I am a clinical psychologist in South Africa, doing an empirical study on the
effect of
certain variables on the reliablity of eyewitness testimony. The findings are
very
interesting, but there is one result that I find hard to explain:

In the short-term memory group significantly more whites were correct about the
race
of the assailant (white) --- while in the long-term memory group significantly
more
blacks answered this item correctly.

I would appreciate any references, suggestions, own experiences, etc.  Please
send it to

arnotv@...

Thanking you in anticipation.

Arnot Venter

Federal Court finds that Criminal Profiler Richard D. Walter has offered
perjured testimony:

Criminal profiler and former prison psychologist Richard D. Walter, MA
(http://www.omegacag.com/), founding member of the Vidocq Society
(http://www.vidocq.org/who.html), has apparently been found by a Federal
Court to have committed perjury in the court case cited below, causing a
previous court decision to be vacated and new discovery ordered.

Richard D. Walter, MA is a Fellow in the General Sections of the AAFS. He is
also on the National Board of Trustees for Parents of Murdered Children:

DRAKE v. PORTUONDO, Docket No. 01-2217, January 31, 2003 (321 F.3d 338)
http://csmail.law.pace.edu/lawlib/legal/us-legal/judiciary/second-circuit/te
st3/01-2217.opn.html

"The prosecution informed defense counsel on the Thursday evening that it
intended to call a psychologist named Richard D. Walter to testify about
psychological profiling.  On the Friday, the prosecution successfully moved
to add Walter as a witness, and Walter mounted the stand.  Under the
announced schedule, defense counsel would have no more than a weekend to get
a
competing expert, if needed, or for that matter to prepare his
cross-examination.

The prosecution concedes that Walter's testimony was intended to reinforce
what it perceived as weaknesses in the
evidence supporting its theory of intent.  The prosecution also concedes
that Walter was referred to them by Dr.
Levine, the forensic dentist, and that the prosecution did not independently
investigate Walter's qualifications.

Walter conceded at the outset that he had not examined Drake or reviewed his
medical records, and would rely on his review of grand jury testimony,
medical evidence and the police record. Walter opined on that basis that
Smith and
Rosenthal had been the victims of a specific type of "lust-murder" called
"picquerism" (a derivative misspelling of the
French verb "piquer," which means, among other things, to stick or poke).
See Trial Transcript at 794.  According to
Walter, picquerists achieve sexual gratification by biting, shooting,
stabbing, and sodomizing their victims (though not
all picquerists do all these things).  This supposed syndrome accounted for
much of the physical evidence in medical terms that dovetailed with the
prosecution's theory of intent.

It is now apparent that Walter's testimony concerning his qualifications was
perjurious.  He claimed extensive experience in the field of psychological
profiling, including: work on 5000 to 7500 cases over several years in the
Los Angeles County Medical Examiner's Office; an adjunct professorship at
Northern Michigan University; more than four years as a prison psychologist
with the Michigan Department of Corrections; and expert testimony given at
hundreds of criminal trials in Los Angeles and Michigan.

On the Monday following Walter's testimony, defense counsel told Justice
DiFlorio that the defense had searched over the weekend to retain a rebuttal
psychologist, but could not find any expert who had ever heard of
"picquerism."   The defense requested a two-week continuance to find a
psychologist with the expertise required.  The prosecution successfully
opposed a continuance.

The trial concluded on schedule.  Drake was convicted and sentenced to two
consecutive terms of twenty years to
life.  The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed the conviction,
and the Court of Appeals denied leave to
appeal.  Drake's petition for a writ of error coram nobis, arguing
ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, was
denied by the Appellate Division.

Years after exhausting his direct appeals, Drake discovered evidence,
through his own research in prison, that Walter had lied about his
credentials.  Although Walter is a prison psychologist with the Michigan
Department of Corrections, Drake found suggestive evidence that Walter lied
about his other credentials.  As the prosecution now concedes, Walter
performed no criminal profiling in the Los Angeles County Medical Examiner's
Office.  According to Walter's supervisors there, he was employed as a lab
assistant responsible for cleaning and maintaining the forensic lab.  There
seems to be no record that Walter was ever on the payroll of Northern
Michigan University, where he claimed to be an adjunct professor.  The Los
Angeles County District Attorney's office has found no record of Walter
testifying as an expert witness in a criminal proceeding between October
1975 through May 1978.

In 1995, Drake moved to vacate his conviction and sentence pursuant to N.Y.
C.P.L. 440.10 on the basis of
the newly discovered evidence concerning Walter's perjury.

...

  For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the district court's judgment denying
Drake's petition for habeas relief, and remand to the district court for
discovery and a hearing (if the district court in its discretion considers
that a hearing is needed) on whether the prosecution knew (or should have
known) that its expert, Richard D. Walter, was committing perjury."

Brent
Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science
Secretary, ABP
bturvey@...

Knowledge Solutions, LLC
http://www.corpus-delicti.com
Academy of Behavioral Profiling
http://www.profiling.org

************************************************************************
"To stand up for truth is nothing. For truth you have to sit in jail."
-Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

Hi,

A couple of years ago I worked on the APS Forensic Conference with
Tim Hudman.  I am now trying to locate him.  Does anyone have an
email address for him.  At that time he was doing his Mpsych at UWS,
but should be finished now.


???????

Thanks for any help.


Steve Feelgood.

British and Irish Group for the Study of Personality Disorders
Annual Conference

CALL FOR PAPERS & EARLY REGISTRATION

Monday 2nd to Thursday 5th February 2004

The Angel Hotel, Cardiff

www.theangelhotel-cardiff.activehotels.com

Call for papers, symposia, and workshops

Submissions by 31st August 2003 to:

Dr Mary McMurran
School of Psychology
Cardiff University
Cardiff
CF10 3YG
McMurranM@...

REGISTRATION

Residential rate:
£485 'earlybird' rate per person for BIGSPD members
£505 new member package (i.e. conference + BIGSPD membership)
£520 for non members

Day delegates:
£135 'earlybird' rate for members
£155 new members package
£160 non-members

Contact: Lesley Hoyle

lesley.hoyle@...



Dr Mary McMurran
Senior Research Fellow
School of Psychology
Cardiff University
Cardiff
CF10 3YG
UK
+44 (0) 29 20 876758

Steve,

I think there is a real conceptual problem here, with facets of personality and
sexual interest being reified to the point of being 'types', as if they
represented categorical distinctions.  For example, just plucking something from
the air, We could have an instrumentally violent versus sexually violent facet
in our research, we could even define our comparison groups by reference to
this.  However, the categories in this way are a useful fiction we impose on
human behaviour to allow us to study it.  The moment we really start to believe
that there are two 'types' out there we are stereotyping and oversimplifying.

My research on assessment of sexual interest using viewing time is entirely
consistent with ppg data insofar as it suggests a remarkable diversity between
individuals of range and profiles of sexual interest.  For most offenders the
most significant facets are age and gender, but certainly not all.  Why not just
accept that categories and typologies, like much group derived research are
likely to be a poor fit for many, perhaps even most individuals.  They do
however give us useful dimensions with which we can generate *profiles*, which
in my experience are much more useful.

Best wishes,

David Glasgow

Courses HTTP://www.i-Psych.co.uk



  >However, a whole heap of research suggests
  >there are differences based on these categories??? The question for
  >me is, can we do better, can we refine our  treatments and
  >understanding of etiology by  developing types. I am leaning towards
  >the MTC: CM3 typology what do you or the others think about it.
  >
  >Steve
  >
  >
  >
  >

Hi Group,

This is a general response to the typology letters,

I am also not that convinced of the value of a new typology.  I
say "new" because as I have been thinking about the typology issue
comments, it came to me that we are already using one.  In research
or practice the identifying of molesters, rapists, violent
offenders, non-violent non-sexual offenders, normals…..etc.,
involves the assumption at least, of a typology.  We assume that
these guys are different in some ways and similar in others.  Hence,
even those who say a typology has no value, are users of a typology!

On this point comes the polygraph study mentioned in the newsgroup.
It was said the study suggested that offender specialization was
questionable.  That would challenge even the basic typology noted
above (which is defined by victim type).  I think the findings are
interesting and question the questionable use of official criminal
history, but then in treatment we do try to go beyond that.
Typically, I found that even though in a forensic treatment
facility, offenders often revealed a large number of unofficial
sexual offences, including of different victim ages and genders.
Does this question our basic typology, yep.  But it does not mean
that offenders do not specialize, or that a typology is not
possible, I don't think so.  PPG studies (Baxter, Marshall,
Barbaree, Davidson, & Malcolm, 1984; Malcolm, Andrews, & Quinsey,
1993) and criminal career / sexological studies (Gebhard et al,
1965; Guay et al, 2001) suggest that molesters with victims between
12-15 are similar to rapists and that their victim choice changes
(some change to prepubescent victims and others to adult females),
they seem to be a heterogenous group, maybe not a pure type.
However, other offenders tend to stay within their age ranges.  This
suggests some typological groups, even by the crude age & gender
distinctions, may be expression of nature, and not the justice
system.  I think the literature suggests that molesters with victims
below 12 tend to stay with such victims.  The issue of victim age
choice is probably quite stable for some groups and not others, this
raises the issue of offence motivation.  Perhaps we would be better
off to use this in determining offender types, or maybe in
combination with victim age. I think the polygraph study suggests
that the current legal "typology" has some weaknesses.

I must say that when I use the term typological, I am not
necessarily saying they are distinct categories, they may be, or the
may represent extreme ends of dimensions.

A second issue from the polygraph study was about gender
specificity.  There was a smaller difference between the official
and non-official rates, but still a clinically interesting one (but
really, how valid are the polygraph results??).  Still it does not
challenge gender specificity, it suggests however, as with the age
distinction, simply defining someone by this feature is not enough,
we need to talk to them.  Find out the motivation.  A study by
Marshall et al (1988) found an interesting pattern with offenders
against male children.  Those with pre-pubescent victims showed a
normal heterosexual PPG (like many molesters).  Perhaps they chose
the very young male as a sort of androgenous substitute for a female
(I know personally of one molester who reported such a motivation),
but those with pubescent victims showed the classic male victim
pedophile profile.  Its just one study, and I don't know of any
attempted replications.  Anyway it suggests that victim gender
choice is complex.  It suggests not that types don't exist, but that
they may be different from the way we often define them.

Why do I think a typology might be valid?  (As I said before I am
not sure, certainly the evidence is thin).

1. Recent risk assessment research e.g. STATIC-99 and a number of
papers on dynamic risk factors (Hanson & Harris, 2001; Thornton,
2002) suggest that some features and not others are related to
risk.  Is it possible that they are tapping into different groups of
molesters?  The male victim, extrafamilial victim distinctions, as
well as the exclusive pedophile emerge (the latter perhaps only
weakly tapped by the "Lived with a Lover for 18mths or more" item of
the STATIC-99).  To be sure they are only hints, but they suggest
that we need to consider molesters as not one group.

2. Clinical experience.  Molesters and rapists often present
differently, relate differently to others and therapists etc. This
variation also occurs within these two offender groups.

3. The MTC: CM3 Typology.  Developed some time ago, it seems to have
some reliability.  The early cluster analysis and path analysis are
somewhat supportive of the types.  Recently, Looman et al (2001)
found differences on PPG and Offences rates for the MTC: CM3 types.
OK, there were some problems with significance perhaps due to low
statistical POWER.  This study suggested some validity and the
clinical usefulness of this typology. i.e there was some predictive
validity and the variations in sexual arousal patterns suggested
some possible treatment need targets.  Maybe not all is lost.

4. Beech (1998) did a cluster analysis on a group of intrafamilial
and extrafamilial molesters.  He considered important treatment
factors such as cognitive distortions, loneliness and self-esteem
etc.  He found a cluster solution that crossed the intrafamilial and
extrafamilial borders.  This suggested that this distinction was not
that useful, and perhaps misleading.  For instance some
intrafamilial molesters had treatment needs much like the
extrafamilial molesters.  The use of cluster analysis was a nice way
to seek out types, rather than impose them.  He found that a four
cluster solution described the data well.

5. Beier (1998) found large differences in re-offending over a 30
year period for fixated exclusive versus fixated non-exclusive
molesters and two other types.  This indicated some predictive
validity for this typology.

This is not much, but the fact is not much has been done.  There are
a few more studies spattered around, but I was just hoping to spark
your attention.  In any case, they suggest that typologies could be
useful, and have some validity.  They also suggest that we could be
failing to recognize important variations in the clinical
presentations of our clients.

I wonder how much longer we can rely on the legal definition as a
term of reference, when our fellow psychologists get to play with
dimensions, types etc.  Maybe, as we are already using
an "unofficial" typology, the question is can we improve on it.  I
think two of the responses in this thread point out that criminal
convictions and definitions are a poor substitute for a good old
fashioned psychological approach.

I think the studies above suggest that some form of typology could
help us in everyday treatment practice and perhaps ultimately to
understand how these guys are created.  Looks like I've ended up
convincing myself, not good practice when the evidence is so thin.
So I'm looking for some good old fashioned debate to sort me out.
Tell me my arguments are weak, tell me the data is poor, but don't
tell me that you just don't believe!

Looking forward to some more………..



Steve Feelgood.

Institut für Sexualwissenschaft und Sexualmedizin
Humboldt Universitätsklinikum
Charite
Luisenstr. 57
10117 Berlin

Hi Anton,

Am happy to share all or some of my findings but I do not have data on
victim selection specifically. My thesis examined a broad range of sexual
coercion strategies in the context of a broader use of sexual influence
tactics ranging from pro-social through to highly anti-social/illegal. In
the latter category was the use of drugs or alcohol to facilitate sexual
activity.

I approached the issue from a sexual scripting perspective and the main
findings are as follows:

data from USA and Canada re prevalence and incidence of sexual coercion in
college populations was identical when applied to an Australian population,
so too was data linking a variety of anti-feminist beliefs and attitudes to
sexually coercive behaviour.

perceptions of what is or is not sexually coercive appear to be culturally
shared and there is a gradient from prosocial, to seductive, to verbal to
physical. Perceptions are influenced by type of relationship in which
behaviour occurs and gender of rater but overall not many differences in
ratings.

90% of men engage in the use of some type of sexual influence strategy
beyond the point of being told "NO". The percentage of men who use
strategies decreases as you go up the scale of strategy severity. However,
over 30% regularly engaged in physically coercive/illegal behaviours. Even
some men who restrict their attempts to influencing an unwilling female
with pro-social startegies indicated the use of persistance rather than
accepting "No".

Use of strategies is scripted, so even most men who rape (in some type of
relationship or dating context) will attempt more pro-social behaviours in
the first instance, and the use of a gradient of behaviours is in line with
cultural perceptions of a sliding scale of non-coercive to coercive.

Use of a script (non-coercive through to physically coercive) to elicit
acquiescence is altered somewhat by alcohol use, so men who have a history
of physically coercive behaviour are less likely to follow the script and
jump straight to use of coercion when under the influence of alcohol.

If any of these findings are of interest/relevant am happy to elaborate, or
happy to expand on conceptual underpinnings of thesis, theoretical
interpretations of findings and relevance of the lot to the real world. I'd
welcome the dialouge.

Main conclusion drawn was that it is too simplistic to try and understand
rape/sexual assault/sexual coercion in isolation from broader sexual
influence behaviours and the cultural scripts/ individual beliefs that
drive the behaviours.

Cheers

Annie


Annie Thomas
Acting General Manager, Clinical and Offender Services
CORE
96276367




                     "Anton
                     Tolman"              To:    
<ForensicNetwork@yahoogroups.com>
                     <tolmana@gvsu        cc:
                     .edu>                Subject:     Re: [ForensicNetwork] DRUG
                     Sent by:             FACILITATED SEXUAL ASSAULT
                     "Anton
                     Tolman"
                     <tolmana@gvsu
                     .edu>

                     07/04/03
                     01:28
                     Please
                     respond to
                     ForensicNetwo
                     rk





Annie, would you care to share with us any of your findings?  In
particular, I am interested in the issue of how sex offenders select
victims and interactions of this victim selection process with
personality elements like psychopathy.  We have been conducting some
preliminary studies on college students in the area of sexual
revictimization, and it seems like a natural to extend this work to try
and understand how an offender "sizes up" a target.

Anything you have relevant to that would be of interest.

Anton



========================
Anton Tolman, Ph.D.
Department of Psychology
Grand Valley State University
Allendale, MI  49401
616-331-3798
>>> Annie.Thomas@... 04/05/03 22:23 PM >>>




For more information about this group and to review previous messages
please go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ForensicNetwork

To send a message to the group simply address any email that you have to:
ForensicNetwork@yahoogroups.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
ForensicNetwork-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/








_________________________________________
***CONFIDENTIAL***
The information in this message and in any attachments may be confidential. If
you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must not read, forward,
print, copy, disclose, or use in any way the information this message or any
attachment contains.
If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and
delete or destroy all copies of this message and any attachments.

Federal Court finds that Criminal Profiler Richard D. Walter has offered
perjured testimony:

Criminal profiler and former prison psychologist Richard D. Walter, MA
(http://www.omegacag.com/), founding member of the Vidocq Society
(http://www.vidocq.org/who.html), has apparently been found by a Federal
Court to have committed perjury in the court case cited below, causing a
previous court decision to be vacated and new discovery ordered.

Richard D. Walter, MA is a Fellow in the General Sections of the AAFS. He is
also on the National Board of Trustees for Parents of Murdered Children:

DRAKE v. PORTUONDO, Docket No. 01-2217, January 31, 2003 (321 F.3d 338)
http://csmail.law.pace.edu/lawlib/legal/us-legal/judiciary/second-circuit/te
st3/01-2217.opn.html

"The prosecution informed defense counsel on the Thursday evening that it
intended to call a psychologist named Richard D. Walter to testify about
psychological profiling. On the Friday, the prosecution successfully moved
to add Walter as a witness, and Walter mounted the stand. Under the
announced schedule, defense counsel would have no more than a weekend to get
a competing expert, if needed, or for that matter to prepare his
cross-examination.

The prosecution concedes that Walter's testimony was intended to reinforce
what it perceived as weaknesses in the evidence supporting its theory of
intent. The prosecution also concedes that Walter was referred to them by
Dr. Levine, the forensic dentist, and that the prosecution did not
independently investigate Walter's qualifications.

Walter conceded at the outset that he had not examined Drake or reviewed his
medical records, and would rely on his review of grand jury testimony,
medical evidence and the police record. Walter opined on that basis that
Smith and Rosenthal had been the victims of a specific type of "lust-murder"
called "picquerism" (a derivative misspelling of the French verb "piquer,"
which means, among other things, to stick or poke). See Trial Transcript at
794. According to Walter, picquerists achieve sexual gratification by
biting, shooting, stabbing, and sodomizing their victims (though not all
picquerists do all these things). This supposed syndrome accounted for much
of the physical evidence in medical terms that dovetailed with the
prosecution's theory of intent.

It is now apparent that Walter's testimony concerning his qualifications was
perjurious. He claimed extensive experience in the field of psychological
profiling, including: work on 5000 to 7500 cases over several years in the
Los Angeles County Medical Examiner's Office; an adjunct professorship at
Northern Michigan University; more than four years as a prison psychologist
with the Michigan Department of Corrections; and expert testimony given at
hundreds of criminal trials in Los Angeles and Michigan.

