|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2019
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 3:53 am: |       |
Hey Peter,
We are not talking about change in modus operandi here -- we are talking two very different personalities. Switching from mutilation to poisoning is going much further than "changing modus operandi".
Peter, what differs the Ripper murders from Chapman poisoning his wives, is the fact that the former are referred to as "motiveless" while Chapman had a clear motive.
The Ripper was most certainly a person that needed to kill out of an urge and personal, psychological driving force, as these types of criminals often are. This is why he kills and this reason doesen't change.
Chapman on the other hand had -- like other poisoners -- deliberate motives for his crimes and the fact that he chose poisoning indicates a totally different character and personality than the Ripper. A poisoner is often a coward and a shrewd person who don't want to get his hands dirty and kill a person with his bare hands. Furthermore, the largest groups of poisoners are women.
Also, the fact that he poisoned them indicates that he could be some sort of sadist, since he didn't mind seeing his wives suffer. The Ripper, on the other hand, killed his victims straight off and as fast as possible, because it was not the killing itself that was important (and he had no interest in making his victims suffer), but the gratification from the mutilation. A serial killer does NOT change that -- they are either one or the other. A serial killer of the Ripper's type can change his modus operandi, but he continues to kill for sexual gratification or from psychological mania, things you don't find in a poisoner's work. A serial killer of the Ripper's type do it for the signature -- a poisoner has no signature. One can question profiling all one wants, but this is rather common sense if we look at what other cases involving poisoning tells us.
I really can't see how anybody can believe that a serial killer like the Ripper can "change his motives". It is two different personalities and it has absolutely nothing to do with "changing modus operandi"!
There is no need to jump on Shelley here; she is completely right when she says that to this date no one has heard of any Ripper-like murderer suddenly turning serial poisoner.
It is you guys who fail to come up with examples of this.
Like Jeff said, the Ripper had completely other needs than Chapman or Cream. So it's rather a matter of needs than of motives.
Dan,
Yeah sure... minor MO changes...
This is not the thread for it, but it was you who considered the changes were minor -- I didn't.
Tabram had her body full of stab wounds and she didn't have her throat cut. Apart from the fact that she was a prostitute and that she was found in Whitechapel, there are no similarities with the canonical Ripper victims whatsoever.
If you want to believe that the Ripper suddenly three weeks later (Nichols) out of the blue finds a throat-cutting method and an urge to mutilate (and then stick to this consistently for at least two or three additional victims), then it's your call. To me it's rather unlikely and not credible. But dream on.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Shelley Wiltshire
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shelley
Post Number: 94
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 7:25 am: | |
Hi Glenn,
Great post, well done you are absolutely right, no one could produce a case where a serial sex mutilator killer changed to being a poisioner, not at present nor in history ( or for that matter in the future). Oh, peter i'd be careful of speculation in the area of how much i hated my ex-mother-in-law (not my present one), you do not know me and judging by your posts you need to learn a lot more than you do. By the way Glenn, i got marked 98% of my course work, but i didn't get any answers wrong at all? ( i'll have to question my tutor as i should get 100% - don't know what happened?).
R egards
Shelley
Criminology Student (Advanced) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 771
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 8:26 am: | |
Hi,
Shelley what about this for a case where a serial killer (sex mutilator) changed to being a poisoner. George Chapman, JTR later poisoned people (or is it the other way round?)!
Anyway just thought this thread needed a little bit of fun injecting into it!
Jennifer
ps oh yes was there a point in there somewhere Jen? Yes indeed it was this there's always a first time for everything!
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1247
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 9:24 am: | |
Shelly,
I agree with you that a mutilator is hardly likely to start poisoning his victims, however, you can never say never - as the saying goes. Just because something isn't logical to normal people, doesn't mean that in the mind of a serial killer (which must have something wrong with it to kill people in the first place) it isn't logical. I also find it strange how you can say that Peter wasn't thinking like a serial killer. How do you know what a serial killer thinks? Also, you can't generalise them either, they all think differently I'm sure.
However, I think this whole debate is completely unncessary. As Stan said before, Dr Cream was in prison anyway so this whole thread is pointless.
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: 2022
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 10:27 am: | |
I don't agree at all that this debate is "unnecessary" -- on the contrary, it is one of the more rewarding ones among those that have appeared lately, and a welcome break from the boring and ever-going Maybrick/diary threads.
I can agree on, however, that the discussion should fit the Klosowski thread better, since Cream obviously was in prison at the time of the murders. Cream, indeed, is a dead end in the Ripper context.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 451
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 4:38 pm: | |
Hi,
The idea that JtR could then switch to serial poisonings (say, Chapman) is considered unlikely because no example of such an extreme switch has ever been recorded in this history of crime. This is generally, in one way or another, what is put forth to dismiss Chapman and Cream (plus Cream's being in jail of course, which is far the more effective dismissal).
But we should not say "it is impossible" because our "evidence" only comes from crimes that have been solved. Although Chapman's murders were solved, the JtR crimes were not. And if one of the reasons the JtR crimes have not been solved is because JtR is unlike those killers who have been caught, then our "evidence base" (solved crimes) will at best not help, and at worst actually hinder, our ability to solve the JtR murders.
More directly, if Chapman is the one case of such a change, then we've only solved half his murders; he's been caught and not caught, so to speak.
In fact, this is a perfect example of what is called the "gru problem", which is given during introductory philosophy classes in logic. Gru is some imaginary substance, let's say it's dug up from mines. We've been mining gru for 1000's of years. All the gru that has ever been dug up is green. Is it impossible for there to be blue gru? Is it possible that there is more blue gru than green gru? It is possible that green gru is the rarest form of gru (meaning, most gru is not green)?
Based on all the gru we've dug up from our mines for 1000's of years, one might conclude that all the gru is green and it is impossible for gru to be blue, or red, etc. But our mines only go so deep, we have no information about gru found deep under the ocean, or near the centre of the earth, below the depths of our mines, etc. Gru could be blue, or green, or yellow there. In fact, green gru could only exist in a small percent near the surface of dry land, making most of the planet unsuited for green gru.
Now in terms of JtR, we might put this idea in the form of: in all the crimes ever solved, no criminal has ever shown a change from serial mutilations to serial poisonings. What do these solved crimes tell us about unsolved crimes?
Well, hopefully something, but they certainly should not blind us into thinking that unsolved cases are exactly like solved ones! They are already different by the fact that no solution has yet been found. Moreover, once a crime becomes "solved", do we not modify what we know about crimes based upon new information gained from that solution? Doesn't that tell us that there must have been something about that newly solved crime that "was not shown before? was not in our evidence set?". If solving new crimes adds no new information, we wouldn't need to update our knowledge base because they would add nothing new if all there is to know is already known.
Remember, an unsolved crime may be "unsolved" because they are somehow very different. Nothing, absolutely nothing, should be thought of as impossible when it comes to the motives, and behaviours, of human beings.
This is not to say that I think Chapman was JtR, because I don't. But I would caution anyone into thinking that anything is "impossible", and therefore not worth considering, simply because it's not been shown before. Place it low on the probability list, sure, but do not remove something from consideration unless it can be demonstrated it is physically impossible because nothing is psychologically impossible.
