|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
AP Wolf
Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 230
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 15, 2003 - 5:23 pm: |       |
RJ
I couldn't agree with you more.
In fact I go further than you.
I don't believe the crimes or the victims have any relevance whatsoever to an explanation of the behaviour of Jack.
I think the explanation is in the behaviour after the crimes, after the killings, for there one can see a definite motive.
As I have said many times before you can only kill a person so much before it becomes something else, and this is the hallmark of these crimes.
Ultimately Jack was a collector adding to his collection and he simply targeted the most accessible grouping available at his time.
No motive, no words, no psychology, no explanation, no sex, no love... just a fine stamp to stick down in his funny little book.
Good post by the way. |
AP Wolf
Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 231
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 15, 2003 - 5:48 pm: | |
Brian
Not sure that I can go along with your premise that policemen have knowledge of the real world out there, I'd rather have it that policemen have a very real knowledge of the 'police world' out there.
They are two very different things.
The police inhabit a very restricted world with very restricted language and deeply restricted patterns of behaviour, it is a world that is restricted by tighter limits than anyone who has not been in the police world will ever appreciate. One dare not step out of the mould as I think our peaceful friend Scott peacefully demonstrates.
And yes - in answer to a couple of posts - I do believe the present behaviour of police forces around the world in pursuit of serial killers, and their ritualized language when dealing with this type of crime, and more importantly their fondness for the media - for instance if I read another book from another senior American police officer about how clever he is at catching serial killers I will not only scream but raise the Titanic and put it in the foyer of the 42nd Street Precinct - are a direct encouragement to disturbed young people who could make good rocket engineers but after reading Ressler might just decide to be the next Ted Bundy. So, Scott, before you finish your book think about the consequences.
And Brian, I don't think you have addressed the massive divide I was talking about in the genders in your otherwise excellent post. The other points of which I do intend to deal with as soon as I have dealt with this dreadful bottle of spanish brandy that has suddenly appeared on my desk. |
Scott Medine
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sem
Post Number: 93
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 15, 2003 - 6:47 pm: | |
AP,
You make these claims with nothing to back them. Please explain how I will convert someone to into a murderer. Please explain how you can have it both ways, the police sciences, especially profiling techniques, can not aid in the Ripper Murders, yet, you insist that the motive for Richard Trenton Chase is the same that drives the WHitechapel Murderer. I think what you mean to say is that profiling techniques only apply when you wield them. If I had to guess, it seems to me that you have a hatred for police officers and pretty much anyone in authority. I hope I'm wrong on that point.
As for thinking about the consequences of my book, I can think of none. If I remember correctly, you wrote a book....so, how many killers have you spawned.
Peace,
Scott |
Scott Medine
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sem
Post Number: 94
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 15, 2003 - 7:49 pm: | |
There is no such thing as a "police world." The "world" through which we move can be traversed by anyone. Just because one chooses not to walk through that valley is not to say that the "world" does not exist. This is not some alternate reality. In Washington D.C. the White House pretty much sits in a crack neighborhood. Gang bangers are slingin' rocks a few blocks from where President Bush sits.
I urge everyone to get off the couch and quit watching "Cops" and take a police ride along. It opens the mind. Crack and heroin addicts trying to get their fix, gang members "bootin up" and TCOBing, two drunks going at each other in a bar with bottles and straight razors, the car accident caused by a drunk driver too drunk to realize that he was in an accident, the traffic stop where officers have to weigh whether or not they have probable cause to warrantless search the car for contraband,the foot chase through the projects behind a gun toting thug high on PCP (Actually the wild part starts when you catch the gun toting thug high on PCP), the domestic disturbances, all of this and more makes up your night. I would say this is routine, but I hate that word. The press always uses that word. Its a word that can get a police officer killed or seriously hurt as there is nothing routine. The amazing part is that it all co-exists right along side "Accountant World," "Reporter World," "Welder World" "Fortune 500 CEO World." In fact next time you stop at a gas station one evening, just take a good long look around you, look at what someone is carrying, look at the waist, underarms and ankle bulges in clothing, look at the grafitti scrawled on the wall, those of you here in America tell me if you see SUR or SUR 13, LM, LK, BGD, 274, five pointed and six pointed stars, a word or letter with an x scrawled on top of it, is that kid with one pant leg pulled up and a hat cocked to the same side as the pant leg just practicing his first amendment right to free speech? Watch how others react to his presence. Do they move out of his way? Do they act a little scared around him? It is all a lot closer than you think, and you do not have to go into the projects to see it. What about the two men in the store loitering around?The man approaching women in a parking lot of a mall asking for help. The man aimlessly walking through the parking lot looking like he is lost. A car parked on the side of a road in a neighborhood, between two houses. "Cop World" touches everyone when they least expect it and then that person becomes a "Cop World" statistic.
