|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 623
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 01, 2003 - 12:05 am: |       |
Evidence schmevidence, Saddam.
If you know the "truth" about this case and the nature of the "real" evidence, I think you know something we don't.
If a police officer or detective didn't try to use empirism, imagination, theoretical guide-lines and common sense to interpret evidence as well as details of more circumstancial nature, there wouldn't really be that many crimes solved at all.
What "evidence"?
All the best 
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 833
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 01, 2003 - 3:57 am: | |
G'day Nichole,
Not unless she rose from the dead to give evidence at Mary Kelly's inquest!
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 836
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 01, 2003 - 3:49 pm: | |
G'day Harry,
I don't know any soldiers and I've never thought about this before, but in some countries they are tought to kill defending their nation and loved ones. In others they are tought to kill because they think they are doing the right thing (Nazis?)
LEANNE |
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, November 02, 2003 - 2:57 am: | |
Leanne,A soldier is taught to kill because that is the trade he chooses,or is forced to accept.He cannot choose whether it be defensive or offensive.
I do not think soldiering instills a desire to kill,or greatly changes the personality of a person.Jack may even have been a soldier,if such his mania would have been present before enlisting,and he would have killed regardless. |
Erin Sigler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 72
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 03, 2003 - 11:47 am: | |
His attacks and his rather quick getaways do have a vaguely martial character about them, Harry, although I suppose the same characteristics (stalking of the victim and such) could be accorded to a hunter. I've always suspected Jack's tenuous "medical knowledge" may have been the result of a hunting background. Of course, such a background necessitates that either our boy was a member of the upper classes, who hunted for sport, or came from a place (the countryside, for example) where hunting was a regular part of daily life. |
AP Wolf
Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 489
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 03, 2003 - 1:45 pm: | |
Good points Erin
I’d agree that there is a certain ‘formality’ in the crimes, scenes and movements associated with the ‘boy’ about his business, but rather than a ‘martial’ aspect I have always edged more to a familial police background or connection.
Don’t get me wrong here, no wild claims, just something so simple as knowing the routine and procedure of patrolling policemen, which although simple would give their crimes their form, speed, situation and formality.
Certainly the ‘tenuous’ medical meddling of the boy could or even would have its origins in either game, farm, working or ‘pet’ animals, but simply because of the big city circumstances I slant towards working or pet animals. I’m biased but I believe that scavenging knowledge would have been further improved by the study of medical books.
|
Erin Sigler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 73
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 03, 2003 - 3:22 pm: | |
A.P.,
I don't think it's at all out of the question that our boy had memorized area police beats and when an officer would be passing by. He certainly knew how and when to get away, even from tight spots like the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street. Of course, both of these factors imply that he was someone who lived in the area, but I think that's a pretty safe bet anyway. A background working with animals wouldn't be out of the question, under those circumstances.
This wouldn't be out of character for a burgeoning schizophrenic or manic depressive. As I've mentioned before, his disease could have been episodic or not fully realized until the Kelly murder. |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 630
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 03, 2003 - 8:00 pm: | |
If we look at killers with paranoid schizofrenic disorders, these can be quite unpredictible and hard to categorize indeed.
In the 1992 case of Laura Houghteling, her killer, Hadden Clark - who was the family's temporary gardener - went upstairs to her bedroom, suffocated her with a pillow, slit her throat and then stabbed her multiple times. Afterwards he dressed up in a wig to look like her and took the body with him, and drove away and buried it.
The actions mentioned above - right after the murder itself - he managed to perform, even though he was diagnosed as a paranoid schizofrenic. This is just one of many examples that shows that a person with such a disorder is quite capable of doing things that by some would be considered as "arranged". One must remember, however, that these actions didn't evolve from pre-planning. The murder had no motive whatsoever and was merely a whim, that originated from a simple quarrel with the girl's mother about something concerning the garden. He was also confused enough to take one of her hairbrushes to brush the hair of the wig, something that later convicted him, since hair from the wig was found on the brush belonging to her. All of the murder weapons came from the house, the pillow, a pair of scissors and the kitchen knife.
