Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What was the IQ of Jack?!

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Hi Christine

    Yes, I wouldn't expect to find him at either extreme of the intelligence spectrum. As for how could he be smart but think that killing women was a good idea, well, smart at what? Stalin and Hitler thought killing millions of people was a good idea. They were both supreme political tacticians and manipulators. And they both believed in truly infantile, idiotic philosophies.

    There's nowt so queer as folk!

    Robert

    Comment


    • #32
      I think Rob and Christine that perhaps a link of brilliance with logic...or acheivement, is the optimum profile, ...its my belief that someone can be a murderer, clinically insane, irrational, a failure, a alcoholic, heroin addict,..and still test highly on an IQ Test.

      Not all Brilliant people optimize their lives using their god gifts, and Im sure many behave in self destructive ways. My guess is Robert Downey Junior is of above average intelligence, but look at his life. Jack could well have tested genius level, and been an unemployed vagrant who dies of liver failure. Many Killers are above average in intelligence, particulalry in serial murder.

      Its whether there is evidence that such talents were used optimally by the killer or not I think. Did he control his environment? If he planned for example, he seems to have done a fairly good job....judging by the fact were here 120 years later still without answers.

      Sheer luck means a person with a 50 IQ might have pulled them off...a planning person is a bit further up the food chain. But they do stupid things too.

      Cheers.
      Last edited by perrymason; 06-14-2008, 06:43 PM.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by perrymason View Post
        Many Killers are above average in intelligence, particulalry in serial murder.
        "Many" is a wonderfully imprecise word choice there, Perry, but I don't think the evidence supports your supposition. Of the serial murderers who HAVE been caught, there seems to be a majority who are of below average IQ, not above....

        ...But I made my point earlier about that and won't belabor it here.
        All my blogs:
        MessianicMusings.com, ScriptSuperhero.com, WonderfulPessimist.com

        Currently, I favor ... no one. I'm not currently interested in who Jack was in name. My research focus is more comparative than identification-oriented.

        Comment


        • #34
          Hi Craig,

          It the reason I chose to use the word "many", as it is imprecise. Since I dont know statistically the number of serial killers who have been studied and shown to have above average intelligence. But there sems to be a few Bundys and BTK's, who I believe were of above average intelligence..as there are Henry Lee Lucas's and Jeffrey Dahlmers, who I would surmise were not.

          As I said before also, the answer as to whether these were just very fortunate.... or precisely timed events, would to me, be part of the litmus test on Jacks cognitive abilities. Being stealthy or quiet doesnt require much intellect....but if for example he chose Kate knowing that 2 PC's will be looking into that same location in less than 10 minutes, and he intended to take organs away, I would think he might have some skill and intelligence, balancing concentrating on the acts he is performing, his surroundings, as well as killing the woman quietly and remaining as blood free as possible.

          Efficient multi-tasking is an indicator of intelligence.

          But I think access to some local routing knowledge and knowledge of police routines, coupled with some Luck might be allow a simple minded man to appear a genius. I think he may have left underground on occassions as well, which may not have anything to do with intelligence but rather speaks to a comfort zone for him.... for me, there is really no smoking gun that points to above average intelligence.

          Some skill with a knife, and knowing where to find things internally arent necessasarily linked to how bright he may or may not have been, but I do think those signs are there.

          Cheers

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by perrymason View Post
            Hi Craig,

            ...But there sems to be a few Bundys and BTK's, who I believe were of above average intelligence..as there are Henry Lee Lucas's and Jeffrey Dahlmers, who I would surmise were not.
            Sorry, Perry.... BTK was absolutely NOT an above-average IQ serial killer. He was below-average.

            The cops who captured him, in fact, were quite embarrassed and disappointed when they found out, following his capture. They had expected the interview to be something out of SILENCE OF THE LAMBS and ended up being more like a scene from DUDE, WHERE'S MY CAR?

            I have a quote on the general discussion board that covers this, forget what thread, but I refer you to that. Kinda surprised you didn't read that already and cover your butt in this respect... BTK wasn't a drolling idiot, but anyone who asks the cops if a floppy disk can be traced, believes them, and then gets upset that Ken Landwehr didn't tell him the truth is HARDLY Hannibal Lecter.

