1-1 please read, before biding. there are reading material and

The Fictional World of Criminal Investigative Analysis
I CHOICE JAMeS Bond 
Sherlock Holmes and other fictional characters can draw a considerable amount of information from even the slightest crime scene evidence. They can infer detailed characteristics of the offender and can reach conclusions with a great degree of certainty; and, of course, they always seem to solve the crimes they are investigating.
In this Discussion, you select a fictional sleuth, investigate his or her methods for solving crimes, and compare those methods to those currently used in the role of criminal investigator.
To prepare for this Discussion:
Select a fictional character who investigates criminal behavior or crimes (example: Sherlock Holmes, Harry Bosch, Kay Scarpetta, Philip Marlowe, James Bond, Jack Reacher, Alex Cross, Travis McGee, Jane Rizzoli, or 
Lucas Davenport).
Describe the fictional crime investigator you selected. Explain a few of his/her methods or signature investigative traits. Compare how these methods may or may not match your perspective of the process and purpose of criminal investigative analysis. Explain what you think modern criminal investigators and criminal profilers should be able to do.
Grading criteria
   
Excellent
excelent 
 
Main Discussion Posting Content
Points Range:
27 (54%) – 30 (60%)
Discussion posting demonstrates an excellent understanding of all of the concepts and key points presented in the text/s and Learning Resources. Posting provides significant detail including multiple relevant examples, evidence from the readings and other scholarly sources, and discerning ideas.
 
Reply Post & Peer Interaction
Points Range:
9 (18%) – 10 (20%)
Student interacts frequently with peers. The feedback postings and responses to questions are excellent and fully contribute to the quality of interaction by offering constructive critique, suggestions, in-depth questions, use of scholarly, empirical resources, and stimulating thoughts and/or probes.
 
Writing
Points Range:
9 (18%) – 10 (20%)
Postings are well organized, use scholarly tone, contain original writing and proper paraphrasing, follow APA style, contain very few or no writing and/or spelling errors, and are fully consistent with graduate-level writing style.
Reading Matirali
Bartol, C. R. & Bartol, A. M. (2010). Criminal & behavioral profiling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Chapter 1, “Introduction” (pp. 1–20)

Turvey, B. E. (2012). Criminal profiling: An introduction to behavioral evidence analysis (4th ed.). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Chapter 1, “A History of Criminal Profiling” (pp. 3–39)
Chapter 2, “Criminal Profiling: Science, Logic, and Cognition” (pp. 41–66)

Inside the mind of the mind hunter: an interview with legendary FBI agent John Douglas
Source:
The Forensic Examiner. Spring, 2007, Vol. 16 Issue 1, p10, 4 p.
Publisher Information:
KSA Media, LLC
Publication Year:
2007
Subject Terms:
Detectives — Interviews
Criminal profiling
Subject Person:
Douglas, John E. — Interviews
Subject Geographic:
United States
Description:
Meet Criminal Profiler John Douglas at the 2007 ACFEI National Conference! John Douglas, former head of the FBI’s Investigative Support Unit, has hunted some of the most notorious and sadistic […]
Document Type:
Interview
Language:
English
ISSN:
1084-5569
Rights:
Copyright 2007 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
COPYRIGHT 2007 KSA Media, LLC
Accession Number:
edsgcl.161282529
Database:
Gale Academic OneFile Select
Criminal Profiling Works and EVERYONE Agrees Richard N. Kocsis PhD 
To cite this article: Richard N. Kocsis PhD (2010) Criminal Profiling Works and EVERYONE Agrees, , 10:3, 224-237, DOI: 10.1080/15228930903550574 
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15228930903550574 
Published online: 19 May 2010. 
Submit your article to this journal Article views: 5313 
View related articles
Citing articles: 3 View citing articles 
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wfpp21 
Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 10:224–237, 2010 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1522-8932 print/1522-9092 online
DOI: 10.1080/15228930903550574 
Criminal Profiling Works and EVERYONE Agrees 
Richard N. Kocsis, PhD 
Forensic Psychologist in Private Practice 
This article considers the empirical evidence currently available, which examines the validity of criminal profiling. The manuscript also serves to highlight a third key flaw in Snook et al. (2007) which, in the writer’s view, further renders its conclusions prob- lematic. The phenomena referred to as the nomenclature illusion is discussed to explain its role in hindering the cogent development of scientific knowledge in the area of criminal profiling. The ram- ifications of these findings for competing theoretical approaches to criminal profiling are also explored. Final comments consider the optimal approach for the development of operationally relevant techniques for profiling violent crimes in the future. 
KEYWORDS criminal profiling, investigative psychology, meta- analysis, predictive validity, psychological profiling 
The manuscript by Snook, Eastwood, Gendreau, Goggin, and Cullen (2007) offers an evaluation of the validity of criminal profiling via meta-analyses of various original data-driven studies. The writer identified three1 key issues that, in his view, rendered claims of Snook et al. (2007) flawed. In the writer’s subsequent manuscript concerning the validity of criminal profiling (see Kocsis, Middledorp & Karpin, 2008), the statistics reported on in Snook et al. were reconfigured, with discussion devoted to two of its key flaws. The first key flaw concerned a contradiction between previously opined criticisms and the analysis of Snook et al. (2007). Specifically, Snook et al. suggested 

