|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Does Maybrick Fit the Profile?
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: Diary of Jack the Ripper:
Does Maybrick Fit the Profile?
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Friday, 09 August 2002 - 09:34 am |        | One of the things apparent about the candidacy of James Maybrick is that he is inconsistent with the profile created by 25 year FBI veteran John Douglas of the killer. Which do you think more likely to be true: the diary or Douglas's profile?
Douglas makes the following descriptions of the murderer:
Age: between 28-36 (Maybrick was 50)
Marital Status: Single but if ever married in the past it would have been briefly to an older woman . The individual would be incapable of being married at this stage in his life. (Maybrick was married to a younger woman)
Background: His mother would have been promiscuous and probably alcoholic. His father would have been absent (Maybrick ?)
Employment: Menial labor (Maybrick was a merchant)
Employment/Residence: Likely in the area of the killings (neither was true of Maybrick).
Characteristics: Introverted, shy, with a physical abnormality or speech impediment (Maybrick was a salesman)
Habits: Would have drank alcohol frequently in pubs, all of his interactions with women would have been with prostitutes. (Maybrick ?)
The killer would only stop murdering if he was incarcerated, incapacitated, or died. (Maybrick diary gives no reason for his ceasing the attacks)
It seems you have to either believe the profiler or the diary. Both appear to be inconsistent.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 09 August 2002 - 12:28 pm | | Rich--They are certainly inconsistent, and I'm no keen supporter of the diary.
But exactly how does Douglas know these details? Is it something akin to psychometry? Or is it science? Guesswork? Opinion?
Unless they killer is identified, he can't be proven wrong.
Take, for instance, the age 28-36. Is this based on witness descriptions or is it based on some element in the crimes themselves?
If it is based on witness descriptions, how is "profiling" different than standard police work? And what does Douglas do with Hutchinson or Long who describe men over 40?
If it is not based on witness descriptions, how has he obtained this age? We know there are serial murderers over the age of 50. There is a 50+ year old man in Vancouver right now awaiting trial for killing numerous prostitutes.
As for witness descriptions, these are a mixed bag. A case in point was the Trailside Killer case in San Francisco. The police sketch was of a young, athletic man in his 20s who was seen near several of the crime scenes acting suspiciously. His description was widley circulated. As it turned out, the actual murderer was a rough and rather dumpy man in his 40s. The young man in the area was completely incidental and not connected to the crimes. Now compare Lawende. Lawende's description in the Whitechapel Case has got quite a lot of press, but, in my opinion, it is particularly weak. There were three entry ways to Mitre Square, Lawende didn't have any reason to particularly notice the couple, he wasn't questioned until quite sometime later, he admitted he wouldn't recognize the man again, etc. etc.
In the 'Hillside Strangler' case the police profiler made a couple of false assumptions. He had the man down as a loner. In fact, he had a live-in girlfriend and a small child. Indeed, there were two murders working together.
On a recent documentary on serial murders the narrator lauded the great advances in "profiling", meanwhile the camera showed pictures of Dahmer & the 'Nightstalker'...two killers that were caught red-handed by citizens! Almost all these multiple murderers were actually identified by standard police methods: knocking on doors, asking questions, checking license plates, etc. etc. I guess the bottom line is that I'm skeptical of the diary and of 'profiling'.
I certainly don't disagree that the diary is a hoax and Maybrick wasn't the "type"...
Best wishes, RP |
Author: Garry Ross
Friday, 09 August 2002 - 02:01 pm | | Richard,
There is also Robert K. Ressler' profile :-
Jack would probably have grown up in a poor household, where the fathers work was unstable and where he experienced harsh discipline. The family could have also been subject to sexual abuse, alcohol or drug problems, mental illness etc. Jack would have been a shy quiet type as he had internalised the painful emotions at home. He would also have a poor self image with a disability or physical ailment, casting him from society and making him feel very inadequate. He would also be an underachiever and would probably have a menial job in the industrial sector. Jack would have been unable to live or socialise with other people, leading a very lonely life, the only people he would live with would be his parents or on his own. He would also have no relationships so his hate and anger would be aimed at the opposite sex, but no rape, as he was very incapable. Jack's mental illness would have played a big part on the murder and mutilation of his victims. He would also take little to no interest in the murder after it was committed so he would never have sent any letters(the media did). Jack's motive was of course : sex. Jack was also a stable killer - a person who murders in the same basic area, so this means that it was quite definite that he lived right in Whitechapel in 1888.
