I have not seen a thread discussing Dr.Bonds thoughts about the killer
in response to a Home Office request.Such a personal response by someone involved in the case, albeit a medical role, is interesting, as Dr. Bond is one of the few scientific professionals involved.
I consider Dr. Bonds opinions to be a mixture of hit and miss;it is predictably good when making assumptions derived from the physical evidence but weak when assuming the killers social background.
I find no reason to support Dr.Bonds claim opinion that the killer was neatly and respectably dressed and middleaged. It is possible this conclusion was arrived at after considering the victims solicitous behaviour and the Polices failure to apprehend him at the scene.
That the killer was without regular occupation but with some kind of pension or income. Independent means must of been almost unheard of in a slum area.
That the killer lived amongst respectable persons.
That the killer was a man of great coolness and daring.
However, i do agree that the killer possessed little anatomical knowledge or technical skill; was not necessarily deluged with blood; was solitary and eccentric ( an associal personality ).
Dr.Bond's belief in the killers middle class origins may be nothing more than scientific conservatism ( he stuck with what he knew ), or perhaps he had become aware of Police suspects who seemed to belong to a more prosperous section of society and this was colouring his judgement; I would include Druitt and Tumblety within this group.
Bonds ideas about the killers psychological condition is also intersesting
I do not agree with the Doctors Satyriasis opinion,as many criminals who have sexually mutilated there victims did not possess inordinate sexual appetite. The " fits of erotic or homicidal mania " might be nearer the mark.
Many serial killers claim that the urge to kill builds up over a period of time, like steam in kettle.
So here are my immediate thoughts on Dr.Bonds " profile "; is my criticism fair?.
in response to a Home Office request.Such a personal response by someone involved in the case, albeit a medical role, is interesting, as Dr. Bond is one of the few scientific professionals involved.
I consider Dr. Bonds opinions to be a mixture of hit and miss;it is predictably good when making assumptions derived from the physical evidence but weak when assuming the killers social background.
I find no reason to support Dr.Bonds claim opinion that the killer was neatly and respectably dressed and middleaged. It is possible this conclusion was arrived at after considering the victims solicitous behaviour and the Polices failure to apprehend him at the scene.
That the killer was without regular occupation but with some kind of pension or income. Independent means must of been almost unheard of in a slum area.
That the killer lived amongst respectable persons.
That the killer was a man of great coolness and daring.
However, i do agree that the killer possessed little anatomical knowledge or technical skill; was not necessarily deluged with blood; was solitary and eccentric ( an associal personality ).
Dr.Bond's belief in the killers middle class origins may be nothing more than scientific conservatism ( he stuck with what he knew ), or perhaps he had become aware of Police suspects who seemed to belong to a more prosperous section of society and this was colouring his judgement; I would include Druitt and Tumblety within this group.
Bonds ideas about the killers psychological condition is also intersesting
I do not agree with the Doctors Satyriasis opinion,as many criminals who have sexually mutilated there victims did not possess inordinate sexual appetite. The " fits of erotic or homicidal mania " might be nearer the mark.
Many serial killers claim that the urge to kill builds up over a period of time, like steam in kettle.
So here are my immediate thoughts on Dr.Bonds " profile "; is my criticism fair?.
Comment