Hutchinson reading the Times?

[Wickerman]

GUT

The question concerns 19th century criminals.

I think we can all agree that today the criminal mind has evolved to include the rare instances when a criminal may choose to inject himself into an investigation. The question was posed in post 24:

Murder and the characteristics of the modern murderer have also evolved over time. You jump to the unproven conclusion that because a modern killer may conduct himself in this way that the first(?) serial killer MUST have done likewise.

Therefore my question is, on what basis are we expected to believe this was the case in the 19th century?

Where is the evidence - show me.

[GUT]

G'Day Wickerman

He was still a human with human nature, I am not saying he did but I AM saying it is not impossible that he did.

GUT

[Ben]

You raise some good points there, Gut.

Jon,

I think we can all agree that today the criminal mind has evolved

What are you on about?

Seriously...

If anyone is prepared to agree with you that the "criminal mind" is any more "evolved" now than it was in 1888, and is prepared to provide evidence for that erroneous, pretentious and wrong assertion, I will give them all my worldly possessions. It's no use you trying to "blag it”. It is clear that your knowledge and understanding of other serial cases is seriously lacking, which means you don't have the faintest idea how common or rare it is for a serial killer to "inject himself into an investigation".

[GUT]

G'Day Ben

See we do agree on some things.

Also if we accept the argument that Jacky was the FIRST SK, which may be open to debate, we then following Wickerman's reasoning can't anticipate anything Jacky may have done or thought.

So let's all go home.

G.U.T.

[Wickerman]

G'Day Wickerman

He was still a human with human nature, I am not saying he did but I AM saying it is not impossible that he did.

GUT

No it is not impossible that he did.
However, to claim that he did must be backed up with data, or else it is guesswork.
In which case the claim is void.

we then following Wickerman's reasoning can't anticipate anything Jacky may have done or thought.

Exactly, unless/until he is identified the reality is we cannot anticipate anything about him.
We don't know who he killed, we don't know how many he killed, we don't know who was his first victim, nor who was his last.

So on what basis should anyone claim to anticipate his thoughts?

[GUT]

G'Day Jon

Why then are you bothering to try and understand what he did or who he was/ they were?


G.U.T.

[Wickerman]

G'Day Jon

Why then are you bothering to try and understand what he did or who he was/ they were?


G.U.T.

The issue arose because I am being told what he was like, my response is, as always, "based on what?".

[Ben]

However, to claim that he did must be backed up with data, or else it is guesswork.

But nobody has "claimed" he murdered anyone. We are simply exploring the irrefutably reasonable possibility that he might have done, based as it is on the known behaviour of other serial killers. Your objection to this, on the grounds that Jack was a 19th century serial killer operating at a time when the "criminal mind" had yet to "evolve", is completely nullified because of its obvious wrongness. Similarly, the assertion that we can't make inferences about the behaviour and habits of uncaptured Victorian serial killers on the basis of the known behaviour and habits of today's captured serial killers is wholly rejected by the actual experts on the subject.

[Wickerman]

... Your objection to this, on the grounds that Jack was a 19th century serial killer operating at a time when the "criminal mind" had yet to "evolve", is completely nullified because of its obvious wrongness.

So here we have another example where you are at a loss to find a credible source in support of your argument.

"Obvious wrongness"

[GUT]

G'Day Jon

Can you tell us what you'd accept as a "credible source" on this issue, I expect nothing. Personally I'd call John Douglas, founder of the FBI's profiling unit a credible source on the evolution or otherwise of the criminal mind, he seems to think that it is the same in 1888 as it is in 2000.

G.U.T.

[Wickerman]

G'Day Jon

Can you tell us what you'd accept as a "credible source" on this issue, I expect nothing. Personally I'd call John Douglas, founder of the FBI's profiling unit a credible source on the evolution or otherwise of the criminal mind, he seems to think that it is the same in 1888 as it is in 2000.

G.U.T.

G'day sport.

Yes, what we lack are examples.
If John Douglas has nothing by way of data to support that opinion then what value does that opinion hold?

Professionals know the value of data, they also know the risks of expressing opinion that is not supported by data.
So tell me, what are his references?

[GUT]

G'Day Jon

Any person who has ever studies logic knows that it is easier to show a positive than a negative.

So please give us an example of the "Criminal Mind Evolving"

Thanks mate

GUT

[Wickerman]

G'Day Jon

Any person who has ever studies logic knows that it is easier to show a positive than a negative.

So please give us an example of the "Criminal Mind Evolving"

Thanks mate

GUT

The evolution of the criminal mind is demonstrated in the cases themselves.

The alternative is to argue that the characteristics of the criminal mind, the choices made, the influence of a changing society, the advances of technology, the progressions of forensic sciences, have had no impact whatsoever on the human brain and its decision making process.

You should see how preposterous such a position is.

The source you quote, John Douglas, does not actually say the human mind has remained the same. In fact, Douglas does not even deal with the subject.

The evidence that a 19th century killer had approached the police and posed as a witness to inject himself into the case working along with the police should be easy enough to locate given the extensive records of 19th century criminal cases in England.
Time consuming yes, but if examples exist then I am wrong.

Alternately, Hutchinson is being accused of being nothing more than a nuisance witness, who actually did nothing wrong except to invent a potential murderer that really did not exist.
Hutchinson then wasted police time by becoming their star witness for a day or so.

The potential for a witness to waste police time has always been problem for the police. Though the tendency in the 19th century was to seek out a reporter. Publicity was their aim, and the press were always an easy target.

So, if I am being told that Hutchinson conducted himself in the same way as a modern killer is known to have done, then such a claim needs to be supported by sources. It is not a frivolous claim.

The important point here is that the claim is being made by someone who has a demonstrated inability to provide sources. The claim is a personal opinion and it is being challenged.

[GUT]

G'Day

Or Hutchinson was telling the truth!

G.U.T.

[GUT]

G'Day Jon

What's your source for

Though the tendency in the 19th century was to seek out a reporter.

And if it was a tendency then it didn't apply to everybody in all cases.

GUT