This is a lengthy read, but well worth it. Hate to bring GPM into this, but his name is wrapped around this document so there's no getting away from it.
Report of the Kaufman Commission on Proceedings Involving Guy Paul Morin:
The Honourable Fred Kaufman CM QC 31 March 1998
(x) Profiling - The Request for a Profile
Criminal profiling involves the analysis of the details of a crime and the interpretation of clues left at a crime scene, in conjunction with an understanding of cases of a similar nature, for the purpose of preparing a psychological profile of the killer. It is an investigative tool which is used as a guide to assist police in directing their investigation. In January 1985, profiling was relatively new in Canada. The Durham Regional Police Service considered utilizing a psychological profile to provide them with an indication of the type of person who would commit the murder of Christine Jessop. As Det Fitzpatrick had not previously used the services of a profiler, he asked the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force what was needed to obtain a psychological profile from the FBI in the United States. He was given material used in an unrelated case to assist him in formatting his request.
On February 15, 1985, and over the course of the next month, Det Fitzpatrick and Insp Shephard made several notebook entries about profiling. Fitzpatrick explained that he and his partner spent over 20 hours putting together the documentation required by the FBIs Behavioral Science Unit for its preparation of a profile. Insp Shephard characterized this material as relating to background on the Jessop family, the circumstances surrounding Christine Jessops disappearance, the pathology report and selected photographs taken at the body site. It is unclear whether a copy of this substantial package was kept by Durham.
On March 22, 1985, Det Fitzpatrick delivered this material to Oliver Zink, an FBI agent in Buffalo, in upstate New York. Zink was to determine the feasibility of profiling this case based on the material provided. A few days later, however, before hearing back from Zink, the investigators learned that FBI profiler John Douglas was in Toronto on an unrelated matter. Douglas was an agent from the National Centre of the Analysis of Violent Crimes located at the FBI Academys Behavioral Science Unit in Quantico, Virginia.20 The investigators contacted Douglas and arranged a meeting with him to discuss a possible profile.
The Integrity of the Profile
Guy Paul Morin was a suspect at the time the investigators discussed this matter with the FBI. An issue arises as to whether the profiling process was corrupted or contaminated during the exchange of information between the Dets and the profiler. Both Fitzpatrick and Shephard understood that the FBI would not prepare a profile if a suspect had been identified. While Insp Shephard testified that he did not know the underlying reason for this policy, he assumed it was simply considered a waste of time to prepare a profile when the police already had a viable suspect. He added that while Guy Paul Morin was a suspect, a profile was nevertheless requested in case it led us somewhere else. At this Inquiry, Shephard was asked this: Q. You know that the FBI has a policy ... not to do a profile where theres a suspect in mind. You have a suspect in mind, but youre causing the FBI to do a profile. I mean surely it dawned on you that the reason for the policy was that the officers, either consciously or unconsciously, could communicate information to John Douglas that would cause him to be pointed in the direction of your suspect, rather than enable him to do an untainted independent analysis ... A. That thought never entered my mind sir.
Commission counsel, and several parties to the Inquiry, wanted Douglas to be called as a witness. Commission counsel and staff spoke with Douglas representative several times. By letter dated June 18, 1997, Sandler renewed the Commissions request that Douglas attend as a witness. As reflected in that letter, the summons issued by the Commission to Douglas could not be enforced in the United States. Though Douglas never specifically declined to testify here, there was no response to the requests for attendance made orally and in writing.
Insp Brown said that he instructed Det Fitzpatrick and Insp Shephard to reveal nothing to Douglas about Guy Paul Morins status as a suspect, to ensure the independence of the report. He said: We were scrupulous in not even hinting that Morin was a suspect in this case to Douglas [because] obviously Douglas cant be objective about a profile if he already knows who the suspect is. On the afternoon of March 26, 1985, Fitzpatrick and Shephard introduced Douglas to the Jessops at their home. The investigators maintain that the Jessops were unaware that the police had a suspect. Following this interview, the three men (Fitzpatrick, Shephard and Douglas) travelled to the body site via Ravenshoe Road. Later that evening, the officers presented Douglas with photographs, police reports, medical examiners reports, and autopsy information for his review. The officers and Douglas parted company shortly after 10:00 p.m. A supplementary report prepared by Insp Shephard states:
March 26th, 1985 ... Douglas ... was spoken to and questioned by us with regards to possible person(s) who would commit this type of crime. Douglas also viewed exhibits and photos and advised that he would try and give us a brief summary of suspect(s). Douglas also advised that when he returns to Quantico he would be able to supply us with a more detailed profile. Note: Douglas to put brief profile on tape.
