|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| |
Thread |
Last Poster |
Posts |
Pages |
Last Post |
  | Archive through October 20, 2003 | Jeff Hamm | 25 | 1 | 10-20-03 3:41 pm |
| Archive through October 21, 2003 | Severn | 25 | 1 | 10-21-03 5:06 pm |
| Archive through October 22, 2003 | Glenn L Andersson | 25 | 1 | 10-22-03 9:11 pm |
| Archive through October 27, 2003 | Jeff Hamm | 25 | 1 | 10-27-03 8:35 pm |
| Archive through October 30, 2003 | Jeff Hamm | 25 | 1 | 10-30-03 2:56 pm |
| Archive through November 08, 2003 | AP Wolf | 25 | 1 | 11-08-03 4:43 pm |
| Archive through November 10, 2003 | Robert Charles Linfo | 25 | 1 | 11-10-03 1:18 pm |
| Archive through November 16, 2003 | Glenn L Andersson | 25 | 1 | 11-16-03 11:41 am |
| Archive through November 18, 2003 | Billy Markland | 25 | 1 | 11-18-03 12:14 pm |
| Archive through November 24, 2003 | Peter J. Tabord | 25 | 1 | 11-24-03 6:02 am |
| Archive through November 27, 2003 | AP Wolf | 25 | 1 | 11-27-03 2:04 pm |
| Archive through December 12, 2003 | Natalie Severn | 25 | 1 | 12-12-03 12:02 pm |
| Archive through December 14, 2003 | Natalie Severn | 25 | 1 | 12-14-03 1:19 pm |
| Archive through December 27, 2003 | Peter Sipka | 25 | 1 | 12-27-03 9:05 pm |
| Archive through December 31, 2003 | Glenn L Andersson | 25 | 1 | 12-31-03 2:16 pm |
| Archive through January 03, 2004 | Glenn L Andersson | 25 | 1 | 1-03-04 9:52 pm |
| Archive through January 11, 2004 | Dan Norder | 25 | 1 | 1-11-04 10:47 am |
| |
 Closed: New threads not accepted on this page |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 967
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 11, 2004 - 2:38 pm: |       |
Hi Frank
"If I remember correctly David Berkowitz didn’t stalk (all of) his victims, but I’m sure Richard Trenton Chase didn’t. Some killers only look for victims that are available, others look for specific physical characteristics or specific circumstances and some aren’t really looking for them, they just meet or see them and at some point the victims trigger or provoke the killer to strike."
That is true. I just took stalking as an example. My point was that stalking doesen't have to imply planning -- necessarily! And neither does choosing a suitable victims. All we have to do is to look at how hunting animals act; they can sometimes act very smart and crude -- and display features which indicates strategy -- and still we don't interpret that as human intelligence or planning.
On the other hand, I can't exclude anything. As I said, we can't know for sure if some of the traits shown in the Ripper's case are a part of a large planning scheme, but I have to go with my gut feeling here and say no, since I don't see any clear evidence of such planning. But it isn't impossible.
"By the way, Glenn, I agree with you on the meaning of ‘intent’ and ‘planning’. ‘Intent’ feels more like a short-term thing, whereas ‘planning’ relatively speaking is a long(er)-term thing."
Goodie goodie.
All the best 
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 978
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 12, 2004 - 5:40 pm: | |
Oh no, Dan. On the contrary. I have only tried to explain the difference between a raving lunatic and a less extreme disorganized killer. It is true that I see some organized traits, although quite slim ones, in the Ripper's case -- in contrast to what I believed earlier. What I've been reacting to, is that some individuals here are interpreting quite natural instincts and impulse-driven features of the Ripper as organized traits, which they don't have to be at all. So my concern is the attempts to make everything into organized traits when they are not.
What I could see as minor evidence of a mixed personality is his way of escaping without leaving so much of a trace. I have earlier stated that this could be a result of good knowledge of the area and instinct of self-preservation. And I still believe that, although I can't disregard the possibility that this also could be a cunning trait. Another point, that one usually connects with organized killers or sociopaths are the way he leaves the bodies on display -- this could also be an organized sign, pointing at some signs we see in a psychopath.