Australia 
Since producing this manuscript, the author has identified further issues related to statistical principles in employing meta-analysis that appear to have also been overlooked by Snook et al. (2007). Address correspondence to Dr. Richard N. Kocsis, P.O. Box 662, Dee Why, NSW 2099 
224 
Criminal Profiling Works 225 
that many of the original studies evaluating profiling were methodologi- cally flawed, ergo invalid. Notwithstanding this, Snook et al. used these same purportedly flawed studies as the basis for their own meta-analyses, the outcomes of which they claimed were robust. Thereafter, Kocsis et al. (2008) sought to highlight the inconsistency in the Snook et al. approach and argued that the use of the original studies necessitated by implication that they were regarded as sufficiently valid to have not been discounted in the meta-analyses conducted by Snook et al. (2007). 
The second key flaw concerned an inappropriate combination of data that, in the writer’s view, served to undermine the validity of the Snook et al. (2007) conclusions. Specifically, Snook et al. asserted that samples of police personnel were a representative measure of the capabilities of expert profilers and, based on this, samples of both profilers and police personnel were combined in their analysis. However, as Kocsis et al. (2008) indicated, there is no legitimate reason to equate police personnel with the abilities of profilers. Consequently, the combination of these samples is inherently problematic for the claims advanced by Snook et al. (2007). 
After the publication of Kocsis et al. (2008), a rebuttal by Snook et al. (2010) was produced, and this manuscript is a rejoinder. When Kocsis et al. (2008) was prepared there were a number of issues, which the writer wished to discuss, which were foregone in lieu of the need to produce a concise manuscript. In the wake of Snook, Eastwood, Gendreau, and Bennell (2010) however, the relevance of these issues seem especially pertinent and will be canvassed herein in the context of addressing the contentions of Snook et al. (2010). 
OBSTACLES IN RESPONDING TO SNOOK ET AL. (2010) 
Before proceeding further, two issues need to be identified that, in the writer’s view, impact upon the ability to address some of the matters raised in Snook et al. (2010). The first are contradictions and/or inconsistencies concerning the assertions posited by Snook et al. The second involves disparities between the articulated criticisms of Snook et al. and what the studies of Kocsis et al. posit. That is, the writer is in the unenviable position of having to respond to criticisms that do not appear to be reflective of what appears in the subject research but instead seem to be more premised upon what Snook et al. have synthesized about the writer’s work and/or that of others. 
Contradictions 
The writer in the limited space provided by this rejoinder cannot detail every perceived contradiction. Consequently, only a small number are referred to 
226 R. N. Kocsis 
herein to illustrate the flavor and occurrence of such contradictions. One notable example is the following statement: “The issue here is not to rehash criticisms with Kocsis’ research that have been debated elsewhere” (Snook et al., 2010, p. 221). 
Despite making this assertion, Snook et al., it appears, do just that, with their criticisms concerning the skill basis of participants and the col- lected samples.2 Indeed, Snook et al. (2010) devote considerable space to questioning the parameters of the collected samples while simultaneously overlooking, it seems, the impact this has upon the earlier Snook et al. (2007) article, the findings of which they maintain are sound. That is, in advancing their criticisms, it seems that Snook et al. (2010) have overlooked that the data set in Kocsis et al. (2008), and Snook et al. (2007) are one and the same. This approach results in the situation whereby the identical data set is sufficiently robust for Snook et al. to conclude “The evidence generated from this research confirms. . . . that profilers do not decisively outperform other groups . . .” (Snook et al., 2007, p. 448) and yet is simulta- neously defective for Kocsis et al. (2008). Logically speaking, if the data set is insufficient for Kocsis et al. (2008) to draw any robust conclusions, then surely it is similarly inherently defective for the purposes of Snook et al. (2007). This same conclusion expressed in Snook et al. (2007) also seems to be unequivocal in its pronouncement, yet Snook et al. (2010) appears to somewhat inconsistently adopt a more equivocal position: “. . . Snook et al. [2007] were clear that the results of their meta-analyses should be treated as tentative . . .” (p. 216). The writer is unable to discern the “tentative” aspect in the aforementioned pronouncement by Snook et al. (2007). 
Disparities 
It is not the intention of the writer to chronicle each perceived disparity but to instead highlight examples so readers can perhaps gain an appreciation of the issue.3 Snook et al. (2010) for example, state, “We maintain that there is a rush to judgement by KMK regarding the positive forecasting abilities of profilers” (p. 218). The basis for reaching this conclusion is not clear, as the Kocsis et al. (2008) manuscript to which they refer as “KMK” unambiguously states “The present conclusions can be viewed as inchoate evidence of a 

of the criticisms presented by Snook et al. (2010) concerning the skill basis of participants and sample 
sizes. 3 
Readers should refer to the writer’s previous manuscript Kocsis (2006b, p. 466–470) for discussion 
Readers can also refer to Kocsis (2006b, pp. 460–462 and pp. 465–466) for other examples of disparities previously identified. 
Criminal Profiling Works 227 
growing technique . . .” (Kocsis et al. 2008, p. 258).4 The writer fails to see how Snook et al. can interpret “inchoate evidence” as being “a rush to judgment.” 
Another conclusion that appears to have been drawn in Snook et al. (2010) is that the writer does not appreciate the importance of holistically for- mulated research and knowledge accumulation. The writer however, would have hoped that his publication record demonstrated a clear commitment to producing research of this nature. Kocsis et al. (2008) in particular rep- resents a holistic evaluation of the validity of criminal profiling which takes into account Snook et al. (2007) and, in the writer’s view, debunks its find- ings. Snook et al. (2010) may have misinterpreted that the issues canvassed in Kocsis et al. (2008) primarily relate to misguided applications of meta- analysis (Ioannidis & Lau, 1999; Esteban, Hernadez, & Kattan, 2008) and other methodological weaknesses. 
THE FIRST KEY FLAW: THE CONTRADICTION OF GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT 
The first key flaw in Snook et al. (2007) does not, in the writer’s view, lie in the conclusions per se but rather in drawing conclusions based on original studies subject to their meta-analyses, which they maintain were inherently compromised. The dilemma for Snook et al. (2007) is reconciling their conclusions as valid in the face of relying upon original studies that they considered flawed. In an effort to address this Snook et al. (2010) suggest that their use of the studies was to “include all available research (regardless of quality) that has examined the accuracy of criminal profilers in mock pro- filing exercises” (p. 216). Notwithstanding that the notion of “quality” in the absence of articulated criteria is nebulous, such inclusion nonetheless over- looks their assessment of the integrity of the original studies that produced the data and fails to address what Kocsis et al. (2008) highlights: this being the contradiction of using the original studies viewed as methodologically defective to support conclusions that Snook et al. maintain are sound.5 
Their arguments, in the writer’s view, when examined under a less- contorted prism, appear to be little more than an unsound compromise and an attempt to retrospectively explain the inherent contradiction. When the 

research I have undertaken ever been represented as an authoritative treatise on the topic of criminal 
profiling. Rather my findings are clearly reported as tentative observations concerning a practice for 
which scientific inquiry is long overdue. Further replication and development in the future is clearly 
emphasized” (Kocsis, 2006b, p. 470). 

Furthermore, in a previous article the writer has also stated: “. . . importantly, at no point has the 
One apparent ambiguity surrounding this issue is the suggested notion by Snook et al. of “quality” and the writer’s concomitant delineation of methodological standards in published studies. Unfortunately, this concept of quality does not, in the writer’s view, appear clear in their prior arguments. Instead, arguably the criticisms by Snook et al. concerning the writer’s studies seem to be expressed in more categorical terms as either acceptable or unacceptable. 
228 R. N. Kocsis 
layers of sophistry are laid bare, the insurmountable obstacle confronting Snook et al. is, in the writer’s view, reconciling their assertions in the first instance with their actions thereafter, in the face of the more commonly expressed logic of garbage in, garbage out.6 
THE SECOND KEY FLAW: WHO ARE NOT CRIMINAL PROFILERS? 
The quintessential flaw present in the Snook et al. (2007) article, in the writer’s view, is combining police personnel with profilers as it is the col- lapsing of these distinct sample groups that largely underpin the assertions concerning the lack of proficiency of profilers. As previously argued in Kocsis et al. (2008, p. 251–253), this is an inappropriate combination of data. In all fairness, however, the Snook et al. approach in this regard is not entirely of their own creation but is, in part, attributable to the absence of any uniformly recognized criteria governing who is qualified to operate under the colloquial mantle of profiler(see Kocsis, 2009). Snook et al. are, it appears, in agreement with the writer in noting the lack of consensus of an operational definition for profiler. As a clear demarcation does not exist governing who is and is not a criminal profiler, it seems rather disingenuous, then, to argue that police personnel should be construed in some capacity as reflective of the capabilities of profilers. Nonetheless, in the context of the studies that the writer has been involved in producing, this question can be answered not by debating the ambiguities of who are profilers but rather via a process of elimination in assessing who are not criminal profilers. Common sense dictates that individuals who have not studied criminal profiling, who do not engage in criminal profiling or claim to be criminal profilers, should not be regarded as profilers. Similarly also, police personnel who do not claim to be profilers and have not studied or engaged in criminal profiling should likewise not be regarded as profilers. In this context, therefore, the merging of data pertaining to police personnel with profilers that has been made by Snook et al. (2007) is not, in the writer’s view, appropriate, thus rendering the validity of the conclusions drawn from the assembled data set problematic. 
THE THIRD KEY FLAW: EXPERT AND TRAINED PROFILERS 
Once again, to be fair to Snook et al. (2007), the third key flaw present is not one entirely of their own making but in part appears to stem from a nuance in Pinizzotto and Finkel’s (1990) original research. It needs to 

