The scholarly literature over the past decade has chronicled a growing problem in the forensic technique colloquially called criminal profiling. The basis of this conundrum appears to originate from a concept referred to as "offender homology," which presumes an inherent uniformity among offenders that is believed to underpin the analytic process incumbent to criminal profiling. Studies thus far conducted have apparently struggled to find evidence of offender homology, and based upon these findings arguments have been promulgated that various approaches to criminal profiling imputably labeled as "trait-based" are therefore not viable. Indirectly contradicting these arguments, however, have been studies testing profiler accuracy that have found evidence of individuals who appear to use trait-based methods but can nonetheless proficiently predict the characteristics of unknown offenders. Against this backdrop, the present article examines a number of tenets and disjunctions that appear to have arisen from research into offender homology and imputed to the practices of so-called trait-based profiling. The notion of whether trait-based profiling is, in fact, representative of profiling methods is examined and an integrative hypothesis proposed that attempts to resolve the quandary between offender homology and profiler accuracy.