What's your profile for Jack?

[mklhawley]

Hi Greg,

Ooh, how very dare you? Who's treading a fine line now?

There's no natural selection value in people who are born sterile either, or with conditions which prove fatal before they reach puberty. So why are they here? That's not cultural, and it's not a lifestyle choice either. If it's intelligent design, the designer must have an awful lot of off days or be some kind of sadist. Mother Nature sadly has never claimed to have a conscience or to treat us all equally.

Love,

Caz
X

Quick point on evolution and natural selection, since this is my field of expertise. The two are not synonymous. Evolution is the hereditary change in a population over successive generations, while natural selection is merely a mechanism which guides the change in a population. It can be argued that homosexuality is not counter to natural selection for a number of reasons. Natural selection deals with populations and not individuals. Homosexuality is observed in most mammal species (therefore, not cultural), but at a low percentage, so its deletarious influence is negligible. Also, its not so important that an individual does the mating, but a relative. For example, the alpha male of many species is the only reproducing male, and the subordinate males ensure this process. If a homosexual male has no interest in a female, yet ensures the success of the pack with solid hunting skills, then his contribution just improved natural selection.

Sorry about the babbling.

Sincerely,
Mike

[GregBaron]

Eureka...

Quick point on evolution and natural selection, since this is my field of expertise. The two are not synonymous. Evolution is the hereditary change in a population over successive generations, while natural selection is merely a mechanism which guides the change in a population. It can be argued that homosexuality is not counter to natural selection for a number of reasons. Natural selection deals with populations and not individuals. Homosexuality is observed in most mammal species (therefore, not cultural), but at a low percentage, so its deletarious influence is negligible. Also, its not so important that an individual does the mating, but a relative. For example, the alpha male of many species is the only reproducing male, and the subordinate males ensure this process. If a homosexual male has no interest in a female, yet ensures the success of the pack with solid hunting skills, then his contribution just improved natural selection.

Sorry about the babbling.

Sincerely,
Mike

Thanks Mike, this is just the sort of explanation I was seeking. The idea had
me a bit flummoxed. Makes perfect sense...


Greg

[mklhawley]

Thanks Mike, this is just the sort of explanation I was seeking. The idea had
me a bit flummoxed. Makes perfect sense...


Greg

Hi Greg,

My graduate professor used this very example to flummox us students. His focus was upon meerkats.

Sincerely,
Mike

[GregBaron]

Monster within...

No worries, I'm a big girl. When I say "A la Columbine" I mean school shooters killing their peers, as opposed to school shooters who target authority figures or where total strangers bust in and start killing kids. While Harris was in fact a psychopath, that's actually not enough to create a school shooter. He was bullied mercilessly, there are a lot of documented accounts, including some kids confessing to throwing a cup full of **** on him. And I don't know if that's enough to make a school shooter or if there was something else as well, but that's another topic for another day.

Psychopathy, which is somewhat relevant, doesn't make someone a killer, or even a serial killer. It usually makes them a criminal, often a violent criminal, but it does not automatically equal murder. Psychopaths actually make very good embezzlers and white collar criminals. So there is a tendency to for people to say "Oh.. well he was a psychopath. Case Closed." when in terms of motive and explanation, it isn't closed at all. Psychopathy isn't enough. I mean, it is for the psychopath but while we don't have to reach very far to see how a psychopath becomes a criminal, we have no idea why one becomes a murderer instead of a rapist, or a loan shark, or a blackmailer. So psychopathy is part of it, but not the whole part.

But as for the shooter metaphor, it was not meant as a discourse on the state of mind of the shooters, merely to show the evolution from an organized killer to a disorganized one. They go in with one motive and end with another due to the lightening fast evolution of the crime. But because it is so fast, you see each kind of victimology. A "regular" serial killer can stay in the first or second evolution for months, years, even decades before devolving. Which by necessity means more selective with prey.

