|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 147
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 5:58 pm: |       |
Hi Dan,
I agree that the time period has to be considered. However, the options available would still include things like "prostitutes with their own room", such as Kelly. And, organised killers, who maintain a risk evaluation, still will avoid committing their crimes in such high risk locations and times, like Chapman's.
And yes, the assumption that Tabram or Nichols is the first victim is just that, an assumption. If, however, there were previous victims, then either those victims are yet to be connected/discovered, or Jack's level of organisation is declining (suggestive of a progressive disorder like schizophrenia). Psychopath/Sociopaths will show reduction in their organisation ability when put under constant pressure (as with Ted Bundy, for example). Jack doesn't appear to be in a similar situation; but again maybe he was? But then we would have to find some previous murder or series that had some prime suspect under a lot of investigative pressure, etc. I'm working on the basis that such a scenerio has not been shown so far because there was no such scenerio in the first place.
Anyway, it just doesn't seem to me that the crime scenes afforded any "escape contingency plan" to be performed if things went wrong. Too much seems to be left under the control of the victim (such as the selection of the location for the exchange of services rendered; I'm also assuming the "pose as client" type thing here). Backyards, streets, etc, are just too uncontrolled an environment. The easiest example I can think of is just to find prostitutes with their own rooms, like Kelly. This was not impossible, and they would afford a more safe environment. The evaluation comes down to "Is there someone there who sees me? No, good", which may take more time, but becomes far safer than "Is anyone around now? How about Now? And Now?", which is the street scenerio.
In other words, even given the times and constraints of the era, some sort of plan could be devised in which the murders could occur in a more private location. Since the "psychopathic/Sociopathic killer" tends to value the "control over the victim", and the chosen locations don't provide that. Those who may have their own room could be found by patrolling the streets, looking for victims, remembering the areas, etc. (all behaviours that are known to be performed by many serial killers today). In otherwords, some form of organised behaviour would have provided a selection of potential victims who appear to have their own rooms, in suitable locations, where an interuption would be minimised.
Mind you, we are left discussing the unknown here. We obviously don't know what Jack's "plans" were, and perhaps his knowledge of the area means he did have these things worked out. However, if that is the case, it's certainly not obvious what those "plans" might have been. It's the lack of obvious plans, combined with the mutilations, that to me is more consistent with a killer more to the disorganised end of the spectrum. I think the early morning killing of Chapman, when people would be known to be starting their day at any minute, is the most indicative of extremely poor risk evaluation.
As for Chikatilo, he also went to great lengths to ensure privacy when he committed his crimes; they were not committed in the streets, and he learned from past mistakes on how to avoid getting caught. Peter Sutcliff, however, I believe attacked women in the open, but his access to a vehicle also ensured he could be miles away before the body was discovered. The risk of detection was reduced by ensuring he could be nowhere near when the search began. The Ripper, without access to a motor vehicle, and with the regular patrols of police on foot, could not ensure he was any great distance.
Again, we must remember, that these kinds of evaluations are certainly not "conclusive". They are guidelines at best, and, even more importantly, require quite specific training to actually do. I do not have any such training, and it's quite possible that I've made huge blunders in my reasoning. I'm pleased to see that the only profile that I know of that has been done by someone with such training (John Douglas's profile) is consistent with what I think. But that's probably not too surprising because the books I've read concerning profiling are his books! So, my opinion would simply reflect what I've picked up about his way of seeing things. Perhaps other profilers would come to different conclusions, perhaps they would not. As you say, similar backgrounds does not mean similar conclusions will result.
- Jeff |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 784
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 7:05 pm: | |
G'day,
It would have been so hard to find a prostitute with her own room in the East End in 1888, plus the Ripper at least waited until they were in a more secluded location, outdoors, doesn't that count as reducing risk?
Minutes after he killed Stride, everyone that could walk was rushing toward Berner Street, while he made his way East, to Mitre Square! Doesn't that count as taking advantage of reduced risk?
