|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1045
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 4:25 pm: |       |
Much obliged, Jeff. "Start to create their own sensations" rings a bell! Occasionally I will be just nodding off and thinking about, say, a man walking along the street. Suddenly the man takes on a life of his own! I'm not actually asleep, for I sort of say to myself "This is fun - just like watching a film. Let's see what he does."
But then I fall asleep. Oh well!
Robert |
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 138
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 4:44 pm: | |
Hi,
I thought I would have a look to see how well Barnett stacks up against the diagnosis of Sociopath. Admittedly, we have a pretty incomplete set of data about him, but based upon what we do have, do we see any of the criterion?
1. failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest;
From what we know, Barnett does not satisfy this condition. His desire to prevent Mary from engaging in prosititution suggests the opposite (he did not take the opertunity to gain from "unlawful" conduct).
2. deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure;
We have nothing to suggest Barnett did any of these things. Again, he seems to not try and benefit from Mary's prostitution.
3. impulsivity or failure to plan ahead;
We have nothing to suggest this criterion is met. If anything, his attempts to find work (i.e. at the orange market) suggests he was trying to plan ahead in terms of finding gainful employment.
4. irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults;
His reported behaviour is to leave when Mary became angry. And there does not appear to be any record of him being violent or aggressive. So this criterion is not met.
5. reckless disregard for safety to self or others;
Again, his leaving during confrontations with Mary go against this criterion. Either he's concerned for his safety, or her's. Regardless, he's not showing this trait.
6. consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations;
He seems to have held his fish porter job for quite some time. When he lost it, Barnett looked for other work. The arrears in rent at Miller's Court appear to coincide with his loss of employement, so he does appear to honour his finances when physically possible. Previous rent failures appear to be due to problems with alchohol, and also being behind in the rent is not uncommon. By itself, not a strong indicator but is probably the closest "match" we have so far.
7. lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.
His testimony at the inquest appears to reflect someone who is both nervous and upset. A normal response, and not indicative of this disorder.
In other words, from what little evidence we have, Barnett does not fit this diagnosis either. We would have to show at least 3 of these criterion are met. At best we have one, and even that is of a highly dubious nature.
Could the Ripper fit this diagnosis?
Possibly. Psychopaths/Sociopaths do not have to be highly intellegent. They sometimes are, but it's not a requirement of the diagnosis. If they are not intellegent, one could expect less planning, and more risks.
However, and I'm certainly beyond my area of expertise now, as Erin suggested, the kinds of mutilations that were performed during the Ripper murders are far more common indicators of a mental disorder like schizophrenia then they are of Psycopath/Sociopath. There are probably individual cases that appear to violate this, of course, but it takes quite specialised training (and unfortunately more information than we have) to make such distinctions. For any of us, myself included, to try and argue one over the other is to do so without the required expertise to make the call. Therefore, all we as lay-people can do is consider the opinions of those who have this training. And, I believe, the only trained individual who has looked at the case is John Douglas, and his opinion is that the Ripper is probably schizophrenic (if I recall properly? Does anyone have availabe Cases that Haunt Us? I think he talks about the Ripper in that one, but I don't have it with me).
Regardless, the Ripper may have suffered from either of these disorders, but there is nothing to suggest that Barnett did. Of course, if the Ripper had neither of these disorders, that leaves Barnett in. If the Ripper had either of these disorders, that leaves Barnett out. Since we don't know who the Ripper was, Barnett remains a possible suspect.
- Jeff |
Erin Sigler
Sergeant
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 18
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 5:02 pm: | |
Jeff, thanks for answering Robert's question. You did a far better job than I could have hoped to have done, and I mean that! Furthermore, I completely agree with the above assessment. I have a copy of Douglas's book and he agrees that in his professional opinion, the mutilations the Ripper performed appear to be the work of someone with a serious mental disturbance, if not outright schizophrenia.
I've heard it mentioned on here that Roy Hazelwood has also done an analysis of the Ripper. If so, can anyone point me to it? From what I understand he tends to agree with Douglas. Thanks! |
AP Wolf
Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 448
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 5:23 pm: | |
I'm reluctant to mention this, but if any of you care to push a few simple buttons you will soon see that you are going to the same place that I went to in 1993.
Nobody took any notice then and it seems that nobody takes any notice now.
I mean I stacked all this out more than ten years ago and you lot are discussing it like it is new.
Old hat. Read some. |
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 139
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 5:34 pm: | |
Hi Erin,
Thanks for checking up on that. I was working from memory concerning Douglas's view and so wanted to ensure I remembered correctly!
