|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 851
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 7:17 am: | 
|
Dan,
Serial killers change their method, what people say they don't change is their signature. And he didn't exactly stop killing. They are pinning a 1991 killing on him so the only thing that may have stopped were his letters to the police. There may be a higher body count buried somewhere as well.
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 546
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 7:59 am: |
|
Hi Ally,
Actually, lots of people say they don't change their methods either. Happens on these boards all the time. The Wichita law enforcement group originally also discounted killings with the exact same signature for the sole reason that the bodies were dumped elsewhere instead of being left in their home, so apparently they were making the same mistake as well.
But then the signature part of it is highly overrated also. Most killers don't have them, and when they do it's not necessarily easy to identify what it is without already knowing for a fact which killings are connected.
And saying that BTK didn't exactly stop killing and backing it up with something from 1991 doesn't make a lot of sense. What year is it now?
Yes, he could very well have committed other murders, as I did in fact mention in my post, you might have noticed. But then again, if that were the case they were, for whatever reason, not linked to the others. The point being that if people here claim that Jack the Ripper must have committed suicide/been locked up/whatever because no Ripper murders were committed after MJK, they could just be missing other murders he did.
If nothing else, with a long string of posters on this very thread making guesses about BTK based upon what they thought they knew about serial killers being dead wrong, I would hope we as a group in general will be less likely to jump to unsupported conclusions about the Ripper case.
But then maybe that's just a pipe dream.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 852
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 8:44 am: |
|
Why thank you Dan for explaining to me that not all killers have signatures and they can be hard to distinguish. Who knew! It's so nice to have a serial killer expert on these boards to enlighten the rest of us who are all ignorant and unknowing. And yes, apparently the police were confusing method with signature, so..what's your point? Does that change the fact that signature doesn't change though method does?
Considering that the man's crimes dated from the early 70's, showing a twenty year span of time in which he was killing does actually make perfect sense to anyone but someone being deliberately obtuse. My point was clear--showing a 20 year span of time in which this man killed does not point towards him stopping. Considering that he was over 50 after the time of the last *known* killing, and we don't know what his physical shape is, we can say that during his prime years, he kept killing and didn't stop so this is hardly a case of a serial killer who stopped for no reason as you attempted to allude. The fact is, we don't know enough about the case yet to make those generalizations.
And yep...everyone made lots of guesses including me under the assumption that he had stopped in the 70's...which he hadn't. I didn't really know a lot about the case earlier, now I do know more and for all you know, when more evidence comes to light, there might be more that proves him closer to the "profile" than not.
I too find it useless to speculate on what Jack could have done or couldn't have done based on what we think serial killers do or don't do. But attempting to stretch facts in this case to fit, isn't going to win that argument. The facts are: Rader killed over decades. He didn't stop cold turkey. He was married and had two kids which doesn't surprise me because he didn't target women exclusively and therefore, his hang up was probably just for the rage and destruction of it all than sex.
You are attempting to say, look at Rader and how he differed from the "profile", but Rader's crimes were completely different from Jack's, so you really can't draw a comparison.
|
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 534
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - 5:00 pm: |
|
In reading about BTK (Dennis Rader) I am struck by how much he does not fit what the profilers are telling us about serial killers. He was not a loner. He had a remarkably stable marriage (34 years) and he held down a job. I began to think about profiling in general and I began to wonder about sampling error. I recall an illustration in a textbook which showed a jar which was full to the brim with white marbles, all except for one which was purple. A curtain was hanging in front of the jar so nobody could see it. The idea was that somebody who couldn't see the jar reached behind the curtain and grabbed the purple marble. This person would erroneously conclude that all or most of the marbles in the jar were purple. The point is that when doing good science you have to repeat your process many times over if your results are going to be reliable.
The fact is there are not all that many serial killers (something we can all be profoundly grateful to the Lord for). I don't think we can or should throw out profiling entirely, but we have to realize that the science is still in its infancy and the database is still small and this can skew the results. As SKs go BTK had a very long career. Is it possible that the more successful ones actually seem on the surface to be better adjusted socially? It is only logical that the caught ones are less successful and some of this may stem from lack of outward social adjustment. The maladjustment may not be so much an indicator of serial killer tendencies as it is of catchability.
These are things that can only be resolved with time and the collection of more data. If successful SK's have a veneer of stability and respectability we may have to go back to the drawing boards, especially relative to Hutchinson's dandy. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1793
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - 5:32 pm: |
|
Well Diana
I have to say that this post was the most refreshing post I have read for a long time on this board.
All is not what it seems, and I'm thankful that you are aware of that.
There is so much slavish adherence to what the big man in the sky says about serial killers, that it is a kindness to hear something different. |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 536
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - 6:26 pm: |
|
Well, as I said, I'm not ready to throw out the baby with the bathwater. There could very well be value there, with time and the collection of more data. |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 853
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - 9:31 pm: |
|
Personally, I don't think that profiles are a hundred percent, what could be? The one thing I do adhere to is a belief that serial killers cannot stop themselves...(otherwise, they wouldn't start, right?) They may have dormant periods, etc. but I do not believe that they can turn it off without channeling it into some other equally destructive avenue. Profiles are like anything else though..they go with the averages. And there are different kinds of serial killers with different triggers and different aspects that have shaped them. BTK never was a sexual serial killer so his "profile" would be completely different than that of a sexual serial killer.
One of the things I have never understood about profiling is the idea that a person can't be married and still be emotionally immature and incapable of maintaining a real relationship with a woman...many of the married men I know are exactly like that. 
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 554
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 2:35 am: |
|
Hi Ally,
BTK wasn't a sexual serial killer? You can't be serious.
He got identified largely because of DNA matches to semen samples from masturbating over the suffocated and dead bodies of his victims. To try to rationalize away his differences by claiming that he was "never a sexual serial killer" doesn't make sense. We have far more evidence for a direct sexual motive in this case than we do for most of the ones that are termed sexual serial killers.
The psychologists are calling him a SSK, the police are calling him a SSK, and now you want to tell us he wasn't? Did you come up with this by yourself to try to explain away his differences, or did some profiler somewhere offer that rationalization?
And the "they can't stop or else why start?" argument doesn't even pretend to make sense. Using your logic, someone who eats chocolate can never ever stop, because if they could stop, why start? In fact, nobody could ever stop doing anything they ever did. You're trying to reduce people down to a level of thinking even below that of basic animal intelligence just so you can have a nice, simple answer.
