|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Brian W. Schoeneman
Detective Sergeant
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 79
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 02, 2003 - 11:58 pm: |       |
All,
I don't want to hijack the this thread and turn it into a profiling thread, but I'm one of the big proponents of profiling (for what its worth) in the case, and I just wanted to make sure that we don't go chasing our tails here.
Dane's ideas are generally okay, but profiling is not, and never will be, an exact science. And to refine what he said a bit-
1.) Many serial killers are male. In fact, you can argue that most are. But there have been exceptions (Aileen Wuornos springs to mind first).
2.) Race. It's less "they're white" or "they're black" but more "they kill within their own race". Again, this is a generalization.
3.) Age. Again, it depends, and you have to make the determination based on the crime scene and the evidence you have.
4.) Absence of guidance. Not always. Again, this is a "many" not an "always" point.
I could go on, but the only one of Dane's points that is really wrong is the motication. Most, if not all, serial killers have a sexual component.
I suggest strongly that anyone interested in profiling and willing to read something boring pick up "Sexual Homicide, Patterns and Motives" by Ann Burgess, John Douglass and Robert Ressler. This is the book that basically made profiling a "science".
In regards to our current case, it is difficult to profile Jacky because we don't have a whole heck of a lot of solid evidence to go on here.
B |
Christopher T George
Detective Sergeant
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 79
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 03, 2003 - 2:53 pm: | |
In re Profiling:
The U.S. Federal government's law enforcement agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), works with the Justice Department, the Federal government's judicial agency, and just as the lawyers in Justice follow legal precedents when they argue a case, the FBI also probably too slavishly follows the precedents and examples of known criminals in the modern United States. It is thus an imprecise and possibly misleading system and appears to be on particularly shaky ground when applied to the a British serial killer of 1888, for which there exists, history-wise, no real precedent or parallel set of crimes for which there are relevant data. In other words, it is dangerous, I think, to try to apply broad generalizations about criminals in twentieth and twenty-first century cases to a case of 1888.
Best regards
Chris George |
Maura and Karen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 03, 2003 - 11:08 am: | |
To defend danefirmin on points to which they has been some contention, he did not say ALL serial killers were male or white. What he said was specifically:
"I think there are certain characterists that almost all serial killers have. exp:
1. Serial Killers are Male.
2. Serial Killers are White.
3. Serial Killers are Middle Aged."
Far be it from me to defend danefirmin who I know not, as he needs no defense, but his contention that almost all serial killers have been male, and white is correct, nonwithstanding aberrant cases like Wuornos and our man in Atlanta.
Do I think this proves that women are not fully capable of serial killing? Absolutely not, but there are just not as many on the rolls or prosecuted.
My only bone to pick with danefirmin, and I mean this in a very non-derogatory way, is the normal age with which most serial killers seem to be in their prime modus operandi...which seems to me to be younger than middle age. Yet this would depend entirely upon what danefirmin means by middle age. So please jump in danefirmin and give us your concept of middle age...which could be from 28 to 42 for all I know, as I don't second guess people.
Certainly even Spree Killers have some components of the profile of a white, male in his late twenties up to early forties composite sketch. As Detective Sergeant Schoeneman wisely says, this is an inexact science as most profilers interviewed admit freely, and is just a guideline to hone in on statistical possibilities. There is always the exception to the rule. I would think that Mr. Fish could be an exception to the rule and yet Arthur Shawcross an example perhaps.
|
Bob Hinton
Sergeant
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 35
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 04, 2003 - 8:14 am: | |
Dear Danefirmin,
Thank you for your kind words, however I must take issue with you over the profiling of serial killers. You list several attributes that a lot of serial killers share, age, sex, race etc however you are still missing the main point - these are attributes shared by killers who get caught, in other words the failures.
What attributes are shared by those successful killers who kill all their lives and never get caught?
For all we know they could be:
Must have a stable home background.
Must Kill outside racial boundaries
Must always be female.
and so on.
