|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2052
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 10:28 am: |       |
Hi Jeff.
You wrote:
"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."
I am not sure I can agree with this.
From a police officer's and detective's point of view you can't keep a lid open to all kinds of possibilities.
If we expect to rely on facts confirmed at 100%, we're heading for trouble, because I don't think you can get a 100% assurment on anything regarding criminal cases and while dealing with personal individuals.
Instead of getting stuck in the web of terms like "impossible" or highly unlikely" (which is a rather ridiculous discussion anyway), we must think in terms of which leads to discount or not.
This is what investigating policemen have to do all the time in their work, as well as profilers and criminologists.
As I've pointed out a million times already, you would probably never find a single investigating officer today, that would accept a poisoner of wives as a mutilating serial killer. They totally discount it, like they have to discount other trails as well -- they simply have to focus on what's possible to them and throw the rest in the bin. There is always an element risk-taking in this, of course, but they can hardly afford wasting their time on leads they know is just as hilarious as they are worthless.
They base this on personal experiences, facts learnt from other cases and from a personal hunch -- the "nose" -- that goes with the job. It is probably not acceptable from a scientific and academic point of view, but not much is in this context anyway.
Although I would be a complete fool to even compare myself in any way to those who work with this professionally, I try to go about it the same way. If my nose tells me a person like Chapman is impossible as the Ripper, he is.
To continue spitting out lame phrases like "unlikely" and "probably" time and time again, I am sorry but it's just not me. Call me crazy.
There is too much beating around the bush here on these Boards, as no one really dares to have a clear opinion about anything. I prefer to rely on the facts that are quite supported by things we know already, and on my personal hunch. And enough to have a strong opinion and a firm belief on the matter. Then, if I would prove to be utterly wrong (I have been forced to change my mind on these Boards quite a few times already, and I will probably have to do it again some time in the future), I can take it. But I don't think I am.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1251
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 10:50 am: | |
Glenn,
All this makes me wonder that if a black woman was to go on a killing spree she would get away with it. Most of the time the prime suspect to most murders are "white men". That is a statistical thing, but it is possible that a black woman might one day just go over the edge. Would she ever get caught? Not likely if what you say is true about the police dismissing unlikely scenarios.
Recently in my studies have been reading about science and the theory that something can be verified over and over but that doesn't make it 100% acurate, for example, if you went to Scotland and saw black sheep after black sheep, it wouldn't mean that all Scottish sheep are black as there could still be a white one lurking about. In the context that we are discussing, this would mean that, just because we have never found a mutilator that became a poisoner, it doesn't mean it would never happen.
Sarah
(Message edited by Sarah on August 24, 2004)
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to 
Smile too much and the world will guess  |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 809
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 11:33 am: | |
Exactly,
I agree with what Sarah says there. I could not have put it better myself!
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2053
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 11:37 am: | |
Sarah, I think you are missing my point,
I just said, that you can't get anything confirmed with 100% accuracy. Forget 100% accuracy! Therefore you have to rely on things like experience, known facts and personal hunches.
The police does indeed dismiss leads that in their minds is totally out of place, and they should. If they already have 25 possible leads to consider, why should they bother about number 26, that is totally contradicting any reason and common sense whatsoever and furthermore is not supported by either evidence, similar cases in crime history or by psychology?
For the millionth time, you can't get any murder investigator to accept or believe in the poisoner connection in a serial killer case like Jack the Ripper or any other mutilating multiple murderer.
There are limits also to which possibilities they have to consider. And that goes for me as well.
"In the context that we are discussing, this would mean that, just because we have never found a mutilator that became a poisoner, it doesn't mean it would never happen."
Yes, considering the circumstances, in my point of view it does. It is completely unlikely beyond doubt and totally ridiculous.
And at least I have the guts to have a clear opinion about it.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 24, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1312
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 11:41 am: | |
Glenn,
Your crazy.
I like to think I can disagree with someone whose opinions I hugely respect...........so I will.
I cannot totally discount a wife poisoner as mutilating serial murderer on the basis that no record has been found that this has ever happend.
Its simply not good enough for me to accept your nose on this. I need concrete facts on why Chapman couldnt have committed these crimes, like he was imprisoned at the time for example. Not because Wife poisoners do not turn serial mutilators. That is not a fact...fact. There is no evidence to support this. The is no evidence to prove that poisoners do turn granted so the alternative, however unpalletable to you, is lame bush beating and fence sitting.
To be a competent investigator (of any crime, not just murder) you must have an open mind, you have no choice but to keep the lid open to any possibility. If a colleague closed down one avenue of investigation we were conducting together, without good solid reason/evidence, then that would worry me greatly and I would question his reasons.
This isnt beating around the bush nor is it being lame.
Its being thorough.
Respectfully,
Monty
PS Chapman was not Jack the Ripper.
Im off to see the Psy-chia-taay........just to see if Im de-men-taaay. Kiss my bad self.
-Aaron Kosminski. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2054
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 11:53 am: | |
Hi Monty,
Yes I know I'm crazy, but I have learnt to live with it.
I think we have different opinions on "thoroughness". To consider such a scenario is not to keep an open mind, it is just waste of time and efforts.
Apparently the Swedish police, which I've consulted on the matter, works differently than the British one in this regard. But I shouldn't think so. I have also talked to British police officers about it, and they have just shook their heads. And I can understand why.
Once again, Monty; you can't get complete facts to support anything and you can't get 100% evidence supporting anything when it comes to theories. You can't work from every lead and every unthinkable alternative that comes up; I would assume even a detective with an "open mind" has to have a hunch to work from and to focus (albeit NOT a squared opinion just pointing in one direction) on some favoured directions of the investigation, especially if they correspond with what is known from prior cases.
And you don't have to accept my nose; my nose is my own and I do what I want with it.
You wrote:
"P.S. Chapman was not the Ripper."
How do you know, then?
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 24, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1313
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 12:13 pm: | |
Glenn,
I agree, 100% supporting evidence on a theory is rare. If is wasnt we wouldnt be here now.
I have been trained by Police officers (and solicitors also) and working every lead (which I imagine on a case like JtR would be a colossal task) would indeed be time consuming. But unless the more likely lead takes you somewhere, preferably to conclusion, then you have no alternative but to follow up the lesser, highly unlikely initially thought wastes of time.
