Archive through 07 October 2001

** 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 07 October 2001

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: General Discussion : Profile of Jack: Archive through 07 October 2001

Author: Rachel Carper Saturday, 25 March 2000 - 05:55 am
This isn't really a new topic but I just joined the group and was looking for someone to discuss the profile of Jack. I have not as yet read the FBI profile that was apparently done but I have a few ideas of my own. It does not seem to me that the murders could have started at such a violent degree. So I do believe that there are victims before the 5. Most sexual sadists start out slower and build to the violent fantasy that usually gets them caught. What do you all think? Rachel
Author: Michael B. Bruneio Saturday, 25 March 2000 - 10:07 am
Dear Rachel, You are almost certainly right; Jack most likely did not begin his criminal career with sexual murder. I think it's likely that our man began with lesser crimes when younger, then worked his way up to assaults, rapes, and eventually, murder. Our Jacky, IMHO, came from a dysfunctional family with a weak or absent father and a domineering mother. I don't think it's unreasonable to speculate that Jack was a victim of physical and/or sexual abuse at the hands of either parent. Most nutcases like this begin their "careers" by harming animals, like cats, for instance. (I can overlook this because I hate the filfthy buggers!) Jack was not born a lunatic; he was made one by years of systematic abuse. However, when looking into any profiling techniques, keep in mind that, for all their reverence and posture, the F.B.I.'s Behavioral Sciences has NEVER apprehended a single serial killer. It's my opinion that Jack, his sanity already tenuous, contracted some type of STD (probably syphilis), went entirely off his head, and "Viola!" I would like to believe that, after Mary Kelly, he had what alcoholics call a "moment of clarity" and topped himself. This is unlikely, I realize, and pure wishful thinking on my part. But it would explain why the murders stopped. I favor no particular suspect, but I feel Jack was at least at one time a medical student or someone familiar with the post-mortem. We won't find our man amongst the labouring poor or in some dosser's kitchen.
Author: Christopher T. George Saturday, 25 March 2000 - 02:11 pm
Hello Michael: Your argument is a bit conflicting. A sexual serial murderer does not need to have a sexually transmitted disease to commit his crimes. The will to do them is already inbred. It would seem to me that you are picking up the "revenge" motive that is imputed to such suspects as Randolph Churchill and grafting it onto the serial killer model. A serial killer does not need revenge as a motive; his drive to murder is self-sufficient. Chris George
Author: Michael B. Bruneio Saturday, 25 March 2000 - 08:39 pm
Hello Christopher! After re-reading my post, I belatedly realized my meaning could easily be misunderstood. To be sure, Jack was a sick twist, venereal disease or no. His pathology took root in his psyche long before he "became" Jack. What I should have written is that SOMETHING - some incident - made him blow a gasket. Something happened to remove any remaining barrier of right or wrong he may have had. In my speculative scenario, Jack despises, possibly exploits prostitutes, but as yet has done them no real harm. Contracting venereal disease from an encounter may be just the thing that sets him off. In my work, I see many people who still interact with the causes of their problems, yet these people know full well that such interaction can only be harmful to them. Psychological masochism. You're absolutely right that serial murder is almost never based on revenge; however, if this pilgrim known as Jack the Ripper fancied himself a martyr, he then becomes his own cause, and all bets are off regarding his motivations. Obviously, I realize that speculation like this gets us everywhere and nowhere. But it sure is fun! For the record, I wouldn't dare "officially" give a reason for anything this fruitloop did. Off the record, I have a gut feeling that this man was one cool, sharp customer. Also off the record, I do feel he was a medical man of some kind, though details are too conflicting to say in what capacity. On the flipside, I'll tell anyone to their face that it WASN'T Kosminsky, and that the "Diary" isn't worth the paper it's printed on. In fact, if I read yet another "new" Diary revelation on these boards, I shall have no recourse but to systematically throw all my neighborhood cats to Bourbon, my mastiff. You have been warned! ;-) (Just kidding, of course) On a more personal note, I deeply regret that I will be unable to join everyone at Park Ridge this year. The unexpected death of my father and the resulting deluge of demands on my time (I'm executor) prevent me from attending. However, I will be there in spirit, and am anxious in hearing of it. Good luck to all! May you find the answers that you seek ...
