Despite the public popularity of criminal psychological profiling and its burgeoning use in criminal investigations, relatively little scientific evidence exits to substantiate its validity or utility in solving crimes. In order to add to the knowledge concerning the validity of criminal profiling, the authors recruited 59 police officers from jurisdictions around Australia. The authors were given a packet explaining what criminal profiling is and how it is used in investigations. The packet also contained a general description about a past homicide and a criminal profile. The officers were divided into two groups; one group was told the criminal profile was written by a professional profiler and the other group was told the profile was written by someone the investigator consulted with on the case, but were given no information beyond that. Both groups were asked to answer several questions about the profile that measured three dimensions: coherence, specificity, and individuation of suspect. Results of statistical analyses indicated that police officers were more likely to perceive a higher correspondence between the profile and the actual perpetrator when they were told the profile was written by a professional. Thus, police officer appraisal of the accuracy of the profile was affected by who they thought wrote the profile. However, officers perceptions of the actual content of the profiles were unaffected by knowledge of the profiler. The authors argue that there may be a bias operating that leads police officers to perceive the accuracy of profiles differently depending on who the author is. The bias may be rooted in the fact that police officers consider professional profiles part of the law enforcement group, evoking loyalties that may color interpretations. Biases may also be related to an officers existing belief about the validity of profiling. Until biases are removed, it will difficult to objectively assess the accuracy of criminal psychological profiling. Tables, notes, references