Would a Doctor or a Policeman participate in major crimes such as these?

[Scorpio]

Why would these crimes be considered major?.
The reaction of the media?, which is something the killer had no direct control over, or the excessive amount of violence?.
The mutilation suggests a disturbed individual who would struggle with in an occupation that needs a stable social identity and skills (the ability to interact and communicate with a wide swathe of the population ).
Jacks narrow geographical and occupational range suggests a limit that was probably relevant to his social life/identity.
I say no sir!

[sleekviper]

I think, after considering the question, that it may not be complete. Is it to mean would this group, that is singled out, do it to those that are like themselves? For instance, a person places a dog in a pen in the yard. It is not human, no one sees it as a crime. Place a human in said pen, there is a problem. For a great deal of history, people have held that some group, for some reason or the other, is closer to that dog, than human, so further clarification may be needed. In terms of current views toward humanity, or in terms of the society in which an offense took place?

[Errata]

I cannot condone what Day has done, however before you condem and judge, I will tell you this. I had dealings with Inspector Day through his job. My experience was that he was pro-active, professional, courteous and a man of his word. He said he was going to do what was agreed and by jove he did. This tragedy is beyond words and, as I state, his actions are unforgivable. I'm just stating they may be understandable.


Monty


ps Christie was an ex PC.

It seems to be true of family annihilators that they are often good men, even overconscientious. It appears that their role of provider becomes so integral to who they are and their perception of reality that if their role as provider is taken away it triggers a delusion that their families cannot live without their income, and they would be better off dead. It is not intended as an abusive act, nor a malicious one. It is intended as almost an extension of euthanasia. Of course it's wrong, but mostly it is a tragedy for all concerned.

These men are not abusers, or embittered stalkers, or sociopaths. They don't view their families as possessions they can dispose of at will. Those men also exist, and do kill their families, but they are not family annihilators. I'm an American, and was not aware of this case, but my reaction to it was the same as it's been ever since I was first exposed to it, which is "that poor family". There is no moral judgement in these cases. This is an untreated and very hard to identify mental illness, and while the sufferer has some responsibility to curb his actions, it is damned difficult to do when you don't know such an illness even exists. I of all people understand that when your brain lies to you, it is very hard to recognize without external input. Input most people just don't get.

I don't assign blame, I don't judge. I mentioned it because it is an example of taking life, and it is more present in the "macho" professions. Police officers, military, security, etc. Where presumably men have more traditional views of family roles. It is not the same as the Whitechapel killings, but my point was that if police officers were somehow locked into a behavior or preserving life on moral grounds, these things could not happen, and they do. Humans have no instincts like animals do. Lemmings follow the same course even if that means they all fall off a cliff. Birds engage in mating displays even if a predator is about an inch away. Their behaviors are locked. Ours are not.

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

I have today rec'd an addtional email from the originator of the question starting this thread. The writer kindly asks and allows me to quote them in full:-

" Firstly, please be so kind as to thank all for their responses. Also to your good self for posting the question on my behalf. I do not post myself due to limited free time (work and family commitments), as you can see from the rather long time-gap between these emails. So it would be unfair to post and keep others waiting for any response from me in return. My apologies

When I refer to ethics and morals, and "participation", I can see that my question needs elaborating upon. I will endeavour to do so herewith.

Certain sections of the Press and certain commentators wrote of "an insane medical student" to have possibly been involved in the murders. I notice however that when any Doctor walking with his bag or case was reported to have been stopped and or questioned at any time, it was seemingly only a case of needing to ascertain his background as reliable and his position as truthful for him to be allowed to walk along again, whether via the local police station or not. This raises the question as to whether it was considered unthinkable at that time whether a man in such a qualified position COULD have been involved in any of these crimes because of their qualifications. Rather lile "it must have been a foreigner..an Englishman wouldnt do such a thing". Would the police think the same of a Doctor? Therefore the question of ethics and morality from the point of view of the police towards such qualfied personages.

On the same level, would a policeman think it unthinkable that a policeman amongst their number be invoved? Here, ethical questions arise. Would the higher authorities deal with such a situation differently had one or more of their own been found to have been involved? The reason 3or the question is twofold. That firstly the involvement of the Special Branch must be taken into consideration, in that this department was, and to a certain degree continued to be, a department that went their own way, did their own thing and revealed as little as possible to the outside world of what they did. An example of this is the example of the Walsall bomb plot I believe in 1897(?) and the covered up involvement of the then head of Special Branch, William Melville. Were SB a law unto themselves?
Secondly, if the last line be true, that they were indeed a law unto themselves, woule their own aims come before their moral duties? Here, I can readily see that Robert Anderson for example, would have no qualms in keeping any police involvement quiet, either on an individual plane or as a working group. Likewise, Monro. It would also be very useful at any time to put out false ideas, fed through the Press, to disarm any possible links that may lead to anything ith police involvement...at any level.