'Sexual satisfaction for Jack the Ripper, derived from seeing the victim's blood spill.'...'there were even more overt signs that the crimes were sexual, since he cut out the uterus's of many of his victims, after opening the body cavity at the genitals with his knife.'...'With his last victim, Jack the Ripper not only removed the uterus, but cut off the victim's ears and nose and placed these on a severed breast in a mockery of a face.'...'If the killer was deranged and becoming progressively more so, it is likely that he might well have gone off the deep end entirely'...'so crazed that he could no longer even commit crimes, and have landed either in a suicide's grave or in an institution for the insane.'...'Suicide or confinement until death would explain why he was never apprehended'
take care
Garry |
Author: Peter Wood
Friday, 09 August 2002 - 02:13 pm | | Rich, I have to take issue with this:
"Employment/Residence: Likely in the area of the killings (neither was true of Maybrick)".
Actually Rich, both were true of Maybrick.
He had a long association with Whitechapel.
His ancestors came from there.
He lived there as a young man.
His first "wife" lived there at the time of the murders and ...
Maybrick conducted business from the office of Gustav Witt in the Minories - just 400 yards from the scenes of the murders.
Of course not all the experts can be right, and you have chosen to quote one whose opinion would suggest that JM could not be the ripper.
There are others who would argue against that - and remember that the psychological 'experts' have decided that, from a psychological point of view, the diary is more likely to be genuine than not.
Take care
Peter. |
Author: Brenda L. Conklin
Friday, 09 August 2002 - 06:09 pm | | Does the profile truly state there could be a speech impediment?????? Good Lord, once again I am arriving back at the doorstep of my favorite suspect, Joe Barnett. This guy is a perfect fit. I'm always amazed at the people who claim they have absolutely no shadow of a doubt the killer was not Joe Barnett.
Certainly these crimes were motivated by sex, but don't you think they were motivated even more by the need for control? The positioning of the bodies make me think so....all of them were positioned for shock value (except Stride)...this speaks of a guy who wants recognition.
I think Jack grew up shy and apologetic for his sins, but by the time of the murders I think he was far from shy and he wasn't telling anybody "sorry" for anything. Holding down a job for long would have been next to impossible for this guy.
Love,
Lita |
Author: Howard Brown
Friday, 09 August 2002 - 08:15 pm | | | To all: In regards to the assessment of John Douglas who stated,as Mr.Dewar posted,the age JtR most likely fit into was 28-36 years old. I may be wrong,but people who lived in the 19th Century seem superannuated in comparision to those of us in the 21st,born in the 20th. Using contemporary standards MAY work sometimes in our times. Using our standards of gauging criminals and their possible age for another time,in a far rougher time, could be a faulty method of establishing some sort of guideline. I mean no insult to Mr.Dewar whatsoever. Its Mr.Douglas' and the profilers I question. |
Author: Howard Brown
Friday, 09 August 2002 - 08:23 pm | | | The one area I will agree( like my opinion counts ! ) with Douglas,is the assessment that his marital status is in conflict with Maybrick being married. I personally find the fact that Maybrick being married is the number one reason why I don't buy the diary business.Anyone else? |
Author: Garry Wroe
Friday, 09 August 2002 - 10:14 pm | | Hello All.
Although I am a firm believer in offender profiling and have long admired the pioneering work of Ressler and Douglas, I have to confess to being somewhat sceptical regarding the FBI's Ripper profiles. To my mind, these offerings are far too generalized and tend to concern themselves with a Ripper-type killer rather than the Whitechapel Murderer himself. One only has to look at Bundy, Sutcliffe, Brady, Bianchi, Dahmer and so on to dispel the myth that all serial killers carry some kind of physical disability/abnormality. Likewise, the notion that the Ripper might have been a heavy drinker is hardly helpful given that seventy-five percent of the adult Whitechapel population would by today's standards be categorized as alcoholic.
