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

[SirJohnFalstaff]

Hello Sir John. Was Hanbury secure?

Cheers.
LC

I think he thought so.

I don't think Jack was a criminal mastermind. Annie probably chose the place herself, like it's some spot she "worked at" before.

Like I said in another thread, I like the possibility that the only uninterrupted murder committed by JtR was MJK.

That is, if we accept the idea of a single killer for the C5 or +

[lynn cates]

seguridad

Hello CD. Thanks.

It might indeed. Of course, Sir John's observation involved security. I was merely pointing out that there seems little at Hanbury.

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

Hello Sir John. Was Hanbury secure?

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

If Annie's killer was Jack and if indeed he was a serial killer, the desire to kill might take priority over security.

c.d.

[lynn cates]

Ah!

Hello GUT.

"no profiler has ever done anything like an extensive study of the case but has relied instead on snippets of information and assumptions that many would challenge."

Now you're talking.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

secure

Hello Sir John. Was Hanbury secure?

Cheers.
LC

[Errata]

It's a useful tool, but not a tool based on any insight about any particulars of the crimes. I used to work for a profiler. Profiling, despite coming from "soft scientists" is in fact math. Based on the truth that there is very little new in the universe. Nothing Jack the Ripper ever did was unique to the point that statistics could not be compiled. Other people did those things, got caught, and yielded information that is the basis for these conclusions.

To draw a paralell, the contributors to this board are white, late 30s-50s, male, Christian, British, middle to upper middle class, married with children. Why do I say that? Well, the Ripper murders happened to white people in England. So people interested in it are far more likely to be white and British. Gruesome murders appeal more to males than females. Most people are Christian. People younger than late thirties tend to use computers for far more personal interactions, but above the age of 60 become less likely to own a computer. Most people in that age range are married and have children. And lower class individuals tend not to have home computers, while high class individuals tend to be less interested in the plight of poverty stricken 19th century whores. That is how a profile is built. And it's a good profile for any contributor to this message board.

Of course, I say this as a white, Jewish, American, lower class, unmarried and unchild-ed woman who has been on this board since her late 20s.

So... statistically the profile is dead on. But any profiler will tell you that people are not statistics, and even in statistics outliers happen all the time.

The reason it's a useful tool is that it allows law enforcement to understand the type of person they are likely dealing with. This way they don't accidentally enrage a narcissist, but can do it to suit their purposes. A profile doesn't tell you who did it. A profile tells you what the suspects potential weaknesses are. In the case of this profile, his weakness is his inability to conceal his psychopathy, and his relationship with his parents. A killer like Gein could be convinced to turn himself in if there is a cop on tv talking about how terribly disappointed his mother would be in him. The man in this profile could be drawn out in a rage by talking about how much his mother is disgusted with him, how she would be making fun of him for this weakness. Every piece of information in the profile is valuable, but it doesn't draw a map to the killer. It lets you set traps, warn the appropriate victim pool, make better guesses as to where he runs to, and help interview him when he is caught. But it's statistics. Not laws. Just like I'm not a 45 year old British dude.

[SirJohnFalstaff]

"His first homicide may not have been his first victim"

You are absolutely right.

"Think of prior failures, or perhaps he was a mugger turned murderer?"

I like the idea of a mugging turned wrong, and JtR discovered something about himself, he enjoyed it. He discovered his fondness for picquerism, but it went out of control at one point. And as he became more obsess with it, ready to go deeper, he became less and less careful.

He probably didn't start with humans. There is a possibility, in my mind, that he didn't particularly dislike women or prostitutes, but they were the safest, easiest targets out there.

Just thinking out loud.

[Wickerman]

I just read it this morning.

The parts I find interestings, mostly, are:

1- He would look differently, like a potential customer, who can afford a prostitute, so they approached him, not the other way around.

2- He was not setting up a challenge against the law. Notoriety was not his primary motivation.

3- He lives or works in the Whitechapel area. The first homicide should be in close proximity to either his home or workplace.

His first homicide may not have been his first victim. Think of prior failures, or perhaps he was a mugger turned murderer?
His first crime may have been close to home/work, but his first murder, or first success (assuming one or more failures), will have been later, therefore elsewhere.

[GUT]

The biggest problem with profiling is that it can be no better than the input it is based on and as far as I can see no profiler has ever done anything like an extensive study of the case but has relied instead on snippets of information and assumptions that many would challenge.

John Douglas in , I am fairly sure, Cases that Haunt us, is a classic example of this

[SirJohnFalstaff]

I just read it this morning.

The parts I find interestings, mostly, are:

1- He would look differently, like a potential customer, who can afford a prostitute, so they approached him, not the other way around.

2- He was not setting up a challenge against the law. Notoriety was not his primary motivation.

3- He lives or works in the Whitechapel area. The first homicide should be in close proximity to either his home or workplace.

4- Investigators would have interviewed him during the investigation.

5- There would have been many other women who confronted JtR and were not assaulted because the location was not secure enough.

I think I will try to locate crimes that happened in the vicinity of Nichols murder site, and see if there is a possible Ripper connection.

So, yes, I give this profiling credit, mostly because I have absolutely no credential to say otherwise. ;-)

[GUT]

Hi,

Sadly the records we have are badly depleted. If only we had the complete sets .....


Best wishes.

And is there a single area of Ripperology that doesn't apply to?

[Hatchett]

Hi,

Sadly the records we have are badly depleted. If only we had the complete sets .....


Best wishes.

[RockySullivan]

This profile looks pretty dead on to me. So the hospital is interesting maybe someone who worked there could learn how to cut organs out but not a doctor. The idea that he was questioned and then stopped is smart. Why can't we go look back at everyone who was questioned? Would there still be records of everyone the police talked to especially if he was talked to more than once like the profile suggest there's a good chance there would be a record of him.

[Major Kong]

Ritual and Signature in Serial Homicide

Another VERY interesting article about Ritual and Signature in Serial Sexual Homicide...from the Journal of American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law.

http://www.jaapl.org/content/38/2/239.long

Some very interesting things to ponder in there when we consider the Ripper crimes...

Paul

[Major Kong]

To Paul

I wouldn't have thought the chances of there being two serial killers operating at the same time in London are that high, which is one of the reason's I don't subscribe to the multiple killers theory in reguard to the Ripper murders.

Cheers John

Hey John,
I'm with ya....