|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 230
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 03, 2004 - 10:17 pm: |       |
AP, re your discussion of aggression -- maybe we are looking at the wrong thing when we look at the October lull. Maybe it was because Jack's Aunt Matilda or whoever she was decided to take a vacation in the country and left him in peace? And maybe the killings ended because he finally got up the nerve to kill Aunt Matilda, only because the MO was different and Auntie wasn't an unfortunate the police never connected it with the Whitechapel slayings.
I can tell you this. When my cat went berserk it was scary. He would start by lashing his tail and emitting low half growls half meows. Then he would turn around (away from the window and into the room) and the attack would be vicious and frenzied. |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 919
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 03, 2004 - 10:30 pm: | |
Hi Diana,
I love cats more than anything, but that one I would certainly keep away from. "The Ripper" would indeed be a suitable name for him -- or maybe just Jack. Talk about disorganized with cunning traits...
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 684
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 1:54 pm: | |
Diana
interestingly enough young Thomas Cutbush attempted to slit the family's servant girl's throat, and attacked both his auntie and mother.
Problem being I don't know when these attacks took place, would be nice to know though.
But yes, I have always felt that redirected aggression played some role in Jack's crimes, whether big or small needs to be thought about and discussed at length.
I think your point about the transformation of your cat from a small bundle of cuddly fur into a raging predator that would attack anything is shockingly good... in other words such transformation can occur in an animal or human merely by glimpsing an object that has negative qualities to them, this then brings us to fight or flight which is the reaction you describe. Your cat decided to fight, but you will note not against the real target of its aggressive reaction of fight or flight but against something else, you, now if you had opened the window and put the cat outside in direct contact with the target of its aggression the reaction would have been - of course - flight.
Now apply that to Jack, and we see then why he attacked prostitutes.
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 586
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 6:19 am: | |
Hi All,
I understood that, originally, the difference between doctors and surgeons was that doctors were the ones with all the qualifications, while surgeons had to be little more than the slang term ‘sawbones’. There was also the age of barber-surgeons, but I’m not sure when exactly the turnaround came, which saw surgeons elevated to the level of doctors and beyond, and requiring a much higher degree of learning and expertise than was previously expected of them.
Hi AP,
You said recently that you had ‘no time for the likes of Canter’, because in the case of Duffy, he came up with a ‘brilliant’ suggestion that any kid could have done.
But why is that Canter’s fault? What would anyone else do, if asked for that kind of expertise? Tell ‘em to work it out for themselves and turn down the work?
And how can you conclude that Canter made a ‘bad job’ of it, by telling it like it was?
I agree with Leanne and Richard about those odds regarding Stride and Eddowes. The ‘double event’ here in Croydon last summer is a perfect example – one man responsible for two quite different attacks in the same neighbourhood in the same short space of time. Bags of your ‘noise’ for the first, where the man was unable to ‘finish straight off’, and witnesses actually gave chase, but no ‘noise’ at all for the second, which was an extremely brutal murder with a different MO.
Yes, it’s possible for a domestic to masquerade as a serial murder. And the chances would be tiny that both killers would be doing the deed too closely together in time for them to be considered the work of only one man. But conversely, in the 1888 double event, the first woman was killed at the perfect time, an hour or so before a second, and the perfect location, about a quarter of an hour’s walk from a second, to make everyone link the two. In your scenario, the domestic killer couldn’t have planned it any better. For all he knew, the killer of Nichols and Chapman might never have struck again, could even have been in custody by then. Could there ever have been two luckier killers operating together like this, but separately, within an hour of one another? Personally I very much doubt it.
If, as you are arguing, Stride’s killer had more time to mutilate her than Jack had with Eddowes, why didn’t he, if he was indeed trying to make his ‘domestic’ appear like one of a blossoming series? A quick slash couldn’t have been out of the question, surely? Whereas I can imagine all sorts of reasons for Jack moving swiftly on to find another victim in another place where he finally let rip.
And lastly, if Cutbush can get yet another mention, this time alongside the very reasonable notion that Jack may finally have turned his aggression on the female relative at the heart of his supposed troubles, why not old James Maybrick?  I don’t know when he began hitting Florie for the wrongs she had done him, but it may not have been until the spring of 1889…. Are you sure you weren’t commissioned by the stupid diary forger to give him/her granny-sucking-eggs style tips about the ripper’s likely psychology? 
