Free Dust to Dust by Beverly Connor Page A

that were verified by empirical studies, hard data, statistics, and probabilities.”
    “What changed your mind? How did you come to your epiphany?” asked Frank.
    Frank, Diane knew, was a critic of profiling, so he probably approved of this turn of events.
    “Looking at some of the research done in the UK on profiling and case histories. Looking back at my own work and seeing in reality how fuzzy some of my profiles and those of my colleagues were.”
    “Like . . . he’s someone you wouldn’t suspect of being violent,” said Frank.
    Diane smiled and Kingsley nodded. “You know, before now, I never really realized how that statement fit most people.” He shook his head. “So many descriptions are like that—‘He’s someone who tends to be a hermit, but sometimes enjoys being with friends.’ You know, when I read my profiles in hindsight, I am astounded at how hazy and contradictory many of them were. They would be concrete enough to point to particular individuals, and yet vague and general enough to fit a lot of very different people. I mean, the profiles sounded good, but what did they really say? I don’t know how detectives got anything worthwhile out of them. And the lack of consistency. You have two profilers evaluate the same case and their profiles point in completely different directions. You remember the BTK killer?”
    Diane and Frank nodded.
    “A little,” said Diane. “The serial killer in Kansas?”
    “I didn’t work on his profile, but I studied it. He was profiled out to be basically lower class, an outsider, probably unmarried, and uncomfortable with women. When he was caught, he turned out to have been married for thirty years, a father of two children, president of the congregation council of his church, a Cub Scout leader, and a right-upstanding member of his community.” Kingsley shook his head again. “They got some things right, but only because so many of the descriptions were so general, they would have fit about anyone.”
    “How did they catch him?” asked Diane.
    “Old-fashioned detective work and a little trickery on the part of detectives,” said Frank. “The killer was sending the police taunting messages. They got him to send a message by floppy disk, telling him there was no way to trace it. There is, of course, and they traced it back to him.” He grinned.
    Diane could see that it pleased him that computer technology had played a part in the apprehension.
    “There was a lot more to his capture, but that’s the Cliffs Notes version,” said Frank.
    “It was a research report that first tested my faith,” said Kingsley. “A British study analyzed a couple hundred criminal cases in which profiles were used by the police. Profiles led detectives to the guilty party in fewer than three percent of the cases,” said Kingsley. He straightened up in his chair and leaned forward for emphasis. “That statistic is what got me started on my own reevaluation of profiles.”
    “Is that what made you give up on profiling?” asked Diane. She was a little puzzled by Ross and wondered whether he was having more of a burnout than a career crisis. But then again, she had been a skeptic of profiling too. On the other hand, she did believe there were observable patterns of behavior that could be traced back to the psychology of the person, and those behaviors were predictable.
    “I think the final straw was a case that several of us profilers were assigned to.” Kingsley gestured with his hands, then put his fingertips together. “We were called in on a series of rapes. There were nine of them. In each case the victim was tied with her hands behind her and had a hood put over her head or a large blindfold over her eyes. The rapist used a condom and bathed the victim in the shower or bathtub afterward, so there was little forensic evidence.” Kingsley settled back in the chair again and relaxed. He took another sip of his coffee.
    “Want me to warm that for you?” asked