|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 162
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 27, 2003 - 9:58 pm: |       |
Hi Harry,
For Kelly, one doesn't need accept Hutchinson's testimony about Mary taking clients to her room. There is also "blotchy faced man" as well. Basically, taking clients to her room appears to have been Mary's procedure. Use of her room also means she cannot be charged with "lude behaviour in public", and it's been reported that prostitution itself was not illegal at the time.
Anyway, as I've suggested, the idea that the victims were likely engaged in prostitution is based upon what we know of their individual behaviours. Nichols, Chapman, and Kelly were all known prostitutes. Nichols and Chapman were both turned out of their rooms for lack of money, and both indicated they would return for a bed. Meaning, they both went out to get money. Given the time of night, and given that they were known to prostitute themselves, it is reasonable to conclude that they were actively seeking clients. Similar with Mary. She was a known prostitute, Joe had left her due to her returning to prostitution, and this was her only source of income at the time (to the best of my knowledge). Anyway, this, combined with "blotchy faced man", does seem to indicate she was actively soliciting that night. Of course, it doesn't let us know for sure she solicited Jack as a client, but with Chapman's witness (if reliable and if the same killer), suggests a commonality.
With Eddowes, there is no police record indicating she was ever charged with prostitution (at least none yet discovered). Moreover, nobody seems to indicate she was known to prostitute herself. However, in contrast to such testimony is the fact that she was last seen talking to a male in a manner that was interpreted by locals as "unsavory", she later appears to have accompanied this person into Mitre Square and to the darkest corner of that square (note, this location is not along a path through the square so this location appears to be the "destination"). She was known to be without money when she left the police station, and would be looking for a bed for the night; so she had a "motive" to prostitute herself. The location and the male she was last seen with gives her "oppertunity", and, well, presumably she had the "means" to fulfill the task. Means, motive, and oppertunity have all been satisfied, and therefore it is a reasonable premise to put forth. Circumstantial as such evidence is, the conclusion is based upon what we know of her last movements.
As for how clients and prostitutes interacted in 1888 as compared to today, I'm not sure. It sounds, such as with Martha Tabram and "Pearly Poll", that clients and prostitutes would often spend large amounts of time together and go "bar hopping" together. The movements and behaviours of some of the "later possible victims" in relation to their clients (James Stadler and Frances Coles; I think I have these two correct?) seems to suggest that familearity was not uncommon. Again, we're dealing with possibly very specific cases, and maybe these "go against the rule", I don't know.
Interestingly, it's only Eddowes who appears to be exceptionally close to her client. Chapman is reported as "talking with", and Stride appears to have been openly attacked without provication. Eddowes is seen placing a hand on a man's chest in an almost overly familear manner. If, as has been suggested, she's not a regular prostitute, perhaps this overly familear interaction is a reflection of that fact? Pure speculation of course, and a bit of an "after the fact" explanation.
- Jeff
|
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 600
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 27, 2003 - 10:18 pm: | |
Hi Jeff,
Firstly, yes, the knife could very well be a result from his (former?) occupation. But most importantly, a true reflection would be that he carries it for his own protection. If he is a paranoid character, I think that would be a logical assumption to make.
---------------------------------
Yes I see Turvey's points, and I can't say that I totally disagree with him on some levels. I have noticed the "carbon-copy" nature of the FBI profiles as well, and he raises a serious point here, I think.
On the other hand, the FBI are those who most come in contact with serial killers, and I find it hard to believe that all years of dealing with them wouldn't lead to some sort of evaluation from experience on FBI's part. That would be odd. The results from their daily work are tests in itself, in a way.
The simple solution to Turvey's concern could be that there really are enough general characteristics or similarities among certain types of serial killers in order to base opinions and make categorizations from it. But then he on the other hand could very well be partly justified in his fears on the matter.
Then I think Turvey misses the important point regarding profiling, when he tries to make the method into something more than the list of generalizations that it really is. Some of his opinions on the matter sounds to me too much like academic, acrobatic constructions. I think he's right though, when he says that profilers' conclusive attempts really should be called "predictions", cause that's what they really are - no more, no less. I think the statistical average analysis can't be avoided, whether we like it or not. But when I hear Turvey talk, I sometimes get the impression that FBI only uses this approach and never studies facts from crime scene evidence, reports or victimology. What Turvey forgets - although he seem to raise a number of important points - is that methods like criminal profiling is merely predictions based on empiric studies, not an attempt to construct a method with scientific truth value.
