|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 3057
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Friday, April 23, 2004 - 8:31 pm: |       |
If there is anyone here who feels Dr. Thomas Neill Cream remains a plausible suspect in the Ripper murders, please drop an email to spryder -at- casebook.org. There is a journalist in Canada looking to speak with Ripperologists who favor Cream as a top suspect - he's asked me to put out some feelers for possible interviews.
Also if anyone has done any in-depth research on Cream, please get in touch with me asap. This is time-sensitive so the sooner the better. Thanks!
Stephen P. Ryder, Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 314
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 05, 2004 - 1:19 pm: | |
I think that article is now up: The Ripper and us.
Dave |
Shelley Wiltshire
Sergeant
Username: Shelley
Post Number: 13
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 10:40 am: | |
Hi,
Dr Niel Cream couldn't have possibly fit the suspect of Jack the Ripper...as i have mentioned on other posts (or maybe a post), Dr Cream had poisioned 4 prostitutes in 1891, this is 3 years after the ripper murders took place and a serial sex killer that has embarked on mutilation as a method, does not suddenly switch from mutilation to poisioning. I might add i mentioned this to a police officer (a real one) and he agreed i was right, and asked why don't i join the police force.
Cheers
Shelley
Criminology Student
For MASC (Ad Crim) |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1944
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 11:14 am: | |
Hi all,
I completely agree with Shelley here.
Cream -- as a poisoner -- is a rather unlikely suspect for the very same reasons Shelley points out, and I have also always scrapped Chapman/Severin Klosowski for the very same reasons.
Poisoning and mutilating are completely different crimes psychologically and the former is usually conducted on certain motive grounds, like profit or love affairs.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on July 31, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Shelley Wiltshire
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shelley
Post Number: 55
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 6:34 am: | |
Hi Glenn,
Thanks for the backup in your post...Glad to see someone who knows for certain the proffessional side of the psychology of a serial killer who mutilates as oppossed to a killer who poisions.
Cheers
Shelley
Criminology Student |
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 67
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 6:50 am: | |
Glenn, Shelley and all,
May I clear this up for everyone? Dr. Thomas Neill Cream was not 'Jack the Ripper'. This is not a biased statement, it is a factual one.
Dr. Cream was arrested in 1881 and served 10 years in Joliet Prison, Illinois, USA, released in 1891. Therefore he was incarcerated during the time of the murders.
In 1974 theorist Donald Bell proposed that Dr. Cream may have bribed his way out of prison and committed the 'JTR' murders. This is an absolutley flawed argument, because it implies that Dr. Cream bribed his way out before 1888, committed these murders, then bribed his way back inside to be released in 1891, as the prison records clearly show. Bell never mentions this important fact because it totally destroys his thesis.
There is no case against Dr. Thomas Neill Cream, joining three other suspects who have been thoroughly cleared of their participation in the murders, not including John Pizer, who was also cleared of the murders.
STAN RUSSO |
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 61
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 6:55 am: | |
Shelley,
No one "knows for certain the professional side of the psychology of a serial killer who mutilates as opposed to a killer who poisons."
To withdraw Cream, Klosowski, or whoever else totally out of the picture just because they killed differently than the Ripper would be a total mistake. Please, tell me for certain how a human beings mind works, or rather, a serial killers mind. You can’t. Therefore, it doesn't make sense to just fall back on the psychology aspect of it. Every single mind is different.
|
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 68
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 7:16 am: | |
Peter,
Interesting points and quite true. No one really knows what goes on within a serial killer's mind, to which both Cream and Klosowski are.
However, with regards to Cream, that aspect does not apply, because he was in prison at the time of the murders. Case closed on Dr. Cream.
The people who close the cases on other suspects should take Dr. Cream as an example. This is how a researcher conclusively exonerates a suspect, not because of their own general biases or theorists complete and utter failure to prove a case against someone.
STAN RUSSO |
Shelley Wiltshire
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shelley
Post Number: 57
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 8:28 am: | |
Hi, Peter & Stan,
If you mean every complex detail of the mind etc cannot be determind of 1 person in particular, yes i would agree that psychatrists and doctors etc wouldn't be able to determine everything. But the basis of what you are using an arguement that a Mutilator serial killer would turn around and decline to being a serial killer poisoner is absolutely absured to say the least, as i have said before the psychological aspect of a mutilator progresses not declines, the same as the psychological side of a thief who gets away with his crime increases his activity of theft, the same as a rapist (also other profiles do come into that also) who rapes and continues to rape with increase because he get's away with it. This is basic psychology within criminology and cannot be disputed.
Regards
Shelley
Criminology Student |
Shelley Wiltshire
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shelley
Post Number: 58
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 8:34 am: | |
Stan,
Well done pal you've hit the nail on the head with Cream, yes your absolutely right why would he have bribed his way out of Joliet then bribed his way back in only to be released a few years later. Besides i stick to the fact of the psychological profile of a poisioner cannot have been a mutilator beforehand, as i've said before the reasons why a killer mutilates is because he get's PSYCHOLOGICAL enjoyment of mutilating. |
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 69
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 8:44 am: | |
Shelley,
As hard as it was to follow your last post let me comment. Basic Psychology is simply that, basic. it does not always apply to everybody and every situation in an exact manner. that is why it is only a social science and not an actual science.
Anyone can do anything at any given moment. This is a fact of human existence. It is not feasible to believe that anyone could murder and mutilate prostitutes, yet it happened. It is unfathomable to believe that to think that young virgin women could be sacrificed to appease Gods that refuse to provide proof of their existence, yet that happened. It is impossible to believe that men of the cloth could inflict disgusting acts upon children, yet it happens.
