|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1354
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 7:17 am: |       |
Hi Saddam
I think it's possible that sometimes your posts are simply missed. E.g. I saw your post of 19th, but it wasn't till I clicked on Glenn's post above, and then went back up the thread to see what he was replying to, that I saw your latest post and Dan's two posts.
Robert |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 414
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 10:25 am: | |
Hello All
I don't like profiling because it involves overly broad generalizations about a very wide range of behaviors. Having said that, it seems to be a necessary evil in that it does provide some indication of his motivation, state of mind and perhaps his life circumstances at the time of the murders.
We have to look at Jack in perspective. In his day the blitz style of attack was necessary for someone who had to kill on the run. He did not have a car to invite the victims into, and we can surmise that he did not have a safe place to bring the victims back to where he could treat the bodies as he pleased. He was pressed for time and in constant danger of discovery. Therefore, the murders before MJK do not provide a clear example of what was going on in his mind to enable us to see his true profile. That is to say, we will never know just how he would have wanted to handle his earlier victims bodies. The MJK murder shows a demented fascination with the human body and its makeup. This indicates a young or immature mind and a highly disorganized type of profile according to the profilers.
There may also have been a fascination with the female reproductive system. We cannot say for sure how long he spent examining the reproductive organs. My guess would be this was the focal point of the attack. Further, that the reproductive organs of his other victims were also a focal point of his attacks as he refined his killing M.O..
It therefore seems likely that he was a sexually motivated killer who derived his sexual pleasure from the act of killing and mutilating the bodies of women. In addition this sexual pleasure was tied to violence. That is to say the only way for him to have gotten sexual satisfaction would have been to have carried out his fantasy to control and subjugate a victim and then destroy her at his pleasure. At least this is what the profilers would conclude.
Some feel this indicates a low level of violent intent. I believe the violence was a necessary part of the act in Jack's mind. The purpose was not to make the victim endure as much pain as possible as would be the case with the sexual sadist; the purpose was to control and dominate the victim. Nevertheless, violence was integral to the act. It was not however, the purpose of the act.
Then we get to the contentious issue of his organized qualities or lack thereof.
The organized qualities I have pointed out stem from his simple ability to plan and carry out the attack. He brought a knife or knives, he convinced the victims to take him to a secluded spot and managed to take actions to avoid detection. As I have said before this alone would enable him to be found legally sane and stand trial in the U.S.. This does not mean I believe he was sane. He was sane insofar as he had the ability to plan and carry out the murders. He was a sexual psychopath or sociopath or whatever term you choose to use. I do not believe he was so cut off from reality that he was completely delusional and/or schizophrenic. He had his own view of reality and carried out his desires without the ability to feel normal human empathy and he acted without interference from a normal human conscience.
Others have pointed out that it would be an easy objective to have a drunken, destitute prostitute of the lowest class lead him to a place in which he could attack her. This is true, but the important thing is that he chose this type of victim. He was preying on the weakest most vulnerable members of society other than children. The profilers therefore say he was weak, inadequate, frightened and fascinated with his choice of victim.
If the above is true then I would call him a serial, sexual killer who was of the mixed type leaning heavily toward being a young or immature disorganized offender. Further, that he was legally sane; that he acted without conscience; that he was sufficiently connected to reality to choose the least dangerous type of victim and to take precautions to plan his crimes and remain undetected; that he acted out his desire to control and dominate a female victim; that he was sexually motivated (although not as a rational mind would understand the term); that he used violence as a means to obtain sexual satisfaction and that I can't think of anything more to ramble on about.
All The Best
Gary
(Through Trevor Weatherhead) |
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 573
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 1:35 pm: | |
Heavens, you boys have been sharpening your knives or what!
I have been employing my whetstone also, however for the moment I must merely say that Sutcliffe is probably the worst case imaginable of a serial killer for anyone to nominate as 'organized'.