The thing is, its not as simple as dismissing a scenario simply because you feel its a waste of effort or poisoners do not turn to rippers.
Yes, it does seem we have a difference of opinion on thoroughness.
But Im cool with that, besides, on this particular case I think you'll agree with me.
Quite simply, the leads we do have at this precise moment lead us nowhere near a certainty.
Take care mate,
Monty
PS Poisoners do not turn rippers......of course I mean Cream....he was in Prison dont you know ?!
(Message edited by monty on August 24, 2004)
Im off to see the Psy-chia-taay........just to see if Im de-men-taaay. Kiss my bad self.
-Aaron Kosminski. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2055
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 1:06 pm: | |
Hi Monty,
I hear what you say, and as always I respect and value your opinions (you're actually one of those I respect the most here), but I stand by my notion, that a serial mutilator turning calculating wife poisoner is a completely unthinkable and ridiculous thought. I also stick to that this opinion is shared by quite many who work with criminal cases -- it is not something I've just made up out of the blue.
"PS Poisoners do not turn rippers......of course I mean Cream....he was in Prison dont you know ?!"
Aha, Cream. Of course. Yes, for once we seem to have have real facts there ruling a suspect out -- always nice for a change.
Take care yourself.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 24, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 463
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 4:44 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
Actually, in reading your last few posts, I think we're agreeing on the "principle" and just arguing over the "words" now. You've indicated that nothing can be considered as 100% accurate. This is the same as saying nothing can be 0% (add a not to the sentence and 100% becomes 0%). What I've been saying, and which Monty seems to agree with, is that there is a danger of turning what really is only a very low probability event into a 0% probability event. The words "never" and "impossible" mean to me 0%. However, you may be using them to mean "leads with such low probability that they are not worth following up while higher probability leads are available". I think everyone would agree with that. Investigations have to distribute limited resources, so the leads have to be ranked and followed up in some sort of priority list. If you start with the most plausible, you will most often not have to go far down the list. Sometimes you are able to "rule out" the usual suspects (not the husband, not the boyfriend, not the business partnert, not the butler, etc). Then, you start widening your circle of invesitgation to other people (shop owners where the victim shopped, for example). Eventually, you come to the idea of "stranger murder"; which is generally a low probablility event, and into "sexual serial killer" (lower probability again) and so on.
If, however, an investigator mistakenly descides some event is so low in it's probability that they decide it is zero, then that lead is not even on the list and will never get investigated. Often there is no consequence of this because it's not expected to be right very often. But if you always preclude such items from the list in every investigation, in some investigation that item will be "true", and that investigation will fail because of it.
In no way am I suggesting that low probability ideas should be considered "high priority", or even as "good solutions", unless those low probability ideas, when investigated, start turning up the goods. And investigation into Chapman as a Ripper suspect has failed in that criterion. He has been investigated, it was a long shot (but not with no chance of success, just very little), and sure enough it does not seem very fruitful. Since the more promising suspects were not turning up solutions, it was probably time to check out some of the "unlikely" (we're just working down the list of names).
Hmmm, what's a real and recent example I can think of that might sort of work?
Ok, Gary Ridgeway apparently left one of his victims posed with a couple trout and a bottle of wine. Because of these items, it was thought this victim was not part of the same series as the original victims (from which the Green River Killer got his name). Victim posing was not part of the previous series signature. Also, the items could be taken to indicate a religous connotation (the 3 fishes, wine, Jesus as the fisher of men, etc), and so this case was separated from the others. Ridgeway claims that he placed these items only to confuse the police, and the items were just things he had in his house that had no special meaning to him.
Did the profilers consider the possiblity that these items were just distractions? I don't know, but their profiles do not indicate this possibility. At one point, profilers were thinking there were up to 3 independent SSK's all working in the Green River area, when in reality they had one SSK who's crimes clustered around 3 different signatures. Doesn't this example demonstrate that a single killer can have different signatures.
Now, of course, Ridgeways crimes are all similar in many ways too (prostitutes, strangulation). We're not talking about prostitute mutilator turned wife poisoner here, but again, by excluding some of the less probable explanations (1 killer 3 signature clusters), the Green River murders never were investigated as a single series. Might that have solved the case sooner? I don't know, maybe; maybe not. There were a lot of other problems in that investigation as well, so who knows. What's important here is that it was considered impossible to be a single series - but apparently nobody told Gary that.
This is why I think it's important for us to use terms like "highly improbable" and to not use "never" as a means of emphasis. Highly improbable are like my "monkey" theories. They are ridiculous, but they do not violate the known principles of the universe and therefor are not "impossible". But that doesn't mean anyone should consider them "plausible". Is it more clumsy, well, yes, unfortunately it is. Is it more accurate, well, yes, I'm afraid it is. I think we should push for clumsy accuracy rather than graceful errors!
Remember, just because we admit there are some very low probability alternatives out there, doesn't mean we have to throw our hands up in despair, or suggest they have "equal weight" (they don't after all, they have very low probabilities). To offer a low probability idea as a "final solution" requires that the evidence strongly supports that solution.
As Sherlock Holmes has said "Once you have ruled out the probable, what ever is left, no matter how implausible, must be the truth".
- Jeff |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2057
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 5:12 pm: | |
Hi Jeff,
As you say, I think we are in agreement, really. It's merely a battle over words, as I see it, except for the fact that the Chapman/posinoer trail doesen't even possess a low probability. I would say it has even worse status than that, but that's just me.
"The words 'never' and "impossible" mean to me 0%. However, you may be using them to mean 'leads with such low probability that they are not worth following up while higher probability leads are available. [...]
Investigations have to distribute limited resources, so the leads have to be ranked and followed up in some sort of priority list. If you start with the most plausible, you will most often not have to go far down the list. Sometimes you are able to "rule out" the usual suspects (not the husband, not the boyfriend, not the business partnert, not the butler, etc). Then, you start widening your circle of invesitgation to other people (shop owners where the victim shopped, for example). Eventually, you come to the idea of "stranger murder"; which is generally a low probablility event, and into "sexual serial killer" (lower probability again) and so on."