One hypothetical analogy to illustrate the untenable nature of the Snook et al. position may be to formulate conclusions on the nature of criminality drawn from a meta-analysis of studies on phrenology. That is, although we state as researchers that the scientific basis of phrenology is invalid, we will nonetheless utilize a collection of these studies in a meta-analysis, the outcomes of which we then contend are sound. 
Criminal Profiling Works 229 
be understood that Pinizzotto and Finkel is an amalgam of small exper- iments examining different facets in the construction of criminal profiles. Thus, one experiment examined the content of written profiles, another involved a recognition task, and yet another examined the types of case materials differing participants attenuated upon. The groups that were used in these experiments are typically described in a cursory manner as being composed of four types of participants: profilers, detectives, psychologists, and students. The one sub-component to Pinizzotto and Finkel that has arguably attracted the most attention, and which many of the writer’s stud- ies are modeled upon thereafter, involves a multiple-choice questionnaire in conjunction with case materials as a method of objectively measuring the accuracy of profile predictions. 
Though Pinizzotto and Finkel’s (1990) study is composed of numerous small experiments, there were in fact five, not four, groups of partici- pants. This fifth group, importantly however, did not feature in all of the experiments. That is, Pinizzotto and Finkel’s research involved a sample of detectives, psychologists, and students but also contained not one, but two, distinct groups of profiler type participants. The first group was labeled “Group A, Expert/Teacher” and was composed of 
“. . . profiling experts [emphasis added] who train police detectives in profiling at the F.B.I. Academy in Quantico, Virginia. Each of these sub- jects is or was an agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation. They shared a combined total of 42 years of profiling . . . range of 4–17 years experience” (Pinizzotto & Finkel, 1990, p. 218). 
In comparison, the second group was labeled “Group B, Profilers” and consisted of 
“police detectives from different police agencies across the country who have been specifically trained in personality profiling . . . The course of studies involved 1 year at the Behavioral Science Unit of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Quantico . . . and 14 years of com- bined experience in profiling (range = 1–6)” (Pinizzotto & Finkel, 1990, p. 218). 
What is perhaps overlooked is that the expert profilers of the FBI’s Behavioral Science Unit did not participate in the multiple-choice question- naire sub-component of Pinizzotto and Finkel (1990). The trained detectives who had undertaken a 1-year course in the FBI’s profiling method how- ever, did. Consequently, the findings of the multiple-choice experiment in Pinizzotto and Finkel are not reflective of the FBI’s expert profilers but, rather, individuals who have undertaken a 1-year training course in the FBI profiling method and possessed a modest amount of profiling experience 
230 R. N. Kocsis 
in comparison to the expert/teacher group.7 As has already been discussed, the classification of who are profilers is a contentious issue. In evaluating accuracy, however, the writer has endeavored to test individuals who might be regarded as suitable professionals. Accordingly, sampled profilers have been described as “. . . well-regarded, senior members of the forensic mental health profession” (Kocsis, 2004, p. 348). The years of formal tertiary educa- tion and training, as well as forensic clinical experience of these subjects, in the writer’s view, surpass and are not thus equivalent to the trained police detectives tested in Pinizzotto and Finkel. Consequently, the third key flaw in the Snook et al. (2007) manuscript is, as the writer sees it, another inap- propriate combination of data pertaining to trained profilers in Pinizzotto and Finkel with profiler subjects collected in the studies by the writer. It was partly owing to this issue that the Kocsis et al. (2008) study concluded by observing 
. . . simplified comparisons such as profilers versus nonprofilers are not ideal but have been followed here to make the present research directly comparable with that of Snook et al. (2007). In so doing, it can be seen that the contentions advanced by Snook et al. concerning the accuracy of profilers have been demonstrated to be invalid. Nonetheless, a more incisive depiction of the capabilities of profilers in comparison to a range of other individual skill based groups of participants can be found in Kocsis (2003) (Kocsis et al., 2008, p. 259–260). 
This final paragraph of Kocsis et al. (2008) clearly indicates that the reconfigured data are not ideal; however, readers are referred to Kocsis (2003) for a clearer assessment. 
MISSING THE POINT: BESD STATISTICS AND CONFIDENCE INTERVALS 
As previously indicated, the writer’s capacity to respond to Snook et al. (2010) is hampered by the perceived disparities. What appears to be another manifestation of this problem is a variety of statistical issues raised by Snook et al., as these arguments, in the writer’s view, are suggestive of a funda- mental misunderstanding of the flaws of Snook et al. (2007). For example, it appears that Snook et al. have failed to appreciate that the BESD statistics 

The writer wishes to take this opportunity to clarify that these comments should not in any capacity be construed as criticism of the work undertaken by Pinizzotto and Finkel (1990) and/or the activities of the FBI’s BSU or the courses that organization conducts. The focus of the comments is to highlight the distinction in the profiler participants. The significance of this distinction between the differing groups of profilers is fundamentally manifest in the very creation of such a distinction between the two groups of profilers by Pinizzotto and Finkel (1990). 