Of course one would wish that it would be more compelling if the method could nail down more individual details regarding a suspect, after analysing a crime scene. But I wonder if that is possible in real life and within the boundaries of the method. That uncertainty is naturally a vital part of criminal profiling's major down-sides, but it is also something we have to accept if we will be able to use the method at all. I can very much understand Turvey's high ambitions regarding the possibilities of profiling, but I think he shoots over the target. In fact, I find it a bit remarkable when he questions those who daily live and work with the method on the field and gain life-long experience from it, although FBI by no means hold all the cards - their marginal of errors should naturally not be taken lightly, but neither should their wide experience from serial killers, lust murderers and rapists.
In addition, I have seen Turvey's attempts to schetch a criminal profile on Jack the Ripper and I must say that I'm unfortunately not at all impressed with parts of it.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 344
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 28, 2003 - 5:54 am: | |
Erin,
I do follow. Part of my job is to establish intent during an IUC.
And since they cannot be put to trial he cannot be convicted...and since he cannot be convicted he cannot be labelled as THE murderer.
As you say, the only option left is Broadmoor. But you cannot state he was Jack The Ripper.
Bang him away and keep schtum.
Do you think that happened? There is a possibility.
Thanks anyway,
Monty
|
Erin Sigler
Sergeant
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 46
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 28, 2003 - 12:29 pm: | |
Monty,
I apologize if I gave the impression of "talking down" to you. When I ask if I'm being clear, it's really a reflection of my own insecurity, not the listener's intelligence. I constantly worry that I'm not making sense, so if I ask, this is honestly what I mean.
Pardon my asking, but what's an IUC? I'm not terribly familiar with the British justice system, although the American system is of course based on it. Some of the laws, of course, have changed. Most states no longer follow the M'Naghten rule, for instance.
So Broadmoor is the place where the criminally mentally ill are sent, then? Here they're sent to different institutions based on their designation as "unfit to plead," "unfit to stand trial," or "not guilty by reason of mental disease." One of these institutions actually exists in the city I grew up in--hence the story of the man who carried his father's severed head around in a bowling bag.
At any rate, if Broadmoor is the place where the criminally mentally ill are sent, why then did Anderson and Swanson refer to the Ripper's being housed at Colney Hatch? I thought it was one of the places where the indigent mentally ill were sent. Perhaps this is "great difficulty" to which Swanson refers in securing the identification of the suspect. I suppose it's also possible that the suspect's relatives had him committed to Colney Hatch, which may have removed the option of Broadmoor. So if the suspect was not even considered unfit to stand trial (if such a designation exists in England), the impeccably fair British justice system would have prevented him from being named or even charged.
I apologize in advance for any errors I may have committed with respect to British jurisprudence. I would be very interested to know what the actual procedures would have been in 1888.  |
AP Wolf
Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 470
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 28, 2003 - 2:00 pm: | |
I found Jeff’s excellent summary of the profiler’s art salutary, in that the FBI - anyway - just about used exactly the same techniques, procedures and samples as Shere Hite did in her first volume about female sexuality.
So perhaps everyone professionally involved in this field is really employed in the very difficult task of shooting rubber bands at the moon?
Generally criminals sent to Broadmoor in the Late Victorian Period were detained ‘At Her Majesty’s Pleasure’, a sort of catch-all for what were termed the criminally insane, there was no fair or judicial template for this and one could find themselves banged up at Her Majesty’s Pleasure for an over-indulgence in ‘wicked self-harm’ which to you and me means masturbation. However HMP was most certainly used by the courts who knew that they had a dangerously criminally insane maniac on their hands who had already committed murder - but the court had no evidence to convict them - or alternatively might well commit a murder in the future, again a situation that could not be evidenced or justified under a criminal justice system, but could be easily encompassed by something so whimsical as ‘Her Majesty’s Pleasure’.
Two cases which spring easily to my mind to illustrate the whimsical nature of the courts and HMP are, in the first instance the case of young Mister Colicitt of Whitechapel who enjoyed stabbing young ladies in their posterior with a pair of scissors and was duly bound over by the court to his father’s good and honest care for the sum of £200.
The second instance that year of a young man who enjoyed stabbing young ladies in their posterior with a pair of scissors was somehow not viewed so lightly by the same court, for they allowed neither counsel for prosecution or defence to proceed, and without let or hesitation sentenced the young man to be detained ‘At Her Majesty’s Pleasure’ for the rest of his natural life and the poor chap did indeed die in Broadmoor many years later. His name was Thomas Cutbush.
