|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 511
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 10, 2003 - 1:55 pm: |       |
Gary
No need for a public flogging but also no need to throw yourself on your back when a few people don’t run with your opinion or judgement.
In fact I always find this the best position - I mean embattled rather than on my back - to gather and marshal my thoughts and arguments and then launch them in a blitz at the antagonists, who still might remain unconvinced but at least they may falter, hesitate and then finally procrastinate concerning their over-zealous leap to total commitment.
Please do not misconstrue my efforts on this thread, for I am myself by no means certain that my opinion or judgement is correct in this particular circumstance, and I do lean towards caution - and would urge others to do so as well - especially when that concerns shutting down or closing off important avenues of escape from decision making cul-de-sacs.
These very important escape routes - which are commonly called dialogue - may well lead to both a better grasp and keener understanding of this character from history that we seek.
I strongly urge you to neither castigate yourself or abandon ship just because the going gets rough.
Batten down your hatches and enjoy the ride.
|
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 512
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 10, 2003 - 2:05 pm: | |
Glenn
thank you for your kind and positive post.
Sadly I am so used to stocks and pelted rotten vegetables that I find it very difficult now to respond to positive comment.
I too am glad that we share dialogue without animosity.
|
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 513
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 10, 2003 - 2:11 pm: | |
Dan
you raise some vital points of high interest and I shall dwell on them over a few glasses and get back to you.
Hey Sadaam, your wig shifted then.
I'll try and adjust it for you presently. |
Erin Sigler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 90
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 10, 2003 - 2:34 pm: | |
Darn, I was supposed to go to a seminar at that time, but I suppose I could fly in. I never pass up a public flogging, so long as it's not me on the receiving end. 
After reading through my own post, I realize that I could have toned down the sarcasm a bit. It was very late and I was feeling defensive, and tired as well. I knew your remarks weren't aimed primarily at me, Gary, but it's just frustrating at times when you feel you've been miconstrued and misunderstood. At any rate, I probably deserve a slap on the wrist myself.
That being said, I wanted to clarify for Dan that I don't believe Jack to have been a purely disorganized killer, and I think your elucidation of his organized traits is on point. As I've said in the past, I tend to agree with Douglas that we're dealing with a mixed presentation here. It seems that the terms organized and disorganized have been too polarized, creating a false dichotomy where there needn't be one. There's always going to be overlap. That, I think, is the difficulty in attempting to quantify any aspect of human behavior, but it needn't prohibit us from using the terms to help facilitate our understanding of a very complicated subject.
Robert, I've always wondered about that distinction myself. These definitions from the 1913 Mental Deficiency Act might help. Although they had not yet been codified into law, it appears that many were already in use by 1888.
"The 1913 Mental Deficiency Act defined four grades of Mental Defective. In each case the condition had to be present 'from birth or from an early age.'"
Idiots were people 'so deeply defective in mind as to be unable to guard against common physical dangers.'
Imbeciles were not idiots, but were 'incapable of managing themselves or their affairs, or, in the case of children, of being taught to do so.'
Feeble-minded people were neither idiots nor imbeciles, but: If adults, their condition was 'so pronounced that they require care, supervision, and control for their own protection or the protection of others.' If children of school age, their condition was 'so pronounced that they by reason of such defectiveness appear to be personally incapable of receiving proper benefit from instruction in ordinary schools.'
Moral defectives were people who, from an early age, displayed 'some permanent mental defect coupled with strong vicious or criminal propensities on which punishment had little or no effect.'
The 1844 "Report on Disease" (commissioned in the wake of the McNaughton Rules) defined and distinguished between forms of mental illness:
1) Mania: Mania is divided into: Acute Mania, or Raving Madness; Ordinary Mania, or Chronic Madness of a less acute form; Periodical or Remitent Mania with comparatively lucid intervals. [I believe this is how they classified most paranoid schizophrenics and other disorders with psychotic features.]