Peace,
Scott |
R.J. Palmer
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 55
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 15, 2003 - 7:52 pm: | |
"My point here is there are a lot of things that are counterintuitive about homicide investigations that you wouldn't know by reading Patricia Cornwell..."
Pleeze.
Er, Brian, Ms. Cornwell is part of your crowd, not mine. Yes, indeed, she, too, is a champion of "profiling" and used the help of a real-life F.B.I. profiler [Ed Sulzbach] in her imaginative Walter Sickert theory.
I, for one, aint down on the coppers. In fact, I'm all for police work. Real police work, that is. Background checks of parking tickets nabbed Berkowitz, and a stake-out under a bridge by a rookie cop nabbed Wayne Williams.
But you see, profilers don't catch criminals; they sit around the campfire talking about them. Yes I know his experience and his credentials, but it's very hard for me to take someone like John Douglas seriously when he talks about "mind hunting" and getting ill---oddly similar to Madam Blavatsky throwing up at a seance.
One doesn't need a text book, nor an education to see the hook in the worm. Just a little logic. As long as there are exceptions to the alleged rules [and there are exceptions], then "profiling" is just a guess. A blunt instrument.
So if it's all the same to you, I'll leave the "text book crimes" to Krafft-Ebing & John Douglas, and stick with my slow-plodding donkey. RP
|
Brian W. Schoeneman
Inspector
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 250
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 10:35 am: | |
RJ,
I am by no means in any kind of crowd with Cornwell. She's got about as much experience as I do in criminal investigation. And being a typist at a medical examiners office doesn't make you a medical examiner.
I fully recognize the limitations of profiling, and I don't believe that its a magical way of reading a killer's mind or of discovering who they are exactly. Profiling is just a tool in the toolbox of modern criminology, along with fingerprinting, DNA testing, firearms anaylsis, etc. It can help, but it's not a magic bullet.
Where it helps here is just in giving us a general idea of what type of person we should be looking for.
While one doesn't need a text book, nor an education to see the hook in the worm - one does need to know what kind of worm works with which kind of hook and which kind of fish. Logic doesn't always suffice - there needs to be empirical experience behind it to be able to recognize when something that appears innocuous, like Scott's raised pantleg on a gangbanger, really isn't.
B |
Caroline Anne Morris
Detective Sergeant
Username: Caz
Post Number: 72
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 12:47 pm: | |
Hi AP,
You amaze me with your sweeping generalisations about the girls and the chaps here, and how their instincts differ with regard to Jack's motivation.
What's all this nonsense about 'The girls in the camp must have it...that some form of unrequited and frustrated love must lay at the root cause of the crime or crimes...' and 'You chaps go for sex as the motive, nothing noble here, it is all brutal, carnal and bloody...Jack was a sexual serial killer, according to you, but half the camp disagrees and they all happen to be the objects of your sexual desires and frustrations, and you the object of their love and fondness.
The refuge of sexes'?
For one thing your sample is far too small, if Marie and Leanne are your 'girls in the camp', and for another thing it's hardly representative, since there have been at least that number of chaps with a fondness for the Jilted Joe Ripper theory, and at least one girl - Caz (well, last time I checked I was still female) - who has argued at length against it, and not because I'm fiercely protective of an entrenched (masculine) territory or theory.
All the available facts make the idea that Barnett killed and mutilated these women to change his lover's behaviour, then did the same to her and got clean away with it, appear to me fanciful in the extreme, compared with a theory that a male predator was slicing the throats of strangers (all female) who were easy targets, and experimenting as time allowed with their lifeless bodies.
I try to keep an open mind, but the fact that Jack took the uterus away in two cases (though not in Mary's, leaving her with no heart instead), suggests to me that there was more to targeting females than the ease of overpowering them physically compared with males. If he had wanted to punish prostitutes for their wickedness, by removing or destroying the parts that made them what they were, he could have done so without taking any organs from the scene. Shortage of time and light would mean, however, that if he was obsessed with what made up the female form, along with gaining control over it, he would have needed to take specimens, like the uterus, to examine and savour at leisure in the safety of his lodgings. The uterus was evidently no longer a novelty for him by November 9th, and Millers Court afforded him more opportunity than previously to get to grips with female anatomy on site. So I'd say there's very little to suggest that the crimes were not sexual in nature.