I'm afraid your trust in DNA is misplaced. Dna is like a fingerprint - only of use if you have something to compare it to. What if you never catch the killer to do a match??
How has DNA or profiling been any help in catching Zodiac for example.
I believe there is a grat danger in relying too much on information about character traits in 'failed' killers. I would be more interested in trying to find out about unknown killers for example.
all the best
Bob
|
Maura
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 04, 2003 - 10:32 am: | |
Dear Mr. Hinton,
Your points to Danefirmin about profiling being based on the failures, is so on the money, as the ones who elude detection are the sine qua non of the spectrum. Of course trying to discover unknown killers, is like like looking for the Cheshire Cat's smile. How do you know it when you find it?
Though he was not a serial killer, nor was he not caught eventually, I do find the story of the hitman known as The Iceman fascinating, as he was able to hide his real profession of being a hitman from his wife, family and friends for his whole life, till he finally made a few cursory tactical errors and was located by the authorities. I saw a really good documentary about his capture that is now out on DVD, and also read a book beforehand which was mordantly entertaining.
My only point in bringing this up is to agree with Mr. Hinton in that the successful arbiters of crime, may not be as clearcut a profile in modus operandi in their daily life, as we have been lead to believe and may not leave any discernible behavioral clues.
One issue I do want to bring up concerning profiling of serial killers is, there seems to be a plethora of frontal lobe inuries as a component in the backgrounds of many 20th Century serial killers. Do the cognescenti here think this is a prerequisite or not in their makeup? And would the Ripper have emerged from such a medical condition?
|
danefirmin
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 03, 2003 - 11:33 pm: | |
Sorry everyone if I didn't state it clearly. I never ment to mean that all serial killers have to have everything that I mented or that all serials killers DO have. I merely was giving a very open generalization (as I stated) off of the top of my head at 2am in the morning. So if some of my ideas are off, then I am sorry for that. It's just been the case that from what I've seen in life has been what I stated. Surely to think that someone who WASN'T white, WASN'T MALE, and WASN't Middle-aged can't be a serial killer is stupid and it would go against all that I stand for to believe that. Like I've stated before, the idea behind me posting is to learn from other people and that's what I've always tried for.
Now, as for as the middle-aged concept. I think the meaning I had in mind was the one you stated, "late twenties to early/middle forties". Granted some people don't consider that middle-aged. But I'm only 17 so to me late twenties is middle-aged. lol. As my sociology book brings out middle age is defined as early 30's to late 40's or early 50's. (I can't remember the exact number and my book is in my car which I care not to run outside and grab at the moment)
Back to serial killers. (and completely ignoring the fact that this is a hoax thread; maybe we should make a new thread for this) White males are the most dominate serial killers in the world. Usually they are over-weight or have something wrong with them. Sure women can be serial killers. (heck as in my personal experiences in life women are some of the most cruel and twisted species on the earth) Ignoring that last comment (having a rough time with my girlfriend right now. lol. I LOVE WOMEN. I think they rule the world honestly) women could be serial killers but I think what keeps so many of them from doing it is because they realize 2 things. (1) Most women can't overpower men so they would have to use posions which is a more complicated type of murder. (2) If they kill men, Who's going to open up jars for them?
With that if anyone would want to talk to me about JtR or life in general, you can either e-mail me or if you use AIM my contact is: Gaberis211.
I was told by one of my teachers, a very very smart man. He taught math. He said to me one day, "I think that after the age of 50 politicians shouldn't be allowed to run again or have you part in our government." When I asked him why he thought that, he explained to me that older people are generally stuck in preconcieved ideas that they won't break. And as he pointed out, while their ideas are good for the time when they were 20's,30's,40's after the age of 50 there ideas are usually dated and not current with the ideas of the populas. While I don't look at things quite that seriously, I think we can learn alot from older people; I enjoy my times talking with them as they have very good knowledge, (My mind flashes to the saying: Those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it) I do feel that new ideas from younger people is good in that it gives a new perspective on the matter. Maybe on some deep down level, young people really do know everything. lol. (Or atleast I hope so)
In closing, I open a brand-new idea which could change everything, What if JtR didn't wear a tophat???? That could change all the possible renderings that we have of him and the face of art in general. I think we should all count our blessings and hope that we solve this mystery of the tophat asap. (ofcourse this last statement is in joking) |
Maura
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 08, 2003 - 12:59 pm: | |
Jack with no tophat???