I have this vauge impression that when psychopaths/sociopaths do extensive damage post-mortem, it's usually a form of overkill like repeated blunt force trauma, repeated stabbing, biting, and such. So, things like using a hammer (i.e. Peter Sutcliff), piece of wood (Ted Bundy) etc. The damage looks like an "unleashing of anger" in a repeated striking of the victim.
In contrast, the butchering of the victim, as in the Ripper cases, the post-mortem damage is somehow just more "bizarre". I don't know, I'm not basing any of this on any kind of objective measure, and it's just some very subjective impression I've got. And, having recently read some excerpts on Ted Bundy, probably greatly influenced by that as well.
Anyway, what is important is not just the fact that extensive post-mortem damage is performed on the victim, but it's the details, or nature, of that damage that is important. For example, mutilation of the face is often an indicator that the victim is known to the killer, but only if the face is the concentrated area of attack. If the entire body is damaged, the face is just another part of the body, and therefore no familearity between victim and killer should be assumed. With the Ripper killings where facial mutilations occur (Eddowes and Kelly), the face is not especially targeted, rather the abdomen is. As such, I don't think the facial mutilations in these cases necessarily indicate any relationship between these victims and their killer.
Anyway, this is all my personal, very subjective, and very amature opinion.
- Jeff |
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 140
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 5:38 pm: | |
Hi AP,
I should get around to downloading your boook. If, as you indicate, you've already gone over these areas, then it would probably save us all a lot of time by avoiding reinventing the wheel.
Thanks for the very diplomatic pointer! Cheers.
- Jeff |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 530
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 5:46 pm: | |
Jeff,
I think you remember correctly. But regarding psycopaths, I think parasitic life-style, manipulativeness, high social ability and relatively high intelligence as well as planning IS quite characteristic features (even if we take individual differences in consideration). I don't see these in connection with the Ripper.
Erin!
I don't know if Hazelwood has done a Ripper profile on his own (if he has I would like to read this as well!), but in the television show I've mentioned before, he is working alongside Douglas. I think this is because Hazelwood has specialized in sexual offenders.
The only written Jack the Ripper profile I've seen is that by Douglas and Olshaker, though.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
AP Wolf
Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 449
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 5:53 pm: | |
Jeff
thanks for your more than diplomatic reply.
My memory is flawed I freely admit, but I am fairly certain that I covered this ground in the Myth, and I would like to feel that anyone who is contributing here has made the effort to read what has gone before - just as I did for twelve long years - and then they come from a position of historical authority and accuracy.
If you can read the recent history and then blow me out of the water I'd be the happiest man in the world, but I feel you should read the modern history first.
That applies to all. |
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 141
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 6:25 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
I think manipulation and such is the norm. High functioning, though, just requires average IQ (basically, it's leaving out those who are unable to care for themselves; requiring care is not manipulation). And high intellegence is not required for the diagnosis. I think, however, combined with high intellegence one gets a much more successful manipulator, and they can cause more harm or distress. But it's not required that one be a "successful manipulator", only that one constantly make the attempt and not care if what one is attempting is nasty. Those who are less "successful" will usually have strings of short term relationships, lots of bar fights, lots of petty crime (but get caught a lot and just don't seem to learn they are a bad theif), etc. The "smart ones", however, may end up being the "cut throat business partner", the "unscrupulous lawyer", the "devious scientist", etc. They may not be violent, and they may not even do anything illegal, but they are definately "out for themselves and themselves only".
Anyway, you are correct in that these people usually have normal, or higher than normal, intellegence. Can be slightly below average, but it's not a disorder that is associated with extremely low IQ, or low levels of functioning. So, if Jack the Ripper were a psychopath/sociopath, he's not going to be an idiot, but he need not be exceptional in his intellegence either.
- Jeff |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 532
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 10:49 pm: | |
Hi Jeff,
Ye, I agree that manipulation is the norm amongst psycopaths (but nevertheless the most important one, in my view), but I prefer to rely on norms (as on norms for paranoids or paranoid schizofrenics) when we're dealing with diagnosing the Ripper. If we consider all possible individual discrepancies, then it will all become too complicated, I feel, since we're studying a character we know practically nothing about. Profilers deal with character types and generalizations, that's why they gets it wrong just as many times as they gets it right, but I think that's unavoidable - make a more detailed diagnosis of an UNSUB beyond the norms and main characteristics would be almost an impossible task.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 142
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 12:24 am: | |
Hi Glenn,
Could be we're actually talking about the same thing actually. High functioning, in a clinical sense, can refer to "below average" individuals in terms of a "population norm". This is especially true with disorders like autism. (A bit of an aside I admit). A "high functioning autistic" is well below the "population norm" with language and social skills, for example.
