|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2076
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 5:18 am: | 
|
Sarah wrote:
"I'm not turning anything around. I merely mean that when it comes to other people's minds you cannot say things are impossible, just as Peter also says. Nothing is impossible in the mind of a human being."
I hear what you say, but I am sorry, I don't believe in that for a minute. The fact that you repeat it four or five times doesen't make it more believable. You can't work from an extreme hypothesis like that.
No, everything is certainly not possible in the mind of a human being.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1263
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 6:04 am: |
|
Glenn,
No, everything is certainly not possible in the mind of a human being
Well, I'm sorry I just don't accept that.
The fact that you repeat it four or five times doesen't make it more believable
Well I'm not the only one who seems to think that way. It may not be believable to you but then maybe you are the type to think that people will only act in a set way. I don't see that ever. I've seen first hand that people can do out of the ordinary things that no-one would have expected.
I'm sorry but to me you sound like the sort of person who would drive onto a one way street looking only the logical way to check for cars only to get hit by a car coming the wrong way.
That's just my view. We're obviously not going to agree here and if you want to go through life thinking that people won't suddenly do something surprising and out of the ordinary then that's up to you, but I've seen enough in my life to know that you can't presume what goes on in other people's minds.
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to 
Smile too much and the world will guess 
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 849
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 6:53 am: |
|
Glenn,
apologies,
i'm just trying to establish why i ,made the statement i did (and to be fair to me i was half joking at the time)
you are saying that sex serial killers do not turn into posioners - one reason you gave was because it had never happened before, but all i am saying is while i agree its probably very very very very unlikely that a sex serial killer would turn into a posioner, the only way we can make comparisons between things is to have examples, and so at some point in time we could have argued that there is no such thing as a serial killer because we had no examples - but we both know that such people do exist, do you see what point i am trying to make here!
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2077
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 7:06 am: |
|
Sarah,
No, we probably won't agree on this and believe me, I can accept that.
But as always you seem to see things in rather black and white -- I do not believe that people will only act in a set way (there's your extreme over-interpretations again!).
People do surprise me occasionally and I do know that one person don't act exactly the same as the other -- we are all individuals.
But in contrast to you, for me there are limits to what kinds of unnatural and unsupported changes in personality and actions one can expect from a human being and also a criminal (and believe me, I've met some strange people myself).
As I said, by reasoning like you do, one can claim practically everything and assume whatever crazy and unlikely scenarios -- no matter how illogical and unrealistic they are.
I've said this many times but you never seem to focus or comment on it: to buy an unthinkable lead that goes against all reason and prior knowledge or common sense, we need at least some indications, facts or signs that suggests that such a theoretical direction is worth-while following up. In this case, of a serial mutilator and lust killer turning into a serial poisoner, we don't have any such indications to back such a strange scenario up. And I am not just talking about looking for other criminal cases of similar character to compare with, I am also referring to the facts in the actual cases! There is nothing to indicate such a connection, and this is how an investigator must approach the problem.
I am not trying to talk you out of your conception, that everything is possible in a human mind regardless of how incredible it is; just don't expect me to buy it, and certainly not in the context of a criminal case.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 27, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2078
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 7:26 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
I'm sorry, but my answer to you is the same as to Sarah; by reasoning like that, one can also claim that alligators can fly. Because who knows, as we haven't seen one? Maybe they can, although we just don't know about it? Should we then claim that its possible nevertheless? See what I mean?
Your conclusions about serial killers are naturally correct; there was a time when this concept was unknown, as flying to the moon was before the 1960s.
However, this do not mean that all unthinkable assumptions will ever come to life in reality. Although several unthinkable things are reality today, there is no reason to automatically deduct that everything's possible, since there are probably quite many assumptions that will never see the light of day in real life. So that argument doesen't hold up.
I say the same to you as I did to Sarah; if an unknown and unrealistic phenomenon is to be taken seriously in a criminal case, there must at least be some facts in the actual case that suggests and supports such a direction. If there was, things would of course come in a different light, and words like "impossible" would have to be be revaluated.
