Note: The Baton Rouge PD will still not say where Rossmo's geo-profile told them to look for suspects. This is perhaps telling of its accuracy. In the past, when Rossmo has considered his profiles accurate, he has been eager to make them public.

Note: Recall that this is the profiler fired by the Vancouver PD for failing to achieve any significant results with his methods. See: Kim Rossmo v. City of Vancouver et al

Note: John Baeza made no comments regarding any profile of the DC sniper to the media. He wrote the Post for a retraction and received it. 

Not mentioned in the article is the general accuracy of those belonging to the more evidence based/ deductive schools of thought.

Here are some of the inferences and speculations offered about the DC sniper prior to the arrest of the two suspects:

FBI / Inductive profilers (mixed, from different profilers)
- White male
- 25 to 40 years old
- Not a sniper and not likely military because of weapon choice (inaccurate round)
- Lives in or near the community
- No children
- Firefighter or construction worker
- Possible terrorist links
- Not a true spree killer because a true spree killer would have kept going south. (Robert Ressler, proclaiming that this is not the work of a spree killer on Oct. 9th, describes a true spree killer thus: 'They have no money, no employment. They kill for mobility. They kill for a car. They are on a desperate fugitive run that is bound to end."). See: Md. sniper's profile puzzles investigators, Wed Oct 9, 7:16 AM ET
(http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=676&ncid=716&e=19&u=/usato
day/20021009/ts_usatoday/4518755).

Deductive profiling (Brent Turvey, John Baeza, & Dr. Mike McGrath)
- No evidence of race
- No evidence of one or two offenders
- Anger motivation
- Cumulative rage from successive failures in personal life
- Straw that broke the camels back would be event in personal life such as divorce, custody battles, and / or loss of job.
- Would want to talk about offenses
- Case would most likely be solved by a tip from alert citizens
- No sniper training (not a very good shot)
- Possible second or third party involved
- Limited evidence of terrorist connection

Note: The reporter confuses a motivational typology with a profile. That this error is published suggests that those interviewed did not make the distinction clear.

Press Release

Note: Finally, some decent journalism holding profilers accountable for their bogus statements to the press. With the arrest of Lucas John Helder, Van Zandt's profile is shown to be off on key points. Gregg O. McCrary steps in to defend Van Zandt's inaccurate profile, saying that anyone who claims to be 100% right all the time must be "smoking cigarettes without labels." We are reminded of McCrary's testimony in the Sheppard case where he states that he's "never been wrong yet." (see: McKnight, K., "Expert's Opinion Challenged," Ohio Beacon Journal, April 1, 2000)

However, there are some women who aid and abet their mate for their own reasons and not because of the man’s power or charisma, insists Dr. Michael McGrath, a forensic psychiatrist practising in Rochester, NY, and president of the Academy of Behavioral Profiling.

“What you need to do is take a step back and not get caught up in thinking that if a violent crime occurred, the woman must have been under the influence of the man,” he says. “Culturally, we have a hard time blaming a woman when she’s involved in a crime. We are almost programmed to let the woman off. When a woman says, ‘He made me do it,’ we want to believe that.”

Note: I agree with some of this op-ed piece, because I do not favor cronyism at all. However the bottom line with Rossmo is that he did not solve any cases. Not one. He presents to the media as though he has, but when push comes to shove it just isn't true. His analysis is often applied retroactively to solved cases, and he calls this a success. I call it hindsight,

Note: See note below.

Note: I guess since Rossmo is doing it now, it's okay to be critical of law enforcement?

Note: So he was certain that there was/ is a serial killer in Vancouver, but he kept quiet to preserve his job and we are only now hearing about it because he's no longer employed by VPD?

Note: Pat Brown is a former student of mine who approached me years ago, after taking several courses, to get my assistance in naming a person that she was essentially stalking as a serial murderer. No evidence. No proof. Just her firm belief that she knew better than anyone else. I of course refused, told her to stop stalking the guy lest she find herself arrested, and this did not make her happy at all. Ignoring admonishments regarding this and other terribly unprofessional conduct, she continues to go her own way in her corner of the profiling community.

What is being done in this case is a similar farce. Apparently this person views profiling as somehow related to determining guilt and innocence, and sees it as her duty to harass local authorities and harass potentially innocent folk via the media when they don't see things her way. And she only takes on a case for a victim's family after she has done an investigation into their guilt or innocence? Very confusing. I always thought that the investigation came after you were provided with case information, not before. As most families do not have access to the investigative files in a case, I can see how this entanglement was likely avoided.

All in all, highly unethical conduct for a criminal profiler, let alone a forensic professional of any kind, in my view.

Kind of reminds me of....