I hope this has explained more of my thoughts on the matter. Again, please thank all for their participation in the discussion, and I wish all a Merry Christmas and a Happy and Prosperous New Year. "

the email then finishes with some personal seasonal wishes for my own perusal.

Seasonal greetings to all

Phil

[Errata]

It strikes me that even if the speculation was that it might be an insane lamplighter, the same basic exclusion process would be used. That once identified as being who and what you said you are, you would be free to go about your business.

I think what the police were looking for was not so much a doctor, but an insane person. Being a doctor would give them a useful set of skills for murder, but only a lunatic would use them that way. So I think the exclusion process was more about determining whether or not a medical professional was frothing at the mouth mad, which they believed could be ascertained quite quickly.

It's a very peculiar time in mental health history. Europeans had just slid into pitying the mad, as opposed to viewing them as somehow contagious. Fear was still there, as it is today, but it had settled more appropriately onto fearing the actions of the mad, not the mad themselves. However, there was still no recognition of degrees. Today if someone has a depressive disorder or a moderate case of Bipolar, people notice. Back then, people may have noticed, but they chalked it up to a natural consequence of life, and not an illness. Unless their behavior became extraordinarily outrageous, it was ignored. Your average sociopath would have passed completely unnoticed. If someone wasn't literally a raving lunatic, they passed under the radar. And if they weren't an obviously violent raving lunatic, they likely passed police inspection.

They thought they would know him on sight. It's why most police suspects after the fact (like Kosminski or Druitt) were people they had never talked to. Never interviewed. They firmly believed that the person who did this had to be insane, and that insanity would be exposed within a very short acquaintance. But most serial killers aren't mad. Most aren't even mentally ill as we recognize it. I think they did talk to him. I think he made sure of that. I think he bought them drinks at the local pub. I think they didn't know what they were dealing with and made assumptions that although perfectly appropriate for the time period, tanked the investigation.

And if they believed all of this, how could they think they worked next to a man who could do such a thing? How could any evidence that pointed to a fellow officer be anything other than a coincidence?

[Wickerman]

They firmly believed that the person who did this had to be insane, and that insanity would be exposed within a very short acquaintance. But most serial killers aren't mad. Most aren't even mentally ill as we recognize it.

It's hardly normal to stalk, attack and murder successive victims. Certainly there's a degree of insanity involved, but this killer knew his surroundings, new the risks and was aware he was doing wrong. This kind of insanity which can be switched on and be controlled then switched off is the most elusive example of a disturbed mind.

I think they did talk to him. I think he made sure of that. I think he bought them drinks at the local pub. I think they didn't know what they were dealing with and made assumptions that although perfectly appropriate for the time period, tanked the investigation.

I'm sure his 'Jekyll' persona was in plain sight, but his 'Hyde' came out at night.

Regards, Jon S.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Phil,

Your e-mailer asks very pertinent questions and makes equally pertinent observations.

There was no Jack the Ripper—doctor, barrister, Jewish lunatic or otherwise—who was singly responsible for the five murders under consideration. And nor was "Jack the Ripper" a journalistic invention, although certain elements of the press were complicit in disseminating the myth.

Information coming to hand suggests that a number of disparate events, each in itself of a sensitive nature, were placed under a public umbrella of having been the work of a mysterious lone killer. It is also becoming clear that events were primarily concerned with Special Branch activity, to which the main body of the Metropolitan Police were not privy.

Although misinformation and news-management played a huge part in creating and maintaining the mystery—a mystery which refused to go away once the dust settled [a genie had been well and truly let out of the bottle]—conspiracy would be too strong a word for explaining Jack the Ripper and the Whitechapel murders.

A much better word would be ploy, defined as "a subterfuge or gambit as part of an overall strategy."

Regards,

Simon

[Phil Carter]

Hello Errata, Jon, Simon,

Many thanks for your responses..and interesting points.
This is 8 in my opinion9 a very interesting discussion!

Seasons greetings

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

Thats what happens when one posts in haste.. so.. poste haste... the 2nd line should read.. This is ( in my opinion ) a very interesting discussion.

It must be xmas!

Seasons greetings

Phil

[Errata]

It's hardly normal to stalk, attack and murder successive victims. Certainly there's a degree of insanity involved, but this killer knew his surroundings, new the risks and was aware he was doing wrong. This kind of insanity which can be switched on and be controlled then switched off is the most elusive example of a disturbed mind.

