|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 76
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 10:05 pm: |       |
Ally,
It's a fun battle but it's also a losing battle. His posts should end with Criminology Student (Advanced) and a minor in Attention Seeking (Really Really Advanced)
STAN RUSSO |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2038
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 10:08 pm: | |
Hey Peter,
I fail to see how a serial killer might change his needs through time. Certain situations and circumstances can make them to change how they operate, but hardly why they operate. There is a difference.
In a serial mutilator turning poisoner we have an even greater problem, namely that for the mutilator or serial rapist, strangler (or whatever), the signature is the important thing for the killer.
But a poisoner like Chapman has no signature.
Chapman clearly had no need beyond the actual killing. To me personally it's common sense that such a person can't have been Jack the Ripper some years earlier.
It is not contradictive.
You are still mixing things up with change of modus operandi and the killer's needs.
I believe it is possible for a serial killer to change his methods if the time period in between is credible, but a serial killer like Jack the Ripper does things from a special driving force within him.
To do the things Chapman did, wouldn't in any way fulfill those needs. It is quite elementary and reasonable to draw such a conclusion. You and others are suggesting that Jack the Ripper was some sort of chameleont or multiple personality that operated from different kind of personal needs or psychological driving forces depending on the situation.
I have never heard of a serial killer acting this way.
Change his method -- yes. But a serial killer does his stuff for special reasons (even if he is not aware of them himself) and they hardly change, because they are the ones that makes him do the acts!
The only thing Chapman had was a rational motive and that is something entirely different.
Poisoners like Chapman just wanted to get rid of certain individuals and them chose a method that was easiest for him. But there is no psychological or sexual driving force that lies beneath, like we probably have in the Ripper's case. This driving force just doesen't go away if he continues to kill. I can't even in my most vivid imagination see those two as one person.
I am sorry. For me it just doesen't add up.
The poisonist theory turns the Ripper into a very complex contradictive, constructed fantasy character that really doesne't hang together at all.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Shelley Wiltshire
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shelley
Post Number: 107
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 10:12 pm: | |
Ally i haven't the foggist idea what you are on about. So your'e a teacher in what exactly? Criminology? How do you know that Criminology doesn't entail sociology/social sciences/ Psychology/Psychiatry? Because they do! What do you know about Criminology? ( i know absolutely nothing by the sounds of it!)) So you don't think a police officer has anything to do with Criminology HuH? (so you think an officer wouldn't have the slightest notion of some ability Huh?) I got the highest mark in my studies 98% Without research. So your paying for a load of money and spending a lot of time for your course( more fool you) As it happens a Diploma is accepted as the equivalent of an MA, i've seen it for myself on the boards for Headmaster's of schools. By the way if you really are a teacher, ever heard of the 'Quality Council'? Or are you not British and are some Yank who lives far away and knows nothing about the Education system in England, Also the course that i'm on will be a Diploma with the letters MASC after my name ( in fact i know of a woman who is a councillor with such a qualification), it is a scottish qualification recoginised throughout Canada the USA and also Australia. So much for a teacher who thinks she Knows every qualification inside out, by the way did you realise that there are qualifications higher than a Ph.D? Also i never mentioned what kind of a doctor my cousin is, you just presumed.
Regards
Shelley
Criminology Student (Advanced) |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 729
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 10:18 pm: | |
Shelley,
I guess your course doesn't require reading skills.
I asked specifically what Criminology Student (Advanced) means because I have never heard that phrase used in any academic setting before.
The program from which you are taking your course is not a degree program. It offers a variety of "holistic" courses among which are Dragon Magic, Applied Astronomy and Flower Remedies (Advanced)--all of which you can obtain a certificate or diploma in. To me, saying you are student in a particular area means you are taking a series of courses from an accredited degree offering university or college, otherwise I could say I am a student of virtually a whole crap load of meaningless stuff that I have read a book on or discussed with a professional.
I have never claimed that a degree confers knowledge or skill..indeed you are the one who is insisting on that with your continual references to PhDs and "experts" and continually advancing yourself as a Criminology Student. I personally, don't think that formal education in a subject confers great wisdom in it, but as you are the one who is promoting yourself as a student in the subject and using your student status to portray some kind of expert knowledge, then you ought to have the academic chops to back it up and not be basing it on a single course taken from a website.
I don't think a degree is necessary to be well informed on a subject, but if you are going to base your entire argument on being in academia, then you ought to in fact be in academia.
(Message edited by Ally on August 20, 2004)
 |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2039
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 10:19 pm: | |
Stan,
Shelley is a she, actually. Not that it matters, but anyway, just for the record...
And what do you mean by "attention seeker"? Why? Because one has a signature displaying an occupation or a student faculty?
Come on. That is the lowest argument in the book, focusing on such a thing. I have nothing against titles, and as long as they are corroborating with the truth, I personally feel that it is an assett to know what a person does when I am indulging in a discussion with him or her.
So I am an attention seeker as well because I dare to call myself "crime historian"? And what about Dan Norder who calls himself "Editor" (which he is)?
Funny how that sort of thing always seem to provoce some people. Pathetic.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 20, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2040
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 10:30 pm: | |
I agree with Ally, though, that a degree isn't always necessary for knowledge on a subject.
As an art historian with a university degree, I actually knew more about my subject before I entered my education than I do now after my degree. I learnt how to write academic essays and to evaluate sources from a scientific point of view, but that's about it.