SADDAM: We know these discussions are too 'loosey-goosey', but we're never going to find the answers in the official files!
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 785
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 7:23 pm: | |
G'day Jeff,
I understand what you mean by 'circular arguments', sorry!
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 786
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 8:15 pm: | |
G'day,
I haven't read this yet:
http://www.uplink.com.au/lawlibrary/Documents/Docs/Doc5.html/
LEANNE |
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 149
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 9:06 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
By reducing risk I'm referring to reductions in risk prior to the assault itself. If the Ripper was so totally absorbed in what he was doing, then he wouldn't have fled (unless we assume he had completed all he intended and then left just before people arrived; possible but relies on repeated coincedence too heavily to be seriously considered).
And though difficult, it would not be impossible to find prostitutes with their own room in the area. If the Ripper was "a planner", then finding an area where prostitutes had their own room, for example, would be on his list of things to do. He would have found them, and he would have spent a lot of time looking for them. That's the nature of planning and carrying out a plan. He would have thought about how to minimise risk, and come up with some sort of solution to the "risk of discovery" problem. Then, he would have spent time and energy into figuring how to accomplish that goal. If Whitechapel was not suitable, he would have found an area that was. The fact that he did not do these things suggests that he wasn't big on planning, or concerned about risk reduction. What I'm getting at is that the crime scenes don't seem to reflect a "plan", so I find it hard to suggest there was one anyway.
Anyway, it does appear, therefore, the Ripper flees the scene which is a sort of "risk avoidance" I suppose. But it's pretty low level in terms of sophistication (If spotted I'll run away!). In otherwords, avoiding people after the fact does not require that the Ripper be doing anything more complex than reacting to unexpected situations (people showing up).
If we want to suggest the Ripper has done soem sort of prior planning, that requires we be able to demonstrate that the Ripper must have "thought it out beforehand". With Chapman's murder especially, it's hard to see that crime scene as being selected as "acceptable" if one is evaluating the area in terms of "possible things that may go wrong".
If, as may be likely, the Ripper was interrupted or disturbed with Nichols, getting disturbed by an unexpected person would be a "new factor" for a "planning Ripper" to have to consider if he hadn't already. If he hadn't, however, we aren't dealing with a very sophisticated plan since "not getting caught" is a pretty important aspect to a criminal plan! Ending up in someone's backyard, with the sun comming up, possibly hearing Cadoche next door, and yet continuing with the murder and mutilations does not seem to reflect someone who has thought through the possibilities of "what can go wrong".
Even if he wasn't "disturbed" with Nichols, it's hard to imagin a "planning Ripper", somehow failed to control for "people showing up" in his plan. Hanbury street would simply be looked at, fail to meet the criterion of his plan, and he would have aborted the murder.
Dark streets, alleys, squares, and rooms, taken there by a prostitute, ok, just maybe he's working on the assumption that the women knows a location where they won't be disturbed. That could have been his "plan", let them find a suitable location. But a fenced in backyard? No way, too many things just might not go to plan. Too few escape routes, too many people, and too close to the start of the day. And that's what planning includes, what to do if things suddenly go pear shaped. A killer who has the murders "planned" goes to great length to achieve some level of control over the situation for two reasons. First, to minimise the chance of things not going the way they want them to. And second, so that if things do go wrong, they can quickly "fix" the problem (i.e., if she breaks free, she's got no where to run, no one to hear her scream. I'll just catch her again).
As the series progresses, however, these careful precautions sometimes start to break down. More risks are taken, and these sometimes are what lead to the discovery of the criminal. Even in these series, however, it seems they start off relatively well planned, the planning improves for a while, and then there's some sense of invulnerability or something, and the risk taking starts to get bigger. This pattern, however, does not fit all cases by any stretch of the imagination, nor is it intended as a description of such. It's just a pattern that does seem to occur across some serial crimes by those who have been caught. Even some who have not. Zodiac's last definate murder (shooting a cabbie in his cab) is by far the most risky of all his murders. In the others, he always had his vehicle with which to leave the scene. In this one, he has to leave on foot. Of course, he didn't realise he was spotted, but again, he couldn't ensure he wasn't. With the others, because they were in secluded areas, he could more or less scout the area first to ensure it was safe to commit the crime. Still, despite this increased risk, he wasn't caught.