With "psycho/sociopaths", high functioning would just indicate "they are within the normal range. So some would show the expected above average scores. In this case, I think "high functioning" is generally used to indicate that this disorder is not associated with an obvious deminished capacity.
Regardless, to my admittedly untrained eye, the Ripper series does not look like crimes comitted by such a person. As I've mentioned in other threads, I don't see the signs of "careful planning" that would indicate an individual who thought through the possible scenerios. The series does not even appear to start with an "unplanned murder" (either Tabram or Nichols, take your pick for the start) and then evolve into one where previous mistakes are avoided. They are all outside, in very risky locations, etc. The only time the crime scene changes to "indoors" is with Kelly, but that seems more due to her having a place to go to more so than the Ripper changing to targetting only those with a room available.
Of course, if Kelly is the last victim of Jack, it's hard to say for sure that this did not occur. He may very well have finally learned to target victims with a room. But, if any of the later victims are Jack's as well, then Kelly having a room looks more and more like even that was "unplanned". A killer with normal intellegence, with no disturbed thinking, would figure out that murders in the street are very very risky. Especially if he was disturbed in the case of Nichols, heard someone next door with Chapman, had to flee from Stride, finds out how close he must have been to being discovered with Eddowes, etc. That many close encounters seems a pretty long time to figure out that "outdoors is a bad idea".
I know this is often used to point to some sort of cleverness on Jack's part, but I just cannot see how any of the murder sites could possibly be someone's idea of a good place to commit these sorts of crimes. There are just too few ways to get away.
Anyway, I've said this all before, and this is partly why I get the impression that whoever Jack was, he's certainly no genius and does seem to have had problems with evaluating the risks he took.
- Jeff
|
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 143
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 12:26 am: | |
Hi AP,
Just to let you know, I have taken your advice and now have a copy of your book. I'll go over it. It's been awhile since I've read a "new one" (new to me) and I'm embarassed to admit that I've not taken advantage of your generousity in making this available on the site until now. My apologies.
- Jeff |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 782
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 11:02 am: | |
G'day,
MIKE: By 'convienient', do you mean handy for a researcher to label him thus, so as to force him to fit a particular theory? Well, that's one way to think of it, but to label him a completely-sane, clear-thinker, in full-control-at-all-times, is 'convienient' for some people too!
ALL: Are people aware that a psychopathic killer is an 'organized' killer, who is able to plan his escape beforehand, select a particular type of victim beforehand, work out the best places to find them, stalk them, and choose a suitable weapon to use?
ERIN: By changing the name "psychopath" to "sociopath", the mental health community was probably trying to 'kill' the Hollywood-monster image, a force everyone to take a serious, sympathetic look at the disease.
Imagine how frightening it would have been in 1888 to develope a social-withdrawl, loss of interest in life, and have occasional outbursts of anger?
JEFF: I thought I'd have a look to see how well Barnett stacks up too:
1. 'Failure to conform to social norms with resepect to lawful behaviours as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest.'
In Whitechapel in 1888, prostitution was a 'social norm', put up with by many 'husbands', and wasn't illegal. Barnett failed to 'conform to this social norm'.
2. 'Deceiptfulness, as indicated by repeating lying, use of aliases, or conning others for profit or pleasure.'
The main 'evidence' we have to judge Barnett's behaviour on is his inquest testimony, which came from his own mouth. And he contradicted his reasons for leaving Mary in that. Then we have the loss of his job, which I'll get to shortly.
You know why he seems not to try and benefit from Mary's prostitution? Because he was earning a good wage, until he lost his job.
3. 'Impulsivity (impulsiveness) or failure to plan ahead.'
We have nothing to suggest this criterion is met, except the fact that he lost his Billingsgate job. The market bylaws at Billingsgate Fish Market stressed that the main causes for dismissal were theft, drunkenness and abuse language or behaviour. If people can't accept Paley's suggestion that Barnett was caught thieving, and we have no evidence of his alcoholism, may I suggest abusive behaviour? Oh why didn't he think of the consequences to his and her future?
4. 'Irritability and agressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults.'
See the last answer.
5. 'Reckless disregard for safety to self or others.
Why did Mary throw something at him and smash a window, if he peacefully and willingly left? Plus he took awful risks when he committed the murders.
6. 'Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behaviour or honour financial obligations.'
He followed his father's footsteps like his brothers and got his fish porting job as soon as he left school, had it for ten years and then lost it for a minor reason?
He then looked for odd jods, at which he was moving all over Whitechapel. Does that qualify as 'consistent'?
I'm tired and off to bed! Goodnight!
