|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 504
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 12, 2003 - 10:42 am: |       |
Are we going to come up with Douglas's naked dancing armed bank robber?
...ow, go on...please !
Monty
 |
Erin Sigler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 128
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 12, 2003 - 12:09 pm: | |
Doesn't stabbing and throat cutting sound a bit like "smothering"?
Stabbing and throat-cutting the same as smothering? Are you serious? If you'd said suffocation and, say, strangulation, I might concede the point, since they're both forms of asphyxiation resulting in oxygen deprivation and brain death. Knife wounds (of any kind) can lead to death from exsanguination (blood loss). I certainly hope you can see the difference between someone holding a pillow over your face and someone severing your carotid artery.
How can you possibly state this as a fact? Profiling is not based on fact, end of story. I think profiling has its limits. What about the people who do not believe in profiling? Are they wrong?
Peter, YOU are the one who chose to use John Douglas, a profiler, to support your conjecture. You can't now state that profiling is invalid, because that negates your entire argument. Yes, there are many people who don't accept profiling as a legitimate scientific technique. I've said as much many times throughout this entire discussion. If you don't accept it, fine, but your statements above imply that you do, and as such, it is rather disingenuous of you to come back and say, "But some people don't believe in profiling!" when someone disagrees with you.
I really don't see much of a difference between M.O. and signature after what you and Glenn had stated.
Glenn and I have tried to explain this to you every way we know how. Perhaps you should consider reading John Douglas or Robert Ressler or Bob Keppel because clearly, we are not getting through to you. I will say, however, that the "naked dancing bank robber" analogy Monty mentioned is pretty apt. A bank robber who makes the staff and customers take off their clothes is exhibiting M.O. Because they are naked, the witnesses will probably be focusing less attention on him and more on themselves, and it also helps delay notification of law enforcement. A bank robber who takes off his own clothes and dances naked in front of the security cameras, however, exemplifies signature. It doesn't help him in the furtherance of his crime; in fact, as Douglas states, it actually hinders him, since the witnesses will now be paying even more attention to him and his own escape is delayed. Here's another example, this one from the world of serial murder: George Russell, the so-called "Bellevue Yuppie Murderer" beat, garrotted, and suffocated his victims. This is M.O.; or, as Alan said, it's how he killed them. He also posed them in strange, degrading, and complicated positions and even used "props" to complete the scene. This is signature. It is the why. Russell was a necrophile and a sadist. Murderering them was the means to an end; it was the positioning of the bodies that gave him sexual satisfaction and kept him out at nights trolling the clubs and bars around Bellevue. From a purely practical standpoint, he didn't need to go to such lengths, but the very fact that he did--his risk of discovery and apprehension growing stronger the longer he stayed with the bodies--indicates that the posing was absolutely crucial to his enjoyment of the crimes. It also helped the police to link crimes which may otherwise have gone unsolved.
Furthermore, the notion of M.O. does not come out of profiling, and the idea of signature is an accepted criminological term. Don't take my word for it; ask Bob Keppel, a recognized expert on signature who has a PhD in criminology, as well as well over 20 years of experience in the field (he tracked Ted Bundy).
No I have not. Have you looked at every single murder, rape, burglary, etc... out their [sic]? No, you have not, no one has. So how can you then go on saying that a signature of a killer cannot change?}
My experience here is utterly irrelevant. I did not originate the idea of signature. The people who did, moreover, are relying not on wild speculation but on their own decades of experience as well as statistics. If you're going to argue a point make sure you understand it first. I understand the idea of signature. I don't need to go out and view a hundred crime scenes to "get it" because that would be both unnecessary and redundant. You have made it clear that your knowledge on the subject of profiling (and indeed, criminology) is limited. Therefore, I feel it is unfair of you to dispute my conclusions about something without having conducted the same research into it as I have. It's like trying to discuss Dickens when you haven't read any Dickens and I have. You simply have no point of reference. Furthermore, if you had read the works of Douglas and other profilers and examined violent crime statistics, as many of us have, you probably wouldn't make that statement about Douglas contradicting himself, because you would know he didn't.
There are more simple explanations for the change of M.O. or signature.