Colney Hatch and the Lambeth Infirmary were I believe more or less ‘holding pens’ for the mildly insane rather than the destination of the criminally insane after sentencing.
|
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 163
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 28, 2003 - 3:10 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
Indeed, I'm not sure what to think about Turvey's concerns. Personally, I see a benefit in the analysis of populations. However, a population analysis needs more than just an average. Variation in those averages also needs to be considered. For example, let's say the analysis of the population lets say that convicted offenders of crime "X" have an average age of 25. That might be considered important if, for example, you indicate that the 90% of the population fall within +- 2 years (so 90% of the population of convicted criminals of crime X are within the age range of 23-27), but if you needed a range of -10 to +40 years to cover 90% of the population, then you're looking at 15-65 years of age just to have a 90% chance of covering the age of the offender (on the premise they are from the same population as those already convicted). In the latter case, one wouldn't think much of the age analysis, but the in former it would be worth a mention.
Anyway, it surprises me that the FBI would not put the method through rigorous tests, but one has to factor in that the FBI have to do the profiles. They are not scientists. Scientists are exceptionally conservative in their statements, they argue over details, and they are very concerned about proper analysis. I understand this being one myself! The FBI, however, has to use the tool. And if the tool is too complicated, it won't get used even if it is good. If it's easy, and not so good, but better than nothing, it will get used. In fact, it may be no better than nothing but if it gives the impression that the investigation is moving forward, it may help in a placebo-type manner (where people given a surgar pill report feeling better because they think they were give medication).
Given the amount of time profilers have to spend on putting out profiles, the population average is quick, requires little training (just access to the database), and provides a summary of those convicted of similar cases.
Turvey, however, is more focused on "forensic analysis" and "detection through physical evidence". He points out that most law enforcement are not trained in how to use physical evidence, they are not forensically trained people. And, most forensically trained people are not trained in criminal investigation procedures. But, somehow, these two groups need to communicate their findings.
And, Turvey's pushing the notion that a lot of information about the individual is available at a crime scene. This is due to "Lochart's ?Transfer Principle" (I may have the name wrong), which is basically whenever two objects come in contact, they exchange material. So, when an offender touches something at the crime scene, they leave something about themselves at the crime scene and take something from the crime scene with them. The classic is fiber material. At the crime scene you find fibers that can be identified as comming from a car mat (let's say). These fibers are thought to come from the offender (they're found in what appears to be the offender's footprint). These fibers are identified as comming from a truck. This allows the deduction that the offender was been in a truck prior to the crime scene. Or, at least, was in contact with floor mats originally from a truck. If tire tracks are also found that correspond to a truck, etc.
Then, once a suspect is found, one can look for trace evidence from the crime scene in the offenders truck, on their clothes, etc. Showing that 1) material from the offender was left at the crime scence and 2) material from the crime scene was left on the offender provides a deductive link between the offender and the crime scence.
Anyway, the example above (which may be completely rediculous as I don't really know if you can determine the kind of vehicle from floor mat fibers), would be a deductive approach to the profile statement
"Offender owns or has access to a truck"
Whereas the inductive method would look at other crimes of a similar nature, find that the most common vehicle owned is "a truck", and then state "Offender owns or has access to a truck".
Turvey's main complaint, I think, is that this latter statement should really be phrased much more "probabilistic", like this:
"X% of offenders committing this kind of crime have owned or had access to a truck", and probably a break down of other vehicles as well.
The difference is the "deductive" approach only allows you to make profile statements that reflect information gained from the crime scene.
The inductive approach allows you to make statements without any direct evidence from the particular crime scene by examining offenders from other crimes of a similar nature. If, however, the analysis of these other crimes is not well done in the first place, the statements may in fact be worthless, or worse misleading. This is especially true if the statements are made to strongly, as they usually are in the FBI profiles.
Properly done, however, the idea behind what the FBI are doing should be useful. Especially if used to "round out" the deductive statements derived from specific crime scene evidence. One could make "These statements are deductions and are true of the offender if the given premises are true (i.e., if the footprint is that of the offender, they wear size 10 sneakers)" type lists, then "the following information is probabilistic and may or may not be true of the offender".
I wouldn't be too surprised if his profile on Jack the Ripper is unimpressive. His entire approach requires access to the physical evidence, the ability to question medical examiners, etc. The information we have would be considered inadequate in his view, etc. And, he's right in that sense, it is insufficient. That's why we don't argree on even the simplest things like "Was Eddowes engaged in prostitution?", "Where was Barnett on the night of Kelly's murder?", "Where was he the next morning?", "What time was Kelly actually murdered?" etc. We can't answer any of these for sure because we can't go back and ask for more tests, etc.
Still, we may be able to do some things.