Now, that is all, as far as I am concerned. The rest I feel is just disorganized, really. In contrast to you I don't see anything whatsoever to indicate manipulation of the victims -- and as has been discussed several times on this and other threads, there was no manipulation needed in his role as a customer of prostitutes. But we have no witness statements that shows the Ripper in any lengthier conversations with the women, and he didn't have to. That is one reason why they are so suitable as murder victims; their working situation and their need for money makes that redundant, and they are taking the whole initiative for the most part.
The things you see as precautions and pre-planning (if you refer to studying a victim before attacking her), is not an organized trait, but sheer instinct behaviour -- a raving lunatic, on the other hand, would most likely attack anyone he encountered, like David Cohen did in the asylum, but a disorganized offender without such extreme degree of illness uses his instincts and waits until the coast is clear like anyone else. So I can't agree with you when you say that he would far more likely to be a raving lunatic, by definition, if he was a disorganized personality. The most important features to consider when we're talking disorganized, is the lack of planning and manipulative skills (and social intelligence) -- an organized killer can also act on compulsive "orders" or forces, but a disorganized one does it WITHOUT planning and manipulative skills, and that is how I see the Ripper.
I read into your message, that my consideration for a mixed individual is confusing to you (or else I have misunderstood you), but there are really such things as completely disorganized murderers, without any degrees of organization. But in the Ripper's case I feel that is not the case. I still think of him as a disorganized character, though, showing sings of paranoid schizofrenia, but I can't totally disregard some possible organized indications either, although they are not strong enough to make him organized. If he would be an organized killer, with very few or none disorganized traits (as you seem to suggest), then I would say he was more like a psychopath or sociopath. I think he's showing too much irrational behaviour on some occasions, though, for me to accept that. He doesen't seem to inject himself in the investigation enough for exhibitionistic reasons either for me to diagnose him as such.
Of course one can scrap the term "mixed" and then accept the fact that there only exists organized and disorganized categories, with different kinds of degrees of one or the other within them. But that would in my view hardly simplify things -- on the contrary.
"Then we disagree. Again."
Yes, and we probably always will regarding this, since we read the psychological indications completely different, but I can live with that. It is not the end of the world.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 252
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 13, 2004 - 4:07 pm: | |
The only way to sort this out is to create a scale 1-10, with one being disorganized and 10 being organized and list characteristics for each number inbetween. Then we'd all be talking about the same thing.
I am the one who introduced the "animal instinct" argument, but have just realized it has a fallacy. 
An impaired animal will not be able to follow its self preservation instincts. If an animal can follow its basic self preservation drives (run, fight, hide) it has a small degree of organization.
Therefore to say that because a human follows those drives he is not organized, but instinctual is an error. Those instincts probably represent the lowest possible level of organization, one we share with animals. Instinctive self preservation behaviors represent a low level of organization. If I conk a horse on the head and impair his brain functioning, he may run off a cliff. He has lost the organized trait he had.
Then we have to consider the part that chemicals play in all this. Could JTR have been drunk when he attacked women? If so, then when sober he would present a much more organized front to the world than when he did his thing.
I think it might have been Douglas who said that SKs tend to learn with practice and actually seem to grow more organized with experience and time. Killing on the street where one is likely to be caught is disorganized. Killing in a room is safer. Did the near debacle with Diemschutz make him think? [That is if you accept Stride.] One might even argue that this is evidence for Stride's canonicity. There was no time to think before he did Eddowes. There were weeks and weeks to think between the double event and Kelly. If he, indeed, did kill Stride, imagine his shock and terror. He has just slit Stride's throat and is crouching over her when Diemschutz bursts through the gate. The only possible thing to do is hide behind the open gate. The horse stops, and so does Jack's heart. Diemschutz actually pokes at the body before dismounting and going into the club. Jack stands there frozen and then bolts out the gate and down Berner street. His terror is only slightly exceeded by his need to do it again. But afterward he has time to think about what a near miss it was. He doesn't kill again for a long time, and then only in a room. |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 982
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 13, 2004 - 6:39 pm: | |
Hi Diana,
"Therefore to say that because a human follows those drives he is not organized, but instinctual is an error. Those instincts probably represent the lowest possible level of organization, one we share with animals. Instinctive self preservation behaviors represent a low level of organization."
