THE FUTILITY OF ATTEMPTING to inspire post-pubescent males to pay attention to my morning lecture—more accurately, my yet-again-bootless attempt to emplant even a soupçon of learning in their somnolent minds—forced me yet again to reconsider the wisdom of my accepting appointment as Charles Lutwidge Dodgson Distinguished Professor of Sociology and Forensic Psychology at Gonville & Caius College, Cambridge. Despite the unrivaled honour of being chosen for such an august position, said honour further amplified by anointing me a Fellow of the College, the never-ending frustrations of attempting to deal with the undisciplined—not to mention incurious and staggeringly ill-informed—minds of undistinguished undergraduates too often tries my equanimity. These frustrations and exasperations occasionally inspired ominous dreams, the most disturbing of which featured me eviscerating a few of the more egregiously behaving putative scholars.
This deepening disenchantment was furthered by recent overt expressions of disapproval to my occasional efforts in assisting sundry constabularies to identify perpetrators of particularly heinous crimes of violence. In retrospect, it was perhaps ill-advised of me to publish a paper in the
Journal of Forensic Psychology
that sketched how detailed observations and evidences of a series of related crimes might be used to assemble a provisional portrait of one who may have committed the offense, and alluded to the possible advantages of a coöperative arrangement whereby persons skilled in forensic psychology might be of assistance in identifying and apprehending such malevolent psychopaths.
The unremitting hostility between academe and enforcement agents of governmental police powers made any overt coöperation such as that hinted by my paper an unacceptable affront to the hallowed principles of academic independence and freedom. Though I cared naught for the approval of my puerile colleagues, their not-so-silent campaign to undermine my status as endowed chair and Fellow was nonetheless irksome.
Yet furthering my disaffection was a most disturbing recent dream that ominously foretold a decision by the Caian board of governors to begin admitting females to both undergraduate and graduate studies in 1977, as part of the celebration of the Silver Jubilee of Elizabeth II Regina, which could only have the deleterious effects of adulterating the quality of a Caian education and besmirching the memories of both esteemed Founders. Upon waking, I dwelt upon my oft-cherished fancy that Edward Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick David Windsor had not abdicated his throne as Edward VIII in order to marry that hideous harridan The Simpson Woman, yet again only reluctantly to remind myself that the Laws of Succession conspired against me: even had Edward VIII reigned until his death in 1972, he would have been succeeded by none other than the selfsame Elizabeth, eldest daughter of the next-in-line George, Duke of York, who died in 1952, so she simply would have ascended the throne some two decades later than her actual accession, and the Caian panjandrums would have found it necessary to conjure some alternative excuse for capitulating to the misplaced goals of the rabble. The winter of my discontent was yet to be made any sort of summer, let alone glorious.
I was, however, able to ameliorate my disquietude somewhat by responding to a letter from Detective Inspector Peter Wimsey who,
mirabili dictu
, had actually read my scholarly paper that described the various means of ferreting out the possible identity of serial offenders from patterns of their behaviour. He apparently was seeking my assistance in tracking down someone who had killed, then mutilated several people. Writing in a fine hand seldom seen since the War, Inspector Wimsey asked if I would be so kind as to meet with him at the Gonville Hotel in Cambridge at half ten, as he so colloquially expressed it, Thursday next, for a discussion related to my "splendid article about profiling in that magazine." With no little difficulty, I resisted the urge to take issue with his use of the inadequate term "profiling" to describe a process rooted in analytical science and deep understanding of the human psyche, and with even greater difficulty refrained from pointing out that referring to a scholarly periodical such as the
Journal of Forensic Psychology
as a "magazine" smacked of borderline churlishness.