I can very much go along with this. This is how I see things and it's a good description. Although I don't believe the Chapman/posinoer theory makes it to fit the low probability event, and this is the core of the problem. It doesen't even come close.
"If, however, an investigator mistakenly descides some event is so low in it's probability that they decide it is zero, then that lead is not even on the list and will never get investigated. Often there is no consequence of this because it's not expected to be right very often. But if you always preclude such items from the list in every investigation, in some investigation that item will be "true", and that investigation will fail because of it."
I absolutely agree, Jeff.
And the Chapman/poisonist theory shouldn't belong on the list anyway. Although you are right in principal, I really don't see the risk involved here. When I consider low probability leads in the Ripper case, there are other theories to consider. This theory, however, is quite in a league of its own and should never really be considered in the first place. It is all up there together with Jill the Ripper and Lewis Carroll.
Let me clarify. The only thing that could make a consideration of such an unthinkable scenario even worth looking into, is if there were other facts that could implicate a connection. If, for example, there would be things incriminating Chapman (since Cream is out of the question) in this direction, then one would be forced, naturally, to look into it.
But there is nothing. Except for a knife threat against one of his wives and the fact that he lived in the area and was a barber. That is not enough to even consider him worth investigating in this context, since his crimes are so utterly different. The fact that he was a serial poisoner doesen't cut it enough to even take his role sriously in the Ripper context.
If we had more than this to connect Chapman (or any other poisoner) with the Ripper murders, it would be harder to totally dismiss this lead completely on bare psychological grounds and hunches. But since there is nothing, and his crimes are of a completely different psychological and methodological nature, there is in my view no connection whatsoever to consider. That is why I am so dead sure of this. You don't need to have 100% accuracy in order to have strong opinions on things.
It is all rubbish and a dead end.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 24, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2058
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 5:30 pm: | |
Addition:
Of course his whereabouts during the time of the murders and such things had to be checked as a pure routine, but I see this as regular procedure. (The problem is that he was not known as a suspect in 1888.)
It doesen't in any way defend a serious, lengthy investigation process, however, involving him as a relevant suspect to consider -- or any other poisoner for that matter. Such a person is quite unthinkable as a Ripper.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 24, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 465
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 7:14 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
Yah, I think we are in agreement really. Again, we both have pointed out that when Chapman has been investigated as the Ripper, nothing is turning up that connects him, and yet we are finding information about him (so the lack of connection isn't just do to the lack of any information about him).
Also, I don't think Chapman is worth a lot of time and effort at the moment. There are far more plausible suspects worthy of our time and consideration. Based upon the current evidence, to suggest Chapman is "the solution" would be "unwise", and "wrong". By "wrong" I mean the data cannot support that conclusion and in fact, what data we have suggests that conclusion has a very low probability of being correct. This is the same thing I've argued about asserting that the probability is 0%; the data cannot support that conclusion either.
But, where it becomes obvious we agree is that you point out that if evidence were to emerge to support the case against Chapman, you might reconsider him. But what that means is that the probability of Chapman being the Ripper cannot be 0%. Let me put it this way, if the probability was 0%, then that means absolutely nothing, there is absolutely no evidence that would allow him to be the Ripper. Nothing could overcome the fact that what we know now makes it impossible for him to be the Ripper. Any evidence, no matter what it is, would always require an alternative solution which makes him "not the Ripper". But, if we allow for the idea that if the "evidence against him were stronger", that means we are allowing for the current probability to be something above 0% (even if not by very much).
0 is a very powerful number. And, honestly, I'm not just being academic here. There is nothing wrong with saying Chapman is so unlikely to be the murderer that he's not really a serious suspect, because from what evidence we have that is a valid interpretation. So, anyone who would want to put Chapman forward must produce new evidence that changes the data set upon which we base our interpretations. And our belief can only increase if it is not already 0.
Anyway, it's been an interesting discussion (as always). As you know, I tend to get concerned anytime I see things built upon low probabilities, but I also tend to get concnered if I see things too far the other way. Over and Under estimations of probabilities are both dangerous errors.
But in no way do I mean to imply that having a non-zero probability indicates that the suspect has a "reasonable probability". That difference is often misunderstood, and is often presented by those presenting low-probability solutions.
Just because it's "possible" (non-zero) does not make it "probable" or "plausible".
- Jeff |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1315
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 6:23 am: | |
Glenn,
I also hear and respect what you are saying.....and cannot discount it.
Can I just add Yusupov here?.......yes, yes not quite the same league/motive but never the less, an MO change. Lame MO change though.
Monty
Im off to see the Psy-chia-taay........just to see if Im de-men-taaay. Kiss my bad self.
-Aaron Kosminski. |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1253
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 7:14 am: | |
Glenn,
To be quite frank here, the idea that the police would dismiss leads that easily scares me.
As has been said before, Humans are not robots and are therefore not programmed to work in certain ways. Serial killers are not robots either (obviously) and therefore have minds of their own. It seems that it is quite easy to get away with murder by your reckoning. I could go break into someone's house and kill them and because it isn't likely for the murder to be a "stranger murder" and also I'm a female (which it usually never is (apparently) I would probably get away with it. Not that I would ever kill someone obviously, but this is like my black woman murderer theory too.
I don't think that a mutilator would turn to being a poisoner, but it cannot be discounted.
You said:-
And at least I have the guts to have a clear opinion about it.
I have a clear opinion about it and that is that it's unlikely but can't be discounted just like that. As I said before, it may never have happened in the past but that doesn't mean it won't ever happen.
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: 2059
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 7:54 am: | |
Sarah, please.
You are over-interpreting me and twisting my words.
"To be quite frank here, the idea that the police would dismiss leads that easily scares me."
I am not saying this is what they do in general, but in this case they most certainly would. The Chapman/poisonist theory is quite something out of the ordinary (not at all to be comparable with your examples of "strange cases"; female serial killers are rare but they do exist!).
As I said, if they have 25 possible alternative scenarios that is more or less likely or unlikely and that seems worthwhile to investigate, why would they bother about nr 26, which is totally unsupported and goes against all logic reason?
It is just ridiculous. They have to keep most possibilities open, but there are limits. They don't dismiss leads "easily" (hopefully), but you are confusing apples with oranges here.