I totally disagree. Most importantly, that is NOT what is intended when we are talking about organized traits in criminals. When the police and the forensic psychiatrists refer to organized signs in this context, they refer to planning, manipulative skills and so on -- NOT animal cunning, instincts and instinct of self-preservations. These three examples of instinctual features are traits we all have and use in different situations (except maybe from a complete lunatic); you don't have to be especially bright and "organized" in the forensic meaning of the word, to act from those. Instead they refer to traits that indicates a rather high degree of intelligence when they mean "organized".
And this is exactly what I meant earlier; if we take our normal psychological functions and consider them as examples of organized traits in THIS context, then the whole attempt here becomes meaningless. A killer doesne't show organized traits just because he's acting out his instincts -- that is to abuse the term in its forensic meaning.
Then, of course, I can go along with Douglas' thoughts about a serial killer becoming more organized with time and the more attempts he makes. It is quite natural that he would get bolder and also learn from his mistakes. But what we must consider here, unless these efforts will come out pointless, is the killer's MAIN characteristics. And I am not so sure that Douglas' notion here necessarily fits every serial killer with a mental illness. It is possible for a paranoid schizofrenic to become more traumatized for each murder,which in turn escalates his illness, and I think personally that is what happened in the Ripper's case. The fact that he killed indoors during his last (?) spell, could just as well be a coincident or a result of that the increasing police forces made the conditions for him TOO hard to put up with, and left him with no other choice. We can't know this. It is of course possible that the Stride murder incident could have made an impact on him, as you suggest -- I can't disregard from that.
"Then we have to consider the part that chemicals play in all this. Could JTR have been drunk when he attacked women? If so, then when sober he would present a much more organized front to the world than when he did his thing."
Now, that is actually an option I can buy straight off. It is indeed possible that the results we see from his killings could be the effects of alcohol or drugs. There are in fact people who turns into lunatics and a "Mr. Hyde" in a chemical extreme way when they get drunk -- often followed by memory lapses.
And if that is the case, then we actually could be looking at a completely sane and intelligent character -- and organized! -- when he's in his sober condition. Interesting alternative.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 622
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 7:09 am: | |
Hi Glenn, Diana,
And of course, if this normally sane and intelligent character, who changed out of all recognition when under the ‘fluence, and wanted – needed - to remember exactly what he had been up to, but couldn’t, he would have had the sense to use the latest newspaper as a handy, essential and almost immediate aide-memoire.
That is certainly an option I’ve toyed with, although I would never go so far as to say I can buy it straight off. 
The most obvious objection I can think of to the increasingly disorganised Jack, as opposed to the increasingly organised one, who bided his time until the circumstances came right for him again in early November, is that the people around him in the immediate aftermath of Mary’s murder never put two and two together and worked out that this man, at his most disorganised to date, was in fact the most wanted in the land.
An objection to my objection would be if no one had any reason to imagine that this man had been anywhere near the crime scenes at the right time.
However, an objection to that objection might be that a local, disorganised Jack would hardly be best suited to this lack of imagination on the part of those closest to him – especially if they were aware, after 9 November, that this man had become seriously ill, had died in unusual circumstances, moved away or been carted off somewhere.
It must be hard enough to lead a successful double life and leave not a trace of it behind, even with good organisational skills and the luck of the devil. I imagine it must be a lot harder if you lead both lives in the same place, under the same people’s noses, and wouldn’t have the ability to recognise, anticipate or cope with all the problems of trying to go seamlessly from one life to the other with no one being any the wiser.