On the Monday following Walter's testimony, defense counsel told Justice
DiFlorio that the defense had searched over the weekend to retain a rebuttal
psychologist, but could not find any expert who had ever heard of
"picquerism." The defense requested a two-week continuance to find a
psychologist with the expertise required. The prosecution successfully
opposed a continuance.

The trial concluded on schedule. Drake was convicted and sentenced to two
consecutive terms of twenty years to
life. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed the conviction,
and the Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal. Drake's petition for a writ
of error coram nobis, arguing ineffective assistance of appellate counsel,
was denied by the Appellate Division.

Years after exhausting his direct appeals, Drake discovered evidence,
through his own research in prison, that Walter had lied about his
credentials. Although Walter is a prison psychologist with the Michigan
Department of Corrections, Drake found suggestive evidence that Walter lied
about his other credentials. As the prosecution now concedes, Walter
performed no criminal profiling in the Los Angeles County Medical Examiner's
Office. According to Walter's supervisors there, he was employed as a lab
assistant responsible for cleaning and maintaining the forensic lab. There
seems to be no record that Walter was ever on the payroll of Northern
Michigan University, where he claimed to be an adjunct professor. The Los
Angeles County District Attorney's office has found no record of Walter
testifying as an expert witness in a criminal proceeding between October
1975 through May 1978.

In 1995, Drake moved to vacate his conviction and sentence pursuant to N.Y.
C.P.L. 440.10 on the basis of the newly discovered evidence concerning
Walter's perjury.

...

For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the district court's judgment denying
Drake's petition for habeas relief, and remand to the district court for
discovery and a hearing (if the district court in its discretion considers
that a hearing is needed) on whether the prosecution knew (or should have
known) that its expert, Richard D. Walter, was committing perjury."

Brent
Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science
bturvey@...

Knowledge Solutions, LLC
http://www.corpus-delicti.com
Academy of Behavioral Profiling
http://www.profiling.org

************************************************************************
"To stand up for truth is nothing. For truth you have to sit in jail."
-Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

-----Original Message-----
From: DA Louw [mailto:louwda@...]
Sent: Thursday, 8 May 2003 5:25 AM
To: FORENSIC-PSYCH@...
Cc: ForensicNetwork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [ForensicNetwork] Race and eyewitness evidence

I am a clinical psychologist in South Africa, doing an empirical study on the effect of
certain variables on the reliablity of eyewitness testimony. The findings are very
interesting, but there is one result that I find hard to explain:

In the short-term memory group significantly more whites were correct about the race
of the assailant (white) --- while in the long-term memory group significantly more
blacks answered this item correctly. 

I would appreciate any references, suggestions, own experiences, etc.  Please
send it to

arnotv@...

Thanking you in anticipation.

Arnot Venter




For more information about this group and to review previous messages
please go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ForensicNetwork

To send a message to the group simply address any email that you have to:
ForensicNetwork@yahoogroups.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
ForensicNetwork-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Sam,

The program I work for provides sex offender treatment to offenders with a
mild level of intellectual disability. Contact me at the address below if
you want to discuss further.

Cheers, Frank


Frank Lambrick, Senior Clinician
Statewide Forensic Service
Disability Services
PO Box 137
Fairfield VIC 3078
AUSTRALIA
PH:  +61 3 9280 2752
Fx:  +61 3 9280 2750
email: Frank.Lambrick@...



                     "sam farmer"
                     <kesfarmer@ho        To:     ForensicNetwork@yahoogroups.com
                     tmail.com>           cc:
                                          Subject:     [ForensicNetwork] Working
with
                     07/05/2003           incarcerated adult sex offenders with
special
                     08:46 PM             needs
                     Please
                     respond to
                     ForensicNetwo
                     rk






Please could anyone supply me with any information suggestions you have in
relation to the above subject.  I am looking into developing a structured
programme.


Cheers


Sam Farmer (NZ)




It's fast, it's easy and it's free! Click here to download MSN Messenger

                Yahoo! Groups Sponsor







For more information about this group and to review previous messages
please go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ForensicNetwork

To send a message to the group simply address any email that you have to:
ForensicNetwork@yahoogroups.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
ForensicNetwork-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.





________________________________________________________________________________\
_

This email contains confidential information intended only for the person named
above and may be subject to legal privilege. If you are not the intended
recipient, any disclosure, copying or use of this information is prohibited. The
Department provides no guarantee that this communication is free of virus or
that it has not been intercepted or interfered with. If you have received this
email in error or have any other concerns regarding its transmission, please
notify Postmaster@...
________________________________________________________________________________\
_

Dear David,

You are right about reification being a problem.  For me though it
is only a possibility.  Reification and typologies are not
synonymous.  Recently, I have read quite a few papers regarding
sexual offender typologies.  Perhaps some fall into the reification
fallacy.  However, most do not make this error.  Their problems
though, are related to the reification fallacy.  There are two types
of papers, theoretical ones based on clinical impressions and others
which are more empirical (typically by psychologists).  The greatest
risk of reification is with the former.  As they offer little in
terms of empirical support, adoption of their concepts could
constitute reification.  The latter has the potential to escape this
problem, because of its orientation towards establishing reliability
and validity.  Reliability and validity are our weapons against
reification as they offer the chance to reject theoretical
concepts.  The scientific method is our tool in discerning human
fantasy from reality.  It seems to work OK.

If anyone were to adopt any of the typologies which appeared thus
far in the literature, that would certainly be reification.  Judging
from the responses to my enquiry about typologies and from general
clinical practice, that seems not to be a problem (although my
response which appears recently on the news group, does suggest use
of an "unofficial" typology, which may be a form of reification).  I
think an important question is at which point do we accept a concept
as reflecting reality.  The decision will always be subjective, but
when based on sound research, will be less likely a reification.

Regarding sexual offender typologies, the empirical depth of the
research is not, thus far, encouraging.  Therefore reification would
be accepting any of the types as true, or even as likely true.
However, the pursuit of sexual offender types, is as Paul Meehl once
wrote of taxonomic endeavours, a pursuit to "…to carve nature into
its joints".  The same goes for understanding sexual arousal,
cognitive distortions, loneliness, coping, anxiety schizophrenia…………
All are at risk of reification, but not damned to it.  Maybe they
are only human fictions, the exciting aspect is being able to find
out the truth or perhaps more accurately the falseness.

Are the types, categorical or dimensional?  I don't know even of
there are types.  Lets say that there are.  One group of researchers
uses a categorical system, the other, dimensional measures.  Both
find group differences.  However, neither can argue that their
respective classifications are categorical or dimensional.  The
measure does not dictate the nature of the groups, other methods
(mathematical and methodical) are required to ascertain this. The
question can only be answered empirically ( with good theoretical
concepts), the process is anti-reification and therefore anti-useful
categories.  I agree with David that reification is possible, I
think it is alearyd present in the literture, but it does not mean
that categories are false.


Regards,


Steve Feelgood

--- In ForensicNetwork@yahoogroups.com, "Glasgow, David"
<david.glasgow@c...> wrote:
> Steve,
>
> I think there is a real conceptual problem here, with facets of
personality and sexual interest being reified to the point of
being 'types', as if they represented categorical distinctions.  For
example, just plucking something from the air, We could have an
instrumentally violent versus sexually violent facet in our
research, we could even define our comparison groups by reference to
this.  However, the categories in this way are a useful fiction we
impose on human behaviour to allow us to study it.  The moment we
really start to believe that there are two 'types' out there we are
stereotyping and oversimplifying.
>
> My research on assessment of sexual interest using viewing time is
entirely consistent with ppg data insofar as it suggests a
remarkable diversity between individuals of range and profiles of
sexual interest.  For most offenders the most significant facets are
age and gender, but certainly not all.  Why not just accept that
categories and typologies, like much group derived research are
likely to be a poor fit for many, perhaps even most individuals.
They do however give us useful dimensions with which we can generate
*profiles*, which in my experience are much more useful.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> David Glasgow
>
> Courses HTTP://www.i-Psych.co.uk
>
>
>
>  >However, a whole heap of research suggests
>  >there are differences based on these categories??? The question
for
>  >me is, can we do better, can we refine our  treatments and
>  >understanding of etiology by  developing types. I am leaning
towards
>  >the MTC: CM3 typology what do you or the others think about it.
>  >
>  >Steve
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >

Richard Parker
Principal Psychologist
ACT Corrective Services
Canberra, Australia

-----Original Message-----
From: sam farmer [mailto:kesfarmer@...]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 May 2003 8:46
To: ForensicNetwork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [ForensicNetwork] Working with incarcerated adult sex offenders with special needs

Please could anyone supply me with any information suggestions you have in relation to the above subject.  I am looking into developing a structured programme.

Cheers

Sam Farmer (NZ)

---

It's fast, it's easy and it's free! Click here to download MSN Messenger

For more information about this group and to review previous messages
please go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ForensicNetwork

To send a message to the group simply address any email that you have to:
ForensicNetwork@yahoogroups.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
ForensicNetwork-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Steven,

I think the most telling part of your post is the bit about not construing
'types' as categories.  If everyone did this then there would be no problem. 
But they do.  And they forget that categories are convenient fictions.

So why bother with them?  If you have a way of discriminating between individual
offenders, you can use it much more flexibly as a dimension than a typology.

The real problem is that stereotypical, categorical thinking is a fundamental
characteristic of human cognition, and is a devil to resist.

