Author: Mark List
Monday, 06 August 2001 - 02:37 pm |        |
Over the weekend, I picked up the A&E Biography DVD of "Serial Killers" It had Profiling, Jeffery Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy, and Charles Manson.
As I was watching it, I was thinking how the profiling aspect of it. The FBIs Profiles were almost always dead on. Is there any reason, given the success of the FBI profiling, that their profile of Jack the Ripper should not be taken into serious consideration?
F.B.I. Psychological Profile:
Aged 28 to 36, living or working in the Whitechapel area.
In childhood, there was an absent or passive father figure.
The killer probably had a profession in which he could legally experience his destructive tendencies.
Jack the Ripper probably ceased his killing because he was either arrested for some other crime, or felt himself close to being discovered as the killer.
The killer probably had some sort of physical defect which was the source of a great deal of frustration or anger. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Monday, 06 August 2001 - 04:44 pm | |
Dear Mark,
Sounds awfully like J. Edgar Hoover.
Rosey :-) |
Author: Mark List
Monday, 06 August 2001 - 04:50 pm | |
Me or the Profile?
 |
Author: David Radka
Monday, 06 August 2001 - 06:54 pm | |
Aged 28 to 36: I'm not saying.
Profession: Not!
Why he stopped the murder series: Not!
Physical defect: No way to be sure. How are you going to find out this information in any event?
David |
Author: John Hacker
Monday, 06 August 2001 - 07:15 pm | |
Mark,
It has been used a number of times. Usually to bolster a weak suspect. For example, Paley relies heavily on the FBI profile in his JtR : The Simple Truth.
While I agree that profiling is an incredibly valuable tool, but IMO it's usefulness in the JtR case is fairly limited. The profile you cite has some fairly serious defects. The records they were given to work are a far cry from the detailed case records of a case active today. The information they were given to work with was incomplete at best. There is only one crime scene photo!
Additionally, their feel for the time and society in which these murders occurred was pretty non-existent. There is a huge difference between the US in the 1980s where that profile was drawn up and the East End in 1888.
John Douglas covered the JtR case in his recent "Cases That Haunt Us". He does another profile and comments on the original profile a bit. Unfortunately there are serious factual errors contained in his text, which doesn't bode well for the accuracy of his profile. (In the end he plumps for Cohen.) About the only thing of worth in there is a nice debunking of Paley's use of the earlier profile. It's worth reading, but I'd wait for the paperback.
John Hacker
(Snark) |
Author: Steve Hellerstedt
Monday, 06 August 2001 - 11:05 pm | |
Snark -- As someone who's intrigued by Douglas, profiling, and the Ripper, I have to ask: What factual errors? I haven't read the book yet.
Thanks. |
Author: John Hacker
Tuesday, 07 August 2001 - 06:22 am | |
Steve,
Please forgive the brevity, but I need to be off to work in a few minutes so I'm pressed for time.
It's been while since I read Douglas's book, and my copy is out on loan at the moment, but I can recall a few specifics offhand. There are a number of minor error such as including the farthings at Annie Chapman's murder site that most researchers agree simply didn't exist.
Far more seriously, in relation to MJKs murder he recounts George Hutcinson's fairly detailed statement in regards to the clothes of the man that he saw with MJK, and then mentions that it was a pity that GH had not seen the mans face. Of course GH gave a description of the man's face (Which did vary slightly between tellings I believe), and indicated that the man scowled at him.
I cannot understand how someone researching the case could be aware of only PART of GH's statement. IMO, it's an indication of the sloppiest kind of research. It's only a paragraph long, sheesh.
It's also painfully obvious from reading his JtR bit that Douglass is utterly unfamiliar with the time period the crimes occurred in.
Sorry I have to run off to work, I will see the person who I loaned the book to this weekend so I maybe I'll be able to get it back and come up with more specifics if you're still interested then.
John Hacker |
Author: Leanne Perry
Tuesday, 07 August 2001 - 07:39 am | |
G'day,
The only copy of the FBI profile that I have is the one that appears in Bruce Paley's book.
