Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Different Killers

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I don't think any of the C5 killings were committed by a schizophrenic killer. In fact it has been argued that there has never been a validated case of a schizophrenic serial killer: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...-serial-killer It is said that their thoughts are too jumbled and confused to commit such crimes. (I would note that the FBI define serial murder as 2 or more killings, so Nichols and Chapman, if killed by the same person, would amount to serial murders.)

    Richard Chase was, of course, diagnosed as schizophrenic, although one psychiatrist thought he was suffering from a anti-social personality disorder. However, he was hopelessly disorganized. For instance, he attempted to enter the home of one women, but walked away because it was locked. He later told the police that locked doors were a sign he was not welcome. At one point he was found by the police wandering around nude and covered in blood. Nearby was his vehicle, containing several rifles a pile of men's clothing and a liver (later determined to be from a cow).

    Now in considering the C5 murders I believe there are both organized and disorganized elements. Thus, as I posted earlier, the risky locations, such as Hanbury Street, suggest a degree of disorganization. However, both Nichols and Chapman appear to have had there throats cut when they were on the ground, enabling the killer to avoid arterial spray. That clearly suggests organization. Moreover, in all of the C5 murders it does appear that the killer was able to quickly overpower his victims, giving them no opportunity to cry out or attempt escape. That suggests a killer exercising a degree of control, and therefore organized behaviour.

    Of course what is remarkable in all of the C5 murders is that, in the aftermath of the killings, there doesn't seem to be single witness who reports seeing anything suspicious. There are certainly no reports of suspects wandering through the streets of Whitechapel, dripping in blood and carrying body parts!
    Last edited by John G; 03-09-2015, 10:29 AM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by John G View Post
      I don't think any of the C5 killings were committed by a schizophrenic killer. In fact it has been argued that there has never been a validated case of a schizophrenic serial killer: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...-serial-killer It is said that their thoughts are too jumbled and confused to commit such crimes. (I would note that the FBI define serial murder as 2 or more killings, so Nichols and Chapman, if killed by the same person, would amount to serial murders.)

      Richard Chase was, of course, diagnosed as schizophrenic, although one psychiatrist thought he was suffering from a anti-social personality disorder. However, he was hopelessly disorganized. For instance, he attempted to enter the home of one women, but walked away because it was locked. He later told the police that locked doors were a sign he was not welcome. At one point he was found by the police wandering around nude and covered in blood. Nearby was his vehicle, containing several rifles a pile of men's clothing and a liver (later determined to be from a cow).

      Now in considering the C5 murders I believe there are both organized and disorganized elements. Thus, as I posted earlier, the risky locations, such as Hanbury Street, suggest a degree of disorganization. However, both Nichols and Chapman appear to have had there throats cut when they were on the ground, enabling the killer to avoid arterial spray. That clearly suggests organization. Moreover, in all of the C5 murders it does appear that the killer was able to quickly overpower his victims, giving them no opportunity to cry out or attempt escape. That suggests a killer exercising a degree of control, and therefore organized behaviour.

      Of course what is remarkable in all of the C5 murders is that, in the aftermath of the killings, there doesn't seem to be single witness who reports seeing anything suspicious. There are certainly no reports of suspects wandering through the streets of Whitechapel, dripping in blood and carrying body parts!
      Hi JohnG

      The ripper was an "organized" serial killer.

      The FBI interpretation of the difference is moot in this case as one of their main traits for the disorganized killer is one that leaves the victims bodies in the open without any attempt to hide or cover up. However, in the rippers case, not having a car, like most modern "organized" serial killers do seriously inhibits him from doing so. he had no choice but leave them as is.


      The fact that he was able to avoid detection, and in some cases apparently seconds from being discovered by witnesses, and mere feet away from others unaware, with no sounds nor any mistaken evidence left behind implicates that he was clearly totally in control, aware of the consequences if he was discovered and probably had some planning involved.

      No disorganized killer could have pulled off the double event, let alone these series of murders.

      Comment


      • I thought the difference between an organized and disorganized killer was that an organized killer never kills on impulse but plans their crime carefully, selecting a target and preparing well in advance.

        A disorganized killer doesn't plan targets but kills on impulse.

        Just because they have a kill kit, doesn't mean they are organized. If that is the case then JtR is a disorganized killer. Is that not the case????

        I don't know much about this.
        Bona fide canonical and then some.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Batman View Post
          I thought the difference between an organized and disorganized killer was that an organized killer never kills on impulse but plans their crime carefully, selecting a target and preparing well in advance.

          A disorganized killer doesn't plan targets but kills on impulse.

          Just because they have a kill kit, doesn't mean they are organized. If that is the case then JtR is a disorganized killer. Is that not the case????

          I don't know much about this.
          Hey Batman
          Check out Peter Vronsky-Serial killers: Method and Madness. Its a good primer on serial killing and it has a section on the different categories, including the differences between organized and disorganized. I think the FBI profilers classify JtR as disorganized or mixed between the two.

