|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 582
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 25, 2003 - 10:18 pm: |       |
No sweat, Shannon. We have space enough at our disposal...
But I think we're way off the subject thread, though.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 178
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 25, 2003 - 10:22 pm: | |
Glenn, not putting you on at all. Each type of killer be it spree, serial, or mass has a different mentality that sets them apart from each other. To lable someone as one of the above they must meet the criteria. If they dont, then one of two things is wrong, you have the wrong circumstances or you have the wrong person accused of the crimes. In this case, you swear we have a serial killer, and if that is true, we have one too many victims on September 30th...
Shannon |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 583
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 25, 2003 - 10:30 pm: | |
I just based the "spree" thing on the Douglas definition in Leanne's message. OK, to cut things short, let's just say he fits the criteria of a serial killer and on the 30th of September, he happens to find a second victim (if this really was the case). I don't see the problem.
The point was that he doesn't fit the criterias for a mass murderer and that such a definition would be irrelevant in this context. That is really all the fuzz I wanted to make about it.
Anyway, this is getting repetitious, and we've raced far off the Barnett thread. Fun while it lasted, though.
I wonder how Barnett would have felt about being called a mass murderer...?
Need some matches, Shannon? 
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 179
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 25, 2003 - 11:24 pm: | |
Glenn, we are not as you put it "off the Barnett thread." Do I believe Joe Barnett was the killer, yes. Do I believe he was a serial killer, no. Had he (or who ever the killer was) been a true serial killer, it would not have stopped with Mary's death. The lust would have been there until his death.
Now, as a mass murderer in the clinical sense, he selected both known (Mary) and unknown (Polly, Annie, and Kate) victims on different days, and killed them all for what appears to be the same reason...
1) Joe Barnett had all the childhood markings of someone with psycholigical problems. Yes, there are others in Whitechapel with the same problems who did not become killers.
2) Joe Barnett is the only person in Whitechapel (that we know of) who lived with one of the victims and had two of the others live within 50 yards of his residence (annie across the narrow way and Kate in the shed).
3) Joe Barnett had motive, opportunity, and means to kill all of the women. While others may have the opportunity and means, there does not appear to be motive.
4) we wont say what you can do with the matches...
Shannon |
Brad McGinnis
Sergeant
Username: Brad
Post Number: 41
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 1:07 am: | |
Interesting argument guys but lets get real. Profiling is as accurate as astrology. If it was true the DC snipers would still be shooting. Douglas is a media guy, they only go by his correct hits, not his misses. To quote him as the source authority is like quoting Jeanne Dixon.
Also its a trap we all fall into. Trying to make JTR like someone known, caught, and studied. He wasnt so all those comfortable niches dont wash.
Motive is the key here. And while I dont go with Shannons guy I see where he's comming from, and his arguments are plausible.
Trying to fit JTR in a classic modern serial killer mold is not the answer. Hes outside the box.Dwelling on circular arguments and quoting profilers will get us no where but entrenched in debate.
Oh, and for the record....no I have no idea who he is. |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 183
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 1:39 am: | |
Brad, your right, all profiling does (if done correctly) is narrow the field, not pinpoint the suspect. With Joe Barnett, we have the most common components required for the crime in that we have him and the victim at the same location at the same time. That is the first task, and by no means is it definitive proof he was the murderer. All it does is show opportunity. Next you need a means; that being a knife, which Joe had access to in his normal working environment. Again, it doesn’t mean he did, only that the possibility is there for him to have one. Last, there has to be a motive for the crime. IMO the motive is a very simple one. He could no longer support her in the life style she had become accustomed to with him and he is afraid she will leave him for another who can give her what she desires. He has to find a way to hold on to her, and to do that he needs to make himself important in ways other than financial. He wants her to feel threatened and turn to him for protection. To that end he repeats the murder of Martha Tab ram hoping for the same chilling affect, and for her to decide he is needed for protection, only it doesn’t happen and she and he part ways. He claims by his volition, I believe otherwise as he returns to her nearly every day after the separation. Finally she tells him to leave for good and his worst nightmare comes true. So, the plan is that if he can’t have her no one can or to punish her for being the cause of all his problems.. Only a guess but it works best for me, and it doesn’t hold to any set pattern of killer...