Madden Clark was a loner and a schizofrenic with paranoid tendensies, but managed to have occasional jobs (although he don't managed to keep them for a longer period of time). He was methodical enough to try to impersonate her in order to get safely out of the house (with the dead body, wrapped in layers of sheets). He then went back (!) to clean up the blood stains.
I think this shows that paranoid schizofrenics can be more methodical (at least during a murder) and more aware of the necessity of getting away safely, than many give them credit for - they don't have to be "raving lunatics". I believe this is why Jack the Ripper managed to escape, although he most probably was a paranoid schizofrenic. I don't think he was a manic depressive, though (these illnesses has not many similarities with each other, and manic depressives are seldom violent, although they sometimes can act aggressive temporarily).
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
AP Wolf
Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 491
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 04, 2003 - 1:56 pm: | |
When I mentioned that I felt the boy would have a keen interest and knowledge of normal police routine, method and procedure, I wasn’t talking strictly or exclusively about the crimes or the crime scenes.
I was merely doodling with the point that the very nature of the crimes and crime scenes do seem to point towards an individual with a natural reticence concerning humanity in general and officials of any kind in particular, hence as part of his normal daily routine he would have shunned and avoided policemen. And this mainly because his normal daily - or better said nightly - routine was anything but normal.
He would have stood out, so to avoid that circumstance he would move carefully around the edge of society using the obvious patterns he saw and knew. This gives him no real so-called organisational abilities for such avoidance tactics are common to even very low forms of life and are after all vital to the survival of such very low forms of life.
We would not give too much intelligence to the rat that avoids the garden with the cat. It is innate rather than organised ability at work.
One only needs to look at the behaviour of a killer like Richard Chase to see how easy it is to plough through the centre of suburbia armed to the teeth and dripping with blood, killing folks left, right and centre but then somehow avoiding all contact with the burgeoning population of that suburbia… apart from his victims.
I know many do like the universe to be neat and orderly with set and predictable patterns, and this type of comfortable thinking always lends credence to the idea of the boy as a motivated, purposeful individual working away to some kind of blue print or plan.
However I lean towards the uncomfortable and do see the universe as dominated by chaos and haphazard collision and circumstance with no blue print or plan. Just strings pulling this way and that, with the entire universe dominated by a huge and confusing spider web full of sticky strings which propel and repel tiny particles hither and thither in constant flux.
My view of the boy and his crimes is in itself dominated by chaos, and perhaps this is why I always tend to extreme caution when confronted with neat and comfortable argument.
This is often why I am at loggerheads with many individuals who champion certain suspects by ramming and hammering neat and comfortable ‘facts’ around them in an incredible effort to make their comfy suspect credible.
I look at their suspect and always say: ‘Look, this is a normal man with a normal life, all comfortable and neat.’
So that suspect cannot be the frenetic and frantic small chrome ball that we seek in this giant and cosmic pinball wizard.
The minimum requirement for our boy must be that he was stark raving and completely and utterly barking mad with absolutely no emotional or coherent attachment to the neat and comfortable universe.
He must come from chaos.
|
Severn
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 04, 2003 - 5:31 pm: | |
So how come the women went with him?How come Catherine Eddowes apparently relaxed put her hand on his chest?No woman in my view would have gone with the chap you describe unless he fed her fantasy of a death by fire and frenzy and none of these women seem to have been anything other than
people who were doing their best to survive in the only ways open to them. [for AP from Natalie] |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 04, 2003 - 2:15 pm: | |
"If you know the "truth" about this case and the nature of the "real" evidence, I think you know something we don't."
>>I use the same empirical evidence that everyone else does. The difference is in what I do with it.
Saddam
|
AP Wolf
Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 493
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 05, 2003 - 1:14 pm: | |
Severn
On the face of it that is a damn good point.
