Profiling the Ripper

** 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 **

Profiling the Ripper

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Ripper Suspects: Profiling the Ripper

SUBTOPIC

MSGS

Last Updated

Author: Garry Wroe Monday, 09 September 2002 - 09:10 pm
Hi Scott. As someone who has been examining criminal psychodynamics for more than twenty years and has studied psychology to graduate level, I would nonetheless consider myself a layman in context of police investigations. And whilst I appreciate the validity of much of what you say, I would question the notion that the police have an unsurpassed insight into crime. Take, for example, the cognitive interview. Nowadays, because of the input of psychology, police officers are trained in how to best elicit information from potential eyewitnesses. The question then arises as to how much vital information has been lost down the years as a consequence of poor interviewing techniques? Similarly, police identificational procedures have changed dramatically over recent years because of psychological research into the fallibility of eyewitnesses. This change in strategy has not only resulted in fewer misidentifications, but has saved investigators an immense amount of time that would have otherwise been wasted on wild goose chases. Whilst I retain the greatest of respect for the honest, conscientious police officer, he or she is not always best placed to improve procedures and techniques. Such investigative ameliorations are almost always effected as a consequence of academic studies conducted by individuals who have no direct investigative experience. The problem I have with profiling does not concern the technique itself. To my mind, profiling is a discipline that is founded on robust behavioural and cognitive principles and has proved itself hugely beneficial in the face of innumerable seemingly intractable crimes. But, having said this, profiling has become 'sexy' and has attracted many practitioners who, frankly, are not up to the job. Yet I maintain that, if applied in accordance with strict scientific methodology, profiling remains a potent investigative tool. There are some on these boards who assume that a profiler would interpret any sharp force attack on a woman as sexually motivated. But this is simply not the case. Compare, for instance, the deaths of Emma Smith, Martha Tabram and Polly Nichols. Smith was not only raped but subjected to implementary violation. Her death, however, was typical of those perpetrated by roaming extortion gangs and would not, therefore, be interpreted as a sex crime per se. Then there is Martha Tabram. Her killer attacked her errogenous zones with sharp force so undoubtedy harboured some sexual motivation. But he stabbed through her clothing rather than displacing it and targeting bare flesh. So while this murder was undoubtedly libinally orientated, it isn't indicative of the fantasy-fuelled behaviour of the full-blown sadosexual serialist. Polly Nichols, on the other hand, suffered clearly sexually motivated sharp force injuries which the assailant inflicted after first displacing her clothing. So three murders incorporating similar injuries, but three very different motivational interpretations. Again, I do not claim to be a profiler and have never been involved in a police investigation, but I do have sufficient knowledge of aberrant behaviour to be able to discern a sex crime from, say, an occult killing. As I have said before, Scott, your postings are invariably perceptive and intelligent. Your policing experience, too, gives you an insight to which few of us can lay claim. But there has been a great deal of anti-profiling rhetoric of late and, like you, I felt that I had been silent for long enough. Best wishes, Garry Wroe.
Author: Divia deBrevier Monday, 09 September 2002 - 11:07 pm
Greetings all: As I have stated before, I am not an expert in forensics, homicide, or any of the other various related fields as many of the regular posters here at Casebook. However, I have the great fortune of having friends in some of these respective fields. A good friend of mine is a photographer for the coroner's office. He goes down to photograph the remains, not at the scene, but at the coroner's. He has brought me down there to observe several autopsies for various reasons (his father was a coroner and is now semi-retired; they still call him in when they need an extra hand, so I usually get in because of them). I needed to study the muscles of the human body for some artwork I was working on, and got to see first hand how the muscles are attached, what they look like, etc. After that, they started inviting me as calls came in, and a few times I have gone down to observe just because it was interesting. I have had the rare opportunity to observe various gunshot wounds, stab wounds, arson victims and other various forms of death... and have found them to be extremely interesting and informative for my personal fictional writing. And since the coroner is always willing to answer questions after he is finished working, it makes the visit all the more worthwhile. That being said, I feel that I have somewhat of an advantage over a few others, but always admit that there will always be someone out there that knows more than I. And now I forgot where I was going with this post! My bad... I'll add when it comes back to me. Now all I can think about was the first autopsy I ever witnessed: a self-inflicted 12 gauge shotgun wound to the head. Lost in thought but will return, Divia
Author: Jon Monday, 09 September 2002 - 11:11 pm