LEANNE
|
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 537
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 11:18 am: | |
Jeff, I agree with you; your thoughts concerning the Ripper's personality corresponds relatively well with mine.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 783
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 11:33 am: | |
G'day Jeff, Glenn,
Before I go to bed, let me put this question to you Jeff: The Ripper performed abdominal mutilations on Eddowes and Kelly, but he also bothered to spend the extra time to mutilate their faces. Why the unnessesary risk? It wasn't part of his regular MO!
LEANNE |
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 144
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 3:59 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
Glad to see that you've presented an alternative view of Joe's behaviour. That gives people two ways to look at things and they can weigh the evidence for themselves.
As for the uncessary risk for mutilating Eddowes' and Kelly's faces? I'm not sure why those mutilations are considered any more "extra risk" then the removing of the internal organs and taking away of body parts. However, all of these "extra risks", especially with Eddowes being an outdoor murder, seems to indicate the whoever Jack was, he didn't evaluate the risks very well.
- Jeff |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 540
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 4:24 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
I once again supports Jeff's line of thinking here. This high-risk behaviour further indicates that we're here dealing with a person, which actions are not based on logic and rational thinking. As Jeff says, his risk evaluation seems somewhat abscent, I think, which very well could point at a disorganized offender.
By the way, Leanne; not to split hairs, but the mutilations are not part of the modus operandi (which just is referring to how he took their lives), but of the signature, which is the part that gets him the satisfaction. The MO and the killing itself I believe was of secondary importance to him, the main "goal" was the mutilations and what they represent.
The fact that he didn't perform the disfiguration of the victims' faces prior to Eddowes, is something of which we can only speculate. Some would say that this had a personal reason, that he knew her (and Mary Kelly?). I for my part think, that it is a result of the growing need to develop his signature in order to gain the same pleasure from the deeds as before and the growing frustration. But that's just my unprofessional opinion.
Now I'm off to see another episode of Frost. Cheers!
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 145
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 4:27 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
Forgot to mention though, since Barnett is not proven to be the Ripper, using the murders as evidence of "reckless endagerment to self and others" is a circular argument, which basically means it's invalid. You cannot use the evidence the murders suggest about the Ripper to make conclusions about a suspect until the suspect is proven to be the Ripper. Otherwise, for example, if I were to pick say Druitt I could then say the same thing "Druitt showed reckless disregard for others because he committed the murders", or "Sickertt showed ..." or "Maybrick showed ..." or "(insert suspect here) showed ...". See the problem? This is why circular arguements are invalid; they don't really prove anything because they can prove everything! This is one of the trickiest traps of logic and one really has to be careful not to fall into one.
- Jeff |
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 146
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 4:54 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
Good point. The mutilations were the signature aspects. The abdominal mutilations probably primary, since with Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, and Kelly, this is always targeted. Nichols murder may have been interrupted so we don't know the level of abdominal mutilations that may have been "intended", if you will. And, if that level was "intended to be much higher", the pattern of escalation shown in the "performed" multilations may not indicate anything more than "time available". The complete destruction of Kelly, including face, abdomen, upper torso, arms, and upper legs, also corresponds to the one crime scene where there was the most time available for uninterrupted work. He's inside, nobody is going to walk by. At least, the Ripper appears to have believed he's safe from interruption. And, with the time available, he utterly destroys the victim. Some of the facial mutilations of Eddowes, such as the "V" cuts under the eyes, the slices to the eyelids, seem almost like a perverse "playing", or "exploration", type of thing. If he's "walking through some weird fantasy", these are like some strange (and very sick) "gentle caresses", which then explode into some anger episode where he cuts the nose off.
Ok, I'm speculating widely here (I've assumed an order to the cuts which we have no way of knowing if that's how they occured), but the damage done to Eddowes' face does seem to reflect two very different ways in which the knife was used. One set of cuts are, deliberate, with the point, careful, and controlled, and the other is the violent hack to remove the nose. As if the fantasy goes from "courting" through to some imagined "rejection" and "retribution" scenerio.
With Kelly, there is so much damage, it's impossible to tell if any such cuts were performed. Everything just looks hacked and carved; destroying any evidence of these kinds of things (if they even occurred). However, her body appears to have been posed in some grotesque display of a "seductress". Her left arm across her stomach, her right arm outstretched offer a place to lie, her head turned to the door to look at whomever enters, etc. Again, this kind of posing, which looks very deliberate, I think indicates someone with serere thought disturbances and high fantacy enactments. (Or maybe it's me? This is all very morbid lines of thought)
Anyway, it's these kinds of things that strike me as indicating that the Ripper is probably suffering from some sort of psychosis like schizophrenia (note: this does not mean psychopath/sociopath).