Love,
Caz
(Message edited by Caz on January 05, 2004) |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 231
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 7:34 am: | |
Glenn got me thinking about the organized/disorganized thing re my cat. Most of the time you would have said he was organized (as much as a cat can be). He used his litter box and not the floor, he knew where his food bowl was, he kept his fur groomed, he hunted birds. He acted like any ordinary cat.
But when he went berserk it was like a Jekyll and Hyde thing.
I need to understand more about the organized/disorganized paradigm because I'm beginning to see a problem. I'm beginning to suspect that JtR might have been like the cat and the Jekyll and Hyde paradigm does not match the organized/disorganized paradigm.
Under the o/d paradigm, or at least my limited grasp of it you are one way or the other or some degree inbetween all the time. Under the J/H paradigm you are organized one minute and disorganized the next.
One minute Jack was peacefully making a business arrangement with a lady of the night and going with her like a thousand other men/Spotty was peacefully perching on the windowsill looking out at nature like a thousand other cats. Organized, right?
The next minute Jack went mad, choked his victim into insensibility, slashed her throat, and disemboweled her/Spotty growled, hissed, and leaped on the nearest human, scratching furiously with his claws, sinking his fangs into any available flesh. Disorganized, right?
How can one man/cat be both? |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 7:21 am: | |
I agree with AP on this, the Stride killing is significantly different from all the others and just doesn't seem to fit any which way.
If Schwartz's man is Jack, he's acting uncharacteristically aggressive in public.
If Jack came along immediately later, he's knowingly getting involved with someone who just previously was involved in a public spectacle with a man (or men) who could return at any time. That doesn't match the other Ripper killings and doesn't fit typical serial killer strategy either. The timing on it just seems a little unreasonable too.
If Jack showed up after enough time that he wasn't aware of the spectacle, that makes the timing even more tight.
If it was Jack he was definitely off his game. I waver on how likely it is that she was a ripper victim, but she's definitely by far the weakest of the canonical five. Sometimes I rank her below Tabram or even Brown, sometimes not.
But, as far as whether Jack was schizophrenic or not, if Stride was his that's probably the single biggest indicator that he might not always be thinking straight. Of course most of the famous profilers assume she is, so it's no wonder they lean toward a disorganized maniac. |
Bullwinkle
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 2:20 pm: | |
The above theories seem about as far out as you can get. Are we to think of the Whitechapel murderer as half-cat? That he had a cat in him that craved release and found it by transferring aggressive impulses to prostitutes? Why shoul anyone believe such a thing? This sounds like some pre-historical American Indian mumbo-jumbo, like the Chief of the tribe being named Moon Face Bear or something. Evidence for the Cat Theory, please.
Meow,
Bullwinkle
|
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 923
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 10:27 am: | |
"If it was Jack he was definitely off his game. I waver on how likely it is that she was a ripper victim, but she's definitely by far the weakest of the canonical five. Sometimes I rank her below Tabram or even Brown, sometimes not."
I can agree with Dan here. Even though I personally would include here among the Ripper victims, I think it is hard to disregard that she is the most problematic one and the one to be questioned the most.
"If Schwartz's man is Jack, he's acting uncharacteristically aggressive in public."
And that is one of the reasons why I don't think that was her killer at all.
Regarding personality disorders: It is my belief that Jack was somewhat of a schizofrenic; you don't have to be a complete lunatic to fit this picture. Actually there has been schizofrenic killers with quite organized traits.
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 924
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 10:30 am: | |
David,
I can't speak on Diana's behalf, but I wouldn't make too much out of the cat thing. It was just a side story to this discussion. At least nothing serious on my part.
----------------------------------
Caz,
A splendid post!
I agree with you completely.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 687
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 2:05 pm: | |
Greetings Caz and Cats one and all
Your points about Canter are so fair that I can’t possibly argue against them, but I can struggle a bit as I go down the drain.
It wasn’t the fact that Canter might have had little choice in the matter of what he was saying that irritated me, it was the fact that he was crowing about it like some old rooster sat on a fence surveying his hens.