Sorry, Ally, but that just doesn't cut it. The only way to understand killers to study the actual cases and learn from them, not to cling desperately to old, outdated theories that don't fit the facts.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 854
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 6:37 am: |
|
1. BTK killed men as well as women.
2. BTK did not have sex with any of his victims, though we have now learned that he was perfectly capable.
3. BTK did not mutilate the genitalia of the women or do anything else that would indicate he was sexually driven to kill them.
4. Rader was an anal man who would use a tape measurer to measure the neighbors grass to make sure it was within height requirement, he would in his work capacity fine people for small violations of ordinace.
Those are the facts. If he was a sexual serial killer, why was there no sex with any of his victims? BTK was a power and control killer and he no doubt got off on it, but that doesn't mean that he was motivated by sex. People have been known to have orgasms when eating spicy food, that doesn't mean there makeup is driven by spicy food...it's a byproduct of the activity. First, you are saying that the police and psychs rely too much on profiling etc. and now you are using them to scoff at the idea that he isn't a SSK? Which is it? I thought you were all for new ideas and not relying on the antiquated profiling system. Are you and clinging to desperately old, outdated theories, or not?
Comparing choosing to start mutilating and killing people to starting to eat chocolate is such a pathetically lame analogy, that I don't think I need to bother rebutting it. I'll just say, try harder in the future, please.
|
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1356
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 10:56 am: |
|
Hi Ally et al.
Ally, as Dan noted, the fact that Rader is known to have masturbated at the murder scenes is sufficient to show he had a sexual motive. The binding, torture, and killing gave him his sexual high. He didn't have to mutilate the sexual organs of his victims or have sex with them to make him a sexual serial killer. Neither do you does a killer like BTK have to pick victims of a certain sex to get a high if what he was after is the torturing and killing of a fellow human being.
What I find most salient about Dennis L. Rader (BTK) in relation to the puzzle of JtR are the following points--
1) both BTK and the Green River killer (Gary Ridgeway) went very long durations without killing, and Rader apparently has not murdered anyone since 1981, 24 years, which gives a lie to the old saw that the Whitechapel murderer could not stop killing;
2) both BTK and the Green River killer kept souvenirs of their victims, as probably did Jack;
3) Rader (BTK) was caught because he could not stop taunting the police, which if Jack ever did write letters, gives an interesting view of our man similarly getting a high from taunting the authorities which could have led to him finally being caught.
One other thing, in regard to Diana's point that Rader (BTK) would seem to belie the profiles, well, yes and no, at the height of his murders he would have been the right age for a serial killer, according to the profile, 25-35 years, a white man, and living in the area where he committed his murders. These characteristics would make Rader a classic fit to the profile, I am sure many of the profilers would say.
As for Rader not being a loner, I would submit that he probably was actually a loner despite being a family man and ostensibly a joiner. In his own mind, he was set apart from the rest of humanity which partly explains his dictatorial manner when he was doing his municipal job. As testimony about him comes out, I am prepared to bet that most people will say there was something remote and unapproachable about him. Compare, for example, with John Wayne Gacy Jr., known as the "killer clown," who, like Rader, was also a scout leader and family man.
All the best
Chris
(Message edited by ChrisG on March 02, 2005)
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1794
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 11:04 am: |
|
For a change I've got to throw my weight behind Ally on this one.
Masturbation over corpses doesn't constitute or imply a 'sexual urge - as I have argued at interminable length elsewhere on these boards - for if we follow that logic through to its finality it must mean that the majority of men on this planet have sexual urges directed towards toilet seats.
I'll be back when I've drunk some. |
Scott Suttar
Inspector
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 190
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 11:32 am: |
|
Hi all,
Sorry Ally but I agree with Dan on this.
You have unfortunately misunderstood the definition of a sexual serial killer. The sexual part of the term is actually a reference to power rather than sexual intimacy. The SSK is so named because they are people who have an overbearing desire to exert power over others, generally of the opposite gender. It is also very common that this power play is by a man over a women. Obviously exceptions do happen and I am not ruling them out. The fact that BTK is known to have masturbated at the crime scenes is an interesting point and a clear indicator to the sexual nature of the crimes. Conversely however the lack of semen at the crime scene, or any sexual interaction with the victims, would not remove BTK from the SSK mould.
I will agree that the fact that BTK killed a man and children in his first known murder is anomolous. I would point out however that to the best of our knowledge he never did so again. I think that speaks volumes about what actually excited this killer.
Sorry AP but sexual urge has nothing to do with being an SSK.
Chris I agree with nearly everything you've said above but I think you have some facts wrong. BTK's last murder is now suspected to have been in 1991, meaning he has only been inactive for 14 years not 24. This also means he would have been about 45 years old at the time of his last murder. (Not sure if this still fits the profile or not just pointing it out.) Also I was reading a lot of the interviews with people who knew Rader on the Witchita Eagle site today and most of the reports I have seen claim that in fact Rader was very personable, caring and community minded. Certainly that was the impression of some of the other leaders of the cub scout troupe and the church, both of which he had been an active member in.
Ally, tape measuring grass? I'd love to read that report. Can you point me to it?
Scotty.
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 762
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 11:39 am: |
|
Hi everybody,
Since the police are being tight-lipped about the case against Dennis Rader, I'd hesitate to determine whether BTK fits some of the profiles done for him (I say some because not all profilers are equal). I think the most interesting question this case raises is "can a serial killer stop killing?" Right now, we don't know when BTK killed his last victim--1991 as it stands now, but maybe more cases will be tied to him. Of course, 1994 is the big year, since that's the year Kansas reinstated the death penalty. It's a safe bet that the Wichita police and district attorney are very hungry to get a murder from 1994 or after for BTK. As we saw with the extravaganza press conference last weekend (which featured every city and state official except the dog catcher), securing the death penalty for BTK would be a great political advantage to anyone associated with it.
But if no case from 1994 on emerges, I think we can conclude that it's because there's none to be found, and that Dennis Rader did indeed stop killing. But we'll have to wait and see.
Here's my favorite part from Crime Library's BTK profile:
"This is not a person who would stop killing on his own. There are 3 reasons to stop:
1. Death
2. Prison
3. Too disabled or sick to kill
Period. This is a compulsive psychopath who enjoyed killing and wouldn't give it up."
Cheers,
Dave
|
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 450
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 12:01 pm: |
|
Just read an interesting newspaper story about what were called "BTK cybersleuths." Evidently there was at least one website devoted to all aspects of the BTK case including a message board (sound familiar?).
