|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 505
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 8:50 am: |       |
RipperHistorian
My answer to your question to us all, and I would think I speak for the majority here, is that I would rather never solve the case than solve it incorrectly. |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 253
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 5:26 pm: | |
It's probably important to point out that John Douglas, who's profile Paley cites, apparently has stated that Barnett is not a match for it. I've seen this posted on the site, but don't have a source for it, so if someone knows where Douglas has stated that he does not think Barnett is a match it would be good for us all to know. Obviously, if the fellow who wrote the profile doesn't think Barnett is a match, we shouldn't be claiming that Barnett is a match, without qualifying that statement as being our opinion despite the exact opposite being the opinion of the profile's author.
And that would make us look a bit silly, since we would want people to believe that the profiler "gets the profile right" but gets it wrong when he claims our suspect doesn't match it.
- Jeff |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 254
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 5:29 pm: | |
It's probably important to point out that John Douglas, who's profile Paley cites, apparently has stated that Barnett is not a match for it. I've seen this posted on the site, but don't have a source for it, so if someone knows where Douglas has stated that he does not think Barnett is a match it would be good for us all to know. Obviously, if the fellow who wrote the profile doesn't think Barnett is a match, we shouldn't be claiming that Barnett is a match, without qualifying that statement as being our opinion despite the exact opposite being the opinion of the profile's author.
And that would make us look a bit silly, since we would want people to believe that the profiler "gets the profile right" but gets it wrong when he claims our suspect doesn't match it.
- Jeff |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1230
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 7:44 pm: | |
G'day,
Alright then:
* Barnett was NOT a white male, aged between 28 and 36!
* He did NOT work around whitechapel!
* His father did NOT die when he was 6!
* He did NOT have anything wrong with his speech!
* He LOVED prostitutes!
* He was NOT interviewed by Inspector Abberline and released!
RIGHT, BARNETT IS NOT A MATCH FOR THE PROFILE! LOL, LOL, LOL!
LEANNE |
Julia
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 9:10 am: | |
Hello, all,
I must put in my two cents worth regarding something Tim brought up regarding Jack's MO. Obviously the later victims were aware that someone was murdering prostitutes in Whitechapel and would have felt somewhat uneasy when hitting the streets at night. In light of the general atmosphere of danger, they were likely to have been a little wary, especially if approached by someone who seemed suspicious.
I keep thinking of Ted Bundy who would feign a broken arm and approach women to ask for assistance attaching his sailboat to his car or some other task. With his arm in a sling and his sheepish grin assuring them he was harmless, he posed no threat to them. Once the women agreed to help him, he led them out of sight of others, and the rest is history. He was the perfect killer.
Couldn't Jack have used a similar ploy? Might he have adopted some sort of handicap--a limp or broken arm or something--to give the women a sense of his being weak, therefore safe? Not that this points to any one individual (as far as I can tell) but it does shed some light on why women went with him so willingly, and why there was no evidence of a struggle. The victims were at ease with the killer, seeing him as no threat whatsoever. They calmly went with him into the shadows, thinking that he was unlikely to be the fiend of Whitechapel.
Julia |
LindseyKoally
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 11:01 am: | |
anybody know anywhere I can find info on the Dr. Arthur Warren Waite murder? Thanks |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 258
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 11:32 pm: | |
Leanne,
Do you really want it recorded that you think that you know better than Douglas who matches his profile?
- Jeff |
Chris LeQuellec
Police Constable
Username: Chrislq
Post Number: 10
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 2:26 am: | |
Yes Julia, Ted Bundy and other serial murder need some strategy to approach victims but JtR only kills prostitutes, far easy...
chris |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1258
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 9:52 am: | |
Hi Julia,
I have really already tried to explain it my earlier post above, but the Ripper didn't need any approach and ... well, suspicious... who looks suspicious anyway? As I said earlier, the only clients they would be cautious about were the obvious lunatics and violent ones. And even a person with a mental illness can look and act quite normal on the outside.
So he didn't need an approach. Yes, the women were indeed afraid -- we have statements from some of them stating that -- but they had no options, and they had to take the risk anyway.
The prostitutes weren't lead into secluded places by their clients. They lead their clients to suitable places for the activity, so in many ways they did the work for him.
