|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Serial Killer Profiling
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: Research Issues / Philosophy:
Serial Killer Profiling
Author: Linda Stratmann
Wednesday, 22 January 2003 - 03:44 pm |        | Many thanks to everyone who replied about my request for the text of the profile. I have quite a few books on serial killers and profiling and the thing that has been puzzling me is the profile quoted by Bruce Paley, which suggests that a serial killer will stop killing if he feels he is near to detection. All the profilers I have read state that basically a serial killer stops when he is dead, incapacitated or locked up. Comments?
Linda |
Author: Dan Norder
Wednesday, 22 January 2003 - 03:58 pm | | Linda-
Profiles are based off of what we know from criminals who were caught. Criminals who stop are a heck of a lot less likely to be caught. They obviously would be under represented in the available data.
We do know of some who had stopped and were caught later, and a number of unsolved serial killings that stopped without the person being caught. Certainly some of the killings that stopped may have been because the person was caught for some other offense or died on their own, but we can't assume that explains all such cases.
Many profilers jump to some pretty strong conclusions without a lot of data to back it up. The idea that serial killers are unthinking machines who simply cannot stop on their own for any reason seems to be pretty foolish.
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Wednesday, 22 January 2003 - 05:41 pm | | It is true that only the serial killers that have been interviewed are the ones that were caught. You have to start somewhere and with something. It is also true that there are problems with the information that the FBI gained from their interviews. However, this does not taint the historical value of the crimes and criminals that committed them. In any type of work one must always fall back on the history pertinent to the job.
There are some things that we know about serial predators. They are generally male, they are generally the same race as their victims (The key word there was generally). They were bed wetters who committed atrocities to animals and started fires. But this just puts one in tune with the mind set of the killer. As a former homicide detective this was of very little use for me. What use I did gain from it was in weeding out suspects.
All profiles are not accurate. What the general public does not realize is that life is not as orderly as detective novels, true crime books, T.V. and movies. Because of that fact, there are a lot of things that we really do not know about criminals in general, not just serial predators. I keep bringing up the point about M.O. and signature. It is held that M.O. changes and evolves but signature does not. I really do not think we can hold to fast to that theory because we have never found, apprehended or been presented with a killer that has changed his signature. For the longest, it has been held that killers are intra-racial. However, Jeffery Dahlmer changed the rule by killing outside of his race. So, in essence as I stated earlier, serial predators are generally the same race as their victims but this is not a hard fast rule.
Serial killers are pretty much a rare thing. The average run of the mill homicide is by far the most difficult to solve. The old lady held up in the store parking lot who refuses to let go of her purse and gets killed in the process. The drive by shooting. The rapist who accidentally kills his victim while committing the act and then decides to torch the place. I worked a case in New Orleans that remains unsolved to this day. During Mardi Gras, A man breaks into an apartment and is surprised by the resident. He kills her and makes off with a jar of change. The problem is that the apartment was across the street from a bus terminal. The only clue to go on is a smudged foot print on the door. The profile of the killer is simply a drug addict on a bus, passing through, needs money for a quick hit.
In closing, profiling is a great tool. There are many different kinds of profiling, psychological, crime scene, geographical, astrological and criminal and yes, even racial and ethnic and I have used them all from time to time. All have their time and place and in the hands of a skillful, detail oriented person they can work wonders. But the two things to remember are that any profile is only as good as the information going into it and a profile only eliminates suspects.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Thursday, 23 January 2003 - 05:48 am | | Hi Scott,
Well said! And that in a few words. Especially your last sentence. Similar words hang over my desk and creep over my computer monitor when the screensaver goes up.
Yours,
Philip |
Author: Linda Stratmann
Friday, 24 January 2003 - 04:11 pm | | Dan - I never suggested that serial killers are unthinking machines - that would indeed be foolish - the work of Ressler and others has shown that they are in the grip of powerful fantasies, which are being re-enacted in their crimes. The man who committed the Ripper murders and mutilations must surely have been seriously mentally ill. I think that when considering any potential suspect, the question of why the murders stopped is the most important one to answer convincingly.
Linda |
Author: Dan Norder
Saturday, 25 January 2003 - 02:49 pm | | Linda,
Without catching the killer we won't know why the killings stopped. Since serial killers can and do stop on their own, trying to base a suspect on the assumption that they still would have been mutilating people if they could isn't going to be helpful.
And be careful by what you assume about the killer's mental state too. Most of the serial killers we've caught have been psychopaths, in the sense that they are morally corrupt and can't sympathize with other human beings, but don't show strong outward symptoms of any mental problems. Jack could have been, and in my opinion most likely was, someone who was not obviously mentally ill.
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Saturday, 25 January 2003 - 06:34 pm | | Hi Linda,
Most of the profilers and psychologists who have addressed the matter have concluded that Jack the Ripper was mentally ill. In fact, I am unaware of anyone trained in analyzing the minds of serial killers who has come to the opposite conclusion in this case.
So, your opinion is held by good company.
