How to sort the Ripper

[Pierre]

Pierre, the whole point is to look at it a different way to see if we get different answers. I'm aware of the several analyses that exist on the Ripper. Some of them I find cogent and well thought out, some are ridiculous. This is using different parameters to gather together a different pool of similar suspects.

If you find it to be a waste of time, by all means don't waste it. It's an experiment. Nothing more.

No John, it is not an experiment. Experiments are conducted under controlled conditions.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

I'm afraid Keppel's conclusions are somewhat questionable. For instance, they identified JtR's main signature characteristic as "progressive picquerism", a mental health condition that doesn't officially exist.

No, they use the concept as a signature component and not as a diagnostic tool. The critique of that concept as a diagnostic definition is another issue.

They also concluded that the murders were sexually orientated, identifying sexualized violence as a core signature component. However, this conclusion is also questionable. For instance, they refer to the victims being "stabbed repeatedly in the genital area,"but these injuries may be incidental given the total number of wounds inflicted.

"He moved from stabbing the breast and genital areas in the Tabram case, to mutilating these areas in the Nichols case, to harvesting organs in the Chapman and Kelly cases."

So the murders were sexually oriented.

However, they did rule out the Pinchin Street Torso as a Ripper victim, based upon signature characteristics, which is somewhat ironic as you seem to believe that this victim was murdered by your suspect.

No, that is not ironic. That is just a fact. They do this interpretation. I donīt. Because we have different types of knowledge.

Regards, Pierre

[John G]

No, they use the concept as a signature component and not as a diagnostic tool. The critique of that concept as a diagnostic definition is another issue.



"He moved from stabbing the breast and genital areas in the Tabram case, to mutilating these areas in the Nichols case, to harvesting organs in the Chapman and Kelly cases."

So the murders were sexually oriented.



No, that is not ironic. That is just a fact. They do this interpretation. I donīt. Because we have different types of knowledge.

Regards, Pierre

Hi Pierre,

The argument that the murders were sexually orientated is predicated on the assumption that the killer purposely targeted certain areas of the body. However, as I indicated in my earlier post, that conclusion is questionable. For instance, Tabram was clearly subjected to a frenzied knife attack so "stabbing the breast and genital area" may have been entirely incidental.

The wounds inflicted on Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes seem more purposeful than in the case of Tabram, involving a higher level of skill and, in the case of the latter victims, directed principally towards the removal of organs, so a different killer may have been involved.

Moreover, your arguments that the removal of organs indicate a sexual motive is pure speculation. In fact, Keppel does not make that point; to the contrary, there conclusion was that, "while there was no evidence of the primary mechanisms of sexual activity, there was an overriding sexual nature as evidenced in the signature characteristic of picquerism"

However, as I keep pointing out, picquerism doesn't exist as a codified psychiatric disorder; it is listed in the under the DSM as "paraphilia not otherwise specified", and "by virtue of their residual and idiosyncratic nature, cases given the NOS label are by definition outside what is generally accepted by the field as reliable and valid psychiatric disorder." (Frances and First, 2011). See: http://www.jaapl.org/content/39/4/555.long.

In fact, it's been suggested that "paraphilia as a concept is vulnerable to societal pressures rather than advances in science so diagnosis may be grounded more in societal norms than in psychiatric health."( McManus, et. al, 2013) See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3769077/

[Ozzy]

If every word is bold, doesn't that defeat the purpose of using bold?

Isn't the point of bold to highlight certain words within the larger text?

[Errata]

Hi Pierre,

The argument that the murders were sexually orientated is predicated on the assumption that the killer purposely targeted certain areas of the body. However, as I indicated in my earlier post, that conclusion is questionable. For instance, Tabram was clearly subjected to a frenzied knife attack so "stabbing the breast and genital area" may have been entirely incidental.

The wounds inflicted on Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes seem more purposeful than in the case of Tabram, involving a higher level of skill and, in the case of the latter victims, directed principally towards the removal of organs, so a different killer may have been involved.

Moreover, your arguments that the removal of organs indicate a sexual motive is pure speculation. In fact, Keppel does not make that point; to the contrary, there conclusion was that, "while there was no evidence of the primary mechanisms of sexual activity, there was an overriding sexual nature as evidenced in the signature characteristic of picquerism"

However, as I keep pointing out, picquerism doesn't exist as a codified psychiatric disorder; it is listed in the under the DSM as "paraphilia not otherwise specified", and "by virtue of their residual and idiosyncratic nature, cases given the NOS label are by definition outside what is generally accepted by the field as reliable and valid psychiatric disorder." (Frances and First, 2011). See: http://www.jaapl.org/content/39/4/555.long.