Best wishes,

David Glasgow

Courses HTTP://www.i-Psych.co.uk



  >-----Original Message-----
  >From: ForensicNetwork@yahoogroups.com
  >[mailto:ForensicNetwork@yahoogroups.com]
  >Sent: 16 May 2003 12:15
  >To: ForensicNetwork@yahoogroups.com
  >Subject: [ForensicNetwork] Digest Number 185
  >
  >
  >------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
  >---------------------~-->
  >Get A Free Psychic Reading!
  >Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions.
  >http://us.click.yahoo.com/aM1XQD/od7FAA/uetFAA/SJYolB/TM
  >--------------------------------------------------------------
  >-------~->
  >
  >For more information about this group and to review previous messages
  >please go to:
  >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ForensicNetwork
  >
  >To send a message to the group simply address any email that
  >you have to:
  >ForensicNetwork@yahoogroups.com
  >
  >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
  >ForensicNetwork-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
  >
  >
  >--------------------------------------------------------------
  >----------
  >
  >There are 11 messages in this issue.
  >
  >Topics in this digest:
  >
  >      1. Working with incarcerated adult sex offenders with
  >special needs
  >           From: "sam farmer" <kesfarmer@...>
  >      2. Race and eyewitness evidence
  >           From: "DA Louw" <louwda@...>
  >      3. Federal Court finds profiler Richard Walter offered
  >perjured testimony
  >           From: "Brent Turvey" <bturvey@...>
  >      4. Searching for  Tim Hudman
  >           From: "stevenfeelgood66" <steven.feelgood@...>
  >      5. Personality Disorder Conference
  >           From: "Mary McMurran" <McMurranM@...>
  >      6. RE: Digest Number 177
  >           From: "Glasgow, David"
  ><david.glasgow@...>
  >      7. Typologies are Great!
  >           From: "stevenfeelgood66" <steven.feelgood@...>
  >      8. Re: DRUG FACILITATED SEXUAL ASSAULT
  >           From: Annie.Thomas@...
  >      9. Federal Court finds profiler Richard Walter offered
  >perjured testimony
  >           From: "Brent Turvey" <bturvey@...>
  >     10. RE: Race and eyewitness evidence
  >           From: "de Bomford, Paul"
  ><paul.debomford@...>
  >     11. Re: Working with incarcerated adult sex offenders
  >with special needs
  >           From: Frank.Lambrick@...
  >
  >
  >______________________________________________________________
  >__________
  >______________________________________________________________
  >__________
  >
  >Message: 1
  >   Date: Wed, 07 May 2003 10:46:03 +0000
  >   From: "sam farmer" <kesfarmer@...>
  >Subject: Working with incarcerated adult sex offenders with
  >special needs
  >
  >
  >
  >[This message is not in displayable format]
  >
  >
  >
  >______________________________________________________________
  >__________
  >______________________________________________________________
  >__________
  >
  >Message: 2
  >   Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 21:25:12 +0200
  >   From: "DA Louw" <louwda@...>
  >Subject: Race and eyewitness evidence
  >
  >
  >I am a clinical psychologist in South Africa, doing an
  >empirical study on the effect of
  >certain variables on the reliablity of eyewitness testimony.
  >The findings are very
  >interesting, but there is one result that I find hard to explain:
  >
  >In the short-term memory group significantly more whites were
  >correct about the race
  >of the assailant (white) --- while in the long-term memory
  >group significantly more
  >blacks answered this item correctly.
  >
  >I would appreciate any references, suggestions, own
  >experiences, etc.  Please
  >send it to
  >
  >arnotv@...
  >
  >Thanking you in anticipation.
  >
  >Arnot Venter
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >______________________________________________________________
  >__________
  >______________________________________________________________
  >__________
  >
  >Message: 3
  >   Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 15:29:05 -0800
  >   From: "Brent Turvey" <bturvey@...>
  >Subject: Federal Court finds profiler Richard Walter offered
  >perjured testimony
  >
  >Federal Court finds that Criminal Profiler Richard D. Walter
  >has offered
  >perjured testimony:
  >
  >Criminal profiler and former prison psychologist Richard D. Walter, MA
  >(http://www.omegacag.com/), founding member of the Vidocq Society
  >(http://www.vidocq.org/who.html), has apparently been found
  >by a Federal
  >Court to have committed perjury in the court case cited
  >below, causing a
  >previous court decision to be vacated and new discovery ordered.
  >
  >Richard D. Walter, MA is a Fellow in the General Sections of
  >the AAFS. He is
  >also on the National Board of Trustees for Parents of
  >Murdered Children:
  >
  >DRAKE v. PORTUONDO, Docket No. 01-2217, January 31, 2003 (321
  >F.3d 338)
  >http://csmail.law.pace.edu/lawlib/legal/us-legal/judiciary/sec
  >ond-circuit/te
  >st3/01-2217.opn.html
  >
  >"The prosecution informed defense counsel on the Thursday
  >evening that it
  >intended to call a psychologist named Richard D. Walter to
  >testify about
  >psychological profiling.  On the Friday, the prosecution
  >successfully moved
  >to add Walter as a witness, and Walter mounted the stand.  Under the
  >announced schedule, defense counsel would have no more than a
  >weekend to get
  >a
  >competing expert, if needed, or for that matter to prepare his
  >cross-examination.
  >
  >The prosecution concedes that Walter's testimony was intended
  >to reinforce
  >what it perceived as weaknesses in the
  >evidence supporting its theory of intent.  The prosecution
  >also concedes
  >that Walter was referred to them by Dr.
  >Levine, the forensic dentist, and that the prosecution did
  >not independently
  >investigate Walter's qualifications.
  >
  >Walter conceded at the outset that he had not examined Drake
  >or reviewed his
  >medical records, and would rely on his review of grand jury testimony,
  >medical evidence and the police record. Walter opined on that
  >basis that
  >Smith and
  >Rosenthal had been the victims of a specific type of
  >"lust-murder" called
  >"picquerism" (a derivative misspelling of the
  >French verb "piquer," which means, among other things, to
  >stick or poke).
  >See Trial Transcript at 794.  According to
  >Walter, picquerists achieve sexual gratification by biting, shooting,
  >stabbing, and sodomizing their victims (though not
  >all picquerists do all these things).  This supposed syndrome
  >accounted for
  >much of the physical evidence in medical terms that
  >dovetailed with the
  >prosecution's theory of intent.
  >
  >It is now apparent that Walter's testimony concerning his
  >qualifications was
  >perjurious.  He claimed extensive experience in the field of
  >psychological
  >profiling, including: work on 5000 to 7500 cases over several
  >years in the
  >Los Angeles County Medical Examiner's Office; an adjunct
  >professorship at
  >Northern Michigan University; more than four years as a
  >prison psychologist
  >with the Michigan Department of Corrections; and expert
  >testimony given at
  >hundreds of criminal trials in Los Angeles and Michigan.
  >
  >On the Monday following Walter's testimony, defense counsel
  >told Justice
  >DiFlorio that the defense had searched over the weekend to
  >retain a rebuttal
  >psychologist, but could not find any expert who had ever heard of
  >"picquerism."   The defense requested a two-week continuance to find a
  >psychologist with the expertise required.  The prosecution
  >successfully
  >opposed a continuance.
  >
  >The trial concluded on schedule.  Drake was convicted and
  >sentenced to two
  >consecutive terms of twenty years to
  >life.  The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed
  >the conviction,
  >and the Court of Appeals denied leave to
  >appeal.  Drake's petition for a writ of error coram nobis, arguing
  >ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, was
  >denied by the Appellate Division.
  >
  >Years after exhausting his direct appeals, Drake discovered evidence,
  >through his own research in prison, that Walter had lied about his
  >credentials.  Although Walter is a prison psychologist with
  >the Michigan
  >Department of Corrections, Drake found suggestive evidence
  >that Walter lied
  >about his other credentials.  As the prosecution now concedes, Walter
  >performed no criminal profiling in the Los Angeles County
  >Medical Examiner's
  >Office.  According to Walter's supervisors there, he was
  >employed as a lab
  >assistant responsible for cleaning and maintaining the
  >forensic lab.  There
  >seems to be no record that Walter was ever on the payroll of Northern
  >Michigan University, where he claimed to be an adjunct
  >professor.  The Los
  >Angeles County District Attorney's office has found no record
  >of Walter
  >testifying as an expert witness in a criminal proceeding
  >between October
  >1975 through May 1978.
  >
  >In 1995, Drake moved to vacate his conviction and sentence
  >pursuant to N.Y.
  >C.P.L. 440.10 on the basis of
  >the newly discovered evidence concerning Walter's perjury.
  >
  >...
  >
  > For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the district court's
  >judgment denying
  >Drake's petition for habeas relief, and remand to the
  >district court for
  >discovery and a hearing (if the district court in its
  >discretion considers
  >that a hearing is needed) on whether the prosecution knew (or
  >should have
  >known) that its expert, Richard D. Walter, was committing perjury."
  >
  >Brent
  >Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science
  >Secretary, ABP
  >bturvey@...
  >
  >Knowledge Solutions, LLC
  >http://www.corpus-delicti.com
  >Academy of Behavioral Profiling
  >http://www.profiling.org
  >
  >**************************************************************
  >**********
  >"To stand up for truth is nothing. For truth you have to sit in jail."
  >-Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >______________________________________________________________
  >__________
  >______________________________________________________________
  >__________
  >
  >Message: 4
  >   Date: Wed, 07 May 2003 17:52:35 -0000
  >   From: "stevenfeelgood66" <steven.feelgood@...>
  >Subject: Searching for  Tim Hudman
  >
  >Hi,
  >
  >A couple of years ago I worked on the APS Forensic Conference with
  >Tim Hudman.  I am now trying to locate him.  Does anyone have an
  >email address for him.  At that time he was doing his Mpsych at UWS,
  >but should be finished now.
  >
  >
  >???????
  >
  >Thanks for any help.
  >
  >
  >Steve Feelgood.
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >______________________________________________________________
  >__________
  >______________________________________________________________
  >__________
  >
  >Message: 5
  >   Date: Tue, 06 May 2003 13:35:48 +0100
  >   From: "Mary McMurran" <McMurranM@...>
  >Subject: Personality Disorder Conference
  >
  >British and Irish Group for the Study of Personality Disorders
  >Annual Conference
  >
  >CALL FOR PAPERS & EARLY REGISTRATION
  >
  >Monday 2nd to Thursday 5th February 2004
  >
  >The Angel Hotel, Cardiff
  >
  >www.theangelhotel-cardiff.activehotels.com
  >
  >Call for papers, symposia, and workshops
  >
  >Submissions by 31st August 2003 to:
  >
  >Dr Mary McMurran
  >School of Psychology
  >Cardiff University
  >Cardiff
  >CF10 3YG
  >McMurranM@...
  >
  >REGISTRATION
  >
  >Residential rate:
  >£485 'earlybird' rate per person for BIGSPD members
  >£505 new member package (i.e. conference + BIGSPD membership)
  >£520 for non members
  >
  >Day delegates:
  >
  > £135 'earlybird' rate for members
  >£155 new members package
  >£160 non-members
  >
  >Contact: Lesley Hoyle
  >
  >lesley.hoyle@...
  >
  >
  >
  >Dr Mary McMurran
  >Senior Research Fellow
  >School of Psychology
  >Cardiff University
  >Cardiff
  >CF10 3YG
  >UK
  >+44 (0) 29 20 876758
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >______________________________________________________________
  >__________
  >______________________________________________________________
  >__________
  >
  >Message: 6
  >   Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 13:39:58 +0100
  >   From: "Glasgow, David" <david.glasgow@...>
  >Subject: RE: Digest Number 177
  >
  >Steve,
  >
  >I think there is a real conceptual problem here, with facets
  >of personality and sexual interest being reified to the point
  >of being 'types', as if they represented categorical
  >distinctions.  For example, just plucking something from the
  >air, We could have an instrumentally violent versus sexually
  >violent facet in our research, we could even define our
  >comparison groups by reference to this.  However, the
  >categories in this way are a useful fiction we impose on
  >human behaviour to allow us to study it.  The moment we
  >really start to believe that there are two 'types' out there
  >we are stereotyping and oversimplifying.
  >
  >My research on assessment of sexual interest using viewing
  >time is entirely consistent with ppg data insofar as it
  >suggests a remarkable diversity between individuals of range
  >and profiles of sexual interest.  For most offenders the most
  >significant facets are age and gender, but certainly not all.
  > Why not just accept that categories and typologies, like
  >much group derived research are likely to be a poor fit for
  >many, perhaps even most individuals.  They do however give us
  >useful dimensions with which we can generate *profiles*,
  >which in my experience are much more useful.
  >
  >Best wishes,
  >
  >David Glasgow
  >
  >Courses HTTP://www.i-Psych.co.uk
  >
  >
  >
  > >However, a whole heap of research suggests
  > >there are differences based on these categories??? The question for
  > >me is, can we do better, can we refine our  treatments and
  > >understanding of etiology by  developing types. I am
  >leaning towards
  > >the MTC: CM3 typology what do you or the others think about it.
  > >
  > >Steve
  > >
  > >
  > >
  > >
  >
  >
  >
  >______________________________________________________________
  >__________
  >______________________________________________________________
  >__________
  >
  >Message: 7
  >   Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 10:20:39 -0000
  >   From: "stevenfeelgood66" <steven.feelgood@...>
  >Subject: Typologies are Great!
  >
  >Hi Group,
  >
  >This is a general response to the typology letters,
  >
  >I am also not that convinced of the value of a new typology.  I
  >say "new" because as I have been thinking about the typology issue
  >comments, it came to me that we are already using one.  In research
  >or practice the identifying of molesters, rapists, violent
  >offenders, non-violent non-sexual offenders, normals.....etc.,
  >involves the assumption at least, of a typology.  We assume that
  >these guys are different in some ways and similar in others.  Hence,
  >even those who say a typology has no value, are users of a typology!
  >
  >On this point comes the polygraph study mentioned in the newsgroup.
  >It was said the study suggested that offender specialization was
  >questionable.  That would challenge even the basic typology noted
  >above (which is defined by victim type).  I think the findings are
  >interesting and question the questionable use of official criminal
  >history, but then in treatment we do try to go beyond that.
  >Typically, I found that even though in a forensic treatment
  >facility, offenders often revealed a large number of unofficial
  >sexual offences, including of different victim ages and genders.
  >Does this question our basic typology, yep.  But it does not mean
  >that offenders do not specialize, or that a typology is not
  >possible, I don't think so.  PPG studies (Baxter, Marshall,
  >Barbaree, Davidson, & Malcolm, 1984; Malcolm, Andrews, & Quinsey,
  >1993) and criminal career / sexological studies (Gebhard et al,
  >1965; Guay et al, 2001) suggest that molesters with victims between
  >12-15 are similar to rapists and that their victim choice changes
  >(some change to prepubescent victims and others to adult females),
  >they seem to be a heterogenous group, maybe not a pure type.
  >However, other offenders tend to stay within their age ranges.  This
  >suggests some typological groups, even by the crude age & gender
  >distinctions, may be expression of nature, and not the justice
  >system.  I think the literature suggests that molesters with victims
  >below 12 tend to stay with such victims.  The issue of victim age
  >choice is probably quite stable for some groups and not others, this
  >raises the issue of offence motivation.  Perhaps we would be better
  >off to use this in determining offender types, or maybe in
  >combination with victim age. I think the polygraph study suggests
  >that the current legal "typology" has some weaknesses.
  >
  >I must say that when I use the term typological, I am not
  >necessarily saying they are distinct categories, they may be, or the
  >may represent extreme ends of dimensions.
  >
  >A second issue from the polygraph study was about gender
  >specificity.  There was a smaller difference between the official
  >and non-official rates, but still a clinically interesting one (but
  >really, how valid are the polygraph results??).  Still it does not
  >challenge gender specificity, it suggests however, as with the age
  >distinction, simply defining someone by this feature is not enough,
  >we need to talk to them.  Find out the motivation.  A study by
  >Marshall et al (1988) found an interesting pattern with offenders
  >against male children.  Those with pre-pubescent victims showed a
  >normal heterosexual PPG (like many molesters).  Perhaps they chose
  >the very young male as a sort of androgenous substitute for a female
  >(I know personally of one molester who reported such a motivation),
  >but those with pubescent victims showed the classic male victim
  >pedophile profile.  Its just one study, and I don't know of any
  >attempted replications.  Anyway it suggests that victim gender
  >choice is complex.  It suggests not that types don't exist, but that
  >they may be different from the way we often define them.
  >
  >Why do I think a typology might be valid?  (As I said before I am
  >not sure, certainly the evidence is thin).
  >
  >1. Recent risk assessment research e.g. STATIC-99 and a number of
  >papers on dynamic risk factors (Hanson & Harris, 2001; Thornton,
  >2002) suggest that some features and not others are related to
  >risk.  Is it possible that they are tapping into different groups of
  >molesters?  The male victim, extrafamilial victim distinctions, as
  >well as the exclusive pedophile emerge (the latter perhaps only
  >weakly tapped by the "Lived with a Lover for 18mths or more" item of
  >the STATIC-99).  To be sure they are only hints, but they suggest
  >that we need to consider molesters as not one group.
  >
  >2. Clinical experience.  Molesters and rapists often present
  >differently, relate differently to others and therapists etc. This
  >variation also occurs within these two offender groups.
  >
  >3. The MTC: CM3 Typology.  Developed some time ago, it seems to have
  >some reliability.  The early cluster analysis and path analysis are
  >somewhat supportive of the types.  Recently, Looman et al (2001)
  >found differences on PPG and Offences rates for the MTC: CM3 types.
  >OK, there were some problems with significance perhaps due to low
  >statistical POWER.  This study suggested some validity and the
  >clinical usefulness of this typology. i.e there was some predictive
  >validity and the variations in sexual arousal patterns suggested
  >some possible treatment need targets.  Maybe not all is lost.
  >
  >4. Beech (1998) did a cluster analysis on a group of intrafamilial
  >and extrafamilial molesters.  He considered important treatment
  >factors such as cognitive distortions, loneliness and self-esteem
  >etc.  He found a cluster solution that crossed the intrafamilial and
  >extrafamilial borders.  This suggested that this distinction was not
  >that useful, and perhaps misleading.  For instance some
  >intrafamilial molesters had treatment needs much like the
  >extrafamilial molesters.  The use of cluster analysis was a nice way
  >to seek out types, rather than impose them.  He found that a four
  >cluster solution described the data well.
  >
  >5. Beier (1998) found large differences in re-offending over a 30
  >year period for fixated exclusive versus fixated non-exclusive
  >molesters and two other types.  This indicated some predictive
  >validity for this typology.
  >
  >This is not much, but the fact is not much has been done.  There are
  >a few more studies spattered around, but I was just hoping to spark
  >your attention.  In any case, they suggest that typologies could be
  >useful, and have some validity.  They also suggest that we could be
  >failing to recognize important variations in the clinical
  >presentations of our clients.
  >
  >I wonder how much longer we can rely on the legal definition as a
  >term of reference, when our fellow psychologists get to play with
  >dimensions, types etc.  Maybe, as we are already using
  >an "unofficial" typology, the question is can we improve on it.  I
  >think two of the responses in this thread point out that criminal
  >convictions and definitions are a poor substitute for a good old
  >fashioned psychological approach.
  >
  >I think the studies above suggest that some form of typology could
  >help us in everyday treatment practice and perhaps ultimately to
  >understand how these guys are created.  Looks like I've ended up
  >convincing myself, not good practice when the evidence is so thin.
  >So I'm looking for some good old fashioned debate to sort me out.
  >Tell me my arguments are weak, tell me the data is poor, but don't
  >tell me that you just don't believe!
  >
  >Looking forward to some more...........
  >
  >
  >
  >Steve Feelgood.
  >
  >Institut für Sexualwissenschaft und Sexualmedizin
  >Humboldt Universitätsklinikum
  >Charite
  >Luisenstr. 57
  >10117 Berlin
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >______________________________________________________________
  >__________
  >______________________________________________________________
  >__________
  >
  >Message: 8
  >   Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 22:22:04 +1000
  >   From: Annie.Thomas@...
  >Subject: Re: DRUG FACILITATED SEXUAL ASSAULT
  >
  >
  >Hi Anton,
  >
  >Am happy to share all or some of my findings but I do not have data on
  >victim selection specifically. My thesis examined a broad
  >range of sexual
  >coercion strategies in the context of a broader use of sexual
  >influence
  >tactics ranging from pro-social through to highly
  >anti-social/illegal. In
  >the latter category was the use of drugs or alcohol to
  >facilitate sexual
  >activity.
  >
  >I approached the issue from a sexual scripting perspective
  >and the main
  >findings are as follows:
  >
  >data from USA and Canada re prevalence and incidence of
  >sexual coercion in
  >college populations was identical when applied to an
  >Australian population,
  >so too was data linking a variety of anti-feminist beliefs
  >and attitudes to
  >sexually coercive behaviour.
  >
  >perceptions of what is or is not sexually coercive appear to
  >be culturally
  >shared and there is a gradient from prosocial, to seductive,
  >to verbal to
  >physical. Perceptions are influenced by type of relationship in which
  >behaviour occurs and gender of rater but overall not many
  >differences in
  >ratings.
  >
  >90% of men engage in the use of some type of sexual influence strategy
  >beyond the point of being told "NO". The percentage of men who use
  >strategies decreases as you go up the scale of strategy
  >severity. However,
  >over 30% regularly engaged in physically coercive/illegal
  >behaviours. Even
  >some men who restrict their attempts to influencing an
  >unwilling female
  >with pro-social startegies indicated the use of persistance
  >rather than
  >accepting "No".
  >
  >Use of strategies is scripted, so even most men who rape (in
  >some type of
  >relationship or dating context) will attempt more pro-social
  >behaviours in
  >the first instance, and the use of a gradient of behaviours
  >is in line with
  >cultural perceptions of a sliding scale of non-coercive to coercive.
  >
  >Use of a script (non-coercive through to physically coercive)
  >to elicit
  >acquiescence is altered somewhat by alcohol use, so men who
  >have a history
  >of physically coercive behaviour are less likely to follow
  >the script and
  >jump straight to use of coercion when under the influence of alcohol.
  >
  >If any of these findings are of interest/relevant am happy to
  >elaborate, or
  >happy to expand on conceptual underpinnings of thesis, theoretical
  >interpretations of findings and relevance of the lot to the
  >real world. I'd
  >welcome the dialouge.
  >
  >Main conclusion drawn was that it is too simplistic to try
  >and understand
  >rape/sexual assault/sexual coercion in isolation from broader sexual
  >influence behaviours and the cultural scripts/ individual beliefs that
  >drive the behaviours.
  >
  >Cheers
  >
  >Annie
  >
  >
  >Annie Thomas
  >Acting General Manager, Clinical and Offender Services
  >CORE
  >96276367
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >                    "Anton
  >
  >                    Tolman"              To:
  ><ForensicNetwork@yahoogroups.com>
  >                    <tolmana@gvsu        cc:
  >
  >                    .edu>                Subject:     Re:
  >[ForensicNetwork] DRUG
  >                    Sent by:             FACILITATED SEXUAL
  >ASSAULT
  >                    "Anton
  >
  >                    Tolman"
  >
  >                    <tolmana@gvsu
  >
  >                    .edu>
  >
  >
  >
  >                    07/04/03
  >
  >                    01:28
  >
  >                    Please
  >
  >                    respond to
  >
  >                    ForensicNetwo
  >
  >                    rk
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >Annie, would you care to share with us any of your findings?  In
  >particular, I am interested in the issue of how sex offenders select
  >victims and interactions of this victim selection process with
  >personality elements like psychopathy.  We have been conducting some
  >preliminary studies on college students in the area of sexual
  >revictimization, and it seems like a natural to extend this
  >work to try
  >and understand how an offender "sizes up" a target.
  >
  >Anything you have relevant to that would be of interest.
  >
  >Anton
  >
  >
  >
  >========================
  >Anton Tolman, Ph.D.
  >Department of Psychology
  >Grand Valley State University
  >Allendale, MI  49401
  >616-331-3798
  >>>> Annie.Thomas@... 04/05/03 22:23 PM >>>
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >For more information about this group and to review previous messages
  >please go to:
  >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ForensicNetwork
  >
  >To send a message to the group simply address any email that
  >you have to:
  >ForensicNetwork@yahoogroups.com
  >
  >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
  >ForensicNetwork-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
  >
  >
  >
  >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
  >http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >_________________________________________
  >***CONFIDENTIAL***
  >The information in this message and in any attachments may be
  >confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this
  >message, you must not read, forward, print, copy, disclose,
  >or use in any way the information this message or any
  >attachment contains.
  >If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the
  >sender immediately and delete or destroy all copies of this
  >message and any attachments.
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >______________________________________________________________
  >__________
  >______________________________________________________________
  >__________
  >
  >Message: 9
  >   Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 18:50:20 -0800
  >   From: "Brent Turvey" <bturvey@...>
  >Subject: Federal Court finds profiler Richard Walter offered
  >perjured testimony
  >
  >Federal Court finds that Criminal Profiler Richard D. Walter
  >has offered
  >perjured testimony:
  >
  >Criminal profiler and former prison psychologist Richard D. Walter, MA
  >(http://www.omegacag.com/), founding member of the Vidocq Society
  >(http://www.vidocq.org/who.html), has apparently been found
  >by a Federal
  >Court to have committed perjury in the court case cited
  >below, causing a
  >previous court decision to be vacated and new discovery ordered.
  >
  >Richard D. Walter, MA is a Fellow in the General Sections of
  >the AAFS. He is
  >also on the National Board of Trustees for Parents of
  >Murdered Children:
  >
  >DRAKE v. PORTUONDO, Docket No. 01-2217, January 31, 2003 (321
  >F.3d 338)
  >http://csmail.law.pace.edu/lawlib/legal/us-legal/judiciary/sec
  >ond-circuit/te
  >st3/01-2217.opn.html
  >
  >"The prosecution informed defense counsel on the Thursday
  >evening that it
  >intended to call a psychologist named Richard D. Walter to
  >testify about
  >psychological profiling. On the Friday, the prosecution
  >successfully moved
  >to add Walter as a witness, and Walter mounted the stand. Under the
  >announced schedule, defense counsel would have no more than a
  >weekend to get
  >a competing expert, if needed, or for that matter to prepare his
  >cross-examination.
  >
  >The prosecution concedes that Walter's testimony was intended
  >to reinforce
  >what it perceived as weaknesses in the evidence supporting
  >its theory of
  >intent. The prosecution also concedes that Walter was
  >referred to them by
  >Dr. Levine, the forensic dentist, and that the prosecution did not
  >independently investigate Walter's qualifications.
  >
  >Walter conceded at the outset that he had not examined Drake
  >or reviewed his
  >medical records, and would rely on his review of grand jury testimony,
  >medical evidence and the police record. Walter opined on that
  >basis that
  >Smith and Rosenthal had been the victims of a specific type
  >of "lust-murder"
  >called "picquerism" (a derivative misspelling of the French
  >verb "piquer,"
  >which means, among other things, to stick or poke). See Trial
  >Transcript at
  >794. According to Walter, picquerists achieve sexual gratification by
  >biting, shooting, stabbing, and sodomizing their victims
  >(though not all
  >picquerists do all these things). This supposed syndrome
  >accounted for much
  >of the physical evidence in medical terms that dovetailed with the
  >prosecution's theory of intent.
  >
  >It is now apparent that Walter's testimony concerning his
  >qualifications was
  >perjurious. He claimed extensive experience in the field of
  >psychological
  >profiling, including: work on 5000 to 7500 cases over several
  >years in the
  >Los Angeles County Medical Examiner's Office; an adjunct
  >professorship at
  >Northern Michigan University; more than four years as a
  >prison psychologist
  >with the Michigan Department of Corrections; and expert
  >testimony given at
  >hundreds of criminal trials in Los Angeles and Michigan.
  >
  >On the Monday following Walter's testimony, defense counsel
  >told Justice
  >DiFlorio that the defense had searched over the weekend to
  >retain a rebuttal
  >psychologist, but could not find any expert who had ever heard of
  >"picquerism." The defense requested a two-week continuance to find a
  >psychologist with the expertise required. The prosecution successfully
  >opposed a continuance.
  >
  >The trial concluded on schedule. Drake was convicted and
  >sentenced to two
  >consecutive terms of twenty years to
  >life. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed the
  >conviction,
  >and the Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal. Drake's
  >petition for a writ
  >of error coram nobis, arguing ineffective assistance of
  >appellate counsel,
  >was denied by the Appellate Division.
  >
  >Years after exhausting his direct appeals, Drake discovered evidence,
  >through his own research in prison, that Walter had lied about his
  >credentials. Although Walter is a prison psychologist with
  >the Michigan
  >Department of Corrections, Drake found suggestive evidence
  >that Walter lied
  >about his other credentials. As the prosecution now concedes, Walter
  >performed no criminal profiling in the Los Angeles County
  >Medical Examiner's
  >Office. According to Walter's supervisors there, he was
  >employed as a lab
  >assistant responsible for cleaning and maintaining the
  >forensic lab. There
  >seems to be no record that Walter was ever on the payroll of Northern
  >Michigan University, where he claimed to be an adjunct
  >professor. The Los
  >Angeles County District Attorney's office has found no record
  >of Walter
  >testifying as an expert witness in a criminal proceeding
  >between October
  >1975 through May 1978.
  >
  >In 1995, Drake moved to vacate his conviction and sentence
  >pursuant to N.Y.
  >C.P.L. 440.10 on the basis of the newly discovered evidence concerning
  >Walter's perjury.
  >
  >...
  >
  >For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the district court's
  >judgment denying
  >Drake's petition for habeas relief, and remand to the
  >district court for
  >discovery and a hearing (if the district court in its
  >discretion considers
  >that a hearing is needed) on whether the prosecution knew (or
  >should have
  >known) that its expert, Richard D. Walter, was committing perjury."
  >
  >Brent
  >Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science
  >bturvey@...
  >
  >Knowledge Solutions, LLC
  >http://www.corpus-delicti.com
  >Academy of Behavioral Profiling
  >http://www.profiling.org
  >
  >**************************************************************
  >**********
  >"To stand up for truth is nothing. For truth you have to sit in jail."
  >-Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >______________________________________________________________
  >__________
  >______________________________________________________________
  >__________
  >
  >Message: 10
  >   Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 08:15:48 +1000
  >   From: "de Bomford, Paul" <paul.debomford@...>
  >Subject: RE: Race and eyewitness evidence
  >
  >A bit out of left field ,but would there be any similarity between the
  >difference you have found and the differences between men and women as
  >documented in Alan Pease's book "Why women cant read maps and
  >men don't
  >listen"  Pease explains the present differences to  instincts
  >developed many
  >generations ago through different roles and needs, going back
  >to prehistoric
  >times.
  >My own thoughts are that different groups also tend to remember
  >characteristics that have relevant to themselves.  Example
  >Young teen age
  >girls could probably remember the hair colour and brand of
  >clothing where as
  >young men would remember the make and model of the car that
  >the person got
  >out men
  >Paul De Bomford
  >
  >-----Original Message-----
  >From: DA Louw [mailto:louwda@...]
  >Sent: Thursday, 8 May 2003 5:25 AM
  >To: FORENSIC-PSYCH@...
  >Cc: ForensicNetwork@yahoogroups.com
  >Subject: [ForensicNetwork] Race and eyewitness evidence
  >
  >
  >
  >I am a clinical psychologist in South Africa, doing an
  >empirical study on
  >the effect of
  >certain variables on the reliablity of eyewitness testimony.
  >The findings
  >are very
  >interesting, but there is one result that I find hard to explain:
  >
  >In the short-term memory group significantly more whites were
  >correct about
  >the race
  >of the assailant (white) --- while in the long-term memory group
  >significantly more
  >blacks answered this item correctly.
  >
  >I would appreciate any references, suggestions, own experiences, etc.
  >Please
  >send it to
  >
  >arnotv@...
  >
  >Thanking you in anticipation.
  >
  >Arnot Venter
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
  >
  ><http://rd.yahoo.com/M=251812.3170658.4537139.1261774/D=egroup
  >web/S=17050834
  >74:HM/A=1564416/R=0/*http://www.netflix.com/Default?mqso=60164
  >797&partid=317
  >0658>
  >
  ><http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=251812.3170658.4537139.12617
  >74/D=egroupmai
  >l/S=:HM/A=1564416/rand=346908683>
  >
  >For more information about this group and to review previous messages
  >please go to:
  >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ForensicNetwork
  ><http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ForensicNetwork>
  >
  >To send a message to the group simply address any email that
  >you have to:
  >ForensicNetwork@yahoogroups.com
  >
  >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
  >ForensicNetwork-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
  >
  >
  >
  >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
  ><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >[This message contained attachments]
  >
  >
  >
  >______________________________________________________________
  >__________
  >______________________________________________________________
  >__________
  >
  >Message: 11
  >   Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 11:14:36 +1000
  >   From: Frank.Lambrick@...
  >Subject: Re: Working with incarcerated adult sex offenders
  >with special needs
  >
  >
  >Sam,
  >
  >The program I work for provides sex offender treatment to
  >offenders with a
  >mild level of intellectual disability. Contact me at the
  >address below if
  >you want to discuss further.
  >
  >Cheers, Frank
  >
  >
  >Frank Lambrick, Senior Clinician
  >Statewide Forensic Service
  >Disability Services
  >PO Box 137
  >Fairfield VIC 3078
  >AUSTRALIA
  >PH:  +61 3 9280 2752
  >Fx:  +61 3 9280 2750
  >email: Frank.Lambrick@...
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >                    "sam farmer"
  >
  >                    <kesfarmer@ho        To:
  >ForensicNetwork@yahoogroups.com
  >                    tmail.com>           cc:
  >
  >                                         Subject:
  >[ForensicNetwork] Working with
  >                    07/05/2003           incarcerated adult
  >sex offenders with special
  >                    08:46 PM             needs
  >
  >                    Please
  >
  >                    respond to
  >
  >                    ForensicNetwo
  >
  >                    rk
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >Please could anyone supply me with any information
  >suggestions you have in
  >relation to the above subject.  I am looking into developing
  >a structured
  >programme.
  >
  >
  >Cheers
  >
  >
  >Sam Farmer (NZ)
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >It's fast, it's easy and it's free! Click here to download
  >MSN Messenger
  >
  >               Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >For more information about this group and to review previous messages
  >please go to:
  >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ForensicNetwork
  >
  >To send a message to the group simply address any email that
  >you have to:
  >ForensicNetwork@yahoogroups.com
  >
  >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
  >ForensicNetwork-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
  >
  >
  >
  >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >______________________________________________________________
  >___________________
  >
  >This email contains confidential information intended only
  >for the person named above and may be subject to legal
  >privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, any
  >disclosure, copying or use of this information is prohibited.
  >The Department provides no guarantee that this communication
  >is free of virus or that it has not been intercepted or
  >interfered with. If you have received this email in error or
  >have any other concerns regarding its transmission, please
  >notify Postmaster@...
  >______________________________________________________________
  >___________________
  >
  >
  >
  >______________________________________________________________
  >__________
  >______________________________________________________________
  >__________
  >
  >
  >
  >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Sam,