The reason that Sutcliffe managed to elude the police for so long had nothing to do with Sutcliffe... in fact the police totally ignored six markers in their own information system which confirmed that Sutcliffe was their man for six long years while they searched for an individual - who didn't exist - who had been profiled as the killer for them by criminal profilers. I still have my sincere doubts that even though Sutcliffe was appehended by a 'lucky' copper in a red-light district with the very car they sought, and hammers and knives, that if he had not immediately confessed to the baffled officers then he would never have appeared in court.
Sutcliffe was chaos on legs and so were the police officers hunting him.
Many girls died in those six years because of the total imcompetence of the police hunting the killer. Even Sutcliffe never understood how he got away with it all that time, after all he had told close friends and family that he liked to beat whores over the head with a hammer to get his own back for laughing at his no show joe.
Please get real, Sutcliffe was so disorganized that he couldn't match socks. |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 2:23 am: | |
Glenn wrote: "To choose prostitutes as preferred victims doesen't qualify him for the Nobel price either, and I'm having a hard time with interpreting this as 'planning' or 'organized' "
Disorganized killers don't choose a victim based upon his or her weakness, they choose them based upon whomever happens to get in their way, or whomever happens to coincide with whatever delusions the schizophrenia supplies them with.
Sure, there's a sliding scale where not so disorganized people don't do things as dangerous as full fledged ones, but intelligent victim selection is a highly organized trait, not the opposite. I really can't grasp how you can claim just the opposite.
If the victims were random and especially if they were high risk (or with high risk witnesses) that'd be very solid evidence that the killer wasn't in his right mind. In fact that's a classic defnition of insanity: if you'd still do it in full view of a police officer.
I will give you that the mutilations seem to be a disorganized trait, though that may be the only one out of the long list that I think could count. I don't seem them as overly ritualistic because of how they changed between murders. They appear to me that they may have been done more out of desire (deciding to do something perverted for fun) than need (have to do it because of the voices).
But even if that were a definite disorganized trait, like the comparable occasional disjointed traits in Bundy and other highly organized killers, I wouldn't consider it enough to outweigh all the other strong evidence. |
Sarah Long
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 105
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 9:37 am: | |
Hi all,
I just want to post a link here:-
http://www.spiritlink.com/scrmpd.html
It is a site about MPD or Multiple Personality Disorder and is often misdiagnosed as Schizophrenia. Basically, if Jack had MPD then he would have more than one personality. I'll just take one sentence from this web site:-
"A key differentiating factor between MPD and schizophrenia, at least in terms of initial diagnosis, is losing time, having no memory of things that occur while an alter personality is in charge of the body."
Now say that Jack had more than one personality, he could be one person, act like an animal and brutally murder a person then turn back into, well whatever the other personality is. It is also possible for a person to have more than two personalities with MPD.
Please excuse me if this had already been mentioned.
Sarah |
Natalie Severn
Police Constable
Username: Severn
Post Number: 5
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 11:41 am: | |
Sarah,thanyou for the information on multiple personality disorder.Sounds interesting.
From what I have gleaned about schizophrenia though the sexual angle is all overlain with odd
symbolism[like the markings on Catharine Eddowes
eyelids]and a rather lurid or rather prurient view
of sex.This is when the person is psychotic and when such an illness can make the person dangerous.I have witnessed a person in a psychotic state[but not in this case dangerous at all]and the most noticable thing was the rambling
chaotic smutty stream of consciousness[or whatever you call such a discourse].Another feature of this persons behavior was her ability
to disengage from the fantasy when she realised that her rant was going to cause her difficulty
getting along to a class she wanted to attend.Somehow she had the presence of mind to control herself on this occasion.Ofcourse I dont know if this was always the case or not.Natalie |
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 578
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 1:32 pm: | |
Peter
again you have said many of the things that I have been trying to say, but perhaps I never get there because of a combination of alcohol and poetic rambling.