"I don't think that a mutilator would turn to being a poisoner, but it cannot be discounted."
Yes, it can.
"I have a clear opinion about it and that is that it's unlikely but can't be discounted just like that."
Give me a break. That is not to take stand. That is to play it safe -- and in this case to an unnecessary degree.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 25, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1254
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 8:55 am: | |
Glenn,
I only interpret words as I see them laid out and would never twist words.
I'm sorry but you still cannot discount what I have said. I know from policemen over here that they have to follow ALL leads no matter what and it's bad police work to ignore ANY leads.
Just because you have a different opinion to me, it doesn't mean that my opinion is playing it safe. My opinion is just that it cannot be discounted not matter how unlikely. Having an opinion doesn't mean taking a stand - these are two different things.
You should know that from past experience I usually agree with you on many things but I just can't bring myself to on this issue. Of course I still respect your view but I can't quite see how you can discount things that don't always add up.
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: 2060
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 9:25 am: | |
Sarah,
No problem. You don't have to agree with me on this issue.
You over-interpret me, because I have never said that the police easily throws leads in the bin. It is your interpretation of my words. They have to consider all kinds of scenarios, but they do focus on what's probable based on experience. The rest they lay on the shelf. Then, if there is new evidence pointing in such a direction, they may have to dust it off. The Chapman/posioner trail in the Ripper connection would be such a "lead".
But yes, a serial mutilator and sexual lust murderer can't turn into a calculating wife posioner. It is clearly not the same person we're dealing with here.
Any police officer, detective, lawyer, criminologist, profiler and prosecutor knows this. You can't dispute this.
I have talked to a lot of people in the police force as well about this, and they completely discount it as a possibility. When they have not rolled around on the floor and laughed.
As for opinions... I do think your position on this is to play it safe.
But the fault is all mine. I should have written "taking a stand" instead of "having an opinion". And it is my firm belief, that there is too much beating around the bush on these Boards, as no one really dares to take a firm stand on anything. I admit that most things connected to crimes -- and the Ripper in particular -- are to be treated carefully and without too hasty opinions (especially since we have very little evidence on anything). But there are limits!
I'd rather take a firm stand and then risk being proven wrong. But that is just who I am. Take it or leave it.
I think this one is rather safe bet.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1255
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 11:26 am: | |
Glenn,
I'm sorry for over-interpretin you then, it's just if the police throw away a lead without examining it because it seems most unlikely then to me that is throwing leads away too easily. That's my interpretation of what you claim the police do not of what you said.
I can't take a stand by saying that it is impossible for someone to have an individual mind and do something that no-one expects (i.e serial mutilator changing to a poisoner). That's all it boils down to here. I also can't say that it's likely, but it is possible. You can't go through life saying "that definately did or didn't happen". There are always possibles and maybes to be considered. Also, the fact that no two humans have the exact same reasoning and thoughts.
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: 2061
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 11:48 am: | |
Sarah,
Please, don't go on about this. I just told you! I have tried to make myself clear and to explain, and still you go on about exactly the same thing. What is it that is so hard to understand?
The police don't throw ayay leads easily (or at least I hope they don't), at least not if they are the slightest reasonable. These are your words, not mine. You make it sound like they throw suggestions in the bin without no thought process whatsoever. I have never claimed such a thing.
That they should discount the possibility of a person like Chapman as the Ripper is another matter, however. That lead is not just unlikely, but totally ridiculous.
And you certainly can't go through life without taking a stand on things either. There are NOT always possibles and maybes to consider in all situations. By accepting your statement that there are, one could claim practically everything, no matter how crazy it is.
Serial killer are all individuals, yes, but you can't throw that rather dubious argument up in order to accept any crazy theory that comes along.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 255
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 5:18 pm: | |
Glenn,
"I have tried to make myself clear and to explain, and still you go on about exactly the same thing."
This is where getting some perspective is a good thing. From the other side any number of people have tried to explain themselves clearly to you but you still go on about exactly the same thing. It's the old problem of being upset with other people for doing the same thing you do too.
A lot of the problem here is that you insist upon using words like "impossible" when you later admit you only mean "unlikely" but just didn't want to use a weak sounding word. If you and Shelley had simply said it was unlikely or very unlikely or even extremely unlikely instead of impossible (with the added bonus that anyone who disagrees must be uneducated) then there would have been no argument at all.
I've not seen anyone here claim that Cream (or Chapman) is a likely Ripper. There is no argument on that point. What people are arguing is that the threshold you are using for ruling things as impossible should be set a lot higher than you want to set it.
Back to the impossible versus unlikely, which you still seem like you want to have both ways:
Profiling exists to make the best use of investigators' time. For the purposes of their limited resources and the hope that it'll lead to a killer faster they rule out unlikely possibilities and devote their efforts to other areas. That's ruling out for their current investigation, NOT ruling it out as a possibility in general. There's a huge difference.
The Green River killer is an example of this. There was a number of killings, they wanted to make sure they researched the best leads, so they left out some of the murders from the set that were using to make comparisons because they appeared to be less likely to be linked than others. That's a good strategy for catching a killer (although, as often happens, regular investigation from tips from the public and DNA evidence actually caught the killer), but it's not a good strategy for making decisions about whether they were definitely by the same killer or not. And low and behold, most of the ones that were left out (including a number that were so different they weren't even put on the table for discussion in the first place) were by the same killer.
You are taking a strategy based upon weighing cost (time, effort, money) versus benefit to catch a killer and trying to apply those guidelines as if they were hard and fast rules about killers in general. You are misapplying that knowledge to try to make conclusions that data was never meant to cover.
Profiling is about taking educated guesses during an investigation, not about declaring things impossible.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2062
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 7:43 pm: | |
Dan,
"A lot of the problem here is that you insist upon using words like "impossible" when you later admit you only mean "unlikely" but just didn't want to use a weak sounding word."
That is true and I stick by it. Although I don't actually think I have used the exact word "impossible" (that is something others have lay upon me), I admit that what I've been saying has the same meaning as "impossible". Anyway, I stick by it -- and yes, I think the usual "unlikely" is weak in this context. And from talking with police officers on the field and academics as well, I am not the only one holding that opinion.