            Sorry to burst your bubble, but BTK/Dennis Rader was pretty low IQ.
            All my blogs:
            MessianicMusings.com, ScriptSuperhero.com, WonderfulPessimist.com

            Currently, I favor ... no one. I'm not currently interested in who Jack was in name. My research focus is more comparative than identification-oriented.

            Comment


            • #36
              Hi Craig,

              Ill take your word on BTK without issue. So you know, his IQ or any of the others I mentioned are'nt really very interesting to me personally, when it comes to studies of specific "serial" killers, Ive only really looked at these Ripper cases, and just have some cursory knowledge of others like Zodiak. Im not terribly interested in the field itself, strictly on a personal level,.. I find it quite grim reading. But the input from people who do have that vocation or interest is valuable data to me. So thanks to everyone that does offer that perspective. Im really just the armchair amateur curious type. Kennedy's Assassination, The sinking of White Star's Titanic, Chappaquidick, The Alamo siege, The Space Program, Ancient Egypt, WWI and II, The Dark Ages, ....thats more my kind of research stuff.....and these murders were every bit as dramatic I think.

              I figure solving these crimes, if at all possible, will be by the combining of data from various disciplines and sources....meaning I dont see any real edge given to researchers of serial killers habits here. Crime historians, medical professionals, good old fashioned door knocker researchers...often figuratively now with technology, and people with an aptitude for assessing complex situations will, among others, be required I think.

              And you'll note I used quotation marks around the word serial, which might give you some indication of how I see the Whitechapel Street Whore Murders of 1888.

              Have a great Sunday. Happy Fathers Day to all.

              Cheers
              Last edited by perrymason; 06-15-2008, 05:49 PM.

              Comment


              • #37
                Perry,

                We may have a bit in common, in terms of interests. While I quite enjoy working the Jack case, it's hardly my only interest from an historical perspective, so we share that.

                In fact, biblical archaeology is a significant interest area of mine, which is an area completely unlike the murders of Jack the Ripper (and often, much brighter subject matter).

                To go off on this tangent for a bit, on the JFK assassination, I've found no book more definitive for me on the topic than Gerald Posner's "Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of JFK."

                I enjoyed the Titanic movie made a few years ago and went to see the exhibit when it came 'round to my neck of the woods.

                And of course, given my religious background, I have an interest in the tragedy of the Holocaust and other WW2 topics.

                Nice to see others 'round here who are well-rounded in their interests!
                All my blogs:
                MessianicMusings.com, ScriptSuperhero.com, WonderfulPessimist.com

                Currently, I favor ... no one. I'm not currently interested in who Jack was in name. My research focus is more comparative than identification-oriented.

                Comment


                • #38
                  I'd say at least average,maybe above.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    The FBI classified JTR as a disorganized serial killer. The reasons were that JTR appears to have made no attempt to cover up his crimes. He appears to have picked easy targets at random with no prior planning. He is of below average IQ.

                    I have decided that I agree. If JTRs ultimate goal was to spend time with the body and do what he did to MJK then I must conclude that he has failed on prior occasions.

                    However..He was smart enough to know not to spend too much time with the prior bodies so I wouldnt say he was too dumb.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      I have to consider the fact that he committed 5 (?) terrible murders and never got caught. He probably was at least average or above.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by rain View Post
                        I have to consider the fact that he committed 5 (?) terrible murders and never got caught. He probably was at least average or above.
                        Oddly enough, I see this as an indication that he may not have been quite so smart.

                        Stride for example, was a failure. He didn't get to mutilate her. Jack's approach was thorough, but not well planned. The best way I can think to explain my belief is by a rather weird analogy.

                        Let's say you've got something and your dog wants it. Sooner or later, the dog will get it. Why? Because you're going to think about something important at some point, and the dog is going to continue thinking about your stuff. The dog's succeeds because you are smarter, not because you're not.

