If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
The sole reliance on trait-based models of profiling is fundamentally flawed. Criminal profil-ers do not seem to recognize that a consensus began to emerge in the psychological litera-ture some 40 years ago that it was a mistake to rely on traits as the primary explanation forbehavior.
The sole reliance on trait-based models of profiling is fundamentally flawed. Criminal profil-ers do not seem to recognize that a consensus began to emerge in the psychological litera-ture some 40 years ago that it was a mistake to rely on traits as the primary explanation forbehavior.
heres my own profile of the ripper
male
5'6" in height
aged 31-45
maybe married maybe divorced
weekly employed
doesnt bring attention to himself
shy
compulsive
asocial
had a passive or no father figure
mother probally a heavy drinker and possibaly a prostitut(from the critera of his victems)
dresses well for his victems to show that he has money.kind of a lure to prostitutes
may have some anatomical knowledge
and lastly he probally had a job where he could express his distructive tendincies
Yes, he may have had a wife, who knows for sure. I believe some criminal profiles of him say that he most likely didn't have a wife, but I think most should take this criminal profiling with a grain of salt. Laura's criminal profile of Jack makes sense to me. Obviously, if he acted like a lunatic in public and didn't appear normal, most prostitutes probably wouldn't service him. No matter how deranged Jack might have been, there are serial killers capable of having a separate life if you will with kids and a wife. It is clear to me that he was non-threatening to these ladies and he appeared as a normal guy. Not a raving lunatic foaming at the mouth. Jack to me was a normal looking guy who blended in well and obviously didn't bring any negative attention to himself. He revealed his true self when the women took him to the last place they would ever see. Jack the ripper to me is kinda like a Ted Bundy. No one would have suspected him of being a murderer. He appeared very normal.
yes i belive that personally non of the suspects at the time were very fitting for the ripper.I belive there must be someone,normal who no one and i mean no one suspected,maybe even today.someone who had a weekly job who was a resident of london and maybe was married.at the time the officers were looking for the cracks and lunatics but were not looking for those of normal appearance and behavior.i belive if the met police did house to house checks they may,and i say may lightly,have found the killer.perhaps by locating an object obtained by the killer from the victems.
The picture they were left with was one of someone who was "perfectly sane, frighteningly normal, and yet capable of extraordinary cruelty," Richards said.
I believe too much attention is focused on known murderers in white chapel at the time and I don't think anyone realized that it could have been some unknown person committing these crimes. It was obvious the obvious raving lunatic foaming at the mouth would be suspected of these crimes, but does anyone else believe that Jack was some unknown person as I do? I also believe the profile that Laura Richards came up with. To me, Jack was a normal guy on the outside, capable of talking to women and able to be charming. He blended in real well in white chapel I imagine. He didn't bring any attention to himself. He just acted like a normal guy until his victims brought him to the last place they would ever see. Also, does anyone know what kinda knife Jack used? I read someone say before Jack had to have some surgical knowledge because supposedly some say he carried a surgical knife. Does anyone know for certain if he carried a bag with him???
Leave a comment: