|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Adam Pharr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 5:34 pm: | 
|
Didn't renowned FBI profiler John Douglas choose Kosminski as the suspect who most closely fit his profile of the Ripper? |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 269
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 10:57 pm: |
|
yes, on the 1988 television broadcast when he presented his profile he chose Kosminski as the most likely on psychological grounds, but he only had four to choose from |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 499
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 5:51 am: |
|
Adam - in fact he didn't specifically choose Kosminski, his exact words were that it was Kosminski "or someone very much like him". In his book The Cases That Haunt Us he amended that choice to David Cohen "or someone very much like him". |
Bullwinkle
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 10:38 pm: |
|
No. Douglas' associate Roy Hazelwood chose Kosminski as his profile-based suspect. Douglas chose David Cohen as his profiled suspect.
Profiling is not a major tool for the Ripperologist, because it is an open-ended kind of thing, whereas our case evidence ended a century ago.
Nither Hazelwood nor Douglas are entirely correct.
Bullwinkle
|
Adam Pharr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 2:30 pm: |
|
Thanks for the responses. Yes from what I've read Douglas specifically said that over 100 years after the crimes he couldn't say Kosminski or anyone else was the Ripper. He simply felt someone like him which I believe all of you echoed correctly. I didn't know he amended his choice to Cohen though. It would also be interesting to know which four suspects he was given to choose from.
Adam |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 270
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 9:45 pm: |
|
In the broadcast Kosminski was identified with Cohen and an attempt was made to suggest they were one and the same.
I think (going by memory) that the other three were the prince, Gull and Druitt. |
Bullwinkle
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 10:31 pm: |
|
I'd personally like to add that I think Roy Hazelwood is a hell of a man. Really. He's not correct on his profile for the Whitechapel murderer, but that's okay since nobody is. I did see him on another documentary regarding sexual serial murder unrelated to the Whitechapel murders, and was impressed. He's a real stud profiler. Just like Melvin Harris was a real stud Ripperologist, IMHO. Not that they are necessarily right, or necessarily lovable and cuddly, but that each is a hell of a man, respectively.
Bullwinkle
|
Ken Morris
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 10:03 am: |
|
Adam Pharr-
If you are still here sir, i know it has been awhile, but I have a copy of the cases that haunt us in front of me, and in Mr. Douglas' words he had, "Robert Donston Stephenson, who often went by the nameDr. Roslyn D'Onston; Montague John Druitt, and Aaron Kosminski, two of Macnaghten's suspects; Sir William Gull the royal physician; and Prince Edward ALbert, Duke of Clarence."
He does change his view to a man like David Cohen, and also mentions a man named Nathan Kaminsky. His belief stated in "the cases that haunt us" is that the police men got their three polish jews confused with one another.
Here's looking at you kids-
Ken |
Archie Bunker
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 9:22 pm: |
|
I know that Fido believes the police confused their Jews, but who are the three wise Jews Douglas referenced? |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1069
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 17, 2005 - 6:00 am: |
|
If Douglas mentioned Cohen and Kaminsky, and confusion between three Polish Jews, presumably he gave credence to Fido's theory of confusion between Kosminsky, Kaminsky and Cohen.
Chris Phillips
|
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 388
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 17, 2005 - 8:52 pm: |
|
Some quick facts about John Douglas:
* He thinks Kennedy was killed by a lone gunman, Oswald. Why? Because he fits Douglas's profile.
* He endorses the ludicrous 'single bullet' theory
* He believes Tex Watson controlled the Manson girls, and Manson himself was just swept up.
* Profiling grew on the back of the Atlanta Child murder case; the first major case to use the Behavioral Science Unit. They caught the wrong guy. Douglas still claims they didn't.
* Douglas continues to claim DeSalvo was the Boston Strangler, even after DNA has exonerated him.
* Douglas was paid by the parents of JonBenet Ramsey to endorse their innocence. He claims they couldn't have murdered JonBenet and goes so far as to claim her murder scene wasn't staged. The actual FBI investigation (Douglas was 'retired' at this point) concluded JonBenet had to have been killed by someone inside the house - the total opposite of Douglas's opinion.
* Douglas knows nothing of Victorian England.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
P.S. I like John Douglas and enjoy reading his books. Nevertheless, he's wrong a lot. |
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 598
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 17, 2005 - 10:15 pm: |
|
Tom...
Two things...
First: Profiling grew on the back of the Atlanta Child murder case; the first major case to use the Behavioral Science Unit. They caught the wrong guy. Douglas still claims they didn't.
The murders ceased correct? Then are you in agreement with the theory that the killer is still out there? I think that they got their man.
