|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 790
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 11:46 pm: |       |
G'day,
'And though difficult, it would not be impossible to find prostitutes with their own room in the area.'
I'd say the chances of finding a prostitute with her own room were slim. The chances of finding one with her own room, who was willing to take a customer there, were even slimmer.
A psychopathic killer is not considered 'disorganized'. A 'disorganized' killer is a spree-killer like the Australian 'Port Arthur Killer', who didn't care who he shot, what age they were, what nationality they were. He probably didn't choose Port Arthur until he couldn't stop. Am I right Erin?
If Jack the Ripper was checking the progress of the investigation by reading the newspapers, this may have lead him to increase the mutilations so as to increase the terror he was causing, and so he would appear more 'disorganized'. Am I making sense? That could be why he comes across as 'mixed' to John Douglas.
LEANNE |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 155
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2003 - 12:44 am: | |
Hi Glenn,
Actually, Turvey emphasis deductive reasoning at the "crime reconstruction"/"evidence evaluation" phase of things. The final stage, which is the construction of the "offender profile", he admits is far from "scientific".
Basically, I suspect (though have not read that far yet) that in the end what he's really emphasising is the notion that all statements that are in the profile should directly link back to evidence observed.
He defines "deductive reasoning" as conclusions that follow smoothly from the observations and the premises, such that if the premises are true the conclusion must also be true. Inductive reasoning (meaning inferences based upon population statistics) have the danger where the conclusion may be false despite the fact the premises are all true. He also includes here deductive-style arguements where no attempt is made to actually verify the premises. Basically, once one reaches a "premise" that cannot be directly verified, one should not build more upon it without consideration of alternatives. So, if we could not establish a link between crime scene and tire tracks (in my previous post), we would want to 1) continue to consider offenders who may not have a car or access to one and 2) continue to widen the search space in case the offender does, and procede with finding out more about the vehicle that left the tracks. It may turn out that the vehicle is not that of the offender, but may reflect a new witness of some sort (i.e., someone stopped to give the offender a lift out of the area; or it may be the victims vehicle, suggesting the offender may have taken it, etc). To simply assume the vehicle is the offenders and then building upon that premise as if it is known to be true would be wrong, and potentially misleading. It may turn out that the vehicle is completely unrelated to the crime, but this cannot be assumed simply because there is no clear link between the tire tracks and the crime scene proper. Again, to suggest that premise without testing it is dangerous.
Anyway, for example, from population statistics one finds an age range of say 20-30 for a serial offender of crime type "X". To then state that "the offender is in the age range of 20-30" is to overstate the value of the evidence upon which this conclusion is based. Note also, that almost every profiler points out that these kinds of "characteristics" are based upon such population statistic type evidence and that no suspect should be discarded based upon such criterion. In otherwords, when profilers do use these kinds of evidence sets, they do actually indicate that these are "population norms" and should be considered as such.
If, however, they see signs of immaturity in how the crime was committed (what would be such a sign I don't really know), then they may make a deduction concerning offender age. But now they are using some sort of direct evidence from the particular crime upon which to make such an assessment.
This, I suspect, is where the deductions go from "scientific" to "art", as Turvey himself points out happens. This is also the point of contention that many have with profiling in general. However, what Turvey seems to want to emphasise is that if the information about victimology, crime scene recreation, MO, signature, etc is not based upon sound examination of the actual event, the eventual profile will have no chance of success. I think he's particularly concerned about statements like "offenders tend to kill people of similar racial backgrounds" as being offered in a profile when there is nothing at the crime scene to suggest this (i.e., DNA, hair samples, etc). These kinds of "offender characteristics", which are derived from population statistics, should always be presented with the same caution as "offender age" is presented, using words like "usually, may be, etc", to reflect that these are not statements based upon actual event information but rather based upon information gained from "other unrelated events" (other known criminals whos crimes are somehow similar).
Basically, his contention seems logically sound too. Firm statements about the individual offender should be based upon evidence gained about that offender. Probability type statements should be made if the information is not derived directly from that offenders behaviour but from other similar type crimes. These "characteristics" must, and should be, presented in a mannor that reflects the fact the conclusions are based upon evidence gathered from other crimes, and not this particular crime or series.
