|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
thomas schachner
Police Constable
Username: Thomas
Post Number: 5
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 8:41 am: |       |
hello there,
i wanted to post this as plain text, but ocr-software doesn't recognize it properly, so here are the pictures.
maybe it is of interest.
it's the ripper project by william g. eckert
spry --> thx!
 |
thomas schachner
Police Constable
Username: Thomas
Post Number: 6
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 8:53 am: | |
 |
thomas schachner
Police Constable
Username: Thomas
Post Number: 7
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 8:55 am: | |
 |
thomas schachner
Police Constable
Username: Thomas
Post Number: 8
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 9:00 am: | |
 |
thomas schachner
Police Constable
Username: Thomas
Post Number: 9
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 9:01 am: | |
 |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 586
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 10:13 am: | |
Excellent, Thomas. Thank you. I agree with practically every word of it (although the last statement concerning Kosminski being the Ripper is a fallacy, the fact remains that the Ripper must be a person of similar character, although more violent and paranoid - Kosminski was appearantly harmless, but that was unknown at the time of this article).
I think it shows quite clearly that profiling is building its conclusions on existing facts and documents, and not on pseudo-psychological fantasies, that some wants to imply - and also that it is relevant to use it in studying old cases. Profiling and the study of criminal minds is merely an extension of ordinary crime scene reading and detection work, although its subjective nature of personal evaluations and interpretations naturally can result in wrong conclusions. But that could go for amny other methods as well.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Alan Sharp
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ash
Post Number: 128
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 10:21 am: | |
It is a fascinating article. Huge thanks for posting it Thomas.
Much of it of course is the basis for Douglas' section on Jack in "The Cases That Haunt Us" and he makes it clear in that book that he chose Kosminski only as the most likely candidate from those he was presented with. He also says that if David Cohen had been a candidate at the time he would have chosen him instead. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1098
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 11:04 am: | |
Thanks for that, Thomas. Some of it came out blurred on my screen, but I think I caught the gist of it.
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 589
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 12:58 pm: | |
"He also says that if David Cohen had been a candidate at the time he would have chosen him instead."
Exactly, Alan.
Yes, most of Douglas' arguments - as well as Douglas' and Hazelwood's statements in the Ustinov documentary - are indeed recognizable in this article.
By the way, Thomas:
Your post looks fine on my screen, though.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
AP Wolf
Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 462
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 12:58 pm: | |
Yes, Thomas, I too am grateful for a chance to study this document, though perhaps for a different reason than others, for I find it confirms my worst fears about profilers and the nonsensical myths they propagate and disseminate.
Just let me quote a few of the more startling revelations:
‘If the victims were buried locally, he would visit their gravesites to relive his lust murders.’
Not true. There is absolutely no evidence to support this whacky contention. Yes, a certain type of killer - like Bundy - will visit the remote and unmarked sites where he has buried his victims but this is to make sure that nobody has come across the site by accident.
To my certain knowledge no killer has ever been caught visiting the marked grave of one of his victims.
This guy has been reading Wilson.
‘Jack the Ripper believed that the homicides were justified - that he was only eliminating garbage.’
Again not true. There is absolutely no evidence to support this wild claim, apart from a single statement from Sutcliffe where he claimed to be ‘cleaning up the streets’. And anyway I thought this forensic witch doctor was already claiming that Jack was a ‘lust’ killer?
So was Jack a garbage man or a sexual maniac? He can’t have it both ways.
This list of Jack’s possible employment where he might ‘experience his destructive fantasies’ is edifying.
‘Butcher, mortician’s helper, medical examiner’s assistant or hospital attendant.’
This is so trite and childish that it could have come from a kindergarten.
Right, hands up… how many killers do we know of who were ever in any of these trades or professions?
Not many eh?
So a ‘lust’ murderer - whatever that is - targets the ‘vaginal area and breasts as his focal point’.
Not true. Richard Chase falls into this dubious classification but you see Richard planned to drink the blood and eat the organs, this is not lust, this is weird hunger.
I could cite many cases where women have been murdered and mutilated by so called ‘lust’ killers where the breasts and vaginal areas have not been touched.
Are you still trying to tell me that profiling is not based on pseudo-psychological fantasies?
This is mumbo jumbo first class.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 590
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 1:31 pm: | |
AP!
Let me just say that I am by no means surprised by your reaction; it was clearly expected. And I have no intention whatsoever to try to "tell you" anything. Life is short. You have to make up your own mind, and you obviously already has.