In Corrective Services in NSW we run a program for special needs sex
offenders. This includes individuals with literacy deficits, adaptive
skills deficits, borderline intellectual functioning, brain damage etc.
It is a twelve month program and was developed last year. The first
group to participate in the program have just completed.

Jenny

Jenny Keeling
Psychologist
CUBIT [Sex Offender Programmes]
MSPC, Area 3
Locked Bag 20
Matraville NSW
2036
Australia
PH: 61 2 9289 3769
FX:  61 2 9289 2208
email: jenny.keeling@...

howdy-
anyone have any more views on female sexual predators which seems to
be rising in the u.s. ?
nevine-marie



http://www.breakingthesilence.com/female.html

Hi Group,

T thought some might like to know about this book.  Its from the APA
and deals multivariate stats.  Its called "Reading and Understanding
Multivariate Statistics" (1995).  Its aim is to explain Multivariate
Statistical techniques with as little refernce to mathematics as is
possible.  I think they have done a good job.  I'm no maths wiz and
have found it very easy to read and the concepts easy to
understand.  It explains why to use Multivariate Statistics, the
assumptions, interpretations and gives lots of examples.

There is also a new book,("Reading and Understanding More
Multivariate Statistics") with yes, more Multivariate Statistics
e.g. Cluster analysis...... I haven't read it yet.


Have fun,


Steve

Hi Florence, Robert Ressler would be a good starting point. he has
published a range of books and articles on the topic and profiled with the
FBI, as well as conducted research for 25 years.

Annie Thomas
Acting General Manager, Clinical and Offender Services
CORE
96276367




                     "Florence"
                     <calicomoon@e        To:    
<ForensicNetwork@yahoogroups.com>
                     vents.dk>            cc:
                     Sent by:             Subject:     [ForensicNetwork] Criminal
                     "Florence"           Profiling!
                     <calicomoon@e
                     vents.dk>

                     28/05/2003
                     14:38
                     Please
                     respond to
                     ForensicNetwo
                     rk





Hi all,

I am hoping someone here can help me with this!

I was watching a program, on Discovery Cannel, about serial killers and
criminal profiling some time back. In the program their was a person who
was interested in if (and how) we could prevent children to become serial
killers. Unfortunately I can not remember his name. Does anyone here on the
list know anyone who has written something about this? or if anyone know
who I am talking about and know who it is?

As I recall it, he is a psychologist, and he had a theory about how you can
(maybe can) spot out who most likely will become a serial killer already
when they are children. He was also talking about the disadvantage of doing
so, but also the advantage of making a theory like that!

I have a section in my Master in psychology about Criminal Profiling and
serial killers and I can not find anyone what I can refer to, and I need
that;)!

I would be so happy if I find out how it is, I have tried so much to find
him or other who have made such a theory, on the internet and all over but
have not had any luck so far. One person told me that many have done that,
but he never gave me a name of one person so now I try again!

Sorry for my bad English, Danish is my mother languish!

Regards
Florence

                Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



                    ADVERTISEMENT








For more information about this group and to review previous messages
please go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ForensicNetwork

To send a message to the group simply address any email that you have to:
ForensicNetwork@yahoogroups.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
ForensicNetwork-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.





_________________________________________
***CONFIDENTIAL***
The information in this message and in any attachments may be confidential. If
you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must not read, forward,
print, copy, disclose, or use in any way the information this message or any
attachment contains.
If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and
delete or destroy all copies of this message and any attachments.

I am interest to hear from anybody who is doing research or employing the
polygraph for clinical purposes, such as lie detection with sex offenders.
I am particulary interested in any research or recently published papers.

Gisli Gudjonsson,
Professor of Forensic Psychology,
Institue of Psychiatry,
King's College.

----- Original Message -----
From: <ForensicNetwork@yahoogroups.com>
To: <ForensicNetwork@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 3:15 PM
Subject: [ForensicNetwork] Digest Number 187



For more information about this group and to review previous messages
please go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ForensicNetwork

To send a message to the group simply address any email that you have to:
ForensicNetwork@yahoogroups.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
ForensicNetwork-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com


------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are 5 messages in this issue.

Topics in this digest:

       1. Re: Typologies are Great
            From: "David Glasgow" <david.glasgow@...>
       2. Working with incarcerated adult sex offenders with special needs
            From: "Jenny KEELING" <Jenny.KEELING@...>
       3. female sexual predators
            From: "Nevine" <stnovena@...>
       4. Criminal Profiling!
            From: "Florence" <calicomoon@...>
       5. A useful Stats book
            From: "stevenfeelgood66" <steven.feelgood@...>


________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 1
    Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 12:11:01 +0100
    From: "David Glasgow" <david.glasgow@...>
Subject: Re: Typologies are Great

Steven,

I think the most telling part of your post is the bit about not construing
'types' as categories.  If everyone did this then there would be no problem.
But they do.  And they forget that categories are convenient fictions.

So why bother with them?  If you have a way of discriminating between
individual offenders, you can use it much more flexibly as a dimension than
a typology.

The real problem is that stereotypical, categorical thinking is a
fundamental characteristic of human cognition, and is a devil to resist.

