to a criminal investigation the method aims to of the victim, knowledge of the crime scene,
be largely deductive in nature; however, it knowledge of methods and materials, criminal
should be noted than an absence of universal skill and motive (see Petherick, 2014a).
principles in the behavioural sciences renders
this more an ideal than a reality. Additionally, Behavioural investigative advice
given the reliance of deductive logic on induct-
In the early 2000s, a new method of support-
ive theories and the scientific method, it would ing police investigation known as behavioural
be wrong to classify the method as wholly investigative advice (BIA) emerged in the
deductive. The theory of BEA states that con- United Kingdom. The BIA discipline seeks to
clusions about the offender should not be ren- offer a broad range of psychological and scien-
dered unless specific physical evidence (based tific assistance to police investigations, includ-
on a detailed crime reconstruction) exists. In ing, but not limited to offender profiling
BEA, the profiler spends a great deal of time (Rainbow et al., 2014). The role of BIAs is to
establishing the veracity and validity of the offer senior investigative officers extra support
physical evidence and its relationship to the and enhance their decision making during ser-
criminal event. Indeed, this focus on detail is ious crime investigations through the use of
listed by some as a problem with the practice, behavioural science theory, research and
specifically that deductive approaches are time expertise (Davis et al., 2018). The use of BIAs
consuming and provide limited information to to assist investigations is considered to be
investigators (see Holmes & Holmes, 2002). positive and an essential step in incorporating
Like many approaches, BEA is composed specialised expertise into policing. However,
of steps or stages. The first, forensic analysis, in considering offender profiling, it is unclear
refers to the examination, testing and interpret- as to the processes that BIAs use in assisting
ation of any and all physical evidence investigations and developing profiles. It
(Petherick & Turvey, 2008). To be able to would seem that BIA is a distinct profession,
understand any behavioural evidence, a full rather than a variation in profiling practice
and complete reckoning of the physical evi- (Davis et al., 2018). Although research pre-
dence must be undertaken. Victimology, the sented by BIAs has proposed the use of deci-
second stage, examines any and all victim- sion-making models (see Alison et al., 2003)
related information such as height, sex, age, to reach profile conclusions, the standards of
hobbies, habits and routines. Information evidence required for a BIA to develop a pro-
derived during this stage can also help deter- file appears varied. An example of the decision
mine victim risk and target selection. Crime making employed in BIA profiles was pro-
scene characteristics seeks to establish the dis- vided by Alison et al. (2003) who proposed
tinguishing features of the crime scene, includ- the application of Toulmin’s (1958) philoso-
ing the method of approach and attack, the phy of argument. The principles of applying
method of control, location type, nature and this structure of argument to profiling was due
sequence of any sexual acts, materials used, to ‘the need for the justificatory functioning of
precautionary acts and verbal activity substantive argument, whilst also being aware
(Petherick & Turvey, 2008). of the limitations of formal deductive, decon-
Offender characteristics, the final stage, textualized logic for practical, ‘real world’
assesses all of the above information for issues’ (Alison et al., 2003, p. 174). In apply-
themes that collectively suggest personality or ing these principles to derive a profile, a pro-
behavioural characteristics of the offender. file statement must be derived from backing,
In contrast to other approaches, BEA proposes warrant, grounds, modality and the consider-
a smaller number of characteristics that can be ation of rebuttal. The application of structured
definitively established, including knowledge argument and evidence-based consideration in
702 W. Petherick and N. Brooks

