|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 838
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 3:59 pm: | 
|
Hi Harry,
Consider yourself fortunate that the times you heard people calling out murder that no one was actually killed. But then if you doubt that someone shouting out murder could really be related to an actual murder, just go to Google, type in "cry of murder" (just like that, in quotes and everything) and hit search.
And I don't get why you seem to be caught on the idea that a shout of murder at 4 a.m. would be less likely to be a real murder... especially when in this case a corpse was found very obviously murdered. Granted, the two events needn't have to be linked, but it seems like a pretty logical link to be making.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 682
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 4:13 pm: |
|
Hi Natalie,
That is the big question. Was Jack John or was Jack not John. Some serial killers who mutilate, have also employed prostitutes for sexual purposes other than their murderous fantacies. However, other serial killers who mutilate, have been known to be sexual incapable.
I have no idea which is the more common, and perhaps we would want to limit ourselves to just looking at serial killers of prostitutes who mutilate their victims. If from those who have been caught, who fit that "style", we may find that it's a 50/50 split. Or, we may find that "regular John" is very common, or very rare.
Since we don't know who Jack was, rare or common, either idea is possible. The notion of looking at other serial killers with a broadly similar behaviour pattern, would simply be an attempt to get an idea which has the higher statistical probability! However, since JtR is one specific case, knowing that one situation is very common and one is very rare, doesn't mean JtR has to be one of the very common, but it would weight our views of the options while hopefully not blinding us to the fact there are options.
So, yes, I can see Jack being someone like you describe as well, which would not include such stories as my Jack is John. I just haven't come up with a story with "Jack is not John" that sits as well with me.
I suppose, though, it's possible that Mary went out again after Hutchinson left and found another customer. There is nothing in the evidence that indicates Mary had any problems with Hutchinson's man (if he existed), and sounds of possible trouble are not for a few hours later anyway. More than enough time, if unusual time, for Mary to look for another customer. Unlikely, and I don't much like it myself, but I wasn't there so I really don't know. ha!
- Jeff
P.S. I've emphasised the word statistical to prove how "right on topic" this post is! ha!
(Message edited by jeffhamm on August 18, 2005) |
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 264
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 5:34 pm: |
|
Hi all,
Many, if not most, prostitute serial killers have sex with some of these women and let them go without them even knowing they were in danger. It's all part of the power trip of having the say over who lives and who dies, all on his whim, and him being the only one who knows it.
Best wishes,
Stan |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2312
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 5:38 pm: |
|
Well I suppose Jeff, that if Mary knew him as one of her "off the wall"but harmless regulars on this ocassion Hutchinson"s man who having arrived with his little "parcel of tricks",might have waved the red handkerchief in the air to signal the start of "their little game" whereby he got out his crimson paint crayons from the parcel and -lets say- painted stripes of "pretend" blood on either them -all the while getting very excited about uttering a word such as the "W"[whore] word for example,----after which he gave Mary three quid and left and which Mary would promptly pocket as a rule.....
Well if instead of this "predicted" scenario,
Mr Astrakhan turned all amorous and was ungraciously rebuffed-or told it would cost him ten quid extra...well maybe then such a
customer might have turned very nasty indeed and all of a sudden started using knives instead of red crayons........who knows.....
... I am only imagining this from having seen plays like "The Balcony" where far more hilarious [but admittedly less homicidal] farce like
scenarios have been presented on the West End Stage -that really left you wondering just how many bonkers "Mr Astrakhan" types might be out there at one time or another with their astonishing obsessions! |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 683
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 6:42 pm: |
|
Hi Natalie,
The red crayons ... of course, it was Sickert after all! ha! I was thinking more along the lines that if Jack was a "not John", then the attack on Mary would have to occur shortly after he gets her alone (as per the other victims). So, I tend to think of scenerio's that have the attack following shortly after Jack enters the room with Mary. That makes it hard to explain why Mary is not fully clothed, unless one goes with either
1) Jack breaks in while Mary's in bed or
2) Jack knocks on the door and Mary let's him in.
Number 1 has the problem in that it apparently required a pick axe to force the door. So, either Jack knows of the "window trick", or Mary left her door unlocked, or Jack somehow is the one with the lost Key. Each of these has difficulties that make them harder to swallow (but of course, none are impossible: Jack could have been a John earlier, and stole the key then, for example, just to give a long-shot idea that doesn't involve Barnett, who is the most immediately obvious candidate for who would have the key.)
Number 2 would work for Barnett, but if Mary and Joe were so "at odds" with each other, I would think a drunk Mary (as she was reported to be by some on the night she died) would have started up one of her fights with Joe for getting her up so late at night, which would have been heard and reported. This "story" doesn't seem to have the people involved acting "in character" (Mary doesn't get angry with Joe while she's drunk and he's just done something that would not go over well in any situation - woke her up in the middle of the night, etc.)
So, Mary being dressed for bed, rather than fully clothed, limits the possibilites if we go with the idea that Jack attacks Mary as soon as he gets into the room (she's not gone out to get a customer in her bed clothes). Remember, if we go with the idea that Mary changes into her night clothes with Jack present, then it seems to me that Jack is continuing to pose as John for far longer than he did with any of the other victims, and therefore this may suggest that he actually engaged Mary in her role as a prostitute. I keep comming back to this conclusion. It may be wrong, but I find it hard to get Mary's killer into the room, with her in bed, without Jack getting in bed with her. If he strangled her first (while both standing), why is she laying lengthwise on the bed, and not cross-wise when her throat is cut? If he sneaks into the room, without waking her (otherwise she would have screamed a lot more I would think), why didn't he strangle her first? What woke up Mary at the last minute, just before he attacked her with the knife (the defense wounds on her hands/arms suggest she was awake when the attack began)? He's next to the bed and she's asleep, surely he could have got his hands around her neck easily enough? And so on. Too many things feel difficult to explain, which feel easier if Jack starts out as John.
That being said, it may just be that I feel it's easier to explain these things, while others feel this explanation is more complicated.
- Jeff |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2316
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 6:52 pm: |
|
I can follow this Jeff and find this last credible.
But another scenario might be that Jack watched Mary,stalked her....and noted the window trick.All he then had to do was to wait a half hour after her light went out at night!Natalie |
Brad McGinnis
Inspector
Username: Brad
Post Number: 259
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 12:21 am: |
|
Hi All! I wish I could check in more often. I post something and never get back to see any replies. With the nursing shortage and summer vacations Im working 16 to 20 days a month, not the 12 I contracted for... As far as the cry of "Murder", it was fairly common in the LVE. I can still remember people saying that in the 50's and early 60's. I think today the expresion that has replaced it is "sh*t". I live on a corner on a steep hill. If I was in the South, it would be a mountain, if I lived in Colorado it would be a knoll. Anyway, as people come up the hill from the north side they bottom out their car car and I hear "sh*t" several times a day. In the 18 years Ive lived here Ive never gone out and found a turd in the middle of the road. I think the cry of "murder" was an idiom of the times. If I remember correctly some of the OLD cartoons used that expression alot, Heckle and Jeckle, and alot of the old WB cartoons. Lol, those were the days.......before "political correctness". Carry on and have fun. Brad |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 685
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 1:02 am: |
|
Hi Natalie,
You're right, stalking is probably the best "counter" explanations. It's common among serial killers, and perhaps such an idea shouldn't be dismissed as quickly as it usually is.
- Jeff |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 233
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 1:40 am: |
|
Very interesting thoughts from all of you.
Just one more possible twist in the story that might be consistent with the facts without having Jack deviate too much from his usual MO.
What if he, as per usual, trawls the streets for his prey. Finds Mary Jane Kelly, is thrilled to find out she asks him to come to her room. And followed, as he always does, his "date" to her "spot".
This new situation allready has his mind reeling with the added possibilities, and his plans are allready being reevaluated, all the while he is engaged in "clever" smalltalk with Mary, in his mind allready feeling the total power that he posesses.
The lodging light was out, and the darkness was almost overwhelming. Once inside, Mary fumbles about, lights a candle, and presses up against him, kissing him. Telling him how much fun he will have. She can almost smell his exitement, but think it is for the other reason. She starts to undress.
He strangles her rather swiftly. And, allready starting to deviate because of the added protection of being out of the streets, plus the fact he is now indoors and there is actually some furniture and a bed..places her on the bed, rather than on the floor.
His knife is ready, but rather than use it, he places it on the table. In the candlelight she is so beautiful. And he dominates her completely. Master of life and death. Sitting on the bed, he carefully starts to undress her. Neatly folding her clothes, feeling their texture. Smelling them.
She is so beautiful. He started to touch her. Posing her.
Of course, Mary was not dead. Dazed from alcohol and the attempted strangulation, she finds, in her final moments, that her worst nightmare has come true. This man is not a John. The look on his face says it all. He is Jack.
All she can muster is a rather weak "Oh, Murder!". This wakes Jack from his almost trance like state. Damn! So sloppy! Damned woman. Damned women! His anger suddenly explodes. He uses his left arm to hold her down, reaching for the shining knife.
The spray of jugular blood is so beautiful.. She struggles for a while, then no more.
Jack strained to hear through the pounding of his heart. Not now! Not again! But all was still in Millers Court. He faintly heard a cat meow. He almost laughed out loud.
Helge
"Logic is the beginning of wisdom; not the end." -- Spock (Star Trek VI)
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 234
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 2:55 am: |
|
Just one example on how "the urge" can make a serial killer take more risk than he really wants to.
