|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Task Analyses
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: General Topics:
Task Analyses
Author: Diana
Wednesday, 05 July 2000 - 05:33 pm |        | | Oops! I just thought of an alternative scenario. Liz takes advantage of the momentary distraction caused by Schwartz and pipeman to recover sufficiently so she can attempt an escape. She jumps up and hearing the sounds coming from the Socialist meeting decides that this will be a safe place to run to. Jack is right behind her and catches her again just beyond the gate, kills her and then decides that since Schwartz could be coming back at any time with a Bobby he better run. |
Author: Jon
Wednesday, 05 July 2000 - 05:51 pm | | Ladies
When I'm at work and having one of those 'High stress, low output days' I like to 'click' onto this message board, and see if Jill & Diana have come up with another little gem, something to make me smile.
It works every time :-)
When I want a good LAUGH, I go to the diary board.
Keep it up, girls
I think your unique......I really mean that :-)
Best regards, Jon |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Wednesday, 05 July 2000 - 06:12 pm | | Diana, Jon
Diana- I just had clicked post, when I thought to add that 'I couldn't wait until doing Stride's'. But I'll not postulate any scenario's at the moment, although I think yours sound sound enough.
Jon- Naughty boy :-) Hang around for some more fun the following days ...
Jill |
Author: David M. Radka
Wednesday, 05 July 2000 - 08:25 pm | | I think this is a LOVELY discussion above by Jill and Diana, and offer my compliments.
I don't see the evidence at all like Jill does. What I see is a highly proactive type of actor, not someone who is essentially learning what he likes as he goes along. The repetition of the dive for the uterus, the attempt to get the head, the quickie nature of the mutilations, the strangle/drop to the knees/cut the carotid/go straight for the uterus style, all tell me that he had the whole routine polished like a 1959 Thunderbird before he ever went out any evening. No, he was not learning much as he was going along, not changing much, he knew what he wanted, he was totally ruthless getting it. The whole thing was a world of his own making, in his fantasies, in front of his mirror, before he went out.
David |
Author: Diana
Wednesday, 05 July 2000 - 10:21 pm | | | Liz had to get inside that gate somehow. Either she went under her own power, or was forced (frogmarched) or dragged or carried. The murder started on the street but was completed in the yard. Jack had just attacked her. If she walked in there it was either an effort to escape or Jack forced her to walk in there. She wouldn't have cooperated willingly. If she didn't walk he must have carried or dragged her. You have to wonder, if she was able to walk or run at that point then she would probably have been able to scream too. Didn't she have a bruise just below the collarbone? Would that be consistent with Jack walking behind her with one hand clapped on her shoulder forcing her along? |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Thursday, 06 July 2000 - 06:01 am | | Hi David,
We clearly differ on the mindset of JtR. Again I say that he could have all the fantasies he wanted, but he would not know the feedback about it until he did it.
I will make an analogy again: I found out soon enough I loved to draw and paint, just as JtR knew he loved to kill. But there are hundreds of different ways to paint and to kill. Some brushes I just love to work with, others I use for practical reasons, and others I never use. This choice is based on experience: I like the way some brush lay-outs the paint, how it resists or not resists my applied force, ... and some just don't do it with me.
Then the paint: I love oil- and waterpaint, pastel crayons, but I do not like acryl. Why? Again by finding out how the paint spreads, resists, shines, it's colours, the technique to use, and if all this accords with my own style of hand.
And then we still have the subjects someone likes to do: I love to do portrets, bodies, animals, something with expression, I'm not jumping to do a landscape and certainly not a still-life. Again I find that out by doing it.
Finally there is the signature, the style: don't ask me to do detaillist work, I get all wound-up because of it, but let my hand swirl, let it move and move and move; that alone can thrill me.
I know all these things now, but I know them only by experience, both those I did like or not. The choice of knife, how to use it, what to do with it, is for JtR exactly the same thing. It's not because I always use the same brushes, the same painting-material, the same style and same subjects now, that I have never done anything else. I did try other things, but one try was enough to know that it was just not my thing. It's not because JtR used his favourite knife, cut with it and went for the internal organs at most of the victims, that he never tried other things before that.