Anyway, what caught my attention was that at least one poster became a "person of interest" to the investigating team after he meticulously detailed a route that the BTK killer probably took. However, since the first BTK murder took place four years before he was born, the police decided after an interview that he was no longer of interest.
While musing about crimes now nearly 117 years old can be quite frustrating, there are I suppose compensations. Else, how many people on these boards would have become "persons of interest"?
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1795
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 1:02 pm: |
|
I can honestly see why many people automatically assume that a killer who masturbates over his dead victim is engaged in an act of sexuality towards that dead victim, but after many years of study I remain convinced that this is the easy answer to explain such behaviour.
Almost as if our own sexual conditioning does not allow for any other reasoning to exist, because then at least we understand the motive behind the behaviour… it is sex, so we can explain and understand the situation.
The problem with that sort of reasoning is that we are not killers indulging such strange desires, for we are normal social people who during their lifetime do mostly make some vital contribution to the continuum of life, as a male by producing the seed, and as a female by producing the egg.
Very few of us ever take a life.
I see a man who kills someone and then masturbates over the corpse as imagining that he is God, for he takes life, and then in the act of masturbation he reseeds that what he has taken in some magical act that is most definitely tribal in its origins. Of course he doesn’t understand this, no more than a wolf understands why it howls at a full moon.
Yes, this guy thinks he is God. |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1357
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 1:50 pm: |
|
Hi AP
I might counter that most if not all killers feel God-like, and there are known cases in which serial killers have turned up at crime scenes and masturbated while in the crowd. Feeling God-like though by no means precludes the strong sexual motive that killing or re-experiencing the kill by turning up at the crime scene or fondling trophies leads to the climax.
Hi Scott
Thanks for agreeing with most of my last post and I appreciate you setting me right that BTK's last known killing was 1991. I think it is curious that BTK resurfaced, seemingly only to duel with the authorities. It is probable, I think, that in doing so he secretly wanted to get caught.
All my best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 604
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 3:33 pm: |
|
Hi,
I believe the notion of a sexual serial killer is supposed to be viewed in the same sexual sense as rape. The sexual component is not related to sex as a positive act, meaning one in which there are emotions of love and affection, trying to bring pleasure to another, etc, but rather sex as a form of power, a release from the adreneline rush and "thrill" associated with dominating and degrading another person.
SSK's appear to kill because it excites them, and they become excited to the point where they become arosed by the power and control. Or, by the mutilations they perform. Some appear to be motivated by the complete destruction of a dead body; which is a form of necrophilia; others by watching another living person suffer pain and humilation; definition of a sadist.
If there is evidence that the killer became excited, or aroused, to this level then they are by definition a SSK. BTK fits this definition because he masterbated at the crime. Also, because it appears he probably tortured his victims while alive, it seems at this point that the watching of someone suffering was part of what excited him. This would make BTK a sadistic SSK. I think most sadistic killers tend to have this sexual component, while mutilation killers (who are not sadists no matter how horrible the mutilations are provided the victim is dead when the mutilation begins).
For a sadistic SSK, the sexual component is part and parcel with the power, dominance, and control that they exert over their victims. The sexual component, however, does not necessarily reflect how they may interact with their sexual partner when the sex is in terms of affection and love, etc. Although, I think these individuals more often than not, also tend to be abusive in their normal relationships as well, and enjoy dominating their partners. I'm not really sure about the percentages on this last one.
In other words, BTK is pretty much by definition a sadistic SSK. JtR, on the other hand, is a mutilator SK, for which we have no evidence of their being a sexual component.
What that means, is that JtR could, for example, be motivated by things like "religious mania" (to use the Victorian term), or some other disturbed thought pattern. This sort of motivation would not necessarily result in an excitment that takes on a sexual form. But, the lack of evidence should not be taken to rule out this idea. JtR may, for example, have had his "release" in a more private setting, his home. If so, this would still make JtR a SSK.
The issue, of course, is not if BTK was a SSK, because his materbation at the crime scene means his is by definition. The issue, I think, is whether or not this definition is truely a useful one. Does the segregation of crimes into such categories (sadistic SSK; mutilator SSK; mutilator SK, etc) actually differentiate between the kinds of people who commit the crimes (beyond, of course, by segregating which crimes they committed)?
The underlying premise of the FBI's profileing unit is that the answer to this question is yes. That a person who commits a crime that fits into one of these categories is more likely to be similar to other people who also committed the same category of crime, while being less similar to people who committed a different category of crime.
Is this premise a valid premise? The FBI believes so, but many others who research crime are not so convinved. They question the FBI's research methods, suggesting the studies upon which the FBI has drawn it's conclusions are often flawed. If so, these kinds of groupings, despite their "definitions", may not be very useful in telling us much about the kind of person who comitted the crime.
For example, if most crimes of any nature are committed by "white male, age 20-30", then finding that most "sadistic SSK" are "white male, age 20-30" is telling you nothing you didn't already know before classifying the crime. However, if most crimes are committed by "white male, age 20-30", while most "sadistic SSK" are "white male, age 25-35", then it appears that a sadistic SSK's seem to be a bit older than the typical crime committer.
Anyway, even if we believe the FBI's profiling is based on good research, and the profiles are "done properly", they give a statistical breakdown of the group of people who have 1) committed similar crimes and 2) who have been caught. Unsolved crimes may be unsolved because the person responsible is unlike those who have been caught, so why should they match the profile?
- Jeff |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 605
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 4:36 pm: |
|
To restate some points Dan made awhile back, one of the most common statements, and one made by professional "profilers" from the FBI is that these killers "do not stop". Well, unless BTK is linked to crimes after 1991, the last of the crimes he's been charged with, this is an example of one who did stop, for at least 14 years. Also, there are quite long periods between his crimes. If they "cannot stop", how long of a cooling off period is alowed before it this statement becomes meaningless?
This "cannot stop" statement, however, is one that would be based on examining only those who got caught, because most SK's are caught during their active period. It's when the evidence and leads are freshest. So, if most get caught during their active killing period, then it may appear that they would never stop. Had they not been apprehended, however, who knows what might have happened? They may have stopped, but were arrested before that happened.
Now, many unsolved cases may remain unsolved simply because the evidence from the crimes committed is not sufficient to determine who was responsible. And, if they then "stop", no new information comes to light, and the crimes remain unsolved.