Second:
Please tell me that you are kidding and that Douglas didn't say Tex Watson was the brains behind Manson. You have got to be kidding that he said that.
HowBrown
|
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 389
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 3:30 pm: |
|
Howard,
The Atlanta Child Murders in no way ceased following the arrest of Wayne Williams. And, yes, Douglas feels that Manson had no intention of murder, and that Watson was the aggressor. |
Harry Mann
Detective Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 103
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 5:56 am: |
|
What is the composition of the profile of the Ripper? I understand that Kosminski's profile is likened to that of the ripper,but who is the author of the two profiles that have been compared and apparently found to correspond.On what evidence is the profile of Kosminski established.What are the elements?
What is the value of a profile found at a murder scene,if the behaviour of a killer under normal living conditions,be unlike that when in a killing rage.
One can understand how a fingerprint or D,N.A ,can be gathered and compared ,but can a profile,even if understood or established,by itself isolate a suspect.Can each profile be said to be so unique,that without question it can be proved to belong to only one single individual?
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 658
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 7:06 am: |
|
Hi Harry,
To answer your last question: no, it can't and I don't think that's the purpose of a profile. A profile is supposed to be a tool that can be used to narrow down the number of possible suspects, that way enabling the police to do their investigations more efficiently and effectively.
That is, of course, provided that the profile is correct, or close to it.
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
ERey
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 4:50 pm: |
|
Tom,
I don't have much of an opinion about John Douglas one way or the other (I will say that anyone who takes Gilmore's book "Severed" seriously as a resource on the Black Dahlia case is, at best, a lazy researcher), but I believe you are mistaken in regard to the Boston Strangler case.
I distinctly remember a section in "Cases That Haunt Us" wherein Douglas details the reason why he believes Albert DeSalvo is NOT the Boston Strangler.
I found this online Q&A session, hosted by USA Today around the time "Cases That Haunt Us" came out, which confirms my memory:
John Douglas: For years, I've believed that Albert DeSalvo didn't fit the profile of the Boston Strangler. I also think that we had more than one offender operating in Boston at that time. DeSalvo was basically a nuisance type offender; he would go to apartments and tell women that he was from a modelling agency and ask to measure their bodies. Then he was involved in rapes. I would categorize him as a "power-reassurance" rapist: an inadequate type who wants to be sure his performance is good in the eyes of the female. As far as the homicides are concerned, they're the result of a lust murderer.
In the same interview, he also said this about the Atlanta child murders, which would imply he thinks they both did and didn't get the wrong guy:
John Douglas: I certainly would reprofile the case, however Wayne Williams is responsible for some, not all of those murders in Atlanta. Although it was said he was responsible for over 20 homicides, he was only linked to two. Forensic evidence linked him to those homicides.
I couldn't find anything Douglas has said about Tex Watson. |
Joanne Simons
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 7:10 am: |
|
Mr Marriott in his book Jack The Ripper The 21st century Investigation discusses the criminal profiler, and the tenuos links put forward His views are quite interesting reading. he say how profiles can hinder an enquiry. he also analyses the profile of Jack as put forward by FBI profiler who ever that was |
Harry Mann
Detective Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 104
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, June 20, 2005 - 5:31 am: |
|
Frank,
I agree with you,and my post was to show that a physcological profile,by itself has little value as an aid to an investigator.
The profile of a crime scene however is something quite different.In this respect, profile,is nothing more than the old fashioned ,'Characteristics of the crime scene'.Invent a new word and get recognition.
Kosminski was investigated because he had a known mental condition,as was the case with many other inhabitants of Whitechapel.There were no characteristics from the crime scenes that,when applied to them,had significant cause to isolate and cause suspicion. |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3612
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 20, 2005 - 5:50 am: |
|
Harry,
Although I agree with most of what you say here -- indeed, the core of the type of analysis that is done with profiling is in reality nothing but practical common sense and interpretation of a crime scene, that should be applied in any investigation anyway.
However,as for your last sentence, "There were no characteristics from the crime scenes that,when applied to them, had significant cause to isolate and cause suspicion", I can't agree with that.
There were points in the profile that -- according to both Douglas and Hazelwood -- directly were suggested by the crime scene and in turn showing the approach and mind of the killer.
One of the reasons for why they fell for Kosminski (or in Douglas case: "...or someone like him/David Cohen") was the evidence of fast blitz style attacks, which led the FBI profilers to the conclusion that he was unsure of himself and was fearful of women, since he wanted them dead quickly and to interact with them as little as possible.
