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

[Wickerman]

... However, I don't think the killer posses anatomical knowledge. I believe it was more slash and grab.

You might like to read through a series of posts by Prosector, who teaches surgery, and was able to explain why the killer displayed some anatomical/surgical knowledge.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=7595

[Sleuth1888]

I think that the FBI profile is very useful in order to gauge and measure the personality of the killer.

Geo-profiling is also another useful clue in helping to analyse this case. The indication that the Ripper lived in Flower & Dean Street, plus the midpoint between Berner Street, Mitre Square and Goulston Street being Flower & Dean Street is not to be ignored.

[Fisherman]

I think that the FBI profile is very useful in order to gauge and measure the personality of the killer.

Geo-profiling is also another useful clue in helping to analyse this case. The indication that the Ripper lived in Flower & Dean Street, plus the midpoint between Berner Street, Mitre Square and Goulston Street being Flower & Dean Street is not to be ignored.

If I may, Sleuth: I think that we should save the congratulations until we know whether the profiles fit or not. It is not until then we know if they are truly useful.

[c.d.]

I don't discount the value of an FBI profile but they are at best an educated guess. The problem is when they use a nebulous description such as saying he probably had a troubled childhood or something along those lines. How many people in Whitechapel fall into that category?

c.d.

[Errata]

I don't discount the value of an FBI profile but they are at best an educated guess. The problem is when they use a nebulous description such as saying he probably had a troubled childhood or something along those lines. How many people in Whitechapel fall into that category?

c.d.

Technically it's a statistical guess, less an educated one. It's also culturally specific knowledge, so Victorian London is about as far from their statistics as feudal Japan. They still have problems with black and female serial killers because they haven't collected enough statistics on those two groups, other than female "angels of mercy". And every single bit of it depends on certain interpretations made. Like what he wanted. Statistically a guy like this is a sexual sadist because the statistical majority of mutilators are. But not the actual majority. Like they say, it's a guide. Not a rule.

Though usually they do say if they mean an abused child or a delinquent of some kind. Or both.

[Syclone]

It's possible one or more pre-Tabram attacks weren't reported. My theory is there was a woman he murdered before Tabram who was never identified.

[Rosella]

It's possible, even probable that there may have been a previous victim. There were thousands of missing people who just moved and didn't bother to tell anyone, over 8,000 of them unaccounted for in 1887 alone. Even if half of them were male that leaves a lot of females who had moved and not told anyone and ended up heaven knows where.

In 1888 The Times noted '...a remarkable feature in the case of the discovery of the mutilated body at Whitehall is the number of missing women brought to the notice of the authorities by persons making inquiries respecting the remains. It is thus shown that very many women leave their friends without communicating with them and pass out of the sight of those nearest to them.'

[John G]

I've just watched the 1988 documentary the Secret Identity of Jack the Ripper. Interestingly the two FBI profilers that were consulted, Roy Hazzlewood and John Douglas, concluded that JtR would be someone like Kosminkski, I.e a lower class suspect, because someone from a higher social class, such as Druitt, wouldn't want to be covered with blood and gore.

Not sure I agree, particularly as a number of witnesses described reasonably well-dressed suspects, which they didn't seem to take into account.

[John G]

Technically it's a statistical guess, less an educated one. It's also culturally specific knowledge, so Victorian London is about as far from their statistics as feudal Japan. They still have problems with black and female serial killers because they haven't collected enough statistics on those two groups, other than female "angels of mercy". And every single bit of it depends on certain interpretations made. Like what he wanted. Statistically a guy like this is a sexual sadist because the statistical majority of mutilators are. But not the actual majority. Like they say, it's a guide. Not a rule.

Though usually they do say if they mean an abused child or a delinquent of some kind. Or both.

Hi Errata,

And some profiler analysis is clearly based on flawed reasoning. For example, Keppel (2005) concluded that JtR was a picquerist. However, this is not even a fully accepted psychological condition, which is why it is placed under the general paraphilia Not Otherwise Specified category in the DSM.

In fact, Frances and First, 2011 highlighted this problem (they were Chair and Editor of the DSM iv): "NOS diagnosis applies to presentations that are subthreshold, atypical, of uncertain etiology, or based on insufficient information..Not otherwise specified diagnoses are meant to be no more than residual wastebaskets provided by DSM iv to encourage research and for the convenience of clinicians when coding patients who do not fit within one of the specific DSM iv categories." See: http://www.jaapl.org/content/39/4/555.long

[Fisherman]

I've just watched the 1988 documentary the Secret Identity of Jack the Ripper. Interestingly the two FBI profilers that were consulted, Roy Hazzlewood and John Douglas, concluded that JtR would be someone like Kosminkski, I.e a lower class suspect, because someone from a higher social class, such as Druitt, wouldn't want to be covered with blood and gore.

Not sure I agree, particularly as a number of witnesses described reasonably well-dressed suspects, which they didn't seem to take into account.

Took a peak, scrolled to the end and heard Hazelwood saying that Kosminski´s hatred against women was "extremely well documented".