It appears that Snook et al. may be suggesting that they possess a higher standard of objectivity, 
Criminal Profiling Works 231 
in Kocsis et al. (2008) served as a simple mechanism by which the overall patterns of the meta-analyses in Snook et al. (2007) were displayed. That is, the statistics illustrated how measures of accuracy were influenced by vari- ous combinations of data such as combining police personnel with profilers. The significance of the previous extract from Kocsis et al. (2008) appears to have not been understood, as it indicates that the analysis is not ideal but was adopted to be directly comparable, and thus demonstrate the invalid nature of the assertions in Snook et al. (2007).8 It seems that Snook et al. (2010) have simply missed the point, that the basis to the three key flaws in Snook et al. (2007) do not originate in statistical numbers per se but, rather, the methodology employed to generate those numbers. 
Hazards With Self-Appointed Experts 
In the writer’s opinion the most troubling statement in Snook et al. (2010) is the claim that 
. . .we are in a position to be objective researchers in the field of CP [acronym for “criminal profiling”] because we are not involved in pro- viding profiling advice (and therefore have no stake in how profilers perform) and do not advocate any “approach” to profiling (p. 220). 
The writer assumes, in the wake of seminal works on the philosophy of scientific development such as Kuhn (1962) that Snook et al. are not suggesting that academics in university institutions are somehow immune to subjective factors including, for example, career agendas related to their research activities.9 Indeed, deeper consideration of the Snook et al. state- ment seems to imply that anyone, including Snook et al., once involved in providing profiling advice are thereafter somehow impaired with respect to researching objectively that activity. 
Alternatively, this statement by Snook et al. (2010) may simply be an admission that they have no expertise in the area as they have no involve- ment in the provision of profiling advice. This being the case then, what does this say about the criticisms posed by them?10 The writer has previously 
8
that readers were instead referred to Kocsis (2003). 
It was for reasons such as the third key flaw and the sub-optimal nature of simplified comparisons 
as they are not involved in the provision of profiling advice and claim that they do not advocate any 
approach. It is not, however, clear how the Snook et al. criteria would reconcile with, for example, the 
author’s many collaborators/co-authors who would, following their criteria, also have “no stake in how 
profilers perform,” do not advocate any approach, and thus would also qualify as “objective researchers 
in the field of CP.” 
10 
Their claim concerning their suitability to assess profiling seems analogous to the assertion that a non-practicing lawyer has a more objective understanding of the law than an experienced practicing lawyer. 
232 R. N. Kocsis 
commented upon a sense of naïvete’ informing proffered arguments by com- mentators in the field of criminal profiling (see Kocsis, 2006b, p. 460–465). This is arguably reflected in observations such as “. . . we believe that police forces should avoid using CP until there is sound empirical data supporting it as an effective investigative tool” (Snook et al., 2010, p. 221). 
Confronted by an aberrant violent crime that is not resolvable via conventional investigative methods, police personnel should be reasonably entitled to use criminal profiling as a resource to augment their investigative efforts. As Ormerod and Sturman (2005, p. 171) have noted, there are gen- erally “. . . no rigid legal rules . . .” on what resources police may utilize provided that they “. . . comply with statutory and common-law rules relat- ing to processes of search, arrest and interviewing . . .” When confronted by problems in the real world, potential remedies must be explored. To sug- gest that until a perfect solution is available we should avoid trialing possible solutions is, in the writer’s view, suggestive of a naïve approach to dealing with the capricious vicissitudes of life. 
The Nomenclature Illusion 
One of the most troubling developments that, in the writer’s view, hinders scientific development in the area of criminal profiling is a phenomenon best described as the “nomenclature illusion.” Briefly, the nomenclature illusion arises from the arguably unwarranted creation of terminology and differ- ences that can serve as mechanisms for generating artificial distinctions that may, in turn, influence perceptions of merit. One example of the nomen- clature illusion can be seen in the study by Torres, Boccanccini, and Miller (2006), who surveyed various forensic mental health professionals concern- ing their perceptions of the scientific basis to profiling. The authors found that fewer than 25% of their respondents believed that “profiling” was sci- entifically valid. However, a simple change in terminology from profiling to criminal investigative analysis saw an increase in the perceived validity among respondents. Through a semantic variation in terminology, therefore, an arguably artificial distinction was created and was accompanied by a cor- responding perceived variation in merit.11 From their research, Torres et al. (p. 55–57) concluded that “. . . profiling is likely to be viewed more favor- ably if it is referred to by another name . . . the definitions provided for profiling and criminal investigative analysis were identical. Only the name of the process varied.” 
11 
Another domain wherein the nomenclature illusion appears to have been noted arises in legal contexts in which attempts have been made to admit aspects of criminal profiling as testimony albeit using different terminology. Consistent with the tenets of the nomenclature illusion attempts to admit such testimony have been criticized as “a distinction without a difference” and “a different suit on the same animal” (Grezlak, 1999, p. 2). 
12 
Some examples include, but are not limited to, the detection of deceit, eyewitness testimony, 
Criminal Profiling Works 233 
Within the context of the present manuscript there are, in the writer’s view, two pertinent examples of the nomenclature illusion. The first con- cerns the term investigative psychology (in acronym IP). As indicated in Kocsis (2006b), it is unclear how the topics12 said to comprise IP are not already encapsulated by more established terms such as forensic psychology and/or criminal psychology (e.g., Arrigo & Shipley, 2004; Bull et al., 2006; Healy, 1926; Howitt, 2002; Kocsis, 2009; Pakes & Pakes, 2009; Presetsky, 1986; Toch, 1961, 2000; Wrightsman, 2001). Consequently, beyond acting as a moniker for the collective research activities and university courses loosely associated with Professor David Canter on the topic of criminal profiling, the term investigative psychology appears to be somewhat superfluous (Kocsis, 2006b). Nonetheless, following the tenets of the nomenclature illusion, the invention of the term IP arguably fosters an artificial distinction and, thus, perception that IP is something separate and distinct from criminal profil- ing. This may also even extend to the perception that the methodologies it adopts possess some greater merit over others. 
The second pertinent example of the nomenclature illusion relates to the conceptual deconstruction of criminal profiling. Criminal profiling and its various synonyms13 is a colloquially understood term that the writer has used for ease of recognition to describe the assessment of violent crimes as a method of assisting investigators in potentially identifying and thus apprehending offender(s) (Kocsis, 2006a, 2009; Safarik, Jarvis, & Nussbaum, 2000). Thus, the concept of “criminal profiling” extends beyond the predic- tion of offender characteristics and encapsulates numerous other facets such as, but not limited to, the assessment of relationships (if any) between per- petrated offenses, the interpretation of exhibited offense behaviors, and the evaluation of psychopathologies and/or motives (e.g., Douglas & Olshaker, 1995, Hazelwood & Michaud, 1999; Holmes & Holmes, 1996, Palermo & Kocsis, 2005; Ressler & Shachtman, 1992). It appears, however, that over time, attempts have been made to deconstruct this colloquial understanding of criminal profiling by creating subdivisions and artificial distinctions fos- tered by the development of new terminology. That is, by adopting a more constricted conceptualization of criminal profiling as involving only the pre- diction of offender characteristics, concepts, and/or knowledge external to this notion are conceived and labeled as something different to criminal profiling. In the writer’s opinion, an example of this artificial distinction can be observed in the narrative review of research literature presented in Snook et al. (2007). That is, by adopting a limited conceptualization of “criminal profiling,” literature that is arguably rightly inherent to the corpus 
investigative interviewing, sexual and violent offending, jury decision making, and expert psychological 
testimony. 
13 
Some examples includ

