|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Modern Theory Application
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: General Topics:
Modern Theory Application
Author: David Inglis
Wednesday, 24 January 2001 - 08:06 am |        | Hello all.
This might stir up a bit of a hornets nest and my apologies in advance if it has been mentioned before, but be gentle, I'm new!
Anyway, on reading through a lot of the posts I am interested to see that so many people place trust in modern methods of policing such as serial killer profiles and when theories are put forward people saying that it doesn't fit the accepted idea of how a serial killer acts or carries out his crimes. I find this bizarre. Does anybody else have a problem with this? I find it hard to believe that anyone can be so sure of a Victorian serial killer being profile-able to a set of rules that were devised for modern killers. I really think we cannot use these methods with any certainty yet see people saying things like "your theory cannot be right because he (or she!) does not fit the profile"...
There are exceptions to the norm in modern cases so surely with a killer from the 1800s this is even more open to exceptions?
Fire away!
Regards
BB |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 24 January 2001 - 09:54 am | | Yes BB, I have a problem with it too, but mainly with people's interpretation of the 'set of rules'. I do think it must be worth looking at all the known cases of serial killing. We can learn something from the facts of the crimes and the lives of the killers, but of course we have to be very cautious when it comes to their own testimony, regarding motives and so on.
When you begin to look deeper, cases seem to emerge which prove to be exceptions to nearly all the 'rules' we are familiar with. My dear old Dad always maintained that the expression, 'the exception proves the rule' is misused; 'proves' in this case meaning 'tests the genuineness of' [the rule]. Does this then mean that the exceptions are outside the definition of true serial killing, or that the definition and its rules need to be constantly amended to accommodate them? To my mind, there are precious few rules we can really depend on.
Having said that, perhaps "your theory cannot be right because he...does not fit the profile" is not quite as bad as "my theory must be right because he does"!
Love,
Caz |
Author: LeatherApron
Wednesday, 24 January 2001 - 10:24 am | | David/BB (I'm confused about the initials versus the name),
If you read my old posts you'll know that I agree with you. Anyone who reads this message board should understand that we're talking about a suspect's likelihood without any great certitude. OTOH if someone wants to make a profile and eliminate certain suspects based on it, I don't have a problem with it and won't attack or debate them vociferously (unless I'm in a bad mood J). This case is a tough nut to crack and I don't begrudge those trying to find guidance. The fact that crime detection has improved since the late 19th Century due to scientific advances is beyond doubt, but the study of the mind and its cognitive processes is still in its infancy. We can't even agree on why REM occurs!
Welcome to the Nut House.
Joseph,
I consider you the enforcer who chases annoyances away, so please keep to your school studies BUT make time for the boards whenever possible. Also, please don't even mimic Davidoz. It makes me nauseous.
All,
In response to someone that, umpteen e-mails back, asked who our 3 favorite suspects are, here's my answer... I like to put them into general categories.
1. The intelligent, seemingly mild mannered, not offensive looking suspect who had some sort of motivation is the most likely IMHO. In descending order my top 3 are: Barnett, Tumblety, and D'Onston. Barnett for his stalking behaviour and other reasons not to mention the fact that 9 times out of 10 it is the ex-spouse who is guilty. Tumblety because of his alleged hatred of women and other reasons (I realize that he flies in the face of a profiler; if you take into account his homosexuality you'd expect him to behave like Dahmer or Gacy and seduce and murder males), and D'Onston for his press connections and other reasons though it is quite possible his strange behaviour is simply misleading me.
2. The insane but capable types who were inoffensive and have connections to the area. There are 2 here that I like and they are James Kelly and Cohen. Kelly fits many of the physical descriptions, but again, which evidence in terms of eyewitness testimony do we believe is true? One particular clothing description, which is quite out of place, is very incriminating. Cohen because of police records and other reasons one of which is the possibility of ritual murder.
3. Then there are the other suspects who are accused because they either murdered other women (usually in dissimilar fashions) or were insane, or simply in the area. These people, like MJD and Chapman and others don't seem likely in my mind but are still possible. This could also be some as yet unnamed suspect who moves up after more details come out.
4. The final category are the completely unreasonable and highly unlikely. These are the totally insane as well as the unkempt and offensive looking, and here I also include the Maybrick Diary camp and the Freemason and/or royal conspiracies. And it's not because I don't believe conspiracies are possible. I've seen them where I work. I just need more tangible proof in this case. In the 'who shot JFK' case for instance, there is no doubt that a minimum of 6 witnesses saw a shooter in the grassy knoll and at least 1, probably 2, captured him on film and the government falsified, changed, misrepresented, or omitted this testimony. Was there a cover up, who knows? But once you realize there was a second shooter, either the 2 coincidentally chose the same plaza to fire on Kennedy OR they were working together. There is a French connection that is quite convincing but I'm changing the subject from JTR. Somebody spank me.
Nick,
Welcome back and I'll talk to you in the chatroom!
Justin,
Metallica rules! Think about it, any band who can come up with a song like "On the Road Again" after all these years is awesome. Besides, I really don't like Axel Rose.
I am, as always, your obedient servant,
Jack |
Author: David Inglis
Wednesday, 24 January 2001 - 01:04 pm | | Mr Apron,
Thanks for pointing the David/BB discrepancy out!
Basically, Bermondseyboy is my username for the rather uninspiring reason that I lived for some time in, you guessed it, Bermondsey (in London for anyone that doesn't know)....for some reason my 1st posts came out under my username but not anymore? I dunno why. But, not too bothered how I'm addressed (within reason!)
And thanks very much, nice to know I am not the only doubter of all things modern!
Regards
David/BB |
Author: Alan Hunt
Wednesday, 24 January 2001 - 05:15 pm | | I agree with you david-you can't justify s suspect by using modern day techniques to prove a case over 100 years before.you have to take into account social and behavioral factors from the time as well.
Good to see another Bermondsey Boy in print as well
Alan
Caz
Had any viruses lately? |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 25 January 2001 - 03:32 am | | Hi Alan,
Yep, more than one kind, but am now squeaky clean and twice as perky.
Love,
Caz |
|
|
|
|