Anyone can do anything at any time. There need not be some mystical psychological motivating factor that explains it all. That is why I feel comparisons between other serial killers in all cases that involve mass murderers are pointless. frames of reference do not work, because there is no precise scientific method to discover the inner workings of a mind that can not differentiate right versus wrong, as is the case with anyone who takes anothers life. Perhaps if the followers of this case would understand that basic principle, that no one is above committing a heinous act, than some of the mentioned suspects will be removed from holy grail status, the status that it could not possibly have been them because they painted a picture or wrote a book or created a sonnet.
Anyway, all moot. Dr. Cream was in jail during the murders.
STAN RUSSO |
Shelley Wiltshire
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shelley
Post Number: 60
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 9:50 am: | |
Hi again Stan,
You've got some good facts down on your last post, but i have to say that proffessional Doctor's of Criminology would agree in every circumstance of a serial killer that mutilates does not switch to poisioning thereafter, if you want to dispute the proffessionals thats your choice, in all the cases studied of mutilators this is a predominant pattern that does not change,there we have it in a nutshell.
Best Wishes
Shelley
Criminology Student |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 221
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 10:17 am: | |
Shelley,
I'd watch the "cannot be disputed" bit, as actual cases of serial killers show that they do sometimes change methods quite dramatically. I would hope that during your studies you read case histories and not just criminology theories. Profiling is still new, and like any new area of research, some of the initial assumptions are proving to be wrong. Of course "experts" find it easier to proclaim themselves right than admitting they may be wrong. In any case, profiles are about deciding how *likely* something is in general, not whether it is impossible or not. Even there profiles are all too often wrong one very important details. If you treat the current general theories as some sort of religious canon you'll end up missing what's really going on.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 62
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 3:21 pm: | |
Hey Shelley,
I would gladly like to dispute the "professionals." And the last professional I trusted told me I had no chance of living as I was lying in the hospital bed coming back from a car crash. This doctor was one of the best. Yet, here I am, today, living.
That was not actually a story about me. It's a story about millions of people who are told by so called "professionals" that they will not live or have almost no hope. Lance Armstrong is an example. What do you know? It turns out the professionals were wrong. Like Dan said, profilers as well.
And also, you seem to be disputing opinions by the professionals, except me. Stan is to have a book come out and Dan is the editor of the Ripper notes.
My point is, and what I get out of Stan and Dan's points is that you are relying way too heavily on the profiling of a poisioner and a mutilator. Really, if I were Jack the Ripper, I wouldn't wake up one day and decide to only stick to poisoning because the experts say I don't switch and it's not in my mind. (For some reason, they magically know what goes on in my head) The reason I would switch is because I may fear detection from the police and by switching I would throw them off for a bit. Or, I could just lay low for a year or two. So, then, maybe they will think I'm dead. Like Dan said, the method changing has happened before. And like Stan said, anybody can do anything at any time.
Well, now, we can take Cream out of the picture since it’s a fact he couldn’t have done it.
If you have nailed how the mind works, congratulations. You’d be the first person.
Basically, you are stating your points on fact Shelley. A mistake.
|
Shelley Wiltshire
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shelley
Post Number: 66
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 7:09 pm: | |
Hey everyone,
let's not get into the side of the 'Faith' factor and acts of God, God will make fools of us everytime! Lets for now forget hospitals and miricles ( my nephew was healed by someone from my church and baffled the doctor's too). Lets just stick to human profiling shall we, i'd like for you to name some so called cases of a mutilator serial killer that changed his MO to a more gentle line of killing, can you? I can mention some that do not...For starters Andre Chickatilo and Peter Kurten, both sex killers and mutilators, also Reginald Haliday Christie, Landru , Bela Kiss ,also considering that a sex killer undergo's sexual preference, which could be either in the case of a homosexual killer killing obviously the same sex (more often the case is a male killer), a bisexual killer kills both sexs, or you can get a child sex killer of either sex or a mixture of both adult and child victims, the worst is both adults young and old together plus animals as well as children & even babies, some just mutilate and kill animals, some sex killers take all these catagories together because it's their sexual preference, but either way it doesn't change the MO..right now you have a go!
Regards
Shelley
Criminology Student |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 442
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 8:02 pm: | |
The thing about Cream's posoinings is that they were not a "gentle" form of killing. I believe the poison's he used were such that it took hours to kill his victims, and they were in extreme agony the whole time. Cream would know this, and in all liklihood, chose his poisons for that reason.
With that in mind, one would suggest that what Cream found "enjoyable" was the fantasizing of the pain and death he was causing. If this is true, if he did enjoy the idea of causing pain and suffering, then Cream's "motive" is that of a sadist. Pain and suffering of another brings him enjoyment.
Therefore, there's no reason why Cream might not have been capable of inflicting mutilations provided the victim suffers while doing so. However, what is missing in the JtR murders is any evidence the victimes were consciously suffering during the mutilations. It's generally accepted that the mutilations were performed post-mortem.
A dead, or even unconcious, victim cannot provide the feedback that a sadist requires. If the mutilations were peformed on a living and concious victim (and yes, this kind of thing does happen), then JtR would fit the description of a sadistic killer. Because the victims were unconscious, or already dead, when the mutilations were performed, then JtR cannot be said to be "sadistic" no matter how much damage was performed during the mutilations. JtR seems to have gained his "enjoyment", or fulfilled his "motive", through the destruction of a female body. He did not appear to require that the victim experience a great deal of pain per se, and any pain and fear they did experience would just be a by product of his need to silence them so he would perform his mutilations. The lack of any evidence to suggest that JtR was motivated by sadism, while Cream's murders appear to be motivated by sadism, suggests the two individuals are not the same person (different underlying drives seem to be motivating the respective murders).
In other words, it's not the difference in "method" (poisoning vs strangulation/throat cutting) so much as the difference in the apparent "motive" (sadism vs need to mutilate) that really works against Cream as JtR from a psychological profile point of view.