Hi Caz. The trouble with answering specific questions is that I tend to get embroiled in a hypothetical argument which is presumed to be "my theory". If I say, "I think", in relation to any question, then it is only in relation to your question, or anyones question, not intended to mean, "I think in relation to any specific theory, which I do not have. What I do believe is that for whatever reason, some misguided individual was inspired by the inquiry of the American doctor. Only a few weeks separated this request for organs, from the murders, where these specific organs were removed. I find it a stunning coincidence that simply had to be investigated, we are led to believe it was not, mainly due to the reaction of the B.M.A and the "circling the wagons" mentality to defend and squash any suggestion that some member of the medical community could be involved in such a bizarre and monstrous act. This does not mean that every detail of the story has to be accurate, and if one detail is erroneous then the whole story is debunked. No, that is not how it works. The story apparently had a basis in fact, certain aspects of it, namely the price and means of presentation, are dubious details which are arguable but the main concern is did the event occur?, and all contemporary indications were that it did. So, it should have been investigated and it was a missed opportunity. If there was a connection between the request & the crimes then it seriously undermines the presumed sexual serial killer theory. Whether the killer enjoyed killing or not, (many soldiers enjoy killing) it does not make him a SSK, so long as the crime was not committed for the sole intent of sexual gratification. Let me make a comparison, I may regret this, but, what the heck. "If a gynecologist enjoys his work, is he a pervert?, is he sexually demented?" Some might say 'yes', some say 'no', but the question really need defining. This is the level I am talking about with respect to the SSK theory & JtR. JtR could have enjoyed the disection without being demented, if he was experienced. For the crimes to be committed for gain, to provide to the American, does not make Jack an SSK, also, if Jack enjoyed this kind of work he still is not an SSK, providing he would not have committed those crimes under normal circumstances. If the hypothetical 'Jack' worked at a hospital or mortuary then he did this every day, so he is neither demented nor an SSK. But, he saw an avenue for gain unwittingly instigated by the inquiries of the American. Was Jack a murderer?, of course. Was Jack a serial killer?, at least three crimes appear to be by the same hand, so "yes, of course". But, is he a SSK?, "on what grounds?", he may have been but we cannot say "he was". I'm also not suggesting the American intended to resort to, or to encourage someone else to, go out and commit murder. Just a few thoughts, not a theory. Regards, Jon P.S. There are several other possibilities that interest me so this is no personal theory, but it does seem to be the one that raises the blood pressure of many on these boards. And, more importantly, creates some interesting exchanges.
Author: Neale Carter Tuesday, 10 September 2002 - 12:05 am
Scott, Your point is well made that your experience provides you with a completely different perspective in approaching this case compared to most others. This would be of enormous advantage if it were an actual investigation with existing victims, crime scenes, witnesses & suspects. However as this is the coldest of cases, ie. relies on documentary and circumstantial evidence only, your investigatory acumen is but one of many disciplines to be of use. Others just as important may be historians, researchers, medicos and a host of professions where conclusions are required to be made and tested against a disparate muddle of evidence. Even an untrained person with a logical, questioning mind can construct valid hypotheses. Nonetheless your experience in the real world of crime is very valuable and i'm sure appreciated by all. Regards Neale
Author: Caroline Morris Tuesday, 10 September 2002 - 05:16 am
Hi Jon, Very nicely explained - thanks for taking the time. Hi All, Last night there was a great dramatised account on British tv about the acid bath murderer, John George Haigh, starring Martin Clunes. Although it was obvious that he killed for profit, with no indication that he was a sadist, I did wonder about the pleasure and power aspect of his crimes. Haigh appeared to derive much pleasure from having made his victims 'disappear', wallowing in the attention his crimes attracted, and for a while believing they couldn't convict him of murder as long as there was no body left to find. There was no suggestion of remorse - a thoroughly nasty piece of work. Despite a transparent attempt to plead insanity, I find it hard to accept there was no trace of madness in with Haigh's badness. I'm thoroughly enjoying this thread, BTW, and will sit back now and do less of the old chat and more listening and learning. Thanks everyone. Love, Caz
Author: Scott E. Medine Tuesday, 10 September 2002 - 09:14 am
Dan, There are two types of evidence presented in court. Circumstantial and physical. If the guy was a bed wetter is of really no consequence is the grand scheme of things. I only deal with cold, hard, concrete indisputable facts. Facts backed by forensic science. I have listed some of those facts uncovered so far in the string of murders. 1) Martha Tabram was killed by the same person who killed Polly Nichols, Annie Chapman, Kate Eddowes and Mary Kelly. 2) Tabram�s actual time of death is 3:30 am and not 2:30 am as set forth by Dr. Killeen. 3) Tabram and Nichols were not strangled as is usually thought. Forensic evidence shows they both received blows to the head that rendered them helpless. 4) Chapman was strangled into submission and then her throat was cut and she fought with her killer. 5) The killer kills with his left hand (this in no way implies that he is left handed). 6) PC Thain was not on his beat. 7) Wynne Baxter is a completely clueless idiot. ( No forensic evidence, this is backed solely on his line of questioning and statements.) 8) Kelly fought with her killer and her time of death is between 9:00 and 9:30 am. 9) It cannot be determined with certainty whether Stride was a Ripper victim. But the killer did claim at least one more victim after Kelly. No physical evidence, but when looking at the victimology, the M.O. and signature it is an opinion, based on my experience that the killer was a sexual sadist. Peace, Scott
