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

[Sleuth1888]

Now I know that the validity and purpose of criminal/geo profiling is disputed by many on Casebook when it comes to analyzing the Ripper murders, but I do believe they are a useful tool to get inside the heads of modern serial killers. Both modern and old time serial killers must have shared similar thought patterns, triggers and emotions. So it might be useful to employ in regards to the old cases of crime to some extent.

[Pcdunn]

I've been trying to find the price of matches in 1888 and been unsuccessful. If they were sold in boxes of fifty at a time at say 3 pence a box, that wouldn't be beyond a working man's pocket.

I know Cadosch had not been well, but if he was in full time employment there would have been boxes of matches in his home, and, as that news item shows, there were some used to light the oil lamp.

Unfortunately, those sort of accidents when there were lots of open fires and oil lamps and candles in the home, were extremely common.

Francis Thompson tried to make a meager living while on the streets by selling matches, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, so perhaps people could buy a few at a time, instead of entire boxes of them.

[Abby Normal]

Hello Christer, Abby. Very sensible posts.

I won't repeat here what FBI stands for. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

HI Lynn
Yes having actually lived through the Beltway Sniper serial killer incident (I live in the DC suburbs), I know the FBI profilers can get it very wrong.

Also, having read Douglas book, you would think that he and profilers have solved every case from the ripper to LISK. LOL.

I do think the database, and other peripheral work they do on it is very good however.

[lynn cates]

sensible

Hello Christer, Abby. Very sensible posts.

I won't repeat here what FBI stands for. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

This is very interesting Wickerman. Interestingly, the surgical experts that Trevor Marriott consulted took a similar view. However, even more interesting is that the forensic pathologist, Dr Biggs, was of the view that the killer demonstrated no surgical or anatomical knowledge.

T´was always like that and like that t´will always be. The only ones who do not see that are those who have sold their souls to the he-must-have-been-an-expert-in-anatomy-with-surgical-training devil.

What we must keep in mind in an errand like this is that when the overall verdict is one of "he may have been an expert and he may not have been", then we can bank on there not being any conclusive evidence at all to prove that he was an expert.

[John G]

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

This is very interesting Wickerman. Interestingly, the surgical experts that Trevor Marriott consulted took a similar view. However, even more interesting is that the forensic pathologist, Dr Biggs, was of the view that the killer demonstrated no surgical or anatomical knowledge.

[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.

[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/

[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.

[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.

[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]

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]

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

[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.

[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.'