Best wishes,

David Glasgow

Courses HTTP://www.i-Psych.co.uk



  >-----Original Message-----
  >From: ForensicNetwork@yahoogroups.com
  >[mailto:ForensicNetwork@yahoogroups.com]
  >Sent: 16 May 2003 12:15
  >To: ForensicNetwork@yahoogroups.com
  >Subject: [ForensicNetwork] Digest Number 185
  >
  >
  >------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
  >---------------------~-->
  >Get A Free Psychic Reading!
  >Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions.
  >http://us.click.yahoo.com/aM1XQD/od7FAA/uetFAA/SJYolB/TM
  >--------------------------------------------------------------
  >-------~->
  >
  >For more information about this group and to review previous messages
  >please go to:
  >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ForensicNetwork
  >
  >To send a message to the group simply address any email that
  >you have to:
  >ForensicNetwork@yahoogroups.com
  >
  >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
  >ForensicNetwork-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
  >
  >
  >--------------------------------------------------------------
  >----------
  >
  >There are 11 messages in this issue.
  >
  >Topics in this digest:
  >
  >      1. Working with incarcerated adult sex offenders with
  >special needs
  >           From: "sam farmer" <kesfarmer@...>
  >      2. Race and eyewitness evidence
  >           From: "DA Louw" <louwda@...>
  >      3. Federal Court finds profiler Richard Walter offered
  >perjured testimony
  >           From: "Brent Turvey" <bturvey@...>
  >      4. Searching for  Tim Hudman
  >           From: "stevenfeelgood66" <steven.feelgood@...>
  >      5. Personality Disorder Conference
  >           From: "Mary McMurran" <McMurranM@...>
  >      6. RE: Digest Number 177
  >           From: "Glasgow, David"
  ><david.glasgow@...>
  >      7. Typologies are Great!
  >           From: "stevenfeelgood66" <steven.feelgood@...>
  >      8. Re: DRUG FACILITATED SEXUAL ASSAULT
  >           From: Annie.Thomas@...
  >      9. Federal Court finds profiler Richard Walter offered
  >perjured testimony
  >           From: "Brent Turvey" <bturvey@...>
  >     10. RE: Race and eyewitness evidence
  >           From: "de Bomford, Paul"
  ><paul.debomford@...>
  >     11. Re: Working with incarcerated adult sex offenders
  >with special needs
  >           From: Frank.Lambrick@...
  >
  >
  >______________________________________________________________
  >__________
  >______________________________________________________________
  >__________
  >
  >Message: 1
  >   Date: Wed, 07 May 2003 10:46:03 +0000
  >   From: "sam farmer" <kesfarmer@...>
  >Subject: Working with incarcerated adult sex offenders with
  >special needs
  >
  >
  >
  >[This message is not in displayable format]
  >
  >
  >
  >______________________________________________________________
  >__________
  >______________________________________________________________
  >__________
  >
  >Message: 2
  >   Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 21:25:12 +0200
  >   From: "DA Louw" <louwda@...>
  >Subject: Race and eyewitness evidence
  >
  >
  >I am a clinical psychologist in South Africa, doing an
  >empirical study on the effect of
  >certain variables on the reliablity of eyewitness testimony.
  >The findings are very
  >interesting, but there is one result that I find hard to explain:
  >
  >In the short-term memory group significantly more whites were
  >correct about the race
  >of the assailant (white) --- while in the long-term memory
  >group significantly more
  >blacks answered this item correctly.
  >
  >I would appreciate any references, suggestions, own
  >experiences, etc.  Please
  >send it to
  >
  >arnotv@...
  >
  >Thanking you in anticipation.
  >
  >Arnot Venter
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >______________________________________________________________
  >__________
  >______________________________________________________________
  >__________
  >
  >Message: 3
  >   Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 15:29:05 -0800
  >   From: "Brent Turvey" <bturvey@...>
  >Subject: Federal Court finds profiler Richard Walter offered
  >perjured testimony
  >
  >Federal Court finds that Criminal Profiler Richard D. Walter
  >has offered
  >perjured testimony:
  >
  >Criminal profiler and former prison psychologist Richard D. Walter, MA
  >(http://www.omegacag.com/), founding member of the Vidocq Society
  >(http://www.vidocq.org/who.html), has apparently been found
  >by a Federal
  >Court to have committed perjury in the court case cited
  >below, causing a
  >previous court decision to be vacated and new discovery ordered.
  >
  >Richard D. Walter, MA is a Fellow in the General Sections of
  >the AAFS. He is
  >also on the National Board of Trustees for Parents of
  >Murdered Children:
  >
  >DRAKE v. PORTUONDO, Docket No. 01-2217, January 31, 2003 (321
  >F.3d 338)
  >http://csmail.law.pace.edu/lawlib/legal/us-legal/judiciary/sec
  >ond-circuit/te
  >st3/01-2217.opn.html
  >
  >"The prosecution informed defense counsel on the Thursday
  >evening that it
  >intended to call a psychologist named Richard D. Walter to
  >testify about
  >psychological profiling.  On the Friday, the prosecution
  >successfully moved
  >to add Walter as a witness, and Walter mounted the stand.  Under the
  >announced schedule, defense counsel would have no more than a
  >weekend to get
  >a
  >competing expert, if needed, or for that matter to prepare his
  >cross-examination.
  >
  >The prosecution concedes that Walter's testimony was intended
  >to reinforce
  >what it perceived as weaknesses in the
  >evidence supporting its theory of intent.  The prosecution
  >also concedes
  >that Walter was referred to them by Dr.
  >Levine, the forensic dentist, and that the prosecution did
  >not independently
  >investigate Walter's qualifications.
  >
  >Walter conceded at the outset that he had not examined Drake
  >or reviewed his
  >medical records, and would rely on his review of grand jury testimony,
  >medical evidence and the police record. Walter opined on that
  >basis that
  >Smith and
  >Rosenthal had been the victims of a specific type of
  >"lust-murder" called
  >"picquerism" (a derivative misspelling of the
  >French verb "piquer," which means, among other things, to
  >stick or poke).
  >See Trial Transcript at 794.  According to
  >Walter, picquerists achieve sexual gratification by biting, shooting,
  >stabbing, and sodomizing their victims (though not
  >all picquerists do all these things).  This supposed syndrome
  >accounted for
  >much of the physical evidence in medical terms that
  >dovetailed with the
  >prosecution's theory of intent.
  >
  >It is now apparent that Walter's testimony concerning his
  >qualifications was
  >perjurious.  He claimed extensive experience in the field of
  >psychological
  >profiling, including: work on 5000 to 7500 cases over several
  >years in the
  >Los Angeles County Medical Examiner's Office; an adjunct
  >professorship at
  >Northern Michigan University; more than four years as a
  >prison psychologist
  >with the Michigan Department of Corrections; and expert
  >testimony given at
  >hundreds of criminal trials in Los Angeles and Michigan.
  >
  >On the Monday following Walter's testimony, defense counsel
  >told Justice
  >DiFlorio that the defense had searched over the weekend to
  >retain a rebuttal
  >psychologist, but could not find any expert who had ever heard of
  >"picquerism."   The defense requested a two-week continuance to find a
  >psychologist with the expertise required.  The prosecution
  >successfully
  >opposed a continuance.
  >
  >The trial concluded on schedule.  Drake was convicted and
  >sentenced to two
  >consecutive terms of twenty years to
  >life.  The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed
  >the conviction,
  >and the Court of Appeals denied leave to
  >appeal.  Drake's petition for a writ of error coram nobis, arguing
  >ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, was
  >denied by the Appellate Division.
  >
  >Years after exhausting his direct appeals, Drake discovered evidence,
  >through his own research in prison, that Walter had lied about his
  >credentials.  Although Walter is a prison psychologist with
  >the Michigan
  >Department of Corrections, Drake found suggestive evidence
  >that Walter lied
  >about his other credentials.  As the prosecution now concedes, Walter
  >performed no criminal profiling in the Los Angeles County
  >Medical Examiner's
  >Office.  According to Walter's supervisors there, he was
  >employed as a lab
  >assistant responsible for cleaning and maintaining the
  >forensic lab.  There
  >seems to be no record that Walter was ever on the payroll of Northern
  >Michigan University, where he claimed to be an adjunct
  >professor.  The Los
  >Angeles County District Attorney's office has found no record
  >of Walter
  >testifying as an expert witness in a criminal proceeding
  >between October
  >1975 through May 1978.
  >
  >In 1995, Drake moved to vacate his conviction and sentence
  >pursuant to N.Y.
  >C.P.L. 440.10 on the basis of
  >the newly discovered evidence concerning Walter's perjury.
  >
  >...
  >
  > For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the district court's
  >judgment denying
  >Drake's petition for habeas relief, and remand to the
  >district court for
  >discovery and a hearing (if the district court in its
  >discretion considers
  >that a hearing is needed) on whether the prosecution knew (or
  >should have
  >known) that its expert, Richard D. Walter, was committing perjury."
  >
  >Brent
  >Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science
  >Secretary, ABP
  >bturvey@...
  >
  >Knowledge Solutions, LLC
  >http://www.corpus-delicti.com
  >Academy of Behavioral Profiling
  >http://www.profiling.org
  >
  >**************************************************************
  >**********
  >"To stand up for truth is nothing. For truth you have to sit in jail."
  >-Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >______________________________________________________________
  >__________
  >______________________________________________________________
  >__________
  >
  >Message: 4
  >   Date: Wed, 07 May 2003 17:52:35 -0000
  >   From: "stevenfeelgood66" <steven.feelgood@...>
  >Subject: Searching for  Tim Hudman
  >
  >Hi,
  >
  >A couple of years ago I worked on the APS Forensic Conference with
  >Tim Hudman.  I am now trying to locate him.  Does anyone have an
  >email address for him.  At that time he was doing his Mpsych at UWS,
  >but should be finished now.
  >
  >
  >???????
  >
  >Thanks for any help.
  >
  >
  >Steve Feelgood.
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >______________________________________________________________
  >__________
  >______________________________________________________________
  >__________
  >
  >Message: 5
  >   Date: Tue, 06 May 2003 13:35:48 +0100
  >   From: "Mary McMurran" <McMurranM@...>
  >Subject: Personality Disorder Conference
  >
  >British and Irish Group for the Study of Personality Disorders
  >Annual Conference
  >
  >CALL FOR PAPERS & EARLY REGISTRATION
  >
  >Monday 2nd to Thursday 5th February 2004
  >
  >The Angel Hotel, Cardiff
  >
  >www.theangelhotel-cardiff.activehotels.com
  >
  >Call for papers, symposia, and workshops
  >
  >Submissions by 31st August 2003 to:
  >
  >Dr Mary McMurran
  >School of Psychology
  >Cardiff University
  >Cardiff
  >CF10 3YG
  >McMurranM@...
  >
  >REGISTRATION
  >
  >Residential rate:
  >£485 'earlybird' rate per person for BIGSPD members
  >£505 new member package (i.e. conference + BIGSPD membership)
  >£520 for non members
  >
  >Day delegates:
  >
  > £135 'earlybird' rate for members
  >£155 new members package
  >£160 non-members
  >
  >Contact: Lesley Hoyle
  >
  >lesley.hoyle@...
  >
  >
  >
  >Dr Mary McMurran
  >Senior Research Fellow
  >School of Psychology
  >Cardiff University
  >Cardiff
  >CF10 3YG
  >UK
  >+44 (0) 29 20 876758
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >______________________________________________________________
  >__________
  >______________________________________________________________
  >__________
  >
  >Message: 6
  >   Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 13:39:58 +0100
  >   From: "Glasgow, David" <david.glasgow@...>
  >Subject: RE: Digest Number 177
  >
  >Steve,
  >
  >I think there is a real conceptual problem here, with facets
  >of personality and sexual interest being reified to the point
  >of being 'types', as if they represented categorical
  >distinctions.  For example, just plucking something from the
  >air, We could have an instrumentally violent versus sexually
  >violent facet in our research, we could even define our
  >comparison groups by reference to this.  However, the
  >categories in this way are a useful fiction we impose on
  >human behaviour to allow us to study it.  The moment we
  >really start to believe that there are two 'types' out there
  >we are stereotyping and oversimplifying.
  >
  >My research on assessment of sexual interest using viewing
  >time is entirely consistent with ppg data insofar as it
  >suggests a remarkable diversity between individuals of range
  >and profiles of sexual interest.  For most offenders the most
  >significant facets are age and gender, but certainly not all.
  > Why not just accept that categories and typologies, like
  >much group derived research are likely to be a poor fit for
  >many, perhaps even most individuals.  They do however give us
  >useful dimensions with which we can generate *profiles*,
  >which in my experience are much more useful.
  >
  >Best wishes,
  >
  >David Glasgow
  >
  >Courses HTTP://www.i-Psych.co.uk
  >
  >
  >
  > >However, a whole heap of research suggests
  > >there are differences based on these categories??? The question for
  > >me is, can we do better, can we refine our  treatments and
  > >understanding of etiology by  developing types. I am
  >leaning towards
  > >the MTC: CM3 typology what do you or the others think about it.
  > >
  > >Steve
  > >
  > >
  > >
  > >
  >
  >
  >
  >______________________________________________________________
  >__________
  >______________________________________________________________
  >__________
  >
  >Message: 7
  >   Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 10:20:39 -0000
  >   From: "stevenfeelgood66" <steven.feelgood@...>
  >Subject: Typologies are Great!
  >
  >Hi Group,
  >
  >This is a general response to the typology letters,
  >
  >I am also not that convinced of the value of a new typology.  I
  >say "new" because as I have been thinking about the typology issue
  >comments, it came to me that we are already using one.  In research
  >or practice the identifying of molesters, rapists, violent
  >offenders, non-violent non-sexual offenders, normals.....etc.,
  >involves the assumption at least, of a typology.  We assume that
  >these guys are different in some ways and similar in others.  Hence,
  >even those who say a typology has no value, are users of a typology!
  >
  >On this point comes the polygraph study mentioned in the newsgroup.
  >It was said the study suggested that offender specialization was
  >questionable.  That would challenge even the basic typology noted
  >above (which is defined by victim type).  I think the findings are
  >interesting and question the questionable use of official criminal
  >history, but then in treatment we do try to go beyond that.
  >Typically, I found that even though in a forensic treatment
  >facility, offenders often revealed a large number of unofficial
  >sexual offences, including of different victim ages and genders.
  >Does this question our basic typology, yep.  But it does not mean
  >that offenders do not specialize, or that a typology is not
  >possible, I don't think so.  PPG studies (Baxter, Marshall,
  >Barbaree, Davidson, & Malcolm, 1984; Malcolm, Andrews, & Quinsey,
  >1993) and criminal career / sexological studies (Gebhard et al,
  >1965; Guay et al, 2001) suggest that molesters with victims between
  >12-15 are similar to rapists and that their victim choice changes
  >(some change to prepubescent victims and others to adult females),
  >they seem to be a heterogenous group, maybe not a pure type.
  >However, other offenders tend to stay within their age ranges.  This
  >suggests some typological groups, even by the crude age & gender
  >distinctions, may be expression of nature, and not the justice
  >system.  I think the literature suggests that molesters with victims
  >below 12 tend to stay with such victims.  The issue of victim age
  >choice is probably quite stable for some groups and not others, this
  >raises the issue of offence motivation.  Perhaps we would be better
  >off to use this in determining offender types, or maybe in
  >combination with victim age. I think the polygraph study suggests
  >that the current legal "typology" has some weaknesses.
  >
  >I must say that when I use the term typological, I am not
  >necessarily saying they are distinct categories, they may be, or the
  >may represent extreme ends of dimensions.
  >
  >A second issue from the polygraph study was about gender
  >specificity.  There was a smaller difference between the official
  >and non-official rates, but still a clinically interesting one (but
  >really, how valid are the polygraph results??).  Still it does not
  >challenge gender specificity, it suggests however, as with the age
  >distinction, simply defining someone by this feature is not enough,
  >we need to talk to them.  Find out the motivation.  A study by
  >Marshall et al (1988) found an interesting pattern with offenders
  >against male children.  Those with pre-pubescent victims showed a
  >normal heterosexual PPG (like many molesters).  Perhaps they chose
  >the very young male as a sort of androgenous substitute for a female
  >(I know personally of one molester who reported such a motivation),
  >but those with pubescent victims showed the classic male victim
  >pedophile profile.  Its just one study, and I don't know of any
  >attempted replications.  Anyway it suggests that victim gender
  >choice is complex.  It suggests not that types don't exist, but that
  >they may be different from the way we often define them.
  >
  >Why do I think a typology might be valid?  (As I said before I am
  >not sure, certainly the evidence is thin).
  >
  >1. Recent risk assessment research e.g. STATIC-99 and a number of
  >papers on dynamic risk factors (Hanson & Harris, 2001; Thornton,
  >2002) suggest that some features and not others are related to
  >risk.  Is it possible that they are tapping into different groups of
  >molesters?  The male victim, extrafamilial victim distinctions, as
  >well as the exclusive pedophile emerge (the latter perhaps only
  >weakly tapped by the "Lived with a Lover for 18mths or more" item of
  >the STATIC-99).  To be sure they are only hints, but they suggest
  >that we need to consider molesters as not one group.
  >
  >2. Clinical experience.  Molesters and rapists often present
  >differently, relate differently to others and therapists etc. This
  >variation also occurs within these two offender groups.
  >
  >3. The MTC: CM3 Typology.  Developed some time ago, it seems to have
  >some reliability.  The early cluster analysis and path analysis are
  >somewhat supportive of the types.  Recently, Looman et al (2001)
  >found differences on PPG and Offences rates for the MTC: CM3 types.
  >OK, there were some problems with significance perhaps due to low
  >statistical POWER.  This study suggested some validity and the
  >clinical usefulness of this typology. i.e there was some predictive
  >validity and the variations in sexual arousal patterns suggested
  >some possible treatment need targets.  Maybe not all is lost.
  >
  >4. Beech (1998) did a cluster analysis on a group of intrafamilial
  >and extrafamilial molesters.  He considered important treatment
  >factors such as cognitive distortions, loneliness and self-esteem
  >etc.  He found a cluster solution that crossed the intrafamilial and
  >extrafamilial borders.  This suggested that this distinction was not
  >that useful, and perhaps misleading.  For instance some
  >intrafamilial molesters had treatment needs much like the
  >extrafamilial molesters.  The use of cluster analysis was a nice way
  >to seek out types, rather than impose them.  He found that a four
  >cluster solution described the data well.
  >
  >5. Beier (1998) found large differences in re-offending over a 30
  >year period for fixated exclusive versus fixated non-exclusive
  >molesters and two other types.  This indicated some predictive
  >validity for this typology.
  >
  >This is not much, but the fact is not much has been done.  There are
  >a few more studies spattered around, but I was just hoping to spark
  >your attention.  In any case, they suggest that typologies could be
  >useful, and have some validity.  They also suggest that we could be
  >failing to recognize important variations in the clinical
  >presentations of our clients.
  >
  >I wonder how much longer we can rely on the legal definition as a
  >term of reference, when our fellow psychologists get to play with
  >dimensions, types etc.  Maybe, as we are already using
  >an "unofficial" typology, the question is can we improve on it.  I
  >think two of the responses in this thread point out that criminal
  >convictions and definitions are a poor substitute for a good old
  >fashioned psychological approach.
  >
  >I think the studies above suggest that some form of typology could
  >help us in everyday treatment practice and perhaps ultimately to
  >understand how these guys are created.  Looks like I've ended up
  >convincing myself, not good practice when the evidence is so thin.
  >So I'm looking for some good old fashioned debate to sort me out.
  >Tell me my arguments are weak, tell me the data is poor, but don't
  >tell me that you just don't believe!
  >
  >Looking forward to some more...........
  >
  >
  >
  >Steve Feelgood.
  >
  >Institut für Sexualwissenschaft und Sexualmedizin
  >Humboldt Universitätsklinikum
  >Charite
  >Luisenstr. 57
  >10117 Berlin
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >______________________________________________________________
  >__________
  >______________________________________________________________
  >__________
  >
  >Message: 8
  >   Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 22:22:04 +1000
  >   From: Annie.Thomas@...
  >Subject: Re: DRUG FACILITATED SEXUAL ASSAULT
  >
  >
  >Hi Anton,
  >
  >Am happy to share all or some of my findings but I do not have data on
  >victim selection specifically. My thesis examined a broad
  >range of sexual
  >coercion strategies in the context of a broader use of sexual
  >influence
  >tactics ranging from pro-social through to highly
  >anti-social/illegal. In
  >the latter category was the use of drugs or alcohol to
  >facilitate sexual
  >activity.
  >
  >I approached the issue from a sexual scripting perspective
  >and the main
  >findings are as follows:
  >
  >data from USA and Canada re prevalence and incidence of
  >sexual coercion in
  >college populations was identical when applied to an
  >Australian population,
  >so too was data linking a variety of anti-feminist beliefs
  >and attitudes to
  >sexually coercive behaviour.
  >
  >perceptions of what is or is not sexually coercive appear to
  >be culturally
  >shared and there is a gradient from prosocial, to seductive,
  >to verbal to
  >physical. Perceptions are influenced by type of relationship in which
  >behaviour occurs and gender of rater but overall not many
  >differences in
  >ratings.
  >
  >90% of men engage in the use of some type of sexual influence strategy
  >beyond the point of being told "NO". The percentage of men who use
  >strategies decreases as you go up the scale of strategy
  >severity. However,
  >over 30% regularly engaged in physically coercive/illegal
  >behaviours. Even
  >some men who restrict their attempts to influencing an
  >unwilling female
  >with pro-social startegies indicated the use of persistance
  >rather than
  >accepting "No".
  >
  >Use of strategies is scripted, so even most men who rape (in
  >some type of
  >relationship or dating context) will attempt more pro-social
  >behaviours in
  >the first instance, and the use of a gradient of behaviours
  >is in line with
  >cultural perceptions of a sliding scale of non-coercive to coercive.
  >
  >Use of a script (non-coercive through to physically coercive)
  >to elicit
  >acquiescence is altered somewhat by alcohol use, so men who
  >have a history
  >of physically coercive behaviour are less likely to follow
  >the script and
  >jump straight to use of coercion when under the influence of alcohol.
  >
  >If any of these findings are of interest/relevant am happy to
  >elaborate, or
  >happy to expand on conceptual underpinnings of thesis, theoretical
  >interpretations of findings and relevance of the lot to the
  >real world. I'd
  >welcome the dialouge.
  >
  >Main conclusion drawn was that it is too simplistic to try
  >and understand
  >rape/sexual assault/sexual coercion in isolation from broader sexual
  >influence behaviours and the cultural scripts/ individual beliefs that
  >drive the behaviours.
  >
  >Cheers
  >
  >Annie
  >
  >
  >Annie Thomas
  >Acting General Manager, Clinical and Offender Services
  >CORE
  >96276367
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >                    "Anton
  >
  >                    Tolman"              To:
  ><ForensicNetwork@yahoogroups.com>
  >                    <tolmana@gvsu        cc:
  >
  >                    .edu>                Subject:     Re:
  >[ForensicNetwork] DRUG
  >                    Sent by:             FACILITATED SEXUAL
  >ASSAULT
  >                    "Anton
  >
  >                    Tolman"
  >
  >                    <tolmana@gvsu
  >
  >                    .edu>
  >
  >
  >
  >                    07/04/03
  >
  >                    01:28
  >
  >                    Please
  >
  >                    respond to
  >
  >                    ForensicNetwo
  >
  >                    rk
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >Annie, would you care to share with us any of your findings?  In
  >particular, I am interested in the issue of how sex offenders select
  >victims and interactions of this victim selection process with
  >personality elements like psychopathy.  We have been conducting some
  >preliminary studies on college students in the area of sexual
  >revictimization, and it seems like a natural to extend this
  >work to try
  >and understand how an offender "sizes up" a target.
  >
  >Anything you have relevant to that would be of interest.
  >
  >Anton
  >
  >
  >
  >========================
  >Anton Tolman, Ph.D.
  >Department of Psychology
  >Grand Valley State University
  >Allendale, MI  49401
  >616-331-3798
  >>>> Annie.Thomas@... 04/05/03 22:23 PM >>>
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >For more information about this group and to review previous messages
  >please go to:
  >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ForensicNetwork
  >
  >To send a message to the group simply address any email that
  >you have to:
  >ForensicNetwork@yahoogroups.com
  >
  >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
  >ForensicNetwork-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
  >
  >
  >
  >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
  >http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >_________________________________________
  >***CONFIDENTIAL***
  >The information in this message and in any attachments may be
  >confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this
  >message, you must not read, forward, print, copy, disclose,
  >or use in any way the information this message or any
  >attachment contains.
  >If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the
  >sender immediately and delete or destroy all copies of this
  >message and any attachments.
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >______________________________________________________________
  >__________
  >______________________________________________________________
  >__________
  >
  >Message: 9
  >   Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 18:50:20 -0800
  >   From: "Brent Turvey" <bturvey@...>
  >Subject: Federal Court finds profiler Richard Walter offered
  >perjured testimony
  >
  >Federal Court finds that Criminal Profiler Richard D. Walter
  >has offered
  >perjured testimony:
  >
  >Criminal profiler and former prison psychologist Richard D. Walter, MA
  >(http://www.omegacag.com/), founding member of the Vidocq Society
  >(http://www.vidocq.org/who.html), has apparently been found
  >by a Federal
  >Court to have committed perjury in the court case cited
  >below, causing a
  >previous court decision to be vacated and new discovery ordered.
  >
  >Richard D. Walter, MA is a Fellow in the General Sections of
  >the AAFS. He is
  >also on the National Board of Trustees for Parents of
  >Murdered Children:
  >
  >DRAKE v. PORTUONDO, Docket No. 01-2217, January 31, 2003 (321
  >F.3d 338)
  >http://csmail.law.pace.edu/lawlib/legal/us-legal/judiciary/sec
  >ond-circuit/te
  >st3/01-2217.opn.html
  >
  >"The prosecution informed defense counsel on the Thursday
  >evening that it
  >intended to call a psychologist named Richard D. Walter to
  >testify about
  >psychological profiling. On the Friday, the prosecution
  >successfully moved
  >to add Walter as a witness, and Walter mounted the stand. Under the
  >announced schedule, defense counsel would have no more than a
  >weekend to get
  >a competing expert, if needed, or for that matter to prepare his
  >cross-examination.
  >
  >The prosecution concedes that Walter's testimony was intended
  >to reinforce
  >what it perceived as weaknesses in the evidence supporting
  >its theory of
  >intent. The prosecution also concedes that Walter was
  >referred to them by
  >Dr. Levine, the forensic dentist, and that the prosecution did not
  >independently investigate Walter's qualifications.
  >
  >Walter conceded at the outset that he had not examined Drake
  >or reviewed his
  >medical records, and would rely on his review of grand jury testimony,
  >medical evidence and the police record. Walter opined on that
  >basis that
  >Smith and Rosenthal had been the victims of a specific type
  >of "lust-murder"
  >called "picquerism" (a derivative misspelling of the French
  >verb "piquer,"
  >which means, among other things, to stick or poke). See Trial
  >Transcript at
  >794. According to Walter, picquerists achieve sexual gratification by
  >biting, shooting, stabbing, and sodomizing their victims
  >(though not all
  >picquerists do all these things). This supposed syndrome
  >accounted for much
  >of the physical evidence in medical terms that dovetailed with the
  >prosecution's theory of intent.
  >
  >It is now apparent that Walter's testimony concerning his
  >qualifications was
  >perjurious. He claimed extensive experience in the field of
  >psychological
  >profiling, including: work on 5000 to 7500 cases over several
  >years in the
  >Los Angeles County Medical Examiner's Office; an adjunct
  >professorship at
  >Northern Michigan University; more than four years as a
  >prison psychologist
  >with the Michigan Department of Corrections; and expert
  >testimony given at
  >hundreds of criminal trials in Los Angeles and Michigan.
  >
  >On the Monday following Walter's testimony, defense counsel
  >told Justice
  >DiFlorio that the defense had searched over the weekend to
  >retain a rebuttal
  >psychologist, but could not find any expert who had ever heard of
  >"picquerism." The defense requested a two-week continuance to find a
  >psychologist with the expertise required. The prosecution successfully
  >opposed a continuance.
  >
  >The trial concluded on schedule. Drake was convicted and
  >sentenced to two
  >consecutive terms of twenty years to
  >life. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed the
  >conviction,
  >and the Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal. Drake's
  >petition for a writ
  >of error coram nobis, arguing ineffective assistance of
  >appellate counsel,
  >was denied by the Appellate Division.
  >
  >Years after exhausting his direct appeals, Drake discovered evidence,
  >through his own research in prison, that Walter had lied about his
  >credentials. Although Walter is a prison psychologist with
  >the Michigan
  >Department of Corrections, Drake found suggestive evidence
  >that Walter lied
  >about his other credentials. As the prosecution now concedes, Walter
  >performed no criminal profiling in the Los Angeles County
  >Medical Examiner's
  >Office. According to Walter's supervisors there, he was
  >employed as a lab
  >assistant responsible for cleaning and maintaining the
  >forensic lab. There
  >seems to be no record that Walter was ever on the payroll of Northern
  >Michigan University, where he claimed to be an adjunct
  >professor. The Los
  >Angeles County District Attorney's office has found no record
  >of Walter
  >testifying as an expert witness in a criminal proceeding
  >between October
  >1975 through May 1978.
  >
  >In 1995, Drake moved to vacate his conviction and sentence
  >pursuant to N.Y.
  >C.P.L. 440.10 on the basis of the newly discovered evidence concerning
  >Walter's perjury.
  >
  >...
  >
  >For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the district court's
  >judgment denying
  >Drake's petition for habeas relief, and remand to the
  >district court for
  >discovery and a hearing (if the district court in its
  >discretion considers
  >that a hearing is needed) on whether the prosecution knew (or
  >should have
  >known) that its expert, Richard D. Walter, was committing perjury."
  >
  >Brent
  >Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science
  >bturvey@...
  >
  >Knowledge Solutions, LLC
  >http://www.corpus-delicti.com
  >Academy of Behavioral Profiling
  >http://www.profiling.org
  >
  >**************************************************************
  >**********
  >"To stand up for truth is nothing. For truth you have to sit in jail."
  >-Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >______________________________________________________________
  >__________
  >______________________________________________________________
  >__________
  >
  >Message: 10
  >   Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 08:15:48 +1000
  >   From: "de Bomford, Paul" <paul.debomford@...>
  >Subject: RE: Race and eyewitness evidence
  >
  >A bit out of left field ,but would there be any similarity between the
  >difference you have found and the differences between men and women as
  >documented in Alan Pease's book "Why women cant read maps and
  >men don't
  >listen"  Pease explains the present differences to  instincts
  >developed many
  >generations ago through different roles and needs, going back
  >to prehistoric
  >times.
  >My own thoughts are that different groups also tend to remember
  >characteristics that have relevant to themselves.  Example
  >Young teen age
  >girls could probably remember the hair colour and brand of
  >clothing where as
  >young men would remember the make and model of the car that
  >the person got
  >out men
  >Paul De Bomford
  >
  >-----Original Message-----
  >From: DA Louw [mailto:louwda@...]
  >Sent: Thursday, 8 May 2003 5:25 AM
  >To: FORENSIC-PSYCH@...
  >Cc: ForensicNetwork@yahoogroups.com
  >Subject: [ForensicNetwork] Race and eyewitness evidence
  >
  >
  >
  >I am a clinical psychologist in South Africa, doing an
  >empirical study on
  >the effect of
  >certain variables on the reliablity of eyewitness testimony.
  >The findings
  >are very
  >interesting, but there is one result that I find hard to explain:
  >
  >In the short-term memory group significantly more whites were
  >correct about
  >the race
  >of the assailant (white) --- while in the long-term memory group
  >significantly more
  >blacks answered this item correctly.
  >
  >I would appreciate any references, suggestions, own experiences, etc.
  >Please
  >send it to
  >
  >arnotv@...
  >
  >Thanking you in anticipation.
  >
  >Arnot Venter
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
  >
  ><http://rd.yahoo.com/M=251812.3170658.4537139.1261774/D=egroup
  >web/S=17050834
  >74:HM/A=1564416/R=0/*http://www.netflix.com/Default?mqso=60164
  >797&partid=317
  >0658>
  >
  ><http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=251812.3170658.4537139.12617
  >74/D=egroupmai
  >l/S=:HM/A=1564416/rand=346908683>
  >
  >For more information about this group and to review previous messages
  >please go to:
  >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ForensicNetwork
  ><http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ForensicNetwork>
  >
  >To send a message to the group simply address any email that
  >you have to:
  >ForensicNetwork@yahoogroups.com
  >
  >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
  >ForensicNetwork-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
  >
  >
  >
  >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
  ><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >[This message contained attachments]
  >
  >
  >
  >______________________________________________________________
  >__________
  >______________________________________________________________
  >__________
  >
  >Message: 11
  >   Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 11:14:36 +1000
  >   From: Frank.Lambrick@...
  >Subject: Re: Working with incarcerated adult sex offenders
  >with special needs
  >
  >
  >Sam,
  >
  >The program I work for provides sex offender treatment to
  >offenders with a
  >mild level of intellectual disability. Contact me at the
  >address below if
  >you want to discuss further.
  >
  >Cheers, Frank
  >
  >
  >Frank Lambrick, Senior Clinician
  >Statewide Forensic Service
  >Disability Services
  >PO Box 137
  >Fairfield VIC 3078
  >AUSTRALIA
  >PH:  +61 3 9280 2752
  >Fx:  +61 3 9280 2750
  >email: Frank.Lambrick@...
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >                    "sam farmer"
  >
  >                    <kesfarmer@ho        To:
  >ForensicNetwork@yahoogroups.com
  >                    tmail.com>           cc:
  >
  >                                         Subject:
  >[ForensicNetwork] Working with
  >                    07/05/2003           incarcerated adult
  >sex offenders with special
  >                    08:46 PM             needs
  >
  >                    Please
  >
  >                    respond to
  >
  >                    ForensicNetwo
  >
  >                    rk
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >Please could anyone supply me with any information
  >suggestions you have in
  >relation to the above subject.  I am looking into developing
  >a structured
  >programme.
  >
  >
  >Cheers
  >
  >
  >Sam Farmer (NZ)
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >It's fast, it's easy and it's free! Click here to download
  >MSN Messenger
  >
  >               Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >For more information about this group and to review previous messages
  >please go to:
  >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ForensicNetwork
  >
  >To send a message to the group simply address any email that
  >you have to:
  >ForensicNetwork@yahoogroups.com
  >
  >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
  >ForensicNetwork-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
  >
  >
  >
  >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >______________________________________________________________
  >___________________
  >
  >This email contains confidential information intended only
  >for the person named above and may be subject to legal
  >privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, any
  >disclosure, copying or use of this information is prohibited.
  >The Department provides no guarantee that this communication
  >is free of virus or that it has not been intercepted or
  >interfered with. If you have received this email in error or
  >have any other concerns regarding its transmission, please
  >notify Postmaster@...
  >______________________________________________________________
  >___________________
  >
  >
  >
  >______________________________________________________________
  >__________
  >______________________________________________________________
  >__________
  >
  >
  >
  >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/