"It was an urge. . . . . A strong urge, and the longer I let it go the stronger it got, to where I was taking risks to go out and kill people--risks that normally, according to my little rules of operation, I wouldn't take because they could lead to arrest."
-- Edmund Kemper
"Logic is the beginning of wisdom; not the end." -- Spock (Star Trek VI)
|
Harry Mann
Detective Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 144
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 4:52 am: |
|
Dan,
You may have misunderstood me,Or maybe I didn't explain properly,but my contention has always been that the cry of 'murder',and the murder itself in Millers court were related.
I believe you will find it is other poster's who feel the cry and the murder may have been coincidental. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2318
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 4:58 am: |
|
Helge,
depending always on what was up with this "ere Jack I think your scenario above just could be right close.A sort of fetishistic wimp who didnt have a clue about Mary and her trade.
Its speculative and the speculation could go on for hours and meanwhile the subject matter is a tad "delicate"!!!
Some thoughtful stuff though,
Natalie |
Harry Mann
Detective Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 145
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 5:08 am: |
|
Caroline,
How many murders at about 4AM,can you recall from your readings or experience,were heard emanating from the murder scene,but had no connection to the murder?
Isn't every serial killer a copycat,in that such a person copies,to a large degree,his previous crimes. |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 235
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 5:20 am: |
|
Thanks Natalie.
Just one possible scenario, but certainly not so far fetched IMO. Many serial killers' main motive seems to be the need to dominate. To obtain what they desire, but cannot have in "real" life..only to destroy that thing (or rather, person) to the extent that "it was not worth having" anyway.
I used the term "thing" on purpose. Because the last thing a serial killer would want is to see the victim as an individual. I think it was Bundy who said that although he needed to "sweet talk" his victims into a false sense of security, he also had to limit interaction with them, so as to not disturb "his fantasy".
Helge
"Logic is the beginning of wisdom; not the end." -- Spock (Star Trek VI)
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2320
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 5:30 pm: |
|
Hi again Helge,
Yes,this I could accept to be what ruled Jack viz the desire for absolute control and domination over women.And it was probably some sort of fear of women and hatred of them that generated the urge for control to such a pervasive degree.Control that can only come about through making the feared "object" totally inert and lifeless-which can then be torn apart every which way as infants have done from time in memoria with their poor rag dolls!
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 237
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 7:36 pm: |
|
Natalie, all,
Exactly. And this is why I feel we need not look further to find motive or perp. It is a classic example of a "textbook" serial killer. All other alternatives, although not impossible, seem contrived to me.
But fair is fair, to talk about some statistics again.. "According to the US Department of Justice, 1/3rd of the women murdered in America between 1976 and 1999 were killed by their husband, ex-husband, or boyfriend."
If no serial killer was known to operate at the time, then odds would seem to be that Millers Court was a domestic. Taking the known fact that Jack was operating close to the murder in time and space, things get a little different.
Especially since few domestics incorporate that kind of mutilation. Sure, de-personification is often part of it, but, although also other mutilations do occur, the mutilations on MJK seems to me to be far too similar in attitude (as in intent) to the other murders in the series.
Added to this, IMO, it should weigh in heavy that the police did not think it was a domestic. They could have been wrong, but these kinds of cases where the ones they usually did solve.
Also, I think it would have been a relief for the police to actually solve this case as a domestic. That would take some heat away from them, and, even if Jack was as elusive as ever, actually have shown that they could solve similar crimes. So I'm sure they looked into this possibility in earnest.
I would like to explore the possibilities of a domestic anyway. According to one researcher these are the danger signs:
*There's a history of violence in the relationship.
* One person has discussed leaving the relationship or has recently ended it.
* There is access to firearms.
* There's a history of one person threatening to kill another or themselves.
Source: Patti Seger, Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence
So, which of these signs was present?
Did Barnett and MJK quarrel? Yes, according to Elizabeth prater they argued october 30, when Barnett left. Could it be called a history of violence? IMO clearly not.
Had they recently ended a partnership? Yes. Although the two seemed to be on good terms. Julia Van Turney even said Barnett was kind to Mary and occasionally gave her money.
Was there access to firearms? No, but in this case obviously a knife is more interesting. Most people would have access to a knife anyway.
Was there a history of threats to kill? No. Although Barnett clearly disliked MJK's prostitution.
While this proves nohing, it might still indicate that there did not exist enough warning signs to warrant any real suspicion against Barnett.
What say ye?
Helge
"Logic is the beginning of wisdom; not the end." -- Spock (Star Trek VI)
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 731
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 9:03 am: |
|
Hi Jeff,
It’s a little late, but this is a response of your post of last Tuesday, addressed to me.
I agree that, unless the Ripper was familiar with the yard and the neighbourhood’s general customs, the yard in Hanbury Street was the most risky crime scene of all. Not only the sun had risen, but so had some people and others were about to. Although people couldn’t see him from the streets, he couldn’t see or hear them approach either until it was too late. And of course Cadosch might have looked over the fence and people might have looked from their windows.
The fact that he killed only 8 days after Nichols and that he killed and mutilated in near-daylight make me lean toward the notion that in Chapman’s case he was too obsessive to care too much about being caught while he was doing his thing. Or, in other words, he was operating almost entirely on luck.
In Nichols case blood was still oozing from her throat wound when she was found by P.C. Neil, which indicates that the Ripper had cut the throat probably only minutes before his arrival at the scene, yet Cross before him didn’t hear footsteps leaving as he was approaching the crime scene. On the other hand, he did hear Paul’s approach. So, if the Ripper actually was disturbed, he heard Cross sooner than Cross might hear him. Furthermore, he was then able to leave silently, because Cross didn’t hear any footsteps leaving.
With Eddowes the Ripper did a lot more damage to her body than in Nichols’ case – he even had/took time to nick the eyelids - although the time schedule seems to have been tight. Which makes it quite feasible that he left only very shortly before P.C. Watkins entered the square. Yet, like Cross, Watkins didn’t hear any footsteps leaving.
That’s why I find it a bit hard to believe that the Ripper was just lucky in the cases of Nichols and Eddowes as well.
In the cases of Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes he killed and mutilated on rather quiet spots in rather quiet neighbourhoods. Or perhaps we should say that he killed during quiet hours, although Chapman was at best a ‘borderline-case’ of course. He silenced his victims quickly and he cut their throats in such a way that he most probably wouldn’t get much blood on him. All in all, these seem to be precautions taken to minimize the risk of being caught and don’t really fit with the notion that he was just depending on luck. Of course, like you, I don’t mean any of the murders was without risk – in fact, they were very risky indeed.
If we’d assume his desire to mutilate was so strong that it actually was his driving force, this might explain a couple of things. First of all and most obviously, it would explain why he would kill and mutilate in the streets in the first place. But, like I suggested earlier, it might also explain why he would take the risk of doing it in near-daylight: he wanted to actually see what it looked like. And if he didn’t do it for that reason, he might just have been too obsessed with killing and mutilating a woman at that point to leave and wait for another night.
And in the end, IF he was the one who murdered Mary Jane Kelly, first of all doing it all outside had become too dangerous by then and secondly, he was frustrated having so little time while also having to look over his shoulders all the time, so he was forced to wait for an opportunity to kill indoors, if not by fortune than by actually looking for a victim with a place of her own. That way he was relatively free of the restraints of time and of having to monitor his surroundings while he just wanted to enjoy mutilating. That way he could eat cookies until he was full, or even until there were none left.
Them’s just my two cents, of course.
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 242
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 11:18 am: |
|
Earlier I have expressed that Jack probably was a "cool customer". If there is a pun here, it is actually unintended. What I meant was that he must have been more comfortable with risk taking than the average guy.
Jack probably must have had traits akin to that of a psychopath. I do not say that he necessarily was a fully fledged psychopath, only that he most likely shared many of their traits.
Jack Levin, PhD, is the director of the Brudnick Center on Violence and Conflict at Northeastern University in Boston. He has done research into serial killers, and recently I read some of his stuff relating spesifically to Dennis Rader, aka BTK.
Some quotes:
"In addition to being a serial killer and a psychopath, Rader was active in the church and had just been elected church council president before his arrest. He also held a job as a compliance supervisor in charge of animal control. He is married and has two children."
So it might be a stereotype that serial killers are antisocial loners, and unable to maintain relationships. Levin goes on:
"Rader, like so many of the others, was extraordinarily ordinary," he says. "He looked beyond suspicion, he was active in the church, a Boy Scout leader and a compliance officer, and that is the secret to the success."
Like Rader, "they don't look like sociopaths or deranged killers, because if they looked like monsters, they would be apprehended almost immediately,"
"Psychopaths wear the mask of sanity," agrees Michael Welner, MD, a forensic psychiatrist and an associate professor of psychiatry at New York University School of Medicine."
And the number of people with this kind of personality disorders is simply staggering, IMO.
"As many as 5% of people display psychopathic or sociopathic personality disorders. That's according to experts and the professional bible of mental illnesses -- the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV). These personality disorders are marked by antisocial and impulsive behavior, disregard for societal standards, and no indications of fear or guilt."
5 percent is 5 out of a hundred. Yes, I know I’m stating the obvious here...but that is a pretty high percentage. Now, obviously most of these people lead close to normal lives. And obviously most does not have homicidal tendencies.
So, does it seem likely that our Jacky boy shared some of the traits of a psychopath?