I do remember watching an interview with some senior police officers involved in the hunt for Duffy when Canter made his utterly revealing announcement; their faces were the perfect picture of stunned confusion, as these good officers had known all along that Duffy was a railway man and that he lived in the local area, but some chief constable or the other had decided to bring in Canter to appease agitated public opinion, in this most vain, vapid and vacuous demonstration showing that the police were actively doing ‘something’ to catch the rapist turned killer.
I’m afraid this is where I do see a role for the profiler, as a dog to throw to the crowd when public opinion is running against the forces of law and order because of their failure to catch a killer.
No more than a wet sop thrown against a dry wall, but it does satisfy public opinion to know that such experts are working on the case.
All said and done a profiler is good public relations for a failing police force that doesn’t have a working lighter so get this magician to rub some dry sticks together instead in the hope of getting some smoke.
Personally if I was a profiler and was asked to undertake these totally useless public relation exercises on behalf of the police I would give it up and go back to selling second-hand cars.
I don’t think I ever said Canter made a ‘bad job’ of it, in fact he probably made a very good job and very likely quite a few bob of it.
Good on him, away to go Canter!
Another beautiful home goal.
Like many others Caz, you are making the mistake of applying the ‘noise’ element I speak of to events that have taken place after crimes have been committed and not the events leading up to the crimes. This is a vital distinction to be made as ‘noise’ after a crime is not a predictor of events to come. There is a purpose in the events leading up to a crimes but in events after the crime there is no purpose.
I agree that the odds are against two serial killers operating in that area of Whitechapel on the same night are not good, but I believe the odds for a domestic killing by someone else within the timed exploits of a serial killer are far stronger. I’m sorry but the Stride killing is so unusually different to all the others in this respect that I don’t feel I can be convinced that it was the work of a serial killer.
Thomas was sentenced to spend almost his entire adult life in the highest security prison of its time, James was not.
As ever Caz, clever and reasonable arguments from you, and I am almost persuaded that you are right in everything you say… almost.
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 593
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 1:41 pm: | |
Hi AP,
Thank you for your kind words, in response to my own rather harsh ones.
I don’t think anyone was arguing that two unlinked serial killers were operating that night. I was merely pointing out the problems I have with the theory that Stride’s murder was a domestic that her killer luckily just squeezed in, an hour or so before he could have known that the maniac who had murdered and mutilated on at least two previous occasions was about to strike again.
Neither could he have known that the locations and circumstances of both murders would so neatly allow for the Mitre Square maniac to have also been in Berner Street for the Stride encounter, complete with good reasons why he might abandon plans to mutilate this victim and thus be compelled to move on to the next.
That night last summer in West Croydon, where two women were attacked, the first half-strangled who survived, the second battered to death, no common features were reported apart from the victims being female and the closeness to one another in time and space – in fact the attacks seem to have had less in common with each other than those on Stride and Eddowes. Yet they know from CCTV that one man was responsible for both, setting out to find himself a second victim that night after having to leave the first.
This is why I believe it is risky to argue that the ripper definitely didn’t kill Stride, although it’s perfectly ok to believe he may not have done.
Love,
Caz
|
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 691
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 4:21 pm: | |
Thanks Caz
I'd like to know a little bit more about this case you speak of, in West Croydon.
In particular I'd like to know why the attacker left of the attack on the first victim, plus the circumstance of the second attack would interest me. |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 238
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 7:32 am: | |
It might also be of value to explore Michael Kidney. I can buy that he was probably an abuser and he probably beat on Stride. It is quite a leap to go from that to grabbing her and slashing her throat. If he, indeed was Stride's killer we ought to see some pattern leading up to this crescendo of violence and we ought to be able to find echoes of it in subsequent relationships with women.
As to the cat, none of us have ever seen or met Jack or any of his ilk. I hope I never do. Not unless the individual is firmly ensconced in a steel cage and I am on the outside. But I did live with that cat and he did have a neurological short circuit somewhere and there were parallels.