________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 2
    Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 12:09:14 +1000
    From: "Jenny KEELING" <Jenny.KEELING@...>
Subject: Working with incarcerated adult sex offenders with special needs

Sam,

In Corrective Services in NSW we run a program for special needs sex
offenders. This includes individuals with literacy deficits, adaptive
skills deficits, borderline intellectual functioning, brain damage etc.
It is a twelve month program and was developed last year. The first
group to participate in the program have just completed.

Jenny

Jenny Keeling
Psychologist
CUBIT [Sex Offender Programmes]
MSPC, Area 3
Locked Bag 20
Matraville NSW
2036
Australia
PH: 61 2 9289 3769
FX:  61 2 9289 2208
email: jenny.keeling@...




________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 3
    Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 14:43:05 -0000
    From: "Nevine" <stnovena@...>
Subject: female sexual predators


howdy-
anyone have any more views on female sexual predators which seems to
be rising in the u.s. ?
nevine-marie



http://www.breakingthesilence.com/female.html




________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 4
    Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 06:38:26 +0200
    From: "Florence" <calicomoon@...>
Subject: Criminal Profiling!

Hi all,

I am hoping someone here can help me with this!

I was watching a program, on Discovery Cannel, about serial killers and
criminal profiling some time back. In the program their was a person who was
interested in if (and how) we could prevent children to become serial
killers. Unfortunately I can not remember his name. Does anyone here on the
list know anyone who has written something about this? or if anyone know who
I am talking about and know who it is?

As I recall it, he is a psychologist, and he had a theory about how you can
(maybe can) spot out who most likely will become a serial killer already
when they are children. He was also talking about the disadvantage of doing
so, but also the advantage of making a theory like that!

I have a section in my Master in psychology about Criminal Profiling and
serial killers and I can not find anyone what I can refer to, and I need
that;)!

I would be so happy if I find out how it is, I have tried so much to find
him or other who have made such a theory, on the internet and all over but
have not had any luck so far. One person told me that many have done that,
but he never gave me a name of one person so now I try again!

Sorry for my bad English, Danish is my mother languish!

Regards
Florence


[This message contained attachments]



________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 5
    Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 15:21:27 -0000
    From: "stevenfeelgood66" <steven.feelgood@...>
Subject: A useful Stats book

Hi Group,

T thought some might like to know about this book.  Its from the APA
and deals multivariate stats.  Its called "Reading and Understanding
Multivariate Statistics" (1995).  Its aim is to explain Multivariate
Statistical techniques with as little refernce to mathematics as is
possible.  I think they have done a good job.  I'm no maths wiz and
have found it very easy to read and the concepts easy to
understand.  It explains why to use Multivariate Statistics, the
assumptions, interpretations and gives lots of examples.

There is also a new book,("Reading and Understanding More
Multivariate Statistics") with yes, more Multivariate Statistics
e.g. Cluster analysis...... I haven't read it yet.


Have fun,


Steve




________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Colorado corrections have done a lot with polygraphing sex offenders.  If
you look up their web site, try and contact Kim English.

Richard Parker
Principal Psychologist
ACT Corrective Services
Canberra, Australia


-----Original Message-----
From: Gisli Gudjonsson [mailto:Gisli@...]
Sent: Friday, 6 June 2003 3:24
To: ForensicNetwork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [ForensicNetwork] Digest Number 187


I am interest to hear from anybody who is doing research or employing the
polygraph for clinical purposes, such as lie detection with sex offenders.
I am particulary interested in any research or recently published papers.

Gisli Gudjonsson,
Professor of Forensic Psychology,
Institue of Psychiatry,
King's College.

----- Original Message -----
From: <ForensicNetwork@yahoogroups.com>
To: <ForensicNetwork@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 3:15 PM
Subject: [ForensicNetwork] Digest Number 187



For more information about this group and to review previous messages
please go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ForensicNetwork

To send a message to the group simply address any email that you have to:
ForensicNetwork@yahoogroups.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
ForensicNetwork-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com


------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are 5 messages in this issue.

Topics in this digest:

       1. Re: Typologies are Great
            From: "David Glasgow" <david.glasgow@...>
       2. Working with incarcerated adult sex offenders with special needs
            From: "Jenny KEELING" <Jenny.KEELING@...>
       3. female sexual predators
            From: "Nevine" <stnovena@...>
       4. Criminal Profiling!
            From: "Florence" <calicomoon@...>
       5. A useful Stats book
            From: "stevenfeelgood66" <steven.feelgood@...>


________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 1
    Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 12:11:01 +0100
    From: "David Glasgow" <david.glasgow@...>
Subject: Re: Typologies are Great

Steven,

I think the most telling part of your post is the bit about not construing
'types' as categories.  If everyone did this then there would be no problem.
But they do.  And they forget that categories are convenient fictions.

So why bother with them?  If you have a way of discriminating between
individual offenders, you can use it much more flexibly as a dimension than
a typology.

The real problem is that stereotypical, categorical thinking is a
fundamental characteristic of human cognition, and is a devil to resist.