With the Ripper, the risk level does not appear to be changing to be more or less risky each time in a consistent manner, but rather it seems to fluxuate from one to the other. Random fluxuations in data usually indicate that a factor is not important (meaning it's just fluxuating due to properties of the given specific situation rather than point towards increased care/risk taking on the part of the suspect).
Anyway, as I've said before, it's not impossible for a psychopath/sociopath to have committed the Ripper murders, but in the balance of things I think that theory is less supportable than the notion that the Ripper suffers from a form of psychosis like schizophrenia, where planning would not be expected, and if it does occur, it would be very minimal, and probably based upon a lot of incorrect reasoning.
As for the circular arguement, don't worry about it. It's the easiest thing in the world to get caught up by it. We have to keep our evidence about the murderer separate from our evidence about the suspect. The paradox is that if we want to play the "name the Ripper game", we have to somehow make a connection between suspect and murderer. Trying to decide what the Ripper is like, however, is of course the whole point of profiling. Unfortunately, without very specific training, none of us here can actually do that with any reliability (myself included). At least when we look at specific suspects, we have a bit more information about their lives. With the Ripper, all we have are some unknown number of crime scenes, for which we have very little information.
- Jeff |
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 150
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 9:21 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
Just read the web-page in your link. Interesting read, but a bit non-specific and general. Most useful, however, are the references to the texts listed at the end. I'm going to see if I can get copies of some of those. Fingers crossed the library has some of them.
- Jeff |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 787
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 5:27 am: | |
G'day Jeff,
I believe, as you pointed out, that letting the victim take Jack to her 'office', was part of the Ripper's plan. This would've made the victim feel safe, plus he could have stalked her long enough to find out where her 'office' was. This would have been in a place where she new the chances of interruption where slim.
Dutfields Yard was an exception to his rule, that's why I believe Stride's murder was more of a necessity, than a planned murder.
Chapman would have been aware that the chances of being disturbed in that backyard were minimal, as she'd probably used it before.
The ignoring of the small possibility of being disturbed, shows the Ripper was a psychopath who HAD to murder, regardless of the odds. he needed it and could not abort that need.
Jack eliminated the chances of the victim screaming by slicing her vocal chords, unexpectedly.
Oh, and about the 'circular argument', that you tell me not to worry about.......I'm not! 
LEANNE |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 547
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 7:09 am: | |
Jeff, I absolutely agree with you. There are no signs of more thorough planning whatsoever in the Ripper murders and the points you make exemplify that quite good.
To choose to act when "the coast is clear" and to make efforts to get away is not the same as planning (compared to the planning and preperations that a psychopathic killer normally do) - the escapes could just as well result from a mix of instinct, ordinary self-preservation, an unexperienced police force and his knowledge of the area.
An organized killer wouldn't expose himself to the unnecessary risks the Ripper did and the crimes themselves - and especially the mutilations - indicate to me a quite confused and sick mind. Even if the signature have ritualistic features, there is no logical consensus in the takings of the organs, and the mutilations are also done without the notion of them being "works of art", which we on the other hand sometimes see among sociopaths/psychopaths. It is true that parts of the disfiguration of Eddowes face seem to be more deliberate and to have a deeper intent, but is not done with care or showing any logical sign pattern. To me they just look like irrational fantasies of an unsane mind.
Leanne!
What in Earth do you mean by
"The ignoring of the small possibility of being disturbed, shows the Ripper was a psychopath..."?
