Profiling

[Fisherman]

There you are - you leave the computer for a measly few hours, and what happens:

"Pipeman's likely identity is Le Grand" - thatīs what happens!

Are we not moving a little bit too quick here? In a city of millions of people, must a middle-aged man with light brown hair that is 5 ft 11 (the man, not his hair) be Le Grand? 5 ft 11 would transcribe into approximately 180 centimeters, and that would not be all that unusual, would it?

I think we need to be a lot - a LOT! - more careful than this. Identifying Pipeman with Le Grand on basis of the few parametres offered is to move way too fast. There would have been a good deal of men who met that description, methinks.

The best,
Fisherman

[mariab]

Wescott wrote:
Well, Pipeman's likely identity is Le Grand, based on the descriptions and his subsequent actions, although this does not prima facie mean he was Stride's killer.
Yes I know. (On both counts.) But all this would benefit from further investigation.
Lots of murderers leave documentary evidence around, only they don't know it.
Wescott wrote:
I consider this quirk to be very historically irresponsible.

By the by, besides John Tyrell, has anybody investigated/identified this OTHER R. Batchelor blocke mentioned in The Echo of October 18th 1888, if he was a relation of WVC private investigator James H. Batchelor (proprietor of the Lion Public House at 309 The Strand, that is, 8 doors down from where Le Grand and Co. stand in 1888)? Many apologies if this is a already researched and cleared out matter, but I'm a newbie.
EAST-END ATROCITIES – A MYSTERIOUS BLACK BAG, DAGGER FOUND
A very mysterious incident, in connection with arrest of the man at King-street Police-station, Westminster, whose apprehension was yesterday announced in The Echo, has transpired this morning. It appears that on Monday the man went into the shop of Messrs. Bellamy Bros., Railway-approach, Charing-cross, and after a brief but somewhat incoherent chat with Mr. Batchelor, the manager, he suddenly placed a black bag on the counter, and left the shop. The incident has come to the knowledge of the police authorities, but up to the present they thought it prudent to regard the affair as a secret. The bag contained a razor, a dagger (which bore more or less recent marks of blood stains), several miscellaneous but almost valueless odds and ends, together with a broken piece of looking-glass and a small piece of soap. It is regarded as somewhat suspicious that these latter articles are similar to those found on the Whitechapel victims.
MR. BATCHELOR'S STATEMENT
The shiny black bag and its contents were inspected this morning by an Echo reporter, who called at Messrs. Bellamy's in order to verify certain reports respecting their strange visitor. Mr. R. Bachelor, the manager, made the following statement:- "He was such a mysterious-looking person that I could not make him out at all, but it was not until after he left the shop that it somehow occurred to me that his mind was unhinged from some cause or other, and then the Whitechapel murders and the affair at Whitehall came across my mind. It was from reading the special edition of last night's Echo that I felt convinced the black bag was an incident worth mentioning. Well, as soon as the man came into the shop he took out a pencil and commenced to write some words which no one could read. The he straightened himself up, remarked 'You must not be surprised to hear I'm Jack the Ripper - I'm a most mysterious man' and darted out of the shop. He made use of the expression, 'I'm used to cutting people up, and can put them together again. The police are all disguised, and wherever I go I meet them.' He looked to me like a doctor or doctor's assistant, but was rather shabby." The razor and dagger found in the bag have been examined by Dr. Bond.

[Tom_Wescott]

Well, Pipeman's likely identity is Le Grand, based on the descriptions and his subsequent actions, although this does not prima facie mean he was Stride's killer. BS Man would probably have been one of Le Grand's toadies, such as John Tyrell. Le Grand claimed to have murdered someone, but I have no idea who. The thing that sucks about murderers is that they don't want to be caught, so don't leave a lot of documentary evidence around. I consider this quirk to be very historically irresponsible.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

Any serious criminal psychologist would link Le Grand's documented insistance on the results of using exploding devices on a human body with the Ripper mutilations. It's a “profiling“ key issue. Le Grand's other, fulfilled and documented crimes were “small potatoes“ in comparison.
The other key issues would be to research and identify what other murders Le Grand might have committed, plus to try to identify BS and Pipeman. I know, piece of cake!
As for Tumblety, even if it's not the rule, there have been other gay serial killers of women.