Cats and men are not altogether alike, and yet we share a mammalian brain. If it was a waste of time to try to learn anything from animal behavior then why are behavioral scientists constantly experimenting with animals? |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 601
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 11:49 am: | |
Hi AP,
From memory, the first Croydon victim was a prostitute who left a female companion to go off with her attacker down a side road. (Some ‘noise’ there then?) Anyway, there was some kind of argument (over money I believe – it seems the man didn’t see why he should pay for it), and he ended up with his hands round her throat. She passed out but then came to and started screaming, which alerted some nearby youths, who gave chase as the attacker ran off, but he managed to get away.
He was seen on CCTV walking along the main London Road (where prostitutes are known to operate) evidently looking for another woman to pick up. A woman (not reported as a known prostitute) who was returning from a 24 hour shop was later dragged down an alleyway very close to her home and battered to death and beyond with a lump of wood and extreme brutality. Her shopping was left untouched.
The police apparently linked these two attacks with at least two other incidents, an attempted abduction some time later (and shortly before an 18 year-old man was arrested and charged with murder and attempted murder), and a vicious attack the previous winter in which a woman was attacked with an iron bar but survived.
If the same man was indeed responsible for all these attacks, he appears to me to be an extremely dangerous serial offender.
Love,
Caz
(Message edited by Caz on January 07, 2004) |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 1:00 am: | |
Diana wrote:
"The next minute Jack went mad, choked his victim into insensibility, slashed her throat, and disemboweled her/Spotty growled, hissed, and leaped on the nearest human, scratching furiously with his claws, sinking his fangs into any available flesh. Disorganized, right? "
No, not really disorganized. Depends.
*If* Jack were fully intending to go with the women to have sex, or got talked into going with the women somehow, and then suddenly flipped out, howled and killed them by waving his pointy sharp thing at them repeatedly, while everyone nearby came running wondering what was up, that'd be like your cat.
It seems more likely to me that he knew he wanted to kill and took organized steps to accomplish that goal. If your cat were like this, it would have waited until one of you were alone and preferably vulnerable and attacked with stealth, going for vital spots. Ideally, nobody would have had a chance to yell a warning and run away beforehand. Cat or no cat, I daresay with that kind of strategy it would have probably gotten more serious damage in than it actually did.
That's an extremely simplified example, but more accurately displays the difference between organized (intent, planning, efficiency) and disorganized (couldn't help himself, spur of moment, slapdash) killings. And, of course, there are degrees of each, so one wouldn't have to be at the far end of the scale... although anyone reading this thread knows I personally think it is rather lopsided toward one end. |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 941
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 2:38 am: | |
Most disorganized or mixed killers have an intent to kill and do stalk their victims, the intent in itself doesen't make them organized, that is a complete misconception. He could still be compulsive and out of control. Some people here are confusing "intent" with "planning" -- stalking a victim and choosing the right time to act is NOT necessarily the same as strategy or planning, and therefore doesen't have to indicate an organized killer. We've had a lot of killers here in Sweden that have been diagnosed as schizofrenics and as disorganized, but who have performed their acts quite neatly and hasn't been that easy to catch.
A disorganized killer have no rational motive for his killings and does it for compulsive reasons only -- that doesen't mean he can't choose his victims carefully or act rationally at certain occasions. The man who in september stabbed our minister of Foreign Affairs, Anna Lindh, to death in a shopping mall -- and who just recently confessed to it -- is one such example. He has severe mental problems indeed and is not considered an organized character in any way, and he was rather hard to catch to begin with.
Once again, a disorganized killer is NOT the same as a raving lunatic.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 243
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 9:58 am: | |
I am in the midst of a book called Monster describing the serial rapist/killer Tom Luther. It has given me a lot of insight. Luther claims to have been raised by an abusive mother and a lot of his victims seemed to resemble her physically. Luther was very cunning and manipulative and was described by the professionals who evaluated him as being above average intelligence. But emotionally he was wacked out. He frequently went into uncontrollable rages against women who crossed him in any way. The rage was acted out through rape and or murder. One example was when he was up for parole and the parole board said no. He completely lost it and started screaming that he would rape all their wives and children. Rape was for him a means of punishing anyone who thwarted him. He had no remorse.