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Severn
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 6:26 am: | |
leanne-thanks for the very comprehensive and informative document from the Law library.I can undersrand now your reluctance to categorise JtR as schizophrenic.The article has already progressed my thinking-as indeed have the many superb postings I have read in the past few days in particular-thanks to everybody!-I still think it possible that JtR had schizophrenia-[just possible]. This is because apart from recorded past frenzied attacks and murders that have been carried out during psychotic episodes there was also an example recently in North Wales where such an individual had come off their medication driven themselves to a spot near a beach with their rotweiller dog and made a frenzied knife attack on another man with a dog killing him and then driving back to his home acting as though nothing had happened.However as your source poited out[and as others have in their posts] he did get caught relatively quickly and that seems to be significant now after reading all this latelBest Natalie. |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 1:57 am: | |
Jeff,
" And though difficult, it would not be impossible to find prostitutes with their own room in the area. "
This assumes he had enough money to do so. I also don't know how many there really were. Using Kelly as an example ignores the fact that it was an isolated incidence that made her the only one there at the time, and she obviously couldn't afford it. Plus indoors might have constrained escape possibilities more than outdoors.
"He would have thought about how to minimise risk, and come up with some sort of solution to the 'risk of discovery' problem."
I'm not sure it's really as big of a risk as you are thinking. A fit killer with a knife could fend off one or two surprised people walking on a street that happened by long enough to escape, or jumped a 5 foot fence, etc.
"If Whitechapel was not suitable, he would have found an area that was. "
Assumes he could travel. We aren't talking just hop into you car and go to a suburb of a nearby city.
"Anyway, as I've said before, it's not impossible for a psychopath/sociopath to have committed the Ripper murders, but in the balance of things I think that theory is less supportable than the notion that the Ripper suffers from a form of psychosis like schizophrenia, where planning would not be expected, and if it does occur, it would be very minimal, and probably based upon a lot of incorrect reasoning. "
For someone you seem to think couldn't reason very well, Jack sure out thought everyone else. I don't buy that he got away with 4 or more such killings on pure insane luck.
The more disorganized, schizophrenic, etc. he was, the less he would have been able to account for blood being on him, where he was at the time, etc. to other people that knew him or even just ran across him. He wouldn't know not to talk about it, not to stand there playing with innards until cops arrive, not to act in some way that the unfortunates would tell that this guy is off his rocker.
It's a matter of weighing all that for each death. One killing and successful escape of a prostitute by a mad dog human is certainly conceivable. Two killings, maybe. Three, I suppose it's not impossible. Four... just not likely. More? This must be the most intelligent and organized disorganized killer we've ever seen, or someone with the luck of the Irish. |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 11:37 pm: | |
"With the Ripper, the risk level does not appear to be changing to be more or less risky each time in a consistent manner, but rather it seems to fluxuate from one to the other. Random fluxuations in data usually indicate that a factor is not important (meaning it's just fluxuating due to properties of the given specific situation rather than point towards increased care/risk taking on the part of the suspect)."
>>Excellent point! This is one of your best posts, Jeff. I agree implicitly with this.
Saddam
|
AP Wolf
Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 452
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 1:16 pm: | |
Severn, yes
On first view I might be prepared to agree with you concerning Thomas’ erratic and bizarre behaviour, and I can assure you that at the time - about 15 years ago when I too sat in C’s reading room and studied the reports - I did give the matter careful consideration.
It was only after a few years more intensive study that I was able to form the opinion that was eventually published in 1993.
This opinion was based on the following:
1) Thomas managed to hold down suitable creative employment as a clerk and traveller until just before the crimes were committed.
2) Although his delusions seemed to blossom in 1888 he was still at this time rational and sane enough to write letters - which I admit were not rational or sane - to people whom he genuinely believed could either help him, or at least help stop the obvious pain and turmoil he was in.
3) His escape from the Lambeth Infirmary showed daring, courage, cunning and perhaps most important of all that he was clever and resourceful enough to have actually planned the escape. One must especially note his well reasoned ploy of entering a house, clothing himself and then joining the hue and cry on the street for ‘himself’.