Shannon |
AP Wolf
Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 458
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 3:34 am: | |
I’ve been enjoying this discussion as well, and I’m glad to see that there are folks about who are not prepared to roll over and play dead dog every time someone mentions sex as the motive.
As I’ve said all along that is the easy way out of this mess, and those who follow that easy way out are dogging the footsteps of people like Wilson and Cornwallis… you know the sort of stuff, ‘knife equals penis’ and ‘small or injured member equals big desire to kill and mutilate sexual parts of women’… all so trite and neat, and when you think a bit deeper just plain old Freudian nonsense that should have been shipped out to the Siberian salt mines fifty years ago.
Believe me, all these so-called profilers bit their teeth on Freud and have just carried on dispensing his barmy notions like diet coke to people who eat double cheeseburgers but want to stay slim.
I could understand at least a little of what goes on here if we were discussing a killer like Bundy who had an obvious sexual desire for his victims, but we are not, we are talking here of a killer who had no obvious sexual desire for his victims and in fact ripped them apart because he found the whole concept of the female body repugnant and alien to him.
Now that ain’t sex.
Not in my world anyway.
|
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 802
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 5:03 am: | |
G'day,
SHANNON: the FBI came up with those definitions to make it easier for them to determine a possible motive. Not to give the killer a set of strict rules that he had to follow.
LEANNE
|
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 584
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 7:17 am: | |
Well, what can I say, Brad and AP. I absolutely don't agree with either of you.
Profiling is not an exact science - I can repeat that until I'm blue in the face - but it is a mistake not to see its advantages as a complement. The statement that "all these so-called profilers bit their teeth on Freud" is just plain exhausting. Shannon is naturally right when he says, that it mainly narrows the field to a suspect character type, not pinpointing a certain individual, that's all. There is no magic stuff surrounding it whatsoever, it is just an extension of ordinary crime scene investigation work.
---------------------
"Douglas is just a media guy". Well, be that as it may (I don't see what that has to do with it), I do believe, Brad, that profiling has been proven right on more occasions than astrology. Please...
"Trying to make JTR like someone known, caught, and studied. He wasnt so all those comfortable niches dont wash [...] Trying to fit JTR in a classic modern serial killer mold is not the answer. Hes outside the box."
You say motive is the key here. Could be, but you can't just pick up a motive out of the blue. So what do you know about Jack's motive, Brad? And how are you going to find that out?
Criminal profiling, regardless of its down-sides or advantages, is merely basing its theories on empric studies. Yes! So that means that empiric knowledge can't be used to study a case just because it happened in 1888? Great! Then we are really in trouble...
--------------------------------
Oh yes, AP, I am very well aware that some people here see it as psychological mumbo-jumbo. Dismissing it by referring to Freud - which is quite predictable - really makes it easy, doesn't it?
"we are talking here of a killer who had no obvious sexual desire for his victims and in fact ripped them apart because he found the whole concept of the female body repugnant and alien to him."
How do you know? What method did you use to reach that conclusion?
"Now that ain’t sex. Not in my world anyway."
But then neither of us are serial killers either, AP.
---------------------------
And once again, Shannon: the Ripper/Barnett (if you want to believe they are one and the same) is NOT a mass murderer. You don't need profilng for that. There was one victim killed at each occurence!
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
AP Wolf
Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 460
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 8:26 am: | |
Nietzsche and Freud both thought the world a better place without women, so did Jack, in fact the pair of them if they had met Jack would have doffed their caps and said ‘respect’.
No, it is not easy to throw Freud at the profilers, because they’ll twist and turn - just like you do - with the uncomfortable notion that they are propagating ideas which are so hopelessly out of date and false in their application to our modern society.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, regardless of your own sexual persuasion please do not try and tell me what is or is not sex until you have read the most modern studies available to you, the Hite Reports, which do make it plain that Freud and his legions of followers were - and are - propagating dangerous myths concerning murder and sexuality.
Now you, and others here, may not come from Freud’s stable, but you certainly been eating out of the same nosebag, because you continue to try and influence us into believing that the crimes of Jack were inherently sexual in their nature… now that is dangerous.
An uninformed and easily influenced reader could may well go away with your dangerous propaganda and decide that what he has read confirms to him that sex is linked to murder, or hate, or violence.