But a love-sick Joe the Ripper would have to be suicidally stupid and arrogant to discard old tricks and go in for new ones when adding his lover to the body count – offering reasons on a plate for wondering if someone other than the ripper could have killed Mary would, or should, have landed him right in it. But then, there are those who insist the police were so far down the food chain that they wouldn't smell anything fishy about Joe if he had been covered from head to toe in the remains of Mary's last supper.
Have a great weekend everyone.
Love,
Caz
|
AP Wolf
Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 232
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 1:26 pm: | |
Scott
I’m quite frankly not surprised at the negative comments my thoughts seem to have provoked from the masculine side of this strange camp of ill-met bed fellows, but I am saddened as I see no future for honest discussion if we can’t find common ground.
Fair play is required here, not hostility, recrimination or accusation.
I neither ‘hate’ the police or authority, or anyone or anything else for that matter. What you may perceive as my hostility towards police and authority in this particular situation is in fact just an enormous reluctance to accept the world of the serial killer as painted by a few select individuals - all exclusively male I should point out - and all with vast inherent and vested interest in seeing that everyone else accepts the colour they are using to paint ‘our’ world. Just because a man wears a uniform or carries a badge of office doesn’t mean that I have to like the way he paints.
I also do not say that a police officer engaged in a murder hunt ‘encourages’ murder, it is the after-burn of murder cases - particularly when that concerns a serial killer - that painfully concerns me, where both cop and killer are elevated to some kind of weird VIP status, with books, newspaper reports, conferences and lecture trails fuelling dubious thoughts emerging from both sides which then go on to fuel a hungry media and insatiable Hollywood, and that is I’m afraid the very dangerous circus that is directly in turn fuelling this very type of crime.
The present awe and reverence with which high profile police profilers are blessed with today is perhaps only matched by the killers themselves.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. As a society we are attempting to put out a fire using gasoline, and we will get burnt.
The hall of fame to which many of you men aspire - as profilers, cops, researchers or whatever - carries a dreadful price, and that dreadful price is the astonishing effect such publicity and fame seeking - at the expense of good common sense and basic human decency - has on impressionable young people. For the hall of fame has two sides, and in this highly tarnished race to achieve high ranking status in society the police and the criminal he hunts achieve equal status.
Yes, quite right. I did write a book, and I strongly urge you to read it, as you will then understand what lonely little corner I occupy all on my own, and also perhaps see the lengthy pains I have gone to ensure that no young and impressionable person will ever read my book and come away with the feeling that there was some sort of ‘power and glory’ to what you - and many others - casually and carelessly call ‘sex crime’.
I await your own effort, and believe me you will be judged by that effort.
As regards the actual crimes of Jack I do honestly feel that a modern policeman has probably less insight into these crimes than did the police of 1888. It is not just a question of time slip here and that you as a policeman find yourself over a hundred years too late for forensic examination or to question witnesses… there is also the simple fact that you as a modern policeman are used to looking at crimes on a day to day basis and your perspective is strongly based in a familiar and comfortable world of procedure and litany. I fear that you will be unable to bring this modern day form of policing to the case of Jack, for he was not a day to day criminal and his world is as unfamiliar to you as it is to me.
In other words, your guess is as good as mine.
And just because you carry a badge don’t make your guess right... or wrong. |
AP Wolf
Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 233
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 1:43 pm: | |
Caz
you are right, right and right.
I stand abject with bowed head.
I have always admired your posts and the freshness of your thinking and do apologise for grouping you unfairly. The sweeping generalisation was not intended, I was just running with a poached rabbit and leaped one fence too many and fell on me face.
Hell, I'm used to it. |
Scott Medine
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sem
Post Number: 95
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 2:02 pm: | |
AP
You are going to make me ask you this question again aren't you. If modern science and investigative methods don't apply then how can you claim that the motive for the Whitechapel killer and Richard Chase are the same? you can not have it both ways. Either today's police science does not apply or it does .
As far as hostility and accusation are concerned, I'm just returning fire. Just how are you ensuring that no impressionable young person is reading your book, are you conducting detailed background checks on those who wish to buy it? Last I saw it was printed here on the site and it contains much of the same information I've seen in the other books.
If I really wanted to get hostile I would say, you stated you worked for Playboy, so how many sexual deviants have you created or does Playboy ensure that impressionable young minds do not read their material.