(2) Dementia, or decay and obliteration of the intellectual faculties.
(3) Melancholia [Depression, without mania]
(4) Monomania [Mania with regards to a single subject--probably what we would call Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder.]
(5) Moral Insanity (The previous three forms were "sometimes comprehended under the term 'Partial Insanity.'")
(6) Congenital Idiocy [Profound mental retardation]
(7) Congenital Imbecility [Mild mental retardation, I think--someone we might call "slow."]
(8) General Paralysis of the Insane [Catatonia, I would guess.]
(9) Epilepsy
(The previous definitions were taken either whole or in part from Andrew Robert's excellent study of the history of British asylums, which can be found at www.mdx.ac.uk/www/study.) |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1211
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 10, 2003 - 3:22 pm: | |
Hi Erin
Thanks for that. It seems that Kosminski must have shown both schizophrenic and imbecilic symptoms, but that the latter (the doctors decided)came to predominate around 1894, when he was sent to Leavesden.
Of course, from the point of view of his imbecility, we don't know just how much hairdressing he'd really done. Also it must have been hard for the doctors to diagnose the condition of an incoherent Polish Jew who spoke mainly Yiddish or German.
Cutbush, who seems to have been a violent paranoid schizophrenic, may have ended his days in a catatonic state.
Robert
|
Erin Sigler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 93
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 10, 2003 - 3:31 pm: | |
Robert, one would hope they had translators on hand at Colney Hatch, but that's probably too much to ask of a Victorian asylum. Perhaps his relatives were of assistance in this area. How long had Aaron been living in England? I would think he would have learned at least some rudimentary English at some point.
The language difficulties could, however, account for the correction in Kosminski's file regarding how long he he suffered from his illness. Of course, I don't know Yiddish, German, or Polish, so this is purely speculation.
As to the matter of his actual diagnosis, I think your assessment is probably the correct one, Robert. Perhaps Aaron had just degenerated to the point of incapacitation. Also, I don't know much about Cutbush, but it could certainly be the case that he regressed into a catatonic state in later years. |
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 518
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 11, 2003 - 1:13 pm: | |
Dan
I for one am not stumping for a disorganized personality or anything else for that matter. You will note that I have always been very careful of using terminology that might type caste a killer one way or the other, and this caution has as its basis an honest belief that the consequential differences between an organized and disorganized personality are fairly spurious anyway.
Common sense should tell us that an organized personality could have completely disorganized behaviour and actions under certain circumstances and situations, and of course vice versa.
I also struggle with our own personal concept of what might be organized or disorganized, for what might appear to one onlooker as organized might well appear to another as disorganized.
You see we talk of concept here and not direct action or purpose, and it is here that I see the greatest fault with this modern tool of criminology, for it is basically attempting to measure a concept and then apply that in some form or manner to real human behaviour.
This patently will not work.
My view is, as ever, much more simplistic, for I look at the crimes and crime scenes and make comparisons - rather than concepts - to other crimes and crime scenes, and then attempt to draw conclusion based on bare comparative events and situations.
Nevertheless you do raise interesting issue.
Do circumstances dictate behaviour or does behaviour dictate circumstances?
This is at the core of all your very valid points, and I’m afraid I can’t really argue against your points for I see them all as being entirely conceptual, whereas I see in the crimes complete and utter thoughtlessness. So no thought and no forethought, combined with a total lack of concept or design.
This is where we must always differ I fear, for when you stare into this Victorian kaleidoscope you see purpose, concept and design, and I just see confusion and chaos.
|
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 521
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 11, 2003 - 1:59 pm: | |
Sadaam
I always see your approach to this subject in a quasi-religious manner, as if you are the new Messiah or something, holding some kind of incredible candle of incredible truth that will guide us poor morons through the darkness of dismal ignorance.
Thank you Sadaam, but I’ll stick to brandy for my portion of the truth.