          But Like I said I think they are not taking into account that he didn't have a car. there are other issues with organized/disorganized classification, one of being that the disorganized type is more likely to take trophys. the only problem with that is that some of the most "organized killers" like BTK took trophies. Many experts have serious issues with this classification, which has lead to more sophisticated methods-all included in the book. However, it is kind of good way for a starting point in assessing the crime scene.
          My personal opinion is that the ripper actually showed Most of the traits of an organized killer.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
            Hey Batman
            Check out Peter Vronsky-Serial killers: Method and Madness. Its a good primer on serial killing and it has a section on the different categories, including the differences between organized and disorganized. I think the FBI profilers classify JtR as disorganized or mixed between the two.
            Thanks. I will definitely check it out. Believe it or not, sometimes I can find this stuff a little too much to take. I don't mind the Whitechapel Murders because the transportation back in time is fun and interesting, but for example one time I got hold of a copy of a book called Dark Dreams by Ron Hazzlewood I think. I got about 60 pages into and had to actually throw it out. Not because it was badly written, it was actually extremely well written, it just shocked the hell out of me too much. So I turned to a biography of Dennis Nilson only to discover the killer had actually drawn pictures of his crimes on various pages. I couldn't take any more and didn't read another crime book or article for about 5 years after!

            Cheers though, will take a look and maybe try again.
            Bona fide canonical and then some.

            Comment


            • Actually I got a question since this topic of behaviour is up. Why did JtR take organs? For trophies? Did he eat them? Talk to them on his mantelpiece? Wore them around the house like Gein? All of the above although not in that order?
              Bona fide canonical and then some.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Batman View Post
                Actually I got a question since this topic of behaviour is up. Why did JtR take organs? For trophies? Did he eat them? Talk to them on his mantelpiece? Wore them around the house like Gein? All of the above although not in that order?
                Hi Batman,

                You may find this article, by Keppel et al. interesting if you haven't seen it before. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jip.22/pdf There is a discussion on signature and MO, in relation to JtR. As regards organ removal and placement at the scene, their conclusion is that he was attempting to destroy the humanity of the victims and for shock value (17). They also seem to believe that the murders were organized.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by John G View Post
                  Hi Batman,

                  You may find this article, by Keppel et al. interesting if you haven't seen it before. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jip.22/pdf There is a discussion on signature and MO, in relation to JtR. As regards organ removal and placement at the scene, their conclusion is that he was attempting to destroy the humanity of the victims and for shock value (17). They also seem to believe that the murders were organized.
                  Ah yeah Keppel. I like him. Thanks for that. Will enjoy reading it.
                  Bona fide canonical and then some.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                    Hi JohnG

                    The ripper was an "organized" serial killer.

                    The FBI interpretation of the difference is moot in this case as one of their main traits for the disorganized killer is one that leaves the victims bodies in the open without any attempt to hide or cover up. However, in the rippers case, not having a car, like most modern "organized" serial killers do seriously inhibits him from doing so. he had no choice but leave them as is.


                    The fact that he was able to avoid detection, and in some cases apparently seconds from being discovered by witnesses, and mere feet away from others unaware, with no sounds nor any mistaken evidence left behind implicates that he was clearly totally in control, aware of the consequences if he was discovered and probably had some planning involved.

                    No disorganized killer could have pulled off the double event, let alone these series of murders.
                    Hi Abby,

                    Thanks for this. I must admit that my knowledge of the subject is a bit limited- isn't it argued that many serial killers demonstrate both organized and disorganized elements?

                    I think you make some excellent points, especially the observation about leaving the victims in the open. As you say, he's unlikely to have had access to transport- I would have thought very few locals would have had access to, say, a pony and cart, and wouldn't many of the local streets be too narrow anyway?-so removing the bodies wouldn't have been practical.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Batman View Post
                      Actually I got a question since this topic of behaviour is up. Why did JtR take organs? For trophies? Did he eat them? Talk to them on his mantelpiece? Wore them around the house like Gein? All of the above although not in that order?
                      IMHO probably because he had a sexual fascination with what the knife could do to the female body, and the taking of organs was a way to prolong or relive this. I think he probably used them to masterbate with and I would not rule out cannibalism either.

                      Comment


                      • Batman, the ripper maybe have a fetish for organs and innards. It's possible he are them if the from hell letter was real right?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by John G View Post
                          Hi Abby,

                          Thanks for this. I must admit that my knowledge of the subject is a bit limited- isn't it argued that many serial killers demonstrate both organized and disorganized elements?

                          I think you make some excellent points, especially the observation about leaving the victims in the open. As you say, he's unlikely to have had access to transport- I would have thought very few locals would have had access to, say, a pony and cart, and wouldn't many of the local streets be too narrow anyway?-so removing the bodies wouldn't have been practical.
                          Yes they do, which just highlights the issues with this classification. which is why many experts use more sophisticated methods of classification.

                          Its too blunt of a tool. But like I said its at least a good starting point when first looking at a crime scene.

                          Comment


                          • no chastisement

                            Hello Greg. Thanks.

                            No chastisement--that is my belief.

                            Cheers.
                            LC

                            Comment


                            • lashing out

                              Hello Abby. Thanks.

                              "Polly and Annie were accidental? What does that mean?"

                              It means that Jacob never intended to kill. When he asked them for money (everything belonged to him--see testimony and chart) and was refused, he lashed out by trying to strangle--just as he did his wife.

                              The cutting was likely perpetrated upon an imaginary sheep. Recall--he was at the worst phase of his delusions about this time.

                              Cheers.
                              LC

                              Comment


                              • seriality

                                Hello John. Actually, it's 3 murders--not just 2.

                                Cheers.
                                LC

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X