- Jeff |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2023
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 5:48 pm: | |
No, you're wrong, Jeff.
People like Chapman is NOT just dismissed on basis of what we know of other serial killers. That is to simplify the problem and to miss the whole point. The lack of similar conduct in a killer is ONE argument, but not the whole story.
Firstly: I think it's important that our prior knowledge of other killers is -- besides crime scene information -- the only way for us to come to some sort of conclusion, whether we like it or not. Therefore our experiences regarding other killers can't be dismissed. Or else we have to accept practically everything. If we can't use empirism, what can we use? What would be the next fantastic suggestion? Mickey Mouse?
A police officer is obliged to keep an open mind to different scenarios, but also to listen to his experience and his knowledge about similar cases and not waste his time on far-out cuckoo theories.
Any police officer or low rank detective knows that a poisoner is unthinkable in this context and one of the least credible candidates for performing a series of murder involving mutilations. We can't just accept anything just because "we don't know".
But besides that, it is pure common sense that says that a mutilator -- indulging in bloody, violent and sexually related crimes -- don't turn into a clean and calculating serial poisoner. I really don't think that the fact that we can't find other cases showing such a switch in criminal conduct is proving anything, but I believe that it at least underlines the ridiculousness in the Chapman/poisoner theory.
So, to clarify and summarize: I don't lean myself solely upon other missing cases showing such a switch in method, but I think the lack of those supports that such a theory is unrealistic and false.
Just because we can't be absolutely sure of how the human mind works in all individuals, I am NOT prepared to buy every strange suggestion that comes across. We must put our foot down somewhere and say stop. As far as I am concerned, Chapman/Klosowski and Cream never should have been suggested as Ripper candidates in the first place and you won't find any homicide detective or police officer who would take such a suspect seriously in these types of murders.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 67
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 7:51 pm: | |
Shelley, I'm sorry, am I supposed to know you want to kill your mother-in-law? No, I don't know you and its funny how you make it sound like I said that. Pretty odd you ask that because it sounds like you know George Chapman so much that you'll tell us for a fact he wasn't JTR. And also, a million of other serial killers. By the way, I thought you left this thread?
Hey Glenn, Jeff
Jeff, I do agree with a lot of your points in your last post.
Glenn, I wasn’t “jumping” on Shelley. If you read my other posts you’ll notice my constant plea for her to answer some of my points, which she hasn’t done yet and when I do ask her, I notice her and you guys going back to asking me or whoever else in naming another mutilator turned poisioner. I’ve already answered that. And I am still hoping Shelley will respond to some of points. That’s all I am asking.
Switching from mutilation to poisoning is going much further than "changing modus operandi".
Okay. Are Dan's examples of the Green River killer not enough? He went from boys to prostitutes. If Chapman was the Ripper, mutilating women to poising women. Regarding signature, I know Jeff mentioned it's the killer’s desire and so forth. Please, tell me why a serial killer desires cannot change. Not only that, if we are talking Chapman here, we are talking many years between the JTR events and then the poisoning of his wives. If you're telling me a man can't change in so many different ways, I'm then going to speculate. What I am getting out of this is that a serial killer can't change. And what's this now, a posioner is automatically ruled out of a signature? I don't buy any of it. One reason is for the constant inconsistencies.
Take care.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2028
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 8:25 pm: | |
Hey Peter, 
The Ridgeway example is now way close to be compared to the change from mutilation to poisoning. The differences in MO that is described in this example still leads to a person with the same needs and the same kind of personality, he has just changed his weapon and type of victim, but the driving force and the type of murder is still the same. It is not at all comparable with a switch from mutilations to poisoning. That is why I said that this debate is not about "changing MO".
I have tried to explain it several times; a poisoner is a very different personality type from a mutilator. A poisoner generally doesen't need to kill, but kills for special reasons, like financial motives, jealousy, remarrying etc. -- things we call "rational" motives. This is what experience tells us. Chapman did this. His victims were all his wives and he killed them in order to get rid of them for certain reasons, which is typical for a male poisoner.
The Ripper is clearly a totally different type of killer, whether his crimes are sexually based or not. His interest does not lay in the killing itself, but from the gratification he got from the signature (the mutilations) and is driven by an urge to obtain this satisfaction. In a poisoner like Chapman or Cream there is no signature and no such fantasy to be fulfilled -- the killing itself is the whole deal and is not based on strong emotional driving forces. You can't have it both ways and mix these character types together.
A serial killer of the Ripper's kind could change his MO and method in quite many ways, but the feature of the signature -- the thing that makes the killing, besides the killing itself, worthwhile -- would still have to be there! This doesen't change. And you don't find this in a poisoner's work.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 19, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 452
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 10:13 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
I'm glad you pointed this out, as it indicates how poorly that last post of mine was presented. In no way am I advocating that "anything and everything must be considered as equally plausible" just because of issues like the "gru" problem.
You are correct, we have to learn from the data set that we have. From that we hopefully can solve more crimes by learning what patterns there are. However, we must also recognize that our emperical method is flawed; and by the very nature of the question, will always be flawed. Our data sample comes from a different population than the sample about which we wish to make predications (solved cases vs unsolved ones). Now, we can be pretty sure that some of our unsolved cases will be from the same "group" as the solved cases (all solved cases were at one time unsolved of course). Therefore, what we learn by studying solved cases will help solve those crimes more quickly (if there is actually anything to be learned from studying solved crimes. And I think there is).
However, what we do not know, and unfortunately cannot know, is how many cases that go "unsolved" are because they are somehow fundamentally different from the ones that do get solved. We can't know because they are the ones that never get solved. We can't compare our predictions against those crimes to figure out what our mistakes were. Perhaps we made all the right predictions, perhaps none of them are correct? Who's to say. Unless 100% of crimes get solved, and that's not true, we can't really be sure that there aren't at least 2 groups of crimes - one group that is committed by people similar to those from our solved crimes and a 2nd group that is committed by people unlike those we have under study. If that 2nd group does exist, then everything we know about crime statistics could be wrong when considering a crime from this group (i.e., most likely female, left handed, high socio-economic background with solid family history. They don't get solved because the criminal is considered low probability based upon the analysis of "group 1's" crimes). Of course, this "group 2" crimes may not even exist. There may not be a "group 2", or there may be groups 2 through 10. We don't know.
We can't just throw our hands up in dispare, however. We have to do the best that we can. Presumably, because homocide solution rates are over 50%, the majority of crimes are in "group 1". Of the crimes that do not get solved, some percentage are also probably "group 1" crimes that just didn't happen to get solved. However, the more we learn about "group 1" crimes, the more "group 1" crimes will get solved. And, as more and more "group 1 crimes" get solved, we will start to get a better and better idea of the potential size of "group 2" crimes. Also, as more and more "group 1" crimes get solved, that will leave more and more time to work on potential "group 2" crimes because the unsolved crimes will start being made up of mostly group 2 crimes (if group 2 even exists). And then some of those will start to get solved, and it will be apparent that they are somehow unlike the other crimes (our predictors were way off, when usually they are pretty good, let's say). As more group 2 crimes are identified, then our predications get better (two profiles, if you will: a "group 1" profile, and a "group 2" profile). And so on and so on.