Anyways, well said, perhaps I should just leave you to it and enjoy the view. |
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 579
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 1:45 pm: | |
Sarah
I know that I am seriously out of date but I seem to remember this MPD stuff coming up in several famous murder cases and being thrown wholesale out of the courts by both judge and jury as being too pat and cosy for defence argument, in other words he wasn't him when he killed them so he can't be tried for the murders.
I don't know, maybe it has advanced some since my time, I must check out the site.
I get the feeling that this MPD stuff is a whole lot like the plea that the killer was 'sleepwalking' at the time of the murder so wasn't responsible for his actions. I have seen this work, but it takes a damn good - and expensive - lawyer to pull this fast one on a judge and jury.
If my memory serves me right both prosecution and defence in the Sutcliffe trial were going for MPD and the judge told them to take a hike.
|
Frank van Oploo
Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 34
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 3:45 pm: | |
Hi all,
Was Jack schizophrenic? This was the original question of this thread, but we seem to have wandered off since the first post, so I’ll give it a shot. I must warn you though, it's a long one and it's not only about schizophrenia.
If Jack suffered from schizophrenia, I don’t think he could have been suffering from much more than a mild form of it. Because if he did, he would have used what I imagine a blitz attack to be. He would have chosen his victims at random and would have struck as soon as he was close enough to them. I don’t think he would have been able to wait for him and his victims to have reached the crime scenes as we know them, I don’t think his victims wouldn’t have noticed his odd behaviour, and if he spoke more than one sentence, they would certainly have noticed there was something wrong with him.
This is not how Jack most probably ‘worked’. He accosted his victims or had them accost him. Then he led his victims to the crime scenes or he had them lead him there. At least some sentences must have been spoken between them. On the crime scenes he attacked, killed and mutilated his victims in a methodical way, which prevented Jack from getting his clothes all covered in blood, an important precaution that made his escape from the scene to his home much easier. Although I admit Jack might have suffered from mild form of schizophrenia, I tend to think he was a young psychopath, who was moderately intelligent, certainly in a practical sense, and a ‘mixed’ offender, showing both organised and disorganised traits. Besides the fact that he prevented getting (much) blood on his clothes, another organised trait (though a ‘small’ one) was the taking of the ring(s) from one of Annie Chapman’s fingers.
Two other interesting features that stand out in my view, and I don’t know what to think of them really, are A: that he seems to have placed the intestines, organs and flaps of flesh somewhere rather than thrown them aside, and B: that he seems to have deliberately placed some of his victims belongings somewhere at the crime scene. This was especially true in Annie Chapman’s case, but there were also items found in Catherine Eddowes case (a mustard tin containing two pawn tickets and a thimble) and in Mary Kelly's case - as can be read under the thread ‘Sorting the clues’ – the pile of neatly folded clothes might also be an example of something Jack deliberately did.
Hi Glenn and Dan,
About the victims: all, except for Mary Kelly, were about the same age (late 30’s or 40’s), were dark haired and they all stood about 5 feet tall. In my view it would be too much of a coincidence for these women to have those same characteristics. In other words, it seems as though they were not picked at random.
According to Micky Pistorius, who spent six years as a profiler with the South African Police Service and who has a doctorate in psychology, as soon as a serial killer’s fragile self-esteem is threatened or challenged by any form of rejection or pain, he feels the irresistible urge to act out his fantasy, which is the only way he perceives to restore the psychological imbalance. Furthermore, a serial killer repeats what was done to him either directly or symbolically in order to restore the imbalance. Which means that he will – in the acting out of his fantasy - either choose victims who represent himself (in the period during which he was being traumatised), or he may symbolically avenge his suffering, and then will be more likely to select victims who represent the original tormentor. For instance, in case the serial killer was sodomised between the ages of 8 and 12, he may choose boys of that age as his victims, whereas in case the serial killer feels he was abandoned at a very important time in his young life by an older sister acting as his prime caretaker, he may select victims who represent his sister (they look like her, are of about the same age).