I must state however, that there are certain statements in the article that I question as well, and they are mostly the ones you point out.
According to FBI it is quite common that serial killers try to relive their crimes, not only by collecting souvenirs or trophees, but also in returning to the scene of the crime or visiting grave sites (the latter I agree is not that common). Some have been spotted anttending the victims' funeral etc. But I am not sure if this could apply to the kind of disorganized killer the profilers claim Jack the Ripper to be. It is more common among regular psychopaths, in my view. Most doubtful.
"Jack the Ripper believed that the homicides were justified - that he was only eliminating garbage."
I agree that this is quite a wild claim as well. This conclusion I think goes beyond the material available for analysing. I'm not sure it necessarily is that contrdictive, though.
The list of possible employment I think is quite relevant, though. This is what many other contributors here have said as well - also those who don't believe in criminal profiling. And not to mention the police themselves at the time. So this is not really that much of a news flash. I think it is quite correct; if you look at the crimes, it is plausible that the murderer has some knowledge and experience of how to use his knife. I also want to point out that a good deal of existing "suspects" in the Ripper case, has some kind of occupational background as those mentiones. I don't think this conclusion is more far out than the ridiculous fairy-tale about the Ripper being a medical doctor.
"I could cite many cases where women have been murdered and mutilated by so called ‘lust’ killers where the breasts and vaginal areas have not been touched."
Well, AP. That is quite poitless. I could give you a lot of examples where they have, so you can't prove that that paticular statement is wrong. You could pick any example that suits you, and so can I.
Noone has said that profiling theories or deductions are water-proof or are meant to collect "evidence". Those claims are common among those who are quite ignorant on the matter. Compared to other imaginative meyhods and attempts to fit "facts into theory" in order to stress a suspect, this method is at least based on attempts on trying to read and understand the facts. And to find a structure to it. Nobody has claimed that it's perfect. And, I might add, neither are other theoretical methods or aspects of police work.
"This is mumbo jumbo first class."
Compared to what...?
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 591
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 2:07 pm: | |
AP, regarding your last message on the Barnett thread:
What is infecting the discussion (although I don't really feel it to be that infected; I actually think it's quite interesting), is your attempts to twist my words. I have never said that the base premis is that women are sexual objects. That is your own interpretation. And again, you're reasoning saying that "men do not view women as sex objects" is based on how a sound mind works; I find that hard to believe in general when we're talking male serial killers. I'm sure some of them have other grounds for their conducts, but that many such cases have a sexual undertone shouldn't really come as a surprise. Let me point out to you, that this is not my invention - the opinion comes from those who deal with serial killers on a regular basis. I really don't see the delicacy of the matter.
"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."
Yes, that would be very understandable, but I have never done that. I'm just saying what I think, and I am basing this on sources that I personally find relatively credible. You keep referring to Hite, like he was some kind of house God who have all the answers that everybody should accept. His opinions may very well be plausible (I unfortunately can't comment on them since I haven't read his work), but he is still only one in the crowd of academics making "ground breaking" research. Since I come from an academic environment, I have learnt that there no such thing as a scientist, whose statements everyone should accept as stated facts. You may very well believe in him (and I sure shall do my best to read his report when possible), but you can't force me into doing so. What is there to prove that he is right, compared to others? I sure don't believe everything Douglas or Hazelwood says. Believe me. I actually have a mind of my own, but that won't on the other hand keep me from agreeing with theories that I feel correspond with my own personal thoughts on the matter.
I have seen many great results from criminal profiling, and if it was total mumbo jumbo, I fail to see why its methods should be used to such a great extent as they really are. I may not agree with everything and they sure don't succeed all the time, but I prefer to take the words from those work with the problem on a daily basis nad have long experience in dealing with it, and I believe that is quite resonable to do so.
I wish I could tell you that I am completely objective on this matter, but then I'm afraid I wouldn't be honest with you. We all have our preferred preferences.
All the best, AP
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Chris Scott
Chief Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 656
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 2:21 pm: | |
Found these comments in an academic paper which drew on the Eckert study:
Jack the Ripper: Perhaps the most infamous and sensationalized serial murderer of all time is the self-named "Jack the Ripper". He is credited with having killed at least 5 female victims between August 31 and November 9, 1888, in the Whitechapel section of the East End of London.