With things like Jack the Ripper, of course, it will be interesting to see what such an approach might allow. We have limited data to work with, admittedly, and the quality of that data is very suspect compared to modern standards, but it will be an interesting exercise to see what can be done with it.
- Jeff |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 156
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2003 - 12:50 am: | |
Hi Leanne,
The "organised/disorganised" description was orginally coined by the FBI to ease the description of psychological jargon. Basically, the more "disorganised" the offender is supposed to be the more "psychotic" they are supposed to be (pscyhotic is like schizophrenia not like pscyhopath - see why these terms can get confusing?).
- Jeff |
Erin Sigler
Sergeant
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 24
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2003 - 1:38 am: | |
Jeff is right, Leanne, but you're definitely getting the idea. An organized killer, if he has a mental dysfunction of some kind, is going to be a sociopath. Most serial killers would fall into this category, although there are some spree killers who would as well. The disorganized killer, on the other hand, is likely to suffer from some disorder that includes psychosis as its major symptom. He can also be either a serial or spree killer. Ed Gein is a great example of a seriously mentally serial killer (if you consider two victims a series), whereas James Huberty, a spree killer from the 1980s who shot up a California McDonald's, seems to have suffered from a raging case of paranoia, if not outright psychosis. Now this is just my opinion, based on what I've read, but I think a spree killer is probably more likely to be mentally disturbed than a serial, although they often display a high degree of planning--Charles Whitman, the notorious "Texas Tower" shooter of the 1960s, would fit into that category, although the brain tumor the medical examiner found in autopsy may or may not have influenced his behavior. His psychiatrist certainly seemed to think Whitman had violent, paranoid tendencies, but I'm not sure if he considered old Charlie psychotic or not.
I'm glad Jeff brought out the idea of an organizational continuum, because I think this is probably gives us a more accurate view of the behavior of serial killers. All of us occasionally fall into the trap of accepting false dichotomies because they're a convenient way of explaining things like human behavior, which seldom lends itself to black-and-white thinking. Sure, there are guys (and it's usually guys, I'm afraid--the data do bear that out, at least!) who lean pretty heavily toward one end of the continuum than others--Ed Gein on one end, Ted Bundy (at least until the very end) at the other. I would say that most serial killers we know about probably fall more into the "organized" range, since it's pretty difficult to kill a lot of people and get away with it without having some degree of cunning, particularly now, when our methods of detection are quite advanced. It can't be luck at work every time. Even the Green River Killer was eventually caught (or so it would seem), 49 bodies and 20-odd years later! And even in places where the forensics aren't as well-developed and law enforcement isn't up to our standards, the chances seem pretty good that if a guy keeps on killing, one of these days he's going to slip up and get caught--Chikatilo comes to mind (someone I'd actually put toward the middle of the spectrum, like Jack).
I don't know that Jack necessarily increased his mutilations because of the press reports. If anything, it seems like the "heat" being on him would, if he were a particularly rational individual, cause him to lay low for a while or perhaps even leave the area. The Green River Killer actually stopped using the Green River as a dumping ground fairly early in the series, after he heard the press reports that the police were staking it out. Wayne Williams, as I've mentioned before, started dumping his victims in water after hearing about the fiber evidence authorities were collecting from the bodies. Now, as Jeff has indicated, we can't always base our conclusions about one killer on what others have done, but Jeff is also right to say that in situations where the murderer is unknown, sometimes we have to rely on statistical probabilities if we want to get anywhere with our analyses. And in the Ripper's case, the facts are scant, the evidence (what little there is), is suspect, and the time factor is generally not in our favor (unless it causes people to start turning over evidence, as with the Kelly photo and the Swanson Marginalia).
Jeff, I would be interested to see what would happen if we strictly applied Turvey's profiling standards to this case. At the very least, it could condition us to ground our theories a little more solidly in the evidence, something I know would benefit me quite a bit.