You appear to desire to turn the hunt for a fairly nondescript man who murdered 5 or 6 ineffectual and half starved whores into some kind of magical mystery tour to find the Holy Grail.
I think you drag behind you a tail of dogma which by wagging occasionally you fully expect to get a pat on the head because you have been a good boy.
Wag away my dear chap for I have boxes full of treats for you.
|
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 11, 2003 - 12:40 am: | |
Glenn wrote:
"It was me who wrote that quote of yours, not Gary. So I don't think he should stand trial for it."
Good point. It's all too easy to mix up two names posting here that start with the same first letter. My apologies to Gary.
"I put up a list abobe over organized features as well, and I certainly can't find any of these suitable to Jack the Ripper."
The reason you can't find them is you made up your mind already and refuse to listen to the other side.
The point is that you claimed that nobody can come up with a list of things (or even just one, supposedly) showing that Jack was organized. This is wrong. People have several times on these boards.
Now you claim that those lists weren't lists of reasons why Jack was organized but lists of organized features in general and that Jack doesn't fit them. That's also wrong. Several times on these boards that people (myself included) have gone through the list of organized killer traits and pointed out exactly how they fit for Jack the Ripper and then the list of disorganized traits and how they generally don't.
If you disagree with them, that's fine, but don't claim that they don't exist.
You seem to have a habit of not even bothering to debate against contrary positions and instead choose to ignore that they exist. For example, even though it's been pointed out to you several times over that your assumptions about what kind of people do or don't do ripper-style killings are contradicted by the facts in the Rostov Ripper case, you STILL claim without any logical reasoning behind it that Jack the Ripper couldn't have been married, living at home, organized, intelligent, etc. when the Rostov Ripper was caught and WAS all of those things.
But you certainly wouldn't be the first person to have a theory about the Ripper case and then ignore all evidence to the contrary. |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 10, 2003 - 1:54 pm: | |
"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..."
Blitz, schlmitz. When we say the murderer didn't consider the consequences of his actions, what we are really doing is making things too easy on ourselves. Real life is much harder. We don't want to give ourselves an excuse for not considering the consequences of his actions, do we?
Saddam
|
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 11, 2003 - 8:34 pm: | |
"I look at the crimes and crime scenes and make comparisons - rather than concepts - to other crimes and crime scenes, and then attempt to draw conclusion based on bare comparative events and situations."
>>Sorry, AP, this can't work. There is no such thing as a 'bare comparative event.' Even the simplest of things may be entirely different in another context. You are attempting to illicitly convert all reasonable interpretation of the case evidence to pure empiricism. This abrogates the possibility of solving the case in terms of ideas, intentions, changes, perceptions, and so on. I believe you are shooting yourself in your own foot if you try to make the real a matter of mere data, as chaotic as that data may appear. |
Erin Sigler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 99
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 12, 2003 - 2:56 pm: | |
Donald, not to nitpick, but you still haven't really told us (to my satisfaction) why Jack doesn't fit the mold of the disorganized killer. Bit difficult to prove a negative, isn't it? Why must he fit into one of our predefined categories? What's wrong with according him a "mixed" presentation, as Douglas does? |
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 523
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 12, 2003 - 5:10 pm: | |
Suitable reply, Saddam.
I'm not closing out perceptions, intentions or anything else for that matter, it is purely that I struggle with concept when applied to such a very real situation and do feel that an honest appraisal of the reality will prove more rewarding than an endless discussion of the concept.
I am widely known for shooting myself in the foot so I don't see any reason to dispute your findings in this case.
As said I have a very honest problem with this whole organised/disorganised thing and can't quite get into the mind-set to see Jack other than anything as casual happenstance, so as consequence of that I am drawn back to the bald circumstance of the real events.
I do I admit have a real problem when I see people applying concept to fact, but somehow I feel that is a valid problem.
