|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
The Sexual Serial Killer
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: General Topics:
The Sexual Serial Killer
Author: Jon
Thursday, 16 November 2000 - 01:02 pm |        | Harry
If you wish to pursue a pointless exchange, then here goes....
I didnt say it was FACT that Kelly took him back to her room, it is simply understood that they both ended up there, and as no-one has proposed that Jack pushed, pulled or carried her through the streets. Then its safe to assume she led him back there, ...correct?
You can always speculate that he was already there, laying in wait for her....
Of course it is not known how he arrived there, did I say it was?
Jack would hardly ask his potential victim if she lived alone, and as this was not necessary previously (Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, etc) then why assume it was a requirement on this occation?.
Jack got lucky, thats all. Unless you speculate that Jack knew her, which is entirely up to you.
Lastly, you have obviously never lived in a close knit community where walking in unnanounced is perfectly acceptable. "Hardly bothering to knock" is to open the door while knocking, and walking straight in, which I experienced as a child, too many times to count. Dont presume to know otherwise unless you have experienced it. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Thursday, 16 November 2000 - 08:57 pm | | Jon, I lived in a small coal mining village in Shropshire for the first seven yrs of my life. From what I remember, back doors were usually left open or ajar. Relatives calling would call out my mother or dad's name and come in.
A neighbour visiting, would knock and call mother or dad's name or give a "yoo-hoo, but wouldn't actually go in until someone answered,"come on in".Then we moved to a cottage in the countryside, --no neighbours, but when we went out for the day leaving the cottage empty, we never locked, in fact we couldn't,-no key. Didnt need to lock anyway, the people in the vicinity were completely honest. People of Eastend London could be different again though, and 1888 different still, they do seem to be very gregarious people.I'd think those sort of ways have gone now everywhere,- a shame.
Regards Rick |
Author: Jon
Thursday, 16 November 2000 - 10:23 pm | | Yes Rick
I've heard many a similar story from 'the good ol' days'.
Neighbours in courts, cul-de-sac's and closely knit back street communities trusted each other.
We had neighbours enter the house in just the same way you describe. They never stood on ceremony, just push the door open, knock & holler out a name while stepping right in.
We still have a little Yugoslavian lady 2 door down from us who brings us tomato's she's grown herself. She does the same thing, just rapps on the door while opening it and stands in the hallway shouting "Linda", until someone comes.
Which is a source of amusement at our house, because my wife is not called Linda, though I've never been interrogated as to why this woman thinks its her name :-) |
Author: Harry Mann
Friday, 17 November 2000 - 04:10 am | | Jon,
'the fact that Kelly took him back to her room',your words seem to express the belief that t
his is how he arrived there.
What is pointless about how a killer arrives at the place of murder?.It is probably a central point in any murder case.It is not safe to assume that she led him there,and in a much earlier post I pointed out a few ways in which he was able to gain admittance to her room,none of which implied dragging her by the hair or lying in wait.
The killer would not need to ask if she were living alone,if that information was already known to him,and this possibility cannot be ruled out.
Last but not least you are quite wide of the mark
in assuming I did not live in a close knit community.I was born and lived for some years in a court exacly like Millers court,so presumtion doesn't come into it.I do speak from experience. |
Author: James Harper
Tuesday, 20 February 2001 - 03:07 pm | | Hi!
I'm not sure where people get their definitions of an SSk from, because I don't think they fit the reality much. The picture of a man who can change his methods and victims and locations at will is surely mistaken; many of them stick to one method/weapon and one victim type- most of Ted Bundy's victims were brunettes who wore their hair long and parted in the middle.
There seems little doubt that Jack received some sexual gratification from his crimes- naturally this doesn't mean he had sex with them- and it doesn't take long for a person so inclined to reach orgasm. William Heirens is a good case- simply planning a burglary could bring him to erection, and the actual act of climbing in through a window would result in orgasm, and rather quickly too. If mutilation was Jack's kick, then the method of killing would have been chosen for it's speed and silence, allowing him to progress quickly onto his 'ripping'. If this is the case, then a few minutes alone with his victim would be plenty of time to achieve satisfaction.