Best wishes,

David Glasgow

Courses HTTP://www.i-Psych.co.uk



  >-----Original Message-----
  >From: ForensicNetwork@yahoogroups.com
  >[mailto:ForensicNetwork@yahoogroups.com]
  >Sent: 16 May 2003 12:15
  >To: ForensicNetwork@yahoogroups.com
  >Subject: [ForensicNetwork] Digest Number 185
  >
  >
  >------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
  >---------------------~-->
  >Get A Free Psychic Reading!
  >Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions.
  >http://us.click.yahoo.com/aM1XQD/od7FAA/uetFAA/SJYolB/TM
  >--------------------------------------------------------------
  >-------~->
  >
  >For more information about this group and to review previous messages
  >please go to:
  >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ForensicNetwork
  >
  >To send a message to the group simply address any email that
  >you have to:
  >ForensicNetwork@yahoogroups.com
  >
  >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
  >ForensicNetwork-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
  >
  >
  >--------------------------------------------------------------
  >----------
  >
  >There are 11 messages in this issue.
  >
  >Topics in this digest:
  >
  >      1. Working with incarcerated adult sex offenders with
  >special needs
  >           From: "sam farmer" <kesfarmer@...>
  >      2. Race and eyewitness evidence
  >           From: "DA Louw" <louwda@...>
  >      3. Federal Court finds profiler Richard Walter offered
  >perjured testimony
  >           From: "Brent Turvey" <bturvey@...>
  >      4. Searching for  Tim Hudman
  >           From: "stevenfeelgood66" <steven.feelgood@...>
  >      5. Personality Disorder Conference
  >           From: "Mary McMurran" <McMurranM@...>
  >      6. RE: Digest Number 177
  >           From: "Glasgow, David"
  ><david.glasgow@...>
  >      7. Typologies are Great!
  >           From: "stevenfeelgood66" <steven.feelgood@...>
  >      8. Re: DRUG FACILITATED SEXUAL ASSAULT
  >           From: Annie.Thomas@...
  >      9. Federal Court finds profiler Richard Walter offered
  >perjured testimony
  >           From: "Brent Turvey" <bturvey@...>
  >     10. RE: Race and eyewitness evidence
  >           From: "de Bomford, Paul"
  ><paul.debomford@...>
  >     11. Re: Working with incarcerated adult sex offenders
  >with special needs
  >           From: Frank.Lambrick@...
  >
  >
  >______________________________________________________________
  >__________
  >______________________________________________________________
  >__________
  >
  >Message: 1
  >   Date: Wed, 07 May 2003 10:46:03 +0000
  >   From: "sam farmer" <kesfarmer@...>
  >Subject: Working with incarcerated adult sex offenders with
  >special needs
  >
  >
  >
  >[This message is not in displayable format]
  >
  >
  >
  >______________________________________________________________
  >__________
  >______________________________________________________________
  >__________
  >
  >Message: 2
  >   Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 21:25:12 +0200
  >   From: "DA Louw" <louwda@...>
  >Subject: Race and eyewitness evidence
  >
  >
  >I am a clinical psychologist in South Africa, doing an
  >empirical study on the effect of
  >certain variables on the reliablity of eyewitness testimony.
  >The findings are very
  >interesting, but there is one result that I find hard to explain:
  >
  >In the short-term memory group significantly more whites were
  >correct about the race
  >of the assailant (white) --- while in the long-term memory
  >group significantly more
  >blacks answered this item correctly.
  >
  >I would appreciate any references, suggestions, own
  >experiences, etc.  Please
  >send it to
  >
  >arnotv@...
  >
  >Thanking you in anticipation.
  >
  >Arnot Venter
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >______________________________________________________________
  >__________
  >______________________________________________________________
  >__________
  >
  >Message: 3
  >   Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 15:29:05 -0800
  >   From: "Brent Turvey" <bturvey@...>
  >Subject: Federal Court finds profiler Richard Walter offered
  >perjured testimony
  >
  >Federal Court finds that Criminal Profiler Richard D. Walter
  >has offered
  >perjured testimony:
  >
  >Criminal profiler and former prison psychologist Richard D. Walter, MA
  >(http://www.omegacag.com/), founding member of the Vidocq Society
  >(http://www.vidocq.org/who.html), has apparently been found
  >by a Federal
  >Court to have committed perjury in the court case cited
  >below, causing a
  >previous court decision to be vacated and new discovery ordered.
  >
  >Richard D. Walter, MA is a Fellow in the General Sections of
  >the AAFS. He is
  >also on the National Board of Trustees for Parents of
  >Murdered Children:
  >
  >DRAKE v. PORTUONDO, Docket No. 01-2217, January 31, 2003 (321
  >F.3d 338)
  >http://csmail.law.pace.edu/lawlib/legal/us-legal/judiciary/sec
  >ond-circuit/te
  >st3/01-2217.opn.html
  >
  >"The prosecution informed defense counsel on the Thursday
  >evening that it
  >intended to call a psychologist named Richard D. Walter to
  >testify about
  >psychological profiling.  On the Friday, the prosecution
  >successfully moved
  >to add Walter as a witness, and Walter mounted the stand.  Under the
  >announced schedule, defense counsel would have no more than a
  >weekend to get
  >a
  >competing expert, if needed, or for that matter to prepare his
  >cross-examination.
  >
  >The prosecution concedes that Walter's testimony was intended
  >to reinforce
  >what it perceived as weaknesses in the
  >evidence supporting its theory of intent.  The prosecution
  >also concedes
  >that Walter was referred to them by Dr.
  >Levine, the forensic dentist, and that the prosecution did
  >not independently
  >investigate Walter's qualifications.
  >
  >Walter conceded at the outset that he had not examined Drake
  >or reviewed his
  >medical records, and would rely on his review of grand jury testimony,
  >medical evidence and the police record. Walter opined on that
  >basis that
  >Smith and
  >Rosenthal had been the victims of a specific type of
  >"lust-murder" called
  >"picquerism" (a derivative misspelling of the
  >French verb "piquer," which means, among other things, to
  >stick or poke).
  >See Trial Transcript at 794.  According to
  >Walter, picquerists achieve sexual gratification by biting, shooting,
  >stabbing, and sodomizing their victims (though not
  >all picquerists do all these things).  This supposed syndrome
  >accounted for
  >much of the physical evidence in medical terms that
  >dovetailed with the
  >prosecution's theory of intent.
  >
  >It is now apparent that Walter's testimony concerning his
  >qualifications was
  >perjurious.  He claimed extensive experience in the field of
  >psychological
  >profiling, including: work on 5000 to 7500 cases over several
  >years in the
  >Los Angeles County Medical Examiner's Office; an adjunct
  >professorship at
  >Northern Michigan University; more than four years as a
  >prison psychologist
  >with the Michigan Department of Corrections; and expert
  >testimony given at
  >hundreds of criminal trials in Los Angeles and Michigan.
  >
  >On the Monday following Walter's testimony, defense counsel
  >told Justice
  >DiFlorio that the defense had searched over the weekend to
  >retain a rebuttal
  >psychologist, but could not find any expert who had ever heard of
  >"picquerism."   The defense requested a two-week continuance to find a
  >psychologist with the expertise required.  The prosecution
  >successfully
  >opposed a continuance.
  >
  >The trial concluded on schedule.  Drake was convicted and
  >sentenced to two
  >consecutive terms of twenty years to
  >life.  The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed
  >the conviction,
  >and the Court of Appeals denied leave to
  >appeal.  Drake's petition for a writ of error coram nobis, arguing
  >ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, was
  >denied by the Appellate Division.
  >
  >Years after exhausting his direct appeals, Drake discovered evidence,
  >through his own research in prison, that Walter had lied about his
  >credentials.  Although Walter is a prison psychologist with
  >the Michigan
  >Department of Corrections, Drake found suggestive evidence
  >that Walter lied
  >about his other credentials.  As the prosecution now concedes, Walter
  >performed no criminal profiling in the Los Angeles County
  >Medical Examiner's
  >Office.  According to Walter's supervisors there, he was
  >employed as a lab
  >assistant responsible for cleaning and maintaining the
  >forensic lab.  There
  >seems to be no record that Walter was ever on the payroll of Northern
  >Michigan University, where he claimed to be an adjunct
  >professor.  The Los
  >Angeles County District Attorney's office has found no record
  >of Walter
  >testifying as an expert witness in a criminal proceeding
  >between October
  >1975 through May 1978.
  >
  >In 1995, Drake moved to vacate his conviction and sentence
  >pursuant to N.Y.
  >C.P.L. 440.10 on the basis of
  >the newly discovered evidence concerning Walter's perjury.
  >
  >...
  >
  > For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the district court's
  >judgment denying
  >Drake's petition for habeas relief, and remand to the
  >district court for
  >discovery and a hearing (if the district court in its
  >discretion considers
  >that a hearing is needed) on whether the prosecution knew (or
  >should have
  >known) that its expert, Richard D. Walter, was committing perjury."
  >
  >Brent
  >Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science
  >Secretary, ABP
  >bturvey@...
  >
  >Knowledge Solutions, LLC
  >http://www.corpus-delicti.com
  >Academy of Behavioral Profiling
  >http://www.profiling.org
  >
  >**************************************************************
  >**********
  >"To stand up for truth is nothing. For truth you have to sit in jail."
  >-Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >______________________________________________________________
  >__________
  >______________________________________________________________
  >__________
  >
  >Message: 4
  >   Date: Wed, 07 May 2003 17:52:35 -0000
  >   From: "stevenfeelgood66" <steven.feelgood@...>
  >Subject: Searching for  Tim Hudman
  >
  >Hi,
  >
  >A couple of years ago I worked on the APS Forensic Conference with
  >Tim Hudman.  I am now trying to locate him.  Does anyone have an
  >email address for him.  At that time he was doing his Mpsych at UWS,
  >but should be finished now.
  >
  >
  >???????
  >
  >Thanks for any help.
  >
  >
  >Steve Feelgood.
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >______________________________________________________________
  >__________
  >______________________________________________________________
  >__________
  >
  >Message: 5
  >   Date: Tue, 06 May 2003 13:35:48 +0100
  >   From: "Mary McMurran" <McMurranM@...>
  >Subject: Personality Disorder Conference
  >
  >British and Irish Group for the Study of Personality Disorders
  >Annual Conference
  >
  >CALL FOR PAPERS & EARLY REGISTRATION
  >
  >Monday 2nd to Thursday 5th February 2004
  >
  >The Angel Hotel, Cardiff
  >
  >www.theangelhotel-cardiff.activehotels.com
  >
  >Call for papers, symposia, and workshops
  >
  >Submissions by 31st August 2003 to:
  >
  >Dr Mary McMurran
  >School of Psychology
  >Cardiff University
  >Cardiff
  >CF10 3YG
  >McMurranM@...
  >
  >REGISTRATION
  >
  >Residential rate:
  >£485 'earlybird' rate per person for BIGSPD members
  >£505 new member package (i.e. conference + BIGSPD membership)
  >£520 for non members
  >
  >Day delegates:
  >
  > £135 'earlybird' rate for members
  >£155 new members package
  >£160 non-members
  >
  >Contact: Lesley Hoyle
  >
  >lesley.hoyle@...
  >
  >
  >
  >Dr Mary McMurran
  >Senior Research Fellow
  >School of Psychology
  >Cardiff University
  >Cardiff
  >CF10 3YG
  >UK
  >+44 (0) 29 20 876758
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >______________________________________________________________
  >__________
  >______________________________________________________________
  >__________
  >
  >Message: 6
  >   Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 13:39:58 +0100
  >   From: "Glasgow, David" <david.glasgow@...>
  >Subject: RE: Digest Number 177
  >
  >Steve,
  >
  >I think there is a real conceptual problem here, with facets
  >of personality and sexual interest being reified to the point
  >of being 'types', as if they represented categorical
  >distinctions.  For example, just plucking something from the
  >air, We could have an instrumentally violent versus sexually
  >violent facet in our research, we could even define our
  >comparison groups by reference to this.  However, the
  >categories in this way are a useful fiction we impose on
  >human behaviour to allow us to study it.  The moment we
  >really start to believe that there are two 'types' out there
  >we are stereotyping and oversimplifying.
  >
  >My research on assessment of sexual interest using viewing
  >time is entirely consistent with ppg data insofar as it
  >suggests a remarkable diversity between individuals of range
  >and profiles of sexual interest.  For most offenders the most
  >significant facets are age and gender, but certainly not all.
  > Why not just accept that categories and typologies, like
  >much group derived research are likely to be a poor fit for
  >many, perhaps even most individuals.  They do however give us
  >useful dimensions with which we can generate *profiles*,
  >which in my experience are much more useful.
  >
  >Best wishes,
  >
  >David Glasgow
  >
  >Courses HTTP://www.i-Psych.co.uk
  >
  >
  >
  > >However, a whole heap of research suggests
  > >there are differences based on these categories??? The question for
  > >me is, can we do better, can we refine our  treatments and
  > >understanding of etiology by  developing types. I am
  >leaning towards
  > >the MTC: CM3 typology what do you or the others think about it.
  > >
  > >Steve
  > >
  > >
  > >
  > >
  >
  >
  >
  >______________________________________________________________
  >__________
  >______________________________________________________________
  >__________
  >
  >Message: 7
  >   Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 10:20:39 -0000
  >   From: "stevenfeelgood66" <steven.feelgood@...>
  >Subject: Typologies are Great!
  >
  >Hi Group,
  >
  >This is a general response to the typology letters,
  >
  >I am also not that convinced of the value of a new typology.  I
  >say "new" because as I have been thinking about the typology issue
  >comments, it came to me that we are already using one.  In research
  >or practice the identifying of molesters, rapists, violent
  >offenders, non-violent non-sexual offenders, normals.....etc.,
  >involves the assumption at least, of a typology.  We assume that
  >these guys are different in some ways and similar in others.  Hence,
  >even those who say a typology has no value, are users of a typology!
  >
  >On this point comes the polygraph study mentioned in the newsgroup.
  >It was said the study suggested that offender specialization was
  >questionable.  That would challenge even the basic typology noted
  >above (which is defined by victim type).  I think the findings are
  >interesting and question the questionable use of official criminal
  >history, but then in treatment we do try to go beyond that.
  >Typically, I found that even though in a forensic treatment
  >facility, offenders often revealed a large number of unofficial
  >sexual offences, including of different victim ages and genders.
  >Does this question our basic typology, yep.  But it does not mean
  >that offenders do not specialize, or that a typology is not
  >possible, I don't think so.  PPG studies (Baxter, Marshall,
  >Barbaree, Davidson, & Malcolm, 1984; Malcolm, Andrews, & Quinsey,
  >1993) and criminal career / sexological studies (Gebhard et al,
  >1965; Guay et al, 2001) suggest that molesters with victims between
  >12-15 are similar to rapists and that their victim choice changes
  >(some change to prepubescent victims and others to adult females),
  >they seem to be a heterogenous group, maybe not a pure type.
  >However, other offenders tend to stay within their age ranges.  This
  >suggests some typological groups, even by the crude age & gender
  >distinctions, may be expression of nature, and not the justice
  >system.  I think the literature suggests that molesters with victims
  >below 12 tend to stay with such victims.  The issue of victim age
  >choice is probably quite stable for some groups and not others, this
  >raises the issue of offence motivation.  Perhaps we would be better
  >off to use this in determining offender types, or maybe in
  >combination with victim age. I think the polygraph study suggests
  >that the current legal "typology" has some weaknesses.
  >
  >I must say that when I use the term typological, I am not
  >necessarily saying they are distinct categories, they may be, or the
  >may represent extreme ends of dimensions.
  >
  >A second issue from the polygraph study was about gender
  >specificity.  There was a smaller difference between the official
  >and non-official rates, but still a clinically interesting one (but
  >really, how valid are the polygraph results??).  Still it does not
  >challenge gender specificity, it suggests however, as with the age
  >distinction, simply defining someone by this feature is not enough,
  >we need to talk to them.  Find out the motivation.  A study by
  >Marshall et al (1988) found an interesting pattern with offenders
  >against male children.  Those with pre-pubescent victims showed a
  >normal heterosexual PPG (like many molesters).  Perhaps they chose
  >the very young male as a sort of androgenous substitute for a female
  >(I know personally of one molester who reported such a motivation),
  >but those with pubescent victims showed the classic male victim
  >pedophile profile.  Its just one study, and I don't know of any
  >attempted replications.  Anyway it suggests that victim gender
  >choice is complex.  It suggests not that types don't exist, but that
  >they may be different from the way we often define them.
  >
  >Why do I think a typology might be valid?  (As I said before I am
  >not sure, certainly the evidence is thin).
  >
  >1. Recent risk assessment research e.g. STATIC-99 and a number of
  >papers on dynamic risk factors (Hanson & Harris, 2001; Thornton,
  >2002) suggest that some features and not others are related to
  >risk.  Is it possible that they are tapping into different groups of
  >molesters?  The male victim, extrafamilial victim distinctions, as
  >well as the exclusive pedophile emerge (the latter perhaps only
  >weakly tapped by the "Lived with a Lover for 18mths or more" item of
  >the STATIC-99).  To be sure they are only hints, but they suggest
  >that we need to consider molesters as not one group.
  >
  >2. Clinical experience.  Molesters and rapists often present
  >differently, relate differently to others and therapists etc. This
  >variation also occurs within these two offender groups.
  >
  >3. The MTC: CM3 Typology.  Developed some time ago, it seems to have
  >some reliability.  The early cluster analysis and path analysis are
  >somewhat supportive of the types.  Recently, Looman et al (2001)
  >found differences on PPG and Offences rates for the MTC: CM3 types.
  >OK, there were some problems with significance perhaps due to low
  >statistical POWER.  This study suggested some validity and the
  >clinical usefulness of this typology. i.e there was some predictive
  >validity and the variations in sexual arousal patterns suggested
  >some possible treatment need targets.  Maybe not all is lost.
  >
  >4. Beech (1998) did a cluster analysis on a group of intrafamilial
  >and extrafamilial molesters.  He considered important treatment
  >factors such as cognitive distortions, loneliness and self-esteem
  >etc.  He found a cluster solution that crossed the intrafamilial and
  >extrafamilial borders.  This suggested that this distinction was not
  >that useful, and perhaps misleading.  For instance some
  >intrafamilial molesters had treatment needs much like the
  >extrafamilial molesters.  The use of cluster analysis was a nice way
  >to seek out types, rather than impose them.  He found that a four
  >cluster solution described the data well.
  >
  >5. Beier (1998) found large differences in re-offending over a 30
  >year period for fixated exclusive versus fixated non-exclusive
  >molesters and two other types.  This indicated some predictive
  >validity for this typology.
  >
  >This is not much, but the fact is not much has been done.  There are
  >a few more studies spattered around, but I was just hoping to spark
  >your attention.  In any case, they suggest that typologies could be
  >useful, and have some validity.  They also suggest that we could be
  >failing to recognize important variations in the clinical
  >presentations of our clients.
  >
  >I wonder how much longer we can rely on the legal definition as a
  >term of reference, when our fellow psychologists get to play with
  >dimensions, types etc.  Maybe, as we are already using
  >an "unofficial" typology, the question is can we improve on it.  I
  >think two of the responses in this thread point out that criminal
  >convictions and definitions are a poor substitute for a good old
  >fashioned psychological approach.
  >
  >I think the studies above suggest that some form of typology could
  >help us in everyday treatment practice and perhaps ultimately to
  >understand how these guys are created.  Looks like I've ended up
  >convincing myself, not good practice when the evidence is so thin.
  >So I'm looking for some good old fashioned debate to sort me out.
  >Tell me my arguments are weak, tell me the data is poor, but don't
  >tell me that you just don't believe!
  >
  >Looking forward to some more...........
  >
  >
  >
  >Steve Feelgood.
  >
  >Institut für Sexualwissenschaft und Sexualmedizin
  >Humboldt Universitätsklinikum
  >Charite
  >Luisenstr. 57
  >10117 Berlin
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >______________________________________________________________
  >__________
  >______________________________________________________________
  >__________
  >
  >Message: 8
  >   Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 22:22:04 +1000
  >   From: Annie.Thomas@...
  >Subject: Re: DRUG FACILITATED SEXUAL ASSAULT
  >
  >
  >Hi Anton,
  >
  >Am happy to share all or some of my findings but I do not have data on
  >victim selection specifically. My thesis examined a broad
  >range of sexual
  >coercion strategies in the context of a broader use of sexual
  >influence
  >tactics ranging from pro-social through to highly
  >anti-social/illegal. In
  >the latter category was the use of drugs or alcohol to
  >facilitate sexual
  >activity.
  >
  >I approached the issue from a sexual scripting perspective
  >and the main
  >findings are as follows:
  >
  >data from USA and Canada re prevalence and incidence of
  >sexual coercion in
  >college populations was identical when applied to an
  >Australian population,
  >so too was data linking a variety of anti-feminist beliefs
  >and attitudes to
  >sexually coercive behaviour.
  >
  >perceptions of what is or is not sexually coercive appear to
  >be culturally
  >shared and there is a gradient from prosocial, to seductive,
  >to verbal to
  >physical. Perceptions are influenced by type of relationship in which
  >behaviour occurs and gender of rater but overall not many
  >differences in
  >ratings.
  >
  >90% of men engage in the use of some type of sexual influence strategy
  >beyond the point of being told "NO". The percentage of men who use
  >strategies decreases as you go up the scale of strategy
  >severity. However,
  >over 30% regularly engaged in physically coercive/illegal
  >behaviours. Even
  >some men who restrict their attempts to influencing an
  >unwilling female
  >with pro-social startegies indicated the use of persistance
  >rather than
  >accepting "No".
  >
  >Use of strategies is scripted, so even most men who rape (in
  >some type of
  >relationship or dating context) will attempt more pro-social
  >behaviours in
  >the first instance, and the use of a gradient of behaviours
  >is in line with
  >cultural perceptions of a sliding scale of non-coercive to coercive.
  >
  >Use of a script (non-coercive through to physically coercive)
  >to elicit
  >acquiescence is altered somewhat by alcohol use, so men who
  >have a history
  >of physically coercive behaviour are less likely to follow
  >the script and
  >jump straight to use of coercion when under the influence of alcohol.
  >
  >If any of these findings are of interest/relevant am happy to
  >elaborate, or
  >happy to expand on conceptual underpinnings of thesis, theoretical
  >interpretations of findings and relevance of the lot to the
  >real world. I'd
  >welcome the dialouge.
  >
  >Main conclusion drawn was that it is too simplistic to try
  >and understand
  >rape/sexual assault/sexual coercion in isolation from broader sexual
  >influence behaviours and the cultural scripts/ individual beliefs that
  >drive the behaviours.
  >
  >Cheers
  >
  >Annie
  >
  >
  >Annie Thomas
  >Acting General Manager, Clinical and Offender Services
  >CORE
  >96276367
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >                    "Anton
  >
  >                    Tolman"              To:
  ><ForensicNetwork@yahoogroups.com>
  >                    <tolmana@gvsu        cc:
  >
  >                    .edu>                Subject:     Re:
  >[ForensicNetwork] DRUG
  >                    Sent by:             FACILITATED SEXUAL
  >ASSAULT
  >                    "Anton
  >
  >                    Tolman"
  >
  >                    <tolmana@gvsu
  >
  >                    .edu>
  >
  >
  >
  >                    07/04/03
  >
  >                    01:28
  >
  >                    Please
  >
  >                    respond to
  >
  >                    ForensicNetwo
  >
  >                    rk
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >Annie, would you care to share with us any of your findings?  In
  >particular, I am interested in the issue of how sex offenders select
  >victims and interactions of this victim selection process with
  >personality elements like psychopathy.  We have been conducting some
  >preliminary studies on college students in the area of sexual
  >revictimization, and it seems like a natural to extend this
  >work to try
  >and understand how an offender "sizes up" a target.
  >
  >Anything you have relevant to that would be of interest.
  >
  >Anton
  >
  >
  >
  >========================
  >Anton Tolman, Ph.D.
  >Department of Psychology
  >Grand Valley State University
  >Allendale, MI  49401
  >616-331-3798
  >>>> Annie.Thomas@... 04/05/03 22:23 PM >>>
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >For more information about this group and to review previous messages
  >please go to:
  >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ForensicNetwork
  >
  >To send a message to the group simply address any email that
  >you have to:
  >ForensicNetwork@yahoogroups.com
  >
  >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
  >ForensicNetwork-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
  >
  >
  >
  >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
  >http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >_________________________________________
  >***CONFIDENTIAL***
  >The information in this message and in any attachments may be
  >confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this
  >message, you must not read, forward, print, copy, disclose,
  >or use in any way the information this message or any
  >attachment contains.
  >If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the
  >sender immediately and delete or destroy all copies of this
  >message and any attachments.
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >______________________________________________________________
  >__________
  >______________________________________________________________
  >__________
  >
  >Message: 9
  >   Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 18:50:20 -0800
  >   From: "Brent Turvey" <bturvey@...>
  >Subject: Federal Court finds profiler Richard Walter offered
  >perjured testimony
  >
  >Federal Court finds that Criminal Profiler Richard D. Walter
  >has offered
  >perjured testimony:
  >
  >Criminal profiler and former prison psychologist Richard D. Walter, MA
  >(http://www.omegacag.com/), founding member of the Vidocq Society
  >(http://www.vidocq.org/who.html), has apparently been found
  >by a Federal
  >Court to have committed perjury in the court case cited
  >below, causing a
  >previous court decision to be vacated and new discovery ordered.
  >
  >Richard D. Walter, MA is a Fellow in the General Sections of
  >the AAFS. He is
  >also on the National Board of Trustees for Parents of
  >Murdered Children:
  >
  >DRAKE v. PORTUONDO, Docket No. 01-2217, January 31, 2003 (321
  >F.3d 338)
  >http://csmail.law.pace.edu/lawlib/legal/us-legal/judiciary/sec
  >ond-circuit/te
  >st3/01-2217.opn.html
  >
  >"The prosecution informed defense counsel on the Thursday
  >evening that it
  >intended to call a psychologist named Richard D. Walter to
  >testify about
  >psychological profiling. On the Friday, the prosecution
  >successfully moved
  >to add Walter as a witness, and Walter mounted the stand. Under the
  >announced schedule, defense counsel would have no more than a
  >weekend to get
  >a competing expert, if needed, or for that matter to prepare his
  >cross-examination.
  >
  >The prosecution concedes that Walter's testimony was intended
  >to reinforce
  >what it perceived as weaknesses in the evidence supporting
  >its theory of
  >intent. The prosecution also concedes that Walter was
  >referred to them by
  >Dr. Levine, the forensic dentist, and that the prosecution did not
  >independently investigate Walter's qualifications.
  >
  >Walter conceded at the outset that he had not examined Drake
  >or reviewed his
  >medical records, and would rely on his review of grand jury testimony,
  >medical evidence and the police record. Walter opined on that
  >basis that
  >Smith and Rosenthal had been the victims of a specific type
  >of "lust-murder"
  >called "picquerism" (a derivative misspelling of the French
  >verb "piquer,"
  >which means, among other things, to stick or poke). See Trial
  >Transcript at
  >794. According to Walter, picquerists achieve sexual gratification by
  >biting, shooting, stabbing, and sodomizing their victims
  >(though not all
  >picquerists do all these things). This supposed syndrome
  >accounted for much
  >of the physical evidence in medical terms that dovetailed with the
  >prosecution's theory of intent.
  >
  >It is now apparent that Walter's testimony concerning his
  >qualifications was
  >perjurious. He claimed extensive experience in the field of
  >psychological
  >profiling, including: work on 5000 to 7500 cases over several
  >years in the
  >Los Angeles County Medical Examiner's Office; an adjunct
  >professorship at
  >Northern Michigan University; more than four years as a
  >prison psychologist
  >with the Michigan Department of Corrections; and expert
  >testimony given at
  >hundreds of criminal trials in Los Angeles and Michigan.
  >
  >On the Monday following Walter's testimony, defense counsel
  >told Justice
  >DiFlorio that the defense had searched over the weekend to
  >retain a rebuttal
  >psychologist, but could not find any expert who had ever heard of
  >"picquerism." The defense requested a two-week continuance to find a
  >psychologist with the expertise required. The prosecution successfully
  >opposed a continuance.
  >
  >The trial concluded on schedule. Drake was convicted and
  >sentenced to two
  >consecutive terms of twenty years to
  >life. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed the
  >conviction,
  >and the Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal. Drake's
  >petition for a writ
  >of error coram nobis, arguing ineffective assistance of
  >appellate counsel,
  >was denied by the Appellate Division.
  >
  >Years after exhausting his direct appeals, Drake discovered evidence,
  >through his own research in prison, that Walter had lied about his
  >credentials. Although Walter is a prison psychologist with
  >the Michigan
  >Department of Corrections, Drake found suggestive evidence
  >that Walter lied
  >about his other credentials. As the prosecution now concedes, Walter
  >performed no criminal profiling in the Los Angeles County
  >Medical Examiner's
  >Office. According to Walter's supervisors there, he was
  >employed as a lab
  >assistant responsible for cleaning and maintaining the
  >forensic lab. There
  >seems to be no record that Walter was ever on the payroll of Northern
  >Michigan University, where he claimed to be an adjunct
  >professor. The Los
  >Angeles County District Attorney's office has found no record
  >of Walter
  >testifying as an expert witness in a criminal proceeding
  >between October
  >1975 through May 1978.
  >
  >In 1995, Drake moved to vacate his conviction and sentence
  >pursuant to N.Y.
  >C.P.L. 440.10 on the basis of the newly discovered evidence concerning
  >Walter's perjury.
  >
  >...
  >
  >For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the district court's
  >judgment denying
  >Drake's petition for habeas relief, and remand to the
  >district court for
  >discovery and a hearing (if the district court in its
  >discretion considers
  >that a hearing is needed) on whether the prosecution knew (or
  >should have
  >known) that its expert, Richard D. Walter, was committing perjury."
  >
  >Brent
  >Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science
  >bturvey@...
  >
  >Knowledge Solutions, LLC
  >http://www.corpus-delicti.com
  >Academy of Behavioral Profiling
  >http://www.profiling.org
  >
  >**************************************************************
  >**********
  >"To stand up for truth is nothing. For truth you have to sit in jail."
  >-Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >______________________________________________________________
  >__________
  >______________________________________________________________
  >__________
  >
  >Message: 10
  >   Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 08:15:48 +1000
  >   From: "de Bomford, Paul" <paul.debomford@...>
  >Subject: RE: Race and eyewitness evidence
  >
  >A bit out of left field ,but would there be any similarity between the
  >difference you have found and the differences between men and women as
  >documented in Alan Pease's book "Why women cant read maps and
  >men don't
  >listen"  Pease explains the present differences to  instincts
  >developed many
  >generations ago through different roles and needs, going back
  >to prehistoric
  >times.
  >My own thoughts are that different groups also tend to remember
  >characteristics that have relevant to themselves.  Example
  >Young teen age
  >girls could probably remember the hair colour and brand of
  >clothing where as
  >young men would remember the make and model of the car that
  >the person got
  >out men
  >Paul De Bomford
  >
  >-----Original Message-----
  >From: DA Louw [mailto:louwda@...]
  >Sent: Thursday, 8 May 2003 5:25 AM
  >To: FORENSIC-PSYCH@...
  >Cc: ForensicNetwork@yahoogroups.com
  >Subject: [ForensicNetwork] Race and eyewitness evidence
  >
  >
  >
  >I am a clinical psychologist in South Africa, doing an
  >empirical study on
  >the effect of
  >certain variables on the reliablity of eyewitness testimony.
  >The findings
  >are very
  >interesting, but there is one result that I find hard to explain:
  >
  >In the short-term memory group significantly more whites were
  >correct about
  >the race
  >of the assailant (white) --- while in the long-term memory group
  >significantly more
  >blacks answered this item correctly.
  >
  >I would appreciate any references, suggestions, own experiences, etc.
  >Please
  >send it to
  >
  >arnotv@...
  >
  >Thanking you in anticipation.
  >
  >Arnot Venter
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
  >
  ><http://rd.yahoo.com/M=251812.3170658.4537139.1261774/D=egroup
  >web/S=17050834
  >74:HM/A=1564416/R=0/*http://www.netflix.com/Default?mqso=60164
  >797&partid=317
  >0658>
  >
  ><http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=251812.3170658.4537139.12617
  >74/D=egroupmai
  >l/S=:HM/A=1564416/rand=346908683>
  >
  >For more information about this group and to review previous messages
  >please go to:
  >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ForensicNetwork
  ><http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ForensicNetwork>
  >
  >To send a message to the group simply address any email that
  >you have to:
  >ForensicNetwork@yahoogroups.com
  >
  >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
  >ForensicNetwork-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
  >
  >
  >
  >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
  ><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >[This message contained attachments]
  >
  >
  >
  >______________________________________________________________
  >__________
  >______________________________________________________________
  >__________
  >
  >Message: 11
  >   Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 11:14:36 +1000
  >   From: Frank.Lambrick@...
  >Subject: Re: Working with incarcerated adult sex offenders
  >with special needs
  >
  >
  >Sam,
  >
  >The program I work for provides sex offender treatment to
  >offenders with a
  >mild level of intellectual disability. Contact me at the
  >address below if
  >you want to discuss further.
  >
  >Cheers, Frank
  >
  >
  >Frank Lambrick, Senior Clinician
  >Statewide Forensic Service
  >Disability Services
  >PO Box 137
  >Fairfield VIC 3078
  >AUSTRALIA
  >PH:  +61 3 9280 2752
  >Fx:  +61 3 9280 2750
  >email: Frank.Lambrick@...
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >                    "sam farmer"
  >
  >                    <kesfarmer@ho        To:
  >ForensicNetwork@yahoogroups.com
  >                    tmail.com>           cc:
  >
  >                                         Subject:
  >[ForensicNetwork] Working with
  >                    07/05/2003           incarcerated adult
  >sex offenders with special
  >                    08:46 PM             needs
  >
  >                    Please
  >
  >                    respond to
  >
  >                    ForensicNetwo
  >
  >                    rk
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >Please could anyone supply me with any information
  >suggestions you have in
  >relation to the above subject.  I am looking into developing
  >a structured
  >programme.
  >
  >
  >Cheers
  >
  >
  >Sam Farmer (NZ)
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >It's fast, it's easy and it's free! Click here to download
  >MSN Messenger
  >
  >               Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >For more information about this group and to review previous messages
  >please go to:
  >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ForensicNetwork
  >
  >To send a message to the group simply address any email that
  >you have to:
  >ForensicNetwork@yahoogroups.com
  >
  >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
  >ForensicNetwork-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
  >
  >
  >
  >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >______________________________________________________________
  >___________________
  >
  >This email contains confidential information intended only
  >for the person named above and may be subject to legal
  >privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, any
  >disclosure, copying or use of this information is prohibited.
  >The Department provides no guarantee that this communication
  >is free of virus or that it has not been intercepted or
  >interfered with. If you have received this email in error or
  >have any other concerns regarding its transmission, please
  >notify Postmaster@...
  >______________________________________________________________
  >___________________
  >
  >
  >
  >______________________________________________________________
  >__________
  >______________________________________________________________
  >__________
  >
  >
  >
  >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/





