|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Profile of the Whitechapel Killer as a disorganised killer
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: Research and Dissertations:
Profile of the Whitechapel Killer as a disorganised killer
Author: Dan Norder
Monday, 16 December 2002 - 09:12 pm |        | Brian,
No worries. We both want the same things: honest and lively debate focused on the case. Sometimes it just gets a bit too lively and less focused, as is known to happen in online discussions, then we step back and start again. It's no biggee.
Radka,
I have never called anyone a pedophile or accused anyone here of anything even remotely resembling something of that nature or seriousness. That's an incredibly offensive accusation that I expect you to retract and apologize for.
I think it's pretty clear to everyone who's harassing whom. Any newbie who hasn't seen enough posts to tell can just do a keyword search (at left, under Utilities) on your last name and then my last name and figure it out pretty rapidly.
Dan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation. See:
http://www.casebook.org/about_the_casebook/funding.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------- |
Author: Billy Markland
Monday, 16 December 2002 - 09:24 pm | | Mr. Radka, on 11/11 I dropped a dime to the management asking if they could not speak with you to curb your enthusiasm, not Mr. Norder, as you were extremely insulting in your comments on both his and Mr. Wroe's viewpoints.
Any further comments on that subject can be taken off-line or to the Pub so a very interesting, if somewhat confusing, thread is not broken.
Best of wishes,
Billy Markland |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Monday, 16 December 2002 - 10:53 pm | | | Profiling works the same way horoscopes work. |
Author: Harry Mann
Tuesday, 17 December 2002 - 04:47 am | | Profiling is just a fancy name replacing the old fashioned method of characterisation of crime and criminal.Like fingerprints or DNA,it has a certain value provided there is a base to match it with,but how is this base to be obtained.
How many of the factors of a profile is deemed sufficient to point in a certain direction,and what percentage of a countries population would contain that number.
I have seen the same arguement for profiling aclaimed in my section of law enforcement,that being the smuggling or importing of prohibited imports.It was a failure.
There is no substitute for conventional police procedures,plus a lot of bloody hard work,and a measure of common sense.
As for voices in the head.Don't we all suffer from that.Many times a day we relive old memories,we hear conversations that maybe took place years ago.Not audibly to be sure,but the words and the tone are there if we concentrate hard enough,and we recognise the persons speaking.
Do not be taken in by those that say it is god or the devil.What they are hearing is their own voice,what they are obeying are their own commands.It is just that some people cannot face this fact. |
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Tuesday, 17 December 2002 - 05:51 am | | Hi Dan and of course everybody else,
Thanks for your long answer, but let me take a step back. While making my profile I was led by a typical question: What type of person would have committed the crimes? A profile cannot be used seriously to unmask the unknown the killer. But it can be used to get rid of some of the wild suspects. It does not work like a horoscope, it is more like a guideline for the police. Every crime scene tells us more than can be found in hard facts. It is my job to listen to the voices in my head and start to fantasize.
An example: Some time back I asked Caz if she thought that Jack picked up the whores or if he was picked up? An answer to this simple procedure would throw some light on his character. Did he look for the victim he wanted and pick her up, kill her and walk away with the knowing that she was innocent? Or was he picked up by a whore, kill her and walk away thinking "Well it was your bloody fault, why did you have to take me!"?
The killings have a sexual nature and the reason for to mulitations are one key for the riddle. Some people turn to selfabuse and others mutilate their victims. It is my feeling that the root lies in Jack and not in the whores. I don't think he was out to rid the streets of London (see Peter Sutcliffe). I don't think he was down on whores. It is more likely that he treid to have sex with them and either couldn't or needed the violence (see Peter Kürten).
The act of killing would not take long. A rough time sceme would give him around 2 to 3 minutes for stangling them and then another 2 to 3 minutes for the ripping of the throat and the multilations. Which would mean that somewhere between 4 and 6 minutes after beginning he could leave the victim dead.
I don't think he wrote any letters or the Graffiti. Which would mean that he did not give himself his nom de guerre, but was christend by somebody else. He may have even been disgusted by the limelight he was given. From the killings I would judge that he was not a bragging kind.
Somewhere above the MPD concept was discussed. Forget about it. It makes great movies but nothing more. There are a handfull of people worldwide today who are diagnosed with MPD. As far as we know none of them have committed a crime. Did I really use amnesia as an explanation? If so it was a lapse of concentration, what I meant was a "fugue".