1-1 please read, before biding. there are reading material and

The Fictional World of Criminal Investigative Analysis
I CHOICE JAMeS Bond 
Sherlock Holmes and other fictional characters can draw a considerable amount of information from even the slightest crime scene evidence. They can infer detailed characteristics of the offender and can reach conclusions with a great degree of certainty; and, of course, they always seem to solve the crimes they are investigating.
In this Discussion, you select a fictional sleuth, investigate his or her methods for solving crimes, and compare those methods to those currently used in the role of criminal investigator.
To prepare for this Discussion:
Select a fictional character who investigates criminal behavior or crimes (example: Sherlock Holmes, Harry Bosch, Kay Scarpetta, Philip Marlowe, James Bond, Jack Reacher, Alex Cross, Travis McGee, Jane Rizzoli, or 
Lucas Davenport).
Describe the fictional crime investigator you selected. Explain a few of his/her methods or signature investigative traits. Compare how these methods may or may not match your perspective of the process and purpose of criminal investigative analysis. Explain what you think modern criminal investigators and criminal profilers should be able to do.
Grading criteria
   
Excellent
excelent 
 
Main Discussion Posting Content
Points Range:
27 (54%) – 30 (60%)
Discussion posting demonstrates an excellent understanding of all of the concepts and key points presented in the text/s and Learning Resources. Posting provides significant detail including multiple relevant examples, evidence from the readings and other scholarly sources, and discerning ideas.
 
Reply Post & Peer Interaction
Points Range:
9 (18%) – 10 (20%)
Student interacts frequently with peers. The feedback postings and responses to questions are excellent and fully contribute to the quality of interaction by offering constructive critique, suggestions, in-depth questions, use of scholarly, empirical resources, and stimulating thoughts and/or probes.
 
Writing
Points Range:
9 (18%) – 10 (20%)
Postings are well organized, use scholarly tone, contain original writing and proper paraphrasing, follow APA style, contain very few or no writing and/or spelling errors, and are fully consistent with graduate-level writing style.
Reading Matirali
Bartol, C. R. & Bartol, A. M. (2010). Criminal & behavioral profiling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Chapter 1, “Introduction” (pp. 1–20)

Turvey, B. E. (2012). Criminal profiling: An introduction to behavioral evidence analysis (4th ed.). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Chapter 1, “A History of Criminal Profiling” (pp. 3–39)
Chapter 2, “Criminal Profiling: Science, Logic, and Cognition” (pp. 41–66)

Inside the mind of the mind hunter: an interview with legendary FBI agent John Douglas
Source:
The Forensic Examiner. Spring, 2007, Vol. 16 Issue 1, p10, 4 p.
Publisher Information:
KSA Media, LLC
Publication Year:
2007
Subject Terms:
Detectives — Interviews
Criminal profiling
Subject Person:
Douglas, John E. — Interviews
Subject Geographic:
United States
Description:
Meet Criminal Profiler John Douglas at the 2007 ACFEI National Conference! John Douglas, former head of the FBI’s Investigative Support Unit, has hunted some of the most notorious and sadistic […]
Document Type:
Interview
Language:
English
ISSN:
1084-5569
Rights:
Copyright 2007 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
COPYRIGHT 2007 KSA Media, LLC
Accession Number:
edsgcl.161282529
Database:
Gale Academic OneFile Select
Criminal Profiling Works and EVERYONE Agrees Richard N. Kocsis PhD 
To cite this article: Richard N. Kocsis PhD (2010) Criminal Profiling Works and EVERYONE Agrees, , 10:3, 224-237, DOI: 10.1080/15228930903550574 
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15228930903550574 
Published online: 19 May 2010. 
Submit your article to this journal Article views: 5313 
View related articles
Citing articles: 3 View citing articles 
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wfpp21 
Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 10:224–237, 2010 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1522-8932 print/1522-9092 online
DOI: 10.1080/15228930903550574 
Criminal Profiling Works and EVERYONE Agrees 
Richard N. Kocsis, PhD 
Forensic Psychologist in Private Practice 
This article considers the empirical evidence currently available, which examines the validity of criminal profiling. The manuscript also serves to highlight a third key flaw in Snook et al. (2007) which, in the writer’s view, further renders its conclusions prob- lematic. The phenomena referred to as the nomenclature illusion is discussed to explain its role in hindering the cogent development of scientific knowledge in the area of criminal profiling. The ram- ifications of these findings for competing theoretical approaches to criminal profiling are also explored. Final comments consider the optimal approach for the development of operationally relevant techniques for profiling violent crimes in the future. 
KEYWORDS criminal profiling, investigative psychology, meta- analysis, predictive validity, psychological profiling 
The manuscript by Snook, Eastwood, Gendreau, Goggin, and Cullen (2007) offers an evaluation of the validity of criminal profiling via meta-analyses of various original data-driven studies. The writer identified three1 key issues that, in his view, rendered claims of Snook et al. (2007) flawed. In the writer’s subsequent manuscript concerning the validity of criminal profiling (see Kocsis, Middledorp & Karpin, 2008), the statistics reported on in Snook et al. were reconfigured, with discussion devoted to two of its key flaws. The first key flaw concerned a contradiction between previously opined criticisms and the analysis of Snook et al. (2007). Specifically, Snook et al. suggested 

