What is the future of Offender Profiling? Is it an important field of forensic science or is it only a glamorous art? After the trilogy "Daubert-Joiner-Kumho" and after the last version, in 2009, of the Federal Rules of Evidence (F.R.E.), the opinion of American Courts concerning the admissibility of scientific evidence has changed, and the questions above can now have new answers. The change is closely tied to the perceived difference between hard and soft sciences and, in this way, the new gatekeeping role of the Courts also concerns whether offender profiling can be regarded as scientific evidence and if offender profiling should be admitted in the Courtroom as scientific evidence. In this work we present a comprehensive review concerning the most important Court opinions in U.S.A, U.K., Canada and Australia, about reliability and admissibility of offender profiling, in its different forensic application, as scientific evidence, and we suggest how and when an expert witness in the field of offender profiling can, in the light of these opinions, be admitted in Court.