His being in jail at the time is definative, the difference in apparent motive makes him "highly unlikely". But, as pointed out, nothing is beyond the individual human mind. Even the fraction of 1% events must happen "sometimes", if not all that often.
- Jeff |
Shelley Wiltshire
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shelley
Post Number: 67
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 8:14 pm: | |
Hi Jeff,
In the first instance the victims of the ripper were dead having their throat cut, the mutilations took place after their death (no watching of pain in a sadistic manner), 2 poisioning in comparision of a physical violent death is classed as a milder killing, Cream did not mutilate his victims, his profiling is different in crime, the two have no bearing on one another. Cream was not a ripper killer, only a poisioner lets have that clear.
Regards
Shelley
Criminology Student |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 613
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 8:14 pm: | |
I read the thread title and thought this was a place for fans of Eric Clapton, Ginger Baker, and Jack Bruce.
Sorry about that.
Sitting in a white room with black curtains,
--John
PS: Hey, wait a minute. Ginger Baker -- Ginger Beer....
Hmmmmmmm....
|
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 443
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 8:28 pm: | |
Hi Shelly,
I think we're agreeing actually. Basically, I'm focusing on the lack of any sadistic indicators in the JtR murders to contrast the possible presence of them in Cream's poisonings. If Cream chose the poison's he did because knowing the suffering he would case brought him enjoyment, then Cream's "motive" is sadistic.
JtR, whoever they were, does not appear to be motivated by sadism (all mutilations are post-mortem).
The difference in motive (if Cream was a sadist, of course), suggests different people.
However, if the situation with JtR was such that sadism could be suggested as a motive (if it appeared his victims were tortured), then Cream would "fit the bill" (both series of murders would then appear motivated by sadism; same motive, just a different method, etc). Since this is not the case, however, I'm just presenting it to round out the view.
- Jeff |
Shelley Wiltshire
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shelley
Post Number: 68
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 8:43 pm: | |
Hey Peter,
You've got it all wrong with the way a serial killer would think...Glad to know your'e not a serial killer!
A serial killer doesn't think about the police force as a game of chess! being one step ahead of them all the time and..Ooh how can i fool them and throw them off the scent before i've begun my killing spree! A serial killer is only interested in getting his pleasure ( putting aside the severely mentally ill for the moment), the only time a serial killer starts to think of covering his tracks so to speak is when things have gotten heated and close, either through police or a witness, only then does he make adaptions but still does not change his MO otherwise it would be pointless in his gaining satisfaction. Please read some authenticated books on the subject, they could help clear your confusion. If you think about it in JTR and the 'Double event' Liz Stride's throat was only cut ( she wasn't mutilated) but less than an hour later Eddowes was found not only dead but mutilated also ( he obviously needed to satisfy himself the same night ! as for the other victims some time was left between each) You see he was nearly caught with Stride, but he didn't lay low, he went for Eddowes and his satisfaction. Satisfaction is upper most in a serial killers mind, hope this explains it better.
Regards
Shelley
Criminology Student |
Shelley Wiltshire
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shelley
Post Number: 69
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 8:48 pm: | |
Hi Dan,
What kind of reading do you do?
Heck i'll just leave this message:
'It can't be disputed'
Keep posting Dan
Regards
Shelley
Criminology Student |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2006
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 9:13 pm: | |
Hi all,
There is really no need for me to further elaborate on these points, since Peter and I earlier have been battling it out regarding Klosowski and had the same discussions (Hey Peter, old boy!  )
However, let me just point out, that we can of course state that we "can't know what's going on in a serial killer's mind", but that argument is useless, since that would allow us to claim anything! It is just ridiculous.
Let's face it; the only references we have in order to make our deductions here, are the knowledge we have regarding other serial killers -- with all its flaws and theoretical generalisations. And we're not talking just profiling "rules" here, but purely common sense.
It's perfectly true that Cream couldn't have done it due to factual circumstances, but even besides that point, his credibility as a suspect must -- as in Klosowski's case -- be questioned completely. A poisoner kills for other reasons than a mutilator or a sexual serial killer. A poisoner has a motive, like money or to get rid of a wife for rational reasons. A mutilator committs his crimes because he needs to and because of an sexual urge or mania. It is two complete different types of characters, and you don't need profiling to establish that.
Especially when we're talking switching FROM mutilations TO poisoning. This is totally unlikely.
No author or scholar that has studied the Ripper case has ever taken either Klosowski/Chapman or Cream seriously as true Ripper suspect (note that Sugden just made a study of Chapman, he never truly suggested him as a serious suspect), and there is a reason for it.
I totally stand by Shelley on this point.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 63
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 10:12 pm: | |
Hey Glenn!
Glad to hear you touch on this subject. I was hoping you'd say something again on this section of the Boards. I know you did earlier yesterday and let's not forget, those great arguments we had about Mr. Klosowski. Anyway, I'm sure our arguments will lead to nowhere if I get involved here, because I'll probably be saying the same thing as before. Actually, we'll both be repeating ourselves.
Not to get off subject, but I tried to find you to tell you that I'm away from my home and I'm trying to respond to the earlier e-mail, but I can't send the stupid message! I went on the Yahoo account, but it said your email address wasn't valid. Very strange because it worked before. I guess I will have to send you it tomorrow.
Take care
P.S.-do "lantchips" sound familiar to you? |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2008
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 10:24 pm: | |
Hey Peter,
What? My e-mail address invalid? Must be Yahoo that's got a hick-up. Did you type it correctly?
Oh yes... "lantchips"!
Theyu are supposed to be ecological. Some find them rather dry, though...
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 444
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 11:07 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
The switch of technique is a big negative for both "suspects". But, I think what's generally not mentioned, is that not only are the MO's systematic in each series (so, it's not like we're dealing with someone experimenting with different techniques: JtR, Cream, and Chapman are all consistent in their MO's) but the "motives" seem very different.