Serial killers are if nothing else fetishists. They seek to relive the same experience over and over. Usually their first kill. So the 5th victim isn't the telling one. It's the first. If there was a subconscious association, if there was a preferred type for whatever reason, it shows in the first. Basically, the first victim is the person this guy screwed up his courage to go from fantasy to reality. It's a huge step, and it's one that requires quite a prod. It's why possible triggering events are considered psychologically important. But because these guys are stalkers and peepers, they almost never grab a random person for their first kill. It might have nothing to do with looks. It could be voice, perceived morality, what they drive, where they shop. But something makes that person incredibly attractive to the killer. The first is almost never about availability. For some reason a lot of these guys think it's more bad ass to say they just grabbed the first person who walked by, but more in depth interviews usually show that there were potential victims rejected before their first kill.

Just understand this. There is a pathology to these crimes. There is an element of biology, sociology, physiology, genetics, psychology... And of all of the components that makes someone become a serial killer, psychology gets the most crap. Mostly because most people cannot separate out reason and blame. Trying to subconsciously kill one's own mother is a perfectly valid reason to kill. But there is nothing that ever showed up in any psychological book in the history of man that excuses murder. Nothing mitigates a serial killer's guilt. And I'm not remotely interested in finding a way of mitigating a serial killer's guilt. I want to know what is going on in their heads. Because every symptom, every delusion, every psychotic break could have been detected before they killed. We don't know how many serial killers we prevented by court ordered counseling after a divorce or a death or abuse. We have no idea how many people step up to that line, but then step back. But the answer to that lies in psychology. That's what I want to find. Because the only thing that would make these monsters victims is if they were doomed from birth to be serial killers. That they had no choice.

I completely agree with you here Errata. I don't really like the term psychopath because the media has created a murderer in everyone's mind. They walk among us and most aren't violent.

In the Columbine book by Cullen, the Harris boy was described as a malevolent and tyrannical psychopath. He wanted to kill the entire human race. I'm not sure your bullying reference is factual but it doesn't really matter.

As for Jack(s), it's hard to imagine he wasn't a psychopath although as you say, from there to murder is an unknown path...


Greg

[GregBaron]

Alpha to Omega...

Hi Greg,

My graduate professor used this very example to flummox us students. His focus was upon meerkats.

Sincerely,
Mike

Hmmm, sounds cruel and unusual....

It must be nice to be an alpha male........at least until the party ends...


Greg

[Cogidubnus]

What's your profile for Jack?

I have to say, I never imagined this particular thread would end up quite here...a result that might surprise even the most Darwinist Meerkat...

All the best

Dave

[RivkahChaya]

Hi Rivkah,

This is all quite fascinating, but the fact remains that as least as many girls as boys are the victims of some kind of childhood abuse, and presumably as many girls suffer head injuries as a result of abuse or accident. So there must be some other factor at work here, because girls hardly ever grow up to become the kind of violent serial offender who will often 'take it out on' complete strangers.

Love,

Caz
X

Well, one of the most notorious women serial killers, Aileen Wuornos, had at least two serious head injuries.

This psychologist (psychiatrist, actually) was still gathering preliminary data for a meta-analysis. He was hoping to get permission to do brain imaging of people with head injuries, but those with and without violent histories, and also do some longitudinal studies-- follow children who happened to have closed-head injuries through to mid adulthood, do yearly images, reaction tests, track their school performances, etc., which is why I'm really frustrated that I can't find the article again.

Now, here's just me talking. One fundamental difference between men and women's brains, on the whole (you will certainly find individual brains that do not conform to the statistical trends), are that women's brains are less differentiated, or "specialized" at the end of puberty. The downside for women is very slightly lower reaction times on tests like hitting a buzzer when you see a light of a particular color flash-- however, women can practice, and catch up to men's scores-- the advantage is only when neither group has practiced. The plus is that women have much better prognosis for recovering from strokes or other brain assaults in adulthood.

Another difference is that women have bigger corpora callosa, the band of nerves that connects one hemisphere to the other. It's bigger by percentage of brain mass. That means that if you have damage to one side of your frontal lobe, but not the other, the undamaged side can get information to the side of your brain with the damaged lobe better through a bigger corpus callosum. Also, FWIW, while men have slightly larger brains, on average, than women, women have bigger brains as a portion of body weight, and big, tall men, with somewhat proportionately bigger brains, have a few more motor neurons, and some more non-neuronal supportive tissue, but no more cognitive tissue than the smallest women.