Plus the fact that the nature of the mutilations inflicted on the victims pointed at a disorganized offender, and among the known suspects that the FBI studied for their profile, Kosminski was the one that fitted those characterising best.
So their analysis was not purely built on general stuff about insane killers but on facts from the actual crime scenes (as a profile or criminal psychological evaluation should be) that lead them to a certain conclusion.
Then, if you need a profiler for this, is another question...
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Welhan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 20, 2005 - 8:00 am: |
|
Another thing: the 'Ripper' murders stopped following Kosminski's incarceration in the nut house |
Welham
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 20, 2005 - 8:02 am: |
|
Further to the 'evidence' against (or in favour of) Kosminski: the 'Ripper' murders stopped following his incarceration in the nut house. |
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 396
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 20, 2005 - 8:41 pm: |
|
Don't you mean they stopped long before his incarceration in a nut house? |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3618
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 20, 2005 - 9:00 pm: |
|
Welham,
As Tom implies, Kosminski wasn't incarcerated at Colney Hatch until 1891 and therefore do not fit that particular 'evidence' that well.
And even if that would have been the case, the same argument could be put forward in favour of the candidacy of others -- there are a few suspects that fits that time frame (Tumblety leaving for America; Druitt, who was found drowned in the Thames after the Kelly murder etc.)
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 438
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 1:11 am: |
|
" the evidence of fast blitz style attacks, which led the FBI profilers to the conclusion that he was unsure of himself and was fearful of women, since he wanted them dead quickly and to interact with them as little as possible. "
The problem I see with this, Glenn, is that given where Jack was 'operating' -- the streets of London -- he HAD to go for a quick dispatch. If he hadn't, he probably would have been caught at some point. So I could see how it might be dangerous to think we know whether Jack was unsure of himself.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Harry Mann
Detective Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 105
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 5:35 am: |
|
Glen,
Yes for once I agree with you,especially your last sentence.
Profiling is a complex theory,perhaps beyond the understanding of the average investigator,the person who has the responsibility of applying it in practice.
It is akin to mapping a person's mind,in my opinion a task beyond the capabilities of even some experienced medical personell.
I,like you,believe common sense one of the greatest assets in understanding and solving problems associated with crime. |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3619
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 6:46 am: |
|
Indeed, Harry,
Common sense, rational crime scene reading and empricism are under-rated. In my mind, much of the core of profiling is really something a good investigator with some knowledge of human behaviour should be able to conduct anyway.
The more advanced bits of profiling are, as I see it, academic and intellectual extensions that may work in theory but not always in reality.
However, one must never forget, that profiling was never meant as a tool to nail down one certain individual, but as a rough aid in trying to sort out which personality TYPE that might have committed the crime. And such generalisations are quite likely to get it wrong on occasion.
I have to agree with Mr Radka, though -- formerly known as Bullwinkle -- that I am generally more impressed with Mr Hazelwood than I am with John Douglas.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 309
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 11:22 am: |
|
Hi everyone,
I do have a bit of a problem with the assertion by the FBI that Jack was a disorganised killer.
Disorganised killers don't tend to worry too much about being caught, they are often found with bloodstained clothing on their person, leave lots of clues, etc. It is quite normal for such killers to be caught rather quickly.
JTR on the other hand never left any clues at the scene of a killing. He apparently didn't attract attention to himself by wandering around covered in blood etc and most importantly the weapon he used he brought with him and always took it away with him. this point at least shows a degree of planning that is normally absent in disorganised killer murders.
I would categorise him as an organised/disorganised killer. |
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 612
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 12:32 pm: |
|
Respectful of others opinions, regarding these profilers, I think thats its worth mentioning [ at least ] that the profile determined from the 1988 Centennial program, by Douglas and Hazlewood, may have been slightly stacked in favor of Kosminski. This isn't to dispute Kosminski-as-Ripper, only the line-up was partially,if unintentionally, biased.
Douglas and Hazlewood didn't know the actual physical appearance of Kosminski. Was he a skinny emaciated type that couldn't possibly have subdued a possibly heavier woman [ Nichols,Chapman...] or taller [ Stride,assuming she may have been a C5 victim for a moment ] woman in the manner that these women were? No signs of significant struggle were left in evidence at these three murders. The other 4 people, Gull,PAV,Druitt,and some guy named D'onston were all shown in photos and their conditions known at that time. Kosminski is shown only in a caricature.
Could he have had some other infirmity that is not known? This wasn't contemplated by the profilers.
He is easily the least likely to have been able to gain the trust of these women to go off into the dark for a quick one. Even Gull is a better likelihood to get some knee-trembling lovin' than Kosminski.
