|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Archive through 25 July 2002
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: Miscellaneous:
A quick question regarding serial killers in general.:
Archive through 25 July 2002
Author: Jordan Sunderland
Monday, 22 July 2002 - 01:21 am |        | Hello all,
This is my first post to any of the message boards, so please forgive my ignorance and any mistakes I will probably make.
I do not want to get into a discussion about possible Ripper suspects. I simply have a general question about serial killers in general.
It is widely believed that serial killers such as Jack the Ripper, who seem to derive a sort of sexual pleasure from their killings, would never stop killing unless they are forced to, either by death or capture. I was just wondering, where does this belief come from? Is it based on the FBI's serial killer profiler unit's work?
I simply have a little difficulty in accepting this "theory". It seems to me that the Inductive Logical Fallacy of Hasty Generalization is taking place here. In this type of fallacy, the conclusion is based on insufficent examples.
Forgive me, I was a philosophy minor in college.
It seems to me that the "theory" about serial killers is based on all the killers that are known about. Is it not possible that in the future there could be a a serial killer such as Jack the Ripper that does stop killing without being caught or killed? If this does happen, it would greatly alter this belief. And if it can be altered so, isn't it a bad belief to hold?
This has been nagging at my mind for a while now. My college roommate is a regular on these boards and said that there is always intelligent discussion to be found here. So I thought I'd throw my own humble ideas into the mix.
Any thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated.
Jordan |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Monday, 22 July 2002 - 02:01 am | | Hello, Jordan:
Welcome to the boards! I would type the general answers to your questions, but it is probably best to direct you to the following: http://www.crimelibrary.com/serials/what/whatmain.htm
The document is entitled "What Makes Serial Killers Tick", written by Shirley Lynn Scott. Of course, it is difficult to say that each SK will behave exactly the same way, but it gives you a general idea of the average behavior of the typical SK.
Hope you find this useful!
Warm regards,
Divia |
Author: Jordan Sunderland
Monday, 22 July 2002 - 02:27 am | | How do,
Thanks Divia, I will definitely check out that article.
Jordan |
Author: Jack Traisson
Monday, 22 July 2002 - 02:58 am | | Hi Jordan,
The FBI may be responsible for popularizing profiling but, in a sense, it has always been with us. MacNaghten believed that Jack's brain gave way after the awful glut at Miller's Court. At some time, both Anderson and Swanson believed that JtR was incarcerated. While ex-Detective Inspector, Harry Cox (City Police) disagreed with both these opinions in an article in 'Thompson's Weekly News' 1906. He claimed that the motive for these murders was revenge and not a lust for blood. The killer was a misogynist who came from the same class as his victims. There are many other examples of early profiling. All you have to do is read the contemporary press reports.
People have always looked for reasons of abhorent behavior. Nineteenth-century phrenologists studied head sizes, counted lumps, and examined facial features, all in attempt to explain why people do what they do. People will also always bring their personal bias into a case of serial murder. We draw on what we've seen, heard, read, and believed. If serial killers were bed-wetters, then so was Jack. If most were abused, so was Jack. If most were 25-30, so was Jack. He's anything you, I, Harry Cox, or John Douglas wants him to be. The problem becomes that there are no paradigms when it comes to serial killers. All, none, or part of the above statements may be true.
Statistically speaking, multiple murderers are so rare that it is impossible to gather enough reliable data to form conclusions about there personal traits and behavior. A detailed description of a serial killer's mind tells us very little about an unknown serial killer's mind. It may, in fact, tell us more about the belief system of the person making those judgements. As an example, Joseph Barnett and George Hutchinson have become popular suspects as of late. Why? We know almost nothing about either one. Some people want to believe that Kelly was murdered by someone close for an almost infinite number of reasons.
Jack the Ripper was not Joseph Vacher, Peter Kurten, Ed Gein, Peter Sutcliffe, or Ted Bundy. The answer as to who he was does not live in their murderous acts. It resides on the streets of Whitechapel in 1888.
Welcome to the boards!
John |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Monday, 22 July 2002 - 09:10 am | | Its like the swan theory.
We in law enforcement have always held to the theory that M.O. changes and signature never does. But there is the very real possibility that one day a killer will arise that will shatter that theory.
There are many problems with the FBI studies. Because of the profile the FBI has established, many killers may go undetected. A fact many do not know is that the FBI picks and chooses which cases they consult. If a killer does not fit their profile then they do not consult. The FBI has long held that all serial killers are intra-racial. Then along came Jeffery Dahlmer and he shot that theory full of holes. In fact, as I have stated here before, because of that theory, the FBI refused to look into the Milwaukee killings because they felt a serial killer was not involved. Dominick Hassleman, the Ghoul of New Orleans, was another that the FBI passed on consulting on, because the killer crossed ethnic and racial lines and therefore did not fit their profile.
My experience has taught me ;
1. Never say never
2. Be extremely careful what you wish for
3. Never say; well it just can’t any worse
4. I’ve seen it all.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Monday, 22 July 2002 - 12:06 pm | | Hi Scott:
I never knew that! Thanks so much for the input. Of course, I know that not every killer has the same background, has the same motive, etc. I would have thought that the FBI would be working on broadening the base. Maybe they are, but just not consulting if they cannot fit the killer in the profile.