Cream's motive seems sadistic. He uses painful poisons, and seemed to enjoy thinking about how much the victims suffered. He enjoyed reading about their deaths, and the descriptions of their suffering. He didn't try and hide the fact that murder was committed. Cream seems primarily motivated by sadism.
Chapman, however, didn't want murder to be detected. He seems to have killed to get out of a relationship. He may, however, also have had a sadistic motive, since he appears to have liked to mentally torture his victims friends/family. So, Chapman seems motivated to commit murder for an obvious personal benefit (removal of unwanted relationship) coupled with the possibility of sadistic pleasure being gained. He may also have gained some sort of personal pleasure at being able to outwit the medical profession by being able to "get away with murder" despite the doctor's investigations.
JtR, however, kills his victims quickly. He does not seem to gain pleasure in their pain. As such, sadism cannot be said to be a part of his motive.
I find it hard to believe a killer whos motive seems to involve some pleasure gained by body mutilation without sadistic tendencies could then switch to "sadistic poisonings" that do not include the previously enjoyable mutilations, or even the ability to watch the person in pain (I'm talking Cream here). I could see JtR evolving into a sadistic killer if he could find a way to get his victim alone where he could keep her awake while mutilating her. That kind of progression into sadism, sure. Maybe even then switching to sadistic poisonings, but I would think a much more gradual progression there (i.e., being able to watch them die of poisoning, then later not needing to see it happen, just know it happened; with the occasional kife work thrown in for good measure, etc). But given how consistent JtR's preference is for the knife without sadism, to make a complete switch to poison's and sadism? No way.
Same with Chapman, really.
Anyway, I know we're agreeing here. I guess I just want to emphasize that it's not just the MO that is different. The motives seem to be just as different. And, if one is going to argue based upon psychological grounds that the crimes are different, then I think the emphasis should be to include the different psychological drives behind the motives. Sadism for Cream and possibly Chapman, but not "sadism" for JtR. Combine that with different MO's as well, and it's hard to come to the conclusion that either of these suspects could really be JtR.
- Jeff |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 563
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 16, 2004 - 10:14 am: | |
Hi all,
First let me emphasize that I do not consider Cream a serious suspect and I know quite well that the possibility I am going to pose is very, very far fetched (and I don't believe it myself).
For those who say that it is absolutely impossible that Cream was in London in 1888, consider this remote possibility. He indeed could have bribed his way out of prison before the murders began. Records show him being released later, but that doesn't mean he would have had to have bribed his way back in. The authorities would have to cover their tracks in some way. They couldn't allow their records to show Cream being released early. Therefore, they would have to falsify a record of his release at later date. Far fetched, but just within the realm of possibility.
I just bring this up to illustrate how difficult it truly is to completely eliminate the possibility of any suspect.
Andy S. |
Shelley Wiltshire
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shelley
Post Number: 74
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, August 16, 2004 - 2:26 pm: | |
Hi Andrew,
Your post is logical, but Cream was a poisioner not a mutilator, Cream found his kicks elsewhere...The JTR killings & Cream's killings are totally different, so it was 2 different killers. A mutilator does not at all change to poisoning, that in itself is an impossibility. No one in a proffessional field of work in relation to crime would ever exept Cream as a suspect, only writers with somewhat wild imagination would have Cream down as a suspect.
Regards
Shelley
Criminology Student (Advanced) |
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 64
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Monday, August 16, 2004 - 3:48 pm: | |
Hey Shelley,
For you to state that a killer in his “before” stages doesn't think about a police force and being one step ahead of them is absurd. Perhaps some do. How do you think JTR got away during his first couple murders? He just randomly decided to go out one night and kill, without having any idea of police locations and so forth?
Oh, and please don't bring up the “he got more violent and violent as time was going by and he was about to go insane and kill himself.”
If you think about it, the more time JTR had, the worse the killings were. Just take Mary Kelly's murder for example. He had a lot more time to do what he set out to do. Plus, he was indoors.
And if you think about it, the point of my previous post was to show you experts aren't always right. It sounds like you are relying way too heavily on them. The ideal JTR student would make decisions for themselves with some assistance from experts. It seems like you are getting all your assistance from them and not thinking for yourself. So much, you know that Cream wasn’t JTR, not because he wasn’t their at the time, but because he was a posioner.
And how do you Stride was even a Ripper victim? If you examine the time a bit more carefully, you would notice that there is a possibility JTR or whoever killed Stride set out that night not to mutilate her. It's a possibility he may have been long gone before she was discovered.
Perhaps you are confused, not me. I would suggest not relying so heavily on expert opinion. I can name psychologists who have actually been wrong in the past. I’m not saying not to listen to experts, but it's about thinking for yourself too.
|
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 224
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, August 16, 2004 - 6:44 pm: | |
Shelley,
I see you went from calling yourself a criminology student to an advanced criminology student. Did you go through some initiation process, pass some test, or just decide your old title wasn't impressive enough?
You named off a couple killers you claimed didn't change MO. Of course naming a couple of examples does not prove that all killers work the exact same way as the ones you mention. But then the problem here is that the killers you chose also don't support your case very well. Kurten and Chikatilo did modify their MOs in various ways (although not as drastically as some others), and both did make decisions to try to throw authorities off the scent.
When you claim that serial killers don't care about staying ahead of the police I have to seriously wonder whether you are reading an expert opinions at all, because this is so completely off base that I can't even imagine the most clueless experts obsessed with their own opinions over facts saying something so obviously wrong. Just about every serial killer who has ever killed long enough to gain police attention has modified his actions to try to avoid capture.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Shelley Wiltshire
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shelley
Post Number: 80
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, August 16, 2004 - 7:05 pm: | |
Hi Dan,
Firstly i didn't type out Advanced because i didn't see it on my course sheet to start with, and no i haven't gone up a scale either because i decided to or not, i'm still on the same course! so it was advanced to start with.
