· Web viewDescribe the bottom up approach to offender profiling [10] Assess the reliability of offender profiling [15] Jan 2011 Describe one case study as an approach to offender

Making A Case

Making A Case 1 – Profiling

What you need to know:

What is the top down method and an example of it in practice?What is the bottom up method and an example of it in practice?An example of a profileSerial Killers Exercise

© Graham Calvert The Fun Factory 2009 Page 1

Profiling Witness Evidence

Suspect Evidence

o Top Down - Douglas

o Bottom Up - Godwin

o Case Study – WM3 (Turvey)

o Faces - Froud

o Weapons Focus - Pickel

o Cognitive Interview - Geiselman

o Lie Detection - Vrij

o Interrogation - Inbau

o False Confession - Russano

Group the serial killers together with features that you consider similar and would help us catch another killer in the future. The idea is to be able to make a prediction of the kind of person we might be looking for in a new case, helping the police reduce the list of potential suspects.In the space below give a summary of how you grouped the killers.

Top-Down profilingThis approach begins with what is known about existing killers and attempts to generate a theory of killer types. This theory (the top) is applied to the new case to suggest possible personality characteristics that the police ought to look for when identifying possible suspects, eg this killer is similar to Bundy so are looking for someone like himThe Key Study

Douglas, J. E. et al. Criminal Profiling from Crime Scene Analysis. Behavioral Sciences and the Law (1986) vol. 4 (4) pp. 401-421Criminal Profile Generating Process


1. Profiling Inputs

2. Decision Process Models

3. Crime Assessment

4. Criminal Profile

5. Investigation

6. Apprehension

Key stage is 3 leading to 4Key part of theory was creation of organised v disorganised killers. How was this done?



Organised DisorganisedVictim Selection

Control of victim

Sequence of crime

The previous killers could be grouped into these two categories according to Douglas. Killers falling into one of other of these groups would have certain kids of personality characteristics, which help the police reduce the number of potential suspects.Trait/Characteristic Organised Disorganised Relationships

Sexual or social experience

Childhood

Emotion during attack

Level of intelligence

How does this fit with your classification of serial killers at the beginning? Can you reorganise them?Bottom Up Profiling

One the other side of the page draw a birds eye view of the schoolCanter, a British psychologist, has generally been critical of the American approach. He demonstrates that the categories of organised and disorganised are essentially meaningless as when


you look at the crime scene the majority of crimes look organised. The categories fail to discriminate between criminals and so are useless in helping the police identify a particular individual. What he suggests is that we need a method that assumes that each killer is unique rather than looking for similarities.This is the bottom-up idea. The profiler needs to work from evidence at the crime scene and using known statistical information generate a unique picture of the criminal.Key ideas

Behavioural consistency

Spatial Consistency

Circle Theory

Marauder

Commuter

Key study

Godwin, M. and D. Canter (1997). "Encounter and Death: The Spatial Behavior of US serial Killers." Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategy and Management 20(1): 24-38.Aim: To test the theory of spatial consistency in relation to serial killers

Hypothesis/Research questions: The present study, therefore, set out to explore three sets of hypotheses of serial killers’ journey to crime:

1. H1: The home operates as a focus for the activities of serial killers


Godwin, M. and D. Canter (1997). "Encounter and Death: The Spatial Behavior of US serial Killers." Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategy and Management 20(1): 24-38.

in apprehending their victims and leaving their bodies. The focus is hypothesized as being the most likely centre of gravity of their actions.

2. H2: There will be differences in the distances travelled to apprehend victims and to leave their bodies. It is proposed that the dumping of the body carries most evidential implications and therefore is likely to be at a further distance as well as being more likely to be shaped by buffering processes.

3. H3: The distances serial killers travel to dump the victims’ bodies are likely to change systematically over time while the victims’ points of fatal encounter locations are not. The counter-intuitive possibility that this change relates to an increasing incorporation of all his killing activities into his domestic area will also be tested.