- Jeff
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1118
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 28, 2003 - 5:23 pm: | |
Hi Jeff
Re attempts to try and gauge the reliability of profilers in general, and individual profilers in particular : I wonder whether any, as it were, retrospective experiments have been performed. By that I mean, that you give some profilers the crime scene evidence etc of some cases from the past which are known to have been solved (barring miscarriages of justice) but whose outcome the profilers themselves do not know (one would have to be fairly sure on this point!). Then you ask the profilers to construct their profiles of the kinds of culprits likely to have committed the crimes, and so you can check their predictions against the facts.
I realise that profilers' predictions are already being checked against outcomes in present day cases, but such retrospective investigations might add to our data on profilers, and perhaps more importantly we could tell if their success rate undergoes any alteration as they step back through time to crimes committed nearer to the period we're interested in.
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 601
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 28, 2003 - 6:00 pm: | |
Hi Jeff,
I really don't know what to think about the population discurse, to tell you the truth. It feels a bit theoretical. The kind of "average, statistical" approach that FBI uses (like when they claim that a certain offender would be of "that and that" age or have "that" occupation...), I think is merely based upon there own experiences from serial killers the've met and analysed - and, as you say, by looking at similar crimes. This inductive method is, I admit, not perfect but it is on the other based on empric studies and reflections, and not on academic theoretizations. Turvey is right when he says that the inductive method allowes you to make statements without without direct evidence from the crime scene - that is why it is called predictions, not conclusions.
But what upsets me is that Turvey seem to imply that "law enforcement are not trained in how to use physical evidence", a statement I think is just as wrong as it is offensive. Of course detectives and profilers can't be experts on forensics - that is why these groups collaborate with each other. But I think he is unfair and ignorant when he seem to conclude that FBI profilers only uses an inductive method - that is a complete fallacy. They may not be medical experts, but it would probably be hard to find any represantatives from the law enforcement that are more qualified as far as deductive crime scene reading is concerned. Nearly all profilers are originating from the regular law enforcement, with field knowledge. But for an academic like Turvey it is easy to sit behind the desk and theorize on this matter.
I see your point regarding the academic community, Jeff, and - like you - I have quite a long experience from that environment myself and I have to agree on evrything you say.
But Turvey seem to miss vital points when he claims that this is what FBI:s profiling approach is mainly based on. I believe it is a combination of deductive and inductive methods. Turvey seem to think that they only should stick to what the explicit ecidence tells us - if that was the case, I believe profiling would be quite useless in may siituations. And in old cases like Jack the Ripper we don't have that much to make deductive statements from, since the evidence are fragmatic, uncomplete and sometimes contradictive.
So where does that leave us regarding this specific case? Since the circumstances here merely allows to make a inductive analysis, should this dismiss the profiling metod in this context? I think not; there are other cases with even less material available where profiling has been of value. The crime scenes in the Jack the Ripper mystery make it possible for both inductive and deductive predictions, in order to tell us something about the offender, even though the circumstances may be more suitable for the first one.
And what I find most remarkable, is that although it is harder in cases like these to use a deductive, evidence-based approach, it hasn't stopped Turvey himself to give it a try, in just as much an inductive manner as those he critizes for doing the same. And his "conclusions" from 1999 are quite contradictive and, I think, puzzling (See also the study "Sadistic Behaviour" by Baeza and Turvey).
He mainly identifies Jack as a lust murderer, with passive anger and behaviour keys that "speak to a lot of inadequacy on the part of the offender", a statement that would be quite compaltble with the FBI view as Jack as disorganized killer.
These points are:
a) lack of sexual assault (meaning rape etc.)
b) victims were overpowered on the street, killed and mutilated in a short space of time
c) lack of evidence of torture to a living, concious victim (meaning he can not be regarded as a sadist)
These three points are also fairly interpretated from the actual evidence and could be seen as examples of deductive attempts.
However, the problem arrives in his next two points:
d) the offender's need to install fear, terror or shock in the public or law enforcement and demonstrating his power and superiority
e) a need to have his actions seen or heard by others; the need to have hisvictims found and his "work" on display
The last two points above can by no means be supported by any evidence at all. If this is a example of induction, it is confusing and - as I see it - terribly contradictive in regards to the other points, since these two statements points at an organized killer, while the others do not. Here Jack the Ripper (from being inadequate) suddenly transforms into a self-assured psychopath who is proud of his work. Even though we should consider a mixed personality type, this is too contradictive and illogical - and psycologically not credible. If this is supposed to show the problems with inductive reasoning, I belive Turvey has succeeded to prove his point, but FBI would never draw up such a conflicting personality type without any evident signs to support it.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Erin Sigler
Sergeant
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 50
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 28, 2003 - 8:50 pm: | |
I've been doing some research on British mental hospitals during the 1800s and have turned up a few items of interest. First of all, I discovered that until 1890, family members could detain their insane relatives without having to gain authorization from a judge. People who had been institutionalized by their relatives were known as "private patients," with their own hospital facilities, whereas the institutionalization of paupers had to be authorized by a magistrate. It appears that sometimes both private and pauper patients were confined at the same hospital, although in separate residences.