As far as the academic world is concerned, I am certainly on a fence. Academic skills without practical, personal experiences from the real world is rather useless, as I see it, unless one wants to stay inside the walls of university. A mixture of both is of course an ideal.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Shelley Wiltshire
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shelley
Post Number: 108
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 10:31 pm: | |
Hey Stan,
As i've said before i'm interested in facts not therorising or opinions there's a great deal of difference. If your'e having problems with a case of a serial -sex mutilator killer turned poisioner i suggest just for research, you ask the FBI to put it to the Behavioural sciences dept and see what they come up with (in fact they should come up with every known case to man throughout the world). I think your pathetic when it comes to trying to have a dig as myself as a criminology student, as i've said before i'm only interested in facts not opinions, and as far as i can see your opinions don't count. How's your friend, the flower remedies student? What does she do, study to cure pansy's of the flu?
Regards
Shelley
Criminology Student (Advanced) |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2041
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 10:35 pm: | |
Just a note...
Not to act traffic constable here... but aren't we beginning to loose the subject of the thread here?
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 730
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 10:45 pm: | |
Hi Shelley,
Last bit, because you really are a waste of time seeing as how you are not even bothering to read my posts. I can get all kinds of nifty letters after my name from your program too... For a couple quid I could get a diploma and letters in Angel Ritual and all kinds of other crap. It's easy to get paper credentials in holistic and alternative programs when there is absolutely no scientific standard to judge them or base them on. Hey if I wanted I could pay quite a few colleges around here a few hundred dollars and they would hand me a piece of paper that would say I can use PhD after my name...but that doesn't mean I would have earned it. Diploma factories can give you all kinds of paper credentials...it's a cheap and easy way out of real study and real work.
|
Shelley Wiltshire
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shelley
Post Number: 109
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 10:52 pm: | |
Hey Ally,
I have never said that i was taking a degree!
I have however stated that i am taking a Diploma. Here in England lass, a person can get accepted without a Master's Degree and be accepted with a Diploma. So what if the group i'm taking the Criminology course with does 'Holistic' courses as well, i'm not taking those. And i might add that our English Universities also do the same, you know, the one's that also do MA. How do you feel about our Universities doing Psychology in sport? Hardly anything to do with Criminology! I have posted some facts, hey you people if you can't deal with it it's your problem not mine. And yes Ally i do have study with reading, i do it all the time. If you want to argue anything, i'm more practical at the moment, i thought this thread was about Cream and how well or not well he is as a JTR suspect. Like i said Ally if you can't do the job with practical work, your degree means nothing! Anyway what are you taking a degree in?
Regards
Shelley
Criminology Student (Advanced) |
Shelley Wiltshire
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shelley
Post Number: 110
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 11:03 pm: | |
Well been nice talking to you Ally,
No bad feelings, sorry you feel i'm a waste of time (but i guess you think that of the British Police force and our Dr's with Ph.D's too)
Good luck with your 'Dragon Magic' i wish you the best of luck.
Sweet Dreams
Regards
Shelley
Criminology Student (Advanced) |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 244
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 11:10 pm: | |
Well, isn't this thread just taking off faster than the A?R one? Geez. There are just too many to read.
For the record though, regardless of Shelley trying to paint me as someone who disputes the professionals, I think profiling is a good tool, as long as people realize what it was originally intended to be used for: to narrow down a description of a *probable* suspect, not to say that it's impossible for anyone else.
It's odd that Shelley uses Chikatilo as an example earlier but fails to appreciate the fact that he alone proves the common assumptions of die-hard profile believers wrong. He is way older than the standard age normally given to mutilator killers. He proved the whole "serial killers of this nature are unable to stop themselves from more murders" idea wrong for at least long lengths of time. He shows the whole "killers of this type can't live with a wife or girlfriend" idea wrong. He's a lust killer who (but no, it's impossible!) killed males and females, kids and adults. He's so outside of the standard profile that I'm astounded anyone can pretend that profilers tell you what's impossible and what isn't.
And the worst part is, most of the newer cases of serial killers we've caught prove other dogmatic beliefs of serial profilers wrong as well. Simply put, whatever data set they got their original ideas from is hopelessly out of date these days. We've got black snipers, black serial killers switching between target races, BTK stopping for like a decade and then taunting the police again, Ridgway confessing to murders the "experts" claimed couldn't possibly be linked to the Green River Killings and providing info about them that only the real killer would know. It should be pretty clear by now that a handful of serial killers caught several decades back doesn't tell us enough about the whole range of possibilities of serial killers actually out there, especially now that we are catching all these new ones that don't fit profiles at all.
At one time people thought the continents were fixed and fought the idea that they could shift around on their own. In fact, it only really ever got major acceptance until all the "experts" who had believed the old outdated and wrong idea died off, because they simply had too much emotional investment in their old ways of thinking. I think the same thing is going on inside of criminology.
I like the idea of profiling. I think profiling can be a lot of help, if used correctly. But profiling is in its infancy as a science. Some day, hopefully sooner than later, criminologists will look back and realize that a lot of their theories (that some people were pretending were indisputable facts) were based on limited and poor information.
And hopefully the serial killers won't get too many more victims in the meantime.
(Ooh, a diploma on Dragon Magic, that's a high class educational institution there... Thanks for pointing that out, Ally. That'd look cool on my mythology website. No, come to think of it, even the kids I have hanging out there would laugh at that.)
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Shelley Wiltshire
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shelley
Post Number: 111
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 11:37 pm: | |
Hey Dan, Can't you read? Ally is the one taking 'Dragon Magic' Ha, ha...It's funny that you should twist the facts, but still your good at that aren't you. I don't have the foggist idea which profiler's you are talking about, but i myself haven't gone by any profilers that only limit a specific age range for any serial killers case, so to me you don't make any sense. Chikatilo is a very good example of a case, i don't see him turning from a violent killer to a poisioner as you've tried to profile on this thread. Glenn seems to know much much more than you do. As i can see that he has a qualification in at least 'crime', which is more than i can say for you, seems as you only have a qualification in writing, and as i thought mainly in the field of Fantasy. By the way in Britain we have a shorter school period for students and our education excells that of the USA. Also like i keep asking any one on this thread, SHOW ME A CASE OF A SERIAL SEX-MUTILATOR TURNED POISIONER.