As Chris points out; prostitutes are quite easy targets for a killer, since they are in a vulnerable position and often approach on their own initiative.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 259
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 2:22 pm: | |
Given the claim that Barnett fits Douglas's profile has been made again, and in a round about way, the aspects of Barnett that fit the profile have been listed. I thought it best that I try and dig up some support for my statement that Douglas doesn't believe Barnett fits.
So, having done a wee bit of research, I found it. The following is from "The Cases That Haunt Us", by Douglas and Olshaker, in their chapter on JtR (pg 60 my copy).
" Paley also cites the analysis I did at the time of the 1988 television series, as well as more general research about serial predators that has come out of my unit at Quantico in showing how Barnett fits the profile. This could be true in certain ways - age, race, dysfunctional childhood with no father, comfort zone, triggering emotional event such as the loss of his job, for example - but these are the superficial characteristics, true of a lot of people. They're almost boilerplate for a certain type of offender. You have to get into the specifics to see if it really fits. And I have never seen, nor do I believe someone would, in this manner, brutally kill women he knows, even vaguely, to scare his own partner and 'teach her a lesson.' Particularly, on the night of the Double Event, a guy of this type would have been scared off by the first one. He would never have gone after Liz Stride (sic: should read, "he would never have gone on after Liz Stride")
The motive just doesn't work. Yes, there are sexual sadists who get off by torturing women. But the mutilation here is all postmortem, so that doesn't fit. Also, these are not planned, considered kills; they're frenzied, out-of-control overkills. If the perpetrator were someone with a personal relationship with the victim, we might expect to see some degree of overkill in stabbing or wounds to the face, but not this kind of ritual mutilation. There's no pattern or internal logic to it. No one who has had a relatively normal relationship with a woman, as Barnett evidently did, could perpetrate this kind of crime."
The above 2 paragraphs cover Douglas's opinion of how well Barnett fits his profile; which can be summarised as "only superficially." The exact points that Leanne lists as how Barnett fits are the exact same points that Douglas points out as being superficial. So, for the sake of accuracy, the most one should claim is that "Barnett matches the superficial points of the profile, however, Douglas does not believe that Barnett is capable of the murders."
To cite the profile, claim a match, carries with it the implication that the profiler would agree with your claim. Since we definitely know that Douglas would not agree, and does not agree, with Paley's claim, to omit this caveat simply further continues yet another correctable error in the Jack the Ripper case.
- Jeff |
Chris LeQuellec
Sergeant
Username: Chrislq
Post Number: 18
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 5:33 pm: | |
I totally agree with this point :
I have never seen, nor do I believe someone would, in this manner, brutally kill women he knows, even vaguely, to scare his own partner and 'teach her a lesson.'
Even if he killed them, mutilation couldn't be something you can do just because you want to do it.
You can't simulate to be a serial killer like JtR.
Chris |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 2:54 am: | |
Hi all,
The big problem I have with Barnett is the murders stoped. I am not an expert on serial killers but I dont think they just stop killing. I know the theory that once he killed kelly there was no need to kill any more. I dont believe
that. Just like stalkers they find other victims Barnett would of found another woman to stress over.
Hi Julia,
I think the women went with the ripper because they were prostitutes and they needed money. It is like getting in a car accident no one thinks it is going to happen to them untill it happens. |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 6:23 pm: | |
Alan wrote:
"I would rather never solve the case than solve it incorrectly."
Exactly. Solving a case is easy if you are willing to twist facts in a ridiculous manner, but then there's no actual accomplishment involved. I can solve the NYT crossword puzzle in about 30 seconds if you don't mind that all the squares are filled in with random letters that don't even spell words.
Leanne wrote:
" He did NOT have anything wrong with his speech! "
Well, since you were sarcastically saying this you must assume that there was something wrong with his speech. There is no good evidence to think there was, just that he stuttered a little when testifying about his girlfriend's death. So what? Stuttering under stress is NOT a speech impediment, and it's absurd to try to argue that it is.
Jeff wrote:
"So, for the sake of accuracy, the most one should claim is that "Barnett matches the superficial points of the profile, however, Douglas does not believe that Barnett is capable of the murders." "
Good point, and one that bears repeating. Not that I think Douglas is necessarily right in his profile, but claiming that his profile supports a suspect when he disagrees is rather intellectually dishonest. |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 268
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 6:39 pm: | |
Dan,
Thanks for pointing the last part out! Very true. The intention of my post was not to suggest that Douglas's profile must be considered "true" or "accurate". Rather, all I'm trying to stress is that the claim that Barnett fits the profile is incorrect given that the profile specifically consideres and dismisses Barnett.