Peace,
Scott |
AP Wolf
Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 234
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 2:31 pm: | |
Scott
I don't think I have ever applied modern science and investigative methods to the case of Richard Chase or Jack. They both wandered the streets of a modern suburban city killing and mutilating people without let or hindrance from a modern police force. You must remember that Chase was only finally caught when a neighbour complained to the police about the appalling smell coming from his apartment and the fact that Chase was coming and going covered in blood, with bloody packages, and commonly had knives and guns about his person. I just visualise Jack in the same way, and the cops having a cup of tea in the warehouses of Mitre Square with the night watchman while Jack butchered an unfortunate outside their door. Sorry if it doesn't fit but that is my reading.
There is no need to check my readership as I already checked the content. It is content that matters.
Yes I wrote science fantasy stories for Playboy.
No sex there and no murder either, it was all brave new worlds.
I propose a peace to you, let us not argue more, you are what you are and I am what I am. We must accept that and then deal with it in a polite manner. If we cannot then we must not tarnish these boards with our small minded back biting.
Try to chill a bit, have a couple of bottles of Spanish brandy and then you too may find a brave new world. |
Marie Finlay
Inspector
Username: Marie
Post Number: 225
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 2:41 pm: | |
Now just one darn minute here.....
Brian: FUNNILY ENOUGH, I am NOT some ill- educated dolt who's never picked up a book on criminal profiling.
AP: I do NOT believe that the Ripper crimes were committed 'for love'. That's an incredibly simplistic and naive notion. You are presenting my views as the 'daytime TV' musings of a 'Mills and Boon' reading bubblehead- KINDLY DON'T.
Caz: it irks the hell out of me when you misrepresent my views. I NEVER implied that the Police were in any way "so far down the food chain".
I have stated in many posts that I think they were doing a marvellous job. However, I do not believe they were INFALLIBLE. People make mistakes, and Police are people. They were working without the benefit of fingerprinting even, and they did the best job they could have.
I don't misrepresent YOUR views, kindly return ME the same courtesy.
Man, this thread has peeved me in the extreme. I wasn't even contributing to it, and yet here you all are- mangling my theory on Joe Barnett.
I'll lay it out again, briefly- because I'd like to move onto another aspect/suspect now. This concept is getting so bogged down, and repetitive
IF Joe was 'the Ripper', I believe that he killed the other victims for his own gratification. He would have been transferring his rage from Mary, to the other women. He would have been living out his fantasies of hurting Mary- I don't think he would have killed her until he knew for sure that she wasn't coming back to him.
The 'control' part comes in when he reads the newspaper reports of the murders to her. This would also enable him to re-live the crime.
To my mind, Joe had motive, means, and pre-crime stressor. To my mind, he's a good suspect. THE END.
PUTTING JOE ASIDE: when I look at the mutilations inflicted upon the victims, I see the work of someone who is trying to destroy what has caused him pain. Perhaps someone who had unresolved isues of rage, abandonment, and sexuality from their childhood and teen years. To my mind, there is quite obvious anger against women, and a heavy sexual element to the murders. The sexual aspect comes in with the triumph over the victim, and dismemberment of her femininity.
So that's my view. You don't have to like it, or agree with me. But if you're gonna bring my views into the conversation, do me a favour and get them right.
PS: UGH!
PPS: I AM looking forward to Scott's book, and the odds are that it'll be a winner. If it is, I'm more than willing to be convinced. CONTRARY TO POPULAR OPINION- a person can have a 'pet theory' AND an open mind.
|
Brian W. Schoeneman
Inspector
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 251
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 4:09 pm: | |
All,
Marie - "Brian: FUNNILY ENOUGH, I am NOT some ill- educated dolt who's never picked up a book on criminal profiling." I don't know where this became another "Brians champion's profiling" point. I'm not talking about education on profiling. I'm talking about education on homicide investigation. Not every murder is a serial crime. And as I said, nothing personal. My comment wasn't directed at anyone, just something I've noticed.
AP - One of the inventors of criminal profiling was Dr. Ann Burgess, who collaborated with Douglas and Ressler on "Sexual Homicide: Patterns and Motives" and the "Crime Classification Manual". You can read more about her here: Ann Burgess Bio
I stand by my previous posts - this is a gender issue, its one of education. And I don't see any compelling evidence that disputes that the Ripper murdered his victims for anything but pleasure. If anyone disagrees, I'd love to hear it.