The next afternoon, Det Fitzpatrick and Insp Shephard again met with Douglas. Shephards notebook entry for this date reads as follows: Met with John Douglas re Profile, viewed Citizens Alert tape on Guy Paul interview. discuss Proactive techniques. 20:00 off duty. Insp Shephard said that Douglas was told on that day that the police had a suspect; he did not react to this information with surprise. The tape of the February 22, 1985 interview with Morin was played for Douglas. Both Dets denied that any discussion or information relating to Morin was exchanged before Douglas provided them with his taped cassette containing the profile that he had dictated earlier. Brian Gover recalled as follows: Q. [F]rom your contact with the police officers on the case, and your knowledge of what Douglas expected, was there a suspect that Fitzpatrick and Shephard had in mind at the time they retained Douglas to do the profile? A. Yes. They had Morin in mind at the time. And as I recall Staff Sergeant Fitzpatrick telling me, and I dont believe it was a private conversation, I think other police officers and/or Crown counsel were present. In the course of his dealings with the Durham police, Douglas confronted them and said to them, Well, you have a suspect in mind dont you? That, Douglas had determined on his own, given the information that he was being provided by the investigators, that in fact they were breaching the protocol used by profiling experts. Q. So Fitzpatrick told you that Douglas had confronted him with what Douglas deduced from the way Durham Regional police were dealing with him? A. Yes. Q. In effect that they did have a suspect and that would be in breech (sic) of the protocol? A. Thats right. Q. And the result is, in your opinion, the profile that was constructed of the potential killer by Douglas was contaminated in that way? A. Thats right. Essentially, in my view, it was rendered valueless.
Portions of the Douglas profile are set out below:
On October 3rd. 1984 when the victim left school she was very anxious to come home and show her parents and family a new musical instrument, a flute, that she obtained that day and like many children of her age she would probably want to show someone her new toy, perhaps even play the instrument to someone. Upon arriving home she came to her residence and noted that her mother had taken her older brother to a dentist and would not be home until perhaps 45 minutes to an hour from the time she arrived home. It is the opinion of this profiler that the victim, Christine Jessop, in all probability left her residence and went with someone who she knew or went to the residence of an immediate neighbours to show them her new toy. The Durham investigation indicates that the victim after arriving home from school got on her bicycle, traveled to a variety store where she purchased some candy, then returned to her residence, parked her bicycle indoors at the rear of the residence, at some point took her flute with her and left her residence. In summary, the victim Christine Jessop was targeted by a subject whom she recognized and knew and she became a victim of this violent crime because the subject responsible knew that this young child could be easily dominated, manipulated, and physically controlled by him quite easily. (Emphasis added.)
Counsel for the Morins alleged that the investigators shared their theory with Douglas that Christine Jessop sought out Morin to show him her new recorder; that is why the profile echoed this theory which had been developed weeks earlier by Shephard and Fitzpatrick. Insp Brown responded that sometimes a profile is so startlingly accurate, one would almost have to come to a conclusion that, perhaps, it was not prepared independently even though, in fact, it was. Insp Shephard testified that their theory was not communicated to Douglas: We never led him to believe anything. We just explained to him the circumstances. He read some reports ... Insp Shephard said that after Douglas listened to the taped interview of Morin, he agreed that he sounded like a good suspect and discussed with them pro-active interviewing techniques (discussed later).
