There is no mention of the very basic fact that a criminal profile is simply a tool that investigators can use if they have nothing else to work with. It's really just an educated guess based upon knowledge of who committed such crimes in the past (e.g., a married person killed at home is most often killed by the spouse) and upon behavioral psychology that can be implied from details of the crime (e.g., mail fraud isn't typically committed by illiterate short order cooks). If you have nothing else to work with, you need to start somewhere. So, you start by checking out the people who fit the profile.
It's also important to understand that if the investigators find a "person of interest" or "suspect," they do NOT change the profile, even if the profile doesn't match the "person of interest" or "suspect" in any way whatsoever. In the anthrax investigation, even if the FBI knows exactly who sent the letters, they cannot change the profile to match that person. A profile is only of value when you have nothing else to work with. When you have something else to work with, the profile no longer has any value until or unless that "something else" turns out to be totally wrong or worthless.
And the FBI cannot withdraw a profile even if they know who did it but cannot yet make an arrest, because (1) if they cannot yet make an arrest, the investigation is not yet completed, and (2) they would have to explain why they withdrew the profile.
But Ed, you came up with your profile well after you had your suspect in mind.
You read in the paper that he drank.
You had your supplier have a drinking problem.
Didn’t the fact that you suspected the guy before you came up with the profile render your profile just a theory arranged to fit the facts you thought you knew?
You deleted the drinking element after I poked fun that you were identifying the guy you had read about.
You never explained why you dropped the element.
Ed is mistaken that profiles are not revised. They are commonly revised. The Atlanta child murders and UNABOM are two well known examples. In Amerithrax, Director Mueller says the profile was revised somewhat. The original vague profile did not address motive. In October 2005, however, Director Mueller’s explanation pointed to a motivation of a hatred of US policy — he said to think 9/11, think Oklahoma City. They have not uploaded the revised (tweaked) profile.
Ed does not link FBI Director Mueller’s press conference that contradicts the premise of his entire webpage which was based on a December 20 ABC report that was quickly debunked. At the time, ABC had a French fabulist consulting on such issues who just made wild claims up.