With the recent developements in DNA analysis, however, cold cases may end up getting solved because now the old evidence can be re-examined and new information gained without the need for the criminal to commit another crime.
The problem is, of course, that without something to compare the DNA with, it's not going to solve those old cases without a suspect to compare with. Now, if some get solved because the person has been arrested for an unrelated crime, and their DNA is in a database somewhere, that may look like they stopped because they were arrested. Maybe that's true for these ones, but crimes like BTK's, where he was never arrested, would remain unsolved unless police have some people they really want to check out, or get DNA from a family member who is suspicious (which appears to be the case in this one, although the reports are not clear if the daughter came to the police with her suspicions, of if they came to her with theirs).
Anyway, on a similar note, "not in a relationship" is another statement that appears to be tossed around too liberally. I re-read one of my earlier posts on this thread, and I know I thought he was unlikely to be married. This was because I couldn't figure out how he could hide his trophies of photos from family members. Turns out, however, it looks like he just kept them in a tube in his closet. And, when you think of it, how often do you check your family members closests, especially how often do you ever open containers they have in their closests? We don't, because it's rude and an invasion of their privacy. So, had I really thought about it, I should have realised that none of BTK's trophies were things that would be hard to hide, even if he had a family. So, despite the fact that it's often stated that such criminals do not have relationships, we need to remember that many of them do. Ted Bundy did, for example. Ed Kemper lived with his mother, Jeffrey Dahmer lived with his grandparents for awhile, Gacy had a wife (for awhile, I think she left him?), the Yorkshire Ripper was married, and so on. Sure, many do not, but so many are in relationsips that it's probably unwise to assume that an unknown killer is not in a relationship.
- Jeff |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1796
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 4:39 pm: |
|
Thanks Chris and Jeff
I really enjoyed both your posts, and of course you have the might of right on your sides, but as ever I cannot be persuaded that the might of right is really right.
One thinks of the ancient Egyptian empire at the height of its expansion where it was common practice for the victorious Egyptian soldiers to rape their male prisoners before cutting off their sexual organs as trophies for their king. The Egyptian king accounted for the success of the battle by the amount of penises that were piled up in front of him by the returning troops.
Empowered by the oddly ‘sexual’ carnage in front of him the king would appear in his regal masturbatory pose and masturbate on the soil of Egypt to ensure the cycle of fertility apparent in his tribal demonstration of being the living God on earth.
Now, am I to view the common Egyptian soldier as a sexual serial killer? After all he raped and mutilated his victims in a realistic sexual manner.
Were all common Egyptian soldiers homosexual?
The Egyptian king did know that when he masturbated on the soil of Egypt it would produce no offspring, but he did it nonetheless.
Because it was a ritual perhaps?
Ritualised tribal behaviour still plays a role in our expanded and crass society despite our efforts to deny it.
I pray that we don’t accept the nice comfortable answers that the FBI feed us with.
Of course - and not for those with a weak stomach - there are those incredibly expensive restaurants in Japan where the exclusively male clients are served by polite and subservient women all night in the most gracious and opulent of circumstance whilst surrounded with all that is the finest in the world. After brandy and cigars the men masturbate on the serving girls.
When someone can explain that to me I just might accept the fact that a killer who has no emotional or sexual contact to his victim is a sexual serial killer.
We enter a world with no clear view or vision.
To explain it we turn to sex. Or power, or control.
And perhaps forget the simple pleasure of individuality and making a scratch on the passing of a universe that threatens to engulf us at any moment.
That is fear.
And then I’m put in mind of killers like Colin Pitchfork and Peter Sutcliffe who unable to realistically sexually attack their victims used secondary objects such as twigs to transfer their semen into the sexual organs of their victims… and then all the profilers ran around like chickens with their heads cut off screaming out ‘sexual serial killer!’
Fear of the unknown maybe? |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 606
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 5:06 pm: |
|
Hi AP,
I think the Egyptian examples are a bit sly. Social context must always be considered, and if something is considered the "social norm", then one should not ascribe "social deviance" to the behaviour if the social norms change over time. If a modern soldier were to perform the same actions of raping a prisoner and cutting off their genetalia, etc, then because in the current society this is not part of the "soldiers job description", one would ascribe some sort of deviance to this behaviour.
Anyway, your notion of "fear" is not really at odds with the idea of power and control motiviations. The individuals who seem to commit sadistic power and control type murders may very well be attempting to assert power and control in part due to fear of being a nobody. If they feel they are important, but underappreciated, etc (usually phrased as low self esteme), then fear, meaning of being a nobody is as good an idea as any I've seen.
Anyway, I'm in agreement with you concerning the opinions of profilers. I don't think it at all wise to just accept the FBI's notions as gospel. In fact, I would be highly surprised if there are not major flaws in some of their conclusions. We have to remember that a lot of the information they use to formulate their ideas come from interviews of encarcerated serial killers. Now, call me skeptical if you want, but personally I'm not sure I would consider these individuals motivated to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Some facts can be verified, like were they in a relationship, etc, but others (like their childhood experiences; were they abused?) are often unverifiable, or have no evidence to support the alledged abuse. Some have claimed to have had suffered from post-traumatic stress due to military service in Vietnam, but it turns out that when their military records were examined, this fellow was nowhere near any action, and did not perform the "patrols" he claimed he did. Can't remember the exact fellow this is about at the moment, but it's just used here as an example of how these fellows will often try to "justify" their actions, because at this point they are often trying to avoid the death penalty. Or simply want to pass the buck.
Anyway, I think it's safe to say that BTK fits the definition of a SSK. I think, if I've not misunderstood you, that your contention is more along the lines of whether that definition is a useful classification? And that is something that I don't know for sure. It would depend upon the quality of research behind the determination of the classification. Even then, it's only a statistical description of the apprehended members of the group. How well this sample of the whole group represents those who have not yet been apprehended is of course, unknown.
- Jeff |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1797
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 5:46 pm: |
|
I like you, Jeff.
Yes, you are right, my Egyptian reference was very, very sly; and you are dead right about my concern about the definition being a useful classification, though I would prefer the word 'application'.
The justification and denial procedure in criminal interviewing is I think a little more advanced in the UK than than the US - I think - and recent results from the Home Office do offer a lot of surprises.
But history plays its role as well.
For instance gang rapes were very common in the 1860 to 1870 period of the Late Victorian Period but in the 1880 to 1890 period I have not been able to find a single one.
I do believe that such crimes are shifted by time as well as emotion.