Author: Scott E. Medine Tuesday, 10 September 2002 - 09:23 am
Bad Grammer.... #4 should read; Chapman fought with her killer. She was strangled into submission then her throat was cut. Peace, Scott
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden Tuesday, 10 September 2002 - 11:09 am
Jon, my original incorrect assumption was that it was Spratling's own opinion regarding the wounds to Polly Nichols in his report dated 31 August 1888. Here Spratling states that the major wound was on the right side. I pointed out that this was the opposite of Dr Llewellyn's inquest testimony in which he stated that the wound was on the left side. You claimed that the confusion was caused by the difference between medical and layman's observation. Upon rechecking I discovered that we were both wrong. As both opinions come solely from Llewellyn, the confusion could not have been caused by the difference between professional and layman's terms therefor your observation is meaningless. If I shifted my argument it was in order to answer your incorrect assumption. As this was originally a small observation by me, really an aside, I have to wonder why you are belabouring the point. I can only conclude that you are attempting to provide a smokescreen to cover your inability to understand simple anatomy and your reliance on untrustworthy newspaper reports. You posted a quotation from Inspector Spratling's report which you italicised. Within the body of that quotation you had a bracketed observation that stated that the centre of the bottom of the ribs are, "(...only inches away from the breastbone)..." This observation was also italicised which would mean that the observation was part of Spratling's report. It is not. It is your own incorrect observation and one can only assume that you have placed it within the report in order to mislead. I pointed this out to you and your rather confused response was to state that you had done this, "to assist anyone else reading that extract that the breastbone is a common term for the sternum. As even any rudimentary anatomical sketch will explain." This makes no sense when viewed within the context of the original quote but fortunately you then go on to clarify your explanation by offering the real reason why you added your observation by stating that, "The "centre of the bottom of the ribs", is between the ribs and only inches below the end of the breastbone (sternum)." What this explanation has to do with italicizing your observation as if it were part of Inspector Spratling's report, I have no idea, but it has everything to do with your tenuous grasp of anatomy and your need to mislead others in order to try and make your theory convincing. Let me state this quite clearly, The bottom of the ribs are not only inches away from the breastbone. They are not between the ribs and only inches below the end of the breastbone as you have incorrectly stated. Perhaps you will understand this if I add the layman's term �rib cage' to Dr. Llewellyn's medical description: "...the abdomen had been cut open from centre of bottom of [the rib cage] along right side...." Centre and bottom, you have incorrectly transposed the importance of these two words somehow thinking that the word �centre' is the important descriptive word in the sentence. If Llewellyn had stated that the wound had started at the centre of the ribs then you might be correct, but he did not. The wound started at the bottom of the ribs. Approximately where along the bottom of the ribs? Near the centre point at the bottom of the ribs. Do we have any corroborating evidence for this? Yes we do in Dr Llewellyn's inquest testimony where he states quite clearly, "There were no injuries about the body till just about the lower part of the abdomen." Is the "lower part of the abdomen" near the sternum? No it is not. Do you think that Llewellyn meant that there were no injuries about the body till just about the lower part of the abdomen, "oh, except for that nasty gash that ran from the breastbone that I read about in the papers, I forgot about that."? You have provided a series of snippets from various newspaper reports which contain the word breastbone in them, apparently in the mistaken belief that the newspapers knew more about the nature of the wounds to Polly Nichols than the medical and police officials who actually worked the case. You may chose to believe this but I don't so you may provide as many as you like and they will still be wrong. Simply put, if Dr. Llewellyn's inquest testimony and the official police files on the murder say one thing, while newspapers like the Illustrated Police News or the Star say something different, then I will choose to believe the official reports. I understand that they do not support your theories and so you disregard them but you only weaken your argument by doing so. Allow me to also give you a bit of advice, if you are going to use von Krafft-Ebing in your argument, as you did in an earlier post, you may want to actually read him first. Wolf.