"I've not seen anyone here claim that Cream (or Chapman) is a likely Ripper. There is no argument on that point. What people are arguing is that the threshold you are using for ruling things as impossible should be set a lot higher than you want to set it."
This is to state the obvious. Tell me something I don't know. Or did you just had to type that in order to get your voice heard?
"Profiling exists to make the best use of investigators' time. For the purposes of their limited resources and the hope that it'll lead to a killer faster they rule out unlikely possibilities and devote their efforts to other areas."
For the last time, Mr Norder. I am not basing my opinions here on profiling. I am speaking about how the police works. Stop babbling on about profiling -- although I find some of their methods and results interesting, you seem, from what I've seen so far, more exctatic about their methods than I am.
"That's ruling out for their current investigation, NOT ruling it out as a possibility in general. There's a huge difference."
That's what I implied one of the posts above as well.
I wrote: "They have to consider all kinds of scenarios, but they do focus on what's probable based on experience. The rest they lay on the shelf. Then, if there is new evidence pointing in such a direction, they may have to dust it off." I may have expressed myself sloppily, but what I meant was that they first of all focus on what's relevant for their current investigation, and even if they discount a apparently ridiculous and irrelevant lead they may have to follow it up if there are new evidence pointing in such a direction. Even though they may laugh at the sheer thought of it to begin with.
Still, I wouldn't count on that they would ever had to dust Chapman off if they investigated the Ripper, and they surely wouldn't find it credible enough to waste their time with from the start anyway -- not all suspects are (except in your mind).
"...which you still seem like you want to have both ways"
I disagree. I think I am rather consistent here.
"And low and behold, most of the ones that were left out (including a number that were so different they weren't even put on the table for discussion in the first place) were by the same killer."
Yes, but here we are speaking of differences in personality and types of murders that differs quite in another way than just change of method. I have said it many times before; we are dealing with two completely diverging personalities here, not just a killer changing methods of killing.
"Profiling is about taking educated guesses during an investigation, not about declaring things impossible."
As I said, I am not leaning against profiling here -- I told you that already early on in this thread. And neither are the police, who in general is quite suspicious of criminologists and profilers. Still, they share these opinions.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 25, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
OlivierD
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 7:23 pm: | |
Glenn,
Thank you for your very precise answers.
“Sugden did a presentation of Chapman in his book, but he never claimed him to be a favourite suspect as the Ripper.”
True. But you asked for a “specialist” who takes Chapman as a suspect seriously. You must admit that this is what Sugden does. He keeps an open mind and never says that a connection between a poisoner or a mutilator is strictly impossible. Again, I do not know the exact profession of Sugden but, in my opinion, the title of specialist can be granted to him.
As for the rest, I think we agree on several points but our differences are of degree.
For example, it seems to me that the critical point is the change of motive (not the change of M.O. – the M.O. is the consequence of the motive). However, we do know neither the motives of JtheR nor the motives of Chapman.
If the motives of JtheR is simply to mutilate or – how can I say that? – to “explore” human body, and if the motives of Chapman are to make suffer, then there is an important difference between these two types of killer. I admit that it is unlikely, but not impossible, that a killer has these two motives. Nonetheless, these motives have something in common: what we may call a “nasty curiosity”. This may be sufficient for the connection we are looking for.
If the motive of JtheR is religious (prostitutes are bad girls that have to die or something like that), then it is almost impossible, in my opinion, to reconcile these two types of killer.
However, if the motive of JtheR is purely egocentric (i.e., he is looking for publicity, he is excited when he sees his crimes reported in newspapers and so on), then this motive could be easily reconciled with the motives of Chapman (the latter, however, are not known).
Finally, the discussion turns around poisoners and mutilators. It is misleading. The central point should be the motives.
By the way, you seem to implicitly admit that the empirical evidence is not very rich and it is difficult to infer something from past killers. Your argument is now based on common sense.
All the best,
Olivier |
hemustadoneit
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 4:09 pm: | |
Hi Stan,
I apologize wholeheartedly, unconditionally, and unreservedly from a previous post suggesting you were disrespecting the WWII war efforts of other countries.
I have no excuse, some things just get under my skin and I think you (or Natalie) found one.
Damn, I wish I could've cancelled that post or seen your reply earlier.
Cheerio,
ian
|
timsta
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 11:37 pm: | |
Everything you could ever want to know about the tune and original words of the Star-Spangled Banner:
http://ingeb.org/songs/toanacre.html
Not a bawdy pub song per se, but a drinking song from an old English drinking club.
timsta
|
hemustadoneit
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 2:55 pm: | |
Hi Natalie,
That's not what I remember from my history classes on WWII but I will not argue the point as it's neither the time nor the place.
In my opinion WE needed the American effort (sorry Stan I also often use the term Yanks, I wasn't aware it had any disrespect associated with it)
But Nats, you are so true with the second front; Britain was saved total anihalation at the cost of so many Russian lives and I won't question their motives and to them we owe a large debt.
To those Americans who gave their lives, I owe them respect, they gave it freely and in some respect they gave it for us, you and me.
To Peter and Stan I'd simply say, don't degrade the literally millions of young lives lost by the Americans, British, French, Dutch, Russians, Norwegians, Indians, Australians, Canadians etc etc into some tawdry argument of simply saying the Americans won it; the allies won it, we won it together.
You sully their names with your cheap arguments.
If the ripost was to something Shelley said about who won the war, then she should hang her head in shame.
So much is owed by so many to so few everywhere -- I'll just respect their memory and wonder how insignificant the petty squabling in this thread seems to appear in the light of history.
It's not the right thread for all the above, but I had a need to say it and I feel better having said it.
Cheerio,
ian
|
OlivierD
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 10:32 pm: | |
Shelley,
You say: "did you realise that there are qualifications higher than a Ph.D"
The answer is no: There are no qualifications (if you mean Diplomas) higher than a Ph.D.
If you think of what we call a post-doc, it is not higher than a PhD and generally does not provides a diploma.
In some countries, like Germany and France, you need to made a second dissertation to be allowed to supervise students. But it is not on the same level as a PhD and not absolutely required.
