A new hope: from MO and signature to case linkage analysis

[redpill]

hopefully you've had the opportunity to review this thread
investigative psychology, Mode of operation, signature, and midterm review

since MO and signature form the basis of case linkage analysis

recall this canon of ethical guidelines

Maintain an attitude of professionalism and integrity.
Conduct all research in a generally accepted scientific manner.
Assign appropriate credit for the ideas of others that are used.
Treat all information (not in the public domain) from a client or agency in a confidential manner, unless specific permission to disseminate information is obtained.
Maintain an attitude of independence and impartiality in order to ensure an unbiased analysis and interpretation of the evidence.
Strive to avoid preconceived ideas or biases regarding potential suspects or offenders from influencing a final profile or crime analysis when appropriate.
Render opinions and conclusions strictly in accordance with the evidence in the case.
Not exaggerate, embellish, or otherwise misrepresent qualifications when testifying, or at any other time, in any form.
Testify in an honest, straightforward manner and refuse to extend their opinion beyond their field of competence, phrasing testimony in a manner intended to avoid misinterpretation of their opinion.
Not use a profile or crime analysis (the inference of Offender or Crime Scene Characteristics) for the purposes of suggesting the guilt or innocence of a particular individual for a particular crime.
Make efforts to inform the court of the nature and implications of pertinent evidence if reasonably assured that this information will not be disclosed in court.

of particular interest here is this

Maintain an attitude of professionalism and integrity.
Conduct all research in a generally accepted scientific manner.
Render opinions and conclusions strictly in accordance with the evidence in the case.


when it comes to the criteria of conducting research in a generally accepted scientific manner the following is quite useful

scientific methodology" as the process of formulating hypotheses and then conducting experiments to prove or falsify the hypothesis, and provided a nondispositive, nonexclusive, "flexible" test for establishing its "validity":

1. Empirical testing: the theory or technique must be falsifiable, refutable, and testable.
2. Subjected to peer review and publication.
3. Known or potential error rate.
4. The existence and maintenance of standards and controls concerning its operation.
5. Degree to which the theory and technique is generally accepted by a relevant scientific community.

that the following factors be considered:^[24]

1. Has the technique been tested in actual field conditions (and not just in a laboratory)? [e.g. fingerprinting has been extensively tested and verified not only in laboratory conditions, but even in actual criminal cases. So it is admissible. Polygraphy on the other hand has been well tested in laboratories but not so well tested in field conditions]
2. Has the technique been subject to peer review and publication?
3. What is the known or potential rate of error?
4. Do standards exist for the control of the technique's operation? [e.g. the use of penile plethysmography for sex offender risk assessment is being used by different workers according to their own standards. Thus penile plethysmography does not meet Daubert criteria]
5. Has the technique been generally accepted within the relevant scientific community?

the following summarizes FBI offender profiling







AND





FBI offender profiling is unscientific, and therefore, as useful as psychics in determining a suggested course of investigation. FBI profilers occasionally guess correctly, but in many more instances, guess in correctly.

regarding this criteria


Maintain an attitude of professionalism and integrity.
Conduct all research in a generally accepted scientific manner.
Render opinions and conclusions strictly in accordance with the evidence in the case.

DNA linkage would be ideal but to date, there is no DNA match in the CODIS database for Jonbenet crime.
I choose a more promising approach to FBI profiling, try to identify crimes similar to Jonbenet's and see if there is a scientific technique to determine if there is a link. There is.

Originally Posted by Jessica Woodhams and Kirsty Toye

In many countries, government policy has required police forces to focus their investigative efforts on the minority of offenders who commit the majority of the crimes (Innes, Fielding, & Cope, 2005). This has motivated the police and professionals working with them to develop effective means of identifying crimes committed by the same offender (called serial crime or crime series). Behavioral and forensic scientists have developed methods for identifying serial crime. In the absence of suitable physical evidence, such as DNA evidence, to link different crime scenes, case linkage (also referred to as comparative case analysis and linkage analysis) can be used to examine the likelihood of a series of offenses being committed by the same unidentified offender (Grubin, Kelly, & Brunsdon, 2001; Hazelwood & Warren, 2003). Case linkage is typically conducted by crime analysts and involves the analyst engaging in a detailed behavioral analysis of criminals' crime scene actions (modus operandi [MO]) to determine whether there is a sufficient degree of similarity in behavior for the crimes to be attributed to a common offender.

Similarly, science has played an important role in developing means of identifying offenders from the physical evidence left at the crime scene (Innes et al., 2005). However, in some crimes, physical evidence is not available for identification means, and if the offender was a stranger to the victim, the offender cannot be identified in this alternative manner.

Case linkage analysis











there is a computerized version of this

Case linkage analysis aka behavior linkage analysis aka comparative case analysis is computerized

Violent Crime Linkage System (ViCLAS)

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/tops-opst/...salvac-eng.htm

I will highlight what is important

Introduction

In the mid-1980s, following several complex, multi-jurisdictional serial homicide investigations (the Clifford Olson case being the most notable), it became apparent to Canadian law enforcement officials that a system was required to identify and track serial violent crime/criminals. The Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) Advisory Committee, comprised of the major police services across the country, agreed on the need for a central repository to capture, collate and compare violent crimes.