I'm not trying to say that "Because the profile dismisses Barnett then Barnett cannot be the Ripper". Rather, I'm making the more modest point that "Barnett does not fit John Douglas's profile, and therefore Paley's claim that Barnett is a match is wrong."
Since not everyone may have access to Douglas's book (The Cases that Haunt Us) where this issue is specifically listed, repeating Paley's error can easily occur because one is using an inaccurate source (inaccurate on this issue anyway). It's only "dishonest" if one knowingly misrepresents things, otherwise it's an "honest mistake".
- Jeff |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 4:27 am: | |
Jeff wrote:
"It's only "dishonest" if one knowingly misrepresents things, otherwise it's an "honest mistake". "
That's a good point. I shouldn't imply that anyone is intentionally being dishonest unless there is good reason to believe it was something more than a mistake. |
Joe McClintock
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 2:20 pm: | |
LindseyKoally--
I have quite a bit of info on Arthur Warren Waite. What are you interested in? |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1361
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 01, 2004 - 7:41 pm: | |
G'day,
At the back of Bruce Paley's book he lists Michael Douglas's 8 points of his psychological profile of Jack the Ripper.
Joseph Barnett precisely matches 6 of them. Two of them are a bit doubtful because not enough is known about the man's occupation and his speech impediment. Are you saying that 6 of Douglas's 8 points are just superficial Jeff and should be taken lightly?
LEANNE |
Peter Sipka
Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 45
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, July 01, 2004 - 7:58 pm: | |
What's all this about citing John Douglas? He can't even make up his mind. He goes saying in Sudgen's book that George Chapman is good pick for a suspect, yet somewhere else he goes on saying that Chapman is a terrible suspect. What's that about? How can you trust him when he can't make up his mind half the time? |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 934
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 02, 2004 - 3:08 am: | |
Hi,
My opinion is profiling, is a lot of balderdash, it is just a bunch of statistics, murderers come in all shapes and sizes , all age groups, of both sexes, most murders are committed by people with a lot of circumstances involved, jealousy, revenge,robbery, sexual urges,panic, self defence,
even serial killers have different reasons to commit murder and use different means to despatch there victims, strangulation, poison , stabbing, shootings,
So to suggest that 'Jack the Ripper' who lived in the nineteenth century comes into profilling of the 21st century and fits neatly into a mould, i for one would never take too seriously.
Regards Richard. |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1282
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 02, 2004 - 7:20 am: | |
Hi Richard
I wouldn't go so far as to say that profiling is balderdash. But I think we have to bear in mind that even the compling of a professional, statistically based profile based on a large number of cases is still painting with a very broad brush. Of all the forensic tools available, as far as I am aware, the only two that can unequivocally identify an individual are fingerprinting and nuclear DNA testing. Of course, neither of these were available to the authorities in 1888.
I think it also important to bear in mind that any profiling is a theoretical construct based on a large number of aberrant individuals. There have been, and always will be, many offenders who "break the mould" and do not fit the profile we would expect for them.
As long as profiling is used in the way it was developed to be used - as a pointer to an offender type rather than an uncannily accurate pointer to an individual in the the Hollywood style - then it has a place, albeit, in my opinion, a strictly limited one.
regards
Chris |
Kayleigh Irving
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, July 02, 2004 - 5:33 am: | |
Wotcha Everyone.
I agree with Richard. Profiling a 19th Century serial killer today is going to be highly inaccurate, due to all the misinterpretations by historians over the years.
Is it possible that JtR had a mental condition that made him think that what he was doing wasn't wrong? Could he have believed that he was doing humanity a favour by getting rid of prostitutes? Did he believe that he was doing the victims a favour by stopping them from degrading themselves by being prostitutes?
The lack of connection between the victims makes me believe that killer had no logic. But then again, I am only an A level student doing coursework on JtR.
What does everyone think?
Interesting conversation.
Kayleigh
|
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 386
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 12, 2004 - 10:50 pm: | |
Richard, I agree. Profiling only serves one purpose - To give the profiler a paycheck. To date NOT one serial killer has been caught by profiling.
Profiling is based on the assumption (and we all know what assumptions do) that someone can be placed into the serial killer mold because they exhibit a number of psychologically disturbing markers/traits which exist in known serial killers.