Besides this, I prefer to leave the philosophical discussions to David Radka and Mephisto. This is starting to get tedious.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 27, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 853
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 7:41 am: |
|
Glenn,
actually, i think we do agree,
honestly I do!!
Anyway -
all the best
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2079
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 8:21 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
Ah! Didn't expect that one (see, maybe you, Sarah and Peter were right after all)!
Well then, that's nice.
All the best and have a good weekend
(Message edited by Glenna on August 27, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 737
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 8:56 am: |
|
Glenn,
Sorry I disagree with your analogy. Saying that alligators might be able to fly is an incorrect comparison. Alligators have been thoroughly dissected, studied and investigated and they lack the physical equipment necessary to fly. That is a fact. The human brain and behavior has no where near been studied, dissected or evaluated in it's entirety and therefore, it is quite correct to say that we do not know how a person is likely to behave and we cannot make absolutes.
|
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1266
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 9:33 am: |
|
Glenn,
you seem to see things in rather black and white
I'm the one who is looking at all the grey shades in the middle. You're the one who is giving absolutes here so I don't see how I'm only seeing black and white.
I'm agreeing with Ally, Jenni and Peter here (and whoever wants to jump on board). In fact I think Ally put it very well. Alligators physically can not fly but human PHYSICALLY can turn from a serial mutilator to a poisoner not matter how unlikely.
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to
Smile too much and the world will guess
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2081
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 10:07 am: |
|
Ally and Sarah,
It's true that the analogy may have haltered in that regards, but the principal remains the same. I totally disagree, naturally, with the notion that we may expect anything from any individual or criminal, regardless of unthinkable it is. Such an assumption leads us nowhere and to do an investigation on such theoretical grounds would probably get any police officer way off track.
Once again, Sarah, you totally seem to disregard the most important point in my posts, so I'll quote it again:
"if an unknown and unrealistic phenomenon is to be taken seriously in a criminal case, there must at least be some facts in the actual case that suggests and supports such a direction. If there was, things would of course come in a different light, and words like "impossible" would have to be be revaluated."
This means, that there is no reason whatsoever to imagine the unthinkable if there are no facts or signs in the Ripper murders pointing towards a poisoner in the first place or -- more importantly -- nothing at all in the case of Chapman or another poisoner that they could have been a person like Jack the Ripper. Since there is no such indications, why on Earth should we even consider such an unbelievable and unsupported connection as a possibility in this case?
However, if such facts would emerge (which they haven't yet) -- that would be a completely different story. Then there would be sufficient reasons to leave the door open to explore that as a possibility.
Did you get it this time, or are you going to disregard that point again?
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 27, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 80
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, August 28, 2004 - 4:50 pm: |
|
I think we can easily compare this mutilator turned poisoner issue to the "only gay serial killers kill men," which we learned, is false. Don't you think if you went up to a police officer and asked if a gay serial killer would kill a woman, that officer would laugh in your face and tell you that’s it’s impossible? Sounds familiar.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2087
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 28, 2004 - 5:30 pm: |
|
Hi Peter,
Where have you been?
No, actually I don't. I believe this (mis)conception does still exists in certain police circles, but such cases have been known for quite a while, so I don't think they would laugh in your face; such a clue may not have been their first priority, but I don't think they would consider it totally unthinkable or laughable, since we have recorded cases.
A good point, Peter, but really not in the same league.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 28, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 81
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, August 28, 2004 - 8:52 pm: |
|
Hey Glenn,
I don't know whether I specified my point clearly or not.
What I was trying to say was that at one point in the past, that way of killing was considered impossible and while experts were doubting it and laughing at it, a gay serial killer murdering a woman was in a file tucked away somewhere or waiting to happen sometime in the future. Possibly, just like a mutilator /posioner case.
