|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Marie Finlay
Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 42
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 04, 2003 - 7:33 am: |       |
Hi everyone,
Although most serial killers are 'organized', I've read that some killers are 'mixed', and display characteristics that can be attributed to both 'organized', and 'disorganized' killers. There is a sound arguement for the disorganized killer in the excessive mutilations inflicted upon Jack's victims. However, organized killers do inflict such mutilations, and I also see other characteristics which would point to Jack being an organized killer:
1) Disorganized killers tend to have a more random victim selection.
2) Organized killers target high-risk victims like prostitutes. Their victims are *specific*, and their methods of killing are *specific*. The victims may remind the killer of a past lover, or may fit a specific fantasy- type that the killer has. Jack also had a very specific method of killing his victims.
3) I also believe that Jack had memorized many possible avenues of escape for the murders. I believe that he was familiar with the area, and was very proficient at evading escape.
3) Organized killers often take trophies of the murder, and I would class the organs removed from Jack's victims as 'trophies', which would serve to aid him in reliving the fantasy of the kill.
4) Organized killers are able to gain a victims trust, and are masters in the art of the con. I believe that Jack gained his victims trust. After all- they all took him to a private place for sex, at a time when tensions were extremely high, and all of Whitechapel was on alert for a vicious killer. I don't believe that Mary would have taken someone to her room, if her suspicions were aroused in any way by odd behaviour. By all accounts she was terrified of the ripper.
5) I believe a disorganized killer, and particularly a paranoid schizophrenic would have raised suspicion in his victims, family, aquaintances, or neighbours. Paranoid schizophrenics do have periods of lucidity, but they are subject to frequent bouts of psychosis, and hallucinations.
I'd like to link to:
"Anatomy of a Lust Murder
By Vernon J. Geberth, M.S., M.P.S.
Former Commander, Bronx Homicide, NYPD
http://www.practicalhomicide.com/articles/lustmurder.htm
(speaking of both organized, and disorganized lust killers):
"In both instances, however, the cutting, mutilation and overkill type wound structures will be directed towards those parts of the body that the offender finds sexually significant to him and serve as a sexual stimulus. This is consistent with sexual sadism, which is a chronic and progressive disorder. Sadism is a compelling element in some lust murders; in others, arousal is not derived from the infliction of pain and suffering of the victim but rather from the act of killing itself."
"The primary difference between the Organized and Disorganized lust murderer is the inability of the Disorganized Offender to repeatedly escape apprehension. In fact, most Disorganized Lust Murderers are apprehended at the time of the event or shortly thereafter."
"However, there are no situations where the organized and disorganized offenders are mutually exclusive."
"Both types of murderers are capable of all types of behavior."
I personally believe our 'Jack' was an organized killer (a sociopath), who may have also displayed some charcteristics generally attributed to a 'disorganized' killer.
AP Wolf: again, your arguements are very pursuasive, and many of the 'best minds' involved in this case hold to a similar interpretation of the facts. Hence I offer my own arguements, not in an attempt to disprove your theory (which I cannot do), but in attempt to solidify my own theory.
So I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. 
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Sergeant
Username: Caz
Post Number: 12
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 04, 2003 - 9:47 am: | |
Hi Leanne,
Why don't I feel that Barnett could've been the Ripper?
For the reasons I gave in my post.
Do I feel sorry for him?
Certainly, if his ex-lover was killed and mutilated by someone else.
Hi Marie,
Re 3), try putting an ordinary punter in Jack's place for a moment. Whether a local man or visiting the area because of the availability and cheapness of the prostitutes there, the punter would not generally want to be seen availing himself of their services. Apart from the possibility of Jack ending up covered in the red stuff, and the consequences to his own neck if apprehended with a kidney in his pocket, why would his chances of not being seen in the act of murder, or being able to walk away unnoticed from the scene, be any different from those of the punter, who could spend exactly the same amount of time with a prostitute, in exactly the same place, at exactly the same time of night? Why is it so necessary for Jack to have taken that much more care, have been that much more proficient at escape, or have had that much more knowledge of all the little side streets and alleyways, than all the ordinary men who no doubt used Whitechapel prostitutes two or three times a week for years with no one any the wiser?