Profiling, like psychology, is a young science (for lack of a better word); it will take some time to hone it, perfect it, and become more acceptable. I do believe that it will be possible to become more accurate in profiling serial killers as we learn more about the human mind.
Warm regards,
Divia |
Author: Diana
Monday, 22 July 2002 - 12:26 pm | | | We do know something about the nature of addiction. When something is extremely pleasurable people tend to want to do it again and again. This applies to cocaine, alcohol, tobacco, gambling, shopping at the mall, serial killing and (in my case) chocolate. People have succeeded in breaking these entrenched habits but it is very difficult and happens only rarely. Once one experiences that endorphin rush it is very difficult not to long for more. In some respects Jack was like a heroin addict, needing a periodic "fix" and the frequency and intensity of the craving only increased with time. |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Monday, 22 July 2002 - 02:38 pm | | Diva,
Profiling is not an exact science and psychological profiling is the least exact of them. The big problem with the FBI research is that is one sided. They spoke to the killers alone. To my knowledge they never spoke with the family members, especially the parents. Sure Gacy’s father was abusive, but I am not so sure that little Johnny NEVER did anything to provoke his father’s wrath.
A really good book to read is Inside the Criminal Mind by Stanton Samanov (sp?). People who are outside the law enforcement circle hate this book because it cuts to the heart of the matter (pun intended) and places the blame on the criminals due to the choices they make. At times, it really goes against everything John Douglas et al advocate.
Diana,
This whole case centers around addiction. It is important to remember that the victims had addictions that had to be fed as well. And as you said it is rare that the addict beats the addiction. Its usually the other way around. The addict usually ends up a homicide or missing persons statistic. It is important to realize that the addiction controls the addict and the addict will do anything to feed the addiction and this usually includes placing themselves at great personal risk.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Joseph P. Matthews
Monday, 22 July 2002 - 08:47 pm | | Hello all,
In all the reading I've done of the FBI's Behavioral Science Unit, it has been made abundantly clear that it is NOT an exact science. True, they may have spent countless hours interviewing known serial killers and other criminals to construct their ideas, but whatever they come up with in regards to a crime is still just an opinion. I am not in law enforcement, but it is my understanding that criminal profiling is simply a tool to help point investigators towards a certain type of suspect. If I am wrong, please correct me.
As Scott pointed out, the FBI does not always consult with another law enforcement agency if the crime does not fit their set of beliefs. Hopefully they will broaden their scope in the future. Thank you, Scott, for your post.
Diana raises an interesting point about the nature of addiction. Quickly, I'd just like to say that you're definitely not alone in your addiction to chocolate. 
Moving on, undoubtedly, killing gave the Ripper some sort of "high" that compelled him to kill repeatedly. So, that naturally begs the question, why did he stop? I suppose Behavioral Science is attempting to answer this question as it pertains to all serial murderers, but as is being discussed, it is not exact. Indeed, Jordan, one day there could be a killer who "breaks the mold" of what is currently known/postulated. But, to answer another of your questions, I do not think it is "bad" to hold the beliefs you write about. Throughout time, mankind has held many beliefs that eventually proved to be false. We once thought the world was flat. People with mental disorders such as depression used to be locked up in chains or treated with electrocution. Obviously, these beliefs have changed. These examples may be simplistic, but as we progress in our knowledge of the human mind, it is very possible that the current thinking in regards to serial murderers will change as well. As long as we all keep an open mind and do not ignore a suspect that falls outside of current thinking, then in time this "problem" you pose will take care of itself.
Best wishes,
Joe |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Monday, 22 July 2002 - 11:40 pm | | Hi Scott:
I agree with you, wholeheartedly.
When I first went to college, I was majoring in Speech and Communication. I later changed to Nursing, and wanted to specialize as a Psychiatric Liason to assist trauma victims. I worked as a mental health tech at that time and worked in a state-funded psych hospital. I worked mainly with homeless people, people without insurance, and prisoners from the county jail. These people suffered from everything from clinical depression to catatonia. I processed paperwork for people that killed their parents because (allegedly) the toaster told them to. I sat on suicide watches, which were not fun because you had to always keep them in line of sight, even if they were using the toilet or taking a shower. I had to place extremely violent people in four-point restraints while they were threatening to do some very nasty things to me that would probably make the Ripper blush.
Some of these people that I dealt with in the unit had to be certifiable whackaloons. They definitely were not in reality. Others seemed to be lunatics when it was convenient. Others still seemed to be just very confused, disturbed individuals that really wanted help; they knew that they were not in the right frame of mind.
I was never exposed (to my knowledge) to a serial killer. But one thing I noticed about these people (the murderers) was that the only thing they had in common (aside from their incarceration) was that they had been diagnosed with specific mental/emotional disfunctions. Many of them had normal childhoods, a few had little to no guidance and encouragement during their childhood. They came from different backgrounds and all walks of life. Their ages ranged from 17-80. Male and female. Certainly, it would have been difficult to fit any handful of them into one profile. A couple, maybe, but definitely not all.