This is travesty, danefirmin and a bit like taking away Fred Astaire's tophat or Eminem's angst!
Dear dane [if you don't mind me getting familiar],
I've been enjoying your posts very much. Thanks for defining what you meant by middle aged, with your concept being close to "late twenties to early/middle forties" as I guessed, since everyone has their own ideas with semantic ambience.
I was a bit nonplussed though dear dane, to read of your math professor's exegesis of the role of age in determining one's behaviour, specifically if one is over fifty, a la as you stated above:
"I think that after the age of 50 politicians shouldn't be allowed to run again or have part in our government." When I asked him why he thought that, he explained to me that older people are generally stuck in preconcieved ideas that they won't break. And as he pointed out, while their ideas are good for the time when they were 20's,30's,40's after the age of 50 there ideas are usually dated and not current.."
I can only assume with such iron clad beliefs, that said math teacher is himself over fifty, as he seems himself a bit impervious to new modes of thought [concerning age determining behaviour].
It is more my belief that stubborness in being open to new ideas is often the province of the individual entirely, and those who can deter from preconceived societal standards of thinking at 20-40 and are constantly seeking wisdom and new knowledge, are still open minded at 80, and those who are uncompromising and set in their beliefs at 20, are still intransigent at 30-80 .
I'd rather change the old saying to.."You can't teach a recalcitrant dog new tricks."
Well...let's face it, math teachers are a bit into iron clad theorems, now aren't they? But people aren't numbers that always behave in documented scientific modes, in set up situations incontrovertibly.
I wonder if Jack was over 50? I'm sure your math professor would assume that is why the Ripper kept using the same tired and hackneyed M.O. on these poor unfortunate women, doncha think... |
danefirmin
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 10, 2003 - 3:28 pm: | |
hehe. Granted I do think my math teacher might have been a little off in his theories. I just liked him saying, "Young people rule and old people don't know everything." lol. As it stands, I love hanging around older people. I think the younger generation can learn from them a great deal. Ofcourse you also have to remember that my teacher was talking about politics. Which, is totally different from what most would think.
Either way, I FINALLY GOT MY BOOKS IN FROM THE LIBRARY. I read like the first 30 pages of "The Complete History of Jack the Ripper" and I already had a headache. It's packed with facts. But we'll get to that in another thread.
Oh, btw, I have no problems with being called dane. It's a lovely name really. I think you should all name your children after it. |
Daniel R
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, April 14, 2003 - 4:29 am: | |
Hi all,
as a newbie to the 'casebook' i totally missed this hoax. Though i would be interested in seeing the posts so i might know how to avoid such misinformation in the future.
The internet is a remarkable resourc ein that it allows people around the globe to both converse with ease, and share and search reels of information. Of course there will always be people posting incorrect information. Somtimes because they believe this information, other times because they purposefully want to decieve and hurt.
As a new (and as yet unregistered) user i find the messageboards to be a wealth of information and enjoy reading posts very much. It would be truly dissaponting to restrict the posting to registered users only.
please don't let a few rotten apples spoil the whole bunch,
Dan. |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Detective Sergeant
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 124
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 14, 2003 - 2:49 pm: | |
Dan,
All you need to do is take any "new, explosive revelations" with a particularly large, Lot's wife sized, hunk of salt.
Although I slammed John Ormlor for being so cynical in the war thread, we Ripperologists have been lead astray by far too many siren songs of "case closed" and "final solution".