Society evolves and so do killers, and it is our job not to get stuck in a groove. |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 607
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 6:09 pm: |
|
Hi AP,
I like me too! ha! Thanks for the compliment. I raise a glass to you.
- Jeff
|
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 537
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 7:19 pm: |
|
All I know is that I can't remember when I started eating chocolate. The only way I'll ever stop is if I die or go to jail. I'll never be too old. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1524
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 03, 2005 - 8:02 am: |
|
Hi All,
Surely everything a sane person does, whether it's eating chocolate, or deliberately harming someone, is done because they choose to do it. They can also choose not to do it, and that presumably goes for serial offenders too, who choose when to offend, and choose when to go for days, weeks, months - even years in some cases - without offending.
Even if the dormant periods of a serial killer could be explained by arguing that it's an inherent urge that comes and goes at intervals, or varies in intensity, but is always there below the surface (like a love of, and occasional craving for chocolate), it's still IMHO a matter of a conscious choice being made whether to give in to the urge or resist it.
One danger of entering the realms of the 'can't stop', as opposed to the 'won't stop' argument, is that if it were literally true, that serial killers couldn't resist their urges, few would get away with indulging them on enough occasions to earn the 'serial' definition.
The other danger, in the argument that they simply can't stop themselves, is the implication that they are mentally impaired and can't be held responsible for their actions.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 556
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 03, 2005 - 9:31 am: |
|
Hi all,
Regarding some confusion about BTK's killing of males and children, there are a couple of points to keep in mind.
First, indications so far are that the male victims were not the primary targets but only people who just happened to be home at the same time. The first (known) killing had two male and two female victims. Both females (including the child) showed clear signs of sexual fetishism at work. The males, from what I've read anyway, do not. In fact officials specifically noted how differently the young boy was treated.
Second, we have a clearer example of the differences BTK had in treating men in that he did in fact attack another one later. This point has been missed in recent discussion above, probably because he's not on the normal list of victims because he survived. BTK did not put him through the torture that he put the females through, he was shot in the head to simply put him down to get him out of the way so the main target could get his full concentration. (And then shot in the head again when he didn't die, but that didn't finish him off either.)
Most importantly, though, even if there were indications that BTK treated males to similar torture as other victims, that wouldn't preclude a sexual motive. Both the Rostov Ripper and the Green River Killer attacked young boys as well (though nowhere near as often as females) and after they were caught talked about the feelings those victims inspired in them as being the same as the feelings in the others. Those two are also clear SSKs.
Well, SSKs based upon the usual definition anyway. AP's argument that they aren't actually sexually-based, though I respect (but disagree with) it, isn't really relevant to the question concerning the groupings here. Trying to explain away the differences between BTK and other SSKs based upon the idea that he was a different type still doesn't work if you remove the sex motive from all of them, because then none of them are sex-based but they're still all the same type (albeit a type with a different name). In that case there'd still be no explanation for why BTK turned out to be so different than what was expected.
There were several great points above about how the old data that most profilers draw their opinions from could be based upon killers who were easier to catch, not seeing the full picture, how some profilers are better than others, and so forth. Contrary to what one person here would have us believe, I am not saying all profilers are wrong, because many of them are saying completely different things than the popular notions. Several of them have said straight out that they need to study Rader to determine why many predictions were wrong. Some (including at least one of the big names, can't recall if it was Douglas or another) did say that BTK could have stopped killing and just relived the old experiences through trophies and letters -- and he notably said this before the guy was caught. Regarding earlier statements I made about signatures changing or being nonexistent, some highly experienced profilers are saying that too. Fields update themself as new information comes in, and profiling is no different. People need to stay on top of the latest information if they want to try to come to conclusions based upon it.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 538
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 03, 2005 - 9:42 am: |
|
I think the first credible information about how he was caught has come out. He apparently reused a floppy disk that had been in his church's computer at one time to make one of his insane messages to the media. His pastor said that Rader didn't seem too computer savvy. Apparently the church computer left some kind of identifier on the disk which indicated that this particular disk had been in this particular computer. Once the police had that info, they talked to the pastor about who used the computer and the rest was just a narrowing down process.
When I am using the college's computers to generate stuff on a floppy, and then I take it home and stick it in my pc there, it lists the author as the college. I don't know much else about how this works. Any geeks out there? |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 511
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 03, 2005 - 9:55 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
"I think it is curious that BTK resurfaced, seemingly only to duel with the authorities. It is probable, I think, that in doing so he secretly wanted to get caught."
That's a possibility. Another would be that, perhaps because he felt both physically and mentally unable to extensively plan and commit another murder, it was sort of a replacement for another murder, which in the end may boil down to the same thing: that at some level he wanted to get his actual name in the papers.
Cheers,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has its advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 512
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 03, 2005 - 10:15 am: |
|
Hi Jeff,
"JtR, on the other hand, is a mutilator SK, for which we have no evidence of their being a sexual component."
The mutilations performed on the bodies could partly indicate the Ripper's twisted curiosity about the female body. By mutilating his victims he may have wanted to explore the female body.
All the best,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has its advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Scott Suttar
Inspector
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 191
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 03, 2005 - 12:07 pm: |
|
Hi Diana,
Yep I read that today too.
I actually think that this whole signature of a computer on the disk concept is a little bit curious. I have never heard of such a thing but I am no expert. From my reading of the story it seems to me that what happened was this. Rader created the agenda for a meeting of the church on his computer at home. His printer was broken so he saved the file to a disk and took it to the church. He accessed the file on the church computer and printed it out there. (Note that he did not necessarily write any info to the disk at the church only read from it, can't see why the church computer would leave any identifying mark on the disk.) However, if the file had a title or any text in it which could have mentioned the church then this is most likely what happened: When you erase a disk or delete a file from it you don't actually erase the information. What you do is you destroy the index which tells you where to find it. The information only really gets destroyed when or if new data is written over the top of it. So Rader deletes the church meeting agenda thinking he has got rid of it. He then writes his communication onto the disk and sends it off, not realising that the previous file might still actually exist on the disk. The FBI take the disk and analyse it and find the agenda with the name of the church on it. From there they have a starting point, a place they know the killer must have come in contact with. Make no mistake, the software to analyse disks in such a way is not high tech, it is readily available. Three days ago I reinstalled all my software on my computer, but I forgot to back up all of my emails so I used just such a program to try to recover them. (I failed by the way )
Anyway, i'll stand corrected if someone with more knowledge wants to pull me up, but I have never heard of computers leaving an identifying mark. Perhaps in certain situations they are programmed to do so, such as University Campuses etc: but in general I don't think so.