But I feel somehow it might only apply to the circumstances of Mary Kelly’s death, for the general assumption is that she invited someone into her room, and you are of course dead right, she wouldn’t have done this if the individual had been patently stark raving mad.
I don’t really go along with the premise that Mary Kelly invited someone to her room who then killed her. I feel she may have invited a trick to her room, completed the trick, waved him goodbye and then perhaps was attacked by someone who had been watching the proceedings, who gained access without her consent or knowledge.
I have never been much impressed with the described encounters of the victims with suspects shortly before their deaths, they always came across as harmless tricks rather than someone intent on murder and mutilation. It would be my serious contention that none of these encounters describe the real killer, he may have been around, but not to witnesses.
Anyway perhaps when she touched the fellow on the chest she was saying: ‘Put that knife away young man and let’s get to business, I fear you have been reading too much Wilson.’
|
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 375
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 05, 2003 - 8:16 pm: | |
Hi AP
Don't tell me you are still going on about Richard Chase, he was an aberration amongst serial killers. The so-called "Vampire Killer", as I recall, believed he needed a steady supply of human blood because his own body fluids were somehow drying up. He was found dripping with blood, an obvious lunatic. Chase was completely delusional.
Your typical serial killer is the type whom people describe as being the quiet guy they knew who kept to himself. In reality he/she is a sociopath capable of unspeakable acts of depravity.
You state that witness descriptions of harmless looking tricks are probably not glimpses of the true killer(s). I can't see your basis for this belief. Witness descriptions in the case of JTR add up to a picture of a certain harmless looking and acting fellow. I admit that witness descriptions must be used cautiously, but in the Ripper case we have a number of witnesses who may have seen the killer and describe a certain type. That is worth noting . It is also worth noting that he was not acting strangely or in in a fashion to draw attention to himself.
Those that were acting in a bizarre fashion were quickly gotten off the streets.
Perhaps it makes sense that normal minds have trouble grasping those who kill without apparent motive and for the pure pleasure of killing to satisfy urges we really don't fully understand.
I could use one of your glasses of Brandy.
All The Best
Gary |
AP Wolf
Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 499
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 5:35 pm: | |
Gary
Yes, sorry, I do seem to get stuck on Chase like some old 45 rpm record that has scratched beyond repair, but I believe I do have good and solid ground for being such a boring old bag of wind.
Your challenge of Chase and his crimes actually reinforces my belief that the individual we seek here is of a similar cut to Chase… an ’aberration’ is exactly what I seek - I know many others want a comfortable and neat individual who will slide easily into the modern method of distinction and classification of such killers, but you see Gary I look at the crimes and the crime scenes and I see exactly what you don’t see, I see an obvious lunatic, dripping with blood, an aberration who is completely and utterly delusional.
You instead see a cool, calm sociopath.
But I would argue that the crimes and the crime scenes do not reflect your cool, calm and comfortable diagnosis.
For the crimes and crimes scenes speak of obvious lunacy, nobody is buried neatly and hidden away, no attempt has been made at illusion or camouflage, nobody is trying to hide anything, nobody is attempting to cover their tracks…
Forgive me if I am wrong but I do believe a sociopath does not kill because they feel threatened in any way, in fact they kill when conditions of normal restraint are lifted, in other words when they feel that they can get away with it, for instance in secluded and isolated circumstances where there is no chance of them being disturbed by the forces of the law or interfering members of the public.
Surely you must see that in almost each and every crime of Jack those circumstances patently did not apply, the police and members of the public were most often within minutes behind Jack, hence the risk was far too great for a sociopath.
Now let us look at the aberrant.
We see an individual who is responding to situations and people in a bizarre and disorganized fashion, he might drink tea with them or he might slit their throats, depending almost entirely on how those situations and people respond to him, his vision of reality is distorted by delusion and very likely hallucination, he moves around the edge of society in a sticky glue which only sticks when his distorted perception is confronted by reality, and regardless of popular opinion I do see confrontation in every one of Jack’s crimes apart from that of Mary Kelly.
