|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Diana
Detective Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 102
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 27, 2003 - 1:18 pm: | 
|
Arbie La Bruckman's Rating
1physically strong (0-10 points) 8
2. schizoid (disorganized, motive was personal) or sociopath (organized, motive was lust)or mixed or religious-obsessive or autistic. (.175-9.825 points) 5
3. Neurologically adept with spatial relationships (.328-9.672points) 5
4. nocturnal at least on weekends and holidays (.481-9.519 points) 5
5. con man or popped out of gates and grabbed them, or chose the extremely desperate (.634-9.366 points) 5
6. present in Whitechapel on relevant dates (.787-9.213 points) 8.7
7. some experience in killing (slaughterhouse? military?) (.940-9.060 points) 9.060
8. risk taker (1.093-8.907 points) 5
9.knowledge of local geography (1.246-8.754 points) 7
10. control freak (1.399-8.601 points) 5
11. age in 20s or 30s. (1.552-8.448 points) 8.448
12. anatomical knowledge (1.705-8.295 points) 7.5
13. dysfunctional family -- alcoholism? abuse?absent father? (1.858-8.142 points) 5
14. History of lesser crimes. (2.011-7.989 points) 7
15. was employed (2.164-7.836 points) 7.836
16. Robbed victims -- no victim found with money (2.317 -7.683 points) 5
17. precrime stressor (2.470-7.530 points) 5
18. sick, incarcerated, dead or moved away subsequent to the murders (2.623-7.377 points) 7.377
19. lower socioeconomic group (2.776-7.224 points) 6.5
20. ethnic -- white, Anglo-Saxon or Irish (2.929-7.071 points) 2.929
21. physical abnormality? (3.082-6.918 points) 5
22. hated women (3.235-6.765 points) 5
23. hated reproductive function (3.388-6.612 points) 5
24. mutilated animals (3.541-6.459 points) 6.459
25. self injury (3.694-6.306 points) 5
26. Personally knew Eddowes and/or Kelly? (facial mutilations) (3.847-6.153 points) 5
27. Paid them with liquor to get them drunk? (4-6 points) 5
The highest possible score would be 215.725. The lowest would be 54.298 giving a range of 161.427. Anything in the neighborhood of 135 would reflect maximum uncertainty. Moving upward from 135 would give a greater indication of guilt and downward, innocence.
La Bruckman's total score is 156.81 or an average of 5.81. Not out of the running but not enough info to make any kind of a case -- and he was one of my favorites! |
Jason Scott Mullins
Detective Sergeant
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 82
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 1:02 pm: |
|
Hey There Diana -
I have a question (please don't take it the wrong way, I'm just curious). How can we possibly hazard a guess at most of those rating questions about La Bruckman? I mean, it's not as if any of us knew him. Best I can tell we have very little info on him. At the very least, we don't enough to answer most of these questions. Am I wrong about this?
How can we possibly guess at things like "self injury" or "control freak", let alone rate them on a scale if we don't have direct proof?
I honestly mean no dis-respect.. it just struck me as an odd thing to try to quantify. I said to myself "Self, how can we possibly rate this guy on most of these when we barely know anything about him, yet alone something as deep and personal as self injury"
So, I thought I'd ask 
crix0r |
Michael Raney
Detective Sergeant
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 72
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 1:40 pm: |
|
Diana,
Again, no disrespect intended. I would love to know where you got that kind of information. That scale is the type of tool I use each day in my work and could no way answer in the way you did without having some very direct personal information. Could you please enlighten us.
Mikey
|
Joe Dawson
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, January 07, 2006 - 10:36 am: |
|
The scale above seems to be designed to consider 3 basic settings: likely, unlikely and uncertain. Every scoring of "5" (the middle of every category) would bring us closer to a "perfectly uncertain" score of 135. So in other words, only the non-5s are areas that the author actually claims any knowledge of. The basis for every non-5 can be found in at least "The Ripper in America." The author's conclusion is basically that we just don't have much information about him, not that he's particularly likely or unlikely.
It seems to be a nifty model for comparing all the ripper suspects on the same scale, even though different types of evidence implicated each of them.
Incidentally, I tested a few random suspects against it and found Hutchinson to tie with La Bruckman, while more likely suspects Klosowski and Kosminski tested about 20 points higher. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