Scotty.
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1798
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 03, 2005 - 1:19 pm: |
|
Thanks Jeff, I like me too.
What never ceases to amaze me is the amount of folk who find the concept of a serial killer giving up his work for years at a stretch as remarkable.
What’s the big deal?
It is no more remarkable than let’s say ‘Duran-Duran’ coming out of the woodwork after twenty so years absence … the young talent have become tired old men now but you can still recognise their signature.
Since the early 90’s I have banged away with my little cap pistol at the over-sized gunslingers of the Ripper world, with regard to their tiresome and childish notions - that were hatched way back before the Great War - such as the tired, old and very stale breakfast that they continually throw at us which says a cereal killer must keep eating his cornflakes if he’s to ever complete his card set of famous FBI profilers.
Pure tosh and nonsense.
Of course a serial killer can stop killing… for a few days, months, years or even half a century, or even forever.
Time and time again I have paraded examples of these killers who indeed do give up murder, so it is a fact of life that killers can and do take early and late retirement - but generally they don’t get a gold watch - they also take holidays in Benidorm, or even take up more edifying pursuits like slaughtering and skinning sheep.
At great length elsewhere on the boards I have postulated that the majority of these killers themselves do not understand the ‘divine mechanism’ that makes them kill, and indeed, we also may never understand this ‘divine mechanism’ which appears to be composed of subtle signals that are being broadcast by society itself as an entity, with a weird design to be carried out by certain vulnerable or perceptive members of that society.
Many killer are able to remain dormant for years, that is until a certain set of very particular circumstances inspire or trigger them to kill again, and then hence does the one-off killer step into our comfortable category of a ‘serial’ killer.
My point being that if these very particular circumstances never existed the killer would not have become a serial killer.
It is the circumstances that we should busy ourselves with and not the tiresome classification. |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 557
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 03, 2005 - 2:21 pm: |
|
Hi AP,
As far as the idea that killers are able to stop, a number of people on this thread apparently agree, based upon the comments I see here. At some point you may have to reassess your view of yourself as a lone wolf against the pack.
Hi Diana,
There are a few different things that might be at work, some very simple and some quite complex.
You mentioned creating a file and then having the author listed as your college. A lot of text editors are set up to add additional information to a file that does not show up as part of the actual text that gets printed. "Author" is one field in there. When people install the software on the computer it usually asks for a name. At an organization, someone will typically put that group's name in the box. From then on, any text created there will list that as the author.
Often text editor files have a lot more information in them than just that. Some of these programs don't actually get rid of the old text right away when you change it. They hold onto it in the file but don't display it or allow it to print. This is one reason why these files can get to be so large.
If you have a Microsoft Word file you've made a bunch of changes and saves to, you can rename it from .doc to .txt so it thinks it is pure text instead of all the formatting and hidden code. Then you can open it up and see some of the weird things that go on in there. If your document is like a lot of them, you'll see paragraphs you deleted days ago, paragraphs will be out of order from the way they display, and things like that. You can find all sorts of interesting things in there.
Scott's erased file theory is also a strong possibility.
Really, though, there could be a large variety of things. A lot more goes on inside these computers than most people ever suspect.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 611
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 03, 2005 - 2:45 pm: |
|
Hi Frank,
Sorry, you're right. JtR's targeting of sexual areas would suggest a sexual component of some sort. This would be an inference trying to explain why the wound pattern is as it is, while finding seman at the crime scene allows a more powerful deduction: the killer became sexually aroused during the commission of this crime.
- Jeff |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 612
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 03, 2005 - 3:08 pm: |
|
Hi AP,
I think one of the main problems with the "cannot stop" notions is that it's presented very dogmatically. The released profiles are often presented this way as well. I would think, however, a better way to think of a killer's ... compulsion (not a great word either) to kill is more like, say, smoking.
It's hard to quit, people may try to quit sometimes, fail and start again, but sometimes they succeed. They may still have the desire to smoke, but learn to control this desire.
Now, at the same time, someone who has not actually quit smoking, has no intention of quitting smoking, can still refrain from smoking if they have to. They can still take a 12 hour flight to go on holiday, and not smoke for the duration, for example.
If serial killers have an "addiction" to killing, that doesn't mean they cannot control their behaviour, though they may find it very difficult and unpleasant to do so (just like our smoker on the above long haul flight is probably not the happiest of passengers).
I'm not entirely sure if this analogy is a good one, but I like it because it clarifies that "hard to quit" and "cannot quit" are two very different things. And, it includes the idea of "temporary control" over something that still has a sort of "compulsion" to it (again, compulsion isn't quite the right word I don't think).
Anyway, I think the general principle of profiling is worth studying. There probably are some commonalities between people who commit similar crimes (however that similarity is defined), and there will be a lot of variation as well. With proper study, we eventually should be able to figure out some useful information; and this will include recognising things like what evidence was there to suggest that BTK could have been in a stable relationship?
One might look at things like:
1) very long period of time between crimes
2) trophies taken all very small and easy to hide
3) trophies included jewelry (although at present it doesn't look like he ever gave any to his wife or daughters)
I don't know how much any, or all, of these factors might indicate possible relationship. But these sorts of things might be worth looking into. It may turn out, for example, that if there are long delays (in the order of years) between the crimes, the killer is more likely to be in a steady relationship, have a steady job, blend in completely. This is because this person can control his urge to kill well enough that years can pass. This kind of person might be more prone to be able to hide their violent side much better, etc.
But, of course, it may also be that if the murders are "fast and furious", with new victims showing up every few months or so, then this doesn't tell us much about the relationship status; or they are more likely to be single, but not necessarily so.
Too often profiles are presented as "definates", when they should really be presented as "probability statements."
- Jeff |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1800
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 03, 2005 - 4:12 pm: |
|
I need to study these notes when sober, and I thank Dan and Jeff for giving me that desire to put down my glass.
But in the meantime I would give my usual cautionary word whenever one of these so called ‘serial killers’ are apprehended.
The local and State police will be gleefully clearing their books of every unsolved murder they have on file, and through a primitive process of bargaining, human remains will be exchanged for a softer bed and few extra pillows for the scumbag they now have in custody, until this so-called BLT killer - that’s Bacon, Lettuce and Tomato to you - admits to the whole caboodle.
