Depending on who and what you read, you will often get a very contradictory report of exactly who developed criminal profiling. This is especially true when it comes to the FBI, with many retired agents claiming sole responsibility for the development of many of the methods still in use today. It should come as no surprise that profiling in one way, shape, or form was employed long before the Bureau even came into existence. For many years, the work of individual psychologists and psychiatrists could be described as profiling, in that they often provided advice to police agencies as to the type of perpetrator they were seeking, including their possible motivations for the crime.

These kinds of recommendations are still produced today by many mental health practitioners on an ‘as needed’ basis and it is rare to find one psychologist or psychiatrist not employed in a law enforcement setting who only does profiling in their daily duties. The interpretations they make of criminal behaviour are usually the result of their knowledge of the human personality and of various psychological disorders. As a result, their interpretations tend to revolve heavily around personality and psychological anomalies. Mostly though, these assessments were provided after the fact (once a suspect was apprehended), and often revolved around issues of ‘insanity’ [Reference 4].

The first example of profiling available for reference which is referred to as a profile in the contemporary sense were the suggestion made by Dr. Thomas Bond, a police surgeon, who performed the autopsy on Mary Kelly, the last of Jack the Ripper’s victims [Reference 1]. Bond was initially called into the investigation to make an assessment of the surgical knowledge of the perpetrator. He also engaged in a somewhat crude reconstruction of many aspects of the crime, possibly in an attempt to understand what occurred. He observed that “…the corner sheet to the right of the woman’s head was much cut and saturated with blood, indicating that the face may have been covered with a sheet at the time of the attack” [Reference 2: p. 106].

The observations made by Bond in the late 1880’s were largely the interpretation of the Ripper’s behaviours at the crime scene, including the wound patterns inflicted upon the victim. He suggested that investigators look for a quiet inoffensive looking man, probably middle aged and neatly dressed [Reference 2].

One aspect of the modern day profiler's work is to examine a series of cases and advise as to whether there is a link between two or more cases based upon the crime scene and the victims. Bond performed a similar duty to this stating that all of the victims had died by the same hand, and that the mutilations of Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly were “all of the same character” [Reference 3]. This statement parallels what profilers refer to today as a "signature", or those behaviours or actions that fulfil a psychological or physical need in the offender.

Bond also believed the offender to be a man of “great coolness and daring” [Reference 3, page 320]. Once again, in much the same way that that a profiler will make an inference about an offenders possible employment, Bond stated, “In each case the mutilation was inflicted by a person who had no scientific nor anatomical knowledge. In my opinion he does not even possess the technical knowledge of a butcher or horse slaughterer or any person accustomed to cut up dead animals” [Reference 3, page 320].

Possibly the next major case in which profiling was used was during World War II. The Office of Strategic Services (now the CIA) asked a psychiatrist, Walter Langer, to provide a profile of Adolf Hitler. They wanted “a realistic appraisal of the German situation. If Hitler is running the show, what kind of person is he? What are his ambitions?…We want to know about his psychological make up - the things that make him tick. In addition, we ought to know what he might do if things begin to go against him” [Reference 8: p. 17]. Langer’s profile was intended to be of some assistance should Hitler be captured, and the authorities require an interrogation strategy (again, current profiling is used for much the same purpose).

Most noteworthy in Langer’s profile was the possible outcomes for Hitler at the war's end. Death through natural causes was considered unlikely, as Hitler was in good health. They also thought he may attempt to seek refuge in another country, but decided against it because he genuinely believed he was the saviour of his own country. While several other possibilities were presented (assassination, a military coup, and death in battle), they were also considered unlikely. Langer believed the most likely outcome would be suicide should defeat prove imminent [Reference 8]. His final prediction proved correct when Hitler committed suicide in a bunker with Eva Braun when the Allies victory became certain. This kind of wartime profiling of enemy leaders was possibly also used during other campaigns, including Vietnam and the Gulf War.

Without doubt, one of the best-known profiles that has been performed in the last century would be that of James Brussels, a New York psychiatrist, who profiled “The Mad Bomber of New York”. Brussels was called on to help police in their search as the bomber had left some 32 explosive packages across the city over approximately 8 years [Reference 5]. Reviewing the huge case file, the photographs, and a number of letters that the suspect had mailed over a 16-year period [Reference 4] Brussels suggested the police were after “…a heavy man. Middle aged. Foreign Born. Roman Catholic. Single. Lives with a brother or sister”. He also added “…when you find him, chances are he will be wearing a double breasted suit. Buttoned” [Reference 4]. He also determined that the man responsible for the crimes was paranoid, hated his father, was obsessively loved by his mother and lived in the state of Connecticut [Reference 6]. Brussels was so close in his assessment that the arresting officers were surprised at the similarities, even down to the double-breasted suit that was buttoned.

From June 14, 1962 to January 4, 1964 a series of attacks that were later attributed to the “Boston Strangler” occurred in the Boston area of Massachusetts. There were a total of 11 sex related murders (later updated to 13) in Boston and all investigative efforts had proved fruitless [Reference 4]. In April of 1964, Dr. Brussels was once again called upon to assist a panel of experts known as the Medical-Psychiatric Committee in an effort to bring the case to resolution. While the other Committee members attributed the murders to two separate offenders (based primarily on the differences between the victim’s ages), Brussels opposed this view, attributing the crimes to only one offender. The killings mysteriously stopped, though in November 1964 a man by the name of Albert DeSalvo came to the attention of authorities [Reference 4], and "fit" the profile that Brussels had provided.

Though DeSalvo was arrested for the “Green Man” series of crimes, he later confessed to his psychiatrist that he was the Boston Strangler. Since he confessed, and so closely "fit" the profile provided by Brussels, police identified him as the Boston Strangler and closed the case without filing charges. In 1973, DeSalvo was stabbed to death in his cell by a fellow inmate [Reference 7], therefore, the profile Brussels provided was never really "tested", and to this day no one has been charged for the crimes of the Boston Strangler.

It is a commonly held belief that agents of the FBI developed the profiling process while working on serial crime investigations across the United States. In reality, the people who can be genuinely attributed with its development were using the practice long before these agents arrived at The Bureau. During the 1960’s, a man by the name of Howard Teten began to develop his approach to profiling while working on the San Leandro, California Police Department [Reference 7]. Howard’s theoretical background for this was provided by the staff at the School of Criminology, at the University of California, some of whom were renowned leaders in their respective fields.

Later, when Teten became a Special Agent, he initiated his profiling program in 1970 [see Reference 7] and compiled his first profile in Amarillo, Texas that same year [see Reference 1]. Teten was later teamed up with Pat Mullany who taught the abnormal psychological aspects of human behaviour, while Howard demonstrated how behaviour could be determined from the evidence at the scene [Reference 7]. Also in 1970, Teten taught the first course at the FBI National Academy, entitled Applied Criminology, a course that has been taught every year since.