Archive through 16 December 2002

** 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 16 December 2002

Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: Research and Dissertations: Profile of the Whitechapel Killer as a disorganised killer: Archive through 16 December 2002

Author: Paula Wolff Friday, 13 December 2002 - 08:30 am
Hi there, As I was lying in bed with a mind-numbing migraine yesterday evening, I was thinking "why"?Why did whoever suddenly or,seemingly suddenly, start his reign of terror? I know the East End had seen murders, killings and who knows what else, but they obviously hadn't seen anything like this type of killing or there wouldn't have been quite the fear and uproar. Jack caused a real sensation but why? What, in other words, was the trigger to start him on his way to fame but not fortune. My migraines are always lurking, but it takes a trigger to set them off to the point a .22 would be a blessing. So it would seem with him. Why did he start on the type of crime he was so good at? Please remember and I had a migraine and be gentle with your answers. I may not have been right in the head either. This type of thing is normal when I have one - I fixate on a thing and can't get it out of my head even though I'm not really thinking straight. Anyway, there it is. Just jump in. Here's looking at you cross-eyed, kid, Paula
Author: Stuart Friday, 13 December 2002 - 09:28 am
Hi Paula. The key word combination in your post (in my eyes) was "seemingly suddenly". I believe that Jack would have started out with other crimes. Robberies, assaults and so on, before "graduating" up to serial killing. I think you're right on the money there. I'd find it hard to believe that anyone would just decide to be a killer. More likely that their lives start out with abuse (FBI profiles suggest this I understand) then they themselves turn to criminal acts, before they hit the headlines. That's one of the reasons I rule out Maybrick (aside from my doubts about the diary which is another chat altogether). He just decided to go and kill pros in London. Hmmm...
Author: David Radka Friday, 13 December 2002 - 04:05 pm
Paula, The trigger is right in the evidence, clear as a bell. Read the Tabram evidence and you'll see it. No one has ever mentioned it before. Once he got started, however, things were different. David
Author: Brian Schoeneman Friday, 13 December 2002 - 04:17 pm
Dan, Yes, most people here ARE misundertanding the definitions of the words. And Chris Scott's list is okay, but it is not entirely accurate. So let me reframe the debate by going to the horses mouth. The following are excerpts from "Sexual Homicide: Patterns and Motives". This was the book that Bob Ressler, Ann Burgess and John Douglas wrote that basically started criminal profiling of sexual serial killers. ------------ The chapter is entitled "Crime Scene and Profile Characteristics of Organzied and Disorganized Murderers" The Organized Offender: Profile characteristics, Organized offenders tend to have a high birth order, often being the firstborn son in a family. The father's work history is generally stable. Parental discipline is perceived as inconsistent. The organized offender has an average or better-than-average IQ but often works at occupations below his abilities. The organized offender has a history of working at a skilled occupation, although his work history is uneven. He also prefers a skilled occupation. Precipitating situational stress prior to the murder is often present and includes such stresses as financial, marital, relationships with females, and employment problems. The organized offender is socially adept and usually living with a partner. The organized offender may report an angry frame of mind at the time of the murder or state that he was depressed. However, he reports himself as calm and relaxed during the commission of the crimes. Alcohol may be used prior to the crime. The organized offender is likely to have a car that is in good condition. Evidence of conintued fantasy can be seen in his taking souvenirs from the victim or crime scene. Newspaper clippings of the crimes are often found during searches of the subject's residence indivating that the offender followed the crime investigation in the newspaper. Crime scene characteristics, The crime scene of an organized offender suggest that a sembalnce of order existed prior to, during, and after the offense. This sense of methodical organization suggests a carefully planned crime that is aimed at deterring detection. Although the crime may be planned, the victim is frequently a stranger and is targeted because he or she is in a particular location staked out by the offender. In this sense, the vctim becomes a victim of opportunity. Victims of serial murderers have been noted to share common characteristics. The offender often has a preference for a particular tupe of victim and thus may spend considerable time seraching for the "right" victim. As one offender said, "I'm a night person. Plenty of times that I went out looking, but never came across nothing and just went back home. I'd sit waiting and as I was waiting, I was reliving all the others." Common characteristcs of victims selected by an individual murderer may include age, appearance, occupation, hairstyle, and life-style. Targeted victims in this sample included adolescent male youths, hitchhiking female college students, nurses, women frequenting bars, women sitting in automobiles with a male companion, and solitary women driving two door cars. The organized offender is socially dept and may strike up a conversation or a pseudorelationship with the victim as a prelude to the attack. Offenders may impersonate another person's role as a method of gaining access to a victim. THe offedner's demeanor is not usually suspicious. He may be average or above average in appearance, height, and weight; he may be dressed in a businnes suit, a uniform, or in neat, casual attire. In the organized style of attack, aimed at gaining the confidence of the victim, there is first the effortr to strike up a conversation and to use verbal means to caputre the victim rather than physical force. The organized offender frequently uses his or the victims vehicle in committing the offense. Rape as well as murder may be the planned crime. Murder is always a possibility following rape; the assailant threatens the victims's life and shows a weapon. Sexual control is continued past conversation to demands for specific types of reactions (fear, passivity) during the sexual assault. When the victim's behavior counters being passive and compliant, the offender may increase the aggression. Control over the victim is also noted in the use of restraints. Some of the restraints include ropes, chains, tape, belts, clothing, chemicals, handcuffs, gags and blindfolds. The way weapons or restraints are used may suggest a sadistic element in the offender's plan. The killing is eroticized, as in torture where death comes in a slow, deliberate manner. The power over another person's life is seen in one example in which a murderer described tightening and loosening the rope around the victim's neck as he watched the victim slip in and out of a conscience state. Fantasy and ritual dominate in the organized offender. Obsessive, compulsive traits surface in the behavior and/or crime scene patterns. The offender often brings a weapon with him to the crime, taking it with him upon departure. He carefully avoids leaving evidence behind and often moves the body from the death scene. Although sexual acts are part of the fantasy planning of the crime, murder may not be a conscious intent until a triggering cue occurs. This is illustrated by the following murderer's statement: "I had thought about killing her ... saying what am I going to do when this is over. Am I going to let her go she can call the cops and get me busted again? So when she took off running - that decided it in my mind that killing her was what I was going to do. ----------------- There is also a list of traits of "Organized" offenders. Profile traits: Good intelligence Socially competent Skilled work preferred Sexually competent High birth order status Father's work stable Inconsistent childhood discipline Controlled mood during crime Use of alchohol with crime Precipitating situational stress Living with partner Mobility, with vehicle in good condition Follows crime in news media May change jobs or leave town Crime scene characteristics, Offense planned Victim a targeted stranger Personalizes victim Controlled conversation Crime scene reflects overall control Demands submissive victim Restraints used Aggressive acts prior to death Body hidden Weapon/evidence absent Transport victim or body ---------------------------------------------- That's what an organized offender does - clearely a lot of the things they claim this type of offender does were not present in the Ripper killings, although a few of them are. Next we'll look at what Ressler, Burgess and Douglas say about the disorganized offender. B
Author: Brian Schoeneman Friday, 13 December 2002 - 04:41 pm
Here's what they have to say about the disorganized offender: ------------------------------------- The Disorganized Offender Profile characteristics, The disorganized offender is likely to be of below average intelligence or of low birth status in the family. Also, harsh parental discipline is sometimes reported in childhood. The father's work history is unstable, and the disorganized offender seems to mirror this pattern with his own inconsistent and poor work history. Typically, this offender is preoccupied with recurring obsessional and/or primitive thoughts and is in a confused and distressed frame of mind at the time of the crime. The disorganized offender is socially inadequate. Often he has never married, lives alone or with a parental figure, and lives in close proximity to the crime scene. This offender is fearful of people and may have developed a well-defined delusional system. He acts impulsively under stress, finding a victim usually within his own geographic area. The offender is also sexually incompetent, often never having achieved any level of sexual intimacy with a peer. Although the offenders in this sample claimed to be heterosexual, there is a clear suggestion that the disorganized offender is ignorant of sex and often may have sexual aversions. The overall impression given by the disorganized crime scene is that the crime has been committed suddenly and with no set plan of action for deterring detection. The crime scene shows great disarray; it has a spontaneous, symbolic, unplanned quality. The victim may be known to the offender, but the age and sex of the victim do not necessarily matter. If the offender is selecting a victim by randomly knocking on doors in a neighborhood, the first person to open a door becomes a victim. The offender kills instantly to have control; he cannot take the risk that the victim will get the upper hand. The offender uses a blitz style of attack for encountering the vitim. He either approaches the victim from behind, suddenly overpowering her, or he kills suddenly, as with a gun. The attack is a violent surprise, occurring out of the blue and in a location where the victim is going about his or her usual activities. The victim is caught completely off-guard. The offender depersonalizes the victim. Specific areas of the body may be targeted for extreme brutality. Overkill or excessive assault to the face is often an attempt to dehumanize the victim. Destruction to the face may also indicate that the killer knows the victim or that the victim resembles or represents a person who has caused the offender psychological distress. The offender may wear a mask or gloves, cover the victim's face as he attacks, or blindfold her. There is minial verbal interaction aside from orders and threats. Restraints are not necessary, as the victim is killed quickly. Any sexually sadistics acts, often in the form of mutliation, are usually performed after death. Ofefnders have attempted a variety of sexual acts, including ejaculating into an open stab wound in the victim's abdomen. Evidence of urination, defecation, and masturbation in the victim's clothing and home has been found. Mutilation to the face, genitals, and breasts and disembowelment, amputation, and vampirism may be noted on the body. Disorganized offenders might keep the dead body. One murderer killed two women and kept their body parts in his home for eight years. He made masks from their heads and drums and seat covers from their skins. Earlier he had exhumed the bodies of eight elderly women from their graves and performed similiar mutilative acts to their bodies. The death scene and crime scene are often the same for the disorganized offender, with the victim being left in the position in which she or he was killed. If the offender has