P.S. I forgot to address this earlier: Leanne, don't sweat it about thinking I was a guy--happens a lot with my name, which is why I tend to use a "handle" when chatting on the net. People are much less likely to mistake "Rapunzel" (the nickname I typically use) for a guy than Erin!  |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2003 - 8:20 am: | |
Wow, an explosion of posts. Can't really go through on comment on every point. But if I have to pick one...
If Chikatilo is to be called mixed then Jack would fall to the slightly more disorganized end of mixed, as they were quite similar in my mind, but with Jack being a tad more out there (Eddowes and MJK mutilations being the main examples).
Of course I don't see him as being mixed at all. He claimed to be psychotic after he was put on trial and acted crazy, but I don't see what appear to me as genuione indications of mental disturbance. Lots of organized killers start faking their mental condition if they think they can make a play. |
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2003 - 5:52 am: | |
I do not think it is simply a case of planning,but more of reasoning,that guided 'Jack'.He could not foretell exactly what conditions might exist at any particular location in Whitechapel.He would leave his habitation with a fixed pattern of search in mind.It would then be chance that placed both killer and victim in some particular place,and from there it was left to reason as to what action would be decided on next.
He could only plan from that moment on.What may seem disorganised to us,may have been perfectly logical to him.He was there,he understood the conditions,he would reason when chances were good for his purpose and he would act
accordingly.
I do not see why any of the murder locations presented a risk.The dark early hours of any day are the most opportune,even today,and there were certainly no novel attractions on the streets of Whitechapel that would compel the inhabitants to seek comfort and enjoyment there.The night workers were mainly of the indoor type,and the beat policeman was the only likely person on foot on the streets.
Why choose the places he did?.I once asked an offender why he hid goods in a certain place.He replied,"Where else could I hide them".To the question of why he killed where he did,so may 'Jack' have answered,"Where else could I have killed them".
He was organised when he needed to be. |
AP Wolf
Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 455
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2003 - 1:10 pm: | |
Severn
sorry, but I'm going to have to refer you to the 'Myth' to answer your good question, for there is an entire chapter devoted to the subject, and I reckon I cover just about everything connected with Thomas, his uncle and Macnaghten. It is one of the later chapters so you won't have to read the whole thing.
It is available on the Casebook site.
Enjoy. |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 157
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2003 - 3:55 pm: | |
Hi Harry,
I guess my problem with the crime scene selection is the following. First, I'm going to assume that the location was selected by the victim, not by Jack, for the purpose of prostitution. I'm basing this on the fact that at least 3 of the victims (Nichols, Chapman, and Kelly) were known prostitutes actively seeking clients on the night they were murdered. Stride I'll leave out as her inclusion is too tentative, but she did have a prior registration as a prostitute (also, witness report suggests she may have just been attacked in the street).
Eddowes, although she has no known record for prostitution and nobody indicated that she was, was murdered in a location that suggests such a transaction was expected to take place. She was seen talking with a man in a manner that made those observing think she was a prostitute (an inference based upon witness statements, although they don't say "prostitute" specifically - I think they use the phrase "those types" or something like that), and when she left the police station, she had no money for a bed. These facts all allow the deduction that she may have been prostituting herself.
Anyway, if this premis is true (victim picks location), then the most complicated plan Jack could have is "Let the prostitute take me to a location because she will know where we won't get disturbed".
It's not really much of a plan to just decide to let someone else do the planning. But, if we call this the result of an "organised thinker" (which means someone with normal abilities to rationalise, or think through a problem), then let's call this "the plan".
The problem I see with this "plan" is that a location that may be suitable for prostitution is not necessarily going to be suitable for a mutilation-murder. This is not a hard concept to come up with. Also, at the time Chapman was murdered the sun was comming up, so it's now daylight. Again, people in the house are going to be starting to get up any second. Realiseing this is a very dangerous location and a very dangerous time is not a difficult concept unless your thinking is disturbed (note, simply thinking that mutilation murder is fun does not require one to be unable to evaluate the danger of a situation).