But I have faith in our strive for knowledge, and our quest for improvement for quality of life. Maybe we will one day be able to diagnose and treat people before someone loses their life. I really think that is around the corner. As our understanding of psychology increases, we gain more ground on defeating mentally debilitating diseases such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and senile dementia.
Dear Joe:
Actually, I've found that the electroshock therapy helps... *twitch*. They took me off the thorazine and the voices in the telephone now only tell me that I could be the winner of five million dollars if I subscribe to this magazine.
Warm regards,
Divia
PS: Another clue for Peter... I am no longer working in the mental health field, though it certainly helps. |
Author: Jordan Sunderland
Monday, 22 July 2002 - 11:47 pm | | Hello all,
Thank you all for the posts. I just have a few follow up questions.
First, Diana and Joe stated that the Ripper got a "high" from his killings. How do we know this? I'll be the first to admitt that I put absolutely no credence in the Royal Conspriacry theory, based on the little knowledge I have. But is it not possible that the Ripper was a person who wanted to kill only a certain number of people? Like in the movie "Seven", with Morgan Freeman, Kevin Spacey, and Brad Pitt. Granted, this was a fictional tale, where the killer only wished to kill seven people. However, is it impossible for real serial killers to act in such a way?
Second, cases like Dahlmer and Hassleman have already contradicted the FBI's profiling system in certain ways. Therefore, is it not possible that the Ripper, if his identity is ever ascertained, could contradict it in the way I mentioned? What are everyone's thoughts on this?
Best regards,
Jordan |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Monday, 22 July 2002 - 11:58 pm | | Hi Jordan:
At this point, anything is possible. It is more likely that, as a serial killer, the Ripper got a lift from his killing. Not definite, but more likely.
He may have received sexual stimulation from the killings. That would make him a "sexual serial killer", from what I understand. Or, maybe he didn't. I think I read somewhere else on the boards that there was no seminal fluid found at the scenes (I'll have to go back and look). This would either mean that he was unable to achieve climax, unable to achieve climax in the amount of time he had, or it just wasn't his bag.
Certainly, he may fit the FBI profile perfectly, he may fit somewhat, or he may not fit at all. Every book or program I've looked at has reiterated that profiling is not an exact science and is used as a tool to point investigators in the right direction. This does not always mean that it IS the right direction.
A most perplexing case...
Warm regards,
Divia |
Author: Joseph P. Matthews
Tuesday, 23 July 2002 - 12:03 am | | Hi Divia,
As you mentioned over in the "Diary" thread, we do seem to be chasing each other around tonight.
I found your post to be very interesting. Indeed you have seen and been exposed to many things that the majority of us here probably have not. I agree that our body of psychological knowledge is both increasing and improving. I hope you are right in your belief that "maybe we will one day be able to diagnose and treat people before someone loses their life." That would be wonderful.
Electroshock therapy, eh? I suppose if you're going to be hearing those voices on the telephone, they could be telling you things much much worse than "...could be the winner of 5 million dollars..." Poking fun aside, I have read that electroshock therapy is still practiced, but in a much more controlled and effective form. Did you have any experience with this where you worked?
Best wishes,
Joe |
Author: Joseph P. Matthews
Tuesday, 23 July 2002 - 12:14 am | | Hi Divia and Jordan,
Divia, you are correct in saying that there was no seminal fluid found at the scenes. This is reported in numerous books, etc, and as far as I know is not in dispute.
My own personal belief is that the act of killing and mutilating the victims provided the "orgasm" for Jack the Ripper. Looking at the canonical five victims, organs were taken away from Chapman and Eddowes. The heart was missing from Mary Kelly but, since Dr. Bond's report is ambiguous, it is not known if it was taken from the scene. All of this information can easily be found here at the casebook if anyone wishes to verify. I believe, as is the case with many serial killers, that the organs acted as a trophy for the Ripper. He could use the organs to revisit the "thrill" of committing the crimes whenever he wanted. Once again, this is all pure conjecture and there is no evidence of the Ripper's motive whatsoever. (that I am aware of)
Jordan, it is possible that the Ripper had a set number of victims to kill and stopped when he had achieved his goal. However, given what we do know, I personally believe that to be highly unlikely.
As Divia said, a most perplexing case...
Best wishes,
Joe |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Tuesday, 23 July 2002 - 12:18 am | | Hi Joe:
It was rare, but we did have some that were treated with electroshock therapy. And you are right, it is nothing like it used to be.
It is very controlled, and is generally used as a last resort. Some bipolar sufferers, for example, were not responsive to traditional psychopharmacotherapy (is that a word? It's been a long time, I can't remember the exact term) such as lithium and anti-seizure medications. Others could not tolerate the amounts needed to control their mood swings. Some had life-threatening side effects (extremely rare, but I know about those personally. My own anti-seizure medication did irreparable damage to my liver and kidneys through the extremely rare side effect) and could not continue traditional therapy.
I would say that the results were not as dramatic as the results are of putting a patient on lithium or anti-seizure meds. But it definitely seemed to help; in most cases the patient reported to be able to think more clearly (no more racing thoughts), felt more emotionally stable (were not prone to sudden mood swings), and indeed felt better about themselves for going through the treatment and looked forward to their next.