[Tom_Wescott]

I totally follow your logic, and maybe this isn't the place for it, but... how does one make the leap from scheming bully to serial killer and mutilator.

Hi Mike. I'm not sure there's a huge leap in beating up prostitutes to killing them to mutilating them. A man doesn't just wake up one day and start committing these kind of murders. Considering the other 'prime suspects' are either gay or garbage eaters, I'd say I'm on rather fair footing hear.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

"Has anybody seen the documentary Mystery Files: Jack the Ripper, where profiler Pat Brown puts forward her profile of Jack? I thought that it was very good and of all the suspects she put s forward Jacob Levy as the person who fits the profile best."

Nope, didnīt see it - but it should be interesting to see how the Ripper fits the profile ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Kaspar]

Has anybody seen the documentary Mystery Files: Jack the Ripper, where profiler Pat Brown puts forward her profile of Jack? I thought that it was very good and of all the suspects she put s forward Jacob Levy as the person who fits the profile best.

[Fisherman]

Tom W:

"* He thwarted the investigation with the Matthew Packer AND Batty Street Lodger stories, both relating to the ONLY Ripper murder where a man fitting his description was seen.
* He lost money in order to head the patrols of the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee, which gave him insider information and a free ticket to roam the East End Streets in silent shoes without worrying about falling under suspicion of police.
* He was suspected by Scotland Yard as well as individuals who knew him well. With that in mind, consider the first two points, where we have a legitimate Ripper suspect with a history of violence against prostitutes who IN A VERY MAJOR WAY inserted himself into the investigation."

These are interesting points, Tom, and they lie behind my stance that Le Grand belongs to the upper part of the suspect list. He absolutely deserves more research, and I am glad that you are doing it, since I believe that it will ensure me both quality and a good read.

The above points, though, are not enough for me to join you on the bandwagon just yet. The overall behaviour and psychology of Le Grand swears against him being the Ripper as far as Iīm concerned, and therefore I think that there will be other explanations to your points. How these explanations would look, I cannot say. Maybe he was trying to throw the police off the scent on behalf of somebody else who he thought/knew to be the Ripper, and who he would not like to see hang for it. Maybe he was set on derailing the police and catching the Ripper himself, just to show his own superiority. Maybe there was another explanation altogether for it, I cannot tell. Your explanation, that he was the Ripper and tried to stay undetected, is perfectly viable, of course, but that still leaves us with the question Mike asks: How did he transform from a brazen blackmailer, making it a point of business to set fear into anybody who opposed him through intimidation and threats, a pimping businessman dealing in crime if you will, into a serial mutilator with very obvious sex issues? Until we have at least a faint outline explaining this almighty leap, Le Grand does not make it to being a true Ripper candidate in my eyes.

The best,
Fisherman

[Errata]

Profiling is a lot like Schroedinger's cat. The act of observing disturbs the observed. Which is to say, if you look at a group of murders and ask "Who did this?" your profile will lean a certain way. If you ask "What kind of person did this?" it leans a slightly different way. To me, the most useful question is "Why did someone do this?". I think that if you read the average FBI profile, about half the population would say they don't know anyone like that, and the other half would say that they ARE like that. Those profilers tend towards asking what kind of man would do that. Thus they are only useful after the perpetrator is caught. But if you take out statistics, likelihood, and all preconceptions and find what the killer gets out of the act, then you can get to why. "Why" will never spur someone to call a tip-line, or motivate a neighbor to come forward. It is not a very task-force friendly question. But it does allow you to start predicting behavior, which is pretty useful for laying traps and generally applying pressure. Barring someone like Ed Kemper, this is when killers screw up and get caught.