As Stewart Evans once told me, there has been so much stuff written about the Ripper, nearly every aspect of the case has had a book written on it, no matter how mundane.
B |
John R. Fogarty
Sergeant
Username: Goryboy
Post Number: 18
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 4:45 pm: | |
Jeeeeeze, I go away for a few weeks and miss all the bleedin' fun! Paul Masters? Arfa?! One and the same??? Say it ain't so! (I always got a kick out of his screen name, or rather, screeeam name).
As to all fings hoaxy, barmy and bunk, well.... I have to agree with the poster who wrote that probably 85% of everything we know (or think we know) about JTR is bunk. Possibly even the first three suspects named by Macnaghten in his Memoranda of 1894 might be the result of rumour or innuendo (which, by the way, is not an Italian suppository).
In my 'umble opinion, all the alleged Ripper Letters are hoaxes, save perhaps the "From Hell" missive to Mishter Lusk. Ditto the Maybrick diary, his alleged watch, the Sep. 17th Dear Boss letter (only found in the case files after 1988), while many eyewitness and inquest testimonies of the day were pure bilge (i.e., Packer, Annie Farmer, Mrs. Malcolm, et al).
The only things we know for sure about Jack the Ripper are as follows:
1) He left part of Catharine Eddowes' apron in the doorway of 108-119 Goulston Street after her murder.
2) His last Whitechapel victim was Mary Jane Kelly (Nov 8, '88). (I just can't believe that a jealous Joe Barnett could wallow in his beloved's gore like that for over 2 hours; that mess left on the bed could only be the Ripper's handiwork).
3) He was probably fairly short (about 5'5"), aged about 30, stocky, fair-haired, with a small, fair mustache and a sailorly appearance (peaked cap, scarf, etc.) This description jibes with the few eyewitness accounts to which I give any credence (Schwartz, Lawende, Ada Wilson [yes, yes, Ada Bloody Wilson -- an early, botched attempt at obtaining a throat culture by a budding Ripper]).
And that's about it. Class dis-bloody-missed.
Cheers,
John e-Rotten
(a.k.a., Goryboy) |
Marie Finlay
Inspector
Username: Marie
Post Number: 170
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 5:37 pm: | |
I'll grant you number 1, and half of number 3 as a possible 'for sure'....
(The only witness I truly have faith in is Lawende).
 |
L.K. Cook
Police Constable
Username: Xinda
Post Number: 5
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 2:40 pm: | |
danefirmin, We are cruel and twisted, some of us even relish at the levels of Bitchdom that we attain throughout our lives(I am currently at level 40). And we must use it to our advantage at ALL times. Similar to the way men use the "I can do this simply because I am male"excuse. Why?
Because we are driven there. Wournos was a serial killer because of the treatment that she received from MALES. She eventually dubbed herself a lesbian just so she would not have to deal with men at all, only when she had to,for money. Another female serial killer that comes to mind is one that did it all for the money, Doretha Puente (grandma next door). She killed her victims after they had signed power of atty over to her and she received their Social Security checks in her name. She killed men and women,(chopped them up) and buried them in her back yard, with the exception of one gentleman that she had someone chop up and put him in a box and dump it beside the road. Oh Dear I am rambling now, SORRY ALL. Just trying to enlighten our young visitor.
Xinda |
Kris Law
Inspector
Username: Kris
Post Number: 179
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 5:48 pm: | |
Wha?
When do men use the excuse "I can do this simply because I'm male"? And what do you think the response would be other than shrieks of laughter?
Alieen Wuornos was no more a serial killer because of the treatment she received from males than Ted Bundy was a serial killer because he read porno.
Go look up the S.C.U.M. manifesto, you might find it enlightening.
