Very often, criminal profiling methods are grouped together as one collection of techniques, all relying on the same methods, following one set of procedures, and practiced by individuals from the same background.

It has been illustrated in this paper though, that criminal profiling methods are not all the same, and that the backgrounds of those who practice these methods are equally dissimilar. The FBI’s method involves comparing the behaviour of the current offender with those offenders the profiler has encountered in the past and the broad offender groups developed through studying similar crimes and criminals.

Investigative Psychology relies heavily on the methods of environmental psychology, along with some new investigative tools that have been developed since the institution of the formal Investigative Psychology program. The driving discipline behind IP is psychology, though Canter has taken the method beyond the more basic psychological principles.

The main difference between the FBI, IP, and BEA methods is that Turvey’s BEA does not utilise statistics on broad offender groups, and relies primarily on forensic science for the reconstruction of the criminal event, then on forensic science, psychology and psychiatry for an interpretation of the offender’s behaviour. Of all of the techniques available, BEA is the latest in a series of new and evolving schools of thought.

While it is not necessary for any one practitioner to strictly adhere to one method, individuals are warned not to “spread themselves to thin”. The best advice that can be given is to adopt the method that makes most sense, learn as much as you can about it, and then adapt it for use in the cultural, social, psychological and physical settings in which one operates. On a strictly fundamental level, it is necessary for the general reader to know where each method hails from, and even more important to acknowledge that all profiling methods are not created equal.

The ability of some of the methods to be applied in settings other than those in which the statistics were developed is severely limited, and so caution should be employed by anyone attempting to practically apply those methods. It is hoped that through this paper a greater understanding of the history of profiling has been developed, but more importantly, that the recognition of distinct differences between the methods has been shown.