I do consider it in the same league. My commonsense tells me that the motive of a gay serial killer killing a man is ten times different than that same killer killing a woman. Yet, we know that the two killings have been connected. Therefore, we know motives can change. Therefore, even though a mutilator’s motive is different than a posioner, we know they can be from the same person.
Take care
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2089
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 28, 2004 - 11:00 pm: |
|
Hey Peter,
I must admit that I don't quite understand what you're getting at, but then it's rather late here (or should I say early).
It is true that the police earlier on may have laughed at the thought of a male homosexual killer killing women -- I can't give an answer to that.
But I don't think a homosexual murderer kills people of the other sex for another kind of motive; it's just that his or her motives are not necessarily sexually based (which we shouldn't automatically assume that they are; we must also look at the method and signature in this context -- not just the alleged motive), therefore the sex of the victims doesen't matter. At least it could be one possible explanation.
For serial killers in general, it is questionable if motives change that much. We are not just talking motives here, but different personalities. If the Ripper was a killer that acted from a driving force based on sex or rage/hate (or both) or schizofrenic insanity (like voices or religious mania), it is a completely different kind of person than the one who does it for gain in a calculating way (and in addition is using a completely different method).
The urges of a killer belonging to the first category (the mutilator), whose actions seldom has a defined motive, just doesen't go away and change, since these forces for the most part are out of his or hers control.
To say that he or she then out of the blue turns into a rational poisoner (who suddenly no longer needs to mutilate or perform murders on emotional and psychological driving forces) is completely unbelievable, unless the person possesses some kind of multiple personality -- because it is really two different persons rather than two different motives.
I will never buy this reasoning -- it goes completely beyond my conceptions and my common sense, not to mention everything we know of.
In order to even consider this, we must have some real facts that really ties a person like Chapman to the Ripper murders, and vice verca.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 28, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 83
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 6:21 pm: |
|
Hey Glenn,
Interesting points you make, but I still feel that if experts and you yourself are reluctant enough to not accept Chapman and the Ripper as one in the same because of the huge M.O./signature/personality difference between the two, then I feel the same people shouldn’t think they can accept a gay serial killer killing a woman. It’s extremely tough to find a similarly in the two different killings of the gay serial killer whether we are talking the same M.O./Signature/personality or not.
Would you and all the other experts be accepting this gay serial murderer killing a woman if you never knew it happened, even though it did?
Take care
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2099
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 6:45 pm: |
|
Hey Peter,
"Would you and all the other experts be accepting this gay serial murderer killing a woman if you never knew it happened, even though it did?"
Probably not -- I can give you that.
But still, if this hypothetical male homosexual killer's female victims were killed in a similar fashion as the male ones, we would at least have that connection to build it on. So there are a number of factors to consider, not just motive etc.
In the case of Chapman (or someone similar) being the Ripper, we have nothing. A totally different personality (judging from how the murders were committed), a completely different method, different victims (prostitutes contra wives) etc. There is just no link no matter how we look at it. Apart from that both probably lived in the area at the time.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 85
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 11:51 pm: |
|
Hey Glenn,
But you have mentioned many times that M.O. can change. So, the fashion could have been totally different, yet they could have been committed by the same hand regarding the homosexual serial killer.
Take Care
|
OlivierD
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 2:30 am: |
|
Glenn, All,
We are speaking in this thread of events that are “impossible”, “unlikely”, “very unlikely” and so on. To clarify this debate, it may be interesting to determine what we intend by these terms. A simple way to do that is the following.
Suppose an island isolated from the rest of the world. Suppose now that 101 persons live on this island. Now, we find that a horrible crime has been committed: we find that a woman living on this island has been mutilated. Consider an inhabitant of this island taken at random. If we have no more information, there is a probability equal to 0.01 that this person is actually the killer.
Now suppose that we learn that this person take at random, called Georges (or Mickey Mouse if you prefer), has poisoned his wife in the past. How does this probability change? My opinion is that this probability increases slightly (for example, it goes from 0.01 to 0.02-0.05).
