What is Criminal Profiling and how Jack The Ripper‘s case contributed to it
Hello and welcome back to Crime, She Wrote! In this post we’ll talk about two things that fascinate me: criminal profiling and the first criminal profile ever recorded. So buckle up, get your favourite beverage and join me in this little trip around criminology!
What is criminal profiling?
Criminal profiling is something that probably most people have heard of thanks to the rising in popularity of crime TV shows, movies and books. It’s safe to say that if you’re reading this, you’ve heard of Criminal Minds, The Silence of the Lambs or Mindhunter. But among all the fiction, what’s the truth? What’s the reality that everything has been based of?
Offender profiling, or criminal profiling, is an investigative technique used by law enforcement agents and psychologists to assist in determining whether offenses were committed by the same perpetrator and to help narrowing down the list of possible suspects by using available information about the crime and crime scene to create a psychological portrait of the perpetrator. As of now, there are several typologies of criminal profiling, such as crime scene analysis, investigative psychology, geographic profiling, diagnostic evaluation and linkage analysis.
What do those words mean?
Crime scene analysis is probably what most people associate offender profiling with: the analysis of a crime scene and inference of the offender’s characteristics from it. Although this is the most popular method of offender profiling and the one used by the FBI, there’s no clear scientific evidence that crime scene actions and offender characteristics can be directly linked without the interfefence of a third factor.
Investigative psychology is a field of applied psychology that attempts to describe and understand the behaviour of the offender, their thought process and psychological characteristics. This is an investigative technique that strays from traditional criminal investigation.
Geographic profiling is, as the name says, the profiling of the area on which the offender commits their crimes. The goal of this investigative tool is to find patterns on the geographical areas in which crimes were committed, narrow down areas where the offender could strike next and find areas of personal significance for the offender. Despite what fictional media might make you believe, this doesn’t necessarily mean the geographic profile tells us where the offender lives (although that’s not impossible), but it tries to link criminal activity to other activities not related to the crimes (such as home or work place, or recreational areas frequently visited by the offender). Geographic profiling works on the principle that 1) crimes are likely to occur near the offender’s home, 2) the offender and the victim must intersect for the crime to occur, 3) the offender tends to divert attentions from their own home although not travelling further away than necessary and 4) crime sites are not random. Although very helpful, geographic profiling is only an accurate tool when investigators have more than three crimes than can be connected to the same offender with no doubt.
Linkage analysis is the process of determining whether several crimes were committed by the same offender. Idealy, this is determined by the presence of DNA, fingerprints or fabric in the crime scenes. But when neither of these are present, investigators must use other ways to determined the facts. One way of doing this is by behaviour linkage analysis where the investigators attempt to link crimes based on the behaviours of the offender. They try to find patterns of behavioral stability and behavioral distinctiveness, aka, the offender must behave a similar way when commiting the crimes and those behaviours must be different form those exhibited by other offenders committing the same crimes. This is also known as the offender’s modus operandi.
Diagnostic evaluation is the attempt to relate psychiatry and psychology knowledge to criminology, thus explaining crime and criminal behaviour via a mental health and psichiatric diagnostic vision.
What does Jack The Ripper have to do with this?
Between April 1888 and February 1891 there were a series of murders around the Whitechapel district of London. The victims were women, typically prostitutes, in impoverished areas, who had their throats cut and their abdomens mutilated, including the removal of the uterus and other organs in most cases. All crimes were committed during the night. Although a total of 11 murders were investigated as being the Ripper’s, only 5 were and are widely accepted as being committed by the Ripper. These are known as the canonical five and consist of Mary Ann Nichols, Annie Chapman, Elizabeth Stride, Catherine Eddowes, and Mary Jane Kelly. The details of each murder are lengthy and well known so I won’t go over them much, but if you want to read more about them the wikipedia page on Jack the Ripper has it all available.
The investigation around the Whitechapel murders happened very much the same way modern investigations do: from interviewing of the community, to collecting of forensic material, and identification, investigation and even arrest of suspects. The investigation was conducted initially by Detective Inspectors Edmund Reid and Robert Anderson from the Metropolitan Police of Whitechapel Criminal Investigation Department, who later were joined by Detective Inspectors Frederick Abberline, Henry Moore, and Walter Andrews of the Scotland Yard.
It was in October 1888 that Robert Anderson asked police surgeon Thomas Bond his opinion regarding the murderer’s skill and anatomy knowledge. Bond’s response is the first criminal profile recorded in history.