mutilated the body, it may be positioned in a special way that has significance to the offender. No attempt is made to conceal the body. Fingerprints and footprints may be found, and the police will have a great deal of evidence to use in their investigation Usually, the murder weapon is one obtained at the scene and is left there, providing investigators with evidence. --------------- Profile characteristics, Average intelligence Socially immature Poor work history Sexually incompetent Minimal birth order status Father's work unstable Harsh discipline in childhood Anxious mood during crime Minimal use of alcohol Minimal situational stress Living alone Lives/works near crime scene Minimal change in life-style Crime scene characteristics, Spontaneous offense Victim or location known Depersonalizes victim Minimal conversation Crime scene random and sloppy Sudden violence to victim Minimal use of restaints Sexual acts after death Body left in view Evidence/weapon often present Body left at the death scene ---------------------------------------------- This is what they consider that a "disorganized" offender does. When looking at both, and trying to fit Jack into one of the other, you've got a tough time. Some of the things he did fit in the organized view, namely: Weapon/evidence absent Victim a targeted stranger But overall, most of the things that are needed for an organized offender are missing. He doesn't display any of the other characteristics. He doesn't lure the women to go with him, he doesn't restrain them, he doesn't rape them, he doesn't move their bodies, or try and cover them up, and he doesn't torture them or take his time. Here's what he does that fits with disorganized: Spontaneous offense Depersonalizes victim Crime scene random and sloppy Sudden violence to victim Minimal use of restaints Body left in view Body left at the death scene Not only that, but the "blitz" style of attack, the mutilations and removal of trophies, etc. is more indicative of a disorganized offender. The example of the guy who kept two people and their parts in his house was Ed Gein - the guy whom they based the Silence of Lambs character Buffalo Bill on. Okay...so Dan and everyone, now that you are armed with the correct, by the book definitions of organized and disorganized, start arguing. I again firmly think he was more disorganized than organized - and I think that if you consider the Lusk letter to be legitimate, much of this profile is confirmed. More on that if anyone wants it. B
Author: Dan Norder Friday, 13 December 2002 - 07:46 pm
Brian, For all the extra verbiage you stated the exact same things. Going by these definitions, excluding the things that can't be known (birth order) and things irrelevant to overcrowded Whitechapel of 1888(transportation, etc.), Jack the Ripper was clearly organized and not disorganized. Why? For all the same reasons extensively detailed above numerous times already by many people. Dan --------------------------------------------------------------- Consider supporting this great site by making a donation. See: http://www.casebook.org/about_the_casebook/funding.html ---------------------------------------------------------------
Author: Brian Schoeneman Friday, 13 December 2002 - 08:23 pm
Dan, How can you say "clearly"? Do me, an ignorant person who can't follow your logic, the favor and point out what parts of the "organized" definition the Ripper falls under. Because 90% of the disorganized he falls under. 1.) All of the crime scenes displayed evidence of them being spontaneous - not planned out in advance. 2.) He randomly selected victims, didn't plan them out or stalk them for days or weeks. 3.) Used a blitz style attack, killing quickly. 4.) He depersonalized two of the victims, Eddowes and Kelly. 5.) The mutilations occurred after death. 6.) He kept body parts. 7.) The death scene and the crime scenes were the same. 8.) The bodies weren't hidden or moved, and there were no overt examples of him trying to obscure evidence. That's a pretty significant list, and it's far larger than what you can glean from the organized list. Don't think that because I consider Jack to be a disorganized killer that somehow makes him less skilled, or lucky. It's just a different style. Most of the most prolific killers were disorganized. Of the organized traits, I can only find the following that fit: 1.) The victim's were probably strangers 2.) He had a preference for a particular type of victim. 3.) He took the murder weapon away from the scene with him. That's it. None of the rest of it fits. So can you please indulge me by explaining what you think makes him organized, based on the accurate definitions I've provided? B
Author: Dan Norder Saturday, 14 December 2002 - 12:53 am
Brian, I'm getting tired in going in circles on this, as I've already explained this several times on this thread, and so have other people. But for direct contradictions of what you post... "1.) All of the crime scenes displayed evidence of them being spontaneous - not planned out in advance." And where do you get this? These were very clearly planned killings. "2.) He randomly selected victims, didn't plan them out or stalk them for days or weeks." An assumption on your part. This is also a point in favor of an organized killer, as that list includes attacking good targets that enter the killing ground. "3.) Used a blitz style attack, killing quickly." For the umpteenth time, killing quickly is not a disorganized trait if you have to do it in a public place. Killing slowly outside in public in the East End means you get caught because you are so disorganized you can't plan for the obvious difficulties involved. When he got inside with MJK there's no proof that he killed quickly. "4.) He depersonalized two of the victims, Eddowes and Kelly." It seems to me that facial mutilations for a mutilation killer do not go very far to prove depersonalization, but OK, it may be present for half or less of the kilings. "5.) The mutilations occurred after death." Of course. In fact, I think a "Duh!" is in order. There's no way he could have gotten away with the killings in overcrowded East End if he'd kept the victims alive while he was mutilating. This is good planning, thus organization, not a reason to think he had a disorganized mind. "6.) He kept body parts." Yes. One point for you, for a total of one and a half points if we include the depersonalization of two victims. "7.) The death scene and the crime scenes were the same." Of course they are the same. In Whitechapel there'd be no place to carry the bodies off to without risking being detected. It's not like he could pull a car up to a garage and drop the body in the trunk and drive away. In the East End at the time, the death scene was the most logical place to put the body to attract the least attention while you flee. "8.) The bodies weren't hidden or moved, and there were no overt examples of him trying to obscure evidence." Also irrelevant. Obscure what evidence? You are trying to build a case for an unorganized killer because he didn't, what, try to erase fingerprints? Hide DNA evidence? Please, tell me what evidence there was to hide. The problem here is you are overapplying the aspects that make the least amount of sense for the time and location of the killings. In this area, trying to move the body is more likely to get you arrested than just running. "Of the organized traits, I can only find the following that fit: 1.) The victim's were probably strangers 2.) He had a preference for a particular type of victim. 3.) He took the murder weapon away from the scene with him." 4) Crimes were planned to avoid detection. 5) Offender's demeanor was not suspicious. 6) Verbal means were used to capture victim instead of physical force. 7) Obsessive, compulsive traits surface in crime scene patterns. 8) He took the murder weapon to the scene (though this should probably be merged with #3 above). And then there are lots more that we don't have enough information to guess about, but seem likely based upon the evidence: controlled mood during crimes, higher than average intelligence, newspaper clippings, spending considerable time looking for the "right" victim, and eroticizing the killings. There's also evidence that points to the possibility that MJK was stalked and specifically targeted. I'll grant you that if you look at the lists and apply them without taking the era and location into consideration that Jack looks disorganized. Sure, he didn't kidnap victims, toss them in a VW and drive to a secluded wooded area and torture them for days. Seclusion was a near impossibility in Whitechapel in the late 1800s, so an organized killer in that slum wouldn't have a chance to display many of the symptoms you are looking for. Dan --------------------------------------------------------------- Consider supporting this great site by making a donation. See: http://www.casebook.org/about_the_casebook/funding.html ---------------------------------------------------------------
Author: Brian Schoeneman Saturday, 14 December 2002 - 03:18 am
Dan, Thanks for taking the time out of your very hectic schedule to refute the points I made. I appreciate it. As I continue to disagree, let me explain why. 1.) "And where do you get this? These were very clearly planned killings." - How? Because he brought a knife with him? Because he had something to wrap the trophies in? Or are you assuming that he had all of the crime scenes staked out ahead of time? If you are - where do you get that? The more logical, and simple, answer is that he merely solicited the prostitutes, who then took him to their favorite spot for sex, and he killed them there. That didn't require any pre-planning, any scouting of the area, etc. All of that was done for him by his victim. All he had to do was pick the first prostitute he saw. 2.) Randomly selected - "An assumption on your part. This is also a point in favor of an organized killer, as that list includes attacking good targets that enter the killing ground. " Of course it's an assumption on my part. It's an assumption on YOUR part that they were NOT randomly selected. The simplest, and therefore more logical, assumption is that they were random victims, and not stalked for a long period of time. 3.) "For the umpteenth time, killing quickly is not a disorganized trait if you have to do it in a public place. Killing slowly outside in public in the East End means you get caught because you are so disorganized you can't plan for the obvious difficulties involved. When he got inside with MJK there's no proof that he killed quickly. " Dan, for the umpteenth time, killing in a public place itself IS a disorganized trait. And if you think that the Ripper was so smart that he was able to pre-scout out all of the crime scenes ahead of time, stalk the victims, coerce them into following him into dark secluded areas that they may never have been in, and then kill them, why do you think he wasn't smart enough to find a secluded vacant area to do the killings in? Or move the body to? Why didn't he just take them there, instead of luring them to public places? Why weren't all of the crime scenes like MJK? The easiest answer to that was that MJK was the only person who turned her tricks in a bed, in her own rooms. More evidence that the victims determined where they would die. 4.) "Of course. In fact, I think a "Duh!" is in order. There's no way he could have gotten away with the killings in overcrowded East End if he'd kept the victims alive while he was mutilating. This is good planning, thus organization, not a reason to think he had a disorganized " - A duh was in order. And you keep harping on this point about the East End being overcroweded. Sure, we know it was. But that didn't stop some people from having their own rooms - MJK did. And that didn't result in him getting caught in the act...the closest he came was with Stride, if you believe her to be a victim. Again - if he were smart enough to find quiet, dark, public areas, why couldn't he have found a quiet, dark, private area? And throw in the fact that most organized offenders DON'T mutilate their victims, for good measure. 5.) "Of course they are the same. In Whitechapel there'd be no place to carry the bodies off to without risking being detected. It's not like he could pull a car up to a garage and drop the body in the trunk and drive away. In the East End at the time, the death scene was the most logical place to put the body to attract the least attention while you flee. " - There are no cabs in whitechapel? No horse drawn carts filled with hay? He was organized enough to figure all the rest out, why not figure out a way to transport the bodies? Or, if he was so suave with the ladies as you suppose, why not merely talk them into going with him to his rooms, or the area he could have found that was deserted? And if that was too far, why not find women closer to it? Then we go into the bullet points. 