Olivier |
Vincent
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 11:41 pm: | |
To get back to the topic. Jack killed MIDDLE-AGED prostitutes (Kelly aside) by strangulation/throat-cutting. Cream killed YOUNG PROSTITUTES by poisen. Chapman killed HIS MIDDLE-AGED WIVES by poisen and threatened ONE with a knife.
Can somebody PLEASE tell me what the connection is?
Regards, Vincent (Remedial student of Crypto-proctology.) |
OlivierD
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 7:49 pm: | |
Shelley,
Your arguments turn around the behavior of past serial killers. But you never give an answer to my previous posts and those of Jeff.
My point is that the empirical basis is very small (twenty, thirty serial killers in the XXth century which can be compared to Jack the ripper). To be convincing, an argument which is simply based on these past cases is not sufficient. You cannot say that such a behavior is impossible from such a small sample (which is truncated by the way).
Instead of trying to impress with your curriculum (we all have some level of education that we do not exhibit here), you should try to develop your arguments. If they are convincing, I am ready to accept them. Until now, you only said that we have to believe you. It is not my temperament to believe without explanations.
All the best,
Olivier
|
shells1
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 8:45 am: | |
Ally,
I do suggest that you make a formal apology on this thread toward the BSY Group that i am studying to take a Diploma with (they have been approved and are above board and no one has ever heard of a Proffessor Twelawney, or twealony whatever) i ask you to do this to cover yourself, as my tutor may very well have been reading my threads as well as yours, and i am uncertain of the legal nature of it all, although i will contact my friend who is A US Attorney.
I'm not being nit picky, we are all entitled to our opinion, and there is a lot of rubbish and con men/ women peddling qualifications and degrees on the internet ( Another friend of mine who is a University lecturer himself warned me about this to start with that's why i had the group checked out properly) I just hope that my tutor hasn't seen your threads for your own sake. Good luck with whatever you do, if you have a strong opinion 'stick to your guns' about it !
Regards
Shelley Wiltshire |
steve tavani
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 4:45 pm: | |
Chapman certainly couldn't have mutilated his wives and had any hopes of getting away with it. But with the torturous and slow poisonings he nearly did. There is also that report that he threatened a wife with a knife to her throat when he was living in the US.
Steven Tavani, Binge Drinker |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2063
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 8:02 pm: | |
Hi Olivier,
"For example, it seems to me that the critical point is the change of motive (not the change of M.O. – the M.O. is the consequence of the motive). However, we do know neither the motives of JtheR nor the motives of Chapman.
[...]
Finally, the discussion turns around poisoners and mutilators. It is misleading. The central point should be the motives."
Actually no.
As you yourself imply, we need more facts in order to look at a killer's motives. We can possibly imagine Chapman's but I would not dive into such speculations as far as the Ripper is concerned.
However, it is unquestionably so, that murders of the Ripper's type, generally are lacking of a clear motive (for the most part they are originating from twisted sexual fantasies, urges, feelings of domination, religious mania and delusions -- you name it -- but I don't believe for a minute that the Ripper did the crimes just for publicity) while poisoners in general have very distinct and carefully thought-out motives like jealousy, love affairs or money (not just hate or a diffuse need to torture someone without a reason for it).
On the other hand, the methods separating the two killers are so different that they clearly suggest two different personalities.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2064
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 8:09 pm: | |
Olivier wrote:
"Instead of trying to impress with your curriculum (we all have some level of education that we do not exhibit here), you should try to develop your arguments. If they are convincing, I am ready to accept them. Until now, you only said that we have to believe you. It is not my temperament to believe without explanations."
Olivier, you don't have to take Shelley's words for it -- nor mine. Just the FBI and other police departments who has worked with these types of cases. As well as the opinions of the police in general. No one on the field buys such a connection. If you only think this is a pure academic discussion, I am afraid you are wrong.
All the best
Glenn Andersson
CRIME HISTORIAN, MEGA SUPER ADVANCED
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2065
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 8:19 pm: | |
Steve wrote:
"Chapman certainly couldn't have mutilated his wives and had any hopes of getting away with it."
No, but there are others throughout crime history who have used with approach on their wives or girlfriends just the same. So it does happen. If you choose mutilation or poisoning has hardly anything to do with convenience -- only what fits the murderers frame of mind and personality.
"There is also that report that he threatened a wife with a knife to her throat when he was living in the US."
Means nothing. Threatening someone with a knife is no connection to mutilation. Knife threatening is so extremely common that it could fit anyone with an unsound temperament.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 25, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 256
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 8:39 pm: | |
Glenn,
It's strange that you claim to not be basing your opinions on profiling and then refer to the opinions of people who base their opinions on profiling (and then falsely claim they all believe the way you do). Unless you have some objective proof that a mutilator can't be a poisoner, all you are doing is misapplying profiling.
And Shelley,
It's pretty pathetic to threaten legal action (especially in such a roundabout way) just because people found out that you overstated your educational background.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2067
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 9:45 pm: | |
Dan,
The police does NOT base their opinions on profiling -- or academic theorising in general. This is a complete error. Profiling is considered rather dubious in those circuits, also within parts of the FBI itself.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
Still you think you know better than the police on the field. I am not surprised.
"Unless you have some objective proof that a mutilator can't be a poisoner, all you are doing is misapplying profiling."
Another crazy remark. You can't have objective proof regarding anything in criminal cases. Complete objective proof is not necessary in order to form an opinion.
I would seriously suggest you'd cut down on the caffeine.
All the best
Glenn Andersson
CRIME HISTORIAN, HOT SHOT SUPER ADVANCED
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 257
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 1:36 am: | |
Glenn,
"The police does NOT base their opinions on profiling -- or academic theorising in general."
Whether they call what they are doing profiling or not it's the same basic process at work: trying to make conclusions about what's *probably* going on based upon limited numbers of case history that they know. The profilers and the police opinions you are referring go at it slightly different ways (profilers try to prove it better, police play it by ear and so actually should be considered even less reliable), but it's still subjective and doesn't have anything to do with whether they know what happens in all cases or not.
And it most certainly *is* academic theorizing. Their opinions about what might happen in certain crimes are just theories. If they try to apply those theories to crimes of that type in general instead of to the specific one they know the results of then it is academic. That's what the words mean.
