Motivation?

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

On the matter of profiling, I recently posted about Simon Farquhar's book 'A dangerous place' about the Railway Rapists case in the 80's in London, it was one one of the first British cases to seriously use profiling, it wasn't spot on, but close in many aspects. What's interesting is that the author quotes the profiler with the benefit of hindsight, and the profiler acknowledges that awareness of other cases would have improved the profile, but this was early days. So, they got it really accurate and useful way back then, even before it was taken as seriously as today. The Washington Sniper profile was a shambles. And cost lives. The issue isn't the profile, but why law enforcement shut off to any other angle.

As for motivation, the Railway Rapists were proving their masculinity and their ability to dominate others. Both victims of childhood bullying and inferiority complexes.

[miakaal4]

Well the bobbies in Whitechapel were probably looking for a half mad slavering caricature of a Russian Jew!! If JtR was a gent....

[rjpalmer]

None of those experts were actually working live on the case so you cant say the profiling didn’t help.

Sure I can.

We know why the snipers were captured.

Muhammad was captured because he and Malvo were sleeping in a car in a rest area late at night, which attracted attention. Muhammad was already on the police radar because a guy named Robert Holmes, back in Tacoma, Washington, had called the police and warned them that Muhammad had been building homemade silencers for his rifle, and had been boasting how easy it would be to carry on a sniper attack.

Rather than helping, the profile probably prevented the two men from being captured earlier:

"We were looking for a white van with white people, and we ended up with a blue car with black people" - D.C. Police Chief Charles Ramsey, the head of the investigation.

And here's the kicker:

"the culprit car had attracted police attention at least 10 times during the critical period, once on an overnight stopover in Baltimore when Mohammed displayed his authentic Washington state driver's license, and was waved on his way in an old Chevy bearing New Jersey tags, headed toward the next set of shootings in Virginia.

Wrong place, wrong ages, wrong race -- the wrong men, if the jury is made up of profilers."

In other words, the two men were never fully questioned, because the police had already convinced themselves what the killer would look like.

It was the tip by Robert Holmes that solved the case. Indeed, he was given a $350,000 reward.

[Abby Normal]

None of those experts were actually working live on the case so you cant say the profiling didn’t help. If they were not active FBI profilers with insight the public did not have you simply cannot seriously value their expertise bring all that useful. They were fools to offer advice on a live case that they didn’t have all the information for.

Jim Clemente was an FBI profiler who did work on the actual case and here’s his take from 11mins in this video:
https://youtu.be/LHqbfJ3tq4Y

what a bunch of bullshit. i lived through the sniper shooting while it was happening living in md and all the profilers were saying look out for single white male. so if this clown was actually working the case hes either lying now about the profile (having the advantage of hindsite)or he was right then and didnt get the message out. of course its the former but either way its still BS. thes fbi profilers not only think they invented the technique-they didnt.. bond did one for the ripper, there was one done by a psychologist in the mad bomber case for examples, they think theyve solved or helped solve everything. and this guy says his profile helped catch the dc snipers. balderdash. it was good old fashion police and detective work. fingerprints, tracking the car, knocking on doors.

sure profiling can be helpful, but take it with a grain of salt. especially when it comes straight from the mouth of one of these guys. they have anderson like egos and self aggrandizement.


that being said, the fbi database however, does actually help catch bad guys.

[miakaal4]

Seems to me that the detectives on the case would use profiling in searching for serial killers, but how much faith would they have in it? Knowing it could send them completely off the scent and in the wrong direction.

[caz]

Very interesting, erobitha.

It just shows you how hard it is to get it right when you don't have all the information to work from and you are really just generalising and speculating about human behaviour and motivation. Easier if you are hands-on, wading through the mud, than if you are looking down from a helicopter.

Love,

Caz
X

[erobitha]

Erobitha, you might want to read the following:

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs...297-story.html

The two snipers were caught completely by accident as they slept in a rest area. The profilers weren't even remotely accurate. They were wrong in nearly every detail.

Most suggested the sniper would be a lone white male in his early 20s, a local chap who drove a white van, probably as a delivery driver.

The real snipers were two black dudes, unemployed, from well outside of the area who drove a blue car.

None of those experts were actually working live on the case so you cant say the profiling didn’t help. If they were not active FBI profilers with insight the public did not have you simply cannot seriously value their expertise bring all that useful. They were fools to offer advice on a live case that they didn’t have all the information for.

Jim Clemente was an FBI profiler who did work on the actual case and here’s his take from 11mins in this video:

https://youtu.be/LHqbfJ3tq4Y

[rjpalmer]

I would not discount criminal profiling completely. It was very effective in the Washington DC sniper shootings back in 2002 and I'm sure many other cases.

Erobitha, you might want to read the following:

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs...297-story.html

The two snipers were caught completely by accident as they slept in a rest area. The profilers weren't even remotely accurate. They were wrong in nearly every detail.

Most suggested the sniper would be a lone white male in his early 20s, a local chap who drove a white van, probably as a delivery driver.

The real snipers were two black dudes, unemployed, from well outside of the area who drove a blue car.