Glenn, what is your opinion? Should I understand that this probability decreases to 0.00? Or it remains the same? How should I understand “impossible”?
And in the same time, what is the opinion on this board?
All the best,
Olivier
|
OlivierD
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 9:33 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn,
You wrote: “Olivier, you don't have to take Shelley's words for it -- nor mine. Just the FBI and other police departments who has worked with these types of cases. As well as the opinions of the police in general. No one on the field buys such a connection.”
I admit. But even if I was corresponding with the director of FBI on these boards, I could ask him for explanations and would not be obliged to accept his answers without criticisms. In my opinion, the lack of strong empirical evidence is manifest. But other arguments can be convincing.
Also, I like your answer to my other post and I begin to understand your point.
The personality of a poisoner and a mutilator are probably very different and, of course, I do not really believe that JtR is only a publicity seeker (it was a simple example). But you confirm what I say: the central point is the motive. If we assume (of course, it is very unlikely or ‘impossible’ in your terms) that JtR has an egocentric motive (e.g., he is a psychopath who seeks publicity, money…), then Chapman could be our man.
Moreover, even if I admit the difference in personality between Chapman and what we know about JtR, I never will use terms like “impossible” in this context.
Finally, several theories are based on very doubtful motives (e.g., Barnett, A?R or the Royal conspiracy) and, consequently, should be rejected in the same way.
All the best,
Olivier
|
OlivierD
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 8:11 am: |
|
Glenn,
You wrote about the switch from mutilator to poisoner: "an unthinkable lead that goes against all reason and prior knowledge or common sense"
I think you are the only one in this thread who finds this behavior unthinkable.
The number of past examples of serial killers who are comparable to JtR is extremely small to infer a very strong conclusion. The only thing that can be proved is that such a switch in behavior is unlikely. I am ready to accept this point but not more.
You use "common sense" as an argument. But "common sense" is very subjective and does not give the shadow of a proof. We are all endowed with common sense and our conclusions are different from yours.
My "common sense" says that no strong impossibility must be affirmed in psychology or social sciences.
You will say that criminologists find laughable a switch in behavior from mutilating to poisoning. But the meaning of "laughable" is not very clear. Does it mean unlikely, very unlikely, or impossible? If it means "impossible", they are simply wrong. No social scientist can accept a strong impossibility like that.
The only thing you can prove is that a behavior is unlikely. You will never be able to prove that a behavior is impossible.
All the best,
Olivier
PS: It is, however, a pleasure to debate with you.
|
steve tavani
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 10:20 pm: |
|
This is from the Chapman suspect page:
Admittedly, we can not expect either Abberline or Neil to have had the knowledge we now have today concerning M.O.s and serial offenders. Although many still contend that M.O.s rarely change, especially so drastically as from a violent mutilation to a non-physical and calculating poisoning, John Douglas of the American F.B.I. disagrees:
Some criminologists and behavioural scientists have written that perpetrators maintain their modus operandi, adn that this is what links so-called signature crimes. This conclusion is incorrect. Subjects will change their modus operandi as they gain experience. This is learned behaviour.
Steve Tavani
|
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1268
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 4:51 am: |
|
Glenn,
I see what you are saying but disagree (again).
It is not an unrealistic phenomenon for someone to change their method of killing, it's something that could physically could happen, no matter how unlikely.
Also, I'm not even saying that the Ripper turned into a poisoner. This is about you saying something is impossible that is not as it could physically occur.
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to
Smile too much and the world will guess
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2105
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 7:08 am: |
|
Steve,
Douglas has indeed said that, but I don't think he said in the context of a mutilator turning into a poisoner. I believe he has been taken out of context. And if he was not, there are not many in the police force that would agree with him as far as the poisoner thing is concerned. Douglas is no wiz kid that everyone in the police force listens to.
The fact that a serial killer can change his MO is really no startling news and has in itself nothing to do with this discussion. This goes beyond changing MO.