a profile is considered to be paramount to sci- strengths and weakness. For example, the link-
entific practice and demonstrates support for ing of crime scene evidence with valid conclu-
the BIA discipline. BIA appears to be a pro- sions as evident in the BEA method provides
gressive approach to criminal profiling and has scientific efficacy; however, this method can
received empirical recognition through a also be limiting, offering a narrow profile and
developing body of research (Alison et al., minimal investigate assistance. According to
2010; Almond et al., 2011; Marshall & Alison, Alison et al. (2003), the success of a profile is
2011). For example, studies have reported dependent on the types of conclusions pro-
positive police satisfaction with BIA involve- vided, rather than the method used to derive
ment in cases and recommendations (Almond these. For substantiated conclusions in pro-
et al., 2011; Cole & Brown, 2011). The devel- files, there must be evidence of logical argu-
opment of BIA practice is considered promis- ment and pragmatic utility, ensuring
ing for both profiling and investigative conclusions are both logical and practical
assistance; however, the discipline would (Alison et al., 2010; Almond et al., 2011). Any
benefit from further scientific scrutiny in rela- conclusion/statement provided in a profile
tion to operational approaches. The use of must have grounding, warrant, veracity and
principles to derive a structured argument is the capacity for falsification consistent with
essential in profiling, yet the development of a principles of the structure of argument
supported argument is only part of the required (Toulmin, 1958). The grounding of the argu-
decision-making processes for producing a ment must be supported by scientific know-
profile, with considerable degree and variation ledge, whilst the warrant of the argument must
possible without a standardised practice frame- permit this to be demonstrated in specialised
work. BIA is a progressive discipline, although research. In relation to veracity, there must be
subject to fallibility without process prioritisa- a form of specification in regard to the likeli-
tion and practice uniformity. hood or probability of the claim occurring,
whilst falsification must be possible, ensuring
that that the statement or claim can be tested
Towards integrated practice in or disproven (Alison et al., 2003; Toulmin,
criminal profiling 1958). Along with the profiles being derived
The variation across profiling practices has from evidence and grounded in logical conclu-
resulted in inconsistencies emerging in relation sions, statistical regularities between the types
to the reliance on evidence, conclusions pro- of offence and the types of offender character-
vided and the investigative utility of profiles istics can offer further investigative utility
(Almond et al., 2011; Fox et al., 2020). This (Fox et al., 2020). As Fox and Farrington
has ranged from profiles providing statements (2018) state, ‘all future profiles should be
without justification or the possibility of falsi- developed using a solid empirical approach
fication, being derived predominantly on that relies on advanced statistical analysis of
research conclusions, dismissing inconsisten- large data sets’ (p. 1263). Consequently, it
cies in a case, preferencing typology character- appears that the discipline of criminal profiling
istics, omitting victimology evidence, would benefit from an integrated approach to
selectively reporting confirmatory evidence, practice that provides a framework for the pro-
being provided verbally and without documen- vision of profiles. An integrated framework
tation, and failing to evaluate all case materials serves to support the strengths of each method-
(Almond et al., 2011; Morton et al., 2014; ology, whilst providing a structured guide to
Petherick & Brooks, 2014; Petherick & profile development. The current issues per-
Ferguson, 2010; Turvey, 2012; Wilson et al., taining to profiling are akin to the limitations
1997). Each approach is characterised by identified with the early generation of
 Reframing Criminal Profiling 703

psychological risk assessments, with a need to evidence, victimology and offender behaviour.
integrate empirical findings, practitioner The second tier, relevancy of research, is
expertise and processes of practice. The issues intended to provide investigators with an over-
in the field of risk assessment resulted in view of research on similar offending behav-
adjustments to practice and the development iour, noting factors of relevance in similar
of a new generation of assessment instruments crimes and characteristics that have been
known as structured professional judgments found on these occasions. This step must spe-
(SPJs; Cooper et al., 2008; Davis & Ogloff, cify the limitations of relying on this research
2008; Gormley & Petherick, 2015). The intro- and instead seek to provide education and
duction of SPJs has permitted an integrative background on the offending matter. The third
approach to risk assessment, assimilating the tier, investigative or clinical opinion, is consid-
scientific basis of the actuarial approach along ered to carry less weight and should be
with the benefits of the clinical approach. In included in profiles with caution. This may
accordance with the need for integrated prac- include investigators’ unique understanding of
tice in criminal profiling, a structural frame- factors such as access of local areas, criminal
work is proposed, represented by the acronym trends or past victim patterns. These factors
CRIME. The CRIME framework seeks to are provided in the profile as suggestions and
overcome the pitfalls of singular profiling knowledge that may be of note for investiga-
approaches and instead provide a structured tors to consider and review during the investi-
framework for profile development, incorpo- gative processes. This information is
rating the strengths of each of the examined considered of lower investigative relevance
practices, whilst acknowledging the limitations and not based in fact. The penultimate stage
and weakness of utilising a specific process. and tier of the CRIME framework is methods
This framework is similar to other recommen- of investigation. This stage aims to provide
dations and is based upon a similar philosophy detailed implications arising from the afore-
to that of at least the works of Davis and mentioned steps, indicating avenues for inves-
Bennett (2016) and Ackley (2017). tigators to explore and offering techniques of
investigation and advice in relation to the sus-