This is one of those debates I get into all the time. Is it normal to be a serial killer? No. But normality is a function of culture and not of disease. American cannibalism is highly abnormal, but cannibalism in the South Pacific was an accepted ritual practice for thousands of years. Most serial killers are not insane. They have no neurological or neurochemical defect that causes them to act the way they do. Some do. And some have a mental illness and are also serial killers. Even though sociopaths often have certain dimmer parts of the brain or certain genes in common, those aren't defects, and they aren't inherently harmful. Tons of other people also have those dim spots, those genes, and are not sociopathic.

We think someone has to be crazy to want to do something like that. But we all want to do it at some point or another. Not necessarily disembowel prostitutes, but we all want to kill. We often want to kill strangers, like the guy who won't let you into traffic. We read posts on this board and think things like "I wish I knew how much force it takes to get through a human neck down to bone". We just don't take that next step. We think it's gross, we don't want the guilt, we don't want the punishment, we aren't willing to harm a human to satisfy curiosity or passing road rage. All of these are instilled by society, not sanity. You don't have to be insane to flout social norms. We do it all the time in little ways.

People who engage in activities that cause repulsion in the greater populace have always been labeled insane. The first women to fight for a vote were labeled insane, many institutionalized and force fed to death. In the 60s, homosexuality was still considered a mental illness worthy of castration and sterilization. Is being a serial killer worse than being gay? It is now. It wasn't always. And while I do not ever see a time when serial murder becomes socially acceptable, it isn't a function of disease.

Serial killers do what they do because they want to. There is a certain compulsion to it, but only because killing relieves anxiety. Both good and bad anxiety. I'm Bipolar, and if I go into a depressive cycle it's because my dopamine pathways are blocked. They can look at an MRI and see scarring, they can look at a PET scan and see the dopamine not making it to the upper receptors. This is because it's a disease. Charlie Manson wanting to one up Tex Watson on the murder score is not a disease. It's not insanity. It's a con man cult leader deciding that one of his followers made himself more powerful than his leader, and Charlie needed to gain the upper hand again. That's not insane. That's actually sound logic. And were this the animal kingdom, it's a behavior we would easily predict.

The truth is, with every serial killer we have caught and talked to, their actions make perfect sense. They take the easy way out. Ed Gein had a choice, he could do what he did, or he could accept that his dead mother was in fact not looking out for his best interests. Given the relationship with his mother, his choice makes sense. Charles Manson could be deposed, or outdo Tex Watson. Given his ego, his choice makes sense. Even Jeffrey Dahmer could either confront his homosexuality and risk being caught at it, or he could find a way to get the men he wanted without having to compromise himself by asking them. The difference between them and us is that literally nothing was more important than their needs and desires. Not the law, not society's reaction, not even life. They don't believe in community, they don't believe in society. They've usually been beaten out of it, and they have no use for it. So why would they act in a way to satisfy a construct they don't recognize?

It may seem strange, but I don't think serial killers are any more or less evil than a Great White shark or a Bengal tiger. They are top echelon predators, serving their own needs. But I think serial killers are equally bad for human companionship as a shark or tiger. I don't sympathize for them, I don't admire them, and I don't feel any particular need to keep them alive. But I don't make excuses for them either. They aren't insane. Just entirely unacceptable.

[Wickerman]

It may seem strange, but I don't think serial killers are any more or less evil than a Great White shark or a Bengal tiger. They are top echelon predators, serving their own needs.

They kill to eat or to feed their young, as far as I know they don't kill for fun or for any anti-social desires.

Serial killers are evil because there is an expectation of recognised social behavior among equals which does not include killing your neighbour whenever the desire strikes you.
We may like to justify their motive as "sound logic" but that does not justify their actions. To compete at "one-upmanship" in murder does not reflect the thought process of a sound mind.

Anyone who thinks that way is disfunctional and cannot conduct himself in an acceptable & responsible manner. Whether such people can be successfully treated or need to be locked up is perhaps a debatable issue, but "normal" they are not.

Regards, Jon S.

[Errata]

They kill to eat or to feed their young, as far as I know they don't kill for fun or for any anti-social desires.

Serial killers are evil because there is an expectation of recognised social behavior among equals which does not include killing your neighbour whenever the desire strikes you.
We may like to justify their motive as "sound logic" but that does not justify their actions. To compete at "one-upmanship" in murder does not reflect the thought process of a sound mind.

