How to sort the Ripper

[Pierre]

Interestingly, Joshua's just pointed out on the Elizabeth Stride thread that Keppel, in the first paragraph about Annie Chapman, clearly confuses her murder with that of Polly Nichols. In fact, he can't seem to work out why, according to him, a police report refers to Chapman's body being discovered in Bucks Row at 3:40, whilst the inquest states that the body was found in Hanbury Street at 5:45. Absolutely hilarious!

What makes this glaring error all the more perplexing, is that he'd just been discussing the Nichols murder in the preceding paragraph!

I also agree that criminologists should stop trying to define mental health conditions, which is an area they're clearly not qualified to pronounce on.

That error has no consequence for the results so that is nothing to get excited about and there is no reason to use strong words as "perplexing".

Regards, Pierre

[Abby Normal]

It's definitely an area they are not qualified to pronounce on, in the way they do it. Absolutely they should collate the mental health statistics and data they get from convicted criminals. Any mental health issues addressed before the conviction may simply be a strategy for the defense, so I count someone as ill if they are treated for it post conviction. Or pre crime. Criminologists should absolutely collect that data. But they are not diagnosticians. And they cannot define psychiatric illness in a way that suits their theories.

Picquerism is a specific thing, it has specific behaviors, and just because a sharp object is involved in it does not mean that everything involving a sharp object is picquerism. And in fact to the best of my knowledge, which has improved considerably from reading half of Murderpedia from front to back, there has never been a picquerist serial killer. Certainly not more than two I would think in the history of ever. Because these behaviors are super rare. They are dangerous and potentially deadly, which is why it is an identified behavior with it's own name and everything, but it is so rare I don't think there has been more than one case study ever. Whole countries have never had one. Many whole countries. Ridiculously rare. More rare than necrophilia, more rare than acrotomophilia, more rare than vampirism (clearly), more rare that the as of yet unnamed fetish where people try to sync up video game victories with orgasm. Though that last one is possibly more rude to your partner. Maybe.

Hey, I'm glad some criminologist dusted off the term and threw it in a few papers. Paraphilias are real and vastly undertreated. So I'll take the spotlight. But come on. Picquerism? Mysophilia or Hematophilia are as good a match, certainly less inherently wrong. I mean someone clearly has a list they are working off of, but to choose picquerism means to expand the definition by quite a bit with no data.

Though I will say the error doesn't other me as much. It bothers me that the editor clearly sucked, and should be fired. But I've done it. Switched names, conflated crimes. I don't judge for that. That happens all the time. I mean, my mom can't even get my name right half the time because I have a sister. I judge the editor for not doing their job.

Hi Errata
does a picquerest (to be called one) have to reach sexual climax when stabbing someone with a knife? or just be sexually aroused and/or a sexual context to the crime involved while stabbing with a knife?

[John G]

That error has no consequence for the results so that is nothing to get excited about and there is no reason to use strong words as "perplexing".

Regards, Pierre

It was a serious error which demonstrates Keppel was less than diligent with his research. And, as I've demonstrated, and as Errata has demonstrated, some of his conclusions are questionable to say the least.

[Errata]

Hi Errata
does a picquerest (to be called one) have to reach sexual climax when stabbing someone with a knife? or just be sexually aroused and/or a sexual context to the crime involved while stabbing with a knife?

Technically they just have to be unable to have a satisfactory sexual experience without it. Which is why the occasional light bondage does not a paraphiliac make. But beyond that, while there are certain behaviors common to picquerists, like stabbing people in crowds with long pins, whether or not their best ahh.. work happens in a bedroom with a partner is up for grabs.

I know a woman who has a similar paraphilia and she generally expresses it with consenting partners. But as a teenager she would "surprise" her partners with it, turning a consenting experience rapidly into a non consenting one. But expressing one's paraphilia on strangers in public for either arousal or release is not uncommon. Well, let me rephrase. It's entirely uncommon, no one has to fear that in their daily experience. But a number of paraphilias do feature that unfortunate desire.

I imagine if picquerists had to orgasm in order to qualify, they would be a lot easier to catch. The guy frozen with a hatpin and a stupid expression on his face. That's your man.

[Harry D]

I always thought a 'piquerist' is someone like the London Monster, rather than the Ripper.

[Errata]

So I found another killer who meets my three criteria, but this guy is different. Artem Anoufriev

http://murderpedia.org/male.A/a/anoufriev-artem.htm

(may I never have to type that again). Russian teenage thrill killer who operated on a similar timeline as the Ripper. He had a buddy in on it, and he filmed the murders. Mutilation, no rape, abandoned the bodies at the kill site. Also a neo nazi. Well documented case since it was so recent, if you trust your translating software, there are several articles on this.