"Still you think you know better than the police on the field."
The police in the field don't talk about things being impossible, they talk about what's likely or not, or what they have personally seen. They don't run around saying that every case has to be exactly the same and ignoring leads because they don't fit their theories... and when they screw up and do, they don't end up catching criminals. We've seen this time and time again.
"You can't have objective proof regarding anything in criminal cases."
That's exactly what everyone's been trying to tell you.
"Complete objective proof is not necessary in order to form an opinion."
There's a difference between an opinion and your claims here that things are impossible, ridiculous, completely different from each other and so forth. You are arguing absolutes but don't have anything to back them up. You do need objective proof if you claim something is impossible.
Over and over on these boards you phrase things as absolutes and then when called on them try to innocently paint them as opinions... but if anyone disagrees with these opinions of yours they "clearly have no idea," need to "cut down on the caffeine," are "crazy" and so forth.
Things are either opinions and people can honestly disagree on them or they are facts and they have been proven. You're trying to have it both ways, and that just doesn't work.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1256
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 5:13 am: | |
Glenn,
Oh please. You can't seriously say that "serial killers are all individuals" is a rather dubious statement. Your words by the way, I'm not twisting anything here.
I am not repeating myself for fun here by the way. If I'm going round and round then surely it is because you are not explaining yourself very well. I can't help it if I am getting the wrong end of the stick, it's not like I'm trying to be difficult here.
"They have to consider all kinds of scenarios, but they do focus on what's probable based on experience."
Ok, to me this still sounds like brushing off leads quite easily. I quoted you this time so you can see that I am not twisting your words at all.
I also never suggested that Chapman was the Ripper, this is not what I'm on about. I just say that you can't look at a serial killer and say that they all think alike and will never change their MO, no matter how unlikely. I refuse to use the word impossible because that is an absolute and not relevant here because serial killers are human and have individual minds.
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: 2068
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 5:51 am: | |
Sarah,
I just have four comments for you.
1. Even though all killers are individuals, there are patterns to consider regarding how and why they act, learnt from experience. Serial killers are not like the rest of us. By saying "we are all individuals" you can claim practically every crazy idea as truthful. That is just ridiculous. You still have to use common sense. Common sense is not to keep a door open to all kinds of unthinkable scenarios that comes across.
2. If you think "They have to consider all kinds of scenarios, but they do focus on what's probable based on experience." means that they brush off leads "easily", I seriously can't help you. Your interpretation of this is just incredible. It doesen't matter how many times you quote me; you still get it wrong. This is not even twisting words -- you are reading things into it that isn't there.
The police don't treat all leads with the same kind of priority. And there is no reason they should.
3. This discussion is not focusing on whether or not Chapman is a favourite suspect. I am very well aware of that people here are not stressing him. This is a battle over the word "impossible".
4. I have never said that all killers think alike and I have never said that their MO doesen't change. I have said this now a million times and you still don't get it.
If you don't want to use the word impossible, it's fine by me, I am not forcing you or anybody else -- as far as I know, I have actually never used it either -- but I'd say it's absolute that a serial mutilator doesen't turn into a serial poisoner of wives.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2069
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 6:21 am: | |
Dan,
"Whether they call what they are doing profiling or not it's the same basic process at work: trying to make conclusions about what's *probably* going on based upon limited numbers of case history that they know. The profilers and the police opinions you are referring go at it slightly different ways (profilers try to prove it better, police play it by ear and so actually should be considered even less reliable), but it's still subjective and doesn't have anything to do with whether they know what happens in all cases or not."
I just wanted to point out that I am not deliberately basing my opinions on profiling theories or books, which you made it sound like.
It is not really the same thought process; if you'd tell a police officer that, he or she wouldn't be happy. Profiling is generally not accepted in the police force, and it's because its approach is more theoretical and academic from a university point of view, leaning on too much guess-making and desk theorising (as they see it).
The police never guess unless they have sufficient proof or reasons to do so, while profilers guess from manuals.
In this case there would be no evidence whatsoever that would connect a person like Chapman to murders like those performed by the Ripper -- that is, besides the point that it's totally obvious that these two personalities are utterly different from one another -- why they would get such a lead the lowest priority and labelled ridiculous.
This is the police's own words. You can do what you want with them, but since you never listen to anyone besides yourself, they are probably lost on you anyway.
"There's a difference between an opinion and your claims here that things are impossible, ridiculous, completely different from each other and so forth."
No, there isn't. I have a very clear opinion on this. I don't think that has gone people by, and it is for that very clear opinion I am being critized.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 26, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1321
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 8:51 am: | |
Sarah, Glenn....Guys,
OK, trying to smooth waters here,
Though I disagree to an extent with Glenn I think its important to look at another factor, regarding MO, here.
The way I see it is, as Glenn states ....and others, MO can change.
The question should be Why? Why would a killer change his MO. The practical explaination, to me, is because his (not being sexist here, just picking a gender) previous MO didnt work for him. So he altered it. Basically its a case of if it aint broke dont fix it. OK tweak it a little but keep with the same basic routine.
The other reason is to cause confusion as Sarah states. That is plausable in my eyes. This would be due to foresnic/profiling techniques and the attempt to confuse the police.
Now this is where I do see Glenns point. In 1888 forensics/profiling was in its infancy, infact I doubt Jack would not have even registered with such issues. There would have been no reason to change MO on the grounds of decieving the authorities.
Which leaves an MO change due to practical reasons. I cannot see that Jack needed to change his MO to poisoning and his motive to gain......ahh motive....another story and another thread !
Unless thats exactly the reason....motive change !
Monty
PS Confused ?? I am !!!
(Message edited by monty on August 26, 2004)
Im off to see the Psy-chia-taay........just to see if Im de-men-taaay. Kiss my bad self.
-Aaron Kosminski. |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 835
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 9:11 am: | |
HELP HELP!!!!!!!!!!!
Hi everyone,
listen its quite simple Glenn is right to this extent that its highly unusual and probably unlikely that a sex serial killer would get up one morning and think i'm fed up of this i'm going to poison the next one its so much less bloody.