I should think that anyone suffering from a mental disorder must feel great relief when they start to respond to treatment. I can't imagine what it would be to live with my mind caged with the confusion of such a disorder.
*Gets up on her soap box*
The mentally ill live with such a reputation that is ill-deserved. Something is not right with their brain and most of the time it is related to biochemical imbalances in the brain. Insurance coverage is getting better, but still do not recognize mental illness as a biological disorder, simply because it can affect the person's emotions. Write your congressman/MP for better mental health services. Thank you.
*Gets down from her soap box*.
And now, I'm off to chase Joe to another discussion string...
Warm regards,
Divia |
Author: Jordan Sunderland
Tuesday, 23 July 2002 - 01:28 am | | Hello all,
Thanks once again for all the posts. You all have helped clear it in my mind that profiling is not an exact science. However, I still have a little difficulty in seeing how it can be applied to the Ripper. But it may just be that I'm SO unfamiliar with the Ripper case, and all serial killers as well.
Anyways, I'm sure I shall return with more questions in the morning.
Thanks and best regards,
Jordan |
Author: Diana
Tuesday, 23 July 2002 - 07:59 am | | | If Jack had decided he was only going to kill five, it would be kind of like me saying I'm only going to eat five M&M's. After the fifth one the "Oh Just one more" syndrome would set in. Or it would be like an alcoholic saying "Oh, just one drink". It's pure Skinnerian behaviorism. Any reinforcing activity gets repeated. |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Tuesday, 23 July 2002 - 09:46 am | | Hi, Divia and Joe
Could you clarify the absence of seminal fluid for me? Was it checked for and not found, or is it just not noted in the records? I've wondered about this, and it seems strange that there should be no sign of sexual activity at all, since the victims (I guess you can argue Eddowes) were prostitutes.
I've been reading the Ultimate Sourcebook, and I haven't seen the issue addressed. Did I miss it?
Thanks for your help,
Dave |
Author: Joseph P. Matthews
Tuesday, 23 July 2002 - 12:36 pm | | Hi David,
Forgive me for the brief nature of my post, but I am sneaking in some time here at work. I'll try to find some more definite sources that talk about this, but in the meantime, check out the following link.
http://www.casebook.org/intro.html?show=all
This is the introduction to the case that is available here. Scroll to and read "Method of Operation." You will find, "No sign of intercourse was ever detected nor did the Ripper masturbate over the bodies."
I'll try to find more for you later. I'm sorry I did not clarify in my original post. This is just one of those things that I know I've read in many different places. At the moment, however, I can not remember specifically where.
I hope this helps a little.
Best wishes,
Joe |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Tuesday, 23 July 2002 - 01:03 pm | | Thanks, Joe, and I'll do some digging myself 
Dave |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Tuesday, 23 July 2002 - 02:21 pm | | Seminal fluid found or detected would not tell us much, as the victims were prostitutes who would have entertained several clients on the mornings of their deaths. Even if some were found the police could have done nothing with it as blood typing was not even possible at the time. If we were able to find some seminal fluid on a body today (or some other form of trace evidence that would allow for DNA testing) we would still be no better off, as we have no data to compare it to.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Jordan Sunderland
Tuesday, 23 July 2002 - 08:26 pm | | Hello all,
Joe, you said that "it is possible that the Ripper had a set number of victims to kill and stopped when he had achieved his goal. However, given what we do know, I personally believe that to be highly unlikely."
Since I know VERY little about the Ripper case, could you elaborate on that a little. What evidence is there to support the belief that the Ripper didn't have a set number of victims?
Also, this disscussion everyone is having about seminal fluid interests me. I'm a little confused. Wouldn't the absence of seminal fluid at the crime scenes indicate that the Ripper did not get a "sexual thrill" from the killings? Or is it generally the belief that the thrill came after the killings when he would "revisit" the experiences in his own mind?
I know that the Ripper took organs from some of the victims, though I don't know which organs and from whom. But, like David, it strikes me as odd that a "sexual serial killer" would kill prostitutes and not leave ANY seminal fluid.
Best regards,
Jordan |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Tuesday, 23 July 2002 - 11:43 pm | | Hi Jordan:
As I stated earlier, the absence of seminal fluid indicates one of three possibilities:
1. He was unable to achieve climax
2. He was unable to achieve climax in time
3. It simply wasn't his bag
If the killings were sexually motivated (he received sexual stimulation from the killing), he would more than likely have ejaculated (or attempted to) at the scene. This is based on what we know about sexual serial killers in general. Certainly, there is a possibility that this is not the case (never say never), but I think it more likely than not.
If the killings were NOT sexually motivated, he would not have made an attempt to ejaculate. That's just me using my common sense, though I am certain that people would generally agree that if there is no sexual stimulation in the act itself, he would not attempt to arouse himself to the occasion.
Now, what leads people to believe that JtR was a sexual serial killer:
1. His victims were all female prostitutes
2. The nature of the majority of the mutilations
The majority of the mutilations appear to be sexually motivated because the mutilations were targeted at that which makes women different from men: the primary sexual organs. And, with the exception of Kelly, the secondary organs (breasts) were not mutilated. The mutilations not aimed at the abdomen (with exception of Kelly who had massive mutilations) were on the face.