Characteristics of a Psychopath:
"superficial charm, self-centered & self-important, need for stimulation & prone to boredom, deceptive behavior & lying, conning & manipulative, little remorse or guilt, shallow emotional response, callous with a lack of empathy, living off others & predatory, poor self-control, promiscuous sexual behavior, early behavioral problems, lack of realistic long term goals, impulsive lifestyle, irresponsible behavior, blaming others for their actions, short term relationships, juvenile delinquency, breaking parole or probation , varied criminal activity."
Does any of this ring true for Jack? Certainly he must have been able to charm his victims in order to come off as a non- threat. This charm, however, must also have been superficial.
Can we know if he was self centered? Well, killing people for your own satisfaction could be interpreted as self centered. And if he was, this is the reason I think he must have followed the stories in the newspapers, etc, in effect becoming his own copycat.
His need for extreme stimulation is clear in how he chooses to get his stimulation. Also, this high threshold for stimuli would effectively reduce his sense of danger.
We can't know if he was bored or not, but obviously he needed "a little more" in his life. His hobby, perhaps...
Certainly he must have been capable of deceptive behaviour, lying, being conning and manipulative, how else could he have deceived the prostitutes?
Shallow emotional response is probably a prerequisite to be able to do what he did.
Did he in a predatory way live off others? We don’t know.
Did he have poor self control? Well, if you consider that he could not restrain his urges to kill, you bet!
Did he lack long term goals? We can’t know. But he was probably not pursuing a normal career insomuch as he seemed more intent on pursuing his homicidal tendencies.
His sexual behaviour was probably linked to his “urges”, and was certainly not run off the mill!
Did he suffer from early behaviour problems? We don’t have that information.
Did he blame others for their actions? Certainly he had a thing or two against prostitutes. And possibly the “Juwes are the...” Ok, I better not go there this time…
Short term relationships? We don’t know.
Juvenile delinquency, breaking parole or probation, varied criminal activity? Again, we simply do not know.
My point is that Jack probably needed more stimuli than most people do. He would not easily be scared as such, although he would have a well developed intellectually based survival instinct.
Helge
"Logic is the beginning of wisdom; not the end." -- Spock (Star Trek VI)
|
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 442
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 11:56 am: |
|
Helge-- you gave a clear,concise and and well presented argument. Congratulations.
Mags
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3954
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 12:18 pm: |
|
Hi Helge,
Just some pointers.
Although a large majority of serial killers appears to have sociopathic/psychopathic personality disorders, it is also to give in to stereotypes to claim that a serial killer must have such traits.
We must remember that the so called 'disorganized' serial killers do not have to be raving lunatics - this is a point that has been repeated over and over again. People that are paranoid schizofrenics can be very controlled and even cunning in certain situations. Most disorganized serial killers do actually seem to have some so called 'organised' traits, but other can still share some of those traits and be disorganized as well as probably more psychotic than psychopathic.
The most well known examples are probably Jeffrey Dahmer and Hadden Clark - both loners and mentally ill (Dahmer even having a rather dirty appearance, and Clark was quite antisocial) and that managed to committ their murders for period of time without getting caught. We've had a couple of those in Sweden in recent years, that managed to elude the police for years.
So the myth about the 'psychopathic' serial killer as a sure thing, is something that should be terminated once and for all.
Personally I don't see that many psychopathic traits in the Ripper's crimes, although I don't rule out that he had a minor few. The crime scenes he left behind him looks rather disorganized and the crimes do not appear to be particularly planned beyond the usual stalking and choosing the right moment (something that even a predator animal does on pure instinct). His ability to get away unseen and take the murder weapon with him (and not dropping it on the scene) does, however, display some organized traits.
"Certainly he must have been able to charm his victims in order to come off as a non- threat."
No, not necessarily. As in any serial killer case where prostitutes are the victims, no real interaction or persuasion (or brilliant personality) is needed on the killer's part. On the contrary; prostitutes are very willing participants and are usually desperate for money and even today they take enormous risks with customers that can be dangerous lunatics.
The Ripper victims especially, were destitute women who needed every pence they could get for a bad in the doss house or a drink at the pub. They would probably have gone along with practically anybody except toffs carrying a black bag (because that was the most common description of the Ripper at the time, and we also know that they reacted and refused to go with such persons). In any case, they were hardly in a position to turn down any client that came along.
So no manipulation, persuasion or charm was needed from the killer. That is a total misconception.
We shouldn't forget that many psychological speculations about serial kilers are based on generalisations and simplifications. The human character and mind is usually more complex than we want to admit.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 20, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 243
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 1:18 pm: |
|
Mags, Thanks.
Glenn,
Quote myself:
"Jack probably must have had traits akin to that of a psychopath. I do not say that he necessarily was a fully fledged psychopath, only that he most likely shared many of their traits."
Probably, I said.
And I never claimed he was raving mad. In fact, if you read my post I also wrote:
"Now, obviously most of these people lead close to normal lives. And obviously most does not have homicidal tendencies."
So you miss the point. Most psychopaths are not "raving mad" at all. THAT is a generalization and simplification.
5% of the population has psychopathic traits, according to the source I quoted. Surely it is not too much to speculate that Jack may have had some of those traits?
You may think he did not, I see his entire behaviour as evidence that he had. And if you base your opinion only on the organized\disorganized element, it would be very nice to hear who came up with that idea. Is it more psychobabble?
I do not attempt psychological speculations but rather interpretations of the facts we have. I am not Nostradamus, so I don't claim to be 100% correct. Neither do I write in quatrains.
I try as best I can to base my opinions on the best available (as I see it) criminology. And yet, all this is always psychobabble in your opinion.
I have elsewhere stated that I see both organized and disorganized behaviour in Jack. You seem to agree. How can that eliminate the possibility (IMO probability) of psychopathic traits?
Explain. Please do elaborate.
"Certainly he must have been able to charm his victims in order to come off as a non- threat."
"No, not necessarily."
No, nothing is necessarily as anyone of us think. But it stands to reason that, in the midst of the ripper scare, at least Jack was able to give the impression that he was a regular John. That implies that he was able to act. That is to deceive. And that is the main point here. One would expect that he tried to come off as charming, to some extent.
I have problems with a Jack that accosted his prey with raving mad eyes and radiating danger.
"The human character and mind is usually more complex than we want to admit."
Well, I have no problem admitting that. In fact, that was part of my entire point.
Lost, as always.
Helge
"Logic is the beginning of wisdom; not the end." -- Spock (Star Trek VI)
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3957
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 2:16 pm: |
|
Helge,
No, you missed my points entirely.
It was NOT psychopaths I referred to when I said it is a generalisation to describe them as raving mad. It was the other category - namely those that are mentally ill (paranoid schizofrenics, psychotics etc.)!!! Note the difference between psychotics and pshychopaths!
And now in your last post you yourself said: "I have problems with a Jack that accosted his prey with raving mad eyes and radiating danger." That was exactly what I objected against in my line you quoted! Who says that serial killers that are NOT psychopaths have raving mad eyes???
"That implies that he was able to act. That is to deceive. And that is the main point here. One would expect that he tried to come off as charming, to some extent."
No, once again, with prostitutes - the easiest and most willing and vulnerable victims on the planet - we do not have to expect that at all! They couldn't afford to turn down any client, Helge. No need for deceit, acting, mainpulation or charming abilities. And mostly it is the prostitutes that takes the first step anyway.
You can't say, that that is to 'be expected'. This is a point that has been debated to death and most people who have studied the lives and working conditions of prostitutes agree on that it wouldn't require any great communication skills to persuade a prostitute to go with him. It is their job, for God's sake.
He neither had to be charming or a raving lunatic. As I just explained, it is a total misconception that an insane person (again - I am NOT talking about a psychopath here - psychopaths are not insane) has to stand out from crowd in any particular manner or be so uncommunicative that they would refuse him as a client.
That is why I mentioned people like Dahmer.
As far as organized/disorganized is concerned, it is not more psycho-babbel than the psychology sources you quoted. Organized and disorganized are just very broad terms meant to separate those killers who appears to be in control of the situation from those who doesn't.
Most of the serial killers we have would probably be a mix, however. The more psychopathic traits they have the more organized they appear, and the more psychotic traits they display, the more disorganized... etc...
My own point of view is that he was something in between and showed traits in both directions, although possibly a stronger empathise to the disorganized scale - in my opinion. But I agree on that that is a matter of interpretation.
However, the point is, that your reasons for discounting a mentally ill person to be taken as a client are incorrect.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 20, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 244
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 3:42 pm: |
|
Ok, Glenn, but I never talked about "(paranoid schizofrenics, psychotics etc.)"
"Note the difference between psychotics and pshychopaths!"
Never had a problem with that difference. You brought the psychotics in, I did not.
And I don't for a second believe that a prostitute that suspected her John might be Jack went ahead anyway. No matter how desolate and pennyless she was.
Either we are not talking the same language here, or my point is missed altogether. Jack may not have been a candidate for the Oscar, but he needed to look "normal". Well he was not normal by my standards, hence he needed to wear a mask of normality.
That is not the same thing you talk about. You talk about him trying to be more than he needed to be. And no matter how much it has been debated does not make your point correct.
Do you suppose none of the other known serial killers acted to some extent? Actually many did. You may think Jack did not act at all. I think that he had to.
Otherwise you actually prove my point by saying that he had in fact no conscience at all, and did not need to act. The perfect psychopath.