Regards
Shelley
Criminology Student (Advanced) |
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 75
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 12:41 am: | |
Glenn,
I read your points, but I don't thing you addressed the "lay low" idea. Let's say Chapman was the Ripper and did in fact change his signature and so forth:
A little before the Ripper murder scare, Chapman had tried to purchase poisons, but had failed. We know this for a fact. Obviously, he wanted use them for someone a bit earlier. Glenn, why was there a near ten year gap between him trying to first purchase poisons to the murder of his wives with the use of poisons? And the JTR murders in between? Basically, I'm trying to say that his level of hate towards women rose enough to want to kill them during 1888. I wouldn't call him "totally out of his mind" at the time, so with the failure, he tried something else. And that's the reason as to "why" he operated in a different way. One, was because of the failure of purchasing the poisons and the fact that he may have wanted to explore something different since one of the options was ruled out. And two, after the Ripper murders, he may have wanted to stop for a bit. He wanted to get satisfaction in killing them, period.
Once again, Chapman being the Ripper is just speculation and not the point. My point is with the changing of operation, signature and so forth.
Take care.
|
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 246
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 12:46 am: | |
Shelley, friendly advice here, you're not really helping your case by always going for the personal insults all the time. Especially your choice of insults. Ally was joking when she said she was taking the class. It was making fun of your school. Bringing it up again and again as if it somehow insults Ally just makes you look foolish.
Regarding your claim to have not seen any profiles with age ranges: You're serious? I've never seen one without an age range that I can recall. Pretty bizarre if you've never seen one with.
As far as the example of the mutilator turned poisoner, Peter already answered that one pretty well above. That said, I bet I could turn one up eventually anyway, but then I'll have to dig through a bunch of cases so it's not an immediate thing.
And for the love of Krispy Kreme, don't even go there with the bashing U.S. schools tactic. It doesn't say anything about your individual educational level, and the last thing we need on here is another "people in your country aren't as smart as people in ours" flame war.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 247
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 1:15 am: | |
Hi Glenn,
So I am an attention seeker as well because I dare to call myself "crime historian"?
I think I was just discussing this with someone else the other day...
Believe it or not, Glenn, yeah, I think that probably qualifies. Not a huge deal or anything, but it does stick out. You're on a board with tons of published authors and historians, amateur and otherwise. You can't swing a proverbial dead cat here without hitting a crime historian, many of whom are degreed professionals, well known authors, or both. I can't really recall anyone else feeling the need to give themselves a title like that, at least up until Criminology Student (Advanced) came along.
"And what about Dan Norder who calls himself "Editor" (which he is)?"
Mrm, probably a bad example. That is specifically there to seek attention... for the magazine. You know, so there's always a link to the site there. If the word "editor" weren't there it'd be sounding like I was claiming I *am* Ripper Notes itself, which sounds goofy, so the title gets slipped in there.
As far as titles go, "editor" is a pretty unassuming one. Ripperologist has something like four editors and they all have fancier titles than I do... which is mostly because they need the longer titles to specify which one does what, of course.
And as far as what Stan was saying, I think it's a pretty safe bet he was referring to more than just the title at the end of a post. Concentrating on that as if it would be the only possible reason why someone would think she's looking for attention misses some other rather obvious reasons too.
But, hey, everyone wants attention in some way or else they probably wouldn't post anything ever. The haiku posts I've been making lately are failed attempts at attention. But oh well, I thought they were funny if nobody else did. It's nice to be able to amuse oneself.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 78
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 4:36 am: | |
Shelley,
Many apologies for stating that you were a he. I simply thought that Shelley was another one of those kooky British terms for man, like Leslie, that us Yanks, remember when you called us Yanks, use as names for women. Much apologies for the name issue, but I must remind you that us Yanks (which is a much stupider term than many understand), won the war. Both in fact.
Glenn,
I have nothing against titles. If you can't see the absolute one-sided nature of her arguments and the attention that she is seeking by arguing her own limited academic background, which is out of the ordinary to say the least, then perhaps your powers of observation are not acute enough for this case. Try the Ted Bundy murders. I think Ted Bundy did it.
STAN RUSSO |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2042
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 5:27 am: | |
Peter,
I hear what you say, but it just doesen't sound credible to me. I can't buy it.
I don't think a murderer of the Ripper's kind would settle for find enjoyment in the killing itself, especially since that don't seem to have interested him during the Ripper murders.
That's too much of a major personality change for me.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2043
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 5:35 am: | |
Stan,
Most people here are arguing their background and their education throughout discussions on different threads. Neither Shelley or myself is different in that regards.
In contrast to you, my powers of observations are directed towards the actual subject of the discussion, not picking on people for writing signatures after their names. But I guess you suddenly fell short of arguments and therefore felt compelled to deliver something.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2044
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 5:59 am: | |
Dan,
Actually, I could be wrong here, but the most distinguished people and authors has left these Boards quite some time ago, like Evans, Fido etc.
Most "published authors" that still is here has delivered one published book or something like that -- like myself -- so I'm no less, no more qualified than anyone else.
The fact that people like Caz or AP Wolf don't want to put up things like "author" is their decision. I think they have the right and I probably would if I were them. However, it's their choice, like it's my right to put up a signature.