This has happened on many occasions, most famously when an Australian serial killer admitted to police that he had been directly influenced to kill his victims by what he had read in one of Wilson’s works.
You recklessly pour gasoline on a raging fire when you don’t allow Jack room for a more substantive motive, one that allows not only the true circumstances of the crimes to be investigated but also one that allows an escape route for people trapped in a similar situation.
I am prepared to allow that sexuality might play a role in this type of crime - rather than ‘sex’ - but this does not mean I shut out far more simpler motives such as fear or loathing.
What was it Nietzche said?
‘Beware, for when you stare into the black pit, the black pit also stares into you.’
You boys and girls are staring into a black pit here.
|
thomas schachner
Police Constable
Username: Thomas
Post Number: 4
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 8:35 am: | |
hello there,
talking of profiling -->
i posted something that might be of interest
the ripper project by william g. eckert
../4922/8030.html"#C6C6B5"> |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 585
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 9:53 am: | |
Before I continue or forget: Shannon, the reason for me saying earlier, that we're slipping out of the thread was that this thread is supposed to be about Barnett. I just commenting on yours and Erin's mass murder arguments; it was absolutely never my intention to turn it into a profiling thread - this is dicussed on several other spots here, and I don't want to be accused of sneaking the subject in everywhere here... It was a funny and very enjoyable discussion nevertheless.
Well AP,
Interesting. No, I must say I fail to see what is so dangerous about it. What propaganda?
You are completely right that I don't come from the Freud field, although I don't belive he was that wrong in some aspects. The late 19th century view on women, however, I naturally don't support, and I think it is a mistake to transfer that into a discussion about profiling - I really don't see the point and don't understand why that should be relevant.
Killers are influenced by a number of things, and just because some character read a book about criminal psychology and went out killing, can't with all the will in the world make it relevant to dismiss it or keep us from stating whether a murder has sexual underlying implications or not - especially if we consider the vast amounts of films and novels, where serial killers are glorified and riding on a sea of joy containing of violence and blood. Maybe we should close down this website as well, then? That is a totally impossible discussion.
Once again, AP. How are you supposed to discover the Ripper's motives anyway? By guess-making? You talk about "true circumstances" regarding the crime. Which are they? What do they tell us? What shall we do with them apart from what a number of other researchers and authors already hasn't? What method are you going to use?
Ar far as fear or loathing is concerned, these are actually the points I made as well earlier on another thread. I find it very likely that these factors could be plausible reasons for his actions, and that is - I might add - one of the more common opinions regarding serial killing among profilers as well. But that is something different. When I said that the mutilations (the signature) could have a sexual symbolic meaning, it is because there are signs that indicates that, but more impostantly, experiences with other serial killers has shown that this is usually the case. Now, I am a historian to begin with, so I find it quite natural that one automatically can't just pull modern theories into old, historical events without considering the society, conditions and values of that period. But it is a complete - and quite common - fallacy among critics to criminal profiling to state, that our modern empriric knowledge about the minds and conducts of serial killers can't be transferred to that environment. That is bogus! Even if the environmental and social circumstances are changing, a killer's mind and needs, and therefore also his personality, works the same way - regardless of time. His methods may have to change in order for his actions to be possible, but an illness or a psychopathic mind works the same as it would do today. And that is why profiling can't be dismissed. You say that I should read the Hites reports - I might very well do that, but then I would also recommend you to fresh up your reading regarding the intentions a nd methods of criminal profiling, because so far you statements about it reveals mostly misconceptions, unfounded myths and prejudices about it rather than factual knowledge.
"I am prepared to allow that sexuality might play a role in this type of crime - rather than ‘sex’ - but this does not mean I shut out far more simpler motives such as fear or loathing."
Neither am I, AP. Neither am I.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Alan Sharp
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ash
Post Number: 126
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 9:53 am: | |
Just to weigh in with my twopennyworth:
Leanne's descriptions are also those contained in the FBI Crime Classification Manual. This is hardly surprising as John Douglas co-wrote it, but it is the pre-eminent reference work by which law enforcement agencies around the world classify crimes. I agree heartily that not all killers "comply to the rules" but when investigating crime we need to have a common language that everyone understands, and in the world of law enforcement that common language is generally agreed to have been defined by the CCM.