4)Crimes were planned to avoid detection. What evidence is there of that? All we know was that he killed them in dark quiet places - the same places they would have taken him to have sex in. This is not clear evidence of a plan to avoid detection. 5) Offender's demeanor was not suspicious. Again, this is an assumption you are making, but a better than average one, as he didn't draw any attention to himself. 6) Verbal means were used to capture victim instead of physical force. How do we know this? All he had to do was approach one of them, make a gesture and they'd go with him for sex...it doesn't take a don juan to convince a two-bit prostitute to go with you. You've got money, you've got her. All he needed to do was flash a farthing or two and off they went. There was no elaborate courting or relationship building that seems evident in more organized offenders. There wouldn't have been time - if there was, there would've been more witness who would have seen them together. 7) Obsessive, compulsive traits surface in crime scene patterns. - Where? What traits? That they're dead? There were no obvious ritualistic tendencies, the bodies weren't always in the same positions, facing the same way, with the same cuts and stabs on them. Each scene was different. All the mutliations were different, all of the parts taken as trophies were different. There was nothing that was exactly the same in any of the crime scenes or attacks. You can't have it both ways - if you consider him to be an organized offender than you need to take its logical conclusion: he would have found a private area to enjoy himself, he would have found a way either to get his victims there, or their bodies there once they were dead, and all of the crime scenes would look like MJK. I'm not leaving out the era and location - I recognize that Whitechapel is overcrowded at the time period. But he still managed - even in this overcrowded area - to kill at least 5 women without anyone ever seeing him, and one of those areas was ON THE BEAT of a cop (Mitre square). I'm merely applying Chris' Occam's razor to this whole idea: Which is simpler? The Ripper stalks all of the victims, identifies them prior to each killing, finds quiet areas where he can kill them nearby, approaches them, convinces them to go with him to those areas, and then kills them, OR The Ripper finds a prostitute, follows her to her usual sex area, and kills her there. And if you throw in the double event (meaning you believe Stride to be a legitimate victim), it throws a kink into your entire theory, because he would have had to case the area, find a suitable spot, find a woman and get her to come with him in less than an hour. I think the answer is "clearly" the second option. Jack's behavior was pre-planned, but he was not an "organized" killer. If he were, he wouldn't have been killing and mutilating in public in the first place, no matter how over-crowded Whitechapel was. B
Author: Dan Norder Saturday, 14 December 2002 - 05:29 pm
Brian- We seem to have two main problems here. The first is that you are assuming that Jack was disorganized and refuse to look at other options, and the second is that you are really unfamiliar with the conditions in Whitechapel. For the first, let's take a look at the following exchange. I said: "6) Verbal means were used to capture victim instead of physical force." You replied: "How do we know this? All he had to do was approach one of them, make a gesture and they'd go with him for sex..." Unless you are honestly trying to claim that a gesture is "physical force" you have to admit that this point is correct. A gesture, statement, conversation or any communication between killer and victim shows verbal means being used and disproves physical means. The only way you would have any case for physical means of capture would be if you want to argue that Jack jumped the victims after someone else had used their services, and then that would show evidence of stalking. No matter how you look at how the victims came to a secluded location, Jack has shown high organized traits. For the second major problem with your argument, let's look at these statements: "Dan, for the umpteenth time, killing in a public place itself IS a disorganized trait [...] why do you think he wasn't smart enough to find a secluded vacant area to do the killings in?" Smart has nothing to do with this. It has to do with opportunity. The locations Jack chose to do the killings (whether he picked them himself or followed a victim there, it doesn't matter which as he chose when to kill) were the most secluded areas available. You need to do some serious catch up reading on the conditions in Whitechapel at the time. You seem to be woefully ignorant of the actual living conditions. The public parks, for example, were locked, patrolled by police, and crowded with destitute homeless people five or more to a bench when unlocked, no matter the time of day. You ask: "There are no cabs in whitechapel?" Cabs? You are honestly asking me this? Cabs were extremely rare and limited to people with money to burn. Even if Jack had the required money, getting a victim anywhere near a cab would have been like a huge neon sign flashing, "I do not belong here, I am suspicious, lynch me now." "No horse drawn carts filled with hay?" Taking a body from a mostly secluded place to a hay cart to do what, exactly? Run off with it and be arrested for robbery and then murder when the body was found? Get caught dragging the body there in the first place? Steal the cart and try to bring it someplace to where the killing would take place? These all add tremendous risks. " He was organized enough to figure all the rest out, why not figure out a way to transport the bodies?" Transport them where? WHY? All this does is increase your likelihood of getting caught. Any killer with an ounce of brains in Whitechapel would get as far as possible from the body when he was finished as soon as he was able. "Or, if he was so suave with the ladies as you suppose, why not merely talk them into going with him to his rooms, " You are assuming that he lived alone, or that he had money to get a separate private room, and that a prostitute would go along with someone to a private area not in their control during the Autumn of Terror. None of these are likely at all. " or the area he could have found that was deserted?" What deserted areas? You state that if Jack had any brains he could have found them, yet you haven't come up with any yourself. I see from your profile that you are in the U.S. If you are familiar with any slum in the United States, you may think Whitechapel in 1888 is comparable. It isn't. You'd have to go to the innercity slums of India or Mexico City today to even approximate the conditions of overcrowding and abject poverty that existed in the East End of London in 1888... and then of course you'd also have to remove all technology made in the last 100+ years to try to make it comparable. For basic remedial education on the conditions of the East End at the time, you should start with Jack London's "People of the Abyss" which was written several years after the Autumn of Terror, after conditions there had approved considerably but were still hellish. If we want to try to get useful information out of your inexperience with the area, your arguments show that a killer with money (unless he was so crazy he was dellusional) probably would have done the killings in a less urban environment so there would be more privacy. This tends to rule out nobility, doctors, artists, and even the middle class. A poor resident of Whitechapel or a sailor would not have had the opportunity to find anything more secluded than what Jack did find. It seems to me that this would rule out a lot of the common suspects... but then people tend to pick an opinion and stick to it come hell or high water regardless of the evidence. Dan --------------------------------------------------------------- Consider supporting this great site by making a donation. See: http://www.casebook.org/about_the_casebook/funding.html ---------------------------------------------------------------
Author: Brian Schoeneman Saturday, 14 December 2002 - 06:01 pm
Dan, Call me ignorant. Tell me I know nothing about Whitechapel at the time. That's fine. I've got a thick skin, and I'll admit it - I'm not an expert on Whitechapel at the time. What I'm going by is what I've read in Sugden, Evans, and the other Ripper books. I've not read London. But I don't think I need to, as this thread is not concerned with "overcrowding in Whitechapel". It's about profiling. What I do know is profiling. If Jack had money - which you say he does not - he would be more likely to fit the profile of an organized killer. He'd be able to hold down a job, and he'd probably have a family or at least a wife. But if he DID have money, he wouldn't have been killing prostitutes on the street - he could have found the means to lure them somewhere secure, move their bodies after he killed them to somewhere secure without arousing suspicion, or after finding a secure location, getting his victims from areas near it. If he was poor, he was more likely to be a disorganized killer - unable to hold down a job, unable to socialize with regular people, and then the only way he'd be able to do what he wanted was quickly and in public, until he found MJK. And he would be less likely to elaborate plan out every crime scene and stalk every victim ahead of time. This argument is proving futile, because in your need to prove me wrong - either by calling me ignorant, uneducated, or merely tiresome - you are missing the point. You are ignoring the facts that don't fit your case. You have still never answered my question: If Whitechapel was so overcrowded, how did he manage to kill the victims he killed without getting caught? Under your theory, with the poor being piled like deadwood in every corner of every street and park, it seems as if he'd never be able to find a quiet spot. But, obviously he did. I'm not being closed minded, I'm simply trying to educate - not just you, but the other people reading this thread and the others who have used the words "disorganized" and "organized" and obviously don't have any idea what Douglas, Ressler, Burgess and the rest of the FBI Behavioral Sciences people meant them to mean. These aren't mere words, they are pseudoscientific, legalistic words with legalistic definitions. Organzied doesn't mean he had a neat desk. Disorganized doesn't mean his sock drawer was a mess. So how about we ignore my "inexperience with the history of Whitechapel" and get back to profiling? I think I read that this was what this thread was about, anyway. B
Author: Dan Norder Saturday, 14 December 2002 - 07:17 pm
Brian- Again your ignorance of the time period negates your claims. It is highly relevant to this thread, as modern profiling has a lot of assuptions built into it that aren't that relevant to the ripper case. The major one you keep hitting your head against is the opportunity for seclusion and transportation. You seem to think that if Jack were organized he'd hop a cab and tote a dead body around in it, or get a private room or a house in the country. This is ludicrous. We might as well ask why you don't take your private jet to London back and forth every day and investigate the crime full time for the next year. There were plenty of poor people in Whitechapel who held down jobs... several, in fact, who stayed poor and never would have been able to afford a cab ride or a private room. You seem to think someone above average of intelligence automatically would have gotten a high paying job and left the slum. Being poor in Whitechapel (or elsewhere) is not and is no way related to whether they were hard working or had the kind of brain that would develop into a disorganized killer or not. You are ignoring the reality of the time period, and arrogantly claim that you are right to ignore it because it isn't relevant to the thread. You might as well try to dictate to the rest of us that the killer was a female and dismiss any attempts to argue to the contrary as irrelevant to the thread. As far as this question that you seem to think I haven't answered, but has in fact been answered over and over, as to how Jack could have killed in private if Whitechapel was really as crowded as I seem to think (go look it up instead of proudly proclaiming it false while admitting you never researched it) -- Jack was organized, and it was his organized killing method that enabled him to choose the perfect time and place to kill in the most secluded areas available. If an organized killer looks for the most secure available areas, well, sorry, but he did exactly that! These were likely the best locations he could get because of the indisputable economic conditions of the area at the time. You are thinking about life as a person living comfortably in the U.S., the richest country in the world, 100 years after the fact. Then you say, "Jack the Ripper killed in a backyard of a crowded building? He must have been disorganized, because an organized person would have just taken it to a garage, park, arboretum, playground, private bomb shelter, or off to his estate in France." Let's say 100 years from now people get private spaceships, and then some killers dump bodies in deep space. Your descendant would probably say, wait a minute, this murderer in 2002 didn't drop the body into outerspace, so it must have been a disorganized killer. Sorry if we don't take your self-professed ignorance about the time period as proof that you have the slightest clue what you are talking about. Dan --------------------------------------------------------------- Consider supporting this great site by making a donation. See: http://www.casebook.org/about_the_casebook/funding.html ---------------------------------------------------------------
