Ripperology: Questioning the Dogma

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Jon,

I guess the main issue is, not so much how the "captive" serial killer is observed, but what he says and his interviewer's interpretation of it. Even where biographical details may be corroborated independently of the killer, this, too, is very much open to interpretation.

We tend not to get the same sorts of issues with tigers, but to take them as a metaphor, imagine one of those ghastly Disney True Life Adventures, where the commentator interprets, usually anthropomorphically, what the animals are doing on screen. You know the sort of stuff:

"Fubar is relieved to reach the hollow, weary after the hunt, and slumps beneath a tree to rest from her exertions. The cubs are glad to see her, and tumble over the rocks to greet their mom. Gee! How they've missed her. Now Snafu and his friends join the children in welcoming her."

Aaaah! And now an alternative scenario in (imaginary) tiger-thinks:

"The tigress - who has no name, incidentally - can smell the stinking whelps a mile off, and stops in her tracks as they come running towards her. She's hungry herself, for Chrissakes, so she makes bloody sure she gets a few mouthfuls of her hard-earned kill before they rip it to shreds. They're not even her cubs, for crying out loud! Just as well she did manage to gulp down a kilo or so of antelope-meat, because here come the horny-brigade to give her some whelps of her own. She's gonna need all her strength to survive the third 4-hour shagathon of the day..."

Either interpretation of this delightful scene could be more-or-less true, but perhaps not both in their entirety. Other variants may be equally possible, and some are "wronger" than others. From the observer's perspective, however, each explanation makes some sort of sense, and seem to hang together quite well - but that's the point. We like to make sense of the world and, if there's an off-the-shelf framework that we can adapt in order to help us do that, then so much the better - it saves us having to do a large part of the grunt-work ourselves. That's why religions, political movements, and certain theories have proven so resilient over time. Doesn't mean any of them are right, though - anymore than it means that any of them are necessarily completely wrong.

[Roy Corduroy]

We like to make sense of the world and, if there's an off-the-shelf framework that we can adapt in order to help us do that, then so much the better -

A framework like all those true crime books and TV shows.

Quiz - Name one modern serial killer who had syphilis.

Roy

[Howard Brown]

Dear Roy:

I once tried to find an s.k. who had syphilis myself...maybe three years or so ago...and without using a search engine to assist me, cannot remember if I found one or not...but I don't think I did. Thats good someone else asked the question

I do know of one who had A.I.D.S....a homosexual who killed women ( Where's that darned Dr.Fido at ???) from France, Theirry Paulin.

Good luck huntin' ,pal.

[The Good Michael]

Adding a tiny bit to Gareth's post (if I dare), I want to say that it isn't just an interviewer's interpretation, his/her questions, and the responses. There is a component of trust between the questioner and the questioned. This trust makes it ever so much easier for the interviewee (of the sociopath variety), to be able to control the situation unless the questioner is so used to such people and can play along as well.

This brings me back to Whitechapel. How capable were police officers in dealing with the questioning of someone who may have been an expert at manipulation in order to gain the trust of his victims? I'm not saying a sexual murderer was a new kind of thing, just that there wouldn't have been experts capable of controlling someone intellectually, who may have been somewhat Bundy-like in his sociopathy.

Cheers,

Mike

[DarkPassenger]

A framework like all those true crime books and TV shows.

Quiz - Name one modern serial killer who had syphilis.

Roy

Michael Lupo killed four men because he had AIDS. Andrew Cunanan killed several men because he had AIDS. Peter Sutcliffe suffered sexually transmitted diseases all throughout his killing spree.

The only reason we suggest JTR had syphllis was because of the obvious mental degredation he was going through, and because it may - stress, may - explain why he targeted prostitutes, even though he probably did simply for ease of access, just like Wright, Sutcliffe, and others. The Midlands Ripper killed prostitutes but also runaways and hitchhikers because of the nature of his job - long-distance lorry driver - again, ease of access.

Psychological profiling is essential because it stops us looking for Royals and doctors when we should be looking for nutters and flashers.

[Sam Flynn]

Psychological profiling is essential because it stops us looking for Royals and doctors when we should be looking for nutters and flashers.

An analysis of more basic and objective data (e.g., age, location, occupation and social conditions) will give us that, compared to which any "psychological profiling" adds nothing.

It may even be detrimental in that it gives license for the inclusion of suspects who can be shown - however tenuously - to have had a domineering mother, absent father, and/or perceived impediments (anatomical, sexual and social). To this extent theories about various suspects can be "legitimised" by producing an FBI profile and making the suspect fit. Given that this could be applied equally to certain doctors, artists, royals, fish-porters, quacks, pimps, plasterers and paupers I fail to see how "profiling" could be of any use at all.

We may as well posit a 13th sign of the zodiac - call it "Occidentis, the Murderer" - and say that all serial killers were born under that sign. At least an astrological approach would have the benefit of allowing us to exclude a suspect on the basis of birthdate, whereas the clusters of life events contained in psychological profiles excludes comparatively few - and in fact could apply to Everyman, not just killers.

[DarkPassenger]

Saying that someone has a "domineering mother" or "absent father" is basic stuff - saying that someone has deep-seated issues with women, is likely to be a career criminal and is also not likely to travel far from home does help us.

Psychological profiling caught the Railway serial killer in the UK, remember? It also helped catch the Stockwell Strangler. Psychological profiling noted that the killer was probably aged in his teens or twenties, black and a prolific burglar. All correct.

Ruling out psychological profiling on the basis of gross misunderstanding has lead us into the paranoiac realms of conspiracy with JTR.