John: why on earth do you call Paley's suspect a 'weak suspect'? Not enough of his after-inquest life can be traced, so is that any reason to rule him out? Last time I checked the suspect poll here, Joseph Barnett was number 4.
The profile was determined in 1981, by 'sophisticated, scientific' experts, using a computer profiler. I do think they would have had the brains to consider the time period.
Looking at the eye witness statements describing the last-man-seen-with, the killer was likely between the ages 28-36. Most say "about 30" and one didn't get a look at his face and one says: "35 or 36". 28-36 gives them room for poor judgement.
The time and days of the murders suggest that the killer worked or was looking for work all over the East End. I feel he was probably a slaughterer and had basic knowledge of anatomy and how to use a knife.
Don't know why he ceased killing, but he may have wanted police to believe that he died or was arrested for something else.
I believe he may have had something to cause the women to feel safe with him, or to sympathize with him. He could have had an arm in a sling (hiding the knife), a stutter or a nervous twitch.
Leanne |
Author: graziano
Tuesday, 07 August 2001 - 11:56 am | |
Hello Leanne,
that Joe Barnett is suspect number 4 tells a lot about the others and, as far as I am concerned, shows that there is a very huge likelyhood that JtR (s) is not yet mentioned on the Casebook.
Bye. Graziano.
P.S.: No, Leanne please, do not feel offended, is only an opinion. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Tuesday, 07 August 2001 - 06:32 pm | |
G'day Graz,
No mate, I don't feel offended! It just bugs me a bit, how people can just eliminate Joe as a squeaky clean guy that loved Mary. Like a fairytale! I refuse to be fooled by anyone!
About three years ago when I first discovered Casebook, I believed the Diary. When I realized that was trash, I thought of the next suspect that was most likely in my opinion..........Enter Joseph Barnett!!!
At the time he was the least likely suspect and I have watched him climb up the ladder to No. 4!
Leanne! |
Author: Mark List
Tuesday, 07 August 2001 - 07:21 pm | |
Joe Barnett's just as likely a suspect as anyone on the list, but that's only in the realm of MJK's death.
JB killing the others doesn't make as much sense in the grand scheme of it all. As a jilted lover, OH, YES... but as the Ripper it is a bit of a stretch.
However, JB is still high on my list of Rippers, but I'll stick with the Jack the Unknown Ripper.
Mark |
Author: John Hacker
Tuesday, 07 August 2001 - 09:12 pm | |
Leanne,
Popular suspect or not, the case against Barnett is not a strong one in my opinion. It's better then some, not as good as others. For what it's worth I don't think that #1, #2, or #3 was Jack either. (Tumblty, Maybrick, and Kosminski I believe.)
The evidence against Barnett is entirely circumstantial and there is also a great deal of circumstantial evidence that tends to exonerate him. Sure he could have been Jack. He was a male in the East End, 1888 and there is nothing that absolutely excludes him.
I'm just going to try to focus on the profiling related issues on this board. If you'd like to discuss Barnett's candidacy further, we can move over to the Barnett board.
I found this quote from the Douglas book which I had sent in e-mail. I think it illustrates the point I was hoping to make very nicely. This is in regards to Paley's use of profiling to try to bolster his case "This could be true in certain ways--age, race, dysfunctional childhood with no father, comfort zone, triggering emotional event such as the loss of a job, for example-but these are the superficial characteristics, true of a lot of people. They're almost boilerplate for a certain type of offender. You have to get into the specifics to see if it really fits."
Profiling is often used to try to add weight to a case, but usually without any true insight into the psychology involved. They tick off a few items on a list and wow, he's the "serial killer type". Paley does lean on this fairly heavily in his book. In his summation he has 13 points that are either general serial killer profile, or Ripper Project profile compared to 10 non profile related points. And some of those points are based on assumptions, not facts. Paley does excellent research, but I think his case against Barnett is a bit of a stretch.
Douglas did weigh in with a few specifics about how as a profiler he viewed Barnett as a possible Jack. "No one who has had a relatively normal relationship with a woman, as Barnett evidently did, could perpetrate this kind of crime."
I would certainly not entirely rule Barnett out on the basis of Douglas's belief, But I don't believe that profiling offers any support to Paley's theory. What evidence it does provide tends to suggest the opposite.