The problem with this theory is that the serial killers' background isn't known until after they are caught or killed. So, at best profiling is a case of 20/20 hind-sight.
I group profilers in the same class as psychics - one has never caught a killer before hand, and the other has never predicted winning lottery numbers, yet both, after the fact, are able to determine their solution was correct.
Shannon
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1250
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - 5:15 am: | |
Shannon,
I totally agree.
But profiling isnt used to catch killers. Its used to eliminate rather than include or point to a particular suspect.
That said, I do personally feel too much reliance is placed on profiling. It doesnt beat cold hard evidence.
Just my view,
Monty
....all good pals and jolly good company !! |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 313
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 25, 2004 - 3:15 pm: | |
Hi Shannon,
You wrote: “To date NOT one serial killer has been caught by profiling.”
Here are two cases that were solved as a result of profiling:
Paul Kenneth Bostock: he killed Caroline Osborne in August 1983 and Amanda Weedon in April 1985 in Leicester, England – the profile was drawn up by Paul Britton.
Avzal Norman Simons (also known as the Station Strangler): between 1986 and 1994 he killed over twenty little boys in Mitchell’s Plane, South Africa – the profile was drawn up by Micki Pistorius.
The Mad Bomber, George Metesky, who terrorized New York City in the 1940’s and ‘50’s, was accurately profiled by some early profiling doctor.
The profile Robert Ressler drew up of the Vampire of Sacremento fitted Richard Chase pretty much like a glove.
Now, I’m not claiming that each and every profile ever made was as close as in the cases above but to sort of say that profilers suck at what they do goes too far, I think. Although I’m sure worthless profiles have been made – profiling is not a science - I believe there are quite a few profilers who are quite good at it.
It would be a bit naive to think a profiler could hand the police the name and address of the perpetrator on a golden platter. Solving a case will always require good old-fashioned police work, a helpful public and regularly also luck. And, like Monty said, profiling is more about diminishing the group of people the police investigation focuses on rather than actually delivering the perpetrator.
Besides the fact that it isn’t true that not one serial killer has been caught by profiling, it’s completely irrelevant regarding the Ripper case. What may be important here is the fact that at a lot of profilers turn out to be right, regardless of whether a case is solved as a result of their profile or not. And so, profiling could be of some help in the Ripper case.
All the best,
Frank
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 978
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 26, 2004 - 3:43 am: | |
Hi,
Profiling is pure common sense, in the case of the whitechapel murders it would be a fair bet that the perpretrator was aged between mid twenties - forty years of age, he was clearly of male sex, he must have had a reasonable knowledge of the area, and a place of refuge close at hand, he proberly had a unsteady upbringing, and because of his obvious bitter hatred towards women one could draw conclusions that he may have had some kind of physical handicap in his appearence that would have been not attractive to a female of better standing.
My personal belief is that he had a problem with his lower limbs, which made him extremely unsteady when walking, for it may have been the case that both Tabram and Nichols, and possibly stride were able to wrench themselves free from his grasp, until he caught up with them.
Tabram I feel tried to reach safety by entering George Yard, but was caught on the first floor landing, Nichols tried to flee and gain access to a house in Bucks row, before being caught where she was found. and Stride tried to reach the safety of the working mans club, but only reached a few feet inside the gates.
Schwartz sighting of a man walking as if intoxicated, was no doubt the ripper, but not in a state of intoxication , but in the mode of a handicapped person.
Regards Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1379
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 26, 2004 - 5:00 am: | |
G'day Rich,
I remember reading something a while ago, about an early Ripper suspect or maybe just someone's reported sighting of a suspect who used to wear a fake cast on his leg and I remember thinking: "What a great place to hide a knife!" I've got an idea it involved the Polly Nichols murder. I'll start looking for the information!
What I am suggesting is that maybe the Ripper faked a disability, to gain the victim's trust. Someone might point out that no witness reported seeing a man with a plaster cast approach Mary Kelly, (for example), but he didn't have to use this 'trick' each time. A smart murderer would have changed his aproach tactics for each murder!
LEANNE |
Scott Suttar
Detective Sergeant
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 138
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Monday, July 26, 2004 - 10:55 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
I think it was the Nicholls murder but I think (from memory here so could be wrong) that police investigations were able to ascertain that the person actually had a fake leg.