And now, back to work! Doing what? Oh, something very similar to the Ripper murders, but only one victim......
Philip |
Author: Monty
Tuesday, 17 December 2002 - 11:44 am | | RJ
 NICE !
Philip,
Good to see you back mate....what a return !!!
Monty
 |
Author: Caroline Morris
Tuesday, 17 December 2002 - 12:31 pm | | Hi Philip,
If the ripper wrote the Graffiti, he probably did have a thing about 'blame'. ‘Blamed' is the word that could be the most suggestive of a link between the message and the murders. If, for example, the ripper, in his own mind, blamed individuals like Schwartz or Diemschutz for messing things up and making him kill a second time that night, it’s very likely that he would also think it was the victim’s fault for messing with him.
You wrote:
Did he look for the victim he wanted and pick her up, kill her and walk away with the knowing that she was innocent? Or was he picked up by a whore, kill her and walk away thinking "Well it was your bloody fault, why did you have to take me!"?
I wonder if the killer ever had an inner struggle convincing himself that he wasn’t personally to blame for his actions. I sometimes have this vision of him sauntering off whistling, because he just ‘knew’ he was doing the right thing – no conscience, never a twinge of guilt or remorse.
But if the Graffiti was written by the ripper in the vein of “they made me kill”, it would suggest that he needed to explain or excuse his actions to a faceless somebody, but in a tangible way, which would make him a very different character – one who needed blame-shifting exercises to keep personal demons away.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Tuesday, 17 December 2002 - 01:09 pm | | Hi Scott, Hi Monty
thanks for welcoming me back. After a very long time in which I was not able to post here (a very long story with a breakdown and time spent in rehab) I am glad to be back and at the moment am not only enjoying life again but also being able to communicate here with you lot. Even if some others have seemed to have disapeared, it is good to see you again.
Yours,
Philip |
Author: Andy & Sue Parlour
Wednesday, 18 December 2002 - 04:37 am | | Hello Caz,
You know who, how and why the graffiti came to be in Goulston Street, and why a piece of Eddowes's apron was lying beneath.
A. |
Author: Caroline Morris
Wednesday, 18 December 2002 - 05:01 am | | Do I?
I do!
I do?
Do I! You must mean in 2002, right?
Love,
Caz, who is the woman who won't be confused for nothing |
Author: Andy & Sue Parlour
Wednesday, 18 December 2002 - 12:50 pm | | Hello Carrie,
Yes, you saw 'Crapper', you must know.
A&S. |
Author: Caroline Morris
Wednesday, 18 December 2002 - 04:29 pm | | Ah, yes, but not many people think Carrie saw what she says she saw. But she knows what she knows.
It's a bit of a see-saw you know.
Love,
Carrie |
Author: Dan Norder
Thursday, 19 December 2002 - 12:34 am | | Philip,
I wish you were correct when you say that only a handful of people worldwide are diagnosed with MPD. It's been an extremely popular misdiagnosis in the U.S. in the last decade or two. There have been crazy accusations, invented childhood memories of abuse to come up with reasons to explain the alters, lawsuits and criminal actions against innocent people. It's a madhouse, and one caused by (instead of solved by) some of those in the field of psychology.
You mentioned Jack as a potential "fugue" victim. The diagnosis of a "fugue" state is even less supported by the case evidence than MPD. It was most popular in the late 1800s in France (so perhaps Jack would have tried to use it as a defense if caught, assuming he had heard of it) but then mostly disappeared. The vast majority of cases in which someone reported not remembering who they were and living out another life appear to be simple cases of people running away and knowingly trying to escape responsibility -- a conscious decision instead of a subconscious personality schism. Beyond that, it typically isn't linked to cases where the person commited violent acts.
R.J.,
Actually, horoscopes work by being so incredibly vague that the answers could apply to anyone. Psychological profiling tends to get fairly specific. They also tend to be wrong on a percentage of their specific details, granted, but the research is still relatively recent. There's no comparing it to astrology, which has been around forever and can't be tested scientifically.
Radka,
I'm still expecting a retraction and apology for claiming that I have called people I disagree with "pedophile" and similar terms. Unless you can show an example (and you can't, because I never did anything like that) you have no excuse for comments like that. You may be able to get away with insulting most of the posters here, but you can't get away with outright lies.
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation. See:
http://www.casebook.org/about_the_casebook/funding.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------- |
Author: Andy & Sue Parlour
Thursday, 19 December 2002 - 08:45 am | | Hello Carriecaz,
Sue and I are so glad that you are taking these post's seriously.
A&S. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Thursday, 19 December 2002 - 10:58 am | | Dan--I have nothing against profiling per se, as long as it is called by the rightful name of 'speculation' rather than touted as a science.
What we see from Ressler, Douglas, etc. along the lines of validating this 'science' is nothing more than anectdotal evidence, listing their various "successes." Is this really much better than Jean Dixon or some astrologer listing their various successes? Where, really, are these claims of scientific validity coming from? If a "hit" in a psychological profile is counted as somehow proof of the validity of the 'science', is a 'miss' given the same weight? No, it is shrugged-off by stating that the 'science' is still in its infancy. My suspicion is that it will always be in its infancy.
Here's the problem as I see it. If the profile is inaccurate, it will lead the investigation in the wrong direction---with possible tragic results, as it did in the case of John Glover in Australia. If the profile is correct, the investigator really has no way of knowing it one way or the other, until the criminal is caught using standard police work. So, at best, it is little more than a sort of parlour trick, like horoscopes.
Another fear is that once the clinical psychologists establish profiling as a 'science' they will attempt to use it in a court of law in place of physcial evidence linking a defendant to a specific crime in a specific time & place. Cheers, RJ Palmer. |
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Thursday, 19 December 2002 - 12:57 pm | | Hi RJ,
so, I get paid for doing parlour tricks then?
Philip |
Author: Dan Norder
Thursday, 19 December 2002 - 07:12 pm | | RJ,
Actually, overall I would agree with the nature of your argument on most of your points, though not to the extremes you take them.
I do think, though, that comparing cases to data collected about other similar cases is a good way to point toward statistical likelihoods. The problem comes in when data is not compared accurately, which is where most of the problems occur right now, I believe. We have a lot of data on serial killers but only for white male offenders who have been caught in the United States in the late 20th century.
With a lot more data on a wider variety of crimes I think it'll make choosing which of all the possible avenues of investigation are most likely to bear fruit much more reliable. There's always a chance that you are pursuing the wrong possibilities, but officials run that risk no matter if they use a profile or not. A solid profile, built upon good evidence compared to applicable data is a lot better than trusting an official's hunch.
Profiling can never become a hard science. "Always" is a term that should never be used in profiling. But to compare it to astrology is to take the benefit that we can get out of it and throw it out, like the baby with the bathwater.
And considering how many police departments foolishly waste their time with supposed psychics, anything bearing the slightest resemblence to science will be a marked improvement.
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation. See:
http://www.casebook.org/about_the_casebook/funding.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------- |
Author: Caroline Morris
Friday, 20 December 2002 - 05:50 am | | Hi RJ,
'Another fear is that once the clinical psychologists establish profiling as a 'science' they will attempt to use it in a court of law in place of physcial evidence linking a defendant to a specific crime in a specific time & place.'
This has happened already in the UK. There was no physical evidence to link the defendant to Rachel Nickell's murder. This man was put in the dock because he was said to fit the required profile and, along with countless others, lived near Wimbledon Common and therefore took frequent advantage of its loveliness.
It doesn't follow that he took avantage of Rachel Nickell.
He wasn't convicted.
Have a great festive weekend everyone.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Friday, 20 December 2002 - 06:23 am | | Hi RJ,
my short posting yesterday was too short, but it is funny that there are always people who think can talk about something without fully understanding what they are talking about.
To start with nobody is seriously trying to turn profiling into a science. It never will be one because it cannot be one. We (profilers) use science as a basis for our work but fully understand that are lot of what we say is based on speculation. In your post you mention the "stars". Douglas was the best, but has been drawn into a "Hollywood" circle and is full of his own importance. I have heard him lecture and his knowledge is a great inspiration, but he is not upto it at the moment.
Profilers have been used in film, book and television. But what you see there is nothing like the reality. There is a crappy american TV-series running in Germany which is so far fromthe truth that is is comical. Two of the best fictional charcters are Alex Cross and Lincoln Rhyme.
Horrorscopes (:-) work because they are so vague that there is enough room left for the truth. Mine for today was "You will have time to relax and enjoy yourself. Before that you will have to prove yourself." Great! A comparable profile would be: "The murderer known as Jack the Ripper was a human being who had a reason for mutilating his victims." My boss and co-workers would go down laughing.
