Hunting Serial Predators

Godwin deserves an A+ for giving a scientific look at the so-called "science" of criminal profiling. Criminal profiling, as practiced by the FBI, -- and as I had long suspected -- has gotten much more Hollywood hype than it deserves. This book is NOT written in the entertaining film noir narratives of John Douglas et al., nor is it a compilation of juicy murder cases. Rather, it is a scientific analysis of the profiling methods as they ought to be employed. Godwin exposes the statistical pitfalls and the wrong turns made by the current FBI profiling methods, and he suggests ways in which the profiling methods could be improved. Even if you aren't a statistician (with knowledge of cluster analysis and correlation coefficients), Godwin gives plenty of solid and readable introductory material and conclusions which can easily be understood by the interested layman. This is a must read for anyone considering a career in law enforcement and criminology.

I gleaned a totally difference opinion from Dr. Godwin's book, Hunting Serial Predators than the review by Pat Brown. First of all, I think that the book demolished more than a few specific myths about current profiling approaches - Dr. Godwin covered a broad range of approaches and showed their weaknesses. Obviously the reader, Pat Brown, did not read the entire book or fully understand what she was reading. Dr. Goodwin examined for the very first time the consistency of serial killers' crime scene behaviors from one offense to another and showed that they are very consistent on an empirical foundation. This very finding explodes the myths propounded in all the literature on serial murder. While others claim this fact might be obvious, they have not provided the literature demonstrating this. In regards to the grouping of behaviors, the behaviors were not done subjectively as is the case by individual profilers who use their experiences and gut feelings. Rather, the behaviors were group by the computer analysis and each classification was defended strongly with the support of psychological literature. For example, Dr. Godwin found a group of crime scene actions that revealed the aspects of serial killers who specifically targeted and murdered their victims indoors - no other serial murder classification does this. He also showed what the dominant focus of serial murder is - that it was not entirely sexual. Can't quite understand how this Pat Brown misses these very important points in the book. Also, the four case studies in the book were just used for demonstrating purposes as I understand the reading of the book. I found the book to be a strong foundation to built a computerized linking data system for law enforcement use using the four classification types described. I also found the way in which Dr. Godwin used the information in his research to profile the serial murder case in Raleigh, North Carolina helpful. I also found the book, considering the statistical nature of the book, an easy read.

Reading the analysis of Robert Ressler it would seem that he is at odds not only with the book, but with his peers as well. Indeed the use of both inductive and deductive logic as part of the process used by the FBI has been suggested by other former alumni (copy available on request if you doubt my word) and seems well supported by the few documents or books released on the subject.The question arises what, if any, method of empirical analysis of crime would be used to track the changes over time in MO suggested by Douglas and others. If VICAP and HITS are not "A Complete Waste of Time" (with apologies to Monty Python) then what exactly is the point? More directly, tell us what crimes have been solved or reduced using it? This book discusses that.A survey of incarcerated offenders with a more methodical and statistically valid codebook are a focal point of this book. This is a reliable way to provide information that utlimately turns what some derisively consider little more than witchcraft into the full promise it holds. Dr. Godwins book argues the merit and methodology needed to do it.Indeed, many of the common myths portrayed in popular media by Ressler or Douglas are proven false in resources studied by legitimate methods included in this book. That alone would make it worth the price.While not belittling the work of the BSU, I would suggest that they have expropriated a significant thing which deserves a more complete and well founded data base. Even in the context of variability in human nature, the fact that former BSU alumni are able to argue typologies rather than each case as being an individual suggests some commonality in the perpetrators.A conclusive, unbiased study of incarcerated offenders as well as a more relevant analysis of violent crime will curb this annoying tendency to see a very limited few offer their services or expertise in this area.I will offer that there are areas with which I do not agree with Maurice, but he makes a clear and convincing argument for re-evaluating the way statistics are gathered, analyzed and possibly may actually produce something worthwhile. So long as behavioral science continues it's foray into the judicial process, I think a better study is called for. In the meantime, I see it as a bit lopsided in terms of equality for both defense and prosecution (cases in Georgia and Colorado notwithstanding).

As a true crime author, I've been aware for a long time of the need for a true methodology in characterizing and tracking down serial murderers. Godwin has finally delivered it.

I just began reading Hunting Serial Predators and find it thorough and fascinating. This is the first book that proposes such a succinct method of profiling that I have come across, that uses true experimental method to produce reliable and valid results; as a psychologist, this has always been something for which I look when reading research. Unfortunately, I most often end up reading publications lacking in empiricism, experimentally weak and based mostly on opinion. This book is informative and interesting. I would recommend it to anyone interested in serial killers, especially in an academic and/or professional capacity.