Author: Michael B. Bruneio Saturday, 25 March 2000 - 08:50 pm
Me again. By the way, I just wanted to mention that if I could pick one celebrity whose appearance and persona best represents who I feel Jack the Ripper would look like, I would have to pick legendary singer/musician Van Morrison. No offense intended toward Van, as I am a great fan. But something tells me if we were to unmask the murderer, we would see The Belfast Cowboy's face. I'll sign off now, before I blow any remaining credibility straight to hell.
Author: Leanne Perry Sunday, 26 March 2000 - 05:17 am
G'day Everyone, Take a closer look at Mary Kelly's boyfriend Joseph Barnett! His father died, when he was six, and his mother seems to have deserted her children shortly after. The last official record of her is as informant on her husband's death certificate. The book 'Jack the Ripper, A psychic Investigation' by Pamela ball, says that Joseph grew up blaming himself for his mother's departure, and choses him as her most likely suspect. The book says that his relationship with his mother, was a difficult one. But if you don't believe in any of that crap, Kelly's best friend said that she was still fond of her ex, another Joe, who continued to visit Kelly, bringing her gifts. Kelly was just 'using' Barnett, who used to shower her with gifts. He finally left her because Kelly was inviting prostitute friends to live with them. This indicates that Kelly no longer wanted to be 'intimate' with him and she wasn't going to leave that kind of lifestyle, so she had to go! And he took her heart, as a trophie! - SIMPLE! Leanne!
Author: Christopher T. George Sunday, 26 March 2000 - 07:24 am
Hi, Michael: Thank you for your well-considered response. I am sorry that you will not be able to make it to Park Ridge, but considerations following the death of your father must take precedence. I still resist the notion that Jack needed a disease as a revenge motive to carry out his deeds, but who knows? It could have been a bit of both. Similarly, as I mentioned on another board, Melvin Harris, in advancing D'Onston as the killer says that although he carried out the murders as part of a black magic ritual, "sexual lusts [were] behind the killings. For ultimately all lust-murder is an exercise in supreme merciless power." [Jack the Ripper: The Bloody Truth, p. 127] Van Morrison as Jack the Ripper eh? Maybe Jack had a fixation on a prostitute named Gloria? :-) Chris George
Author: Diana Sunday, 26 March 2000 - 09:02 pm
At the risk of causing a nature/nurture war, I just finished studying a chapter in a textbook on Special Education. The subject was emotional and behavioral disorders. If the disorder is severe it is more likely though not inevitable there will be an organic cause. Possibilities include traumatic brain injury, genetic abnormality, certain diseases, CNS injury due to drug abuse either by the individual or their mother (prenatally). I have read about at least one serial killer who got a bad conk on the head as a child.
Author: Diana Sunday, 26 March 2000 - 09:04 pm
P.S. Under Modern Musings there is a section labelled "on profiling". I have placed there my transcription of the orally delivered profile done by Agent Douglas of the FBI.
Author: lee donovan Thursday, 30 March 2000 - 07:57 am
Afternoon Everyone There is no doubt that "Jack the Ripper" was a sick perverted serial killer. Leanne says that Joseph Barnett is Pamela Balls most likely suspect. Also i'm sure most of you know that Joseph Barnett is also the suspect of Bruce Paleys book. Most murderers or serial killers do come from dysfunctional families but it does not mean that Jack the Ripper did. My auntie for instance did not come from a poor background or dysfunctional family but yet she got a bloodclot on her brain and she went mad for a while, (trying to stab my uncle on a couple of occasions),before she eventually died. Lee
Author: Leanne Perry Thursday, 30 March 2000 - 10:37 am
G'day Diana, Lee, I've volunteered for a social support club for people with 'Acquired Traumatic Brain Injury', accompanying them to the movies, restraunts, niteclubs etc. I still help them compile a fundraising newspaper every other month, called 'Brainpower'. May I say, that these people, (who have had strokes, car accidents, been bashed, had blood clots, (anurisms) etc.), are the most gentle people I've met. None of them remember their accidents, because the brain blocks these bad memories, so let's leave them out! Leanne!