Anyway, what that means is that I fully agree with you in that we must learn from past cases, we must apply that information, and at times we must make decisions based upon the liklihoods we know about. But, if the case continues to come up empty, we must always be ready to challange our assumptions, perhaps consider the possibility of some lower probability notions. Even if weighted coin turns up heads 99% of the time, that means it must sometimes come up tails!
Meaning, I don't think we should ever use never when talking about psychological factors. Highly unlikely, yes, that's fine because we have data that tells us that such things are "highly unlikely". But "never" and "Impossible" mean 0% probability, and that's too strong a claim to make based upon the kind of evidence and data we have; our empirical research cannot support the weight of that theoretical claim - the theoretical claim being that the probability is 0, and exactly 0.
On the other hand, it is highly unlikely that Chapman is the Ripper for a number of reasons. First, the necessary switch in signature/motive is (as we all agree) a very unlikely thing to occur. So unlikely that we're at a loss to find even a single example of it in our datebase of solved crimes. Second, when the JtR case is looked at from the point of view of Chapman being the Ripper, there wasn't suddenly a lot of pieces fitting together. We've not found a lot of information about Chapman that suddenly sharpens the focus, etc. Meaning, even if we start with the idea of Chapman being the Ripper (going against the probability of such a switch in murder style) the case doesn't start to look "solved". Generally, once the "right suspect" is located (and considered "a suspect"), evidence quickly starts to mount against the suspect because now the research efforts have a focused target.
Look at how much we know about Druitt simply because the case was looked at with him in mind. Turns out, same problem, the more we found out the less it looked like Druit was Jack.
If we immediately decide that "Chapman can't be the Ripper" based upon the fact he was a poisoner, and so we never really looked at him as a suspect (despite contemporary police thinking he might have been), then we had a very small chance of making a very big error. But, once we looked at the case from that point of view, it becomes obvious the view isn't any better.
I guess I just don't like to see the word "never" thrown around.
As for common sense and the motives of serial killers? It makes no logical sense that a well edjucated, good looking, highly charismatic, up and comming young man, should want to kill young women so he can be with their corpse. But then there's Ted Bundy. Common sense does not alway apply to uncommon people.
- Jeff |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 385
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 10:33 pm: | |
Hi, Jeff, Glenn
Wolf Vanderlinden once pointed out to me what I have to concede is the strongest evidence against Chapman's candidacy--the apron in Goulston street shows us that the Ripper was moving away from where we think Chapman was living at the time of the murders (Cable street).
For me, it's a stronger argument than profiling, which I think is a little too subjective to rely on 100%.
Cheers,
Dave
(Who still wonders who was keeping Chapman warm at night the autumn of 1888) |
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 68
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 12:09 am: | |
Hey Glenn, long time no speak. I would also like to direct this post towards Jeff.
Jeff, you must remember that if Chapman were the Ripper, the switch would have been from mutilating to poising and nearly a whole ten years between the two, not the other way around. Now, that point directs me to the following for Glenn and whoever else:
Glenn, I read all your points, but my main question of my last post, which I don't think you answered was the "change of desire" idea. Chapman killed his wives years after the Ripper murders were committed as I stated above. We've known of serial killers stopping for sometime, and then maybe starting again. Chapman can't be ruled out of this. He could have stopped after the Ripper murders in an idea to throw off police, and lay low for a bit, which we do know serial killers do. Then, after all those years, his hatred of women still stood and he “experimented” with a different way because the circumstances created it this way. My guess would be that the circumstances and psychology changed drastically since way back in 1888. He now had to deal with his wives, but in a different manner due to the above things.
Take care
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2030
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 6:00 am: | |
Hey Peter,
I am sorry, I hear what you say, but it just doesen't work.
A killer of the Ripper's kind don't stop for while and then starts again killing on other psychological grounds as the ones you describe.
He could start again, using another weapon, maybe also turn to another category of victims -- but he would -- as homicidal maniac and sexual serial killer -- still murder for the same reasons and the same needs. It doesne't matter how many years it takes -- time is not the issue -- a poisoner is a poisoner, a sexual or deranged serial killer that mutilates is something completely different from this.
The Ripper could have changed his modus operandi, but he would still need a signature and something that gave him satisfaction beyond the actual killing.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
OlivierD
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 12:40 am: | |
Hi all,
I am new here (but a student of the case for about one year). I think this site is simply facinating.
However, I would like to say what I think about Cream (or Chapman in the same time) as a suspect.
In my opinion, it is ridiculous to say that a serial killer that mutilates never switches to poisoning. Is it a theoretical or an empirical point? From a theoretical point of view, any social science, as criminology, must admit that predictions are probabilistic. Perhaps such a switching is very, very rare. But impossible, no. If we look at the empirical facts, possibly, it is not possible to find such an important change in MO in the behavior of past serial killers. But it is not a proof that it is impossible. A funny example can illustrate this point. Suppose that the true motive of the killer is to prove that criminology students are wrong. This killer will start by mutilating women, then poisoning women. Perhaps he will finish by drowning men. Of course, this motive is not usual. But it is possible. From this point of view, the remark of Jeff Ham is very important: the motive is essential to understand a possible change in MO.
However, the point is not to determine whether Cream (or Chapman) can possibly be Jack.
The main question: is it likely} that Chapman (forget Cream who was incarcerated) is the killer? The problem is that the main element against Chapman (perhaps the only one) is that he is a serial killer. But a different type of serial killer. It greatly reduces the case against him. However I think that Chapman is still a valid candidate. Why?
In fact, we are sure that he has two very rare characteristics, shared with Jack the Ripper: a total disregard for human life and a form of courage which allows him to kill (I hope it is clear: English is not my first language). This characteristics are extremely rare (fortunately). Of course, his motive seems different from those of Jack. How can we reconcile them? There are two ways to do that.
One, the true motive of the killer (Chapman, for example) when he mutilates or poisons is actually the same but it is hidden. And until now, we have been unable to find it. Still, this theory seems unlikely.
Two, there actually two motives. Suppose that Jack-Chapman kills for one motive (I do not know which one). Suppose now that Jack-Chapman decides to stop killing and gets married (I do not why but it is a working hypothesis). Suppose he begins to hate his wife (for example). He wants to kill her. It is possible? Yes. Will he do? I suppose so. How will he kill her? He will mutilate her? No, he would be immediately catched. He will poison her. So he will be able to avoid police. I think that this scenario is possible (obviously, not sure) and reconcile the difference of motives between Jack and Chapman (or Cream except that he was incarcerated).
Thank you for your comments.
Olivier
|
Peter J. Tabord
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, August 16, 2004 - 9:02 am: | |
Just to emphasise - Cream was an _unusual_ poisoner, in that his motive seems mainly to have been to make his victims suffer prolonged agony. He did not kill for gain or (as far as we know) revenge. His actions are as unlike a 'typical' poisoner as they are unlike JTR.