It's hard to reconcile this kind of murder with what the ripper did. The academy maniacs are very much a perfect example of thrill killing. And the Ripper does not appear to be that. But not for any good reason. I mean, there is nothing to say that the Ripper wasn't exactly like this kid. We think about thrill killing as occurring in a very short period of time. Over the course of a day or two, like spree killers. But that doesn't have to be the case, clearly. I don't know if there is a good reason why this kid ticks the right boxes. But he does, and it's probably worth a think.

I'd like to find a few more before starting comparisons. So if you know of any non raping purposeful mutilators who abandon corpses.... shout em out I guess. Meanwhile, on to South America.

[Harry D]

Are the 'Academy Maniacs' the ones who were killing tramps because they were eating stray dogs or something? Or is that another group of Russian/Ukrainian whackjobs?

[Errata]

I always thought a 'piquerist' is someone like the London Monster, rather than the Ripper.

Got it in one.

[Errata]

Are the 'Academy Maniacs' the ones who were killing tramps because they were eating stray dogs or something? Or is that another group of Russian/Ukrainian whackjobs?

You are thinking of the maniacs that these maniacs were inspired by. So different whackjobs, same song.

[John G]

There was in interesting assessment of the validity of picquerism, as a syndrome, in the United States criminal appeals case Drake v Portuondo (2003) . The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second District challenged the purportedly expert testimony, concluding:

"It is now clear that the expert's qualifications were largely perjured, and that the syndrome, dubbed 'picquerism' is referenced nowhere but in a true crime paperback." See:http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug03/jn.aspx

Moreover, in Drake v Portuondo (2009) the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit noted:

"As we explained in Drake 1, the word picquerism comes from a derivative misspelling of the French verb "piquer", which means, among other things, to stick or poke, and is medically speaking, nonsense."
See:http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1251535.html

[Errata]

There was in interesting assessment of the validity of picquerism, as a syndrome, in the United States criminal appeals case Drake v Portuondo (2003) . The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second District challenged the purportedly expert testimony, concluding:

"It is now clear that the expert's qualifications were largely perjured, and that the syndrome, dubbed 'picquerism' is referenced nowhere but in a true crime paperback." See:http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug03/jn.aspx

Moreover, in Drake v Portuondo (2009) the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit noted:

"As we explained in Drake 1, the word picquerism comes from a derivative misspelling of the French verb "piquer", which means, among other things, to stick or poke, and is medically speaking, nonsense."
See:http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1251535.html

Sounds about right.

[Ausgirl]

Errata, your most interesting opening posts here have sucked me out of a research binge, and I haven't time to read the rest of the thread.. (I will, later, at my leisure).

So forgive me if he's been mentioned already, but from my neck of the woods, there's Peter Dupas, who kind of fits the JtR model in that he found a victim, killed her, mutilated her sexually and simply walked off. Body abandoner, with all the frills.

I'm sure there's others I'll remember when I think about it.

Looking forward to the rest!

[Errata]

Errata, your most interesting opening posts here have sucked me out of a research binge, and I haven't time to read the rest of the thread.. (I will, later, at my leisure).

So forgive me if he's been mentioned already, but from my neck of the woods, there's Peter Dupas, who kind of fits the JtR model in that he found a victim, killed her, mutilated her sexually and simply walked off. Body abandoner, with all the frills.

I'm sure there's others I'll remember when I think about it.

Looking forward to the rest!

I dismissed him from the model because he was a rapist. Frankly I think his attacking style was more frenetic than the Ripper, less purposeful. But Of course without knowing why anyone was doing what they did, it's a bit hard to compare and contrast.

I've got four or five killers who fit the criteria to be analogs to the Ripper. The problem is trying to find something significant they all have in common. Because these guys aren't alike. They aren't even all psychopaths. They just mysteriously all did the same thing, and I'm still trying to dig out why.

[Ausgirl]

I dismissed him from the model because he was a rapist. Frankly I think his attacking style was more frenetic than the Ripper, less purposeful. But Of course without knowing why anyone was doing what they did, it's a bit hard to compare and contrast.

I'm a bit surprised, really, as his rapes and his murders seem to me pretty much chalk and cheese - he raped at knifepoint, and neither killed nor mutilated those victims (he my have stabbed one, as 'malicious wounding' was one of the charges).

But his murders.. those were blitz attacks, he wanted them dead as soon as possible so he could get on with stabbing and removing breasts. As far as I am aware, most if not all of the murders did not involve rape. He also is believed to have broken into a mortuary and stabbed the bodies of two women - again, no rape (or necro-sex, w/e). He may have been practising. He may have been seeking a 'safe' outlet for that particular paraphilia. Who knows.

I think the rape was one thing, the mutilations a whole 'nother, and much more akin to JtR. The way he attacked his first known victim, as a teenager, and the way he attacked his last are very similar, except that in the last he succeeded in killing. The mutilating came -first- and rape was a later development.

Edit - and he is said to have planned his crimes carefully. This is evident particularly with the murder of Nicole Patterson.

But if he don't fit, then he don't fit.

[Ausgirl]

Oh - and Jesse Pomeroy.