Eddowes murder, although in a dark corner, is in the one corner with no escape route nearby; Jack has to cross Mitre Square to get out no matter what direction he needs to flee. But, apart from Kelly's murder, Eddowes may be the safest one.
Nichols is just in the open street, and one that seems to be at least occaisonally used by pedestrians (as the carmen who found the body indicate). Kelly's murder location is much safer. It's inside, the door could be locked (although the curtain could be pulled back as the window was broken), etc. Escape just requires leaving quietly, and checking out the window first to see if anyone is about.
Anyway, relying on the prostitute to pick the location is relying on an unknown factor, which is her knowledge of the area. The killer doesn't themself know how safe the location is because they don't know where they will be taken too. Also, the time of day for Chapman (and Kelly if place her murder the next morning rather than 4am), are both very dangerous times to commit such murders (more people to possibly see you, or later blood stains on your cloths, or dripping blood as you carry away some part of th ebody, etc). Nichols murder in the open street may not have taken long (a couple of minutes), but once she's dead to then start to mutilate is to extend the window of time under which you are in danger and to risk getting blood on you that increases the risk of getting caught even more. Who ever does such a thing in the open street is not thinking about the consequences or the danger of discovery that their actions are producing. Poor "cause-effect" analysis if you will.
Anyway, I'm just not seeing anything that really looks all that organised in terms of the crime scene selection. By "organised" I mean "precautions taken to reduce risk of capture". There are a few things may point that way though.
1) In general the victims appear to be unknown to the killer (prevents linkage through association)
2) The victims appear to be intoxicated/sick (reduce chance of struggle, which reduces chance of drawing attention to the attack)
3) Brings a knife (is prepared to commit murder)
4) Takes knife with him (doesn't leave anything that might be traced back to himself)
5) victims are, or appear to be, prostitutes (makes them easy to get them to go with him)
I would have included the attacks occur at night, as that helps reduce risk of being spotted, but Chapman was not and Kelly may not have been. The daylight murder of Chapman indicates that this killer is not using night as a way of preventing being caught.
Anyway, some signs of organisation may exist, but signs of disorganisation exist as well. So, probably a "mixed" case here. In the end, however, we will need to step through things very "point by point" to see which end of the continuum we're closer to (more disorgnaised or more organised).
- Jeff
|
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 158
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2003 - 4:01 pm: | |
Hi Erin,
Once I've finished reading his text, I'll see what I can come up with. The main problem I see already is that the first step is to question the coroner, police officers, etc. That might be a little difficult! Anyway, a lot of the necessary evidence just won't be available, but with that caveat in mind, we should be able to do something. What's most important is to see how far we can get with the evidence. Could be we'll get further than we expect, could be we won't get even that far.
- Jeff |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1074
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 24, 2003 - 4:33 am: | |
Hi Jeff
I suppose it's a possibility (only a possibility) that Jack did lead two of the victims to the sites. Both Eddowes and Nichols were killed inches from gates to yards, and these gates were locked. On finding the gates locked, the killer may have decided to do the murders in the street.
I don't know whether serial killers have been known to behave like this, since I don't know enough about them.
This scenario would still imply a lack of planning, in that the killer hadn't checked out the gates beforehand. I suppose it's also possible that the women led him to these sites, and that they did this thinking the gates would be open. It would depend to what extent the sites were part of the victims' regular beats.
In the case of Chapman, the killer may have been looking for a victim for two or three hours previously, rejecting various women/sites as too risky. By the time he got to Chapman, he'd have realised that at such an hour, this would have been his last chance that day to do a murder.
It's even possible that he'd been walking the area for a couple of nights beforehand, looking for a victim without success. If he was interrupted in Buck's Row, he may have felt frustrated and he may have needed to kill again fairly quickly - until he killed Chapman, he hadn't committed any large-scale mutilations.
It's only a possibility, but maybe the killer did make some kind of risk assessment, but then switched to improvisation when desperation took over - the need to perform large-scale mutilations after the Nichols interruption, and the need to do likewise after the Stride interruption.
It's all fiendishly complicated!
