Calling all Criminologists! What Theories can you apply to the JTR case?

[Abby Normal]

To errata
Nah. Sometimes circumstances trump psychology.

[Wickerman]

I know right? Personally, I still use psychology because I know it and know how to use it. Sort of an if all you have is a hammer kinda situation.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to put you on the spot. And I'm not pretending that I know anything about how to assess the persona of the killer from the crimes (which begs the question, which killer, which crimes?).

What I do think is that any assessment done has to be done on each singular murder not on a preselected group.
Also, I am not convinced the psychology of the killer can be 'accurately' determined from the victims when you have no idea what the motive was.
It's not like we have a handful of bodies with nothing more than selective stab wounds to the genital region, and nothing else.

There is so much more to these murders than the relatively few cuts to the pubic area. But then we hear that any attack on the abdomen, organs, breasts, neck, all carry the connotation to the killer. In other words the lines become blurred.
One fact is, the contemporary 19th century surgical method to conduct an hysterectomy was to slice the abdomen from the pubes to the breastbone. All of a sudden this fact becomes "indication of Lust" instead of what it actually was.

Personally, against popular opinion, I don't think these are lust murders, or that they have anything to do with sex. To me they are pretty impersonal. It's an interpretation, one of many, but I imagine as valid as any other. For me, that means Mary Kelly was not killed by the same man as Nichols, Chapman or Eddowes. Just my take, but based on psychology.

Precisely, agreed, yes!

Regards, Jon S.

[Errata]

If no one is willing to believe or listen to me then listen to them. The number of men who played a hand in these killings is also irrelevant to the fact that the killer(s) was a lust murderer.
In all due respect,
Corey

Corey I know the argument and I know the opinions. Personally, your opinion is just as valid to me as John Douglas, more so since I found Douglas to be unpleasant and you to be earnest and forthright.

Krafft Ebing's definition is slightly different than that of Douglas. Which is not terribly surprising given that Krafft Ebing was a practicing psychiatrist and Douglas was a profiler. Douglas's definition is a semantic one rather than a descriptive one. So in that it is clearly true that JtR was a lust murderer. Krafft Ebing's field of study was human sexuality. His definition actually does apply if not to motive than certainly to reward. And technically, I'm not sure his assertion is wrong. In my opinion it simply doesn't apply.

The way I look at it, which is admittedly different, is that no assaults were made on the genitalia. No part of these women that would be considered genitals or a sexually charged area were touched. The uteri were taken. And I personally think that is an entirely different beast than the genitals. Now admittedly, it doesn't so much matter what I think as much as what the killer thought, but I have yet to meet a man who includes the uterus when asked to name the parts of a woman he associates with sex. The killer seems to be targeting a reproductive organ and pays no attention to sex related organs.

And clearly I could be wrong, but it's how I see it.

[Errata]

What I do think is that any assessment done has to be done on each singular murder not on a preselected group.
Also, I am not convinced the psychology of the killer can be 'accurately' determined from the victims when you have no idea what the motive was.
It's not like we have a handful of bodies with nothing more than selective stab wounds to the genital region, and nothing else.

Hahha. I'm not convinced that the psychology of the killer can be determined at all. And to be blunt, motives are always a little iffy. You can have a guy killing plumbers because the great god Zzxmroph will give him a shiny new robot body. There is no way to figure that out. But if he's tidying the body up afterward and making sure they are found, you know that the killer at least feels bad about killing plumbers.

For me the important victims are Chapman and Eddowes. Chapman for method, Eddowes for a glimpse into this guys head. And those two cases seem to have similar vibes to them. (god help me I said "vibes") Now theres a word that makes no sense when you say it several times in a row. and there goes my train of thought. I'll try again tomorrow. im soo tired.

[Barnaby]

[QUOTE=Errata;170535]Hahha. I'm not convinced that the psychology of the killer can be determined at all. QUOTE]

We will never be able to assess the psychological makeup of the killer without a scientific analysis of the cognitive-behavioral attributes of him or her, which entails their capture. In this case, all we can do is make probabilistic statements; the value of such an approach can be assesed by determining its known predictive validity. That is, to what extent do modern profiles aid in apprehending such criminals and to what extent were they accurate? I believe that profling has marginal utility, which means I believe JTR was a white male between the ages of 20 and 50, and of a similar socieoeconomic class who lived in the area. Note that this hardly advances the case at all, but rules out the outlandish suspects.

The differences between Ted Bundy and the Gary Ridgway are subtle and fascinating and an understudied aspect of abnormal psychology. But you cannot even begin to delve into this issue without having personal interviews with both. Unfortunately, we will never have this luxury in the JTR case and so we will never be able to meaningfully gauge his psychological makeup.