C – Crime scene evaluations
pect. The final stage is evaluation, and

R – Relevancy of research
involves a critical examination of the profile

I – Investigative or clinical opinion
itself, the logic, reasoning and sequencing

M – Methods of investigation
used to arrive at the profile, and any input the

E - Evaluation
investigators have about the document. This
The CRIME framework is centred on a also includes an evaluation of the profile in
tiered process of profile development. The first light of new information or evidence that has
tier, crime scene evaluations, relies largely on come to light since the profile was generated,
the crime scene and the evidence present to along with a peer review of the profile before
determine justifications. Consistent with a this is provided to the consumer.
BEA approach, conclusions cannot be reached An example of the application of the
without the presence of evidence at the crime CRIME framework to the below scenario
scene indicating that a set behaviour or event (adapted from Aydin & Dirilen-Gumus, 2011,
has occurred. This tier is considered to carry p. 2615–2616; Douglas et al., 1986, p. 416) is
primary significance in the profile, accompa- as follows:
nied by the other tiers, which provide add- At 3.00 pm a young woman’s nude body
itional information of assistance to was discovered on the roof top of an apartment
investigations. At this first phase, evaluations building where she was living. The female had
are determined in respect to crime scene been extensively beaten to her face, and she
704 W. Petherick and N. Brooks

had been strangled with the bag strap that for work that morning. The mother, the vic-
belonged to her purse. Her nipples had been tim’s sister and a neighbour began searching
cut off after her death, and these had been the building. Shortly afterwards they discov-
placed on her chest. On the inside of her thigh ered the body, and the neighbour called the
in ink, were the words, ‘You can’t stop me’. police. Initial investigations by police revealed
On her abdomen, the words, ‘Fuck you’ were that no witnesses had seen the victim after she
scrawled on this section of her body. The pen- left her apartment that morning.
dant that was usually worn by the woman, a The investigation revealed that the victim
Jewish sign (Chai) for good luck, was missing was a 26-year-old, 40 1100 , 90-lb, white female.
from around her neck. The missing pendant The victim resided with her mother and father
was presumed taken by the murderer. Her in the apartment building. She awoke around
nylon stockings had been removed and loosely 6.30 am on the day of her murder, dressed,
tied around her wrists and ankles near a rail- had breakfast (consisting of coffee and juice)
ing, with her underpants pulled over her face. and left for work. The woman worked at a
The crime scene revealed that the victim’s ear- near-by day-care centre, where she was
rings that she had been wearing were placed employed as a group teacher for handicapped
symmetrically on either side of her head. An children. When she would leave for work in
umbrella and ink pen had been inserted into the morning, she would often alternate
the woman’s vagina and a hair comb was between taking the elevator or walking down
placed into her pubic hairs. Her jaw and nose the stairs, depending on her mood. She had a
had been broken, her molars were loosened, slight curvature of the spine (kyphoscoliosis)
and due to the blunt force trauma, she had sus- and was a shy and quiet woman. The medical
tained multiple face fractures. The cause of examiner’s report revealed that there was no
death was determined to be asphyxia by liga- semen in the victim’s vagina, but semen was
ture (purse strap) strangulation. There were detected on the victim’s body. There were vis-
also post-mortem bite marks on the victim’s ible bite marks on the victim’s thigh and knee
thighs, along with several contusions, haemor- area and the murderer had cut the victim’s nip-
rhages and lacerations to the body. The killer ples with a knife after she was deceased and
had defecated on the roof top and this was written on her body. The stab wounds that she
covered with the victims’ clothing. had sustained were not deep. The examination
The preliminary police reports revealed concluded that the cause of death was strangu-
that another resident of the apartment building, lation, first manual, then ligature, with the
a white male, aged 15 years, had discovered strap of her purse.
the victim’s wallet. The young male discov- While the challenges of developing a pro-
ered the wallet in the stairwell between the file based on a short scenario are evident, the
third and fourth floors at approximately 8.20 outline in Table 1 of the integrated CRIME
am, keeping the wallet with him until he framework details a summary of how the steps
returned home from school for lunch that may be initially formed and subsequently uti-
afternoon. Upon returning home, he gave the lised. The profile should start with an over-
wallet to his father, a white male, aged view of the crime and the details, before
40 years. After receiving the wallet, the father integrating the CRIME steps. Upon comple-
went to the victim’s apartment at 2.50 pm and tion of the five steps, the practitioner produc-
handed this to the victim’s mother whom she ing the profile should summarise the
resided with. The mother contacted the day- information and provide a review of the
care centre to inform her daughter about the importance of the information provided within
wallet; however, upon contacting the centre, the profile, again emphasising the reliance of
she learnt that her daughter had not appeared evidence-based information in the profile,
 Reframing Criminal Profiling 705