I'll dwell on what you say. |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 667
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 12, 2003 - 5:15 pm: | |
Dan,
What I find troublesome with you, is that you can't argue with someone without getting disrespectful and personal, so I am beginning to wonder if there is any use in responding to you at all, but I'll give it another shot, since I think some of your points are quite valid.
The reason for me saying that "nobody can come up with a list of things (or even just one, supposedly) showing that Jack was organized", is this: A number of people here (including Erin, whom I for once think I disagree with on this detail) have said that they claim Jack the Ripper to be a mixed character, but then they just mention the disorganized features without elaborating the other side of the coin. That is why I asked Gary that question in the first place, and I really wanted to know. I know very well that those who mean that he belongs to the organized category, have pointed out these signs and why they think they apply to him, but my plea was directed to those who claim him to be a mix but doesn't explain why or how. It could very well be that I have missed out on them -- if that is the case, then I apologise -- but as far as I am concerned I still haven't seen a good explanation saying what such a "mix" should look like regarding Jack the Ripper.
I repeat from my earlier posts: what I consider as organized features (among others) are: deliberate manipulation, cleverness, pre-planning, social ablities, exhibitionism and coldness. From where I sit I can't see any of these character features in Jack, but it is no news flash to me that you don't agree with it.
Yes, it is true that I have read some attempts of explanation, like that his ablility to escape should indicate intelligence, that the fact that he carried a knife with him should prove pre-planning and so on. I just don't agree with it one bit, because I see other solutions that are more logical in my view. He managed to escape because he knew and lived in the area, and the police authorities were practically helpless in those days against a killer of this kind; and I believe that he carried a knife for his own protection, not necessarily because he had planned to go out and kill and mutilate somebody that same night. Those who claim him to bear organized signs, take for granted that he for example was communicative with his victims (and manipulated them into going with him), which I believe there is nothing to indicate whatsoever. So I can hardly see those points as evidence of organized features.
Regarding the Douglas discussions (although I actually is equally fond of the British profiler David Canter): he does mention the possibility of Jack the Ripper being a mixed character in The Cases That Haunts Us, but I don't really think that is his point at all; all character signs he attribute to the Ripper are purely -- as far as his own findings are concerned -- dizorganized ones. He just mentions the the possibility of a mix, but neither he gives any real examples showing why, and he doesen't elaborate that point further. I believe he wrote that because he didn't want to come out to sure of himself in such an old case (and therefore left the other door open), which I think is a quite correct approach, but unfortunately it has been misinterpreted. There is no doubt that his own interpretations really only points in one direction.
Profilers or not, I know very well that one can find examples that doesen't fit generalizations or categories. I don't see that as a problem, that is something I take for granted, we don't live in a perfect world and all criminals are different individuals, like the rest of us. I haven't commented on the Rostov killer, because I don't know that much about him, and haven't got time to read up on him (and prefer to do so before I inject myself in such a discussion). But I only base my assumptions on what I see from the crime scenes and the context in which the murders were performed, nothing else.
You are welcome to disagree with me, Dan, but if you read my posts more thoroughly, you'll see that I constantly spray them with words like "assumtion", "belief", "in my view", "I think"/"don't think", "could be" -- when was the last time I saw you use those words, Dan? You seem pretty sure of your own interpretations as well.
Yes, I admit I do have my own opinions. I could of course be more willing to compromise just for the sake of it, but it's just not who I am! But that doesen't say I am not able to meditate over my line of thinking occasionally. I have, for example, always regarded Liz Stride as a Ripper victim with strongest certainty -- now, after a few months of discussions, I must admit that (even though I still find that to be the most logical solution) I am no longer quite that certain and are actually having some doubts whether that is the real explanation to it or if there are other just as plausible. So that part about me ignoring "contrary positions" and "evidence to the contrary" is just bogus. And what evidence?
