Police and Law Enforcement—Adult ForensicsTABLE IV Crime Scene Differences between Organized and
1 )isorganized Murderers'^7
Organized Disorganized
Planned offense Spontaneous offense
Victim a targeted stranger Victim/location known
Personalized victim Depersonalizes victim
Controlled conversation Minimal conversation
Crime scene reflects overall control Crime scene random and sloppy
Demands submissive victim Sudden violence to victim
Restraints used Minimal use of restraints
Aggressive acts prior to death Sexual acts after death
Body hidden Body left in view
Weapon/evidence absent Evidence/weapon often present
Transports victim or body Body left at death scene
''FBI (1985b, p. 19).characteristics described in Table IV enable the investigator to develop a profile
based solely on behaviors exhibited at the scene of the homicide, thus allowing for
a psychological profile and description based on this data.
Forensic Psychology and Policy Implications
A number of U.S. Supreme court cases have dealt with the use of psychologists'
and other mental health professionals' opinions regarding the goodness-of-fit of a
criminal into a particular profile based on their assessment of the criminal. Much of
this research stems from results obtained from the MMPI and mental status exams.
Peters and Murphy (1992) describe a variety of issues related to the admissibility
and matlmissibility of mental health professionals' expert opinions of profile fitting.
According to their research, every appellate court in the United States, with the
exception of California, has ruled on the admissibility of expert testimony regarding
the psychological profiles of child molesters. These appellate courts have consis-
tently rejected the psychological profile concept as evidence either defending or
attempting to help convict the child molester.
The psychological profile as court testimony has been used in child sexual abuse
cases for three primary reasons: (1) to prove the defendant committed the crime, (2)
to prove the defendant did not commit the crime, and (3) to solidify the credibility of
the defendant. However, the primary reason the courts refuse to allow such evidence
is because no matter how well a suspect may fit into the child molester profile, it
can never prove whether the actual event took place (Peters & Murphy, 1992).