[Scorpio]

This thread is starting to take a walk of the map. I think that Albert Banduras work on social learning theory is helpfull, at a base level, as the components of observing,imitating, and reinforcement seem applicable in such a rich environment as Whitechapel. If the killer of Martha Tabram was the product of working class East End culture then the killers childhood, and early adulthood might have been informed by witnessing anti social behaviour at the domestic and street level. I believe that the killer commited many assaults of increasing severity, a process beginning with the imitation of domestic and street violence. If the crimes themselves did not provide reinforcement through some sense of gratification, then the reactions of the populace and media might have achieved this. I think the examples of David Berkowitz and Peter Kurten should be considered inn this context.

[Errata]

This thread is starting to take a walk of the map. I think that Albert Banduras work on social learning theory is helpfull, at a base level, as the components of observing,imitating, and reinforcement seem applicable in such a rich environment as Whitechapel.[ ] I think the examples of David Berkowitz and Peter Kurten should be considered inn this context.

Mea Culpa.

I am curious as to why you believe that Berkowitz is an example of social learning.

I think Bandura is certainly correct that social exposure leads to imitation of certain prevailing attitudes within the the group. It is not at all hard to see how growing up in Whitechapel would lead towards a person having a very casual relationship with the truth, with other people's property, even with the sanctity of life. The question I have though is, how does it create a mutilator? JtR wasn't just a killer. Do you think that the Ripper was exposed to something along the lines that Kurten suffered?

[AP Criminologist]

Poverty leads to certain crimes, certain attitudes, etc. And all of these things are true. But the creation of a serial killer requires a a biological anomaly, and while certain factors tend to be present in a serial killers life, they are not necessary.

It's somewhat comparable to something like Albinism. It is clearly a biological condition, and most Albinos share similar experiences in their childhood. And certainly the social sciences apply towards a societies reactions towards albinos and vice versa, but it cannot deal with genesis or pathology.

Of course any method other than psychology could be used towards the same end, but the crimes are just so damned odd. They are not especially true to type. I think it is entirely possible that the key to the killer's identity lies in those differences, and to me, that says the key lies in the killer's head.

Errata, I'm just wanting to clarify here what your argument is in an overall summary? Because at the start of this thread you seem in favour of Biological explanations for JTR's criminality, and then you shift towards the Psychology of JTR as an explanation, and continue down this route for the rest of your discussion. Are you in favour of a combination of the above? If so, could you say why for me? Because Criminologists and Psychologists as separate professionals agree that whilst Biological and Psychological factors have an impact on our 'make-up', particularly that of serial killers, they still conclude that these two areas cannot account for individual behaviour as much as our social upbringing and external sociological influences (See Oliver James, 2007 for a good explanation of this). I should say here though that I do agree with a lot of the points your making, just want to know what your overall argument is

lol, AP, you flatter me too much. I used to teach criminology at university level; I'd be scared if I was way off the mark

As for the policing--I don't believe there was any understanding that beat officers have next to no chance of ever coming across a crime in commission (what's the crazy stat? If an officer walked around for X number of years they'd have a one in a million chance of intercepting a burglary?). Certainly, it may not have had any impact on the level of fear in the East End--but that's only rational, isn't it? They hadn't caught the bloke; there were increased numbers of police knocking around (and interfering with the good honest pickpockets, hookers and burglars to boot)--so poor East End women had no reason to stop being afraid.

Nice thread. I'm going to resist stepping into the psychology fray, given my cynicism.

I teach Criminology at University too Claire! Small world! Thanks for your contribution, I agree with all your points here, makes good sense to me too

[corey123]

To Wickerman and Errata,

Errata, thanks for your response, I speak of lust murder in the simplicity of it, you cannot change what is the vaginal region and what is not to suit ones theory, he took the uteri, this is wounds to the private region, there were cuts near the vagina in many cases, you cannot throw this away in saying "oh, I don't believe the uteri is part of "wounds to the genitals" no, they are.

One thing I have found out about ripperologists is they try to make more out of something less. This is a series of lust murders, and ripperologists seem to have a need to try and look further and make more from nothing. It is ridiculous. The organs were obviously of no monumental worth so then what else could he be!? What would someone do with the organs, many try to push away from the simple psychology that the killer may indeed have been a lust murderer.

Also why make the assumption that Kelly wasn't a victim, because of the scale of mutilation? NO, she was killed indoors which accounts for the raised scale. Again trying to find something more complicated than it really is.

IMHO

Respectfully,
Corey

P.S To AP Criminologist: Have you ever looked towards narcissism?

[Wickerman]

One thing I have found out about ripperologists is they try to make more out of something less....

The facts remain the intent of the murders of Chapman & Eddowes appears to have been to remove organs. The psychological profile is an attempt to essentially claim to know who the Ripper was. You cannot name him, but you can describe him, therefore you know him.

This, to my mind is claiming more than the facts allow. You are doing precisely what you claim 'Ripperologists' are doing, but you seem to think your conclusions have superior merit while it is no more than guesswork.

Because Nichols & Chapman were killed so close in time and similarities exist between the two methods it is reasonable to identify all three, Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes as victims of the same individual, for the same reasons.
Only, after the murder of Chapman was a very strong opinion, more than mere suggestion, that the killer was insane.