Well, many of us seem to think these explanations are pretty simple. I mean, this is pretty basic stuff. If you don't accept it, that's fine; plenty of people don't. However, those people have generally read up on the subject and know what profiling is about so they're coming from a position of strength. You would be wise to do the same. Besides, it makes for some great reading, even if you don't agree with the authors's conclusions! 
(Message edited by Rapunzel676 on December 12, 2003) |
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 90
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 15, 2003 - 12:29 am: | |
Glenn,
He poisoned his women for other reasons than just sheer pleasure or instinct. The Ripper, on the other hand, has a very clear signature: the mutilations and possibly his display of the victim
If Chapman was the Ripper, it seemed that he wanted to start out with poisoning. Problem was, he couldn't obtain any. So, the next step would be to try something different. The poisoning was to watch his wives slowly die. That is why he photographed them as they were slowly decaying.
I say it again, poisoning and throat-cutting (and with the extension of mutilation as a signature) are totally different crimes psychologically -- profiling or not.
How can you forget the fact that Chapman may have gone a different route? Even going far enough (if those are the appropriate words) in changing the signature which you and Erin claim is unchangeable?
Everything I say is not based on profiling, Peter. Just simple common sense.
My commonsense tells me that any smart or even stupid serial killer would intentionally or unintentionally change his M.O. or signature.
|
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 91
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 15, 2003 - 12:37 am: | |
Erin
Stabbing and throat-cutting the same as smothering? Are you serious?
Yes, I was serious at the time, but my misinterpretation of the word made me think of something different.
Peter, YOU are the one who chose to use John Douglas, a profiler, to support your conjecture. You can't now state that profiling is invalid, because that negates your entire argument.
True, I was using John Douglas, but I think his wording was used to knock down those profiling myths about M.O. His wording seemed to go against the "basic profiling" of serial killers.
|
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 92
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 15, 2003 - 12:49 am: | |
Erin, Glenn
I think you guys have cleared up my confusion between M.O. and profiling.
Problem is, is that I'm getting the feeling that you guys and many other profilers use this as fact. It is indeed, not fact. It will never be fact. It's impossible to get into a serial killers mind and that is what I think many profilers are trying to do. Claiming that signature in a serial killer will never change is just absurd.
Regarding Chapman, there was no need for him to mutilate his wives when he had poisoned them. The poisoning was a "clean" way to get rid of them. It was a different experiment than ripping. On the other hand, if he was the Ripper, the mutilating was an exceptional need. He did cut their throats, so really, why not mutilate them? If has a knife already, then it would make sense. In the poisoning case, there was no need for a knife.
Both cases had two different needs and it is not a hard pill to swallow when I say that Chapman could have been experimenting with different ways to kill-M.O. or signature.
I really think the key word in all this is need.
Regarding John Douglas, I don’t find any fault in myself quoting him. I find fault in that statement of his compared to others. If he had in fact been clearer, he would have told Sudgen or whoever that Chapman could not have been the Ripper. But, he has to go on saying that in another piece of his work. Is that really my fault?
|
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 95
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 15, 2003 - 2:02 am: | |
Alan,
In other words, MO is how they kill, Signature is why they kill.
If Chapman was the Ripper, he mutilated his victims in one case and poisoned his victims in the other. That is the how.
So, how can you, Glenn, or Erin know the reason behind why Chapman or the Ripper killed?
(Message edited by Peter on December 15, 2003) |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 277
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 15, 2003 - 5:12 am: | |
Peter
If Chapman was the Ripper, he mutilated his victims in one case and poisoned his victims in the other. That is the how.
In the case of the Ripper, cutting the throat is how. The mutilation is post-mortem. It is not logical behaviour because it means that he needs to hang around at the crime scene for longer and thus increase the risk of being caught. This is the reason that I, and the majority of people who have taken this approach, would call it part of the signature. Because he is doing something which is not necessary in the task of killing, but which plainly he feels the need to do to make the experience complete and satisfying.
However, this was merely by way of explanation because you said you didn't see the difference. You are of course perfectly entitled to take a different approach. As our friend Saddam said, the correct approach is the one which leads to the answer.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 781
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 15, 2003 - 9:08 am: | |
Peter
Alan's completely correct. A signature indicates an act that makes you stay at the crimes scene AFTER the murder is committed, that is, post mortem -- that is why I wrote acts performed "unnecessary" for the killing itself.