Regards
Pete
|
OlivierD
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 12:41 am: | |
Hi all,
I am new here (but a student of the case for about one year). I think this site is simply facinating.
However, I would like to say what I think about Cream (or Chapman in the same time) as a suspect.
In my opinion, it is ridiculous to say that a serial killer that mutilates never switches to poisoning. Is it a theoretical or an empirical point? From a theoretical point of view, any social science, as criminology, must admit that predictions are probabilistic. Perhaps such a switching is very, very rare. But impossible, no. If we look at the empirical facts, possibly, it is not possible to find such an important change in MO in the behavior of past serial killers. But it is not a proof that it is impossible. A funny example can illustrate this point. Suppose that the true motive of the killer is to prove that criminology students are wrong. This killer will start by mutilating women, then poisoning women. Perhaps he will finish by drowning men. Of course, this motive is not usual. But it is possible. From this point of view, the remark of Jeff Ham is very important: the motive is essential to understand a possible change in MO.
However, the point is not to determine whether Cream (or Chapman) can possibly be Jack.
The main question: is it likely} that Chapman (forget Cream who was incarcerated) is the killer? The problem is that the main element against Chapman (perhaps the only one) is that he is a serial killer. But a different type of serial killer. It greatly reduces the case against him. However I think that Chapman is still a valid candidate. Why?
In fact, we are sure that he has two very rare characteristics, shared with Jack the Ripper: a total disregard for human life and a form of courage which allows him to kill (I hope it is clear: English is not my first language). This characteristics are extremely rare (fortunately). Of course, his motive seems different from those of Jack. How can we reconcile them? There are two ways to do that.
One, the true motive of the killer (Chapman, for example) when he mutilates or poisons is actually the same but it is hidden. And until now, we have been unable to find it. Still, this theory seems unlikely.
Two, there actually two motives. Suppose that Jack-Chapman kills for one motive (I do not know which one). Suppose now that Jack-Chapman decides to stop killing and gets married (I do not why but it is a working hypothesis). Suppose he begins to hate his wife (for example). He wants to kill her. It is possible? Yes. Will he do? I suppose so. How will he kill her? He will mutilate her? No, he would be immediately catched. He will poison her. So he will be able to avoid police. I think that this scenario is possible (obviously, not sure) and reconcile the difference of motives between Jack and Chapman (or Cream except that he was incarcerated).
Thank you for your comments.
Olivier
|
OlivierD
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 11:41 pm: | |
All,
We know that Chapman has studied medicine and surgery. Also, it is not very surprising that he uses drugs in his crimes. To make a valid comparison with other serial killers, it would be necessary to examine the behavior of killers with the same background (medecine + surgery) as Chapman. However, in that case, the sample becomes very small.
Moreover, if you want to kill a person in your circle or your family, poisoning is objectively one of the best ways. In other words, if we suppose that Chapman is rational, intelligent and if want to get rid of his wife, the choice he made is objectively one of the best – whatever his past murders. If he had mutilated or stabbed his first wife, he would have been immediately caught (and not "catched" as in my previous post – sorry  ).
Thus, the fundamental questions are:
1. Do we think that a killer like JtheR can switch motives? That is to say: in a first step, kill women for a “sexual motive” (or something which looks like a sexual motive) and then kill his wives for another motive.
2. Do we think that JtheR can have rational and intelligent behavior?
If the answer to these questions is positive, then it is very simple to explain why JtheR-Chapman switches M.O. In this case, the argument about poisoning is no longer essential.
By the way, it is possible to find examples of killers that have two different motives, see Fourniret in my preceding post.
Jeff,
I do agree with all you have said in your previous posts. As you can see, my second post is complementary to yours. In statistical terms, you say that the sample of solved cases is truncated. My point is that the sample is also very small to identify significant effects, taking account of the fact that there is a lot of heterogeneity in the sample.
All the best,
Olivier |
OlivierD
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 12:13 pm: | |
Shelley, Glenn, All
What I do not like in this discussion (and I think that it is the same for many persons in this thread) is the use of absolute terms like “impossible” or “never”. Everybody could agree with a proposition like “a mutilator generally does not change to poisoning”. But “a mutilator never changes to poisoning” is more difficult to swallow.
By the way, the term “impossible” should simply be banned from social sciences (and, formally, from natural sciences too).
First, it is logically impossible to prove a general statement like “a mutilator never changes to poisoning” from singular statements like examples of behaviors. What I say here has nothing to do with criminology. It is a logical/philosophical conclusion which dates back to Hume (at least). It is the well-known induction problem. Even if it is valid in physics (Newtonian physics has never been formally proved and was finally rejected for Einsteinian relativity), this problem is really significant in social sciences where behaviors are always probabilistic and experiments do not exist. Moreover, since criminology studies “extreme behaviors”, it is possible that general conclusions are even less robust that in other social sciences.
Second, consider the following point to illustrate the misleading nature of proofs which are simply based on examples. Shelley, I suppose that you study criminology at the university. Say that this university has about 10000 students. Do you know whether some of these students are cannibal? I conjecture that your answer is no. Should we conclude that students are never cannibal or even that cannibalism simply does not exist. Of course not. The problem is that we study here extreme behaviors, that the number of examples of mutilators in the story of serial killers is limited (more limited than students in a university). Any inference from such a limited number of examples is probably flimsy.
Third, a second illustration comes from the national lottery. Everybody would agree with the fact that it is possible, highly improbable but possible, to win twice at the national lottery. Then, why is it so difficult to admit that a serial killer may have two motives or two signatures (it is not exactly the same)? In my opinion, it is largely more plausible to find a serial killer with two motives. Consider the recent Fourniret affair in France. It appears that he kidnapped, raped and killed girls in the North of France and in Belgium. But he is also suspected to have killed a person for the simple reason to take the war chest of a famous gang.
All the best,
Olivier
|
OlivierD
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 11:40 pm: | |
All,
We know that Chapman has studied medicine and surgery. Also, it is not very surprising that he uses drugs in his crimes. To make a valid comparison with other serial killers, it would be necessary to examine the behavior of killers with the same background (medecine + surgery) as Chapman. However, in that case, the sample becomes very small.
Moreover, if you want to kill a person in your circle or your family, poisoning is objectively one of the best ways. In other words, if we suppose that Chapman is rational, intelligent and if want to get rid of his wife, the choice he made is objectively one of the best – whatever his past murders. If he had mutilated or stabbed his first wife, he would have been immediately caught (and not "catched" as in my previous post – sorry ).
Thus, the fundamental questions are:
1. Do we think that a killer like JtheR can switch motives? That is to say: in a first step, kill women for a “sexual motive” (or something which looks like a sexual motive) and then kill his wives for another motive.
2. Do we think that JtheR can have rational and intelligent behavior?
If the answer to these questions is positive, then it is very simple to explain why JtheR-Chapman switches M.O. In this case, the argument about poisoning is no longer essential.
By the way, it is possible to find examples of killers that have two different motives, see Fourniret in my preceding post.
Jeff,
I do agree with all you have said in your previous posts. As you can see, my second post is complementary to yours. In statistical terms, you say that the sample of solved cases is truncated. My point is that the sample is also very small to identify significant effects, taking account of the fact that there is a lot of heterogeneity in the sample.