4) A comparison with a more modern murder case of an equally ‘bizarre’ serial killer - Richard Chase - showed that even 100 years later a killer was able to roam the suburban streets of a major American city, covered in blood, openly carrying weapons and body parts of victims for days without being apprehended by the modern police force that was actively hunting him.
Of course there are other points but for the sake of brevity I will leave it there.
Thank you for your kind and positive comments about my work.
|
Erin Sigler
Sergeant
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 23
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 3:13 pm: | |
Dan and Jeff,
I think both of your analyses are on point, and I believe it's possible to reconcile their divergent aspects by according the Ripper a "mixed" presentation, as John Douglas does.
Mental illness does not always come on suddenly, all at once (as I'm sure Jeff knows already). My aunt, for example, always seemed "odd" but never broke completely with reality until she was in her early 40s. Some people, for one reason or another, are better at holding it together, as it were--John Nash, the subject of A Beautiful Mind, managed fairly well for years (getting through Princeton, becoming a professor before he'd even graduated) but his mental state gradually began to decline until he suffered a total breakdown and had to be institutionalized. There are actually some individuals who experience one psychotic episode and never have another their entire lives, or experience them only periodically. This is not to say they can ever be classified as "normal," whatever that means, but that somehow they are slightly better able to cope with their disease than others with the same dysfunction.
I believe the Ripper may have been such an individual. There are definitely elements of an organized killer at work here--we have to remember that unlike a modern serial killer he could not merely jump in a car and drive away or transport his victims anywhere with ease. That being said, it seems clear from the ritualistic nature of his behavior (the mutilations, for instance), we're not dealing with someone who is 100% "there." Perhaps he thought that the murders would meet some need of his, silence his inner demons (figuratively speaking), but they only left him wanting more, like some kind of addictive drug. So for each successive murder he has to up the stakes, increase the mutilations, in a futile attempt to gain some measure of personal satisfaction from them, but all he succeeds in doing is further fragmenting his already damaged psyche. Gradually the control with which he initially approached the murders slipped away entirely, until, to paraphrase Macnaghten, his mind simply gave way; or as, John Douglas puts it, "The killer and mutilator of Mary Jane Kelly was at the end of his emotional rope."
I apologize is this seems like rehashing what I've said in previous posts, but I really feel that this is perhaps one way of reconciling the organized and disorganized elements present in the Ripper's murders and I think it's an avenue worth exploring.  |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 151
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 3:46 pm: | |
Hi Erin,
I think that's a nice summary. And yes, "organised"/"disorganised" is not, and should not, be thought of as a dichotomy (meaning two distinct states with no middle ground), but rather as extremes on a continuum (allowing for middle ground, or "mixed").
It's possible the Ripper had a single psychotic episode that lasted a few months, and we obviously cannot say he did not. It is rare for such things, but we only need one. Whether or not the Ripper had one single episode, and then never another again, still fits with the notion that at the time of the murders the Ripper is suffering from some form of psychosis. It would be dangerous of us to ignor the possibility that the murders may have ended because his psychosis went into remission and never returned again (unless, of course, later victims are by the same hand, etc).
Anyway, nice summary.
- Jeff |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 152
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 4:03 pm: | |
Hi Dan,
I don't think Jack's "not getting caught" reflects much as to intellegence. Given the number of side alleys, the darkness (barring Chapman's murder), and his tendency to leave before anyone gets too close (nobody reports seeing anyone flee from the body locations, which always strikes me as uncomfortable about the idea he's "interrupted" for Nichols and/or Stride). That means he has a few minutes to distance himself before the police are notified, a few more minutes before they get organised and start looking, etc. It's been estimated that 10 minutes is enough time to get from Stride to Eddowes, so with a 10 minute head start, he can be that far away in any direction. As long as he doesn't draw attention to himself, and he's a few blocks away, police are going to run past him to the sound of the calling officer/disturbance etc. That even gives him more room.