I have studied crime history for at least fifteen--twenty years and have published one book as well as held a lot of lectures, so I think I am entitled to put "crime historian" up there if I want to. To me titles are important, because they say something about the person, but hey call me old-fashioned. That doesen't make me better than anyone else. It's no worse than showing or giving away your card.
I admit, I am an exhibitionst but at least I am not giving myself out to be something I'm not, so it's really no harm done.
A signature at the bottom has for me the same function as a visting card, more than a possibility to show off. I believe you could fertilize with crime historians anyway, so I am not sure what's there to show off in the first place.
And as far as your "editor" thing, well OK there's four of you, but you still DID put it down on your signature, didn't you, although you really didn't have to.
Don't give me wrong, I think you are entitled to do it, but it could just as easily be interpreted as a way to do commercial for the magazine. Is it good or bad? I honestly don't know and it doesen't disturb me. It's quite OK by me.
As long as people are claiming to be something they're not, I have no problem with titles or visiting cards on the posts.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 783
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 6:35 am: | |
Hello again everyone!
Glad I managed to inject that fun element (not!)
Shelley,
I am sure you missed my point which was a subtle attempt at humour.
I don't believe Chapman or Cream were JTR but just saying that its a little bit silly to say were there any other examples of something to make a point when it could (if unlikely) be the first example.
I do not like (and I have to say this because i did mention it on the AARR?? thread) the use of educational qualifications as equated to knowledge. But saying that I don't have a problem with you pointing out your degree on any personal basis.
By the way I wouldn't go praising up the UK education system. Its my personal belief that IT FAILS most students (see guys this is what happens to me when people mention the ed system its nothing personal!)
Everyone,
Shelley is a newbie maybe with should give her a chance.
Anyway its all getting a little out of hand on this thread!
Bye again!
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2045
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 7:09 am: | |
Correction regarding my post above:
"As long as people aren't claiming to be something they're not...", it should naturally say.
Hi Jennifer,
If what you say about the UK education system is correct (which I doubt, if you look at many other countries in comparison), I just have to say:
Take a number. You haven't seen the Swedish one.
Well, back to the subject of the thread. Please people.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 784
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 7:20 am: | |
Glenn,
Ok I may have got slightly carried away you are right. Thats for another website anyhow!
The topic of this thread? cream wasn't JTR because he was in prision on the other side of the world
Cheers
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 76
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 11:21 am: | |
Hey Glenn,
Well, I guess I can't argue it much more if you don't buy it. I have nothing left to say. Fun arguing with you on this issue...again. You'll hear from me again.
Take care
I must remind you that us Yanks (which is a much stupider term than many understand), won the war. Both in fact.
Stan, good point. You can't argue that. I guess the British are still bitter about it. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1080
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 1:26 pm: | |
Won What war? If you are talking about the 2nd World war it was won by default some of it eg if Stalingrad hadnt turned things round nobody might have been around to go on to defeat Hitler.If Dresden hadnt happened[appalling that that was for those German civilians who weren"t complicit with Hitler] there were several crucial events that laid way for victory.The American involvement came late on,when we were nearly there.
Natalie |
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 82
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 1:36 pm: | |
Natalie,
Thanks for the history lesson, but I wasn't referring to World War II. As I recall we were on the same side during that War, so a victory for us is also a victory for you. I was referring to the 2 Wars we fought against each other, and those are the 2 that us Yanks won.
STAN RUSSO |
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 77
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 3:17 pm: | |
Won what war? I believe it was called the Revolutionary War. And I believe the “Yanks” won that, the last time I checked.
And everybody knows that if the U.S. didn't get involved in WWII, the results would have changed dramatically. We played a huge part.
|
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 83
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 3:23 pm: | |
To all,
For those who do not know, the United States fought England in the War of 1812. Second War against England. Second victory.
STAN RUSSO |
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 78
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 3:35 pm: | |
For those who didn't know that there was another war, then you shouldn't be arguing about this issue. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1081
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 4:41 pm: | |
OK Stan,I got it wrong.Apologies.And Oh yes you have tons to be proud of.I would love to see the Jefferson Memorial and read those quotations from his writings.Great words,great vision for America.
Now that was a really great president-!
Natalie |
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 86
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 4:54 pm: | |
Natalie,
I never said I was proud, just stating fact. We were a bunch of beer swilling, hemp smoking, wig wearing, wooden teeth having, snuff snorting, tea drinking uppity idealists who didn't want to pay taxes. If it wasn't for Napoleon, us Americans might still be saying things like MUMSY and CRUMPETS.
STAN RUSSO |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 265
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 8:32 pm: | |
Stan,
Your take on American history (indeed of all history) is quirky to say the least. But, while we owe the French a debt of gratitude (redeemed for sure in 1917 and 1941) for our independence it had nothing to do with Napoleon. The other way round, in fact. Nor were the French particularly altruistic in coming to our aid -- they simply saw it as a way to tweak John Bull's nose.
As it was, the French monarchy so bankrupted itself aiding us that Louis was forced to call the Estates General into session to seek funds and that eventually led to the Revolution and only later did Bonaparte come to power.
And all of that has absolutely nothing to do with Cream, whose thread has suddenly gotten more traffic the past few days than it has in all the many years the boards have been around. Instead of serious discussion there has been a lot of silliness and that is one reason why my participation has been minimal of late anywhere on the boards.
Surely, we can do better.
Don.
|
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 92
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 8:53 pm: | |
Donald,
Perhaps that whole battle across Europe against Napoleon, the Napoleonic Wars, was what I was referring to. In fact, it was. Due to Napoleon's efforts The English forces were split in battle, giving the United States the upper hand during the War of 1812. By the time the English forces could merge and mobilize against the US it was too late, and their forces were defeated. That is what I was referring to, not King Louis and Marie Antoinette.