Author: lee donovan Friday, 31 March 2000 - 12:52 am
Leanne I think you mistook what i said. I was not having a go at any one, especially people who have had serious accidents concerning the heads. I was just stating that that everyone is saying JTR came from a poor background which is why he killed these women. But does it have to be a bad background to be a killer? Lee
Author: R.J. Palmer Friday, 31 March 2000 - 04:03 pm
Lee--in my opinion, "no". I once saw an interview of Jeffrey Dahmer's father. This man struck me as kind, thoughtful, and humble; he gave his son a very humane, and 'normal' upbringing. Unfortunately, JD was just plain twisted, and became very strange shortly after leaving home. Or at least that's my take on it. Probably a good essay could be written on the "Socio-Economic Implications of JTR" by someone like Frederick Engels. There seems to be some camps that want to pin the Whitechapel murders on the upperclass, while others that want to pin them on the working-class. I squirmed a bit while watching the recent Discovery Channel documentary on JTR, when the sociologist said something to the effect that "working class relationships were often violent". What about non-working class relationships? Are they not also violent? G.B. Shaw jokingly called JTR "a genius" because he did what no else was able to do: focus attention on the deplorable conditions among the poor in the East End. It would be ironic if JTR turned out to be upper-class bloke guilty of "slumming it". Cheers, RJP
Author: Paul Carpenter Monday, 11 September 2000 - 09:24 am
Hi, I think the search for the killer using modern psychological theory is doomed to failure. The whole psych profile of serial killers is based on patterns of behaviour that have been identified in a few modern killers through extensive interviews and research with living serial killers. From such a small sample (most work is confined to serial killers in the US over the last 20 years) it is hard - possibly foolish - to extrapolate such research to Victorian London. With the documentary evidence that is available for the JTR suspects, we are inevitably reduced to speculation about childhoods and upbringing and incidents in their lives etc. Personally, I see this as a dead end. I couldn't help but notice that Gainey and Evans made several attempts to force Tumblety into a modern psych profile of a serial killer - by the far the weakest link in their reasoning. Essentially, using this methodology seems doomed to result in people picking and choosing the aspects of their favourite suspect that fit a profile. The Yorkshire Ripper, surely the closest modern anology to JTR, did not come from the classic serial killer background so beloved of the proponents of profiling. As far as can be ascertained, his upbringing was well within the bounds of that which would be considered normal. He also managed to maintain married life, which again negates the commonly held supposition that serial killers are goofy single men who live in creepy houses in the middle of nowhere. Given that now we will never get access to the living minds of the Ripper suspects, perhaps it would be useful to end the attempt to profile the killer? Thanks for listening - look forward to your posts...
Author: Diana Monday, 11 September 2000 - 08:16 pm
I am not one to advocate closing off any option. Until and unless it is solved, I think we need to leave all doors open. I found the book on Andrei Chikatilo very instructive and enlightening.
Author: Simon Owen Tuesday, 13 February 2001 - 08:30 pm
In people's opinion , was Jack a disorganised or organised serial killer ?
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Tuesday, 13 February 2001 - 09:06 pm
Dear Simon, Jack was very much an organised disorganiser of organs. I keep asking myself, why? Could he have been a frusterated organist? Seriously, this is the 64,000$ question...is'nt it? It is so much more simple, to my mind, that he is a 'loner', why complicate the issue? Love, Rosemary
Author: David M. Radka Wednesday, 14 February 2001 - 03:14 pm
Excellent question, Simon! By the way, Simon, have I said something to offend you? If I have, I'm sorry. Somehow it seems by your expressions that you're having a bit of a tiff with me. Well, here's another clue for you all-- The walrus was P-- Oh, right. Well, on the matter of organized/disorganized/both organized and disorganized: According to a little theory I have on this subject, the man was just about the opposite of what Douglas & Olshaker think he was. Food for thought. David
Author: Simon Owen Wednesday, 14 February 2001 - 03:35 pm
No tiff , but maybe tiffin with all this chocolate cake going around ! Or even oysters for tea ! Who was the carpenter then ? I'm just grumpy at the moment , I have a bad toe. And my bowels still aren't very good from last year , but they are holding up though ! Simon
Author: Joseph Wednesday, 14 February 2001 - 09:05 pm
Hello Mr. Radka, Could you please define "chocolate poof"? Mr. Carter seems to think it's an undesirable event or condition. Since it is your utterance, I would imagine you know what it means. Please share your knowledge with the us.
Author: Diana Wednesday, 14 February 2001 - 09:46 pm
Do you absolutely have to know? There are some things I'd rather not know!
Author: David M. Radka Wednesday, 14 February 2001 - 11:18 pm
Clearly I was wrong in chiding Ed. He has since offered reasonable positions, and I ask for his forgiveness. A poof is, well, a bit of a dodgy fellow, I guess. Adding chocolate to it makes it a regular foreground case of dodginess. David
Author: Jade Bakys Thursday, 15 February 2001 - 10:46 am
You should try deconstructing Ed, David! I bet you find he is a genius. Jade
Author: E Carter Monday, 19 February 2001 - 03:39 am
Far from it unfortunatly Jade! My quest to find the chocolate poof began in Sainsburys. On asking the shelf filler where I might find the chocolate poofs around here, the glean in his eye quickly fore warned me that all was not right. He pursued me right to the bus stop, in deed if it was not for that number 38, I might walk like a cowboy to this very day! David you are forgiven, I think of these things as learning experiences!
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Monday, 19 February 2001 - 09:31 am
Hi Ed, You evidently got the Sainsburys lad interested in more than shelf-filling! Next time, don't whatever you do ask him, or anyone else, to direct you to the chocolate starfish... Love, Caz
Author: Steve Hellerstedt Monday, 30 July 2001 - 06:22 pm
I'm sure the regulars here have addressed this the question I'm going to post (after a digression), but I haven't seen it. A while back I rented a video produced in Great Britain. It was hosted by Peter Ustinov and was titled "Jack the Ripper Revealed," or some such. At the end of the program, a group of experts gave opinions as to who they thought the Ripper was. The panel included a pair of FBI profilers. As I remember, they didn't feel any of the big six was Jack. However, they did believe that the Ripper had been in trouble with the law previous to the murders. They suggested searching the police files for clues. Has that been done on a systematic basis? The profilers felt sure that his name was on record with the law. Are the records still in existence?
Author: Christopher T George Tuesday, 31 July 2001 - 09:30 am
Hi, Steve: Yes and no in regard to the files being available. The Scotland Yard (MEPO) suspect files, annoyingly, have gone missing. The book The Ripper File that came out of a quasi-fictional-style documentary on the case by the BBC in 1974 is useful because the authors saw some of the files that are now missing. The 1988 FBI Ripper Project findings have been published and discussed. The flaw in the project is that the group were only given information on a limited number of suspects. Of these men, Aaron Kosminski seemed the most likely to fit the profile, i.e., a local working class man with known psychological problems. As Martin Fido recently remarked on these boards, former FBI profiler John Douglas in his recent book The Cases that Haunt Us seems now to favor Martin's suspect, David Cohen, for similar reasons. For my part, I agree with that eminent authority on the case, Stewart P. Evans, a former police officer, that the criteria used by modern profilers to identify a murderer of 1888 are faulty. Best regards Chris George
Author: Steve Hellerstedt Tuesday, 31 July 2001 - 03:56 pm
Thanks, Chris. If you can bear with a newcomer... I remember Douglas and his colleague on the program saying the killer probably wasn't one of the suspects presented to the panel. Which is why he said it would probably be fruitful to check contemporaneous police files. To my memory, the profilers seemed sure that he was known to the police and his name would be in the files. Therefore, a thorough referencing of the 130 year old files would contain Jack the Ripper in his true identity. Even if we don't buy profiling, it seems a common sense suggestion. This guy wasn't a stranger to the criminal justice system. He's been arrested, or questioned, or what have you. Somebody must have already considered the possibly the Ripper wasn't always successful. Perhaps rather than murder there were assaults. I'll check the Cohen threads. Thanks for the tip.