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 565
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 24, 2003 - 7:46 am: | |
Hi Robert,
It's all interesting points to consider, but in my experience, it was quite rare that the prostitutes would let the customer choose the location for the "deal".
And just because a killer stalks a certain victim in order to find the right opportunity doesn't have to indicate that organized features. A lot of of disorganized characters have some sort of instinct of self-preservation, although they don't have the full capacity to evaluate their own risks, as far as site conditions ans other aspects allow. The easiest thing to assume, would be that he picked the women he by instinct felt he found suitable (and maybe they were the only prostitutes around at the time), and didn't consider the risks.
--------------------------
Jeff,
Just as a comment regarding the knife problem:
It is not that unusual for killers with low self-esteem and paranoid tendensies to carry knives for their own protection. I think that would be my bet in his case.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 338
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 24, 2003 - 8:03 am: | |
Folks,
Im currently reading through Douglas and Olshakers ‘The Cases that Haunt Us’.
On page 26 of my copy the authors (though I feel it may be John Douglas) states..
“All killers and sexual predators, in my opinion, have some degree of mental illness. By definition, you cant willingly take another life in this manner and be mentally healthy.”
This has got me thinking. Firstly, if I understand this quote correctly, they are stating that all killers/sexual predators are mentally ill…well at least part way.
So does this include soldiers and the likes? Cannibals who take life for ritual/occult whatever meanings, are they doing this simply because they are mentally ill? No religious or tribal factor involved there then.
Ive always been slightly confused and worried that Jack has been saddled with mental illness. In my eyes it is a moral issue, not born out of a mental deficiency but out of either not knowing right from wrong, or just simply not caring.
I can see the point that surely ones own understanding of morality is intertwined with the mental side of our humanity and therefore its one in the same. But I cannot see how it can be labelled as mental illness.
That’s my view….for what its worth.
Monty
|
Alan Sharp
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ash
Post Number: 119
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 24, 2003 - 8:37 am: | |
Monty
The key words in that sentence would have to be in this manner. Soldiers don't take life in that manner, they take life because it is their job to do so. Tribes who indulge in cannibalistic rituals don't take life in that manner, they do so because they have been brought up to believe it a normal and acceptable thing to do in their society.
In our society we are brought up to believe that the brutal slaughter of another human being in this manner is wrong, yet serial killers for whatever reason have decided either a. I disagree with society when it says that that is wrong or b. I do agree, but I'm going to do it anyway. Now a person does not need to be start raving mad to make such a decision, but surely they cannot be described as an entirely well balanced individual either! |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 794
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 24, 2003 - 9:22 am: | |
G'day,
JEFF: If Elizabeth's Stride's attacker, (the one seen by Schwartz), was about to kill her with a knife, why would he pull her about in the open street first? I would have thought that any killer with a knife, would want strike when the victim least expected it, or draw the victim close to minimize the struggle.
'The killer doesn't themself know how safe the location is because they don't know where they will be taken to.'
But what if the killer was a local who watched the victim until he knew exactly where he was going to be taken?
Nichols was found dead at 3:45a.m. Dr Llewellyn, (who was in Buck's Row at 4:00a.m.), said the deceased had: "not been dead more than half an hour.". That means she was murdered at about 3:30a.m. What if the killer knew that a man would be walking past on his way to work in a quarter of an hour?
LEANNE |
Severn
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2003 - 5:04 pm: | |
AP Wolf.I have looked through ,The Myth and I find it still intriguing.You certainly see things with a fresh eye and thankfully different from the Sun journalist who first wrote about Cutbush.To me there is still something that suggests hes not the ripper.To have changed from ripping to scissor jabbing or similar strange behaviour doesnt flow somehow.But that said I will return to read your work later .Meanwhile thanks for sharing your work and thinking on this.Natalie. |
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, October 24, 2003 - 5:24 am: | |
Jeff,
I certainly accept your views as sound,and perhaps the difference in our approach to the problem,is the relation between killer and victim.