As for fantasies, I start with a mental picture for every new painting. Surprise, I can never catch it as it was first in my mind. Instead my mental picture changes and adjusts itself more to reality, and grows together with the painting. JtR could have the most gross fantasies he wanted, he could never ever realise them as he had them in his head. He would have to adjust his fantasy to reality. This is not as if saying his fantasy was flattened, no instead it was enriched, grew and matured.
Why do I think I can afford this analogy? Because the drive to kill with a SK comes from deep inside, to express his emotions, and when he is performing his kill he wants constantly FEEDBACK to feed his emotions and fantasies. And my painting do not differ in that much.
To be a mature killer as with Chapman, Eddowes and MJK he must have learned to be mature and his fantasies must have been mature. You cannot reach maturity in a subject without experiencing feedback, without experiment, and without making a few mistakes: these 3 things together I would certainly call learning.
Greetings,
Jill |
Author: Diana
Thursday, 06 July 2000 - 07:40 am | | | I agree. Everything I know about teaching points to it and Chikatilo points to it. Because Chikatilo was caught and interrogated we know some of the processes that went on with his early killings and it was a process of discovering what he enjoyed and perfecting his technique. |
Author: Jon
Thursday, 06 July 2000 - 12:31 pm | | David
You said above:
"What I see is a highly proactive type of actor, not someone who is essentially learning what he likes as he goes along"
Also:
"The repetition of the dive for the uterus,.....all tell me that he had the whole routine polished like a 1959 Thunderbird before he ever went out any evening"
Are you describing your suspect?
Jon |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Friday, 07 July 2000 - 08:59 am | | Jill:
I need urgently to pick up a copy of a birth certificate of a lady born Belguim in 1907. I don't know what town she was born in. Are civil birth records centralised in one place or do you need to know the exact place of birth. Please e-mail me as soon as you can.
Peter. |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Friday, 07 July 2000 - 03:57 pm | | Peter - The birth certificates are not centralised as far as I know. Normally all certificates are kept where you officially live, but I'll ask around more for surety. If you move to another town, your files move to, nowadays anyway. So if you know where the woman lives now or died, you can ask that townhouse.
Still another thing that may help out. Our registry numbers start with date of birth: for example 74.03.04, meaning a person who was born in the year 1974 on March the 4th.
Greetings,
Jill
PS. Wishful thinking when hoping for centralised records in a country where they have three governments :-)
PS2. Couldn't find your mail-address soon enough. |
Author: Thomas Ind
Sunday, 09 July 2000 - 02:29 pm | | Oh my god!!!
I have just posted on the hysterectomies but didn't come to this task analysis bit until after I posted. Wow! Do I have to do this for all the victims? I think I may have to pass. It'll take me all week.
I am still on holiday though (although sadly not in Spain). The problem is, that like Diana said, many of us don't actually think what the taks is when they brush their teeth. They just do it. Surgeons are the same. In reality though, each case is individual and surgery isn't performed by numbers as I have described in the hysterectomy section but by knowledge of the anatomy and basic surgical skills |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Sunday, 09 July 2000 - 03:55 pm | | Thomas,
It seems I'm asking too early, and keep following you:
What you have presented on the Hysterectomies thread is just fine. I would be glad to incorporate this detail-tasking into a more general tasking flowchart as I have already done.
Maybe if you are willing you could expand on the task difference between Chapman and Eddowes because of the difference in result; or post something like your hysterectomy tasking on the taking of the kidney; or the heart of MJK for that matter.
If your are not able to post this, you can always mail me at jill.deschrijver@pi.be. I would be glad to be of help in getting your text-tasking into flowchart and put them up on this thread.
Greetings,
Jill |
Author: Thomas Ind
Sunday, 09 July 2000 - 05:06 pm | | OK Jill
I will look on the internet for a decent photograph to annotate. In essence, I don't think there was anything different in either the thought process or movement, just a smaller movement in Eddowes. Chapman was the more complete hysterectomy but with more apparent damage to other organs in the local area. But It is 22:00 here now. I had to leave the Villa in Spain this am at 04:00 UK time and I am exhausted what with 7 month year old Madam being who she is. I might leave it for another day. |
Author: Thomas Ind
Sunday, 09 July 2000 - 05:41 pm | | OK I have risen to the challenge but last series of posts for today. We seem to be in two separate threads here. I hope that none of these images a copyrighted.
