Believability

[erobitha]

Here's the Radford/FGCU Annual Report on Serial Killer Statistics: 2023

While there have been high IQ serial killers, most often they are average or slightly below average. That said, the numbers given for racial differences in IQ make me question the accuracy of IQ tests.

The statistics do show that psychosis is extremely unlikely to be the motive, making up about 1 in 200 subjects.

I named the serial killers I was being specific about. They are the closest thing to JtR than general serial killers. Aside from Unabomber and Shopman, the rest were lust serial killers with preference to torture or post-mortem mutilation of some kind.

The study you shared is pretty inaccurate for the point I was making for many reasons. I can list them but generally it’s a very broad dataset including many types of killers of more than two people.

Perhaps the OP should define was they mean by “believable” and classify exactly what a “nobody” is.

[The Rookie Detective]

I think the Ripper falls somewhere in-between.


A working middle class man skilled in multiple trades

A Jack of all trades


I also believe he had the ability to alter his appearance and blend in where necessary, changing outfits with use of overalls/layered clothes.
He had worked in the theatre and had acting experience as an amateur actor and had the ability to be a chameleon.
He dyed his hair and moustache and played the Navvy, the clerk, the Jew, the builder, the soldier, the sailor...
He owned different hats and wore layered clothing with the use of overalls...like changing a costume. He could switch from a clerk to a builder in a matter of seconds.

He enjoyed playing different roles...and possibly played more than one "witness"

A highly intelligent individual who could play the part of a gutteral local psychotic but also a well-to-do gentleman with charisma.

I believe he had worked as a butcher for his day job, and was skilled and accomplished with a knife. He had no anatomical knowledge but knew about the organs. He had dismembered pigs for a living and used that knowledge on his victims.

He saw his victims as pigs and treated them as such when he cut and mutilated them.

He involved himself with the murders and immersed himself with the press and studied the newspapers

He knew how the press worked.

He also knew how the police worked and studied their beats and knew their timings


He watched people


He watched his victims


He was all of the above and more and a master assassin who managed to fool those around him and the police who were so blinkered in their views on him being a local working class foreign Jew suffering from psychosis and lunacy, that they failed to understand the kind of man he really was.

He murdered, mutilated and dismembered women of all ages over 3 decades and nobody had a clue who he was.

The police were inept and incompetent in their attempts because they were riddled with prejudice and bias assumption.

Some things never change

For those who still believe that the killer was Kosminski, or Maybrick... He was somewhere in between, he was BOTH of these types of people, and so much more.

If he wasn't, then he would have been caught



RD

[Tab]

Regardless of the "believability" of individuals' subjective opinions, there is a wealth of evidence that shows many modern serial killers were of reasonably moderate to high intelligence and did not always stay local.

[...]

People might want to wise up a little.

The most recent Radford report, as Fiver has already pointed out, contradicts the part I have bolded in your message above. Between 1970 and today, according to this report, there have been 4,465 serial killers world wide. Singling out a half dozen infamous serial killers from this number doesn't really qualify as a wealth of evidence IMO.

It has nothing to do with "believability". It's about data.

I agree.

Tab

[erobitha]

The most recent Radford report, as Fiver has already pointed out, contradicts the part I have bolded in your message above. Between 1970 and today, according to this report, there have been 4,465 serial killers world wide. Singling out a half dozen infamous serial killers from this number doesn't really qualify as a wealth of evidence IMO.



I agree.

Tab

As someone who analyses data on a regular basis, you have to evaluate the quality of the datasets.

Are you actually comparing apples with apples or are you using data that also includes oranges, pears and lemons because just they are all classed as fruit?

The volume of the dataset is irrelevant. Look at the quality of what you are trying to compare.

Then we can discuss the specifics.

[Scott Nelson]

...
...
...

He involved himself with the murders and immersed himself with the press and studied the newspapers

He knew how the press worked.

He also knew how the police worked and studied their beats and knew their timings


He watched people


He watched his victims...

I suspect you're giving too much credit to the killer regarding the preplanning, organization and his caring as to what the public thought. Some of his victims likely ran into him by accident and set him off.

He killed by spontaneous reaction to some perceived annoying situation.

[Fiver]

As someone who analyses data on a regular basis, you have to evaluate the quality of the datasets.

Are you actually comparing apples with apples or are you using data that also includes oranges, pears and lemons because just they are all classed as fruit?

The volume of the dataset is irrelevant. Look at the quality of what you are trying to compare.

Then we can discuss the specifics.

The Radford study certainly has it's deficiencies. I've already mentioned my doubts about the racial differences in IQ. But it's certainly better to look at all examples rather than just picking a half-dozen famous SKs who were known to be intelligent.

Primary motive is probably Anger, Enjoyment, or a combination. Which gives IQ averages between 91.9 and 105.7

The closest listing the the Rippers MO appears to be stab/strangle - IQ 91.5
No Rape - IQ 92.9
No torture - IQ 90.8
Overkill - IQ 92.5
Mutilation - IQ 101.9
Female victims - IQ 93.2
Adult victims - IQ 92.9
Street victims - IQ 92.7

So odds are the Ripper was of slightly below average to average intelligence. Extremely high intelligence is possible, but not probable.

And attempts to evaluate the iQ of historical figures usually says more about the person doing the evaluation than they say about the historical figure.

Looking at things from the study that we can evaluate.
* Serial killers tend strongly towards being uneducated.
* They are usually single.
* Prior to starting killing, they have usually been arrested (86.2%) and done time (79.0%)

[Tab]

The volume of the dataset is irrelevant. Look at the quality of what you are trying to compare.

Then we can discuss the specifics.

I have now looked at the quality of what I am trying to compare.

Dataset 1
Radford Serial Killer Database. Gathering serial killer data since 1992 "The database contains 5753 subjects, comprising of serial killers, mass murderers, spree killers and more. The database has over 15,086 victim profiles and over 500 documents. There are over 185 variables per subject, including background information, victim preference, victim treatment and information about the crimes committed."

Dataset 2
The statement by erobitha "Regardless of the "believability" of individuals' subjective opinions, there is a wealth of evidence that shows many modern serial killers were of reasonably moderate to high intelligence and did not always stay local."

After looking at these two datasets for a while, I am of the opinion that Dataset 1 is of higher quality (at the moment).

I would genuinely like to see the 'wealth of evidence' so Dataset 2 can be fleshed out to make the comparison more 'apple' like.

Tab