Now, that all said, it's still far to risky to rely on as an "escape plan". All it takes is one police man to stop and question him, etc. It may have "worked", and maybe we're dealing with someone who just knew the area so well they knew how to avoid the cops, even the extra patrols, etc. So, it's not impossible this was his "plan", but even if it is, I just don't see it as very well thought out. In other words, I find it very difficult to come to the conclusion that Jack had much of a plan based upon the selection of crime scenes, especially when the time of day of Annie Chapman's murder is factored into the equation.
As for things like "assumes he could travel", I'm saying if he was a "planner", these killings are his obsession, so yes, he would have travelled. He would have put all his energy into making this plan come to work somehow. He would be thinking about this all the time, and finding some way in which to make it happen. If nothing else, he would have found some abandoned buildings, or some area where the risk of disturbance would be much lower. Something, anything would be better than the open streets and someone's backyard at dawn.
Anyway, I've picked up a textbook from the University Library (Criminal Profiling by Brent Turvey). I've decided it's time for me to actually study up a bit on this kind of stuff. Hopefully it will improve my understanding of the process, and most likely it will reveal a few errors on my part. I was pleased to see that some of my statements have been supported (mostly minor stuff really), but it's early days yet and I predict more will not be than are.
- Jeff |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 550
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 4:08 pm: | |
Hi Jeff and Erin,
Yes, I see what you both mean. Of course there are grey areas here, and the real problem is that the alternatives and different outcomes are too many. I stand fast, however, that - based on what we know - I actually don't see that much organized elements in his actions. I think too much have been focused on his ability to get away, and it also depends upon what one wants to see as "organized". The theory about a single psychotic episode is nevertheless interesting and I am not qualified in psychology enough to rule that possibility out, although I maybe find that a bit hard to swallow. I don't see it as impossible, though - that could very well be the case. The human mind is a mystery, so one shouldn't be surprised if all conventional generalizations would turn out completely wrong.
But I prefer to keep my doubts about him being a mixed personality, since I really don't see that many signs of that - it also feels like too much of a compromise in my view, just for the sake of it. As far as Douglas is concerned, I believe he said that Jack the Ripper could be a mixed personality, but his (and also Hazelwood's) conclusions are actually totally based upon the assumption that he was a disorganized offender. I believe Douglas and Olshaker is pretty firm and clear in their conclusions - even if they in a short passage mention the possibility for a mixed personality, there are no real indications in their analysis that I feel indicates it (and they don't makes a big deal out of it either), even though it can't be ruled out entirely.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 551
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 4:13 pm: | |
Hi Jeff,
"Criminal Profiling by Brent Turvey"
I'll see if I can get hold of that myself, maybe in the University library as well. Unfortunately books on that subject (American, English or anything) is very rare here in Sweden, always to my great disappointment and frustration. I've read Robert Hare, but much of that seems outdated a bit, although it's not without interest.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 153
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 4:54 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
The book I have is a 2nd edition (2002). Apparently the 1st edition has an appendix relating to Jack the Ripper. Unfortunately, it's not included in the 2nd  If you can find the first edition, it would be wonderful to see what that appendix includes. If you can get both, probably the 2nd edition is the one to go over completely, and the 1st just to get Appendix 1.
Anyway, he has a chapter devoted to the organised/disorganised classification. The title is "Organised v. Disorganised - A False Dichotomy", which pretty much indicates his view on things. In fact, he points out the FBI's original classification scheme was set up to reflect a "continuum", and most crime scenes should reflect some sort of mix - some aspects reflecting organised some being disorganised. The offender will likewise be some sort of mix. This would reflect that "disorganised" crime scenes tend to reflect psychotic offenders, and the degree of psychosis varies from one person to the next (and can vary from one day to the next in a given individual as well). This latter point is not limited to those who are also violent, but to any person suffering from a mental illness; some days are worse than others for a variety of reasons. Anyway, I don't think "mixed" should be viewd as a "cover our backs" kind of thing rather it reflects the complexity that makes up individual people and few truely are at the extremes.