All the best,
Olivier |
Jeff Leahy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, August 16, 2004 - 12:07 pm: | |
Hi all
I've looked at the Cream theory and concur with most of your arguments against. However the story I came across allowing Cream not to be in prison at the time, was a practice of criminals having doubles. Two or more criminals using the same identity in differant places at the same time provide each other with a perfect alibi. Far fetched, yes, but not totally out of the realms of possibility.
Also you all make the assumption that Jack was a loan serial killer. However likely this is, there is also some evidence to sugest (in the case of Stride and Tabram) that there was more than one Jack. What if Cream had not acted alone in 1889. If he later returned to killing on his own would he possibly use a differant MO?
Just food for thought, lets face it he did confess and he fits most of our fantisy images of what the killer looked like.
Can anyone think of a suspect that dosnt have some holes in his case? Even if Cream has more than most. Jeff |
OlivierD
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 11:40 pm: | |
All,
We know that Chapman has studied medicine and surgery. Also, it is not very surprising that he uses drugs in his crimes. To make a valid comparison with other serial killers, it would be necessary to examine the behavior of killers with the same background (medecine + surgery) as Chapman. However, in that case, the sample becomes very small.
Moreover, if you want to kill a person in your circle or your family, poisoning is objectively one of the best ways. In other words, if we suppose that Chapman is rational, intelligent and if want to get rid of his wife, the choice he made is objectively one of the best – whatever his past murders. If he had mutilated or stabbed his first wife, he would have been immediately caught (and not "catched" as in my previous post – sorry ).
Thus, the fundamental questions are:
1. Do we think that a killer like JtheR can switch motives? That is to say: in a first step, kill women for a “sexual motive” (or something which looks like a sexual motive) and then kill his wives for another motive.
2. Do we think that JtheR can have rational and intelligent behavior?
If the answer to these questions is positive, then it is very simple to explain why JtheR-Chapman switches M.O. In this case, the argument about poisoning is no longer essential.
By the way, it is possible to find examples of killers that have two different motives, see Fourniret in my preceding post.
Jeff,
I do agree with all you have said in your previous posts. As you can see, my second post is complementary to yours. In statistical terms, you say that the sample of solved cases is truncated. My point is that the sample is also very small to identify significant effects, taking account of the fact that there is a lot of heterogeneity in the sample.
All the best,
Olivier |
Randy Scholl
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 6:24 am: | |
Interesting discussion re: whether signatures and/or MO can change. One thing which occurs to me while reading through this thread, however, is that JTR only killed a half a dozen victims through a very short period of three months. To me, this fact makes the whole idea of coming to a hard and fast conclusion regarding his motives seem rather dubious. For all we know, the Autumn of Terror was all one big experimental phase, and perhaps later he went on to change his motives and his methods quite drastically. (He may have come to the realization that mutilation wasn't quite as big a thrill as he had expected it to be. Indeed, perhaps Mary Kelly's extreme mutilation at the end was really a last-ditch desperate effort to glean some sort of pleasure out of what was turning out to not be as pleasurable as he wanted it to be.)
Honestly, it seems so very odd to me that so many people are ready to leap to a generalization based upon a very limited number of specific instances. |
OlivierD
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 12:47 am: | |
Hi all,
I am new here (but a student of the case for about one year). I think this site is simply facinating.
However, I would like to say what I think about Cream (or Chapman in the same time) as a suspect.
In my opinion, it is ridiculous to say that a serial killer that mutilates never switches to poisoning. Is it a theoretical or an empirical point? From a theoretical point of view, any social science, as criminology, must admit that predictions are probabilistic. Perhaps such a switching is very, very rare. But impossible, no. If we look at the empirical facts, possibly, it is not possible to find such an important change in MO in the behavior of past serial killers. But it is not a proof that it is impossible. A funny example can illustrate this point. Suppose that the true motive of the killer is to prove that criminology students are wrong. This killer will start by mutilating women, then poisoning women. Perhaps he will finish by drowning men. Of course, this motive is not usual. But it is possible. From this point of view, the remark of Jeff Ham is very important: the motive is essential to understand a possible change in MO.
However, the point is not to determine whether Cream (or Chapman) can possibly be Jack.
The main question: is it likely} that Chapman (forget Cream who was incarcerated) is the killer? The problem is that the main element against Chapman (perhaps the only one) is that he is a serial killer. But a different type of serial killer. It greatly reduces the case against him. However I think that Chapman is still a valid candidate. Why?
In fact, we are sure that he has two very rare characteristics, shared with Jack the Ripper: a total disregard for human life and a form of courage which allows him to kill (I hope it is clear: English is not my first language). This characteristics are extremely rare (fortunately). Of course, his motive seems different from those of Jack. How can we reconcile them? There are two ways to do that.
One, the true motive of the killer (Chapman, for example) when he mutilates or poisons is actually the same but it is hidden. And until now, we have been unable to find it. Still, this theory seems unlikely.
Two, there actually two motives. Suppose that Jack-Chapman kills for one motive (I do not know which one). Suppose now that Jack-Chapman decides to stop killing and gets married (I do not why but it is a working hypothesis). Suppose he begins to hate his wife (for example). He wants to kill her. It is possible? Yes. Will he do? I suppose so. How will he kill her? He will mutilate her? No, he would be immediately catched. He will poison her. So he will be able to avoid police. I think that this scenario is possible (obviously, not sure) and reconcile the difference of motives between Jack and Chapman (or Cream except that he was incarcerated).
Thank you for your comments.
Olivier
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2031
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 9:57 am: | |
Olivier
(welcome to the Boards, by the way, and your english is good indeed -- I don't have English as a first language either and you're doing much better than I do, from what I can see so far).
As I said before; the easiest way for us to come to a conclusion on this matter is to lean towards experience regarding previous cases involving serial mutilators and serial poisoners and to use our own common sense and personal hunches (as any police and detective force is bound to do). I know it's not 100% ideal but if we don't, then we are bound to leave the door open to all kinds of dubious suspects and suggestions. I am not prepared to do that.
Your suggestion above in one of your posts is very similar to Peter's and I can just repeat: from where I sit, it is a totally unlikely scenario, unsupported by anything we know from criminal psychology and from other cases involving serial killers.
If we are to give a scenario or suggestion any kind of credibility, it should be supported in some way from an empirical point of view.
It's not just theoretical (I am not a theoretical person and I an very suspicious towards profiling), but actually it's how an ordinary police officer would think.
Once again, you won't find any police officer or detective who would believe in such a connection (between a mutilator and a poisoner) and take it seriously.
From the crime scene evidence and the effect of his crimes it is reasonable to assume that he was a killer who needed to get some sort of satisfaction beyond the killing itself. This is not to rely on profiling. It is just obvious by looking at the photos and the evidence from the murders.
I haven't yet come across a poisoner that shares the same needs and reasons for his or hers actions. Sure, a poisoner can be sadistic and enjoy the suffering of the victim, but hardly in the same way a serial killer does who rips up and mutilates.
