Punishment

[Pierre]

It's a damn sight more than you deserve.

There is much more.

Hi DJA,

I would really appreciate if there is much more.

By "much more", do you mean substantial data or what do you mean?

And how would you define "much more"?

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;373880][QUOTE=Michael W Richards;373878]

Hi Steve,

I appreciate this post, thanks for writing it.

Michael,

very much like that post, it does need to be pointed out sometimes, that there is nothing concrete to link any of the killings.

There are assumptions that they are linked based on the:

Similarity of some injuries.

Signature indications.

Time scale (for the series of murders).

MO indications.

Limited area of killings.

MO indications.

Class and gender of victims (all poor, all women).

Victimology indications.

All apparently killed after dark.

MO indications.

Steve - do you have any ideas about which one of the three indications - signature, MO or victimology - would be the most important in understanding a serial killer?

And what could the three different types give us in terms of knowledge about the killer?

I donīt know so I donīt have any answer. I will have to think about this.

Regards, Pierre

[John G]

Profilers would say signature analysis, and I would probably agree.

[Pierre]

Profilers woukd say signature analysis, and I would probably agree.

Hi John,

OK. Do you know any of the motivations for that?

And how much could the signature analysis give - could you build a theory of a killer and which aspects of the killer could it throw light on?

How could it be of any help with hypothesizing about the ID of a serial killer?

Regards, Pierre

[John G]

Hi John,

OK. Do you know any of the motivations for that?

And how much could the signature analysis give - could you build a theory of a killer and which aspects of the killer could it throw light on?

How could it be of any help with hypothesizing about the ID of a serial killer?

Regards, Pierre

Hi Pierre,

According to Douglas, Burgess, Burgess and Ressler (2006), "MO and victimology are important factors in an investigation, but they are often somewhat generalized and offer less about the subtle details about personality and, ultimately, identity that are often necessary to track down an offender. However, personation, that is, the offenders signature, or his "calling card", is an individualized set of indicators that can point specifically to an offenders personality." (19)

In respect of multiple crimes there is often repeated personation. An example they give is Nathaniel Code: "He left his signature-gags, duct tape and bodies with gun shot wounds and gashed throats-at each of the three crime scenes. This linked Code with all eight murders."(ibid)

However, "the signature is not necessarily evident in each of the serial offenders crimes. Contingencies can arise, such as interruptions, or unexpected victim responses, that cause the offender to abandon these unnecessary steps. In such instances, the offender will be much less satisfied and gratified by his offence." (ibid, 22).

Keppel et al, 2005, claimed that the C5 plus Tabram were linked by various signature characteristics, including picqurerism [which I would dispute], posing, overkill, and "leaving the bodies on the open and on display in an effort to further degrade them and shock those who discovered the bodies."

[DJA]

You mirror my thoughts entirely DJA. I think that when the Killers identity is revealed, as it will be, we will understand how he was able to escape the gallows and how he's remained an enigma for such a long time. I only hope that those who knew & kept the secret are damned for their actions.

Best regards.

Have you read WE Gladstone's letter to The Times?

He pretty much said that Jack was performing research on these unfortunate women that would benefit the masses.

I have no doubt who put that idea in his mind.

There was an element of truth to that though.

My family,like Eddowes',has a genetic predisposition to a group of diseases that he was actually researching.
Eddowes and Nichols were long term patients of Jack's,initially as inpatients together. Same disease.

Might give some readers an insight into the class differences involved here.

[wigngown]

Very interesting DJA, thank you. I haven't seen the letter you mention but will find & read it. Best regards.

[Pierre]

Hi Pierre,

According to Douglas, Burgess, Burgess and Ressler (2006), "MO and victimology are important factors in an investigation, but they are often somewhat generalized and offer less about the subtle details about personality and, ultimately, identity that are often necessary to track down an offender. However, personation, that is, the offenders signature, or his "calling card", is an individualized set of indicators that can point specifically to an offenders personality." (19)

Hi John,

Do you happen to know which the indicators are?

