This book should have been called 'Investigative Psychology'. It might not have been so eye-catching but it would have done better justice to its contents. Investigative psychology is a developmenting scientific discipline which is growing apart from 'offender profiling', as it is popularly conceived, and which, it is acknowledged, 'has developed the tendency for (the) principles of (of scientific method) to be ignored in favour of quick answers based on experience rather than any systematic cumulative study'. Not least for this reason one of the early chapters grapples with ethical and professional as well as legal issues.
The criticisms of some profilers and their 'methods' are a repetitive theme which reach a climax in Ormerod's final chapter and comments on the case of R v Stagg, the alleged Wimbledon Common Murderer, which reflects 'a sorry state for those psychologists who should have been aware of the limitations of their contributions'. This was the case in which Ognall J ruled inadmissible evidence against Colin Stagg based on an undercover police operation which had employed a blatant abuse of the profile technique to try and incriminate Stagg in the offence. Although the judge's asides concerning the admissibility of profile evidence per se are not binding, as Ormerod's analysis indicates, they reflect an interpretation of the law of evidence which, except in very rare circumstances, will exclude profile evidence in criminal trials, at least in this jurisdiction. Other jurisdictions may not be so strict.
If Ognall J is seen as the judge who has brought a halt to the introduction of offender profiling into the courts, it is important not to tar the whole of investigative psychology with the same brush. Indeed, one of his statements is a boost to this emergent discipline: 'Nobody questions that in certain cases the assistance of a psychologist of that kind can prove a very useful investigative tool'.
The book has a chapter on a behavioural science approach to the problem of organised crime, illustrated by the role of the police psychologist in criminal investigation in the Netherlands. There is a social science perspective on the analysis of investigative interviews but it left me wishing that a chapter by Gudjonsson concerning the psychological perspective on the analysis of investigative interviews had been included.
The chapter on false allegations of child sexual abuse is balanced and informative. The author does not mince his words and calls on his fellow professionals to 'resist as vociferously as we can these transatlantic hoaxes and charlatan practices'. It is only unfortunate that his chapter does not provide a systematic approach to the investigation of what might turn out to be either false or true allegations of child sexual abuse.
There are also interesting chapters on the role of the psychiatrist in the investigation of equivocal death, including guidelines for conducting a psychological autopsy, approaches to the scientific attribution of authorship and on the psychologist as expert witness. Although the expert witness chapter gives an interesting account of the role of the psychologist as an expert witness in a range of cases, and sets these in the context of a discussion of the role of the expert within the legal system, I thought that the author's comparison of the relative roles of psychiatrists and psychologists was unhelpful and superficial and her dismissal of the Turner ruling on expert evidence based on insufficient appreciation of the case itself and the law of evidence. For me the most helpful chapter, as an expert witness, was Ormerod's chapter: 'Criminal Profiling: Trial by Judge and Jury, not Criminal Psychologist'. It is so easy for doctors, scientists and other professionals to fall into the trap of believing that what they have to say is going to be critical for the judge, magistrate or jury in deciding a particular case. Experience soon brings the fledgling expert up against the law of evidence and it is a salutary experience to have the whole of one's well-researched, polished, articulate and highly professional opinion ruled 'out of court' by the rules of evidence. These are largely exclusionary rules, i.e., defining what evidence cannot be admitted. Although Ormerod sets them out like a set of hurdles to be jumped by the psychologist who expects to be able to give evidence on 'profiling', a number of them apply to expert evidence in general and for forensic experts who provide opinions to the court it is a chapter worth reading as the illustrative and leading cases are ones which enable the expert to see not only the tests which will be applied to the admission of the opinion but, if admitted, the sort of questions which may be put in cross-examination to test the opinion.
No doubt this book is a 'must' for aspiring forensic psychologists, it is a worthwhile read for aspiring forensic psychiatrists and other forensic practitioners might want to dip into it, not just for Ormerod's solid analysis of the law of evidence in relation to a particular type of expert opinion but as a cautionary tale for professionals who might alight upon a technique which is bound to capture the public imagination but may also chart a course across a legal minefield!
As an afterthought, I cannot help but to observe that Ormerod seems to have managed to get away with the term 'criminal psychologist' without earning the rebukes I suffered when I gave a presentation in a geriatric hospital and referred to 'geriatric physicians'!