There are no superficial wounds to Chapman or Nichols to support this claim, yet, surprise, surprise, suddenly with the next killing (Eddowes) we see the first appearance of facial lacerations which now support the previous assertion that the killer is insane.
The press popularised the idea first, before the idea took shape on the bodies of the victims. Was the killer reading the papers?, of course.

There was nothing but indications of pure intent on the bodies of Nichols & Chapman, yet after "insane medical student" really hit the newspapers, hey presto, marks consistent with insanity suddenly appear.

The organs were obviously of no monumental worth ....

This is not 'fact', merely your chosen assumption. We have no knowledge of why he removed specific organs. To dismiss this as a motive just because he couldn't go out and sell them on the street is indicative of the closed mind approach to this series of murders.
We already know human organs could not be bought & sold at street level, we also know torso's & limbs were turning up across London in this same period. So something 'medical' or 'pseudo-medical' was going on at the time that has completely gone under the radar to the authorities.

You choose to identify the killer as a Lust Murderer without being able to specify what caused his 'insanity' except to offer a handful of possibilities.
Yet, you ignore a killer who's main purpose was to get those organs, in part, because, no theorist can come up with a viable motive.

You have the same handicap yet you don't appear to realise it.

Regards, Jon S.

[corey123]

This is no arguement Jon, throw ego aside, I never said my theory was better than anyone elses, in fact all I purported was that the theory that was EVEN DENOUNCED BY THE MEDICAL EXAMINERS, that he was an organ harvester, is looking past logic. I am being logical not proposing my theory is any more than guess work.

I may be young but I am not stupid Jon,

With all due respect,
Corey

[Errata]

Errata, I'm just wanting to clarify here what your argument is in an overall summary? Because at the start of this thread you seem in favour of Biological explanations for JTR's criminality, and then you shift towards the Psychology of JTR as an explanation, and continue down this route for the rest of your discussion.

I certainly think both are involved. There are structural anomalies in the brain common to serial killers. They occur elsewhere in the population, but studies have shown them in serial killers. Evidently these anomalies are what allows someone to be unburdened by conscience, to be overly aggressive, essentially these anomalies allow them to kill for personal pleasure. But there is no predictor of where in the population these anomalies will occur.

But we know that just because a person has these structural anomalies, doesn't make them a killer. A person still has to have a reason to be a serial killer. Abuse is common, but few abused children become serial killers. There has to be a certain line of reasoning, a certain justification. This woman want's me to do this, this is how I can punish people like me, etc. That's psychology.

So, both.

[corey123]

Errata,

I tend to agree with you here, the reasoning for killing is both biological and psychological.

p.s To Wickerman and Errata, I hope you know I do not write in disrespect, only opinion, thats all Though Jon you did say the approach I take was lazy

[Wickerman]

This is no arguement Jon, throw ego aside, I never said my theory was better than anyone elses,....

Corey.
Please understand when I say "you" I mean the argument you propose, and those who make the same argument. So, "You cannot name him, etc..." meaning likeminded people making the same proposal as you have. I'm not singling you (Corey) out specifically. Also please understand these psychological profile-type arguments were being debated in the late 1980's when Casebook just started up (before Corey was born ).

So you are not presenting anything new, though you may raise specific points that have not been raised before, but in general viewing the Ripper as a Lust Murderer is a well read argument by most Ripperologists.
So while I disagree that this killer was sexually motivated, I also admit he had to have a perverted, sadistic bent to go to the lengths he did. So he was a mixed bag.

However, there is a central theme with specific intent and then there is peripheral mischief that he indulges in after he has, in essence, 'got what he came for'.

in fact all I purported was that the theory that was EVEN DENOUNCED BY THE MEDICAL EXAMINERS,

There was concern at the time that the initial medical opinion had, or might, finger a member of the medical community (horror of horrors). So, subsequently statements to the contrary soon appeared in the press - 19th century politics.

I may be young but I am not stupid Jon,

There may be stupid arguments but no member should ever call another member 'stupid'.

p.s To Wickerman and Errata, I hope you know I do not write in disrespect, only opinion, thats all Though Jon you did say the approach I take was lazy

Disrespect never occured to me, all our debates are opinions, we are all dealing with data, opinions & theories written or collected by others so yes we debate each others opinions.
None of us can 'prove' we are right, at best we try to justify our arguments with some kind of data or source.

Incidently, its a pleasure exchanging views, so don't take anything personal.

Regards, Jon S.

[corey123]

Honestly Jon I don't think I have had a single pleasurable exchange with you, infact that you bring up my age in the first place shows arrogance. I never said I was the first nor the last, so why bring it up but to make you look the smarter man? Like I said, young, not stupid.

Anyway, again I never said these were sexually motivated murders. Can you not read? Read my post to Errata, I said I think they were lust murders but do pray read carefully.

Please do read all this carefully, so you don't misunderstand my post again.

Corey