You must also understand that a killer of the nature of Chase, or Jack, might also feel that they are doing their victim a ’favour’ by killing them and cutting them to bits.
Your sociopath knows he is killing and cutting to bits and he does it in the own perfect silence of his private world. The man we call Jack does his deed in full view of the world and makes no statement other than confusion.
If you place your sociopath in a room with a victim with no external controls he will kill that victim regardless of circumstances.
If you place Jack in a room with a victim and then change those circumstances perhaps by offering him a cup of tea then murder might be avoided.
We will just have to travel on two different paths.
You the comfortable organized path, and I with chaos.
|
Peter J. Tabord
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 5:13 am: | |
Hi all
Those who place any faith in the witness statements of course need to deal with the various police opinions that one or none of the witnesses actually got a look at Jack. So clearly they at the time took the attitude that most of the witnesses were either making it up or were in fact describing harmless passers by not connected with the murders.
Regards
Pete |
Severn
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 05, 2003 - 4:30 pm: | |
I agree the killer could have stalked her having noticed perhaps that she was still walking a bit on the wobbly
side.But you still have the astonishing speed to contend with.If for example this was some punter
who she was trying to dissuade which is possible because she wasnt known as a prostitute to the police apparently,then by your reasoning she would have shaken him off and been suddenly attacked by JtR "en flagrant"[but having been out of sight until then] and dragged off into Mitre Square where she was killed and mutilated all
in eleven minutes or less.And I suppose that if it had been Constable Watkins he could indeed have nipped round the corner to the old horse trough cleaned himself straightened his helmet
and the lantern fixed in his belt and Bobs your uncle he was home and dry and just had to alert
police constable Holland. Well I hadnt thought of this one I must say. |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 381
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 07, 2003 - 4:40 am: | |
HI AP
My view of Jack is not as organized as you believe. I see Jack as a sex or lust murderer of a mixed type leaning towards the disorganized.
The organized sex murderer you have me identifying would be someone more along the lines of say a Ted Bundy or a Gary Ridgeway. Killers who can interact reasonably well in society, plan their abductions and killings, kill at some distance from their doorsteps and take pains to cover them up and hide the bodies.
Jacky strikes me more as the loner who has trouble functioing in society. He has trouble holding a job. He does not plan his crimes beyond prowling his home ground looking for a convenient opportunity to present itself. No effort is made to hide the body and he is less intelligent or perhaps younger than the organized killer. He kills immediately in a type of frenzy whereas the more organized killer will take his victim into a secluded spot which affords him better cover from detection.
In my view Chase is the delusional, raging maniac who cannot hide his psychotic behaviour and winds up getting caught fairly easily.
Nevertheless we will have to agree to disagree.
Hi Peter
You state with some authority that none of the witnesses got a look at the killer and that this was the view of the police. Do you lump Schwartz and Lawende into the same boat as Mathew Packer?I would be curious to know how you would explain the police using possibly Shwartz, but more likely Lawende to identify suspects as late as 1895.
All The Best
Gary |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 643
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 07, 2003 - 8:58 am: | |
Hi Gary,
Just a question for you. I haven't read your discussion with AP from the beginning, and I don't want to drag it up again. But I am a bit puzzled.
Fisrt you write:
"My view of Jack is not as organized as you believe. I see Jack as a sex or lust murderer of a mixed type leaning towards the disorganized."
But which are the organized features, then, if you consider him to be a mixed type? Because all those features you put up in your last message ("Jacky strikes me more as the loner who has trouble functioing in society. He has trouble holding a job. He does not plan his crimes beyond prowling his home ground looking for a convenient opportunity to present itself. No effort is made to hide the body and he is less intelligent or perhaps younger than the organized killer. He kills immediately in a type of frenzy whereas the more organized killer will take his victim into a secluded spot which affords him better cover from detection.") are disorganized ones. I'm sorry that I don't have the time right now to go back and read the earlier messages; you can reply if you wish.
