The FBI Profile of Jack the Ripper & it's usefulness

[Pcdunn]

I think the FBI profile may give us a rough idea of what Jack the Ripper was like. And I'd expect Jack to largely match up with the FBI's profile. I also subscribe to the single killer hypothesis although I believe the Torso Killer was operating in London at the same time as Jack.

Re the torso killings-- could they have been the work of a criminal gang, and not an individual?

Pat D.

[Batman]

If anyone has read Crimes That Still Haunts Us by Douglas it would be worth noting that he got it wrong with DeSalvo who he believed was innocent. Since then DNA confirmed it was DeSalvo.

[gnote]

A classic case of how the facts can be misleading to all is that of Richard Ramirez The Los Angeles Night stalker. At the time of the murders the police thought they may have two different killers that were active at the same time.

Ramirez was entering houses in the dead of night armed with a gun and a knife. Some of the victims he was stabbing others shooting. Some women he let live others he killed.

Now if he hadn't been caught and we were looking at those crimes in the same way we are looking at the ripper crimes would we have automatically thought the same as the police?

[/url]

Quite possibly we might, but the police still believed they were dealing with serial killers. It wasn't as if they thought none of the the murders had a connection. Secondly Jack's MO/signature is quite a bit more shall we say "distinct" than was Ramirez'.

[Trevor Marriott]

All I can say John is IF the premise you and others adhere to, (That these 5 murders are serial in nature), is someday validated by a single piece of evidence, then Ill be happy to congratulate you.

As it is we have only what we have, and if we refrain from drawing conclusions as to why a single killer changed and suddenly did this or that, we have unconnected murders aside from the geography,.. using the physical and circumstantial evidence as our guidelines.

My perspective is that I don't assume anything about these murders, including assuming that what was said by many contemporary investigators should considered as fact. Knowing as we do that almost all of the senior investigators in the Whitechapel murders were in the midst of potentially being outed themselves due to the Parnell Commission, what they say about the murders may well be disinformation that they were so familiar with.

We have opinions John, not evidence of, any serial killings in Whitechapel in 1888. Im inclined to assign 2 "Ripper" murders to one unknown assailant myself, with an open mind about more should some kind of as yet undiscovered proof warrant expanding that count.

Cheers

Cheers

A classic case of how the facts can be misleading to all is that of Richard Ramirez The Los Angeles Night stalker. At the time of the murders the police thought they may have two different killers that were active at the same time.

Ramirez was entering houses in the dead of night armed with a gun and a knife. Some of the victims he was stabbing others shooting. Some women he let live others he killed.

Now if he hadn't been caught and we were looking at those crimes in the same way we are looking at the ripper crimes would we have automatically thought the same as the police?

Now if there had been two serial killers operating separately and they had not been caught and we were now looking at the murders would we have thought that there were in fact two operating separatrelygiven the MO of both?

With the Ripper murders there are significant differences with some of the murders to suggest that they were not all killed by the same hand.

Now I wonder why team Lechmmeres expert Andy Griffiths could not see this if he was given access to "all" the files. Perhaps he was and perhaps he stated this, and perhaps his comments finished up on the cutting room floor like most of Scobies contribution

I also note and re iterate, that he only states that given what he was provided with Cross was nothing more than a person of interest putting him the same category of many other persons of interest previously discussed, and not in the category of likely or prime suspect !

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00KNRE4NY

[Paddy]

Serial Killers

The Ipswich serial murders took place between 30 October and 10 December 2006 when the bodies of five murdered women were discovered at different locations near Ipswich, Suffolk, England
I remember this hitting the UK news. Like the Ripper Murders it only lasted a couple of months (in his case he was caught) The police and everybody was immediately of the opinion this was one serial killer. I am sure it would have been the same in 1888.

Pat.....................................

[RockySullivan]

All I can say John is IF the premise you and others adhere to, (That these 5 murders are serial in nature), is someday validated by a single piece of evidence, then Ill be happy to congratulate you.

As it is we have only what we have, and if we refrain from drawing conclusions as to why a single killer changed and suddenly did this or that, we have unconnected murders aside from the geography,.. using the physical and circumstantial evidence as our guidelines.

My perspective is that I don't assume anything about these murders, including assuming that what was said by many contemporary investigators should considered as fact. Knowing as we do that almost all of the senior investigators in the Whitechapel murders were in the midst of potentially being outed themselves due to the Parnell Commission, what they say about the murders may well be disinformation that they were so familiar with.

We have opinions John, not evidence of, any serial killings in Whitechapel in 1888. Im inclined to assign 2 "Ripper" murders to one unknown assailant myself, with an open mind about more should some kind of as yet undiscovered proof warrant expanding that count.

Cheers

Cheers

How many killers in London were taking uterus from people (the torso killer also?)...

[gnote]

All I can say John is IF the premise you and others adhere to, (That these 5 murders are serial in nature), is someday validated by a single piece of evidence, then Ill be happy to congratulate you.

