Legislación Colombiana de Comercio Electrónico

The first documented use of psychological profiling dates to the mid-1940s. Toward the end of World War II, psychiatrist Walter C. Langer and three of his colleagues were tasked with an unusual and groundbreaking assignment. The Office of Strategic Services (OSS), precursor to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), asked them to scrutinize the behavior of Nazi Germany’s fuehrer, Adolf Hitler. By studying his every move, the OSS hoped Hitler’s actions could be predicted. The report, which numbers more than 250 pages, concludes with a section entitled “Hitler’s Probable Behavior in the Future” (Langer 1943).

To their credit and remarkable acumen, these physicians assigned prob- abilities and likely consequences for each possibility they outlined. Eight contingencies were set forth in their report: The military might revolt and seize Hitler, or he may seek refuge in a neutral country, fall into allied hands, get killed in battle, die of natural causes, go insane, be assassinated, or commit suicide. Two of these prospects are striking: assassination and suicide. The former was in fact attempted. On July 20, 1944, Lieutenant Colonel Count Klaus von Stauffenberg is credited with orchestrating the failed effort to end Hitler’s life with a bomb at his East Prussia headquarters. The latter appraisal is even more remarkably prophetic (Langer 1943, 247–248):

60 Forensic Computer Crime Investigation

This is the most plausible outcome…. being an hysteric he could undoubtedly screw himself up into the super-man character and perform the deed. In all probability, however, it would not be a simple suicide. He has too much of the dramatic for that and since immortality is one of his dominant motives we can imagine that he would stage the most dramatic and effective death scene he could possibly think of…. He might even engage some other fanatic to do the final killing at his orders.

On April 30, 1945, in his Reich Chancellery bunker in Berlin, Hitler and Eva Braun, his bride of 1 day, indeed took their own lives. Thereafter, someone removed the bodies from the bunker and set them ablaze. Who did so remains a mystery to this day. Although the precise date of the report is unclear, it seems reasonable to infer that it was issued well before the assassination attempt and clearly prior to the suicide. In an interesting coincidence, the charred bones of German cracker Karl Koch (Hagbard) were located in an isolated forest following the indictment of him and his associates: Hans Huebner (Pengo), Peter Carl, Dirk Bresinsky, and Markus Hess. This discov- ery followed the March 2, 1989, indictment by German authorities of the so-called Hannover Hackers for espionage. If Koch left one, the police did not find his suicide note (Stoll 1989).

The next verifiable use of profiling — the first in a criminal investigation — occurred in the mid-1950s. In this instance it was a grasping at straws that subsequently appeared to have been a stroke of genius. Beginning in 1940, over a period of more than a decade, 54 devices were placed in New York City, 37 of which exploded. These resulted in the maiming of 22 people. Amazingly, no one was killed in the perplexing bombings of public facilities. The first was detected November 16, 1940, a pipe bomb that had been placed on a West Sixty-fourth Street windowsill. This device was discovered, dis- mantled, and rendered harmless. Over the next 10 years several more bombs exploded at major New York City landmarks: Penn Station, Radio City Music Hall, the Empire State Building, Macy’s Department Store, the Fifth Avenue Public Library, Grand Central Station, and others. Even when bombs failed to explode, however, the effect of their being detected nevertheless exacer- bated public consternation.

Dubbed “The Mad Bomber” by the media, it was clear that the person responsible for the bombings held a grudge against Consolidated Edison (Con Ed) the city’s power company, where the first device was discovered. This became evident because of the content of the letters sent to various newspapers in which Con Ed was castigated. The letters were always signed “F. P.” When arrested the bomber said the initials stood for fair play — something sought, but not received from Con Ed. Through the mid-1950s,

Criminal Investigation Analysis and Behavior 61 traditional investigation had turned up little in the case. But no one had been seriously injured nor complained loudly enough to generate more than perfunctory activity from the New York City Police Department (NYPD). Following the December 2, 1956, bombing of Brooklyn’s Paramount Theater, however, six people were injured, three of them critically. Police Commis- sioner Stephen Kennedy felt compelled to make a public statement. A reas- suring press release was issued. NYPD’s crime lab director, Inspector Howard Finney, knew the commissioner’s verbal balm would not soothe. Something more had to be done. In a second press release he announced that psychiatrist James A. Brussel had been retained to study the behavioral aspects of the Mad Bomber case.

The behavioral portrait Brussel constructed turned out to be amazingly accurate. After painstakingly reviewing all of the available data, Brussel con- cluded that the Mad Bomber was paranoid, fixated, obsessively meticulous, narcissistic, and sanctimonious. He worked for or had been employed by Con Ed. He was someone who saw himself both as victim and avenging angel. The detectives listened passively to this part of the assessment. They had already figured this much out by themselves. Finney then asked for a description. The psychiatrist hesitated but complied. Brussel said the bomber was symmetrically built. This raised the eyebrows, as well as the skepticism, of these convention- ally minded and trained investigators. Even when explained point-by-point, the remainder of the profile seemed even more incomprehensible.

Brussel said that the bomber’s ethnic origin was Eastern European, prob- ably Slavic, and he was likely a Roman Catholic. English was not his first language. He had hidden Oedipal tendencies, no close friendships with men nor consequential relationships with a woman. Unmarried, he was probably still a virgin. He lived in Connecticut with a female relative, a spinster aunt or sister. He had or believed he suffered from a chronic ailment (heart disease, cancer, or tuberculosis) and that Con Ed was responsible for his malady. He was a polite, cooperative, fastidious, clean-shaven, middle-aged white male, neatly dressed. When located, he would be wearing a double-breasted suit, buttoned. This last was almost too much for the incredulous detectives to accept.

To their credit, the police did not dismiss the unbelievable assessment. Armed with Brussel’s profile and under the command of Chief Inspector Edward Byrnes, the newly established Bomb Investigation Unit set about to track down the Mad Bomber. Comparing Workmen’s Compensation Board claims with former employee personnel records, the file of a United Electric and Power (Con Ed’s precursor) generator wiper was located. This person had filed a claim for permanent disability pay. He believed that he had contracted tuberculosis as the result of an on-the-job accident in which a backdraft of hot gases from a boiler had knocked him down. The company

62 Forensic Computer Crime Investigation

denied the claim. A 3-year letter campaign of complaints followed thereafter. The last entry in the file was dated 1937. Subsequently, nothing more was heard from the claimant. The first bomb was placed 3 years later. This information was discovered late Friday night, January 18, 1957.

The following Monday morning, January 21, 1957, detectives drove to the last known address of this person. To the amazement of the arresting officers, every point of Brussel’s assessment was accurate. When he was taken into custody at the Waterbury, Connecticut, home of his two unmarried sisters where he lived, 53-year-old George Matesky was wearing a double- breasted suit, buttoned (Douglas and Olshaker 1996).

Part of Brussel’s assessment (fixated, obsessive, meticulous, narcissistic, and sanctimonious), is very interesting. A significant number of accounts of interviews with and field observations of suspected crackers manifest these same characteristics. Although there is insufficient data to generalize to the entire population of serial computer criminals, it is reasonable to assume that these traits are parsimonious.

There are some striking and very interesting parallels between Matesky and a more recent infamous bomber, Theodore Kaczynski. Dubbed “The Unabomber” by the FBI, Kaczynski’s 17-year odyssey has been chronicled in several books, including the very well balanced Unabomber: A Desire to Kill

(Graysmith 1997). The Unabomber too was accurately profiled in 1993, but that assessment was not acted upon (Witkin 1997). Other events brought Theodore Kaczynski to justice (Scripps-Howard 1996).