Stephen, if these images are too explicit please feel free to remove them.
In the first picture I have drawn what was remove in the Chapman case.
The second image I will post separately due to file size |
Author: Thomas Ind
Sunday, 09 July 2000 - 05:44 pm | | Ugg how did that happen? The image but not the arrows have turned upside down. I'll try another and if this doesn't work I'll give up for the night.
 |
Author: Thomas Ind
Sunday, 09 July 2000 - 05:49 pm | | Ugg,forget it. I will try again tomorrow. The anotation and arrows have stayed in the same place but the photo have flipped 180 degrees.
Stephen - fell free to delete these posts as they are meaningless in their current form. |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Wednesday, 27 September 2000 - 03:25 am | | Hi all,
I have worked out now the flowchart for Chapman. Again I start with the pre-attack one, where by the things that Elizabeth Long had overheard it is clear that it was JtR that made the proposition and the victim that agreed, unlike the previous flowcharts where I took in consideration the alternative it was the victim who made a proposition (process 2 was previous process2a/b).
The rest of it is the same as the one of Tabram and Nichols. I have changed the visuals in that it incorporates words. That's why the legend is shortened now. Only those processes that have some extra information are still mentioned.
PRE ATTACK
Data 1 Search woman, weak, alone, drunk, and approachable
Prcs 2 Do a proposition: “Will you?” (man seen by Elizabeth Long) -> Decn 2 Agreed? “Yes” (Chapman seen by Elizabeth Long)
Prcs 4 Arrive at place of action: Backyard of 29 Hanbury Street
Data 3 Assess information of place: is it dark enough, calculating escape ways, checking the observation of noise of possible intruders
 |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Wednesday, 27 September 2000 - 04:24 am | | ATTACK CHAPMAN
For the creation of the attack part I first want to thank Thomas for his efforts in making a procedure case of the hysterectomy. I've incorporated them into the flowchart. Actually first I've made one on myself with the concept of a learning JtR relying on feedback, following what he learned in the previous murder of Nichols. When trying to incorporate Thomas' process it fitted quite well with it. Thus for me reinforcing the concept of the learning JtR.
I also will mention some problems I had when trying to decide which process followed after another, especially with the subduing part of the attack, the part Cadoch had overheard. At first I thought the "No" of Chapman was when JtR grabbed her throat and together with that let her slump against the fence, pushing her down, in other words the thump Cadoch had heard. I counted JtR's unintellagable conversation with Chapman as the distraction method. The problem was that some time had ellapsed between the "No" and the thump, since Cadoch had went away and came back some instances later. A too big time lapse to be applied to the otherwise fluent sequence of processes. It was another problem I had later on that presented the solution.
When doing the after-attack chart I was stuck with the process of JtR laying about Chapman's posessions and stealing the rings. Originally I thought to place the process of him ripping Chapman's pocket and getting at the rings after his attack, but this was totally out of place in the sequence without another action far before that.
Linking the two problems it struck me that the "No" must have been intended at something else: namely a supposed robbery. JtR used this method to actively destract Chapman for immobilisation. He either tried to grab the bag of possessions, in the process the last was torn and the posessions sprayed about, or he grabbed after the rings. The moment Chapman would have tried to protect her things, he had his hands free to grab her throat and suffocate her. I would suggest the rings first, because they were in immediate sight, while the pocket was underneath Chapman’s garments. The bruise on her hand would also support this. On the other hand, Chapman could have already been raising her skirts, he saw the bag, grabbed it, leaving her in a more defenseless position than she would have been when he grabbed for the rings. Which of them was first is open for discussion, but the two were separate from each other in the process. One was used to distract her, the other afterwords to muddle the things, and probably let it look like a robbery murder.
Since with both Tabram and Nichols no money was found on the body, I think the flowchart of Chapman can support the theory of robbery more with them too, especially as a distraction method. I totally agree with those of the opinion that JtR was a robberer before his kiling spree (Ada Wilson comes to mind again).
Again the legend is limited to the processes with extra explenation.