I don't care how much the words "impossible" and "never" sticks in people's eyes; there is a limit to what unlikely scenarios I am willing to accept just because we "don't know for sure" or must "keep an open mind". Somewhere you must be bold enough to take a stand, conclude and decide which leads and suspects you want to concentrate your investigation on. To keep an open mind to all sorts of stuff is just ridiculous if it can't be supported by anything similar we know of to date.
To me personally (which doesen't have to be someone elses truth) it's pure common sense that a serial killer's motives don't change in this way. I will never buy this possibility and I can't believe that there are people that actually seriously are prepared to consider it.
Show me a police officer, prosecutor, psychologist or lawyer that will take such a connection between a mutilator and a poisoner seriously, and I may -- but just may -- consider to scrap "impossible" to "quite unlikely".
Until then the Chapman/poisonist trail should be left where it belongs -- in the trash bin.
A dead end and a lousy scenario is a dead end, regardless if we use words like "impossible" or "unlikely".
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
OlivierD
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 11:13 am: | |
Glenn,
Thank you for your answer (I should say that it seems to me that your English is better than mine – we should ask an arbiter).
My impression is that you are sometimes more indulgent with some candidates like Barnett (I know you are not a Banettist but I do not think you use the word “impossible” when you consider his case). However, can you find in the history of serial killers a story similar to the scenario pushed forward by Barnettist? I do not think so.
More generally, if you examine the history of serial killers and try to find points of comparison, you will reject almost all the usual suspects cited in the JtheR literature. (An exception is perhaps Kosminski.) Admittedly, past examples are useful but we should not rely too much on them. The empirical basis is very small. How many examples of crimes similar to those of JtheR can you cite in the XXth century? Twenty, thirty, one hundred at most. Moreover, no case is absolutely identical. There is a lot of heterogeneity in these examples. Finally, as pointed out by Jeff, only the cases that are solved are well known. And even, if the criminal does not cooperate, it is difficult to identify all the crimes that he has committed. In short, we should be very cautious when we use empirics in this context (by the way, I have not a personal bias: I am an empiricist in my profession).
Thus, let us turn to a little bit of theory. In my last post, I say that, if we admit that (1) a serial killer may have two different motives in his life of crimes and (2) JtheR may be a very rational and intelligent killer, than we can accept the idea that Chapman is JtheR. What is your opinion of this proposition? I know you think it is untrue. But why? What is incorrect? Is it the first premises, the second one, or the resulting conclusion?
To be clear, I do not think that Chapman is JtheR (I have a leaning towards a nobody (perhaps a sailor) or Kosminski). However, my opinion is that Chapman is a more valid candidate than many others (Barnett, Bury, for example – without speaking of Gull and the Royal Conspiracy). All these candidates seem “impossible”.
All the best,
Olivier
PS: “Show me a police officer, prosecutor, psychologist or lawyer that will take such a connection between a mutilator and a poisoner seriously, and I may -- but just may -- consider to scrap "impossible" to "quite unlikely".”
I am surprised by this sentence. It is easy to cite Abberline or Sudgen (the latter is probably an historian yet).
|
Mike Anstead
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 11:24 am: | |
Hi Everyone,
Is anyone familiar withe the book "A Prescription for Murder: The Victorian Serial Killings of Dr. Thomas Neill" by Angus McLaren? I never read it but if you look it up on Amazon you can look inside the second (paperback) edition. I noticed in the index that there are a lot of references to Jack the Ripper. There are also references to Frederick Deeming, James Stephen, Florence Maybrick and Mary Kelly.
I'm sure everyone has heard the story that Cream yelled "I am Jack the..." just as he was hanged? It's possible that the story is false. Even if it is true, Cream might have just been trying to postpone his execution at the last minute. However, even though Cream couldn't have been JTR since he was in jail, it's not out of the question that he had a double who was JTR. This is mention in Don Rumbelow's book "The Complete JTR". There was an article by Donald Bell in "The Criminologist" that proposed this theory, but I don't know of any JTR researcher who has taken it seriously and tried to find out if Cream had a double that might have been JTR. Among other JTR suspects, I think that Robert D'Onston Stephenson (aka Roslyn D'Onston) and Francis Tumblety are more likely than Klosowski to have known Neill Cream. They were quack doctors who travelled extensivley like Cream. In addition, Tumblety was from America and D'Onston had travelled there. There are problems with both of these men as Ripper suspects but in my opinion they are both more likely suspects than Klosowski. D'Onston looks a good bit like Cream even though he was about nine years older.
Anyone have any thoughts? If anyone has read the book about Cream, please let me know what it says about JTR and if it discusses the double theory.
- Mike
|
Shelley Wiltshire
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shelley
Post Number: 95
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 2:20 pm: | |
Sarah & Jennifer,
George Chapman never turned a hand to being a mutilator, so no , no one in history changed from a mutilator to a poisioner...And as for the 'It can happen once" you mean they have actually crossed a sheep with human DNA and got the sheep people! Wow what a new one to science ( or any type of science for that matter). This theory is absurd. A poisioner poisions to get rid of someone who is getting in their way, this can be because of money, sometimes hatred, but still another element has to be present with hatred, usually money or a new life. A sex-mutilator killer, kills in this way because of the nature of the mutilations appeals to his gratification of the pleasure he obtains in a sexual way, it's rather like jerking off and obtaining an orgasm through a porn film. I've never heard of any serial killer having gone this far, to get a blooming good orgasam out of watching someone expire without the sight of blood and open organs on show with the fact of cut flesh & skin. I'd understand it more if the little monster jerked off at a hospital surgeons program. Dream on you lot, get some reality. And get your facts right.
Regards
Shelley
Criminology Student (Advanced) |
Shelley Wiltshire
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shelley
Post Number: 96
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 2:57 pm: | |
Peter,
I must admit to you, i haven't read all your posts completely, i have only looked at certain things you have included in your post. I must tell you i am a very busy person, i am a mother, wife, criminology and Creative writing student as well as helping charities and a human rights member and engage in research for my studies and also have a hand in fund-raising. So i look for things to the point, i have been studying criminology for 15 years.
But i'll have a deal with you peter, you find me a case that consitutes a se-mutilator killer to a poisioner (and not the other way around) and i'll answer anything you like. Deal?
Oh, also to Sarah, i can say what a serial killer would think, i'm a criminology student & study ok.
Regards
Shelley
Criminology Student (Advanced) |
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 69
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 3:01 pm: | |
Hey Glenn,
For some reason, I find no commonsense in that theory or post you just described. Besides the fact that I don't like profiling, I also don't like the way it's presented as fact. Or, presented wrongly by some people as fact, when the real experts aren't presenting it as fact. What I believe and will stand by is that needs of humans change whether it’s one minute between the change or ten years. Do you argue that? And whatever is driving the signature of a serial killer, that signature can change to due to surrounding circumstances. That is what I believe. But, as you see, I am no way presenting it as fact.
Take care
Peter
P.S.- I don't think you'll be surprised to here that Exorcist: The Beginning has opened to some pretty hideous reviews.
|
Shelley Wiltshire
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shelley
Post Number: 97
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 3:02 pm: | |
Hi, Glenn,
Great post as usual, practical and makes sense as always......Hey did anyone tell you , you are JUST BRILLIANT!.