Table 1. CRIME profile development.

Crime scene evaluations

Perpetrator able to access building without being identified or noticed as being out of place.

Evidence of mutilation to the body.

Significant overkill in perpetration of crime.

Perpetrator had significant time to commit serious of acts in crime.

Sexual arousal.

Perpetrator had manipulated body and crime scene.

Reasonable physical strength and mobility required to commit crime.

Use of objects present at the crime scene (victim’s belongings) to perpetrate murder.

No attempt to cover up DNA evidence.

Words carved into the body may represent an attempt to communicate with either the victim, law
enforcement, another individual, or himself. Alternatively, staging of crime scene should
be considered.
Summary of crime scene evaluations:
The victim’s morning routine, while structured and regular, did not involve a consistent pattern of
leaving her residence. As such, a perpetrator would not know whether she would walk down the
stairs or catch the elevator. That nature of the crime therefore indicates a blitz attack, with the crime
indicating that the offender did not have a pre-determined plan to kill the victim, as indicated by
strangulation with her bag strap. Further, while it may have been due to timing that the perpetrator
was not recognised in the building, it must be considered that the perpetrator was able to access the
building and not appear out of place. The behaviours of the perpetrator indicate both sexual and
violent motivations, with both patterns of behaviour evident. Significant violence was used in
committing the crime, including mutilation of the body post-mortem. The offender was sexually
aroused at the crime scene and able to ejaculate to a mutilated and bloodied female body, indicating
that sexual excitement was obtained from the murder. There are a range of differential diagnoses or
explanations to account for this sexualised violence, ranging from sexual arousal towards the victim,
through to paraphilic conditions such as sexual sadism or haematophilia (sexual fetish for blood).
The perpetrator made no attempt to cover his DNA (e.g. semen and faeces). The role of defecating
at the crime scene remains unclear, whether this was linked to fantasy, anxiety or other motives.
The post-mortem behaviour by the offender, while partially a possible attempt to stage the crime
scene, also involved targeted mutilation of breast and genital areas. This is considered to be an
action above and beyond the need of a sexual crime, indicating excessive fixation and emotional
disturbance.
Relevancy of research

Provide an overview of the relationship between mutilation of the body and sex crimes, including
offender characteristics.

Sexual crimes involving defecation.

Post-mortem behaviour in sexual crimes.

Strangulation as a means to murder.
Investigative or clinical opinion
This area may depend on the investigators or experts involved in the case, topics may include:

Past sexual offenders in the local area.

Similar instances of body mutilation.

Theories of defecation in sexual crimes.
Methods of investigation

Interview all residents residing in apartment building and seek to eliminate on DNA.

Develop a log of visitors who frequent building regularly and seek to exclude.

Examine any other crimes that have occurred in the building, such as break and enter offences.
Exclude as suspects.
(Continued)
706 W. Petherick and N. Brooks

Complete thorough analysis of victim’s life, excluding former boyfriends.

Examine previous sexual crimes in region with significant violence and that are unsolved.
Evaluation

Review any additional information that may be missing from the profile, such as forensic reports
that have been completed yet not supplied.

Summarise key information contained with the profile, placing the strongest emphasis on
evidence-based conclusions.