Re 4), the victims did still take their punters to private places for sex, even when Whitechapel was on alert for a vicious killer. For many unfortunates, staying off the streets indefinitely was a luxury they could not afford. But I agree that, if Kelly invited Jack in, he must have banished all thoughts of danger from her head somehow - perhaps he got her dead drunk?
Love,
Caz
|
Marie Finlay
Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 43
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 04, 2003 - 11:41 am: | |
Hi Caz,
regarding your points:
1) I'm not suggesting that our Jack was a genius at work, I'm merely suggesting that he was organized in his approach to killing his victims. I don't believe the murders were purely opportunistic.
I believe that he picked victims of a specific type (prostitutes are high-risk victims, and common targets for organized killers), acquainted himself with his victims, (posed as a normal paying customer to gain their trust), and once he had killed them- knew how to make good his escape without being seen by anyone (and he must have been quite bloody).
These are all characteristics that we could attribute to an organized, sociopathic killer.
4) Of course I recognize that the women of the area still took their punters to private places for sex (needs must). But I'm willing to bet that they were a lot more 'jumpy' than usual. And I'm sure that the victims would have been on the lookout for any odd behaviour in their clients. I can't remember where I read that on more than one occasion certain men were rounded on by mobs, because their strange behaviour had caused some women to think they were the ripper.
So this is why I believe that our Jack must have seemed quite personable, or at least appeared to be a regular guy.
I agree with you that it's very possible that 'Jack' got Mary extremely drunk, probably in the pub. Also, the premeditative act of getting her drunk would particularly strike me as the act of an organized killer. |
AP Wolf
Detective Sergeant
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 75
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 04, 2003 - 12:24 pm: | |
Marie
you are putting a lot of time, thought and energy into this subject and I do appreciate your valid input. However, as you say, we will have to agree to disagree.
There are a couple of points I must engage you on though.
Firstly what you and others have called a 'lust killer', I still do not understand the term, I know the German as I am fluent in German but I can't make the cross over from the German to the English. But as well as that I do have a problem with a term that might indicate murder could ever be 'pleasurable' even to a killer.
I think one needs to study the pysche of these men very carefully before casually using - as many of the experts do - terms which indicate either pleasure seeking or fun from killing another person.
Dangerous path.
I'd also argue the point with you that many sociopath killers target prostitutes, in fact many of them avoid them like the plague, as in their tarnished and often brutally masculine world a prostitute is considered as used goods, and what they are seeking is 'thrill' - rather than pleasure or lust - and only a particular type of victim can supply this strange need.
Just check out Bundy's victims - as he was a pure sociopath - and tell me how many prostitutes you can find, and then look at what his victims represented... to him.
Now, Richard Chase was a totally disorganised acute paranoid schizophrenic killer who killed and mutilated his victims in exactly the same way as Jack. When police examined his apartment they found it full of what you term as 'trophies' - again I do not like this term, it is magical encouragement to a vunerable reader - body parts and the like, but Richard was not collecting 'trophies', he was eating them.
The cop you quote is rolling out the same old Freudian-Ebing nonsense that has plagued the study of Jack for almost half a century now.
It is this very type of tunnel thinking that damages us more than anything.
I still maintain - very strongly in fact - that when a killer does something like Jack did to those poor women then it has absolutely nothing to do with sex.
Perhaps we want it to have something to do with sex, so that at least we are able to make some sort of sense out of a chaos we do not understand.
Jack was killing sex and the body parts of females that represented sex and reproduction.
Killing sex is not the same as killing for sex.
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 85
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 04, 2003 - 1:34 pm: | |
Hi everyone,
I do not believe that our jack was some kind of serial killer that we understand today , nor was he a sex killer.
He simply had a grudge against prostitutes. on moral grounds, he saw them as being sinful people.
I believe to analyze a persons mind of a hundred and fifteen years ago, compared with what we understand of modern day research, is wasteful.
Each person is an individual, and cannot be put into a slot,and analyzed.
Richard. |
AP Wolf
Detective Sergeant
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 78
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 04, 2003 - 3:53 pm: | |
Richard
Fair comment.
However I move back to my basic argument that Jack would not have approached the prostitutes, they would have approached him.