Australia 
Since producing this manuscript, the author has identified further issues related to statistical principles in employing meta-analysis that appear to have also been overlooked by Snook et al. (2007). Address correspondence to Dr. Richard N. Kocsis, P.O. Box 662, Dee Why, NSW 2099 
224 
Criminal Profiling Works 225 
that many of the original studies evaluating profiling were methodologi- cally flawed, ergo invalid. Notwithstanding this, Snook et al. used these same purportedly flawed studies as the basis for their own meta-analyses, the outcomes of which they claimed were robust. Thereafter, Kocsis et al. (2008) sought to highlight the inconsistency in the Snook et al. approach and argued that the use of the original studies necessitated by implication that they were regarded as sufficiently valid to have not been discounted in the meta-analyses conducted by Snook et al. (2007). 
The second key flaw concerned an inappropriate combination of data that, in the writer’s view, served to undermine the validity of the Snook et al. (2007) conclusions. Specifically, Snook et al. asserted that samples of police personnel were a representative measure of the capabilities of expert profilers and, based on this, samples of both profilers and police personnel were combined in their analysis. However, as Kocsis et al. (2008) indicated, there is no legitimate reason to equate police personnel with the abilities of profilers. Consequently, the combination of these samples is inherently problematic for the claims advanced by Snook et al. (2007). 
After the publication of Kocsis et al. (2008), a rebuttal by Snook et al. (2010) was produced, and this manuscript is a rejoinder. When Kocsis et al. (2008) was prepared there were a number of issues, which the writer wished to discuss, which were foregone in lieu of the need to produce a concise manuscript. In the wake of Snook, Eastwood, Gendreau, and Bennell (2010) however, the relevance of these issues seem especially pertinent and will be canvassed herein in the context of addressing the contentions of Snook et al. (2010). 
OBSTACLES IN RESPONDING TO SNOOK ET AL. (2010) 
Before proceeding further, two issues need to be identified that, in the writer’s view, impact upon the ability to address some of the matters raised in Snook et al. (2010). The first are contradictions and/or inconsistencies concerning the assertions posited by Snook et al. The second involves disparities between the articulated criticisms of Snook et al. and what the studies of Kocsis et al. posit. That is, the writer is in the unenviable position of having to respond to criticisms that do not appear to be reflective of what appears in the subject research but instead seem to be more premised upon what Snook et al. have synthesized about the writer’s work and/or that of others. 
Contradictions 
The writer in the limited space provided by this rejoinder cannot detail every perceived contradiction. Consequently, only a small number are referred to 
226 R. N. Kocsis 
herein to illustrate the flavor and occurrence of such contradictions. One notable example is the following statement: “The issue here is not to rehash criticisms with Kocsis’ research that have been debated elsewhere” (Snook et al., 2010, p. 221). 
Despite making this assertion, Snook et al., it appears, do just that, with their criticisms concerning the skill basis of participants and the col- lected samples.2 Indeed, Snook et al. (2010) devote considerable space to questioning the parameters of the collected samples while simultaneously overlooking, it seems, the impact this has upon the earlier Snook et al. (2007) article, the findings of which they maintain are sound. That is, in advancing their criticisms, it seems that Snook et al. (2010) have overlooked that the data set in Kocsis et al. (2008), and Snook et al. (2007) are one and the same. This approach results in the situation whereby the identical data set is sufficiently robust for Snook et al. to conclude “The evidence generated from this research confirms. . . . that profilers do not decisively outperform other groups . . .” (Snook et al., 2007, p. 448) and yet is simulta- neously defective for Kocsis et al. (2008). Logically speaking, if the data set is insufficient for Kocsis et al. (2008) to draw any robust conclusions, then surely it is similarly inherently defective for the purposes of Snook et al. (2007). This same conclusion expressed in Snook et al. (2007) also seems to be unequivocal in its pronouncement, yet Snook et al. (2010) appears to somewhat inconsistently adopt a more equivocal position: “. . . Snook et al. [2007] were clear that the results of their meta-analyses should be treated as tentative . . .” (p. 216). The writer is unable to discern the “tentative” aspect in the aforementioned pronouncement by Snook et al. (2007). 
Disparities 
It is not the intention of the writer to chronicle each perceived disparity but to instead highlight examples so readers can perhaps gain an appreciation of the issue.3 Snook et al. (2010) for example, state, “We maintain that there is a rush to judgement by KMK regarding the positive forecasting abilities of profilers” (p. 218). The basis for reaching this conclusion is not clear, as the Kocsis et al. (2008) manuscript to which they refer as “KMK” unambiguously states “The present conclusions can be viewed as inchoate evidence of a 

of the criticisms presented by Snook et al. (2010) concerning the skill basis of participants and sample 
sizes. 3 
Readers should refer to the writer’s previous manuscript Kocsis (2006b, p. 466–470) for discussion 
Readers can also refer to Kocsis (2006b, pp. 460–462 and pp. 465–466) for other examples of disparities previously identified. 
Criminal Profiling Works 227 
growing technique . . .” (Kocsis et al. 2008, p. 258).4 The writer fails to see how Snook et al. can interpret “inchoate evidence” as being “a rush to judgment.” 
Another conclusion that appears to have been drawn in Snook et al. (2010) is that the writer does not appreciate the importance of holistically for- mulated research and knowledge accumulation. The writer however, would have hoped that his publication record demonstrated a clear commitment to producing research of this nature. Kocsis et al. (2008) in particular rep- resents a holistic evaluation of the validity of criminal profiling which takes into account Snook et al. (2007) and, in the writer’s view, debunks its find- ings. Snook et al. (2010) may have misinterpreted that the issues canvassed in Kocsis et al. (2008) primarily relate to misguided applications of meta- analysis (Ioannidis & Lau, 1999; Esteban, Hernadez, & Kattan, 2008) and other methodological weaknesses. 
THE FIRST KEY FLAW: THE CONTRADICTION OF GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT 
The first key flaw in Snook et al. (2007) does not, in the writer’s view, lie in the conclusions per se but rather in drawing conclusions based on original studies subject to their meta-analyses, which they maintain were inherently compromised. The dilemma for Snook et al. (2007) is reconciling their conclusions as valid in the face of relying upon original studies that they considered flawed. In an effort to address this Snook et al. (2010) suggest that their use of the studies was to “include all available research (regardless of quality) that has examined the accuracy of criminal profilers in mock pro- filing exercises” (p. 216). Notwithstanding that the notion of “quality” in the absence of articulated criteria is nebulous, such inclusion nonetheless over- looks their assessment of the integrity of the original studies that produced the data and fails to address what Kocsis et al. (2008) highlights: this being the contradiction of using the original studies viewed as methodologically defective to support conclusions that Snook et al. maintain are sound.5 
Their arguments, in the writer’s view, when examined under a less- contorted prism, appear to be little more than an unsound compromise and an attempt to retrospectively explain the inherent contradiction. When the 

research I have undertaken ever been represented as an authoritative treatise on the topic of criminal 
profiling. Rather my findings are clearly reported as tentative observations concerning a practice for 
which scientific inquiry is long overdue. Further replication and development in the future is clearly 
emphasized” (Kocsis, 2006b, p. 470). 

Furthermore, in a previous article the writer has also stated: “. . . importantly, at no point has the 
One apparent ambiguity surrounding this issue is the suggested notion by Snook et al. of “quality” and the writer’s concomitant delineation of methodological standards in published studies. Unfortunately, this concept of quality does not, in the writer’s view, appear clear in their prior arguments. Instead, arguably the criticisms by Snook et al. concerning the writer’s studies seem to be expressed in more categorical terms as either acceptable or unacceptable. 
228 R. N. Kocsis 
layers of sophistry are laid bare, the insurmountable obstacle confronting Snook et al. is, in the writer’s view, reconciling their assertions in the first instance with their actions thereafter, in the face of the more commonly expressed logic of garbage in, garbage out.6 
THE SECOND KEY FLAW: WHO ARE NOT CRIMINAL PROFILERS? 
The quintessential flaw present in the Snook et al. (2007) article, in the writer’s view, is combining police personnel with profilers as it is the col- lapsing of these distinct sample groups that largely underpin the assertions concerning the lack of proficiency of profilers. As previously argued in Kocsis et al. (2008, p. 251–253), this is an inappropriate combination of data. In all fairness, however, the Snook et al. approach in this regard is not entirely of their own creation but is, in part, attributable to the absence of any uniformly recognized criteria governing who is qualified to operate under the colloquial mantle of profiler(see Kocsis, 2009). Snook et al. are, it appears, in agreement with the writer in noting the lack of consensus of an operational definition for profiler. As a clear demarcation does not exist governing who is and is not a criminal profiler, it seems rather disingenuous, then, to argue that police personnel should be construed in some capacity as reflective of the capabilities of profilers. Nonetheless, in the context of the studies that the writer has been involved in producing, this question can be answered not by debating the ambiguities of who are profilers but rather via a process of elimination in assessing who are not criminal profilers. Common sense dictates that individuals who have not studied criminal profiling, who do not engage in criminal profiling or claim to be criminal profilers, should not be regarded as profilers. Similarly also, police personnel who do not claim to be profilers and have not studied or engaged in criminal profiling should likewise not be regarded as profilers. In this context, therefore, the merging of data pertaining to police personnel with profilers that has been made by Snook et al. (2007) is not, in the writer’s view, appropriate, thus rendering the validity of the conclusions drawn from the assembled data set problematic. 
THE THIRD KEY FLAW: EXPERT AND TRAINED PROFILERS 
Once again, to be fair to Snook et al. (2007), the third key flaw present is not one entirely of their own making but in part appears to stem from a nuance in Pinizzotto and Finkel’s (1990) original research. It needs to 