ATTACK
Prcs 5 Try to distract her: talking heard by Cadoch; maybe using robbery as distraction as the torn pocket shows or the rings, on which she then reacted “No” heard by Cadoch.
Pr 6a/b Grab her throat: 3 scratches below the the lobe of the left ear, plus bruise right cheeck, swollen face, protruding tongue; conclusion of Dr. Phillips was partial suffocation /pull the victim down: Cadoch hears something falling against the fence
Data 5 check for noise -> Decn 6 Is all at peace? Cadoch went to work
Prcs 8a/b Pick knife: of 6in to 8in, probably longer / Pick victim's head by the chin
Prcs 9a/b Turn head: Attempt to separate the bones of the neck / Cut throat: start from left of spine, in 2 cuts
Prcs 11 Slash knife accross abdomen while ejoying cutting:
entirely laid open by cutting skin flaps, laid out on shoulder.This incises the skin, the fat, the rectus sheat, separates rectus abdominal muscles
Data 8 Feedback of abdomen inside: how is it inside; Explore pelvic and abdominal cavities with sight
Prcs 13 Enter the peritoneal cavity with hands
Data 10 Tactual feedback inside: how is it inside?; Explore pelvic and abdominal cavities with touch ->Dcsn 10 Wich organ did I like to touch? The uterus is the only organ that can be easily felt (remark Thomas)
Prcs 14 grab and pull around uterus
Prcs 15 make one circular movement with the knife around the area of the uterus cutting it away
 |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Wednesday, 27 September 2000 - 04:28 am | | Oops, try again
 |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Wednesday, 27 September 2000 - 05:51 am | | Note ATTACK: still one process has not been reproduced on the attack picture. It is the quick-escape-plan that JtR used with Nichols. Evidently he didn’t use this quick-escape plan with Chapman.
AFTER ATTACK
Notice that with Tabram and Nichols JtR first checks the sight and only then will starts laying about the victim. Here he starts automatically laying about, and then checks if there is anything wanting.
Prcs 16 make it partly appear as a robbery: either the pocket is torn or the rings are taken off, depending on which of the two he already had done during the fabricated distraction of Chapman
Prcs 17 Order the things that had fallen out of the torn pocket.
ASSESSMENT PERIOD
Data 17 Reassess his distractment tricks
Data 18 Reassess taking the organ ->Decn 17 Did I like stealing it? -> Decn 18 Would I like doing that again? |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Wednesday, 27 September 2000 - 09:19 am | | Hi all,
Here’s the pre-attack flowchart for Stride. Here a very big discrepancy happens. Every safety is trown overboard and the killer takes full control. All the previous victims definitely gave their consent, Stride doesn’t. In the previous models I incorporated the possible disagreement for JtR with a victim during the proposition. Then I postulated he would have tried to get out of the deal and go for a new search. Instead with Stride every previous agreement process is neglected and develops full speed ahead into the attack part. He doesn’t check the place, he doesn’t keep his cool and tries to talk with her. Instead it is violent attack from the start, while it is still early enough in the night for him to search. A very big contrast to the actions taken with Chapman. I admit that with Chapman some bravado is shown while Cadoch is there. But with the model it can be argued if JtR even knew there had been someone on the neighbouring door. He only checked again for noise when Cadoch was already gone. But here he starts a total unexpected attack on the street with 2 witnesses, when he still has a whole night ahead of him. I know these arguments are not new, I’m just repeating what has been said before.
I've kept the old pre-attack chart and added the action the killer took after Stride was not willing. To show the difference clearly I've made the taken steps in red.
PRE ATTACK
Data 1 Search woman, weak, alone, drunk, and approachable -> Decn1 Found her?
Pr 1a/b Walk up to her: as Schwartz describes
{Prcs 2} Do a proposition: as Schwartz describes -> Decn 2 Agreed? No
Pr 3a/b Pull her to her place of action: as Schwartz describes
 |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Wednesday, 27 September 2000 - 11:08 am | | ATTACK STRIDE:
The pre-attack develops into a full blown attack from pulling her into the alley to throwing her down on the public street. This is so strange a behaviour for JtR. Why should he want to throw her down there? It’s more like an anger lash.