Anyone who thinks that way is disfunctional and cannot conduct himself in an acceptable & responsible manner. Whether such people can be successfully treated or need to be locked up is perhaps a debatable issue, but "normal" they are not.

Regards, Jon S.

A comparison to predators was based more on impulse than motive. I cannot speak to the self actualization of animals, nor to how aware they are of the reasons of their actions. I tend to think that crocodiles for example do not have a process where they think "I am hungry. I am going to kill a water buffalo to eat" and instead have a simple "prey=attack mindset" but they could be philosophers for all I know.

Sound logic has never in the history of man justified an action outside the mind of the offender. The justification may belong to the offender, but judgement belongs to society. The resident powers of Nazi Germany sincerely believed that "lesser races" were the cause of all ills in society, and could not be allowed to integrate or intermarry with the future master race. Given that belief, the destruction of those races was inevitable. Since they had a storage problem now, the decision for genocide was made sooner rather than later. And that is a logical decision.

As a Jew, I can assure you that in no way shape or form do I find that an acceptable decision. And I challenge some of the premises. I don't believe that the "lesser races" ruined German society, though I concede that if someone is determined, it could appear that way. I don't accept that there is such a thing as a lesser race, though most of the world did accept such a premise in the 30s and 40s. And I challenge the Aryan ideal as a master race, though clearly thats just a matter of opinion.

So then what is a sound mind? A person capable of logic and of recognizing consequences has a sound mind. That they don't care about the consequences is not a function of capacity. So serial killers are with few exceptions free of any intellectual or developmental issues. Neurologically they are sound. Their brain scans show no abnormalities that do not occur elsewhere in the population. The same holds true with any clinical mental illness. A serial killer with with schizophrenia is not a serial killer because of the schizophrenia.

We cannot imbue insanity to anyone who challenges or disobeys the social norm. The US in particular has a history of jumping late onto several societal bandwagons, and only after a slow building movement of individuals who did not accept the norm. It took about 100 years to amass enough of opposition to slavery to have it outlawed, another 100 years to outlaw segregation, and despite our own history of genocide, liberating camps in WWII, watching the depredations of Pol Pot, we didn't get involved in trying to stop it until Bosnia. Is serial killing going to become accepted? No. Nor cannibalism, nor a majority of paraphilias, child molestation, or rape. Personally, I think society's reaction to bigamy is ridiculous. Do I want to be one of three wives? No, but what do I care what other consenting adults do? But being socially unacceptable in an extreme way is not evidence of insanity or diminished capacity. Especially as everything that is taboo here is bound to be compulsory somewhere else on the planet.

So then what is evil? To me that is a religious term. Presumable my religion is different than yours, so the definition of evil is going to be different. Are serial killers purposefully expanding the powers of darkness in the world? I doubt it. They are inherently selfish creatures, not given to glorify anything, unless it is themselves. Is there a societal definition of evil? There is, but it seems to consist of nothing more than embracing something that which you directly oppose. Which I imagine is how Democrats and Liberals became evil down here in the southern US.

So then if not mad, if not damaged, if not evil, then what are they? I don't really know. I don't think anyone knows. Certainly they are unhealthy for a population. And they are equally unable to confine themselves to living by society's dictates. If we knew what made them, we might know what they are, but there is no single uniting factor. There is no one thing common to all of them. There are several things common to most, but that doesn't help in finding the origin. They aren't even all sociopaths, nor are a majority of sociopaths killers. They are throwbacks. Humans who cannot function in a society. Which if it results in isolationism is fine, but in this case it is a fatal flaw. If its genetic, can we kill someone for a condition that is not their fault? And if adaptive, can we punish those who created him? And if it just is, how do we identify them and how do we catch them? How can we make ourselves safe against an adaptation that has no cause, and that we can't see coming? We aren't prepared for those answers. And we don't have a label for that.

But I will say, that as someone who has a recognizable mental illness, they are not like me. Obviously a statement of enlightened self interest, but it also happens to be true. Please don't say that Jeffrey Dahmer is like me. First of all, it's statements like that that make people think that the mentally ill are dangerous when we really aren't. And secondly, he is not like me. It's just not the same mechanism at all.

[K-453]

To compete at "one-upmanship" in murder does not reflect the thought process of a sound mind. Anyone who thinks that way is disfunctional and cannot conduct himself in an acceptable & responsible manner.

Agreed.

"Sound" means not only being able to think logically, but also being emotionally well balanced. The latter is even more important, because, wether we like it or not, we are mostly driven by our emotions.

Serial killers have the urge to kill and get pleasure from brutal and weird acts. To me, it is obvious there must be something wrong with their brains, wether science is able to detect it already or not.