We may not KNOW that he was a psychopath. We may not KNOW how many traits he may have had and how strong they might have been. But IF he was, he was acting. That is what psychopaths do. All the time.
And about the "psycho babble". I pick mine and you pick yours. And still you sound like you think you have the magic crystal and always pick the right. I'm willing to listen to counter arguments, but why not try to evaluate things from different perspectives?
But, OK, I see your point 
But then I never said anything about Jack being psychotic! So there...
What is interesting is that you also see the possibility of Jack "showing traits in both directions". And thus he may in fact VERY WELL show psychopathic traits. As you know, one of the most common is the need for strong stimuli and reduced sense of personal danger.
I see that written all over Jack's crimes. You may disagree, and frankly it is not surprising that you do, but my points are quite valid until a serious counter argument can be found.
In which case I will reconsider.
What is also interesting here is the fact that after reading up on psycopathic serial killers, I have actually re-evaluated my opinion on the case for a domestic in Millers Court. I have not changed my mind, fear not ;), but I see the possibility as slightly more probable than before.
Which is just to show that we are in a nacht und nebel situation here, where no answers are given.
Helge
(Message edited by helge on August 20, 2005)
"Logic is the beginning of wisdom; not the end." -- Spock (Star Trek VI)
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3958
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 4:25 pm: |
|
Helge,
I think we actually are misreading each other to some degree here, because I must admit I didn't understand much of your last post and what you were trying to get across as far as my comments are concerned.
"And I don't for a second believe that a prostitute that suspected her John might be Jack went ahead anyway. No matter how desolate and pennyless she was.
Either we are not talking the same language here, or my point is missed altogether. Jack may not have been a candidate for the Oscar, but he needed to look "normal"."
This is that part I don't understand.
Whay should she 'suspect' that her John was Jack the Ripper? You are absolutely right - I don't think a prostitute would walk away with someone who they thought were Jack the Ripper, but how could they know he was unless, he acted strange or as a crazy man? And I don't think he acted like that. So where you got that from, beats me. And what is 'normal'?
But that does not mean that he needed to be persuasive or charming. Believe me, Helge, after having studied and researched the lives of hundreds of prostitutes around the turn of 1900, I can tell you that most of these women's clients were generally not more charming than the normal person.
It is incredible that you are not willing to accept the well-known fact, that prostitutes are can not afford to be picky. Not even with a serial killer around. Why do you think the majority of them stayed on the streets while fully aware of the risks involved? Answer: because they had no choice. These were the risks they lived with. And still live with.
So, to make it short... did a client during these circumstances in 1888 needed to be manipulative and charming in order to not get rejected? Absolutely not! And he certainly didn't need to act. These women were used to rather weird and nasty characters - not to mention drunkards - and unless the Ripper didn't have the appearance of a complete lunatic or stood out too much from the ordinary man on the street, he wouldn't have any problems whatsoever. And even a person with mental problems can appear quite normal on occasion.
If you would try to really consider the prostitutes' situation you would see that your reasoning is totally incorrect. There was an inflation of women on the streets who sold their bodies more or less professionally just to get a roof over their heads for the night, and they really couldn't afford to pick and choose, and judging from their regular clientel I can't see how they would have been able to see who was Jack the Ripper or not.
Once again, not all serial killers are psychopaths and for someone who picks prostitutes as victims, he wouldn't need any charismatic, charming personality traits. That is exactly why - among other reasons - they are the easiest and most vulnerable targets for any killer. This is common knowledge.
"I have actually re-evaluated my opinion on the case for a domestic in Millers Court. I have not changed my mind, fear not ;), but I see the possibility as slightly more probable than before."
What!!!!?? What!!!??
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 20, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2412
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 5:12 pm: |
|
We seek for signs of desperation in Jack when the signs of desperation in his victims are the electric dream lights of an early escape from a burning Boeing.
As the whores tried to escape the burning aircraft through the carefully marked exits they were met by Jack who was trying to climb into the burning fuselage.
Jack was running from the warmth, security and comfort of a solid house; the whores were actively seeking that warmth, security and comfort.
The LVP was nowt but a crashed aircraft with screaming whores pouring out of the exits; and Jack was just there, taking them to his comfort zone. |
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 274
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 5:50 pm: |
|
Hi all,
Speaking of foggy nights, I watched a 1933 Sherlock Holmes movie last evening and one woman in the film screamed, "Help! Murder!", when she saw a man being stabbed so I guess shouts of murder meant murder 45 short years after MJK. Of course, that doesn't mean "Oh! Murder" didn't have an entirely different meaning or that the vernacular couldn't have changed in that relatively short time period.
Goodies,
Stan |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 735
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 6:09 pm: |
|
Hi Helge,
I don’t want to rehash this whole discussion, but I agree with Glenn on this one and have some comments of my own.
The more obvious general traits of a psychopath are that they seem charming, they lie, manipulate and deceive. In layman’s terms they might best be called bullshitters.
Nothing in the evidence suggests that the Ripper showed any of these traits. Not in the active way that psychopaths structurally do that, anyway. As long as he behaved inoffensively and looked accordingly to those prostitutes, they wouldn’t (eventually) decline him as a client. Of course he didn’t tell the truth when he let his victim believe she was going to service just another John, but he didn’t have to tell a fancy story to persuade her to come with him. Without a problem, as a mentally disturbed man he could have remained his seemingly inoffensive, rather passive self - until he struck of course.
If, like Glenn suggests, it was generally the prostitutes who took the first step, all he had to do was say yes and show them the money. Something like this might have sufficed: “Fancy comin’ with me, lov’? I promise you it’ll be good!” “Sure. Where do we go?” As far as talking is concerned he could have remained quite passive and let her do most of the talking. I see no problem there.
But it stands to reason that, in the midst of the ripper scare, at least Jack was able to give the impression that he was a regular John. That implies that he was able to act. That is to deceive. And that is the main point here. One would expect that he tried to come off as charming, to some extent.
IF the Ripper was someone suffering from a not too severe case of paranoid schizophrenia, he may have heard voices at the times that he killed. They may have told him it was okay to kill and mutilate these prostitutes, that he had to kill them. Then at that point in time that would be his reality and in this reality there was nothing wrong with killing and mutilating. So, if his perception of reality was in fact distorted like that, he didn’t need to put up an act. He just acted on that distorted sense of reality.
As for his need for stimulation and inclination to get easily bored, I don’t think there’s any evidence that might suggest he did what he did because needed to be stimulated or because he got bored. I think it's just as possible that he did what he did because his need to do it just grew too big.
Just some of my thoughts on the subject.
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 736
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 8:01 pm: |
|
Hi Jeff,
“If he strangled her first (while both standing), why is she laying lengthwise on the bed, and not cross-wise when her throat is cut?”
I agree that if she let him in I would expect him to strangle her while they were still standing and not have expected her throat to be cut while she was lying on the far end of the bed.
“If he sneaks into the room, without waking her (otherwise she would have screamed a lot more I would think), why didn't he strangle her first?”
This is exactly the point where the situation differs from the other cases (besides the outdoors-indoors change). In those cases the women were unconscious or dead when they lay on their backs. In this case, if it happened like that, Mary wasn’t. She was just asleep. Maybe it had become a routine to approach his victim with the knife at that point in the process. Maybe he just thought that would do.
“What woke up Mary at the last minute, just before he attacked her with the knife (the defence wounds on her hands/arms suggest she was awake when the attack began)?”
Although it’s not written in stone, from Dr Bond’s report we might draw the conclusion that only the cut in her thumb and the abrasions on the back of her hand were defence wounds, not the cuts in her arms. This would suggest that Mary’s defence was very short-lived. Maybe she was lying at the far end of the bed already when her killer approached her. Maybe he had to get on the bed to reach her and maybe that movement woke her up. Maybe the floor squeaked just when he reached the bed.
I agree, though, that it would be the easiest to explain things assuming Jack started out as a John, although that would also have its own problems in my opinion.
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 246
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 5:24 am: |
|
Right. Glenn, Frank, all
I consider using a vulcan mind meld to get my point across...
Jack was out to kill. He did not have to behave like prince charming. But he had to appear normal enough as to not scare his victims.
When someone is out to kill someone and yet has to engage in some interaction to get to that point, no matter how short or shallow, it seems reasonable that they "act" as normally as they can, so that the prey does not suspect anything.
Unless the killer is totally whacko and does not care, but somehow I don't see Jack this way.
The number of prostitutes, etc is actually quite irrelevant. What is relevant is what goes on in Jack's head. Maybe he had no concience at all, hence no need to act, or maybe he was sligthly more normal, and had to act, that is; to deceive. Do you see what I mean? Probably not.
He had to hide his intentions.
Now, we all hide our intentions from time to time, but normal people seldom hide intentions to kill. That is a notch above normal behaviour.
Actually, we have no way of knowing if Jack was in fact extremely persuasive. So to say that he did not need to be, proves nothing. That is speculation. "Does not need to be" is not indicative of what he really was.
This is probably not understood either, so I'll elaborate.
Apart from some witness descriptions where the customer actually seemed to engage in conversation, we have no way of knowing how Jack behaved. But, alas, we have no way of knowing for sure if any of those "Johns" were Jack. However, it does give an indication that the process of procuring services was not always as brief as some seem to think.
And don't say "it could have been". I'll repeat myself. "However, it does give an INDICATION that the process of procuring services was not ALWAYS as brief as some seem to think".
Glenn said:
"This is that part I don't understand.
