FBI pulls the plug on Colin Wilson

[Limehouse]

With respect, this report does not mean that the Ripper crimes were not sexual in nature, and they do not contradict or repudiate a sexual motive.

All it does is point out that a sexual motive for the crimes is not a de facto conclusion, and that other motives may be in play--which let's face it has never been an issue in Ripperology anyway.

I also think that claiming that the only reason for ascribing a sexual motives to the crime is the gender of the victims is a strawman argument. There are numerous facets that might indicate a sexual motive, including the profession of the victims, the focus on the genitals for mutilation and perhaps the posing of the bodies.

Also the extrapolation of motive from a proposed suspect might predisposed a theorist to a sexual motivation. If your suspect has a history of sexual deviation and misogyny, then it's natural to see evidence of sexual motives in the crimes. If on the other hand your suspect is a freemason, then it's equally likely to see no evidence for a sexual motive but lot's of evidence of a masonic one.

Great post Magpie.

[Magpie]

Let me just say this in defense of profiling: There are some common sense generalizations that one can make in regards to tendencies. At its base, that's what profiling is, a seeking of answers based upon tendencies. At its worst, it is an exclusion of things that don't fit into perceived profiles based upon the generalization of these tendencies. In short, it is just an attempt to amalgamate detection with behavioralism, but isn't that what all detectives do anyway?

Cheers,

Mike

Agreed. I think Bond's proto-profiling attempt is still pretty useful. I think that the "field" of profiling hasn't really advance much beyond what Bond attempted back in 1888. If anything, I'd say Bond was a better profile than all the so-called "experts" peddling their wares today.

[Magpie]

With respect, this report does not mean that the Ripper crimes were not sexual in nature, and they do not contradict or repudiate a sexual motive.

All it does is point out that a sexual motive for the crimes is not a de facto conclusion, and that other motives may be in play--which let's face it has never been an issue in Ripperology anyway.

I also think that claiming that the only reason for ascribing a sexual motives to the crime is the gender of the victims is a strawman argument. There are numerous facets that might indicate a sexual motive, including the profession of the victims, the focus on the genitals for mutilation and perhaps the posing of the bodies.

Also the extrapolation of motive from a proposed suspect might predisposed a theorist to a sexual motivation. If your suspect has a history of sexual deviation and misogyny, then it's natural to see evidence of sexual motives in the crimes. If on the other hand your suspect is a freemason, then it's equally likely to see no evidence for a sexual motive but lot's of evidence of a masonic one.

[The Good Michael]

Let me just say this in defense of profiling: There are some common sense generalizations that one can make in regards to tendencies. At its base, that's what profiling is, a seeking of answers based upon tendencies. At its worst, it is an exclusion of things that don't fit into perceived profiles based upon the generalization of these tendencies. In short, it is just an attempt to amalgamate detection with behavioralism, but isn't that what all detectives do anyway?

Cheers,

Mike

[timothy]

The entire report is available on the FBI website under Reports and Publications. Makes for interesting reading.

Best,

Tim

[Cap'n Jack]

The amazing thing being of course that so many still cling to these long discarded mantras about serial killers, especially on this site where we often see the arguments used that a serial killer would not simply stop killing for a number of years; or that just because the person attacked was a woman then the crime must be of a sexual nature.
The FBI says an emphatic 'NO' to both vapid conclusions... and as most profilers draw on these two golden rules I say that they speak out of their asps.
As of course does Colin Wilson and his little tribe of groupies.

[The Good Michael]

So profiling is nonsense? Whoda thunkit?

Mike

[Celesta]

It's just easier to live in a world where these things are perfectly predictable.That isn;t he world I recognize, but then, what do I know.

Apparently you know more than the people who were pushing this profiling model. Just as you pointed out, the lack of flexibility in the profiling shows a lack of understanding about how the real world works. Few rigid systems are viable. Diversity is the key to success in most systems. Rigid adherence to the model doomed this to failure from the start.

[Magpie]

What a crock.

The FBI has for decades done everything it could to promote the myth of profiling--now that it's finally been shown to be the quackery that it is they try to blame Hollywood and the media? Gimme a break!

[mariag]

It seems like so many of these "rules" for SKs were a product of the 1970's and the idea that behavior could be quantified thus understood.

No matter how many times an article like this appears or another Rader rears up we still have people saying that JTR couldn't have stopped after Kelly, couldn't have killed Tabram because her throat wasn't cut etc. etc.

It's just easier to live in a world where these things are perfectly predictable.That isn;t he world I recognize, but then, what do I know.

[Cap'n Jack]

And other loons who think that the Whitechapel Murders had a sexual origin.

Don't put all serial killers in same box
BY JAMES GORDON MEEK
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU

Thursday, July 10th 2008, 4:47 PM


'"There's no one-size-fits-all profile,' said Mark Hilts, chief of the FBI's Behavioral Analysis Unit. 'Don't get caught up looking for Hannibal Lecter.' CLICK for a gallery of serial killers.
WASHINGTON - Hollywood's serial-killer stereotype - an antisocial white guy unable to stop murdering - is nothing but a Tinseltown tall tale, the FBI concludes in a new report.

"There's no one-size-fits-all profile," said Mark Hilts, chief of the FBI's Behavioral Analysis Unit. "Don't get caught up looking for Hannibal Lecter."

After analyzing the views of 135 law enforcement, academic and mental health experts, the FBI's behavioral profilers determined "there is no generic profile of a serial murderer."

The only traits most predators have in common is they tend to be control freaks with a total lack of remorse for taking innocent lives, the 71-page FBI report determined. It also said their motive to kill is usually simply "because they want to."

The bureau zinged the media for its infatuation with such murders, beginning with Jack the Ripper, who taunted London cops in the 1880s.

The study blamed movie-makers for perpetuating the myths - even though the FBI cooperated on some films it now criticizes, including "Silence of the Lambs," which made Hannibal the Cannibal famous.

As a result, FBI agents called in to help solve cases sometimes deal with local cops who assume the carnage is the work of leather-masked fiends with genius IQs, bureau officials said.

Contrary to popular belief, serial murderers often build careers and families even as their body count climbs, such as Green River killer Gary Ridgway, who snuffed out 48 prostitutes.

Another myth is that serial killing is only the work of sex fanatics. There was nothing kinky about Michael Swango, a Veterans Administration doctor suspected of 50 deaths in the U.S. and Africa.

"He just had a fascination with death," said Bruce Sackman, a retired VA investigator who busted Swango for poisoning three veterans at a hospital in Northport, L.I.

Dennis Rader, a Wichita, Kan., Boy Scout leader, knocked out the myth that serial killers can't stop, the FBI said. He took 10 lives and then didn't murder a soul for the 14 years it took until he was finally arrested.

jmeek@nydailynews.com