Richard, how does this belief of a handicapped ripper fit in with Barnett? Just curious.
Scotty. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1381
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 3:53 am: | |
G'day Scotty,
It all has to do with the fact that three newspapers reported that Joseph Barnett stammered and repeated the last words of every question asked of him. Author Bruce Paley suggested that this showed he had a speech impediment, which qualifies as a disability.
Former FBI agent Robert K. Ressler found that many serial killers suffered from physical ailments or disabilities.
A former protege of Ressler's, John E. Douglas, found that Jack the Ripper would probably have had some type of physical abnormality that, although not severe, he would perceive as psychologically crippling, (such as a speech impediment).
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1382
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 4:25 am: | |
G'day,
Critics of the Barnett/Ripper theory say that there is nothing else to suggest that he stuttered all the time.
If Joseph Barnett stammered/stuttered only when he got very emotional, that could have been pretty 'psychologically crippling'.
That teamed with a fake plaster cast on his arm or leg or merely a limp, would have been enough to make females trust and feel safe with him.
LEANNE |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 980
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 5:35 am: | |
hi Scott,
The handicap remark was simply a observation that I noticed which of course has nothing to do with Joseph Barnett[ I think].
I was just bewildered by the first two murders that could have showed a similar pattern,ie. if Tabram was attacked on a spot close to George Yard buildings and tried to flee from her pursuer, just as there is some confirmation that Nichols may have tried the same.
That taking in account the testomony of Schwartz [ walked as though intoxicated] may be indicating that the killer had some kind of limb disability that made it impossible to run.
It is well documented that i favour Barnett as the killer[ at least of Mjk] but I also like to forward other ideas that give possible scenerios.
Regards Richard. |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1278
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 11:21 am: | |
LEANNE, Soapy, Richard,
Guys, just for info.
James Henry
../4920/10243.html"../../clipart/happy.gif" ALT=":-)" BORDER=0>
No, you cant have one extra on the leg side...but you can have five ! |
How Brown
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, July 25, 2004 - 6:41 pm: | |
Monty,as usual,hits the nail on the head. Likewise,Mr. Van Oploo...If I may also include the fact that profilers that DID participate in the Centennial program ..Hazelwood,Douglas...DID NOT take into consideration the removal and possible retention of Mrs. Nichols,Mrs. Chapman,Mrs.Eddowes and quite possibly,Ms.Kelly's
organs..Suffice to say,modern profilers don't differ in degree to what a profiler from the Nineteenth Century would have....However,in the the 21st Century, regardless of the disdain of profilers to consider the wider palate of criminal motives,usually stuck within the statistical parameters of the "WM,23,unemployed,etc.", modern police investigators are NOT. Occult experts,for one example,are usually called in, instanter, to examine ANY form of bodily mutilation. I know first hand the interest that Philadelphia Police had in determining whether an evisceration murder which,of course,the Whitechapel Murders were,that happened sixteen months here, had occultist/ritualistic implications. Its no accident that these experts are called in for their appraisal of the body should there be the slightest connotation of a possible ritual element to the murder. Hopefully profilers will take more notice of murders that fall outside the parameters most of us are familiar with. Modern America,at least,with its volume of increasing non Western immigrants, will definitely see more of the occultist/ritualistic stamp to its bizarre crimes. This is just one example of one area usually underemphasized in criminal profiling.
|
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 418
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 7:11 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
I've been away for a bit, so I missed your post of July 1 above. As per the question:
"Are you saying that 6 of Douglas's 8 points are just superficial Jeff and should be taken lightly?"
No, I'm not saying that, I'm saying John Douglas says that! Read the exerpt I quoted from JD's book (The Cases that Haunt Us) and you'll see he explicitly states that the points upon which Barnett matches his profile are the points which he calls the superficial points. I'm not an expert on profiling, so I myself don't have the knowledge base upon which to make such a claim. However, since the profile was drawn up by John Douglas, and John Douglas tells us specifically that Barnett does not match his profile beyond the superficial points, then it becomes obvious that to claim Barnett matches JD's profile must be a false claim.
Let me put it this way, if the profiler specifically rules "person A does not match this profile", then it becomes irrelevant if person A shares some attributes with the profiled suspect; especially if those points are considered "superficial points" that are common across many profiles, almost regardless of the crimes involved (i.e., white male is presented as a default that must be over-ridden before some other description is suggested).