John Hacker
(Snark) |
Author: Leanne Perry
Tuesday, 07 August 2001 - 11:26 pm | |
G'day John,
Just quickly, before we move: Do you and Douglas think that Joe and Mary had a normal relationship? Mary kept leading Joe on, taking his money, refusing to have him back while she was fond of another bloke, Joseph flemming. Barnett kept buying Mary's attention, while she was charging other men to sleep with her.
Lets discuss this somewhere else!!!
Leanne |
Author: Leanne Perry
Tuesday, 07 August 2001 - 11:37 pm | |
John:
What 'hard evidence' is everyone looking for, 112 years on? A written confession? No wonder someone wrote 'The Diary of Jack the Ripper'.
Leanne |
Author: Jon
Wednesday, 08 August 2001 - 06:29 pm | |
Leanne
Normal relationship???
They got drunk, had a bust up, broke windows, argued over money, he made it she spent it, she lived with him but had feelings for another man.
Isnt that what you call, 'wedded bliss'?
(please define 'Normal') |
Author: Steve Hellerstedt
Wednesday, 08 August 2001 - 08:39 pm | |
| Thanks for the response, Snark. Profiling is a valid investigative tool, in my opinion, but I can see where it's inadequate to deal with the Ripper case. |
Author: Jon
Wednesday, 08 August 2001 - 09:22 pm | |
Quite correct Steve, profiling can help in murders which occur in our time.
Where anyone gets the idea that profiling can be applied retroactively is beyond me, especially as we can easily suggest that each sadistic criminal act was, in some degree, influenced by a previous sadistic act, which is quite reasonable, I wont say obvious.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Tom Wescott
Wednesday, 08 August 2001 - 10:49 pm | |
Hello all,
Did I read correctly above? Tumblety is #1 choice for Jack on the Casebook polls? Who's voting on this thing?
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 09 August 2001 - 09:29 am | |
Hi Tom
I checked this morning and it's worse...
According to the charts, Maybrick is still #1 with voters as the most likely suspect. He has an average of 7.912. Tumblety is 2nd, with an average of 7.909. It's close, but Sir Jim remains number one.
Thought that would brighten your day.
--John |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 09 August 2001 - 12:27 pm | |
Hi, John:
Just a quick note that I have been snowed under with various things but I did receive the tapes that you kindly sent. I have not had a chance to review them but will give them a good listen to bone up for the chat on Tuesday on the blessed Diary aka Diary II ... in mile high letters . Hopefully I will be privileged to exchange some ideas with you at the chat.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 09 August 2001 - 08:25 pm | |
| Hi Tom, and John,If most voters believe Maybrick was Jack the Ripper what does that tell us ? |
Author: Mark List
Friday, 10 August 2001 - 12:26 pm | |
It tells us that he's a very popular suspect. It doesn't, however, tell us that he WAS the Ripper. But the real question is, "WHY is he this popular?"
Mark |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Friday, 10 August 2001 - 01:08 pm | |
Just a guess, but ever since her conviction in
1889, people feel sorry for Mrs. Maybrick. It
is convenient to feel that the brutal James
was capable of being Jack, and makes James'
untimely demise all the easier to swallow - almost
as easy as the arsenic that ended up inside him.
Jeff |
Author: graziano
Friday, 10 August 2001 - 01:35 pm | |
Hello Ivor,
as far as I am concerned, as I already stated on another board concerning the "suspect" Joe Barnett, it tells a lot about the whole list of candidates.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: graziano
Friday, 10 August 2001 - 01:51 pm | |
Hello Ivor,
sorry, I stated it on this board.
I'm becoming pathetic.
This thing is beginning trapping me.
I must get out of it.
Time to go on holiday.
In the East End.
Sorry again. Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 10 August 2001 - 02:25 pm | |
Thanks for the enlightenment folks. Graziano,Dont feel the need to apologise I know many people who would agree with you.