Author: Brian Schoeneman Saturday, 14 December 2002 - 08:57 pm
Dan, Who is we? You got a mouse in your pocket? I'm getting sick of this: if it makes you feel better to call me stupid, keep on doing it. Every time you insult me, you lose credability. Now, if you'd like to argue like grownups, let me continue my point - one that you keep ignoring. Your logic is flawed. It's that simple. For some reason, you seem to think that it makes more sense that the Ripper went to the trouble to scout out all of his locations and victims ahead of time when the more reasonable and less complex theory is that he simply identified his victim at random and when they reached a place of relative quiet and darkness, killed them. If he had scouted them out ahead of time, why was the Stride location so poor? Right next to a busy club? Why did he get interrupted during Stride's killing? And how did he do all of his location scouting and victim stalking in less than an hour to kill Eddowes? (your answer, I'm sure, will be that Stride wasn't an actual victim.) Explain to me what about your theory - of him scouting out locations and victims ahead of time - is more likely than my theory - of random victim selection based on where he was when he happened to get the urge. You consider him to be organized because of this reason alone. And I consider him to be disorganized not only because of my view, but also of the other 7 or 8 points I outlined forty posts earlier. Profiling works here, just as it would have in 1888 Whitechapel, because it doesn't take into account the location - killers across the United States, and the world, have behaved in similiar ways - if they didn't, profiling wouldn't work, and there is ample evidence that it does. So if profiling works on a guy in 1960's New York, 1980's Yorkshire, and 2002 Washington, DC, it can work in 1888 Whitechapel, and you don't need to be an expert on the region at the time period in order to apply it. You think that every FBI Special Agent or homicide detective is an expert on the areas they are consulting in? Of course not - they couldn't possibly be. So cut the crap, my general knowledge of the area at the time is more than sufficient to allow me to apply my deeper knowledge of profiling to this case. Am I an expert? No. And neither are you. We're both just exceptionally well read amateurs, until someone pays to read our opinions. Had the Ripper been an organized killer, he would have behaved differently - and that could include not choosing Whitechapel at all as a killing ground. I have no problems agreeing to disagree about this. But please - grow up and quit trying to win the argument by saying I'm an idiot. It's unbecoming. B
Author: Scott E. Medine Sunday, 15 December 2002 - 11:34 am
As someone who has taken a course in Sexual Predator Profiling at Quantico, I have a unique experience that most do not. As a former homicide detective, I could care less if the killer I was looking for tortured animals as a child, wet the bed, smoked dope and had a father who loved touching him in his secret spot. I could care less if his mother was domineering and his father was abusive. In the end, all of the data about his childhood and his current lifestyle would serve in determining if the suspect we had deserved a closer look than another. What I wanted was his address, place of work and day time and night time telephone numbers. There are problems with the FBI profiling studies. Douglas et al interviewed these killers and they bought their sob stories hook line and sinker. They preformed no follow up interviews of the killers. What one has to remember is that these killers will lie. I know its an amazing epiphany to some, but yes, criminals do lie to the police, even when they are in jail. Those that don�t lie have a really warped sense of reality and justice and no matter what you try to tell them, in their minds, they are right. Case in point. A nise fellow I had the pleasure of arresting shot his brother -in - law in the leg one summer afternoon. The reason he did it was to prove to his brother -in- law that self defense. His brother -in- law called him a dumb (racial slur) and took his shirt off, indicating to him that a fight was about to take place and the brother -in- law was armed with a tire tool. In fact, the argument started over the brother -in- law repairing his sisters car. The husband, shooter, stated that the battery was bad and the brother -in- law stated the alternator was bad and bought a new one. He was in the process of finishing the job by tightening the alternator belt when he took off his shirt due to the hot Louisiana summer sun. Our shooter told us that he didn�t kill the man because he was his brother -in- law and only wanted to prove his point. Anyway, what Douglas and his posse failed to do was question the parents of these killers. Sure Gacy�s father was a raving lunatic and a drunk. He often went down to the basement and drank all night, then came up to beat little Johnny. I�m sure little Johnny did nothing to provoke any of these beatings in the least bit. His marijuana smoking and skipping school had nothing to do in fueling his father�s anger. As for Ed Kemper�s mother....well she was not available for an interview to tell her side of the story. In fact very little if any interviews took place with family members or others who personally knew the killer. It is interesting to note that the FBI did interview Bundy�s live in girl friend and the questions were all close ended- - those requiring a simple answer, usually yes or no. In the world of law enforcement, close ended questions are the ones investigators are taught to stay away from in interview and interrogation situations. In fact a friend of mine, was involved with some of those early interviews and stated that Ressler was notorious for asking the killers leading questions. He stated that Resseler asked Kemper, �Tell me about the abuse in your childhood.� The proper question would be, �Tell me about your childhood.� This may seem like small points but it is questions like this that can taint a murder investigation. It is the equivalent of asking a victim at a line up,� Is the person that committed the crime in the room.� The proper line of questioning is, � Do you recognize anyone in the room.� If you receive a yes answer, then the follow up question is, �In what context do you know the person?� If the answer is no, then the proper follow up question is, �Can you take another look to be sure.� The FBI has a tremendous success rate in profiling killers. The reason for this is they pick and choose the cases they will consult. If the killer does not meet the profile then the case is accepted. The case of Jeffery Dahlmer was turned down by the FBI. The FBI went as far as telling Milwaukee they did not have a serial killer, because the victims were multi-racial and multi-ethnic. The FBI at the time maintained that serial killers were intra-racial and intra-ethnic. The FBI also needs to realize that time and place do matter. Where and when a person is occuping his place in existance is a big piece of the puzzle. Technology advances with each sweep of the second hand. Things that are available now were only imagined in 1888. Not only does technology make a world of differenc but religious, social, economic and political changes effect society as well. What is illegal in one country or society may be perfectly acceptible in the next,crossing time periods only makes the differences more obiouvs. Case is point is the US Supreme Court ruling that worshipers of Santaria have the right to sacrifice animals during worship. Years ago, they could have been arrested for cruelity to animals. The FBI has failed to realize that the words, never and always do not belong in the law enforcement lexicon. I feel the next big profiling point that bites them in the back side will be the statement, �MO changes but signature never does.� This is what I call the white swan theory; all swans are white. Show me hard concrete proof that a killer will not evolve to the point that his - - or her for that fact - - signature changes with each successive crime? Imagine what it was like when that first black swan appeared. Peace, Scott
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Sunday, 15 December 2002 - 04:29 pm
Dear Scott, Your contributions to the Casebook, are, without doubt, exceptional. You enrich that Quantico Experience that I hear so much about! We need more Scotties in this world. Best wishes, Rosey :-)
Author: Dan Norder Sunday, 15 December 2002 - 05:01 pm
Brian, If you think I am arguing for an organized killer because you think I said Jack scouted all the killing areas ahead of time, you either have extremely poor reading comprehension or are purposefully misrepresenting what I wrote so you can knock a straw man down. It certainly can't be my sole reason if I never said it in the first place. There are many numerous examples of organized behavior that have been posted several times by myself and others on this topic thread. You were trying to argue against them several messages back and now you claim they were never presented at all? That smacks of desperation. As a matter of fact, as Scott Medine points out so well, profiling only works for those extremely limited cases that the FBI chooses to look at. Profiling is location and society based. The fact that you foolishly think that Jack the Ripper should have hopped a cab shows that that part of the profile makes no sense for the east End of 1888, and that you don't know enough about the case or the area to be making the kinds of statements you keep making. Here's another howler: "Had the Ripper been an organized killer, he would have behaved differently - and that could include not choosing Whitechapel at all as a killing ground." What a riot. The number of false assumptions you must swallow to make such a sweeping statement is incredible. So I suppose you think an organized killer in the slums of the East End would have just left the rest of his life and hired a cab (with what money?) to go someplace far away to scout for locations to try to kill people? That's nonsense. In fact, a killer with enough money for a private room or cab ride would have been attracted to the East End for the availability of potential victims. While the local prostitutes would not see anything wrong with another trick as usual, hopping in a cab and going somewhere with a stranger, especially after the first major reported killing, would be extremely unlikely. Although I don't consider it too seriously, even a wealthy killer might trade off privacy in the killing location for knowing that the victims would be completely untraceable back to him. And the privacy problems could have minimized if a wealthy killer had hired a lookout, not that I think there were any. The point is, there are lots of potential explanations for the actions and the psychology of this killer. You have jumped to a conclusion that Jack was clearly a disorganized killer and yet many professional profilers (not wannabes like yourself) who have looked at the case disagree. If it was as clear as you claim, they would all say the same thing -- but they don't. Beyond that, the ones pointing toward a disorganized killer tend to be the ones who were presented the fewest facts about the case before making their decisions. A profile is only as good as the data that was used to create it with. You can try to puff your chest and claim that you are the only here who knows what you are talking about when it comes to profiling, but that doesn't cut it on these boards and it certainly doesn't cut it in real life either. Dan ------------------------------------------------------------------ Consider supporting this great site by making a donation. See: http://www.casebook.org/about_the_casebook/funding.html ------------------------------------------------------------------