[Sam Flynn]

Psychological profiling caught the Railway serial killer in the UK, remember? It also helped catch the Stockwell Strangler. Psychological profiling noted that the killer was probably aged in his teens or twenties, black and a prolific burglar. All correct.

Ah, but being black, local, of a certain age or having a previous criminal record are not "psychological" dimensions. As I said, we can obtain such useful information, and more, from the statistical analysis of the (emphatically non-psychological) data relating to crimes. The "psychology" adds little or nothing.

Ruling out psychological profiling on the basis of gross misunderstanding has lead us into the paranoiac realms of conspiracy with JTR.

On the contrary, psychological profiling has been used to give perceived legitimacy to otherwise unconvincing, or at best tenously believable, suspects.

[Limehouse]

What worries me more than psychological profiling is the kind of policing that netted Stefan Kisko, Barry George and lord knows how many others. based on the Pythonesque questioning method

Q "How do you KNOW he is a child murderer?"
A "Because he LOOKS like one!"

How many Ripper suspects were arrested on this basis? A poor, muttering, wandering, Jewish-looking guy ?

[DVV]

The first profile (by Dr Bond) doesn't lead to any conspiracy, but to a solitary, middle-aged and inoffensive-looking offender.

Amitiés,
David

[Howard Brown]

Excuse me,Limehouse...

I had asked on another thread for a demonstration of what you mentioned just now....an example of someone arrested for fulfilling the perception or envisionment of what the police assumed the Ripper would look like. Specifically: "How many Ripper suspects were arrested on this basis? A poor, muttering, wandering, Jewish-looking guy ?

Unless I have been reading the wrong books or material, there did not seem to be a practice of detaining or arresting any individuals within a specific group or entity simply because they had the right look. Each person I found who happened to be arrested and was Jewish...or even Irish... also happened to be indulging in some strange behavior...and that goes for the other ethnic entities in the area as well.

So, when you or I say "How many..." as you mentioned above... people may get the impression that there is evidence of a pattern from the period for such behavior or protocol on the part of the police. Certainly had that happened as some may think today, there would be evidence in Jewish archives or newspapers or personal memoirs that discuss this "sweeping up" or rounding up of those who had this "look" you referred to. I'm glad you mentioned what you did, don't get me wrong,Limehouse. Its just that I've been trying to find an example of a pattern and cannot. Thanks again.

[Natalie Severn]

Michael Lupo killed four men because he had AIDS. Andrew Cunanan killed several men because he had AIDS. Peter Sutcliffe suffered sexually transmitted diseases all throughout his killing spree.

The only reason we suggest JTR had syphllis was because of the obvious mental degredation he was going through, and because it may - stress, may - explain why he targeted prostitutes, even though he probably did simply for ease of access, just like Wright, Sutcliffe, and others. The Midlands Ripper killed prostitutes but also runaways and hitchhikers because of the nature of his job - long-distance lorry driver - again, ease of access.

Psychological profiling is essential because it stops us looking for Royals and doctors when we should be looking for nutters and flashers.

The Yorkshire Ripper also killed a student who had minutes before got off a bus to head for her digs.

Doctors??????

How come we dont need to look out for doctors?

Dr Harold Shipman was our most recent and very prolific serial killer,and at the time he was caught was a popular and highly trusted GP.He murdered some 300 of his patients a few years ago.

[Ben]

Harold Shipman was a serial poisoner, Norma, and poisoners usually belong to white collar professions. The exact reverse can be said, invariably, of serial killers who resort to violence and mutilation. I'm afraid he wasn't our most recent serial killer, either.

If the police were targetting any particular group during the murders (and afterwards), I think it's fair to say that foreigners with a history of violence or mental instability were pretty high on the agenda, as witness Isenschmidt, Pizer, Lutwig, Klosowski etc, and all the better if they had some degree of anatomical knowledge.

Best regards,
Ben

[Natalie Severn]

Adding a tiny bit to Gareth's post (if I dare), I want to say that it isn't just an interviewer's interpretation, his/her questions, and the responses. There is a component of trust between the questioner and the questioned. This trust makes it ever so much easier for the interviewee (of the sociopath variety), to be able to control the situation unless the questioner is so used to such people and can play along as well.

This brings me back to Whitechapel. How capable were police officers in dealing with the questioning of someone who may have been an expert at manipulation in order to gain the trust of his victims? I'm not saying a sexual murderer was a new kind of thing, just that there wouldn't have been experts capable of controlling someone intellectually, who may have been somewhat Bundy-like in his sociopathy.

Cheers,


Mike

Mike,this I believe, is a really important aspect to consider concerning serial murder-- and I agree-such killers appear to have this manipulative and controlling instinct writ very large in their psyche.
This was a very significant factor in Doctor Harold Shipman"s make up from all accounts, the compulsive need-almost amounting to an addiction in his case, to exercise the absolute power of life and death,which he did,in the final days of his murder spree almost on a daily basis.He used manipulation persuasion,and charm , expertly developed in his "bed-side" manner to see off several hundred of his patients through lethal injection.
I also happen to think it far more productive to move in this direction to understand such killers motivation rather than getting bogged down in half baked analogies with tigresses mating habits and the like---sorry Sam,your other recent post was so much more relevant .
No doctors have featured quite significantly in the history of murder and serial killings,lets not kid ourselves.

[Ben]

How capable were police officers in dealing with the questioning of someone who may have been an expert at manipulation in order to gain the trust of his victims?

It's a good and relevant question, Mike, and it's why I'm not a fan of the "Oh, there's no way a Detective X could have been fooled by Suspect Y" school of dogma.