What that means is "white male" is a guess that requires no direct evidence from the crime because it's based upon inferential statistics. Something like:
1) we have a murder, but no evidence about the killer
2) the majority of people in jail for murder are white males (let's say 80% as an example)
Inference: without evidence to suggest otherwise, there is an 80% chance that the suspect is a white male.
Note, this is an "inference" because it is based upon evidence from "other murders" not based upon the current case. The points (race, age, gender, etc) that Paley lists are inferential points. Most serial killers of prostitutes that involve strangulation and mutilation have been committed by "white males, in the age range of 20-35, of low income, etc". In otherwords, most males in Whitechappel would also fit many of those points (hence, they are superficial points).
As an aside, if one found a piece of skin under the victims finger nails, and this skin was
1) from a white person and
2) DNA showed X and Y chromosomes,
then one could form the following deduction:
Premise: The skin is from the victims killer
1) the skin is from a white person
2) XY chromosomes come from males
Deduction: the killer is a white male who will have scratches on them.
This time, we're basing our profile on direct crime scene evidence. So, it wouldn't matter if only 2% of murderers were white males, we would still profile a white male in this case (direct evidence over-rides an inference). Of course, if our premise is incorrect (meaning the skin was not from the victims killer), our deduction would be unfounded and one would either have to go back to an inference to guess the likely characteristics of the suspect, or make no claims at all. This is why the premises underlying a deduction must also be verified.
But notice also, if our premise is correct, we also know that the suspect has been scratched. This isn't a "guess", the way an inference is, this is something that simply must be true if our premise is true (100%, not 80%). And, depending upon the amount of time since the murder, this would be an important point to check out if a suspect was located.
Anyway, I'm heading off topic, but what I wanted to point out is why the points that Douglas calls "superficial" might be considered so. First, they are inferences (not based upon direct evidence from this crime, but rather based upon other crimes that have been solved!), and these 6 out of 8 of these points would match up with a large percentage of the population in question (Whitechappel) whether or not they are guilty.
- Jeff |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 419
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 7:17 pm: | |
By the way, I want to stress the point that just because Barnett cannot be said to match John Douglas's profile for the above reasons does not, in any way, mean that Barnett could not have been responsible for the murders. Profiles are not 100% accurate. All I'm trying to get across is that when one puts forth arguements as to why Barnett should be considered a suspect, one should not include in that list a statement like "Barnett fits the profile", because he is specifically ruled out by the profile.
That being said, if one is trying to present a complete picture of the case for Barnett, one should also list any information suggesting his innocence as well. Meaning, one should point out that the profile excludes him, but also point out that profiles are not 100% accurate (this later point should be made regardless of whether or not a suspect fits the profile).
- Jeff |
Scott Suttar
Detective Sergeant
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 144
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 11:13 pm: | |
Hi all,
Jeff, thanks for that explanation, all makes perfect sense when it is stated so clearly.
Thanks for that Monty old chap, it was a wooden arm not a wooden leg. I sit corrected. Ah Richard, I appreciate your frankness above. Nice to know you are willing to consider ideas which might not fit in with Barnett.
Scotty. |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1281
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 5:56 am: | |
Scott, How,
Scotty,
No worries. Got the chaps name wrong though. I knew there was a link with Ede.
The Big lad from Philly,
Good to read you. Hows the family?
Hopefully profilers will take more notice of murders that fall outside the parameters most of us are familiar with.
I couldnt agree more.
Will we be seeing you on the A?R thread then ?
Im joking....its just a bit of fun !
Monty
No, you cant have one extra on the leg side...but you can have five ! |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1383
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 7:15 pm: | |
G'day Jeff,
Welcome back! Now I think I get it: by 'superficial' Douglas means that 6 of his 8 points don't count, because they apply to many people living in whitechapel at the time!
I assume that the two points that he claims are NOT superficial are the two points that Paley couldn't provide sufficient evidence for i.e:
* 'JtR would have sought a job where he could experience his destructive fantasies.'
(Paley claimed that Barnett boned and gutted fish in his job as a fish porter, and critics claim that porters didn't!)
* 'JtR probably had a physical abnormality that he perceived as psychologically crippling.' (Paley points to Barnett's apparent speech impediment and critics claim there is nothing to suggest that he stuttered all the time.)