Undertake peer consultation and/or review in relation to the profile or the recommendations made
before releasing the written document.

from both the standing research corpus and policing, some proponents have suggested that
crime scene evidence. for profiling to constitute a scientific method,
Not only is this approach useful for provid- court and legal admissibility is essential
ing as holistic an understanding of the case as (Bosco et al., 2010; Freckelton, 2008;
possible, undertaking the CRIME framework Petherick & Brooks, 2014). Currently, profil-
may also serve as a bootstrapping process for ing regularly fails to add probative value to
other types of advice investigators may request cases, and instead is considered to have a
as a natural extension of the assistance. For greater prejudicial effect (Bosco et al., 2010).
example, having a deep understanding of the One of the central challenges to profiling meet-
crimes of a serial criminal may assist with the ing admissibility standards in courts has been
process of case linkage where one attempts to due to the inconsistencies in practice, with
link previously unlinked cases to one offender large discrepancies observed across approaches
or offender group. Similarly, the profiler/ana- and methods of practice. The reliance on singu-
lyst may be able to provide insight into risk lar methods appears largely problematic, fail-
assessment of a serial or other offender to ing to consider the strengths of other profiling
determine the likelihood that they will escalate modalities, while also exposing investigations
or graduate to other crimes, such as from a sex to the fragility of a sole method approach.
offender to a killer. For profiling to develop as a forensic sci-
ence and ultimately have admissibility in court,
the discipline must be reliable, subject to peer
Recommendations and conclusion review and scientific publication, be generally
For profiling to develop as a discipline, greater accepted amongst fellow practitioners, have
scientific rigor is required, with profiles need- guiding or governing standards, have identifi-
ing to incorporate logic and reasoning that are able error rates, and be implemented only in
supported by appropriate evidence and justifi- appropriate and applicable cases (Bosco et al.,
cation. Criminal profiling must have investiga- 2010). Subsequently, it is proposed that a joint
tive utility, assisting investigations, rather than methodology be employed when constructing
creating confusion or misleading cases. criminal profiles, focusing on the strengths of
Secondly, for profiling to advance there must each profiling approach and establishing uni-
be a move towards scientific practice, with uni- formity in practice standards. It is suggested
formity across the field essential for admissibil- that this approach form the CRIME frame-
ity in court (Freckelton, 2008) should the work, consisting of crime scene evaluations,
profiler/analyst be appropriately qualified for relevancy of research, investigative or clinical
such endeavours. Although profiling is opinions, methods of investigation and evalu-
intended to develop investigative hypotheses, ation. The CRIME approach provides a frame-
given the progression towards evidence-based work to promote the scientific practice of
 Reframing Criminal Profiling 707

