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

[Canopy]

Hello!

I am no crimanologist but can quote John Douglas (who is) :

* Jack was white, male and between 28-36
* Jack came from a family with a domineering mother and weak, passive, and/or absent father
* In all likelelihood, his mother drank heavily and enjoyed the company of many men. As a result, Jack failed to recieve consistent care and contact with stable adult role models and became detached socially with a diminished emotional response towards others.
* He was paranoid and carried one or more knives with him in case he was attacked.
* The paranoid-type thinking is justified because of his poor self-image.
* Not expected to be married or to have carried on a normal relationship with women.
*Percieved as quiet, shy and a loner, slightly withdrawn, obedient, fairly neat and orderly in appearance.
*The unknown suspect attemped to neutralize his potential victim quickly and unexpectantly before she could put up a defense.
* Suggests the only "Ripper" letter to be potentially genuine is the Lusk letter.
* These are not planned, considered kills; they're frenzied, out-of-control overkills. There's no pattern or internal logic to it.

Douglas classifies Jack as a "lust murderer". Direct quote given in support of this: "This has less to do with the traditional meaning of the word than with the fact that the subject attacks the genital and sexually orientated areas of the body."

Well, so says John Douglas - I'm sure that you'll get better replies but, while you're waiting...

All the best,

C.

P.S. (Edit to add!) SO SORRY! I answered a "recent" post being new and thought it a new thread! AMUSED by my stupidity though...*hands in the air* if you wish to know more about Douglas!!! :-)

[Errata]

I would not draw any conclusions based on the Dahmer case, but Sutcliffe is interesting.

Dahmer is always sort of an outlier. Dahmer, Gein, even to a certain extent Fish defy a great many "rules" of serial killers. Not to mention there is sort of a twisted and extremely sick sort of affection in their killings.

There are a bunch of categories any serial killer can be put into, but the more I read about one type, the more sense it makes to concentrate on it. There are body collectors (Dahmer, Gein, Fish), the are body dumpers (Bianchi, Sutcliffe) and there are body abandoners (Jack the Ripper). Comparing JtR to Bundy or Dahmer makes little sense, given that they had such drastically different relationships with the victims. Just a thought.

[Scorpio]

I would not draw any conclusions based on the Dahmer case, but Sutcliffe is interesting. The escalating level of mutilation is the important here i think; Sutcliffe did occasionally indulge in post mortem assaults, but he did not show the sort of interest in his victims bodies as Jack evidently did. A serial killer in modern memory called Robert Napper also had this need to violently possess his victims bodies and explore them. Napper was a victim of sexual assault and i believe that the event was important to his psycho- sexual development.

[Garry Wroe]

I think Kurtens childhood would have born some relation to JtR's. Witnessing sexual violence, and possibly being a victim of it, i am certain, is a given.

Interesting, Scorpio. But I see no evidence of childhood sexual violence in the cases of Dahmer and Sutcliffe. Several others spring to mind too. Hence I rather doubt that childhood sexual violence need be a necessary component in the developmental process of a sadosexual serial killer.

[Scorpio]

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?

Errata, finally i have a chance to answer your question. I think Kurtens childhood would have born some relation to JtR's. Witnessing sexual violence, and possibly being a victim of it, i am certain, is a given. I cannot imagine how such a warped version of sexualised behaviour can be the norm without this kind of intervention. there is no evidence of attempted sexual assault, so i dont believe the crimes are born of frustration. These crimes are sex by another name.

[Wickerman]

Well
As a Psychologist and as a Criminologist I say both have lots to say in this matter. ...

Ok, in keeping with the title of the thread. How would you hope to apply criminology & psychology to a series of at least 9 and possibly as many as 12 or 13 murders between 1888 and 1891?
Given, all theories aside, that no-one can determine how many killers were responsible, neither how many victims fell to the same killer, nor the various potential motives involved.

How could you hope to provide a theory, or even a profile, and how many profiles are required, and how many different personalities are involved?

Thankyou, Jon S.