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1384
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 7:24 pm: | |
G'day,
As to those two points that critics hate:
* Claiming that Barnett boned and gutted fish were the wrong words to use, and it was the wrong example to give. Look closely at the work of a fish porter at the time. They carried boxes of DEAD fish, with STARING EYES and some fish were sold live and killed with a blow to the head.
* Even if Barnett only had problems with his speech during emotional times, that would have been pretty 'psychologically crippling'!
LEANNE |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 420
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 8:48 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
I can't speak for Douglas (obviously) but from the bit I've included above from his book, I don't think it's the "2 points" that Douglas considers "non-superficial". He might consider even these two points as "superficial matches" as well (not sure; but since one could argue "all doctors, dentists, fish porters, butchers, chefs, etc" could be presented as if they fit the notion of "has a job in which he could experience destructive fantacies", then he might. Doctors inflict pain, around dead bodies, etc, similar for dentists (well, maybe not so many dead bodies there), fish porters (dead fish all day long), etc.
Douglas seems to rule out Barnett because he does not see JtR as someone capable of an even remotely normal relationship with a woman. Barnett's relationship with MJK was normal, especially in their time and place. Also, he really doesn't go for the motive as offered by Paley at all. Douglas figures JtR is much more mentally disturbed, hence he favours suspects with some sort of mental disorder (like schizophrenia).
Anyway, whether or not one agrees with JD's profile of JtR is not the point I'm trying to make. I'm just trying to make it clear that the profile excludes Barnett, so one should not claim he matches or fits it.
Just because Barenett does not match the profile, however, doesn't mean he could not have been the Ripper.
If he was the Ripper, that would mean the profile is wrong.
If he's not the Ripper, the profile could still be wrong (the real Ripper could be nothing like the profiled suspect).
Of course, the profile could be very accurate, which would make Barnett not the Ripper, but the Ripper being a person much like Douglas describes. He suggests that "David Cohen", or someone very much like him. In other words, the profile as give by John Douglas is exemplified by a violent, schizophrenic, manic individual who has little control of their actions, and a poor connection with reality.
- Jeff
|
Howard Brown
Police Constable
Username: Howard
Post Number: 4
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 9:41 pm: | |
Yo, Monty !!
The kids are doing well. Thanks for asking...
Nah...you won't find me on that thread,Monty.
Later,my friend. Brews are on me....
 |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1385
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 9:59 pm: | |
G'day Jeff,
The word 'schizophrenia' didn't even exist until Swiss psychiatrist Eugen Bleuler used it in 1911. Some Websites tell me he used it in 1908. Either way, it was well after 1888!
Which 2 points of Douglas's do you feel were his 'non-superficial' ones?
Why didn't he include: 'JtR would have been a violent, manic individual who had little control over his actions' in his 8 points?
LEANNE |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1202
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 5:54 am: | |
Hi all,
Sorry to elbow my way in here, but, I can't find the post that shows that the profile rules out Barnett. It seems to fit him for me as Leanne pointed out somewhere above. Please can someone point out the above post which proves that Barnett doesn't fit the profile or repost.
Thanks,
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to 
Smile too much and the world will guess  |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 184
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 6:24 am: | |
Leanne, I don't think Douglas is saying that his points are superficial, I think that he's saying the things that people who support Barnett claim are matches aren't solid matches but superficial ones.
For example, a job to take out violence normally does not include gutting fish or thumping fish on the head. Those sort of things would not provide much satisfaction because it's just a fish. Satisfaction would be noises, suffering, anatomy similar to humans and so forth. So probably mostly mammals, to have some similarity to killings.
And as far as the whole stress-related stuttering, there's no evidence that he ever had the kind of stress previously in his life to cause him to stutter. Stuttering at an inquest discussing the brutal murder of your lover is whole levels above most other kinds of stress person would normally go through. As I've said before, I don't have a speech impediment, but I have developed a horrible stutter on a few occasions related to deeply traumatic events, like my mom dying. Those stutters aren;t psychologically damaging to me because they were the result of other psychological damage and not the cause.
So trying to say it was psychologically troubling to Barnett to stutter at the inquest is kind of like saying that anyone who ever suffered grief because their loved one was killed must have been the killer of their loved one because all that grief would drive them nutty enough to kill people. You seem to have the cause and effect relationship completely backwards.