Apparently there is also a difference between those considered "mentally defective" and those designated "insane." The "criminally insane" appears to be a subcategory of the "insane." According to the 1800 Criminal Lunatics Act these were individuals who were:
a) charged with treason, murder or felony, who were acquitted on the grounds of insanity;
b) indicted and found insane at the time of arraignment;
c) brought before any criminal court to be discharged for want of prosecution who appeared insane;
d) apprehended under circumstances denoting a derangement of mind and a purpose to commit an indictable offence;
e) appearing to be insane and endeavouring to gain admittance to the royal presence by intrusion on one of the royal residences. (1844 Report p. 196).
I found this description from a web site (http://www.mdx.ac.uk/www/study/) which contains just about everything you'd ever want to know about British asylums. The author also says that "Category (a) had to be and categories (b) and (c) could be (if the court saw fit) kept in strict custody until His Majesty's pleasure shall be known. In such cases, His Majesty could issue an order stating the place and manner in which the person was to be confined. In practice this meant the Home Office determined what happened to the person. Such persons detained under any order or authority of the Home Office could not be liberated by the commissioners." He goes on to say that "Category (d) could be confined by a JP and his or her release was subject to certain restrictions. Category (e) could be confined on the authority of the Lord Chancellor and if they were could only be released on his authority. The 1840 Insane Prisoners Act authorized the transfer of any insane prisoner (*except civil prisoners) to a lunatic asylum, thus extending the criminal lunacy law to cases of misdemeanour. It applied to anyone confined under sentence of death, transportation or imprisonment, or under a charge of any offence, or for want of sureties to keep the peace, or to answer a criminal charge; or in consequence of any summary conviction, or other than civil process (1844 Report p.196). If a prisoner appeared to be insane, two JPs were to hold an inquiry and, if they and the doctors found he was insane, the Home Secretary could order his transfer to an asylum." (Sorry for the lengthy quotations, but I felt they were important enough to be reproduced in full.)
It appears that many pauper "criminal lunatics" were initially housed at "Bedlam" (Bethlehem Hospital in London), but transferred to Broadmoor in 1863-4. (Coincidentally, three generations of "Monros"--one called James, no less--were the resident physicians at Bedlam in the 18th and early 19th centuries.) It appears to be the primary location used to house the criminally insane from that point forward.
I've also found some information on Colney Hatch and Leavesden, but more on that later--this post is long enough, and I need some caffeine! |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 606
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 28, 2003 - 10:53 pm: | |
A very interesting post, Erin, and a useful link as well. Thank you.
"Bedlam" was quite well known - it appears in a few folk songs as well.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 345
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 29, 2003 - 7:46 am: | |
Erin,
Please do not apologise. I feel the same way. Its a complex subject that I struggle to understand at times, as Im sure most people do. Im sorry if I gave you the impression I was chastising you. I wasn’t.
Broadmoor is our most famous mental institute (after the Houses of Parliment that is) and its the one I just used as an example. There were others as you know.
Interesting post above, thank you for putting that out. My Mum used to answer the phone with the phrase ‘Hello, Bedlam asylum’…..I don’t know why !
Monty
PS IUC…Interview Under Caution.
|
Alan Sharp
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ash
Post Number: 139
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 29, 2003 - 10:24 am: | |
Bedlam has also become a common English term for a chaotic environment, eg. it's absolute bedlam in here. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1121
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 29, 2003 - 10:54 am: | |
I believe the Imperial War Museum now occupies the site of Bedlam.
Robert |
AP Wolf
Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 471
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 29, 2003 - 12:43 pm: | |
Glenn,
The idea of Jack having ‘posed’ his victims in either a provocative or sexual manner has never really appealed to me. Simply because this type of behaviour just doesn’t suit the inherently childish nature of his crimes.
Back in the bad old days of the 90’s when I was a real writer I did dwell on this subject a great deal, and as a consequence of immersed myself in a tidal wave of scene-of-crime reports, autopsies and general studies regarding victims of violent crimes.