Love,
Caz
|
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 987
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 11:34 am: | |
Hi Caz,
I see what you mean, but I am not sure that I agree with your thoughts there. Disorganized characters are hardly noticable, and that has nothing to do with organized skills. On the contrary, they usually blend in among the crowds and appear to be quite ordinary (unless they are really extreme in their behaviour). We've had enough such perpetrators here in Sweden during the last two years to establish that as a fact. For the most part they are very closed and reserved individuals. They can also be the opposite, and quickly confesses to their closest environment what they have done, but that is not a main feature and not something that fits even a majority of them. Once again, what you imply here about the disorganized character is built too much on the "raving lunatic" thing. Disorganized people are generally loners and very few people in their close circuits are really aware of what that person really is doing or what goes on in his head. It has necessarily nothing to do with organized skills.
Regarding the other alternative personality type, affected by alcohol or drugs (which very well could be an organized character), it was maybe a slight exaggeration to say that I'd buy it straight off but what I meant was that I can not at this point really see any downsides with it. All and all, I think it is quite an appealing alternative theory very much to my liking. I have no problems with scrapping the disorganized killer, if we look at it from those such circumstances. It is a possibility, indeed.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 463
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 2:49 pm: | |
Hello Glenn, Caz, Diana and All
Forgive me for coming in late on the recent posts to this thread. If I repeat anything already mentioned please ignore the redundancy
We may be beating a dead horse on the organized vs. disorganized issue. But having said that, perhaps we can look at the broad based characteristics which have been shown by serial murderers who have been caught.
Those termed the sexual sadistic serial killers, (in other words those who torture their victims before killing them such as the Cleveland Torso murderer,who cut off the heads of his victims while they were still alive) are much more likely to attempt some form of sexual penetration of their victims unlike our Jacky. Interestingly they seem to be the ones who are more likely to use drugs or alcohol before or even during the abuse of the victims. According to the book Serial killers; The Insatiable Passion by David Lester, Charles Press (1995), about half of the killers in one study of 30 sexual sadistic serial killers, were fueled at least to some degree by alcohol or drugs. These are the killers who seem more likely to erase the details of what they have done from their memory. I imagine the author is alluding to crimes committed while the perpetrator was in some type of fugue state.
As for the killers like Jack who get their kicks from quickly murdering their victims and then mutilating the remains, they SOMETIMES were under the influence of alcohol or drugs, but not so much so that we could say they were boozed or drugged up during their murders.
Interestingly, it never occurred to me that Jack might have been somewhat under the influence when he killed. Except perhaps in the case of Stride if the man seen with her was her actual murderer. As previously stated by other posters this could bring about a more disorganized pattern of behavior.
All The Best
Gary
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 645
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 17, 2004 - 12:45 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
I was only really arguing against the kind of increasingly disorganised local Jack – the mind giving way after the awful glut in Miller’s Court-type Jack – who, I imagined, would soon afterwards have come to the notice of those who lived or worked close to him, either due to some distinct change in the behaviour and routine that had previously allowed him to ‘blend in’, or by his sudden absence from the scene, like a constant humming noise is often only noticed when it suddenly stops.
Obviously, if this disorganised Jack didn’t experience any steep, or even more gradual descent into mania as his crimes increased in number and severity, then I agree, he could have continued to blend in until his departure from the killing zone, for whatever reason, not causing a singled raised eyebrow in the process.
Love,
Caz
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1010
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 17, 2004 - 3:29 pm: | |
Hi Caz,
I see what you mean, but I actually think the Ripper became increasingly disorganized -- the nature of the murders tells me that. However, an extreme behaviour, as a result of the increasing madness, would most likely appear in the end or after Kelly's murder.
Prior to that I don't think he would have been that noticeable. Then why wasn't he caught in the end, if he wasn't? Well, who knows. There could be a dozen different reasons. He could have killed himself, he could have been committed for insanity (without the police ever realizing he was Jack the Ripper), he could have died, etc.