At least that's my interpretation of how that particular profile comes down. I personally think Douglas' profile was off anyway, but it you want to play with it as if it is good you have to follow the rules as set by the guy who made it.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1203
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 7:30 am: | |
Just one thing about the stuttering. I found that I stutter on occasion, I didn't think I did, but then sometimes when I'm nervous now I do. I don't know why and can't think when this started but I think it's just nerves and that's natural. It doesn't mean you have a speech impediment.
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to
Smile too much and the world will guess |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1387
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 9:08 am: | |
G'day,
'There is no evidence that emotional stress causes stuttering.'
http://www.disability.vic.go.au/dsonline/dsarticles.nsf/pages/stuttering/OpenDocument
Look about half way down the page and under the heading: 'The cause is Unknown'.
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1388
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 9:20 am: | |
G'day,
Stuttering has a link to stress only because it can be worsened when a person is under stress, but it can not be CAUSED by stress!
LEANNE
|
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1204
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 9:33 am: | |
Leanne,
Then how is it that sometimes I stutter under stress but never stutter when I am not. I'm not saying stress causing the speech impediment but sometimes stress brings out natural occasional stuttering or stammering or whatever anyone wants to call it.
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: 1912
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 9:40 am: | |
G'day Leanne,
Even if stuttering could be worsened under stress, so what?
You seem to take Barnett's alleged stuttering as evidence of Barnett being the Ripper.
But that is not necessarily so. If stuttering gets worse in situations where you get nervous, then wouldn't you think it's reasonable that just being taken in for questioning by the police would be enough to make you stutter in such case, regardless if you're guilty or not?
The whole situation would be rather stressful in itself anyway.
So that by itself doesen't say anything whatsoever about Barnett's guilt -- not if we want solid proof.
I do think that there is a chance that Barnett could have been Mary kelly's killer (although not Jack the Ripper), but I just wanted to point that out. Police interrogations were rather harsh in 1888, and if your loved one had been killed in such a gruesome manner, a police interrogation I think would be enough to make you stutter (if you had such a disability beforehand), even if you were innocent.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 675
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 9:45 am: | |
Leanne,
Your determination to remain ignorant in this matter is relentless. Let me state it one more time as I sit here in my dorm room, currently taking numerous graduate level courses in the area of Communication Sciences and Disorders.
Persons can suffer from a condition that for laymen terms is called "stuttering". For persons suffering from THE DISORDER OF STUTTERING, the root cause is not nervousness or stress.
However, since it is a well established fact that people who DO NOT SUFFER FROM THE DISORDER OF STUTTERING often stutter when under stress, for many years/decades it was believed that PEOPLE WHO SUFFER FROM THE DISORDER OF STUTTERING were simply more nervous than those that do not.
Stuttering as a disability is very different than stuttering as an occasional thing and therefore websites which are geared towards stutterers or PEOPLE WHO SUFFER FROM THE DISORDER OF STUTTERING will often emphasize that their cause of stuttering is not the same as the average person's cause of stuttering.
If you'd like, I could possibly get the head of the COSD department to write an affadivit to this effect but she would probably consider the question so daft that she wouldn't bother and my academic reputation would be shot.
 |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 676
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 1:02 pm: | |
As I was studying for my final tomorrow, I was viewing a supplemental site that accompanies my text and came across this...do read it please Leanne and pay special attention to these passages (bolding is mine):
"Speech fluency can be disrupted by a variety of different events. After all, speech is a secondary function in humans. In times of physiological or psychological stress, the body may withdraw the underlying system support for speech to maintain the primary, life support functions of those systems. When this happens, there is a limited inventory of speech fluency disruptions that can result. Speech dysfluencies such as repeating speech sounds and words, prolonging speech sounds, and hesitating during speech can accompany a wide variety of stressful events such as stroke, head injury, neurological disease, language development pressures, and fatigue. When events such as these cause speech dysfluency, some people label the symptoms as stuttering regardless of the different etiologies. However, there are questionable implications in using a single term, stuttering, to label all instances of speech dysfluency."
and
"All speakers experience moments, or even prolonged periods, of speech dysfluency. Usually, both the speaker and the listener ignore, or quickly forget, the behavior. It is evidently perceived as unremarkable or normal speech behavior. The judgment of dysfluency as stuttering may be determined as a matter of degree."
http://wps.ablongman.com/ab_disorders_supersite/0,6776,394723-,00.html
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
