The Centre for Investigative
Psychology,
Department of Psychology,
The University of Liverpool,
Eleanor Rathbone Building,
Bedford Street South,
Liverpool,
L69 7ZA
Dear Professor Canter.
May I first say I was quite thrilled to have picked up your
book Mapping Murder. I was even more
pleased when I realized that with my purchase within the very first pages were
quotes from two of my graduate lecturers,
Dr. Mary Lindahl and Detective Greg McCray.
What drew me to your book was the geographical profiling
aspect of forensic psychology which I feel a strong affinity to. I am currently nursing an idea of one day
developing or being part of a geospatial criminal activity map which will
within the bounds of knowledge forecast criminal activity in much the same way
that meteorologists forecast the weather. I envision that it will be real time
and an immensely more in depth version of Risk map which is published by Control
Risks Group.
While I do not intend to bore you with chimerical wish-hopes
I do hope to point out a niggling issue with your first chapter. While I will
not let it unduly influence the enjoyment and education of finishing your book
I do hope that perhaps you could respond or elucidate on it.
Page 5 of your book, Greg McCray is quoted as saying that the
sniper is statistically a white man, you then go on to ask whether Mr. McCray
was “therefore saying that the sniper was a typical Washington resident?”
Perhaps your knowledge of the District of Colombia demographic may not be as sharp as it is of
other localities but “Chocolate City” as it is called in the 60’s and 70’s is
still predominantly black. Silver Spring and Montgomery County (both in Maryland),
where a large number of the shootings happened are almost entirely black
communities so “typical DC resident” and “white” can in no way come in the same
sentence (except if inter-fixed by” is not”). Most whites in Washington are invariably
politicians lawyers and federal agents, not typical or serial.(perhaps Criminal but thats another story) Washington DC is
also known to be a transient population. Most residents of DC are usually people born
in other States and countries. I agree whole heartedly that Mr. McCray got it
completely wrong by saying the killer was white but to go as far as to imply
McCray said he was from Washington is maybe a tiny step too far (unless you
garnered that agent McCray was suggesting Washington State.) Mr. McCray made a very safe bet in using
statistics and his FBI experience for describing a “serial killing”. However
the beltway shooters were not white as you point out, but they were arguably
not serial killers either.
I find that scoffing at American profiling seems in poor
sport (you should easily know why). Using statistics in an open-ended (complex)
system is something I would not ever readily resort to but the FBI seems to
have a proven track-record in its crime fighting and investigation. While I
think that America’s Federal law enforcement has not quite evolved past Hoover
era techniques (and statistics apparently) one must remember that African
Americans and Blacks have only recently started buying guns, cars and trips to
Antigua and discovering ways to use all of these in concord. Statistically especially
with the rarity of serial and spree killing the weight still leans to Whites
because there has been historically more chances for members of that race to be
spree and serial killers. Having a dig at the Quantico and Langley trained
professionals for guessing ‘White’ is like scoffing at weathermen who failed to
predict the chilly few weeks we had in May. It is also my experience that even
if a black man is involved in a gun crime in the United States, authorities are
very reluctant to use the description especially in front of a watchful media
and race sensitive public. One could easily interpret not only that was it
statistically more likely for a White serial killer to be involved but also the
last thing any White profiler would have ever mentioned is that the “serial
murder” was just another “Black man with a gun” in the geographical area which
is historically (and actually) known for Black men with guns, Maryland (Baltimore
being the new American murder capital). Perhaps
if the crime itself was treated as a spree and not a serial murder, then the
truth might have come to light as no surprise. With 911 still very large in the
background rational in depth differentiation between homegrown/foreign;
terrorist/criminal; POW’s/enemy combatants; serial/spree would be fuzzy at
best. All is 20/20 in hindsight I
suppose. My musings, not intended as criticism, on the first few chapters are
very stimulated thus far especially my consideration that crime and who commits
them is changing rapidly even if the inner workings might essentially remain
the same.
Forensic psychology is a wonderfully nascent field and as mentioned
before I am excited to be reading your pioneering literature. My dealings thus
far with the British Psychological Society have suggested to me that I will
invariably be seeking a lot more education in the subject and I hope to perhaps
meet with you in the not too distant future and perhaps sit in on a lecture.
Thank you for the time you have put into your work so far and
for writing this book. I look forward to any future public-publications and to
learn of your new insights in this rapidly developing field.
Best regards,
Masopher