My memory dims now but I seem to remember reaching the conclusion that if you killed someone quickly - using any form of weapon and regardless of whether the victim was standing or held down to the ground - then a perfectly natural result of that sudden and violent death would be that the legs would be thrown apart - akimbo if you like. People do tend to thrash their limbs about a bit when having their throats cut.
It was also clear that a victim killed in such a manner could easily come down in a death posture where either or both knees might be drawn up to their chest, especially when eased down by a killer.
If the legs had been drawn together at death then surely Jack could not have carried out a number of the mutilations?
Perhaps it is also important to remember that when a person is confronted by a new and unknown painting, they may well read things into the painting which the artist had no intention of painting in the first place. This is such a widespread phenomena that there are entire media organizations devoted to it, and some people actually earn a vast wage specializing in the subject. They are called art critics or art historians, and each and every one has a different interpretation of any work of art.
I would have thought that this general rule of art and life applies equally to murder and those who study it: the profilers and forensic scientists.
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1123
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 29, 2003 - 1:18 pm: | |
Hi AP
I thought you were arguing earlier (on the poetry thread) that an immature killer might have left the bodies in a position calculated to give the impression that the killer knew about sex, even though his understanding of it was very inadequate.
Robert |
AP Wolf
Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 473
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 29, 2003 - 1:21 pm: | |
A cautionary word for those delving into the mechanics of Her Majesty’s Pleasure and other such clever tinkering devices within the British justice system. All is not what it seems, and most certainly what official history tells us is not based on the actual circumstances and application of HMP as privy to such bodies as a Privy Council.
Basically the British Establishment is a fiercely protective animal who will bend and actually break law when they think the circumstances are justified - recent cases in England where children who have murdered other children have been publicly named - by order of the highest law official of the land - in direct contradiction of the Child Protection Act are valid examples.
Even today it is very difficult to investigate or comprehensively explain the legal and illegal implications of what is happily termed by the British Establishment as ‘sectioning’, whereby a totally innocent individual without recourse to legal counsel or judgement might well disappear into the prison system for the rest of his natural life.
Of course it doesn’t happen on paper. But in real life it does.
HMP operates in a similar fashion I suspect.
|
AP Wolf
Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 474
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 29, 2003 - 1:31 pm: | |
Ah Robert, you ghost of white chapel past, you are my nemesis and no mistake.
Yes, you are correct, I did skip along that path, and quite happily so at the time. In fact I still skip there now, quite happily.
Perhaps like Jack I just like to provoke?
But thank you for catching me out.
You probably killed another bird there with two stones.
|
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 165
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 29, 2003 - 3:01 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
I agree with your assessment on Turvey's approach. The FBI profiles that I'm familear with, which are primarily those of John Douglas presented in his books, do seem to be based upon both inductive and deductive reasoning. And to me, this makes perfect sense. Get as much as you can directly from the crime scene, then using that as definate, suggest probabilistic type characteristics based upon similar crimes.
To me, it seems that the "similar crime" could then be selected based upon what the deductions have lead one to conclude. In other words, selecting from the database of crimes, customise the search to select those crimes that match up on some criterion of points derived from the deductive process. That means the same generic profile is less likely going to be produced based upon superficial similarities. Of course, there are problems with this (if the sample gets too small, the results of that analysis get less and less useful).
I'm also not sure how to take his concerns over the understanding of physical evidence by law enforcement. It seems unlikely, but then his view of profiling is that it is a branch of forensic analysis, so his concern may be directed at that type of analysis.
As for his JtR analysis, it's not quite as internally inconsistent. Low self esteme (from the first part) can lead to "shows of bravado" as a way of overcomming that sense of low self worth. His profile suggests someone with low self esteme is "getting back at society", it's because of their low self esteme that they have to do this indirectly, meaning via the murders. I'm not entirely sure I buy this, but I don't think he quite contradicts himself.
At the moment, of course, I'm only in the section of his book which is focusing on the stage of "crime reconstruction", which of course the FBI do as well. Figure out first what happened, learn as much as you can about the victim, etc. The final step, the actual profile of the offender, I've not yet covered. This last step, Turvey does point out in advance, is not deductive. So, it will be interesting to see how things change when I reach that stage of things.
As for the deductive side of things, it's really what most of us have been doing so far. Things like "was Eddowes engaged in prostitution" are being addressed by looking at her know actions first (no money, gets drunk, leaves jail, goes to area frequented by prostitutes, etc - you know the story), from this evidence prostitution is arrived at through deduction. The premises that links all of the evidence, and allow that conclusion, is that
1) Eddowes was in need of money for a bed
2) Prostitution is a way of obtaining money
3) Prostitution was common in the area at the time
All of these premises are true, and are supported by the evidence.