I prefer to take a stand rather than not to (with the risk of being regarded as stubborn), but if evidence should show that I am completely wrong, then I'll be the first one to admit it and gladly reconsider my thoughts on the matter.
(Message edited by Glenna on November 12, 2003)
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Donald Souden
Sergeant
Username: Supe
Post Number: 30
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 12, 2003 - 6:11 pm: | |
Erin,
"Donald not to nitpick,. . ."
Are you asking me? I don't recall having posted in this thread ever. Really, I can supply an alibi. I was asleep in my lodging house, I don't have a moustache -- carroty or otherwise -- and my kitchen knives are too dull to cut through gruel. Honest, it wasn't me.
Don. |
Erin Sigler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 100
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 13, 2003 - 12:12 am: | |
Oops, sorry Donald, I meant Dan (and you know you secretly have a carroty mustache--just admit it already)!  |
RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 12, 2003 - 8:15 pm: | |
Dear David,
There's nothing the matter with Nothing,
When posed in an artful form:
Nothing can matter Nothing,
To those as yet unborn.
Rosey :-) |
Donald Souden
Sergeant
Username: Supe
Post Number: 32
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 13, 2003 - 10:54 am: | |
Erin,
Nope, clean-shaven -- so much for witnesses, eh? Well, back in 2000 when we reenacted an 1870 baseball game in town I did grow a "stash," but it came off right after the (single) event. And the only time it may have been "carroty" is when I ate beef and kidney stew. Oops -- just beef, definitely just a beef stew.
Don. |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 389
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 3:17 pm: | |
Hello All
Just got back in town and I am sorry to report the public flogging was canceled due the fact that November 11th was Veteran's Day. I was told some rubbish about this last minute 'spectacle' as my idea was unflateringly termed, would provide a diversion from the parade that was scheduled.
Now back to the petty quibbling.
Best
Gary |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 678
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 5:26 pm: | |
Hi Gary,
Welcome back. No petty quibbling here, just some jolly good fun. 
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1242
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 5:47 pm: | |
Hi Gary
Nice to see you back unflogged.
Robert |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 393
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 16, 2003 - 1:23 am: | |
Hello AP
Just thought I might try and convince you that the Vampire Killer, Richard Trenton Chase, is not a good candidate to propose as exemplifying the traits of JTR.
I realize that you do not believe in profiling, however you have used Chase consistantly in your efforts to describe JTR. I am not fond of profiling myself as I believe it uses overly broad generalizations and ambiguity. Nevertheless, I will therefore draw some broad, ambiguous, conclusions about why we should not regard Jack as being akin to Chase.
Chase was very atypical serial killer. He was a psychotic not a psychopath or sociaopath or any of the other terms profilers like to throw around. IN MINDHUNTER (1995) John Douglas has this to say about Chase 'TRUE PSYCHOTICS-THOSE WHO HAVE LOST TOUCH WITH REALITY-DON'T COMMIT SERIOUS CRIMES THAT OFTEN. AND WHEN THEY DO THEY ARE USUALLY SO DISORGANIZED AND MAKE SO LITTLE ATTEMPT TO AVOID DETECTION THAT THEY ARE GENERALLY CAUGHT FAIRLY QUICKLY' This was true of Chase. (PG352)
I have previously stated my belief that JTR was a combination of the organized and disorganized killer. If I have not made myself clear, I will state that I believe, keeping in mnind that profiling is more of an art than a science, that Jack was a combination killer who leaned toward the disorganized type. In WHOEVER FIGHTS MONSTERS (RESSLER, 1992), who I believe was Mr. Douglas's mentor, gives the clearest distinction of the difference between the two types. Unfortunately this is probably a necessary digression for the purposes of this discussion. 'THE MAJOR ATTRIBUTE OF THE ORGANIZED OFFENDER IS HIS PLANNING OF THE CRIME. ORGANIZED CRIMES ARE PREMEDITATED, NOT SPUR OF THE MOMENT. THE PLANNING DERIVES FROM THE OFFENDERS FANTASIES,...THE ORGANIZED OFFENDER OFTEN USES A RUSE OR CON TO GAIN CONTROL OVER HIS VICTIM. THIS IS A MAN WHO HAS GOOD VERBAL SKILLS AND A HIGH DEGREE OF INTELLIGENCE...CONTROL IS THE ESSENSE (of the crimes genesis) FOR THE ORGANIZED OFFENDER...THE CRIME HAS BEEN PLANNED...THE VICTIMS ARE PERSONALIZED; THE OFFENDER HAS ENOUGH VERBAL AND OTHER INTERCHANGE WITH THE VICTIMS TO RECOGNIZE THEM AS INDIVIDUALS PRIOR TO KILLING THEM.(PG 131)
In contrast the disorganized offender choses his victims and the situations he elects to kill in in a random fashion without getting to know them as humans. (H)E TAKES STEPS TO OBLITERATE THEIR PERSONALITIIES BY QUICKLY KNOCKING THEM UNCONSCIOUS..OR OTHERWISE DISFIGURING THEM(Pg131)This is much as Jack did.