Background: A study of serial rapists shows that the home can be used as a basis for defining the area in which crimes were committed; they showed that very few offenders “commuted” like workers into areas to commit their crimes but that in 86 percent of the cases the home was within a circle defined by the two crimes furthest from each other. A number of other studies have also shown that criminals are apparently reluctant to travel very far from their home base to commit their crimes (Baldwin and Bottoms, 1976; Rhodes and Conly, 1981). However, none of these studies have dealt with serial killers and considered both the BD and the PFE as well as considering the possibility in changes in distances travelled over time.Method: Statistical analysis

Materials: Case records, Map expert

Measures:Distances from home to PFE and BD siteSample: The study involved 54 male US serial murderers. All the cases were solved. Each offender was convicted of at least ten murders, committed on different dates and in different locations. Most of the killers were suspects in additional murders; however, those cases were not included in the study because the offenders were never charged with the additional crimes. Only the first ten murder victims were considered in the present study so that in total the details on 54 serial killers and 540 victims were used. Procedure: The data were collected from various police departments throughout the USA including, but not limited to, intelligence sources such as the Homicide Information Tracking System (HITS), Violent Crime Apprehension Program (VICAP), and Homicide Assessment and Lead Tracking System (HALT). Additional data on specific cases were obtained from court transcripts by accessing Lexus and Westlaw, the on-line law databases. Considerable effort was taken to locate and record the physical addresses of the offenders’ home bases, the victims’ points of fatal encounter (PFE),


Godwin, M. and D. Canter (1997). "Encounter and Death: The Spatial Behavior of US serial Killers." Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategy and Management 20(1): 24-38.and the victims’ body dump sites (BD). Throughout the study home base is defined as the location where the offender was living during the time they were committing their crimes. In most instances the data included one offender and one home base. Point of fatal encounter is defined as the initial contact site or last seen location of the victim. Body dump location is defined as the final resting place where the victim’s body was discovered. Results:

Conclusion:From these results write a conclusion in your own words about geographical profiling.

Differences top down and bottom up

Looks for personality characteristics For each pair of statements


identify which is top down and which is bottom up.

Looks for behavioural characteristicsBased on statisticsBased on interviewsGenerates a theory of killersUses existing theories of normal peopleMatches killer to existing profilesGenerates a unique profileOnly works for serious crime Can work for any crime

Profiling Case Study – The West Memphis Three

If you were asked in the exam to describe a case study where profiling was used you would have to be able to describe the following features:

1. What are the details of the case2. Why was the profile put together3. For five features of the crime you need to be able to describe

the person the profiler thinks committed the crime, what is the evidence for this, and how this fits with the people currently convicted of the crime

Case details

Reasons for profile

Feature Profiler conclusion

Evidence Fit with crime

Number of


assailants

Reason for attack

Arrest history

Residence of assailant

Skill level of assailant

Describe each of the studies in 5 lines only

Douglas – Top Down – Organised/Disorganised1.

2.

3.

4.


5.

Godwin – Bottom Up - Mapping1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Turvey – WM3 Profile1.

2.

3.

4.

5.


VaGUE evaluation of Profiling research

Claim Evidence Elaboration

Validity Place

Where the activity is done might or might not create demand characteristics

Tasks

The task may or may not be measuring what it claims

Researcher

The researcher might be biased

Generalisability Places

Will the findings apply to other places

People

Will these findings apply to other people

Time

Will these findings still apply in 10 years time

Usefulness Practical

Does the research produce a practical application

Theory

Does the research support or refute a theory

Generative

Does the research generate new research

Ethics Participants

Can the participants be hurt by the research

Public

Can the public be hurt by the research findings

Psychology

Does the research enhance or reduce the reputation of psychology


Previous Profiling Questions

Jan 2010

a) Describe the bottom up approach to offender profiling [10]b) Assess the reliability of offender profiling [15]

Jan 2011

a) Describe one case study as an approach to offender profiling. [10] b) Compare different approaches to creating a profile. [15]


Making A Case 2 – Interviewing Witnesses

Recognising Faces What is the emotion on Thatcher’s Face? Then turn the page.

Face Recognise Name

Internal and external facial features

Internal Features

External Features

Key Study

Frowd et al. The Relative Importance of External and Internal Features of Facial Composites. The British Journal of Psychology (2007) vol. 98 pp. 61-77

Aim To investigate the relative recognisability of internal (eyes, brows, nose and mouth) and external (head shape, hair and ears) features in facial recognition.