Whay should she 'suspect' that her John was Jack the Ripper? You are absolutely right - I don't think a prostitute would walk away with someone who they thought were Jack the Ripper, but how could they know he was unless, he acted strange or as a crazy man? And I don't think he acted like that. So where you got that from, beats me. And what is 'normal'?"
Now I'm confused... My entire point is that the victims clearly did NOT suspect that their John was Jack. And I assume therefore that Jack had the wits to not stand out. That is, he hid his real intentions.
If you argue against that, I give up. I really mean it. Yes, Glenn, he could have been a Dahmer. I'm not going to say why I think Dahmer was in fact a very good actor, much better than Jack probably was, because I'd rather that anyone interested to know would read up about it themselves. Here is something to start with:
http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/notorious/dahmer/why_4.html
If no one sees an ability to deceive in Dahmer. I'd say I believe in Santa Claus! I mean it.
What I mean by seeing possible signs of psychopatic behaviour in Jack can be summed up in this quote:
"These personality disorders are marked by antisocial and impulsive behavior, disregard for societal standards, and no indications of fear or guilt."
All that is indelibly written in Jacks behaviour..
And Frank, suddenly you use as an argument against me that goes something like "IF he suffered from schizophrenia..."!
Why should he? Is that more likely than him having some traits of a disorder that as many as 5% of us have? That serial killers suffer from Schizophrenia is nonsense. They sometimes try to act as if they do to avoid death penalty. But that ploy has been discredited ages ago.
Schizophrenia is probably the most misunderstood illness there is. I quote:
"Schizophrenia is probably the most distressing and disabling of the severe mental disorders. The first sign of schizophrenia typically emerge in adolescence or young adulthood. The effects of the illness are confusing and often shocking to families and friends. People with schizophrenia suffer from difficulties in their though processes, which leads to hallucinations, delusions, disordered thinking, and unusual speech or behaviour. All these symptoms mean that people affected with the illness become limited in their ability to interact with other people, and often withdraw from the outside world. Contrary to popular belief, people with schizophrenia do not have "split personalities", and the great majority of people who suffer from schizophrenia are not dangerous to others. People with schizophrenia are far more likely to be victims of violence and crimes than to commit violent acts themselves."
This quote is from Psychriatry 24x7. Shizophrenia affects about 1 - 2 percent of the population. Obviously many have only mild symptoms. And of the severe cases, only very few have any violent tendencies.
Anyway, putting forward unsubstantiated ALTERNATIVES is not a real argument. Never has been, never will be.
Helge
(Message edited by helge on August 21, 2005)
"Logic is the beginning of wisdom; not the end." -- Spock (Star Trek VI)
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3965
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 6:02 am: |
|
Helge,
You seem totally convinced of that all serial killers has to have psychopathic tendencies to a large degree and you also seem convinced of that those few that exists of the other category are ALL attempts to evade prison. Fine, that is your call. In other words, there are loads of cases that according to you doesn't exist or are all scams.
Forgive me, but that is just silly.
There exists persons that has been diagnosed with paranoid schizofrenia BEFORE they even were known to commit any crimes.
Therefore stating that all of them do this just to escape justice is purely questionable.
Hadden Clark was a known schizofrenic (he had received a diagnose already when he was discharged from the navy and he also refused to take his medicine) and we have had such killers in Sweden that have been diagnosed with this disease for years and been prescribed medication long BEFORE they committed any murder.
"'These personality disorders are marked by antisocial and impulsive behavior, disregard for societal standards, and no indications of fear or guilt.'
All that is indelibly written in Jacks behaviour.. "
Yes, but that is probably not the most striking characteristics for a psychopath. Those are instead lack of empathy, shallowness, grandiosety, manipulative etc.
The characteristics you mention to a large extent also valid for an irrational, insane killer.
Besides, you need to get some of the details straight before you express yourself with such certainty.
You are quoting schizofrenia in general; schizofrenics are usually not violent - true. But those who have committed violent crimes have been PARANOID scizofrenics, which are a subgroup with special characteristics of their own.
Among some of those are criminals who don't really have the disorder but act insane in order escape prison, but it is a grave mistake to state that they represent the whole group.
There is no reason to dismiss this category straight off the way you do - since we can't know the killer's personality type for sure, I think it's fair to be open to the possibility.
Whether you like it or not, it is perfectly possible, and not just in theory but also based on empirical knowledge, for an 'insane' irrational killer to be rational and normal enough in certain situations. They do not have to stand out, unless you know the person more intimately.
If you think otherwise, I urge you to study the subject more thoroughly before you state things like 'That serial killers suffer from Schizophrenia is nonsense. They sometimes try to act as if they do to avoid death penalty. But that ploy has been discredited ages ago' with such certainty. Because I am afraid THAT is pure nonsense.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 21, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 247
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 6:23 am: |
|
Glenn, read my posts.
I have never said all serial killers are psychopaths.
A prize to anyone that can quote me on that.
I never have said there is no such thing as paranoid schizophrenia.
Likewize, a prize to those that can quote me on that.
When does it become an argument to tell your opponent to study the subject better? Do point out any mistakes, and do argue your case, but come on, that is too cheap!
I quote schizophrenia in general to make a point. That very few suffering from the illness are actually dangerous. That is a valid point.
Jack could have been the exception. But that is a long shot IMO.
So, Glenn, let me hear why you think Jack was a schizo...
Or is it just enough that it is a possibility?
In which case I really do not see any point of discussing anything on these boards.
Helge
"Logic is the beginning of wisdom; not the end." -- Spock (Star Trek VI)
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3966
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 7:05 am: |
|
Helge,
I admit you are hard to discuss with because you never address my vital points.
"I have never said all serial killers are psychopaths."
Well, if you discount all other possibilities of disorders the way you just did in your other post above and don't accept alternatives, that is pretty much what you are saying. If you don't want to be misunderstood, be clear and consistent.
"I never have said there is no such thing as paranoid schizophrenia."
I never said you did either. Read MY post. You were saying that it is nonsense that there exists paranoid schizofrenic serial killers, and if it did, they were all acting in order to escape prison. Where have I said that you didn't think the disorder exist?
I do try to argue my case by picking out examples of occurrences that shows that you are wrong, BUT YOU NEVER COMMENT ON IT!
You said it is rubbish that there exists true paranoid schizofrenic serial killers and that they most likely all are scams.
That is why I mentioned people like Hadden Clark, who received a diagnose long BEFORE they were caught! It was a direct counter-argument to your claim. But you never ever comment on the counter-arguments you get - instead you just go on stating what you already have said without even addressing the arguments you get back.
That is indeed tedious.
I try to base my arguments on facts by stating examples - the fact that you don't accept them is not my problem. You only argue from what you believe is right in your own head, without basing it on proper research. The same with domestic killers. It is indeeed frustrating.
As for the disorganized traits I believe are displayed in Jack the Ripper (although I think he actually is a mix of rational and irrational), I have gone over that so many times during the last two years - everything from the bizarre nature of the mutilations, the overkill, the unnecessary risk-taking etc. - that I just can't bring myself to go over it again in detail. Of course many of those can probably be interpreted both ways and is a matter of personal reading of the crime scenes.
As I have explained why I also think he has some rational traits (although that doesn't have to make him a psychopath - there has to be a certain amount of elements of check-list characteristics in order to be a psychopathic personality - you can have traits that some would call psychopathic without being a psychopath). It is spread all over the Boards on different threads. If not, maybe Frank can pick up the ball.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 738
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 12:16 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn,
"If not, maybe Frank can pick up the ball."
I can but I wont - not at the moment anyway.
Helge,
“Actually, we have no way of knowing if Jack was in fact extremely persuasive. So to say that he did not need to be, proves nothing. That is speculation.”
If we take it as the fair and logical statement I think it is, it tells us that it’s speculation to say he must have been able to charm his victims in order to come off as a non- threat and that he must have been capable of deceptive behaviour, lying, being conning and manipulative. Or better yet, the fact that the Ripper and his victims went to the crime scenes together, doesn’t tell us that the Ripper was charming. It doesn’t tell us he was lying, deceitful and manipulative in the way these traits are generally displayed by psychopaths.
The Ripper was not telling the truth. Correct. But does the fact that he didn’t particularly point to a psychopath? Could only a psychopath have done that? In my opinion both questions should be answered in the negative.
“Is that more likely than him having some traits of a disorder that as many as 5% of us have?”
I didn’t say the Ripper couldn’t have some traits of psychopathy. I just said (albeit implicitly) we can’t draw the conclusion that he did from what we know about the case.
“And Frank, suddenly you use as an argument against me that goes something like "IF he suffered from schizophrenia... "! Why should he?”
Why shouldn’t he? Yeah, sure, if you just don’t believe serial killers can suffer from paranoid schizophrenia, then you probably don’t see why he shouldn’t. But if you’ve ever read about Richard Trenton Chase, Robert Clive Napper or William MacDonald, to name but a few in addition to the ones Glenn has mentioned, you might see things differently.
Although Richard Chase perhaps isn’t a good example in the sense that he was too severely paranoid schizophrenic to come close to Jack the Ripper, he, like William MacDonald, was diagnosed schizophrenic long before they started killing. A forensic psychologist working on Napper’s case thought Napper was probably paranoid or schizophrenic even before he’d seen the man or had spoken to him. Later Napper was independently diagnosed schizophrenic by 5 psychologists. He’s still at Broadmoor Hospital today and his medical state seems to be deteriorating.