Quoting Bond’s letter to Anderson,
“1. All five murders were no doubt committed by the same hand. In the first four the throats appear to have been cut from left to right. In the last case owing to the extensive mutilation it is impossible to say in what direction the fatal cut was made, but arterial blood was found on the wall in splashes close to where the woman's head must have been lying.
2. All the circumstances surrounding the murders lead me to form the opinion that the women must have been lying down when murdered and in every case the throat was first cut.
3. In the four murders of which I have seen the notes only, I cannot form a very definite opinion as to the time that had elapsed between the murder and the discovering of the body.
4. In all the cases there appears to be no evidence of struggling and the attacks were probably so sudden and made in such a position that the women could neither resist nor cry out. In the Dorset Street case the corner of the sheet to the right of the woman's head was much cut and saturated with blood, indicating that the face may have been covered with the sheet at the time of the attack.
5. In the four first cases the murderer must have attacked from the right side of the victim. In the Dorset Street case, he must have attacked from in front or from the left, as there would be no room for him between the wall and the part of the bed on which the woman was lying. Again, the blood had flowed down on the right side of the woman and spurted on to the wall.
6. The murderer would not necessarily be splashed or deluged with blood, but his hands' and arms must have been covered and parts of his clothing must certainly have been smeared with blood.
7. The mutilations in each case excepting the Berner's Street one were all of the same character and shewed clearly that in all the murders, the object was mutilation.
8. In each case the mutilation was inflicted by a person who had no scientific nor anatomical knowledge. In my opinion he does not even possess the technical knowledge of a butcher or horse slaughterer or any person accustomed to cut up dead animals.
9. The instrument must have been a strong knife at least six inches long, very sharp, pointed at the top and about an inch in width. It may have been a clasp knife, a butcher's knife or a surgeon's knife. I think it was no doubt a straight knife.
10. The murderer must have been a man of physical strength and of great coolness and daring. There is no evidence that he had an accomplice. He must in my opinion be a man subject to periodical attacks of Homicidal and erotic mania. The character of the mutilations indicate that the man may be in a condition sexually, that may be called satyriasis. It is of course possible that the Homicidal impulse may have developed from a revengeful or brooding condition of the mind, or that Religious Mania may have been the original disease, but I do not think either hypothesis is likely. The murderer in external appearance is quite likely to be a quiet inoffensive looking man probably middleaged and neatly and respectably dressed. I think he must be in the habit of wearing a cloak or overcoat or he could hardly have escaped notice in the streets if the blood on his hands or clothes were visible.
11. Assuming the murderer to be such a person as I have just described he would probably be solitary and eccentric in his habits, also he is most likely to be a man without regular occupation, but with some small income or pension. He is possibly living among respectable persons who have some knowledge of his character and habits and who may have grounds for suspicion that he is not quite right in his mind at times. Such persons would probably be unwilling to communicate suspicions to the Police for fear of trouble or notoriety, whereas if there were a prospect of reward it might overcome their scruples.”
In summary, Bond mentioned the sexual nature of the murders and gives an analysis of the Ripper’s personality by analysing the available information and reconstucting the murders.
This analysis contains elements previously mentioned of offender profiling: we have the crime scene analysis, where Bond infers the position and behaviour of both victim and offender; investigative psychology, where he attempts to infer psychological traits to explain and understand the Ripper’s behaviour; linkage analysis where he uses the available information to determine whether the crimes were committed by the same offender or not; and diagnostic evaluation, where Bond attempts to explain the behaviour of the Ripper through various psychiatric diagnostics.
However...
Although offender profiling is indeed a scientific field within criminology and psychology, many theories are yet to be proven correct. Offender profiling depends on two things: behavioral consistency and homology. This means that for all typologies of offender profiling to be 100% accurate, an offender’s behaviour must be the same throughout different environments and occasions and throughout time (behaviour consistency) and similar crimes must always be committed by the same type of offenders (homology). Although this has been proved correct in the cases of sexual crimes, other types of crimes are yet to obtain the same results in research. This means that offender profiling is, indeed, useful and helpful to police investigations but it should be treated with caution as it cannot be used as a single one tool to solve a case or find a perpetrator.
Thank you!
If you read this far, thank you for sticking around! Likes and reblogs are highly appreciated, and if you like what you see please consider following! Let me know what kind of content, scientific research, cases or theories you’d like to see here by dropping suggestions on the ask box!
See you next post!