Method Independent measures design experiment IV = Complete composite

Internal featuresExternal features

DV = Accuracy of matchingMaterials Composites

These had been created in a previous experiment. They had been made by participants who had seen the face, asked if it was unfamiliar to them, asked to remember it and then two days later had to create the composite using EvoFit or some other method.

Participants

30 staff and students Stirling UniversityPaid £215 male 15 femaleMean age 29.2

Procedure Divided into groupsGiven ten complete photos of celebritiesGiven a pile of 40 composites (EvoFit) 4 for each celebrity in a random orderAsked to turn over each composite one at a time and match it to a celebrity

Results Whole composites and externals both 35% accuracyInternal features 19.5%

Conclusion


Interviewing witnesses – The Problem of Weapons Focus

Weapon focus refers to the concentration of a witness’s attention on a weapon which results in them having difficulty recalling other details of the scene and identifying the perpetrator of the crime.

But, why does this effect occur? Possible theories:

1) Witnesses are attending to the weapon and ignoring the other details of the scene. (this theory supported by such people as Loftus and Kramer).

2) Witnesses are attending to all details, but demonstrate better memory for the weapon when tested later possibly because this memory remains strong or because other details have deteriorated more quickly.

3) The cue-utilization hypothesis (Easterbrook, 1959). This theory says that the weapon indicates a threat, which increases arousal, which makes the witness focus on the weapon.

4) the unusualness of the weapon is what causes weapon focus.

The Key Study

Pickel, K.L. (1998). Unusualness and threat as possible causes of "weapon focus." Memory, 6, 277-295.

Aim To test whether cue utilization or unusualness has more effect on memory

Method Unrelated measured designLaboratory experiment x 2IV in both studies

Low and high unusualnessLow or high threat

DV accuracy of description of an event viewed on videotape

Materials Videotape of a person going into either a hairdressers or a car repair shop. In both videos the person walks up to the receptionist, the receptionist hand the man some money and then he walks out.The IV is what the man is holding in his hand.

Materials 2 Hair dressersLow threat High Threat

Low Unusual

High Unusual

Car repair shop© Graham Calvert The Fun Factory 2009 Page 17

Low threat High ThreatLow Unusual

High Unusual

Procedure 1. Watch video2. 10 minute filler activity3. questionnaire

First part focuses on receptionist (this was a control)Second section on man

4. Then had to pick man out from line-up

Participants Guess who?

How many do we need?

Results No difference in recall between the two low unusual conditionsLower recall in both the high unusual conditions (Gun, Chicken, Knife, Doughboy)No effect at all on the line up

Conclusion

The Cognitive Interview (CI)© Graham Calvert The Fun Factory 2009 Page 18

Some background

Stages of the interview Why they might work1. Context reinstatement: It tries to recreate the scene of the incident in the mind of the witness, this includes the sights, sounds and smells but also crucially it attempts to model the emotions and feelings of the person at the time. This is based on the concept of cue dependent memory.

2. Report everything: It encourages witnesses to report all detail that they can remember regardless of how trivial it may appear

3. Recall in reverse order: It encourages witnesses to recall events in different orders, for example starting half way through a sequence of events and then working backwards

4. Recall from a different perspective: It encourages witnesses to view the scene as others present may have seen it, for example as other witnesses, the victim or the perpetrator may have seen the incident.

Key Study - Geiselman et al. Enhancement of Eyewitness Memory with the Cognitive Interview. The American Journal of Psychology (1986) vol. 99 (3) pp. 385-401From the slide complete this description of the study

Aim


Method including variables

Materials

Participants

Procedure

Results Correctly recalled

Incorrectly recalled

Confabulated

Conclusion



Froud – Face Recognition1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Pickel – Weapons Focus1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Geiselman – Cognitive Interview1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

VaGUE evaluation of witness interview research


Validity Place


Tasks


Researcher




People


Time




Theory


Generative


Ethics Participants


Public


Psychology



Previous Witness Questions

June 2011

a) Outline one piece of research into factors which influence the accurate identification of a suspect [10]

b) Assess the reliability of research into interviewing suspects [15]