Author: Brian Schoeneman Sunday, 15 December 2002 - 05:03 pm
Scott, Thanks for the interesting background there. I appreciate having a skilled investigator to bounce ideas off of. How many serial killers did you come across in New Orleans? Did anyting the Bureau wrote turn out to be true? Did the profiling course assist at all in any of your investigations? I'm asking mainly because I don't want to get sucked into this line of work, if it's basically a waste of time. B
Author: Brian Schoeneman Sunday, 15 December 2002 - 05:22 pm
Dan, I'm starting to get pissed off here. What's your problem? What have I done to you to have you be so disrespectful? I'm simply trying to make an argument here. I take Scott's comments at face value: he doesn't like profiling, and doesn't agree with the efficacy of it. He alone among the posters here will I give signficant credence to, because he alone among us has practical experience, and that gives him credability. All Scott has said is that he doesn't agree that the profiling is useful. I'm not arguing whether or not it's useful. I'm arguing that within the confines of profiling, I'm right and you are wrong. So leave Scott out of it. I've provided everyone here with the information on profiling from the study Douglas and the rest did. And arguing within those confines, I have shown that the Ripper displayed far more of the "disorganized traits" than he does of the organized ones. I'm not disputing with you that he did display some traits of being an organized killer. I agree - he did. You even said that looking at the situation - without taking the era and location into it - he appears to be disorganized. So what I am arguing, and have been arguing, on that basis, is that the era and location DO NOT MATTER when determining whether or not an individual is considered "organized" or "disorganized". Please quote for me a single line in any of the chapters I wrote out above that talks about era and location as being part of the criteria for determining "organized" or "disorganized". If you can, I'll concede, and shut up. I'm not trying to say that I'm the only one who knows anything about this. But I have read extensively on it. I'm not a cop, yet. Hopefully, I'll have the opportunity to take the courses Scott Medine has taken. Unlike you, I am willing to admit that there are areas that I am not an expert on, that I require further study on, and that if I make a mistake, I am willing to stand corrected. If I have made any mistakes of FACT - not opinion, not assumption, not supposition, not your gut feelings - call me on them, and I'll recant. B
Author: Dan Norder Sunday, 15 December 2002 - 06:29 pm
Brian, Get pissed off if you can't accept being wrong. That's not my problem. I did not say Jack appears to be disorganized without looking at the era and location. I said he appears to be organized period, and the only way someone can get any disorganized traits out of it is the mutilations and by misapplying other criteria without taking location and era into account. You claim that time and location does not matter for the purposes of making a profile, but based upon this belief you state that an organized killer would have done things that would have been idiotic or outright impossible in the East End in 1888, like hopping a cab or spending extra time trying to erase evidence (and you never said what evidence could be important - blood type, DNA, fingerprinting, etc. were still years away). If there are profilers who don't concede that taking an informed look at era and location are important for making judgements then they are too caught up in their own egos to make rational decisions. I already said that here before you even joined this thread. The fact of the matter is that there are professional profilers who say that Jack was organized, so even "arguing within the confines of profiling" does not make you automatically right, as you claim. You don't have to recant anything, as long as it is clear that your opinion on this is just your opinion and holds no more weight than anyone else's. Dan --------------------------------------------------------------------- Consider supporting this great site by making a donation. See: http://www.casebook.org/about_the_casebook/funding.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Author: Scott E. Medine Sunday, 15 December 2002 - 06:45 pm
Brian, The FBI is to be commended for the work they did on Serial Killers et al. They now need to expand on the early research. One also needs to realize that the FBI does not investigate many murders. Unless the murder falls within Federal Jurisdiction, the murder will be worked by the appropriate agency. Most of the cases that the BSU - - now known as ISU - - consult on are cases where they have been asked for help. The only so called serial killer case I worked on was Dominick Hassleman. A case the FBI refused to assist on because the victims were multi-racial. What the FBI failed to realize was that multi-racial and multi-ethnicity in New Orleans is the norm. The history of the city is such that when Louisiana was granted Statehood, in 1812, the city of New Orleans became divided by, New Orleaneans and Americans. New Orleaneans consisted of free black, slaves, Mulattos, Creole Blacks and Creole Whites. Creoles are people of white and mixed blood race. The white is usually French or Spanish descent and the mixed blood could be White and Indian, White and Black, Black and Indian or any combination of the groups. These strange mixtures of race and ethnic backgrounds still exist today. So when a person of White Creole background started killing both blacks, whites and Hispanics, it posed a problem. Since New Orleans is not like most cities, where boundries exist between affluent and poor sections, we also became faced with the problem of socio-economic standing. We eventually settled on a profile drawn up by the department. The profile called for a person of mixed race or a person who could pass for either race - - race being black or white, Hispanic is an ethnic grouping. Or a white male who resided close to the poor areas of the town. As it turned out Hassleman was a dark skin white person, Creole, who lived and worked in the French Quarter. He had dread locks and fancied himself a voodoo priest. I should mention here that none of his murders contained anything relating to voodoo ritual. The tidbit about the voodoo priest was just one more link showing his multi-racial/ethnic background. As far as using the information from the FBI in cases, yes I have used it and it has helped me tremendously. But the information needs to be used in conjunction with other aspects of investigation. If the FBI says that most serial killers are white male and the murders are happening in China Town during a non-festive time of year or a time of year that does not correspond to the tourist season, then I would be a little more open to thinking that the person I may be looking for is probably of an Oriental race. One thing ( of many ) I learned at Quantico is that people who kill prostitutes have used prostitutes. If you choose this line of work and you find yourself in the ISU, always consult with the forensic data obtained from the crime scene, and I am not just talking about DNA and fingerprints. Every detail from the crime scene has to be taken into account. A crime scene should be gathered and read like the statistics page from the sports section, it�s a blow by blow account of the incident. The big problem with homicide investigations is in the detectives themselves. They rely on DNA and fingerprints, no DNA or fingerprints most are lost. They also rely on confidential informants. Informants have their time and place, they are not the know all and end all. In the US, most informants are Black or of the Hispanic ethnic background. This is because most informants are criminals trying to stay out of jail. Detectives rarely have white informants or informants in the affluent side of town. So, when a case like Jon Benet Ramsey pops up, the police have no one to turn to that can point them in the direction of a suspect. In case anybody is wondering, I classify Jack as a mixed offender. He is a smart and clever individual, who knows what he is after and recognizes a good opportunity, when it is presented to him. Peace, Scott
Author: Scott E. Medine Sunday, 15 December 2002 - 06:59 pm
Brian et al, It should also be pointed out that the FBI profiling information is a GUIDLINE at best. If the FBI profiles a case they are the first to tell you that the information is only as good as the information that is put in. They will also tell you that their profile is by no means a fact but rather a conjecture of the killer based on past information about killers. As I have said here before, each case needs to treated as an individual. We can use the profiling techniques and information but the information we place into the equation must be fact, not conjecture, not "He said, she said, they said." This is not saying that witness testimony needs to be thrown out. Everyone needs to read the police reports, doctor's inquest testimony and witness accounts word by word. "I didn't hear anything unusual" translates into well what is usual, screams in the night, the sound of someone running, the sound of a struggle, the sound of something thumping against a fence. For every action there is an equal an opposite reaction. For every case of strangulation there are certain signs unique ONLY to strangulation. Peace, Scott
Author: julienonperson Sunday, 15 December 2002 - 07:29 pm
Scott I certainly enjoy your posts. You are without a doubt qualified to comment on crime,criminals, profiling etc. You do not try to convince anyone that your opinion is the only correct one, you present facts based on your experience and leave it up to the individual to accept your opinion if they so choose. I respect your explanations and certainly your opinion since you obviously know what you are talking about. I am wondering whether or not profiling would have been of any assistance at all during the murders of 1888 in WhiteChapel.The place was so overcrowded, poverty was a way of life,hookers were many and there seemed to be one hell of a lot of lunatics and real characters. Transportation was limited, workhouses were many as were the homeless.Just judging by the number of suspects in the JtR murders I can't see how it could have been applied effectively. As for Organized and DisOrg. suspect, I fail to see how anyone can determine what Jack was.The evidence was destroyed in some of the murders,the doctors couldn't agree on many of the points of the murders,the inspectors and Scotland Yard, police etc all had different opinions, and so on. And in 114 years no one has been proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, to have been Jack.There is still information not uncovered I am sure, there have been false claims and I am sure forged documents,etc. So how can anyone decide whether or not Jack was this or was that, and does it really matter in this case considering that it is a very old case,where many of the scientific instruments available today are virtually worthless in this case. I'd appreciate your imput regardsjulie
Author: Brian Schoeneman Sunday, 15 December 2002 - 11:10 pm
Dan, My final post arguing with you: "I did not say Jack appears to be disorganized without looking at the era and location." -Dan Norder, Sunday, 15 December 2002 - 06:29 pm "I'll grant you that if you look at the lists and apply them without taking the era and location into consideration that Jack looks disorganized." -Dan Norder, Saturday, 14 December 2002 - 12:53 am B
Author: Brian Schoeneman Sunday, 15 December 2002 - 11:15 pm
Scott, Thanks for the information. I guess I neglected to mention in my previous posts that I recognized that profiles only give you a loose guideline on what to look for - oops. I didn't mean to give the impression that I thought that what Douglas and his pals did was holy writ. It is difficult to use the profile in this case to eliminate or narrow down the list of suspects because there is so little evidence that is uncontested to use to build the profile. We don't even know if all of the canonical victims were actual victims at all. How long were you a regular cop before you made Detective? If the Bureau doesn't work out for me, I was thinking of getting into that line, but I don't know how well I'd enjoy writing tickets until I earned a gold shield. B
Author: Brian Schoeneman Sunday, 15 December 2002 - 11:32 pm
