Call Us: US - +1 845 478 5244 | UK - +44 20 7193 7850 | AUS - +61 2 8005 4826

“An empirical test of the assumptions of case linkage and offender profiling with serial commercial robberies”

in a review of the literature by Eastwood et al. (2006),[2] one of the studies noted, Pinizzotto and Finkel (1990),[30] showed that trained criminal profilers did not do any better than non-profilers in producing an accurate profile. A 2000 study also showed that profilers were not significantly better at creating a profile than any other participating groups.[31]

A survey of statements made in offender profiles done for major cases from 1992 to 2001 found that “72% included repetition of the details of what occurred in the offence (factual statements already known by the police), references to the profiler’s competence […] or caveats about using the material in the investigation.” Over 80% of the remaining statements, which made claims about the offender’s characteristics, gave no justification for their conclusion.[32]

A 2003 study which asked two different groups of police to rate how accurately a profile matched a description of the apprehended offender, with one group given a description of a completely fabricated offender instead of the real one, found that the profile was rated equally accurate in both cases.[33][4]

There is a lack of clear, quantifiable evidence of a link between crime scene actions (A) and offender characteristics (C), a necessary supposition of the A to C paradigm proposed by Canter (1995).[34][35] A 2002 review by Alison et al. concluded, “The notion that particular configurations of demographic features can be predicted from an assessment of particular configurations of specific behaviors occurring in short-term, highly traumatic situations seems an overly ambitious and unlikely possibility. Thus, until such inferential processes can be reliably verified, such claims should be treated with great caution in investigations and should be entirely excluded from consideration in court.”[10]