Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

thought experiment

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Hi Dave,
    Originally posted by protohistorian View Post
    It occurs to me that Chapman's "wife" left him on the return trip from America
    She was actually his real wife.
    Also, what is the span of time between Chapmans return and poisoning no.1?
    Six years, give or take.
    Kind regards, Sam Flynn

    "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

    Comment


    • #17
      thank Sam

      Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
      Hi Dave,She was actually his real wife.Six years, give or take.
      That being the case, do we have a fix on Georges location at the time? If we do, If I am correct this would be a period of experimentation by George, A closer look at assaults on women in his vicinity, particularly older women would be interesting and potentially fruitfull. If chapman did commit crimes in this period, they would not be ripperlike, probably not involve fire arm or knife, they may however contain the an overt sexual or dehumanizing element.
      We are all born cute as a button and dumb as rocks. We grow out of cute fast!

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
        Hi Dave,She was actually his real wife.Six years, give or take.
        It also has occured to me that he may be practicing low medicine at this ( the 6 yr interveening period) time. If I had my guess his preference would be an abortionist or underground surgeon. You might also wish to peruse hospital entries with existing medical type wounds or deaths that seem as though they might result from a botched medical procedure.
        We are all born cute as a button and dumb as rocks. We grow out of cute fast!

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by jmenges View Post
          Chapman has been characterized as a man who callously rid himself of the women whom he tired of. Once the female in his life bored him, snap of the fingers and they could be gone. This to me is an altogether different mindset from the random, quick, stranger killings of the Ripper. You say this behavior points to an evolution of his organization, but Chapman seems to settle into domestic relationships and then become unsettled, then murder or not murder. Its hard for me at least to connect the two as an evolution of his technique.

          JM
          Excellently put, menges. This is exactly how it is.

          Besides, it's nonsense to claim that Klosowski may have turned more organized as time goes along - that is to truly underestimate the pshychological driving forces that drive each serial killer.
          And if there is any developing at all, it is usually the other way around, that the organized killer with time turns more and more disorganized and out of control (see people like Bundy).

          In all honesty, Klosowski was an idiot for killing victims that could be personally linked to him and for choosing the same modus operandi each time but he was a calculating poisoner where the crimes involved a certain amount of planning, self-control and manipulation.
          The Ripper, on the other hand, was so screwed up and his crimes appear to have been unnecessarily risky and triggered by pure predator instinct.
          That a person like the Ripper (although he does display some organized traits) - already so messed up as he was - would develop into such a controlled, organized schemer like Klosowski is quite unlikely and actually quite ridiculous.

          All the best
          The Swedes are the Men that Will not Be Blamed for Nothing

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by protohistorian View Post
            It also has occured to me that he may be practicing low medicine at this ( the 6 yr interveening period) time. If I had my guess his preference would be an abortionist or underground surgeon. You might also wish to peruse hospital entries with existing medical type wounds or deaths that seem as though they might result from a botched medical procedure.
            There is no evidence whatsoever of that the Ripper should have had any medical/anatomical knowledge or skill beyond that of a slaughterer/butcher, if even that.

            All the best
            The Swedes are the Men that Will not Be Blamed for Nothing

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by protohistorian View Post
              This is one of the primary considerations for JtR fitting into the disorganized category, the other chief consideration being leaving bodies posed in public for discovery.
              Although I don't have any objections to the Ripper as a partly disorganized killer, there is one thing that several people forget (including the profilers from FBI when they made their Ripper profile) and that is to take the historical context and environment into account.

              Today it is relatively easy to dispose of a body, regardless if we're talking domestic or sexual predar/serial killer murders. But in 1888 these possibilities were clearly limited. No one had a car in which they could put the bod in the trunk or boot. Looking at how the crime scenes were picked, there was absolutley no chance for the Ripper to dispose or hide the bodies, nor did he have any time. Most of the crime scenes were littered with police officers who regularly patroled the spots during their beats and the killer's time was really limtied so that he hardly had time enough to commit his crimes without being detected.

              Therefore we shouldn't assume - based on modern profiling, in turned based on modern serial killer crimes - that him leaving the bodies for display was a result of attempted shock value. It could be - but my point is, that we can't say if the reasons were simply practical or not. We shouldn't read too much psychological stuff into this and realize that the circumstances and the aims of the killer in 1888 were different that they would be today.

              All the best
              The Swedes are the Men that Will not Be Blamed for Nothing

              Comment


              • #22
                To become a suspect in a crime,it must be shown,by evidence, that the suspect did involve him/herself physically in the commision of that crime.There has never been any evidence,to my knowledge,that links Chapman,in a physical way,to any of the ripper murders.In this regard,it can be claimed,there were never any suspects,by name, in any of those murders.There was,however, heaps of information of a suspicious nature.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by harry View Post
                  To become a suspect in a crime,it must be shown,by evidence, that the suspect did involve him/herself physically in the commision of that crime.There has never been any evidence,to my knowledge,that links Chapman,in a physical way,to any of the ripper murders.In this regard,it can be claimed,there were never any suspects,by name, in any of those murders.There was,however, heaps of information of a suspicious nature.
                  By that logic we may suspect no one. Unless your implication is that these women tire of lifed and willed themselfs to self destruct in a violent manner.
                  We are all born cute as a button and dumb as rocks. We grow out of cute fast!