________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 2
    Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 12:09:14 +1000
    From: "Jenny KEELING" <Jenny.KEELING@...>
Subject: Working with incarcerated adult sex offenders with special needs

Sam,

In Corrective Services in NSW we run a program for special needs sex
offenders. This includes individuals with literacy deficits, adaptive
skills deficits, borderline intellectual functioning, brain damage etc.
It is a twelve month program and was developed last year. The first
group to participate in the program have just completed.

Jenny

Jenny Keeling
Psychologist
CUBIT [Sex Offender Programmes]
MSPC, Area 3
Locked Bag 20
Matraville NSW
2036
Australia
PH: 61 2 9289 3769
FX:  61 2 9289 2208
email: jenny.keeling@...




________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 3
    Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 14:43:05 -0000
    From: "Nevine" <stnovena@...>
Subject: female sexual predators


howdy-
anyone have any more views on female sexual predators which seems to
be rising in the u.s. ?
nevine-marie



http://www.breakingthesilence.com/female.html




________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 4
    Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 06:38:26 +0200
    From: "Florence" <calicomoon@...>
Subject: Criminal Profiling!

Hi all,

I am hoping someone here can help me with this!

I was watching a program, on Discovery Cannel, about serial killers and
criminal profiling some time back. In the program their was a person who was
interested in if (and how) we could prevent children to become serial
killers. Unfortunately I can not remember his name. Does anyone here on the
list know anyone who has written something about this? or if anyone know who
I am talking about and know who it is?

As I recall it, he is a psychologist, and he had a theory about how you can
(maybe can) spot out who most likely will become a serial killer already
when they are children. He was also talking about the disadvantage of doing
so, but also the advantage of making a theory like that!

I have a section in my Master in psychology about Criminal Profiling and
serial killers and I can not find anyone what I can refer to, and I need
that;)!

I would be so happy if I find out how it is, I have tried so much to find
him or other who have made such a theory, on the internet and all over but
have not had any luck so far. One person told me that many have done that,
but he never gave me a name of one person so now I try again!

Sorry for my bad English, Danish is my mother languish!

Regards
Florence


[This message contained attachments]



________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 5
    Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 15:21:27 -0000
    From: "stevenfeelgood66" <steven.feelgood@...>
Subject: A useful Stats book

Hi Group,

T thought some might like to know about this book.  Its from the APA
and deals multivariate stats.  Its called "Reading and Understanding
Multivariate Statistics" (1995).  Its aim is to explain Multivariate
Statistical techniques with as little refernce to mathematics as is
possible.  I think they have done a good job.  I'm no maths wiz and
have found it very easy to read and the concepts easy to
understand.  It explains why to use Multivariate Statistics, the
assumptions, interpretations and gives lots of examples.

There is also a new book,("Reading and Understanding More
Multivariate Statistics") with yes, more Multivariate Statistics
e.g. Cluster analysis...... I haven't read it yet.


Have fun,


Steve




________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/






For more information about this group and to review previous messages
please go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ForensicNetwork

To send a message to the group simply address any email that you have to:
ForensicNetwork@yahoogroups.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
ForensicNetwork-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Hi Florence, Robert Ressler would be a good starting point. he has
published a range of books and articles on the topic and profiled with the
FBI, as well as conducted research for 25 years.

Annie Thomas
Acting General Manager, Clinical and Offender Services
CORE
96276367

No worries Florence, I figured you may have, although Ressler does delve
into theory also that stems back to very early childhood.

I met him a few years ago and attended a two day workshop. He does not look
at childhood prediction but does look at offenders retrospectively so it
may be worth looking at extrapolating some of his theories to suggest a
predictive childhood model (that obviously would require validation) if you
hit a brick wall.

Cheers

Annie Thomas
Acting General Manager, Clinical and Offender Services
CORE
96276367




                     "Florence"
                     <calicomoon@e        To:    
<ForensicNetwork@yahoogroups.com>
                     vents.dk>            cc:
                     Sent by:             Subject:     Re: [ForensicNetwork]
Criminal
                     "Florence"           Profiling!
                     <calicomoon@e
                     vents.dk>

                     06/06/03
                     16:22
                     Please
                     respond to
                     ForensicNetwo
                     rk





Hi Annie, Thanks, but I have read Resslers book, so I have all the
prediction, I "just" need a person that have tried to make a theory about
it (like the person I am looking for from the program). The reason is that
I like to discus it in my Master and I need a reference!

Florence
  Hi Florence, Robert Ressler would be a good starting point. he has
  published a range of books and articles on the topic and profiled with the
  FBI, as well as conducted research for 25 years.

  Annie Thomas
  Acting General Manager, Clinical and Offender Services
  CORE
  96276367

                Yahoo! Groups Sponsor








For more information about this group and to review previous messages
please go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ForensicNetwork

To send a message to the group simply address any email that you have to:
ForensicNetwork@yahoogroups.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
ForensicNetwork-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.





_________________________________________
***CONFIDENTIAL***
The information in this message and in any attachments may be confidential. If
you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must not read, forward,
print, copy, disclose, or use in any way the information this message or any
attachment contains.
If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and
delete or destroy all copies of this message and any attachments.

Does anyone know of any research that discusses how many programs
worldwide are CBT based for sex offenders?

Thanks
Jenny

List Members;

I would like to announce the opening of the FORENSIC FRAUD ARCHIVES.
It is an archive of cases involving alleged, admitted, and or
demonstrable forensic fraud. That is, it is an archive of cases where
forensic experts have provided sworn testimony or reports to the
court that contain deceptive or misleading findings, opinions, or
conclusions, deliberately offered in order to secure an unfair or
unlawful gain. It is maintained solely for educational and
informational purposes.

They are hosted in the Criminal Profiling archives at:
http://www.corpus-delicti.com/prof_archives.html

The direct link is: http://www.corpus-delicti.com/forensic_fraud.html

If anyone has a case that they think should be added, please let us
know.

Brent
Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science

Knowledge Solutions, LLC
http://www.corpus-delicti.com
Academy of Behavioral Profiling
http://www.profiling.org

****************************************************************
"To stand up for truth is nothing. For truth you have to sit in jail."
-Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

Hi Florence,

You could maybe do two things:

1. do a google search, there are lots of sites on serial killers etc.
2. you could think of serial killers as a type of sexual offender
and use the theorizing, research from this area and apply it to the
SKs
3. be very wary of anyone in this area proposing theories etc.  I
was recently at an  international conference and possibly the worst
presentations I have ever seen were by "researchers" of serial
killers.  I saw an Ok one by Ron Langevin (I think it was him).  I
could tell it was good because he didn't show any pictures of
decapitated heads and such.




Good Luck,

Steve

--- In ForensicNetwork@yahoogroups.com, "Florence" <calicomoon@e...>
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I am hoping someone here can help me with this!
>
> I was watching a program, on Discovery Cannel, about serial
killers and criminal profiling some time back. In the program their
was a person who was interested in if (and how) we could prevent
children to become serial killers. Unfortunately I can not remember
his name. Does anyone here on the list know anyone who has written
something about this? or if anyone know who I am talking about and
know who it is?
>
> As I recall it, he is a psychologist, and he had a theory about
how you can (maybe can) spot out who most likely will become a
serial killer already when they are children. He was also talking
about the disadvantage of doing so, but also the advantage of making
a theory like that!
>
> I have a section in my Master in psychology about Criminal
Profiling and serial killers and I can not find anyone what I can
refer to, and I need that;)!
>
> I would be so happy if I find out how it is, I have tried so much
to find him or other who have made such a theory, on the internet
and all over but have not had any luck so far. One person told me
that many have done that, but he never gave me a name of one person
so now I try again!
>
> Sorry for my bad English, Danish is my mother languish!
>
> Regards
> Florence

Hmmmm...... I don't think Fulton A. McCants aka F. Aurelius McKanze counts.
Still, it would be a shame to miss that story out.

Best wishes,

David Glasgow

Courses HTTP://www.i-Psych.co.uk

  >That is, it is an archive of cases where
  >forensic experts have provided sworn testimony or reports to the
  >court that contain deceptive or misleading findings, opinions, or
  >conclusions, deliberately offered in order to secure an unfair or
  >unlawful gain. It is maintained solely for educational and
  >informational purposes.
  >
  >They are hosted in the Criminal Profiling archives at:
  >http://www.corpus-delicti.com/prof_archives.html
  >
  >The direct link is: http://www.corpus-delicti.com/forensic_fraud.html
  >
  >If anyone has a case that they think should be added, please let us
  >know.
  >
  >Brent
  >Brent E. Turvey, M.S. Forensic Science
   >