Single psychotic episodes do occur, and it's possible that Jack suffered from one, and only one. This single episode type thing is much rarer, but it may reflect why the crimes stopped (again, if they did actually stop). This gives the possible explanation for the ceasation of the murders to include (but not be limited to) things like:
1) incarcertaion for unrelated crime
2) institutionalised for mental disorder
3) death (natural,accidental,suicide)
4) fear of getting caught
5) reason for murder series removed
6) left the area
7) ending of psychotic episode
I've tried to include all the various explanations that have been offered at one time or the other, and the order of the list reflects only my order of recall. It does not list things in any "order of support", or "order of probability". Each explanation has been argued as being sufficient/insufficient in relation to a particular suspect, but none can be shown to be insufficient in relation to an "unknown offender" in general (meaning, they all "can" work as an explanation in general). Usually, when one puts forth a given suspect, one of these explanations is used as "support" for their suspect. With Barnett, and some of the more complicated conspiracy theories, #5 is usually employed (Mary Kelly being the target victim). With Druitt and Maybrick, we see #3, etc.
- Jeff |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 788
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 6:18 pm: | |
G'day,
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0127050418/inktomi-bkasin-20/ref%3Dnosim/104-9802630-5860725
|
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 789
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 6:41 pm: | |
G'day,
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/012705040x/104-9802630-5860725?v=glace&vi=reviews
|
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 552
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 7:57 pm: | |
Interesting as usual, Jeff. Thank you.
Leanne,
Thank you for the links. I was just about to check Amazon unless I couldn't find them in the library. Profiling books seem to be cheaper on the British site, though.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 154
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 8:30 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
Thanks for the links. It is indeed a textbook, and intended as such. Overall the reviews look positive, which is a good thing since it's quite a long book. Obviously, as with any such work, he disagrees with others in the field, will make some "overstated claims" or "critisms" of others works, etc. However, that's to be expected in any work of this nature. Basically, if you are going to put your ideas down, you are going to disagree with someone. And, sometimes, despite our best efforts, we disagree too strongly or for less than convincing reasons. He has quite a long discussion on the need for "critical thinking", where he basically points out that one should always question the assumptions made by others and those made by ourselves. He doesn't expect people to "take him only by his word" but to actually question what he says, think through the arguements, mull over the statements. That kind of thing.
His emphasis on deductive reasoning is appealing as well. Basically, all he's saying is that every statement we make must come from the evidence at hand. If the evidence is true, the statement that follows from it also must be true. If one combines two pieces of evidence, which involves including some premis that may be true or false, then one may deduce some further statement (or premis). He gives an example like this:
Evidence: A crime scene is located in a remote wilderness area.
Evidence: Tire tracks are found at the crime scene.
Theory: The tire tracks are connected to the offenders vehicle.
Premise: If the theory is true, then the offender has access to a vehicle.
Result:
Look for evidence that might conclusively link tire tracks to the crime (i.e., look for footprints to and from vehicle - crime scene proper; etc - remembering that lack of finding does not indicate lack of connection)
Increase the size of the search area.
Attempt to identify type of tire that made the tracks (does it suggest a particular vehicle or type of vehicle)
Question any potential witnesses as to vehicles seen in the area.
If a suspect is found, search the vehicle for trace evidence of the victim.
Etc.
Note, however, one aspect is to try and conclusively link the evidence; to know that the premis is true. If this cannot be done, the premis must be stated as an "assumption" (i.e., If the tire tracks came from the ...) It's considered a reasonable assumption because of the tracks being near the crime scene, and becase the crime scene is remote (harder to access without a vehicle). Even without the tracks, the assumption could be made but it would be even less supported (and so would have to be presented with even more cautionary language). If, rather than tire tracks, footprints and "drag marks" were found coming out of the woods (for example), then this would lead to an entirely different set of deductions about the events.