Most of us know that around 75% of time we are wrong with our guesses. But it is the 25% that count. In those cases a speculation we have made has led an investigation in a different direction and can help a suspect being found.
We don't use crystal balls, Tarot cards or a Quiji board. To 50% we use chemistry, biology and of course psychology; to 25% we use statistics; to 20% common sense and to 5% gut feeling.
Based on that there a certain aspects of the whole case that worry me:
1) Are we looking for one killer?
2) Are there only five victims?
3) Was it one of the suspects named at the moment?
Lunch break is over, but if you are interested I will gladly give my feelings to the three question.
Yours,
Philip |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 20 December 2002 - 11:34 am | | Philip--Understand that I am fully aware that profilers don't use Ouija boards. Yes, my comparison between profiling & astrology is an exaggeration---but I think it is a somewhat necessary antidote to the over-confidence I see here among those who are championing profiling. I really don't see where I am being invalid or unreasonable. And I am, afterall, just one solitary crank in the wilderness, going up against the F.B.I. and a bunch of guys with PHDs in Clinical Psychology.
But let me ask you. Is it really fair to blame the public for not understanding the true nature of criminal profiling? I see this argument from time to time. Maybe it's a fair cop, maybe not. But where is the public's perception coming from? You might be right in saying that many profilers openly admit that they are speculating, or that they might even admit to being wrong 50 or 70% of the time. But this is very rarely the impression that they give in the newspapers or on these message boards or in the books they write. Garry Wroe is one of the most reasonable and good-natured of those using 'profiling' in the Ripper case, but even he was somewhat insistent that, if the murderer wasn't George Hutchinson, he was someone very much like him. Martin Fido in his very well-written and influential book on David Cohen said something very similar [p. 184]. After giving a rather thumb-nail sketch of the killer's profile, he writes, "None of this pattern is necessarily true of the Ripper, but any gross deviations from it render a named suspect highly improbable." A rather tame pronouncement, I suppose.
But have we reached a point where our knowledge of human psychology is so great as to warrent this confidence? If I remember my college years correctly, there was no academic discipline as hotly disputed, contentious, controversial, and filled with "in fighting" as Psychology. The whole department changed its philosophy more frequently than the fashion models in Paris changed styles. To me, profiling has limited value in a historical investigation. I don't think it is the correct way to approach the case, but by all means feel free to disagree.
Caz--According to a study mentioned in 'Police Magazine' [1/2000] nearly every appellate court in the U.S. has rejected the use of profiling as legal evidence. The exception is California. Will this always be the case? I doubt it. Cheers, RJ Palmer. |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Friday, 20 December 2002 - 05:01 pm | | R.J,
I am not sure if I am included in the individuals who are over-confident and championing profiling, but I will respond anyway. ;)
As Philip pointed out, profiling isn't an exact science, and it shouldn't be viewed as one. Unfortunately, many of the forensic devices and forensic methods we have today - for example: forensic handwriting analysis, polygraphs, and even time of death determination - are merely "arts" not "sciences".
Profiling is merely another tool that can give us a look into the possible motive or psychological makeup of the Ripper. It's not 100% solid, and different experts have come up with different conclusions. But that doesn't mean we should ignore it.
The argument that Dan and I had, and that others commented on, wasn't a "championing" of profiling as a be-all, end-all answer to the motive or psychology question. We were merely arguing - under the assumption that it was possible to create a profile of the Ripper - whether or not he was "organized" or "disorganized". So whether or not profiling is a viable forensic tool isn't really the point. We were assuming it was, and we argued from that point of view.
Personally, I think Philip and his expert contemporaries have something here - but that's merely my opinion.
B |
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Saturday, 21 December 2002 - 07:35 am | | Hi all,
I personally prefer the term "forensic psychologist". It fits far better than "profiler".
RJ,
you are not a solitary crank. After what I have read of yours, you are a level headed guy with a strong opinion. Something I find a lot better to deal with than people who only post one cryptic sentence at a time. If my post suggested that I thought you were being "invalid and unreasonable" I am sorry because that was not how I meant it to sound.
Most of the people who work in my field don't look for the limelight. A chosen few have gone that way and have bulit a picture which the general public have come to live with. I cannot blame them for them for that, even if the picture is wrong. Perhaps Gary and I can help change your perspective by showing you how we work and think. Every little bit helps.