Erin and I DON'T know the reasons for his killings (at least I do not), but the signature is a pointer at why he did it, but it is necessarily not always interpretable.
"If Chapman was the Ripper, he mutilated his victims in one case and poisoned his victims in the other. That is the how."
If you really understood anything of the explanations above, then you'd see that the Ripper's mutilations were his signature, while Chapman's poisoning (his way of killing his wives) was his MO -- not his signature, I believe. That would be comparable to the Ripper's throat-cutting or strangling.
"Problem is, is that I'm getting the feeling that you guys and many other profilers use this as fact."
Blimey, Peter! The terms "signature" and "modus operandi" are just technical definitions on what is done to murder the victim and what is done post mortem -- things that easily (for the most part) can be established by the post mortem medical exam. They are not a part of a theory.
"Regarding Chapman, there was no need for him to mutilate his wives when he had poisoned them. The poisoning was a "clean" way to get rid of them. It was a different experiment than ripping. On the other hand, if he was the Ripper, the mutilating was an exceptional need. He did cut their throats, so really, why not mutilate them? If has a knife already, then it would make sense. In the poisoning case, there was no need for a knife."
Peter, the mutilations were done because he was driven to it, it is an action of satisfaction and power that is a necessity to him -- the mutilations were the Ripper's main goal with the whole operation. Not the killing itself. As far as Chapman is concerned, he was only interested in getting rid of his wives. Your theory about "experimentation" is, I think, illogical and quite a matter of speculation, without any factual base to support it. Really, Peter, you must see the differences in motive and approach -- and the loss of signature in Chapman's case. It is NOT the same type of killer we are dealing with here. You are of course entitled to your own opinion and interpretations of things -- but not a single police officer would buy it.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 96
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 27, 2003 - 5:37 am: | |
Glenn,
I think it's simple. I have trouble accepting profiling.
There is no use for further arguments unless we can think of something else to argue about Chapman. |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 868
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 27, 2003 - 8:20 pm: | |
Peter,
This has nothing to do with profiling solely. MO and signature are expressions used in the police force outside profiling as well.
You won't get any police detective to accept the fact that Klosowski and the Ripper could be one and the same. There are no similarities between the killings both men performed -- there is no evident reason to deduct that they were done by the same hand.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 105
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 27, 2003 - 8:40 pm: | |
Glenn,
What I have been getting out of your comments this past month is that because Chapman's signature is different than the Ripper's, he cannot be Jack the Ripper.
I think that is just an absurd thing to say.
If Chapman was the Ripper, I can tell you some reasons why the signature is different.
I really don't understand that logic and weather the top detectives believe what you have said so or not, I think it may have some relevance, it may not.
Detectives have been wrong you know.
So have profilers.
John Douglas claimed that a letter sent a while back by the supposed “Green River Killer” was fake.
It turns out he was wrong.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 872
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 27, 2003 - 8:58 pm: | |
Peter,
Jack the Ripper had a signature (which indicates that there was a special meaning with the murders beside the taking of the women's lives),
as far as I know Klosowski hadn't a signature -- he was just interested in getting rid of his wives.
The first thing a police officer does is to check if there are any similarities between different murders, unless other physical evidence from the crime scenes point in that direction. If there aren't any obvious signs of this, there is no reason for the police or anyone else to deduct that they were done by the same hand.
I'm not saying this is right or wrong, or that it is the truth, I'm just stating that this is usually one of the main ground approaches in detective work.
And as far as mistakes are concerned -- everybody makes them occasionally.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 107
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 27, 2003 - 9:17 pm: | |
Glenn,
I really don't think this was a signature in the poisoning cases, but a trait:
As time went by and Chapman was poisoning his victims, Chapman photographed his wives as they were slowly deteriorating.
The first thing a police officer does is to check if there are any similarities between different murders, unless other physical evidence from the crime scenes point in that direction. If there aren't any obvious signs of this, there is no reason for the police or anyone else to deduct that they were done by the same hand.
Okay, this is what I’ve been trying to say. If Chapman was JTR, he was a smart guy. The reason is in your above statement.
Any smart serial killer would change his style, signature or MO to avoid detection. It makes perfect sense. If Chapman started mutilating his wives some years later, wouldn’t it bring suspicion?