Therefore victim type may fluctuate wildly; and logic and reasoning about his crimes and motives will remain speculative at best.
If the police offer this scumbag a cooked breakfast he’d confess to killing Kennedy. |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 855
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 03, 2005 - 4:28 pm: |
|
So Caroline's post got me thinking about saying that a serial killer "cannot stop" is equivalent to saying "they are not responsible for their actions" and since of course, I violently disagree with that statement, I was all set to change my mind or at least my phrasology (word?). Because of course they can stop, what I don't believe they can do is turn off the part of themselves that leans that way without channeling it into something else that satisfies that urge (which I said in an earlier post). I like Jeff's smoking analogy and was going to use a similar one about heroin addicts, but his works so it would just be repetitive.
I still do not believe that he was a sexual serial killer. And I am not sure what Dan has been reading, but from what I have been reading, the adult male of the Ortega family was not at home at the time when Rader attacked the woman and the kids and the killer waited for him to return to kill him. Of course, this is all speculation at this point but considering the well-planned nature of these attacks..phone cord cutting etc. it does seem that if his target was just the woman and it had to be that woman, there would have been plenty of opportunity to kill her without tackling a husband, etc. and no need for just a random ..whoops there's a husband in the house, might as well kill him too. In other words, for that family, for whatever reason, the male was just a much a target for Rader as the female. Maybe he didn't like it as much, maybe it was harder to kill the man than it was the woman which diminished his sense of power, whatever, but it doesn't seem like a by-product killing to me.
People are too caught up in Freud..everything has to do with sex, sex, sex when sometimes people can be completely whacked without it being sexual.
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1656
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 03, 2005 - 5:18 pm: |
|
a programme here about Harold Shipman the other night demonstrated Jeff"s analogy very well.
The death of Shipman"s mother alleviated by diamorphine
seems to have triggered this killer who was then seventeen.
Thereafter he was addicted to witnessing the passing from life to death through the medium of diamorphine.
He could have stopped,sought help but the addiction was progressive and way out of control.
An example too of a serial killer [250+]who was not motivated by sex. |
Scott Suttar
Inspector
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 192
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 03, 2005 - 6:58 pm: |
|
Hi all, couple of links for you to the Witchita Eagle newspaper.
The first demonstrates what I was talking about with erasing computer disks in my last post. I wrote my post before I read this story and it says the same but with more info and probably explains it better
Click Here
The second is for you Ally, not sure why you brought up the Ortega family but I think Dan was referring to Kevin Bright.
His Story Is Here
I think the noteworthy point from Kevin's story is that BTK was waiting for Kathryn. This seems to have been his preferred MO. It is risky in one way though and that is that the person may not come home alone. This is what happened with Kathryn and Kevin. I do not believe Kevin was a target of the killer until he came into the house that day. Then BTK had to get rid of him as a witness.
Scotty.
|
Neale Carter
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ncarter
Post Number: 60
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 03, 2005 - 8:59 pm: |
|
Jeff,
I agree with most of your reasoning re. the "compulsion to continue" notion. As you note, BTK had access to significant amounts of trophy material and his versions of memorabilia. It seems he also had his own crimescene photos and maybe also video/audio from later killings. This, along with the complicated communications with media and police may have sufficed for him not to have to actually realise the physical killing component of his depravity. He also held a job during his apparent non-killing period where he could manifest some level of power over local people. As he graduated more towards obtaining gratification (sexual/power related) from the rituals and memories of interacting with his trophies, as well as the thrill of demonstrating his cleverness by giving clues to the media & police, the event of killing itself may have become secondary.
JtR would not have had access to this sort of permanant trophy material - possibly just some body parts; therefore the killing act remained the focus itself. If you believe any of the letters came from Jack, this may hve been his attempt to "rekindle the buzz" after the killing.
Neale
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 558
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 04, 2005 - 7:08 am: |
|
Hi Ally,
Ortega? You mean Otero? I was talking about Bright, as Scott mentioned.
I'm not a fan of Freud's theories at all, but then it's absolutely bizarre to claim that someone proven to have sexually gratified himself as part of the killing process isn't a sex-based killer. What on earth would qualify in your mind then? Just rape? Or not even that, if you believe the feminists who claim that rape isn't about sex but power...?
Hi Neale,
Once again, I would caution against jumping to unsupported conclusions here. You don't know that Jack didn't have trophy material other than the body parts. He apparently took Chapman's rings, for example, and there could be any number of other items we don't know about. And if BTK was able to survive on media attention, Jack got far, far more of it than any other serial killer in history.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 856
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 04, 2005 - 10:23 am: |
|
Sorry yes, I was referring to Otero but I had been reading another story about an Ortega and the names got mixed in my mind.
You were referring to Bright when you said this:
"The first (known) killing had two male and two female victims. Both females (including the child) showed clear signs of sexual fetishism at work. The males, from what I've read anyway, do not. In fact officials specifically noted how differently the young boy was treated. " ???
Orgasm is not always about sex Dan. As I mentioned earlier, people have had orgasms eating hot chili peppers, some people have orgasms during intensive yoga sessions, some women have orgasms while breast feeding. Just because certain activities trigger the same chemical responses as sex, doesn't mean that they are sexual.
|
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 857
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 04, 2005 - 10:35 am: |
|
Scotty,
Just noticed your request for the story on tape measuring grass. There are a couple of different links, but here is one:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-btk27feb27,1,314178.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=1&cset=true
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1805
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 04, 2005 - 1:58 pm: |
|
I’m still with Ally on this.
Just go back to the example I flourished earlier of the fat-cat Jap businessmen indulging themselves after brandy and cigars in the primitive manner I previously described.
Now this is in no way ‘sex’ or ‘sexual’ behaviour, or ‘sexual’ motivation.
It is in fact a process of degradation - totally unrelated to any sexual urge, desire or motive, and does exactly match the behaviour of many burglars who leave a very undesirable deposit on their victim’s beds.
It is a small part of the tribal psyche that emerges when nobody is looking or anonymity is guaranteed, just as the act of social murder is. I have always felt that murders carried out in privacy guarantee the sanity of the killer, whereas murders carried out in the full view of society guarantee the insanity of the killer.
Unlike many others I think the killer in this case just took a few moments off to pick his nose and then fling a few bogeys around.
Not an act of sex but rather a private act of contempt for someone who couldn‘t watch him anymore.