Sarah is also right and I have to agree with her that just because its not known to have happened is no reason to dismiss it - there is a first time for everything. Someone has to be the first as it were.
did that make sense?
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2071
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 9:37 am: | |
Monty,
As always, the voice of reason and experience!
Even though we may disagree on smaller details, your inputs are priceless and somehow you always manage to set me straight (although you may think you feel confused).
"In 1888 forensics/profiling was in its infancy, infact I doubt Jack would not have even registered with such issues. There would have been no reason to change MO on the grounds of decieving the authorities.
Which leaves an MO change due to practical reasons. I cannot see that Jack needed to change his MO to poisoning and his motive to gain"
These lines are very clearly and beautifully put.
Although my points of view have mostly been based on psychological and historical factors (factors I seem to give higher regards than many others here), this is how I also see it.
The input of why a serial killer would change his MO is interesting and has been discussed before, in connection with victims categorized as canonical or not, but in this particular context it is indeed given a certain relevancy.
Regardless of how many victims we may attribute with certainty to the Ripper, we must consider the fact that the Ripper seem to have been rather consistent in his killing and mutilation method (in spite of some minor changes, which may be a result of increased self-assureness, experimentation or circumstances on the crime scene).
The same also goes for a poisoner like Chapman or Cream; they as well were rather consistent in their methods in their own right.
So we are talking about the possibility of a total switch from a whole series of similar mutilating murders that points in the direction of a criminal with a certain character, to a completely new series of identical poison murders, made by a killer with another disposition. So we are not talking about one victim being murdered by a hammer, one by a knife, one shot down by a gun etc.
It just don't add up. Impossible? That's a matter of opinion. I know where I stand.
To put a psychological twist to it, I can't see the reasons for why the Ripper would change a behaviour that seem to have been necessary for him and triggered by a driving force beyond the actual killing of prostitutes, in favour of a behaviour that is quite calculating and doesen't contain these elements of satisfaction. (I base this on my personal belief, of course, that the Ripper were driven by some sort of mental or sexual driving forces -- something that is not proven but rather probable if we look at the crime scene evidence.) Some may think that it's possible, but I don't and apparently not people in the police I've talked to either.
It is a complete riddle for me why I should even in a slightest way consider a possibility, that I don't believe in and that goes against all evidence and reason. I just can't do it.
I admit I can come on rather strong and I apologise for this if anyone finds this annoying, but I am a person with strong opinions. One has to take it or leave it. I am not forcing anyone to go along on the Yellow brick road with me. I just follow my common sense, which might be a dead end street for others. That's life.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1257
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 10:28 am: | |
Ahhhhh!! Sorry had to get that out of my system. Ok, let's carry on.
Glenn,
"I'd say it's absolute that a serial mutilator doesen't turn into a serial poisoner of wives."
Sorry but I don't agree (what a surprise).
There is NO absolute here. You can't dictate what goes in in other people's minds. I am always open to anything. Trust me, I've known people to do some pretty strange stuff and gone completely against what I thought. Recently my brother and a friend fell out about something completely unusual. I'm not going into details here but believe me when I say the reason for the falling out was VERY VERY odd and I would never in a million years thought that it would happen as it was completely unlikely (wish I could say details to show how odd but it's private). Anyway, it just goes to show that not is impossible.
Glenn, maybe you didn't say the word "impossible" but you are implying it and I just can't accept that. Nothing is really impossible when it comes to human beings and their individual minds.
Sarah
P.S. "I am a person with strong opinions" - believe me, so am I.
(Message edited by Sarah on August 26, 2004)
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: 2072
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 10:43 am: | |
Well, Sarah,
As you understand, I naturally disagree with you.
As I said, by stating that everything is possible, then one can claim practically everything, also that Santa Claus is living in Lake Tahoe. It just doesen't work and you certainly can't perform an investigation on such grounds.
To assume an unthinkable scenario as possible you must at least have some positive indications suggesting such a direction to support it or even make it worth dealing with. Or else you're just fantasising.
In the case of the Ripper turning into a poisoner in the type of Chapman or Cream, we have none. If we had, things would be in a different light.
"P.S. "I am a person with strong opinions" - believe me, so am I."
By saying that "everything's possible"? Well...
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 26, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1259
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 12:26 pm: | |
Glenn,
You seem to be twisting my words. I didn't say that EVERYTHING was possible. I said "nothing is really impossible when it comes to human beings and their individual minds." So Santa Claus living anywhere doesn't come into it.
Remember what we said before about how "taking a stand" and "having an opinion" are different things. My opinion is that there is not really anything you can deem as impossible when it comes to humans and how they think.
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: 2073
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 12:55 pm: | |
Sarah,
"I didn't say that EVERYTHING was possible. I said "nothing is really impossible when it comes to human beings and their individual minds."
No matter how you turn that statement around, the result of your reasoning -- as well as the statement that "there is a first time for everything" (suggested by Jennifer) -- will be that one can claim anything in these situations, regardless how ridiculous it is.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 26, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Peter Sipka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 79
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 4:26 pm: | |
Though I'm sure this issue is going back and forth many times, I'm going to have to agree with Sarah. I'm sure I've said this before, but there is no way a human being can say something is impossible. Especially when that human being is talking about another human being. I recall somebody saying countries couldn't win certain wars and that it was impossible, but looked what happened. And that's not even dealing with human minds, which is something totally unpredictable. |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 846
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 4:32 pm: | |
Glenn mate,
how are you making your statement about how sex serial killers act, and think carefully before answering as i'm not actually having ago, this is leading somewhere though!
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2075
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 4:55 pm: | |
Jennifer,
You may have to repeat that because I didn't get the meaning of your post. Call me slow, but I don't want to get accused of misinterpreting or misunderstanding -- this is not may first language you know.
Besides that, I think I have made myself rather clear on my points and I really don't know how I am supposed to elaborate without even repeating myself further and become even more tedious than I already feel.
Can we really get any further?
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1262
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 5:10 am: | |
Glenn,
I'm not turning anything around. I merely mean that when it comes to other people's minds you cannot say things are impossible, just as Peter also says. Nothing is impossible in the mind of a human being. If it's to do with their thoughts and why they do things then yes, anything is possible.
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to
Smile too much and the world will guess |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