One day while cruising around a small town he saw a young woman get off a bus and stand in the cold waiting for the people who were supposed to pick her up. When they didn't show he offered her a lift. They cruised around for 45 minutes looking for her friend's house. When she couldn't find it she thanked him and asked him to please take her to the nearest police station so she could find out where her friends lived. At that point he stopped the vehicle and brutally raped her and she barely escaped with her life. He said later that the only reason he didn't kill her with his gun was they were in a subdivision and he was afraid someone would hear the report. He claimed to have no intentions of raping her until right before the rape she began acting snobbish and it made him mad. When he got home he left his truck in the driveway without cleaning it out. The next day an officer cruised by his house and saw a bloody handprint on the rear window. Peering inside the truck he saw blood spatter and pools of blood everywhere.
1. Was he planning the rape when he picked her up at the bus station? The man says not but the book describes him as a congenital liar. But then I wondered what he was planning to do if she located her friends house? How could he have raped her there? Maybe some innocent action of hers actually did trigger him. I don't know.
2. He had the presence of mind, even when engaged in a frenzied attack on his victim to not use a gun in a subdivision. Organized.
3. He did not have the foresight to drive to a deserted area where he could freely use his gun before starting the attack. Disorganized.
3. He left his truck, a mobile crime scene, covered with forensic evidence so the first cruising cop could spot it in his driveway the next day. Disorganized.
4. The incident with the parole board was definitely not planned and not in his best interest. Disorganized. |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 244
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 10:07 am: | |
Though Tom was intelligent, he was caught. No profilers were needed. His disorganized act of leaving the truck in the driveway as-is was his downfall. Yet he was bright enough to be able to lure the victim into his truck in the first place, and later while in prison, he was able to deceive another woman to begin a romance by mail with him. Her pleading to the judge was instrumental in Tom's release. Once out he wrecked her life and resumed killing. |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 943
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 10:18 am: | |
Interesting, Diana. A good example of a killer belonging to the mixed category. Could the Ripper has been someone similar to this? Quite possible, I must admit.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 245
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 10:32 am: | |
As to whether he planned to do the rape or not I still don't know, but bear in mind that it was in his interest to say something like, "I just don't know what came over me all of a sudden." This man's story helped me to understand for the first time the connection between rage/hate and rape/lust murder. Luther saw his actions as a means to punish. The victim described his demeanor during the attack as one of rage/hate.
This particular murder illustrates how too much disorganization leads to immediate apprehension. The profilers write about such people but I suspect are rarely called in to help catch them as they are easy to catch. However I suspect Tom Luther learned from this experience and became more organized the next time (I haven't finished the book yet!) |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 6:24 am: | |
Glenn wrote:
"Some people here are confusing "intent" with "planning""
There may be a language barrier here. Intent most definitely does imply planning. How much planning and if the plans make sense are some of the determining factors. Intent is one of the factors on the end of the organized scale. That's not to say that a disorganized killer can't have intent, it's more a recognition that the stronger the intent, the more organized it is.
"stalking a victim and choosing the right time to act is NOT necessarily the same as strategy or planning"
That certainly is strategy. If you didn't have strategy you would attack at any time. It involves planning too, though it may not be very extensive planning.
"and therefore doesen't have to indicate an organized killer."
No one individual thing indicates an organized killer. But certainly the more planning, strategy and intent involved the more organized they are.
"A disorganized killer have no rational motive for his killings"
And most of the motives of organized killers don't sound that rational either.
"and does it for compulsive reasons only"
Organized killers generally have compulsions too. It all comes down to a question of control.
"that doesen't mean he can't choose his victims carefully or act rationally at certain occasions."
Which is basically the same as saying a disorganized killer can be somewhat organized sometimes.
"Once again, a disorganized killer is NOT the same as a raving lunatic. "
A raving lunatic killer is the far end of the scale of disorganized killers. The less raving lunatic they are, they less disorganized they are.
I'm not sure what exactly it is about the classification system that you are disagreeing with. |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 962
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 10, 2004 - 4:26 pm: | |
Hi Dan,
It may not be language barriers, but I believe we interpret the terms and definitions a bit differently; your seem to be broader than mine.
Let's see what I can make of this.