I do feel that Jack wasn't wholly interested in the slaying of his victims, only the postmortem mutilations. If this is the case, and Martha Tabram was one of his victims, then it seems likely she was something of a test-run; his first attempt at murder, frantic and disorganised, and probably ultimately unsatisfying for the killer. The next time round, he would have refined his methods further- the cut to the throat and the strangulation resulted in a quick kill with little chance of an outcry- unlike Tabram's killing which carried many risks.
Liek Dahmer it appears that Jack did indeed fantasize about killing before his first efforst, as indeed most serial killers do. Martha Tabram was quite possibly an unplanned event, a spur of the moment outpouring of rage and emotion. After that, he probably settled on further prostitutes as the easiest victims. Liz Stride was possibly unsatisfying before of Jack's failure to reach his desired end- that is, the mutilation of his victim. Cotius interruptus, so to speak. Hence the fury of the Eddowes attack; denied his first choice, he became more and more worked up. Kelly was probably the pinnacle of his career, since it allowed privacy and time, two things Jack had been unable to arrange previously, since all his victims live one night at a time in public dosshouses.
Had he been able to, it is my belief that Jack would have attempted to procure victims with their own premises, to allow him to fully work out his desires in relative comfort. At this point his innermost desires were almost certainly entirely satisfied; his victim his entirely to be disfigured as much as he liked, with no urgency or threat of discovery.
I do not believe he stopped then, since it is unlikely that a man at the pinnacle of his career would relinquish his success; his desires would require fulfilment more and more frequently.
At least, that's the way I read the situation |
Author: Jon
Tuesday, 20 February 2001 - 04:01 pm | | Weapons?
Location?
Type of victim?
Chikatilo is a fine example of a man who can change, even stop, at will. |
Author: James Harper
Wednesday, 21 February 2001 - 11:39 am | | Certainly Chikatilo is. I wouldn't dispute that. However, not all lust killers seem to fall into that category. Once they have a developed a routine, then they rarely if ever diverge from that pattern. For Chikatilo the gender and age of his victim where largely irrelevant, although his methods seem to have remained the same. With the Ripper, however, it seems more likely that he was keen to stick to the easiest type of victim- prostitutes; whether this was a compulsion I do not know, but it does stand to reason.
Chikatilo didn't ever 'stop'; he was simply satiated for a while, not feeling the compulsion to kill and maim. I doubt if he ever considered totally stopping, since there is only one serial killer who seems to have done that, the Boston Strangler, and his reasons are logical, if somewhat warped.
Certainly such men change their patterns, but they do so in an effort to find the most 'satisfying method'; once that is achieved, they rarely find any reason to vary the practice. To my mind Jack found that a slash to the throat (with strangulation) and mutilation on a prostitute victim was the perfect combination for him. His desires were clearly escalating, and it's hard to imagine a man simply stopping because he didn't feel like it anymore. The murder of MJK probably achieved all he'd ever wanted, and he is certain to have decided to do it again at some point. |
Author: Jon
Wednesday, 21 February 2001 - 07:36 pm | | James
One of the problems with what you are discussing is you are looking from 'your' perspective.
- Firstly, Chikatilo 'stopped' for an extended period of time, he initially 'stopped' because he became aware that the authorities were closing in on him.
- Secondly, due to the still controversial Boston Strangler case it can hardly be quoted in support on any serial killer theory. One of the well known phrases in connection with this case is that the media & authorities have always said "the Strangler broke all the rules". This was with respect to 'profiling', what they expected him to be & do all turned out wrong. The suggestion that they had the wrong man never occured to them, well, only to Lee-Bailey his lawyer. No point in going into this case here on a JtR site, but there is reasonable doubt as to DeSalvo being a murderer, the Green Man / Measuring Man = yes, but not a murderer.