What we heard from these two profilers was a profile of the Ripper based on an idealized Kosminski,free of any impediment to his success.
I agree with Mr. Hinton on his organized part of the equation,that there is more to indicate that the Ripper,whomever he was,was organized enough to get away...cool enough to get the women to a spot before unleashing his mayhem...cool enough to continue despite the manhunt................
I agree with Sir Robert that the environs and time factor before someone may have seen him in the act display organized skills. I don't see any "fast blitz techniques" in the Chapman and Eddowes murders,for example. Hell, he stayed long enough to get what he wanted....and not a second less.
Get Hazlewood [ forget Douglas ] to examine a lineup like this one....
Kosminski
Cutbush
Kelly
Chapman
Bury
How would Aaron the K hold up in that lineup, regardless,once again, if subsequent research clearly proved that any one of them were not able to "be" the Ripper. All were pretty young dudes and all had,unlike Kosminski,performed acts of violence towards non-family members.
Toss in Druitt,who may have been just a victim of his own hand,because he would have had a better chance than Kosminski of overpowering a streetwise hooker[ being an athlete ] and successfully approaching one for some action.
To me,Kosminski was selected because he was the biggest midget in that circus. The one who fit a number of "shoes" that profilers base their guesses upon. An 8 percent success rate in any endeavor gets you fired,but not profiling.
Someone here at Casebook might want to start a thread and use profiling criteria to judge the 4 people I mentioned up against Aaron the K. It might be illuminating. Maybe Glenn Andersson could....
I think that had the four other people been in that lineup,and if the two profilers had to come up with one conclusion, there would have been a different final profile which would have emerged to state either Kosminski [ to be fair..] or one of the other four to have been the 'better suspect". In other words, Kosminski's selection may have been based on simpler deductive conclusions in 1988, considering that Druitt had no record of violence....Stephenson was a blowhard [still he's my blowhard..] with violence in his past from 27 years prior...Gull was around the corner from celebrating his Centennial....and PAV..who was accounted for.
What do you folks think ?
HowBrown
|
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 613
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 12:36 pm: |
|
I'm aware that the profilers used the term " a type like Kosminski" being the killer,rather than him specifically. However,for many this is the conclusion that was reached back in 1988...
HowBrown
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 439
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 1:00 pm: |
|
"Even Gull is a better likelihood to get some knee-trembling lovin' than Kosminski."
I think the Casebook message boards need a disclaimer: do not be drinking liquids near your keyboard when reading one of your posts, How. You have no idea how many times you've made me laugh out loud, dangerous when consuming coffee or an adult beverage.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 644
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 10:56 pm: |
|
I profile by hair-style. I place Douglas in the same general "type" as Donald Trump and that guy that used to sing on Lawrence Welk...capable of nearly anything. |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 6:25 pm: |
|
William Shatner used to wear that hairstyle too. Also Liberace I believe. Is it called the pompadour?
PS I've got more hair on each of various parts of my body than I do on my head.
|
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 629
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 8:35 pm: |
|
Rajah....
You ain't referring to Myron Floren,the Polish version of Flaco Jimenez, are ye?
Sir Bob Robert....
I apologize for yet another keyboard. If you think the posts are occasionally funny,you oughta see me !
Dave R...
I'll trade a half pound of headhair for a half pound of body hair. I look like a Ken Doll...and built like one down on the first floor.
Lets deal.....
....and since you are all here...in all honesty,how do you three think Kosminski rates,if put up contra a line-up like the one above? Just for ha-ha's...
(Message edited by howard on June 23, 2005)
(Message edited by howard on June 23, 2005)
HowBrown
|
Dustin Gould
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, July 03, 2005 - 7:37 pm: |
|
Howard,
If one takes into account, the many times Kosminski is refered to as being "insane", then on that note alone, I feel, he makes a lesser candidate than Stephenson. As people whom are clinically insane, do not practice rational thought, nor have the ability to make rational decisions. Henceforth, I doubt Kosminski would have had the requisite mental capabilities, to stalk, murder, flee, and dispose of evidence in all five cases. Stephenson, being of sound mind, most certainly would have. So compared to Kosminski, I give him the nod. |
Daniel DeJarnette
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 6:41 pm: |
|
Does anyone have any specifics on the occupation of the family members with which Aaron Kosminski lived. I have heard it described as Boot Maker, Furrier and Tanner. Has it been considered that these occupations in that time involved the cutting of flesh and the disecting of organs from (dead?) animals. This could explain why certan medical officials were confused on the issue of the medical expertise displayed on JTR's victims. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