Interesting thing might be that they were all mutilating killers, much like Jack the Ripper, especially Chase and Napper.
And the quote you posted about schizophrenia is old news to me.
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 248
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 12:34 pm: |
|
Glenn,
"I try to base my arguments on facts by stating examples - the fact that you don't accept them is not my problem. You only argue from what you believe is right in your own head, without basing it on proper research. The same with domestic killers. It is indeeed frustrating."
Yes it is. And you do the same thing. Except that your "proper research" is usually somewhere else, and "go read it".
Frank,
“And Frank, suddenly you use as an argument against me that goes something like "IF he suffered from schizophrenia... "! Why should he?”
Why shouldn’t he? Yeah, sure, if you just don’t believe serial killers can suffer from paranoid schizophrenia, then you probably don’t see why he shouldn’t."
First of all, if someone thinks Jack may show psychopathic traits, this does not necessarily indicate that said person "just don't believe serial killers can suffer from paranoid shcizophrenia"
Thats crap. And "why shouldn't he?" Is that an argument? If you think he suffered from schizophrenia you better tell me why.
I responded to a statement totally without any foundation.
Oh, it's somewhere else..I get it.
Anyway.
When the "discussions" here sink so low as to include things like:
"And the quote you posted about schizophrenia is old news to me."
I'm out of here... If you know it all, what's the point?
There is a word for that debating technique you are using (especially you Glenn), but I'll keep you guessing as to what it is.
(Message edited by helge on August 21, 2005)
"Logic is the beginning of wisdom; not the end." -- Spock (Star Trek VI)
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3969
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 1:07 pm: |
|
Helge,
I have tried time and time again to give you specific details to comment, but what's the point when all you do is ignore them?
And once again, you failed to comment on the point that both Frank and myself put forward, namely that some paranoid schizofenic killers that exists, actually have been diagnosed BEFORE they were doing their crimes or before they were caught.
You still haven't responded to that with an argument. I have given you names and examples, but you never touch the issue, in spite of that I have asked you now twice to do so. So what's the point of giving you facts if you don't want them?
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 21, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 739
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 3:36 pm: |
|
OK Helge, I guess I went a bit too far with that one, so: apologies for that.
But you’ve lost me on some of the other things you wrote. Honestly.
You clearly wrote: “That serial killers suffer from Schizophrenia is nonsense. They sometimes try to act as if they do to avoid death penalty. But that ploy has been discredited ages ago.”. Apart from the fact that I acknowledge that they do that sometimes, I take that to mean that you don’t believe serial killers can suffer from schizophrenia.
So when you say: “First of all, if someone thinks Jack may show psychopathic traits, this does not necessarily indicate that said person "just don't believe serial killers can suffer from paranoid shcizophrenia"”, I would of course say that you are right. One doesn’t necessarily indicate the other. But taking it in conjunction with that first quote I don't know what to think.
“And "why shouldn't he?" Is that an argument?”
I responded to your ‘Why should he?’, which, to me, was quite an astonishing question, and in my view fitted with the way you wrote your post, or at least, how it came across.
“I responded to a statement totally without any foundation.”
The way I saw and see it is that, based on what we know about the case, we can’t draw the conclusion that the Ripper actually had psychopathic traits, although, again, he may have had. IF he didn’t, to me an alternative would be paranoid schizophrenia. That’s why I brought that up, plus I was responding to what you said about the Ripper having to have acted (put up an act) and I don’t think my bringing it up would be totally without any foundation.
“If you think he suffered from schizophrenia you better tell me why.”
First of all, I do not know it all and I don’t know if he suffered from paranoid schizophrenia. Some of the reasons include the immense risks he took by killing and mutilating in the streets, the bizarre mutilations he performed, the fact that he doesn’t seem to have put any real planning into it, maybe even the fact that he killed in so short a time span. I know, on the other hand, assuming he did pose as a customer, he was able to control himself until he and his victims had reached the crime scenes; he did his thing in a rather methodical and efficient way and got away without drawing attention to himself.
IMHO, there’s little chance that he was a full-fledged psychopath, like Dennis Rader or Jack Unterweger. So, maybe he was someone having some psychopathic traits. But the men I mentioned in my previous post, especially Robert Napper, make me think the most likely possibility is that he was paranoid schizophrenic.
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 740
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 3:38 pm: |
|
P.S. The first sentence of my post above should have been:
"And the quote you posted about schizophrenia is old news to me."
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2327
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 4:00 pm: |
|
Hi Helge,
I have read the posts above and wonder if there isnt a bit of misunderstanding here.
Both Glenn and Frank appear to think that the Ripper was probably a killer whose mental condition was made up of a composite of
-"organised"[he took care not to be caught and not to leave the murder weapon for anyone to find and
- "disorganised-one example of which are his curious signature/
mutilation markings which make no sense to most of us now - nor did they then , but appear to be symbolising something of meaning to him .For me this trait can also be found in the Goulston Street Graffiti-it makes no sense to most of us but it must have done to him [if it was the ripper who wrote it].
Now even here a very ingenious case against the psychotic nature of either the symbols[eg the inverted "V"s on Catherine Eddowes eyelids]or the graffiti has been made by David Radka which can be found on the Casebook under "Dissertations"and in which he argues the case for Jack being the psychopathic brother in law of the hapless Kosminski who was setting Kosminski up to take the blame for the killings.
Be that as it may,it remains a fact that most of the JtR type killings which we read about in the press-horrific,motiveless, stabbings and mutilations,sometimes even on innocent passers by,
are carried out by individuals suffering a psychotic episode to do with their paranoia and almost never by a person who could be termed a psycopath.A psychopath as I uderstand this slightly outmoded term,may be capable of raising hell and high water doing lots of anti- social stuff including being like a hired killer or a mercenary but usually content to be a conman ,a bigamist,a petty thief etc-wont usually engage in a series of murders with disturbing looking crime scenes that have involved horrific mutilation.
But here is the confusion: a killer such as Jack could have had some psychopathic or organised
traits apparently as well as a basic, paranoid schizophrenic ,mental illness-hence the term "mixed type".
Correct me if I too have wrongly interpreted you here Glenn.If so I too am having difficulty in following the crux of the arguement.
Hoping this goes a little way towards the clarification of a confusing concept, Helge
Best Natalie
|
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 686
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 4:38 pm: |
|
Hi Frank,
I agree that Jack appears to be driven to murder. The short span between Nichols and Chapman (in fact, all of the murders are fairly close together in time) does seem to indicate this. As would, of course, the Stride-Eddowes murders if we go with the assumption that Stride is a victim of the Ripper (and Eddowes too, but she's usually not contentious). In the "Stride as a victim" view, the fact that Eddowes is murdered that night (increased risk as now the police may be on the lookout due to Stride's murder, etc), suggests the compulusion is primarily to mutilate.
Ok, now if mutilation is the main compultion driving the Ripper, which I would suggest is probably not a huge leap, then your suggestion that perhaps with Chapman the risk of a "daylight assault" in order to "see what's going on" fits in quite reasonably. And, killing two people in one night surely makes Eddowes a very risky murder over and above looking at that crime scene in isolation. Now, if we're going to include Stride, then Eddowes' murder becomes even more risky than it would be otherwise, and Stride's murder (if by Mr. Broad Shoulders) is also highly risky due to him being spotted.
Anyway, the drive to mutilate could be so strong that the Ripper was willing to take such risks. I agree, he may have done some things to minimise his risk as well (generally in very dark locations, high risk victims, kills in a manner designed to reduce chance of victim calling for help, cuts the throat in a way to minimise blood on himself), however, he then increases his chances of getting caught by 1) staying with the body to mutilate it 2) taking organs with him. Of course, he "has" to do 1 because that's the point (to him), but that desire puts him at great risk because he has to stay at the crime scene. Taking bits with him puts him at risk if the police search him, or he may "leave a blood trail", etc.
As for the Kelly murder, I agree that it appears that Jack attacks her with the knife first, and maybe he "just did". If she was already lying down, perhaps he just figured she's already in the cutting position? Perhaps she woke up when he leaned onto the bed, and she was just sleeping on her side over against the wall? I admit, there are all sorts of possibilities and obviously any one of them (or none) could be right. My "Jack as John" idea is really just one idea that I think fits with what we know, and seems plausible. Is it "right"? Maybe, but I certainly wouldn't say it must be; only that so far it seems to me that it "could be".
Jack getting in while Mary slept also works. And there are ways for him to do so (i.e., the window trick). Since it's possible for someone to enter without a key, all it would take is for Jack to know about the window trick. All that would take would be things like stalking her (as Natalie suggested), or previous customer, or figured it out himself (burgler skills), knows Mary (Barnett/Flemming/etc), and so on.
For some reason, I find those explanations a little bit too convenient. We know Mary was looking for customers, we know she found some, we think Jack posed as a customer, so these all tie in together smoothly. There's nothing in the other crimes to suggest stalking, burgler, common associate between victims, and so on.
Anyway, I should get back to work. I enjoyed your posts and think we probably agree on the "global picture".
- Jeff |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3971
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 4:44 pm: |
|
Hi Natalie,
Well, it is of course difficult to state with certainty how a disorganized killer's mutilations would like, as opposed to those performed by an organized. As we know, generalisations are always tough.
But generally speaking I would say, that the crime scene of a disorganized mutilating killer appears to display quite a lot of overkill and bizarre mutilation elements. This I think can truly been seen in the Ripper's crimes. The 'V'-shaped cuts in Eddowes face, as you quite interestingly point at here, are another signs of this. They can mean practically anything, but they do not appear to random and personally I think they only meant something to the killer, an expression of what was going on in his head.