The Zodiac changed his style and stopped, others have changed method and stopped too. Chikatilo stopped for as long as it was necessary. Its the definition of 'stopped' what we likely will disagree on.
The Zodiac stopped and never started up again, Green river killer stopped (if my memory serves me right), The Michigan murderer (at Ann Arbor) also stopped.
Its false to arbitrary say that SSK's cannot stop. You have to know the reason for their crime to understand why they can back off for a period, or indefinitely. What 'stopped' actually means may be different in several cases. When a killer commits his crime on somewhat of a regular basis then for an extended period, he lays low....he has stopped, period. Whether he takes it up again or not matters little. He has demonstrated the ability to stop what he was doing, like Chikatilo.
In Chikatilo's case the 'urge' was triggered again by the people around him, what had promted him to stop in the first place was two fold, increased police activity and changes in his social life. The urge to 'be somebody' was no longer there, his colleagues at work (in his new job) accepted him, he felt good about himself, the need to dominate and express power was abated.
Then things changed, something happened at work and it reflected badly on Chikatilo, he started feeling inferior again.....the rest is history.
There is no clear cut method of identifying a SSK, or labelling a SSK, and as Martin pointed out, we likely would do well to subdivide SSK's into subgroups.
When the FBI actually catch a SSK due to profiling, then we can 'pop' the champaign.......hope your not thursty.
Regards, Jon |
Author: James Harper
Thursday, 22 February 2001 - 05:11 am | | Jon
Thanks for your reply.
However, I must qualify some of my statements. I did not use the Boston Strangler in support of my acse, but as an exception. If he doesn't fit the pattern described, then it doesn't alter my argument.
Whether the Green River Killer and Co actually stopped is something of a mystery. It is impossible to say categorically that they stopped of their own volition. Other circumstances such as premature death or jail sentences may take them out of action.
At no point did I state that SSKs cannot change. In fact, I did state the opposite. Some change, and have no routine of behaviour. Others however (indisputably) adhere to a definite pattern. This may require subgrouping, as you say, but I am willing to agree that some SSks change, but others do not.
The question of whether JtR ever stopped (on your terms) is one that will never be solved. It would be equally false to state that he backed off because of police attention. He may not have been able to stop, and may not have intended to stop- it's something we will never know. It's my belief he didn't stop on purpose, but obviously I can't state that categorically.
I'm sorry, I just don't get the point of the jibe at the FBI. I'm well aware that offender profiling has a bad reputation, but I don't see the relevance of that here. You can't say that my opinions are wrong because they're drawn to some extent from FBI principles. |
Author: Jack D. Killian
Thursday, 22 February 2001 - 11:35 am | | Jon,
The Ann Arbor Michigan murderer you are referring to; is that the case of 16 murders in the late 1970s thru early 1980s case which were linked to the suspect Randy Kraft?
regards,
JD |
Author: Jon
Thursday, 22 February 2001 - 11:08 pm | | Jack
I'll dig out the book if you like, it's boxed away somewhere.....years since I read it.
I recall the same psychic who helped in the Strangler case was hired in Ann Arbor too.....some said he was a suspicious character. |
Author: Jack D. Killian
Friday, 23 February 2001 - 05:40 pm | | Thanks Jon,
California authorities are fairly convinced Randy Kraft was responsible for 16 murders in Michigan. The victims were all males. They are pretty sure he murdered and mutilated 51 men in California between 1972 and 1983. His MO was to pick up hitch hikers or hang out in gay bars, intoxicate and/or drug them, tie their hands, torture then strangle them and leave the bodies all along various highways; mostly in the Southern California area. He was a real wacko.
JD |
Author: Jon
Friday, 23 February 2001 - 06:58 pm | | Ok, Jack
I found it....no mention of Randy Kraft. The principal suspect was James Armstrong, the murders took place in and around Ann Arbor - Ypsilanti between July 67 to July 69. The victims were 7 young females aged between 13-23, "each killed with unspeakable savagery".