I don't want to get famous by my Ripper research. I'll be famous for other, more mundane things. I just want to remove some of the muck from Ripperology, and contribute to solving this case (if its even possible.)
B |
Scott Medine
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sem
Post Number: 96
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 4:39 pm: | |
AP,
I am pretty much chilled. It is very rare that I get my hackles up. When I do there will be no mistaking it.
My point is that by drawing comparisons between Chase and the Ripper you profiled the case. You based your conclusion on a 20th Century case. At the same time you claim that police officers and others can not do the same. You can’t have it both ways.
As for your writing for Playboy, that’s fine that your story didn’t include sex, violence et al, however; the sex part is covered by the rest of the magazine, and I am sure that the majority of the people buying the magazine did not buy it for your story alone. So, just as I , Brian, Resseler and the gang contribute to converting future rocket scientist into serial killers, it can be said that you help convert future rocket scientist into sexual deviants. In fact, before the book I have only authored a few obscure articles, A Study of Gang Activity in Plaquemine, Louisiana 1996, Confidential Police Intelligence Report prepared for the Plaquemine Police Department, Louisiana State Police and the FBI; Obtaining Trace Evidence in Drive-By Shootings, Chief of Police Magazine 1996; Interpretation of Eye Movements and Body Language in Suspect Interviewing and Interrogation, Police Times 1998; My Dinner With Patty, Ripper Notes 2002 and The Legal Aspects of Mitochondrial DNA, Ripperologist 2003, so, I do not see how any of these articles have contributed to anyone’s conversion into a cold blooded predator.
Peace,
Scott |
Robert Charles Linford
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robert
Post Number: 129
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 4:42 pm: | |
Hi all
Regarding what made Jack tick, there are a lot of people on this thread, and I haven't the foggiest notion who's right. You folks have spent years either dealing with or reading about all kinds of serial killers, whereas, to be honest, before I joined these Boards I was only really interested
in Jack the Ripper. Of course I wanted to understand him, but it was the unsolved mystery that tantalised me : Whodunnit??? Scott, very best of luck with your book - but please don't solve the case!
I don't feel equipped to comment on the issues on this thread. But I do have a question. Reading about the crimes, it seems to me that some of the things Jack did look very sexual, others not sexual at all. My question is, why can't Jack have had a mixed bag of motivations - a bit of this, and a bit of that? Why does it have to be "all this" or "all that"? In other words, why can't everyone be right, up to a point?
Robert (signing off and waiting to be squashed by two elevator doors) |
AP Wolf
Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 235
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 4:56 pm: | |
Despite a great deal of negative comment I am pleased with the way this thread has run its course. It has taken any number of other threads and reduced them to a common if not indecent level of vested interest and showed many of us in their true colours.
I for one am more than happy with that, for I like to deal with a face and not the mask.
Nobody should feel hurt or outraged by such a theme or the comments of the contributers, for that is only their vested interest and ego on trial and not themselves.
Clean slate is required and some brushing has been done. |
Scott Medine
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sem
Post Number: 97
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 7:15 pm: | |
Robert,
Rest assured my book does not name a suspect nor does it validate or denounce any suspect, its just a statement of facts. Although, I do have my suspicions about one person, and yet, I spoke with another poster today, who is helping me search for evidence against the person, and we spoke about how at times he doesn't fit the evidence. Sometimes he does, sometimes he doesn't.
I have often been asked what would I do if I were to magically solve the case, and I am reminded of an episode of the Andy Griffith Show. In the episode, all the men folk of Mayberry welcome in Spring by preparing for the opening day of the fishing season. They all hope to catch, if not merely catch a glimpse of Ol' Sam. Ol Sam is a fish that has grown to legendary proportions and will surely bring fame to the person who catches it. The town clerk, Howard Sprague, who has never fished before decides to try it just so he can take part in the event. As luck would have it, Howard hooks and lands Ol' Sam. He becomes the toast of the town and the North Carolina Museum of Natural History wants Ol' Sam for their aquarium, so Howard donates Ol' Sam to the aquarium. Then all of a sudden it seems that the life has been sucked out of Mayberry. The fishing at Myers Lake dwindles and the men folk that do continue fishing lack any excitement. They just sadly sit and go through the motions and trade stories about their encounters with Ol' Sam.
Then one day Ol'Sam appears again. Howard, sensing the change in the town, gets Ol' Sam back from the state and releases him into Myers Lake. Once the news of Ol' Sam being back in the lake spreads across the town, life is once again pumped back into Mayberry.