You might just be right that it is 'wasteful' to try and peer into the weird machinations of a lost Victorian's mind and soul, but it is great fun. |
Marie Finlay
Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 44
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 04, 2003 - 3:55 pm: | |
Hi AP Wolf,
Well, I honestly would argue that sociopathic serial killers do frequently target prostitutes. Statistics bear this out. Arthur J. Shawcross, and John Eric Armstrong are two that immediately spring to mind, and I'm sure I could search for more.
I've used Richard Chase myself, as an arguement that Jack did not need to possess much anatomical knowledge to remove organs from his victims, but beyond that- I don't personally believe that Chase is a very good model for Jack.
As you state, Chase is a good example of a disorganized, schizophrenic killer. His victims were completely randomly chosen. He shot his victims first, which again, is typical of a disorganized killer. They tend to prefer an instant kill, and (though use of firearms is not typical), a disorganized killer will often attack from behind, or prefer a surprise attack.
I would say that this differs greatly from Jack, who had to engage his victims in conversation, pose as a paying customer, and gain his victim's trust, before he could get them alone.
Disorganized killers are typically very socially inept. They tend to have an agitated or bizarre manner, and don't communicate with people very well, so they are often loners. I do believe that someone like this, who was trying to pick up prostitutes during those fraught months in Whitechapel, would attract a lot of attention.
In the article I posted by By Vernon J. Geberth, 'lust murder' is defined by the author as: "Lust murders are homicides in which the offender stabs, cuts, pierces or mutilates the sexual regions or organs of the victim's body. The sexual mutilation of the victim may include evisceration, piquerism, displacement of the genitalia in both males and females and the removal of the breasts in a female victim (defeminization).
It also includes activities such as "posing" and "propping" of the body, the insertion of objects into the body cavities, anthropophagy (consumption of blood and/or flesh) and necrophilia."
Which I think is an accurate description.
I certainly don't think we can say that what Jack did to his victims, had nothing to do with sex (and let's remember that Chase left semen inside one of his victims). It may be too awful to comtemplate, but people really DO commit these crimes for sexual gratification/release (and obviously these types of deviant behaviours/fantasies, and compulsions are well documented in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders).
The fact is, Jack DID commit horrific mutilations of a sexual nature, and we can only *guess* whether he obtained sexual gratification from said mutilations, or whether he did it because he hated women and sex. Jack's long gone, and we can't get him on the shrink's couch.
But you're right, I've put a bit of time into this thread today, and now my eyes are burning. Also, I don't want to get bogged down by psychological terminology, because I do agree with you that this -ultimately- takes us further away from our purpose here.
I've always felt that the purpose of debate is not to convince the other party that you are right, but to bounce ideas off each other, and therefore gain a deeper knowledge of the subject. I've found your posts to be both challenging, and thought-provoking, and I thank you for that.
Richard: I do agree that these cumbersome psychological terms are not always helpful (as all killers do retain their individuality), and historical killers will obviously be harder to profile.
So I'm going to take my burning computer eyes, have a nice glass of red, and toast all the wonderful people with whom I've conversed on this thread today- Cheers! |
AP Wolf
Detective Sergeant
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 79
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 04, 2003 - 4:17 pm: | |
Marie
A resounding idea and I am myself just opening the Spanish brandy and heading for freefall.
Richard Chase.
Compare the isolated case of sperm being found in one of his victims to the later Colin Pitchfork case where sperm was also found in his victims. But under questioning Pitchfork was quite happy to reveal that he had placed the sperm inside his victims using a foreign object.
In other words, although Pitchfork had a victim he still carried on with a solitary act of sex.
Many killers have admitted to this some years after the event.
I believe Chase was similar.
Yes I have found your posts challenging and rewarding as well, but this is what it surely is all about.
I would be the last person to attempt to convert or dissuade you from your course.
We both remain convincted by our convinctions.
Personally I detest the modern terminology used in this case and would rather see us all sticking to basics, but sometimes they intrude.
It is then that good old common sense must be employed to dispell the demon.
|
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 04, 2003 - 4:29 pm: | |
If Jack the Ripper were a lust killer, considering the wholesale damage he did at the murder sites, don't you think he'd be howling like a coot whilst mutilating? Wouldn't we see body parts flung yards away in every direction? Wouldn't he be rolling in offal?
Saddam Radka
|
Diana
Detective Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 57
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 04, 2003 - 8:32 pm: | |
updated.