Had the police at least recognized murder as a pathological need for JtR, as soon as they found Liz Stride they would have gone on high alert. Cops everywhere. That was their best chance to catch him. He had screwed up, almost gotten caught, and still needed to kill. That was probably the highest pressure of his career. He probably made dozens of mistakes that night. But no one was there to see. If the police had been out in force, they may have caught him. They may have forced him to hunt on unfamiliar grounds, where he may have been seen. Or maybe he would have gone home. But knowing that he was likely between the ages of 25 and 35, had a history of childhood abuse, wet the bed etc. would not have caught him. But the why might have.

[The Good Michael]

Tom,

I totally follow your logic, and maybe this isn't the place for it, but... how does one make the leap from scheming bully to serial killer and mutilator.

Cheers,

Mike

[Tom_Wescott]

Letīs not bring charges against Le Grand on counts that are no longer around, and may never have been around. Letīs look at what we KNOW he did, and judge his viability as the Ripper from that, Tom!

Okay, fair enough.

* He thwarted the investigation with the Matthew Packer AND Batty Street Lodger stories, both relating to the ONLY Ripper murder where a man fitting his description was seen.

* He lost money in order to head the patrols of the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee, which gave him insider information and a free ticket to roam the East End Streets in silent shoes without worrying about falling under suspicion of police.

* He was suspected by Scotland Yard as well as individuals who knew him well. With that in mind, consider the first two points, where we have a legitimate Ripper suspect with a history of violence against prostitutes who IN A VERY MAJOR WAY inserted himself into the investigation.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Abby Normal]

Abby:

"I always thought of serial killers as "hunters". if you're so inclined please feel free to flesh out the details of the "triggered" Ripper scenario."

Ask yourself, Abby: Could this man have been a total nutbag, instead of a cool, calculating mastermind of a killer? I think a "yes, of course" would be the only reasonable answer. Then take it from there. He may have been a religious crackpot, believing that fallen women that touched or spoke to him were the devilīs instruments, and that he had a duty to wipe them out. Just as an example. Iīm sure that you, once you follow this line of reasoning, can come up with a good deal more viable suggestions.

"I think it more likely than not ..."

Fair enough, Abby, as long as you donīt mistake your inclinations for evidence or facts. He may well have been a smooth talker, no doubt about it. But painting ourselves into corners wonīt help our understanding.

"I don't jump to anything-except to the bar perhaps : )"

Great - can I jump with you??

The best,
Fisherman

But of course!

[Fisherman]

Abby:

"I always thought of serial killers as "hunters". if you're so inclined please feel free to flesh out the details of the "triggered" Ripper scenario."

Ask yourself, Abby: Could this man have been a total nutbag, instead of a cool, calculating mastermind of a killer? I think a "yes, of course" would be the only reasonable answer. Then take it from there. He may have been a religious crackpot, believing that fallen women that touched or spoke to him were the devilīs instruments, and that he had a duty to wipe them out. Just as an example. Iīm sure that you, once you follow this line of reasoning, can come up with a good deal more viable suggestions.

"I think it more likely than not ..."

Fair enough, Abby, as long as you donīt mistake your inclinations for evidence or facts. He may well have been a smooth talker, no doubt about it. But painting ourselves into corners wonīt help our understanding.

"I don't jump to anything-except to the bar perhaps : )"

Great - can I jump with you??

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Tom W:

"You're way off base here, Fishstix."

Not at all, Tom - you are the one who is prepared to buy the "profiling" skills of 1888, not me.

I have no trouble at all admitting that the Victorian police had itīs advantages. But that related to forensic matters and such, and not to understanding what makes a serial killer tick. Then again, even todays researchers are sometimes prone to walk into the same traps as the London police force did back then. Take you, for instance, Tom - with no true substantiation, you try to seduce not only yourself, but even the readers of this thread into believing that Le Grand was guilty of scores of undetected crimes, murders en masse in no way excepted. And one pointer would be that he resorted to beating up on women in the open street, more than once, even!
Putting it otherwise, "they were aware of far more dastardly crimes committed or believed to have been committed by Le Grand, whereas we are only aware of his more minor offenses".