Another point she makes is that all serial killers fixate in one or more of the five psychosexual developmental phases every human being goes through.They are the oral phase, the anal phase, the Oedipus or phallic phase, the latency phase and the genital phase. Too much or too little of something can cause a fixation. A fixation could be seen as a mental short-circuit. In the oral phase the infants basic needs are satisfied orally. The anal phase is all about control, control over the toddler’s bodily functions, control over his environment by becoming more mobile, etc. In the Oedipus phase the little boy subconsciously falls in love with his mother and/or primary caretaker and hates his father. In the latency phase the boy goes to school and learns to socialise, develop empathy for others, learns to share, incorporates moral and ethical values, and develops a conscience. In the genital phase – mainly during the teenage years – the boy becomes sexually orientated and curious again. In all of those phases sex and aggression play an important part, because they are our two basic instincts, both having to do with self-preservation. All serial killers fixate in the latency phase. What one sees at a crime scene is the acting out of a fantasy and may be carried back to the fixation(s) of the serial killer.
Trying to apply this on the case of Jack the Ripper, judging from the age and sex of his victims I think he choose victims that represented his tormentor, which most probably was his mother. She must have been around her fourties when she rejected or tormented him in whatever way. Maybe she didn’t protect him, maybe she treated him very badly, maybe she abandoned him. Anyway, he must have been in his Oedipus phase when it happened. If we look at what Jack did with his victims we could interpret his mutilations as a very twisted kind of curiosity for the female body, which might indicate that he had another fixation in his genital phase. Maybe she finally abandoned him or died when he was a teenager.
Now, before I’m going slightly mad, as Freddy Mercury sang shortly before he died, I’ll stop and leave you to ponder.
All the best,
Frank 
|
Natalie Severn
Police Constable
Username: Severn
Post Number: 7
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 5:18 pm: | |
frank, thanks for the above which I find very clear and helpful.Personally I think the markings
on some of the victims too bizarre to be performed by someone who was a psycopath/sociopath.But your post is so interesting I wish I knew more about what you refer to re developmental stages.Natalie. |
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 580
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 5:35 pm: | |
Frank
Brave new world stuff, and on the face of it quite level headed and plausible, but Oedipus is your Achilles heel.
Bless your South African profiler, she must have been to hell and back.
Freud started this whole Oedipus thing and he ended it by writing a booklet relating the Oedipus complex to the rule and reign of the 18th dynasty so-called ‘heretic’ king Akhenaten of ancient Egypt.
When Freud and his followers first came up with these phases of human development, the anal and all that, the world was a small mushroom dominated by even smaller fungi with Austrian accents, wearing beards and most often women’s undergarments who stood at conference and blasted women as the greatest evil that ever infected this planet because these women, their mothers, sisters and aunts, had let them down as children, pre-pubescent kids, almost adult teenagers, spotty teenagers and then young adults. They painted the male as the fatherly, comfortable, stable and reasonable influence in the life of all us poor humans, only maintaining that the males were so godly and so perfect that of course their daughters wanted to sleep with them.
I had hoped the world had grown up a bit and finely consigned those bearded Austrians in women’s tights to the dustbin of history, but obviously not. Anyway not when a modern major police force is still using Freudian concepts to try and catch rapists and killers.
Frightening.
Freud unravelled towards the end of his life, and his work attempting to link the ancient Egyptian king Akhenaten to Oedipus is perhaps the most classic example of his attempt to cling to fortune, fame and power through the simple degradation of women.
You see Akhenaten was gay, just like Freud.
Using Freudian technology to unlock the mind of Jack the Ripper is much like asking Oscar Wilde to sweep out a Texas whorehouse.
Nothing will be cleaned.
|
Frank van Oploo
Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 36
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 6:04 pm: | |
AP,
It may be frightening to you to see that a modern major police force is still using your friend's concepts to try and catch rapists and killers, but as far as I know, it works... |
Frank van Oploo
Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 37
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 6:15 pm: | |
Hi Natalie,
I read about the developmental stages in a book called “Catch me a Killer…” by Micki Pistorius, which was published by Penguin Books (South Africa) in 2000. Hope this is enough info for you to work on.
All the best,
Frank
|
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 712
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 8:24 pm: | |
Hi Dan, Frank, Gary et al.
Wow! Quite a number of interesting posts to deal with this time.
------------------------------------
Dan,
Nice to have a discussion in a more civilized manner -- I prefer it this way. And I do see some of your points.
You wrote: "Disorganized killers don't choose a victim based upon his or her weakness, they choose them based upon whomever happens to get in their way, or whomever happens to coincide with whatever delusions the schizophrenia supplies them with."
Exactly. And that's what I meant with that prostitutes were more "available". The fact that they were "chosen" doesen't necessarily have to be connected to their occupation, but to the fact that they belong to a group that approaches him on their own initiative and that they are unprotected, which would appeal to his instincts. It doesen't have to indicate a planned intent, but merely that they made themselves easily available to him.
And if he had some sort of hatred of women (which we don't really know that much about), their behaviour would most certainly have triggered his actions. He may not even have thought about them as prostitutes as a defined category. From my studies I know how prostitutes in this context worked; they approached their clients and they were the ones that took their clients to secluded places. It wouldn't take any planning at all, and a very minimal amount of interaction would have been necessary. I know that we disagree here, but I can't see this as intelligent victim selection. But that's just me...
I naturally agree with you on your interpretation of the mutilations; it is my belief as well that they probably were done more out of desire (and probably curiousity) than of more defined ritualism in the word's correct meaning.
Unlike you, however, I find in general more signs of a disorganized character or schizofrenic person than on the opposite.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 713
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 8:38 pm: | |
Peter,
Just a comment to your otherwise splendid posts: You say:
"the desire to put everyone into some sort of category is almost overwhelming. But the reality is that most categories, especially those which are not easily reduced to verifiable numeric quantities such as human behaviour, become awfully elusive on close examination."
I can't say I agree with you here, really. I can't disregard, that generalising and categorising can be troublesome and also sometimes misleading. But I believe they are absolutely necessary. The human mind is complex, but in order to grasp a pattern to sort out the most distinctive signs revealed by the crimes, we can't do it without seeing things through generalizations. The only thing we can do here is to look for the strongest signs in the offender's behaviour and to interpret them. Then it's a matter of personal interpretation and opinion. But if we should consider every possibility in every single detail (which would lead to speculations anyway), we wouldn't get anywhere at all.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 714
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 9:21 pm: | |
Hi Gary,
I believe Jack the Ripper's motives and degree of sexual motivation are too hard to investigate and too speculative, even for the profiling method. I won't indulge myself in the discussion regarding whether his crimes were sexually motivated or not, since I think this is quite a mouth-full. However, I agree that he really can't be regarded as a sexual sadist, and I also agree on that the murders reveal a great extent of rage. However, whether his main motivation was sexual satisfaction or domination, I dare not speculate.
"The MJK murder shows a demented fascination with the human body and its makeup. This indicates a young or immature mind and a highly disorganized type of profile according to the profilers."
And I have to go along with the profilers on this one.
However, as far as the reproductive organs are concerned, I think it could be fair to assume that he had a curiousity of the female body at least, but I am not sure how much it is valid to focus of the reproductive organs, since it was not only those that were taken or destroyed. But I am a bit in the dark here. Here again, we are left with speculations.
Just something to ponder on, in addition to my earlier reply to Dan as far as the pre-planning is concerned, Gary:
You say: "He brought a knife or knives, he convinced the victims to take him to a secluded spot and managed to take actions to avoid detection."
Firstly, if we look at him as how the profilers see him -- as an unsure individual with paranoid tendencies -- the most logical conclusion to the knife, would be that he carried it for his own protection, not with the intention to commit murder. And this is an important detail, because if this would be true, then the whole "organized" argument regarding that would fall to pieces. This is my own interpretation of it as well, but I am not saying that there are evidence of this, of course, just that one opens up to the possibility. And as I said before, the women most certainly approached him and took him to secluded spots, not the other way around. Neither can his "ability" to escape be considered that ingenious. However, although I think most points at a disorganized offender, I don't see him as a raving lunatic either, and he doesen't have to be, in order to fit a paranoid schizofrenic.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 715
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 9:45 pm: | |
"Tjena", Frank
(Get that one if you can...) 
An interesting post. However, I wouldn't go that far in speculating about his motivation for the murders or draw Freudian deductions from them.
I really can't be sure how much we can make of the placements of the intestines and belongings. I would be a bit more careful in reading this as ritualistic. At least, I don't think such an interpretation necessarily fits the treatment of ALL the victims. Furthermore, I am also a bit doubtful if there really is a valid reason to consider a pattern of superficial character features in the victims. Just because a majority of them were dark haired and 30--40 years doesen't necessarily have to tell us something of value. I think I would need a better connection than that to suggest a carefully thought out pattern on behalf of the killer.
I have to go along with Natalie here; I believe the symbolic features on the crime scenes (if there are such) could indicate a psychotic and schizofrenic individual, since the signature and circumstances in connection with it, isn't done with that kind of clarity or "message-displaying" manner one generally connects with an organized individual. As Natalie puts it, I see them more as bizarre and twisted whims, rather than carefully laid out symbolic communication. To "diagnose" him as a paranoid schizofrenic or to be suffering from MPD is a a bit of a guess-work, but I think connecting this with a psychopath or sociopath is a bit of a struggle for me.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on November 25, 2003)
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 584
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 26, 2003 - 1:40 pm: | |
Frank
I'm still waiting for someone to show me one single murder case that was ever solved by criminal profiling or Freudian rant and cant.
It makes good reading but don't solve crimes. |
Frank van Oploo
Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 39
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 26, 2003 - 3:11 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
“From my studies I know how prostitutes in this context worked; they approached their clients and they were the ones that took their clients to secluded places.”
This is what you said in your post to Dan Norder. This is your field of expertise, so I won’t argue with you on this, however, what you say doesn’t mean that Jack said 'yes' to every woman accosting him.
As I want to watch a soccer game – which has already started – this is it for now.
All the best,
Frank 
PS I’ll have to come back on ‘Tjena’ |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 496
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 27, 2003 - 11:22 am: | |
Hi AP,
Going back to a post you wrote last week (I’m only just catching up with this thread), I would agree with your view that men ‘who feel the need to expose themselves to women’ would most probably run a mile ‘if offered a genuine sexual experience’ by one of them.
What I don’t quite grasp, however, if Jack was the kind of man who would settle for a reflection of himself in a mirror for a sexual partner, rather than a living person, is why he would not have made some attempt to avoid the obvious discomfort in store for him of an encounter with not just one, but a series of old hags, experienced in all the ways of coupling or sexual servicing - the most likely type to behave towards him in precisely the manner required to cause your average flasher to run a mile, but your Jumping Jack Flash to go off with them and rip the bitches wide.
I am seriously wondering if your Jack was a masochist (just as Joe Barnett appears to have been – a man who hated the immoral earnings of prostitutes so much that lo! he went forth and found him a whore to shack up with, so he could punish the two of them from that day forward ‘til death did they part).
If Jack’s lifestyle included a need or desire to wander the Whitechapel Streets at night, which would make encounters with the local whores, and confrontations with his inner demons, rather inevitable, did he decide he might as well make an art form of it? Perhaps he left a signature that read, “Here’s yet another damned bitch who tried to come between me and my reflection in the puddles, offering us all her unwanted wares for fourpence – I offer them to the world for nothing!”
Suppose Pinball Jack just kept finding himself in this unfortunate position, having to repeat his ways of dealing with it. Could he have trusted himself only to attack when the chances of getting clean away were very good? Once he allowed himself to be led off by a prospective victim, he was committed to one of only two courses of action – attack, or expose his failure to do business with her – both risky, and far removed from the kind of activities the woman would be anticipating.
And what about the souvenir taking, and the seemingly intentional variations on a theme, if a disorganised Jack treated the women as unwelcome intrusions on his own private sexuality? Did he perhaps warm to the task after the first couple of attacks, and actually begin to welcome the next opportunity to improve on his act? If he found himself missing the game provided by the whores during time out in October, did he for once take the initiative and invite himself into Mary Kelly’s world - to see what he was really made of? And might there be no going back - or forward - after this?
Each new experience in this learning curve would have made Jack a slightly different person. Obviously a disorganised killer couldn’t progress to being organised, quite the reverse in fact. But it strikes me that Jack may have had a growing awareness that his series of brief encounters was an education, each lesson affecting his expectations, anxieties or pleasures, possibly even altering his aims, adding new dimensions to his motivation. And all this, if I am not crediting Jack with too much intelligence here, would be on top of anything he picked up from previous narrow escapes about risk avoidance.
And finally, talking about motivation, what exactly has been learned about Pitchfork’s? Is there independent evidence that backs up what has been said about the trigger factors and what would have prevented him attacking? It’s well known that serial offenders will say almost anything to shift the blame, so if we have Pitchfork’s word for stuff like: “It was her reaction that made me panic”, or “I would never have touched her if only she had not done this, that or the other…” how can we be sure it bears any relation to the truth?
It’s hard for me to picture a killer so disorganised that he would repeat certain behaviour, not really aware that it could provoke the same female reaction that had caused him to attack before - yet he would be able, when finally apprehended, to think back and articulate what behaviour would have caused him to strike. If he could do the latter, couldn’t he have avoided the situations that got his blood up? Unless of course he didn’t want to avoid them - and that would be a whole new game of Pinball, wouldn’t it? One with Jack in control.
Love,
Caz
|
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 592
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 27, 2003 - 1:33 pm: | |
Just a general rant concerning ‘sexual’ motive in the Jack case.
Basically I am very wary of labelling as ‘sexual’, crimes where no sexual activity has taken place, and I do find it a travesty that almost every time a man murders a woman then the pack bays sexuality as the motive.
In this particular case I do feel that the victims are being reduced and debased even further from the actual crimes by wild claims that would seem to have as their core the idea that every time men and women come together socially - even in the bizarre world of murder - then it must be for sex.
‘Well of course he murdered and mutilated the whores for sexual gratification. I mean what else are whores - and women - good for?’
I do honestly fear that some of you are actually insidiously implying that.
I can hear Oscar now:
‘Oh women, silly cows, good for breeding, they might arouse the younger bucks with their curves; but anger, fear, anxiety, confusion, and frustration belong to the nobler beast, the man.’
So, Mary Kelly, rest in your peace and pieces. Just because you were torn to pieces, had all your guts and innards ripped out, were flayed and splayed and bits of you were thrown all around the room, there is no need to be concerned my dear, as you died for the sexual satisfaction of a man.
A whore to the last, eh boys?
|
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 593
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 27, 2003 - 2:04 pm: | |
Caz
Thanks for your long, thoughtful, and very provoking reply.
You make a lot of powerful sense with what you say, and I’m going to have to study it all in daylight and well away from the brandy bottle.
However, in regard to your thoughts about Pitchfork, I have to tell you that Colin is what we politely term as ‘thick’. I don’t know whether you have read his confessions to the police or not - if not I recommend that you do - but he seems to take a great deal of pride in his ‘work’ - the two murders perhaps being incidental to that ‘work’ - and positively regaled the police with the tales of his ‘flashing’ expertise and exploits.
Like you I always have reservations about such confessions, and your post actually awoke an old idea of mine from some ten years ago.
You see about the time of the first murder, Pitchfork’s photograph had appeared in the local paper along with a cake he had baked - he worked as a baker in the local bakery - and so many people had commented on this to him in the pubs he frequented that when he next ‘flashed’ I think it just might have percolated through to his fairly dense brain that the victim might well have recognised him from the photo in the paper.
It is one thing to be recognised as a ‘flasher’ but quite another to be recognised when ‘flashing’ as Colin Pitchfork the baker who was in the local rag.
I would be interested to find out exactly when Pitchfork’s photo appeared in the local rag in relation to the murders for I have lost it in the mists of time and wine.
This obviously raises a lot of issues, not the least of which I could easily lose Pitchfork as the classic example of a dual motivation in such crimes.
But what the hell, I do hope the truth counts for something round here.
Be back when the sun gets up to fully reply.
|
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 26, 2003 - 10:03 pm: | |
There are a number of things mentioned recently that deserve comments.
Regarding Multiple Personality Disorder, that's a diagnosis that's on it's way out. Many experts are coming around to how I was trained decades ago to see it as a fad diagnosis for clients and therapists deluding themselves out of trendiness or wanting excitement in their lives It's a "disorder" that came out of nowhere a few decades ago, got applied to thousands of people, and is now dying out. Real disorders are constant throughout decades and centuries, and there is scant evidence that such a condition really existed until it was made into a TV movie. Further, a website about astrology (link above) that happens to have a page about MPD isn't what I would consider a reliable source.
There is much in psychology that changing as we gain more knowledge and cast out the old favored descriptions with modern ones. The Oedipus complex and some of those other psychosexual stages are another example of something that current research seems to indicate should be thrown out. The big question today seems to be if anything Freud said is salvagable, not how to apply his theories to modern cases. To try to present any information from the emerging field of psychology as definitive is probably elevating it to a position it shouldn't really have.
Be that as it may, whether we choose to label Jack the Ripper's behavior as organized or not, he strikes me as someone who was very much together. Trying to explain away the idea that carrying a knife isn't really an organized trait by saying disorganized people could carry knives too misses the point. A disorganized, irrational schizophrenic individual is just as likely to attack with his bare hands, a nearby brick, or anything else he spots than he is to remember he has a knife on him. Consistency in weapon selection, methods, etc. are highly organized traits. So is victim selection. So is hiding yourself from being caught (full-fledged schizophrenics wouldn't know there's anything to hide or wouldn't be able to cover it up).
The biggest problem I have with the idea that Jack must have had problems interating with reality is that he did such a good job of it. More to the point, if you took a highly organized killer that we know about, like Bundy or Chikatilo, etc. and dropped them into the East End, gave them several months to get used to the area, and then let them go kill, I can't see what an intelligent psychopath would have done differently.
Some people say, well, choose locations better but haven't yet said what those locations could be in an area where lucky people lived five to a room the size of a closet and unlucky ones lived outdoors. The other "disorganized" traits are equally fleeting when examined. |
Peter J. Tabord
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, November 27, 2003 - 10:54 am: | |
Hi Glenn
I realise that some attempt at categorization is probably useful - after all, we are all trying to do it to an extent - but what I mean (and may not have expressed well) is that when pushed to absolute statements it can - will - lose meaning.
If one accepts that any 'human behaviour' categories are in fact very fuzzy at the edges and not the absolutes sometimes found in textbooks it makes the approach less dramatic, but possibly more useful.
Hi A.P.
Don't do that! Your posts are very interesting.
Regards
Pete
|
Peter J. Tabord
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, November 27, 2003 - 11:02 am: | |
Hi again A.P.
I think one thing we have in common is we both think Freud is a busted flush. That and the odd drink of an evening 
Cheers
Pete |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