As it is we have only what we have, and if we refrain from drawing conclusions as to why a single killer changed and suddenly did this or that, we have unconnected murders aside from the geography,.. using the physical and circumstantial evidence as our guidelines.

My perspective is that I don't assume anything about these murders, including assuming that what was said by many contemporary investigators should considered as fact. Knowing as we do that almost all of the senior investigators in the Whitechapel murders were in the midst of potentially being outed themselves due to the Parnell Commission, what they say about the murders may well be disinformation that they were so familiar with.

We have opinions John, not evidence of, any serial killings in Whitechapel in 1888. Im inclined to assign 2 "Ripper" murders to one unknown assailant myself, with an open mind about more should some kind of as yet undiscovered proof warrant expanding that count.

Cheers

Cheers

I'm curious to know when you think it's possible to identify if there is/was an active serial killer active anywhere, past or present.

[Michael W Richards]

All I can say John is IF the premise you and others adhere to, (That these 5 murders are serial in nature), is someday validated by a single piece of evidence, then Ill be happy to congratulate you.

As it is we have only what we have, and if we refrain from drawing conclusions as to why a single killer changed and suddenly did this or that, we have unconnected murders aside from the geography,.. using the physical and circumstantial evidence as our guidelines.

My perspective is that I don't assume anything about these murders, including assuming that what was said by many contemporary investigators should considered as fact. Knowing as we do that almost all of the senior investigators in the Whitechapel murders were in the midst of potentially being outed themselves due to the Parnell Commission, what they say about the murders may well be disinformation that they were so familiar with.

We have opinions John, not evidence of, any serial killings in Whitechapel in 1888. Im inclined to assign 2 "Ripper" murders to one unknown assailant myself, with an open mind about more should some kind of as yet undiscovered proof warrant expanding that count.

Cheers

Cheers

[Abby Normal]

Hello Michael,

I would agree that your approach is useful if you're trying to link murders on the basis of virtual certainty, i.e. by focusing on predominantly identical characteristics,however, I do believe that it is a legitimate approach to attempt to link murders on the basis of wider criteria, including the general rarity of these types of crimes, i.e the C5 and Tabram, and possibly even Mckenzie and Coles. And this more flexible approach clearly as the advantage of accounting for the fact that serial killers, for a variety of reasons, do not always act in a way that is wholly predictable or uniform.

Thus, presumably using your approach you would have discounted the taxi driver Paul Stine as a Zodiac victim, as he was clearly not a young couple, attacked in an isolated area near to water- like Zodiac's earlier victims.

Additionally, as regards the Yorkshire Ripper, the last six of his victims, as they were none prostitutes; Jean Jordan as she was decapitated, more extensively mutilated and killed outside of Yorkshire; and Walls and Bandura, because in addition to being non-prostitutes they were killed by a ligature rather than a knife.

In fact, these two attacks highlight just how distorted and perverted a serial killers perspectives can become and why their actions cannot be entirely predicated: Incredibly, Sutcliffe stated that he changed his method of killing, from knife to ligature, because he felt stigmatized at being referred to as the Yorkshire Ripper! However, he then said he returned to using a knife because "I found the method of strangulation was even more horrible and took longer"!

I would therefore, for instance, link Stride and Eddowes for the following reasons. Firstly, they were both incredibly rare crimes, i.e women killed outdoors with their throats cut. And this in an area where murder itself was pretty rare. And whether Stride was soliciting or not I think is largely incidental: we can't assume that JTR would only target prostitutes. Sutcliffe's last six victims were non-prostitutes, although he claimed he thought they were: as he attacked Marguertta Walls he shouted "you filthy prostitute", even though she clearly wasn't and she was not attacked in a red light district.

Secondly, the murders of Stride and Eddowes are linked both temporally and geographically: they were killed less than a mile apart and within a space of just 45 minutes. Considering how uncommon both these murder were this is an extraordinary coincidence if to different killers were involved.

Thirdly, method. You yourself pointed out that the first two victims exhibited evidence of strangulation and were killed close to the ground. Well so did Stride! Dr Blackwell believed that she may have been pulled with her scarf, presumably causing it to tighten around he neck, and Dr Phillips was of the opinion that her throat was cut whilst she was on the ground. This would probably explain the lack of blood on either Stride or the ground, meaning that Strides' killer seems to be using the same strategy for avoiding arterial spray as demonstrated in the earlier killings. Again this represents another incredible coincidence if there were two killers at large that night.

Of course, Stride didn't have any abdominal injuries, but I believe the evidence points to the killer being interrupted by Louis D. And although her throat was severely cut it wasn't mutilated like the other C5 victims. However, I see JTR as an impulsive opportunist like Sutcliffe. There is evidence that Stride was attacked with a short blade, so this might have been inadequate for the killer's purpose. Simply put, we cannot assume that JTR would always be roaming the streets with a fully equipped murder kit; he may have been forced to improvise just as Sutcliffe did on occasion.

Cheers,

John

good post! totally agree.
Serial killers are not robots, nor do they follow a script set in stone.
Exact same MO for a serial killer is a myth, even sig can vary somewhat.