Author: Tom Wescott Tuesday, 31 July 2001 - 04:36 pm
Hello all, To write profiling off as a lark is a wrong thing to do. It has been proven successful too many times to not be taken seriously. Is it flawless? Of course not. The question here isn't on the validity of profiling in the modern sense, but attempting to profile a murderer a hundred years dead using modern techniques. When Douglas and crew profiled Jack in the 80's they were working with a deadline and very limited information. They weren't able to visit the crime scenes, interview witnesses or investigating officers, and probably knew very little about modern East End life, let alone the way things worked in 1888. They didn't even have complete police files to work from. I'm sure Douglas would tell you that if he were asked to work a modern case and was given such restrictions he would turn it down flat. It must also be reminded that the information available on the Ripper murders in 1988 was lacking compared to what we know today. Many of the things that Douglas and co. took into consideration when writing their profile have since been proven to be exagerations, mistruths, or misunderstandings. I believe that John Douglas and his colleagues have saved hundres, even thousands of lives through their breakthrough work, and I believe their profile has some merit, but when taking everything into consideration, I don't believe for a moment that the FBI profile should be considered 'authoritative'. Yours truly, Tom Wescott
Author: David Radka Wednesday, 01 August 2001 - 12:21 am
One of the main reasons the case is not solved today, in my opinion, is profiling. It seems to me the police are trying to find a piece of 2001 in 1888. It is very hard not to do this if you are a regular guy, a normal police person with a regular spouse and regular kids, and a regular education. You have to really be somebody special to be able to filter out 2001 cultural cues from what you are looking for. Nobody like this is out there at this time. When someone who can do it comes along, the case will be solved. Now I've got to get back to my "A.R." David
Author: Christopher T George Wednesday, 01 August 2001 - 10:52 am
Hi, Steve: Somebody I am sure can confirm this but I think the Ustinov program of 1988 did name Kosminski as the man most likely to have been Jack. Also, who says that Jack most was known to the police? We just cannot know that. While a search of the police files of course is one method of proceedure and should have been done, and could still be done if we have the files, it might not reveal anything on the murderer if he was not known, as many of us think was the case. As Paul Begg has discussed, the Whitechapel area was inhabited and frequented by thousands of individuals of whom we know next to nothing. Many of these people have left no records. The Whitechapel murderer could well have been one of these individuals. Best regards Chris George
Author: Daniel Rudge Friday, 17 August 2001 - 02:17 pm
Hi all: I am knew to these message boards but have, from time to time, spent a great part of my leisure time researching the JTR case. It was a godsend to find the casebook webpage. After reading just about the entire casebook and most of the posts, I'd like to add my two cents. First, I started many years ago in examining the supposed victims of the killer's spree. For sake of brevity, I'll limit my research to the five "main" victims. Aside from what I would consider similarities caused by environment (e.g. poor, lived in lodging house), there are a few similarities I have not seen discussed and would like your opinions. Here are those similarities: -All were seen with a black bonnet -All had long hair and 4 of the 5 had brown curly hair. -All were described as having blue and/or grey eyes. -All had missing teeth or some other facial irregularity. -All were described as "relatively clean women." -All wore a red and white garment, except for the third victim who was found wearing red and white flowers. -Each of the victims had a broken piece of comb as part of their personal belongings. -Most victims were approached at about 1:00 AM, which corresponds to the time when the police were changing rounds. The other clues discernable from the victims have been discussed, killed at spot found, with one exception, submitted to mutilation, killer used a a knife six-eight inches in length with a blade that was sharp, narrow and thin. Killer had anatomical knowledge, victims were aged 40 + or - five years, drunks, and prostitutes. (all of this information is taken from the official inquests). I'm curious if any of these "facts" about the victims have been previously discussed and whether anybody finds this information as interesting and potentially important as I do? I would also appreciate anyone who can find faults with what I listed to please point them out so I can remove them from my considerations list. Thanks, Dan R
Author: Jon Friday, 17 August 2001 - 04:16 pm
Dan The frequent mentioning of a black bonnet has been raised before and also that of missing teeth. I have wondered if the teeth were missing as part of the fatal assault or simply had been missing for a long time (healed up). It's not clear in the medical testimony, though we all assume they were old extractions, rightly or wrongly. Regards, Jon Welcome aboard.
Author: Diana Friday, 17 August 2001 - 08:16 pm
It might be that black bonnets were very popular at that time.
Author: David Radka Friday, 17 August 2001 - 08:31 pm
Dan, Your post is for the most part right for Nichols, Chapman, Stride and Eddowes, but off the mark in most respects for Kelly. --She was described as hatless by nature. --No red and white garment. --No broken piece of comb. --Very slightly cross-eyed probably shouldn't count for a facial irregularity. Generally speaking, she had a particularly attractive facial appearance. Good try for a first post, though. David
Author: Jonathan Northall Wednesday, 05 September 2001 - 06:19 pm
Could someone provide a URL or e-mail a copy of the FBI profile of JTR? I want some details of the profile.
