Motives

[corey123]

Smezenen,

What research are we talking about, because I am afraid you have been mislead. I won't spend all my time on here arguing about criminal profiling, because it will never meet up to your standards.

So I won't name profiles who helped find a suspect, you can reasearch it yourself.

Good luck

[chudmuskett]

I would like to point out that after a few hours of research tonight i have determined that the accuracy of criminal profiling is 0%. there has never been a case where the profile was a 100% fit to the eventual CONVICTED suspect. In fact a 59% match is the best recorded. There are also no cases where the profile alone has lead police to a suspect. If anyone can name a single case please do so.

Actually I did see a Chuckle Brothers episode once where they successfully caught an ice cream thief using criminal profiling

[smezenen]

I would like to point out that after a few hours of research tonight i have determined that the accuracy of criminal profiling is 0%. there has never been a case where the profile was a 100% fit to the eventual CONVICTED suspect. In fact a 59% match is the best recorded. There are also no cases where the profile alone has lead police to a suspect. If anyone can name a single case please do so.

[chudmuskett]

A good example of someone thinking they know what profilers do.

Yours truly

Hi, yes, thats my whole point. I am not a professional profiler and have no experience in this field but it is human nature to understand. What I was trying to say is that a non-pro profiler like myself might actually think I am profiling a person but what I am actually doing to a certain scale is (for use of a better word) fantasizing. Its human nature to make things fit, take the things we understand or like and disregard the things we dont. My idea on motives might be totally different to yours and this is because (in my opinion) my choice of facts feel comfortable with the person I am and your choice of facts feel comfortable with you. Even when I try to think about the unthinkable the "lets make it fit" option is always the easy option.

[smezenen]

Smezenen, supe,

People had the same motives for muder, same disorders, same conditions, same illnesses, same problems.

Its not like we are another species.

Your right they did have different taboos. What would you define as modern? Profiling is nothing new. They did it in 1888 and they do it now. It is based on HUMAN behavior, and, as far as I am concerned, they were humans in 1888.

Read Bonds profile.

I agree, killers don't need a motive. Jack the Ripper may have not had one.

But saying they thought completely different than we do today is pure nonsense.

Yours truly

Corey,
For the record I never stated that we are a different species, I never stated that they thought completely different. I did not state that the anatomy of the human brain had changed between 1888 and 2010 or that it works differently yet you accuse me of stating as much in your post.
I stated that they had “a completely different mindset, they had different values, they had different taboos, they lived with a different psychological attitude”
That’s not saying their brains worked differently its saying they used a different set of parameters to process information.
I define modern the same way Wikipedia does:
“Modern history, or the modern era, describes the historical timeline after the Middle Ages. Modern history can be further broken down into the early modern period and the late modern period. Contemporary history describes the span of historic events that are immediately relevant to the present time. The beginning of the modern era started approximately in the 1500s.”
Since this time period covers 1888 then that year would be considered modern and the human behavior studied to make up any profile in 1888 would fall into the same category. So to clarify my previous post: Any profile done by anyone other than the contemporary investigators is useless because it would reflect the current human behavior (at the time of the profile) not that of 1888. It is absolute nonsense to compare killers in 1888 to the killers of OUR LIFETIME as everyone that talks about profiling tries to do.
As for Dr. Bonds profile it is pretty general. “the killer would be unassuming in appearance and manner, and daring and calm in the face of unimaginable violence; he thought he would be middle-aged, leading a solitary life and wearing a long coat to cover up any blood from his crimes” What did he base his profile on? Witness statements and educated guesses? A study of human medicine? He was after all a Medical doctor not a psychologist.

[corey123]

Hunter,

I know what you mean. I started to rain sleet a minute or two ago but it stopped and started snowing again.

I agree with the serial killer vrs. organised plot issue.

Yours truly

[Hunter]

Hi Corey,

I live in West Tennessee and I must say that I'm glad to see the snow instead of the ice storm we were supposed to get.

I do think there are some things that can be gleened from the Whitechapel murders, but they don't get us very far and depending on how many victims were by the same hand opinion is going to vary.

I like the geographical profiling that has been done and I believe that Colin has offered some good charts on the demographics of Whitechapel. I would assume that if one man did 5 or 6 of the murders he was a local man because of the proximity of the murders and Victorians by and large were not as mobile as we are today ( many modern serial killers use their cars to find victims.) That still doesn't rule out a merchant seaman because of the proximity of the docks. In that matter I think that Eddowes apron is the most significant clue as its the one time we know where the murderer was headed.

Though some modern serials have been in their 40's and 50's I think our man was in his mid 20's to mid 30's due to the shorter lifespan back then and the stamina required to work in the day and prowl the streets at night. I agree with Stewart that the medical expertise is a bit overblown as there would have been many types of individuals that could have had a basic knowledge of anatomy.

Beyond that, I can't speculate farther. Even a psyschological definition would depend on whether he developed his penchant over a long time or a catalyst like, contracting a STD, suddendly spurred a want of vengence.

Of course it could be an organized plot to stir further dissention and if that's the case, the whole serial killer aspect is out the window.

[corey123]

I couldnt agree more. My personal opinion is that sometimes a profile is profile of the profiler. You may be able to think your putting yourself in the persons perspective but if you look deep enough your only accepting what seems to fit.

A good example of someone thinking they know what profilers do.

Yours truly

[corey123]

Hunter,

I am enjoying the snow. Supposed to be six inches over here in Maryville. I live down in Blount county so the back roads are all frozen over and we might be stuck in the house for the weekend. Where in Tennessee are you from?

On another note I agree. Thats what makes Jack the Ripper kind of unprofileable. You are EXACTLY correct in that respect. We can still make some observations based on what we do have. Though we will never be able to make a complete profile on him.

Hope you enjoy the weather.

[Hunter]

Hunter,

To make a profile you examine the clues left at a crime scene. It is specualtion. You don't need suspects to make a offinder profile. All you need is the victims and the method of killing used to kill them.

Hi Corey. That's what I basicly said. Once you do obtain some valuable clues, a profile can be used to narrow down the search. This seems to be the way that law enforment is using this method now so they don't make the mistake of creating a profile based on assumptions, which is what got them in trouble sometimes in the past. My point would be easy to misinterpret since the post was rambling somewhat.

That's the problem with our man. We really don't know when he started, or when or where he stoped, and why. We can't even agree on how many were the victims of the same hand. A small number of women were killed in a small area in a short period of time with very few clues .

Hope your enjoying the global warming today.

[chudmuskett]

Any answer you could possibly give to this question is at this point just a guess. You will never be able to answer this question until you prove conclusively who the killer was.

Modern criminal profiling is in my opinion useless in this case because it is a science based on observation of modern humans. People living in 1888 had a completely different mindset, they had different values, they had different taboos, they lived with a different psychological attitude then we have today.

Just my 2 cents worth for what its worth.

I couldnt agree more. My personal opinion is that sometimes a profile is profile of the profiler. You may be able to think your putting yourself in the persons perspective but if you look deep enough your only accepting what seems to fit.

[corey123]

Hunter,



To make a profile you examine the clues left at a crime scene. It is specualtion. You don't need suspects to make a offinder profile. All you need is the victims and the method of killing used to kill them.

We have ALL the necissary elements to make a profile. We have the victims, the methodology, the map of where they died. Thats ALL we need.

So many people misunderstand the profile, and because of what they hear or THINK they know about it, they are mislead.

Yours truly

[Hunter]

Corey,
... motive is a snare and quite unnecessary for an investigation and prosecution.
Don.

That is a good point. In the end, if these individuals are caught, it is hard evidence that leads them to an arrest and subsequent prosecution. Serial killers are the most difficult because they rarely leave any evidence and the usual suspect pattern, or search for a motive is hampered by the fact that there is no apparent rhyme or reason. They continue killing for some time until enough pieces of evidence are finally accumulated. Once this is done, Corey, then some forms of profiling can be helpful to narrow down the search.

Our subject killed, in comparison, very few people, over a short period of time and left little if any clues. If he had continued at the pace of the canonicals he probably would have been eventually apprehended. But, he apparently didn't, for whatever reason, and we are left to speculate.

[corey123]

Don, Dave,

I read correctly.

I agree, thought processes have changed, a bit. However, the brain has not evolved. It works the same way it worked in 1888. We know more and have created more, but the psychological aspect of the brain is still the way it used to be.

Modern profiling, whenever you think modern to be, is based on observations in human behaviors based on scientific knowledge. We can pin point behavior clues of the psychological make up of people based on their actions.

Profiling, like I said, is nothing new. We can veiw Dr.Thomas Bonds profile which he created based on his medical knowledge and experiance, and look at our profiles for the killer, and see some little differences, not many.

Don,

I am sorry for saying "compltely different" you are right, you didn't say it.

I will read the Ripperologist article. Thought processes are different, but the way someone kills is no different as it was 122 years ago. Yes, every killer kills differently, but dismissing profiling because of mere time, in my opinion, is unacceptable.

I agree, motives, like I said, are needle in a heystack and only are useful AFTER prosecution.

Yours truly

[protohistorian]

Supe is correct. A number of modern conditions are culturally bound in method of diagnosis and presentation. While the physiology remains more or less constant, the expression can and does fluctuate wildly. Dave