profiling, aiming to assist in the reliability of References

the practice by detailing a standardised process Ackley, C. N. (2017). Criminal investigative
of developing profiles. It is intended that advice: A move toward a scientific, multidis-
through the CRIME framework profiles will ciplinary model. In V. B. Van Haselt &
M. L. Bourke (Eds.), Handbook of behav-
encompass error rates, specified in the crime ioural criminology (pp. 215–238). Springer.
scene evaluation and relevancy of research Alexandra, A., Matthews, S., & Miller, M.
stages, whilst the evaluation stage seeks to (2002). Reasons, values, and institutions.
incorporate peer review and consultation into Tertiary Press.
Alison, L., Smith, M. D., Eastman, O., &
practice. For profile to continue as a discipline,
Rainbow, L. (2003). Toulmin’s philosophy
systemisation and evidence-based practice is of argument and its relevance to offender
required. Although the CRIME framework is profiling. Psychology, Crime & Law, 9,
not the ultimate solution to developing a ‘gold 173–183. doi:10.1080/106831603100011
standard’ in criminal profiling, the approach 6265
Alison, L., Goodwill, A., Almond, L., van den
seeks to promote integration and unity in prac- Heuvel, C., & Winter, J. (2010). Pragmatic
tice, an essential first step in establishing prac- solutions to offender profiling and behav-
tice consistency. It is recommended that future ioural investigative advice. Legal and
research seek to explore the benefit of profiles Criminological Psychology, 15(1), 115–132.
derived through the framework, reviewing the doi:10.1348/135532509X463347
Almond, L., Alison, L., & Porter, L. (2011). An
consistency and emergence of evidence-based evaluation and comparison of claims made
practice. This could be investigated through in behavioural investigative advice reports
police satisfaction, profile accuracy and the compiled by the National Policing
evidence of reasoning underpinning profiles Improvement Agency in the United
Kingdom. In L. Alison, L. Rainbow, & S.
derived through the CRIME framework. The
Knabe (Eds.), Professionalising offender
future of profiling is dependent on the discip- profiling: Forensic and investigative psych-
line progressing towards science, and inte- ology in practice. Routledge.
grated practice is the first fundamental step Aydin, F., & Dirilen-Gumus, O. (2011).
(Fox & Farrington, 2018). Development of a criminal profiling instru-
ment. Procedia Social and Behavioural
Sciences, 30, 2612–2616.
Bartol, C. R. (1996). Police psychology: Then,
Ethical standards
now and beyond. Criminal Justice and
Declaration of conflicts of interest Behaviour, 23(1), 70–89. doi:10.1177/
0093854896023001006
Wayne Petherick has declared no conflicts
Battacharyya, S. (1958). The concept of logic.
of interest Philosophy and Phenomenological Research,
Nathan Brooks has declared no conflicts 18(3), 326–340.
of interest Bateman, A. L., & Salfati, C. G. (2007). An
examination of behavioral consistency using
individual behaviors or groups of behaviors
Informed consent in serial homicide. Behavioral Sciences &
The article does not contain any studies with the Law, 25(4), 527–544. doi:10.1002/bsl.
742
human participants or animals performed by Bevel, T. (2001). Applying the scientific method
any of the authors. to crime scene reconstruction. Journal of
Forensic Identification, 51(2), 150–165.
Bevel, T., & Gardner, R. M. (2008). Bloodstain
ORCID pattern analysis with an introduction to
Wayne Petherick http://orcid.org/0000- crime reconstruction (3rd ed.). CRC Press.
Bosco, D., Zappal
a, A., & Santtila, P. (2010).
0002-7323-8680 The admissibility of offender profiling in
Nathan Brooks http://orcid.org/0000-0003- courtroom: A review of legal issues and
1784-099X court opinions. International Journal of Law
708 W. Petherick and N. Brooks