I am not certain that we can determine on way or another if the murders were sexually motivated. There was no sign of seminal fluid on or around the body which would (if it were not from a customer) indicate that it was sexually motivated. However, it could have meant that he was unable to achieve climax (perhaps due to a medical condition, which would exacerbate his sexual frustration). And lastly, it could mean that he was not murdering for sexual satisfaction.
One last point: If the killings were sexually motivated, he may have relived the killings in his mind later for arousal. But, unable to achieve climax, could have motivated him to go out and try it again. This could explain why the mutilations escalated; the frustration got worse and worse, so the events became more and more horrific. Based on what we know about sexual serial killers, the killer escalated with their increasing sexual frustration.
Incidentally, this is based on the five canonical victims and basic knowledge of sexual serial killers and is not intended to be etched in stone. Profiling is a young and inexact science. Killers that stray from the basic profiles are possible (whew, gotta get that caveat in there to protect my layman's butt).
Warm regards,
Divia |
Author: Jean-Patrick Moisy
Wednesday, 24 July 2002 - 12:00 am | | Divia:
could it be possible that JtR wouldn't achieve climax because he was, litterally, drunk like hell?
There are documentated evidence of the importance of alcohol in the "preliminaries" of SK, lots of them where having alcohol-related problems or alcoholic parents in their families, and I just read some article about genetic traits of alcoholism and its hereditary possibilities. Actually I am trying to document something about that precise subject.
Possible idea: there was no traces of sperm because JtR was too drunk to "get a stiff"!
Jordan:
While there are no evidences of disorganized SK (which group I believe JtR is part of) giving themselves a set number of victims, there are a few that stopped killing because they did get over it. Like the Boston Strangler, Albert Di Salvo.
Then, I can be completely wrong...
Best, and, Divia, thank for your welcome.
JP |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Wednesday, 24 July 2002 - 12:24 am | | Dear Jean-Patrick:
That would be covered in "1. He was unable to achieve climax". I believe it is true; alcohol can increase the desire but take away from the performance (I will refuse to reveal why I believe that, cheeky monkey that I am). But to be honest, I find it hard to believe that if the Ripper was that intoxicated he would also have been as calculating as he was in regards to the blood splash, leaving the scene, etc.
In my personal interaction with drunks (when I worked in the hospital, the local police often brought in homeless people that were intoxicated and were considered a threat to themselves or others), their motor coordination was impaired (stumbled, knocked things over, etc.), they had difficulty in keeping quiet (in fact, they generally spoke louder because they had difficulty in hearing; we assumed that this was caused by the affects of alcohol on the brain and the inability of the brain to process what the ears heard), and certainly their judgment was impaired (one gentleman kept demanding his one phone call that he was entitled to: "I know my rights! I wanna call my lawyer!" "Sir, you are not in jail, you are in X Hospital. Your lawyer will not appreciate a phone call in the middle of the night. Call him in the morning." "I know my rights, stupid b*tch! I'm entitled to one phone call!" He tried to punch me and was swiftly put into four-point restraints. Bad judgment, gang. Further note: he insisted for four hours that he was in jail.).
In my opinion, the Ripper was not so intoxicated that he was unable to achieve climax. I am not so certain that he gained sexual satisfaction from it, either. I am inclined to believe that he was a misogynist that killed women because he felt it gave him power over those that he hated the most, and he tried to take away that which made them women. Again, that is just my opinion.
Warm regards,
Divia |
Author: Jean-Patrick Moisy
Wednesday, 24 July 2002 - 12:59 am | | Divia:
Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but I've been quite drunk a few times more than I'd like to remember, and I did find meself (pardon the mancunianism) doing some quite weird stuff and quite efficiently too (and as for the effects of alcohol on performance, I know! As long as booze is concerned, libido and efficiency go opposite).
Then you have medical experience, so I tend to believe you. I was more basing my theory on my own experience and those of my fellow drinkers (but you women will never undrest... undre... understand a man! J). (If you had bad experiences about that, please forgive the lousy attempt to humour...)
Also, you seems to see JtR as a "dominant 5%" right man, a la Van Vogt which I do agree with. Sex crime is not about sex, it is about control.
I was more refering about the part that alcohol may have been playing in JtR life -as most of his victims were spending a lot of their time in pubs, where a regular would have been more likely to spot them, and less likely to look suspect.
And yes, lots of 5% dominant right man SK documentated had something about prostitutes and pubs. I think I wanted mostly to refer to Peter Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper, who started on killing prostitutes because he was swindled by one of them, then ridiculized in a pub by her,but also that according to his "autobiography" (The Only Living Witness, Michaud and Aynesworth 1983), Ted Bundy was drunk when he made (and missed) his very first attempt to kill a women (and had the "revelation" that he "had the capacity to do such a thing".
Do you think I have something worth spending a few brain cells on, or should I forget straight away about it and go back to my fiddles?
Very best,
JP |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Wednesday, 24 July 2002 - 01:52 am | | Dear Jean-Patrick:
I am not going to ask you to elaborate on the "weird" activities that you "efficiently" executed. I'm a cheeky monkey, but, hey! I'm NOT touching that one!