In Nicholl's case there is no eyewitness,and Hutchinson,s testimony I believe to be totally fabricated.In the case of the other three victims,there is a reporting of the assumed victim being in what I consider a too familier pose with her companion,similar I would say to people who are known to each other.In my experience,even prostitutes were wont to keep clients at arms length,especially if strangers,and not allow familiarity untill a place chosen for business is reached.
There were too many unknowns for the ripper to behave in an organised manner at all times,He would have to take risks,and organise as conditions presented themselves.We look at a perspective of things that have gone while his perspective would be on conditions to come.Quite different when evaluating chances.
Overall I can accept the Ripper as an organised individual, in most instancies.If there appear to be lapses on his part,we have to accept that he was a person driven by urges most of us never experience,so it is difficult to evaluate the success or otherwise of everything he did.
Regards,
Harry Mann. |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 341
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 24, 2003 - 10:15 am: | |
Alan,
I take the point about soldiers…a necessity rather than pleasure. For some I reckon.
But the Cannibalistic view is the point I was trying to make. Normal and acceptable in their society (for whatever reasons). So taking a life for pleasure is unacceptable and abnormal in our society, right?
Therefore anyone who commits murder for pleasure are abnormal and, on that basis, are mentally ill ?
What Im trying to get across is that we are judging his sanity/mental deficiency by our own standards in society when the reality is that we cannot make such a judgement, on the grounds that we know nothing of this persons background. Are we sure it was an act of pleasure? How can we make such an assumption? How do we know that he was brought up to believe that this behaviour is abnormal?
We don’t. Its not as simple as saying “well murder for pleasure is not acceptable in my society so therefore a serial killer is mentally ill”. It’s a judgment based on our own morals and not logic or intelligence.
Id like to point out that these are not my beliefs (on Jack or society) but it does make ya think don’t it ?
Monty
|
Alan Sharp
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ash
Post Number: 122
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 24, 2003 - 11:30 am: | |
Monty
Ah, I see your point and am reminded me of the "NEMO" letter to the Times suggesting that the murders had "probably been committed by a Malay, or other low-class Asiatic coming under the general term of Lascar." |
Erin Sigler
Sergeant
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 25
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 24, 2003 - 1:08 pm: | |
Hi Monty,
I don't think Douglas is suggesting that everyone who commits murder is mentally ill. If you keep reading, he indicates that he believes the organized offender to suffer from a character disorder (also known as a personality disorder). Neither the courts nor the mental health professional consider a person with a personality disorder to be mentally ill in the same sense as someone with schizophrenia. There are a lot of differences, but what it basically boils down to is that schizophrenics and other psychotics are not in touch with reality and therefore cannot be held responsible for their actions, whereas someone with a personality disorder, while a little skewed mentally, is quite rational and as such, knows that what they are doing is wrong. They are held legally responsible for their actions. The sociopath falls into this category.
As for tribes where cannibalism is regularly practiced, the DSM is careful to note that what is acceptable in certain cultures is not considered acceptable in others. In legal terms, there is the matter of mens rea, or criminal intent, which must be proven before a prosecution can continue. In societies where cannibalism is acceptable, such criminal intent cannot be formed, and no cultural norms are violated. So I really wouldn't put them in the same category, as, say, Chikatilo. |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 566
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 24, 2003 - 2:28 pm: | |
A nice summary, Erin. That is how I interpreted Douglas' statement as well.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 799
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 25, 2003 - 6:30 am: | |
G'day,
A soldier kills in self-defence, (defence of his country.)
LEANNE |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 342
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 27, 2003 - 11:03 am: | |
Alan,
Bingo !
Im glad to see we are on the same wave lenght.
Erin,
Mens rea. That fits in where with Jack?
Monty
|
Erin Sigler
Sergeant
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 38
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 27, 2003 - 2:12 pm: | |
Hi Monty,
Good question. Mens rea, translated literally, means "guilty mind." In American jurisprudence (heavily based on the English system), both actus rea (criminal act) and mens rea must be present in order to convict someone of a crime. In Jack's case, if he were truly suffering from a mental illness that induced psychosis, he is no more accountable for his actions than the cannibal. However, in the cannibal's case, his act is not considered criminal in his society, whereas Jack's murders of course are. So if he had been caught, he probably would have been judged unfit to stand trial and institutionalized (they put the criminally mentally ill in Broadmoor at the time, no?). They wouldn't just let him go, since he had committed a criminal act, but neither would he be put in prison.