1. physically strong
2. knowledge of local geography
3. anatomical knowledge
4. hated women
5. schizoid (disorganized) or sociopath (organized) or religious-obsessive
6. risk taker
7. age in 20s or 30s.
8. ethnic -- white, Anglo-Saxon or Irish
9. lower socioeconomic group
10. present in Whitechapel on relevant dates
12.sick, incarcerated, dead or moved away subsequent to the murders.
13. mutilated animals
14. self injury
15. control freak
16. con man or popped out of gates and grabbed them
17. Neurologically adept with spatial relationships
|
Diana
Detective Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 58
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 04, 2003 - 8:38 pm: | |
Oops I skipped 11 when I numbered them. #16 results from the fact that every one of the outdoor vics were found adjacent to a gate. Suppose he wasn't a con man. Suppose he was so wierd nobody would have trusted him. He hides inside a gate and waits for a broken down prostitute to stumble by and then pops out and grabs her. |
Marie Finlay
Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 45
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 05, 2003 - 5:07 am: | |
Saddam: no, not if he were an organized killer. they tend to leave very few clues behind at the scene. A disorganized killer's crime scene would be more like the one you describe, I think.
Diana, you posted: "Suppose he was so wierd nobody would have trusted him"
It's not implausible, but to my mind, it doesn't work for the murder of Eddowes or Kelly. Eddowes was seen speaking quietly with her killer, and I don't think Mary would have taken a bizzare, delusional, and psychotic man back to her room.
Disorganized killers are typically unkempt, and have a very difficult time communicating with people on a social level. Also, their crimes are haphazard, committed against any target of opportunity. I believe that a disorganized, schizophrenic killer would not target only prostitutes. He would have also made attacks on neighbours, aquaintances, people on the street, family, whomever.
By his actions, I believe that this type of person would have attracted attention in the area. Also, disorganized killers are not typically proficient at evading capture, and they give little thought to consequences (for example, Richard Chase may have walked around in daylight, covered in his victims blood).
I will admit that Jack left a 'mixed' scene, to my mind, if we consider the excessive, and symbolic mutilations inflicted on the victims. This leads me to believe that he was a person who had a violent temper (possibly fueled by his hatred of prostitutes), but he could still maintain enough control over himself, and his actions to avoid taking unnecessary risks. I also think he was completely aware of his actions, and his environment.
AP Wolf: I hope you enjoyed your spanish brandy. I'm having a coffee right now, to offset the teeny headache I have from last night's adventures in red wine.
I didn't know that about Richard Chase! (Re: semen)
Actually, you've got me re-thinking my own definition of 'lust killer', which was something I may have just blindly accepted before. I think I'd like to do some more research into it.
About 70% of human sex drive is emotional, with the rest being physiological, and biological. Psychosexual development being a matter of nature, and nurture. I think I would definitely class rape-murders (murders involving sexual violence/assault such as oral and anal sodomy), or murders where there is evidence of semen at the scene as 'lust murders'.
In my opinion, there's definitely evidence of sexual anger in Jack's crimes. I'm not sure whether to class Jack as purely a 'lust killer' (if there is such a thing). And we'll never know his motivation, we can only guess. |
Diana
Detective Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 60
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 05, 2003 - 7:47 am: | |
I'm not sure what to say about Eddowes. You seem to have a point. Is it possible that Kelly ventured out again after Hutchinson left (assuming Hutchinson wasn't JTR) and in a variation of his gate technique crept into her empty room and waited? Of course you would have to get around the locked door. Or is it possible that after Hutchinson left he crept in and attacked the sleeping Kelly? Someone has ventured a guess that JTR had help. Is it possible that the man seen speaking to Eddowes was a "recruiter" for Jack? |
AP Wolf
Detective Sergeant
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 80
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 05, 2003 - 12:01 pm: | |
Marie
I'm glad that you are going to reconsider your thoughts on what you call 'lust' killers, and I would go along with you that there is evidence of a 'sexual anger' in Jack's crimes but I would even widen that a bit further by saying that this anger may well have been directed at the reproductive nature of sex rather than it's 'lustful' aspects.
I have always felt it important in this discussion to hold on to the basic fact that sex is after all firstly about biological reproduction, and then only secondly as a means of pleasure or fulfillment.