Apparently this Armstrong was eventually charged with the crimes, but there were another 6 victims found that he was suspected of, these were never taken into account.
Gov. Ronald Reagan filed for extradition of Armstrong due to similar murders in California, it was never enacted.
In my previous poste I listed the Michigan murderer as among those who stopped, I had listed the Torso (Cleveland murders) as well, but edited my poste, I removed the wrong one, my mistake, it was the Torso who stopped, not James Armstrong.
However, the Michigan case was not 100% conclusive, though Armstrong was convicted, several were not convinced he was the murderer. The author also was not 'sure' of the conviction.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 30 September 2001 - 10:03 pm | | The Eyeball Killer
Oak Cliffe, Dallas, Texas, 1990.
Dec 13th the body of Mary Pratt, prostitute, was found stripped, and laid prostrait in full public view, legs apart, a single gunshot wound to the head.
Feb. '91 the body of Susan Peterson, prostitute, was found stripped and laid prostrait in full public view, legs apart and shot in the head.
Mar. 10th '91 the body of Shirley Williams, prostitute, was found stripped and laid in full public view, in front of a school.
Though the public initially were not aware of a serial killer being at large, a gruesome detail leaked out which connected all these crimes together......facial mutilation.
Opinions, at the time, tell us that a wave of terror swept the low class neighbourhood, where these crimes took place, akin to the age old 'Jack the Ripper' scare of 1888.
Police reported that this location regularly had a high percentage of prostitution before these crimes took place which, in only a few months, was reduced by 80-90%.
Comments suggested that where you might find a street crawling with a 100 prostitutes before the murders, this number was reduced to barely 10 after the third killing.
Details of the facial mutilation were kept from the public for fear of terrorising an already frightened public.
Roy Hazelwood suggested these were certainly sexual killings but the purpose was not sexual, here we had a killer who collected ....eyeballs.
The killer had surgically removed both eyeballs of each victim. The first two victims eyes were removed with such skill, not injuring the surounding tissue but still severing the 6 major muscles which retain the eyeball.
The method used was not known to be covered in any textbook, this killer had learned the require skill himself.
Hazelwood suggested, the victims being laid prostrait and in full view, was a statement by the killer, saying "look what I can do".
A profile of the killer was created; white male, 25-35 yrs, high I.Q. (followed by a typical serial killer profile, etc)
As it turned out the killer, when eventually tracked down was 57 yrs old and had been adopted, though was under the impression his birth-mother had been a prostitute.
His adoptive mother had been over-protective with him and had also taught him, when a child, her business skill of taxidermist. The adoptive mother, when stuffing the animals, would not pay the exorbitant prices for imitation eyeballs for the animals and would only sew on cheap looking buttons on an otherwise perfect looking example of a stuffed animal.
This imperfection may have played on the boys mind coupled with his embarrasement at the thought of being the son of a prostitute.
The killer, Charles Albright, had been a thief, burglar, and charged with sexual assault at some point previously in his youth.
--------------------------------------
The program was just on TLC, Medical Detectives, and I thought some may be interested in some obvious parallels with the original Ripper crimes.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Robeer
Monday, 01 October 2001 - 06:27 pm | | Jon,
How did the police develope the profile that was so far off the mark? This opens the door for Tumblety. Until now we thought SK profiling almost always preferred suspects under 35 years of age.
Robeer |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 02 October 2001 - 05:11 am | | Hi Robeer,
I think the 'under 35' bit generally refers to the start of a SK's career. So it would depend very much on how long he may have been able to operate, perhaps before developing a distinctive MO, or by moving from place to place, without anyone becoming aware, either that certain crimes/assaults/murders had been committed, or that they could all be linked to one person.
An extreme example is Dr Harold Shipman, who was able to bump off his patients for years before anyone realised they didn't die of natural causes, and was in his fifties by the time he came to notice.