and Psychiatry, 33(3), 184–191. doi:10. Davis, M. R., & Bennett, D. (2016). Future
1016/j.ijlp.2010.03.009 directions for criminal behaviour analysis of
Bradley, P. (2003). Criminal profiling: What’s it deliberately set fire events. In R. M. Doley,
all about? Inpsych. G. L. Dickens, & T. A. Gannon (Eds.), The
Brussel, J. A. (1968). Casebook of a crime psychology of arson: A practical guide to
psychiatrist. Bernard Geis Associates. understanding and managing deliberate fire-
Burgess, A. W., & Ressler, R. K. (1985). Sexual setters (p. 131–146). Routledge/Taylor &
homicides: Crime scene and pattern of criminal Francis Group.
behaviour. National Institute of Justice Grant Davis, M. R., & Ogloff, J. R. P. (2008). Risk
82-IJ-CX-0065, US Department of Justice. assessment. In K. Fritzon & P. Wilson
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/ (Eds.), Forensic psychology and crimin-
abstract.aspx?ID=98230. ology: An Australian perspective (pp.
Canter, D. (1989). Offender profiles. The 141–164). McGraw-Hill Australia Pty Ltd.
Psychologist, 2(1), 12–16. Davis, M., Rainbow, L., Fritzon, K., West, A.,
Canter, D. (2000). Investigative psychology. In & Brooks, N. (2018). Behavioural investiga-
J. Siegel, G. Knupfer, & P. Saukko (Eds.), tive advice: A contemporary commentary on
Encyclopedia of forensic science. Academic offender profiling activity. In A. Griffiths &
Press. R. Milne (Eds.), The psychology of criminal
Canter, D. V. (2011). Resolving the offender investigation: From theory to practice (pp.
“Profiling equations” and the emergence of 187–206). Routledge.
an investigative psychology. Current Douglas, J. E., & Burgess, A. E. (1986).
Directions in Psychological Science, 20(1), Criminal profiling: A viable investigative
5–10. doi:10.1177/0963721410396825 tool against violent crime. FBI Law
Canter, D. V., Alison, L. J., Alison, E., & Enforcement Bulletin, 55, 9–13.
Wentink, N. (2004). The organized/disorgan- Douglas, J. E., Ressler, R. K., Burgess, A. W.,
ized typology of serial murder: Myth or & Hartman, C. R. (1986). Criminal profiling
model? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, from crime scene analysis. Behavioral
21, 293–320. Sciences & the Law, 4(4), 401–422. doi:10.
Canter, D. V., & Heritage, R. (1990). A multi- 1002/bsl.2370040405
variate model of sexual offence behaviour: Farber, M. (1942). Logical systems and the prin-
Development in “offender profiling”: I. The ciples of logic. Philosophy of Science, 9(1),
Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, 1(2), 40–54. doi:10.1086/286747
185–212. doi:10.1080/09585189008408469 Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2002). Uniform
Canter, D. V., & Youngs, D. (2003). Beyond crime report. www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/html/
‘offender profiling’: The need for an investi- web/index.html
gative psychology. In D. Carson & R. Bull Fox, B., Farrington, D. P., Kapardis, A., &
(Eds.), Handbook of psychology in legal Hambly, O. C. (2020). Evidence-based
contexts (2nd ed., pp. 171–205). Wiley. offender profiling. Routledge.
Cole, T., & Brown, J. (2011). What do senior Fox, B., & Farrington, D. P. (2018). What have
investigative police officers want from we learned from offender profiling? A sys-
behavioural investigative advisers. In L. tematic review and meta-analysis of 40 years
Alison, L. Rainbow, & S. Knabe (Eds.), of research. Psychological Bulletin, 144(12),
Professionalising offender profiling: 1247–1274. doi:10.1037/bul0000170
Forensic and investigative psychology in Freckelton, I. (2008). Profiling evidence in the
practice. Routledge. 
courts. In D. Canter & R. Zukauskien_ e
Cooper, B. S., Griesel, D., & Yuille, J. C. (Eds.), Psychology and law: Bridging the
(2008). Clinical-forensic risk assessment. gap (pp. 79–102). Routledge.
The past and current state of affairs. Journal Gekoski, A., & Gray, J. M. (2011). It may be
of Forensic Psychology Practice, 7(4), 1–63. true, but how’s it helping?’: UK police
doi:10.1300/J158v07n04_01 detectives’ views of the operational useful-
Copson, G. (1995). Coals to Newcastle? Part 1: ness of offender profiling. International
A study of offender profiling. Police Journal of Police Science & Management,
Research Group Special Interest Paper 7. 13(2), 103–116. doi:10.1350/ijps.2011.13.2.
Home Office. 236
 Reframing Criminal Profiling 709

Goldsworthy, T. (2001). Criminal profiling. Is it issues in behavioural profiling (3rd ed.).