My true reading of this situation is that what we had here was a young man who did not know or understand the pleasurable or fulfilling apsects of sex and saw them only in their reproductive values, perhaps a young man whose only exposure to woman in general had been within a vicious family circle where he had witnessed attacks on his mother by his father, and had also been encouraged by his mother to view sex and the female function of reproduction with loathing and hatred - which was quite a common attitude in the Victorian age. Later on poor young chap discovers through medical text books that his mother has been teaching him to hate and despise the very thing that has produced him and hence he goes on to attack his mother.
Now what happens when a young man like this is confronted at midnight in a dark alleyway by an obviously sexually available female who is pressing him to do the very thing that he has been brought up to despise and hate.
We are talking inches here... his fight or flight mechanism would be explosive.
When the final inch closed he would fight, and as other cases have conclusively shown he would brutally murder and mutilate whoever had pressed into his precious territory.
That would have been the first time.
The next time? |
Diana
Detective Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 62
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 05, 2003 - 3:11 pm: | |
But according to you he went with them to a secluded spot. Couldn't he just have said No, I wont go? |
Diana
Detective Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 63
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 05, 2003 - 3:16 pm: | |
Update 4/05/03
1. physically strong
2. knowledge of local geography
3. anatomical knowledge
4. hated women
5. schizoid (disorganized) or sociopath (organized) or religious-obsessive
6. risk taker
7. age in 20s or 30s.
8. ethnic -- white, Anglo-Saxon or Irish
9. lower socioeconomic group
10. present in Whitechapel on relevant dates
11. hated reproductive function
12. sick, incarcerated, dead or moved away subsequent to the murders.
13. mutilated animals
14. self injury
15. control freak
16. con man or popped out of gates and grabbed them
17. Neurologically adept with spatial relationships |
Diana
Detective Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 64
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 05, 2003 - 3:19 pm: | |
I just thought of another one but I dont want to update twice in a day. 18. Probably had some kind of employment as all of the crimes occurred on weekends or holidays. (Would a totally disorganized killer be able to hold down a job?) |
Marie Finlay
Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 48
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 05, 2003 - 4:05 pm: | |
My own personal suspect would have some of the characteristics that are in the FBI profile. Although this profile is historically removed from Victorian London, I still feel it has some bearing on this case.
A male in his thirties, a victim of a dysfunctional family with an absent father (a family in which alcoholism and abuse may have been present). Someone with some kind of physical abnormality. A psychopath.
I think our killer knew what he was doing, and had motivations that justified his actions in his own mind. I think that he planned to kill his victims, that he pretended to solicit sex from them with that very intention in mind. I think that he was incapable of feeling any remorse for them, and above all, I think that he was very angry. Angry with society, angry with women, angry with everything.
These criteria make a strong case for Barnett.
Furthermore, Barnett suffered the 'Pre-crime stresser': the reason why a person turns to killing as a form of release. In fact, he suffered many pre-crime stressors: the loss of his job, Mary's subsequent return to prostitution, her further rejection of him for another man, and her bringing home a prostitute to live with them.
Humiliated and rejected, it must have seemed like he lost control of every area in his life. How could he not be rageful?
The murders could have served as a way to control Mary's behaviour, and to live out his own fantasies of hurting her, because she was hurting him. He may have blamed Mary's prostitute friends for dragging her back into that life. He certainly resented the girl who came to live with them. Reading the newspaper reports of the killings to Mary would have been another part of his attempt to control her. He may have even gotten a thrill from seeing her afraid. It may have been the only form of control he felt he had over her , anymore.
Fear is a great modifier of behaviour, people use it in their interpersonal relationships all the time. Many parents misuse it with their children. Siblings use it on each other. If Joe was mainly raised by his brother (an inexperienced parent, to say the least), he may have learned that tactic from him.
Perhaps when he saw that the fear wasn't enough to control her behaviour, and that she was never coming back to him, he may have finally killed her. Then he would have been simply too afraid to kill anymore in Whitechapel, if he even had the inclination.
To my mind, Barnett simply has a background and motivations that fit the case. If someone can show me a similar, but better suspect, I'll gladly switch my thinking on this case. Whichever way, it's a very sad story.
Hi Diana,
I think it's unlikely that Mary's killer crept in while she was asleep or out because, as you say, her door would have been locked. I'm fairly convinced that she brought her killer home with her.