I am asking, because those who claim him to be a disorganized killer with occasional organized features, so far haven't managed to put forward a single organized feature that fits the picture, without creating an incredibly contradictive personality.
And I do agree that Lawende is in another league than the con man Matthew Packer. However, I don't give that much for Schwartz, though.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 382
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 07, 2003 - 7:44 pm: | |
Hi Glenn
What connects the two killers and provides Jacks organized features involve the impetus behind the actions of this type of killer. The motivation for the crimes for both types of killers is the fantasy that propels the deed or the need to act. Inherent in the fantasy is the desire too manipulate, control and completely dominate the victim. There also sems to be a common need to wipe out the identity of the victim. This appears to satisfy both types of lust murderers personal feelings of inadequacy.
I understand that profiling involves broad generalizations and can only take us so far in our hunt for the killer: But we have to work with what we have been given insofar as identifying JTR in a case 115 years old. That amounts to distinguishing his actions and relating them to others who have behaved in a similar fashion.
I am convinced that Lawende saw JTR. I also think that Mrs. Elizabeth Long or Durrell caught a brief glimpse of the killer outside 29 Hanbury street moments before Annie Chapman was killed.
All The Best
gary |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 393
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 08, 2003 - 3:24 am: | |
Hi Gary,
Mrs Long describes a man over 40 years, Lawande describes Eddowes man about 30 years, a big difference.
I am of the opinion , that neither of them two saw 'Jack' although Leanne, would only agree 50 per cent with that assumption, we will present a good account in the book.
I have never imagined him to be a man of patience, and Longs man seems to be attempting to perswade her to service him,whilst Eddowes man seems to be doing the same, neither of these two people are acting like Strides attacker, or by imformation we have found like Nichols attacker.
Vastly different approaches.
Regards Richard. |
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 502
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 08, 2003 - 3:39 am: | |
Yes, Gary, we are going to have to agree to disagree, as the very attributes that you give to the killer are the very attributes that I would give to the victims who after all used their own sexuality in a commercial attempt for survival, and part and parcel of that unusual situation would be a need to manipulate, control and dominate their potential customers into buying their fairly dubious wares.
I know my mind is quirky but I have always seen in the crimes the direct opposite to what most others see. I see a controlled and contrived approach by the victims towards an unsuspecting killer - in other words he didn’t know he was going to kill until he was approached - and I believe this applies to all the victims apart from of course Kelly.
Even today you will quickly see that prostitutes make a direct approach to potential customers and not the other way around, it is in their best interests to do so as many men will feel awkward and uncomfortable in such situations and do need a certain amount of encouragement and coaxing.
Yes, you are right, there is a certain type of killer who will make the approach to the prostitutes but this is the type of killer who sets out to kill in the first place, takes his victims off to isolated areas and then satisfies his sexual lust, fantasy and need to manipulate, control and completely dominate. But this type of killer will go to great lengths to disguise and hide his crime, most often burying the body of his victim, and he does this simply because he does want to be caught, because if he is caught he will not be able to further indulge his fantasies and desires.
Jack on the other hand kills his victims in a blitz of rage and just leaves the corpses there on the street, for all to see. Does this mean he wants to be caught? Not necessarily, it just means that he hasn’t thought about the consequences of his actions, and this to me says there was no motive or planning attached to the crimes or the crime scenes. They were both thoughtless.
Therefore victim approached Jack and that is why they died.
His individual distance was at the tip of his nose.
Flight or fight.
Konrad Lorenz has much to say on this subject and it will prove more beneficial than any amount of criminal profiling.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 650
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 08, 2003 - 12:43 pm: | |
Gary and AP,
A very interesting discussion.
Unfortunately, Gary, I have to go along with AP here completely (no offense).