In an article appearing in The Globe and Mail on November 6, 1985, Douglas was reported as saying that he had no idea that the profile, which described the killer as a loner who lived in the neighbourhood, would prompt the police to head out and arrest Morin. He was quoted as follows: Inexperienced investigators may get the preconceived idea, then get the profile, and lock on to somebody. The analysis is experiential, its not scientific. Insp Shephards notebook reflects that on March 28, 1985, at 7:45 a.m., he left the taped cassette containing the profile at his office for transcription. Det Fitzpatricks understanding was that the transcribed document was subsequently forwarded to Douglas, together with the material that was originally sent to Zink for his review, but no additional profile was provided to the officers.
The preface of the profile written by Douglas contains the following passage: This profile is based upon the viewing of the initial crime scene, photographs and police reports, viewing the Medical Examiners reports, reviewing the background history of the victim, doing a neighbourhood analysis and profile as to where the victim resided as well as an analysis of the disposal area where the victim was subsequently deposited by the unknown suspect as well as autopsy protocol and reading the autopsy itself. There was no information provided to the Profiler as to whether or not there had been any suspects developed by the investigators in this case. (Emphasis added.)
The Profile as an Investigative Tool
The FBI profile listed a number of personal characteristics, propensities and interpersonal difficulties which were associated with the person responsible for the murder of Christine Jessop. The following are some of the characteristics which, in the opinion of Douglas, were associated with the murderer: The victim sought out someone she knew and trusted to show him the recorder she had received that day; The offender was youthful late teens, early twenties; He was having personal problems at home, school or work and was experiencing many life stresses and may have had difficulties with a girlfriend at the time of the offence; Not antisocial, but somewhat of a loner who prefers his own company; May present a façade as a macho individual, superior to others, but has poor self-esteem and lacks self-confidence; Tends to play with children who might be impressed by his antics; Drives older model vehicle, not well-maintained and cruises area in vehicle spends time cruising in his car as a vehicle for convenience to escape; Has a poor self-image and may have a physical ailment, disability or disfigurement or facial scars and does not maintain good personal hygiene, is not well-groomed, needs a haircut or shave, wears sloppy, soiled clothing in need of repair; Occasionally drinks alcohol; Will have a criminal history of nuisance, arson, cruelty to animals, voyeurism, or break and entering; Lazy, not a high-achiever, of average intelligence, a mediocre student; offenders of this type generally do not graduate from high school, but if he did he would have gotten by with barely passing grades;
The following post-offence behaviour was indicated: May have cleaned the cars interior after the offence; Rigid, stiff, pre-occupied or nervous with the police; Overly cooperative, participated in searches which show how concerned he is; Has difficulty sleeping.
A number of these points could not relate to Guy Paul Morin in any way. By way of example only, he had no history of criminality, he was not lazy, did not have a poor self-image, physical ailment, disability or disfigurement. There was no evidence that he was a cruiser. There was no evidence that his vehicle was cleaned after the offence was committed; to the contrary. He was not rigid, stiff, pre-occupied or nervous with the police; to the contrary. He did not demonstrate an overly cooperative attitude by participating in the search (ironically, despite this aspect of the profile, his failure to search was later used to demonstrate consciousness of guilt). There was no evidence he had experienced a number of failings in his life, that his parents were after him to find a job, that he was experiencing difficulties with a girlfriend at the time of the offence or that his parents were experiencing marital difficulties. There was no evidence that he dated girls younger than himself whom he could easily dominate. In summary, it could not reasonably be said that the profile matched or even closely resembled Guy Paul Morin.
Insp Shephard admitted that he and Fitzpatrick probably focused on the features of the profile which fit Morin and ignored those which did not: Obviously, if they didnt fit him, then it was of no value to us, but it was .. only a guide that we used anyway. When asked what it would have taken for the profile to have pointed away from Morin, Insp Shephard responded: If they said a female was responsible ... probably we would have looked in the other direction.
The Dissemination of a Modified Profile
Douglas recommended that the profile be used to create pressure on the perpetrator of the crime by telling the media in a series of interviews that investigative techniques (e.g. personality profiling and advances in forensic sciences) were providing new leads which would ultimately identify the killer. He suggested that certain portions of the profile be released to the media: This would be to the effect that the subject knew the victim, the subjects age grouping, the subjects vehicle he drives, the type of vehicle, the post-offence behaviour exhibited by the subject that should be recognized by people in the community who may have recognized the subject, his behaviour immediately following the homicide and you are looking for them to come forth and provide information to you.