Other Serious Crime Linkage Systems

Some of the systems they examined included:

• FBI Violent Criminal Apprehension Program (ViCAP);
• Iowa State Sex Crimes Analysis System;
• Minnesota State Sex Crimes Analysis System (MINN/SCAP);
• Washington State Homicide Investigation Tracking System (HITS);
• New York State Homicide Investigation & Lead Tracking (HALT);
• New Jersey Homicide Evaluation & Assessment Tracking (HEAT); and
• Pennsylvania State ATAC Program.

Research revealed that each of these systems were valuable investigative tools and a drastic improvement on our Major Crimes File. Unfortunately none of the systems met our needs so it was decided that a new Canadian system would be developed that would incorporate the best features of each of these systems.
One of the other shortcomings identified in the research of the American systems was that there was no one national major crime linkage system. The FBI’s ViCAP system had not been adopted by all police forces in the U.S. and it did not track serious sexual assaults. Research has shown that the escalation of violence which often occurs in sexual offenses can ultimately lead to homicide.


Types of Crimes

The next consideration in the ViCLAS development was the type of investigations that would be captured. After careful consideration, a list was developed and has evolved over the years to presently include:

• All solved or unsolved homicides and attempts;
• All solved or unsolved sexual assaults or attempts except familial/domestic unless there is unique or significant physical, sexual or verbal behaviour;
• Missing persons where foul play is suspected;
• Unidentified human remains where foul play is suspected;
• All non-parental abductions and attempts;
• False allegations of sexual assault or attempted murder;
• All solved or unsolved or attempted child luring.
• Regardless of the nature of the investigation, investigators may submit their case to ViCLAS using a ViCLAS Booklet if they have reason to believe that the offender involved (known or unknown) may have been responsible for other violent crimes or has the potential to offend/re-offend.

How it Works

When a serious crime occurs that qualifies as a ViCLAS reportable case, an investigator completes the questionnaire/booklet. The booklet is then sent to the ViCLAS centre responsible for the area the offence is reported in. The booklet then undergoes a quality assurance review, and some centres actually perform this twice. If the booklet does not pass the quality review, the investigator may be contacted directly to clear up some minor points or the booklet may be returned to the originator to be resubmitted when completed correctly.
Once the booklet has been entered on the system, the ViCLAS specialist begins the analytical process. This involves conducting extensive background research on both the victim and offender, if he or she is known. A typical analysis will involve the specialist reviewing all data that was available on the subject(s) including information from computerized police information retrieval systems, parolee files and any other reliable information source. They will review all statements, reports and photographs available and in some cases speak to investigators.
Once they have conducted their background research they will draw upon their experience and expertise by conducting various structured queries on ViCLAS. Each specialist will have his or her own approach to this process, but all will in some way be looking at victimology, the offender, modus operandi, behavioural and forensic data found at the scene for clues that may link cases to each other and/or reveal the identity of the offender.
In order to provide the investigators with feedback, they are advised, usually in writing, the results of the analysis, whether it is positive or negative. In the case where a potential link is made, the investigators are asked to provide the ViCLAS centre with the results of their investigation. A potential link is a situation where the ViCLAS specialist has reason to believe that a specific person, known or unknown, may be responsible for one or more crimes. When this occurs, the ViCLAS specialist connects the cases on the database in the form of a series. ViCLAS is then updated in the database accordingly when the investigator confirms or rejects the link by virtue of his/her investigation.


Conclusion

In the words of Insp. Ron MacKay, “The linking of a series of crimes committed by the same offender not only increases investigative efficiency, it also enhances the grounds for multiple charges and dangerous offender status, with resultant indefinite/longer sentences for serial offenders.”
The RCMP and most other major police departments in Canada have adopted a community-based approach to modern-day policing. Community-based policing is more than crime prevention programs or public relations exercises. It is a philosophy of problem-solving with consultation and input from partners and clients. ViCLAS operates on a similar model. It is more than just a computer system used by specially trained experts to link major crimes.
ViCLAS is a system that encourages and facilitates communication between investigators with the common goal of solving serious serial criminal acts and putting dangerous human predatorial offenders in jail. ViCLAS is considered a success whether a case is solved by virtue of the ViCLAS specialists using all of the tools at his disposal or as a result of communication generated between investigators attending ViCLAS lectures, conferences, or courses.

In effect I am playing the role of ViCLAS specialist.

another source
http://www.cibertito.com/2011/05/cri...and-databases/

As crime globalizes, so does crime fighting. Mobsters, serial killers, and terrorists cross state lines and borders effortlessly, making use of the latest advances in mass media, public transportation, telecommunications, and computer networks. The police – there are 16,000 law enforcement agencies in the Unites States alone – is never very far behind. Quotes from the official Web pages of some of these databases:
National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime (NCAVC)
Its mission is to combine investigative and operational support functions, research, and training in order to provide assistance, without charge, to federal, state, local, and foreign law enforcement agencies investigating unusual or repetitive violent crimes. The NCAVC also provides support through expertise and consultation in non-violent matters such as national security, corruption, and white-collar crime investigations.
It comprises the Behavioral Analysis Unit (BAU), Child Abduction and Serial Murder Investigative Resources Center (CASMIRC), and Violent Criminal Apprehension Program (VICAP).
VICAP is a nationwide data information center designed to collect, collate, and analyze crimes of violence – specifically murder. It collates and analyzes the significant characteristics of all murders, and other violent offenses.