Like you said, the police officers would look for similarities to pinpoint that Chapman was the Ripper if they found his wives terribly mutilated
Chapman wanted to get rid of women in a whole different way. He may have been "experimenting"
The avoiding detection is key.
(Message edited by Peter on December 27, 2003)
(Message edited by Peter on December 27, 2003) |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 875
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 28, 2003 - 11:38 am: | |
Hi Peter,
"Okay, this is what I’ve been trying to say. If Chapman was JTR, he was a smart guy. The reason is in your above statement.
[...]
Any smart serial killer would change his style, signature or MO to avoid detection. It makes perfect sense. If Chapman started mutilating his wives some years later, wouldn’t it bring suspicion?"
I think that is really grasping at straws, Peter. Even if a killer changes his signature and MO (which isn't THAT common), there are generally signs of the same kind of driving forces for the killings, signs of the same motive or of no motive at all. Here we can find no similarities whatsoever on these points.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 109
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 29, 2003 - 12:42 am: | |
Glenn,
It’s always possible. Should we just forget about Chapman because very few people have had a change of MO or signature?
I guess you can call this a motive:
Chapman hated women. So, he tried different methods to getting rid of them and succeeded.
His hate for the women was the motive and it was strong.
Anyway, Chapman didn't just hurt his wives with "non-physical" force. He abused them physically and threatened Lucy with a knife.
This is from the Daily Chronicle that I got from Chapman's suspect page:
Klosowski's real wife, Lucy Klosowski, who was present in the Central Criminal Court last week, has made a startling statement as to what occurred in the New Jersey shop. She states that on one occasion, when she had had a quarrel with her husband, he held her down on the bed, and pressed his face against her mouth to keep her from screaming. At that moment a customer entered the shop immediately in front of the room, and Koslowski got up to attend him. The woman chanced to see a handle protruding from underneath the pillow. She found, to her horror, that it was a sharp and formidable knife, which she promptly hid. Later, Klosowski deliberately told her that he meant to have cut her head off, and pointed to a place in the room where he meant to have buried her. She said, 'But the neighbours would have asked where I had gone to.' 'Oh,' retorted Klosowski, calmly, 'I should simply have told them that you had gone back to New York.'
|
Erin Sigler
Inspector
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 174
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 29, 2003 - 1:38 am: | |
He didn't try different methods! He used ONE method: Poisoning! He did NOT cut their throats, he did NOT rip out their intestines, and he did NOT take their reproductive organs with him as souvenirs! Threatening your WIFE with a knife and cutting open strangers are different behaviors entirely. Furthermore, M.O. and signature are NOT the same thing!!! I don't know how many times and how many different ways Glenn and I can say it.
This is my last post in this thread. I can only repeat myself so many times before it just gets ridiculous and starts wasting mine and everyone else's time. Read some books on profiling, on M.O., and on signature. I'm through. 
|
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 891
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 29, 2003 - 2:39 am: | |
I agree with Erin here, Peter.
If you consider hatred of women as the dominating factor here, we would have not have ten or fifteen suspects to discuss, but hundreds! That doesen't cut it.
Otherwise I have nothing further to add, in addition to what Erin just have pointed out -- I can understand her frustration (don't take it personally, Peter). I think we are going around in circles here.
The differences between Chapman and the Ripper are too great, in my view, and it'll take hell to freeze over first before I accept Chapman as a serious Ripper suspect.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert W. House
Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 34
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 12, 2004 - 2:09 pm: | |
I think an important thing to consider is not whether a serial killer can change his MO, but rather whether he can stop killing altogether. I do not know enough about criminal psychology or case studies to know the answer to this question. Ted Bundy seemed to believe that he could force himself to stop killing, but he was unable to do so.
As far as Chapman is concerned, I m wondering if perhaps an increase in stability caused by a change in domestic circumstance might correlate to his inclination toward serial murder. Serial psychopath killers are most often loners... single men. This fits in with Chapman. Bundy had a girlfriend, and I think it was only after their relationship had disintegrated that he turned to murder (cant remember if this is entirely accurate).
In this light, let up compare the JTR murders with events in Chapman's life:
- Chapman arrives in London some time after Feb 1887, settles in the Whitechapel area, and finds a job as an assistant hairdresser.