I really don't see any clear signs of a "desire too manipulate, control and completely dominate the victim." And I am not that sure of that the disfiguring is a result of him wanting to destroy their identity; it couuld be, but there could be other explanations for this as well that doesen't necessarily have to imply any thorough thinking behind the actions. And even if he were wiping out their identity, this could fit a disorganized character as well.
I think AP is a bit on the right track, in my opinion (but I agree we don't have that much to go on in order to draw any certain conclusions or predictions) - even though I never will be able to accept his views on criminal profiling. Maybe his choice of brandy ain't that bad after all...?
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 504
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 08, 2003 - 1:24 pm: | |
Glenn
heavens above! Someone slightly positive about my reasoning? This I am not used to.
I hope that anybody reading the post will immediately realize that I left a very important 'not' out of the text. I am suffering slightly at the moment as I tripped over one of my Groenendales last night and he didn't like that, in the ensuing fracas I lost my reading glasses and got a few bites to boot. Living on a remote island it takes over a week for anything to get here, so I'm working half blind till then.
Actually Glenn I don't have a particular view on criminal profiling, and one of my favourite authors in this field is Ronald Markman who makes a lot of common sense.
And personally I do feel we have a lot to go on when we stop some of the wild theorising and look plainly and with common sense at the crimes and crime scenes.
They speak very loudly, even now.
I'm on the Tullamore Dew at the moment, that does the trick nicely. |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 383
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 08, 2003 - 3:57 pm: | |
Hi Glenn and AP
-Glenn, Don't hesitate to disagree with me. I am not an expert on criminal profiling and do not claim to be. I have, however read up on the subject. I can point to my sources in support of my view on On 'Ol Jacky' being a mixed type of offender. At least I didn't give you an example of Jack being a mixed offender by providing a hopelessly contradictory personality.
'What connects the two types of lust murderers (the organizeed and disorganized) is an obsessive fantasy of the act,...In just about every case we've seen or studied the fantasy comes before the act... If an anatomical souvenir is taken, it is often symbolic of wanting to totally possess the victim, even in death...(T)he motivation for the act, the psychological need it addreses, can be summed up in three words: manipulation, domination and control. These are the elements that give the perpetrator, a heightened satisfaction that he does not achieve from anything else in his life...So where does the sex come in,...sex is joined in his mind with power and control.'
THE CASES THAT HAUNT US; JOHN DOUGLAS AND MARK OLSHAKER (SEE PAGES 36-37) and also 19-80; The chapter dealing expressly with Jack the Ripper.
Once the Ripper has used what I like to call the bop and drop approach,(that is to say used a blitz type attack on the victim and rendered her senseles and/or killed her almost immediately) he has achieved his goal. He has the object of his fantasies totally under his control. She is his to do with as he pleases. He can, taking time restraints and the danger of being stumbled upon into consideration, mutilate, probe, take souveniers, disfigure etc., as he choses. The Kelly murder may show us the full extent of his fantasies.
I should note that I have made extensive notes and comments in th Ripper chapter in the margins and running under the text of the CASES THAT HAUNT US. Some examples of my comments are 'NO-NO, Wrong, correct only insofar as it goes, what about Eddowes, the authors believe in the notion that the mind had to give way altogether after Kelly- This contradicts earlier reasoning and is internally inconsistant.' Of course there are large parts I agree with such as those I have quoted above.
To paraphrase AP we have to temper a lot of this (profiling) with common sense.
My views have also incorporated another book. It is by Robert Ressler and is called WHOEVER FIGHTS MONSTERS.
AP -I never intended to give anyone the impression that the women did anything other than facilitate the time and location of their own collective demise. I am not sure where you got this idea.
Sorry to hear about your spill-'A toast to your health'
All The Best
Gary |
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 505
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 08, 2003 - 4:43 pm: | |
Sorry Gary
I don't think I did imply that you were giving anyone an impression concerning the victims, all I did was give the victims your killer's motive and intent. It was kinda neat really.
Just like the Irish whiskey I had been drinking when I fell over the dog, not a drop spilt though, just a bit of blood. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