Letīs not bring charges against Le Grand on counts that are no longer around, and may never have been around. Letīs look at what we KNOW he did, and judge his viability as the Ripper from that, Tom! Trying to shove a police officer under a train is NOT in any way related to Ripperism, for example. There are two quite easily recognizable motives for it, on behalf of Le Grand: He would like to escape from the police, and he would like to get back at them for catching him. If it, on the other hand, had been the Ripper that tried to push a man under a train, then he would have done that to see what a body looks like after having been run over by a train, and he would probably hope to be able to pick up a few bits and slices of the remains.
Please tell me, Tom that you realize that the inclinations governing the actions are as far away from each other as Tulsa and Novosibirsk - although the symptom evinced would be the exact same from the outset.

Way off base, huh? Really, Tom ...!

The best,
Fisherman

[Abby Normal]

Abby:

"I think it is more likely than not that a serial killer with an urge to do nasty things to women would take the initiative-honestly don't you think Fish?
Also, the quickness with which he procured Eddowes after Stride points to him taking the initiative in my opinion."

I am always honest, Abby. And in this case it leads me to conclude that itīs either or, actually. You must keep in mind that what the Ripper did very much resembles what psychotic people may do - we should not be too certain that he was an organized killer, Abby, for there are elements of disorganization around too, as you will appreciate.
The unfortunates, if you will, of Whitechapel would not deviate from the ones of todayīs Western world. They may well have popped the question, so to speak - especially since they were more often than not in desperate need for money - and it may well be that this act on their behalf was what triggered the Ripper. It is in no way an unlikely scenario, no matter what either of us think likely or not.

"many witness statements, show that he did"

You would, I hope, have noticed that the conclusion of the police was that nobody ever got a good look at him? Longs man, Schwartzīs ditto, Lawendes sighting - we simply cannot be sure that either of the witnesses really saw Jack. Much speaks for Lawende being a true observer of him - but even so, we have no recording of him being your kind of character, have we? All we have is the observation that Eddowes placed her had on his chest, and that tells us nothing about him, Iīm afraid. You can place your hand on the chest of a skilfull womanizer, and you can place your hand on the chest of a psychotic man, scared of women in general.

We need to be careful about jumping to conclusions, simple as that. Tempting though it may be!

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fish

I am always honest, Abby. And in this case it leads me to conclude that itīs either or, actually. You must keep in mind that what the Ripper did very much resembles what psychotic people may do - we should not be too certain that he was an organized killer, Abby, for there are elements of disorganization around too, as you will appreciate.
The unfortunates, if you will, of Whitechapel would not deviate from the ones of todayīs Western world. They may well have popped the question, so to speak - especially since they were more often than not in desperate need for money - and it may well be that this act on their behalf was what triggered the Ripper. It is in no way an unlikely scenario, no matter what either of us think likely or not.

Fair enough. And frankly, i never thought about the idea that their proposition
might have triggered the Ripper. Interesting idea. I always thought of serial killers as "hunters". if you're so inclined please feel free to flesh out the details of the "triggered" Ripper scenario. I would be very interested to hear your thoughts on this.

You would, I hope, have noticed that the conclusion of the police was that nobody ever got a good look at him? Longs man, Schwartzīs ditto, Lawendes sighting - we simply cannot be sure that either of the witnesses really saw Jack. Much speaks for Lawende being a true observer of him - but even so, we have no recording of him being your kind of character, have we? All we have is the observation that Eddowes placed her had on his chest, and that tells us nothing about him, Iīm afraid. You can place your hand on the chest of a skilfull womanizer, and you can place your hand on the chest of a psychotic man, scared of women in general.

Again, fair enough-but I am sticking to my original thought on this one that many of the witnesess's general description of the killer/victims interactions was that he was able at least to put them at ease(no small feat in the middle of the ripper scare) wether they initiated or not. Also, I think it more likely than not that at least some of the witnesses saw the killer/victim together-from downright flirting to comfortably talking.

We need to be careful about jumping to conclusions, simple as that.

I don't jump to anything-except to the bar perhaps : )