I've often wondered myself if Jack had any help, it may go some way to explain why so many things don't add up in this case.
I don't know how you feel about Hutchinson, but personally I feel he was an extremely untrustworthy character.
AP Wolf, you make a strong case for your theory, and honestly, I can't say that it didn't happen that way. There just isn't enough information available for me to even make a solid case of my own.
As you say, we remain convinced by our own convictions!
It sounds like you already have a suspect in mind, though. If you do, I'd love to know who it is (sorry if this is a silly question).
|
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 151
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 05, 2003 - 5:07 pm: | |
G'day Caz,
There are no surving records of this great 'grilling' that police gave Barnett on the morning Kelly's body was found, so the only alibi we have, appeared in a newspaper where he said that he was playing whist until he went to bed at 12:30.
Mary Kelly's most likely time of death (about 4 a.m.), wasn't established until her inquest, and at that he wasn't even asked where he was!
If he was asked at the 'grilling' where he was on August 30/31, September 7/8, and October 29/30, he probably said something like: "Where was I?....I was ssselling OOranges..Sir"
How do we know no one ever said: "I saw him do it." There are no records of his whereabouts, until he got another porters license. No one ever recorded why he lost his first one.
No senior policeman ever named him as a 'most likely', because he completely avoided suspicion at the time!
At the inquest, no one bothered to ask him where he was, and why he changed his reason for leaving her. And the police inspector that noted his first given reason on the 9th, was there!
LEANNE |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, April 05, 2003 - 11:49 am: | |
"Saddam: no, not if he were an organized killer. they tend to leave very few clues behind at the scene. A disorganized killer's crime scene would be more like the one you describe, I think."
As I comprehend it, the lust killer is limited to the disorganized category. Therefore, JtR could not have been a lust killer because his crime scenes reflect organization.
Saddam Radka
|
Diana
Detective Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 65
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 05, 2003 - 6:57 pm: | |
a whole bunch of new points for the list. I'll add em tomorrow! |
Marie Finlay
Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 49
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 06, 2003 - 5:12 am: | |
Hi Saddam,
No, lust killers are NOT limited to the disorganized category, at all.
I'm still unsure whether to categorize JtR as a 'lust killer'. But I do agree, in that I put put him in the 'organized' bracket (cognizant of his crimes, and socially adept). |
Diana
Detective Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 66
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 06, 2003 - 7:33 am: | |
Update for Sunday
1. physically strong
2. knowledge of local geography
3. anatomical knowledge
4. hated women
5. schizoid (disorganized) or sociopath (organized)or mixed or religious-obsessive or autistic.
6. risk taker
7. age in 20s or 30s.
8. ethnic -- white, Anglo-Saxon or Irish
9. lower socioeconomic group
10. present in Whitechapel on relevant dates
11. hated reproductive function
12. sick, incarcerated, dead or moved away subsequent to the murders.
13. mutilated animals
14. self injury
15. control freak
16. con man or popped out of gates and grabbed them
17. Neurologically adept with spatial relationships
18. was employed
19. dysfunctional family -- alcoholism? abuse?
absent father?
20. physical abnormality?
21. precrime stressor
|
Scott Medine
Sergeant
Username: Sem
Post Number: 25
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 06, 2003 - 10:21 am: | |
It appears, that this is turning into a way to fit someone into a psychological profile. A profile that is quickly turning into a hodge podge mixture of points, indicators and landmarks that may or may not have anything to do with the case.
Might I suggest a simple three point test.
1) Motive (why did he do it)
2) Means ( was he emotionally and physically able to commit the crimes)
3) Oppurtunity ( was the time and victim afforded him)
Once a suspect fits all three then link him to the crime by facts, not conjecture.
It's as "old school" as a pair of canvas high tops, but it is still very effective and the backbone of any homicide investigation.
Peace,
Scott |
SirRobertAnderson
Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 11
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 06, 2003 - 10:27 am: | |
"16. con man or popped out of gates and grabbed them"
I have a problem with this item. The victims were all desperate, poverty stricken prostitutes. They'd have gone anywhere, willlingly, with a potential client. So why would you even give the slightest shred of plausibility to the notion that Jack grabbed his victims or popped up out of nowhere?
Sir Robert |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
