|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1809
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 06, 2005 - 11:58 am: | 
|
Diana
Yes, of course you are right, it is all about definition, but I still think it is important to get that definition absolutely right.
As ever, my ultimate concern with this definition of murder and ‘sex’ is that some young or impressionable readers of these posts on this thread might well go away with the misguided impression that murder and sex share some kind of commonality, and that murder might indeed form part of human sexual behaviour.
That sort of legitimises a very illegitimate concept, and as such represents a grave danger of misinterpretation and misrepresentation.
That is why I urge caution with our quick and perhaps over-ready use of the word ’sex’ in this case. I think we must be absolutely in the absolute right when we use the word ’sex’ in direct association with the callous and gruesome murder of an innocent individual when there are absolutely no signs of realistic or actual sexual contact.
There is no doubt in my mind that certain authors - and profilers - who have used reckless theories and vague opinions in very similar cases have actually fuelled the activities of future killers.
Instead of pouring oil on troubled water they have gaily tossed gasoline on the raging fire.
Now to the substance.
Surely any sort of masturbatory process in any individual is inherently operating in a socially exclusive vacuum?
The very act itself seems to disallow any kind of participation or partnership, so I do experience some difficulty in relating such a solitary act to a concept of ’sexual’ intent or operation directed at another person.
One assumes that the act has taken place after the death of the victim?
Then why not before the death of the victim?
Because the victim has eyes?
The killer perhaps only feels safe - and alone - to perform such an act when the eyes can no longer see. Then the killer is truly alone again.
So a private act, that he appears to be unwilling to truly share with his victim in any realistic form or manner.
So, for me, not ’sex’. |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 617
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 06, 2005 - 2:51 pm: |
|
We have to be careful not to generalise from the "importance of sex demonstrated at a crime scene" to assume that "sex is the driving force behind everyone's motivations for every activity ever performed."
What I'm getting at, is that "sex", or perhaps more generally "arousal, with a sexual component", is one of the many emotional states human beings can be in. For some people, however, this "state" or the "arousal", becomes more important than perhaps is healthy. For a SSK, the arousal and the release appears to get linked to violence and murder. It's a fetish of sorts.
Some people have a fetish for women's shoes. Of these people, some will start to break and enter in houses in order to steal women's shoes, or will shoplift them, etc. Obtaining items of their fetish becomes an obsession, and some will start to perform ilegle activities to satisfy this obsessive fetish.
Now, just because there are some people who develop a fetish who go on to commit crimes to satisfy this fetish, does not mean that 1) sex is the driving power behind the actions of those without a fetish; or 2) all people who have a fetish will commit crimes or 3) all crimes are a result of a fetish. And so on. All it means, is that if you find a crime where all that was taken was women's shoes, and there are signs that the thief masterbated in the closet where the shoes were, you're probably dealing with a "sexually motivated crime".
By "sexually motivated", that just means there is good evidence to suggest out above imaginary thief has a shoe fetish. That's the "sexual motivation" part, it tells us a bit about the thief's way of thinking. Now, if money was also taken, then the primary motive might have been the money, with the shoes taken as an oppertunistic item they knew they would find. But it doesn't change the fact that the thief still has a shoe fetish, and there is a component of the crime that is sexual (the shoe part). They may have chosen this house over another simply because they figured same money available, but this one has better shoe oppertunity! So, even though the primary motive is the money, their fetish might influence their selection of houses to break into.
With a SSK, the violence, the torture, the power, or something they do, seems to be fetish-like. That's the sexual component. The primary motive could be anger, revenge, thrill seeking, ... whatever, but the fact that they get excited to the point they masterbate indicates that whatever it is they are doing, it is "sexually arousing", probably due to some fetish like association between sexual arousal and violence (or whatever).
It does not mean, however, that the reason they broke into the house in the first place is necessarily only to get themselves aroused. That may just be a by-product, like our "money oriented thief who also knows they will find women's shoes", that in part makes the whole experience enjoyable.
Although, just like a shoe fetish might become so obsessed with shoes that they start breaking into houses just to get the shoes, a "violence fetish" could do the same. Why not? And if there is evidence for this as in BTK's case. He materbated at the scene of the crime. Now was it the primary or secondary reason for the crime? That is the question but, why disregard either possibility before it's even investigated?
So, just because there are some people who have shoe fetishes, that doesn't mean sex is normally a motive for burglery. But if you are dealing with a shoe fetish, who has stolen shoes, and masterbated at the scene, in this case sex is probably a good starting point. Just remember, that sex in this case is in relation to the fetish, not an act of affection between two consenting adults, etc.
And by definition, when dealing with SSK's crimes there is evidence of their sexual arousal and release, it's also generally accepted that their association between violence and sexual arousal is "deviante" or "not healthy or normal", whatever we learn about SSKs is not, and should not, be assumed to apply to people other than SSKs. Just like knowing about shoe fetishes doesn't tell us much about sexual preferences of non-shoe fetish individuals.
In summary, SSKs are not normal. They appear to have an abnormal sexual association between some aspect of their crime and sexual arousal. But since they are not normal, we don't need to extend what we learn from them to normal, healthy, individuals. In fact, what we learn may not apply, and when you look at this in a "normal context", it seems crazy, wrong, too much emphasis on sex, etc. Well, given what these people do, perhaps that might indicate we're on the right track?
- Jeff
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1811
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 06, 2005 - 3:20 pm: |
|
Well Jeff
I really did enjoy your post, and can’t really argue with the common-sense approach you advocate, but maybe because I’m not a sexual serial killer - as you like to call them - I find it difficult to apply logical and rational thinking to what they do.
Quite honestly I think it as simple as some people have brown sauce on their burger and others prefer red sauce.
Although I enjoyed your approach I sort of found that you were building lodging houses in which these desperate spirits could dwell, under our own terms, and the fact of the matter is that if we can give these killers a ‘sexual’ motive it makes us feel happier about their crimes. For at least we can then explain them.
Those sort of houses are built in sand, because we are making easy excuses for something we do not understand, or wish to understand, and are then taking the comfortable route of explaining the situation with something that is a day-to-day activity for the majority of society: having sex.
Boy meets girl all the time, but boy doesn’t usually kill girl, or even masturbate on her dead body.
I still feel you guys are attempting to explain the unexplainable with the explainable |
Neale Carter
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ncarter
Post Number: 61
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 06, 2005 - 9:23 pm: |
|
Frank & Dan,
Frank - Thanks for supporting my thoughts (Saturday, March 05, 2005 - 8:49 am).
Yes, I deliberately wasn't definitive about JtR taking trophies but they certainly wouldn't have been as striking or powerful as a crimescene photo(discounting body parts). This is an assumption that body parts were not the primary focus but I don't consider the evidence strong for this.
I take your point Dan about the amount of publicity/notoriety JtR received - esp. in context of LVR; it would have seemed like 100x more than BTK received. But as Frank points out, there is no conclusive evidence the letters came from JtR or that he actively sought infamy. However it is entirely possible that the fame and terror arising as a by-product from say, the double event may have spurred him on. This would be more so if his primary driving impulse for the crimes was not sexual as this would tend to motivate his actions regardless of what occurs around him.
Howard, your "meth head" analogy may well be on the money. From the prison photos Rader looks to me like a tired old man who has had a go at recapturing the "glorious power" of his prime and came to realise it was all gone. I doubt whether guilt or remorse would come into it - I'm sure he's incapable of either.
It's much easier to speculate on motive when we know the killer!
Neale |
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 263
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, March 06, 2005 - 10:09 pm: |
|
Dear Neale:
And,not to forget,he may have started the entire self-defeating-contacting-the-police-episode,because he may have been recalling how he,as an entity,not only sexually,felt empowered by the instillation of fear...and maybe he wanted to see if this recent surge of media power-tripping could give him an erection....because maybe he couldn't anymore. You have to be relatively healthy in mind and body to get one of those luxuries [around here,anyway..].
I'd be interested in hearing what Mrs.Rader has to say about Dennis-The-Menace-No-More and his performance in the sack,say over the last year or so...
How Brown
JTRForums
www.jtrforums.co.uk
|
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 543
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 06, 2005 - 10:10 pm: |
|
Did Rader get sent to Vietnam? A lot of men came back all messed up and some of them were violent. |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 253
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 06, 2005 - 10:31 pm: |
|
From today's New York Times....I must say that reading this makes me rethink some things we take for granted in the JtR case. We may know even less than we think about how serial killers behave.
The New York Times
March 6, 2005
Suspect in 10 Kansas Murders Lived an Intensely Ordinary Life
By MONICA DAVEY
PARK CITY, Kan., March 5 - In his crisp beige uniform, cap and badge, Dennis L. Rader took his job upholding the most mundane city laws with unusual earnestness.
He was often seen in his white truck, the words "Compliance Officer, Park City" painted on the side, puttering along at 10 miles an hour, searching for overgrown lawns, overflowing trash cans or dogs wandering past their fences.
"He looked for absolutely everything, and he must have enforced every rule there ever was - just because he could, I guess," said Barbara Walters, 69, a retired auditor for the Internal Revenue Service, who challenged a $25 ticket that Mr. Rader issued in 1998, saying her dog, Shadow, was running loose.
Ms. Walters's lawyer said Mr. Rader arrived for court more prepared than some lawyers are for murder trials, bearing a lengthy file on Shadow, a videotape of the dog and a complicated system of notebook tabs linking the accusations to his evidence. Mr. Rader, and his pile of paper, won.
But the police say the man who was a stickler for the slightest pet infraction in this modest suburb of Wichita had also slain 10 people by then, as the killer known as B.T.K.
Investigators say that Mr. Rader, who will turn 60 on Wednesday, almost certainly in the solitary jail cell where he has been held since he was charged last week with 10 counts of murder, is one of the nation's most notorious and elusive serial killers, the strangler who toyed with Wichita for three decades in letters and poems and packages and who long ago insisted that the public call him B.T.K., for his preferred method: bind, torture, kill. Lawyers for Mr. Rader, who has yet to enter a plea in the case, did not return calls.
Most stunning for the Wichita area, where Mr. Rader has spent his life, is not just that he was viewed as an ordinary fellow, someone who blended in at the Taco Bell, but that he seemed to have stayed meticulously and constantly within the strictest mores of society - more so, at times, than many other residents.
Mr. Rader and his wife of 34 years went to church each Sunday. Sometimes when he left an after-work bar outing to hurry home, his colleagues would privately breathe a sigh of relief; with him gone, they could drink up and tell off-color jokes. As far back as the eighth grade, Mr. Rader was picked for the prestigious school patrol, who carried big red Stop signs and told classmates and drivers when to go and when not to.
"The thing to remember is that we always thought in the end that B.T.K. would be a local, that he would probably even be a functioning member of the community," said Richard LaMunyon, who led the Wichita Police Department at the height of the investigation years ago. "But I guess we never dreamed he would be functioning quite to this degree - a church leader, a Boy Scout leader, someone quite so known, quite so public."
Many serial killers have led relatively successful lives, with steady jobs and relationships, in contrast with their popular image as loners and drifters. But experts on serial killings say that the portrait of Mr. Rader takes that notion of stability, authority and prominence in the community to a level rarely seen.
In Wichita, where a generation of police officers spent their careers searching for B.T.K. - deconstructing his tangled, grisly writings, studying dozens of psychological profiles and swabbing DNA from the cheeks of 4,000 residents - some older detectives have now come to Mr. LaMunyon wondering whether they should have found Mr. Rader, who was hardly hiding away, decades sooner. After all, his name should have appeared on at least two broad lists of suspects in the 1970's, Mr. LaMunyon said, and Mr. Rader had other tenuous ties to 3 of the 10 victims.
Born on March 9, 1945, Dennis Lynn Rader was the eldest of four boys who grew up in a working-class neighborhood in Wichita, a city of fewer than 170,000 then. His father, Bill, who died in 1996 after retiring as a plant operator at a utility company's generating station, was strict but never cruel, Mr. Rader's childhood friends recalled.
"Raders are a little bit stubborn, but not mean," said Lee Rader, 73, who was a first cousin of Bill Rader and lives in Springfield, Mo. Like much of the extended family in sturdy towns across the Midwest, Lee Rader said he could not remember a time when Bill Rader's family had done anything that might draw notice, much less cross the law. "There is some divorces, I guess that's the worst thing that's going," he said.
Dennis Rader's young life seemed uncomplicated and happily ordinary to Roger Farthing, who grew up with him. Mr. Rader buried himself in dime-store novels and comic books. He played cops and robbers until dark. And he posed a question to the teacher on the first day of the first grade, a question few here let him forget: What time is lunch?
Years later, Mr. Rader reminisced on that simpler time. In the "Riverview Round-Up," a questionnaire for his grade-school reunion, he listed his favorite memories in big block letters: recess, story times, last days of school, snowball fights broken up by the principal, art class, a nearby candy store, an old merry-go-round and, of course, lunch hour. Asked for any "pearls of wisdom," Mr. Rader wrote: "Do it now. Life is complicated and short so stay young at heart as long as possible: It was so easy in '59."
After high school, Mr. Rader tried several semesters at two colleges but soon joined the Air Force, learning to repair wire and antenna systems, and leaving Wichita for four years, the longest he would ever be away. He returned in 1970 and settled down with Paula Dietz, who had grown up here, too, gone to the same high school, and lived just around the corner from the squat house in Park City where they would soon have a boy, Brian, and a girl, Kerri.
While attending a community college, Mr. Rader worked for a year on an assembly line at the Coleman Company, making heating and cooling units. From 1973 to 1979, he took classes at Wichita State University, earning a bachelor's degree. His major was criminal justice.
The Killings Begin
On Jan. 15, 1974, B.T.K. struck Wichita for the first time, although most residents would not learn those initials, or even that a serial killer was on the loose, for several years.
The scene was ghastly, unlike anything this city had seen before. Four members of the Otero family - Joseph, 38, a retired Air Force officer; Julie, 34, who had worked at the Coleman Company about a month before; and two of their children, Josephine, 11, and Joseph II, 9 - were strangled inside their home in the middle of the day with the cord used in Venetian blinds.
Left behind was a uniquely grisly scene, and one whose details would be echoed in the future killings. The phone line had been cut. The Oteros had been bound, and the police noted that the knots were particularly elaborate. The killer had taken at least one souvenir of the day: a watch.
None of the Oteros had been sexually assaulted, though Josephine's body was found partly clothed, hanging from a sewer pipe in the basement. Not far from the girl, there in the basement, semen was found, as it would be in subsequent killings. Investigators quickly believed they were searching for a sexual deviant, someone who took pleasure in tying people up, watching them gasp for air and die slowly. Some of the victims' faces were left bloated, investigators said, suggesting that the killer would strangle them, let them breathe, then strangle them some more.
The Otero case would be the first and last known time that B.T.K. would kill a man or a child: the rest of the victims were all women, seemingly picked at random, and in ages ranging from 21 to 62 years old. Nine months later, after the police announced a possible confession in the Otero case, the killer's first letter appeared. It took credit for the Otero deaths, mentioned details that the police said only the killer would have known, and expressed frustration that someone else might be trying to assume credit for the deaths. The letter was riddled with typographical and spelling errors.
"I can't stop it so the monster goes on, and hurt me as well as society," the letter said. He noted that he would be "waiting in the dark, waiting, waiting," and closed the letter with a postscript: "The code words for me will be ... Bind them, toture them, kill them, B.T.K., you see he at it again. They will be on the next victim."
But by then the killer had already struck again. Kathryn Bright, who also worked at Coleman, was stabbed to death inside her house in April. Her phone lines were snipped, and she was bound with a knotted cord.
In the Security Business
Soon after Mr. Rader started a job at ADT, the security company, at the end of 1974, he was widely disliked - particularly by those beneath him after he became supervisor for the alarm installers.
"He was deeply competent, organized, and good at what he did, but he was a taskmaster," said Rick Carr, 68, who sold systems for ADT. "He came in with the attitude: you're here to get the job done, and I'm not here to be someone's pal."
In his gray ADT uniform shirt with "Dennis" above the pocket, Mr. Rader worked for 14 years in what others called "the dungeon," the section of the office with no windows, gray walls and a steel door. But his job also sent him out of the office during the day regularly, to sign off on installations.
At company swimming pool parties at the Carrs' home in Wichita, Martha Carr, Mr. Carr's former wife, said Mr. Rader always arrived cheerily with his wife and children, looked people right in the eye and said all the right things: that the party was lovely, the food was nicely arranged.
Paula Rader, meanwhile, was a fabulous cook and a quiet, sweet woman who seemed to have a loving, happy marriage, Ms. Carr said. "She seemed innocent," Ms. Carr said, "not worldly, you know?"
One regular topic of discussion at ADT, not surprisingly, was B.T.K.
"It was the conversation all over town, but this was a security company, and let's face it - B.T.K. increased our business," said Denise Mattocks, 46, who worked alongside Mr. Rader for years.
Ms. Mattocks, who was single at the time, was particularly fearful of B.T.K., she said, and told Mr. Rader so regularly. Like so many in Wichita as the panic grew, she spoke of checking her telephone for a dial tone every time she got home. Mr. Rader, she recalled, said little in response. If anything, his efforts at conversation leaned more to his life at home: his wife, the tomatoes in his garden, his Boy Scout outings.
Mr. Rader became a Scout leader when his son, Brian, was about 8 and could join Pack 491. Mr. Rader held the boys to strict standards, not letting them slide by, as some fathers did, without perfecting skills for a badge, said George J. Martin, 70, who helped lead the pack. Mr. Rader was particularly capable, Mr. Martin said, when it came to the knots the boys had to learn.
"The sheepshank, the bowline, the half hitch, the monkey fist," he remembered, "Dennis knew them all."
The Letters Stop
By the late 1970's, B.T.K. had killed seven people, the police say, and the eerie, taunting letters kept arriving. One letter was traced to a copier at Wichita State University. And in 1979, after B.T.K. apparently broke into a widow's home and waited - without success - for her to come home, he sent a poem to the woman who never arrived: "Oh, Anna Why Didn't You Appear."
In part, the poem read: "Alone again I trod in pass memory of mirrors, and ponder why fornumber eight was not." And then the letters suddenly stopped. The police say B.T.K. killed three more women in 1985, 1986 and 1991 - including two cases, one from Park City and another from nearby, that were not linked to B.T.K. publicly until last weekend.
Some people, like Al Thimmesch, a retired Wichita police officer, wonder whether more deaths have yet to be identified as the work of B.T.K. But if the police are right, the serial killings ended on Jan. 19, 1991, with the death of Dolores Davis, whose house is near Park City.
In May 1991, Mr. Rader was hired as a Park City compliance officer, a period one resident of this suburb just north of Wichita calls the start of the "reign of terror" for homeowners here. Mr. Rader's critics here say he seemed to sit in his truck, just waiting for something to go wrong with their houses. He took numerous photos of their homes, they said, in search of something awry. Some people even insist that he sometimes let their dogs out himself, then cited the owners.
Rhonda Reno said she watched one day as Mr. Rader wandered on the lawn of a neighbor who was ill and unable to mow the grass. Walking the grass with a yardstick, she said, he measured for infractions. "I never trusted him," said Jim Reno, her husband. "There were two people I keep an eye on in this block and one was him."
Still, others here liked Mr. Rader, and found his outsized enthusiasm for his inspection work charming.
He helped an elderly resident trap skunks, and helped his neighbor, a single woman, by mowing her lawn and fixing her leaky faucets, the neighbor said. And even he could bend the rules. Another woman, Virginia Jackson, 53, recalled when her boxer got loose and Mr. Rader chased down the dog and, after a struggle, managed to bring it home. Ms. Jackson never got a ticket.
"He was very professional," she said. "He was doing his job."
Breaking His Silence
Last January, The Wichita Eagle published an article about B.T.K. to mark the 30th anniversary of the Otero killings and the start of the panic. By then, the case had been forgotten by many. The article suggested that B.T.K. might have moved away or even died.
Two months later, B.T.K. wrote a letter, his first in a quarter century. From there, he embarked on a communication frenzy - 10 letters or packages mailed to newspapers and media outlets, or simply left in parks. He filled these, too, with trinkets, some apparently from the killings: photographs, a word puzzle, a doll with a plastic bag over its head, a necklace, a computer disk and a victim's driver's license.
By last weekend, with help from the disk and DNA evidence, the police took Mr. Rader into custody and announced with great fanfare that B.T.K. had been caught.
Looking back, some people wonder if the Wichita police could have made an arrest sooner. Mr. LaMunyon, the former police chief, tells those who ask that he does not believe an arrest was possible over all those years; the B.T.K.'s newest mailings, many of which contained a mellower, more conciliatory tone than years before, created a whole new room full of evidence for investigators to go on.
Still, he acknowledged that Mr. Rader's name was probably included on two long lists drawn up by the police years ago. The police had gathered the names of Coleman employees at one point because the first two women killed had worked there, as had, it turned out, Mr. Rader. They had also collected the names of white men at Wichita State in the 1970's because they knew that one of B.T.K.'s letters had been copied on campus and that a poem sent by B.T.K. resembled a song taught in a popular professor's folklore seminar at Wichita State.
There was another link, too. Although the police had not publicly connected the death of Marine Hedge, the eighth victim, to B.T.K. until last weekend, at the time of her death, Ms. Hedge lived six houses down the street from Mr. Rader's home in Park City.
"I think the police made a mistake over the years," said Robert Beattie, a Wichita lawyer who is writing a B.T.K. book. "They were looking for a Charles Manson type."
Charles Liles, a former Wichita police officer, said the police focused too narrowly on convicted sex offenders rather than someone who might live right among them.
The Rev. Michael G. Clark, Mr. Rader's pastor, visited him in jail on Wednesday, a glass wall between the pastor and his church council president. Mr. Rader is "doing as well as can be expected," Mr. Clark said. His own disbelief, though, has not worn off. The more he reflects, Mr. Clark said, the more he remembers only ordinary conversations with Mr. Rader, talks about fishing and his mother's health.
"That's what I've realized," Mr. Clark said. "There is nothing to remember, nothing that would make it all make sense."
Park City, meanwhile, quietly fired Mr. Rader last week, saying only that he had failed to show up for work or to call.
Ariel Hart contributed reporting from Atlanta for this article, Michael McElroy from Wichita and Gretchen Ruethling from Chicago.
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 618
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 06, 2005 - 10:37 pm: |
|
Hi AP,
It could be there is no "common-link" from one killer to the next. But maybe there is? This is, of couse, one of the primary questions that research into criminal behaviour is trying to answer (at least, research trying to see if "profiling" might be a worthwhile exercise).
If there is a link, the current theory for crimes that show similar crime scene behaviours as exhibited by BTK is that these behaviours indicate a violence-based fetish, at least in part. Hence the use of the term sexual in sexual serial killer.
But, it is only a theory, which could be right and it could be wrong. I'm certainly not one to suggest that just because a theory exists that means we have to ignore other possibilities. My previous post, however, was more to try and focus on the reasoning behind the current theory, but I should probably have indicated that my presentation was not intended as a validation of those notions.
Only that, currently it is believed that this framework of thinking does provide a useful classification scheme. In order to evaluate this claim of utility, however, it's important that we understand what the theory is saying in the first place. Otherwise, we may reject it for invalid reasons; which is just as bad as accepting it based upon poor data and poor research.
If nobody disputed that usefulness, well, alternatives would never get examined because nobody would think of them. If in the world of big T Truth there is a flaw in the current way of conceptualising criminal behaviour, this flaw would be hard to uncover if we never question what we think.
On the other hand, I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea of throwing in the towel and suggesting that criminal behaviour is completely unexplainable, and that it depends solely on unique aspects of each individual criminal.
If this were so, then nothing is to be gained by studying the behaviour of criminals. We learn nothing that generalises to other people, and only learn about that one individual person. Although it may be interesting to understand why person X performed action Y, if it won't help make predictions about person Z who also performed action Y, then time and money and resources would be better spent elsewhere.
Unless this were shown to be the case, however, then the idea is that if action Y is performed, what sort of person would do such a thing? What characteristics allow someone to perform such a behaviour?
The basic idea of inductive profiling (which is what the FBI do), is that everyone understands the idea that personality predicts behaviour. If you know that Frank is a caring and helpful person, you can probably predict that Frank is likely to behave in caring and helpful ways, while he's unlikely to act in spiteful and interfereing ways. Not always, but usually.
With profiling, the idea is the reverse of this. That behaviour predicts personality. If someone behaves in a particular way at a crime scene, then this behaviour reflects their personality in some way. And, if we can identify aspects of their personality, then from that one can make predictions about how they will behave in other aspects of their life. A good example with BTK was that his crimes, and his communications, all suggested a theme of control and domination, and his letter writing indicated a strong desire for recognition and attention. This would be expected to be reflected in his everyday life, and his job turns out to be one where he does get to assert authority, and some people seem to have considered him a bit "over the top" in his performance of these duties. His seeking out of leadership roles, scout leader, church leader, etc, also reflect someone who desires to be "looked up to", etc. The knots he used, although they were fairly simple clove hitches, are still something that one has to learn. This probably reflects his connection to the boy scouts, where he would have learned knots.
Now, there are many ways this desire for being seen in a leadership role could have manifested itself, and there are many places one can learn knots. It's not that the crimes pin point something like "will be a scout leader", only that "will be someone who engages in an activity where knots will be involved: sailing, the navey, climbing, scouting, fishing, etc". His desire for control and recognition probably should have suggested someone who may have been more active in the community that was thought; unlikely to be a loner, will have sought out and achieved some leadership position, either at work or otherwise. BTK's crimes were well planned, and his success at remaining nondetected would suggest that he has the ability to achieve his goals in his life in general.
Anyway, as I've said before, I'm not sure that profiling does really work. A lot of the time it is much easier to "work backwards". Once you have the suspect, it's easy to find connections between their life and the crimes. But hey, it's always easy to draw a line if you have both end points. The whole point of profiling is to start with only one point, and figure out which direction, and how long, the line is.
But you are right, I do think even extreme criminal behavioiur can be explained in terms of "understandable" aspects of the human condition. It's just that those aspects gone "wrong" somehow. I don't think these people are entirely different from normal people. If we could understand "why" they made their choices, I do suspect we would find that they made them for similar reasons that other people make their choices in life. It's just that somehow, they decide that killing people is a good choice to make.
I may prefer brown sauce because I like spicier foods. So, although I may not like sweet things as much, or even at all, as long as I realise that some people prefer sweet things, I can understand why they would prefer red sauce, even if I cannot relate to it.
To rephrase this, as long as I realise that anything, no matter how repulsive I may find it, can be erotisised, then I can understand why someone might find violent murder sexually arousing. I may not be able to relate to it, but intellectually I can "understand it".
I'm not sure if I'm being at all clear. Basically, I don't want to give the impression that I think profiling is the be all and end all. In many ways, I think it's way overblown in terms of how specific one can get. At best, I think profiling should stear away from being presented in the language of specific traits (i.e., will be x, y, and z), and be presented in very probablistic terms; likely to have a job reflecting authority, or more likely to be unexployed, etc. Not to "cover all the bases", but rather to reflect that all it can do is make predictions, not draw definate conclusions. Such language also emphasises that a suspect should not be ruled out simply because they do not fit some aspect of the "profile."
The long and the short of it is that if there are commonalities between the people who committ similar crimes, then it is worth studying criminal behaviour with the goal to uncover these commonalities. If, however, there is nothing in common between those who commit similar crimes, then there is nothing to be gained.
As for the sexual component, indeed, sex is a normal desire and activity for the majority of people. But it's not the normal sex we're talking about when boy does kill girl and masturbate on her dead body. Not every serial killer will have a sexual component, direct or indirectly. Some might say there always is one, but this, I think, would be just as bad (or even worse) than saying there never is one.
And just because it tends to be mentioned more often than it probably should, doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong in a case with such strong indications of a sexual component (as with BTK: masturbation at the crime scene and his letters talk about a direct sexual link).
- Jeff |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1533
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 07, 2005 - 6:07 am: |
|
Hi AP,
One has to be so careful with the written statements of killers.
Quite - that's why I wrote: 'if we take his statements above seriously'.
You seem to be suggesting that BTK may have claimed a sexual aspect to his crimes that wasn't really there because he thought the sex-obsessed profilers expected it of him. So what do you think he actually felt, when masturbating at the scene, if not 'sexual relief', 'beautiful' or otherwise?
Surely the act of masturbation over a ‘dead’ victim could not have involved the victim?
I assume some people need the presence of a dead human victim in the same way a flasher needs a live, sighted person to flash at - and the same way most 'normal' people prefer the company of a live consenting adult when indulging in any form of sexual activity.
Surely any sort of masturbatory process in any individual is inherently operating in a socially exclusive vacuum? The very act itself seems to disallow any kind of participation or partnership...
All I will say here is that you must have lived a far more sheltered life than I thought. 
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on March 07, 2005) |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 544
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 07, 2005 - 9:52 am: |
|
The current weaknesses in profiling probably exist because the database isn't big enough yet. As time goes on and more SKs are studied it will be easier to see the overall picture. There is a parable about 12 blind men who were asked to describe an elephant. The ones who were feeling the tail thought the elephant was long and stringy, the ones who were feeling the ears no doubt thought he was flat and floppy. We haven't seen the whole elephant yet. Mr. Rader's obsession with nitpicking the behavior of others though interests me. In my life I have met a number of individuals who have made it their mission in life to pick apart and put down everyone they meet. They are unpleasant and destructive.
The New York Times article raised an interesting point. If the three lists: Coleman employees, residents on a given street, and students and the university had been fed into a computer and cross checked against each other BTK might have been found sooner.
Unfortunately as it relates to JTR this is going to be difficult because of the passage of time. |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 254
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 07, 2005 - 11:00 am: |
|
Diana, you raise some great points.
"The current weaknesses in profiling probably exist because the database isn't big enough yet. "
Not only that, but the database is skewed towards serial killers that have been caught. I hesitate to use the term "successful" but we don't know a lot about the SKs that have successfully eluded capture. Another point that leaps out at me when I read about profiling is that some of what experts believe they know is derived from interviews in prison with captured SKs....So the info has been gleaned from a deranged sociopath whom we are now going to credit with telling us the truth about his case and motivations? I'd take it all with a grain of salt.
"The New York Times article raised an interesting point. If the three lists: Coleman employees, residents on a given street, and students and the university had been fed into a computer and cross checked against each other BTK might have been found sooner."
It does look like the Wichita police dropped the ball in a number of ways.
"Unfortunately as it relates to JTR this is going to be difficult because of the passage of time."
I also believe that profiling becomes less useful when looking back at the past. Nature is obviously an important component, but so is nurture. A serial killer in 14th century Bulgaria is not fungible with BTK, who is not fungible with the Whitechapel murderer.
BTK does raise an interesting question: what if the killings stopped after MJK simply because Jack ceased hunting and returned to a "normal" life?
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1817
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 07, 2005 - 1:46 pm: |
|
Thanks for posting that long article, Sir Robert, I enjoyed reading that, and it does raise quite a few issues.
Perhaps the most important of which is the statement from the former police chief that 'they were too busy looking at known sex offenders'.
Surely a lesson to be learnt there?
When looking at a non-sexual crime don't look for a sex offender?
Diana, I'm afraid to tell you that such lack of control - even in the computer age - of information the police have in their possesion, and refuse to release to the press, is very common.
Three common factors is bad, however in the case of Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper, there were in fact six common factors that should have led directly to Sutcliffe, but the police did not react to the information under their control.
He was caught by chance, his number plate was badly forged.
If the police had released much of the information in their control to the press it is likely that as many as four women would still be alive today.
The 'Railway Rapist' case was even worse.
What a balls-up!
I've got to drink some before I talk to Caz and Jeff. |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 619
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 07, 2005 - 2:28 pm: |
|
Hi,
The cross checking of various lists was one of the "new ideas" that was used when looking for Ted Bundy. It required hundreds, if not thousands, of manhours to enter all the information into a computer. And, at the time, computers were no where near as fast as they are today, so the cross-checking took (relatively) long as well.
However, this was an innovative use of the computer at the time, and it placed Bundy in the top list of suspects. His file was on the top of the list when he was arrested for a failed abduction attempt.
Unfortunately, despite the increase use of computers, investigations still do not seem to use them as much as one would expect. The problem is, as with most things that seem so obvious to do, is that it costs a lot of money. You have to pay people to enter the information, or you have your detectives spending time entering lists of information rather than "doing their job." And, since most cases are solved without such lists, to do this as a routine procedure would end up costing a large amount of money. Police often do not have the funds, so such an expensive procedure is not used.
Once it becomes obvious that such a procedure might be required, the number of lists to enter become rather large. But unless the tax payer is willing to pay more taxes to fund the police force, it can't be done. Also, given the fuss that would be put up about "What happens to the information once the case is solved?", it would cause a huge fuss over privacy rights, and other related issues. Meaning, once the police spent all this money putting together the database of information, they would probably have to hit the delete button. And, if the same list becomes important in another crime, they have to spend all that money re-inventing the wheel.
So, unless people are willing to provide more funds for policing, and are willing to accept that the police are going to keep any "list information" they gather during the investigation of a crime, then the creating of such lists for cross-referencing is just not going to happen on a regular basis.
However, this is one of the techniques that has been shown a number of times in hindsight, that would help solve serial cases sooner. The ironic thing is that all the fuss people make about the police not doing it is due to all the fuss people make when police do do it.
- Jeff |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 620
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 07, 2005 - 2:31 pm: |
|
Hi AP,
To play devil's advocate with respect to:
Surely a lesson to be learnt there?
Perhaps the lesson is:
Not all sexual offenders are on sexual offender lists?
Because, what was the person on the list before their name was entered?
- Jeff
|
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 621
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 07, 2005 - 3:10 pm: |
|
Hi Dianna,
Sir Robert mentions a very important point, and that is that the information we have about the individuals who commit serial crime only comes from those individuals who get caught. Also, much of that information is only "self report", and these individuals are highly motivated to tell the interviewer what they think the interviewer wants to hear. It shows they are "cooperating", and this may lead to some priviledges, or look good on a parol hearing, or help with reducing a sentence from death to life, etc.
Also, once the theory of "early childhood abuse" became "popular", suddenly the number of these fellows reporting "early childhood abuse" increased. The "brain damage" notions has lead to people looking for occasions where these fellows "fell off a bike and hit their head", etc. To be honest, I don't think I know a single person who hasn't, at some time, fallen down and hit their head at some time.
If everyone falls down and hits their head, then it's not really surprising to find that these fellows have also, fallen down and gone boom.
What is not always found, however, is any evidence of brain damage for most of these fellows. It has often been shown that their frontal lobes show less activation than normals, but what does that mean? Damage to the frontal lobes often results in poor impulse control, but is their lowered activity causing their poor impluse control or is their choosing to ignore any impluse control causing the frontal lobes to reduce in their activity?
If I close my eyes, the visual areas of my brain will reduce in their activity. Is the reduction causing my lack of sight, or is my choice to close my eyes causing both the reduction in activy and my loss of sight? That one seems obvious, so why should the frontal lobes respond differently?
One can cause the visual areas to "become active" by imagining things (visual imagery), even when the eyes are closed. And, by paying attention to one part of the visual field, presenting a visual stimulus to a non-attended location will produce much less activity than if the visual stimulus is presented to an attended location. Again, an internal state (where we are paying attention), can cause the brain to respond more or less, depending upon what we choose (where to attend).
Anyway, human behaviour is very complicated, and I would be highly surprised if, in the end, the commonalities between criminals is very specific. But, I would expect some general trends to be found. The big question is how useful these trends are in terms of investigation. If the trends are weak, the individual variation may be so large that the general trend does not really help much. It may be interesting to know, but as an investigative tool, it may not have utility.
AP is correct when he questions the importance of sex in serial killing. Not all serial killers are sexually motivated. However, that does not mean that none of them are. It does seem to me that BTK appears to have a sexual component to his crimes. Now, whether or not that sexual component was part of his motivation to commit the crimes (i.e., was he looking for a sexual relief when he went looking for victims) or was that sexual relief only a by-product, the motivation being some sort of stress/anger/frustration combination, which when released by the killing brought about some euphoria or sense of relief, which then triggered sexual arousal. This latter idea means he wasn't motivated by a sexual need, and it wasn't the violence per se that "aroused him", but rather it was the release of the ... tension then then led to sexual arousal.
If BTK were sexually aroused by violence, then I would expect them to find more evidence of this. Meaning, they will find he has some sort of pornography that involves tieing up, and simulated violence, and so on. He will have other, less personally dangerous, ways to satisfy this desire. If he doesn't have violent pornography, and did not engage in some bondage activity with his wife, and there is no other evidence in his life of sexual arousal via bondage and violence, then it would be hard to imagine that it was such a violence-fetish that motivated the crimes. The evidence of sexual release (masturbation) may reflect more of a general autonomic reaction to the release from anger and so on, and that it was the anger/frustration that actually motivate the crimes.
Hmmm, I think I've stuck myself quite firmly on the fence here! Grass is greener on both sides now.
- Jeff |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 545
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 07, 2005 - 3:26 pm: |
|
"Not only that, but the database is skewed towards serial killers that have been caught."
True enough but this might be overcome by comparing different groups of SKs who have been caught and extrapolating. Look at the ones who were caught after only one or two years and compare them to the group that managed to escape for 2 to 10 years and compare them to the group that managed to elude capture for more than 10 years. If the ones who were only out there a short time were loners and misfits and the ones that eluded justice for over 10 years had a veneer of normalcy and were integrated into the community (like BTK) then by extrapolation the uncaught ones would have an even better facade of normalcy and socialization.
"Another point that leaps out at me when I read about profiling is that some of what experts believe they know is derived from interviews in prison with captured SKs....So the info has been gleaned from a deranged sociopath whom we are now going to credit with telling us the truth about his case and motivations? I'd take it all with a grain of salt."
They don't just interview the SK. They analyze the family he came from, study aspects of past history and talk to people who knew him. There is, I believe, even DNA analysis and PET scans of the brain.
I don't think in this copy/paste age we live in it would be necessary to enter data by hand. I saw something the other day on TV about how the U.S. government is buying data from marketing research companies to find out about individuals. That is scary I agree. Every totalitarian government that has ever been seen on the planet denied people the right to privacy.
|
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 264
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 07, 2005 - 3:36 pm: |
|
From my man Sir Robert Anderson,NYC [ the good one,the poster....not that other one] :
"BTK does raise an interesting question: what if the killings stopped after MJK simply because Jack ceased hunting and returned to a "normal" life?"
Good point sir...
...There's actually another possible reason or two that people may participate in the act of masturbation that has little to do with sex or power and control or any of the mentioned possibilities on this thread...
Often,children will touch themselves when they are nervous or anxious...and by touching,I mean simulating masturbation. Maybe these same kids grow up and as adults employ this method of relief to contain tension,stress,or anxiety. I have seen it with kids.
In the 19th Century,railroads were filled with Chinese workers out West...I can't remember the source of this,but in any event,the story goes that the Caucasian foremen at the rail-laying sites were shocked that Chinamen would begin to do the Bop in the open with no apparent regard to onlookers. Maybe it was just the easiest way of relieving homesickness,nervousness,anxiety,something else...and wasn't so much of a sexual thing...I haven't seen any Chinamen in action.
What do you think?
The Big Bopper
How Brown
JTRForums
www.jtrforums.co.uk
|
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 622
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 07, 2005 - 3:38 pm: |
|
Hi Dianna,
For someone who can 10 finger type, it's faster to type in a name, then copy/paste it from one document to another. Regardless, the information still needs to get into the police database. As computers are more and more common these days, it may be that much of the information is already in digital format. That could save a lot of time if the police are given access to it and the information can be saved in a format they could then load into their database program. But it's getting access to that information that tends to be difficult.
- Jeff |
Legion
Inspector
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 372
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 07, 2005 - 3:52 pm: |
|
Hey There Sir Robert Anderson -
BTK does raise an interesting question: what if the killings stopped after MJK simply because Jack ceased hunting and returned to a "normal" life?
I think it was Ally who said that she didn't believe that they (serial killers) just stop with out a new avenue to direct their... "attentions" to. I'm fairly open to both sides of the argument. I personally see it more as a personality trait, i.e. some people have very addictive personalities, while others can smoke for 30 years and just "stop" because they want to. Offhand, I see no reason why JTR couldn't just straight up stop with out intervention or a new hobby.
Then again, I see no reason why he couldn't have taken years off and killed again in his 50's, either.
Very interesting question you posed there 
Hey Ally -
Long time, no type. Might I ask why it is you are certain that a serial killer stopping cold turkey with out directing his attention to other methods that do not involve killing humans is incorrect?
And since this is a BTK thread, has anyone any real confirmation on how he was actually apprehended? Lots of FUD tossed about in regards to his daughter turning him in, etc.
Legion
"Our name is legion, for we are many"
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1818
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 07, 2005 - 5:44 pm: |
|
Jeff
I’m still reading your posts.
But I do remember when I worked in a massive London hotel kitchen and we had what we called a ‘caller’.
This was always one of the chefs who was given the night off, to just stand in the kitchen and watch what everyone else was doing, and then ‘call’ people when things went wrong.
He’d catch things before they went wrong, he had all the orders but was doing nothing while everyone else was busy, and had a unique view into the kitchen because he had nothing to do.
Things went right.
I know this doesn’t happen in police investigations but I honestly believe it should.
Doesn’t require great intellect, just some free time, which no copper has.
Regarding your ‘devil’s advocate’ bit, one supposes that some sexual offenders are cleverer than others, and then one supposes that all sexual offenders are not killers, and then that all killers are actually sexual offenders.
It sort of doesn’t make sense, or ‘sex’, does it?
Caz, I would remind you that I was in Times Square at the tender age of sixteen and my career has only got worse since. For heaven’s sake I actually met Timothy Leary. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1657
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 07, 2005 - 6:14 pm: |
|
I think it would depend on the type of killer JtR was-whether he could just "stop".
taking the addiction analogy: If he was addicted to killing in the way Shipman "appeared "to be ie he was in denial about [in his case]his murderous conduct and became more and more dependent on his drug of choice [killing by diamorphine injection]
then JtR would only have been able to stop when he reached "rock bottom" ie when he had nowhere
to go and noone to turn to except to go on
killing more often with greater/more extensive mutilation and with shorter intervals in between and greater risk of being caught etc
On the other hand if he was mad as in the case of clinical psychosis/paranoid schizophrenia of which there are several indications at crime scenes in JtR"s case then the only reason he would have stopped would have been if he got "burn out"[became a shambling wreck]
or possibly if he believed his "voices" were ordering him to do otherwise.
If he was a psychopath who engaged like Bundy
in serial killing as a form of perverse pleasure
then according to the latest research he would have been unlikely to stop.
Its possible the first and last examples could overlap in certain individuals---depending on whether they had an underlying personality that was also addictive---some would-some wouldnt I would think.
Natalie |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 624
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 07, 2005 - 9:20 pm: |
|
Hi AP,
The "caller" idea sounds like a good idea. Not really being familear with the "inner workings" of the police, I'm wondering if this role is already filled by the "lead investigator" when they put together an investigative team. When they look at cold cases, or serial cases, isn't the team leader usually described as guiding the investigation more so than doing the investigation?
I suppose, however, the obvious rebutal to this suggestion is the fact that it doesn't seem to be working all that well. Or, perhaps, the compliation of lists was suggested but the accountants deamed them "not cost effective."
I don't know. Anyway, I take your point that not all murderers are sex criminal, and I think I've agreed with that notion all along. I guess that my concern is that just because "sex as motive" is probably used too often, does not mean it's always inappropriate. For BTK, from what little real evidence we have relating to this case, it looks like it may be appropriate. However, as I suggested above, this is far from an established fact right now; it's only a valid possibility that has some supporting evidence, although the evidence is not unequivocal.
If profiling is going to be useful beyond providing interesting characters in movies, then the profiles should start being presented with less specificity, and emphasise more probablistic type situations. With BTK, for example, statements like
1) crimes could indicate a violence-fetish
This would suggest BTK will be someone with violence-based pornography, or someone known to local prostitutes to request bondage, or S&M related activities.
2) Alternatively, masturbation may reflect secondary release from anger/frustration. This would suggest tightly controlled individual who has little outlet for anger, perhaps someone who "bottles it up" all the time. Not necessarily aroused by the violence per se, rather the explosive violence brings on some sort of catharsis, which results in a euphoria, and it is this that arouses BTK. If so, suspect will not necessarily have violence based pornography as the violence itself is not itself sexually stimulating. Etc.
Anyway, as one can see, suspect 1 and suspect 2 are very different from each other (at least, I was hoping they would appear very different). The idea of a profile, of course, would be that one would try and develope both of these "profiles" more fully. One might end up with 2 very different descriptions, one probably the violence-based fetish fellow, seeking prostitutes, buying bodage porn, etc, the other being the tightly wound, possibly prudish, person who never loses their tempert but seethes and simmers all the time (perhaps high blood pressue, requires meds for tension and/or stress), etc. Two very different people.
But, the idea of profiling is not to describe the killer per se, but rather to describe the "kinds of people who might have committed this crime or crimes." If there are more than 1 "kind" of person who could do these actions (though for different reasons), then the profile should describe all of them. To simply go with a single description when multiple descriptions work is often going to "get it wrong."
However, even though multiple descriptions are possible, and they may be almost opposite each other, each description attempts to be specific within itself. So if you match a suspect with one aspect of one of the descriptions, to say they "match the profile" they would have to match only the aspects of that "option". You can't pick and choose characteristics from "profile 1" and "profile 2" to get a match, otherwise, there's no point in profiling. You might as well just list every possible human characteristic, and tick off the ones that the subject matches, and claim the profile got it right.
All a profile is intended to do is provide suggestions on where to look for more information, and to suggest which people should be investigated first (not only, just suggest an order). If they can suggest areas that have a better than chance likelihood of producing the goods, then they are useful. If, however, they are more likely to steer an investigation down the wrong path and/or prevent people from following up alternatives, they are bad.
Unfortunately, all the books out there are based on "profiling success stories." A rather squewed sample, to say the least.
- Jeff |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 255
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 07, 2005 - 11:22 pm: |
|
"then JtR would only have been able to stop when he reached "rock bottom" ie when he had nowhere
to go and noone to turn to except to go on
killing more often with greater/more extensive mutilation "
Natalie, the thought comes to mind that after MJK, there was perhaps no where else to take this; he had painted his "masterpiece".
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1822
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 08, 2005 - 5:43 pm: |
|
I must admit to being sorely tempted to follow this thread through to its logical conclusion, that the killer after his glut with MJK in Dorset Street would have then drifted into a form of silly confusion where he might have been stabbing women with a toy dagger and then been carted off to a loony-bin where he might have ended up in a totally catatonic state in Broadmoor unable to even speak.
But that would be silly, and folk would say that I had a suspect in mind.
So I'll resist that temptation.
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1659
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 08, 2005 - 5:54 pm: |
|
Well that seems a reasonable theory to me AP.Maybe the bells of the foundry had stopped giving him clear instructions!
Seriously though he may well have deteriorated after November 1888 to this silly type of attack. |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 257
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 08, 2005 - 9:32 pm: |
|
"But that would be silly, and folk would say that I had a suspect in mind.
So I'll resist that temptation. "
C'mon, AP - I lobbed you a nice underhanded pitch; whack it out of the park.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 625
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 08, 2005 - 10:28 pm: |
|
Actually AP, your "silly continuation" is probably one valid continuation. It hinges, of course, on the notion that many serial killers who perform mutilations are mentally disturbed along the lines of schizophrenic type disorders. Not all of them, of course, but mutilation murderers have a higher incidence of such mental disorders than other "kinds" of serial killers. (Note also, other "kinds" of serial killers have also been schizophrenic, no hard and fast rules here, just population probabilities).
But, going with that, if one starts with the premise that JtR was one of these schizophrenic mutilators, then what might happen? Well, there was no treatment for schizophrenia at the time, and this is a disorder that can increase in it's severity to the point the individual becomes quite incapable of doing much of anything. So, the murders may have stopped because whoever JtR was, he became so mentally incapacitated that he was no longer able to commit the crimes. Later, the condition may have subsided slightly, and he starts stabbing again, but he's still not well enough, or the delusions, voices, are telling him something different this time. And so on.
In otherwords, if we start from the premise that JtR is schizophrenic, we can apply some of what we know about that disorder, and how it progresses over time. Since there is no "one-way" for schizophrenia to progress, sometimes it increases, sometimes it goes into remission even without treatment, our "profile" would have to cover each of these continuations in order for it to be complete; it must cover all the bases.
And, of course, there are mutilating killers who are not schizophrenic, so a profile would have to consider those options as well.
In the end, your presentation follows one of the many possible "logical continuations." What is nice in your case, of course, is that you have a suspect who generally fits "one of the logical continuations." It's not the only logical continuation, and yours is not the only suspect. However, I've seen some suspects which I find hard to fit to any logical continuation from the murders. And, I've seen some "continuations" which I find hard to fit the word "logical" to, although they end up fitting the person's suspect.
You know, you might just be a secret profiler after all! And, you don't even have to include sex as a motive in this one.
- Jeff |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1823
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 09, 2005 - 11:27 am: |
|
Thanks for all the positive comments folks.
Fancy us having a ‘closet’ profiler in our ranks!
Nah, not really… but I do feel that Jeff’s point about profiling in that it is a useful tool for determining ‘types’ of killers is completely valid; and I have felt this since doing the research for the Myth way back in the late 80’s and early 90’s.
What struck me then, and still does now, was the weird ability of certain killers to cease killing and take up some other lesser crime or even occupation, which then seemed to satisfy or even replace that original ‘urge’ to kill.
Here I think of killers like Ludwig Tessnow who murdered and mutilated two young girls in 1897, and then for three years amused himself by hacking sheep to pieces until 1900 before murdering and mutilating two young boys. Or Arnold Sodeman, the child serial killer who allowed five years to slip by between his second and third victim.
But mainly it is Colin Pitchfork who interests me in this very particular regard.
Although the three killers are very different ‘types’ they all seem to share the same peculiar ability to actually stop killing for long periods of time; and it is for that reason I have always supposed that somewhere in the behavioural make-up of such killers is hidden an important clue. My gut feeling is that their behaviour is controlled by a series of ‘triggers and switches‘; and if those social ‘triggers and switches’ were removed then the killer would not kill.
Pitchfork in particular showed this unusual quality, killing one young girl when she backed away from him as he was exposing himself to her - in his wacky world she was supposed to walk past him quickly, more or less ignoring what he was doing - and then for two years he was quite content to expose himself to hundreds of women.
But then another young girl did exactly the same as the first girl - backed off - creating what Pitchfork himself described as a ‘situation’, and she was murdered.
It seemed obvious to me that this ‘situation’ Pitchfork talked about was both trigger and switch for that which was about to happen. No ‘situation’, no murder. If the girl had simply walked past and ignored Pitchfork she would have survived. By recognising Pitchfork for what he was, and then reacting to what he was doing, the poor girl triggered something in Pitchfork’s behavioural make-up. Almost as if the girl had suddenly become a danger to the killer.
Taking what we do know about Jack the Ripper and his crimes, plus what we do now know about Thomas Hayne Cutbush, his insanity and his attacks on women, then yes, I could easily see a situation where Thomas is wandering around Whitechapel late at night - like some odd ball pinball in a dangerous and gigantic Wizard - and when confronted by a drunken, demanding and determined prostitute, then wham! Bang! thank you mam! All switches blown, triggers firing rapidly, and the result an awful bloody mess.
As most of you know I have always seen something inherently childish in the crimes of Jack the Ripper.
To find Thomas Hayne Cutbush rushing around Whitechapel trying to stab women with a ‘toy dagger’ is just such a treat for me. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4208
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 09, 2005 - 12:59 pm: |
|
I understand those who say, "After Miller's Court, he had nowhere to go. He couldn't have taken it any further." I still half think that way myself.
On the other hand, AP has likened Jack in Miller's Court to a man let loose in a chocolate shop. Now, if you eat too much chocolate, you feel sick - which may be what happened to Jack.
I'm told that managers at sweet factories turn a blind eye to workers scoffing the sweets. After the initial indulgence, things settle down a bit.
Robert |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 259
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 09, 2005 - 1:50 pm: |
|
Another thing that pops out at me when mulling over the BTK case: perhaps we've collectively been too hasty in discarding Dr. Bond's belief that Alice McKenzie was a Ripper victim.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1827
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 09, 2005 - 2:18 pm: |
|
Yes, Robert, the sweet shop scenario still works for me.
The problem I have is not fitting Jack into that sweet shop, it is fitting young Thomas in there.
This is an outdoors - indoors thing. Killers like Pitchfork operate in a wide environment, they couldn’t stand the close and cloying confinement of a relationship, no matter how fleeting, and they in fact killed because their victim personalised their minor crime.
On the other hand killers like Richard Chase have to get into the intimacy and privacy of a house to kill, they seek a personalisation of their crimes, they appear to seek almost a family.
The two just don’t go together.
I don’t know about MJK. She doesn’t fit the clear pattern of all the others - including, as Sir Robert points out, many others that have been discounted but excluding Stride - but that doesn’t mean anything at the moment.
I just haven’t got my head around the concept of a killer who kills on the street suddenly killing indoors.
Yet. |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 858
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 09, 2005 - 2:39 pm: |
|
Hmm...okay long period thinking over this case and my general feelings towards it and serial murder in general. I am somewhat against conventional wisdom on this matter. Here's kind of how I see it, in random and not very cohesive order:
A serial killer should be defined by what motivates him--If a label is to be used at all. If a serial killer is not motivated by sexual deviance, then he is not an SSK. A person who is an SSK is *not likely* to stop (not that they absolutely won't but that it's not likely), because there aren't other outlets for that kind of activity that are comparable. In other words, if someone is sexually aroused by mutilating a women, then there isn't something that can really be substituted to arouse him although pictures/memories might be a poor substitute.
If someone however is just a flaming anal jackass who takes power and authority to extremes, there are other avenues that could be used to channel that sort of desire for domination and control. They are getting off on the power, the feeling of I am god and can do what I want, and there are other ways that feeling can be obtained. Measuring neighbor's grass, etc, or working in a job where you have control over the minutia of other people's lives and the ability to punish might be a more generally satisfying daily experience than isolated grand acts.
As for his communications that talk about "sexual relief" and "sexual death" that makes me even more convinced that they weren't his motivators. The fact that he uses those two words so specifically and oddly in the case of sexual relief makes me think he was just toying with the public image. He never actually talks about sex or anything except in very specific key phrases.
Look at what he actually writes in the first letter: "Since sex criminals do not change their
M.O. or by nature cannot do so, I will not change mine." He says oh..sex crims can't, so I won't. Very huge difference between can't and won't. He is aware of what people consider to be the "indicators" of a sex crime and is playing along.
|
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 335
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 09, 2005 - 3:08 pm: |
|
AP-
I'm delighted to hear your talk about the childishness of the JTR killings, as I have felt that myself. The chocolate factory analogy is a good one too, I think.
I've always imagined that the mutilations were a result of a thwarted curiosity about the female body and that Jack, like a little kid,took his toy apart to see how it worked.
In the case of Millers Court, there were no adults around to stop him...
Mags
|
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 626
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 09, 2005 - 3:20 pm: |
|
Hi AP,
The idea that these killer's cannot stop, or control their impulse, is generally false. There are many who spend a lot of time prowling, and hunting for victims, or looking for disposal sites for future use, which is what tends to be phrased as "cannot stop" since these individuals are often performing actions that are part of the "process."
However, it is these individuals who also pick and choose exactly when, where, and who to strike. They do not attack someone in broad daylight, with the police in plain sight. They try to control the situation until it is just right, and then choose to act. This "type" of killer is often described as the "organised type", but to be honest, it's my belief the "organised-disorganised" idea is probably too simplistic. Still, as a starting ground, the classic organised killer is one who controls, or tries to to the best of their ability, every aspect of the crime in order to minimise the risk to themselves. BTK would fit into this "type" quite well.
And, because they can choose when the situation is right, they can choose to stop. Simply because if they feel the risk is getting too great, perhapse the police interviewed them, then the situation is not right.
Now, the above is pretty broad and general, to the point it's probably not very useful for specific cases. Many things could change, to make the "situation not right", and so stopping does not necessarily mean the police have gotten close to the killer (making the killer feel the risk is too great). Increased attention to their crimes in general may do this, for example.
Other killers are more ... impulsive. Your example of Pitchfork is a perfect example. It seems unlikely that Pitchfork spent time looking for people to murder. However, when his exposing himself produced an undesirable response, this triggered something (anger/embarressment/humiliation all rolled into one, some emotional cocktail probably), and he killed the girl. However, I find it hard to believe that for years, only these two girls noticed him, and backed away. Others would have as well, perhapse older women who would have been more difficult to attack. He may still have had the emotional response, but could not react in the same way; he chose not to attack these people for some reason, probably because they were too difficult to attack in his mind. So even he would have shown some "control" over who to attack, if not entirely when and where (since he cannot control their response to his exposure, which triggers his murderous response).
As for switching to mutilating sheep, well, that's not really stopping per se, it's just switching victims. With this person, it's the act of mutilation that they find rewarding. What ever it is about this act, it doesn't seem particularly directed at women or people. It could be, of course, that he fantasized that the sheep were women, etc, but he might not have. If he did, it's similar to Pitchfork in that he shows control over his actions by choosing a less risky victim. If not, which is more interesting, then we have another "type" of killer, one who has no particular anger towards people/women/etc but has some sort of fascination with the act of mutilation. Something about it is satisfying, whether or not we're talking sexual satisfaction would be entirely situation specific. Meaning, the satisfaction certainly need not be sexual in any way, but it could be. This kind of killer is motivated by a different emotional construct than the others, which is primarily the pleasure of the act.
So, we have the first type, one who is the "obsessive/compulsive revenge killer", always on the prowl, needs to get the situation "just right", wants to minimise risk to themselves, and who's prime emotional makeup seems to be focused on some sense of having been "unjustifiably wronged". Here I'm thinking of those like Bundy, BTK, the Baton Rouge Killer, Son of Sam, and Gacy; probably Zodiac too. These individuals look for opertunities to kill. They may, however, require a certain level of stress in their current life situation. So, if their life becomes more "stress free", they may stop prowling, but as soon as they feel stressed again, they seem to attribute this as being unfairly done by, and go on the hunt again to extract revenge.
Then, you get your more impulsive style, like Pitchfork. One who has the potential to kill, but isn't really out looking to. Something situational is also required, like the above, but in this case it's more immediate; the girl backs away, she's small enough not to be a threat, etc. These killers are probably caught more quickly, given that when they tend to kill, there has been less planning before hand. That leaves more room for mistakes. However, if they are not caught, there could be quite long periods of time between crimes because the murders will depend upon an external event happening, and that the potential victim not be too threatening. These killers are your "saw her in the park, followed her, and killed her" type killers. This "type" and the previous "type" probably are not entirely distinct, and there might be more overlap between them than the extremes suggest.
Then, we have our "reward based killer." This is one who kills because it brings them pleasure of some sort. Although the "revenge" killer gets pleasure I suppose in extracting their revenge, this type of killer gets pleasure from the act of killing itself, not from the more abstract "revenge satisfaction." These killers probably should be separated into "Sadistic Sexual pleasure" killers, "Non-Sadistic sexual pleasure" killers, and "non-sexual pleasure" killers.
a) The "Sadisitic sexual pleasure killer" is one who has a violence based fetish, and requires a living person to suffer and express pain, and from this they derive a great deal of sexual satisfaction. They will be into bondage, S&M, hard violent pornography, and so on. Their victims will have suffered horribly, and have been concsious during the inflicting of the wounds. Once they have died, the body is of no use to the killer, and they will be abandoned, or dumped, with little ceremony or concern.
b) the "Non-Sadisitic Sexual Pleasure Killer", gets some sort of sexual satisfaction from killing, but it's not the suffereing that matters. If they spend a lot of time with the body afterwards, spend time mutilating, or posing it, dressing it up trying to make it "pretty", and so on, then it's probably some form of necrophilia that is this particular killers fetish. Ted Budy had some of these characteristics, as he was a necrophiliac.
On the other hand, if the kill is quick, and the killer seems to have spent little time with the body afterwards, then the sexual arousal is probably due to the sense of power they exert over life and death. Son of Sam (David Berkowitz) apparently would masturbate while reliving the event for these sorts of reasons. The killings made him "God-Like", the large calibre gun he used was chosen because it was a "man's gun", etc.
c) the "non-sexual pleasure" killer. These killer's get some sort of pleasure, neither sexual nor "revenge extraction" based. They just find it satisfying, maybe to them the sensation of cutting things feels good, or they feel they've "done the right thing", or are "making the world a better place", etc. These killers are most probably delusional, but not necessarily. Some people find what "feels good to them" despite the fact that it "does not feel good to anybody else". However, this group will probably have the highest proportion of "just plain crazy people" in it.
Anyway, there are more "types" then those I've listed above I'm sure. And, I've tried to indicate that these "types" are not, and should not, be considered mutually exclusive groupings. Ted Bundy, for example, was both a necrophile and a revenge based killer.
Also, these are not official groupings, but rather are some ideas I've been playing around with. As such, they are probably wrong in many ways, if not wrong in their entirety. I'm not sure that these "types" are any more or less useful than any other current categorization scheme.
More importantly, I'm not sure how one would be able to determine if the "pleasure", let's say, was sexual or non-sexual, before one actually caught the killer. Or, how to determine if the crimes are revenge base dor not, before one has caught the killer.
- Jeff |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 260
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 09, 2005 - 9:21 pm: |
|
"I just haven’t got my head around the concept of a killer who kills on the street suddenly killing indoors.
Yet."
It's interesting to me that the ONE area of the Case that has never puzzled me is the indoor/outdoor conundrum. Perhaps I am being simplistic, but I've always thought that JtR targeted prostitutes because they were easy prey - if he did stab Ada Wilson, he had learned he needed less challenging targets - and East End prostitutes by and large didn't have their own rooms.
With MJK he hit the jackpot: she had her own room, she was attractive, and JtR had the luxury of time. He went to work.
And Jack saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And he rested.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1540
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 5:02 am: |
|
Hi All,
Man - and woman - are natural thrill seekers. To take the obvious example, fictional murders are not called 'thrillers' for nothing.
But I do fondly imagine that, if faced with a scene of actual brutality, torture and the taking of human life, the vast majority of 'normal' thrill seekers would react in a number of pretty predictable ways, mentally and physically, but that getting an erection would not be one of them.
So even if the oft-used term 'sexual offender' offends the ear when discussing certain cases, the mere fact that some men can and do get an erection under such horrific circumstances would appear to me to be one more thing that sets them well apart from other human beings.
What that means (if I am right), in terms of how one could apply this fact, is another matter. But it might be an interesting study for the curious, to see what else produces an erection in such men, and what fails to produce one.
Would BTK, for example, have found himself with an erection when lording it over his neighbours or colleagues at work? And would this be classed as a normal, or totally abnormal reaction?
I think I've still got a lot to learn about thrills and spills.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 547
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 9:34 am: |
|
I think another motivation for SKs, and this was quite apparent with BTK is media attention. It may be that some of the assertions he makes in his horrid letters were not even factual but designed to shock.
As to childishness, I have thought for a long time that it is possible that SKs are not so much abberantly developed as they are underdeveloped. Little boys pull the wings off flies and throw rocks at bird nests. The vast majority of them reach a point developmentally where they can identify with the pain their victims experience and they stop. If you want to see brutality at its worst visit a day nursery. Put a bunch of three year olds in a room and you will see them pulling hair, bashing each other over the head with toys, poking eyes, etc. etc. etc. These actions if practiced by an adult could land them in prison. |
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 339
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 11:39 am: |
|
I agree with you completely,Sir Robert, on the indoor/outdoor question. Sometimes we just try to make things too complicated.
And Caz, maybe BTK did get off lording it over his neighbors. Perhaps his ability to strike terror by measuring grass saved the lives of some women.
Mags
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1831
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 1:02 pm: |
|
Slight misunderstanding there, Sir Robert.
I have no problems with Jack as an indoor/outdoor killer… it was young Thomas Cutbush who was vexing me as such.
However I hope I have now reached a clearer understanding of young Thomas by further study of the long Old Bailey case that I posted on the board some time ago, that of William Trapp in 1823 who attempted to murder a woman indoors with a small axe.
At the time of posting this long-winded trial I was totally struck by the almost uncanny similarities in the history and crimes of these two young men - who may in fact be related but that is of no import here - for they were both well and truly carved from the same block of wood.
They were the same age at the time the offences were committed; both spent lengthy time in local loony-bins; they shared a similar aggression directed against close female relatives; both enjoyed standing in front of mirrors looking at themselves for hours on end; both were unemployable because of their peculiar mannerisms and habits, and then the sudden and unexplainable attacks against women with a sharp weapon.
The similarities almost guarantee that young Thomas could indeed have ventured indoors to carry out an attack on a woman.
However my feeling is that young Thomas would have required some vague previous contact with MJK before feeling ‘safe’ enough to enter her home.
Before this much earlier case was posted I was experiencing very real difficulties with making an ill-fitting suit fit Thomas Cutbush in regard to the killing of MJK. No matter how I cut the cloth he always ended up with one sleeve on the floor and one sleeve above his elbow.
But he looks just fine and dandy in his new suit, now. |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 627
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 2:41 pm: |
|
Hi Caz,
You are completely on target. The most difficult thing to overcome conceptually about sexual serial killers, especailly the sadistic ones, is the connection between the violence, pain, and suffering they inflict, and the sexual arousal. It's so far removed from what a normal, healthy, individual would find erotic that the initial response is to reject the idea that such acts could be sexually arousing.
However, no matter how odd, strange, or repulsive something may appear to one person, it can, and probably has been, erotisized by another. There are all sorts of examples one could list, but there's no need. Once one accepts the fact that there are people who get sexually aroused by strange things, some of which include violent acts, then one doesn't have to experience that arousal themselves to understand that another person might. I don't have to understand, or experience, Ted Bundy's sexual excitment for dead bodies to understand (intellectually, if not emotionally) that part of what he enjoyed about killing was the fact that he ended up with something he found pleasurable; a dead body.
And yes, most of the people in the world would find what these people do repulsive. So what we know about "most people in the world" won't apply; but the general principles may. For example, the idea that capturing and torturing someone is repugnant to most people doesn't apply, but the idea that sexual desire is something that people will try to fulfill, probably does. The difference is that this 2nd one is a statement about the human condition, the former is a statement about how the condition manifests itself in an individual.
Another might be, one will seek a cure to an illness to ensure their survival. For most people, this will probably manifest itself as a trip to the doctor, rather than a trip next door to kill the neighbor to drink their blood because you think your own is turning to dust. Again, same "instinct", different manifestation in behaviour. However, this example also includes a delusional thinker, but then I would almost think that a sadistic killer is delusional in a way also! Also "instinct" is not a great word here, as it may contain some implications that I'm not intending. But, at the moment I can't think of a better term.
Anyway, I think the "instincts" are probably safe to assume, but how the following of these "instincts" manifest themselves in behaviour is where things get twisted around. To the point that it is difficult to understand "how could that behaviour satisfy this desire/instinct"? (Desire might be better).
These people are different, for them, it seems that the connection between the "desire" and their chosen action, is not unclear or difficult for them to understand. We may find it revolting, they find it fun.
- Jeff
|
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 628
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 3:14 pm: |
|
Hi Ally,
You point out BTK's specific use of the term "sex killer", and how he repeatedly makes sure the police can't fail to associate a "sexual motive" for his crimes by using that exact phrase in his letters (sexual relief, sexual death, etc). Then, you question the motive of the writer of the letter by wondering if this is an attempt to mislead the investigation?
I think that's a very good suggestion. BTK's letters always struck me as strange (gee, go figure). I think I posted way back that this guy read about serial killer's, he read "true crime books", etc. I thought that because one of the killer's he mentions was Harvey Glatman, who is not very well known, especially in the 70's. Very few people would have heard of him, while Jack the Ripper and Son of Sam were well covered in the media. Anyway, BTK's knowledge of Glatman indicates he knows what would have been fairly esoteric stuff about serial killers for the time. Also, he wrote things that sounded like he was plagarising other killers. The "monster in my brain" stuff reminds me of David Berkowitz's letters, I'm almost sure he used a very similar phrase; along the lines of "I don't know when this monster entered my brain", and that sort of thing. The "Maybe you can stop him, because I can't" reminds me of the "Lipstick Killer's" famous message of "Stop me before I kill more", and so on.
In otherwords, these letters seemed like he had to copy other killer's words, figuring he would get the right "feel" this way. That would indicate his motive is not what he was trying to "come across in his letters", which is the sexual serial killer motive. He may even have masturbated at the crime scene as a "diversion", to suggest a sexual motive, even if it was not. At the time, there wasn't much they could do with that physical evidence since DNA testing wasn't what it is today, so it wasn't the risk it would be these days.
On the other hand, he may have copied letters without realising it. Reading up, and learning about, these other serial killer's may have been arousing to him. The letter's they wrote may have seemed "so perfect! I relate to that so well", that when he wrote his feelings, similar words came out. So, he may have had a sexual motive.
The answer to these questions, or notions, may become clear as they look more and more closely into the background of Rader (assuming, of course, he is proven to be BTK).
- Jeff |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 859
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 3:26 pm: |
|
Yeah Jeff, that is sort of what I was thinking. Most of what he wrote was very contrived, expecially the parts about "sexual death" etc. And when you consider that his major in college was criminal justice, it pretty much stretches credibility to believe that he was not familiar with the jargon of sex offenders and had not studied case files. I believe he was paraphrasing other sex criminals words, I don't believe he believed them. The part that I posted above about how he wrote "since sex criminals can't change their methods, I won't change mine" pretty much cinched it for me.
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1832
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 3:57 pm: |
|
Jeff
Good point concerning Pitchfork that perhaps some of his ‘flashing’ victims were just too ‘difficult to attack’.
Pitchfork was a self-admitted coward, so he almost always selected victims of an age group that represented the least threat to him as an adult. Over a lifetime of exposing himself he found that older women were likely to challenge him, so he stuck to what he regarded as safe.
The emotional cocktail you mention was certainly there when he killed the two girls right out of the blue. But a careful reading of his case does reveal that 99% of this emotional cocktail had its origins in pure annoyance, because these two girls had not played the game to his strict rules.
Not only did they react in a highly visible manner, and then back off, but they also walked far too quickly, almost jogging, towards him along the narrow path, hence not giving him the time to ‘set-up’ as he put it himself.
They were constricting his pleasure zone and robbing him of the ‘thrill’ you like to talk about. He killed them for that.
Pitchfork spent most of his life planning and executing his ‘flashing’.
He carefully measured distances and times; catalogued the number of girls likely to walk along specific paths at specific times of the day; sought out hiding places for his car and motorbike; marked out escape routes for after he was done, and would drive hundreds of miles a week to locate the type of lonely paths that would allow him to ’set-up’.
But when it came to murder, there was no plan, and there was no ‘thrill’.
The girls had got in his way by advancing his programme to a point where it was destroyed.
I do see this in Jack.
Very childish.
I’m still catching up with your posts, but you ain’t getting away with the Bundy thing. |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 629
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 4:52 pm: |
|
Hi AP,
I'm not familear with the Pitchfork case at all, so I'm pleased to see that the idea of fear of older victims seemed to be correct. Also, the impulsive nature of the murder side of his crimes suggests the murder aspect was not planned, as you point out. I'm glad you pointed out how that doesn't mean his flashing wasn't planned. The flashing was what he enjoyed, the murders were a result of not getting what he enjoyed, or having what he enjoyed "spoiled". I never realised, or considered, just how much planning one might put into opening a raincoat!
Anyway, not sure which aspect of Bundy you don't agree with, but I suspect it's the necrophiliac side of things. If so, I will admit that this information is only supported by what Bundy himself claimed, and I should have indicated that by that token one should pile on a lot of salt before taking it as "true." Bundy is difficult because he was so successful at hiding the bodies, so that by the time they were found, they were just skeletons. His Florida murders, are very different from his previous ones, and by this point he seems to have been imploding. The Chi-Omega attack is very different, but by this time, Bundy was a different person. He knew he was being hunted himself, he would have been under so much stress every minute of the day, that he probably was unable to plan his assaults with the luxurary of knowing he had all the time he would require to "get it right". He was desperate, and those crimes seem to reflect that desperation. The thing is, if he was desperate to kill, what was it about the killing that made it so appealing to him that he was desperate to do it in the first place? Who knows? The "explanation" that is generally floated out is that he was a necrophiliac (note: necrophiliac is not only having sex with a corpse, but it involves any sort of sexual arousal associated with corpses. So, finding the smell of putrification arousing, or only being sexually aroused in a graveyard, or the eating of, or wearing of, body parts, or mutilation of a corpse, etc: any of these sorts of activities, that involves sexual arousal and dead bodies, are forms of necrophilia).
- Jeff |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1833
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 5:08 pm: |
|
It is no big deal with Bundy, Jeff, just that he did keep one victim 'alive' while he fetched another, and then raped the second victim while the first watched.
The he killed both of them.
This was the lake incident with his arm in a sling.
I have always been of the opinion that Bundy killed his victims - at least in the earlier crimes - to avoid identification.
Later he did burn out and your comments are very apt. His last burn out has always evoked the killing of MJK for me. |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 630
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 9:06 pm: |
|
Hi AP,
That's right, the two Lake Samish (sp?) victims. Again, like the necrophilia we only have Budy's word that he kept one victim alive while he went to get another. However, there's nothing else to work with.
This is the one crime of Bundy's that could reflect sadism, but it only does if he took pleasure from inducing fear in his 2nd victim. If, however, Bundy was just feeding his ego of being able to have two victims at once, and the fear was incidental (she couldn't help but be terrified obviously, but to call him a sadist all depends upon how much this fear was enjoyed by Bundy; something we cannot know for sure). I would say, however, that since Bundy does not seem to have repeated this process, and he doesn't seem to have started including more and more sadistic type behaviours, that it appears sadism was not part of Bundy's make up. In the large majority of cases definately linked to him (if not all), he seems to have dispatched his victims very quickly. Sadists need their victims concious so that they can "respond", so they can express their pain, suffering, and fear. Once dead, the victim is of no use to them. Of all the "types" of serial killers, the true sadists are the most horrifying to me. Mutilation killers, who kill their victims relatively quickly, but produce frightfully disfigured corpses, disturb me far less than the relatively intact corpses of the sadist, which show signs of horrible and long drawn out suffering.
Anyway, that's a side issue. Back to Bundy's keeping one victim "alive." If he did, it seems to me when he left this victim, she must have been unconscious. I can't see Bundy at this stage taking the chance of her escaping. He was too careful for that, or at least that's the image that we generally are given of Bundy; but see below for reasons to question this. Personally, I've always had the sneaking suspicion that when Bundy left, he thought the first victim was already dead. When he returned with a second, it may have been quite a shock to him to come back and find this first victim was still alive, if barely. I have no proof of this, of course, and obviously I could be entirely wrong. It just always strikes me as strange that Bundy, who seemed to be generally careful, would leave a victim he knew was alive, and therefore who ran the risk of escaping. He would have no idea as to just how long it would take for him to find a 2nd victim, how long it would be before he got back, etc.
On the other hand, this same Bundy who was supposed to be so careful, and who was supposed to be so smart, was also going around telling his potential victims his real name! Approaching women on the beach saying "Hi, I'm Ted", when you're name is Ted, and you plan on killing this person if you can get them to come with you, is not exactly a really bright thing to do unless maybe you stop looking for victims after the first failed attempt. Otherwise, you've just let someone go who 1) has seen your car and 2) now knows your real name. But this is just what the supposedly bright and careful Ted Bundy did.
Anyway, I would not be entirely surprised if he did kill to avoid identification, but his actions at the Lake that day doesn't seem to indicate that Bundy was concerned about being identified. I think he truly believed that nobody would really recognize him (and he was right for the most part). Still, it's one thing to figure people won't remember that guy who approached you on the beach two days ago and the guy that abducted you.
Bundy seem to have killed most of victims soon after he abducted them, with the Lake killings being a bit different that way. It also appears he returned to his dumpsites, which wouldn't make much sense if his interest was in living victims, whom he only killed after raping them to avoid identification. And, the Florida killings are clear that he never intended to rape any of the girls in the house. His only intention seems to have been to kill everyone he found there.
Anyway, Bundy did also have relationships with living women, so it's not like Bundy was totally unattracted to the living. Perhaps the Lake killings were an experiment on his part, one which he found less satisfying since he could satisfy his need for a living partner anyway?
- Jeff |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1543
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 11, 2005 - 5:16 am: |
|
Hi Maria,
And Caz, maybe BTK did get off lording it over his neighbors. Perhaps his ability to strike terror by measuring grass saved the lives of some women.
Yes, this is the kind of thing I was beginning to wonder about, concerning the point at which the thrill no longer comes from relatively natural and harmless activities, but begins to extend to behaviour considered eccentric, compulsive, annoying or offensive, right through to the crazy stuff that can only hurt other human beings.
Hi Jeff,
He may even have masturbated at the crime scene as a "diversion", to suggest a sexual motive, even if it was not.
But the mere fact that a man could get himself aroused at a terrible scene of his own creating, because he wanted to be taken for a sex offender, would give me the willies every bit as much as if he could only achieve ejaculation by causing someone else's suffering.
I suppose it's a case of trying to find out what floats the boat of someone like this, that wouldn't float the boat of a 'normal' man, or vice versa.
Princess Anne was once bothered by the unwelcome attentions of a stalker, who "quite rightly", as hubby always says with a wry grin, was taken away to "have his head examined".  Seriously though, I wonder what the line would be between normality (albeit not by everyone's definition) and what a psychiatrist would consider a suitable case for analysis, if not treatment?
If, for example, a man became physically aroused at a photo of Shergar (the horse that was famously stolen by someone assumed to be "high up in the horsey field" - I kid you not, these were the exact words used by an Irish commentator from the racing world - and never seen again), one imagines the men in white coats would have the proverbial [horsey] field day, even though no horses would have been hurt in the process.
It's a weird world and I've often wondered how weird we all have to be in order to understand the weirdness of others. I asked a psychiatrist friend of my brother's at a dinner party if he had to be slightly mad to really understand his clients, and he got defensive enough to provoke my brother's partner into saying gently, with a wink, "I think you've just made Caroline's point for her". 
Have a great weekend all.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 549
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 11, 2005 - 8:05 am: |
|
Personally I think all of us have quirks. Hopefully not like JTRs or BTKs, but I'm afraid they are just at one extreme end of the spectrum not a total departure. We've all known controlling people who make everyone around them miserable. SKs just take the whole thing a step farther. |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 550
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 10:26 pm: |
|
Here's a copy of BTK's indictment.
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/btk/karader30105inf.html |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 631
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 2:28 pm: |
|
Hi Caz,
I would think if BTK did masturbate as a diversion, it would be the only case of such a thing. And I agree, a "normal" person would not likely get aroused in order to do so. One would expect nervousness to get in the way. I suspect, therefore, that BTK became aroused because of the act of killing, but it may have been through a secondary emotion. A "high", if you will, of exerting such domination and control over his victims, rather than a direct sexual connection with death (necrophilia), or even a violence-based fetish.
However, all options must be considered. The idea is to try and extract the personality of the killer based upon the behaviours shown at the crime scene. Personality of individuals can be unique, although personality characteristics range in terms of their "commoness" as well. Unique is just the extreme end of rare on such a "commonness scale".
For the most part, of course, profiling of personality tends to present the "common" characteristics. Sometimes less common characteristics are chosen due to specific aspects of the crime, usually when the common traits do not seem to fit with the displayed behaviours.
For example (and here's hindsight comming into play), let's say the common trait for BTK crimes is "loner, unmarried, and lacks any sense of power and control in their life." However, with the long delays between crimes, this might suggest that BTK did have alternative outlets where he could express domination and control over others. This might then suggest the less common aspects of "married, socialises and seeks and obtains positions of authority, and/or has a job where they can dominate and exert control over others." Rader, fits these less common traits (but they are not unheard of, just less common; the Baton Rouge killer was married, and quite social, as well). I don't know if such long delays really tend to be associated with these traits, but hindsight makes it easy to see how Rader might have had sufficient "power and control" oppertunities in his life to satisfy that need somewhat. So, the frustration might have built up more slowly with him, etc.
It's quite often easy to make stories to fit the suspect to the crime. This is one of the reasons why I think, if we ever get JtR named, it will start becomming easier and easier to see how they "fit" the crimes. With some, like Druitt for example, it started off ok, then sort of fell apart as he was investigated more and more. Sickert is another example. Once you look at him, the story becomes more and more fantastic (sneaking over the channel without anyone knowing), rather than more and more "mundane".
Anyway, many of these "suggestions" I've been putting forth are simply nothing more than trying to tie the threads together from the crimes and what little we know of Rader's life from the press. Whether or not these threads are tied correctly, and whether or not there are things to learn from BTK's crimes that extend to other crimes, remains to be seen. Also, Rader has not yet been convicted, so presuming his guilt at this stage is a bit premature. If the evidence against him is as strong as the press makes out, then he's guilty. But that evidence has not yet been presented in a court for evaluation.
- Jeff |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