John Douglas may be "a media guy" but he is also a former FBI investigator and former head of the BSU with over 30 years experience in the field. As such I would tend to listen to his opinions with more than a little interest. He is also the first one to point out that profiling is not an exact science and to admit that there were many occasions on which he and his fellow BSU operatives just plain got it wrong.
Just for clarification, Glenn, in your examples the schoolkid with the gun would usually be regarded as a spree killer rather than a mass murderer because although he kills many people in one location he usually moves from place to place within that location picking off seperate people individually. A mass murderer would usually be someone who kills several people "as a group" such as a person involved in another crime who decided he needed to execute his witnesses. A mass murderer usually has an easily identifiable purpose to his murders whereas the serial killer and spree killer do not. The main difference between the serial and spree killers is the cooling off period.
As to whether Jack was a sex killer or not, I would tend to point to the removal of the uterus, this after all being an important organ of reproduction, as an indication that Jack felt threatened by the sexuality of women in some way and in his mutiliations was attempting to "de-sex" them. This would make it a form of sex crime. As said before, a sex crime does not necessarily have to involve sexual activity, it simply has to have an aspect of sexual behaviour as its root cause. |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 587
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 10:25 am: | |
Thank you, Alan. A great and sensible post, as always.
Just one comment:
"in your examples the schoolkid with the gun would usually be regarded as a spree killer rather than a mass murderer because although he kills many people in one location he usually moves from place to place within that location picking off seperate people individually. A mass murderer would usually be someone who kills several people "as a group" such as a person involved in another crime who decided he needed to execute his witnesses."
Absolutely, I agree. But I just took an example; there have been such cases where a school kid just fired in one class-room and then turned the gun on himself. So these deeds can be concentrated to one special location where everyone is killed at the samt time. But, OK, if we take your example, a spree killer would be a more proper term.
I absolutely agree with you that it is necessary to work by a "common language". These pointers are not there for academic reasons, they are tools to help the investigations further. And like you, I would also point out, that FBI are the ones who has the best experience with dealing with serial killers - to disregard from that just because one of its main representatives often appears on TV or as authors, is indeed questionable.
"As to whether Jack was a sex killer or not, I would tend to point to the removal of the uterus, this after all being an important organ of reproduction, as an indication that Jack felt threatened by the sexuality of women in some way and in his mutiliations was attempting to "de-sex" them. This would make it a form of sex crime. As said before, a sex crime does not necessarily have to involve sexual activity, it simply has to have an aspect of sexual behaviour as its root cause."
I couldn't have said it better myself, Alan,
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 588
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 10:28 am: | |
Hi Thomas,
Thank you. I've checked out your great thread.
--------------------------------------------
If this discussion are bound to continue, I suggest it is moved to the thread mentioned (Suspects - General discussion - the ripper project by william g. eckert) or some of the other profile threads. Just a tip.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
AP Wolf
Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 461
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 11:18 am: | |
You know I do go along with what most of you say here, but I am talking about basic conceptions and misconceptions here, and perhaps the biggest one infecting this discussion is the base premise that men view women as sex objects, therefore crimes committed by men against women where mutilation is committed must have a sexual motive.
All fair and good, but you see the latest research does show that men do not view women as sex objects, yes, some men do view some women as sex objects, but the vast majority of men view the female sex from a domestic, life-time partner, friendship and emotional point of view.
I would strongly suggest that your profilers and other professionals involved in this field are totally unaware of Hite’s ground breaking studies… but hey, the rest of the world, including the posters here have ignored them as well.
What Hite has to say about rape, male dominance, murder and violence in the ‘man-woman arena’ will turn your comfortable little world upside down.
You must not think for one moment that I am opposed in any form or manner to a sensible debate concerning the activities and motives of sexual serial killers, on this site or anywhere else for that matter, but I am strongly opposed to people winging in here and telling me that Jack is a sexual serial killer whose motive was sexual gratification and that is full stop end of discussion because they believe themselves to be absolutely right.
I don’t say he wasn’t motivated by sex full stop end of discussion because I have read the Hite reports and you haven’t, what I say is let us discuss it a sensible and adult manner without entrenchment and without loosing focus of the important fact that none of us have a diddly squat clue as to what motivated Jack.