Regards
Shelley
Criminology Student (Advanced) |
Shelley Wiltshire
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shelley
Post Number: 98
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 3:10 pm: | |
Hey Peter,
Don't go jumping on Glenn now!
I asked you for facts as i remember peter, CASES ARE FACTS and tell us a lot about specific cases and how we can seperate them one from the other to catagorise certain killings as to how they are in fact done. Glenn supports facts and gives good explainations for them. Above all Glenn is right and i agree with him .
Regards
Shelley
Criminology Student(Advanced) |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2034
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 4:00 pm: | |
Hi Olivier and thanks for your response.
As I've said before, I am not solely leaning against experiences or comparisons from other cases; my main basis for my opinion is -- for what it's worth -- pure common sense.
OK sorry, I must admit I forgot those two theoretical points of yours and I will do my best to answer them.
1. Do we think that a killer like JtheR can switch motives? That is to say: in a first step, kill women for a “sexual motive” (or something which looks like a sexual motive) and then kill his wives for another motive.
Answer: No, I don't believe in this at all. It is just this point that is problematic. I have explained why already in several posts and I can only refer to Shelley's excellent arguments above on this matter. To me this suggestion is totally unlikely.
2. Do we think that JtheR can have rational and intelligent behavior?
Answer: This is a tougher one. I used to be completely convinced of (stupidly enough) that Jack the Ripper was a mad paranoid schizofrenic, but now I am not so sure, although I still can't rule out the possibility.
His tendency to escape and disappear could be some sort of indication on intelligence, but I can't find that much in his crimes that are rational. To me the murders remain rather irrational and performed on emotional grounds. Not rational calculation. But that's just me.
I see that you and I at least are quite in agreement regarding what type of killer Jack could have been, but people like Chapman is hundred miles away from this type of character.
"PS: “Show me a police officer, prosecutor, psychologist or lawyer that will take such a connection between a mutilator and a poisoner seriously, and I may -- but just may -- consider to scrap "impossible" to "quite unlikely".”
I am surprised by this sentence. It is easy to cite Abberline or Sudgen (the latter is probably an historian yet)."
I am talking about police officers today.
Abberline put forward Chapman in 1903, and Abberlibe hardly had any knowledge of criminal psychology (and neither did anyone else, really, at this point). He meant, that if a man is sinister enough to murder his wives in a cruel manner, he could also be the Ripper. This kind of theorising is not valid today and no -- i repeat NO police officer or detective would reason the same way today.
As far as Sugden is concerned, this is a misunderstanding. Sugden did a presentation of Chapman in his book, but he never claimed him to be a favourite suspect as the Ripper.
I say it again; you will find no one working in the police force taking such a connection seriously. A poisoner is a fundamental different character type than a mutilating maniac and I find the notion to mix them both together to be a strange and implausible one. It just doesen't work.
Shelley is entirely correct in her objections against this remarkable theory.
Chapman/Klosowski and Cream belong in my mind to the absolutely worst suspects in the Ripper context, in company with Jill the Ripper and the Royal Conspiracy.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2035
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 4:15 pm: | |
Hi Shelley,
Thank you and right back at ya!
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2036
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 4:18 pm: | |
Hey Peter,
"What I believe and will stand by is that needs of humans change whether it’s one minute between the change or ten years. Do you argue that?"
Yes, when we speak about serial killers.
All the best
P.S. No, I am not surprised. I am still waiting for reviews over here, but I think it'll take a few months yet.
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Shelley Wiltshire
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shelley
Post Number: 99
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 6:16 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
Very precise points in your post, you make a great deal of sense even though i have seen a few people on this thread try to draw you into a confused muddle. Well thought out and an excellent post. I am in total agreement with you. And once more that agreement won't change in ten years either! Well done Glenn, you 'stick to your guns' as it were ( don't get me wrong the mention of guns...i wasn't implying that you were muderous in any way).
Also, i have spoken with policemen with this observation of Cream & JTR and they are completely in agreement with us.
Best Wishes
Shelley
Criminologist Student(Advanced) |
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 71
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 6:24 pm: | |
Hey Glenn,
Serial killers are humans you know. They are not this different specie from a different planet. If you are telling me their needs don't change, I would call that an absurd thing to say.
Take care
|
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 72
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 6:38 pm: | |
Shelley,
You are being brainwashed so much by this profiling/criminology nonsense. Your scope of sight is very limited because of it. Stop talking about things being factual. You don't know the answer. You are not God. Read the points I'm trying to make and then you’ll see why I’m not answering your mutilator-poisioner question. I'm busy too. End of story. |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 725
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 7:35 pm: | |
Shelley,
Just out of curiousity because this has been driving me crazy...what makes you an "Advanced" Criminology student? Are you getting your Masters or Doctorate in the field? It is really apropos of nothing --I just keeping looking at your signature, and considering you feel compelled to share with everyone that you are an "advanced" criminology student, I was wondering if you could clarify what that actually means?
 |
Shelley Wiltshire
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shelley
Post Number: 101
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 8:03 pm: | |
Ally,
In respect to your post why are you so bothered about what makes me an Advanced Criminology Student? To answer your question, no i'm not taking a master's. But it is equivalent to a master's in a respect, i am taking a diploma. The rest i suggest you take up with my tutor as to why it's called advanced, as i am not a teacher or tutor just a student.
Regards
Shelley
Criminology Student (Advanced) |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2037
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 8:26 pm: | |
Hey Peter,
Yes, serial killers are human, but they are not like the rest of us -- God forbid. And especially not from a psychological point of view.
They will probably in many ways remain a mystery, but we do know quite a lot about what makes many of them tick; in my view enough to draw certain conclusions.
And once again, Peter. For me this has nothing to do with profiling. Just common sense.
As soon as anybody is talking about "signature" and "modus operandi" people are referring to "profiling nonsense", which is a fallacy.
Those concepts are being widely used within the police forces and is not just solely a part of profiling terminology. If they were, I wouldn't use them. And as you may know, profiling as such is not always that appreciated in police circuits.
So I think it's wrong to claim that Shelley is being brain-washed by "profiling nonsense", because I certainly am not (I used to be rather interested in it, but these days I have a rather cautious approach to it). And neither are those modern police men and detectives that refuse to accept the possibility of a serial mutilator turning into poisoning.
I have discussed this with local detectives where I live as well, and they laugh their heads off just by mentioning it. Then of course, we could state that they are rigid and narrow-minded on the matter, but at least they base their opinions on experience and facts. After all, they know more about it than you and I do.
Keep on posting, bro.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 20, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Shelley Wiltshire
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shelley
Post Number: 102
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 8:30 pm: | |
Hello Peter,
Why do you want Factual things to cease? Is it really because your theories and opinions are not holding up true to life? And I never recalled calling myself God in any post! If you don't want to look at facts peter i suggest that you don't study murder cases, also i find it very amusing that you called me brainwashed ( your the one i consider to be brainwashed by confusion and the lack of solid facts as to your arguement of a mutilator turning poisioner). Why don't you simply back up your arguement with a fact? In this you cannot lose your arguement..but as i see you have lost because you haven't as yet come up with a clear actual case, you just argue your thoughts and opinions. Come up with an actual case that exists then as i said, i will answer any of your questions ( you can even email me with questions when you present a case that is worth going -head to head with).