If we don't act silly sometimes we'll go batty dude. There's only one answer to this question and five thousand people have five thousand different solutions. A little silliness goes a long way. Take it in stride. (no pun intended)
STAN RUSSO
HISTORY STUDENT (EXTRA SUPER ADVANCED) |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 447
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 12:32 pm: | |
Hi all,
I agree with Donald, and with Glenn. Somehow this thread, which was supposed to be about the belief of Dr. Thomas Neill Cream as a viable Ripper suspect, has gotten bogged down in subsidiary disputes. I think we ought to return to it...despite my inclination to enter into a discussion of just who won the War of 1812.
If Glenn sees this, I hope he can enlighten me a little regarding modus operandi and serial killing. The only time I have seen a variant on a serial killer who used more than one method of desposing of his victims, it was a highly under-written case from both the continent and England in the 1870s. I am referring to the case of Henri Pineux (better known under his alias as "Comte Henri de Tourville") who murdered for gain (possibly a reason for his use of variable methods of killing) between 1870 and 1877 (when he was sentenced to 20 years in an Austrian prison - eventually slaving in a salt mind until his death in 1890). De Tourville killed an English traveller named Cotton in Constantinople in 1870 (Cotton had hired him as a valet, and one night just disappeared). He went to England where he became naturalized, and a barrister (yes, a barrister) at the Middle Temple. He married a Ms Ramsden of Scarsborough in 1872, who was the daughter of a wealthy, deceased lawyer. Subsequently she gave birth to a son of De Tourville. He borrowed money for his honeymoon from his mother-in-law. In 1873, while alone with him in his home, the mother-in-law was shot in her head. Scotland Yard did send an ace detective to investigate, but the detective was Nathaniel Druscovitch (soon to be sent to prison for accepting bribes in the Scotland Yard - Benson Scandal of 1877). It is very likely that De Tourville bribed Druscovitch to turn in an "accidental death" report. In 1877, when De Tourville faced serious deportation proceedings, the skull of his mother-in-law was exhumed - the bullet hole was in the back of the skull! The first Comtesse De Tourville died in 1874, probably poisoned by her husband. But most of her estate was in a trust for the infant son. De Tourville set fire to the house in the hopes the infant would die, but the baby's nanny rescued it.
De Tourville married Madeleine Miller, a widow residing at Hyde Park, London in 1876. On their honeymoon, she fell off a precepiece in the Austrian Tyrol. The police were extremely suspicious, but De Tourville returned to England. When evidence came up, the Austro-Hungarian authorities contacted Scotland Yard. De Tourville fought extradition, but there were too many odd stories connected to him. And (as I said before) he ended up extradited, tried and convicted for the second wife's murder, and slaving away in prison until he died [I have to admit that I always got a degree of satisfaction about his end].
That forgotten criminal historian, Charles Kingston, said that De Tourville may have killed up to 8 people.
But the point is that he is not using one method. We don't know how Mr. Cotton was killed, but De Tourville used poison, used, a gun, used fire, and threw his second wife off a cliff. I have never seen one killer use such a variety of methods. So, if Glenn reads this, can he explain how this gells with the idea of a serial killer sticking to just one method?
Jeff |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2046
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 2:23 pm: | |
Hi Jeff,
Interesting case, by the way. Thank you; I've never heard of it. I love those old cases, since we don't have that many of them well recorded.
As to your question, this seems to be a misunderstanding that keeps haunting me forever, regardless of how many times I try to correct it. I have NEVER SAID that a serial killer can't change his METHOD. We have numerous examples showing that they do, although they usually stick to a modus operandi that they feel comfortable with and suits them.
Your example just underlines what I've already said in this thread. Apparently de Tourville would quite easily fall in the same category as Chapman (although Chapman stuck rigidly to poisoning); as it seems he murdered those people for rational motives, like Chapman, and was not at all the same type of lust killer that we connect with Jack the Ripper, Ted Bundy etc.
de Tourville's main motives seem to have been connected with money issues and maybe also getting rid of people who was uncomfortable for his situation.
It has nothing to do with just changing modus operandi or method!
I am talking about change of motive and signature.
This is the difference I am trying to point out. I don't believe in combining a serial lust killer with a killer performing his murders for rational reasons, like for example poisoners do. This doesne't mean that killers within each category can't change their methods, but not from a mutilating lust maniac to a rational, calculating killer getting rid of people in his closest circuits.
A person like the latter has clearly nothing whatsoever to do with a killer of Jack the Ripper's type.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 250
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 2:42 pm: | |
Glenn,
Of course since you are only assuming that Jack the Ripper was actually the irrational and out of control type you think he was, claiming he couldn't turn into a rational, calculating killer is rather pointless. You also say that a killer can't change his motive (which is quite a stretch to begin with), but you haven't proven the Ripper's motive either.
You can't turn an assumption into a fact by supporting it with other assumptions. All you are doing is going around in circles.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2047
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 3:05 pm: | |
Dan,
I rather take an assumption supported by other assumptions as fact, than a complete fantasy without any support whatsoever.
You can believe what you want. If you think it's even a bit possible that a mutilating serial lust killer can turn into a calculating poisoner, and that such a personality change is the slightest plausible, be my guest.
At least my "assumptions" are supported by police officers on the field, by criminologists and by cases in crime history. What's your excuse?
But dream on, baby.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 453
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 7:37 pm: | |
Hi,
Stan, how do you figure the US won the war of 1812? The US invaded British North America with the aim of winning territory. The British wanted to prevent any loss of their North American holdings. In the end, everyone went back home and the borders remained the same.