I would not presume to tell you that your pursuits are utter rubbish and not worth following. Indeed, all knowledge is useful to someone, somewhere. I myself am a fountain of useless trivia. I have a keen desire to learn something, anything really, that will be filed away for future reference, waiting to be of use. After all, it might mean that that one piece of information will win the Trivial Pursuit match of the day. At best, you will unlock the key to the universe (the key to the universe is nectarines, by the way... *wink*). At worst, you will be listed as a source of information on a paper written by a psychology major.
Now... let's dump these fish in the Fry Daddy:
I had posted some observations regarding the canonical victims in another discussion string:
"One other point that has bothered me... it seems to me that the only thing that these women had in common were:
1. They were all prostitutes (part time/full time/when they needed money) in the same general vicinity
2. They all seemed to have drinking problems (I may be wrong; did I not read that each of the canonical victims rely upon alcohol?)
3. With the exception of Nichols, there was evidence that they were victims of domestic violence (and just because there is no report of domestic violence does not mean that it did not exist, so I wonder if Nichols was also abused)
The reason I bring this up is that it shows a pattern; these women were victims while they were alive. Victims of domestic abuse are more inclined to rely upon an addiction (alcohol) and are more inclined to be abused again and again. As the abuse beats down their self esteem, they look like "born victims", making them much easier prey for other abusers. Was Jack drawn to them because they appeared to be victims? Surely they were not the only prostitutes out on the streets at the time, or the only ones desperate for a customer."
Okay, that was my post. And I will reiterate that I am not an expert. I base my opinions on what I read, observe, and a small dose of common sense. The research that I engage in is on a Kindergarten level at best (get that caveat in there again!). I do volunteer work with victims of domestic abuse and the information that I stated above regarding "born victims" etc. was part of our training for the support group.
Do you think that is a likely connection between the Ripper, the pubs, and prostitutes? I'd appreciate your thoughts on the matter, and anyone else that cares to post.
*Divia gets up on her soap box*
"Ahem... It is a shame that so many women suffer from domestic abuse and remain silent. The public must be made aware of the problems, educated in how to break the abuse cycle, and encourage women to come out of their shells. Victims of domestic abuse should be encouraged to seek out help on how to break the abuse cycle, become "smart women" and protect themselves from future abuse, become confident in who and what they are and love themselves for who and what they are. And, we must reinforce what wonderful, courageous women they truly are. Love is NOT abuse! Thank you."
*Divia gets down off her soap box*
By the way, thank you for asking my opinion about your research; I truly feel honored! If you didn't spend too many of those brain cells in the drink-induced "weird stuff" you mentioned, your findings should prove interesting and insightful.
Warm regards,
Divia
PS: It would depend on what/whom you were *fiddling*! Or are you refering to a different kind of fiddle? Go ahead... say it... you know you want to! *cheeky monkey*! |
Author: Jean-Patrick Moisy
Wednesday, 24 July 2002 - 08:29 am | | Divia:
After a short night of sleep, just a few precisions:
1/ Reaserch is a big word for my musing about victims, booze and "right men". I am not an academic, thank God!
2/ You got a lot of good points that complement my general idea. I think I am mostly suffering from too much enthusiasm and not enough preparation. A common Newbie Mistake, it seems. So more on this subject when I am finished sorting out my notes.
3/ The "weird stuff" I was refering to had nothing sexual to begin with. Or so do I hope. Don't remember... J
4/ It's "Fiddles" as in Violins"!
Bonne matinee
JP |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Wednesday, 24 July 2002 - 09:26 am | | For those who don’t me, which is pretty much everybody in this thread, for the last year I have begun looking at each crime scene as an individual scene. So far, I have used linkage analysis to tie Martha Tabram to the first two canonical victims. I have done so by looking at the forensic evidence available in the police reports and news paper accounts of the coroner’s inquests. I have ha two trips to London so far and quite a few more will be necessary before all is said and done. Using crime scene and sexual predator profiling techniques as well as experience, I can say that the killer DEFINITELY was neither intoxicated nor under the influence of any narcotic at the time of the murders. The crime scenes were far to organized and detailed for a person who would have been acting under the influence. I want to clarify a point that a lot of people here have mistaken, I am a crime scene and sexual predator profiler, not a psychological profiler.
I can say the killer was not under the influence as people are creatures of habit. We do things that are comfortable. In my law enforcement, I have arrested 50 people on DWI offenses. Not a grand number but considering I spent only two years assigned to traffic enforcement, its somewhat respectable. I have learned that the average drunk driver will go to the same bar night after night. They know the route home, and either consciously or subconsciously, know all the little perks involved. They know the turns and road markings. The stop signs and the lights. They know the pot holes and the trip home becomes second nature. This is their world and their environment. They will not know the whole city and all of the streets but they know this one route home perfectly. In fact the easiest way to spot a drunk driver at closing time is by keying in on the driver who is obeying all the traffic laws. This is of course a catch-22 situation as you have no probable cause (PC) to pull the person over. However, when this person is either taken out of their environment, ie they move to another home, or you alter their environment, ie placing up road construction barriers and drums, they now become like a fish out of water.