investigatively relevant? [Master of crimin- Anderson Publishing.
ology dissertation]. Bond University. Petherick, W. A. (2014b). Induction and deduc-
Gormley, J., & Petherick, W. (2015). Risk tion in criminal profiling. In W. A. Petherick
assessment. In W. Petherick (Ed.), Applied (Ed.), Profiling and serial crime: Theoretical
crime analysis: A social science approach to and practical issues in behavioural profiling
understanding crime, criminals, and victims (3rd ed.). Anderson Publishing.
(pp. 172–189). Elsevier. Petherick, W. A., & Brooks, N. (2014). Where
Hazelwood, R. R., & Douglas, J. E. (1980). The to from here? In W. A. Petherick (Ed.),
lust murderer. FBI Law Enforcement Profiling and serial crime: Theoretical and
Bulletin, 49(4), 1–5. practical issues in behavioural profiling (3rd
Holmes, R., & Holmes, S. (2002). Profiling vio- ed., pp. 241–259). Anderson Publishing.
lent crimes: An investigative tool (3rd ed.). Petherick, W. A., & Ferguson, C. E. (2010).
Sage Publications. Ethics for the forensic criminologist. In
Kocsis, R. N. (2001). Serial arsonist crime W. A. Petherick, B. E. Turvey, & C. E.
profiling: An Australian empirical study. Ferguson (Eds.), Forensic Criminology.
Firenews. Elsevier Science.
Kocsis, R. N., Irwin, H. J., Hayes, A. F., & Petherick, W. A., & Turvey, B. E. (2008).
Nunn, R. (2000). Expertise in psychological Behavioral evidence analysis: An ideo
profiling: A comparative assessment. Journal deductive method of criminal profiling. In
of Interpersonal Violence, 15(3), 311–331. B. E. Turvey (Ed.), Criminal profiling: An
doi:10.1177/088626000015003006 introduction to behavioral evidence analysis
Marshall, B. C., & Alison, L. (2011). (3rd ed). Academic Press.
Stereotyping, congruence and presentation Pierce, C. S. (1898). Reasoning and the logic of
order: Interpretative biases in utilizing things: The Cambridge conferences lectures
offender profiles. In L. Alison, L. Rainbow, of 1898. In K. L. Ketner (Ed.). Harvard
& S. Knabe (Eds.), Professionalising University Press.
offender profiling: Forensic and investigative Pinizzotto, A. J., & Finkel, N. J. (1990).
psychology in practice. Routledge. Criminal personality profiling: An outcome
McGrath, M. (2001). Criminal profiling: Is there and process study. Law and Human
a role for the forensic psychiatrist? Journal Behavior, 14(3), 215–233. doi:10.1007/
of the American Academy of Forensic BF01352750
Psychiatry and Law, 28(3), 315–324. Rainbow, L., & Gregory, A. (2011). What
Morton, R. J., Tillman, J. M., & Gaines, S. J. behavioural investigative advisers actually
(2014). Serial murder: Pathways for investi- do. In L. Alison & L. Rainbow (Eds.),
gations. U.S. Department of Justice. Professionalizing offender profiling:
Mouzos, J. (2005). Homicide in Australia: 2003- Forensic and investigative psychology in
2004 national homicide monitoring program practice (pp. 35–50). Routledge.
(NHMP) annual report. Australian Institute Rainbow, L., Gregory, A., & Alison, L. (2014).
of Criminology. Behavioural investigative advice. In G. J. N.
Navarro, J., & Schafer, J. R. (2003). Universal Bruinsma & D. L. Weisburd (Eds.),
principles of criminal behavior: A tool for Encyclopedia of criminology and criminal
analyzing criminal intent. FBI Law justice (pp. 125–134). Springer.
Enforcement Bulletin, 72(1), 22–24. https:// Ressler, R. K., Burgess, A. W., & Douglas, J. E.
heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/fbi- (1992). Sexual homicide: Patterns and
leb72&i=23 motives. Free Press.
Neblett, W. (1985). Sherlock’s logic: Learn to Snook, B., Eastwood, J., Gendreau, P., &
reason like a master detective. Barnes and Bennell, C. (2010). The importance of know-
Noble Books. ledge cumulation and the search for hidden
Niiniluoto, I. (1999). Defending abduction. agendas: A reply to Kocsis, Middledorp, and
Philosophy of Science, 66, S436–S451. Karpin (2008). Journal of Forensic
http://www.jstor.com/stable/188790 Psychology Practice, 10(3), 214–223. doi:10.
Petherick, W. A. (2014a). Criminal profiling 1080/15228930903550541
methods. In W. A. Petherick (Ed.), Profiling Stock, G. W. J. (2004). Deductive logic. Project
and serial crime: Theoretical and practical Gutenberg Press.
710 W. Petherick and N. Brooks

Thornton, J. (1997). The general assumptions Turvey, B. E. (2012). Ethics and the criminal
and rationale of forensic identification. In profiler. In B. E. Turvey (Ed.), Criminal
D. L. Faigman, D. H. Kaye, M. J. Saks, & J. Profiling: An introduction to Behavioral
Sanders (Eds.), Modern scientific evidence: Evidence Analysis (4th ed., pp. 601–626).
The law and expert testimony. West Academic Press.
Publishing. West, A. (2000). Clinical assessment of homi-
Torres, A. N., Boccaccini, M. T., & Miller, cide offenders: The significance of crime
H. A. (2006). Perceptions of the validity and scene in offense and offender analysis.
utility of criminal profiling among forensic Homicide Studies, 4(3), 219–233.
psychologists and psychiatrists. Professional Wilson, P., Lincoln, R., & Kocsis, R. N. (1997).
Psychology: Research and Practice, 37(1), Validity, utility and ethics for serial violent
51–58. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.37.1.51 and sex offenders. Psychiatry, Psychology
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. and Law, 4(1), 1–12. doi:10.1080/
Cambridge University Press. 13218719709524891