One hypothetical analogy to illustrate the untenable nature of the Snook et al. position may be to formulate conclusions on the nature of criminality drawn from a meta-analysis of studies on phrenology. That is, although we state as researchers that the scientific basis of phrenology is invalid, we will nonetheless utilize a collection of these studies in a meta-analysis, the outcomes of which we then contend are sound. 
Criminal Profiling Works 229 
be understood that Pinizzotto and Finkel is an amalgam of small exper- iments examining different facets in the construction of criminal profiles. Thus, one experiment examined the content of written profiles, another involved a recognition task, and yet another examined the types of case materials differing participants attenuated upon. The groups that were used in these experiments are typically described in a cursory manner as being composed of four types of participants: profilers, detectives, psychologists, and students. The one sub-component to Pinizzotto and Finkel that has arguably attracted the most attention, and which many of the writer’s stud- ies are modeled upon thereafter, involves a multiple-choice questionnaire in conjunction with case materials as a method of objectively measuring the accuracy of profile predictions. 
Though Pinizzotto and Finkel’s (1990) study is composed of numerous small experiments, there were in fact five, not four, groups of partici- pants. This fifth group, importantly however, did not feature in all of the experiments. That is, Pinizzotto and Finkel’s research involved a sample of detectives, psychologists, and students but also contained not one, but two, distinct groups of profiler type participants. The first group was labeled “Group A, Expert/Teacher” and was composed of 
“. . . profiling experts [emphasis added] who train police detectives in profiling at the F.B.I. Academy in Quantico, Virginia. Each of these sub- jects is or was an agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation. They shared a combined total of 42 years of profiling . . . range of 4–17 years experience” (Pinizzotto & Finkel, 1990, p. 218). 
In comparison, the second group was labeled “Group B, Profilers” and consisted of 
“police detectives from different police agencies across the country who have been specifically trained in personality profiling . . . The course of studies involved 1 year at the Behavioral Science Unit of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Quantico . . . and 14 years of com- bined experience in profiling (range = 1–6)” (Pinizzotto & Finkel, 1990, p. 218). 
What is perhaps overlooked is that the expert profilers of the FBI’s Behavioral Science Unit did not participate in the multiple-choice question- naire sub-component of Pinizzotto and Finkel (1990). The trained detectives who had undertaken a 1-year course in the FBI’s profiling method how- ever, did. Consequently, the findings of the multiple-choice experiment in Pinizzotto and Finkel are not reflective of the FBI’s expert profilers but, rather, individuals who have undertaken a 1-year training course in the FBI profiling method and possessed a modest amount of profiling experience 
230 R. N. Kocsis 
in comparison to the expert/teacher group.7 As has already been discussed, the classification of who are profilers is a contentious issue. In evaluating accuracy, however, the writer has endeavored to test individuals who might be regarded as suitable professionals. Accordingly, sampled profilers have been described as “. . . well-regarded, senior members of the forensic mental health profession” (Kocsis, 2004, p. 348). The years of formal tertiary educa- tion and training, as well as forensic clinical experience of these subjects, in the writer’s view, surpass and are not thus equivalent to the trained police detectives tested in Pinizzotto and Finkel. Consequently, the third key flaw in the Snook et al. (2007) manuscript is, as the writer sees it, another inap- propriate combination of data pertaining to trained profilers in Pinizzotto and Finkel with profiler subjects collected in the studies by the writer. It was partly owing to this issue that the Kocsis et al. (2008) study concluded by observing 
. . . simplified comparisons such as profilers versus nonprofilers are not ideal but have been followed here to make the present research directly comparable with that of Snook et al. (2007). In so doing, it can be seen that the contentions advanced by Snook et al. concerning the accuracy of profilers have been demonstrated to be invalid. Nonetheless, a more incisive depiction of the capabilities of profilers in comparison to a range of other individual skill based groups of participants can be found in Kocsis (2003) (Kocsis et al., 2008, p. 259–260). 
This final paragraph of Kocsis et al. (2008) clearly indicates that the reconfigured data are not ideal; however, readers are referred to Kocsis (2003) for a clearer assessment. 
MISSING THE POINT: BESD STATISTICS AND CONFIDENCE INTERVALS 
As previously indicated, the writer’s capacity to respond to Snook et al. (2010) is hampered by the perceived disparities. What appears to be another manifestation of this problem is a variety of statistical issues raised by Snook et al., as these arguments, in the writer’s view, are suggestive of a funda- mental misunderstanding of the flaws of Snook et al. (2007). For example, it appears that Snook et al. have failed to appreciate that the BESD statistics 

The writer wishes to take this opportunity to clarify that these comments should not in any capacity be construed as criticism of the work undertaken by Pinizzotto and Finkel (1990) and/or the activities of the FBI’s BSU or the courses that organization conducts. The focus of the comments is to highlight the distinction in the profiler participants. The significance of this distinction between the differing groups of profilers is fundamentally manifest in the very creation of such a distinction between the two groups of profilers by Pinizzotto and Finkel (1990). 