Everybody still reading this craptacular thread, Sorry to anyone (even Dan) whom I may have offended by losing my temper a bit during this thread. I'm still a newbie - at least in my mind here - so I haven't learned when to quit sometimes and I don't want anyone to think that I am closed minded, egocentric, snotty, arrogant or any of that. I'm a graduate student, studying Political Management. I work as a property manager to pay the bills. My undergrad is in Political Science, minor in criminal justice. I focused on terrorism, military force and foreign policy and organized crime. I am in the middle of the FBI special agent process, but I'm still waiting for an interview which may never happen. I've read a lot about the case, homicide investigation, criminal profiling, fingerprinting, firearms ballistics, etc. but I am not certified in anything but marksmanship. I've read everything I can about the Ripper case, but if I had to say I know anything best I'd say it was the details of the Met's investigation, as I wrote a dissertation on it for class (which you can read by searching the "what's new" section of the casebook). None of that qualifies me as an expert in anything, except maybe grammar. Someday, I hope to have amassed the knowledge of the case that Stewart Evans has, or the knowledge of homicide investigation that Scott Medine has. Until then, please read my posts and know that I am intellectually honest, aware of all of my shortcomings, and am willing to admit I'm wrong if I realize you've proved it. Again, hope I haven't lowered anyone's opinions of me by losing my temper. I'll try and make sure that it doesn't happen again. B
Author: Dan Norder Monday, 16 December 2002 - 02:32 am
Brian, It appears I forgot about a statement that I offered up while trying to build common ground. Oh well, we all make mistakes. What I meant to say (must have dropped some words or thoughts while typing) was that if you look only at the disorganized list and don't take location and time into account that Jack would appear to be disorganized. Looking at the organized list at the same time shows that some of the criteria for both are similar, and organized is a better fit for those, as well as some extra categories. The experts disagree on it though, and we here disagree on it, so what else is new. I do think though if anyone says that Jack was irrational and made bad choices they should have to explain what an intelligent Jack could have done differently. Whether he was a raving lunatic with no control or the ultimate cool customer he did everything just right to get away with it. I don't think you can chalk that up to luck, not for four or more killings, especailly as the police presence increased and the public was whipping itself into a frenzy of accusations and near lynchings of anyone suspicious. Dan --------------------------------------------------------------------- Consider supporting this great site by making a donation. See: http://www.casebook.org/about_the_casebook/funding.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Author: David Radka Monday, 16 December 2002 - 02:42 am
Great big, hot frying pan. Many cackle fruits being broken and dropped in. Big spatula stirs them all up. Scrambled eggs, coming up! David
Author: Philip C. Dowe Monday, 16 December 2002 - 05:18 am
Hi all, as it is my birthday and I am at home I have time for a long post! OK here goes, I will have to start with a bit of theory. Most profilers follow the Holmes Typology. Holmes Part 1: This typology is based on obsessive-compulsive characteristics of the serial killer as indicated from verbal interview data on the reasons they kill. It contains an implicit theory of interpersonal (socio-emotional) development, based upon their position in a cycle of violence (similar to the cycle of victimization for any self-defeating or addictive pattern). The labels "disorganized" and "organized" refer to the degree of personality aberration, which is evident in how chaotic or controlled the crime scene is. The labels "asocial" and "nonsocial" refer to whether the person is a loner because of weirdness or by choice. There are two types: a) The disorganized, asocial offender (IQ below average, 80-95 range; socially inadequate; lives alone, usually does not date; absent or unstable father; family emotional abuse, inconsistent; lives and/or works near crime scene; minimal interest in news media; usually a high school dropout; poor hygiene/housekeeping skills; keeps a secret hiding place in the home; nocturnal (nighttime) habits; drives a clunky car or pickup truck; needs to return to crime scene for reliving memories; may contact victim's family to play games; no interest in police work; experiments with self-help programs; kills at one site, considers mission over; usually leaves body intact; attacks in a "blitz" pattern; depersonalizes victim to a thing or it; leaves a chaotic crime scene; leaves physical evidence; responds best to counseling interview) b) The organized, non-social offender (IQ above average, 105-120 range; socially adequate; lives with partner or dates frequently; stable father figure; family physical abuse, harsh; geographically/occupationally mobile; follows the news media; may be college educated; good hygiene/housekeeping skills; does not usually keep a hiding place; diurnal (daytime) habits; drives a flashy car; needs to return to crime scene to see what police have done; usually contacts police to play games; a police groupie or wanabee; doesn't experiment with self-help: kills at one site, disposes at another; may dismember body; attacks using seduction into restraints; keeps personal, holds a conversation; leaves a controlled crime scene; leaves little physical evidence: responds best to direct interview) The problem of course is gaining information without interviewing a suspect, but it is worth a try. Holmes Part 2: a) ACT-FOCUSED KILLERS (quick kill) 1 THE VISIONARY - hears voices or sees visions that tell him to kill (psychotic), the voices tend to be either God or the devil, legitimating the violence. 2 THE MISSIONARY - goes on hunting "missions" to eradicate a group of people (prostitutes, Jews, etc.) from face of earth, seems like "fine young man" to neighbors. b) PROCESS-FOCUSED KILLERS (slow kill) 3 THE COMFORT-ORIENTED HEDONIST - takes pleasure from killing, but also gets some profit or personal gain from it. Females are usually in this category. 4 - THE LUST-ORIENTED HEDONIST - associates sexual pleasure with murder, sex while killing and necrophilia are eroticized experiences. 5 - THE THRILL-ORIENTED HEDONIST - gets a "rush" or "high" from killing, an elixir of thrills, excitement, and euphoria at victim's final anguish. 6 - THE POWER/CONTROL FREAK - takes pleasure from manipulation and domination (sociopath), experiences a "rush" or "high" from victim's misery. There are certain crime scene characteristics associated with the six types. The characteristics are: Controlled crime scene � Overkill � Torture - Body moved - Specific victim - Weapon at scene - Prior relation to victim - Victim known - Aberrant sex - Weapons of torture � Strangulation - Penile penetration - Object penetration - Necrophilia CRIME SCENE CHARACTERISTICS ASSOCIATED WITH THE SIX TYPES Characteristic Visionary Missionary Comfort Lust Thrill Power/Control Controlled crime scene No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Overkill Yes No No Yes No No Torture No No No Yes Yes Yes Body moved No No No Yes Yes Yes Specific victim No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Weapon at scene Yes No Yes No No No Prior relation to victim No No Yes No No No Victim known Yes No Yes No No No Aberrant sex No No No Yes Yes Yes Weapons of torture No No No Yes Yes Yes Strangulation No No No Yes Yes Yes Penile penetration ? Yes Not usually Yes Yes Yes Object penetration Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Necrophilia Yes No No Yes No Yes A profile is basically the analysis of (statistical) data gathered from a) The crime scene itself b) The victim c) Any similar previous cases The results are then used to develop a profile consisting of a) Probable AGE of the suspect b) Probable SEX of the suspect c) Probable RACE of the suspect d) Probable RESIDENCE of the suspect e) What INTELLIGENCE level the suspect is operating at f) Probable OCCUPATION of the suspect g) Probable MARITAL STATUS of the suspect h) Probable LIVING ARRANGEMENTS of the suspect i) The PSYCHOSEXUAL MATURITY of the suspect j) Probable TYPE and CONDITION OF VEHICLE driven by the suspect k) The suspects probable MOTIVATING FACTORS l) The probable ARREST RECORD of the suspect m) What PROVOCATION FACTORS might drive the suspect out? n) And what INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES would work best with the suspect Most serial killers that have been identified were male, white, murdered within their own race and were in a 20 - 35 age group. When the profile is finished it is up to the police to look for suspects who fit. A profile is a success when we have helped catch a suspect. No matter how many points fit. We draw a line between factors like age, sex, intelligence etc and "psychological factors". My main line of interest is: What made him tick? Why did he commit his crimes? Why did he change his modus operandi for Kelly? Why did he get more brutal? Was it a sexual aspect? Did he hate women? The answers to these questions could help us to discard some suspects. But they would never allow us to solve the crime, we need evidence for that. Experience and gut-feeling are normally not enough to profile somebody and that is why a profile on Jack is a problem, because: a) The crimes have all been committed b) None of us has seen the crime scenes c) We have to depend on written statements and witness sightings d) We are living in 2002 and not 1888 e) Staying objective What is the killer�s modus operandi and what is his signature? The following is a summary of a post by Scott E Medine (I could not have written it any better). A killer�s modus operandi (M.O.) can change and evolve. His signature usually does not. As far as we know, a killer�s signature has never changed. The M.O. is how the perp commits the crime. The signature is what he does to make him feel the crime has been completed. With Jack we see a definite M.O. evolving. The signature does not change. His M.O. is attack by knife and post mortem mutilation is his signature. The attacks on Martha Tabram and Polly Nichols show a person being beaten the savagely attacked with a knife. Chapman was strangled and then had her throat cut. The killer evolved to the point that the strangulation was more efficient than throttling the crap out of someone. The killer was also in a more secured area. Post mortem, the killer was in a more secured area so the mutilation could be in a little more depth, but it is still a post mortem mutilation and is his signature. Surely, this didn't kill the victim. Stride was attacked in a secured area but he was almost discovered and fled. Kate Eddowes suffered the full frenzied attack that was meant for Ms Stride. Mary Jane Kelly.....pictures are worth a 1000 words. This profile may be right, it may be wrong. For what its worth I have tried to profile Jack. I will start off with a list of factors then try and explain the how and why. One last point: It is difficult staying objective in the case, because unlike reality, we all have our favourite suspects who we would like to see as Jack, me also. I have tried to leave these behind me, which is difficult and I am sure the experienced ones here will be able to detect my favourites in this profile. So, as Robbie Williams sang, "Let me entertain you": - Around 35 yrs old - Male - White Caucasian - From Whitechapel - Skilled and intelligent but not studied - drifted in and out of work - Not married - was a loner - lived alone or with an elderly relative - was unable to have an erection - was not sexually aroused by the act of murder - was mentally unstable and/or a drug abuser - was deformed or disfigured - Liked women but they did not like him - became aggressive due to situation - dressed normally - Around 1.80 m - Physically strong but not muscular - Skilled in the usage of a knife - had NO connection to the royal family or freemasonry - was not religious - had no practical experience in removing human organs - did not keep a diary - may have communicated with the police - ended up in a asylum, in jail or on the run - Male This is easy. Women going up to a prostitute would have been noticed. A man is something that a witness would have forgotten because it is such a natural sight. A lot of killers get away with their crimes for so long because they seem to be so normal. Plus women do not usually commit violent crimes. - White This is just as easy. If he was anything else he would have stuck out like a sore thumb. And statistically speaking nearly every serial killer is white. -Dressed normally Imagine a killer in a flashy car or expensive clothes. There is the sighting by Hutchinson of the "man with the thick watch chain". I don't think our man would have worn something like that because