According to the profilers we are dealing with someone who is probably asocial or antisocial and has trouble getting along with people . Unlike his more more sophisticated counterpart he cannot con his victims and resorts to the blitz attack once his victim has chosen her place to die. His victim is 'easy prey', a half drunken, aged and in the case of Annie Chapman, seriously infirm woman. He kills in the street unless circumstances, such as MJK's having a room, dictate otherwise. This type of victim is easier to control and manipulate and hence to kill. He takes greater chances. He may risk being seen in order to carry out the kill. He may have had a few aborted attempts at killing prior to obtaining his goal. Ada Wilson and Annie Millwood may be examples of this aspect. This sex killer probably has had bad experiences with women in his life. (See also SERIAL KILLERS; THE INSATIABLE PASSION; LESTER, (1995) and NEWTON'S THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SERIAL KILLERS(2000)
Both killers look for control and have the desire to live out their fantasies. The organized killer just does it in a more competent and better thought out manner. Ted Bundy would be a good example. He makes plans, he uses logic.(for example he puts his arm in a sling and seeks help from young co-eds) He hides the bodies so as not to be detected as quickly. The killers who dismember their victims such as Jack's contemporary The Torso Killer, do so to avoid having the victim identified for as long as possible and thereby to hinder detection.
The disorganized offender plans insofar as he has a victim type in mind. He plans sufficiently so as to bring his own weapon. Jack was organized enough to remove his weapon from the scene. He was organized enough to take viscera from the scene to enable him to relive his crimes. He was organized enough to flee when it appeared he was in danger of being caught or seen.
Compare Jack with Chase. Douglas states that one 'should never make the mistake of confusing the the psychotic with the psychopath.'
Chase was so obviously delusional and psychotic that he was put in an institution at a very young age after trying to inject animal blood into his veins. At this facility he actually frightened the staff. He would locate small animals on the grounds and bite their heads so he could drink their blood. He openly kept a diary of his animal butchering and was often seen with blood on his face and clothes.
After being released largely because medication was helping to control his behavior, he killed, usually with a .22, because he believed he needed blood to stay alive. His own blood was drying up and turning to powder. He killed animals and drank their blood. He was completely delusional. He spoke of the past as if it were transpiring in the present. He believed that a consociation of the Nazi's, UFO's the Mob and various others were acting against his interests.
He was known to walk the streets covered in blood.
Chase never put any thought into his crimes and/or victims. He made use of whoever was convenient. He did not have a typical victim and it seems that in all liklihood he never gave a second thought to the idea of controlling his victims and there is no evidence of a sexual motive. He stated that he checked for unlocked doors and finding one was an indication that whomever was inside was indicating for him to come in. It does not seem that we would find him fantasizing about the crimes he comitted. Neither did he give much thought about his ability to escape undetected. Hence he would not bother to even clean up after his atrocities.