Douglas also recommended that the suspect should be interviewed only when it appeared he had been affected by the press releases and the pressure brought to bear by the investigation. He also made other suggestions on how to interview a suspect. He recommended, for instance, that a blow-up of a fingerprint, supposedly taken from the victim or her possessions, be displayed prominently in the interview room, and that the suspect be told that the print matched him. He further suggested that filing cabinets, with the suspects name clearly written on the outside, be placed in the room. In this manner, pressure would be brought to bear upon him, hopefully inducing a confession. These suggestions were used during the interrogation of Morin following his arrest and will be discussed more fully below. Douglas recommendations were set in motion through a press release dated April 9, 1985, announcing that the police had retained the FBI for the purpose of preparing a profile of the murderer of Christine Jessop. The communiqué said that the officers had been advised by the FBI that the Jessop case is one that can easily be profiled ... everything points towards someone in Queensville. The profile, police said, would be available the following week.
A second press release dated April 17, 1985, contained a modified profile from the one provided by Douglas. Characteristics which corresponded to Morin (or which the police thought corresponded) were released to the press; those which did not were excluded or amended to conform. For example, the age group of the perpetrator was extended from late teens to early 20's to nineteen to twenty-six years [Guy Paul was 25 at the time of the offence]. The offender was described as an intelligent individual with a high school education, features Insp Shephard agreed were reflections of what he knew about Morin rather than what was contained in the profile. The press release said this: Police released some details of an FBI report that gives a psychological portrait of Jessops killer. According to the findings of FBI agent John Douglas, the killer is white, between 19 and 26 years old, has a high school education and is intelligent, hes a night person, dresses sloppily and feels superior to others. The FBI believes the man is a labourer, lives in Queensville, and knew and had the trust of Christine. Its believed he was sane and did not intend to commit murder, but lost control after sexually assaulting the girl. Police say they have less than 5 suspects in the case and are watching all closely. (Emphasis added.)
The reference to he did not intend to commit murder was a face-saving scenario, advocated by Douglas to increase the likelihood of a later confession. When arrested on April 22, 1985, Guy Paul Morin told the police that, on hearing the profile on television, his father told him that it sounded like him. Morin, of course, denied his involvement. McGuigan commented during the Inquiry that he found it strange that Morins own father, having expressed this thought, would later come forward with an alibi for his son. His interpretation of the conversation between the father and son was that they were discussing whether Guy Paul Morin had killed Christine Jessop: I took it as a if I can use the phrase, a bit of a domestic between Guy Paul Morin and his father, in which the fathers saying: That fits you. And hes saying something along the lines: you know me, I wouldnt do that. I mean why would you ever have that type of discussion with someone that was there, and knows that you were home all that time, and that you couldnt possibly have murdered Christine Jessop? I mean, it may be its a family quirk that they talk that way, and maybe I obviously saw that before when I was reading the statement, and it didnt click in as it did when I read it this time.
McGuigan was unaware that the profile broadcast for public consumption was designed by the police to match Morin to unnerve him prior to his interview upon arrest. Morins perspective on this discussion with his father was that it was a good-natured jovial remark. He told the police on the day of his arrest: Like they said on the news last week, [the Morins] said, Christ, youre the grubby sucker around here. Youve always been grubby. I said, yeah, well thats my way. and age, what nineteen to twenty-five that sounds like me. I said, theres no reason to think about it dad. Nothing to even think about, me, Christ, I swear this is so crazy.
Insp Shephard said that no consideration was given to the impact on the fairness of any future trial against Morin which could arise from the release to the public of an altered profile designed only to match the suspect. Morin was arrested on April 22, 1985. Insp Shephard met with Supt Douglas Bullock of the Durham Regional Police Service just prior to the press release announcing the arrest, but he testified that he was not made aware of any strategy on how the profile would be featured in a press conference which was to follow the arrest. In fact, as Justice Osler noted later in the change of venue application, Supt Bullock told the press that Morin came well within the profile which had been extensively publicized. This was inaccurate, misleading and unfortunate because this statement later became one of the major considerations which formed the basis for the change of venue application before Justice Osler. It was Scotts view that any press conference by the police is not helpful to the Crown because of its potential for prejudice, leading, as it did in this case, to a change of venue application.