I, myself, have no idea about the killer's mental state.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Linda Stratmann
Friday, 31 January 2003 - 02:13 pm | | Hi Rich
I got into this discussion because I was interested in the origins of the profile quoted by Paley, but so far, I haven't traced this. I will dig further. Paley has suggested that a serial killer will stop when he thinks he is close to detection. Obviously Paley has to try and fit the profile to his candidate, as if we accept that serial killers don't suddenly stop killing, Barnett is well out of the frame! Experience has shown that a serial killer sensing the heat is on, might move location, but there is no evidence that he will stop. Of all the killers we know about none stopped voluntarily, although Ed Kemper turned himself in. There are various series of murders where no-one was caught, and the murders stopped, but of course we can have no idea why this happened.
I agree with Dan that many of these killers do not seem obviously mentally ill - I have seen many recorded interviews with such men who appear quite normal and pleasant, as they talk calmly about their crimes, and we all know that Ted Bundy could be quite a charmer when he wanted to be. But I do think that the question of why did the murders stop is one of the most important ones we must ask in attempting to identify the killer. In fact I would say that if a possible suspect lived free for three or four years after the murders in an area where no comparable crimes were committed, then we have to abandon the idea of him as a suspect.
Regards
Linda |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Friday, 31 January 2003 - 03:57 pm | | Linda, I've put forward this argument a couple of times before, but it doesn't cut any ice,---
if Barnett was killing the victims,-- Mary's aqaintancies,--possibly!, to try and keep Mary from going back to prostitution, to frighten her off the street in fact, then he was killing for a logical reason. Of course it was a madman's way of going about things, but not a raving madman,---he had a reason that you or I could understand.
Suppose the person who was responsible for his line of reasoning suddenly revealed herself to him as completely false, and a betrayer of his trust, then after the stress of the previous killings, he was unable to hold back, and he killed her in the same way as the others. I think he would know it was over and there would be no further killings.
Rick |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Saturday, 01 February 2003 - 03:51 am | | Hi Linda & Rick,
Your post makes a lot of sense.
I am not sure I can go along necessarily with your contention that a serial killer never simply stops murdering. Obviously, many serial killers do stop. And in a few instances we can identify why. However, if a serial killer simply does stop it is unlikely he will confess his crime. Therefore, he may stop on his own and we would never know. I do not know if it is impossible that a serial killer is dealing with some compulsion he is eventually able to conquer.
Your other topic, whether the murderer was mentally ill or not, is more complex. Personally, I do not know what the killer's mental state was. I am not a psychologist.
I do not see how anyone can definitively say the killer did not suffer from mental illness - since we do not know who the killer was. Many psychologists and profilers have come to the conclusion that Jack the Ripper was mentally ill. I have no idea whether they are correct.
Rick,
The Barnett theory certainly could explain why the murders ceased. The problem I have with the theory, which may be more reflective of my limited thinking, is I am unaware of any circumstance in history when a serial killer struck to "frighten" a loved one into some kind of conduct.
This does not mean that it didn't happen - I am just reluctant to endorse a theory which apparently is based on an entirely newly discovered kind of serial killer.
What I find more plausible is the possibility that Barnett murdered Kelly - but no one else in the series.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Saturday, 01 February 2003 - 05:59 am | | Hello Rich,
thank you for the kind way you received mine and Paley's explanation of the murders, a number of people completely rubbish it.I think you can relate that kind of killing to, No.1, a contract killing, --but a contract made to yourself,-- for gain!!!. No.2, a kidnapping type of murder, "do this, do that, or you don't see your child again. Some killers will even take a pet dog or a pet cat and kill if their demands are not met.
But really Rich I have to say, do you really think you can think up a way of committing a murder that has not been thought of before?, a way of killing someone that has not been DONE!! before,-- I can't
All the Best Rick |
Author: Timsta
Saturday, 01 February 2003 - 01:32 pm | | Hi all.
Caught some of a History Channel program on the Zodiac last night, which got me thinking. He appeared to 'stop'. In the sense of stop killing, and also stop writing to police and the press. Does anyone have any thoughts on this, and whether we can draw any parallels with the Whitechapel Murders?
Regards
Timsta
PS yes, I have read Graysmith's books, btw. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Saturday, 01 February 2003 - 04:19 pm | | Hi Timsta,
As you know from the documentary, the main suspect in the Zodiac killings was arrested on an unrelated charge to those murders.
I find it interesting that this suspect went to prison for four years (at which time the letters stopped coming to the media and police). Yet, the day after he was released from prison, suddenly a letter appeared.
I think it is quite possible that the killer was institutionalized or was incapacitated and this is the reason the killings ceased.
Another plausible explanation is that the killer did not stop his spree. He may have moved somewhere else and resumed his practices, or possibly, he remained in the area and changed his modus operandi and continued murdering - yet these killings were never attributed to him.
I, quite frankly, am very puzzled why the so called canonical five are accepted as all and only Ripper victims.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Dave Yost
Saturday, 01 February 2003 - 06:10 pm | | HI Rich,
I don't post alot (and it has been a long time since I did), but many modern profilers have much more to work with than we do with our dear jack.
For similarities I would recommend a study of Cummins..known as the blackout ripper..struck in London during WWII.
As for the Canon 5, enough do not accept all 5 as vics, and the tally (depending on who you talk to), will say 3-11 (or more), depending on who their favorite suspect is.
Dave |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Sunday, 02 February 2003 - 12:39 am | | Hi Dave,
That's my read on the case too - I would place 3 victims as nearly definite and about 8 or 9 more victims as possible (in varying degrees of certainty).
Rich |
|
|
|
|