Author: Kevin Braun Tuesday, 10 September 2002 - 03:39 pm
Scott, 8) Kelly fought with her killer and her time of death is between 9:00 and 9:30 am Then why the fire in the fireplace. No need for light or warmth at 9:00 to 9:30 am? What "cold, hard, concrete indisputable facts" led you to believe that Kelly fought with her killer? 9) It cannot be determined with certainty whether Stride was a Ripper victim. But the killer did claim at least one more victim after Kelly. I remember that you had an interest in the murder of a young boy, post Kelly. Is that the victim you refer to? Your practical experience is invaluable. Take care, Kevin
Author: Monty Tuesday, 10 September 2002 - 03:40 pm
Scott, I bow to your experience here...but I have a problem. PC Thain. Why is it a fact that he was missing from his beat ? Im not being awkward, Im genuinely confused although I fear the explanation may be simple. Cheers, Monty
Author: Richard P. Dewar Tuesday, 10 September 2002 - 04:03 pm
Scott, How is it "fact" that Martha Tabram was murdered by the Whitechapel killer? Are you suggesting the different nature of her wounds (described variously as puncture and bayonet) and the suspect she was seen with prior to her death (a soldier) does not support the possibility the killer was someone else? Also, what evidence establishes as "fact" that Mary Kelly was killed between 9am - 930am. I am genuinely startled that someone, based on the scant evidence we have available, could come to the conclusion to the exclusion of all other possibility the precise half-hour a murder occurred over 130 years ago. This is not to suggest your opinion is inaccurate - but to state these as "facts" is very strong - especially concerning the fact that most researchers, investigators, criminalists and historians have come to the opposite conclusions. Regards, Rich
Author: Scott E. Medine Tuesday, 10 September 2002 - 05:19 pm
Monty, Rich and Kevin, I can only paraphrase here the evidence for each question. The evidence is extremely lengthy and detailed. Tabram�s killer was not the soldier she was seen with earlier that night, he was merely a customer. The lone soldier that was seen by earlier by Barrett was obviously not the soldier she was with nor did he have anything to do with the crime. This can be easily proved by the witness statements, inquest testimonies, the position and condition of Tabram�s body. PC Barrett�s testimony weighs far more heavily than most everyone else�s. The killer of Martha Tabram used one weapon to assault her. That one weapon was responsible for all wounds inflicted on her body. I prove this in the book with a simple test that can be repeated by the readers. Tabram suffered a blunt force trauma as evidenced by Dr. Killeen�s testimony that upon opening her skull he found an effusion of blood between bone and scalp. In post mortem examinations the skull is opened at the top of the head. The only time it will be opened anywhere else is if there is evidence pointing to a need to do so as in an injury to a particular place on the head. Nowhere, in anyone�s reports was a head injury reported on Tabram. This tells me that she received a blow to the top of her skull, which is next to impossible to cause by just being thrown to the ground and having her head strike the ground. At the most it could have happened by being thrown to the ground and striking her head against the wall. However, this is still extremely difficult, the most plausible answer is a blow to the top of her head. Kelly�s time of death is placed between 9:00am and 9:30 am by the medical information provided by the post mortem. Because she was killed indoors the effects of rigor mortis would have had more of an effect on her than the other victims. By turning her famous photo over to a team of forensic photographers and by them enlarging it, the wounds on her forearm are consistent with defensive wounds seen on other victims of edged weapon assaults. The same wound pattern on Kelly�s forearms eerily match those received by Nicole Brown Simpson. Evidence found in the Dr. Phillip�s inquest testimony regarding his examination of Chapman at the scene and his post mortem examination establish that rigor had a 1 hour onset time in the arms of Chapman. This is usually found in victims who have had extreme muscle exertion just prior to death. I say usually found as I am 99% sure this is why Chapman�s arms were showing such a fast onset of rigor. Since Phillips does not mention her arms outright - he only mentions �limbs�- this also tells me that rigor was found in her legs as well which would also be consistent with someone fighting off the attack of an assailant while on her back. This however should