I have however done home study of criminology for many years, i read books which are from proffessionals. Yes i agree that Kurten slightly changed, but not heavy enough for the arguement you had been using from a 'mutilator to a poisioner', Kurten changed from a knife to a hammer, but what ever he changed his weapon to, it doesn't help your arguement, he was still a violent murderer who got sexual pleasure from stabbing and seeing blood (by the way Kurten could easily be argued as a sexual stabber rather than a mutilator, as the stabbing of a five year old was so severe as to argue whether it was mutilation in the beginnings thereof or just a bad stabbing given the size of the child), Guess you missed that one Dan huh? To clear things up modification is not always neccessarily a change of MO.
Regards
Shelley
Criminology Student (Advanced) |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 441
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 16, 2004 - 9:13 pm: | |
Hi all,
I have always found Cream one of the most fascinating villains in crime so that I have written about him several times. But, like his emotional (and chronological) twin, Fred Deeming, he can't quite fit the Ripper. Nevertheless both of them were so outstandingly evil in their ways their fates do not move me. They remain of considerable interest (as does George Chapman, Mary Pearcey, H.H. Holmes, or William Bury) without having to be Jack.
What is the case for Cream being Jack? Billington (the executioner) heard him say "I am Jack...." as the trapdoor of the scaffold was sprung open. Nobody else apparently heard that comment. He murdered prostitutes in sections of London (Lambeth and Stepney) in 1891 and 1892, four years after Jack was in Whitechapel. Cream had medical knowledge (he studied in McGill University, and in Edinburgh). And both he and Jack were sadistic (actually how many murderers aren't a little sadistic?). But he was a poisoner and probably was in prison during 1888, unaware of his future early release in 1891. Also, he was financially greedy. Many of his early murders are abortions gone wrong. His murder of Daniel Stott (an exception from his usual m.o., as he killed a man for a change, not a woman, although an elderly, sick (weak) man) was to give the wealthy man's estate to Mrs. Stott (who may have been having an affair with Cream), afterwhich he would get the money from Mrs. Stott. There is a trail of blackmail threats against people in the 1891-92 murders, which suggest he was trying to make a lot of money in his killings. The blackmail threats have usually been dismissed by students of the case, but I have reason to believe they were truly aimed at their targets. And I wonder if there were other targets who caved in to such threats that we never heard of.
Best wishes,
Jeff |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 226
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 2:55 pm: | |
Shelley,
Kurten isn't one of the more extreme changes in MO, but already he's proving you and Glenn wrong on the idea that killers never change (and it completely proves you wrong that serial killers don't change things to try to throw the police off). I don't know where your "guess you missed that one" quip even makes sense in that case (you assuming that I was calling Kurten a mutilator instead of a stabber and then trying to use that as an error on my part even though that had nothing to do with what I was saying and you were the one who brought him up as an example, maybe?), but then what about all the other cases you missed with much more drastic changes?
My point here is that there are lots of differences of opinions on how killers work, but anytime anyone claims that something is impossible they are walking on thin ice. When it's something that not only isn't impossible but that we have records of actually happening, the idea that it's impossible obviously has no support.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 70
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 3:49 pm: | |
To all,
Dan's post sums it up. Kurten as a murderer did change his MO. If this does not explain that different serial murder cases should not be compared to one another than I don;t know what will.
If Kurten was the first serial murderer to ever change his MO, not saying he was, but for the moment let's just say that he was, then every case before him of any serial murderer would go by a general theory that serial murderers never change their MO. Imagine if the case of Kurten rested on comparisons to previous serial murderers, he might never have been caught from these comparisons.
It is, in my opinion, pointless to compare this case to any other serial murder case. As I stated earlier anyone is capable of anything at anytime. This is proved over and over again. No one ever believed that anyone could brutalize, murder and mutilate women in London during the end of the Victorian Era, yet we have 'Jack the Ripper' and his victims. It is also a futile argument to eliminate a suspect based on that suspect committing a future or previous murder that did not mimic the murders committed by 'JTR'. Instead looking at motives for these murders, then comparing them to suspects such as Klosowski, should lead toward conclusions. When Klosowski poisoned his three wives his motives for murder so differed from that of the murders committed by 'JTR' that it would seem to eliminate him from consideration. That does not necessarily mean Klosowski is innocent, but now the burden of providing a reason, other than bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad man who hated women, for Klosowski committing the murders attributed to 'JTR' becomes of paramount importance.
STAN RUSSO |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2012
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 4:17 pm: | |
Dan,
"Kurten isn't one of the more extreme changes in MO, but already he's proving you and Glenn wrong on the idea that killers never change."
Yeah right. Twisting my words as usual. Like I've said that a killer never changes his MO. I have never stated such a thing.
I would expect an editor at least to be able to read properly.
What I've said is, that the motives and the psychological grounds for a mutilator and a poisoner are completely different from one another. Each of them can change their MO in their own right, but it's rather unlikely that they can be one and the same. Klosowski and Cream murdered for other reasons than the Ripper.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 227
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 12:07 pm: | |
Glenn,
You don't need to always try to make everything personal. You've said, for example, that Tabram couldn't possibly be by the Ripper because knife stabs are so completely different from a cut throat. You've also advanced the theory that MJK may not be by the Ripper because indoors and more mutilations is also somehow completely different (and you've used those exact words "completely different"). You've made your stance that even minor changes are supposedly unlikely in the extreme (and you frequently use the word "impossible") very clear. For you to now accuse me of twisting your words is pretty silly, and personally insulting me as an editor because of it is just plain poor form. Can you give it a rest?