In respect of multiple crimes there is often repeated personation. An example they give is Nathaniel Code: "He left his signature-gags, duct tape and bodies with gun shot wounds and gashed throats-at each of the three crime scenes. This linked Code with all eight murders."(ibid)

But that says nothing about how the signature could be connected to one specific person. So how did they link Code to the murders? Certainly not by using the internal similarity between indicators in a signature? They must have found Code - did they find him due to the indicators?

However, "the signature is not necessarily evident in each of the serial offenders crimes. Contingencies can arise, such as interruptions, or unexpected victim responses, that cause the offender to abandon these unnecessary steps. In such instances, the offender will be much less satisfied and gratified by his offence." (ibid, 22).

Keppel et al, 2005, claimed that the C5 plus Tabram were linked by various signature characteristics, including picqurerism [which I would dispute], posing, overkill, and "leaving the bodies on the open and on display in an effort to further degrade them and shock those who discovered the bodies."

Yes. But still, those indicators do not point out one single person as a murderer, not even at one single murder site. So how could this sort of analysis be of any use for that?

Kind regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

If the files still exist,they will do enormous damage even today.

There was an enormous cover up.

Jack was well connected.

Really doubt it was a big secret in certain quarters.

Hi,

Yes, how interesting.

If this happened in the past, there has to be an historical source giving a clear indication of it.

That source should be an overlooked source and it should be easy to find.

Kind regards, Pierre

[DJA]

Hi,

Yes, how interesting.

If this happened in the past, there has to be an historical source giving a clear indication of it.

That source should be an overlooked source and it should be easy to find.

Kind regards, Pierre

Knock yourself out,or find a Gruff Billy Goat.

[Pierre]

Knock yourself out,or find a Gruff Billy Goat.

I believe you are attacking me, DJA.

Kind regards, Pierre

[wigngown]

We have one on the Farm! A Billy Goat that is, not a suspect :-)

[John G]

Yes. But still, those indicators do not point out one single person as a murderer, not even at one single murder site. So how could this sort of analysis be of any use for that?

Kind regards, Pierre

Well, Pierre, I'm afraid there is no panacea for determining a suspect, with any degree of certainty, via abstract reasoning, and crime signature analysis is clearly not a pure science. However, it can be a useful tool for linking crimes via analogous crime signature aspects, such as unique knots used to bind a victim.

However, put simply there are, as I see it, only three ways of identifying a suspect via substantive evidence: forensic proof, i.e. DNA recovered from the crime scene; reliable witness testimony; or a reliable confession obtained from the suspect. I'm afraid anything short of this amounts to mere speculation.

[wigngown]

I don't think anything less than the same burden of proof required in Criminal Law (beyond a reasonable doubt) will be enough to satisfy everyone that the killers identity has been uncovered. Balance of probability just won't cut it for some.

[John G]

I don't think anything less than the same burden of proof required in Criminal Law (beyond a reasonable doubt) will be enough to satisfy everyone that the killers identity has been uncovered. Balance of probability just won't cut it for some.

Yes, I would agree with this. Of course, even if someone was to unearth a purported confession, which is exactly what proponents of the Maybrick diary claim they have, there would be very little that could be done at this juncture to determine its validity. For instance, we can hardly go back in time and cross-examine the suspect, or even speak to witnesses to determine whether they might have an alibi for one or more of the murders they're accused of committing.

Even DNA evidence is fraught with problems, as Russell Edwards found to his cost! And witness testimony? Well, didn't Lawende unhesitatingly identify Kosminski? But, of course, we can't now cross examine Lawende, to assess is reliability, or question Kosminski in order to determine whether he might have an alibi. Frankly, it's all very unsatisfactory.

Moreover, modern forensic science has demonstrated that we know even less than was first thought. For instance, we cannot rely totally on the primary sources, because estimates of time of death, by the Victorian doctors, and assessments of whether the perpetrator was right or left-handed, the type of weapon used, and whether the murderer had any medical/anatomical knowledge simply cannot be relied upon. In fact, it seems to me that, at this juncture, very little is known, or can be known, with any degree of certainty.