not be confused with cadaveric spasms as was found in both Kelly and Tabram. The proof that Thain was missing from his beat at the time of the Nichols murder is shown in his not being able to account for his cape. By using forensic statement analysis and analyzing his statement at the inquest along side that of the horse slaughterer Tomkins, one can see that Thain has a problem accounting for his time. What is equally disturbing is that PC Neil likewise has trouble accounting for his time. This matter can be addressed and/or discussed in length in another thread. In my book, I have devoted almost eight pages to the vigilant duo and there whereabouts. As far as the post Kelly killing....for now, I will only say there is indisputable evidence of another victim. Peace, Scott
Author: Dan Norder Tuesday, 10 September 2002 - 06:08 pm
Scott, No offense here, but those are not facts, those are opinions. To present them as undeniable facts just shows the same mistake that many people involved with the case make: thinking that your solution is the only possible solution. Now you could very well have an impeccable line of logic to make your conclusions, but you do yourself a grave disservice by presenting the nine points of your theory as "cold, hard, concrete indisputable facts" instead of "new conclusions based upon a reinterpretation of the evidence." Give us real facts. Let's see the evidence. Let's look at it and see if your conclusions are valid or just more of the delusional fantasies we see all too often. Hyping your theory by claiming that it isn't a theory but a set of indisputible facts and arguing that you are in a better position to find the facts that anyone else all just point to someone unwilling to let his theory compete with others based upon its inherent logic. If you plan on having anyone taking you seriously instead of lumping you in with the nutjobs you may want to try a more balanced approach. Dan
Author: Scott E. Medine Tuesday, 10 September 2002 - 09:47 pm
Buy the book Dan. The evidence is laid out in far greater detail than I have space to do so here. In fact, to everyone here, this will be my last post for a very long while. I have research to do and I am quickly falling behind schedule. I have already missed one publication deadline and may miss another. I can still be reached by e-mail. Peace and Happy Hunting, Scott P.S. Monty Keep in touch. I am still waiting on Mr. Barnett's reply. I may have to fly over and make a personal call.
Author: Harry Mann Wednesday, 11 September 2002 - 04:57 am
Scott, Beware of the old saying. Man with hand in one pocket feel cocky. Man with hands in two pockets not feel too cocky. Better take one hand out.
Author: Monty Wednesday, 11 September 2002 - 07:03 am
Scott, Of course, you have my home and work E mail addresses. Feel free to use them anytime. Dan, Glad to see that you have faith. Monty
Author: Richard P. Dewar Wednesday, 11 September 2002 - 09:05 am
Hi all, According to Scott, if I understand his post correctly, it can be proved conclusively that Tabram was not killed by a soldier by the position of her body was found? Regards, Rich
Author: Jon Sunday, 15 September 2002 - 08:54 am
No matter how assertive one feels about his own assumptions, facts are considerably different from theories and there are precious few facts in this case. Scott, your theory is certainly not 'concrete' nor 'indisputable'. You may feel convinced about Tabram being murdered by the same hand but your so-called proof is, shall we say, "in the eye of the beholder". Nice to see you express your opinion though. Isn't it fun to be in the firing line Best regards, Jon P.S. Incidently, I took the time & trouble to colate the remarks & observations made by Wynne Baxter and draw the conclusion that he was observent, concerned & perceptive in many details throughout this series of murders. Your derogatory comment betrays your predjudices, possibly blinding your minds eye. Dr Phillips is the main man in these murders, Baxter was in a position to know more than any other and between the two of them we have a rare insight into these murders.
Author: Jon Sunday, 15 September 2002 - 05:13 pm
Wolf. What I think you are describing is this....
Author: Jon Sunday, 15 September 2002 - 05:19 pm
Insptr Spratling described this wound when he made his police report, he did not list all the wounds he simply tells of what he saw when he lifted up her clothes. Any other cuts to the abdomen were still under her garments so we cannot assume this was the one and only wound, in fact Llewellyn tells us of several wounds in this area, but only described one, this one (above). I'll move this onto the correct thread.....

Add a Message