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2018
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 6:03 pm: | |
Dan,
When a certain individual is stating time and time again (I have lost count) that I am supposed to have said that a killer can't change his MO (which of course would be a totally incorrect statement), I plead the right to question the person's reading abilities, since I have never said such a thing.
Just because I see some differences in a killer's method as problematic in a certain context doesen't mean that a killer can't change his method at all. It's just that I don't think this is credible in all situations.
But we are discussing the unlikely possibility here, that a mutilator and maybe sexually insane killer suddenly turns into a cool and clean poisoner -- which is to go way beyond "changing modus operandi".
If you want to buy that possibility, is fine by me. Just don't put words in my mouth I haven't said just because it suits your arguments.
For the record: I actually very rarely use the word "impossible", but if I would use it on one certain occasion it would be regarding the theory that the Ripper was a poisoner. We are talking two "completely different" personalities here.
And yes, stabbing is "completely different" than mutilating (which is what I once put forward).
Now I'll give it a rest. End of story.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Shelley Wiltshire
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shelley
Post Number: 87
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 8:19 pm: | |
Dan, i don't understand all your war of wording etc, i think you need to go back and start again and actually think what a MO (modeus operandi) really all entails, really you can't hardly dispute the way a killer would get his enjoyment out of killing (as this does not change). Modifications can be from slight to great it's just each person's opinion whether it's professionally or as an amatuer. But as i've said to you before, and you haven't as yet backed up your arguement (only with disagreeing words), to pick particular cases that show such a drastic change, as you call it an MO. Where's your proof lad?
Regards
Shelley
Criminology Student (Advanced) |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 449
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 9:02 pm: | |
Hi,
We seem to be getting caught up in a discussion that hinges on the difference between "MO" and "signature" aspects of a crime. These are terms from the profiling literature, and to the extent one "trusts" profiling, the distinction is important.
By trusts profiling, I don't mean trust every profiler. One could hold the belief that "the area of profiling can be done in a way that provides useful insight, but on the whole is poorly done". If one thinks that no matter how much effort is put into researching "psychological profiling" (trying to make it more accurate), that this is a waste of time because nothing can be gained from it, then this distinction is moot.
Anyway, MO is basically what the criminal does in order to commit the crime.
Signature, however, is what the criminal does in order to satisfy some internal need.
MO can be changed, updated, improved, modified, as the criminal learns what works. Signature, however, is more stable. It's the stuff the criminal does that isn't really necessary to committ the crime, but is necessary for their own satisfaction.
Sometimes what might be viewed as MO in one series, could be a signature behaviour in another. For example, let's say we have two serial killers. Killer A enjoys being with, and "interacting" with, a dead body. Killer B enjoys the feeling he gets when he puts his hands around someones neck and strangles them. But once they are dead, has no more interest in them.
Killer A will probably end up posing his victims, placing them in some sort of macabre positions, etc. He may strangle his victims, but that's not what "drives him". He may switch to ligatures, blunt force tramau, poison, knives, guns, whatever suits his purpose at the time. Because "how" he kills them is not really all that important to Killer A, so we might expect that "how" he kills his vicitms will modify and change. He may experiment for awhile, and eventually settle on one technique simply because that method ends up suiting his purposes best (say strangulation leaves him with a less messy body to interact with). What won't change though is the fact that he will end up posing his victims, maybe having sex them post-mortem, maybe setting them up in some way that looks like he's "socialising" with them, etc. The specific poses and interactions may vary from crime to crime, or he may be very specific in recreating the same scene over and over (in which case the specific scene itself becomes signature). It's the signature aspect that links these crimes.
Now Killer B will always go for manual strangulation. That's what drives him; the tactile sensations he gets from this form of murder. His victims will not be posed, but apparently just left where they are or dumped like trash. He may always wash his victims necks to remove finger prints because wearing gloves is out of the question for this guy (signature). One would expect there to be evidence that he continually revived his victims, to prolong things. Again, signature traits. This fellow would not change his method of killing to something other than manual strangulation but we might expect to see his "technique" improving. Not by killing faster, but by killing more slowly! Also, his lack of any interest in the victim once they died would indicate that this person is very different from Killer A. Killer B doesn't want a dead body per se, but rather wants to control the transition between life and death. Killer A wants a dead friend.
Anyway, the issue here is whether or not mutilating is JtR's signature, and poisonings are Cream/Chapman's signatures. And generally I think people accept that the purpose that seemed to motivate the JtR killings is the desire to mutilate. And, if we accept that, then mutilation is the signature. In which case it would be considered highly unlikely that the person who's signature is reflected in the JtR crimes is going to switch to poisonings, where this desire does not get fulfilled.
Of course, if you think profiling is a load of garbage, then all of this kind of thing goes out the window and is meaningless!
- Jeff
ps. Hmmm, I think the neck washing mentioned above would be considered MO, rather than signature. It is something he ends up having to do to remove evidence left by his signature action of not wearing gloves. If, however, he ended up washing all his victims as if he was "caring for them", then the washing becomes signature I think? It gets a bit "after the fact" like because until you know who the killer is, it can be hard to figure out if a repeated action is a "signature" action (something that has to be done but increases the risk of getting caught) or something the killer has learned to do in order to reduce his or her chances of getting caught (improved MO).
(Message edited by jeffhamm on August 18, 2004) |
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 65
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 9:08 pm: | |
Shelley, wow. There you are, telling Dan not to dispute the way a killer get's his enjoyment, yet there you are disputing, or rather, telling us how a killer get's his enjoyment. What makes you know so much? You have refused to answer any of the points I asked in my previous point.
Hey Glenn,
Regarding a poisiner and mutilator having two different motives, how do you know the motives of Chapman or Cream didn't change? Or actually, they could have been the same. The Ripper clearly hated women. Chapman clearly hated his wives. There, I think, is a very major motive. If Chapman was actually the Ripper, then he wanted to get rid of these women in a different fashion. One reason could have been to not attract attention. Imagine he cut up his wives like that? What would have the police thought?