It appears that Snook et al. may be suggesting that they possess a higher standard of objectivity, 
Criminal Profiling Works 231 
in Kocsis et al. (2008) served as a simple mechanism by which the overall patterns of the meta-analyses in Snook et al. (2007) were displayed. That is, the statistics illustrated how measures of accuracy were influenced by vari- ous combinations of data such as combining police personnel with profilers. The significance of the previous extract from Kocsis et al. (2008) appears to have not been understood, as it indicates that the analysis is not ideal but was adopted to be directly comparable, and thus demonstrate the invalid nature of the assertions in Snook et al. (2007).8 It seems that Snook et al. (2010) have simply missed the point, that the basis to the three key flaws in Snook et al. (2007) do not originate in statistical numbers per se but, rather, the methodology employed to generate those numbers. 
Hazards With Self-Appointed Experts 
In the writer’s opinion the most troubling statement in Snook et al. (2010) is the claim that 
. . .we are in a position to be objective researchers in the field of CP [acronym for “criminal profiling”] because we are not involved in pro- viding profiling advice (and therefore have no stake in how profilers perform) and do not advocate any “approach” to profiling (p. 220). 
The writer assumes, in the wake of seminal works on the philosophy of scientific development such as Kuhn (1962) that Snook et al. are not suggesting that academics in university institutions are somehow immune to subjective factors including, for example, career agendas related to their research activities.9 Indeed, deeper consideration of the Snook et al. state- ment seems to imply that anyone, including Snook et al., once involved in providing profiling advice are thereafter somehow impaired with respect to researching objectively that activity. 
Alternatively, this statement by Snook et al. (2010) may simply be an admission that they have no expertise in the area as they have no involve- ment in the provision of profiling advice. This being the case then, what does this say about the criticisms posed by them?10 The writer has previously 
8
that readers were instead referred to Kocsis (2003). 
It was for reasons such as the third key flaw and the sub-optimal nature of simplified comparisons 
as they are not involved in the provision of profiling advice and claim that they do not advocate any 
approach. It is not, however, clear how the Snook et al. criteria would reconcile with, for example, the 
author’s many collaborators/co-authors who would, following their criteria, also have “no stake in how 
profilers perform,” do not advocate any approach, and thus would also qualify as “objective researchers 
in the field of CP.” 
10 
Their claim concerning their suitability to assess profiling seems analogous to the assertion that a non-practicing lawyer has a more objective understanding of the law than an experienced practicing lawyer. 
232 R. N. Kocsis 
commented upon a sense of naïvete’ informing proffered arguments by com- mentators in the field of criminal profiling (see Kocsis, 2006b, p. 460–465). This is arguably reflected in observations such as “. . . we believe that police forces should avoid using CP until there is sound empirical data supporting it as an effective investigative tool” (Snook et al., 2010, p. 221). 
Confronted by an aberrant violent crime that is not resolvable via conventional investigative methods, police personnel should be reasonably entitled to use criminal profiling as a resource to augment their investigative efforts. As Ormerod and Sturman (2005, p. 171) have noted, there are gen- erally “. . . no rigid legal rules . . .” on what resources police may utilize provided that they “. . . comply with statutory and common-law rules relat- ing to processes of search, arrest and interviewing . . .” When confronted by problems in the real world, potential remedies must be explored. To sug- gest that until a perfect solution is available we should avoid trialing possible solutions is, in the writer’s view, suggestive of a naïve approach to dealing with the capricious vicissitudes of life. 
The Nomenclature Illusion 
One of the most troubling developments that, in the writer’s view, hinders scientific development in the area of criminal profiling is a phenomenon best described as the “nomenclature illusion.” Briefly, the nomenclature illusion arises from the arguably unwarranted creation of terminology and differ- ences that can serve as mechanisms for generating artificial distinctions that may, in turn, influence perceptions of merit. One example of the nomen- clature illusion can be seen in the study by Torres, Boccanccini, and Miller (2006), who surveyed various forensic mental health professionals concern- ing their perceptions of the scientific basis to profiling. The authors found that fewer than 25% of their respondents believed that “profiling” was sci- entifically valid. However, a simple change in terminology from profiling to criminal investigative analysis saw an increase in the perceived validity among respondents. Through a semantic variation in terminology, therefore, an arguably artificial distinction was created and was accompanied by a cor- responding perceived variation in merit.11 From their research, Torres et al. (p. 55–57) concluded that “. . . profiling is likely to be viewed more favor- ably if it is referred to by another name . . . the definitions provided for profiling and criminal investigative analysis were identical. Only the name of the process varied.” 
11 
Another domain wherein the nomenclature illusion appears to have been noted arises in legal contexts in which attempts have been made to admit aspects of criminal profiling as testimony albeit using different terminology. Consistent with the tenets of the nomenclature illusion attempts to admit such testimony have been criticized as “a distinction without a difference” and “a different suit on the same animal” (Grezlak, 1999, p. 2). 
12 
Some examples include, but are not limited to, the detection of deceit, eyewitness testimony, 
Criminal Profiling Works 233 
Within the context of the present manuscript there are, in the writer’s view, two pertinent examples of the nomenclature illusion. The first con- cerns the term investigative psychology (in acronym IP). As indicated in Kocsis (2006b), it is unclear how the topics12 said to comprise IP are not already encapsulated by more established terms such as forensic psychology and/or criminal psychology (e.g., Arrigo & Shipley, 2004; Bull et al., 2006; Healy, 1926; Howitt, 2002; Kocsis, 2009; Pakes & Pakes, 2009; Presetsky, 1986; Toch, 1961, 2000; Wrightsman, 2001). Consequently, beyond acting as a moniker for the collective research activities and university courses loosely associated with Professor David Canter on the topic of criminal profiling, the term investigative psychology appears to be somewhat superfluous (Kocsis, 2006b). Nonetheless, following the tenets of the nomenclature illusion, the invention of the term IP arguably fosters an artificial distinction and, thus, perception that IP is something separate and distinct from criminal profil- ing. This may also even extend to the perception that the methodologies it adopts possess some greater merit over others. 
The second pertinent example of the nomenclature illusion relates to the conceptual deconstruction of criminal profiling. Criminal profiling and its various synonyms13 is a colloquially understood term that the writer has used for ease of recognition to describe the assessment of violent crimes as a method of assisting investigators in potentially identifying and thus apprehending offender(s) (Kocsis, 2006a, 2009; Safarik, Jarvis, & Nussbaum, 2000). Thus, the concept of “criminal profiling” extends beyond the predic- tion of offender characteristics and encapsulates numerous other facets such as, but not limited to, the assessment of relationships (if any) between per- petrated offenses, the interpretation of exhibited offense behaviors, and the evaluation of psychopathologies and/or motives (e.g., Douglas & Olshaker, 1995, Hazelwood & Michaud, 1999; Holmes & Holmes, 1996, Palermo & Kocsis, 2005; Ressler & Shachtman, 1992). It appears, however, that over time, attempts have been made to deconstruct this colloquial understanding of criminal profiling by creating subdivisions and artificial distinctions fos- tered by the development of new terminology. That is, by adopting a more constricted conceptualization of criminal profiling as involving only the pre- diction of offender characteristics, concepts, and/or knowledge external to this notion are conceived and labeled as something different to criminal profiling. In the writer’s opinion, an example of this artificial distinction can be observed in the narrative review of research literature presented in Snook et al. (2007). That is, by adopting a limited conceptualization of “criminal profiling,” literature that is arguably rightly inherent to the corpus 
investigative interviewing, sexual and violent offending, jury decision making, and expert psychological 
testimony. 
13 
Some examples includ

Be the first to reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.