According to Eckert, (1981):
"Each victim was a woman of the streets who was a heavy drinker and apparently heavily intoxicated when she was killed. All except one were strangled, had their throats cut, and were mutilated after they were killed. The victim who was not mutilated was strangled and saved from desecration when the killer was startled and interrupted before carrying out postmortem mutilation. The last victim was killed indoors, and all deaths occurred late in the evening or in the early morning hours. "
This killer was never identified, and subsequently never apprehended.
At least one heavily referenced work has described these offenses as sadistic: "His two assaults were ritualized, compulsive, and highly sadistic, much along the lines of the classic case of Jack the Ripper," (Burgess et al, 1992).
However, interpretations rendered in Eckert (1989) and Turvey (1999) point towards a demonstrably non-sadistic offender who evidences both anger-retaliatory and reassurance oriented behaviors.
According to Turvey, (1999) "There is a lot of passive anger evidenced in these crimes, and other behaviors speak to a lot of inadequacy on the part of the offender." Key behaviors included:
The lack of sexual assault to the victims;
The fact that the victims were overpowered on the street, killed, and mutilated in a short space of time save the last victim, discovered indoors;
The lack of any evidence of torture to a living, conscious victim;
Power over the victim’s sexuality by humiliating them with postmortem mutilation and displaying of their bodies. This behavior is also experimental in nature, as opposed to ritualistic (he does different things with the organs from each body—not the same exact thing every time);
The need to instill fear, terror, or shock in the public and law enforcement, thereby demonstrating his power and superiority to law enforcement;
The need to have his actions seen or heard about by others; the need to have his victims found and his "work" on display.
The full paper, entitled "Sadistic Behavior: A Literature Review" can be found at
http://www.corpus-delicti.com/sadistic_behavior.html
|
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 592
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 2:38 pm: | |
Thanks, Chris.
Interesting, I shall print it out and read it.
Short comments in direct connection to the short drafts above, though:
Yes, I think both Eckert and Turvey could be right in their agreed conclusions regarding the non-sadistic features. I find it hard to see the Ripper as a sadistic killer.
But I think Turvey and Baeza is a bit far off in their two last statements:
The need to instill fear, terror, or shock in the public and law enforcement, thereby demonstrating his power and superiority to law enforcement;
The need to have his actions seen or heard about by others; the need to have his victims found and his "work" on display.
Everything is of course a matter of opinion, but I think these last behavior signs are irrelevant and even rubbish as far as Jack the Ripper is concerned. These deductions are based on the knowledge of cunning and maipulative psycopaths/sociopaths (like the Zodiac Killer). They don't belong, however, in the JtR context. Hazelwood and Douglas has, like Eckert, also the opposite view to Turvey and Baeza; Hazelwood, Douglas and Eckert argue that this kind of killer most likely DON'T want to indulge themselves in the investigation or draw any attention to themselves. The fact that the Ripper letters appears to be hoaxes also supports this theory.
There are no signs that Jack the Ripper wanted to shock or demonstrate his power. That approach is - on the other hand - a common characteristic for a psycopathic serial killer. The way the bodies were left behind doesn't in itself prove that they deliberately were left on display. We can't rule it out, but I don't think that is the case. If one didn't know the rest of the context, I can understand their reasoning, but as I see it, the way the mutilated bodies wer left behind was due to other causes and don't necessary have a symbolic meaning to it.
I am also very doubtful about Turvey and Baeza dismissing the mutilations as ritualistic. Anyway, I better read the rest of it first.
Thanks again, Chris.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
AP Wolf
Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 463
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 3:35 pm: | |
Glenn
What Hite has attempted to do is construct a radical historical view of mankind’s sexuality from Biblical times to now, and she has done that mainly to try and clear up many of the sexual misconceptions that we as a species suffer about ourselves.
Her modern research has been carried out purely by massive feed back and polls from her wide readership, so she is telling it how it really is.
I believe her work represents the largest and most comprehensive research ever undertaken on this planet.
You must read it, but I warn you it will take you years.
Again I agree with much of your sentiment but I’m afraid we will just have to learn to disagree politely when it comes to documents such as the complete and utter poppycock that we discuss here.
It is infantile and I would expect better result and expertise from a bunch of fourth formers smoking good quality grass.
Sorry, but I do know academic excellence when I see it, and this sort of trite nonsense is not that.
Anyways I’ll hold my fire there - with my best wishes - that is until the next time you or someone else tries to tell me that Jack was either a ‘lust’ killer or his motivation was sexual gratification.