You are right in commenting on the "in-fights". When I told my family that I wanted to study psychology, my dad said that I should study something serious (he is a Biologist). 'nuff said! We are far form fully understanding human behaviour and I hope we will never reach that level. But we are a lot further than 100 years ago (I wonder what Freud would have to say?.
You asked me to disagree with you. But I won't, because you are right. Profiling has a limited value in a historical investigation. I am using 21st century thinking and living in trying to come up with a 19th century person. I was asked sometime ago to make this profile and I thought it would be fun and could start a discussion. Certain aspects that I would need I either cannot come up with up or have to use historical documents. I have not seen the original crime-scenes or the victims. I cannot think like a 19th century man or woman. I don't know how it was to live in the East End. I so far have restrained from naming somebody who would fit my profile, because for one I don't think that that would be right and for the other I don't think that that person exists.
Dan,
I have not forgotten you. but I am waiting for data on MPD and fugue. I will be back on that in the new year.
Yours,
Philip |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Saturday, 21 December 2002 - 12:18 pm | | Brian--No offense, of course, just an observation. But your heated debate with Dan Norder suggested to me that students of 'profiling' can't even agree on the most fundamental points: viz. "organized" or "disorganized." Dan, for instance, was very insistant that the Whitechapel murderer was "organized"; you, of course, disagreed, as would Roy Hazelwood, the FBI profiler who actually looked at the Ripper case. He thought the killer was "no rocket scientist" and labled him as disorganized, citing the fact that all the victims were immediately discovered, and that the murderer was reckless. [Hell, if Cadosh merely stopped urinating and looked over the fence he would have caught the murderer red-handed]. But is anyone certain that this really tells us much about the murderer's native intelligence or his motive?
What does this difference in opinion over "disorganized" and "organized" suggest to me? Well, you might want to consider the possibility that the terms "disorganized" and "organized" are flawed, and have practically no real meaning. I would suggest that they are clumsy and conceal just as much as they claim to reveal. Their lack of usefulness might be demonstrated by the fact that a third type -- "mixed" --had to be invented. ---Just a thought to consider. Cheers.
Philip--You're a true gentleman, and very reasonable. I certainly don't mean to bad-mouth your chosen field. Psychology is a fascinating subject, and I wish you the best. I called myself a 'crank' because I am well aware that there is an aspect of my criticism that is similar to the Church telling Galileo not to peer into his telescope. By all means, carry on. Best wishes, RJP |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Saturday, 21 December 2002 - 07:00 pm | | R.J.,
I agree with you - the terms are unwieldy, and I hope that now that Douglas has retired from the Bureau, set himself up as a writer, he'll have plenty of time to revise the book.
Or maybe in 20 years I'll do it for him.
And as I research more and more into the poverty in the area - a result of the stinging rebuke from Dan - I am slowly coming to the realisation that the Ripper probably couldn't have been from the lowest of the lowly classes, as he wouldn't have had the strength or the privacy to conceal anything for very long.
So, consider me less a champion of profiling than I may have been two weeks ago.
B |
Author: Dan Norder
Saturday, 21 December 2002 - 09:09 pm | | Brian,
I think it depends upon exaclt where you draw the line on who is lowest of the low.
Old and destitute people would often be lucky to get bread and water once a day, so I doubt they would have the physical strength. But then old and destitute people aren't really serial killer types anyway. A regular Whiitechapel denizen who had regular or semi-regular work, often in very physically demanding fields, certainly could have had the strength to strangle women prostitutes who were generally pretty old and weak.
And I don't get what you mean by privacy. We already know that quite secluded areas were chosen for the killings, possibly by the victims taking the killer there. The lowest of the low may not have had a private room or possibly even a room at all, but none were needed for these killings. Other than a knife (which was common for regular butchering work and so forth anyway so wouldn;t need to be hidden) and possibly the pilfered organs (assuming they were retained for any length of time, which we have no way of knowing) I don't see anything that Jack did that would require privacy other than that of the crime scenes.
I think the Ripper could have been from the lowest of low, but rather seems very unlikely to have come from the highest classes in the country. Rich individuals could have found and afforded private rooms or secluded areas anywhere they wanted and spread killings around so they were less noticed.
Dan
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation. See:
http://www.casebook.org/about_the_casebook/funding.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------- |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Saturday, 21 December 2002 - 09:16 pm | | Hi Folks,
Another one-liner from yours truly...paradigms never caught anyone YET!