Take care
|
Shelley Wiltshire
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shelley
Post Number: 88
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 10:20 pm: | |
Hey Peter,
I hated my mother in-law but i didn't kill her explain that one!
WoW peter, never knew for sure but you obviously haven't read Kurten or much to do with criminology. From the angle that you and Dan are coming from you'd be saying no one, or anyone knows anything at all not even why people kill at all any time any where or any situation. Welcome to the world of no pattern at all and utter bafflement and confusion. By the way tell me some cases where a mutilator sex serial killer changed to being a poisioner?
Regards
Shelley
Criminology Student. |
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 71
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 10:37 pm: | |
Shelley,
What happened? You are no longer an advanced criminology student. Did you get demoted?
This is one of the most pointless arguments going on. The crux is that because other serial killers have changed their MO (modus, not modeus), then 'JTR' could have changed his, when the murders committed by 'JTR' were all of a similar nature.
Try examining each individual suspect and their basis in reality for having committed these murders, rather than arguing the finer points of criminology, another social science that leads to no scientific absoltues.
STAN RUSSO
DEGREE IN FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY
|
Shelley Wiltshire
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shelley
Post Number: 89
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 10:37 pm: | |
Hi Jeff,
Good points in your post, but Kurten is a really good example to define MO and signature, i don't think Kurten actually wanted to kill, as if you read his case he actually let a girl go after attacking her, this was on the promise that she wouldn't tell the police, Kurten just simply enjoyed the thrill he got sexually through stabbing and the sight of blood (it turned him on), but i can understand what you are saying about some killer's tiring once they have killed. other good cases in comparison to a killer that got enjoyment after death, was one Reginald Halliday Christie and Jeffery Dahmer. Good post though Jeff.
Regards
Shelley
Criminology Student (Advanced) |
Shelley Wiltshire
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shelley
Post Number: 90
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 10:47 pm: | |
Stan,
So your'e saying that 'JTR' changed his MO and at some point he didn't want to mutilate his victims taken that Liz Stride was killed before Eddowes, HuH? And your'e saying that pattern in criminology is usesless? Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha.
Regards
Shelley (whoops keep forgetting to write Wiltshire)
Criminology Student (Advanced) for MASC. |
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 72
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 11:14 pm: | |
Shelley,
That's not what I am saying at all, but from your total lack of interpretation of posts I understand where you might get confused.
I am saying that if one killer did change his MO throughout history, while others did not, than it is impossible, or rather futile to employ your standards that 'JTR' couldn't have been Klosowski because he changed his MO. I'll restate that for you. If 1 serial killer changed his MO at any time throughout history your argument fails.
There is a specific reason why Stride was not mutilated, and Eddowes was. So far no one has been able to provide a solid reason why. This is not a change in MO on the part of 'JTR', but more of an exact preferred method of killing. Stride was not mutilated, for a specific reason, and most are not willing to accept that, because then their fantasy of a crazed bloodthirsty looney walking the streets and killing indiscriminately fails, and they are left with nothing.
Criminology is not an exact science. There are elements that are exact, but you are using the psychological aspects of criminology, which is far from exact and often times works for one murderer yet not for another murderer.
You may laugh all you want, but perhaps your energy would be better suited for studying the case. It always amazes me how people offer expert opinion without expert knowledge on the actual case. That expert opinion usually only further clouds the issue they are attempting to answer, although they most definately state it with the conviction that they are correct and all who oppose are idiots. So keep laughing - because ignorance is not only bliss, its actually pretty amusing. |
Shelley Wiltshire
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shelley
Post Number: 91
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 11:53 pm: | |
Stan,
I can't see where you are getting confused with my posts (as the last couple were quite short and to the point). Of course i understand that it was circumstancial that Stride was not mutilated and Eddowes was. And to further add an MO is also the reasons to the actions of a killer, it is the foundation of an MO, other people have attributed 'Ways' in ulitamate killings ( example back to Kurten: Knife usage an MO, Hammer usage an MO so a change in MO, this is not so in every case, so i dispute your arguement). I can state that the ripper nor Kurten changed their MO. So you have a fornesic psychology degree (where was forensic's when the ripper was around?..I know , now where it hadn't been born yet, but Criminology has given light to many cases and the police still use them sometimes today, so to say that criminology has no basis in crime is sheer nonsense..And it's older than Forensic Psychology). I ask again for any of you to dispute criminology...Stan, Dan and the other man (peter), GIVE ME SOME CASES THAT SHOW A MUTILATOR SEX SERIAL KILLER GETTING BORED AND TURNING A HAND TO POISONING, CASES FELLERS!
Shelley
Criminology Student (ADVANCED) |
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 66
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 12:00 am: | |
Shelley,
It seems like the whole night of the Double Event was a "world of no pattern at all and utter bafflement and confusion." Something that goes totally against profiling, what you were just saying and “your” so called argument. Rather, an author’s argument. Something happened that night and something happens every day that people don’t expect to happen because they looked at a list of serial killers and stated as a fact, "no one can do this." Yet, someone did do it and someone may in fact do it eventually. Point taken.
And I agree with Stan, your argument and millions of others' arguments fail completely if one serial killer does indeed change his M.O. or signature.
And I also relating to my first point of the post about the Stride killing. He didn't mutilate her for a reason, like Stan says.
Also, the level of hate you had towards your mother-in-law and the level of hate Klosowski had towards his wives was on a totally different level. I thought you'd know that, especially since you are supposedly an "Advanced Criminology Student."
I believe this post and Stan's answers your question as to naming a serial killer who has turned from a mutilator to poisioner. I would also like to add that from all the serial killers that have ever been on the face of the planet, since people have roamed the Earth, you are telling me, none of them changed from a mutilator to poisioner? And you’ve read up on all trillion of them? How did you do it?
