A.P. Wolf

[Ben]

He contacted the Green River Task Force in May 1984, Roy, with information about one of the prostitues, Kim Nelson, who he claimed to have known. As John Douglas details:

"As mentioned above, we indicated the UNSUB would inject himself into the investigation. Ridgway did so by providing information about one of the victims, whom he knew. That victim was killed differently than the others. A bag was placed over her head, an empty wine bottle and a pair of dead fish placed on her body. My analysis to police was that the killer knew this victim due to how the killer posed her after death. Ridgway came forward to “volunteer” information on this one because I'm sure he was afraid police would come across his name during the investigation.

It was his own proactive technique."

Hope this helps,

Ben

[downonwhores]

Wrong

I never argued nor stated that there was a sexual motive. I argued that the murders contained a psycho-sexual element as reflected in his "reenactment" of intercourse by using a knife(phallic) symbol to mutilate female reproductive organs.
This is not a motive but it's a very important aspect of the case that most serial killer experts agree was involved in Jack's subconcious mind. Read any works by John Douglas, Joel Norris, Robert K. Ressler, and Peter Vronsky. Also read Kraft-Ebing's Psychopathia_Sexualis, Michel Foucoult and Sigmund Freud.
The fact of the matter is that Wolf doesn't back up his theory about Jack not being a sexual murderer when in fact. He is.

[Natalie Severn]

I don't recall him coming forward, Ben. A victim who lived led police to his house. But they didn't arrest him right then. It was years later. Or did I miss something?

Roy

This would have been totally different wouldnt it Ben?

[Natalie Severn]

So, Ben, you are arguing that although there is no record of any other "sexual" serial killer,actually "entering" their local police station to declare a "sighting" of an "invented" suspect ,[later giving a written statement and description of that "suspect" and not once but TWICE agreeing to accompany the police on 2 hour walkabouts] nevertheless,on the basis that there are records of other "sexual" serial killers having "contacted" the police, Hutchinson"s behaviour is in line with theirs??
My argument with this line of reasoning is that it is a pretty extraordinary leap to go from "contacting" the police " to "offering yourself into their hands"-for no other reason than that a witness named Sarah Lewis "may" have seen you but not your face,in the dark,from a distance--at the end of the passage in Dorset Street.
This unemployed man who lived at a temporary address,who you believe was Jack the Ripper,entered of his own free will,three days after the final event in a series, a local police station ,subjected himself as a consequence to a lengthy interview with the police and several hours of "walkabouts" with them------- even giving yet another "interview" to the press the following day?All this---------I repeat,all this,when there was a world wide hunt going on for him and when all he actually needed to do was "lie low" for a while,or disappear until the fuss was over?
Best
Norma

[Ben]

Gosh, you're still going on?

Pretty disrespectful to AP if you ask me, but I'm absolutely compelled to demolish the usual nonsense.

This would have been totally different wouldnt it Ben?

No, it would be very much the same, eerily so, in fact. Did you even bother to read the response I gave to Roy?

So, Ben, you are arguing that although there is no record of any other "sexual" serial killer,actually "entering" their local police station to declare a "sighting" of an "invented" suspect

Firstly, your first question never included any mention of an invented suspect - that was something you dishonestly sneaked in hoping nobody would notice, despite the fact that Nathanial Code perfectly qualifies on that score. Secondly, all the examples I provided contacted the police, how they went about it will naturally depend on the era in which the murders were committed. Hutchinson could hardly have picked up a phone and dield 999, so he was obliged to attend the police station in person.

and not once but TWICE agreeing to accompany the police on 2 hour walkabouts

Are you actually listening to the responses I'm giving you? Walking around the streets in the company of police would have been an unexpected outcome of the interivew. IT WAS NOT SOMETHING HE VOLUNTEERED TO DO OR SUGGESTED. For the love of defacation, has that sunk in yet? If it wasn't something he volunteered for, but rather something that was requested of him - not an aspect of his "behaviour". He was in their hands by then.

My argument with this line of reasoning is that it is a pretty extraordinary leap to go from "contacting" the police " to "offering yourself into their hands"-

Are you crazy? What's the difference? Hutchinson contacted the police, just like the others. Hutchinson "offered himself into their hands", just like the others.

for no other reason than that a witness named Sarah Lewis "may" have seen you but not your face,in the dark,from a distance

I never claimed there was no other reason. Here's what I claimed:

Other serial killers have come forward with false information when they could have left town instead, and for various reasons. Maybe they thought they'd attract more suspicion by making themselves conspicuously absent in the wake of a recent murder? Maybe there was some characteristic-of-serial-killers bravado at play? Maybe they were more interested in creating an image of a helpful witness if ever their name cropped up in the future? Maybe they were more interested in creating a false scent?

Reasoning why is all very well, but of more immediate interest to us is the fact that it happens anyway.

Hutchinson's statement would have fulfilled two purposes, one of which was reactive: "I was there because..." and the other was proactive "...I saw a scary Jewish man with a knife-shaped parcel". He was at once "legitimizing" his presence near a crime scene and deflecting suspicion in a convenient direction. Who can say which one was prioritized more?