In preparing for the first trial, Scott thought that defence lawyers might attempt to put forward evidence that Guy Paul Morin was not the kind of person who could psychologically commit such a crime. Accordingly, he intended to call Douglas as a witness to rebut that assertion. As it turned out, this was not necessary when the insanity evidence was offered by the defence. On December 23, 1985, Scott wrote to Assistant Director James McKenzie of the FBI. This is what the letter said, in part: Dear Sir: One of your special agents, John Douglas provided a psychological profile of the killer of a 9 year old girl. His profile turned out to be remarkably accurate. Scott believed that when he wrote that letter he had read the actual profile not just the supplementary report tailored to elicit a particular response. He now believes the remarkable accura[cy] portion of his letter was a slight overstatement in order to get McKenzies help in procuring the attendance of Douglas in the Canadian courts. I should add that in Douglas will-say for the first trial, there is a specific statement that he had no information referable to any particular person in preparing the report.
The Decision Not to Wait
Attached to the profile was a five-page document entitled Investigative Technique. This document detailed pro-active techniques relating to the arrest and interview of a subject with a view to obtaining a confession. This is what it suggested, in part: f a suspect is developed by your Department the next step would be to assess the subject giving him the benefit of the doubt that he did not perpetrate this crime, however, if the assessment concludes that he more than likely is the subject the next step would be to implement the investigative techniques over a two to three week period followed by the interrogation techniques.
Insp Shephard could not recall why the investigating officers did not follow Douglas advice to observe Morins behaviour for signs of disturbance following the press release. The fact that Morin did not appear affected by the pressure the technique was intended to create did not change their decision to arrest him. Rather, Insp Shephard explained that efforts to target Morin in the public domain were conducted to facilitate a future interview with him when he would believe that the police had considerable evidence against him.
Findings
The FBI document entitled Investigative Technique, which was provided to the investigators along with Douglas profile, suggests that if a profile is developed by your department, the next step would be to assess the subject, giving him the benefit of the doubt that he did not perpetrate the crime. Unfortunately, Morin not only did not get the benefit of the doubt, the investigators looked to the profile for confirmation of their own strongly held views. I have concerns about the extent to which the profile was contaminated by the investigators pre-conceived views. This may explain aspects of the profile that do parallel Guy Paul Morin. We do not know precisely what the investigators or the Jessops told John Douglas. However, the wisdom of not conducting a profile once a suspect has been identified is obvious.
Having said that, though features of the profile did parallel Guy Paul Morin, it could not reasonably be said that the profile matched or even closely resembled Guy Paul Morin. This did not cause any introspection on the part of the officers. Indeed, Insp Shephard was asked what it would have taken for the profile to have pointed away from Guy Paul Morin. His candid, and very significant answer at this Inquiry was that: if they said a female was responsible ... probably we would have looked in the other direction. Once the modified profile was publicly disseminated, the officers did not follow Douglas advice to observe Morins behaviour for signs of disturbance. The fact that there was no evidence that he was affected (in any incriminating way) by the press release did not affect their decision to arrest him. Put succinctly, the investigators never did use the profile to help them direct the investigation to the perpetrator, only to help them secure the conviction of Morin, the man they already thought was the perpetrator.
The use of a modified profile was problematic. Its dissemination was not intended to bring forth new investigative leads from the public; it was intended to spook Guy Paul Morin. The problem with that approach was that, by tailoring the profile to fit Guy Paul Morin, and then publicly disseminating it, the police helped ensure that Morin could never get a fair trial in that region and that people in that community who knew Morin would draw the same parallels. Indeed, it was only at this Inquiry that the nature of the publicly-disseminated profile was revealed. Crown counsel were unaware that the profile had been modified for public release. The supplementary record, for internal use, did not reflect this as well. I am unclear as to the extent to which Crown counsel had the actual profile, rather than the supplementary report or press release. My recommendations address the proper and improper use of a profile.