Serial killers that have been diagnosed with paranoid schizofrenia usually have some rational elements in them, or else they wouldn't be able to perform the crimes succesfully in the first place. So therefore some rational, organized traits is expected to be found.
And in the Ripper's case they seem to be apparent in his ability to leave the crime scenes unseen, in the way he took the knife with him and not leave it behind etc.
So yes, I see him as a mixed bag. More of a psychotic rather than a psychopath but with enough rational traits in order to commit the murders and avoid getting caught.
Still, all this is psychological speculations and in the end we will never know.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 249
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, August 22, 2005 - 3:54 am: |
|
Natalie, I am not in the least confused about this subject, but thanks anyway.
Frank, I probably mistook your intentions, and apology accepted. I should not have taken my frustrations concerning Glenn out on you, anyway. And for that I need to apologize.
I am more than willing to listen to actual arguments, and I agree upon the possibility that Jack could have been "whatever", as long as it is founded on a proper argument.
What I have said many times before is that simply putting forward a possibility or alternative is not an argument per se. It is a sure way to short circuit any debate. And, to me, out of the blue you propose he was shizophrenic. No clue as to why you think so.
However, it is possible. The thing is we don't know. We may try to analyze his behaviour, however. This I tried to do, and found that there could be reason to think he showed some psychopathic tendencies.
"IMHO, there’s little chance that he was a full-fledged psychopath, like Dennis Rader or Jack Unterweger."
On that we agree, Frank.
You find it more likely that he was a paranoid schizophrenic. Maybe. However, these things are complicated, and even a paranoid schizophrenic may have some psychopathic tendencies.
I'm not so hung up on diagnosis here (as we simply will never be sure), and I actually never said he was a fully fledged psychopath.
All I'm saying is that I think it seems like he could have shared some psychopathic traits. That would, to some extent explain his (IMO) extreme risk-taking but at the same time explain why he had the wits to avoid capture.
What really upset me here was Glenns methods of argumentation. I will not say too much about this as such, but nevertheless make a few comments that may explain why I reacted the way I did.
Glenn,
You claim I don't answer your questions. Well, neither do you mine on occasion. A short re-read of my posts will make that clear.
There is no need to adress your example on schizo killers. I stated:
"That serial killers suffer from Schizophrenia is nonsense. They sometimes try to act as if they do to avoid death penalty. But that ploy has been discredited ages ago"
This is not to say that no serial killer ever suffered from schizophrenia. Clearly not. It is actually quite condescending to immediately come to the conclusion that I "need to do better research" and such. I know there are killers that suffer from schizophrenia.
But not a majority of serial killers. And the point is that it is also common knowledge that on many occasions serial killers have actually faked schizophrenia. They do it as part of their routine, almost. They are indeed bullshitters.
And so I misread Frank. I thought he used the ploy of coming up with just any possible alternative scenario, which clearly is a form of "fake" argumentation.
And yes, Glenn, I was tired, and my tone was probably too harsh. But my main points are still valid IMO.
Why did you suddenly stop talking about Dahmer? Actually, even though you brought him up, he exemplifies my notion perfectly.
I tried to say that Jack must have been a deceiver. You say he did not need to act. Well, I did not say he needed to act that much, but clearly it is possible that he supressed his emotions enough that he could deceive his victims.
Maybe he did not. But I cannot for the life of me see why you argue so hard against that possibility. It seems quite possible to me.
And then you twist my meaning around so it looks like I though prostitutes WOULD suspect Jack?
Sometimes you drive me crazy.
And you argue about illnesses that I never brought up.
On second thought, I don't think you did that on purpose. But it is actually a typical ploy to confuse a debate. You would make one hell of a politician, Glenn.
But anyway. Now you say:
"Still, all this is psychological speculations and in the end we will never know."
Which is what you always say when I press you for evidence that your position is correct (I did not bother this time, but it came up anyway). I could quote several similar occasions.
So why the tone in your posts? I would actually welcome a proper argument as to why you think I am wrong. This is what this is all about. We come up with theories or toss around ideas and see where it all ends. But consistently you say things like (paraphrasing):
"Do some research..."
"I have explained this earlier..."
Actually I do some research. But my findings are always "psychobabble". Never mind I quote "proper" researchers. They never know what they are talking about, do they?
That you have explained your position earlier is not to say you have unravelled the riddle of Jack the Ripper. Opposing views simply cannot be tossed aside that easily!
And there is no such thing as being able to do a full psychological profile based purely on "organized" or "disorganized" traits. Especially with the statistical material available concerning the Ripper. As a matter of fact, we can't even be sure how "organized" or "disorganized" Jack was. It is to some extent an open question. I know that, and I bet money on that you know that too, Glenn.
I have great respect for you, Glenn, but you are not my bible on ripperology. Sorry, mate.
I could go on, but that would serve no purpose.
Helge
"Logic is the beginning of wisdom; not the end." -- Spock (Star Trek VI)
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 250
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, August 22, 2005 - 4:39 am: |
|
Ok,
So you guys and gals probably wonder why I brought up this attempt to "psychoanalyze" Jack.
Well, it could be one tool to check if there were one or multiple Jack's. Which is the purpose of this thread.
That is, each crime must be analyzed separately, and we could try to determine if anything indicated that they were done by someone with the same "mindset" or not. (we need no definitive diagnosis, just a set of "traits")
That is, we must also, as before, look at similarities in MO and signature, but also if there is any major reason to think some murders were done with a different "mindset".
I will only state what was my purpose here, because my "mindset" right now is to discontinue this pursuit, and I may, or not, chose to be back at some later time.
Helge
"Logic is the beginning of wisdom; not the end." -- Spock (Star Trek VI)
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2330
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 22, 2005 - 4:46 am: |
|
Hi Helge,
OK I am not interested in your beef with Glenn.I am interested in your statement:
"I know there are killers that suffer from schizophrenia.But not a majority of serial
killers".
I don"t know whether this is true or not
but what I think may be the case is that in places where there is a death penalty the authorities themselves may decide whether or not to accept a psychologists report saying they believe such and such a killer to be schizophrenic.
After all the death penalty isnt in such states solely to punish the murderer but allegedly to deter others from murder.So a diagnosis of schizophrenia may not always be well received
by those wanting to deter serial killers/other killers from their crimes.
The serial killer currently detained in Broadmoor referred to by Frank above in post 738 re Robert Clive Napper[see also Shades of Whitechapel-Wimbledon Common]is an excellent example of a stalking,[they think "sweet talking"]
sexually motivated,mutilating ,serial
killer, eventually tracked down only by forensics
and who committed a murder so close to MJK"s it has gone down in the history of one of the most gruesome murders ever.
Natalie
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2331
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 22, 2005 - 4:53 am: |
|
BTW Helge,
Mr Napper had a large number of different "mindsets",ranging from random stabbings of the Cutbush type to rape,violent assault,[most likely] a frenzied outdoor stabbing of horrific brutality and carefully planned,"indoor"[they think via the "sweet talk"]
murder/mutilation.You may as well throw all your cards up in the air over this one if you want to see much rhyme or reason in his "work"! |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 251
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, August 22, 2005 - 5:35 am: |
|
Natalie,
I am responding, simply because you may think it rude if I did not, but guys, please do not expect any more answers. When I said:
"...because my "mindset" right now is to discontinue this pursuit, and I may, or not, chose to be back at some later time."
I meant it.
When a hobby makes you so aggravated I was last night, it may be time to get a new hobby.
So..
I could quote several sources that report the prevalence of serial killers to try any ploy to talk their way out of it. It does not work. Multiple personalities for example, is really, really rare, some psychologists think they do not exist at all.
But I'm not going to discuss this, for obvious reasons. I'm out of the discussion business.
The death penalty does "not care" about psychological illnesses. The legal system operates with a completely different way of dealing with sanity and insanity. You are only legally insane, if you do not comprehend that what you do is wrong. That is, even if you once flee a crime scene with the intent to escape capture, you're nailed.
I quote:
"In many cases, a serial killer will plead not guilty by reason of insanity in a court of law. This defense is almost uniformly unsuccessful. The legal definition of insanity is based on whether the defendant knows the difference between right and wrong; the level of premeditation and the lack of any obvious delusions or hallucinations necessary to successfully commit multiple murders without getting caught make this defense extremely difficult."
This is US law, of course.
Your point on Mr Napper goes a long way to substantiate my notion that any argument that tries to prove multiple Jack's (I never said I believed there was..I only wanted to find out) proves very little. In fact, in light of such antics (and I could quote many more similar cases), the dissimilarities between some of the C5 murders become almost non-existent.
Helge
"Logic is the beginning of wisdom; not the end." -- Spock (Star Trek VI)
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3972
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 22, 2005 - 5:58 am: |
|
Well, of course all of us have the right to reply and post, and Helge doesn't have to respond if he doesn't want to. That is up to him.
Just a few final pointers, although Helge may have left this discussion.
The reason for there being misunderstandings on several threads is that you're stating first one thing and then suddenly states you never said that, Helge.
Also, remember that you were the one started using the word 'psycho-babble' - I didn't mean that your quotes as such were psycho-babbel, only that it is no less disputed than the things I brought up.
Your line "This is not to say that no serial killer ever suffered from schizophrenia" is a typical example of how a confusion can occurre.