Anyway, women patients who are elderly usually do have much better prognoses for recovery of function after strokes, although it depends on the actual area of damage. So girls may recover from head injuries better.

Or, maybe head injuries don't cause violence, they damage natural ability to inhibit, and a lot more men than women have violent tendencies that need natural inhibition to be intact.

[Errata]

Again, and I'm sorry to push you on this, Errata, but why a domineering mother and not an abusive father? Would an abusive father have led this same killer to target male victims if you are right about your 'substitution evolution'? I don't know of any such cases, do you? So why not an abusive father who maybe knocked seven shades of crap out of his mother on a regular basis, and his mother just meekly put up with it while little Jack watched in fascination, growing up with no respect for women because they let men do whatever they like to their bodies?

I'm not saying I believe this any more than your own theory, but I still see the whole gender thing as an indication of the killer's sexuality rather than whether an abuser in his past was male or female.

I suspect the killer was heterosexual and used prostitutes before he started killing them, so it would have been a simple enough progression, and the selection process could have been pretty much identical. I too doubt he would have seen his victims as potential sex 'partners' as such, but there would have been a fine line for him between using a living prostitute's body for thruppenceworth of impersonal sexual relief and going on to enjoy - even prefer - using his knife on one.

Beyond that, it need only have been a matter of picking his opportunities when they arose, and choosing the knife option when and where he thought he could get away with it. The victims (all of them, whether Jack killed them or not) are entirely consistent with this basic process. They don't need to resemble anyone in the dark or be of a certain age - or include Kelly as one of their aliases.

Love,

Caz
X

Push all you like, Caz. It's how theories get better.

You are absolutely correct that the choice of gender reflects sexuality. It doesn't always, but it's common enough to be reasonably accepted as fact. Serial killers with abusive fathers actually tend to be sexual sadists. It's too much to say that they copy their fathers, but they learn that men are sadists from their fathers, and these serial killers tend to be invested with being "real men". I don't think Jack was a sexual sadist, so combine that with some other assumptions, I don't think his father was ever known to him.

So why an abusive mother? Well, I think there was a sexual component to the abuse, and mixing mom's and sex never ends well. And while I am not surprised by the the sex of his victims, I am surprised by his care in selection. Because he never accidentally got a maid going to work, he wasn't interested in young women, he appeared to favor older prostitutes. Zaftig, older prostitutes. Women of a certain age. That's atypical, but when it does happen, there's usually a reason. An older woman isn't easier to kill. So it's not about that. He's picking them for a reason, and I think he's younger than them. So why kill older prostitutes? Transference is an easy answer. Yes, psychologically pat and wrapped in a neat bow, but it explains some other things. It would explain why there was rage present in the throat cuts, but not the organ removal. It explains no noticeable suspect, it potentially explains the removal of the uterus. And yeah, it happened in my family and I know what it looks like. Not the serial killing, but the domineering sexualized abuse. My grandmother hated me for taking my dad's attention. And I'm not entirely sure she didn't try to kill me as a baby. And I know how hard it was to train my dad how to interact with me and my sister, because his normal was what his mother wanted, and she was one twisted bitch.

And there are serial killers who experienced that kind of abuse. Ed Gein being the shining example. Ed Kempur, Ottis Toole, Henry Lee Lucas, etc. And they are all different on victimology and motivations. But all of them had their sexuality completely screwed with because of that abuse. And it's fair to say that the abuse skewed their victimology from what would have been expected. And I look at Jack's crimes, and I see it skewed from what one would expect. So I think it's very possible Jack suffered something like this. It didn't make him kill, but it made him target older women in a non sexual way, when one would expect him to target younger women with a sexual component.

[Deathtosnails]

Hi Errata, in your opinion was 'Jack' selecting his victims? Do you favour the stalk and kill method?

Or was he opportunistic?

I favour 'Jack' as being disorganised with a few organised traits. I see an older unfortunate as an easy target. Someone who won't fight back too much. Sure they're street smart, but 'Jack' already has his ruse worked out for that. Physically they won't ever be a match to his strength and rage.

