Looking back at the original psychological profile

[goldrusher]

Jan 29, 2019 18:17:21 GMT magnumforce73 said:

Jan 29, 2019 18:14:27 GMT f1guyus said:

My opinion. Clearly stated as such. Any fact or clue that might have pointed either specifically to JJD or to policemen in general will never see the light of day. There’s a passage in the New West magazine story back in the day that goes something like “investigators familiar with the case opine privately” about connections to law enforcement. And recently we read that one of the original investigators who saw a murder site in SoCal said it was obvious the killer had LE training. There wasn’t any actionable evidence. Carol Daly said basically the same thing when she said “We need some luck. He hasn’t given us anything to work with”. That’s a clue in and of itself. I was a long way from being the only one who said to check out law enforcement programs at the NorCal colleges and junior colleges. Toss in the shoplifting arrest, trial, and conviction. He strolled through the whole of the Sacramento court system. I’m not saying anyone was dishonest or even malfeasant, everybody did the best they could. But two things still bother me. Sending two deputies to Contra Costa County when everybody else got teletypes and the disposal of the Sacramento rape kits when it was pretty much certain EAR was responsible for the Maggoire murders.

"the disposal of the Sacramento rape kits..."

x1000, f1.  Never mind statutes of limitations and "different times"--whatever possessed them to $hitcan those Sac EAR rape kits is one of the great mysteries in this life.  Absolutely appalling considering the degree of damage he did in their jurisdiction alone.

mf73

So true...

[cherylh]

The amount of vital evidence related to unsolved crimes that has been thrown away by thousands of jurisdictions --

It's a tragedy.

Departments everywhere are guilty of it.

And then, there are all the thousands of untested rape kits.

[tongue]

Jan 28, 2019 19:09:10 GMT sammyt said:

Jan 28, 2019 7:51:50 GMT @thedog said:

That sums up literally every psychological profile ever.

Profiles are completely and utterly useless when it comes to actual practical investigative work. They can be fun, like horoscopes. They can be useful academically, if you want to teach using broad strokes about generalized behavior. But when it comes to apprehending a specific offender, you might as well just hire a psychic. There's really nothing, practically, that you can do with a profile

I'm no profiling fanboy, but have to disagree with some of that.

Profiling has been used successfully to redirect investigations and to rule out types of suspects.

FBI profilers directed investigators away from white, redneck type suspects in the Atlanta Child Killer case.    
 
The UK police ignored the FBI profile in the Yorkshire Ripper case.  They were told to focus on 'invisible' local men, but instead wasted huge amounts of time looking for a 'loudmouth' type, out of town suspect who sent a taunting tape message.

Profiles can also be specific: local cops laughed when they were told to look for a man with a stutter in the Trailside Killer case.  They weren't laughing when the killer turned out to have a severe stutter.

Basic profiling can help the initial stages of investigation.  

It's no magic bullet for sure, but I think it has a bit more value than you suggest.

I would have loved to have had access to the VR/EAR/ONS case files.  I'm pretty confident I could have produced an accurate profile.

You are only pointing out the profiles that pinpointed certain defects or attributes though of the offender..how many times have FBI profilers been wrong? I imagine too many times to list in a thread like this

[tongue]

Jan 29, 2019 5:16:09 GMT @stark said:

Anonymous Psychopath book on Amazon

Speaking of inaccurate assumptions about psychopaths, has anyone heard of this book, written by a high-functioning psychopath?

Are we missing the point about how psychopaths really function in the context of society? 

James Fallon?  Lol

[sammyt]

Jan 30, 2019 1:47:37 GMT tongue said:

Jan 28, 2019 19:09:10 GMT sammyt said:

I'm no profiling fanboy, but have to disagree with some of that.

Profiling has been used successfully to redirect investigations and to rule out types of suspects.

FBI profilers directed investigators away from white, redneck type suspects in the Atlanta Child Killer case.    
 
The UK police ignored the FBI profile in the Yorkshire Ripper case.  They were told to focus on 'invisible' local men, but instead wasted huge amounts of time looking for a 'loudmouth' type, out of town suspect who sent a taunting tape message.

Profiles can also be specific: local cops laughed when they were told to look for a man with a stutter in the Trailside Killer case.  They weren't laughing when the killer turned out to have a severe stutter.

Basic profiling can help the initial stages of investigation.  

It's no magic bullet for sure, but I think it has a bit more value than you suggest.

I would have loved to have had access to the VR/EAR/ONS case files.  I'm pretty confident I could have produced an accurate profile.