What makes much of these discussions problematic is that people in my view are too careless with how they use the definitions. Of course everything is about degrees and scales, and of course one can find elements of planning in a disorganized killer. But as I see it, everyone does something with an intent, apart from those who is really demented. Most disorganized killers does something with an intent, but their intentions and decisions can nevertheless be more irrational than those we see in a clear organized killer.
To me strategy and planning leads to crimes that -- although their motives can be irrational to us -- are more thought through beforehand, and might also involve features like manipulation of the victim etc. That we hardly see in a disorganized killer, even though those can vary in degree on a scale of intelligence. There IS a difference. Most of the things that really could pass for natural instincts, are sometimes here being interpreted as signs of intelligence or organized traits. I think that is an error to make.
I don't agree on that stalking a victim and choosing the right time to act has something to do with planning or strategy. This is something all disorganized killers do -- even animals do this. Since we don't know who the killer is, we can't of course know if stalking on a certain occasion is a part of a larger planning scheme, but I don't think we should automatically take this for granted. As I said, every killer does this more or less, even those who are mentally ill and have a relatively low grasp of reality. That is what is called "animal cunning", and to credit this as a part of intelligence or an organized personality is in my view a mistake. It is a natural instinct to choose a proper victim and to follow it around until the coast is clear. No need to necessarily make it into something beyond that. But here we obviously disagree.
"No one individual thing indicates an organized killer. But certainly the more planning, strategy and intent involved the more organized they are."
It is true, but somewhere we must make the necessary distinctions between the terms. I think the problem lies in this point. If we expand the possible ingredients in every category too much, the terms looses their meaning and it all just becomes confusing. It is obvious that a disorganized killer can show some amounts of planning and an organized one to be irrational at some points to various degrees.
"Organized killers generally have compulsions too. It all comes down to a question of control."
That is also true, but it is the control issue that is my point here, when I speak of compulsion. A disorganized killer have a lesser form of self-control and would maybe perform a murder under situations an organized wouldn't, due to his weaker ability to control his compulsions.
"A raving lunatic killer is the far end of the scale of disorganized killers. The less raving lunatic they are, they less disorganized they are."
That I think is obvious too, Dan, but I sometimes feel that is how people think when they are referring to a disorganized murderer, in spite of numerous discussions where I've tried to tone that thing down. A disorganized killer CAN be a raving lunatic, but he necessarily doesen't HAVE TO be -- and if we're talking serial killings I believe the chances for that are quite slim.
Planning, in the words' clear meaning -- with precautions and pre-arrangements -- is something I think solely belong to the organized category, or maybe as a part of the features of a mixed offender. To consider it as a part of a disorganized personality, is to make the categorization effort impossible. Things are confusing enough as they are. And as I don't see evidence of such planning or precautions in the Ripper's case (all I see is intent, although a somewhat confused such) I don't see him as an organized offender. However, I can expand my views to accept that there are signs of a possible mixed offender, since some of the traits indicates a higher bit of cunning than what we see in a completely disorganized one.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 251
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 11, 2004 - 8:48 am: | |
A pure disorganized killer is going to be caught the first time out. Either that or those around him, viewing with alarm his growing eccentricity and violence are going to get him locked up before he kills anyone (at least in 1888 they could). He never gets a chance to be an unknown much less an SK.
There are probably a lot of pure organized types walking around scott free. Either they have managed to cover up their crime to the point that nobody knows it was murder, or nobody will ever find out they did it.
The SKs we pursue will always be to some degree mixed. But what quality are we talking about? To me it seems this organized/disorganized thing refers to degree of derangement. How much control do the frontal lobes have in this individual? How much control do the lower brain centers have? If this person is driven by rage and hate to the point of acting weird most of the time then they tend more toward the disorganized end of the scale. If they seem normal, logical and controlled, if their crimes are done almost as a work of art then they tend more toward the organized end of the spectrum. But its all a matter of degree, because killing people at all is definitely a disorganized act.
Furthermore I don't think o/d necessarily coordinates with intelligence. I think intelligence is a whole other quality. We have all heard of mad geniouses.
So you could have a primarily disorganized SK with low, average, or high intelligence.
You could have a primarily mixed SK with low, medium or high intelligence.
You could have a very organized SK with low, medium or high intelligence.