If the US failed to achieve their objectives (win territory), and the British met theirs (keep what they had), how can one call the War of 1812 a "win" for the US and a "loss" for the Brits? I would say it's the other way round. But then, I'm Canadian! ha!
- Jeff |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 454
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 7:56 pm: | |
Anyway, in terms of what we were talking about, terms like "never" and "impossible" are terms that make such strong predictions that in order to support them the research has to be exceptionally solid.
Unfortunately (from a scientific view point), the kind of research that can be done in terms of crime can not meet the kind of standards that are required to assert things like "never" and "impossible".
However, the research does allow for probabilistic statements. And yes, the idea of a serial mutilator of stranger prostitutes changing to a serial poisoner of their wives, is highly improbable. We can't say "impossible" because the research upon which our judgments are made cannot support such strong statements. The research can support things like "highly improbable".
Recognizing that something is "possible" doesn't require one to accept that it is "probable". Police investigating crimes have to make decisions on how to distribute their limited resources, of time, money, and effort. The idea that one should put those limited resources into investigating a highly improbable suspect is, and should be, laughable, when there are much more highly probable suspects to investigate.
So, should we seriously consider either Chapman or Cream? No. Cream becomes all but impossible (i.e., unless you go for some of the extremely improbable notions of body doubles, faked information about his being in jail, etc), and Chapman is not much better. Chapman requires a highly improbable switch of motivation, the evidence in the JtR crimes suggests he would have fled away from his residence after Eddowes, etc.
But is it impossible? No. There is nothing physically impossible in the idea that Chapman committed the crimes. He was there (in Whitechapple) and he had the physical strength to do it. It's just so highly improbable that his candidacy is about as good as that of any other male living in the area! In fact, one might even suggest that because he later becomes a serial poisoner of wives, that his candidacy is weaker than that of a random male in the area! (Less likely to show such a switch than to simply be a serial mutilator!). But impossible means 0%; or it simply cannot happen. And that kind of statement is going beyond what our research can let us say.
In otherwords, we can say that Chapman is so improbable that in the absense of some sort of data indicating he is connected to the JtR murders, he should not be considered a strong suspect. The murders of his wives is not evidence that suggests he's JtR. And without something that directly links him to the crimes, he's no more likely to be JtR than Druitt (who's suicide at the "right time" is not evidence of his involvement).
- Jeff |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 448
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 10:26 pm: | |
Hi all,
I have been having problems all week with my computer due to these damned pop-ups. They've affected the speed on my computer, and it's effect of getting a message typed on the internet.
Glen, I think I know why there is this confusion of the term of Modus Apperati. It suggests to people who have not studied criminology the method of killing (shooting, stabbing, poisoning, strangling, bludgeoning), probably because Modus suggests Mode and Apperati suggests appliance. It is like misunderstanding of a term like "Corpus Delicti", which people tend to think means a corpse, not the evidence of a corpse.
If you consider the entire meaning of M.O. then you have to include the actual motivation of the criminal for committing his/her crime. So the actual crime methods can vary (as in De Tourville's case), but the behavioral pattern may remain the same. De Tourville killed for gain (you rightly pointed out), but would use any method to get rid of the person in his way to the money. Cream's motives are murky. Part was a strong strip of sadism in his make-up, but he probably was motivated in a blackmail scheme too.
The killings were meant to set up socially prominent figures as blackmail targets. If one looks at earlier murders (like that of Daniel Stott in 1880) money frequently played a part.
The total M.O. of Cream and of Chapman do not totally fit that of the Ripper. But we don't fully know the reasons for the Ripper's murders, so we can't fully deny the possibility of the M.O.s resembling each other. Still the possibilities are so small due to factors (Cream being in prison in 1888; Chapman only killing wives or paramours; both using poison) as to make it more likely than not that we can dismiss them as the actual Ripper.
This does not mean that it is worthless in discussing Cream and Chapman in reference to the Ripper. One issue that is rarely discussed (Colin Wilson and Donald Rumbelow have mentioned it) is the "blossoming" of serial killers in the years after 1888, as though the Ripper is opening the period of modern murder. Certainly Cream and Chapman may have been influenced in their later careers in committing murder by the success (or apparent success) of the Ripper in not getting officially captured.
Jeff - I happen to be born in the United States, but you are right. At best the War of 1812 was a draw, but in terms of trying to gain any of our aims it was a total defeat. By the way, the British burned Washington, D.C. in retaliation of the burning (by American troops) of the capital of Upper Canada, the city of York (now Toronto).
Jeff |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 456
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 11:07 pm: | |
Hi Jeff,
Thanks for mentioning that (the burning of Washington) as I had forgot too include it. I believe the original White House was burned down, and it was during (meaning shortly after) this battle that the words to the Star Spangled Banner were first written (or so legend has it). Also, I believe the tune was supposed to be some bawdy pub song, but that could very well be mis-information given to me by some very mischeivous friends of mine!
I'm not sure of the accuracy of this, but someone once told me that the words were written by a fellow captured by the British. The British navey were firing in "rockets" and "bombs" (rockets red glare, the bombs bursting in air) all night long. Then, after the battle was over the next morning, and the British pulled out (failing to capture and hold Washington: hence the "flag was still there"), this fellow wrote the words to what would become the US national anthem.
I'm not sure how he was supposed to get this song to other people if he had been captured though (maybe he escaped? or it was after his release?). So I generally have a hard time with the idea of this guy being captured and held on a boat, writting down words to some dirty pub song, and later getting all his buddies to sing it after the war was over. But, if he was a soldier/observer, I could easily see the song becomming popular amongst the troops and citizens in the area once the British fleet left. And, it's popularity growing as a "battle victory song" (the British didn't hold Washington after all).