So what fuels his rage? Is he confused about his gender? Did he witness his mother turning tricks at a formative stage in growth? Why cut?

Hmmmm. Always more questions than answers...

[Errata]

Hi Errata, in your opinion was 'Jack' selecting his victims? Do you favour the stalk and kill method?

Or was he opportunistic?

I favour 'Jack' as being disorganised with a few organised traits. I see an older unfortunate as an easy target. Someone who won't fight back too much. Sure they're street smart, but 'Jack' already has his ruse worked out for that. Physically they won't ever be a match to his strength and rage.

So what fuels his rage? Is he confused about his gender? Did he witness his mother turning tricks at a formative stage in growth? Why cut?

Hmmmm. Always more questions than answers...

I don't think it was a stalk and kill scenario. I think we are talking about someone who is completely out of touch with himself. He had no idea what was going on in his own head, and he wasn't eager to find out. I don't think he was confident at all. I think he waited for the risk to be worth the reward. And all killers do that. Some judge it by not getting caught, some judge it by surety of success, some judge it by the reward itself. It's kind of like, what would convince you to do heroin? Would you have to know that you wouldn't get addicted the first time you try it? Would you have to know you would survive? Or would you have to know that high was in fact going to be worth any price you may have to pay? I think a killer with no confidence in general, but one who is mission oriented is going to lurk and stall until he either can't take waiting anymore, or he finds a victim that is worth the risk. Because there were no failed attacks. He wasn't lunging at every prostitute that crossed his path. He was waiting for something. There had to have been any number of women he could have safely killed on any given week. But he didn't. So we know he was waiting for a type, not just for conditions to be right.

The thing is that the age of the prostitute would not have mattered to this killer. His victims never saw it coming. They didn't even try to fight. A 40 year old woman is not significantly harder to manage than a 20 year old. Certainly since his victims tended to be on the larger side, these particular 40 year old women would be harder to deal with. So we have a guy who somehow manages to kill these women before they can even lift a finger. I don't see him having trouble with younger women, or even men if that's what he wanted. What I don't know is if he gained enough confidence to stop targeting older prostitutes, and start targeting young women. Because a drastic change of MO could result in "Jack" disappearing.

[Smoking Joe]

Id imagine Jack could have fulfilled the criteria of almost any profile one could invent. Or a mixture of any.Or none. He certainly didnt NEED to have lived alone or in close proximity ,though he may well have done.Similarly,disfigurements,manias,reasons for doing what he did can only be pure conjecture,and as such useless.Profiles are only of any use with the benefit of hindsight,once the killer has been caught and examined,and even then there is no real way of knowing why he did what he did (or didnt do) I doubt whether these people really understand themselves what makes them act as they do.

[lynn cates]

astute

Hello Joe. Welcome to the boards.

Astute observations you make. Motivation and profiling are all but worthless in the WCM.

Cheers.
LC

[Simon Wood]

Hi Lynn,

"Motivation and profiling are all but worthless in the WCM."

Spot on, Professor.

Regards,

Simon

[lynn cates]

grade

Hello Simon. Thanks.

You get an "A" in the class. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Errata]

Id imagine Jack could have fulfilled the criteria of almost any profile one could invent. Or a mixture of any.Or none. He certainly didnt NEED to have lived alone or in close proximity ,though he may well have done.Similarly,disfigurements,manias,reasons for doing what he did can only be pure conjecture,and as such useless.Profiles are only of any use with the benefit of hindsight,once the killer has been caught and examined,and even then there is no real way of knowing why he did what he did (or didnt do) I doubt whether these people really understand themselves what makes them act as they do.

Some serial killers, Joel Rifkin and Ed Kempur come to mind, are capable of quite sophisticated self perception, at least in hindsight. Profiles are a product of decades of research. As a predictive tool, I agree that their value is somewhat questionable. But as quite possibly the largest largest database of all available details on the lives of serial killers, profiles make for excellent "diagnostic" tools. And a vast complex database of behavior is the best way to identify any common dysfunction.