Love,
Caz
PS On UK's Channel 5 tonight, at 11.10pm, a three-part documentary on the case of Fred and Rose West begins. The second and third parts can be seen tomorrow and Thursday. |
Author: Monty
Tuesday, 02 October 2001 - 08:21 am | | I don't think profiling should be taken as gospel for obvious reasons. Its not an exact science. It would be very foolish to cast aside one suspect just because they are not within the age range.
I feel that profiling is relied on too much as an answer and when it is wrong we all throw our hands up and say "but you said he was between 25yrs and 35yrs so that was what we were looking for".
Profiling should be treated as a guide and we should not get irate when it is incorrect. |
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Tuesday, 02 October 2001 - 09:59 am | | Hi,
profiling is not meant as a gospel BUT as a guideing line. The profile on Jack COULD give us something to think about, if we are prepared to be open and not claim "My favourite suspect is XXX and he did it. Your suspect is worthless" I am of the opinion, that Jack fits (right tense?) at least half of this profile.
It is my job to profile and of course I am p***** off when it is wrong, but I try to learn from mistakes...
Profiling as shown in movies and books is always based on 25-35, white male, high IQ, loner etc. etc. Rubbish
Try the following: Have a hot bath, take a glass of something nice (I prefer single malt), close your eyes, forget where you are AND then try and imagine what type of person Jack would have been. I bet that all of us would agree on certain points BUT the points on which we don't agree are the interesting ones. Give it a try.
Yours, Philip
PS Even if you don't come up with a picture - what better way to relax.... |
Author: Monty
Wednesday, 03 October 2001 - 08:46 am | | Phillip,
Ok,I shall give it a go and let you know tomorrow.
I agree with what you are saying about a guiding line and it is a definite plus when it does come off. But I just feel that the profile would preconceive and therefore it would be inevitable that a favorite suspect would come out of this preconception. Then what if we do find that the murderer was a 54 year old seamstress from Kent?
Say,for arguments sake,if JtR was in a middle of his reign right here and now. A profile has been made and we are looking for a man that fits it. Then he is caught and he only fits 1 or 2 of the pointers. That he is male and that he is white. Would the profile be considered a success? Would there have been less victims if the profile was more correct? Who would have been blamed?
Of course this is all conjecture which is what profiling is. When it is correct its fantastic,amazing. When wrong it could be disastrous for the victims and families.
I guess I have waffled on a bit and I apologize. But I still think profiling is relied on too much and can pigeon hole us into pick one particular suspect.
Then again I'm not cracker, What do I know ????
Monty  |
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Wednesday, 03 October 2001 - 10:15 am | | Hi Monty,
no you have not waffled on, and there is no reason to apologize because you have hit the nail right on. We (us who earn our money with profiling) consider a profile a success when we have helped catch a suspect. No matter how many points fits. But then we draw a line between factors like age, sex, intelligence etc. and "psychological factors". For example most of us here consider Jack to be male. A lot of us would think he is between 30 and 40. But what then.
My main line of interest is: What made him tick? Why did he commit his crimes? Why did he change his modus operandi for Kelly? Why did he get more brutal? What it a sexual aspect? Did he hate women? The answers to these questions could help us discard some suspects. But they would never allow us to solve the crime, we need evidence for that.
Profiling should not "pigeon hole" us but help us discard.
Philip |
Author: Monty
Thursday, 04 October 2001 - 08:13 am | | Phillip,
I am with you when you point out your main line of interest. Thanks for your input and even though I may seem skeptical I am genuinely interested in this aspect of investigation.
Cheers Monty
PS I tried out your idea of lying in the bath and imaging what kind of person Jack was..all I came up with was this 6ft rabbit with a red hat on. Where the hell did that come from ???
PPS I hope you don't charge me for this consultation.  |
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Thursday, 04 October 2001 - 09:12 am | | Monty,
I said single malt not bourbon!
Cheers Philip
PS I am not allowed to charge for consultations, but small gifts given freely are always welcommed. |
|
|
|
|