For anyone who might be interested, my own e-book is available on this site (in Media/Non-fiction). My approach was to profile the Ripper using modern criminological knowledge anchored in the historical dictates of the Victorian East End. Whilst I would never claim this profile to be error-free, I do believe it to be more relevant than the aforementioned FBI offerings.
Oh, and Howard, everyone's opinion counts.
Bye,
Garry Wroe. |
Author: brad mcginnis
Friday, 09 August 2002 - 11:06 pm | | Hi Folks,
Be very careful here re profiling. Profiles are generaly accurate when profiling serial killers. We dont know if JTR was a SK or had some other agenda. The killings stopped in England with Mary Kelly. Other ripper like murders occured in the western hemisphere later. Could it have been a sailor out to avenge his being robbed of his all by a hooker? An occult killing? Asuming JTR is a typical SK without more evidence is folly. Just a thought.....Brad |
Author: Garry Wroe
Friday, 09 August 2002 - 11:28 pm | | Hi Brad.
Although it is generally overlooked, the use of profiling is not restricted to serial killings. Burglary, extortion, kidnapping, rape as well as a number of other crime types are frequently and successfully profiled. And neither do these offences need to be sequential in nature. Any crime can be profiled so long as there is behaviour to be evaluated. Ordinarily, however, a crime analyst will be called in only when a major and seemingly intractable crime has been committed or a number of serious offences appear to be linked. Indeed, it is often the primary task of the profiler to examine several individual crimes in order to determine which, if any, are connected.
Best wishes,
Garry Wroe. |
Author: brad mcginnis
Saturday, 10 August 2002 - 01:03 am | | | Thanks Garry, I realize what youre saying, but my point is "what if JTR isnt an SK". We have an advancing signature from Tabram through Kelly, but is the motive Joy through killing? Avenging being rolled? Gaining occult power? Avenging a (then) incurable veneral disease? If he was impotent, killing those who tease him? We dont know, so all options are open to explore.Plus theres always the option.."Here was the first serial killer" Was he a violent David Cohen, or an avenging John Anderson? Was he like Richard Speck, driven by his own needs or like Zodiac, who knows what he was after/ I dont know, but Im open to theory. .....Brad |
Author: Garry Wroe
Saturday, 10 August 2002 - 02:31 am | | Hi Brad.
Most of the questions posed in the above posting are answered in Person or Persons Unknown? Briefly, though, the fact that the Ripper consistently selected low-risk victims and maintained absolute control over those victims at four different crime scene locations indicates that he was not a rampaging paranoid schizophrenic. The spatial distribution of the crime scenes signifies a killer who almost certainly lived locally. Victimology suggests that the offender was of the same socioeconomic class as the women on whom he preyed. The type of mutilations inflicted, the position in which the corpses were left and the theft of body parts render it virtually certain that the murders were sexually motivated and that the perpetrator was suffering from a form of paraphilic sexual dysfunction. Finally, he must have been very ordinary in physical appearance otherwise he would have been remembered by those who saw him at or near the crime scenes.
Granted, none of this is rocket science. But it does provide a limited insight into what can be determined once the Ripper's behaviour is examined systematically and contextually.
Regards,
Garry Wroe. |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Saturday, 10 August 2002 - 05:59 am | | "He had a long association with Whitechapel."
Not true
"He lived there as a young man"
Also not true: all evidence (as opposed to supposition) shows that he lived around Liverpool or in Virginia.
"His first "wife" lived there at the time of the murders"
Again not true: she lived around New Cross which is in South London bordering on Kent.
"Maybrick conducted business from the office of Gustav Witt
in the Minories - just 400 yards from the scenes of the
murders"
He never did: he was Witt's agent in Liverpool.
"and remember
that the psychological 'experts' have decided that, from a
psychological point of view, the diary is more likely to be
genuine than not."