You almost have to set a grid with X and Y coordinates.
Then there is the issue of multiple intelligences. I don't personally hold with all the artificial divisions created by Gardner, but each brain performs multiple functions some better than others. Each of us is strong in some areas and weak in others. You can't speak of intelligence as a huge, amorphous mass.
Some of the divisions are: language, pure logic (exemplified in math), spatial skills, auditory memory, visual memory, olfactory memory, gustatory memory, tactile memory, organizational skills, long term and short term memory, motor skills -- fine and gross (you can't be a surgeon without these). Look at what you know of yourself. You will probably find that while you are very intelligent in some of these divisions you are nearly hopeless in others. All of us are this way. The most extreme example is the idiot-savant.
Having said that, there are individuals, who for
whatever reason have a global impairment. Something has gone terribly wrong neurologically and these people cannot function well in any area.
The old word was retarded. It is now considered insensitive and unkind and the only reason I use it is because some of us have not yet realized that we now say "developmentally delayed." I don't think our unsub could have had the degree of success he had if he was one of these. |
Frank van Oploo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 137
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 11, 2004 - 9:44 am: | |
Hi Glenn and Dan,
“Most of the things that really could pass for natural instincts, are sometimes here being interpreted as signs of intelligence or organized traits. I think that is an error to make.”
Most of the things that really could pass for organized traits are sometimes here being interpreted as natural instincts.
Perhaps there isn’t any ‘hard’ evidence to back up the opinion that the Ripper displayed organized traits to some extent (except for Mary Kelly’s case), but likewise there isn’t any ‘hard’ evidence to back up the disorganized traits either.
“I don't agree on that stalking a victim and choosing the right time to act has something to do with planning or strategy. This is something all disorganized killers do -- even animals do this. … It is a natural instinct to choose a proper victim and to follow it around until the coast is clear. No need to necessarily make it into something beyond that.”
If I remember correctly David Berkowitz didn’t stalk (all of) his victims, but I’m sure Richard Trenton Chase didn’t. Some killers only look for victims that are available, others look for specific physical characteristics or specific circumstances and some aren’t really looking for them, they just meet or see them and at some point the victims trigger or provoke the killer to strike.
By the way, Glenn, I agree with you on the meaning of ‘intent’ and ‘planning’. ‘Intent’ feels more like a short-term thing, whereas ‘planning’ relatively speaking is a long(er)-term thing.
All the best,
Frank
|
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, January 11, 2004 - 10:47 am: | |
Glenn wrote:
"What makes much of these discussions problematic is that people in my view are too careless with how they use the definitions."
I would agree with this, but then I disagree on who is being careless.
"To me strategy and planning leads to crimes that -- although their motives can be irrational to us -- are more thought through beforehand, and might also involve features like manipulation of the victim etc. That we hardly see in a disorganized killer, even though those can vary in degree on a scale of intelligence. There IS a difference. "
I would agree with this too, but then I see all the hallmarks of manipulation, organization and so forth in the Ripper crimes.
"If we expand the possible ingredients in every category too much, the terms looses their meaning and it all just becomes confusing."
Which is why I've been complaining all along that the criteria you seem to be using to describe a "disorganized killer" would describe most of the ones who have been caught and labeled organized killers.
"A disorganized killer CAN be a raving lunatic, but he necessarily doesen't HAVE TO be -- and if we're talking serial killings I believe the chances for that are quite slim. "
He doesn't have to be, but is far more likely to be, by definition. And I would say that the only reason raving lunatic disorganized killers aren't a high percentage of serial killers is because their disorganization makes it very difficult to pull off repeat performances successfully. And on the sliding scale the more successful disorganized serial killers are the ones who are more organized.
At some point, though, as they pick up more of the organized traits they have to cease being called disorganized. You've claimed that disorganized killers can have so many organized aspects and tried to avoid the raving maniac aspect so much that, to me at least, you are describing an organized killer with the slightest hint of irrational behavior as mixed, an organized killer with a couple irrationalities as disorganized, and the normal definition of disorganized as something off the scale that you get upset when anyone mentions.
"And as I don't see evidence of such planning or precautions in the Ripper's case"
Then we disagree. Again. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