[erobitha]

We've all debated the books & methods of criminal psychologists like David Canter & John Douglas, it's just that much of what they talk about is self explanatory, some might say, pretty obvious. Though interpretations of criminal activity could also be described as pretty subjective in many cases.
On the whole I'm not too impressed with what they think is 'organised' or 'disorganised', or the differences they claim between the two.

I would be inclined to agree that there is room for nuance and it can't be an exact science. I would not discount criminal profiling completely. It was very effective in the Washington DC sniper shootings back in 2002 and I'm sure many other cases.

[Wickerman]

I don’t think anyone believed Jack was a super genius. Just that his tactics were good enough for him not to get caught. This shows some level of organised thinking. I believe he was an organised killer which incidentally so was Sutcliffe. The parallels do not end there either with the post-Morten mutilations being very similar in style. He blended naturally into society and operated what would be perceived as a normal married life whilst also committing these crimes. Sutcliffe was not a genius but he wasn’t dumb either.
interesting article here: https://www.crimeandinvestigation.co...rkshire-ripper

We've all debated the books & methods of criminal psychologists like David Canter & John Douglas, it's just that much of what they talk about is self explanatory, some might say, pretty obvious. Though interpretations of criminal activity could also be described as pretty subjective in many cases.
On the whole I'm not too impressed with what they think is 'organised' or 'disorganised', or the differences they claim between the two.

[miakaal4]

Very interesting article. I know very little about Sutcliffe. Seems like he was pretty weird before he got married. I'm not sure what triggered his attack on the victims abs. Is it really all about no kids? Referring to above Sutcliffe was a bit of a planner it seems. He sounds like the guy who killed prostitutes on American highways. Another trucker. Prostitutes and homeless are easy targets. If prostitution was legal during Sutcliffes reign, he may have targeted any women. As he in fact did i believe.

[erobitha]

But if we're not careful, that kind of thinking can lead us to view the Ripper as some kind of super sleuth.
If you know anything about the Yorkshire Ripper, there might be a more likely parallel between these two killers than has been realized.
Peter Sutcliffe was no super sleuth, he didn't intentionally disguise himself, thats more Hollywood than real life. He was not too smart, and not strong either, though he was lucky, he was a wimp, and one detective thought he looked effeminate.

I don’t think anyone believed Jack was a super genius. Just that his tactics were good enough for him not to get caught. This shows some level of organised thinking. I believe he was an organised killer which incidentally so was Sutcliffe. The parallels do not end there either with the post-Morten mutilations being very similar in style. He blended naturally into society and operated what would be perceived as a normal married life whilst also committing these crimes. Sutcliffe was not a genius but he wasn’t dumb either.
interesting article here: https://www.crimeandinvestigation.co...rkshire-ripper

[DJA]

To be honest I have been thinking about the actual knife work. On all the victims except for Stride, he stabbed the abdomen. Not just cut it open, he stabbed it. On Eddowes death pic you can actually see where he stabbed. I reckon he did that first after the throat out of frenzy or lust. The stab wounds to Polly N's vagina point to lust. Maybe not too clevr after all.

Your observation regarding a stab wound to her abdomen confuses me.

Do you refer to abdomen or pelvis?

Where exactly is this stab wound?

Have the 'photo up on a 120" screen.

What was done in less than 14 minutes with no light was extraordinary.

The complete lack of blood spray indicates she was not killed on the spot,ruling out frenzy and lust.

Doubt the "eyework" was done with the same utensil without light.Most likely done indoors, where she was probably strangled, using a small scalpel.

The exploratory work on her inguinal lymph nodes is largely overlooked.



All the Best,

Dave.

[miakaal4]

But if we're not careful, that kind of thinking can lead us to view the Ripper as some kind of super sleuth.
If you know anything about the Yorkshire Ripper, there might be a more likely parallel between these two killers than has been realized.
Peter Sutcliffe was no super sleuth, he didn't intentionally disguise himself, thats more Hollywood than real life. He was not too smart, and not strong either, though he was lucky, he was a wimp, and one detective thought he looked effeminate.

To be honest I have been thinking about the actual knife work. On all the victims except for Stride, he stabbed the abdomen. Not just cut it open, he stabbed it. On Eddowes death pic you can actually see where he stabbed. I reckon he did that first after the throat out of frenzy or lust. The stab wounds to Polly N's vagina point to lust. Maybe not too clevr after all.

[Wickerman]

It could be a terrible mistake to assume the killer was an idiot, or a half hysterical lunatic. If we assume he has average intelligence then wouldn't he plan somewhat before the crime? Decide on an area to use, possible bolt holes or escape routes. Would he not wear clothes that would either blend in or put him beyond bobby on the beat suspicion? If I were him, I would dress and look completely different every time. So witness statements look confused. I think he was a clever bastard. Probably very clever. That's why he ain't been buckled.

But if we're not careful, that kind of thinking can lead us to view the Ripper as some kind of super sleuth.
If you know anything about the Yorkshire Ripper, there might be a more likely parallel between these two killers than has been realized.
Peter Sutcliffe was no super sleuth, he didn't intentionally disguise himself, thats more Hollywood than real life. He was not too smart, and not strong either, though he was lucky, he was a wimp, and one detective thought he looked effeminate.