Our mind is so complicated it is chaotic. 'Chaos' does not necessarily mean 'without any structure', but it can also mean recognizable structures that are constantly changing in an uncalculable way. Like, for example, the ripples of water flowing around a rock. Different from moment to moment, but quite recognizable.

'Chaos' also means: Change the initial conditions a tiny wee bit, and the outcome may be entirely different!

What I think: A broken home, abuse, bullying and other bad experiences push people into a 'danger zone', in which they have a higher risk of becoming a serial killer (or otherwise problematic). What finally turns them into a serial killer (or other) may be some very small detail. Just one insult too much, just too much pain ... and the soul breaks.

This may seem like a decision made by the intellect. But is it?

[Errata]

Agreed.

"Sound" means not only being able to think logically, but also being emotionally well balanced. The latter is even more important, because, wether we like it or not, we are mostly driven by our emotions.

Serial killers have the urge to kill and get pleasure from brutal and weird acts. To me, it is obvious there must be something wrong with their brains, wether science is able to detect it already or not.

Our mind is so complicated it is chaotic. 'Chaos' does not necessarily mean 'without any structure', but it can also mean recognizable structures that are constantly changing in an uncalculable way. Like, for example, the ripples of water flowing around a rock. Different from moment to moment, but quite recognizable.

'Chaos' also means: Change the initial conditions a tiny wee bit, and the outcome may be entirely different!

What I think: A broken home, abuse, bullying and other bad experiences push people into a 'danger zone', in which they have a higher risk of becoming a serial killer (or otherwise problematic). What finally turns them into a serial killer (or other) may be some very small detail. Just one insult too much, just too much pain ... and the soul breaks.

This may seem like a decision made by the intellect. But is it?

The problem with statements like "emotionally well balanced" is that balance is also socially defined. Even today in most societies men who cry or weep on anything other than a biannual basis are considered unbalanced. The British value emotionally stoicism, Americans favor externalization more than internalization, some cultures value constant emotional expression, other value no expression whatsoever.

And emotions are never "well balanced" anyway. No one feels all emotions equally. Me, I just don't get angry all that often. Anger is valuable emotion, and it's expression is healthy, but I just don't experience it all that often. Most people are the same. And there is no such thing as a negative emotion. Just negative expressions of emotion. So really "emotionally well balanced" simply means expressing emotion in a "healthy" way, but the simple truth is that any expression of emotion that relieves the internal anxiety of the feeler is healthy. Because thats the point. We express emotion to relieve the anxiety caused by the emotion. So if that's yelling, laughing, cutting, or killing, as long as the anxiety is relieved, then it works. It may or may not be socially acceptable, but it is a valid expression.

No decision of any import is arrived at logically. Not really. Typically humans are confronted with a conflict, make a decision based on impulse, emotion, or desire, and then use logic to strengthen the decision. In our minds we rearrange the order of events a bit because we prize logic. But we don't really use it as much as we think we do. We certainly don't make decisions based on logic all that often. If I am confronted with the dilemma "should I kill this guy or not" my gut reaction will always be "no". And I can arrange the logic in any way that seems best for me at the time, but the reason will always be "because I don't want to get caught". I would vastly prefer that I would choose not to kill because I value human life, and I do, but evidently not as much as I value not getting caught.

I think serial killers are damaged, in a way. But I don't think it's neurological, or emotional, or genetic or environmental. I think it really is social. And I think it is absolutely a choice. There is no part of the brain, chemical, social or environmental factor that creates a rapist. They do it because they want to. It gives them pleasure. And we all recognize that. I think we get sidetracked with killers because there are so many reasons that people kill, including some damn good reasons. I may shoot a man out of anger, hurt, greed, self defense, you name it. But serial killers aren't that complicated. They kill because they want to. And the actions of a serial killer are no more monstrous than the acts of a contract killer, or a drunk driver, or even a soldier. Death is death, no matter how spectacular, and I promise you the bodies from DUIs are far more spectacular than a majority of serial killers. There is a certain romance to serial killers that they simply don't deserve. They are not as unusual or as monstrous as we see them. They are just murderers. They do it more often, and sometimes more elaborately, but theyre just murderers. And we don't question the emotional or physical makeup of a gang banger who kills three people in a drive by. Gang bangers aren't different from serial killers. And if we are going to question the nature of criminals, it should be all criminals. None of them are special or unique.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Monty,

As regards your last question in Post 13, you may not have noticed that the correspondant has given a fuller reply which is in post 19 for your perusal. Apologies if this had already come to your attention.

Seasons greetings

Phil