It is quite possible that he "would soon afterwards have come to the notice of those who lived or worked close to him, either due to some distinct change in the behaviour and routine that had previously allowed him to ‘blend in’", but why do we have to assume that people saw him as Jack just because of that? Just because he might have acted as a lunatic after the last murders, doesen't mean that people necessarily would have connected him with the Ripper. I believe there were quite a large number of strange characters running around the poor streets of East End. I personally believe that the "mind giving way after the awful glut in Miller’s Court-type Jack" is the psychologically most plausible one -- if we're dealing with a disorganized perpetrator. (I must admit I am quite tempted by that other "alcohol-influenced" alternative as well).
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on January 17, 2004)
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Erin Sigler
Inspector
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 195
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 17, 2004 - 11:24 pm: | |
Glenn, just a note of support. Not every mentally ill person in Whitechapel would have necessarily come to the attention of the police or even people on the street. People might have just thought him odd or eccentric. Or perhaps people did take notice of him, and they were afraid of him, or his family, or wanted to avoid getting involved. Richard Chase was brought to the attention of police only after accosting a former acquaintance in a supermarket parking lot. He wasn't even on their radar before that meeting. In fact, as it turns out, another woman had seen him and was suspicious but was too afraid of retaliation to alert police.
The police can't possibly have been aware of every lunatic in Whitechapel. As I recall, they only investigated those mentally ill people who were brought to their attention by concerned citizens. Even if he was picked up by the police, what evidence would they have had to hold him? A confession? He need not have provided this even if institutionalized. Besides, if he had been institutionalized and then confessed, would anyone have taken him seriously? Assuming they had, what could the police do in such a circumstance? He was already safely locked away. Were the mentally ill even put on trial in 1888? Hadn't the M'Naghten Rule been in effect for quite some time? And even if the police were satisfied as to his identity and his inpatient status, would they not have been liable for civil action had they trumpeted his identity to the press?
I agree with Glenn here. Mental illness can (and often does) work this way; the descent need not be rapid, nor particularly obvious, right up to the very end. People can be mentally ill and still manage to function, after all. My aunt did. And when her illness became too much for her to handle, we (her family) stepped in and took care of things quietly, without feeling the need to involve law enforcement. Now, she didn't commit any crimes that I know of, but her experience is still instructive if for nothing else than to prove that one can be floridly psychotic without fitting the popular conception of a raving, foaming-at-the-mouth lunatic. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1017
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 18, 2004 - 10:07 am: | |
Thank you for the supportive post, Erin.
And I naturally agree with your words here.
It is not reasonable to assume, that the police would have been aware of every single odd character in Whitechapel. And even if he did get picked up, why do we automatically take for granted that he would have been identified as Jack the Ripper?
There is no reason to believe that he was a raving lunatic during the time of the Ripper scare, just because he was mentally ill. Among the poor people in Whitechapel, being eccentric probably didn't make you stick out from the crowd that much. Especially as these were violent areas anyway. I'd say he would have been able to blend in rather well, at least until the disorder accelerated to an unbearable degree.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 649
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 19, 2004 - 12:51 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
A wee bit of a communication problem here I think.
I wasn’t talking about the police at all, I was just thinking through your scenario of the disorganised local Jack who blends in until after Kelly’s murder. Something eventually stopped him killing, something that also stopped him blending in like before. Even loners have people around them, particularly in a place like 1888 Whitechapel, who would be aware, if only subconsciously, of a loner’s routine comings and goings. So this loner blends in and those closest to him don’t spare him a second thought – until his mental state deteriorates and his behaviour is all too obvious, or he is suddenly not there any more, at times of the day or night when he would previously have been out and about.
All I’m really saying is that if Jack was such a one as this, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if someone, somewhere, thought of him and wondered if he might in fact have been the killer in their midst, even though they never realised they were right.
How many times have we heard, when a killer is finally caught: “I always knew there was something fishy about him…”?
It’s a sobering thought that the ripper could have lived and died and left not the slightest impression with anyone who knew him of the man he had become by November 1888.
What chance have we got of finding such a man, let alone identifying him as the man with a secret no one else knew about or even suspected?
Love,
Caz
(Message edited by Caz on January 19, 2004) |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