- The canonical murders occur between Aug - Nov 1888.
- By 1889 and probably earlier (sometime in 1888), Chapman has set himself up in his own shop, Cable Street.
- July 16-17 1889 Murder of Alice McKenzie.
- Oct 1889 Chapman marries Lucy Baderski.
- Feb 13 1891, Frances Coles murdered.
- March 3 1891, Chapman's infant son dies of pneumonia.
- April 1891, Chapman and wife emigrate to the US, New York/New Jersey.
- April 23-24 1891, Murder of Carrie Brown, NYC.
- By the middle of 1892, Chapmans relationship with Lucy Baderski had collapsed after his violent treatment of her.
- 1897-1902, Chapman poisons 3 successive wives to death.
Given this chronology, we can begin to sketch out a possible scenario. Let us presume Chapman is JTR. Is it possible that his increasing success in business, and also in forming a domestic relationship with a woman could cause him to either stop killing, or at least to "slow down" a bit. Coles' murder was only a few weeks before both the death of his son and his subsequent emigration from England.
So the question again is not whether a SK could change his MO, but rather whether his situation might cause him to stop or slow down and then stop killing altogether. His subsequent poisoning in this light would not be a change in MO or signature, but merely killing his wives in such a way as to avoid suspicion. It is obvious he could not possibly stab to death and mutilate his own wives.
Just food for thought.
Rob H
|
Alan Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, January 19, 2004 - 8:44 am: | |
Seems I might have joined this thread just as everyone else has had enough, but the difference between Chapman the poisoner and Chapman the Ripper (If indeed he is the guy) is surely to be found with his victims.
If he had mutilated his "wives" as with the other victims I think that even the hapless old coppers of Victorian London may have requested a word down at the station. (Have you ever been in Mitre Square of an evening Sir?)
If Jack the Ripper exorcised his blood lust by ripping prostitutes to ribbons and then decided he wished to dispose of his nearest and dearest without being detected, then surely the signature/m.o./profile of his alter ego would be disguised at all costs. Three wives brutally slaughtered could not be put down to coincidence.
In other words he killed for different reasons. The prostitues to satisfy some bestial desire and his "wives" for a more personal and dare I say "understandable" reason. |
Peter Sipka
Police Constable
Username: Peter
Post Number: 2
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 9:54 pm: | |
Though, this post may be done, I have to agree with Robert and Alan.
As Robert mentions, I think the situation Severin was in could have played a huge factor. Also, only if Chapman was stupid and he wanted to get caught, he would then rip up his wives, which in turn, would draw suspicion towards him as being the Ripper. He probably would have been a huge suspect because the police were looking for a foreigner.
And like Alan says, if he was the Ripper, then he killed for different reasons.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1159
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 2:45 pm: | |
Hi guys! Tut tut!
I think it definitely has to do with change in MO and signature and nothing else, if we -- God forbid -- want to consider Chapman as the Ripper.
The Ripper and Chapman were each very systematic killers in their own right, using methods they were comfortable with and which never changed. To say that Chapman didn't rip his wives to pieces just because he didn't want to be exposed as the Ripper or that he poisoned them for other reasons than the Whitechapel victims, is a fallacy. That is NOT how a serial killer works.
A serial killer kills for the same reasons throughout, either it's because he has certain motives (like Chapman) or because he feel he has to do it, because he has a pathological drive to do so. The latter (which would fit the Ripper) don't change his style just to murder for rational reasons. His acts are a result of his need to kill or rather -- in this case -- to mutilate. A serial killer of Jack the Ripper's type could not be capable of suddenly kill just for rational and completely different reasons. That is not how they function, from a criminal psychological point of view.
They may occasionally change their MO due to circumstances on the crime scene or the situation, but they always kill for the same reasons, at least if they belong to Jack the Ripper's category -- who did it because he had to, and that is why the signature is important (because the satisfaction for him lies therein). It wasn't the killing itself that was important to Jack the Ripper, but the signature -- and Chapman didn't have any.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on February 17, 2004)
(Message edited by Glenna on February 17, 2004)
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Peter Sipka
Police Constable
Username: Peter
Post Number: 3
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 11:45 pm: | |
Hey Glenn!
They may occasionally change their MO due to circumstances on the crime scene or the situation
Okay, then we should take Chapman who, many years after the Ripper murders tried a different method to kill his wives. He wanted to expirement and if he were to cut his wives throats at least, it would draw suspicion. I don't understand why this is such a hard pill to swallow for many people. Not just for Chapman, but for all serial murders.
Could you say 100% for sure that a killer never changes his MO or signature?
Peter |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1164
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 5:37 am: | |
Hey Peter,
On no, they do change their MO, but not their signature. Because it is the signature that is important to most of the lust murderers -- they seldom change that, since their whole drive for their killings lay in the satisfaction they get from those. But to obtain that result, the can change their method of killing (for several reasons), but their signature (like clothes arrangements, position of the body, mutilations etc) is so strongly connected to their needs and reasons for killing that it is seldom changed apart from minor details.
The key to the Ripper and Chapman lay in the signature and the reasons for killing. In Chapman's case we have no signature at all, he murdered his wives for practical reasons, and it is THAT we can't mix up with Ripper's acts. Chapman had motives but no signature -- the Ripper mutilated those women because he probably felt he had to (with no apparent motive) but used a very excessive and progressing signature. The Ripper was a lust murderer, Chapman was not -- you can't mix them both, that is not how a serial killer works.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 298
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 8:33 am: | |
"That's not how a serial killer works."
Glenn--Your confidence is impressive, but doesn't it ever cross your mind that you simply have too much faith in psychology? I mean, surely you've been inside a Psychology Department at a University? There is no field in all of the world with more conflict, doubt, contention, and dispute than in Psychology. I can appreciate your doubt about Klosowski, but I am certainly less confident than you are about the reason. You seem to be implying that there are iron-clad rules for human behavior --but this is rubbish surely? What happened to the old profiler line that it is only a "tool" used to "narrow" an investigation? What you're doing above is eliminating a suspect based entirely on your faith in the theory/profile. A dangerous game, I think. Like saying that a rapist isn't also capable of insurance fraud. Cheers, RP |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1167
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 9:10 am: | |
Hi, Palmer.
So we cross swords again. Swell...
I admit I can come off rather strong to show a point, however. Believe you me, my so called "confidence" is over-rated.
Of course one can always find discrepancies, people are individuals and so are the nature of their psychology. It is absolutely true that there are no iron-clad rules for human behaviour, but then there are common sense to consider also.
We are speaking in reasonable and general terms here -- what's likely and what's not. I can't be expected to buy everything, just to keep an "open mind"; that is just silly.
I have yet not seen a serial killer who on the other hand mutilates his victims for his own special pleasures or drives, and then on the other hand turns to murder for rational reasons with a certain motive. There may not be iron-clad proof for that this can not happen, but according to my own personal opinion -- yes -- it is not psychologically possible. There are limits to what I can accept.
"Like saying that a rapist isn't also capable of insurance fraud..."
You can't make such a comparison.
Serial lust killers are quite in a league of their own and nothing like a rapist, although they do have compulsions also.
"What happened to the old profiler line that it is only a "tool" used to "narrow" an investigation? What you're doing above is eliminating a suspect based entirely on your faith in the theory/profile."
This has not that much to do with profiling really. It is all common sense and basic forensic psychology, not profiling theories. I have no faith in any theories whatsoever -- my years in university destroyed that.
Furthermore, I haven't read psychology in university -- however, regarding crime, while others here have indulged in for example the medical stuff (which really isn't my bit), I have concentrated on criminal psychology and criminal investigation methods. We all have our areas of study.
Believe me, if I had read psychology in university, I would have been much more theory-based than I am. I prefer, however, to lean on what the murders themselves tell us and common sense.
But yes, it's true. I am completely ruling out Chapman/Klosowski, and not so much of his own personal psychology (he was without doubt a terrible character) but from the nature of his crimes, compared to the Ripper's. I don't care if it's cocky, but apart from the ridiculous Royal Conspiracy theory and the accusations against Prince Albert, Chapman is probably one of those I find most unlikely.
No serious police officer today would put forward Klosowski as a suspect of being Jack the Ripper -- their crimes show no similarities whatsoever.
Cheers!
(Message edited by Glenna on February 18, 2004)
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
