Wouldn’t it be easier to see some official profiling that was used in a police investigation to see how it holds up? Are there any examples out there that haven’t been reworked by the profiler in question after the fact?
It would have to be an example of profiling being able to successfully narrow down a pool of suspects to something less than millions.
No, I believe my approach will be more fruitful.
Suppose I were to show that a study of serial killers revealed that in the vast majority of cases, killers who had at least ten victims exhibited the following characteristic: victims were encountered and kidnapped relatively close to the offender’s home, but the bodies were dumped far away, usually in different directions, and that over time the distance that the bodies were dumped from the offender’s home grew smaller. That is, graphing the locations of dumped bodies would produce a rough circle, roughly centered around the offender’s residence, with the most recent kills being the closest.
Let’s further say that based on that information, police trying to solve a new series of murders began investigating the residents inside that rough circle, and their investigation ultimately led them to a person who was convicted.
Would that qualify? Why or why not?
This is insane. Diogenes made another of his flat declarations of Truth without offering a scintilla of support, and now it’s up to everyone else to disprove his claim!?!
How about Diogenes explains how he reached his conclusion? What studies has he read that evaluate the effectiveness of profiling? What histories of the field has he studied? What police or criminologists has he interviewed?
Maybe if he would share something other than his unsupported conclusion, other people could offer more informed responses.
No, because the sample size is too small to be meaningful. It would just be blind luck. You also don’t need a profiler to tell you to search the areas where the bodies were dumped or to draw a circle with them.
If a psychic tells you to search for a body “near water,” and a body is found dumped near a river, is that a success? Aren’t bodies of water common dumping grounds for bodies?
Graphing the area where bodies are dumped and searching it is not making use of profiling, it’s just common sense. It’s not a psychological profile, just a reasonable geographical assumption.
I don’t have the burden of proof. If I’m wrong it would be childishly easy to prove it, but it isn’t possible to cite a negative.
In other words, you can’t possibly know that your claim is true, and yet you feel justified in presenting it as absolute truth. What’s more, you think that you should be considered correct by default and that it’s up to anyone else to prove you wrong.
That’s how things work in Diogenes-world.
This is more common police work than the work of a criminal profiler-it is taking the facts of the case and using common police procedure to make reasonable conclusions, but it tells us next to nothing about the suspect.
I know absolutely that my claim is true. I know it for the same reason I know psychics have never solved a crime. Because I know it’s bunk. Bunk is very predictably useless.
But it is so easy to prove him wrong in this case-just come up with a profile that solved a case. Thus far, all I’ve seen are unsubstantiated claims and what-if scenarios, but no actual profiles to examine.
I feel exactly this way about the economists news programs often truck out.
How about the additional insight that, as time goes on, the distance between the dumping point and the offender’s residence decreases. Is that also common sense?
No point to an actual one just yet, because the what-if scenario I proposed has been rejected as insufficiently probative.
Or because it’s common sense.
That’s not an insight, because the sample size isn’t large enough to establish that as a statistically reliable assumption. It also doesn’t give you any more information or help than you had to start with.
The trouble is that we don’t have a real profile to compare it to-it may have been spot on, or it may not resemble a real profile at all. Until we know what a real profile looks like, your example is useless.
How do you know what the sample size was?
Let me ask you this, Bricker. Is there anything that law enforcement can reasonably decide to ruke [out based on a profile? In your own scenario, should the police not bother to look outside the target area? If nothing can be ruled out, then what is the actual utility?
Why? If my example accurately reflects an actual profile, then it’s clearly relevant. If it doesn’t, then I agree it’s useless for the purpose of proving real profiles work, but it’s still useful to establish the parameters of what you’ll accept as a valid result and a valid instance of profiling.