Yeah. Right.

He also said that Kosminski was the only person or the five looked into as suspects who would not mind getting sprayed with blood.

Yeah. Right.

And who WERE the five?

Kosminski.
Druitt.
D´Onston Stephenson.
Gull.
The Duke of Clarence.

Yeah. Right.

They came to the right conclusion - out of THAT bunch, Kosminski was always going to be the best bet.

The documentary looked extremely dated and tired. To think, that 27 years ago, that was as far as Ripperology had reached...

PS. There was a voting amongst the spectators. Gull won that part. DS.

[John G]

Took a peak, scrolled to the end and heard Hazelwood saying that Kosminski´s hatred against women was "extremely well documented".

Yeah. Right.

He also said that Kosminski was the only person or the five looked into as suspects who would not mind getting sprayed with blood.

Yeah. Right.

And who WERE the five?

Kosminski.
Druitt.
D´Onston Stephenson.
Gull.
The Duke of Clarence.

Yeah. Right.

They came to the right conclusion - out of THAT bunch, Kosminski was always going to be the best bet.

The documentary looked extremely dated and tired. To think, that 27 years ago, that was as far as Ripperology had reached...

Hi Fish,

Yes, I agree that it seemed very dated, although for the period it was quite a comprehensive review: Donald Rumbellow and Martin Fido were both consulted and, as noted, both Douglas and Hazlewood were on the "jury".

Clearly Kosminski was the best alternative of the suspects chosen, although Druitt, of course, is still regarded by many as a serious suspect. Mind you, I was relieved that they exonerated the Duke of Clarence!

As my earlier post indicated, it did seem strange that they would conclude that Kosminski would be the only one who wouldn't mind being sprayed with blood. Not sure what evidence they were basing that on. And they were obviously confused about the evidence that Kosminski had an extreme hatred of women; nor was it mentioned that in the asylum he was regarded as non violent.

The bit I found the most interesting is when it was stated that there was an underground system that was accessible from most of the murder sites; and that this system extended to a place near to Druitt's Blackheath chambers. Not sure how accurate that was, though.

A bit of a surprise that the Duke of Clarence received 20% in the public vote: probably not the most knowledgeable of audiences!

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish,

Yes, I agree that it seemed very dated, although for the period it was quite a comprehensive review: Donald Rumbellow and Martin Fido were both consulted and, as noted, both Douglas and Hazlewood were on the "jury".

Clearly Kosminski was the best alternative of the suspects chosen, although Druitt, of course, is still regarded by many as a serious suspect. Mind you, I was relieved that they exonerated the Duke of Clarence!

As my earlier post indicated, it did seem strange that they would conclude that Kosminski would be the only one who wouldn't mind being sprayed with blood. Not sure what evidence they were basing that on. And they were obviously confused about the evidence that Kosminski had an extreme hatred of women; nor was it mentioned that in the asylum he was regarded as non violent.

The bit I found the most interesting is when it was stated that there was an underground system that was accessible from most of the murder sites; and that this system extended to a place near to Druitt's Blackheath chambers. Not sure how accurate that was, though.

A bit of a surprise that the Duke of Clarence received 20% in the public vote: probably not the most knowledgeable of audiences!

I think the Royal Conspiracy still wins when the question is put to the public. And I think we may dump the documentary in the waste bin. I´m sure that some copies will be safely tucked away by the Kosminki-ites, though... They´re not gonna throw away a FBI endorsement.

So this is probably the kind of stuff that Jeff Leahy leans against. Which is good to know.

[Abby Normal]

Took a peak, scrolled to the end and heard Hazelwood saying that Kosminski´s hatred against women was "extremely well documented".

Yeah. Right.

He also said that Kosminski was the only person or the five looked into as suspects who would not mind getting sprayed with blood.

Yeah. Right.

And who WERE the five?

Kosminski.
Druitt.
D´Onston Stephenson.
Gull.
The Duke of Clarence.

Yeah. Right.

They came to the right conclusion - out of THAT bunch, Kosminski was always going to be the best bet.

The documentary looked extremely dated and tired. To think, that 27 years ago, that was as far as Ripperology had reached...

PS. There was a voting amongst the spectators. Gull won that part. DS.

Bingo Fish
I always take what FBI profilers say with a grain of salt.

In this particular case, Im not really sure how much time they studied the case or really how seriously they took it.

To be quite frank, I think the average Casebook poster knows more about the case than they do/did.

[barnflatwyngarde]

"Bingo Fish
I always take what FBI profilers say with a grain of salt."

Check out the Malcolm Gladwell article in which he casts a sceptical eye over the science of criminal profiling.

I know this has already been posted a while ago, but it me be on interest to newer members of the Casebook.

http://gladwell.com/dangerous-minds/

[SirJohnFalstaff]

You might like to read through a series of posts by Prosector, who teaches surgery, and was able to explain why the killer displayed some anatomical/surgical knowledge.
http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=7595

oh. Thanks for that. Very interesting.