Fact is, earlier you said: "That serial killers suffer from Schizophrenia is nonsense."
Can I really interpret that differently? So one wonders... what is it? Is it 'nonsense' or is it suddenly possible? Can you blame me for being confused and frustrated?? This is why the so called 'Casebook syndrome' occurs.
I amtruly sorry if you feel you have to leave the discussion or if you feel I have made you agitated, which is not my intention, but before you criticise others for manipulating the discussions, you should take a look at your own methods of arguing.
I agree with Natalie, that leading a written conversation is not easy and it is very easy for misunderstandings to occurre, but that is why it is importnat to be clear.
Now, that aside...
Yes, Dahmer... Regarding his so called 'rational' traits, as I understand - it is suggested that this is some kind of acting in order to make the victim go along with him. I am not so sure. My point with bringing up Dahmer was to show that even paranoid schizofrenics at times can display a normal behaviour. They are not crazy all the time. They can handle themselves quite well in certain situations, it is mostly in the long run they end up too difficult to deal with.
The fact that Dahmer made the victims go with him doesn't therefore have to be acting' - just those spell of normal behaviour these indivicuals can display.
The same with Hadden Clark. He was ill in the way that he probably went through a psychoisis when he committed his crimes and he proved too difficult in order to be able to keep a job for a longer period of time (he was fired from quite many occupations).
But apart from that he was perfectly capable of indulging in smaller, not too complicated conversations and you could never tell by looking at him that he was ill. And still, he even didn't take his medication.
So point with showing that, was that 'acting' is someting that is redundant in this context. It is just spells of normal behaviour.
And as I have said before, when you're dealing with prostitutes, no acting, persuasion or manipulation is needed. They are often the active party in the process, often themselves taking the first step, and they lead their clients to the spots. As Frank says, no particular interaction is needed. The prostitutes need the money - period. And they really didn't have much of a choice, and we also have statements from them that confirms this.
It doesn't prove that he WASN'T charming, just that there was NO NEED for it (since some claim there has to be).
As for not being sure... well, saying that is no strategy, just telling it like it is.
Psychoanalysis on killers - and especially in connection with very old crimes - belong to one of the most unreliable and questionable tools there is, although a very interesting one.
It is not at all certain that Jack the Ripper was a schizofrenic, since our sources of information in such an old case are quite scattered and limited. I think it is most likely that he was, but as with psychiatry in general, nothing is written in stone.
Natalie,
Interesting post.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 22, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2333
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 22, 2005 - 6:01 am: |
|
Hi Helge,
Right now you are not alone-every thread I go on seems to be one where the dispute has got out of hand with one person after another.One person has just returned in fact after an absence of several months- only to jump straight into the fray again-
Myself I find your posts very refreshing as well as thoughtful and questioning.
Sometimes I can see too that the internet is a bit like the telephone.You dont know the person
you disagree with, cant see that person"s expression,their responses,hear the shades of nuance in their voice-its a totally decontextualised form of communication!
Anyway
Take Care
Natalie
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 252
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, August 22, 2005 - 11:58 am: |
|
Thanks Natalie!
Ok, I simply cannot stay out of this, although my reason say I should.
Because we are now so far gone out of topic as can be, and discuss what we said, or did not say, ad nauseam.
But let that be.
Glenn,
The very problem here, part of what I have called Casebook Syndrome before, is that every nuance of what a person write can, and will, be used against him.
First of all, perhaps my english is not good enough, or perhaps I simply need to be more careful in what I write, but I really cannot have a caveat attached to every single sentence. I'm sure you agree?
"This is not to say that no serial killer ever suffered from schizophrenia"
As I meant it: There is some serial killers that suffer from schizophrenia.
"That serial killers suffer from Schizophrenia is nonsense."
Was said in a context where it seemed that Frank considered "out of the blue" (as I saw it) that Jack might have been a schizophrenic. To me it sounded like all serial killers were automatically considered schizophrenic. I misunderstood Frank there, I guess. But my sentence, if analyzed, shows that I am talking about serial killers in general. And then I am correct. Serial killers in general cannot be said to be schizophrenic. That is not a given.
Clarity is indeed difficult, because to explain exactly what I mean without writing a 100 page discourse is clearly out of the format of these boards. Also, although this must not be taken as negative critique of Frank, does not the same apply? How could I know what he meant? I do not read minds.
And clearly neither do you, Glenn. But perhaps we all make the same mistakes here. It is just that sometimes there are people who will simply not let go. A nuance, a mistake, is used for all it is worth, and we loose any opportunity to debate any real issues. This is why I'm tired. Not because I might be wrong. I'm not afraid of that. We are all wrong from time to time here, even if we do not even know it...
And Dahmer. You are of course aware that many sources quotes him as a psychopath? So clearly we have at least..shall we say..divided..opinions here.
And normal behaviour? Do you honestly think a killer...with a clear intent to kill..behaves "normally"..when he hides his intentions?
When sweet talking and charming two police officers into believing that his victim, bleeding and unable to speak, is his "lover"?
When talking calmly and "normally" even seconds before he is caught, playing a game with the police? Is this "normal" behaviour. Well, I'll be damned. Then I'm the one that is not "normal".
Oh, I've said more than I wished allready. But at least you'll get the chance to beat me up next time with no response, Glenn.
(well, actually, I don't promise that.. I change my mind all the time, you know)
Helge
(Message edited by helge on August 22, 2005)
"Logic is the beginning of wisdom; not the end." -- Spock (Star Trek VI)
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3975
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 22, 2005 - 12:46 pm: |
|
Hi again Helge,
See... it is addictive.
Let me just say, that your English is better than and superior to mine - that is certainly not the problem. I must say I am very impressed by that element in your posts.
As for Frank's statement; he was perfectly clear. Very few here throws up suggestions 'out of the blue' and certainly not Frank. It's you who's too fast on the trigger. I am afraid it is you who demands people to be mind-readers.
OK, so you don't find it totally impossible for a serial killer to be scizofrenic. Can we agree on that, then?
Yes, I know that some sources refers to Dahmer as a psychopath and I guess that is - like everything else - a matter of debate. Some does not, however. Do I think he had psychopathic traits, though? Absolutely. Quite possible.
But in order to be called a psychopath you have to fit a certain number of traits on the psychological check-lists, and clearly Dahmer is too disorganized in my view in order to be called a full-fledged psychopath like Bundy, BTK or Fred and Rosemary West. But I and others could of course be wrong on that point.
Dahmer had a rather filthy apparence and his murders were quite bizarre, to say the least. If you're eating your victims because you want them to stay in your life, then you're quite insane, and psychopaths are not insane in the legal definition of the word. Of course, his crimes also appear to have been sexually motivated, but the cannibalisation was a rather bizarre twist.
"And normal behaviour? Do you honestly think a killer...with a clear intent to kill..behaves "normally"..when he hides his intentions?"
Hmmm... Well, I tried to put forward rather clearly that 'hiding' and 'acting' necessarily has nothing to do with it. I didn't say that acting was normal behaviour; what I meant was that if these people appear normal enough to their victim it probably is just because they are normal to some degree in between their spells of psychosis, and subsequentely not raving lunatics all the time.
Why do you feel it is required to act when approaching a prostitute?
Are you even sure of that these characters have an intent to commit a crime already when they're picking up their victim? Even this is somethng we can not regard as an established fact.
"When talking calmly and "normally" even seconds before he is caught, playing a game with the police? Is this "normal" behaviour. Well, I'll be damned. Then I'm the one that is not "normal"."
No, but it is not just psychopaths who do this!
But you (and some others) are still caught up with the incorrect idea that an insane person is insane or ill all the time. They are not.
That is why I brought up Hadden Clark as an example, and I find it a bit interesting that you're continuing to avoid that point and that particular example. Clark, whom in contrast to Dahmer, had been diagnosed with paranoid schizofrenic long before he even committed any serial murder. Instead of acting prior to the murders, he seems to have been pretty normal most of the time (for those who didn't know him closely) - although not the most social guy on the planet and not being able to hold on to a steady job for a longer period - and the murders being results of psychosis brought on by a temporary conflict situation (as in the case of Laura Houghteling) and psychological issues.
There are certain other killers of the same character who have killed the same way.
Fact remains, that it is totally unnecessary for a killer to act when approaching (or being approached by) a prostiute, because they have no other choice but to take what they can get and they need the money and are also quite well aware of the risks. Statements made by the Whitechapel women themselves makes it quite clear, that although they were afraid of the Ripper, they felt they had no other choice since their alternative was to sleep on the street and to starve. For anyone who's investigated the working and living conditions of prostitutes, this is common knowledge and this is also why it was one of the most dangerous trades in 1888 and still is. And that is also why they are the most vulnerable and easiest targets.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 22, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 843
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, August 22, 2005 - 1:22 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn,
It always seems like you are either purposefully not arguing fairly or that you don't really grasp what people are saying. This comment though was amazingly bizarre:
"If you're eating your victims because you want them to stay in your life, then you're quite insane, and psychopaths are not insane in the legal definition of the word."
You in the space of one sentence tried to declare someone insane by totally ignoring the legal definition and then tried to claim that he wasn't a psychopath by arguing that those people aren't insane with the legal definition.
Dahmer was legally declared sane. Period. Full stop. He knew what he was doing and choose to do it. Regardless of your claims that he was "dirty" or whatnot, he was in no way, shape or form insane.
(Message edited by dannorder on August 22, 2005)
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