Anyway, do you know if there is any truth to these stories, or are they just legends and fabrications told to me by some very inventive friends of mine?
- Jeff (the other one) |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1248
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 5:58 am: | |
Shelley,
You may be a criminology student but that doesn't mean you know the mind of a serial killer. Not all serial killers think the same.
I am a student of the social sciences and I can tell you that, just because something has never been proven or happened, it doesn't mean that it won't ever happen. Serial killers are humans and not robots and therefore are not all programmed to think alike. They have their own minds and do their own things, whether or not criminology say they will or not.
I still have no idea why anyone can entertain the idea that Dr Cream committed these murders and I don't think it was likely that a mutilator would become a poisoner, but criminology is not an exact science. There is not a set formula for serial killers.
Remember, unlikely does not mean the same as impossible. There are not absolutes with murderers.
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to 
Smile too much and the world will guess  |
Jim DiPalma
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jimd
Post Number: 100
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 10:20 am: | |
Hi All,
>Anyway, do you know if there is any truth to these stories, or are they just legends and fabrications told to me by some very inventive friends of mine?
Jeff, I know you were addressing Jeff Bloomfield, and I certainly don't claim to be a fountain of truth, but I had also heard that the music to our beloved national anthem was not just a bawdy pub song, but a bawdy *English* pub song.
I'm not 100% certain if that's true or not, but the irony is so delicious, I just had to mention it.
Rally around the flag boys, or at least the firkin,
Jim
ObOntopic: I think it highly unlikely, but not impossible, that either Cream or Chapman was the Ripper. |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1308
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 11:44 am: | |
Guys,
Cream was in the nick....end of.
Peter,
And everybody knows that if the U.S. didn't get involved in WWII, the results would have changed dramatically. We played a huge part.
True, true. Without the US influence we wouldnt have held out for much longer. Of course, if we hadnt have held out at all there would have been no result to change.
Stan,
'Mumsy' (Ive never said that one) and Crumpets??
Over here now its all 'stylo', 'word', 'home boyz' and 'chillin'.
Now where did they come from?
Respek,
Monty
Im off to see the Psy-chia-taay........just to see if Im de-men-taaay. Kiss my bad self.
-Aaron Kosminski. |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 457
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 4:25 pm: | |
Hi Jim,
Now that would be quite amusing! At least I'm not the only one to have been told this, so hey, it must be true! ha! Anyway, I've always wanted to know what the original words were. No doubt the tune has changed a bit, but still, it would be quite interesting to see.
Anyway, as for Cream, I think we're all in agreement that his jail term pretty much rules him out. Unless someone can demonstrate some evidence that he was actually let out and his release date fabricated (or some other such unlikely event), we have to put him in the nigh impossible category. Much like without some evidence to suggest that Chapman actually is our only example of a serial mutilator turned serial poisoner, we put him in the "extremely unlikely" category as well.
All we have to "suggest" either individual are unsupported hypothetical situations. For Cream it's the unsupported hypothetical situation of him not being where he's recorded as being by an institution who would get very nervous if he wasn't "at home". For Chapman, all we have is the worry that our knowledge is not as good as we would like it to be. So, we recognize the weakness in our knowledge base by allowing for a very small uncertainty. Just like with Cream we "acknowledge" there are situations/stories that can "get him out of jail free", but we place those as so improbable that we consider him a bad suspect. Chapman is the same. The information we have suggest the required switch, although not impossible, is highly improbable. We also want to keep in the back of our minds that the basis upon which we've made this probability call, however, is not an unshakable rock. Hence, we would hope that those who research the topics of criminal behaviour, would continue to question the methods and quality of information that we have in case we are making a fundamental error. However, as we are not doing that kind of research, all we can do is base our judgments on the information that we do have available. And, at the moment, that information suggests Chapman is not anywhere near likely to be Jack the Ripper. Those who wish to gamble on long shots, however, can still investigate him but so far such investigations have not uncovered anything to tie Chapman to the murders directly. In the unlikely case that were to happen, well, it would prove the switch doesn't have a 0% probability. Unfortunately, even if researching Chapman proves it wasn't him, that doesn't mean the "switch" has a 0% probability (it just means Chapman isn't the one to disprove the 0 value).
Small probabilities, even things like one in ten billion, do happen (where else does the one come from?). But, when something is that low in probability, and you've got options much higher (say even 1 in a thousand), where are you going to put your money if you have to bet and the pay off is the same? (The pay off being solving the case).
Anyway, that's been my concern. I don't like it when we start building too much on low probability events, but at the same time, I don't like probabilities being shoved to zero simply because the probability is very very low. Both lead to errors in an investigation. And, there's no reason why a strong argument, or series of conclusions, can't be made that also indicate the "alternatives". If the alternatives are all low probability, the reasoning is sound, and by indicating the alternatives, the argument is "testable". It tells our skeptics exactly the kind of information to look for if we are wrong. If we are not wrong, they won't find it. If we are wrong, wouldn't we want to know?
- Jeff |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 450
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 9:10 pm: | |
Hi all,
Re: Burning of Washington, D.C. and the writing of the Star Spangled Banner. It's easy to confuse these events. Washington was attacked and burned in August 1814. The White House, Capitol Building, Library of Congress, were all burned in the attack by General Ross and Admiral Cockburn (an ancestor, by the way, of the left wing political writer Claude Cockburn). The walls of the original White House were not destroyed and have been incorporated in the present one. As for the Library of Congress, Thomas Jefferson eventually sold his own collection of books to create the nucleus for a new Library of Congress. The present day Capitol Building would be under construction from the 1820s until the American Civil War.