Definition is important here and I’m 100% behind Ally in getting this thing right. |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 520
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 05, 2005 - 8:49 am: |
|
Hi Dan,
Although you’re right in saying that Neale doesn’t know whether or not the Ripper took more trophy material than just the body parts and probably Chapman’s rings, I don’t think you can say that he’s jumping to conclusions. He seems rather cautious, using phrases like “may have sufficed”, “may have become” and “may have been”.
Furthermore, he doesn’t suggest that BTK was able survive on media attention alone. As BTK made his own crime scene photos and had some of his victims’ driver’s licences including a picture, he had souvenirs JtR certainly didn’t. We’re sure BTK wrote a number of letters and poems to the media. In one of them he asks how many people he has to kill to get his name in the paper or to get some national attention. In another he thinks it’s time for him to be given some name, like the ‘BTK Strangler’ or ‘Whichita Strangler’. This man seems to have craved the attention.
On the other hand, we're not sure if JtR wrote any letters to the media and police and even though he may have gotten far, far more media attention than any other serial killer in history, there’s no indication whatsoever that he was looking for it or even liked it.
All the best,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has its advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 521
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 05, 2005 - 9:09 am: |
|
Hi all,
I’ve (accidentally) come across two of BTK's communications that suggest sex was at least part of his motivation to do what he did.
In the Vian letter, BTK wrote:
“They were very lucky; a phone call save them. I was going to tape the boys and put plastics bag over there head like I did Joseph, and Shirley. And then hang the girl. God-oh God what a beautiful sexual relief this would been. . .”
And he ends the “Oh! Death to Nancy” poem with: “I’ll bring sexual death unto you for me.”
All the best,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has its advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1527
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 05, 2005 - 10:45 am: |
|
I wonder if some people here may be underestimating the power sex can have over a person's motives and actions. History is littered with the lost reputations of mighty statesmen and royal personages all because of a bit of illicit how's yer father. And yet very few are ever actually caught in the act itself.
If orgasms were the be all and end all, we could all stay indoors by ourselves (or with just a pack of Safeways bird's eye chillies for company  ) and never need to put another person to the trouble of joining in our funny little games.
Truth is, BTK (if we take his statements above seriously), just like most of us, wants/needs other human beings (victims in his case) to share the moment with him, in order to achieve what for him is the desired sexual effect - possibly the only way such an offender can ever really get off.
It doesn't matter, IMHO, whether we would classify such crimes as sexual or not, if the offender himself thinks at least part of the thrill has been sexual for him.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 522
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 05, 2005 - 12:40 pm: |
|
Hi Caz,
I completely agree with your last sentence. I just posted my finds so that people would know and can do with them as they please.
I think the circumstances that cause such men to kill are far more interesting than the classification anyway. By these circumstances I don't only mean the certain set of very particular circumstances that trigger them to kill, like AP put it, but also the circumstances that 'formed' him before his first murder.
All my best,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has its advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1807
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 05, 2005 - 2:08 pm: |
|
Caz
As ever your posts are provocative and interesting.
I remember so well an Indian co-worker of mine bringing me a volume of his self published ‘love’ poems to read, which I did, and when he later asked me what I thought of his efforts, I asked of him:
‘You are a virgin, aren’t you?’
He reluctantly admitted he was and that he had never made love to a woman in his life.
But he could still write about it, couldn’t he?
One has to be so careful with the written statements of killers.
Surely the act of masturbation over a ‘dead’ victim could not have involved the victim?
She were dead, remember? |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 561
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, March 05, 2005 - 4:28 pm: |
|
Hi Ally,
No, when I was talking about the man shot in the head twice but who survived I was talking about Bright. The others were the Oteros, and I stand behind the statement I made about them. I'm not sure where the confusion comes from.
OK, granted, not everything has to be about sex. On the other hand, a killer deciding to pull his pants down and get himself off as part of his murders clearly is. I mean, it wasn't an accident, he did it for a reason, and masturbation is sexually-motivated. Sure, there are times when it wouldn't be (like if someone were doing it solely for money or to donate sperm), but those don't apply here.
This isn't an example of a bunch of loopy Freudians wanting to try to turn some dream about a banana or baseball bat into a penis. We're talking about an actual real male sexual organ, one a killer intentionally manipulated for self-gratification purposes while strangling a female bondage victim to death. When the police say he masturbated at the crime scenes you can be certain that it's not a metaphor of any sort, because they got the sperm to prove it.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, but a penis is always a penis.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 262
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, March 05, 2005 - 5:45 pm: |
|
Just a quick observation...
Looking at all the posts, its hard to argue against any of the ideas. Ally,I feel,is correct that the sexual connotation to this man's crimes is overstated.
Originally,it may have been the base motive for the murders. However,in subsequent murders,the enjoyment of power and control may have superceded the original "getting off" reason for killing future victims.
The penis is a killer. No doubt about it. Its the way these male killers manifest their hatred or anger or other motives for murder. Male killers are almost always regarded as "sexually motivated" simply because of the penis...
On the other hand,Dan is correct,along with others,to point out this creep's post-death activities. The victims did share in his "victory', although they were dead...and that didn't matter anyway...they were objectified into something other than human from the outset.
Perhaps both "camps" in this argument[ power and control versus ssk ] here are correct,as they both have a substantial amount of truth in their expressions.
Let me give an offbeat analogy to this BTK that no one may have pondered.
Users , and in my case,old ex-users, of methampthetamine, particularly the type that was around in the early 1970's,crystal meth,will agree that every time they used this creme de la creme of drugs after the initial time,they were trying to recreate that first high. They couldn't.
They snorted it up hoping to recreate that first glorious time,over and over and over...and over..but never got "back" to that first blast into a state of mind that can't be described...unless you took it yourself.
Eventually,after a few years of this, they began to take the drug,even though they had grown to know they wouldn't "get" to that point. They would go through the motions of using it with great expectation,but were really only fooling themselves..Eventually it became a "habit" or almost "ritualistic" to just do it despite knowing it wasn't going to "get" them "there"....
Which brings me back to this BTK creep. His behavior in the church on the computer is similar to an old meth head trying to "get" back to that feeling he had long ago....the feeling of power and control over "objectified" people may well have been the driving base motive for his latter activities.
Nice thread,by the way......
How Brown
JTRForums
www.jtrforums.co.uk
|
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 539
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 05, 2005 - 7:41 pm: |
|
You're arguing about a definition not substance. The word means something different to both of you. I think you agree on the reality more than you realize. |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