Yes, thank heavens I am behind the times when it comes to profiling and anyways I am too busy profiling the profilers.
|
Erin Sigler
Sergeant
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 36
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 2:13 pm: | |
Wow, if I didn't know this board was primarily made up of men, I would certainly know now! Alan, thank you for your brilliant post. I was starting to worry that aside from Glenn, I was dealing with a bunch of rampant misogynists who still subscribe to the antiquated notion that if there isn't evidence of sexual "connection," as one of our fine Ripper doctors so delicately put it, there cannot possibly be a sexual motive involved.
First of all, A.P., I find it incredibly insulting that you would simply assume none of us philistines could have possibly heard of the Hite Report. For your information, (and I can barely contain my disgust here), journalist Sherri Hite's "work" has been long discredited by serious sociologists due to the major methodological errors it contains. (We actually studied her work in one of my classes as an example of how not to conduct a sociological inquiry.) Now, I won't get into a big discussion of statistics here, because this isn't the place for it, but suffice it to say that for the results of any study to attain the largest, most random sampling possible, free of the taint of bias on both the part of the researcher and her subject. Hite fails miserably on all counts. First of all, while she sent out 100,000 questionannaires to various women's groups, she received only 4,500 back, which makes for a lovely 4.5% return rate--hardly what I'd call a "representative sample" of the population! Furthermore, there are problems with the groups to which she sent her surveys--mostly feminist groups and domestic violence organizations. Now, I'm a hardcore feminist myself, but even I can see why there might be a problem with basing your conclusions primarily on the views of a disaffected minority of the female population, many of whom responded because they'd heard or read about Sherri Hite! Now, I'm not a professional sociologist myself, but I think it's pretty clear that women in domestic violence shelters aren't going to have the highest opinion of men and/or marriage. Unfortunately, the problems with Hite's work don't stop there, but I won't subject you to a full analysis of the errors she commits and the complete inadequacy of her study, because as I've said before, this really isn't the place for such a discussion. If you want to read more about what was wrong with the Hite Report, though, check this out: http://www.nap.edu/books/0309039762/html/537.html.
Now, again, I'm no sociologist (just a few hours shy of a degree in the subject, but that's neither here nor there), but I would think that John Douglas's years of professional experience and his and Ressler's excellent study of sex offenders (unless you think such creatures don't exist) are enough to establish profiling's reputation as a serious law enforcement tool. It's a slap in the face to Douglas, Ressler, Hazelwood, and the numerous others who have dedicated their professional lives to the science of profiling to say that their work is akin to astrology. It's assuming that somehow you, whatever your credentials, somehow know better than those who have spent years in the field.
Furthermore, those of us with a background in the social sciences find it more than a little disconcerting that people not only cavalierly dismiss Freud's contribution to the field but that all of our conclusions about sexual violence are necessarily grounded in Freudian conceptions regarding women and their sexuality. I will not apologize for being a feminist and subscribing to the logical notion that when a woman is attacked and her sexual organs mutilated and even removed, this might possibly be considered a sex crime!
No, I'm not naive or inexperienced enough to think that the underlying motivation at work might be something deeper than mere sexuality. That much is obvious. I agree with John Douglas when he quotes Linda Fairstein, who says that "Rape is a crime of violence in which sex is the weapon." I think we can extend that definition to sex crimes in general. However, we cannot simply dismiss the overtly sexual aspects of the Ripper murders because the "manipulation, domination and control" of women appear to be the murderer's primary goals. The fact is, when a woman is murdered and her sexual organs mutilated, it is clear that if nothing else, Our Boy has some serious issues with women as a group. His destruction of their sex organs is a manifestation of the intense fear and hatred he harbors toward women--the opposite sex.
Consider reading up on the definition of a "sex" crime from a recognized authority on the subject, not some hack who designed a "study" with her conclusions already in mind. Hint: It doesn't always involve intercourse.
Shannon, I will return to the issue of Barnett and serial murder later. Right now I am a little too disheartened by some of the posts in this thread to slog back through them in an effort address some of the issues you presented. |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 188
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 2:20 pm: | |
Erin: "Our Boy has some serious issues with women as a group. His destruction of their sex organs is a manifestation of the intense fear and hatred he harbors toward women--the opposite sex."
Erin, not the entire opposite sex; one woman, the one that gave birth to him and then at the age of 7 deserted him when he needed her the most after his father died.