The success of the raid led Ross and Cockburn to try their luck in September 1814 by attacking the city of Baltimore (next major target in the Chesapeake Bay area). Unfortunately, local resistance to the British around Baltimore was far better organized than around Washington, D.C.
At Bladensburg, outside Baltimore, a battle occurred in which General Ross was killed. Cockburn's fleet could not get into Baltimore harbor due to the defending fort, Fort McHenry. Cockburn had kept some local Maryland residents aboard his ships (they had come for a parlay to try to prevent any battle). One was the local attorney and poet Francis Scott Key. Watching the battle, and seeing the U.S. Flag still flying in the morning inspired him to write THE STAR SPANGLED BANNER. Yes, the tune is from an old English drinking song. I have always wished someone would record the original words, but like "THE WORLD TURNED UPSIDE DOWN" (the song mournfully played by British military bandsmen at the surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown) we don't know how the song sounded because nobody bothered to record it. Cockburn broke off the attack after learning his co-chief of operations was dead
(Ross's body was shipped back to England). Cockburn remained in the states until the war ended, sending out raiding parties. He was also involved in the attack on New Orleans in January 1815, and had the bad luck to hear of another British commander (Thomas Packingham) being killed, with 2100 other fatalities.
As Jeff Hamm would know there was another British commander killed in the War of 1812...Sir Isaac Brock. But unlike Ross and Packingham, he died winning a battle (I think Queens Heights, in Ontario)driving the Americans out. Americans lost one commander in the war, Brigadier General Zebulon Pike was killed when a military magazine exploded in the attack on York/Toronto. This was the same Pike who explored Colorado and discovered Pike's Peak.
Enough now about the War of 1812.
Chapman is marginally more likely than Cream to be the Ripper. But this is if you accept the statements attributed to Abberline and Godley as
1) actually said; 2) truthful representations of Chapman being hauled in by the police in 1888 as a serious suspect. Since Abberline may have had a habit of saying that arrested people were missing murder suspects (his comment of one of the Netherby Hall burglars in 1886 is like his comment about Chapman)that even further weakens the value of Abberline's statement.
Jeff |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 460
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 10:21 pm: | |
Hi Jeff,
Thanks for that info. I suspect it was I who mis-remembered the particular battle, but it sounds like my friends weren't pulling my leg after all. Always keep them guessing! ha!
Anyway, 'nuff said about 1812, as 1888 is the era of interest.
Just to clarify what I've been saying. I don't want to leave the impression that I think suggesting Chapman is the Ripper is a solid idea just because the research data might not be as solid as we would like. Presuming that what we learn about serial killers who have been caught does apply to those who have not been caught, then suggesting Chapman "made the switch" is getting close to my favorite idea of "large monkeys at Miller's Court that no one thought to mention; sure, not strictly impossible, but it is highly improbable". The problem is we do not know, and cannot know, if that premiss is true because "unsolved murders" mean we do not have the solution to compare our predictions with. And once they are solved, they are no longer in the set we're interested about (bit of a catch 22 actually).
And, even if the premiss is true, nothing, and I mean nothing, should be considered as impossible when it comes to the motivations and drives of human beings: serial killers or not. There may be common patterns, but there will always be individuals who march to the beat of their own drum and break the rules. The patterns can help us solve most crimes, and that's good. But once we start thinking something is impossible, we will make errors because we won't even think to look. Just remember, those who have looked into Chapman aren't exactly finding a gold mine of connections to the JtR murders. Given that, it becomes pretty clear that Chapman was not JtR. He's improbable given his known behaviour, and when investigated anyway, nothing really is turning up (despite the fact that information about his life being found, so we are finding stuff out, just nothing that connects him to the murders; much like Druitt's life. We're learning a lot about him, but none of it indicates a connection to the murders themselves).
- Jeff |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2048
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 7:52 am: | |
Jeffrey,
As far as I know, Chapman wasn't considered a JtR suspect until 1903 (or have I missed something!!!!???), in connection with his execution. There are no records from 1888 pointing out someone similar to Chapman whatsoever.
It may also be worth noting, that Abberline's rather confused assumptions wasn't met without criticism -- not that many really supported his views on Chapman. Clearly Abberline was a good detective, but apparently he as well had his limits in some areas.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 801
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 8:45 am: | |
Anyway Abberline could just be wrong!
Monty,
Walter Sickert was in France
The Duke was out of town
Cream - prison
Ostrang ditto i believe?
Wm Gull - stroke victim
And some i've probably missed I guess my point is we don't usually let that sort of thing get in the way of theories! Why should Cream be any different!
Jen
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2050
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 10:01 am: | |
Jeffrey,
Regarding your comments on modus operandi...
I admit that I am not a trained criminologist with a degree, but I must say that your post puzzles me.
I don't want to get technical here, but I personally use the term "modus operandi" as it is used within the police force. I have read quite a number of books on the subject, though, and in none of them it is put forward that this term also includes the motive. (By saying that, I won't dispute that there are books that says the opposite.)
I could be wrong, of course, and terminology has a tendency to be interpreted and used differently, but in my experience it is generally strictly referring to the method.
Actually, we can learn just as much about the killer's motive and intentions in the signature. Take the Ripper, for example, the throat-cutting doesen't really say that much besides the fact that he wanted to take their life. But it is the mutilations (the signature) that tells us about his character and reveals suggestions of probable motives.
Whatever's right or wrong; to make it perfectly clear, let me -- although I've stated it several times -- clarify, that by modus operandi, I refer to the method of killing (which in Chapman's case would be the poison).
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 24, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