I hope that made sense, and if you knew this stuff already, I apologize. |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 160
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 27, 2003 - 8:22 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
I agree, having and taking the knife is not by itself much of an indication of "organisation" on the killer's part. For example, this may simply reflect a killer who uses a knife as part of their employment. Etc.
One thing I found quite interesting in the Turvey book I'm reading is that the relationship between "organised/disorganised" crime scenes and "mentally stable/mentally disturbed criminals" is not, apparently, founded upon any actual analyses. Apparently the FBI have not actually tested, or analysed their data, in any manner that would indicate this kind of interpretation is valid. It's a bit worrying if true. On the other hand, Turvey is quite critical of the FBI profiling technique and points out the remarkable similarity of all profiles that they produce (white male, age 20-30, etc).
This "average profile" that gets produced is not surprising, though, as it is the result of the inductive approach used by the FBI (average a number of similar crimes and that average is the profile). As he points out, the profile is inductive because it is based upon other crimes similar to the current one and not based upon conclusions suggested by the details of the current crime.
In contrast, his "deductive profile" is based upon analysis of the individual crime evidence, and from this crime specific evidence conclusions are drawn about the specific individual. So, in his terms, the averages produced by the "inductive methods" are "predictions", not "conclusions", about the offender. The "deductive" method, in theory, allows for "conclusive" statements to be made. So, if there is some physical evidence found at the crime scene that allows for the determination of race, then the offender's race may be deduced based upon this evidence and the premise that the evidence actually comes from the offender. If the premise is true, the deduction is therefore true. Of course, knowing if the premise is true is the whole trick, isn't it? ha!
I'm finding this reading quite facinating actually. Especially since I've only been familear with the FBI's approach. Although I understand Turvey's critisms of it, I'm not yet convinced the statistical averageing itself is useless. Rather, I see it as complimenting the "conclusive statements" that can be extracted using his deductive approach by making probabilistic statements derived from similar offenders.
What is most worrisome, however, is the possibility that these averages may not be based upon valid studies. Meaning, the data that the FBI has and uses may not have been properly analysed, or may be based on samples that are too small to be considered valid. He seems concerned with the carbon-copy profiles that the FBI produces, and he's quite critical of their approach and research in general.
Anyway, it's certainly giving me some new perspective on the issue of profiling. I'm not sure I agree completely with all his statements against the utility of the statistical averages, but I do understand his concern with using that as the only basis of constructing a profile.
- Jeff
|
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 161
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 27, 2003 - 8:35 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
Indeed, if Schwartz's man intended to kill Stride, the initial assault in the open street seems a pretty risky first step. Why they would do this, I don't know. It could indicate anything from there was no initial intention to kill Stride up to the attacker had no concept of just how stupid such behaviour was (in terms of how much risk they were putting themselves at by being so blatent about the attack).
As for the killer being a local and knowing, or at least having a good idea, of where they will be taken too. That's a good possibility. But it still comes down to the fact that if these locations were chosen by the killer, and I'm including here his knowing where he's likely to be taken as his "choice" because it indicates he "likes this area", the areas appear to be poor choices. Meaning, if he left it to chance, it's no plan, if he had a good idea of where he's being taken, it's a bad plan.
As for him knowing someone would come by in 15 min. after Nichols was murdered, I'm not sure how he could have known this unless he's psychic. Not being a big believer in psychic powers, I tend to reject this possibility. And knowing that the street is generally not very busy is still taking a pretty big risk. I suppose if the street is almost always empty one could suggest that the interruption was just one of those unlucky rolls of the dice and in fact, on any other night he would not have been. I don't know, I can't recall any indication of what the normal traffic density was like at that time of night. Perhaps it was highly unusual for anyone to walk down Buck's Row at that time? Then again, we have two people doing something very unusual if that's true.
- Jeff |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