No, the crime scenes posed to many hazards both potential and real for a person under the influence to become involved. Many a slip twixt a cup and a lip. Based on evidence from Tabram and the first two canonical murders the killer was to exact and in control of himself. This indicates that when involved in something this personal he would not allow himself to be out of control. This indicates that he was basically a control freak. At work he would have been a detail person, a perfectionist and a micro-manager. This would be a strong indicator that he was involved in the murder investigations or at least close to them. Not that he was a constable but rather he could have befriended the local police.
Seminal fluid would not have been an issue as the killer was working under time constraints that were far to strict for sexual relief as general public defines it. Under current law enforcement guidelines the crimes are sexually based for basically the reasons Diva has put forth.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Monty
Wednesday, 24 July 2002 - 09:46 am | | Scott,
Just out of curiosity (and slightly off thread..perhaps, sorry folks) but you state that you were looking at each crime scene individually.
Now, I know of your Braford interest and I was just wondering if you looked at that particular scene and if so what are your views on it...unless you have completely dismissed it of course.
Cheers,
Monty...just curious...again.
|
Author: Divia deBrevier
Wednesday, 24 July 2002 - 10:46 am | | Dear Jean-Patrick:
1. I never said that the weird stuff was sexual in nature... actually, I had envisioned something more on the lines of, well, involving a cow and a hot air balloon. But I have a very active imagination.
2. "Research: (re-sûrch, rsûrch) n. Scholarly or scientific investigation or inquiry. Close, careful study." If you are studying some possibilities regarding the Ripper crimes, no matter how small, I think it deserves to be called "research". Especially if you are looking to support your theory.
3. Fiddle as in violins? Okay. I'm disappointed. I thought that you might have been fiddling with someone's pantry... rotating labels on cans and such. You should try it. Great fun. Imagine opening a can of peaches and you get chili instead. Every day it's a new experience.
4. I think that's why I read the boards for a time before actually posting anything. Since that time I have found that I had inaccurate information and had to go back and re-evaluate what I had. I was basically afraid that I would look foolish. Now I realize that posters here (for the most part) are really great for steering you on the right path for information. Okay, sometimes they steer you off the path completely... but that's another story. But it has opened my eyes to other possibilities and raises new questions.
Hope you get some rest... I am an incurable insomniac myself.
Warm regards,
Divia |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Wednesday, 24 July 2002 - 01:44 pm | | Monty,
Nice, or nise I guess I should say, to talk to you again. Yes I am looking at each scene individually. One at a time is a better way of putting it. I am examining each in detail and treating the whole case Tabram to whomever, as I would any cold case that came my way. At the end of each I look for data that will link the current murder to the last. So far I have gotten as far as Chapman, although I am not finished with her completely. Because of the conflicting witness statements I have to view first hand the news accounts of the Coroner’s Inquest and that rather lengthy police memo by Abberline.
As far as Bradford is concerned, it is still in the mix. I just have not looked at it in detail. Mr. Evans sent me some great copies of the news paper accounts of the murder and the arrest of the suspect Barrett. The news paper accounts I personally looked up are not in the best of shape and transcribing them is tedious at best as it often involves an over head projector or a magnifying glass. There is a reporter who seems to know of, or heard of, a missing letter that was responsible for Swanson sending an entourage to Bradford to look into the killing. I say this letter is a missing letter, because, apparently a letter was received by Scotland Yard dated 30 October 1888 in which the killer stated he was going to dismember and cut the heart out of a child. I have looked through all my reference material and in my recent trip to London looked through the letters and found no such letter. I am planning another trip back to London and Bradford but have not settled on a date as of yet.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Jean-Patrick Moisy
Wednesday, 24 July 2002 - 10:21 pm | | Hi guys 'ere!
Scott:
Please to meet you. At least (read your postings before).
Okay, you got a poit as long as boozers knowing one good way to go back home. That's what I call "smelling the stable way", as horses do. I was thinking about this thing of SK (at least a few of them) talking about "double personality" stuff and I was wondering about booze, because, hey, everybody has a friend who is a "nice guy sober but when he get drunk, he becomes a real bastard". This thing about alcohol getting you rid of your complexes and limitations. Hence, I was drawing a paralel to alcohol revelling JtR real self, id, meaning The Killer (whatever is your definition for him).
But I am ready to believe you, given your experience on the subject. Sh*t, got to re-evaluate again....!
Divia:
Hope you had a good day. I was basically looking at the crimes from the killer's point of view. You were talking as well from the victims', and thanks for reminding me of them. But was JtR preying on them because of their desperation (and you had to be pretty much desperate and abused to be a prostitute in Whitechaple in 1888) or because they were easier to lure, i.e. "I got 4d, why don't we go this way?" ?
Monty:
Back to you, I will check about Bradford.
yours,
JP |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Wednesday, 24 July 2002 - 11:49 pm | | Hi Jean-Patrick:
I had a great day, thanks... god, I love my work.