Huntley, S. "WOMAN ARRESTED AFTER PROVIDING FALSE TIP ABOUT MISSING TODDLER CALLER SAID SHE KNEW WHO HAD TAKEN BOY, 3, LOST IN POUDRE CANYON," Rocky Mountain News, January 28, 2001

Note: The activity that is described in the article is actually threat assessment, not profiling. Note that his client list does not include law enforcement agencies, which I found an interesting omission. Subsequently, this reads pretty much like a press release intended to attract corporate clients. Not that there is anything wrong with this, only that there is no news provided and one begins to wonder why this was published in the newspaper. I question the journalism here, or rather the lack of it.

Note: I am confused as to why a profiler would be required by investigators in this case, other than to come in and state the obvious (the group has a strong leader, he seems to know what he is doing, etc...). Sounds to me like the investigators in this case would be better off talking to the Correction Officers in the prison or the detectives who originally worked the burglary cases referred to. That and reviewing available correspondence and taped phone calls relating to the escaped prisoners (phone calls made from prisons, as well as prison visits, are for the most part recorded in many states).

Note: I think it is interesting that one of the FBI's findings is that "school shooters" all tend to have access to guns. I'm not sure that a government funded study is needed to discover this. Perhaps I am mistaken.

Furthermore, I am curious as to how the FBI was able to determine the common lack of empathy (a very subjective psychological determination) among "school shooters", as this is best done with a clinical interview. Many of the "school shooters" died during the incidents, and subsequently cannot be subjected to personality testing or clinical interviews. I also wonder seriously how any of the findings of the study are actually relevant to the investigation or even prevention of school shootings.

Note: It needs to be noted that the body in this case was found on Monday, and the suspect, whose problematic statement is the only evidence in the case, was being interviewed by Pittsburgh PD on Tuesday (for one--- it is curious how a homeless guy was up on obscure crime elsewhere in the country and in Germany-- guess he keeps up with the news and has a TV or something-- homeless people in Pittsburgh must be different than those in the rest of the country -- couldn't be that the FBI let that info slip, I'm sure). The FBI profilers and their computer program, Rapid Start, were still on the plane to Pittsburgh on Tuesday. The profile came after the suspect was detained, and after the FBI interview with the suspect.

I did a media interview with the FBI's Pittsburgh Profile Coordinator, Dennis Lormel, who claimed, just before I joined in, that this was a success story for the FBI's profiling unit and Rapid Start--- which the press is promoting it as for some reason. When I pointed out on air that the suspect (who is not by any means even a good suspect) was basically found and in custody before the FBI profilers were even on scene, he began to back-peddle furiously.

There was a lot more to that interview which was both amusing and disappointing, like the FBI profiler coordinator claiming a 100% success rate with profiling and with Rapid Start. I mentioned Richard Jewell, the West Memphis case, and other FBI profiling blunders that apparently he was not aware of. I could go on, but I won't. The experience was nothing short of appalling.

This kind of blatant misrepresentation of fact by those within the FBI should not be tolerated, and is a slap in the face to the hard work of the actual investigators in charge of this case, who work for the Pittsburgh Police Department and have jurisdiction over all crimes of this nature (sex crimes and homicides).

Note: Mr. Keppel refers to signature as a pastime, which I think is incredibly misleading. And, apparently, Mr. Fox thinks that Ted Bundy was a sadistic offender, despite the fact that Bundy never exhibited any sadistic behavior with any of his victims.

Note: Not mentioned in the article is that Luminol is a presumptive test for blood, not a confirmatory test , which is why it is inadmissible as evidence in court. Also note that, contrary to testimony of her mentor Mike Prodan, Pagaling is apparently under the impression that she is a forensic scientist, qualified to perform blood pattern analysis and wound pattern analysis. She admits, however, that she and her team (which I believe is no more than two people) do not usually visit crime scenes. I would regard this as an oversight.

Note: Ressler claims that Janet Reno, not the FBI, is responsible for the deaths in Waco, but seems to have forgotten that Reno was getting her intelligence from FBI agents at the scene, including profiler Peter Smerick who admits to altering his opinions for fear of losing his job. See articles below on the subject of Waco.

Note: This article states that Hickey interviewed more than 300 serial killers as part of research for his book on the subject. This is in no way accurate. While he may have interviewed some serial murderers, by and large the data was gathered by collecting media accounts. (Having said that, uncritical use of offenders statements as a data source is not a reliable practice).

Note: I don't think we needed a government funded study to show the things "revealed" in this study. I also have concern that the FBI is the agency hosting the study, as they have no experts in this area on staff and no charter over such investigations.

Phillips, T. "FBI suspects trio met foul play," Fresno Bee, March 1, 1999

Phillips, T. "FBI stymied, but confirms crime probe," Modesto Bee, March 1, 1999