Shannon |
Erin Sigler
Sergeant
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 37
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 2:28 pm: | |
Shannon: Now who's being the Freudian? |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 190
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 2:39 pm: | |
Erin, never said I didnt subscribe to any of the disciplines...
 Shannon |
AP Wolf
Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 464
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 4:33 pm: | |
Erin
Do try and contain your disgust for just a little bit longer, for I do feel that you are a bright and imaginative thinker whose contributions are a positive boon to these boards, and I feel it is basically wrong to cast yourself down as having an opinion that cannot be altered by other opinion.
I am well aware of the problems that Hite’s original work encountered - which you do highlight very well - but of course the buck didn’t stop there did it? And the majority of my references are to the work she produced concerning male sexuality - after the original work you refer to concerning women’s sexuality ( which after all is not in debate here, is it?) - by which time her publishers had ensured that the random sampling was representative, obviously it was in their interest to do so as they knew they had a best seller on their hands. You do remember how long the book sat at the top of the American best selling chart don’t you?
But anyway I’m a person of give and take, and personally I find any Hite report far more commendable than the appalling drivel that has been recently posted highlighting the combined might of the profiling mind in the modern USA.
If you know Freud as well as me you will also know that shortly before his death he attended a conference where he fully admitted that every single thing he had ever wrote was a complete and utter fabrication brought about by his own sexual inadequacies and basic hatred of the women in his life.
Didn’t you really know that Freud was just Oscar Wilde with a beard?
Without let or hesitation I roundly condemn any profiler who makes a living from writing. It is astrology, they should be profiling not writing.
As you grow up I hope you will learn that there is a vast difference between the reproductive and the sexual organs of a woman.
‘Rape is a crime of violence in which sex is the weapon.’
That will not do, Erin, you didn’t go to school just to trot out tripe like that.
|
Alan Sharp
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ash
Post Number: 129
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 6:59 pm: | |
AP, I have just four words to say to you after a post like that.....
Put The Brandy Down!!!!
You know it doesn't agree with you!  |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 596
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 7:55 pm: | |
Wow, Erin!
I'm impressed! That was quite an outburst. I think I am getting too old for getting that exited nowadays (unfortunately?)...
Welcome back! Where have you been????
"if I didn't know this board was primarily made up of men, I would certainly know now!"
Believe me, you've certainly been missed - I don't seem to have the energy anymore (or maybe I'm just afraid of Stephen...?).
Naturally, once again you manage to put everything right on the spot where it belongs. I must admit I've never heard of Hite and her reports, but then I don't have that much time to my disposal nowadays as I used to, when I was a student.
Well, as I said on the other thread, I prefer to rely on those who deal with serial killers and lust murderers on a daily basis, and who have an impressive experience in the field, than applying theories from outside academics that hardly can spell to crimonology (we have seen too many of those already).
Of course it is a slap in the face on guys like Douglas, Eckert and Hazelwood when one totally disregards their vast base of knowledge, earned from many years of encounter with serial killers face to face. If anyone has the right to write something on the subject, it is certainly fellows like that.
Eeeh... just remember, Erin, when you read AP:s answer (blimey!), and particulary the lines:
"I roundly condemn any profiler who makes a living from writing. It is astrology, they should be profiling not writing."
and
"..you didn’t go to school just to trot out tripe like that."
-- take a deep breath and count to three...
Alan's right, AP. At least I'd suggest you change the brand - that last bottle must have been a bad one... 
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 204
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 27, 2003 - 12:10 am: | |
Glenn, for all the work a profiler does, not one has to date been able to prevent a serial killer from killing by being at the murder site laying in wait for the killer. They amass information from the previous murders, and sorry to say, the more murders they have to investigate, the more they learn. Its not so much science, its called a WAG!
The policeman at the scene who documents the crime is the real hero. They are the one who preserves the edivence, documents the facts, and sees first hand the scene as the killer left it. They are the ones that deserve the credit, and if it wernt for their diligence, your profilers would have little to go on since they rarely are at the crime scene, and most of the time draw corelations from the officers notes...
Shannon |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 597
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 27, 2003 - 8:23 am: | |
Hi Shannon,
"The policeman at the scene who documents the crime is the real hero. They are the one who preserves the edivence, documents the facts, and sees first hand the scene as the killer left it. They are the ones that deserve the credit, and if it wernt for their diligence, your profilers would have little to go on since they rarely are at the crime scene, and most of the time draw corelations from the officers notes..."
