What's your profile for Jack?

[Scorpio]

It's not like Ed wasn't absolutely correct in pointing out a serious flaw in their interview procedures. That he did it theatrically... I imagine that's one of those things you laugh about later.

I was at gas station a couple years ago, went in to pay, got gas, got in my car, started it, started to pull out and freaked the eff out because there was a 50 year old homeless man in the passenger seat that I didn't even notice. I was so used to driving my fiance around that despite seeing the homeless guy, I didn't see him. And then he starts shouting at me about what a colossal idiot I was leaving the car unlocked and unattended, and how he could have been a serial killer or a rapist, and how in god's name did I not see him when I got in the car... for like 5 minutes he yells at me about basic safety, then gets out of the car. Then gets back in the car and yells at me for not locking the door the second he got out of the car, then got out and I locked the door. And he glared at me as I drove away, and I was shaking so hard I couldn't control my gas pedal. He scared me to death, but now I laugh about it. And I always lock my car.

Yes, Ed could teach Stephen King a thing about the violent imagination; he threatened to pull Ressler's head off and leave it sitting on the table to greet the guard. I believe Kemper was strong enough and mad enough to do it.

[Errata]

Talking of profilers and Edmund Kemper, Robert Ressler (the originator of the organised/disorganised criteria) had an alarming encounter with Big Ed after he was mistakenly locked in an interview room.

It's not like Ed wasn't absolutely correct in pointing out a serious flaw in their interview procedures. That he did it theatrically... I imagine that's one of those things you laugh about later.

I was at gas station a couple years ago, went in to pay, got gas, got in my car, started it, started to pull out and freaked the eff out because there was a 50 year old homeless man in the passenger seat that I didn't even notice. I was so used to driving my fiance around that despite seeing the homeless guy, I didn't see him. And then he starts shouting at me about what a colossal idiot I was leaving the car unlocked and unattended, and how he could have been a serial killer or a rapist, and how in god's name did I not see him when I got in the car... for like 5 minutes he yells at me about basic safety, then gets out of the car. Then gets back in the car and yells at me for not locking the door the second he got out of the car, then got out and I locked the door. And he glared at me as I drove away, and I was shaking so hard I couldn't control my gas pedal. He scared me to death, but now I laugh about it. And I always lock my car.

[Scorpio]

Talking of profilers and Edmund Kemper, Robert Ressler (the originator of the organised/disorganised criteria) had an alarming encounter with Big Ed after he was mistakenly locked in an interview room.

[DVV]

Gud enough (amharic pun).

[Errata]

Most interesting case, I too have read quite a lot about him.
But Kempur sounded like a Gujarati cousin of he.

Yeah. My old boss's last name is Kempur, so I get that wrong all the time. Hundred of memos over a span of two years CC'd to "Director Kempur", so I'm pretty resigned to the fact that it's just going to be a crapshoot whether or not I spell it right.

[DVV]

Most interesting case, I too have read quite a lot about him.
But Kempur sounded like a Gujarati cousin of he.

[Errata]

Ed Kempur (again) ?

Well, to date he is the serial killer who has been the most cooperative with researchers and law enforcement. We know more about him and his brain than any other serial killer. And I talked to him twice in my old job. He's also insanely intelligent, as is Joel Rifkin. Kemper is really the only serial killer I've studied who I really consider to have completely wasted his potential. Which is admittedly snobbish, but he is bright, well spoken, brilliant, self-actualized in a weird way... he could have been one of those change-the-world kind of guys. But instead he killed college girls. He gets to me.

[DVV]

Ed Kempur (again) ?

[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.

[lynn cates]

grade

Hello Simon. Thanks.

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

Cheers.
LC

[Simon Wood]

Hi Lynn,

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

Spot on, Professor.

Regards,

Simon

[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

[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.

[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.

[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...