As trivial as this all seems given the example, the important point is that every statement, and premise, is linked to observable aspects of the evidence. Everything is built up from data specific to this particular crime.
His concern about "inductive reasoning", which is based upon statistical properties of similar offenses, is that this kind of argument is based on the assumption that the unknown offender is somehow similar to the group from which the statistic is based. And, he rightly points out that this kind of arguement is much weaker evidence. Sometimes it's all we have though, but conclusions based upon this kind of evidence must be presented with the appropriate cautions.
The posts here have, so far, generally reflected that though. We all are pretty good at pointing out that "These crimes are more like those committed by schizophrenic/psychotic individuals", which is true. I know I've presented some arguments against a "psychopathic/sociopathic" individual using overly strong wording, but I do try (most times) to end with pointing out that I'm not really ruling out the possibility. Usually though, we've been pointing to aspects of the crime scene which seem to indicate these conclusions, so even these arguments are based upon deductions and the inductive evidence is used almost to see if we're drawing conclusions that seem to fit other known crimes. Perhaps that last step is a bad habit though? That's one of the things I'll be looking out for as I read up.
- Jeff
|
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 554
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 9:11 pm: | |
Hi Jeff,
As you see, I have revised my earlier post a bit, to a more correct statement, in my view (thanks to your comment on it).
I agree, but then one would also wish we had more reliable data to make assumptions on, which is not the case here, I believe.
The problem that I see with Turvey's reasoning is, that profiling is mainly a way to classify an offender based on generalizations. Of course he's right in his concern for deductive reasoning, but I think it's unavoidable in a context like that of Jack the Ripper or in any case whatsoever, if one wants to form an opinion at all. Sometimes one must try and reach a conclusion and, as in attempting to make a profile, one unfortunately must rely on a quite broad and general type characterization - that is the profiling method's short-comings, indeed, but one must also consider that, even if we would have a lot of crime scene evidence available, it would still be impossible to define a more complex character. That's why using inductive reasoning, statistics and rough schetches of certain personality types are a necessity for the method.
I may misunderstand him, but if he claims that one must consider all kinds of individualistic exceptions and variations in an offender (especially in a case like this, where we have so little information), then it would be impossible to reach a conclusion at all. It is true that the human character and mind is complex, but I am not so sure that it's such a good idea to take that in consideration too much when indulging in criminal profiling. The uncertainties and the subjectiveness connected with the method is, whether we like it or not, a natural part of it. That's why I like John Douglas; he is quite firm and cuts right to the chase. If then the conclusion would be wrong, then so be it. But in a murder investigation there is no time to consider all the aspects of a human character - when that happens criminal profiling too easy becomes contradictive and unclear, and then it has lost all its purpose.
Naturally, what the evidence tells us must have the main priority, but that is quite hard to apply to a greater extent in a case like Jack the Ripper. I see his points, but they can become quite problematic. Of course one should cover as many relevant aspects as possible, but when the crime scene tells me something I prefer not to look for contradictive details, just for the sake of compromises or greay areas that may not exist - that is not me, really. I prefer to form a straight opinion and rather be completely wrong than not to form an opinion at all. If I don't see any signs of an organized offender, I don't see any reason why I should pretend they are there, simply because they "should be". Generalizations may be one of the method's biggest down-sides, but I'm afraid they are necessary, if one ever will be able to use it.
By the way, strange that they removed the part about Jack the Ripper in the second edition. One wonder why, since it is such a popular case.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Severn
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 3:48 pm: | |
AP Wolf.It interests me that Thomas was able to hold down a job until just before the murders.I agree that this is usually a sign of reasonable mental health.Why though was Macnaghten so adamant that he wasnt JtR? He would surely not have taken the steps he did just to say protect his uncle who was a colleague?He must have been sure in his own mind it wasnt Cutbush I would think.Best |
Severn
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 4:03 pm: | |
Erin,Jeff Thankyou for the above posts of 22nd they are really illuminating on the subject.Natalie Severn. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