You are only pointing out the profiles that pinpointed certain defects or attributes though of the offender..how many times have FBI profilers been wrong? I imagine too many times to list in a thread like this

Fair enough, when you put it like that, maybe I am giving the 'pro' profilers far too much credit.

[starsky]

Feb 1, 2019 4:45:26 GMT @stark said:

Anyone inside LE that had pinpointed JJD for what/who he was would have then had to weigh personal safety against pressing for justice. JJD was *dangerous* and retaliatory. Anyone with an inkling would have probably acted in a self-preservation manner?

For that matter, when was the last time any LE jurisdiction ever fully internally investigated itself? Every organization needs critical oversight, whether it's schools, hospitals, airports or police depts. If JJD were ID'd in the 80's, heads would've rolled, but now there are no heads to roll, only untouchable pensions. How convenient.

[samisdad]

Feb 1, 2019 7:29:56 GMT starsky said:

Feb 1, 2019 4:45:26 GMT @stark said:

Anyone inside LE that had pinpointed JJD for what/who he was would have then had to weigh personal safety against pressing for justice. JJD was *dangerous* and retaliatory. Anyone with an inkling would have probably acted in a self-preservation manner?

For that matter, when was the last time any LE jurisdiction ever fully internally investigated itself? Every organization needs critical oversight, whether it's schools, hospitals, airports or police depts. If JJD were ID'd in the 80's, heads would've rolled, but now there are no heads to roll, only untouchable pensions. How convenient.

If the cost of JJD trail, investigation and reparations were to be deducted from pensions, either individuals,- group or general PERS fund... Perhaps they would do a better job of intra and internal agency oversight. 

[mistress9]

Jan 28, 2019 7:51:50 GMT @thedog said:

Jan 28, 2019 3:02:05 GMT newbie said:

there seems to be some thing on track and some things off

That sums up literally every psychological profile ever.

Profiles are completely and utterly useless when it comes to actual practical investigative work. They can be fun, like horoscopes. They can be useful academically, if you want to teach using broad strokes about generalized behavior. But when it comes to apprehending a specific offender, you might as well just hire a psychic. There's really nothing, practically, that you can do with a profile

they are not useless.

[mistress9]

what was she wrong about? we don't know much about his life at this point but everything she said was spot on, people just didn't want to listen.

[woofytreats]

Although I’d generally agree with the sentiment here, it might go a little too far to say they’re useless if their stated goal is to glean something from a subjective psychological sketch that might include elements from other disciplines and supposedly have that be informed by the experience and knowledge of the profiler. Naturally, the subjectiveness being the key...

If that’s the definition, then it might come down to correlation levels if half the profile is building on Barnum Statements and what you might even see as reversed cognitive biases that have the reader defining how accurate or relevant an item is. D’Ambrosia had some general things that were ”correct” and some that you could still consider questionable or unresolved. DeAngelo DID enter into long term relationships, he likely DIDN’T commit violent crimes until he was imprisoned or dead...at least to the extent inferred in the profile, etc.

I think that the idea of profiles has them more as informed impressionistic paintings than a bang-on snapshot of the offender and a related expectation that all becomes clear when you employ every element. That gives them enough leeway that they can get away with having the D.C. Snipers Muhammad and Malvo as being disgruntled white men but also the potential for something that "clicks" with an investigation that might otherwise go unnoticed.

If the correlation with what you might have to control as “specificity” is at low levels regularly with these profiles, I’d opine that although not completely academic, they might be looked at as sideshows rather than something that only Douglas or Hazlewood or whomever could specifically have come up with...and some will be more relevant than others whether generated by them or someone else.

[mistress9]

Feb 10, 2019 1:33:58 GMT @thedog said:

Feb 9, 2019 7:57:28 GMT mistress9 said:

what was she wrong about? we don't know much about his life at this point but everything she said was spot on, people just didn't want to listen.

The profiler could have gotten everything 100% correct and it still would have been useless from an investigative standpoint, since there was absolutely no way anyone could rely on what she was saying. You don't know if profiles are right until the offender is captured.

Let's say you're investigating a string of murders, and a psychological profile tells you that the perpetrator is likely homosexual, and a geographic profile tells you the perpetrator is likely living in Arlington, Texas. Great. Now what exactly do you do with that information to aid your investigation?

If you get a tip about a straight guy living in Dallas... do you exclude him because the profile says he's probably gay? Or exclude him because he doesn't live in the correct area? Of course you wouldn't, because it's impossible to know how accurate the profile is until you catch your bad guy. Could you imagine the outrage if DeAngelo was on a suspect list decades ago, but was excluded because a profiler said EAR would have a trait that DeAngelo didn't have?