Its called CIRCUMSTANCES-you know- real life

[John G]

Hello Michael,

I would agree that your approach is useful if you're trying to link murders on the basis of virtual certainty, i.e. by focusing on predominantly identical characteristics,however, I do believe that it is a legitimate approach to attempt to link murders on the basis of wider criteria, including the general rarity of these types of crimes, i.e the C5 and Tabram, and possibly even Mckenzie and Coles. And this more flexible approach clearly as the advantage of accounting for the fact that serial killers, for a variety of reasons, do not always act in a way that is wholly predictable or uniform.

Thus, presumably using your approach you would have discounted the taxi driver Paul Stine as a Zodiac victim, as he was clearly not a young couple, attacked in an isolated area near to water- like Zodiac's earlier victims.

Additionally, as regards the Yorkshire Ripper, the last six of his victims, as they were none prostitutes; Jean Jordan as she was decapitated, more extensively mutilated and killed outside of Yorkshire; and Walls and Bandura, because in addition to being non-prostitutes they were killed by a ligature rather than a knife.

In fact, these two attacks highlight just how distorted and perverted a serial killers perspectives can become and why their actions cannot be entirely predicated: Incredibly, Sutcliffe stated that he changed his method of killing, from knife to ligature, because he felt stigmatized at being referred to as the Yorkshire Ripper! However, he then said he returned to using a knife because "I found the method of strangulation was even more horrible and took longer"!

I would therefore, for instance, link Stride and Eddowes for the following reasons. Firstly, they were both incredibly rare crimes, i.e women killed outdoors with their throats cut. And this in an area where murder itself was pretty rare. And whether Stride was soliciting or not I think is largely incidental: we can't assume that JTR would only target prostitutes. Sutcliffe's last six victims were non-prostitutes, although he claimed he thought they were: as he attacked Marguertta Walls he shouted "you filthy prostitute", even though she clearly wasn't and she was not attacked in a red light district.

Secondly, the murders of Stride and Eddowes are linked both temporally and geographically: they were killed less than a mile apart and within a space of just 45 minutes. Considering how uncommon both these murder were this is an extraordinary coincidence if to different killers were involved.

Thirdly, method. You yourself pointed out that the first two victims exhibited evidence of strangulation and were killed close to the ground. Well so did Stride! Dr Blackwell believed that she may have been pulled with her scarf, presumably causing it to tighten around he neck, and Dr Phillips was of the opinion that her throat was cut whilst she was on the ground. This would probably explain the lack of blood on either Stride or the ground, meaning that Strides' killer seems to be using the same strategy for avoiding arterial spray as demonstrated in the earlier killings. Again this represents another incredible coincidence if there were two killers at large that night.

Of course, Stride didn't have any abdominal injuries, but I believe the evidence points to the killer being interrupted by Louis D. And although her throat was severely cut it wasn't mutilated like the other C5 victims. However, I see JTR as an impulsive opportunist like Sutcliffe. There is evidence that Stride was attacked with a short blade, so this might have been inadequate for the killer's purpose. Simply put, we cannot assume that JTR would always be roaming the streets with a fully equipped murder kit; he may have been forced to improvise just as Sutcliffe did on occasion.

Cheers,

John

[MayBea]

Even IF profiling could solve a modern crime I have real doubts that it would be applicable to a 125 year old crime when the world was a vastly different place.

Doss houses, limited transport, no social security, mere victimology would struggle, these were radically different times.

You nailed it on the head with limited transport, GUT. This was pre-aviation era.

In modern times, you could almost count on SKs, with their navigation skills, to be linked to aviation somehow. Yates, Hansen, Rader, Bundy, Williams...etc.

[Rosella]

Yes, a lot would have changed, certainly. Charlie Chaplin, who was treated as a god on his visits to Britain, seems to have been both traumatised and obsessed by his East End childhood. For years, even between the wars, he would walk the streets and visit old haunts with friends. The Blitz finished off many slum dwellings with their jerrybuilt housing and thousands of Cockneys were rehoused in quite soulless housing estates in areas away from the old East End after the Second World War. The sense of community was gone.

[Hatchett]

Hi,

I think it vanished a lot earlier than that. Certainly the 14-18 war changed not only Whitechapel but the world.

Best wishes.

[Rosella]

I agree. In the book 'The Cases that Haunt Us' a profiler wrote of the Lizzie Borden case that he would get Lizzie during questioning to 'open up' about possible sexual abuse by her father Andrew. The idea that any 32year old adult woman would in 1892 sit down and discuss with a stranger any sort of sexual activity at all is patently ridiculous.

It's exactly the same with the sort of East End inhabited by Jack and his victims. That world finally vanished for ever in the Blitz of 1940, thank God.

[GUT]

Regarding solving the case, like most profiles, it's virtually useless if not counterproductive.

Even IF profiling could solve a modern crime I have real doubts that it would be applicable to a 125 year old crime when the world was a vastly different place.

Doss houses, limited transport, no social security, mere victimology would struggle, these were radically different times.