Diana, in your post of Thursday, July 06, 2000 - 08:26 am you said this: ”It is possible that that ritual was interrupted in the case of Stride when he was observed by Israel Schwartz and pipeman.” Before making the flowchart this was for me sound thinking. But afterwards I can’t agree with it anymore. I’m sure you’re seeing the same problems. First of all his ritual wasn’t interrupted, because the killer wasn’t performing JtR’s ritual of the pre-attack or normal start of the attack. Secondly he only notices the witnesses when he has thrown Stride already to the ground of the public street.
So only the rest of that post “He can't remain on the street to continue the murder because he has been seen and for all he knows, Schwartz has run off to fetch a cop. It is risky to go into Dutfield's Yard with the Socialist meeting going on, but less risky than staying where he is. He counts on the area behind the gate being practically devoid of light. He drags Stride into the yard (I don't think I'm reaching here -- when Schwartz last saw her she was already down) and dispatches her quickly.” Is applyable to the model. But the attack model in no way points definitely to JtR, the start of it suggests more strongly someone else.
What about your post of Thursday, July 06, 2000 - 08:33 am? “Liz takes advantage of the momentary distraction caused by Schwartz and pipeman to recover sufficiently so she can attempt an escape. She jumps up and hearing the sounds coming from the Socialist meeting decides that this will be a safe place to run to.” As you will notice with the model, there is no possibility for Stride to get gone from under the claws of her killer, stand up and run. She is already down, and even while the killer frightens the witnesses out of their wits, he can be already taking her into the alley.
ATTACK
Prcs 4 push the victim instead of pulling her further: as Schwartz describes, bruises on shoudlers and collarbone
Prcs 5 make her quieter by grabbing throat: 3 not so loud screams
Data 2 Notice witnesses: Cadoche and pipeman
Pr 6a/b Distract or frighten witnesses: the cry of “Lipsky”/ Pull or push her into to the alley
Data 3 Victims movement -> Decn 3 Does she still move?
Data 4 check for noise -> Decn 4 Is all at peace? Schwartz & pipeman gone
Prcs 8a/b Pick knife / Pick victim's head by the chin
Prcs 9a/b Turn head / Cut throat: start from left to right severing the left arteries
Data 5 Victim dies
Data 6 check for noise ->Decn 6 Is all at peace?
 |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Wednesday, 27 September 2000 - 11:34 am | | For the assessment period I’ve pondered what would be the the most predominent questions in the killers mind. And yes, he would have thought it a close call, and no I think it would have stopped the killer for trying to hit someone else. No, Stride was not JtR’s victim. There was in effect no double event that night. Had Schwarts only some more courage, and Stride would not even have been on the list of murders, but JtR would not have been caught that night either.
AFTER ATTACK
Prcs 9 Stand straight up
Prcs 10a/b Put the knive away / hide -> Decn 6 Is it safe to walk into this street?
Prcs 11 walk down the alley
Data 6 Look for possible witnesses ->Decn 7 Is it safe to walk into this street?
Prcs 12 Walk out on the street and away.
ASSESSMENT
Decn 8 Was this a close call?
Decn 9 Do I still want to kill tonight?
Greetings,
Jill |
Author: NickDanger
Thursday, 28 September 2000 - 02:06 am | | Hi Jill and all,
As a programmer/analyst for the past twenty years I have drawn (and sometimes even followed) my share of flow charts. Seeing this technique applied to the Ripper case has been nothing short of traumatic for me. I guess I should just be thankful that I don't have to code any programs from them.
I have always admired your efforts to apply your considerable intellectual talents to new ways of looking at the case and I will try to overcome the phobic aversion to flowcharts that I have developed over the years and study them carefully. No guarantees that I will agree, but that is not really the point in our shared interest in the case. The point is that people like yourself continue trying their best to find ways of understanding these events and to possibly gain some new insights for them. Your efforts have been considerable and I promise I'll give them a serious look after this wave of nausea passes. I keep expecting to see some ridiculous deadline date attached to them.
Best regards,
Nick |
Author: Thomas Ind
Thursday, 28 September 2000 - 03:48 pm | | Jill
For what it is worth, I agree with the bit about the hysterectomy being the last bit of mutilation in Chapman. |
|
|
|
|
