IRIANS solves cases globally focusing now in Mumbai (India) and South east Asia. The process of how the cases are solved follows a pattern of suspect profiling. The suspect has to be classified into different categories and we will work accordingly. Have a look at the following article by Caitlin Beddows where the profiling process we use is explained in detail.
“The process of profiling has its origins in “psychological profiling” and criminal case-study descriptions originally published by forensically inclined psychologists and psychiatrists seeking to further the understanding of the criminal mind. Early profiling work also involved the psychiatric and psychological assessments of individuals for strategic purposes, such as the psychiatric assessment of Aldof Hiltler during World War II. Historically, psychiatrists and psychologists wrote psychological profiles of criminals as diagnostic formulations. Early profiling efforts were disseminated among mental-health professionals to foster discussion and debate on a broad diversity of theoretical issues. These “profiling” orientations practiced by mental-health professionals often lacked overt practical law-enforcement application.
In the 1970s, “psychological profiling,” sometimes referred to as “criminal or behavioral profiling,” was systematically implemented as an investigative technique by the BSU. The FBI’s approach to profiling differed markedly from the methodology employed by mental-health professionals. Rather than conducting a clinically based construct of a known offender as a means of gaining insight, detailed examinations of the behavior(s) evidenced in the interactions between offenders and victims, and displayed at the scenes of crimes served as the basis of analysis and prediction. The FBI approach to criminal profiling was predicated on the belief that criminal behavior, as evidenced in victim–offender interactions and crime scene activities, reflected offender personality traits and that such traits could be identified and categorized. FBI profiling began as an informal analysis, but gradually transitioned into a formal service as the practical law-enforcement value of behaviorally based crime analyses became evident. With time, research involving the interviews of incarcerated offenders, coupled with the standardization of analytical protocols and training methodologies, served to formalize the profiling process.
Early FBI criminal profiling efforts focused primarily on ascribing behavioral and personality characteristics to unknown offenders in serious violent crimes and serial offenses. Central to this approach was the concept of an organized/disorganized behavioral dichotomy. This continuum was based on recognized differences in a spectrum of behavioral characteristics indicative of varying degrees of criminal sophistication. Organized offenders planned their offenses, would target a victim who was a stranger, and were very evidence-conscious. Disorganized offenders tended to commit spontaneous offenses, were acquainted with the victim, and left physical evidence at the crime scene.
Through analysis of the crime scene, profilers could utilize crime scene characteristics to ascertain personality traits of either organized or disorganized offenders. Organized offenders were described as very intelligent, with better than average IQ scores, high birth-order status in their family, socially and sexually competent, worked in a skilled profession, were in a controlled mood during the commission of their crime, used alcohol during the crime, were very mobile, and followed the crime in the news media. Disorganized offenders were described as of average intelligence, had minimal birth-order status, were socially immature, sexually incompetent, had poor work history, were in an anxious mood during the crime, did not consume alcohol during the crime, lived near the crime scene, and had minimal interest in the news media.
This system was limited, however, because of the inherent problems of a simple two-category classification model. Human behavior is much more variable than an “either/or” choice of organized behavior/disorganized behavior. Behavior falls along a continuum between the two poles and usually displays descriptive characteristics of both organized and disorganized”