Grand Central, Penn Station, Radio City Music Hall―for almost two decades, no place was safe from the man who signed his anonymous letters “FP” and left his lethal devices in phone booths, storage lockers, even tucked into the plush seats of movie theaters. His victims were left cruelly maimed. Tabloids called him “the greatest individual menace New York City ever faced.”
In desperation, Police Captain Howard Finney sought the help of a little known psychiatrist, Dr. James Brussel, whose expertise was the criminal mind. Examining crime scene evidence and the strange wording in the bomber’s letters, he compiled a portrait of the suspect down to the cut of his jacket. But how to put a name to the description? Seymour Berkson―publisher of the tabloid The Journal-American―joined in pursuit of the Mad Bomber. The three men hatched a brilliant scheme to catch him at his own game. Together, they would capture a monster and change the face of American law enforcement.
I feel a true crime binge coming on and I started with this book because hey, “the invention of criminal profiling”. It makes you think the how of profiling would be discussed.
Don’t get me wrong – this is a good account about the “Mad Bomber of New York” who set off pipe bombs in the city for the better part of two decades. He started small, putting bombs in out of the way places, and got more adventurous as time went on. The NYPD was getting criticized for allowing him to continue unfettered for years. Desperate, they asked a psychiatrist for help.
This is the part I was waiting for – how did Dr. Brussel come up with a profile? What medical knowledge did he draw on to arrive at the picture of a killer?
Sadly we don’t know. Cannell sticks close to the police so we see Brussel make a prophecy (a Slavic guy in a double breasted suit, probably living with female relatives) and that’s about it.
I desperately wanted more info on the invention and process of profiling (see title) so I was disappointed. If you’re a fan of true crime there’s a good story here, just expect more ‘whats’ and ‘whys’ than ‘hows’.