Even though I reminded you of your missing answers, you still fail to bring any of them up.
(Message edited by Peter on August 19, 2004) |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 231
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 12:04 am: | |
Glenn,
You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too. Elsewhere you say it's impossible for there to be even minor changes in MO, yet you now claim that you don't agree that it's impossible to change at all. It would seem that you are arguing against yourself, because the two positions are contradictory. If you agree that it's not impossible, then you should admit that your arguments against Tabram being a Ripper victim are pointless.
And, heck, if you still say it's impossible for a mutilator to switch to a poisoner than I guess you still would rather jump to a completely unsupported conclusion than admit the possibility.
As I said, I have no problems with people saying they find things unlikely, but if they start claiming impossible they better have something real to back it up with and not just an overinflated opinion of their own conclusions.
Shelley,
If you're looking for drastic changes in MO, as I believe I just posted to one of the threads we were arguing this in the last day or so, The Green River Killer (Ridgway) started by attacking a random boy in a park savagely with a knife. He then later got into prostitutes and started killing them, but after having sex and strangling them. MO, signature, any way you want to look at it the later killing were completely different from his first attack. The MO for the women he killed also changed sometimes, based upon differing situations and modifications to his technique.
And basically you can look at just about any killer and find changes, some minor, some extreme. Bathory would come up with fun totally new ways to kill young girls -- leaving them outside to freeze, bashing, cutting, and so forth. The Son of Sam switched from gun to knife. If you want examples of serial killers who changed MOs it's really easy. Just go read actual cases instead of so-called expert theories.
Killers are people, not robots. They have varying goals, can change their minds, might decide that some other way of doing things is better for one reason or another. Someone can kill random women for pleasure and then later decide that he wants to dispose of wives that are now inconvenient to him but do it in a way that's different from previous killings. As the motive is completely different, it's logical to assume that the way someone would go about it could be completely different too.
(By the way, you can set up a signature so you don't have to keep retyping all that stuff at the end of your post. Check under the Edit Profile option at the top of the screen.)
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 73
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 12:11 am: | |
To all,
I shall now remove myself from this argument. The circles are making me dizzy. Believe what you will, as their will always be people on sides of both issues. This argument will lead to no answers.
STAN RUSSO |
Shelley Wiltshire
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shelley
Post Number: 92
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 12:21 am: | |
Everybody,
Your arguements are getting really tiresome to say the least, you keep going on about your own theories and what you all think, the only reference one of you have used is the green river killer, but it's the same a voilent death with physical harm. I asked for cases or even one case that involved a sex serial mutilator killer turning a hand to poisioning. Who are you all, the one claiming to have a degree, are you sure you haven't bought it on the internet without course work or an examination, and as for the one who's a publisher i guess you've been reading books by Mills and Boon and Jilly cooper and got the info crossed one with another. So no, none of you can give me a case that i specifically asked for, just insults and theororising and opinions, to which i might add your opinions don't count.
Let's agree to disagree because this is going nowhere, and i don't see a good and proper arguement to back yours up against mine. Honestly your all laughable, or was it just to post and gain further rank on this thread? Ok guy's Goodbye! Happy posting i hope you all feel better once you get to the rank you all fantasise about.
Regards
Shelley
Criminology Student (Advanced) |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 450
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 2:14 am: | |
Hi Peter,
I don't want to answer for Glenn, but from what I understand, the argument goes something like this.
The JtR victims show "signature" aspects. Signature, as mentioned in my previous post, in my understanding anyway, could probably be described as "actions that increase the risk of being caught without assisting in the completion of the crime, but that the criminal does despite that added risk", while "MO" behaviours are "actions done to reduce the risk of being caught, and which assist in the committing of the crime". Obviously, an unskilled criminal might do something "thinking it helps committ the crime" without it being signature, but I'm just trying to get at a "working notion" here, rather than a formal definition.
Anyway, "signature" actions are thought to reflect some internal need, desire, that the criminal fulfills through these actions. MO is just the actions required to complete a crime; the actions are not "rewarding" in and of themselves. MO are functional behaviours, signature are emotional behaviours might be a rough devision.
Now, in the JtR crimes, the mutilations would be considered signature behaviours. Whoever JtR was, performing the mutilations fulfilled some internal need. It greatly increases his risk of being caught just by the fact he has to stick around to perform them, let along the fact that he gets blood on his hands, takes body parts with him, etc. Whatever it was that was being satisfied by these actions, however, the fact that he keeps repeating these things indicate he "needs" to do this. It doesn't help committ the crime, it puts him as great risk of being caught, so the only explanation is that the mutilations provide some satisfaction and/or gratification.
Whatever need is being fulfilled (destruction of a female; destruction of a prostitute; following the voice of God telling him to oust Satin; etc; it could be many things and take many forms), it is generally thought that this need continues to exist if that person continues to commit their crime (in this case, murder). So, unless this need is somehow satisfied, the person continues to committ crimes in which this drive gets satisfied.
Cream and Chapman, however, commit crimes that do not include JtR's signature behaviours. Therefore these individuals cannot be said to have the same underlying "needs" as whoever committed the JtR crimes. Their crimes, however, also contain some "signature" aspects (sadism; the need to see another in pain and suffering; or in Cream's case to know someone is in pain and suffering). To suggest that the same person first "cleansed" themselves of the needs being satisfied by the JtR mutilation crimes then later developed a new set of needs that include "sadism" (which JtR's crimes do not indicate), it much more unlikely a scenerio than the proposition that JtR is a different person altogether. This liklihood estimate is based upon what is currently known about serial killers, and that information is, of course, based upon those who have been caught. If JtR is unlike those who have been caught, then I suppose this kind of switch might be one of the reasons why.
Anyway, that's my take on things.
- Jeff |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
