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

[SirJohnFalstaff]

Hi Simon 3

FYI
from wiki:
A serial killer is a person who has murdered three or more people over a period of more than a month, with down time (a "cooling off period") between the murders. Some sources, such as the FBI, disregard the "three or more" criterion and define the term as "a series of two or more murders, committed as separate events, usually, but not always, by one offender acting alone" or, including the vital characteristics, a minimum of two murders.

[Rosella]

Using the FBI methodology, would the murders of Abby and Andrew Borden, committed an estimated hour and a half apart, make Lizzie Borden a serial killer, (if she was guilty, of course?)

[GUT]

Using the FBI methodology, would the murders of Abby and Andrew Borden, committed an estimated hour and a half apart, make Lizzie Borden a serial killer, (if she was guilty, of course?)

I'm not sure than an hour and a half would count as a down time in between.

[John G]

You'll forgive me if I have a different take on Michael's post. I think if anyone does not accept the C5 as having been the work of one man it is because they arbitrarily assign rules of conduct that a serial killer must somehow follow and attribute importance to differences in the killings which are not significant. For them, Jack has to act like a robot not a human being.

c.d.

I absolutely agree. I would tend to focus on the statistical rarity of these crimes rather than looking for exact comparisons between different murders, which I regard as a seriously flawed approach.

As I've mentioned on the Tabram thread, murder itself was relatively uncommon in late Victorian Whitechapel. Focusing on the years either side of 1888, there were no murders at all in 1886 or 1887, one murder in 1889 and one in 1890. Moreover, the type of murders that occurred in 1888 are themselves extremely rare.

Thus, modern research suggests that fewer than 0.1% of murders involve trauma to the genital area and 0.05% involve the combination of posing and mutilation. Considering the murder rate of the period, you could therefore expect a Tabram- style murder less than once every 2,000 years and a MJK Murder once every 4,000 years!

Frankly, I think the argument that an entire army of throat cutters, mutilators and uteri removers suddenly descended upon Whitechapel in 1888, only to disappear again by 1892, is simply untenable. I mean, what happened to all of these dangerously unstable individuals: surely they couldn't all of drowned in the Thames or found themselves caged in an asylum.

It has been argued that you can't empirically assign a murder to a killer without an arrest. Well that obviously accords with common sense, however, it shouldn't prevent us from making sensible judgements based upon the rarity of the crimes and of similarities contained within the MO.

This more flexible approach takes into consideration that serial killers are not "robots" and that their Mo can change for a variety of reasons. For instance, the police were originally reluctant to confirm that Jean Jordan was a Yorkshire Ripper victim; they pointed out that there was no evidence that she was a prostitute, she was more severely mutilated than any previous YR victim and she'd been decapitated, unlike any other victim.

Of course, we now know that Sutcliffe did kill Jordan. He explained himself that he'd severely mutilated her- an act that made even him vomit- because he was furious at not being able to find an incriminating £5 note and that he'd decapitated her because he was trying to disguise the fact that she was a YR victim- he didn't want the police to know that he'd crossed the Pennines.

In fact, despite the fact that the first murder to be attributed to him was in 1975, as early as 1969 he admitted to a friend that he'd followed a women to her house and attacked her with a sock containing a brick. To my mind it is therefore very likely that he committed other murders between 1969 and 1975 but wasn't charged with them because they must have differed in some significant aspect from his mature MO.

And what about Anthony Hardy the Camden Ripper. He was convicted of 3 murders, the first of which he committed at the age of 49- pretty old for a serial killer, strongly suggesting that he must have committed earlier murders, but possibly displaying an MO with different characteristics. In fact, the police believe he may have committed up to another 8 murders that bare some similarities to the ones he was convicted of- I believe he's also suspected of being a serial rapist. Why wasn't he arrested for these crimes? Because despite the similarities there simply wasn't enough evidence to directly implicate him.

Best wishes

John

[Michael W Richards]

Thanks for the supporting voices Simon ad Trevor.

To John G I would say that in the case of the so-called Ripper murders the first 2 murders in that series have specific features not seen in more conventional murders of the period. They were committed within a 10 day period, they were both murders of prostitutes while they worked...allowing for random murder theorizing...they both were cut in the throat unusually deep and twice, and they both had their abdomens mutilated after the killing cuts. Both victims were assumed to have been on the ground when the cuts occurred, both victims exhibit possible evidence of strangulation or garroting...perhaps to facilitate their lying down compliantly and quietly...and both victims were homeless at the time of their deaths due to lack of funds. These 2 murders based on the MO, Signature and Activities, were almost certainly the work of one person. This person was nicknamed before any further murders occurred as "Jack the Ripper. In my opinion, and in the opinion of some others, this is where any legitimate "series" ends.

In the Canonical Five, this is also where the vast majority of the similarities and the kill frequency ends. Its almost a month to the next kills, and more than a month until the last, and in none of the final 3 cases can we say with conviction that the women were certainly homeless that night, that they were soliciting, that they were almost certainly killed by someone posing as a client, or that their killer had a focus on mutilation on the female abdomen, post mortem.

Im just writing about what happened, not what most criminologists and historians have added to those basic facts over the years.

Its not enough to investigate these as a series based on opinions.

Cheers

[sdreid]

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

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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

[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.