Jan 2010

a) Describe the cognitive interview [10]b) Discuss qualitative and quantitative approaches to

collecting information when interviewing witnesses [15]

Making A Case 3 – Interviewing Suspects

Using the table below write down three statements about yourself that other people in the class probably do not know about you. One of the statements needs to be a lie and the other two true. Put them in any order but make sure you which is which.Number Statements1

2

3

As we go round the class write down the name of the person and which of their statements you think is the lieName Statement you think is a

lieRight or wrong

Total right Total wrong

Key Study 1 – Ability to detect liesVrij and Mann. Who Killed My Relative? Police Officers' Ability to Detect Real-Life High-Stake Lies. Psychology, Crime & Law (2001)

Aim To find out of police officers are able to detect lies in a real life high stakes situation

Method A correlationVariablesNumber of correct lies out of fiveAge of officerExperience of officerConfidence in decision

A Natural ExperimentIV = Gender

Materials 8 videotapes of relatives appealing for help to solve the case of a missing relative. IN five of these it has been proved that the person in the video killed the relative. The other 3 were filler tasks to check for boredom. These were not used in the analysis as it was not certain who killed the relative.A questionnaire

1) is the person lying?2) How confident are you?3) What behavioural cues did you use to

make your decision?Participants

52 police officers from the Netherlands28 male 24 female with average experience of interviewing suspects

Procedure Watch the video and given 25 seconds to make their decision before shown the next video

Results Remember that they ought to get 50% correct by chance. Police officers got 50% at chance3 got 80%Confidence levels were middle on a scale of 1 to7Correlations none with age of experienceCues used (which clearly do not work)Fake emotions, gaze aversion. Believing in real emotions was negatively correlated with accuracy

Conclusion Being involved in an occupation focused on detecting lies does not improve ones ability to detect lies. This indicates police officers need to look at other things than the suspect to detect lies.

Why do the police interview suspects?Is the job of the police to gather evidence or to get a confession?If the police do get a confession this will save court time, however it does mean that the police officer has made a decision about the guilt of the suspect. Ought this decision be left to a jury?


The question is how far do the police go when interrogating a suspect in order to get a confession.Key Study 2 – Interrogation TechniquesInbau (1986) The Reid ‘Nine Steps’ of InterrogationThis is not a study but an approach based on psychological principles. Inbau considers that almost any psychological technique is acceptable in getting a confession.

Mig

ht it

cau

se

a fa

lse

conf

essio

n

Who

mig

ht

be

Vuln

erab

le

Do y

ou

thin

k it

is ju

stifi

ed

Step

Dire

ct

Conf

ront

atio

n

Chan

ce to

shift

bl

ame

(eith

er

to so

me

else

or

circu

mst

ance

s)

Neve

r allo

w th

e su

spec

t to

deny

gui

lt

Igno

re e

xcus

es

Rein

forc

e sin

cerit

y, e

ye

cont

act,

first

na

mes

If su

spec

t crie

s, in

fer g

uilt

Pose

the

‘alte

rnat

ive

ques

tion’

– gi

ve

two

choi

ces,

one

mor

e so

cially

ac

cept

able

, but

bo

th in

ferri

ng

guilt

Adm

it gu

ilt in

fro

nt o

f witn

ess

Docu

men

t ad

miss

ion

Issues with thisProblem 1 Problem 2

Problem 3 Problem 4© Graham Calvert The Fun Factory 2009 Page 27

False ConfessionsDo people make false confessions?

Who Makes False Confessions?

Variations Comments

Key Study 3 - Russano et al. Investigating True and False Confessions Within a Novel Experimental Paradigm. Psychological Science (2005) vol. 16 (6) pp. 481-486

Aim To find out if the techniques of minimization and offering a deal work to get people to make false confessions

Method A laboratory experimentIndependent measures design3 levels of the IV

Level 1 Guilty or NotLevel 2 Minimizing or NotLevel 3 Offering a deal or Not

DV = signing or not a confessionMaterials A police interrogation room—it was small, bare, and windowless,

containing only a table and two straight-backed chairs.A set of tasks

Participants 330 undergraduates (70% female) English University


The mean age 19.4 years. 14 were excluded because they expressed a high level of suspicion regarding the true purpose of the study. 2 were excluded because during the interrogation they expressed a desire to leave the experiment18 were excluded because they failed to conform to the guilt manipulation (see procedure)