Mark,If that is the case then why dont we have a poll for the most likely suspect to be Jack the Ripper instead of having a poll for the most popular suspect.I would like to know who casebook
readers believe was Jack the Ripper.That would be interesting to know. |
Author: Mark List
Friday, 10 August 2001 - 03:12 pm | |
I would like to do so, however, I fear it might cause mind-numbing madness. Imagine to "civil war" that would be caused if I made a message board titled, "Jack the Ripper, Who's the most likely?"
We'd see Ripperologists, both young and old, at each other throats talking about "You're crazy", or "that's nonsense to believe THAT!"
But, hey, why not?
mark |
Author: Jon
Friday, 10 August 2001 - 03:59 pm | |
Reminds me of a rhyme I once wrote:
The Ripperologist (know thyself)
Aint we all a sorry lot
we do the best with what we've got.
2nd hand, 3rd hand, 4th hand source
armchair justice we endorse.
And all join in a free debate
on friendly terms .....assassinate.
While others argue, "can't you see ?...."
.......we all agree, to disagree.
And what we'd give to leave these seats
go back in time and walk those streets.
And with our theories, hunt that prey
........could we have caught him anyway ?
..................yours truly, Jon Smyth.
PS. I have been known to ramble in verse,
I hope I made you smile, .....not curse. |
Author: Simon Owen
Friday, 10 August 2001 - 05:57 pm | |
This is from' Mindhunter ' by John Douglas , page 255 pback :
' " We don't get many cases of posing " I testified at the hearing , " treating the victim like a prop to leave a specific message....These are crimes of anger , crimes of power. It's the thrill of the hunt , the thrill of the kill , and its the thrill afterwards of how that subject leaves that victim and how hes basically beating the system. " '
Although Douglas and profiling have both been maligned in the Casebook , I wonder if anyone agrees that the above seems reasonable to apply to the Ripper ? It seems a case of applying simple psychology and doesn't depend on things like education , social class , whatever , which would be different to 19th century London.
Look at the first sentence however. Not many cases of posing - this is the George Russell jr case from Seattle in 1991 , when a large amount of evidence on serial killers had been gathered and information filed. If a case of posing was rare in the 1990s , what does that say of the Ripper case in which the victims were posed in the 1880s ?
In the Russell case , the anger and hatred were presumably racially based : he was a very intelligent , well spoken , handsome black man in his 30s and his victims were 3 white women who were killed and posed in sexually degrading positions.( Inter-racial murders are rare , but Russell had dated both black and white women previously ).
What anger drove our killer then ? |
Author: Simon Owen
Friday, 10 August 2001 - 06:15 pm | |
I am personally aware of a local rape case in which the crime was committed 2 miles east of where the perpetrator lived , this is a further example of how dogs don't poop on their own doorstep. Remember many offenders have a criminal reputation and previous convictions in their local area , committing a crime on their own doorstep would be to invite suspicion from the police.
If we look at the night of the ' Double Event ' again , we can make a theory that explains what happened. The killer has killed Elizabeth Stride and is on his way home out of the East End when he stumbles upon a tempting victim in Kate Eddowes. He cannot resist the opportunity. Having killed her he continues on his way home when he realises he has killed outside of the East End for the first time , it might throw suspicion on him and reveal the fact that he does not live in the East End after all. He returns to a place between the two murder scenes and writes his ' funny message ' on the wall , leaving the apron to prove the Ripper did it and , in doing so , to indicate the killer lived in the East End.
I think this is why Goulston Street was chosen , its a relatively central point to all the murder cases , the killer wanted to show he had done the ' Double Event ' and that he had also done the previous two murders as well.
I personally cannot believe that our killer lived in the East End , it would have been simple enough for him to kill somewhere else to throw suspicion off his back. |
Author: Mark List
Friday, 10 August 2001 - 06:55 pm | |
I think that John Douglas's profiling is a great tool in helping with the Ripper case.
I doubt that the profile will give us a name of the ripper, but I think that it gives us an "outline" of him. |
Author: Tom Wescott
Friday, 10 August 2001 - 07:11 pm | |
Simon,
Very good work noticing that quote of Douglas'.