[Cuervo]

Well
As a Psychologist and as a Criminologist I say both have lots to say in this matter. Criminology is a social science (here in Spain is considered as it in all Universities) and of course has something to say about every type of crime, including serial killing. Criminology study the social factors (which influence in serial killing, because te criminal doesen´t live isolated) and the individual factors as well...everything that hast to do with crime.
I´d recomend Kocsis and a Portuguese author called Cristina Soeiro who is working hard in profiling and who take statistics very seriously.
Talking of older theories, labeling theories may have something to say in a time where Whitechapel itself had a name, let appart people who lived there. And I´m a big fun of Moffit´s theory which is centered on juvenile delinquency but explains those who carry on with criminal acts (of every type as adults). It stars the explanation even from before to be born (during gestation). I like Tremblay´s theory too.

[corey123]

Hello Mike,

Indeed, it is but a label right

Anyway, I apologize for changing this from a psych thread to a arguement thread.

Corey

[The Good Michael]

Hello Mike,

I understand your point, try and look at it this way. I am not saying the murders were not sexual, in fact I use lust murder as a lable on because of the wound choice, this however isn't infering any motive and is a very simple lable, much like the lable serial killer, the term lust murder can be used two-fold, as a description of motive, or a more telling lable of a killer type.

understand your intent, but by using Lust murder you are inferring motive unless you've decided to change the meaning of the term. Why not call him a mutilator/murderer? Again, if it's lust murder it IS sexually motivated. I don't know why I'm arguing. I don't even like labels.

Mike

[corey123]

Hello Mike,

I understand your point, try and look at it this way. I am not saying the murders were not sexual, in fact I use lust murder as a lable on because of the wound choice, this however isn't infering any motive and is a very simple lable, much like the lable serial killer, the term lust murder can be used two-fold, as a description of motive, or a more telling lable of a killer type.

Sort of like a shooter, or a throat-cutter, Rob made a great point, calling it a post-mortem mutilator is more clear, though I don't use it because the mutilations could be both post or anti-mortem.

Corey

[The Good Michael]

Corey,

No one disputes that you have the opinion that the murders weren't sexually motivated. The problem is that you use the term Lust murder (Lustmord) to describe them, and by denying sexual motivation, you negate the definition of the term. It's like, I'm reading something that has a hardcover and 1000 pages, but I choose to call it a magazine rather than a book. I can do that, but what happens to the definition of a magazine (and not an ammo dump)?

Cheers,

Mike

[corey123]

Mike,

I do believe there is a difference between not necissarily sexual (and saying my opinion wasn't that he was sexually motivated) that wholly denying that lust murder isn't sexual.

Rob is right, there are two uses of the term, while the first(Ebbing, Douglad, etc) doesn't necissarily state it is sexual doesn't mean it isn't or is. It is labling the area of attack. Something I have been explaining over and over and over again, this has NOTHING to do with motive, as I am not even describing the motive as lust murder. Only the type of killer he is by his wound choice. Motive is irrelevant.

Though I am sure I will get a counter-argument for this one too.

Corey

[The Good Michael]

Just to throw in a quick observation. In my opinion the term "lust murderer" is causing a bit of a problem because Douglas and Hazelwood use this term in a different way from how some others use it. It does not mean generic "sexually motivated murder."

However you slice it or sub type it, it's sexual motivation, which is what Wicker was saying and Corey was denying.

Mike

[robhouse]

Just to throw in a quick observation. In my opinion the term "lust murderer" is causing a bit of a problem because Douglas and Hazelwood use this term in a different way from how some others use it. It does not mean generic "sexually motivated murder." Instead, the way they use the term is more or less in describing a very specific type of killer who is primarily interested in post-mortem mutilation, especially targeting the sexual organs, the breasts, the abdomen, etc. They differentiated this from a sadistic murderer, who is primarily interested in inflicting pain on a victim while alive.

Douglas and Hazelwood wrote an article on this type of killer, which was published in the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin (1980).

So their usage of the term lust murder is fairly close to Kraft Ebing's definition (I think) but is not the same as the generic usage of the term to mean sexually motivated murder, which could include sadistic killers or other types of killers. To avoid confusion, the better term might be post-mortem mutilator. It is essentially a subtype of the generic erotophonophilia... which is a paraphilia in which a person is sexually stimulated by committing murder.

RH

[corey123]

Jon,

I don't believe I said it wasn't, though I think my opinion will stay for now

Also I want to apologize about my comments yesterday, I was in a foul mood and I took it out on this forum. Many apologies.

Corey