The distinction between Chase and Jack was the difference betwwen the delusional psychotic and the combination sexual serial killer or lust murderer to use the profilers neccesarily inexact jargon.
It is worth noting that many people make a great deal of the fact that Douglas appeared on the 1988 program THE SECRET IDENTITY OF JACK THE RIPPER and namedKosminski as Jack. Here is what he had to say in MINDHUNTER; (1995) 'HAVING PRESENTED THIS ANALYSIS (of Kosminski as Jack) I KNOW HAVE TO BACKPEDAL ON MY ORIGINAL DECLARATION WITH THE QUALIFICATION THAT FROM THIS VANTAGE POINT 100YEARS LATER, I CAN'T BE SURE THAT AARON KOSMINSKI WAS THE RIPPER. HE WAS SIMPLY ONE OF THE ONES GIVEN TO US. (pg 375) This should not be taken to mean that Douglas has backed down entirely. He states that Jack was someone like Kosminski.I would have to take issue with this point in one respect. Douglas's logic is inconsistant. Kosminski was a paronoid delusional type and Douglas finds this type to be inconsistant with his profile of someone who would be so obvious, if he were to be the killer, that he would be apprehended before he got away with 4,5,6 or however many murders JTR actually committed.
Perhaps there is no real demonstrably probative value in serial killer profiling after all.
Perhaps AP was right all along!
All The Best
Gary
Excuse the verbiage
Please feel free for anyone to take issue with any point I have raised. These are just largely my opinions backed by an inexact artform.
|
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 537
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 16, 2003 - 4:49 am: | |
Gary
Thanks for taking the time and trouble to write down your thoughts on this issue, and believe it or not I go along quite happily with almost everything you say. Most points you make are sound, valid and pertinent to what we discuss… there are a few that I would not agree on but I think we already know our diverging opinion on this.
It does strike me though that it is perfectly natural for any individual - including serial killers of any nature or type - to be a mishmash of organized and disorganized traits, and in fact our DNA probably commands this very situation. Just as with Chase, although totally disorganized he did manage to keep a diary of his bizarre behaviour, which after all is a very organized thing to do, often beyond the grasp of even very highly organized individuals.
I do not believe I have ever been guilty of confusing the psychotic with the psychopath… If I have then it has been through ignorance or common mistake.
Basically I set down my thoughts on this a long time ago, and came up with four types of killers who targeted ‘stranger’ female victims, and I’ll quote my good self:
‘What also emerges is that the killers of category one, the psychotics driven by demons and devils, are not sexual murderers in the real sense of the word. They are savage slayers and mutilators, but they do not kill to satisfy their physical sexual lust. However the killers of category two - the sociopath (Ted Bundy, Norman Collins), three - the satyrs (John Duffy), and four - diminished ego (John Christie, Joachim Kroll), are most certainly sexual murderers, as they intend to have sexual contact with their victims, dead or alive. This is an important distinction to make in the case of the Ripper, because he had no sexual contact with his victims. Subsequently, this seems to strongly indicate that he fits into the category of murderers who felt themselves guided and driven by demon voices, the psychotic paranoid schizophrenic.’
Whatever else we may know of the Jack case it is overwhelmingly clear that he did not have a sexual interest in his victims, and I believe it to be terribly false to imagine that he did have some kind of sexual interest just because his victims were prostitutes.
We must always bear in mind that Jack’s victims were women firstly and prostitutes secondly, so in establishing a motive for targeting a class we must not allow their sub class to influence us until we have dealt with the class motive.
This is where I really feel that criminal profiling and criminal forensic psychology fall to pieces, as both work on the premise that Jack’s victims were prostitutes firstly, and only look at the victims as women secondly.
This flawed technique will always give us the false impression that Jack’s crimes were sexual in nature and that his motive was sexual, but you see this motive is being dictated by the victims and not the killer.