To all,
No matter what you might think of Douglas or profiling, there is no question that John Douglas is an expert on serial killers and their m.o.'s. I believe it significant when he states that he doesn't see too many cases of posing. Perhaps that could help us narrow in on what 'type' of serial killer Jack was and get a better understanding of him as a person.
Jon,
Awesome poem. It was right on the money and cracked me up. Got any more?
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Saturday, 11 August 2001 - 06:06 am | |
| Simon,Good points you have made. |
Author: John Hacker
Saturday, 11 August 2001 - 02:02 pm | |
Simon,
It's interesting to note that in John Douglas's profile of JtR in his latest book, he never referred to the issue of posing. I agree that there appears to be some deliberate posing in the case of MJK, it's certainly a secondary characteristic to the mutilations. It would have been interesting to see how he would have developed over time if the crimes had continued.
If you're interested in profiling and/or the George Russell case, you might want to pick up Bob Keppel's Signature Killers. It's less "Hollywood" than Douglas's work but it delves more deeply into the various aspects of SKs and the motivations that lead to them.
He uses the George Russell case to explore the issue of posing and devotes a good 40 pages to exploring that crime series in detail. It's an excellent book but not quite as "user friendly" as Douglas's work.
John Hacker |
Author: Linda Stratmann
Friday, 17 January 2003 - 05:40 pm | |
Hi
I'm new to the site, so please be gentle with me!
I'd like to know where I can see the original text of the FBI profile of JTR. I have seen it quoted in various articles and books, but they seem to differ in detail. And as a researcher, I always like to get back to the original source whenever possible!
Linda |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Friday, 17 January 2003 - 07:23 pm | |
Hi Linda,
I could be wrong but I do not believe there is an FBI profile of Jack the Ripper. I know that Robert Ressler and John Douglas, formerly with the FBI, did construct a profile but I am unsure whether it was under the FBI hospices.
John Douglas's profile of the killer can be found in his book "The Cases That Haunt Us."
By the way, thanks for the post and welcome to the message boards!
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Dan Norder
Saturday, 18 January 2003 - 08:52 am | |
There has been no official profile of the Ripper by the FBI. Understandably, they focus their time on modern US matters.
There are a variety of people who have attempted to make profiles. They are only as good as the data they were given, and in some cases the profiler was spoon-fed information from people trying to make a case for one suspect over another. I believe one profiler even pretty much backed down from his earlier profile for such reasons. I'd have to search to find the exact who, what and why.
If you are looking for profile information on this site, you can do a keyword search (let frame) on the boards for "profile" and try to sort the good from the bad.
You can also read Garry Wroe's book, Jack the Ripper... Person or Persons Unknown?, which has been posted on the site for free by the webmaster with the author's blessing.
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation |
Author: Diana
Sunday, 19 January 2003 - 08:24 am | |
| In 1988 John Douglas presented a profile of JTR orally on a television program: The Secret Identity of Jack the Ripper. I videotaped it and then a couple of years later sat down with the videotape and attempted to transcribe as best I could. I posted my transcription under "Modern Musings" but I don't know exactly how you would access it now as everything has been archived. |
Author: Dan Norder
Sunday, 19 January 2003 - 01:52 pm | |
This isn't the John Douglas one, but here's a link to a post Diana made with a profile by Kim Rossmo:
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: Miscellaneous: Geographic Profiling
I couldn't find a Modern Musings section. I don't know if it's completely gone or if it's just been renamed. One page of it came up in a search, but when I clicked on the header for that section I got an error that said it couldn't be found.
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Sunday, 19 January 2003 - 02:07 pm | |
All,
One of the unfortunately things about profiling, and Douglas admits it in his book, is that it is very easy to become biased by the opinions of others involved in the case.
That's why he claims to have been so careful about only using crime scene photos, reports about the scene, witness interviews, etc. in creating his profiles and not asking the detectives or police involved his opinions.
That being said, I don't know how he would be able to come up with an unbiased opinion about the Ripper murder without consulting with some of the experts how he would have enough information to make a profile. So it seems like anything he'd do would be tainted to a certain extent.
I liked some of the profiles that were put up on the whole organized/disorganized thread back when Dan and I were feuding. I'd check those out, Linda.
B |