In fact, it's been suggested that "paraphilia as a concept is vulnerable to societal pressures rather than advances in science so diagnosis may be grounded more in societal norms than in psychiatric health."( McManus, et. al, 2013) See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3769077/

Never mind that the criminological definition of picquerism tends to be vastly different than the psychiatric one.

[harry]

As the strike Pattern on Tabram shows a distinct stabbing to upper,middle and lower torso,I believe a controlled fury,rather than thoughtless frenzy condition of thinking on the killers part.

[Errata]

No John, it is not an experiment. Experiments are conducted under controlled conditions.

Regards, Pierre

Not a John, but okay.

I could make the argument, but I'm not going to. What I am going to do is start a thread that says, "hey, let's suppose that the most important thing about this killer is NOT in fact why he mutilated these women. Let's say that's not the overriding driving force for his behavior. Let's say instead that how he treated the corpses of the women he killed is the defining characteristic. What would that mean? And since we ask that question, let's go ahead and put together the three most extraordinary characteristics of this killer, and see if we can find a match in the legions of other killers this species has produced. What would those killers teach us about this one?

Yes. We could devote yet another thread to how a sexual sadist like Bundy is like the Ripper, but it's been done to death don't you think? What does it hurt? Whose toes am I really stepping on here by pursuing this line of thought?

Honestly. People can be so precious about this.

[Errata]

As the strike Pattern on Tabram shows a distinct stabbing to upper,middle and lower torso,I believe a controlled fury,rather than thoughtless frenzy condition of thinking on the killers part.

I was under the impression from reading from her list of wounds that the stabbing was fairly well clustered in the upper abdomen/lower thoracic cavity. Which given Tabram's height is just about perfect for an average sized male driving a blade straight into her over and over, in an almost machine like movement. Which sounds like it's controlled, but can equally be a result of monofocused frenzy.

It's weird, but think about how you tap your pencil. You aren't aware of it, but you are doing it in almost the exact same place each time, despite not controlling it in any way. Human movements tend towards the repetitive when there is a loss of control. So Tabram's wounds might be less informative than we might have hoped. Might.

[Errata]

Finished Germany and Russia,

You are definitely more likely to be eaten in Germany. Statistically, given every other country I've looked at, they have a definite problem.

I'm running down two guys from Russia, both who might fit the model but I don't have enough information yet. One might require a certain twist of mindset, but beggars can't be choosers.

[John G]

Never mind that the criminological definition of picquerism tends to be vastly different than the psychiatric one.

Hi Errata,

Excellent point. Moreover, the fact that the "condition" had not been properly codified, and very little academically has been written about it, means that attempts to define what exactly constitutes "picquerism" , and to define its characteristics, are going to be largely arbitrary.

[John G]

As the strike Pattern on Tabram shows a distinct stabbing to upper,middle and lower torso,I believe a controlled fury,rather than thoughtless frenzy condition of thinking on the killers part.

But, for a killer acting in a frenzied state, wouldn't they me the easiest parts of the body to strike, i.e. on the basis of surface area?

[Errata]

Hi Errata,

Excellent point. Moreover, the fact that the "condition" had not been properly codified, and very little academically has been written about it, means that attempts to define what exactly constitutes "picquerism" , and to define its characteristics, are going to be largely arbitrary.

There's actually been some good information on it coming from a gender studies professor if I remember correctly. Which may seem out of left field, but since most paraphilias are sociologically based, it's really the gender studies guys that get the specifics of any paraphilia in the teeth, so to speak. Especially since it's such a ripe field for some pretty glaring differences between how men and women process the same thing. In this case a fetish. Shrinks will treat it, but sociologists will dissect it. Criminologists can stick to their own field thanks. No one asks a psychiatrist to define a "signature". Harrumph.

[John G]

There's actually been some good information on it coming from a gender studies professor if I remember correctly. Which may seem out of left field, but since most paraphilias are sociologically based, it's really the gender studies guys that get the specifics of any paraphilia in the teeth, so to speak. Especially since it's such a ripe field for some pretty glaring differences between how men and women process the same thing. In this case a fetish. Shrinks will treat it, but sociologists will dissect it. Criminologists can stick to their own field thanks. No one asks a psychiatrist to define a "signature". Harrumph.

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.

[Errata]

But, for a killer acting in a frenzied state, wouldn't they me the easiest parts of the body to strike, i.e. on the basis of surface area?

Not necessarily.If you are going to kick someone, likely you are going to kick them in the shin. Not because the shin is a vital target, but because you could kick someone in the shin all day. Simple kinetics. A little thought would make it more productive, but a little thought precludes a frenzy.

[Errata]

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.

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.