In the summer of 1973, a small town in Montana became the unlikely birthplace of one of the FBI’s most revolutionary crime-fighting tools: criminal profiling. It began with two horrific murders that seemed random at first—but soon revealed the chilling handiwork of a calculated predator.
Before this case, profiling was considered guesswork. Afterward, it became one of the FBI’s most powerful investigative tools. The Montana murders that sparked the FBI profiling revolution still haunt the agency—and continue to influence how law enforcement hunts serial offenders today.
A Child Disappears at Night
It was supposed to be a peaceful family vacation. In June 1973, the Jaeger family from Michigan was camping near Manhattan, Montana. But everything changed overnight.
Seven-year-old Susan Jaeger was abducted from her tent while her siblings slept nearby. The tent flap had been cut. There were no screams, no footprints, and no clues. Susan was just gone.
Because the kidnapping crossed state lines, it triggered the federal “Little Lindbergh Law,” placing the case under the FBI’s jurisdiction. Yet, weeks of investigation led nowhere. Without a suspect, body, or witness, the FBI hit a wall.
A Second Victim and a Horrific Discovery
Months later, 19-year-old Sandra Smallegan vanished under eerily similar circumstances. When authorities located her abandoned vehicle at a remote ranch, they found a smoldering burn pile nearby. Inside: charred bone fragments.
Forensic testing confirmed the worst. The remains belonged to both Susan and Sandra. The link between the two victims suggested a single, methodical killer—and the urgency to stop him reached a boiling point.
How FBI Profiling Was Born
Enter Agent Pete Dunbar, desperate for answers in a case that had gone cold. He sought help from Howard Teten and Patrick Mullany, two Quantico agents developing a groundbreaking theory: that a killer’s actions reveal their psychological fingerprint.
They called it criminal profiling, and the Montana case became the first full-scale test of this new method.
Analyzing the details, the agents concluded:
- The killer was likely local, familiar with terrain and routines.
- His movements indicated military precision and strength.
- He may have served in Vietnam, like many local men.
- He showed signs of emotional need for control and a patterned approach to violence.
This profile narrowed the suspect pool drastically—turning speculation into science.
The Phone Call That Broke the Case
On the one-year anniversary of Susan’s disappearance, her mother Marietta Jaeger received a call. The man on the line taunted her. But what he didn’t realize was that Marietta—and the FBI—were prepared.
For over an hour, she kept him talking. Despite his efforts to disguise his voice, Marietta’s calm yet calculated approach allowed agents to analyze his speech, cadence, and emotional triggers.
That call was the break investigators needed.
The Monster Among Them: David Meirhofer
The profile led agents to David Meirhofer, a clean-cut Vietnam veteran and former communications specialist. He lived nearby. He matched the FBI’s psychological profile precisely.
Despite passing multiple polygraph tests, the weight of the evidence and profiling narrowed in on him.
And then came the moment no one expected: Marietta confronted him directly, looking him in the eye and declaring, “I know you did it.”
Shaken and exposed, Meirhofer committed suicide in jail shortly after his arrest. But not before confessing—confirming what profiling had already suggested.
The Legacy of a Mother’s Strength
Instead of giving in to hatred, Marietta Jaeger transformed her pain into advocacy. She became a vocal opponent of the death penalty, saying her daughter would have wanted forgiveness over vengeance.
Her strength in the face of unthinkable loss gave meaning to tragedy. More than that, it helped validate criminal profiling as a legitimate science.
Criminal Profiling Becomes Standard Practice
The Montana murders and FBI profiling case became a landmark moment in U.S. law enforcement. What was once dismissed as “hokum” was now a trusted investigative tool used to identify serial killers, rapists, and violent offenders around the world.
From BTK to Ted Bundy, profiling has since cracked cases that would have otherwise gone cold.
Frequently Asked Questions
What were the Montana murders that started FBI profiling?
The 1973 abductions and murders of 7-year-old Susan Jaeger and 19-year-old Sandra Smallegan were the cases that led the FBI to adopt criminal profiling.
Who was the killer in the Montana murders?
The FBI identified David Meirhofer, a local Vietnam vet, who later confessed and took his own life in custody.
How did the FBI use profiling in this case?
Profilers analyzed behavioral patterns, victimology, and geographic familiarity to create a psychological portrait of the suspect, which ultimately led to Meirhofer.
Was this the first use of criminal profiling?
Yes, it was the first full-scale use of behavioral profiling by the FBI in an active criminal investigation.
What is the “Little Lindbergh Law”?
This law makes kidnapping across state lines a federal offense, allowing the FBI to intervene.
Did profiling help solve other major cases later?
Absolutely. The success in this case paved the way for the FBI’s Behavioral Analysis Unit, which later helped catch serial killers like BTK, Ted Bundy, and others.
Conclusion: How Two Lives Changed the Face of Justice
The Montana murders FBI profiling case wasn’t just a tragedy—it was a turning point. It transformed a grieving mother into an activist. It forced the FBI to trust intuition backed by science. And it birthed a new way to catch the most dangerous predators lurking among us.
Sometimes, innovation is born from heartbreak. And sometimes, the voice of a grieving mother is more powerful than any badge.