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Glenn Lauritz Andersson View Post
                    Although I don't have any objections to the Ripper as a partly disorganized killer, there is one thing that several people forget (including the profilers from FBI when they made their Ripper profile) and that is to take the historical context and environment into account.

                    Today it is relatively easy to dispose of a body, regardless if we're talking domestic or sexual predar/serial killer murders. But in 1888 these possibilities were clearly limited. No one had a car in which they could put the bod in the trunk or boot. Looking at how the crime scenes were picked, there was absolutley no chance for the Ripper to dispose or hide the bodies, nor did he have any time. Most of the crime scenes were littered with police officers who regularly patroled the spots during their beats and the killer's time was really limtied so that he hardly had time enough to commit his crimes without being detected.

                    Therefore we shouldn't assume - based on modern profiling, in turned based on modern serial killer crimes - that him leaving the bodies for display was a result of attempted shock value. It could be - but my point is, that we can't say if the reasons were simply practical or not. We shouldn't read too much psychological stuff into this and realize that the circumstances and the aims of the killer in 1888 were different that they would be today.

                    All the best
                    Point taken, but an organized serial in the contemporary 1888 environment would manifest different target selection and disposal methods, ones suitable to his environment. An example would be the torso killer. There could be an arguement for him/her being an organized killer based on the destruction of the body for purposes of identification. As for crime scene locations, those are a consequential outcome of victim type (prostitute) and method of approach used by the killer (ingratiating)
                    We are all born cute as a button and dumb as rocks. We grow out of cute fast!

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by harry View Post
                      To become a suspect in a crime,it must be shown,by evidence, that the suspect did involve him/herself physically in the commision of that crime.There has never been any evidence,to my knowledge,that links Chapman,in a physical way,to any of the ripper murders.In this regard,it can be claimed,there were never any suspects,by name, in any of those murders.There was,however, heaps of information of a suspicious nature.
                      then why is Lewis Carrol in the suspect section?
                      We are all born cute as a button and dumb as rocks. We grow out of cute fast!

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Glenn Lauritz Andersson View Post
                        Excellently put, menges. This is exactly how it is.

                        Besides, it's nonsense to claim that Klosowski may have turned more organized as time goes along - that is to truly underestimate the pshychological driving forces that drive each serial killer.
                        And if there is any developing at all, it is usually the other way around, that the organized killer with time turns more and more disorganized and out of control (see people like Bundy).

                        In all honesty, Klosowski was an idiot for killing victims that could be personally linked to him and for choosing the same modus operandi each time but he was a calculating poisoner where the crimes involved a certain amount of planning, self-control and manipulation.
                        The Ripper, on the other hand, was so screwed up and his crimes appear to have been unnecessarily risky and triggered by pure predator instinct.
                        That a person like the Ripper (although he does display some organized traits) - already so messed up as he was - would develop into such a controlled, organized schemer like Klosowski is quite unlikely and actually quite ridiculous.

                        All the best
                        Do not mistake the change and stability of the poisoning as the assumption of organized behavior. Not all or even the majority of serials lose it and betray themselves. Bear in mind, our modern data sets on serials are comprised ENTIRELY of serials that have been caught, and is there fore biased in that direction.
                        We are all born cute as a button and dumb as rocks. We grow out of cute fast!

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by protohistorian View Post
                          Do not mistake the change and stability of the poisoning as the assumption of organized behavior.
                          Hi Dave,

                          The poisoning would involve conscious thinking and behaviour, so a lot more realising of the consequences, which is really what organised behaviour is a result of.
                          Bear in mind, our modern data sets on serials are comprised ENTIRELY of serials that have been caught, and is there fore biased in that direction.
                          It doesn't necessarily follow that it's biased, we just don't know if it is or isn't.

                          All the best,
                          Frank
                          "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
                          Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Frank van Oploo View Post
                            It doesn't necessarily follow that it's biased, we just don't know if it is or isn't.
                            Indeed, Frank. To be honest, I can't see why "un-caught" serial killers would behave differently from those who were caught. Why should I suppose that the rabbit in my stock-pot once behaved any differently to the rabbit who got away?
                            Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                            "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                              Indeed, Frank. To be honest, I can't see why "un-caught" serial killers would behave differently from those who were caught. Why should I suppose that the rabbit in my stock-pot once behaved any differently to the rabbit who got away?
                              It is not a matter of a difference in behavior. The data set is comprised entirely of caught individuals, a certain portion of which suffered from delusional personality decay, hence tthe perception that personality decay has a correspondance with beeing caught.
                              We are all born cute as a button and dumb as rocks. We grow out of cute fast!

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by protohistorian View Post
                                The data set is comprised entirely of caught individuals
                                All rabbit stews comprise of caught rabbits. Some of today's non-caught rabbits may eventually end up in a stew, whilst others will live to a ripe old age. It largely depends on the skill (and luck) of the person hunting them as to which category they'll end up in.
                                a certain portion of which suffered from delusional personality decay, hence tthe perception that personality decay has a correspondance with beeing caught.
                                Why should such a perception exist? I'm sure there are plenty of criminals, with or without delusional personality decay, who simply "get away with it"; just as there are a certain percentage of criminals, again with or without such "personality decay", who'll get caught.
                                Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                                "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X