Which ones? |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Saturday, 10 August 2002 - 06:16 am | | Garry, I think a lot of what you say could be true. For a long time now I have had in my mind's eye two pictures of Jack the Ripper, one, the romantic picture is a figure standing--waiting in the shadows-- dressed from head to foot in black. Long black coat and slouch hat, (no top hat and cape for me), I can never see his face except for a very faint white blur.
Then I have what I think to myself is the true picture of Jack the Ripper, and it knocks all the romance out of the window. A man of average height and build, clean shaven, perhaps a mustache, not a walrus-- I don't know why. Dress,-- jacket and trousers, (shabby) maybe a suit , maybe separates, a neckerchief or just a collarless shirt, a cap, not a sailor type, a working man's cap, pulled down on on side, quite heavy boots, and maybe strings tied round his legs just under the knees. A smoker, yes, cigarettes as well as pipe, I picture him with a cigarette hanging out of the corner of his mouth. A typical dock worker,-- or even a Billingsgate fish porter
Rick |
Author: Leanne Perry
Saturday, 10 August 2002 - 07:51 am | | G'day Rick,
....and he knew how to blend in well with the regular folk living in the East End, because he'd lived there all his life, right?
LEANNE! |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Saturday, 10 August 2002 - 08:06 am | | | 100% Leanne |
Author: Garry Wroe
Saturday, 10 August 2002 - 12:56 pm | | Hi Rick, Leanne.
If you are going where I assume you to be going, I would think it extremely unlikely that Joe Barnett could have been the killer. But Rich's original question related to Maybrick. Not only are Maybrick's characteristics incompatible with those of the real murderer, but the author of the Diary claimed to have perpetrated a double-event. Given the absolute certainty that Liz Stride was not a Ripper victim, it may be assumed with equal certainty that the Diary is a hoax.
Bye,
Garry Wroe. |
Author: Timsta
Saturday, 10 August 2002 - 01:02 pm | | Garry:
"absolute certainty" ?? Care to elaborate?
regards
timsta
PS Oh my, I just posted something on a Diary thread. Lord help me. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Saturday, 10 August 2002 - 01:18 pm | | I'd go along with that Garry, I don't think the Ripper killed Stride but Tabram may be due to him.
Rick |
Author: Garry Wroe
Saturday, 10 August 2002 - 01:31 pm | | Hi Timsta.
I'm somewhat pressed for time at the moment so can't elaborate on the issue of Stride as a non-Ripper victim. But, if you'd care to read Chapter Three of Person or Persons in Ripper Media, the presumed double-event is examined in some detail.
Regards,
Garry Wroe. |
Author: Peter Wood
Sunday, 11 August 2002 - 09:54 am | | Howard:
"I personally find the fact that Maybrick being married is the number one reason why I don't buy the diary business.Anyone else?"
Anyone else? Sure, try Peter Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper, for size.
I seem to remember him not only being married, but holding down a regular job.
Peter.
P.S. Birchwood: I long ago gave up caring what you write. I fully expect you to contradict everything I say even though you know that I am telling the truth.
So, stop writing 'not true' next to copies of my posts. You haven't a clue.
It is indeed a joy to skip past your posts. |
Author: Howbrow
Sunday, 11 August 2002 - 12:16 pm | | | Pete: I stand corrected. I should have remembered that Gacy and Baumeister were also married. Thank you for the wake-up call. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Sunday, 11 August 2002 - 04:09 pm | | Hi all,
The criminal profile of the Whitechapel murderer is an unmarried man. Since this contradicts the Maybrick theory, Peter's answer is that since the Yorkshire Ripper was married, obviously the profile indicating Jack the Ripper was unmarried is wrong.
Yet this assumes that the profile of the Yorkshire Ripper and Jack the Ripper are the same. This would not be the case since their crimes were very, very different.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Sunday, 11 August 2002 - 04:24 pm | | "P.S. Birchwood: I long ago gave up caring what you write.
I fully expect you to contradict everything I say even
though you know that I am telling the truth.
So, stop writing 'not true' next to copies of my posts. You
haven't a clue.
It is indeed a joy to skip past your posts."