It aint good enough, you all must try harder.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 593
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 5:24 pm: | |
OK, AP. Fair enough.
Firstly I want to apologize; I never realized that Hite was a "she" - not that it matters, but nevertheless.
As I said, I don't doubt at all that her work is vast or important, but I am certainly opposed to the fact that one researcher should be regarded as having monopoly of the truth. That is something I never will accept. The academic world is full of conflicts and contradictive statements, and I am sure that in ten years time there will be another one in the similar field who has found the "ultimate truth" and will rip (hmmm...) her work to pieces. That's just how things work. I know nothing about Hite's background and her experience of crimes, but - as I said - I prefer to listen to those who deal with the serial killer context on a daily basis, and who have met these characters in person for several years.
The thing about criminal profiling is, that it is not meant to be academic, AP, and that is partly why it's attractive to me; it is merely based on results from empiric observations and common sense, and is only considered to be a tool among others. It has never claimed either to be intellectual or scientific.
I think it's quite OK to have a favourite authour or researcher whose opinions fit ones own personal views, but I think it is dangerous to say that the person in question "is telling it how it is". In criminal profiling I find Douglas and Hazelwood to be my preferable sources, but I wouldn't dream of saying that what they're saying is the ultimate truth - I do find them favourable in relation to my own personal standards and opinions, though. But that is completely different.
I'll give up trying, AP. You are entitled to your opinion and we may very well agree to disagree. As long as you come to terms that I am entitled to mine, and that you don't crack up everytime I feel like calling Jack a lust murderer. 
Thanks for the discussion nevertheless and best wishes back, AP.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
AP Wolf
Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 465
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 5:32 pm: | |
Fair enough Glenn,
I'll just drink more quality brandy everytime you mention the dreaded word 'lust'.
I've enjoyed our tussle. |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 594
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 5:42 pm: | |
Great, AP.
A recommendation: Renault Blue Nuit. An excellent brandy to enjoy on cold winter evenings. Maybe not one of the more expensive ones, but excellent together with coffe and chocolate. Then hopefully you finally will be able to connect the term "lust" with something more positive... 
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Chris Phillips
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 124
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 27, 2003 - 3:18 am: | |
I found it interesting that so many of the details should be wrong, in an academic study. After four days of "intimate" discussions of the prime suspects, it's strange that several glaring errors should be made in the very brief descriptions.
On a point of a bit more substance, because it's often repeated:
He would work Monday through Friday, and have Friday night, Saturday, and Sunday free.
Isn't this projecting back modern working practices to the 1880s? I don't believe many (if any) working-class people had Saturdays off in 1888. Unless they were Jewish, I suppose, but I suppose they worked a six-day week too.
And of course, two of the murders took place in the early hours of Fridays (though presumably the day of the Lord Mayor's Show was a holiday for many). So on this reasoning, we should be looking for someone who worked Monday to Thursday only?
Chris Phillips
|
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 195
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 27, 2003 - 8:28 am: | |
Not only are the details wrong, the entire premise is wrong. He's throwing a stone into the darkness, hoping to hit something. It accomplishes nothing, except, perhaps, to foster the delusion that he is somehow 'solving the case.' |
AP Wolf
Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 466
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 27, 2003 - 12:53 pm: | |
Glenn
Whilst on this subject I was wondering if you aware of the work of one Dr David Abrahamsen, who describes himself as a ‘Forensic Scientist’ and produced the absolutely monumental work about Jack the Ripper entitled (wait for it………):
‘Murder and Madness, The Secret Life of Jack the Ripper Based on Heretofore Unrevealed Information from Scotland Yard’
Well if not, this is something you just have to read, as it wonderfully illustrates the madness of modern forensic profiling when left unchecked by good honest police work and common sense.
Amongst other jewels this Freudian genius claims that Prince Albert and his tutor JK Stephen murdered the prostitutes whilst in drag to satisfy their sexual resentments, and his startling evidence to back up this claim is that JK Stephen smoked a pipe, and Prince Albert wore collar and cuffs.
Elementary me dear Watson! I hear you say.
He also claims that men have sex with prostitutes because of an infantile fixation with their mothers, and women become prostitutes because they want to exact revenge on their fathers.
Alimentary me dear Watson!
Allow me one quote from this sparkling genius of the forensic trade:
‘Sexual perversion is an erotic expression of hate with perverted sexual behaviour being the result of psychological castration.’
Quite.
Now can you tell me what this fellow is blathering on about?
