AO3

• Who found evidence for investigative psychology?

  Canter and Heritage
• What did Canter and Heritage do? (research support for investigative psychology)

  Analysis of 66 sexual assault cases using small space analysis. They identified common behaviours like impersonal language, which showed consistent patterns unique to individuals, aiding in case linkage (whether multiple cases were committed by the same person) and supporting the principle that behaviour is consistent across crimes.
• Counter argument for effectiveness for case linkage and investigative psychology

  Case linkage is often tested using solved crimes. This makes the method seem effective, but it could be biased because it’s based on cases that were already easier to connect, which is why they were solved. It doesn’t show how well case linkage works for unsolved crimes.
• Who found evidence supporting geographical profiling?

  Canter et al.
• How did Canter et al. find evidence supporting geographical profiling?

  Analysed 120 murder case involving serial killers. Their use of smallest space analysis found spatial consistency in the killers’ behaviour with body disposal sites forming a circular pattern around the offender’s home vase, especially for those who traveled shorter distances (marauders). This supports the idea that geographical data can help identity offender
• What is a limitation of geographical profiling?

  It may not be sufficient on its own. Its success depends on the quality of data provided by the police, but crime records can be inaccurate. An estimated 75 % of crimes go unreported. Critics also argue that other factors such as timing and the offender’s age and experience are equally important in profiling (Ainsworth). Therefore, geographical information along may not always lead to capturing an offender
• Offender profiling has mixed results and is viewed differently by police forces.

  Copson surveyed 48 police departments and found that profiling advice was judged to be useful in 83 % of cases, suggesting it old be a valid tool. However in only 3 % of cases did it lead to identifying the correct offender