Was Jack or (were Jack’s) schizophrenic?

[Ms Diddles]

Exactly Ms D. I can’t understand how this point can be made either. Information is unlikely to have been discovered if no one looked.

Also, where would one expect to find a record of such activities?

Unless a letter was discovered from a family member or colleague stating something along the lines of "Caught Montie trying to pull the legs off a frog down by the pond yet again. Sigh! When will he ever learn that such behaviour is most unseemly," I just don't see how we would ever know.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Ive explained this to you but you simply aren’t getting it. The killers that you mention were all identified. Their lives were then investigate and they themselves were interviewed. This never happened with the Whitechapel Murderer whoever he was. You could say ‘ you clearly didn’t torture animals as a child because you appeared to have had a very normal childhood.’ I certainly did, but you can’t state this as a fact. How can you possibly know what I or anyone else got up to as a child? It’s simplistic in the extreme just to say ‘well x had a normal looking life so he couldn’t have become a serial killer.’ To be honest PI I’m at a loss to see why you can’t grasp this point. Of course Druitt might have had a perfectly blameless childhood but as we have no detailed record of his childhood then it cannot be stated as a fact. How do you know that if Druitt was guilty and had been interviewed that he wouldn’t have confessed to torturing animals? Let’s face it, he wouldn’t have done it in the family dining room would he? This would apply to any suspect.

We simply can’t claim something as a proven fact when no investigation was ever done that might have uncovered such details.

We have a different attitude toward evidence.

I am not looking for proof that someone was not a serial murderer.

It is enough that Druitt's 'profile' is definitely not that of a serial killer or an animal torturer.

What I am looking for is a profile that fits that of a serial killer.

Quite obviously, Druitt, Sickert and Lechmere's do not.

Neither does Kosminski's.

[Herlock Sholmes]

We have a different attitude toward evidence.

Yes. You appear to make it up as you go along.

I am not looking for proof that someone was not a serial murderer.

It is enough that Druitt's 'profile' is definitely not that of a serial killer or an animal torturer.

Not nearly enough.

What I am looking for is a profile that fits that of a serial killer.

Quite obviously, Druitt, Sickert and Lechmere's do not.

Neither does Kosminski's.

You are trying to play ‘detection by numbers.’ As if you can solve crimes by the application of equations. Profiles are not conclusive. They are generalisations.

To claim that Druitt couldn’t have tortured animals is nonsense. Not all killers tortured animals for a start. But the point is that you appear not to be able to accept a point of reason. And that is that you can’t make a positive claim of something when we have no evidence to go on.

Theres no point in discussing this further if you can’t accept this very obvious point.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I'm sorry PI, but I am really struggling to follow your logic on this one.

You've provided a list of serial killers who, it has been established tortured animals and then compared this to Druitt's fairly illustrious biography on Wikipedia.

Just because there is nothing there that is indicative of him being cruel to animals does not mean it didn't happen, it simply means that it is not an established fact that he indulged in such vices.

Unless he was caught in the act, and it was recorded somewhere we would never know.

The chances of him being caught and in that case it being recorded somewhere for posterity must be staggeringly slim.

Therefore it is not "obvious that Druitt did not torture animals" all we can say is that there is nothing recorded to confirm that he did.

I refer you to Trevor Marriott's post of a few weeks ago in which he said that he had recently read the profiles of more than 60 serial killers and not found a single one remotely similar to Aaron Kosminski's.

I have recently read more than a hundred and there is not the slightest resemblance between them and Druitt's.

After a while, it becomes pretty obvious that there are patterns, in terms of family background, interests, behaviour, criminal record, and occupation.

Those warning signs are completely absent in Druitt's case.

I suggest that anyone who doubts what I am writing do the same as I did and read the biographies of real serial killers.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I refer you to Trevor Marriott's post of a few weeks ago in which he said that he had recently read the profiles of more than 60 serial killers and not found a single one remotely similar to Aaron Kosminski's.

I have recently read more than a hundred and there is not the slightest resemblance between them and Druitt's.

After a while, it becomes pretty obvious that there are patterns, in terms of family background, interests, behaviour, criminal record, and occupation.

Those warning signs are completely absent in Druitt's case.

I suggest that anyone who doubts what I am writing do the same as I did and read the biographies of real serial killers.