Olivier,
Firstly: I am totally uninterested in picky discussions regarding the meaning of the term impossible. This has been done over and over in this thread and is going nowhere, while we instead should focus on the circumstances on the case.
In my experience and to my knowledge such a swift in personality is impossible, unthinkable, unlikely and ludicrous at the same time. And yes, my common sense tells me the same thing. Not to mention psychology, not to mention the fact that we have no factual clues besides this very strange fictional conception to link a mutilator to a poisoner. I am asked to accept the possibility of a mutilator and lust killer turning calculating poisoner, just because Chapman is there! Not because there are true factual links that connects him to the Ripper murders. That is just plain ridiculous.
Secondly: forget science! Crimes are not an absolute science, and to claim that you should have science to back up every exclusion or inclusion of a suspect to prove whether it's possible or not, can't be done. If the police would be expected to take such considerations, no decisions would be made and no crimes should be solved. The only "evidence" the police can obtain are those that derives from the crimes themselves. But it's no science, and I don't refer to science in my points of view. All we can do here is to use experience, common sense and factual evidence from the crimes in question in order to take a stand on this.
And yes, common sense is a subjective thing, but then again in crime investigation subjective decisions and deductions are made all the time; that goes with the territory.
Sarah,
I know you don't stress that Jack the Ripper turned into a poisoner; that is not the issue. But I must explain why I think it's unbelievable.
Once again, I am not just talking method here. I am talking personality, and I have repeated this numerous of times. It is an unrealistic phenomenon for someone to change personality in such a way. A lust killer is a lust killer, and a posioner making crimes out of gain is another. It doesen't work to combine the two psychologically -- we are talking two different persons here. It has nothing to do with physics. And for me, in my experience and to my knowledge it's so unbelievable that it becomes impossible. Take it or leave it.
There are limits to which credible changes in personality within a person we should accept.
Yes, you say that you "read me" but still you refuse to answer why we should be expected to take such an unsupported and illogical conception seriously, when we have no actual points in the investigations taking us in such direction. If we had facts that would suggest such a link, things would be a different matter.
Now, I believe I have said all I have to say on this matter. The discussions here are just going around in circles. Some here seems more keen on dissecting the words "impossible" and "unlikely" than discussing the actual facts and that is just plain tedious. I don't think I that much more to add unless I want to repeat myself even further (which I don't), so unless some interesting new aspects comes up, I'll just give it a rest for awhile.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 31, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1269
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 8:54 am: |
|
Glenn,
Yes, you say that you "read me"
You just plain lost me there.
you refuse to answer why we should be expected to take such an unsupported and illogical conception seriously, when we have no actual points in the investigations taking us in such direction
What investigations? I repeat, I am not talking about Jack the Ripper in the slightest here. Full stop. I don't believe the Ripper did turn poisoner at all and so this is totally irrelevant. You say you know I am not talking about the Ripper but then you suggest I tell you why you should take the idea the Ripper turned poisoner seriously. This is not what I am talking about.
I have not tried to dissect the word impossible, I know what it means and therefore I am telling you that if something is physically possible then it cannot be impossible. Possible is the complete opposite of impossible and also impossible does not mean unlikely, these are two different words with completely different meanings.
As you say, we are going around in circles. I still maintain that what you say is incorrect but I can't convince you otherwise so we shall have to agree to disagree.
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to
Smile too much and the world will guess
|
Stanley D. Reid
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 84
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 5:02 pm: |
|
Hi all
First, I don't believe that Cream was JTR.
My great uncle was guard at Joliet but he didn't start there until around 1896, a few years after Cream or the visiting double who replaced him was discharged. He had a collection of hobby craft items that inmates used to be encouraged to make to keep themselves busy. I wonder if anyone has ever found any items that Cream made when he was there.
Also, what happen to the assertion that Cream's handwriting matched some of the Ripper letters?
Stan |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page