Rosey :-) |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Saturday, 21 December 2002 - 09:45 pm | | Dan,
My point was about the knife, and the organs, as well as the bloody clothing, etc. He would've required at least some amount of privacy where he could hide this stuff, or dispose of it.
And had he disposed of his clothing, he'd need money to buy more. And what would be the point of taking the organs had he not decided to keep them? Since the prevailing view is that the taking of "trophy" organs was a means for the killer in question to relive the killing, it is unlikely he'd be willing to simply toss them in the Thames on his way home.
Had he a bed in the one of the doss houses, he would've had to carry the organs around with him as they didn't offer any storage, and he wouldn't have been able to get in after 10 pm or so or he'd lose his bed.
Had he a portion of a room to himself, he would've had to have had an explanation for the bloody clothing, knife and packages he brought home.
Had he his own room, he would've had to have had steady work, and being able to work the 12-14 hours a day required, then go ripping - especially in the early hours in the morning - then go back to work, would've been tough for him, particularly if he had a job such as horse slaughterer, etc. that required a lot of physical strength.
Had he had a family, he would again have had to come up with explanations about the knife, organs, and clothes. And the few rewards that were offered - the Lord Mayor's, Samuel Montagu's and the Vigliance Committees' - should have been enough to have any poor Whitechapel wife turn her husband in a heartbeat. That was more money then they would see in twenty years. When 30-40 pounds a year was considered "doing well", 500 or 1000 would be like a million bucks to us today.
Whatever his situation, I find it hard to believe that one of the poorer Whitechapel residents - one with no steady work, or some kind of deformity that would preclude them from getting steady work - could have been the Ripper. Additionally, it would have been extremely difficult for any regular day-laborer to have committed the crimes as well. So who does that leave us with?
Someone in the upper-lower class (steady job), or the middle.
B |
Author: Dan Norder
Saturday, 21 December 2002 - 10:56 pm | | Brian-
A lot of the laborers in Whitechapel would have knives and messy, dirty and even bloody clothing as a matter of course, especially the slaughterers.
The organs would be the main problem point. The uteri probably could have been folded up in something and retained on the body until they were either eaten or disposed of. The kidney could have been wrapped a bit bulkier, but if someone had seen it they probably would have thought it was a regular store-bought one are something lifted from the slaughterhouse. The heart would be most difficult, but some speculate the it was cooked and eaten on the fire in MJK's room. Long term storage for any would have been more tricky, but you are right that it's unlikely that they would have been casually tossed aside minutes after the murders.
I think a person sharing a room as needed with others could have pulled it off, provided they had a job that reasonably involved getting covered in blood in the course of the day. Someone with their own room could have had a stable job, and the timing of the murders have always seemed to point toward that anyway -- that or the docking of the cattle boats.
Keeping things private from a family, whether rich or poor, probably would have been the most difficult, but not impossible. Andrei Chikatilo pulled off mutilation murders of about 50 people and opportunistic cannibalism of choice parts while living with his wife and family. It's a very interesting case, especially when comparing it to the Ripper case.
I agree with you that deformed people are right out as suspects, but I think Jack could have been an irregular worker, steady worker, or middle class. Rich people can't be ruled out, but the odds would seem pretty low.
Dan
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation. See:
http://www.casebook.org/about_the_casebook/funding.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------- |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Saturday, 21 December 2002 - 11:53 pm | | Dan,
I'm marking my calendars - we both agreed on something, and we didn't have a huge knockdown, dragout fight.
We better be careful...it may get boring around here. Quick! We need to find something else to argue about!
B |
Author: David Radka
Saturday, 21 December 2002 - 11:58 pm | | The Whitechapel murderer, whoever he was, clearly evidenced both organized and disorganized characteristics. But all this means is that organized/disorganized is too particular a paradigm for him. A more generic one is required.
This is an elementary point. But I speak from the wilderness...
David |
Author: Dan Norder
Sunday, 22 December 2002 - 08:50 am | | Brian,
I think you'll find that we agree on lots of things without arguments. For example, we both support the concept of profiling in general or else we wouldn't have posted here to begin with. And neither of us are wasting our time "speaking from the wilderness" when there's a whole civilization of knowledge and culture to live in instead.
Dan
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation. See:
http://www.casebook.org/about_the_casebook/funding.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
|
|