Abrahamsen regards homosexual behaviour as a ‘perversion’.
He assures all his readers that they all possess the impulse to kill; and he claims that the sexual drive in all of us is linked to hate and murder.
He also has a fine theory about why the prostitutes were such easy prey for Jack, and I’ll share it with you if you send over one of those fine bottles of brandy you mentioned.
You must read this book.
|
Alan Sharp
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ash
Post Number: 135
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 27, 2003 - 2:15 pm: | |
Personally I would love to read this book, if only because if you don't read the bad ones, how do you know which ones are the good ones.
Yes AP, I've not read the book but from your description Abrahamsen was quite plainly an idiot. But then there are good and bad in all walks of life including the realm of the published ripperologist, one only has to look at the fine works of Ms Cornwell and Messers Knight and Edwards to realise that. (That's fine as in, if I had my way they would be fined heavily for inflicting such drivel on the public.)
However with regard to profiling, you actually make the point yourself here when you use the words when left unchecked by good honest police work and common sense.
Profiling, if done correctly, should never be a be-all and end-all and should never, ever, take the place of good honest police work and common sense.
The profiler himself would be the first to admit that it is exactly those things that he relies on. His job is not to investigate the crime but simply to support those who do. Based on experience he examines their reports of the crime scene, victim selection and method of killing and suggests - note that word suggests, it is an important one - possible traits to look out for when attempting to identify a suspect.
His job is then, having completed his profile, to study the details of any suspects who might so far have been identified by the Detectives on the ground through good honest police work and common sense and suggest - hey, there's that word again - which ones seem the most likely.
Finally, because the average police detective will during a working career be involved in maybe one or two at the most major murder cases (ie ones where the perpetrator is not found standing over the body with a bloody knife mumbling "oh god what have I done") whereas the a BSU operative is likely to be involved in several hundred per year, his job is to suggest - oh and three times is a charm - possible lines of questioning that he believes might get results from that particular suspect based on what has worked with similar types of offenders in the past.
It isn't mumbo-jumbo, it isn't astrology, it's just common sense based on years of experience of seeing the same traits turn up in offenders time and time again and thus being able to predict that those same traits may - and I stress again MAY - turn up this time. |
AP Wolf
Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 469
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 27, 2003 - 5:02 pm: | |
Alan
Sound reasoning, although I still like to keep profilers at least a mile away from any crime scene.
Actually I do have a lot of time for criminal profilers when they are profiling, it is just when they get a chance to write a book that they seem to be given a shovel and a powerful lot of manure to fill that book, just as in the volume I have mentioned above.
Basically, criminal profiling is no big deal and I have always reckoned that the expertise and experience involved would just about make a magazine article, and that’s why the books are so bloody awful.
I remember very well the first big case in the UK where they used the expertise of a profiler to try and profile the criminal who was raping women in the vicinity of railway stations and the profiler came up with the stratospheric conclusion that the rapist might well be working on or at least travelling on the railway… and that he might well live near a railway station.
Christopher Columbus I thought. This is a revelation indeed.
Anyways if you would like the book I still might have it, although I have thrown it into the sea several times the tide has washed it back in and my dogs have found it.
I must look through some of my profiler infested cellars to see if I can’t find it.
Just let me know.
Just made the curfew there.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 604
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 28, 2003 - 8:01 pm: | |
Hi, AP.
No, I haven't heard of the bloke and have never read his piece either. But thanks for the tip. Sounds more like an entertaining excursion into fiction land to me, though.
Let me just say: if that is criminal profiling, I am Uncle Scrooge.
Criminal profiling is based on:
a) evidence from the crime scene
b) experiences from contacts with other serial killers and similar crimes
c) criminal psychology
d) victimology (the personal history of the victims
e) all relevant documentation and report files concerning the case in question
f) medical and authopsy reports concerning the case.
In the context of profiling, I must say, though, that I fail to see how any of these basics above could support Abrahamsen's ludicrous theories and "conclusions". But I do get the feeling that he has read too much by the late Stephen Knight...
Profilers of the FBI unit have a background in ordinary police work on the field - mostly police officers and detectives - so they therefore are quite experienced in how to handle crime scene evidence etc. When I read about Abrahamsen's attempts of profiling deduction, it even strengthen my worst judgements of academics entering the field. Blimey!
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 605
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 28, 2003 - 8:05 pm: | |
Alan,
Thank you for reasonable post and a fine summary of the aims and working standards of profiling. Right on the money.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