I think they were easier to lure, not more desperate than the other prostitutes of Whitechapel. And actually, it is a pretty common thing for victims to get into a cycle of abuse. It's almost as if abusers can smell them out. It's on a more subtle level of perception, but victims generally have difficulty in projecting an image of self-confidence and hiding their underlying fear. I think Jack zeroed in on them because, being abuse victims, were already easy to overpower. Certainly, I believe, he would have had a harder time overpowering a woman that was not an abuse victim. But when you get down to it, I would bet that most of the women working as prostitutes were victims of abuse, some more than others. The strength of the woman (inner, not muscle) would play a big part of that (I'll probably need to go more in-depth in an email to you because it would take so much time to organize and type the information for you. There are just so many factors involved).
This was why it was important in our training to work support groups and such that we reinforce the process of looking like anything but a victim. We would tell the women to walk with their head high, swing their arms, and walk briskly like they had somewhere important to go and like they knew exactly where they were going. Walking down the street in this manner helps them exude confidence. Similar methods are reinforced for other social situations. This helps keep other abusers from zeroing in on them.
I don't know exactly how to explain it, I will have to look it up in my manual. I just know that abusers are generally able to zero in on the victims.
Anyway, I'll try to write this up a bit better later and send it to you for comment.
Warm regards,
Divia |
Author: Jean-Patrick Moisy
Thursday, 25 July 2002 - 12:03 am | | Bonsoir, Divia
So, in your opinion, Jack was preying especially on low-confidence women, victims of abuse, people who would not only look like victims, but act like ones, i.e. being up very late, without boarding money, or getting drunk and self-pitying. Because he was himself an abuser and basically looking to boost his self-estim (amongst other things). Being in Control over smaller... things (I am pretty sure he didn't see women as anything else as things).
Do you think it was because he had been a victim of abuse himself?
Best,
JP |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Thursday, 25 July 2002 - 12:47 am | | Dear Jean-Patrick:
I think it is very likely. We can't know for sure, of course. However, abuse springs from abuse. Remember that cycle of abuse? It starts with one person being abused. That person can become an abuser or become an abuse victim. I like to refer to people that stop the cycle as "abuse survivors".
Let's say that the Ripper had been abused as a child, or grew up in an environment where his father abused his mother. This was not unknown in Victorian times. As a child and into adulthood, the abuse is reinforced again and again. This is all he knows, to him this is normal behavior. But anger and grief are present, which starts the cycle. He views abuse as appropriate, and he begins to turn his emotion into action by abusing others.
Thus starts the pendulum. The pendulum continues to swing back and forth, then faster and higher. There is nothing to stop the pendulum from swinging. The angrier he gets, the more abusive he gets. The more he hurts, the greater desire to hurt others.
If he also suffers from a mental illness, such as bipolar disorder, this doubles his chances of violent behavior; when coupled with traumatic events, this can cause a manic or a psychotic episode.
In a manic episode, he views himself as being almost godlike... certainly better than anyone else. He suffers from insomnia which can exacerbate his mood. He has difficulty in controling impulses such as gambling, purchasing things he does not need, or curbing his anger. He has racing thoughts; his mind is so active that he will often trip his own tongue up because his mouth cannot keep up with his brain, and will often repeat himself or lapse into other speech quirks. This is more common in typical bipolar cases, with an average of one manic or depressive episode occurring every two years.
In the psychotic episode, he is no longer living in reality. He truly does not know that what he is doing is wrong. In fact, he believes that he has every right to do what he does and he should be doing it. This is less common, though many bipolars experience one psychotic episode in their lifetime if they go untreated.
So now we have an abuser that is in a manic phase of a bipolar cycle that has experienced some kind of traumatic event, one that reinforces a hatred of women. I believe that he would be instinctively drawn to the "born victim" type. He would overpower them, take away that which made them women, and feel better afterwards. For a time.... This is really a very simplified version of my idea.
Sidenote: Bipolars can, and often do, cycle in their episodes(mania or depression) and episodes are generally prefaced with hypomania (lesser form of mania) or mild depression. This is not true in all cases; some bipolars never experience true depression or full blown mania.
Now that we have gone completely off topic...
When we start delving into psychology, mental illness, etc. there is so much area to cover. This is just a basic sketch; it really is complex.
Can you tell that my main interest in the Ripper is the workings of his mind?
Warm regards,
Divia |
Author: Diana
Thursday, 25 July 2002 - 07:06 pm | | | Divia, there is a book by a man named Abrahams or Abraham all about the mind of JTR. The title escapes me. Its the only one I ever read that truly depressed me. I can read about what he did and somehow that is challenging and interesting from the armchair detective point of view but reading about what he thought -- well that was a real downer. |
Author: Jon
Thursday, 25 July 2002 - 09:35 pm | | Murder & Madness
David Abrahamsen MD
ISBN 1-55611-279-3
Donald I. Fine Inc, New York, 1992
Regards, Jon |
Author: Jean-Patrick Moisy
Thursday, 25 July 2002 - 09:38 pm | | Hi, Divia and Diana.
Diana, if you find again this book's title, I am very interested to read it. Thanks.
Divia: doesn't Kelly strikes you as being out of the "born victims" profile? I am beginning to think that the others were "trial runs" and that she was the one he really was longing for. Then it may just be me being paranoid (won't be the first time)...
Best,
JP |
Author: Diana
Thursday, 25 July 2002 - 10:08 pm | | | Jon nailed it. It was Murder and Madness. And the author was David Abrahamsen. |
|
|
|
|