All this---------I repeat,all this,when there was a world wide hunt going on for him and when all he actually needed to do was "lie low" for a while,or disappear until the fuss was over?

Lie low, get spotted in the streets in a close-knit locality, and get dragged in as suspect. Or disappear in the wake of the most brutal murder, and remain conspicious in your absence. Or adopt a proactive technique which explains your connection to a crime scene and deflects suspicion in a false direction. Internet hobbyists may express irrational incongruity as such behaviour, but it's clear that the experts on the topic don't find it surprising at all.

Next?

[Ally]

Isn't there a rule about hijacking threads with suspect bias?

Pretty disrespectful to AP if you ask me, but I'm absolutely compelled to demolish the usual nonsense.

At least you are right out front there with your intentions to be disrespectful.

[Natalie Severn]

Ben ----to "CONTACT the police" is a WORLD AWAY from ENTERING YOUR LOCAL POLICE STATION and give a WRITTEN STATEMENT about your "suspect sighting"--------especially after you have killed five women in less than three months,taken care not to be caught and the world and his wife are after your blood! And dont be so damn rude !

OK Ally---will move to another thread-actually I will put this rude ba*tard on ignore.

[mariag]

Thanks to the Casebook and AP for providing Jack the Myth for free. I've read it a couple of times and enjoyed it.

Castigating someone who has actually done research and published something because he doesn't agree with Ressler or-God help us- Colin Wilson may not be the best strategy for learning.

[Howard Brown]

Excuse me, Down On W*****:

You posted:



I never argued nor stated that there was a sexual motive. I argued that the murders contained a psycho-sexual element as reflected in his "reenactment" of intercourse by using a knife(phallic) symbol to mutilate female reproductive organs.
This is not a motive but it's a very important aspect of the case that most serial killer experts agree was involved in Jack's subconcious mind. Read any works by John Douglas, Joel Norris, Robert K. Ressler, and Peter Vronsky. Also read Kraft-Ebing's Psychopathia_Sexualis, Michel Foucoult and Sigmund Freud.
The fact of the matter is that Wolf doesn't back up his theory about Jack not being a sexual murderer when in fact. He is.

Sounds to me that you're trying to swim without getting wet, DWW.

You state that YOU don't argue that there is a sexual motive to the WM...and then tell A.P. that the Ripper was a sexual murderer. Que Pasa?

If the Ripper used a knife as a faux penis as you maintain,then thats the act of a sexually-motivated murderer,is it not?

A.P. is no more "guilty" of not backing up his theory of a motive of something other than sexually motivated murder than someone promoting a homosexual as being the Ripper when the odds are that these murders were committed by a heterosexual,just as the "odds" are that these crimes had a sexual basis.

We ought to keep in mind that a gay man could have been the Ripper and that these murders might not have been motivated by sexual issues. No one knows.

[downonwhores]

Get Real!!!

Thanks to the Casebook and AP for providing Jack the Myth for free. I've read it a couple of times and enjoyed it.

Castigating someone who has actually done research and published something because he doesn't agree with Ressler or-God help us- Colin Wilson may not be the best strategy for learning.

First of all, AP Wolf doesn't back up his claims. Secondly, There is NOTHING in serial killer literature to back his claim up. Thirdly, Ressler and Douglas are considered the foremost experts on serial killers. If AP Wolf doesnt' agree with them then he should use other professional opinion to contradict them, but he doesn't. He's the "armchair detective" and not a professional. He has not interviewed any serial killers. He has not caught a serial killer. He has not even investigated serial killers. He only spouts his opinion and yet you take him seriously?
I'm sorry but any claims that he makes should be back up with other sources. This is the basis of ACADEMIA and RESEARCH. AP Wolf is passing off his "opinions" as fact when the opposite is true. IF AP DOESN'T AGREE WITH RESSLER AND OTHER EXPERTS, then AP should find his own expert opinion to dispute and refute them. He doesn't not do this so how can you even take his work at face value.
I"m afaid that AP does not qualify him as "expert opinion" in legal nor academic terms and his work shouldn't be taken seriously and only as layman's opinion.
Colin Wilson is considered a very important academic in the criminal justice and criminology field and some of his works are considered mandatory reads in some law enforcement fields including the FBI, Interpol. So, I find it highly suspicious when you and AP easily dismiss his work even if it is dated when even the experts recognize it as the groundbreaking work it is for it's time.
I am willing to concede that Thomas Cutbush needs a more thorough look as a suspect and agree that he shouldn't be ignored as often as he has been but to use the bible as his "expert" opinion because some of the fictional stories are similar to the mutilations sounds almost like Stephen Knight using Masonic ritual to prove his Ripper suspects.
I hardly consider this similarity to be academic along the lines of Paul Begg, Philip Sudgen, and Donald Rumbelow and AP wolf's work should at least be taken with a grain of salt if not with outright disdain along the works of Shirley Harrison, Patricia Cornwell and Calum Reuben Knight. Other academic frauds.

[Howard Brown]

Excuse me once more, DWW...

Can you name ONE individual that Ressler or Douglas apprehended as a result of profiling? Unless I am mistaken, you seem to be inferring that both or at least one of these two men have.