-K |
L.K. Cook
Police Constable
Username: Xinda
Post Number: 6
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 7:45 am: | |
Kris. I am sorry to disappoint you, but, I do not consider the s.c.u.m. manifesto enlightening or entertaining. It is simply male bashing. As for the reason behind why any serial killer kills his or her victims, only they know for sure, we only know the reasons they communicate to us via interview or writings. Do we have the right to dispute the reasons that they themselves divulge? Just because one kills does not mean they lie as well, and vice versa.
Xinda |
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 300
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 8:02 am: | |
Actually, L.K,
Being a serial killer does mean they lie as well. "So Ted, what were you doing last night?" "Oh butchering and slaughtering females." The truth tends to be counterproductive to their fun-time activities. Ah but you say, that is a different type of lie, those lies are meant to keep them from being caught, they have no need to lie now. Wrong. Poor Wournos drumming up sympathy from feminists with more muscle than brains, claiming she was driven to kill all those men in self-defense, they being nasty rapists and all. It's amazing how many rapists she was able to find in her life, considering most women will only stumble across one at the very most, two at the outside level of chance. |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 632
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 1:23 pm: | |
Hi, Ally
And if we go by the current flick, "Monster," there was a beautiful South African-born Hollywood actress inside Alieen Wuornos all along. Who'da thunk it! 
Chris |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 176
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 1:10 pm: | |
Hi everyone,
On the question of serial killers and profiling, there are two recent British cases which highlight the very point I was making about our current knowledge of serial killers being mainly based on those who were caught, in other words the failures.
Harold Shipman did not fit into any of the known profiling boundaries, he was the wrong age, he was a professional person, he had a stable home life etc etc.
Police have recently uncovered the case of a man who has apparently murdered up to a dozen victims and assumed their identities over a considerable period.
These two case alone should give us pause to think about those serial killers who still have not yet been caught.
Bob |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 785
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 6:01 am: | |
Hi Bob,
I agree with you.
I can’t help wondering whether Shipman’s crimes would ever have come to anyone’s notice if he hadn’t made the stupid and greedy mistake of forging the will of one of his victims, making himself the beneficiary, which alerted the victim’s daughter.
If he hadn’t done that, and had later retired and/or died of natural causes, we might never have known a thing.
Love,
Caz
|
kimmie Lee D
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, March 13, 2004 - 1:04 pm: | |
Hey all
last night myself and my partner went to go see the movie MONSTER, the true story of Aileen Wuornos. I walked out of the movie with a warm, but heatsore felling inside of me!
She was a serioul killer, in the eyes of the law and many people to, to me and my partener she was a human being a good one to, but all she was trying to do was survive.
Look at the life she had, no wonder she turned out that way, she had a trubbled childhood, her father abused and was a chilmolester.
I must just say, why didnt she have a fair trail?
I will think of Aileen often, to me shes a human being who just need love, which she never got and then she ment her girl and she resived that love, that she needed....
we all need love but aileen never had that in her childhood, i sit a wonder, what if she got that love that most of us have, would she have had a better life?}
|
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 357
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 14, 2004 - 8:25 am: | |
Christ Jesus. Do not go to a movie to get the "true story" on anything. Especially not the true story of a killer on death row. Hollywood is notoriously bleeding heart when it comes to convicted killers and always portrays them in a way that makes people go awwwww...poor killer.
Aileen was pissed off and angry with the world and she expressed that by killing. She liked to kill. Period. She had a fair trial, she was convicted.
I find it AMAZING that she would claim that all of the men she killed had tried to rape her. How many men have tried to rape you in your life? At the outside measure of chance, one or two? And yet Aileen somehow manages to find all these rapists, and they all wind up dead. How convenient. And let's not even go into how her story changed and was embellished over time and tellings.
Please.
 |
L.K. Cook
Police Constable
Username: Xinda
Post Number: 8
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 14, 2004 - 1:50 pm: | |
Wuornos is dead, executed in 2002. She did a very informative interview with Montel Williams shortly before her execution. She did not state that ALL of the men she killed had raped her. Some were verbally abusive, and some physically, and she just snapped!