Well happily Wood will not see this and will not be in the position of someone who again has to defend an argument that has been shown to be wrong time after time. So where to begin? He says of Maybrick: "He had a long association with Whitechapel"
The only record of any possible association with Whitechapel is that he supposedly met Sarah Robertson at a shipbrokers office in London. Note please not Whitechapel, but London which probabply meant the City as this would be the most likely area for a ship brokers office.Can anyone tell me of any other evidential connection between JM and Maybrick?
"His ancestors came from there (Whitechapel.")
Did they? There was a family of Maybricks Living in the Parish of St. Dunstan, Stepney (not Whitechapel) in the 1760-1770 period. I have no indication that this family came to Liverpool and were the ancestors of JM. There is no firm evidence in either book that William Maybrick senior was descended from this or any other East London family but this is possible. Does a family living in Stepney in 1770 show that JM was the Ripper? Hardly. And of course the Maybrick clan generally were somewhat underimaginative when it came to first names. Remember that there was an organist and music writer named Michael Maybrick living in Liverpool in the 1790's as well as at least 4 Williams.
"He lived there as a young man." Well, he simply didn't and until someone finds him on the elusive1861 census curled up with Sarah in the Whitechapel Road then I insist that there is absolutely no proof of him living anywhere other than the Liverpool area or Virginia.
"His first wife lived there at the time of the murders" But in 1889 she was in Sunderland, in 1881 and 1891 she was in South London. Where on earth is there the evidence that has slipped by Shirley, Feldman and all the researchers that puts her solidly in Whitechapel in 1888? It is simply not there.
And when Gustavus Witt himself tells us that JM was"...my partner in Liverpool up to 1875 and continued to do my London firms business upto the time of his death..." how can anyone even Wood say that "Maybrick conducted business from the office of Gustav (sic) Witt in the Minories..."
So although I have long ignored the words of Wood on this subject, it is absolutely necesary to make these points now, not for those who must be bored with the whole sorry saga but for those that may read these messages for the first time and get completely the wrong impression. |
Author: Howbrow
Sunday, 11 August 2002 - 06:06 pm | | | Pete Wood: I recall you saying that you welcomed "intelligent rebuttal" regarding to those who dismiss the Diary. I am not busting your cojones,but it does seem Mr.Birchwood has brought up some valid points. For my enlightenment and maybe some other folks too,how do you respond to what he has posted above? Thank you |
Author: Brenda L. Conklin
Sunday, 18 August 2002 - 03:16 pm | | I feel that profiles are useful TOOLS to consider when looking for a suspect....anyone who insists on following a profile to a "T" when choosing a suspect is making a grave mistake. Generally I think most of the profiles are on the mark, but I've yet to see one that went on to fit the actual killer in every single way.
I think it is quite possible for a serial killer to be married but if they are, there are a LOT of marriage problems. Assuming James Maybrick was Jack (which I don't), he fits right in there in that yeah, he was married, but obviously this marriage was in deep trouble. One thing that fits nicely about James Maybrick is how sexually immature he is...I would expect this from a serial killer. His wife is supposedly cheating on him. Why in the world does he not just confront her and get the mess straightened out? Instead he starts playing his "funny little games" (I love that phrase!) and there seemed to be a lot of magical type thinking patterns involved. Instead of getting the situation resolved, he slips into this big revenge fantasy. He tortures himself by "letting" the "whore" meet up with the "whoremaster"...why did he let her do these things? He was purposely letting her fuel his rage. Whoever wrote this diary was a great hoaxer, or else was experiencing these types of feelings for real. The diary rings true in many ways, but I am one of those who feel that Elizabeth Stride was not killed by Jack, which negates the diary for me.
I got to see the last five minutes of a Jack the Ripper documentary last Sunday on the History Channel, and got a chance to see what Martin Fido looks like, he is quite a handsome and smart man! Does anyone know what the name of this documentary is and is it available on tape or DVD anywhere? |
Author: Martin Fido
Sunday, 18 August 2002 - 05:24 pm | | Was, Brenda, was! They show these things for years after they've been made. Now just an overweight old loon!
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Monday, 19 August 2002 - 01:09 pm | | Dear Martin:
What's wrong with overweight old loons? As we say in the US: "It's all good".
Warm regards,
Divia |
|
|
|
|