We must concentrate on Jack and not his victims.
Nice to see you back Gary.
|
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 394
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 16, 2003 - 11:31 am: | |
Hi AP
Thanks for your response.
I don't believe Jack had a sexual interest in his victims as those of us with normal minds would contemplate the idea of a sexual interest. Serial killers like Jack don't attempt a sexual attack per se. Actually I am not happy using the term sexual serial killer in a case like that of JTR. I believe it is misleading and I believe I understand your frustration as well. At least insofar as it is possible to do so from a male perspective. As a man I will likely never know the true humiliation of a sexual assualt and the feelings engendered in the aftermath.
I have worked with and represented a number of battered and abused women in domestic cases, many of whom were badly sexually abused over a period of time. All I can do is try my best to empathize, be understanding and compassionate. What I can do pro-actively and have always done is go after the perpetrators in court with as much zeal as I can.
I should also note that I have run into cases wherein it became all too clear that the putative victim was claiming a sexual assualt when such was not the case. These occurences were usually more along the lines of allegations of harrasment then rape.
I do feel confident that sexual assualt is a crime of violence and the sex is an integral part of the violence. This is where I would bring in JTR. He did not sexually assualt his victims,; his crimes were motivated purely by violence and probably a fear and hatred of women in general.
In my opinion he falls into the category of the man who is more often sexually impotent with women. His twisted view of sex must involve the concomitant need to subjugate, dominate and degrade his victims. His satisfaction lies in reliving the attack and his belief that he was in control of the situation.
No need to welcome me back as I only travelled to the great State of North Carolina for a few days.
All The Best
Gary |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 682
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 16, 2003 - 11:41 am: | |
Hi Gary,
Nice to see you back indeed. I agree as well that your thoughts here sounds perfectly reasonable and I can go along with most of it, and I also think it is quite probable that Annie Millwood may be one of Jack's earlier attempts. And thank you for the litterature tips.
I won't indulge in your and AP:s internal discussions regarding Chase, since I am quite ignorant on the matter and I don't have the time I used to have in the past to do enough reserach -- my own studies of crime in my own home area takes all my time and is exhausting enough.
I would also like to add, that the British profiler David Canter has produced an interesting study of Jack the Ripper and have reached a conclusion (or should I say "deduction" or "prediction") that is quite similar to the attempts made by Douglas and Hazelwood. Profiling is indeed an inaccurate method, though, like all other methods that are solely based on empiric deductions and subjective interpretation -- there is no question about that. But I don't feel it is completely useless, not even under difficult circumstances such as this (although we do lack some of the studying factors that usually are available to profilers in more recent cases). The mistake that too many seems to make, however, is to have too high expectations on the method's ability to produce "facts" that can solve the case, a claim that I don't think is relevant and I see as a misinterpretation of the means and intention of profiling as such.
The problem with the 1988 board panel investigation was, I believe, appearent already when it was done. The Kosminski suspect was misleading and obiously caused a lot of confusion, especially as Cohen seemed to fit Douglas' profile better than Kosminski -- according to Douglas himself -- but wasn't included in the program as a suspect. That is one of the reasons why that television show evaporated into some sort of anti-climax. I haven't actually read Mindhunter, unfortunately, but I don't think there is anything unusual about Douglas having to revise his points a bit under that seven years period.
I have no idea myself whether Jack was a lust murderer with a clear sexual motivation for the murders or not but I don't think it necessarily has to contradict the raving psychotic, I simply prefer to keep an open mind in favour of both possibilities. I think the personal motive (or the abscense of such) is too hard to deduct in this case. I am -- not surprisingly -- not that certain as AP that we're not dealing with a killer with a sexual drive in some way, but I can't bet any money on the contrary either. I don't see any reason, AP, to totally disregard that prostitutes were deliberate targets and we have no info saying either way.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