So, while they might be interesting to read, and they can contribute to the academic study of crime (on a broad scale) they carry with them absolutely zero practical investigative use. They're academic; they're fun; but they're not investigative tools that can be used to solve specific cases

I dont believe that for one second, and DeAngelo wouldn't have been excluded based on D'Ambrosia's profile because he shares all the characteristics her profile contained, down to even living in Ventura, isn't that where Exeter is? Either way I dont thibk they are useless at all.

[sammyt]

Feb 10, 2019 7:16:07 GMT mistress9 said:

Feb 10, 2019 1:33:58 GMT @thedog said:

The profiler could have gotten everything 100% correct and it still would have been useless from an investigative standpoint, since there was absolutely no way anyone could rely on what she was saying. You don't know if profiles are right until the offender is captured.

Let's say you're investigating a string of murders, and a psychological profile tells you that the perpetrator is likely homosexual, and a geographic profile tells you the perpetrator is likely living in Arlington, Texas. Great. Now what exactly do you do with that information to aid your investigation?

If you get a tip about a straight guy living in Dallas... do you exclude him because the profile says he's probably gay? Or exclude him because he doesn't live in the correct area? Of course you wouldn't, because it's impossible to know how accurate the profile is until you catch your bad guy. Could you imagine the outrage if DeAngelo was on a suspect list decades ago, but was excluded because a profiler said EAR would have a trait that DeAngelo didn't have?

So, while they might be interesting to read, and they can contribute to the academic study of crime (on a broad scale) they carry with them absolutely zero practical investigative use. They're academic; they're fun; but they're not investigative tools that can be used to solve specific cases

I dont believe that for one second, and DeAngelo wouldn't have been excluded based on D'Ambrosia's profile because he shares all the characteristics her profile contained, down to even living in Ventura, isn't that where Exeter is? Either way I dont thibk they are useless at all.

The argument against profiling seems to be that we only ever really hear about the successful profiles.

Sort of like a broken clock still telling the right time twice a day...

[sammyt]

Feb 9, 2019 7:57:28 GMT mistress9 said:

what was she wrong about? we don't know much about his life at this point but everything she said was spot on, people just didn't want to listen.

Just for the record, here's my EARONS profile from January 2018:


Older than 25 - EAR was cunning, patient, organised etc which suggests an older offender.

Military background - lots of potential geographical links, plus possible witness and victim links to air bases.

Wealthy - EAR left money behind, had time to prowl, boasted about his status (if he wrote EC) and the 'money for my van/camp by the river' stuff may have been misdirection.

Upper class - may have been dismissed as a suspect due to family influence etc.

Adopted/no children/no criminal record - maybe why he or none of his kin have ever shown up on a DNA hit.

Respectable - it's really not uncommon for prolific serials to hide behind the mask of respectability.

Didn't actually live in RC or Carmichael - perhaps how he could have slipped early police enquiries.

Links to Visalia and Goleta - would help explain the chaotic VR series (young offender learning the ropes) and Goleta series (visiting family and not on home turf).

Knew Maggiore - helps explain why the Maggiores had to be killed straight away (if EAR was the killer/one of the killers).

Fitness fanatic - out ran and out cycled the police etc.

The unsuspected - has already been 'cleared' (ala Delroy Grant) or hasn't even been looked at (ala Dennis Rader).

I would have placed suspects who 'fit' the profile at the top of my interview list, but wouldn't have ruled out younger suspects/career criminals/non Visalia linked suspects etc.  They would have just become lower priority suspects.

The original ONS profile was 'wrong' in that it said the killer wouldn't stop unless imprisoned, disabled, dead etc.  With the arrests of DeAngelo and Waller (the NorCal rapist) it's looking more likely that the elusive, long term serial offenders are actually often able to 'quit while ahead'.

[f1guyus]

My guess is somewhere there’s a 70 year old who was a hot babe at 12 or 13 and knows all about JJD and playing cops and robbers.

[sammyt]

Feb 10, 2019 19:27:55 GMT f1guyus said:

My guess is somewhere there’s a 70 year old who was a hot babe at 12 or 13 and knows all about JJD and playing cops and robbers.

Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if JJD has a juvenile record for some kind of sexual offence. 

Maybe that's why he seems to have had issues and interruptions graduating HS.

I'm certain JJD was a peeper, flasher and sexual pervert long before he started breaking into houses.

Speculation, but if he got caught offending as a youngster, he may have vowed to become smarter than the cops, and never to get caught again.

This worked until his shoplifting arrest, where he cried like a baby.

Perhaps his tears had more effect as a captured, 15 year old sexual deviant from a 'good' background, and he was sentenced to counselling, with his juvenile record wiped clean a few years later.