Forget serial killer history. What we’re talking about here is reason, logic and common sense.

You know absolutely zero about Druitt’s childhood. None of us do. So you are making an unfounded claim.

Why the hell can’t you understand what I’m saying. All of the serial killers in the books that you’ve read (and we’ve all read loads of books on the subject) were all caught. So there lives were then looked into. They were questioned and interviewed. This never happened with Druitt or indeed any ripper suspect so we can’t say what Druitt did or didn’t do as a child. Nor can we say it of Kosminski or Bury or whoever. But you persistently claim to ‘know’ something that you can’t possibly know an every time that you do this your credibility takes a nosedive.

If you want to be taken seriously (and for all I know you might not want to be taken seriously) then you really, and I mean really need to stop stating your opinions as if they are proven facts. It doesn’t matter what you’ve based your opinions on or how you’ve arrived at your deductions they are still only your own personal interpretations. There’s nothing wrong with interpretations because we all do it but we don’t all claim them as facts.

Do you ever consider that you might be wrong on any issue? Because you give the overwhelming impression that you don’t and that you are convinced that because you’ve ‘deduced’ something then it must be correct.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Forget serial killer history. What we’re talking about here is reason, logic and common sense.

You know absolutely zero about Druitt’s childhood. None of us do. So you are making an unfounded claim.

Why the hell can’t you understand what I’m saying. All of the serial killers in the books that you’ve read (and we’ve all read loads of books on the subject) were all caught. So there lives were then looked into. They were questioned and interviewed. This never happened with Druitt or indeed any ripper suspect so we can’t say what Druitt did or didn’t do as a child. Nor can we say it of Kosminski or Bury or whoever. But you persistently claim to ‘know’ something that you can’t possibly know an every time that you do this your credibility takes a nosedive.

If you want to be taken seriously (and for all I know you might not want to be taken seriously) then you really, and I mean really need to stop stating your opinions as if they are proven facts. It doesn’t matter what you’ve based your opinions on or how you’ve arrived at your deductions they are still only your own personal interpretations. There’s nothing wrong with interpretations because we all do it but we don’t all claim them as facts.

Do you ever consider that you might be wrong on any issue? Because you give the overwhelming impression that you don’t and that you are convinced that because you’ve ‘deduced’ something then it must be correct.

I think your personal comments are completely unwarranted.

I would like to be taken seriously by people whose opinion I value.

All the biographies of serial killers are of murderers who at one time were unidentified murderers.

The police were not looking for someone like Druitt.

When the murderers were identified, the vast majority fitted the usual profiles in terms of background, interests, behaviour, education, criminal record and occupation.

Druitt does not fit at all.

He is the very opposite of a serial murderer.

We are not dealing with a lottery.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think your personal comments are completely unwarranted.

Why do you class any criticism as personal? All that I’ve said is that we should exercise caution when making deductions and interpretations because every one of us is capable of interpreting incorrectly. You on the other hand appear totally confident that every one of your interpretations are correct. Over-confidence is the issue.

I would like to be taken seriously by people whose opinion I value.

And that’s fine, whoever those people are, but you keep claiming to know things that you can’t possibly know.

All the biographies of serial killers are of murderers who at one time were unidentified murderers.

Yes, and if they hadn’t been caught and interviewed, we might never have known anything about their childhood or their general behaviour growing up. And as we can’t know what Druitt might or might not have done in childhood or what he did in private we shouldn’t make assumptions.

The police were not looking for someone like Druitt.

And what did the Victorian police know about serial killers? Pretty much nothing. If they had interviewed someone like Ted Bundy would they, without evidence, have thought it remotely possible that he could have been the killer? Not a chance.

When the murderers were identified, the vast majority fitted the usual profiles in terms of background, interests, behaviour, education, criminal record and occupation.

Druitt does not fit at all.

He is the very opposite of a serial murderer.

Thats a meaningless sentence.

We are not dealing with a lottery.

Profiling isn’t an exact science. It’s a series of generalities. Not all serial killers are the same. If we adopt a ‘detection by numbers’ approach we are in danger of ignoring killers that don’t fit into that neat little box. You can’t accurately profile a man 134 years after his death with no details to go on. All we have are pieces of ‘surface’ information. Killers can appear perfectly normal on the surface to those around them so how much greater is the issue of assessment 134 years later and with a complete absence of information.