The only premise left, is
4) Eddowes was willing to prostitute herself
If that is true, then the deduction is true (She was engaged in soliciting a client on the night she was murdered). This, of course, we have no way of testing with the current data (maybe someday something will turn up).
What we've debated is the truth of premise 4, which is fair enough. It's the concern of making an "assumption" (which is really the act of assuming a premise is true).
Anyway, I suspect Turvey has some very good points, but I suspect he's got a bit of an axe to grind as well. Looking at some of the recent FBI profiles, however, it may be that what's happening in the FBI is that the quality is declining. Where people like Douglas and Reissler spent years developing the program, they may also have originally used more of a system like what Turvey is describing. As the program got established, and more profilers were being trained, things may be moving away from the deductive side and relying too much on the inductive statistics? I don't know, but if that were the case, it would explain why Turvey's presentation of what the FBI does, does not correspond to what I understand people like Douglas to have done. If that makes any sense.
- Jeff |
Erin Sigler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 54
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 29, 2003 - 8:28 pm: | |
Monty, much thanks. Can't imagine why your mom would answer the phone in such a way. I'll bet you were a perfect  not unlike myself! 
Jeff, I agree with your assessment as well. I think Turvey's work is certainly worthwhile (if I could afford the $80 price tag I would probably purchase it myself) but I don't believe his blanket condemnation of the FBI's method is justified or fair, based on what I've heard here.
And now for something completely different:
I'm still a bit perplexed by this whole Broadmoor business. From what I've read so far (which is admittedly very little) it appears to have been the asylum of choice for the "criminally insane," although one needn't have committed a criminal act in order to be sent there. So it seems odd to me that if Anderson, et al, truly believed the man we know as Aaron Kosminski to have been Jack the Ripper they would have consented to his being institutionalized at Colney Hatch. I wonder if "Kosminski's" family brought about the request for committal, thereby preventing law enforcement personnel from having to bring their suspicions to a judge. Further confusing the issue for me is that violent inmates are known to have existed in institutions other than Broadmoor. It appears that the Victorians made a distinction between "violence" and "criminal violence," a distinction I have yet to comprehend. I'll be doing some more reading, that's for sure! 
And again for something completely different (well, slightly):
I found a most interesting web site on Victorian London, http://www.victorianlondon.org/, that contains a lot of useful information for those interested in the historical background of the case. If this site has already been brought to your attention, I apologize. |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 607
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 29, 2003 - 9:50 pm: | |
Hi Jeff,
If Turvey is right in his assessments regarding a declining quality of approach from FBI:s part, it is indeed troublesome. But we only have Turvey's word for it; I believe profiling results have shown various degrees of success and failiure throughout its history, not just in the States; I think it's hard to find any concrete evidence that shows a decline in quality in later years, unless statistic studies can prove it. To me it seems more likely that he has a grudge against FBI profilers and their methods in general, and that his opinions are more based on personal matters rather than rational, something that is quite common among scholars in the academic back-stabbing world.
As usual I agree with much of what you say, Jeff, but I have a few pointers, based om my erlier statements:
I haven't read Turvey's book as a whole, just some extracts and some occasional piece published on the net, but I can't say I find his work worthwhile to such an extent that you and Erin do - actually I think a great deal of it is complete academic rubbish.
And I do find his JtR profile contradictive and constructed.
I'm having quite a hard time accepting his belief in a confused, unsure killer that suddenly decides to show off his work. I don't buy the explaintion that this is a result of his need to restore his self-esteem; it doesen't add up psychologically. To put it very roughly, the "display" points at an organized psychopath and exhibitionist and I think it would be more likely that this would be done by someone who thinks his work is justified and something to be proud of - it doesn't at all go together with the disorganized, low self-esteem murderer. Mixed personality type or not, I think that is too far off the track, an assumption that is more based on trying to create an unnecessary complex character than using logic or common sense.
And most importantly, there are no evidence whatsoever on the crime scenes that supports these "conclusions", and I think it is quite remarkable that such a fabricated assumption comes from someone who himself accuses others of not basing their predictions on available evidence. I think he falls into his own trap.
Jeff, for the record: your deductive analysis regarding Eddowes are very good indeed, and I have really nothing to add to it - I completely agree with it. I don't want to indulge myself more thoroughly on that particular subject, though, sice I don't want to get Bob Hinton on my tail once more - I can do without that. But I like your reasoning.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 167
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 30, 2003 - 2:56 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
I suspect you're not far off the mark in terms of Turvey's motivation against the FBI profilers. There's a great quote (who coined it I'm not sure) which goes along the lines of "The reason academic disputes are so vicious is because the stakes are so low!" Unfortunately, in this case, the stakes are not low but we academics often forget that.
As for the "decline", I have no idea if that's what's going on. Turvey doesn't say so, and I was just suggesting why we might get a very different view of the FBI's methods since we're reading the books by fellows who have been doing this from the start. If, and like I say I'm just speculating here, if the tendency is to rely only on stats now (quicker to teach someone how to do it, quicker to do, etc; caseloads make a more complicated approach unpractical, etc), then perhaps he's comparing with that? Don't know. But, for our purposes his disagreement with the FBI is a bit of an aside. The warnings about relying on purely statistical evidence are already noted by all of us here (we state things as "more probably", or "usually", etc, indicating we realise we're dealing with probabilities).
Anyway, Turvey does have some good points, and his emphasis on starting from the evidence, building up what one knows from the crime scene about "what happened", "when did it happen", and "where did it happen" using deductive reasoning is a good thing. Also, he emphasises learning about the victim (nothing new here). Finally, to remember that physical evidence outweighs witness statements and when the two don't match, the witness statement is the one to disregard (or to consider suspicious).
By the time this phase of things are "completed", however, one still has not developed an "offender profile". What one has done is simply learned as much about the specific event as is possible. The final step, which is the offender profile, I've not come to. It would be this final step that has resulted in the "characteristics" he's listed. I'll be very interested to see how that final step is accomplished, and personally, if he attempts to fill that in without use of population statistics and thinks there is some way to "deduce" characteristics, then I'll wonder where he gets his "premises" from?
That's the rub of the deductive method, you need premises to join the data statements. However, the premises come from our understanding of things. And our understanding of things comes from examining something under many conditions, which is a "population study". And so our premises are derived from the inductive method itself.
Anyway, I'm interested in his approach (obviously). Being involved in academic research myself, I guess I just gloss over the severity of the attack on the "alternative". It seems most time, the more sever the attack, the less the real underlying difference (hence the low stakes in the quote).
- Jeff |
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 28, 2003 - 3:19 am: | |
Jeff,we can look at the situation in a couple of ways,and still come up with the problem of the killing and the retreat to his cover.
Two victims at least were on the street because they had been turned away from lodgings.They were thus homeless persons on the night of their deaths and as such would have been open to any reasonable suggestion as to how they could gain a bed.Prostitution of course was one method but not the only one.
It is just as likely that they were accosted by an aquaintance as a stranger,and that the subsequent actions were dictated by him.
Concerning the risk factor,I think it was minimal.The killer would be aware of possible interuptions,and unless it was by several persons at one time who knew that a killing was in progress,he had no reason to panic.Even in Hanbury street,the chances of several people at once converging on the back yard,was small.The call of nature in those times,during sleeping hours,was tended by a pot under the bed,and even the start of daylight was too early for the majority of workers to be astir.
How long after the discovery of a body could a reasonable chase be on?.Such occurances were usually signalled by the blowing of whistles to summon help.It would then be a convergence to the incident scene,an assessment of what needed to be done and for someone to organise proceedings.All the while the killer would be hastening to his cover,and if local would be in hiding long before an effective cordon surrounded the area.
In two sightings it is reported that the male had a hand on the wall,and the female was in between.Quite close.The person I refer to in Sride's case was the person seen with her in Fairclough street,again quite close,and it would be folly to discount this person.
Could all victims be aquainted with the killer.
It would take me a while to list the various types of people to whom they might all be known,and in this contex we should consider Whitechapel as it was then,not as it is now. |
Nichole Tamayo
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, October 27, 2003 - 4:33 pm: | |
Hi, I'm new and checking this site out. I'll be mailing in my applicayion today.
Question to all,
Does anybody out there think that Maria Harvey was the real (Kelly)victim? |
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 3:24 am: | |
Leanne.A soldier is trained to kill,be it as offence or defence.The place is neither here nor there. |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 28, 2003 - 6:28 pm: | |
"I apologize if I gave the impression of "talking down" to you. When I ask if I'm being clear, it's really a reflection of my own insecurity, not the listener's intelligence. I constantly worry that I'm not making sense, so if I ask, this is honestly what I mean."
>>When I "talk down" to someone here, my insecurities don't come into play. You either have big enough ba**s to do Ripperology properly or you don't, IMHO. I consider that we have a duty here to speak truthfully to one another about the case evidence, so as not to misinform the public. Is that clear?
Profile schmofile. Profiling is based on averages. In order to solve this case, we have to learn how to think about what Jack the Ripper himself did.
Saddam |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
