The FBI agents who pioneered the profiling program at the agency question the use of Reid Meloy's testimony in the Timothy Masters murder trial. Masters was convicted largely on the basis of Meloy's testimony. There was no physical evidence linking him to the crime. He served 10 years in prison before DNA evidence was uncovered pointing to other individuals as the perpetrators. To date he has received no compensation for the injustice.
From the Canadian Press:
Did a psychological profile go too far? Experts question if practice is reliable
Two FBI agents who pioneered the bureau's psychological profiling program say the technique has no place in court.
In the early 1970s, Howard Teten and Patrick Mullany developed the modern investigative approach for the Behavioral Science Unit, which helps trainees to solve crimes by studying the offender, the behaviour and the motivation behind it.
"People get the wrong idea of what profiling is," said Teten. "It's not a psychic thing. You don't pick out the perpetrator with a profile. Not the individual. You pick out a type of personality.
"All this stuff is based on a diagnostic and statistical manual that they've changed so many times," he said.
Even the term has evolved over the years. Psychological profiling is now known as criminal investigative analysis.
Absent physical evidence, Teten and Mullany said, it would be a mistake to rely on that analysis alone - circumstantial evidence, in effect - to build a case.
"We never intended that it would be the sole evidence that would move the case forward," Mullany said. "We always intended that it could be a technique to ferret out a suspect."
"It's speculation," Mullany added. "The only thing that should be in court is exact evidence: hair, fibre, DNA. Even if a guy confesses, these are things that need to be put in place."
AND:
While prosecutors and investigators are protected from lawsuits under state law, they could face suits for gross misconduct, especially if that conduct was intentional, said Charles Ogletree, a Harvard law professor not connected with the case.
"In cases like this, the most admirable course of conduct is for the government to acknowledge the error and initiate its own efforts of reconciliation," Ogletree said.
As for Meloy, he said, "Can such an expert be potentially liable? Yes. It's not only possible but in cases like this very probable."
Full story here:
http://canadianpress.google.com/arti...Xj_sujHBZwYrbA
Rest in Peace Sweet One! 
reid meloy
Linear Mode