he is going to give people something to remember. Don't give yourself away by wearing clothes that can be remembered. Our man probably wore the same clothes and in such a style that was common in Whitechapel. - Around 35 yrs old - Around 1.80 m - Physically strong but not muscular - Skilled in the usage of a knife Size is easy, he had to be taller than the women he assaulted to be able to grab them from behind, so he would have to be around 6ft (around 1.80m). If you try and grab somebody who is taller than you are, you will find it takes much energy and time. Age is a difficult factor to profile, which is why you will always find a span stretching 10 years. I would think he was between 30 and 40. Reason why? Gut feeling! He needed strength to throw his victims down and keep them quiet. The amount of strength needed to perform his killings was not that large. If you read the post mortems, it is fairly obvious that Jack did not "rip" but "sliced". The act of ripping would have needed a lot of energy and would have left different marks (jagged edges). It seems more likely that he used the knife with a certain amount of knowledge and used it in the way we would if we were carving a turkey or slicing of a piece of cheese. This leads to a different question: How did he hold the knife? On a lot of posters we see killers holding the blade downward. Our man most likely held his knife with the blade upwards or away from him. Try performing a cut with the blade down or towards you. You will find you are:- a) Slower b) Using more energy c) Not as clinical Now try the other way:- a) Faster b) Less strenuous c) Better to control. - From Whitechapel. This is another obvious one. The way he escaped from the police and left the scenes unseen speaks for its self. It does not necessarily mean he lived in Whitechapel - but that he knew Whitechapel very well. In modern times we would look for: policeman, Postman, Street cleaner, Doctor, Street worker, Bus driver etc. - Skilled and intelligent but studied - Drifted in and out of work I would think he drifted in and out of employment, especially during August and November 1888. The longer his killing spree lasted the less he would have been able to keep up a steady employment. He would start having ups and downs. He would have learned a trade and may well have kept a steady income form his trade before his killing spree. It may well have been something in which his working hours were early morning or late night. - Was mentally unstable and/or a drug user Jack was not mad - mad is a laymen's term for something that clinically does not exist. Jack knew what he was doing - but he was either not himself or living in two realities. There are cases of multiple personalities described where both (or more) know what they were doing. These people sometimes find themselves as personality B at places where personality A went and they have no idea how they got there. Jack may have been in a similar state. Even though I don't think he was suffering from MPD. My guess: he was unstable and the act of killing or the act that led to killing triggered something in his mind. The only indicator for that is the rising amount of violence. A bit more violence every time he killed. I don't think he ever thought of being caught - the thought would be too rational for him. In the moment of killing his world was reduced to him - his victim - his knife. Drugs may have played a role in his life, alcohol could have been it. - was deformed or disfigured My opinion is that whore turned him down as a "customer". People tend to think in big categories - but it may have been something small: a speech impediment, a harelip or scar. - Was unable to have an erection - Liked women but they did not like him - Became aggressive due to situation - Was not sexually aroused by the acts of murder I have got a gut feeling that that may have been Jacks problem. I have stated that the victims turned him down because he was deformed. But what about those that went with him? They may have been desperate enough (Kelly sure needed the money) and what if he failed? Would that have turned his anger towards himself or would he have blamed the ladies? Now this is a very long shot in the dark: What if his penis was too small? What if Kelly had seen and laughed as some whores who are very intoxicated may? It could have been an explanation for the extreme amount of violence AND for his NEVER trying to pick up a whore anymore. This is food for thought. He never tried to perform (as far as we know) a sexual act, so he probably was not aroused. The only experiences Peter Kurten had with sex were of a violent nature. Perhaps our man was the same. There is no sign of rape or sexual "action". Plus he did not take any souvenirs. Sexual killers nearly always take a "keepsake" to remind them of the victims. I don't believe he wanted to see them suffer. Serial Killers who want to live through that special emotion will go for slow killings and spend their time watching the victims die. Jack's killings (except for Kelly) did not take more than 60 to 120 seconds. Slash - kill - rip - OVER! He did not leave them time to suffer. - Not married - Was a loner - Lived alone or with an elderly relative This is another gut feeling. I don't think he was able to build up stable social contacts. He may have dated a lot but because of his behaviour never got to the point of marrying. Perhaps he was jealous, erratic, prone to violence or just shy. - Had NO connections to the royal family or the freemasons - Was not religious Serial killers who have a religious side to their killings are very similar to sexual killers. They tend to use churches as their killing-fields or leave religious messages. None found. - Had no practical experience in removing human organs. This is a general misconception and one that is wrong. He sliced through the body with relative ease and managed to take away specific parts. This is pretty easy, if you are fast and careful-the liver and the kidneys are totally different colour than the rest of the intestines and so easy to detect. He may have been interested in medicine and studied books. - Did not keep a diary - May have communicated with the police In my opinion the graffito was written by a foreigner who had lived in London for some time but was not able to write correct English. That it was written on a wall of a building where Jews lived is a certain sign for "typical anti-Semitic" thinking. In my eyes there are three possible explanations for the graffiti: 1) Jack was trying to be funny and showing his intelligence 2) Jack was a foreigner and wanted to leave a message to taunt the police 3) Jack was leaving a message to leave a message. It has been known that Serial killers leave messages that they are desperate and need help. William Heirens left a message on a mirror "please help me I cannot stop". If Jack was a foreigner (German, Dutch, Polish, French etc) the spelling would point to someone who was NOT trying to be funny but just did not know how to spell. If it was a "cry for help" Jack could be a Jew (possibly also a foreigner) who is trying to lead the police towards looking at Jewish suspects. The killer and the people who wrote the letters are not the same. The killer may have written one or two letters (my guess is that the Lusk letter is genuine) and that out of humour. Serial killers play games or make fun of things that are of organized type. - Ended up in an asylum, in jail or on the run Kelly may have been his last victim. She fits if I am right in presuming him to be unstable. He may have started by "just killing her", gone into a fit or been pushed over the edge. People who suffer from borderline syndromes can be pushed too far and never find the way back to being "normal". If I am wrong, then she may not have been a Ripper victim. My feeling is the Kelly was the last but we do not know who the first was. Let alone how many were between. Five is too small a number especially in such a short time. For a Serial killer to have stared in August and ended in November has led to a lot of theorists to presume that he was after certain women and a certain number. The extreme increases in violence in the Kelly murder is one of the most astonishing facts in the whole Ripper case. There are five possible carry-ons after the November killing: 1) He could not stop killing As no new victims can be accounted for (in London at least) this is theory. 2) He committed suicide. This is very unlikely. 3) He ended up in jail. Caught for a different crime and never brought to trial as being Jack. 4) He was on the run. He realised that the police were closing in on him and fled. 5) His mind went into overdrive. This is the most likely situation. I stated that in my eyes Jack suffered from a borderline syndrome. Typical for these people that they live in two worlds. Over time both worlds get nearer and nearer until something drastic happens and the patient is caught forever in his "second" reality. The Kelly killing could have been this drastic episode. It is not possible to say when but during the killing he may have realised that he now had the chance to live through his most violent dreams. After the killing he would not have been himself anymore. It is therefore most likely that he was picked up on the streets. He would not have reacted in anyway and not been able to give his full name, address, date of birth or occupation. He could have spent his remaining years locked away in an asylum. Yours, Philip
Author: Warwick Parminter Monday, 16 December 2002 - 06:44 am
Brian and Dan, in your argument I don't think I've heard you mention times,-- the times of the murderers. It seems to me that the Ripper was dis-organised in his timings, nobody could judge at what time he would strike. Was he padding around all through the night? or was each murder "TIME" planned?. what did he do the evening hours before striking?. Did he spend the evening drinking and maybe watching his prey, or did he spend the evening brooding in the privacy of his room or lodging, looking forward to what he would do to his victim? You have Tabram,--if you count her, killed between 02:00 and 03:30, Nichols killed between 03:00 and 04:00, Chapman killed between 04:00 and 05:30, Eddowes, he went back in time a bit to 01:40-45, then with Kelly he's back to 04:00, and 06:15 heavy footsteps being heard leaving Millers Court, (if that was him). So it seems to me that he was out all night,on his killing nights, just looking, and choosing, he was an opportunist plain and simple, and the prostitutes he knew were the ones who knew and trusted him, and were the easiest to kill. But Kelly was something different. Rick
Author: Stuart Monday, 16 December 2002 - 07:39 am
Hi Warwick. You say..."It seems to me that the Ripper was dis-organised in his timings, nobody could judge at what time he would strike." I don't think his timings display disorganisation. I seems to me that the opprtunities arose at those times after he had watched and waited, as you also say. Sound organised to me. If he had killed all his victims at exactly the same time that would have been very weird, not a display of organisation. I think there's a degree of "hair-splitting" going on with all this talk of organisation and what-not. Me included probably. Also the profiling of any killer can't be an EXACT science surely. It's like trying to argue whether or not a particular rock band are Grunge or New Wave or Heavy Metal or Punk etc etc. I think all we can say with surety is that he knew what he wanted to do, when, how, and to whom. Then how to get away afterwards. If that's disorganised so be it. He still did what he did, HOW he did it, as corny as that sounds. I bet none of this comes over as I mean it. Cheers Stu
Author: Scott E. Medine Monday, 16 December 2002 - 09:12 am
Brian, Iwas a plice officer for three years before moving intot eh detective ranks. My first stop was the gang unit. Most new detectives will cut their teeth in the gang units or narcotics. Some cities still have the old vice units and this is the first stop. It was five years total before I moved into homicide. Big city police units have divisions as opposed to samll cities and agencies that have just detective units and the detective can be handed anything from a homicide to a simple burglary. Big cities also experience a higher turnover as they are regularly purged by retirements. A masters degree will put you ahead of the others when it becomes time to consider promotions and transfers. Peace, Scott
Author: Scott E. Medine Monday, 16 December 2002 - 09:24 am
WOW Philp! I wrote that little part. I impressed myself, although I am more impressed that you kept it or found it. There is a mistake there though. I made a typo, it should read beating the crap out of someone not throttling the crap. Peace, Scott PS Happy birthday and glad to see you are back.