Procedure Participants recruited for a study on individual versus team decision-making and asked to solve a series of logic problems.A confederate arrives at the lab at the same time as the participant, pair are greeted by one of six male experimenters and taken to room.Experimenter tells them to work together on ‘‘team problems,’’ but individually and not discuss their solutions on ‘‘individual problems’’ (the critical rule). In the guilty condition, the confederate asks for help on an individual problem, leading most participants to provide her with an answer (those who did not help were excluded from the analyses). In the innocent condition, the confederate did not ask for help. After competing the task, the experimenter informs them that there appeared to be a problem and that he needs to speak to each of them individually. The confederate is escorted out of the room.5 min later, the experimenter, blind to the participant’s guilt or innocence, reentered the testing room for interrogation. The experimenter stats that the participant and the confederate had the same wrong answer on the target problem, and he accuses the participant of sharing answers (a tactic known as direct positive confrontation; Inbau et al., 2001). He said that the professor in charge of the study had been contacted and was annoyed and upset by the situation. The experimenter said that he was not sure how the professor would handle the situation or who else he would have to notify, and that the professor might consider what happened a case of cheating. The experimenter then said that the professor wanted to document what happened by having the participant sign a statement admitting to sharing answers on problems that were supposed to be solved individually.The types of interrogation techniques used were varied. In the minimization condition, the interrogator was instructed to lessen the seriousness of the offense by making statements that expressed sympathy and concern, offered face-saving excuses (e.g., ‘‘I’m sure you didn’t realize what a big deal it was’’), and suggested to participants that it was in their interest to cooperate by signing the statement. In the no-minimization condition, no such statements were made. In the deal condition, participants were told that if they agreed to sign the confession, then ‘‘things could probably be settled pretty quickly.’’ Participants were assured that they would receive their research credit for the day, but they would have to return for another session without receiving additional credit. They were also told that if they did not agree to sign the statement, the experimenter would have to call the professor into the laboratory, and the professor would handle the situation as he saw fit, with the strong implication being that the consequences would likely be worse if the professor became further involved. Participants were faced with the choice of accepting the deal, which included the known consequence of having to return for another session, or rejecting the deal and facing an angry professor and unknown, but potentially severe, consequences. In the no-deal condition, participants were told that regardless of whether they signed the statement, the experimenter would have to call the professor back and find out what to do next.If the participant agreed to sign a statement, the experimenter handwrote a confession for the participant to sign. If the participant denied the allegation or hesitated to sign, the experimenter repeated the interrogation script up to three more times. If the participant still refused to sign, the interrogation was terminated.


The decision to sign or not sign a confession served as our primary dependent measure.Debriefing. After checking for suspicion, the experimenter asked participants to rate the amount of pressure they felt to sign the confession. The experimenter then explained the true purpose of the experiment. He further explained that there was no angry professor and no negative consequence. Participants in the guilty condition were told that although their conduct was portrayed as wrong during the experiment, helping another student in need was an admirable, benevolent, and pro-social act. Careful pains were taken to ensure that participants understood the necessity for the deception used and that all their questions were answered.

Results Condition True confessions

Falseconfessions

No tactic 46% 6%Deal 72% 14%Minimization 81% 18%Minimization & deal 87% 43%

Conclusion


Vrij – Lie Detection1.

2.

3.

4.


5.

Inbau – Interrogation1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Russano – False Confession1.

2.

3.

4.

5.


VaGUE evaluation of suspect interview research


Validity Place


Tasks


Researcher




People


Time




Theory


Generative


Ethics Participants


Public


Psychology



Previous suspect Questions

June 2010

a) Describe one piece of research into how lies can be detected when suspects are interviewed [10]

b) Discuss the reliability of information gained from suspects in interviews [15]


Documents

· Web viewDescribe the bottom up approach to offender profiling [10] Assess the reliability of offender profiling [15] Jan 2011 Describe one case study as an approach to offender