Facts peter are very different to opinions and thoughts, a fact cannot be disputed, however an opinion or though can be disputed very much so.
Regards
Shelley
Criminology Student (Advanced) |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 726
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 8:53 pm: | |
In case anyone (like me) was wondering, Shelley is taking a course called " Criminology(Advanced) ". At the end of it, you receive a diploma if you get 70% on a final exam.
Shelley,
I don't think it's actually comparable to a MA or PhD which requires many, many more hours of course work and has somewhat more stringent standards than a 70% passing rate. That's just my opinion though. It is otherwise an interesting site with a variety of interesting courses. I like to broaden my horizons with home study courses myself and I thank you for turning me on to it. I am considering signing up for the certificate in "Dragon Magic" and "Applied Astrology". I shall give ole Professor Trelawny a run for her money.
Now back to your regularly scheduled programs, mates.
|
Shelley Wiltshire
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shelley
Post Number: 103
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 8:56 pm: | |
Hey Peter,
What on earth do you mean that serial killers are human too and their needs change?
What that their need to go to the toilet changes from day to day? That they may not need beans on toast on a thursday but only on a tuesday? SERIAL KILLERS PETER HAVE VERY DIFFERENT NEEDS THAN YOU OR I.
Why don't you listen to someone working in the field of serial killers that has actually helped to catch them, instead of listening to some one who has not the slightest idea at all and only knows how to write nonsense. If you need to know about a certain illness or complaint, who do you go to? You go and see your Doctor (now don't you?), you don't go down the end of the road and enquire as to the answer of your ailment what it is from a newspaper editor do you now? Huh? Start consulting professional people peter. I might add that the ones in agreement with yourself and Dan, (who side with yourself and Dan, therefore uphold the theory of disputing the proffessionals) have used the proffessionals as a reference (in an untrue twisted context HA..HA.HA) Even they deep down truly realise that this is the only option and logical course, (to draw upon the proffessionals) If you don't trust proffessionals ie : Doctor's to go to with a case of syphilis to be treated, who do you go to? The vet?
Regards
Shelley
Criminology Student (Advanced) |
Shelley Wiltshire
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shelley
Post Number: 104
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 9:06 pm: | |
Hi Ally, i see you haven't gone into all aspects covering the course. But still i might add i've been studying Criminology for 15 years, i go by proffessionals, with your tone of post, i gather that you favour cream as a suspect, i ask you if you ask someone with a Ph.D or a master's already, or even a policeman ( an ordinary police man), see what reaction you'll recieve if you ask them could Cream be JTR, they'll laugh there socks off. Also are you a tutor are you also aware of the levels and equivalents of diploma's degrees and so forth? Dragon magic eh? sounds like a lot of fantasy to me!
Regards Shelley
Criminology Student (Advanced) |
Shelley Wiltshire
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shelley
Post Number: 105
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 9:14 pm: | |
Ally,
Can i ask you, have you had any personal proffessional referals toward criminology?
I have , a police officer, 3 social workers and my cousin who is a Doctor (these people have degrees coming out of their ears). Who are you? Do you have any degrees?
Regards
Shelley
Criminology Student (Advanced) |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 727
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 9:26 pm: | |
Hi Shelley,
Here's what I know. The website says that for 270 pounds I can get a diploma in Criminology (Advanced). My MA is costing me approximately 10,000 bucks and requiring me to take about 20 different classes but hey...I am sure that diploma is equivalent. And no I am not a "tutor". I am a teacher. I do occasionally teach at a local community college (the lowest of the low when it comes to degree programs)and even the lowest of the low of degrees costs about 3,000 dollars and requires taking several dozen classes. So no, a one-off course that provides you with a diploma is not the equivalent of a MA degree. Sorry, but it's not. I don't even care what your qualifications are, you are the one who keeps announcing them saying you are a criminology student (advanced). Being a criminology student real or otherwise, would not and does not make you any more or less qualified to discuss than someone who isn't a criminology student. As you have said, you have 15 more years under your belt of study than what this one class can provide you with. My question was based on the fact that as I am somewhat familiar with academic terminology, I was puzzled by your continued use of "Criminology Student(Advanced) which has no real meaning that I could determine and which prompted me to inquire as to what you meant by it.
And yes, I was considering taking Dragon Magic but after carefully looking over the options, I realized that they didn't have an (Advanced) option and so I have decided to try a different track.
Regards,
Ally
Magic Herbalism Student (Advanced)
|
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 728
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 9:29 pm: | |
Uh...Shelley,
What does your friends qualifications have to do with your qualification? Are you claiming intelligence and insight by proximity now?
And what does a doctor and a social worker give you towards understanding crime? Doctors as far as I know deal with medical issues and social workers deal with social issues that touch on but are not exclusive or even mostly related to crime.
Regards,
Ally
Flower Remedies Student (Advanced)
|
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 73
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 9:41 pm: | |
Hey Glenn,
My main point of my postings was to also show you how they do involve commonsense. Like the need of a serial killer changes through time. They are affected by the outside world also. Probably to an even bigger degree. And to say, they may just brush off certain situations that may draw them to change signature, I would question that. That is where I believe there is a fault in some of your points. They are going against each other.
Take care
|
Shelley Wiltshire
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shelley
Post Number: 106
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 9:52 pm: | |
Before i forget Ally....If a person has degrees and can't do Practical work on the job to a reasonable standard, they wouldn't be any good at their job. I can see that plenty of bullies in school got other kids to do their school work, but they couldn't hold down a job they'd get the sack and become an alcoholic.
Besides i don't recall stating that i have a Ph.D, i've always said i was a student, i even reffered you to my tutor Ally to answer your questions. But in my 15 years as a criminology student (without being on a course in that time), i have studied Criminology with Dr's with Ph.D's and fully fledged Criminologists, who have you studied with? apart from your future embarking course and study of 'Dragon Magic'? and is this dragon magic a serial sex-mutilator killer or poisioner?...Baffled...? Anticipating with bated breath your educated knowledgeable reply.
Regards
Shelley
Criminology Student (Advanced) |
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 74
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 10:01 pm: | |
Shelley, since you refuse to even look at my other posts, I’ll shorten them for you. I cannot name a mutilator turned posioner to you. But, unless you’ve read up on all trillion of them since back in the caveman era and you’ve solved all the unsolved cases, then I may not argue so much. By the way, human being always surprise us or have in fact surprised us in the past. I wouldn’t be surprised to see how much a serial killer surprises us. People have done things that no one has fathomed.
Why is it so difficult for you to understand? If you've read my posts properly, though you have admitted you haven't read them in their full entirety, which I find pretty pathetic, you'd notice the only big problem people are having is that you claim a mutilator cannot turn into a posioner and that it is impossible to happen and that is fact.
It isn’t a fact. I am right. You are wrong.
(Message edited by Peter on August 20, 2004) |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