Author: Robeer Saturday, 06 October 2001 - 02:58 pm
To follow up on Jonathan's request, what is the latest up-dated profile on JTR developed by Agent Douglas? By what process are profiles developed? Is there anywhere on the message board that explains profiling? I assume it's basically statistical data gathered from all previous cases where the perpetrators were caught and convicted. The resulting skews are then used to develope a profile. From what little I know most SKs that have been identified were male, white, and in that 20-35 age group. I am guessing that all researchers have tried to do is scientifically quantify what law enforcement veterans come to learn through experience. There was a case in Alaska where FBI profiling helped solve the case. I question the profile of JTR that FBI Agent Douglas did in 1988 for the program hosted by Peter Ustinov. One characteristic Douglas predicted was this kind of SK would have a slovenly, disheveled appearance. Most of the SKs I am aware of were just the opposite. Kosminski is the only suspect who had that appearance and when the public voted during the 1988 TV show Kosminski came out the winner, based on the Douglas profile. None of the JTR witnesses ever described a suspect who was sloppy in appearance. Shabby gentile was as close as they came and even that doesn't sound sloppy. The picture of Kosminski is enough to scare anybody. I can't imagine any of the victims allowing someone looking like that to approach them during the JTR hysteria. However they would feel safe with a man who looked average or harmless. There is even a chance JTR was handsome. Some SKs were handsome according to female witnesses, such as Bundy who had no problem gaining the confidence of women. JTR was invisable. One of the JTR letters indicated he was well aware that people took little notice of him. It's doubtful that he would have a disheveled or menacing appearance. It is possible that Kosminski murdered Long Liz if he is the same man seen throwing her to the ground. In this instance she immediately resisted this man's interest in her and screamed when he grabbed her. She wanted nothing to do with this guy. That fact alone might indicate the man who assaulted Liz was not JTR because it was not his style. If Kosminski or Cohen was identified by Schwartz then the police may have jumped to the erroneous conclusion this JTR suspect must have done the other murders too. Another part of the 1988 profile is the SK lived in the area of Whitechapel. What if the SK just worked in the area but lived elsewhere? Or had reason to visit on a regular basis? What if JTR had a split personality where he is normal at his home base but his personality was affected by completely different surroundings the opposite of his home base? He might have been totally repulsed by the conditions and culture of the Whitechapel area or drawn to it in a perverse way. The environment itself may have triggered something in his pschye that released a monster. He may have even been aware of this impulse but kept it in check under normal circumstances but the Whitechapel atmosphere brought out the worst in him. He would give in to these darker instincts while in the East End but returning to home base become normal again. If the letters were authentic then JTR enjoyed his work and felt no remorse. He also enjoyed taunting the police. It became a game to outwit the authorities. To murder in hidden places is one thing but to do it out in the open suggests JTR enjoyed taking risks and the shock effect on the public. By terrifying the public JTR must have felt a sense of power and control than was intoxicating to him. Robeer
Author: Tom Wescott Saturday, 06 October 2001 - 11:03 pm
Robeer, You SHOULD question Douglas' 1988 profile of Jack. He didn't have all the information available to him that we have now, some of the info he DID have has shown to be misleading, he was working on a deadline, and was most likely not read up on Victorian, let alone East End, life. That being said he's a well-accomplished profiler who has saved countless lives through his work, and I feel he deserves the reward he is getting through his books now that he's retired. And while I feel there are points in his profile of Jack that ring true, a serious student of the case should not use it as the sole foundation of a theory. Yours truly, Tom Wescott
Author: Robeer Sunday, 07 October 2001 - 05:21 am
Tom, Thank you for the info. It seems that I read a long time ago that a physical survey was taken of criminals incarcerated in prisons in the US. If I remember correctly the curious thing in the statistics most violent offenders who were white averaged smaller physically than the national average. That could indicate they were more likely to carry a weapon. Do you know if there is physical statistics on the SK profiling that Douglas relies on? Do you know anything about handwriting analysis? Is it considered a science? How valid is psychological analysis based on handwriting? Robeer
Author: Monty Sunday, 07 October 2001 - 11:00 am
Calling Phillip C Dowe Tom, Robeer, I had a few posts with Phillip C Dowe on the Sexual Killers topic last week. He mentioned that profiling was part of his job and I would be very interested what his profile of Jack would be. So if you read this post Phil, bash out your profile for us. Go on, You know you want to. Monty