I couldn't agree with you more. But that was not the point of the discussion.
Profilers are called in when murders already have been committed and their work is used as a tool to try and narrow down the suspects of that crime. That is their job, no need to compare them or put them against the honourable work of the detectives and the policemen. That is why profiling is a complement, everyone have their own different work fields.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
AP Wolf
Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 467
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 27, 2003 - 1:02 pm: | |
Alan
yes you are absolutely right, I shouldn't have broken my self-imposed ten pm curfew, and I had been doing so well before that.
My apologies to all concerned for I could have worded it so much better without the brandy.
I await the fall-out from the bomb.
Guess I better drink some SSB. |
Erin Sigler
Sergeant
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 40
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 27, 2003 - 3:16 pm: | |
Glenn, I apologize for the outburst. In the future I won't bother dignifying such nonsense with a response.
On profiling: John Douglas regularly states that it is the police who do all the work and solve murder cases. His job is to assist them in that effort, not to supplant them. However, I will say no more since this is not the place for a discussion of profiling. |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 598
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 27, 2003 - 5:06 pm: | |
Oh Erin, don't apologize on my account. You really said the things I should have said in the first place. Just be careful, though (you know, the suspensions and all)...
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 5:41 am: | |
I think too many people are getting hung up on semantics and letting it interfere on the meaning they put to ther case.
The Jack the Ripper killings are absolutely not mass murder, because there was no group involved, they were all individual kills. And even if there were a small group at sometime (like a set of two or three, which sometimes happens in other serial cases) it's not like you have to throw all of what you do know out due to bizarre devotion to a short definition of a term concerning a very complex subject.
And, as far as sexually motivated or not, would those who oppose the definition feel better if it were "enjoyment" motivated instead? Because that's what it really get down to. In this case he mutilated the bodies -- what function does that serve other than entertainment? It's not like it was some practical steps that were taken to try to make identification difficult, because if that were the plan he had much faster and efficient ways to do it. It's not like he was paid to collect organs and was going to lose money unless he also mutilated the bodies. What's the motivation? Why did he do it? Because he liked it. A lot. Enough that he had to kill for it.
As far as Barnett goes, I'm not seeing anything to indicate he had any of the signs of a serial killer. And anything in his life you can take a look at say that it's kind of like the description of a killer could go equally well for probably 40% of the population of the East End. We have no proof that he had a speech disorder, regardless of the hoops people set up to try to prove so. We have no good evidence that he spit on a grave, or any reason to bellieve that spitting would make someone a killer.
What we do have is someone with an alibi that seems pretty tight on the night of death of the only victim in the series that he has a connection to.
Now, I'm not one to rule him out, but it just doesn't seem likely at all to me. Twisting and pulling at his life to try to find any tiny scrap that might be used to argue a connection to a small part of a profile of other killers (and ignoring the fact that he ended up living with another female and had no reported problems of any sort for years afterwards) is a game that is just going nowhere.
Try something else. I don't know what to suggest, other than avoiding this whole line of argument completely unless you have real, good, solid evidence of Barnett having some pathological mental state. |
Severn
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, October 27, 2003 - 4:40 am: | |
Erin. You need not get disheartened.Your posts are illuminating and yes there does seem some chauvinism at times but its all fairly predictable and in some ways instructive because it confirms that inso far as women are concerned some men havent moved on since Victorian times.So theirs isnt exactly cutting edge thinking.
A.P. Are you just being provocative here or do you really dismiss Freud out of hand?To me he is right up there with Darwin Madam Curie Pavlov and the like maybe not with Aristotleor Shakespeare
but pretty near.
I mean Freud was the great pioneer of the unconscious and the dark psychic forces that work within.Separating the conscious mind from the unconscious enabled him to descend down to these forces and work out what was driving them so that
they could be subjected to reason and the will.He assumed in advance that the driving force of the most complex and delicate of psychic processes is a physiological need. Although I am not qualified to judge his work in any scietific way I understand that the weight he gave to the sexual factor at the expense of others has been disputed.
However he was undoubtedly one of the great inspirational thinkers of our time.Natalie |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page