10-22-2014, 02:04 PM
^ Cheyne posted historical statistics related to known serial killers; the numbers and profiles of their confirmed and unconfirmed victims have no bearing on the validity of the known serial killer statistics posted.
But, I understand now that you switched topics to predictive indexes -- thanks. I agree that historical data (confirmed or otherwise) should not be used as a sole or definitive base for attempting to identify potential suspects in an on-going investigation or attempting to profile future potential serial killers before they offend. Rather, the historical data is only one of the many tools that may be useful in those efforts.
I find the theories of MacDonald, Douglass, Ressler, et all to be interesting reads, but most of their theories in relation to predictive indexes for serial killers have never been validated by research and have been debunked by the growing compilation of verified profiles for known offenders. IMO, serial killers are as diverse as any other category of criminals when it comes to backgrounds and motives.
But, I understand now that you switched topics to predictive indexes -- thanks. I agree that historical data (confirmed or otherwise) should not be used as a sole or definitive base for attempting to identify potential suspects in an on-going investigation or attempting to profile future potential serial killers before they offend. Rather, the historical data is only one of the many tools that may be useful in those efforts.
I find the theories of MacDonald, Douglass, Ressler, et all to be interesting reads, but most of their theories in relation to predictive indexes for serial killers have never been validated by research and have been debunked by the growing compilation of verified profiles for known offenders. IMO, serial killers are as diverse as any other category of criminals when it comes to backgrounds and motives.