Author: Brian Schoeneman Monday, 16 December 2002 - 11:16 am
Philip, Nice analysis. I don't agree with all of it, but it's a good analysis anyway. Maybe if I get some spare time (and I should have plenty now that classes are over), I'll try my own hand at a profile of old Jacky. B
Author: julienonperson Monday, 16 December 2002 - 05:55 pm
Brian I don't think you offended anyone by voicing your opinion and giving forth what you know about the case. If Dan is offended I am sure he will realize that your objective was the same as his, to put forth what you know and suspect the same as the rest of us. No one is perfect. From time to time it is certainly wise to not only give constructive critism but to accept it as well. As long as you are not rude, which I don't think you have been, than there is nothing to apologize about, unless it were to last too long, as we have already seen on several occasions. Sh** happens. N'est pas. regards julie
Author: Dan Norder Monday, 16 December 2002 - 06:36 pm
Julie, As you guessed, I'm not offended by Brian's posts. I would say though that I am tired of posters who start claiming that they are being insulted or disrespected when all anyone is doing is arguing against their points. I am open to a wide variety of opinions and theories about the case (though some seem a whole lot less likely than others) as long as people back it up with logical evidence and debate. Brian was doing this, but then started taking things personally, which is all too easy to do. What doesn't cut it are "I'm the only one here who is capable of an informed opinion on this matter because of [something on their resume]" (similar to what Brian was trying to pull and others have done in the past) or "I've solved this case and if you don't agree, you are all idiots worthy of endless insults" (Cornwell, David Radka, the late unlamented Graziano, etc.). Radka, for example, doesn't even try to debate anything. He'll drop one bit of well-known evidence somewhere and say, "Am I the only one smart enough to figure this out? It's obvious and undeniable!" And he still refuses to name his suspect after more than three years of running insults against ripperology in general and specifically anyone trying to use modern criminology or science. Contrast that with Philip (and many others here, Philip being the first to come to mind from his post above), who posts lots of information that can be debated and welcomes alternate opinions. Dan --------------------------------------------------------------------- Consider supporting this great site by making a donation. See: http://www.casebook.org/about_the_casebook/funding.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Author: Crissy Burroughs Monday, 16 December 2002 - 06:43 pm
Hi, all... I am new and can't help but wondering, can't someone have both? Traits that fall into both areas? Just curious, Crissy
Author: Dan Norder Monday, 16 December 2002 - 06:59 pm
Crissy, Yes, most definitely. That would be a "mixed" type. Like most things in psychology everything has some degree of mix, as an introvert with no extrovert traits is very rare. Beyond that, since serial killer profiling has been limited to only those who have been caught and interviewed recently, and has been based upon life reports from the criminals themselves and not a true objective system (if such a thing were possible), even an exact match to aspects of a certain type of profile doesn't guarantee that the conclusions of the profiler will be correct. Conclusions in the social sciences are a lot more subjective than those in the hard sciences, so caution should always be used when trying to make sense out of them. Dan --------------------------------------------------------------------- Consider supporting this great site by making a donation. See: http://www.casebook.org/about_the_casebook/funding.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Author: David Radka Monday, 16 December 2002 - 07:28 pm
"Radka, for example, doesn't even try to debate anything. He'll drop one bit of well-known evidence somewhere and say, "Am I the only one smart enough to figure this out? It's obvious and undeniable!" And he still refuses to name his suspect after more than three years of running insults against ripperology in general and specifically anyone trying to use modern criminology or science." Oh, I wouldn't say that, Mr. Norder. What you're doing above is providing superficial semblances of some of my posts, then attempting to get your reader to conclude quite negatively on me based on that. This can be an effective technique to use on newbies, until they get their wits about them. It's something like what male college sophomores do regarding female members of the freshman class, as soon as they begin occupying their dormitories in September. Let me give our newbies a brief summary of your own procedures on this web site. First, you read posts until you find someone taking a position in good faith, especially a detailed one. Then, you start parroting cadences to make everyone think you're following and know something about what's being said. You put a good deal of time and effort into this. Next, you invent a phoney pretext to criticize which, when grammatically analyzed, usually amounts to your claiming that the poster has done wrong for walking both up and down the street at the same time. In other words, your critique is an absurdidty hiding inside moderately complex wording. Absurdities often work because they are difficult to disprove, since they don't say anything. The newbies don't catch on because it's not aimed at them personally--you're picking on someone else, and they don't care about that. Then you haul out the heavy artillery and lambast your pigeon for unfaithful argumentation, pedophillia, stupidity, having sunk the RMS Titanic, profaning the cross, violating the law of the excluded middle, repealing the second law of thermodynamics--I'm trying to go as far-fetchedly creative as I can--anything as unrelated to the sense of discussion you can think of to make yourself sound like a tough a**-kicker while not having to prove your point. You do not debate, you compete for status in the court of public opinion, and usually unfairly. When I pointed out the self-serving circularity of your posts last month, you immediately wrote to the management, attempting to get me censured for harassment. The management decided that your harassment complaint was circular; that what I'd written didn't follow the form of harassment as defined on the policy page. You think you've got your bases covered on the brownnose front as well. Eager to make sure the management won't try to look up under your dress to see what you've really got, you obligingly include a link at the bottom of each of your posts leading to a page that puts green dollar bills right into the hands of the web site owners! How can they possibly think badly of you for doing that!? That page also contains a list of all the nice folks who've given generously to the maintenance of the web site; and who's name is right smack dab on that list? Dan Norder's name, that's who! New posters should carefully analyze both Brian Schoeneman's correspondence with Mr. Norder over the past 3-4 days, and mine of about a month ago. Take note of the vehemently defended logical impossibilities there, and ask yourself why anyone would post in this manner. Then, I think, you'll be safe. David
Author: Brian Schoeneman Monday, 16 December 2002 - 07:38 pm
Dan, Please - don't read my trying to defend my views on Jack's profile as me being close-minded, or claiming to know more than anyone else on a given subject. All I said was that I've done extensive reading, and I felt like I knew the subject well enough to comment on it. I only got defensive when I felt like my intelligence, and not my opinions, were being questioned. And I did get a little nippy, more than I would have had we had this discussion in person. B
Author: Dan Norder Monday, 16 December 2002 - 08:08 pm
Philip, As I mentioned above in my reply to Julie, I consider your post to be a good example of how debate should be handled. You throw in your caveats, list the evidence, and explain your opinions. Of course my respect for the post doesn't mean I don't have comments and counter arguments for it. The part about most identified serial killers being male, white, intraracial killers of 20-35 is true, but also goes back to the point that Scott has brought up that this may be more of an example of a failing of the profiling system instead of something that can be used to predict other serial killers reliably. Similarly, the whole concept that serial killers don't stop or don't change their signature could be a result of us not having caught the ones who cover their tracks better than others. And don't even get me started on the common misbelief that they don't change MO... I tend to agree with you that Jack was either a resident of Whitechapel or familiar with it, but I don't think getting away from the scenes of the crimes required any specific geographical knowledge. The killings were all close to main roads that anyone could have returned to and followed with little difficulty. I think being familiar with the type of people in the area would be a whole heck of a lot more important. This had to be someone who fit, and if he wasn't obviously mentally disturbed he could have gone up and down streets and alleys ignored by everyone. The employment question is iffy. The dates of the murders seem to imply someone with a stable job, or someone who came on boats, or something along those lines. And I've got to question the whole two realities thing. I'm one of a growing number of people who think MPD isn't even a real condition but a fad misdiagnosis similar to fugue states and other wonky psychological disorders that come and go for no good clinical reason. The abnormal psych professors I interacted with in the late 80s already were saying that MPD is either nonexistent or about a thousand times less frequent than diagnosed. Unfortunately, that was right around the time those diagnoses exploded and became a cultural phenomena, along with the even less realistic "recovered memory" movement that caused so much needless grief in the 90s. I don't think Jack was in two minds, literally or figuratively. Jack was a killer, who went looking to kill and did. Any attempt to separate that away from his normal mind seems to me to be more of an attempt to try to create an artificial barrier between them and us, as well as a result of profilers taking the words or modern killers looking for any excuse they can come up with to take blame off of themselves. If you think Jack lost rational thought while killing it seems to me that you have to chalk up his getting away to pure luck. He took steps to make sure that blood splashed someplace other than on him, and to kill in a largely silent way. This is supremely rational, not the act of someone losing control due to alcohol or a mental schism of any sort, in my opinion. If you think the trigger was that he got turned down by a whore, it seems unlikely to me that he'd be able to get other whores so easily later. But that does raise an interesting possibility that the types of whores he got were usually lowest of low (old, sick, etc.) and more easily landed, except possibly for MJK... Penis too small? I don't even want to know where that one came from, LOL. That level of speculation sticks out like a sore, uh, thumb in an otherwise largely grounded discussion. Of course it could be right, but then there are lots of other equally likely answers. And I'm not sure how you know that no souvenirs were taken. The money in all the cases were taken, and I don't think we know enough about what each of them were carrying before death to know whether something else was taken or not. The part where you discuss how long the killings took is a little vague. You seem to imply that the killings and mutilations together would take less than 120 seconds. I find this hard to believe, especially with Eddowes. Strangulation takes a while to kick in, and then the neck would have to be cut, coins taken, mutilations performed, knife secured, organs carried off. It doesn't seem possible. Not that this is a big concern, but if you entertain the notion that Jack did write the Graffiti and also may have written the Lusk letter, you should consider that Juwes was intentionally spelled incorrectly, just as some have said the words in the Lusk letter were. Personally I'm skeptical that Jack wrote the Graffiti or letters. He certainly could have, but I don't think we can assume he did with any reliability. I also don't think the extreme violence on MJK was astonishing in the slightest. You can't make good decisions about what a killer wants unless you take into account what was possible. Since Jack likely didn't have 30 minutes or more to rip away outside you'd be unrealistic to expect the mutilations to match what he would do in a largely secured private indoor area. I do think there are possible, but perhaps not likely, ripper victims in London after MJK. I don't think you can rule out the idea that he killed there or elsewhere more times. And, for reasons already stated, I don't think having his mind go into "overdrive" is a likely answer to why he stopped. Brains don't just shut down like you are proposing. Some weak ones do, but then I think Jack's would have shut down already after Eddowes if it were one that would have snapped so easily. Those two deaths were quite similar. It just doesn't make sense that he'd be perfectly fine for a month after Eddowes and totally lose it after MJK. Jack as amnesia victim seems like a flight of fancy unrelated to actual real world killings of similar brutality. Sure, we'd all like to think that a human couldn't live with himself after committing such an atrocity. Sadly, history is littered with examples of far more brutal acts. Beyond that, it seems to me that if removing a lot of organs is the kind of thing that destroys one's mind that just about every person who ever performed an autopsy would be raving lunatics as well... ...though that might explain why the medical officials involved in the ripper investigation gave such horrible advice to the police. :-) So, in my opinion, while your profile has much that is interesting and well thought out, the ultimate conclusion leaves a lot to be desired. Dan --------------------------------------------------------------------- Consider supporting this great site by making a donation. See: http://www.casebook.org/about_the_casebook/funding.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------