If I felt I solved the case, in all likelyhood, I would meet with Begg, Fido, Evans, Skinner et al. If they agreed that the case was definitely solved, I would meet with those who are helping me and tell them my decision. I would of course offer them the the chance to do what they will with the revelation, but I would just toss the name back into the lake and let someone else find him.
Some will argue that this is legal malpractice or a travesty of justice. But it's not. The case is 114 years old, all the victims are dead and the killer is also dead so closure becomes a moot subject. Afterall, closure is just another name for revenge. The travesty of justice would be dragging the killer's name through the mud. The killer's current family , if they exist, would have to deal with the mud slinging and stigma of suddenly having a serial killer in their family's lineage. And the real crime would be taking the life out of Mayberry.
Peace,
Scott |
Marie Finlay
Inspector
Username: Marie
Post Number: 228
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 17, 2003 - 5:40 am: | |
Brian, you wrote: "I don't know where this became another "Brians champion's profiling" point. I'm not talking about education on profiling. I'm talking about education on homicide investigation. Not every murder is a serial crime."
Brian, I don't have a problem with profiling, I think it's a useful tool. Not infallible, but useful.
Also, I've done my fair share of reading on homicide investigation. Now, obviously I'm an amateur- but I can hold up my end of the conversation. I'd like to remind you that even the 'experts' are not in agreement, when it comes to this case.
When I wrote my post I was furious at the ascribing of a 'love motive', or implied lack of research for anyone who happens to disagree. Sorry, but that's simply untrue.
However, I'm over it now- and I'd like to move on.
|
Robert Charles Linford
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robert
Post Number: 136
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 17, 2003 - 8:25 pm: | |
Hi Scott
I have a hell of a lot of admiration for your attitude. And thanks for posting such a charming story.
Robert |
Jacqueline Murphy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, May 18, 2003 - 5:29 am: | |
Hi all
I am confused! Because I am interested in JtR and read lots of crime books am I destined to be a serial Killer? Am I too sentimental to be able to view a theory without getting 'mushy' over it because I am female?
I thought that issues of gender were finished with years ago, a persons' views are important regardless of their gender and we should respect everyone's point of view.
I like to read other peoples' ideas, some of them sound interesting, and I want to know more, but I don't like the thought that I am being categorised without anyone actually knowing me. |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Inspector
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 258
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 18, 2003 - 11:39 pm: | |
Jacqueline,
Well, since you're female, that pretty much rules out option #1.
You'll have to ask AP about the second one.
We're speaking generally about general things. Don't take personal offense to any of it. It's all merely a question of perspective. I have one, AP has another, and we like to argue.
B |
AP Wolf
Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 245
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 4:14 am: | |
Yes Brian, well said.
I can only add that no offence is ever intended to anyone, and as Brian points out we are generalising here in the hope of reaching a specific target.
I'm sorry if sometimes that generalisation becomes of a sweeping nature, but I for one don't believe we have sorted out the gender issue here, in fact further than that, I see a continuum here that stretches all the way from masculine attitudes on the streets of Victorian London to masculine attitudes right here and now.
I can assure you that in my sometimes wild and imaginative theorising it is the masculine element that I have in my sights and not the fairer sex.
As Brian says, we like to argue. |
Marie Finlay
Inspector
Username: Marie
Post Number: 230
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 6:53 am: | |
Scott, you wrote: "On the old boards, I had posted the results of a series of interviews I ahd conducted with a large number of BDSM practioners..."
If you have the time and inclination to do that, Scott- I would be very interested to read that.
Some years ago I worked in a 'body piercing' studio, and they had quite a good deal of literature on the subject of BDSM. Most body piercing is very mainstream and popular, but there is a 'hardcore' underground scene that is linked to BDSM.
I think many people would be surprised by just how popular it is. |
Scott Medine
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sem
Post Number: 100
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 8:47 am: | |
Marie,
I posted those findings this past weekend on a thread titled Edge Play under General Discussion. The thread has expired but if you go under General Discussion you will find it.
Peace,
Scott |
Saddam Hussein
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, May 18, 2003 - 9:35 pm: | |
Mr. Medine,
You speak of solving the case as if it were a matter of simply doing anything, like catching a fish. But solving the case wouldn't be doing just anything. It would involve a logically satisfying conceptual mastery of the evidence, one which has been awaited by hundreds of thousands for more than a century. Why would you deny them the satisfaction of knowing?
Pint to ponder (hic!)
Saddam
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