Also she did not kill every man she got in the car with. Some facts were omitted and others made up for dramatic purposes.
Xinda |
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 358
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 14, 2004 - 2:13 pm: | |
No one said that she killed every man she got into a car with. In court, at her defense she said that the men she killed had all tried to rape her with only one of them succeeding, the failed attempts I suppose because she killed them first.
She also said that she hoped everyone on her jury got raped and the prosecuters children be raped and sodomized. Sounds like a person needing love and understanding.
|
Jason Scott Mullins
Detective Sergeant
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 142
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 11:54 am: | |
Ally's right, pooooor Aileen just needed a hug. Riiiiiiiiiight. If you believe that, I've got some swamp land in florida I'll sell you... real cheap too!!
Now maybe it's just me, but I'm thinking it a bad idea to tell the 12 people who held your fate in their hands "I hope you all get raped". Perhaps telling the prosecution "I hope your children get raped and sodomized" wasn't really the best idea either.
Personal opinion of course..
crix0r |
Michael Raney
Inspector
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 200
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 2:04 pm: | |
crix0r & Ally,
Well said!!
Mikey |
Jason Scott Mullins
Detective Sergeant
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 149
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 2:17 pm: | |
I, on the eve of my 150th post, concur..
Bah, damn skippy. That's because we rock
crix0r |
Stef Kukla
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 8:22 pm: | |
In response to 'Maura and Karen' [Posted on Thursday, April 03, 2003 - 11:08 am]:
"...his contention that almost all serial killers have been male, and white is correct, nonwithstanding aberrant cases like Wuornos and our man in Atlanta."
On June 21st 1981, Wayne Williams was arrested for the murder of Nathaniel Cater. [He had been stopped & questioned by a young officer on May 22nd after the officer had heard a splash in the Chattahoochee River]
Funny thing is, this ignores the testimony of four witnesses who claimed to have seen Cater alive on the 22nd & 23rd of May. Cater's corpse wasn't fished out until the 24th.
The key forensic evidence against Williams [frequently touted by those advocating his guilt] were fibres found on several victims.
Some of these were identified as coming from the trunk-linings of two cars owned by the Williams family. However, when three of the six "fibre-victims" were killed, Williams had no access to either vehicle.
Williams' father had taken the 1979 Ford to a repair shop 9am July 30 1980 - 5 hours before Earl Terrell disappeared - and collected again on 7th of August. Displaying blatant signs that it had not been repaired, it was taken back to the shop the next morning, but the repair quote was so high that Williams refused to pay. No-one in the Williams family had access to that car ever again.
The second "fibre-vehicle" was a 10-yr-old Chevrolet, bought by the Williams' on the 21st of October. During the vehicle-free 2-&-a-half-months, Clifford Jones and Charles Stephens were both abducted and murdered.
Other fibres were identified as being from a particular brand of carpet. True, the Williams house had such a carpet; but so did many other houses. This was a significant flaw in the prosecution's case, but the jury were not informed of this.
Neither were they informed of the testimonies of five eyewitnesses who had identified a WHITE suspect in the case of 12-year-old Clifford Jones.
In November 1985, classified GBI documents were discovered, detailing an investigation of KKK activities in Georgia (1980-1). The GBI's spy in the Klan reported that the Klansmen were "killing the children". One particular Klansman (Charles Sanders) had boasted of the murder of Lubie Geter, displaying inside knowledge.
At the start of 1981, the spy reported to the GBI that "after twenty black-child killings, they, the Klan, were going to to start killing black women." From 1980 to 1982, Atlanta police records contained numerous unsolved cases of murdered black women (mostly by strangulation - the notorious MO of the "Child-Murderer").
I find it exceptionally difficult to believe that Wayne Williams was the killer, and yet supposedly intelligent researchers continue to take his guilt as a given fact.
I cannot help thinking that there are those who prefer to go along with official/popular diagnoses merely because they are official/popular. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page