                        With Stride, he almost gets it. He got his teeth into it, but it was snatched away. But this didn't stop him, on the contrary, it made him more determined. Then he got Eddowes, and was happy.

                        The next time, he decided to try something slightly more difficult and got Kelly indoors. Wouldn't a person who plans things out have been killing indoors from the beginning?

                        And a surprising number of suspect theories do have Jack getting caught, at least to the extent that his family figures it out and puts him in a hospital, or he commits suicide, or the police have figured it out but haven't proven it and he lands in a hospital or dead, or he flees the country. I believe that some variation of being caught or knowing he was about to be caught is the most likely reason the murders stopped.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Hello Christine!

                          Your idea of the reason for the murders ending is as reasonable as any.

                          I find it more likely, though, that he was killed/died in an accident himself!

                          But with MJK; maybe the Ripper felt, that the Vigilance Committee was on his heels and thus the change of MO?!

                          All the best
                          Jukka
                          "When I know all about everything, I am old. And it's a very, very long way to go!"

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            But the facts are that he did not get caught.
                            When a study is made of some of the circumstances and risks he took ,this is quite extraordinary.Moreover,a degree of precision was needed to do what he did,and despite its failure,if that is indeed what it was,the murder of Elizabeth Stride ,according to Dr Phillip"s marked it as a ripper murder because of the knife skill in the throat cut.
                            The first or second of the murders,that of Bucks Row, was committed in between two patrolling policeman passing at 15 minute intervals with a night watchman at one end of the road ,in eye and earshot of the murder.
                            In the case of Mitre Square,there were also two patrolling policemen at two exits and an expoliceman who was working as a night watchman for Kierly and Tongue .This was close to the third exit.Through that particular exit there was a fourth person on duty,a nightwatchman in St James Square named Blenkinsop [?]throughout the night.
                            There were more policeman-on duty but in plain clothes,just a few minutes away on Aldgate.
                            In the case of Annie Chapman,the risks taken were again extraordinary since it was already daylight,there were people passing to and fro to the nearby market,and several lodgers in the house up and getting ready to leave.
                            All in all there is a lot to indicate that there was the planning of performance and getaway.
                            Neither were the murders that easy to accomplish ,mostly being done in the dark. The women wore several layers of petticoats and other materials such as stays, that had to removed or cut through.
                            I think you make a mistake too ,in likening the singlemindedness of a dog to the single-mindedness of murder by a human being.There is simply no comparison.Mozart was single minded and he was a genius.Nobody is saying the Ripper was a genius but his singlemindedness is more likely to convey concentrated and methodical thinking ,from his ability to capture his victims by either being able to charm or persuade at the height of the Ripper scare,or seizing them, and then rapidly subduing them, noiselessly-and CONTROLLING the flow of blood from knowledge of its suppression through the carotid artery and /or killing prior to throat cutting-nothing "random" there.And everything was accomplished at speed,silently and at astonishing risk.It was what astounded people .
                            I also dont agree with the notion that the murder of Mary Kelly was something he had as an "afterthought"-and would have performed more indoors if he could.No the Ripper much preferred his pavements and squares.It was just that by November the 9th the world and his wife was on his trail and he could take no more risks without being caught by a much increased police presence and over 100 local vigilantes.
                            Finally the lay out of the murders were much too like the work of a pavement artist,for them not to have been conceptualised by him beforehand.The street "theartre" they presented to the public strangely presaging the violent drips and smears of the American "Action Painters" --- the likes of Kline and Pollock.In fact Pollock may be a good comparison as he insisted his paintings were not at all random [as they seemed.]"....I CAN control the flow of paint:there is no accident..." and he used wooden sticks and knives to do it.. ---substitute "blood "for" paint" and you begin to understand what the Ripper was all about and what De Quincey meant when he wrote of "the Fine Art of Murder".
                            Norma

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Fantastic post Natalie. Brilliantly put.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Limehouse View Post
                                Fantastic post Natalie. Brilliantly put.
                                That was a truly brilliant post...

                                It almost makes one wonder if he was not just committing blatant murders, but playing a 'game' against the police.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X