It should be noted that the above fantasy scenerio's I've suggested are just ways to try and explain why I think the difference in the specific mutilations indicate some sort of disorgansed thought pattern. The mutilations to the abdomen, however, with the removal of organs and intestines, etc, tends to suggest this as well.
- Jeff |
Severn
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 4:30 pm: | |
Hi All.Surely risk was all part of it?Without wanting to diminish the atrociousness of it all this killer had elan! Thats partly why we are fascinated.The impetuous rush -two in one night second taking only 10 or 15 minutes and nowhere to be found with a local vigilance committee and the city and metropolitan police all after him. |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 4:50 pm: | |
Tighten your chinstraps! The above discussions are just too loosey-goosey to get anywhere.
S a d d a m |
Severn
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 5:06 pm: | |
When I read the phrase "spirit of a lark" it reminded me of what Scott Fitzgerald wrote about poetry [and marxism]."It either lives inside you like fire or it means nothing at all-just something about which pedants drone."Iam not being facetious here but Saddam seems to have a point.How do any of us know what fires burnt in old Jack? Natalie Severn |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 12:32 pm: | |
Leanne wrote: "DAN: Who's had years of education in psychology?"
Well, I was referring to me, actually, but I can tell when other posters have a background in it as well. Quoting DSM criteria means they have enough competence or familiarity with the subject of abnormal psychology to go looking in the right place.
Of course people can be educated in a particular area and still disagree. I don't see anything to indicate the Jack was schizophrenic, and, in fact, think the evidence points to an ordered mind more than a disjointed one. Evil and perverted, yes, but not mentally ill in the normal sense. More sociopathic than psychotic. |
Severn
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 10:00 am: | |
Hi AP I made a trip to Collindale to read up on CUTBUSH back in January after I had read your very interesting theory in one of the A-Zs.However I just couldnt gget my head round him as a serious suspect since most women would have drawn the line at going up a dark alley with anyone as crazed as he was acting yes even if they were desperate for money or drunk.By the sound of him hed caused a lot of disturbance one way and another and sounds as though he was known to the police at the time of the murders anyhow.No I dont think he had that panache somehow and prefered stabbing girls bottoms with scissors rather than ripping.An excellent read though.Best Severn. |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 1:05 pm: | |
Jeff wrote: "A killer with normal intellegence, with no disturbed thinking, would figure out that murders in the street are very very risky."
As I said to Brian back when we'd go back and forth on this issue, I think too many people are trying to come up with a diagnosis using today's criteria without looking at the social situation of the time.
I would grant you that, yes, killing on a street is risky. Someone who was organized today, in most areas that any of us or any these profilers are familiar with, wouldn't kill on the street. They'd take them home, or rent a hotel, or go to a campsite, or follow them home, or something.
Now let's say you are in Whitechapel in the 1880s. Can't take them home if you live with 50 other people, or have 5 people in a 10x10 room, or live on a boat. People looking to rent a room almost always had to share. Campsite is out, for obvious reasons. Following them home isn't likely to work either, as the vast majority of potential victims would have roommates too, when they even had a place to live. MJK on that particular night is a noteworthy exception. Just about any night before that and one or more other people would be there.
I think the same thing can be said for a lot of the other criteria. For example, he didn't try to hide the bodies... Well, yeah, dragging a body around in the middle of Whitechapel to try to hide it somewhere is pretty conspicuous. A smart killer would get the heck away as soon as possible after he was done doing whatever he wanted to do. Beyond that, most of the resaons for hiding a body these days involve fear of leaving incriminating evidence, which was not an issue back with the level of forensic science in the 19th century. Unless someone can think of a logical way Jack could have hid the bodies that wouldn't have given him an even greater risk of discovery, and a logical reason to bother trying, I think that part of the modern day profiling process should be tossed out, at least in this case. (And I'd argue the same for a killer in the slums of modern day India, and any other place with similar conditions.)
Other assumptions may not hold out either. Saying that the first killing wasn't an unplanned murder (by pointing out Tabram or Nichols as the first) or saying there was no learning process ignores the possibility of earlier victims. I tend to think there are a lot more victims than most people think.
It's my contention that the murders were in as safe of a place as the killer could manage for that time and place, did improve in technique as time went on, and all the other traits of a highly organized killer.
The only thing that even partially makes me consider the potential for a disorganized mind is the mutilations. I don't think they would take as long as some people estimate (or tha they required much skill), but they are a little much for most organized killers. On the other hand, the Rostov Ripper (Chikatilo) did mutilate, rip, and take parts and eat them, all out of sexual desire as part of a long highly organized set of killings, so it's not unprecedented. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
